By Mujlisul Ulama


A person who, due to some illness, etc. continously remains in the state of impurity, being to remain in the state of taharah (purity) long enough unable to perform Salat, is called a Ma’zoor.

Once a person qualifies as a Ma’zoor, he/she has to perform Salat even in the state of impurity. Because of his/her helpless condition, he/she is excused from the normal state of purity. Ma’zoor means an ‘excused’ person.

When does one become a Ma’zoor?

One will become a Ma’zoor only if the state of impurity initially lasts for one complete duration of Salat. If throughout this time, blood or urine, etc., flowed or dripped continuously, not enabling one to make wudhu and perform the Fardh Salat with taharat (purity), then one will be known as a Ma’zoor and the Ahkam of the Ma’zoor will become applicable.

The time when the cause of continous impurity (e.g. wound from which blood flows, dripping of urine, etc.) developed, will not be taken into consideration in determining whether a person has become a Ma’zoor. The time will be reckoned from the Salat time immediately following the Salat in which the wound, etc. was sustained. Example:

During Zuhr time, one sustained an injury which caused bleeding. The bleeding was continuous. One shall now have to wait until the approach of the end of Zuhr time, i.e. until so much time remains that the Fara-idh of Wudhu and four raka’te Fardh Salat could be performed. When this much time remains before the ending of Zuhr time then make Wudhu even while the bleeding contihues and perform the four rakat of Fardh of Zuhr.

However, one has not yet become a Ma’zoor since one complete Salat duration has not passed.

Now if the bleeding continues for the full Asr time which follows immediately after the ending of the Zuhr time in which the bleeding commenced, one will be known as a Ma’zoor.

If during this Asr tifne (i.e. the Asr time in which the bleeding started) the bleeding stopped long enough to enable one to make Wudhu (i.e. only the Fara-idh of Wudhu) and the Fardh Salat,’ then one will not be a Ma’zoor.

If after having qualified as a Ma’zoor, the bleeding stopped for any length of time but not stopping completely for one Salat “time – and then resumes, one will still be regarded as a Ma’zoor, e.g. In the example given above, one became a Ma’zoor at the end of Asr time. During Maghrib time, the bleeding ceased for some tiime and then resumed. This cessation of bleeding will not be taken into consideration. One will still be a Ma’zoor.

After qualifying as a Ma’zoor, one will remain a Ma’zoor as long as the bleeding, etc. does not stop for one full Salat time.

Upon becoming a Ma’zoor, it is not necessary for the bleeding to be continuous in the succeeding Salat times. In the succeeding Salat times, it will suffice, if the bleeding was for just a moment for one to contihue as a Ma’zoor.


A Ma’zoor shall take wudhu for every Fardh Salat. When the time for performing Salat, Wudhu should be made. The wudhu of a Ma’zoor remains valid for the duration of the Salat tune. Example: During Asr time, a Ma’zoor made wudhu for performing Asr Salat. This wudhu will remain valid throughout the Asr duratibn. When Asr time expires, the wudhu will become null. All Nawaqidh-e-Wudhu (factors which break Wudhu) besides the factor responsible for making one a Ma’zoor, will nullify the Wudhu of a Ma’zoor. Example: A person became a Ma’zoor as a result of continuous bleeding from a particular wound. This person made wudhu for Salat, but before performing Salat, he/she bled from another wound or had to answer the call of nature. These other acts will now break the Ma’zoor’s wudhu although the bleeding from the particular wound will not. Wudhu made by a Ma’zoor will become null after sunrise. If the Ma’zoor wishes to perform any Salat after sunrise, wudhu will again have to be made. The Ma’zoor’s wudhu taken after sunrise will remain valid for Zuhr Salah: This wudhu taken after sunrise will end only with the expiry of Zuhr time. The Ma’zoor may perform any type of Salat With his/her wudhu, be it Fardh, Sunnat, Witr and Nafl.The Ma’zoor can touch the Quran Shareef with his/her Wudhu.


The following two rules will apply to the soiled body and garment of the Ma’zoor.

If the soiled garment – soiled by the bleeding, urine, etc – be washed, but will again become soiled before the Salat could be completed, then it is not obligatory to wash it. Salat could be performed with such soiled garment. If, however, the garment or body will not soil so quickly, and one will be able to perform and complete the Salat With  (pure) garments and body, then it will be Wajib to wash the soiled parts when the extent of the najasat (impurity) becomes more than the size of a dirham (dirham’s size is the area of the hollow in the palm of the hand.)


It is not permissible for a Ma’zoor to become the Imam of a jamat (congregation) if all or some of the Muqtadis (congregante) are not Ma’zoor.


“Imaan is Suspended Between Fear and Hope”

By Mujlisul Ulama

Once a visiting Buzrug was sitting in conversation with Hadhrat Hasan Basri (Rahmatullah alayh). From the window of the house they observed a crowd dragging a headless body. Seeing this, Hadhrat Hasan fell down unconscious. After some time when he regained consciousness, the Buzrug asked Hadhrat Basri to explain the episode. Hadhrat Hasan said:

“The slain man was a great, well-known Zaahid and Aabid. (he was known to be a Wali). One day when he left his home to go to the Musjid, his eyes fell on a Christian woman. His nafs overwhelmed him, and he fell madly in love with her. He passed many days in restlessness.

When lust overwhelmed him, he went to the woman and proposed marriage. She refused and said that she would marry him on condition that he embraces Christianity. His intellect was overwhelmed by lust. After a few days he accepted Christianity. He went to the home of the woman, announced his presence and that he had accepted Christianity as his religion.

The lady rebuking him said that she will not marry such a despicable man who had bartered away his everlasting salvation of the Hereafter for the miserable temporary pleasure of the world. She informed him that whilst he had become a Christian, she had adopted Islam, the path of everlasting salvation.

This man (the  former ‘wali’) was executed because of his irtidaad. (Islam’s punishment for a murtad is execution). The crowd was dragging his corpse to dump it. A murtad does not deserve a burial.

When the people asked the former Christian to explain her acceptance of Islam, she recited Surah Ikhlaas. Astonished, they asked how she had learnt this Surah. She said:

“One night in a dream, I saw myself being taken to Jahannam. I was smitten with terror. But before I was cast into the Fire, an Angel came, took me by the hand and assured me: ‘Have no fear. You have been substituted by this man.”, (i.e. the murtad). He will be cast into the Fire in your place while you will enter Jannat. I was then taken into Jannat. As I entered, I saw written on a wall the aayat: “Allah prevents (from Imaan) whomever He wills, and He establishes whomever He wills. By Him is the Grand Record (Ummul Kitaab).”

Then the angel taught me to recite Surah Ikhlaas. My eyes opened, and I had memorized Surah Ikhlaas.”

Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Imaan is suspended between fear and hope.” We supplicate to Allah Ta’ala to keep our Imaan intact until the very last moment when the Rooh takes leave from this earthly body. No one knows his ultimate fate. It is only on Allah’s Rahmat that we depend.

IMAAN – Between Hope and Fear

IMAAN IS A great and a wonderful treasure. It is the greatest Ni’mat bestowed by Allah Ta’ala to a person. There is nothing greater, nothing more valuable than the treasure of Imaan. o­nly Allah Ta’ala decides who qualifies for Imaan. The Qur’aan-e-Hakeem declares emphatically: “We have created you. And from among you are Mu’min and from among you are kaafir.” Why has Allah Ta’ala given the treasure of Imaan to o­nly certain of His creation and withheld it from others. This is a question which cannever ever be satisfactorily answered. It is an issue linked with Taqdeer which in turn pertains to the eternal attributes of Allah Ta’ala. To bestow Imaan and to withhold Imaan belong exclusively to His prerogative powers.

Sometimes Allah Ta’ala gives a lesson of Hidaayat and Humility to His devotees, the Auliyaa, through the medium of children and even animals. o­nce a dog said to Hadhrat Hasan Basri (rahmatullah alayh): “O Imaam of the Muslimeen! Why did Allah Ta’ala make you the Imaam of the Muslimeen and why did He make me an object of contempt to be despised and buffeted by everyone?” This statement of the dog set Hadhrat Hasan Basri (rahmatullah alayh) into a deep mood of contemplation. He realised that there was nothing in him – no excellence in him which qualified him for Imaan, and there was no defect in the dog which made contempt necessary for it. He realised that he was a Mu’min purely and o­nly because of the Favour and Kindness of Allah Ta’ala. No man, therefore, has any right to hold another being – man or animal – in contempt. When someone is afflicted with takabbur or pride, he should reflect: “I have no control over my Imaan. If Allah Ta’ala wills, He can snatch away my Imaan in a second.” In fact such calamities had befallen many great men who were overcome with pride. The best and the classical example of such a disaster is shaitaan who lost his Imaan o­n account of a moment’s pride. His thousands of years of ibaadat did not avail him. His rank as the instructor of the Malaa-ikah did not save his Imaan.

Hadhrat Sufyaan Thauri (rahmatullah alayh) had developed a hunched back in his young age. People would ask him for the reason. He always avoided them, o­ne day when they persisted, he said: “I had three Ustaadhs. o­ne died as a Christian, o­ne a Jew and o­ne a Majoosi (Fire-Worshipper). When I observed this, fear hunched my back.” Now what confidence and what pride can anyone have for any virtue or excellence which he may possess? Nothing is more virtuous, more excellent and more valuable than Imaan. When we are liable to loose it – to have it snatched away – then never can o­ne be at ease and negligent while o­ne is still living o­n earth. It is precisely for this reason that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Imaan is suspended between hope and fear.” No o­ne knows what tomorrow holds for him. In o­ne Hadith, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“When you rise in the morning and you find your Imaan intact; you have your health and sufficient food for that day, then consider yourself the king of the world.”

There will come a time, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said, that a man will rise in the morning a Mu’min, but by evening will become a kaafir. Another will sleep as a Mu’min and wake up a kaafir. May Allah Ta’ala protect our Imaan. The Qur’aan says:

“Only, the people of intelligence gain naseehat.”

