Where does the prayer place his hands after rising from the bowing? Does he let them hang down, or does he clasp the right hand over the left as they were before the bowing?

The questioner: " ... the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) until every bone returned to its place, then he recited, then he said the takbir from the bowing, then he said: Allah hears the one who praises Him, until every bone returned to its place," and Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) described the Prophet's (peace and blessings be upon him) standing after the bowing as every bone returning to its place. Can we ... say that the Sunnah is to clasp the hands?

The Shaykh: Were the hands mentioned in this hadith?

The questioner: ... every bone to its place.

The Shaykh: Please answer the question for me, were the hands mentioned in this hadith?

The questioner: In the first standing, every bone returned to its place ... .

The Shaykh: I am asking you: Is the first standing like the second standing? What did you mean? Were the placement of the hands mentioned in this hadith?

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

The Shaykh: Good, so we know the placement of the hands from other hadiths; so you gain nothing from this hadith.

The questioner : ... .

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

The questioner : ... .

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

Another questioner : ... .

The Shaykh: Another point ... every question has an answer. Since you admit—and this is the reality—that the placement of the hands is not mentioned in this hadith at all; how do you say this is explicit regarding the placement of the hands? If you said: there is a hint, well, we will go with you and respond to it. But if you say it is explicit; who says this?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh: It never indicates that, my brother. This is where the answer to the question comes in. This indicates the stability of the body's position in the manner known by the Shari'ah. For example, when you imagine a prayer in which there is no placement of the hands, can you imagine this concept with me? I am just asking you to imagine, imagine? Is it possible or not possible?

The questioner : Yes, you may.

The Shaykh: ... If you imagine a prayer in which there is no placement of the hands; in that case, how do you interpret this stability? Every organ returns to its place; how do you interpret it? Answer, extend it with support.

The questioner: If possible ... .

The Shaykh: Good, if the stability of every organ corresponds to its position, then if the position is letting them hang down, the meaning of stability is that— for example—we would have to illustrate this. I bowed, and I said: Allah hears the one who praises Him, praise be to our Lord, the hands did not stabilize, and I stood up and the hands had not yet stabilized, they had not taken their ease, and I fell into prostration. I did not act according to this hadith. This is on the assumption of what? That the original position is letting them hang down, clear? I mean, 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 a position, I raised my head, Allah hears the one who praises Him, praise be to our Lord, this is stability. But if I did it like this, Allah hears the one who praises Him, praise be to you, it did not stabilize. So stability corresponds to the organ we are talking about. So now, when a person raises his head from the bowing until every organ returns to its place and stability, there is no problem with that. But we are now asking: is it placement here or letting them hang down here? The details will follow based on the answer. Why did I burden you with imagination and say imagine a prayer without placement with me? I imagine it, and this is the example before you. Now, has it been established for us that the placement is after raising the head from the bowing, so that we can interpret the stability as the organ stabilizing in its Shari'ah place? Has this been established?

The questioner: It has not been established ... .

