Introduction
In this tumultuous era, some people of opinion and whim have written a few pamphlets and books against the blessed Sunnah of raising the hands (Raf’ al-Yadain) of our great Imam, Sayyiduna Muhammad Rasulullah ﷺ. Besides countless conspiracies, trickery, and misleading arguments, they have also made an unfortunate and condemnable attempt to diminish the status and honor of Sahihayn and the Muhaddithin, although all their efforts are weaker and more futile than a spider’s web.
(Trusted by both Deobandis and Barelvis) Shah Waliullah Dehlawi states:
All Muhaddithin agree that all the connected and Marfu’ Ahadith in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are certainly authentic. These two books have been transmitted to their authors through continuous chains. Whoever does not honor them is an innovator who goes against the path of Muslims.
However, it was known that a time would come when innovators opposing the path of Muslims would blindly attack the Ahadith and narrators of Sahihayn (Bukhari and Muslim).
For example, Sarfaraz Safdar Sahib Deobandi (Hayati) has performed surgical criticism on some narrators of Sahihayn as follows:
Name of Narrator – Book narrated – Sarfaraz Safdar’s book
➊ Makhool – Sahih Muslim
➋ Alaa bin al-Harith – Sahih Muslim
➌ Waleed bin Muslim – Sahih Bukhari & Sahih Muslim
➍ Saeed bin Aamir – Sahih Bukhari & Sahih Muslim
➎ Alaa bin Abdul Rahman – Sahih Muslim
For details, study the renowned book “Tawzeeh al-Kalam” by Maulana Irshad-ul-Haq Athari. Habibullah Darwi Deobandi has also criticized narrators of Sahihayn. For example:
Name of Narrator – Book narrated – Habibullah Darwi’s book
➊ Ibn Jurayj – Bukhari & Muslim
➋ Waleed bin Muslim – Bukhari & Muslim
➌ Yahya bin Ayub al-Ghafqi al-Masri – Bukhari & Muslim
These people try to reduce the respect of Sahihayn among simple-minded Muslims, but the spit of one who spits at the moon falls on his own face. God willing, these innovators’ efforts will be completely in vain.
The acceptance of Sahih Bukhari in the Muslim Ummah can be clearly understood from the following statement of the translator of Deoband, Al-Qasim:
Sahih Bukhari is a book of extraordinary status, and Allah has granted it extraordinary popularity. Every scholar and layman, after the Quran, first looks at Sahih Bukhari. For nearly a thousand years, this book has held a position of precedence and authority after the Book of Allah in the Islamic world, and because of this, its immense status and the great personality of its author have overshadowed Islamic history.
He further writes: “Due to Imam Bukhari’s religious service, scholarly culture, and dignity and grandeur, his personality has become such an intimidating historical chapter whose shadows suppress the extent of many important scholarly and religious services and the stature of numerous eminent personalities.”
This is an acknowledgment from an opponent. It is obvious that the writings of these innovators against Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim themselves cause their embarrassment and ridicule.
The extremist author of Anwar al-Bari (who, Mashallah, is Deobandi) admits on page 52 of volume 2 of his book:
In summary, Imam Bukhari’s personality is so exalted and superior that whatever criticism we or others before us have made on him or his Sahih Bukhari and other writings, even if ten times more criticism is made, Imam Bukhari’s lofty personality or the greatness of Sahih Bukhari cannot be harmed.
It is submitted that Habibullah Darwi Sahib (Hayati Deobandi) has shown excessive zeal in blindly imitating his predecessors. His book “Noor al-Sabah fi Tark Raf’ al-Yadain ba’d al-Iftitah” is before me in this regard. A well-reasoned and decisive response to this book has been given by Hakim Mahmood Salafi Sahib in the book “Shams al-Duha,” in which he has exposed Darwi Sahib’s manipulations and fallacies before the honorable readers so that the truth about this writer becomes clear to the general public.
Since my book on the issue of raising the hands is a comprehensive work in which, according to the investigations of the majority of Muhaddithin, an impartial review of this issue has been taken, I deemed it appropriate to briefly present in the preface of this book some of Darwi Sahib’s fallacies and falsehoods before the readers so that those who live may live by the evidence and those who must die may die after seeing the evidence.
