6. Narrated from „Asim ibn Kulayb from his father that „Ali (Allah be pleased with him) would raise his hands in the first takbir of Salah and then would not raise it thereafter. Al-Tahawi narrated it (1:132). Al-Zayla„i said: “It is a sahih narration.” (Nasb al-Rayah, 1:211). And [Ibn Hajar al-„Asqalani mentioned] in al-Dirayah (p. 85): “Its narrators are trustworthy.” It is mentioned in al-Ta„liq al-Hasan (1:107): “Al-„Ayni said in „Umdat al-Qari: „The chain of the hadith of „Asim ibn Kulayb is sahih according to the criteria of Muslim.‟”
I say: Its significance to the chapter is obvious. It is contradicted by what al-Bayhaqi transmitted as mentioned in al-Jawhar al-Naqi (1:135) from the hadith of Ibn Abi al-Zinad from Musa ibn ‘Uqbah from ‘Abd Allah ibn al-Fadl from ‘Abd al-Rahman al-A‘raj from ‘Ubayd Allah ibn Abi Rafi‘ from ‘Ali, [and then he quoted] the hadith in which is mentioned that he (Allah be pleased with him) would raise his hands upon bowing and when he stood from the two prostrations.
I say: Ibn Abi al-Zinad is ‘Abd al-Rahman. Ibn Hanbal said, “Conflicted in hadith,” and he said, “He and Abu Hatim are not used as proof.” ‘Amr ibn ‘Ali said, “Ibn Mahdi abandoned him.”
There is also an addition in this hadith which is raising [the hands] upon standing from the two prostrations. Therefore, al-Shafi‘i is obliged to profess this too assuming the authenticity of the hadith, though he does not hold this view. Al-Bayhaqi narrated this hadith earlier in “The Chapter on the Opening of Salah after Takbir” and he narrated with it the narration of Ibn Jurayj from Ibn ‘Uqbah with his chain, and there is no [mention] in it of raising [the hands] upon bowing and rising from it; and there is no comparison between Ibn Jurayj and Ibn Abi al-Zinad [as Ibn Jurayj is an agreed-upon trustworthy hadith master]. Al-Bayhaqi attributed to Muslim in that [chapter] that he transmitted the hadith from al-Majishun from al-A‘raj with this chain of his, and in this too there is no [mention] of raising [the hands] upon bowing and rising from it.
The upshot is that this hadith of Ibn Abi al-Zinad is anomalous (shadhdh), in which he contradicted trustworthy narrators, and he produced an addition which they did not produce, and although he is disagreed upon, and disagreement does not harm [the use of a hadith as proof], this is [only] when it is not contradicted by [evidence] stronger than it, and here this is not so, for the hadith of ‘Asim ibn Kulayb from his father from ‘Ali contradicts it, which is more authentic than it and stronger, as it is according to the criteria of Muslim.
It is also mentioned in al-Jawhar al-Naqi after his aforementioned statement:
Al-Tahawi said: “Not raising [the hands] in other than the first takbir is authentic from ‘Ali, and it is improbable that he would do this after the Prophet (upon him peace) unless it was after the hadith’s abrogation was established according to him.” (1:135)
7. Narrated from Mujahid: He said: “I prayed behind Ibn „Umar, and he would not raise his hands except in the first takbir of Salah.” Al-Tahawi, Abu Bakr ibn Abi Shaybah and al-Bayhaqi in al-Ma„rifah narrated it and its chain is sahih, as mentioned in Athar al-Sunan (1:108).
I say: It is contradicted by what al-Bukhari narrated in his Sahih from Nafi‘ that Ibn ‘Umar would, when he entered into Salah, say takbir and raise his hands, and when he said “sami‘ Allahu liman hamidah” he raised his hands, and when he stood from two rak‘ahs, he raised his hands; and Ibn ‘Umar attributed this to the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) (Fath al-Bari, 2:84).
Hafiz [Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani] objected to the hadith of Mujahid, saying:
They [i.e. those who adduce this narration as proof] are refuted by criticism of its chain because the memory of Abu Bakr ibn ‘Ayyash, its narrator, worsened near the end of his life, and even assuming its authenticity, Salim, Nafi‘ and others affirmed this [i.e. the practice of raising the hands] from him [i.e. Ibn ‘Umar], and the greater number is given preference over a single [narrator], especially since they are affirming and he [i.e. Mujahid] is negating [and affirmation is given precedence over negation]. Moreover, harmonising the two narrations is possible, by [postulating] that he did not regard it as an obligation, so he performed it sometimes and omitted it sometimes.
