Until every bone returned to its place, then he recited, then he said Allahu Akbar from the bowing, then he said, "Allah hears the one who praises Him," until every bone returned to its place. The Companion's description of the Prophet's rising from the bowing.

The questioner :"... until every bone returned to its place, then he recited, then he said Allahu Akbar from the bowing, then he said, 'Allah hears the one who praises Him,' until every bone returned to its place". Abu Hurayrah described the Prophet's (peace and blessings be upon him) rising from the bowing as every bone returning to its place... Is the Sunnah to fold the hands?

The Shaykh : Are the hands mentioned in this hadith?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Please excuse me from the question, are the hands mentioned in this hadith?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : ... The first standing is like the second standing. What did you mean? Are the placing of the hands mentioned in this hadith?

The questioner : We know the placing of the hands from other hadiths.

The Shaykh : If we know the placing of the hands from other hadiths, then you gain nothing from this hadith.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Since this hadith does not mention the placing of the hands, how do you say it is explicit?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : My dear, since this hadith does not mention the placing of the hands, how do you say it is explicit regarding the placing of the hands?
Another questioner: ...

The Shaykh : Every question has an answer. Since you admit, and this is the reality, that the placing of the hands is not mentioned in this hadith at all, how do you say it is explicit regarding the placing of the hands? If you said it was a hint, we would go along with you and respond to it. But you say it is explicit. Who says this?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : It never indicates that, my brother. This is the answer to the question. This indicates the stability of the body's position in the manner known by the Shari'ah. For example, when you imagine a prayer without placing the hands, can you imagine this with me? I am just asking you: is it possible or not possible?

The questioner : It is possible.

