Part 1:

http://youtu.be/GI7RUARO4_Q

Part 2:

http://youtu.be/SW-CkASfNvg

Part 3:

http://youtu.be/N44rAa5tuZ4

Compiled by Abul Layth

It is reported that the Prophet Muhammad (‘alayhis salam) said:

حَيَاتي خَيْرٌ لَكُمْ تُحْدِثُونَ وَيُحْدَثُ لَكُمْ ، فَإِذَا كَانَتْ وَفَاتي خَيْراً لَكُمْ ، تُعْرَضُ عَلَيَّ أَعْمَالُكُمْ ، فَإِنْ رَأَيْتُ خَيْراً حَمِدْتُ اللَّهَ ، وَإِنْ رَأَيْتُ شَرًّا اسْتَغْفَرتُ لكُمْ

“My life is good for you. You will relate about me and it will be related to you, and my death is a good for you, for your actions will be presented to me. If I see goodness I will praise Allah, and if I see other than that I will ask forgiveness of Him for you.”

In this article we will be reviewing the chains and texts of this narration. It will also be our objective to respond to doubts raised regarding its authenticity.

The Reports:

This hadith is reported by Imam Al-Bazzar in his Musnad (Kashf Al-Astar 1/397) in the following manner:

حدثنا يوسف بن موسى ، ثنا عبد المجيد بن عبد العزيز بن أبي رواد عن سفيان عن عبد الله بن السائب ، عن زاذان ، عن عبد الله عن النبي (ص) قال :

حياتي خير لكم تحدثون ويحدث لكم ، ووفاتي خير لكم تعرض على أعمالكم ، فما رأيت من خير حمدت الله عليه ، وما رأيت من شرٍ استغفرت لكم

Hafith Al-’Iraqi states in his Tarh At-Tathrib, “Its chain is jayyid (good).” (3/297) Al-Haythami said in Majma’ Az-Zawa’id, “It is reported by Al-Bazzar and its men are the men of the Sahih.” (9/24) Imam As-Suyuti declared its chain Sahih in his work “Al-Khasa’is” (2/281) as well as in his takhrij of the Ash-Shifaa. The late researcher and Hafith Abdullah ibn Siddiq Al-Ghumari wrote in his work نهاية الآمال ، في شرح وتصحيح حديث عرض الأعمال that this chain was Sahih.

Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Alawi Al-Maliki (rahimahullah) stated in his Mafahim, “It was also declared Sahih in Hafith As-Suyuti in Mu’jizat, as well as Al-Khasa’is, as well as by Al-Qastalani who explained Sahih Al-Bukhari. Al Munawi stated in Fayd Al-Qadir that it was Sahih, as well as Az-Zurqani in his Sharh of Qastalani’s Al-Mawahib. It was also declared Sahih by Imam Al-Khafaji in his explanation of Ash-Shifaa’. (pgs 248-249, English edition translated as “Notions that Must be corrected”)

The opponents of this hadith claim that this narration is weak due to the narrator Abdul Majid ibn Abdul ‘Aziz ibn Abi Rawwad, who in their view is weak in memory. The late Muhammad Al-Albani in his Da’ifah quoted Al-Haythami’s words ‘and its men are the men of the Sahih’ and then said, ‘[However] He is spoken about negatively (وهو متكلم فيه). The wahhabi leaning website, Islamweb.net ((http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/Fatwa/ShowFatwa.php?lang=A&Id=27311&Option=FatwaId )), has declared this hadith weak as well, repeating the verdict of Al-Albani in his Silsilat Ad-Da’ifah that the strongest of the narrations is that of Bakr ibn Abdullah Al-Muzani, a mursal narration that in his view is authentic. We shall return to this mursal narration later in the article. At this time the claim that Abdul Majid ibn Abdul Aziz ibn Abi Rawwad is weak must be investigated. Why didn’t Al-Haythami deem him weak in his grading of this hadith? Or Suyuti and the others who declared it authentic? It is their opinion that we shall defend in this article, with Allah’s permission.

عبد المجيد بن عبد العزيز بن أبي رواد

His name was Abdul Majid ibn Abdul Aziz ibn Abi Rawwad Al-Azdi, Abu Abdul-Hamid Al-Makkiy. He reported hadith from his father, Ayman ibn Naabil, Ibn Jurayj, Ma’mar, Salim Al-Jazari, and other than them. Those who reported from him were the likes of Imam Ahmad, Imam Ash-Shafi’i, Al-Humaydi, and many others.

Those who praised him:

Imam Ahmad said, “He was trustworthy (thiqah), in him was exaggeration in Irja’.”

Abdullah ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal reports from [Yahya] Ibn Ma’in that he said, “Thiqah (trustworthy), no problem with him. Ad-Dawri also reports from Ibn Ma’in that he said, “Thiqah.” Ibn Abi Maryam reported from Ibn Ma’in that he said, “Thiqah, he would narrate from the people of weakness, and he was the most knowledgeable of the scholars in the narrations of Ibn Jurayj. He was open with his Irjaa’.” Ibrahim ibn Junayd mentions that Ibn Ma’in was mentioning Abdul Majid and mentioned his nobleness, dignity (haybah), and mentioned that he was honest (saduq).

Al-Aajuri reported from Abu Dawud that he said, “Thiqah, [Imam] Ahmad used to narrate from him to us as did Yahya. Yahya said of him, ‘He was [the most] knowledgeable regarding Ibn Jurayj.’ Abu Dawud continued, ‘He was a Murji’iah and he called to Irja’ and he went to extremes in that so much so that his son and the people of Khurasan no longer narrated from him.’ Imam An-Nasa’i said of him, “Thiqah” and also said, “There is nothing wrong with him.” Ad-Daraqutni said in his Sunan, “Thiqah!” (1/311) and in his ‘Ilal said, “He is the most established of the scholars regarding the narrations of Ibn Jurayj.” Hafith Ibn Hajr said on him in his Taqrib, “He was honest (saduq), and made mistakes. He was a Murji’i. Ibn Hibban exaggerated in declaring him abandoned.” Ibn Shahin also declared him trustworthy, and of course, Imam Muslim reported from him in his Sahih!

Imam As-Sindi, the author of the commentary of Sunan Ibn Majah also concludes that Abdul-Majid is trustworthy. In hadith number 1084 in the Sunan of Ibn Majah Abdul Majid ibn Abdul-’Aziz is within the chain.

He states, “Even though he was relied upon in Sahih Muslim, he was extreme in his Irjaa’, calling to it. The majority (jumhur) declared him thiqah (trustworthy); Ahmad, Ibn Ma’in, Abu Dawud, An Nasa’i, whereas Abu Hatim declared him weak as well as Ibn Abi Hatim. The rest of the men in the chain are thiqaat, and so the chain is Hasan!” This chain is would then meet the same standards for Imam As-Sindi!

Those who criticized him:

Al-Bukhari said of him, “He was one who delved into Irjaa’. Al-Humaydi spoke [negatively] of him.”

Abu Hatim said, “He is not strong, though write his hadith.” Muhammad ibn Yahya weakened him. As-Saji said of him, “He reported from Imam Malik a munkar hadithfrom Zayd ibn Aslam from Ata ibn Yasaar from Abu Sa’id, “Actions are by intentions.” He continued saying, “He also reported things from Ibn Jurayj that have no follow up reports for them.” Abdur-Razzaq, upon hearing of Abdul Majid’s death said, “Alhamdulillah for Allah saving the nation of Muhammad from Abdul Majid.” Al-Khalil said, “He was thiqah, though made some mistakes in hadith.” Ibn Hibban said that he would mingle narrations and he would report hadith that were singlularly narrated (munkar) from well known scholars, so he was abandoned.

