It is established in some hadiths that there is virtue for whoever stands in the night with such and such verses. Does this include one who reads from the mushaf? And what is the ruling on the tarawih prayer?

The questioner : Our Shaykh, here in the book *Sahih al-Targhib wa al-Tarhib*, may Allah reward you for the good in it, and its editor, in the section encouraging standing in night prayer, in this hadith: In another wording: In another hadith, after mentioning:

The Shaykh : The first wording, do you say "prayers"?

The questioner : Yes, prayers...

The Shaykh : Whoever is consistent with these prayers.

The questioner : .

The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.

The questioner : In another hadith: Here in some hadiths, it mentions one who reads and one who stands, so the word: means he prayed?

The Shaykh : He stood in the night, prayed, and recited these verses.

The questioner : He stood, prayed, and recited this number of verses?

The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.

The questioner : Okay, our Shaykh, if we say now regarding this number, a person is not consistent with it. He is not consistent with this number, and he stands, opens the mushaf, and reads from the mushaf, according to the opinion of some who said this, and he is in his home, meaning he is not among people, and he does not have the ability to memorize this number. He stands, and his wife is with him, is that possible?

The Shaykh : Do you mean by "possible" that it is prescribed or not?

The questioner : Yes, is it permissible?

The Shaykh : Or I think you mean something else. Of course, it is prescribed. It is prescribed even for half of that. It is prescribed for ten verses. Whatever he recites, he gets ten good deeds for every letter. There is no problem with that, meaning. But I thought you wanted to ask whether he is among those who stand in prayer, whether he is such and so, and so on. We say that the one who takes the full reward is, what? The one who stands with these verses as it came in the text. So, if he recited but did not stand, he has a share of that. As for its being prescribed, it is certainly prescribed without doubt or problem, but he has a share of that reward, not the full reward.

The questioner : Okay, our Shaykh, we want to get this reward with this number, which is two hundred verses. We opened the mushaf and read from it. Do we get this reward? Because once you mentioned to us regarding reading from the mushaf, you spoke at length about it.

The Shaykh : No problem. If the text says "read," then it is obtained. But if the text says "stood," then he must pray and recite these verses for that reward to be recorded for him.

The questioner : Okay, we want to read from the mushaf, our Shaykh.

The Shaykh : The answer to this is finished. He has a reward, but it is not the reward that came specified for the one who stood.

The questioner : Does he mean he read from the mushaf during the prayer?

The Shaykh : No, he does not mean he read during the prayer.

The questioner : Our Shaykh, may Allah reward you with good. We are now on the second question.

The Shaykh : No problem. Your neighbor says you mean such and such. I tell him no. Do you agree with me?

The questioner : I do not agree with his intention.

The Shaykh : Strange. Okay, but what did you understand?

The questioner : It is permissible for me.

The Shaykh : No, no problem, come, look.

The questioner : Now I say I want to get this reward and be among the sincere in this reward, so I want to open the mushaf and read from it in my standing in my prayer.

The Shaykh : That makes the question very clear. You did not say he wants to read from the mushaf in his standing. No, the reward is not obtained. Because we say regarding the religion, that imams lead people in tarawih and read for them from the mushaf, this is not prescribed. And although there is disagreement among scholars, past and present, it is not prescribed. Because that leads to a lack of care, at the very least, for the Qur'an and its memorization, as we mentioned on some occasions his (peace and blessings be upon him) saying: So if we tell people in general, and imams of mosques in particular, that they should read from the Qur'an from the mushaf in the standing prayer, whether tarawih in Ramadan or outside Ramadan, it means they rely on reading directly from the mushaf, and the ambition that used to encourage and drive them to care for what? Memorizing the Qur'an, is neglected. So if this interpretation were the case, there would be nothing here. In that case, we would retract our previous opinion in which we said it is disliked for the imam to read from the mushaf. And this would have been widespread in the time of the righteous Salaf, whom we affirm, repeatedly and repeatedly, are the best of people.

The questioner : Okay, it means I repeat what I have memorized...

The Shaykh : You repeat?

The questioner : Yes, so that I get a hundred verses.

The Shaykh : No. That is your brother there, because that means you relied on repetition and did not care for memorization. We say what we said to drive people to care for memorizing the Qur'an. But in the end, we cannot put all people in the same category in terms of diligence and care for recommended matters. People are of different levels. You know the Bedouin who said: "By Allah, O Messenger of Allah, I will not add to them or subtract from them."
So we are content with people that they are consistent with the obligatory duties. Some are better than them and add to that being consistent with the regular voluntary prayers. Some add to that being consistent with the voluntary prayers. Some memorize ten verses, some a hundred verses, some two hundred, and so on. So people are of different degrees and levels. So whoever wants to be among the best of people, let him implement the saying of one of them:
So imitate them, even if you are not like them, for imitating the noble is success.
As for coming in a form where we want to be like so-and-so, and we do the work of others, that does not happen. Is that clear?

The questioner : Okay, a person might have two hundred verses memorized, but meaning... now a new question. He has two hundred verses memorized, he read them tonight, and read them the second and third night. Does he get the fixed reward in them, or is it the same thing?

