Hadith of Abandoning Rafʿ al-Yadayn and Scholarly Criticism

Source: Nūr al-ʿAynayn fī Ithbāt Rafʿ al-Yadayn ʿinda al-Rukūʿ wa Baʿdahu fī al-Ṣalāh — by Muḥaddith al-ʿAṣr Ḥāfiẓ Zubayr ʿAlī Zaʾī رحمه الله

Ḥadīth of Abandoning Rafʿ al-Yadayn and the Criticism of the Muḥaddithīn​

[This article was written in response to Fayṣal Khān Barelwī’s book: “Rafʿ Yadayn ke Mawḍūʿ par Muḥaqqiqānah Tajziyah”.]

The muʿanʿan (عن) narration—attributed to Sayyidunā ʿAbdullāh bin Masʿūd رضي الله عنه—through Imām Sufyān al-Thawrī رحمه الله (a mudallis), regarding abandoning rafʿ al-yadayn, has been declared weak and defective by the majority of the muḥaddithīn. For details, see my book: Nūr al-ʿAynayn fī Masʾalat Rafʿ al-Yadayn (new edition, pp. 130–134).

In recent times, some people have attempted to cast doubt upon these statements of weakening; therefore, the answers to the doubts and objections of these skeptics are as follows:

① Statement of Imām ʿAbdullāh bin al-Mubārak رحمه الله​

Imām ʿAbdullāh bin al-Mubārak رحمه الله said:
“This ḥadīth (attributed to) Ibn Masʿūd رضي الله عنه is not established.”

Reference: Sunan al-Tirmidhī: 256

— and see Nūr al-ʿAynayn (p. 130)

Some people attempted to divert this criticism away from the ḥadīth of Sufyān al-Thawrī, whereas the muḥaddithīn have deemed it to be regarding the very narration of Sufyān al-Thawrī. See Nūr al-ʿAynayn (p. 130).

One person tried to create the misconception that the narrator of this criticism from Ibn al-Mubārak is Sufyān bin ʿAbd al-Malik (an early student), while in the narration of the later student Suwayd bin Naṣr, Ibn al-Mubārak had related this ḥadīth—therefore the criticism is “early” and “rejected”.

✔ The response is: In general books that are not conditionally committed to authenticity (other than Ṣaḥīḥayn), merely narrating a report does not amount to declaring it authentic. For example:

◈ In Musnad Aḥmad (4/253), a report states:
«من باع الخمر فليشرب الخنازير»
When Imām Aḥmad bin Ḥanbal was asked about its narrator ʿUmar bin Bayān, he said:
“لا أعرفه” — “I do not know him.”

Reference: Kitāb al-ʿIlal wa Maʿrifat al-Rijāl: 2/7, no. 1366

◈ In Musnad Aḥmad (6/71), a report: Duwīd ʿan Abī Sahl ʿan Sulaymān bin Rumān…
Imām Aḥmad said regarding it:
“هذا حديث منكر” — “This is a munkar ḥadīth.”

Reference: Al-Muntakhab min al-ʿIlal (al-Khallāl), p. 44, ḥadīth 5

◈ In the narration of Sālim from Thawbān, it appears:
“استقيموا لقريش ما استقاموا لكم”

Reference: Musnad Aḥmad: 5/277

Imām Aḥmad said:
“ليس بصحيح، سالم بن أبي الجعد لم يلق ثوبان”
“It is not authentic; Sālim bin Abī al-Jaʿd did not meet Thawbān.”

Reference: Al-ʿIlal (al-Khallāl): 82 — and its chain is ḥasan

Reference: Al-Muntakhab min al-ʿIlal (al-Khallāl), p. 162, ḥadīth 82

For similar examples, see Ḥāfiẓ Ibn al-Qayyim’s book: al-Furūsiyyah. Thus, Ibn al-Mubārak relating this ḥadīth in the narration of Suwayd bin Naṣr is not a declaration of its authenticity, nor is it evidence of any imagined retraction.

