What is the Ruling on Placing the Hands on the Chest after Rising from Rukoo’? By Shaikh al-Albānī

What is the Ruling on Placing the Hands on the Chest after Rising from Rukoo’? By Shaikh al-Albānī 28/11/2025 Abu Khadeejah Abdul-Wahid Fatwa, Fiqh, Prayer, Prayer (Salāh) Comments Off on What is the Ruling on Placing the Hands on the Chest after Rising from Rukoo’? By Shaikh al-Albānī Question to al-Imām al-Albānī: What is the ruling on placing the hands on the chest after rising from rukūʿ? Answer: Placing the hands, right upon the left, after rukūʿ in this short standing has no authentic or explicit hadīth from the Prophet (ﷺ) stating that he placed his right hand over the left after raising his head from rukūʿ. Therefore, this practice is not known—or more precisely, it is not established—from any of the Salaf, nor from the Tābiʿīn, nor their followers. This includes the four well-known Imāms who were mujtahidūn. Furthermore, there is no authentic or widely transmitted narration found in the books of their students or narrators stating that any one of them held the view that placing the hands after rukūʿ is a Sunnah, in the way that placing the hands before rukūʿ is established [as a Sunnah]. There is simply no hadīth. And had there been an authentic and explicit hadīth, we would have hastened to act upon it, because the Imāms all agreed upon the principle: “When a hadīth is found to be authentic, then that is my madhhab.” However, some later scholars have clung to a narration in Sunan an-Nasā’ī from Wā’il ibn Hujr (radiyallāhu ʿanhu) where he said: “When the Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) stood in prayer, he placed his right hand over the left.” They take from the narrator’s wording “when he (ﷺ) stood in prayer” that this includes both the first standing [before the rukūʿ] and the second standing after rukūʿ, since linguistically a person is indeed “standing” after rising from rukūʿ. Thus, they inferred from this that the second standing also includes placing the hands, just as in the first. However, among the scholars of usool—the foundations of jurisprudence (usool al-fiqh)—there are principles and guidelines that they laid down so that the matter does not become confused for the student of knowledge. For when a Hadīth comes with an unrestricted expression—we are going to speak now using some fiqh terminology, and no doubt there are among you, inshā’-Allah, strong students of knowledge who, by the permission of Allāh, will understand what we are saying from this angle—when a narration appears unrestricted (mutlaq) in some narrations, then comes restricted (muqayyad) in another narration, it is not permissible to take the first Hadīth in its unrestricted sense. Rather, we must take the Hadīth as restricted due to the second narration that contains its restriction. And this, without doubt, is understood by anyone who has read the science of usool al-fiqh. Nevertheless, I will clarify it with some examples, specifically those connected to the prayer itself—rather, acts directly related to the placement of the hands. So take note here that the Hadīth of Wā’il states: “He would place his right hand upon his left when he stood in the prayer.” So he mentioned standing in the prayer. Now look at another Hadīth in Sahīh al-Bukhārī, from the narration of Sahl ibn Saʿd al-Sāʿidī, who said: “They were commanded to place the right hand over the left in the prayer.” He did not mention standing (qiyām). So here “the prayer” is unrestricted—and therefore it includes states/postures in the Prayer other than standing as well. For example, you are sitting between the two prostrations—so, you are still in the prayer. And the Hadīth in al-Bukhārī says: “They were commanded to