Skip to main content

The Jewel of Creation

A precise and well-researched reply to Muḥammad ʿAlawī al-Mālikī al-Makkī for his forged authentication of a seriously weak narration proclaiming the Messenger of Allāh to be somewhat deified.

Kabbāni goes to added lengths and extremes in trying to declare this ḥadīth authentic, using some of the same deceptive methods we have seen above – and of course this is not surprising since the innovators of old and new use these sort of methods to spread their deceptions.

[TROID :The following article is a decisive refutation of Sayyid Muḥammad Alawi Al Maliki Al Makki]

alhamdulillāh was ṣalātu was salāmu ʿalá nabiyyinaa wa habeeibnaa muhammad

The Prophet ﷺ is reported to have said on the authority of ʿUmar (radī Allāhu ʿanhu) that “when Ādam committed his mistake he said: O Lord, I am asking you to forgive me for the sake of Muḥammad. Allāh said: O Ādam, and how do you know of Muḥammad whom I have not yet created? Ādam replied: O my Lord, after you created me with Your Hand and breathed into me of Your spirit, I raised my head and saw written on the heights of the Throne, ‘none has the right to be worshipped save Allāh and Muḥammad is the Messenger of Allāh.’ I understood that You would not place next to Your Name but the most beloved one of your creation. Allāh said: O Ādam, I have forgiven you and were it not for Muḥammad I would not have created you.”

Al-ʿAlawī al-Mālikī says in ‘Mafaheem’ [pg. 46], “it was reported by al-Ḥākim in ‘al-Mustadrak’ [2/651] and he declared it to be ṣaḥīḥ. Al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Ṣuyutī reported it in ‘Khasaa`is’ and declared it ṣaḥīḥ.

al-Bayḥaqī reported it in ‘Dalá`il an-Nubuwwa’ and he does not report any fabricated aḥādīth in this book as he himself made clear in the introduction. It was also declared ṣaḥīḥ by al-Qastalaanee and

az-Zarqaanee in ‘al-Muwāhib al-Laduniyyah’ [2/62] and by as-Subkee in ‘Shifaa as-Siqaam’.

Al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Haythamī said, “it was reported by at-Ṭabarānī in ‘al-Awsaṭ’ and it contains (narrators) whom I do not know.” ‘Mujamaʿ al-Zawāʾid’ [8/253]”

This brief analysis contains a whole host of errors that prove the authors deep ignorance with respect to ḥadīth and it’s related sciences, and prove his inaccuracy when quoting others.

1) His saying that Ḥākim “declared it to be ṣaḥīḥ.”

This is not true, al-Ḥākim said, “ṣaḥīḥ isnād” and it is known that the scholars differentiate between the terms “ṣaḥīḥ ḥadīth” and “ṣaḥīḥ isnād.”

2) His saying that “al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Ṣuyutī reported it…and declared it ṣaḥīḥ.”

a) This is incorrect because a scholar can only be said to have reported (riwāyah) a ḥadīth when he quotes its isnād. Al-Ṣuyutī does not do so.

b) Not only this but al-Ṣuyutī does not follow up this ḥadīth by saying that it is ṣaḥīḥ!

c) Al-Ṣuyutī would sometimes include rejected aḥādīth in this book of his, simply by following Abū Nu’aym and what he quoted in his ‘Khasaa`is’.

For example, after quoting two aḥādīth that are rejected he says [1/47], “I, myself, am not content to include these but I have followed al-Ḥāfiẓ Abū Nu’aym in this.”

It seems that the author claimed that al-Ṣuyutī declared it ṣaḥīḥ due to what he says in the introduction to his work ‘al-Khasaa`is,’ “I have not included in it any fabricated reports…” but this does not mean that every

aḥādīth that he includes is authentic as is obvious. This is why al-Ṣuyutī clearly mentions it’s weakness in his ‘Manaahil as-Safaa fī Takhreej Aḥādīth ash-Shifaa’ [pg. 30]

3) His saying about al-Bayḥaqī, “and he does not report any fabricated aḥādīth in this book”

a) Why did the author not quote what al-Bayḥaqī says after quoting this ḥadīth? al-Bayḥaqī states, “it has only been reported by ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Zayd and he is ḍaʿīf”!

