سنن ترمذي
Tirmidhi
كتاب الصلاةThe Book on Salat (Prayer)
باب مَا جَاءَ أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لَمْ يَرْفَعْ إِلاَّ فِي أَوَّلِ مَرَّةٍChapter: What Has Been Related That The Prophet (saws) Would Not Raise His Hands Except For The First Time
Hadith 257
اُردوEn
حَدَّثَنَا هَنَّادٌ، حَدَّثَنَا وَكِيعٌ، عَنْ سُفْيَانَ، عَنْ عَاصِمِ بْنِ كُلَيْبٍ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ الْأَسْوَدِ، عَنْ عَلْقَمَةَ، قَالَ : قَالَ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مَسْعُودٍ : " أَلَا أُصَلِّي بِكُمْ صَلَاةَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، فَصَلَّى فَلَمْ يَرْفَعْ يَدَيْهِ إِلَّا فِي أَوَّلِ مَرَّةٍ " . قَالَ : وَفِي الْبَاب عَنْ الْبَرَاءِ بْنِ عَازِبٍ ، قَالَ أَبُو عِيسَى : حَدِيثُ ابْنِ مَسْعُودٍ حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ ، وَبِهِ يَقُولُ : غَيْرُ وَاحِدٍ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ مِنْ أَصْحَابِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَالتَّابِعِينَ ، وَهُوَ قَوْلُ سُفْيَانَ الثَّوْرِيِّ وَأَهْلِ الْكُوفَةِ .
´Alqamah narrated that :` Abdullah bin Mas'ud said: "Shall I not demonstrate the Salat of Allah's Messenger to you?" Then he offered Salat and he did not raise his hands except while saying the first Takbir."
Related hadith on this topic
Explanation & Benefits
Shaykh Dr. Abdur Rahman Freywai
English Commentary:
1:
Those who hold the view that the legislation (mashru‘iyyah) of raising the hands (raf‘ al-yadayn) has been abrogated have used this very narration as evidence.
However, this hadith is weak.
Imam Ahmad and Imam Bukhari have declared this hadith weak due to ‘Asim ibn Kulayb.
And even if it is accepted as authentic, it does not contradict those narrations which establish the raising of the hands when going into bowing (ruku‘) and when rising from bowing,
because raising the hands (raf‘ al-yadayn) is recommended (mustahabb), not obligatory (fard) or compulsory (wajib).
Secondly, the fact that ‘Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud radi Allahu anhu did not do it does not necessitate that the narrations of others are incorrect.
Many issues remained hidden from ‘Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud radi Allahu anhu;
it is possible that this is among them, just as is the issue of dry ablution (tayammum) for one in a state of major ritual impurity (junub), or the matter of the abrogation of placing the hands together (tatbiq) between bowing (ruku‘).
1:
Those who hold the view that the legislation (mashru‘iyyah) of raising the hands (raf‘ al-yadayn) has been abrogated have used this very narration as evidence.
However, this hadith is weak.
Imam Ahmad and Imam Bukhari have declared this hadith weak due to ‘Asim ibn Kulayb.
And even if it is accepted as authentic, it does not contradict those narrations which establish the raising of the hands when going into bowing (ruku‘) and when rising from bowing,
because raising the hands (raf‘ al-yadayn) is recommended (mustahabb), not obligatory (fard) or compulsory (wajib).
Secondly, the fact that ‘Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud radi Allahu anhu did not do it does not necessitate that the narrations of others are incorrect.
Many issues remained hidden from ‘Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud radi Allahu anhu;
it is possible that this is among them, just as is the issue of dry ablution (tayammum) for one in a state of major ritual impurity (junub), or the matter of the abrogation of placing the hands together (tatbiq) between bowing (ruku‘).
Source: Sunan al-Tirmidhi – Majlis ‘Ilmi Dar al-Da‘wah, New Delhi Edition, Page: 257
Hafiz Muhammad Ameen
1027. Commentary: This narration is presented as evidence for the abrogation (naskh) of raising the hands (raf‘ al-yadayn) at the time of bowing (ruku‘), but there are a few points here worthy of consideration:
➊ In this narration, there is no mention at all of raising the hands at ruku‘, so how can it be considered abrogated? If it is said that the phrase “then he did not do it again” implies this meaning, then the question arises: how is the raising of the hands in the qunut of witr exempt from this? Why are the takbirat of the two ‘Eids not affected by it?
➋ The chain of transmission (isnad) of this narration is not as strong as the ahadith proving the raising of the hands. Most hadith scholars (muhaddithin) have declared this hadith weak (da‘if), whereas the narrations affirming the raising of the hands are authentic (sahih) in Bukhari and Muslim. Moreover, they are far more numerous. Is it appropriate in any way to abandon the narrations of many Companions (sahabah) in favor of a single weak narration reported from Ibn Mas‘ud radi Allahu anhu? For details, see: [ذخیرۃ العقبیٰ شرح سنن النسائي : 52-50/13]
➌ The raising of the hands is established from many Companions radi Allahu anhum, whereas its negation is transmitted from only a few. Which should be given preference? Certainly, as a principle, affirmation (ithbat) takes precedence over negation (nafi). Or it is possible that Ibn Mas‘ud radi Allahu anhu forgot, just as he forgot a few other matters, for example: whether the two Mu‘awwidhatayn are part of the Qur’an or not; how to stand when there are two followers (muqtadis) with the imam; where and how to place the hands during ruku‘; and in these issues, even the Hanafis do not accept his view. So is it not appropriate that the issue of raising the hands be included among these matters as well, since his position does not agree with that of the majority of the Companions?
