Continuation of the previous question regarding the issue of placing the hands on the chest when rising from the bowing.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : In order to be safe from deviating from the Sunnah to religious innovation, we must look at whether the righteous Salaf did that or not; otherwise, we would fall into what the innovators fell into. Our previous topic is exactly of this type. There are hadiths by which some of the eminent scholars argue based on their generality, and you recently came arguing based on the generality of Ibn Hazm's words. But that generality and that other one have never been acted upon by the Salaf. There is no one among the Companions or the followed imams—meaning the four—who says that placing the hands is recommended or a recommended practice after raising the head from the bowing, just as all the people of the Sunnah say that placing the hands is a recommended practice before the bowing.
The questioner : In al-‘Iyni’s commentary on al-Bukhari, al-‘Iyni says: "The chapter on the time of raising the hands."
The Shaykh : I mean, you are now going to argue with something more than generality.
The questioner : He mentions a narration from al-Bukhari ... .
The Shaykh : You understood my question.
The questioner : Yes, I understood your question.
The Shaykh : You are now arguing with something more than generality, otherwise, do you have a specific text from one of the Salaf?
The questioner : Al-‘Iyni says regarding the time of placing the hands: "The principle in this is that every standing in which there is a recommended dhikr, in which one relies, meaning one’s right hand on the left, and what does not, then one does not rely in the state of qunut and the funeral prayer, and one does not rely in the rising from the bowing and between the additional takbirs of the two festivals. This is the correct view. And according to Abu Ali al-Nasafi and Imam Abu Abdullah and others, one relies in every standing, whether there is a recommended dhikr in it or not."
The Shaykh : From whom did he narrate it? From whom?
The questioner : From Abu Ali al-Nasafi and Imam Abu Abdullah.
The Shaykh : From whom? From whom? It is not clear, I mean, my question? You are saying he narrated it from so-and-so, from whom did he narrate it? You are saying you are quoting a text from the Salaf, who is it?
The questioner : Al-Bukhari.
The Shaykh : What did al-Bukhari say?
The questioner : That one relies in every standing.
The Shaykh : You are arguing with the general text.
The questioner : He said at the beginning that after the bowing, one does not rely, contrary to Imam Abu Abdullah, who sees placing the hands after the bowing, because he said contrary to what Imam Abu Abdullah sees.
The Shaykh : Did Abu Abdullah, who is Imam al-Bukhari, explicitly state placing the hands in the second standing?
The questioner : It is understood from his words.
The Shaykh : My dear, answer, say "explicitly stated" or say "not explicitly stated." Yes, this is what you said before. You want to argue with general words, not specific words.
The questioner : The context is clear.
The Shaykh : My research now is not whether the words are clear or not. Is the general text clear or ambiguous? The fact that the general text is clear is one thing, and whether it is general or specific is a second thing. The most important thing is that the best speech is what is brief and effective. Do you have words from one of the Salaf that he said about the legitimacy of placing the hands in the second standing or did it? A specific text? If so, then you are striking cold iron. I am telling you that arguing with the generalities of the hadiths, let alone the hadiths of others who are not an authority in the first place, is not appropriate unless the practice of the Salaf has been carried out on that.
You are going around and around this point. First, I am telling you something: either you are convinced with me by the previous words that any part of a general text that has not been acted upon by the Salaf is not permissible to act upon, or you are not convinced. And I do not impose my opinion on you, but I assume, either this or that. Either you are convinced by this, then praise be to Allah, in which case you should, in order to apply what you are convinced of, bring an explicit text, either in words or in action, that one of the previous imams from the righteous Salaf said this placing of the hands, and there is no way to that at all. Search as much as you want in the books. But to bring general words, that is available. And you do not need to bring general evidence from some scholars, because the general evidence is in the hadith This is a general text, so what interests you after this text of the action of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) to resort to the words of those after him.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : And I will do with others what I did with him. Which is more important, the hadith or the words of others?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Are the words of others a Shari'ah?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : I do not mean by the four imams all the Salaf. It is not a problem, even if you do not understand my specification. My words are broader. The Salaf, and among them are the four imams. It has not been reported from any of these, neither in words nor in action, placing the hands in the second standing.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : What are you benefiting? You are the one who brings a positive, practical matter, so you are the one who has to prove it. As for me, my position is negative. I say it did not come from the imams, neither negatively nor positively. In that case, is it valid for either party to argue with their actions? I say it did not come, and you say it came. When I say it did not come, that is the reality. But when you say it came, is that the reality?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, no, from the imams, you are saying.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : You are now, I mean, you have forgotten everything we agreed on ... it has gone down the drain. I told you, are you convinced with me by this rule, which is that every general text that contains a part, and that part has not been acted upon by the Salaf, we do not act upon that part? You said no. Now I am putting the dots on the letters. Did the practice of the Salaf occur with this? When you say it occurred, you have to prove it. I do not have to prove it because my position is negation and denial. As it was said in the principles, if you are a transmitter, then accuracy, or if you are a claimant, then evidence. We are now at this rule that we agreed on, which is that the part of the general text that has not been acted upon by the Salaf, we do not act upon it. Correct? So what must the one who wants to act upon it do? He must prove that it is from the practice of the Salaf. Did you do this? The answer is no. With the opposite, you returned to say, since I admit that it did not come from them, neither this nor that, if we return to the generality. The circle, brother. The generality that you want to return to, you are supposed not to forget what we agreed on, which is that it should have been acted upon by the Salaf. And now you agree with me that we do not have what indicates that it was acted upon by the Salaf. This is a point of precision and very great precision. And I hope from Allah the Exalted and Majestic that He will inspire us to understand it in the correct way.
