Rashduct4luv:
Why would a sane human being even pray at the grave?

If the dead has power he wouldn't have died.


May Allah grant us understanding!

shekina! that's d common sense dat we dnt have, any Muslim that argue against the fact that it is shirk to pray at the grave to dead, wether wasila, or wateva that person needs to check his iman ,bcoz if with ur iman u still can't distinguish between right and wrong in Islam, u ar probably not worshiping in the correct manner.

I dey shame for people arguing against the fact that it is shirk. if u want 2 pray for ur loved ones dat are dead, after Sallah u can simply ask Allah to forgive them.

Seems abdelkabir is missing my point. Someone who claims his Dua will not be answered unless and until he goes to the grave to make Dua is wrong. I said it up there that such is questionable. Dua can be made anywhere.

And when I said "glaring proofs", I was referring to permissibility is waseela at the grave as highlighted above by albaqir and there are more like that..

But to say your prayers can not be answered unless you go to grave is innovation. The three forms of waseela you mentioned, that's true but it is indeed permmisible to use pious people if one wishes to do so as well. That's what solati Ibrahimiya teaches.

Prophet Muhammad (saw) used waseela of prophet ibrahim (as) indicating the permmisibility of such waseela. But I don't support folks praying directly to someone to grant their wishes. Like sheikh Oniwasiagbaye said, "to those who make Ziyara to the graves, you pray for the dead you don't pray to the dead. The dead needs your prayers". Sheikh was simply talking about Dua here not tawasul. Tawasul is separate.

AlBaqir:


# Oh! You have finally changed your mind not to defend Imam Ibn Hibban.

Where have I defended this action of his in the first place?

In short, according to you, he performed Bid'ah severally for visit grave and making the dead as wasila unto Allah. So he was a full blown KAFIR.

Must you always show your lowly attitude? I only said he did bidah(and in reality it is a mistake on his part, so he is not a mubtadi') and I didn't say he did kufr, what he did was believing that dua gets answered quickly if done at the grave WHILST PRAYING TO ALLAAH, so imam ibn hibbaan asked for help directly and not from the grave. So where oh khabeeth have I said he was a full blown kafir?

# The same judgment goes for ALL your Aimmah that repeated the same thing. We can mention their names if you so wish

Tantrums....

NOW THE SAHABAH

# Imam Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani:

Ibn Abu Shaybah transmitted it with a " SOUND CHAIN OF TRANSMISSION" the narration from Abi Salih as Samaan from Malik al Dar the treasurer of Umar (ra) that : The people were gripped by famine during the tenure of 'Umar (Ibn al-Khattab). Then a man walked up to the Prophet's grave and said, "O Messenger of Allah, please ask for rain from Allah for your Ummah who is in dire straits." Then he saw the Prophet (SAW) in dream… till the end of hadith. Sayf narrates in his Fatuh, the one who saw the dream was Bilal bin Harith al Mazni who was one of the sahaba.

Source: Fath ul Bari : Volume No.2, Page No. 495

Here is the statement of ibn hajar:

"Related by ibn abi shaybah with an authentic chain from the narration of abi saalih as-sammaan from Maalik ad-daar"

Ibn hajar didn't make judgement on all the narrators in the sanad, he only authenticated the isnad up to Abu saalih, Maalik ad-daar is MAJHOOL(Unknown) – as we will soon see – thus making the isnad weak. Had it been ibn hajar made a judgement that the isnad was totally authentic from beginning to the end, here is a question from shaykh Albaani to you "Why did he begin from Abu saalih" he should've just said "From Maalik ad-daar with an authentic chain"? As done by scholars of hadeeth? Shaykh Albaani said he did this just to show that there is something needing revision in the chain from Abu saalih to Maalik ad-daar, this is because he isn't known to ibn hajar!

Now, Alhaafidh al-mundhiri in his targheeb (2/42): I do not know him(i.e Maalik ad-daar)

Al-haythami said the same thing in his majma az-zawaaid (3/125).

So how can we authenticate a hadeeth with an unknown narrator? We don't know his "'adaalah" neither do we know his dabt" which are the two things that shows the trustworthiness of the narrator? The hadeeth is not authentic ayyuhal khabeeth...

