The Book of Mosques and Places of Prayer-04b
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The reciter: And Abu al-Rabi' al-Zuhri narrated to us, and Hammad narrated to us, and Yahya ibn Sa'id narrated to us, from 'Abd al-Rahman al-A'raj, from 'Abd Allah ibn Malik ibn Buhaynah al-Azdi Sahih Muslim 570c.
The Shaykh : This is the hadith of 'Abd Allah ibn Buhaynah. As you see in the first narration, the prayer is described vaguely. Either it was from 'Abd Allah ibn Buhaynah, and sometimes he would forget, or it was from someone after Ibn Shihab. Because the last two narrations, indeed the second narration contains al-Layth from Ibn Shihab, and this is Malik from Ibn Shihab, and Ibn Shihab presented it completely in the second narration. So the forgetting is from whom? From someone after Ibn Shihab. So these are two possibilities. It is possible that 'Abd Allah ibn Buhaynah would remember the prayer, and sometimes he would forget it, so he describes it vaguely. The second is more likely, which is that the forgetting is from someone after Ibn Hisham.
The important point is that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) prayed the midday prayer with them, and he prayed two units, and he stood up from the two units without sitting. What did he leave? The first tashahhud. Then he continued in his prayer, and when he intended to say the salam, he prostrated two prostrations. The narrator attributed this to his saying: "in place of what he forgot of the sitting." For this reason, the prostration was before the salam, in order to complete the prayer before ending it. The scholars derived from this: that every obligatory act that a person leaves due to forgetfulness, he prostrates for it. When? Before the salam. Because the prostration here is a compensation for a deficiency. And if it is a compensation for a deficiency, it is better that it be before ending the prayer, so that he does not end it except while it is complete. This is a suitable and clear aspect. And based on this, we say: every prostration for a deficiency, it is before the salam. Now, does this include a deficiency of a pillar? No, why? Because a pillar must be performed. So if it must be performed, it becomes an addition. Let us suppose he forgot the second prostration and stood up from the first prostration. This is a pillar. If he returns to it, it becomes an addition, is that not so? And based on this, the forgetting of a pillar cannot be compensated by prostration except for an addition, and his prostration would be after the salam. So we restrict the prostration before the salam to deficiencies, and we restrict it to leaving an obligatory act.
And in this hadith, among the benefits: the occurrence of forgetfulness from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family). Is it by virtue of nature, or does Allah make him forget to legislate? The correct view is the first: because the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said:Sahih Muslim 572j. So he explicitly stated that his forgetting is by virtue of humanity—meaning by virtue of the nature of humans—and this is not a defect, and there is no blame on the person for it.
And among the benefits of this hadith: the obligation of the ma'mum (one praying behind the imam) to follow the imam if he leaves an obligatory act. If he leaves the first tashahhud, the ma'mum stands up, even if he knows. He glorifies Allah with him if he settles standing before he returns. And if it is before he settles, he must return. The aspect of this is: if he settles standing, he has reached the pillar that follows, so he does not return. But before he settles, he is on his way to the pillar, so he returns. This is the difference. And in it is a reference to an issue that some of our Salafi brothers do, who love to apply the Sunnah, our brothers, and that is: sitting for rest if the imam does not sit. Some people sit and say: "to realize the Sunnah," and then they analogize this to when the imam leaves raising the hands at the bowing or at rising from it, where some scholars do not consider that, and do not raise except at the imam's takbir. So this ma'mum says: does not the ma'mum in this state raise his hands? It is said: yes, he raises his hands. But here, there is no contradiction with the imam, neither by lagging behind him nor by preceding him. As for sitting for rest, there is a lagging behind. And the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said:Sahih Muslim 411a. For this reason, Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him) said: it is not befitting for the ma'mum, if his imam does not sit, for him to sit, even if he considers that to be a Sunnah. Because