It should be noted that Ibn Hajr said in his Taqrib that Ibn Hibban went to extremes in declaring him ‘abandoned!’ [entry 4160]

Conclusion and Responses to the Weakening of This Hadith By Al-Albani:

The end conclusion of Hafith Shu’ayb Al-Arna’ut and Dr. Bash-shar Ma’ruf said,

“Rather he is thiqah (trustworthy), his mistakes in hadith were as the people made mistakes in them. And he is from the most established of the scholars regarding Ibn Jurayj.  And the people were only hostile towards him due to his irjaa‘ and so some of them weakened him due to that reason. Those who forwarded his trustworthiness included Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Ibn Ma’in, Abu Dawud, An-Nasa’i, Al-Khalili, and Ibn ‘Adi stated, ‘And the general disdain for him was due to his Irja’.'” [Tahrir At-Taqrib]

Hafith Shu’ayb Al-Arna’ut points out that those who weakened did so because of his Irja’. Regarding this I would like to bring forth the words of Imam At-Tajud-Din As-Subki who said,

“Always bear in mind that their [hadith scholars'] principle is that finding fault (jarh) with a hadith narrator has priority over ascribing to him acceptability of his testimony and narrations (ta’dil) without any qualification. On the contrary, the correct position is that where someone finds fault with a man whose imamate and good standing as a narrator is established, whose praisers are many and whose fault finders are few, and there is evidence to suggest that the reason for this attack is because of a fanatical devotion to a certain madh-hab (school of thought) or some other reason, then one does not pursue the matter!” [See the Muwatta of Imam Muhammad Shaybani, English version, page 34]

Shaykh Mahmud Sa’id Mamduh in his Rafa’ Minarah declares “This chain is Sahih, without doubt!”

Responding to Further Doubts:

One of the doubts a certain group brings up regarding this hadith is regarding the grading of Hafith Al-Iraqi. He states in his Tarh At-Tathrib that this hadith is “Jayyid (good)” whereas he has criticized this chain in his takhrij of the Ihya. As Shaykh Mahmud Mamduh points out, he wrote his takhrij of the Ihya when he was very young, and praised the hadith later on his life, and so that is what he passed upon.

Another of the doubts that Al-Albani raised was that this hadith was somehow “Shadh”. Al-Albani however, made the mistake of combining this narration we are discussing with the narration “Verily Allah sends angels out to inform me of my Ummah’s Salams…” and saying that it was an extra “addition” to the second narration. This is not the case at all, and the two are separate narrations as Shaykh Mahmud Mamduh has shown in his Rafa’. Imam As-Suyuti noticed such as well and narrated the two separately.

The issue of Abdul Majid reporting a munkar hadith from Imam Malik involves the misnaming of an individual. The actual narration from Imam Malik in chain is as follows:

مالك عن يحيى بن سعيد ، عن محمد بن إبراهيم التيمي ، عن علقمة . عن عمر

This is the chain that the “jama’ah” reported the hadith “Actions are by Intention.”

The chain that was reported by Abdul Majid was as follows:

مالك ، عن يزيد بن أسلم ، عن عطاء بن يسار عن أبي سعيد الخدري

So yes this is possibly a mistake, yet the words are authentically reported from the Prophet Muhammad and DO go through Imam Malik. This is how it was reported by Abu Nu’aym in his Hilyah, the Musnad of Shihab, and Abu Ya’la Al-Khalili in his Irshaad. This “mistake” does not make one “weak”, it simply means that he made a mistake in one chain, and that is all! That is why the scholars, such as Imam Ahmad, reported from him, as his memory was sound. It is also why the scholars generally accepted his narrations. One mistake like this does not make him completely weak at all.

Another supposed weakness brought forth by those who criticize Abdul-Majid is the following narration (as mentioned by Adh-Dhahabi and Ibn Hajr) and by which Ibn Hibban used to weaken Abdul-Majid:

عبد المجيد عن ابن جريح عن عطاء عن ابن عباس قال: القدرية كفر، والشيعة هلكة، والحرورية بدعة، وما نعلم الحق إلا في المرجئة

Abdul-Majid from Ibn Jurayj from Ataa’ from Ibn ‘Abbas who said, “The Qadariyyah are upon kufr, the Shi’ah are doomed, the Hururiyyah are upon bida’ah and I do not know of the truth in a group except in the Murji’ah.” [Note that Ibn Hajr has different wording, though the meaning is the same in his Tahthib]

Ad-Daraqutni said, “Abdul Majid was the only one who reported this narration.” Al-Hafith Ibn Hajr agreed in his Tahthib and added, “And the rest of the men are thiqaat.”

Shaykh Mahmud Mamduh states that there is no dispute that he is the only one who narrated such from Ibn Jurayj. However, this does not mean that Abdul-Majid is the one who is weak here. Rather, Ibn Jurayj was known to commit the worst kind of tadlees. Ad-Daaraqutni has said regarding Ibn Jurayj, “Beware of the tadlis of Ibn Jurayj, for certainly he performs tadlis from only those who have been criticized.” Imam Ahmad said of Ibn Jurayj’s tadlis that he reported fabrications by way of his tadlees (though he uses the term irsaal, and here it is the same thing) as is reported in Mizan Al-’Itidal of Adh-Dhahabi.

Again, tadlees is to narrate vaguely using the term “‘an (from)” without specifying how one received the transmission. Sidi Musa Furber has translated  it as “Camouflaging” the real narrator. If one is known to use this vague form of reporting “from” someone other than whom they are really reporting from, then their narrations cannot be accepted when using tadlis. In this narration Ibn Jurayj uses tadlis, and hence, one must be cautious that he did not in fact hear this hadith fron ‘Ataa’ but from someone else who claimed they heard it from ‘Ataa, and Ibn Jurayj is masking the individual through reporting. Furthermore, what shows that Abdul-Majid is not the one to blame for this is that he was the MOST knowledgeable regarding Ibn Jurayj’s reports as stated by the master of hadith Yahya ibn Ma’in. So his narrating singularly reported narrations from Ibn Jurayj is not a weakness, but instead shows that he truly was the most knowledgeable regarding the narrations of Ibn Jurayj as claimed by Yahya ibn Ma’in. Abu Dawud reports from Imam Ahmad that he said of Abdul Majid, “He was knowledgeable in the reports of Ibn Jurayj!” [Su'alaat Abi Dawud li-Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal pg 236]

The last claim forwarded by Al-Albani and co. in his Ad-Da’ifah regarding this chain is that he thinks that he mingled the chain, because the only other authentic chain is through Bakr ibn Abdullah Al-Muzani, so Abdul Majid simply must have mis-stated the chain. As Shaykh Mahmud Mamduh states, this is thann (conjecture/suspicion). There is absolutely no proof that he did such with this chain. And as the Prophet Muhammad said, “And suspicion is the most false of speech!” Furthermore, no one prior to Al-Albani made such a suspicious claim regarding this chain of Abdul-Majid. Abdul Majid is thiqah, as stated by Imam Ahmad, Nasa’i, Ibn Ma’in, Abu Dawud, and many other Imams of hadith. To raise suspicion regarding him, without proof, is falsehood. Rather the mursal Sahih narration from Bakr ibn Abdullah shows support for the chain of Abdul-Majid and witnesses to its authenticity.

