A great deal has been said these days about the manner of descending into prostration, and whether it is obligatory to place the knees or the hands first. Likewise, the manner of rising from the rak'ah: does one rise using the hands or the knees?

The questioner : We begin this episode with a message received from our brother, the listener Abdul Latif from Riyadh. The listener Abdul Latif is a good listener to the program; he has a set of questions, beginning with this one: "A great deal has been said, O honorable Shaykh, these days about the manner of descending into prostration, and whether one descends on the knees or the hands. Likewise, the manner of rising from the rak'ah: does one rise using the hands or the knees? We ask for a detailed explanation on this. May you be rewarded?"

The Shaykh : Praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds, and may blessings and peace be upon our Prophet Muhammad, and upon his family and all his Companions. The discussion of these two issues is a matter in which there is room for independent legal reasoning (ijtihad), and the scholars (may Allah have mercy on them) differed on this. However, the important point is that this disagreement should not be a cause for hostility, hatred, argument, and rebuttal among students of knowledge. For what is permissible for independent legal reasoning is a broad matter, and people have differed on such issues from the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) until this day, without any enmity or hatred arising between them. If the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) did not rebuke either group for their independent legal reasoning, that indicates that such matters, when they come from students of knowledge by way of independent legal reasoning, should not be met with rebuke. In fact, the reality is that one who opposes another based on evidence is not considered to be in disagreement, because he opposed based on the evidence he holds. It is well known that the opposing party sees it as obligatory to follow the evidence for one who has become clear to him, even if it contradicts the independent legal reasoning of others. Thus, the truth is that there is no disagreement, because everyone from both groups, or from the two differing scholars, each wants to reach the truth and believes that if his independent legal reasoning leads him to one of the sayings or opinions, it is obligatory for him to adopt it, and he is not required to do more than this, by the saying of Allah the Exalted: .
It is authentically reported from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that he said: If the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), who is the legislator for the Ummah and the most eager of people to adhere to the Shari'ah and to judge by the law of Allah, said such a thing, what is our excuse when we say to the jurist who erred in our view, "You are mistaken and you are misguided," and similar expressions? Then we proceed to warn against him, incite people against him, and fill people's hearts with hatred for this man who differed from us in opinion.
This is advice I offer to my brothers, the students of knowledge, and I hope that they will stand for Allah with justice. Just as they do not like anyone to blame or rebuke them for their independent legal reasoning that differs from his, it is obligatory for them to be just, so that they do not allow themselves to blame or rebuke others who differ from them for their disagreement. For this is, without doubt, injustice and detestable selfishness.
As for the subject of the question, which is descending from standing into prostration, the scholars differed on this issue. Some said that it is recommended to place the hands first when descending, then the knees, then the forehead and nose; or the hands, then the forehead and nose, then the knees. In any case, the important point is to place the hands before the knees. They cited as evidence for this the saying of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), as reported by the people of the Sunan from Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him)—or rather, as narrated by the people of the Sunan from Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him)—that he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: They said that this is a prohibition against a person doing in his descent to prostration what the camel does, and this was clarified by his saying: .
They said that a person is prohibited from starting with the knees when prostrating, because when a camel kneels, it kneels on its knees, as is observed, and the camel's knees are in its hands. The truth is that the matter is as they said in the sense that the camel's knees are in its hands and that the camel kneels on its knees. However, if we examine the hadith thoroughly and give it its due consideration, we find that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not prohibit placing the knees before the hands in this hadith; rather, he prohibited placing the hands before the knees. For this reason, the wording of the hadith is: The letter "kaf" here is for comparison, and the comparison is in the manner, not in the limb used for prostration. If the intention had been the limb used for prostration, he would have said, "Do not kneel on what the camel kneels on." You know the difference between the two expressions. And if we observe the kneeling of the camel, we find that it places its hands before its legs, so that the front of its body descends before the back. This description applies exactly to the prostrator if he places his hands before his knees, as is well known.
Accordingly, there is a reversal in the end of the hadith regarding the narrator, and the correct version seems to be: "And let him place his knees before his hands, so that he does not resemble the camel in its kneeling." The scholar Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) held this view in his book "Zad al-Ma'ad". Whoever wishes to see what he said should refer to it in the section on the guidance of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in prayer.