Al-Zaylaʿī al-Ḥanafī نقل from Ibn al-Qaṭṭān (al-Fāsī) in al-Wahm wa al-Īhām:
“ذكر الترمذي عن ابن المبارك أنه قال: حديث وكيع لا يصح …”
“Al-Tirmidhī mentioned from Ibn al-Mubārak that he said: the ḥadīth of Wakīʿ is not authentic…”

Reference: Naṣb al-Rāyah: 1/395

This shows that Ibn al-Mubārak’s criticism is indeed regarding the narration which Imām Wakīʿ reported from Sufyān al-Thawrī; therefore, fitting this criticism onto the Ṭaḥāwī narration is incorrect.

If someone says: Mughlatāy al-Ḥanafī, Ibn Daqīq al-ʿĪd al-Mālikī al-Shāfiʿī, ʿAynī al-Ḥanafī, Ibn al-Turkumānī al-Ḥanafī, Ibn al-Qaṭṭān al-Fāsī al-Maghribī, and others provided answers to this criticism—then the response is that all of these answers are rejected and false.

② Imām al-Shāfiʿī رحمه الله​

Imām al-Shāfiʿī رحمه الله rejected the narrations of abandoning rafʿ al-yadayn, stating that they are not established. See Kitāb al-Umm (7/201) and Nūr al-ʿAynayn (p. 131).

If someone claims this is an “ambiguous” criticism with no value, then the response is that—even if some people consider it ambiguous—it is acceptable to us for two reasons:

① It aligns with the principles of ḥadīth, because a mudallis’s muʿanʿan narration is weak.
② It accords with the position of the majority of the muḥaddithīn.

If someone says that Ibn al-Turkumānī نقل Ṭaḥāwī’s authentication regarding this ḥadīth, then the response is: Ṭaḥāwī (as Ibn al-Turkumānī states) authenticated a mawqūf narration attributed to Sayyidunā ʿAlī رضي الله عنه in a book named al-Radd ʿalā al-Karābīsī. See:

Reference: Al-Jawhar al-Naqī: 2/79

Thus, his authentication regarding the narration attributed to Ibn Masʿūd رضي الله عنه is not established. And note: Ṭaḥāwī declaring the narration of ʿAlī رضي الله عنه authentic is incorrect due to opposition to the majority of the muḥaddithīn.

One person (Fayṣal Khān Barelwī) wrote that Imām al-Shāfiʿī’s later view is also that abandoning rafʿ al-yadayn is established from both ʿAlī رضي الله عنه and Ibn Masʿūd رضي الله عنه.

Reference: Muḥaqqiqānah Tajziyah, p. 107

The response is: this is a blatant lie.

✿ Benefit: Muḥammad bin ʿAbd al-Bāqī al-Zurqānī said in his commentary on Muwaṭṭaʾ Imām Mālik regarding the narration attributed to Ibn Masʿūd رضي الله عنه:
“ورده الشافعي بأنه لم يثبت”
“And al-Shāfiʿī ردّ it, because indeed it is not established.”

Reference: Sharḥ al-Zurqānī ʿalā al-Muwaṭṭaʾ: 1/158

Those who claim to follow the four Imāms and say that the four madhāhib are true—then it is submitted to them: If a ḥadīth has been rejected by Imām al-Shāfiʿī and Imām Aḥmad (two Imāms) by declaring it weak and the like, and from the remaining two Imāms no explicit authentication is proven—then how can you present this narration?

If you have the courage, then establish with an authentic chain from Imām Abū Ḥanīfah that he declared this ḥadīth (of abandoning rafʿ al-yadayn) authentic!

