Kedustaan Muhammad bin 'Alawi Al-Maliki

The answer to Muhammad ibn 'Alawi Al-Maliki is based and adapted from words of Shaykh Salih Al Shaykh from his book “Hazihi Mafahimuna” (These are our notions)



Lies and deception about the narration of Adam doing Tawassul by the Prophet (saw)



Muhammad ibn ‘Alawi Al-Maliki wrote in “Notions that must be corrected” p 85-86, Engl. Trans.:



“There is a Hadith stating that Adam performed tawassul through the Prophet A. AI-Hakim said in his Mustadrak "... on the authority of 'Umar: 'When Adam committed his mistake he said: '0 my Lord! I am asking you to forgive me by the right of Muhammad.' Allah said: '0 Adam! How do you know about Muhammad whom I have not yet created?' Adam replied, '0 my Lord! After You created me with Your Hand and breathed into me of Your Spirit, I raised my head and saw written on the heights of the Throne: La Ilaha Illa Allah Muhammad Rasul Allah.



I understood that You would not place next to Your Name any but the Most Beloved one of Your creation.' Allah said: '0 Adam! I have forgiven you, and were it not for Muhammad, I would not have created you.' "



This was reported by al-Hakim in his Mustadrak who authenticated it, Hafiz al-Suyuti in his Khasais who authenticated it, and al-Bayhaqi in DaIail al-Nubuwwa – who did not narrate fabricated reports as he mentioned in his introduction. It was also authenticated by al-Qastalani and al-Zurqani in his al-Mawahib al-Ladunniyya, and al-Subki in Shjfa’-Siqam. Hafiz al-Haythami says: "It was narrated by al-Tabarani in al-Awsat and it contains one whom I do not know.”” End of Al-Maliki’s words



Answer:



Firstly, this is not reported by As-Suyuti as he did not narrate with his own Isnad, rather this only comes from the Isnad of Al-Hakim. The word “Rawa” (reported) is only used by Muhadith when someone narrates from his teachers with Isnad, As-Suyuti only mentioned this Hadith in his “Khasais”. So using the term “Rawa hu” (reported it) for As-Suyuti is among strange sayings of Al-Maliki and a pure mistake.



Secondly, As-Suyuti never authenticated it in his “Khasais”, this is a pure lie upon As-Suyuti, as As-Suyuti mentioned in the introduction of “Al-Khasais” that he will avoid fabricated narrations, yet he never said he will avoid weak narrations, and this saying of avoiding fabricated narrations never means that he authenticates whatever he will quote in this book.



Rather Hafiz As-Suyuti weakened this Hadith in his other book “Manahil us Safa fi Takhrij Ahadith ush-Shifa” p 30, Egyptian edition of 1276H.



Also, As-Suyuti followed Hafiz Abu Nua’ym from his book “Al-Khasais” though some narrations had weak Isnads or rejected Matn. As-Suyuti said after mentioning two extremely weak Ahadith with rejected Matn v 1 p 47: “My soul was not satisfied by mentioning this, but I followed Hafiz Abu Nu’aym in this”.



As for saying about Al-Bayhaqi: “who did not narrate fabricated reports as he mentioned in his introduction” then Al-Maliki clearly deceived his readers as he did not quote what Al-Bayhaqi wrote after this Hadith: “Abdur Rahman ibn Zayd ibn Aslam is alone in narrating this and he is weak”.



Why did Al-Maliki not give the verdict of this great Muhadith and Hafiz? His sayings have great importance for Muhadits, but not for innovators.



Instead of telling the readers the verdict of Al-Bayhaqi, Al-Maliki took general words that Al-Bayhaqi will not narrate fabricated narrations in his “Dalail”, so readers are deceived and might think that Al-Bayhaqi authenticated this Hadith.



Moreover, Al-Qastalani never authenticated this Hadith as claimed by Al-Maliki, rather he wrote in his “Mawahib” that Al-Bayhaqi said: “Abdur Rahman ibn Zayd ibn Aslam is alone in narrating this”.



Where are words of declaring it authentic, rather Al-Qastalani mentioned words of Al-Bayhaqi that Abdur Rahman ibn Zayd ibn Aslam is alone in narrating this, which is a clear indication of showing its weakness?



