Does not the hadith of Sahl ibn Sa'd (may Allah be pleased with them both) indicate the recommended practice of placing the hands after rising from the bowing?

The questioner : He mentioned the hadith of Sahl ibn Sa'd.

The Shaykh : The same answer applies.

The questioner : Regarding the placement, he only mentioned the placement, so he did not describe it... He meant that all placements are known, so he specified only this one.

The Shaykh : How did he specify only this one?

The questioner : He meant that he specified in the hadith only this placement after standing up, so Sahl ibn Sa'd intended this placement after standing up.

The Shaykh : First, my brother, the hadith of Sahl does not contain standing up.

The questioner : After the bowing?

The Shaykh : There is no standing up, neither before the bowing nor after the bowing. The hadith of Sahl is actually part of our evidence in this precise matter. The hadith of Sahl says: "They were ordered to place the right hand over the left hand in prayer," in prayer. Therefore, we hold them to the requirement of placing the hands between the two prostrations, and they have no choice but analogical reasoning, analogical reasoning, that is what they will say. Yes, what is the difference between between the two prostrations and the tashahhud, for example? Do you see? We say that in the tashahhud there are explicit texts regarding placing the palms on the thighs, and placing the right hand on the right thigh, and placing the left hand on the left thigh, and so on. And there is no hadith that specifies the form that the worshipper must take between the two prostrations; it does not exist at all. But this does not apply to us; rather, it applies to them. We say: our evidence here is the practice of the Muslims. And here come the arguments that I mention: . If it is said: "Then why do you place your hands?" I say: because this is the practice of the Muslims. Why do you not place your hands in the second standing? Because this is the practice of the Muslims. So whoever wants to act according to this general text must act according to the general text in the hadith of Sahl ibn Sa'd in prayer. And we have other points. Hadiths have come regarding pointing in prayer, some of which are general, saying: "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) used to point in prayer." So we act this way.

The questioner : Its location.

The Shaykh : Yes?

The questioner : Its location, I mean.

The Shaykh : Who is going to define it? The practice of the Muslims. Here is the point now. It came: "When he sat in prayer, he would point with his index finger." So he must point between the two prostrations. But these are authentic texts with no problem. However, when a person follows the hadith that said: "When he sat in prayer, he would raise his finger or point with his finger," other narrations restrict the pointing to the tashahhud; that is, in the sitting of the tashahhud.
And the truth is, since I heard the argumentation using this general text in the hadith of Wa'il and others like it, I have feared the most that some people, due to this type of argumentation from generalities where the general text has not been applied to some of its parts, will see a person between the two prostrations raising his finger or moving it. So I used to say this for years while I was in Syria, until I was surprised here among you by a young graduate from some universities who came as a guest or visited me, I no longer remember. The time was between the midday and afternoon prayers. The man called the adhan and iqamah, and with him was a friend of his. They prayed, and I was sitting, of course, waiting for him to pray. And there he was, moving his finger between the two prostrations. So Yusuf kept it to himself! For a moment of his life, naturally. After they prayed and we got into conversations, I turned the matter toward this issue. So I asked him, and he said to me: "There is a hadith about this." I said to him: "What is the hadith?" He said: "The hadith of Wa'il ibn Hujr." I said to him: "But have you studied this hadith?" He said: "Yes, its chain is either strong or its chain is good." And indeed, this answer is sound for someone who does not trace the paths of the hadith. But the one who first recalls their definition of the term "authentic hadith," and secondly verifies this meaning precisely, will find that this hadith is not authentic, and it is called in their terminology an anomalous hadith. In all the paths that came from Wa'il ibn Hujr mentioning the movement of the finger in the tashahhud, except in one path that came in "Musnad Imam Ahmad" with a chain all of whose narrators are trustworthy, and it is customary for scholars to authenticate such a chain. But when you look, and this is the truth, all the paths of the hadith of Wa'il ibn Hujr revolve around 'Asim ibn Kulaib from his father from Wa'il. From 'Asim ibn Kulaib, the paths multiply. All the paths from him mention raising the finger and pointing in the tashahhud, except this anomalous path in "Musnad Imam Ahmad." So the narrator deviated in two ways: the first way is mentioning the movement of the finger between the two prostrations, and from another way, he did not mention the movement of the finger in the tashahhud. So he deviated twice. If, for example, he had mentioned the movement in both places, in the tashahhud and between the two prostrations, we would have said this is an addition by a trustworthy narrator. But here a very precise question arises: Is the addition of a trustworthy narrator accepted by hadith scholars consistently always, or sometimes?
The answer: The truth is that there is disagreement in this matter between hadith scholars and scholars of the principles of jurisprudence. Hadith scholars say: The addition of a trustworthy narrator is accepted if he is not contradicted by someone more trustworthy than him or more numerous than him. Scholars of the principles of jurisprudence say: The addition of a trustworthy narrator is accepted always. This school of thought never aligns with the theories of hadith scholars when they weaken some hadiths, such as the mursal hadith and the like. Indeed, the scholars of the principles of hadith, I mean the principles of jurisprudence, can never adhere to this rule; because it opens up for them the field of accepting hadiths whose error has become apparent to them, while the narrator is trustworthy. How can it be said that the addition of a trustworthy narrator is accepted always? So the correct view is that the addition of a trustworthy narrator is accepted on the condition that he is not contradicted by someone more memorizing than him among the trustworthy narrators, or more numerous than him among the trustworthy narrators. Being more memorizing is a condition when a trustworthy narrator is alone against a trustworthy narrator. So the stronger position to attribute error to a trustworthy narrator is being more memorizing... So if we have two trustworthy narrators equal in memorization, we have no preference between them; so one of the two trustworthy narrators must have what? A supporting chain. And if the supporting chain is for the one who added, then his addition is preserved. And if the trustworthy narrator is supported by the one who did not add, then the addition is not preserved. On this basis, this hadith that mentioned the movement of the finger between the two prostrations is an anomalous hadith. But one might argue to support this anomalous hadith with the general texts we mentioned earlier; that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) used to point with his finger when he sat in prayer. But our answer to this is the same as the previous answer.
If this is clear to you, I return to say: Every person of intellect and understanding distinguishes between the Messenger (peace be upon him), first in that he is a model for all humanity, and second in that his action is apparent to all people; it is not equal to this for individuals of the people. Did they say behind the imam: "Allah hears the one who praises Him" as the imam says, implementing the general text, or did they not say it? This does not apply here as it applies there; because this matter, as I illustrated earlier, is that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) used to go to the house. What do you think he used to say from the recitations and remembrances? This is hidden from us. So we must act according to his general saying (peace and blessings be upon him) that includes, I mean, every worshipper, whether he is an imam, a follower, or praying alone, except where there is a specific defining evidence. As we say, for example, regarding the mu'adhdhin, why does he not respond to himself? Why does he not send blessings upon the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)? Because the practice has not been established with this, neither aloud nor secretly, although it falls within the generalities. So this is an explanation of what you asked about, and perhaps it is, if Allah wills, sufficient.

Another questioner : As I said, Shaykh, the voluntary prayer in congregation.

The Shaykh : And there are many examples.