“And give full measure when you measure, and weigh with an even balance. That is the best [way] and best in result.” (Qur’an 17:35)
﷽
Narrated `Ikrima:
that Ibn `Abbas told him and `Ali bin `Abdullah to go to Abu Sa`id and listen to some of his narrations; So they both went (and saw) Abu Sa`id and his brother irrigating a garden belonging to them. When he saw them, he came up to them and sat down with his legs drawn up and wrapped in his garment and said, “(During the construction of the mosque of the Prophet) we carried the adobe of the mosque, one brick at a time while `Ammar used to carry two at a time. The Prophet (saw) passed by `Ammar and removed the dust off his head and said, “May Allah be merciful to `Ammar. He will be killed by a rebellious aggressive group. `Ammar will invite them to (obey) Allah and they will invite him to the (Hell) fire.”
One could simply ditch the narration from Ikrima (ra) above. And use the following. Although the following allows for more interpretative scope than does the narration given via Ikrima (ra).
Abu Sa`id Khudri reported:
One who is better than I informed me, that Allah’s Messenger (saw) said to `Ammar as he was digging the ditch (on the occasion of the Battle of the Ditch), wiping over his head: “O son of Summayya, you will be involved in trouble and a group of the rebels would kill you.”
So why are a group of companions castigated when it becomes even apparent to them that Muaviya and his part were the unjust group? They warned Ali, this was a ruse, and they remembered well what the Blessed Messenger (saw) said: and a group of the rebels would kill you
By the way, Ammar (ra) was killed BEFORE arbitration.
Narrated `Ikrima:
“Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to `Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event reached Ibn `Abbas who said, “If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s Apostle forbade it, saying, ‘Do not punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire).’ I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Apostle, ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.’”
Some Muslims really do imagine that they can have their cake and eat it too when it comes to Ikrima (ra).
On the one hand, they want to use Ikrima (ra) as a narrator when it comes to clearly showing that the kharijites truly were, none other than Muawiyah and his band.
In the following post you can see how Ibn Taymiyyah tripped over himself with regard to one of the narrations of Ikrima regarding Ammar ibn Yasir (ra).
Yet, then they want to cast aspersions upon the narrator, Ikirma (ra), because he has none other than Ibn Abbas (ra), who narrates that he himself differed with the ijtihad of Ali, concerning the burning of apostates.
“Do not mix truth with falsehood or hide the truth knowingly.” (Qur’an 2:42)
﷽
So, an ex-12er, Shi’i shared the following video with us and what an eye-opener!
The YouTube channel, known to be Pro-Alid, featured a “Sunni” ?? Scholar Dr. Suhail Zakkar (possibly Shi’i or diet-Shi’i) who pulled out all the stops to throw Ibn Abbas (ra) under the bus!
Ibn ‘Abbas reported that Allah’s Messenger (saw) came to the privy and I placed water for him for ablution. When he came out he said:
Who placed it here? And in one version of Zuhair they (the Companions) said, and in the version of Abu Bakr (the words are): I said: It is Ibn ‘Abbas (who has done that), whereupon he (the Holy Prophet) said: May Allah grant him a deep understanding of religion.
Dr. Suhail Zakkar (1936–2020) was a highly respected and prolific Syrian historian and academic, widely considered a leading authority on medieval Arab history, particularly the Crusades and early Islamic history.
Early Life & Formative Years: Being born under the French Mandate and experiencing its economic hardships firsthand instilled in him a strong sense of Arab nationalism and a desire to understand the forces—historical and colonial—that shaped the modern Arab world. This personal context deeply influenced his academic pursuits.
Academic Credentials: After obtaining his bachelor’s and master’s degrees in Damascus, he earned a doctorate from the prestigious School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London. This gave him Western academic training which he combined with his deep knowledge of Arabic sources.
Magnum Opus: His life’s work, the “Comprehensive Encyclopedia in the History of the Crusades” (Al-Mawsuʻah al-shamilah fi tarikh al-hurub al-salibiyah), is a monumental 50-volume reference work. It is not a narrative history but a critical compilation and analysis of primary sources, making it an indispensable resource for scholars.
Legacy: He represented a school of serious, source-critical Arab historiography. He passed away in Damascus in March 2020.