③ Imām Aḥmad bin Ḥanbal رحمه الله​

Imām Aḥmad bin Ḥanbal رحمه الله spoke regarding the aforementioned narration of Sufyān al-Thawrī. See Masāʾil Aḥmad (narration of ʿAbdullāh bin Aḥmad, 1/240, paragraph: 326) and Nūr al-ʿAynayn (p. 131).

If someone says that Imām Aḥmad did not criticize the narrators, then the response is: he criticized the narration itself, rejected it, and adopted the عمل of rafʿ al-yadayn. Imām Abū Dāwūd said:

“I saw Imām Aḥmad: he would raise his hands to the ears (like the opening takbīr) before rukūʿ and after it, and sometimes slightly lower than the opening raising (i.e., to the shoulders).”

Aḥmad was asked: A man hears these aḥādīth of the Prophet ﷺ regarding rafʿ al-yadayn, yet still does not raise his hands—does his prayer become complete? He replied: “As for being fully complete, I do not know; however, he is, in itself, a person with deficient prayer.”

Reference: Masāʾil Abī Dāwūd, p. 33

See also: Nūr al-ʿAynayn, pp. 179–180

If Imām Aḥmad did not regard the narration of abandoning rafʿ al-yadayn as weak and rejected, he would never have described such prayer as deficient.

If someone says that Qāḍī al-Shawkānī stated that every ḥadīth in Musnad Aḥmad is acceptable,

Reference: Nayl al-Awṭār: 2/20

then the response is: this statement is false—and even the Ḥanafīs and أهل التقليد do not accept it.

④ Imām Abū Ḥātim al-Rāzī رحمه الله​

Imām Abū Ḥātim al-Rāzī رحمه الله said regarding this narration: “This is an error…”

Reference: ʿIlal al-Ḥadīth: 1/96, ḥadīth 258

— see also Nūr al-ʿAynayn (p. 131)

If someone alleges that Abū Ḥātim was overly strict and that his criticism is not correct, then the response is: this criticism is correct in multiple respects, for example:

① It accords with the majority of the muḥaddithīn; therefore, the question of “excessive strictness” does not arise here.
② Sufyān al-Thawrī was a mudallis, and in no chain of this report is there explicit mention of his سماع.

⑤ Imām al-Dāraquṭnī رحمه الله​

Imām al-Dāraquṭnī declared the narration of abandoning rafʿ al-yadayn to be “not preserved (ghayr maḥfūẓ)”.

Reference: Kitāb al-ʿIlal: 5/173

— see Nūr al-ʿAynayn (p. 131)

If someone claims that al-Dāraquṭnī said “وإسناده صحيح” about this ḥadīth, then the response is: he said “وإسناده صحيح” about the narration of ʿAbdullāh bin Idrīs from ʿĀṣim bin Kulayb, and in that narration there is no mention of abandoning rafʿ al-yadayn again.

Reference: Kitāb al-ʿIlal: 5/172

Thereafter, he declared the Thawrī narration to be:
“ليست بمحفوظة” — “It is not preserved.”

Reference: Kitāb al-ʿIlal: 5/172–173

Thus, claiming that Imām al-Dāraquṭnī considered the “abandoning rafʿ al-yadayn” ḥadīth to be authentic is incorrect.

⑥ Imām Ibn Ḥibbān رحمه الله​

Imām Ibn Ḥibbān declared this narration weak and false. See Nūr al-ʿAynayn (p. 131).

Some people raised three objections:

① That the criticism is ambiguous.
✔ Response: It aligns with the principles of ḥadīth and the majority of muḥaddithīn, thus it is accepted.

② That there is no chain between Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar and Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥibbān.
✔ Response: This is narration from a book, and narration from books is permissible by the principles of ḥadīth.

