Raising the hands after prayer – al-Fawzān, Al-Albānī, Ibn Taymiyyah

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Hudhayfah ibn al-Yamān (رضي الله عنه) said: “Every act of worship that the Companions of the Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) did not worship with, then do not worship with it.” (Link)

Shaykh Sālih al-Fawzān said:

“… As for raising the hands after the obligatory prayer, this is an innovation (bid’ah), because it was neither the action of the Prophet (ﷺ) nor that of his companions. They did not raise their hands after the obligatory prayers; rather, each one would make du’ā (to Allāh) to himself without raising his voice, without collective voices, and without one person, such as the Imām, making a supplication while the congregation says ‘Amīn.’ All of this is an innovation contrary to the guidance of the Prophet (ﷺ). “

Link here.



Shaykh Al-Albānī was asked:


Questioner: Ok, what is the ruling on raising the hands to supplicate after the obligatory and Sunnah prayer?

Shaykh: (This is a) Bid’ah (innovation).

Link here

Shaykh Al-Albānī said elsewhere:

It has not been established in any authentic hadīth that the Prophet (ﷺ) would raise his hands after prayer…

And I find excellent the example which Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah struck concerning the difference between one who supplicates before his exit from prayer and one who supplicates after his exit from prayer. He says: The example of this and that is only like the example of a man who stands before a worthy king while having a need with him, so he is standing before him… not presenting his need nor requesting it from him while standing before him, then when he departs from him, he asks for his need from him.

So Allāh – The Mighty and Majestic – is more worthy that the praying person should turn to Him with whatever need he has while standing and remaining in prayer before Him…

Link here

Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah said:

… making du’ā at the end of the prayer before concluding it is established and recommended by the mutawātir (mass-transmitted) sunnah and the agreement of the Muslims.

Rather, some of the salaf (predecessors) and khalaf (successors) have even held the view that du’ā at the end of prayer (before taslīm) is obligatory. They made obligatory the du’ā which the Prophet (ﷺ) commanded at the end of the prayer when he said:

> “When one of you finishes the Tashahhud, let him seek refuge with Allāh from four things: from the punishment of Hell, from the punishment of the grave, from the trial of life and death, and from the trial of the False Messiah (Dajjāl).”
(Reported by Muslim and others)



Tawūs used to order anyone who did not make this du’ā to repeat their prayer, and this is also the opinion of some of the followers of (Imām) Ahmad.

And similarly, in the hadīth of Ibn Mas’ūd, the Prophet (ﷺ) said:

> “Then let him choose whatever supplication he prefers/pleases him most.” (Reported by Bukhārī and others)

And in the hadith of Ā’ishah and others, it is mentioned that the Prophet (ﷺ) used to make du’ā in this position (i.e. before taslīm), and there are many hadīths (confirming) this.

The contextual appropriateness in that is clear: for indeed the one praying is engaged in (a private/direct) conversation with their Lord [see Sahīh Bukhārī 413], So as long as they are in prayer and have not departed (from it), they are in a (private/direct) conversation with their Lord. Thus, supplication at that time is appropriate to their state.

However, when they (conclude the prayer and) turn away to the people from their direct/private conversation with Allāh, it is no longer a place of direct/private conversation and supplication for them, but rather a moment for His dhikr (remembrance) and praise (to be sent) upon Him.

Thus, direct/private conversation and du’a are (more befitting) during the state of directing (one’s self) and turning to Him in prayer, while dhikr and praise are more appropriate after concluding the prayer. (Majmū al-Fatāwā 22/515)

Sh. Albānī:

السائلة : طيب ، ما حكم رفع اليدين للدعاء بعد الصلاة في الفرض والسنة ؟

الشيخ : بدعة .

Sh. Albānī

لم يثبُتْ في حديث صحيح أن النبي – صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم – كان يرفع يديه بعد الصلاة…

وأستحسن ذلك المثل الذي ضَرَبَه شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية ببيان الفرق بين مَن يدعو قبل خروجه من الصلاة ، ومَن يدعو بعد خروجه من الصلاة ، يقول : ما مَثَل هذا وذاك إلا كمثل رجل يقوم بين يدي ملك جدير وله عنده حاجة ، فهو قائم بين يديه … لا يعرض حاجته ولا يطلبها منه وهو قائم بين يديه ، فإذا ما انصرف عنه طلب حاجته منه ، فالله – عز وجل – أولى أن يتوجَّه المصلي بما له حاجة إليه وهو قائم بين يديه يصلي ولا يزال في صلاته ، والله – عز وجل – … عليه .

——————————————————————————————

Sh. Fawzān:

وأضاف فضيلته: أما رفع اليدين بعد الفريضة فهذا بدعة، لأنه لم يكن من فعل النبي ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ ولا من فعل صحابته، ما كانوا يرفعون أيديهم بعد الفرائض؛ وإنما كل يدعو لنفسه دون رفع صوت، ودون صوت جماعي، ودون واحد يدعو أو الإمام يدعو والجماعة يؤمنون، كل هذا من البدع المخالفة لهدي الرسول ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم

Al-‘Ulū: Statements of the salaf on Allāh being above the creation

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

The prophet (ﷺ) said:

“Whoever does not show mercy to those on earth, will not receive mercy from the One who is above the heavens.”

(al-Dhahabī said: Its narrators are thiqah (trustworthy and reliable) – Mukhtasar al-‘Ulū of al-Dhahabī pg. 9, Declared Sahīh by Al-Albānī in his checking)

Anas (رضي الله عنه) narrated: Zaynab bint Jahsh (رضي الله عنها)used to boast to the wives of the Prophet (ﷺ) saying: “Your families married you off (to the Prophet), but Allāh married me (to him) from above the seven heavens.”

And in one wording: She used to say: “Indeed Allāh married me off above the heavens.”

And in one wording: She said to the Prophet (ﷺ): “The Most Merciful (al-Rahmān) married me to you from above His throne.”

(Mukhtasar al-‘Ulū of al-Dhahabī pg. 9, who declared it Sahīh and said it was narrated by Al-Bukhārī. Al-Albānī also declared it Hasan Sahīh in his checking)

‘Abdullāh ibn Mas’ūd (رضي الله عنه)  said:

“Between the heaven and the Kursī (the Footstool) is a distance of five hundred years, and between the Kursī and the water is five hundred years, and the Throne (al-ʿArsh) is above the water, and Allāh is above the Throne. Nothing from the actions of the children of Ādam is hidden from Him.” (Al-Lalakā’ī in I’tiqād Ahlul-Sunnah #573, Hasan)

Ibn ‘Abbās (رضي الله عنه)  said:

“… Indeed, Allāh, The Mighty and Majestic, was over His Throne before He created anything. Then He created the creation and wrote down what would happen until the Day of Judgment.” (al-Lalakā’ī in I’tiqād Ahlul-Sunnah #574, Sahīh – see Mukhtasar al-‘Ulū of al-Dhahabī, checking by Al-Albānī pg. 22)

Imām Al-Awzā’ī, d.157H said:

“We were – while the Tābi’īn (successors) were numerous – saying: Indeed Allāh is above His throne, and we believe in what has come in the Sunnah regarding His attributes.”  (Mukhtasar al-‘Ulū of al-Dhahabī pg. 73, declared Sahīh by Ibn Taymiyyah)

Imām Muqātil ibn Hayyān, d.150H said:

Regarding Allāh’s saying:

مَا يَكُونُ مِن نَجْوَى ثَلَثَةٍ إِلَّا هُوَ رَابِعُهُمْ

“There is not a private conversation of three except that He is the fourth of them” [Al-Mujadilah: 7].

He said: “He is above His throne, and His knowledge is with them.” (Mukhtasar al-‘Ulū of al-Dhahabī pg. 74, declared Hasan by Al-Albānī)

Hāfidh Ibn ‘Abdul-Barr said:

The scholars from among the Companions and the Tābi’īn, from whom interpretation has been transmitted, said regarding the interpretation of the saying of Allāh, The Mighty and Majestic:

مَا يَكُونُ مِنْ نَجْوَى ثَلاثَةٍ إِلَّا هُوَ رَابِعُهُمْ

(“There is not a private conversation of three except that He is the fourth of them“) — “that He is above the Throne, and His knowledge is in every place.”

No one whose statement is relied upon has opposed them in this. (al-Tamhīd 5/149-150)

Mālik ibn Anas, d.179H said:

“Allāh is above the heavens, and His knowledge is in every place, nothing is devoid of it.” (Mukhtasar al-‘Ulū of al-Dhahabī pg. 76, declared Sahīh by Al-Albānī)

Imām Abdullāh ibn al-Mubārak, d.181H said:

‘We know that our Lord is above the seven heavens and is Istawā over His Throne and His creation is separate from Him. We do not say as the Jahmiyyah say, that He is right here’, and he pointed to the ground.” (al-Sunnah of Abdullāh ibn Ahmad 22/216/598, Hasan)

Imām al-Sābūnī said:

Ahl ul-Hadīth (the people of hadīth) believe and testify that Allāh, The One free from all deficiencies and The Most High, is above the seven heavens and over His Throne…

Allāh, The One free from all deficiencies, says about the cursed Pharaoh, that he said to Hāmān:

ابْنِ لِي صَرْحًا لَعَلَى أَبْلُغُ الْأَسْبَابَ أَسْبَابَ السَّمَوَاتِ فَأَطَّلِعَ إِلَى إِلَهِ مُوسَى وَإِنِّي لَأَظُنُّهُ كَذِبًا

Build me a tower so that I may reach the ways, the ways of the heavens, so I may look at the Ilāh (i.e. God) of Mūsā. Indeed I think him to be a liar. (al-Ghāfir:36-37)

He only said this because he heard Mūsā, (عليه سلام) , say that his Lord is above the heavens, as you can see from Pharaohs statement: “Indeed I think him to be a liar”, in reference to Mūsās statement: That there is a ilāh above the heavens.

The scholars of the Ummah and in particular the Imāms from the Salaf, did not disagree that Allāh, The Most High, is over His Throne and the Throne is above the seven heavens. They affirm what Allāh, The Most High, has affirmed, and believe in what He, The Lord, The Most Majestic, has informed us with. (Abridged, Aqīdah al-Salaf wa Ashāb al-Hadīth pg. 16-20)

Shaykh al-‘Uthaymīn said: The belief of the salaf is that Allāh, The Most-High, is above his creation with His Essence.When one investigates the matter of Allāh’s ‘Ulū (Highness) after referring it to the Book of Allāh and the Sunnah of His Messenger, it becomes clear that the Book and the Sunnah prove clearly in all aspects, the meaning that Allāh is above the creation with His essence… (Fatāwā Arkān al-Islām 1/116)

Imām Ibn Khuzaymah said:

“Whoever does not say that Allāh, the Mighty and Majestic, is above His throne, above the seven heavens is a disbeliever in his Lord, his blood is permissible (to shed), he is asked to repent – if he repents (then good), and if not, his neck is struck.” (Ithbāt Sifat al-‘Ulū of Ibn Qudāmah pg. 44)

Imām Al-Tahāwī said:

“Allāh encompasses everything and is above (everything).”

Imām Ibn Abī al-Izz said (in explanation of Al-Tahāwī’s statement):

Allāh is above the Throne while sustaining the Throne and its bearers by His power. He is independent of the Throne, while the Throne is in need of Him. He encompasses the Throne, while the Throne cannot encompass Him.

As for Allāh encompassing everything, Allāh has said the following:

أَلَا إِنَّهُ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ مُحِيطٌ
“Unquestionably, He is encompassing of all things.” [Fussilat: 54]

وَلِلَّهِ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَمَا فِي الْأَرْضِ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ مُحِيطًا
“And to Allāh belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth, and Allāh is encompassing of all things.” [An-Nisā: 126]

It is not intended by His encompassing His creation that He is like the celestial sphere, and that the created beings are within His pure/sacred essence— greatly exalted is Allāh above such a notion. Rather, the intended meaning is the encompassing of His greatness/majesty, the vastness of His knowledge and power. In comparison to His greatness/majesty, the creation is like a mustard seed.

As narrated from Ibn Abbās (رضي الله عنه), he said: “The seven heavens, the seven earths, and everything within and between them, in the Hand of The-Most Merciful, are like a mustard seed in the hand of one of you.”

As for Him being above the creation, The-Most High said:

وَهُوَ الْقَاهِرُ فَوْقَ عِبَادِهِ

“And He is al-Qāhir above His servants” [Al-An’ām: 18 and 61].

يَخَافُونَ رَبَّهُمْ مِنْ فَوْقِهِمْ

“They fear their Lord from above them” [Al-Nahl: 50].

(Abridged, Sharh ‘Aqīdah Al-Tahāwī pg. 281-282)

The story of Abu Hanifah and Abdullah Ibn al-Mubarak on raising the hands

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Wakī’ narrated:

“I prayed in the mosque of Kūfa, and there was Abū Hanīfah standing and praying, and next to him was Ibn al-Mubārak praying. Abdullāh (Ibn al-Mubārak) would raise his hands whenever he bowed and whenever he rose from bowing, while Abū Hanīfah would not raise his hands. After they finished the prayer, Abū Hanīfah said to Abdullāh:

‘O Abū Abdul-Rahmān, I saw you raising your hands frequently. Did you intend to fly?’

Abdullāh replied:

‘O Abū Hanīfah, I saw you raising your hands when you started the prayer [i.e. opening takbīr]. Did you intend to fly?’

Wakī’ said: “I have never seen a response quicker or sharper than Abdullāh’s reply to Abū Hanīfah.

(Al-Bayhaqī in Sunan al-Kubrā 2/82, Ibn Qutaybah in “Ta’wīl Mukhtalif Al-Hadīth” p. 55, Abdullāh ibn Ahmad in “Kitāb Al-Sunnah” 1/276, Hadīth No. 518, Ibn Hibbān in “Al-Thiqāt” 8/45, and Al-Khatīb in “Tārīkh al-Baghdād ” 13/389 — all of them through chains from Wakī’. See also al-Tamhīd of Ibn Abdul-Barr 6/365 and Raf’ al-Yadayn of Al-Bukhārī 54)

The debate between the two Imāms, Al-Awza’i and Al-Thawri on rasing the hands in ruku : https://fawaaids.com/2024/07/04/the-debate-between-al-awzai-and-al-thawri-on-rasing-the-hands-in-ruku/

Are the hadiths regarding not raising the hands in ruku authentic? : https://fawaaids.com/2024/06/29/are-the-hadiths-regarding-not-raising-the-hands-in-ruku-authentic/

Raising the hands when bowing (Rukū) and rising from bowing : https://fawaaids.com/2023/12/20/raising-the-hands-when-bowing-ruku-and-rising-from-bowing/

Hands or knees first? The authentic method of sujood

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

A summary of the different opinions


First Opinion:

It is obligatory to place the hands before the knees.

This view was held by the Dhāhirīs.

Second Opinion:

It is recommended to place the hands before the knees.

This was the view of the Mālikīs, and one narration from Imām Ahmad. It is also narrated from Al-Awzā’ī, who said: “I witnessed the people placing their hands before their knees”

Third Opinion:

It is recommended to place the knees before the hands.

This is the view of the majority, including the Hanafīs, the Shāfi’īs, and the well-known opinion of Imām Ahmad.

