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)

Does touching the private part break wudu

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Narrations which obligate wudū after touching the privates

Hadīth 1.

Narrated from Busrah: The prophet (ﷺ) said:

إذا مسَّ أحدُكُم ذكره، فلا يُصلّي حتى يتوضأ

If one of you touches his penis, he should not pray until he performs ablution.

(Al-Tamhīd of Ibn ‘Abdul-Barr 11/36)

Hadīth 2.

Narrated from Umm Habībah: The prophet (ﷺ) said:

من مس فرجه فليتوضأ

Whoever touches his private part should perform ablution.

(Al-Tamhīd of Ibn ‘Abdul-Barr 11/37)

Hadīth 3.

Narrated from Abū Hurayrah: The prophet (ﷺ) said:

إذا أفضى أحدُكم بيدِه إلى فرجِه و ليس بينه و بينها حجابٌ و لا سِترٌ ، فقد وجب عليه الوضوءُ

If one of you brings his hand to his private part and there is no veil or covering between him and it, then performing ablution is obligatory upon him.

(Sahīh al-Jāmi’ 362 of Al-Albānī. Al-Tamhīd of Ibn ‘Abdul-Barr 11/40)

Hadīth 4.

Narrated by Amr ibn Shu’aib, from his father, from his grandfather that the Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) said:

أيما رجل مس فرجه فليتوضأ، وأيما امرأة مست فرجها فلتتوضأ

Any man who touches his private part should perform ablution, and any woman who touches her private part should also perform ablution.

(al-Dāraqutnī 1/148, Ahmad, Bayhaqī. Authenticated by al-Bukhārī in Ilal, Ahmad Shākir in his checking of Musnad)

Some points of benefit mentioned by Imām Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr in al-Tamhīd (11/34-49) and al-Istidhkār (2/211-212):

  • As for those from the Companions who narrated on the authority of the Prophet (ﷺ) on the obligation of wudū after touching the penis; include the narrations of Busrah and Umm Habībah. (Likewise) Abū Hurayrah [which the Imām declares Hasan], ‘Āishah, Jābir, and Zayd ibn Khālid, but the chains of transmission from them are ma’lūlah (contain defects).
  • As for the companions (of the Prophet ﷺ)who held the view that ablution is obligatory after touching the private parts, they include: ʿUmar ibn al-Khattāb, ‘Abdullāh ibn ʿUmar, Abū Hurayrah (with a differing opinion attributed to him), al-Baraʾ ibn ʿĀzib, Zayd ibn Khālid al-Juhaniy, Jābir ibn ʿAbdullāh, and Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqās, according to the narration of the people of Medina about him.
  • As for the tabi’īn whom it was narrated that (one must) perform wudū from touching the penis, from the books of narrations, the book of Ibn Abī Shaybah, and ‘Abd al-Razzāq: Sa’īd ibn Al-Musayyab, ‘Atā ibn Abī Rabāh, Tawūs, ‘Urwa, Sulaymān ibn Yasār, Abān ibn ‘Uthmān, Ibn Shihāb, Mujāhid, and Makhūl,  Al-Sha’bi, Jābir ibn Zaid, Al-Hasan, and Ikrimah. 
  • Likewise, this was the position of Al-Awzā’i, Al-Shāfi’i, Al-Layth ibn Sa’ad, Ahmad, Ishāq, Dawūd, and Al-Tabarī.
  • Ahmad ibn Hanbal was of the opinion that it was obligatory to perform ablution after touching the penis, based on the hadīth of Busrah and the hadīth of Umm Habībah.  Likewise, it’s what Yahyā ibn Ma’īn held, and both hadīths are authentic according to them – and they are from the leading scholars of hadīth.
  • The condition for touching the penis is that there be no barrier or cover between it, and that it is touched intentionally and willingly;  Because the Arabs do not call the subject fa’il (doer), except with the intention of acting.  This is the truth in that regard, and what is known regarding the intention to touch is that in most cases it is done with the palm (of the hand). A hasan hadīth with a similar meaning was narrated… on the authority of Abū Hurayrah: If one of you brings his hand to his private parts and there is no veil or covering between him and it, then performing ablution is obligatory upon him [hadīth 3].

Al-Albānī on the view of the Hanafīs that touching the private parts doesn’t invalidate wudū

Sayyīd Sābiq said: The Hanifiyyah are of the opinion – based on the following hadīth – that touching the private parts does not nullify the ablution:

Narrated by Talq ibn ‘Alī:

قَالَ رَجُلٌ مَسْت ذَكَرِي، أَوْ قَالَ: الرَّجُلُ يَمَسُّ ذَكَرَهُ فِي الصَّلَاةِ، أَعَلَيْهِ الْوُضُوهُ ؟ فَقَالَ النَّبِيُّ ﷺ لا ، إِنَّمَا هُوَ بَضْعَةٌ مِنْكَ

A man said: “I touched my penis” or he said, “Does a man who touch his penis during the prayer should perform Wudū (ablution)?” The Prophet (ﷺ) replied, “No, it is only a part of your body”

(Abū Dawūd 182 and others – authenticated by Al-Albānī and Al-Arnāūt in their checking of Abū Dawūd. Declared weak by al-Shāfi’ī, Abū Hātim, Abu Zur’ah, al-Bayhaqī, al-Dāraqutnī, Ibn Al-Jawzī – see Minatul-‘Alām of Abdullāh al-Fawzān 1/309)

Al-Albānī comments on this (i.e. the statement of Sayyid Sābiq):

I say: his saying (ﷺ): “It is only a part of you” contains an indication that the touch that does not require ablution is that which is not accompanied by lust, because in this case touching of the penis can be likened to touching another part of the body.

Unlike if one touches it with lust, then the touching (of it) is not similar to touching another part of the body because (the touching of the other parts of the body) is not associated with lust. And this is clear and apparent.

Accordingly, the hadīth is not evidence for the Hanafīs who say that touching in general (i.e. unrestricted) does not invalidate ablution. Rather, it is evidence for those who say that touching without lust does not invalidate ablution, but as for touching lust, it is invalidated in light of the evidence of the hadīth of Busrah. (Tamām al-Minnah 1/103)

Another method of reconciliation between the different narrations

Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said: A group of scholars have argued that the hadīth which obligates ablution after touching the private parts has abrogated the hadīth that exempts one from performing ablution.

They reason that the obligation for ablution is derived from the Sharī’ah (i.e. textual evidence), without any role for rational thinking in it, that the private part is considered like any other body part. It would be impossible to say: that it is merely a part of oneself, (yet) the Sharī’ah has obligated ablution after touching it. Therefore, it is possible that the obligation for ablution was legislated later on. (al-Tamhīd 11/43)

‘Abdullāh al-Fawzān said: Some scholars have taken the approach of abrogation (naskh), arguing that the hadīth of Talq ibn ‘Ali has been abrogated by the hadīth of Busrah because Talq’s hadīth was earlier and Busrah’s hadīth came later. The evidence for the earlier timing of Talq’s hadīth is that he came to Madīnah when the Prophet (ﷺ) and his companions were building the mosque at the beginning of the migration (Hijrah).

Among those who have supported the abrogation are Ibn Hibbān, al-Tabarānī, Ibn al-Arabī, al-Hāzimī, al-Bayhaqī, and Ibn Hazm.

Ibn Hazm reinforced the argument for abrogation by noting that the statement, “It is only a part of you” indicates that this occurred before the command to perform ablution for touching the private part. Had this statement been made after the command, the Prophet (ﷺ) would not have said this but rather clarified that the previous ruling had been abrogated. His statement suggests that there was no prior ruling on the matter and that (touching) it was regarded like (touching) any other body part. (Minhatul-‘Alām 1/313)

Another method of reconciliation

Al-San’ānī said: The view that favors preference over abrogation is better, as the hadīth of Busrah is stronger. This is due to the many scholars who have authenticated it and the numerous corroborating evidences for it. Furthermore, Busrah narrated her hadīth in the presence of the Muhājirīn and the Ansār, where many people were present, and no one objected to it. (Subul as-Salām 1/106)

Abdullāh al-Fawzān said regarding the ways the hadīth of Busrah is considered stronger:

1. The hadith of Busrah is more authentic than the hadith of Talq ibn Ali, as it has a sound chain of narration, while the hadīth of Talq has been deemed weak by several scholars, as previously mentioned [Shāfi’ī, Abū Hātim, Abu Zur’ah, al-Bayhaqī, al-Dāraqutnī, Ibn Al-Jawzī] . Al-Bukhārī stated about the hadīth of Busrah: “It is the most authentic narration in this topic.”…

2. The hadīth of Busrah has many supporting witnesses, narrated by seventeen companions, while the hadith of Talq does not have any supporting evidence.

