The Book of Mosques and Places of Prayer-05b
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The reciter: Qutaybah ibn Sa'id narrated to us from Malik ibn Anas from Dawud ibn al-Husayn from Abu Sufyan, the client of Ibn Abi Ahmad, that he said: I heard Abu Hurayrah say: Muwatta Malik 3:63.
The Shaykh : Is there a difference between "None of that happened" and "Not all of that happened"?
The student: If the negation is placed first, the report becomes...
The Shaykh : If the affirmation or the negation is placed first?
The student: If the negation is placed first: "Not all of that happened."
The Shaykh : Leave the phrase out of the hadith: A person said: "Not all of that happened," or "None of that happened"?
The difference, give us the difference: "None of that happened."
The student: Meaning that neither the forgetting nor the shortening occurred.
The Shaykh : Meaning that nothing of that happened.
Okay: "Not all of that happened"?
The student: It means that some of it did happen.
The Shaykh : Exactly, and for this reason he said to him: "Some of it did happen." If the Messenger had said: "Not all of that happened," it would not have been valid to say: "Some of it did happen," because if he said: "Not all of that happened," meaning: rather, some of it did, then if he said: "None of that happened," it means that nothing of it happened. This is also a matter that the people of rhetoric and the theologians have discussed at length. This man was a Companion who had not studied; he understood the meaning. When he said: "None of that happened," he said: "Rather, some of it did happen." And therefore they distinguish between: "None of that happened" and "Not all of that happened."
And his saying: "So he prayed the remainder": its apparent meaning is that he returned to his place and sat down, then stood up, because standing up from sitting is obligatory. But is it obligatory for the sake of another, or obligatory in itself? The apparent view is that it is obligatory in itself, because the standing up of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) initially was not a standing up for the prayer, but rather a standing up on the assumption that he had finished with it. So we say: if such a thing happens, return to your place, sit down, then stand up, because your first standing up was not for standing in the prayer, but rather for leaving. However, some scholars may say: that this standing up is intended for the sake of another; its purpose is to reach the state of standing from sitting. And this one who said the taslim and stood up has achieved the goal, so completing the prayer would be to walk to his place and then complete it. But here is another question: does he say the takbir or not? Think about it, hmm?
The first takbir was for the sitting, so a second takbir is necessary for standing up from the sitting. Therefore, he must say the takbir. This is unlike the case where one sits in the first rak'ah thinking it is the second, then is reminded and wants to stand up; in that case, he does not say the takbir, because the takbir has already occurred. Pay attention to the difference: here we say: if one sits for the first tashahhud and then says the taslim thinking that the prayer has ended, then if he wants to stand up, he must stand up with a takbir, because the first takbir was for the sitting. This is unlike the case where one sits in the third or first rak'ah and is then reminded and wants to stand up; in that case, he stands up without a takbir, because the takbir for the transition has already occurred.
The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, prayed asr and said the taslim after two rakas. Dhu'l-Yadayn stood up and said, 'Has the prayer been shortened, Messenger of Allah, or have you forgotten?' The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, stood up and completed what remained of the prayer, and then, remaining sitting after saying the taslim, he made two prostrations.
صلى لنا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم صلاة في ركعتين فقام ذو اليدين فقال : أقصرت الصلاة يا رسول الله أم نسيت فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم كل ذلك لم يكن فقال قد كان بعض ذلك يا رسول الله فأقبل رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم على الناس فقال : أصدق ذو اليدين ؟فقالوا نعم يا رسول الله فأتم رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ما بقي من الصلاة ثم سجد سجدتين وهو جالس بعد التسليمThe Shaykh :
None of that happened
كل ذلك لك يكنThe student: If the negation is placed first, the report becomes...
The Shaykh : If the affirmation or the negation is placed first?
The student: If the negation is placed first: "Not all of that happened."
The Shaykh : Leave the phrase out of the hadith: A person said: "Not all of that happened," or "None of that happened"?
The difference, give us the difference: "None of that happened."
The student: Meaning that neither the forgetting nor the shortening occurred.
The Shaykh : Meaning that nothing of that happened.
Okay: "Not all of that happened"?
The student: It means that some of it did happen.
The Shaykh : Exactly, and for this reason he said to him: "Some of it did happen." If the Messenger had said: "Not all of that happened," it would not have been valid to say: "Some of it did happen," because if he said: "Not all of that happened," meaning: rather, some of it did, then if he said: "None of that happened," it means that nothing of it happened. This is also a matter that the people of rhetoric and the theologians have discussed at length. This man was a Companion who had not studied; he understood the meaning. When he said: "None of that happened," he said: "Rather, some of it did happen." And therefore they distinguish between: "None of that happened" and "Not all of that happened."
And his saying: "So he prayed the remainder": its apparent meaning is that he returned to his place and sat down, then stood up, because standing up from sitting is obligatory. But is it obligatory for the sake of another, or obligatory in itself? The apparent view is that it is obligatory in itself, because the standing up of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) initially was not a standing up for the prayer, but rather a standing up on the assumption that he had finished with it. So we say: if such a thing happens, return to your place, sit down, then stand up, because your first standing up was not for standing in the prayer, but rather for leaving. However, some scholars may say: that this standing up is intended for the sake of another; its purpose is to reach the state of standing from sitting. And this one who said the taslim and stood up has achieved the goal, so completing the prayer would be to walk to his place and then complete it. But here is another question: does he say the takbir or not? Think about it, hmm?
The first takbir was for the sitting, so a second takbir is necessary for standing up from the sitting. Therefore, he must say the takbir. This is unlike the case where one sits in the first rak'ah thinking it is the second, then is reminded and wants to stand up; in that case, he does not say the takbir, because the takbir has already occurred. Pay attention to the difference: here we say: if one sits for the first tashahhud and then says the taslim thinking that the prayer has ended, then if he wants to stand up, he must stand up with a takbir, because the first takbir was for the sitting. This is unlike the case where one sits in the third or first rak'ah and is then reminded and wants to stand up; in that case, he stands up without a takbir, because the takbir for the transition has already occurred.