Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Newly discovered unique narration mentioning the abrogation of raf'ul yadayn

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    See what Shaikh Zubair Ali Zai has to say about this narration.

    Quote:
    A new narration, against rafa al-Yadain is derived which has been mentioned very frequently nowadays, in speeches and writings. Recently, a book named “Tark-e-Rafa Yadayn” has been published, in which this narration is narrated with reference to “Akhbaar ul-Fuqaha wal Muhadditheen”. Let us clear the reality of this narration also:

    The Text of the Narration

    It is written in “Akbaar ul-Fuqaha wal Muhadditheen” that:
    Uthmaan bin Muhammad narrated to me, he said: Ubaydullah bin Yahya said to me: (he said) Uthman bin Sawadah Ibn Abbaad narrated to me, From Hafs bin Maysarah, From Zayd bin Aslam, From Abdullah bin Umar (radiallah anhu), He said:
    “We would, with the Prophet (sallAllahu alayhi was sallam) in Makkah, raise our hands at the beginning of salah and within salah at the time of ruku'. Then when the Prophet (sallAllahu alayhi was sallam) migrated to Madinah, he left the raising hands within salah at the time of ruku' and continued to raise the hands at the beginning of salah.” [Pg 214 T. 378, Tark-e-Rafa yadain Pg 491]

    This narration, presented by the opposers of Rafa al-Yadayn, is Mawdoo (Fabricated) and Baatil (Void) due to several reasons

    Evidence # 1:

    There is no sanad (chain) mentioned in the beginning of the book (Pg 5), named “Akhbaar ul-Fuqaha wal Muhadditheen”.

    And at the end of this book, it says: “The book has finished and all the praises are due to Allah as is his right to be praised, and May the blessings of Allah be upon Muhammad and his offsprings, and this is Sha’baan 483 H.” [Pg 293]

    Who is the author finishing this book, 122 years after the death of the mentioned Author, Muhammad bin Harith al-Qairawaani (D. 361 H)? It is unknown. Therefore, this book is not proven to be the book of Muhammad bin Haarith Al-Qairawani.

    Evidence # 2:

    Its narrator Uthmaan bin Muhammad is unclarified. It would be wrong to say that it is Uthmaan bin Muhammad bin Ahmed bin Madrak without any proof. There is no proof of the meeting of this Ibn Madrak from Muhammad bin Harith Al-Qairawaani.

    Haafidh Dhahabi wrote:

    “Uthmaan bin Muhammad bin Khasheesh al-Qairawaani, narrates from Ibn Ghanam Qaadhi Afreekia, I think, he is Kadhaab (Liar)” [Al-Mughni fi ad-Du’afaa Vol 2 Pg 50 T. 4059]
    Uthmaan bin Muhammad is Kadhaab Qairawaani, and Muhammad bin Haarith is Qairawaani too, therefore what is apparent is that the Liar Muhammad bin Uthmaan is what is meant here.

    It should also be noted that Uthmaan bin Muhammad bin Ahmed bin Madrak is not known to be Siqah either. It is written in the book, attributed to Muhammad bin Haarith al-Qairawaani that:

    “Khaalid bin Sa’d said: ‘Uthmaan bin Muhammad is one of those who pay attention to seeking knowledge, he taught masaail and wrote scripts with calibre, he was the Mufti of his area, he died in 320 H’” [Akhbaar ul-Fuqaha wal Muhadditheen Pg 216]
    There is no indication of Tawtheeq in this saying. Therefore, he remains Majhool ul-Haal.

    Evidence # 3:

    The condition of the narrator Uthmaan bin Sawadah bin Abbaad was not found in any book except “Akhbaar ul-Fuqaha wal Muhadditheen”. It is written in Akhbaar ul-Fuqaha that:

    “Uthmaan bin Muhammad said: Ubaydullah bin Yahya said: Uthmaan bin Sawadah is Siqah Maqbool in Judgments and Ahkaam….”
    Since Uthmaan bin Muhammad is Majrooh or Majhool, this tawtheq of Ubaydullah bin Yahya is not proven.

    Therefore Uthmaan bin Sawadah is Majhool ul-Haal. His birth and death dates are also unknown.

    Evidence # 4:

    The meeting and the contemporariness of Uthmaan bin Sawadah is not proven from Hafs bin Maisarah. Hafs died in 181 H.

    Evidence # 5:

    Among the books of Muhammad bin Haarith, we find the name of “Akhbaar ul-Qudhaat wal Muhadditheen”, but we do not find the book named “Akhbaar ul-Fuqaha wal Muhadditheen”. [See: Al-Akmaal by Ibn Makoola (3/261), Al-Insaab by Al-Sma’aani (2/372). The early scholars have not mentioned this book!

    Evidence # 6:

    At the beginning of the narration, from which the opposers of Rafa al-Yadain are taking evidence, it is written that:

    “And he narrated a Hadeeth about rafa al-Yadain with chain. It is from Ghareeb narrations, and I think that it is from the Shaadh narrations.” [Akhbaar ul-Fuqaha wal Muhadditheen Pg 214]
    And it is known even to common students of knowledge that Shaadh is a type of Da’eef narration.

    All these proofs were related to the chain, now we will look at the Matn of this narration.

