Imam Ahl al-Sunnah, Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (may Allah have mercy on him) (died 241 AH), says:
حدثنا يعقوب: حدثنا ابن أخي ابن شهاب عن عمه: حدثني سالم بن عبدالله أن عبدالله قال، كان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إذا قام إلى الصلوة يرفع يديه، حتي إذا كانتا حذومنكبيه كبّر، ثم إذا أرادأن يركع رفعهما حتي يكونا حذو منكبيه ، كبر و هما كذلك، ركع، ثم إذا أراد إن يرفع صلبه رفعهما حتي يكونا حذو منكبيه، ثم قال بسمع الله لمن حمده، ثم يسجد، ولا يرفع يديه فى السجود، و يرفعهما فى كل ركعة و تكبيرة كبّر ها قبل الركوع ، حتي تنقضي صلاته
The Messenger of Allah ﷺ, when he stood for the prayer, would raise his hands until they were level with his shoulders, and he would say the takbir. Then, when he intended to bow, he would raise his hands until they were level with his shoulders, and he would say the takbir, and his hands remained in that position. He ﷺ would then bow, and when he intended to raise his back from bowing, he would raise his hands until they were level with his shoulders. Then he ﷺ would say: Sami’ Allahu liman hamidah. Then he ﷺ would prostrate and would not raise his hands during the prostrations. He ﷺ would raise them in every rak’ah, and with every takbir he would say before bowing, until his prayer was completed.
Discussion of the chain
This chain is hasan li-dhatihi and sahih li-ghayrihi.
Shaykh Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani (may Allah have mercy on him) says about this hadith:
هذا سند صحيح على شرط الشيخين
And this chain is sahih according to the conditions of al-Bukhari and Muslim.
Imam Abdullah ibn Ali ibn al-Jarud al-Naysaburi (may Allah have mercy on him) (died 307 AH) narrated it in his book “al-Muntaqa” through the chain of Ya’qub ibn Ibrahim ibn Sa’d.
Hafiz al-Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) (died 748 AH) says:
كتاب المنتقي فى السنن مجلد و احد فى الأحكام، لا ينزل فيه عن رتبة الحسن أبداً إلا فى لنا در فى أحاديث يختلف فيها اجتهاد النقاد
The book al-Muntaqa fi al-Sunan is a single volume on rulings; its hadiths never fall below the rank of hasan, except for rare hadiths in which the efforts of the critics differ.
Ashraf Ali Thanawi of Deoband writes about a hadith:
وأورد هذا الحديث ابن الجارود فى المنتقي فهو صحيح عنده فإنه لا يأتى إلا بالصحيح كما صرح به السيوطي فى ديباجة جمع الجوامع
(Translation by the narrator: Ibn al-Jarud included this hadith in al-Muntaqa. Therefore it is sahih according to him, because he only brings sahih narrations, as al-Suyuti stated in the preface of Jam’ al-Jawami’.)
See:
Imam al-Daraqutni (died 385 AH) also narrated this same narration through the chain of Ya’qub ibn Ibrahim.
Now the authentication of the narrators of this hadith is presented.
➊ Ya’qub ibn Ibrahim ibn Sa’d
ثقة فاضل ؍من رجال الستة
➋ Muhammad ibn Abdullah ibn Muslim, Ibn Akhi al-Zuhri
صدوق حسن الحديث، وثقه الجمهور ؍من رجال الستة.
A brief review of criticism and authentication regarding Ibn Akhi al-Zuhri is as follows.
The critics and their criticism:
Criticism of Ibn Akhi al-Zuhri has been transmitted from the following muhaddithun.
➊ Yahya ibn Ma’in
ضعيف
➋ Abu Hatim al-Razi
ليس بقوي يكتب حديثه
➌ al-Uqayli
ذكره فى الضعفاء
➍ Ibn Hibban
ردئي الحفظ ، كثير الوهم، يخطئ عن عمه فى الروايات إلخ
➎ al-Daraqutni
ضعيف
➏ al-Nasa’i
ليس بذلك القوي، عنده غير ماحديث منكر عن الزهري؟
Summarised from Tahdhib al-Tahdhib
and others.
The authentication of Ibn Akhi al-Zuhri has been transmitted from the following muhaddithun.