Bid’ah of Salaat al-Ragha’ib

By Mujahid Aziz

Salaat al-Ragha’ib and Salaat al-Nisf Sha’ban were Nafl congregational prayers performed on a particular night. Both Salaat were unanimously labelled as bid’ah by the Fuqaha. It’s worth noting that these gatherings were completely free from the numerous other Haraam attachments which are inherently associated with the Mawlood of today.

Shaykh al-Izz ibn al-Salaam states several times in a work specifically dedicated to this issue, that the reason why Salaat al-Ragha’ib is prohibited is because the public would think that this Salaat in the manner it is performed has its origin in the Sunnah:

When a scholar performs this Salaat al-Ragha’ib in congregation with the public then the masses will think that it is the Sunnah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), hence he would be attributing a falsehood to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) by his example. Sometimes one’s practical example is similar to verbal expression.”

Reiterating this elsewhere, he says:

“Salaatal-Ragha’ib with its peculiarities conveys the impression to the public that it is a Sunnah from the Sunnahs of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), and this is the factual position.”

When his opponent argued that there are Ahaadith which confirm that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had led some of the Sahaabah in congregation for Nafl Salaat, he replied:

“As for the Hadith of Anas and ‘Itban ibn Malik (Radhiyallahu anhumaa), there is a difference between them and Salaat al-Ragha’ib because being led in Salaat al-Ragha’ib gives the impression to the public that it is a Sunnah and a symbol (salient feature) of the Deen whereas what is reported in the Hadith of Anas and ‘Itban (Radhiyallahu anhumaa) is a rare circumstance, hence the public does not believe that it is Sunnah, rather they believe that it is permissible.”

This shows that anything which is in essence permissible or mustahab, becomes a bid’ah if it is performed in such a way that gives the impression that it is a salient or emphasized act of ibaadat, i.e Sunnatul Muakkadah.

He further explains that the innovation of this salaat is further proven by the absence of its mention and description by the illustrious authorities of the Khairul Quroon in their kutub. Thus, he states:

“From the facts which prove that this Salaat is an innovation is that it has not been transmitted from any of the Ulama of the Sahaabah, Taabieen and Tab-e-Taabieen who are the Standards of the Deen and Imaams of the Muslims. This Salaat is neither recorded in any of their kutub, nor discussed in any of their gatherings. It is impossible that an important Sunnah practice would have remained hidden from these illustrious authorities who were the Standards of the Deen”.

Imam Nawawi (rahmatullah alayh), in his Sharh Muslim labelled this Nafl congregational Salaat as bid’ah while commenting on the following Hadith which proscribes specifying dates and time not prescribed in the Shar’iah. Such specification not found in the Sunnah would cause the masses to gain the erroneous impression that the specification itself is from the Sunnah:

“Do not single out the night (preceding) Friday from among the nights for Salaat; and do not single out Friday from among the days for fasting, but only when anyone among you is accustomed to a fast which coincide with this day (Friday).”

Imam Nawawi (rahmatullah alayhi) further states:

“The ‘ulama use this Hadith to prove aversion for the bid’ah salaat called Saalat al-Raghaib. May Allah destroy the fabricator and creator of this bid’ah salaat. This is because it is a reprehensible innovation from the innovations of divergence (i.e.from the Straight Path) and ignorance.” [Sharh Sahih Muslim]

In his authoritative work, “Reliance of the Traveller”, containing the soundest positions of the Shafi’i madh-hab, Shaykh Ahmad ibn an-Naqib al-Misri (d.769) states regarding Salaat al-Raghaib and other acts of ibadah not found in their exact form in the Sunnah, that all of them are despicable acts of innovation (kullu dhaalika bid’atun Qabeehatun):

“It is an offensive, blameworthy innovation to perform any of the following spurious prayers:

(1) twelve rak’ats between the sunset prayer (maghrib) and nightfall prayer (‘isha) on the first Thursday night of the month of Rajab;

(2) one hundred rak’ats in the middle of the month of Sha’ban;

(3) Two rak’ats after each of three times of reciting Ya Sin (Qur’aan 36) on the night of mid-Sha’ban;

(4) or the so-called prayer of ‘Ashura’ on 10 Muharram.”

Ibn ‘Ābidīn al-Shāmī states that the reason for the reprehensibility of this Nafl congregational prayer is due to the specification not found in the Sunnah, even though Salaat is the most virtuous of deeds:

“This is why they forbade gathering for Salāt al-Raghā’ib which some worshippers invented because it has not been transmitted in this form in those specific nights, even though Salāh is the best institution.” [ibid.]

The Falsity of the “Hanafi-Shafi’i Disputes” mentioned in Mu’jam al-Buldan

The lâ-madhhabî people like Rashîd Ridâ and Zubair Ali Zai, in order to attack the four Madhhabs of Ahl as-Sunnah, choose a tricky way. For doing this, first they write about the assaults of the seventy-two groups [for whom the Hadîth says will go to Hell] against the Ahl as-Sunnah, and about the bloody events which they caused, and then they basely lie by adding that the four madhhabs of Ahl as-Sunnah fought one another. The fact, however, is that not a single fight has ever taken place between the Shâfi’îs and the Hanafîs at any place at any time. How could they ever fight despite the fact that both belong to the Ahl as-Sunnah! They hold the same belief. They have always loved one another and lived brotherly. Let us see if the lâ-madhhabî people, who say that those people fought, can give us an example after all! They cannot. They write, as examples, the jihads which the four madhhabs of Ahl as-Sunna co-operatively made against the lâ-madhhabî. They try to deceive Muslims with such lies. Because the name “Shâfi’î” of the Ahl as-Sunnah and the word “Shî’a” sound alike, they narrate the combats between the Hanafîs and the lâ-madhhabî as if they had taken place between the Hanafîs and the Shâfi’îs. In order to blemish the Muslims who follow the Madhhabs, those who reject the four Madhhabs slander them by misinterpreting some special terms. For example, referring to the dictionary  Al-munjid written by Christian priests, they define the word ‘ta’assub’ as ‘holding a view under the influence of non-scientific, non-religious and irrational reasons’, in order to give the impression that the teachings of Madhhabs as ta’assub, and say that ta’assub, has caused conflicts between Madhhabs. However, according to the scholars of Islam, ‘ta’assub’  means ‘enmity that cannot be justified.’ Then, attaching oneself to a Madhhab or defending that this Madhhab is based on the Sunnah and on the sunnahs of al-Khulafâ’ ar-râshidîn (radiy-Allâhu ’anhum) is never ta’assub. Speaking ill of another Madhhab is ta’assub, and the followers of the four madhhabs have never done such ta’assub. There has been no ta’assub amongst the madhhabs throughout Islamic history.

The lâ-madhhabî, who are the followers of one of the seventy-two heretical groups, endeavoured much to sidetrack the Umayyad and Abbasid caliphs from the Ahl as-Sunnah. Those who achieved it caused bloody events. It is a base slander against the scholars of Islam to accuse them of ta’assub because they, to prevent the harm of the lâ-madhhabî, counselled these caliphs and invited them to follow one of the four Madhhabs of Ahl as-Sunnah. A newly developed method for attacking the four madhhabs is: first pick up a smattering of Arabic, then scan a few history books in a haphazard manner and with a narrow-minded personal sentiment, then evaluate the various past events fortuitously encountered, and finally piece them together as the evidences for the harms of ta’assub, which you somehow attribute to the Sunni Muslims. To find justification, some of those who are against the madhhabs say that they are against not the madhhabs but the ta’assub in madhhabs. However, by misinterpreting ‘ta’assub,’ they attack the fiqh scholars defending their madhhabs and claim that these scholars caused the bloody events in the Islamic history. Thereby they try to alienate the younger generations from the Madhhabs.

As it is written in Qâmûs al-a’lâm,  Amîd al-Mulk Muhammad al-Kundurî, the vizier of Seljuqî Sultan Tughrul Beg, issued a rescript stating that the lâ-madhhabî should be cursed at mimbars and, therefore, most of the ’ulamâ’ in Khurasan emigrated to other places during the time of Alb Arslân. Lâ-madhhabî people like Ibn Taymiyya distorted this event as “The Hanafîs, and the Shâfi’îs fought each other, and the Ash’arîs were cursed at mimbars.” They spread these lies and their own false translations from as-Suyûtî’s books among young people to deceive them and to destroy the four Ahl as-Sunna Madhhabs and to replace it with lâ-Madhhabism.

The following story is one of those related to ta’assub as it is unjustly attributed to the madhhabs and is claimed to have caused fights between brothers in Muslim history: Yâqût al-Hamawî visited Rayy in 617 A.H. and, seeing that the city was in ruins, asked the people whom he met how it happened; he was told that there had arisen ta’assub between the Hanafîs and the Shâfi’îs, that they had fought, and that the Shâfi’îs had won and the city had been ruined. This story is referred to in Yâqût’s book Mu’jam al-Buldan. However, Yâqût was not a historian. As he was a Byzantine boy, he was captured and sold to a merchant in Baghdad. He travelled through many cities to do the business of his boss, after whose death he began selling books. Mu’jam al-Buldan is his geographical dictionary in which he wrote what he had seen and heard wherever he had been. He profited much from this book. Rayy is 5 km south of Tehran and is in ruins now. This city was conquered by Urwah ibn Zaid at-Tâ’î with the command of Hadhrat ’Umar (radiyallâhu ’anhu) in 20 A.H. It was improved during the time of Abû Ja’far Mansûr, and it became a home of great scholars and a centre of civilization. In 616 A.H., the non-Muslim Mongol ruler Chenghiz, too, destroyed this Muslim city and martyred its male inhabitants and captured the women and children. The ruins seen by Yâqût had been caused by the Mongol army a year before. The lâ-madhhabî asked by Yâqût imputed this destruction to the Sunnîs, and Yâqût believed them. This shows that he was not a historian but an ignorant tourist. The lâ-madhhabî, when they cannot find a rational or historical support to blemish the followers of Madhhabs and the honourable fiqh scholars, make their attacks with the writings and words based on Persian tales. Such tales do not harm the superiority and excellence of the scholars of Ahl as-sunnah; on the contrary, they display the lâ-madhhabî men of religious post are not authorities of Islam but ignorant heretics who are enemies of Islam. It is understood that they have been endeavouring to deceive Muslims and thus to demolish the four Madhhabs from the inside by pretending to be men of religious post. To demolish the four Madhhabs means to demolish Ahl as-Sunnah, for Ahl as-Sunnah is composed of the four Madhhabs with regard to practices (a’mâl, fiqh). There is no Ahl as-Sunnah outside these four Madhhabs. And to demolish Ahl as-Sunnah means to demolish the right religion, Islam, which Hadhrat Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) brought from Allâh Ta’âlâ, for, the Ahl as-Sunnah are those Muslims who walk on the path of as-Sahâbah al-kirâm (radiyAllâhu ’anhum). The path of as-Sahâba al-kirâm is the path of Hadrat Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), who, in the hadîth, “My Companions are like the stars in the sky. If you follow any one of them you will find the right way,” orders us to follow as-Sahâbah al-kirâm.