    Evidence # 7:

    In the Matn (text) of this narration, it says that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) left doing Rafa al-Yadain after migrating to Madeenah Munawwarah. Whereas it is proven from Saheeh ahadeeth that the Prophet (peace be upon him) used to do Rafa al-Yadain in Madeenah.

    It is narrated from Abu Qilabah (rahimahullah) that when Maalik bin Huwayrath (radiallah anhu) used to start the prayer, he used to raise his hands with Takbeer, and he used to raise his hands while doing ruku’, and he used to raise his hands after raising his head from ruku’, and he used to say that the Messenger of Allaah (peace be upon him) used to do it. [Saheeh Muslim: 1/168 H. 391, and Saheeh Bukhaari 1/102 H. 737]

    Maalik bin Huwayrath (radiallah anhu) came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) when he was preparing for Ghazwah Tabook (in Madeenah). [See: Fathul Baari Vol 2 Pg 110 H. 628]

    It is narrated from Waail bin Hujr al-Hadrami (radiallah anhu) that he saw the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) raising his hands at the beginning of Prayer, before ruku’, and after ruku’. [Saheeh Muslim Vol 1 Pg 173 H. 401]

    Aynee Hanafi writes that:

    “And Waail bin Hujr emraced Islaam in 9 hijri in Madeenah.” [Umda tul Qaari Vol 5 Pg 274]

    After that (in 10 Hijri) he came again, and he observed the practice of Rafa al-Yadain in that year also. [Sunan Abu Dawood: 272, Saheeh Ibn Hibbaan, Al-Ihsaan 3/169 H. 1857]

    So we come to know that the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not leave the rafa al-yadain of before and after ruku’ in Madeenah also. This proves that the narration of Akhbaar ul-Fuqaha is Mawdoo (Fabricated).

    Evidence # 8:

    It is narrated from Abu Hurayrah (radiallah anhu) that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) used to raise his hands in the beginning of the prayer, before ruku’, and after rku’. [Saheeh Ibn Khuzaymah: 1/344 H. 694, 695, Chain Hasan]

    It is known even to a common student of knowledge that Abu Hurayrah (radiallah anhu) came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) in Madeenah. He has stayed with him in his last four years.

    Sayyidunah Abu Hurayrah (radiallah anhu) used to do rafa al-yadain of before and after ruku’ after the death of the Prophet (peace be upon him). [Juzz Rafa al-Yadain by Bukhaari: 22]

    In this narration, the student of Abu Hurayrah and the teacher of Abu Haneefah, Ataa bin Abi Rbaah, also used to do Rafa al-Yadain before and after ruku’. [Juzz Rafa al-Yadain: 62, Chain Hasan]

    It proves that the Rafa al-Yadain of Ruku’ did not get Mansookh in Madeenah at all, therefore the narration of Akhbaar ul-Fuqaha is a Lie.

    Evidence # 9:

    It is narrated from the famous Tabi’ee, Naafi’, that Abdullah bin Umar (radiallah anhu) used to do Rafa al-Yadain in the beginning of the Prayer, before ruku, after ruku’, and after standing from two rak’aahs. [Saheeh Bukhaari: 2/102 H. 739]

    It is not possible that according to the narration of Ibn Umar, rafa al-Yadain gets mansookh and still he used to practice it. In fact He (radiallah anhu) was the first in the Ittiba of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him)

    Evidece # 10:

    Naafi’ said that Abdullah bin Umar (radiallah anhu) used to hit those with stones, who did not used to do rafa al-yadain before and after ruku’. [Juzz Rafa al-Yadain: 15, Chain Saheeh]

    Imam Nawawi writes about this narration that: “Its chain is Saheeh up to Naafi’” [Al-Majmoo Sharh al-Madhab Vol 3 Pg 405]

    How is it possible, that the rafa al-yadain is Mansookh according to the narration of Ibn Umar, and he still beats those unknown and Majhool ignorants who do not do it, after its Mansookhiyat. Imam Bukhaari said:
    “It is not from a single Sahaabi that he did not do rafa al-Yadain” [See: Juzz Rafa al-Yadain 40,76, and Al-Majmoo by An-Nawawi 3/405]

    This proves that the person not doing rafa al-yadain was not one of the Sahabah, rather a Majhool and unknown person.

    Conclusion:

    From the proofs mentioned previously, it becomes as clear as the brightness of the sun that the narration of Akhbaar ul-Fuqaha wal Muhadditheen is Mawdoo’ and Baatil, therefore taking evidence from it is absolutely wrong.

