Muhammad ’Alawee al-Maalikee al-Makkee/Kabbani

The Prophet (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) is reported to have said on the authority of Umar (RA) that “when Adam committed his mistake he said: O Lord, I am asking you to forgive me for the sake of Muhammad. Allaah said: O Adam, and how do you know of Muhammad whom I have not yet created? Adam replied: O my Lord, after you created me with Your Hand and breathed into me of Your spirit, I raised my head and saw written on the heights of the Throne, ‘none has the right to be worshipped save Allaah and Muhammad is the Messenger of

Allaah.’ I understood that You would not place next to Your Name but the most beloved one of your creation. Allaah said: O Adam, I have forgiven you and were it not for Muhammad I would not have created you.”

Al-Alawee al-Maalikee says in ‘Mafaheem’ [pg. 46], “it was reported by al-Haakim in ‘al-Mustadrak’ [2/651] and he declared it to be saheeh. Al-Haafidh as-Suyutee reported it in ‘Khasaa`is’ and declared it saheeh.

Al-Bayhaqee reported it in ‘Dalaa`il an-Nubuwwa’ and he does not report any fabricated ahaadeeth in this book as he himself made clear in the introduction. It was also declared saheeh by al-Qastalaanee and

az-Zarqaanee in ‘al-Muwaahib al-Laduniyyah’ [2/62] and by as-Subkee in ‘Shifaa as-Siqaam’.

Al-Haafidh al-Haythamee said, “it was reported by at-Tabaraanee in ‘al-Awsat’ and it contains (narrators) whom I do not know.” ‘Mujama az-Zawaa`id’ [8/253]”

This brief analysis contains a whole host of errors that prove the authors deep ignorance with respect to hadeeth and it’s related sciences, and prove his inaccuracy when quoting others.

1) His saying that Haakim “declared it to be saheeh.”

This is not true, al-Haakim said, “saheeh isnaad” and it is known that the scholars differentiate between the terms “saheeh hadeeth” and “saheeh isnaad.”

2) His saying that “al-Haafidh as-Suyutee reported it…and declared it saheeh.”

a) This is incorrect because a scholar can only be said to have reported (riwaayah) a hadeeth when he quotes its isnaad. As-Suyutee does not do so.

b) Not only this but as-Suyutee does not follow up this hadeeth by saying that it is saheeh!

c) As-Suyutee would sometimes include rejected ahaadeeth in this book of his, simply by following Abu Nu’aym and what he quoted in his ‘Khasaa`is’.

For example after quoting two ahaadeeth that are rejected he says [1/47], “I, myself, am not content to include these but I have followed al-Haafidh Abu Nu’aym in this.”

It seems that the author claimed that as-Suyutee declared it saheeh due to what he says in the introduction to his work ‘al-Khasaa`is,’ “I have not included in it any fabricated reports…” but this does not mean that every

ahaadeeth that he includes is authentic as is obvious. This is why as-Suyutee clearly mentions it’s weakness in his ‘Manaahil as-Safaa fee Takhreej Ahaadeeth ash-Shifaa’ [pg. 30]

3) His saying about al-Bayhaqee, “and he does not report any fabricated ahaadeeth in this book”

a) Why did the author not quote what al-Bayhaqee says after quoting this hadeeth? Al-Bayhaqee states, “it has only been reported by Abdurrahmaan bin Zayd and he is da’eef”!

b) This statement of al-Bayhaqee is in reality a severe criticism whose severity is known only to those skilled in hadeeth. As for the ignoramuses then it will miss them. Al-Haafidh adh-Dhahabee states in ‘Meezaan al-I`tidaal’ [3/140-141], “if a truthful person (sadooq) and those less then him are alone in reporting a hadeeth then it is to be considered munkar (rejected).” So if this is the case for one who is truthful, then it is even more the case for one who is agreed to be weak, and in fact accused of being a fabricator as will follow.

c) At-Tabraanee says in ‘al-Mu`jam as-Sagheer’ [pg. 207] after mentioning this hadeeth via a route different to that of al-Bayhaqee but also through Abdurrahmaan bin Zayd, “this has not been reported from Umar except via this isnaad.”

