Dr.

Tahir ul-Qadri's Reply

More on HADITH NUMBER 4 from Dr. Tahir ul-Qadri's book: Islamic Concept of Intermediation

Descension of rain Prophets means

Imam Drim relates from Ab al-Jawz Aws bin Abdullh:

through

the

The people of Medina were in the grip of a severe famine. They complained to ishah (about their terrible condition). She told them to go towards the Prophets grave and open a window in the direction of the sky so that there is no curtain between the sky and the grave. The narrator says they did so. Then it started raining heavily; even the lush green grass sprang up (everywhere) and the camels had grown so fat (it seemed) they would burst out due to the over piling of blubber. So the year was named as the year of greenery and plenty.[7]
The famine gripping the people of Medina ended through the mediation of the Prophets grave. Heavy rains created a spring scenario all around. Men found their food and the animals found their fodder. And the rain that came about as a result of the Prophets mediation made the lands of Medina greener and more fertile and on account of over-harvesting, they named the year as the year of greenery and plenty.

Those who deny the conceptual relevance of intermediation have raised some objections against this tradition. One of the objections is that its chain of transmission is weak and so it cannot be offered as an argument.

The chain of transmission of this tradition is as follows:

Ab an-Numn heard it from Sad bin Zayd, he from Amr bin Mlik an-Nukr and he from Ab al-Jawz Aws bin Abdullh who has reported it. Below are given the allegations levelled against these narrators and a rebuttal of these baseless charges:

1. The name of Ab an-Numn rim was Muhammad bin al-Fadl Sads. They agree that he was a reliable reporter of traditions as is confirmed by Dhahab in Mzn-ul-itidl (4:7): He was Imam Bukhrs teacher, memorizer of traditions and an extremely truthful person. But their objection is that he had lost his marbles in the declining years of his age. Burhn-ud-Dn Halab, who possessed great knowledge of traditions, comments in his book al-Muqaddimah on this reporter along with others who had lost their memory in the closing years of their lives: The ruling on these narrators is that the traditions reported by them before their loss of memory are acceptable, while the traditions after their deranged conditions are unacceptable. And if we do not know whether these traditions were received from them before or after their memory lapse, we should not accept these traditions from them either. The objectors say that since we do not know whether Ab an-Numn has narrated this tradition before or after his loss of memory, we cannot adduce the tradition as evidence. This objection not only lacks significance but also lacks credibility. Their objection is logically inconsistent. While they discard this tradition as weak, because it is the product of his loss of memory, they ignore other traditions though they are also the products of the same state of mind. Dhahab says: Imam Draqutn comments, Though he had lost his memory towards the end of his life, he never reported any tradition in this condition that could affect his veracity, therefore, he remains a truthful narrator. I insist that it is a report by that contemporary memorizer of traditions who is only matched by Imam Nas. Ibn Hibbn is of the opinion that there are many incompatibilities in Ab an-Numns narrations after his loss of memory but Dhahab rejects this opinion by asserting that Ibn Hibbn has failed to produce a single fact that establishes him as a misreporter of traditions. And the real position is the one that has been endorsed by Imam Draqutn.[8]

Irq has admitted in at-Taqyd wal-dh that Imam Dhahab has convincingly rebutted Ibn Hibbns statement. Dhahab has explained it in al-Kshif (3:79) that the change took place before death, but after the change he had not related any tradition.

Ibn Hajar Asqaln writes in Taqrb-ut-tahdhb (2:200) that Ab an-Numn was a sound narrator and the change came about in his last years. Muhammad bin Alaw al-Mlik writes, Ab an-Numns mental debility is neither damaging for him nor does it affect his credibility as a narrator because Imam Bukhr in his as-Sahh has taken more than one hundred traditions from him and has not taken a single tradition from him after his loss of memory as is stated by Imam Draqutn.[9] Besides Imam Bukhr, Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, Ibn Ab Htim Rz and Ab Al Muhammad bin Khlid Zarq have also heard traditions from Ab an-Numn before his mental confusion set in.[10]

Imam Drim is one of the well-reputed teachers of Imam Bukhr and other famous memorizers of traditions. Therefore, it was impossible for him to accept any tradition from Ab an-Numn after he had suffered a loss of memory. 2. An objection is raised against Sad bin Zayd Ab al-Hasan Basr, brother of Hammd bin Zayd, that he is somewhat weak because Ibn Hajar Asqaln has written about him in Taqrb-uttahdhb (1:296), That is, he is extremely truthful but sometimes he commits an error. Dhahab writes in Mzn-ul-itidl (2:138), Yahy bin Sad has called him weak, Sad says that he is not an argument and his traditions are weak and Nas etc., are of the opinion that he is not sound.