    Wama Alaina Illal Balaghah

    Comment


    • #32
      May Allah brighten your face akhee Ahl ul-Isnaad ... Going through your post and the writing of Sh. Zubair brought a big smile to my face (smile)

      May Allah reward you greatly

      We ask Allah to protect us from being from among those who attribute to the Messenger of Allah -Salah Allah 'Alaihi wa Salam- that which he did not say or do

      Barakah Allah feekum

      Comment


      • #33
        Ameen. May Allah preserve Shaikh Zubair Ali Zai. May Allah benefit this Ummah through him greatly! Ameen

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Ahl ul-Isnaad View Post
          Evidece # 10:

          Naafi’ said that Abdullah bin Umar (radiallah anhu) used to hit those with stones, who did not used to do rafa al-yadain before and after ruku’. [Juzz Rafa al-Yadain: 15, Chain Saheeh]

          Imam Nawawi writes about this narration that: “Its chain is Saheeh up to Naafi’” [Al-Majmoo Sharh al-Madhab Vol 3 Pg 405]

          How is it possible, that the rafa al-yadain is Mansookh according to the narration of Ibn Umar, and he still beats those unknown and Majhool ignorants who do not do it, after its Mansookhiyat. Imam Bukhaari said:
          “It is not from a single Sahaabi that he did not do rafa al-Yadain” [See: Juzz Rafa al-Yadain 40,76, and Al-Majmoo by An-Nawawi 3/405]

          This proves that the person not doing rafa al-yadain was not one of the Sahabah, rather a Majhool and unknown person.
          al-Daraqutni said about the stoning narration attributed to Ibn Umar (ra):

          ورواه زيد بن واقد، عن نافع، عن ابن عمر لفظا أغرب به، وهو قوله: كان إذا أبصر رجلا يصلي لا يرفع يديه حصبه

          Misri what does the red bit means ?
          Hanafi Fiqh Mutaqaddimun Movement

          Comment


          • #35
            ورواه زيد بن واقد، عن نافع، عن ابن عمر لفظا أغرب به، وهو قوله: كان إذا أبصر رجلا يصلي لا يرفع يديه حصبه
            A ghareeb hadeeth can still be Saheeh or Hasan. Being Ghareeb does not negate the authenticity of hadeeth.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Ahl ul-Isnaad View Post
              A ghareeb hadeeth can still be Saheeh or Hasan. Being Ghareeb does not negate the authenticity of hadeeth.
              According to al-Daraqutni was does a gharib hadith mean ?
              Hanafi Fiqh Mutaqaddimun Movement

              Comment


              • #37
                7ayaak Allah akhee Abu Naim
                Originally posted by abunaim View Post
                al-Daraqutni said about the stoning narration attributed to Ibn Umar (ra):
                ورواه زيد بن واقد، عن نافع، عن ابن عمر لفظا أغرب به، وهو قوله: كان إذا أبصر رجلا يصلي لا يرفع يديه حصبه
                Misri what does the red bit means ?
                Well ... This forum has a few Misri brothers. My apologies if you intended someone else, although it is better to not specify anyone, and I am sure whoever knows from the brothers will be happy to help you

                As for the term "Aghrab bih", according to al-Daraqutni -Rahimahu Allah- that is akin or similar to Tafarud. This can be seen by looking at how he uses the term in other locations in his book.

                Shaykh Abdulazeez al-Saeed mentions something similar in his explanation of al-Muqiza.

                Now according to al-Daraqutni -Rahimahu Allah- these terms by themselves do not signify weakening or authenticating, since he -Rahimahu Allah- said of traditions, for example, that 'So-and-so Tafarad bih' then declared this tradition authentic or said that it is in the Saheehayn or one of them. In other instances, he does not comment on its grading, and sometimes he weakens it. So the term by itself does not necessitate that the narration is authentic or weak.

                And Allah knows best

                Now the following from above just quote my eyes:
                Also, the supporting narration from the I’lal al Warida (13/13) of al-Daraqutni back to ibn Umar (radhiallaahu 'anh):

                فرواه بقية، عَنْ عُبَيْدِ اللَّهِ، عَنْ نَافِعٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ عُمَرَ؛ أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ كان إذا افتتح رفع يديه، ولم يزد على هذا

                Note that al-Daraqutni did not negate the authenticity of the above report but he did weaken another hadith going back to ibn Umar (radhiallaahu 'anh) mentioning raf'ul yadayn in sujud in his I’lal (13/13):

                ورواه إسماعيل بن عياش، عن موسى بن عقبة، وعبد الله بن عمر، عَنْ نَافِعٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ عُمَرَ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ؛ أنه كان يرفع في الافتتاح، وفي الركوع، وفي السجود.
                وإسماعيل بن عياش في حديثه عن المدنيين ضعف
                That is actually quite misleading, since al-Daraqutni -Rahimahu Allah- when quoting the earlier of these two traditions, was gathering the routes from Ubaydillah, and quotes four variations from this way:
                1) Baqiyah from Ubaydillah (mentioned above)
                2) Abdul-A'laa from Ubaydillah
                3) Abdulwahab from Ubaydillah
                4) Muhammad from Ubaydillah

                After quoting these four and their Mutoon, he then commented saying:

                وأشبهها بالصواب ما قاله عبد الأعلى بن عبد الأعلى


                i.e. The most similar or deserving or closer to correctness is what was said by Abdul-A'laa ibn Abdul-A'laa. The narration from his route is as follow:

                ورواه عبد الأعلى ، عن عُبَيد الله ، عن نافع ، عن ابن عُمَر ، عنِ النَّبيِّ صَلَّى الله عَلَيه وسَلم وذكر الرفع عند الافتتاح ، وعند الركوع ، وعند قوله : سمع الله لمن حمده ، وعند النهوض من الركعتين.

                saying that: the Prophet used to raise his hands: (1) in the start of the Salah, (2) at the time of Rukoo, (3) when saying Sami' Allah Liman Hamida, and (4) when raising after the two Rak'aas.

