What is the ruling on placing the hands on the chest?

The questioner : There is a statement by some, the author of a book on placing the hands. Of course, they affirm, meaning, the transmission. He says: Despite Al-Albani's diligence in authenticating hadiths and his exertion in them, he nonetheless made an apparent effort in authenticating the hadiths of placing the hands on the chest. This is a new booklet.

The Shaykh : How is the first sentence?

The questioner : Despite Al-Albani's diligence.

The Shaykh : Despite Al-Albani's diligence.

The questioner : Despite Al-Albani's diligence in authenticating hadiths and his exertion in them, he nonetheless made an apparent effort in authenticating the hadiths of placing the hands on the chest.

The Shaykh : Does he say it is the lowering of the hands?

The questioner : Yes, the lowering of the hands.

The Shaykh : Okay, why did he specify placing them on the chest?

The questioner : He does not affirm placing them at all.

The Shaykh : That is why I am asking this question. If you are memorizing this, as you are quoting it verbatim, this statement is fitting to be issued by one who affirms placing the hands, but does not affirm placing them on the chest.
Al-Halabi : The Hanafis and others.

The Shaykh : Do you understand?

The questioner : So let us drop the word "chest," perhaps it is an anomalous addition. May Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh : It is better that you suspect your own state than to suspect others, because for this reason, a person must be precise in his observation. This person who said the words I mentioned earlier, I imagine him to be one who is stubborn, especially if he is, as they say, from the people of the Sunnah. The hadith of placing the hands in general is found in Sahih al-Bukhari. What does it mean that Al-Albani made an effort regarding placing them on the chest, when he does not affirm placing them at all, and it is established in Sahih al-Bukhari and established in Sahih Muslim? Therefore, I consider it unlikely that such a statement would be made by a person. But now, I will add: Is this speaker from the people of the Sunnah, like the Malikis, for example, or is he a Zaydi or an Ibadi?

The questioner : Ibadi, Ibadi.

The Shaykh : If so, it is not possible that he would say he made an effort regarding the chest.
Al-Halabi : If he said this, a kind of excuse might be sought for him, because the hadiths are not of clear strength...

The Shaykh : Meaning, with the strength of affirmation. Placing the hands absolutely, there is no doubt about that. Where did he say this?

The questioner : It is from a new book that reached me yesterday for our brother Aymen.

The Shaykh : Yes, for this same one or another?

The questioner : No, another one. He is the most knowledgeable of them about this. I heard that he issued a challenge.The Shaykh : Ibn Baz, he requested a debate before the Ka'bah and a mutual imprecation. I have a question...

The Shaykh : Excuse me, before the question, what do they cite regarding the lowering of the hands?

The questioner : ... the hadiths that contain...

The Shaykh : Okay, what is your question?

The questioner : Regarding this Shaykh Khalili, he denies the seeing of Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) on the Day of Resurrection, and he exerts himself in matters, and demands that people sit with him for research and debate. Should it not be said of this man that he exerted himself, did his utmost, and erred?

The Shaykh : Our Lord knows whether he exerted his effort or not. Otherwise, his mere publicity, as it appears from your words, that he is ready to sit for research on this topic, does not mean that he exerted himself and exhausted his effort, because this issue and others are researched in the books of the scholars, with a research that leaves no room for anyone to doubt. But they, apparently, because of their radical deviation from the straight path, do not raise their heads to these hadiths that were mass-transmitted in the books of the Sunnah. So where is the independent legal reasoning?
Did he exert himself? The one who knows that, perhaps, the hadiths of Sahih al-Bukhari are more authentic than the Musnad of al-Rabi' al-Ra'iy? Or did he think this thought, not even in a dream? I would like it if the man were from the general public, and did not have that position that makes any person, God forbid, raise his head. We invite him to a meeting. What do we call it? A brotherly meeting, a brotherly meeting to study and discuss the topic, and to debate the topic!

The questioner : He sits with you?

The Shaykh : I do not think so.

The questioner : If the agreement is reached.

The Shaykh : Yes, but he does not say "come to my place." We do not have the ability.

The questioner : He said this, wherever they want.

The Shaykh : Okay, but wherever he wants, tell him...

The questioner : We will contact Sultan Qaboos...

The questioner : Now he has seven books.
Al-Halabi : We did not know about them.

The questioner : This is one of them. Some of them are volumes.
Abu Layla : We can try to contact him.

The questioner : This is now a willingness.The Shaykh : ... in one way or another, because he requested fromThe Shaykh : Abdul Aziz, butThe Shaykh : he did not agree, especially before the Ka'bah and before the people, and this is a response to him, and so he did not agree. So he keeps circling around this issue...The Shaykh : Ibn Baz andThe Shaykh : Ibn Baz did not agree.

