Weakness of Malik al-Dar Narration Used by Dr. Ashraf Jalali to Justify Post-Death Requests from the Prophet ﷺ

Dr. Ashraf Jalali (Barelvi) and a Weak Narration


Source: Monthly Al-Hadith, Hazro – Author: Naveed Shaukat

Background​

Dr. Ashraf Jalali, who has been conducting “Aqeedah Tawheed Seminars” for many years across Pakistan, attempts to justify practices of shirk and bid‘ah committed by the Barelvi sect. For this purpose, he often cites weak, fabricated, unestablished, and false narrations.


One such narration he used was to prove that asking from the Prophet ﷺ after his passing is permissible. He claimed:

• This belief was held by the Sahabah, Tabi‘in, and Taba‘ Tabi‘in.
• It has existed throughout the centuries and continues among the Muslim Ummah today.
• He would provide Qur’anic verses and practical examples from the Ummah to show that the Ahl al-Sunnah (in reality, the people of bid‘ah in his terminology) have a strong basis for this belief.

Dr. Jalali further stated:


“In 18 AH, during the caliphate of Umar (RA), what was the belief of the Sahabah?”


He then cited a narration from al-Bidayah wa’l-Nihayah, claiming:

• He takes full responsibility for its chain of narration.
• Their Imam has declared it sahih al-isnad.
• No one will be allowed any excuse, and even at his last breath, he will prove this chain to be “powerful.”

He also cited the narration from Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah, claiming Hafiz Ibn Hajar declared it authentic in Fath al-Bari.

Text of the Narration​

Narrated by Malik al-Dar:
During the time of Umar (RA), there was a drought. A man came to the Prophet’s ﷺ grave and said:


“O Messenger of Allah ﷺ! Ask for rain for your Ummah, for they are perishing.”


The Prophet ﷺ then came to him in a dream, telling him to go to Umar (RA), convey his salam, and inform him that rain will come, and to tell Umar to remain steadfast. The man did so, and Umar (RA) said:


“O my Lord! I do not fail except in matters beyond my control.”

Sources of the Narration​

1. Al-Bayhaqi – Dala’il al-Nubuwwah (Vol. 7) – same chain cited by Ibn Kathir in al-Bidayah.
2. Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah – chain: Abu Mu‘awiyah → al-A‘mash → Abu Salih → Malik al-Dar.
3. Fath al-Bari – Hafiz Ibn Hajar cites it.
4. Al-Irshad by Hafiz Abu Ya‘la al-Khalili – with a similar chain.

Defect in the Chain – Tadlis of al-A‘mash​

All chains contain Sulaiman ibn Mehran al-A‘mash, a well-known mudallis (obfuscator of sources).

• He does not make tasreeh bi’l-sama‘ (explicit statement of hearing) in any chain for this narration.
• Many great scholars have declared him a mudallis, including:
  
  • Imam Shu‘bah (his student)
  • Abu Mu‘awiyah (his student)
  • Abu Zur‘ah al-Razi
  • Abu Hatim al-Razi
  • ‘Uthman ibn Sa‘id al-Darimi
  • Imam al-Bukhari
  • Imam al-Nawawi
  • Al-‘Ayni al-Hanafi, and others.

Principle in Hadith:
A mudallis’ narration with ‘an‘anah is weak unless he clearly states “I heard” or “he narrated to me.” (Imam al-Shafi‘i, Ibn Hibban)


Al-A‘mash also performed tadlis from weak narrators, making his ‘an‘anah even more unreliable.

Statements of Scholars Rejecting “al-A‘mash from Abu Salih” Chains​

• Sufyan al-Thawri: “I do not think al-A‘mash heard this from Abu Salih.”
• Al-Hakim al-Naysaburi: “Al-A‘mash did not hear this from Abu Salih.”
• Al-Bayhaqi: “Certainly, al-A‘mash did not hear this from Abu Salih.”
• Al-Daraqutni: Suggested al-A‘mash did tadlis here from another narrator.

Thus, based on principles of hadith criticism, the narration is weak in all its chains until tasreeh bi’l-sama‘ from al-A‘mash is found.

Additional Weakness​

In the al-Irshad chain, another narrator Muhammad ibn al-Hasan ibn al-Fath is unknown (majhool al-haal).

Inconsistency in Barelvi Position​

Interestingly, Muhammad Abbas Rizwi (a Barelvi scholar) himself rejected another narration with the same al-A‘mash from Abu Salih chain, declaring it unacceptable because of al-A‘mash’s tadlis. The same defect exists in the Malik al-Dar narration — if one is weak, the other cannot be authentic.


Furthermore, Ahmad Raza Khan (founder of Barelvi sect) wrote:


“Akhbar ahad (even if sahih) are not sufficient for establishing beliefs.” (Fatawa Ridawiyyah, Vol. 5, p. 477)


If sahih ahad hadiths are not accepted in creed by them, why attempt to prove creed from weak narrations?

Conclusion​

• All chains of the Malik al-Dar narration are weak due to al-A‘mash’s ‘an‘anah without tasreeh bi’l-sama‘.
• The narration cannot be used as proof for creed, even if authentic, according to Barelvi principles themselves.
• Using such weak narrations to prove post-death requests from the Prophet ﷺ is both methodologically flawed and misleading to the public.