③ That no “Kitāb al-Ṣalāh” is transmitted from Ibn Ḥibbān.
✔ Response: Ibn Ḥibbān’s book al-Ṣalāh (Ṣifat al-Ṣalāh / Waṣf al-Ṣalāh bi al-Sunnah) is mentioned in multiple books, including:

◈

Reference: Al-Badr al-Munīr (Ibn al-Mulaqqin): 3/494; 2/472; 1/283

◈

Reference: Ṭarḥ al-Tathrīb (Abū Zurʿah Ibn al-ʿIrāqī): 1/102

◈

Reference: Tahdhīb al-Sunan (Ibn al-Qayyim): 1/368, ḥadīth 719

◈

Reference: Ittiḥāf al-Maharah (Ibn Ḥajar): 1/235; 83

◈

Reference: Al-Talkhīṣ al-Ḥabīr: 1/216; 1/217; 1/323–324

◈

Reference: Muʿjam al-Buldān (Yāqūt al-Ḥamawī): 1/418

◈

Reference: Mughnī al-Muḥtāj (al-Khaṭīb al-Shirbīnī): 1/261

Rather, Ibn Ḥibbān himself mentioned his book Ṣifat al-Ṣalāh separately in his Ṣaḥīḥ. See:

Reference: Al-Iḥsān: 5/184, ḥadīth 1867

(another copy: ḥadīth 1864)

⑦ Imām Abū Dāwūd رحمه الله​

Imām Abū Dāwūd said regarding Sufyān al-Thawrī’s ḥadīth of abandoning rafʿ al-yadayn: “This ḥadīth is not authentic.”

Reference: Sunan Abī Dāwūd: 748 (summary)

— see Nūr al-ʿAynayn, pp. 131–132

⑧ Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar رحمه الله​

Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar wrote regarding the Sufyān al-Thawrī narration:
“وقال أحمد بن حنبل وشيخه يحيى بن آدم: هو ضعيف”
“Aḥmad bin Ḥanbal and his teacher Yaḥyā bin Ādam said: it is weak.”

Reference: Al-Talkhīṣ al-Ḥabīr: 1/222, ḥadīth 328

See also:

Reference: Al-Badr al-Munīr: 3/492

⑨ Criticism by al-Bazzār​

The well-known trustworthy (thiqah), ṣadūq, ḥasan al-ḥadīth yet one who errs—Muḥaddith al-Bazzār—criticized the narration of abandoning rafʿ al-yadayn. See:

Reference: Al-Tamhīd: 9/220–221

and Nūr al-ʿAynayn (p. 133)

⑩ Muḥammad bin Waḍḍāḥ​

The weak and rejected narrations that contain the words “ثم لا يعود” and similar wording (or the same meaning) were declared weak by Muḥammad bin Waḍḍāḥ. See:

Reference: Al-Tamhīd: 9/221

and Nūr al-ʿAynayn (p. 133)

⑪ Imām al-Bukhārī رحمه الله​

Imām al-Bukhārī announced that according to the scholars, the practice of abandoning rafʿ al-yadayn is not established from the Prophet ﷺ.

Reference: Juzʾ Rafʿ al-Yadayn: 40

He further stated that it is not established from even a single Companion of the Prophet ﷺ that he would not raise his hands (for rafʿ al-yadayn).

Reference: Juzʾ Rafʿ al-Yadayn: 72

He also spoke regarding the narration of Sufyān al-Thawrī and declared the narration of Ibn Idrīs to be preserved.

Reference: Juzʾ Rafʿ al-Yadayn: 32–33

⑫ Ibn al-Qaṭṭān al-Fāsī​

Ibn al-Qaṭṭān al-Fāsī declared the added wording (of not repeating it) to be an error.

Reference: Naṣb al-Rāyah: 1/395

— and see Nūr al-ʿAynayn (p. 133)

⑬ ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq al-Ishbīlī​

ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq al-Ishbīlī said regarding the narration: It is not authentic.

Reference: Al-Aḥkām al-Wusṭā: 1/367

— and see Nūr al-ʿAynayn (p. 133)

⑭ Ibn al-Mulaqqin​

Ibn al-Mulaqqin (teacher of Ibn Ḥajar) declared it weak.

