INVOKING MUHAMMAD: MAN IN NEED & THE BLIND MAN

The following lengthy extract is taken from ENGLISH BOOK: Counter refutation on topic of Waseela By Aamir Ibrahim, pp. 41-77. The author provides a thorough refutation to the attempt by Salafi Muslims to weaken the narrations where a blind man and a man in need prayed to Muhammad directly, with the latter case occurring long after Muhammad’s  

Hadith # (A)

Now let us come to the hadith of Uthman bin Hunayf during the life of Prophet, let us analyze the wording of hadith carefully to know that the Tawassul of Blind Sahabi was not restricted to presence of Prophet but it is to be followed by Ummah till times to come…

The translation could be read in footnote⁵⁵ but this time we would like to separate different parts of this hadith to prove without doubt that Waseela remains with the “PERSONALITY AND HONOUR” of Prophet and also there is no condition of doing it in presence/hayaat of Prophet even in this hadith.

a) Look at the wording:

Explanation: This wording proves that Prophet ordered him to do wudhu and pray 2 rakat Salaah, there is no condition of Prophet asking him to do this in his presence/hayaat only. Plus Albani cleverly tried to misuse the wording…

Albani claimed that the Tawassul was actually “DUA OF PROPHET HIMSELF NOT HIS DHAAT WHICH SAHABI TOOK.”

This is proven as Dajl and deception of Albani by the next wording itself which states:

The word Virtue is added by wahabis whereas the real translation should be: O Allah I ask you and I turn my face towards you “by the intercession of Muhammad the Prophet of Mercy. O Muhammad I turn to my Lord through your intercession.”

Read the red highlighted part in Arabic and Blue in translation carefully, now this directly proves Albani as a liar because the Prophet “DID NOT MAKE THE DUA HIMSELF” rather he told the Blind Sahabi to make it, the wording of hadith and dua are clear i.e. the Blind Sahabi is “ORDERED” to ask through intercession of Prophet not that Prophet asked through his own intercession by calling himself a “PROPHET OF MERCY” (what a stupid logic by Albani and his counter parts).

The Wahabis intentionally become ignorant of the clear wording of this hadith. I challenge them to prove that Prophet is making dua himself by saying “YA MUHAMMAD I TURN TO LORD THROUGH YOUR INTERCESSION”, O Wahabis how on earth could this be possible? How could Prophet turn into another person himself and ask the Lord by saying “YA MUHAMMAD I TURN TO LORD THROUGH YOU.” This is height of ignorance by Wahabis and Albani Mubtadi. Even when Prophet taught this then it means it is taught to Ummah for practicing it.

The wording… i.e. Prophet of Mercy proves Tawassul through the Personality/Hurmah/Jah of Prophet. The attribute of Prophet i.e. he is Rauf ur Raheem and Rehmat al Lil Aalameen (as mentioned in Qur’an) is being used over here, had this not been through his Dhaat then hadith would have categorically said “BI DUA AN-NABI RATHER THAN NABI AR-RAHMAH.”

Regarding the last part i.e. accept “HIS” intercession concerning me, then again Albani tried to cheat by misusing this. Indeed the Prophet is our intercessor and he could be called directly with Seegha Kalaam (I will prove this later through the hadiths after dhahiri passing away of Prophet which Sahaba and Tabiyeen also followed).

Even if assuming that Wahabi Ta’weel on this hadith is correct then remember asking him to make Dua is exactly our belief on Tawassul and Istighatha, we never believe that Prophet helps by himself or grants by himself, we call to the Prophet so that he can convey our dua to Allah and in return Allah will fulfil it, so if assuming the Batil Ta’weel of Albani is correct (God forbid) then still it proves our point over Istighatha, hence going to his grave or being far away from him, calling him directly with Seegha Kalaam and asking him to make dua for us actually proves our point not that of Wahabis.

Now let us turn towards Muhaditheen and their chapter titles in regards to this hadith. Imam Ibn Majah allocated the chapter as:

Now this chapter title is Mutlaq (i.e. for all times), the wahabis are asked to prove from Muhaditheen that when they narrated the hadith of Uthman bin Hunayf in regards to Salaat al Hajah then they only restricted it during physical hayaat of Prophet. This is an open challenge which Wahabis cannot counter till their deaths In shaa’ Allah.

