“Also, abide in your houses and do not display yourselves as was the display of the former times of ignorance. And establish prayer and give zakah and obey Allah and His Messenger. Allah intends only to remove from you the impurity of sin, O people of the Prophet’s household, and to purify you with extensive purification.” (Qur’an 33:33)
﷽
If one is already pure, there is no need to purify. If one claims there are degrees and grades of purification, then this does not indicate absolute perfection.
The totally pure cannot become purer and the totally perfect can’t be purified.
The very verse that the ’12er Shi’i’ rely upon to establish their position gives them trouble from the outset.
“Also, abide in your houses and do not display yourselves as was the display of the former times of ignorance. And establish prayer and give zakah and obey Allah and His Messenger. Allah intends only to remove from you the impurity of sin, O people of the Prophet’s household, and to purify you with extensive purification.” (Qur’an 33:33)
This verse is clearly talking about the women of the Prophet (saw) his wives.
Two points within the verse preclude this being a reference to men.
Point 1)
It would be odd to think of any male of the Prophet (saw) household “displaying themselves” in a feminine manner. Unless now people are going to tell us that the males of the ‘Ahl Bayt’ were displaying themselves in a feminine manner in previous times.
Tabarrajna — display yourselves.
Understand this in light of the following verse:
“Also, women of post-menstrual age who have no desire for marriage — there is no blame upon them for putting aside their outer garments but not displaying adornment. But to modestly refrain from that is better for them. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.” (Qur’an 24:60)
Mutabarrijātin—displaying your adornment
Point 2)
Also, do the men of the ‘Ahl Bayt’ abide in their houses? No! Obviously, they don’t.
Also, note that the text is an admonition to the people of the ‘Ahl Bayt’ who were doing something that deserves admonishment.
So let us look at the text in context.
“O wives of the Prophet, whoever of you should commit a clear immorality – for her, the punishment would be doubled two fold, and ever is that, for Allah, easy. And whoever of you devoutly obeys Allah and His Messenger and does righteousness – We will give her reward twice; and We have prepared for her a noble provision. O wives of the Prophet, you are not like anyone among women. If you fear Allah, then do not be soft in speech [to men], lest he in whose heart is disease should covet, but speak with appropriate speech. And abide in your houses and do not display yourselves as [was] the display of the former times of ignorance. And establish prayer and give zakah and obey Allah and His Messenger. Allah intends only to remove from you the impurity of sin, O people of the Prophet’s household, and to purify you with extensive purification. And remember what is recited in your houses of the verses of Allah and wisdom. Indeed, Allah is ever Subtle and Acquainted with all things.” (Qur’an 33:30-34)
Wives, women, her.The wives of the Prophet (saw) are all pure and purified. These verses, in their context, have absolutely nothing to do with any male relations of the Prophet (saw).
Keep the following in mind.
The controversy surrounding the Blessed Prophet (saw) parents.
The fact that Abu Muttalib did not die as a believer is well known.
The fact that the Blessed Messenger (saw) is reported to have had three sons, Qasim, Abdullah and Ibrahim (May Allah’s mercy cover them all). None of them lived beyond the age of 2.
The following verse makes it abundantly clear that Allah (swt) will purify whomever He (swt) wills.
“So if not for the favor of Allah upon you and His mercy, not one of you would have been pure, ever, but Allah purifies whom He wills, and Allah is Hearing and Knowing.” (Qur’an 24:21)
O people of the Prophet’s household, and to purify you with extensive purification.
How does Allah (swt) intend to purify the household?
Then do not be soft in speech [to men], lest he whose heart is disease should covet, but speak with appropriate speech.
And abide in your houses.
Do not display yourselves as [was] the display of the former times of ignorance.
And establish prayer and give zakah.
However, the Imams of the ’12er Shi’i’ have come along and made a huge exegetical stretch out of these verses.
So they come along and isolate the following text from context:
“Allah intends only to remove from you (ʿankumu) the impurity of sin, O people of the Prophet’s household, and to purify you with extensive purification.”
So they will focus on (ʿankumu) as it is in the masculine form. In Arabic grammar, this is quite natural. The presence of many women but only one man, the pronoun switches to the masculine. So, the presence of the Blessed Prophet (saw) renders this masculine. Members of the household =the women. Whose household? The household of Muhammed (saw)—whom is masculine.
From this lens, the grammatical argument isn’t a “clue” left by Allah; it’s a “hook” found by later interpreters to hang a doctrine onto a verse that originally had a different, clearer meaning.
Another example is here:
“They said, “Are you amazed at the decree of Allah ? May the mercy of Allah and His blessings be upon you (ʿalaykum), people of the house. Indeed, He is Praiseworthy and Honorable.” (Qur’an 11:73)
Sarah (as) is being addressed in the feminine singular. However, when they address her as a member of the household of Ibrahim (as), the pronoun becomes masculine plural.
The purification of the wives is on account of the Blessed Prophet (saw). So that his consorts may resemble him in purification and perfection.
The term l-rij’sa (the impurity) is originally dirt that soiled bodies. It is borrowed here for sins and religious defects. As they render a person’s reputation in this world and the hereafter despised and disliked, like a body stained with dirt.
Does being a descendant of a Prophet guarantee you to be sinless and free from error?
Keep in mind the following:
“Moreover, it sailed with them through waves like mountains, and NOAH CALLED TO HIS SON, who was apart [from them], “O MY SON, come aboard with us and be not with the disbelievers. [But] he said, “I will take refuge on a mountain to protect me from the water.” [Noah] said, “There is no protector today from the decree of Allah, except for whom is given mercy.” And the waves came between them, and he was among the drowned.”(Qur’an 11:42-43)
Then Allah (swt) informed Noah…
“So Noah called to his Lord and said, “My Lord, indeed MY SON IS OF MY FAMILY and indeed, your promise is true; and You are the most just of judges! He said, “O NOAH, INDEED HE IS NOT OF YOUR FAMILY; indeed, he is [one whose] work was other than righteous, so ask Me not for that about which you have no knowledge. Indeed, I advise you, lest you be among the ignorant. [Noah] said, “My Lord, I seek refuge in You from asking that of which I have no knowledge. And unless You forgive me and have mercy upon me, I will be among the losers.” (Qur’an 11:45-47)
“Moreover, remember that Abraham was tried by his Lord with certain commands, which he fulfilled: He said: “I will make you an Imam to the Nations.” He pleaded: “And also (Imams) from my offspring!” He answered: “But My Promise is not within the reach of evildoers.” (Qur’an 2:124)
If you notice Allah (swt) didn’t write a blank check for the descendants of Abraham. If you were made virtuous by being a descendant of a prophet, then Allah(swt) would have simply granted Abraham’s du’a; however, he did not. He made a caveat, “My promise is not within reach of the evildoers.”
Is this not interesting? Make Imams of me and my offspring!
In other words, I will grant your du’a to those who hold on to my commands and strive their utmost to be righteous servants.
Cain killed his brother Abel. Both were descendants of the Prophet Adam (upon whom be peace). Yet, one was righteous and the other became the ‘first’ murderer. Such that Allah (swt) made an example of this particular incident throughout time.
“So his soul permitted to him the murder of his brother, so he killed him and became among the losers.” (Qur’an 5:30)
In reality, if you want to be technical, from the perspective that we all came from Adam, or are ‘Bani Adam’—the children of Adam, we are in reality all descendants of the Prophets.
Is this not interesting? He murdered his own brother. Both had the blood of a Prophet in their veins.
We love, and we honour the noble Prophet Muhammed (saw) and his family. However, we have no evidence from the Qur’an to substantiate the position that they were infallible or beyond reproach. No one can establish this from the Qur’an.
“Look how We make the signs clear; then look at how deluded they are.” (Qur’an 5:75)
“Do not confound the with falsehood, nor conceal the truth when you know.” (Qur’an 2:42)
﷽
Abu Hanifa, Ikrima and the truth.
Abu Abdullah al-Madani, Mawla Abdullah bin Abbaas (r.a)
This is an article we had been wanting to write for some time now. The companion Ikrima (ra) has come under attack by both Shaykh Atabek Shukurov An-Nafsi and his former student Sulaiman Ahmed in their joint book “Hanafi Principles of Testing Hadith” as well as in the following article: https://sulaimanahmed.com/2017/07/28/ikrima-as-imam-of-modern-hanafis-part-1/
Curriculum Vitae -There does not seem to be any third party academic institute and/or organization that verifies his education, training or background. It is not certain if he pays a third party to translate Arabic text or does so directly. To our knowledge, no independent demonstration of Arabic proficiency has been shown.
This article also contains statements taken from other websites/blogs wherein people have replied to the attacks on Ikrima (ra) and we have not seen any meaningful responses to it whatsoever. Thus we have linked to them. It is our hope that this article will be free from personal attacks, insults, and emotive language.
Certainly, the article we linked to above is up to the reader to decide if personal attacks, insults, and emotive language are contained therein or not.W feel that people who are undecided on this matter deserve the very best from us.
So let us just come directly to the point.
The first point that nobody can escape from is the fact that Abu Hanifa had not a single jarh (criticism) against Ikrima (ra). The second point that nobody can escape from is the fact that Abu Hanifa narrated from Ikrima (ra).
The first point is responded to by using an argument from silence. That is to say, because we do not have any historical documents from Imam Abu Hanifa that criticize Ikrima (ra). We can’t say that he never criticized him. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
However, we can say with certainty that we have nothing from Imam Abu Hanifa critiquing Ikrima. If there was even a modicum of evidence for it, certainly Shaykh Atabek and former student, Sulaiman Ahmad would have used it.
The second point is responded to by showing Imam Abu Hanifa narrating from someone and then disparaging that same narrator.
Does this say something about everyone Imam Abu Hanifa narrates from or only that particular person?
So for us, when Imam Abu Hanifa critiques someone he narrates from, that only shows he critiqued the person he narrated from. Otherwise, how do you establish proof for Abu Hanifa from anyone he narrates from?
The following bit is not directed at Shaykh Atabek nor former student Sulaiman but a person we had an exchange with on social media. Perhaps he may read this.
We have recently encountered a brother online who mentioned Abu Hanifa lived during the Umayyads. So what was he trying to suggest by this?
A) That Abu Hanifa was more terrified of Umayyads than Allah (swt)?
B) That the Umayyads forced Abu Hanifa to narrate from Ikrima (ra)?
In fact, if Ikrima (ra) is a so-called “khawarij”, it means he believed against the established opinion of the Sunni majority that Muslims can rebel against the unjust rulers. Abu Hanifa could have used this as a point against Ikrima (ra) but didn’t.
So this very powerful fact should merit some reflection.
“Imam Malik stated that he did not accept hadith unless it was taken from the fuqaha (jurist as opposed to simple hadith scholars). On one occasion, it is reported that Abu Hanifa took Imam Abu Yusuf to his library. Abu Yusuf saw that it contained many tomes of hadith but Imam Abu Hanifa said that he only narrated a few of them, namely those which would benefit people.”
Source: (pg 89 Hanafi Principles for Testing Hadith)
Interestingly, out of this massive tome, Abu Hanifa managed to narrate from Ikrima (ra)
In reality, when all was said and done, the best that could be brought against Ikrima (ra) was an argument by way of innuendo. Even then, the argument from innuendo doesn’t hold up.
Atabek’s Double Standards in Assessing Reports from Abū Ḥanīfah
“Regarding a particular report from Abū Ḥanīfah that he regarded ‘Ikrimah as being from the ‘seniors/great ones’ (kubarā’), Atabek rejected it primarily on account of a problematic narrator in its chain of transmission. But at the same time he quotes the following with full confidence:
“Imam Abu Hanifa said; “Do not take knowledge from the scholars of Royal Palace. I do not say they lie, but they do not always tell the truth, how it really is.””
