The website alalbany.org is the official page of the Imam Al-Albani Center for Studies and Research, dedicated to the work and legacy of Shaykh Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani, a prominent Islamic scholar known for his contributions to hadith studies. The site offers resources on al-Albani’s works, scholarly articles, research, and educational programs related to Islamic knowledge. It includes publications, lectures, and answers to Islamic jurisprudence questions, as well as general information about the center’s objectives and activities.
Fatwa 73 listed on that cite (https://www.alalbany.org/fatwa-73) provides reasoning as to why a particular hadith was considered Da’if (weak) by those scholars. To address the reasoning presented in Fatwa 73 on alalbany.org, which deems a particular hadith weak (da’if), we will analyze each point raised in the ruling. This fatwa questions the authenticity of the hadith regarding a man seeking intercession at the Prophet Muhammad’s grave, citing issues like narrator reliability, potential ambiguities, and methodological concerns.
The following refutation will rigorously dissect the arguments presented in Fatwa 73, revealing that their shirk-endorsing hadith still possesses validity using their own methodology, despite the scholars’ stated concerns. It is crucial to scrutinize this fatwa not only to highlight the manipulative tendencies of these scholars in employing their man-made hadith sciences to achieve a predetermined outcome, but also to expose their biases.
The scholars hastily label the hadith as weak, primarily due to its implication of shirk, yet they conveniently neglect the broader implications of the narration itself. Their reasoning appears superficial, relying on perceived defects in the chain of transmission or other methodological concerns as mere pretexts to discredit the hadith. This reveals a tendency to prioritize theological convenience over objective analysis. Their predetermined dismissal of this hadith stems from a deep-rooted apprehension of its potential to challenge the rigid boundaries of their interpretations of monotheism.
In this context, we will systematically dissect each of the reasons they propose for deeming the hadith weak. We will counter these claims with a robust application of their own methodological principles. This exercise is not merely to authenticate the hadith, but to expose the inherent weaknesses and subjectivity of their analytical framework. Their approach is so fraught with inconsistency that it paradoxically allows for the authentication of a narration that could implicate companions in acts deemed as shirk.
This analysis underscores a critical failure within certain scholarly circles: the inability to engage with the complexities of hadith interpretation without resorting to dogmatic conclusions that undermine the integrity of their own methods. By illuminating these discrepancies, we reveal the extent to which subjective biases can distort the practice of hadith sciences, and we call into question the legitimacy of their scholarly authority when addressing fundamental issues of faith and practice.
The Hadith in Question
Ibn Kathir mentioned in his Tarikh (7/105): “The hadith scholar Abu Bakr al-Bayhaqi narrated: Abu Nasr ibn Qatada and Abu Bakr al-Farisi both narrated from Abu Umar ibn Matar, who narrated from Ibrahim ibn Ali al-Dhahli, who narrated from Yahya ibn Yahya, who narrated from Abu Mu’awiya, from al-A’mash, from Abu Salih, from Malik who said:
There was a drought during the time of Umar ibn al-Khattab, so a man went to the grave of the Prophet (ﷺ) and said: ‘O Messenger of God, ask God for rain for your community, for they are perishing.’ The Prophet (ﷺ) then came to the man in a dream and told him: ‘Go to Umar, convey my greetings to him, and inform him that you will be granted rain. Tell him to be wise, wise!’ The man went and told Umar, who responded: ‘O my Lord, I will only spare no effort.’” Ibn Kathir commented, “This chain is authentic,” confirming its authenticity.
Al-Albani Foundation’s Attempt to Weaken It (arabic & english translation)
السؤال :ما صحة الحديث الذي رواه البيهقي في «دلائل النبوّة»: «أنَّ قحطاً أصاب الناس في زمان عمر، فجاء رجل! قبر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال: يا رسول الله! استسق الله لأمتك فإنهم قد هلكوا، فأتاه الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم في المنام فقال: ائت عمر فاقرأه السلام، وأخبره أنهم مسقون، وقل له: عليك الكيس، عليك الكيس، فأتى الرجل عمر-رضي الله عنه- فأخبره فبكى، وقال: يا رب، ما آلو إلا ما عجزت عنه»، قال ابن كثير في «البداية»: «إسناده صحيح، وروى مثله ابن أبي شيبة»، وقال ابن حجر: في «فتح الباري» (2/415) «إسناده صحيح».
وإن صح هذا الحديث هل هو يدل على جواز التوسل بالأموات؟ وجزاكم الله خيراً.