If Wahabis say, “yes this chapter is right”, then do they believe that Muhaditheen asked us for Shirk and Bidah in their chapter titles? Did they not know which hadiths to bring under chapter titles? Did they not know what is Mansookh?

If Wahabis say that Ibn Majah can err in chapter titles, then remember many other Muhaditheen like Imam al Hafidh al Mundhiri in his Targheeb wa Tarheeb, Imam an-Nawawi in his Kitaab ul Adhkaar also narrated it with same chapter titles. Imam an-Nawawi’s Adhkaar not only proves Tawassul by author’s direct testimony but is rather a book of Adhkaar which is for Ummah in all times, hence later Muhaditheen repeating same chapter titles proves that Muhaditheen did not err in naming this chapter title.

Now finally let us come towards a “SAHIH HADITH” which proves directly from Prophet that he asked the Sahabi and through him whole Ummah to do it whenever in need. I will refute Ibn Taymiyyah and Albani’s deception in regards to this “SAHIH HADITH” narrated by Hafidh Ibn Abi Khaythama.

Here is the hadith first:

All the Rijaal of this hadith are “THIQAAT (trustworthy)” but again Albani and Ibn Taymiyyah used deception that Hamad bin Salama‟s addition is rejected (Naudhobillah). Such a statement is proof of Ibn Taymiyyah and his Muqalid Albani‟s ignorance in Usool ul-hadith. The “ZIYADAH (ADDITION)” of “THIQA MA’MOON” narrator is accepted, especially if he is above the rank of Thiqa.

Imam Hammad bin Salamah is not only Thiqa but is rather “THIQA MA’MOON” “IMAM UL HADITH” “AMONGST ABDAAL” and has many more praises to the extent that some Muhaditheen considered him greater than Sufyan ath-Thawri in knowledge [Refer to Tahdhib ul Kamaal and Tahdhib ut Tahdheeb under biography of Hamad bin Salamah bin Dinaar al Basri, also refer to Kitab ul Thiqaat of Ibn Hibban]

Imam Ibn Hibban said about Hamad bin Salamah “IN REGARDS TO HIS ZIYADA” in one hadith:

[Kitab ul Thiqaat, Volume # 8, Page # 1]

What a beautiful explanation by Imam Ibn Hibban, now remember Ziyadah of even Thiqa narrator is accepted let alone “THIQA MA’MOON” and highest ranking Muhaditheen like Hamad bin Salamah.

If Wahabis say that his hadith becomes Shadh (odd), then they have to prove from Aqwaal of “MUTUALLY AGREED UPON” scholars directly who called this “ZIYADAH” as Shadh. It is ignorance of Wahabis that they will start calling all additions as Shadhohaat, there are many examples of authentic Ziyadaat being present Hadith books. Now the only way we could be refuted is by quoting “MUTUALLY AGREED UPON” scholars who passed hukm on “THIS” specific hadith to be “SHADH.”

Things do not just stop here, look how Allah exposes Albani from his own words and that too regarding same Hamad bin Salamah. Albani without knowing about his contradictions said for same Hamaad bin Salamah in his Silsilaat ul Ahadith as Sahiha:

Although Albani has no clue about hadiths over here because Hamad has not gone against Jamaat in this specific hadith either, but still Albani says that “EVEN THOUGH HAMAAD WENT AGAINST GROUP OF OTHERS STILL HE REMEMBERED WHAT THE GROUP COULD NOT.”

Allah is the best of planners and he exposes these Wahabis from their own words.

Imam al-Bukhari says in his Juzz Raf ul Yaddain (dubious book due to Mujhool narrator in it, whereas it is Hujjah upon Wahabis):

Imam Bukhari regarding the Ziyadah of doing Raful Yaddain in Sujood says:

Imam al Bayhaqi said:

Imam al-Hakim (rah) said:

Imam al-Hakim also beautifully said in his Muqadma of Mustadrak:

Remember al-Hakim reviewed the early parts of Mustadrak and hence no blame of Tasahil could be put on Al-Hakim and he is to be accepted as the top authorities in Jarh wa’t Ta’deel.