Accordingly, the stronger opinion in my view is that when a person prostrates, he should start with his knees before his hands, and not start with his hands before his knees. Because if he starts with his hands before his knees, he resembles the kneeling of the camel, which the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) began the hadith by prohibiting.
One of the brothers among the students of knowledge wrote a thesis these days in which he clarified the error in interpreting the hadith as meaning the prohibition of placing the knees before the hands. He presented good historical and theoretical research, so may Allah the Exalted reward him well for what he clarified.
As for the second issue, which is when rising from prostration: does a person rise relying on his knees, or does he rise relying on his hands? There is disagreement among the scholars. Some said that when he rises from prostration, he sits to rest so that he can rise with strength, and then when rising, he relies on his hands. They cited as evidence the hadith of Malik ibn al-Huwayrith (may Allah be pleased with him), who saw the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) doing so. The hadith is established in the authentic collections, and there is no problem with its chain of narration. However, did the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) do this out of a need arising from old age, since Malik ibn al-Huwayrith was among those who came to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) while he was preparing for the expedition to Tabuk, and he arrived late? Or did the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) do it as an act of worship? The scholars differed on this. Some said that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) did it as an act of worship, and that it is recommended for a person to sit and then rise relying on his hands.
Some said that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did it not as an act of worship, but for the sake of comfort and to avoid hardship on himself, because this Islamic religion is a religion of ease and simplicity. It is well known that the two opinions are in tension. One might say that the original state is the absence of prescription until evidence of prescription is established, because worship does not become prescribed except by clear and evident evidence, because the original state in acts of worship is prohibition and prevention.
This principle is countered by the principle that the original state of what the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) did in prayer is worship, and that he did it as an act of worship, so it is prescribed by the action of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and his saying: However, this principle may be opposed by the fact that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) relied on his hands. It is well known that relying on the hands for rising is only done when there is a need for support. If he was not in need of support, he had no need for it. Furthermore, this sitting is not an intended sitting, as evidenced by the fact that no dhikr or takbir is prescribed for transitioning from it to it or within it itself. If no dhikr is prescribed for transitioning from it to it or within it itself, this indicates that it is not intended.
This is the stronger opinion in my view: that a person does not sit in this sitting except if he needs it due to old age, heaviness of body, pain in the knee, or similar needs.
This is the choice of Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) in "Zad al-Ma'ad" and the choice of the author of "al-Mughni", Muwaffaq al-Din, in "al-Mughni". He said: "With this, the narrations reported from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) regarding this matter are brought into agreement."
However, if the imam you are following does not sit and does not consider sitting to be prescribed, it is better for you not to sit, even if you consider sitting to be prescribed. This is because standing up with the imam immediately is more correct in terms of following the imam and praying behind him. Therefore, it is better not to sit if your imam does not sit, even if you would sit if you were praying alone or leading the prayer.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) explicitly stated this in the *Fatawa* and said: "It is better for a person to follow his imam in omitting the sitting if the imam does not sit."
If the situation is the reverse, and the imam considers sitting to be prescribed while you consider it not to be prescribed, it is better that you follow your imam and sit, because this is more complete in terms of following.
I say that it is established from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that he stood up from the first tashahhud and did not sit, and the people followed him in that. It is well known that the first tashahhud is obligatory among the obligations of prayer, and yet it was dropped for the ma'mum (one praying behind the imam) for the sake of following. Someone might say that it is dropped for the ma'mum because if he were to remain behind to recite the tashahhud, the deviation would be obvious, clear, and prolonged, unlike if he were to remain behind for the sitting of rest, which is a brief sitting in which the deviation does not appear fully. I say, yes, this is the reality. For this reason, we said that it is recommended (mustahabb) for a person, if his imam does not consider sitting to be prescribed, not to sit and to follow him. We did not say it is obligatory. As for the first tashahhud, if the imam stands up from it, it is obligatory for the ma'mum to follow him, because if he were to remain behind, he would sit for a long time, and the deviation would be obvious.
In conclusion, I repeat what I began with: it is not befitting for students of knowledge to take such disagreements as a means of disparagement, of casting enmity between people, or of speaking ill of scholars in gatherings. For what results from such things is far more harmful than what results from deviating from this sunnah, if the one who deviates believes it to be a sunnah. How much more so if he does not believe it to be a sunnah? What is the basis for blaming him? This is an aggression against his Muslim brothers. Yes.

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good, O Shaykh Muhammad, for this detail.