I say: Abu Bakr ibn ‘Ayyash having weakened in memory towards the end of his life does not harm us after what Ibn ‘Adi said about him:
This Abu Bakr is a famous Kufan, and he narrates from the greatest of people…There is no harm in him in all his narrations from all he narrated from, and this is because I did not find any of his hadiths objectionable (munkar) when a trustworthy narrator narrated from him, unless he narrated from a weak narrator. (This is mentioned in Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, 12:35)
This hadith is via the narration of a trustworthy narrator from him, since Ahmad ibn Yunus narrated it from him, and he is from the narrators of the Group [i.e. the six famous collectors of hadith], as is mentioned in it [i.e. Tahdhib al-Tahdhib] (1:50), and al-Bukhari used him [i.e. Abu Bakr ibn ‘Ayyash] as proof through the route of Ahmad ibn Yunus in the “Book of Exegesis” of his Sahih.¹
When a Mujtahid Adduces Evidence from a Hadith it is an Authentication of it
‘Allamah Zahir said in al-Ta‘liq al-Hasan (1:108):
Furthermore, ‘Abd al-‘Aziz ibn Hakim agreed with this hadith of Mujahid according to Muhammad ibn al-Hasan in his Muwatta’. He said: “Muhammad ibn Aban ibn Salih reported to us from ‘Abd al-‘Aziz ibn Hakim, he said: ‘I saw Ibn ‘Umar raising his hands to the level of his ears in the first takbir of the opening of Salah,’ and he did not see him raising them in other than this [part of Salah].”
It has preceded that although Muhammad ibn Aban is weak, he is not from those who would lie, and his hadiths are written, so the hadith of Mujahid is strengthened thereby, while Muhammad ibn al-Hasan is a trustworthy mujtahid Imam according to us, and he mentioned this hadith in the context of proof, and when a mujtahid adduces evidence from a hadith it is an authentication of it as mentioned in al-Tahrir and other [books]. This was mentioned in Radd al-Muhtar (4:57).
The Trustworthiness of Husayn ibn „Abd al-Rahman al-Sulami
Al-Tahawi narrated the hadith of Mujahid from Ibn Abi Dawud, he said: Ahmad ibn Yunus narrated to us, he said: Abu Bakr ibn ‘Ayyash narrated to us from Husayn from Mujahid, and then he mentioned it. Ibrahim ibn Abi Dawud, the teacher of al-Tahawi, is trustworthy as has preceded, and the remainder of the narrators are the narrators of the Group. This Husayn is Ibn ‘Abd al-Rahman Abu al-Hudhayl al-Sulami. Al-Dhahabi mentioned him in Tadhkirat al-Huffaz and said: “He was trustworthy, a proof, a hafiz with a high chain, and Ahmad said: ‘Husayn is trustworthy and reliable, from the senior scholars of hadith.’” (1:136). He also mentioned him in al-Mizan and said: “Al-Bukhari, Ibn ‘Adi and al-‘Uqayli mentioned him in Kitab al-Du‘afa, and this is why I mentioned him [in al-Mizan], for otherwise he is from the trustworthy narrators.”
As for the statement of Hafiz [Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani], “The greater number is given preference over a single [narrator], especially since they are affirming and he [i.e. Mujahid] is negating,” the answer to this is that harmonising the hadiths is possible by [postulating] that he would raise [his hands] initially due to a lack of knowledge of the abrogation of raising [the hands] in what is besides the opening, and then he left it once he knew of it, thus it is improper to leave one of these [narrations] for the other. And although affirmation is given preference over negation, this is not absolute, rather this is when there is no evidence for negation, and the matter here is not so, for Mujahid (Allah be pleased with him) truly strove to be particular about the actions of Ibn ‘Umar (Allah be pleased with them) in Salah, and then he reported on it, as is indicated by his statement, “I prayed behind Ibn ‘Umar…” His negation is, therefore, akin to affirmation.
That which al-Bukhari narrated in Juz’ Raf‘ al-Yadayn (p. 10):
Al-Humaydi narrated to us: al-Walid ibn Muslim reported to us, he said: I heard Zayd ibn Waqid narrate from Nafi‘ that when Ibn ‘Umar (Allah be pleased with them) would see a man not raising his hands when he bowed and when he rose [from bowing], he would pelt him with pebbles.
