When is the one who catches the bowing considered to have caught the rak'ah?

The questioner : When is the one of us who catches the bowing considered to have caught the rak'ah? The imam is bowing; if we catch him in the bowing, are we considered to have 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 — and at their head are the four imams — hold that one who catches the bowing (ruku') catches the unit of prayer (rak'ah). Some imams, such as Imam al-Bukhari from the Salaf and Imam al-Shawkani from the pious later generations, and many others between them, hold that one who catches the bowing does not count that unit of prayer, because he missed the recitation of the pillar, which is Surat al-Fatihah. I consider the first opinion — the opinion of the majority — to be the correct one in this issue, even though, 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, with a chain other than his own, has been established for me: From this, it is derived that one who catches the bowing catches the unit of prayer. However, the hadith of Abu Dawud undoubtedly has an apparent weakness, though this weakness is not severe. Even if it were severe, we would be satisfied with two other chains that hinge on a man from the Ansar. By "two chains," I mean in terms of the ones who transmitted them, not that each transmitter narrated it first with one chain and then with another. No, rather, I mean that Imam al-Bayhaqi (may Allah have mercy on him) narrated this hadith from Sunan Abu Dawud with a strong chain from a man from the Ansar, through the route of '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 (successor) or a Companion. Although it comes to mind that he was a Companion, because the one who narrated from him is a well-known Tabi'i, namely 'Abd al-'Aziz ibn Rafi', fairness requires us to acknowledge that this correlation is not necessary in chains of narration; 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. This is because it is possible that he was the son of a Companion on one hand, and because we have repeatedly and repeatedly come across some chains where a Tabi'i narrates from a Tabi'i from a Companion. Al-Hafiz ibn Hajar mentioned that through induction it became clear that in some hadiths, between the first Tabi'i and the Companion, there are four other Tabi'uns; that is, five Tabi'uns in succession, then the Companion comes after: a Tabi'i from a Tabi'i from a Tabi'i from a Tabi'i from a Tabi'i from a Companion, let alone a Tabi'i from a Tabi'i from a Tabi'i from a Tabi'i from a Companion, let alone a Tabi'i from a Tabi'i from a Tabi'i from a Companion, and so on. So when we find such a narration, 'Abd al-'Aziz ibn Rafi' is a Tabi'i, from a man from the Ansar; is this man 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 is mentioned 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 authentic 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 (missing the Companion link). And thus the hadith became authentic and the proof was established. In addition to this, there are athar (reports) from the great Companions, headed by Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, and the last in age being 'Abd Allah ibn 'Umar ibn al-Khattab; all of them said: "That one who catches the bowing catches the unit of prayer." Thus, the authentic Salafi athar agreed with this authentic hadith (and praise be to Allah), and the preponderance 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 one who catches the bowing does not catch the unit of prayer. I recall that one of the Ghumariyyah — even though he is from the people of desires and from the Sufis who have paths that deviated from the Sunnah — authored a treatise in which he affirms that the correct view is that one who catches the bowing does not catch the unit of prayer. The reality is that, in this regard, he is like some of the hadith scholars in India: this authentic narration, which still exists in that rare, precious manuscript in the Zahiriyah Library — a manuscript of rarities — escaped them, because its date of writing goes back to the era close to the two imams Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Ishaq ibn Rahawayh. Had they come across this narration, their viewpoint would have shifted 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 the explicit text — even by ijtihad (independent legal reasoning) — then 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 are a group of others, such as Zayd ibn Thabit and 'Abd Allah ibn Mas'ud. They are four of the Companions, and they — as you see — are from the greatest of the Companions. They saw and explicitly stated that one who catches the bowing catches the unit of prayer. They did not take these athar because they suspected that they contradicted his saying (peace be upon him): We see that this generality encompassing this part does not include it, for what we have mentioned in sessions other than this one more than once, and for this authentic hadith. And thus the answer to this question ends.
Please.