بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
# Hadīth 1 – ‘Abdullāh ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz > Abū al-Rabī’ al-Zahrānī > Hafs ibn Abī Dāwūd > Layth ibn Abī Sulaym > Mujāhid > Ibn ‘Umar, who said: The Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) said:
من حج، فزار قبري بعد موتي؛ كان كمن زارني في حياتي
“Whoever performs Hajj and then visits my grave after my death, it is as if he visited me during my lifetime.” (al-Dāraqutnī 2693)
“Hafs ibn Abī Dāwūd“: Hafs ibn Abī Dāwūd is Hafs ibn Sulaymān al-Kūfī al-Asadī al-Ghāfirī. Al-Bukhārī and Muslim said: “They (i.e. scholars of Hadīth) abandoned him.” Ibn Ma’īn and al-Nasā’ī said: “He is not trustworthy (thiqah) and his hadīth should not be written.” And he (Ibn Ma’īn) said once: “Abandoned (matrūk).” Ibn Khirāsh said: “A liar, abandoned, he fabricates hadīth.” Abū Hātim said: “Abandoned.” ‘Abdullāh ibn Ahmad, on the authority of his father, (said): “Abandoned in hadīth.” Ibn ‘Adī said: “Most of his ahādīth are not preserved.” (Sunan al-Dāraqutnī, notes of al-Ābādī 3/333)
“Layth ibn Abī Sulaym“: Ibn Hanbal said: “Mudtarib al-hadīth (confused/inconsistent in hadīth).” Abū Hātim said: “Weak in hadīth.” Abū Zur’ah said: “Soft (layyin) in hadīth, proof cannot be established with him according to the people of knowledge of hadīth.” Ibn ‘Adī said: “He has acceptable ahādīth.” Ibn Sa’d said: “He was a righteous man, a worshipper (‘ābidan), and he was weak in hadīth.” Ibn Hibbān said: “He became confused in the last part of his life, so he would invert chains of transmission and elevate disconnected reports and would narrate from the trustworthy what was not from their hadīth.” Al-Hākim Abū Ahmad said: “Not strong (qawī) according to them.” Al-Hākim Abū ‘Abdillāh said: “There is consensus on his poor memory.” Al-Jawzajānī said: “His hadīth is weakened.” Al-Bazzār said: “He was one of the worshippers except that confusion afflicted him, so his hadīth became confused, and the people of knowledge only spoke about him regarding this, otherwise we do not know of anyone (who) abandoned his hadīth.” Ibn Ma’īn said: “Munkar al-hadīth (one whose hadīth is rejected) and he was a follower of the Sunnah.” (See Jāmi’ Likutub al-Du’afā wal-Matrukīn wal-Kādhibīn #10833)
Ibn Hazm said: “(Layth is) weak.” (Jarh wa Ta’dīl pg. 222)
The narration was declared Mawdū’ (fabricated) by Shaykh Nāsir in al-Da’īfah #47 due to the above narrators.
Hafs ibn Abī Dāwūd was followed up [Majma al-Zawāid 5902, Dār al-Minhāj]: Ahmad ibn Rushdīn > ‘Alī ibn al-Hasan ibn Hārūn al-Ansārī > al-Layth ibn Bint al-Layth ibn Abī Sulaym > ‘Ā’ishah bint Yūnus, the wife of al-Layth ibn Abī Sulaym > Layth ibn Abī Sulaym with it (the rest of isnād).
The verifier commented: “And this is a chain musalsal (linked) with unknown (narrators) (al-majāhīl) and weak (narrators) (al-du’afā’).”
Shaykh Nāsir said: “I did not find a biography for him (i.e. ‘Alī), and likewise al-Layth ibn Bint Abī al-Layth, and his wife ‘Ā’ishah—I did not find anyone who mentioned her.
Then (there is the fact that) the shaykh of al-Tabarānī in it is Ahmad ibn Rushdīn; Ibn ‘Adī said: “They accused him of lying, and objectionable things were attributed to him.” And al-Dhahabī mentioned for him ahādīth from his fabrications.
When you understand the condition of this chain, it becomes clear to you that the mentioned corroboration (al-mutāba’ah) is not to be relied upon at all, so do not be deceived by al-Subkī’s inclusion of it in Shifā’ al-Saqām (p. 20) without commenting on it, nor on the route to it!”…
And Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah said in al-Qā’idah al-Jalīlah (p. 57): “And (the) ahādīth of visiting his grave are all weak (da’īfah); none of them can be relied upon in the religion. For this reason, the people of the Sahīh (collections) and Sunan did not narrate any of them, and only those who narrate weak (reports) narrate them, like al-Dāraqutnī, al-Bazzār, and others.”