It is interpreted to [mean] that he would do this to those who regarding the raising [of the hands] as an innovation and necessary to avoid, for otherwise it is established from him that he would not raise [his hands] when bowing and after it, and this is authentic from [Abu Bakr] al-Siddiq (Allah be pleased with him), ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab and ‘Ali (Allah be pleased with them) as has preceded in the main text. ‘Allamah Ibn al-Turkumani said in al-Jawhar al-Naqi: “I have not found anyone mentioning ‘Uthman (Allah be pleased with him) amongst the group of those who would raise their hands when bowing and rising from it.” (1:140). Hence, it is not possible for Ibn ‘Umar to throw pebbles at one who would act upon the practice of the rightly guided caliphs, unless it is understood in the way we mentioned. And Allah knows best.
[Hadiths Eight & Nine]
8. Waki„ narrated to us from Mis„ar from Abu Ma„shar – I think he is Ziyad ibn Kulayb al-Tamimi – from Ibrahim from „Abd Allah that he would raise his hands at the start of when he began [the Salah], and then he would not raise them.” Ibn Abi Shaybah narrated it and this is a sahih chain as mentioned in al-Jawhar al-Naqi (1:139).
Ibrahim did not hear from Ibn Mas„ud, however his disconnected narration from him has the ruling of being connected as has passed many times. Al-Tahawi (1:133) said: “When Ibrahim would disconnectedly narrate from „Abd Allah, he would not disconnect it except after its authenticity [was established] according to him and the recurrence of the narrations from „Abd Allah [was established].”
9. Waki„ and Abu Usamah narrated to us from Shu„bah from Abu Ishaq: He said: “The companions of „Abd Allah and the companions of „Ali would not raise their hands except in the opening of Salah.” Waki„ said: “Then they would not repeat [it].” Abu Bakr ibn Abi Shaybah narrated it in his Musannaf and its chain is sahih and prominent (Al-Jawhar al-Naqi, 1:139).
I say: Their significance to the chapter is obvious. The hadith of Abu Ishaq proves the accuracy of what ‘Asim ibn Kulayb narrated from his father from ‘Ali that he would raise his hands in the first takbir and then would not raise [his hands] thereafter, because the companions of ‘Ali would similarly not raise [their hands] in other than the opening.
10. Narrated from Muhammad ibn Jabir from Hammad ibn Abi Sulayman from Ibrahim from „Alqamah from Ibn Mas„ud: “I prayed behind the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace), Abu Bakr and „Umar, and they did not raise their hands except at the start of Salah.” Al-Bayhaqi transmitted it and its chain is good (jayyid), as mentioned in al-Jawhar al-Naqi (1:138).[Ibn al-Turkumani] said in al-Jawhar al-Naqi (1:138):
Al-Bayhaqi then related from al-Daraqutni that he said: “Muhammad ibn Jabir is isolated in narrating it and he was weak. [Those] besides Hammad narrated it from Ibrahim disconnectedly from ‘Abd Allah from his practice, not traced to the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace), and this is correct.”
I say: Ibn ‘Adi mentioned that Ishaq ibn Abi Isra’il would prefer Muhammad ibn Jabir over a group of narrators who were superior and more trustworthy than him. Great luminaries have narrated from him, like Ayyub, Ibn ‘Awn, Hisham ibn Hassan, the two Sufyans, Shu‘bah and others, and were he not at that level, such individuals that he is beneath would not have narrated from him.
He was inconsistent in hadiths, and despite the criticism, his hadiths are written. Al-Fallas said: “Truthful (saduq),”² and ibn Hibban included him in Kitab al-Thiqat.
The Group with the exception of al-Bukhari narrated from Hammad ibn Abi Sulayman, and Yahya al-Qattan and Ahmad ibn ‘Abd Allah al-‘Ijli declared him trustworthy. Shu‘bah said: “He was truthful of tongue.” And when a connected report conflicts with a disconnected report and a narration traced [to the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace)] conflicts with a narration halted [at a Sahabi], the judgement according to most of them is given in favour of the connected report and the narrator who traced [it to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)], because they added, and the addition of a trustworthy narrator is accepted.
I say: In Mizan al-I‘tidal under the notice of Muhammad ibn Jabir (3:34), [it says]: “In sum, imams and huffaz narrated from Muhammad ibn Jabir,” while also, al-Daraqutni’s criticism of this hadith of his is not a [valid] criticism of it, since the disconnected narrations of Ibrahim, in particular from ‘Abd Allah ibn Mas‘ud, are authentic as you came to know many times.