Ibn Abbas (ra) and his empathy with the Khawarij?
Complete Withdrawal and Neutrality: Ibn Abbas did not just withdraw from his post; he withdrew entirely from the conflict. He did not return to Ali’s camp in Kufa, nor did he offer further political or military support during the escalating war with the so-called Khawarij. This neutrality in a conflict he had previously argued was a matter of truth versus error that could be interpreted by Dr. Zakkar as a fundamental shift in allegiance.
Interpretation of His Silence: From a historical analysis perspective, Dr. Zakkar could argue that Ibn Abbas’s silence and absence during the latter part of Ali’s caliphate and during the period of the so-called Khawarij’s peak activity is deafening. For a figure of his stature and previous unwavering support, this silence could be read as tacit approval or, at a minimum, a strong empathy for the Khawarij’s grievances against Ali.
In our school we know why this is. For those who are reading up on history, and they know that Ibn Abbas (ra) saw the soundness of the argument of the sahaba of Al Nahrawan.
What the good Dr. left out was the fact that Ali sent Ibn Abbas (ra) to the sahaba of Al Nahrawan to try and when them back after leaving Ali’s camp over the arbitration.
Ali knew that they had been correct from the beginning!
The companion Ibn Abbas (ra) debates the companions at Nahrawan.
Argument #1
“O you who believe! Kill not game while in the sacred precincts or in pilgrim garb. If any of you does so intentionally, the compensation is an offering, brought to the Ka’ba, of a domestic animal equivalent to the one he killed, AS ADJUDGED BY TWO JUST MEN AMONG YOU; or by way of atonement, the feeding of the indigent; or its equivalent in fasts: that he may taste of the penalty of his deed. Allah forgives what is past: for repetition, Allah will exact from him the penalty. For Allah is Exalted, and Lord of Retribution.”(Qur’an 5:95)
‘As adjudged by two just men among you’. Keep this in mind as well. This is a key part of the text.
The companions of the Blessed Prophet (saw) replied:
“Are you comparing the law relating to the killing of game animal on the sacred land or the law that is intended to resolve the misunderstandings that occur between a man and his wife, with the law that is intended to govern the matters of greater magnitude such as the act of shedding of Muslims’ blood?”
Source: (Al-Tabari, Al-Taarikh Vol. 6, p. 13.)
So, through qiyas (analogy), it is logical to reason that, in the above verse, during the pilgrimage, when someone kills a game animal, they are ordered to compensate for the following judgement by two just men than it stands to reason the shedding of Muslim blood has a better claim to be dealt with diplomatically.
In response to what Ibn Abbas (ra) had presented, the companions of the Blessed Prophet (saw) argued that there is a significant difference between the verses Ibn Abbas (ra) refereed to and the verse which is used to justify Ali’s war against Mu’awiya.
In the verses Ibn Abbas (ra) referred to, Allah did not mention any ruling, nor did he make any decision between contending parties. Instead, He assigned the task of arbitrating to men.
On this point, there is no issue with Ibn Abbas (ra) and his thought process here.
However, in the verse which gave Ali the right to fight the war against Mu’awiya, Allah (swt) Himself has mentioned step by step the measures that should be taken and decided on. What should be done at each step?
Thus, Allah (swt) lays down the ruling in this case. The verse states: “Moreover, if two factions among the believers should fight, then make settlement between the two. But if one of them oppresses the other, then fight against the one that oppresses until it returns to the ordinance of Allah. And if it returns, then make settlement between them in justice and act justly. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.” (Qur’an 49:9)
Also, another point concerning the text that Ibn Abbas brought forth.
‘As adjudged by two just men among you’
Naturally, people would ask, “Are you saying Amru bin Al-As is a man of justice when it was he who spilled our blood yesterday?” If you believe that he is just, then we (including you — Ibn Abbas and Ali) are not just because we all fought the war against Mu’awiya and Amru bin Al-As who are just!”
So, the unfilled questions put to Ibn Abbas (ra) were.
A) Were there two arbitrators or one?
B) Were they just or unjust?
To the Shi’i reading this (Zaydi and Imami), we implore you to tell us. Who are the just ones in the camp of Mu’awiya? Can one who takes up arms against Ali be considered just? If you say yes, then let that stand on the record.
