 |
| Muslims praying Namaz with folded hands |
Keeping hands unfolded (while standing) is the natural posture, and those who follow it do not need any hadith to justify their action.
Has any one asked you to quote a hadith that you should keep your eyes open during prayer? It is those who deviate from natural way who should justify their behaviour from Qur'an and/or hadith.
And when we look at their systems, an interesting picture comes before our eyes.
It appears from some reports that when Iranian prisoners were brought before 'Umar, they stood before him with folded hands. On being asked the reason, they said that it was their custom to stand before the elders with folded hands. '
Umar said: Then we too should do the same when we stand before Allah in prayers.
That was the beginning. But as I will explain later the idea was not accepted in Medina.
There are some pointers which show that it had caught up in the early days of Mu'awiyah's governorship in Damascus.
When Anas ibn Malik, a companion of the Prophet (s.a.w.), went to Syria, he wept and said: "I do not see here anything which I used to see in the days of the Prophet (s.a.w.), except this prayer and that too is disfigured." (Sahih al- Bukhari).
Then there are these four Imams of the Sunnis. Look at their fatwas concerning this matter; and you will see the truth yourself.
1) Imam Malik ibn Anas (died 179) lived in Medina. He orders his followers (the Malikiyah) to keep their hands open, saying that it is the way the people of Medina pray, and they must have learnt it from the Prophet (saw).
2) Imam Abu Hanifah (died 150 A.H.) and Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (died 241 AH.) lived in Iraq and they ordered their followers to keep the hands folded.
3) Imam Shafi'i (died 204 A.H.) was born in Mecca, studied in Medina and then shifted to Iraq and finally to Egypt. He gives his followers choice of folding the hands or keeping them open.
Have you noted the connection between their places of residence and their fatwas? The man who lived in Medina kept the hands open; those who lived far from Medina folded their hands; and the one who lived in both places allows both customs. It makes us believe that the custom of folding the hands in prayer was invented far from the city of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.)..
One more interesting fact: The Shi'as, the Malikis and the Ibadhis keep their hands unfolded; the Hanafis and the Hanbalis keep them folded; and the Shafi'is allow both. So,out of six sects three and a half keep their hands open, and two and a half keep them folded. Looking from this angle, those who pray with open hands are in majority!!
Has any one asked you to quote a hadith that you should keep your eyes open during prayer? It is those who deviate from natural way who should justify their behaviour from Qur'an and/or hadith.
And when we look at their systems, an interesting picture comes before our eyes.
It appears from some reports that when Iranian prisoners were brought before 'Umar, they stood before him with folded hands. On being asked the reason, they said that it was their custom to stand before the elders with folded hands. '
Umar said: Then we too should do the same when we stand before Allah in prayers.
That was the beginning. But as I will explain later the idea was not accepted in Medina.
There are some pointers which show that it had caught up in the early days of Mu'awiyah's governorship in Damascus.
When Anas ibn Malik, a companion of the Prophet (s.a.w.), went to Syria, he wept and said: "I do not see here anything which I used to see in the days of the Prophet (s.a.w.), except this prayer and that too is disfigured." (Sahih al- Bukhari).
Then there are these four Imams of the Sunnis. Look at their fatwas concerning this matter; and you will see the truth yourself.
1) Imam Malik ibn Anas (died 179) lived in Medina. He orders his followers (the Malikiyah) to keep their hands open, saying that it is the way the people of Medina pray, and they must have learnt it from the Prophet (saw).
2) Imam Abu Hanifah (died 150 A.H.) and Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (died 241 AH.) lived in Iraq and they ordered their followers to keep the hands folded.
3) Imam Shafi'i (died 204 A.H.) was born in Mecca, studied in Medina and then shifted to Iraq and finally to Egypt. He gives his followers choice of folding the hands or keeping them open.
Have you noted the connection between their places of residence and their fatwas? The man who lived in Medina kept the hands open; those who lived far from Medina folded their hands; and the one who lived in both places allows both customs. It makes us believe that the custom of folding the hands in prayer was invented far from the city of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.)..