Taqlîd (following, adapting oneself to) is done in two respects. First is the following in respect of belief (’itiqâd, îmân). Second is the following in respect of actions to be done (a’mâl). To follow as-Sahâbah al-kirâm means to follow them in respect of the facts to be believed. In other words, it is to believe as they did. Those Muslims who believe as as-Sahâbah al-kirâm did are called Ahl as-Sunnah. In respect of practices, that is, in each of those actions that are to be done or avoided, it is not necessary to follow all as-Sahâbah al-kirâm since it is impossible. It cannot be known how as-Sahâbah al-kirâm did every action. Moreover, many matters did not exist in their time and appeared afterwards. The father of Ahl as-Sunnah was Hadrat al-Imâm al-a’zam Abû Hanîfah (rahmatullâhi ’alaih). All the four Madhhabs have believed what he had explained and what he had learned from as-Sahâbah al-kirâm. Al-Imâm al-a’zam was a contemporary of some Sahâbîs. He learned much from them. And he learned further through his other teachers. That al-Imâm ash-Shâfi’î and Imâm Mâlik had different comments on a few matters concerning belief does not mean that they disagreed with al-Imâm al-a’zam. It was because each of them expressed what they themselves understood from al-Imâm al-a’zam’s word. The essence of their words is the same. Their ways of explaning are different. We believe and love all the four A’immat al-Madhâhib.

A snide trick which the lâ-madhhabî people often have resort to is to write about the badness of the difference in those subjects concerning belief and try to smear this badness on to the difference among the four Madhhabs. It is very bad to be broken into groups concerning îmân. He who dissents from Ahl as-Sunnah in îmân becomes either a kâfir (disbeliever) or a heretic (a man of  bid’a in belief). It is stated in the hadîths of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) that both kinds of people will go to Hell. A kâfir will remain in Hell eternally while a heretic will later go to Paradise.

Some of those who have dissented from the Ahl as-Sunnah have become disbelievers, but they pass themselves off as Muslims. They are of two kinds. Those of the first kind have depended upon their mind and points of view in interpreting the Qur’ân al-karîm and the Hadîth ash-Sharîf so much so that their errors have driven them to kufr (disbelief). They think of themselves as followers of the right path and believe that they are true Muslims. They cannot understand that their îmân has gone away. They are called  “mulhids.” Those of the second kind have already disbelieved Islam and are hostile to Islam. In order to demolish Islam from within by deceiving Muslims, they pretend to be Muslims. In order to mix their lies and slanders with the religion, they give wrong, corrupt meanings to âyats, hadîths and scientific teachings. These insidious unbelievers are called “zindîqs.” The freemasons occupying religious posts in Egypt and the so-called Socialist Muslims, who have appeared recently, are zindîqs. They are also called “bigots of science” or “religion reformers.”

The Qur’ân al-karîm and the Hadîth ash-sharîf declare that it is bad to be broken into groups in respect of îmân and prohibit this faction strictly. They command Muslims to be united in one single îmân. The faction prohibited in the Qur’ân al-karîm and the Hadîth ash-sharîf is the faction in respect of îmân. As a matter of fact, all prophets (’alaihimus-salâm) taught the same îmân. From Âdam (’alaihis-salâm), the first prophet, to the last man, the îmân of all Believers is the same. Zindîqs and mulhids say that those âyats and hadîths which condemn and prohibit breaking in îmân refer to the four Madhhabs of Ahl as-Sunna. However, the Qur’ân al-kerîm commands the differentiation of the four Madhhabs. The Hadîth ash-sharîf states that this difference is Allâhu Ta’âlâ’s compassion upon Muslims.

It is an utterly loathsome, very base lie and slander to twist the Mongolian invasion of the Muslim countries and the destruction of and bloodshed in Baghdad into the “Hanafî-Shâfi’î disputes,” which never took place in the past and which will never take place in future. These two madhhabs have the same îmân and love each other. They believe that they are brothers and know the insignificant difference between them concerning a’mâl (acts) or ’ibâdât (practices) is Allâh Ta’âlâ’s compassion. They believe that this difference is a facility. If a Muslim belonging to a Madhhab encounters a difficulty in doing an act in his Madhhab, he does it in accordance with one of the other three Madhhabs and thus avoids the quandary. Books of the four Madhhabs unanimously recommend this facility and note some occasions. Scholars of the four Madhhabs explained and wrote the evidences and documents of their own Madhhabs not in order to attack or –Allah forfend– to slander one another, but with a view to defending the Ahl as-Sunnah against the lâ-madhhabî people and preserve the confidence of their followers. They wrote so and said that one could follow another madhhab when in difficulty. The lâ-madhhabî, that is, the mulhids and zindîqs, finding no other grounds fhor attacking the Ahl as-Sunna, have been meddling with and misinterpreting these writngs which are right and correct.

As for the Tatars’ and Mongols’ invading Muslim countries, history books write its causes clearly. For example, Ahmad Jawdad Pasha wrote:

“Musta’sim, the last ’Abbâsid Caliph, was a very pious Sunnî. But his vizier, Ibn Alqamî was lâ-madhhabî and disloyal to him. The administration of the State was in his hands. His sheer ideal was to overthrow the ’Abbâsid state and establish another state. He wished for Baghdad to be captured by the Mongol ruler Hulago, and he himself become his vizier. He provoked him into coming to Iraq. Writing a harsh reply to a letter from Hulago, he incited him. Nasîr ad-dîn Tusî, another lâ-madhhabî heretic, was Hulago’s counsellor. He, too, incited him to capture Baghdad. The intrigues were played in the hands of these two heretics. Hulago was made to advance towards Baghdad. The Caliph’s army of about twenty thousand could not stand against the arrows of two hundred thousand Tatars. Hulago assaulted Baghdad with naphtha fires and catapult stones. After a fifty-day siege, Ibn Alqamî, under the pretext of making peace, went to Hulago and made an agreement with him. Then, coming back to the Caliph he said that if they surrendered they would be set free. The Caliph believed him and surrendered to Hulago on the twentieth of Muharram in 656 A.H. (1258). He was executed together with those who were with him. More than four hundred thousand Muslims were put to the sword. Millions of Islamic books were thrown into the Tigris. The lovely city turned into a ruin. The Khirkat as-Sa’âda  (the mantle of the Prophet) and the  ’Asâ an-Nabawî  (the short stick the Prophet usually had with him) were burned and the ashes were thrown into the Tigris. The five-hundred-and-twenty-four-year-old ’Abbâsid State was annihilated. Ibn Alqamî was not given any position and died in abasement the same year. That year, ’Uthmân Ghâzî, founder of the Ottoman Empire, was born in the town of Söghüt.”As it is seen, the Mongols’ ruining the Muslim countries was caused by a lâ-madhhabî’s treachery against Ahl as-Sunnah. There has been no dispute between the Hanafîs and the Shâfi’îs; Muslims belonging to the four Madhhabs have loved one another as brothers.

The Question of Raf-ul-Yadain (Raising the Hands in Salaah) – THE HANAFI VIEW

By Mujlisul Ulama


In recent times there has sprung up a sect which has styled itself with the misleading title Salafis . The salient feature of the members of this sect is their venom for Taqleed or the Islamic concept of following the illustrious Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen. While they in general denounce all the Math-habs, they entertain a special aversion for Hadhrat Imaam A’zam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayhi).

The main item of the Salafi propaganda is to disseminate the idea that a great part of the Hanafi teaching is the product of Imaam Abu Hanifah’s opinion. They baselessly and maliciously claim that there is neither Qur’aanic nor Hadith evidence for many of the teachings of the Hanafi Math-hab. In fact, they perpetrate the slander of falsely claiming that many of Imaam Abu Hanifah’s teachings are in open conflict with the Ahaadith of Rasulullah (salallahu alayhi wassallam). One such false accusation pertains to the practice of Rafa’ Yadain .

Rafa’ Yadain in the context of this treatise is the practice of raising both hands before and after ruku’ during Salaat. The modernist misguided and ignorant Salafis content that the Hanafi Math-hab has no narrational evidence for this practice which according to them is purely the product of Imaam Abu Hanifah’s opinion. They seek to bamboozle ignorant and unwary people by summarily dismissing as weak and fabricated the Ahaadith which the Hanafis present as the basis of their view. The aim of this treatise is only to expose the falsity of the Salafi charge.

The purpose of this treatise is not to refute the Shaafi practice of  Rafa’ Yadain. The Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah comprises the four Math-hab – Hanafi, Shaafi, Maaliki, and Hambali. All four are on the Haqq (Truth) nothwithstanding differences. This treatise is not an attempt to show that the Shaafi practice of Rafa’ Yadain is baseless. Far from it. Both Math-habs – in fact all four Math-habs – have their respective Qur’aanic and Hadith proofs for their teachings. Thus, the attempt is not to wean followers of the other Mathaa-hib form their Math-habs. The aim is not to convince Shaafis or Hambalis to renounce their practices of Rafa’ Yadain. Our purpose is merely to expose the falsity of the Salafis and to debunk their baseless charge against the Hanafi Math-hab.