And Az-Zarqani in his Sharh of “Mawahib” understood the meaning of Al-Qastalani and wrote v 1 p 76: “Abdur Rahman is alone in narrating this, meaning he is not followed by anyone, so it is Ghareeb with the weakness of its narrator”



So Az-Zarqani understood that Al-Qastalani intended to weaken this narration and he also weakened this narration by saying that a weak narrator is alone in narrating this, and he never declared it to be authentic as claimed by Al-Maliki.



Also Al-Maliki attributed the book “Mawahib Ladunniyah” to Az-Zarqani, while the author is Al-Qastalani and Zarqani is the author of “Sharh Mawahib”



So these are the clear lies of Al-Maliki, that As-Suyuti, Al-Qastalani and Az-Zarqani authenticated this Hadith, rather they all have weakened this narration.



As for Al-Bayhaqi, Al-Maliki tried to fool the readers and showed his lack of interest in showing great Hufaz’s verdicts.



Note: Abdur Rahman ibn Aslam has been weakened by Ahmad, ibn Ma’in, Al-Bukhari, Ad-Daraqutni and others. At-Tahawi said: “His narrations are for people of knowledge of Hadith extremely weak”



Among scholars who weakened this narration or declared it to be fabricated:



Hafiz Az-Zahabi said in “Talkhis ul Mustadrak” v 2 p 615: “Fabricated”



Shaykh ul Islam ibn Taymiyah in his “Rad ‘ala Bakri”



Ibn Abdil Hadi in his “Sarim”



Shihab Al-Khafaji in “Sharh Shifa” v 2 p 242



Mulla Ali Qari in “Sharh Shifa” v 1 p 215



Ibn Iraqi in “Tanzih us Shari’ah” v 1 p 76



And Al-Bayhaqi, Al-Haythami, As-Suyuti, Az-Zarqani as it has been shown.



Lies of Al-Maliki on the narration of Malik Ad-Dar



Al-Maliki wrote p 122:



“Hafiz Abu Bakr al-Bayhaqi said: "From Malik who said: 'The people suffered a drought during the caliphate of 'Umar, whereupon a man came to the grave of the Prophet and said: '0 Messenger of Allah, ask for rain for your Umma, for verily they have all but perished!' Afterwards, the Prophet appeared to him in a dream and told him: 'Go to 'Umar and give him my greetings, and tell him that they will be watered. Tell him: 'You must be clever, you must be clever!' The man went and told 'Umar, who said: '0 my Lord, I spare no effort except in what escapes my power!' " This chain is authentic.



It was (also) narrated by Ibn Abi Shayba with an authentic chain from the narration of Salih al-Siman from Malik al-Dar, who was the treasurer of 'Umar, who said: "The people suffered a drought during the caliphate of 'Umar, whereupon a man came to the grave of the Prophet (saw) and said: '0 Messenger of Allah, ask for rain for your Umma, for verily they have all but perished,' after which the Prophet appeared to him in a dream and told him: 'Go to 'Umar...' "It was narrated by Sayf in al-Futtuh that the one who saw the dream was Bilal b. al-Harith al-Muzani, one of the companions. Ibn Hajar said: "Its chain is authentic."” End of Al-Maliki’s words



Answer: This is a pure lie upon Hafiz ibn Hajar, he never declared the Isnad of the narration of Sayf in “Al-Futtuh” to be authentic, rather he declared Sayf to be weak in his “Taqrib”.



What a great liar, this Muhammad ibn Alawi Al-Maliki!!!



And people spread these lies without any shame!!!



We ask all Quburiyah of the world, where did ibn Hajar say “Its chain is authentic” about the narration of Sayf?



