The Old Salafi Movement

Posted: November 19, 2007 in Uncategorized
Tags: ,

One brother from this blog asked the following questions about the old salafi movement:

How many STABLE islamic schools have been established by SALAFIS in the US?

How many grave yards have been established by the Salafi movement in the US?

How many medical clinics established by Salafis in the US?

How many salafi relief organizations in the US?

Any ’salafi’ soup kitchens or food banks in the US of note?

What have this movement really done?

First of all I want to state that I was never a part of the clique of brothers that collectively called themselves ‘the salafis‘, and I can appreciate what the brother above is saying as it was one of the pitfalls of that movement – extreme isolation, disengagement from society and disregard for the immediate world around them. It was strange to many Muslims to see these brothers try to tear down the good that other Muslims were doing in establishing masjids, muslim graveyards, and zakat funds, while they were presenting no viable alternative. However, I can not say that that movement was totally devoid of any good.

While they failed to established any of the above mentioned items in the height of their movement, I think that we can thank the 1990’s Salafi Movement for bringing a heightened awareness of matters of aqeedah -which is a good thing. However their mistake was to declare that work in others areas was somehow ‘blameworthy’ and this is one factor that led to the movement’s decline. I found it to be totally asinine for brothers from crime and drug infested neighborhoods to be debating the merits (or lack thereof) of this and that ruler from Muslim countries, while their families and neighborhoods were completely ignored all in the name of righteousness.

There are many groups of Muslims that have done much good, but at the same time we must have the correct aqeedah. This is the balanced way. We do not have to belong to a small clique of brothers that attend the same conferences with the same telelinks and the same speakers. I hope that moving past this gang-like type of thinking

Comments
  1. Khalid bin Talal says:

    I agree with you fully, as being a former salfy.

    Khalid bin Talal

  2. Unlissted says:

    Saeed abu hatim Raazi(227h) said: The distinguishing signs of the people of Bida(innovation) is that they find fault with ahlul athaar(the salafees)……All you nationalists worship is dunyah wordly accomplishments……The saudi’s are salafi like they say they are and have done more for islam then any of you soofee beard shaving goons……Unlisted2007 soup kitchens oh how ghetto!!!!!!!!

  3. Abdullah says:

    Unlissted,

    So I take it that the salafees have no “fault”??? Doesn’t King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia shave? Who said anything about soofies. You people use so many thought terminating cliches and do not think. All you do is walk the street shout down people, collect welfare and look to get married 20 times. A bunch of “joyriders” right? Who loves the dunya now?

  4. Abu Hatim says:

    And who said that YOU in this day and time are the “Ahl al Athaar”? Pull a quote from the past and claim that they are talking about me…good one

  5. Abu Hatim says:

    Interesting how “unlissted” (who was critisized by his fellow members) does not answer the questions and admit their failure, but throws out labels like “soofee”

  6. Kalibak says:

    Dunya to salafis = Getting a job
    Dunya to salafis = Taking care of your wife and children
    Dunya to salafis = Being responsible
    Dunya to salafis = Getting an education
    Dunya to salafis = Not being on welfare
    Dunya to salafis = Being nice to one’s neighbors
    Dunya to salafis = Keeping in touch with non-Muslim family
    Dunya to salafis = Paying back one’s debts (and preferrably not getting into debt)

    Oh, a salafi doesn’t have to pay back debts to a “deviant” Muslim. So many of these cats have burned me and yet they dont take this issue seriously.

  7. Hassan Ali says:

    Dunya to salafis = Getting a job
    Dunya to salafis = Taking care of your wife and children
    Dunya to salafis = Being responsible
    Dunya to salafis = Getting an education
    Dunya to salafis = Not being on welfare
    Dunya to salafis = Being nice to one’s neighbors
    Dunya to salafis = Keeping in touch with non-Muslim family
    Dunya to salafis = Paying back one’s debts (and preferrably not getting into debt)

    I like that Kalibak!

    Hey Muhammad Abdur Rahman, your silence speaks volumes! I am still waiting for an answer to my question!
    You make clear that you were never a card carrying Salafi. Well, what about a card carrying spook sitting by Massa’s door?

    Are you or are you not a GOVERNMENT AGENT???

    Peace,
    Hassan Ali

  8. Bint Will says:

    You said, ” the Salafi Movement for bringing a heightened awareness of matters of aqeedah.” So what happened to the salafe? If this is true then their hearts should have been affected in a good way, which would have affected their overall characters thus bringing a heightened awareness of noble traits like honesty, integrity, candor, respect for self, spouses, children, community and so on. Reality is, most adults normally grow due to life experiences and knowledge gained. By the end of 2007, we all should be a BETTER person than we were in 2006.

    When a man or woman finds God (s)he NORMALLY changes for the better.

  9. Unlissted says:

    Well the issue is we dont ignore being prosperous on the dunyah…..The thing is you ignoramuses are atttacking your black counterparts who havent stop being niggas…..but since they’re salafee they’re actually better then you jackals who are upon sufism and a black version of islam…….Aqeeda comes first no aqeeda no islam……You guy enjoyed our joyriders posts…..Hmm dont let me mention the joyriders from communites of bida rock yo world………Name your communities..abdulla and abu hack and hasaan ali…..Sounds like quppa institute to me…..Unlissted 2007

  10. Hassan Ali says:

    Unlisted,
    Thankfully you posted your jibberish anonymously! I would regret attributing your illiterate drivlel to a Muslim name.
    May I give you some unsolicted advice “Unlisted”? BUY A DICTIONARY!
    Hassan Ali

    My community is the Islamic Community of N.Y.C.

  11. Ahmizzo says:

    unlisted, I know this is going to come as a shocker to you but your “Shaykhul-Islam” Ibn Taymiah was sufi. As a matter of fact he is beuried in the Qadiriya graveyard near Jamiat Damashq. How do I know because I used to live there. Also he wrote a tahqeeq on Futuh-Ghaib by Shaykh Abdul-Qadir Jilani(R). Read volumes 11 & 12 of his majmu-fatawa & see what he actually said about Tassawuf, oops you probably don’t know arabic, too bad. Keep relying on the saud translations!

  12. Ahmizzo says:

    Although the salafi movement heightened an interest in Aqeeda, it was spreading an aqeeda which was not that of Ahl-Sunna as it claimed. The “salafi” aqeeda is anthropomorphic diatribe which puts lies into the mouths of the the scholars of Ahl sunna.It delineates the roles of the true scholars, and narrows the pool to just a few would be scholars who were either educated in Saudi or “self-taught” scholars with no sanad of authority which reaches the Prophet(S).

  13. Abdur Rahman:

    That you for that post. I really appreciated it. You were able to speak about where some Salafis mistakes without attacking Salafiyya. Alhumdulillah, Salafiyya is the way of the As-Salaf As-Salih. That does not mean that those who claim to be upon it are trully adhering to the Salafi dawah. Also, there are important issue in society (though of course not more important than `aqidah) that Salafis need to try and address from a trully Islamic perspective. The Salafi `aqeedah is the `aqidah of Ahlul-Hadith which is the `aqidah of all the Salaf.

    I wish that some of the commentors could have made as enlightening statements as you have made. I will be adding you to my bloglist, inshAllah.

    Khalil Al-Puerto Rikani Al-Hanbali
    (one who was Salafi, is Salafi, and will all be Salafi, inshaAllah)

  14. Unlissted says:

    Hassan ali…..Of course you had to be a urban ignoramuse..Yeah I might have some typos…..But your no spelling genius either as the word drivlel means what?????? Hassan ali no need to indulge the non-salafees because most things haraam are halaal with you guys anyway…..Ahmizzo-ahmaaq…. you backbiting cockroach….Lying upon scholars like Shaykhul islam Ibn taymeeyah has never said he was soofee ….find the statement…where he calls himself soofee!!!!!!! What you will find him endorsing salafeeyah in Majmooa Fatawa!!!!!!I read arabic ahmizzo-ahmaaq……..Bring me a statement from the prophet or sahabas endorsing your filthy ashaaree aqeeda…ahmizzo-ahmaaq!!!!Shaykh bin bazz ,shaykh uthaymeen,Shaykh Rabia…..they were self taught????? You lying hasharaa…..Unlissted2007 no mercy

  15. Hassan Ali says:

    Unlisted,
    You are pathetic.
    You are clearly not very literate in English, so I won’t even reference a classical Arabic text in my rebuttal.
    In fact, I won’t even rebut your stupidity because you are not worthy of being replied to.
    You are a cursed individual with no future if you continue to traverse the dark path you are presently on.
    Make Tauba for your lack of adab, learn to read and write and then we can have a discussion.
    H.A.

  16. Unlissted says:

    You make tawba hassan ali for slandering and lying upon the dawahtus saalafeeyah….and your stinkin nationalism…

  17. Ahmizzo says:

    Ibn Taimiah writes in his book, Jilaul-ainain about leading Sufis, Hasan Basari, Ibrahim bin Adham, Fuzail bin Eyaz, Maroof Karkhi, Bishr Hafi, Shaqiq balkhi, Junaid Baghdadi, Sahal Tastari, Abu-Talib Makki, Abdul-Qadir Jeelani that they are Mashaekh of Islam, Imams of Hidayat (guidance), Allah has given true tongue to Ummah in their regard” (Jilaul-Ainain p:106)

    He writes in his book ”As-simaa war Raqs” about Ahmad bin Jawari, sir Siqti Abusulaiman Darani that they were among great Shoyookh Saliheen.

    He writes in his book ”Al-Furqan baina Aulia -ar-Rahman wa Auliaish-Shaitan that all of them are Mashaekh of the Quran and Sunnah.
    (Al-Furqan baina Aulia -ar-Rahman wa Auliaish-Shaitan p:44)

    He also calls Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jilani(R) “Our Shaykh,” and says with great enthusiasm that he(ibn Taimiah) inherited his(Jilani’s) khurqa and there are”only two people in between them,” meaning in the silsila. I will pardon your slandering of me

  18. Ahmizzo says:

    Bro Khalil, please refer to Abdul-Rahman ibn Jawzi’s(R) ” Daf tashbih,” which is a refutation of the anthropmorphic Hanbali aqida, now modern day “salafee” aqida. The painful truth that salafees won’t admit is that there is not this great universal ijmaa amongst the salaf on how to relate & intrepet various ahadiths & ayats. So the problem is that the modern day “salafees” take one extreme misintrepetation of some of the sayings of the real salaf & malign anyone who takes other valid intrepetations which was also from the salaf. for instance in matters of tawil. Salafees would say that this is bida. But then they are silenced when confronted with narrations from Mujahid who said that Ibn Abbas(R) made ta’wil of the ayah ” Yawmul yakshafu an saaq” The day that the shin(0f Allah) will be exposed. Mujahid says that Ibn Abbas(R) said, that saaq(shin) here means a dire of dire need(amr shadid) as in the jahiliya whenever the arabs would run, say through the desert due to war, then they had to pull up their thobes and their shin was revealed.

    Al-Tabari also relates from Muhammad ibn ‘Ubayd al-Muharibi (d. 245/859), who relates from Ibn al-Mubarak (d. 181/797), from Usama ibn Zayd [al-Laythi] (d. 153/770), from ‘Ikrima [ibn ‘Abdullah al-Barbari] (d. 104/723), from Ibn ‘Abbas (d. 68/687) that shin in the above verse means “a day of war and direness (harb wa shidda)” [emphasis mine] (ibid., 29.38). All of these narrators are those of the rigorously authenticated (sahih) collections except Usama ibn Zayd, whose hadiths are well authenticated (hasan).

    And by the way Imam Tabari’s exegis is the oldest we have. This is just one example of how the salafees want to usurp the valid Islamic aqida & replace it with some mythomorphic “glory days” aqida that never was.

  19. Ahmizzo says:

    In al-Mas’ala al-Tabriziyya Ibn Taymiyya declares: “Labistu al-khirqa al-mubaraka li al-Shaykh `Abd al-Qadir wa bayni wa baynahu ithnan – I wore the blessed Sufi cloak of `Abd al-Qadir, there being between him and me two shaykhs.”

  20. Ahmizzo says:

    no takers huh?

  21. Questioner says:

    Well, I’m not a “taker”, but rather I would like to address the issue as I understand it. Through my meager studies I haven’t found any scholar attacking the character of Abdul Qaadir Al-Jelaani. What I have seen, however, is an attack on the action of those people who call upon Abdul Qaadir in du’a.