3. The hadīth of Busrah conveys the original principle of ‘not needing to perform ablution after touching the private parts’ ; the one who transmits from the original principle is given precedence because he brings additional knowledge.

4 – The hadīth of Busrah is safer.

(Abridged, Minhatul-‘Alām 1/314-315)

The statement of Shāfī that wudū is only invalidated if touched with the inside of the palm

Al-San’āni said: The Shāfi’īs claimed that invalidation (of ablution) only occurs when (the touching) is done with the inside of the palm, and that it is not invalidated if the penis is touched with the outside of the palm. 

The muhaqiqūn responded to them by saying that al-ifdā (i.e. contact/touch): linguistically, is more general than being (limited) to the inside or outside of the palm. 

Ibn Hazm said: There is no evidence for what they said, neither from the book, nor from the Sunnah, nor from consensus, nor from the saying of a companion, nor from analogy, nor from correct opinion… (Subul as-Salām 1/97)

‘Abdullāh al-Fawzān said: The well-known opinion of Imām Ahmad is that there is no difference between (the touching of) the palm or outside of the hand. (Minhatul-‘Alām 2/312)

Adhkar series part 5: dua for protection from diseases like cancer

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Hadīth 1. The Prophet (ﷺ) said:

اللَّهُمَّ إِنِّي أَعُوذُ بِكَ مِنَ الْبَرَصِ وَالْجُنُونِ وَالْجُذَامِ وَمِنْ سَيِّئِ الأَسْقَامِ

(Allāhumma innī a’ūdhu bika minal-baras wal-junūn wal-judhām wa min sayyi-il-asqām)

“Oh Allāh, I seek refuge in You from leprosy, insanity, vitiligo, and the worst of diseases.”

(Abū Dawūd 1554. Declared Sahīh by Al-Albānī)

Ibn ‘Uthaymīn said: And the worst of al-asqām (diseases) is the plural of disease, which is illness, and this includes all bad diseases, including what is now known as cancer. We ask Allāh for wellness, as it is one of the worst diseases. (Sharh Riyād al-Sālihīn 6/40)

Hadīth 2. The Prophet (ﷺ) said:

اَللَّهُمَّ جَنِّبْنِي مُنْكَرَاتِ اَلْأَخْلَاقِ, وَالْأَعْمَالِ, وَالْأَهْوَاءِ, وَالْأَدْوَاءِ

(Allāhumma jannibnī munkarātil-akhlāq wal-a’māl wal-ahwā wal-adwā)

“Oh Allāh, distance me from from reprehensible morals, deeds, desires and diseases.”

(al-Tirmidhī 3591. Ibn Hibbān 3/240. Al-Hākim 1/532. Kitāb al-Sunnah of Ibn Abī ‘Āsim pg. 13. Mishkāt 2471. Declared Sahīh by Al-Albānī)

‘Abdullāh Al-Fawzān said: reprehensible morals and (reprehensible) deeds are those that are condemned by the Sharī’ah and custom. Reprehensible morals refers to mistreatment of people and reprehensible deeds refers to sins.

It has been said that reprehensible morals are the inner (i.e hidden) actions, such as conceit, pride, envy, haughtiness, malice, and the like. (Reprehensible) deeds are the visible deeds, such as adultery and drinking alcohol.

(Reprehensible) Desires, is what the soul is inclined to without regard to a purpose that is praiseworthy in the Sharī’ah.

(Reprehensible) diseases, the intent is chronic, incurable or repulsive diseases, such as cancer, vitiligo and leprosy. (Abridged, Minhatul A’lām 10/249-250)

Ruling on using rosary/prayer beads and weak ahadeeth used to support it’s allowance

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Allāh says: 
قُلۡ إِن كُنتُمۡ تُحِبُّونَ ٱللَّهَ فَٱتَّبِعُونِي يُحۡبِبۡكُمُ ٱللَّهُ وَيَغۡفِرۡ لَكُمۡ ذُنُوبَكُمۡۚ وَٱللَّهُ غَفُورٞ رَّحِيمٞ ٣١

Say (Oh Muhammad): "If you (really) love Allāh then follow me (i.e. the Sunnah), Allāh will love you and forgive you of your sins. And Allāh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." (3:31)

The Prophet (ﷺ) said: 
فَإِنَّ خَيْرَ الْحَدِيثِ كِتَابُ اللَّهِ وَخَيْرَ الْهَدْيِ هَدْيُ مُحَمَّدٍ وَشَرَّ الْأُمُورِ مُحْدَثَاتُهَا وَكُلَّ بِدْعَةٍ ضَلَالَةٌ, وكلَّ ضلالةٍ في النَّارِ 
"The best speech is the Book of Allāh, the best guidance is the guidance of Muhammad, and the worst matters are the newly-invented matters. And every innovation is misguidance. And all misguidance is in the Fire." (Sahīh Muslim 867, Sahīh al-Jāmi' 1353) 


The Prophet (ﷺ) said:
فَمَنْ رَغِبَ عَنْ سُنَّتِي فَلَيْسَ مِنِّي 
"Whomsoever turns away from my sunnah then he is not from me." (Sahīh Muslim 1401, Sahīh al-Bukhārī 5063)

Chapter 1. The sunnah regarding making dhikr

Hadīth 1. The Prophet (ﷺ) said:

عَلَيْكُنَّ بِالتَّسْبِيحِ وَالتَّهْلِيلِ وَالتَّقْدِيسِ وَاعْقِدْنَ بِالْأَنَامِلِ فَإِنَّهُنَّ مَسْئُولَاتٌ مُسْتَنْطَقَاتٌ

Hold fast to At-Tasbīh, At-Tahlīl, and At-Taqdīs, and count them upon the fingertips, for indeed they shall be questioned, and they will be made to speak. (al-Tirmidhī 3583. Declared Hasan by Al-Albānī his checking)

Al-Albānī said regarding the statement: “count them upon the fingertips” – that it is a command from the Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ). (Al-Daīfah 1/186)

Hadīth 2. ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Amr narrated:

رَأَيْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم – يَعْقِدُ التَّسْبِيحَ قَالَ ابْنُ قُدَامَةَ – بِيَمِينِهِ ‏

I saw the Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) counting al-Tasbīh of Allāh on his fingers.

Ibn Qudāmah said (in his version: “With his right hand.” (Abū Dawūd 1502. Declared Sahīh by Al-Albānī)

Bakr Abū Zayd said: It is proven from the guidance of the Prophet  (ﷺ) in word, action, and approval, that the dhikr is counted with the fingers of the [right] hand and nothing else. (Kitāb al-Subhah pg. 9)

Chapter 2. History of prayer/rosary beads

Bakr Abū Zayd said: Know that the Arabs did not have knowledge of the word subhah (rosary/prayer beads) in their language, nor in their worship during the pre-Islamic period, nor in their customs of play and amusement, and for this reason you will not find a mention of it in their speech, prose or poetry. Therefore Arab linguists have said that this word subhah is a newly-coined word. (Al-Subhah pg. 52)

Bakr Abū Zayd said: The rosary entered the Arab lands through two ways: The Sūfīs and the Rāfidah. al-Shihābi said: The spread of the rosary in some Islamic lands can be traced back to their use by the Sūfīs, who consider it (i.e. the rosary) an essential part of their practices and traditions. They use them in dhikr circles and keep them in a special container/box. There are people dedicated to using them in their supplications and remembrance, known as the “Shaykhs of the Subhah”. Some Sūfī sects see it as necessary to wear the rosary around the neck, as they believe this is more secure and rewarding.(Al-Subhah pg. 72)

Yāsir al-Fathī said: The rosary was introduced into the people of Islām. It was not known at all; neither in the era of the Prophet, nor in the era of the companions after the Prophet (ﷺ). Rather, it is an ancient Hindu Buddhist innovation that the Sūfīs introduced to the people of Islām. (Sharh Abū Dawūd 18/342)

Al-Albānī said: it (i.e. the rosary) is a symbol of the Christians. (Kitāb Radd ‘alā Abdullāh al-Habashī 1/64)

Chapter 3. Weak hadīths used to support the allowance of the rosary

Bakr Abū Zayd said: There is no authentic hadīth on the permissibility of counting dhikr on pebbles or date pits.

The most that has been narrated on this matter with chains of transmission traceable to the Prophet is three narrations, one of which is mawdū’ (fabricated), which is the hadith of Abū Hurayrah [to follow].

