Discussion of the non-prescription of placing the hands on the chest after rising from bowing.

The questioner : In the name of Allah, and all praise is due to Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of Allah.
Regarding Ibn Baz’s hadiths concerning his statement on placing the hands on the chest after bowing: he cited hadiths that are not explicit regarding this placement. As for your hadith regarding "Allah hears the one who praises Him" for the follower, you did not cite, nor did you mention, any explicit hadiths on this topic. So, this is that; what is your opinion on this?

The Shaykh : They are not equal, for example. We say: the original rule for every general text is that it is obligatory to act upon all its parts, unless there is evidence for excluding a part of those parts included in the general texts. I think this statement is understandable; because this is actually a statement related to the science of usul al-fiqh (the principles of jurisprudence). I will give an example now for the sake of clarification: . The carrion here is absolute, like the blood, so it includes any carrion and any blood. The implication of acting upon this Qur'anic text is that it is not permissible for a person to eat a dead animal or to eat its blood; why? Because of the generality of the text: every carrion, and the blood, every blood. But when the hadith from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) came explicitly saying: , we said the verse was specified by this hadith. So then, the specific text operates with the general text as an exception from the thing from which the exception is made. And the meaning that emerges from us in the way of combining the Qur'anic text here with the Prophetic hadith is the following: It is forbidden for you to eat carrion, except the carrion of fish and locusts, and blood, except the blood of the liver and spleen. Were it not for this specifying text in the verse, it would have been obligatory to understand the verse in the general sense that includes these exceptions in this hadith. But when the hadith came, it excluded these matters from the generality of the Qur'anic text. This is a known method among all scholars, which is excluding the lesser from the greater: a text that includes something less than another text that includes many things, with the existence of a contradiction between these many things included in the general text and these few things included in the specific text. So the specific text is applied to the general text and specifies it. So we emerge with the previous result: It is forbidden for you to eat carrion, except the carrion of fish and locusts, and blood, except the blood of the liver and spleen. This is a very clear and well-known example.
We now come to a matter that is actually more precise than this example: Is it necessary for the general text to be specified by a text—also—always and forever, or are there other restrictors or other specifiers other than the text? There is no doubt that there are specifiers here, among which they sometimes say the necessity of reason, not individual reason, but the necessity of reason. For example, the verse that says, what is the verse? .

Another questioner : ...and it did not pass over anything.

The Shaykh : The important point is that it did not make the wind, this stormy wind, when our Lord (Mighty and Majestic) sends it down, say about it: , it did not pass over anything, it did not come upon anything . This is the general text, but this general text is not intended; as evidenced by the fact that these lands and mountains that were there, and the valleys and seas and rivers, have not ceased to be as they are. But the indication of the context and the preceding and following text suggests that this broad general meaning of "anything" is not intended, but rather the things that people benefit from, such as crops—for example—like houses and the like. This is not important to us actually, but I wanted to mention that there are other specifiers other than the explicit text, like the previous example between the verse and the hadith. This is what I want to talk about now: if there is a general text that includes details, and some of these details were not acted upon by the righteous Salaf, despite the clarity of this action if it were acted upon; meaning—for example—the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), whom we know used to turn right or left to his house after praying, and would pray the sunnah in the house as is well known. We do not have any text that he acted upon like his own saying: to the end of the hadith. We act upon this text as imam, follower, and alone; why? Because this generality is the original rule, and excluding an individual from the individuals of this generality, or a part of its parts, for which no evidence has come to us, neither a specific evidence like the hadith: , nor an evidence that suggests the action upon which the Salaf acted.
I brought this example because this issue is not as apparent as the topic of prayer, for example. The Messenger used to pray as imam among the Companions, and sometimes they would see him praying at night, and so on. So the actions that the Messenger (peace be upon him) did openly before the eyes of the people, these must be transmitted if they were in a specific form; they must be transmitted if they were from the devotional sunnah, and that is because of the Companions' motivation to transmit everything related to the Messenger (peace be upon him), and not only the acts of worship, but even the ordinary matters. It is known to us that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was reported in "Sahih al-Bukhari" = -- Peace be upon you, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings. Welcome, how are you? -- = So the Companions' concern with talking about the Messenger (peace be upon him) and transmitting from him reached matters that have no relation to worship; such as describing his sandals, as came in "Sahih al-Bukhari" from the hadith of Anas ibn Malik, who said: "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) had two sandals with two toes," two toes means like the shoes today, the big toe in one compartment, and the rest in another compartment. This is from their eagerness to transmit what they saw from the Messenger (peace be upon him). And at that time, the researcher who delves into studying the habit of the Companions and their concern with transmitting from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), not only what relates to worship, but even what relates to worship, we cannot then imagine a worship that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) would announce to the people.

