Continuation of the explanation of the hadith of 'Abd Allah ibn Malik ibn Buhaynah al-Azdi that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) stood up in the even-numbered rak'ah in which he intended to sit in his prayer

The Shaykh : And this is a great danger, because this is an addition. So when you become aware of the addition, it is obligatory for you to turn away from it. However, the Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned at the end of *Al-Fatwa al-Hamawiyyah* a strange statement, a strange statement, a third time I repeat it, a strange statement: "It is said that what has corrupted the world is half a theologian, half a jurist, half a physician, and half a grammarian". Look at the fairness of this! He says: Half of the theologians have corrupted the creeds, because the theologian who reached the peak of theological discourse realized its corruption and returned. And how many theologians who were leaders in discourse returned! But the problem is with the half. Half of the jurists corrupt the lands. How do they corrupt the lands? They give this person's money to that person, and that person's money to this person, and they rule that this one should be killed, and that one should be stoned, while they are only half-jurists who corrupt the lands. And half of the grammarians corrupt the tongue. What tongue? The Arabic one. So he is a half-grammarian who pretends to be an expert, raising what should be in the accusative case and making accusative and nominative cases both jussive. This corrupts what? The tongue. And the fourth is half a physician who corrupts the bodies. A patient comes to him and he asks him: What is wrong with you? He says: I have such and such. He says: I see that your medicine is in such and such a thing. And it turns out that such and such a thing is poison. So when he treats himself with it, he dies. And this is a true statement, meaning that it is only the half-scholars who corrupt people. Because you find that he passes by an absolute verse, and it has a restrictor, but he does not know this restrictor, so he takes it in its absolute sense. Or a general verse or a general hadith, he does not know its specificator, so he takes it in its general sense. Or sometimes an abrogated verse, he does not know the abrogating verse, so he acts upon it while it is abrogated. Or perhaps he performs an invalid analogy. And this is common, as in the issues I mentioned to you. Because many people do not ask about them. He says: And if he stands up to the fifth rak'ah of a four-rak'ah prayer, he does not return, just as if he stands up from the first tashahhud.