And:
“But, just to underline the dishonesty and poor level of Islamic knowledge on display, Abu Hanifa said; ”Take the knowledge from everyone except the following” and he listed the ones who are around the royals and rulers (as Ikrima most certainly was and as his erstwhile interlocutors accept). He said; ”But don’t take from the ones who are around the royals! I don’t say they lie, but they don’t say the truth as it is!””
He did not give a source for this quote. (My guess is he got it from the footnotes to Qawā‘id fī ‘Ulūm al-Ḥadīth).
The original source for this quote is al-Kifāyah fī ‘Ilm al-Riwāyah of al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī as follows:
‘Abū Bishr Muḥammad ibn ‘Umar al-Wakīl (350 – 438 H) reported to me, he said: ‘Umar ibn Aḥmad ibn ‘Uthmān al-Wā‘iẓ [Ibn Shāhīn] (297 – 385) narrated to us, he said: Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Muqri’ [al-Naqqāsh] (266 – 351) narrated to us, he said: ‘Abdullāh ibn Maḥmūd al-Marwazī (d. 311) narrated to us: Aḥmad ibn Muṣ‘ab narrated to us, he said: ‘Umar ibn Ibrāhīm (d. ca. 220 H) narrated to us, he said: I heard Ibn al-Mubārak say:
‘Abū ‘Iṣmah asked Abū Ḥanīfah: “From whom do you order me to listen to narrations?” He said: “From every moderate one in his deviation, besides the Shī‘ah, since the foundation of their doctrine is to regard the companions of Muḥammad (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) as misguided; as well as those who attend the ruler wilfully. Pay attention, I am not saying that they lie to them or command them what is not appropriate, but they pave the way for them so the masses are loyal to them. These two ought not be from the imāms of the Muslims.”’ (al-Kifāyah fī ‘Ilm al-Riwāyah, p. 126)
First, one will notice the clear differences between the actual account and the “translation” of Atabek. Atabek’s translation (deliberately?) omits the unfavourable reference to Shī‘ah. Atabek’s translation is also inaccurate, as the actual report says: ‘I am not saying that they lie to them or command them what is not appropriate’ from which Atabek somehow got: ‘I do not say they lie, but they do not always tell the truth, how it really is’.
But secondly, and more importantly, this narration is inauthentic. There are two highly problematic narrators in this chain:
1. Muḥammed ibn al-Ḥasan al-Muqri’ al-Naqqāsh (266 – 351). Ṭalḥa ibn Muḥammed al-Shāhid said: ‘He would lie in ḥadīth.’ (Lisān al-Mīzān, 7:78). Abū Bakr al-Barqānī said: ‘Every narration of Naqqāsh is rejected’ (ibid.); Khatib said: ‘In his narrations are absurdities despite the chains being famous’ (ibid. 7:79). Al-Dāraquṭnī regarded him as extremely weak (ibid.). Ibn al-Jawzī mentioned two ḥadīths which he believes al-Naqqāsh falsified (ibid.). Dhahabī said: ‘My heart is not satisfied with him; according to me he is suspect [i.e. of being a liar].’ (Siyar A‘lām al-Nubalā’, 15:576)
2. ‘Umar ibn Ibrāhim ibn Khālid al-Kurdī (d. ca. 220). Al-Dāraquṭnī said: ‘A rotten, flagrant liar.’ (kadhdhāb khabīth). (Lisān al-Mīzān, 6:62) Al-Khaṭīb said: ‘He narrates absurdities from reliable narrators.’ (Lisān al-Mīzān, 6:62)
These are the most serious issues with the chain. As one can see from the above, it can never be accepted according to the standards Atabek applies to the other narration. Yet he accepts this report and rejects the other. Is this anything but clear double standards (i.e. agenda-driven bias)?”
Prima Qur’an comments:
It is crystal clear to us that Mufti Zameel exposed a fundamental flaw in Shaykh Atabek’s reasoning.
Not only that but the point about Imam Abu Yusuf being employed by Harun Al Rashid was completely sidestepped.
“Also, I saw the hilarious ‘argument’ being proffered on these secret forums that if we criticise Ikrima for accepting money and being in thrall of genocidal maniacs such as the rulers of his time, then we must likewise criticise Imam Abu Yusuf, the student of Imam Abu Hanifa, because he was in the employ of Harun Al Rashid. Obviously, this is not even an argument at all and barely even qualifies as emotional blackmail – it is merely saying that ignore the bad stuff that one person did because other people perhaps did it too. So I eagerly await the canonisation of this ‘principle’ which can excuse anything and everything which more than one famous person does. Thus the Iraq War mist have been good, because if you criticise the West for doing it you would have to criticise Saudi and Muslim countries for supporting it too. So you shouldn’t criticise anyone. Excellent moral ‘principles’!”-Sulaiman Ahmed
“It is merely saying that ignore the bad stuff that one person did because other people did it too.”
Our response: Is it really saying that or is it saying that we should apply consistent standards and consistent principles?
“Thus the Iraq War mist have been good, because if you criticise the West for doing it you would have to criticise Saudi and Muslim countries for supporting it too.”
Our response: Or how about we be consistent and criticize both the West and Saudi Arabia? What would not be moral or consistent is to suggest that the West (Ikrima) be castigated for his involvement in the war and Saudi Arabia (Abu Yusuf) be let off the hook for his involvement.
An argument from Ra’y:
“as well as those who attend the ruler wilfully.”
Let’s assume that the hadith that Shaykh Atabek brought was sound. Doesn’t both histories testify to the fact that there has been Muslim faithful in every court of rulership in Muslim history? Is it not within reason to say that, just like Abu Yusuf, that not every person is corrupt due to some affiliation with rulers?
Wouldn’t the reasonable thing to do in this situation be to sift through the reports individually and see where a report actually might be something that benefits rulers etc.?
In fact, the hadith narrated by Ikrima (ra) can be used against rulers. How often do you think rulers used siege engines and firebombed besieged strongholds? In the process of killing innocent men, women, and children? In fact, couldn’t that very hadith be used against, let’s say, the use of nuclear weapons?
So the following statement is absolutely rejected. “Imam Abu Hanifa rejected all narrations from Ikrima as well, but this reasoning was different. He held a principle that he would not take any narration from a person associated with the rulers, as it could affect their righteousness due to the loyalty they may hold to those in authority.”
Source: (pg 227 Hanafi principles for testing Hadith)
Prima Qur’an conclusion:
Imam Abu Hanifa has no jahr (criticism) of Ikrima (ra). Out of the ‘tomes of hadith’ that Imam Abu Hanifa had in his collection, Imam Abu Hanifa narrated from Ikrima (ra). The hadith about the rulers has problems in its chain of narrators. If consistent principles were applied, this would mean we would need to steer clear of Imam Abu Yusuf. Also, the objection doesn’t pass the test from Ra’y.
That should really be the end of the article at this point.
However, there are many other ancillary issues surrounding this that we feel should be addressed.
So you have to wonder what is the issue they have with Ikrima (ra) to begin with?
If the main point was to establish evidence against killing apostates? They themselves admit:
“It is largely based on the following hadith, which both groups like to use to justify the killing of those who leave Islam and to portray this as the ‘true teachings of Islam’. ”
Source: (pg 226 Hanafi Principles for Testing Hadith)
If it has to do with weakening the view of killing apostates, then why not go after the other narrators? Or why not go after Ali Ibn Abu Talib himself, who is said to have narrated this hadith about killing people who go out of Islam.
Let’s analyze the text of this hadith.
“Whenever I narrate to you anything from the Messenger of Allah (saw), believe it to be absolutely true, as falling from the sky is dearer to me than that of attributing anything to him (The Holy Prophet) which he never said.”
Such a disclaimer. Have you ever noticed Ali ever preface a hadith like that?
“When I talk to you of anything which is between me and you (there might creep some error in it) for battle is outwitting.”
An interesting statement. Errors might creep into things he said and battle is about outwitting. Hmmm.
“There would arise at the end of the age a people who would be young in age and immature in thought, but they would talk (in such a manner) as if their words are the best among the creatures. They would recite the Qur’an, but it would not go beyond their throats, and they would pass through the religion as an arrow goes through the prey. So, when you meet them, kill them, for in their killing you will get a reward from Allah on the Day of Judgement.”
At the very least, it is an open license to kill apostates and, at the most, it’s an open license to kill fellow Muslims. “They would recite the Qur’an, but it would not go beyond their throats.”
On what consistent basis is an attack launched upon Ikrima(ra) but not Ali?
Atabek nor Sulaiman have engaged with this question in any meaningful way. In fact, they have not engaged with it at all.
We have demonstrated how the dog whistle of Khawarij has been used in the past and is currently being used to effectively crush any opposition to government authority.
They seem to have taken issue with the fact that Ikrima (ra) narrated hadith about Ali, which shows Ali being criticized by Ibn Abbas (ra) for setting people on fire.
This report was narrated by al-Bukhary (6922) on the authority of `Ikrimah who said: Heretics were brought before Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) and he burnt them. When Ibn `Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) was informed about this, he said, “If I were in his place, I would not have burnt them for the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade this saying, “Do not torment with the torment of Allah” and I would have killed them, for the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Whoever changes his religion, kill him.”“
What will be noted is that neither Shaykh Abdullah bin Bayyah nor Bassam Zawadi attacked the chain of narrators nor Ikrima (ra) himself.
Next, you would have to go after the other narrators. You would have to weaken the chains of the following hadith:
It was narrated from Anas that :
‘Ali came to some people of Az-Zutt, who worshipped idols, and burned them. Ibn ‘Abbas said: “But the Messenger of Allah [SAW] said: ‘Whoever changes his religion, kill him.’”
“A man embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism. Mu’adh bin Jabal came and saw the man with Abu Musa. Mu’adh asked, “What is wrong with this (man)?” Abu Musa replied, “He embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism.” Mu’adh said, “I will not sit down unless you kill him (as it is) the verdict of Allah and His Apostle.”
As regards the above hadith Shaykh Atabek and Sulaiman have stated in their book:
The Known Narrators
“The known narrator is one who is recognized by knowledge and rulings such as The rightly guided Caliphs, Abdullah bin Masood, Abdullah bin Abbas, Zayd bin Thabit, Mu’adh bin Jabal, Abu Musa al-Ash’ari, and Aisha, etc.”
“Their narrations are considered as proofs, irrespective of their conflict with analogy or conformance with it.”
Source: (pg 53-54 Hanafi Principles for Testing Hadith).
Narrated ‘Abdullah:
“Allah’s Messenger (saw) said, “The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims.”
So what is deficient about Mu’adh bin Jabal according to Shaykh Atabek and student Sulaiman Ahmed?
Shaykh Atabek and hist former Sulaiman Ahmed on pages 228 and 229 of Hanafi Principles for Testing Hadith give ample evidence from the Qur’an that murder without right is imperssible. They give examples from the Qur’an and ahadith that seem to justify the freedom of disbelief.
However, they both seem to miss that quoting all of that does nothing to attack the chain of the narration from Ikrima (ra). They are holding assumptions that Ali didn’t do that act because it would go against established principles. However, if we are making assumptions, we could also assume that Ali did do that act. Ibn Abbas (ra) reprimanded him for it and Ikrima (ra) is simply narrating the incident.