place the right hand over the left in the prayer.” So, you are between the two prostrations, in the prayer—should you place your hands like this, one over the other, between the two prostrations? The answer is: No. Why not? But the Hadīth is unrestricted (mutlaq), including both standing and sitting positions—and note that the sitting between the two prostrations has no Sunnah [that has been reported] specifying a particular manner for the placement of the hands? And he did not say “in the tashahhud”, because for the tashahhud we have a Hādīth stating that when the Messenger (ﷺ) sat for the tashahhud, he placed the right hand on the right knee and the left hand on the left knee. But I am speaking about the sitting between the two prostrations—there is no [narration from the] Sunnah that specifies a particular posture for the hands. So why do they not place the right hand over the left between the two prostrations, acting upon the unrestricted wording of the Hadīth of Sahl, “They were commanded to place the right hand over the left in the prayer”? He did not mention standing! Likewise, in the authentic narration from the Prophet (ﷺ) in Sahīh Ibn Hibbān: “We, the company of Prophets, have been commanded with three: that we place our right hands upon our left in the prayer…” He likewise did not mention standing—he said ‘in the prayer’. And he mentioned: “hastening the breaking of the fast, and delaying the pre-dawn meal.” These are three matters. So, from them: We have been commanded to place the right hand over the left in the prayer. Yet no one says that it is legislated for a person to place his hands in this manner in the prayer while not standing. Also, for example, there is a sitting that is called by the Shāfiʿī jurists and others the ‘sitting of rest’ (jalsat al-istirāhah). Meaning: when you finish the second prostration after the first rakʿah, and you want to stand for the second rakʿah, you do not rise immediately. Rather, you sit briefly. You do not do this and then stand—(Shaikh al-Albānī demonstrates by rising immediately). Yet both of these Hadīths say: “in the prayer”, they did not say: “while standing”. So what is their answer regarding these two narrations? They say: “His saying in the prayer means: in the standing of the prayer.” Why? Because the general reference to “the prayer” has been restricted by the other ahādīth concerning the placement of the hands that explicitly mention the standing. And this is the correct, scholarly answer. Therefore, we say—regarding the Hadīth of Wā’il ibn Hujr: “When he (ﷺ) stood in the prayer…”—that what is intended is the first standing, not an unrestricted standing. Why? Because its clarification comes in the narration of Wā’il ibn Hujr found in Sahīh Muslim. So, Muslim narrates in his Sahīh from Wā’il ibn Hujr (radiyallāhu ʿanhu) that when he came to the Prophet (sallallāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam)—and it was cold at that time, in the winter—he saw the Messenger (ﷺ) praying, and upon him was a garment. And he (ﷺ) raised his hands when he entered the prayer (at its start), saying “Allāhu akbar,” and he raised his hands from beneath the garment, and he placed the right hand upon the left. Then he reported (the rest of his description): Then he (ﷺ) bowed, then he raised his head from the bowing and said, “Samiʿ allāhu liman hamidah.” Then he prostrated. So we find in this Hadīth—as he continues describing the prayer of the Messenger (ﷺ)—that this narration contains two matters: First: he restricted the standing mentioned in the first narration to the first standing. Second: when he came to mention the second standing—the one after rising from the bowing—he did not mention that placement of the hands which they