Introduction to the Series
This series of articles will deal exclusively with deconstructing the ‘Qubūrī’ narrative. Evidences will be analysed that are used to justify a discourse that is inherently flawed, not only self-contradictory but contradicting reason and revelation as well. The term ‘Qubūrī’ is used here as an umbrella title that covers a spectrum of ideas revolving around saint and grave worship, and crying out to the deceased for help, as well as seeking to procure blessings and mediation from them. Some of these ideas are outright kufr and shirk, and some are not, but still unlawful.
Given the sad state of the Muslim Ummah at large, with ignorance and confusion widespread, I do not promote the excommunication of individual Muslims by labelling them as mushrik (polytheist) or kāfir (disbeliever). However, this should not stop us from calling out shirk, bidʿah (innovation) and ḍalālah (misguidance) whenever it rears its head in this Ummah. Islām is the religion of pure, unadulterated Tawḥīd (monotheism), the call of our Prophet ﷺ, and all Prophets, was to Tawḥīd. Tawḥīd is what ensures our success in this life and the next, it is what brings about Allāh’s good pleasure, love and grace.
The goal of this series of articles is ensure that we, as Allāh’s servants, do not fall prey to the traps of Shayṭān and commit the greatest crime against Allāh possible: shirk.
In writing these articles, I will approach the topic first by tackling the major evidences and proofs adduced by this narrative, and then I will present the orthodox position of Ahlu’l-Sunnah on this topic. The reason why I have decided to approach it in this way is because the position of Ahlu’l-Sunnah is actually very simple, it is easy to conceptualise, easy to understand, and because it agrees with the fiṭra, easy to accept. The Qubūrī narrative, on the other hand, is convoluted. Standing at odds to the fiṭra as it does, it requires a degree of indoctrination before a person can accept it. After having navigated through the tortuous mess of the Qubūrī narrative, the reader will be accorded the opportunity of contrasting this with the clarity presented by Ahlu’l-Sunnah and their methodical approach. He will be able to compare the weakness of Qubūrī logic to the strength of Ahlu’l-Sunnah’s reasoning.
There are three terms that I will be using consistently throughout these articles:
Istighatha: Lexically meaning to request ghawth, which is help and the removal of difficulty. Therefore, it is done at times of hardship or dire circumstances. It is done by crying out to the object from which help is sought. The legitimacy of a persons’ crying out for help to people who are alive and present, for something within human ability to do, is not differed over. The point of contention here is istighatha with the dead, or the absent or with someone present but for something that falls outside of human ability to do.
Tawassul: Lexically meaning to draw near to your goal, or to approach your objective. When we say, ‘A person did wasīla to Allāh,’ it means he did something to draw closer to Him, or took something as a means of approaching Him, or took to those causes that lead to His love and good-pleasure. There are types of wasīla whose legitimacy are agreed on, such as seeking to draw close to Allāh through īmān (faith) and righteous deeds, asking others to make duʿā for you, and calling on Allāh by His Names and Attributes. The point of contention is to seek wasīla (mediation) via the status or personage of righteous individuals – living or dead – as a means of drawing close to Allāh or having our supplications answered. An example of this would be a person saying, ‘O Allāh, I ask you by the status/personage of Muḥammad ﷺ in Your eyes to accept my duʿā’. It should be noted that the Qubūrī narrative seeks to conflate istighātha with tawassul.
Tabarruk: Seeking to procure barakah, which is goodness and blessings. Allāh is the source of all goodness and blessings and He has taught us many means by which we can procure blessings such as through a mannerism taught by the Sharīʿah, or at certain times such as Ramaḍān, or in certain places such as the Ḥaram, or in certain foods such the olive, or through actions such as teaching and learning knowledge and so on. There are points of contention though, such as procuring blessings through the personages of the righteous (besides the Prophets), or from the vicinity of their graves, or from their graves themselves etc.