One more interesting fact: The Shi'as, the Malikis and the Ibadhis keep their hands unfolded; the Hanafis and the Hanbalis keep them folded; and the Shafi'is allow both. So,out of six sects three and a half keep their hands open, and two and a half keep them folded. Looking from this angle, those who pray with open hands are in majority!!
Categories:
English
15 comments:
dont post lies here inshALLAH you will be held accountable for this.....any1 who is educated will never believe your lies...... Umar bin khattab(R.A) was a very great sahaba he has done alot for this ummah and enemies of islam use to hate him back then and still they have continued hating him every1 who read this article dont fall for it try to do a research and you will come to know about hazrat UMAR(r.a)
Mr. Anonymous,
These are not lies. Malikis, Shias and Ibadhis prays with their hands open. As far as Shias are concerned they have taken their religion from the pure progeny of Holy Prophet(S.A.W.A) after him(S.A.W.A).
If you are really an educated person then go and do some research of your books and the early islamic history. U will come to know that Umar and Abu Bakr were responsible in usurping the Caliphate from Ali (AS). When Ali(AS) was busy in the funeral of Holy Prophet(sawa) , these two companions(Umar and Abu Bakr) assembled in Saqifa along with some greedy power hungry Ansars and elected Abu Bakr as their Caliph.Abu Bakr Caliphate was not complete Ijmah. Before going for eternal abode Abu Bakr appointed Umar as Caliph and did not allowed Muslims to elect their Caliph. Who has authorize Abu Bakr to do this when according to Sunnis Holy Prophet(SAWA) had not appointed any Caliph???
Holy Prophet(SAWA) had not appointed Abu Bakr as the Caliph. On the Contrary he(sawa) had appointed Ali(AS) as his successor in Ghadir e Khum.
Remember I am noting talking in air. All these things are found in reputed Sunni and Shia Books.
After usurping the Caliphate, Umar and Abu Bakr turned to Janabe Fatema(as) and took away her property FIDAK by force. Fatema(AS) demanded the property and produced witnesses. But her witnesses and arguments were turned down by Abu Bakr.
Go and read Sahih Bukhari - you will come to know that Janabe Fatema was angry with Abu BAkr and Umar and did not talk with them till her death. Shias are against these two companions because of these reasons. Why are u blaming us ?? These things are found in your books.
Actually the problem with you people is whenever we talk about the oppressions done on AhlulBayt after Holy Prophet(sawa) , u people start accusing Shias for hating the Sahabas of Prophet(sawa).
Tell me Brother how could we love the persons(Umar and Abu Bakr) who were responsible for killing the beloved daughter of Prophet(SAWA) and usurping her Property ???
So what if they were the companions of Prophet(SAWA) ??
Are all the companions of Prophet(SAWA) Infallible ( Masoom)??
If it is so then why they fought among themselves and were responsible for bloodshed of so many innocent muslims???
Even I say the same thing ,everybody reading our article should do a thorough research on Umar and try to find out the reasons between the conflicts between Abu Bakr and Fatima(SA).
Hazrat Ali(as) was the closest companion and the family member of Holy Prophet(S.A.W.A). He and his pure progeny has taught us everything which was done by the Prophet(S.A.W.A).
Even a common Sunni knew that Umar brought about many innovations(Bid'at) in Islam after Holy Prophet(sawa)( e,g. Taraweeh by Jam'aat).
Are u interested in following the Sunna of Prophet(SAWA) or Sunna of Umar???. First make this thing clear for yourself
Abubakr RA gave people choice, to choose or let him choose! And people accepted his choice. Ali RA gave his pledge to Umar RA himself, Ali RA was not afraid of speaking his mind, so if Abubakr RA had done something wrong he would have surely pointed out. Dont underestimate Ali RA by saying that he was tricked by other, no one could have tricked him or took advantage of him, he was too wise for that! May Allah Tala bless them all.
Dear Jamal Abdul,
Kindly for the sake of Allah, prove me from sunni or shia sources that Abu Bakr gave people choice to choose or let him choose.