➊ Ibn Adi
ولم أربحديثه بأ ساً إذا روي عنه ثقة
➋ al-Bukhari
احتج به فى صحيحه
➌ Muslim
احتج به فى صحيحه
➍ al-Saji
صدوق، تفرد عن عمه بأ حاديث لم يتابع عليها
➎ al-Dhahabi
صدوق صالح الحديث وقد انفرد عن عمه بثلاثة أحاديث
➏ Ibn Hajar
صدوق له أوهام
➐ al-Tirmidhi
صحح له
➑ al-Busiri
صحح له
➒ Ibn al-Jarud
روي له فى المنتقي
➓ Abu Nu’aym al-Isfahani
روي له فى صحيحه/المستخرج
⓫ Abu Awanah
روي له فى صحيحه
⓬ al-Diya al-Maqdisi
روي له فى المختارة
⓭ al-Baghawi
صحح له
۔: Abu Dawud
ثقة (its narrator Abu Ubayd al-Ajuri is unknown)
۔: Ahmad ibn Hanbal
يثني عليه (its narrator Abu Ubayd al-Ajuri is unknown)
۔: Yahya ibn Ma’in
يثني عليه (its narrator Abu Ubayd al-Ajuri is unknown)
Summarised from
and others.
From this detail it becomes known that according to the majority of muhaddithun, Ibn Akhi al-Zuhri is thiqah and saduq, sahih al-hadith and hasan al-hadith. It should be remembered that in those narrations of a thiqah or saduq narrator where error and mistake are established by the muhaddithun, those narrations become weak after being excluded. For example, in the chain of Ibn Akhi al-Zuhri’s narration with فانتهي الناس عن القرأه معه there is an error and mistake.
See:
Benefit:
The chain with ابن اخي الزهري كي عن الزهري عن سالم عن ابيه is present in Sahih al-Bukhari (5574) and Sahih Muslim (4/1471).
Note:
In the mentioned narration with raising the hands at every takbir, Ibn Akhi al-Zuhri has been followed by Muhammad ibn al-Walid al-Zubaydi, as will come ahead.
➌ Muhammad ibn Muslim al-Zuhri
متفق على جلالته و اتقانه/من رجال الستة
Imam al-Zuhri has explicitly stated hearing (sama’), therefore the accusation of tadlis against this narration is rejected.
➍ Salim ibn Abdullah ibn Umar
أحد الفقهاء السبعة و كان ثبتاً عابد اًفا ضلاً من رجال الستة
➎ Abdullah ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with him)
صحابي مشهور/من رجال الستة
From this detail it becomes known that this narration is hasan li-dhatihi (meaning proven and acceptable) because of Ibn Akhi al-Zuhri.
Ibn Akhi al-Zuhri’s following
In this narration of raising the hands, Ibn Akhi al-Zuhri (may Allah have mercy on him) is not the sole narrator; rather, (Muhammad ibn al-Walid) al-Zubaydi (ثقة ثبت من كبار أصحاب الزهري/من رجال البخاري و مسلم و أبى داودو النسائي وابن ماجه/التقريب: ۲۳۷۶) has given him a complete following (mutaba’ah tammah). Therefore, objecting to Ibn Akhi al-Zuhri in this narration is entirely baseless والحمد لله.
The narration with the follow-up (mutabaʿa) through al-Zubaidi is found in Sunan Abi Dawud (722), Sunan al-Daraqutni (p. 288, no. 1098), and al-Sunan al-Kubra of al-Bayhaqi (3/292, 293).
The narration of al-Zubaidi was transmitted by Baqiyyah ibn al-Walid, and a group of narrators has transmitted it from Baqiyyah.
Ibn al-Turkmani, displaying opposition for the sake of opposition, cited against Baqiyyah ibn al-Walid the criticisms of Ibn Hibban, Abu Mus’hir and Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah.
A somewhat detailed answer to this follows. Baqiyyah ibn al-Walid al-Himsi, may Allah have mercy on him (التحقيقات النقية فى توثيق بقية).
Here is a brief review of the statements of the scholars of hadith, both criticism and praise, concerning Baqiyyah ibn al-Walid, the narrator of the hadith.
The criticisms reported against Baqiyyah are as follows.
➊ Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah
لا تسمعو امن بقية. . . إلخ
➋ al-‘Uqayli
ذكره فى الضعفاء
➌ Abu Hatim al-Razi
لايحتج به
➍ Abu Mus’hir al-Ghassani
بقية، أحاديثه ليست نقية فكن منها على تقية
➎ Ibn Khuzaymah
لا أحتج بقية
➏ al-Jozjani
و بقية ضعيف الحديث، لايحتج بحديثه
➐ ‘Abd al-Haqq al-Ishbili
لا يحتج به
➑ Ibn al-Qattan al-Fasi
۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔
➒ al-Dhahabi
۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔
➓ Ibn Hazm
ضعيف
⓫ al-Bayhaqi
أجمعوا على أن بقية ليس بحجة
۔: al-Sajji
فيه اختلاف
۔: al-Khalili
اختلفوا فيه
Summarised from
and others.