To the Sunnis reading this, we implore you to tell us. The one who rebels against the recognized Imam who has not been proven to go against the Qur’an and Sunnah. Are they just or unjust?
Ibn Abbas (ra) was quoted by Ahmad Ibn A’tham as saying: “O, men! Amru bin Al’As was not an arbiter, why then oppose us because of him? He was but an arbiter representing Mu’awiya.” Source: (Ibn A’tham, Al Futuh Vol. 4, p. 94.)
Is it imaginable that Ibn Abbas (ra) wanted to substantiate his position with a verse which strongly opposed him?
Naturally, our brothers from among the ‘Ahl Sunnah’ or the ‘Shi’i’ are either not informed about this side of the story or simply the learned among them withhold information. Allah (swt) sees and knows all.
It has been narrated on the authority of Aba Sa’id al-Khudri that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “When oath of allegiance has been taken for two caliphs, kill the one for whom the oath was taken later.”
Argument #2 Let us look at the other verse that is said that Ibn Abbas (ra) brought as proof.
“If you fear a breach between couples, send an arbiter from his people and an arbiter from her people. If the couple desire to put things right, Allah will bring about a reconciliation between them. “Allah is All-Knowing, All-Aware” (Qur’an 4:35)
This verse orders us to reconcile between a man and his wife in case of misunderstanding or breach. But the steps that ought to be taken when resolving such domestic disputes have not been mentioned. The arbiters are generally required to do their best, in being fair and just, to reach a peaceful, acceptable resolution for the concerned parties.
When you compare the two mentioned verses you will notice that they are intended for different purposes.
In the verse which gave Ali the right to wage war against Mu’awiya, Allah (swt) delegated no one to rule and decide on the issue. But He rather ordered the believers to abide by what He had ruled.
On the other hand, what Ibn Abbas (ra) armed himself with, was the verse that Allah (swt) granted deciding on a role to two fair and just arbiters. That is a clear and a huge difference between the two verses. So, we can say with confidence that Ibn Abbas’s analogy of linking this verse with the conflict of war between Ali and Mu’awiya is debatable.
It does not seem suitable for a person of his stature and understanding. Now, as mentioned above, Ibn Abbas (ra), after hearing all of this, knew very well that the arguments produced by the companions of the Blessed Prophet (saw) that were in Nahrawan were airtight!
When Ibn Abbas (ra) was convinced by their arguments, he (Ibn Abbas) sheathed his sword. Meaning he did not assist Ali in his unprovoked attack upon the Muslims at Nahrawan. Remember, as the Dr. said, this same Ibn Abbas (ra) was with Ali at the battle of the Camel & Siffin.
So we are talking about the same Ibn Abbas (ra) who was with Ali opposite a field with Aisha (ra), Talha and Zubayr, and Ibn Abbas (ra) was with Ali opposite a field with Muaviya and Amr ibn al-As.
This same Ibn Abbas (ra) who said after his debate with the sahaba of Al Nahrawan the following:
“(The People of Nahrawan) have been on the Right Path“
Source: (Al-Shammakhi, Al-Siyar Vol. 1 p, 72,)
Another account says concerning Ibn Abbas (ra) and his debate with the sahaba of Al Nahrwan, that he (Ibn Abbas) “could not crush their proofs.”
Source: (Abu Qahtaan, Al-Siyar p. 107)
Another narration says he (Ibn Abbas) went back from this exchange with them: “Without being able to do anything.”
Source: (Al-Tabari, Al-Taarikh Vol 6, p 18, Al-Barrad Al-Jawaahir p. 122)
“He could not prove anything to them!“
Source: (Ibn Abi Shaibah, Al-Musannaf Vol. 15, p. 312)
“The Nahrawanees established their proofs to him(Ibn Abbas).”
Source: (Al-Ya’qubi, Al-Taarikh Vol. 2 p. 191)
First they (Diet-Shi’i) tried to throw Ikrima (ra) under the bus. So, when they did not turn over any leaves, some of them started to go after Ibn Abbas (ra).
Ibn Abbas (ra) begins to distance himself from Ali
Can’t keep the truth hidden from the Muslims for too long!
