Raising the hands after the takbir and not raising them again in the prayer?

The questioner: Here, for example, is a long-standing issue of scholarly disagreement. It is regrettable that this disagreement in this matter and similar ones persists, even though the evidence is clear in favor of those who affirmed the practice rather than those who denied it. For example, in the prayer; they call it a simple secondary issue, but unfortunately, it has bitter consequences. The disagreement has lasted for over a thousand years between the Hanafis, the Shafi'is, and others regarding raising the hands in the prayer. For instance, the Hanafi school says that raising the hands in the prayer is disliked, except at the takbir of entering the state of consecration (takbirat al-ihram). The majority of scholars say that it is a recommended practice (sunnah). The Hanafis have no evidence except a report containing a denial; that is, it contains no knowledge. This report is narrated from 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him) that he said to his companions one day: "Shall I pray for you the prayer of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him)?" So he prayed, and he raised his hands and said the takbir, then he did not return to raising them. So the Hanafis took this report and said: Raising the hands is not prescribed. Meanwhile, the majority have many reports in the two Sahihs, the Sunan, the Musnads, and other sources from more than twenty Companions, all of whom affirm this raising from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). So if we apply this rule, we are relieved of the disagreement. The one who affirmed the raising means that he saw the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) raising his hands; so he has knowledge. The one who denied the raising means that he did not see the Messenger (peace be upon him). So we do not blame him or say to him: "Why did you not see it?" or "How did this escape you?" No, a person has limits and limited capacities. But we say to those who cling to this report denying the raising of the hands: Why do you take the position contrary to the rule that you yourselves acknowledge and establish in the principles of jurisprudence? "The one who preserved the evidence is a proof against the one who did not preserve it." The group of Companions; such as Ibn 'Umar, such as Malik ibn Huwayrith, such as Anas ibn Malik, and many others, some named and some not; they all say: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) used to raise his hands at the bowing (ruku') and when rising from it. Ibn Mas'ud did not see that, and therefore it is not established from him that he raised his hands. His Kufan companions followed his path and walked his way. So there is no blame on Ibn Mas'ud; because this is what he knew or what reached him. But being biased toward him and taking his denying report is contrary to this agreed-upon rule: "The one who knows the evidence is a proof against the one who does not know, and the one who preserves the evidence is a proof against the one who does not preserve it." And so al-Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) established the evidence in his specific treatise that he authored on raising the hands in the disputed matter. He established the evidence against those who deny the legitimacy of raising the hands at the bowing, for example, with this rule. He said: This rule is taken from legal texts. I mention among them that he mentioned the story of the disagreement between two noble Companions; one was Ibn 'Umar regarding Bilal, and the other was Ibn 'Abbas. Bilal says to Ibn 'Umar, and 'Umar narrates from him: That he entered with the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) into the interior of the Ka'bah, in the middle of the Ka'bah, and prayed two rak'ahs. He describes in precise detail that when he prayed the two rak'ahs, there was about two cubits between him and the wall of the Ka'bah, and that there was a pillar to his right and a pillar to his left. So he prayed between two pillars. This description means that he knew he was describing the prayer of the Messenger (peace be upon him) in that pure place in precise detail. When the Messenger (peace be upon him) came out with his companions, Ibn 'Umar met them and asked Bilal, and Bilal mentioned to him that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) prayed two rak'ahs like this. Ibn 'Abbas—and both reports are in the Sahih of al-Bukhari—Ibn 'Abbas says: He did not enter the Ka'bah, and he did not pray except facing the Ka'bah; meaning outside it, facing it. Al-Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) said after narrating the two reports from two noble Companions, each of whom is trustworthy: Which report did the scholars take? The report of the one who affirmed? Because the one who affirmed knew, and the one who denied did not know. So we do not say to him—as we said earlier—: "Why did you not know?" But we benefit from the knowledge of the one who knew, knowledge that we do not benefit from the one who did not know.
From this report and similar ones, this rule was established: "The one who knows the evidence is a proof against the one who knows, and the one who preserves the evidence is a proof against the one who does not preserve it." With this rule, many problems are solved. I do not miss the opportunity to say that the issue of disagreement regarding raising the hands is indeed a secondary and simple issue, as they say; but very serious things have resulted from it. Among them is that praying behind one who raises his hands is forbiddenly disliked (makruh tahriman). And among the effects of this statement is the separation of the imams of Muslims in the mosques for hundreds of years into more than one imam in the same mosque. This one is a Hanafi, this one is a Shafi'i, and this varies according to the country. If the country is under the dominance and power of one school, then there is only one imam. If the dominance and power are of two schools, then there must be two imams, or otherwise four. This is what we used to see until recently in the Great Mosque here in the Mosque of Banu Umayyah. Four mihrabs, with an imam in each mihrab! Hanafi, Shafi'i, Maliki, Hanbali. So where did this separation come from? From these disagreements that they call easy and simple. Raising the hands in the prayer is forbiddenly disliked; because that is what our school says, meaning the Hanafi school. And praying behind one who raises his hands—also—this statement branched out from that: it is disliked. So to escape the dislike, we take an imam who prays according to our school and does not raise his hands, and similar disagreements.
So the Muslims, their jurists and students of knowledge among them, should try to eliminate such disagreements by returning to the rules and principles that they agreed upon, among which is: "The one who knows the evidence is a proof against the one who does not know."