Question:
What is the authenticity of the hadith narrated by al-Bayhaqi in Dala’il al-Nubuwwah: “During Umar’s time, a drought struck the people, and a man came to the grave of the Prophet (ﷺ) and said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, ask Allah for rain for your community, for they are perishing.’ Then the Prophet (ﷺ) came to him in a dream and said: ‘Go to Umar, convey my greetings to him, and inform him that they will be given rain. Tell him to act wisely, wisely!’ The man came to Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) and informed him, whereupon he wept and said: ‘O Lord, I am doing my best.’” Ibn Kathir stated in Al-Bidayah: “Its chain is authentic; Ibn Abi Shaybah also reported it similarly.” Ibn Hajar stated in Fath al-Bari (2/415): “Its chain is authentic.”
If this hadith is indeed authentic, does it indicate the permissibility of seeking intercession through the deceased? May Allah reward you.
الجواب :1- هذا الأثر لا يصحُّ؛ لجهالة مالك الدار؛ فلم يُوثِّقه إلا ابن حبان، ولم يرو عنه ثقات الحفَّاظ(*).
2- وأمَّا دعوى أنَّ الحافظ ابن حجر صحَّح سنده: فليست دقيقة؛ ذلكم أنَّ لفظَه -رحمه الله-: «روى ابن أبي شيبة بإسناد صحيح من رواية أبي صالح السمان عن مالك الدار…»!
فهذا منه تصحيحٌ للسند إلى الموضع المذكور، دون تمامه، وهي طريقةٌ معلومة عنه وعن غيره من الحفَّاظ.
3- إنَّ السنّة الصحيحة المتوارثة عند القحط، وانقطاع المطر: استحباب إقامة صلاة الاستسقاء كما ورد بالأسانيد الصحيحة عن عُمر وغيره من الصحابة.
4- ولوصح السند كلُّهُ -مع كونه لم يصح-: فالحجَّة لا تقومُ بخبر مجهولٍ لا يُعرف!! فمن هذا الرجل الذي جاء إلى القبر؟ وما منزلته؟ وما مكانته؟! و…و…
ويُراجع كتاب «التوسل أنواعه وأحكامه» (ص130-134) لشيخنا الإمام الألباني -رحمه الله- ففيه تفصيلٌ مفيدٌ جداً.
Answer:
- This narration is not authentic due to the unknown status of Malik al-Dar, who was only authenticated by Ibn Hibban. Reliable hadith scholars did not consider him trustworthy (*).
- As for the claim that Hafiz Ibn Hajar authenticated its chain, this is inaccurate. His exact words were: “Ibn Abi Shaybah narrated with an authentic chain from Abu Salih al-Saman, on the authority of Malik al-Dar…” This indicates that Ibn Hajar only authenticated the chain up to this point, not in its entirety, which is a well-known method used by him and other hadith scholars.
- The established Sunnah in cases of drought or a lack of rain is the recommendation to perform Salat al-Istisqa (the prayer for rain), as authentically reported from Umar and other Companions.
- Even if the entire chain were authentic (though it is not), such a report from an unknown individual does not establish conclusive evidence. Who was this man who went to the grave? What was his rank or status?
For further details, refer to Al-Tawassul: Its Types and Rulings (p. 130–134) by our Sheikh, Imam al-Albani (may Allah have mercy on him), where a comprehensive analysis is provided.
The HadithCritic Refutation
1. Reliability of Malik al-Dar’s Narration
The critique questions Malik al-Dar’s reliability, suggesting his authentication relies solely on Ibn Hibban and that he is otherwise untrustworthy. This assessment, however, is both incomplete and inconsistent:
- Ibn Hajar’s Explicit Authentication: In Fath al-Bari, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani explicitly labels this narration as having an authentic chain (إسناده صحيح), which includes Malik al-Dar. If Ibn Hajar saw any issue with Malik’s reliability, he would have noted it here, as is common practice in hadith analysis.
- Broader Scholarly Support: Other scholars besides Ibn Hibban, such as Ibn Abi Shaybah in his al-Musannaf, and historians like Ibn Kathir in al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya, accept Malik al-Dar’s narration. Al-Khalili, another rigorous hadith scholar, also noted Malik as an established follower (Tabi‘i). This breadth of support highlights a consensus that Malik al-Dar was credible.
