Wiping the Hands on the face after du'a, Irshadul Haqq Al-Athari

[Abualqamah]

Salam aleykum

Bis Millahi Ir Rahman nir Raheem

This is adapted from article of Shaykh Irshadul Haqq Al-Athari written about the permissibility of wiping hands on the face and a refutation of those who think it is an innovation or only done by ignorant. This article was published in Al-I’tisam and is present in the Shaykh’s “Maqalat”. Shaykh Abdel Mannan Noorpuri also mentioned it in his “Ahkam wa Masail”.


Hafiz ibn Hajar wrote in Bulugh Al-Maram concerning hadith of Umar narrated in At-Tirmidhi about wiping hands on the face after invocation : “Narrated by At-Tirmidhi, and this has Shawahid (witnesses), among them Abu Dawood from Hadith of ibn ‘Abbas and others, and the total requires that it is a Hassan hadith”

First Hadith :

The narration of At-Tirmidhi has Hammad ibn ‘Issa Al-Juhani who is weak, not Matrook or liar ( Tahzib v 6 p 419)

Second Hadith :

The narration of Ibn ‘Abbas in Abu Dawood has Salih ibn Hassaan who is Matrook as said in Taqreeb by Ibn Hajar, but it has a Mutabi with ‘Issa ibn Maymoon, as mentioned by Imam Muhammad ibn Nasr Al-Marwazi in Qyam Al-Layl p 236, but he is also weak as said by Ibn Hajar in Taqreeb p 411.

The narration of ibn ‘Abbas is also narrated by another chain by Abu Dawood from Abdullah ibn Ya’qoob from the one who narrated him from Muhammad ibn Ka’b, but this chain has AbdulMalik ibn Muhammad ibn Yaman who is Majhool (unknown) and the identity of the Shaykh of Abdullah ibn Ya’qoob is not known.

Shaykh Albani says about this Hadith in Silsila As-Sahihah v 2 p 146 : “The defect is the narrator who is not named, and ibn Majah and others named him Salih ibn Hassaan as I have shown in Mishkat 2243 and he is very weak (da’if Jiddan)”

In Irwa Al Ghalil v 2 p 178 and after, Shaykh Albani said on this hadith : “The chain is weak, this Abdul Malik has been weakened by Abu Dawood and there is in it the Shaykh of Abdullah ibn Ya’qoob who is not named, he is then Majhool, and it is possible that he might be ibn Hassaan …or ibn Maymoon”

So this is less accurate than in Sisilah where the narrator is told to be Salih ibn Hassan, here two possibilities are mentioned.

Allamah Mizzi mentioned in his Tahzib Al Kamal v 22 p 257-258 that this non-named narrator can also be Abu Miqdam.

In all cases, this narrator Mubham (non-identified) is weak, and Abu Miqdam is even Matrook.

But the words of Shaykh Albani that Abu Dawood declared Abdul Malik to be weak is absolutely incorrect. Imam Abu Dawood said : “This way is the most Amthal and it is weak”. Imam ibn Qattan declared Abdul Malik to be Majhool, and ibn Hajar as well declared him Majhool in Tahzib v 4 p 1419 and Taqrib.

Another chain is narrated by Al-Hakim in his Mustadrak, but it has Muhammad ibn Mu’awiyah who is matrook, Imam Daraqutni and others declared him to be a liar.

In conclusion, the narration of ibn ‘Abbas is narrated from many ways, that are all weak, but two are very weak as their narrators are matrook, and two have weak and Majhool narrators.

( 1 chain in Abu Dawood : Salih ibn Hassan is Matrook
2 chain in Marwazi with ‘Issa ibn Maymoon who is weak
3 chain in Abu Dawood, Abdul Malik is Majhool and the shaykh of Abdullah ibn Ya’qoob is Mubham (non identified)
4 chain in Al-Hakim with Muhammad ibn Mu’awiyah who is Matrook)

Third Hadith :

Narrated by Yazid ibn Sa’id in Abu Dawood and also Imam Muhammad ibn Khalf Al Wakee’ in Akhbar Al-Qadha v 1 p 107, but this chain is weak because of ibn La’ihah who is weak and his Shaykh Hafs ibn Hisham is Majhool.

These are all Shawahid and Mutabi’at on which Ibn Hajar based himself to declare this hadith Hassan.

The narration of ‘Umar has a weak narrator.
The narration of Yazid ibn Sa’ib has a weak and a Majhool.
The narration of ibn ‘Abbas has two chains, one with a weak and the other with a majhool and a Mubham.

So if the total is not Hassan then what is it ?

Mawqoof Hadith

Imam Bukhari narrates in his Adab Al-Mufrad : Ibrahim ibn Munzir narrated us, he said Muhammad ibn Falih narrated us, he said : my father informed me from Abu Nua’ym and he is Wahb, he said : "I saw ibn ‘Umar and ibn Zubayr making invocation and they wiped their hands on their faces."

This Athar is Hassan, and Ibn Hajar even declared it Sahih in Al-Amali, and its narrators are all from Bukhari.


The action of Hassan Al-basri

Imam Muhammad ibn Nasr Al-Marwazi narrates from Mu’tamar that he saw Abu Ka’b Abd Rabihi ibn Ubayd Al-Azdi, the author of Tahrir, invoking raising his hands and then he was wiping them on his face after finishing. I asked him why he was doing and he answered that Hassan Al-Basri was doing this. (Qyam Al-Layl p 236)

Imam Ahmad was asked about wiping hands on face in Witr and he answered : “It is narrated from Al-Hassan that he was wiping them on his face in his invocation” (Masail Imam Ahmad from narration of ibn Abdillah v 2 p 300)

Hafiz ibn Hajar said in Al-Amali : “But this Hadith has Mawsool, Mursal witnesses and the total shows that the Hadith has a basis, and this is also supported by what comes from Al-Hassan Basri with a Hassan chain, and there is in it a refutation for those who consider that as an innovation, and Al-Bukhari narrated in his Adab Al-Mufrad from Wahb ibn Kaysan, he said : he said : “I saw ibn ‘Umar and ibn Zubayr making invocation and they wipped their hands on their faces.” And this is Mawqoof Sahih and this strengthens the refutation of those who disapprove of that”

Hadith Mursal

The mursal narration to which ibn Hajar was making a sign in Al-Amali is probably that of Zuhri mentioned in AbdurRazaq saying : “The Prophet (saw) was raising his hands to the level of his chest when he was invoking and then was wiping them on his face”

The great Muhadith Faqeeh Ishaq ibn Rahawayah was approving action on these Ahadith as said by Muhammad ibn Nasr Al-Marwazi : “I saw Ishaq liking action on these Ahadith” (Qyam Al-Layl p 232)

There are two narrations from Ahmad on this topic, one is that after invocation of Witr this should not be done as narrated from Imam Abu Dawood, and the second is that it is recommended as mentioned by ibn Qudamah on Al-Maghni v 1 p 786 and Shamsudin ibn Qudamah in Sharh Al Kabeer v 1 p 724, see Al-Qil’ v 1 p 185. Al-Marwazi said that hands should be wiped on the face and : “This is the Madhab of Imam Ahmad, he was doing that”. The author of Majma’ Al-Bahrayn said this narration is stronger, and in Al-Kafi, it is said that it is better. (Al-Insaf v 3 p 173)

Hafiz ibnul Qayim mentioned that Imam Ahmad was asked about wiping hands on the face, and he answered : “ I hope there is no harm, and when Al-Hassan was invoking, he was wiping then on his face, and he said : my father was asked about raising hands in Qunut and wiping them on the face, he said : There is no harm in doing this, wiping them on the face. Abdullah said that he did not see his father wiping them on the face” ( Bada’I al-Fawaid v 4 p 113)

Imam Ibnul-Qayim commented this : “Abu Abdillah (Imam Ahmad) made the matter easy, and he considered this similar to the fact of wiping the face outside the prayer, and this is a small action of obedience and Abu Abdillah decided to leave it”

So according to Zahir saying of ibnul Qayim, Imam Ahmad did not leave that outside prayer, but only in prayer, he was not acting according to that in the prayer, yet he did not see any harm.

‘Allamah Manawi in Faydh Al-Qadir v 1 p 369 rejected the saying of ‘Izz ibn AbdiSalam that only ignorant person does this, saying it is a bid mistake.