① First Fallacy
Derwi Sahib writes:
Uthman bin Al-Hakam Al-Juzami is weak, Ibn Hajar says: له أوهام (Taqreeb) there are mistakes in his narrations, and Allama Zahabi, may Allah have mercy on him, says in Mizan, p. 32 vol. 3: ليس بالقوي that this narrator is not strong.
Answer: This entire statement is incorrect.
1. No one has called Uthman bin Al-Hakam weak.
2. Hafiz Ibn Hajar’s statement has been partially quoted; his full statement is coming ahead. Who is free from doubts? If you can prove his doubt in this narration, that is another matter, otherwise, how can the narration of a truthful narrator be rejected just because of mere doubts?
3. Imam Zahabi did not call the mentioned Uthman ليس بالقوي, rather in some copies of Mizan it is mentioned that Abu Umar said
. This Abu Umar (here) is unspecified and the authenticity of this phrase is also doubtful. Thirdly, not being strong does not mean he is not strong at all. And Allah knows best!
Uthman bin Al-Hakam Al-Juzami Al-Masri has been declared trustworthy by Imam Ahmad bin Salih Al-Masri
. Ibn Yunus, the Egyptian historian, said that he was a jurist and pious
. Ibn Hibban declared him trustworthy
. Ibn Abi Maryam said: كان من خيار الناس
. Ibn Khuzaymah used him as evidence in his Sahih
. Ibn Hajar said: صدوق له أوهام
.
In contrast, Abu Hatim said: ليس بالمتين، ليس بالمتقن
. Abu Umar said: ليس بالقوي
.
It is clear that Uthman bin Al-Hakam is trustworthy and truthful according to the majority, so declaring him weak without strong evidence is tantamount to killing knowledge and justice. Remember that the mentioned Uthman is not unique in the narration of Abu Hurairah; Yahya bin Ayyub has also followed him.
② Second Misconception
Derwi Sahib has written that
When Hazrat Imam Shafi’i reached the grave of Hazrat Imam Abu Hanifa, may Allah have mercy on him, to pay his respects, he stopped raising his hands in prayers there. Someone asked Imam Shafi’i, may Allah have mercy on him, the reason for this, to which he replied: “This grave evokes modesty.”
Answer: This incident is fabricated and a complete lie. Shah Rafi’uddin narrating an incident without a chain of transmission is not proof of its authenticity. There is a gap of several hundred years between Shah Rafi’uddin and Imam Shafi’i, during which many travelers lost their lives.
It is the responsibility of Derwi Sahib to present the complete and detailed chain of transmission of this incident so that the truthfulness or falsehood of the narrators can be determined. Chains of transmission are part of religion, and without a chain, even a little credibility cannot be given to anyone’s statement.
By the grace of Allah, until now neither Derwi Sahib nor any of his associates have presented the chain of transmission for this incident (1420 AH), which is clear evidence that these people do not have any chain for this fabricated incident. (1427 AH!)
③ Third Fallacy
Derwi Sahib said:
Hazrat Imam Abu Hanifa… used to forbid those who raise their hands (raf’ al-yadain). Hafiz Ibn Hajar
writes: Qutaibah says that I heard Abu Maqatil saying that I prayed beside Imam Abu Hanifa and I kept raising my hands. When Imam Abu Hanifa, may Allah have mercy on him, finished the prayer and said salam, he said: O Abu Maqatil, perhaps you are among those who have learned.
Answer: You should check the mentioned page of Lisan al-Mizan, where it is written that Qutaibah considered the narrator of this story, Abu Maqatil, very weak. Ibn Mahdi called him a liar, Hafiz Sulaymani said: he fabricated hadith, Waki’ called him a liar, Abu Saeed al-Naqqash and al-Hakim said: he narrated fabricated hadith.
Dear readers, decide for yourselves whether Derwi Sahib is not being unjust by basing his claim on the narration of a liar and fabricator.
Secondly, from this statement it is not clear that Imam Sahib forbade Abu Maqatil from raising his hands.
④ Fourth Misconception
Further they write:
Hazrat Imam Shu’bi, may Allah have mercy on him, also abandoned raising the hands during prayer. عن اشعث عن الشعبي
Answer: The Ash’ath referred to is Ash’ath ibn Suwar al-Kindi al-Kufi.
Evidence: He is a student of Amir al-Sha’bi.
