Two Imams Declare Ibn ʿUmar’s Non-Rafʿ Narration Baseless

✦ Two Major Imams’ Criticism on the Weak Narration Attributed to ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿUmar About Abandoning Rafʿ al-Yadayn​

Source: Fatāwā ʿIlmiyyah, Volume 1, Kitāb al-Ṣalāh, Page 349

❖ The Question​

A narration attributed to ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿUmar رضي الله عنه is cited in al-Zuhri, Vol. 1, p. 110, and elsewhere, implying he abandoned Rafʿ al-Yadayn.


Sarfraz Khān Ṣafdar wrote in Khazāʾin al-Sunan, Vol. 1, p. 101:


“Imām al-Bayhaqī and others who declared this narration baseless or fabricated have done so due to their error and prejudice.”


Question: Has any reliable Imām of ḥadīth ever authenticated this narration?

❖ Scholarly Answer​

Al-ḥamdu lillāh, waṣ-ṣalātu was-salāmu ʿalā Rasūlillāh, Ammā Baʿd:

✦ Position of the Scholars of Ḥadīth​

To my knowledge, no reputable scholar of ḥadīth has ever declared this narration as Ṣaḥīḥ (authentic) or Ḥasan (good).


Rather, multiple leading Imāms — including but not limited to Imām al-Bayhaqī — have strongly criticized this narration using the terms:


◈ "Wahm" (delusion/error)
◈ "Lā aṣl lahu" (has no basis)
◈ "Bāṭil" (false/fabricated)

✦ Statements from Two Renowned Imāms​

➊ Imām Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn رحمه الله​

He stated:


"This narration is a wahm (error) from Abū Bakr ibn ʿAyyāsh, and has no basis whatsoever."
(Juzʾ Rafʿ al-Yadayn, p. 56)


Abū Bakr ibn ʿAyyāsh is the central narrator in this claim, and this error is attributed directly to him by one of the earliest and most rigorous critics of narrators.

➋ Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal رحمه الله​

He declared:


"Huwa bāṭil" — This narration is false.
(Masāʾil Aḥmad, transmitted by Isḥāq ibn Ibrāhīm ibn Hāfī al-Naysābūrī, Vol. –, p. 50)


Imām Aḥmad, being one of the four great Imāms, categorically rejected this narration.

❖ Contrast Between Experts and Biased Individuals​

The opinions of experts in the sciences of ḥadīth and ʿilal (hidden defects) hold authentic weight in the evaluation of narrations.


In contrast, the opinions of those who:


◈ Belong to an opposing school of thought, and
◈ Are known for inconsistencies, false attributions, and deceptive claims


— are not credible in matters of ḥadīth authentication.


Example Reference:
Weekly al-Iʿtiṣām, Lahore — 27 June 1997

Conclusion​

The narration attributed to ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿUmar رضي الله عنه stating that he abandoned Rafʿ al-Yadayn is:


Not authentic according to any verified scholar
Declared false and groundless by both Imām Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn and Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal


Using this narration as a legitimate argument is baseless and in contradiction with established ḥadīth methodology.


ھٰذَا مَا عِندِي، وَاللّٰهُ أَعْلَمُ بِالصَّوَاب