The strange matter is that Shaykh Albani in his Al-Irwa v 2 p 182 said that An-Nawawi in his majmoo agreed with Izz ibn AbdisSalam and he declared that non recommended, while An-Nawawi said in his Sharh Al-Muhazzab v 3 p 501-505 that doing this in Witr is not recommended, and he said that Al-Bayhaqi and Ar-Rafi’I also said that, but he did not say that it was not recommended outside the prayer, rather in the end of his book Al-Azkar, he mentioned among Adab of invocation : “facing the Qiblah, and raising the hands and wiping them on the face…”

And also Al-Bayhaqi only disapproved of that in prayer, not outside the prayer. He said in his Sunan Al-Kubra v 2 p 212 : “As for wiping hands on the face after invocation, I do not know this from any Salaf in the invocation of the Qunut, although it is narrated by some about invocation outside the prayer”

Among Shawafi Qadhi Abu Tayib, Imam Al-Haramayn, ibn Sabagh, Al-Mutawali, Shaykh nasr, Imam Ghazali and Abul Khayr all agreed on weeping hands in Qunut basing on general narrations. Imam Al-Bayhaqi said at the end : “The best is not to do it (in the prayer)”

And Shaykh Irshadul Haqq Al-Athari concluded that best is not to do that in Qunut of Witr as there are no Hadith about that, this is why Imam Ahmad left that yet he did not declare that doing it in prayer was an innovation, he said there is no Harm.

Personal Notes : For doing that outside the prayer, Ibn Hajar declared totality of ahadith ti be Hassan, Imam Ishaq was liking action on these Ahadith, there come this from Ibn ‘umar and Ibn Zubayr as narrated by Al-Bukhari, and action of Sahabi is a Hujjah for 4 schools when there is no ikhtilaf, and it comes from Mursal of Zuhri, and Mursal is a Hujjah for Ahnaf and Malikiyah, and for Shafii it is accepted with some conditions : The Tabii should be big and it should also come in musnad way, and it is the case here.

Allah knows best

Wa Salatu was Salam 'ala Nabi (saw)

[JayshAllah]

Brother Abuz Zubair, is this correct?

[Abuz Zubair]

Sorry, I didn't read the entire article, but wiping the face after dua isn't a bid'a, Wallahu Alam

[Husain]

Do you know some scholars from the top of your head who said so (i.e. that it is <i>not</i> a bid'a)?

- Husain.

[Abuz Zubair]

Ibn Uthaymin is one.

[JayshAllah]

Ibn Uthaymin is one.

k, thanks!

[1mran]

Assalam alaikum,

According to Sheikh al-Albaani, it is an innovaton.

The Weakness of the Ahaadeeth Mentioning Wiping the Face with the Hands After Du'aa' (Supplication)
From Irwaa' al-Ghaleel (2/178-182) by Shaykh al-Albaani

1) "The Prophet (sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam), when he raised his hands in du'aa', he would not put them down until he had wiped his face with them."

Da'eef (Weak). Transmitted by Tirmidhi (2/244) & Ibn 'Asaakir (7/12/2) via: Hammaad ibn 'Isa al-Juhani from Hanzalah ibn Abi Sufyaan al-Jamhi from Saalim ibn 'Abdullaah from his father from 'Umar ibn al-Khattaab, who said: ...

Tirmidhi said after it, "This is a saheeh ghareeb hadeeth. We only know it as a hadeeth of Hammaad ibn 'Esa, for he is alone in reporting it; he has few ahaadeeth, but the people have reported from him."

However, this reporter is weak, as in Taqreeb of Ibn Hajr, who says about him in Tahdheeb:

Ibn Ma'een said, "A good shaikh"645; Abu Haatim said, "Weak in Hadeeth"; Abu Daawood said, "Weak, he reports munkar ahaadeeth"; Haakim and Naqqaash said, "He reports fabricated ahaadeeth from Ibn Juraij and Ja'far as- Saadiq." He is declared to be weak by Daaraqutni. Ibn Hibbaan said, "He reports things which are the wrong way round on the authority of Ibn Juraij and 'Abdul 'Azeez ibn 'Umar ibn 'Abdul 'Azeez, such that it seems to those whose field this is that it is deliberate; it is not permissible to use him as proof." Ibn Maakoolaa said, "They declare his ahaadeeth to be weak."
Hence, the like of this reporter is very weak, so his ahaadeeth cannot be raised to the level of hasan, let alone saheeh!

A similar hadeeth is:

"When the Prophet (sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) did du'aa' and raised his hands, he would wipe his face with his hands."

Da'eef (Weak). Abu Daawood (1492) from Ibn Lahee'ah from Hafs ibn Hishaam ibn 'Utbah ibn Abi Waqqaas from Saa'ib ibn Yazeed from his father.

This is a weak sanad due to Hafs ibn Hishaam being unknown and the weakness of Ibn Lahee'ah (cf. Taqreeb at-Tahdheeb).

This hadeeth cannot be strengthened by the two routes of narration together due to the severity in weakness of the first one, which you have seen.

2) "When you call upon Allaah, then supplicate with the palms of your hands, and do not supplicate with their backs, and when you finish, wipe your face with them."

Da'eef (Weak). Related by Ibn Maajah (1181, 3866), Ibn Nasr in Qiyaam al-Lail (p. 137), Tabaraani in Al-Mu'jam al-Kabeer (3/98/1) & Haakim (1/536), from Saalih ibn Hassaan from Muhammad ibn Ka'b from Ibn 'Abbaas (radi Allaahu 'anhu) as marfoo'.

This is a weak sanad due to Ibn Hassaan, who is munkar in Hadeeth, as Bukhaari said; Nasaa'i said, "He is abandoned in Hadeeth"; Ibn Hibbaan said, "He used to have female singers and listen to music, and he used to narrate fabricated reports on the authority of trustworthy narrators"; Ibn Abi Haatim said in Kitaab al-'Ilal (2/351), "I asked my father (i.e. Abu Haatim al-Raazi) about this hadeeth, to which he said: 'Munkar'."

Ibn Hassaan has been backed up by 'Eesaa ibn Maimoon, who also reported it from Muhammad ibn Ka'b, as related by Ibn Nasr. However, this does not alter anything, since Ibn Maimoon is similarly weak: Ibn Hibbaan said, "He reports ahaadeeth, all of which are fabricated"; Nasaa'i said, "Not reliable."

This hadeeth of Ibn 'Abbaas is also related by Abu Daawood (1485), and from him Baihaqi (2/212), via: 'Abdul Malik ibn Muhammad ibn Aiman from 'Abdullaah ibn Ya'qoob ibn Ishaaq from someone who narrated to him from Muhammad ibn Ka'b, the wording being:

"Do not cover the walls. He who looks into the letter of his brother without his permission, verily he looks into the Fire. Ask Allaah with the palms of your hands, and do not ask him with their backs, and when you finish, wipe your faces with them."

This is a weak sanad: 'Abdul Malik is declared weak by Abu Daawood; it also contain the shaikh of 'Abdullaah ibn Ya'qoob who is unnamed, and therefore unknown - it is possible that he may be Ibn Hassaan or Ibn Maimoon, both of whom are mentioned above.

The hadeeth is also transmitted by Haakim (4/270) via: Muhammad ibn Mu'aawiyah, who said that Masaadif ibn Ziyaad al- Madeeni narrated to him that he heard it from Muhammad ibn Ka'b al-Qurazi. Dhahabi followed this up by pointing out that Ibn Mu'aawiyah was declared to be a liar by Daaraqutni, so the hadeeth is falsified.

Abu Daawood said about this hadeeth, "This hadeeth has been narrated via more than one route on the authority of Muhammad ibn Ka'b; all of them are feeble."

Raising the hands on doing Qunoot for a calamity is established from the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) in his supplication against the polytheists who killed seventy reciters - transmitted by Imaam Ahmad (3/137) & Tabaraani in Al-Mu'jam as-Sagheer (p. 111) as the hadeeth of Anas with a saheeh sanad. Similar is proved from 'Umar and others in the Qunoot of Witr Prayer. However, since wiping the face after Du'aa' al-Qunoot is not quoted at all from the Prophet (sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam), nor from any of his Companions, it is an innovation without doubt.

As for wiping the face after du'aa' outside of prayer, there are only these two ahaadeeth; it is not correct to say that they mutually strengthen each other to the rank of hasan, as Manaawi did, due to the severity of the weakness found in their routes of narration. This is why Imaam Nawawi said in Majmoo', "It is not recommended", endorsing Ibn 'Abd as- Salaam, who said, "Only an ignorant person does it."