We hope they are not making the argument that, just because the Qur’an mentions doing or not doing something that Muslims automatically follow these dictates. Wouldn’t that be amazing if they did!
It is possible that people who have philo-Shi’a tendencies would be troubled by Ali making an error in his ijtihad. After all, Bassam Zawadi stated:
“Nevertheless, if someone is not willing to accept any of the above explanations and is persistent that `Ali (ra) actually burnt these criminals to death, even then the most that can be said is that `Ali’sdecision of burning the criminals to death was not correct, in view of the directive of the Prophet (pbuh) to the contrary. This, obviously, would amount to criticism on Ali’sdecision – not a criticism on Islam.”
“After all, `Ali (ra) was but a human being, he may have erred in his decision.”
Shaykh Atabek and former student, Sulaiman Ahmed are not suggesting that criticism of Ikrima (ra) is a criticism of Islam, right? Likewise, criticism of Ali is not a criticism of Islam.
Likewise,
There is something similar in Imami Shi’i sources.
Narrated from Abū ʿAbdillāh (Imām Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq), who said: Amīr al-Muʾminīn (ʿAlī), said: “If it were possible for me, and if I found someone to help me, I would kill all the adherents of these sects (aṣnāf), and I would burn them with fire. And this is [in accordance with] the saying of Allah, Mighty and Exalted:
‘Say, I am only a man like you to whom it has been revealed that your God is but one God. So whoever would hope for the meeting with his Lord – let him do righteous work and not associate anyone in the worship of his Lord’ (Qur’an 18:110).”
Source: (Bihār al-Anwār al-Jāmiʿah li-Durar Akhbār al-Aʾimmat al-Aṭhār Volume and Page: Vol. 25, p. 265, Hadith #30)
So what do Shaykh Atabek and his former student, Sulaiman Ahmed do with information like this? Ikrima(ra) is not a narrator on him? So you cannot use your sectarian bias against him.
It is also possible that people who have philo-Shi’a tendencies would be troubled by Ikrima (ra) given his weight on the tafsir of a key point of conflict between Ahl Sunnah and the Shi’a..
Because he (Ikrima) said the following:
Ibn Jarir recorded that `Ikrimah used to call out in the marketplace:(Allah wishes only to remove Ar-Rijs from you, O members of the family, and to purify you with a thorough purification. (33:33)) “This was revealed solely concerning the wives of the Prophet.”
Source: (Tafsir Ibn Kathir on Qur’an 33:33).
Ikrimah said: “Whoever disagrees with me that it was revealed solely concerning the wives of the Prophet, I am prepared to meet with him and pray and invoke the curse of Allah upon those who are lying.”
Source: (Tafsir Ibn Kathir on Qur’an 33:33)
However, he either got that information.
A) Directly from Ibn Abbas (ra) because Ibn Abbas (ra) said:
Ibn Abi Hatim recorded that Ibn `Abbas said concerning the Ayah: ( Allah wishes only to remove Ar-Rijs from you, O members of the family, ) “It was revealed solely concerning the wives of the Prophet .”
C) Lastly, this is due to the poor reading or gross misunderstanding that Shaykh Atabek and his former student, Sulaiman Ahmed have. has. Neither of them have brought any evidence of ‘Ikrima stating it “excludes his kin, daughter and grandsons.” What Ikrima (ra) is saying is that concerning the Asbab an-Nuzool (the occasion for the revelation) it was due soley to the wives of the Prophet (saw).
Which as stated was the view of Ibn Abbas (ra). This can be determined via the context of the Qur’an itself.
More investigations into Ikrima (ra).
There are some interesting points from Shaykh Atabek and his former student, Sulaiman Ahmed in their book.
“So regardless of who he is, we need to bear in mind that scholars also have biases and sometimes sectarian affiliations too.” Sources: (pg. 195 Hanafi Principles for Testing Hadith)
A very good point!
Scholars can have biases and sectarian affiliations that may colour their investigations.
“Therefore criticism needs to be valid and not based on sectarian or personal reasons and as we have seen, even some of the senior scholars were not above this.”
Source: (pg. 197 Hanafi Principles for Testing Hadith).
“An Innovator is someone who holds to a view which does not conform to the position of the ‘Ahl Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah’ which are the Maturidi and Ash’ari Schools of creed.”
Source: (pg. 94 Hanafi Principles for Testing Hadith).
This statement itself merits reflection. The statement itself is biased and sectarian. It means that the Shi’a are innovators. Ibadi’s are innovators. Sunni Muslims from the Mutazalite and Athari schools of theology are innovators.
“The narrations of all innovators are accepted unless there is an innovator who believes that lying is permissible or their view constitutes disbelief.”
Source: (pg. 133 Hanafi Principles for Testing Hadith)
“So for example, Imam Bukhari takes hadith from the Khawarij such as Ikrima and Waleed ibn Kathir, who believe lying equates to disbelief.”
Source: (pg. 133 Hanafi Principles for Testing hadith)
“If the narrator is from the Khawarij, some do not accept them as they are a deviant sect, whereas others do as they state that for the Khawarij lying equates to disbelief and therefore they would be even more careful to ensure that the hadith were narrated accurately.”
Source: (pg. 199 Hanafi Principles for Testing Hadith)
Classifying someone as being from a ‘deviant sect‘ is itself a sectarian reason to discard a hadith. Also, it is quite clear that Shaykh Atabek and his former student, Sulaiman Ahmed, believe that Ikrima (ra) is a “Khawarij” (a sectarian term applied by sectarians, rest assured). They also show in their book that the belief of the “Khawarij” is that lying equates to disbelief.
Prima Qura’n comments:
Firstly, we do not need to rely upon anyone concerning rather or not lying is kufr when we have the words of Allah (swt).
“Surely, the religion is for Allah only. And those who take Auliya’ (protectors and helpers) besides Him (say): “We worship them only that they may bring us near to Allah.” Verily, Allah will judge between them concerning that wherein they differ. Truly, Allah guides not him who is a liar, and ungrateful (kadhibun kaffarun).” (Qur’an 39:3)
“let us sincerely invoke Allah’s curse upon the liars.” (Qur’an 3:61)
“And a fifth oath that Allah may condemn him if he is lying.” (Qur’an 24:7)
The cursed the condemened such a one is described as a believer?
Ironically, the issue of integrity and who is truthful became very public between Shaykh Atabek and his former student, Sulaiman Ahmad, when they had their very public divorce. Issues of integrity and honesty were at the heart of the court case.
Bringing the subject back to Ikrima (ra)
So, as the narrations of all innovators are accepted, unless they believe in lying (the Khawarij don’t) or unless their view constitutes disbelief, we have a very pointed question for both Shaykh Atabek and his former student, Sulaiman Ahmed.
Do either of you regard Ikrima (ra) as a kafir?
If your answer is: “Yes, Ikrima is a kafir” What is this based upon?
If your answer is no, then our next question is: “Was Ikrima (ra) a liar?”
If your answer is: “Yes, Ikrima is a liar” What is it based upon?
Especially in light of the overwhelming view that the “Khawarij” equate lying to disbelief.
Contradictions and no sources quoted in regards to Ikrima (ra)
“The next topic that needs to be analysed is Kirma’s religious idealogy. it is agreed by consensus that he was from the Khawarij. He ALLEGEDLY declared many Muslims to be disbelievers due to the extreme methodology of the Khawarij. Dhahabi, a hadith scholar who considers Ikrima reliable wrote “the first reason for rejecting the narrations of Ikrima is based on the fact that he is Khawarij. The second reason is that being a Khawarij, he justified the killing of his fellow Muslims.”
Source: (pg. 228 Hanafi Principles for Testing Hadith)
So he ALLEGEDLY (no proof, no evidence) declared many Muslims to be disbelievers. This is a far cry from what Sulaiman Ahmed states in a tirade that is filled to the brim with emotive language. Dhahabi (raheemullah) considers Ikrima (ra) reliable.
“The second reason is that, being a Khawarij, he justified the killing of his fellow Muslims.”
Our response to this is who didn’t find justification for killing fellow Muslims?
“Ali directed his army to attack the Khariji camps, and his forces MASSACRED many of them at Nahrawan. At this point, Ibn ‘Abbas seems to have doubted his initial support of ‘Ali. He resigned from the governorship of Basra and stigmatized ‘Ali’s killing of his Khariji opponents”
Source: (Scott Riraj Al Haqqa Kugle in his book: Homosexuality in Islam: Critical Reflection on Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender pg. 107)
Did Ali feel he had justification to kill the forces of Muawiya in Syria? Did Ali feel he had justification to kill Muslims at the battle of the camel?
“But whoever kills a believer intentionally – his recompense is Hell, wherein he will abide eternally, and Allah has become angry with him and has cursed him and has prepared for him a great punishment.” (Qur’an 4:93)
Bakrah Ath-Thaqafi reported – The Blessed Messenger (saw) is reported to have said: “If two Muslims meet each other with their swords, then both the killer and the killed will be in the Hell-fire.” I said, “O Allah’s Messenger, that is the case for the killer but why should that be the case for the killed?” He answered, “Because he wanted to kill his companion.”
“I heard the Prophet (saw) “Do not revert to disbelief after me by striking (cutting) the necks of one another.” Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:7077)
In light of this verse of the above Qur’an and these ahadith every group among the early Muslims is trying to find justification for what they are doing.
Recall what we quoted above: So “he ALLEGEDLY (no proof, no evidence) declared many Muslims to be disbelievers.”
Yet Shaykh Atabek’s former student, Sulaiman Ahmed says:
“Since releasing my https://sulaimanahmed.com/2017/07/28/ikrima-as-imam-of-modern-hanafis-part-1/ on Ikrima the Liar and Kharijite, I have received a lot of positive feedback from readers who were either blissfully unaware of the genocidal propensities of some of the people that groups such as Deobandis and Salafis expect them to ‘respect’ as ‘Imams’ or had already heard about Ikrima (who narrates some of Salafis favourite hadiths, such as those about burning apostates and gays) and his ‘tendencies’ and had their faith shaken, as they mistakenly believed that such individuals who sanction the murder of senior Sahahbah were somehow nonetheless indispensable to Islam. I also received a few sincere emails with requests of clarification of some issues.” -Sulaiman Ahmed
The questions put Sulaiman Ahmed are as follows:
What are these ‘genocidal propensities’ of Ikrima (ra)?
Ikrima (ra) didn’t burn apostates, Ali did. Ali also narrated the above hadith about getting a reward for killing ex-Muslims. Why is this not touched by yourself or your former teacher?
Believed in and sanctioned the “murder” ? of senior sahabah? What’s the source for this?
As regards point 3. above. Let us say, for the sake of argument, this was proven. In what way did he ‘sanction’ the murder of senior Sahaba in a way that Talha, Zubayr, Muaviya, Ali, didn’t?
“I have to clarify, because these peoples’ feelings and ‘right’ to display academic incompetence are not more important than the reputation of Islam.” -Sulaiman Ahmed
What is contained in the following paragraphs is so far from academic.
“What is sad is that despite endangering the faith and reputation of Muslims whilst ‘responding’ to my article and insisting that someone who takes money from tyrannical governments that kill sahabah, calls Ali and Uthmaan, senior companions of the Prophet, apostates who will burn in Hell forever, is a ‘reliable Imam’ that is ‘accepted by everyone’, these people never explain how this is the case: they in no place denied that he is a Kharijite (and a Safari and Ibadi i.e worst type at that) nor his attacks on the Sahabah nor his genocidal tendencies: they merely keep repeating that he was ‘accepted’ by Abu Hanifa because he (they claim) quoted from him (as if everyone who quotes from George Bush for any reason is automatically a Republican). They never, you will note, stop to explain how you can be reliable if you have such beliefs and practices nor will they ever once even condemn him for holding these beliefs. It is entirely lost on these people that by prostituting the reputations of Imams Abu Hanifa and Bukhari to rescue that of Ikrima all they do is cast doubt on the latter two real imams for ‘accepting’ such a vile and deranged individual in the first place. “-Suliman Ahmed
Questions for Shaykh Atabek’s former student, Sulaiman Ahmed:
What is the source that he called Ali and Uthman apostates?