understand from the unrestricted wording of “standing” in the earlier narration. Therefore, the statement of the narrator about the Messenger (salallāhu ʿalaihi wasallam), “He would place his hands when he stood in the prayer”—the standing here means the first standing. Why? Because the ahādīth of the Prophet (ﷺ) explain one another. Just as we interpreted the Hadīth of Sahl ibn Saʿd (radiyallāhu ʿanhu)—that they were commanded to place the right hand over the left in the Prayer—and the Hadīth that the Prophets (ʿalaihimus-salām) were commanded to place the right hand over the left ‘in the prayer’—we interpreted “the prayer” here as referring to the prayer in its standing posture. Likewise, we interpret the standing mentioned in the Hadīth of Wā’il (radiyallāhu ʿanhu): “when he stood in the prayer”, as the first standing. The narrations explain one another. And this has many examples in the Prophetic ahādīth. I will conclude the discussion with one final example: There is a Hadīth in Sunan Abī Dāwūd and in the Musnad of Imām Ahmad and other collections, from Anas ibn Mālik (radiyallāhu ʿanhu), who said: “The Messenger of Allāh (sallallāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) would gesture [with his finger] in the prayer.” So, a person could take this, gather it together, and say: “This is a Sunnah,” and then begin pointing with his finger like this in the prayer. But no one says this. Why? Because this Hadīth has another narration clarifying where that gesture is to be done—and that is what I will now follow up with. There is the Hadīth of ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿUmar (radiyallāhu ʿanhumā) reported in Sahīh Muslim: “The Prophet (sallallāhu ʿalaihi wa-sallam), when he sat in the prayer, would point with his finger.” Now, let us say we are sitting in the prayer, for example, between the two prostrations: should he point? No. What about the ‘sitting of rest (istirāhah)’, should he point his finger? No. Even though the wording is: “When he sat in the prayer.” So the sitting here is unrestricted (mutlaq). Yet no one says that pointing is done in every sitting. Why not? Because the clarification of this pointing came in other narrations in Sahīh Muslim and elsewhere, where it is stated: “When he sat for the tashahhud in the prayer…”—thus restricting the sitting to the tashahhud. So where, then, is the pointing of the finger to be done? In the tashahhud. What did we do with the ahādīth that did not mention the sitting of the tashahhud and instead left the sitting unrestricted? We carried the unrestricted wording upon the restricted wording. [That is the principle in jurisprudence] Likewise, we carry the unrestricted “standing” in the Hadīth of Wā’il, which states, “When he stood…” upon the restricted form of standing mentioned in the Hadīth in Sahīh Muslim. And by this, it becomes clear that what is established from the Prophet (sallallāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) is the placement [of the right hand over the left] in the first standing only. And this is the reason why we do not find throughout the works of the Muslim scholars, all of them, including the four Imāms and others, any authentic narration from any one of them stating that it is Sunnah to place the right hand over the left in the second standing. Additional Notes from al-Imām al-Albānī’s Book: “Asl Sifat Salāh an-Nabī (ﷺ)” And the Prophet (salallāhu ʿalaihi wasallam) would command with calmness and composure (itmi’nān) in the rukooʿ. Then, he said to the man who prayed incorrectly: “Then raise your head until you stand upright—taking every bone back to its proper place.” And in another narration, he (salallāhu ʿalaihi wasallam) said: “And when you rise, straighten