The hadith of Bakr Ibn Abdullah Al-Muzani reads:

حَياتِـي خَيْرٌ لَكُمْ تُـحَدِّثُونَ ويُحْدَثُ لَكُمْ فإذا أنا مُتُّ كانَتْ وَفـاتِـي خَيْراً لَكُمْ تُعْرَضُ علـيَّ أعْمالَكُمْ فإنْ رَأيْتُ خَيْراً حَمِدْتُ الله وإِنْ رَأيْتُ شَراً اسْتَغْفَرْتُ لَكُمْ

The same wording!

In the Musnad of Al-Harith we find the following chain for this narration:

حدثنا الحسن ابن فتيبة ثنا جسر ابن فرقد عن بكر ابن عبد الله المزني قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم

Even Al-Albani admits that this chain is Mursal Sahih! It is also reported by Ibn Sa’ad in his Tabaqaat and also by Imam As-Suyuti in Jaam’i Al-Ahadith wal-Maraasil (11337). Bakr ibn Abdullah Al-Muzani did not see the Prophet Muhammad (‘alayhis salam) so he has not named the companion he heard it from. Bakr was a tabi’i (of the second generation), and reported from Ibn ‘Abbas, Anas ibn Malik, Mughirah ibn Shu’ba and others. It was said that he saw thirty of the companions. Ibn Sa’ad said of him, “He was trustworthy, established, impeccably honest, a proof (hujjah), and he was a jurist!”

There is yet another proof within this hadith, and that is that some of the scholars accept mursal Sahih hadith as proof in the law. The Imam Isma’il Al-Ansari said, ‘And the utilization of Mursal Sahih reports as a proof is correct according to the majority of the jurists. Al-Hafith Ibn Kathir said,

والاحتجاج به مذهب مالك وأبي حنيفة وأصحابهما وهو يحكى عن أحمد في رواية

“And using them [i.e. the mursal sahih] as proof is the madh-hab of Malik, Abu Hanifah and his companions, and it is a reported opinion of Ahmad.” [Kitab Ash-Shaybani 1/134-135]

Imam Ibn Abdul-Barr states in his At-Tajrid At-Tamhid that the position of all the Maliki jurists is that the mursal hadith of a thiqah tabi’i is a proof and can be acted upon. Imam Ash-Shafi’i also accepts mursal Sahih hadith with conditions as he has mentioned in his Risalah! He rejects mursal narrations that do not come from the elder Tabi’in. Ibn Abdul-Barr in fact says the first Imam to reject mursal narrations such as this was Imam Ash-Shafi’I (Tawjih An-Nathr page 245). Such a claim may not be true however, considering it is reported from Ibn Mahdi and Yahya ibn al-Qattan that they also held similar views.

Imam Abu Dawud wrote a letter to the people of Makka responding to some issues. He stated therein,

وأما المراسيل فقد كان أكثر العلماء يحتجون بها فيما مضى مثل سفيان الثوري، ومالك، والأوزاعي. حتى جاء الشافعي- رحمه الله- فتكلم في ذلك وتابعه عليه أحمد وغيره

“As for the marasil (pl. of mursal) many of the scholars sought proof with them, the likes of them being Sufyan Ath-Thawri, Malik, Al-Awza’i, until Imam Ash-Shafi’i (rahimahullah) came. He spoke [negatively] regarding it and Imam Ahmad and others followed him.”

Shaykh Gibril Haddad states in his translation of “The Prophets in Barzakh”,

“Even if Al-Albani’s grading were hypothetically accepted, then the weak musnad narration in conjunction with the sound Mursal one – graded Sahih by Al-Albani – would yield a final grading of Hasan or Sahih, not da’if. In addition to this Mamduh quoted Al-Albani’s own words in the latter’s attempted refutation of Isma’il Al-Ansari entitled Kitab Ash-Shaybani (1:134-135) whereby, ‘The sound mursal hadith is proof in all four schools and other than them from the Imams of principles of fiqh and hadith, therefore it is apparent to every fair-minded person that the position whereby such a hadith does not form a proof only because it is mursal, is untenable.’ This is one of the many examples of which Al-Albani not only contradicts, but soundly refutes himself.” [page 36]

According to the principles of the four schools of law, this Mursal narration alone would be enough proof to implement it, and Allah is the one who knows best!

What Does this Hadith Prove?

Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Alawi Al-Maliki (rahimuhullah) stated, “It proves that the Prophet Muhammad knows our actions and they are presented to him. He seeks forgiveness for us for any sins or ugliness that we commit. If this is the case, then it is obviously permissible for us to take him as a means unto Allah and seek intercession through him and by him. This is because he knows that, therefore he can intercede for us and supplicate for us for he is the one who intercedes and the one whose intercession is accepted. Allah informs us in the Qur’an that the Prophet is a witness for his Ummah and this implies that the Ummah’s actions are presented to him to act as a witness to what he has seen and known!” (pg 248-249 of Mafahim or “Notions that must be corrected”)

 The opponents of Tawassul with the Nabi, i.e. the Wahhabis/Taymiyyites, consistently rely upon the famous narration of Imam Umar ibn Al Khattab (radhiya Allahu ‘Anhu) using Al-’Abbas (radhiya Allahu Anhu) as an intermediary. The following is the reply of two scholars of Fes, Shaykhs Abdul-Hayy Al Amrawi and Abdul Karim Murad in their translated work, “Sufis and Sufism: A Defence”, translated by Sayyidah Aisha Bewley. You will see that the anti-tawassul usage of this athar is not proof for forbiddance of tawassul with the Prophet Muhammad at all.

“The fourth is that they said that Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, performed the Rain Prayer in the Year of the Drought and said, “Oh Allah, we sought mediation with you through your Prophet and you gave us rain. We seek mediation with you by the unlce of our Prophet, so give us rain. Make supplication, ‘Abbas!” Al-’Abbas made supplication and Allah gave them rain. This is evidence that the hadith is particular to the state of life and that seeking mediation by the Prophet, pbuh, after his death is not permitted. Ibn Taymiyya deduces a lot by virtue of this tradition of ‘Umar in his books and repeats it time after time, but this does not tell u s anything because what ‘Umar did is desired in the rain prayer because the Sunna is that the Imam and the people go out to the place of prayer outside the town, pray the rain prayer and then the Imam gives a khutba and makes supplication himself as the Prophet, pbuh, did or he commands someone to make supplication as ‘Umar did with Al-’Abbas, and Mu’awiya with Yazid ibn Al-Aswad.Then it is asked, “Why did ‘Umar not seek mediation by the Prophet, pbuh, in the place of prayer? He turned from that and instead sought mediation by Al-’Abbas.” The answer to that has various aspects.

One is that ‘Umar did not know the hadith of the mediation of the blind man. If it had reached him, he would have sought mediation by what it indicated. A lot of the Sunnah was not known by ‘Umar and other great companions, while it was known by the younger ones, like Ibn ‘Abbas, Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri and Abu Hurayrah. ‘Umar excused himself for not knowing some of the Sunnah when he said, “Dealing in the markets distracted me,” i.e. he was busy with trading. That was also true of Abu Bakr: he did not know some of the Sunnah and found it with Al-Mughira ibn Shu’bah.