Weak narrations of Tawassul of Jews through the Prophet (saw)



P 95, Al-Maliki quoted from Tafsir Al-Qurtubi v 2 p 26-27:



“Ibn 'Abbas said: "The Jews of Khaybar were fighting the tribe of Ghatfan. When they met in battle, the Jews were defeated so the Jews supplicated with this supplication: "Indeed we ask You by the right of the unlettered Prophet who You promised to send to us at the end of time, that you give us victory against them." When they met (the tribe) of Ghatfan in battle again, they called out with this supplication and defeated them. When the Prophet was sent, they disbelieved in him, so Allah revealed: (Though before that they were asking for a signal triumph over those who disbelieved -and when there came to them that which they know (to be the truth) they disbelieved therein. The curse of Allah is on disbelievers.) (al-Baqara: 89)”



Answer: Al-Maliki mentioned this narration without mentioning who narrated this and authenticated it. This was narrated by Al-Hakim in his “Mustadrak” v 2 p 263 and Al-Bayhaqi in his “Dalail un Nubuwwah” v 2 p 76. Al-Hakim said after narrating this Hadith: “There is a need of quoting it in (books of) Tafsir and it is Gharib.” Hafiz Az-Zahabi said in his “Talkhis”: “There is no such need because (the narrator) AbdulMalik is Matruk Halik (abandoned destroyed)” and Hafiz As-Suyuti weakened this narration in his “Dur ul Manthur”. Ibn Taymiyah said in his “Tawassul wal Waseelah” that there is agreement between scholars of Tafseer and history that this verse came for Jews of Madeenah like Banu Nadhir, Banu Qaynuqah and Banu Quraydhah, so how can someone say it came about Jews of Khaybar?



So Al-Maliki likes to propagate narrations of Matruk narrators without any shame!!!



Calling “O Muhammad” at battle of Yamamah



Al-Maliki wrote p 123 of “Notions” (Engl. Trans.):



“The Tawassul of the Muslims through him (saw) on the day of Yamama



Hafiz Ibn Kathir mentioned that the rallying cry of the Muslims at the battle of Yamama was: '0 Muhammad' (Ya Muhammadah). He said: "Khalid b. Walid battled them until he passed through their ranks and went to the mountain of Musaylama. He was watching closely, waiting to find him and kill him. He then returned to where he was previously and stood between the two opposing armies and called for individual one-on-one combat saying: 'I am Ibn al-Walid the one who returns, I am Ibn 'Amir and Zayd.' He then called out with the battle cry of the Muslims, and their battle cry on that day was: 0 Muhammad!” (Al-Bidayah wal-Nihaya 6/324)” End of Al-Maliki’s words



Answer: At-Tabari mentioned the Isnad of the poem of Khalid ibnul Walid and the saying of Muslims on battle “O Muhammad” in his book “Tarikh Al-Umam Wal Muluk” v 3 p 293 with Isnad: from Shu’ayb from Sayf from Dahak ibn Yarbu’ from his father from a man from Banu Suhyam.



And this Isnad is extremely weak, as it contains Sayd ibn ‘Umar, the author of “Al-Futuh”. Abu Hatim declared him to be Matruk, Ibn Hibban said he is accused of heresy, ibn ‘Adi said that most of his Ahadith are Munkar. Despite this, there are two other narrators Dahak ibn Yarbu’ and the man from Banu Suhaym are Majhul.



Do such extreme weak narrations deserve to be taken to justify Tawassul and creed? People accused of heresy and unknown people’s narrations do not deserve to be mentioned in a book dealing with matters related to Tawhid, Shirk and Bid’ah, but for Al-Maliki such narrations should be propagated and of course there is no need to show its weakness.



Secondly, if such was ever to be true, then there is nothing of Tawassul in it. The Sahabah did not say “We seek help through Muhammad (saw)”. This weak report only came about the battle or Yamamah and it is well-know that these people believed that Musaylamah Al-Kazzab was a prophet after the Prophet (saw) and this would be the reason for mentioning the name of the Prophet (saw) by the Muslims, if ever this was true.



And the Sahabah fought many battles, in some they face difficulties, yet it is never reported they called the Prophet (saw) for help or did Tawassul through him. We do not ask for a Mutawatir report, Khabar Ahad is sufficient for us, yet despite all these battles, this never happened, showing that the Sahabah were free from these actions.



Saying: “O Muhammad” when the foot feels numb



Al-Maliki wrote p 123 of “Notions” (Engl. Trans):



“From al-Haytham b. Khanas who said: "We were with 'Abdullah b. `Umar when his leg was feeling severe numbness. A man came to him and said: 'Bring to mind the most beloved person to you.' He (Ibn 'Umar) said: '0 Muhammad.' Afterwards, it was as if it was freed from its tether."