    Calling upon others besides Allah in du’a is clearly forbidden as Allah says:

    “wa anna masajida lillahi fa laa TAD’UU ma’a Allahi aHaadaa”

    And the mosques are for Allâh (Alone), so invoke not anyone along with Allâh. (Al-Jinn 72:18)

    Also, Allah says:

    “Man yad’u ma’a Allahi elahin ghayru la burhaana lahu behi fa innama hisaabuhu ‘enda Rubbihi Innahu La yuftahul Kafiroon”

    And whoever invokes (or worships), besides Allâh, any other ilâh (god), of whom he has no proof, then his reckoning is only with his Lord. Surely! Al-Kâfirûn will not be successful.
    (Al-Mu’minun 23:117)

    And Allah, Ta’ala, says:

    “Qaala Rubukum-ud’unee astajib lakum Inna-latheena yastakbiroona ‘an ‘ebaddatee sa yadkhuloon-al jahannama daakhireen”

    And your Lord said: “Invoke Me, I will respond to your (invocation). Verily! Those who scorn My worship they will surely enter Hell in humiliation!” (Ghafir 40:60)

    I have witnessed the grave worship and the du’a to different personalities, so I know without doubt that this happens and the people doing these acts happen to call themselves Sufi. So, the question is not whether or not Ibnu Tayymiyyah praised certain personalities, rather the question is did these personalities engage in this activity and was Ibnu Tayymiyyah aware of this. Please present your evidence on these points. His awareness is key because someone can be praised and he can be involved in evil activities without the knowledge of the person doing the praising.

    The issue is clear. Why would anyone make du’a to a man when Allah is accepting du’as directly from you?

    On the authority of Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him), who said that the Messenger of Allah (Peace be upon him) said:

    Our Lord (glorified and exalted be He) descends each night to the earth’s sky when there remains the final third of the night, and He says: Who is saying a prayer to Me that I may answer it? Who is asking something of Me that I may give it him? Who is asking forgiveness of Me that I may forgive him?

    It was related by al-Bukhari (also by Muslim, Malik, at-Tirmidhi and Abu Dawud)

    As far as asking a pious person to make du’a for you then this is an accepted action. As for asking a dead person, then this is another issue. Can they hear you? And if they can hear you, can they actually make that du’a for you? This requires evidence. More importantly, was this done by the Prophet, peace be upon him, and his Companions?

  22. Ahmizzo says:

    As-salaamu-alaikum,
    My dear respected brother. The topic was if Ibn Taimiah( May llah forgive him & pardon his mistakes) was a sufi or not. I proposed(as did the Ibn Taimiah himself) that he was a sufi of the Qadiri order. Not only did he say it but he is buried in the Qadariah graveyard in Damascus. I know because I used to live there. So the issue of tawwausul itself was not even the issue. As for your position on the issue of tawwasul I will try and clarify the the true position of Ahl Sunna in regards to tawwasul inshallah.

    The Tadu that you mentioned in surah Jinn must be understood in its proper context. Dua meaning calling on others besides Allah means thinking that whatever one is calling upon ITSELF can harm or benefit someone is shirk. For example if I was to ask you for something and I thought that you were the cause of whatever I asked you for, this is shirk even if you are standing in front of me talking. Also this verse was revealed for the mushrikeen and Allah says in surah Nun:’ Afanajal muslimeen kal mujrimeen malakum kafy tahkamu?” And how is it that you liken the believers to the unbelieving crimminals how is it thatyou judge? Also the ayah you quoted from surah muminun is not a proof of what you alleage as the verse says “Those whoinvoke any other GOD” NO muslim wil say that the wali or prophet(S) whom they are invoking is GOD but only means to God as Allah tells the believers to seek in surah maidah verse 34.

    As for your making tawwasul “Graveworship” this is a strawman argument. This occurs when when says something which the other party never said, which is easily defeatable and attacks that. No muslim worships graves, they merely go to some of the graves of the Prophets(S) for tawwaul which I now will give the proofs for……

  23. Ahmizzo says:

    no one disputes the fact that Allah indeed answers the duas which we ask Him directly. Why not ask Him directly? Allah says in the Quran [quotes here 39:44]… Yousuf Ali comments: n 4310 …Let alone worshiop, men should not rely on any power to person other than Allah to help them or intercede for them… But even prophets or saints or heroes have no power to intercede except as Allah wills and permits see also n: 4311.>>

    You have made claims that are easily refuted. A general verse may be clarified by more specific ones or by hadith. In this case it is so clear from Quran and Sunna that taking the Prophet (s) and the awliya as a means by which du`a are answered IS FROM THE SUNNA and from the way of the Salaf, our Pious Predecessors. Whoever denies denies the sun in the sky. To proceed:

    The writer ask `why` and we say because it is a recommendation from Allah and it is good adab. See 3:159:

    “Pardon them and ask forgiveness for them and consult with them upon the conduct of affairs.” – 4:64: ”

    “And if, when they had wronged themselves, they had but come unto thee and asked forgiveness of Allah, and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah forgiving, merciful.” – 4:106-107:

    “And ask forgiveness of Allah (for others). Allah is ever forgiving, merciful. And plead not on behalf of those who deceive themselves.” – 9:80, 84:

    “Ask forgiveness for them (the hypocrites) or ask not forgiveness for them; though thou ask forgiveness for them seventy times Allah will not forgive them… And never pray for one of them who dieth, nor stand by his grave.”

    and these are along with about seven (7) other verses that we notice from the Quran.

    During battle of Uhud some companions left the strategic positions previously fixed for them by Holy Prophet (SAW) without his (SAW) permission. After the enemy was defeated and turned back, like other companions, they also engaged in collecting spoils. The enemies while retreating when they saw empty strategic points they turned and fought back and caused heavy losses to the Muslim army. Later on Allah decided to forgive them, He says: “O’ Prophet (SAW) pardon them and ask forgiveness for them…” AL-IMRAN 159.

    “And when there came to them a Book from Allah verifying that which they have, and aforetime they used to pray for victory against those who disbelieve, but when there came to them (Prophet) that which they did not recognize, they disbelieved in him; so Allah’s curse is on the unbelievers.” AL-BAQARA 89.

    Ibn Katheer reported that before the birth of Holy Prophet (SAW) the Jews of al-Ghatafan tribe who were believers at that time used to pray for victory over non-believers by means of Holy Prophet (SAW), therefore making wasila of Prophet (SAW) and other friends of Allah after their physical lives for Acceptance of prayer or right wish to be fulfilled is permitted.

    And Allah`s [swt] saying: “On the day of Judgement you (SAW) will be appointed the status of MAHMUD”. BANI ISRAEL 79.

    About this Ibn Taymiyyah says,

    “The Prophet [saw] is the intercessor for all creation and the Owner of the Maqaam Al-Mahmud, that was the aspiration those who came before and those who came after and He is the Greatest or Intercessors and the Highest in Glory and Superiority in Allah`s [swt] Presence” Al-Qaida p.4.

    Now the mistake in this thinking is to believe that if a duaa from a pious man is answered while he is alive then he cannot help you if he is dead. It is as if they consider the pious man or sheikh or the wali as the origin of the help. This is complely wrong aqida: IT IS ALWAYS ALLAH WHO IS THE SOURCE OF THE BARAKA AND NEVER A HUMAN BEING. So to think that Allah can only give when that saint is alive and when he is dead, Allah does not give anymore, is to say that the source *is* the person and not Allah in the first place! But in reality it is Allah who is giving help in both cases: life or death.

    So it is actually those who adhere to such beliefs who are on the verge of committing Shirk. Then there is the statement above that the Intercession of the Martyrs is accepted and his Du`a is still accepted because he is alive (in his grave). So we are supposing that the writer is referring to the ones killed in battle. For this is the Lesser Jihad. Yet the ones who defeat their Nafs in the Greater Jihad are Marytrs and even Higher than the ones killed in battle as the Prophet [saw] informed the Sahaabah. And we would like to bring to Light the proofs of these Martyrs of the Greater Jihad .

    “It is related from Malik al-Dar, `Umar’s treasurer, that the people suffered a drought during the successorship of `Umar, whereupon a man came to the grave of the Prophet and said: “O Messenger of Allah, ask for rain for your Community, for verily they have but perished,” after which the Prophet appeared to him in a dream and told him: “Go to `Umar and give him my greeting, then tell him that they will be watered. Tell him: You must be clever, you must be clever!” The man went and told `Umar. The latter said: “O my Lord, I spare no effort except in what escapes my power!”

    1.al-Bayhaqi 2.Ibn Kathir cites it thus from Bayhaqi in al-Bidaya wa al-nihaya and says: isnaduhu sahih 3. Ibn Abi Shayba cites it in his Musannaf with a sound (sahih) chain as confirmed by Ibn Hajar who says: rawa Ibn Abi Shayba bi isnadin sahih and cites the hadith in Fath al-Bari. He identifies Malik al-Dar as `Umar’s treasurer (khazin `umar) and says that the man who visited and saw the Prophet in his dream is identified as the Companion Bilal ibn al-Harith, and he counts this hadith among the reasons for Bukhari’s naming of the chapter “The people’s request to their leader for rain if they suffer drought.” He also mentions it in al-Isaba, where he says that Ibn Abi Khaythama cited it.

    Imam Malik was asked the following question by the Caliph Abu Ja`far al- Mansur: “Shall I face the qibla with my back towards the grave of the Messenger of Allah when makind du`a (after salams)?” He replied: “How could you turn your face away from him when he is the means (wasila) of your and your father Adam’s forgiveness to Allah on the Day of Resurrection? Nay, FACE HIM AND ASK FOR HIS INTERCESSION (ISTASHFI` BIHI) so that Allah will grant it to you as He said: “If they had only, when they were wronging 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).””

    1.al-Qadi `Iyad in al-Shifa (2:92-93) 2.Subki in Shifa’ al-siqam 3.Qastallani in al-Mawahib al-laduniyya 4.Ibn Jama`a in Hidayat al-salik, 5.Haytami in al-Jawhar al-munazzam and Tuhfat al-zuwwar and others This is IMAM MALIK. Was he not of the Salaf? Was he not one of the earliest great scholars of Islam? Do the Salafis now say they reject the opinion of Imam Malik in favor of their own opinion? Imam Ibn Hajar al-Haytami said in his book al-Khayrat al-hisan fi manaqib al- imam Abi Hanifa al-Na`man, chapter 35: “When Imam al-Shafi`i was in Baghdad, he would visit the grave of Imam Abu Hanifa, give him salam, AND THEN ASK ALLAH FOR THE FULFILLMENT OF HIS NEED THROUGH HIS MEANS (yatawassal ilallah ta`ala bihi fi qada’ hajatihi).” Imam Kawthari mentioned in his Maqalat (p. 412) that the hafiz al-Khatib al- Baghdadi mentions Shafi`i’s tawassul through Abu Hanifa in the beginning of his Tarikh Baghdad with a sound chain.

    Again, this is the third great Imam of Ahl as-Sunna wal-Jama`at asking intercession THROUGH the second great Imam of Ahl as-Sunna wal-Jama`at! Is there any more clear proof than this? If anyone does not want to follow them they are free, but we, as followers of those more knowledgable than ourselves, are obliged to take their opinion as more valuable than our own. And it is probable that you, as a Salafi, still consider the opinion of a scholar, for example Ibn Taymiyya, more valuable than your own. If that is the case, you take Ibn Taymiyya’s divergent opinion: we will take the opinion of the majority of the Salaf and the Khalaf.

    Al-`Utbi, a Sahabi, (r) said: “As I was sitting by the grave of the Prophet, a Beduin 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 dozed and saw the Prophet in my sleep. He said to me: “O `Utbi, run after the Beduin and give him glad tidings that Allah has forgiven him.””

    A report graded mashhur (established and well-known) and related by: 1.Nawawi Adhkar, al-Majmu` 8:217 and al-Idah fi manasik al-hajj, chapters on visiting the grave of the Prophet 2. Ibn Jama`a, Hidayat al-salik 3:1384 3. Ibn `Aqil, al-Tadhkira 4. Ibn Qudama, al-Mughni 5. al-Qurtubi, Tafsir of 4:64 in Ahkam al-Qur’an 5:265 6. Samhudi, Khulasat al-Wafa 7.Ibn Kathir, Tafsir 2:306 8.Taqi al-Din al-Subki 9. Ibn al-Jawzi, Muthir al-gharam al-sakin ila ashraf al-amakin p. 490; 10.Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, al-Jawhar al-munazzam [commentary on Nawawi’s Idah] and others.

    Al-`Utbi’s account of the Arab’s tawassul for forgiveness at the Prophet’s grave is famous: It is found in many books on the subject of ziyara (visiting the Prophet’s grave in Madina) or manasik (rites of pilgrimage) by the many scholars of the Four Schools, none of whom have rejected it or declared it weak. See, for example, the translations of Ibn al-Jawzi, Nawawi, and Ibn Jama`a. Even Ibn Kathir, a student of Ibn Taymiyya accepted this narration and gave it in his explanation of the verse (4:64).

    Haytami also said in many places in his book al-Sawa`iq al-muhriqa li ahl al- dalal wa al-zandaqa:

    “Imam Shafi`i made tawassul through the Family of the Prophet [Ahl al-bayt] when he said: `Al al-nabi dhari`ati wa hum ilayhi wasilati arju bihim u`ta ghadan bi yadi al-yamini sahifati THE FAMILY OF THE PROPHET ARE MY MEANS AND MY INTERMEDIARY TO HIM. THROUGH THEM I HOPE TO BE GIVEN MY RECORD WITH THE RIGHT HAND TOMORROW.` al-Khatib relates that al-hafiz Abu Nu`aym said: considered it incumbent upon all Muslims to invoke Allah for Abu Hanifa in their prayer due to his preservation of the Prophet’s Sunan and fiqh for them. This is explained by the fact that among Abu Hanifa’s merits that are exclusive to him is his standing as the first in Islam to have compiled a book of fiqh.