The objections of those, who deny the validity of intermediation, are not only partial as they base them exclusively on these statements and references, but they are also based on prejudice as their arguments are not logical because they are tailored to their preconceptions. A detailed refutation of their groundless objections is presented as follows: Dhahab negates it in al-Kshif (1:286). He says that the decrepitude attributed to Sad bin Zayd is incorrect because Imam Muslim accepted traditions from him and Ibn Man has called him authentic and trustworthy. Ibn Hajar Asqaln has described it in detail in Tahdhb-ut-tahdhb (4:32-3):

Imam Bukhr said that Muslim bin Ibrhm reported to us that Sad bin Zayd Ab al-Hasan is extremely truthful and knows the traditions by heart.[11]

Dr has reported it from Ibn Man that Sad bin Zayd is a trustworthy narrator.

Ibn Sad has also called him a reliable narrator.[12]

Ujl comments that he belongs to Basrah and he is a dependable relater of traditions.

Ab Zurah said he heard it from Sulaymn bin Harb that Sad bin Zayd is trustworthy.

Ab Jafar Drim said: Hibbn bin Hill reported to us that Sad bin Zayd has related to us that tradition and he is truthful and a preserver of traditions. Ibn Ad has stated in al-Kmil (3:1212-5) that Sad bin Zayd is truthful and he knows the traditions by heart. He has not related any inauthentic tradition except that someone else relates it and to me he happens to be among the (truthful) narrators. The famous compiler and exegete of traditions Abdullh bin Muhammad bin Siddq al-Ghumr from Morocco writes in his book Irghm-ul-mubtad al-ghab bi-jawz-it-tawassul bi an-nab writes: Imam Ahmad bin Hambal has referred to Sad bin Zayd as laysa bih bas. It means that there is no objection against him and he is absolutely truthful.[13] Imam Ahmads expression is semantically identical with trustworthiness, which is considered the highest virtue by all traditionists of integrity. Ibn Man also identifies the term laysa bih bas with trustworthiness.[14]

The traditionist Ibn-us-Salh in al-Muqaddimah, Sakhw in Fath-ul-mughth, Ibn Hajar Asqaln in Hady-us-sr muqaddimah Fath-ul-br and Nawaw in at-Taqrb wat-taysr have identified laysa bih bas with veracity. Besides, a number of traditionists of the third century (ah), for instance, Ibn Man, Ibn Madn, Ab Zurah, Ibn Ab Htim Rz, Yaqb bin Sufyn Fasw, etc., have invested laysa bih bas with the distinction of veracity. 3. Ibn Hibbn has called Amr bin Mlik an-Nukr as veracious as Ibn Hajar Asqaln writes in Tahdhb-ut-tahdhb (8:96), Ibn Hibbn has mentioned him in his book Kitb-ut-thiqt. Therefore, Ibn Hibbns acknowledgement of his credibility is based on truth and it is beyond any iota of doubt that Ibn Hajar Asqaln, on the basis of his authenticity, has called Amr bin Mlik

an-Nukr in Taqrb-ut-tahdhb (2:77), Sadq lah awhm (he is truthful but there are doubts about him). The word sadq (truthful) used by Ibn Hajar Asqaln attests to the veracity of Amr bin Mlik an-Nukr and he has given it precedence over others. Mahmd Sad Mamdh refers to it in his book Raf-ul-minrah (p.258) that Abdullh bin Ahmad, attributing it to his father, commented, Annah ka-annah daafah (as if he weakened him). I say that the word ka-anna (as if; as though) is doubt and suspicion; it cannot serve as an act of justification. When Abdullh bin Al bin Madn referred to Hasan bin Ms Ashyab as wa ka-annah daafah (and as if he weakened him), Ibn Hajar Asqaln endorsed him by saying: hdh zann, la taqmu bih hujjah (it is suspicion, therefore, it cannot serve as a justification).[15]

