The ruling on raising the hands when bowing and when rising from it. Is the affirmative report preferred over the negative one, or not?

The Shaykh : One of the many, and very many, examples of this is Imam Abu Hanifah, and those who followed him among his constant students, such as Abu Yusuf and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani, and then those who came after them up to our day, and those who were contemporaries of Abu Hanifah from the people of Kufa, who did not consider raising the hands, for example, when bowing and when raising the head from bowing. First, the hadith on this matter is established in the two Sahihs and in other sources. Second, it was also something that came under their eyes. So, do we leave acting upon this hadith? The answer is: No, because we did not find the argument of those who left acting upon this hadith to be a strong argument. On the contrary, we found that the argument of those who acted upon this hadith is stronger. The argument of those who said: "There is no raising except at the takbir of ihram" is that it is established from Ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him) that he said to his companions: "Shall I lead you in the prayer of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him)?" So he raised his hands and then did not do it again. But hadiths came in succession from Ibn Umar, Malik ibn al-Huwayris, and Abu Humayd al-Sa'idi, regarding ten of the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), who said: "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) used to raise his hands at the opening of the prayer, when bowing, and when rising from it." And they said: The usuli principle that the scholars have followed in matters other than this one states: The affirmative is preferred over the negative. The one who narrated the raising when bowing affirmed it, and Ibn Mas'ud denied it. And despite the high status of Ibn Mas'ud, we say that the affirmative is preferred over the negative. Imam al-Bukhari, the true Amir al-Mu'minin in hadith, composed a specific treatise known as the Part on Raising the Hands in Prayer. He argued against the people of Kufa who did not adopt the hadiths of raising the hands when bowing and when rising from it. And those who did not adopt them—we do not say the hadith was hidden from them, no—it was under their eyes, but due to a doubt that arose for them, they left acting upon these affirmative hadiths. So Imam al-Bukhari argued with them using what came in the authentic, in Sahih al-Bukhari and Muslim, that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family), in the conquest of Makkah, entered Makkah as a conqueror, and after he purified it from the idols that were set up on the Ka'bah, he entered it and prayed two rak'ahs in it. So Bilal (may Allah be pleased with him) entered with the Prophet and prayed with him inside the Ka'bah. When he (peace and blessings be upon him) came out and Bilal came out, Abdullah ibn Umar met him and asked him: What did the Messenger (peace be upon him) do in the Ka'bah? He said: "He prayed two rak'ahs between the pillars—a precise description—and there were three cubits between him and the wall of the qiblah." As for Abdullah ibn Abbas, the interpreter of the Qur'an, he said: The Messenger (peace be upon him) did not pray in the Ka'bah, but rather he prayed in front of the Ka'bah, in its direction, outside of it. Imam al-Bukhari says: So the scholars, without exception, adopted the hadith of Bilal, which Ibn Umar narrated from him. Why? Because it is affirmative, because he saw the Messenger (peace be upon him) enter the Ka'bah and pray two rak'ahs with that precise description. They preferred the narration of Ibn Umar from Bilal because it is affirmative, and they left the narration of Ibn Abbas because it is negative, and the affirmative is preferred over the negative. And this usuli principle, before it is a principle of jurisprudence, is a self-evident rational principle, because a person, by his nature, disposition, and fitrah, when two contradictory reports come to him, one saying, for example... and the narrators, this condition is necessary: and the narrators, both of them are trustworthy. One said, for example, Abu Ishaq attended the season, and another said: No, he did not attend, I did not see him. So whose statement is preferred? The affirmative is preferred over the negative. This is a logical, rational principle. And so Abu Hanifah and the people of Kufa and those who came after them left the raising. So, do we leave it? We say: No, the affirmative is preferred over the negative. And he is an Imam with his own ijtihad, and we do not blame him or fault him, and he has his reward with Allah in any case. So, if we come to a hadith like the prohibition of fasting on Saturday, and we do not know that any of the famous Imams adopted it, and we know, in addition, and as a voluntary matter in knowledge, that some of the early scholars acted upon it, or if a hadith comes to us then we know that one of the Imams acted upon it, but we know that some of the predecessors acted upon it, and that is sufficient for us, that the Messenger (peace be upon him) said it and it is established for us, and it is not for us.