    Al-Hafiz Abu `Ali al-Ghassani relates in Ibn al-Subki’s Tabaqat al-Shafi`iyya 2:234:

    Abu al-Fath Nasr ibn al-Hasan al-Sakani al-Samarqandi came to us in 464 and said: “We had a drought in Samarqand some years ago. The people made the istisqa’ prayer but they did not get rain. A saintly man named al-Salah came to the judge and said to him: “I have an opinion I would like to show you. My opinion is that you come out followed by the people and that you all go to the grave of Imam Muhammad ibn Isma`il al-Bukhari and make istisqa’ (prayer for rain) there. Perhaps Allah will give us rain.” The judge said: “What a good opinion you have.” He came out and the people followed him, and he prayed for rain in front of them at the grave while people wept and SOUGHT THE INTERCESSION OF THE ONE THAT WAS IN IT. Allah sent such heavy rain that those who were in Khartenk (where this took place, 3 miles away from Samarqand) could not reach Samarqand for seven days because of the rain’s abundance.”

  24. Ahmizzo says:

    Again my dear brother questioner. Now let us get to a hadith, whose essence is tawassul and whose means is the Prophet (s) himself. Even Ibn Taymiyya, the founder of the “Salafiyya”, did not deny this hadith:

    A blind man came to the Prophet and said: “Invoke Allah for me that he help me.” He replied: “If you wish I will delay this, and it would be better for you, and if you wish I will invoke Allah the Exalted (for you).” He said: “Then invoke him.” The Prophet said to him: idhhab fa tawadda’, wa salli rak`atayn thumma qul — “Go and make an ablution, pray two rak`at, then say: “O Allah, I am asking you (as’aluka) and turning to you (atawajjahu ilayka) with your Prophet Muhammad (bi nabiyyika Muhammad), the Prophet of mercy; O Muhammad (ya Muhammad), I am turning with you to my Lord regarding my present need / I am asking my Lord with your intercession concerning the return of my sight (inni atawajjahu bika ila rabbi fi hajati hadhih — another version has: inni astashfi`u bika `ala rabbi fi raddi basari) so that He will fulfill my need; O Allah, allow him to intercede (with you) for me (allahumma shaffi`hu fiyya).”

    [It is related by Ahmad (4:138 #17246-17247), Tirmidhi (hasan sahih gharib — Da`awat Ch. 119), Ibn Majah (Book of Iqamat al-salat wa al-sunnat, Ch. on Salat al-hajat #1385), Nasa’i (`Amal al-yawm wa al-laylat p. 417-418 #658-660), al-Hakim (1:313, 1:526), Tabarani in al-Kabir, and rigorously authenticated as sound (sahih) by nearly fifteen hadith masters including Ibn Hajar, Dhahabi, Shawkani, and Ibn Taymiyya.]
    So where does one conclude that the one being petitioned must be present? YOu see bro questioner the Prophet(S) & Awliyah can hear though you perceive not!

    Now if you say:” That was when the Prophet(S) was alive” then I would say: brother look at the wording the PropheT(S) told the man to go away from him and say the dua. If it was a shart that the Prophet(S) had to be there physically then why send the man away? And further more Imam Tabarani and others relate thatafter the death of the Prophet(S) during the reign of Uthman(R), a man wanted to see the khalifah but couldn’t The same man Uthman bin Hanuaif related the exact same hadith with the same wording to the petotioner. The man went away and said the dua and returned to Uthman who welcomed him in.

  25. Ahmizzo says:

    Please pardon my tone if it was harsh. I mean no harm. I simply want to convey to you from the Quran and sunna and the true way of the salaf, the real facts and position of Ahl Sunna in regards to tawwasul. May Allah guides us all, and cause us to die upon the milla of Sayyid al Khalq(S) and May Allah grant us the niamat to drink from his(S) blessed hand at Kawthar. Any mistakes that I said were mine only Allah is the truth. Ma Salaama

  26. Unlissted says:

    ahmaaq -ahmizzo….You still havent presented where Ibn taymeeyah calls himself soofee….where he’s buried has nothing to do with the topic……for malik ad-daar produce a tarjama in the books of reejaal for him….Ahmaaq-ahmizzo is calling people to worship graves

  27. Ahmizzo says:

    My dear inlisted, when Ibn Taimiah says that he wears the kharqa of Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jilani(R) this in the language of the sufi not only means that he is a sufi but he is a direct inheritor or Shaykh of the tariqa. Why else does he wear a dead shaykh’s cloak? I should have also posted what he said before he said that he wore the cloak of Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jilani(R). He said:” of all the sufi order the order of our Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jilani is the highest. I wore the blessed cloak of Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jilani.”
    (ibid) And where he is buried has everything to do with as it was the tariqa itself which took him & buried in their graveyard as he was an inheritor(Shaykh) of the order. When confronted with proofs from the Quran & sunna why do salafis resort to name calling instead of dealing with the issues at hand in a scholarly and orderly fashion? Is it because they feel embarrassed over their lack of knowledge and the fact that they have been duped by the Saudi’s into believing in the “Islam that never was”? I can feel your pain brother But your belligerent outburst is what gives the “salafi dawa” a bad name.
    And for the record I am not calling people to “worhip graves” I am simply proving from the Quran & Sunna and the example of the salf(Imam Malik, Shafi Imam Ahmad et) that imploring Allah by means of one of HIs elect servants is not worshipping a grave or rock. One can do this from wherever as time, space and the physical composition means nothing as they are only the means.Like I said the salafi position is closer to shirk by limiting ones asking to a specific time and place as if the actaul person is the cause of the blessing, when it is only Allah who grants blessing. And Allah is “ghani-hameed_ or free from all needs. As for Malik ad-daar I don’t have a book of ism rajal with me at my immediate disposal so I can’t translate whatthe various muhaditheen have said about him. But even if one were to find fault in him what about Ibn Hajar Asqalani, Haythami and Imam Nawawi(R) who are the citadels of knowledge for Ahl sunna? all of whom agreed on the explicit meaninngs and conclusions of the text mentioned. If the like of those men(along with the four Imams as I have so proven) are not Ahl Sunna then who is? Let us forgo an of their books and see what we are left with.
    For the record Ibn Taimiah was not against sufism(asI showed) but he was only against hulool and ittihad. Which I think everyone is, its just a difference of termonolgy for those who excuse the like of Ibn Arabi and such.

    Fi man Allah

  28. Unlissted says:

    Ahmaaq-ahmizzo….It’s obvious you have no knowledge of the science of hadeeth….So you calling people to graveworshipping…..but you can validate the malik .ad-daar….Ilooool when it comes to proof and real studying shows that your only a soofee parrot and all you do is clip and paste…so if you have no information on malik ad-daar then how will you use an athaar which legislates grave worshipping!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Aqeeda proceeds adab ….As for Ahlul Hadeeth then they are harsh to ahlu bida untill they leave off their foolishness…So bring us a information on malik ad-daar…or stand as a liar upon the companions of the prophet…..You have no explicit words of Shaykhul islam ibn taymeeyah saying he is a sufi(he wears a cloak doesnt mean didley sqaat)…As you have been nurtured upon blind following like a sheep and his shepperd….. and you to your soofee masters….If you arent able to discuss the proof that those blessed scholars brought then no need in mentioning them…… we arent blind follwers…. well at least not us maybe you… if your not prepared or able to prove the authenticy …then shut hell up…..Fear Allah!!! lying upon the messenger is accompanied with a seat in the hellfire….as the prophet mentioned….The scholars say attributing false,weak,or fabricated narrations to the prophet is tantamount to lying on him……Unlissted2007 Shaykhul islam said ibn arabi is a kafir!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  29. […] to know more about the religion, which could be intimidating at times to other Muslims. As I mentioned earlier, we can credit them for introducing a heightened awareness of aqeedah issues amongst the Muslims, […]

  30. Ahmizzo says:

    Allahumma Salli ala Sayyidna Muhammad wa ala aalihi wa salaam
    Unlisted first off you need to read my post & stop lying on me. NOWHERE did I endorse grave worshipping. I simply cleared up the outright blatent lie that muslims worship graves. 2.What I said about Malik ad aar is honest. I don’t have a book of ism rijal to translate what the VARIOUS muhaditheen have said about him. I said EVEN if one was to fine fault in him does not invalidate the numerous other proofs which I have presented. The Malik daar narration was only one of many. Typical salafi red-herring. So what about what about the narrations I gave that was absent of him? YOu have not posted anything worth any merit. My arguments is contigent upon Malik Daar. And for the record I think I know about Hadith then you. I am not a blind follower but my resume includes studying at madrasa Abasasi(Azhari mahad) in Cairo Egypt. I also studied at Damascus Uiversity(faculty of literature). I studied Shafi fiqh with Shaykh Qasim al nuri the Imam of Masjif Abdullah bin Rawaha(R) in Meedan. We went over two Shafi fiqh text namely Umdat-ul-salak. And also Tufatul seenia witch is the tahqeeq to the text of Qadi Abi Shajah(R), which Shaykh Qasim personally wrote & annoted. I am a practicing Maliki, I have went over fiqh al muqaran with Shaykh Qasim. I also have studied the risala of Ibn Zaid.(the primer Maliki fiqh text) Whats your credentials?

    In regards to your blunderous statement that “attributing false hadih to the Prophet(S) is tantamount to lieing.” Obviously you know nothing of hadith because if you did then you would know that Imam Shafi(R) said:” What I said in regards to water, and how it changes color and such comes to us through a chain that is not acceptable to the scholarsof hadith, but due to the NECCESSITY none of them (haditheen) has objected to it and used it.” Meaning that despite the fact that the hadiths which he used to give the hukm that water when changes its color or texture is not called “water”(like grape juice, despite the fact that both components are pure) caanot be used for example wudu, the scholars have unamiously applied the hadith. Because daif refers to sanad & not MATN. And so one may have tradition(amal) & no sanad or weak sanad but the MATN is strong based on amal.
    I feel like I’m trying to teach calculous to a kindergarner.
    And I have posted what Ibn Taimiah said about him being sufi.”Of all the sufi orders, the order our OUR SHAYKH ABDUL QADIR JILANI(R) is the highest, I wore the blessed cloak of his and BETWEEN US there is only TWO people.(ibid) What he is talking about? Ibn Taimiah relates NO hadith from Shaykh Abdul Qadir so what is he talking about? Why is he wearing a dead mans cloak? And so what if he did, what relevance is that to anything? It’s obvious you can’t understood arabic or English.Ibn Ata’llah met with & corrected Ibn Taimiah in reagrds to his statement about Ibn Arabi also, too bad you know nothing of that conversation between them inthe Azhar mosque. I think I will translate it & post it.
    Man hadhi mustawal, nannu sawfu natakalaam bil arabi. Rubama anta tastatt’aa an tafhimni. Ishrah li al qawaid ul fiqhia baina madhahab -arba.
    Ok, thats enough spanking the kids for me today, I have a term paper to write. Salaama ala Muhibeen al Rasul!

  31. Ahmizzo says:

    oops arguments are NOT soley based upon malik ar-daar

  32. Ahmizzo says:

    I just couldn’t help myself. I started not to post this but I must.YOu see fellow observers, my brother “unlisted” keeps requesting that I post what the muhaditeen in the books of Ism al rijal have said about Malik Dar. And LIke I said I have no book of ism readily available(most of my books are still in Sham.) I do have numerous citations from hadith scholars such as Ibn Hajar(R) etc on him. BUt bro unlisted is trying to bait with with one of Albani’s doubts concerning the aforementioned narrator. But here is some citations in defence of Malik dar.

    Ibn Hajar ‘Asqalānī on Malik ad-Dar:

    “Malik ibn `Iyad: `Umar’s freedman. He is the one named Malik al-Dar. He has seen the Prophet and has heard narrations from Abu Bakr al-Siddiq. He has narrated from Abu Bakr and `Umar, Mu`adh, and Abu `Ubayda. From him narrated Abu Salih al-Saman and his (Malik’s) two sons `Awn and `Abd Allah…Bukhari in his Tarikh narrated through Abu Salih Dhakwan from Malik al-Dar that `Umar said during the period of drought: “O my Lord, I spare no effort except in what escapes my power!” Ibn Abi Khaythama also narrated it in those words but in a longer hadith:The people suffered a drought during the time of `Umar, whereupon a man came to the grave of the Prophet and said: “O Messenger of Allah, ask Allah for rain for your Community.” The Prophet appeared to him in a dream and told him: “Go, see `Umar and tell him: You will be watered, and: You must put your nose to the grindstone (`alayk al-kaffayn)!” (The man went and told `Umar.) Then `Umar wept and exclaimed: “O my Lord, I spare no effort except in what escapes my power!”We have also narrated in the Fawa’id of Dawud ibn `Amr and al-Dabbi compiled by al-Baghawi in the narration of `Abd al-Rahman ibn Sa`id ibn Yarbu` al-Makhzumi from Malik al-Dar: he said: “`Umar ibn al-Khattab summoned me one day. He had with him a purse of gold containing four hundred dinars. He said: “Take this to Abu `Ubayda,” and he mentioned the rest of the story.Ibn Sa`d mentioned him (Malik al-Dar) in the first layer of the Successors among the people of Madina and said: “He narrated from Abu Bakr and `Umar, and he was known.” Abu `Ubayda said of him: “`Umar put him in charge of the dependents in his household. When `Uthman succeeded him, he put him in charge of financial allotments and he was then named Malik of the House.”Isma`il al-Qadi related from `Ali ibn al-Madini: “Malik al-Dar was `Umar’s treasurer.””

    al-Dhahabi, Ibn Hajar, and Ibn Fahd al-Makki consider him a Sahaba.
    Who was al Dhabi? Ibn Taimiah’s student!!

