Introduction

This paper seeks to investigate the legal ruling on an individual sitting for a brief moment (jilsah al-istirāḥa) after performing the second prostration of the first or third unit in any Ṣalāt, before getting up to continue their prayers. Most Shīʿī, Sunnī and Zaydī jurists when discussing the rulings on prayers have offered an opinion on this sitting. In this paper we will initially look at opinions of Shīʿī jurists in chronological order, which primarily revolve around the verdict of wujūb or istiḥbāb – and then the various arguments used to support the different legal verdicts. These arguments include ijmāʿ, the traditions, and the principle of barā’ah al-dhimma. The paper analyzes all three arguments and concludes that there is no strong valid justification for the verdict of wujūb, nor any reason for precaution and that the correct verdict is what the majority of Shīʿī scholars have gone towards, which is istiḥbāb.

Scholarly Opinions

The earliest opinion on the topic is what has been attributed to Ibn Abī ʿAqīl (d. 4^th century), Ibn al-Junayd (d. 4^th century) and Ibn Bābuwayh (d. 329/939) by Shahīd Awwal in his al-Dhikra.^[1] The exact statements are as follows:

و قال ابن أبي عقيل: إذا أراد النهوض ألزم ألييه الأرض، ثم نهض معتمدا على يديه.

و قال ابن الجنيد: إذا رفع رأسه من السجدة الثانية في الركعة الاولى و الثالثة، حتى تماس ألياه الأرض أو اليسرى وحدها يسيرا ثم يقوم، جاز ذلك.

و قال علي بن بابويه: لا بأس ان لا يقعد في النافلة.

The words of Ibn Abī ʿAqīl and ʿAlī b. Bābuwayh apparently imply wujūb, while the words of Ibn al-Junayd imply ibāḥa. Shaykh Ṣadūq (d. 381/991) in his al-Faqīh seems to imply wujūb of sitting down before getting up.^[2] Shaykh Mufīd (d. 413/1022) mentions the jilsah in his al-Muqniʿah^[3] but it is not clear whether he meant wujūb or istiḥbāb, hence perhaps why the author of Miftāḥ al-Karāmah says his words give a scent of wujūb.^[4]

Sayyid Murtaḍa (d. 436/1044) held the view that it was obligatory to perform the jilsah al-istirāḥa in his al-Intiṣār^[5] and al-Nāṣiriyyāṭ^[6] and cited a consensus for it. The first scholar from whom we have a clear statement of istiḥbāb is Shaykh Ṭūsī (d. 460/1067) who makes this claim in al-Jumal wa al-ʿUqūd, al-Khilāf^[7] and al-Mabṣūṭ.^[8] The words of Sallār al-Daylamī (d. 463/1071) in his al-Marāsim^[9] are also not clear. Qāḍī ibn al-Barrāj (d. 481/1088) in his al-Muhadhdhab^[10] mentions the sitting in the list of recommended acts of prayers. Later, Ibn Zuhra al-Ḥalabī (d. 588/1189) in al-Ghunya^[11] claims it is wujūb for similar reasons as Sayyid Murtaḍa, citing consensus, precaution and absence of liability. The words of Ibn Idrīs al-Ḥillī (d. 598/1201) in his al-Sarā’ir are also not clear.^[12]

Subsequent generation of scholars such as Muḥaqqiq Ḥillī (d. 676/1277) in al-Muʿtabar,^[13] Yaḥya b. Sa’īd al-Ḥillī (d. 690) in al-Jāmiʿ lil-Sharāʿi^[14], ‘Allāmah Ḥillī (d. 726/1325) in Irshād al-Adhhān^[15] and Tadhkirah,^[16] Shahīd Awwal (d. 786/1384) in al-Bayān^[17], al-Dhikra^[18] and al-Durūs,^[19] Muqaddas Ardebellī (d. 933/1585) in Majmaʿ al-Fā’idah,^[20] Muḥaqqiq Karakī (d. 940/1534) in Jāmiʿ al-Maqāṣid,^[21] and Shahīd Thānī (d. 966/1559) in Rawḍ al-Jinān^[22] all believe in istiḥbāb.