4) His saying, “it was declared saheeh by al-Qastalaanee”

a) The book ‘al-Mawaahib’ is available, so look and see if al-Qastalaanee declared it saheeh or did he merely quote the words of al-Bayhaqee that have preceded?

He says, [1/76 along with the commentary], “and he (al-Bayhaqee) said: it has only been reported by Abdurrahmaan bin Zayd.”

b) The commentator to this work, az-Zarqaanee understood the meaning of these words and said, “it has only been reported by Abdurrahmaan bin Zayd, meaning no one else follows him up in reporting this hadeeth and so the hadeeth is ghareeb along with the weakness of its reporter.”

5) His saying, “…and az-Zarqaanee”

Az-Zarqaanee did not declare this hadeeth to be saheeh, rather he indicated its weakness as has preceded.

6) His saying, “and as-Subkee in ‘Shifaa as-Siqaam'”

As-Subkee only blindly followed al-Haakim in declaring the hadeeth authentic, he says [pg. 163], “in declaring it saheeh we are depending upon al-Haakim”

7) His quote from al-Haythamee

He neglects to quote that al-Haythamee also refers the hadeeth to at-Tabaraanee in ‘as-Sagheer’

8) His saying that al-Haakim declared it saheeh.

Al-Haakim said [2/615], “saheeh isnaad and it is the first hadeeth I have mentioned that is reported by Abdurrahmaan bin Zayd bin Aslam.”

Each chain of narration of this hadeeth contains the same narrator, Abdurrahmaan bin Zayd bin Aslam and at this point it is necessary to alert one that al-Haakims words are not to be depended upon here. This is due to

a number of reasons:

a) al-Haakim says in his book ‘al-Madkhal ilaa as-Saheeh’ [1/154], “Abdurrahmaan bin Zayd bin Aslam reports fabricated ahaadeeth from his father. It will not be hidden from the people of this field that he himself

is the one guilty with regard to them.”

He said [1/114], “by the permission of Allaah I will make clear the names of those people who have been criticised and (the truth of) this criticism is clear to me as a result of ijtihaad and not blindly following any of the Imaams. It is not permissible to report the ahaadeeth of these narrators except after clarifying their condition due to the saying of al-Mustafaa (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam), ‘whosoever narrates a hadeeth from me, thinking that it is a lie then he is one of the liars.'”

Then he lists them and mentions Abdurrahmaan bin Zayd amongst them.

b) So why this contradiction from al-Haakim? The answer is clear to those who busy themselves with the science of hadeeth. Al-Haakim started writing his ‘Mustadrak’ in the year 393H, i.e. when he was 72 years old.

Ibn Hajr al-Asqa
laanee says in ‘Lisaan al-Meezaan’ [5/233], “some of them mentioned that his memory deteriorated and he became unaware towards the end of his life. This is proven by the fact that he mentioned a group of (weak narrators) in his book ‘ad-Du`afaah’ and declared with certainty that narrating from them should be abandoned and forbade that they should be depended upon. Then after this he reported the ahaadeeth of some of them in his ‘Mustadrak’ and declared them saheeh. For example he reports the

hadeeth of Abdurrahmaan bin Zayd bin Aslam who he had mentioned in ‘ad-Du`afaah’ saying, ‘he reports fabricated ahaadeeth from his father. It will not be hidden from the people of this field that he himself is the one guilty with regard to them.'”

As-Sakhaawee said in ‘Fath al-Mugeeth’ [1/36], “it is said that the reason for this is that he authored it [al-Mustadrak] towards the end of his life when his memory deteriorated and he became unaware or that he was unable to edit it and check it. This is proven by the fact that his leniency in the first fifth of the book is small with respect to the remainder of the book.”