    Albānī in his book at-Tawassul, ahkāmuhū wa anwa‘uhū observes, “I do not acknowledge it authentic because the credibility and memory of Mālik ad-Dār is not known and these are the two basic criteria for any authentic narrator of traditions. Ibn Abū Hātim Rāzī in Kitāb-ul-jarh wat-ta‘dīl [4/1/213(8:213)], while discussing Mālik ad-Dār, has not mentioned any narrator except Abū Sālih who has accepted any tradition from him, which shows that he is unknown. It is also supported by the fact that Ibn Abū Hātim Rāzī, who himself is a leading figure of Islam and a memorizer of traditions, has not mentioned anyone of them who has pronounced him trustworthy (thiqah). Similarly Mundhirī has remarked that he does not know him while Haythamī in his Majma‘-uz-zawā’id, has supported his observation…”

    But now considerIbn Hibbān has attested to the trustworthiness and credibility of Mālik ad-Dār in Kitāb-uth-thiqāt (5:384).[31]

    Now if Mundhirī and Haythamī insist that they do not know Mālik ad-Dār, it means that they have not asserted anything about his credibility or lack of credibility. However there are traditionists of great repute like Imam Bukhārī, Ibn Sa‘d, ‘Alī bin Madīnī, Ibn Hibbān and Ibn Hajar ‘Asqalānī who know him. Ibn Hajar ‘Asqalānī has even mentioned him in Tahdhīb-ut-tahdhīb (7:226; 8:217).

    It is shocking to learn that Albānī gives weight to the opinion of those who do not know Mālik ad-Dār and prefers them to those who know him. Albānī has discarded the traditions of Mālik bin ‘Iyād who is popularly known by the title “ad-Dār” while the great Companions appointed him as their minister because they relied on his trustworthiness. He was even given the portfolio of finance minister, an office that requires honesty, integrity and a huge sense of responsibility. On the contrary, Albānī gives credence to the traditions of those who enjoyed a much lower status than Mālik ad-Dār. The following examples support my contention:

    1. He has pronounced Yahyā bin ‘Uryān Harawī as hasan (fair) in Silsīlat-ul-ahādīth-is-sahīhah (1:49). His argument is based on the statement made by Khatīb Baghdādī in Tārīkh Baghdad (14:161) in which he declares Yahyā bin ‘Uryān Harawī as a traditionist of Baghdad.

    This statement is quite transparent. Khatīb Baghdādī has argued neither in favour of nor against Yahyā bin ‘Uryān Harawī. His stance is neutral, as he has not tried to establish the stature of his narrations. He has not labelled them as authentic or inauthentic. In spite of his posture of neutrality, it is quite surprising that Albānī has called him fair (hasan).

    2. Abū Sa‘īd Ghifārī has also been pronounced a fair narrator in Silsilat-ul-ahādīth-is-sahīhah (2:298). After stating that he is no longer unknown because two narrators have acknowledged traditions from him, he writes, “So he is a Successor. A group of those who have committed the traditions to memory have verified the authenticity of his traditions. Therefore, ‘Irāqī has declared the traditions attributed to him as authentic (isnāduhū jayyid), and there is no harm in it. This gave me a sense of satisfaction and I felt deeply contented.”

    The question is why has he tried to discriminate between Abū Sa‘īd Ghifārī and Mālik ad-Dār?

    3. Sālih bin Khawwāt has also been pronounced credible in Silsilat-ul-ahādīth-is-sahīhah (2:436) because a group of people has relied on his traditions, and Ibn Hibbān has mentioned him in Kitāb-uth-thiqāt.

    While, according to our research, Ibn Hajar ‘Asqalānī has described him as an acceptable narrator in Taqrīb-ut-tahdhīb (1:359) and has also stated that he belonged to the eighth category of Successors. If an eighth-grade narrator is being described as credible, what justification is there to pronounce a first-grade Successor as un-credible? The discrimination seems to be rooted more in prejudice than reason.

    Therefore, the silence of Ibn Abū Hātim Rāzī is hardly an argument against the unknown stature of Mālik ad-Dār because his silence is based on lack of evidence about the narrator. Thus the absence of evidence and reasoning does not reflect the unknowingness of the narrator, which his silence neither explains nor indicates towards any definite interpretation. On the contrary, it opposes any attempt to establish the unknowingness of the narrator. There are a number of narrators about whom Ibn Abū Hātim Rāzī has remained silent though other scholars have argued about them and the books on tradition and related issues are riddled with similar examples.

    This is a rebuttal of Albani’s blunders by Shaykh Tahir Qadri.
    I didn’t want to bring all of this into the forum as its useless.I don’t the ism of Imam Ahmad, only these citations which should be enough to quite the monster!

  33. Ahmizzo says:

    Ibn Taymiyya on Labeling Muslim Scholars as Unbelievers

    The scholars of Islam cannot be labeled as unbelievers, despite what mistakes they might fall into in their approach or point of view. To authorise ignorant people to label Muslim scholars unbelievers is one of the biggest sins.

    Sunnis agree that the scholars of Islam may not be labelled kafir no matter what mistake they make. You may take what you like from what they said and you may leave what you don’t like. Wahatever you neglect from their discourse and guidance cannot be the basis for labelling them as kafirs and they will not be considered sinners in Allah’s sight for a mistake they did without a bad intention because Allah said: “Our Lord! Do not take us to task if we forget or make a mistake” (2:285)

    And Muslim scholars agreed that no one has the right to label as kafir anyone form the scholars of Islam, even if they are in dissent concerning the infallibility of the prophets.

    And if we are going to begin labeling the scholars of Islam as kafir scholars of Islam for their point of view, we are then going to declare as unbelievers many of the Shafii school, of the Maliki school, of the Hanafi school, of the Ashari school, of the people of Hadith, of the people of tafsir, and of the sufi school, all of which, by the consensus of the scholars of the Muslims, are not unbelievers!”

    [Ibn Taymiyya, Majmua Fatawa Ibn Taymiyya (35:99)]

    The following is an interesting quote from Imam al-Dhahabi’s Siyar a’lam an Nubala (15/88) where he mentions Ibn Taymiyyah giving up his Takfir in his last days:

    وَكَذَا كَانَ شَيْخُنَا ابْنُ تيمِيَّة فِي أَوَاخِرِ أَيَّامه يَقُوْلُ:أَنَا لاَ أَكفر أَحَداً مِنَ الأُمَّة،

  34. Abdul Jabbar says:

    Salafees have such a distinct way of decreasing the iman of EVERYONE….Subhanallah.

    The Salafi Dawah is the biggest scurge to hit the Muslim Ummah in years. The fact that it is sponsored by the “SAUDI” govenrment is enough reason to avoid it like the plague.

  35. S.Umm says:

    We should at least respect the Saudi’s for upholding Mecca and Medina especially the Kabah which we all pray to

  36. Unlissted says:

    daeef jidden sanad isnt used for….amaal or anything and overwhelming amount of muhadiitheen dont use weak hadeeth anyway…..and end of it is the majhool narrator is not accepted in general….What makes a hadeeth a authentic????????? most of the scholars you name do not co-sign for malik ad-daar …so you have no narration which allows to grave worship…..it is not a practice of the prophet or the sahabas!!!!!!!! yey or ney gives you allownace for a text….loool..quite the contrary Shaykhul islam Ibn Taymeeyah labeled the leaders of the deviant sects kufaar….So once again you have no statement saying Shaykhul islam was a soofee….and Ibn taymeeyah refuted the mushrik ibn arabi in his book “the friends of Alaah and the friends of shaytaan……So bring us a chain of narration of ibn taymeeyah making taraajee-aa(returning on the position) where his books bayan saying ibn arabee wasnt a mushrik?????????? The info about malik daar isnt translated so stop thinking you know arabic…you arrogant bagl !!!!!!!!!!!! I’ll make dua for you “anta adallu min heemar ahlihi” …You are more astray then a jackass from his owners!!!!!!!!!!!!Unlissted2007

  37. Unlissted says:

    abdul jabbar so who should we not avoid…imam worped deen mohamed who married his daughter to a kafir??????????

  38. Ahmizzo says:

    I’m done here. I think I have proven everything I set out to without a shadow of a doubt wth proof text. There is nothing more than can be said as unlisted obviously can’t read. He says that “most of the hadith scholars don’t sign off on Malik daar,” so I gues al of the muhaditheen I quoted like IBn Hajar(etc) are not hadith scholars. And you are right I have no hadith which leglistats grave worship, because Muslims don’t worshipt graves, and tawwaul is not grave worship. Any unbiased mind who reads what I have posted can see that. With that I am gone. Ma salaama

  39. Ahmizzo says:

    Don’t argue with fools, people from a distance can’t tell who is who

  40. Ahmizzo says:

    Ibn Kathir cites it thus from Bayhaqi in al-Bidaya wa al-nihaya and says: isnaduhu sahih;[25] Ibn Abi Shayba cites it in his Musannaf with a sound (sahih) chain as confirmed by Ibn Hajar who says: rawa Ibn Abi Shayba bi isnadin sahih and cites the hadith in Fath al-bari.[26] He identifies Malik al-Dar as `Umar’s treasurer (khazin `umar) and says that the man who visited and saw the Prophet in his dream is identified as the Companion Bilal ibn al-Harith, and he counts this hadith among the reasons for Bukhari’s naming of the chapter “The people’s request to their leader for rain if they suffer drought.” He also mentions it in al-Isaba, where he says that Ibn Abi Khaythama cited it.[27]”

    What follows is the original Arabic wording of this hadith of tawassul in Umar ibn al Khattab’s time as cited by various major scholars of Hadith:

    From the Musannaf (12/31-32) of ibn Abi Shayba (d. 235 AH)

    مُصَنَّفُ ابْنِ أَبِي شَيْبَةَ >> كِتَابُ الْفَضَائِلِ >> مَا ذُكِرَ فِي فَضْلِ عُمَرَ بْنِ الْخَطَّابِ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ >>
    يَا رَبِّ لَا آلُو إِلَّا مَا عَجَزْتُ عَنْهُ *

    31380 حدثنا أبو معاوية ، عن الأعمش ، عن أبي صالح ، عن مالك الدار ، قال : وكان خازن عمر على الطعام ، قال : أصاب الناس قحط في زمن عمر ، فجاء رجل إلى قبر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال : يا رسول الله ، استسق لأمتك فإنهم قد هلكوا ، فأتى الرجل في المنام فقيل له : ” ائت عمر فأقرئه السلام ، وأخبره أنكم مستقيمون وقل له : عليك الكيس ، عليك الكيس ” ، فأتى عمر فأخبره فبكى عمر ثم قال : يا رب لا آلو إلا ما عجزت عنه *

    From Imam al-Bayhaqi’s Dala’il al-Nubuwwa (7/47)

    دَلَائِلُ النُّبُوَّةِ لِلْبَيْهَقِيِّ >> جُمَّاعُ أَبْوَابِ غَزْوَةِ تَبُوكَ >> جُمَّاعُ أَبْوَابِ مَنْ رَأَى فِي مَنَامِهِ شَيْئًا مِنْ آثَارِ نُبُوَّةِ مُحَمَّدٍ >> بَابُ مَا جَاءَ فِي رُؤْيَةِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فِي >>
    مَا آلُو إِلَّا مَا عَجَزْتُ عَنْهُ *

    2974 أخبرنا أبو نصر بن قتادة ، وأبو بكر الفارسي قالا : أخبرنا أبو عمرو بن مطر ، أخبرنا أبو بكر بن علي الذهلي ، أخبرنا يحيى ، أخبرنا أبو معاوية ، عن الأعمش ، عن أبي صالح ، عن مالك قال : أصاب الناس قحط في زمان عمر بن الخطاب ؛ فجاء رجل إلى قبر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال : يا رسول الله , استسق الله لأمتك فإنهم قد هلكوا ؛ فأتاه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في المنام ؛ فقال ائت عمر فأقرئه السلام ، وأخبره أنكم مسقون . وقل له : عليك الكيس الكيس . فأتى الرجل عمر ، فأخبره ، فبكى عمر ثم قال : يا رب ما آلو إلا ما عجزت عنه *