The statements of al-Sajji and al-Khalili are not even criticism.
Some other scholars also reported criticism of Baqiyyah’s mudallas (ʿan-form) narrations and of his narrations from unknown and weak narrators; this criticism has no connection with Baqiyyah’s integrity (ʿadalah) or precision (ḍabṭ, memory).
The praise (tawthiq) of Baqiyyah is as follows.
➊ Abu Ishaq al-Fazari
خذوا عن بقية ماحدثكم عن الثقات
➋ ‘Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak
صدوق اللسان
➌ Abu Zur’ah al-Razi
وأذا حدث عن الثقات فهو ثقة
➍ Yahya ibn Ma’in
ثقة
➎ al-‘Ijli
ثقة ماروي عن المعروفين
➏ Muslim
أخرج له فى صحيحه
➐ Ya’qub ibn Shaybah
➑ al-Khatib al-Baghdadi
وكان صدوقاً
➒ Muhammad ibn Sa’d
وكان ثقة فى روايتة عن الثقات
➓ al-Tirmidhi
صحح له فى سننه
⓫ Ibn ‘Adi
إذا روي عن الشامين فهو ثبت
⓬ Ibn Shahin
ذكره فى الثقات
⓭ Ahmad ibn Hanbal
وإذا حدث بقية عن المعروفين مثل بحيربن سعد قبل
⓮ Ibn Hibban
فرأيته ثقة مأموناً ولكنه كان مدلساً
⓯ Ibn Hajar
صدوق كثير التدليس عن الضعفاء
⓰ al-Haythami
وهو ثقة مدلس
⓱ al-‘Iraqi
قال فى حديث و إسناده جيد
⓲ al-Mundhiri
وثقة
⓳ al-Hakim
مامون مقبول
20: al-Dhahabi
وقال فى حديثه: على شرط مسلم
21: al-Bukhari
استشهد به فى صحيحه
22: Abu Ahmad al-Hakim
ثقة فى حديثه إذا حدث عن الثقات بما يعرف
23: Shu’bah
روي عنه
24: Ibn Khalfun
ذكره فى الثقات
25: al-Zayla’i
وكان صدوقاً
26: al-Daraqutni
ثقة
27: al-Jozjani
فإذا أخذت حديثه عن الثقات فهو ثقة
28: Ya’qub ibn Sufyan
فهو ثقة إلخ
۔: ‘Ali ibn al-Madini
صالح فيما روي عن أهل الشام
۔: al-Nasa’i
إذا قال حدثنا و أخبر نا فهو ثقة
۔: Ibn al-Turkmani!!
هو صدوق و قد صرح بالتحديث
See also:
From this research it is known that, according to the majority of hadith scholars, Baqiyyah ibn al-Walid is trustworthy (thiqah) and truthful (saduq). When he narrates from trustworthy narrators with an explicit statement of hearing (sama’), his narration is sahih or hasan.
Hafiz al-Mundhiri says:
ثقة عند الجمهور لكنه مدلس
“He is thiqah according to the majority, but he is a mudallis.”
Hafiz al-Dhahabi writes:
وثقه الجمهور فيما سمعه من الثقات
“The majority have declared him thiqah in those narrations which he heard from trustworthy narrators.”
The criticisms of the scholars against Baqiyyah are based solely on two matters.
➊ تدليس
(That is, Baqiyyah’s ʿan-narrations and narrations not explicitly stated to be by hearing are weak.)
➋ مجهولين و ضعفاء
from (that is, all the narrations of Baqiyyah which he related from unknown and weak narrators are weak and rejected.)
To my knowledge, no eminent imam has criticised Baqiyyah’s narrations explicitly stated by hearing; all the criticisms against Baqiyyah relate to his non-explicit (ghayr musarrah bil-sama’) narrations, the narrations of the people of Homs and others that contain errors, and his narrations from weak and unknown narrators.
Summary of the research:
Baqiyyah ibn al-Walid is a truthful mudallis narrator whose hadith is sahih or hasan, provided he explicitly states hearing.