Imam an-Nawawi said:

Imam al-Zarqani said:

This statement is very important to understand and I have used this for a strong reason i.e. nobody has “OPPOSED” Hamad bin Salamah in this regard, remember opposition means that some other Muhadith should narrate contrary wording of the hadith like for example the Prophet instead of saying: “WHENEVER YOU HAVE ANY NEED DO THE SAME” would have said: “DO NOT DO THIS IN NEED BUT ONLY IN MY PRESENCE.”

It is a challenge to whole Wahabi cult to show a single hadith from Uthman bin Hunayf which says opposite to Ziyadah of Hamad bin Salamah, hence the Ziyada of Hamad is accepted without doubt and cannot be called “SHADH” according to Usool ul Hadith.

Imam al-Hakim also said:

 So even Taffarud of Hamad has to be accepted as he is “THIQA MA’MOON, HAFIDH, AMONGST ABDAAL, THIQA, THABIT, and many other praises, rather he was such a great Imam that Tahdhib ul Kamaal says:

ALLAH HU AKBAR!! Such a great Hafidh could not have attributed a lie to Prophet, remember had addition of Thiqa Ma’moon been his personal insertion then he would be counted as a liar upon Prophet and anyone who intentionally lies upon Prophet shall be in hell fire (this cannot be even assumed for Hamaad because he died while praying and went straight to Jannah as hadiths attest, plus he was not a liar nor fabricator of hadiths).

Imam al Bukhari himself narrates about Hamad bin Salamah:

The Muhaditheen had put Hamad bin Salamah on par with Imam Malik … ALLAH HU AKBAR!

Now even if assuming for argument’s sake that addition of Hamad is not accepted, still it will stand as a valid viewpoint of Hamad who was Thiqa Ma’moon and he cannot be accused of treachery and attributing lies to Prophet. This proves that classical Muhaditheen considered the hadith to be “MUTLAQ” and not time bound.

In the end I would like to show testimony from the house of Wahabis that this hadith is to be followed till today.

In al-Hisn ul Hiseen the famous book written on authentic supplications, it states in the Adaab ad-Dua (i.e. Etiquettes of making dua) section:

Note: The former is considered Shirk/Bidah by deniers of Tawasul and the latter (i.e. wiping faces after dua) is also considered wrong by them, in simple words they are saying that the great author of world renowned book Hisn ul Hiseen did not even know basic Adaab of Dua but was rather indulged in Shirk & Bidah (Naudhobillah).

Qadhi Shawkani the big authority according to Wahabis explains the first part as…

And Qadhi Shawkani also said…

This is our exact belief on Tawasul.

Our discussion on the hadith of Uthman bin Hunayf is now over, let us now come towards the second Sahih “MAWQUF ROUTE” after the passing away of Prophet.

Hadith # (B)

This report is a Sahih Mawquf route from same Uthman bin Hunayf, but this time it is called the hadith of “MAN IN NEED.” Ahlus Sunnah challenges the whole Wahabi cult to prove the following authentication with proofs from classical scholars.

The Hadith states:

Imam Muhammad bin Yusuf al-Salihi said about Hadith of man in need:

Now the challenge above is given to wahabis with full authority (Note: Mutually agreed means scholars which are hujjah on both parties not Bida’ee scholars like Ibn Taymiyyah and company who are not Hujjah upon us)

The Wahabi Asim in frustration said: With regards to the authentication of “SOOFI MUHAMMAD BIN YOUSAF SALIHI” then we say he erred because he was inclined towards Sufism of 10th Century.

What an absurd, rather pathetic reply indeed. What is your worth Mr Asim and who are these “we” which you are talking about? Even Albani did not challenge the authentication by Imam Ibn Yusuf al Salihi, so are you becoming a muhadith youRself along with some other pseudo people like Zubayr Zai? If yes then remember your Wahabi gurus are not even dust on the feet of classical scholars like Ibn Yusuf al Salihi. Secondly it is a lie that Imam Ibn Yusuf al Salihi was a 10th century scholar, he was contemporary of Imam Jalal’ud-din Suyuti and he died in 942 AH so he died within 9th century. You Wahabis deny mutually agreed upon scholars of past when things go against you but still you have the audacity to quote recent people like Albani and Abdur Rahman al Faqeeh against Tawassul and on top of that assume that we ahlus sunnah will accept their pseudo interpretations? Wishful thinking indeed!