So we say, seeking Allāh’s help and asking that He make this effort sincerely for His sake alone:
Imām Bukhārī records in his stand alone work and masterpiece on Islamic morals and manners, al-Adab al-Mufrad:
|حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو نُعَيْمٍ قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا سُفْيَانُ، عَنْ أَبِي إِسْحَاقَ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ سَعْدٍ قَالَ: خَدِرَتْ رِجْلُ ابْنِ عُمَرَ، فَقَالَ لَهُ رَجُلٌ: اذْكُرْ أَحَبَّ النَّاسِ إِلَيْكَ، فَقَالَ: يَا مُحَمَّدُ|
|ʿAbdu’l-Raḥmān b. Saʿd said that ʿAbdullāh b. ʿUmar’s leg became numb. A man said to him, ‘Remember the most beloved person to you.’ He said, ‘Yā Muḥammad!’ |
The claim: the narration shows that it is permissible, and certainly not an act of shirk, to use the vocative (yā) to directly address the Prophet ﷺ in his grave, even if not in the immediate vicinity of the grave; just as it is permissible to address those who are not physically present in the same way. It also shows the permissibility of calling out to the Prophet ﷺ and, by extension, the righteous, with the belief that they can hear the call, and asking them to fulfil a particular need. This with the implicit understanding that any ability they have to meet the need has been granted them by Allāh, or with the implicit understanding that the petitioned will take the plea and ask Allāh on behalf of the suppliant. Moreover, Bukhārī’s inclusion of this narration in his work shows that he did not have a theological problem with this narration.
Before analysing this claim, let us first gather together the various versions of this narration found in the books of ḥadīth.
|حَدَّثَنِي مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ الْأَنْمَاطِيُّ، وَعَمْرُو بْنُ الْجُنَيْدِ بْنِ عِيسَى، قَالَا: ثنا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ خِدَاشٍ، ثنا أَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ عَيَّاشٍ، ثنا أَبُو إِسْحَاقَ السَّبِيعِيُّ، عَنْ أَبِي شُعْبَةَ، قَالَ: كُنْتُ أَمْشِي مَعَ ابْنِ عُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا، فَخَدِرَتْ رِجْلُهُ، فَجَلَسَ، فَقَالَ لَهُ رَجُلٌ: اذْكُرْ أَحَبَّ النَّاسِ إِلَيْكَ فَقَالَ: «يَا مُحَمَّدَاهُ فَقَامَ فَمَشَى»|
|Abū Shuʿbah said, ‘I was walking with ibn ʿUmar (RA) when his leg went numb, making him sit down.’ A man said to him, ‘Remember the most beloved person to you.’ He said, ‘Yā Muḥammadāhu,’ stood and continued walking. |
|حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ خَالِدِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ الْبَرْذَعِيُّ، ثنا حَاجِبُ بْنُ سُلَيْمَانَ، ثنا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ مُصْعَبٍ، ثنا إِسْرَائِيلُ، عَنْ أَبِي إِسْحَاقَ، عَنِ الْهَيْثَمِ بْنِ حَنَشٍ، قَالَ: كُنَّا عِنْدَ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا، فَخَدِرَتْ رِجْلُهُ، فَقَالَ لَهُ رَجُلٌ: “اذْكُرْ أَحَبَّ النَّاسِ إِلَيْكَ فَقَالَ: يَا مُحَمَّدُ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ: فَقَامَ فَكَأَنَّمَا نَشِطَ مِنْ عِقَالٍ”|
|Haytham b. Ḥanash said: We were with ʿAbdullāh b. ʿUmar (RA) when his leg went numb. A man said to him, ‘Remember the most beloved person to you.’ He said, ‘Yā Muḥammad ﷺ.’ Then he stood, (walking briskly) as if freed from shackles. |
|أَخْبَرَنِي أَحْمَدُ بْنُ الْحَسَنِ الصُّوفِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ الْجَعْدِ، ثنا زُهَيْرٌ، عَنْ أَبِي إِسْحَاقَ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ سَعْدٍ، قَالَ: “كُنْتُ عِنْدَ ابْنِ عُمَرَ، فَخَدِرَتْ رِجْلُهُ، فَقُلْتُ: يَا أَبَا عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ مَا لِرِجْلِكَ؟ قَالَ: اجْتَمَعَ عَصَبُهَا مِنْ هَاهُنَا. قُلْتُ: ادْعُ أَحَبَّ النَّاسِ إِلَيْكَ فَقَالَ: يَا مُحَمَّدُ فَانْبَسَطَتْ”|
