Did Salafi Mufti (bin Baz) accuses Sahabi of shirk? | Reply or response to Hanafi on Malik ad Dar's
Channel: Islam Scale
Date: 06/03/2019

The late grand mufti of Saudi Arabia and one of the putative figureheads of the psuedo-Salafi movement, comments upon a Hadith in his annotation on Fath al-Bari (a commentary on Sahih al-Bukhari), accusing a Sahabi of Shirk! Maulana Usman Iqbal details the famous narration of Malik al-Dar and how the late grand mufti takes issue with it, projecting his understanding of shirk over the understanding of a senior sahabi, Sayyiduna Umar ibn al-Khattab. It is known that the pseudo-salafis have a habit of launching accusations of shirk on individuals for practices that do not align with their narrow understanding however it ought to be known to what extent their scholars have gone to in order to see why the followers behave the way they do. The detailed research article, mentioned by Maulana Usman Iqbal, which thoroughly addresses any contentions upon the narration is titled "The Blazing Star in Defence of a Narration from Malik al-Dar" written by Shaykh Dr. Abul Hasan Hussain Ahmed of darultahqiq.com which can be found here: http://www.darultahqiq.com/the-blazin...

#addeenunnaseehah
#addinannasiha
#islam
#quran
#sunnat

response to above
Can dead hear?
Did Bin Baaz accused of sahabi being a mushrik or doing shirk
What is asar or athar
About authenticity of this athar
al-Albani
Hafiz Ibn Hajar A'mash Aamash 
Misunderstanding and misinterpretation of this athar
What Imams of Hadith and other Imams understood this hadith to mean
Who is Malikuddar
5 conditions for the hadees to be accepted

Al-adaalah
Tamaam azzabt
Ittisaal-assanand
Admu-ash-shuzooz
Admul-illa
Since Umar has appointed Malik Ad Dar as treasurer, is it not reason enough that he is thiqah
Was the strange man Bilal ibn Al-Harith Al-Muzani ?
Difference between History of Islam and authentic text of Quran and Sunnah
About Saif ibn Umar
The silly objection raised about this athar
Umar and Sahaba did not object and did not do nakeer and did not reject this man and did not say that you have done shirk
Zubair Ali Zai about this narration
Hence it is proved that Allama Abdulazeez Bin Baaz did not accuse any sahabi of Shirk
Because this narration is not authentic, if for the sake argument we consider it as authentic then the point is unknown person is not a sahabi, and that he did not tell Umar R that he did shirkiyyah act.


Conclusion:
This unknown man’s identity is doubtful and one can not be sure that he was Bilal Ibn Haris al muzni because Saif is not trustworthy
This athar is against the foundations of tawheed
This athar doesn’t prove that the unknown person mentioned to Umar that he visited the grave of Prophet. He just mentioned about his dream
If he would have told Umar about taking grave of Prophet as wasilah then Umar would have definitely done nakeer on him
Do salafis have many issues with Umar’s verdicts. No.
We found that out of 5 conditions of hadeeth to be an authentic, this narration of Malik Ad Daar is hampered somehow or the other in all the 5 conditions of sihah al hadeeth.
Soofis have a principle that to prove a matter of aqeedah we have to have a mutawaatir hadeeth and not ahhaad. Since we are agreed that tawassul via a dead is a matter of aqeedah and this riwaayah of Malikuddar is ahaad, so why are you changing your principle now, and accepting ahaad riwaayat to prove aqidah?
If for the sake of argument, we consider this riwayat sahih and if istighaasa via qabr was sahi in Islam then why Prophet told him to go to Umar and ask him to ask Allah for rain and be clever? Prophet should have accepted his istigasa and rain should have started? But it did not happen. Rather Prophet showed him a shar'ee way for istisqa.
One brother is saying it doesn't matter if Hafiz Ibn Hajar did not provide chain of the narrators. Allahu Akbar. Subhanallah. People are ready to accept a narration without the chain if that narration is proving their wrong aqeedah. Innalillahi wa inna ilayhi rajioon

Hence it is proved that Allama Abdulazeez Bin Baaz did not accuse any sahabi of Shirk
Because this narration is not authentic, if for the sake argument we consider it as authentic then the point is unknown person is not a sahabi, and that he did not tell Umar R that he did shirkiyyah act.
who what how to which why where when tahqeeq tahqiq tahkeek tahkik tehqeeq tehqiq tehkik tehkeek taheqeeq taheqiq tahekeek tahekik investigation examination of narration riwayah riwayath riwayat riwaayah riwaayath riwaayat rewayah rewaayah rewayat rewaayat maalikuddaar tawassul waseelah waseela wasila wasilah istishfaa shifaat