                This is the one al-Daraqutni -Rahimahu Allah- viewed as the most correct of the routes going through Ubaydillah -Rahimahu Allah-

                And Allah knows best

                Comment


                • #38
                  As salamu alaykum,

                  Since there are ''newly discovered'' narrations for leaving raf ul yadayn, i am asking myself whether there are also ''newly discovered'' narrations for doing raf ul yadayn ?

                  Was salaam.
                  Hanafi Fiqh Mutaqaddimun Movement

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Wa Alaikum Al Salam

                    Allah has guaranteed to protect and preserve His Religion, and this includes the preservation of the Sunnah, just as it includes the preservation of the Quran.

                    It was reported that the Messenger of Allah -Salah Allah 'Alaihi wa Salam- said: "A group of my ummah will continue to prevail adhering to the truth and they will not be harmed by those who oppose them, until the decree of Allah comes to pass".

                    This continuation will remain during every time, age, and generation until the Decree of Allah comes to pass, and until then there will never [FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']seize to be a group who are upon the Truth. Thus t[/FONT]he notion that something can be ''newly discovered'' that would establish something the previous generations did not know pertaining to their Deen, or that they were missing something in the Deen that we just recently discovered is rejected and utterly ridiculous.

                    This was stated by scholars of the Ummah (Reference):

                    قال ابن حزم رحمه الله
                    ـ"فمضمون عند كل من يؤمن بالله واليوم الآخر أن ما تكفل الله عز وجل بحفظه : فهو غير ضائع أبدا ، لا يشك في ذلك مسلم ، وكلام النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم كله وحي ، بقوله تعالى : ( وَمَا يَنْطِقُ عَنِ الْهَوَى * إِنْ هُوَ إِلَّا وَحْيٌ يُوحَى ) النجم 3-4 . والوحي ذكر بإجماع الأمة كلها ، والذكر محفوظ بالنص ؛ فكلامه عليه السلام محفوظ بحفظ الله عز و جل ضرورة ، منقول كله إلينا لا بد من ذلك " . انتهى . "الإحكام في أصول الأحكام" (2/201) ـ

                    وقال شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية رحمه الله :ـ
                    ـ"ولكن هذه الأمة حفظ الله لها ما أنزله ، كما قال تعالى : ( إنا نحن نزلنا الذكر وإنا له لحافظون) فما في تفسير القرآن ، أو نقل الحديث ، أو تفسيره ، مِن غلط : فإن الله يقيم له من الأمة مَن يبينه ويذكر الدليل على غلط الغالط وكذب الكاذب ، فإن هذه الأمة لا تجتمع على ضلالة ، ولا يزال فيها طائفة ظاهرة على الحق حتى تقوم الساعة ، إذ كانوا آخر الأمم ، فلا نبي بعد نبيهم ، ولا كتاب بعد كتابهم "ـ
                    ـ" الجواب الصحيح " (3/38-39)ـ

                    So if a "newly discovered" narration does surface pertaining to a matter needed in the Deen, upon further examination we can see that it is either:
                    1) among the weak and unreliable (like the "newly discovered" narration in this thread), or
                    2) it is a matter which was already established through other traditions or narrations that we have.

                    As for the matter of Raf' al-Yadayn, then it is a matter already established through many authentic traditions which the scholars of the Ummah like the Imam of the Muhaditheen al-Bukhari -Rahimahu Allah- and many noble Imams and scholars of Hadeeth, already recorded for us.

                    So again, there is nothing that can be "discovered" to establish that the Ummah in all the past generations where upon Falsehood, or a new matter is discovered in the Deen that they were unaware of for genertions. And for that reason, I see delving into such matters quite wasteful, and it is best to concentrate on what will bring more benefit.

                    And Allah knows best

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      As salamu alaykum,

                      Fiqh us Sunnah states:

                      Twenty-two companions narrated that the Prophet, upon whom be peace, did so. Reported Ibn 'Umar, "When the Prophet, upon whom be peace, stood to pray, he would raise his hands until they were the same height as his shoulders and then he would make the takbir. When he wanted to bow, he would again raise his hands in a similar fashion. When he raised his head from the bowing, he did the same and said, 'Allah hears him who praises Him.' (Related by al-Bukhari, Muslim and al-Baihaqi.) Says al-Bukhari, "He would not do that when he was going to prostrate nor when he came up from his prostration." Al-Bukhari also says, "He would not raise his hands between the two prostrations." Al-Baihaqi has the addition, "He did not stop doing that until he met Allah." Ibn al-Madini said, "In my opinion, that hadith is a proof for the whole creation. Whoever hears it must act by it. There is nothing wrong with its chain." Al-Bukhari wrote a pamphlet on this topic, and related from al-Hassan and Humaid ibn Hilal that the companions used to (perform their prayers) in this manner.
                      The narration of al-Baihaqi with the addition, i know it is classed weak or fabricated by Hanafi ulama, is this also the view of the hadith scholars ?

