Attributed Report from Ibn Masʿūd on Raf' al-Yadayn Critically Examined

This excerpt is taken from the book Nūr al-ʿAynayn fī Ithbāt Rafʿ al-Yadayn ʿInd al-Rukūʿ wa Baʿdahū fī al-Ṣalāh by the Muḥaddith of the era, Ḥāfiẓ Zubair ʿAlī Zaʾī رحمه الله.

A Report Attributed to Sayyidunā ʿAbdullāh bin Masʿūd رضي الله عنه​

Regarding one narration, it has already been established earlier that it is weak and rejected.

The second report is as follows:

عن إبراهيم النخعي قال: كان عبدالله بن مسعود لا يرفع يديه فى شيء من الصلوة إلا فى الإفتتاح

Ibrāhīm al-Nakhaʿī said:
“ʿAbdullāh bin Masʿūd رضي الله عنه did not raise his hands in any part of the prayer except at the beginning of the prayer.”

Reference: al-Ṭaḥāwī, cited by Naṣb al-Rāyah 1/406

The Answer​

Sayyidunā Ibn Masʿūd رضي الله عنه passed away in 32 or 33 AH.

Reference: Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb 6/25; Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb: 3613

And Ibrāhīm bin Yazīd al-Nakhaʿī was born after 37 AH.

Reference: Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb 1/155

Therefore, this chain is disconnected (munqaṭiʿ).

If It Is Claimed​

If it is argued that Ibrāhīm al-Nakhaʿī heard this narration from “ghayr wāḥid” (more than one person) or from a group of people

Reference: Naṣb al-Rāyah 2/406–407

Then the answer is that both “ghayr wāḥid” and “a group” are unknown and unspecified, therefore using them as evidence is flawed.

Ḥāfiẓ Gondalwī رحمه الله states:

This does not prove that the narration itself is worthy of being taken as proof, because being evidence or not depends upon continuity or discontinuity of the chain, and soundness or weakness.

This statement does not indicate that the narrations of Ibrāhīm are authoritative.

① Firstly, it is possible that two or three Kūfan narrators gathered and narrated this to him, and all three might have been weak in memory.
② Secondly, it is unknown through how many intermediaries the chain reaches ʿAbdullāh. At times, there are two, four, or even seven intermediaries between a Tābiʿī and a Companion, whose verification is extremely necessary.
③ Thirdly, it is possible that they were considered trustworthy according to Ibrāhīm, but regarded as weak by other leading scholars. Jarḥ takes precedence over taʿdīl, and an ambiguous commendation by a muqallid may be impressive, but it is insufficient for one who seeks rigorous verification.

Scholarly Verdict​

In light of these concerns, a major Imām of Jarḥ wa Taʿdīl issued the verdict that Ibrāhīm’s narrations from ʿAbdullāh are weak.

Imām al-Dhahabī said in Mīzān al-Iʿtidāl (1/35):

قلت استقر الأمر على أن إبراهيم حجة وأنه إذا أرسل عن ابن مسعود وغيره فليس ذلك بحسن

“I say: It has been established that Ibrāhīm is authoritative, but when he reports mursal from Ibn Masʿūd and others, then that is not good.”

Imām al-Shāfiʿī said:

إن إبراهيم النخعي لو روى عن علي وعبد الله لم يقبل منه لأنه لم يلق واحدا منهما

“If Ibrāhīm al-Nakhaʿī were to narrate from ʿAlī and ʿAbdullāh bin Masʿūd رضي الله عنهما, it would not be accepted from him, because he did not meet either of them.”

Reference: Kitāb al-Umm 7/271–272 (Egypt edition); al-Taḥqīq al-Rāsikh 140–141

Conclusion​

The summary of this discussion is that Imām al-Shāfiʿī and Ḥāfiẓ al-Dhahabī have both declared the narrations of Ibrāhīm al-Nakhaʿī from ʿAbdullāh bin Masʿūd رضي الله عنه to be weak.