Then he mentioned this hadīth, then said: “For this—its fabrication is apparent, contradicting the religion of the Muslims, for whoever visited him during his lifetime and was a believer in him was among his Companions, especially if he was among those who emigrated (al-muhājirīn) to him and fought (al-mujāhidīn) with him….” (al-Da’īfah 1/122-123)
# Hadīth 2: Abū ‘Ubayd, al-Qādī Abū ‘Abdillāh, and Ibn Makhlad > Muhammad ibn al-Walīd al-Bashrī > Wakī’ > Khālid ibn Abī Khālid and Abū ‘Awn > al-Sha’bī and al-Aswad ibn Maymūn > Hārūn ibn Abī Qaz’ah > from a man from the family of Hatīb > Hatīb, who said: The Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) said:
من زارني بعد موتي، فكأنما زارني في حياتي، ومن مات بأحد الحرمين بعث من الآمنين يوم القيامة
“Whoever visits me after my death, it is as if he visited me during my lifetime, and whoever dies in one of the two sanctuaries (al-haramayn) will be resurrected among the secure on the Day of Resurrection.” (al-Dāraqutnī 2694)
“Hārūn Abī Qaz’ah“: It is said: He is Hārūn ibn Qaz’ah, and it is (also) said: Ibn Abī Qaz’ah al-Madanī. Al-Bukhārī said: “He is not corroborated on it, and the shaykh for Hārūn is unknown (majhūl).” (Sunan al-Dāraqutnī, notes of al-Ābādī 3/333)
Shaykh Nāsir declared it Bātil (false) in al-Da’īfah #1021, citing the following reasons (summarised):
“The first: The man who was not named, for he is unknown (majhūl).
The second: The weakness of Hārūn Abī Qaz’ah. Ya’qūb ibn Shaybah weakened him, and al-‘Uqaylī, al-Sājī, and Ibn al-Jārūd mentioned him among the weak (narrators) (al-du’afā’). Al-Bukhārī said: “He is not corroborated on it.”
[The third and fourth: idtirāb (confusion/inconsistency) in its chain and matn (text)]: For some of them connect (the chakn) and some of them (i.e. Al-Bukhārī) left it disconnected. And there is also confusion in its text (matn)…they were also confused in recording the name of its narrator Hārūn Abī Qaz’ah. So it was said like this, and it was said: Hārūn ibn Qaz’ah, and it was said: Hārūn ibn Abī Qaz’ah, as (mentioned) in al-Ta’līq al-Mughnī.
As for the text (matn) of the hadīth, it is a clear lie/fabrication , as Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allāh The Most-High have mercy on him.”
#Hadīth 3. Al–Qādī al-Muhāmilī narrated > ‘Ubayd ibn Muhammad al-Warrāq > Mūsā ibn Hilāl al-‘Abdī > ‘Ubaydullāh ibn ‘Umar > Nāfi’ > Ibn ‘Umar, who said: The Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) said:
«من زار قبري، وجبت له شفاعتي
“Whoever visits my grave, my intercession (shafā’ah) becomes obligatory for him.” (al-Dāraqutnī 2695)
“Mūsā ibn Hilāl al-‘Abdī“: Mūsā ibn Hilāl al-‘Abdī (is) a Basran shaykh. Abū Hātim said: “Unknown (majhūl).” Al-‘Uqaylī said: “He is not corroborated on his hadīth.” Ibn ‘Adī (6/2350) said: “I hope there is no harm in him.” Al-Dhahabī said: “I say: He is acceptable in hadīth, and the most objectionable thing he has is his hadīth from ‘Ubaydullāh ibn ‘Umar, from Nāfi’, from Ibn ‘Umar, elevated (marfū’an): “Whoever visits my grave, my intercession becomes obligatory for him.” (Sunan al-Dāraqutnī, notes of Al-Ābādī 3/334)
Shaykh Nāsir said: “Abū Hātim and al-Dāraqutnī said (regarding Mūsā): “Unknown (majhūl)…and Ibn al-Qattān said: “The truth is that his trustworthiness hasn’t been established.” (al-Irwā 4/337)
Al-‘Uqaylī said: “His hadīth is not authentic…and nothing on this topic is authentic” (4/170)
Narration was declared Munkar (rejected) by Shaykh Nāsir in al-Irwā 4/336)
Ibn Khuzaymah said: “If the report is established, for there is (doubt) in the heart regarding it…” (Talkhīs pg. 1639)
“Ubaydullāh ibn Umar“: there has been disagreement regarding its narrator from Nāfi’—is he ‘Abdullāh al-‘Umarī al-Mukabbar (the elder), or his brother al-Musaghghar (the younger)?
According to al-Dāraqutnī and al-‘Uqaylī, (it is) ‘Ubaydullāh al-Musaghghar, and according to others, (it is) ‘Abdullāh al-Mukabbar.
Ibn ‘Adī said: “And ‘Abdullāh is more correct.” And Ibn Khuzaymah gave preference that it is ‘Abdullāh al-Mukabbar, and al-Bayhaqī and al-Diyā’ in al-Ahkām decisively stated this.
And this is what is correct, for it came in al-Dawlābī in al-Kunā (2/64): ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Umar, Abū ‘Abd al-Rahmān, the brother of ‘Ubaydullāh.