The view that wiping the face after du'aa' is not prescribed is strengthened by the fact that there are many authentic ahaadeeth about raising the hands in supplication, and in none of them is there a mention of wiping the face; this shows, Allaah Willing, that it is unacceptable and not prescribed.

[taken from the prophet's paryer described, by sheikh al-Albaani]

--------------------------------------------


http://islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=39174&ln=eng

http://islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=82637&ln=eng


and Allah knows best

[1mran]

Ibn Uthaymin is one.


are you sure?

Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) was asked about the ruling on wiping the face with the hands after making du’aa’. He replied:

Wiping the face with the hands after making du’aa’ is more likely to be not prescribed in Islam, because the ahaadeeth that have been narrated concerning that are da’eef (weak). Shaykh al-Islam (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: They cannot be used as evidence. If we are not certain or we think it most likely that this is not prescribed, then it is better not to do it, because Islamic rulings cannot be proven on the basis of mere conjecture, unless we believe it to be mostly likely to be the case.

What I think about wiping the face with the hands after du’aa’ is that it is not Sunnah. As is well known, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) prayed for rain during his Friday khutbah and raised his hands, but it is not narrated that he wiped his face with them. Similarly in a number of ahaadeeth it says that the Prophet raised his hands, but there is no proof that he wiped his face. End quote.

Majmoo’ Fataawa Ibn ‘Uthaymeen, 14/question no. 781


and Allah knows Best

[Abd al-Haqq Marshall]

I want to know what the classical Hanbali position on this is.

[Abuz Zubair]

Yes.

In his work on Mustalah who explicitly mentions this issue and says that although the traditions on their own are weak, but they do rise to the level of Hasan collectively.

Whatever the, bid'a is a heavy word, and not everything with weak textual basis can be declared as a bid'a.

[Abu Sabaya]

Do you know some scholars from the top of your head who said so (i.e. that it is not a bid'a)?Bakr Abu Zayd, as well, I believe.

[1mran]

Yes.

In his work on Mustalah who explicitly mentions this issue and says that although the traditions on their own are weak, but they do rise to the level of Hasan collectively.

Whatever the, bid'a is a heavy word, and not everything with weak textual basis can be declared as a bid'a.

im confused?

ibn uthaymin, Imam ahmed, al-Albaani, ibn taymiyah, etc have said otherwise,. yet you dont agree with them? how come?

i guess it might be an issue of difference of opinion, but i will follow what these imams say, because personally, i dont see the wisdom behind wipping the face. does it mean the dua will be answered?

but i understand that just because i dont see wisdom in something, doesnt mean there is none.

however i will be on the safe side and avoid this act (of wipping the face), insha'Allah



It is not prescribed to wipe with the hands after making du’aa’

Question:
What is the ruling on wiping the face and body with the hands after making du’aa’, and kissing the eyes?.

Answer:
Praise be to Allaah.

It is not prescribed to wipe the face after making du’aa’. There are many ahaadeeth which describe how the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) called upon his Lord in du’aa’, and there is no proven report that he used to wipe his face after making du’aa’.

Those who say that the face should be wiped quoted some ahaadeeth as evidence, but upon further examination they are not saheeh, and do not support one another.

As for the views of the scholars who say that it is not allowed to wipe the face, they include the following:

1 – Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal said: It is not known that anyone used to wipe his face after making du’aa’ except al-Hasan.

Al-‘Ilal al-Mutanaahiyah, 2/840, 841

2 – Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said: With regard to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) raising his hands when saying du’aa’, there are many saheeh ahaadeeth concerning this, but as for his wiping his face with his hands, there are only one or two hadeeths concerning that, and they cannot be taken as evidence.

Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 22/519

3 – al-‘Izz ibn ‘Abd al-Salaam said: No one wipes his face with his hands after saying du’aa’ except one who is ignorant.

Fataawa al-‘Izz ibn ‘Abd al-Salaam, p. 47

If it is not permitted to wipe the face after making du’aa’, it is more likely that the person who says du’aa’ should not be allowed to wipe his body either, or to kiss his eyes.

Rather the scholars stated that kissing the thumbs and placing them on the eyes is a bid’ah that was introduced by some of the Sufi tareeqahs, and there is a hadeeth concerning that which is falsely attributed to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).

Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) was asked about the ruling on wiping the face with the hands after making du’aa’. He replied:

Wiping the face with the hands after making du’aa’ is more likely to be not prescribed in Islam, because the ahaadeeth that have been narrated concerning that are da’eef (weak). Shaykh al-Islam (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: They cannot be used as evidence. If we are not certain or we think it most likely that this is not prescribed, then it is better not to do it, because Islamic rulings cannot be proven on the basis of mere conjecture, unless we believe it to be mostly likely to be the case.

What I think about wiping the face with the hands after du’aa’ is that it is not Sunnah. As is well known, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) prayed for rain during his Friday khutbah and raised his hands, but it is not narrated that he wiped his face with them. Similarly in a number of ahaadeeth it says that the Prophet raised his hands, but there is no proof that he wiped his face. End quote.

Majmoo’ Fataawa Ibn ‘Uthaymeen, 14/question no. 781


-----------------------------------------------

According to Sheikh al-Albaani, it is an innovaton.

The Weakness of the Ahaadeeth Mentioning Wiping the Face with the Hands After Du'aa' (Supplication)
From Irwaa' al-Ghaleel (2/178-182) by Shaykh al-Albaani

1) "The Prophet (sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam), when he raised his hands in du'aa', he would not put them down until he had wiped his face with them."
..........

This hadeeth cannot be strengthened by the two routes of narration together due to the severity in weakness of the first one, which you have seen.

2) "When you call upon Allaah, then supplicate with the palms of your hands, and do not supplicate with their backs, and when you finish, wipe your face with them."

..........................

Abu Daawood said about this hadeeth, "This hadeeth has been narrated via more than one route on the authority of Muhammad ibn Ka'b; all of them are feeble."

.............................

As for wiping the face after du'aa' outside of prayer, there are only these two ahaadeeth; it is not correct to say that they mutually strengthen each other to the rank of hasan, as Manaawi did, due to the severity of the weakness found in their routes of narration. This is why Imaam Nawawi said in Majmoo', "It is not recommended", endorsing Ibn 'Abd as- Salaam, who said, "Only an ignorant person does it."

The view that wiping the face after du'aa' is not prescribed is strengthened by the fact that there are many authentic ahaadeeth about raising the hands in supplication, and in none of them is there a mention of wiping the face; this shows, Allaah Willing, that it is unacceptable and not prescribed.

[taken from the prophet's paryer described, by sheikh al-Albaani]

[Abuz Zubair]

No need to be confused.

You follow the opinion you think is closest to the truth. But do not censure those who follow the other opinion.

As I said, Ibn Uthaimin supports this position in his Mustalah, there are two narrations from Imam Ahmad concerning this, and the madhab as far as I recall is that one may wipe his face.

al-Nawawi, too, has two opinions on the issue; not recommended in al-Majmu' and recommended in al-Tahqiq.

One shouldn't make a big deal over the issue. Take it as Allah's mercy.

[1mran]

No need to be confused.

You follow the opinion you think is closest to the truth. But do not censure those who follow the other opinion.

As I said, Ibn Uthaimin supports this position in his Mustalah, there are two narrations from Imam Ahmad concerning this, and the madhab as far as I recall is that one may wipe his face.

al-Nawawi, too, has two opinions on the issue; not recommended in al-Majmu' and recommended in al-Tahqiq.

One shouldn't make a big deal over the issue. Take it as Allah's mercy.


oh so the imams had two positions?

maybe they changed their mind later?

its important because if someone asks me, i wouldlike to be able to explain why.

because if Imam nawawi and ibn uthaymin have two opposite positions to one issue, it can be confusing.

but Al-Albaani has knowledge in the science of Hadith, and explains why the hadith cant be strengthend.

......

br, can i ask you something. lets say, Imam A has an opinion on sometning, and we love imam A and follow him. and Imam A explains his position with the evidence.

then we have Imam B, who we love, but dont necessarily follow. and he goes with a different opinon and explains the error in the Evidence of Imam A,

do we still follow imam A?

would this verse apply here?

And be not as those who divided and differed among themselves after the clear proofs had come to them. It is they for whom there is an awful torment. (Aali Imran 3:105)


as for this hadith [if you were refering to it]

"The differing amongst my Ummah is a mercy."

