This article discusses a report attributed to the Tābiʿī scholar of ḥadīth, Muḥammad ibn al-Munkadir, in which it is mentioned that he would go to the blessed grave of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, place his cheek upon it, and supplicate there. This narration has been cited by Ibn Abī Khaythamah and others; however, in its chain of transmission appears a narrator named Ismāʿīl ibn Yaʿqūb al-Taymī, concerning whom the leading scholars have issued severe criticism. For this reason, the scholars of ḥadīth have declared this narration to be severely weak and munkar (rejected).
In this writing, we shall present the text of the narration, the statements of the scholars regarding its chain, the technical meaning of the terms of criticism such as “فِيهِ لِين / لين الحديث”, and clarify certain contemporary objections—so that it becomes evident that this narration is not suitable for evidence, and using it as proof in matters of tawassul or istighāthah is not academically sound.
Original Narration: Text, Translation, and References
Text of the Narration
Ibn Abī Khaythamah recorded this report in his Tārīkh as follows:
«كان محمد بن المنكدر يجلس مع أصحابه، فكان يصيبه الصمات، فكان يقوم كما هو، يضع خده على قبر النبي ﷺ، ثم يرجع، فعوتب في ذلك، فقال: إنه تصيبني خطرة، فإذا وجدت ذلك استغثت بقبر النبي ﷺ. وكان يأتي موضعًا في المسجد في الصحن فيتمرغ ويضطجع، فقيل له في ذلك، فقال: إني رأيت النبي ﷺ في هذا الموضع؛ قال: أراه في النوم.»
Translation
Muḥammad ibn al-Munkadir would sit with his companions, and sometimes silence would overtake him. Then he would rise as he was, place his cheek upon the grave of the Prophet ﷺ, and return. When he was reproached for this, he said: “A certain state overcomes my heart, and when I experience it, I seek relief at the grave of the Prophet ﷺ.”
He would also come to a place in the mosque courtyard and roll upon the ground and lie down there. When he was asked about this, he said: “I saw the Prophet ﷺ in this place,” meaning: “I saw him in a dream.”
📚
📚
📚
Status of the Chain of Transmission
This report is not authentic in terms of its chain, because it revolves around Ismāʿīl ibn Yaʿqūb al-Taymī, concerning whom the scholars have explicitly declared weakness, as will be detailed below.
Scholarly Criticism of Ismāʿīl ibn Yaʿqūb al-Taymī
The narrator upon whom this report depends is Ismāʿīl ibn Yaʿqūb al-Taymī. The scholars of ḥadīth have issued multiple statements of criticism regarding him, clearly indicating that his narrations are not reliable.
① Imām Abū Ḥātim al-Rāzī
Arabic Text:
«إسماعيل بن يعقوب التيمي … هو ضعيف الحديث.»
📚
Translation:
Ismāʿīl ibn Yaʿqūb al-Taymī is weak in ḥadīth.
✔ Clarification: This is an explicit statement of weakness; his narrations cannot be relied upon.
② Ḥāfiẓ al-Dhahabī
After mentioning this incident in Tārīkh al-Islām, he stated:
Arabic Text:
«إسماعيل: فيه لين.»
📚
Translation:
Ismāʿīl has weakness in him.
✔ Clarification: The term “فِيهِ لِين” is a term of criticism among the scholars of ḥadīth. It means that his solitary narrations are not proof; at most, they may be cited for corroboration.
③ Imām Ibn al-Jawzī
In al-Ḍuʿafāʾ wa al-Matrūkūn, he wrote:
Arabic Text:
«إسماعيل بن يعقوب التيمي … ضعيف الحديث.»
📚
Translation:
Ismāʿīl ibn Yaʿqūb al-Taymī is weak in ḥadīth.
✔ Clarification: Ibn al-Jawzī included him among the weak narrators, affirming Abū Ḥātim’s criticism.
④ Other Statements
In Mizān al-Iʿtidāl, al-Dhahabī maintained the criticism of Abū Ḥātim and declared this narrator unreliable.
No declaration of him being trustworthy is established from any reliable Imām.
Conclusion Regarding the Narrator
The scholars are agreed in their criticism of Ismāʿīl ibn Yaʿqūb al-Taymī:
- “ضعيف الحديث”
- “فِيهِ لِين”
Therefore, the report attributed to Muḥammad ibn al-Munkadir is fundamentally unreliable and cannot be used as evidence.
The Technical Meaning of “فِيهِ لِين / لين الحديث”
Some scholars used the terms “فِيهِ لِين” or “لين الحديث” for Ismāʿīl ibn Yaʿqūb al-Taymī, the narrator in the chain of the report of Muḥammad ibn al-Munkadir. By its meaning, this term is counted among the expressions of criticism (jarḥ), and the Imāms of ḥadīth have clearly explained it.