And this removes any possibility that it (could ne a reference to) al-Musaghghar or al-Mukabbar, since al-Mukabbar is the one who has the kunyah Abū ‘Abd al-Rahmān, while al-Musaghghar the trustworthy (narrator) has the kunyah Abū ‘Uthmān.
And accordingly, it has two defects: the aforementioned Mūsā ibn Hilāl, and this al-‘Umarī, and both of them are severely weak.
However, it is possible that this is from the confusion of Mūsā ibn Hilāl; sometimes he uses the diminutive form and sometimes he uses the senior form, and this increases the weakness of this hadīth, since he did not precisely record who his shaykh is [meaning, this is an inconsistency, since he didn’t preserve whether his shaykh was Abdullāh or Ubaydullāh] (see al-Irwā of Al-Albānī and checking of Bayān al-Wahm wa-al-Īhām al-Wāqiʿayn fī Kitāb al-Ahkām of Ibn al-Qattān #1433)
Mūsā was followed-up, al-Bazzār #1198 transmitted it from the route of ‘Abdullāh ibn Ibrāhīm >’Abd al-Rahmān ibn Zayd ibn Aslam > his father > Ibn ‘Umar.
[Al-Haythamī declared it weak in Majma’ #5899, Dar al-Minhāj. The verifier commented: “in it is Abdullāh ibn Ibrāhīm who is matrūk (abandoned) and ‘Abd al-Rahmān ibn Zayd who is weak]
# Hadith 4: Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn al-Nu’mān ibn Shibl > his grandfather > > Mālik narrated to me > Nāfi’, from Ibn ‘Umar, elevated (marfū’an):
من حج ولم يزرني فقد جفاني
“Whoever performs Hajj and does not visit me has wronged me.” (Ibn ‘Adī transmitted it in the biography of al-Nu’mān ibn Shibl 7/2480 and Ibn Hibbān in al-Majrūhīn 3/73, and Ibn al-Jawzī in al-Mawdū’āt 2/217)
Declared (Mawdū) Fabricated by ibn al-Jawzī, Al-Zarkashī and others.
And this Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn al-Nu’mān—al-Dhahabī said in al-Mīzān (4/26): “Al-Dāraqutnī criticized him and accused him [of fabrication].” And he said in the biography of al-Nu’mān: Mūsā ibn Hārūn said: “He was accused (muttahaman)”, and Ibn Hibbān said: “He brings preposterous things.” (4/265).
Then al-Dhahabī transmitted for him this hadīth among his objectionable (reports) (munkarāt) and said: “This is fabricated (mawdū’).”
Shaykh Nāsir said: “And likewise al-Dhahabī said: “Its chains are all weak, but some of them are strengthened by others, because none of its narrators is accused of lying.”
I say: This reasoning is invalid, due to what we mentioned regarding the presence of one accused (of lying) in the route of Ibn ‘Umar, and based on this, the strengthening referred to is also invalid.” (al-Da’īfah 3/91)
The verifier of Bayān al-Wahm wa-al-Īhām al-Wāqiʿayn fī Kitāb al-Ahkām said: “These are the sources (makhārij) of the hadīth of Ibn ‘Umar, and you see that every source among them is severely weak; some of them cannot strengthen others due to the severe weakness in them, and in some of their sources are those accused of fabrication. And whoever looks with the eye of fairness knows that this hadīth is far from considering its routes (as strengthening) one another.
Al-Hāfidh [ibn Hajr] said in al-Talkhīs: The routes of this hadīth are all weak, but it was authenticated from the hadīth of Ibn ‘Umar by Abū ‘Alī ibn al-Sukn in his inclusion of it among the authentic Sunans, and ‘Abd al-Haqq in al-Ahkām by his silence about it, and Shaykh Taqī al-Dīn from the later (scholars) based on the totality of its routes.
I say: As for the silence of ‘Abd al-Haqq in his Ahkām (2/341), it is not proof, especially since Ibn al-Qattān criticized him regarding ahādīth too numerous to count that he was silent about while they are weak, including this hadīth.
And as for Ibn al-Sukn, he also did not examine the depth of this hadīth and its routes so that his inclusion would be proof.
And as for al-Subkī, Ibn ‘Abd al-Hādī criticized him with what is sufficient and satisfying regarding his authentication of this hadīth.
This, and the hadīth has corroborations (shawāhid) from ‘Umar, and Anas, and Ibn ‘Abbās, and all of them are severely weak—none of them is to be relied upon.
This is from the perspective of the chain (al-sanad).
And as for the perspective of meaning (of the hadīth) as well, the hadīth is false (bātil), because it would necessitate that everyone who visits him, his intercession becomes obligatory for them merely by visiting him, and this is not correct, because his intercession is conditional upon following his path, and it is valid for whoever followed his way and died upon it, and this is mutawātir (continuously recurrent) from the texts of the Sacred Law, so there is no need to prolong (the discussion).” (4/14)
fawaaids.com 