Bismillahir Rahmaanir Raheem,
Rafa Yadain opposers use this hadeeth 'Shall I not pray with you the prayer of the Messenger of Allâh (SAW)” so he prayed and he did not raise his hands except the first time.’
This hadeeth is used repeatedly by alot of brothers that Do not raise their Hands in Salaah before Rukoo and after Rukoo.
Its chain is From Sufyân; from ‘Asim bin Kulayb; from ‘Abur-Rahmân ibn al-Aswad; from ‘Alqama who said, ‘ibn Mas‘ûd said,
[Sunan Tirmidhi 59/1, H. 257 and said it is Hasan, also by Ibn Hazam in al-Muhalla 87, 88/4, and said it is Sahih]
Tahqeeq: This hadith, due to a very grave defect, is Ma’lool. And its Sanad and Matan both are Da’eef.
The followng Imams have declared it to be Da’eef and Ma’lool:
The Following a Collection of 7 Answers by Shaykh Zubair Ali Zai, translated by Brother Raza Hasan.
The majority of Muhadditheen have declared this hadith to be Da’eef and Ma’lool:
1. Shaikhul Islam, the Mujahid, and the trsutworthy, Abdullah bin al-Mubarak said:
“لم یثبت حدیث۔۔۔۔ابن مسعود”
The Hadith of Ibn Mas’ood is not established. [Sunan Tirmidhi 59/1]
Some people from the modern era, have tried to remove this Jarh of Imam Ibn al-Mubarak from this Hadith, but the following Imams, and Muhadditheen have attributed this jarah on this hadith to Imam Ibn al-Mubarak:
No Imam of Hadith has ever said that this Jarh is not related to the Hadith of Ibn Mas’ood.
2. Al-Imam al-Shafa’ee has refuted all the ahadeeth of not doing rafa yadain by saying that they are not established. [See: Kitab al-Umm Vol 7, Pg 201]
3. Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal has criticized this Hadith. [See: Juz Rafa Yadain: 32]
4. Imam Abu Haatim ar-Raazi said: "this is a mistake, and it is said the mistake is from ath-Thawri for a group of people have narrated from 'Asim and all of them have said, "that the Prophet (SAW) stood in prayer and he raised his hands, then he performed the ruku' and placed his hands together between his knees." Not one of them narrates what ath-Thawri reports." [Illal al-Hadith 96/1]
5. Imam Ad-Daruqutni said, 'it is not established'. [See: al-Illal by Daraqutni Vol 5, Pg 73]
6. Imam Ibn Hibban, in his Kitaab al-Salaah, said: 'this is the best narration that the people of Kufah narrate with regards to negating raising the hands in prayer at the ruku' and at rising from it. In reality it is the weakest of things to depend on because it has defects that invalidate it'” [Al-Talkhis al-Khabir 222/1]
7. Imam Abu Dawud said:
هَذَا حَدِيثٌ مُخْتَصَرٌ مِنْ حَدِيثٍ طَوِيلٍ وَلَيْسَ هُوَ بِصَحِيحٍ عَلَى هَذَا اللَّفْظِ
This Hadith is a summary of a long hadith, and it is not sahih with these words. [Sunan Abu Dawud, Vol 1, Pg 478]
Imam Abu Dawud and the Hadith of Ibn Mas’ood:
Some people in the 14th century have refused from the Jarah of Imam Abu Dawud on this Hadith, and by collecting some mistakes of the author of Mishkat, they have decided that this Jarah from Imam Abu Dawud is his Wahem. Though, the following Scholars have attributed this saying to Imam Abu Dawud:
So we came to know that this saying is of Imam Abu Dawud, and is related to this Hadith.
8. Yahya bin Aadam (The teacher of Imam Ahmed) [Juz rafa yadain 32]
9. Abu Bakr Ahmed bin Umer al-Bazzar have criticized this Hadith. [Al-Baher al-Zarkhar Vol 5, Pg 47]
10. Muhammad bin Wadaah has declared all the ahadith of not doing rafa yadain to be Da’eef.[Al-Tamheed 220/9]
11. Imam Bukhari has declared this Hadith to be Da’eef. [See: Juz Rafa Yadain 32, and Talkhis al-Kahbir]
12. Zaila’ee (Hanafi) narrated from Ibn al-Qattan al-Faasi that, he declared this addition (of not doing rafa yadain again) to be a Mistake. [Nasb ur-Rayaa 395/1]