Note 1:
If Baqiyyah narrates from Bahir ibn Sa’d, that narration is taken to mean hearing, whether or not Baqiyyah explicitly states hearing.
See:
Note 2:
Baqiyyah’s narration from Muhammad ibn al-Walid al-Zubaidi is found in Sahih Muslim.
Note 3:
Imam Abu Ahmad al-Hakim (author of al-Kuna) says about Baqiyyah:
ثقة فى حديثة إذا حدث عن الثقات بما يعرف لكنه ربماروي عن أقوام مثل الأوزاعي و الزبيدي و عبيد الله العمري أحاديث شبيهة بالموضوعة أخذها عن محمد بن عبدالرحمن و يوسف بن السفر و غير هما من الضعفاء و يسقطهم من الوسط و يرويها عن من حدثوه بها عنهم
When he narrates well-known (i.e., explicitly stated by hearing) narrations from trustworthy narrators, he is trustworthy, because at times he narrates from people such as al-Awza’i, al-Zubaydi and ‘Ubaydullah al-‘Umari hadiths resembling fabrications, which he had taken from Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Rahman, Yusuf ibn al-Safar and others, weak narrators. He omits them from the middle and narrates them from those from whom they narrated to him.
The summary of this statement is that Baqiyyah is a mudallis narrator; therefore, if he narrates from trustworthy narrators with an explicit statement of hearing, he is trustworthy in that, and if he narrates with ʿan-form from al-Awza’i, al-Zubaydi and ʿUbaydullah ibn ʿUmar al-ʿUmari, practising tadlis without an explicit statement of hearing, those narrations are weak, rejected and fabricated. This criticism relates only to tadlis, as is evident from the context. Some people in the fifteenth century AH tried to make this criticism absolute, the falsehood of which is clear.
Tanbih 4:
Baqiyyah is free from the charge of tadlis al-taswiyah. It is not established that Baqiyyah committed tadlis al-taswiyah.
See:
Modern researchers, such as Shaykh Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani (may Allah have mercy on him), have graded Baqiyyah’s narrations that explicitly state hearing as hasan. Janab Abd al-Ra’uf bin Abd al-Mannan bin Hakim Muhammad Ashraf Sindhu writes regarding one narration: its chain is of hasan grade because of Baqiyyah bin al-Walid. Al-Hakim, al-Dhahabi and al-Busiri in Misbah al-Zujajah (466) have declared it sahih.
See also:
If someone says that Muhaddith Abd al-Rahman Mubarakpuri (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
“But this hadith is also weak, because Baqiyyah is in its chain, and he is a mudallis and weak, and despite being weak he is alone in this wording; no one else narrates this wording… ”
Then it is submitted that this statement is rejected for three reasons.
First:
It goes against the research of the majority of the muhaddithun.
Second:
Muhaddith Mubarakpuri (may Allah have mercy on him) himself mentioned Baqiyyah, or Baqiyyah is mentioned in Sunan al-Tirmidhi, yet he did not make any criticism of him personally.
See:
Therefore it becomes known that Mubarakpuri (may Allah have mercy on him) ‘s criticism is abrogated according to his book Tuhfat al-Ahwadhi.
Third:
Mubarakpuri (may Allah have mercy on him) ‘s statement “he is alone in this wording” is absolutely wrong, because Ibn Akhi al-Zuhri has also narrated this same wording.
Maulana Irshad al-Haq al-Athari (may Allah preserve him), a well-known researcher in Pakistan and a renowned scholar of Ahl al-Hadith, while strongly defending Baqiyyah bin al-Walid, wrote: “This is strong evidence that according to the majority he is trustworthy; when he explicitly states hearing, he is acceptable as proof, especially when he narrates from Shami shaykhs.”
Tanbih 5:
If someone says that other students of Imam al-Zuhri do not narrate this hadith with these wordings, then it is submitted that the narration of al-Zubaydi (thiqah) and Ibn Akhi al-Zuhri (saduq) is sufficient for it to be a proof. If one trustworthy and truthful narrator narrates a hadith with an addition in its chain and text, while many other trustworthy and truthful narrators do not narrate that addition, then the addition is taken into account. (و الزيادة من الثقة مقبولة)
Example 1:
كفي بالمرء كذباً أن يحدث بكل ماسمع
This hadith was narrated connected (mawsulan) only by Ali bin Hafs al-Madaini.
It should be remembered that a transcriptional error (tashif) occurred in the chain of one copy of Sahih Muslim, due to which Shaykh al-Albani (may Allah have mercy on him) had a great misconception.