“Kharijite (and a Safari and Ibadi i.e worst type at that.”
One of our team members almost spit his drink out reading this. If you realized what he said was akin to saying ‘Sunni’ (and a Shafi’i and Hanafi i.e. the worst type at that”! Does that even make sense to anyone? This person did not read on the subject of the Ibadi school, or he would not have made the most rudimentary of mistakes.
Safari and Ibadi? Or an Ibadi on Safari?
“Finally, if Ikrima is ‘truthful’ and ‘doesn’t lie’, then is he being truthful and accurate when he says that the Sahabah are kaafir and should be killed?” — Sulaiman Ahmed
Where did Ikrima (ra) state this? A source until this very day has not been given.
“Also, if you have to believe everything that an authority you quote believes, then do these guys, who so vociferously quote Ikrima, believe that Ali and the senior Sahabah were apostates and should be killed?” — Sulaiman Ahmed
We saw no source given for this.
“Also, maybe these people can show us where in their books this ‘presumption of reliability’ for narrators, i.e narrators are all reliable even if they takfir or anathematise the Sahabha or call for mass genocide, unless specifically mentioned otherwise, is found?” -Suliman Ahmed.
Ikrima (ra) called for mass genocide? Is there a source for this?
“He ALLEGEDLY declared many Muslims to be disbelievers due to the extreme methodology of the Khawarij.”
Source: (pg. 228 Hanafi Principles for Testing Hadith)
So did he indeed say the things you are claiming, Sulaiman, or is this alleged? If he said these things, can you furnish the proofs for them? If he did not say those things, and they are alleged, are you willing to repent to Allah (swt) and retract these comments?
We have also noticed this in their book:
“This means Wasil ibn Ata would thus take the utmost precautions before narrating anything. As we have seen, many top Muhaditheen narrated from the Khawarij, who were violent radicals who attacked Ali (r.a) since they too believed that lying equates to disbelief, Anthropomorphist (who attribute a human or other form to God) and those who insulted Ali(r.a).”
Source: (pg. 197 Hanafi Principles for Testing Hadith)
To put ‘Anthroporphism’ next to the Khawarij, or to attribute that to them is to speak ignorantly about their views. That is not something that can be attributed to them at all. Certainly not well-read nor informed. It is gross ignorance. Of all the ignorance that was proclaimed this has to be the most jarring.
Then you have to wonder about all that time and association with Ibn Abbas (ra). Was it hidden from Ibn Abbas that Ikrima (ra) was a “Kharijite”? Wasn’t Ibn Abbas (ra) aware of Ali and the command to kill such people?
Especially in light of Ibn Abbas (ra) and his known correspondence with Najda ibn Amir al-Hanafi (ra), a known “Kharijite”.
“If I were not afraid of hiding the knowledge (and of the severe punishment) I would not have replied to him.”
Source: (pg. 42 Studies in Early Hadith Literature M.M Azami)
For that matter, aren’t all those people who take hadith from Ikrima (ra) aware of the so-called hadith that commands the killing of “Kharijites”?
We’ve always found it interesting that the Orientalists think that Ikrima (ra) was enticed by the ‘Kharjite” doctrine due to egalitarianism. Is that not a tacit admission that Sunnism was not a champion of egalitarianism?
However, why can’t it be conceivable that, as a slave of Ibn Abbas (ra), that Ikrima(ra) was privy to some of the thoughts of Ibn Abbas (ra) and possibly overheard Ibn Abbas (ra) make comments that were pro “Kharijite” and/or at the very least hear Ibn Abbas (ra) admit that they were right?
If we are going to question centuries-long assumptions about Ikrima (ra) in relationship to the Hanafi school, why not question the centuries-long assumptions the Hanafi school has towards the so-called “Kharijites”?
Why not question the centuries-long-held assumptions about the “Kharijites” from the Ahl Sunnah altogether?
So, after having failed to establish that Imam Abu Hanifa had criticism of Ikrima (ra) Shaykh Atabek and his former student, Sulaiman Ahmed, pulled out all the stops. Any criticism against Ikrima (ra) throws it onto the wall and let’s see what sticks.
Attacks upon Ikrima (ra) from the sciences of jarh wa ta’dil
“After the death of Ibn Abbas, his son Ali bin Abdullah bin Abbas imprisoned Ikrima and when he was asked for the reason he said: “He is narrating likes on behalf of my father.” Sa’id Ibn Al Mussayib, A tab’i, was one of the leading Faqih scholars. He is renowned as one of the seven Fuqaha of Medina, one of the pillars upon which the Maliki School is based and the most eminent of those Fuqaha’ He is narrated to have said to his servant Burd; “O Burd, do not lie and attribute to me like Ikrima lied and attributed to Ibn Abbas” Ibn Umar also said the same to his slave Nafia, “Do not lie on behalf of me as the slave of Ibn Abbas lied on behalf of him.” (although this specific narration of Ibn Umar is disputed by the Muhaditheen.) Sa’eed ibn Jubayr and Ibn Sirin also considered him a liar. Ibrahim Nakhai the grand-teacher of Imam Abu Hanifa also rejected all narrations of Ikrima.”
Source: (pg. 227 Hanafi Principles on Testing Hadith)
This in turn is taken from Source: (Muhammed ibn Ahmad ibn Uthman Al-Dhahabi al Shafi Mizan al I’tidal fi Naqd Arrijal) -Darul al-Ma’rifah , Beirut Lebanon, Volume 3 pg. 93 and Biography number 5716.)
So the primary source that Shaykh Atabek and his former student, Sulaiman Ahmed, used to disparage Ikrima (ra) is from Imam Al-Dhahabi.
So what was Al-Dhahabi’s conclusion after having access to the same information that Shaykh Atabek and Sulaiman Ahmed used him for?
“Dhahabi, a hadith scholar who considers Ikrima reliable.”
Source: (pg. 228 Hanafi Principles for Testing Hadith) –from their own book!
Yazid bin Abi Ziyad.
Yazid bin Abi Ziyad reported that Ali bin Abdullah bin Abbas once tied up Ikrimah with a door when he was asked about the reason, he said: “This filthy person lies upon my father”
Source: (Ad-Du’afa al-Kabeer by al-Ukaylee: 3/373)
“Yazīd ibn Abī Ziyād was from the great leaders of the Shīʿa“
Source: (Al-Dhahabī records this in Mīzān al-Iʿtidāl (vol. 4, p. 423, no. 9727)
As this is criticism among peers. Ikrima (ra) and Sa’id Ibn Al Mussayib (ra) had characteristic of personal animosity.
Imam Malik called Ibn Ishaq a liar and an imposter for writing false stories about The Blessed Prophet Muhammed. Imam Malik has said that Ibn Ishaq “reports traditions on the authority of the Jews”.
Source: (Kadhdhab and Dajjal min al-dajajila. Uyun al-athar, I, 16-7)
“When Sufyan ath-Thawri heard the news about the death of Imam Abu Hanifa, he said: ‘Praise be to Allah that such a man had died as he was gradually destroying Islam. There could not be a worse person born in Islam.”
Source: (Ta’rikh Saghir, Biography of Imam Abu Hanifa)
Ibn Umar.
Abu Khalf Abdullah bin Isa al-Kharaz narrated from Yahya bin Muslim Yahya al-Baka: I heard Ibn Umar say to Nafi: “Fear Allah O Nafi’ and do not lie upon me as Ikrimah lies upon Ibn Abbas.”
Source: (Tahdhib al-Kamal fi asma’ al-rijal 20/279)
Ibn Hajar al-Asqlani said: “He is Thiqah Thabat, the Scholar of Tafsir. The accusation of lying about him from Ibn Umar is not proven, nor is the Bid’ah (of any kind) proven from him.”
Source: (Taqreeb: 4673)
Also, are we to regard Nafi (ra) as someone who lied about Ibn Umar (ra)?
The golden chain?
Even Shaykh Atabek and Sulaiman Ahmed admit:
“Ibn Umar also said the same to his slave Nafia, “Do not like on behalf of me as the slave of Ibn Abbas lied on behalf of him.” (although this specific narration of Ibn Umar is disputed by the Muhaditheen).”
Source: (pg. 227 Hanafi Principles on Testing Hadith)
Sa’eed ibn Jubayr
Actually, Imam Sa’eed bin Jubayr said: “If Ikrimah stops narrating his hadith to them, people would travel to him”
Source: (Tabaqat al-Kubra: 2/294)
Ibn Sirin
We do not have l-Dhahabi’s source to see how he dismissed Ibn Sirin’s critique.
Ibrahim Nakhai
We do not have l-Dhahabi’s source to see how he dismissed Ibrahim Al Nakhai’s critique.
In the end, Imam Dhahabi looked at the justifications and various statements attributed to the 5 above and his conclusion is that Ikrima (ra) is reliable.
As regards the personal accusations that Shaykh Atabek and his former student, Sulaiman Ahmed, have towards each other, we can only say that there can only be one victor in their struggle. If the court ruled in favour of Shaykh Atabek, this would mean that Sulaiman Ahmed was not honest in his claims against his former teacher. Also, if the court ruled in favour of Sulaiman Ahmed, this would mean that Shaykh Atabek was not honest in his claims against his former student.
May justice be done. May our pens write the truth. May our tongues speak the truth. May our hearts desire the truth. May Allah (swt) guide us to the truth and may the destination of us all be the truth.
“And whatever strikes you of disaster – it is for what your hands have earned, but He pardons much.” (Qur’an 42:30)
“The Messenger of Allah is certainly a good example for those of you who have hope in Allah and in the Day of Judgment and who remember Allah very often.” (Qur’an 33:21)
“And perform the prayer, and pay the alms, and bow with those that bow.” (Qur’an 2:43)
“And obey Allah and obey the Messenger. But if you turn away, then Our Messenger is responsible only for conveying the message clearly. (Quran 64:12)
﷽
This is a collection of articles that have been written about prayer. The way the Blessed Prophet (saw) did his prayer.
The way some who claim to be those who uphold the truth have lied to the masses and outright distorted the way that the Prophet (saw) did his prayers.
It is hoped that these articles will be an eye-opener for many. That one will be tranquil in their prayers. Dear brother and sisters, in our prayers we do not have a position where we turn to the left or the right. This happens at the termination of the prayer with the taslim: ‘As salamu ‘alikum’.
Our prayers are about facing forward and looking forward and keeping our heads forward. When our focus is on Allah (swt) we do not concern ourselves with what others are doing. When our focus is on what people do in the prayer rather than our prayer (whether it was accepted or not/ whether it was sincere or not), then we become among the distracted.
It was narrated from Abu Hurairah that:
The Messenger of Allah (saw) entered the Masjid, then a man entered and prayed, then he came and greeted the Messenger of Allah(saw) with Salam. The Messenger of Allah (saw)returned his greeting and said: Go back and pray, for you have not prayed.” So he went back and prayed as he has prayed before, then he came to the Prophet (saw) and greeted him with Salam, and the Messenger of Allah (saw) said to him: “Wa alaika as-salam (and upon you be peace). Go back and pray for you have not prayed.” He did that three times, then the man said: “By the One Who sent you with the truth, I cannot do any better than that; teach me.” He said: “When you stand to pray, say the Takbir, then recite whatever is easy for you of Quran. Then bow until you have tranquility in your bowing, then stand up until you are standing straight. Then prostrate until you have tranquility in your prostration, then sit up until you have tranquility in your sitting. Then do that throughout your entire prayer.
