9 Sufi-Rafidi Tabarruk Shubuhat Debunked – ‘Bro Hajji’s’ Lies & Distortions

بسم الله والحمد لله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله

After a productive exchange with a dear friend and actual talib al-‘Ilm, I’d like to share with you his concise rebuttal of a number of Rafidi-Sufi shubuhat that ‘Bro Hajji’ has spread and sold to the gullible as ‘straight from the sources’.

Note: at times, whenever he feels the heat and gets refuted hard, this Bro Hajji makes some half-baked apologies, but even then, in his ignorance, he claims that they are exceptions compared to the overall ‘balanced positions & resources’ he gave to the people.

This person can’t string a single Arabic sentence together, he has literally a track recording of distorting basic Arabic sentences, heck, he refers to Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal as Imam Ahmad ibn HUMBLE, yet he wants us to believe that he can understand hours of lectures in the Arabic language.

سوووبهاان الله

Well, the following are the results of his ‘understanding’: mistranslations, lies, omissions, distortions, etc.; a long list of intellectual and academic dishonesty. Judge for yourselves:

Shubhah #1: Did Imām Ahmad permit seeking blessings from graves, kissing & touching?

(You can find my extensive refutation here>>>)

BH said Imām Ahmad did through the following narration The narration of Imam Ahmad’s son stating Imam Ahmad said لا بأس بذلك ‘There’s no problem with that’

There are a few problems with this. This narration is in direct conflict with:

1- The narration of Imām Ahmad’s other son. Abu Al Fadhl Salih bin Ahmad Bin Hanbal who states in his Masāil Al Imām Ahmad, Imām didn’t touch the wall of the grave and didn’t kiss it.

2- Other narrations quoted by Scholars which suggest Imam Ahmad didn’t hold this opinion: – The narration of Abu Bakr Al Athram – who was a direct student of Imām Ahmad & stayed in his company [Siyaru A’alam An Nubalā 12/624] – he narrates a narration which states that Imam Ahmad was asked regarding touching and wiping the grave. Imām Ahmad said: ما أعرف هذا ‘I dont recognise this’ [Ar Riwāyatayn Wal Wajhayn by Qadhi Abu Ya’lā]

The above narration has also been quoted by: – Ibn Taymiyyah in his Ar Radd Alal Akhnāī & Al Iqtidhā – Ibn Qudāmah in his Al Mughnī.

Scholars from The Hanābilah have also quoted narrations from Abu Al Hārith stating Imam Ahmad told him to go close but not touch the grave. A quote from Imam Ahmad also states that the people of knowledge wouldn’t touch the grave [Al Insāf by Al Mardawī]

Mardāwī also mentions here that this is the correct opinion in the madh’hab. There are many scholars who have spoken clearly against these actions.

A few points to note here: – The issue is not as black & white as BH has made it. Rather it’s an issue that has conflicting narrations. – The narration BH stated is not enough to establish Tabarruk – A path must be followed in reconciling between the narrations. The Scholars of Hanābilah have clearly given preference to the statement of Salih Bin Ahmad Bin Hanbal, Al Athram & Abul Hārith.This would render the narration of Abdullah Bin Ahmad Bin Hanbal as Shāth (abnormal/irregular) Ibn Qudāmah Al Maqdisi states in his Al Mughnī:

It is not liked to touch the walls of the grave of The Prophet ﷺ nor kiss it. He then quotes the narrations above aswell as a second narration from Al Athram that the people of knowledge wouldn’t touch the graves of The Prophet().

Other Hanbali Scholars like Al Khalwatī and Mar’ī Yusuf Al Karmī have also prohibited this.

Qādhī Abū Ya’lā in his Tabaqāt brings a narration: Ali Bin Abdullah At Tayālisī touched Imam Ahmad then he rubbed his hands on his clothes. Imām Ahmad became extremely angry and began to shake and then said: from who did you take this? then he rejected him severely.

Al Bahūtī in his Kashāf Al Qinā’ establishes impermissibility according to The Majority of Ulama. He also states the incident mentioned by Qādhi Abu Ya’lā above. And says tabarruk from the living is also disliked:

An important point to note here is. If Imām Ahmad despised people rubbing their hands on him for barakah, to the point he’s shaking in anger, how would he permit touching and seeking blessings from a grave?!

