and this chain of transmission is authentic; its narrators are the same authorities found in Muslim’s Sahih. Al-Tirmidhi graded it hasan, and Ibn Hazm declared it sahih, whereas others—such as Ibn al-Mubarak, al-Daraqutni, Ibn Hibban, and the like—deemed it weak. The correct assessment is that the report is sound and firmly established; its isnad leaves no room for objection, even though one might wonder how this Sunnah could have escaped Ibn Masud, given his long companionship with the Prophet! Yet this is not the first practical Sunnah that eluded him. Another example is the practice of grasping the knees during ruku; Ibn Masud rejected that and instead upheld tatbiq (pressing the forearms to the sides), although tatbiq has been shown— as will be explained shortly— to be abrogated; for that reason the scholars unanimously set aside his narration on tatbiq. They have, however, disagreed about acting on this particular hadith. The majority of Muslim scholars—jurists and hadith specialists in every land—have abandoned it and followed the previously cited traditions that affirm raising the hands in the two places, when going into ruku and when rising from it. This is the final view of Malik— the position on which he died, as reported by Ibn Asakir (15/78/2)—as well as the view of al-Shafi‘i, Ahmad, and others. In contrast, most scholars of Kufa, among them Imam Abu Hanifa and his companions, set those traditions aside and adhered to Ibn Masud’s report. The ensuing disagreement produced a long-standing dispute between the two camps and their later followers, each defending his own imam and his position. To my mind the issue is far simpler: the raising of the hands from the Prophet is established by tawatur, as you have already seen. Ibn al-Qayyim even stated in his treatise al-Salat (p. 209): “It is as authentically established from him as is the takbir for ruku; indeed, those who transmitted the raising of the hands here are more numerous than those who transmitted the takbir.” End quote.