① Mullā ʿAlī al-Qārī al-Ḥanafī
Expressions such as “لين الحديث” and “فِيهِ لِين” are among the levels of criticism:
«فكل من قيل فيه هذه المراتب الأربعة بل الخمسة لا يُحتج به، ولا يستشهد به، ولا يُكتب حديثه.»
📚
Translation:
Whoever is described with these levels (including weakness, “fīhi khilāf”, “fīhi layn”, “layn al-ḥadīth”, etc.)—his narration is not used as proof, nor for corroboration, nor is his ḥadīth written.
② Ibn al-Mulaqqin
«لَين الحديث: يُكتب حديثه ويُنظَر فيه اعتباراً.»
📚
Translation:
“Layyin al-ḥadīth” means his narration is recorded and considered only for corroboration, not as proof.
③ Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī
«فإذا قالوا: لين الحديث كُتِب حديثه ويُنظَر فيه اعتباراً.»
📚
Translation:
When they say “layyin al-ḥadīth,” his narration is recorded only for corroboration.
④ Ḥāfiẓ al-ʿIrāqī
«المرتبة الخامسة: فلان فيه مقال … أو لين الحديث … فإنّه يُخرج حديثه للاعتبار.»
📚
Translation:
The fifth level of criticism includes “layyin al-ḥadīth”; such a narrator’s ḥadīth is cited only for consideration.
⑤ Imām Abū Ḥātim al-Rāzī
«لين الحديث: يكتب حديثه ولا يُحتج به.»
📚
Translation:
“Layyin al-ḥadīth”: his narration is recorded but not used as proof.
Summary of the Technical Term
“فِيهِ لِين / لين الحديث” means that such a narrator’s solitary narration is not حجّة (authoritative proof). It may only be mentioned for corroboration. Since Ismāʿīl ibn Yaʿqūb falls under this ruling, the narration depending on him is weak and unsuitable as evidence.
Clarification of Certain Barelwi Objections and Final Conclusion
① Objection: Abū Ḥātim was Strict
Some people say that Abū Ḥātim criticized Ismāʿīl ibn Yaʿqūb, but he was harsh in criticism, so his statement is not worth considering.
Response: The criticism is not limited to Abū Ḥātim alone. Al-Dhahabī described him as “فِيهِ لِين”, and Ibn al-Jawzī included him among the weak narrators. When the statements of several Imāms point in the same direction, the excuse of one of them being “strict” cannot make him reliable.
② Objection: Ḥāfiẓ al-Dhahabī Said “فِيهِ لِين”, So He is Truthful (Ṣadūq)
In the terminology of the scholars of ḥadīth, “فِيهِ لِين” is a term of criticism (jarḥ), not authentication. As Mullā ʿAlī al-Qārī, Ibn al-Mulaqqin, al-Suyūṭī, al-ʿIrāqī, and Abū Ḥātim have clarified, the narration of a “layyin al-ḥadīth” narrator is not suitable for proof; it may only be mentioned among supporting and corroborating reports. Therefore, the claim that Ismāʿīl ibn Yaʿqūb is ṣadūq is not correct.
③ Objection: Ibn Ḥibbān Mentioned Him in al-Thiqāt
Scholars have noted that Ibn Ḥibbān was expansive in authentication and sometimes included weak or unknown narrators in al-Thiqāt. Therefore, his solitary authentication cannot override explicit criticism from the majority of ḥadīth scholars.
④ Proper Etiquette at the Prophet’s Grave
ʿAllāmah al-Samhūdī wrote in Wafāʾ al-Wafāʾ that one should avoid bowing or kissing the ground before the grave, as this is an innovation not established from the Salaf. Goodness lies in following the righteous predecessors.
Comprehensive Conclusion
① The report of Muḥammad ibn al-Munkadir going to the Prophet’s grave to supplicate and seek help (istighāthah) comes through Ibn Abī Khaythamah and others, but its chain contains Ismāʿīl ibn Yaʿqūb al-Taymī.
② The scholars have agreed in criticizing him:
- Abū Ḥātim: “ضعيف الحديث”
- Al-Dhahabī: “فِيهِ لِين”
- Ibn al-Jawzī: Included him among the weak narrators.
③ “لين الحديث / فِيهِ لِين” are recognized terms of criticism; such a narrator’s solitary narration is not proof.
④ Preferring Ibn Ḥibbān’s authentication over explicit criticism from the majority contradicts scholarly integrity.
✔ Therefore, this report is severely weak and munkar. It cannot be used as legal evidence for istighāthah or tawassul.
Final Ruling:
The correct etiquette in visiting the Prophet’s grave is to convey salām and supplicate. Acting upon weak and rejected reports of this nature and using them as proof is not correct.