➍ This hadith can also be suitably interpreted, for example: the raising of the hands was done at the beginning of the first rak‘ah, but not at the beginning of the second rak‘ah; or it was not done repeatedly as in the ‘Eid prayer, etc., so that this narration may be in accordance with the more authentic and numerous narrations.
➎ Even if, for the sake of argument, this hadith is accepted as authentic, no interpretation is made, and it is acted upon, then at most it would mean that if sometimes the raising of the hands is not done, there is no harm. The usual practice should still be to raise the hands, so that all the ahadith are acted upon. Abrogation (naskh) is absolutely not established from this narration. To insist on abrogation, disregarding the above reasonable points, especially when even Maulana Anwar Shah Kashmiri has refuted abrogation, is certainly extremely unreasonable and cannot be justified in any way.
➊ In this narration, there is no mention at all of raising the hands at ruku‘, so how can it be considered abrogated? If it is said that the phrase “then he did not do it again” implies this meaning, then the question arises: how is the raising of the hands in the qunut of witr exempt from this? Why are the takbirat of the two ‘Eids not affected by it?
➋ The chain of transmission (isnad) of this narration is not as strong as the ahadith proving the raising of the hands. Most hadith scholars (muhaddithin) have declared this hadith weak (da‘if), whereas the narrations affirming the raising of the hands are authentic (sahih) in Bukhari and Muslim. Moreover, they are far more numerous. Is it appropriate in any way to abandon the narrations of many Companions (sahabah) in favor of a single weak narration reported from Ibn Mas‘ud radi Allahu anhu? For details, see: [ذخیرۃ العقبیٰ شرح سنن النسائي : 52-50/13]
➌ The raising of the hands is established from many Companions radi Allahu anhum, whereas its negation is transmitted from only a few. Which should be given preference? Certainly, as a principle, affirmation (ithbat) takes precedence over negation (nafi). Or it is possible that Ibn Mas‘ud radi Allahu anhu forgot, just as he forgot a few other matters, for example: whether the two Mu‘awwidhatayn are part of the Qur’an or not; how to stand when there are two followers (muqtadis) with the imam; where and how to place the hands during ruku‘; and in these issues, even the Hanafis do not accept his view. So is it not appropriate that the issue of raising the hands be included among these matters as well, since his position does not agree with that of the majority of the Companions?
➍ This hadith can also be suitably interpreted, for example: the raising of the hands was done at the beginning of the first rak‘ah, but not at the beginning of the second rak‘ah; or it was not done repeatedly as in the ‘Eid prayer, etc., so that this narration may be in accordance with the more authentic and numerous narrations.
➎ Even if, for the sake of argument, this hadith is accepted as authentic, no interpretation is made, and it is acted upon, then at most it would mean that if sometimes the raising of the hands is not done, there is no harm. The usual practice should still be to raise the hands, so that all the ahadith are acted upon. Abrogation (naskh) is absolutely not established from this narration. To insist on abrogation, disregarding the above reasonable points, especially when even Maulana Anwar Shah Kashmiri has refuted abrogation, is certainly extremely unreasonable and cannot be justified in any way.
Source: Sunan Nasa'i: Translation and Benefits by Shaykh Hafiz Muhammad Amin Hafizullah, Page: 1027
Hafiz Muhammad Ameen
1059. Commentary: This narration is weak. For further details, see Hadith: 1027.
Source: Sunan Nasa'i: Translation and Benefits by Shaykh Hafiz Muhammad Amin Hafizullah, Page: 1059
Al-Sheikh Ghulam Mustafa Zaheer Amanpuri
Benefits and Issues:
SA Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Mas'ud radi Allahu anhu narrates about the Noble Messenger sallallahu alayhi wa sallam:
«أنه كان يرفع يديه فى أول تكبيرة، ثم لا يعود.»
“He used to raise his hands in the first takbir, then would not do so again.” [مسند احمد:441،388/1، سنن ابي داود:748، سنن نسائي:1059، سنن ترمذي:257] EA SH Commentary: EH
➊ This narration is “weak” (da'if).
It contains Sufyan al-Thawri, who is, by consensus, a “mudallis” (one who practices tadlis). In all the chains, he narrates from «عن», and explicit mention of hearing (sama‘) is not established.
The established principle is that when a “trustworthy mudallis” narrates a hadith with the wording «عن» or «قال» (i.e., ‘an‘ana) outside of Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, then it is “weak.”
The narrator of this hadith, Imam Abdullah bin al-Mubarak rahimahullah (d. 181 AH), asked Imam Hushaym bin Bashir rahimahullah (d. 183 AH), “Why do you practice tadlis?” He replied:
«ان كبيريك قد دلسا الأعمش وسفيان.»
“Your two elders, Imam A‘mash and Imam Sufyan rahimahum Allah, also practiced tadlis.” [الكامل لابن عدي:95/1، 135/7 وسنده صحيح]
◈ Imam ‘Ayni al-Hanafi writes:
«سفيان من المدلسين، والمدلس لا يحتج بعنعنته الا أن يثبت سماعه من طريق آخر.»
“Sufyan is among the mudallis narrators, and the narration of a mudallis with ‘an‘ana is not taken as proof, unless in another chain his hearing (sama‘) is established.” [عمدة القاري :112/3]
➋ This “weak” narration is general, whereas the ahadith regarding raising the hands (raf‘ al-yadayn) when going into and rising from bowing (ruku‘) are specific. The specific is given precedence over the general, therefore this hadith cannot be used as evidence for the non-establishment of raising the hands.
➌ Those who deny raising the hands should explain why, while disregarding this hadith, they themselves perform raising of the hands in Witr and the ‘Eids after the first takbir.