As for his statement, “[Those] besides Hammad narrated it from Ibrahim disconnectedly from ‘Abd Allah from his practice, not traced to the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace),” this is also not an [acceptable] criticism, since although what [those] besides Hammad narrated is not traced [to the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace)] explicitly, it is in the ruling of being traced [to the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace)], since al-Tirmidhi narrated it from ‘Asim ibn Kulayb from ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Aswad from ‘Alqamah, he said: ‘Abd Allah said: “Should I not pray with you the Salah of Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace)?” Thereupon, he prayed not raising his hands except in the first instance. And al-Nasa’i narrated it from ‘Asim from ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Aswad from ‘Alqamah from ‘Abd Allah ibn Mas‘ud, he said: “Should I not inform you of the Salah of Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace)?” He said: “Thereupon, he stood and raised his hands in the first instance and then did not repeat [it].” Ibn Abi Shaybah narrated it as did Ahmad and Abu Dawud from ‘Asim from ‘Abd al-Rahman from ‘Alqamah from ‘Abd Allah: “Should I not show you the Salah of Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace)?” and the wording of Ahmad and Abu Dawud is: “Should I not pray for you the Salah of Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace)?” Then they mentioned the like of it, without “then he did not repeat.” It is not hidden that such [a report] has the ruling of being traced [to the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace)] according to them [i.e. the scholars of hadith].
It is mentioned In Tahdhib al-Tahdhib (9:89): “Ibn Abi Hatim narrated from Muhammad ibn Yahya: I heard Abu al-Walid say: ‘We do injustice to Muhammad ibn Jabir by not narrating from him.’” It is also [mentioned] in it (9:90): “Al-Dhuhli said: ‘There is no harm in him.’” It is mentioned in al-Taqrib: “Abu Hatim preferred him over Ibn Lahi‘ah.” (p. 179). You are aware that Ibn Lahi‘ah’s hadiths are hasan as has preceded more than once, so the hadiths of Muhammad ibn Jabir are not less than hasan. I say: And Shu‘bah only narrates from trustworthy narrators according to him as has preceded, and he narrated from him, so he is trustworthy according to him. It says in the introduction to Tahdhib al-Tahdhib (1:5): “I do not turn away from this [practice] except for a purpose like the narrator being known only to narrate from a trustworthy narrator, in which case I will list all his teachers or most of them, like Shu‘bah, Malik and others.”³
[Footnotes to Part Two]
1. Al-Bukhari does not use the hadith of one who changed towards the end of his life as proof unless it is through the route of his companions who heard from him before he became confused, as is known from the conditions of his Sahih. (Mawlana Zafar Ahmad al-‘Uthmani)
2. I [Mawlana Zafar Ahmad al-‘Uthmani] say: This quote is deficient. It is mentioned in Tahdhib al-Tahdhib (1:89): “‘Amr ibn ‘Ali (i.e. al-Fallas) said: ‘Truthful, many mistakes, abandoned.’ Ibn Hibban said: ‘He was blind and included in his books what is not from his narrations and he stole what is mentioned in them and narrated them.’” So what benefit is there in his [i.e. al-Fallas’s] statement: “Truthful” and his inclusion in Kitab al-Thiqat with [the existence of] this statement? In sum, Muhammad ibn Jabir is criticised, some declared him trustworthy and others weakened him, but he does not fall below the level of proof, especially since this hadith of his has authentic corroborants which we mentioned in the main text.
3. I [Mawlana Zafar Ahmad al-‘Uthmani] say: Likewise, al-Bukhari only narrated from trustworthy narrators, thus it is mentioned in Shifa’ al-Siqam (p. 8) from Shaykh Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiyyah: “Those who speak on narrator-criticism from the scholars of hadith are of two categories: Some of them only narrate from trustworthy narrators according to them, like Malik, Shu‘bah, Yahya ibn Sa‘id, ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Mahdi and Ahmad ibn Hanbal, as well as al-Bukhari and his likes.” I say: Like Muslim, al-Nasa’i, Abu Dawud and Ibn Khuzaymah. Ibn al-Qattan said: “Abu Dawud only narrates from trustworthy narrators according to him.” This is mentioned in Nasb al-Rayah (1:104). It is mentioned in Mizan al-I‘tidal: “Al-Khatib said: ‘Abu al-Walid’s reliability according to us is not what Abu Bakr al-Baghandi narrated from al-Sukri, rather he was from the people of integrity. Al-Nasa’i narrated from him, and this is sufficient for you.’” (1:54) It is mentioned in Majma‘ al-Zawa’id: “The teachers of Ahmad are trustworthy.” (1:80)