The second is that seeking mediation by the Prophet, pbuh, is not mandatory, and it is permitted not to do that and to turn to someone else instead.

The third is that Allah Almighty says, “He who responds to the oppressed when they call to Him and removes their distress.” (27:62) There is no doubt that since Al-Abbas was among those who were in need, seeking mediation through him was more suitable and fitting.

The fourth is that by seeking mediation with Al-Abbas, Umar wanted to imitate the Prophet, pbuh, and his family by honouring Al-Abbas and showing respect for him. This is reported clearly from Umar. Az-Zubayr ibn Bakkar related in Al-Ansaab from Da’ud from Ata’ from Zayd ibn Aslam from Ibn Umar who said, “Umar ibn Al Khattab performed the Rain prayer in the Year of the Drought with Al-’Abbas ibn Abdul Muttalib, and Umar addressed people and said, ‘The Messenger of Allah, pbuh, and his family used to think of Al-’Abbas as a child thinks of a father, so, people, follow the Messenger of Allah, pbuh, and take him as a means to Allah.’”

He said, “Allah have them rain before they left the place.” Al-Baladhuri related it by means of Hisham ibn Sa’d from Zayd ibn Aslam from his father.

The fifth is that ‘Umar wanted to do it to make it clear that it was permissible to seek mediation through other than the Prophet, pbuh, among the people of righteousness and good who baraka is hoped for. This is why we read in Fath-ul-Bari, afte rthe story of ‘Umar seeking mediation through Al-Abbas: “We can deduce from the story of Al-Abbas that it is recommended to seek the intercession of the people of righteousness and good, and the people of the House of the Prophet.”

The sixth is that Umar seeking mediation by Al-’Abbas is, in reality, seeking mediation by the Prophet, pbuh, because it is seeking mediation by Al-’Abbas since he is the uncle of the Prophet, pbuh, and by his position in relation to him, as is expressed clearly in the words of Umar and Al-’Abbas. Then there are the words of Umar in Al-Bukhar in which Anas related that Umar said, “Oh Allah, we sought mediation with you by our Prophet, so give us rain. We seek mediation with you by the uncle of our Prophet, so give us rain.” He said, “They received rain.” This is the version of Al-Bukhari. His words, “We seek mediation with you by the uncle of our Prophet,” are explicit in what we said.

Clearer than that is what Ibn Abdul Barr mentioned in Al-Isti’ab when he said, “Ibn ‘Abbas and Anas reported that while the people of Medinah were suffering from a drought, Umar ibn Al Khattab, pbuh, prayed for rain through Al-’Abbas. The reason for that was the earth became very parched in the time of the Drought in the rule of Umar, in 17 A.H. Ka’b said, ‘Amir Al-Mu’minin!, when the tribe of Israel were afflicted by the like of this, they asked for rain by the Prophets.’ Umar said, ‘This is the uncle of the Messenger of Allah, pbuh, and the brother of his father and master of Banu Hashim.’ ‘Umar wnet to him and compained to him of the drought the people were suffering. Then he mounted the minbar and with Al-’Abbas and said, ‘O Allah, we turn to You by the uncle of our Prophet and the brother of his father, so give us abundant rain and so not make us those suffering from drought.’ Then ‘Umar said, ‘Rise, Abul-Fadl, and make supplication.’”

He also said, “We related by various paths of transmission that Umar went out to perform the rain prayer, and Al-’Abbas wen out with him. He said, ‘Oh Allah!, we seek nearness to You by the uncle of your prophet, pbuh, and we seek intercession by him, so preserve him for your Prophet, as you preserved the two lads by the righteousness of their father.” He mentioned the rest of the report. In another, “By Allah, they did not leave until they clung to the walls, seeking shelter, and the people went to ‘Abbas, saying, ‘Congratulations to the water of the Haramayn!’

[...] What we presented are clear texts that Umar sought mediation by Al-Abbas by his position with the Prophet, pbuh, and kinship with him. It is actually seeking mediation by the Messenger. ‘Umar did not intend to borbid seeking mediation by the Prophet, may peace and blessings be upon him.” [End quote from the book pages 175-179]

These six points are sufficient in responding to the anti-tawassul movement. And Allah and His Messenger know best!

By Ibn Saad

This is an open Challenge to those who are opposed to Tawassul. Please look at the quotes below and answer all of the following questions in the comment section:

1) Are the statements below correctly ascribed to their respective Imam, if not which is a false statement and why?
2) If indeed these Imams did make these claims, should Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, Imam Ibn Khuzaima, Imam Ibn Hibban, Imam Nawawi and Imam Shawkani be considered kuffar based on this?
3) If not, are they Muslims, but guilty of Shirk of some degree?
4) If not, are they mubtadi’een?
5) Were they jahils to allow/perform tawassul without (supposedly) any daleels?

If you have said NO so far, can we agree that Tawassul is a Fiqh issue instead of an Aqeedah one?

—————————————————————————————–

Imam Ahmad and Tawassul:

المرداوي في الإنصاف ( 2:456
“… يجوز التوسل بالرجل الصالح على الصحيح من المذهب، وقيل:
يُستحب. قال الإمام أحمد للمروذي : يتوسل بالنبي صلى اله عليه وسلم في دعائه
وجزم به في المستوعب وغيره..”

Al-Mardawi said: “The correct position of the [Hanbali] madhhab is that it is permissible in one’s du`a to use as one’s means a pious person (saalih), and it is said that it is desirable (mustahabb). Imam Ahmad said to Abu Bakr al-Marwazi: ‘Let him use the Prophet as a means in his supplication to Allah.’” (Al-Insaf 2:456) This is also cited by Ibn Taymiyyah in Majmu’ Al-Fatawa (1:140).

Imam Shawkani and Tawassul:

قال الشوكاني في تحفة الذاكرين:
“وفي الحديث دليل على جواز التوسل برسول الله صلى اله عليه وسلم إلى الله عز وجل
مع اعتقاد أن الفاعل هو الله سبحانه وتعالى، وأنه المعطي والمانع ما شاء

.(10/ كان وما لم يشأ لم يكن” (تحفة الأحوذي 34

Al-Shawkani said, in Tuhfatul Dhakireen:
“And in this hadith is proof for the permissibility of tawassul through the Prophet [s] to Allah, with the conviction that the [actual] doer is Allah, and that He is the Giver and the Withholder. What He wills is, and what He does not will, will never be.”

Al-Albani on Imam Hanbal and Imam Al-Shawkani:

الألباني في “التوسل أنواعه وأحكامه” ( 38
“…مع أنه قد قال ببعضه بعض الأئمة، فأجاز الإمام أحمد التوسل
بالرسول وحده فقط، وأجاز غيره كالإمام الشوكاني التوسل به وبغيره من
الأنبياء والصالحي

Al-Albani in ‘Al-Tawassul’: “Even though some of them have been allowed by some of the Imams, so for instance Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal allowed tawassul through the Prophet alone, and others such as Imam Al-Shawkani allowed tawassul through his [pbuh] and through others from the Prophets and the righteous.”