following the imam is more important. And if following the imam drops the obligatory, then the Sunnah is even more so. And a person gets the Sunnah if he prays alone in a voluntary prayer, or prays with people and performs the Sunnah, if he considers it a Sunnah absolutely. Although the stronger opinion in this sitting is that it is a sitting that is prescribed when there is a need. This is the correct view. And some scholars said: it is not prescribed, not even when there is a need. And this is the famous view from Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) from his companions. They say: this sitting is not prescribed. But when a person cannot stand up by himself, he sits and then supports himself with his hands and stands up. For this reason, in the hadith of Malik ibn Huwayris, it is mentioned that the Messenger supported his hands on the ground, which indicates that his rising from prostration to standing involved some difficulty. And some scholars considered it a Sunnah absolutely, and they are the majority of the hadith scholars. And some scholars detailed it: like al-Muqaddim (may Allah have mercy on him) in al-Mughni, and Ibn al-Qayyim in Zad al-Ma'ad, and others from the scholars of knowledge. In any case, this is not the place of research. The place of research is to say: if your imam does not sit, do not sit. If someone asks: why did Shaykh al-Islam use the word: "it is befitting to follow the imam and not sit," and did not say "it is obligatory"? As we said: it is obligatory to follow the imam if he leaves the first tashahhud? We said: the difference is that the sitting in the first tashahhud is long, and complete contradiction is achieved by it, and perhaps the imam reads al-Fatihah before this person stands up. But the sitting for rest is a light and brief sitting, and the imam hardly settles standing until the ma'mum follows him. For this reason, we said: the recommended is not to sit, and we did not say that the obligatory is to stand and not sit.
In 'Abd Allah ibn Buhaynah, sometimes they refer to him as 'Abd Allah ibn Malik. In the last phrase: 'Abd Allah ibn Malik ibn Buhaynah. They say: that Malik is the name of his father, and Buhaynah is the name of his mother, not the name of his grandfather. For this reason, you say: 'Abd Allah ibn Malik ibn Buhaynah. Do you understand, everyone? Why? Because ibn Buhaynah is a description of 'Abd Allah, and not a description of Malik, so
it is not permissible to use the genitive case, but the nominative case is required. This aspect differs from if you said: 'Abd Allah ibn 'Umar ibn al-Khattab. What do you say? Ibn al-Khattab. And although it is permissible to cut it off and say: he is ibn al-Khattab, but the most common is that it follows the name before it, so as not to mislead.
And it also differs in that the second name is declined with tanween, and if the third name were the name of the grandfather, it would not be declined with tanween. Thirdly: that the hamzat al-wasl is written between the second name and the third name, and if the third name is the grandfather, the hamza is not written. So these are three differences when a person is attributed to his father and then to his mother. But if he is attributed to his father and then to his grandfather, the third name follows the second name in grammatical case, and the second name is declined with tanween, and there is no hamzat al-wasl between it and the third name.
And like that: 'Abd Allah ibn Abi ibn Salul. Who is this? This is the head of the hypocrites. 'Abd Allah ibn Abi: this is his father. Ibn Salul: this is his mother. So it applies to him as it applies to 'Abd Allah ibn Buhaynah.
And in the hadith: there is evidence that it is befitting to say takbir for every prostration of sujud al-sahw, where it said: "he says takbir in every prostration," in every prostration. Clear?
And in it is evidence for the obligation of the ma'mum to follow his imam in sujud al-sahw, even if the ma'mum did not forget, due to his saying: "and the people prostrated with him," the people prostrated with him. For this reason, if the imam prostrates, prostrate with him, even if you did not forget. And if he does not prostrate, do not prostrate, even if you forgot. Is that so, Salim? Good: if he prostrates, prostrate even if you did not forget, and if he does not prostrate, do not prostrate even if you forgot. This is if you are not masbuq (one who joins the prayer late). But if you are masbuq, then you prostrate for your forgetfulness after making up what you missed.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : If he does not settle standing, he returns.
The questioner : Even if he left ... .