[No isnad exists for this hadith: al-Subki (d. 756) said, "It is not known to the scholars of Hadith, and I cannot find an isnad for it, whether sahih, da'if, or maudu'." It, along with the previous one, is often used to justify the following two extremes: (i) blind following of the views of men, with no reference to the Qur'an and Sunnah; (ii) conveniently following whichever scholar holds the easiest view, or that most agreeable to one's desires, again without reference to the fundamental sources.] http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/scienceofhadith/aape.html#G16

and Allah knows Best

[Abuz Zubair]

Dear brother,

You shouldn't ever place yourself in a position where you have to justify why this opinion is stronger than the other.

Always remember, that if the issue is of valid difference of opinion, even if you think you have all the evidences on your side and the other person doesn't have anything, you cannot force your opinion on anyone.

We must learn to respect the difference of opinion amongst the scholars. I.e., if someone wipes his face, no big deal, and if someone does not, no big deal.

If you were a mujtahid, you wouldn't have the right to impose your ijtihad on others. How about if you were merely a muqallid? (which is what you are doing in essence, making taqlid of a few scholars)

br, can i ask you something. lets say, Imam A has an opinion on sometning, and we love imam A and follow him. and Imam A explains his position with the evidence.

then we have Imam B, who we love, but dont necessarily follow. and he goes with a different opinon and explains the error in the Evidence of Imam A,

do we still follow imam A?


If you have to choose between two scholars giving conflicting opinions, then you should go for the one who is more pious and more knowledgeable. If they are equally knowledgeable, then the more pious of the two. If they are equally pious then the more knowledgeable of the two. If one is more pious and the other is more knowledgeable, then some say you should follow the more knowledgeable (which is probably the correct position). Others say you should follow the one who is more pious.

So long as you are following a qualified mufti, you are safe. But do not feel the need to correct others if they follow a different ijtihad.

Yes, the narration of ikhtilaf being a mercy is weak, but it is, nevertheless, an accepted principles amongst the fuqaha of Ahl al-Sunnah.

Umar b. Abd al-'Aziz used to say something to the affect that how good it is that the companions differed? For how difficult would it be for us if they all were to unite on one opinion? In the sense that if anyone opposes them he would be considered a deviant. Yet, because the companions differed, there came with it the ease to chose whichever of the companion one felt was right.

Once a student of Imam Ahmad compiled a work on legal disagreements and called it the book of khilaf. Imam Ahmad said to him: Do not call it the book of Khilaf. Call it the book of ease.

Because khilaf results in ease for the Ummah.

Ibn Qudama says the same in the forward of his Mughni, that ikhtilaf amongst the jurists is a mercy for the Ummah.

We should not treat this mercy as a curse and understand that people are bound to differ.

[1mran]

Dear brother,

You shouldn't ever place yourself in a position where you have to justify why this opinion is stronger than the other.

Always remember, that if the issue is of valid difference of opinion, even if you think you have all the evidences on your side and the other person doesn't have anything, you cannot force your opinion on anyone.

We must learn to respect the difference of opinion amongst the scholars. I.e., if someone wipes his face, no big deal, and if someone does not, no big deal.

If you were a mujtahid, you wouldn't have the right to impose your ijtihad on others. How about if you were merely a muqallid? (which is what you are doing in essence, making taqlid of a few scholars)



If you have to choose between two scholars giving conflicting opinions, then you should go for the one who is more pious and more knowledgeable. If they are equally knowledgeable, then the more pious of the two. If they are equally pious then the more knowledgeable of the two. If one is more pious and the other is more knowledgeable, then some say you should follow the more knowledgeable (which is probably the correct position). Others say you should follow the one who is more pious.

So long as you are following a qualified mufti, you are safe. But do not feel the need to correct others if they follow a different ijtihad.

Yes, the narration of ikhtilaf being a mercy is weak, but it is, nevertheless, an accepted principles amongst the fuqaha of Ahl al-Sunnah.

Umar b. Abd al-'Aziz used to say something to the affect that how good it is that the companions differed? For how difficult would it be for us if they all were to unite on one opinion? In the sense that if anyone opposes them he would be considered a deviant. Yet, because the companions differed, there came with it the ease to chose whichever of the companion one felt was right.

Once a student of Imam Ahmad compiled a work on legal disagreements and called it the book of khilaf. Imam Ahmad said to him: Do not call it the book of Khilaf. Call it the book of ease.

Because khilaf results in ease for the Ummah.

Ibn Qudama says the same in the forward of his Mughni, that ikhtilaf amongst the jurists is a mercy for the Ummah.

We should not treat this mercy as a curse and understand that people are bound to differ.



The issue i have is that, what if someone asks me about the fatwa on islam-qa about wipping the face?

should i tell him the imam himself had two positions?

i understand where two imams have their own opinions, but if one imam has two opinions, isnt it more likely he that he either made a mistake, or changed his mind?

if the imam has two positions, which contradict. then what do u do?


As for the issue of differencing being a Mercy,

forgive my ignorance, but could you show me an example of how this differencing has been a mercy.

not that i dont believe you, i just want to understand why these scholars said so. insha'Allah

[Abuz Zubair]

The issue i have is that, what if someone asks me about the fatwa on islam-qa about wipping the face?

should i tell him the imam himself had two positions?

i understand where two imams have their own opinions, but if one imam has two opinions, isnt it more likely he that he either made a mistake, or changed his mind?

if the imam has two positions, which contradict. then what do u do?

If he approaches you about it independently, then there is no harm in referring him to islamqa or any other mufti that you trust. You do not need to go into detail and tell him the proofs for each of the opinions, because you yourself in reality are not following proofs. You are following ijtihadat. And this is what the person asking you will be doing, too.

The deen is extremely simple, and on top of that the Prophet told us to make it simple for the people. The simplest thing a person can do in such situations is to refer to a mufti and act on his fatwa. He is free in the sight of Allah.

As for the issue of differencing being a Mercy,

forgive my ignorance, but could you show me an example of how this differencing has been a mercy.

not that i dont believe you, i just want to understand why these scholars said so. insha'Allah

It is how Umar b. Abd al-'Aziz explained. If the scholars were to unite in one issue, then a person wouldn't be able to differ or have a different opinion. However, when they differ, then a person can choose an opinion amongst a variety of opinion without the fear of being called a heretic and such.

In such cases, if a mujtahid sees a layman following an opinion which he considers to be wrong, at least he wouldn't condemn him, but instead say: there is ease in this matter, he is still following another mujtahid, and hence no censure.

In this sense ikhtilaf brings about ease.

[1mran]

i understand the issue of refering to islam-qa

but if they quote only one opinion of an imam who has two, what should some1 do?

as for the issue of mercy,

i guess i still dont see it.

the way i see it, you are right, islam is easy

Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "Religion is very easy and whoever overburdens himself in his religion will not be able to continue in that way. So you should not be extremists, but try to be near to perfection and receive the good tidings that you will be rewarded; and gain strength by worshipping in the mornings, the nights." (See Fath-ul-Bari, Page 102, Vol 1). [Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 38]

Narrated Abu Huraira: A bedouin urinated in the mosque, and the people rushed to beat him. Allah's Apostle ordered them to leave him and pour a bucket or a tumbler (full) of water over the place where he has passed urine. The Prophet then said,"Y ou have been sent to make things easy (for the people) and you have not been sent to make things difficult for them." [Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 73, Number 149]


but, the way i see it, the way of the Messenger of Allah is already easy.

If Islam was complete, and the best (and easiest) way has been chosen for us.

... do not dispute (with one another) lest you lose courage and your strength depart, and be patient. ... (Al-Anfal 8:46)

... be not of Al*Mushrikûn (the disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah, polytheists, idolaters, etc.). Of those who split up their religion (i.e. who left the true Islâmic Monotheism), and became sects, [i.e. they invented new things in the religion (Bid'ah), and followed their vain desires], each sect rejoicing in that which is with it. (Ar-Rum 30:31- 32)

And if your Lord had so willed, He could surely have made mankind one Ummah [nation or community (following one religion only i.e. Islâm)], but they will not cease to disagree,- Except him on whom your Lord has bestowed His Mercy .... (Hud 11:118 - 119)

If Allah's mercy puts an end to dispute mong men as is implied in the above, how then could disagreement and dispute be a mercy?