    From al-Irshad fi Ma’rifa Ulama al-Hadith of Hafiz al-Khalili (1/313-314)

    الْإِرْشَادُ فِي مَعْرِفَةِ عُلَمَاءِ الْحَدِيثِ لِلْخَلِيلِيِّ >>
    مَالِكُ الدَّارِ

    مالك الدار مولى عمر بن الخطاب الرعاء عنه : تابعي , قديم , متفق عليه , أثنى عليه التابعون , وليس بكثير الرواية , روى عن أبي بكر الصديق , وعمر , وقد انتسب ولده إلى جبلان ناحية . حدثني محمد بن أحمد بن عبدوس المزكي أبو بكر النيسابوري , حدثنا عبد الله بن محمد بن الحسن الشرقي , حدثنا محمد بن عبد الوهاب قال : قلت لعلي بن عثام العامري الكوفي : لم سمي مالك الدار ؟ فقال : الداري المتطيب . حدثنا محمد بن الحسن بن الفتح , حدثنا عبد الله بن محمد البغوي , حدثنا أبو خيثمة , حدثنا محمد بن خازم الضرير , حدثنا الأعمش , عن أبي صالح , عن مالك الدار ، قال : أصاب الناس قحط في زمان عمر بن الخطاب , فجاء رجل إلى قبر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال : يا نبي الله , استسق الله لأمتك فرأى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم في المنام فقال : ” ائت عمر , فأقرئه السلام , وقل له : إنكم مسقون , فعليك بالكيس الكيس ” . قال : فبكى عمر , وقال : يا رب , ما آلو إلا ما عجزت عنه يقال : إن أبا صالح سمع مالك الدار هذا الحديث , والباقون أرسلوه

    Imam Ibn Kathir in al Bidaya wal Nihaya (7/106)

    وقال الحافظ أبو بكر البيهقي: أخبرنا أبو نصر بن قتادة، وأبو بكر الفارسي قالا: حدثنا أبو عمر بن مطر، حدثنا إبراهيم بن علي الذهلي، حدثنا يحيى بن يحيى، حدثنا أبو معاوية، عن الأعمش، عن أبي صالح، عن مالك قال: أصاب الناس قحط في زمن عمر بن الخطاب، فجاء رجل إلى قبر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم.
    فقال: يا رسول الله استسق الله لأمتك فإنهم قد هلكوا.
    فأتاه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في المنام فقال: إيت عمر، فأقرئه مني السلام، وأخبرهم أنه مسقون، وقل له عليك بالكيس الكيس.
    فأتى الرجل فأخبر عمر، فقال: يا رب ما آلوا إلا ما عجزت عنه.وهذا إسناد صحيح.

    Shaykh al-Islam al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani in al-Isaba fi Tamyiz al-Sahaba (3/484) :

    الإصابة – لابن حجر

    8362[ص:274] مالك بن عياض مولى عمر هو الذي يقال له مالك الدار له إدراك وسمع من أبي بكر الصديق وروى عن الشيخين ومعاذ وأبي عبيدة روى عنه أبو صالح السمان وابناه عون وعبدالله ابنا مالك وأخرج البخاري في التاريخ من طريق أبي صالح ذكوان عن مالك الدار أن عمر قال في قحوط المطر يا رب لا آلو إلا ما عجزت عنه وأخرجه بن أبي خيثمة من هذا الوجه مطولا قال أصاب الناس قحط في زمن عمر فجاء رجل إلى قبر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال يا رسول الله استسق الله لأمتك فأتاه النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم في المنام فقال له ائت عمر فقل له إنكم مستسقون فعليك الكفين قال فبكى عمر وقال يا رب ما آلوا إلا ما عجزت عنه وروينا في فوائد داود بن عمرو الضبي جمع البغوي من طريق عبدالرحمن بن سعيد بن يربوع المخزومي عن مالك الدار قال دعاني عمر بن الخطاب يوما فإذا عنده صرة من ذهب فيها أربعمائة دينار فقال اذهب بهذه إلى أبي عبيدة فذكر قصته وذكر بن سعد في الطبقة الأولى من التابعين في أهل المدينة قال روى عن أبي بكر وعمر وكان معروفا وقال أبو عبيدة ولاه عمر كيلة عيال عمر فلما قدم عثمان ولاه القسم فسمى مالك الدار وقال إسماعيل القاضي عن علي بن المديني كان مالك الدار خازنا لعمر.

    Hafiz ibn Hajar in Fath al Bari (2/495)

    وروى ابن أبي شيبة بإسناد صحيح من رواية أبي صالح السمان عن مالك الداري – وكان خازن عمر – قال ” أصاب الناس قحط في زمن عمر فجاء رجل إلى قبر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال: يا رسول الله استسق لأمتك فإنهم قد هلكوا، فأتى الرجل في المنام فقيل له: ائت عمر ” الحديث.
    وقد روى سيف في الفتوح أن الذي رأى المنام المذكور هو بلال بن الحارث المزني أحد الصحابة، وظهر بهذا كله مناسبة الترجمة لأصل هذه القصة أيضا والله الموفق.

    Imam ibn Abdal Barr in al-Isti’ab (2/464) under the biography of Umar ibn al Khattab (ra) said:

    وروى أبو معاوية عن الأعمش عن أبي صالح عن مالك الدار قال‏:‏ أصاب الناس قحط في زمن عمر فجاء رجل إلى قبر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال‏:‏ يا رسول الله استسق لأمتك فإنهم قد هلكوا‏.‏

    “Note: All of these Imams narrated it and not one of them weakened it let alone said it leads to Shirk as some of the innovators of this age claimed!

    In fact Imam ibn Hajar and Imam ibn Kathir explicitly declared its Isnad to be Sahih. Ibn Kathir in his recently published: Jami al-Masanid (1/223) – Musnad Umar – declared it as: “Isnaduhu Jayyid Qawi: ITS CHAIN OF TRANSMISSION IS GOOD AND STRONG!”

  41. unlissted says:

    Malik Ad Dar is Majhool, meaning his memory is not known, and there is no tawtheeq ( decaring thiqqah trustworthy) from Imam of Jarh wa Ta’deel.

    And Hafiz Ibn Hajar and Ibn Katheer are not from people of Jarh and Ta’deel, they do only report narrations from Salaf and judge according to them, if they do not quote tawtheeq of Malik Dar, then even if they were to declare this hadeeth saheeh, then there words are not taken into accounts without proves and witness from eraly generations. ….Unlissted read the whole condition of the majhool malik–ad-daaar whoever he is.??????????????loool

  42. unlissted says:

    See what the deep problem is your cutting and pasting and truly dont understand mustalah hadith…..This is and issue of principles of what makes ahadeeth authentic….and criticism of a narrator…..and all you can do is cut and JUST paste statements of scholars of hadeeth…….You silly soofees blind follow in everything…..

  43. unlissted says:

    hanaan

    Joined: 22 Dec 2004
    Posts: 67

    PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 4:39 pm Post subject: Reply with quote

    >>>>Ibn Saad said
    ” ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab’s freedman. He narrated from Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. He was known.” Ibn Sa’d, Tabaqat (5:12).

    Abu Ya’la al-Khalil said
    “He is agreed upon (as trustworthy), the Successors have approved highly of him.” Abu Ya’la al-Khalil ibn ‘Abd Allah al-Khalili al-Qazwini, Kitab al-Irshad fi Ma’rifat ‘Ulama’ al-Hadith, ed. Muhammad Sa’id ibn ‘Umar Idris, 1st ed., 3 vols. (Riyad : Maktabat al-Rushd, 1989), as quoted in ‘Abd Allah al-Ghumari, Irgham al-Mubtadi’ al-Ghabi bi Jawaz al-Tawassul bi al-Nabi, ed. Hasan ‘Ali al-Saqqaf, 2nd ed. (Amman: Dar al-Imam al-Nawawi, 1992 p. 9).

    Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani said
    “Malik ibn ‘Iyad: ‘Umar’s freedman. He is the one named Malik al-Dar. He has seen the Prophet and has heard narrations from Abu Bakr al-Siddiq. He has narrated from Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, Mu’adh, and Abu ‘Ubayda. From him narrated Abu Salih al-Saman and his (Malik’s) two sons ‘Awn and ‘Abd Allah…” (Ibn Hajar, al-Isaba, chapter of Malik ibn ‘Iyad)

    Imam Ibn Hibban said
    “Ibn Hibbân has attested to the trustworthiness and credibility of Mâlik ad-Dâr in Kitâb-uth-thiqât (5:384)
    Salaam Alaikum>>>>>>>>

    I was breifly able to look up some of the references you quoted.

    Firstly Ibn Hibban’s listing him in his work does not really mean much, as any student of hadeeth knows (and this is a problem when we discuss such narrations in so great a detail, since the one who doesn’t have a background in hadeeth typically gets very confused.) Ibn Hibban had an opinion that was rejected by pretty much all of the muhadithoon, which was, “If we don’t know anything about him, we should assume he’s OK.” This does not work for the narrators of hadeeth: we need people mentioning that so-and-so is a reliable narrator. So if Ibn Hibban lists a person in his work, unless he quotes someone else as saying he was reliable, it really doesn’t meen anaything.

    Secondly, there appears to be an ikhtilaf on whether Malik saw the Prophet or not. If he saw him that would make him a Companion, and in that case there would be no question as to his authenticity as a narrator. Ibn Sa’ad, a primary authority on this issue, lists him as a tabi’ee, and also states that he hardly narrated anything.
    Ibn Hajr, however, in his al-Isaabah, claims that he saw the Prophet at least once, even though he did not narrate anything from him. Unfortunately he does not list the sources or early authorites who claimed that Malik saw the Prophet.

    Thirdly, there are some authorities who claimed that Malik is an acceptable narrator, including al-Khalili in his work Mashaheer Ulamaa al-Amsaar. However, al-Khalili, with all due respect to him, is not a major authority on names of narrators; unlike, say, al-Bukhair himself, or Ibn Abi Hatim. Both of these authorites, who were two centuries earlier than al-Khalili, considered Malik to be unknown. Likewise, Ibn Sa’ad, although a good historian, is once again not one whose narrations (much less verdicts on other narrators) are a complete authority. Therefore, it is not very academic to ignore what the earlier and more authoritative figures had to say about Malik, and take what later, lesser authors said.

    Fourthly, the story itself has been narrated in numerous ways. al-Bukhari himself, and others (such as Abd ar-Razzaq) make no mention whatsoever of any man going to the grave. Other sources (and this is the one that Ibn Hajr quotes) mention Malik as narrating some uknown man as having gone to the grave. And Sayf ibn Umar narrates that this man was none other than Bilal ibn Rabah.

    Fifthly, al-Khalili, who himself narrates this story (the ‘Ibn Hajr’ version; vol 1/ p. 316) mentions that one narrator narrated it from Malik, whereas the rest did not mention their source (i.e., they narrated it in mursal form). Therefore those who wish to take al-Khalili’s verdict on Malik should also take his verdict on the hadeeth, for he himself is alluding to its weakness.

    Sixthly, even on the supposition that this narration is authentic, again please refer to what both Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Baaz said: that it would not be an evidence for us to use. Even if an uknown person did this act, it contradicts the direct commands of the Prophet (saw) himself of taking his grave as a place of worship (and of course du’aa is the essence of worship). Additionaly the fact that the Companions were alive during this time, and none of the famous Companions ever did such an act, is enough proof that it is not recommended.

    Lastly, why is it that certain groups are so desirious of promoting such controversial opinions, and never spend their time correcting the blatant shirk that occurs in our countries? Instead of searching up obscure works in order to try to justify controversial opinions and refute the people of tawheed, wouldn’t it be more productive to teach the masses that only Allah is worthy of worship? But then again, the sad fact of the matter is that many of these very people are themselves not so sure of this

  44. unlissted says:

    Abu Alqama

    Joined: 13 May 2002
    Posts: 1303
    Location: France

    PostPosted: Tue May 09, 2006 9:33 am Post subject: Reply with quote
    salam aleykum

    Imam Khalili obviously did not meet tabieen, so we should look at isnad from people he quotes declaring Malik Ad Dar thiqah, as people of jarh and ta’deel quote isnad of people who have met the narrators.

    Then Mutafaqun ALey should be look wether it is being ‘adil or thiqah, as for people praising him, then like Alim, Allamah, Faqih, Abid, this is not tawtheeq, people praised his religion or declared him to be thiqah in narrating ?

    Also there are other points that shaykh Albani and others mentionned, if this narration was ever to be saheeh, no Sahabi did approve of the action of this unknown man who went to the grave of the Prophet saw, and this man might be an ignorant A’rabi, and nowhere it is told the Prophet saw heard what he said, and in dream Prophet saw would have told him to ask Umar to do Salah Istisqa, so Prophet saw did not say I will make istishfa for you, I will ask rain for you, and telling him to go to Umar is the greatest daleel that one should not ask the Prophet saw, else a Prophet would never ask to do istishfa with one of his companion instead of coming to him ….