Ibn Abdul Haadee said in ‘as-Saarim al-Munkee’ [pg. 62], “then he collected the book ‘al-Mustadrak alaa as-Saheehayn’ and mentioned therein a large number of weak, severely weak and fabricated ahaadeeth. He reported from a group of the narrators criticised for their weakness – those whom he himself mentioned in his book of weak narrators; and he mentioned that they were those whose weakness was clear to him. Therefore a number of scholars criticised him for what he did and some of them mention that at the end of his life his memory deteriorated and he became unaware – this being the reason for what he did – and this is not unlikely.”

1) Abdurrahmaan bin Zayd is severely weak

a) As stated by Alee al-Madeenee (‘Taareekh al-Kabeer’ [1/3/284] of Bukhaaree)

b) Al-Bukhaaree said, “his hadeeth are not authentic” (ibid. 1/618, 5/263]) and “I do not report from him” (Tarteeb Ilal at-Tirmidhee al-Kabeer [pg. 76])

c) Abu Haatim ar-Raazee said, “he himself was righteous but flimsy (waahi) in hadeeth.”

d) At-Tahaawee said, “his hadeeth are to the people of hadeeth, extremely weak.” (Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb)

e) Ibn Sa`d said, “he reported many ahaadeeth and was very weak.” (Tabaqaat al-Kubraa [5/413])

f) Ibn Hibbaan said, “he deserved to be abandoned.” (al-Majrooheen [2/57])

g) Ibn Ma`een said, “he is nothing at all.” (al-Majrooheen [1/179])

h) Abu Nu`aym said, “he is nothing at all.” (ad-Du`afaa [no. 122]) and also said similar to that which al-Haakim said about him. (ad-Da`eefah [no.25])

i) Al-Fasawee placed him amongst those who should not be narrated from. (al-Ma`rifah wa at-Taareekh [3/43])

j) Al-Bazzaar said, “flimsy in hadeeth”, and “severely munkar in hadeeth” (Kashf al-Astaar [1017, 2071])

k) He was judged to be weak by: Ahmad, Abu Daawood, an-Nasaa`ee, Abu Zur`ah, ibn Khuzaymah, al-Jawzijaanee and ad-Daaruqutnee (Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb of ibn Hajr) on top of the scholars already mentioned.

2) The isnaad of al-Bayhaqee, al-Haakim and others also contains Abdullaah bin Muslim al-Fahree.

Adh-Dhahabee criticises the authentication of al-Haakim by saying, “rather it is fabricated, Abdurrahmaan is flimsy (waahin) and I do know Abdullaah bin Muslim al-Fahree.”

He also includes al-Fahree in ‘Mezaan al-I`tidaal’ due to this hadeeth and says, “false report, al-Bayhaqee reported it in Dalaa`il an-Nubuwwa”

Ibn Hajr agrees to this in his ‘Lisaan al-Meezaan’ and adds, “it is not farfetched that he (Fahree) be the one discussed previously for he is of the same tabaqah.”

The one who was discussed previously was Abdullaah bin Muslim bin Rasheed who was mentioned by ibn Hibbaan saying, “accused of fabricating ahaadeeth. He used to fabricate from Layth, Maalik, and ibn Lahee`a. It is not permissible to write his hadeeth.”

3) The isnaad to this hadeeth has been declared weak by a group of scholars.

a) al-Bayhaqee in ‘Dalaa`il an-Nubuwwa’ [5/486]

b) Ibn Katheer in ‘al-Bidaayah wa an-Nihaayah’ [1/75] saying about its reporter “he has been criticised” and quoted the words of al-Bayhaqee

c) Al-Haythamee in ‘Mujama az-Zawaa`id’ [8/253]

d) As-Suyutee in ‘Takhreej Ahaadeeth ash-Shifaa’ [pg. 30]

e) Az-Zarqaanee as has preceded

f) Ash-Shihaab al-Khafaajee in ‘Sharh ash-Shifaa’ [2/242]

g) Mullah Alee al-Qaaree in ‘Sharh ash-Shifaa’ [1/215]