                      Was salaam.
                      Hanafi Fiqh Mutaqaddimun Movement

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Mahmoud Al-Misri View Post
                        As for the term "Aghrab bih", according to al-Daraqutni -Rahimahu Allah- that is akin or similar to Tafarud. This can be seen by looking at how he uses the term in other locations in his book.

                        Shaykh Abdulazeez al-Saeed mentions something similar in his explanation of al-Muqiza.

                        Now according to al-Daraqutni -Rahimahu Allah- these terms by themselves do not signify weakening or authenticating, since he -Rahimahu Allah- said of traditions, for example, that 'So-and-so Tafarad bih' then declared this tradition authentic or said that it is in the Saheehayn or one of them. In other instances, he does not comment on its grading, and sometimes he weakens it. So the term by itself does not necessitate that the narration is authentic or weak.

                        And Allah knows best
                        Shukran Jazilan... But is not al-Daraqutni stating: "With a wording that is most strange (aghrab)."? So, how can this mean that he is not weakening the wording as it is not supported from any other route except via Zayd ibn Waqid? A sanad can be Sahih but its matn can also have an Illa in it and this is what Daraqutni was emphasising (the lafz). Nor is he saying explicitly what you claimed by surmising above. But you did say:
                        So the term by itself does not necessitate that the narration is authentic or weak.
                        ... So are you saying that the matn is weak or can it also be the opposite as some thought?



                        Originally posted by Mahmoud al-Misri
                        Now the following from above just quote my eyes:

                        That is actually quite misleading, since al-Daraqutni -Rahimahu Allah- when quoting the earlier of these two traditions, was gathering the routes from Ubaydillah, and quotes four variations from this way:
                        1) Baqiyah from Ubaydillah (mentioned above)
                        2) Abdul-A'laa from Ubaydillah
                        3) Abdulwahab from Ubaydillah
                        4) Muhammad from Ubaydillah

                        After quoting these four and their Mutoon, he then commented saying:

                        وأشبهها بالصواب ما قاله عبد الأعلى بن عبد الأعلى


                        i.e. The most similar or deserving or closer to correctness is what was said by Abdul-A'laa ibn Abdul-A'laa. The narration from his route is as follow:

                        ورواه عبد الأعلى ، عن عُبَيد الله ، عن نافع ، عن ابن عُمَر ، عنِ النَّبيِّ صَلَّى الله عَلَيه وسَلم وذكر الرفع عند الافتتاح ، وعند الركوع ، وعند قوله : سمع الله لمن حمده ، وعند النهوض من الركعتين.

                        saying that: the Prophet used to raise his hands: (1) in the start of the Salah, (2) at the time of Rukoo, (3) when saying Sami' Allah Liman Hamida, and (4) when raising after the two Rak'aas.

                        This is the one al-Daraqutni -Rahimahu Allah- viewed as the most correct of the routes going through Ubaydillah -Rahimahu Allah-

                        And Allah knows best


                        Yes, but the initial poster also mentioned another narration from al-Bayhaqi's al-Khilafiyyat that al-Ayni defended (in radd to al-Haakim) and Mughultai authenticated it. Quote as mentioned before:

                        Indeed, the Khilafiyyat narration was also accepted by another major Hafiz of Hadith that was mentioned earlier, viz. Alaud-Din al-Mughulta’i as follows from his Sharh on Sunan ibn Majah (p. 1472):


                        وبحديث لا بأس بسنده، ذكره البيهقي في الخلافيات من حديث
                        محمد بن غالب، ثنا أحمد بن محمد البراني، ثنا عبد الله بن عون الخزاز،
                        ثنا مالك عن الزهري عن سالم عن ابن عمر: " أن النبي صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ كان يرفع يديه، إذا افتتح الصلاة، ثم لا يعود
                        "
                        Thus, taking into consideration also that Mujahid narrated also that Ibn Umar (ra) did not do Raful yadayn, then these are at least 3 narrations back to him (leave aside the Akhbar narration) on the abandonment of it back to Ibn Umar (ra) himself.. This is strength upon strength.

                        Also, did you not see the other narrations where at one time, Ibn Umar (ra) was raising his hands at the sajda stage as quoted before:

                        Like the following from the Musannaf ibn Abi Shayba (no. 2816, the editor – Usama ibn Ibrahim of Egypt said the sanad is Sahih):

                        حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو أُسَامَةَ ، عَنْ عُبَيْدِ اللهِ ، عَنْ نَافِعٍ ، عَنِ ابْنِ عُمَرَ : أَنَّهُ كَانَ يَرْفَعُ يَدَيْهِ إذَا رَفَعَ رَأْسَهُ مِنَ السَّجْدَةِ الأُولَى.

                        Similarly, Imam Bukhari mentioned the following in his Qurratul Aynayn from ibn Umar (radhiallaahu 'anh):

                        [ 12 ] أخبرنا أيوب بن سليمان حدثنا أبو بكر بن أبي أويس عن سليمان بن بلال عن العلاء أنه سمع سالم بن عبد الله أن أباه كان إذا رفع رأسه من السجود وإذا أراد أن يقوم رفع يديه


                        --------------------

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Bismillah ...

