Does not the hadith of Sahl ibn Sa'd (may Allah be pleased with them both) indicate the recommended practice of placing the hands after rising from bowing?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : He mentioned the hadith of Sahl ibn Sa'd.
The Shaykh : The same answer.
The questioner : Regarding the placement, he only mentioned the placement and did not describe it; he meant that all placements are known, so he specified only this one.
The Shaykh : How did he specify only this one?
The questioner : He meant that in the hadith, he specified only this placement after standing up, so Sahl ibn Sa'd intended this placement after standing up.
The Shaykh : First, my brother, the hadith of Sahl does not contain standing up.
The questioner : After bowing.
The Shaykh : It does not contain standing up, neither before bowing nor after bowing. The hadith of Sahl is, in reality, our evidence in this precise matter. The hadith of Sahl says: "They were ordered to place the right hand over the left hand in prayer", in prayer. And therefore, we oblige them to place their hands between the two prostrations, and they have no choice but analogical reasoning; they will say, "So what is the difference between between the two prostrations and, for example, the tashahhud?" Do you see? We say that in the tashahhud, there are explicit texts regarding placing the palms on the thighs, placing the right hand on the right thigh, and placing the left hand on the left thigh, and so on. But there is no hadith specifying the form that the worshipper must take between the two prostrations; it does not exist at all. But this does not refute us; rather, it refutes them. We say our evidence here is the practice of the Muslims, and here come the arguments that I am stating.[An-Nisa 4:115] If it is said, "Why do you place your hands?" I say, "Because this is the practice of the Muslims." "Why do you not place your hands in the second standing?" Because this is the practice of the Muslims. So, whoever wants to act according to the general text must act according to the general text in the hadith of Sahl ibn Sa'd regarding prayer. And we have other points. Hadiths have come regarding pointing in prayer, some of which state generally that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) used to point in prayer. So we act accordingly, yes.
The questioner : Do you mean to clarify it?
The Shaykh : And who wants to define the practice of the Muslims here? The point is that it came: "When he sat in prayer, he used to point with his index finger". So we must point between the two prostrations. But these are authentic texts with no problem. However, when a person follows the hadith that said, "When he sat in prayer, he raised his finger or pointed with his finger," other narrations restrict the pointing to the tashahhud, i.e., the sitting of the tashahhud. And in truth, since I heard the argumentation using this general text in the hadith of Wa'il and others, I have feared that some people, due to my argumentation in this way from the generalities where the general text did not apply to some of its parts, will see a person between the two prostrations raising his finger or moving it. So I used to say this for years, and I was in Syria until I came to you here with a young man who had graduated from some universities. He came as a guest or visited me; I do not remember. The time was between my Zuhr and 'Asr prayers. The man called the adhan and iqamah, and with him was a friend, so they prayed while I was sitting, of course waiting for them to finish. And there he was, moving his finger between the two prostrations. So I kept it to myself in my heart, in the language of my age, naturally. After they finished praying and we entered into conversation, I turned the discussion to this issue. So I asked him, and he said to me, "There is a hadith about this." I said to him, "What is the hadith?" He said, "The hadith of Wa'il ibn Hujr." I said to him, "But have you studied this hadith?" He said, "Yes, its chain is either strong or its chain is good." And in fact, this answer is sound for someone who does not trace the paths of the hadith. But the one who first recalls their definition of the term "authentic hadith" and secondly verifies this meaning precisely will find that this hadith is not authentic and is called, in their terminology, an anomalous hadith. In all the paths that came from Wa'il ibn Hujr, the moving of the finger in the tashahhud is mentioned, except in one path that came in the Musnad of Imam Ahmad with a chain whose narrators are all trustworthy, and it is customary among scholars to authenticate such a chain. But when you look, and this is the truth, all the paths of the hadith of Wa'il ibn Hujr revolve around 'Asim ibn Kulaib from his father from Wa'il. 