The Shaykh : Even if his buttocks leave his legs, he returns, provided he does not stand up completely. However, those who hold this distinction said: If his buttocks leave his legs and then he returns, prostration is obligatory for him, because he left what is called sitting and added to it. As for if they do not separate, he does not prostrate. They make the rising from the first tashahhud have three states: a rising in which the thighs do not separate from the legs, and then he returns; in this case, he owes nothing. The second is a rising in which the thighs separate from the legs, but he does not stand up completely; in this case, he must return, and he owes the prostration for forgetfulness. The third is a rising in which he stands up completely; in this case, he does not return, and he owes the prostration for forgetfulness. The ruling differs in these three states. Some scholars said: If he stands up until he is fully standing, the tashahhud is dropped from him and prostration is obligatory for him. If he does not stand up completely, he must return, and he owes no prostration at all, even if his thighs have separated from his buttocks, because this rising is not intended for its own sake, so it is not considered an addition.
In this issue, some of the brothers err. You find one who stands up to the fifth rak'ah in a four-rak'ah prayer; if he stands up completely, he does not return. He thinks this is like standing up from the first tashahhud. This is a great danger, because this is an addition. Whenever you become aware of an addition, you must turn away from it. However, Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned in the end of the Hama Fatwa a strange statement, a strange statement. I repeat it a third time: a strange statement.
The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) stood up (at the end of two rak'ahs) when he had to sit and proceeded on with the prayer. But when he was at the end of the prayer, he performed a prostration before the salutation and then pronounced the salutation.
أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قام في الشفع الذي يريد أن يجلس في صلاته فمضى في صلاته فلما كان في آخر الصلاة سجد قبل أن يسلم ثم سلمThe Shaykh : This is the hadith of 'Abd Allah ibn Buhaynah. As you see in the first narration, the prayer is described vaguely. Either it was from 'Abd Allah ibn Buhaynah, and sometimes he would forget, or it was from someone after Ibn Shihab. Because the last two narrations, indeed the second narration contains al-Layth from Ibn Shihab, and this is Malik from Ibn Shihab, and Ibn Shihab presented it completely in the second narration. So the forgetting is from whom? From someone after Ibn Shihab. So these are two possibilities. It is possible that 'Abd Allah ibn Buhaynah would remember the prayer, and sometimes he would forget it, so he describes it vaguely. The second is more likely, which is that the forgetting is from someone after Ibn Hisham.
The important point is that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) prayed the midday prayer with them, and he prayed two units, and he stood up from the two units without sitting. What did he leave? The first tashahhud. Then he continued in his prayer, and when he intended to say the salam, he prostrated two prostrations. The narrator attributed this to his saying: "in place of what he forgot of the sitting." For this reason, the prostration was before the salam, in order to complete the prayer before ending it. The scholars derived from this: that every obligatory act that a person leaves due to forgetfulness, he prostrates for it. When? Before the salam. Because the prostration here is a compensation for a deficiency. And if it is a compensation for a deficiency, it is better that it be before ending the prayer, so that he does not end it except while it is complete. This is a suitable and clear aspect. And based on this, we say: every prostration for a deficiency, it is before the salam. Now, does this include a deficiency of a pillar? No, why? Because a pillar must be performed. So if it must be performed, it becomes an addition. Let us suppose he forgot the second prostration and stood up from the first prostration. This is a pillar. If he returns to it, it becomes an addition, is that not so? And based on this, the forgetting of a pillar cannot be compensated by prostration except for an addition, and his prostration would be after the salam. So we restrict the prostration before the salam to deficiencies, and we restrict it to leaving an obligatory act.
And in this hadith, among the benefits: the occurrence of forgetfulness from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family). Is it by virtue of nature, or does Allah make him forget to legislate? The correct view is the first: because the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said:
Verily I am a human being like you, I forget just as you forget.