Thirdly: Look at the hate coming out of Wahabi filthy mouths in regards to Muhaditheen and upright Ulama. They bash great scholars just because they were Sufis, so what will they say about other classical Muhaditheen who narrated even hadiths from “SUFIS AND PRAISED THEM IN BAAB OF ASMA UR RIJAAL.”

Please read our article on Merits of Sufis here: http://www.ahlussunna.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64&Itemid=129

I would like to show 1 extract from this article:

1. Imam al Bayhaqi narrates many ahadith in praise of Sufis in his hadith work Shu‟ab ul Iman, in one hadith he mentions the chain of narrators as

al-Dhahabi says of this Muhadith:

[End Quote]

So it is Dajl of Wahabis to brush aside Muhaditheen by just calling them Sufis. This way many many hadiths will have to be rejected because many narrators in hadiths are “THIQA SUFIS.”

Then wahabis quoted an irrelevant example from Ibn Yusuf al Salihi assuming that doing Qiyaam for veneration of Prophet is relevant to this topic.

How on earth is this relevant to the hadith of Uthman bin Affan’s tenure? The Wahabi fuel had ended so he just started to go here and there, firing arrows in the air like typical wahabis do.

We would like to prove Imam Ibn Yusuf al Salihi (Rahimahullah) as a great Muhadith, A’lim, Salih, and Muhaqiq so that no confusion is left behind. The Wahabi Asim has relied on Mubtadi scholars like Albani, Bin Baaz, and their tails like Zubayr Ali Zai the bandwagon of misguidance.

It is an undeniable principle that Wahabi pseudo Muhaditheen are not hujjah upon us (for example if Ahlus Sunnah quotes only Allama Ahmed Ridha Khan Rahimahullah against Wahabis and starts believing that he is Hujjah upon Wahabis then that would be illogical).

On the other hand Imam Ibn Yusuf al Salihi is Hujjah upon both Wahabis and Sunnis, none of the scholars of his time rejected him by just calling him Sufi, this is Dajl and trick of Wahabis to let down a great Muhadith just like same Asim even tried to call Imam Shams ud-din Ramli and Imam al-Qastallani as Mushrikeen because they approved Istighatha [Imam al-Qastallani the great Sharih of Bukhari even did Istighatha from Prophet being in Makkah let alone Madina].

Greatness of Imam Ibn Yusuf al-Salihi. In the Muqadma of Subl-ul Huda war Rashaad it says:

 هبٍ اُْؼوا٢ٗ ك٢ مَ٣ ٛجوبر.ٚ ” ًبٕ ػبُٔب ٕبُؾب ٓل٘٘ب ك٢ اُؼِّٞ

If Wahabis deny the great scholar Abdul Wahab Sha’rani then here is what other great authorities said of al-Sha’rani:

 ٤ّق٘ب اُؼبهف ػجل اُٛٞبة اُْؼوا٢ٗ

Then it says at Page #3 in Muqadma of Moulif in Subul ul Huda war Rashad:

 هبٍ ٤ٍلٗب ٞٓٝالٗب ٤ّٝق٘ب ٤ّـ اإلٍالّ فبرٔخ أُؾلصٖ٤ ٝاألػال،ّ أثٞ ػجل هللا ٓؾٔل اثٖ ٍٞ٣ق اُْب،٢ٓ هؽٚٔ هللا رؼب٠ُ

Transliteration: Qala Sayyiduna wa Mawlana, Wa Shaykhuna, “SHAYKH UL ISLAMI, KHATIMATUL MUHADITHEENA WAL-A‟LAAMI, ABU ABDILLAH MUHAMMADU IBNU YUSUF ASH-SHAMI RAHIMAHULLAHU TA’LA.”

ALLAH HU AKBAR, look how he is called as “FINAL OF MUHADITHEEN (I.E. KHATIMATUL MUHADITHEEN)”

Final of Muhaditheen is a term used for great Muhaditheen who had reached peak in the field.

Download the book from Wahabi website here⁵⁶: http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open.php?cat=44&book=1861#.UewfOvmw2uI

Imam Abdul Wahaab al-Sha’rani was a great scholar himself and accepted by all, but wahabis have this habit of rejecting all great Sufi scholars (even of past) if they went against their methodology. Now I would like to present detailed analysis on the “SAHIH CHAINS AND MUTLIPLE NARRATORS NARRATING FROM SHABEEB BIN SA’EED WHOM WAHABIS ACCUSE WRONGLY.”