Another point which enforces the correct opinion of not seeking barakah: The statement of Umar RA on kissing the black stone: لَوْلا أَنِّي رَأَيْتُ رَسولَ اللَّهِ ﷺ قَبَّلَكَ ما قَبَّلْتُكَ If I hadn’t seen The Messenger of Allah ﷺ kiss you, I wouldn’t kiss you. [Narrated By Bukhārī in his Kitāb Al Hajj]

We can deduce, in what world would Umar RA permit the kissing of The Prophet ﷺ grave if this was his stance with the black stone.

To finalise: The manner in which BH has presented this ruling and opinion is wrong. There are other narrations from Imam Ahmad which oppose the narration he has quoted. Naturally, The authorities of Hanābilah also disagree with BH May Allah grant us all guidance.

Shubhah #2: Ibn Muflih regarding استشفاء بطيب الكعبة

‘Seeking a cure from the fragrance of The Ka’aba’

There are a few things to note here. Not only did BH mistranslate the text, he also never explained the ruling being discussed. On top of that, what does استشفاء بطيب الكعبة really mean?

(1) ~ Istishfā means to seek a cure. It doesn’t mean Tabarruk, to seek blessings. (2) ~ The Ruling is about taking things from The Haram out of the Haram. This is impermissible due to the sacredness of The Haram. The statement of Imam Ahmad is regarding this.

(3) ~ BH translates the narration as you can do Tabarruk with a hat and scarf on the dust/earth of the Ka’aba and take blessings from it. This is an incorrect translation. The translation is:

‘If one wishes to seek a cure from the fragrance of The Ka’aba, then don’t take anything from it (The Ka’aba). [He should] paste on fragrance [that] he has with him and then take from that’ This narration is found in many books and by other Scholars as well as Imam Ahmad.

Basically, don’t take from the fragrance of The Ka’aba. rather take your own out, put it on the Ka’aba then take from that in order to seek shifā (cure) to avoid taking something from The Haram.

Now the question is, where is this idea of seeking shifā from The Ka’aba from? The Prophet ﷺ has narrated it in a Hadīth. 1- الركن والمقام من ياقوت الجنة، ولولا ما مسهما من خطايا بني آدم، لأضاءا ما بين المشرق والمغرب وما مسهما من ذي عاهة ولا سقيم إلا شفي

The Rukn & The Maqām are from the treasures of Jannah, if both hadn’t been touched from the sins of The Sons of Adam, they would have enlightened everything between the East & West. And a disabled & ill do not touch both except that they are cured [Narrated by Al Bayhaqī]

2- لولا ما مسه من أنجاس الجاهلية ما مسه ذو عاهة إلا شفي If it (Hajr Al Aswad) hadn’t been touched by the impurities of Jāhiliyyah, a disabled person wouldn’t touch it except they would get cured. [Targhīb Wat Tarhīb] Imām An Nawawi in his Sharh Al Muhathab has stated both are Sahīh. He has also stated the narration of Bayhaqī is upon the conditions of Imam Muslims Ahadīth criteria. Al Busayrī, As Suyūtī, Albanī have also authenticated this narration.

So how does this qualify a person to seek blessings from graves or other things? The Prophet ﷺ has prescribed a cure from The Ka’aba. It’s not evidence for seeking blessings from graves.

Shubhah #3: Imām Ahmad seeking blessings from the water of the washed clothes of Imām Ash Shāfiee.

Presenting this as a hujjah was shocking. He quoted this book:

(1) ~ The author of this book isn’t a classical scholar from years ago. Many would have thought so. His name is Sayyid Muhammad Ibn Sayyid Al Alawī Al Mālikī. He was a Sufī scholar who opposed Salafiyyah in Saudi & passed away in 2004.