The earliest mention of a precaution seems to be in the words of Bahā al-Dīn ‘Āmilī (d. 1031 AH) in his al-Ithnā ʿAsharīyah fī al-Ṣalāṭ al-Yawmīyyah,^[23] due to the consensus cited on its wujūb by Sayyid Murtaḍa. However, Muḥaqqiq Sabzwārī (d. 1090 AH) in his Dhakhīra al-Ma’ād,^[24] and Fayḍ Kāshānī (d. 1091 AH) in his Muʿtaṣim al-Shī’a^[25] believed in istiḥbāb. ʿAllāmah Majlisī (d. 1110 AH) agrees istihbāb is the stronger opinion, but he leans towards precaution in Biḥār al-Anwār:^[26]

Fāḍil Hindī (d. 1137) leans towards wujūb in Kashf al-Lithām,^[27] and so does Ṣāḥib al-Ḥadāʿiq^[28] (d. 1186/1772). Waḥīd Bihbahānī (d. 1205/1791) in his Maṣābīḥ al-Ẓilām^[29] leans towards the famous opinion of istiḥbāb, but Ḥusayn b. Muḥammad Baḥrānī Āl ʿUṣfūr (d. 1216) in his Sidād al-ʿIbād^[30], and Sayyid ʿAlī b. Muḥammad Ṭabāṭabā’ī Ḥā’irī (d. 1231 AH) in al-Sharḥ al-Ṣaghīr^[31] argue for obligatory precaution.

Mīrzā Qumī (d. 1231/1815) in Ghanā’im al-Ayyām^[32] leans towards obligatory precaution. Ḥasan Kāshif al-Ghiṭā (d. 1262 AH) believed it is mustaḥabb but in Anwār al-Fiqāha says that precaution is better.^[33]

Ṣāḥib al-Jawāhir (d. 1266/1850) believed in istiḥbāb.^[34] Sayyid Muḥammad Kāẓim Yazdī (d. 1337/1919) in his al-ʿUrwah al-Wuthqa believed in obligatory precaution.^[35] ʿAbd al-Karīm Ḥā’irī Yazdī (d. 1355/1937) says istiḥbāb in his Kitāb al-Ṣalāt.^[36] Āyatullah Borujerdī (d. 1380/1961) in Tibyān al-Ṣalāt^[37] says wujūb – although in Nihāyah al-Taqrīr it seems to say he leaned towards precaution.^[38]

Sayyid Muḥsin al-Ḥakīm (d. 1390/1970) in al-Mustamsak^[39] argues for obligatory precaution, while Sayyid Aḥmad Khonsārī (d. 1405/1985) in his Jāmiʿ al-Madārik,^[40] Sayyid ʿAbd al-Aʿla Sabzwārī (d. 1414/1993) in his Muhadhdhab al-Aḥkām,^[41] Muḥammad ʿAlī Arākī (d. 1415/1994) in Kitāb al-Ṣalāt^[42] all say istiḥbāb.

Sayyid Khū’ī in his Sharḥ al-ʿUrwah^[43] says it is not obligatory, but that there is an obligatory precaution. In his Minhāj al-Ṣāliḥīn he says it is a recommended precaution, while Sayyid Muḥammad Taqī in his Mabānī of Khū’ī’s Minhāj justifies this as follows:

و لنا أن نقول: ان وجه الفعل لم يكن معلوما و يمكن أن يكون الوجه في تركهما عليهما السلام التقية الا أن يقال: ان حديث زرارة يدل على أنهما عليهما السلام كانا مستمرين في عدم الاستراحة فلا مجال لحمله على التقية فيقع التعارض بين الجانبين و بعد التعارض تصل النوبة الى الاصل اللفظي و العملي و مقتضاه عدم الوجوب و طريق الاحتياط ظاهر.

ʿAlī Panāh Ishtihārdī (d. 1429) in his Madārik al-ʿUrwah^[44] concludes wujūb, while Sayyid Ṣādiq Rūḥānī believes the only reconciliation between the traditions is that of istiḥbāb.^[45]

Of the 39 scholars surveyed, 7 believed in wujūb of sitting, 1 apparently believed in ibāḥa, 19 believed in istiḥbāb, 8 believed in obligatory precaution, 1 believed in recommended precaution, and the opinion of 3 is not very clear.

