Praying with arms at sides...

DanyalSAC

Junior Member
Asalaamu alaikum

I have a question about praying with the hands at the sides. Where did this habit come from? From what I know - and I don't know much - the hadith all say our Prophet salallahu alayhi wa salaam prayed with his hands clasped in front of him. But in my masjid alone we have about a dozen brothers who pray with their hands at their side. My shaykh says in his Friday lectures that this is an error.

Where does this habit come from?

Thanks for your replies.

D.
 

al-muslimah

Junior Member
Shiaa brothers and sisters pray like that. Sorry don't know the origins. I once asked a shia friend about the hand side thing. She didn't give me a useful answer.
 

DanyalSAC

Junior Member
Shiaa brothers and sisters pray like that. Sorry don't know the origins. I once asked a shia friend about the hand side thing. She didn't give me a useful answer.

I know that many Sunni brothers and sisters who follow the Maliki madhab pray this way as well though.
 

al-muslimah

Junior Member
Yes yes true. I forgot this. I read about this long ago. Well what I remember is that Imam Malik was injured for some reason so he couldn't lift up his hands to pray. So all his followers after him copied what he did blindly.

People who read this, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Edit: So I guess this could be the case for our Shiaa brothers and sisters.
 

thariq2005

Praise be to Allah!
Yes yes true. I forgot this. I read about this long ago. Well what I remember is that Imam Malik was injured for some reason so he couldn't lift up his hands to pray. So all his followers after him copied what he did blindly.

People who read this, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Edit: So I guess this could be the case for our Shiaa brothers and sisters.

Salaamu 'alaykkum. The first statement you made is true regarding Imaam Malik rahimahullaah

It was said that when Maalik (may Allaah have mercy on him) refused to accept the position of qaadi (judge), he was beaten, and he could not put his hands on his chest when praying, so he held them by his sides because of the pain. Some of those who saw that thought this was Sunnah so they transmitted this from him. But he (may Allaah have mercy on him) definitely did not say that the arms should be held by one’s side at all. This is a misunderstanding of some written statement and it goes against what he stated clearly in al-Muwatta’ about the right hand being placed on top of the left.

As for your second statement, then its a bit vague. You should know that shi`as do not follow imaam Malik rahimahullaah, rather they follow baatil. They are one of the first deviant sects to emerge that was founded by a jew, and that time Imaam Maalik was not present. So it is not correct to say that the shi`ahs could have followed imaam Maalik. Rather many of them followed the way of shaytaan. Many of the sects from the Shi`aahs are not even muslim in the first place (though they may claim it). They worship `ali, al hasan, fatimah radiAllaahu `anhum. They curse the Sahaabah, slander them and hate them more than they hate iblees. And we seek refuge in Allaah from their evil.

Wa salaamu 'alayk
 

Brisingr9

New Member
dear bro in islam,, let me remind u kindly that our religion is totally based on following only one man anD that is mohammed peace be upon him!! so i sincerely suggest u follow only and only him in every matter> not anyone else no matter who it is whether it is imam malik or hanafi or whoever!! our messenger used to tie his hands on the chest while praying>>>
REMEMBER ANY DOUBT LOOK AT THE WAY THE PROPHET DID IT AND FOLLOW OR ELSE YOULL GO ASTRAY!! JAZAKALLAH KHAIR>>
 

al-muslimah

Junior Member
Salaamu 'alaykkum. The first statement you made is true regarding Imaam Malik rahimahullaah



As for your second statement, then its a bit vague. You should know that shi`as do not follow imaam Malik rahimahullaah, rather they follow baatil. They are one of the first deviant sects to emerge that was founded by a jew, and that time Imaam Maalik was not present. So it is not correct to say that the shi`ahs could have followed imaam Maalik. Rather many of them followed the way of shaytaan. Many of the sects from the Shi`aahs are not even muslim in the first place (though they may claim it). They worship `ali, al hasan, fatimah radiAllaahu `anhum. They curse the Sahaabah, slander them and hate them more than they hate iblees. And we seek refuge in Allaah from their evil.