Ibn al-Qasim, who was among the main students of Imam Malik, said, "i heard malik and al-Layth both say the following concerning the differences among the Sahabah: 'People say there is leeway for them in it, but it is not so; it was a case of wrong and right rulings. " [ Jami' Byan al-'Ilm, Vol. 2, p. 83-4]

Ash-hab, another of Imam Malik's studenrs, said, "Malik was once asked whether one was safe to follow a ruling related to him by reliable narrators who heard it from companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him). he replied, 'No, by Allah, not unless it is correct: the truth is only one. Can two opposing opinions be simultaneously correct? The opinion which is correct can be only one" [ Jami' Byan al-'Ilm, Vol. 2, p. 82,88,89]

Allah Knows Best

[Abuz Zubair]

i understand the issue of refering to islam-qa

but if they quote only one opinion of an imam who has two, what should some1 do?

Nothing else. You've done your job.

As for the issue of mercy, maybe I cannot explain myself well. Perhaps someone else can help.

Yes, agreements are not only mercy but also clear cut proofs which one may not oppose.

However, legal disagreements were not looked as something bad. This happened at the time of the Prophet - SallAllahu 'alayhi wa-sallam and he did not condemn the companions for differing. This is fiqh, and fiqh by its nature is bound to have lots and lots of difference of opinion.

We should learn to tolerate such differences.

[1mran]

Insha'Allah,

Allah Knows Best

[AbuNaim]

I believe it is not Bidah but Sunnah to wipe the face after Duaa

http://www.troid.org/media/audio/MR11.206_wipingonesface.mp3

[junaid123]

I believe it is not Bidah but Sunnah to wipe the face after Duaa

http://www.troid.org/media/audio/MR11.206_wipingonesface.mp3

most of the sources what speaker said i think is this:

First: The narration of ‘Umar ibn Al Khattab in Sunan At-Tirmidhi

حَدَّثَنَا ‏ ‏أَبُو مُوسَى مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ الْمُثَنَّى ‏ ‏وَإِبْرَاهِيمُ بْنُ يَعْقُوبَ ‏ ‏وَغَيْرُ وَاحِدٍ ‏ ‏قَالُوا حَدَّثَنَا ‏ ‏حَمَّادُ بْنُ عِيسَى الْجُهَنِيُّ ‏ ‏عَنْ ‏ ‏حَنْظَلَةَ بْنِ أَبِي سُفْيَانَ الْجُمَحِيِّ ‏ ‏عَنْ ‏ ‏سَالِمِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ‏ ‏عَنْ ‏ ‏أَبِيهِ ‏ ‏عَنْ ‏ ‏عُمَرَ بْنِ الْخَطَّابِ ‏ ‏رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ ‏ ‏قَالَ ‏كَانَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ‏ ‏صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ‏ ‏إِذَا رَفَعَ يَدَيْهِ فِي الدُّعَاءِ لَمْ يَحُطَّهُمَا حَتَّى يَمْسَحَ بِهِمَا وَجْهَهُ ‏
قَالَ ‏ ‏مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ الْمُثَنَّى ‏ ‏فِي حَدِيثِهِ ‏ ‏لَمْ يَرُدَّهُمَا حَتَّى يَمْسَحَ بِهِمَا وَجْهَهُ ‏ ‏قَالَ ‏ ‏أَبُو عِيسَى ‏ ‏هَذَا ‏ ‏حَدِيثٌ صَحِيحٌ غَرِيبٌ ‏ ‏لَا نَعْرِفُهُ إِلَّا مِنْ حَدِيثِ ‏ ‏حَمَّادِ بْنِ عِيسَى ‏ ‏وَقَدْ تَفَرَّدَ بِهِ وَهُوَ قَلِيلُ الْحَدِيثِ وَقَدْ حَدَّثَ عَنْهُ النَّاسُ ‏ ‏وَحَنْظَلَةُ بْنُ أَبِي سُفْيَانَ الْجُمَحِيُّ ‏ ‏ثِقَةٌ وَثَّقَهُ ‏ ‏يَحْيَى بْنُ سَعِيدٍ الْقَطَّانُ

Musaa Muhammad ibn Al-Muthannaa and Ibraahim ibn Ya’qub and more than one stating that Hammaad ibn ‘Eesaa Al-Juhani narrated to us from Hanthalah ibn Abi Sufyaan Al-Jumahiy from Saalim ibn Abdullah from his father (Abdullah ibn Umar) from Umar ibn Al-Khattab (radhiya Allahu ‘Anhu) who said that Rasulullah (SAWS) (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) when raising his hands in du’aa, would not put them down until he had wiped his face with them.

At-Tirmithi continues, “This hadith is Sahih ghareeb1, we do not know it save from the hadith of Hammad ibn ‘Eesaa, and he alone narrates this [from Hanthala]. He has few hadith and the people reported from him. And Hanthalah ibn Abi Sufyaan al-Jumahiy is thiqah (highly trustworthy), and he was declared thiqah by Yahyaa ibn Sa’id Al-Qattaan.”

The attack on this chain, according to Sh.Al-Albaani in his Irwaa’, is that Hammad ibn ‘Eesaa Al-Juhani is dha’if (weak). He writes,

“However, this reporter is weak, as in Taqreeb of Ibn Hajr, who says about him in Tahdheeb:

Ibn Ma`een said, “A good shaikh” Abu Haatim said, “Weak in Hadeeth”; Abu Daawood said, “Weak, he reports munkar ahaadeeth”; Haakim and Naqqaash said, “He reports fabricated ahaadeeth from Ibn Juraij and Ja`far as-Saadiq.” He is declared to be weak by Daaraqutni. Ibn Hibbaan said, “He reports things which are the wrong way round on the authority of Ibn Juraij and `Abdul `Azeez ibn `Umar ibn `Abdul `Azeez, such that it seems to those whose field this is that it is deliberate; it is not permissible to use him as proof.” Ibn Maakoolaa said, “They declare his ahaadeeth to be weak.”

Hence, the like of this reporter is very weak, so his ahaadeeth cannot be raised to the level of hasan, let alone saheeh!” 2

The exact words of Sh.Al Albaani are:

قلت : فمثله ضعيف جدا ، فلا يحسن حديثه فضلا عنه أن يصحح !

The obvious question is: How is this reporter ” Dha’if Jiddan - Very weak”? The Imaam of Ahlus Sunnah, Yahyaa ibn Ma’een labeled this man, “A Saalih Shaykh!”3. Furthermore, Imaam At-Tirmidhi clearly states, “And the people reported from him”. An-Naas or the people is in reference to the scholars of hadeeth. That means that this narrator was NOT abandoned by the scholars. Not only does he say the scholars did not abandon him, but he grades the hadith Authentic (sahih)! Adh-Dhahabi mentions in Al-Meezaan,

ضَعَّفَهُ أَبُو دَاوُدَ وَأَبُو حَاتِمٍ والدَّارَقُطْنِيُّ وَلَمْ يَتْرُكْهُ

“He was weakened by Abu Daawud, Abu Haatim, and Ad-Daaraqutni, but he was not Abandoned [by them].”

This proves that the scholars did not consider him “very weak” as claimed by some. Rather, they were cautious and sought supporting narrations. For if he were VERY weak, the scholars would have abandoned his narrations altogether. This is further attested too by the verdict of Ibn Hajr in his Taqrib declaring him “Dha’if”, while not declaring him “very weak” or “abandoned” etc. Thus, the claim that he is “very weak” is an exaggeration. if some brother argue that Haakim and Naqqaash declared that he reported fabrications, we say either of two things:

1) The scholars obviously did not accept this standard or else you would have seen them labeling him Kath-thaab (liar) or matrook (abandoned). Rather, there is nearly a unanimous decision that he is only “dha’if” and not a fabricator!

2) He is not reporting from these men and they were specific in their criticism. Rather he is reporting from Hanthalah ibn Abi Sufyaan.

It is interesting that Sh.Al-Albaani and use Al-Haafith Ibn Hajr Al-’Asqalaani’s grading of “Dha’if” against Hammad ibn ‘Eesaa. Al-Haafith (rahimahullah) states in Bulugh Al-Maraam after mentioning this specific narration,

“Reported by Tirmithi. It has shawaahid (supporting narrations) such as the hadith Ibn ‘Abbaas that is reported by Abu Daawud and elsewhere. These narrations, collectively, warrant the hadith to be considered Hasan!”

Even though he declared him weak, he did not abandon his reports, rather he used them as support with other narrations.