The narrations of Safiyyah and Sa’d ibn Abī Waqqās [to follow] do not establish for its legitimacy, and the authenticity of the chain of transmission of each of them is questionable. (Al-Subhah pg. 16)

Al-Albānī said: There are no narrations mentioning the rosary. There are narrations of tasbīh with pebbles, and whatever of them was traced back to the Messenger (ﷺ) is not authentic, and whatever was attributed to some of the Companions, then we have deemed weak all of them. (Kitāb Jāmi’ al-Turāth 17/271)

Yāsir al-Fathī also said: There is no proven hadīth or narration on counting (dhikr) with date pits or pebbles, and its action is not proven from a single companion. Rather, (the only narration) which is proven (is) that of Ibn Mas’ūd of rebuttal, and he is one of the scholars and jurists among the companions of the prophet (ﷺ). (Sharh Abū Dawūd of al-Fathī 18/342)

[for the narration of Ibn Mas’ūd see here: https://fawaaids.com/2024/10/15/ibn-masood-prohibiting-dhikr-on-pebbles-its-authenticity-and-points-of-benefit/]

Hadīth 1:

Abdūs ibn ‘Abdullāh > Abū Abdullāh al-Hussain ibn Funjūwayah al-Thaqafī > ‘Alī ibn Muhammad ibn Nassrūwīyah > Muhammad ibn Harūn ibn ‘Isā ibn Mansūr al-Hāshimī > Muhammad ibn ‘Alī ibn Hamzah al-‘Alawī > ‘Abdul-Samad ibn Mūsā > Zainab ibn Sulaymān ibn ‘Alī > Umm al-Hasan ibn Ja’far ibn al-Hasan > her father > her grandfather > ‘Alī marfū (raised to the prophet (ﷺ)) :

نِعْمَ المُذَكِّرُ السبحةَ ،  َوإِنَّ أفضل ما يُسْجَدُ عليه الأرض، وما أنبتته الأرض

What a wonderful reminder is the rosary, and the best thing to prostrate on is the ground and on what the earth produces.

(Musnad al-Firdaws 4/98. Declared mawdū’ (fabricated) by Al-Albānī in al-Daīfah 1/184, #83)

Isnād:

Al-Albānī said: this isnād contains darkness upon darkness. Majority of them are majhūl (unknown) and some have been blamed;

Umm al-Hasan ibn Ja’far ibn al-Hasan – i did not find a written biography of her.

Abdul-Samad ibn Mūsā – al-Hāshimī [Abū Ibrāhīm]. Al-Dhahabī said in al-Mīzān [3/543] on the authority of al-Khatīb: they held him to be weak. Then Al-Dhahabī said: He narrates fabricated/strange narrations on the authority of his grandfather Muhammad ibn Ibrāhīm al-Imām.

[Al-Albānī then mentions that only Muhammad al-‘Alawī, Muhammad ibn Hārūn al-Hāshimī, Abū ‘Abdūllah al-Thaqafī and ‘Abdūs ibn ‘Abdullāh are known and are truthful/trustworthy.]

Thus, due to the above it is clear that the hadīth is weak and cannot be used as proof. (Al-Daīfah 1/184-185)

Meaning of the hadīth

Al-Albānī continues: the meaning of the hadīth is bātil (false) due to the following reasons:

  1. The rosary is a bid’ah (newly invented) that was not present at the time of the Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ). Thus, how is it conceivable that the Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) informed his companions about something that they had no knowledge of.
  2. The rosary opposes the guidance and the command of the Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) [see ahadīth in chapter 1 above].

(Summarised from al-Daīfah of Al-Albānī 1/184-186)

Hadīth 2.

Sālih ibn ‘Alī al-Nawfalī > ‘Abdullāh ibn Muhammad ibn Rabī’ah al-Qudāmī > Ibn al-Mubarāk > Sufyān al-Thawrī > Sumayya > Abū Sālih > Abū Hurayrah marfū:

كان – صلى الله عليه وسلم – يسبح بالحصى

The prophet (ﷺ) would make tasbīh with pebbles.

(Tārīkh Jurjān of Abū al-Qāsim al-Jurjānī 68. Declared Mawdū (fabricated) by Al-Albānī in al-Daīfah 3/47, #1002.

Isnād:

‘Abdullāh ibn Muhammad ibn Rabī’ah Al-Qudāmī:

al-Dhahabī said in al-Mīzān: one of the weak ones, who narrated calamities (i.e. fabrications) on Mālik. (2/436)

Al-Albānī said: He was declared weak by Ibn ‘Adīy and al-Darāqutnī in al-Lisān. Ibn Hibbān said: He turns the narrations upside down (i.e. alters them). He may have altered more than one hundred and fifty narrations upon Mālik… Al-Hākim Al-Naqqāsh said: He narrated fabricated hadīths on the authority of Mālik. Abū Nu’aym (said): he narrated odd/strange narrations. (slightly abridged, Al-Daīfah of Al-Albānī 3/48)

Al-Albānī said: (regarding) Sālih ibn ‘Alī al-Nawfalī, I could not find a biography on him. (Al-Daīfah 3/48)

Hadīth 3.

Muhammad ibn Bashār > ‘Abd al-Samad ibn ‘Abd al-Wārith > Hāshim, who is Ibn Sa’īd al-Kūfī > Kinānah, the freed slave of Safiyyah > Safiyyah:

دَخَلَ عَلَىَّ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَبَيْنَ يَدَىَّ أَرْبَعَةُ آلاَفِ نَوَاةٍ أُسَبِّحُ بِهَا فَقُلْتُ لَقَدْ سَبَّحْتُ بِهَذِهِ ‏.‏ فَقَالَ ‏”‏ أَلاَ أُعَلِّمُكِ بِأَكْثَرَ مِمَّا سَبَّحْتِ بِهِ ‏”‏ ‏.‏ فَقُلْتُ بَلَى عَلِّمْنِي ‏.‏ فَقَالَ ‏”‏ قُولِي سُبْحَانَ اللَّهِ عَدَدَ خَلْقِهِ ‏”

“The Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) entered upon me and before me were four thousand date pits, I was making Tasbīh with them. He (ﷺ) said: ‘You have made Tasbīh with these? Should I not teach you that which is more than what you have made Tasbīh with?’ So I said: ‘Indeed, teach me.’ So he said: ‘Say: May Allāh be removed from all imperfections as much as the number of His creation (Subḥān Allāhi ‘adada khalqihī).’”

(al-Tirmidhī 3554, who declared it weak.

Declared Munkar (rejected) by Al-Albānī in Da’īf al-Tirmidhī pg. 464 and by Yāsir al-Fathī in Sharh Sunan Abū Dawūd 18/338.)

Isnād:

Kinānah:

Yāsir al-Fathī said: He is not strong – Al-Tahdhīb (3/476) , Ma’rifat Al-Thiqāt (1560) , Al-Jarh wa Al-Ta’dīl (7/169) , Al-Thiqāt (5/339). (Sharh Sunan Abū Dawūd 18/338)

Al-Azdī said: The isnād of his hadīth is not established (i.e. is weak). (Al-Tahdhīb 3/476)

Al-Tirmidhī said: His isnād is not that strong/reliable. Elsewhere he said: His isnād is not well-known. (Al-Tahdhīb 3/476)

Ibn Hajr said: (He is) acceptable. (al-Taqrīb pg. 145)

Hāshim ibn Sa’īd al-Kūfī:

Al-Tirmidhī declared the hadīth weak saying: This hadīth is gharīb (i.e. unique), we do not know it except from this route of the hadīth of Hāshim ibn Sa’īd al-Kūfī and his isnād is not well-known. Also, there is a hadīth on this issue on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbās.’ (Sunan al-Tirmidhī 3554)

Al-Dhahabī said: (Yahyā) ibn Ma’īn said: He is nothing. Ibn ‘Adīy said: Whatever he narrates is not followed up. (Al-Mīzān 5/48)

Abū Hātim said: He is weak in hadīth. (Jarh wa Ta’dīl 9/104)

Ibn Hajr said: (he is) da’īf (weak). (al-Taqrīb #8166)

Text of the hadīth:

Bakr Abū Zayd said: Al-Tirmidhī’s statement ‘also, there is a hadīth on this issue on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbās’ means what Muslim and others narrated on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbās, from Jawayriyah [to follow]. (Al-Subhah pg. 18)

Al-Albānī said: what indicates the weakness of these two hadīths [hadīth 3, and hadīth 4 to follow insha Allāh] is that this incident was narrated by Ibn ‘Abbās without the mention of pebbles:

عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ، عَنْ جُوَيْرِيَةَ، أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم خَرَجَ مِنْ عِنْدِهَا بُكْرَةً حِينَ صَلَّى الصُّبْحَ وَهِيَ فِي مَسْجِدِهَا ثُمَّ رَجَعَ بَعْدَ أَنْ أَضْحَى وَهِيَ جَالِسَةٌ فَقَالَ ‏”‏ مَا زِلْتِ عَلَى الْحَالِ الَّتِي فَارَقْتُكِ عَلَيْهَا ‏”‏ ‏.‏ قَالَتْ نَعَمْ ‏.‏ قَالَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏”‏ لَقَدْ قُلْتُ بَعْدَكِ أَرْبَعَ كَلِمَاتٍ ثَلاَثَ مَرَّاتٍ لَوْ وُزِنَتْ بِمَا قُلْتِ مُنْذُ الْيَوْمِ لَوَزَنَتْهُنَّ سُبْحَانَ اللَّهِ وَبِحَمْدِهِ عَدَدَ خَلْقِهِ وَرِضَا نَفْسِهِ وَزِنَةَ عَرْشِهِ وَمِدَادَ كَلِمَاتِهِ ‏”‏

On the authority of Ibn Abbās, On the authority of Juwayriyah that the Prophet (ﷺ) left her early when he went to pray the morning prayer, while she was in her place of prayer, then he returned after Duhā (forenoon) and she was still sitting there. So he said to her: Are you still in the same state that I left you in? She answered: Yes.