Wa salaamu 'alayk
Oh brother you got me totally wrong. I didn't mean that. I meant probably the situation that happened to Imam Malik, shias may have experienced a similar situation but NO not following Imam Malik. I'm aware that they don't follow Imam Malik, a Sunni Imam as they follow the twelve Imams. I'm also aware that the beginner of there sect was a Jew called Abdullah bin Saba. I'm totally aware of that sect InshAllah. Oh BTW thank you for backing up my first information about Imam Malik.
 

thariq2005

Praise be to Allah!
Oh brother you got me totally wrong. I didn't mean that. I meant probably the situation that happened to Imam Malik, shias may have experienced a similar situation but NO not following Imam Malik. I'm aware that they don't follow Imam Malik, a Sunni Imam as they follow the twelve Imams. I'm also aware that the beginner of there sect was a Jew called Abdullah bin Saba. I'm totally aware of that sect InshAllah. Oh BTW thank you for backing up my first information about Imam Malik.

Sorry, I was meant to pont out that at a general level we cannot say that Shia's are our brothers, and you sad shia brothers and sisters, so thats why all of that came out. However, alhamdulillaah its good to see you know about the shi`ah sect.
 

al-muslimah

Junior Member
Oh the brother sister thingy. Hmmmm well I was actually hesitant to post that. But the thing is that they're still Muslims at the end of the day regardless of some of their actions.

Edit: Sorry for the owner of this thread for being off topic.
 

Abdul25

Logical Believer
Oh the brother sister thingy. Hmmmm well I was actually hesitant to post that. But the thing is that they're still Muslims at the end of the day regardless of some of their actions.

.

:salam2:

yes sister you are right, at the end of the day we cant call them non muslims, they have their own reasons to disagree , anyways i dont subscribe to their views neither like to meet them but cant call them kuffars.
 

Kakorot

Junior Member
Assalaamu'alaykum.

Actually shi'a have sects amongst themselves, and some are very extreme.

There was even this rafidha who said that they'd rather be a kaafir than being a sunni Muslim. - What a dangerous statement to make? Saying this itself falls into kufr, no? SubhanAllaah.

How can we call some shi'a our brothers and sisters, when they curse and I've seen myself, they curse and say distgusting things about Abu Bakr, 'Umar and 'Uthmaan (may Allaah be pleased with them). Also, they slander A'isha (RA), so how can we accept these sort of shi'a as being our Muslim brethren?

Then there are some who say they are shi'a and follow qur'aan and sunnah, if this is so, then why do they call themselves shi'a Muslims? And some of their beliefs is a load of made up shizzle. May Allaah guide them.
 

al-muslimah

Junior Member
People! You made things look big! I was only trying to be good. Like I'm sure some Shiaa would come across our posts and read what we write. We should always try to be better than anybody else to show who we really are. We only pray to Allah to guide them to the truth.

Please turn to the real topic of this thread. Brother DanyalSAC will hate me for this.
 

DanyalSAC

Junior Member
One brother on my Facebook - where I asked this same question - replied with this:

"The reason why those that follow the Maliki madhab pray with their ams at their side is because it is the way that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) prayed. This is the relied upon majority opinion within the Maliki madhab. There is also a minority opinion for praying with your hands at your side in the Shaf'i and Hanbali madhabs.

The story that Imam Malik only prayed with his hands to his side is a lie and doesn't even make any sense. .
"

He then provided me with two links:

www.lamppostproductions.com/files/articles/SADL_1.pdf

www.lamppostproductions.com/files/articles/SADL_2.pdf

The thing is, my shaykh says the reasons the Maliki have for doing this are all in error. He states that in the days of Imam Malik they had very few hadith to go off. He said "They would have to travel for a month to get one single hadith". Basically the bottom like I guess is that it's the Muslim's preference. I prefer to follow the ahadith that says he s.a.w. prayed with his hands folded.
 

thariq2005

Praise be to Allah!
One brother on my Facebook - where I asked this same question - replied with this:

"The reason why those that follow the Maliki madhab pray with their ams at their side is because it is the way that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) prayed. This is the relied upon majority opinion within the Maliki madhab. There is also a minority opinion for praying with your hands at your side in the Shaf'i and Hanbali madhabs.