The Shaykh: Has this been established? Then rest yourselves.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh: This statement—my brother—does not indicate the placement that is disputed today, in our era. This placement was never prescribed at any time. The evidence is from the words of Ibn Hazm, who attributes the placement that you do, including the placement after the bowing, to the Imams: to Abu Hanifah, and al-Shafi'i, and these do not say that. Therefore, you must interpret his words in every standing, i.e., in every rak'ah, and this is not in the first standing, but in the standing in the second, third, and fourth rak'ah. He does not mean that the first rak'ah has two standings. This is attributing to the words of Ibn Hazm a meaning he does not intend. Here, we must remind you of a method in understanding the Arabic language. The scholars say: "Context and preceding discourse are among the restrictors." Context and preceding discourse, the preceding discourse and its context, restrict the generality that comes to mind from a section of this discourse. So when you read the words of Ibn Hazm in every standing, you might understand from it in every standing, i.e., even in the second standing in the same rak'ah. But if you follow his words where he attributes that to Abu Hanifah and al-Shafi'i—and these do not say this in the second standing—then the context of Ibn Hazm's words is evidence that he did not mean this generality that you understand. And if it were not for what is said today about the legitimacy of standing after raising the head from the bowing, you and others would not have gone and perished in interpreting the words of Ibn Hazm as including the placement in the standing after the bowing. Otherwise, the context of the discourse—as we said—is explicit in attributing it to the Imams, and none of the Imams says this matter at all.
And in conclusion: I want—the time has ended—to draw your attention to something very important, and in my opinion, if it were noticed, it would help us understand some of these issues that are disputed today:
"Every general text that contains many parts, of which the practice of one part of that general text has not been established from the righteous Salaf; then acting according to this part is not prescribed." This is a principle of jurisprudence, and it is probably understood, but the example clarifies it, as He (Glorified and Exalted is He) said: . Before the example, I want to mention something before it. Neglecting this important rule is the first reason for the widespread spread of religious innovations among Muslims, both in the past and present. And we—the people of the Sunnah—who are keen to adhere to the Sunnah without additions and innovations in the name of "good innovation," for example—we fight those innovations, even though all of them—or at least most of them—have evidence from such general evidence that was used to justify the placement of a part of the general evidence, even though the practice did not proceed in this part from the Salaf. Similarly, we deny the innovators for introducing many innovations on the pretext that—if it were good, they would have preceded us to it. We strike all innovations with this phrase, and it has its principles and rules without doubt: 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 evidences 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 of the addition before the adhan and during the adhan. Before the adhan, they call it "Tartilah" ... , meaning verses and prayer upon the Messenger (peace be upon him). As for after the adhan, immediately the prayer upon the Messenger by the mu'adhdhin. We do not hesitate or waver in saying that this is a religious innovation; they shock us by saying—He (Glorified and Exalted is He)—you deny the prayer upon the Messenger, and Allah says: !! If we want to study this evidence in light of the principles of jurisprudence, yes, this is reasoning with the general text because it said: , it did not specify a place, but it was general.
So the people of innovation—and this is an example—their reference is always and forever in supporting their innovations is taking the indication from general evidences for which the practice of this part they are arguing with the general evidence has not been established. This is a very important point. And if one of you always thinks when denying an innovation, he might find a basis for it from these general evidences. For this reason, Imam al-Shatibi (may Allah have mercy on him) says: that innovation is divided into two categories: a true innovation, and an additional innovation.
The true innovation is that which has no basis whatsoever in the Book or the Sunnah. Examples are given for this, such as the claim of compulsion (jabr), that man is compelled, and the claim of deferring faith (irja'), and the like. We do not need to go into detail here.
The other type is the relative innovation. He says: "It is that which, when you look at it from one angle or side, you find it has a basis, but when you look at it from another angle, you find it has no basis. It is then said that this is an innovation." An example is seeking forgiveness after the prayers; it is a recommended practice (sunnah), but seeking forgiveness after the prayers in congregation is a matter that did not exist, and therefore it is said to be an innovation.
I return now to give you an example that has not yet been acted upon by the innovators, but if one of them were to do it, he would find evidence for it. 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 (sunnah), each of us individually. If someone were to be adorned by Satan and he said to them, "Why are we separating in the sunnah? Come, let us pray in congregation," and he argues with something like his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): , is this a specific or a general argument? It is a general indication and it is congregation. In fact, he might argue with something more specific and say in the hadith: , and so on. What do you think of this congregational prayer if it were to occur? Do 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 Salaf would have been in accordance with it. Since 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. Since the matter is so, we must have a rule so that we are truly Salafis, followers of the righteous Salaf, and it is: whenever we think of arguing with a general text—in order to be safe from deviating from the Sunnah to innovation—we must look: did the righteous Salaf do that or not? Otherwise, we will fall into what the innovators fell into.
---
The completion of the answer is in the next tape, number .