Dr. Ashraf Jalali (Barelvi) and Weak Hadith
Dr. Ashraf Jalali, who for many years has been conducting various programs in different cities of Pakistan under the name “Aqeedah Tauheed Seminar,” tries to prove the shirk and innovations practiced by Barelvi people. To justify shirk and innovations, he cites weak and fabricated narrations, unproven and false incidents.
In this regard, he presented a narration about asking from the Holy Prophet ﷺ, claiming that it is permissible to ask from the Prophet ﷺ and said: This was the belief of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them), the Tabi‘in, and the Tabi‘ al-Tabi‘in. This belief has existed throughout the centuries and even today the Muslim Ummah holds this belief. I want to present the commands of the Holy Quran and the practical actions of the Ummah so that it becomes clear to you that Ahl al-Sunnah (i.e., the people of innovation) is not a religion based on hollow foundations. In another statement, Jalali said: “After the passing of the Prophet ﷺ, in the 18th year of Hijrah during the time of Farooq-e-Azam (may Allah be pleased with him), what was the belief of the Companions?”
For this, he presented a narration from Al-Bidayah wa An-Nihayah and said: “The entire chain of narration is my responsibility, and since their Imam also said that it is absolutely authentic in its chain of narration. And said: We will not allow anyone an excuse, and even if someone makes an excuse, we will prove this chain powerful until the last breath.”
In one statement, he presented this narration with reference to Ibn Abi Shaybah and said: Hafiz Ibn Hajar declared it authentic in Fath al-Bari.
Malik ad-Dar says: During the time of Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), there was a famine, so a man came to the grave of the Prophet ﷺ and said: O Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him)! Ask for rain for your Ummah, for indeed they are perishing. Then the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) appeared to him in a dream and said: Go to Umar and convey my greetings and inform him that there will be rain, and tell Umar to hold on to wisdom. So the man came and informed Umar, who said: O my Lord! I will not lessen except from whom I am powerless. (
)
This narration is present in various books, the details of which are as follows:
(1) Muhaddith Bayhaqi narrated it in Dala’il an-Nubuwwah:
«أخبرنا أبو نصر بن قتادة و أبو بكر الفارسي قالا: حدثنا أبو عمر ابن مطر: حدثنا إبراهيم بن على الذهلي: حدثنا يحيى بن يحيى: حدثنا أبو معاوية عن الأعمش عن أبى صالح عن مالك قال ۔ ۔ إلخ»
And the same chain was recorded by Hafiz Ibn Kathir in Al-Bidayah with reference to Bayhaqi. (
)
(2) The chain in Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah is as follows: حدثنا أبو معاوية عن الأعمش عن أبى صالح عن مالك الدار قال … إلخ
(3) Hafiz Ibn Hajar mentioned the same narration in Fath al-Bari.
Hafiz Abu Ya‘la al-Khalili narrated it as: «حدثنا محمد بن الحسن بن الفتح: حدثنا عبد الله بن محمد البغوي: حدثنا أبو خيثمة: حدثنا محمد بن خازم الضرير: حدثنا الأعمش عن أبى صالح عن مالك» الدار
In all its chains, there is one narrator named Sulaiman ibn Mihran al-A‘mash, who is a well-known mudallis (one who conceals defects in the chain). There is no explicit statement of hearing (tasrih bis-sama‘) in any chain of this narration, and many scholars have declared Imam al-A‘mash as a mudallis.
(1) His student Imam Shu‘bah declared him a mudallis.
(2) Abu Mu‘awiyah, another student, also declared al-A‘mash a mudallis.
(3) Abu Zur‘ah al-Razi said: ”الأعمش ربما دلس“ al-A‘mash sometimes practiced tadlis (concealment).
(4) Abu Hatim al-Razi also declared him a mudallis.
(5) Imam ‘Uthman ibn Sa‘id ad-Darimi declared him guilty of tadlis at-taswiyah.
(6) Imam Bukhari objected to a munn‘an (broken) narration of al-A‘mash.
(7) Allama Nawawi said: ”والأعمش مدلس ۔۔ إلخ“ and al-A‘mash was a mudallis.
(8) ‘Ayni Hanafi also declared al-A‘mash a mudallis.