Evidence

1. Ijmāʿ – Consensus

If someone claims that there is consensus amongst the Imāmī scholars that the jilsah al-istirāḥa is obligatory, then we say:

1) There is no consensus on the matter – neither for wujūb nor istiḥbāb – as can be seen with the difference of opinion as early as Shaykh Ṭūsī. In fact, some scholars have cast doubt on what Sayyid Murtaḍa actually meant when he gave the verdict of wujūb and cited consensus as evidence for it. Muqaddis Ardebellī says:

و العجب من السيد: يذهب الى وجوب أمثاله، بأمثاله، مع عدم قبوله الخبر الواحد من العدل. لعل له دليل آخر غيره، و ينقل في أكثر هذه المسائل، الإجماع، و ليس بثابت بحيث ينفع مع هذه الشهرة العظيمة: و هو اعرف بما قال: و لعله أراد شدة الاستحباب، فيصح الإجماع، فإنه كثيرا ما يقال للندب، الوجوب، و للكراهة التحريم: و هو كثير في كلام المتقدمين، مثل الشيخ المفيد، و الصدوق، على ما رأينا و غيرهما، على ما قيل

What is strange from Sayyid is that he went towards the opinion of wujūb on such a matter with the likes of such traditions, while he did not accept the solitary report of a just person. Perhaps he had another argument, and in most of these matters he cites a consensus, and this is not established especially when there is such a great popularity (on the contrary) – and he is more knowledgeable to what he has said. Perhaps he meant the intensity of istiḥbāb in which case the consensus is valid, because many a times what is actually recommended is referred to as wujūb, and what is actually detested is referred to as taḥrīm. This is widely prevalent in the words of the classical scholars such as Shaykh Mufīd and Ṣadūq as per what we have seen, and other than them two as per what has been said.^[46]

Likewise, grandson of Shahīd Thānī, Fakhr al-Dīn Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan says:

و يؤيّده ما يظهر من أنّ الخلاف إنّما هو في الوجوب و الاستحباب و الأوّل منقول عن السيد المرتضى رضى اللّه عنه و أنّه ادّعى عليه الإجماع و لا يخلو من غرابة و لا يبعد أن يريد بالوجوب (تأكّد) الاستحباب كما يستعمل في كلام المتقدمين مثل الصدوق و المفيد بل في الأخبار وجوده بكثرة

The difference of opinion is between wujūb and istiḥab. The first is transmitted from Sayyid Murtaḍa – may Allah be pleased with him – and he has cited consensus on the matter, but this is not free from strangeness. It is not far-fetched for him to have meant an emphasis on istiḥbāb when he said wujūb, as it is used in the words of the classical scholars like Ṣadūq, Mufīd and in fact it is widely present in the traditions.^[47]

2) Even if there happened to have been a consensus on the matter – which does not exist – it is very clearly madrakī and hence not binding.

2. Barā’a al-Dhimma / Ishtighāl al-Dhimma

Sayyid Murtaḍa says, other than consensus, the evidence for the wujūb of jilsah al-istirāḥa is absence of liability (barā’a al-dhimma). However, we question the applicability of this principle here since barā’a al-dhimma is applied once we know the validity of a responsibility (taklīf) with certain conditions and then doubt whether that same responsibility has been fulfilled with the absence of that condition. What we are dealing with in our situation is whether the sitting is even a part which is a condition for the validity of the Ṣalāt to begin with. In this situation we are to apply the principle of absence of a part (‘adam al-juz’īyyah), which has governance^[48] (ḥukūmah) over the principle of barā’ah al-dhimma – as the scholars of legal theory themselves have demonstrated.^[49]

In other words, our fundamental doubt is related to whether the jilsa is a condition for the validity of the Ṣalāt, in which case the principle suggests we are to presume it is not a condition.

3. Traditions

The predominant argument for proving wujūb or istiḥbāb for jilsah al-istirāḥa are the narrations. In this case, we have no choice but to investigate every tradition on the subject. We will divide the narrations into two categories:

1) Those that apparently signify or have been used to prove the obligation or istiḥbāb of jilsah al-istirāhā

2) Those that apparently signify or have been used to prove the permissibility or istiḥbāb of abandoning it

3.1) Narrations Used to Prove Wujūb or Istiḥbāb

Ḥadīth #1 – Istibṣār^[50] and Tahdhīb^[51]

أَخْبَرَنِي الشَّيْخُ رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنِ الصَّفَّارِ عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عِيسَى عَنْ عَلِيِّ بْنِ الْحَكَمِ عَنْ أَبِي أَيُّوبَ الْخَزَّازِ عَنْ عَبْدِ الْحَمِيدِ بْنِ عَوَّاضٍ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع قَالَ: رَأَيْتُهُ إِذَا رَفَعَ رَأْسَهُ مِنَ السَّجْدَةِ الثَّانِيَةِ مِنَ الرَّكْعَةِ الْأُولَى جَلَسَ حَتَّى يَطْمَئِنَّ ثُمَّ يَقُومُ.