Mujahid said: "A man's whose foot was numb was in the presence of Ibn 'Abbas. Ibn 'Abbas said to him: 'Bring to mind the most beloved person to you.' The man said: 'Muhammad' and his numbness went away completely."



So this is tawassul through calling out.” End of Al-Maliki’s words



Answer: Before seeing the Isnads of these narrations, one has to know that this has nothing to do with Tawassul. Only an idiot would say such. Ibn Abbas and ibn Umar never said: “Seek Tawassul with the Prophet (saw) by calling out to him and you will be cured” or “Seek help from the Prophet (saw)” rather they said “bring to mind the most beloved person to you”.



And this cure was known by people of Jahiliyah that remembering the beloved ecxcited the body and thus opened vessels and helped blood circulation. This has nothing to do with Tawassul, this was a cure known through experiment by Arabs of Jahiliyah before the Prophet (saw). Salih Al Shaykh mentioned many lines of poems of Jahiliyah mentioning this cure.



Line from poem of Kuthayr:



“When my foot feels numb, I remember you (woman) (Zakartuki) and I cure”



Lines from poem of Jameel Bathinah:



“You (woman) (anti) are the pleasure of my eye when we meet,

And remembering you (Zikruki) cures me when my foot gets numb”



Line from poem of Al-Mawsuli:



“By Allah, by foot does not get numb or trips except that I remember you (woman) until numbness goes away”



Line from poem of Al-Waleed ibn Yazeed:



“When his foot feels numb, he calls (meaning remembers) you (woman)”



Poem of a woman:



“When my foot feels numb, I call out (out of remembrance) ibn Mus’ab”



All of these poems and others are mentioned in “Bulugh Al-Arib” v 2 p 320-321.



So can anyone say that these people did Tawassul with their beloved women or with obn Mus’ab and got cured through these people’s status?



Only idiot Quburiyah would say such…they don’t know the difference between remembering and calling out for Tawassul, what can we say much about people mad in their Sufism!!!



Now for the Isnads, then in the first narration from ibn ‘Umar, then there is a mistake in the name of the narrator as it is Haytham ibn Hanas and not Haytham ibn Khanas. This is narrated by ibn Sunni in his “’Amal Yawm wa Laylah” n 170, with the Isnad: Muhammad ibn Khalid ibn Muhammad Al-Burza’i narrated to us, he said: Hajib ibn Sulayman narrated to us, he said: Muhammad ibn Mus’ab narrated to us, he said: Israil narrated to us from Abu Ishaq from Al-Haytham ibn Hannas.



Muhammad ibn Mus’ab al-Qarqusani is weak, ibn Ma’in said: he was not from Ashabul Hadith, he had forgetfulness. An-Nasa’i said: weak, and the same is said by Abu Hatim Ar-Razi. Ibn Hibban said: “He was mixing the Isnads, making the Mursal narrations as Marfu’, it is not permissible to base on him.” Al-Isma’ili said: “Muhammad ibn Mus’ab is among the weak narrators.” Al-Khateeb said: “He committed many errors because he would narrate from his memory”.



Then Haytham ibn Hanas is among Majhul ul ‘Ayn narrators. Al-Khateeb said in “Al-Kiafayah fi Ulum Ar-Riwayah” p 88: “The Majhul is everyone that is not famous for the search of the knowledge of Hadith and the scholars do not know him such, and the one whose narration comes from the way of only one narrator like ‘Amr Zu Marin, Jabbar At-Ta’i, ‘Abdullah ibn Aghur Al-Hamdani and Al-Haytham ibn Hanas…all of these, none narrate from them except Abu Ishaq As-Sabi’i.”



Also Abu Ishaq is a Mudalis and he narrate with words “’An” (from) from a Majhul.



The most authentic of what is reported in this chapter with the Tadlis of Abu Ishaq is what Al-Bukhari narrated in his “Adab ul Mufrad” n 964, he said: Abu Nu’aym narrated to us, he said: Sufyan narrated to us from Abu Ishaq from AbdurRahman ibn Sa’d, he said: The foot of ibn ‘Umar felt numb and a man said to him: “Remember the most beloved to you” and he said: “Muhammad”.



