Is the one who catches the bowing the one who catches the rak'ah?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : When is the one who catches the bowing considered to have caught the rak'ah? If the imam is bowing and we catch him in the bowing, do we count as having caught the rak'ah?
The Shaykh : This is a matter of scholarly disagreement between the majority of the imams and some of the imams. The majority of the imams, led by the four imams, hold that the one who catches the bowing has caught the rak'ah. Some imams, such as Imam al-Bukhari from the Salaf and Imam al-Shawkani from the righteous later generations, along with many others between them, hold that the one who catches the bowing does not count that rak'ah, because he missed the recitation of the pillar, which is al-Fatihah.
I see that the first opinion, the opinion of the majority, is the correct one in this issue. And as you know, if Allah wills, I am not a follower of the majority; rather, I follow the truth wherever it is, whether with the many or the few. This is for several reasons, the most important of which is that the hadith narrated by Abu Dawud in his Sunan has been established for me, with a chain other than his own, stating: "Whoever comes to the imam while he is bowing, let him bow and count the rak'ah. And if he finds the imam prostrating, let him prostrate and not count the rak'ah." From this, it is taken that the one who catches the bowing has caught the rak'ah. However, the hadith of Abu Dawud has an apparent weakness, though this weakness is not severe. Even if it were severe, we would be satisfied with two other chains that revolve around a man from the Ansar. By "two chains," I mean the chains of those who narrated it, not that one narrator narrated it with one chain and another with a second chain. Rather, I mean that Imam al-Bayhaqi (may Allah have mercy on him) narrated this hadith from the Sunan of Abu Dawud, seeking it out with a strong chain from a man from the Ansar, through 'Abd al-'Aziz ibn Rafi', from a man from the Ansar, that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said... and he mentioned the meaning of the hadith I mentioned to you earlier. The defect in this chain in al-Bayhaqi's narration is that we do not know whether this man from the Ansar was a Tabi'i or a Companion. Although it comes to mind that he was a Companion, because the narrator from him is a well-known Tabi'i, namely 'Abd al-'Aziz ibn Rafi', fairness requires us to say that this connection is not necessary in chains. That is, it is not necessary that if a Tabi'i narrates from a man from the Ansar or a man from the Muhajirun, that this man or that one was a Companion, because it is possible that he was the son of a Companion. Furthermore, we have repeatedly encountered some chains where a Tabi'i narrates from a Tabi'i from a Companion. Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar stated that through induction, it was found that in some hadiths, between the first Tabi'i and the Companion, there are four other Tabi'is, meaning five Tabi'is in succession, and then the Companion follows: Tabi'i from Tabi'i from Tabi'i from Tabi'i from Tabi'i from the Companion, let alone Tabi'i from Tabi'i from Tabi'i from Tabi'i from the Companion, let alone Tabi'i from Tabi'i from Tabi'i from the Companion, and so on. So when we find such a narration, 'Abd al-'Aziz ibn Rafi' a Tabi'i from a man from the Ansar, you see, is this a Companion or a Tabi'i? It is possible. Then we found, and praise be to Allah, that this possibility collapsed and went where there is no return. It came in the book al-Masa'il by Ishaq ibn Mansur al-Marwazi, from Imam Ahmad and from Ishaq ibn Rahawayh. Al-Marwazi narrated this with his correct chain from 'Abd al-'Aziz ibn Rafi' from a man from the Ansar from the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). This covered the subject and made the chain connected after it was possible that it was mursal. And thus the hadith became authentic and the proof was established. In addition to this, there are athar from the great Companions, headed by Abu Bakr al-Siddiq and ending in age with 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar ibn al-Khattab. All of them said that the one who catches the bowing has caught the rak'ah. Thus, the correct Salafi athar agreed with this authentic hadith, and praise be to Allah. And thereby the superiority of the majority's opinion over the dissenters was established. Even though some of the hadith scholars up to our time still issue fatwas that the one who catches the bowing has not caught the rak'ah. I recall that one of the Ghumariyyah, and although he is from the people of desires and from the Sufis who have paths by which they deviated from the Sunnah, authored a treatise affirming that the correct view is that the one who catches the bowing has not caught the rak'ah. The reality is that he, in this regard, is like some of the hadith scholars in India; they missed this correct narration which still exists in that rare, precious manuscript in the Zahiriyah Library. It is a manuscript of rarities because its date of writing goes back to the era close to the imams Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Ishaq ibn Rahawayh. If they had come upon this narration, their view would have reversed from supporting the opinion contrary to the majority to supporting the opinion of the majority in this issue. Some of those athar are not hidden from them, at least. But they apply the rule that a Muslim should adhere to, which is that if an athar comes in contradiction to a text, even by ijtihad, it is not permissible to take the athar. By "athar" here, I mean what I mentioned earlier of the athar from Abu Bakr and Ibn 'Umar, and between them a group of others, like Zayd ibn Thabit and 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud. They are four of the Companions, and as you see, they are from the greatest of the Companions. They saw and explicitly stated that the one who catches the bowing has caught the rak'ah. They did not take these athar because they assumed they contradicted his saying (peace be upon him). And we see that this generality encompassing this part does not include it, as we have mentioned in other sessions more than once, and because of this authentic hadith. And thus the answer to this question ends. Please.