“And cooperate in righteousness and piety, but do not cooperate in sin and aggression.” (Qur’an 5:2)
﷽
From time to time we will come across a discussion or a question about this. First and foremost Al hamdulillah. Praise be to Allah (swt) who has made the people of truth and integrity to be able to pray behind any of the ahl qiblah.
Simply put: for our school the prayer is for Allah (swt) not any Imam or school. Praying behind a particular Imam does not show support for whatever is in the heart of that person. Praying behind any Imam of ahl qiblah shows obedience to the call to prayer and obedience to Allah (swt).
However, when it comes to Sunni Muslims, they seem to have views that run the gamut. This is to be understood especially in light of the fact that this so-called tent known as ‘Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah’ is very, very divided itself.
The reality hits home when you realize that Sunni Muslims that are Māturīdī in theology, Hanafi in jurisprudence, that are Deobandi, make takfir against Sunni Muslims that are Māturīdī in theology, Hanafi in jurisprudence and Barelvi. Or that Sunni Muslims that are Ash’ari in theology and Hanafi’ in jurisprudence will often not pray behind an Imam, who is Ash’ari in theology and Shafi’i in jurisprudence, because of differences of opinion about how the prayer is to be performed. Do we practice ‘Raf al-yadayn’, saying Amin after Al Fatiha? Do we place the hands below the navel or above the chest? All these are issues that Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah fights with each other about internally. Let alone those that are outside their paradigm.
The Tabligh Jamaat , arguably one of the best daw’ah groups (in our humble opinion), split into two groups. It created divisions (markazi and shooraee) so strong that both groups started building new Masjids for themselves. They will not pray behind each other’s Imams.
Sunni organizations Zaytuna, ISNA & ICNA had boycotted The Naqshabandi Haqqani Sufi Tariqa, Shaykh Nazim and the U.S. Supreme Islamic Council. All of whom are Sunni Muslims.
The Salafiyyah movement and the Muslim brotherhoodhave no love between them. The Salafiyyah movement itself is divided into the Sahwa movement, Halabi. Suroorees, Madhkali.
We think you get the point. So we in our school should not be surprised when we see that some of them say that they cannot pray behind us. That is because many of them, great swathes of them would not pray behind each other!
Those who call themselves Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah are divided on the matter:
You have the more ignorant among them, like Shaykh Assim Al Hakeem, who says one cannot pray behind the Ibadi.
According to Shaykh Rabi Ibn hadi al-Madhkali praying behind the Ibadi would be valid.
So here is the view of Shaykh Rabi ibn hadi al-Madhkali, a Sunni Muslim who is Wahabbi in jurisprudence, and an Athari in theology, saying it would be no issue.
According to Shaykh Gibril Fouad Haddad praying behind an Ibadi would be valid.
So here is the view of Shaykh Gibril Fouad Haddad, a Sunni Muslim who is Shafi’i in jurisprudence, an Ash’ari in theology and a follower of the Nashqabandi Sufi Tariqa, saying praying behind an Ibadi is valid.
Darul Ifta, Darul Uloom Deoband, India say that praying behind an Ibadi is invalid.
So here is the view of Darul Ifta, Darul Uloom Deoband, Sunni Muslims who are primarily Hanafi in jurisprudence, and Māturīdī in theology who are saying praying behind an Ibadi is invalid.
Allah willing, We will update this page as we come across various fatwa from the federation of sects that refer to themselves as “Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah” on this particular matter.
“And do not pursue that of which you have no knowledge. Indeed, the hearing, the sight and the heart – about all those [one] will be questioned.” (Qur’an 17:36)
It was recently brought to our attention that a youtuber who goes by the name of “Mufti Muhammed Ibn Muneer” made a video in an attempt to address his students, those in attendance, about praying with their arms to the side.
If we had to retitle this entry it would be: ‘Trick ’em with Hadith. Ignore the Athar.’
We listened to the video and informed the brother that the video has an innocence to it for the most part. The speaker is simple. The statements he puts forward are simple. This is to be expected because those who claim they are upon the way of the early companion are often not well researched on matters.
However, there are other rather alarming statements put forward by the speaker that border on tafkir (excommunication) of other Muslims, which is most unfortunate.
The very simple approach used by Mufti Ibn Muneer had no depth or nuance to it. We do not blame him because it is clear from the matter in which he approached the subject with a naivety and innocence and that he has not really looked into the matter. Let us take a look at the video and comment on some of the comments Mufti Muhammad Ibn Muneer says.
@1:58 “I’ve heard people say this before, Maliki scholars. Uuhh, and that’s a whole long issue of madhabs, is it permissible in maliki etc. That’s a long issue in itself. The concept of their argument, many of their arguments not all of them they say there is nothing wrong with making sadl in the salah. And there is no specific text stating that you have to do it. Put your hand on top of the other hand. And some of the ulemah of the past said it was o.k and the mujtahideen said it was o.k and perhaps Imam Malik did it and Amal al Madinah etc. etc. etc… and most people unfortunately they argue and they fight over these points. We don’t have to argue over those points and fight over those points. Where did the Nabi Kareem (saw) pray like this? Mandatory or not. Where did he pray like this? What narration states that the Prophet had his hands to the side from the takbir to the taslim? If you can bring a hadith sahih or daif. Bring it, bring it to the table and we can see what’s the proper understanding what’s the strongest view. But if you can’t even bring that and you are basing it off of what’s permissible and what an Imam allowed raksafi, fulan fulan and this one and that one debated but the Nabi Kareem, your example, your uswa, the one you are to emanate, emulate, imitate and be like did he do it yes or no? If he did it than we can look at the other hadith what’s the correct whatchyou do all of the time. If he didn’t do it and your basing the second pillar of Islam the most important physical act of worship off of something that an Imam allowed and differed over you have serious problems with your Islam. Serious problems with your Islam. If the most important physical act of worship a big part of it is based off of the view and the fatwa of a later scholar that’s a problem. And I don’t think any intellectual Muslim is gonna differ on this point. I don’t think any intellectual Muslim is gonna differ on this point. Were not gonna get into it being haram or not. Everybody understand this? The concept did the Nabi Kareem do it? How did he pray? Everybody understand this? Regardless of where he put his hands but did he have his hands to the side? If you can’t prove that then you need to look at the statement ash hadu an la ilaha illallah wa ashhadu anna muhammed rasulullah what does that mean? For you to continue to do something in the salaah the second pillar of Islam that the prophet never did and that an Imam allowed, and that an Imam did. That’s a mushkila. Thats’ a big, huge, mushkila. That’s in brief. The argument o.k on this point you can find in the books of shurul hadith, the books of fiqh, classical four schools. The other non orthodox four schools. They dealt with this issue in detail; of is it permissible to put your hands at the side. When you do fold your hands where do they go, chest, navel, belly etc… Our Muhim is that the Nabi Kareem (saw) he said in Sahih Bukhari (after reciting the text in Arabic) He said, ‘we the prophets, the assembly of the prophets we have been commanded and ordered to place our right hands over our left hands in the salaah’. We have been commanded and ordered to put our right over our left in the salaah. There’s another narration that the people were commanded to place their hands the right hand on the left hand in the salaah. And many other narrations which the prophet put his hand on his left hand in the salaah, regardless of where. That is a whole different issue. Here, here, here, like this, like that. Those are secondary issues. What is important is that the Nabi Kareem (saw) he didn’t pray like that. His companions didn’t pray like that. And if there is a narration here or there they do not stand up to the light of the numerous narrations. So this has nothing to do with Maliki or Hanafi or Shafi’i. First and foremost you have to be Muhamadi. Muhamadi. How did Imam Malik understand, How did Imam Abu Hanifa understand, How did Imam Shafi’i understand and the do’s and the extract. That’s fine and that’s peachy. But when the daleel comes to you clear and pristine what Muhammed (saw) did or didn’t do. That is your stance as a Muslim, as a Muhamadi. The madhab of Muhammed ibn Abdullah. Something that is unclear something that is detailed something that you don’t understand that’s a different story. You blindly follow a scholar that you trust. You study this traditional school; but when the daleel is in front of your face your nothing more than Muhamadi Dhahiri. You take the apparent text. Every Muslim initially is dhahiri. Has to take that which is apparent from the text. Everybody understand this? Initially. Therefore it depends upon the person’s level of knowledge. If you can study and research you have to follow what you study and what you research. If you are a blind follower then take what I just said. Put your right hand on your left hand. That’s what the Prophet (saw) did. That’s my advise. No Muslim should make sadl. Allah knows best. Next question says: Many say that those who pray sadl are not upon the sunnah. We’ve explained this many times. If it’s an issue of ijtihad that’s one thing. Is it correct to say someone is not on the sunnah over one issue that they do? Or, because the sadl is so apparent and so outward and a major part of the salah perhaps it does take you away from quote unquote “being on the sunnah.” It’s not a hidden thing. You’re doing it five times a day at least. Not doing what the Nabi Kareem did over and over and over again. But in general, in general ‘Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah’ hadith, we do not love and hate, we do not show wala and bara based off of maseel ijtihadi faqiya. That’s not from our way. This is what’s correct, what we believe, what we teach, what we understand. We don’t base our love and our hate off of these maeel ijtihad. Everybody understand this? Which there is room for more than one view. Even if the second view is incorrect.”
Our response:
Where to begin? That was quite a mouthful!
We believe the first question to address would be the question of methodology. What is the methodology of Mufti Ibn Muhammad Muneer? What tools does he limit himself to in order to ascertain truth? What is admissible as evidence?
If he identifies himself as a follower of the ‘Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah’, then does he understand that that evidence is not restricted to the Qur’an and Sunnah? For ‘Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah’, the consensus (‘Ijma’) is legal proof. Analogy (Qiyas) is legal proof. The amal of Madinah (mass practiced Sunnah) of the people of Madinah is a proof of the Maliki school.
The second question is:
Are we to be “Muhmadi” as he claimed or “Muhamadi Dhahiri”? Because, on the one hand, he seems to indicate that it is wrong to follow the juristic conclusions of great scholars of Islam, while on the other hand, he flatly contradicts himself by being an advocate for the Dhahiri Madhab.
If every Muslim was to be ‘Dhahiri’, how would he answer the question: Can we eat pig fat/lard?
Say, “I do not find within that which was revealed to me anything forbidden to one who would eat it unless it be a dead animal or blood spilled out or the flesh of swine – for indeed, it is impure – or it be that slaughtered in disobedience, dedicated to other than Allah . But whoever is forced by necessity, neither desiring it nor transgressing the limit, then indeed, your Lord is Forgiving and Merciful.” (Qur’an 6:145)
What do the Qur’an and the Sunnah say? The verse is clear that only the flesh of swine is prohibited.
Third question: By saying every Muslim should be Muhamadi, is he suggesting that Malik, Abu Hanifa and Shafi’i were not ‘Muhamadi’?
Fourth question: If it can be established that Sa’id b. Al-Musayyib, Sa’id b. Jubayr, Al-Hasan Al-Basari, Ibrahim Al-Nakha’i, Muhammed b. Sirin, and the Companion, ‘Abd Allah ibn Al-Zubayr as well as Imam Layth b. S’ad all prayed sadl (arms to the side). Would he say that they ‘have serious problems with their Islam’?’
