How to respond to those who cite a principle of usul al-fiqh (the principles of jurisprudence) to support moving the finger between the two prostrations, which is:
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Regarding this principle, some scholars cited a principle of usul al-fiqh (the principles of jurisprudence) to support moving the finger in the sitting between the two prostrations, which is: "Mentioning some instances of an absolute ruling with a ruling that agrees with the ruling of the absolute does not necessitate its restriction".
The Shaykh : Yes, I do.
The questioner : And they said that the absolute is the narrations that came in a general form, such as when he would sit in prayer and do such-and-such, or move this way and that; and the restricted is when he would sit for the tashahhud and do it in a specific way. So they said, therefore, that mentioning some instances of the absolute with a ruling that agrees with the ruling of the absolute does not necessitate its restriction. We want clarification on this principle, now that we have learned that you have judged the addition found in the hadith of Abu Dawud al-Tayalisi and others, namely the addition of, to be anomalous. If we know from the perspective of hadith sciences that it is anomalous, how is the question answered using the aforementioned principle of jurisprudence?
The Shaykh : The principle is accepted, there is no dispute about it. But this does not apply to a hadith from a single Companion where the narrators differed in their narration of it, with some stating it absolutely and others restricting it. In that case, it is necessary to combine all these words and narrations with one another to arrive at the result closest to the truth, which is what the single narrator who says: did not mention for the tashahhud, attributes to Ibn 'Umar, for example, or to 'Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr. And the other trustworthy narrator who says: also attributes it to Ibn 'Umar. We cannot say that Ibn 'Umar sometimes said: "When he sat absolutely" to give the absolute, and sometimes said: "When he sat for the tashahhud" to give the restriction. It is not conceivable for a single narrator to have two narrations and two intentions, sometimes the absolute, which is broader and more inclusive, and sometimes the restriction, which is specific. The aforementioned principle can only be applied if two hadiths or two texts in the Noble Qur'an from Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He) come regarding a specific issue. In that case, it cannot be said: the absolute is not applied to the restricted. But if the issue is different, one from the other, as is mentioned, I think, in the books of usul al-fiqh (the principles of jurisprudence), that in some verses it says: "So the freeing of a slave," and in some other verses: "So the freeing of a believing slave." Here, it is not said: that is restricted by this; rather, that is applied in its absolute form and this in its restricted form, because the issue is separated, one from the other. Here, the issue is not like that at all, first. And second: it revolves around a single narrator, and the narrators differed in the precision of this hadith from him, with some completing it and some not completing it. Here, the topic of hadith science enters: is the addition of the trustworthy narrator acceptable or not, because it contradicted the narrations of the trustworthy ones?
Therefore, it is not correct to say that this absolute is applied in its absolute form and that one in its restricted form, because the subject is unified and the narrator is also one. This is what I have on this issue. This is supported by the fact that we do not find in all the narrations that anyone from the Salaf (the earliest generations) understood this detail, which is out of place, meaning applying the absolute and applying the restricted. The absolute permits, for example, moving between the two prostrations, because he said: Who among the Salaf (the earliest generations) used to raise his finger in the sitting between the two prostrations? No one. We only follow some hadiths where the narrator deviated and certainly erred, and this is not clarified except after collecting the routes and combining some with others. At that time, the researcher will arrive at a result in which there is absolutely no doubt that it is a single issue.
From here, Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) says in some examples, for instance, regarding the prayer of fear, that about fifteen types of the prayer of fear, the prayer of war, the prayer of fighting, came in it. Then he says: "It is refined from these narrations to about seven types only." Why? Because he sees that the narrations differ from the same narrator, with some adding and some subtracting. So he combines these narrations and makes them one type, while others, whenever they see a difference regarding a Companion regarding one of these characteristics, make it an independent form. This is not precise in this science, the science of the Noble Prophetic Hadith. Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, I do.
The questioner : And they said that the absolute is the narrations that came in a general form, such as when he would sit in prayer and do such-and-such, or move this way and that; and the restricted is when he would sit for the tashahhud and do it in a specific way. So they said, therefore, that mentioning some instances of the absolute with a ruling that agrees with the ruling of the absolute does not necessitate its restriction. We want clarification on this principle, now that we have learned that you have judged the addition found in the hadith of Abu Dawud al-Tayalisi and others, namely the addition of
Then he prostrated
ثم سجدThe Shaykh : The principle is accepted, there is no dispute about it. But this does not apply to a hadith from a single Companion where the narrators differed in their narration of it, with some stating it absolutely and others restricting it. In that case, it is necessary to combine all these words and narrations with one another to arrive at the result closest to the truth, which is what the single narrator who says:
When he would sit
كان إذا جلسWhen he would sit for the tashahhud
إذا جلس للتشهدTherefore, it is not correct to say that this absolute is applied in its absolute form and that one in its restricted form, because the subject is unified and the narrator is also one. This is what I have on this issue. This is supported by the fact that we do not find in all the narrations that anyone from the Salaf (the earliest generations) understood this detail, which is out of place, meaning applying the absolute and applying the restricted. The absolute permits, for example, moving between the two prostrations, because he said:
If he sits
إذا جلسFrom here, Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) says in some examples, for instance, regarding the prayer of fear, that about fifteen types of the prayer of fear, the prayer of war, the prayer of fighting, came in it. Then he says: "It is refined from these narrations to about seven types only." Why? Because he sees that the narrations differ from the same narrator, with some adding and some subtracting. So he combines these narrations and makes them one type, while others, whenever they see a difference regarding a Companion regarding one of these characteristics, make it an independent form. This is not precise in this science, the science of the Noble Prophetic Hadith. Yes.