The editor, Shaykh Haazim Al-Qaadhi, declares this hadith to be “Hasan li-ghayrih” in his gloss of Subul-As-Salaam of Imaam As-Sana’ani. Imaam As-Sana’ani himself states after this hadith, “In this narration is daleel (proof) that it is legislated to wipe the face after finishing one’s du’aa”.4

Second Hadith: The Narration of As-Saa’ib Ibn Yazeed from His Father Yazeed ibn Sa’id

The second report comes from Abu Daawud in his Sunan and Imaam Ahmad in his Musnad;

‏حَدَّثَنَا ‏ ‏قُتَيْبَةُ بْنُ سَعِيدٍ ‏ ‏حَدَّثَنَا ‏ ‏ابْنُ لَهِيعَةَ ‏ ‏عَنْ ‏ ‏حَفْصِ بْنِ هَاشِمِ بْنِ عُتْبَةَ بْنِ أَبِي وَقَّاصٍ ‏ ‏عَنْ ‏ ‏السَّائِبِ بْنِ يَزِيدَ ‏ ‏عَنْ ‏ ‏أَبِيهِ ‏ أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ ‏ ‏صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ‏ ‏كَانَ ‏ ‏إِذَا دَعَا فَرَفَعَ يَدَيْهِ مَسَحَ وَجْهَهُ بِيَدَيْهِ


Qutaybah ibn Sa’id narrated to us from Ibn Lahee’ah from Hafs ibn Haashim ibn ‘Utbah ibn Abi Waqqaas from As-Saa’ib ibn Yazeed from his father that the Nabi (SAWS) (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) when making du’aa would raise his hands and then would wipe his face with his hands.

There are two defects in this chain: Abdullah ibn Lahee’ah. There is severe disagreement regarding him. The majority say that he wa mistaken after his books were burnt. There is praise from major scholars, such as Ibn Wahb who called him the Saadiq (truthful) righteous man. Ibn Hajr labeled him, “Saduq, he mingled [hadith] after his books burnt…”.5 Haafith Shu’ayb Al-Arnaa’ut disagrees and states, “Dha’if (weak), his reports must be followed up, and his hadith are Sahih if reporting from him are the ‘Abaadilah: i.e. Ibn al Mubaarak, Ibn Wahb, Ibn Yazeed Al-Muqri’, Ibn Maslamah Al-Qa’Nabi (SAWS), for they followed his principles and transcribed what he said…”

Regarding this hadith, an important point must be made. Qutaybah ibn Sa’id is reporting from him. Qutaybah reported from Ibn Lahee’ah prior to his books being burnt as stated by Shaykh Shu’ayb Al-Arnaa’ut in his Tahreer. This lends strength to a stronger period in Ibn Lahee’ah’s career as a Muhaddith. However, he is weak, as Ibn Ma’in stated he was weak prior to his burning of his books. He is not severely weak however, as even Al-Albaani attested too in his Radd Al-Mufhim and elsewhere.

The second weakness is that the one Ibn Lahee’ah is reporting from, Hafs ibn Haashim, is majhul (unknown) as stated by Ibn Hajr and the rest of the Muhadditheen. However, Ibn Lahee’ah follows up this chain, as mentioned by Imaam Ibn Hajr in his Tahtheeb at-Tahtheeb with another reporter in his place, Yahyaa ibn Is-haaq As-Seelaheeni. Ibn Sa’ad said about him, “thiqah and a master of hadeeth.” He was declared thiqah by Ahmad and others as well. Due to this thiqah follow-up narrator, it is not severely weak, and clearly can be used as a supportive narration.



Third Hadith: The narration of Ibn ‘Abbaas (radhiya Allahu ‘anhu)

This is the narration alluded to by Al-Haafith Ibn Hajr in his Bulugh Al-Maraam. Abu Daawud records it in his sunan thus:

حَدَّثَنَا ‏ ‏عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مَسْلَمَةَ ‏ ‏حَدَّثَنَا ‏ ‏عَبْدُ الْمَلِكِ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ أَيْمَنَ ‏ ‏عَنْ ‏ ‏عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ يَعْقُوبَ بْنِ إِسْحَقَ ‏ ‏عَمَّنْ ‏ ‏حَدَّثَهُ عَنْ ‏ ‏مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ كَعْبٍ الْقُرَظِيِّ ‏ ‏حَدَّثَنِي ‏ ‏عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ عَبَّاسٍ ‏
أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ‏ ‏صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ‏ ‏قَالَ ‏ ‏لَا تَسْتُرُوا الْجُدُرَ مَنْ نَظَرَ فِي كِتَابِ أَخِيهِ بِغَيْرِ إِذْنِهِ فَإِنَّمَا يَنْظُرُ فِي النَّارِ سَلُوا اللَّهَ بِبُطُونِ أَكُفِّكُمْ وَلَا تَسْأَلُوهُ بِظُهُورِهَا فَإِذَا فَرَغْتُمْ فَامْسَحُوا بِهَا وُجُوهَكُمْ ‏
قَالَ ‏ ‏أَبُو دَاوُد ‏ ‏رُوِيَ هَذَا الْحَدِيثُ مِنْ غَيْرِ وَجْهٍ عَنْ ‏ ‏مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ كَعْبٍ ‏ ‏كُلُّهَا وَاهِيَةٌ وَهَذَا الطَّرِيقُ أَمْثَلُهَا ‏ ‏وَهُوَ ضَعِيفٌ ‏ ‏أَيْضًا

Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:

The Messenger of Allah (SWT) (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said: “Do not cover the walls. He who sees the letter of his brother without his permission, sees Hell-fire. Supplicate Allah (SWT) with the palms of your hands; do not supplicate Him with their backs upwards. When you finish supplication, wipe your faces with them.”

Abu Daawud says, “This hadith is is reported from other directions (of narration) from Muhammad ibn Ka’ab, all of them containing weakness (waahiyah), and this path (tareeq) is an example of that. It is Dha’if (weak) as well.”

The weakness in this hadith, as mentioned by Sh.Al-Albaani in his Irwaa are two things:

A) Abdul Malik ibn Muhammad ibn Ahmad - who is Majhul according to Ibn Hajr in his Taqreeb. Haafith Shu’ayb Al-Arnaa’ut disagrees and states, “Majhul-Al-Haal” because two trustworthy reporters report from him. However, his hadeeth are acceptable according to the conditions of An-Nawawi and Ibn As-Salaah because his status is “Majhul-Al-Haal” as two or more trustworthy narrators narrate from him and there is no criticism against his status.

B) ‘Abdullah ibn Ya’qub ibn Is-haaq - who is also Majhul Al-Haal.

To be Majhul-Al-Haal/Mastur is not an extreme weakness, and according to some, is not a weakness at all.

There are other weak chains that support this narration. They are as follows;

Support 1:

حدثنا ‏ ‏محمد بن الصباح ‏ ‏حدثنا ‏ ‏عائذ بن حبيب ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏صالح بن حسان ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏محمد بن كعب القرظي ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏ابن عباس ‏ ‏قال ‏
قال رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏إذا دعوت الله فادع ببطون كفيك ولا تدع بظهورهما فإذا فرغت فامسح بهما وجهك

This is the same hadeeth regarding the wiping of the face. It is the chain of Ibn Maajah in his Sunan. It is weak due to Saalih ibn Hassaan being within it. He is abandoned by most of the Muhadditheen. In fact Al-Bukhaari states regarding him, “Munkar Al-Hadeeth”. Adh-Dhahabi reports that Al-Bukhaari stated that when he deemed someon “munkar al hadeeth”, he is to be abandoned.



Support 2:

Sh.As Al-Albaani mentions in his Irwaa’, Ibn Nasr reports this hadeeth without Saalih ibn Hassaan. Instead in his place is another weak narrator by the name of ‘Eesaa ibn Maymoon Al-Madani. There is disagreement as to how severe his weakness is. Ibn Hajr concludes that he is “Dha’eef”, while Haafith Shu’ayb Arnaa’ut deems him abandoned (matrook) in his tahreer.6 Imaam Adh-Dhahabi states in his Kaashif, “He is weakened (dha’afahu).”7 Meaning Adh-Dhahabi agreed to his status being dha’eef, but not abandoned.

If it is as Haafith Ibn Hajr and Imaam Adh-Dhahabi stated, then this second narration is a valid follow up and supportive chain for the first.

After all of this, one can see the validity in Al-Haafith Ibn Hajr’s declaration of “Hasan” upon these narrations. His ruling is justifiable in the shari’ah and, in the view of many of the Muhadditheen, is the correct ruling.