Al-Tirmidhī stated: “This is the practice of most scholars, who believe a person should place their knees before their hands when going into sujūd, and when rising, they should lift their hands before their knees”. This was also reported by Qādī Abū Tayyib as the view of the majority of jurists.

Fourth Opinion:

Neither placement is preferred over the other.

This was the view of Mālik and Imām Ahmad in one narration from them. It was also the chosen opinion of Al-Nawawī.

Al-Nawawī said: “Those who advocated placing the hands first relied on certain hadiths, and those who argued for the opposite also relied on hadiths. No clear preference for either position is evident based on the Sunnah” (al-Majmū’ 3/421)

(Al-Ikhtiyārāt Al-Fiqhiyyah lil-Albānī pg. 157-158)

Evidence and hadīth discussion for the First and Second Opinion

Hadīth 1.

Saʿīd ibn Mansūr > ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn Muhammad Al-Darāwardī >  Muhammad ibn ʿAbdillāh ibn Hasan > Abī al-Zinād > al-Aʿraj >

Abū Hurayrah (رضي الله عنه) who said: The Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) said: “When one of you prostrates, let him place his hands before his knees, and do not kneel as the camel kneels”

(Abū Dawūd 840. Declared Sahīh by al-Albānī in his checking. Declared Sahīh by Ahmad Shākir in his checking of Muhallā. Also declared Sahīh by Muqbil ibn Hādī in Sifat al-Salāh pg. 118)

Ibn Hajr said: the hadīth of Abū Hurayrah is stronger in authenticity than the hadīth of Wā’il [to follow] – Bulugh al-Marām #245. Al-Qārī said: Ibn Hajr said: the isnād is jayyid (i.e. good/strong). (Sharh Mishkāt 2/570)

Also declared authentic by al-Suyūtī in Jāmi al-Saghīr.

Al-Nawawī said: the isnād is jayyid (i.e. good/strong). (al-Majmū 3/421)

Al-Arnāūt said: The isnād is qawwī (strong). (Takhrīj Sunan Abī Dawūd 2/131)

Al-Mubārakfūrī said: The hadīth is Sahīh, Sālih (valid) to be used as evidence. (al-Tuhfah 4/12)

Al-Albānī said: This chain is Sahīh, and its narrators are all thiqah (trustworthy and reliable), the men of (Sahīh) Muslim, except for Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullāh ibn al-Hasan, known as al-Nafs al-Zakiyyah (The Pure Soul), who is thiqah, as stated by al-Nasā’ī and others. (al-Asl Sifat al-Salāh 2/720)

Al-Albānī said: Some (scholars) have weakened/criticised (this narration) based on three reasons:

1. The first reason: Al-Darāwardī alone narrated it from Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullāh.


2. The second reason: Muhammad ibn Abdullāh narrated it alone from Abū al-Zinād.


3. The third reason: Al-Bukhārī said, “I do not know if Muhammad ibn Abdullāh ibn Hassan heard from Abū al-Zinād or not.”

These criticisms are nothing:

As for the first and second points: Al-Darāwardī and his shaykh Muhammad, are both trustworthy (thiqah) – as previously mentioned.

[T.N: Al-Darāwardī is from the men of Sahīh Muslim. Al-Mubārakfūrī said: He is thiqah, hāfidh…Al-Darāwardīs unique narration does not inherently cause weakness because Muslim and the compilers of the Sunan relied on him, and he was deemed trustworthy by leading Imāms (i.e. of hadīth/jarh wa ta’dīl) like Yahyā ibn Ma’īn and Alī ibn al-Madīnī and others – see al-Rijāl Sahīh Muslim pg. 343. Al-Tuhfah 4/5 and 4/12)]

Therefore, their uniqueness in narrating this Hadīth does not harm (its authenticity). It is not a condition for an authentic Hadīth that none of its narrators narrate it uniquely. Otherwise, many authentic Hadīths, even those in Sahīh Al-Bukhārī, would not be accepted/valid—such as the Hadīth “Actions are judged by intentions” – the first Hadīth (in Sahīh Al-Bukhārī) – which was uniquely narrated by Yahyā ibn Sa’īd al-Ansārī from Muhammad ibn Ibrāhīm al-Taymī from Alqamah ibn Waqqās al-Laythī from ‘Umar (رضي الله عنه).

As for the third point: This is considered a defect/flaw according to Al-Bukhārī’s (hadīth) methodology, as he required knowledge of meeting between narrators. However, the majority of the imāms of hadīth do not impose this condition; they consider it sufficient if meeting was possible—(meaning) they lived in the same era and there was no suspicion of tadlīs (concealment in narration).

This is all confirmed (to be the case) here, Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullāh was not known for tadlīs. He was a resident of Medīnah and died in the year 145 AH at the age of 53. His teacher, Abu al-Zinād, passed away in 130 AH in Medīnah. Therefore, he (would have) encountered/been in his presence for a significant period of time. (slightly paraphrased, al-Asl Sifat al-Salāh 2/721)

Al-Arnāūt said:… it is highly likely that he (Muhammad ibn Abdullāh) did hear from him (i.e. Abū Al-Zinād) – Muhammad was from Madīnah, and so was Abū al-Zinād (Abdullāh ibn Dhakwān), and they were contemporaries for over forty years. (Takhrīj Sunan Abū Dawūd 2/131)

Another version of hadīth 1. Qutaybah ibn Sa’īd > ‘Abdullāh ibn Nāfi’ > Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullāh ibn Hasan > Abū al-Zinād > al-A’raj > Abū Hurayrah:

The Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) said: Does one of you intend to pray kneeling as a camel kneels?! (Abū Dawūd 841. Declared Sahīh by al-Albānī in his checking. Al-Mubārakfūrī said: the hadīth is Sahīh, or Hasan by itself, all the narrators are thiqah – al-Tuhfah 4/9)

Al-Albānī said: This is a strong corroboration (i.e. in the case of Al-Darāwardī); Abdullāh ibn Nāfi’ is also thiqah and among the narrators in Sahīh Muslim, like Al-Darāwardī (al-Asl Sifat al-Salāh 2/722)

Al-Mubārakfūrī said: As for Al-Dāraqutnīs claim that Al-Darāwardī was the sole narrator, this is incorrect because Abdullāh ibn Nāfi’ corroborated him… (al-Tuhfah 4/12)

Al-Mubārakfūrī said: “does one of you intend to pray kneeling as a camel kneels?!” – meaning: Would one of you deliberately kneel in his prayer like a camel kneels? Meaning: he should not do this; rather, he should place his hands before his knees. (Summarised, al-Tuhfah 4/8)

NOTE: weak version of the Hadīth

Abū ʿAbdillāh al-Hāfidh > Abū Bakr ibn Ishāq al-Faqīh >  al-Hasan ibn ʿAlī ibn Ziyād > Ibrāhīm ibn Mūsā > Ibn Fudayl > ʿAbdillāh ibn Saʿīd > his grandfather >

From Abū Hurayrah, who attributed it to the Prophet (ﷺ): “When one of you prostrates, he should begin with his knees before his hands, and he should not kneel like a camel.”

In another version: “The Prophet (ﷺ), when he prostrated, would begin with his knees before his hands.”

(Ibn Abī Shaybah (1/235/2702), Abū Ya’lā (11/414/6540), Al-Tahāwī (1/255), Al-Bayhaqī in Al-Sunan (2/100/2635), and in Al-Ma’rifah (2/837/5).

Al-Bayhaqī said: “‘Abdullāh ibn Sa’īd Al-Maqburī is weak.” The verifier (Dār al-Hadīth print) commented: (the hadīth is) bātil (false). This narration was solely reported by Abdullāh ibn Saʿīd al-Maqburī, who is extremely weak (wāhin jiddan). Rather, some (scholars) accused him of lying. Therefore, al-Bayhaqī, followed by Ibn Hajar in Fath al-Bārī (2/241), stated: “Its chain is weak.” (Sunan al-Kubrā 2/223)

Al-Albānī said: (this narration) is very weak (da’īf jiddan); Abdullāh ibn Sa’īd is abandoned (matrūk). Some even accused him of lying [i.e. Yahyā al-Qattān – Ikmāl 7/382]. Perhaps he intentionally reversed this Hadīth, thereby altering its meaning. (Summarised, al-Asl Sifat al-Salāh 2/722)

Yasir al-Fathī said: Its chain is wāhin (i.e. weak); Abdullāh ibn Sa’īd Al-Maqburī is abandoned (matrūk) and rejected (munkar) in hadīth. (Takhrīj Sunan Abū Dawūd 9/299)

Al-Mubārakfūrī said regarding those who use this narration to weaken the hadīth of Abū Hurayrah [hadīth 1] by saying its a narration that is mudtarib (inconsistent/contradictory) : this claim is baseless because the narration of Ibn Abī Shaybah and Al-Tahāwī is very weak…. therefore, there is no inconsistency in the hadīth of Abū Hurayrah. Inconsistency is only declared when the conflicting versions are of equal strength (i.e. in authenticity), and authentic narrations are not undermined by weak ones, as agreed upon by hadīth scholars. (al-Tuhfah 4/13)

Hadīth 2.

Al-Husayn ibn al-Husayn ibn ʿAbd al-Rahmān al-Qādī > Muhammad ibn Asbagh ibn al-Faraj > his father >  ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn Muhammad al-Darāwardī > ʿUbaydullāh ibn ʿUmar > ʿNāfiʿ >

From Ibn Umar (رضي الله عنه), who used to place his hands before his knees, and he said: “The Prophet (ﷺ) would do this.”

(Al-Bayhaqī 2/100, al-Hākim 1/226. Ibn Khuzaymah 1/342)

Authenticated by Ibn Khuzaymah. Al-Hākim declared it Sahīh upon the conditions of Sahīh Muslim, al-Dhahabī agreed. Al-Albānī also declared it Sahīh upon the conditions of Muslim (al-Asl Sifat al-Salāh 2/714)

Adhīm al-Ābādī said: Al-Dāraqutnī criticised it for being uniquely narrated by Al-Darāwardī from Ubaydullāh ibn ‘Umar. He also said elsewhere: “It was solely narrated by Asbagh ibn al-Faraj from Al-Darāwardī.”

However, there is no harm in Al-Darāwardīs sole narration, as Muslim included his narrations in his Sahīh and relied upon them (as evidence)…

Similarly, Asbagh’s unique narration is not problematic, as Al-Bukhārī also narrated from him in his Sahīh and relied upon him (as evidence). (Sunan al-Dāraqutnī, Risālah print 2/148)

Yāsir al-Fathī said:.. it is (only) Al-Darāwardī who uniquely narrated this, not Asbagh from him, as he was followed by a group:

Ishāq ibn Abī Isrā’īl, Abdullāh ibn Wahb and Muhriz ibn Salamah, who narrated it from Al-Darāwardī – see al-Hākim (1/226), and from him by Al-Bayhaqī in al-Sunan (2/100), and al-Hāzimī in al-I’tibār (1/324-325/85).

Thus, these four trustworthy narrators reported it from Al-Darāwardī. (Slightly abridged, Takhrīj Sunan Abū Dawūd 9/300-301)

How a camel kneels

Al-Albānī said: Know that the reason for the camel analogy regarding placing the hands before the knees is because a camel first places its “knees”, which are located in its forelegs, as mentioned in “Lisān Al-Arab” and other linguistic references. Al-Tahāwī also mentioned this in “Mushkil Al-Āthār” and “Sharh Ma’ānī Al-Āthār.” Similarly, Imām Al-Qāsim Al-Saraqustī (may Allāh have mercy on him) narrated in “Gharīb Al-Hadīth” (1/70/2-2) with an authentic chain from Abū Hurayrah that he said:

“None of you should kneel like a runaway camel.”

The Imām explained: “This refers to prostration, meaning one should not throw oneself down all at once like a restless, runaway camel – hurriedly without calmness. Instead, one should descend calmly, placing the hands first, followed by the knees. And a marfū (raised to the prophet) hadīth has been narrated in this regard.”

He then mentioned the above hadīth (i.e. of Abū Hurayrah).

As for Ibn Al-Qayyim’s extremely strange statement, saying:

“This is incomprehensible speech, and not understood by linguists.”

However, this claim is refuted by the sources mentioned earlier and many others which one can consult. (Sifat al-Salāh pg. 122)

Al-Albānī also said: This understanding (i.e. how a camel kneels) is supported by their (i.e. Arabs) customary usage, as seen in the statement of Alqamah and Al-Aswad regarding ‘Umar (رضي الله عنه):

“He would fall on his knees after rukū (bowing), just as a camel does.” (declared Sahīh by al-Albānī in al-Asl Sifat al-Salāh 2/717)

This description matches the action of descending on one’s knees like a camel. (al-Asl Sifat al-Salāh 2/724)

Muhammad al-Bazmūl said: The preferred view, Allāh knows best, is that descending into prostration should be done by placing the hands before the knees….

The established principle is: “The texts of Shari’ah are interpreted according to their customary understanding, otherwise according to the custom of those among whom the Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) lived, and if not, then the interpretation returns to the Arabic language.”

In this issue, the interpretation of the camel’s kneeling has been clarified by the Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) as mentioned in the hadīth of Abū Hurayrah cited earlier: “When one of you prostrates, let him place his hands before his knees, and do not kneel as the camel kneels.” This is the Prophet’s (ﷺ) interpretation of the camel’s kneeling….[Ibn Umar’s narration and Al-Bukhārīs commentary ommitted]…

It has also been reported from Alqamah and Al-Aswad that they said: “We preserved from Umar in his prayer that he would fall into prostration on his knees like a camel, placing his knees before his hands.” (Al-Tahāwī in Sharh Ma’ānī al-Āthār 1/256)

The point here is that these two Tābi’īn confirmed that the camel’s descent involves placing the knees before the hands.

In the (Arabic) language, it is established that the camel’s knees are in its foreleg. This is supported by the testimony of Alqamah and Al-Aswad, who were people of the (Arabic) language.

Additionally, it has been reported from some of the Sahābah that the knees of a horse are in its forelegs. Ibn Shihāb narrated from Abdur-Rahmān ibn Mālik Al-Mudlijjī, the nephew of Surāqah ibn Malik, who said: “His father told him that he heard Surāqah ibn Mālik say…” and he mentioned the story of the Prophet’s (ﷺ) migration from Makkah. In the story, Surāqah says: “The forelegs of my horse sank into the ground up to its knees.” (Al-Bukhārī no. 3906).

This text explicitly shows that the horse’s knees are in its forelegs, and the same applies to the camel.

Al-Jāhiz (d. 255 AH), an expert in Arabic literature, wrote in his book Al-Hayawān (2/355): “Every quadruped (animal) has its knees in its forelegs, while a human’s knees are in their legs.”

He said: “A human’s palm is in their hand, and a bird’s palm is in its foot.”

Al-Tahāwī (d. 321 AH) also stated: “The camel’s knees are in its forelegs, as with other animals, whereas humans are not like this.” (Sharh Ma’ānī al-Āthār, 1/254).

