✦ Is Both Performing and Abandoning Rafʿ al-Yadayn in Prayer Established from Ḥadīth?
Source: Fatāwā ʿIlmiyyah, Volume 1, Kitāb al-Ṣalāh, Page 351
Question:
Is it correct to say that both performing Rafʿ al-Yadayn (raising the hands in prayer) and abandoning it are proven from ḥadīths? What is the ruling on one who sometimes performs it and sometimes doesn’t?
(Question by: Ṭāriq ʿAlī Brohī, Karachi)
❖ Scholarly Answer
Al-ḥamdu lillāh, waṣ-ṣalātu was-salāmu ʿalā Rasūlillāh, Ammā Baʿd:
✦ Authenticity of Rafʿ al-Yadayn in Prayer
Rafʿ al-Yadayn at the following three instances is proven from authentic and mutawātir (mass-transmitted) aḥādīth:① At the beginning of the prayer
② Before going into Rukūʿ
③ After rising from Rukūʿ
Sources:
- Qaṭf al-Azhār al-Mutanāthirah – al-Suyūṭī
- Laqṭ al-Laʾālī al-Mutanāthirah – al-Kattānī
- Nūr al-ʿAyn fī Ithbāt Masʾalat Rafʿ al-Yadayn (pp. 82, 87; new edition: pp. 122–123)
Even the Deobandī scholar Anwar Shāh Kashmīrī admitted the mutawātir nature of Rafʿ al-Yadayn:“Mutawātir aḥādīth have absolute certainty according to all Islamic sciences.”
(Nayl al-Farqadayn, p. 22)
Thus, by the standards of both uṣūl al-fiqh and uṣūl al-ḥadīth, a mutawātir narration is definitive and indisputable.
❖ Review of Opposing Arguments
➊ Narrations in which Rafʿ al-Yadayn is not mentioned
For example, the ḥadīth of Jābir ibn Samurah رضي الله عنه in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, which mentions the flapping of hands like horse tails:
Maulānā Maḥmūd Ḥasan Deobandī writes:“Using this narration as a response is unjustified, because it pertains to salām (the ending of prayer).”
(Taqārīr Shaykh al-Hind, p. 65)
Muḥammad Taqī ʿUthmānī writes:“In reality, using this narration for the Ḥanafī stance is weak, because it clearly refers to the act of salām, not Rafʿ al-Yadayn.”
(Dars Tirmidhī, Vol. 2, p. 36)
Hence, these narrations do not negate Rafʿ al-Yadayn.➋ Narrations that hint at the abandonment of Rafʿ al-Yadayn
Such as the narration attributed to ʿAbdullāh ibn Masʿūd رضي الله عنه.
However, in light of the principles of ḥadīth criticism, all such narrations are weak and rejected.Example:
In Nūr al-ʿAynayn (pp. 92–106; new ed. pp. 125–158), the author has shown with multiple evidences that the narration via Sufyān al-Thawrī attributed to Ibn Masʿūd is:
“Defective due to critical ʿillah and weak both in chain and content.”
(p. 96; new ed. p. 130)
✦ Refutation of False Attribution
An unknown individual “Abū Bilāl Jhangvī” authored a booklet Tuhfat Ahl al-Ḥadīth (No. 2), published by al-ʿAzīz, Sialkot Road, Gujranwala.
On page 159, he falsely claimed:“Zubair ʿAlī Zai… declared the narration in Nūr al-ʿAynayn to be ṣaḥīḥ.”
In reality, the author declared the narration weak and rejected, not ṣaḥīḥ or ḥasan. The writer in question, Abū Bilāl Muḥammad Ismāʿīl Jhangvī, became known for his dishonesty and distortion.
For further details, refer to:Māhnāmah al-Ḥadīth, Issue 35, pp. 51–60:
“Fifteen Lies of Ismāʿīl Jhangvī”
✦ Personal Experience
Recently, someone brought the book Ikhtilāf-e-Ummat aur Ṣirāṭ-e-Mustaqīm by Muḥammad Yūsuf Ludhiyānwī Deobandī.
Upon researching the manuscripts of Musnad al-Ḥumaydī and Musnad Abī ʿAwanah, the author concluded:
“I left the Deobandī madhhab and chose the path of Qurʾān and Sunnah.”
Al-ḥamdu lillāh
❖ Summary and Final Warning
The abandonment of Rafʿ al-Yadayn before and after Rukūʿ is:
Not mansūkh (abrogated)- Not proven by any ṣaḥīḥ ḥadīth
- Not preferred over the mutawātir practice of Rafʿ al-Yadayn
For further study, refer to:- Juzʾ Rafʿ al-Yadayn by Imām al-Bukhārī
Final Conclusion
Rafʿ al-Yadayn should always be done before and after Rukūʿ.
A person who alternates—sometimes doing it and sometimes not—is acting contrary to authentic, mutawātir ḥadīths.Such inconsistency is incorrect and unjustifiable in light of authentic prophetic practice.
(Shahādat — February 2000)
ھٰذَا مَا عِندِي، وَاللّٰهُ أَعْلَمُ بِالصَّوَاب