Another questioner: Peace be upon you.

The Shaykh : And upon you be peace, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings.
So if we imagine what was previously mentioned regarding the Companions' concern with transmitting everything they saw of his actions (peace be upon him), even in what has no relation to worship, then at that time we cannot imagine at all that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did something in the sight of the people and visible to the Companions, and then no one from the Companions transmitted it; we cannot imagine this at all; because of our knowledge by induction of their care in transmitting everything related to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). And at that time, it becomes apparent to us in a way that is not hidden—Allah willing—that what came from the specific texts is not from the speech of the Messenger, but rather from the speech of a Companion. And I say this because it is not hidden from you all that a Companion, however eloquent and articulate he may be, cannot be compared to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in that. He may speak with a general or absolute phrase that suggests what he does not intend and does not want, while this is impossible to come from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). So here, in the issue related to the question, did the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) place his hands in the second standing after bowing or not?
We have not found in any of the Sunan or hadiths we have examined an explicit text stating that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) placed his right hand over his left after bowing. Those who advocate for this position acknowledge this fact, but they argue that the text is general. What is this general text? It is the report that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), when he stood for prayer, placed his right hand over his left when standing. This provides the generality we mentioned earlier. However, this generality was not acted upon in practice, unlike other matters that are generally practiced by those who prefer innovation in religion. These people who prefer innovation in religion never fail to find a general text in which to include their innovation. So, what is our answer, as we are the people of the Sunnah, the people of hadith, and the Salafis, to these pieces of evidence that innovators use to support their innovations, which are too numerous to count?
The answer is clear: regarding this general text that innovators cite as evidence, we say: if the specific detail they are arguing for had been included in that general text as understood by those to whom the general text was first revealed, and consequently understood by those who transmitted this general text directly from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), they would have acted upon it. Therefore, we say to the innovators: this is an innovation. And you can imagine any innovation you like, and I guarantee that I can provide you with evidence on their behalf, but it is of this kind: general evidence. What is our answer to it? The simplest example is when we say: "People, the adhan ends with La ilaha illa Allah." They rush to respond by quoting Allah the Exalted: . This is a general text. They rush to respond by quoting the Prophet (peace be upon him): and so on. So why do you prevent us from sending blessings upon the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)? We have no answer, as some people imagine that the Messenger prohibited this, so that we could say: this prohibition specifies the generalities. If that were the case, what specified these generalities? It is the fact that the practice of the Salaf did not follow this part of these general texts. This is clear, I hope.
Good. And so we say regarding every text that implies generality for a part of its details that the practice of the Salaf did not follow. And I say: it implies; because I have distinguished, and you are not here, between a general text issued by the Messenger (peace be upon him), who does not speak from desire, it is only a revelation revealed, and a text expressed by the Companion himself. It may be that this text has a looseness in expression; that is, he intended a specific matter but his wording came out general. So now, here we have the statement of Wa'il ibn Hujr: "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), when he stood in prayer, placed his right hand over his left." Indeed, this text implies generality; this is standing. But our argument in refuting the arguments of innovators for their innovations, which they introduced under general texts, is exactly our argument in this specific case. Although there is another point here that we must mention: this hadith of Wa'il, in my opinion, is an abbreviated version of a more complete hadith of his. This more complete hadith is in "Sahih Muslim" and in "Musnad Imam Ahmad," where he described the prayer of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) when he said the takbir and took his left hand with his right, then bowed, then raised his head from bowing and said: "Allah hears the one who praises Him," then prostrated. He did not mention the second standing; the second position in the second standing. And so he continued describing the prostration between the two rak'ahs, and so on. Therefore, I do not rule out at all that some narrators, due to the context of the argument for the customary position, which is in the first standing, excerpted the part of the hadith related to this position. But when he separated it from what came before and after it, it gave a general meaning.