All of this establishes that the camel’s knees are in its forelegs, and when it descends, it falls on these knees, causing a loud sound as it hits the ground. The Prophet (ﷺ) commanded us to differ from the camel by placing our hands before our knees when descending into prostration. (Sharh Sifat al-Salāh pg. 260-262)


Ibn Hazm said: It is obligatory for every praying person to place their hands on the ground before their knees when prostrating, as evidenced by the mentioned Hadīth (i.e the hadīth of Abū Hurayrah). (al-Muhallā 3/44)

Al-San’ānī said: The apparent meaning of the Hadīth —referring to the Hadīth of Abū Hurayrah—indicates obligation due to the statement ‘do not kneel‘ which is a prohibition, and the statement ‘let him place‘ which is a command. However, it has been said that no one has deemed it obligatory, so it must be understood as recommended. (Subul al-Salām 1/424)

Evidence and hadīth discussion for the third opinion

Hadīth 1.

Al-Hasan ibn ʿAlī > Husayn ibn ʿĪsā > Yazīd ibn Hārūn > Sharīk > ʿĀsim ibn Kulayb > his father >

From Wā’il ibn Hujr (رضي الله عنه) he said: “I saw the Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) when he prostrated, placing his knees before his hands, and when he rose, he lifted his hands before his knees.”

(Abū Dawūd 838 and others. Declared da’īf by Al-Albānī in his checking 9/333 who said: It was declared weak by al-Dāraqutnī, ibn Sayyid al-Nās, ‘Affān (one of the shaykhs of Ahmad).

Also declared weak by Ibn al-‘Arabī after saying: “(the) hadīth is gharīb (odd/unique).” (‘Āridatul-Ahwadhī 2/90-91)

Yāsir al-Fathī said: the hadīth is munkar (rejected). (Takhrīj Sunan Abū Dawūd 9/294)

Al-Ghamrī said: Sharīk ibn Abdullāh is among the narrators. His narrations are considered Hasan (good) only when supported by other trustworthy narrators. If he narrates something uniquely, it raises concerns/questions.

Al-Dāraqutnī said: “Ibn Abī Dawūd said: Placing the knees before the hands was uniquely narrated by Yazīd from Sharīk, and no one narrated this from ‘Āsim except Sharīk, who is not strong when narrating uniquely.”

Al-Bayhaqī said: “This hadith is considered among the unique narrations of Sharīk al-Qādī (the judge).” (Fath al-Manān 6/291-292)

Al-Albānī said: This chain of narration is weak; all of its narrators are trustworthy, except for Sharīk ibn ‘Abdullāh, the judge of kūfah. He is weak due to his poor memory. Al-Hāfidh said: “He is truthful, but he makes many mistakes, and his memory deteriorated after he assumed the position of judge in Kūfah.” (Da’īf Abī Dawūd 9/233)

Al-Mubārakfūrī said: He (i.e. al-Tirmidhī) said: “This is a odd/unique (gharīb), hasan (good) hadīth. No one is known to have narrated it except Sharīk.” Regarding the classification of this Hadīth as good, this is questionable as Sharīk uniquely narrated it. (al-Tuhfah 4/5)

Al-Albānī said: they all agree that the hadīth was uniquely narrated by Sharīk, not by (any other of) ‘Āsim’s companions. Among those who explicitly stated this, apart from al-Dāraqutnī, are al-Tirmidhī and Al-Bayhaqī. Rather, Yazīd ibn Hārūn said, “Sharīk did not narrate from ‘Āsim except for this Hadīth.”

Sharīk is considered to have poor memory by the majority of scholars of hadīth, and some even stated that he became confused [i.e. Yahyā al-Qattān, al-Dhahabī, Sālih Ibn Muhammad – Jāmi’ Lil-Kutub Du’afā wal-Matrūkīn #5506]. Therefore, his narrations are not relied upon when he is the sole narrator, especially if they contradict the narrations of other narrators who are trustworthy and precise (in memory). Several of these narrators reported from ‘Āsim with this chain from Wā’il regarding the description of the Prophet’s (ﷺ) prayer, but none of them included what Sharīk mentioned. (al-Asl Sifat al-Salāh 2/715-716)

Alternative version: Muhammad ibn Maʿmar > Hajjāj ibn Minhāl > Hammām > Muhammad ibn Juhādah > ʿAbdul-Jabbār ibn Wāʾil > his father (Wā’il):

And also:

Hammām > Shaqīq > ʿĀsim ibn Kulayb > his father:

“When the Prophet (ﷺ) prostrated, his knees touched the ground before his hands.”… “And when he stood up, he stood up on his knees and leaned on his thigh.” (Abū Dawūd 839. Al-Bayhaqī 2/217. Declared da’īf by Al-Albānī in his checking of Abū Dawūd)

Al-Ghamrī said: All the narrators in this chain are trustworthy (thiqāt), but there is a break (inqita’) between Abdul-Jabbār and his father. (Fath al-Manān 6/292)

Al-Mubārakfūrī said: The chain of Hammām ibn Yahyā from Muhammad ibn Juhādah is broken, as Abdul-Jabbār did not hear from his father. Also, the chain of Hammām from Shaqīq is weak because Shaqīq, Abū al-Layth, is unknown (majhūl). (al-Tuhfah 4/5-6)

Hadīth 2.

… Al-‘Alā’ ibn Ismā‘īl al-‘Attār > Hafs ibn Ghiyāth > ‘Āsim al-Ahwalī >

From Anas (رضي الله عنه) he said: “I saw the Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) say the Takbir… and when he descended with the Takbīr, his knees preceded his hands” (Al-Bayhaqī 2/99, al-Hākim 1/226 and others)

Al-Albānī said: ‘Alā ibn Ismā‘īl, he is unknown (majhūl), as stated by Ibn al-Qayyim (1/81), and similarly mentioned by Al-Bayhaqī in “At-Talkhīs” (3/472). Abū Hātim, as quoted by his son in “Al-‘Ilal” (1/188), said: “This hadith is munkar (rejected).”

Furthermore, even if the hadīth of Anas were authentic, it does not explicitly state that the Prophet (ﷺ) placed his knees before his hands. It only mentions that “his knees preceded his hands.”

It is possible that this precedence refers to the movement of the knees before the hands, not necessarily the placement, as Ibn Hazm, may Allāh have mercy on him, said. (al-Asl Sifat al-Salāh 2 /716-717)

Hadīth 3.

Abū Tāhir > Abū Bakr > Ibrāhīm ibn Ismā‘īl ibn Yahyā ibn Salamah ibn Kuhayl > his father > his father > ‘Salamah > Mus‘ab ibn Sa‘d > Sa‘d ibn Abī Waqqās (رضي الله عنه) who said:

“We used to place our hands before our knees, but then we were commanded to place our knees before our hands”

(Ibn Khuzaymah 1/343 – isnād declared da’īf jiddan (very weak) by al-Albānī in his checking, who said: “Ismā’īl ibn Yahyā is matrūk (abandoned) and his son Ibrāhīm is da’īf.” Ibn Hajr also declared it weak in Fath 2/231 saying about Ibrāhīm and his father Ismā‘īl: they are both weak)

Al-Mubārakfūrī also declared it weak, citing the same reasons. (al-Tuhfah 4/11)

Al-Mubārakfūrī said: These two Hadīths (of Anas and Sa’d) are not valid as supporting evidence for the hadīth of Wā’il.

As for the hadīth of Anas, it was uniquely narrated by Al-‘Alā ibn Ismā’īl Al-Attār, who is unknown (Majhūl). Al-Bayhaqī mentioned this, and Al-Dāraqutnī said: “Al-‘Alā ibn Ismā’īl uniquely narrated it from Hafs ibn Ghiyāth, and he is unknown.” Furthermore, Hafs ibn Ghiyāths memory deteriorated in his later years, as Al-Hāfidh stated in the introduction to Fath al-Bārī. Al-Dhahabī said in Al-Mīzān: “Abū Zur’ah said: His memory worsened after he became a judge; whoever narrates from his written works, then those are valid (i.e. realiable).”

As for the hadīth of Sa’d ibn Abī Waqqās, it was uniquely narrated by Ibrāhīm ibn Ismā’īl, and Abū Zur’ah criticised him, while his father Isma’il is considered abandoned (Matrūk). Additionally, what is authentically preserved from Mus’ab from his father pertains to the abrogation of the practice of tatbīq (holding the hands together in rukū). (al-Tuhfah 4/14)

Al-Albānī said: The evidence for this group is based on the aforementioned Hadīths. If they were authentic, we could say both practices are permissible, as narrated from Mālik and Ahmad—as mentioned in “Fath al-Bārī”.

However, since these narrations are not authentic, the primary reliance is on what the first group stated, which is the stance of the scholars of hadīth, as reported by Ibn Abī Dawūd in “Zād al-Ma’ād” (1/82). (al-Asl Sifat al-Salāh 2/719)

Sulaymān al-Ruhaylī said: The preferred opinion — and Allāh knows best — is that a person should descend with their body and then place their hands on the ground before their knees. This is the stronger opinion, insha Allāh. (Sharh Sifat al-Salāh pg. 86)


Weak hadīth: Wiping the face after making du’ā

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Narration of ‘Umar

Abū Mūsā Muḥammad ibn al-Muthannā > Ibrāhīm ibn Ya’qūb > Hammād ibn ʿĪsā al-Juhanī > Handhalah ibn Abī Sufyān al-Jumahīyyu > Sālim ibn ʿAbdillāh > his father > ‘Umar ibn Al-Khattāb who narrated:

انَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم إِذَا رَفَعَ يَدَيْهِ فِي الدُّعَاءِ لَمْ يَحُطَّهُمَا حَتَّى يَمْسَحَ بِهِمَا وَجْهَهُ


“Whenever the Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) would raise his hands in supplication, he would not lower them until he had wiped his face with them.”

(al-Tirmidhī 3386, ibn Humayd 39, al-Hākim 1/536, Ibn ʿAsākir 7/24)

Shu’ayb Al-Arnāūt said: The isnād (chain of narration) is weak. Hammād ibn ʿĪsā al-Juhanī is weak in hadīth, and all the Imāms of hadīth have declared him weak, none regarded him positively except for Ibn Ma’īn. (Sunan al-Tirmidhī, Risālah print 6/16)

Al-Albānī said: (The hadīth is) weak…Hammād ibn ‘Isā is considered weak, as mentioned in Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb. In Tahdhīb al-Kamāl, it’s mentioned:

Ibn Ma‘īn said: “A righteous shaykh.”
Abū Hātim said: “(He is) weak in hadīth.”
Abū Dāwūd said: “(He is) weak, he narrated manakīr (objectionable/denounced narrations).”
Al-Hākim and al-Naqqāsh said: “He narrates fabricated hadīth from Ibn Jurayj and Ja‘far al-Sādiq.”
Al-Dāraqutnī weakened him.
Ibn Hibbān said: “He narrated reversed reports from Ibn Jurayj and ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, which make one familiar with this discipline know that (such reports) are flawed. It is not permissible to use (his narrations) as evidence.”
Ibn Mākūlā said: “His hadīth are deemed weak.”

I (Al-Albānī) say: The likes of this (narrator) is (considered) extremely weak, so his narrations are not suitable for improvement (i.e. to Hasan level), let alone Sahīh. Even al-Hākim, known for his leniency, did not authenticate this hadīth when he included it in his Mustadrak (1/536) and remained silent about it. Al-Hāfidh al-Dhahabī followed him in that. (Irwā 2/187)

Yāsir al-Fathī said: Abū Zurʿah said: “This is a munkar hadīth. I fear it has no basis.” [al-ʿIlal by Ibn Abī Hātim (5/453/2106)].

Al-Tabarānī noted: “This hadīth is not narrated from ʿUmar except through this chain. It is uniquely reported by Hammād ibn ʿĪsā al-Juhanī.”

Ibn al-Jawzī commented: “This hadīth is not authentic,” and quoted Yahyā ibn Maʿīn who said: “It is a munkar hadīth.” [al-ʿIlal al-Mutanāhiya (2/840-841)].

Al-Nawawī said: “This is a weak hadīth.” [Khilāsat al-Ahkām (1/462)].

Al-Dhahabī stated: “It is not established because they (i.e. scholars of hadīth) have weakened Hammād.” [Tadhkirah al-Huffādh (3/68)].

He also said: “Al-Hākim included it in his Mustadrak, but he was mistaken; Hammād is weak.” [Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ (16/67)].

I (al-Fathī) say: This is a hadīth which is bātil (false). Neither Handhala ibn Abī Sufyān nor Sālim ibn ʿAbdillāh narrated it. It is solely reported by Hammād ibn ʿĪsā al-Wāsitī, or as some say, al-Basrī. Al-Bukhārī labeled him “munkar in hadīth”. (Takhrīj Sunan Abū Dawūd 18/293)

Narration of Yazīd ibn Sa’īd

Qutaybah ibn Sa’īd > ibn Lahī’ah > Hafs ibn Hāshim ibn ʿUtbah ibn Abī Waqqās > as-Sā’ib ibn Yazīd > Yazīd ibn Sa’īd al-Kindī who narrated:

أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم كَانَ إِذَا دَعَا فَرَفَعَ يَدَيْهِ مَسَحَ وَجْهَهُ بِيَدَيْهِ

“When the Prophet (ﷺ) made supplication he would raise his hands and wipe his face with his hands.”

(Abū Dawūd 1492, Musnad of Imām Ahmad 17943, al-Bayhaqī in al-Du’ā 184)

Shu’ayb Al-Arnāūt said: And its chain of narration is weak, as it contains ‘Abdullāh ibn Lahī’ah, who has poor memory and Hafs ibn Hāshim ibn ʿUtbah ibn Abī Waqqās, who is unknown and not recognised. (Sunan al-Tirmidhī, Risālah print 6/16)

Yāsir al-Fathī said (after mentioning the different chains through ibn Lahī’ah): Thus, ‘Abdullāh ibn Lahī’ah demonstrated confusion in both the chain of transmission and the text of this hadīth. Ibn Lahī’ah is considered weak, and this hadīth is one of the signs of his weakness, poor memory, and confusion in both chains of transmission and text.

Ibn Lahi‘ah is known for numerous fabrications due to his: many errors, poor memory, confusion, acceptance of suggestions from others, and his practice of tadlīs (concealing flaws in narrations – i.e. discontinuity in the isnād). (Takhrīj Sunan Abū Dawūd 18/291)

Yāsir al-Fathī said: Hafs ibn Hāshim ibn ‘Utbah ibn Abī Waqqās al-Qurashī al-Zuhrī: A person who is unknown, it is not known who he is; his name only appears in this chain of narration, which was uniquely transmitted by Ibn Lahī’ah, and he may not even have existed at all… and al-Mughlatāy said in Ikmāl al-Tahdhīb: “I have not seen his mention in any book of genealogy or history, and Allāh knows best.” (Takhrīj Sunan Abū Dawūd 18/290)

Al-Albānī said: This is a weak chain of narration, due to Hafs ibn Hāshim being unknown and the weakness of Ibn Lahīʿah.