b) This statement of al-Bayḥaqī is in reality a severe criticism whose severity is known only to those skilled in ḥadīth. As for the ignoramuses then it will miss them. Al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Dhahabī states in ‘Mīzān al-Iʿtidāl’ [3/140-141], “if a truthful person (sadooq) and those less then him are alone in reporting a ḥadīth then it is to be considered munkar (rejected).” So if this is the case for one who is truthful, then it is even more the case for one who is agreed to be weak, and in fact accused of being a fabricator as will follow.

c) At-Tabraanee says in ‘al-Mu`jam al-Saghīr’ [pg. 207] after mentioning this ḥadīth via a route different to that of al-Bayḥaqī but also through ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Zayd, “this has not been reported from ʿUmar except via this isnād.”

4) His saying, “it was declared ṣaḥīḥ by al-Qastʿalánee”

a) The book ‘al-Mawāhib’ is available, so look and see if al-Qastʿalánee declared it ṣaḥīḥ or did he merely quote the words of al-Bayḥaqī that have preceded?

He says, [1/76 along with the commentary], “and he (al-Bayḥaqī) said: it has only been reported by ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Zayd.”

b) The commentator to this work, az-Zarqaanee understood the meaning of these words and said, “it has only been reported by ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Zayd, meaning no one else follows him up in reporting this ḥadīth and so the ḥadīth is gharīb along with the weakness of its reporter.”

5) His saying, “…and az-Zarqaanee”

Az-Zarqaanee did not declare this ḥadīth to be ṣaḥīḥ, rather he indicated its weakness as has preceded.

6) His saying, “and as-Subkee in ‘Shifaa as-Siqaam'”

As-Subkee only blindly followed al-Ḥākim in declaring the ḥadīth authentic, he says [pg. 163], “in declaring it ṣaḥīḥ we are depending upon al-Ḥākim”

7) His quote from al-Haythamī

He neglects to quote that al-Haythamī also refers the ḥadīth to at-Ṭabarānī in ‘al-Saghīr’

8) His saying that al-Ḥākim declared it ṣaḥīḥ.

Al-Ḥākim said [2/615], “ṣaḥīḥ isnād and it is the first ḥadīth I have mentioned that is reported by ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Zayd ibn Aslam.”

Each chain of narration of this ḥadīth contains the same narrator, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Zayd ibn Aslam and at this point it is necessary to alert one that al-Ḥākims words are not to be depended upon here. This is due to a number of reasons:

a) al-Ḥākim says in his book ‘al-Madkhal ilā as-Ṣaḥīḥ’ [1/154], “ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Zayd ibn Aslam reports fabricated aḥādīth from his father. It will not be hidden from the people of this field that he himself

is the one guilty with regard to them.”

He said [1/114], “by the permission of Allāh I will make clear the names of those people who have been criticised and (the truth of) this criticism is clear to me as a result of ijtihād and not blindly following any of the Imāms. It is not permissible to report the aḥādīth of these narrators except after clarifying their condition due to the saying of al-Musṭafá ﷺ, ‘whosoever narrates a ḥadīth from me, thinking that it is a lie then he is one of the liars.'”

Then he lists them and mentions ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Zayd amongst them.

b) So why this contraḍīction from al-Ḥākim? The answer is clear to those who busy themselves with the science of ḥadīth. Al-Ḥākim started writing his ‘Mustadrak’ in the year 393H, i.e. when he was 72 years old.

Ibn Hajr al-Asqalānī says in ‘Lisān al-Mīzān’ [5/233], “some of them mentioned that his memory deteriorated and he became unaware towards the end of his life. This is proven by the fact that he mentioned a group of (weak narrators) in his book ‘ad-Du`afaah’ and declared with certainty that narrating from them should be abandoned and forbade that they should be depended upon. Then after this he reported the aḥādīth of some of them in his ‘Mustadrak’ and declared them ṣaḥīḥ. For example he reports the

ḥadīth of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Zayd ibn Aslam who he had mentioned in ‘ad-Du`afaah’ saying, ‘he reports fabricated aḥādīth from his father. It will not be hidden from the people of this field that he himself is the one guilty with regard to them.'”

Al-Sakhāwī said in ‘Fath al-Mugeeth’ [1/36], “it is said that the reason for this is that he authored it [al-Mustadrak] towards the end of his life when his memory deteriorated and he became unaware or that he was unable to edit it and check it. This is proven by the fact that his leniency in the first fifth of the book is small with respect to the remainder of the book.”