Look at what Ibn Abbas (ra) says here
“I swear by Allah, it is better for me that I meet Allah with all that are beneath the Earth, starting with its gold and silver, and all that its surface is full with than meeting Him with my hands having split the blood of this umma (Islamic Nation) so that I may attain a kingship or leadership.” -Ibn Abbas
Ouch!
Source: (Al-Baladhuri, Al Ansab Vol 2, p 398. Ibn Abd Rabbi, Al-‘Iqdu Al-Farid Vol. 4, p. 326. Al Futuh by Ibn A’atham Vol. 4, p.75)
“If my act of taking money was wrong, that could be easier to me than taking part in shedding the blood of a believer.” -Ibn Abbas.
Ouch Again!
Source: (Al-Qalhati, Al-Kashf Vol 2, p 251. IbnAbdiRabih, Al-Iqdu Al-Farid Vol. 4, p. 331.)
It is very clear from the aforementioned that Ibn Abbas (ra) had developed a disapproving attitude towards the war fought against the sahaba of Al Nahrawan. A complete change of heart from the previous conflicts.
It is clear that, in this war with the Nahrawanees, Ibn Abbas (ra) found fault with Ali and condemned him for his unjustifiably wrong act of fighting those fellow sahaba.
After he was sent to debate with them, Ibn Abbas (ra) realized they were upon the truth. He accepted that he (Ibn Abbas) was wrong and the sahaba of Al Nahrawan were right. Certainly there is a lesson to be learnt from this experience that the accurate criteria with which to draw a distinction between right and wrong is not a coin-flip, but rather the Qur’an and authentic Prophetic traditions. After all, Ali made his hasty decision in the heat of the moment (giving in to pro-arbitration forces) and possibly did not consider the full ramifications of his decision.
When those sahaba who left Ali’s camp answered Ibn Abbas (ra) and his objections clearly and decisively, there was nowhere to go but the truth.
Having been fully convinced by the position of the Nahrwanees and the evidence that they had for their succession from Ali’s leadership, Ibn Abbas also detached himself from Ali and set out for Mecca.
Source: (Al-Tabari, Al-Taarikh Vol 6, p. 20)
Even though one of the reasons why Ibn Abbas (ra) left Ali and set out to Mecca was from their differences in the bait al-mal (House of Treasury/House of Properties), from which Ibn Abbas (ra) took what he regarded to be his lawful portion of the money, their differences were compounded by the fact that they were on opposing sides of the issue of the Nahrwanees.
Recall the statement:
“If my act of taking money was wrong, that could be easier to me than taking part in shedding the blood of a believer,” — Ibn Abbas.
In this statement, Ibn Abbas (ra) is basically saying: If I disagree with you on the issue of bait al-mal, then I am strongly opposing you on the issue of the Companions at Nahrawan. This was about the point in time where Ibn Abbas (ra) detached himself from Ali’s leadership.
May Allah (swt) open the eyes of the truth seekers!
Dear readers, you have been provided the information. All you need to do is to plug in the pieces. You were told that Ibn Abbas (ra) went and debated the companions at Nahrawan and that he (Ibn Abbas) had won hands down. Notice how you are never told their reply or their responses?
Brought to you by the same people who have no problem with mocking their own Imams!
“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)
﷽
Praise be to Allah (swt) for the noble and truthful companion Ikrima (ra). He is the one who informed us that Ali Ibn Abu Talib had errors in his ijtihad. That a senior member of the Ahl Bayt Ibn Abbas (ra) corrected Ali Ibn Abu Talib.
Ikrima (ra) informs us that Ali had errors in his ijtihad that would go against the Qur’an & Sunnah. That he would get corrected by a senior member of the Ahl Bayt.
Narrated `Ikrima:
“Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to `Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event reached Ibn Abbas who said, “If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s Apostle forbade it, saying, ‘Do not punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire).’ I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Apostle, ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.’”
This noble and truthful companion, Ikrima (ra), also informed us that Ammar bin Yasir (ra) would be killed by the rebel group.
Ikrima (ra) informs us that Ammar bin Yasir (ra) would be killed by the rebel group.
