> Hadith Proving Worshiping and Prostrating Graves?

[Salam05]

:

a person give me a hadith to prove that it is allowed to kiss the grave and prostrate towards the grave if the intention is not to worship. Following is the proof:

Dawud ibn Salih said 'the governer of Madina, Marwan ibn al-Hakam, 1 day saw a man placing his face on top of the grave of the Prophet(saw).He said to him 'do u know what u are doing?'.When he came near him, he realised it was Hazrat Abu Ayyub al-Ansari,who replied 'Yes! I came to the Prophet(saw) not to a stone.' (Ibn Hibban in his 'Sahih',Ahmad,al-Tabrani-'Mu'jam al-Kabir',and his 'Awsat' according To Haythami,in his book 'al-Zawa'id', and in the book 'Khilafat'. Al-Hakim 'Mustadrak' and al-Dhahabi declared it sahih.

What is the explanation for that?? Following is the link for that hadith:

http://www.al-eman.com/Islamlib/view...70&CID=152#s27

[Salam05]

This is hadith of Musnad Ahmed:

حدثنا عبد الله حدثني أبي حدثنا عبد الملك بن عمرو حدثنا كثير بن زيد عن داود بن أبي صالح قال:(أقبل مروان يوما فوجد رجلا واضعا وجهه على القبر فقال: أتدري ما تصنع فأقبل عليه فإذا هو أبو أيوب فقال: نعم جئت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ولم آت الحجر سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول: لا تبكوا على الدين إذا وليه أهله ولكن ابكوا عليه إذا وليه غير أهله).

[Assad]

It would be best If any knowledgeable member shed some light on this..However best I can think of this is that the person said that he visited the Prophet and not the stone , however there was no Prophet there , It only only his grave with his body inside.This I dont think justify asking for help from Prophet PBUH as well as it maybe that the man just came there out of love for the Prophet.

Allah knows best.

[Abdul-Fattah]

Selam aleykum brother
Thanks for your question, this is a very important question, and many people commit shirk this way.

*) First of all, what you quoted was not a Hadeeth. Hadeeth are narrations of the prophet (peace be upon him). They are narrations about what the prophet (peace be upon him) did, what he said, what he forbade, and what he allowed. The narrations which tell us what the companions did, sometimes refered to as Athar, have a different status. Even if the chain of narrations is accurate, we have to keep in mind the posibility that Ayyub was wrong.

*) At the same time, we have many strong hadeeth which make it clear that it is forbidden to worship any thing other then Allah, including graves.

*) The intention in this case does not allow an exclusion. There are many reasons why it would not be allowed, even if one does not have the intention of false worship (shirk).

1. People who see you might think that you are worhipping the grave, then the generations that come after you will copy your behavior without knowing why, and this path will eventuall lead to shirk. And anything that leads to something bad is bad in itself.
2. It is an innovation, and any innovation is bad.
3. Even if you didn't have the intention, you still commited the physical act of shirk. It is good that people don't have the intention to commit shirk, but it is bad that they do the acts eitherway. And here the good does not cancel out the bad.

So Inshallah it should be clear to you why this is wrong. The prophet (peace be upon him) even forbade people to build mosques on graveyards, so for example the Ayyub-mosque in Istanbul is a bad mosque, and if you go there, you can see that after prayer all the people will go to his grave and make dua to him in group. And this is defenitly shirk to. Even the people who say that they are not making dua towards Ayyub, but only making dua towards Allah subhana wa ta'ala in Ayyubs name, or in Ayyubs presence are wrong. Even the Prophet (peace be upon him) said to his daughter that he would not be able to intervene on her place. How can Ayyub after his death be of help for thousands of people that he never even met?

[Qatada]

Originally Posted by Salam05

Assalamu`alaikum,
a person give me a hadith to prove that it is allowed to kiss the grave and prostrat towards the grave if the intention is not to worship. Followin is the proof:
Dawud ibn Salih said 'the governer of Madina,Marwan ibn al-Hakam,1 day saw a man placing his face on top of the grave of the Prophet(saw).He said to him 'do u know what u are doing?'.When he came near him,he realised it was Hazrat Abu Ayyub al-Ansari,who replied 'Yes! I came to the Prophet(saw) not to a stone.' (Ibn Hibban in his 'Sahih',Ahmad,al-Tabrani-'Mu'jam al-Kabir',and his 'Awsat' according To Haythami,in his book 'al-Zawa'id',and in the book 'Khilafat'. Al-Hakim 'Mustadrak' and al-Dhahabi declared it sahih.

What is the explaination for that?? Following is the link for that hadith:

������� ��������� - ���� ������ ���� - ������ ������

asalaam alaikum


Lets look at it this way;

the companions did used to seek blessings from Allah's Messenger, since that was permitted. The proof that it was permitted is simply because Allah's Messenger would wipe his saliva on some of those who were ill [i.e. Ali ibn Abi Talib before the battle of Khaybar] to cure his eyes. Or where the sahabah would catch the water which Allah's Messenger used for wudhu [ablution] and rub it on themselves for blessings. Yet still, Allah or His Messenger did not forbid it.