Ash’ath ibn Suwar is a narrator with differing opinions about him. The following hadith scholars have declared him weak and defective:
● Ahmad ibn Hanbal ● Abu Zur’ah ● Nasai ● Daruqutni ● Ibn Hibban ● Ibn Sa’d ● Al-Ajli ● Uthman ibn Abi Shaybah ● Bandar ● and Abu Dawood among others. Ibn Ma’in said once he is trustworthy and another time weak, so both of their statements are invalidated.
His narrations are mutabi’ah (followed) in Sahih Muslim. Hafiz Ibn Hajar decided in Taqreeb al-Tahdhib that Ash’ath ibn Suwar is weak.
⑤ Fifth Misconception
Derwi Sahib writes:
Hazrat Aswad bin Yazid, may Allah have mercy on him, a Tabi’i, and Hazrat Alqamah, a Tabi’i, both abandoned raising the hands during prayer.
Answer: Derwi Sahib wrote its chain of narration as follows:
عن جابر عن الأسود و علقمه
The Jabir referred to here is Jabir bin Yazid al-Ja’fari al-Kufi.
Evidence: Jabir al-Ja’fari was the teacher of Shareek bin Abdullah.
And this narration was narrated by Shareek.
Jabir al-Ja’fari is a disputed narrator. Some have authenticated him. Za’idah said: By Allah, he was a liar and believed in Raj’ah Ali. Imam Abu Hanifa said: I have not seen anyone more lying than him. An-Nasa’i said: He is a rejected hadith narrator. Juzjani said: He is a liar. Za’idah further stated that he was a Rafidhi and used to insult the Companions of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him. (May Allah be pleased with them all) Saeed bin Jubair, a Tabi’i, declared him a liar. Ahmad bin Khaddash swore by Allah that he lied. Ibn Hibban said he was a Sab’i (agent of Abdullah bin Saba, the Jew).
Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani said: “Weak Rafidhi” — he is weak and Rafidhi.
Derwi Sahib is using the narration of this weak, liar, fabricator Rafidhi as evidence. Is this not an indulgence in falsehood?
⑥ Sixth Fallacy
Derwi Sahib said: “Hazrat Imam Hasan bin Ziyad, may Allah have mercy on him, and Hazrat Imam Zafar, may Allah have mercy on him, also did not perform Raf’ al-Yadain.
Here is a brief introduction of the praised “Hazrat Imam” (Hasan bin Ziyad al-Lu’lu’i) by Janab Derwi Sahib:
Hasan bin Ziyad al-Lu’lu’i:
Ibn Ma’in said: He is a liar. Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Namir said: He lies about Ibn Jurayj. Abu Dawood said: He is a liar and unreliable. Muhammad bin Rafi’ al-Nisaburi said: This person used to raise his head before the Imam and prostrate before the Imam. Hasan al-Halwani reported that he saw him kissing a boy while in the state of prostration. Abu Thawr said: I have not seen anyone more lying than him; during prayer, he used to stroke the cheek of a young boy who had no beard or mustache. Yazid bin Harun said in astonishment: Is he a Muslim? Usama used to call him impure. Ya’qub bin Sufyan, ‘Aqili, and al-Saji said: He is a liar.
Such a filthy person is the “Hazrat Imam” of Darwi Sahib.
[Note: For a detailed and investigative article about Hasan bin Ziyad al-Lu’lu’i, see
]
⑦ Seventh Fallacy
Derwi Sahib writes:
Imam Haitham bin Uday, may Allah have mercy on him, also states that Hazrat Abu Qatada, may Allah be pleased with him, passed away in 38 AH
Answer: A brief introduction of Imam Haitham bin Uday according to Derwi Sahib is as follows:
Haitham bin Uday:
Bukhari said: ليس بثقة كان يكذب. Abu Dawood said: كذاب. An-Nasa’i and others said: متروك الحديث
Ajli said: He is a liar, I have seen him. Abu Hatim said: His hadith is abandoned. As-Saji said: He used to lie.
Hafiz Haithami said: كذاب
In short, this liar person has been declared as an Imam by Derwi Sahib.
Warning: Hafiz Ibn Kathir mentioned the statement of Haitham bin Uday as “an assumption” and indicated its falsehood and invalidity by saying “wa hadha ghareeb” (and this is strange).
⑧ Eighth Fallacy
Derwi Sahib has written:
Ibn Jurayj is a narrator who committed temporary marriage (Mut’ah) and adultery with ninety women. (Tadhkirat al-Huffaz by al-Dhahabi, may Allah have mercy on him, etc.) Abdul Rasheed Ansari has repeatedly written this narration in Al-Rasa’il, deceiving Muslims into believing that this is a saying of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him: see Al-Rasa’il.
