How authentic is the Hadith “I am not sought out for help but God is sought out for help”?

Ibn Kathir reports in his book Jaami’ al Masaaneed wal Sunan 4/568 report no. 5780:

٥٧٨٠ – قال الطبرانى: حدثنا أحمد بن حماد بن زُغْبَة المصرى، حدثنا سعيد ابن عُفَيْر، حدثنا ابن لهيعة، عن الحارث بن يزيد، عن على بن رباح، عن عبادة، قال: قال أبو بكر: قوموا نستغيث برسول الله ﷺ من هذا المنافق، فقال رسول الله ﷺ: «إِنَّهُ لا يُسْتَغَاثُ بِى، إِنَّما يُسْتَغَاثُ بالله

Al-Tabarani said: Ahmad ibn Hammad ibn Zughbah Al-Misri narrated to us, Saeed ibn Ufayr narrated to us, Ibn Lahi’ah narrated to us, from Al-Harith ibn Yazid, from Ali ibn Rabbah, from Ubadah, he said: Abu Bakr said: “Rise up, let us seek help from the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, from this hypocrite.” So the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said: “I am not sought out for help but Allah is sought out for help.”

The problem with this report is with Ibn Lahi’ah who is mudhtarib in his rendition of the report, both from an Isnad and Matn perspective.

This is evidenced by Ahmad’s relaying of the report in his Musnad where he said:

٢٢٧٠٦ – حَدَّثَنَا مُوسَى بْنُ دَاوُدَ، حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ لَهِيعَةَ، عَنِ الْحَارِثِ بْنِ يَزِيدَ، عَنْ عَلِيِّ بْنِ رَبَاحٍ، أَنَّ رَجُلًا سَمِعَ، عُبَادَةَ بْنَ الصَّامِتِ يَقُولُ: خَرَجَ عَلَيْنَا رَسُولُ اللهِ ﷺ فَقَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ قُومُوا نَسْتَغِيثُ بِرَسُولِ اللهِ ﷺ مِنْ هَذَا الْمُنَافِقِ، فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللهِ ﷺ: لَا يُقَامُ لِي، إِنَّمَا يُقَامُ لِلَّهِ

The chain of narration of Ahmad contains a man who was not named; contrary to the chain of narration of Tabarani which omits the man who was not named.

Similarly with the text of the narration of Imam Ahmad, it differs from the text of Tabarani; so this and that indicates idhtirab in the hadith from Ibn Lahi’ah in both chain and text; coupled with his own weakness makes the report weak. 

So why do the scholars of Ahlus Sunnah mention and use this report?

Ibn Taymiyya answers this in his refutation of al Bakri (Al Istighaatha fil Radd ‘ala al Bakri) p.118-119:

هذا الخبر لم يذكر للاعتماد عليه، بل ذكر في ضمن غيره ليتبين أن معناه موافق للمعاني المعلومة بالكتاب والسنة، كما أنه إذا ذكر حكم بدليل معلوم ذُكِرَ ما يوافقه من الآثار والمراسيل وأقوال العلماء وغير ذلك من الاعتضاد والمعاونة، لا لأن الواحد من ذلك يعتمد عليه في حكم شرعي.

This narration was not mentioned to rely upon it, but rather it was mentioned along with others to show that its meaning conforms to the known meanings in the Qur’an and Sunnah. Just as when a ruling is mentioned with a known evidence, what conforms to it of narrations, disconnected reports, statements of scholars and so on are mentioned as corroboration and support, not because any one of those is relied upon for a religious ruling.

فما يصلح للاعتضاد نوع وما يصلح للاعتماد نوع، وهذا الخبر من النوع الأول فإنه رواه الطبراني في معجمه من حديث ابن لهيعة، وقد قال أحمد: “قد كتبت حديث الرجل لأعتبر وأستشهد به مثل حديث ابن لهيعة”، فإن عبد الله بن لهيعة قاضي مصر كان من أهل العلم والدين باتفاق العلماء ولم يكن ممن يكذب باتفاقهم، ولكن قيل إن كتبه احترقت فوقع في بعض حديثه غلط، ولهذا فرقوا بين من حدَّث عنه قديماً و [بين من حدَّث عنه] حديثاً، وأهل السنن يروون له،

What can be used for corroboration is one category, and what can be relied upon is another category. And this narration is from the first category, for al-Tabarani related it in his Mu’jam from the hadith of Ibn Lahi’ah. And Ahmad said, “I have written the hadith of the man to consider and take evidence with it, like the hadith of Ibn Lahi’ah.” For indeed Abdullah ibn Lahi’ah, the judge of Egypt, was from the people of knowledge and religion by the consensus of scholars, and he was not from those who would lie by their consensus. However, it is said that his books burned, so some mistakes occurred in some of his narrations. For this reason, they differentiated between one who narrated from him early on, and [between one who narrated from him] lately. And the authors of the Sunans transmit from him. 

وقد روى الناس هذا الحديث من أكثر من خمسمائة سنة إن كان ضعيفًا، وإلا فهو مروي من زمان النبي ﷺ، وما زال العلماء يقرؤون ذلك ويسمعونه في المجالس الكبار والصغار ولم يقل أحد من المسلمين إن إطلاق القول: إنه لا يستغاث بالنبي ﷺ كفر ولا حرام، وكان في إيراده بيان تقدم تكلم العلماء والسلف بهذا اللفظ، ولو كان عبد الله بن لهيعة ذاكرًا لا آثرًا لم ينكره المسلمون عليه؛ لكان في ذلك مستند لهذا الإطلاق، فإن الرجل قاضي مصر في ذلك الزمان وهو من أكبر العلماء المفتين ونظير لليث بن سعد، والغلط الذي وقع في حديثه لا يمنعه أن يكون من أهل الاجتهاد والفتيا.

People have narrated this hadith for over five hundred years, whether it is weak or not. Otherwise, it has been transmitted since the time of the Prophet, may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him. The scholars have continued to read it and hear it in both major and minor gatherings, yet no Muslim has said that the unrestricted wording “The Prophet ﷺ is not sought out for help” is disbelief or forbidden. And in its mention, there is the clarity that the scholars and the Salaf previously spoke with this wording. Even if Abdullah ibn Lahi’ah was stating his opinion rather than transmitting, Muslims would not have objected to him. And that would have provided a basis for such an unrestricted statement, for the man was the judge of Egypt at that time and one of the greatest and senior scholars who issued fatawa, and he was a peer of Layth ibn Sa’d. The mistakes that occurred in some of his narrations do not prevent him from being among the people of ijtihad and issuing fatawa.

And Allah knows best!