Ibn ʿAbd al Hādī said in ‘as-Saarim al-Munkee’ [pg. 62], “then he collected the book ‘al-Mustadrak ʿalá as-Ṣaḥīḥayn’ and mentioned therein a large number of weak, severely weak and fabricated aḥādīth. He reported from a group of the narrators criticised for their weakness – those whom he himself mentioned in his book of weak narrators; and he mentioned that they were those whose weakness was clear to him. Therefore a number of scholars criticised him for what he did and some of them mention that at the end of his life his memory deteriorated and he became unaware – this being the reason for what he did – and this is not unlikely.”

1) ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Zayd is severely weak

a) As stated by ʿAlī al-Madīnee (‘Taareekh al-Kabīr’ [1/3/284] of Bukhārī)

b) Al-Bukhārī said, “his ḥadīth are not authentic” (ibid. 1/618, 5/263]) and “I do not report from him” (Tarteeb Ilal al-Tirmidhī al-Kabīr [pg. 76])

c) Abū Ḥātim al-Rāzī said, “he himself was righteous but flimsy (waahi) in ḥadīth.”

d) At-Tahaawee said, “his ḥadīth are to the people of ḥadīth, extremely weak.” (Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb)

e) Ibn Saʿd said, “he reported many aḥādīth and was very weak.” (Tabaqaat al-Kubraa [5/413])

f) Ibn Hibbān said, “he deserved to be abandoned.” (al-Majrooheen [2/57])

g) Ibn Ma`een said, “he is nothing at all.” (al-Majrooheen [1/179])

h) Abū Nu`aym said, “he is nothing at all.” (ad-Du`afaa [no. 122]) and also said similar to that which al-Ḥākim said about him. (ad-Da`eefah [no.25])

i) Al-Fasawee placed him amongst those who should not be narrated from. (al-Ma`rifah wa at-Taareekh [3/43])

j) Al-Bazzaar said, “flimsy in ḥadīth”, and “severely munkar in ḥadīth” (Kashf al-Astaar [1017, 2071])

k) He was judged to be weak by: Aḥmad, Abū Dāwūd, al-Nasāʿī, Abū Zur`ah, ibn Khuzaymah, al-Jawzijaanee and al-Dāraqutnī (Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb of ibn Hajr) on top of the scholars already mentioned.

2) The isnād of al-Bayḥaqī, al-Ḥākim and others also contains ʿAbdullāh ibn Muslim al-Fahree.

Al-Dhahabī criticises the authentication of al-Ḥākim by saying, “rather it is fabricated, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān is flimsy (waahin) and I do know ʿAbdullāh ibn Muslim al-Fahree.”

He also includes al-Fahree in ‘Mezaan al-I`tidaal’ due to this ḥadīth and says, “false report, al-Bayḥaqī reported it in Dʿalá`il an-Nubuwwa”

Ibn Hajr agrees to this in his ‘Lisān al-Mīzān’ and adds, “it is not farfetched that he (Fahree) be the one discussed previously for he is of the same tabaqah.”

The one who was discussed previously was ʿAbdullāh ibn Muslim ibn Rasheed who was mentioned by ibn Hibbān saying, “accused of fabricating aḥādīth. He used to fabricate from Layth, Mālik, and ibn Lahee`a. It is not permissible to write his ḥadīth.”

3) The isnād to this ḥadīth has been declared weak by a group of scholars.

a) al-Bayḥaqī in ‘Dʿalá`il an-Nubuwwa’ [5/486]

b) Ibn Kathīr in ‘al-Bidāyah wa an-Nihāyah’ [1/75] saying about its reporter “he has been criticised” and quoted the words of al-Bayḥaqī

c) Al-Haythamī in ‘Mujamaʿ al-Zawāʾid’ [8/253]

d) Al-Ṣuyutī in ‘Takhreej Aḥādīth ash-Shifaa’ [pg. 30]

e) Az-Zarqaanee as has preceded

f) Ash-Shihaab al-Khafájee in ‘Sharḥ ash-Shifaa’ [2/242]

g) Mullah ʿAlī al-Qārī in ‘Sharḥ ash-Shifaa’ [1/215]