Lastly, Sh.Al-Albaani states in his Irwaa’ the following about the Madh-hab of Imaamunaa Ahmad ibn Hanbal (rahimahullah) regarding wiping the face with the hands after du’aa:

قال ابن نصر عقب الحديث : ورأيت إسحاق يستحسن العمل بهذه الأحاديث ، وأما أحمد بن حنبل : فحدثني أبو داود قال : سمعت أحمد ، وسئل عن الرجل يمسح وجهه بيديه إذا فرغ في الوتر ؟ فقال : لم أسمع فيه بشئ


He quotes ibn Nasr as saying, “And I saw Is-haaq declaring good the action of these narrations. Regarding Imaam Ahmad ibn Hanbal then Abu Daawud narrated to me saying, ‘I heard Ahmad and he was being asked regarding the man who wiped his face with his hands after beseeching Allah (SWT) in Salatul-Witr. He said, “I have not heard anything at all regarding it.”

The response to this quote:

Firstly: This is specific to Salatul-Witr, not du’aa outside of the Salaah. There is nothing reported regarding wiping one’s face in the Salaah itself.

Secondly: The Hanaabilah have infact established wiping the face after du’aa. Some of them considered it Makrooh in Salaatul-Witr. Others deemed it jaa’iz to recommended outside of it.

Ibn Qudaamah in his Al-Kaafi fi fiqh Al-Imaam Ahmad states regarding Qunut in Witr,

“And when the Imam performs Qunut, the one behind him says Aameen. If he does not hear the Qunut of the Imaam, then he is to make du’aa, and there is textual proof (nass) for that. And [one] raises his hands in the Qunut to the level of his chest, due to Ibn Mas’ood doing so. When he has completed his du’aa he wipes his face with his hands. It is also reported from it [i.e. the madh-hab] that it is not done. And the first [opinion] is better due to what is reported from As-Saa’ib ibn Yazeed (from his father) that Rasulullah (SAWS) (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) would raise his hands when making du’aa, and wipe his face thereafter with his hands. Reported by Abu Daawud.”

Imaam Al-Hajjaawi, a master of the Hanbali madh-hab, writes in his Zaad Al-Mustaqni’ in his section on Salatul-Witr after the Qunut,

“And he wipes his face with his hands…”

Imaam Al-Bahuti, the Imaam of the Hanaabilah in his time, writes in explanation withi his Rawdh Al-Murabbi’,

“That is when he is finished with his du’aa. And when he leaves the Salaah due to the statement of Umar ibn Al Khattab that Rasulullah (SAWS) (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) when raising his hands in du’aa, would not put them down until he had wiped his face with them. Reported by Imaam At-Tirmithi.”

Imaam Mar’i ibn Yusuf Al-Karmi in his Daleel At-Taalib states,

“…he then says Aameen then wipes his face with his hands here…”

Imaam ‘Abdul Qaadir ibn ‘Umar Ash-Shaybaani Al-Hanbali states in his gloss of Daleel At-Taalib, Nayl Al-Maa’rib Sharh Daleel At-Taalib,

“meaning, within the Qunut.”8

So according to these five masters of the Hanbali Madh-hab, this is an established, recommended act, encouraged for every Hanbali in his Salaah. Compare this to the statement of Al-Albaani who said,

فهو بدعة بلا شك

“It is a bida’ah, without a doubt!”

Compare the statements of Ibn Qudaamah, Al-Hajjaawi, Imaam ‘Abdul Qaadir ibn ‘Umar Ash-Shaybaani Al-Hanbali, Imaam Mar’i ibn Yusuf Al-Karmi, Imaam Al-Bahuti and many others of the Hanaabilah to this irresponsible statement of Al-Albaani. Let us not forget this is the official stance of the Hanafis and many Shaafi’is as well, including Ibn Hajr, Imaam As-Suyuti (who deemed the narrations Hasan), and Hujjatul-Islaam Al-Ghazzaali, Imaam Ash-Shawkaani in his Tuhfat-Adh-Dhaakireen, Imaam Al-Jazari in his al-Hisn.

Imaam Ibn Muflih states in his Al-Mubda’ Sharh Al-Muqni’, the gloss of the simple treatise “Al-Muqni’” of Ibn Qudaamah Al-Maqdisi after the following words of Ibn Qudaamah,

“And does one wipe his face (i.e. when one finishes the du’aa) with his hands? There are Two reports.”The well known (mash-hoor) of the two opinions is that one is to wipe his face. There is a text for it from Ahmad, and it was the chosen opinion (ikhtaaruh) of many. This is due to what is reported from As-Saa’ib ibn Yazeed from his father that the Nabi (SAWS) (alayhis Salaam) would rise his hands in du’aa, and when finished he would wipe his face.It is recorded by Abu Daawud from Ibn Lahee’ah. The second report from the madh-hab is that it is not done. This is recorded by a group and was the chosen of Al-Aajuree due to the weakness of the narration. And also from the madh-hab is that it is Makruh (disliked), and this was declared authentic in the book “Al-Waseelah”.

[AbuNaim]

Good posting brother...

Only maybe we should discuss the following which is a interesting case :

“And when the Imam performs Qunut, the one behind him says Aameen. If he does not hear the Qunut of the Imaam, then he is to make du’aa, and there is textual proof (nass) for that. And [one] raises his hands in the Qunut to the level of his chest, due to Ibn Mas’ood doing so. When he has completed his du’aa he wipes his face with his hands. It is also reported from it [i.e. the madh-hab] that it is not done. And the first [opinion] is better due to what is reported from As-Saa’ib ibn Yazeed (from his father) that Rasulullah (SAWS) (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) would raise his hands when making du’aa, and wipe his face thereafter with his hands. Reported by Abu Daawud.”

The matter is that Hanafis also raise their hands due the report of Ibn Mas'ood, but they raise it for the takbir of Qunut like when raising the hands when opening the salah, thus not DURING the dua of Qunut.

The Hanbalia have interpretated the action of Ibn Mas'ood in a different manner?


Here is the action of Ibn Mas'ood as quoted in Juz Raf ul Yadayn and Ibn Abi Shaybah:

164- حدثنا عبدالرحيم المحاربي حدثنا زائدة عن ليث عن عبدالرحمن بن الأسود عن أبيه عن عبدالله أنه كان يقرأ في آخر ركعة من الوتر {قل هو الله أحد} ثم يرفع يديه ويقنت قبل الركعة.


But here i found in a narration of Abdurrazzaq that Ibn Mas'ood dropped his hands after it;

عبد الرزاق عن الزهري عن حماد عن إبراهيم أن ابن مسعود كان يرفع يديه في الوتر ثم يرسلهما بعد.

مصنف عبد الرزاق - ج 4 / ص 325


Comments are welcome...

[suhailp]

"Imam Bukhari narrates in his Adab Al-Mufrad (#609): Ibrahim ibn Munzir narrated us, he said Muhammad ibn Falih narrated us, he said : my father informed me from Abu Nua’ym and he is Wahb, he said : "I saw ibn ‘Umar and ibn Zubayr making invocation and they wiped their hands on their faces."

This Athar is Hassan, and Ibn Hajar even declared it Sahih in Al-Amali, and its narrators are all from (Saheeh) Bukhari. "

Is this act of Ibn Umar RA not enough to save it from being labeled as a Bidah? Then again, when Umar RA was called a Mubtade by some for 20 Rakat Taraaweeh, why cant his son's amal be labeled as Bidah?!
Wallahul Musta'aan

[Abu Maryam PK]

So according to these five masters of the Hanbali Madh-hab, this is an established, recommended act, encouraged for every Hanbali in his Salaah. Compare this to the statement of Al-Albaani who said,

فهو بدعة بلا شك

“It is a bida’ah, without a doubt!”