Where the above individuals from the Salaaf practicing bidʿah?
Fifth question: When you say, “If you are a blind follower, then take what I just said.” Wouldn’t that make a person ‘Muhamedi Muneeri’? Thus, again another contradiction in your statements?
Sixth question: Would he even accept the evidence? “His companions didn’t pray like that (Oops, he catches himself) AND IF THERE IS A NARRATION HERE OR THERE, they do not stand up to the light of the numerous narrations.”
Looks as if, even when presented with evidence, he would reject it. Hopefully, he, as well as the readers, can understand that when he speaks of ‘one or two narrations up against numerous’ that one brick is stronger than 10 pieces of straw even when combined.
Final comments/thoughts. The rest of Mufti Muhammed Ibn Muneer’s comments were sensible in the sense that he says that all of us are negligent of the Sunnah in one way or another. Notice that Mufti Muhammrd Ibn Muneer said the following: “regardless of where.” That is a whole different issue. Here, here, here, like this, like that. Those are secondary issues. In other words, they do not know where the hands are supposed to go. They just know that they should be in opposition to those who place them on the side! May Allah (swt) increase our ability to follow the example of the Blessed Messenger (saw).
“Which there is room for more than one view. Even if the second view is incorrect.”
Ditto!
All Muslims are reliant upon narrations from the early period of Muslims. People like Mufti Muhammed Ibn Muneer are reliant upon the hadith. So, for those like him, they want a statement of the hadith. They know full well that bringing a hadith does not end the discussion. Hadiths have gradings, they have chains of narrators. In this case, they would not be able to bring a single authentic hadith that states that the Blessed Prophet (saw) prayed with one hand over the other hand in the prayer.
The only thing they can bring is
Narrated Sahl bin Sa`d:
The people were ordered to place the right hand on the left forearm in the prayer. Abu Hazim said, “I knew that the order was from the Prophet (saw) .”
Abdullah ibn Maslamah narrated to us, from Malik, from Abu Hazim, from Sahl ibn Sa’d, who said: “People were commanded that a man should place his right hand on his left forearm during prayer.” Abu Hazim said: “I know of it only as being attributed to the Prophet (peace be upon him).” Isma’il (a narrator in the chain) said: “It is attributed” — and he did not say “he attributes it.”
Effectively, the hadith they think is a trump card actually is an athar. It doesn’t describe something that the Blessed Prophet (saw) did. It describes actions that people did that were attributed to the Prophet (saw).
We go into the deep water where the Salafis do not like to go. That is to the Athar. The reports of the actions of the companions, the information and data points overwhelm the opposition. Unless they want to say the Salaaf were practicing bidʿah.
“Indeed, in the Messenger of Allah you have an excellent example for whoever has hope in Allah and the Last Day, and remembers Allah often.” (Qur’an 33:21)
﷽
Why do Ibadis not have Qunut in the prayer?
Malik ibn Al-Huwayrith reported: We came to the Prophet, (saw), while we were young men and we stayed with him twenty nights. Then the Prophet considered that we were anxious to see our families, so he asked us who we had left behind to take care of them and we told him. The Prophet was kindhearted and merciful, and he said, “Return to your families, teach them, and enjoin good upon them. Pray as you have seen me praying. When the time of prayer arrives, then one of you should announce the call to prayer and the eldest of you should lead the prayer.”
We acknowledge that the Blessed Prophet (saw) used to do Qunut for the companions in time of crisis. However, this was something abrogated. That is our position.
Imam Malik and Imam Al Shafi’i considered Qunut in Fajr a confirmed Sunnah. Imam Ahmad considers it recommended during times of crisis. They do it during the witr prayers. Although they are not doing it currently for Palestine. Even if they think Hamas is a calamity, then still let them pray for their brothers! The Hanafi school believes that the Qunut is not done in any of the five daily prayers. However, they believe it is for the witr prayer. Zahiris do not do Qunut unless in times of crisis.
It was narrated from Abu Malik Al-Ashja’i that his father said:
“I prayed behind the Messenger of Allah (saw) and he did not say the Qunut, and I prayed behind Abu Bakr and he did not say the Qunut, and I prayed behind Umar and he did not say the Qunut, and I prayed behind Uthman and he did not say the Qunut, and I prayed behind Ali and he did not say the Qunut.” Then he said: “O my son, this is an innovation.”
“The Messenger of Allah (saw) said the Qunut for a month.”- (One of the narrators) Shu’bah said: “He cursed some men.” Hisham said: “He supplicated against some of the tribes of Arabs.”-“Then he stopped doing that after bowing.” This is what Hisham said. Shu’bah said, narrating from Qatadah, from Anas that the Prophet (saw) said the Qunut for a month, cursing Ri’l, Dhawkan and Lihyan.
Please know, dear reader, that all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence have their proofs and justifications for why they do as they do. We follow what we believe is the correct sunnah of the Blessed Prophet (saw).
We also believe that the Blessed Prophet (saw) abolished raising the hands altogether.
“The Messenger of Allah is certainly a good example for those of you who have hope in Allah and in the Day of Judgment and who remember Allah very often.” (Qur’an 33:21)
“And perform the prayer, and pay the alms, and bow with those that bow.” (Qur’an 2:43)
“And obey Allah and obey the Messenger. But if you turn away, then Our Messenger is responsible only for conveying the message clearly. (Quran 64:12)
﷽
It has been attributed to the Blessed Messenger (saw) in the following hadith:
Malik ibn Al-Huwayrith reported: We came to the Prophet, (saw), while we were young men and we stayed with him twenty nights. Then the Prophet considered that we were anxious to see our families, so he asked us who we had left behind to take care of them and we told him. The Prophet was kindhearted and merciful, and he said, “Return to your families, teach them, and enjoin good upon them. Pray as you have seen me praying. When the time of prayer arrives, then one of you should announce the call to prayer and the eldest of you should lead the prayer.” Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6008)
Listen carefully to what our brother is saying here.
“Take what the Messenger gives you, and do without what he forbids you from.” (Qur’an 59:7)
﷽
This entry will show the manipulation and changing of the ‘matn’ text in the chains of transmission to advocate various positions for the prayer.
Hopefully, in writing this in the process we will be able to defend the prayer of the Blessed Messenger (saw) as was the practice of the people of Madinah in his time, namely the practice of laying hands at the side. This practice is continued among those who follow the Jafari and Zaydi School of jurisprudence as well as the oldest living school of jurisprudence which the people of Oman are upon, the Ibadi school.
This blog entry will also show that Imam Malik only prayed that way (sadl) because it is what he saw as the practice of the people of Madinah, and it’s not because he was beaten, which is a lie that has been circulated by a certain group whom have invented their own methodology of doing the prayer.
MISUNDERSTANDING NO. 1 Imam Malik only prayed like that (arms to the side) because he was beaten so badly that he couldn’t pray with one hand over the other.
“He was severely beaten in the year 764 CE by the order of the Ameer of Madeenah, because he made a legal ruling that forced divorce was invalid. This ruling opposed the ‘Abbaasid rulers’ practice of adding in the oath of allegiance given to them by the masses the clause that whoever broke the oath was automatically divorced. Malik was tied and beaten until his arms became severely damaged to such a degree that he became unable to clasp them on his chest in Salaah and thus he began the practice of praying with his hands at his sides according to some reports.”
Source: (pg 78. The Evolution of Fiqh Islamic Law & The Madh-habs) By Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips International Islamic Publishing House.)
“Some reports” such as? Doesn’t Abu Ammenah Bilal Philips have to give his evidence or are we just supposed to accept what he said?
Can such a claim be verified by and in any of the traditionally relied upon books of Islamic history? One will be hard-pressed to find any evidence substantiating this argument.
Remember what Allah said:
“Verily, those who conceal the clear proofs, evidence, and the guidance, which We have sent down after We have made it clear for the people in the Book, they are the ones cursed by Allah and cursed by those who curse.” (Qur’an: 2:159)
So where is the proof?
Secondly, how could Imam Malik not have enough strength to clasp his hands on his chest but still be able to do the tabkir—, go into ruku, and go into sajdah and to push his hands up from sujuud, since Imam Malik’s view is that the knees go up than the hands after sajdah? What about all the other Tabieen who prayed the way Imam Malik did? Did each one of them have their arms broken as well?
MISUNDERSTANDING NO. 2 The Malikis get their prayer from the Shi’a in Iran!
Now let us ask you, dear reader, something why would Sunni Muslims go and ask the Shi’a about how to pray? That’s just absurd! The second point is this: Why don’t the Malikis follow the Shi’a in everything in prayer, like raising the hands in ruku and when going into sujud? Or making sujud on a stone? Or placing the knees before the hands? Or saying the whole prayer out loud? Or include the basmallah before Al Fatiha like the Shi’a do. Also, a very good question would be where did the Shi’a get their prayer from? Do the Shi’a follow some guy who got his arms broken too?!?
The Shi’a don’t follow Imam Malik because they don’t accept him as one of their Imams in jurisprudence. This whole point, again, is another flat lie. If such a claim were true, then you should give the evidence. You have to have tangible evidence of it.
“And of mankind is he who purchases idle talk (lahwal hadeeth) to mislead from the path of Allah without knowledge (ilm), and takes it by way of mockery. For such there will be a humiliating torment.” (Qur’an 31:6)
We see this ayat as applying directly to those people who will take the Hadith (reports) over the Sunnah (practice). Those who have no ilm (no fiqh). In this instance, those who will take the Hadith over the mass transmitted Sunnah of the blessed Messenger (saw). We have to understand and this cannot be stressed enough. The Sunnah is a ‘living tradition’ that is organically passed down from one generation to the next. The hadith WERE fragments and snippets of the sunnah, which at times became a mechanism to convince people of controversial issues.
“Pray as you see me pray”.
Qur’an and Sunnah not Qur’an and Hadith.
We would like to remind our readers that the Prophet (saw) is reported to have said,” I leave you two things. “The Qur’an and my Sunnah.” He (saw) did not say “I leave you the Qur’an and Hadith.” And with all due respect, We ask anyone reading this to find a single statement where The Blessed Messenger (saw) said I leave you “Qur’an and Hadith”.
People who say that the prophet (saw) said “Qur’an and Hadith” are trying to use Hanbali and Shaf’i usuli methods and impose these methodological principles on the rest of the Muslim ummah.
The so-called ‘Salafiyyah’ today cherry-pick their usuli methods.
The Blessed Messenger (saw) never handed to his followers a Mushaf of the Qur’an or a Sahih Bukhari volumes 1–4 etc. What he gave was a living, breathing revelation from Allah preserved foremost as an oral tradition, and then his living, breathing organic practice, deeds, and ways of living that collectively we call the Sunnah; again, which was orally transmitted.
The living breathing practice is witnessed and transmitted as a living breathing, organic practice. The hadith is transmitted on the basis of one from one and can be corrupted, added to, mistakenly transmitted, leave out important details, have hidden defects, and so on.
The problem today is that people who graduate from Madinah University are using Shaf’i and Hanbali Usuli principles to judge the rest of the Muslim ummah on the Qur’an and Sunnah, and it doesn’t work like that.
The point being Imam Malik saw the living sunnah around him every day. For the Malikis, the ‘Amal’ or practice of the people of Madinah is a mass-established sunnah. They did not need to split hairs trying to find documented sunnah evidence in the form of hadith for everything they do.
In fact, a principle of the Maliki madhab is that even if there is a Sahih hadith, if it clashes with the Sunnah of Madinah, Imam Malik drops it.