Although the isnād to this ḥadīth has been declared to be weak by the above scholars, the way they phrased the weakness clearly indicates that they considered the ḥadīth to be unauthentic as has preceded in 3b). The scholars who explicitly stated the ḥadīth to be weak and in fact false or

fabricated are as follows:

h) Ibn `ʿIrāq in ‘Tanzeeh ash-Sharee`ah’ [1/76] mentioning the opinion that it is false.

i) al-Dhahabī as has preceded.

j) Ibn Hajr al-Asqʿalánee as has preceded.

k) Ibn Taymīyyah who ruled it to be fabricated in ‘Radd ʿalá al-Bakrī’ [pg. 6 of the summary]

l) Ibn ʿAbd al Hādī ruled it to be fabricated in ‘as-Saarim al-Munkee’

4) It is possible that this ḥadīth be from the Israa`iliyyaat that has mistakenly been attributed to the Prophet ﷺ

This possibility is strengthened by the fact that Abū Bakr al-Ājurrī reports in his ‘Sharee`ah’ [pg. 427] a similar ḥadīth through al-Fahree via another isnād reporting from ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Zayd from his father

from ʿUmar as a saying of ʿUmar.

He also reports [pg. 422-425] via Abū Marwaan al-Uthmānee from his father, Uthmān ibn Khālid ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Abī al-Zināʾd from his father who said, “from the words that caused Allāh, the Mighty and Magnificent, to forgive Ādam was his saying: O Allāh, I ask you by the right of Muḥammad…”

This is a mawqūf report and Uthmān and his son are both da`eef who are not to be depended upon when they report a marfūʿ` ḥadīth so how about when they report a saying of some of the students of the taabi`een? And it is possible that this taabi`ee have narrated this from some of the people who became Muslim from the People of the Book.

This report was similarly reported by ibn ʿAsākir [2/310/2] from a person from the inhabitants of Madīnah from the Companions of ibn Mas`ud from ibn Mas`ud as his saying. This isnād contains unknown narrators.

5) Concerning the meaning of the ḥadīth and its link to the verse, “and Ādam received words from his Lord…” (2:37)

It is established that the supplication that was received from Allāh was, “O our Lord! We have oppressed ourselves and if You do not forgive us and bestow on us Your Mercy then we would be from the losers.” [7:23]

Al-Ḥāfiẓ ibn Kathīr said in his tafsīr, “this has been reported from Mujāhid, Saʿīd ibn Jubair, Abū al-Āliyah, ar-Rabīʿ ibn Anas, al-Ḥasan, Qatādah, Muḥammad ibn Ka`b al-Qardhee, Khālid ibn Ma`daan, `Ataa al-Khurasaanee and ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Zayd ibn Aslam.”

Ten people from the scholars and amongst them none other than ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Zayd ibn Aslam the reporter of the above fabricated ḥadīth!! This only serves to further prove the weakness of the ḥadīth.

It is not mentioned from any of the Ṣaḥābah or the Taabi`een via authentic routes that establish that the words used by Ādam were via the tawassul through the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ.


1) ‘Hadhihee Mafaahimunaa’ of Shaykh Ṣāliḥ ibn ʿAbd alʿAzīz Muḥammad Āli al-Shaykh, his excellent refutation of al-Alawi’s ‘Mafaaheem Yajib an Tusahhah’

2) Silsilah Aḥādīth al-Ḍaʿīfah [no. 25] of Shaykh al-Albānī

3) ‘Al-Jāmiʿ` fī Jarḥ wa at-Ta`deel’ a compilation of the biographies of narrators given by Bukhārī, Muslim, al-`Ijlee, Abū Zur`ah al-Rāzī, Abū Dāwūd, Ya`qoob al-Fasawee, Abū Ḥātim al-Rāzī, al-Tirmidhī, Abū Zur`ah ad-Dimishkee, al-Nasāʿī, al-Bazzaar and al-Dāraqutnī.

4) ‘Reply to a Naqshabandi’ – by br. Dāwūd Burbank]

Further replies to the claims of Kabbani concerning this ḥadīth.

In his section on tawassul in volume 2 of his “repudiation of salafi innovations” [this article can be found on his homepage] Kabbani goes to added lengths and extremities in trying to declare this ḥadīth authentic,

using some of the same deceptive methods we have seen above – and of course this is not surprising since the innovators of old and new use these sort of methods to spread their deceptions. In what follows I will only mention the few additional points that Kabbanni mentions.