The hadīth cannot be strengthened (i.e. to the level of Hasan) by combining the two chains because of the severe weakness of the first chain, as you have observed. (Irwā 2/179)

Narration of Ibn ‘Abbās

Abū Kurayb > Muhammad ibn as-Sabbāh > ʻĀʾid ibn Habīb > Sālih ibn Hassān al-Ansārī > Muhammad ibn Kaʻb al-Qurādhī > Ibn ʻAbbās narrated that the Prophet (ﷺ) said:

إِذَا دَعَوْتَ اللَّهَ فَادْعُ بِبَاطِنِ كَفَّيْكَ وَلاَ تَدْعُ بِظُهُورِهِمَا فَإِذَا فَرَغْتَ فَامْسَحْ بِهِمَا وَجْهَكَ

“When you call upon Allāh, then do so with the palms of your hands upwards. Do not do so with the back of your hands upwards. And when you finish, then wipe your face with them.”

(Ibn Mājah 1181, 3866)

Shu’ayb Al-Arnāūt said: Its chain is da’īf jiddan (very weak); Sālih ibn Hassān al-Ansārī is matrūk (abandoned). (Takhrīj Ibn Mājah, Risālah print 2/254)

Al-Albānī said: This is a weak chain due to Ibn Hassān, for he is Munkar in hadīth, as al-Bukhārī said. An-Nasā’ī said: “He is abandoned (matrūk) in hadīth.” Ibn Hibbān said: “He was a companion of female musicians and singers, and he used to narrate fabricated hadīth from reliable narrators.” Ibn Abī Hātim said in his al-ʻIlal (2/351): “I asked my father (i.e. Abū Hātim) about this hadīth, and he said: It is Munkar.” (Irwā 2/179)

Al-Albānī continues: I say: ‘Īsā ibn Maymūn followed on the hadīth from Muhammad ibn Ka’b with the same wording. It was reported by Ibn Nasr [Kitāb al-Witr pg. 169].

I (Al-Albānī) say: There is no joy (to be found) with this corroboration, because Ibn Maymūn’s condition is similar to that of Ibn Hassān. Ibn Hibbān said: “He narrates hadīths, all of which are Mawdū (fabricated).” Al-Nasā’ī said: “He is not trustworthy.” (Irwā 2/180)

Imām Ahmad said: ‘As for ‘Īsā ibn Maymūn, who narrated the hadīth of Ibn ‘Abbās, he is not someone whose narrations can be relied upon, and the same applies to Sālih ibn Hassān.'” (Masāil Abī Dawūd no. 486)

Bakr Abū Zayd said:… despite the multiplicity of narrators and the numerous routes (of the above hadīth), the narration ultimately revolves around both Sālih ibn Hassān, who is matrūk and ʿĪsā ibn Maymūn, who is munkar in hadīth. Thus, one does not strengthen the other.

Accordingly, this hadīth is not valid even as supportive evidence, due to the defect in the fundamental pillar of narration that cannot be remedied, namely, ʿadālah (integrity). (Juz Fī Mash al-Wajh Ba’dā Du’ā pg. 12)

Another narration of Ibn ‘Abbās

ʿAbdullāh ibn Maslamah > ʿAbd al-Malik ibn Muhammad ibn Ayman > ʿAbdillāh ibn Yaʿqūb ibn Ishāq  > From someone (i.e. unspecified narrator) > Muhammad ibn Kaʿb al-Quradhī > ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAbbās narrated that the Prophet (ﷺ) said:

‏… سَلُوا اللَّهَ بِبُطُونِ أَكُفِّكُمْ وَلاَ تَسْأَلُوهُ بِظُهُورِهَا فَإِذَا فَرَغْتُمْ فَامْسَحُوا بِهَا وُجُوهَكُمْ

“… Supplicate to Allāh with the palms of your hands; do not supplicate Him with their backs upwards. When you finish supplication, wipe your faces with them.”

(Abū Dawūd 1485)

Abū Dawūd said: This hadīth has been narrated through various chains from Muhammad ibn Ka‘b, all of which are weak. This chain is the best among them, but it is also weak. (Sunan Abū Dawūd #1485)

Shu’ayb Al-Arnāūt said: Its chain is weak due to the anonymity of the narrator who reported from Muhammad ibn Kaʿb al-Quradhī. (Takhrīj Sunan Abū Dawūd, Risālah print 2/607)

Al-Albānī said: This chain is weak. ‘Abd al-Mālik is weak as stated by Abū Dawūd.

It also includes the Shaykh (Unspecified narrator) of ʿAbdullāh ibn Ya’qūb, whose identity is not specified, so he is unknown. It is possible that he is the same Ibn Hassān from the first chain, or Ibn Maymūn from the second chain. (Irwā 2/180)

Narration of Walīd ibn ‘Abdullāh

Abū Muslim al-Kashī > Al-Qaʿnabī > ʿĪsā ibn Yūnus >  Ibrāhīm ibn Yazīd > al-Walīd ibn ʿAbd Allāh who narrated that the Prophet (ﷺ) said:

إِذَا رَفَعَ أَحَدُكُمْ يَدَيْهِ يَدْعُو فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ جَاعِلٌ فِيهِمَا بَرَكَةً وَرَحْمَةً، فَإِذَا فَرَغَ مِنْ دُعَائِهِ فَلْيَمْسَحْ بِهِمَا وَجْهَهُ

“When one of you raises his hands in supplication, Allāh, The Mighty and Majestic, places blessing and mercy in them. When he has finished his supplication, let him wipe his face with them.“

(Al-Tabarānī in al-Du’ā 214)

Yāsir al-Fathī said: This hadīth is munkar (rejected), along with it being mursal (a chain with a missing link). Ibrāhīm ibn Yazīd al-Khūzī is deemed abandoned (matrūk) and is munkar in hadīth. (Takhrīj Sunan Abū Dawūd 18/293)

Regarding Ibrāhīm ibn Yazīd al-Khūzī:

Al-Nasā’ī said: “(He is) Matrūk in hadīth.”

Yahyā ibn Ma’īn said: “He is not trustworthy.” Elsewhere he said “he is nothing”. Elsewhere he said “he is weak”.

Al-Bukhārī said: “They were silent about him (sakatū ‘anhu).”

[TN: Ibn Kathīr said:… When al-Bukhārī says about a person: “They were silent about him” it means that he is in the lowest and worst position in his view. However, he used gentle phrasing when critiquing… “(Ikhtisār ‘Ulūm al-Hadīth pg. 105)]

‘Alī ibn al-Madīnī said: “(He is) weak.”

Al-Darāqutnī said: “(He is) munkar in hadīth.”

(Jāmi’ Li-Kutub al-Du’afā wal-Matrūkīn 1/326-331)

Narration of al-Zuhrī

Ma’mar ibn Rashīd > Al-Zuhrī who narrated that:

كان رسول الله – صلى الله عليه وسلم – يرفع يديه عند صدره في الدعاء، ثم يمسح بهما وجهه

“The Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) used to raise his hands to the level of his chest while making supplication, and then he would wipe them over his face.”

(Abd al-Razzāq in al-Musannaf, 2/247/3234 and 3/122/5003)

Yāsir al-Fathī said: This is from the mursal narrations of Al-Zuhrī, and the mursal narrations of Al-Zuhrī are among the weakest of such narrations. They are like the wind—amounting to nothing. (Takhrīj Sunan Abū Dawūd 18/293-294)

Yahyā ibn Sa’īd al-Qattān said: “The mursal of Al-Zuhrī is worse than the mursal of others because he was a hāfidh (i.e. a meticulous memoriser) . Whenever he wanted to name (a narrator), he would do so, and verily he refrained from naming those whom he did not deem permissible/appropriate to name.” (Takhrīj Sunan Abū Dawūd 11/371 of al-Fathī referencing Tarīkh Dimashq 55/368, As-Siyar 5/338, Jāmi’ at-Tahsīl 90)

Yahyā ibn Ma’īn said: “The mursal narrations of Al-Zuhrī are nothing.” (Marāsīl of Ibn Abī Hātim 2)

Al-Shāfi’ī said: “The mursal narrations of Al-Zuhrī are considered nothing to us, because we find that he narrates from Sulaymān ibn Arqam (i.e. who was weak/matrūk)” (Sharh ‘Ilal at-Tirmidhī 1/535)

Narration of ‘Ibn Umar and Ibn al-Zubayr

Ibrāhīm ibn al-Mundhir > Muhammad ibn Fulayh > His father (Fulayh ibn Sulaymān) > Abū Nu‘aym, Wahb who narrated:

رَأَيْتُ ابْنَ عُمَرَ وَابْنَ الزُّبَيْرِ يَدْعُوَانِ، يُدِيرَانِ بِالرَّاحَتَيْنِ عَلَى الْوَجْهِ

“I saw Ibn ‘Umar and Ibn al-Zubayr supplicating, yudīrān (moving/cupping) their palms over their faces.”

(Adab al-Mufrad 609)

Meaning of the hadīth

Bakr Abū Zayd said: Al-Bukhārī titled this section: “Chapter on raising the hands in supplication.”

This title indicates that the intended meaning of this narration is the act of raising the hands in supplication, not wiping the face with them. (Juz Fī Mash al-Wajh Ba’dā Du’ā pg. 42)

Authenticity

Al-Albānī declared it da’īf (weak) in his checking of Adab al-Mufrad #93.

Muhammad ibn Sa’īd Raslān said: The isnād is weak, it includes Muhammad ibn Fulayh and his father (i.e. Fulayh ibn Sulaymān), and in them both there is weakness. (Sharh Adab al-Mufrad 3/2669)

Yāsir al-Fathī said: Its chain is not strong; Fulayh ibn Sulaymān is not strong, as he has many mistakes and gharīb (odd/unique) narrations. And his son, Muhammad ibn Fulayh: there is no harm in him, but he is not particularly strong. (Takhrīj Sunan Abū Dawūd 18/294)

Fulayh ibn Sulaymān:

Abū Zur’ah said: “(He is) weak (da’īf) in hadīth.”

Abū Hātim said: “He is not strong.”

Al-Nasā’ī said: “He is not strong.”

Al-‘Uqaylī included him in al-Du’afā (the weak ones) (5/112).

Yahyā ibn Ma’īn said: “(He is) weak.” Elsewhere he said: “He is nothing.” Elsewhere he said: “He is not strong, and his hadīth is not used as evidence.” Elsewhere he said: “Fulayh ibn Sulaymān is not trustworthy, nor is his son.”

Abū Hātim said: “(Yahyā) ibn Ma’īn was critical of Muhammad ibn Fulayh.”

Abū Dawūd said: “Fulayh is not relied upon as evidence.”

(Jāmi’ Li-Kutub al-Du’afā wa al-Mutrakīn 12/142-145)

Al-Dhahabī said: Al-Sājī said: “He makes mistakes despite being among the truthful.”

The most severe accusation against him is what was mentioned by Ibn Ma’īn, on the authority of Abū Kāmil, who said: “We used to suspect him (i.e. his integrity/reliability) because he would speak against the companions of the Prophet (ﷺ).” (Mīzān al-I’tidāl 3/363)

Clarification on those who deem the hadīth as hasan when gathered together

‘Abdullāh al-Fawzān said: As for Al-Hafidhs (Ibn Hajr) statement: “The gathering of them (i.e. narrations of Ibn Abbās and ‘Umar) warrant that it is a hasan (good) hadīth,” there is no doubt that he means hasan lighayrihi (good due to supporting evidence), not hasan lidhātihi (good in its own merit/in and of itself). However, this does not apply here, as the hadīth of Ibn Abbās is weak… Furthermore, Abū Hātim classified it as munkar, and such a narration is not suitable for corroboration or for supporting evidence. (Minhatul-A’lām 10/429-430)

Bakr Abū Zayd said: The statement of al-Hāfidh, despite his high status, does not hold up under critical analysis… (the narration of ‘Umar) contains Hammād ibn ‘Īsā al-Juhanī who is considered weak…and was declared weak by Ibn Hajr also… moreover he (i.e narrator – Hammād) has no corraborators. As for the supporting evidence, such as the narration from Ibn ʿAbbās and others, they are significantly inferior to this hadīth. (Summarised, Juz Fī Mash al-Wajh Ba’dā Du’ā pg. 27)

Summary

Yāsir al-Fathī said: In conclusion: No hadīth regarding wiping the face with the hands after supplication is proven, nor do the (narrations) strengthen one another. (Takhrīj Sunan Abū Dawūd 18/294)

Al-Albānī said: As for wiping the hands over the face after the qunūt (i.e. in the prayer), nothing has been reported —neither from him (the Prophet (ﷺ)) nor from any of his companions. Therefore, it is undoubtedly a bid’ah (innovation).

As for wiping the hands over the face outside of prayer, there is no evidence except for this hadīth [i.e. of Ibn ‘Abbās] and the one before it [i.e. of ‘Umar]. It cannot be said that one strengthens the other by combining their chains of narration—as Al-Manāwī did—due to the severe weakness in these chains…

…what supports its lack of legitimacy is that many authentic hadīth have been reported about raising the hands in supplication, and none of them mention wiping them over the face. This indicates, insha’Allāh, its critical nature and lack of legitimacy. (Irwā 2/181-182)

Statements from the scholars

Ibn ‘Abd al-Salām said: “Raising the hands in supplication is not recommended except in instances where the Prophet (ﷺ) raised his hands. As for wiping the face with the hands after supplication, it is only done by the jāhil (ignorant).” (Fatāwā pg. 47)

Ibn Marzūq said in some lines of poetry: And from our Imām Ibn ‘Arafah comes his stance: it (i.e. wiping the face) is an innovation, so do not oppose him. (Juz Fī Mash al-Wajh Ba’dā Du’ā pg. 47 of Bakr Abū Zayd)

Ibn Taymiyyah said: “The raising of the Prophet’s (ﷺ) hands in supplication is supported by many authentic hadīth. However, as for wiping the face with his hands, only one or two hadīth mention it, and they do not constitue evidence. And Allāh knows best.” (Al-Majmū’ 22/519)

Ibn al-Qāsim narrated from (Imām) Mālik, regarding one who wipes his face with his hands at the end of his supplication after having raised his hands, he criticised that and said: ‘I do not know of it.’ (Al-Nawādir wal-Ziyādāt 1/530)

Ibn al-Mubārak was asked regarding wiping the face with the hands after supplication, he replied: ‘I have not found any established evidence for it.'” (Sunan al-Kubrā of al-Bayhaqī 2/212)

Al-Nawawī said: (after explaining the different opinions in the Shāfi madhab) “whats correct is that one raises his hands and does not wipe his face.” (Sharh Madhāhib 3/501)

Ibn ‘Uthaymīn said: “What I see regarding wiping the face with the hands after supplication is that it is not a Sunnah. The Prophet (ﷺ), as is well-known, supplicated during the Friday sermon for rain (istisqā) and raised his hands, yet it was not reported that he wiped his face with them. Similarly, there are several other hadith where the Prophet (ﷺ) is mentioned with supplicating and raising his hands, and yet it has not been established that he wiped his face. (Al-Majmū 14/781)

‘Abd al-Razzāq al-Badr said: This issue of wiping the face with the hands cannot be turned to except with an evidence; it cannot be accepted except with an established evidence. Therefore, what is necessary and foremost is that a person does not wipe his face after supplication, indeed he (should) raise his hands and lower them without wiping.’ (Link)


A lejohet fshirja e fytyrës me duar pas duave?