Imam Nawawi on Tawassul:

النووي في المجموع شرح المهذب (كتاب الحج):
ثم يرجع إلى موقفه الأول قبالة وجه رسول الله صلى اله عليه وسلم ويتوسل به في حق
نفسه، ويستشفع به إلى ربه سبحانه وتعالى

[The pilgrim] should then face the shrine of the Messenger of Allah (s) , make him an intermediary [to Allah], and intercede through him to Allah… (Majmu’ Sharh Al-Madhhab – Kitab Al-Hajj)

Imam Ibn Khuzaymah and Tawassul:

7/ ابن حجر في تهذيب التهذيب ( 339

قال (الحاكم النيسابوري) وسمعت أبا بكر محمد بن المؤمل بن الحسن
بن عيسى يقول خرجنا مع امام أهل الحديث أبي بكر بن خزيمة وعديله
أبي علي الثقفي مع جماعة من مشائخنا وهم إذ ذاك متوافرون إلى زيارة
قبر علي بن موسى الرضى بطوس قال فرأيت من تعظيمه يعنى ابن خزيمة
لتلك البقعة وتواضعه لها وتضرعه عندها ما تحيرنا.

Ibn Hajar (Tahdhib 7:339) narrates the account of the Imam of Ahlul-Hadith Ibn Khuzaymah, under the entry of the same Ali bin Musa Al-Ridha. He relates that Ibn Khuzaymah also performed tawassul at the grave of Al-Ridha.

Ibn Hibban and Tawassul:

8/456/ ابن حبان في كتابه الثقات ( 14411
مات على بن موسى الرضا بطوس من شربة سقاه إياها المأمون فمات من
ساعته وذلك في يوم السبت آخر يوم سنة ثلاث ومائتين وقبره بسناباذ
خارج النوقان مشهور يزار بجنب قبر الرشيد، قد زرته مرارا كثيرة وما
حلت بي شدة في وقت مقامى بطوس فزرت قبر على بن موسى الرضا
صلوات الله على جده وعليه ودعوت الله إزالتها عنى إلا أستجيب لي
وزالت عنى تلك الشدة وهذا شيء جربته مرارا فوجدته كذلك أماتنا
الله على محبة المصطفى وأهل بيته صلى الله عليه وعليهم أجمعين.

In his Rijal book Al-Thuqat (8:456:14411), under the entry of Ali bin Musa al-Ridha, Ibn Hibban relates his own account of going to Al-Ridha’s grave, performing tawassul through him and states that whenever “I was afflicted with a problem during my stay in Tus, I would visit the grave of Ali bin Musa (Allah’s blessings be upon his grandfather and him) and ask Allah to relieve me of that problem and it (my dua) would be answered and the problem alleviated. And this is something I did, and found to work, many times …”

by Abul Layth

Who is Al-’Utbi? 

He is Muhammad ibn Ubaydullah ibn ‘Amru ibn Mu’awiyah ibn ‘Amru ibn Utbah ibn Abi Sufyan Sakhr ibn Harb. He was from the most eloquent of men, a companion of narrations, and a narrator of literature. He reported from his father and from Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah. Taqiyud-Din As-Subki reports the narration that we are soon to go over in his Shifaa’ As-Siqaam regarding the visiting of the grave of the Nabi (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam). He reports this narration with his chain. ((See Futuhaat Ar-Rabbaaniyah 5/39 )) 

The narration of Al-’Utbi is probably not known to many English speaking Muslims. Let me state my purpose in producing this article. I am going to share a photocopy as well as further research regarding the narration of Al-’Utbi so that the Muslim masses will be informed of the fact that many great ‘Ulamaa’ of the past maintained that Tawassul by the Nabi Muhammad is permitted in Islam. We hope that this information will lend more credence to the fact that the greatest Jurists to have walked the earth believed in tawassul with the beloved Prophet Muhammad.

The Savant, Jurist, Shaykh-ul-Islam, Virtuous and Pious Wali of Allah ta’alaa, The Ascetic, Defender of the Sunnah, Mountain of Knowledge, Known as the Second Imam Ash-Shafi’i, the Reviver of Islam in his time, The Mujaahid, The Hafidh of Hadith, Abu Zakariya Yahya ibn Sharaf, known best as “Imam An-Nawawi” recorded in his tome, Al-Adhkaar (الاذكار) the following story from Al-’Utbi: ((Apologies for poor scan quality. We kept the dimensions and dpi low so that the pictures would download faster on slower connections and stone-age computers ))

“As I was sitting by the grave of the Prophet, a Bedouin Arab came and said: “Peace be upon you, O Messenger of Allah! I have heard Allah saying: “If they had only, when they were unjust to themselves, come unto thee and asked Allah’s forgiveness, and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah indeed Oft-returning, Most Merciful” (4:64), so I have come to you asking forgiveness for my sin, seeking your intercession with my Lord.” Then he began to recite poetry:

O best of those whose bones are buried in the deep earth,

And from whose fragrance the depth

and the height have become sweet,

May I be the ransom for a grave which thou inhabit,

And in which are found purity, bounty and munificence!

Then he left, and I slept and saw the Nabi (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa Sallam) in my sleep. He said to me: “Yā `Utbi, run after the Bedouin and give him glad tidings that Allah has forgiven him.” [End Quote. To also read the online version click here.]

The scans are taken from the published print from Mu’asasah ‘Ulum Al-Qur’an (Beirut) and Dar Al-Qiblah Lil-Thiqafat Al-Islamiyyah, Jeddah pages 284-285, with the editing of Subay’ Hamzah Hakimi.

Imam An-Nawawi placed this narration below the chapter titled, “Chapter: Regarding Visiting the Grave of Rasulullah (‘alayhis salaam) and its Remembrances (adhkaar)”. The publisher “Dar-Al-Huda” from Riyadh, Saudia Arabia changed “Grave” to “Masjid” so as to make it seem one is not to visit the Prophet Muhammad’s grave. Furthermore, they intentionally changed the text and words of Imam An-Nawawi when he said,

 فصل” في زيارة قبر رسول الله (ص) وأذكارها : اعلم أنه ينبغي لكل من حج أن يتوجه إلى زيارة رسول الله (ص ) سواء كان ذلك طريقه أو لم يكن فإن زيارته (ص ) من  أهم القربات وأربح المساعي وأفضل الطلبات

Dar-Al-Huda changed these words to what is clear tahreef:

 (فصل” في زيارة مسجد رسول الله (ص) اعلم أنه يستحب من أراد زيارة مسجد رسول الله      (ص ) أن يكثر من الصلاة عليه (ص

This is simply one example of their distorting the Adhkar as was pointed out by Shaykh Mahmud Sa’id Mamduh in his Rafa’ Minaara.

Let us talk further regarding the narration of Al-Utbi. Some groups will say that this narration has no chain, and is thus weak. I have personally not found a chain for this narration, but for the student of knowledge, this is of no major concern. Hundreds, if not thousands, of scholars from all madh-habs have recorded this narration just as Imam An-Nawawi (radhiya Allahu Anhu) did. They used this narration as support that our righteous Muslim Sunni forefathers implemented this action of Al-’Utbi. Some examples of great scholars other than Imam An-Nawawi were:

Ibn Qudaamah Al-Maqdisi in his magnum opus Al-Mughni, the great Hanbali work. He transcribed this narration beneath his chapter, “Chapter on Visiting the Grave of the Prophet.” Click here to see the quotation yourself. Ibn Kathir in his Tafsir, in which he prefaces the narration with:

وَقَدْ ذَكَرَ جَمَاعَة مِنْهُمْ الشَّيْخ أَبُو مَنْصُور الصَّبَّاغ فِي كِتَابه الشَّامِل الْحِكَايَة الْمَشْهُورَة عَنْ الْعُتْبِيّ

“And a group [of scholars], amongst them Ash-Shaykh Abu Mansur As-Sabbaagh in his treatise “Ash-Shaamil” mentioned the well known story from Al-’Utbi…” Click here to read the tafsir yourself.  Imam Al-Baaji reports this narration in his Sunan As-Saaliheen. Imam Ath-Tha’labi narrates it in his Tafsir, as well as others.