Not only does this story have no sanad, but it also can’t even be found in earlier books. Rather the story of Tabarruk between Ash Shāfiee & Imām Ahmad is completely different and classified as weak. Before we discuss this. Let’s highlight some of Sayyid Muhammad Al Alawis beliefs

1) He believes in Istighātha [Mafāhīm Yajibu An Tasahhah] 2) He justifies praying through others as an intermediary between him & Allah – He says this isn’t Shirk [Mafāhīm Yajibu An Tasahhah Also implies Ibrahīm AS did a form of Shirk, which isn’t really shirk والعياذ بالله

3) The Prophet ﷺ had been given knowledge of everything [Adh Dhakhāir]

4) The Prophet ﷺ name is derived from Allah’s names 5) He ﷺ was the first of The Prophets to be created [Adh Dhakhāir]

6) The Soul of The Prophet ﷺ is present everywhere in every possible manner. [Adh Dhakhāir]

There are many other problematic statements made by this person BH is quoting.

The intellectual dishonesty is shocking. BH can openly condemn and label many Scholars as ‘Extremists’ but proceeds to quote a person who had a bātil aqīdah & was extreme in Tasawwuf as Hujjah? Is this a Hujjah?

(2) ~ What Tabarruk occurred with Ahmad & Ash Shāfi’ee? The narration is from Tārīkh Dimishq 5/311-312 In short: Ash Shāfiee sends Rabī’ with a letter to Imām Ahmad in Baghdād, he gives it and Imam Ahmad cries when reading it because The Prophet ﷺ tells Ash Shāfi’ee to send Salām upon Imam Ahmad. Imam Ahmad sends his qamees back with Rabī’. Imam Shāfi’ee on receiving it says: ‘we won’t suffer through this. Wet it and give me the water so I may seek blessings from it.’

Where did Imam Ahmad wash Imam Shafi’ees clothes and seek blessings from it by drinking it? Where did BH & Muhammad Alawī get this from?

Ath Thahabī says regarding this story in his Siyaru A’alam An Nubalā 12/587 ‘Rabī (the one who supposedly took the letter to Imām Ahmad) is not a person who travels. That which has been narrated that Ash Shāfi’ee sent him to Baghdād with a letter to Imām Ahmad is not authentic’

So again, this story of Tabarruk has no basis. The story BH quoted is unfounded. It’s clear that Muhammad Al Alawī couldn’t quite recollect the actual weak narration from Tārīkh Dimishq. And in no way can this be used to justify Tabarruk from graves.

Shubhah #4:The alleged tabarruk by Thābit Al Bunānī

BH brings the well-known narration of Thābit Al Bunānī who would kiss the hand of Anas Bin Mālik because The Prophet ﷺ had held this hand. BH translates it as he did Tabarruk with his hand? Where does it say Tabarruk in the narration?

Rather it was extreme love for The Messenger ﷺ. Also, it is well known, تقبيل اليد والمصافحة Kissing of the hands & greeting is established in many narrations as well as from The Fuqahā with conditions. The kissing should be for love, respect, honour, it should be free from shahwah and for the sake of the dunya [The above are summaries of An Nawawī, Al Bahūtī, Ibn Abidīn, At Tahtāwī, Abu Bakr Al Marwazī] The point is, bringing this as evidence for Tabarruk is not correct. It was merely out of Love for The Messenger ﷺ. Considering the fact that countless scholars have permitted kissing the hands out of love & respect for a scholar, parent, elder, ruler. Would this be a form of Tabarruk as well?

The biggest question is, how has everything up till now been any evidence for seeking blessings from The Grave of The Prophet ﷺ except for the very first narration he brought??

  • Imam Ahmad according to stronger narrations and the mu’tamad of his madhab never endorsed kissing and touching any grave for tabarruk purposes
  • Istishfā isnt daleel
  • Tabarruk between Ahmad & Ash Shāfi’ee is a fabrication (another version is weak)
  • Thabit Al Bunānī isn’t daleel

If these so-called proofs are to establish Tabarruk in general and he is claiming MIAW & followers reject Tabarruk from The Prophet ﷺ. Then BH has made a grave mistake in assuming the position of MIAW.

MIAW actually permitted Tabarruk from the relics of The Prophets of Allah as noted in his Tafsīr.