                          I am now fearing that this thread is being diverted into discussing every single narration about raising the hands during salah. My main intention was to just deal with the narration this thread was created for, and not to delve into every single other narration that was ever narrated about this matter. These other narrations that are already known by scholars have already been discussed by them, and you can find their rulings on these narrations by searching in the appropriate books, or asking the specialized scholars.
                          Originally posted by Abu Maryam
                          Shukran Jazilan... But is not al-Daraqutni stating: "With a wording that is most strange (aghrab)."?
                          No worries my dear brother Abu Maryam (smile) ...

                          As for your question about al-Daraqutni then the answer is No, that is not what he is stating.

                          In the terminology used by him -Rahimahu Allah- the term (Aghrab bih) is akin to Tafarud as I stated earlier, and as was pointed out in the link I posted.
                          So, how can this mean that he is not weakening the wording as it is not supported from any other route except via Zayd ibn Waqid? ...
                          As I stated earlier, it being not supported from any other route does not necessitate that it is weak, and I pointed out that al-Daraqutni -Rahimahu Allah- himself declared narrations as authentic even while not supported by any other route, or pointed out that it is in al-Bukhari and Muslim, or one of them.

                          This Tafarud can be in the text of the hadith or can be in its Sanad, can be accepted or can be weak, this is based on other criteria discussed by the scholars of this field.

                          إذا دلت القرينة على أن الراوي المخالف أو المتفرد كان واهماً أو ناسياً ، فتعد روايته معلولة ، سواء سميت شاذة أو منكرة أو مقلوبة أو مدرجة أو غير ذلك ، وأما إذا لم تدل القرينة على ذلك فإنها قد تكون صحيحة أو حسنة ؛ وذلك تبعاً لدلالة القرائن المحيطة بالحديث وقوتها ووضوحها لدى النقاد دون غيرهم
                          So we do not automatically equate a narration coming only from one route to being weak, especially when it is not opposing another authentic narration, or other indications are not present that will lead us to doing so, akhee.
                          So are you saying that the matn is weak or can it also be the opposite as some thought?
                          No I am not, this was narrated by al-Imam al-Bukhari in his book on Raf' al-Yadayn, was authenticated by al-Nawawi -Rahimahu Allah- and others, and was brought as evidence by ibn Hajar Rahimahu Allah, so definitely I am not saying the matn is weak ... I was just saying that al-Daraqutni -Rahimahu Allah- himself, with these words, is neither weakening or authenticating that addition.
                          Yes, but the initial poster also mentioned another narration from al-Bayhaqi's ...
                          That does not change the fact akhee that the way it was presented is quite misleading in representing the view of al-Daraqutni regarding which route he view most correct and acceptable.
                          another narration from al-Bayhaqi's al-Khilafiyyat that al-Ayni defended (in radd to al-Haakim) and Mughultai authenticated it.
                          Now here we will start getting into other narrations and what scholars said, which is something I really do not wish to spend much time on, since as I believe that whether you raise you hand or not your Salah will be valid, so exerting all this time and effort in discussing narrations that scholars already discussed is something I do not wish to get into ...

                          As for this narration in al-Bayhaqi's work, then after narrating it he quotes the word of al-Hakim that it is: Baatil Mawdou'

                          The Chain goes:
                          Abdullah ibn 'Awn from:
                          Malik -> al-Zuhri -> Salem -> Ibn Umar -> That the Prophet ...
                          كَانَ يَرْفَعُ يَدَيْهِ، إذَا افْتَتَحَ الصَّلَاةَ، ثُمَّ لَا يَعُودُ

                          Then he said:
                          قَالَ الْبَيْهَقِيُّ: قَالَ الْحَاكِمُ: هَذَا بَاطِلٌ مَوْضُوعٌ، وَلَا يَجُوزُ أَنْ يُذْكَرَ إلَّا عَلَى سَبِيلِ الْقَدْحِ، فَقَدْ رَوَيْنَا بِالْأَسَانِيدِ الصَّحِيحَةِ عَنْ مَالِكٍ بِخِلَافِ هَذَا

                          al-'Ayni -Rahimahu Allah- said that "this is just a claim from al-Hakim, since he did not point out the reason of the Butlaan what is it ..."

                          However, it appears al-Hakim did in fact point out the reason why this is rejected when he stated that a multitude of people narrated from Malik what opposes that with authentic chains.

                          Sh. Hamza al-Malibari gathered these in his book "al-Muwazana" that all of:
                          (1) Yahya (2) Abdullah ibn Wahb (3) Abdullah ibn Maslah (4) Qutayba (5) Yahya ibn Saeed (6) Abdullah ibn al-Muabarak (7) al-Shafii (8) Ismael ibn abi Uways (9) Abdrahman (10) Abdullah ibn Yusf (11) Khaled ibn Mikhlad (12) Uthman ibn Umar ... all these (al-Albani -Rahimahu Allah- states that ibn Abdulbar gathered about 30 names all) from

                          Malik -> al-Zuhri -> Salem -> Ibn Umar -> That the Prophet ... and the narration goes in opposition to the narration of Abdullah ibn 'Awn from Malik ...

                          not only that but also opposes what was narrated by the trusted companions of al-Zuhri (as al-Malibari mentions). This is the Illah which al-Hakim ruled the narration from the way of 'Awn as being Baatil.