The Prophet (ﷺ) said: I have already said four statements after you, three times, and if they were weighed against what you have said today then they would outweigh what you have said. They are: SubhanAllāhi wa bihamdihī, ‘adada Khalqihī, wa ridā nafsihī, wazīnata ‘arshihī, wa Midāda kalimātihi. (Allāh is free from imperfection and praise is for him; to the number of his creation, the pleasure of His own Self, the beautification of His ‘Arsh and the extent of His words).

(Sahīh Muslim 2726 and others)

So this authentic hadīth indicates two things:

1. The person in the story is Juwayriyah and not Safiyyah as was mentioned previously… [hadīth 3 here].

2. The mention of pebbles [or date pits] in the story is rejected.

(Al-Daīfah of Al-Albānī 3/189-191)

Other isnāds of the above narration:

  1. Al-Tabarānī (Kitāb al-Du’ā 1740, al-Awsat 5472): Muhammad ibn ‘Uthmān ibn Abī Shaybah > his father who said: I found in my father’s book in his handwriting > Mustalim ibn Sa’īd > Mansūr ibn Zādhān > Yazīd ibn Mu’attib – the freed slave of Safiyyah > Safiyyah…

Al-Tabarānī said: We do not know this narration from Mansūr ibn Zādhān except by way of Mustalim ibn Sa’īd… (al-Awsat 5/334)

Yazīd ibn Mu’attib

Yāsir al-Fathī said: This is a gharīb jiddan (i.e. very unique) narration from Mansūr ibn Zādhān, and Yazīd ibn Mu’tab is majhūl (unknown). (Sharh Sunan Abū Dawūd 18/340)

Bakr Abū Zayd said: No biography was found for Yazīd. (Al-Subhah pg. 18)

2. (Natāij Al-Afkār of Ibn Hajr pg. 83) : […] Shu’ayb ibn ‘Abdullāh > Ahmad ibn Ishāq ibn ‘Utbah > Rūh ibn al-Faraj > ‘Amr ibn Khālid > Hadīj ibn Mu’awiyah > Kinānah, the freed slave of Safiyyah > Safiyyah…

Yāsir al-Fathī said: Ibn Hajr claimed in Natāij al-Afkār that Hāshim ibn Sa’īd al-Kūfī was followed up in this narration [thus declaring it Hasan], citing this path. I say: Hadīj ibn Mu’awiyah is not strong.

[Ibn Hajr said: He is truthful but makes mistakes ; Yahyā ibn Ma’īn said: He is nothing.  Al-Nasā’ī said: He is weak. Al-Bukhārī said: They spoke about some of his hadīth. Ibn Sa’d said: He is weak in hadīth. Al-Bazzār said: He has a poor memory. (Al-Taqrīb pg. 158, Dār al-Ma’rifah print)]

Hadīj is much more famous than Hāshim ibn Sa’īd, having more companions/students, and a large group narrated from him. Likewise ‘Amr ibn Khālid who had many companions/students. Yet the narration of Hāshim – whom only three people narrated from – is more well-known and collected by authors of hadīth (i.e. books of Sunan, Musnad, Sahīh, Jāmi’), yet they didn’t collect the hadīth of Hadīj and ‘Amr. This narration has not come except from a very odd/unique source. And it is not unlikely that one inserted one hadīth into another hadīth. And no one collected/narrated this hadīth except [‘Alī ibn al-Hassan] al-Khula’ī despite his later period. How did these Imāms such as al-Tirmidhī, Abu Ya’lā, Al-Tabarānī, Ibn ‘Adīy, al-Hākim miss this hadīth (i.e. of Hadīj/’Amr)?

Rather, it can be asserted that this is a hadīth which is bātil (false); it was not narrated by Hadīj or ‘Amr ibn Khālid, as a number of critics have agreed that Hāshim ibn Sa’īd is the only one to narrate this hadīth of Safiyyah, and that it is only known from his hadīth:

Al-Tabarānī said: these ahadīth on the authority of Kinānah on the authority of Safiyyah are only known via Hāshim ibn Sa’īd al-Kūfī… [al-Awsat #8502]

Al-Tirmidhī said: This hadīth is gharīb (i.e. unique), we do not know it except from this route of the hadīth of Hāshim ibn Sa’īd al-Kūfī and his isnād is not well-known… [Sunan al-Tirmidhī #3554]

The approach of Ibn ‘Adīy also indicates that this hadīth is only known from Hāshim… (Summarised, Sharh Sunan Abū Dawūd 18/339 of Al-Fathī)

Hadīth 4.

Ahmad ibn al-Hasan > Asbagh ibn al-Faraj > ‘Abdullāh ibn Wahb > ‘Amr ibn al-Hārith > Sa’īd ibn Abī Hilāl > Khuzaymah > ‘Āisha bint Sa’d ibn Abī Waqqās > her father (Sā’d ibn Abī Waqqās):

أَنَّهُ دَخَلَ مَعَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم عَلَى امْرَأَةٍ وَبَيْنَ يَدَيْهَا نَوًى أَوْ قَالَ حَصًى تُسَبِّحُ بِهِ فَقَالَ ‏ “‏ أَلاَ أُخْبِرُكِ بِمَا هُوَ أَيْسَرُ عَلَيْكِ مِنْ هَذَا أَوْ أَفْضَلُ سُبْحَانَ اللَّهِ عَدَدَ مَا خَلَقَ فِي السَّمَاءِ وَسُبْحَانَ اللَّهِ عَدَدَ مَا خَلَقَ فِي الأَرْضِ وَسُبْحَانَ اللَّهِ عَدَدَ مَا بَيْنَ ذَلِكَ وَسُبْحَانَ اللَّهِ عَدَدَ مَا هُوَ خَالِقٌ وَاللَّهُ أَكْبَرُ مِثْلَ ذَلِكَ وَالْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ مِثْلَ ذَلِكَ وَلاَ حَوْلَ وَلاَ قُوَّةَ إِلاَّ بِاللَّهِ مِثْلَ ذَلِكَ ‏”‏

That he entered with the Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) upon a women, before her was a date pit – or he said – pebble – that she would make Tasbīh with. So he (ﷺ) said: “Should I not inform you of what is easier for you then this, and better?… (to the end of the hadīth)

(al-Tirmidhī 3568. Abū Dawūd 1500.  Al-Baghawī in Sharh as-Sunnah 1279. And others.

Declared da’īf by Al-Albānī in his checking of Tirmidhī and Abū Dawūd.

Declared da’īf by Abdul-Muhsin al-‘Abbād (Sharh Sunan Abū Dawūd 3/180)

Included by Muqbil ibn Hādī’ in ahadīth mu’allah dhāhiruha sihha (hadīth that appear to be authentic but contain defects/weakness) pg. 148)

(This narration was also collected by al-Hākim 1/547, Ibn Hibbān 837 al-Bazzār 4/40 – without ‘Khuzaymah’ in the isnād. Declared Munqati’ (disconnected/broken) by Al-Albānī in his checking of Mawārid al-Dhamān #2330)

Isnād:

Muqbil ibn Hādī said: if you go back to Al-Tahdhīb Al-Tahdhīb, you will not find a narration by Sa’īd ibn Abī Hilāl on the authority of Āisha bint Sa’d ibn Abī Waqqās… [i.e. the chain is broken/disconnected]. (ahadīth mu’allah dhāhiruha sihha pg. 148)

Khuzaymah:

Abdul-Muhsin al-‘Abbād said: this hadīth is weak and not established due to the presence of an unknown narrator in the isnād – and that is Khuzaymah. (Sharh Abū Dawūd 3/180)

Al-Dhahabī said: Khuzaymah, he is not known. (al-Mīzān 1/601)

Ibn Hajr said: He is not known – his lineage nor his condition. And no one narrated from him except Sa’īd ibn Abī Hilāl. (al-Taqrīb #1877, Natāij Al-Afkār pg. 81)

Sa’īd ibn Abī Hilāl:

Al-Sājī said: Ahmad said (about Sa’īd): he became confused. (al-Tahdhīb 2/48)

Ibn Hazm said: He is not strong (al-Tahdhīb 2/48)

Yahyā [ibn Ma’īn] also described him as confused in al-Fasl of Ibn Hazm 2/95. (Al-Da’īfah 1/189)

Al-Albānī said: Perhaps what supports this argument (i.e. of Sa’īd becoming confused and mixing up the narrations) is his narration of this hadīth, because some of the trustworthy narrators who narrated from Sa’īd do not mention Khuzaymah in their chain, so the chain becomes disconnected/broken.