13. Abdul Haqq al-Ashbaili said: It is not sahih. [Al-Ahkaam al-Wasta Vol 1, Pg 367]
14. Ibn al-Mulqan has declared it Da’eef. [Al-Badar al-Muneer 492/3]
15. Al-Haakim declared it Da’eef. [Al-Khalafiyat by Baihaqi with reference to Badar al-Muneer 493/3]
16. Imam al-Nawawi said: All the scholars are agreed upon its weakness [Al-Khulasa al-Ahkaam 354/1]
17. Imam Al-Daarimi has declared it Da’eef. [Tahdheeb al-Sunan 449/2] (I didn’t find this reference with Sahih Sanad!)
18. Al-Baihaqi declared it Da’eef. [Tahdheeb al-Sunan 449/2] (This reference was also not found with Sahih Isnad)
19. Muhammad bin Nasr al-Marwazi has declared this Hadith to be Da’eef. [Nasb ur-Rayaa 395/1]
20. Ibn Qudamah said: It is Da’eef. [Al-Mughni Vol 1, Pg 295]
They all were the great and famous scholars of the Muslim nation. Their unification on declaring this hadith to be Da’eef and ma’lool is far more superior to the authentication of Tirmidhi and Ibn Hazam. Therefore, this Hadith, without any doubt, is Da’eef.
If the expert scholars of the defects of Hadith, were to declare the hadith of a trustworthy narrator to be Da’eef, even then their tahqeeq will be accepted, because they are the experts in finding out the defects of Hadith, and their research on ahadith is evidence for us.
This (Hadith) is depended upon Sufyaan ath-Thawri as it is proven from its Takhreej.
Sufyan Ath-Thawri besides being a Trustworthy, Memorizer of Hadith, and Pious, He was also a Mudallis. [See: Taqreeb at-Tahdheeb 2445]
The following Scholars have declared him to be Mudallis:
1. Imam Yahya bin Sa’eed al-Qattan. [Kitaab al-Illal wa ma’rifat al-rijal 207/1]
2. Imam Bukhari. [Al-Illal al-Kabeer by Tirmidhi 966/2]
3. Yahya bin Ma’een. [Al-Jarah wal Ta’deel 225/4]
4. Abu Mahmood al-Maqdasi. [Qasidah fil Mudalliseen Pg 47]
5. Ibn al-Tarkamani Hanafi. [Al-Jawahir al-Naqi Vol 8, Pg 262]
6. Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani. [Tabaqaat al-Mudalliseen Pg 32]
7. Al-Dhahabi. [Seer A’lam al-Nabula 242/7]
Hafidh Dhahabi said in Mizaan al-I’tidaal (169/2) that:
“ان کان یدلس عن الضعفاء ولکن لہ نقد ذوق ولا عبرۃ لقول من قال یدلس ویکتب عن الکذابین”
[Seer A’lam al-Nabula 242/7] “وربما دلس عن الضعفاء”
[Same: 274/7] “لانہ کان یحدث عن الضعفاء”
From this witness of Hafidh Dhahabi, we came to know that Sufyan used to do Tadlees from Da’eef narrators. Those who do Tadlees from Du’fa, their narrations narrated by “AN-عن" are Da’eef.
Abu Bakr al-Seerfi said in Kitaab Al-Dalaail that:
Every narrator whose Tadlees gets proven from Da’eef narrators, then his narrations will not be accepted until he says: “Haddathani, or Sami’tu". Meaning when he affirms his hearing only then his narration will be accepted. [See: Al-Nakt by al-Zarkashi Pg 184]
8. Salaah ud-Deen al-Alaai said in Jaami al-Tahseel fi Ahkaam al-Maraseel (Pg 99) that: “Sufyan ath-Thawri used to do Tadlees with those Majhul people who were not known”
9. Hafidh Ibn Rajab (Sharh Illal al-Tirmidhi 358/1) said: Sufyaan ath-Thawri and others used to do tadlees even with those whom they never heard.
10. Abu Na’eem al-Fadal bin Dukain al-Kufi. [Tarikh abu Zur’ah al-Dimashqi 1193]
11. Abu Aasim al-Dahaak bin Makhlad al-Nabeel. [Sunan ad-Daraqutni 201/3]
12. Ali bin Abdullah al-Madini. [Al-Kifayaa by al-Khateeb Pg 362]
13. Abu Zur’a ibn al-Iraaqi, [Kitaab al-Mudalliseen: 21]
14. Haakim. [Ma’rifat Uloom al-Hadith 106]
15. Al-Aini Hanafi. [Umdatul Qari Vol3, Pg 112]
16. Al-Karmani. [Sharh Sahih Bukhari 62/3]
17. Ibn Hibaan. [Al-Ihsaan 61/1]
18. Al-Suyooti. [Asmaa min arfa bil-Tadlees: 24]
19. Al-Halabi. [Al-Tabiyeen fi asma al-Mudalliseen: 27]
20. Qastalani said: Sufyan ath-Thawri is a Mudallis, and the “An-ana” of Mudallis is not acceptable, unless if its affirmation gets proven. [Irshad al-Saari Sharh Sahih Bukhari Vol1, Pg 286]
Sarfaraz Safdar Deobandi writes in his book “Ahsan ul-Kalaam” that: Abu Qilaba was Siqqah but was a Mudallis….Abu Qilbah also used to do Tadlees with those who he met and those who he didn’t meet. [Vol2, Pg 111]
If, from the saying of Hafidh Dhahabi: Abu Qilaba can be called a Mudallis, then why can’t Sufyan be called a Mudallis from the saying of Ibn Rajab?