Rasulullah (salallahu alayhi wassallam) has warned that the Ummah will be split into 73 sects, of which 72 will be assigned to Jahannum. Only one sect – the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah, viz., the followers of the four Math-habs is today’s context will be the Naaji (saved) group. These modernist Salafis who are anti-Math-hab, are within the fold of the 72 doomed sects. The common factor of all the 72 doomed sects is their aversion for the Salf-e-Saaliheen – the Pious Predecessors who lived in the first three initial epochs of Islam known as Quroon-e-Thalaathah. The Imaam of the Math-habs are of this glorious age.

Insha’Allah, we shall from time to time publish booklets and articles to expose the deviation of the modernist Salafi group and to prove that all teachings of the Hanafi Math-hab are the products of the Qur’aan and Sunnah.


Although the Hanafi Math-hab has also rational evidence for its view regarding Rafa’ Yadain, this booklet discusses only the Naqli (narrational) evidence on which is based the Hanafi practice of abstention from Rafa’ Yadain. The primary basis of all acts of Ibaadat is narrational evidence, not rational proofs. Rational proof is simply adduced as additional substantiation to strengthen an argument. 

AHAADITH OF SAYYIDINA RASULULLAH (Sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa Sallam)

Proof 1

Uthmaan Bin Abi Shaibah – Wakee’ – Sufyaan – Aasim (Ibn Kulaib) – Abdur Rahmaan Bin Aswad – Alqamah said: 

Abdullah Bin Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu) said:

“Should I not perform with you the Salaat of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam)?”

Alqamah said: “Then he (Ibn Mas’ood) performed Salaat and he did not raise his hands except once.’  [Abu Dawood] 

Proof 2

Hasan Bin Ali – Muaawiyah – Khaalid Bin Amr Bin Saeed – Abu Huzaifah. They said Sufyaan narrated to us with this same isnaad (as mentioned in No. I above). He said: 

“He (Ibn Mas’ood) raised his hands in the beginning once.” Some narrators said: ‘one time’.  [Abu Dawood]

Proof 3

Hamaad – Wakee’ – Sufyaan – Aasim bin Kulaib -Abdur Rahmaan bin Al Aswad – Alqamah who said: “Abdullah Bin Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu) said:

‘Should I not perform with you the Salaat of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam)?’

He (Ibn Mas’ood) then performed Salaat and he did not raise his hands except in the beginning once.’

Tirmithi added also that in this regard there is also the narration of Baraa’ Bin Aazib (radhiyallahu anhu): Tirmithi said:

“The Hadith of Ibn Mas’ood is Hasan. 

*This is also the view of many of the Ulama among the Sahaabah of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) and the Taabieen. This is also the view of Sufyaan and the Ahl-e-Kufa (i.e. the Ulama of Kufa).’

* i.e. The view of Ibn Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu). 

Proof 4

Mahmud Bin Ghailaan al-Marwazi – Wakee’ – Sufyaan – Aasim Bin Kulaib – Abdur Rahmaan Bin al-Aswad – Alqamah – Abdullah (Bin Mas’ood): Verily he said:

‘Should I not perform with you the Salaat of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam)?’

He then performed Salaat and he did not raise his hands except once.  [Nasaai] 

Proof 5

Wakee’ – Sufyaan – Aasim Bin Kulaib – Abdur Rahmaan Bin al-Aswad Alqamah said: 

‘Ibn Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu) said:

‘Should I not perform for you the Salaat of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam)?’

He then performed Salaat and he did not raise his hands except once.  [Ahmad in his Musnad] 

Proof 6

Suwaid Bin Nasr – Abdullah Bin al-Mubaarak – Sufyaan – Aasim Bin Kulaib – Abdur Rahmaan Bin al-Aswad – Alqamah – Abdullah (Bin Mas’ood radhiyallahu anhu) said:

“Should I not apprise you of the Salaat of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam)?”

Alqamah said: “He (Ibn Mas’ood) then stood up and firstly raised his hands. Thereafter he never repeated it.” [Nasaai] 

Proof 7

Wakee’ – Sufyaan – Aasim Bin Kulaib – Abdur Rahmaan Bin al-Aswad Alqamah – Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu) said:

“Should I not show you the Salaat of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam)?”

“He then (performed Salaat) and did not raise his hands except once.”  [Abu Bakr Bin Abi Shaibah in his Musannaf] 

Proof 8

Abu Uthmaan Saeed Bin Muhammad Bin Ahmad al-Hannaat and Abdul Wahhaab Bin Isaa Bin Abi Hayyah- (both from) – Ishaaq Bin Abi Israaeel Muhammad Bin Jaabir – Hammaad – Ibraaheem – Alqamah – Abdullah (Ibn Mas’ood – radhiyallahu anhu) said:

“I performed Salaat with Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam), with Abu Bakr and Umar (radhiyallahu anhuma). They did not raise their hands except at the time of the first Takbeer in the opening of the Salaat.” [Daara Qutni]

Ibn Adi has also narrated the above Hadith with his sanad. 

Proof 9

Ibn Abi Dawood – Nu’aim Bin Hammaad – Wakee’ – Sufyaan – Aasim Bin Kulaib – Abdur Rahmaan Bin al-Aswad – Alqamah – Abdullah (Ibn Mas’ood – radtfiyallahu anhu) narrated that Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) would raise his hands in the first Takbeer. Then he would not do so again. [Tahaawi – Sharhi Ma-aanil Aathaar] 

Proof 10

Muhammad Bin Nu’maan – Yahya Bin Yahya – Wakee’ – Sufyaan narrated the same text (as above in No. 9) with the same isnaad. 
[Tahaawi – Sharhi Ma-aanil Aathaar] 

Proof 11

Abu Bakrah – Muammal – Sufyaan narrating from Mugheerah said:

“I narrated the Hadith of Waa-il to Ibraaheem, that he (Waa-il) saw Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) raise his hands when he commenced Salaat, when he made ruku’ and when he lifted his head from ruku’.’ 

Ibraaheem said: “If it is so that Waa-il saw him doing so once, then (remember that) Abdullah (Ibn Mas’ood) saw him (Rasulullah – Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) fifty times not doing this.” [Tahaawi – Sharhi Ma-aanil Aathaar] 

Proof 12

Ahmad Bin Abi Dawood – Musaddid – Khaalid Bin Abdullah – Husain Amr Bin Murrah who said:

“I entered the Musjid of Hadhramaut and saw Alqamah Bin Waa-il narrating from his father that Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) would raise his hands before ruku’ and after ruku’. I narrated this to Ibraaheem who became angry and said: “Waa-il (radhiyallahu anhu) saw him. Ibn Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu) and his companions did not see him (Rasulullah – doing so)” [Tahaawi – Ma-aanil Aathaar] 

Proof 13

The companions of Abu Hanifah said:

“Abu Hanifah said that Haremmad narrated from lbraaheem who narrated from Alqamah and AI-Aswad from Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu): “Verily Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) would not raise his hands except at the time of commencing Salaat, then he did not at all repeat it.” [The As-haab of the Masaaneed of Imaam Abu Hanifah]

Many other Muhadditheen have similarly narrated in their treatises, compilations and books.

Some of the asaaneed (chains of narration) of the Hadith of lbn Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu) are jayyid (excellent) in terms of the conditions laid down by Imaam Bukhaari and Imaam Muslim.

Some of these asaaneed are Hasan. It is valid to cite a Hasan Hadith as proof. On the basis of some of the asaaneed of the Hadith of lbn Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu), Hafiz Ibn Hazm, Daara Qutni, Ibnul Qattaan and others have declared the Hadith (of Ibn Mas’ood) to be Saheeh (authentic). Hafiz Ibn Hajr concurs with this verdict in his Talkhees on the Takhreej of Zaila-ee on Hidaayah.

In a Saheeh Sanad of this Hadith in the Musnad of Abu Bakr Bin Abi Shaibah are five narrators besides Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu), viz. Wakee’, Sufyaan, Aasim Bin Kulaib, Abdur Rahmaan Bin al-Aswad and Alqamah. The following are the comments of the authorities of Hadith on the status of these five narrators:

1) Wakee’   

Hafiz Ibn Hair says in Tahzeebut Tahzeeb: “Wakee’ Bin al-Jarraah Bin Maleeh, is the Kufi narrator. He is known as Abu Sufyaan. He narrated from his father and from Ismaaeel Bin Khaalid, Aiman Bin: Waa-il, Ibn Hattan and from numerous others. His sons, Sufyaan, Malee’ and Uyainah narrated from him. His Shaikh was Sufyaan Thauri, the two sons of Abi Shaibah, Abu Haithamah and Humaidi.” 

Abdullah Bin Ahmad Bin Hambal narrating from his father said: “I have not seen a greater man of knowledge and a man with a greater memory than Wakee’.”

Ahmad Bin Sahl Bin Bahr narrating from Imaam Ahmad said: 

“Wakee’ was the Imaam of the Muslimeen in his time.”

Ibn Ma’een said: “I have not seen a better person than Wakee’.”

According to Mulla Ali Qaari, Wakee’ was among the highest ranking narrators of Bukhaari. He was of the Tab-e-Taabieen era. Imaam Abroad said that he preferred Wakee’ to Yahya Bin Saeed. He classified Wakee’ as a great and uprighteous Muhaddith. All the narrators of the Sihaah Sittah narrate from Wakee’.

2) Sufyaan Bin Saeed Bin Masrooq Thauri Kufi 

According to Mulla Ali Qaari in his Tazkirah, Sufyaan was the Imaam of the Muslimeen and a Proof of Allah. His excellences are innumerable. In his time he was an expert in Fiqh, Ijtihaad in Fiqh, Hadith and other branches of knowledge. His piety and authority are accepted by all the authorities of Islam. He too was among the Tab-e-Taabieen.