It is true that this narration is not a proof in itself. It is a supporting proof, and the ettiqutte displayed therein was used to teach the Muslim masses by the great jurists. This is the reason I have presented it for you all.

May Allah bless our beloved Nabi Muhammad, his family, companions, and those that follow him until their end. Amin!

 by Ibn Ahmad

The amount of literature detailing the permissibility of tawassul is exhaustive.  My purpose is not to expound on such in this brief research paper.  For all those interested in the permissibility of this matter, there is literature abound that defends the soundness of the narrations through which this act of worship has come to us.  My purpose is simply to analyze tawassul from a basic word-for-word, and slightly grammatical perspective.  That alone is enough to establish it as an act of pure monotheism, much less in conjunction with the works of the muhaddithīn.

The du‘ā of tawassul is as follows:

اللهما إني أَسْأَلُكَ و أَتَوَجَّهُ إليكَ بِنَبِيِّنا محمد نَبِيُّ الرَحْمَة، يا مُحَمَّد: إني أَتَوَجَّهُ بِكَ إلى رَبِّي فَيَقْضِي حاجَتي. 

The rest of the du‘ā expresses the need for which the du‘ā was made. 

This can be found in Reliance of the Traveller(1).  It’s basic meaning is such: Oh Allāh, Verily I ask you and turn towards you through our Messenger Muhammad, the Messenger of Mercy.  Oh Muhammad, Verily I turn – through you – towards my Lord so that He may fulfill my need.  Let’s look at this du‘ā phrase-by-phrase.

اللهما
Oh, Allāh.  The du‘a begins with us firstly calling onto Allāh.  From the very beginning this du‘a closes the door to shirk.  Thereafter, the seal against that shirk is tightened even further.

إني أَسْأَلُكَ و أَتَوَجَّهُ إليكَ
“Verily, I ask you and I turn towards you…” This is a verbal sentence that has been converted into a nominal sentence.  Without the particle إنّ the expression would simply be I ask you and I turn toward you, but the inna particle grammatically places a special emphasis on the fact that it is only Allāh whom we ask and turn to for help.  Furthermore, the verbs أسألك and أتوجه are both in the  مضارع (muDāri‘) form, which denotes the imperfect or ongoing tense.  One needs only to refer to almost any random lecture by Shayk Nuh Ha Mim Keller for proof that the muDāri‘ points to ongoing verbs.  Thus, not only have we emphasized that it is only Allāh that we ask and turn to for help, but we are using the ongoing tense which signifies that we continually ask and turn to Allāh for help.  This is the second level of protection against shirk.

بِنَبِيِّنا محمد
“Through our Messenger Muhammad (Peace & Blessings Be Upon Him).” This expression is using the particle ب which in this instance denotes an instrument of aid.  There are many uses of the ب in which the grammarians have agreed upon. 

They are as follows:

الباء للإلصاق – The baa of adhesion.
الباء للظرْفِيَّة – The baa of time and place
الباء للقَسَم – The baa of swearing
الباء للمُصاحَبَة – The baa of companionship
الباء للتعْديّة – The baa that renders an intransitive verb as transitive
الباء للاستِعانة – The baa that indicates the instrument of whose aid we avail ourselves(2)

These are some of the many uses of the the particle bi utilized in the Arabic Language.  The one of concern in this instance is الباء للاستِعانة or al-baa’ listi‘ānah, or the baa of instrumentation.  Thus, the du‘a is asking Allāh – first and foremost – to grant us permission to utilize the Nabi (Sallallāhu Alayhi Wasallam) in order that we may draw closer to Allāh.  This is in no way shirk.  Whoever believes this to be so must bring forth evidence from the books of the non-Muslims that they make du‘ā in a likewise fashion.  I doubt that this challenge will ever be fulfilled because the non-Muslims and some sects among the Muslims make their du‘ās directly to those individuals whom they claim to be making tawassul through without any mention of God The One.

نَبِيُّ الرَحْمَة
The Messenger of Mercy.  This is an indefinite noun followed by a definite noun.  In Arabic, this is referred to as an إضافة or possessive construction which indicates that the indefinite noun is possessed by the definite noun.  By virtue of this possession, the indefinite noun is grammatically and linguistically definite, while orthographically indefinite.  What does this all mean?  It means that the Messenger (Peace & Blessings Be Upon Him) is amongst The Mercy or الرحمة.  Keep in mind, that Ar-Rahmah, when used in its definite form with the alif lām article purely denotes that Mercy which comes from Allāh.  It is permissible for us to seek tawassul via the Mercy or Rahmah of Allāh, so why should we not be able to seek tawassul through the Messenger (Peace & Blessings Be Upon Him) who himself is a component or element of that Ar-Rahmah.

يا مُحَمَّد
“Oh Muhammad.” It is only after we have given Allāh his due right that we seek the aid of His Messenger (Peace & Blessings Be Upon Him) in order that we come closer to our Lord.

إني أَتَوَجَّهُ بِكَ إلى رَبِّي
“Verily, I turn – through you – towards my Lord.” So after we have given Allāh His Due Right, and therefore, gained an implicit permission to communicate with the Messenger (Peace & Blessings Be Upon Him), we emphasize the point that we are turning to Allāh yet again.  We are letting the Messenger know that we are merely using him as a tool to turn towards Allāh.  The turning is towards Allāh and not the Messenger.  We are using the particle bi- before talking to the Messenger (Peace & Blessings Be Upon Him) in the second person.  This baa is the baa of instrumentation, as we have already discussed.  However, we use the particle إلى before ربي which further indicates that the turning is towards Allāh and the instrumentation is through the Messenger (Peace & Blessings Be Upon Him).  It would be a different situation if we used the particle إلى before the Messenger (Peace & Blessings Be Upon Him).  This, however, is not the case because the Messenger (Peace & Blessings Be Upon Him) took careful measures to word this du‘a with precision.

فَيَقْضِي حاجَتي
“So that He (i.e., Allāh) fulfills my need.” This is the icing on the tawhīd cake because we are fully acknowledging the fact that it is Allāh who will fulfill this need and NOT the Messenger (Peace & Blessings Be Upon Him).

So upon analysis of the du‘ā phrase-by-phrase we see that each phrase is a guardian against Shirk.  Some may adduce ayats from the the Qur’ān in which the mushrikīn justified their shirk by stating that they only directed their worship towards their idols so that they may achieve nearness to Allāh.

{أَلاَ لِلَّهِ ٱلدِّينُ ٱلْخَالِصُ وَٱلَّذِينَ ٱتَّخَذُواْ مِن دُونِهِ أَوْلِيَآءَ مَا نَعْبُدُهُمْ إِلاَّ لِيُقَرِّبُونَآ إِلَى ٱللَّهِ زُلْفَىۤ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ يَحْكُمُ بَيْنَهُمْ فِى مَا هُمْ فِيهِ يَخْتَلِفُونَ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ لاَ يَهْدِى مَنْ هُوَ كَاذِبٌ كَـفَّارٌ}

Pickthall: {Surely pure religion is for Allah only. And those who choose protecting friends beside Him (say): We worship them only that they may bring us near unto Allah. Lo! Allah will judge between them concerning that wherein they differ. Lo! Allah guideth not him who is a liar, an ingrate.} (Az Zumar, 39:3).