Answer: Derwi Sahib himself has presented Ibn Jurayj’s narration as evidence on page 22 of his same book. He writes:
“Missing or leaving the raising of the hands (raf’ al-yadain) does not require repeating the prayer. See the fatwa of Hazrat Ata bin Abi Rabah. عبد الرزاق عن ابن جريج قال قلت لعطاء Ibn Jurayj, may Allah have mercy on him, says.”
It is clear that Derwi Sahib himself is deceiving Muslims. He severely criticizes a narrator and then presents the same narrator’s narration as proof. Moreover, on page 222 of his book, he writes:
“In its chain, Ibn Jurayj is a narrator who is trustworthy but a severe type of mudallis (one who conceals defects in the chain).”
So why is Abdul Rasheed Ansari being accused unjustly?
Ibn Jurayj is a central narrator of the six authentic collections (Sihah Sitta). Ibn Ma’in, Ibn Sa’d, Ibn Hibban, and Al-Ajli have said he is trustworthy, and Ahmad ibn Hanbal and others have praised him.
Hafiz al-Dhahabi said: ثقة حافظ
As for the issue of Mut’ah, it is rejected on many grounds:
1. Its complete chain must be presented.
2. The chain from Hafiz al-Dhahabi to Ibn Jurayj is unknown.
3. Even if it is proven, it will be considered an ijtihadi (juridical) error of Ibn Jurayj.
The permissibility of Mut’ah is also narrated from Sayyiduna Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them both, and senior companions have severely criticized him on this issue.
Remember that Mut’ah is forbidden and the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, declared it forbidden until the Day of Judgment, so every fatwa against the Prophet’s ruling is rejected.
4. Even if, as a concession, this issue is accepted from Ibn Jurayj, according to Hafiz Ibn Hajar, it is proven that Ibn Jurayj was referred back to in Sahih Abi Awana.
Continuing propaganda against one who is referred back to—what kind of justice is this in any Deobandi court?
Warning: The word adultery (zina) is not at all mentioned in Tadhkirat al-Huffaz, etc. This word was fabricated and exaggerated by Derwi Sahib himself. In Tadhkirat al-Huffaz and Siyar A’lam al-Nubala, Hafiz al-Dhahabi wrote the word “tazawwaj” (married).
⑨ Ninth Fallacy
Deravi Sahib further writes:
For example, in Musnad Abi Hanifa
, the narration that has come is not from Asim bin Kalib, may Allah have mercy on him, but its chain is as follows. ابو حنيفه عن حماد عن ابراهيم عن الأسود ان عبد الله ابن مسعود رضي الله عنه
Answer: Musnad Abi Hanifa was compiled by Muhammad bin Mahmood al-Khwarizmi (d. 665 AH). The justice and reliability of al-Khwarizmi are unknown. He mentioned this narration with the chain Abu Muhammad al-Bukhari from Raja bin Abdullah al-Nahshali from Shaqiq bin Ibrahim from Abi Hanifa.
Abu Muhammad Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Yaqub al-Harthi al-Bukhari (d. 30 AH) is known for fabricating hadiths.
Abu Ahmad al-Hafiz and Imam Hakim stated that he fabricated hadiths.
Abu Saeed al-Rawas said: He is accused of fabricating hadith.
The summary of Ahmad al-Sulaymani’s statement is that he fabricated both the chain and the text. Abu Zur’ah Ahmad bin al-Husayn al-Razi said he is weak. Khalili declared him weak and a muddallis (one who conceals defects in the chain). Al-Khatib also criticized him.
No one has authenticated this person; therefore, all narrations of such a person are fabricated and rejected. Hafiz al-Zahabi mentioned Abu Muhammad al-Harthi in Diwan al-Du’afa wa al-Matrukin and wrote: يأتي بعجائب واهية He brings strange (and) weak narrations.
His teacher Raja al-Nahshali is unknown, and Shaqiq bin Ibrahim is also under discussion.
Hafiz al-Zahabi said: لا يحتج به
In summary, this narration is fabricated.