Abu Aasim said: “Sufyaan is the Ameerul Mu’mineen in Hadith.’ Numerous illustrious Ulama and Muhadditheen pay glowing tribute to the sterling qualities of Sufyaan.”

All the narrators of the Sihaah Sittah narrate from Sufyaan.

3) Aasim Bin Kulaib   

Mulla Ali Qaari states with regard to Aasim: 

“He is Sadooq (extremely truthful), Thiqah (an authoritative and authentic narrator).”

Yahya Bin Ma-een and Nasaai testified to his authenticity and authority in Hadith. Ibnul Qattaan al-Maghribi and Ibn Ham are renowned in Hadith circles. They are extremely severe in assessing narrators. Both have testified to the authenticity of Aasim BinKulaib. Muslim, Abu Dawood, Nasaai, Ibn Majah and Tirmithi narrated his ahaadith.

4) Abdur Rahmaan Bin al-Aswad 

Mullah Ali El-Qaari says in his Tazkirah that Abdur Rahmaan is among the noblest Taa-bieen. His daily practice was 700 raka’ts Nafil Salaat. He would perform Ishaa and Fajr Salaat with one wudhu. He was an embodiment of Ibaadat. 

In Tahzeebut Tahzeeb , Hafiz says:

“Abdur Rahmaan Bin al-Aswad heard Ahaadith from his paternal uncle, Alqamah Bin Qais. Aasim Bin Kulaib and others narrate from Abdur Rahmaan al-Aswad. Ibn Ma’een, Nasaai, Ajal, Ibn Kharraash and Ibn Hibbaan declared him a Thiqah (reliable and authentic narrator). The authors of Sihah Sittah narrated from him.”

5) Alqamah Bin Qais 

According to Mulla Ali Qaari in Tazkirah, Alqamah was a senior Taabiee. He narrated Ahaadith from Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood and other Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhum). There is consensus of the Ulama on his greatness. Ibraaheem Nakha’i said: 

“Alqamah resembled Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu).”

Besides Ibn Majah all the other Muhadditheen narrate his ahaadith. He is of the second generation Muhadditheen. 

The integrity and authority of these five illustrious narrators are unimpeachable. Thus, the sanad of the Hadith in Musnad ofAbu Bakr Bin Abi Shaibah is Saheeh on the basis of the conditions of Bukhaari and Muslim. Similarly, the Sanad of Abu Dawood is Saheeh on the basis of the conditions of Bukhaari and Muslim. In the Sanad of Abu Dawood appears an extra narrator, viz. Uthmaan Bin Abi Shaibah from whom all the compilers of Sihah Sittah narrate, besides Tirmithi.

The Sanad of the Hadith of Tirmithi is Saheeh on the basis of Muslim’s conditions.

The sanad of Nasaai too is Saheeh in terms of the conditions of Bukhaari and Muslim because in this Sanad only Mahmud Bin Ghailaan has been added to Ibn Abi Shaibah. Besides Abu Dawood the other compilers of the Sihah Sittah narrated ahaadith from him (Mahmud Bin Ghailaan).

Similarly the sanad of Imaam Abu Hanifah regarding the Hadith of Ibn Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu) is Saheeh because all the narrators besides Hammaad Bin Abi Sulaimaan are reliable (thiqah) in terms of the conditions of Bukhaari and Muslim. Besides Bukhaari, Muslim and other Muhadditheen narrate from Hammaad Bin Abi Sulaimaan. Thus, his sanad is Saheeh in terms of Muslim.

The Hadith of Baraa’ Bin Aazib (radhiyallahu anhu) also conin’ms that Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) raised his hands only once at the time of Takbeer Tahreemah. His Hadith is narrated by Abdur Razzaaq, Ahmad, Abu Dawood, Ibn Abi Shaibah, Tahaawi, Daara Qutni and others. 


Proof 14

Abdur Razzaaq – Ibn Uyainah- Yazeed – Abdur Rahmaan Bin Abi Lailaa Baraa’ Bin Aazib (radhiyallahu anhu) said:

“When Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) recited Takbeer, he would raise his hands until we could see his thumbs near to his ears. Thereafter he would not repeat it in that Salaat.” [Abdur Razzaq’s Jaami’] 

Proof 15

Imaam Ahmad – Hushaim – Yazeed Bin Abi Ziyaad – Abdur Rahmaan Bin Abi Lailaa – Baraa’ Bin Aazib (radhiyallahu anhu) said:

“When Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) recited Takbeer, he would raise his hands until we could see his thumbs near to his ears. Then he would not repeat (Rafa’ Yadain) in that Salaat.”  [Musnad Ahmad ibn Hambal] 

Proof 16

Abu Dawood – Muhammad Bin Sabaah al-Bazzaar – Shareek – Yazid Bin Abi Ziyaad – Abdur Rahmaan Bin Abi Lailaa – Baraa’ (radhiyallahu anhu) said:

“Verily, Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) would raise his hands near to his ears when he opened (i.e. began) the Salaat, then he would not repeat (it).”  [Abu Dawood] 

Proof 17

Abu Dawood – Husain Bin Abdur Rahmaan – Wakee’ – Ibn Abi Lailaa – his brother Isaa – Hakam – Abdur Rahmaan Bin Abi Lailaa – Baraa’ Bin Aazib (radhiyallahu anhu) said:

“I saw Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) raise his hands when he commenced the Salaat. Then he would not raise his hands until he completed (the Salaat).” [Abu Dawood] 

Proof 18

Abu Bakr Bin Abi Shaibah – Wakee’ – Ibn Abi Lailaa – Hakam and Isaa – Abdur Rahmaan Bin Abi Lailaa – Baraa’ Bin Aazib (radhiyallahu anhu) said: 

“Verily, when Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) commenced the Salaat, he would raise his hands, then he would not raise them (again) until he had completed (the Salaat).” 
[Abu Bakr Bin Abi Shaibah] 

Proof 19

Tahaawi – Abu Bakrah – Muammal – Sufyaan – Yazeed Bin Abi Ziyaad Ibn Abi Lailaa – Baraa’ Bin Aazib (radhiyallahu anhu) said:

“When Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) would recite Takbeer for beginning the Salaat, he would raise his hands until his thumbs were near to the lobes of his ears. He would then NOT repeat (Rafa’ Yadain).” [Sharh Sunanul Aathaar] 

Proof 20

Tahaawi – Ibn Abi Dawood – Amr Bin Aun – Khaalid – Ibn Abi Lailaa – Isaa Bin Abdur Rahmaan – from his father -Baraa’ (Bin Aazib- radhiyallahu anhu) narrated from Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) Similar to the above Hadith (i.e. No.19) [Sharh Sunanul Aathaar] 

Proof 21

Tahaawi – Muhammad Bin Nu’maan – Yahya Bin Yahya-narrates from both:

Wakee’ – Ibn Abi Lailaa – his brotherHakam – Ibn Abi Lailaa

(both from) – Baraa Bin Aazib (radhiyallahu anhu) narrated from Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) a similar Hadith. [Sharhu Sunanul Aathaar] 

Proof 22

Daara Qutni – Ahmad Bin Ali Bin Alalaa’ – Abul Ash’ath – Muhammad Bin Bakr – Shu’ba – Yazeed Bin Abi Ziyaad said:

“I heard Ibn Lailaa say: ‘I heard Baraa (Bin Aazib) in this gathering speaking to people among whom was Ka’b Bin Ujrah. He (Baraa) said:

“I saw Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) raising his hands when he commenced Salaat in the first Takbeer.'” [Daara Qutni] 

Proof 23

Daara Qutni – Yahya Bin Muhammad Bin Saa-id- Muhammad Bin Sulaimaan Luwain – Ismaaeel Bin Zakariyya – Yazeed Bin Abi Ziyaad – Abdur Rahmaan Bin Abi Lailaa – Baraa (Bin Aazib – radhiyallahu anhum) saw Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) raising his hands at the time of commencing the Salaat until he brought them in line with his ears. Thereafter he would not at all repeat it (Rafa’ Yadain) until he had completed his Salaat. [Daara Qutni]

In other words, after Salaat Sayyidina Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) would lift his hands when making dua. 

Proof 24

Daara Qutni – Ibn Saa-id – Luwain – Ismaaeel Bin Zakariyya – Yazid Bin Abi Ziyaad – Adi Bin Thaabit – Baraa Bin Aazib (radhiyallahu anhu) narrated similarly. [Daara Qutni] 

Proof 25

Daara Qutni – Abu Bakr al-Aadami Abroad Bin Ismaaeel- Abdullah Bin Muhammad Bin Ayyub al-Makhrami – Ali Bin Aasim – Muhammad Bin Abi Lailaa – Yazid Bin Abi Ziyaad – Abdur Rahmaan Bin Abi Lailaa – Baraa Bin Aazib (radhiyallahu anhu) said:

“I saw Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) when he stood for Salaat, reciting Takbeer and raising his hands until he brought them in line with his ears. Then he did not repeat it.” [Daara Qutni]

Besides the aforementioned authorities other Muhadditheen too have narrated the Hadith of Baraa’ Bin Aazib (radhiyallahu anhu). 

Some of the asaaneed (plural of sanad) of the Hadith of Baraa Bin Aazib (radhiyallahu anhu) are Jayyid (excellent) and Saheeh (authentic) in terms of the conditions of Bukhaari and Muslim or of one of them.

Among the Saheeh asaaneed of this Hadith is the sanad of Abdur Razzaaq. In his sanad are three narrators, viz. Ibn Uyainah, Yazid and Abdur-Rahmaan.

With regard to Ibn Uyainah, the Muhadditheen pay glowing tribute to him. In his Tazkirah , Mulla Ali Qaari states that Sufyaan Ibn Uyainah was one of the most senior experts (Hafiz) of Hadith as well as a great expert of Fiqah. He is described as a great Imaam in Hadith, Fiqh and Fatwa.

Hafiz in At-Taqreeb has the same glowing titles for him. The compilers of Sihah Sittar narrate from him.