The Shaykh : This is a matter of scholarly disagreement between the majority of the imams and some of the imams. The majority of the imams, led by the four imams, hold that the one who catches the bowing has caught the rak'ah. Some imams, such as Imam al-Bukhari from the Salaf and Imam al-Shawkani from the righteous later generations, along with many others between them, hold that the one who catches the bowing does not count that rak'ah, because he missed the recitation of the pillar, which is al-Fatihah.
I see that the first opinion, the opinion of the majority, is the correct one in this issue. And as you know, if Allah wills, I am not a follower of the majority; rather, I follow the truth wherever it is, whether with the many or the few. This is for several reasons, the most important of which is that the hadith narrated by Abu Dawud in his Sunan has been established for me, with a chain other than his own, stating: "Whoever comes to the imam while he is bowing, let him bow and count the rak'ah. And if he finds the imam prostrating, let him prostrate and not count the rak'ah." From this, it is taken that the one who catches the bowing has caught the rak'ah. However, the hadith of Abu Dawud has an apparent weakness, though this weakness is not severe. Even if it were severe, we would be satisfied with two other chains that revolve around a man from the Ansar. By "two chains," I mean the chains of those who narrated it, not that one narrator narrated it with one chain and another with a second chain. Rather, I mean that Imam al-Bayhaqi (may Allah have mercy on him) narrated this hadith from the Sunan of Abu Dawud, seeking it out with a strong chain from a man from the Ansar, through 'Abd al-'Aziz ibn Rafi', from a man from the Ansar, that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said... and he mentioned the meaning of the hadith I mentioned to you earlier. The defect in this chain in al-Bayhaqi's narration is that we do not know whether this man from the Ansar was a Tabi'i or a Companion. Although it comes to mind that he was a Companion, because the narrator from him is a well-known Tabi'i, namely 'Abd al-'Aziz ibn Rafi', fairness requires us to say that this connection is not necessary in chains. That is, it is not necessary that if a Tabi'i narrates from a man from the Ansar or a man from the Muhajirun, that this man or that one was a Companion, because it is possible that he was the son of a Companion. Furthermore, we have repeatedly encountered some chains where a Tabi'i narrates from a Tabi'i from a Companion. Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar stated that through induction, it was found that in some hadiths, between the first Tabi'i and the Companion, there are four other Tabi'is, meaning five Tabi'is in succession, and then the Companion follows: Tabi'i from Tabi'i from Tabi'i from Tabi'i from Tabi'i from the Companion, let alone Tabi'i from Tabi'i from Tabi'i from Tabi'i from the Companion, let alone Tabi'i from Tabi'i from Tabi'i from the Companion, and so on. So when we find such a narration, 'Abd al-'Aziz ibn Rafi' a Tabi'i from a man from the Ansar, you see, is this a Companion or a Tabi'i? It is possible. Then we found, and praise be to Allah, that this possibility collapsed and went where there is no return. It came in the book al-Masa'il by Ishaq ibn Mansur al-Marwazi, from Imam Ahmad and from Ishaq ibn Rahawayh. Al-Marwazi narrated this with his correct chain from 'Abd al-'Aziz ibn Rafi' from a man from the Ansar from the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). This covered the subject and made the chain connected after it was possible that it was mursal. And thus the hadith became authentic and the proof was established. In addition to this, there are athar from the great Companions, headed by Abu Bakr al-Siddiq and ending in age with 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar ibn al-Khattab. All of them said that the one who catches the bowing has caught the rak'ah. Thus, the correct Salafi athar agreed with this authentic hadith, and praise be to Allah. And thereby the superiority of the majority's opinion over the dissenters was established. Even though some of the hadith scholars up to our time still issue fatwas that the one who catches the bowing has not caught the rak'ah. I recall that one of the Ghumariyyah, and although he is from the people of desires and from the Sufis who have paths by which they deviated from the Sunnah, authored a treatise affirming that the correct view is that the one who catches the bowing has not caught the rak'ah. The reality is that he, in this regard, is like some of the hadith scholars in India; they missed this correct narration which still exists in that rare, precious manuscript in the Zahiriyah Library. It is a manuscript of rarities because its date of writing goes back to the era close to the imams Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Ishaq ibn Rahawayh. If they had come upon this narration, their view would have reversed from supporting the opinion contrary to the majority to supporting the opinion of the majority in this issue. Some of those athar are not hidden from them, at least. But they apply the rule that a Muslim should adhere to, which is that if an athar comes in contradiction to a text, even by ijtihad, it is not permissible to take the athar. By "athar" here, I mean what I mentioned earlier of the athar from Abu Bakr and Ibn 'Umar, and between them a group of others, like Zayd ibn Thabit and 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud. They are four of the Companions, and as you see, they are from the greatest of the Companions. They saw and explicitly stated that the one who catches the bowing has caught the rak'ah. They did not take these athar because they assumed they contradicted his saying (peace be upon him)