Apparently, he is not the only one to oppose the hanbali position, even contemporary hanbalis oppose this:
This is from saudi standing comittee

س2: ما مدى صحة الحديث الذي ورد في مسح الوجه بالكفين بعد الدعاء سواء في القنوت أم غيره، أو النفث فيهما ثم المسح بهما على سائر الجسم أو بعضه عند آية مناسبة يرفع فيها أكف الضراعة إلى الله، وما رأيكم بجواز ذلك أو عدمه؟

ج2: أولا: عند ابن ماجه : « إذا دعوت الله فادع ببطون كفيك، ولا تدع بظهورهما فإذا فرغت فامسح بهما وجهك » رواه ابن ماجه عن ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما، وذكره السيوطي في [الجامع الصغير] ورمز له براموز الحسن، ولكن قال ابن الجوزي : لا يصح، فيه صالح بن حسان متروك، وقال ابن حبان : كان صاحب قينات وسماع، وكان يروي الموضوعات عن الأثبات، وضعفه أحمد وابن معين وأبو داود وأبو حاتم والدارقطني ، وقال البخاري : منكر الحديث، وقال أبو نعيم الأصبهاني : منكر الحديث متروك.
ثانيا: نصه عند الترمذي هكذا: قال: حدثنا أبو موسى محمد بن المثنى وإبراهيم بن يعقوب وغير واحد قالوا: حدثنا حماد بن عيسى الجهني عن حنظلة بن أبي سفيان الجمحي ، عن سالم بن عبد الله عن أبيه عن عمر بن الخطاب رضي الله عنه قال: « كان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إذا رفع يديه في الدعاء لم يحطهما حتى يمسح بهما وجهه » ، قال محمد بن المثنى في حديثه: لم يردهما حتى يمسح بهما وجهه، قال أبو عيسى : هذا حديث صحيح غريب، لا نعرفه إلا من حديث حماد بن عيسى ، وقد تفرد به وهو قليل الحديث، وحنظلة بن أبي سفيان وثقه يحيى بن سعيد القطان [سنن الترمذي] (5 / 463، 464) برقم (3386). . اهـ. لكن في سنده حماد بن عيسى وهو ضعيف، وقد تفرد به على ما ذكره الترمذي ، وإذا كان الدعاء عبادة مشروعة ولم يثبت في مسح الوجه بالكفين عقبه سنة قولية ولا عملية، بل روي ذلك من طرق ضعيفة، فمسح الوجه بهما بعد الدعاء غير مشروع.
وبالله التوفيق. وصلى الله على نبينا محمد، وآله وصحبه وسلم.
اللجنة الدائمة للبحوث العلمية والإفتاء

[Abu Maryam PK]

About Qunoot of witr. Here this from Imam Al-Nawawy and Imam Al-Baihaqi:

واما مسح الوجه باليدين بعد الفراغ من الدعاء فان قلنا لا يرفع اليدين لم يشرع المسح بلا خلاف وإن قلنا يرفع فوجهان (اشهرهما) انه يستحب وممن قطع به القاضى أبو الطيب والشيخ أبو محمد الجويني وابن الصباغ والمتولي والشيخ نصر في كتبه والغزاليوصاحب البيان (والثانى)لا يمسح وهذا هو الصحيح صححه البيهقى والرافعي وآخرون من المحققين قال البيهقى لست أحفظ في مسح الوجه هنا عن أحد من السلف شيئا وإن كان يروى عن بعضهم في الدعاء خارج الصلاة فأما في الصلاة فهو عمل لم يثبت فيه خبر ولا أثر ولاقياس فالاولى أن لا يفعله ويقتصر علي ما نقله السلف عنهم من رفع اليدين دون مسحهما بالوجه في الصلاة ثم روى باسناده حديثا من سنن أبى داود عن محمد بن كعب القرظي عن ابن عباس رضى الله تعالي عنهما " أن رسول الله صلي الله عليه وسلم قال سلوا الله ببطون كفوفكم ولا تسألوه بظهورها فأذا
فرعتم فامسحوا بها وجوهكم " قال أبوا داود روى هذا الحديث من غير وجه عن محمد بن كعب كلها واهية هذا متنها وهو ضعيف أيضا ثم روى البيهقى عن علي الباشانى قال سألت عبد الله - يعنى ابن المبارك - عن الذى إذا دعا مسح وجهه قال لم أجد له ثبتا قال علي ولم أره يفعل ذلك قال وكان عبد الله يقنت بعد الركوع في الوتر وكان يرفع يديه هذا آخر كلام البيهقى في كتاب السنن وله رسالة مشهورة كتبها إلي الشيخ أبى محمد الجوينى أنكر عليه فيها أشياء من جملتها مسحه وجهه بعد القنوت وبسط الكلام في ذلك وأما حديث عمر رضي الله عنه أن رسول الله صلي الله تعالي عليه وسلم " كان إذا رفع يديه في الدعاء لم يحطهما حتى يمسح بهما وجهه " رواه الترمذ ى وقال حديث غريب انفرد به حماد ابن عيسي وحماد هذا ضعيف وذكر الشيخ عبد الحق هذا الحديث في كتابه الاحكام وقال الترمذي وهو حديث صحيح وغلط في قوله أن الترمذي قال هو حديث صحيح وانما قال غريب والحاصل لاصحابنا ثلاثة أوجه (الصحيح) يستحب رفع يديه دون مسح الوجه (والثاني) لا يستحبان (والثالث) يستحبان وأما غير الوجه من الصدر وغيره فاتفق أصحابنا علي أنه لا يستحب بل قال ابن الصباغ وغيره هو مكروه والله أعلم


This is from Majmoo'. And about wiping the face after du'a in qunoot in witr, He says that most authentic thing is not to do that, and imam al-baihaqi wrote treatise against this.

[AbuNaim]

Abu Marjam what about my question? Did you find anything?

[Abd al-Haqq Marshall]

Imam Malik believed that wiping the hands on the face after du'a was not Sunnah.

[junaid123]

Imam Malik believed that wiping the hands on the face after du'a was not Sunnah.

brother dont say the belive of any imam, bring the hadiths according whihc hadith those imam believed. :)

[Abu Maryam PK]

Abu Marjam what about my question? Did you find anything?
*bump* what was the question?

[AbuNaim]

This was the question Abu Marjam;


“And when the Imam performs Qunut, the one behind him says Aameen. If he does not hear the Qunut of the Imaam, then he is to make du’aa, and there is textual proof (nass) for that. And [one] raises his hands in the Qunut to the level of his chest, due to Ibn Mas’ood doing so. When he has completed his du’aa he wipes his face with his hands. It is also reported from it [i.e. the madh-hab] that it is not done. And the first [opinion] is better due to what is reported from As-Saa’ib ibn Yazeed (from his father) that Rasulullah (SAWS) (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) would raise his hands when making du’aa, and wipe his face thereafter with his hands. Reported by Abu Daawud.”

The matter is that Hanafis also raise their hands due the report of Ibn Mas'ood, but they raise it for the takbir of Qunut like when raising the hands when opening the salah, thus not DURING the dua of Qunut.

The Hanbalia have interpretated the action of Ibn Mas'ood in a different manner?


Here is the action of Ibn Mas'ood as quoted in Juz Raf ul Yadayn and Ibn Abi Shaybah:

164- حدثنا عبدالرحيم المحاربي حدثنا زائدة عن ليث عن عبدالرحمن بن الأسود عن أبيه عن عبدالله أنه كان يقرأ في آخر ركعة من الوتر {قل هو الله أحد} ثم يرفع يديه ويقنت قبل الركعة.


But here i found in a narration of Abdurrazzaq that Ibn Mas'ood dropped his hands after it;

عبد الرزاق عن الزهري عن حماد عن إبراهيم أن ابن مسعود كان يرفع يديه في الوتر ثم يرسلهما بعد.

مصنف عبد الرزاق - ج 4 / ص 325


Comments are welcome...

[Abu Maryam PK]

This was the question Abu Marjam;




The matter is that Hanafis also raise their hands due the report of Ibn Mas'ood, but they raise it for the takbir of Qunut like when raising the hands when opening the salah, thus not DURING the dua of Qunut.

The Hanbalia have interpretated the action of Ibn Mas'ood in a different manner?


Here is the action of Ibn Mas'ood as quoted in Juz Raf ul Yadayn and Ibn Abi Shaybah:

164- حدثنا عبدالرحيم المحاربي حدثنا زائدة عن ليث عن عبدالرحمن بن الأسود عن أبيه عن عبدالله أنه كان يقرأ في آخر ركعة من الوتر {قل هو الله أحد} ثم يرفع يديه ويقنت قبل الركعة.


But here i found in a narration of Abdurrazzaq that Ibn Mas'ood dropped his hands after it;

عبد الرزاق عن الزهري عن حماد عن إبراهيم أن ابن مسعود كان يرفع يديه في الوتر ثم يرسلهما بعد.

مصنف عبد الرزاق - ج 4 / ص 325


Comments are welcome...
thanx for clarifying. i will check insha'Allah

[AbuNaim]

thanx for clarifying. i will check insha'Allah

You found something?