Regarding Yazid Bin Abi Ziyaad Al-Haashimi, the Muhadditheen differ. Bukhaari applied the principle of Ta’leeq to him. Muslim, Abu Dawood, Nasaai, lbn Majah and Tirmithi have narrated his Hadith.

Regarding Abdur Rahmaan Bin Abi Lailaa Al-Ansaari. He is a Taabi-ee who met 120 Sahaabah. According to the Muhadditheen, he is flawless . The compilers of the Sihah Sitta narrate his Ahaadith.

Thus, the sanad of Baraa’s Hadith as narrated by Abdur Razzaaq is Saheeh in terms of the conditions of Bukhaari and Muslim. …. 

Another Hadith on this issue, is the narration of Jaabir Bin Samurah (mdhiyallahu anhu) which is narrated in Saheeh Muslim. 

Proof 26

Jaabir (radhiyallahu unhu) said: 

“Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) came out (from his house) towards us and said: “Why do I see you raising your hands as if (your hands) are the tails of mischievous horses. Be tranquil in Salaat.'”

According to Imaam Bukhaari, this Hadith does not support the Hanafi claim because Abdullah Bin al-Qibti narrates that Jaabir Bin Samurah (radhiyallahu anhu) said:

“We use to perform Salaat behind Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam). When he said ‘Assalamu Alaikum’, we would indicate with our hands on both sides. Then Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) said:

“What is wrong with these people? They point with their hands (i.e. raising them) as if their hands are the tails of mischievous horses. It suffices to place the hands on the thighs, then making salaam to his brother on his right and left side.”

The Ahnaaf counter this argument by averring that these are two different Hadiths. The one narrated earlier (No. 26) refers to Rafa’ Yadain which is the issue now under discussion. 

The other Hadith (which is narrated by Abdullah Bin al-Qibti) concerns the practice of raising the hands at the time of making Salaam at the end of Salaat. But this is not the topic being discussed here. This explanation has been tendered by Mulla Ali Qaari in Mirkaat, Sharah Mishkaat.

Imaam Jamaalud-Deen Zaila’i (rahmatullah alayhi) refuted the notion that both – Hadiths No. 26 and the one narrated by Abdullah Bin al-Qibti – are one and the same, stating that it is not said to a person raising his hands upon making salaam: “Be tranquil in Salaat”. These words (Be tranquil in Salaat) are only said to a person who is still in Salaat; in the state of Ruku’ or Sujood or when he stands up for the second, third or fourth rak’at. The application of these words to the latter sense is manifestly clear.

Both the Hadiths are therefore, not the same. The first was narrated by a certain raawi on a certain occasion whilst the second was narrated by another raawi on a separate occasion.

Furthermore, the wording of the two Hadiths negate beyond any doubt the possibility of the two being one and the same. In Hadith No. 26 the raawi says: Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) came out towards us and said … “This indicates that Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) said these words when he entered the Musjid whilst the Sahaabah were engaged in Salaat.”

In contrast, the second Hadith (Narrated by Abdullah Bin al-Qibti) states:  

“When we used to perform Salaat behind Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam)…”

The context here (in the Hadith narrated by Abdullah Bin al-Qibti) shows that Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) spoke after having lead the Sahaabah in Jama’ah (congregational) Salaat when he (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) observed them raising their hands.

The above discussion is sufficient to dispel the opinion of Imaam Bukhaari and establish the view of the Ahnaafthat these (Hadiths No. 26 and the one narrated by Abdullah Bin al-Qibti ) are two different Hadiths. 

Proof 27

Another Hadith in substantiation of the Hanafi view is the narration of Hadhrat Ibn Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu). The Hadith is narrated by Tibraani as follows:

Tibraani – Abelur Rahmaan Bin Abi Lailaa – Hakam – Miqsam – Ibn Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu) said that Holy Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) said: 

“Do not raise the hands except in seven places.

When commencing Salaat.
When entering Musjidul Haraam and seeing the Baitullah.
When standing on Marwah.
When making Wuqoof with the people in Arafaat.
At Muzdalifah.
At Maqaamain.
When pelting the Jamrah.” [Tibraani]

lmaam Bukhaari narrated this Hadith in his Al-Mu’jad fi Rafi Yadain. Wakee’ narrated this Hadith also, the sanad being as follows:

Wakee’ – Ibn Abi Lailaa – Hakam – Miqsam- Ibn Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu). 

Proof 28

Another Hadith in support of the Hanafi view is the Hadith of Abbaad Bin Zubair (radhiyallahu anhu).

Baihaqi – Abdullah al-Hafiz – Abul Abbaas Muhammad Bin Ya’qoob Muhammad Bin Ishaaq – Hasan Bin Rahee’ – Hafs Bin Giyaath Muhammad Abi Yahya – Abbaad Bin Zubair who narrated the following Hadith:

“When Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) would open the Salaat, he would raise his hands in the beginning of Salaat. Thereafter he would not at all raise his hands until he completed (the Salaat).’ [Baihaqi]

Commenting on this narration, Imaam Baihaqi said:

“Abbaad is a Taabi-ee, hence this Hadith is of the Mursal category. A Mursal Hadith is acceptable by the Haharisi, especially if it belongs to the Quroon-e-Thalaathah and it is corroborated by other asaaneed.”

Mursal is a Hadith the sanad of which ends at a Tabi-ee – Such a Hadith is authentic – Various factors confer authenticity to a Mursal Hadith, e.g. Ahaadith on the same subject are narrated with other chains (asaaneed) by virtue of which these other Ahaadith acquire a higher status than the Mursal Hadith. Thus, when Ahaadith of a higher classification corroborate a Mursal Hadith, it is accepted as valid and authentic.

In his assessment of the above narration Allaamah Anwar Shah Kashmiri comments:

“I have scrutinized the narrators of its isnaad. The findings of my study indicate that this Hadith is Saheeh (authentic). 

Hafiz (Ibn Hajr) gave a direction in ad-Diraayah to study its isnaad. I complied with his order and thoroughly researched it. It is Mursal Jayyid (excellent). If you desire to view my findings take a look at Nailul Farqadain’.” 

Proof 29

Ibn Abi Shaibah – Ibn Aadam – Ibn Ayyaash- Abdul Malik Ibnul JabrZubair Bin Adi – Ibraaheem – AI-Aswad who said:

“I performed Salaat with Umar (Ibn Khattaab – radhiyallahu anhu). He did not raise his hands any where in the Salaat, except when he opened the Salaat.”  [Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah]

Daara Qutni has also narrated this Hadith with his sanad. Also Imaam Tahaawi has narrated this Hadith with his sanad.

The author of Bazlul Majhood states that the above Hadith is Saheeh (authentic). Although this Hadith is based only on the Raawi, Hasan Bin Ayyaash, he (Hasan Bin Ayyaash) is thiqah (reliable) and hujjat (a proof). This was said by Yahya Bin Ma’een. Ibn Turkemaani furthermore stated that the sanad (chain of narrators) of this Hadith is Saheeh conforming to the conditions laid down by Imaam Muslim. 

Proof 30

Imaam Muhammad – Muhammad Bin Abaan Bin Saalih and Abu BakrBin Abdullah Nahshali – Aasim Bin Kulaib Jarmi – from his father who was a companion of Hadhrat Ali (karramallah wajhah). He (Kulaib Jarmi) said:

“Hadhrat Ali (karramallah wajhah) would raise his hands in Takbeer Ulaa, i.e. the Takbeer with which the Salaat is opened. Thereafter he never raised his hands anywhere in the Salaat.'” [Muatta Imaam Muhammad] 

Proof 31

Ibn Abi Shaibah – Abu Bakrah – Abu Ahmad – Abu Bakr Nahshali – Aasim Bin Kulaib – from his father (Kulaib Jarmi) who said:

“Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) would raise his hands in the first Takbeer of Salaat. Thereafter he would not raise his hands.” [Ibn Abi Shaibah]

This very same Hadith has been narrated by Imaam Tahaawi with exactly the same sanad from Abu Bakrah. 

Proof 32

Ibn Abi Shaibah – Abu Dawood – Ahmad Bin Yunus – Abu Bakr Nahshali Aasim – from his father who was the companion of Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) narrated from Hadhrat Ali the same narration (i.e. as in No. 31 above). [Ibn Abi Shaibah]

Tahaawi and Baihaqi have likewise narrated this Hadith with their respective chains of transmission.

Commenting on this narration, Imaam Tahaawi said that it is not conceivable that Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) would have deliberately abandoned Rafa’ Yadain if it was the permanent practice of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam). Hence, it is evident that according to Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), the practice of Rafa’ Yadain was abrogated.

Commenting on the sanad of this Hadith, Aini says in Sharh Bukhaari:

“The isnaad of the Hadith of Aasim Bin Kulaib is Saheeh in terms of the conditions of Imaam Muslim.”

Hafiz said in ad-Diraayah: 

“Its narrators are thiqah(reliable):

Zaila’i said: 

“It is an authentic narration.” 

Proof 33

Imaam Muhammad – Thanri – Husain – Ibraaheem , Ibn Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu) – he (i.e. Ibn Mas’ood) would raise his hands when opening Salaat. [Muatta Imaam Muhammad]

Proof 34

Ibn Abi Shaibah – Wakee’ – Masrood _ Abi Mas’ood – Ibraaheem narrated that Abdulla,h Ibn Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu) would raise his hands in the beginning when commencing Salaat. Thereafter he would not raise his hands.  [Ibn Abi Shaibah]

Tahaawi also narrated this Hadith with his sanad. The isnaad of this Hadith is Mursal Jayyid. (Jayyid – a classification of Hadith stronger than even a Hasan Hadith.) The reason for this Hadith being classified as Mursal is that Ibraaheem never met lbn Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu). However, this does not detract from the authenticity and strength of this narration since lbraaheem was in the habit of omitting the narrators between him (Ibraaheem) and Ibn Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu) when a great number of raawis had narrated the Hadith to him from Ibn Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu).