Why?
Because, again, you need to understand that Muhammed (saw) said, “I leave you the Qur’an and Sunnah.” If we are talking in terms of what has more weight, Rabia, one of Imam Malik’s teachers said to him, “I would rather take 1000 from 1000 because that 1 from 1 can strip the sunnah right out from your hands!”
The vast majority of Hadith are, which means narrations one from one. Imam Malik is basically saying, “Look people, I live in the city where the 10,000 sahabah are buried and where the Blessed Himself (saw) is buried. If there ever was a sunnah established or practiced, we know about it because we live it every day.
The following examples show corruption in the Hadith traditions that try and promote grasping of the hands in prayer.
Now we will give what we believe to be the original accounts of Sadl, and the transformation of it into Qabd, and for whatever reason, someone found it important to try and undermine the way we understand the Blessed Prophet’s prayer, which Al hamdulillah is being followed by the people of Oman today.
Remember Islam began as a stranger, and it will return to the world as a stranger. Reflect upon that!
An original orally transmitted report.
In the Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaibah, the following can be found:
Yahyaa Ibn Sa’eed declared to us: On the authority of ‘Abdullah ibn Al- ‘Eezaar. He said: “I used to accompany Sa’eed ibn Jubair: So, he saw a man praying while placing one of his hands on the other. This one on this one, and this one on this one. So, he went, separated them, and then returned (to me).” The Musannaf is one of the earliest hadith canons in Islamic history.
Ibn ‘Abd Al-Barr in his book al-Tamheed narrates that (20:76):
‘Abd Allah ibn al-Izar said, ‘I used to make tawaf around the Kaba with Said ibn
al-Jubayr. Once, he saw a man placing one hand over the other, so he went to him, separated his hands, and then returned to me.
The corrupted oral transmission of the story and the attempt to change it.
The Hadith of Ibn Masud
Actually reported in Abu Dawud and Sunan of Nasai
“The Prophet saw me placing my left hand on my right hand in Salat. So he took my right hand, and then placed it over my left hand.”
Abu Dawud’s chain is: Muhammed ibn Bakkar from Hushaym ibn Bashir from
Al-Hajjaj ibn Abu Zaynab from Abu Abi-Uthman from Ibn Mas’ud.
Nasa’is chain is: Hushaym ibn Bashir from Al Hajjaj ibn Abu Zaynab from Abu Abi
‘Uthman from Ibn Mas’ud.
In the chain is Hushaym ibn Bashir
Dhahabi states in Al Mizan [5/431], and Ibn Hajar states in
Taqrib al-Tahdhib [2/269] that he: “Often used trickery in his reports to convince others to accept unacceptable chains of narration in addition to being guilty of conveying subtly distinguishable incomplete chains of narration.” (kathir at-tadlis wa al-irsal al-khafi).
The Hadith of Jabir ibn ‘Abd Allah Reported by Ahmad and Daraqutni
“The Messenger of Allah passed by a man who was praying while placing
his left hand on the right hand. So he snatched it and placed the right on the left.”
But this is reported by way of Al Hajjaj ibn Abu Zaynab -from Abu Sufyan-from Jabir ibn ‘Abd Allah.
Al Hajjaj ibn Abu Zaynab has been declared to be weak by ‘Ali ibn Al-Madini, Nasa’i, Ahmad, and Daraqutni as stated by Dhahabi in Al Mizan [1/462].
Our comments after using reasoning logic and deduction:
Now in the original report, we see that someone was praying with hands folded (qabd) to which offense was taken and so their hands were separated during the prayer. Now what happens is that, in order to support the practice of folding one hand over the other (qabd), the highest authority in the land, the Blessed Prophet (saw) himself is invoked in the story. To make the argument more insiduous, the issue is not even the releasing of the hands but ‘how the hands were folded‘. So the person who hears the narration would assume that folding hands leaving at the sides is not an issue at all, but would learn that the person in the narration simply folded it the wrong way! Then Ibn Hajar gives sweeping condemnation of Hushaym ibn Bashir in his commentary. It’s interesting to see that Hushaym Ibn Bashir, in all three reports, gets his information from Al Hajjaj ibn Abu Zaynab, who does not fare any better when he is critically examined.
What was added: The prophet was seen doing it to make it more authoritative.
What was changed: The issue was with how to fold the hands properly (sadl: laying of the hands at the side) was taken out completely!
An original orally transmitted report.
Muwatta of Imam Malik 9.15 Placing One Hand on the Other in the Prayer
Yahya related to me from Malik that ‘Abd al-karim ibn Abi-LMukhariq Al Basri said, “Among the things, the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said and did are: ‘As long as you do not feel ashamed, do whatever you wish’, the placing of one hand on the other in prayer (one places the right hand on the left), being quick to break the fast, and delaying the meal before dawn.”
The corrupted oral transmission of the story and the attempt to change it.
The Hadith of ‘Aisha bint Abu Bakr Reported by Daraqutni and Bayhaqi
Aisha said: “Three things are from prophecy: making haste for breakfast, delaying the predawn meal, and placing the right over the left during Salat.”
Point 1) Ibn Hazm related it in Al-Muhalla [4/113] as a statement of ‘Aisha but without a chain.
Point 2) There is a break in the chain. So it can even be ascribed to ‘Aisha.
Hafiz ibn Hajar said in Talkhis al-Habir [1/223]: “Daraqutni and Bayaqi related it as a statement of ‘Aisha.” And it has a break in its chain.
Prima Qur’an Comments:
Now we do not even apparently have the complete chain of this. Now we do not expect devilry at work at every corner. But if you compare the statement in the Muwatta to that of Imam Malik, then look at the following: It is word for word with two very huge changes.
The change is now some unknown comes along and either intentionally or maliciously invokes Aisha (ra) to make it authoritative. After all, she’s the prophet’s wife and spent so much time with him, so she would be an authority, right?
Or the reporter, relying upon memory, makes a mistake. We believe the former that the change is intentional due to what was actually changed.
So this is a very obvious question.
What is from the prophecy (or from the prophet)?
Did He (saw) say to place the right hand over the left? Or did He (saw) say that doing such indicates that a person really has no shame?
Two original orally transmitted reports
In the following, we will give you two original reports of the hadith in the Muwatta of Imam Malik and then the attempt to combine the two hadiths into one due to oral corruption in the transmission.
Muwatta of Imam Malik 9.15 Placing One Hand on the Other in the Prayer
Yahya related to me from Malik that ‘Abd al-karim ibn Abi-LMukhariq Al Basri said, “Among the things, the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said and did are: ‘As long as you do not feel ashamed, do whatever you wish’, the placing of one hand on the other in prayer (one places the right hand on the left), being quick to break the fast, and delaying the meal before dawn.”
Muwatta of Imam Malik 9.15 Placing One Hand on the Other in the Prayer
Yahya related to me from Malik from Abu Hazim ibn Dinar that Sahl ibn Sa’d said, “People used to be ordered to place their right hands on their left forearms in the prayer.” Abu Hazim added, “I know for sure that Sahl traces that back to the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.”
The corrupted oral transmission of the story and the attempt to change it.
Hadith of Abd Allah ibn ‘Abbas, reported by Daraqutni.
“Verily we — the assembly of Prophets—have been ordered to hold our right hands over our left hands.“
Weakness #1 One of the transmitters, Talha ibn ‘Amr, has been classified as being an unreliable narrator. The author of Awjaz al-Masalik says, “And in its chain is Talha ibn ‘Amr, who has been relinquished (matruk).
Likewise, it is mentioned in Al-‘Ayni (Sharh of) Al-Bukhari.
Dhahabi said in Al-Mizan (3/54): “Ahmad and Nasai’i said (about Talha)” “(He is) relinquished in hadith. And Bukhari and Ibn Al-Madini said: “He is insignificant” (Laysa bi shayin).”
Prima Qur’an comments:
It can be seen that the original hadith statement in the Muwatta of Imam Malik slowly evolved into a statement that supposedly the Prophets were ‘ordered’ to place one hand over the other.
Finally, the two hadiths were joined together to get the following ‘Sahih’ narration.
(Ibn Hibban relates it in his sahih, (13-14/3 #1767)
“The prophets were ordered to delay the suhoor and expedite the breaking of the fast and hold with our right hands our left hands in our prayer.”
Prima Qur’an comments:
So here you have the finished product. What were two distinct hadiths in the Muwatta of Imam Malik that were transformed into one hadith that combined elements of both?
In this new hadith, we find that it wasn’t the people who were ordered, it was the Prophets who were ordered and, of course, the only one to give orders to the prophets is Allah (swt) himself!
So if we can’t ascribe it to Aisha (ra), let’s ascribe it to the Prophet (saw), and if that doesn’t work, let’s ascribe it as an order to all the Prophets — which only comes from Allah!
So what this Hadith effectively does is eliminate any doubt about where such an order would come from. Also, as in the “Aisha Hadith” quoted above, the original hadith in the Muwatta of Imam Malik was changed so that instead of folding the hands in the fard prayer being an act of shame, it becomes meritorious, and not only that, but something directed by the divine himself!
And this is also supported by the fact that ibn Turkamaanee, the Shaykh of al-Haafidh az-Zayla’i mentioned in his ‘al-Jawhar’ two weak hadith to support his madhab where he said, ‘Ibn Hazm said, “it is reported to us from Abu Hurayra who said, ‘place the hand upon the hand below the navel.’ And from Anas who said, ‘three are from the manners of the Prophethood: hastening the iftaar, delaying the suhoor, and placing the right hand upon the left below the navel in the prayer.’”’
The hadith that ibn Hazm mentions in ‘al-Muhalla’ in ta’leeq form from Anas with the wording, ‘three are from the manners of the Prophet-hood: hastening the iftaar, delaying the suhoor, and placing the right hand upon the left below the navel in the prayer.’
Ash-Shaikh Haashim as-Sindee said in his letter, ‘Diraahim as-Surra’, ‘and from them is what az-Zaahidee mentioned in his ‘Sharh al-Qudooree’, and ibn Ameer al-Haaj and ibn Najeem mentioned in ‘al-Bahr ar-Raa’iq’, that it is reported from the Prophet (saw), “three are from the habit of the Messengers: hastening the iftaar, delaying the suhoor, and placing the right hand upon the left below the navel in prayer.”
He said: “I have not come across the sanad to this hadeeth except that az-Zaahidee added that it is reported by Ali bin Abu Taalib {3} from the Prophet (saw). But ibn Ameer al-Haaj and ibn Najeem said, “that the reporters of hadeeth do not know the wording, ‘below the navel’ from a marfoo or mawqoof narration.”’
Anas reports that there are three aspects from the character of Nubuwwa [Prophethood]: to open fast early, to delay the suhur [pre-dawn meal], and to position the right hand over the left one beneath the navel while in salat. [al-Jawharal-naqiyy 2:31]
Since the graduates of Madinah University cherry-pick Shafi’i and Hanbali usuli principles to establish daleel (namely that a person has to have documented sunnah in the form of hadith), then let us entertain them.
The hadith of Sahl ibn Sa’ad — PEOPLE WERE ORDERED TO PLACE THE RIGHT OVER THE LEFT IN PRAYER
“Abdullah ibn Maslama related to us from Malik from Abu hazim from Sahl ibn Sa’d. He said:
“The people were ordered that a person is to place the right hand over his left forearm during Salat.” Abu Hazim said: “I know only that he attributes that (yanmi dhalika) to the Prophet.” Isma’il said: “(I know only that) That is attributed (yunma dhalika). And he didn’t say: “He attributes” (yanmi).