your back, and raise your head until the bones return to their joints.” And he informed him: “No one’s prayer is complete if he does not do this.” So, Shaikh al-Albānī (rahimahullāh) commented: And what is intended by the term “the bones” here are the bones of the spinal column and its vertebrae—as has preceded recently in the discussion on “standing straight after rukooʿ …”. And “the joints” (al-mafāsil) is the plural of “mafsil”, the point at which every two bones in the body meet. Refer to al-Muʿjam al-Wasīt. A point of clarification: The intent of this Hadīth is clear and explicit—namely, the requirement of tranquillity and composure (itmi’nān) in this standing position. As for the deduction made by some of our brothers from the people of al-Hijāz and elsewhere, using this Hadīth as evidence for the legislation of placing the right hand over the left in this standing, then that is extremely far-fetched when considering the totality of the narrations of this Hadīth—known among the Fuqahā as “The Hadīth of the One Who Prayed Badly”, rather, it is a false deduction. That is because placing the right hand over the left has not been reported at all in the first standing [before the rukooʿ] in any of the chains of narration or wordings of the Hadīth. So, how can it be permissible to interpret the “taking every bone back to its proper place” mentioned in the Hadīth as “taking the left hand with the right” after rising from rukūʿ? [What I have said] would still be the case even if the collective wordings of the Hadīth supported such a meaning in that context. So how then, when the texts clearly indicate the opposite of that?! Furthermore, the “placement of the right hand over the left” is not what comes to mind from this Hadīth at all, because what is intended by “the bones” in it are the bones of the spine, as has preceded. And this supports what has been stated earlier from his action at this point in the Prayer (ﷺ): “He became upright until every vertebra returned to its place.” So reflect upon this fairly. And I do not doubt that placing the hands upon the chest in this standing is an innovated misguidance, for it has not been reported at all in any of the Ahādīth concerning the prayer—and how numerous they are! And had this posture in the Prayer possessed any basis, it would have been transmitted to us, even if by a single route. Supporting this position is that none of the Salaf ever did it, and none of the Imāms of Hadīth—so far as I know—ever mentioned it. And this does not contradict what Shaykh At-Tuwayjirī transmitted in his Risālah (pp. 18–19) from Imām Ahmad—may Allāh have mercy upon him—that he said: “If he wishes, he may let his hands hang at his sides after rising from the rukūʿ, and if he wishes, he may place them.” This is the meaning of what Sālih, the son of Imām Ahmad, mentioned in his Masā’il (p. 90) from his father. Indeed, he did not ascribe this statement to the Prophet (ﷺ) but rather he spoke it based upon his own ijtihād and his own opinion—and an opinion may be mistaken. So when the sound evidence establishes the innovated nature of a matter—such as that which we are discussing—then the statement of an Imām regarding it does not negate its being an innovation, as Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allāh have mercy upon him, clarified in some of his writings. Rather, I even find within this statement of Imām Ahmad that which indicates that the placement of the hands in question was not established in the Sunnah according to him, because he gave the choice between doing it or leaving it! So does the noble shaykh presume that the Imām would also give such a choice regarding the placement before rukūʿ?! Thus, it is established that the placement