This is why Hāfidh al-Mizzī did not mention ‘Āishah bint Sa’ad amongst the shaykhs (those who were narrated from) of (Sa’īd) Ibn Abī Hilāl, so this isnād is not without the defects of Jahālah (a narrator being unknown) or Inqitā’ (a break in the chain), so how can this hadīth be Sahīh or Hasan?! (Al-Daīfah 1/189)

Chapter 4: narrations attributed to the companions

[A separate page will be written focusing on the narrations attributed to the companions in this matter insha Allāh. But in summary as stated above:

Yāsir al-Fathī said: There is no proven hadīth or narration on counting (dhikr) with date pits or pebbles, and its action is not proven from a single companion. Rather, (the only narration) which is proven (is) that of Ibn Mas’ūd of rebuttal, and he is one of the scholars and jurists among the companions of the prophet (ﷺ). (Sharh Abū Dawūd of al-Fathī 18/342)]

Chapter 5. Using the rosary “to count accurately”

Bakr Abū Zayd said: The extremists have said about the (use of the) rosary:

“Counting with the fingers is only practical for a few remembrances, like those under a hundred. However, for those with many supplications and continuous remembrances, counting with their fingers can lead to mistakes and distraction when counting. Thus, this is the wisdom behind using the rosary.”

I say: In the pure Sharī’ah, there is no fixed number for dhikr that is restricted by condition, time, or place beyond a hundred. Anything else is considered unrestricted dhikr. Allāh, The Most-High says: “Oh you who have believed, remember Allāh with much remembrance” (33:41), among other verses, such as in Ali-Imrān (3:41), Al-Anfāl (8:45), and Al-Ahzāb (33:35).

Thus, imposing a restricted dhikr on oneself with a number that neither Allāh nor His Messenger (ﷺ) commanded is an addition to what is prescribed. (Al-Subhah pg. 101-102)

Chapter 6. Closing remarks

Bakr Abū Zayd said: It is undeniable that using the rosary for counting dhikr is imitation of the practices of the disbelievers and constitutes an innovation in the worship of dhikr and supplications. It’s a deviation from the legislate method of counting with the fingers, as demonstrated by the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) through his words and actions. This practice has been passed down by those who follow his guidance and continue to do so to this day. Matters of disagreement should be referred back to his teachings, which clarify the correct approach in times of disagreement.

Anyone who examines the history of using the rosary will know that it is associated with the rituals of disbelievers such as Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, and others, and that this practice entered the Muslim community from their places of worship, will understand that it is a (particular) characteristic of the places of worship of the disbelievers. Therefore, for a Muslim to adopt it as a means of worship is a misguided innovation, and this is clearly evident, and all praise is to Allāh.

Every servant who is sincere to themselves should free themselves of innovations in the religion and limit their practices to following the example of the Seal of the Prophets and Messengers and his companions (may Allah be pleased with them).

So, leave the rosary, Oh servant of Allāh, and emulate your Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) in the restricted dhikr and the method of counting with your fingers. Continuously engage in the remembrance of Allāh abundantly, without restricting yourself to a number not prescribed by Sharī’ah.

(Al-Subhah pg. 100-103)

Ibn Mas’ood prohibiting dhikr using pebbles – it’s authenticity and points of benefit

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

أَخْبَرَنَا الحَكَمُ بْنُ المُبَارَكِ قَالَ : أَخْبَرَنَا عُمَرُو بْنُ يَحْيَى قَالَ : سَمِعْتُ أَبِي يُحَدِّثُ عَنْ أَبِيهِ قَالَ : كُنَّا نَجْلِسُ عَلَى بَابِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بنِ مَسْعُودٍ قَبْلَ صَلَاةِ الغَدَاةِ، فَإِذَا خَرَجَ مَشَيْنَا مَعَهُ إِلَى الْمَسْجِدِ، فَجَاءَنَا أَبُو مُوسَى الأَشْعَرِيُّ فَقَالَ : أَخَرَجَ إِلَيْكُمْ أَبُو عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بَعْدُ؟ قُلْنَا : لَا ، فَجَلَسَ مَعَنَا حَتَّى خَرَجَ ، فَلَمَّا خَرَجَ قُمْنَا إِلَيْهِ جَمِيعاً، فَقَالَ لَهُ أَبُو مُوسَى : يَا أَبَا عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ، إِنِّي رَأَيْتُ فِي المَسْجِدِ آنِفَا أَمْراً أَنْكَرْتُهُ ، وَلَمْ أَرَ – وَالحَمْدُ لله – إلا خيراً، قال: فما هو؟ فقال: إِنْ عِشْتَ فَسَتَرَاهُ، قَالَ: رَأَيْتُ فِي المَسْجِدِ قَوْماً جلقاً جُلُوساً يَنْتَظِرُونَ الصَّلَاةَ، فِي كُلِّ حَلْقَةٍ رَجُلٌ، وَفِي أَيْدِيهِمْ حَصَاةٌ، فَيَقُولُ: كَبَرُوا مِئَةً، فَيُكَبِّرُونَ مِنه فَيَقُولُ : هَلِّلُوا مِئَةً، فَيُهَلِّلُونَ مِئَةً، وَيَقُولُ : سَبْحُوا مِنْهُ. فَيُسَبِّحُونَ مِئَةً، قَالَ : فَمَاذَا قُلْتَ لَهُمْ؟ قَالَ : مَا قُلْتُ لَهُمْ شَيْئاً انْتِظَارَ رَأْيِكَ – أَوِ  : انْتِظَارَ أَمْرِكَ – قَالَ : أَفَلَا أَمَرْتَهُمْ أَنْ يَعُدُّوا سَيِّئَاتِهِمْ وَضَمِنْتَ لَهُمْ أَنْ لَا يَضِيعَ مِنْ حَسَنَاتِهِمْ؟ ثُمَّ مَضَى وَمَضَيْنَا مَعَهُ حَتَّى أَتَى حَلَقَةً مِنْ تِلْكَ الحِلَقِ فَوَقَفَ عَلَيْهِمْ، فَقَالَ : مَا هَذَا الَّذِي أَرَاكُمْ تَصْنَعُونَ؟ قَالُوا : يَا أَبَا عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ، حَصَى نَعُدُّ بِهِ التَّكْبِيرَ وَالتَّهْلِيلَ وَالتَّسْبِيحَ، قَالَ : فَعُدُّوا سَيِّئَاتِكُمْ فَأَنَا ضَامِنٌ أَنْ لَا يَضِيعَ مِنْ حَسَنَاتِكُمْ شَيْءٌ، وَيْحَكُمْ يَا أُمَّةَ مُحَمَّدٍ، مَا أَسْرَعَ هَلَكَتَكُمْ، هَؤُلَاءِ صَحَابَةُ نَبِيِّكُمْ مُتَوَافِرُونَ، وَهَذِهِ ثِيَابُهُ لَمْ تَبْلَ، وَآنِيَتُهُ لَمْ تُكْسَرْ، وَالَّذِي نَفْسِي فِي يَدِهِ، إِنَّكُمْ لَعَلَى مِلَّةِ هِيَ – أَهْدَى مِنْ مِلَّةِ مُحَمَّدٍ، أَوْ مُفْتَتِحِي  بَابِ ضَلَالَةِ، قَالُوا : وَاللَّهِ يَا أَبَا عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ مَا أَرَدْنَا إِلَّا الخَيْرَ، قَالَ : وَكَمْ مِنْ مُرِيدٍ لِلْخَيْرِ لَنْ يُصِيبَهُ ، إِنَّ رَسُولَ اللهِ ﷺ حَدَّثَنَا أَنَّ قَوْماً يَقْرَؤُونَ القُرْآنَ لَا يُجَاوِزُ تَرَاقِيَهُمْ، وَايْمُ اللَّهِ ، مَا أَدْرِي لَعَلَّ أَكْثَرَهُمْ مِنْكُمْ ثُمَّ تَوَلَّى عَنْهُمْ. فَقَالَ عَمْرُو بنُ سَلِمَةَ : رَأَيْنَا عَامَّةً أُولَئِكَ الحِلَقِ يُطَاعِنُونَا يَوْمَ النَّهْرَوَانِ مَعَ الخوارج

Narrated by al-Hakam ibn al-Mubārak > ‘Amr ibn Yahyā > from his father (Yahyā ibn ‘Amr) > from his father (‘Amr ibn Salimah ibn al-Hārith) who reported:

We used to sit by the door of Abdullāh ibn Mas’ūd, may Allāh be pleased with him, before dawn prayer. When he came out, we would walk with him to the mosque. Then Abū Mūsā al-Ash’arī came to us and he said: “has Abū Abd al-Rahmān come out to you yet?” We said: “No.” So he sat with us until he came out. When he came out, we all stood and went to him.