Tabarruk with the relics of The Righteous is something few scholars have permitted, whereas some have also restricted it to The Prophet ﷺ with very valid pieces of evidence But to use this in a video establishing Tabarruk from The Grave of The Prophet ﷺ is misleading and is invalid.

Tabarruk from The Grave of The Prophet ﷺ and Tabarruk from relics of The Prophet ﷺ or Righteous people are completely different.

Shubhah #5: Was the student of Imām Ahmad (Ibrahīm Al Harabī) a Qubūrī?

BH presents 3 sources, all of which are secondary sources. They were quoted from: 1) Siyaru A’alam An Nubalā 2) Sifat As Safwah 3) Sifat As Safwah

Before we begin analysing this narration ascribed to Ibrahīm Al Harabī, it’s important to note, the actions of one Scholar is not a Hujjah. It’s not evidence. Regardless of how great the Scholar was.

Quoting secondary sources which are linked to the same narration is not a daleel to establish Aqīdah. Nowhere near enough.

1) ~ The primary source for this narration is from Khatīb Baghdādī’s Tārikh Madīnatul Islām a.k.a Tārīkh Al Baghdād. This is the same quote mentioned in Sifat As Safwah & Siyaru A’alam An Nubalā Here is the narration with its chain of narrators
Issues with this narration: 1) Muhammad Bin Al Hussain As Sulamī – Khatīb Baghdādī states in his Tārīkh that Muhammad Bin Yūsuf Al Qattān says he was not authentic & he would fabricate narrations for Sufīs.
– Ath Thahabī in his Al Mughni Fi Adh Dhuafā says he is not a Hujjah & quotes Muhammad Bin Yūsuf Al Qattān as above. He also says that in As Sulamīs book “Haqāiq At Tafsīr” he has many distortions.
In addition, Ibn Al Jawzī has mentioned his in his book of weak & rejected narrators – Adh Dhuafā Wal Matrukīn & quotes Al Qattān as above. – Ibn Taymiyyah in his Majmu’ Al Rasāil Wal Masāil has explained his weakness, usage of fabrications, weak memory, mistakes, etc but has also done justice in stating he was a zāhid and he was benefitted from.
We can conclude he is weak. 2) Abul Hasan Al Miqsam. His name is Ahmad Bin Muhammad Bin Hasan Bin Yaqub Bin Miqsam Khatīb Baghdādī states in his Tārīkh: – Ad Dārqutnī & a group from The Mashāyikh criticised him – Abul Qāsim Al Azharī said he’s not thiqah and hes Kathāb.
This should be enough. We can conclude this narration is very weak. So where has the student of Imam Ahmad; Ibrahīm Al Harabī done Tabarruk from graves?

Shubhah #6: BH uses a dream to justify grave veneration!

BH mentions this story that the grave is a known antidote and whoever is in need should come to the grave He jumps straight to the last sentences not telling anyone that the narration begins by Bishr Bin Hārith narrating a dream.

BH does outline this. But in black & white writing on a black & white background. I only noticed it the second time i watched it, lol.

Regardless, how is a dream a hujjah? and how does a dream establish the validity or confirm this to be an action of a scholar? Especially when the athar this has been deduced from is very weak.

Shubhah #7: Did Ibn Hajr Al Asqalānī seek Tabarruk from graves or advocate this?