6) That as-Subki states that ibn Taymīyyahs extreme weakening of ibn Zayd is exaggerated.

The fallacy of this can be seen in what has preceded in point no. 9

7) That ‘as-Subkee confirms al-Ḥākims authentication’

This is far from true as it has been proven that he only depends upon al-Ḥākims authentication as has preceded, so how can this be taken to be a confirmation!

8) That the ḥadīth is included by Qaadi Ayaadh in his ‘Shifaa’ among the ‘sound and famous narrations’

The commentators to ash-Shifaa who pointed out its weakness have been previously mentioned under point 11.

9) That al-Ājurrī mentions a similar ḥadīth.

This ḥadīth has been briefly discussed under no. 12 above.

10) That al-Bayḥaqī said in the introduction to ad-Dʿalá`il that he only includes sound aḥādīth in his book

According to the quote of al-Alawi mentioned above, and quotes of other scholars, al-Bayhaqi does not state what Kabbani states, rather he states that he has not included any fabricated aḥādīth (in his eyes) in his book. There is a world of difference between the two statements, for the latter does not rule the possibility of him including weak and severely weak aḥādīth.

11) He seems to imply that the very fact that scholars have mentioned this in their books is sufficient to give it consideration.

This is far from the truth, just because a scholar narrates a ḥadīth in his book, it does not necessarily mean that they consider it as a proof. Now how about when most of them, as in this case, specifically mention it’s

weakness in a way that indicates that they do not consider the ḥadīth to be authentic! Refer to 3b) above.

12) That only three scholars reject it: ibn Taymīyyah, al-Dhahabī and ibn ʿAbd al Hādī

The fallacy of this is clear from what has preceded.

13) The statement that ibn Taymīyyah saw this ḥadīth to be sound enough to be considered a witness for other narrations.

a) Ibn Taymīyyah mentions this ḥadīth in the context of his discussing the authentic aḥādīth concerning the high status of the Prophet ﷺ and replying to the claim of extreme Ṣufīs, saying, “so these two ḥadīth are like an explanation of the authentic ḥadīth…” [Fatāwá 2/150].

b) This statement is clear that ibn Taymīyyah did not consider the ḥadīth to be authentic.

c) It is well known from the way of the scholars that sometimes they will deliberately quote fabricated aḥādīth, which they knew were being misused by the innovators, and comment on them and direct one to understand them in the light of authentic texts in an attempt to show the innovators that even this fabricated ḥadīth, if it were authentic then it is still not taken to mean what they think it does. This is what ibn Taymīyyah does here.

d) In the light of the above it is not permissible to try to force one’s interpretation onto the above words of ibn Taymīyyah concerning the ḥadīth especially since he has clearly ruled it to be fabricated and false in other places.

14) al-Dhahabīs statement that “you must take everything in it (ad-Dʿalá`il) for it consists entirely of light.”

This is quoted without reference as Kabbani acknowledges and even if it were correct then it is just diverting from the issue. This is because when al-Dhahabī ruled the ḥadīth to be fabricated he referred it to

ad-Dʿalá`il of al-Bayḥaqī and not only this but al-Bayḥaqī himself mentions its weakness – therefore this phrase of al-Dhahabī does not have any bearing upon the ruling of the ḥadīth.

15) His discussion of the ḥadīth, “were it not for you, Muḥammad, I would not have created the spheres”

This ḥadīth is fabricated and has been dealt with in detail elsewhere so there is no need to repeat it here.

16) His mentioning a number of aḥādīth showing that the kalima was written on the Throne

a) These do not prove what Kabbani sets out to prove that tawassul with the person and rank of Muḥammad is permissible

b) Kabbani has given no authenticating remarks of the ḥadīth masters concerning these aḥādīth, so when he does we can analyze them further.

And Allāh the Most High Knows best.

Published: June 16, 2007
Edited: August 18, 2022


Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Events & Activities

Most Popular: Last 30 Days

Imām ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn Bāz
Imām Ibn al-Qayyim
Al-ʿAllāmah Ṣāliḥ al-Fawzān
Imām ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Nā…
Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah
Imām ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Nā…
Imām Ibn al-Qayyim
Imām ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn Bāz
Imām Ibn al-Qayyim
Al-ʿAllāmah Ṣāliḥ al-Fawzān