|ʿAbdu’l-Raḥmān b. Saʿd said: I was with ʿAbdullāh b. ʿUmar when his leg became numb. I asked him what was wrong with his leg and he replied, ‘The nerves have contracted.’ I said, ‘Call on the most beloved person to you.’ He said, ‘Yā Muḥammad,’ and his leg loosened up. |
Also related to this topic is the following narration,
|حَدَّثَنَا جَعْفَرُ بْنُ عِيسَى أَبُو أَحْمَدَ، ثنا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ رَوْحٍ، ثنا سَلَّامُ بْنُ سُلَيْمَانَ، ثنا غِيَاثُ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عُثْمَانَ بْنِ خَيْثَمٍ، عَنْ مُجَاهِدٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ، رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا قَالَ: خَدِرَتْ رِجْلُ رَجُلٍ عِنْدَ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ، فَقَالَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ: “اذْكُرْ أَحَبَّ النَّاسِ إِلَيْكَ فَقَالَ: مُحَمَّدٌ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَذَهَبَ خَدَرَهُ”|
|Ibn ʿAbbās (RA) said to a man whose leg had become numb, ‘Remember the most beloved person to you.’ He said, ‘Muḥammad ﷺ,’ and his leg got better. |
All of the chains of narration to Ibn ʿUmar are ḍaʿīf. The best of these is the chain of Bukhārī through Sufyān al-Thawrī, but that is still ḍaʿīf. 
The narration of ibn ʿAbbās is extremely weak or an outright forgery.
Bakr Abū Zayd said, ‘There is no sound report concerning the dhikr or duʿā that is to be said when one’s leg goes numb; and no ḥadīth going back to the Prophet ﷺ has been narrated concerning this.’ 
A question may arise concerning how or why Imām Bukhārī would have included a ḍaʿīf narration in his work al-Adab al-Mufrad. The simple answer is that this particular work was not written with the same strict criteria of ḥadīth that he set for himself in his Ṣaḥīḥ. As such, there are some weak ḥadīths and narrations found in this book, but the meaning of each can be argued to correct, and the title narration is a case in point as we shall see by Allāh’s permission.
Weak ḥadīth cannot be used to establish core matters of law, and they certainly cannot be used to affirm matters of belief. This is a point of agreement amongst the scholars.  As such, these narrations cannot be used to prove the point the Qubūrī narrative sets out to do, and this is more so the case when we consider that these narrations are not actually ḥadīth of the Prophet ﷺ.
Numerous scholars argue that in matters of faḍāʾil (virtues of deeds) and al-targhīb wa’l-tarhīb (exhortation and warning) we can use weak ḥadīth, but many of these scholars themselves set some conditions for doing so:
1. The ḥadīth should not be severely weak
2. The ḥadīth falls under a general principle already present
3. While acting on it, one cannot believe that it was something the Prophet ﷺ definitely said lest he risk attributing something falsely to Him. 
Even though this is not a ḥadīth of the Prophet ﷺ, there may be a case for considering this narration as a case in point for this. That is when understood in its correct context as we shall see later.
Returning to the narration as recorded in Bukhārī’s al-Adab al-Mufrad, some texts of the book just have ‘Muḥammad,’ and others have ‘Yā Muḥammad,’ although Dāruquṭnī just records the latter version of the wording.
Therefore, the different versions of this narration have ibn ʿUmar saying, ‘Muḥammad,’ ‘Yā Muḥammad,’ or ‘Yā Muḥammadāhu.’ When considering the fact that these all describe one and the same incident, one could make the case that the quote is actually narrated by meaning and does not convey the precise wording.