However, this argument falls short of the mark because none who partake in tawassul admit to worshiping the Nabi (Sallallāhu Alayhi Wasallam).  That’s the first difference between them and the mushriks referred to in the ayah.  Secondly, the mushriks were lying with regards to seeking nearness to Allāh.  The truth is, they are lying and they did not believe in Allāh and the proof of their mere lip-service is in the following ayāt.

{قُلْ مَن بِيَدِهِ مَلَكُوتُ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ وَهُوَ يُجِيرُ وَلاَ يُجَارُ عَلَيْهِ إِن كُنتُمْ تَعْلَمُونَ. سَيَقُولُونَ لِلَّهِ قُلْ فَأَنَّىٰ تُسْحَرُونَ. بَلْ أَتَيْنَاهُمْ بِٱلْحَقِّ وَإِنَّهُمْ لَكَاذِبُونَ. مَا ٱتَّخَذَ ٱللَّهُ مِن وَلَدٍ وَمَا كَانَ مَعَهُ مِنْ إِلَـهٍ إِذاً لَّذَهَبَ كُلُّ إِلَـٰهٍ بِمَا خَلَقَ وَلَعَلاَ بَعْضُهُمْ عَلَىٰ بَعْضٍ سُبْحَانَ ٱللَّهِ عَمَّا يَصِفُونَ.}

Pickthall: {Say: In Whose hand is the dominion over all things and He protecteth, while against Him there is no protection, if ye have knowledge? They will say: Unto Allah (all that belongeth). Say: How then are ye bewitched? Nay, but We have brought them the Truth, and lo! they are liars.  Allah hath not chosen any son, nor is there any god along with Him; else would each god have assuredly championed that which he created, and some of them would assuredly have overcome others. Glorified be Allah above all that they allege.} (Al Mu’minūn, 23:88-91)

These ayāt are in reference to those who ascribe a son to Allāh and yet claim that He is the Lord of the Universe.  Clearly, Allāh details for us the duplicitous nature of the idolaters who know exactly what to say to the Muslims to appear monotheistic, yet blatantly and overtly they negate that monotheism by ascribing partners to Allāh.  Where is the proof that those who partake in tawassul ascribe any sort of divinity to the Messenger (Peace & Blessings Be Upon Him)?  How does the du‘a of tawassul resemble in any way, the ayāt that describe shirk?

These are just some points of reflection.

Jazakum Allahu Khaira for your time.

-Ibn Ahmad

The following scan is taken from Imam An-Nawawi’s famous treatise “Al-Adhkaar“, that is soon to be translated by Shaykh Nuh (as I have read in several places), insha’allah. In this scan you will see Imam An-Nawawi quoting the hadith of Uthman ibn Hunayf as proof for “Salaatul-Haajah – or the Prayer of Need”. You will also notice that he believes this hadith is Sahih, as he quotes At-Tirmdhi’s grading, “The narration is Hasan Saheeh”, without disagreeing. It is his policy that when a hadith has weakness, and he quotes it in the adhkaar, that he mentions its weakness. In fact he does this in the hadith prior to this one in his adhkaar. The footnotes of this scan are by Shaykh Subay’ Hamza Haakimi that was published in 1991 by Mu’asassa ‘Ulum Al-Quran in Beirout, Lebanon.

Notice the words in the footnote: “Tirmithi (3573), Ibn Maajah (1385), and Al-Haakim reported it 1/313 and said, “This hadith is Sahih upon the condition of the Two Shaykhs and they did not report it. And Adh-Dhahabi agreed.”

Is it permitted to seek Tawassul through the Haqq (right) of the Nabi (Sallallahu ‘Alayhi wa Sallam)?

A proof for this stance is what is reported authentically from the Nabi (Sallallahu ‘Alayhi wa Sallam) via the companion Maysarah:

قد أخرج الحافظ أبو الحسن بن بشران قال : حدثنا أو جعفر محمد ابن عمرو، حدثنا أحمد بن سحاق بن صالح، ثنا محمد بن صالح، ثنا محمد ابن سنان العوقي، ثنا إبراهيم بن طهمان، عن بديل بن ميسرة، عن عبد الله بن شقيق، عن ميسرة قال: قلت: يا رسول الله، متى كنت نبياً ؟ قال: (( لما خلق الله الأرض واستوى إلى السماء فسواهن سبع سماوات ، وخلق العرش،كتب على ساق العرش: محمد رسول الله خاتم الأنبياء، وخلق الله الجنة التي أسكنها آدم وحواء، فكتب اسمي على الأبواب، والأوراق والقباب، والخيام،وآدم بين الروح والجسد،فلما أحياه الله تعالى: نظر إلى العرش فرأى اسمي فأخبره الله أنه سيد ولدك، فلما غرهما الشيطان ، تابا واستشفعا باسمي إليه

وأخرجه ابن الجوزي في الوفا بفضائل المصطفى من طريق ابن بشران

I said: “O Messenger of Allah, when were you [first] a Prophet?” He replied: “When Allah created the earth ‘Then turned to the heaven, and fashioned it as seven heavens’(2:29), and created the Throne, He wrote on the leg of the Throne: “Muhammad the Messenger of Allah is the Seal of Prophets” (Muhammadun Rasūlullāhi Khātamu al-Anbiyā’). Then Allah created Jannah in which He made Adam and Hawwa’ dwell, and He wrote my name on the gates, its tree-leaves, its domes and tents, at a time when Adam was still between the spirit and the body. When Allah ta’alā instilled life into him he looked at the Throne and saw my name, whereupon Allah informed him that ‘He [Muhammad (Sallallahu 'Alayhi wa Sallam)] is the Sayyid (master) of all your descendants.’ When Satan deceived them both, they repented and sought intercession (shafa’a) to Allah with my name.“

It has been reported by Ibn Al-Jawzī in his Al-Wafā bi Fadhā’il Al Mustafā from the chain of Ibn Bushrān. Ibn Al Jawzī mentions,

“Part of the demonstration of his superiority to other Prophets is the fact that Adam (Sallallahu ‘Alayhi wa Sallam) asked his Lord through the sanctity (hurma) of Muhammad (Sallallahu ‘Alayhi wa Sallam) that He relent towards him.”

This hadīth has been declared Sahīh by the Imāms of hadīth. Dr. Gibrīl Haddād states the following regarding this hadīth, “Shaykh `Abd Allah al-Ghumari cited it in Murshid al-Ha’ir li Bayan Wad` Hadith Jabir and said, “its chain is good and strong” while in al-Radd al-Muhkam al-Matin (p. 138-139) he adds: “It is the strongest Companion-corroboration (shâhid) I saw for the hadith of `Abd al-Rahman ibn Zayd” as quoted also by Shaykh Mahmud Mamduh in Raf` al-Minara (p. 248).”