    Even the matn of the hadeeth is against the Quburi, but they only read the man coming to the grave, they do not reflect on the answer of the Prophet saw.

    Allah might have by miracle inform the Prophet saw about the action of this jahil man, and correct him by making him see the Prophet saw.

    this is the same as hadith of Muslim, what greater daleel than Umar turning away from istishfa from the Prophet’s grave and asking Abbas to do Salatul Istisqa, and using past tense for the first one and present for Abbas, and it is impossible for a Sahabi to turn to another Sahabi instead of Prophet saw.

    Do these people reflect ?

    The isnad is majhool, the matn is telling to do istisqa with alive, the behaviour of Sahabah tells they did tawassul with alive, the Salaf, Tabieen, Fuqahah there is no word of istishfa from grave as said by Mahmood Aloosi

    then what are these people except having sickness and deviation in heart, leaving what is established and going for what is doubtful

    May Allag cure the Ummah from grave worship

    La Hawla wala Quwwat

  45. Ahmizzo says:

    I have tried to post an actual photocopy of Malik Iyad and others listing Malik Dar as a sahabi, but I guess it didn’t work, for anyone(besided unlisted) who is interest I can provide it for them.

    Hafiz Sham-ud-din-al-Dhabi(d.748 AH)

    Title page:

    Actual scanned page with Malik al-Dar being listed as a Sahabi:

    Malik ibn Iyad in Mukhtasar Asma al-Sahaba of Imam Taqiud-Din Ibn Fahd al-Makki (d. 871 AH)

    Sidi Abul Hasan goes on to mention:

    The fact that these 3 well known scholars: al-Dhahabi, Ibn Hajar and Ibn Fahd listed Malik al-Dar in specific works mentioning those they considered to be noble Sahaba is a proof against those contemporaries who deem Malik al-Dar to be unknown! Such Imams must have surely possessed some definitive evidence to list Malik al-Dar as a Sahabi.

    It may also be mentioned that since Ibn Kathir (the contemporary of al-Dhahabi) declared the Malik al-Dar narration to be authentic, then he too must have considered Malik to be at least Thiqa (trustworthy), if not a Sahabi.

    Sidi Abul Hasan also mentioned HERE (slight editing by me) regarding the following statement of al-Albani :

    “Thirdly: Even if the story were authentic there would still be no proof in it for them since the man (i.e. who came to the grave) in the story is himself not named, and therefore unknown. The fact that he is named as Bilaal ibn al-Haarith in the narration of Sayf is worthless since Sayf is Sayf ibn ‘Umar at-Tameemee, and the scholars of hadeeth are agreed that he is weak. Indeed Ibn Hibbaan says about him: ‘He reports fabricated things from reliable narrators, and they say that he used to fabricate hadeeth.'”

    …..the narration has a Sahih Isnad as: Ibn Hajar and before him: Ibn Kathir explicitly declared in 2 different books.

    Thirdly, the narration with Isnads back to Malik al-Dar are found in Bayhaqi’s Dala’il al-Nubuwwa and collected before him by Ibn Abi Khaythama and Ibn Abi Shayba as we know. It was also collected with its Isnad by Abu Ya’la al-Khalili in his Irshad. Not one of these Imams of Hadith questioned the text or isnad for its authenticity or it being a route to shirk as the Wahhabi’s think!

    Without Isnad, it was mentioned in shorter forms by: Ibn Abdal Barr in his al-Isti’ab and al-Bukhari in his Ta’rikh al-Kabir (under Malik al-Dar) – these two Imams didn’t attack his narration in any form.

    Fourthly, Sayf ibn Umar – no doubt he was problematic – BUT, Imam ibn Hajar al-Asqalani in his Taqreeb al-Tahdhib (no. 2724) said that he was “Da’eef fil Hadith Umda fil Ta’rikh…” Meaning: “Weak in Hadith, a PILLAR in HISTORY..”

    Hence: Since the narration from Malik al-Dar is not a Hadith but an Athar (report) from a Tabi’i – this would be regarded as a Historical report from the time of Umar (ra) – This is why Ibn Hajar accepted it, and I have just been looking a little bit deeper into this and have noted that Sayf’s narration – naming explicitly the fact that the Sahabi who went to the blessed Qabr – Bilal ibn Harith al-Muzani, was also mentioned by these famous Historians and well regarded Muhaddithin:

    Ibn Kathir in his al-Bidaya
    Ibn al-Athir al-Jazari in his al-Kamil fi al Ta’rikh
    Abu Ja’far al-Tabari in his Ta’rikh(see under the year 18 AH)

  46. unlissted says:

    BismIllahi Ir Rahman Ir Raheem,

    In Muwatta of Imam Malik, there is a hadith : “ Allah do not make my grave an idol that is worshiped, Allah’s anger is intensified on people who take graves of their prophets as Masajid ( place of worship and Sajdah).”

    Muhammad Rafeeq Al Athari mentioned in his sharh of Muwatta :

    “ Ibn Abdil Barr said : The idol ( Wathan) is the Statue ( Sanam) and it is the Surah from gold or from silver or anything else from tamtheel ( forms) and all that is worshiped besides Allah is an idol ( wathan), whether it is a Sanam ( statue) or other, and arabs did pray in front of statues and worshiped them and the Prophet saw feared for his Ummah that they do what some people of previous generations did, when a Prophet died they stayed ( ‘akafoo) next to his grave as done for an idol, then the Prophet saw said until end of hadith” ( Tamheed v 5 p 45)

    So for Ibn Abdil Barr wuqoof of early generations ( Jews and Christians) at their Prophets graves is the reason for the Prophet forbidding to turn his grave as an idol. So one should not make wuqqof and itikaf on it as one does to an idol.

    So this hadeeth and others forbidding making the Prophet’s grave an place of Idd from Abu Dawood are all clear in forbidding wuqoof and I’tikaf next to Prophet saw ‘s grave, so if ever istisfa to the Prophet’s grave was legislated, then why would wuqoof and I’tikaf be forbidden ? And it is not hidden that Woqoof is required for istishfa. If istishfa was recommended, then one should remain there all day, asking the Prophet saw to invoke Allah for him, does one not like to talk to the Prophet saw if he was able to listen ?

    So these hadeeth clearly deny any kind of the Prophet saw hearing from his grave, and any kind of istishfa there, it only came from Salaf like ibn Umar giving Salam on grave of Prophet saw and nothing else. And how can this istishfa, if it was to be legislated, and it would be a great worship, not to be mentioned in great books of hadith and in all books of fiqh written by Salaf ( Umm, Muwatta, Mudawanah…)

    As for hadeeth the Prophet saw hearing people who pray salam for him close to his grave, then it is fabricated.

    Shaykh Albani said in his Silsilah Da’eefah n 203 : “ One who prays for me at my grave, I hear him, and one who prays far, an angel is appointed and he brings it to me, and his matters of this world and Akhirah are being enough, and I am witness or intercessor for him”

    Fabricated with this complet form, reported by Ibn Sam’oon in “Amali” ( 2/193/2), Khateeb in his Tareekh ( 3/291-292), Ibn ‘Asakir ( 16/70/2) from the way of Muhammad ibn Marwan from Al A’mash from Abi Salih from Abi Hurayrah marfoo’an ( from the Prophet saw).

    And the first part is reported by Abu Bakr Al Khallad in his Juzz Thanni from his hadeeth ( 2/115), Abu Hashim Silaqi in what he selected from ibn Bishraway ( 1/6) and ‘Uqayli in “ Dua’afa” ( 4/136-137) and Bayhaqi in his “ Sha’b” ( 2/218)

    And ‘Uqayli said : “ This has no basis from hadeeth of Al A’mash, and it is not mahfooz ( preserved), and nobody follwed him except being less than him, meaning this ibn Marwan”

    Then Khateeb narrated with his isnad from Abdallah ibn Qutaybah saying : I asked ibn Numayr about this hadeeth and he said : “ leave this, Muhammad ibn Marwan, he is nothing ( laysa bi shayin)”

    I say : and from its way, ibn Jawzi quoted it in his Mawdoo’at ( 1/303) from the narration of ‘Uqayli and then he said : “ This is not saheeh, Muhammad ibn Marwan, he is As Sudi As Sagheer, liar, ‘uqayli said : there is no basis to this hadeeth”

    And Suyuti criticized that in “Alaliu” ( 1/283) with his words : “ I say : Bayhaqi reported it in Sha’bul Iman from this way and he brought shawaid for that”

    I say : Then Suyuti mentioned them, and some of them are saheeh as his saw saying : “ Allah has appointed angels wandering on the earth, they bring the salam from my Ummah” amd his saw saying : “ And there is nobody who prays on me…end of hadeeth” and they have been mentioned close to this ( p 362). And they are all witnessing to the hadeeth in general. As for the distinction ( tafseel) that is in it, that one who prays at his saw grave, then he hears him, there is nothing witnessing to that, as for second part, then Suyuti did not mentioned one hadeeth witnessing it.

    Yes Suyuti said : “ Then I found a follower ( Mutabi’) to Muhammad ibn Marwan from Al A’mash, it has been reported by Abu Shaykh in his “ Thawab” : Ader Rahman ibn Ahmad Al A’raj narrated us : Hassan ibn Sabbah narrated us : Abu Mu’awiah narrated us from Al A’mash of that”

    I say : and the narrators of this isnad are all well known thiqat, except this Al A’raj, and the evident is that he is the one Abu Shaykh mentioned in his “ Tabaqat Al Asbahanieen” ( p 342/463) and he said : “ Abder Rahman ibn Ahmad Az Zuhri Abu Salih Al A’raj” and he reported two hadeeth from him, and he did not mention any jarh nor ta’deel, then he is majhool ( unknown)…end of shaykh Albani’s words

    So this hadeeth is reported by a liar Muhammad ibn Marwan, and he is only followed by Al A’raj about which Abu Shaykh did not mention any ta’deel, so he is majhool.

    These are the kinds of narrations brought by Subkee and others from Quburiyeen, having liars and unknown men, and there religion of Istishfa and others is more fragile than the spider’s web, it has no hadeeth in saheehayn, nor any in Sunan saheeh, nothing except these ahadeeth narrated in lowest level of hadeeth books, and with such narrators.

    They are leaving saheeh ahadeeth no making grave of Prophet saw a place of worship, a place of Idd, an idol worshipped, Umar turning away from Istishfa of Prophet saw’s grave for Abbas, and all Sahabah were witness to that and nobody disagreed with Umar, so it is an Ijma Sukuti, and there is no saheeh narration of Sahabah, nor any fiqhi narration from any Imam about this innovation, so how muqalidoon can claim to do these actions.

    May Allah protect us from innovations and cancer of Quburiyah

  47. unlissted says:

    Bis Millahi Ir Rahman Ir Raheem

    Malik Ad Dar is Majhool, meaning his memory is not known, and there is no tawtheeq ( decaring thiqqah trustworthy) from Imam of Jarh wa Ta’deel.

    And Hafiz Ibn Hajar and Ibn Katheer are not from people of Jarh and Ta’deel, they do only report narrations from Salaf and judge according to them, if they do not quote tawtheeq of Malik Dar, then even if they were to declare this hadeeth saheeh, then there words are not taken into accounts without proves and witness from eraly generations.

    So the one who wants to show this hadeeth is saheeh should bring statements from Imam of jarh and Ta’deel like Ibn Ma’een, Ali ibnul Madini, Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Hateem, Abu Zur’ah and others.

    If someone in our century where to declare someone thiqqah, people would ask him witnesses or not ? From where can he know that except from mutaqadimeen ?

    Mutakhroun declaring someone thiqah that no Salaf declared thiqqah, is this not a big joke ?

    Yet some Quburi brought the tawtheeq of Ibn Hibban of Malik Ad Dar, but it is well-known for any beginner in the knowledge of Hadeeth that Ibn Hibban does tawtheeq of Unknown ( majhool) narrators he does not know, who they are nor their fathers.

    Shaykh Albani quoted in the introduction of “Tamam Ul Minah fi Taliq ala fiqhi Sunnah”, p 21 quoting from Ibn Hajar in Lisan :

    “ Hafiz said : I say : and towards this went Ibn Hibban, that when the Jahalah of Ayn of a person is finished, then he is upon ‘Adalah ( trustworthy) until his jarh ( criticism) is proven, and this is a strange Madhab, and Jumhoor ( majority) are opposing this, and this is the methodology of Ibn Hibban in “ Kitab Thiqat” ( book of trustworthy narrators) that he composed, and he mentions in it people that Abu Hatim and others have certified to be Majhool ( unknown), as if for Ibn Hibban the Jahalah of Ayn is finished with narration of one Mashoor ( narrator), and this is the madhab of his shaykh Ibn Khuzaymah, but the Jahalah of Hal is going on for others” end of Hafiz’s words

    ( Jahalatul Ayn is when only one narrator narrates from this Majhool unknown person, and there is no tawtheeq of him, and Jahalatul Hal is when two or more narrate from this unknown person, that nobody declared thiqqah, see Tayseer Mustalah ul Hadeeth of Abder Raheem Tahan al Hanafi.)