For the sake of argument, we will proceed to discuss the narration as if it is authentic.
In order to understand this narration, we must consider it in the context of Arab tradition and culture of the time, and in light of their experiential judgements (tajriba) with regards to medicine and healing. When doing so, we find copious amounts of material before and after Islam showing that the Arabs believed that a cure to certain types of ailments such as numbness was to mention someone you loved, be that person Muslim or otherwise. They believed that numbness was caused by blood not reaching the afflicted limb, and that by remembering someone beloved, the heart would pump faster, and blood would begin to flow again, removing that numbness.  In modern terms, perhaps we could think of it as a type of placebo effect: a feel-good activity that provides a way for the brain to tell the body what it needs to get better, a positive healing effect.
The mention of a beloved person such as a friend, leader, parent, wife etc., in their eyes, was not a literal call or plea to that person at a time of need (istighātha) or even mediation (tawassul) with that person. It was more a belief that the resulting positive psychological impact would make a person forget or overcome his ailment, or increase the blood flow and remove numbness.
Therefore, when ibn ʿUmar was asked to remember someone he loved, we must understand this narration in its correct cultural context. It goes without saying that the most beloved person to all Muslims would be the Prophet ﷺ, hence Ibn ʿUmar bringing Him ﷺ to mind. It is for this reason that Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ quotes this narration in the section of his work, al-Shifā where he cites examples showing the love the righteous Salaf had of their Prophet ﷺ and their longing for him. 
There are numerous indicators in the narration itself which lend themselves to this understanding.
First, the majority of versions cite the wording ‘udhkur’, which can be translated as mention, remember, or bring to mind, but not: cry out to for help and relief. Yes, one wording does mention ‘udʿu’, which can be translated as call on or invoke; but this is the weaker wording. Moreover, lexically it is possible to understand ‘udʿu’ as having a similar meaning to ‘udhkur’, and would tie in with the overall impression that the incident has been narrated by meaning rather than the precise wording.
Second, one version of this narration employs a construct knows as the nudba: ‘Yā Muhammadāhu,’ which one could translate using the word ‘Alas,’ so, ‘Alas, Muḥammad!’ The nudba construct is used to express sorrow and longing for, and is not a direct, literal address or plea. Another version of the narration just has ‘Muḥammad’ with no addition of the vocative at all. All taken together, this strengthens the case that a mention is being made, not a plea.
Third, the vocative form that is used for istighātha (pleading to someone for help) is yā and no other.  The usage of the nudba construct in one version, and no vocative at all in another, lends to the case that this is not an example of istigātha.
Fourth, if someone was to claim that Ibn ʿUmar was literally addressing the Prophet ﷺ by saying, ‘Yā Muḥammad,’ this would be extremely problematic for the simple reason that the Companions were prohibited from directly addressing the Prophet ﷺ with his name as a mark of respect. It is for this reason that we find such an address very rarely used by them, if at all after the prohibition. Allāh says,
|لَّا تَجْعَلُوا دُعَاءَ الرَّسُولِ بَيْنَكُمْ كَدُعَاءِ بَعْضِكُم بَعْضًا|
|Make not the calling of the Messenger among you as your calling one of another. |
In commentary to this, Ibn ʿAbbās (RA) said, ‘They used to say “Yā Muḥammad, Yā Aba’l-Qāsim,” but Allāh told them not to do so out of respect for His Prophet ﷺ. They then addressed him by saying, “Yā Rasūlallāh, Yā NabiyAllāh.”’  Zayd b. Aslam said, ‘Allāh enjoined them to address Him ﷺ with terms of honour.’ 
It is not possible to imagine that a Companion who had as much love for his Prophet ﷺ as ibn ʿUmar did – to the extent that he stood out amongst them in his precise, rigorous emulation of the Prophet ﷺ – would address the Prophet ﷺ in way that might be deemed disrespectful. In light of all this, perhaps one could then give greater weight to the version that employs the nudba construct, or the one that is devoid of the vocative altogether.