Even for the sake of argument if we accept that Abu Bakr gave the people the choice. Why the people did not exercise their choice to choose a Caliph ???
Why people did not ask the same question to Holy Prophet(SAWA) on his death bed to appoint a Caliph for them ???
Prove me why Ali(AS) would pledge allegiance to Umar when he(as) was superior to Umar.??
( Umar said : If Ali was not there , I would have Perished - Sunni Books )
Ali (AS) had indeed pointed that Abu Bakr knowingly usurped his Khilafat.
For reference please read the following tradition from Sahih Muslim,
It is reported by Zuhri that this tradition was narrated to him by Malik b. Aus who said: Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) had said:" We do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity." So both of you (Ali and Abbas) thought him to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest. And Allah knows that he was true, virtuous, well-guided and a follower of truth. When Abu Bakr passed away and (I [Umar] have become) the successor of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) and Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him), you (Ali) thought me to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest. And Allah knows that I am true, virtuous, well-guided and a follower of truth. .......
Sunni references:
Sahih Muslim , Book 19, Number 4349
Ali (AS) did say multiple times that khilafat of Abu Bakr was incorrect but people did not pay any heed to his words.
May Allah open the eyes of our innocent sunni brothers to realize the truth.
Salam bro, do you have the source for this part?
"It appears from some reports that when Iranian prisoners were brought before 'Umar, they stood before him with folded hands. On being asked the reason, they said that it was their custom to stand before the elders with folded hands. '
Umar said: Then we too should do the same when we stand before Allah in prayers."
Salam bro do you have the reference/source for this part:
"It appears from some reports that when Iranian prisoners were brought before 'Umar, they stood before him with folded hands. On being asked the reason, they said that it was their custom to stand before the elders with folded hands. '
Umar said: Then we too should do the same when we stand before Allah in prayers."
unfortunately , its true as it has writter with reference , accept or not but its all written in books! all the sunnis imams have difference in their teachings which is another evidence of fabrication , they are not even sure which way is correct therefore not agree on one way of praying. imams are supposed to be agreed one thing but they are confused themselves.
If its a shia blog why it is called umer bin khatab... trust me you people have made it very dificult for a non believer to come to Islam!!... if folding hand or unfolded hand would be that important to Allah i think as human brain Allah would have mentioned very clearly in Quran! As HE mentioned about shirk!! And these things are there for our exam wheather we follow main major things or fight for thwse..This means all that matter it NIYAT what i believe
Thankyou
Someone said here, "If its a shia blog why it is called umer bin khatab... trust me you people have made it very dificult for a non believer to come to Islam!!..."
Many of the Yahoodi sites are in the name of Islam, that doesn't mean that these are muslim sites. Their main motive is to defame Islam. In the same way Shia's main motive is to abuse Ashab e Rasool especially the three khalifa before Ali Raziyallahu taala anhu and also to defame them. Someone also said here that we all no that Umar made many innovations (bidd'a) after the prophet. To her my answer is that dear Umar is the main pillar of Islam and he loved sunnah so much that he beheaded a muslim man after he didn't accepted the prophet's decision, after with the Qur'anic verse related to that revieled. Before saying think 100 times
Dear Brother,
Umar is not Islam and neither his act is Islam.
Those who do not believe in Umar are not Kaafir because Umar is not a Prophet. Umar was a normal person born at the time of Prophet(S.A.W.A) and he was not Maasoom ( free from sins). Umar was not appointed by Prophet(s.a.w.a) as his Khalifa and neither he was appointed by People. Umar was appointed as Caliph by Abu Bakr. So if we dont believe him as Caliph of Muslims whats wrong in it...?????
And how could we be called Kaafir on this basis?????
Unfortunately majority muslims are brain washed by their scholars that those who do not believe in the first 3 caliphs are Kaafir...
Yes we do not believe in the Khilafat of first 3 because they were not appointed by Allah or Rasool (s.a.w.a)...Many false and fake traditions were invented later by Banu Umayya to support Umar and to elevate his status.