The Hadith of Ibn Mas‘ud radi Allahu anhu in the View of the Hadith Scholars:
◈ Imam Abdullah bin al-Mubarak rahimahullah says:
«لم يثبت عندي حديث ابن مسعود.»
“In my view, the hadith of Ibn Mas‘ud is not established.” [سنن الترمذي: تحت حديث256، سنن الدارقطني:393/1، السنن الكبريٰ للبيهي:79/2، وسنده صحيح]
◈ Imam Abu Dawud rahimahullah, after mentioning this hadith, says:
«وليس هو بصحيح على هذا اللفظ.» “This hadith is not authentic with these words.”
◈ Imam Abu Hatim al-Razi rahimahullah says:
«هذا خطأ.» “This is a mistake.” [العلل:96/1]
◈ Imam al-Daraqutni rahimahullah says:
«وليس قول من قال : ثم لم يعد محفوظا.»
“The narration of the one who said the words about not raising the hands again is not preserved.” [العلل:173/5]
◈ Imam Ibn Hibban rahimahullah says:
«هو فى الحقيقة أضعف شئ يعول عليه، لأن له عللا تبطله.»
“In reality, this is the weakest thing upon which reliance is placed, because it contains several defects that render it invalid.” [التلخيص الحبير لابن حجر:222/1]
Note:
SA If someone says that Imam al-Tirmidhi rahimahullah has called this hadith “hasan,” EA then the answer is that it is written in the reliable books of the Hanafi school:
“Ibn Dihyah has said in his book ‘al-‘Ilm al-Mashhur’ that Imam al-Tirmidhi rahimahullah has called many «موضوع» (fabricated) and ‘weak’ (da‘if) chain ahadith as «حسن» in his book.” [نصب الراية للزيلعي:217/2، البناية للعيني:869/2، مقالات الكوثري:311، صفائح اللجين از احمد رضا خان بريلوي:29]
SA Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Mas'ud radi Allahu anhu narrates about the Noble Messenger sallallahu alayhi wa sallam:
«أنه كان يرفع يديه فى أول تكبيرة، ثم لا يعود.»
“He used to raise his hands in the first takbir, then would not do so again.” [مسند احمد:441،388/1، سنن ابي داود:748، سنن نسائي:1059، سنن ترمذي:257] EA SH Commentary: EH
➊ This narration is “weak” (da'if).
It contains Sufyan al-Thawri, who is, by consensus, a “mudallis” (one who practices tadlis). In all the chains, he narrates from «عن», and explicit mention of hearing (sama‘) is not established.
The established principle is that when a “trustworthy mudallis” narrates a hadith with the wording «عن» or «قال» (i.e., ‘an‘ana) outside of Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, then it is “weak.”
The narrator of this hadith, Imam Abdullah bin al-Mubarak rahimahullah (d. 181 AH), asked Imam Hushaym bin Bashir rahimahullah (d. 183 AH), “Why do you practice tadlis?” He replied:
«ان كبيريك قد دلسا الأعمش وسفيان.»
“Your two elders, Imam A‘mash and Imam Sufyan rahimahum Allah, also practiced tadlis.” [الكامل لابن عدي:95/1، 135/7 وسنده صحيح]
◈ Imam ‘Ayni al-Hanafi writes:
«سفيان من المدلسين، والمدلس لا يحتج بعنعنته الا أن يثبت سماعه من طريق آخر.»
“Sufyan is among the mudallis narrators, and the narration of a mudallis with ‘an‘ana is not taken as proof, unless in another chain his hearing (sama‘) is established.” [عمدة القاري :112/3]
➋ This “weak” narration is general, whereas the ahadith regarding raising the hands (raf‘ al-yadayn) when going into and rising from bowing (ruku‘) are specific. The specific is given precedence over the general, therefore this hadith cannot be used as evidence for the non-establishment of raising the hands.
➌ Those who deny raising the hands should explain why, while disregarding this hadith, they themselves perform raising of the hands in Witr and the ‘Eids after the first takbir.
The Hadith of Ibn Mas‘ud radi Allahu anhu in the View of the Hadith Scholars:
◈ Imam Abdullah bin al-Mubarak rahimahullah says:
«لم يثبت عندي حديث ابن مسعود.»
“In my view, the hadith of Ibn Mas‘ud is not established.” [سنن الترمذي: تحت حديث256، سنن الدارقطني:393/1، السنن الكبريٰ للبيهي:79/2، وسنده صحيح]
◈ Imam Abu Dawud rahimahullah, after mentioning this hadith, says:
«وليس هو بصحيح على هذا اللفظ.» “This hadith is not authentic with these words.”
◈ Imam Abu Hatim al-Razi rahimahullah says:
«هذا خطأ.» “This is a mistake.” [العلل:96/1]
◈ Imam al-Daraqutni rahimahullah says:
«وليس قول من قال : ثم لم يعد محفوظا.»
“The narration of the one who said the words about not raising the hands again is not preserved.” [العلل:173/5]
◈ Imam Ibn Hibban rahimahullah says:
«هو فى الحقيقة أضعف شئ يعول عليه، لأن له عللا تبطله.»