Remember that when Multiple narrators mention this report from Shabeeb bin Sa’eed then there remains no doubt of it being confirmed and the Ilzaam due to Ibn Wahb is totally lifted.

Authentic Sanad # 1 via Imam al-Bayhaqi.

 أفجوٗب أثٞ ػ٢ِ اُؾَٖ ثٖ أؽٔل ثٖ إثواْ٤ٛ ثٖ ّبما،ٕ أٗجأٗب ػجل هللا ثٖ عؼلو ثٖ كهٍز،ٚ٣ٞ ؽلص٘ب ٣ؼوٞة ثٖ ٍل٤ب،ٕ ؽلص٘ب أؽٔل ثٖ ّج٤ت ثٖ ٍؼ٤ل، كنًوٙ ثطُٚٞ [

[Dalayl un Nubuwah (6/168), Published by Dar ul Kutb al ILmiyyah] Important.

Note: There is no Abdullah bin Wahb in this chain.

This chain is absolutely Sahih, it does not contain Ibn Wahb due to whom Wahabis accuse Shabeeb that when Shabeeb narrated via Ibn Wahb then he narrates Manakeer (we will also refute this point of Wahabis later on)

Authenticated Sanad # 2 by Imam al-Bayhaqi

 أفجوٗب أثٞ ٍؼ٤ل ػجل أُِي ثٖ أث٢ ػضٔبٕ اُياٛل ، هؽٚٔ هللا ، أٗجأٗب اإلٓبّ أثٞ ثٌو ٓؾٔل ثٖ ػ٢ِ ثٖ إٍٔبػَ٤ اُْب٢ّ اُولبٍ ، هب:ٍ أٗجأٗب أثٞ ػوٝثخ ، ؽلص٘ب اُؼجبً ثٖ اُلوط ، ؽلص٘ب إٍٔبػَ٤ ثٖ ّج٤ت ، ؽلص٘ب أث،٢ ػٖ هٝػ ثٖ اُوبٍْ ، ػٖ أث٢ عؼلو أُل٢٘٣ ، ػٖ أث٢ أٓبٓخ ثٖ ٍَٜ ثٖ ؽ٤٘ق

[Dalayl un Nubuwah (1/167), Dar ul Kutb al iLmiyyah]

Note: Again there is no Abdullah bin Wahb in chain (This is important to know once you read the Usooli discussion on chain).

Both these chains do not contain Ibn Wahb, although even presence of Ibn Wahb does not have effect on the chain according to Usool ul-Hadith as it shall be established, but still to satisfy Wahabis completely we are also relying on chains not having Ibn Wahb.

The latter chain contains son of Shabeeb called “ISMAIL BIN SHABEEB” who narrates from his father “Shabeeb bin Sa’eed.”

The Wahabis cannot accuse first chain but say that in second chain Ismail bin Shabeeb is unknown in books of Rijaal (unlike the other son of Shabeeb i.e. Ahmed bin Shabeeb who is Thiqa and well known). This is ignorance of Wahabis because Ismail is son of Shabeeb as clearly mentioned in the chain itself, now if books of Rijaal do not mention him then it does not mean he is a weak narrator.

We would like to make an Usooli discussion here so that no confusion is left in minds of people. If there is no mention of some narrator in books of Rijaal whether about him being Majhool, Thiqa or Da‟eef then the narrator becomes “MASTOOR” and the Usool about such narrators is that if he narrates from “THIQATAAN” i.e. adjacent narrators to him are both thiqa then even “HIS ADALAT IS PROVEN.”

Here are the proofs:

Proof # 1

So Adalat of Ismail bin Shabeeb is proven because both the before and after narrators from him are “THIQA” before is Abaas bin al-Farj, regarding him Muhaditheen said:

And remember Abbas bin al-Farj is narrating with Sareeh Tahdeeth (بُؽذص) here i.e. Ismail bin Shabeeb was his confirmed Shaykh, plus Abbas bin al- 70 Farj is not a Mudalis hence he cannot be accused either. This by itself proves Ismail bin Shabeeb to be Ma’roof.