The story that Imam Malik only prayed with his hands to his side is a lie and doesn't even make any sense. .
"

He then provided me with two links:

www.lamppostproductions.com/files/articles/SADL_1.pdf

www.lamppostproductions.com/files/articles/SADL_2.pdf

The thing is, my shaykh says the reasons the Maliki have for doing this are all in error. He states that in the days of Imam Malik they had very few hadith to go off. He said "They would have to travel for a month to get one single hadith". Basically the bottom like I guess is that it's the Muslim's preference. I prefer to follow the ahadith that says he s.a.w. prayed with his hands folded.

Most of the points that are mentioned about the so called "weakness" can be refuted. It should be noted that the Hadeeth is mentioned in their own imaam's muwatta. As for the pdf that is "refuting" the placing of the right hand over the left hand, then the author brings about "weaknesses" in the ahadeeth. One of which is a hadeeth narrated by Bukhaari..

Sahl ibn Sa’d said: the people used to be instructed to place the right hand over the left forearm when praying. (narrated by al-Bukhaari, no. 840)

And the author mentions that weakness number one is that it is not an explicit saying or action of the Prophet. And weakness number two is that it is a statement of a companion and the companion does not say that the Prophet gave this order.

It should be known that when a Sahaabi says "We were commanded/instructed" then this comes under the "statement (or commandment)" of the Messenger of Allaah :saw2:. Ibn Hajr rahimahullaah mentions in his book Nukhbat ul Fikr: "ثم الإسناد: إما أن ينتهى

إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم،
تصريحا،
أو حكما، من: قوله، أو فعله، أو تقريره
(The chain’s ascription (isnād) explicitly or implicitly goes to the Prophet: consisting in his statements, or his actions, or his tacit approval"

So basically what that means is that a Marfoo` report (a report that is attributed to the Messenger of Allaah :saw2:) is of two types: 1) Marfoo` as sarihan (Directly/Explicitly marfoo`) and 2) Marfoo` al hukman (Indirectly/implicitly marfoo`)

Shaykh `Uthaymeen explains this in his book "Mustalah al Hadeeth" and I am paraphrasing...

What Marfoo` as Sarihan means is that, it is a narration directly related to the Prophet of Allaah concerning his sayings, his actions, his tacit approvals and descriptions of his manners and features.

As for Marfoo` al hukman, then this means that it is a statement or action of the sahaabah which takes ruling of being marfoo` (attributed to the Messenger of Allaah :saw2:). And there are numerous narrations of this type. Also this is when when a Sahaabi narrates something which has no room for ijtihaad (example if mentioned about story from the past, future, rewards, punishments, shari`ah ruling etc). So when a Sahaabi mentions "We were commanded/instructed to do so and so" or "we were prohibited from doing so and so" then this means it is a command from the Messenger of Allaah :saw2:. If one was to argue that you cannot accept such a narration to be from the Messenger of Allaah :saw2: then many narrations from the saheeh`ayn will have to be rejected. For example:

`Abdullaah ibn `Abbaas radiAllaahu anhu narrated: "The people were commanded to perform the tawaaf of the ka`bah as the last thing before leaving makkah, except the menstruating women who were exempted." [Saheeh al Bukhaari]

Anas ibn Maalik radiAllaahu anhu narrated: "A time limit has been prescribed for us for clipping the moustache, cutting the nails, plucking the hair under the armpits and shaving the pubes and it should not be neglected for more than 40 nights" [Saheeh Muslim]

Thus it is clear that this command that Sahl ibn Sa`d radiAllaahu anhu states is attributed to the Messenger.

Finally, they did not mention anything about this hadeeth... It was narrated from Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “We Prophets have been commanded to delay our suhoor and to break our fast straight away, and to place our right hands over our left hands when praying.” (narrated by Ibn Hibbaan in al-Saheeh, 3/13-14).

Sorry if I got you confused by bringing things from outside the topic.

Wa salaamu 'alayk
 
Top