This hadeeth other than being faulted from the angle of its isnaad, the one who was alleged to go to the prophet's grave was not even mentioned, to show that its a mere story, as for saif saying it was bilaal ibn haarith, then it is not accepted from him because this saif – and his name is ibn umar at-tamimi – is known to be untrustworthy among the muhaditheen and its something agreed upon as mentioned by shaykh Albaani, ibn hibbaan says: "he narrates fabricated ahaadeeth..., and they say: he fabricates ahaadeeth"

Thus saif telling us the person is bilaal ibn haarith can't be accepted!

# Imam al-Hakim documents:

It is attributed to Dawud bin Abu Salih. He says: one day Marwan came and he saw that a man was lying down with his mouth turned close to the Prophet’s grave. Then he (Marwan) said to him, “Do you know what are you doing?”

When he moved towards him, he saw that it was Abu Ayyub al-Ansari. (In reply) he said, “Yes (I know) I have come to the Messenger of Allah (s) and not to a stone. I have heard it from the Messenger of God (s) not to cry over religion when its guardian is competent. Yes, shed tears over religion when its guardian is incompetent.

This hadeeth has nothing to do with tawassul using the prophet does it? Pls tell us the tawassul here! Even at that the hadeeth isn't authentic because again there is a weak narrator in this report and that is daawood ibn Abi saalih.

Ibn hajar mentions in his at-thahdhibuth thahdhib when you check letter daal(د) number 360:

"I read from the book written by imam adh-dhahabi saying he does not know him (daawood Ibn abi saalih)."


Imam An-nawawi says in his faydh Al Qadeer(6/387):


Al-Haythami stated, after taking to consideration that this narration had been documented by Ahmad and at-Tabarani: ‘In the isnaad, there is Katheer ibn Zaid who was authenticated by Ahmad and others whereas an-Nasai and others weakened him. This narration was related by Sufyan ibn Hamazah from Katheer ibn Zayd from al-Muttalib ibn Abdillaah ibn Hantab instead of Dawud.’ Al-Dhahabi listed Katheer ibn Zayd amongst the weak narrators and said: ‘He was acknowledged as weak by an-Nasai and Dawud ibn abi Salih, Ibn Hibban said about him: ‘He narrated fabricated narrations.’

Shaykh Albaani also faults this hadeeth in his "Ad-da'eefah" says: "The sanad to him(i.e the sahabah) is weak, so no proof with it"

Sources:

# Imam Hakim declared it "Sahih" while Imam Dhahabi "AGREED" with him [Al-Mustadrak 4:520, Hadith # 8571; Volume 004: Hadith Number 515

You claim Adh-dhahabi "Agreed" whereas I've brought were he faulted a narrator in that hadeeth, so how can your copy paste from that Sufi site that claims ahlus sunnah say he agreed?

# Ahmad bin Hambal with a sound chain of transmission in his Musnad Volume 005: Hadith Number 422

We can't claim its a sound chain because of the weak narrator in it...



Note: I am not here to argue with you because its against our usool to debate stubborn mubtadi' like you like imam Ahmad mentioned, we only do so with those sincerely looking for truth, on this account this may be my last response to you as I've got better things to do...

AbdelKabir,

I was banned but my comment is restored. Stroll up this page to read

For those who are objective in research work, check out the above website. Al-Albani was grinded to piece as he tried his best to cast doubt on the abovementioned athar. The issue of Malik al-Dar, Sayf ibn Umar at-tamimi and other OBJECTIONS by stubborn salafi are treated.

Narration of Malik al-Dar - Response to Objections
http://salafiaqeedah..com/2014/07/narration-of-malik-al-dar-response-to.html?m=1

Ere..
I hope this is the right thread albaqir

.

q

qe

4

f

dd

y

u

When we say someone is majhool, it doesn't mean we don't know his biography, what we mean is, we don't know his adaalah and dabt....fine his adaalah has been proven due to the fact that many of the salafs praised him and umar made him his treasurer, so what about his dabt? Who attested for his dabt? Rather bukhari and Abu haatim indicated that they don't know him(from angle of his dabt of course), so since his dabt is unknown he remains majhool.....

uu

qs

v. .

submit:
v. .

Thanks. You got the post right and you could see how our guy is reversing fear