Rising to the Second Rak'ah and the Issue of the Resting Sitting
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Then he rises to the second rak'ah while saying takbir, supporting himself on his knees, standing up without sitting, and this is the well-known position in the madhhab of Imam Ahmad.
It was also said: rather, he sits, then stands up supporting himself on his hands, as is the well-known position in the madhhab of al-Shafi'i.
This sitting is well-known among the scholars by the name: the resting sitting (jalsat al-istirahah).
The scholars (may Allah have mercy on them) differed regarding its prescription. Some said: If you rise to the second or the fourth, sit then rise supporting yourself on your hands, either in the manner of the kneader – if the hadith regarding that is authentic – or in a manner other than this, according to those who consider the hadith of kneading to be weak.
The important point is that the scholars differed regarding this sitting. Some consider it recommended (mustahabb) absolutely, some consider it not recommended absolutely, and some distinguish and say: If you need it due to weakness, old age, illness, or something similar, then you sit and then rise. But if you do not need it, you do not sit.
They cited as evidence for this that this sitting has no specific supplication, and there is no takbir when transitioning from it; rather, the takbir is one from the prostration to the standing.
Since there is no takbir before it or after it, and no dhikr in it, this indicates that it is not intended in itself. Because every pillar intended in itself in the prayer must have a prescribed dhikr, a preceding takbir, and a following takbir.
They said: And what indicates this is also that in the hadith of Malik ibn al-Huwayrith:, and supporting oneself on the hands usually does not occur except from what? From need and heaviness in the body, where one is unable to rise.
Therefore, we say: If you need it, do not burden yourself in rising from the prostration, in moving from the prostration to the standing.
I repeat the word: We say: If you need it, do not burden yourself in moving from the prostration to the standing directly.
And if you do not need it, it is better that you stand, that you rise from the prostration to the standing directly.
And this is what was chosen by the author of al-Mughni – Abdullah ibn Ahmad ibn Qudamah, known as al-Muwaqqi (may Allah have mercy on him) – and he is one of the great companions of Imam Ahmad. And I think it is the choice of Ibn al-Qayyim in Zad al-Ma'ad as well.
And the author of al-Mughni says: "This is what the evidences – the evidences that affirm this sitting and negate it – converge upon"
And this distinction is, in my view, stronger than the absolute ruling, although its strength in my view is not that strong, because it conflicts in my understanding with the sitting.
So the ranks in my view are three:
First: The prescription of this sitting when there is a need for it, and there is no doubt in this.
Next: Its prescription absolutely, and it is not far from the first in terms of strength.
And the third: That it is not prescribed absolutely, and this is weak in my view, because the hadiths regarding it are established.
But are they established for the case of need or absolutely? This is the point of difficulty. And what is slightly stronger in my view is that it is prescribed for need only.
It was also said: rather, he sits, then stands up supporting himself on his hands, as is the well-known position in the madhhab of al-Shafi'i.
This sitting is well-known among the scholars by the name: the resting sitting (jalsat al-istirahah).
The scholars (may Allah have mercy on them) differed regarding its prescription. Some said: If you rise to the second or the fourth, sit then rise supporting yourself on your hands, either in the manner of the kneader – if the hadith regarding that is authentic – or in a manner other than this, according to those who consider the hadith of kneading to be weak.
The important point is that the scholars differed regarding this sitting. Some consider it recommended (mustahabb) absolutely, some consider it not recommended absolutely, and some distinguish and say: If you need it due to weakness, old age, illness, or something similar, then you sit and then rise. But if you do not need it, you do not sit.
They cited as evidence for this that this sitting has no specific supplication, and there is no takbir when transitioning from it; rather, the takbir is one from the prostration to the standing.
Since there is no takbir before it or after it, and no dhikr in it, this indicates that it is not intended in itself. Because every pillar intended in itself in the prayer must have a prescribed dhikr, a preceding takbir, and a following takbir.
They said: And what indicates this is also that in the hadith of Malik ibn al-Huwayrith:
That he supports himself on his hands
أنه يعتمد على يديهTherefore, we say: If you need it, do not burden yourself in rising from the prostration, in moving from the prostration to the standing.
I repeat the word: We say: If you need it, do not burden yourself in moving from the prostration to the standing directly.
And if you do not need it, it is better that you stand, that you rise from the prostration to the standing directly.
And this is what was chosen by the author of al-Mughni – Abdullah ibn Ahmad ibn Qudamah, known as al-Muwaqqi (may Allah have mercy on him) – and he is one of the great companions of Imam Ahmad. And I think it is the choice of Ibn al-Qayyim in Zad al-Ma'ad as well.
And the author of al-Mughni says: "This is what the evidences – the evidences that affirm this sitting and negate it – converge upon"
And this distinction is, in my view, stronger than the absolute ruling, although its strength in my view is not that strong, because it conflicts in my understanding with the sitting.
So the ranks in my view are three:
First: The prescription of this sitting when there is a need for it, and there is no doubt in this.
Next: Its prescription absolutely, and it is not far from the first in terms of strength.
And the third: That it is not prescribed absolutely, and this is weak in my view, because the hadiths regarding it are established.
But are they established for the case of need or absolutely? This is the point of difficulty. And what is slightly stronger in my view is that it is prescribed for need only.