“In reality, this is the weakest thing upon which reliance is placed, because it contains several defects that render it invalid.” [التلخيص الحبير لابن حجر:222/1]
Note:
SA If someone says that Imam al-Tirmidhi rahimahullah has called this hadith “hasan,” EA then the answer is that it is written in the reliable books of the Hanafi school:
“Ibn Dihyah has said in his book ‘al-‘Ilm al-Mashhur’ that Imam al-Tirmidhi rahimahullah has called many «موضوع» (fabricated) and ‘weak’ (da‘if) chain ahadith as «حسن» in his book.” [نصب الراية للزيلعي:217/2، البناية للعيني:869/2، مقالات الكوثري:311، صفائح اللجين از احمد رضا خان بريلوي:29]
Source: Monthly Magazine al-Sunnah Jhelum, Issue No. 12, Page: 2
Related Article
The Evidences of the Hanafis for Not Raising the Hands (Raf‘ al-Yadayn)
Proof of Raf‘ al-Yadayn from the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) Until His Passing
A Baseless Narration Against Raf‘ al-Yadayn and Tahir-ul-Qadri Sahib
Abandoning Raf‘ al-Yadayn and the “Tafsir” of Ibn ‘Abbas
Was Raf‘ al-Yadayn Done Because of Idols?
Proof of Raf‘ al-Yadayn from the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) Until His Passing
A Baseless Narration Against Raf‘ al-Yadayn and Tahir-ul-Qadri Sahib
Abandoning Raf‘ al-Yadayn and the “Tafsir” of Ibn ‘Abbas
Was Raf‘ al-Yadayn Done Because of Idols?
Source: Related Article, Page: 1
Hafiz Zubair Ali Zai
Considering Raf‘ al-Yadayn as Abrogated or Abandoned is Invalid
In a narration attributed to Sayyiduna Ibn Mas‘ud radi Allahu anhu, it is mentioned that he performed raf‘ al-yadayn (raising of the hands) only at the time of the opening takbir (takbir tahrimah). [سنن ترمذي: 257، سنن ابي داود: 748 وغيرهما]
Its chain is weak due to the tadlis (concealment of the source) of Sufyan al-Thawri (a mudallis) through the use of ‘an‘anah (reporting with “from”).
See my book: Nur al-‘Aynayn and my article: “Imam Sufyan al-Thawri’s Tadlis and the Second Category?”
Master Amin Okaraawi said: “Because in it Sufyan is a mudallis…” [تجليات صفدر ج5 ص470]
Sarfaraz Khan Safdar said: “If a mudallis narrator reports with ‘an‘anah, it is not a proof…” [خزائن السنن ج1 ص1]
If someone says that narrations of Sufyan al-Thawri are also present in Sahih al-Bukhari, then the answer is that not every narration of a mudallis in the Sahihayn (Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim) is authentic. See Khazain al-Sunan (vol. 1, p. 1). However, in books other than the Sahihayn, it is necessary for the hearing (sama‘) of this mudallis to be explicitly stated or for there to be a reliable corroborating narration (mutaba‘at).
Declaring the weak ‘an‘anah narration of a mudallis as authentic by Shaykh Ahmad Shakir and al-Albani and others is incorrect because it is against the principles of hadith.
It is narrated from Sayyiduna ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar radi Allahu anhuma that the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam used to perform raf‘ al-yadayn before and after bowing (ruku‘). [صحيح بخاري ج 1 ص102 ح736 ملخصا]
The narrator, Sayyiduna Ibn ‘Umar radi Allahu anhuma, himself used to perform raf‘ al-yadayn before and after ruku‘. [صحيح بخاري: 739]
The student of Sayyiduna Ibn ‘Umar radi Allahu anhuma, his son Salim rahimahullah, also used to perform raf‘ al-yadayn before and after ruku‘. [حديث السراج 34/2۔ 35 ح115، و سنده صحيح]
It should be noted that Sayyiduna Ibn ‘Umar radi Allahu anhuma prayed with the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam during the last part of his life. See: [صحيح بخاري 116 صحيح مسلم 2537]
It is thus clear that considering raf‘ al-yadayn as abrogated or abandoned is invalid.
…See the original article…
Fatawa ‘Ilmiyyah (Tawdih al-Ahkam), vol. 2, p. 77
In a narration attributed to Sayyiduna Ibn Mas‘ud radi Allahu anhu, it is mentioned that he performed raf‘ al-yadayn (raising of the hands) only at the time of the opening takbir (takbir tahrimah). [سنن ترمذي: 257، سنن ابي داود: 748 وغيرهما]
Its chain is weak due to the tadlis (concealment of the source) of Sufyan al-Thawri (a mudallis) through the use of ‘an‘anah (reporting with “from”).
See my book: Nur al-‘Aynayn and my article: “Imam Sufyan al-Thawri’s Tadlis and the Second Category?”
Master Amin Okaraawi said: “Because in it Sufyan is a mudallis…” [تجليات صفدر ج5 ص470]
Sarfaraz Khan Safdar said: “If a mudallis narrator reports with ‘an‘anah, it is not a proof…” [خزائن السنن ج1 ص1]
If someone says that narrations of Sufyan al-Thawri are also present in Sahih al-Bukhari, then the answer is that not every narration of a mudallis in the Sahihayn (Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim) is authentic. See Khazain al-Sunan (vol. 1, p. 1). However, in books other than the Sahihayn, it is necessary for the hearing (sama‘) of this mudallis to be explicitly stated or for there to be a reliable corroborating narration (mutaba‘at).
Declaring the weak ‘an‘anah narration of a mudallis as authentic by Shaykh Ahmad Shakir and al-Albani and others is incorrect because it is against the principles of hadith.
It is narrated from Sayyiduna ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar radi Allahu anhuma that the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam used to perform raf‘ al-yadayn before and after bowing (ruku‘). [صحيح بخاري ج 1 ص102 ح736 ملخصا]
The narrator, Sayyiduna Ibn ‘Umar radi Allahu anhuma, himself used to perform raf‘ al-yadayn before and after ruku‘. [صحيح بخاري: 739]
The student of Sayyiduna Ibn ‘Umar radi Allahu anhuma, his son Salim rahimahullah, also used to perform raf‘ al-yadayn before and after ruku‘. [حديث السراج 34/2۔ 35 ح115، و سنده صحيح]
It should be noted that Sayyiduna Ibn ‘Umar radi Allahu anhuma prayed with the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam during the last part of his life. See: [صحيح بخاري 116 صحيح مسلم 2537]
It is thus clear that considering raf‘ al-yadayn as abrogated or abandoned is invalid.