See:
Example 2:
In Sahih al-Bukhari, in the narration of Muhammad bin Amr bin Halhalah from Muhammad bin Amr bin Ata from Abu Humayd al-Sa’idi (may Allah be pleased with him), only one raising of the hands is mentioned.
Whereas in Sunan Abi Dawud (730) and others, in the narration of Abd al-Hamid bin Ja’far from Muhammad bin Amr bin Ata from Abu Humayd al-Sa’idi (may Allah be pleased with him), raising of the hands is established at four places: before bowing, after bowing, and when rising after performing two rak’ahs (in total four places). Both these narrations are sahih, so it is known that the addition of a thiqah is authoritative and accepted, provided it is not in complete and absolute contradiction to trustworthy narrators or to one more reliable (awthaq).
Discussion of the text
Ibn al-Turkmani and some people have objected that this narration does not mention the method of the Eid prayers, but is like the ordinary prayer.
It is submitted that this narration explicitly mentions raising the hands at the following places:
➊ Takbir al-Tahrima
➋ Before bowing
➌ After bowing
➍ In every rak’ah
➎ Before bowing, at every takbir (see this same article, beginning)
The words of the sahih hadith are presented again:
وير فعهما فى كل ركعة و تكبيرة كبّرها قبل الركوع حتي تنقضي صلاته
Translation: “And he would raise his hands in every rak’ah and at every takbir he said before bowing, until his prayer was completed.”
Now the question is: are the takbirat of the Eids before bowing or after bowing? If they are before, then they are definitely included in the generality of this hadith.
Imam al-Bayhaqi mentioned the hadith of Baqiyyah bin al-Walid both in the takbirat of Eid and in باب السنة فى رفع اليدين كلما كبر للركوع.
It becomes known that according to Imam al-Bayhaqi, from this hadith raising of the hands at bowing and raising of the hands in the two Eids are both established in both places. والحمد للہ
An important point
By the grace of Allah, we are Ahl al-Hadith, meaning Salafi Ahl al-Hadith. We regard the Qur’an, the Hadith and consensus (ijma’) as proofs. We consider the meaning of the Qur’an and Hadith to be authoritative only when it is established from the righteous predecessors (salaf al-salih). We consider inference from the reports of the righteous predecessors and ijtihad to be permissible. The following righteous predecessors have derived the rulings on the Eid takbirs from the aforementioned hadith.
➊ Imam al-Bayhaqi (may Allah have mercy on him)
➋ Al-Imam Muhammad bin Ibrahim bin al-Mundhir al-Naysaburi
None of the righteous predecessors refuted this inference. Therefore the view of Muhaddith Mubarakpuri and Muhaddith al-Albani rahimahumallah, being contrary to the inference of the righteous predecessors, is rejected.
Maulawi Muhammad Afzal Athari (owner of Maktabat al-Sunnah, Karachi) writes that:
“As Imam al-Bayhaqi and Imam (Ibn) al-Mundhir’s inference was mentioned, Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani”
writes:
و الأ ولي عندي ترك الرفع لعدم ورود نص صريح فى ذلك، ولعدم ثبوته صريحاً بحديث مرفوع صحيح.
“That is, in my view the preferable position is not to raise the hands for the additional takbirs, because no explicit text has been transmitted on this matter, nor has it been established explicitly by a sahih marfu’ hadith.”
The same view has been stated by Allama Shams al-Haq Azimabadi, Maulana Abd al-Rahman Mubarakpuri, Maulana Ubaidullah Mubarakpuri (may Allah have mercy on them), and Allama al-Albani (may Allah preserve him), that no explicit hadith on this matter is established or transmitted.
In this statement, Muhammad Afzal Athari has misrepresented and attributed to Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani a view from which Hafiz Ibn Hajar is entirely free.
See:
This is a second clear misrepresentation and fabrication. Making the view of the author of Mir’at al-Mafatih (Shaykh Ubaidullah Mubarakpuri (may Allah have mercy on him) into the view of Hafiz Ibn Hajar — if this is not lying and fabrication, then what is it?
It should be remembered that the views and “research” of Maulana Shams al-Haq Azimabadi, Maulana Abd al-Rahman Mubarakpuri, Maulana Ubaidullah Mubarakpuri and Shaykh al-Albani (may Allah have mercy on them) on the Eid takbirs are rejected, being opposed to the righteous predecessors: Imam Ata’ bin Abi Rabah, Imam al-Awza’i, Imam Malik, Imam al-Shafi’i and Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (may Allah have mercy on them).
