This article presents a scholarly refutation with the aim to clarify:
❀ That the only true and absolute fulfiller of needs (Ḥājat-Rawā) is Allah alone;
❀ To examine the authenticity and content of certain narrations cited by some to support the belief in others being need-fulfillers;
❀ To highlight where the scholars of ḥadīth have classified these narrations as weak (ḍaʿīf), rejected (munkar), or fabricated (mawḍūʿ);
❀ And finally, while the service and advice of the righteous is acknowledged, doctrinal formulation must be based only on sound textual proofs.
① First Narration — Report of Ibn ʿUmar رضي الله عنه: “Allah has created certain people for the needs of others”
Arabic Text:
«إِنَّ لِلَّهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ خَلْقًا خَلَقَهُمْ لِحَوَائِجِ النَّاسِ، يَفْزَعُ النَّاسُ إِلَيْهِمْ فِي حَوَائِجِهِمْ، أُولَئِكَ الْآمِنُونَ مِنْ عَذَابِ اللَّهِ.»
Translation:
“Indeed, Allah has created certain people for the service of others’ needs. People turn to them in times of necessity. These are the ones who will be safe from the punishment of Allah.”
📚 al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr by al-Ṭabarānī, 12/358, ḥadīth no. 13334
Chain of Narration:
Muḥammad ibn ʿUthmān ibn Abī Shaybah → Aḥmad ibn Ṭāriq al-Wābishī → ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Zayd ibn Aslam → Zayd ibn Aslam → ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿUmar رضي الله عنه
✦ The core flaw in the chain is ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Zayd ibn Aslam, who is severely weak according to the scholars of ḥadīth, so much so that his solitary narrations cannot be used as proof.
Statements of Scholars:
✿ Ibn Ḥibbān (al-Majrūḥīn):
«مِمَّنْ يُقَلِّبُ الْأَخْبَارَ وَهُوَ لَا يَعْلَمُ، حَتّى كَثُرَ ذٰلِكَ فِي رِوَايَتِهِ مِنْ رَفْعِ الْمُرْسَلِ وَإِسْنَادِ الْمَوْقُوفِ، فَاسْتَحَقَّ التَّرْك.»
“He is among those who distort narrations unknowingly. He often raises mursal to marfūʿ and mawqūf to musnad. Hence, he is to be abandoned.”
✿ al-Ṭaḥāwī (Ḥanafī) (Sharḥ Mushkil al-Āthār):
«حَدِيثُهُ عِنْدَ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ بِالْحَدِيثِ فِي النِّهَايَةِ مِنَ الضَّعْف.»
“According to the scholars of ḥadīth, his narrations are extremely weak.”
✿ Abū Bakr al-Bazzār (Musnad al-Bazzār):
«مُنْكَرُ الْحَدِيثِ جِدًّا.»
“He is very severely munkar al-ḥadīth.”
📌 The weakening of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Zayd is by consensus; this alone is sufficient for the non-acceptance of the narration. Some other narrators of the chain (e.g. Aḥmad ibn Ṭāriq al-Wābishī) have also been described as unknown/questionable, but the central defect lies in ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Zayd.
Note on the Content (Matn):
✿ The phrase “People turn to them in their needs” merely reflects encouragement to assist others—it does not prove any doctrinal belief of a being independently capable of fulfilling needs. And when the chain itself is unreliable, any argument from its wording falls away entirely.
✿ In matters of ʿaqīdah, only ṣaḥīḥ or ḥasan li-dhātihi texts are valid. Weak or munkar reports cannot serve as evidence.
Final Ruling:
✿ Status of the ḥadīth: Ḍaʿīf (Weak) — Not suitable for proof
✿ Doctrine of Ḥājat-Rawā (Need Fulfillment): Only Allah is the true fulfiller of needs. The Sharʿī status of help from creation through means is a separate topic, but this narration provides no doctrinal proof for it.
② Second Narration — “Seek your needs from those with beautiful faces”
Original text (various books, multiple routes):
«اِطْلُبُوا الْحَوَائِجَ عِنْدَ حِسَانِ الْوُجُوهِ»
And in some chains: «اِطْلُبُوا الْخَيْرَ عِنْدَ حِسَانِ الْوُجُوهِ»
Translation:
“Seek your needs from those with beautiful faces.”
Or: “Seek goodness from those with beautiful faces.”
Summary of the Chains:
This narration is reported through scores of chains, but all are weak or fabricated. These include unknown (majhūl), abandoned (matrūk), fabricators (waḍḍāʿ), mudallis, and excessive error-prone narrators.
Statements of Scholars:
✿ Ibn ʿAdī (al-Kāmil): Counted the narration among the munkarāt, citing over 15 fabricated variants with a false matn.