…See the original article…
Fatawa ‘Ilmiyyah (Tawdih al-Ahkam), vol. 2, p. 77
Source: Fatawa Ilmiyyah (Tawdih al-Ahkam), Page: 77
Abu Hamza Abdul Khaliq
Among the primary evidences of those who deny raising the hands (raf‘ al-yadayn) is foremost the blessed hadith of Sayyiduna Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud radi Allahu anhu. In it, Sayyiduna Ibn Mas‘ud radi Allahu anhu says:
«ألا أصلي بكم صلاة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، فصلى، فلم يرفع يديه الا فى اول مرة.»
«سنن ترمذي، ابواب الصلاة، رقم: 257 ـ سنن أبو داؤد، رقم: 748. مشكاة، رقم: 809.
» “Shall I not lead you in the prayer of the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam? Then he performed the prayer and raised his hands only the first time.”
Many of the imams of hadith (muhaddithin) rahimahullah have declared this narration to be weak. For example:
➊ Imam Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak (student of Imam Abu Hanifah) [سنن: ترمذي: 2/ 38، التحقيق لابن الجوزي: 1/ 278]
➋ Imam Shafi‘i [الزرقـانـي عـلى الموطا: 1/ 158۔ فتح البارى 2 / 175]
➌ Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal [التمهيد: 219/9ـ العلل ومعرفة الرجال: 116/1، 117]
➍ Imam Abu Hatim al-Razi [علل الحديث: 96/1]
➎ Imam al-Daraqutni [العلل 172/5]
➏ Imam Ibn Hibban [التلخيص: 222/1]
➐ Imam Abu Dawud [سنن أبى داؤد: 199/1]
➑ Imam Yahya ibn Adam [التلخيص: 222/1]
➒ Imam al-Bazzar [التمهيد: 220/9، 221]
➓ Imam Muhammad ibn Waddah [التمهيد: 221/9]
⓫ Imam al-Bukhari [التلخيص: 1/ 222۔ جزء رفع اليدين، 113۔ المجموع: 3/ 403]
⓬ Imam Ibn al-Qattan al-Fasi [نصب الرايه: 1/ 395]
⓭ Imam Ibn al-Mulaqqin [البدر المنير]
⓮ Imam al-Hakim [تهذيب السنن: 449/2]
⓯ Imam al-Nawawi [المجموع: 403/3]
⓰ Imam al-Darimi [تهذيب السنن: 449/2]
⓱ Imam al-Bayhaqi [مختصر خلافيات: 379/1]
⓲ Imam al-Marwazi [نصب الرايه: 1 / 395]
⓳ Imam Ibn Qudamah [المغنى: 295/1]
(20) Imam Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr [التمهيد: 9/ 220، 221۔ مرعاة: 323/2]
(21) Imam Ibn al-Qayyim [المنار المنيف، ص 49]
A well-known saying among the scholars of usul is:
«الترمذى يتساهل فى التحسين.»
[فتح البارى: 62/9]
“Tirmidhi is lenient in declaring a hadith to be hasan.”
«ألا أصلي بكم صلاة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، فصلى، فلم يرفع يديه الا فى اول مرة.»
«سنن ترمذي، ابواب الصلاة، رقم: 257 ـ سنن أبو داؤد، رقم: 748. مشكاة، رقم: 809.
» “Shall I not lead you in the prayer of the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam? Then he performed the prayer and raised his hands only the first time.”
Many of the imams of hadith (muhaddithin) rahimahullah have declared this narration to be weak. For example:
➊ Imam Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak (student of Imam Abu Hanifah) [سنن: ترمذي: 2/ 38، التحقيق لابن الجوزي: 1/ 278]
➋ Imam Shafi‘i [الزرقـانـي عـلى الموطا: 1/ 158۔ فتح البارى 2 / 175]
➌ Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal [التمهيد: 219/9ـ العلل ومعرفة الرجال: 116/1، 117]
➍ Imam Abu Hatim al-Razi [علل الحديث: 96/1]
➎ Imam al-Daraqutni [العلل 172/5]
➏ Imam Ibn Hibban [التلخيص: 222/1]
➐ Imam Abu Dawud [سنن أبى داؤد: 199/1]
➑ Imam Yahya ibn Adam [التلخيص: 222/1]
➒ Imam al-Bazzar [التمهيد: 220/9، 221]
➓ Imam Muhammad ibn Waddah [التمهيد: 221/9]
⓫ Imam al-Bukhari [التلخيص: 1/ 222۔ جزء رفع اليدين، 113۔ المجموع: 3/ 403]
⓬ Imam Ibn al-Qattan al-Fasi [نصب الرايه: 1/ 395]
⓭ Imam Ibn al-Mulaqqin [البدر المنير]
⓮ Imam al-Hakim [تهذيب السنن: 449/2]
⓯ Imam al-Nawawi [المجموع: 403/3]
⓰ Imam al-Darimi [تهذيب السنن: 449/2]
⓱ Imam al-Bayhaqi [مختصر خلافيات: 379/1]
⓲ Imam al-Marwazi [نصب الرايه: 1 / 395]
⓳ Imam Ibn Qudamah [المغنى: 295/1]
(20) Imam Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr [التمهيد: 9/ 220، 221۔ مرعاة: 323/2]
(21) Imam Ibn al-Qayyim [المنار المنيف، ص 49]
A well-known saying among the scholars of usul is:
«الترمذى يتساهل فى التحسين.»