So Abū Mūsā said to him:, “O Abū Abd al-Rahmān, I recently saw something in the mosque that I detested and yet, praise be to Allāh, I saw nothing but good.” Ibn Mas’ūd said, “What was it?” Abū Mūsā said, “If you live long enough, you will see it. I saw people sitting in the mosque in circles waiting for prayer. A man in each circle had pebbles and he would tell them to say Allāhu Akbar one hundred times and they would do so, then declare lā ilahā illAllāh one hundred times and they would do so, then Subhan-Allāh one hundred times and they would do so.”

Ibn Mas’ūd said, “What did you say to them?” Abū Mūsā said, “I did not say anything to them. I was waiting for your opinion or order.” Ibn Mas’ūd said, “Would you not order them to count their sins and guarantee for them that their good deeds would not be wasted?”

We went along with him until he reached one of these circles and he stood over it, saying, “What is this I see you doing?” They said, “O Abū Abd al-Rahmān, they are pebbles by which we count Takbīr, Tahlīl, and Tasbīh.” Ibn Mas’ūd said, “Count your sins, for I guarantee that none of your good deeds will be wasted. Woe to you, nation of Muhammad! How quickly do you run to your destruction! Here are his companions, these are his clothes yet to be worn out, these are his utensils yet to break. By the One in whose hand is my soul, perhaps you are upon a religion better guided than the religion of Muhammad? Or have you opened the door of misguidance?”

They said, “By Allāh, O Abū Abd al-Rahmān, we intended nothing but good.” Ibn Mas’ūd said, “How many intend good but do not achieve it! The Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) informed us that people would recite the Qur’ān and it would not reach beyond their throats. By Allāh, I do not know that perhaps many of them are among you!” Then he turned away from them.

‘Amr ibn Salimah said, “We saw most of them in these circles fighting us on the day of Nahrawān along with the Khawārij.”

(Sunan al-Dārimī #212, pg. 136. Kitāb al-Tarīkh of al-Wāsitī pg. 198 – from two paths via ‘Amr ibn Yahyā ibn ‘Amr ibn Salimah.

Declared Sahīh by the editors of Risālah Publishers –  authentication based on Shu’ayb Al-Arnāūts methods pg. 213.

Declared as Sahīh by Al-Albānī in Al-Sahīhah #2005.

Declared Sahīh by Yāsir al-Fathī in Sharh Abū Dawūd 18/342.

A shortened version of the narration can be found in al-Tirmidhī 2188, Musnad of Imām Ahmad 3831, Ibn Majāh 168 via different chains)

Research of the isnād of al-Dārimī

al-Hakam ibn al-Mubārak – al-Bāhilī. The Imām, Hāfidh, Abū Sālih al-Khāshitiyy al-Balkhī (Fath al-Manān Sharh Musnad al-Dārimī 3/359)

He is one of the shaykhs of al-Bukhārī in al-Adab al-Mufrad (Fath al-Manān Sharh Musnad al-Dārimī 3/691)

He narrated from: (Imām) Mālik, Abū Awānah and others.

Those who narrated from him: Zakariyyā ibn Yahyā, ‘Abdullāh al-Dārimī and others. (Tahdhīb 1/469. Al-Mīzān 1/531)

He was declared thiqah (trustworthy, i.e. upright and accurate in what he narrates) by Ibn Hibbān, Imām Ahmad, Ibn Mandah, ibn Sam’ānī, al-Dhahabī and others. (Fath al-Manān Sharh Musnad al-Dārimī 3/359. Sharh al-Dārimī of al-Zahrānī 1/181. Al-Mīzān 1/531, al-Tahdhīb 1/469. Thiqāt 8/195)

Al-Bukhārī said: He died in the year 213 or thereabouts. (al-Tahdhīb 1/469)

‘Amr ibn Yahyā – ibn ‘Amr ibn Salimah ibn al-Hārith al-Hamdānī (Fath al-Manān Sharh Musnad al-Dārimī 3/691. Al-Sahīhah of Al-Albānī 5/12. Jarh wa Ta’dīl of Ibn Abī Hātim 1487)

He narrated from: his father (Yahyā ibn ‘Amr).

Those who narrated from him:  Ibn Abī Shaybah, Ibn Numayr, ‘Abdullāh Ibn Umar, Ibrāhīm Ibn Mūsā, and Abdullāh Ibn Sa’īd Al-Ashja. Sa’īd ibn Sulaymān al-Wāsitī. (Jarh wa Ta’dīl of Ibn Abī Hātim 1487. Thiqāt 8/480. Tarīkh al-Kabīr of al-Bukhārī 7/475-476)

Ishāq ibn Mansūr narrated from Yahyā ibn Ma’īn that he declared ‘Amr ibn Yahyā thiqah. (Jarh wa Ta’dīl of Ibn Abī Hātim 1487)

Ibn Hibbān also mentioned him in al-Thiqāt (The Trustworthy) (8/480).

Yahyā ibn ‘Amr – ibn Salimah al-Hamdānī/Al-Kindī (Fath al-Manān Sharh Musnad al-Dārimī 3/691. Al-Sahīhah of Al-Albānī 5/12)

He narrated from: his father (‘Amr ibn Salimah).

Those who narrated from him: Shu’bah and al-Thawrī and others. (Tahmīl ‘alā Kitāb Jarh wa Ta’dīl of Ibn Abī Hātim 1/348 by al-Nājī. Kitāb al-Īthār of Ibn Hajr pg. 190)

Ya’qūb ibn Sufyān said: There is nothing wrong with him. (Tahmīl ‘alā Kitāb Jarh wa Ta’dīl of Ibn Abī Hātim 1/348 by al-Nājī).

Al-Ujaylī said: (He is) thiqah, (from) kūfa. (Thiqāt of Al-Ujaylī #1819. Tahmīl ‘alā Kitāb Jarh wa Ta’dīl of Ibn Abī Hātim 1/348 of al-Nājī. Al-Sahīhah of Al-Albānī 5/12-13)

Al-Zahrānī said: They (i.e. Shu’bah and al-Thawrī) only narrate from thiqah. (Sharh Musnad al-Dārimī 1/363)

Al-Albānī said: It suffices us to praise/validate him by the (mere fact) Shu’bah narrated from him, as he (i.e. Shu’bah) was selective in whom he narrated from… (Al-Sahīhah 5/12)

Imām Ahmad said that the overall shaykhs of Shu’bah are jayyid (i.e. good, reliable, strong). (Fath al-manān Sharh Musnad al-Dārimī 3/691)

‘Amr ibn Salimah ibn al-Hārith – al-Hamdānī al-Kindī al-Kūfī. A tābi’ī from the first generation, from the people of Kūfah. (Fath al-Manān Sharh Musnad al-Dārimī 3/692)

He narrated from: ‘Alī, Abū Mūsā al-Ash’arī.

Those who narrated from him: his son Yahyā and others. (al-Tahdhīb 3/274)

Ibn Hajr said: Thiqah (al-Taqrīb pg. 77)

Ibn Hibbān mentioned him in al-Thiqāt (5/172).

Ibn Sa’īd said: He is thiqah. (al-Tahdhīb 3/274)

Al-Ujaylī said: (He is a) thiqah kūfan tābi’ī (al-Thiqāt of Al-Ujaylī #1263)

Research of the isnād of al-Wāsitī in kitāb al-Tarīkh

‘Alī ibn Hassan ibn Sulaymān – al-Hadramī, originally from al-Wāsit – Kūfah. (al-Taqrīb pg. 39)

Ibn Hajr said: thiqah. (al-Taqrīb pg. 39)

Abū Dawūd said: thiqah. (Tadhīb Kamāl 20/370)

Hākim said: thiqah. (Jarh wa Ta’dīl 6/180)

He died in the year 236/237. (al-Tahdhīb 3/151)

The rest of isnād is the same as above – via ‘Amr ibn Yahyā.