Although the isnaad to this hadeeth has been declared to be weak by the above scholars, the way they phrased the weakness clearly indicates that they considered the hadeeth to be unauthentic as has preceded in 3b). The scholars who explicitly stated the hadeeth to be weak and in fact false or

fabricated are as follows:

h) Ibn `Iraaq in ‘Tanzeeh ash-Sharee`ah’ [1/76] mentioning the opinion that it is false.

i) adh-Dhahabee as has preceded.

j) Ibn Hajr al-Asqalaanee as has preceded.

k) Ibn Taymiyyah who ruled it to be fabricated in ‘Radd alaa al-Bakree’ [pg. 6 of the summary]

l) Ibn Abdul Haadee ruled it to be fabricated in ‘as-Saarim al-Munkee’

4) It is possible that this hadeeth be from the Israa`iliyyaat that has mistakenly been attributed to the Prophet (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam)

This possibility is strengthened by the fact that Abu Bakr al-Aajurree reports in his ‘Sharee`ah’ [pg. 427] a similar hadeeth through al-Fahree via another isnaad reporting from Abdurrahmaan bin Zayd from his father

from Umar as a saying of Umar.

He also reports [pg. 422-425] via Abu Marwaan al-Uthmaanee from his father, Uthmaan bin Khaalid bin Abdurrahmaan bin Abee az-Zinaad from his father who said, “from the words that caused Allaah, the Mighty and Magnificent, to forgive Adam was his saying: O Allaah, I ask you by the right of Muhammad…”

This is a mawqoof report and Uthmaan and his son are both da`eef who are not to be depended upon when they report a marfoo` hadeeth so how about when they report a saying of some of the students of the taabi`een? And it is possible that this taabi`ee have narrated this from some of the people who became Muslim from the People of the Book.

This report was similarly reported by ibn Asaakir [2/310/2] from a person from the inhabitants of Madeenah from the Companions of ibn Mas`ud from ibn Mas`ud as his saying. This isnaad contains unknown narrators.

5) Concerning the meaning of the hadeeth and its link to the verse, “and Adam received words from his Lord…” (2:37)

It is established that the supplication that was received from Allaah was, “O our Lord! We have oppressed ourselves and if You do not forgive us and bestow on us Your Mercy then we would be from the losers.” [7:23]

Al-Haafidh ibn Katheer said in his tafseer, “this has been reported from Mujaahid, Sa`eed bin Jubair, Abu al-`Aaliyah, ar-Rabee` bin Anas, al-Hasan, Qataadah, Muhammad bin Ka`b al-Qardhee, Khaalid bin Ma`daan, `Ataa al-Khurasaanee and Abdurrahmaan bin Zayd bin Aslam.”

Ten people from the scholars and amongst them none other than Abdurrahmaan bin Zayd bin Aslam the reporter of the above fabricated hadeeth!! This only serves to further prove the weakness of the hadeeth.

It is not mentioned from any of the Sahaabah or the Taabi`een via authentic routes that establish that the words used by Aadam were via the tawassul through the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam).

1) ‘Hadhihee Mafaahimunaa’ of Shaykh Saalih bin AbdulAzeez Muhammad Aali ash-Shaykh, his excellent refutation of al-Alawi’s ‘Mafaaheem Yajib an Tusahhah’

2) Silsilah Ahaadeeth ad-Da’eefah [no. 25] of Shaykh al-Albaanee

3) ‘Al-Jaami` fee Jarh wa at-Ta`deel’ a compilation of the biographies of narrators given by Bu
khaaree, Muslim, al-`Ijlee, Abu Zur`ah ar-Raazee, Abu Daawood, Ya`qoob al-Fasawee, Abu Haatim ar-Raazee, at-Tirmidhee, Abu Zur`ah ad-Dimishkee, an-Nasaa`ee, al-Bazzaar and ad-Daaruqutnee.

4) ‘Reply to a Naqshabandi’ – by br. Daawood Burbank]

Further replies to the claims of Kabbani concerning this hadeeth.