Not at all. BH had nothing to prove it so attempts to establish this by mentioning Tabarruk from the relics of the righteous – This has nothing to do with seeking blessings from graves.
There is no correlation whatsoever:
(1) ~ Rather, Ibn Hajr mentions in his Fath Al Bārī that veneration of graves was done by those who came before us, Yahūd & Nasārā. He also mentions the narration of Ahmad (which we discuss in Part 1) and says: استبعد بعض اتباعه صحة ذلك ‘some of his followers [of his Math’hab] reject the authenticity of that [narration]’ So its clear, The Tabarruk of The Righteous mentioned by Ibn Hajr has nothing to do with Tabarruk from graves. This is a clear distortion & misrepresentation of evidence.
BH quotes Al Matālib Al Āliyah by Ibn Hajr and says he permits Tabarruk due to the chapter he has written and this represents his beliefs. Although Ibn Hajr does follow this opinion, this specific ‘evidence’ presented by BH is flawed. For the following reasons:
– Al Matālib Al Āliyah is not a book representing the beliefs of Ibn Hajr. Nor has he written those Ahadīth. Rather he has brought together the works of other Scholars of Hadīth to make it easy for the student of knowledge. He’s brought together Musnadāt. Ibn Hajr mentions this in his introduction:
– BH very passionately says he doesn’t ‘give a rats arse about a najdi making comments in the footnotes and it’s only there to provide reassurance to neo-najdis. Unfortunately, BH didn’t share the full footnotes. What you realise from the footnotes is the scholar has disagreed with Ibn Hajr stating that this action of Tabarruk has only been done with The Prophet ﷺ, and not with any Sahābī or Tābi’ee. This is not found. The footnotes then go to show the authenticity of the narrations in this chapter. 2 out of 3 of them are extremely weak. So much so that Ibn Hajr himself says the narrator is rejected. This is why BH didn’t show the full footnotes. Look at the images to see:

Shubhah #8: Did Ibn Abdil Barr advocate or believe in seeking blessings from graves?

No, he did not.

BH brings Ibn Abdil Barrs’s explanation for this hadīth from Muwatta. BH translates the ending as ‘underneath this tree, there are 70 Prophets’

This translation is not correct. And the Hadīth doesn’t say this. Interestingly, in the very book of Ibn Abdil Barr that BH uses to justify seeking blessings from graves, the paragraph above explains what the end of this hadīth translates as and means.

Ibn Abdil Barr says: As for his statement: سر تحتها سبعون نبيا there are two opinions 1) The Prophets rejoiced under it for that which made them happy (سَرَّ), [they did this] one after another or together or were raised (in status, which is what made them happy).
[The word here is] سُرَّ from the word السرور (umbilical cord). It was cut under the tree, meaning, they were born under it So, it’s clear that Prophets are not buried nor resting under the tree. They are not under the tree. They either rejoiced under it or were born under it.
Another distortion & misrepresentation of evidence from BH.
It is clear that Ibn Abdil Barr didn’t refer to Tabarruk from the graves of The Prophets but rather tabarruk from a place where they had been. Ibn Abdil Barr states that establishing Tabarruk was intended by Ibn Umar in the narration. Yet Ath Thahabī brings a narration saying Ibn Umar disliked touching the grave of the Prophet ﷺ So how can we take the interpretation that the intention of Ibn Umar was taking Barakah from the graves?

Even if Ibn Abdil Barr did permit Tabarruk from The Grave, I’ll show those Scholars who spoke against it in the next part. Will BH also refer to them as extremists?

Shubhah #9: Imām Ath Thahabī’s statement and the statement of other Scholars

BH has presented Imām Ath Thahabīs statement establishing the fatwa of Imam Ahmad saying there’s nothing wrong with kissing the grave of The Prophet. This has already been answered.

As for the statements of Ath Thahabī. Here are a few points: 1) Ath Thahabī has brought the narration of Ibn Umar RA; A Sahabī, who disliked touching the grave of The Prophet ﷺ. Ath Thahabī says this is because he saw it as bad manners. – Where’s the evidence to suggest its bad manners, why is it not because he saw tabarruk from graves as wrong? – If a Sahabī has said its bad manners, how can it be used to attain Barakah?
Let’s take the explanation BH presented of Ibn Abdil Barr (that we have already dealt with), that Ibn Umar intended to establish Tabarruk of the place where The Prophets stay and are located. If this is the case, why would Ibn Umar see it as bad manners touching the grave of The Prophet ﷺ?

2) Where has Ath Thahabī used the words Tabarruk? Ath Thahabī says: وهذه الأمور لا يحركها من المسلم الا فرط حبه للنبي ‘These affairs do not awaken from The Muslim except through excess love for The Messenger’
Tabarruk is to take/seek barakah from something. You seek blessings from it. You gain something Actions done out of love is giving something, you’re giving love simply by doing something out of love. Both are different.

And even if he allowed tabarruk, how does that constitute prove if it goes against the ijma’ of the Sahabah?