Some people have argued that certain instances of the nudba construct are examples of istighatha or tawassul. They then claim that some incidents recorded in biographical dictionaries and history books where nudba is used are case examples of this. By way of illustration, some of the Salaf saying the phrases wāMuḥammadāhu or yāMuḥammadāhu (Alas, Muḥammad!) on certain occasions; the assertion being that this is a cry for help to our Prophet ﷺ or a request for mediation. However, this is a mistake and a misunderstanding of the true import of those incidents. That said, analysing these incidents is outside the scope of this particular article.  Here it is sufficient to understand that, although the nudba construct is a nidāʾ (call or address), a number of linguists argue that it is not a nidāʾ in its literal sense, rather it merely carries the form of a nidāʾ since it does not elicit an actual response or require the subject’s actual presence. Others said that it is not a literal nidāʾ but a metaphorical one, used as a rhetorical device but which could, on occasion, demand the attention or presence of the subject.  Its goal is to highlight the importance and greatness, or severity and difficulty of the matter at hand.  But it is not a plea for help in times of need.
An example of the nudba construct can be seen in the following ḥadīth which records the words of Fāṭima when her father ﷺ passed away,
| وَا أَبَتَاهُ، إِلَى جِبْرَائِيلَ أَنْعَاهُ، وَا أَبَتَاهُ، مِنْ رَبِّهِ مَا أَدْنَاهُ، وَا أَبَتَاهُ، جَنَّةُ الْفِرْدَوْسِ مَأْوَاهُ، وَا أَبَتَاهُ أَجَابَ رَبًّا دَعَاهُ|
| Alas, my father! To Jibrāʾīl we announce his passing. Alas, my father! How much closer to his Lord he is. Alas, my father! The Garden of Eden is his abode. Alas, my father! He responded to the call of His Lord when He called.|
And the narrator of this ḥadīth, Thābit would weep as he narrated it.  This ḥadīth clearly expresses the longing for and sadness Fāṭimah and others felt at the passing of Allāh’s Messenger ﷺ, and it also shows that this was not a literal address to Him ﷺ.
This leads us to the next point which is that not every nidāʾ (call or address) to someone who is absent or to an inanimate object is necessarily unlawful. Context has to be considered. The nidāʾ as a basic premise elicits a response and requires the presence of the individual, but is also used in a non-literal capacity. There are a multitude of examples for this in Arabic poetry, literature and oration. The nidāʾ can be used to express anguish and pain, or amazement, or nudba as already discussed. It can even be used as a rhetorical device addressed to someone who cannot hear such as the deceased, ‘O Zayd, how we miss you!’ It can also be used to address inanimate objects, ‘Yā arḍ’ or personified abstract qualities, or periods of time, ‘Ayyuha’l-Layl al-ṭawīl’,  In all of these cases, context is king.
Returning to the narration; in light of the previous point, let us consider the version which employs the vocative form, Yā – Yā Muḥammad, and assume that for the sake of argument, this was the actual wording used. We have two possibilities before us. Either the vocative is being used as a rhetorical device where the speaker brings to mind the person he is describing and addresses that individual figuratively. Or it is a literal address or plea to the absent person or deceased.
The first usage above is not a point of contention, it is the second usage that is. Here, the case is made for the rhetorical usage as opposed to the literal usage for all the reasons already mentioned above.
Some scholars, such as ibn Taymiyyah, argue that it is the rhetorical sense which is used when the vocative is used for the Prophet ﷺ in the tashahhud of prayer for example. “A person frequently does things similar to this, addressing someone he has personified in his head, even if there is no one actually there to listen to said address.”  This will be explored further in another article in shā Allāh.