The Shaykh : If you imagined a prayer without placing the hands, how do you explain this stability, and then every organ returning to its place? How do you explain that? Answer.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Okay. If the stability of every organ corresponds to its position, and if the position is letting the hands hang down, then the meaning of stability is that, for example, we would have to illustrate this. I bowed and said, "Allah hears the one who praises Him, and to You is the praise..." and I stood up, and the hands had not yet stabilized, they had not found their rest, and I fell into prostration... This is on the assumption that the original position is letting the hands hang down. Clear? Look at my hand now. This is a second illustration. Is this stability? No. Is this stability? No. This is stability. Let us assume now in the position I am in now... "Allah hears the one who praises Him, and to You is the praise." This is stability. But if I did, for example, "Allah hears the one who praises Him, and to You is the praise," it did not stabilize. So stability corresponds to the organ we are talking about. Now, when a person raises his head from the bowing until every organ returns to its place and stability, there is no problem. We are now asking: do you see here a placing or here a letting hang down? Based on the answer, the details will follow. Why did I push you to imagination? I said, imagine with me a prayer without placing. Imagine. And this is the example before you. Now, has the placing been established for us after raising the head from the bowing, so that we can explain the stability as the organ stabilizing in its Shari'ah place? Has this been established? Rest yourselves.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : This statement, my brother, does not indicate the practice that is in dispute today. In our current era, this practice has never been prescribed, ever. The evidence from the words of Ibn Hazm is that he attributes the practice you are performing, which includes sitting after bowing for the imams, to Abu Hanifah and al-Shafi'i, and these scholars do not say that. Therefore, his words must be interpreted as referring to every standing in every rak'ah, and this is not in the first standing, but in the standing in the second, third, and fourth rak'ahs. He does not mean the first rak'ah, which has two standings. This is attributing to the words of Ibn Hazm a meaning he did not intend. Here, we must remind you of a method in understanding the Arabic language: scholars say that context and the preceding discourse are among the restrictors. The preceding discourse and context of a speech restrict the generality that initially comes to mind from a section of that speech. So when you read the words of Ibn Hazm regarding "every standing," you might understand it to mean every standing, even the second standing in a single rak'ah. But if you follow his words where he attributes that to Abu Hanifah and al-Shafi'i, and these scholars do not say this regarding the second standing, then if the context of Ibn Hazm's speech is evidence that he did not mean the generality you are understanding, and if it were not for what is said today about the permissibility of standing after raising the head from bowing, neither you nor anyone else would have interpreted the words of Ibn Hazm to include sitting in the standing after bowing. Otherwise, the context of the speech, as we said, is explicit in attributing it to the imams, and none of the imams says this matter absolutely. In conclusion, I want to point out something very important, and in my opinion, if it were noticed, it would help us understand some of these issues that are in dispute today. Every general text contains many parts, and the practice of a part of that general text was not established by the righteous predecessors. Therefore, acting on this part is not prescribed. This is a principle of jurisprudence, and it is likely understood, but an example clarifies it. As Allah the Exalted said: Before the example, I want to mention something that precedes it: negligence of this important rule is the primary reason for the widespread spread of religious innovations among Muslims, both in the past and the present. We, the people of the Sunnah, who are keen on adhering to the Sunnah without additions or innovations in the name of "good innovation," combat those innovations, even though all of them, or at least most of them, have evidence from such general proofs that were used to infer a part of the general proof, even though the practice of this part was not established by the righteous predecessors. Similarly, we deny to the innovators the introduction of many innovations on the pretext that "if it were good, they would have preceded us to it." This is a true and valid argument. All innovations are refuted by us with this phrase, and it undoubtedly has its principles and rules. "If it were good, they would have preceded us to it." But if we reflect on this innovation that we deny to the innovators, we would find many, and very many, general proofs for it, not only in the Sunnah but also in the Noble Qur'an. For example, take what is with us in Oman and the Levant: the addition before the adhan, at the time of the adhan, before the adhan, which they call... meaning verses and sending blessings upon the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). As for after the adhan, immediately sending blessings upon the Messenger by the mu'adhdhin, we do not hesitate or waver in saying that this is an innovation. They shock us by saying, "You deny sending blessings upon the Messenger, and Allah says: If we want to study this proof in light of the principles of jurisprudence, this is an argument by a general text. He said: It did not specify a place but was general. This is what the people of innovation always and forever use to support their innovations: taking the indication from general proofs where the practice of this part that they argue for with the general proof was not established. This is a very important point. If one of you always thought about this when denying an innovation, he might find a basis for it in these general proofs. Therefore, Imam al-Shatibi (may Allah have mercy on him) said that innovation is divided into two types: a true innovation and an additional innovation. A true innovation is one that has no basis in the Book and the Sunnah at all. He gives examples of this, such as the saying of compulsion (jabr) and that man is compelled, and the saying of the Murji'ah, and the like. We do not need to go into detail here. The other innovation, the additional innovation, he says, is one where if you look at it from one angle or side, you find a basis for it, and if you look at it from another angle, you do not find a basis for it. It is then said that this is an innovation. He gives an example, for instance, seeking forgiveness after the prayers is a recommended practice, but seeking forgiveness after the prayer in congregation is a matter that did not exist. Therefore, it is said that this is an innovation. I return now to give you an example that was not practiced after the innovators acted on it, but if one of them did so, he would find a proof for it, and this is what I want to draw your attention to. We always enter the mosques to perform the obligatory prayers, so we pray the pre-prayer recommended practice, each of us alone. If an entrant were adorned by Satan and said, "Come, let us pray in congregation," and he argues with something like his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): Is this a specific argument or a general one? A general indication. And this is congregation. He might even argue with something more specific and say the hadith: And so on. What do you think of this congregational prayer? If it were to occur, would not such general proofs indicate it? We say, yes, these proofs are clear in their indication because they did not restrict the parts that the Wise Lawgiver intended in them. But our answer is that this specific detail, if it were intended by this hadith and that, the practice of the righteous predecessors would have been established on it. And if they did not do so, that indicates that this part of this worship does not fall under the generality of this text and that. I think this example is clear? If the matter is so, then there must be a rule for us so that we are truly Salafis, followers of the righteous predecessors. It is that whenever it comes to our mind to argue with a general text, in order to be safe from deviation from the Sunnah to innovation, we must look at whether the righteous predecessors did that or not. Otherwise, we would fall into what the innovators fell into.