So this statement makes the veracity of Amr bin Mlik an-Nukr unquestionable. Dhahab has explained it further in Mzn-ul-itidl (3:286) and al-Mughn (2:488). Mahmd Sad Mamdh writes:Ibn Ad has bracketed Amr bin Mlik an-Nukr with Amr bin Mlik Rsib in al-Kmil (5:1799) and has dubbed him as a recanter narrator. Dhahab has explained it in Mzn-ul-itidl (3:285) and al-Mughn (2:488) while Ibn Hajar Asqaln has commented on it in Tahdhb-ut-tahdhb (8:95). Both these hadith-scholars have delinked Amr bin Mlik an-Nukr from Amr bin Mlik Rsib and disproved the linkage forged by Ibn Ad, which has driven some of the traditionists to label Amr bin Mlik an-Nukr as unreliable. These traditionists are not to blame as they have based their deductions on the conclusions drawn by Ibn Ad without any conscious attempt at distortion as has been explained by Ibn-ul-Jawz in Kitb-ul-mawdt (2:145) and by Ibn Taymiyyah in Qidah jallah fit-tawassul wal-waslah.[16]

Albn writes in Talq al Fadl-is-salt ala an-nab (p.88): Amr bin Mlik an-Nukr is a reliable narrator as has been endorsed by Dhahab. He has also confirmed this view in another book Silsilat-ul-ahdth-is-sahhah (5:608). 4. A large number of people have taken traditions from Ab al-Jawz Aws bin Abdullh on the basis of his credibility and the direct transmission of this tradition from ishah has also been established. In support of this contention it suffices to state that Imam Muslim has recorded Ab al-Jawz Awss narration through ishah.

Imam Bukhr says: It was related to us by Musaddad who had heard it from Jafar bin Sulaymn, who from Amr bin Mlik an-Nukr who had reported it from Ab al-Jawz. He said: I spent twelve years with Ibn Abbs and ishah and there was not a single verse of the Holy Qur'an about which I had not asked them.[17] Ibn Sad has related another tradition on these lines:Ab al-Jawz has related:

I lived as Ibn Abbss neighbour for twelve years and there was not a single verse of the Holy Qur'an about which I had not asked him.[18] Abu Naaym has added the following words to the tradition: And my deputy visited the Mother of the Believers (ishah) every morning and evening. So I did not hear from any other quarter (except what I heard from her), nor did I hear from any other source (except from her) what Allah has enjoined about sin that I shall forgive him (the sinner) except the one who associates any partner with Me.[19] According to Ibn Hajar Asqaln, it by no means implies that he never met ishh afterwards. So, the inference drawn by Imam Muslim from the frequency of visits clearly indicates that he had a face-to-face meeting with ishah. Thus when his meeting with ishah has been established with irrefutable finality, the element of deceit and incredibility in his statement is automatically washed out and his tradition, therefore, acquires authenticity. To call him an impostor is, actually, to commit excess against his genuineness as a reporter, and to do him justice we have to acknowledge the obvious fact that his statement is based on sound transmission. This conclusion is compatible not only with the findings of Imam Muslim but also reflects the general drift of public opinion.

Ab Nuaym has confirmed the authenticity of a number of traditions by Ab al-Jawz with the words an ishah (from ishah) in Hilyat-ul-awliy wa tabaqt-ul-asfiy. Ibn-ul-Qaysarn has also reported a tradition from Ab al-Jawz by using the words samia ishah (he listened to ishah).[20]

This detailed discussion proves beyond doubt that these certificates of authenticity are not based on any forgery but on verifiable evidence, and this chain of transmission is sahh (sound) or hasan (fair).

Muhammad bin Alaw al-Mlik says, This tradition has a good chain of transmission; rather, in my opinion, it is sound. The scholars have also acknowledged its soundness and have established its genuineness on the basis of almost equally credible evidence.[21] Therefore, this tradition may be relied upon as a viable argument because, according to Imam Nass contention, a narrator may be discarded only when all the traditionists have unanimously rejected him/her.[22] Those who deny the relevance of intermediation object to the tradition as undependable as its range of reference is limited only to the Companion and does not extend up to the Prophet ( ) himself. In their opinion, it is only one of ishahs statements and not a command to be indiscriminately followed. They add that, even if it carries the stamp of her certification, it cannot serve as cogent argument as it is based on personal opinion, which is generally characterized by fluctuation. Sometimes the personal opinion of a Companion may prove correct but at other occasions it may prove incorrect. Therefore, its application is not binding on the believers.