This is a special case for Allah's Messenger only. Not anyone else. So since some people go to seek blessings from graves of others, then this is not the practise of the companions and salaf - hence a misguidance. If they had a right to seek blessings from anything, then it would be from the remnants of Allah's Messenger.


HOWEVER, now that the body and grave of Allah's Messenger is surrounded by metal, and new materials - which Allah's Messenger probably did not touch - then the person can't seek blessings through it. Some other relics which may be of Allah's Messenger first need to be authenticated that they really are the remnants of Allah's Messenger. Otherwise, we don't seek blessings from them.



So even if this hadith is true, it doesn't prove their case.


Allah knows best.

[Salam05]

Originally Posted by Salam05

This is hadith of Musnad Ahmed:

حدثنا عبد الله حدثني أبي حدثنا عبد الملك بن عمرو حدثنا كثير بن زيد عن داود بن أبي صالح قال:(أقبل مروان يوما فوجد رجلا واضعا وجهه على القبر فقال: أتدري ما تصنع فأقبل عليه فإذا هو أبو أيوب فقال: نعم جئت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ولم آت الحجر سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول: لا تبكوا على الدين إذا وليه أهله ولكن ابكوا عليه إذا وليه غير أهله).

There are following weakness in this Hadith:
1. Dawud bin Saleh is Unknown.
2. Kathir bin Zaid has weakness.
3. Matan of Hadith is Munkar.

=====Dawud bin Abi Salih=====

Imam Ibn Abi Hatim Said regarding him:
روى عن أبي أيوب ، روى عنه كثير بن زيد ، ( الجرح والتعديل : 3/416 )
''He has narrated from Abu Ayyub, (only) Kathir bin Zaid has narrated from him (bin Abi Salih)’’
So ibn Abi Hatim did not declare any Jarh or T’adeel on Dawud ibn Abi Salih.

Imam Dhahabi said regarding him in ''Al-Meezan'':
الذهبي في الميزان 2/9 : لا يعرف ، له عن أبي أيوب الأنصاري ، روى عنه الوليد بن كثير فقط ، انتهى كلامه
''(Dawud ibn Abi Salih) not known. He has (narration narrated) from Abu Ayyub. Only Waleed ibn Kathir has narrated from him.’’

Dhahabi clearly said, he is unknown. He also said that only Waleed ibn Kathir has narrated from him. It is known that there is requirement of atleast two famous hadith scholars narrating from that particular narrator to declare him known. But according to Dhahabi only Waleed ibn Kathir narrates from him (Dawud ibn Abi Salih), so he is Majhool according to the rule. Note that Waleed ibn Kathir and Kathir ibn Zaid are same individual as clarified by Ibn Hajar in his ''Tahdheeb’’.
Also, Ibn Hajar quotes Dhahabi's saying , i.e. Dawud is unknown, without contradicting his saying.

Ibn Hajar said, in his ''Taqreeb'', regarding Dawud:
داود بن أبي صالح ، مقبول
''Dawud ibn Abi Salih, Maqbool''

He explain the term Maqbool in the Muqaddima of same ''Taqreeb'':
فقال : (( من ليس له من الحديث إلا القليل ، ولم يثبت فيه ما يترك حديثه من أجله ، وإليه الإشارة بلفظ : مقبول ، حيث يتابع ، ((وإلا فلين الحديث
''(Maqbool: ) who has no Hadith except very few. And it is not proven that any one had left his Hadith during his time. In this case there is indication by the term ‘Maqbool’ (acceptable), when backed by (Yutabi’u) other narrators, and if not then weak (Layyinul Hadith).''

So Ibn Hajar is saying that the the hadith of narrators of category ‘Maqbool’ are acceptable IF THEY WERE BACKED BY OTHER NARRATORS (means other narrators also narrate the same hadith from same companion or whoever the first narratos narrated from. If there is no other narrator who narrates the same narration, then the narrator of the Hadith (Dawud ibn Abi Salih in this case) will be of category ''Layyinul Hadith'' (soft in Hadith) which is weak narrator’s category.

In this case, Dawud ibn Abi Salih has no back up narrator (Tabi’) for him. Remember that there are two Dawud ibn Abi Salih. (داود ابن أبي صالح الليثي المدني منكر الحديث) Al-Laithiy Al-Madani, who is Munkirul Hadith. (داود ابن أبي صالح حجازي) Hijazi, who is Majhool. We are talking here about Dawud ibn Abi Salih Hijazi. As far as I know Hijazi hav only one hadith, and that same hadith we are talking here. Those who say he has narrated ten or more hadith then, I think, they are confusing both Dawud Al-Laithiy and Dawud Al-Hijazi. This is because they are not able to produce any proof and Ibn Hajar in ''Tahdheeb At-Tahdheeb'', under the Tarjamah of Dawud ibn Abi Salih Hijazi, only indicates toward this narration. That’s why Dhahabi labeled him ''Not known'' and Ibn Hajar included him among ''Maqbool'', i.e. who has very less hadith.
Certainly we are unaware of his conditions. And Hadith of this type of narrators, generally, not accepted except in case if there is strong back up for him by other narrators. And what if there are other defects in the Hadith?