Benefits derived from this narration

  1. They did this (i.e. sit at the door of Ibn Mas’ūd and walk with him to the Masjid) because of the status of ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas’ūd (may Allāh be pleased with him), a great companion, one of the early ones (to embrace), whose virtues are recorded in the collections of the Sunnah. (Sharh Musnad al-Dārimī of al-Zahrānī 1/363)
  2. The sahābī Abū Mūsā al-Ash’arī (may Allāh be pleased with him) coming and asking for Ibn Mas’ūd, and then sitting waiting for him to come out – again shows the status of Ibn Mas’ūd – may Allāh be pleased with him. (Summarised, Sharh Musnad al-Dārimī of al-Zahrānī 1/363)
  3. Aside from this narration, there is no proven hadīth or narration on counting (dhikr) with date stones or pebbles, and its action is not proven from a single companion. Rather, it is proven that Ibn Mas’ūd rebuked it, and he is one of the scholars and jurists among the companions of the prophet (ﷺ). (Sharh Abū Dawūd of al-Fathī 18/342)
  4. Abū Mūsā saying: “.. I detested…” meaning within himself, but did not make it apparent due to his dislike possibly being out of place as what was apparent to him was that which he had seen was (apparently) good. (Fath al-Manān Sharh Musnad Al-Dārimī 3/692)
  5. There is no doubt that what they (i.e. people of the circles) did was not a usual practise and that it was (based on) a new opinion on the method of making dhikr, which had no basis in the Book or the Sunnah. (Sharh Musnad al-Dārimī of al-Zahrānī 1/365)
  6. Ibn Mas’ūd rebuked the people that were counting tasbīh upon the pebbles. If the use of pebbles for counting Tasbīh was that which the Messenger (ﷺ)  relayed then it would not have been hidden from Ibn Mas’ūd, insha Allāh. (Al-Da’īfah of Al-Albānī 1/191-192)
  7. This rebuke of Ibn Mas’ūd was adopted by those who took knowledge from him such as Ibrāhim ibn Yazīd al-Nakha’ī – who used to prohibit his daughter from helping women braid thread together for rosary beads which they would use for tasbīh. (Al-Da’īfah of Al-Albānī 1/191-192)
  8. Ibn Mas’ūd understood that the action of these people was an innovation that must be denounced and its illegitimacy in the Shari’ah be pointed out. (Sharh Musnad al-Dārimī of al-Zahrānī 1/364)
  9. Ibn Mas’ūd explained to them that they were quick to innovate, and were quick to perish by contradicting the prophetic guidance in what they did. They deviated quickly from the straight path despite the death of the messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) occurring not far off, and the presence of his companions whom they did not seek guidance for that which they did. (Sharh Musnad al-Dārimī of al-Zahrānī 1/364)
  10. Ibn Mas’ūd rebuked them by saying either they were on a better guidance than that of the prophet (ﷺ) – never could this be the case, or that they opened the door of misguidance – which is the truth. (Sharh Musnad al-Dārimī of al-Zahrānī 1/365)
  11. It proves that even if an action is in accordance with good intentions, it is not valid unless it is done in accordance with the Sharī’ah. (Sharh Hadīth Jibrīl of ‘Abdul-Muhsin pg. 19-20) read more here: https://fawaaids.com/2024/06/06/an-action-that-is-done-with-good-intention-but-not-according-to-the-sunnah/
  12. The sunnah that has been established by action and speech of the messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) in regards to making tasbīh is that it’s (only) done with the fingers. (Al-Sahīhah of Al-Albānī 5/13)
  13. The lesson (in what matters) is not in the amount of worship (i.e. quantity) but what’s done in accordance to the sunnah, as Ibn Mas’ūd said: (اقتصاد في سنة، خير من اجتهاد في بدعة ) ‘Moderation in following the sunnah is better than striving in innovation’ [al-Hākim 289]. (Al-Sahīhah of Al-Albānī 5/14)
  14. The small innovation leads to a greater innovation, do you not see that the people of these circles later became Kharijites who fought and were killed by the caliph ‘Alī ibn Abī Tālib. (Al-Sahīhah of Al-Albānī 5/14)
  15. The battle of Nahrawān took place in the year 38 after the Hijrah; the Khawārij – 4,000 in number – rebelled against ‘Alī so the Muslims went out and fought and killed them. Only 9 men were killed from the Muslims. (Sharh Musnad al-Dārimī of al-Zahrānī 1/366)

A neglected Sunnah: to sit Iq’aa between the two prostrations

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Summary:

Al-Albānī said: “He (ﷺ) would sometimes practice iq’ā [to rest on both his heels and feet].

Al-Iq’ā has come from the hadīth of Ibn ‘Abbās in Sahīh Muslim and Abū Dawūd and Al-Tirmidhī, who declared it Sahīh and others authenticated it; see (Al-Sahīhah 383), and from the hadith of Ibn ‘Umar with a good chain of transmission according to Al-Bayhaqī and authenticated by Ibn Hajr. Abū Ishāq Al-Harbi narrated in (Gharīb Al-Hadīth, 1/12/5) on the authority of Tawūs that he saw Ibn’ Umar and Ibn ‘Abbās practising Iq’ā, and its chain of transmission is Sahīh.

(Sifat al-Salāh pg. 132)

Narrations of Ibn ‘Abbās and Ibn ‘Umar

Tawūs reported:

قُلْنَا لاِبْنِ عَبَّاسٍ فِي الإِقْعَاءِ عَلَى الْقَدَمَيْنِ فَقَالَ هِيَ السُّنَّةُ ‏.‏ فَقُلْنَا لَهُ إِنَّا لَنَرَاهُ جَفَاءً بِالرَّجُلِ ‏.‏ فَقَالَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ بَلْ هِيَ سُنَّةُ نَبِيِّكَ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏

We asked Ibn ‘Abbās about sitting Al-Iq’ā (in prayer) upon the heels. He said: It is sunnah. We said to him: We find it hard on the person. Ibn ‘Abbas said: Rather it is the sunnah of your prophet (ﷺ). (Sahīh Muslim 536, Abū Dawūd 845, al-Tirmidhī 283)

Nāfi’ narrated upon Ibn ‘Umar:

كان يُقْعِي بَيْنَ السَّجْدَتَيْنِ

He would sit Yaqī’ between the two prostrations. (Musannaf of Ibn Abī Shaybah #2959)

Abū Al-Zubayr (narrated):

أَنَّهُ رَأَى عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ عُمَرَ إِذَا سَجَدَ حِينَ يَرْفَعُ رَأْسَهُ مِنَ السَّجْدَةِ الأُولَى يَقْعُدُ عَلَى أَطْرَافِ أَصَابِعِهِ وَيَقول : إِنَّهُ مِنَ السُّنَّةِ

he saw ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Umar, when he raised his head from the first prostration, he would sit iq’ā upon the tips of his toes. And he said: This is from the Sunnah. (Sunan al-Kubrā of Al-Bayhaqī #2735, Sahīh)

Tawūs narrated:

رَأَيْتُ ابن عُمَرَ وَابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ وَهُمَا يُقْعِيَانِ بَيْنَ السَّجْدَتَيْنِ عَلَى أَطْرَافِ أَصَابِعِهِمَا

I saw Ibn ‘Umar and Ibn ‘Abbās and they were sitting iq’ā on the tips of their toes between the two prostrations (Sunan al-Kubrā #2738 of Al-Bayhaqī, Sahīh)

Ibn al-Mundhir said:

Ibn ‘Abbās said: “From the Sunnah is for your heels to touch your buttocks.”

Tawūs said: I saw the ‘Abādilāh doing it; Ibn Umar, Ibn Abbās, and Ibn al-Zubayr [declared Sahīh by Al-Albānī in Irwā 2/22].

Sālim, Nāfi’, Tawūs, Atā’, and Mujāhid also acted upon that. (Al-Awsat of Ibn al-Mundhir 3/358)

Explanation of the above:

Al-Bayhaqī said:

This is the legislated or recommended position of iq’ā, according to what we narrated on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbās and Ibn ‘Umar; which is to place the tips of ones toes on the ground. And one places his buttocks on his heels and rests his knees on the ground. (Sunan al-Kubrā 2/258)

Muhammad Bazmūl [explaining the authors – Al-Albānīs – text: “sometimes he would practise iq’ā”] said:

… And the author, may Allāh have mercy upon him, when he says: (Sometimes) this means that the Messenger (ﷺ) used to do this at times and leave it at (other) times. What is the evidence that the Messenger (ﷺ) used to do this sometimes?