Then Ismail narrates with Sareeh Tahdeeth from his father Shabeeb bin Sa’eed. Regarding Shabeeb bin Sa‟eed (rah) Imam al-Hakim has authenticated both Marfu and Mawquf routes. He said after narrating hadith of Blind Sahabi:

Even if there is no Tawtheeq of Ismail bin Shabeeb (rah) he still becomes “JAIZ UL HADITH” because Imam al-Dhahabi while mentioning Ziyaad bin Maleek said:

It is now a challenge to whole Wahabi cult to prove Ismail bin Shabeeb as a “WEAK NARRATOR” directly from the books of Rijaal. Remember in Islam we cannot do backbiting, so any Muhadith who is not mentioned in books of Rijaal does not become weak automatically, rather according to Qur‟an and Sunnah we are strictly told to have Husn al Dhan (good opinion).

Secondly books of Rijaal were written by mortal men, if they forgot to mention some narrator then it does not mean the narrator has to be intentionally declared weak. Plus the Muhaditheen could not have possibly mentioned all narrators in books.

Above all, this narrator is considered Thiqa by Imam al-Bayhaqi because he said in the muqadma of his Dalayl an Nubuwah:

Then Imam al-Bayhaqi said

Even Imam al-Dhahabi said about Dalayl un Nubuwah:

Remember O Wahabis, this quote of total guidance and Nur refers to all Hadiths which Imam al-Bayhaqi authenticated according to the Usool he mentioned in the Muqadma. Hence the hadith of Blind man and Man in need both are proven authentic by Imam al Bayhaqi because he has nowhere hinted towards weakness of any of those reports, plus he has shown different Asaneed, plus he has shown the hadith of Blind man first as proof on next ones.

According to the criteria of Imam al-Bayhaqi he has authenticated the hadith of Man in Need by narrating the hadith of Uthman bin Hunayf before it and he has not declared any of them (whether the Marfu or Mawquf route) as weak, hence all Rijaal including Ismail bin Shabeeb are Thiqa according to him.

Now Wahabis might irrelevantly quote al-Dhahabi the student of Ibn Taymiiyyah in this regard that “GOOD NUMBER (i.e. 50%)” of hadiths in Hakim are indeed on criteria of Sahihayn, whereas many are not (but still sahih), and some are Weak and even forged.

First of all, we are not talking about Imam al-Hakim only but also Imam al-Bayhaqi’s authentication. Secondly: Imam al-Bayhaqi’s Usool in Muqadma of Dalail could only be challenged with Sareeh (explicit) hukm on this specific hadith to be weak (i.e. from mutually agreed upon scholars). Thirdly: The hadith of Shabeeb bin Sa’eed without chain having Yunus which Imam al-Hakim declared “SAHIH ON CRITERIA OF BUKHARI” Imam al-Dhahabi has himself accepted authentication of al-Hakim, hence even according to al-Dhahabi the hadith is Sahih on criteria of Bukhari. [Refer to Talkhees of al Dhahabi under Hadith # 1930]

Here Imam al-Hakim (rah) has also authenticated the addition and based the ruling on the fact that it depends on Shabeeb bin Sa’eed who is “THIQA M’AMUN (ONE OF THE HIGHEST DEGREES OF AUTHENTICATION).”

Albani has done fraud over here, he knew that Imam al-Hakim had proven Shabeeb as Thiqa Ma’moon “UNCONDITIONALLY” whether he narrates from Yunus bin Yazeed‟s book or not, but Albani cleverly ignored the un conditional Ta’deel of Shabeeb as shown by Imam al-Hakim. This quote of al-Hakim actually proves that hadith of Man in need to be “SAHIH” too because the Ziyadah in Sanad and Matn is about that hadith and Imam al-Hakim has authenticated it by narrating it in Ikhtisaar form.

And then he narrated the next hadith without the chain having “YUNUS” in it and still calls it:

Here is what other Muhaditheen said of Shabeeb bin Sa’eed:

[Note: Albani misused rather forged this quote by deleting the word “THIQA” plus Albani cooked up an assumption from his own bag that Shabeeb’s hadith should only be from the book of Yunus, although there is no such stipulation here. I will quote Albani‟s deception below].

Abu Zura’ said: There is “NO HARM IN HIM” [Unconditional Ta’deel].