Source:(Bukhari, 224/2)
The weakness of this hadith
In spite of being in both the Muwatta of Imam Malik and the Sahih of Bukhari, it is not definitive proof that the Prophet’s sunnah was to pray while holding his left hand with his right hand. What weakens such an assumption made from this hadith are the following:
This is not an explicit statement, report, or action of the Prophet.
Sahl does not say that the prophet gave the order, so it’s possible someone else gave the order.
The saying, “I know only that he attributes that (yanmi dhalika) to the Prophet” is not the statement of Sahl. Rather it is the statement of the Tab’i, Abu Hazim. So there is no certainty that Sahl actually attributed this to the Prophet, since Abu Hazim is merely conjecturing about what he remembers.
The statement of Ismail that, “(I know only that) That is attributed (yunma dhalika).” And he didn’t say: “He attributes” (yanmi)” further emphasizes the belief that Abu Hazim didn’t actually hear Sahl attribute that order to the Prophet.
The above-mentioned Hadith further corroborates with what is in the Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaiba.
In fact do you want to see how the Salafis and Wahabbis deceive the masses?
The people were ordered to place the right hand on the left forearm in the prayer. Abu Hazim said, “I knew that the order was from the Prophet (saw) .”
What a juciy dishonest lie! In plain sight!
The whole of the Arabic text actually says:
Abdullah ibn Maslamah narrated to us, from Malik, from Abu Hazim, from Sahl ibn Sa’d, who said: “People were commanded that a man should place his right hand on his left forearm during prayer.” Abu Hazim said: “I know of it only as being attributed to the Prophet (peace be upon him).” Isma’il (a narrator in the chain) said: “It is attributed” — and he did not say “he attributes it.”
“Ibn ‘Ulayyah declared to us: On the authority of Ibn ‘Aun about Ibn Seereen that he was asked about the man who holds his right hand with his left. He said: “That was merely done because of the Romans’ (influence).”
Also, people who claim that Imam Malik only prayed sadl because his arms were broken need to look at the above hadith if the people were indeed ‘ordered‘ to pray one hand over the other means that they didn’t always do that!
The proof is out there for anyone to see we know who fabricated the hadith chains. We know claims are inconsistent and who wish to attack the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw) and bring in place of it lahwal hadeeth (Qur’an 31:6)
“The Messenger of Allah is certainly a good example for those of you who have hope in Allah and in the Day of Judgment and who remember Allah very often.” (Qur’an 33:21)
“And perform the prayer, and pay the alms, and bow with those that bow.” (Qur’an 2:43)
﷽
The picture on your left is the Sunnah of the Blessed Messenger (saw) to make du’a or supplication with the hands open. We do not tie the hands or fold our hands in prayer. That is the method of other traditions.
Opening of the hands is the way of the supplicant getting ready to receive some mercy or guidance from above. Leaving the hands at the side leaves the heart open and uncovered. It signifies stillness, tranquility and humbleness before a Sovereign and Mighty God.
Most of the world’s Muslims have it right when it comes to making du’a (supplication).
We open our hands, and we do not tie or fold our hands when making du’a (supplication).
We do not fold or tie hands in prayer.
This is the correct way. This is the Sunnah of the Blessed Messenger (saw). No tying or folding of the hands. You should be tranquil in your prayer
FROM SUNNAH TO INNOVATION: AN EVOLUTION OF CHANGE IN THE SUNNI SCHOOLS.
How does one come to such radically different approaches to one of the most witnessed and beloved acts of the Blessed Messenger (saw)? Insh’Allah, we have another article at the end of this that you may wish to read and ponder over.
As you can see in the begging in the fitra period, and early period the Sunnah of the Blessed Messenger (saw) was to not tie the hands or fold the hands in prayer…AT ALL!
Listen to this interesting clip from brother Hamed Rashid Malik
NONE OF THE FOUR SURVIVING SUNNI SCHOOLS OF JURISPRUDENCE SAY ITS OBLIGATRY TO PRAY WITH THE HANDS FOLDED.
Now, they may say it is preferred to tie or fold the hands. However, none of them say it’s prohibited or bid’ah or anything even close to that to keep the hands open in prayer.
School of Ahmed Ibn Hanbal
Imam Ala’ al-Din al-Mardawi, the Munaqqih & Musahhih of the Madhhab who authored an explanation on the Muqni’ in a 12-volume work he named “al-Insaf”. It is reported that Imam Ahmad would open his hands and leave them to his sides always.
In the Ṭabaqāt al-Ḥanābilah
Abdullah asked his father, Ahmad bin Hanbal, about the hadith of Abi Ma’sher. “It’s not allowed to do takfeer in salat,” so Ahmad said, “It means putting his right on his chest.”
Ibn ul-Qayyim, in his Badaaī’ al-Fawaaid, cites al-Muzani, the student of Imam Ahmad, as follows:
ونقل المزني عنه…ويكره أن يجعلهما على الصدر، وذلك لما روي عن النبي -صلى اللَّه عليه وسلم- أنه نهى عن التكفير، وهو وضع اليد على الصدر
بدائع الفوائد
Imam Ahmad said:
“It is reprehensible for him to place both of them (hands) upon the chest. And that is because of what is related from the Prophet (saw) that he prohibited al-Takfeer – and that is, placing the hand upon the chest.”
School of Imam Shafi’i
In the book of “Al Um” by Shafi’i you’ll not find mention of tying or folding the hands in the prayer, he didn’t ever mention it.
Also, the book of Nawawi “Al Minhaj” didn’t mention Qabd (tying or folding the hands in the prayer)
And all who have explained it from Shafi’ees didn’t mention it as obligatory in the prayer.
We also know that Imam Shafi’i was a student of Imam Malik, and we will come to that insh’Allah.
School of Imam Abu Hanifa.
Imam Abu Hanifa, we have nothing written from him on this subject. We just do not.
School of Imam Malik
Narrated by Ibn al-Qasim in al-Mudawanna (1:74) and in al-Tamheed (20:75) al-Layth as-Sa’d is reported to have said:
Not tying or folding the hands in prayer is preferred, unless he is standing for an extended period and becomes tired, then there is no problem (la ba’as) with putting the right hand over the left.
LOOKING AT THE NARRATIONS USED BY THOSE WHO ADVANCE TYING/FOLDING THE HANDS
And the only narration that they really have is:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Abu Hazim ibn Dinar that Sahl ibn Sad said, “People used to be ordered to place their right hands on their left forearms in the prayer.”
Abu Hazim added, “I know for sure that Sahl traces that back to the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.”
This exact hadith came by way of Imam Malik and Imam Malik himself doesn’t do it!
And when a narrator narrates something about the Blessed Messenger (saw) and doesn’t follow it he’s either:
A fasiq
He knows that it isn’t Authentic about the Blessed Messenger (saw)
He may have forgotten
And since Malik is a respectable scholar, then the first option is removed. The last option is also removed because Imam Malik mentioned the hadith in his Muwatta. Which means only option 2 is left, because he saw another thing than what was reported.
Just two other points about the hadith that’s used.
Also, he didn’t say, “We were Ordered,” but said, “People were ordered.”
And only Abu Hazm the Tabi’e has claimed that it’s from the Prophet (saw).
THE PEOPLE WERE ORDERED? INNOVATION BY BANI UMMAYAD
وحدثني عبد الرحمن بن إبراهيم عن عبدالله بن يحيى المعافري عن حيوة عن بكر بن عمرو أنه لم ير أبا أمامة -يعني ابن سهل- واضعا إحدى يديه على الأخرى قط ولا أحدا من أهل المدينة حتى قدم الشام فرأى الأوزاعي وناسا يضعونه
Look what Imam Abu Zur’ah the Shaykh of Imam Al Bukhari had to say:
Abd al-Rahman ibn Ibrahim told me on the authority of Abdullah ibn Yahya al-Ma`fari on the authority of Haywa on the authority of Bakr ibn Amr that he had never seen Abu Umamah – meaning Ibn Sahl – ever put one of his hands on the other, and no one from the people of Medina did that either, until he came to Syria, so he saw al-Awza`i and people putting him on.
Better archive/save the following before it suddenly disappears from the internet.
Abu Umama bin Sahl is one of the Sahaba. His full name is Asad bin Sahal bin Hunaif Al Ansari and The Blessed Messenger (saw) used to call him Abu Umama.
So the pedigree, the start of this practice of tying and folding the hands in prayer, started in Sham, where the Umayyads country was.
All the scholars of the great Scholars of Tabi’een that opposed the Umayyads, it’s authentic about them that they didn’t tie or fold the hands in Salat!
May Allah (swt) open your eyes WIDE dear Muslim ummah! May Allah (swt) put in your hearts a love for the Sunnah of the Blessed Messenger (saw).
If you are interested or keen to pray the way the Blessed Prophet (saw) prayed, we would encourage you to read the following. May Allah (swt) bless those responsible for its compilation.
HOW TO DO THE PRAYER ACCORDING TO THE BLESSED SUNNAH?
“Glory to Him who journeyed His servant by night, from the Sacred Mosque to the Farthest Mosque, whose precincts We have blessed, in order to show him of Our wonders. He is the Listener, the Beholder.” (Qur’an 17:1)
“Perform the prayer at the decline of the sun, until the darkness of the night; and the Qur’an at dawn. The Qur’an at dawn is witnessed. And keep vigil with it during parts of the night, as an extra prayer. Perhaps your Lord will raise you to a laudable position. And say, “My Lord, lead me in through an entry of truth, and lead me out through an exit of truth, and grant me from You a supporting power.”. And say, “The truth has come, and falsehood has withered away; for falsehood is bound to wither away.”. We send down in the Qur’an healing and mercy for the believers, but it increases the wrongdoers only in loss.” (Qur’an 17:79-82)
﷽
Many believe that Muslims only pray five times a day. However, Muslims have many invocations of divine remembrance throughout the day. There are invocations that are said by Muslims when we eat, embark on a journey, or even sleep.
Embark on a voyage of great spiritual discovery.
The ‘sublime oral tradition’, or hadith, reports that the Blessed Prophet Muhammed, (saw), received the five times daily prayer of Islam during his mystical ascension through the heavens into the glorious (Garden of Spiritual Essence). During this journey, the Noble Prophet was able to contemplate angels performing each of the various movements of prayer.
Prayer is a gift from the Creator, A spiritual technology, displayed first through angelic beings, rather than springing from human intellect, will or initiative. It is reported that The Prophet of Islam proclaimed, “Prayer is the ascension of the faithful.”
Prayer is more of a way of intimate discussion with the Creator than an offering to the Creator. The Creator does not ask for or need any offering. Prayer exists beyond the kingdom of personal will. Rather, it is the key to the kingdom of Divine Will.
The Blessed Prophet Muhammed, (saw), could have brought back from his ascension any gift from the infinite Divine Treasury. Since he returned with the technology of prayer, we can infer that it is most precious.
For Muslims, prayer is ordained by the Creator as the most effective way to unfold the fullness of our humanity. The Creator does not need our prayers but offers the technology of prayer to us as His supreme gift.
We as Muslims pray not only from a sense of obligation but as an act of tender responsiveness, just as a lover desires to fulfill every wish of the Most Beloved, the Most Covetous.
The unified lines of prayer, with the intention of the hearts in perfect alignment as well, produces such an experience of spiritual power and communion, it is as though all humanity was standing together in prayer.
To humble oneself and prostrate during prayer is to plunge directly into the ocean of Divine Mercy. How sublime for the one who discovers it and how unfortunate to miss even a single occasion of it.
Prima Quran 