Though Abu Qilaaba was not a Mudallis. Abu Haatim al-Raazi has refuted the accusation of Tadlees on him. (See: Al-Jarah wal Ta’deel 8/5)
The authentication of the ahadith of Abu Qilabah which are narrated by “AN” has been done by many scholars including: Bukhari, Mislim, and Dhahabi etc.
How can a saying of later (Mutakhir) scholar be accepted in front of the saying of Former (Mutaqaddim) scholars? Did any Muhaddith ever even say that Abu Qilabah used to do tadlees with weak narrators?
Rejecting the “An-ana” of Abu Qilabah who was not a Mudallis, and accepting the “AN-ana” of Sufyan, who used to do tadlees with Du’fa, is similar to the murder of Justice. Allah will definitely ask the Zaalimoon. No one will be able to help them on that day.
Note: Shaikh Muhammad Naasir ud-Deen Albani has declared a sanad, Da’eef due to the “AN-ana” of Abu Qilabah. [Haashiya Sahih Ibn Khuzaimah Vol 3, Pg 268]
Though Abu Qilabah being a Mudallis is not correct, those who declared him to be Mudallis after many hundred years, have added him in the First Tabqa (those Mudalliseen whose Tadlees is not harmful). His tadlees with Du’fa is also not proven. Allamah Albani has declared his ahadith to be da’eef, but he has declared the ahadith of Sufyan, who used to do tadlees with Du’fa, to be Sahih in Ta’liqaat of Mishkat.
We have explained with proofs that this authentication of Allamah Albani is wrong, and is against the principles of Muhadditheen, therefore it is rejectable.
The Dhahabi of this era, Shaikh Abdur-Rehmaan Al-Mu’allami Al-Yamani, has also declared this hadith to be da’eef due to the “AN-ana” of Sufyaan. [Al-Tankeel bima fi Taneeb al-Kawthari mn al-abateel 2, Pg: 20]
The summary is that, Sufyan was a Mudallis, and according to the tahqeeq of Sarfaraz Khan Safdar, He was a very extreme Mudallis. Therefore, his “Mu’AN-an” ahadith are Da’eef in the absence of Mutabi’at.
The “AN-ana” of a Mudallis:
Imam Ibn al-Salah said: “The ruling concerning such narrators is that, the only hadith that will be accepted from them is where they affirm their hearing. Imam Shaf’aee has said this thing for every person, who commits Tadlees even once. [Muqaddimah Ibn al-Salah, Pg 99]
Imam Yahya bin Ma’een said: “The Mudallis is not a proof in his Tadlees.” (al-Kifaayah (p.362) and Sharh Ellal at-Tirmidhee (1/353) and (1/357-358)
Therefore, this “mu-AN-an” narration of Sufyan ath-Thawri (Rahimahullah) (who used to do tadlees from Du’fa and Majaheel) is Da’eef. In presence of the Sahih ahadith, the existance or non-existance of Da’eef hadith is equal.
Discussion on the Third Tabqa (Tabqa Thania):
From the above mentioned details, it is proven that Sufyan ath-Thawri was a very strong Mudallis. Therefore, mentioning him in the second level of Mudalliseen is wrong, but Hafidh Ibn Hajr has added him in the second level. [Tabqaat al-Mudalliseen Pg 32]
Before Hafidh Ibn Hajr, Imam Haakim al-Nisaburi, has added Sufyaan in the third level of Mudalliseen. [Ma’rifat Uloom al-Hadith, Pg 106]
Imam Haakim was more expert and superior than Hafidh Ibn Hajr. In light of the following proofs, Imam Haakim’s saying is correct, and Hafidh Ibn Hajr’s saying is wrong.
Benefit # 1: Sufyan ath-Thawri did not used to do tadlees from the following Shuyookh:
Habeeb bin Abi Thabit, Salamah bin Kuhail, and Mansoor etc. [Al-Illal al-Kabeer by al-Tirmidhi 966/2]
Benefit # 2: The narration of Yahya bin Sa’eed al-Qattan from Sufyan ath-Thawri is with the affirmation of hearing. [See: Kitab al-Illal wa Ma’rifat ur-Rijaal 207/1]
Benefit # 3: If a reliable Mutabi’at of a Mudallis is found then his narration becomes strong. In this narration, Sufyan Ath-Thawri is alone in narrating from Aasim bin Kulaib, and it has no reliable Mutabi’at. Therefoe, its sanad is Da’eef.