Warning: According to my research, in “Jami’ al-Masanid,” there is not a single narration from al-Khwarizmi to Imam Abu Hanifa that is proven with an authentic or good chain. Whoever disagrees should present just one chain that is considered authentic or good by the majority. And Allah knows best and has more complete knowledge (1410 AH)
[So far, no one has presented even one authentic chain. (1420 AH and praise be to Allah 1427 AH!) For detailed research on Abu Muhammad al-Harthi see
]
⑩ Tenth Fallacy
Derwi Sahib, throwing dust in the eyes, writes:
Muhammad bin Abi Layla… still, according to the majority, he is truthful and reliable.
Answer: You will observe in this book
that more than thirty-one (31) hadith narrators and scholars have declared Ibn Abi Layla weak, etc., and only seven (7) have authenticated him. Is the number thirty-one (31) the majority or seven (7)?
Muhammad bin Tahir al-Maqdisi says: There is consensus on his weakness.
Probably this consensus occurred during al-Maqdisi’s time. And Allah knows best.
Anwar Shah Kashmiri Deobandi said: فهو ضعيف عندي كما ذهب إليه الجمهور
(Ibn Abi Layla is weak in my view as the majority have declared him weak.)
You decide whether Kashmiri Sahib’s statement is true or Derwi Sahib’s claim of majority is false?
Busiri said: هو محمد بن عبد الرحمن بن أبى ليلى ضعفه الجمهور
He is Muhammad bin Abdul Rahman bin Abi Layla, the majority have declared him weak.
⑪ Eleventh Fallacy
On page 180, Darwi Sahib has presented a narration of Suwar bin Mus’ab and has written: For the non-followers, the narration of Muhammad bin Ishaq, the liar and deceiver, is no less in any way.
Answer: First of all, observe the introduction of Suwar bin Mus’ab:
Yahya said: ليس بشئي Bukhari said: منكر الحديث (It is said) Abu Dawood said: ليس بثقة Nasai and others said: متروك الحديث.
Ahmad bin Hanbal, Abu Hatim, and Abu Nu’aym Asbahani said: متروك الحديث.
Abu Abdullah al-Hakim reported that he narrated from Atiyah bin Sa’d about fabricated narrations and he is متروك الحديث بمرة, meaning completely abandoned in hadith.
This narration is also from Atiyah, therefore it is fabricated.
Ibn ‘Adi said: هو ضعيف.
Darqutni said: متروك الحديث
Haithami said: متروك
Hafiz Ibn Hibban said: كان ممن يأتى بالمناكير عن المشاهير حتى يسبق (إلى) القلب أنه كان المتعمد لها
No one has called him trustworthy or truthful etc., therefore overall he is weak and abandoned. In contrast, Imam Muhammad bin Ishaq bin Yasar al-Tabi’i, may Allah have mercy on him, is a narrator of Sahih Muslim and others. The following scholars have declared him trustworthy, truthful, authentic in hadith, or good in hadith etc.: Imam Bukhari, Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah, Zahri, Ibn Mubarak, Shu’bah, Ali ibn al-Madini, Ahmad, Yahya ibn Ma’in, Ibn Hibban, ‘Ajli, al-Dhahli, al-Bushanji, al-Hakim, Ibn Khuzaymah, Abu Zur’ah al-Razi, Ibn al-Barqi, Abu Zur’ah al-Dimashqi, Ibn ‘Adi, Ibn Sa’d, al-Khalili, Ibn Namir, al-Tirmidhi, al-Bayhaqi, al-Khattabi, Ibn Hazm, al-Mundhiri, al-Dhahabi, Muhammad bin Nasr al-Farra’, Ibn Qayyim, al-Subki, al-Haishami, Hafiz Ibn Hajar ‘Asqalani, Ibn Hajar Makki (innovator), Khafaji, Ibn ‘Allan, al-Sakhawi, Ibn Kathir, al-Qurtubi, Shawkani, Nawab Sadiq Hasan Khan, Ahmad Shakir, Abdul Rahman Mubarakpuri, Shams al-Haq Azimabadi, Bashir Ahmad Sahaswani, Ibn Hammam Hanafi, ‘Ayni Hanafi, Zail’i Hanafi, Mulla Ali Qari Hanafi, Abdul Hay Lakhnawi Hanafi, Salam Allah Hanafi, Sharh Maniyah, Amir Ali Hanafi, Naimwi Hanafi, Anwar Shah Kashmiri Deobandi, Muhammad Yusuf Banuri Deobandi, Muhammad Idris Kandhlawi Deobandi, Zafar Ahmad Usmani Deobandi, Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri Deobandi, Kauthari, Abu Ghuddah al-Kauthari
Besides them: Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Khalkan, al-Suyuti, al-Suhaili, Noor Muhammad Multani, Ibn Abd al-Barr, Ahmad Raza Khan Barelvi, and Muhammad Hasan etc. have also declared him trustworthy and truthful. (Reference as above) Tahawi Hanafi said about one of his hadiths in Ma’ani al-Athar: فهذا حديث متصل الإسناد صحيح
The Tablighi Jamaat’s Sheikh al-Hadith Muhammad Zakariya Sahib has also accepted Muhammad bin Ishaq as “trustworthy but a fabricator” in the Tablighi syllabus, virtues of dhikr page 595/117.