In his section on tawassul in volume 2 of his “repudiation of salafi innovations” [this article can be found on his homepage] Kabbani goes to added lengths and extremities in trying to declare this hadeeth authentic,

using some of the same deceptive methods we have seen above – and of course this is not surprising since the innovators of old and new use these sort of methods to spread their deceptions. In what follows I will only mention the few additional points that Kabbanni mentions.

6) That as-Subki states that ibn Taymiyyahs extreme weakening of ibn Zayd is exaggerated.

The fallacy of this can be seen in what has preceded in point no. 9

7) That ‘as-Subkee confirms al-Haakims authentication’

This is far from true as it has been proven that he only depends upon al-Haakims authentication as has preceded, so how can this be taken to be a confirmation!

8) That the hadeeth is included by Qaadi Ayaadh in his ‘Shifaa’ among the ‘sound and famous narrations’

The commentators to ash-Shifaa who pointed out it’s weakness have been previously mentioned under point 11.

9) That al-Aajurree mentions a similar hadeeth.

This hadeeth has been briefly discussed under no. 12 above.

10) That al-Bayhaqee said in the introduction to ad-Dalaa`il that he only includes sound ahaadeeth in his book

According to the quote of al-Alawi mentioned above, and quotes of other scholars, al-Bayhaqi does not state what Kabbani states, rather he states that he has not included any fabricated ahaadeeth (in his eyes) in his book. There is a world of difference between the two statements, for the latter does not rule the possibility of him including weak and severely weak ahaadeeth.

11) He seems to imply that the very fact that scholars have mentioned this in their books is sufficient to give it consideration.

This is far from the truth, just because a scholar narrates a hadeeth in his book, it does not necessarily mean that they consider it as a proof. Now how about when most of them, as in this case, specifically mention it’s

weakness in a way that indicates that they do not consider the hadeeth to be authentic! Refer to 3b) above.

12) That only three scholars reject it: ibn Taymiyyah, adh-Dhahabee and ibn Abdul Haadee

The fallacy of this is clear from what has preceded.

13) The statement that ibn Taymiyyah saw this hadeeth to be sound enough to be considered a witness for other narrations.

a) Ibn Taymiyyah mentions this hadeeth in the context of his discussing the authentic ahaadeeth concerning the high status of the Prophet (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) and replying to the claim of extreme sufis, saying, “so these two hadeeth are like an explanation of the authentic hadeeth…” [Fataawaa 2/150].

b) This statement is clear that ibn Taymiyyah did not consider the hadeeth to be authentic.

c) It is well known from the way of the scholars that sometimes they will deliberately quote fabricated ahaadeeth, which they knew were being misused by the innovators, and comment on them and direct one to understand them in the light of authentic texts in an attempt to show the innovators that even this fabricated hadeeth, if it were authentic then it is still not taken to mean what they think it does. This is what ibn Taymiyyah does here.

d) In the light of the above it is not permissible to try to force one’s interpretation onto the above words of ibn Taymiyyah concerning the hadeeth especially since he has clearly ruled it to be fabricated and false in other places.

14) adh-Dhahabees statement that “you must take everything in it (ad-Dalaa`il) for it consists entirely of light.”

This is quoted without reference as Kabbani acknowledges and even if it were correct then it is just diverting from the issue. This is because when adh-Dhahabee ruled the hadeeth to be fabricated he referred it to

ad-Dalaa`il of al-Bayhaqee and not only this but al-Bayhaqee himself mentions its weakness – therefore this phrase of adh-Dhahabee does not have any bearing upon the ruling of the hadeeth.

15) His discussion of the hadeeth, “were it not for you, Muhammad, I would not have created the spheres”

This hadeeth is fabricated and has been dealt with in detail elsewhere so there is no need to repeat it here.

16) His mentioning a number of ahaadeeth showing that the kalima was written on the Throne

a) These do not prove what Kabbani sets out to prove that tawassul with the person and rank of Muhammad is permissible

b) Kabbani has given no authenticating remarks of the hadeeth masters concerning these ahaadeeth, so when he does we can analyze them further.

And Allaah the Most High Knows best.