We say: The evidence for this is that those who described the Messenger’s prayer (ﷺ) did not all agree on that (same) description. This indicates that the Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) sometimes did it and left it (at other times). And thus, whoever mentioned (this description) would have seen the Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) at the time he did it, and whoever did not mention it would not have seen the Messenger doing it.

There are two ways of sitting between the two prostrations;

The first manner: is the manner of iftirāsh [i.e. spreading out the left foot horizontally whilst sitting on it and propping up the right foot, with the toes facing the Qiblah].

This manner of sitting iftirāsh is legislated in three places:

  1. When sitting between the two prostrations
  2. When sitting for the middle tashahhud of a prayer containing two tashahhuds
  3. When sitting for the tashahhud of a prayer containing a single tashahhud, like that of the Fajr prayer

The second manner of sitting between the two prostrations is the manner of iq’ā.

There are three ways of sitting iq’ā;

  1. To place ones feet upright [and rest on ones toes] and to place the buttocks on the heels – this manner of sitting is proven between the two prostrations.
  2. To place ones shins upright and place ones buttocks on the ground, like a dog.
  3. To place one’s shins, knees and feet on the ground, and place one’s buttocks between one’s feet and one’s shins on the ground, like a dog’s iq’ā (squatting).

Iq’ā in the second and third manner is not prescribed at all in the prayer. As for the first manner of iq’ā then this is only prescribed in the sitting between prostrations.

(Abridged, Sharh Sifat al-Salāh pg. 274-275)

Some weak hadīth which are used to prohibit iq’ā between the two prostrations and their explanation/reconciliation

1). Narrated by ‘Alī: The prophet (ﷺ) said:

يَا عَلِيُّ أُحِبُّ لَكَ مَا أُحِبُّ لِنَفْسِي وَأَكْرَهُ لَكَ مَا أَكْرَهُ لِنَفْسِي لاَ تُقْعِ بَيْنَ السَّجْدَتَيْنِ

O ‘Alī! I love for you what I love for myself, and I dislike for you what I dislike for myself. Do not sit iq’ā between the two prostrations. (al-Tirmidhī 282, Ibn Mājah 294, 295. Declared da’īf by Al-Albānī in his checking of al-Tirmidhī. Also declared da’īf by Ibn al-‘Arabī in ‘Āridatul-Ahwadhī 2/103.

Al-Nawawī said in Sharh Sahīh Muslim 1/163, regarding Hārith ibn ‘Abdullāh al-A’war al-Hamdānī [one of the narrators in this isnād]: “It is agreed upon that he is weak”.

2). Narrated by Anas: The prophet (ﷺ) said to me:

إِذَا رَفَعْتَ رَأْسَكَ مِنَ السُّجُودِ فَلاَ تُقْعِ كَمَا يُقْعِي الْكَلْبُ ضَعْ أَلْيَتَيْكَ بَيْنَ قَدَمَيْكَ، وَأَلْزِقْ ظَاهِرَ قَدَمَيْكَ بِالأَرْضِ

When you raise your head from prostration, do not squat like a dog. Place your buttocks between your feet and let the tops of your feet touch the ground. (Ibn Mājah 896. Declared Mawdū’ by Al-Albānī in his checking of Ibn Mājah and in al-Da’īfah #2615)

Al-Mubārakfūrī said: “In the isnād is ‘Alā Abū Muhammad, and some of the Imāms have weakened him”. (Tuhfah al-Ahwadhī 4/37)

al-Hararī said: Al-Bukhārī, Al-Uqailī and Ibn ‘Adī said: “He is a fabricator of hadīth.” Abū Hātim said: “He is a fabricator of hadith and his hadīth is abandoned.” ‘Alī ibn Al-Madīnī said: “He used to fabricate hadīth.” Abū Dawūd said: “He is abandoned in hadīth.” Its said in “Al-Taqrīb”: “He is abandoned.” (Sharh ibn Mājah of al-Hararī 6/83)

3). Narrated by Abū Hurayrah:

نَهى عن ثلاثٍ عن نقرةٍ كنقرةِ الدِّيكِ وإقعاءٍ كإقعاءِ الْكلبِ والتفاتٍ كالتفاتِ الثَّعلبِ

The prophet (ﷺ) forbade me from three things: pecking like a rooster, squatting like a dog, and looking around like a fox. (Musnad of Imām Ahmad 8106. Declared da’īf by Al-Arnāūt in his checking (13/468), who said: Its chain of transmission is weak due to the weakness of Sharīk – who is Ibn Abdullāh Al-Nakha’ī – and Yazīd ibn Abū Ziyād – who is the Hāshimī Qurayshī)

Al-Mubārakfūrī said: This hadīth was also collected by al-Bayhaqī [Sunan al-Kubrā #2713] and it is from the narration of Layth ibn Abī Sulaym, and it was also collected by Abū Ya’lā [#6226] and Al-Tabārānī in Al-Awsat [#2575]. (Tuhfah al-Ahwadhī 4/38)

Regarding Layth ibn Abī Sulaym: 

Imām Ahmad said: ” (he is) unstable in hadīth.” Abū Hātim said: “weak in hadīth.” Ibn Ma’īn said: “munkar in hadīth, although he was a person of the sunnah.” Al-Hākim Abū Abdullāh said: “there is agreement on his poor memory.” (See al-Taqrīb pg. 147-148, dār muayyid print. Al-Tahdhīb Al-Tahdhīb 3/484-485)

4). Abī Jawzā narrated from Ā’ishah:

وَكَانَ يَنْهَى عَنْ عُقْبَةِ الشَّيْطَانِ

The prophet (ﷺ) prohibited the devil’s way of squatting. (Sahīh Muslim 498)

Ibn Hajr said in Bulūgh al-Marām #215: and in it there is a defect.

Ibn Mulaqqin said: In this isnād there is a defect. (al-I’lām 3/19)

Al-Albānī said: This isnād appears to be authentic, hence why Muslim and Abū Awānah collected it in their Sahīh, however, (in reality) it is defective. (Irwā 2/21)

Ibn ‘Abdul-Barr said: Abū Jawzā is Aws Ibn ‘Abdullāh al-Rabi’ī, he did not hear from Ā’ishah, and his hadīth from her are Mursal [i.e. interrupted/broken and ends at the Tabi’ī level]. (Al-Tamhīd 13/35)

Al-Bukhari said in the biography of Abū Jawzā: Fī isnādihi nadhar. (Tarīkh al-Kābīr 2/16-17,#1540)

Ibn Hajr said: Al-Bukhārīs saying fī isnādihi nadhar [here] means that he did not hear from the likes of Ibn Masūd, Ā’ishah and others, not that he held him to be weak. (Al-Tahdhīb 1/194)

Al-Albānī said: Al-Hāfidh (Ibn Hajr) explained this isnād as broken in another hadīth that follows (334) and what supports this break (in the chain); in Kitāb al-Salāh of Ja’far al-Faryābī […] Badīl Al-‘Uqailī told us, on the authority of Abū Jawzā, who said: “I sent a messenger to Ā’ishah to ask her… then he mentioned the hadīth.” I say: So the hadīth was attributed to being on the authority of an unknown man who was the intermediary between Abū Jawzā and Ā’ishah, so the weakness of (this) chain of transmission is established. (Abridged, Irwā 2/21)

Al-Nawawī said: {The devil’s way of squatting}, Abū ‘Ubayd and others interpreted as the forbidden iq’ā; which is to place ones buttocks on the ground, place ones shins upright, and to place the hands on the ground, just as dogs and other wild beasts do so. (Sharh Sahīh Muslim 2/532)

Al-Nawawī said: The correct interpretation of the hadīth of Ibn ‘Abbās [“It is the sunnah of your prophet (ﷺ)”] is that one places his buttocks on his heels between the two prostrations. And this is different from the iq’ā that’s been prohibited. (Summarised, sharh Sahīh Muslim 2/579-580)

Al-Albānī said: As for the narrations that prohibit iq’ā’, it is not permissible to adhere to them in order to oppose this Sunnah (for the following) reasons:

First: They are all weak and defective.

Second: If they were authentic, or if what was agreed upon was correct, (then) it refers to the prohibition of iq’ā like the iq’ā of a dog, which is something other than the iq’ā that’s proven.

Thirdly: That they are a possible reference to performing iq’ā in other than it’s legislated place, such as (performing it in) the first and second tashahhud. This is what some ignorant people do, and this is forbidden because it is contrary to the Sunnah. (Summarised, Irwā 2/22)