- A List of Scholars that Authenticated the Report, Ironically not addressed by Al-Albani Foundation: Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī, Ibn al-Ramlī, Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, Muḥibb al-Dīn al-Ṭabarī, al-Qasṭallānī, Ibn ʿAsākir, al-Suyūṭī, al-Dhahabī, al-Samhūdī, al-Zarqānī, Abū Yaʿlā al-Khalīlī, Ibn Mandhūr, Ibn ʿAllān.
Malik’s Historical Role: Malik al-Dar served as a treasurer for Umar ibn al-Khattab, a position that required high trust and integrity. This status further affirms his credibility, as both early scholars and historical records portray him as a reliable figure in Umar’s administration, rather than someone whose reports are suspect.
Regarding Malik al-Dar, as Hafiz Ibn Hajar noted in Al-Isabah, part six, under the letter “M,” he said: “Malik ibn ‘Iyad, the freed slave of Umar, known as Malik al-Dar, reached maturity, heard from Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, and narrated from Abu Bakr, Umar, Mu’adh, and Abu Ubaydah. Abu Salih al-Saman and his two sons Awn and Abdullah also narrated from him.”
In Fath al-Bari (vol. 2, Book of Friday Prayer), Hafiz Ibn Hajar commented on this hadith: “Ibn Abi Shaybah narrated with an authentic chain from Abu Salih al-Saman on the authority of Malik al-Dar, who was Umar’s custodian, that there was a drought during Umar’s time. A man came to the Prophet’s grave and said: ‘O Messenger of God, seek rain for your nation.’ The man was then visited in a dream and told to approach Umar.” Seif narrated in Al-Futuh that Bilal ibn al-Harith al-Muzani, a Companion, was the one who saw this dream.
2. The Claim that Ibn Hajar’s Authentication is Partial
The ‘Fatwa’ implies that Ibn Hajar’s endorsement of the hadith only applies “up to Malik al-Dar” and not to the entire chain, thereby casting doubt on the hadith’s authenticity. However, this interpretation is flawed & deceitful:
- No Indication of Partial Authentication: Ibn Hajar simply states that the narration’s isnad (chain) is authentic. He does not specify a limit on the authentication or suggest that his endorsement is partial. Had he seen an issue with Malik al-Dar or any part of the chain after Malik, he would likely have stated this, given the rigorous standards he follows in Fath al-Bari.
- Ibn Hajar’s Practice of Explicit Limitation: In cases where Ibn Hajar considers only part of a chain authentic, he typically notes this explicitly. Here, his unqualified endorsement of the chain indicates that he views the entire chain, including Malik al-Dar’s part, as reliable
For those reading this without proper knowledge of their flawed Hadith methodology, the claim essentially is that Ibn Hajar did not authenticate the ‘whole chain’, but rather authenticated it up until a certain point. They derive this when Ibn Hajar states:
“Ibn Abi Shaybah narrated with an authentic chain from Abu Salih al-Saman, on the authority of Malik al-Dar…“
The reason as to why this is ridiculous and deceitful is because they explicitly want Ibn Hajar to say “Ibn Abi Shaybah narrated with an authentic chain from Abu Salih al-Saman, to Malik al-Dar…” thus they want to argue Malik wasn’t explicitly considered reliable by Ibn Hajar. All they would need to do to determine if Malik al-Dar was considered a trustworthy narrator, is to consult Ibn Hajar’s Al-Isabah, part six, under the letter “M,” where he explains who Malik Al-Dar is and why Ibn Hajar accepts him as a narrator (as mentioned in refuting the first point).
3. Practice of the Sahaba and the Issue of Intercession During Drought
The refutation argues that during droughts, the Sahaba followed the established practice of salat al-istisqa’ (prayer for rain), rather than visiting graves to seek intercession. However, this does not negate the permissibility or authenticity of Malik al-Dar’s narration:
- Diversity in Methods of Seeking Divine Help: The Hadith corpus indicates that Umar and the Sahaba used various means during times of drought, such as seeking intercession through Al-‘Abbas, the Prophet’s uncle. The Malik al-Dar narration adds another valid example, where the man sought intercession directly through the Prophet after his passing. Umar’s acceptance and emotional response to this act show that this was not seen as problematic or un-Islamic by him or the early community.
- No Recorded Objection from Umar: Umar’s reaction to the man’s dream of the Prophet reassures us of the act’s acceptability. He weeps and accepts the dream as a sign rather than rebuking or instructing against it. This response, coupled with the lack of recorded criticism, suggests that the early Muslims considered such actions within the bounds of their faith.