'Asim ibn Kulaib, from whom the paths multiply, all the paths from him mention raising the finger and pointing in the tashahhud, except this anomalous path in the Musnad of Imam Ahmad. So the narrator deviated in two ways: the first way is mentioning the moving of the finger between the two prostrations, and the other way is not mentioning the moving of the finger in the tashahhud. So he deviated twice. If he had, for example, mentioned the movement in both places, in the tashahhud and between the two prostrations, we would say this is an addition. But here a very precise question arises: Is the addition of a trustworthy narrator accepted by hadith scholars absolutely, or sometimes? The answer is that in truth, there is disagreement among hadith scholars and scholars of usul al-fiqh. Hadith scholars say the addition of a trustworthy narrator is accepted if he does not contradict a trustworthy narrator who is more trustworthy or more numerous than him. Scholars of usul al-fiqh say the addition of a trustworthy narrator is accepted absolutely. This school of thought does not align at all with the theories of hadith scholars when they weaken some hadiths, such as the mursal hadith and the like. And indeed, the scholars of usul al-fiqh cannot absolutely adhere to this rule, because this would negate for them the areas of accepting hadiths whose error has become apparent to them, and the narrator is trustworthy. How can it be said that the addition of a trustworthy narrator is accepted absolutely? The correct view is that the addition of a trustworthy narrator is accepted on the condition that he does not contradict a trustworthy narrator who is more memorizing or more numerous than him among the trustworthy narrators. Being more memorizing is a condition when a trustworthy narrator is unique against a trustworthy narrator; the stronger position to attribute error to the trustworthy narrator is being more memorizing... So if we have two trustworthy narrators equal in memorization, we have no preference, so one of the two trustworthy narrators must have what? A supporting chain. And if the supporting chain supports the one who added, his addition is preserved. And if the trustworthy narrator supports the one who did not add, the addition is not preserved. On this basis, this hadith that mentioned the moving of the finger between the two prostrations is an anomalous hadith. But one might argue to support this anomalous hadith with the general texts we mentioned earlier that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) used to point with his finger when he sat in prayer. But our answer to this is the same as the previous answer. If this is clear to you, I return to say that every person of intellect and understanding distinguishes between the Messenger (peace be upon him), first in that he is a model for all humans, and second in that his action is apparent to all people. It is not equal to this for individuals among people. Did they say behind the imam, "Allahu has heard the one who praised Him," as the imam says, implementing the general text, or did they not say it? This does not apply here as it applies there, because this issue, as I exemplified earlier, is that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) used to go to the house; what do you think he used to say from the invocations and dhikr? This is a hidden matter for us, so we must act according to his general saying (peace and blessings be upon him) that includes every worshipper, whether he is an imam, a follower, or praying alone, except where there is specific evidence that specifies it. As we say, for example, regarding the mu'adhdhin, why does he not respond to himself? Why does he not send blessings upon the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)? Because the practice has not been established with this, neither openly nor secretly, despite it being included in the generalities. So this is an explanation of what you asked about, and perhaps it is sufficient, if Allah wills.
Another questioner: As you said, our Shaykh, the sunnah prayer is in congregation.
The Shaykh : And there are many examples.
The questioner : Wait a moment, regarding the mu'adhdhin's response or sending blessings upon the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) after the adhan, is there a contradiction?
The Shaykh : how
The questioner : Is there a contradiction?
The Shaykh : Repeat.
The Shaykh : The same answer.
The questioner : Regarding the placement, he only mentioned the placement and did not describe it; he meant that all placements are known, so he specified only this one.
The Shaykh : How did he specify only this one?
The questioner : He meant that in the hadith, he specified only this placement after standing up, so Sahl ibn Sa'd intended this placement after standing up.
The Shaykh : First, my brother, the hadith of Sahl does not contain standing up.
The questioner : After bowing.
The Shaykh : It does not contain standing up, neither before bowing nor after bowing. The hadith of Sahl is, in reality, our evidence in this precise matter. The hadith of Sahl says: "They were ordered to place the right hand over the left hand in prayer", in prayer. And therefore, we oblige them to place their hands between the two prostrations, and they have no choice but analogical reasoning; they will say, "So what is the difference between between the two prostrations and, for example, the tashahhud?" Do you see? We say that in the tashahhud, there are explicit texts regarding placing the palms on the thighs, placing the right hand on the right thigh, and placing the left hand on the left thigh, and so on. But there is no hadith specifying the form that the worshipper must take between the two prostrations; it does not exist at all. But this does not refute us; rather, it refutes them. We say our evidence here is the practice of the Muslims, and here come the arguments that I am stating.
And whoever opposes the Messenger after guidance has become clear to him and follows other than the way of the believers
ومن يشاقق الرسول من بعد ما تبين له الهدى و يتبع غير سبيل المؤمنينThe questioner : Do you mean to clarify it?