Tawdhih al-Kalam, new edition 94, has written the names of scholars with references from whom the authentication and praise of Muhammad bin Ishaq is narrated.
From this detail, it is clear that the majority of scholars consider Muhammad bin Ishaq trustworthy and truthful.
Allama Zaili Hanafi writes:
وابن إسحاق الأكثر على توثيقه و ممن وثقه البخاري
Most have called Ibn Ishaq trustworthy and Imam Bukhari is among those who authenticate him.
Allama ‘Ayni Hanafi writes: ”إن ابن إسحاق من الثقات الكبار عند الجمهور“
According to the majority, Ibn Ishaq is among the great trustworthy narrators.
Muhammad Idris Kandhlawi Deobandi writes:
The majority of scholars have authenticated him.
Allama Suhaili says: ثبت فى الحديث عند أكثر العلماء
According to most scholars, he is reliable (trustworthy) in hadith.
Historian Ibn Khalkan wrote: كان ثبتا فى الحديث عند أكثر العلماء
Meaning he is reliable (trustworthy) in hadith according to most scholars.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, states in his fatwas:
و ابن إسحاق إذا قال حدثني فهو ثقة عند أهل الحديث
And if Ibn Ishaq specifies his hearing (sama’), then he is trustworthy according to the people of hadith.
And further writes:
إذا قال حدثني فحديثه صحيح عند أهل الحديث
If he specifies his hearing, then according to the people of hadith (muhaddithin), his hadith is authentic.
In short, the majority of scholars call Muhammad bin Ishaq trustworthy, but Sarfaraz Safdar and party keep repeating “liar liar.”
Warning: The issue of Fatiha behind the Imam does not depend at all on Muhammad bin Ishaq. Many other authentic hadiths are conclusive on this issue. For example, the hadith of Abu Qulabah al-Tabi’i from Anas (its chain meets Bukhari and Muslim’s conditions and is authentic) and Muhammad bin Abi Aisha al-Tabi’i from a companion of the Prophet ﷺ (its chain meets Muslim’s conditions and is authentic), Nafi’ bin Mahmood al-Tabi’i who is trustworthy according to the majority, his hadith (according to most muhaddithin’s conditions is authentic or good), etc.
For details, refer to Maulana Irshad al-Haq Athari’s excellent book “Tawdhih al-Kalam fi Wujub al-Qira’ah Khalf al-Imam” vol. 1 and the author’s book “Al-Kawakib al-Duriyyah fi Wujub al-Fatiha Khalf al-Imam fi al-Jahriyyah.”
In brief, Darwi Sahib has killed knowledge and justice in his book. On page 154 of his book, Darwi Sahib has titled a chapter:
“The Restlessness of Imam Bukhari”
And then criticized Imam al-Muhaddithin and Imam al-Fuqaha: Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him, due to his ignorance. Whereas (according to our research) Imam Bukhari preferred the narration of Abdullah bin Idris over that of Sufyan al-Thawri for several reasons:
1. Sufyan al-Thawri is a fabricator (mudallis) and Ibn Idris is not.
2. Ibn Idris and Laysa bil Jama’ are trustworthy.
3. A group follows them.
4. There is consensus among muhaddithin on the authenticity of Ibn Idris’s narration.
5. The majority of scholars have declared Thawri’s narration weak and defective.
6. Some scholars have stated that Thawri was mistaken in this narration.
You decide, in light of these reasons, if preferring Ibn Idris’s narration over Thawri’s violates any principle.
