Continuation of the benefits of the hadith: (Ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him and his father) said: I said to Bilal

The Shaykh : As for the one who said: It is disliked, he said: If you greet the one who is praying, he might forget and say: Peace be upon you. He might be ignorant and say: Peace be upon you. He might be overcome by awe and say: Peace be upon you. All of this is possible, is it not? Yes, the awe might be such as when the ruler passes by him, and he says: Peace be upon you, while he is in a state of shock. He might forget, and how much negligence there is in prayer, may Allah accept our repentance. He might forget and greet him, saying: Peace be upon you. He might be ignorant, a common person who knows nothing about matters, so he greets him. Yes, I respond. I say: If this exposes the prayer of the one praying to invalidation, then it is disliked. Because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade the Companions when some of them were reciting to others while they were raising their voices and praying. He forbade them and said: So as long as we are afraid, we will not do it. But the closest opinion is that it is permissible. It is countered by the opinion that the original ruling is that it is a recommended practice to say: This person is occupied, this person is occupied. And it is not possible for us to say that it is disliked, while the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) approved it for them. And it is not possible for us to say that the Companions had knowledge and understanding, unlike the common people after them. Because if we said this, our arguments with many of the hadiths would be invalidated. So the closest is that it is not disliked and that it is permissible. But is this response by gesture sufficient? The apparent meaning of the hadith is that it is sufficient. This is clear in the case of the one who greeted while walking; it is clear that it is sufficient. But in the case of the one who greeted and sat down until the one praying finished his prayer, does he respond with words, or do we say that the first response is sufficient because it is what the Sunnah established? The apparent view is the second: that it is sufficient. And whether he sits or continues on his way, there is nothing required of the one praying regarding that. But there is no doubt that it is good conduct that when the one praying finishes his prayer, he responds to his brother, saying: And peace be upon you. How are you? How is your condition? Because it might be a form of rudeness not to respond. And everything that brings joy to your brother and reassurance, and removes what is in his heart of suspicion of arrogance in you, is good. And from the benefits of this hadith: Movement of a type other than the prayer for the sake of need is permissible. Its indication is that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) gestured with his hand for the greeting out of need. And is this gesture of the type of the prayer or not?
The student: No.

The Shaykh : No, but for the sake of need, movement is permissible. And from the benefits of this hadith: The permissibility of applying the term "speech" to an action. Its indication is: O Adam, what is its indication?
The student: That he gestured.

The Shaykh : No, the permissibility of applying the term "speech" to an action.
The student: And he said with his hand.

The Shaykh : Yes, he said: And similar to this is the hadith of 'Ammar regarding dry ablution And in it is also an indication that the reality of speech is what it conveys in meaning. So it is not said: This is from the category of figurative interpretation. We say this is from the category of Arabic styles, and that the reality of the meaning of speech is what it conveys, what it conveys according to language, or custom, or the Shari'ah. And this is what made the Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him) deny that there is metaphor in language, and say: The word in its context and in its place does not indicate anything other than what is intended by it, whether you call it metaphor or not, but it does not indicate anything else. And his statement, upon reflection, is the truth, it is the correct one. And the scholars differ regarding the truth and the metaphor: are they established in language and the Qur'an, or in language other than the Qur'an, or not in language and not in the Qur'an? I mean the metaphor: is it permissible in language and the Qur'an, or in language other than the Qur'an, or is it not permissible in both? There are three known opinions. And whoever wants the elaboration of this, let him read the book of the Shaykh al-Shanqiti, which is *Preventing the Permissibility of Metaphor in the Qur'an*, and also read *A Summary of the Sent Down Thunderbolts* by Ibn al-Qayyim, and read the book *Faith* by the Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah. He has clarified this with a clear and obvious clarification. If a person reads it with reflection, he will know that it is the truth. And I saw in *A Summary of the Sent Down Thunderbolts* by Ibn al-Qayyim that some of the scholars of grammar said: There is no truth in language; language has no truth, it is all metaphor. Where do we go? Where do we go? If the whole world becomes metaphor? Yes, this is undoubtedly one of the illusions and errors, or from deep philosophy. So the best of the opinions is what the Shaykh (may Allah have mercy on him) held.