Numbness in the leg is a type of harm, ḍarr. Allāh commands Our Messenger ﷺ to say,
| قُلْ إِنِّي لَا أَمْلِكُ لَكُمْ ضَرًّا وَلَا رَشَدًا|
| Say, ‘I do not possess for you [the power of] harm or right direction.’ |
The āyah commands the Prophet ﷺ to tell us that he cannot remove harm that comes to us, or bring about good for us, rather this is for Allāh alone. 
“This Qurʾān is a rope. One end of it is in Allāh’s hand and the other end is in your hands. So hold firmly to it and you will not go astray nor be destroyed.”  The Qurʾān contains all we need to know with regards our relationship with Allāh, it has clear guidance concerning tawḥīd and the fundamentals of the religion. Allāh’s Book is full of supplications, from beginning to end. Carefully consider those supplications, the way they are composed and constructed. You will find that each and every supplication is a direct address to Allāh and no other. There is not a single supplication where another besides Allāh is addressed, there is no supplication where another is mentioned even by way of tawassul; there is not a single invocation crying out to another, be it a Prophet or an Angel. This fact alone should suffice in directing us to the type of supplication Allāh wants us to make.
Indeed, in the Qurʾān we find a blanket condemnation of supplicating to others besides Allāh, just as we find a blanket condemnation of crying out for help from the deceased.
The Sunnah explains the Qurʾān, confirms it and shows how to apply its teachings. When we consider the many, many supplications and adhkār taught by the Prophet ﷺ, reaching us via authentic routes, we find them reiterating the message of the Qurʾān in their direct address to Allāh alone. We also find the same condemnation of supplicating to another or crying out to the deceased for help.
This issue will be dealt with in detail in a separate article by Allāh’s permission.
It is well established in the Science of Uṣūl that if a narration is open to more than one interpretation, with no other text directing us to which is meant, it is not correct to use it as evidence for one of those interpretations. This narration is open to more than one interpretation as has been shown. We have now explored the evidence that supports one of those interpretations. However, for the sake of argument, even if that evidence were absent, we would still conclude that this narration cannot be used to prove what the Qubūrī narrative sets out to do.
Why would great Imāms like Bukhārī and others record such a narration without comment, does this not imply approval of its content on their part?
It has been shown above that there is no real theological problem with the meaning of this narration. As such there is no question of Imām Bukhārī somehow approving istighatha with the deceased by his recording this narration. This is also the reason why scholars who explicitly opposed istighatha and tawassul with the deceased also cited this narration in their works without considering it problematic; examples being Ibn Taymiyyah, al-Kalim al-Ṭayyib and ibn al-Qayyim, al-Wābil al-Ṣayyib, as did other scholars such as Nawawī, al-Adhkār. Indeed Nawawī, al-Majmūʿ says, ‘It is recommended… when his leg goes numb for him to mention someone he loves,’  leaving it open and not restricting it to the Prophet ﷺ, and further showing that this is not a case of istighatha.
This leads to a wider question of using experience and experimentation (tajriba) in matters of medicine and healing, spiritual or otherwise. This is allowed subject to certain principles and guidelines which will be dealt with in separate article in shā Allāh.
It is a basic academic mistake to decontextualise something rooted in the culture and tradition of a people and then use it to promote an idea alien to what they themselves intended by it. Unfortunately, this is precisely what has been done here.
The narration does not make the case for istighatha or even tawassul with the deceased.  It does not make the case for directly addressing the absent or deceased with the vocative. Indeed, when understood in its correct context, the narration – even though it is weak – presents no theological problem at all, on the contrary it is in conformity to the texts of the Book and the Sunnah.
And Allāh knows best.