[فتح البارى: 62/9]
“Tirmidhi is lenient in declaring a hadith to be hasan.”
Source: Why Should I Raise My Hands?, Page: 999
Hafiz Zubair Ali Zai
The Narration of Samarkandi Sahib
Chains of transmission (isnad) are part of the religion, and if there were no chain, anyone could say whatever came to his heart.
The well-known trustworthy Imam Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak al-Marwazi rahimahullah said:
«الْإِسْنَادُ مِنَ الدِّينِ، وَلَوْلَا الْإِسْنَادُ لَقَالَ مَنْ شَاءَ مَا شَاءَ»
Chains of transmission are part of the religion, and if there were no chain, anyone could say whatever came to his heart.
[صحيح مسلم، ترقيم دارالسلام: 32، ماهنامه منهاج القرآن لاهور ج 20 شماره: 11، نومبر 2006ء ص 22]
From this golden statement, it is understood that any statement without a chain of transmission is rejected.
The founder of Idara Minhaj-ul-Quran, Muhammad Tahir al-Qadri Sahib, “states” in its explanation:
“Thus, the narration of hadith, the science of hadith, the science of tafsir, and the entire religion depend on chains of transmission. Nothing was accepted without a chain.”
[ماهنامه منهاج القرآن ج 20 شماره: 11 ص 23]
After this introduction, I submit that Alauddin Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Abi Ahmad al-Samarkandi wrote in his book Tuhfat al-Fuqaha:
«والصحيح مذهبنا لما روي عن ابن عباس أنه قال: إن العشرة الذين بشر لهم رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بالجنة ما كانوا يرفعون أيديهم إلا لإ فتتاح الصلٰوة. قال السمرقندي: وخلاف هٰؤلاء الصحابة قبيح»
“And the correct view is our (Hanafi) school, because of what has been narrated from Ibn Abbas (radi Allahu anhu) that he said: Verily, the ten who were given glad tidings of Paradise by the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) did not raise their hands (raf‘ al-yadayn) except at the beginning of the prayer. Samarkandi said: And opposing these Companions is an evil act.”
[ج 1 ص 132، 133، دوسرا نسخه ص 66، 67]
After Samarkandi, almost the same wording was quoted by Alauddin Abu Bakr bin Mas‘ud al-Kasani (d. 587 AH) in Bada’i‘ al-Sana’i‘ fi Tartib al-Shara’i‘ [ج 1 ص 207] and by Badr al-Din Mahmud bin Ahmad al-‘Ayni (d. 855 AH) referencing Bada’i‘ al-Sana’i‘ in his book ‘Umdat al-Qari [ج5 ص272]. Mulla Kasani indicated at the beginning of Bada’i‘ al-Sana’i‘ that he compiled his book from his teacher Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Abi Ahmad al-Samarkandi. [ج 1 ص 2]
It is thus clear that this narration depends on the aforementioned Samarkandi. Samarkandi Sahib died in 553 AH. See: [معجم المؤلفين ج 3 ص 67 ت 11750]
That is, he was born in the fifth or sixth century AH. Faqir Muhammad Jehlami, the blind follower, mentioned him in Hadīqat al-Shasham (the account of the jurists and scholars of the sixth century). [حدائق الحنفيه ص 267]
From the aforementioned Samarkandi back to Sayyiduna Abdullah ibn Abbas radi Allahu anhu, who died centuries earlier in 68 AH, there is no chain of transmission or reference at all. Therefore, this narration is rejected due to being without chain and reference.
Emphatic Warning:
One should not deceive the simple-minded public by saying, “«أخرجه السمرقندي فى تحفة الفقهاء» etc., its takhrij (source) is Samarkandi in Tuhfat al-Fuqaha, etc.” People will think that Samarkandi must be a great hadith scholar who has narrated this report with his chain in his book Tuhfat al-Fuqaha. Whereas, it is not even established that Samarkandi was a hadith scholar; rather, he was a blind-following jurist who wrote this narration without any chain or reference, using the vague wording of «رُوي». Now, who among the public has the time to open the original book and investigate!
Generally, for an unestablished or weak narration, expressions of uncertainty like «رُوِيَ» etc. are used. See: [مقدمة ابن الصلاح مع شرح العراقي ص 136 نوع 22]
Therefore, if a narration has no chain at all, and then some people present it with words like «رُوي» etc., such a narration is fabricated, baseless, and rejected.
This chainless and unreferenced narration presented by Samarkandi and Kasani is also rejected in terms of its text, the principles of narration, and the principles of understanding.
First Evidence:
Imam Abu Bakr bin Abi Shaybah rahimahullah (d. 235 AH) says:
«حدثنا هشيم قال: أخبرنا أبو جمرة قال: رأيت ابن عباس يرفع يديه إذا افتتح الصلٰوة وإذا ركع وإذا رفع رأسه من الركوع»
“Hushaym narrated to us, he said: Abu Jamrah informed us, he said: I saw Ibn Abbas (radi Allahu anhu) raising his hands at the beginning of the prayer, when bowing (ruku‘), and when rising from bowing.”
[مصنف ابن ابي شيبه ج 1 ص 235 ح 2431]
The chain of this narration is hasan li-dhatih (good in itself) or sahih (authentic).
It is thus clear that Sayyiduna Abdullah ibn Abbas radi Allahu anhu himself used to perform raf‘ al-yadayn before and after ruku‘, so it is impossible that he would have narrated anything contrary to raf‘ al-yadayn. «من ادعي خلافه فعليه أن يأتى بالدليل.»