Narrated `Ikrima:
“That Ibn Abbas told him and `Ali bin `Abdullah to go to Abu Sa`id and listen to some of his narrations; So they both went (and saw) Abu Sa`id and his brother irrigating a garden belonging to them. When he saw them, he came up to them and sat down with his legs drawn up and wrapped in his garment and said, “(During the construction of the mosque of the Prophet) we carried the adobe of the mosque, one brick at a time while `Ammar used to carry two at a time. The Prophet (saw) passed by `Ammar and removed the dust off his head and said, “May Allah be merciful to `Ammar. He will be killed by a rebellious aggressive group. `Ammar will invite them to (obey) Allah and they will invite him to the (Hell) fire.”
Such a problem is the above sahih hadith that the Hanbali Ibn Taymiyyah al Harrani tried to come up with all kinds of crafty ways of dealing with the impact of the statement from the Blessed Messenger (saw).
Some have said that it is not authentic, and others have interpreted it. People have had different statements about the tradition of ‘Ammaar; of them are those who have criticized it.” He goes on: “But the people who have knowledge of this tradition have had three different statements. One group of them regards it to be inauthentic because to them, it has been narrated through a weak chain of transmitters!”
The tradition itself despite being in Bukhari is actually daif.
It has a suitable interpretation.
The Imam of the Muslims, the People of The Truth and Steadfastness, Al-Imamu Al-Qannubi says: “We do not know whom Ibn Taymiyyah means by his claim “Some (have said that it is not authentic)….” There will come explanation that many have classified this tradition as authentic….”
Source: (Al-QannubiAl-Tufan Al-JarifVol. 3, section two, p. 625)
But this interpretation has been objected to by even Ibn Taymiyyah himself!
Source: (Ibn Taymiyyah Minhaju Al-Sunna Vol. 2, p. 210-211)
But – all of a sudden – we, finally, find Ibn Taymiyyah himself turning around to clearly state that the said tradition is authentic. “The tradition is proved, and it is authentic, being from the Prophet (saw).”
Source: (Ibn Taymiyyah Minhaju Al-Sunna Vol. 2, p. 211)
Yet, surprisingly, he has misinterpreted it by saying: “His killers were those who held weapons and killed him.” Which he means to say not Mu’awiya!!! He says again: “The word “killer”, if loosely or absolutely used, means the one that has killed: not the one that has issued the order (of killing).”
This bizarre philosophy of Ibn Taymiyyah indicates that if he were to live in the present age, he would – of course – agree with the claim that presidents are not responsible for the crime of the illegal, haphazard bloodshed committed by their armies in different Muslim and non-Muslim countries, but rather their troops are the ones responsible for that! Indeed, while Ibn Taymiyyah defends Mu’awiya in that way, we find that Mu’awiya himself proves him wrong, as he says: “Ali had two right hands (two strong assistants and supporters), one of which I cut on the day of Siffin, meaning ‘Ammaar bin Yasir; and the other I cut today, meaning Al-ashtar”
Source: (Al-Tabari Al-Taarikh Vol. 3, p. 133. Ibn Al-Athir Al-Kamil Vol. 2, p. 705.)
Check mate!
Not only this but here is a tradition that contradicts Ibn Taymiyyah’s bizarre idea. The tradition says:
Not only this, but here is a tradition that contradicts Ibn Taymiyyah’s bizarre idea. The tradition says:
“He who assists with a half-uttered word in the killing of a Muslim, will come on the day of judgment between his two eyes there has been written “He has despaired of the Mercy of Allah.”
Source: (Al-Rabi’u bin Habib Al-Jami’u Al-Sahih p. 368, tradition no. 960. Ibn Majah Al-Sunan p. 444, tradition no. 2620. )
How does it come, then, that Ibn Taymiyya excludes the one from whose order the killing is carried out from being responsible for it?!
Typically, many Sunnis have used these tactics to get around this hadith. Even some of the early proto-Umayyad-proto-Sunnis say that the ones who slew Ammar ibn Yasir were the ones who brought him to the battlefield, meaning Ali ibn Abu Talib himself!
However, pro-Alid groups have tried to cast aspersions on this narrator, Ikrima, as well!
You can’t have your cake and eat it too! You can’t use ‘Ikrima as evidence against Muaviya and then say his evidence is not good when it comes to Ibn Abbas (ra) disagreeing with Ali burning people alive.
For those of you interested in reading more, you are invited to read:
May Allah (swt) open the eyes and the hearts of this ummah! May Allah (swt) unite us upon the truth!
“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?
Prima Quran 