The Shaykh : This request makes me feel that the man is impetuous and not sound in logic. This is exactly like, I once mentioned to you the story of Abdullah al-Habashi, when he surprised me with his arrival at my weekly lesson, which was being held in the home of some of our brothers. At that time, the turn was at the home of our brother Abdul Rahman Al-Albani. So he came withThe Shaykh : Abdul Qadir andThe Shaykh : Shu'ayb al-Arna'ut, and sat after the lesson ended. Among the divine provisions, the lesson was about the Asha'irah, and he later informed us that he is a Shafi'i Ash'ari. He presented me with a small paper, saying: I came to this country recently, and I learned that you deny the sending of blessings upon the Messenger after the adhan, and that you say every innovation is misguidance, and he mentioned a third issue, which I do not remember now. He said: So I invite you to a debate in the Mosque of Banu Umayyah after the Friday prayer. So I said to myself that this man is either a fool, or he is good-hearted and was played with. It became clear to me later that the latter was the case. So I spoke simply and said to him: O Shaykh, you have not met with me, nor have we sat together, so that each of us presents what he has, and we see if we are very far apart from each other, so we announce the discussion openly, and is it possible to understand each other, to at least get closer if we do not agree on anything? So he actually agreed to a private meeting, and this made me feel that he was inspired by others, by those who want a person whom I imagine takes revenge onThe Shaykh : Al-Albani. That is how they view the matter. And indeed, the meeting took place later at my home, a session of two or three hours, I think no more. He did not follow up the next day to see him in the al-Dar al-Kutub al-Zahiriyyah Mosque... I said to him: You did not come to us. He said: There. Where is there? Meaning, in the lesson he wants to come. We said: This is not our agreement. We want to complete the journey. And indeed, he came to the lesson and raised one of the points we had discussed, because I had proposed, and this is what I will do with others, that we research fundamental points and make them pillars and rules around which we circle. If we differ in them or in some of them, we are more different in the rest, and there is no benefit in researching branches before agreeing on the fundamentals. So among the points I proposed for the research to be conducted was the hadith of scholarly consensus, because I know they cite scholarly consensus, a pre-Islamic age of ignorance citation. They tell you: The Muslims agreed that the addition after the adhan is a good recommended practice. Okay, what is the definition of scholarly consensus? We put it on the list. When we met, we mentioned that there are many statements regarding the scholarly consensus that is a proof. So I chose the scholarly consensus that Ibn Hazm says, which cannot be refuted, and it is what is known from the religion by necessity. There is a second scholarly consensus, and this means the consensus of the entire Ummah of Muhammad, general and specific. The second scholarly consensus is the consensus of the scholars of the Muslims. So from that, the general people were excluded, and many statements that say the consensus of the people of Madinah, and the consensus of the scholars of Kufa, and so on. He returned there in the lesson to raise the topic, and said: You said such and such. I say to him: No, I did not say that. I said: The consensus of the entire Ummah. Where are the papers where we recorded it? He said: I did not bring them. Okay, first, your coming here was not by agreement, and then, since you came, you must have the papers at hand. And so on. Therefore, these groups, all the misguided sects, it is not good to enter into branch issues.
For example, he looked at the Face of Allah (Mighty and Majestic), which is not a branch, but it is a fundamental, but a fundamental that branches from a basic fundamental. This fundamental must be researched, and its like. So, if possible, meaning, a meeting of mutual advice, and brotherly with this man, and without announcement to the public of both parties, because this would be a cause of stirring up animosities between the two groups. Then perhaps good will result.
Al-Halabi : Our teacher, regarding your last point, you said: the misguided sects, and how numerous the misguided sects are, and so on. This reminded me of a question here; I almost refrained from asking it, ... that it is prior knowledge, meaning this follows from that question. So we say: You stated that it is not permissible to declare the followers of Islamic sects, such as the Mu'tazilah, the Asha'irah, and the Shi'ah, to be misguided, let alone to declare them disbelievers. What is the evidence for that, and when are these people declared disbelievers?

The Shaykh : No, I do not say that. I say we do not declare them disbelievers. As for declaring them misguided, everyone who is astray is equally astray, whether we wish it or not. So we say the misguided sects, of course, because the saved sect is one, by the text of the well-known hadith. We are all scrupulous about initiating the declaration of disbelief.
First: collective takfir, declaring a whole group disbelievers as they say, that such-and-such a sect is disbelieving. There may be among them individuals who seek to know the truth, but there is no way for it to reach them. So we do not deny saying that they are from the misguided sects, but we do not declare them disbelievers. We distinguish between declaring someone misguided and declaring them a disbeliever. It is not as he said,The questioner : and attributed to us, or to others, and I do not know. If it concerns us, we do not say that we do not declare people misguided. Otherwise, the matter would become a chaos without limits. We declare misguided everyone who deviates from the Book and the Sunnah, even those who claim to belong to the Sunnah, but we do not declare them disbelievers. This is my answer.

The questioner : Is every person misguided to the extent of their distance from the Book and the Sunnah?

The Shaykh : Yes; by Allah.