Second Evidence:
The first of the ten promised Paradise, Sayyiduna Abu Bakr al-Siddiq radi Allahu anhu, used to perform raf‘ al-yadayn before and after ruku‘. See Imam al-Bayhaqi’s book al-Sunan al-Kubra [ج 2 ص 73] «وقال: رواته ثقات» Its narrators are trustworthy (reliable).
Note: The chain of this narration is absolutely authentic, and the criticism of some people upon it is rejected. See my book Nur al-‘Aynayn fi Mas’alah Raf‘ al-Yadayn [ص 119 تا 121]
Third Evidence:
Raf‘ al-yadayn before and after ruku‘ is also narrated from Sayyiduna ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab radi Allahu anhu. See Nasb al-Rayah [ج 1 ص 416], Musnad al-Faruq by Ibn Kathir [ج 1 ص 165، 166], and Sharh Sunan al-Tirmidhi by Ibn Sayyid al-Nas [قلمي ج 2 ص 217], and its chain is hasan (good). Also see Nur al-‘Aynayn [ص 195 تا 204]. The chain of this narration is hasan, and with supporting narrations, it is sahih li-ghayrih (authentic due to corroboration).
Fourth Evidence:
From Sayyiduna Abu Bakr al-Siddiq radi Allahu anhu, Sayyiduna ‘Umar radi Allahu anhu, and any of the other ten promised Paradise, there is absolutely no proof of abandoning, prohibiting, or abrogating raf‘ al-yadayn before and after ruku‘.
Note: Tahir al-Qadri Sahib has written three narrations of abandoning raf‘ al-yadayn from Sayyiduna Abu Bakr radi Allahu anhu, Sayyiduna ‘Umar radi Allahu anhu, and Sayyiduna ‘Ali radi Allahu anhu. Al-Minhaj al-Sawi, fourth edition [ص 228، 229 ح 258، 260، 261]. All three of these narrations are weak according to the principles of hadith. See: Nur al-‘Aynayn [ص 231، 234، 236]
Of these, the first narration’s narrator, Muhammad bin Jabir, has been criticized by Imam al-Daraqutni and Imam al-Bayhaqi themselves. The great Imam of Ahl al-Sunnah, Ahmad ibn Hanbal rahimahullah, says about this narration:
«هٰذا حديث منكر»
“This hadith is munkar (denounced).”
[المسائل: رواية عبدالله بن احمد ج1ص 242 ت 327]
Until now, we have not received any response to the referenced criticism and objection in the monthly al-Hadith Hazro and Nur al-‘Aynayn. And all praise is due to Allah.
Summary of the Research:
The narration in question cited by Muhammad Tahir al-Qadri Sahib is baseless, false, and rejected due to being without chain and reference. «وما علينا إلا البلاغ»
... For the original article, see ...
Fatawa ‘Ilmiyyah, also known as Tawdhih al-Ahkam (Volume 1, pages 363 to 366) by Shaykh Hafiz Zubair Ali Zai rahimahullah
Chains of transmission (isnad) are part of the religion, and if there were no chain, anyone could say whatever came to his heart.
The well-known trustworthy Imam Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak al-Marwazi rahimahullah said:
«الْإِسْنَادُ مِنَ الدِّينِ، وَلَوْلَا الْإِسْنَادُ لَقَالَ مَنْ شَاءَ مَا شَاءَ»
Chains of transmission are part of the religion, and if there were no chain, anyone could say whatever came to his heart.
[صحيح مسلم، ترقيم دارالسلام: 32، ماهنامه منهاج القرآن لاهور ج 20 شماره: 11، نومبر 2006ء ص 22]
From this golden statement, it is understood that any statement without a chain of transmission is rejected.
The founder of Idara Minhaj-ul-Quran, Muhammad Tahir al-Qadri Sahib, “states” in its explanation:
“Thus, the narration of hadith, the science of hadith, the science of tafsir, and the entire religion depend on chains of transmission. Nothing was accepted without a chain.”
[ماهنامه منهاج القرآن ج 20 شماره: 11 ص 23]
After this introduction, I submit that Alauddin Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Abi Ahmad al-Samarkandi wrote in his book Tuhfat al-Fuqaha:
«والصحيح مذهبنا لما روي عن ابن عباس أنه قال: إن العشرة الذين بشر لهم رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بالجنة ما كانوا يرفعون أيديهم إلا لإ فتتاح الصلٰوة. قال السمرقندي: وخلاف هٰؤلاء الصحابة قبيح»
“And the correct view is our (Hanafi) school, because of what has been narrated from Ibn Abbas (radi Allahu anhu) that he said: Verily, the ten who were given glad tidings of Paradise by the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) did not raise their hands (raf‘ al-yadayn) except at the beginning of the prayer. Samarkandi said: And opposing these Companions is an evil act.”
[ج 1 ص 132، 133، دوسرا نسخه ص 66، 67]
After Samarkandi, almost the same wording was quoted by Alauddin Abu Bakr bin Mas‘ud al-Kasani (d. 587 AH) in Bada’i‘ al-Sana’i‘ fi Tartib al-Shara’i‘ [ج 1 ص 207] and by Badr al-Din Mahmud bin Ahmad al-‘Ayni (d. 855 AH) referencing Bada’i‘ al-Sana’i‘ in his book ‘Umdat al-Qari [ج5 ص272]. Mulla Kasani indicated at the beginning of Bada’i‘ al-Sana’i‘ that he compiled his book from his teacher Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Abi Ahmad al-Samarkandi. [ج 1 ص 2]
It is thus clear that this narration depends on the aforementioned Samarkandi. Samarkandi Sahib died in 553 AH. See: [معجم المؤلفين ج 3 ص 67 ت 11750]
That is, he was born in the fifth or sixth century AH. Faqir Muhammad Jehlami, the blind follower, mentioned him in Hadīqat al-Shasham (the account of the jurists and scholars of the sixth century). [حدائق الحنفيه ص 267]
From the aforementioned Samarkandi back to Sayyiduna Abdullah ibn Abbas radi Allahu anhu, who died centuries earlier in 68 AH, there is no chain of transmission or reference at all. Therefore, this narration is rejected due to being without chain and reference.
