Explanation of the rule: "Whoever preserved the proof has precedence over whoever did not preserve it."

The questioner: So here, for example, there is an old issue of scholarly disagreement—and it is regrettable that this disagreement in this issue and similar ones persists, even though the proof is clear with those who affirmed it, not with those who denied it. For example, prayer: the issue is a simple branch matter, as they say, but unfortunately it has bitter fruits. The disagreement has lasted for over a thousand years between the Hanafis, the Shafi'is, and others regarding raising the hands in prayer. For instance, the Hanafi school says: raising the hands in prayer is disliked (makruh) except at the takbir of ihram. The majority says it is a recommended practice (sunnah). The Hanafis have no proof except a hadith containing a denial; that is, it contains no knowledge. This hadith 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. The Hanafis took this hadith and said: raising the hands is not prescribed. Meanwhile, the majority have many hadiths in the two Sahihs, the Sunan, the Musnads, and others, 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 he saw the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) raising his hands, so he has knowledge. The one who denied the raising means he did not see the Messenger (peace be upon him). We do not blame him or say to him: "Why did you not see it? How was this hidden from 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 opposite of the rule that you yourselves acknowledge and establish in the principles of jurisprudence: "Whoever preserved the proof has precedence over whoever did not preserve it"?!
The group of Companions, such as Ibn 'Umar, such as Malik ibn Huwayris, such as Anas ibn Malik, and many others, some named and some not, all say: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) used to raise his hands at the bowing and when rising from it. Ibn Mas'ud did not see that; 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 that is what he knew or what reached him. But being fanatical for him and taking his denying hadith is contrary to this agreed-upon rule: "Whoever knew the proof has precedence over whoever did not know, and whoever preserved the proof has precedence over whoever did not preserve." Therefore, al-Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) established the proof in his specific part that he composed on raising the hands in the disputed cases. He established the proof 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 more legal texts than he mentioned the story of the disagreement between two eminent Companions: one is Ibn 'Umar regarding Bilal, and the other is 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 detail that when he prayed the two rak'ahs, there was about two arms' length 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 the pillars. This description means he knew that he was describing the prayer of the Messenger (peace be upon him) in that pure place in detail. When the Messenger (peace and blessings 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 hadiths are in the "Sahih" of al-Bukhari. Ibn 'Abbas says: He did not enter the Ka'bah and did not pray except facing the Ka'bah; meaning outside it, facing it.
Al-Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) says, after narrating the two reports from two eminent Companions, each of whom is trustworthy: "With the report of whom did the scholars take? With 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 one who knew knowledge that we do not benefit from this one who did not know. From this hadith and similar ones, this rule was established: "Whoever knew the proof has precedence over whoever knows, and whoever preserved the proof has precedence over whoever did not preserve." And with this rule, many problems are solved.
I do not miss saying that the issue of disagreement in raising the hands is indeed a branch matter and simple, as they say, but very serious things followed from it. Among them is that praying behind one who raises his hands is forbiddenly disliked (makruh tahriman). And among the effects of this saying is that the imams of the Muslims in the mosques have been separated for hundreds of years into more than one imam in the same mosque. This one is Hanafi, this one is Shafi'i, and this varies by country. If the country is under the dominance and power of one school, there is only one imam. If the dominance is of two schools, there must be two imams, otherwise four. This is what we used to see until recently in the Great Mosque here in the Mosque of Banu Umayyad: 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 prayer is forbiddenly disliked because our school says so—meaning the Hanafi school—and praying behind one who raises his hands is also a branch of that saying, being 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 they agreed upon, including: "Whoever knew the proof has precedence over whoever did not know."