of the hands, right over the left after the rukooʿ, mentioned is not from the Sunnah, and that is the intended point. This is a brief word concerning this issue, and it is a subject that bears expansion and detailed discussion—but there is no scope for that here. Its proper place is in the refutation, which I indicated in the introduction to the fifth edition (p. 30) of this new printing. (End) Point of Note Regarding Tolerance in Differing Between Ahlus-Sunnah Shaikh al-Albānī (rahiamhullāh) did not consider his positions in matters of genuine ijtihād alongside his proofs to be reasons to declare those who differed with him to be astray or innovators. So, here, for example, the Shaikh viewed placing the right hand over the left after the rukooʿ to be an innovation. Why? Because, as he stated, there is no authentic narration from the Prophet (salallāhu ʿalaihi wasallam) or his Companions stating that it was done specifically after the rukooʿ. However, that in no way means that those who place their hands (right over the left) after the rukooʿ are innovators! Not at all. That is because they have a position based upon a considered ijitihād for which they bring evidence, as Shaikh al-Albānī himself mentioned in the discussion above. However, he found those deductions to be incorrect, as he clarified. Therefore, you do not hear from Shaikh al-Albāni ever saying that those scholars who differed with him in this issue or other similar issues are astray. Shaikhul-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullāh, d. 728H) stated: “And there is no one from the scholars except that he has sayings and actions that are not to be followed―alongside the fact that he is not to be censured or rebuked due to them. Statements and actions that are not known to be in clearcut contradiction to the Book and Sunnah, rather they are affairs open to ijtihād regarding which there is differing among the people of knowledge and imān, then it is possible that these affairs may be clearcut to some to whom Allāh has made the truth clear―however it is not allowed for him to make binding upon the people that which is clear to him but not clear to them.” (Majmūʿ al-Fatāwa, 10/ 383-384) Shaikhul-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullāh) also said: “For this reason, it is obligatory to make clear the condition of the one who errs in hadeeth and narrating, or the one who errs in opinion and fatwa, or the one who errs in Zuhd and worship. That is the case even if the mistaken person is a Mujtahid who is forgiven for his error and is rewarded for his ijtihād. Clarifying speech and action proven by the Book and Sunnah is obligatory even if that means opposing [the Mujitahid scholar] in his speech and action. And as for the one from whom it is known that ijtihād is admissible, then it is not permissible to mention him from the viewpoint of vilification and sin because Allah has forgiven him his mistake. Rather, it is obligatory, due to what he possesses of imān and taqwā, to have allegiance for him and to love him, and to establish that which Allāh has obligated from his rights, such as mentioning him with good, supplicating for him and so on.” (Majmū’ al-Fatāwa, 28/233-234) So this is our position with respect to our scholars who differed with each other in genuine matters of ijtihād. All of this shows that a Salafi, a person of Sunnah and a student of knowledge should be measured and very careful in his approach to differing―he should make allowances for those who differ with him in matters where it is known that the Salaf differed based on their understanding and reading of the texts. We should be tolerant, easy-going and gentle with Ahlus-Sunnah over matters of ijtihād wherein the scholars