                          Rather, Ibn al-Qayim -Rahimahu Allah- said in al-Manaar al-Maneef said of that route:

                          ومن شم روائح الحديث على بعد شهد بالله أنه موضوع

                          And Ibn Hajar -Rahimahu Allah- said in al-talkhees:
                          وهو مقلوب موضوع

                          As for the Mughultai -Rahimahu Allah- then what he actually said is: "Laa Ba2s Bi Isnaadih" ...

                          Before relying on a tradition though one examining it has to show that the narration has no Shuzooz, and if it does then you should deal with that apparent Shuzooz before deeming the narration acceptable.

                          al-Albani -Rahimahu Allah- said:

                          وهذا سند ظاهره الجودة ، وقد اغتر به بعض الحنفية ، فقال الحافظ مغلطاي : لا بأس بسنده ، ولا أدري كيف يقول بذلك مثل هذا الحافظ مع اشتهار الحديث في الصحيحين والسنن الأربعة ، والمسانيد عن مالك بإسناده المذكور عن ابن عمر برفع اليدين في الركوع أيضاً ، لاسيما وقد نبّه على ذلك مخرجه البيهقي وشيخه الحاكم فقالا : هذا باطل موضوع ، لا يجوز أن يذكر إلا على سبيل التعجب والقدح فيه ، فقد روينا بالأسانيد الزاهرة عن مالك خلاف هذا "
                          and then he -Rahimahu Allah- pointed out that if the only thing we have that in the Muwata of Imam Malik it is present in opposition to this variation then that should be sufficient in rejecting it:

                          " ولم لم يكن ثمة دليل على بطلان الحديث إلا وروده في كتاب الإمام مالك (الموطأ1/97) على خلاف هذه اللفظ لكفى ، فكيف وقد رواه جمع كثير من المصنفين والرواة عن مالك على خلافه ؟ "

                          al-Malibari -Hafizahu Allah- commented saying:
                          إن الحديث الذي نحن بصدده قد ضعفه الحاكم والبيهقي وغيرهما بناء على القرائن المحتفة به ، لكن من المتأخرين من رفض هذا التضعيف كالحافظ مغلطاي ،حين قال : " لا بأس بسنده " ،ومنهم من صححه ، كالشيخ محمد عابد السندي والشيخ محمد عبد الرشيد النعماني ، بناء على ثقة الراوي ، دون أن يأخذوا بعين الاعتبار ما ألمح النقاد إليه من القرائن الدالة على أن الزيادة الواردة في حديث الخراز خطأ ووهم وباطل ، فكان تصحيحهم لهذه الزيادة نموذجاً لمنهج الفقهاء المتأخرين في التصحيح والتضعيف الذي أوضحه ابن دقيق العيد وغيره من الأئمة ، وأن هذا المنهج غير مقبول ، ولا يسلم لهم ذلك ، كما صرح بذلك الحافظ ابن حجر والسخاوي وغيرهما ، كما سبق في مقدمة هذا الكتاب وما بعدها من المباحث .

                          The Shaykh -Hafizahu Allah- then goes on to discuss what scholars who oppose that state, which you can refer to if you wish.

                          Originally posted by Abu Maryam
                          Thus, taking into consideration also that Mujahid narrated also that Ibn Umar (ra) did not do Raful yadayn, then these are at least 3 narrations back to him (leave aside the Akhbar narration) on the abandonment of it back to Ibn Umar (ra) himself.. This is strength upon strength
                          As for the narration of the Akhbaar ... I have left it aside long ago akhee, and do not see it acceptable in any way, close or far (smile)
                          As for the narration of from Ubaydillah then I already mentioned earlier that al-Daraqutni himself views that one of Abdula'laa as being the most correct from that route, and it opposes what baqiya narrated, as for the other two:
                          Then one has been discussed above, and the other can be found discussed by scholars in different sources ... but as I said earlier in this post I do not wish to spend too much time in discussing all the narrations that came in the matter of raising the hand in salah, since scholars already wrote abundantly about this topic, and while I do hold that it is the Sunnah to raise the hand in other than the first Takbeer, I DO NOT SEE this matter as affected the correctness of ones Salah ...

                          My only issue is the main narration in the thread, and how it does not meet the basic criteria needed to rate it as authentic and reliable in any way ... all other narrations you can find the words of scholars about it, so search there and it will be more beneficial for you (smile)
                          Originally posted by Abu Maryam
                          did you not see the other narrations where at one time, Ibn Umar (ra) was raising his hands at the sajda stage as quoted before:
                          No I did not, and am unsure how is it related to the narration of the thread ... I did not even read the brother's post, I just skimmed through it (quicker than I did for the other), just to look and see if the brother did in fact attempt to examine the chain and show that each one of them is reliable with proper Dhabt, and if the chain is connected, etc ... or not. Apparently, not.

                          So when that was not done, I just ignored the rest because it was too long and he appeared to be writing in an angry tone.

                          Then came our dear brother Ahl ul-Isnaad with the words of Sh. Zubair, and I could say that to me at least the thread has fulfilled its purpose

                          wa Barakah Allah feekum

                          Salam

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            What about these narrations:



                            Abdullah bin Umar (ra) reports that the Prophet (salallahu alayhi was sallam) would raise his hands when saying the takbeer for ruku and at the time of saying the takbeer when falling into sujud.