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Yāsir al-Fathī tha: Nuk ka hadīth të vërtetuar (d.m.th autentikë) për fshirjen e fytyrës me duar pas bërrjes së duave. (Takhrīj Sunan Abū Dawūd 18/294)

Al-Albānī tha:Ajo që mbështet mungesën e legjitimitetit të tij (d.m.th. fshirja e fytyrës me duar) është se shumë hadithe autentike janë transmetuar rreth ngritjes së duarve gjatë lutjes, dhe asnjë prej tyre nuk përmend fshirjen e fytyrës. Kjo tregon, insha’Allāh, natyrën kritike dhe mungesën e legjitimitetit të saj. (Irwā 2/181-182)

Ibn ‘Abd al-Salām tha: “Rritja e duarve gjatë duas nuk rekomandohet përveç në rastet kur Pejgamberi (ﷺ) ngriti duarët. Sa i përket fshirjes së fytyrës me duar pas duas, kjo bëhet vetëm nga të injorantë.” (Fatāwā f. 47)

Ibn Marzūq tha në disa vargje poezie: Dhe nga Imāmi ynë Ibn ‘Arafah vjen qëndrimi i tij: kjo (fshirje e fytyrës) është një risim (d.m.th bidatë) prandaj mos e kundërshtoni. (Juz Fī Mash al-Wajh Ba’dā Du’ā f. 47 nga Bakr Abū Zayd)

Ibn Taymiyyah tha: “Rritja e duarve të Pejgamberit (ﷺ) gjatë duas është mbështetur nga shumë hadithe autentike. Megjithatë, sa i përket fshirjes së fytyrës me duar, vetëm një ose dy hadithe e përmendin këtë, dhe ato nuk përbëjnë provë.” (Al-Majmū’ 22/519)

Ibn al-Qāsim tregoi nga (Imami) Māliku, sa i përket atij që fshin fytyrën me duar pas duas, ai e kritikoi këtë dhe tha: ‘Nuk di për (ndonjë dëshmi/provë për) këtë.’ (Al-Nawādir wal-Ziyādāt 1/530)

Ibn al-Mubārak u pyet për fshirjen e fytyrës me duar pas duas, ai u përgjigj: ‘Nuk kam gjetur asnjë dëshmi/provë të vërtetuar për këtë.’ (Sunan al-Kubrā e al-Bayhaqī 2/212)

Al-Nawawī tha: (pas shpjegimit të mendimeve të ndryshme në shkollën Shāfi) “Ajo që është e saktë është që personi i ngrit duarët dhe nuk fshin fytyrën.” (Sharh Madhāhib 3/501)

Ibn ‘Uthaymīn tha: “Atë që unë shoh për fshirjen e fytyrës me duar pas duas është se nuk është Sunet (d.m.th praktik të pejgamberit). Pejgamberi (ﷺ), siç dihet mirë, bëri dua gjatë predikimit të xhumasë për shi dhe ngriti duarët, por nuk është raportuar që ai fshiu fytyrën me duar. Po ashtu, ka disa hadithe të tjera ku Pejgamberi (ﷺ) është përmendur duke bërë dua me duarët të ngritur, dhe megjithatë nuk është vërtetuar që ai fshiu fytyrën.” (Al-Majmū 14/781)

‘Abd al-Razzāq al-Badr tha: Kjo çështje e fshirjes së fytyrës me duar nuk mund të trajtohet përveçse me një provë; nuk mund të pranohet përveçse me një provë të vërtetuar (d.m.th nga Kur’āni ose Suneti i pejgamberit). Prandaj, ajo që është e domosdoshme dhe më kryesore është që një person të mos fshijë fytyrën pas duave, vërtet ai (duhet) të ngrejë duarët dhe t’i ulë pa fshirë (fytyrën).” (https://safeshare.tv/x/ss63d7f4568ec3b)

The narrations of the 73 sects and their authenticity

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

The sādiq al-masdūq (the truthful and believed) Prophet (ﷺ) foretold that his Ummah would inevitably experience division. This division serves as a test for this Ummah and is a condemnation of those who deviate and distance themselves from Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jamā’ah, as well (as it being) a warning against division and deviation.

This narration from him (ﷺ) is from the Sahīh (authentic) reports, indeed the hadīth of division has been narrated through many chains, including reports from Abū Hurayrah, Mu’āwiyah, ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Amr ibn al-‘Ās, Anas ibn Mālik, ‘Awf ibn Mālik, Abū Mūsā al-Ash’arī, Abū Umāmah, Jābir ibn ‘Abdullāh, Ibn Mas’ūd, Sa’d ibn Abī Waqqās, Abū Dardā, Wāthila ibn al-Asqa’, ‘Alī ibn Abī Tālib, and ‘Amr ibn ‘Awf al-Muzanī.

The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “The Jews split into seventy-one sects, and the Christians into seventy-two sects, and this Ummah will split into seventy-three sects, all of which will be in the Fire except one.” It was asked, “Who is that, O Messenger of Allāh?” He replied, “(Those who are) upon the likes of what I and my companions are upon today.”

In another narration, he said, “The jamā’ah,” and in another, “al-sawād al-a’dham.”

(Introduction to Hadīth al-Iftirāq al-Ummah pg. 20-21 of Al-San’ānī)

Narration of Abū Hurayrah

عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ “‏ افْتَرَقَتِ الْيَهُودُ عَلَى إِحْدَى أَوْ ثِنْتَيْنِ وَسَبْعِينَ فِرْقَةً وَتَفَرَّقَتِ النَّصَارَى عَلَى إِحْدَى أَوْ ثِنْتَيْنِ وَسَبْعِينَ فِرْقَةً وَتَفْتَرِقُ أُمَّتِي عَلَى ثَلاَثٍ وَسَبْعِينَ فِرْقَةً ‏”‏ ‏.‏



Abū Hurayrah narrated: The Prophet (ﷺ) said: The Jews split up into seventy-one or seventy-two sects; and the Christians split up into seventy one or seventy-two sects; and my ummah will be split up into seventy-three sects. (Abū Dawūd 4596. Al-Tirmidhī 2640, Ibn Mājah 3991, al-Mustadrak of al-Hākim 446, Ibn Hibbān 6247, 6731)

Isnād

[TN: we will note two chains to demonstrate the authenticity, for the other chains please refer back to the hadīth numbering above]

Isnād 1: ‘Abdullāh ibn Muhammad al-Azdī > Ishāq ibn Ibrāhīm > Fadl ibn Mūsā > Muhammad ibn ‘Amr >Abū Salamah > Abū Hurayrah.

Al-Arnāūt said: the isnād is Hasan: Its narrators are thiqah (trustworthy, i.e. upright, and accurate/reliable in what they narrate) – narrators of the two Shaykhs (i.e. both Sahīh al-Bukhārī and Sahīh Muslim) except for Muhammad ibn ‘Amr ibn Alqamah ibn Waqās al-Laythī: he is considered sadūq (truthful), hasan in hadīth, al-Bukhārī narrated from him in conjunction (with other narrators) and Muslim with corroboration. (Sahīh Ibn Hibbān 15/125)

Isnād 2: Abū Bakr ibn Abī Shaybah > Muhammad ibn Bishr > Muhammad ibn ‘Amr > Abū Salamah > Abū Hurayrah.

Al-Hararī said (summarised):… (Muhammad ibn Bishr) is thiqah, (Muhammad ibn ‘Amr) is sadūq, (Abū Salamah) is thiqah… the ruling of the isnād is: authentic, because its narrators are thiqah athbāt (trustworthy and reliable). (Summarised, Sharh ibn Mājah 24/84)

Al-Albānī said: Its chain is Hasan; all of its narrators are thiqah, the narrators of the two Shaykhs (Sahīh al-Bukhārī and Sahīh Muslim), except for Muhammad ibn ‘Amr, who is considered to be a Hasan narrator as I have clarified in al-Sahīhah (203).

As for the claim made by some fanatics/partisans that it should not be accepted unless he is corroborated, this contradicts the stance of all the scholars of Hadīth, who consider him reliable and accept his narrations in the intermediate grade, that is, Hasan. If he is corroborated, it becomes a Sahīh hadīth without a doubt, as is the case here, and it has been declared as Sahīh by at-Tirmidhī, Ibn Hibbān, and al-Hākim. (Kitāb al-Sunnah of Ibn Abī ‘Āsim pg. 33)

Authenticity

Al-Tirmidhī declared it Hasan Sahīh. (Al-Tirmidhī 2640)

Al-Hākim declared it Sahīh upon the conditions of Muslim and al-Dhahabī agreed. (al-Mustadrak 1/302-303)

Al-Shātibī declared it authentic in al-‘Itisām 2/186.

Al-Albānī declared it Hasan Sahīh in his checking of Abū Dawūd pg. 830.

Al-Muqbil declared the hadīth Hasan in al-Jāmi’ Sahīh #153, #2360, #3395, #3827.

Al-Arnāūt declared the hadīth Sahīh in his checking of Sunan Abū Dawūd 5/7.

Narration of Mu’āwiyah

حَدَّثَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ حَنْبَلٍ، وَمُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى، قَالاَ حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو الْمُغِيرَةِ، حَدَّثَنَا صَفْوَانُ، ح وَحَدَّثَنَا عَمْرُو بْنُ عُثْمَانَ، حَدَّثَنَا بَقِيَّةُ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنِي صَفْوَانُ، نَحْوَهُ قَالَ حَدَّثَنِي أَزْهَرُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ الْحَرَازِيُّ، عَنْ أَبِي عَامِرٍ الْهَوْزَنِيِّ، عَنْ مُعَاوِيَةَ بْنِ أَبِي سُفْيَانَ، أَنَّهُ قَامَ فِينَا فَقَالَ أَلاَ إِنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَامَ فِينَا فَقَالَ ‏”‏ أَلاَ إِنَّ مَنْ قَبْلَكُمْ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ افْتَرَقُوا عَلَى ثِنْتَيْنِ وَسَبْعِينَ مِلَّةً وَإِنَّ هَذِهِ الْمِلَّةَ سَتَفْتَرِقُ عَلَى ثَلاَثٍ وَسَبْعِينَ ثِنْتَانِ وَسَبْعُونَ فِي النَّارِ وَوَاحِدَةٌ فِي الْجَنَّةِ وَهِيَ الْجَمَاعَةُ ‏…

Ahmad ibn Hanbal > Muhammad ibn Yahyā > Abū Al-Mughīrah > Safwān

And also, Amr ibn ‘Uthmān > Baqiyyah > Safwān

> Azhar ibn ‘Abdullāh Al-Harāzī > Abū ‘Āmir Al-Hawzanī > Mu’āwiyah ibn Abū Sufyān, who stood among us and said:

The Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) stood up among us and said: “Those who came before you of the people of the Book split into seventy-two sects, and this Ummah will split into seventy-three sects, seventy-two of which will be in the Fire, and one in Paradise. That is the Jamā’ah…” (Abū Dawūd 4597. Kitāb al-Sunnah of Ibn Abī ‘Āsim #65. Al-Dārimī 2555 and others)

Isnād

‘Abd al-Muhsin al-‘Abbād said in Sharh Sunan Abū Dawūd 8/514 (abridged):

(Ahmad ibn Hanbal) He is Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Hanbal al-Shaybānī, the imām, the scholar of hadīth, and one of the four famous schools of thought among the Ahl al-Sunnah. His narrations are found in the six major hadīth collections.

(Muhammad ibn Yahyā) He is Muhammad ibn Yahyā al-Dhuhalī and he is thiqah, trustworthy. Al-Bukhārī and the authors of the Sunnah narrated from him.

(Abū Al-Mughīrah) Abū Al-Mughīrah is Abd al-Quddūs ibn Hajjāj, and he is thiqah, trustworthy. The six major hadīth collectors have narrated from him.

(Safwān) He is Safwān ibn ‘Amr, and he is thiqah, trustworthy. Al-Bukhārī narrated from him in (Al-Adab al-Mufrad), and he is narrated from by Muslim and the authors of the Sunnah.

(Amr ibn ‘Uthmān) He is ‘Amr ibn ‘Uthmān ibn Sa’īd ibn Kathīr ibn Dinār Al-Himsī and he is sadūq, truthful. Abū Dawūd, al-Nasā’ī, and Ibn Mājah narrated from him.

(Baqiyyah) He is Baqiyyah ibn al-Walīd, and he is sadūq truthful. Al-Bukhārī mentioned him in commentary, and he is narrated from by Muslim and the authors of the Sunnah.

(Safwān)

Safwān is ibn ‘Amr mentioned earlier.

(Azhar ibn ‘Abdullāh Al-Harāzī) Azhar ibn ‘Abdullāh Al-Harāzī is sadūq, truthful. Abū Dawūd , al-Tirmidhī, and al-Nasā’ī narrated from him.

(Abū ‘Āmir Al-Hawzanī) Abū ‘Āmir Al-Hawzanī is Abdullāh ibn Luhayy and he is thiqah, trustworthy. Abū Dawūd, al-Nasa’i, and Ibn Mājah, narrated from him.

(Mu’āwiyah ibn Abī Sufyān) Mu’āwiyah ibn Abī Sufyān, the Commander of the Believers, may Allāh be pleased with him, and his narrations are found in the six major hadīth collections.”

Al-Zahrānī said: Its narrators are trustworthy, and Al-Azhar was spoken against for his innovation. (Sharh Sunan al-Dārimī 5/4)

Al-Ghamrī said: The men in the isnād of the hadīth are trustworthy; none of them is weak, except that Azhar al-Harāzī has been spoken against for his innovation. (Fath al-Manān, Sharh al-Musnad 8/766)

Authenticity

Al-Hākim authenticated the isnād and al-Dhahabī agreed. (al-Mustadrak 1/303)

Ibn Kathīr declared it Hasan in Bidāyah al-Nihāyah 19/38.

Al-Shātibī declared it authentic in al-I’tisām pg. 506.

Ibn Taymiyyah said:.. It is an authentic and well-known hadīth. (al-Masāil 2/83)

Ibn Hajr declared the isnād as Hasan in al-Kashāf pg. 63.

Al-Albānī declared it Hasan in his checking of Abū Dawūd #4597.

