The Shaykh’s explanation that linguistic texts state that the camel’s knees are in its foreparts, and that the Sirah contains evidence of this in the story of Suraqah pursuing the Prophet
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : This is a refuted statement that requires no further attention. Every one of you can consult the linguistic texts under the root "r-k-b", and you will find the derivatives of "knee." You will find there an explicit statement that the knee of the camel is in its foreparts, and likewise, the knees of all quadrupeds are in their foreparts. This is the explicit text of the linguistic books. As for the one who says, as Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him, and may Allah forgive us and him) did, that this meaning—that the camel’s knees are in its foreparts—is not known in the Arabic language, that is one of his delusions. Furthermore, we have Arabic usages in the authentic books of Sunnah that also refute Ibn al-Qayyim, not only by relying on linguistic texts, but also by the books of Hadith and Sirah. For example, in the story of the Prophet’s (may Allah’s prayers and peace be upon him) migration from Madinah to Makkah, and Suraqah ibn Malik’s pursuit of him (peace and blessings be upon him) on his horse, when Suraqah approached them, it is stated in Sahih al-Bukhari: "The foreparts of the horse sank down to its knees". This is a hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari, and a hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari is sufficient as proof, not only in the Shari'ah but also in the Arabic language. This is a text from the usages of the narrators of Hadith, meaning the Companions, the Tabi'un, and those after them, indicating that they understood by their natural Arabic instinct that the horse’s knees are in its foreparts. Therefore, he said: "The foreparts of the horse sank down to its knees".
This is a usage. However, it might be said that Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) did not recall this hadith when he said that the language does not know that the camel’s knees are in its foreparts. But we find in what he himself wrote a proof against him, and I will try to recall it quickly now. Listen to what he says at the end of page three: "As for the preserved reports from the Companions, the preserved one—and 'preserved' means established in the authentic sources—is from 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) that he used to place his knees before his hands. This was reported about him by 'Abd al-Razzaq, Ibn al-Mundhir, and others. It is also the report from Ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him). Al-Tahawi mentioned it from Sahl, from 'Umar ibn Hafs, from his father, from al-A'mash, from Ibrahim, from the companions of 'Abdullah, 'Uqbah and al-Aswad. They said: 'We preserved from 'Umar in his prayer that he would fall down after his bowing on his knees, just as a camel falls down'. This is the text of Ibn al-Qayyim himself, where he says: "He would fall down on his knees, just as a camel falls down". So how does a camel fall down? On its knees. He states elsewhere that this usage is not known in the Arabic language.
So now we have two texts. Until now, the fact that the camel’s knees are in its foreparts was not explicitly stated in the linguistic books, but now we have two texts. One is a text he cited, which is a proof against him. He cited it to prove that 'Umar ibn al-Khattab would prostrate on his knees, that he would perform sujud on his knees. He did not notice, may Allah have mercy on him, and this is the nature of man, that in the very same report he was using as evidence for his school of thought, he did not realize that from another angle, it demolishes what he said, namely that the language does not know that a camel falls down on its knees, meaning on its foreparts, on its knees which are in its foreparts.
So his claim regarding the fact that the language does not know this is refuted in many ways, and very many ways indeed. He said: "And the knee is only in the legs". He is still making analogies. The legs, in the case of a human, but not in the case of an animal. "And if the name 'knee' is applied to the two in its hands, it is by way of predominance".
This is a usage. However, it might be said that Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) did not recall this hadith when he said that the language does not know that the camel’s knees are in its foreparts. But we find in what he himself wrote a proof against him, and I will try to recall it quickly now. Listen to what he says at the end of page three: "As for the preserved reports from the Companions, the preserved one—and 'preserved' means established in the authentic sources—is from 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) that he used to place his knees before his hands. This was reported about him by 'Abd al-Razzaq, Ibn al-Mundhir, and others. It is also the report from Ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him). Al-Tahawi mentioned it from Sahl, from 'Umar ibn Hafs, from his father, from al-A'mash, from Ibrahim, from the companions of 'Abdullah, 'Uqbah and al-Aswad. They said: 'We preserved from 'Umar in his prayer that he would fall down after his bowing on his knees, just as a camel falls down'. This is the text of Ibn al-Qayyim himself, where he says: "He would fall down on his knees, just as a camel falls down". So how does a camel fall down? On its knees. He states elsewhere that this usage is not known in the Arabic language.
So now we have two texts. Until now, the fact that the camel’s knees are in its foreparts was not explicitly stated in the linguistic books, but now we have two texts. One is a text he cited, which is a proof against him. He cited it to prove that 'Umar ibn al-Khattab would prostrate on his knees, that he would perform sujud on his knees. He did not notice, may Allah have mercy on him, and this is the nature of man, that in the very same report he was using as evidence for his school of thought, he did not realize that from another angle, it demolishes what he said, namely that the language does not know that a camel falls down on its knees, meaning on its foreparts, on its knees which are in its foreparts.
So his claim regarding the fact that the language does not know this is refuted in many ways, and very many ways indeed. He said: "And the knee is only in the legs". He is still making analogies. The legs, in the case of a human, but not in the case of an animal. "And if the name 'knee' is applied to the two in its hands, it is by way of predominance".