Imaam Tahaawi narrated the following dialogue between Ibraaheem (Nakha’i) and A’mash: 

‘A’mash: When you relate a Hadith to me please do name the chain of narrators.

Ibraaheem: When I say: ‘Abdullah said, ‘it is only when a large number has narrated the Hadith to me from Abdullah, and if I say: “So and so person narrated to me from Abdullah, it is when only that particular person has narrated to me.”

The authenticity of the above Hadith (No. 34) is therefore not tainted in the least by the omission of the narrators between Ibraaheem and Ibn Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu). The great Muhaddith Daara Qutni after relating a tradition from Ibraaheem – Abdullah (Bin Mas’ood), acclaims:

“The fact is that despite this narration having an irsaal (omission of a narrator) in it, Ibraaheem Nakha’i is the most enlightened of all people with regard to Abdullah (Bin Mas’ood), his views and his verdicts. He (Ibraaheem) acquired that from his maternal uncles Alqamah, al-Aswad and Abdur Rahmaan, and from other senior students of Abdullah.”

Proof 35

Imaam Muhammad – Muhammad Bin Abaan Bin Saalih-Abdul Aziz Bin Hakeem who said:

“I saw Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) raising his hands in line with his ears in the first Takbeer opening the Salaat and he did not raise his hands besides this (one occasion).” [Muatta Imaam Muhammad]

Proof 36

Ibn Abi Shaibah – Abu Bakr Bin Ayyaash – Husain – Mujaahid who said:

“I did not see Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu)raising his hands except in the beginning of opening (the Salaat).” [Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah] 

Proof 37

Tahaawi – Ibn Abi Dawood – Ahmad Bin Yunus – Abu Bakr Bin Ayyaash Husain – Mujaahid who said: 

“I performed Salaat behind Ibn Ulnar (radhiyallahu anhu). He would not raise his hands except in the first Takbeer.” [Sharh Ma-aanil Aathaar]

Commenting on this Hadith, Imaam Tahaawi said: 

“This is Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) who has seen Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) making rafa’ (raising the hands) then he abandoned it after Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam). It is inconceivable for this except that he was convinced of the abrogation of what he had seen Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam)doing. Thus the proof for this has been established.”

Imaam Ibn Humaam reports this narration in Tahreerul Usool. Similarly, Baihaqi in his al-Ma’rifah narrated it. The sanad of Tahaawi for this Hadith is Saheeh.

Ibn Abi Shaibah mentions the following authorities of the Shariah who negate Rafa’ Yadain at the time of ruku’ and when rising from ruku’: Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) and his companions, Ibn Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu), Ibraaheem Nakha’i, Haithamah, Qais, Ibn Abi Lailaa, Mujaahid, Alswad, Sha’bi, Abu Ishaaq, Imaam Abu Hanifah, Imaam Maalik (rahmatullah alayhim), and others – all of whom are elite members of the Salaf-e-Saaliheen. 

Proof 38

Abu Bakr Bin Ayyaash narrates that Mujaahid said: 

“I performed Salaat behind Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) for a number of years (in one narration, ten years). He did not raise his hands except in Takbeer Ulaa (the first Takbeer).”

This sanad is Saheeh. When a Sahabi’s action conflicts with his own narration, then in terms of the principles of Hadith, it (his action) indicate, abrogation of what he had narrated.

Al-Qastalaani in Sharh Bukhaari claims that Abu Bakr Bin Ayyaash, narrator in the sanad (of No. 38 above) is dhaeef (weak). However, this claim itself is weak and incorrect because Imaam Bukhaari and Imaam Muslim, both have declared him to be Thiqah (reliable, authentic). They both narrate his ahaadith.

Furthermore, the Muhadditheen of the four other Saheeh compilations have also narrated his ahaadith. Hence, the statement by Qastalaani is unacceptable in view of his (Abu Bakr Bin Ayyaash’s) ahaadith being accepted and narrated by Bukhaari and Muslim.

Also, Hafiz has praised him. Thauri, Ibn Mubaarak and Ibn Mahdi likewise lauded praise on him. Imaam Ahmad Bin Hambal said: “He (Ayyaash) is truthful.” Yahya Bin Ma-een said: “He is Thiqah.”

Proof 39

It is narrated from Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu) that he used to raise his hands when commencing Salaat and he used to say in every descent and ascent (i.e. when going down and rising up): “Allaahu Akbar. He would say as well: 

“I am more of a resemblance to the Salaat of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) than you.” 

(Hafiz Abu Amr in al-Istithkaar and Aini in Mabaanil Akhbaar citing at-Tamheed) 

Proof 40

Ahmad bin Yoonus – Abu Bakr Bin Ayyaash: 

“I never saw a Faqeeh doing it; raising his hands in other than the first Takbeer.” [Tahaawi] 

Proof 41

Yet another Hadith in substantiation of the Hanafi practice of only raising the hands at the beginning of Salaat is one narrated by Baihaqi in al-Khilaafiyyaat and Zaila’i in Nasbur Raayah from Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu): 

“Verily, Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) used to raise his hands when commencing Salaat. Then he would not do so again.”

Haakim said that this Hadith is Baatil (false) and Mawdhoo’ (fabricated). However this claim of Haakim is itself Baatil. The Ahnaaf state that Haakim’s claim is utterly baseless. Haakim could not find anyone on the sanad of the Hadith whom he could disparage.

Shaikh Aahid as-Sindi averred that its narrators are authentic and reliable. This he stated in al-Mawaahibul Lateefah.

It should be borne in mind that Hadhrat Ibn Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu) was a very senior Sahaabi who was constantly in the company of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam), so much so, that the impression of him being a member of the Ahl-e-Bait (Rasulullah’s family) was created. He followed Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) in all five Salaat on a daily basis. Hence, his explicit negation of Rafa’ Yadain categorically confirms that Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) had discontinued the earlier practice of raising the hands.

An argument advanced to refute the Hanafi argument is that the Hadith of Baraa’ Bin Aazib (radhiyallahu anhu) has been proclaimed to be dhaeef since one of the narrators in one of the Chains is Muhammad Bin Abi Lailaa who has been described as dhaeef by Abu Dawood. This argument holds no substance because the Hanafi case is not based solely on the Hadith of Baraa Bin Aazib (radhiyallahu anhu) with the sanad in which Muhammad Bin Abi Lailaa appears. There are a number of Saheeh asaaneed (Chains of narration) in which Muhammad Bin Abi Lailaa does not feature at all. Thus, the many other Saheeh asaaneed serve to corroborate the sanad in which Muhammad Bin Abi Lailaa features. The cumulative effect of the Saheeh asaaneed of the Hadith of Baraa’ Bin Aazib (radhiyallahu anhu) elevates the sanad in which appears Muhammad Bin Abi Lailaa, hence that Hadith too is acceptable.

Furthermore, some of these ahaadith are authentic in terms of the conditions of either both Bukhaari and Muslim or in terms of the conditions of one of them, especially the sanad of Abdur Razzaaq. The authenticity of Abdur Razzaaq’s sanad is based on the conditions of both El-Bukhaari and Muslim.

The argument that Yazeed Bin Ziyaad in this sanad is weak, is not valid because in Sharhul Bukhaari, Aini states: 

“Undoubtedly, this Yazeed has been authenticated (declared as Thiqah) by AI-Ajli, Ya’qoob Bin Sufyaan, Ahmad Bin Saalih, Sabaahi and Ibn Hibbaan.”

Also Muslim and Ibn Khuzaimah record his narration in their Saheeh. Moreover, Yazeed is not the solitary narrator of this Hadith. Isaa Abdur Rahmaan too narrated it from lbn Abi Lailaa. Similarly, Hakam has narrated it also from Ibn Abi Lailaa as recorded by Abu Dawood and others. In his Tahzeeb, Hafiz says that Muslim has also narrated the Hadith of Yazeed.

Since this narrator, viz. Yazeed, is among the narrators of Saheehain (Bukhaari and Muslim), no credence can be accorded to anyone who seeks to impugn him.

Proof 42

Shah Anwar Kashmiri states in Nailul Farqadain: 

“At this juncture one should not forget that the view of those who do not make Raf Yadain is Admi’ (i.e. they prove the non-existence or a certain act.). Taking this into account, their view is also supported by all those Ahaadith which describe the Salaat of Rasullullah Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam but make no mention of Raf’ Yadain, neither affirming it nor denying it. This is so because, had there been Raf’ Yadain, these Ahaadith would not have been silent on the issue.

In view of what Hadhrat Shah Kashmiri Sahib has stated, the Ahaadith that support the Hanafi view are indeed numerous. It would require a few volumes to attempt to record them. It this brief booklet only those Ahaadith have been recorded that explicitly negate Raf’ Yadain.


The Hadith narrations presented in this treatise in substantiation of the Hanafi viewpoint are all Saheeh (authentic) according to the Muhadditheen, including Shaikhaan (i.e. Imaam Bukhaari and Imaam Muslim).

All unbiased Muslims who are in pursuit of the truth will understand after having studied this short treatise, that the Hanafi practice of refraining from Rafa’ Yadain is not based on only rational/logical arguments, but is the product of authentic narrational evidence (Ahaadith). In view of the validity of the arguments and grounds of the Hanafi Math-hab, there is no controversy among the followers of the four Madhhabs on this issue. Each one follows the teachings of his Mathhab without attempting to denigrate the followers of the other Mathaahib.

Only followers of baatil such as the modernist Najdis, are bigoted in the matter of valid ikhtilaafaat (differences) based on Haqq (Truth). It is their baatil which constrains them to embark on their pernicious exercises of disparaging Al-Imaam Al-A’zam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayhi) in particular. But the Truth cannot be suppressed for too long. 