A simple answer to this baseless objection is that not only the tradition is properly certified, but no Companion has ever raised any objection against the mode of action prescribed by ishah, nor has such an objection been ever reported, just as no objection has been raised against the person in the tradition reported by Mlik ad-Dr who prays for rain at the grave of the Holy Prophet (23[. ) ) These traditions reflect the collective opinion of the Companions and such a consensus is quite valid. An act, which enjoys the tacit support of the Companions, cannot be spelled out as invalid or a discredited form of innovation, and it is obligatory for us to follow the Companions. In this context, Imam Shf says, For us, their opinion about us is far more authentic than our own opinion.[24]This tradition clearly establishes the fact that ishah commanded the natives of Medina to rely on the Prophet ( ) in his grave as a source of intermediation for divine blessings.

Ibn Taymiyyah has discarded the tradition as mere fabrication. According to him, during the entire life of ishah, there was no such hole in the roof of the Prophets tomb. But this objection is weak as watered tea because Imam Drim and the religious leaders and scholars who followed him were more deeply aware of these details. For example, a traditionist and historian from Medina, Al bin Ahmad Samhd has disconfirmed Ibn Taymiyyah and supported Imam Drims contention. According to him, Zayn-al-Mirgh said, Let it be known that it is a practice of the people of Medina to date that, during a period of drought, they open a window at the bottom of the dome in the Prophets tomb in the direction of prayer niche though the roof intervenes between the grave and the sky. I say that in our period, too, one of the gates in the boundary wall, enveloping the tomb, called al-mawjahah, that is, the door that opens towards the Prophets face, is flung open and people gather there (for prayer).[25]

The Ottoman Turks followed the practice of offering prayers through the mediation of the Prophets grave. The practice remained in vogue till the early years of the twentieth century. Whenever there was famine and scarcity of rain, the residents of Medina persuaded a six-orseven-year-old child to climb the roof of the grave. (He performed the ablution before climbing over the roof.) The child tugged at the rope, which had been hung down the roof to close the hole in the grave, dug at the suggestion of the Mother of the Believers, ishah. When there was no curtain between the sky and the grave, it started raining.

NOTES:

[7]. Drim related it in his Sunan (1:43#93); Ibn-ul-Jawz in al-Waf bi-ahwl-il-mustaf (2:801); Subk in Shif-us-siqm f ziyrat khayr-il-anm (p.128); Qastalln in al-Mawhib-ul-laduniyyah (4:276); and Zurqn in his Commentary (11:150). [8]. Dhahab, Mzn-ul-itidl (4:8). [9]. Muhammad bin Alaw al-Mlik, Shif-ul-fud bi-ziyrat khayr-il-ibd (p.152). [10]. Irq, at-Taqyd wal-dh (p.462). [11]. Bukhr, at-Trkh-ul-kabr (3:472).

[12]. Ibn Sad, at-Tabaqt-ul-kubr (7:287). [13]. Imam Ahmads statement has been reproduced by Dhahab in Mzn-ul-itidl (2:138) and by Ibn Hajar Asqaln in Tahdhb-ut-tahdhb (4:32). [14]. Ibn Hajar Asqaln, Lisn-ul-Mzn (1:13). [15]. Ibn Hajar Asqaln, Hady-us-sr muqaddimah Fath-ul-br (p.397). [16]. Mahmd Sad Mamdh, Raf-ul-minrah (pp.259-60). [17]. Bukhr, at-Trkh-ul-kabr (2:16-7). [18]. Ibn Sad, at-Tabaqt-ul-kubr (7:224). [19]. Ab Naaym, Hilyat-ul-awliy wa tabaqt-ul-asfiy (3:79). [20]. Ibn-ul-Qaysarn, al-Jam bayn as-Sahhayn (1:46) as quoted by Mahmd Sad Mamdh in Raful-minrah (p.261). [21]. Muhammad bin Alaw al-Mlik, Shif-ul-fud bi-ziyrat khayr--il-ibd (p.153). [22]. Ibn Hajar Asqaln, Nuzhat-un-nazr bi-sharh nukhbat-ul-fikr f mustalah hadith ahl-ul-athr (p.89). [23]. This tradition will be discussed later. [24]. Ibn-ul-Qayyim, Alm-ul-muwaqqin an rabb-il-lamn (2:186). [25]. Samhd, Waf-ul-waf (2:560).