The Shaykh : Did he read them from memory?

The questioner : Yes, from memory, the same verses. Meaning, the two hundred verses are memorized, praise be to Allah. We read two hundred verses tonight, and they are the same in the second and third night.

The Shaykh : There is no obstacle. Yes.

The questioner : There is no obstacle. Okay, meaning, our Shaykh, the same question says, for example, the verses of *al-Saffat* are short, meaning one hundred and eighty-three verses of *al-Saffat*. Okay, he read them...

The Shaykh : In any case, you know, the Muslim needs to be, for example, he read two hundred verses. And he comes and intentionally memorizes from the two hundred verses that are equivalent to a hundred verses of other verses. Because that is what? He is scheming. But if it comes in a natural, unintentional way, that he has memorized from the Qur'an these two hundred verses, including these surahs whose verses are short, and he read them, the hadith applies to him. But the motive for him to choose two hundred verses is that he gets the reward without tiring his condition and his mind, and without straining himself to maintain these verses so he does not forget them. He comes and chooses these short verses. Meaning, as it is said in some words, high ambition is from faith. So he does not have to lower himself to the lowest point. And say, "I, in order to gain the virtue of reading two hundred verses, will memorize this surah because its verses are short." So there is a difference between a person who memorized it, then heard this hadith and acted upon it, and a person who heard this hadith and went to intentionally read it, memorizing those short verses. I think the meaning is clear?

The questioner : I say he has ambition to memorize these short ones.

The Shaykh : Ambition differs from ambition, without doubt.

The questioner : When it is mentioned in the hadith that it is two hundred verses, is it by way of specification and limitation, two hundred meaning two hundred? For example, there are hadiths of the Messenger, may Allah pray upon him, that say to you: For example, this is like that, meaning, for example, is it a specification? Because it is as if I heard once that seventy times is not a specification or limitation.

The Shaykh : What you heard is correct, but you knew something and missed other things. In the Arabic language, if a person says, "I have seventy dinars," or "seventy trees," and they were sixty-nine, he would be a liar. If they were seventy-one, seventy-five, or a hundred thousand, he would be truthful. The scholars say the number has no concept, meaning what I explained just now. It has no concept regarding the more, and not regarding the less. Is that clear?

The questioner : It is clear.

The Shaykh : So, if someone says, "I seek forgiveness from Allah seventy times a day," but he only seeks forgiveness sixty-nine times, that does not match the hadith. However, if he seeks forgiveness and the number reaches seventy-one, he has sought forgiveness seventy times. Of course, this requires a separate discussion on whether it is permissible to increase the number or not. We say that if the intention of the hadith is to specify a limit, then the excess is like the deficiency. And if we know this rule, it becomes easy for us to reconcile many hadiths that appear to contradict each other. The most famous of these, which few students of knowledge have not heard of, is his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): And in another narration: . There is no contradiction between twenty-five and twenty-seven, because the twenty-seven are included within the twenty-five. If the narration of twenty-seven had not come, it would not have been permissible for us to increase the virtue beyond the twenty-five mentioned in the first hadith. The number has no concept of limitation; so if a greater number is established in another phrase, there is no conflict. But whoever wants to implement the text must maintain the number, because it is not permissible to say that the number has no concept of limitation regarding the lesser amount, only regarding the greater amount. Is that clear?

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh : May Allah preserve you.

The questioner : Shaykh, regarding the question of the one who joins the prayer late (masbuq), who found the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) bowing and the congregation bowing, and he bowed, to the end of the hadith, the word: or: . The meaning of this reading is: Do not proceed to bowing without the row, or do not proceed to bowing without the row. So the meaning is: Do not proceed to bowing without the row; do not repeat it a second time.

The Shaykh : How? How?

The questioner : It means do not proceed to bowing without the row a second time. This contradicts the implication that it is permissible for one person to bow without the row. So how do you reconcile the two implications? Of course, the text of the hadith allows for this meaning and allows for that meaning.

The Shaykh : And that?

The questioner : Of course, it allows for both implications.

The Shaykh : The second one allows for both implications?

The questioner : No, the text means "do not proceed" or "do not proceed" (plural).

The Shaykh : We understood this. What about the second hadith?

The questioner : It is the same hadith, and it is one hadith, but my understanding is that I previously heard an explanation that it is permissible for one person to bow without the row in order to catch up with the congregation.The Shaykh : Ibn Baz says no; his explanation is that you do not proceed a second time to bowing without the row, meaning if you bow, you bow with the row.

The Shaykh : Okay, if this is sufficient for your question, is there anything else?

The questioner : That is fine.

The Shaykh : Okay, we ask: Is there in this hadith, or in some of its narrations, that the man bowed without the row? Or is there in the hadith, or in some of its narrations, that the man hurried, and when the Messenger asked him why he hurried, he said, "To catch the rak'ah." Then he said to him: Is the discussion up to this point clear?

The questioner : That is fine.