The Shaykh : And who wants to define the practice of the Muslims here? The point is that it came: "When he sat in prayer, he used to point with his index finger". So we must point between the two prostrations. But these are authentic texts with no problem. However, when a person follows the hadith that said, "When he sat in prayer, he raised his finger or pointed with his finger," other narrations restrict the pointing to the tashahhud, i.e., the sitting of the tashahhud. And in truth, since I heard the argumentation using this general text in the hadith of Wa'il and others, I have feared that some people, due to my argumentation in this way from the generalities where the general text did not apply to some of its parts, will see a person between the two prostrations raising his finger or moving it. So I used to say this for years, and I was in Syria until I came to you here with a young man who had graduated from some universities. He came as a guest or visited me; I do not remember. The time was between my Zuhr and 'Asr prayers. The man called the adhan and iqamah, and with him was a friend, so they prayed while I was sitting, of course waiting for them to finish. And there he was, moving his finger between the two prostrations. So I kept it to myself in my heart, in the language of my age, naturally. After they finished praying and we entered into conversation, I turned the discussion to this issue. So I asked him, and he said to me, "There is a hadith about this." I said to him, "What is the hadith?" He said, "The hadith of Wa'il ibn Hujr." I said to him, "But have you studied this hadith?" He said, "Yes, its chain is either strong or its chain is good." And in fact, this answer is sound for someone who does not trace the paths of the hadith. But the one who first recalls their definition of the term "authentic hadith" and secondly verifies this meaning precisely will find that this hadith is not authentic and is called, in their terminology, an anomalous hadith. In all the paths that came from Wa'il ibn Hujr, the moving of the finger in the tashahhud is mentioned, except in one path that came in the Musnad of Imam Ahmad with a chain whose narrators are all trustworthy, and it is customary among scholars to authenticate such a chain. But when you look, and this is the truth, all the paths of the hadith of Wa'il ibn Hujr revolve around 'Asim ibn Kulaib from his father from Wa'il. 'Asim ibn Kulaib, from whom the paths multiply, all the paths from him mention raising the finger and pointing in the tashahhud, except this anomalous path in the Musnad of Imam Ahmad. So the narrator deviated in two ways: the first way is mentioning the moving of the finger between the two prostrations, and the other way is not mentioning the moving of the finger in the tashahhud. So he deviated twice. If he had, for example, mentioned the movement in both places, in the tashahhud and between the two prostrations, we would say this is an addition. But here a very precise question arises: Is the addition of a trustworthy narrator accepted by hadith scholars absolutely, or sometimes? The answer is that in truth, there is disagreement among hadith scholars and scholars of usul al-fiqh. Hadith scholars say the addition of a trustworthy narrator is accepted if he does not contradict a trustworthy narrator who is more trustworthy or more numerous than him. Scholars of usul al-fiqh say the addition of a trustworthy narrator is accepted absolutely. This school of thought does not align at all with the theories of hadith scholars when they weaken some hadiths, such as the mursal hadith and the like. And indeed, the scholars of usul al-fiqh cannot absolutely adhere to this rule, because this would negate for them the areas of accepting hadiths whose error has become apparent to them, and the narrator is trustworthy. How can it be said that the addition of a trustworthy narrator is accepted absolutely? The correct view is that the addition of a trustworthy narrator is accepted on the condition that he does not contradict a trustworthy narrator who is more memorizing or more numerous than him among the trustworthy narrators. Being more memorizing is a condition when a trustworthy narrator is unique against a trustworthy narrator; the stronger position to attribute error to the trustworthy narrator is being more memorizing... So if we have two trustworthy narrators equal in memorization, we have no preference, so one of the two trustworthy narrators must have what? A supporting chain. And if the supporting chain supports the one who added, his addition is preserved. And if the trustworthy narrator supports the one who did not add, the addition is not preserved. On this basis, this hadith that mentioned the moving of the finger between the two prostrations is an anomalous hadith. But one might argue to support this anomalous hadith with the general texts we mentioned earlier that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) used to point with his finger when he sat in prayer. But our answer to this is the same as the previous answer. If this is clear to you, I return to say that every person of intellect and understanding distinguishes between the Messenger (peace be upon him), first in that he is a model for all humans, and second in that his action is apparent to all people. It is not equal to this for individuals among people. Did they say behind the imam, "Allahu has heard the one who praised Him," as the imam says, implementing the general text, or did they not say it? This does not apply here as it applies there, because this issue, as I exemplified earlier, is that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) used to go to the house; what do you think he used to say from the invocations and dhikr? This is a hidden matter for us, so we must act according to his general saying (peace and blessings be upon him) that includes every worshipper, whether he is an imam, a follower, or praying alone, except where there is specific evidence that specifies it. As we say, for example, regarding the mu'adhdhin, why does he not respond to himself? Why does he not send blessings upon the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)? Because the practice has not been established with this, neither openly nor secretly, despite it being included in the generalities. So this is an explanation of what you asked about, and perhaps it is sufficient, if Allah wills.
Another questioner: As you said, our Shaykh, the sunnah prayer is in congregation.
The Shaykh : And there are many examples.
The questioner : Wait a moment, regarding the mu'adhdhin's response or sending blessings upon the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) after the adhan, is there a contradiction?
The Shaykh : how
The questioner : Is there a contradiction?
The Shaykh : Repeat.