    (Shaykh Albani said after quoting Hafiz ): “And from strange matters is that Ibn Hibban entered in this mentioned book ( Kitab Thiqat) based on this rejected rule a group of people he mentioned about them : “ I do not know them, nor their fathers”

    He said in third tabaqah : “ Sahl, he narrates from Shaddad inul Hadi, and Abu Ya’fur reports from him, and I do not know him, and I do not know who is father is”

    And whoever wants more examples then he should have a look at “ Sarim Al Munki” p 92-93”

    Shaykh Albani further said : “ This is why we find the muhaqiqoon from Muhaditheen as Dhahabi and Asqalani and others, they do not do tawtheeq of whom Ibn Hibban is only to do tawtheeq…”

    Shaykh Albani added : “ And in conclusion, the Jahalah of Ayn only is not a jarh for Ibn Hibban, and my belief grew on this when I studied the narrators of his book “ Du’afa” ( compilation of weak narrators), and their number reached approximately 1400 narrators, and I did not see him criticizing them with Jahalah ( being unknown), except for four of them, but he weakened them for narrating manakeer and not because of their Jahalah ( being unknown)”

    Shaykh Albani mentioned the four, but I only mention two

    1) Humayd ibn Ali ibnm Haroon Al Qaysi, he mentioned ( 1/263-264) some munkar narrations of him and said : “ It is not permissible to ake prove from him after his mentioning similar things from thiqqah people…

    2) Abdallah ibn Abi Laylah Al Ansari, he said ( 2/5) : “ This man is unknown, and I do not know him narrating except this munkar word that the consensus of Muslim witness to be for sure as Batil”….

    4) Abu Zayd, He said ( 3/ 158) : “ Abu Zayd, narrates from Ibn Masood from what is not followed, and it is not known who he is, nor his father is known nor his country, and when the man is with this description, and he narrates only one narration and he opposes in it the Book and the Sunnah and Ijma and Qias, and Nathar and Ray deserve avoiding him and not takinf daleel from him”

    ( Munkar is when a weak narrator opposes saheeh narrations, see Tayseer )

    So Ibn Hibban did not say these narrators are weak because of being majhool only, but because of opposing saheeh narrations, else telling they were majhool would be enough, yet he mentioned them opposing Book and Sunnah and Ijma, what a greater daleel that majhool is not a jarh for him.

    So the matter is clear, when Ibn Hibban mentioned many narrators in his kitab Thiqqah and said I do not know them nor their fathers, so it is clear that he makes tawtheeq of unknown narrators.

    And Hafiz Ibn Abdel Hadi criticized Subkee for his mentioning some hadeeth in his Shifa Saqeem with only tawtheeq of ibn Hibban, and he showed so many examples from Kitab Thiqqah, so these kind of people know that the house they are building is like the house of spider, it is build on people who are not known, nor their fathers…fabricated religion…

    What a belief, what a religion, based on Thann ( doubt) and Thann does not bring anything to truth.

    These people could not find anything from Sihah Sittah ( Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawood, Tirmidhi, Nassai, ibn Majah) for Istishafa and fadail of visiting the Prophet’s grave so they turned to lowest levels of book of hadeeth, with unknown, weak and liars….

    And scholars of Salaf not acting on this weak narrations is the greatest prove that these narrations are weak.

    Now Al Habashi and other Quburi went on to try to prove that Mali Ad Dar was thiqah, as Umar entrusted him with protection of baytul Mal, and every ignorant man knows that someone having poor memory can be a good guardian, a great worshiper and Faqih, and being guardian of wealth is not a statement of Ta’deel.

    Shaykh Bakr Abu Zayd said in his risalah “ Tahreefu Nusus” exposing Abu Ghuddah Al Kawthari and others for tahreef, when Abu Guddah quoted some words of Thahabi in Tazkiratul Hufaz under tarjamah of Qasim Al Asbagh p 854 that Al Harthi Al Hanafi author of Musnad Abi Haneefah was a muhadith, Imam, Alim, Allamah and other kind of these words, but Abu Ghuddah left all what Thahabi said about him in Mezan v 2 p 269, in which he quotes muhadith declaring him weak and even fabricating.

    So why did Abu Ghuddah left clear words of Thahabi and easy to find and took some references to Harthi in tarjamah of Asbagh, in which there is no word of tawtheeq, and shaykh Abu Zayd said that words of Alim, Muhadith, Imam and Allamah are not words of tawtheeq, as a great muhadith can be accused of many things.

    And he gave example of Zafar Ahmad Thanvi Ad Deobandi, who said in his “Qawaid fi Ulumil Hadeeth” p 413: “ He said about narrator Asim ibn Abi Najood : Bazar said that he does not know anybody who left his hadeeth, although he was not a Hafiz, I say ( Zafar Thanvi) : Hifz is not a condition of hadith being Saheeh” end of his words

    So being Hafiz is not condition. In the same way being Imam, Allamah, Alim is never tawtheeq as one can have ikhtilat, being sou al Hifz, being a mudalis, can have some innovations, can lye for his madhab…

    As for Abu Ghuddah, then his aim was to deceive people taking words of Dhahabi that are not tadeel, and leaving his quoting scholars declaring him weak and to fabricate. These people have only one aim : straightening their madhab, for them all muhadith are stupid, only Ahnaf are intelligent, and Muhadith are doing Thulm on Ahnaf, only Ahnaf have fairness, as for others, we do not take into consideration their words, as if Muhadith were not fearing Allah, only Ahnaf were. These people do not trust Dhahabi and others, so they do not take their words opposing their madhab.

    Al Hamdulilah, Muhadith have made strict rules, and they do not accept narrations of faqih, worshipers, Alim, Allamah if their memory is not known. The religion is a serious matter, so it should have pillars grounded and firm, and not like the house of spider which vanishes with a little wind.

    As for this man who did istishfa being Bilal, and the Quburi saying the narrator is accepted in tarikh, and this is tarikh, then insha Allah I will answer it, showing that things done by Sahabi in matters of worship is for majority in hukm of Marfoo’s, as it is difficult to do ijtihad in matters of worship, so this man being a Sahabi has same ruling as marfoo hadith and not tarikhi narrations like this war happened this year and so many people were killed. Whatever is regarding fiqh is never History.

    Insha Alllah I will quote deobandi like Ahmad Hussein Madni and others criticizing Mawdoodi for his relying on Tarikhi narrations to criticize Sahabah, as well as deobandi rejecting narrations of Ibn Ishaq saying only tarikh is accepted from him, and not hadeeth, so this is why Dr Khalid Mahmood weakened the hadith of Abu Dawood narrated by IBn Ishaq that at time of Prophet saw, Abu Bakr and Umar, Azan on Friday was given at door of Masjid, and Dr Mahmood weakened it, while things happening at time of Abu Bakr and Umar can also be told to be tarikh, but as one extracts ruling from it, then people who are only reliable in tarikh, no fiqh can be extracted from their narrations. As these kinds of ijtihad from Sahabah in worship have ruling of marfoo’ and are hujjah for most madhaib.

    Really, the matter is becoming a joke, a man doing istishfa is being told a narration of tarikh, while they have only this to establish their innovations in fiqh. We cannot rely on this narrator in hadith, but we can establish religious rulings from it, and it is well known that actions of Sahabi are Hujjah for Madhaib, but this action being from an unknown tabii, then it changes all.

    Deobandi also in their risalah say that Jumu’ah is not wajib in villages, and they rely on saying of Ali, saying that this kind of saying cannot come from Ijtihad, while there are other saying of Ibn Umar, as well as saheeh hadeeth that at time of Prophet saw people from Bahrayn, being a village, were praying Jumu’ah and Allah did not sent wahy to stop that, so it is like Taqriri Sunnah, while Ahnaf like Ibn Humam, Ayni and others say Prophet saw was not aware of that.

    So the hadith of Malik Dar is weak, and that mentioning it was Bilal is worse, and it is never a tarikhi narration, as rulings are established from this man being a Sahabi.

    Quburi know in themselves that they do not have any saheeh narration for their innovations, until Anwar Shah Kashmiri agreed he did not see Muhadith allowing istifadah from dead…

    If it was allowed, then it would be amongst greatest actions, coming mutawatir, while in contrary to this we see saheeh narrations opposing wuqoof on graves, staying there,

    Insha Allah I will quote Ibn Abil Barr’s comment on the saheeh hadeeth from Muwatta in which Prophet saw invoked Allah not to make his grave an idol worshiped, and Ibn Abdil Barr taking daleel from it that one should not do wuqoof at graves of Prophet saw.

    While if Istishfa was recommended, Prophet saw would have say : Allah make my grave a place of Idd, a place where people stay, ask me shafa’ah….

    Quburi people are turning away from saheeh hadeeth, and basing on weak narrations, turning away from Salaf of this Ummah blindlyu following their whims and misguided kashf of their sooofi leaders

    May Allah protect us from cancer of grave worship

  48. Ahmizzo says:

    Hey unlisted obviously you didn’t read my post, I already dealt with Albani’s mistakenly saying Malik dar was unknown. And for the record I don’t cut & paste, this may come as a shock to you but I actually did the reaserch on the topic. along with Sidi Abul Hasan. I do have all the arguments on file. Khalil Moore also helped with the actual translating and obtaing the phtopcopies of the text. Lool.

  49. Ahmizzo says:

    ok, thats it I’m gone Ma Salaama!

  50. unlissted says:

    MAY ALLAH PROTECTS US FROM THE GRAVE WORSHIPPERS…..REPENT AHMISSO YOU ARE DEFINATELY GUITLY TO CALLING TO GRAVEWORSHIPPING AND WHATEVER ACTIONS YOU HAVE DONE AND TO CALLING OTHERS TO GRAVEWORSHIPPING!!!!!!!!UNLISSTED2007 PUTS THE.NAIL IN THE COFFIN……REPENT NOW SO THAT YOU DONT DIE ON THIS AND STAND IN FRONT OF YOUR LORD WITH THE MAJOR SIN OF SHIRK AND THE SINS OF THE COUNTLESS FOOLS WHO SAW THIS POST AND THEN BELIEVED AND STARTED TO WORSHIP GRAVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!..YA SUBHANNALAAH QUBUUREEYOON…..

  51. Ahmizzo says:

    Allahumma Salli ala Sayyidna Muhammad wa ala aalihi wa salaam!

    About the author:
    My name is Ahmad ibn Abdullah Idris Mubarak. I am a 27 year old afro-american male, who took interest in this particular board as I feel that the so called ” salafi dawa” has done immeasurable damage not only to the muslim world at large but the Afro-american community in particular. I have alot of sympathy for afro-american would be salafis who just don’t know, and out of love for their creator and fear of displeasing Him may fall prey to this most poisonous idealogy. I once studied with some of the “brass” of the salafi dawa. I remember my days in Egypt going to Ayn Shams to listen to Usamah Qusi, who was one of Shaykh Muqbil’s students. He has since been “kicked off the dawa,” in a recent salafi purge that happens every couple of years. I remember myself labeling fellow believers as “quboori’s” ect with no fear or falling into the people who Allah’s messenger (SAW) warned against when he (SAW) said:” seebabu muslim fasuq wa qatalhu kufr.”(Bukhari, Muslim) To malign a Muslim is disobediance and to fight him is disbelief.

    I remember the day when I actually sat down with one of my fellow students from Azhar and he by Allah’s mercy removed the veil of insecurity and malignment of my fellow brethern and exposed me to the true aqida of Ahl Sunna. But first I had to accept whats called the “mutual fallibility” appraoch, meaning I had to first recognize that I don’t know anything and that there is a possibility that I had it wrong and was willing to see other view points, and amend my own if I was found to be in error. Ibn Hazm(May Allah pardon him) spoke of this when he said:” When giving naseeha never make it a condition that the person whom you are talking to accepts it, because then you become an oppressor and moreover you could be wrong.” This maxim is a pre-condition before giving a fatwa according to all of the four classical schools. The maxim goes ” we are right with the possibility of being wrong, and those who disagree are wrong with the possibility of being of being right.” So for thousands of years Islamic scholarship has been very accomadating to various view points.
    The problem with the salafi movement is that is is extreme at its core, and its adherents refuse to even consider others opinions and evidences. I fine example has been of our brother unlisted who half read what I was saying and accused me & the scholars such as the 4 Imams and all those who followed in their wake of graveworshipping. Despite what I quoted, anyone who reads what I posted surely cannot come to the conclusion that I or none of the rightious Imams whom I quoted are guilty of worshipping a grave! But this insidious insult has been dealt with already, the issue is dead itself, but we as americans who are infants in Islam fall victim to age old disputes that have long been settled in the muslim world. We are used as pawns to the whims and fancies of everyone who wishes to mislead us. And we waste our time(myslef included) on these silly forums calling each others names when the enemies of Islam are sitting back laughing at us and destroying us from within. I sincerely believe that the salafi/wahabi movement is a meticulously calculated movement that was set up to destroy Islam from withn. If one reads the atrocites that the followers of Muhammad ibnAbdul Wahab inflicted on the people of Makka, Medina and Taif it will bring the most ardentd soul to tears. Shaykh Ahmad Zain Dahlani who was the Shafi mufti of Makkah at the time that the wahabis assaluted Makkah wrote a book entitled “Fitnautul Wahabiya” or the Wahaban Menace which documented the atrocities which they committed against the muslims whom they called “grave worshippers.” I can recall one account of when some wahabi men broke into the home of a citizen and held a new born baby up in the air by its limbs and said “shirk o shaq”? o means or and shaq means to rip apart. They starved the people of Taif into submission by not allowing food or water into the city. The people had to resort ot eating dogs. They then massacred over 500 Yemeni pilgrims and sold their women into slavery. All because the wahabis said that these believers in ” La ilaha ill Allah” had become mushriks. Shaykh Dahlani also recorded how the wahabis were defeated in argumentation so they returned back to Nejd and began their assault. Eventually allahmdulillah they were defeated by Muhammad Ali Basha of Egypt, their leader was tooken to Istanbul, put on trial and executed. He was not allowed a muslim burial. The reason is that because he said that the people whom they killed in the Haramein Sharifein were not muslims but mushriks. So his belief that the people of the kalima were not muslims abrogated his Islam. And here we see the same sickness taking place. I ask this question, has the salfi/wahabis ever did anything to non-muslims besides 9-11? All of their jihads and assacults have been against the muslims. Not one time did I call to “graveworshipping” and my brother accuse me of major shirk and telling me that I should repent as if he is Alllah. Despite the sound pristine arguments which I used trying to clear up a misunderstaning for a fellow brother.