Umar did not obey the order of the Prophet(s.a.w.a) to bring pen and paper , when he (s.a.w.a) was on his death bed. And when Prophet(s.a.w.a) died he was nowhere around him to perform the burial but instead he ran to saqifa to wrest Khilafat for Abu Bakr from Ansaar....Is it Sahabiyat ??? Is it love of Prophet ????
Do you have any answer for this...I know your scholars have lot of excuses for Umar...but nothing can hide the fact that Umar and Abu Bakr were not their in the burial process of Prophet(S.A.W.A).
Was anything more important than this ????
Mr Unknown
I am really sorry to tell you that Hazrat Umar had no right to make changes in whatever was delivered to the people of that time, be it Azan, bet it Divorce (in seconds now - as practiced by sunnis) or anything like Taraveeh.
First you will have to understand that how you define sahaba.
The one who recites kalma before the Holy Prophet s.
Well if you read and translate the first 2 verses of Sura e Munafiqoon youll know that the ones who recite kalma may always not be sahaba in fiorst place.
So in order to judge them go through what they did in their lives.
Abu Bakrb rejected the fidek claim of Prophet s's daughter making her angry with him for the rest of her life. He imposed wars on tribes which refused to pay zakat to him which means he killed people as death sentence fornot paying zakat doesnt make sense.
Umar caused the martyrdom of Prophet/s daughter. He made changes in azaan, divorce procedure (currently sunnis divorce women in an instant - not according to the teaching s of Prophet and then they woman marries after the period of Iddah - now imagine second marriage after an illegitimate divorce -- astaghferullah)
Usman made huge misktake by giving power to his relitives which caused the grudge in people to raise.
Nothing to say about Moaviyah.
He was an open enemy of Ali as. yet you guys are unable to decide who to support when it comes to battle of siffin or camel.
You guys stay silent and play a game of diplomacy and hypocrisy.
Wake up guys.
What is the big deal? You are standing in front of God! You fold your hands for respect, eyes on the floor the way everyone stands front of a judge when feeling guilty. If you fold your hands or don't fold your hands, pray and leave. Ignorance is very dangerous.
Just pray and go home. Small minds are very trivial.
Yes every one who research ,came to khow that what hazrat umer did with the daughter of holy prophet.
My dear please make your history proper killing is allowed only in war.which is against allah .an huzur s.a.w.w.had aĺl the wars with such peoples an if you say so you are doubting on excellency of huzur.s.a.w.w.because he never never killed anyone because people dont listen to him so how he could allow or agree with anyone who do so.so if umar l.a did it it was his reason to show not because of will of allah of will of huzur s.a.w.w.because being prophet for muslim huzur s.a.w.w. he would never allow such act to be done in front of him .as killing by own will is murder which is big crime .prophet.s.a.w.w taught us to be human not animals.he taught us how allah want us to live not how we want we can live so please dont support such act which is making people doubt how can prophet s.a.w.w allow such act to happen in front of him for sake of one person who didnt accepted prophet.s.a.w.w decision.if its you so true show me the verse of quran which says about what you saying of show me hadith which say that prophet s.a.w.w said to kill person who dont accept his decision.unless it against will of allah .
Post a Comment
براہ مہربانی شائستہ زبان کا استعمال کریں۔ تقریبا ہر موضوع پر 'گمنام' لوگوں کے بہت سے تبصرے موجود ہیں. اس لئےتاریخ 20-3-2015 سے ہم گمنام کمینٹنگ کو بند کر رہے ہیں. اس تاریخ سے درست ای میل اکاؤنٹس کے ضریعے آپ تبصرہ کر سکتے ہیں.جن تبصروں میں لنکس ہونگے انہیں فوراً ہٹا دیا جائے گا. اس لئے آپنے تبصروں میں لنکس شامل نہ کریں.
Please use Polite Language.
As there are many comments from 'anonymous' people on every subject. So from 20-3-2015 we are disabling 'Anonymous Commenting' option. From this date only users with valid E-mail accounts can comment. All the comments with LINKs will be removed. So please don't add links to your comments.