So this most authentic narration brings benefits, and it is that there is no word “Ya” (O), rather there is only “Muhammad”, while the Arabs use the words “Ya” for remembering the beloved in his mind, so it shows that ibn Umar avoided what was famous among Arabs to avoid what is forbidden.



Sufyan is among Hufaz, so it shows that all other words are rejected and these words are the preserved.



The second narration of ibn ‘Abbas is narrated by ibn Sunni in his “’Amal Yawm wa Laylah” n 169 and the Isnad contains Ghiyath ibn Ibrahim and he was declared to be a liar. Ibn Ma’in said: Kazzab Khabeeth (filthy liar). And the words are without words “Ya” so this has nothing to do with calling someone but for remembering.



Calling Angels for help when losing mount



P 124 of his “Notions” (Eng;. Trans.), Al-Maliki wrote:



“Tawassul through other than the Prophet (saw)



From 'Utba b. Ghazwan, who said that the Prophet of Allah (saw) said: "If one of you loses something, or needs assistance while he is in a far off land where he doesn't have a companion, let call out: `0 servants of Allah, assist me.' For certainly, Allah has servants we do not see.'" This has been tried. This was narrated by al-Tabarani and its narrators have been declared reliable with some weakness among them, except for Yazid b. 'Ali who did not meet 'Utba.” End of Al-Maliki



Answer: In this narration “Yazeed” is a mistake and the correct name is “Zayd ibn ‘Ali” as one can see in the “Mu’jam” of At-Tabarani.



Hafiz ibn Hajar said in “Nataij ul Afkaar”: “At-Tabarani narrated it with a Munqati’ (disconnected) Sanad”



And with this Inqita’, there are two weak narrators.



First ‘AbdurRahman ibn Shareek, Abu Hatim said: “Very weak in Hadith”



Then his father Shareek ibn Abdillah An-Nakh’i the famous Qadhi. Hafiz ibn Hajar said in Taqrib: “Saduq, he makes a lot of mistakes, his memory deteriorated since he obtained the position of judge in Kufah. He was ‘Adil, noble, a great worshiper, harsh on the people of innovation.”



So there is disconnection in this Isnad and two weak narrators.



Then Al-Maliki wrote:



“Ibn 'Abbas said that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: "Indeed, Allah has Angels other than the Hafaza (the guardian Angels) that write down the leaves that fall from the trees. So if one of you is afflicted by a injury in a strange land, let him call out: 'Assist me 0 servants of Allah.' "This was narrated by al-Tabarani and its narrators are reliable.” End of Al-Maliki’s words



Answer: In the manuscript of “Majma uz Zawaid” there is: “It has been narrated by Al-Bazar” and Al-Bazar narrated this in “Bahr uz-Zakhar” and Al-Haythami mentioned it in “Kashf ul Astar” v 4 p 33-34 with Isnad: Musa ibn Ishaq narrated to us, Minjab ibnul Harith narrated to us, Hatim ibn Isma’il from Usamah ibn Zayd from Aban ibn Salih from Mujahid from ibn ‘Abbas that the Prophet (saw)…



Al-Bazar said: “We do not know this being reported from the Prophet (saw) with these words except with this Isnad”



The narrator Usamah ibn Zayd Al-Laythi Al-Madni, some praised him other criticized him. Al-Athram narrated from Ahmad ibn Hambal: “He is nothing”.



Abdullah ibn Ahmad reported from his father: “I see him Hasan in Hadith” Then he said: “If you examine his Hadith, you will see wrong things in it, Yahya ibn Sa’id weakened him”



Abu Hatim said: His Hadith is written but one should not base on it



An-Nasai said: He is not strong



Al-Barqani said: He is among those weakened



Others like ibn Ma’in, ibn Hibban, Ibn Shahin, ibn ‘Adi declared him to be thiqah, so when we see all these sayings, then when he is alone in narrating something, one should reject it and if other follow him, then his narrations are accepted.