4. Questioning the Man’s Identity in the Narration
The fourth point argues that because the narration does not specify the identity of the man who visited the Prophet’s grave, the hadith is unreliable. However, this reasoning does not hold for several reasons:
- Focus on Reliability of the Narrator, Not Identity of the Visitor: In hadith methodology, what matters is the reliability of the chain of narrators, not necessarily the detailed identity of each character within the narrative itself. Here, we have a sound chain from credible narrators, including Malik al-Dar, Abu Salih al-Saman, and others who are recognized by scholars.
- Parallels with Accepted Narrations: There are multiple authentic hadiths where a character is not fully identified, yet the narration is still accepted if the chain is sound. Classical hadith scholars evaluate narrations primarily by the credibility of their chain, not the incidental details of the individuals within the story. (example: The man who killed 99 men in Sahih al-Bukhari 3470, The Bedouin that urinated in a mosque in Sahih al-Bukhari 6128, The man who recited Surat al-Kahf in Sahih al-Bukhari 5011, and many more)
- Endorsement by Major Hadith Compilers and Scholars: The fact that scholars such as Ibn Hajar and Ibn Kathir, known for their expertise, accepted this hadith as authentic without raising the issue of the man’s identity further weakens the critique. This absence of identity does not affect the hadith’s theological or practical implications regarding intercession, as the early community and scholars did not view it as problematic.
The Authenticated Shirk
The hadith in question, which suggests seeking intercession at the grave of the Prophet Muhammad, can be considered shirk, as supported by various Quranic verses, including [5:109]. This verse presents a powerful scene on the Day of Judgment when God questions the messengers about their communities’ responses to their messages. They reply, “We have no knowledge. You are the Knower of all secrets.” This highlights a critical principle: the messengers possess no knowledge of the unseen, including the affairs of their followers after their passing. Thus, relying on the dead for intercession directly contradicts the Quran’s assertion of God’s exclusive knowledge and power.
The Quran emphasizes that only God possesses knowledge of the unseen and the ability to intercede. The messengers themselves admit their lack of knowledge regarding their communities’ actions. This admission underscores that turning to the Prophet or any deceased figure for intercession diminishes God’s unique authority and omniscience, aligning with the concept of shirk. Other verses, such as 2:254 and 72:20-21, further elucidate that no intercession can occur without God’s permission. By seeking intercession from the Prophet’s grave, individuals are implicitly suggesting that he holds power over matters reserved for God alone, an act clearly categorized as shirk. Furthermore, the Quran affirms that the dead are unaware of the happenings in the world. [23:99-100] illustrates this point by indicating that upon death, individuals enter a state where they cannot respond to the living. This further substantiates the argument that seeking intercession from the dead is futile and misguiding, as they do not possess the awareness or capability to assist.
[72:20-21] Say, “I worship only my Lord; I never set up any idols besides Him.” Say, “I possess no power to harm you, nor to guide you.”
[23:99-100] When death comes to one of them, he says, “My Lord, send me back. “I will then work righteousness in everything I left.” Not true. This is a false claim that he makes. A barrier will separate his soul from this world until resurrection.
A ‘Science’ Based on Motivated Reasoning & Adherence to Old Traditions
In examining al-Albani’s foundational fatwa, it becomes evident that it served as a strategic maneuver to undermine a hadith that explicitly endorses practices deemed as shirk. This particular fatwa not only highlights inconsistencies in their own methodology but also showcases how scholars manipulate the rules of hadith sciences to arrive at a predetermined conclusion—namely, the discrediting of this hadith due to its theological implications. The scrutiny of the man’s identity in the narration, as raised in point 4 of al-Albani’s fatwa, is particularly revealing. Such a criterion is not consistently applied across hadith literature; Sahih al-Bukhari, for example, contains numerous narrations involving anonymous figures yet remains unchallenged in its authenticity. This selective application of standards is evidence for their lack of objectivity in their scholarship.
By employing arbitrary criteria, scholars like al-Albani and others create an environment where they can selectively weaken narrations that conflict with their theological stances. Their actions reflect a broader trend among hadith scholars who, when confronted with narrations that highlight practices of shirk or otherwise challenge orthodox beliefs, are quick to manipulate the rules to suit their needs. This pattern of behavior underscores the subjectivity inherent in their methodologies, revealing a system that bends to accommodate ideological preferences rather than adhere strictly to the principles of hadith authenticity.