The questioner :
The questioner : In al-‘Iyni’s commentary on al-Bukhari, al-‘Iyni says: "The chapter on the time of raising the hands."
The Shaykh : I mean, you are now going to argue with something more than generality.
The questioner : He mentions a narration from al-Bukhari ... .
The Shaykh : You understood my question.
The questioner : Yes, I understood your question.
The Shaykh : You are now arguing with something more than generality, otherwise, do you have a specific text from one of the Salaf?
The questioner : Al-‘Iyni says regarding the time of placing the hands: "The principle in this is that every standing in which there is a recommended dhikr, in which one relies, meaning one’s right hand on the left, and what does not, then one does not rely in the state of qunut and the funeral prayer, and one does not rely in the rising from the bowing and between the additional takbirs of the two festivals. This is the correct view. And according to Abu Ali al-Nasafi and Imam Abu Abdullah and others, one relies in every standing, whether there is a recommended dhikr in it or not."
The Shaykh : From whom did he narrate it? From whom?
The questioner : From Abu Ali al-Nasafi and Imam Abu Abdullah.
The Shaykh : From whom? From whom? It is not clear, I mean, my question? You are saying he narrated it from so-and-so, from whom did he narrate it? You are saying you are quoting a text from the Salaf, who is it?
The questioner : Al-Bukhari.
The Shaykh : What did al-Bukhari say?
The questioner : That one relies in every standing.
The Shaykh : You are arguing with the general text.
The questioner : He said at the beginning that after the bowing, one does not rely, contrary to Imam Abu Abdullah, who sees placing the hands after the bowing, because he said contrary to what Imam Abu Abdullah sees.
The Shaykh : Did Abu Abdullah, who is Imam al-Bukhari, explicitly state placing the hands in the second standing?
The questioner : It is understood from his words.
The Shaykh : My dear, answer, say "explicitly stated" or say "not explicitly stated." Yes, this is what you said before. You want to argue with general words, not specific words.
The questioner : The context is clear.
The Shaykh : My research now is not whether the words are clear or not. Is the general text clear or ambiguous? The fact that the general text is clear is one thing, and whether it is general or specific is a second thing. The most important thing is that the best speech is what is brief and effective. Do you have words from one of the Salaf that he said about the legitimacy of placing the hands in the second standing or did it? A specific text? If so, then you are striking cold iron. I am telling you that arguing with the generalities of the hadiths, let alone the hadiths of others who are not an authority in the first place, is not appropriate unless the practice of the Salaf has been carried out on that.
You are going around and around this point. First, I am telling you something: either you are convinced with me by the previous words that any part of a general text that has not been acted upon by the Salaf is not permissible to act upon, or you are not convinced. And I do not impose my opinion on you, but I assume, either this or that. Either you are convinced by this, then praise be to Allah, in which case you should, in order to apply what you are convinced of, bring an explicit text, either in words or in action, that one of the previous imams from the righteous Salaf said this placing of the hands, and there is no way to that at all. Search as much as you want in the books. But to bring general words, that is available. And you do not need to bring general evidence from some scholars, because the general evidence is in the hadith
When he stood up for prayer, he placed his right hand over his left.
كان إذا قام إلى الصلاة وضع اليمنى على اليسرىThe questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : And I will do with others what I did with him. Which is more important, the hadith or the words of others?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Are the words of others a Shari'ah?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : I do not mean by the four imams all the Salaf. It is not a problem, even if you do not understand my specification. My words are broader. The Salaf, and among them are the four imams. It has not been reported from any of these, neither in words nor in action, placing the hands in the second standing.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : What are you benefiting? You are the one who brings a positive, practical matter, so you are the one who has to prove it. As for me, my position is negative. I say it did not come from the imams, neither negatively nor positively. In that case, is it valid for either party to argue with their actions? I say it did not come, and you say it came. When I say it did not come, that is the reality. But when you say it came, is that the reality?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, no, from the imams, you are saying.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : You are now, I mean, you have forgotten everything we agreed on ... it has gone down the drain. I told you, are you convinced with me by this rule, which is that every general text that contains a part, and that part has not been acted upon by the Salaf, we do not act upon that part? You said no. Now I am putting the dots on the letters. Did the practice of the Salaf occur with this? When you say it occurred, you have to prove it. I do not have to prove it because my position is negation and denial. As it was said in the principles, if you are a transmitter, then accuracy, or if you are a claimant, then evidence. We are now at this rule that we agreed on, which is that the part of the general text that has not been acted upon by the Salaf, we do not act upon it. Correct? So what must the one who wants to act upon it do? He must prove that it is from the practice of the Salaf. Did you do this? The answer is no. With the opposite, you returned to say, since I admit that it did not come from them, neither this nor that, if we return to the generality. The circle, brother. The generality that you want to return to, you are supposed not to forget what we agreed on, which is that it should have been acted upon by the Salaf. And now you agree with me that we do not have what indicates that it was acted upon by the Salaf. This is a point of precision and very great precision. And I hope from Allah the Exalted and Majestic that He will inspire us to understand it in the correct way.
The questioner :