    It is this sickness which makes progress or reconciliation with those like minded people close to impossible. Notice how unlisted red-herred the argument by focusing all of his attention on one single narration out of many which I posted defending my position. He was cornered and clawed his way out by turning the argument to some flawed argument that Nasirudeen Albani held. Remember I myslef posted Albani’s contentions before he did & I answered them. I quoted countless quotes from Ibn Taimia and others proving my points. And alll he does is name call & ridicule. This is the pathalogy of the salafi dawa. Who else behaves in this manner besides them? And as I said earlier, its not a case that the aqida of the salafis can be kept while their actions being refined because it is their aqida which compels them to behave in such a way. Because their aqida is predicated on the belief that all non-salafis are not true muslims or are inherently flawed and they must beat people into submission, whether its through publishing flawed books such a s Dar-us-salaam etc or through sheer carnage and bloodshed and we all have witnessed. And to Allah we consign our affairs!

  52. UNLISSTED says:

    BY POSTING A ATHAR WHICH CALLS TO MAKING SHAFA A IS CALLING TO GRAVEWORSHIPPING….SHAFA A IS WORSHIP…..THE SOOFESS AND THEIR CALL IS NOTHING BUT DECEPTION AND LIES…. TRYING TO ..CALL TO GRAVEWORSHIPPING WHAT DO CALL WHEN SOMEONE GOES TO A GRAVE AND ASKS FOR SHAFAA A.????? YA AHMISSO…REPENT TO YOUR LORD YOU ARE UPON KUFR AL AKBAAR….SOMETHJING ALLAH WONT FORGIVE IF NOT REPENTED BEFORE YOU DIE!!!!!!!!!!YA AHMISSO……..REPENT FROM CALLING TO GRAVE WORSHIP AND SLANDERING THE SCHOLARS OF ISLAM ….

  53. UNLISSTED says:

    WE DONT NEED TO HEAR A FEW TESTIMONIES FROM MORE MAJHOOL…WE DONT KNOW THE PERSON YOUR POSTING ABOUT AS THE SAME WITH MALIK AD-DAAR …YA AHMISSO DONT TWIST THE HADETH :SEEBABU MUSLIM FUSUQ…….IN REGARDS TO DEBASEMENT….THE SALAF WOULD DO THIS TO CALLERS OF DEVIANCE LIKE YOU…YA AHMISSO REPENT FROM CALLING TO GRAVEWORSHIP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  54. Questioner says:

    Ahmizzo,

    You’ve been to Egypt so you know very well that many people call directly on the people of the graves.

    Many say, “Yaa Folaan, cure my son” or “Ya Fulaan, help me”

    People put money in the graves, kiss them, and seek baraka from them.

    There are forms of legitimate tawassul that don’t contain any shirk at all. So, let’s be honest. This type of seeking of an intermediary by some Shaykh or saint has been completely misunderstood and has led the people to the obvious shirk we see today. Should I post pictures here?

    Look at the many du’as mentioned in the Qur’an. It doesn’t even make logical sense to ask from other than Allah directly.

    Allah says what translates:

    “And when My slaves ask you (O Muhammad) concerning Me, then (answer them), I am indeed near. I respond to the invocations of the supplicant when he calls on Me (without any mediator or intercessor). So let them obey Me and believe in Me, so that they may be led aright. (Al-Baqarah 2:186)”

    and

    “And your Lord said: “Invoke Me, I will respond to your (invocation). Verily! Those who scorn My worship they will surely enter Hell in humiliation!” (Ghafir 40:60)

    Why should we feel the need to call on anyone other than Allah?

    “You alone do we worship, and from You alone we seek assistance.” (Al-Fatihah: 5)

    I think we both agree that saying, “O fulaan increase my wealth” is shirk. This is clearly calling upon others than Allah. Any Folaan, dead or alive doesn’t have the ability to help you in that.

    As Allah said, what translates:

    “And who is more astray than one who calls (invokes) besides Allâh, such as will not answer him till the Day of Resurrection, and who are (even) unaware of their calls (invocations) to them?” (Al-Ahqaf 46:5)

    If you want to call Al Badawi, Hussien, and Ad Daghestanee min doonillah then that’s on you. Just remember what Allah says (what translates):

    “Worship Allâh and join none with Him in worship” (An-Nisa 4:36)

    and

    “Verily, Allâh forgives not that partners should be set up with him in worship, but He forgives except that (anything else) to whom He pleases, and whoever sets up partners with Allâh in worship, he has indeed invented a tremendous sin.” (An-Nisa 4:48)

    and

    “Verily, whosoever sets up partners in worship with Allâh, then Allâh has forbidden Paradise for him, and the Fire will be his abode. And for the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong­doers) there are no helpers.” (Al-Ma’idah 5:72)

    and the speech of of the Prophet, Salla Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam:

    “And whomever dies and he was calling upon a rival beside Allah enters the the fire.” Narrated by Al Bukhaaree, Kitab-ut Tafseer

    and

    ” Whomever meets Allah not ascribing partners to him enters paradise, and whomever meets Allah ascribing partners to Him enters the fire.” Narrated by Imaam Muslim in the book of Emaan

    As far as calling on Allah alone being some form of shirk as mentioned in your post, then I ask you: Are you serious? How can you philosophize that one? As if the one who doesn’t call on Badawi is wrong for not doing so. The evidences you mentioned from the Qur’an point to the fact that it is permissible and encouraged to ask others to make du’a for you and for others to make du’a for their brothers. What does this have to do with calling on a dead person for something they can’t do for you in the first place. “O fulaan cure my sickness” this is shirk. And who goes to the doctor for the doctor to cure them anyway?

    You go to the doctor for him to examine you so you can find out what sickness you have. Then you are prescribed a medicine. Allah has made a cure for every disease, so what’s the issue?

    How does your doctor example relate to asking someone dead or alive to do something they have no power to do aslaan? “O fulaaan make it rain..” ‘autho billah. Many of the people at the graves and even in their homes are calling upon these saints directly. So let’s be real about the situation. Don’t make it seem like everyone is asking Allah by saying, “Oh Allah give me this or that by the righteousness of fulaan.” That is misleading.

    Shaykh Muhammad Abdil Wahhab was talking about people calling on the angels, the prophets, and the righteous directly. Asking them to solve their problems due to their closeness to Allah. This is what the mushrikun of Mecca did when they called on Al-Laat, for example. Al Laat was a man who used to feed the pilgrims when they came to Mecca. So, when he died they began to call on him due to his perceived righteousness. Did the Meccans not believe in Allah?

    As Allah, Ta’ala says, (what translates):

    Say: “To whom belongs the earth and whosoever is therein? If you know!”

    They will say: “It is Allâh’s!”

    Say: “Will you not then remember?”

    Say: “Who is (the) Lord of the seven heavens, and (the) Lord of the Great Throne?”

    They will say: “Allâh.”

    Say: “Will you not then fear Allâh.”

    Say “In Whose Hand is the sovereignty of everything? And He protects (all), while against Whom there is no protector, if you know.”

    They will say: “(All that belongs) to Allâh.”

    Say: “How then are you deceived and turn away from the truth?” (Al-Mu’minun 23:84-89)

    If you agree with me in this issue then you have no problem with what Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abdil Wahhab said about it.

    We didn’t even discuss the weird athkaar many Sufis do. You want us to start spinning in circles and saying hu, hu? Let’s keep it simple and follow the Sunnah without innovation.

    HAtha wal Humdulillah…

  55. Observer says:

    Good point…

  56. Ahmizzo:

    Imam Ibn Al-Jawzi rahimahulah, though being a great authority in fiqh is not accepted in `aqidah. The `aqidah of Abul Ya`la is the accepted `aqidah in the madhhab. The hanbali `aqidah is the `aqidah of the Salaf and no the Khalaf. The `aqidah of the Khalaf is not more safer as some of the Ash`aris have stated. Anthopomorphism is far away from the Salafi `aqidah as is the other extreme of denying and explaining away attributes of Allah.

    Khalil Al-Puerto Rikani

  57. Ibrahim says:

    This is a problem in itself.
    Simpletons who feel that they are versed and learned enough to define the boundaries of our deen singlehandedly on some cyber platform. The lack of humility and self realisation to admit that no one here is a scholar is a great detrement indeed, we sometimes find that the emptiest barrels make the most noise. Who gave you ijaza to discuss such intricate and fundamental points of this vast ocean? why do you stimulate and feed your own egos by trying to quote arabic sources of which you will be lucky to even scratch the source of its true meaning, why do you feel it is your burden of responsability to classify polymaths who have authored volumes on specific specialised topics more than centuries ago, what makes you think that you have an iota benefit to add to these mountains?

    this is the problem with modern day “pious” people, each one thinks he is the key to unlimited knowledge, so blinded by your own narrow and static rigid viewpoint that you cannot turn your little necks to one side and see what else is surrounding that book or that piece of history.

    We have lost all sense of humility and sincerity on our dealings to such a point that any Joe bloggs out there can jump on a computer and begin critiquing the works of genius from centuries old, and if that were not enough they have to add a bit of socio-politics to the mix and all this without ever leaving your tightly knit exclusive-elitist entourage, never having actually traversed the boundaries of your local masjids and your homoginistic social circles, which of you has been to Saudi and lived as a saudi, which of you carries a degree in politics and the history of sociology, which of you has mastered arabia before boastfully insulting and ridiculing somebody else’s understanding of the language? which of you can admit that you are a simple nobody who expands a lot and exagerates much of the very “little” information you may have been fortunate to scrounge upon from the online sites and colourful leaflets at some conference on z y and z.

    We must learn to know what our limits are for any learning without thinking is wasted labour and any thinking without learning is a catastrophe. And the best reminder comes in Surah Yusuf “Wa fawka kulli dhi ilmin aleem” which translates roughly as “And above every learned one is one more learned”…and i am not ashamed to admit that i do not even know the gramatical elements and particles that went into formulating this one line, but thats where humility ends and where insanity and self love differentiate the “pious” from the “pathetic”.

    Salam.

    ps. cut out on the verbal sewage, it does not help to make any of your points more convincing nor does it comply to the tennets of the deen that you are all so apparently “knowledgable” on.

  58. Ibrahim says:

    Ps…oh yeah

    in case someone wants to prove me wrong by claiming to be;

    a) A scholar
    b) The student of a Scholar
    c) An academic with the mentioned credentials [politics degree etc]
    d) Someone who has mastered grammar etc etc
    e) Someone who’s uncle’s barber’s son’s sister in law once met a scholar

    then i would say, if any of the above applies to you [yea, even point E] then that makes you even more pathetic because that implies you should;

    a) know better than to engage in such levels of detail with other “scholars” on this site
    b) you should be conversing in the right arena with the right etiquettes, but i guess you knew that too
    c) you resemble a grown man amid children in the playground.

    repect yourself.

  59. […] that has, with the exception of Imam W.D. Mohammed’s community and the notorious Salafi movement, completely dominated Muslim discourse in the United States for at least the past 25 or 30 year . […]

  60. […] that has, with the exception of Imam W.D. Mohammed’s community and the notorious Salafi movement, completely dominated Muslim discourse in the United States for at least the past 25 or 30 years . […]

  61. Abu Zahra says:

    The lies of Mr Unlisted (who needs to learn how to write pure English) and his master – Abu Alqama – over the issue of the narration from Malik al-Dar have been refuted in some 75 pages here:

    http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?mietm2ylza2

    One may also see within the file how al-Albani himself authenticated another narration via Malik al-Dar!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s