Reference: Al-Badr al-Munīr: 3/492

— and see Nūr al-ʿAynayn (p. 133)

⑮ al-Ḥākim al-Naysābūrī​

Al-Ḥākim al-Naysābūrī declared the wording “ثم لم يعد” to be not preserved (i.e., weak).

Reference: Al-Khilāfiyyāt (al-Muḥibbī) via Al-Badr al-Munīr: 3/494

See also:

Reference: Mukhtaṣar al-Khilāfāt (al-Muḥibbī) by Ibn Farḥ al-Ishbīlī: 1/378–379

And Ḥāfiẓ Ibn al-Qayyim wrote that all aḥādīth prohibiting rafʿ al-yadayn before and after rukūʿ are false; none of them is authentic—such as the ḥadīth of Ibn Masʿūd…

Reference: Al-Manār al-Munīf, pp. 137, paras: 309–310

⑯ Imām al-Nawawī رحمه الله​

Imām al-Nawawī (Shāfiʿī) said regarding this narration:
There is agreement (besides al-Tirmidhī, among all the early scholars) that this ḥadīth is weak.

Reference: Khulāṣat al-Aḥkām: 1/354, ḥadīth 180

— see Nūr al-ʿAynayn (p. 133)

⑰–⑱ نقل without an Authentic Chain​

Ḥāfiẓ Ibn al-Qayyim نقل from al-Dāramī that he declared the narration weak.

Reference: Tahdhīb al-Sunan: 2/449

(another copy: 1/368)
However, I did not find this reference with an authentic chain. See Nūr al-ʿAynayn (p. 133).

Likewise, Ibn al-Qayyim and al-Nawawī نقل from Muḥaddith Bahz that he declared it weak.

Reference: Tahdhīb al-Sunan: 2/449

Reference: Sharḥ al-Muhadhdhab: 3/403

I also did not find this with an authentic chain. See Nūr al-ʿAynayn (p. 133).

⑲ Muḥammad bin Naṣr al-Marwazī​

Regarding the narration with the words “ثم لا يعود” and similar phrases, Imām Muḥammad bin Naṣr al-Marwazī gave special attention to the weakening of these wordings. See:

Reference: Bayān al-Awhām wa al-Īhām: 3/365–366

⑳ Ibn Qudāmah al-Maqdisī​

Ibn Qudāmah al-Maqdisī declared the narration weak.

Reference: Al-Mughnī: 1/295, issue: 690

— see Nūr al-ʿAynayn (p. 132)

Conclusion​

Even if the names of some of these critics are excluded, it remains that the majority of the muḥaddithīn and scholars considered the narration—with the wording of abandoning rafʿ al-yadayn (such as “ثم لا يعود” and similar meanings)—to be weak, not preserved, and the like.

In contrast, accepting only al-Tirmidhī’s declaring it ḥasan and Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥazm’s declaring it ṣaḥīḥ is incorrect for two reasons:

① It opposes the majority.
② It opposes the principles of ḥadīth: namely, outside Ṣaḥīḥayn, the muʿanʿan narration of a mudallis is weak.

Many scholars have described both Imām al-Tirmidhī and Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥazm as lenient. See:

Reference: Dhikr Man Yuʿtamad Qawluhu fī al-Jarḥ wa al-Taʿdīl (al-Dhahabī), p. 159

Reference: Al-Mutakallimūn fī al-Rijāl (al-Sakhāwī), p. 137

And my book:

Reference: Tawḍīḥ al-Aḥkām: 1/572–582

For detailed study on the issue of raising the hands before and after rukūʿ, read Imām al-Bukhārī’s Juzʾ Rafʿ al-Yadayn and my book Nūr al-ʿAynayn fī Ithbāt Masʾalat Rafʿ al-Yadayn—Allah willing, the truth will become clear.

وما علينا إلا البلاغ
(17 September 2009)