Elsewhere Maulana Muhammad ibn Moulana Haroon Abasoomar states:

“The chain of narrators for this Hadith is totally different from the previous one. And in fact, Hafidh ibn Hajar [rahimahullah] has stated concerning a completely different narration which has the very same chain of narrators, that this chain of narrators is strong. (al-Raddul Muhkamul Mateen pgs.138-139; al-Ahaadeethul Muntaqaa pg.14, both of Shaykh Abdullah Siddique al-Ghumari)”. [end quote from G. Haddad]

The hadīth of Abdur-Rahmān ibn Zayd Ibn Aslam, that the scholars above are discussing is the hadīth that goes through ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattāb (Radhiya Allahu ‘Anhu) that says,

“When Adam committed his mistake he said: “O my Lord, I am asking you to forgive me for the sake of Muhammad. Allah said: ‘O Adam, and how do you know about Muhammad whom I have not yet created? Adam replied, O my Lord, after You created me with your hand and breathed into me of Your Spirit, I raised my head and saw written on the heights of the Throne:

LA ILAHA ILLALLAH MUHAMMADUN RASULULLAH

I understood that You would not place next to Your Name but the Most Beloved One of Your creation. Allah said: O Adam, I have forgiven you, and were it not for Muhammad I would not have created you.”

We shall come back to the hadīth of Abdur-Rahmān ibn Zayd ibn Aslam later. For now, let us review the hadīth of Maysarah and its chain, inshā’Allāh.

The student of Imam al-Suyuti: Imām Muhammad ibn Yusuf al-Salihī of Damascus, who died in the year 942 AH, has mentioned in his multi-volume Sirah work known as: Subul al-Hadi wal Rashhad, this very narration from Maysara (radhiyAllahu ‘Anhu) as follows (vol. 1/p. 86, Darul Kutub Ilmiyya edn, Beirut) from Imam ibn al Jawzi:

وروى ابن الجوزي بسند جيد لا بأس به ، عن ميسرة رضي الله تعالى عنه قال : قلت يا رسول الله ، متى كنت نبيا ؟ قال : لما خلق الله الأرض واستوى إلى السماء فسواهن سبع سماوات وخلق العرش كتب على ساق العرش : محمد رسول الله خاتم الأنبياء . وخلق الله تعالى الجنة التي أسكنها آدم وحواء ، فكتب اسمي على الأوراق والأبواب والقباب والخيام ، وآدم بين الروح والجسد ، فلما أحياه الله تعالى نظر إلى العرش فرأى اسمي ، فأخبره الله تعالى أنه سيد ولدك . فلما غرهما الشيطان تابا واستشفعا باسمي إليه

“Ibn Al-Jawzī reported with a good chain, having no problems with it from Maysarah (Radhiya Allahu ‘Anhu)…” Then he mentions the hadīth we mentioned above.

A review of this specific chain shows that all of the men are thiqāt (trustworthy). The chain as mentioned before is:

حدثنا أو جعفر محمد ابن عمرو، حدثنا أحمد بن سحاق بن صالح، ثنا محمد بن صالح، ثنا محمد ابن سنان العوقي، ثنا إبراهيم بن طهمان، عن بديل بن ميسرة، عن عبد الله بن شقيق، عن ميسرة

Abū Ja’far Muhammad ibn ‘Amrū, Ahmad ibn Is-hāq ibn Sālih, Muhammad ibn Sālih, Muhammad ibn Sinān Al-‘Awaqī, Ibrāhīm ibn Tahmān from Budayl ibn Maysarah from Abdullah ibn Shaqīq from Maysarah.

1) Abū Ja’far Muhammad ibn ‘Amrū is Ibn Bakhtarī Ar-Razzāz. In his tarjamah in Tārīkh Al Baghdād it states, ثقة ثبت , Thiqah (highly trustworthy) and established. [3/132]

2) Ahmad ibn Is-hāq ibn Sālih. He is Abū Bakr Al Wazān. In Tārīkh Al Baghdād in his tarjamah it states, صدوق, Honest/Reliable. [4/28]

3) Muhammad ibn Sālih could be one of two people. The first is Muhammad ibn Sālih, Abū Bakr Al Anmātī known as Kīlajah. Ibn Hajr states about him in his Taqrīb, “Thiqah, Hāfith (highly trustworthy and a master of hadīth).” It also could be Muhammad ibn Sālih Al-Wāsitī Ka’b Ath-Thirā’a. In his tarjamah in Tārīkh Al Baghdād (5/360) it states, “thiqah”. Thus, the plausibility of this Muhammad ibn Sālih being either of the two men is of no harm considering the fact that they are both thiqah (trustworthy) in hadīth.

4) Muhammad ibn Sinān Al ‘Ūqī. Ibn Hajr states about him in his Taqrīb “ثقة ثبت” (thiqah – highly trustworthy and established). Bukhārī reports from him directly, 29 hadīth. Ibn Ma’īn, Ad-Dāraqutnī, Muslimah and others declared him Thiqah.

5) Ibrahīm ibn Tahmān Al-Khurāsānī. Ibn Hajr mentions in his Tahthīb At-Tahthīb that Imāms Ahmad, Abū Hātim, Abū Dāwūd, Ad-Dārimī, and others deem him Thiqah. Ibn Al Mubārak says, “Sahīh in Hadīth”. [Entry 231 of Vol. 1 Page 85 published by Dār Al Ihyā]

The rest of the reporters are known as thiqah to anyone having the slightest familiarity with the sciences of hadīth. So as the noble reader can see with their own eyes, this hadīth is authentic, as shown above.

The hadīth of Abdur-Rahmān ibn Zayd ibn Aslam that was mentioned earlier is a supporting narration of it as well, as was also mentioned above. In the chain however, is Abdur-Rahmān ibn Zayd ibn Aslam who is Dha’īf (weak) according to the majority of scholars. Abū Hātim says about him, “he is not strong in hadīth, but he was Sālih (righteous) and in hadīth wāhiyan (having weakness).” The only one to deem him above the level of dha’īf was ibn ‘Adī who says, “There are hassān (good) hadīth for him, and some of them (i.e. scholars) attested to his truthfulness, and he was from those who they recorded hadīth from.” [See Tahthīb At-Tahthīb] So as you can see his hadīth has support from the above hadīth, and thus the scholars deemed it acceptable. Some of those scholars that did so were, Al Hākim in his Mustadarak who declared it authentic, Qādhī Iyad in his Shifa. Ibn Al Jawzī in the previous work we mentioned from him titled, Al-Wafā. He states in his introduction, “(In this book) I do not mix the sound hadith with the false.” As-Suyūtī in Khasā’is Al-Kubrā and ad-Durr Al Manthur (2:37) where he states that Imām Al-Bayhaqī considers it sound. Also, as mentioned before, Imām Muhammad ibn Yusuf al-Salihī of Damascus the student of Imam As-Suyuti. In a famous book wherein Ibn Hajr Al-‘Asqalānī refutes some statements of Ibn Taymiyyah, titled “Jawhar Al Munthim”, Al-Hāfith Ibn Hajr Al-‘Asqalānī quotes the following narration to prove the validity of this type of tawassul; and declares, “Authenticated by Al Hākim”.

After showing the Sahīh and Hasan level of these two reports, it becomes clear that those who deem this type of tawassul ‘Bida’ah‘ (heretical innovation) are incorrect in condemning this noble type of tawassul. They reject these ahādīth, not on the principles of this noble science, but on the premise of their lowly desires.

And with Allah is truth and guidance for all!