إنما أنا بشر مثلكم أنسى كما تنسونAnd among the benefits of this hadith: the obligation of the ma'mum (one praying behind the imam) to follow the imam if he leaves an obligatory act. If he leaves the first tashahhud, the ma'mum stands up, even if he knows. He glorifies Allah with him if he settles standing before he returns. And if it is before he settles, he must return. The aspect of this is: if he settles standing, he has reached the pillar that follows, so he does not return. But before he settles, he is on his way to the pillar, so he returns. This is the difference. And in it is a reference to an issue that some of our Salafi brothers do, who love to apply the Sunnah, our brothers, and that is: sitting for rest if the imam does not sit. Some people sit and say: "to realize the Sunnah," and then they analogize this to when the imam leaves raising the hands at the bowing or at rising from it, where some scholars do not consider that, and do not raise except at the imam's takbir. So this ma'mum says: does not the ma'mum in this state raise his hands? It is said: yes, he raises his hands. But here, there is no contradiction with the imam, neither by lagging behind him nor by preceding him. As for sitting for rest, there is a lagging behind. And the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said:
when he prostrates, you should also prostrate; when he rises up, you should also rise up
إذا سجد فاسجدوا وإذا رفع فارفعواIn 'Abd Allah ibn Buhaynah, sometimes they refer to him as 'Abd Allah ibn Malik. In the last phrase: 'Abd Allah ibn Malik ibn Buhaynah. They say: that Malik is the name of his father, and Buhaynah is the name of his mother, not the name of his grandfather. For this reason, you say: 'Abd Allah ibn Malik ibn Buhaynah. Do you understand, everyone? Why? Because ibn Buhaynah is a description of 'Abd Allah, and not a description of Malik, so
it is not permissible to use the genitive case, but the nominative case is required. This aspect differs from if you said: 'Abd Allah ibn 'Umar ibn al-Khattab. What do you say? Ibn al-Khattab. And although it is permissible to cut it off and say: he is ibn al-Khattab, but the most common is that it follows the name before it, so as not to mislead.
And it also differs in that the second name is declined with tanween, and if the third name were the name of the grandfather, it would not be declined with tanween. Thirdly: that the hamzat al-wasl is written between the second name and the third name, and if the third name is the grandfather, the hamza is not written. So these are three differences when a person is attributed to his father and then to his mother. But if he is attributed to his father and then to his grandfather, the third name follows the second name in grammatical case, and the second name is declined with tanween, and there is no hamzat al-wasl between it and the third name.
And like that: 'Abd Allah ibn Abi ibn Salul. Who is this? This is the head of the hypocrites. 'Abd Allah ibn Abi: this is his father. Ibn Salul: this is his mother. So it applies to him as it applies to 'Abd Allah ibn Buhaynah.
And in the hadith: there is evidence that it is befitting to say takbir for every prostration of sujud al-sahw, where it said: "he says takbir in every prostration," in every prostration. Clear?
And in it is evidence for the obligation of the ma'mum to follow his imam in sujud al-sahw, even if the ma'mum did not forget, due to his saying: "and the people prostrated with him," the people prostrated with him. For this reason, if the imam prostrates, prostrate with him, even if you did not forget. And if he does not prostrate, do not prostrate, even if you forgot. Is that so, Salim? Good: if he prostrates, prostrate even if you did not forget, and if he does not prostrate, do not prostrate even if you forgot. This is if you are not masbuq (one who joins the prayer late). But if you are masbuq, then you prostrate for your forgetfulness after making up what you missed.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : If he does not settle standing, he returns.
The questioner : Even if he left ... .
The Shaykh : Even if his buttocks leave his legs, he returns, provided he does not stand up completely. However, those who hold this distinction said: If his buttocks leave his legs and then he returns, prostration is obligatory for him, because he left what is called sitting and added to it. As for if they do not separate, he does not prostrate. They make the rising from the first tashahhud have three states: a rising in which the thighs do not separate from the legs, and then he returns; in this case, he owes nothing. The second is a rising in which the thighs separate from the legs, but he does not stand up completely; in this case, he must return, and he owes the prostration for forgetfulness. The third is a rising in which he stands up completely; in this case, he does not return, and he owes the prostration for forgetfulness. The ruling differs in these three states. Some scholars said: If he stands up until he is fully standing, the tashahhud is dropped from him and prostration is obligatory for him. If he does not stand up completely, he must return, and he owes no prostration at all, even if his thighs have separated from his buttocks, because this rising is not intended for its own sake, so it is not considered an addition.
In this issue, some of the brothers err. You find one who stands up to the fifth rak'ah in a four-rak'ah prayer; if he stands up completely, he does not return. He thinks this is like standing up from the first tashahhud. This is a great danger, because this is an addition. Whenever you become aware of an addition, you must turn away from it. However, Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned in the end of the Hama Fatwa a strange statement, a strange statement. I repeat it a third time: a strange statement.