This excerpt is taken from the book Nūr al-ʿAynayn fī Ithbāt Rafʿ al-Yadayn ʿInd al-Rukūʿ wa Baʿdah fī al-Ṣalāh by the Muhaddith of the era, Ḥāfiẓ Zubayr ʿAlī Zaʾī رحمه الله.
Ḥāfiẓ Ibn al-Qayyim said:
«ومن شم روائح الحديث على بعد: شهد بالله أنه موضوع»
“Whoever has even smelled the fragrance of ḥadīth from afar testifies by Allah that this narration is fabricated.”
This chain is fabricated, and its fabricator is Muḥammad bin ʿUkāshah. Muḥammad bin ʿUkāshah was a well-known liar.
(See Lisān al-Mīzān 5/324 and general books of weak narrators)
This narration was later stolen by another liar, Maʾmūn bin Aḥmad.
◈ Firstly: There is disconnection (inqiṭāʿ) in the chain (even if the narrator were to be considered trustworthy, it would still be classified as mursal).
◈ Secondly: ʿAbbād bin al-Zubayr is unknown (note: he is not ʿAbbād bin ʿAbdullāh bin al-Zubayr).
◈ Thirdly: Some of its narrators are questionable.
◈ Fourthly: In its chain, Ḥafṣ bin Ghiyāth is a mudallis, and the narration is muʿanʿan.
Ḥāfiẓ Ibn al-Qayyim said regarding this narration:
«وهو موضوع»
“This narration is fabricated.”
Only a liar uses a fabricated narration as evidence.
We have already clarified at the beginning that after proof is established, the absence of mention does not necessitate negation. Therefore, this form of argumentation is entirely rejected.
Likewise, in the narration containing the words “لا ترفع الأيدي”, there is no mention of Rafʿ al-Yadayn at rukūʿ. Secondly, its primary narrator Muḥammad bin Abī Laylā is weak, as has been firmly established with strong evidence.
It is reported that Imām ʿAbdullāh bin al-Mubārak said regarding this “lā tarfaʿ” narration of Muḥammad bin Abī Laylā:
«هذا من فواحش ابن أبي ليلى»
“This is from the grave mistakes of Ibn Abī Laylā.”
Moreover, it contains many other defects.
Thirdly, this narration does not mention Rafʿ al-Yadayn in Qunūt or ʿEid prayers, so on what evidence are those performed?
Fifth Objection: Fabricated (Mawḍūʿ) Narrations
Some liars have presented such narrations against Rafʿ al-Yadayn which are unanimously agreed upon as fabricated and forged. For example:① A narration attributed to Sayyidunā Ibn ʿUmar رضي الله عنهما
It is attributed to Sayyidunā Ibn ʿUmar رضي الله عنهما. Imām al-Ḥākim said: It is fabricated (mawḍūʿ), and Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar supported the judgment of al-Ḥākim.
Reference: al-Dirāyah 1/152
Ḥāfiẓ Ibn al-Qayyim said:
«ومن شم روائح الحديث على بعد: شهد بالله أنه موضوع»
“Whoever has even smelled the fragrance of ḥadīth from afar testifies by Allah that this narration is fabricated.”
Reference: al-Manār al-Munīf p.138, no.314
② A narration attributed to Sayyidunā Anas رضي الله عنه
A narration has been attributed to Sayyidunā Anas رضي الله عنه.
Reference: al-Laʾālī al-Maṣnūʿah fī al-Aḥādīth al-Mawḍūʿah 2/19
This chain is fabricated, and its fabricator is Muḥammad bin ʿUkāshah. Muḥammad bin ʿUkāshah was a well-known liar.
(See Lisān al-Mīzān 5/324 and general books of weak narrators)
This narration was later stolen by another liar, Maʾmūn bin Aḥmad.
Reference: al-Dirāyah 1/152
③ A narration attributed to a person named ʿAbbād bin al-Zubayr
Similarly, a narration has been attributed to a person named ʿAbbād bin al-Zubayr, in which:◈ Firstly: There is disconnection (inqiṭāʿ) in the chain (even if the narrator were to be considered trustworthy, it would still be classified as mursal).
◈ Secondly: ʿAbbād bin al-Zubayr is unknown (note: he is not ʿAbbād bin ʿAbdullāh bin al-Zubayr).
◈ Thirdly: Some of its narrators are questionable.
Reference: al-Dirāyah 1/152
◈ Fourthly: In its chain, Ḥafṣ bin Ghiyāth is a mudallis, and the narration is muʿanʿan.
Ḥāfiẓ Ibn al-Qayyim said regarding this narration:
«وهو موضوع»
“This narration is fabricated.”
Reference: al-Manār al-Munīf fī al-Ṣaḥīḥ wa al-Ḍaʿīf p.139, no.315
Only a liar uses a fabricated narration as evidence.
Sixth Objection: Absence of Mention (ʿAdam al-Dhikr)
Some people, in their attempt to establish the abandonment of Rafʿ al-Yadayn, have unsuccessfully tried to include narrations in which Rafʿ al-Yadayn is neither mentioned as being performed nor abandoned. This clearly proves their complete ignorance. Otherwise, it would also become binding upon them to abandon Rafʿ al-Yadayn at Takbīr al-Taḥrīmah, Qunūt, and ʿEid prayers, because many authentic aḥādīth do not mention these either.We have already clarified at the beginning that after proof is established, the absence of mention does not necessitate negation. Therefore, this form of argumentation is entirely rejected.
Likewise, in the narration containing the words “لا ترفع الأيدي”, there is no mention of Rafʿ al-Yadayn at rukūʿ. Secondly, its primary narrator Muḥammad bin Abī Laylā is weak, as has been firmly established with strong evidence.
It is reported that Imām ʿAbdullāh bin al-Mubārak said regarding this “lā tarfaʿ” narration of Muḥammad bin Abī Laylā:
«هذا من فواحش ابن أبي ليلى»
“This is from the grave mistakes of Ibn Abī Laylā.”
Reference: al-Majrūḥīn by Ibn Ḥibbān 2/246
Moreover, it contains many other defects.
Thirdly, this narration does not mention Rafʿ al-Yadayn in Qunūt or ʿEid prayers, so on what evidence are those performed?