Summary of the research:
The summary of this research is that the hadith of Ibn Akhi al-Zuhri and the hadith of Baqiyyah is sahih, and inference from it regarding raising the hands in the Eid takbirs is entirely correct. والحمد لله
Reports of the righteous predecessors
Now the reports of the righteous predecessors on the legitimacy of raising the hands in the Eid takbirs are presented.
➊ Imam Abd al-Rahman bin Amr al-Awza’i al-Shami (may Allah have mercy on him) It is narrated from Walid bin Muslim (may Allah have mercy on him) that:
قلت للأّ وزاعي: فأرفع يدي كرفعي فى تكبيرة الصلوة؟ قال: نعم، ارفع يديك مع كلهن
I said to al-Awza’i: “Should I raise my hands (in the Eid) as I raise them in the prayer?” He said: “Yes, raise your hands with all of them.”
➋ Imam Malik bin Anas al-Madani (may Allah have mercy on him) It is narrated from Walid bin Muslim that:
سألت مالك بن أنس عن ذلك فقال: نعم، ارفع يديك مع كل تكبيرة ولم أسمع فيه شيئاً
“I asked Malik bin Anas about this, and he said: ‘Yes, raise your hands with every takbir, and I have not heard anything regarding it.'”
Warning:
Imam Malik’s ولم أسمع فيه شيئاً is to be understood as having only two meanings.
First:
I have not heard any hadith about this practice.
Second:
I have not heard any hadith contrary to this practice.
Regarding the first, it is submitted that if Imam Malik did not hear the hadith of Baqiyyah bin al-Walid and Ibn Akhi al-Zuhri, and the report of the tabi’i Ata’ bin Abi Rabah, then this does not prove that these proofs are weak.
Warning 2:
What has been narrated against this report in al-Majmu’ Sharh al-Muhadhdhab of al-Nawawi (5/26), al-Awsat of Ibn al-Mundhir (4/282), the unreliable book al-Mudawwanah (1/169), and others, is rejected because it is without isnad and without basis.
➌ Imam Muhammad bin Idris al-Shafi’i (may Allah have mercy on him) See:
➍ Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (may Allah have mercy on him) See:
➎ Imam Yahya bin Ma’in (may Allah have mercy on him) See:
It is established that in Makkah, Madinah, Syria and elsewhere the righteous predecessors held and practised raising the hands in the Eid takbirs. Against them, opposition to raising the hands in the Eid takbirs is narrated from Muhammad bin al-Hasan al-Shaybani (liar; Kitab al-Du’afa’ of al-‘Uqayli: 4/52 with a sahih isnad; al-Hadith (Hazro): 7 p. 17). See Kitab al-Asl (1/374, 375) and al-Awsat of Ibn al-Mundhir (4/282).
It is also narrated from Sufyan al-Thawri (may Allah have mercy on him) that he did not hold to raising the hands in the aforementioned takbirs.
This statement is rejected because it has no isnad.
Some Hanafis, without any connected isnad, have transmitted from Qadi Abu Yusuf that he did not raise the hands in the Eid takbirs.
This transmission is rejected for two reasons.
➊ It has no isnad.
➋ Regarding Qadi Abu Yusuf Ya’qub bin Ibrahim, Imam Abu Hanifah said:
ألا تعجبون من يعقوب، يقول على مالا أقول
“Do you not wonder at Ya’qub (Abu Yusuf)? He says about me things that I do not say.” (التاريخ الصغير للبخاري ج ۲ص ۲۱۰و فيات: عشر إلى تسعين و مائته ؍ و إسناده حسن وله شواهدفالخبر صحيح
It is thus established that Imam Abu Hanifah considered his student Qadi Abu Yusuf a liar.
Warning:
A report states that Ata’ bin Abi Rabah al-Makki (may Allah have mercy on him) held to raising the hands in the additional Eid takbirs.
The chief narrator of this report, Abd al-Razzaq bin Hammam, is a mudallis, and the report is mu’an’an. Sufyan al-Thawri, a mudallis, has supported Abd al-Razzaq (as a mutabi’).
This report is weak with both of these chains.
Conclusion of the discussion:
Raising the hands in the Eid takbirs is an entirely correct practice. The opposition to this practice by Muhaddith Mubarakpuri, Shaykh al-Albani rahimahumallah and some people is wrong and rejected. وما علينا إلا البلاغ.
