Some of them say that your argument using the hadiths indicating the non-prescription of placing the hands on the chest after rising from bowing is clear in that regard, but

The questioner : In the name of Allah, and praise is to Allah, and may the prayer and peace be upon the Messenger of Allah. Regarding the hadiths of Ibn Baz concerning his statement on placing the hands on the chest after bowing, he cited hadiths that are not explicit in this placement. Regarding your hadith about "Hear Allah from the one who praises Him" for the follower, you cited what you cited; you did not mention hadiths that are explicit on this topic. So, this is like that. What is your opinion on this?

The Shaykh : They are not equal. For example, we say that the original rule for every general text is that it is obligatory to act according to all its parts, unless there is evidence for excluding a part of those parts included in the general texts. I think this statement is understandable, because this is actually a matter related to the principles of jurisprudence. I will give an example now for the sake of clarification. The carrion here is absolute, like blood, so it includes any carrion and any blood. The implication of acting according to this Qur'anic text is that it is not permissible for a person to eat a dead animal or to eat its blood. Why? Because of the generality of the text. Every carrion and the blood, every blood. But when the hadith from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) came explicitly saying , we said the verse was specified by this hadith. At that time, the specific text operates with the general text as an exception from the thing from which the exception is made. And in the path of reconciling the Qur'anic text here with the Prophetic hadith, the following meaning emerges: "Forbidden to you is carrion, except the carrion of fish and locusts, and blood, except the blood of the liver and spleen." Were it not for this specifying text in the verse, it would be obligatory to understand the verse in the general sense that includes these exceptions in this hadith. But when the hadith came, it excluded these matters from the generality of the Qur'anic text. This is a known method among all scholars, and it is excluding the lesser from the greater. A text that includes something less than another text that includes many things, with a contradiction existing between these many things included in the general text and these few things included in the specific text, the specific text is applied to the general text and specifies it. So we arrive at the previous result: "Forbidden to you is carrion, except the carrion of fish and locusts, and blood, except the blood of the liver and spleen." This is an example, meaning it is very clear and well-known. Now we come to the issue that is actually more precise than this example: Is it necessary for the general text to always and forever be specified by a text, or are there other restrictions or specifications other than the text? There is no doubt that there are specifications here, among which they sometimes say the intellect, the necessity of the intellect, not the individual intellect. For example, the verse that says, what is the verse? "Except He made it like dust." The important part is "except He made it like dust." This storm, when our Lord (Mighty and Majestic) unleashes it, He says about it, "Except He made it like dust." It did not pass over anything, it did not come upon anything except He made it like dust. This is a general text, but this general text is not intended, as evidenced by the fact that these lands and mountains that existed, and the valleys and seas and rivers, have not ceased to be as they are. But the indication of the context and the preceding text suggests that this broad general meaning, anything at all, is not intended, but rather the things from which people benefit, such as crops, for example, or houses, and the like. This does not really concern us, but I wanted to mention that there are specifications other than the explicit text, like the previous example between the verse and the hadith. This is what I am interested in discussing now: If there is a general text that includes details, and some of these details have not been acted upon by the righteous predecessors, with the clarity of this action if it were acted upon, with the clarity of this action if it were acted upon. For example, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), whom we know used to turn to the right or left to his house after praying, and would pray the recommended prayers at home, as is well-known. We have no text that he acted according to his own saying, to the end of the hadith. We act according to this text as imam, follower, and alone. Why? Because this generality is the original rule, and excluding an individual from the individuals of this generality, or a part of its parts, no evidence has come to us, neither a specific evidence like the hadith , nor an evidence that the action of the righteous predecessors indicates it. I brought this example because this issue is not as apparent as the topic of prayer, for example. The Messenger used to pray as imam among the Companions, and sometimes they would see him praying at night, and so on. The actions that the Messenger (peace be upon him) did publicly, in the sight of everyone, these must be transmitted. If they were in a specific form, they must be transmitted. If they were from the devotional recommended practices, that is because of the Companions' motivation to transmit everything related to the Messenger (peace be upon him), and not only the acts of worship, but even the customs. It is known to us that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was narrated in Sahih al-Bukhari, "Peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah and His blessings. Welcome, how are you?" This reached the level of the Companions' interest in talking about the Messenger (peace be upon him) and narrating from him matters that have no relation to worship, such as describing his sandals, as came in Sahih al-Bukhari from the hadith of Anas ibn Malik, who said, "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) had two sandals with two toes". "With two toes" means like the shoes today, the big toe in one compartment and the rest in another compartment. This is from their eagerness to narrate what they witnessed from the Messenger (peace be upon him). And at that time, the researcher who delves deeply into studying the custom of the Companions and their interest in narrating from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), not only what relates to worship, but even what relates to worship, we cannot then imagine a worship that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) would announce to the people
Another questioner: Peace be upon you.