Then the narrator Hatim ibn Isma’il, Hafiz ibn Hajar said about him: “Authentic when he narrates from books, Saduq, makes mistakes”



Shaykh Albani wrote: “Ja’far ibn ‘Awn opposed him (Hatim ibn Isma’il), he said: Usamah ibn Zayd narrated to us… and he mentioned it in a Mawquf way from ibn ‘Abbas. This has been narrated by Al-Bayhaqi in “Shu’b ul Iman” v 2 p 455.



And Ja’far ibn ‘Awn is more Thiqah than Hatim ibn Isma’il even if they are both from narrators of the two Sahih, as the first hasn’t been criticized by anyone contrary to the someone. An-Nasa’i said about him (Hatim ibn Isma’il): he is not strong. Other said: He has some forgetfulness. This is why Al-Hafiz said (about Hatim): Authentic when he narrates from books, Saduq, makes mistakes, and he said about Ja’far: Saduq.



So that’s why the narration is Ma’lul (defective) for me” End of Albani’s words



Then the text of the Hadith has nothing to do with Tawassul with someone’s status or with invoking dead or absent people, as it is restricted to Angels and the Prophet (saw) did not say that Abdal or men of invisible (Rijal ul Ghayb) will come to save him. The Angels are present there, they hear the speech and have the power to rescue the mount or indicate the way. How can anyone do Qiyas of Angels that are present with dead or absent human beings?



So if this Hadith is authentic, then it has nothing to do with invoking human beings and seeking their help.



And for the people of Kalam, one needs a Mutawatir text to establish creed, so how can these people base their creed on Qias with angels, while the Qiyas is Zanni (speculative) in first place and these narrations are not Mutawatir?



The people of Shirk have no shame to use their Ray and misguide people. None of the Salaf used these Ahadith under chapter of Tawassul or used these Ahadith for invoking human beings.



Then Al-Maliki wrote:



“`Abdullah b. Mas'ud said that the Messenger of Allah A. said: "If one of you loses his mount in a strange land, let him call out: `0 servants of Allah, restrain (the mount). 0 servants of Allah restrain (the mount).' Allah has (Angels) present in the earth that will restrain it." This was narrated by Abu Ya`la and al-Tabarani who added: "They will restrain them for you." It contains (in the chain) Ma'ruf b. Hassan who is weak. (Majma uz-Zawaid 10/132)



This is also tawassul in the form of calling.” End of Al-Maliki’s words



Answer: In this Hadith, Ma’ruf ibn Hassan is weak. Abu Hatim said: Majhul. Ibn ‘Adi said: Munkar ul Hadith (rejected in Hadith).



Then the narrator Sa’id ibn ‘Arubah had ikhtilat (lost memory when old) and An-Nasa’i said: Whoever narrates from him after losing memory, it is nothing. And Ma’ruf ibn Hassan is from small narrators and only old narrators narrated from him before losing memory



Moreover Sa’id ibn ‘Arubah is a Mudalis, Hafiz ibn Hajar said: “Katheer ut Tadlis (doing a lot of Tadlis)”, and he narrated with words “’an” from ibn Buraydah, so this is not accepted.



Furthermore, Hafiz ibn Hajar said in “Nataij ul Afkar” This is a Ghareeb Hadith narrated by ibn us-Sunni and At-Tabarani, and there is Inqita’ (disconnection) between Buraydah and ibn Mas’ud” So there are four defects in this Hadith.



There is a similar Hadith narrated by ibn Abi Shaybah in his “Musannaf” v 10 p 424-425 with Isnad: Yazib ibn Harun narrated to us, Muhammad ibn Ishaq narrated to us from Aban ibn Salih that the Prophet (saw) and he mentioned similarly.



This Isnad is Mu’dal (meaning there are two narrators missing in the Isnad) and the Tadlis of ibn Ishaq is famous.



With all these defects, we understand why none of the Hufaz authenticated this Hadith.