Emphatic Warning:
One should not deceive the simple-minded public by saying, “«أخرجه السمرقندي فى تحفة الفقهاء» etc., its takhrij (source) is Samarkandi in Tuhfat al-Fuqaha, etc.” People will think that Samarkandi must be a great hadith scholar who has narrated this report with his chain in his book Tuhfat al-Fuqaha. Whereas, it is not even established that Samarkandi was a hadith scholar; rather, he was a blind-following jurist who wrote this narration without any chain or reference, using the vague wording of «رُوي». Now, who among the public has the time to open the original book and investigate!
Generally, for an unestablished or weak narration, expressions of uncertainty like «رُوِيَ» etc. are used. See: [مقدمة ابن الصلاح مع شرح العراقي ص 136 نوع 22]
Therefore, if a narration has no chain at all, and then some people present it with words like «رُوي» etc., such a narration is fabricated, baseless, and rejected.
This chainless and unreferenced narration presented by Samarkandi and Kasani is also rejected in terms of its text, the principles of narration, and the principles of understanding.
First Evidence:
Imam Abu Bakr bin Abi Shaybah rahimahullah (d. 235 AH) says:
«حدثنا هشيم قال: أخبرنا أبو جمرة قال: رأيت ابن عباس يرفع يديه إذا افتتح الصلٰوة وإذا ركع وإذا رفع رأسه من الركوع»
“Hushaym narrated to us, he said: Abu Jamrah informed us, he said: I saw Ibn Abbas (radi Allahu anhu) raising his hands at the beginning of the prayer, when bowing (ruku‘), and when rising from bowing.”
[مصنف ابن ابي شيبه ج 1 ص 235 ح 2431]
The chain of this narration is hasan li-dhatih (good in itself) or sahih (authentic).
It is thus clear that Sayyiduna Abdullah ibn Abbas radi Allahu anhu himself used to perform raf‘ al-yadayn before and after ruku‘, so it is impossible that he would have narrated anything contrary to raf‘ al-yadayn. «من ادعي خلافه فعليه أن يأتى بالدليل.»
Second Evidence:
The first of the ten promised Paradise, Sayyiduna Abu Bakr al-Siddiq radi Allahu anhu, used to perform raf‘ al-yadayn before and after ruku‘. See Imam al-Bayhaqi’s book al-Sunan al-Kubra [ج 2 ص 73] «وقال: رواته ثقات» Its narrators are trustworthy (reliable).
Note: The chain of this narration is absolutely authentic, and the criticism of some people upon it is rejected. See my book Nur al-‘Aynayn fi Mas’alah Raf‘ al-Yadayn [ص 119 تا 121]
Third Evidence:
Raf‘ al-yadayn before and after ruku‘ is also narrated from Sayyiduna ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab radi Allahu anhu. See Nasb al-Rayah [ج 1 ص 416], Musnad al-Faruq by Ibn Kathir [ج 1 ص 165، 166], and Sharh Sunan al-Tirmidhi by Ibn Sayyid al-Nas [قلمي ج 2 ص 217], and its chain is hasan (good). Also see Nur al-‘Aynayn [ص 195 تا 204]. The chain of this narration is hasan, and with supporting narrations, it is sahih li-ghayrih (authentic due to corroboration).
Fourth Evidence:
From Sayyiduna Abu Bakr al-Siddiq radi Allahu anhu, Sayyiduna ‘Umar radi Allahu anhu, and any of the other ten promised Paradise, there is absolutely no proof of abandoning, prohibiting, or abrogating raf‘ al-yadayn before and after ruku‘.
Note: Tahir al-Qadri Sahib has written three narrations of abandoning raf‘ al-yadayn from Sayyiduna Abu Bakr radi Allahu anhu, Sayyiduna ‘Umar radi Allahu anhu, and Sayyiduna ‘Ali radi Allahu anhu. Al-Minhaj al-Sawi, fourth edition [ص 228، 229 ح 258، 260، 261]. All three of these narrations are weak according to the principles of hadith. See: Nur al-‘Aynayn [ص 231، 234، 236]
Of these, the first narration’s narrator, Muhammad bin Jabir, has been criticized by Imam al-Daraqutni and Imam al-Bayhaqi themselves. The great Imam of Ahl al-Sunnah, Ahmad ibn Hanbal rahimahullah, says about this narration:
«هٰذا حديث منكر»
“This hadith is munkar (denounced).”
[المسائل: رواية عبدالله بن احمد ج1ص 242 ت 327]
Until now, we have not received any response to the referenced criticism and objection in the monthly al-Hadith Hazro and Nur al-‘Aynayn. And all praise is due to Allah.
Summary of the Research:
The narration in question cited by Muhammad Tahir al-Qadri Sahib is baseless, false, and rejected due to being without chain and reference. «وما علينا إلا البلاغ»
... For the original article, see ...
Fatawa ‘Ilmiyyah, also known as Tawdhih al-Ahkam (Volume 1, pages 363 to 366) by Shaykh Hafiz Zubair Ali Zai rahimahullah
Source: Fatawa Ilmiyyah (Tawdih al-Ahkam), Page: 366