The Shaykh : And upon you be peace, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings. If we consider what has been mentioned regarding the Companions' concern to transmit everything they saw of his actions, peace be upon him, even matters unrelated to worship, then we can never imagine that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, did something in the sight of the people and the view of the Companions, and then no one among the Companions transmitted it. We can never imagine this, because we know, through induction, their care in transmitting everything related to the Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him. Therefore, it becomes clear to us, without any doubt, if Allah wills, that the specific texts that came are not from the speech of the Messenger, but rather from the speech of the Companion. I say this because it is not hidden from any of you that a Companion, however eloquent and articulate he may be, cannot be compared to the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, in that regard. A Companion might speak in a general or absolute phrase that suggests what he does not intend and does not mean, whereas it is impossible for such a thing to come from the Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him. Here, in the issue related to the question of whether the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, placed his hands in the second standing after bowing or not, we did not find in all the Sunan and hadiths we have examined an explicit text stating that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, placed his right hand over his left after bowing. Those who hold this position acknowledge this fact, but they say the text is general. What is the general text? It is that the Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, when he stood for prayer, placed his right hand over his left. This gives the generality we mentioned earlier. However, this generality was not acted upon in practice, just as any other issue is usually acted upon. Those who prefer innovation in religion never fail to find a general text in which to include their innovation. So, what is our answer, we who are the people of the Sunnah, the people of hadith, and the Salafis, to these evidences that the innovators use to support their innovations, which are countless? The answer is clear: we say that this general text which the innovators use as evidence, if the specific detail they are arguing for were included in that general text, it would first be included for the one to whom the general text was revealed. Then, consequently, those who transmitted this general text directly from the Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, would have understood it and acted upon it. Therefore, we say to the innovators: this is an innovation. And you can imagine any innovation you wish, and I guarantee that I can bring you evidence on their behalf, but it is of this kind: general evidences. What is our answer to them? The simplest thing is: when we say, "People, the adhan ends with La ilaha illa Allah," they rush to us with the saying of the Exalted, This is a general text. They rush to us with his saying, peace be upon him, and so on. So why do you prevent us from sending blessings upon the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him? We have no answer, as some people imagine that the Messenger forbade this, so that we could say this prohibition specifies these generalities. If that were the case, what specified these generalities was the fact that the practice of the Salaf did not follow this part of these general texts. Is this clear? Good. And so we say regarding every text that suggests generality for a part of its details that the practice of the Salaf did not follow: I say "suggests" because I have distinguished, and you are not here, between a general text issued by the Messenger, peace be upon him, who does not speak from desire, it is only a revelation revealed, and a text that is an expression by the Companion himself. This text might have some leniency in expression; that is, he intended a specific matter, but his phrase came out general. Now, here we have the statement of Wa'il ibn Hujr, "The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, when he stood in prayer, placed his right hand over his left". Indeed, this text suggests generality for standing, but what was our argument in refuting the arguments of the innovators for their innovations, which they introduced under general texts, is our exact argument in this specific case. Although there is something else here that we must mention: this hadith of Wa'il, in my opinion, is an abbreviated version of a hadith that is more complete than it. This more complete hadith is in Sahih Muslim and in the Musnad of Imam Ahmad, where it describes the prayer of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him: when he said the takbir and took his left hand with his right, then bowed, then raised his head from bowing and said, "Allah hears the one who praises Him," then prostrated. What was the position in the second standing? And so he continued describing the prostration between the two rak'ahs, and so on. Therefore, I do not exclude at all that some narrators, due to the suitability of the argument for the customary position, which is in the first standing, cut out the part of the hadith related to this position. But when it was separated from what came before it and what came after it, it gave a general meaning.