Regarding Muhammad bin Jabir, Imam Bukhari preferred Sufyan al-Thawri’s narration for several reasons:
1. Thawri is trustworthy but a fabricator, whereas Muhammad bin Jabir is weak, abandoned, and mixed.
2. Other muhaddithin have severely criticized Muhammad bin Jabir’s narration.
3. Thawri’s narration is followed in meaning by Hafs, Mughirah, and Husayn etc.
Therefore, Imam Bukhari’s decision is absolutely correct, but Darwi Sahib’s restlessness is incomprehensible. A person who calls Hajjaj bin Artaṭah weak, fabricator, error-prone, and abandoned hadith on page 224 of his book and then on pages 167, 168 presents the narration of the same Hajjaj bin Artaṭah and declares it authentic, what status can he have in the scholarly world?
[Note that the narration after this in Musnad Ahmad
has no relation to Hajjaj’s hadith but is about Tashahhud. The evidence is that in Musnad Humaydi
, this narration of Sufyan is present which contains the words يدعو فى الصلوة هكذا. Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah only memorized this one narration from Ziyad bin Sa’d which is about Tashahhud. Also see Majma’ al-Zawa’id 2/101]
Impartial Research
Dear readers! In this book (Noor al-Ayneen fi Ithbat Mas’alah Raf’ al-Yadain), the principle has been strictly adhered to. The authentication and criticism of narrators and the verification or weakening of any hadith have been given mandatory preference according to the research of the majority of muhaddithin. A narration that is considered authentic or good according to the research of the majority of Muslim scholars has been accepted as authentic or good and used as evidence, and a narration that is considered weak or fabricated, etc., by Muslim scholars has been declared weak or fabricated and rejected. In the field of Asma al-Rijal (biographical evaluation of narrators), personal desires have not been considered at all. For example: two narrations in favor of raising the hands have not been presented.
① Hadith of Sayyiduna Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him)
This hadith is present in Imam Hakim’s book Ma’rifat ‘Uloom al-Hadith
. All its narrators are trustworthy, but the defect is that they are narrating from Abu al-Zubair with “an” from Jabir رضي الله عنه. According to the research of the majority of hadith scholars, Abu al-Zubair is a mudallis (one who practices tadlis), therefore this mursal narration of his is weak.
[After a considerable time of this research, Abu al-Abbas Muhammad ibn Ishaq al-Thaqafi al-Siraj al-Nisaburi’s Musnad (manuscript) clarified the hearing from Abu al-Zubair.
Therefore, this hadith is also authentic. And all praise is due to Allah, the author.]
Imam Bayhaqi, who probably does not accept Abu al-Zubair as a mudallis, calls Abu al-Zubair’s narration among the contradictions in ”هو حديث صحيح“.
Imam Hakim also does not accept Abu al-Zubair as a mudallis.
② Hadith Attributed to Sayyiduna Anas رضي الله عنه
This hadith is present in the Musnad of Imam Abu Ya’la al-Mawsili
. All its narrators are trustworthy. The reason is that Hamid al-Tawil is narrating it from Sayyiduna Anas رضي الله عنه with the word “عن” (from). Hamid al-Tawil is a mudallis (one who conceals the source), therefore his ‘mu’anna’ (repetitive) narration is weak. Some scholars accept Hamid’s ‘an’ narration as authentic. Hence, Ibn Khuzaymah narrated this hadith in his Sahih
.
Ibn al-Mulqin said in Al-Badr al-Munir: ”إسناده صحيح على شرط الشيخين“ Ibn Daqiq al-‘Id said in Al-Imam: ”رجاله رجال الصحيحين“
The correct view is that Hamid al-Tawil’s mu’anna hadith from Sayyiduna Anas رضي الله عنه is also authentic.
Therefore, this narration is also authentic. And all praise is due to Allah.
Some people have tried to deceive by presenting weak narrations of raising the hands (raf’ al-yadayn) during prostrations to claim that raising the hands is abrogated.
1. Raising the hands during prostrations is not proven authentically with a sound chain.
2. We do not say that raising the hands is abrogated; rather, we do not perform it because the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم did not raise his hands during prostrations, as proven by authentic explicit narrations in Sahihayn and others. There is not a single authentic explicit narration against raising the hands during bowing (rukūʿ).
3. Hafiz Ibn Hajar has strongly refuted this analogy in Al-Dirayah fi Takhrij Ahadith al-Hidayah
and declared it invalid against the text, explaining that some scholars used to raise their hands even in every lowering and raising (prostrations).
Hafiz Sahib’s response is sufficient to refute the baseless claim of consensus.