Truth has come and falsehood has perished. Verily falsehood (by its very nature) is perishable
[Holy Qur’aan]

‘Arba’atun Hurum – The Four Sacred Months 

[By Mufti Muhammad Shafi’ Usmani (rahimahullah)]

“Surely, the number of months according to Allah is twelve (as written) in the Book of Allah on the day He created the heavens and the Earth, of which there are Four Sacred Months. That is the right faith. So, do not wrong yourself therein…” [Surah Taubah: 36]

In the present verse, mentioned there is another bad custom prevailing in Arabia since its age of ignorance – which Muslims have been instructed to abstain from. That bad custom relates to a chain of happenings. Details go back to the distant past since when a year was accepted as having twelve months by the religious codes of all past prophets. Out of these twelve months, four were considered sacred, therefore, worthy of great reverence. They were three consecutive months of Dhu al-Qa’dah, Dhu al-Hijjah, Muharram, and the month of Rajab.

All religious codes of past prophets agree that every act of worship during these four months is more reward-worthy – and should someone commit a sin during these months, the curse and punishment resulting from it is also more blameworthy. Under these past religious codes, fighting and killing was prohibited during these months.

Since the Arabs of Makkah al-Mukarramah are the progeny of Sayyidina Ibrahim (alayhissalaam) through Sayyidina Isma’il (alayhissalaam), they all professed belief in Sayyidina Ibrahim (alayhissalaam) as a prophet and messenger of Allah and claimed to follow his Shari’ah. However, as fighting, killing and hunting was also prohibited during these four sacred months among the followers of the Ibrahimi community, the people of the Arab age of ignorance found the implementation of this injunction extremely hard. The reason was that, during the pagan period, fighting and killing had become the only vocation for them. Therefore, in order to make this restriction somewhat easy on them, they spun out all sorts of excuses to satisfy their self-serving motives. Whenever they needed to fight during one of the sacred months, or whenever a sacred month approached while they were already fighting, then, they would say: This year, this month is not sacred. The next month will be the sacred one. For example, when Muharram arrived, they would say that ‘this year, the month of Muharram is not sacred, instead of that, the month of Safar will be sacred’. And if they had some other exigency, they would say, ‘this year, the month of Rabi’ al-Awwal will be sacred;’ or say, ‘this year the month of Safar has come earlier and Muharram will come later.’ Thus, in one stroke, they made the month of Muharram as the month of Safar! In short, they would somehow complete the count of four month during one year, but would not bother to retain the order and signification of what was divinely determined. It was up to them to give any name to any month, call it Dhu al-Hijjah or call it Ramadhan or make one come earlier and make the other come later. If another emergency came, for example, when they would remain engaged in fighting for a period as long as ten months leaving only two months to the year, then, on this occasion, they would increase the number of months in a year saying, ‘this year will be of fourteen months.’ In this way, they would make the remaining four months the sacred months.

In short, they did show their reverence for the Ibrahimi faith atleast by doing it during four months of the year when they would abstain from fighting and killing. But, they did not observe the order of the months in a year according to which four of them were fixed as the sacred months. This was what they juggled with seeking interpretations to suit their needs or fancies.

The outcome was that, during those days, it had become difficult to determine as to which month was Ramadhan or Shawwal, or Dhu al-Qa’dah, Dhu al-Hijjah or Rajab. When Makkah al-Mukarramah was conquered in the 8th year of Hijrah and the Holy Prophet ﷺ sent Sayyidina Abi Bakr to make the proclamation of withdrawal from disbelievers and Mushriks at the Hajj season of Hijrah year 9, this month was, according to the genuine calculation, the month of Dhu al-Hijjah. But, according to the same old custom of the Jahiliyyah, this month was declared to be that of Dhu al-Qa’dah – and, that year, according to them, not Dhu al-Hijjah, but Dhu al-Qa’dah was fixed to be the month of Hajj. Then came the Hijrah year 10 which was the year the Holy Prophet went for his last Hajj. As nature would have it, this brought about a unique arrangement when the genuine month was that of Dhu al-Hijjah and, according to the arbitrary reckoning of the people of Jahiliyyah too, that turned out to be Dhu al-Hijjah itself.  Therefore, the Holy Prophet ﷺ said in his address at Mina: “Time has come back to its position Allah had set the day He created the heavens and the Earth”. It means that the month, the real month of Dhu al- Hijjah, turned out to be the same month of Dhu al-Hijjah that year, even in the sight of the people of Jahiliyyah.

This was a window to the custom of Jahiliyyah, a custom that changed the number, the order and the specification of months in a year, even made deletions and alterations at will. The activity of making a few changes here and there may appear to be small and innocuous. A month is a month, call it by any name, it remains a month. But, things were not that simple in the given situation. These changes disturbed the implementation of Islamic laws connected with a particular month or a specific date in it. They also affected duties fixed for the beginning or the end of the year – such as, the injunctions of Hajj during the ten days of the month of Dhu al-Hijjah, fasting during the ten days of Muharram and the rules of Zakah at the end of the year. As a direct result of this practice, hundreds of Islamic laws were distorted making their compliance useless. In these two verses of the Holy Qur’an, Muslims have been instructed to remain on guard against the evil in this pagan custom.

In the first verse (36), it is said: “surely, the number of months with Allah is twelve”. Here, the word: ‘iddah appears in the sense of number and shuhur is the plural of shahr which means month. The sense of the verse is that the number of months, in the sight of Allah, is set as twelve. No one has the right to decrease or increase it.

Then, by placing the phrase: (fi kitabullah: as written in the Book  of Allah), it was stressed that this numerical setting of the months stood recorded in the Preserved Tablet (al-lawh al-mahfuz) since eternity. Then, by saying: “on the day He created the heavens and the Earth”, it was indicated that the Divine decree was, though, promulgated in eternity, but this order and setting of the months came into being when the heavens and the Earth were created.

After that, it was said: “of which there are Four Sacred Months”. It means that, out of these twelve months, four are sacred. They have been called: hurum (sanctified ones) in the sense that fighting and killing is prohibited during these month, and also in the sense that these months are blessed and it is obligatory to hold them in due esteem and that acts of worship during these become more reward worthy. The first injunction out of the two was abrogated in the Shari’ah of Islam. But, the second one, that of increased reverence, esteem and devotion to ‘Ibadah during this period still remains operative in Islam.

In his address (Khutbah) of the Day of Sacrifice (Yaumu’n-Nahr, a term used for ‘Eidul-Adha) during the Last Hajj (Hajjatul-Wada’), the Holy Prophet ﷺ explained these months by saying: ‘Three months are consecutive – Dhu al-Qa’dah, Dhu al-Hijjah, Muharram and one month is that of Rajab.’  But, there were two sayings of the Arabs regarding the month of Rajab. Some tribes used to call the month we know as Ramadhan the month of Rajab while, as seen by the tribe of Mudar, Rajab was the month which comes in between Jumada ath- Thani and Sha’ban. Therefore, the Holy Prophet ﷺ, by mentioning this month as ‘Rajab Mudar’ – also made it clear that it means the month of Rajab which is in between Jumada ath-Thani and Sha’ban.

Thereafter appears the statement: “That is the right faith”. It means that keeping the setting and serial order of months, specially the injunctions pertaining to the Four Sacred Months, according to the very original decree of Allah Almighty is the right faith to hold. Making any changes, alterations, additions or deletions therein is a sign of crookedness in comprehension and temperament.

The next sentence: “So, do not wrong yourselves therein” means: ‘Do not become unjust to your own selves either by acting against the compliance-worthy injunctions pertaining to these months, or by not observing proper respect for them, or by falling short in devoting yourselves to ‘Ibadah therein.

In his Ahkam al-Qur’an, Imam Abu Bakr al-Jassas has said: The hint given here is that these blessed months have an exclusive characteristic of their own. Whoever devotes to ‘Ibadah during these is awarded with the ability and encouragement to engage in it during the rest of the months. Similarly, a person who makes the necessary effort to stay safe from sins and other bad deeds during these months finds that remaining safe from these evils during the rest of the months of a year has become easier on him. Therefore, not making the best out of these months is a terrible loss.

Du’a for Rajab

[Compiled from Various Sources]

Rajab, being the seventh month of the Islamic calendar is a stepping stone to the auspicious months of Sha’baan and Ramadhan. Rajab is from the Ashurul Hurum (Sacred Months), where the rewards of virtuous deeds are increased. When the moon of Rajab was sighted Rasulullah (Salallahu Alayhi Wasallam) would recite the following du’a.


This du’a should be recited regularly in the month of Rajab and Sha’baan. In preparation for Ramadhan, the relevance of Rajab maybe understood as the month to sow seeds (good actions), Sha’baan is the month in which we should water those seeds (with tears of remorse) and Ramadhan is the month in which we real the harvest.

Whilst the arrival of Ramadhan is certain, no person is guaranteed reaching Ramadhan. Rasulullah (Salallahu Alayhi Wasallam) would express his eagerness to be blessed with the month of Ramadhan from Rajab. We should therefore become more inclined towards virtuous deeds and ibadat in these months.

May Allah Ta’ala privilege us with witnessing Ramadhan and grant us the ability to spend it in a manner that is most pleasing to Him, Aameen.

Authenticity of the Rajab Du’a

This hadith is classified as weak but suitable for practice.

To say that this du’a is baseless is [to] exaggerate.

‘Allāmah Nawawi رحمه الله said the chain is slightly weak (al-Adhkār, hadith #549).

Hafiz Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali رحمه الله says this narration is suitable to prove the merit of reciting this du’a -“istihbab” (Latā’if, pg.172).

‘Allāmah Muhammad Tahir al-Fatani رحمه الله declares it weak and suitable to practice in this instance (Tadhkirat al-Mawdū’āt, pg.117).

It should be noted that weak hadiths that have du’as can be implemented.

(Mustadrak Hakim beginning of the chapter on Du’as, and Natā’ij al-Afkārof Hafiz Ibn Hajar, vol.5, pg.291)

Note: The narration states that this du’a be recited at the beginning of Rajab.

Hafiz Ibn Rajab رحمه الله says this narration is suitable to prove the merit of reciting this du’a -“istihbab” (Latā’if, pg.172). To declare this du’a as baseless is [to] exaggerate. [See last portion of this article for more information regarding its grading.]

Providing Information about Various aspects of Islam