Abu Hatim said: He had book of Yunus bin Yazid and he (Shabeeb) is “UPRIGHT IN HADITH AND THERE IS NO HARM IN HIM” [Note: This is again an uncondtional Ta’deel and there is no Stipulation even here that it is a must for him to narrate from the book of Yunus].

Imam Nasai’i said: There is “NO HARM IN HIM” [Unconditional Ta’deel].

Imam Abu Ahmed bin Adi said: Shabeeb had the Nuskha of Zuhri which had (narrations) from Yunus, the ahadith from him through Zuhri are fine and Ibn Wahb narrated (some) Manakeer reports from him.

[Note: This is the best Jarh which Salafis quote, we have already proven different turaq of the hadith without Ibn Wahb, but still we shall prove ahead that Ibn Adi is not talking about all the hadiths from Ibn Wahb but only few out of which he himself presents 2, although after research even those 2 hadiths are proven Sahih, so Ibn Adi’s Jarh is Jarh Mubham (vague) and cannot be accepted].

Ibn Hibban mentioned him in “THIQAAT” [Unconditional Ta’deel].

Bukhari, Abu Dawud in “Nasikh wal Mansookh” and Nasai narrated from him [Tahdheeb ul Kamaal (8/270-271)]

Now this is Alhamdolillah a Mufassar Ta’deel which cannot be challenged by Jarh Mubham. Unlike Wahabis we the ahlus sunna have shown the complete quote from Tahdhib ul Kamaal and even shown the last quote which can be misused against us, this is proof of us being on Haqq because we do not need to hide anything while narrating Ta’deel of a certain narrator, now let us look at Albani Mubtadi al Mushoor.

Although there are many examples of Nasir ud-Dhalalah al-Albani doing Tahreef and forgeries to classical literature but I recently came across a big deception of Albani regarding the “ABSOLUTELY RELIABLE” narrator Shabeeb bin Sa’eed who is present in the hadith of Man in need i.e. the hadith which Proves Tawassul.

Nasir ud-Dhalalah al-Albani in order to let down Shabeeb bin Sa’eed misquotes from Meezan ul A’itidal as:

Maybe laymen cannot trace the clever deception and fraud of Albani, but here is the fraud which Albani did and hypocritically removed the wording “SHABEEB BIN SA’EED IS THIQA” from in-between in order to put doubts over him and also the last part where Ibn al-Mudayni mentions that Ibn Wahb narrated from him.

The original text says:

Remember “NO-ONE OTHER THAN IBN ADI” did Jarh on Shabeeb (later scholars will not be Hujjah) but the Jarh of Ibn Adi is Mubham because Imam Ibn Hibban narrated from Shabeeb via route of “IBN WAHB AND CONSIDERED THE HADITH AS SAHIH IN HIS SAHIH IBN HIBBAN.” Also Imam al-Hakim authenticated the chain without Yunus, so the Jarh Mubham through Ibn Adi is rejected!

Here are the hadiths from “SAHIH.”

Ibn Hibaan and also Mustadrak: Imam Ibn Hibban narrates a hadith in his “SAHIH IBN HIBBAN” with the following chain.”

Transliteration: Akhbarna Umar bin Muhammad al-Hamdani, Qala Hadasna Ahmed bin Sa’eed al-Hamdani, Qala “HADASNA IBN WAHB QALA AKHBARNI SHABEEB BIN SA‟EED” AN MUHAMMAD BIN UMAR” AN Abi Usama AN Abi Hurraira [Sahih Ibn Hibban (1/237)]

Here is proof again that Imam al-Hakim even considered chain without Yunus to be “SAHIH ON CRITERIA OF BUKHARI.”

Note at the chain:

After narrating this hadith Imam al-Hakim (rah) said:

This proves without any shadow of doubt that Shabeeb narrating ahadith without Yunus are still “SAHIH ON CRITERIA OF BUKHARI.”

FURTHER READING

Unveiling Islam’s Real Savior and Middleman

Five Step Outline Proving Muhammad is Worshiped as a God

Grave Worship: More of Muhammad’s Duplicity Exposed

INVOCATION AND WORSHIP: THE ISLAMIC DILEMMA PT. 1, PT. 2

MUSLIM JALAL EXPOSES MUHAMMAD AS A BLASPHEMOUS IDOLATOR