Kathir ibn Zaid


There is disagreement regarding him.
وقال عبد الله بن الدورقي عن بن معين ليس به بأس وقال معاوية بن صالح وغيره عن بن معين صالح بن أبي خيثمة عن بن معين ليس بذاك وكان أولا قال ليس بشيء وقال بن عمار الموصلي ثقة وقال يعقوب بن شيبة ليس بذاك الساقط وإلى الضعف ما هو وقال أبو زرعة صدوق فيه لين وقال أبو حاتم صالح ليس بالقوي يكتب حديثه وقال النسائي ضعيف وقال بن عدي وتروى عنه نسخ ولم أر به بأسا وأرجو أنه لا بأس به وذكره بن حبان في الثقات وقال بن سعد توفي في خلافة أبي جعفر وكان كثير الحديث وقال خليفة توفي في آخر خلافة أبي جعفر سنة 158 قلت وجزم بن حبان بوفاته فيها وقال أبو جعفر الطبري وكثير بن زيد عندهم ممن لا يحتج بنقله
In short, Ibn Mu’een has conflicting words regarding him. Sometimes he authenticate him sometimes declared him weak. Ibn Ammar said, 'he is Thiqah'. Ya'qoob ibn Shaiba said ''Saqit''. Abu Zur'ah said, ''Sadooq. There is softness (Layyin) in him.'' Abu Hatim Said, ''Saleh, not strong''. Nasai said, ''weak''. Ibn Hibban included him in his book ''Ath-Thiqaat''. Abu Ja'afar Tabri said that hadith of Kathir are not Hujjah.

Hafiz Ibn Hajar concludes in his ''Taqreeb'':
كثير ابن زيد الأسلمي أبو محمد المدني ابن مافنه بفتح الفاء وتشديد النون صدوق يخطىء من السابعة مات في آخر خلافة المنصور
''Kathir ibn Zaid Al-Aslami Abu Muhammad Al-Madani……. Sadooq, makes mistakes.''

Regarding the term Sadooq, Ibn Sallaah states in his ''Muqaddimah'':
الثانية‏:‏ قال ‏(‏ابن أبي حاتم‏)‏‏:‏ إذا قيل إنه ‏(‏صدوق، أو‏:‏ محله الصدق، أو لا بأس به‏)‏، فهو ممن يكتب حديثه وينظر فيه، وهي المنزلة الثانية‏.‏
قلت‏:‏ هذا كما قال، لأن هذه العبارات لا تشعر بشريطة الضبط، فينظر في حديثه ويختبر، حتى يعرف ضبطه‏.‏ وقد تقدم بيان طريقه في أول هذا النوع‏.‏
وإن لم يستوفِ النظر المعرِّف لكون ذلك المحدث في نفسه ضابطاً مطلقاً، واحتجنا إلى حديث من حديثه، اعتبرنا ذلك الحديث، ونظرنا‏:‏ هل له أصل من رواية غيره ‏؟‏ كما تقدم بيان طريق الاعتبار في النوع الخامس عشر
Ibn Abi Hatim said: when it said the narrator is (Sadooq Or ''Mahhillahus Sidq'' Or ''La ba’s bihi''), then the Narrator is among those whose hadith will be written, then will be checked.
Then Ibn Sallah explain that this mean, the Dhabt will be checked. In this regard, it will be checked if other also has support for the Hadith of this particular narrator.

In the hadith under discussion, Kathir ibn Zaid has no back up narrator. Means there is no other who has narrated this incident.
So we can conclude that there is Mutabi'ah neither for Dawud ibn Abi Saleh nor for Kathir ibn Zaid As-Sulamy. Former is unknown, later has weakness as he makes mistakes. In short Isnad is weak.

Matan of this Hadith has also got some problem. According to this narration Prophet's [pbuh] Qabr was open for anyone and everyone. As Abu Ayyub was there then Marwan ibn Hakam also reached there. Dawud ibn Abi Salih might also be present there as he narrates the incident. But actually the grave of Prophet [pbuh] was inside the Hujrah of A’ishah [ra]. According to A’isha [ra] the grave of Prophet [pbuh] had not left open due to fear of people taking it as idol. (reference???).
Also according to this established sunnah we are not commanded to weep when the rular is unjust (as hadith under discussion states in the end as Marfoo’). Rather we are commanded to speak truth even to a tyrant leader. By the way, Mu’awiyah [ra] was not that bad Hakim.