It is stated in *Al-Ajwibat al-Nafi'ah* that the khatib's supplication on Friday is a religious innovation, so how should one respond to those who consider it prescribed, especially since al-Hakam ibn Marwan used to raise his hands during the sermon?

The questioner : You mentioned to us, O Shaykh, that *Al-Ajwibat al-Nafi'ah* states that the khatib's supplication on Friday is a religious innovation.

The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.

The questioner : You also mentioned the story of Bishr ibn Marwan, as understood by al-Bayhaqi and others, and they argue against us with this, saying that there is not much understanding or much knowledge about this.

The Shaykh : They argue with what? About what?

The questioner : About the permissibility of the supplication. If you speak about this issue regarding this understanding, then we will return to the actions of the Companions, perhaps we will find something. I found an interpretation of a book, but it is not a *takhrij* (tracing of sources) nor is it in the Sunnah. It would be nice if you could mention something to us about this.

The Shaykh : There is no need to mention anything from what is clearly stated in the treatise, and what is in the treatise is sufficient for us. That is, we have nothing extra beyond what is there, so that we would mention something from it. And when we say that something is a religious innovation... Yes, and upon you be peace, the mercy of Allah, and His blessings. It seems there is something, otherwise there is nothing.

The questioner : Yes, review it again.

The Shaykh : So I have nothing more than what is mentioned there.

The questioner : Okay, did you hear the hadith of argumentation? The hadith...

The Shaykh : Ah, I remember the statement now. I said that if it is said that something is a religious innovation, that means it was not part of the practice of the Salaf. So the one who wants to argue against what is said to be a religious innovation, meaning that it is an act of worship, must bring evidence. And the evidence is not valid if the one arguing uses a general evidence, because the inquiry is specific. This statement contains some precision and is very important, and it should be clarified. For example, like the hadith which is among the evidences for the permissibility of raising the hands in supplication. He (peace and blessings be upon him) said: This hadith contains the legislation of raising the hands in supplication. If this hadith is taken as evidence for the permissibility of raising the hands in the previously mentioned inquiry, i.e., after the prayer, the argumentation with it is not valid, because it is from the category of arguing with a general text in a specific place. For the argumentation to be complete, it must be established that this concept, with this evidence, was practiced by the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) or by the righteous Salaf. If it was not practiced, it is not permissible to act upon it, even if it falls within the generality of the text, such as raising the hands in supplication after the prayers. Therefore, if it is known among scholars that something is a religious innovation, it is not valid to respond to this religious innovation with a general evidence, because if the general evidence were a valid evidence for that specific detail itself, our righteous Salaf would have applied it to that detail and acted upon it. The truth is that most of the religious innovations that Muslims have been afflicted with for hundreds of years are of this type, meaning these religious innovations are not devoid of general evidences. The religious innovation comes from the restriction or specification by time, number, or manner that entered it. All these descriptions are legislation, and legislation is only from Allah and on the tongue of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). So the Companion whose name is Ru'aybah, or what is it, ibn Ru'aybah?
Al-Halabi : 'Amirah ibn Ru'aybah.

The Shaykh : 'Amirah ibn Ru'aybah. Well done. Ibn Ru'aybah is a Companion who rebuked Marwan ibn al-Hakam for raising his hands and cursed him, saying that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) did not go beyond pointing with his finger. From this, something can be taken, which is that raising the hands in the sermon is not prescribed. The one who wants to establish the permissibility of raising the hands, and in a continuous manner, in the Friday sermons, must bring evidence, because the general evidence we mentioned earlier is not sufficient. We, for example, now bring a specific evidence. It came in *Sahih al-Bukhari* that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was delivering the Friday sermon when that Bedouin came saying, "O Messenger of Allah, the wealth and the families have perished due to the scarcity of rain, so supplicate to Allah for us." So he (peace and blessings be upon him) raised his hands until his armpits were visible, and he said: So the sky surged with rains like water skins. This is raising the hands, and in the Friday sermon, but on the occasion of the prayer for rain. The one who wants to establish raising the hands in general in the Friday sermons and thereby refute the statement of the scholars who said that this raising is a religious innovation, needs a hadith like this one that came explicitly to establish that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) raised his hands in the Friday sermon, but it is specific to the prayer for rain. So the one who opposes the fact that the raising is a religious innovation must bring a hadith other than this one, because this one is restricted to the supplication for rain in the Friday sermon.