                            (Tabarani in al Mujam al Awsat as quoted by Hafidh Haythami 1/102, he adds that its isnad is Saheeh.)



                            Nasr bin Ali Abdulala narrated that Abdullah Ibn Umar (ra) would raise his hands in every rise and descent, ruku, qiyaam, sitting, and between the two sajdahs and would attribute this to the Prophet (salallahu alayhi was sallam) .

                            (Tahawi in Sharh Mushkil Athaar 5831, Ibn Qattan says its sahih Bayanu‟l-Wahm 2831)
                            Hanafi Fiqh Mutaqaddimun Movement

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by abunaim View Post
                              Abdullah bin Umar (ra) reports that the Prophet (salallahu alayhi was sallam) would raise his hands when saying the takbeer for ruku and at the time of saying the takbeer when falling into sujud.
                              this refers to the raising of the hands before going into Sajdah, that is, after coming up from the rukoo' when one is in the qawma position.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                If we have narrations on raf ul yadayn only at the initial takbir, does this automatically mean raf ul yadayn at other stages in salaah are abrogated ?

                                Even if the last known practice of Nabi (sallAllahu alayhi was sallam) was to raise his blessed hands only in the initial takbir, does this prove that the raising of the hands in the other stances is definately abrogated ? Isnt it possible that it can remain a sunnah though the last action was in contra ?

                                I say this because there is a possiblity to make jam between the conflicting narrations, instead of excluding a estabilished action.

                                The Hanafi and famous Maliki stance would be than that they make tarjih on the sunnah of raising hands only in the initial takbir since they consider this to be the last action of Nabi (sallAllahu alayhi was sallam)

                                Also i am not aware of any claim for the abrogation of raf ul yadayn of any Hanafi before al-Tahawi.

                                The abrogation claim is for the first brought up by al-Tahawi (d. 321 AH) in his Sharh Maanil Athaar (note also that this is his own ration according to his methodology of reconciling conflicting narrations, he does not mention it referring to Abu Hanifa, Abu Yusuf or Imam Muhammad). About this al-Kashmiri mentioned:

                                مُتَأَخِّري الحنفية القول بالنسخ، وإنما تعلَّمُوه من الشيخ ابن الهُمَام، والشيخ اختاره تَبَعًا للطَّحَاوِيِّ. وقد عَلِمْتَ أن نسخَ الطَّحَاوِيِّ أعمُّ ممَّا في الكُتُب، فإِن المفضولَ بالنسبة إلى الفاضل، والأضعفَ دليلا بالنسبة إلى أقواه، كلُّه منسوخٌ عنده، كما يتضح ذلك لمن يُطَالِعُ كتابَه، كيفما كان إذا ثَبَتَ عندي القول بالجواز ممَّن هو أقدم في الحنفية، وسَاعَدَتْهُ الأحاديث أيضًا، فلا محيد إلا بالقول به،

                                The early Hanafi he means is al-Jassas (d. 370 AH) as he mentioned before the passage above:

                                الكُتُبَ للتصريح بالجواز فوجدتُ أبا بكرٍ الجَصَّاص قد صَرَّحَ في «أحكام القرآن» تحت قوله تعالى: {كُتِبَ عَلَيْكُمُ الصّيَامُ} (البقرة: 183) أن المسألة إذا وَرَدَت فيها الأحاديثُ والصِّحَاحُ من الجانبين، فالخلاف فيها لا يكون إلا في الاختيار لا سِيَّما إذا كانت كثيرةَ الوقوع، وعدَّ منها: الترجيعَ في الأذان، وإفرادَ الإِقامة، والجَهْرَ بالتسمية، ورَفْعَ اليدين، وحينئذٍ فاسْتَرَحْتُ حيث تخلَّصت رقبتي من الأحاديث الثابتة في الرفع. والجَصَّاص من القرن الرابع، حتى إن الكَرْخِي الذي هو من مُعَاصِري الطَّحَاوي من تلامذته، فرُتْبَتُهُ أعلى من الكبيري و«البدائع»، وصاحب «البدائع»

                                al-Kasani (d. 587 AH) says in al-Badai that when the hadiths are contradicting, leaving raising hands is better than doing it; because, if it is proved, it is merely a sunnah, if it is not proved, it is a bidah and leaving a sunnah is easier than doing a bidah.

                                He also reasoned, that if it is proved and yet left, that does not invalidate the salaah. While, if it is not proved and it is performed, that invalidate the salaah, because it is too much action with both hands of something that is not part of the salaah.

                                From this we can clonclude that al-Kasani was probably not aware that it was proved by sound narrations. And if it was proved it was also a sunnah for him.

                                Thus if it was abrogated why no one of the imaams before al-Tahawi did mention/claim it ?

                                Why did Imaam Abu Hanifa not say so in his munazara with Awzai which the Hanafi ulama have recorded in their books ? Why did Ibrahim an-Nakhai not claimed so when the narration of Wail bin Hujr was narrated to him ?
                                Hanafi Fiqh Mutaqaddimun Movement

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X