Al-Arnāūt declared the isnād as Hasan and the hadīth as Sahīh (Abū Dawūd #4597)

Narration of ‘Awf ibn Mālik

حَدَّثَنَا عَمْرُو بْنُ عُثْمَانَ بْنِ سَعِيدِ بْنِ كَثِيرِ بْنِ دِينَارٍ الْحِمْصِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا عَبَّادُ بْنُ يُوسُفَ، حَدَّثَنَا صَفْوَانُ بْنُ عَمْرٍو، عَنْ رَاشِدِ بْنِ سَعْدٍ، عَنْ عَوْفِ بْنِ مَالِكٍ، قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ ‏”‏ افْتَرَقَتِ الْيَهُودُ عَلَى إِحْدَى وَسَبْعِينَ فِرْقَةً فَوَاحِدَةٌ فِي الْجَنَّةِ وَسَبْعُونَ فِي النَّارِ وَافْتَرَقَتِ النَّصَارَى عَلَى ثِنْتَيْنِ وَسَبْعِينَ فِرْقَةً فَإِحْدَى وَسَبْعُونَ فِي النَّارِ وَوَاحِدَةٌ فِي الْجَنَّةِ وَالَّذِي نَفْسُ مُحَمَّدٍ بِيَدِهِ لَتَفْتَرِقَنَّ أُمَّتِي عَلَى ثَلاَثٍ وَسَبْعِينَ فِرْقَةً فَوَاحِدَةٌ فِي الْجَنَّةِ وَثِنْتَانِ وَسَبْعُونَ فِي النَّارِ ‏”‏ ‏.‏ قِيلَ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ مَنْ هُمْ قَالَ ‏”‏ الْجَمَاعَةُ ‏”‏ ‏.‏

ʿAmr ibn ʿUthmān ibn Saʿīd ibn Kathīr ibn Dīnār al-Himsī > ‘Abbād ibn Yūsuf > Safwān ibn ʿAmr > Rāshid ibn Saʿd > ʿAwf ibn Mālik narrated:

The Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) said:
“The Jews split into seventy-one sects, one of which will be in Paradise and seventy in the Fire. The Christians split into seventy-two sects, seventy-one of which will be in the Fire and one in Paradise. I swear by the One Whose Hand is the soul of Muhammad, my nation will split into seventy-three sects, one of which will be in Paradise and seventy-two in the Fire.” It was said: “O Messenger of Allāh, who are they?” He said: “The Jamā’ah.” (Ibn Mājah #3992. Kitāb al-Sunnah of Ibn Abī ‘Āsim #63. al-Tabarānī in Al-Mu‘jam al-Kabīr 18/129, Al-Shamiyyin (988), via ‘Abbād ibn Yūsuf)

Isnād

Al-Hararī said [abridged]:

(‘Amr ibn ‘Uthmān ibn Sa’īd ibn Kathīr ibn Dinār Al-Himsī) considered sadūq, truthful, died in the year 250H.

(‘Abbād ibn Yūsuf) considered maqbūl (acceptable), included in Thiqāt (The Trustworthy) by Ibn Hibbān, died in 206H.

(Safwān ibn ‘Amr) considered thiqah, died in 155H.

(Rashīd ibn Sa’d) considered thiqah, died in 107H or 113H.

(Awf ibn Mālik) the well-known sahābī, died in 73H.

The grading of the isnād: it is authentic, because it’s narrators are thiqah. (Sharh Ibn Mājah 24/86)

ibn Kathīr said: there is no harm with this isnād. (Bidāyah al-Nihāyah 19/36 )

Al-Albānī said: Its chain of transmission is jayyīd (i.e. good/strong); all its narrators are thiqāt and well-known, except for ‘Abbād ibn Yūsuf, who is considered thiqah, in sha Allāh.[in al-Sahīhah, the shaykh adds: who is Al-Kindī Al-Himsī. Ibn Hibbān mentioned him in “Al-Thiqāt” and others have also considered him thiqah [i.e. Ibn Mājah, Ibn Abī’ Āsim, Ibrahīm ibn ‘Alā, see al-Mīzān 2/380, al-Tahdhīb 2/285] and a number of people have narrated from him.] (Kitāb al-Sunnah of Ibn Abī ‘Āsim pg. 32, al-Sahīhah 3/480)

Authenticity

Al-Hararī said: The grading of the hadīth is Sahīh, due to the authenticity of the isnād. It also serves as a witness to the hadīth of Abū Hurayrah. (Sharh Ibn Mājah 24/86-87)

Al-Arnāūt declared it Sahīh lighayrihi (due to supporting evidence) in his checking of Ibn Mājah 5/129.

Narration(s) of Anas ibn Mālik

حَدَّثَنَا هِشَامُ بْنُ عَمَّارٍ، حَدَّثَنَا الْوَلِيدُ بْنُ مُسْلِمٍ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو عَمْرٍو، حَدَّثَنَا قَتَادَةُ، عَنْ أَنَسِ بْنِ مَالِكٍ، قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ ‏ “‏ إِنَّ بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ افْتَرَقَتْ عَلَى إِحْدَى وَسَبْعِينَ فِرْقَةً وَإِنَّ أُمَّتِي سَتَفْتَرِقُ عَلَى ثِنْتَيْنِ وَسَبْعِينَ فِرْقَةً كُلُّهَا فِي النَّارِ إِلاَّ وَاحِدَةً وَهِيَ الْجَمَاعَةُ ‏”‏ ‏

Hishām ibn ʿAmmār > al-Walīd ibn Muslim > Abū ʿAmr > Qatādah > Anas ibn Mālik narrated:

The Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) said:
‘The Children of Isrā’īl split into seventy-one sects, and my nation will split into seventy-two sects, all of which will be in the Fire except one, which is the jamā’ah. ” (Ibn Majah 3993. Kitāb al-Sunnah of Ibn Abī ‘Āsim #64)

Isnād

Al-Hararī said [abridged]:

(Hishām ibn ʿAmmār) considered Sadūq, died 245H.

(Al-Walīd ibn Muslim) considered thiqah, known for tadlīs taswiyah, died in 195/196H.

(Abū ‘Amr) Al-Awzā’ī, the virtuous scholar, considered thiqah, died in 157H.

(Qatādah) considered thiqah, died in 112H.

(Anas ibn Mālik) the well-known sahābī.

The grading of the isnād: it is authentic, it’s men are thiqah athbāt. (Sharh Ibn Mājah 24/88)

Ibn Kathīr declared it Sahīh, saying: this isnād is strong upon the conditions of al-Sahīh. (Bidāyah wal-Nihāyah 19/37).

Al-‘Irāqī declared the isnād as Sahīh. (al-Bā’ith alā Khalās #16)

Authenticity

Al-Hararī said: the grading of the hadīth is Sahīh due to the isnād being authentic. It also serves as a witness to the hadīth of Abū Hurayrah. (Sharh Ibn Mājah 24/88-89)

Al-Arnāūt said: the hadīth is Sahīh, Hishām ibn ʿAmmār is corroborated. (Ibn Majāh 5/130, #3993)

Al-Albānī said: the hadīth is Sahīh, and its narrators are thiqah, although there is some weakness in Hishām ibn ʿAmmār, but he has been corroborated… and it was authenticated by Al-Busayrī!

The hadīth is certainly authentic because there are six other chains from Anas [see al-Sahīhah 204], along with supporting evidence from various (other) companions…

Some misguided individuals, who are staunch followers of the Hanafī school, have erroneously inclined toward weakening this hadīth despite its numerous chains, as it contradicts their personal inclinations. (Abridged, Kitāb al-Sunnah of Ibn Abī ‘Āsim pg. 32)

Narration of Abū Umāmah

ثنا أبو بكر بن أبي شيبة ، ثنا قطن بن عبدالله أبو مري، عن أبي غالب، عن أبي أمامة قال :افترقت بنو إسرائيل على إحدى وسبعين فرقة، أو قال: اثنتين وسبعين فرقة، وتزيد هذه الأمة فرقة واحدة كلها في النار ؛ إلا السواد الأعظم، فقال له رجل: يا أبا أمامة من رأيك أو سمعته من رسول الله ﷺ قال : إني إذا لجريء، بل سمعته من رسول الله ﷺ غير مرة ولا مرتين ولاثلاثة

Abū Bakr ibn Abī Shaybah > Qutn ibn ‘Abdullāh Abū Marrī > Abū Ghālib > Abū Umamah, who said:

“The Children of Isrā’īl divided into seventy-one or, he said, seventy-two sects. This nation will have one more sect than them, and all of them will be in the Fire except for al-sawād al-a’dham.”

Then a man asked him, “O Abū Umāmah, is this your opinion, or did you hear it from the Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ)?”

Abu Umamah replied, “Indeed, I would be audacious if I said that on my own accord! Rather, I heard it from the Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ)—not just once, nor twice, nor three times. ” (Kitab al-Sunnah of Ibn Abī ‘Āsim #68)

Isnād and authenticity

Al-Albānī said [summarised] : the isnād is da’īf (weak): Qutn ibn ‘Abdullāh is unknown. The rest of the narrators are thiqah, except for Abū Ghālib who has slight weakness, but is considered Hasan in hadīth.

Al-Haythamī said: This narration includes Abū Ghālib, whom Ibn Ma’īn and others considered to be thiqah, and the remaining narrators in al-Awsat are thiqah, as is one of the chains in al-Kabīr. (Majma’ al-Zawāid, 12139)

I say (i.e. Al-Albānī): If the hadīth was transmitted through other chains without involving Qutn (ibn ‘Abdullāh), then (the hadīth) is hasan. And Allah knows best.

The verifier commented on this statement of Al-Albānī saying: “This indeed is the case, as several other narrators followed Abū Ghālib in narrating it. Al-Tabarānī included them in Al-Kabīr (8051 to 8054).” [see below for some of these chains]” (Kitāb al-Sunnah of Ibn Abī ‘Āsim pg. 34)

Isnād in Awsat 7202 of al-Tabarānī (also collected by al-Lalakā’ī in Sharh Usūl I’tiqād #132) : Muhammad ibn Mahmuwiyy al-Jawharī > Maʿmar ibn Sahl > Abū ʿAlī al-Hanafī > Salm ibn Zarayr > Abū Ghālib > Abī Umāmah

Isnād in al-Kabīr of al-Tabarānī 8051 (also collected by al-Lalakā’ī in Sharh Usūl I’tiqād #131): ʿAlī ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz > Dāwūd ibn ʿAmr al-Dabbī > Abū Shihāb ʿAbd Rabbihi ibn Nāfiʿ > ʿAmr ibn Qays al-Mulāʾī > Dāwūd ibn al-Sulayk > Abū Ghālib >  Abū Umāmah

The verifier of Majma al-Zawāid (Dar al-Minhāj print) said: this chain is Hasan.

Isnād in al-Kabīr of al-Tabarānī 8052: al-Husayn ibn Ishāq al-Tustarī > Yahyā al-Himmānī > Sharīk > Dāwūd ibn Abī al-Sulayk > Abī Ghālib > Abū Umāmah

The verifier of Majma al-Zawāid (Dar al-Minhāj print) said: this chain is also Hasan.

Narration of ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Amr

حَدَّثَنَا مَحْمُودُ بْنُ غَيْلاَنَ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو دَاوُدَ الْحَفَرِيُّ، عَنْ سُفْيَانَ الثَّوْرِيِّ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ زِيَادِ بْنِ أَنْعُمَ الإِفْرِيقِيِّ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ يَزِيدَ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عَمْرٍو، قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ “‏ لَيَأْتِيَنَّ عَلَى أُمَّتِي مَا أَتَى عَلَى بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ حَذْوَ النَّعْلِ بِالنَّعْلِ حَتَّى إِنْ كَانَ مِنْهُمْ مَنْ أَتَى أُمَّهُ عَلاَنِيَةً لَكَانَ فِي أُمَّتِي مَنْ يَصْنَعُ ذَلِكَ وَإِنَّ بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ تَفَرَّقَتْ عَلَى ثِنْتَيْنِ وَسَبْعِينَ مِلَّةً وَتَفْتَرِقُ أُمَّتِي عَلَى ثَلاَثٍ وَسَبْعِينَ مِلَّةً كُلُّهُمْ فِي النَّارِ إِلاَّ مِلَّةً وَاحِدَةً قَالُوا وَمَنْ هِيَ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ قَالَ مَا أَنَا عَلَيْهِ وَأَصْحَابِي ‏”‏ ‏.‏ قَالَ أَبُو عِيسَى هَذَا حَدِيثٌ مُفَسَّرٌ حَسَنٌ غَرِيبٌ لاَ نَعْرِفُهُ مِثْلَ هَذَا إِلاَّ مِنْ هَذَا الْوَجْهِ

Mahmūd ibn Ghaylān > Abū Dawūd Al-Hafarī > Sufyān Al-Thawrī > ‘Abdur-Rahmān ibn Ziyād ibn An’um Al-Ifriqī > ‘Abdullāh ibn Yazīd > ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Amr:

That the Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) said: “What befell the children of Isrā’īl will befall my Ummah, step by step, such that if there was one who had intercourse with his mother in the open, then there would be someone from my Ummah who would do that. Indeed the children of Isrā’īl split into seventy-two sects, and my Ummah will split into seventy-three sects. All of them are in the Fire Except one sect.” He said: “And which is it O Messenger of Allāh?” He said: ” What I am upon and my Companions.” (al-Tirmidhī 2641. Ibn Wadāh in al-Bid’ah 85. Ibn Battah in al-Ibānah 1/368. Al-Lalakā’ī in Sharh al-Sunnah 1/99. Al-Hākim 1/303 and others, all via ‘Abdurrahmān ibn Ziyād ibn An’um al-Ifrīqī)

Isnād

Al-Arnāūt said: Its chain of transmission is weak due to the weakness of ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Ziyā ibn An‘um al-Ifriqī. (Sunan al-Tirmidhī 4/587)

Authenticity

Al-Tirmidhī declared it Hasan in his Sunan #2641.

Al-Albānī declared it Hasan in his checking of al-Tirmidhī 6/141.

Response to those who say the wording “all in the fire, except one” is weak

Al-Albānī said after demonstrating the authenticity of the narrations above:

It has become clear beyond doubt that this hadīth is established (i.e. to be authentic), which is why scholars from (the earlier) generations to (the latter) generations have relied upon it as evidence, to the extent that Al-Hākim stated at the beginning of his book Al-Mustadrak [1/217]: ‘It is a major hadīth in the foundational principles (of the religion)’…

I do not know of anyone who criticised this hadīth, except for some individuals whose isolated and anomalous opinions are not considered, such as Al-Kawtharī…(Al-Sahīhah 1/408)

Al-Albānī also said: How can one assert that the meaning of a hadīth – which the leading imāms and scholars of various ranks accepted and declared to be authentic – to be invalid/incorrect? This is nearly impossible! (Al-Sahīhah 1/410)

Al-Shawkānī said: Ibn Kathīr said in his Tafsīr after mentioning this hadīth (i.e. of division), quoting his words: “The hadīth about the division of nations into over seventy sects is narrated through many chains of transmission, which we have detailed in another place.” End quote.

I say (i.e. Al-Shawkānī): As for the addition stating that all (sects) are in the Fire except one, a group of (hadīth) scholars have deemed it weak. In fact, Ibn Hazm declared it mawdū fabricated. (Fath al-Qadīr 2/119)

Al-Albānī says in response: I don’t know whom he referred to with his statement “a group…” since I am not aware of any early hadīth scholars who weakened this addition. On the contrary, the group has authenticated it, and I have already mentioned their names.

As for Ibn Hazm, I do not know where he made this claim. The first assumption is that it is in his book Al-Fasl fi Al-Milal wa Al-Nihal. However, I reviewed it and searched its sections but did not find it. Furthermore, the reports about his stance differ. Ibn Al-Wazīr said that Ibn Hazm stated: “It is not authentic,” whereas Al-Shawkānī claimed he said: “It is fabricated.” Clearly, these two statements are significantly different, as evident.

If Ibn Hazm indeed said this, his view is rejected for two reasons:

1. Scientific hadīth evaluation has established the authenticity of this addition, thus no consideration is given to those who weaken it.