Many other scholars have declared Imam al-A‘mash a mudallis. The principle of Hadith science is that the narration of a mudallis is weak unless there is explicit statement of hearing (tasrih bis-sama‘), as Imam Shafi‘i (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “فقلنا: لا نقبل من مدلس حديثا حتى يقول فيه حدثني أو سمعت“ So we said: We do not accept any Hadith from a mudallis unless he says “hadathani” or “sami‘tu.”
Hafiz Ibn Hibban (may Allah have mercy on him) said: ”فما لم يقل المدلس و إن كان ثقة حدثني أو سمعت فلا يجوز الاحتجاج بخبره، و هذا أصل أبى عبد الله محمد بن إدريس الشافعي رحمه الله و من تبعه من شيوخنا“
So unless a mudallis, even if trustworthy, says “hadathani” or “sami‘tu,” it is not permissible to take proof from his narration. This is the principle of Abu Abdullah Muhammad ibn Idris ash-Shafi‘i (may Allah have mercy on him) and the principle of our teachers who followed him.
Al-A‘mash even practiced tadlis on narrators whom he considered weak.
If a narrator practices tadlis on weak narrators, his munn‘an narration is rejected.
Many scholars expert in this field have rejected narrations from the chain “al-A‘mash from Abu Salih” due to al-A‘mash’s tadlis. For example:
(1) Imam Sufyan ibn Sa‘id ath-Thawri (may Allah have mercy on him) said about a narration:
“حديث الأعمش عن أبى صالح الإمام ضامن، لا أراه سمعه من أبى صالح” I do not think that al-A‘mash heard it from Abu Salih.
(2) Hakim Nishapuri said about a narration: ”لم يسمع هذا الحديث الأعمش من أبى صالح” Al-A‘mash did not hear this narration from Abu Salih.
(3) Bayhaqi said: “And this narration al-A‘mash certainly did not hear from Abu Salih… etc.”
(4) Imam Darqutni said about a narration from al-A‘mash from Abu Salih:
”و لعل الأعمش دلسه عن حبيب و أظهر اسمه مرة والله أعلم“
And perhaps al-A‘mash practiced tadlis on Habib and once revealed his name. And Allah knows best.
This shows that Hafiz Ibn Hajar and Hafiz Ibn Kathir’s declaration of this narration as authentic is not correct according to the principles of Hadith. Rather, according to the principles of Muhaddithin, this narration along with all its chains is weak, and until there is explicit statement of hearing from Imam al-A‘mash, this narration remains weak. Dr. Sahib’s claim that they will prove this chain powerful (!) is futile unless explicit statement of hearing is established in this narration. Dr. Sahib and the Barelvi sect are requested that if they receive this article, they should read it and respond to the objections according to the principles of Hadith.
These were the testimonies of the Muhaddithin. Finally, we also give a testimony from the house of the “Doctor” himself. Muhammad Abbas Rizvi said about a narration whose chain included الأعمش عن ابي صالح … الخ: “And since Imam al-A‘mash (may Allah have mercy on him) narrated from ‘an and he was a mudallis, therefore this narration is unacceptable. (And Allah, you are alive)
The defect in this narration is the same as in the narration of Malik ad-Dar, and if this is weak, then how did that become authentic? Moreover, in the chain of Al-Irshad, there is another narrator Muhammad ibn al-Hasan ibn al-Fath who is unknown and his status is not found anywhere. Therefore, the explicit statement of hearing from Abu Mu‘awiyah (mudallis) is also present. So presenting such weak and unproven narrations to deceive the public and convince them that this was also the belief of the Companions is an accusation against the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them all). Many such narrations are found in Dr. Sahib’s speeches because the Barelvi vehicle runs on the support of weak and rejected narrations.
Even if this narration were authentic, it would still not be beneficial for the “Doctor” because the Barelvi people have the false principle that even a sahih ahad narration is not proof in Aqeedah, as the founder of Barelvis, Ahmad Raza Khan, wrote:
In Aqeedah, even if a hadith ahad is sahih, it is not sufficient.
If a sahih narration of khabar wahid is not proof in Aqeedah, then why is Dr. Sahib trying day and night to prove his false beliefs through weak narrations? May Allah grant us all the ability to follow authentic narrations. Ameen.