✿ al-Ḥāfiẓ al-ʿIrāqī (al-Mughnī): «وَلَهُ طُرُقٌ كُلُّهَا ضَعِيفَة» “All its chains are weak.”
✿ Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Ḥūt al-Shāfiʿī (Asnā al-Maṭālib): «طرقها كلها ضعيفة» “All chains are weak.”
✿ al-Dhahabī (Mīzān al-Iʿtidāl): Said regarding some of its chains: “The report is bāṭil (false).”
✿ al-Ṣaghānī (al-Mawḍūʿāt): Explicitly included it among the fabrications.
✿ Ibn al-Jawzī (Talbīs Iblīs): Asserted that this narration is not proven from the Prophet ﷺ through any sound or fair chain.
Sample Chains and Their Flaws:
❀ Route of ʿĀ’ishah رضي الله عنها (Faḍā’il al-Ṣaḥābah by Ibn Ḥanbal):
Ismāʿīl ibn ʿAyyāsh → Jabrah/Khayrah bint Muḥammad ibn Thābit ibn Sibāʿ (majhūlah) → her father (majhūl al-ḥāl)
Flaw: Unknown narrators, therefore the chain is weak.
❀ Route of Ibn ʿUmar رضي الله عنه (al-Muntaḫab by ʿAbd ibn Ḥumayd):
Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn al-Mujbir → Nāfiʿ
Flaw: Classified as matrūk by al-Nasā’ī and al-Dāraqutnī.
❀ Route of Jābir رضي الله عنه (al-Muʿjam al-Awsaṭ):
Muḥammad ibn Zakariyyā al-Ghallābī (fabricator), Sulaymān ibn Kurāz (weak), ʿUmar ibn Ṣuhbān (abandoned)
Flaw: Contains a known fabricator and an abandoned narrator—thus mawḍūʿ.
❀ Chain of Khuṣayfah (al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr):
Yaḥyā ibn Yazīd al-Nawfalī (weak/munkar al-ḥadīth), ʿAbdullāh ibn Khuṣayfah (majhūl), Khuṣayfah ibn Yazīd (majhūl)
❀ Route of Abū Hurayrah رضي الله عنه (Abū al-Shaykh, Kitāb al-Amthāl):
Ṭalḥah ibn ʿAmr al-Ḥaḍramī: matrūk al-ḥadīth (Aḥmad: «لا شيء، متروك»)
Note on the Content (Matn):
✿ The phrase “Seek goodness from those with beautiful faces” is munkar in its text, since it has been misused in various false Sufi interpretations.
✿ Since all chains are weak or fabricated, the matn has no evidentiary value.
Final Ruling:
✿ Status of the ḥadīth: Fabricated/Severely Weak — Not authentic by any chain
✿ Doctrinal/Legal Usage: Cannot be used for establishing any belief or legal ruling.
③ Third Narration — Saying: “Yā ʿIbādallāh, Aghīthūnī”
Arabic Text:
«إِذَا أَضَلَّ أَحَدُكُمْ شَيْئًا، أَوْ أَرَادَ عَوْنًا، وَهُوَ بِأَرْضٍ لَيْسَ بِهَا أَنِيسٌ، فَلْيَقُلْ: يَا عِبَادَ اللهِ أَغِيثُونِي، يَا عِبَادَ اللهِ أَغِيثُونِي، فَإِنَّ لِلَّهِ عِبَادًا لَا نَرَاهُمْ»
Translation:
“If any of you loses something or seeks help while in a land where there is no companion, let him say: O servants of Allah, help me! O servants of Allah, help me! For indeed, Allah has servants whom we do not see.”
📚 al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr by al-Ṭabarānī, 17/117, ḥadīth no. 290
Chain Summary:
al-Ḥusayn ibn Isḥāq al-Tustarī → Aḥmad ibn Yaḥyā al-Ṣūfī → ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Sahl → his father → ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿĪsā → Zayd ibn ʿAlī → ʿUtbah ibn Ghazwān → Prophet ﷺ
✦ The real narrator is not “ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Sahl” but actually ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Sharīk al-Nakhaʿī, due to copyist error.
Why “ibn Sahl” is really “ibn Sharīk”:
◈ After the word “my father”, the next narrator is “ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿĪsā”, who is frequently narrated from by Sharīk ibn ʿAbdullāh al-Qāḍī, confirming the correct identity: if read as “ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Sharīk”, then “my father” is the well-known Sharīk ibn ʿAbdullāh al-Qāḍī, whose narration from ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿĪsā is established, and the chain connects.
✿ There is no known “Sahl” who narrates from ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿĪsā, hence accepting “ibn Sahl” would render the chain broken or unknown.