2. Those who authenticated it are more numerous and more knowledgeable in hadīth than Ibn Hazm, especially given that he is known among scholars for being overly strict in criticism, thus his opinion is not relied upon when it is isolated without any opposition, let alone when he is opposed by others! (Al-Sahīhah 1/409-410)



Benefits from the above narrations

  1. Shaykh Sālih al-Fawzān said: The statement (of Imām al-Barbahārī): “Know that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: ‘My Ummah will split into seventy-three sects, all of them in the Fire except one.'” — This hadīth is authenticated through its many chains and numerous wordings, recorded and praised by the Imāms. Reality  affirms its truth, as the Prophet (ﷺ) foretold that the Ummah of Muhammad would divide into seventy-three sects. These represent the foundational sects, though there may be more subsects [i.e. which branch off these sects]. (Sharh as-Sunnah of al-Barbahārī pg. 225)

    .
  2. Shaykh Rabī’ ibn Hādī said: He (ﷺ) informed us that this Ummah would split into seventy-three sects. This is part of the knowledge of the unseen that Allāh revealed to His Prophet (ﷺ). Reality has come to bear witness to what the Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) foretold: “We will show them Our signs in the universe and within themselves until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth.” [Qur’ān 41:53]. (‘Awn al-Bārī 2/45)

    .
  3. Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azīz al-Rājihī said: This hadīth (of the division into sects) has been narrated in various wordings, and it emphasises the obligation of adhering to the Jamā’ah, which is the saved sect (al-firqah al-nājiyah), namely, the Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamā’ah, who are the people of truth. The Prophet (ﷺ) said: “There will always remain a group from my nation manifest upon the truth, victorious, not harmed by those who abandon them or oppose them, until the command of Allāh comes.” (Sharh as-Sunnah of Al-Barbahārī 1/7)

    .
  4. Shaykh Rabī’ ibn Hādī said: …The statement “There will always remain a group from my nation manifest upon the truth” clarifies this (i.e. who the jamā’ah is). It shows that the “saved sect (firqah al-nājiyah)” and the “victorious group (tāifah mansūrah)” are one and the same. How is this so? In the hadīth of the “victorious group,” the phrase “upon the truth” is used, and here it states: “except one, which is the Jamā’ah.” Thus, the Jamā’ah is (that which is) united upon the truth, “that which I and my companions are upon”, (united) upon what the Prophet (ﷺ) and his companions were upon, (which is) the truth.

    This demonstrates that differentiating between the “saved sect” and the “victorious group” is a significant error. Some make this mistake unknowingly, while others do so deliberately. (‘Awn al-Bārī 2/46)

    .
  5. Shaykh Sālih al-Fawzān said: The statement “all of them in the Fire except one” means that seventy-two of these sects will enter the Fire, while the seventy-third, which adheres to what the Prophet (ﷺ) and his Companions were upon, will be saved from the hellfire. Thus, this group is named as the saved sect (al-Firqah al-Nājiyah), also known as Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamā’ah. (Sharh as-Sunnah of al-Barbahārī pg. 225)

    .
  6. Abdullāh ibn Mas’ūd رضي الله عنه said: “The jamā’ah is what aligns with the truth, even if you are alone.” (Ibn ‘Asākir in Tarīkh al-Dimishq 33/154, Sahīh)

    .
  7. Imām Al-Barbaharī said: The companions of the prophet (ﷺ) are the Jamā’ah and they are al-sawād al-a’dham. Al-sawād al-a’dham is the truth and it’s followers. (Sharh as-Sunnah of Al-Barbahārī)

    .
  8. Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azīz al-Rājihī said: The Jamā’ah refers to the companions (Sahabah) and their followers (Tābi’īn). And they are those who act according to the Book of Allāh and the Sunnah of His Messenger (ﷺ) adhering to the commands and avoiding the prohibitions. They are those who stay away from innovations (bid’ah) in words, actions, beliefs, and intentions. (Sharh as-Sunnah of Al-Barbahārī 1/7)

    .
  9. Shaykh Sālih al-Fawzān said: As for the groups (jamā’āt) that are not upon the truth, they are not called the true group (Jamā’ah). Any group that has gathered upon misguidance, or upon a methodology that contradicts Islām, or upon a way that is contrary to Islām, is not considered the true and praiseworthy group (Jamā’ah). The Jamā’ah intended here are the people of truth, and it is not necessary for them to be many (in number). Even if there is only one person upon the truth, they are considered a Jamā’ah. The Jamā’ah is defined as those who are upon the truth, whether few or many. It is obligatory to adhere to those that are upon the truth and not to oppose the Jamā’ah that is upon the truth, but rather to be with them. (Sharh as-Sunnah of Al-Barbahārī 1/16)

    .
  10. Imām Al-Shātibī said: The Prophet’s statement ‘except from one’ clearly shows that truth is singular and does not differ, for if there were multiple truths, he would not have said, ‘except one.’” Moreover, differences are entirely negated from the Sharī’ah, for it is the criterion for judging disputes, as Allāh says: “If you disagree over anything, refer it to Allāh and the Messenger” (Qur’ān 4:59). Referring disputes to the Sharī’ah would be pointless if the Sharī’ah itself led to disagreements. (Slightly paraphrased, al-I’tisām pg. 543)

    .
  11. Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azīz al-Rājihī said: The truth is not determined by the (large) number of people, as often the majority may be misguided. Allāh, The Most-High said: “And if you obey most of those on earth, they will mislead you from the way of Allāh” (Al-An’ām: 116). He also said: “But most people do not believe” (Hūd: 17), and “But most people do not give thanks” (Al-Baqarah: 243), and “And few of My servants are grateful” (Saba: 13). (Sharh as-Sunnah of Al-Barbahārī 1/9)

    .
  12. Shaykh Sālih al-Fawzān said: Those outside this (saved) group are considered opposers and are threatened with the punishment of the Fire.

    From them are:

    Those who enter the Fire due to disbelief (kufr).

    Those who enter due to evil-doing (fisq).

    Those who enter due to other disobedience (ma’siyah).


    Thus, their levels and reasons for entering the Fire vary. This hadīth should not be understood to imply that all these sects are disbelievers. (Sharh as-Sunnah pg. 225)

Making up a missed obligatory prayer – Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn al-Qayyim, Ibn Hazm, Ibn Bāz, Al-Albānī

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Ibn Hazm said: It has been reported from ‘Umar, Abdur-Rahmān ibn ‘Awf, Mu’ādh ibn Jabal, Abū Hurayrah, and others among the Companions (may Allāh be pleased with them) that whoever deliberately misses a single obligatory prayer until its time ceases is a disbeliever and an apostate. (al-Muhallā 2/15)

The first question of Fatwā no. 6196 (Part 6/10-11)

Q: Allāh has guided me to obey Him. I offer the daily prayers on time except for Fajr (Dawn). Sometimes I get up late after sunrise. Is my Fajr Prayer offered at that time valid? How can a Muslim make up for the Salāh he missed like the ‘Asr Prayer? Will he make up for it at the time of the Maghrib Prayer or delay it until the next ‘Asr Prayer?

A: The Salāh you miss due to sleep or forgetfulness should be offered the moment you wake up or the moment you remember. It does not matter if you wake up or remember it after sunrise. This is based on the Hadīth in which the Prophet (ﷺ) said: “He who misses a prayer because he sleeps or forgets it should offer it when he remembers it, there is no expiation for it, except this.”

As for the Salāh you intentionally abandoned while believing in it being obligatory, the most sound of the two views held by scholars is that such an act constitutes major Kufr (disbelief).

You should not make up for it, but you have to repent, regret it, and ask Allāh’s forgiveness for abandoning it. You should observe the five daily prayers regularly. This is based on the Hadīth in which the Prophet (ﷺ) said: “That which differentiates us from the disbelievers and hypocrites is our performance of Salāh, He who abandons it, becomes a disbeliever.”

Another Hadīth states: “What makes one a disbeliever and a polytheist is abandoning prayers.”

May Allāh grant us success! May peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad, his family, and Companions!

Permanent Committee for Scholarly Research and Ifta’

Member: Abdullāh ibn Qa’ūd

Deputy Chairman: ‘Abdul-Razzāq ‘Afifī

Chairman: ‘Abdul-Azīz ibn Abdullāh ibn Bāz

Al-Albānī said: Whoever deliberately allows a prayer to lapse past its prescribed time without intending to combine it with another prayer is not legislated to make it up, nor is he ever excused for this action. This is because if a person who forgets a prayer or sleeps through it—both of whom are excused according to the Sharī’ah—is only required to perform it immediately upon remembering it – which becomes its (prescribed) time – then where is the (prescribed) time for someone who left it intentionally?

[TN: Ibn al-Qayyim said: The excused individual, due to sleep or forgetfulness, does not pray outside the prescribed time. Rather, they pray at the exact time that Allah has decreed for them, which in their case is when they wake up or remember. As the Prophet ﷺ said: “Whoever forgets a prayer, its time is when they remember it.” This was reported by al-Bayhaqī and al-Daraqutnī, as previously mentioned.

Thus, there are two types of prayer times: one of choice and one of necessity (excuse). For the one excused by sleep or forgetfulness, their time is the moment they wake up or remember. Therefore, such a person prays within the prescribed time. (Kitāb al-Salāh pg. 183)]

(Al-Albānī continues…) The Prophet (ﷺ)  said: ‘Whoever misses the ‘Asr prayer, it is as if he has lost his family and wealth.’ What has been missed cannot be caught up/recovered, and if it were possible to catch/recover it, it would not have be called ‘missed’, (fā’it).

This is the position of Dawūd al-Dhāhirī and also Ibn Hazm, who elaborated on this issue in a manner that had not been previously mentioned.

He [i.e. Ibn Hazm] also said: ‘Among those who held our view on this are ‘Umar ibn al-Khattāb, his son ‘Abdullāh, Sa’d ibn Abī Waqqās, Salmān – the companion of the Prophet, Ibn Mas’ūd, Qāsim ibn Muhammad ibn Abī Bakr, Badīl al-‘Uqailī, Muhammad ibn Sirīn, Mutarif ibn Abdullāh, ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-Azīz, and others. Al-Hasan al-Basrī also held the same view, saying: If a man deliberately misses a prayer, he does not make it up.’

Then he [Ibn Hazm] said: ‘From the companions of the prophet (ﷺ) that we have mentioned, we do not know of anyone else (from among them) who opposed this view.’

This (view) was also chosen by Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah, who said in Al-Ikhtiyārāt (p. 19):

‘The one who deliberately leaves the prayer is not legislated to make it up, and it is not valid from him. Rather, he should increase in voluntary prayers, as well as fasting. This is the view of a group of the Salaf, such as Abū Abdul-Rahmān, a companion of al-Shāfi’ī, Dawūd, and his followers. There is no evidence to oppose this view; rather, (the evidence) aligns with it…” (Abridged, Jāmi’ al-Turāth of Al-Albānī 2/235)

Al-Albānī says elsewhere:… addressing the error of those who leave out the prayer and later repent is not by commanding them to worship Allāh in a way He has not legislated, such as performing prayers outside their prescribed times [i.e making them up]…

…such individuals [who leave out the prayer intentionally] cannot compensate for the great sin they commit of neglecting the prayer and allowing it to lapse beyond its (prescribed) time by introducing a prayer of their own accord, such as performing the Fajr prayer during the day or the Dhuhr prayer at night, claiming it to be “making up” the missed prayers.

Those who argue for this so-called “making up” make no distinction between performing a daytime prayer at night or a nighttime prayer during the day—it’s all considered the same to them, it’s all performing the prayer outside of its time, and they all acknowledge this.

So, we ask: where did you get this “make-up” prayer? You call it qadā (making up), while Allāh has said:

إِنَّ الصَّلاةَ كَانَتْ عَلَى الْمُؤْمِنِينَ كِتَابًا مَوْقُوتًا ﴾ [النساء : (۱۰۳)

“Indeed, the prayer has been decreed upon the believers at specified, fixed times” [al-Nisā:103].

At specified and fixed times, with a beginning and an end. Yet they perform the prayer outside of its time, and such a prayer – being outside its prescribed time, is certainly not the same as the prayer they missed…

… For example, Allāh has prescribed the time for ‘Asr prayer between ‘Asr and Maghrib, and for Maghrib between Maghrib and ‘Ishā. Yet it’s said (by them) that you can pray whenever you want! Where does this come from? Allāh says:

أَمْ هُمْ شُرَكَاءُ شَرَعُوا هُمْ مِنَ الدِّينِ مَا لَمْ يَأْذَنْ بِهِ اللَّهُ ﴾ [الشورى: ٢١]

“Or have they partners with Allāh who have legislated for them a religion to which Allāh has not ordained?” [al-Shūrā:21].

… the Prophet (ﷺ) said: ‘Whoever catches up a rak’ah of the Asr prayer before the sun sets has caught the prayer.’

So the one who has not caught up a rak’ah has not caught the prayer. What, then, should he do, O esteemed scholars? Should he pray it (anyway)? If that is so, why did the Prophet (ﷺ) specify “whoever catches up a rak‘ah”? The meaning is that if someone fails to catch even one rak‘ah, there is no prayer for him. If making up missed prayers were permissible, the Prophet (ﷺ) would have simply said to complete it outside its time.


…the concept of qadā (making up missed prayers) has no basis in Islām whatsoever… (Abridged, Silsilah al-Hudā wa al-Nūr 146. Jāmi al-Turāth 2/241-243)

Ibn Hazm said: As for the one who deliberately leaves out a prayer until its time has lapsed, he can never make it up. Instead, they should increase in doing good deeds and offering voluntary prayers, so that it may weigh heavily on their scale of deeds on the Day of Judgment. They should also repent and seek forgiveness from Allāh – The Mighty and Majestic.

The proof of the correctness of our stance is the saying of Allāh, The Most-High,

{فَوَيْلٌ لِلْمُصَلِّينَ} [الماعون: ٤]


“So woe to those who pray” [Al-Mā’ūn: 4]

{الَّذِينَ هُمْ عَنْ صَلاتِهِمْ سَاهُونَ} [الماعون: ٥]


“Those who are sāhūn (i.e. delay) their prayer (from their fixed times). ” [Al-Mā’ūn: 5]

and His saying:

{فَخَلَفَ مِنْ بَعْدِهِمْ خَلْفٌ أَضَاعُوا الصَّلاةَ وَاتَّبَعُوا الشَّهَوَاتِ فَسَوْفَ يَلْقَوْنَ غَيًّا} [مريم: ٥٩]


“Then there has succeeded them a posterity who gave up the prayer (i.e. by delaying them from their fixed time or not offering them correctly) and followed desires, and they will encounter Ghayy (i.e. loss/evil/entry to the hellfire)” [Maryam: 59].

If the one who intentionally leaves out the prayer were still considered to have performed it after its time has lapsed, he would not deserve “Woe” [a word denoting punishment, sorrow and destruction] or encounter “Ghayy“, just as there is no “Woe” or “Ghayy” for one who delays it until its later time, when it is still possible to perform it.

Also, Allāh, The Most-High, has set a fixed time for each obligatory prayer, with defined beginning and end. It enters (i.e becomes valid) at a specific period and ends (i.e. becomes invalid) at a specific period.

Thus, there is no difference between one who performs it before its time enters and one who performs it after its time ceases, because both have prayed outside its prescribed time. This is not a comparison of one over the other, but both are the same in violating the limits set by Allāh. And Allāh, The Most-High, has said:

{وَمَنْ يَتَعَدَّ حُدُودَ اللَّهِ فَقَدْ ظَلَمَ نَفْسَهُ} [الطلاق: ١]
“And whoever transgresses the limits of Allāh has wronged himself” [At-Talaq: 1].