(The following answers are for those that insist that this hadeeth is authentic and proves Non Rafa Yadain)
There is no mention of the rafa yadain of ruku’ in this narration of Sufyan ath-Thawri, therefore, this narration is general.
If it is considered general then even the opposers of rafa yadain do not follow this Hadith. They raise their hands in Witr after the first Takbeer (while this hadith only says to raise the hands in the first takbeer). They raise their hands after the first takbeer in the prayers of Eidain. If the exception of Witr and Eidain is proven from other ahadith, then the exception of rafa yadain before and after ruku’ is also proven from other ahadith.
It is essential for those who take evidence from this hadith, that first they try to save the rafa yadain of witr and eidain from the generality of this hadith.
Note: The opposition of the rafa yadain of before and after ruku is not proven from any Sahih hadith. The ahadith of the opposers are Baatil, Da’eef, and Mardood. [For more details see the book of Hafidh Ibn al-Qayyim, Manar al-Maneef pg 137]
As it is stated above, that this hadith doesn’t mention about the rafa yadain of before and after ruku, Imam Abu Dawud has brought this hadith under the chapter heading:
(Chapter of those who did not mention about the rafa yadain in ruku) “بَاب مَنْ لَمْ يَذْكُرِ الرَّفْعَ عِنْدَ الرُّكُوعِ”
And it is known even to common students that, (after mentioning the proof of a thing) mentioning of anything afterwards, is not a proof of the prohibition of what is mentioned before.
Ibn al-Tarkamani Hanafi said: “The one who does not mention about a thing is not a Hujjah on one who mentions it.” [Al-Johar al-Naqi Vol 4, Pg 317]
The famous Muhaddith Hafidh Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani said:
[Al-Darayah Vol 1, Pg 225] “ولا یلزم من عدم ذکر الشئ عدم وقوعہ”
Therefore, even with this aformementioned Da’eef hadith of Sufyan ath-Thawri, the opposition of rafa yadain does not get proven.
There is negation in the Hadith of Sufyan, while in the Mutawaatir ahadith of Sahihain, there is confirmation, and it is known even to ordinary students that confirmation is precedent over negation.
Imam Nawawi said: Acting upon the (sahih) ahadith of rafa yadain is superior, because they contain the confirmation, while this (the hadith of Sufyan) is negation. Thus confirmation will take precedence over negation due to it being excessive in knowledge. [Al-Majmoo’ Sharh Madhab 403/3]
Hanafis say that even Karkhi Hanafi (d. 317) has declared the confirmation (of something) to be superior to the negation, to act upon. [See: Noor ul-Anwaar: Pg 197]
For more details see: Nasb ur-Rayaa (359/1), and Fathul Bari (333/1)
Some scholars have said that this hadith means that Ibn Mas’ood raised his hands only once with the First Takbeer, not again and again. (Meaning the rafa yadain of first takbeer was done only once by him).
[See: Mishkaat al-Masaabih Pg 77, H. 809]
Imam Nawawi said: Our companions have said that if this hadith was authentic, then its meaning would be that, he did not used to do rafa yadain again and again, in the beginning of the prayer and in the beginning of other rakahs. (It does not have to do anything with the rafa yadain of ruku), from this Ta’weel, all the ahadeeth will be followed.
Even if this Hadith, for the sake of argument, were to be authentic, then still it would be considered abrogated (Mansookh).
Imam Ahmed bin Al-Husain al-Baihaqi said: It’s possible that in the beginning, Tark-e-Rafa Yadain was present when the permissiblity of rafa yadain was not there, and after that it got abrogated, and the rafa yadain of before and after ruku’ became the sunnah, and these two things remained the same with Ibn Mas’ood.
[Ma’rifat al-Sunan wal Athaar Vol 1, Pg 220]
Note: This is a retaliatory (Ilzaami) answer; otherwise the reality is that this hadith is not proven from Ibn Mas’ood.
Hafidh Ibn Hazam writes about this Hadith of Ibn Mas’ood that: If this hadith was not there, then the rafa yadain would have been obligatory with every bending, rising, Takbeer, and Tamheed. [Al-Muhalla Vol 4, 88]
In the light of the above details, the hadith of Ibn Mas’ood presented by Ibn Hazam, due to several defects, is proven to be Da’eef.
Therefore, let the people decide (who use his saying against this hadith) , what is the position of rafa yadain according to Ibn Hazam? Doesn’t it become obligatory according to him?
Rafa Yadain before Rukoo and After Rukoo is the Sunnah and all the ahadeeth used to oppose it are either weak or misunderstood. Allah knows best.