The Shaykh : Okay. So we say: If in some narrations of the hadith it is stated that he bowed without the row, then it is possible to interpret the hadith as meaning "do not proceed to bowing without the row," and it does not matter to us regarding this specific point whether the narration is: Because the word "do not proceed" (plural), if it is authentic or preserved in the hadith, its meaning is an implication from the reason for his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): Because he ran. Is that clear? But our current discussion is not about running, especially since there is no disagreement about the impermissibility of that running. Rather, our current discussion is to interpret the famous narration in al-Bukhari and others: That is, to bowing without the row. Not "do not proceed to running." Is that clear? Okay. If in the hadith it is stated that the man bowed without the row, then this interpretation is valid: "do not proceed to bowing without the row." But bowing without the row is not mentioned in any of the ways of the hadith at all. Is that clear up to this point?
Second: If the man wanted to bow without the row, he would not have run. This is an observed fact by everyone: why does one run? In order to catch up with the imam in bowing in the row. So if he wanted to bow without the row, he would not have run. It is the same as what we do. We bow at the back of the mosque and walk until we catch up with the imam wherever he is. So if we consider these two observations, it is not permissible to interpret the hadith with the meaning you said you heard from so-and-so, namely "do not proceed to bowing without the row."
We have two things that prevent us from interpreting the hadith or applying it to the prohibition of bowing without the row. The first is that there is nothing in any of the narrations of the hadiths that he bowed without the row. The second is that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) rebuked him because he ran, and one does not run if he wants to bow without the row, but rather he wants to join the row.
In conclusion, this hadith confirms the etiquette mentioned by the Messenger (peace be upon him) in the well-known hadith of Abu Hurayrah, who said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: This hadith confirms your hadith, which is from Abu Bakrah al-Thaqafi, when he entered the mosque and found the Messenger (peace be upon him) bowing, so he hurried and the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) heard the sound of his feet as he hurried. When he finished praying, he asked, "Who is it, O Messenger of Allah?" and mentioned that he intended to catch up with the Prophet while he was bowing. He said to him: .
With this, the answer regarding the interpretation of the hadith with that interpretation ends. However, we should know that those who enter the mosques today from among the people of hadith, and find the imam bowing, bow where they are and join the imam in his bowing, then walk until they join the row. This is not their independent reasoning (ijtihad), but rather it is based on a text. And I thought that when you mentioned this action, you were referring to the second hadith. Therefore, if you remember, I told you this is the implication of the first hadith, and the implication of the second? So let us keep in our minds that there is an explicit hadith on this matter, from the Sunnah, from the hadith of Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr (may Allah be pleased with him): This hadith is explicit regarding what we do today. And at that time, it is not permissible in any way to interpret the hadith of Abu Bakrah al-Thaqafi in a way that contradicts the hadith of Ibn al-Zubayr; because the rule among scholars is to reconcile the hadiths and combine them, not to strike some against others, especially since we have just clarified that the hadith of Abu Bakrah does not contain that the man bowed without the row to be applied to it, but rather it is applied to the running.
If it were permissible for me to say it as a guess, I would say that the wisdom of the hadith of Ibn al-Zubayr resulted from that error, meaning that Allah (Mighty and Majestic) inspired His Prophet that what Abu Bakrah al-Thaqafi did might be repeated by those below him in jurisprudence and knowledge, from those who come after the generations known for their excellence (as we mentioned earlier). So the divine wisdom and mercy toward people necessitate that it be said to them: Do not strain yourselves, do not tire yourselves by running and rushing to catch the imam while he is bowing. We have made the matter easy for you: bow where you are, then walk. Especially since we observe that many people, because of catching one rak'ah out of four, invalidate the four rak'ahs. One of them says "Allahu Akbar," which is the takbir of transition from standing to bowing, and thereby they lose the takbir of intention (takbirat al-ihram). And they have to say "Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar"; but where is the tranquil soul? He is afraid that the rak'ah will pass him, so he rushes, and what is the result? He loses the four rak'ahs.

The questioner : If he intended the takbir of intention in itself, we have observed in many mosques the act of bowing, and I do not find anyone who says the takbir twice except rarely; it is all one takbir. I think that the one who says the takbir, assuming he said the takbir of intention...

The questioner : Because he is standing; if he says it while standing, it is for the intention.

The questioner : If he says it while he means...

The Shaykh : Abu 'Adnan, is he now thinking he will make a mistake?

The questioner : So if he says this takbir, is it sufficient?

The Shaykh : No, when you say that if he intended with this takbir, does it suffice or not? What is the nature of this takbir? This is a response to Abu 'Adnan; Abu 'Adnan must control his nerves, Abu 'Adnan must control his nerves, and be a listener like the others. Yes, what is the nature of this takbir so that we can answer your question? The answer is: if he said the takbir while standing and then bowed, his prayer is valid, but he has neglected the obligatory act. And if he said the takbir—as we said earlier—while he was bowing, he has performed the obligatory act but neglected the pillar and neglected the entire prayer. This is the reality of people today. Therefore, Abu Munir, it is not sufficient for us to say "if he intended," because if the intention is good but the action is defective, the good intention does not excuse the defective action. I think that is clear.