The narration of the burial of the mother of Ali ibn Abi Talib



Al-Maliki wrote p 116 of his “Notions”:



“Tawassul of the Prophet (saw) through his right and the right of the Prophets and the righteous



In the collection on the merits of Fatima b. Asad Umm 'Ali b. Abi Talib, it is mentioned that when she died, the Prophet (saw) dug the niche in the ground for her with his own hands and removed the dirt. When the Messenger of Allah completed this, he entered into it, reclined, and said: "0 Allah, the One who brings life and causes death. The Ever Living One who does not die, forgive my mother Fatima b. Asad. Deliver her evidence to her (the testimony of faith), expand her entry point for her by the right of Your Prophet and the Prophets before me. Indeed, You are the Most Merciful of those who show mercy." Then he prayed the funeral prayer over her, and he (saw), al-`Abbas, and Abu Bakr placed her in the grave.



This was narrated by al-Tabarani in (al-Mujam) al-Kabir and the Awsat. It contains Rawh b. Salih. Ibn Hibban and al-Hakim declared him reliable although he contains weakness, and the remaining people in the chain are narrators found in the authentic collections (of al-Bukhari and Muslim). (Majma’ al-Zawa’id 9/257)



Some scholars differed regarding the status of Rawh b. Salih, however, Ibn Hibban mentioned him among the reliable ones. Al-Hakim said that he was: "Reliable and trustworthy." Both of these two Hadith masters authenticated it as well as al-Haytami in Majma' al-Zawaid, and the men (in the rest of the chain) are men from the authentic collections.



It was also narrated by Ibn 'Abd al-Barr from Ibn 'Abbas, and Ibn Abi Shayba from Jabir. It was also narrated by al-Daylami and Abu Nu'aym. All of the routes of transmissions strengthen each other with force.” End of Al-Maliki’s words



Asnwer: This speech contains contradiction and deception.



Al-Maliki says that Al-Haythami authenticated this Hadith, while one can see that Al-Haythami said that there is weakness in Rawh ibn Salih. The translator in English of “Notions” translated words of Al-Haythami as such: “Ibn Hibban and al-Hakim declared him reliable although he contains weakness”



While a more accurate translation is: “Ibn Hibban and al-Hakim declared him reliable and (wa fihi Du’f) he contains weakness”



So “he contains weakness” is the verdict of Al-Haythami after quoting words of Ibn Hibban and Al-Hakim, he corrected their views and gave his view. He never endorsed their views.



As for the deception, al-Maliki, in order to strengthen this Hadith, said that Al-Daylami and Abu Nu’aym also narrated it, while they also narrated it through the same weak narrator Rawh ibn Salih. So how can someone strengthen himself? So the route of At-Tabarani, Ad-Daylami and Abu Nu’aym is the same, but Al-Maliki to deceive people hid this fact in other to show that there were many routes for it.



Also among the deception is to try to strengthen this narration with the narration mentioned by ibn Abdil Barr, but Al-Maliki did not have courage to quote it, as people would have seen his fraud. Ibn Abdil Barr wrote in “Al-Isti’ab” v 4 p 1891:



“Sa’dan ibnul Walid As-Sabiri narrated ‘Ata ibn Abi Rabah from ibn ‘Abbas: “When Fatimah Umm Ali ibn Abi Talib died, the Prophet (saw) covered her with his mantle and lied her down in the grave with it. They (Sahabah) said: You did something we never saw you doing before. He said: none took care more of me after Abu Talib than her, I only cover her with my mantle so that she wears mantle in paradise and I laid her in the grave with it so it becomes softer for her”



So one can see that there is no mention of Tawassul with the right of the Prophet (saw) in this narration. How can this strengthen the narration of Rawh ibn Isma’il?



What a shameful Talbis from Al-Maliki!!! Trying to fool people!!!



The narrator Rawh ibn Salih has been weakened by Ad-Daraqutni, ibn ‘Adi, ibn Maluka. Ibn Maluka said: They weakened him. And he is alone in reporting this among students of Sufyan Ath-Thawri, this is why At-Tabarani said in “Al-Awsat”: “Rawh ibn Salih is alone in narrating this” and Abu Nu’aym quoted these words of At-Tabarani.



And ibn Hibban according to his methodology declares Thiqah Majhul narrators. And Al-Hakim is Mutasahil (easy in authenticating), so this narration is clearly weak.

sumber: umm-ul-qurra.org