And also, the act of making up a missed prayer (qadā’) is a legislative (Shari’ah) ruling, and legislation is only permitted from Allāh, The Most-High, conveyed through the tongue of His Messenger (ﷺ).

So, we ask those who have made it obligatory for the one who intentionally leaves out a prayer to make up for it: Inform us about this prayer that you command one to perform. Is it the same prayer that Allāh, The Most-High, has (originally) commanded one to perform? Or is it a different prayer?

If they say it is the same (original prayer), we would say: “then the one who deliberately leaves it is not disobedient, because he has done what Allāh, The Most-High, has commanded, and it doesn’t entail sin (based) on your statement. Thus, there is no blame on one who deliberately leaves the prayer until its time has lapsed.” And no Muslim would say (the likes of) this.

And if they say: “It is not the prayer that Allāh, The Most-High, commanded him to perform,” we would reply: “You are correct”, and in this there is sufficient evidence – for they have admitted that they have commanded him to do something that Allāh, The Most-High, did not command him to do.

Then we ask them about someone who intentionally delayed the prayer until after its prescribed time: Is this act an act of obedience or disobedience (i.e. sin)? If they say it is obedience, they contradict the unanimously agreed-upon consensus of all Muslims, as well as the Qur’ān and established Sunnah. And if they say it is disobedience, they have spoken the truth, and it is falsehood that an act of disobedience can substitute for an act of obedience.

Also, Allāh, The Most-High, has specified the times for the (performance of) prayers through the words of His Messenger (ﷺ). He has prescribed for each prayer a beginning time – of which before it (one) cannot perform (the prayer) , and an ending time – of which after it (one) cannot perform (the prayer). There is no disagreement about this (point) from anyone in the Ummah. If it were permissible to perform the prayer after its time, then (the prophet ﷺ) specifying the last time for it would have no meaning, and it would be a meaningless statement, and Allāh is far exalted from such a thing.

Additionally, every act [of worship] that is tied to a specific time is not valid outside of that time. If it were valid outside of that time, then that time would not be the legislated time for it, and this is clear. And with Allāh, The Most-High, is the success. (al-Muhallā 2/10-11)

Is the Basmalah a verse from every surah

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Ibn Qudāmah al-Maqdisī said:

“Ibn al-Mubārak said:

من ترك {‏ بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ } فقد ترك مئة آية و ثلاث عشرة آية من القرآن

Whoever leaves out {Bismillāhi Ar-Rahmān Ar-Rahīm} has left out one hundred and thirteen verses of the Qur’ān.

Likewise Imām Shāfi’ī said: {Bismillāhi Ar-Rahmān Ar-Rahīm} is a verse from every sūrah in accordance to the hadīth of Umm Salamah*.

Likewise Abū Hurayrah narrated:

قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم : إذا قرأتم { الحمدُ} فاقرؤوا {بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم} ، إنها أُمُّ القرآن وأمُّ الكتاب والسَّبع المثانى، و{بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم} أحدُ آياتها

The messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) said: When you recite -Al-Hamd (Al-Fātihah)- then recite {Bismillāhi Ar-Rahmān Ar-Rahīm}. It is the mother of the Qur’ān, the Mother of the Book, and the Seven Oft-Repeated, and {Bismillāhi Ar-Rahmān Ar-Rahīm} is one of its verses. (Sunan Al-Dāraqutnī 1190. Declared Sahīh by Al-Albānī in Sahīh al-Jāmi 729).”

(Al-Mughnī 1/537)

*Hadīth of Umm Salamah :

[أَنَّهَا ذَكَرَتْ – أَوْ كَلِمَةً غَيْرَهَا – قِرَاءَةَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏{‏ بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ * الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ * الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ * مَلِكِ يَوْمِ الدِّينِ ‏}‏ يَقْطَعُ قِرَاءَتَهُ آيَةً آيَةً]

Umm Salamah narrated the mention of the recitation of the Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) : “{Bismillāhi Ar-Rahmān Ar-Rahīm, Al-hamdulillāhi Rabb al-‘Ālamīn, Ar-Rahmān Ar-Rahīm, Māliki yawm id-dīn}.” He recited each verse separately, verse by verse. (Abū Dawūd 4001. Declared Sahīh by Al-Albānī. Also see Sunan Al-Dāraqutnī 1175)

مَن صَلَّى صَلاةً لم يَقرَأْ فيها بأُمِّ القُرآنِ، فهي خِداجٌ غيرُ تَمامٍ… قال اللهُ عزَّ وجلَّ: إنِّي قَسَمتُ الصَّلاةَ بيْني وبيْنَ عبدي نِصفَينِ؛ فنِصفُها له، يقولُ عَبْدي إذا افتتَحَ الصَّلاةَ: {بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ} [الفاتحة: 1]، فيَذكُرُني عَبْدي، ثم يقولُ: {الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ} [الفاتحة: 2]، فأقولُ: حمِدَني عَبْدي، ثم يقولُ: {الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ} [الفاتحة: 3]، فأقولُ: أثْنى علَيَّ عْبَدي، ثم يقولُ: {مَالِكِ يَوْمِ الدِّينِ} [الفاتحة: 4]، فأقولُ: مجَّدَني عَبْدي، ثم يقولُ: {إِيَّاكَ نَعْبُدُ وَإِيَّاكَ نَسْتَعِينُ} [الفاتحة: 5]، فهذه الآيةُ بيْني وبيْنَ عَبْدي نِصفَينِ، وآخِرُ السُّورةِ لعَبْدي، ولعَبْدي ما سَألَ.

Abū Hurayrah narrated:

The messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) said: Whoever prays a prayer in which he does not recite the Mother of the Qur’ān, then it is insufficient, incomplete…Allāh said: I have divided the prayer between me and my servant into two halves; Half of it is for him. When he begins the prayer, my servant says: {Bismillāhi Ar-Rahmān Ar-Rahīm} [Al-Fātihah: 1], and my servant remembers Me, then he says: {Al-hamdulillāhi Rabb al-‘Ālamīn} [Al-Fātihah: 2], so I say: My servant has praised me, then He says: {Ar-Rahmān Ar-Rahīm} [Al-Fātihah: 3],So I say: My servant has extolled me, then he says: {Māliki yawm id-dīn} [Al-Fātihah: 4], so I say: My servant has glorified me, then he says: {Iyyāka na’budū wa iyyāka nasta’īn} [Al-Fātihah: 5], so this verse is half between Me and My servant. And the last part of the Sūrah is for My servant and my servant will receive that which he has asked for. (Sunan Al-Dāraqutnī 1189. Declared Sahīh by Shu’ayb al-Arnāūt)


عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ، قَالَ كَانَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم لاَ يَعْرِفُ فَصْلَ السُّورَةِ حَتَّى تُنَزَّلَ عَلَيْهِ ‏{‏ بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ ‏}‏ ‏.‏ وَهَذَا لَفْظُ ابْنِ السَّرْحِ ‏.‏


Ibn Abbās said: The prophet (ﷺ) did not know the end of a sūrah until the words {Bismillāhi Ar-Rahmān Ar-Rahīm} was revealed to him. (Abū Dawūd 788. Declared Sahīh by Al-Albānī)

أن سعيد بن جبير أخبرهُ أن المؤمنين في عهد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم كانوا لا يعلمون انقضاء السورة حتى ينزل بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم، فإذا نزل بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم علموا أن قد اقضت السورة، ونزلت الأخرى.

Sa’īd ibn Jubayr narrated: the believers during the time of the Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) did not know that the Sūrah had ended until {Bismillāhi Ar-Rahmān Ar-Rahīm} was revealed. When {Bismillāhi Ar-Rahmān Ar-Rahīm} was revealed, they knew that the Sūrah had ended and the other had begun. (Musannaf of Abdul-Razzāq 2699)

Ibn Abdul-Barr said: This serves as evidence for those who say that Bismillāhi Ar-Rahmān Ar-Rahīm is a verse in every Sūrah. (At-Tamhīd 13/42)

Ibn Kathīr said: Those who said that it is a verse from each Sūrah except sūrah al-Barā’ah (al-Tawbah): Ibn ‘Ābbās, Ibn ‘Umar, Ibn Zubayr, Abū Hurayrah, ‘Alī. And from the tābi’īn: ‘Atā, Tawūs, Sa’ īd ibn Jubayr, Makhūl, Zuhrī. Likewise Abdullāh ibn al-Mubārak, Shafi’ī, in one saying of Imām Ahmad, Ishāq ibn Rahawayh, Abū ‘Ubayd al-Qāsim ibn Salām.

Ahmad Shākir said regarding the above statement of Ibn Kathīr:

This is the correct view, supported by strong evidence from both the Qur’ān and the Sunnah. Among the strongest of these evidences is that all the original collections of the Qur’ān, which were written by ‘Uthmān ibn ‘Affān and approved by all the Companions, contained the basmalah at the beginning of each Sūrah, except for Sūrah al-Tawbah.

When the Companions compiled the Qur’ān, they left out anything that was not part of it—they did not write the names of the sūrahs, the verse counts, or the word “Amīn.”

They strictly prevented anyone from adding anything not part of the Qur’ān, out of their strong desire to preserve Allāh’s Book and their concern that later generations might confuse non-Qur’ānic text with the Qur’ān itself.

Thus, is it conceivable, after all this, that they would have added 113 instances of the basmalah beyond what was revealed to the Messenger of Allāh? Doesn’t this provide definitive evidence – through practical mass transmission, supported by consistent written transmission – that the basmalah is indeed a verse of the Qur’ān in every place which it was written.

We have detailed this discussion at length in our commentary on Al-Tirmidhī (2/16-25).

(Umdatul-Tafsīr of Ibn Kathīr by Ahmad Shākir 1/56-57)

Does removing the socks break wudu

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Imām Al-Albānī said:

Scholars have also differed on the ruling for someone who removes their khuff (leather socks) and it’s types [such as socks or shoes] after performing wudū and wiping over them. They hold three views:

1. The first view: His wudū remains valid, and there is nothing further required upon him.


2. The second view: He must only wash his feet.


3. The third view: He must repeat the entire wudū.



Groups of the early generations (Salaf) have held each of these views. Imām ‘Abdul-Razzāq recorded narrations from them in his book al-Musannaf (1/210/809-813), as did Ibn Abī Shaybah (1/187-188) and al-Bayhaqī (1/289-290).

Without a doubt, the first opinion is the strongest because it aligns with the permissibility and ease intended by the allowance of wiping given from Allāh. Any other view contradicts this ease, as mentioned by al-Rafi’ī in the previous issue. And what outweighs the argument over the other two are two additional reasons:

1. It is in accordance with the practice of the Rightly Guided Caliph, ‘Alī ibn Abī Tālib. We previously cited with a authentic chain that he performed wudū, wiped over his shoes, then removed them, and proceeded to pray.

[T.N: narration of ‘Alī can be found via multiple chains in Sunan al-Kubrā of al-Bayhaqī #1366, Musannaf of ‘Abd al-Razzāq #813, #814, al-Tahāwī in Sharh Ma’ānī al-Āthār #586. On the authority of Abī Dhabyān: He saw ‘Alī urinating whilst standing, then he called for water, performed wudū, wiped over his shoes, then entered the mosque, removed his shoes, and then prayed. In another narration: he prayed the Dhuhr prayer]


2. It agrees with sound reasoning (i.e analogy): if one wipes over the head and then shaves it, they are not required to re-wipe their head, let alone repeat wudū. This view was also chosen by Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah, who said in al-Ikhtiyārāt (p. 15): “Removing the khuff or turban does not invalidate the wudū of one who has wiped over it, nor does the expiration of the wiping period (invalidate wudū). Nor is he required to re-wipe the head or wash the feet (upon removing the khuff or turban). And this is the view of Hasan al-Basrī. It is similar to the removal of hair that has been wiped over, according to the sound view from the madhab of Ahmad and the opinion of the majority of scholars.”

And this is the madhab of Ibn Hazm, refer to his detailed discussion and refutation to the opposers in al-Muhallā which is invaluable (2/105-109).

[T.N: Narration of al-Hasan al-Basrī can be found in Musannaf of Ibn Abī Shaybah #1979. al-Hasan used to say: “If someone wipes over his khuffs after minor ritual impurity, then removes them, he remains in a state of purity and may pray”]


As for the narration by Ibn Abī Shaybah (1/187) and al-Bayhaqī (10/289) regarding a Companion of the Prophet (ﷺ) who was asked about someone who wipes over their khuffs and then decides to remove them, he replied, “They should wash their feet.” This narration includes Yazīd ibn Abdul Rahmān al-Dālānī, whom al-Hāfidh [Ibn Hajr] graded as truthful but with frequent errors, and he also used to practice tadlīs (concealing weaknesses in the isnād).

[T.N: The above narration can be found in Sunan al-Kubrā of al-Bayhaqī #1370, #1371, Dar al-Hadīth print; the verifier said in summary: (it is) da’īf: this isnād has a series of defects; in it is ‘Abd as-Salām ibn Harb, who is a hāfidh and thiqah, however he would narrate questionable things which are rejected. Also, his shaykh, Yazīd ibn ‘Abdul Rahmān al-Dālānī has been sufficiently spoken (against) by Ibn Hibbān, the sum of which is that he frequently errs and has much from inconsistencies. Moreover he is a mudallis. And Yahyā ibn Ishāqs hearing from Sa‘īd has been disputed by al-Bukhārī]

Al-Bayhaqī [#1372] also narrated a similar account from Abū Bakrah. Its narrators are trustworthy except for Alī ibn Muhammad al-Qurashī, whom I do not know (of).

Then al-Bayhaqī [#1376] reported from al-Mughīrah ibn Shu’bah marfū (raised to the prophet, that he (ﷺ) said) : “Wiping over the khuffs is for three days and nights for a traveler, and one day and night for a resident, as long as they are not removed.”

He (Al-Bayhaqī) then commented, ‘”Only Umar ibn Rudayh reported this, and he is not strong (in narrating).”

I say: This additional phrase “as long as they are not removed” is objectionable because it is solely reported by this weak narrator and lacks corroborating evidence.”

[T.N: In the Dār al-Hadīth print 1/561, the verifier said in summary: (the narration is) da’īf: Al-Haythamī mentioned it in Majma’ al-Zawā’id [1/585], stating: “It includes ‘Umar ibn Rudayh, whom Abū Hātim deemed weak, while Ibn Ma‘īn considered him reliable in Hadīth.”

I say: The biography of ‘Umar ibn Rudayh can be found in Al-Jarh wa al-Ta‘dīl [6/108], Lisān al-Mīzān [4/306], Thiqāt of Ibn Hibbān [1857], and Thiqāt al-‘Ujaylī [2/165]; it appears he is generally truthful and acceptable in Hadīth, as long as he does not contradict reliable narrators or uniquely report a foundation of a narration with no corroboration.

In this Hadīth, the phrase “as long as they are not removed” is an unusual addition, as reliable narrators have transmitted this hadīth without this phrase. Moreover, this Hadīth has been reported through various chains without this phrase.]

(Jāmī’ al-Turāth of Al-Albānī in Fiqh 1/335-336. Referencing Tamām al-Nash fī Ahkām al-Mash pg. 86-88)