 Bukhārī, al-Adab al-Mufrad #964, Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt 4:154, Dāruquṭnī, al-ʿIlal 13:242 #3140 with a ḍaʿīf isnad
 Dāruquṭnī, al-ʿIlal 13:242 #3140, Ibn al-Sunnī, ʿAmal al-Yawm #168 with a ḍaʿīf isnād. cf. Hilālī, ʿUjālah al-Rāghib 1:222
 Ibn al-Sunnī, ʿAmal al-Yawm #170 with a ḍaʿīf isnād. cf. Albānī, Takhrīj Kalim al-Ṭayyib pg. 120, Hilālī, ʿUjālah al-Rāghib 1:222, Āli al-Shaykh, Hadhihī Mafāhīmunā, pg. 44
 Ibn Jaʿd #3539, Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt 4:154, Ibn al-Sunnī, ʿAmal al-Yawm #172 with a ḍaʿīf isnād. cf. Hilālī, ʿUjālah al-Rāghib 1:222
 Ibn al-Sunnī, ʿAmal al-Yawm #168. Albānī, Takhrīj al-Kalim al-Ṭayyib pg. 120 ruled this to be mawḍūʿ (fabricated). cf. Hilālī, ʿUjālah al-Rāghib 1:222, Āli al-Shaykh, Hadhihī Mafāhīmunā, pp. 45-46
 cf. Āli al-Shaykh, Hadhihī Mafāhīmunā, pg. 44, Ḥuwaynī, Fatāwā al-Ḥadīthiyya
 Bakr Abū Zayd, Taṣḥīḥ al-Duʿā pg. 362
 Nayif, al-Khulāṣah fī Aḥkām al-Ḥadīth al-Ḍaʾīf, pg. 45
 Sakhāwī, al-Fatḥ al-Mughīth 2:154-155, Suyūṭi, Tadrīb al-Rāwī 1:503 both citing ibn Ḥajr
 cf. Ālūsī, Bulūgh al-Urb fī Maʿrifah Aḥwāl al-ʿArab 2:320-321, ibn al-Sunnī, ʿAmal al-Yawm #171, Āli al-Shaykh, Hadhihī Mafāhīmunā, pg. 46-47 for examples, as well as an example cited by Nawawī, al-Adhkār from Abū’l- ʿAtāhiya and commented on by ibn ʿAllān, Sharḥ al-Adhkār 3:200. cf. al-Khafājī, Nasīm al-Riyāḍ fī Sharḥ al-Shifā 4:429, Āli al-Shaykh, Hadhihī Mafāhīmunā, pg. 46
 cf. al-Khafājī, Nasīm al-Riyāḍ fī Sharḥ al-Shifā 4:429
 Ibn Hishām, Sharḥ Qaṭr al-Nada, pg. 295, Awḍaḥ al-Masālik 4:32, Khāfājah, Jāmiʿ al-Durūs al-ʿArabiyya 3:148
 al-Nūr 24:63
 Ibn Abī Ḥātim, Ibn Kathīr who also cited this as the view of Mujāhid and Saʿīd b. Jubayr
 Ibn Kathīr
 Some examples are cited in Sahsuwānī, Ṣiyānatu’l-Insān, pg. 391-392
 cf. Ibn Hishām, Mughnī al-Labīb 1:691, Ḥasan, al-Naḥw al-Wāfī 4:91, Sahsuwānī, Ṣiyānatu’l-Insān, pg. 391-392
 cf. Ibn al-Nāẓim, Sharḥ Alfiyyah pg. 591, Ibn Hishām, Sharḥ Qaṭr al-Nada, pg. 299
 Ibn Mājah #1630
 Ibn al-Shajarī, al-Amālī 1:417, Sahsuwānī, Ṣiyānatu’l-Insān, pg. 392
 Ibn Taymiyyah, Iqtiḍāʾ al-Ṣirāṭ al-Mustaqīm 2:319
 al-Jinn 71:21
 Qurṭubī, Wāḥidī, al-Basīṭ
 Ibn Ḥibbān #122
 Nawawī, al-Majmūʿ 4:485
 As such we would disagree with the comment made by Bakr Abū Zayd, Taṣḥīḥ al-Duʿā, pg. 362 in his repudiation of this narration because it implies istighātha with the deceased.
(NOTE: If you want to build a strong and powerful relationship with Allah, check out Islamia TV, where you can watch Islamic speakers from across the globe deliver inspiring and motivational courses. Learn more at www.islamia.tv.)