have differed. The Prophet (salallāhu ‘alaihi wasallam) said: يَا عَائِشَةُ إِنَّ اللَّهَ رَفِيقٌ يُحِبُّ الرِّفْقَ وَيُعْطِي عَلَى الرِّفْقِ مَا لاَ يُعْطِي عَلَى الْعُنْفِ وَمَا لاَ يُعْطِي عَلَى مَا سِوَاهُ “O ʿĀ’ishah! Verily Allah is Gentle and Kind, and He loves gentleness, and He rewards gentleness in a way that He does not reward harshness, nor anything else.” (Muslim, no. 2593) Benefit from al-Imām Ibn Bāz (rahimahullāh) Indeed, al-Imām al-Mujaddid ʿAbdul-ʿAzeez Ibn Bāz (rahimahullāh) responded to Imām al-Albānī (rahimahullāh) in the politest of tones while correcting what he saw to be a mistake on behalf of Shaikh al-Albānī in saying that ‘placing the hands upon the chest in this standing is an innovated misguidance’. Shaikh Ibn Bāz stated: That which has been stated by the Shaikh al-Allāmah Muhammad Nāsir ad-Deen al-Albānī that ‘placing the hands upon the chest [after rokooʿ] in this standing is an innovated misguidance’ is a clear error, and in saying this, he has no one who preceded him. Then he goes on to explain his own position while referring to Shaikh al-Albānī as ‘our brother, the noble shaikh, the ʿAllāmah’ and so on while correcting what he sees to be incorrect in this issue. So may Allah have mercy on these Imāms, and in that is a lesson for the students of knowledge in the manners of differing. (See vol. 11 of Ibn Bāz’s Majmūʿ wa Rasā’il Fatāwā) Abu Khadeejah Abdul-Wāhid. Audio of al-Imām al-Albānī Audio with Al-Imām al-Albānī, may Allah’s mercy be upon him. The discussion starts at 28 minutes and 10 seconds: Arabic Text of the Speech of al-Imām al-Albānī السائل : ما حكم وضع اليدين على الصدر بعد الركوع ؟ الشيخ : وضع اليدين بعد الركوع في القيام القصير هذا لم يرد حديث صحيح صريح عن النبي – صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم – أنه وضع اليمنى على اليسرى بعد أن رفع رأسه من الركوع ، ولذلك فهذا القول لا يُعرف ، أو بالأحرى لا يثبت عن أحد من السلف الصالح ولا التابعين ولا أتباعهم ، وفيهم الأئمة الأربعة المجتهدون ، لا يُعرف عنهم رواية ثابتة ومُتداولة في كتب أتباعهم الذين يروُون عنهم أقوالهم وفتاويهم أن أحدًا منهم قال بأن وضع اليدين بعد الركوع سُنَّة ، كما هو الشأن في وضعهما قبل الركوع ، ليس هناك أيُّ حديث ، ولو جاء الحديث صحيحًا وصريحًا لَسارعنا إليه ؛ لأن الأئمة كلهم أجمعوا على قولهم : ” إذا صح الحديث ؛ فهو مذهبي ” ، ولكن بعض العلماء المتأخرين يتمسَّكون بحديث في ” سنن النسائي ” من حديث وائل بن حجر قال : ” كان رسول الله – صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم – إذا قام في الصلاة وضع اليمنى على اليسرى ” ، فأخذوا من قول الراوي في هذا الحديث : ” إذا قام في الصلاة ” ، قام في الصلاة بلا شك من الناحية العربية يشمل القيام الأول والقيام الثاني ؛ لأنه حينما يرفع رأسه من الركوع يظلُّ قائمًا ، ففهمَ من هذا الحديث أن هذا القيام الثاني فيه وضع – أيضًا – لليدين كما هو الشأن في القيام الأول . ولكن هناك من علماء الأصول – أصول الفقه – قواعد وضوابط وضعوها لكي لا يلتبسَ الأمر على طالب العلم ، إذا جاء حديث بتعبير – بدنا نتكلَّم الآن يعني ببعض المصطلحات الفقهية ، ولا بد أنُّو فيكم – إن شاء الله – طلَّاب علم أقوياء ، فسيفهمون علينا – بإذن الله – ما نقوله من هذه الحيثيَّة – ، إذا جاء حديث مطلق في بعض الروايات ثم جاء مقيَّدًا في رواية أخرى ؛ فلا يجوز أن نأخذ من الحديث الأول المطلق على إطلاقه ، وإنما نأخذه مقيَّدًا بالحديث الثاني الذي فيه تقييد للحديث الأول ، هذا بلا شك من قرأ علم أصول الفقه يفهمه منِّي ، ولكن سأوضِّحه ببعض الأمثلة ، وبما يتعلق بنفس الصلاة ، بل ما يتعلق بنفس وضع اليدين ، لاحظوا أنُّو هنا حديث وائل ” كان إذا قام في الصلاة ” ، فذكر القيام في الصلاة ، انظروا الآن في حديث آخر في ” صحيح البخاري ” من حديث سهل بن سعد الساعدي قال : ” كانوا يُؤمرون بوضع اليمنى على اليسرى في الصلاة ” ، ما ذكر القيام ؟ فهنا الصلاة مطلقة ، فيدخل فيها غير القيام – أيضًا – ، مثلًا أنت جالس بين السجدتين ، فأنت في صلاة ، وحديث البخاري يقول : ” كانوا يُؤمرون بوضع اليمنى على اليسرى في الصلاة ” ، فأنت جالس بين السجدتين في الصلاة ؛ فهل تضع اليدين هكذا بين السجدتين ؟ الجواب لا ، لم ؟ مع أنَّ الحديث مطلق ، يشمل القيام ، ويشمل القعود الذي ليس فيه سنة ، أنا ما قلت التشهد ؛ لأنُّو في التشهد في عنَّا أحاديث أن الرسول كان إذا جلس للتشهد وضع اليمنى على اليمنى واليسرى على اليسرى ، لكن أقول : بين السجدتين ليس هناك سنَّة نصَّت على هيئة خاصة لليدين ؛ فلماذا لا يضعون اليمنى على اليسرى بين السجدتين إعمالًا لمطلق قوله في حديث سهل ” في الصلاة ” ؟ ما ذكر القيام ! كذلك في حديث ثابت عن النبي – صلى الله عليه وسلم – في ” صحيح ابن حبان ” : ( إنا – معشر الأنبياء – أُمرنا بثلاث ؛ بأن نضع أيماننا على شمائلنا في الصلاة ) ، كمان ما ذكر القيام ، قال في الصلاة ، ( وبتعجيل الفطور ، وتأخير السحور ) ، هذه ثلاثة أشياء ، أُمرنا بوضع اليمنى على اليسرى في الصلاة ، ما أحد يقول أنه يُشرع أن نضع اليدين في الصلاة ونحن في غير القيام . كذلك مثلًا في هناك سجدة – عفوًا – جلسة هي التي يسمِّيها فقهاء الشافعية وغيرهم بجلسة الاستراحة ، يعني إذا انتهيت من السجدة الثانية في الركعة الأولى ، وأردت أن تنهضَ إلى الركعة الثانية لا تنهض فورًا ، وإنما تجلس جلسة خفيفة ، فلا تفعل هكذا ثم تقوم ، مع أنُّو الحديثين هدول بيقولوا في الصلاة ، ما قالوا في القيام ، ما هو جوابهم عن هذين الحديثين ؟ قالوا : نقول في الصلاة يعني في قيام الصلاة ؛ ليه ؟ لأنه قيِّدت الصلاة بأحاديث الوضع الأخرى بالقيام ، وهذا هو الجواب العلمي الصحيح . إذًا لنقول ، فلنقل في حديث وائل بن حجر : ” كان إذا قام في الصلاة ” نقول القيام الأول ، مُش هذا قيام مطلق ؛ لم ؟ لأنه جاء بيانه في حديث وائل بن حجر في ” صحيح مسلم ” ، روى مسلم في ” صحيحه ” عن وائل بن حجر أنه لما جاء إلى النبي – صلى الله عليه وسلم – جاءه والوقت بارد في الشتاء ، فرأى الرسول – عليه السلام – يصلي وعليه ثوب ، ويرفع يديه حينما دخل في الصلاة قال : الله أكبر ورفع يديه تحت الثوب ، ووضع اليمنى على اليسرى ، ثم ذكر ، ثم ركع ، ثم رفع رأسه من الركوع ، وقال سمع الله لمن حمده ، ثم سجد ، فنجد في هذا الحديث وهو يتابع وصفَ صلاة الرسول – عليه السلام – ، فنجد في هذا الحديث أمرين اثنين : أولًا : قيَّد القيام الذي ذكر في الحديث الأول بأنه القيام الأول . ثانيًا : لما جاء لذكر القيام الثاني بعد الركوع ، ما ذكر هذاك الوضع الذي فهموه من الحديث المطلق في لفظة القيام . إذًا قوله – عليه الصلاة والسلام – ، قول الراوي عن الرسول – عليه السلام – أنه ” كان إذا قام في الصلاة ” قام هنا يعني القيام الأول ؛ ليه ؟ لأنُّو الأحاديث يفسِّر بعضها بعضًا ، فكما فسرنا حديث سهل بن سعد أنهم كانوا يؤمرون بوضع اليمنى على اليسرى ، وحديث الأنبياء أمروا بوضع اليمنى على اليسرى في الصلاة ، فسَّرنا الصلاة هنا في القيام ؛ أي في الصلاة قيامًا ، كذلك نفسِّر القيام المذكور في حديث وائل كان إذا قام في الصلاة بالقيام الأول ، يُفسِّر بعضها بعضًا ، وهذا له أمثلة كثيرة جدًّا في الأحاديث النبوية . أنهي الكلام بمثال أخير ، هناك حديث في ” سنن أبي داود ” و ” مسند الإمام أحمد ” وغيره عن أنس بن مالك قال : ” كان رسول الله – صلى الله عليه وسلم – يُشير في الصلاة ” ، إذًا ممكن أنا أجمع فأقول هذه سنة ، ثم أعمل هكذا أشير ، ما أحد يقول بهذا ؛ لم ؟ لأن هذا الحديث جاء بيان الإشارة وين ، وهذا ما سأتابعه ، جاء حديث عبد الله بن عمر في ” صحيح مسلم ” كان النبي – صلى الله عليه وسلم – إذا جلس في الصَّلاة أشار بإصبعه ، جلسنا في الصلاة – مثلًا – بين السجدتين ، يشير ؟ لأ ، جلسة الاستراحة يشير ؟ لأ ، مع أنه يقول إذا جلس في الصلاة ، فالجلوس هنا مطلق ، ما أحد يقول بهذا ، لم ؟ لأنه جاء بيان هالإشارة في روايات أخرى في ” صحيح مسلم ” وغيره قال : كان إذا جلس في التشهد في الصلاة ، فقيَّد الجلسة بالتشهد . إذًا الإشارة وين تكون ؟ في التشهد ، ماذا فعلنا بالأحاديث التي لم تذكر جلسة التشهد ، وإنما أطلقت الجلوس ، حملنا المُطلق على المقيَّد ، كذلك نحمل مطلق القيام في حديث وائل : ” كان إذا قام ” على القيام المقيد في حديث مسلم ، وبذلك يتبيَّن أن الذي ثبت عن النبي – صلى الله عليه وسلم – إنما هو الوضع في القيام الأول ، وهذا هو السبب أنَّه لا نجد في بطون علماء المسلمين قاطبة من الأئمة الأربعة وغيرهم رواية ثابتة عن أحدهم ؛ أن من السنة وضع اليمنى على اليسرى في القيام الثاني . (End) Abu Khadeejah.