◈ Cause of the scribal corruption (taṣḥīf): Because old manuscripts lacked dots/vowel marks, and chains were copied hastily, resemblances such as Sahl/Sharīk occur (a slight change between sīn/shīn, and confusion in the written shape of rā+yā+kāf). Such taṣḥīfāt are well known in the science of narrators (asmāʾ al-rijāl), and researchers correct them through evidence of the connection of generations (ṭabaqāt) and the known teachers.
Criticism of the Imams on ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Sharīk al-Nakhaʿī:
✿ Abū Ḥātim al-Rāzī (al-Jarḥ wa al-Taʿdīl): «واهي الحديث» “Extremely weak in ḥadīth.”
✿ Ibn Ḥibbān (al-Majrūḥīn): Mentioned that he made many errors (kathīr al-ghalaṭ) and is close to being abandoned (matrūk).
✿ Ibn Ḥajar (Taqrīb): Listed him in the tenth ṭabaqah and stated that his narration is not ḥujjah (proof).
✿ Shuʿayb al-Arnaʾūṭ (Musnad Aḥmad): “Explicitly declared him weak.”
Further Flaws in the Chain:
① Sharīk ibn ʿAbdullāh al-Qāḍī: According to the majority of ḥadīth scholars, he erred frequently, and suffered from ikhtilāṭ (memory deterioration) after becoming a judge.
② Disconnected chain: Zayd ibn ʿAlī (b. 76 AH) could not have heard from any Companion, and especially not from ʿUtbah ibn Ghazwān (d. 17 AH); the two are separated by about 59 years, making hearing impossible.
Statements of Scholars:
✿ al-Haythamī (Majmaʿ al-Zawāʾid, ḥadīth 17103):
«رجاله وُثِّقوا على ضعف في بعضهم، إلا أن زيد بن علي لم يُدرك عتبة.»
“The narrators are declared trustworthy, but some are weak, and Zayd ibn ʿAlī did not meet ʿUtbah.”
Note on the Content (Matn):
✿ Though the narration encourages seeking help from an unseen creation, the chain is both weak and disconnected, thus cannot be used for ʿaqīdah or legal justification.
✿ The phrase “…Allah has servants we do not see” may be understood by analogy as angels or jinn, but without an authentic text, applying it to the worship of creation or to the belief in need-fulfilment by creation is invalid.
Final Ruling:
✿ Chain Status: Disconnected + Very Weak (due to ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Sharīk)
✿ Use for Evidence: Not acceptable — cannot be used for ʿaqīdah or prescribed supplications
✿ Meaning: Even if the chain were authentic, it would describe the help of an unseen creation (angels/jinn) as an ordinary means; it does not establish the belief that a creature is an independent fulfiller of needs — and in the present case the chain itself is dropped.
📜 Summary of Findings
① A chain and content review was conducted of all marfūʿ narrations cited by the Barelvi school in support of need-fulfilment (by others) and the permissibility of calling upon others besides Allah.
② The scholarly standing of the narrators of each report was presented with the explicit statements of the Imams of jarḥ and taʿdīl, which made it clear that:
☛ Some contain narrators of unknown condition (majhūl al-ḥāl).
☛ Some contain fabricators or abandoned narrators.
☛ Several chains suffer from the ʿanʿanah of mudallis narrators, hearing after ikhtilāṭ (memory deterioration), or clear disconnections.
☛ Some texts were declared bāṭil or munkar by authorities.
③ Three notable narrations:
❶ “إِنَّ لِلَّهِ خَلْقًا خَلَقَهُمْ لِحَوَائِجِ النَّاسِ” — Weak (due to ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Zayd ibn Aslam)
❷ “اطلبوا الحوائج عند حسان الوجوه” — All chains weak/fabricated
❸ “يَا عِبَادَ اللهِ أَغِيثُونِي” — Very weak + disconnected
④ Scholars like Muḥammad ibn Darwīsh al-Shāfiʿī, Ibn al-Qayyim, Ibn al-Jawzī considered all such reports about “Abdāl” and similar esoteric roles to be weak or bāṭil (baseless).
⑤ From the statements of Salaf al-Ṣāliḥīn, it is evident that the term “Abdāl” referred to righteous scholars and hadith specialists, not to the mythical Sufi constructs of “Ghawth” and “Quṭb”.
⚖️ Final Verdict
❀ The concept of fulfilling needs (Ḥājat-Rawā’ī) is exclusively for Allah alone. Creation may serve as a means, but to attribute independent power to them is false and leads to shirk.
❀ The narrations cited by the Barelvi school are all unauthentic both in chain and content — they cannot be used to establish belief or practice.
❀ Any beliefs built on them lack sound scholarly basis, fail Islamic legal standards, and may lead the Ummah into misguidance.
Scans of Important References