‘Abd al-Ḥamīd b. ‘Awwāḍ says, I saw Abī ʿAbdillah (a), when he raised his head up from the second prostration in the first unit, he would sit until he would be stable, then he would get up.

Grading: This is an authentic (ṣaḥīh) narration if one does not cast doubt on Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. Walīd who has no explicit tawthīq.

Meaning: This narration signifies that ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd saw Imam Ṣādiq (a) sit after the 2^nd sajda in the first unit but it is silent on whether he ever saw him do that in the 3^rd unit or not. Furthermore, the narration does not signify wujūb, and at the very least it implies permissibility of sitting because there is nothing in the tradition which indicates continuity of action.

Ḥadīth #2 – Tahdhīb^[52]

أَحْمَدُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ عَنْ عَلِيِّ بْنِ الْحَكَمِ عَنْ دَاوُدَ الْخَنْدَقِيِّ عَنْ أَبِي بَصِيرٍ قَالَ قَالَ أَبُو عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع‏ إِذَا قُمْتَ فِي الصَّلَاةِ فَاعْلَمْ أَنَّكَ بَيْنَ يَدَيِ اللَّهِ فَإِنْ كُنْتَ لَا تَرَاهُ فَاعْلَمْ أَنَّهُ يَرَاكَ فَأَقْبِلْ قِبَلَ صَلَاتِكَ وَ لَا تَمْتَخِطْ وَ لَا تَبْزُقْ وَ لَا تَنْقُضْ أَصَابِعَكَ وَ لَا تَوَرَّكْ فَإِنَّ قَوْماً قَدْ عُذِّبُوا بِنَقْضِ الْأَصَابِعِ وَ التَّوَرُّكِ فِي الصَّلَاةِ فَإِذَا رَفَعْتَ رَأْسَكَ مِنَ الرُّكُوعِ فَأَقِمْ صُلْبَكَ حَتَّى تَرْجِعَ مَفَاصِلُكَ وَ إِذَا سَجَدْتَ فَافْعَلْ مِثْلَ ذَلِكَ وَ إِذَا كُنْتَ فِي الرَّكْعَةِ الْأُولَى وَ الثَّانِيَةِ فَرَفَعْتَ رَأْسَكَ مِنَ السُّجُودِ فَاسْتَتِمَّ جَالِساً حَتَّى تَرْجِعَ مَفَاصِلُكَ فَإِذَا نَهَضْتَ فَقُلْ بِحَوْلِ اللَّهِ وَ قُوَّتِهِ أَقُومُ وَ أَقْعُدُ فَإِنَ‏ عَلِيّاً ع هَكَذَا كَانَ‏ يَفْعَلُ‏.

Abū Baṣīr narrates from Abū ʿAbdillah (a) who said: When you get up for the Ṣalāt, then know that you are in front of Allah (swt). Even though you cannot see Him, know that He (swt) can see you. So approach towards your prayers, do not blow your nose, nor spit, nor crack your knuckles, nor place your hands on your hips (tawarruk) for a nation was chastised due to cracking their knuckles and for placing their hands on their hips in Ṣalāt. When you raise your head from Rukū’ then stand up straight till your joints return back, and when you prostrate then do the same. When you are in the first and second^[53] unit and raise your head from prostration, then complete it while you sit to the extent that your joints return back. When you raise up, say bi-ḥawl lillah wa qūwwatihi aqūmu wa aq’ud. ʿAlī (a) would do this.

Grading: This tradition is authentic.

Meaning: This nature of this tradition is very clear in that it signifies the recommendation of sitting before getting up, particularly when it is mentioned in combination with other acts related to etiquettes of prayers. Furthermore, saying that this is what ʿAlī (a) would do in his prayers itself shows that these acts do not have wujūb, or else it would make no sense for an Imam (a) to cite the actions of Imam ʿAlī (a) to prove the obligation of something in Ṣalāṭ.

Ḥadīth #3 – Istibṣār^[54] and Tahdhīb^[55]

سَمَاعَةُ عَنْ أَبِي بَصِيرٍ قَالَ قَالَ أَبُو عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع‏ إِذَا رَفَعْتَ رَأْسَكَ مِنَ السَّجْدَةِ الثَّانِيَةِ مِنَ الرَّكْعَةِ الْأُولَى حِينَ تُرِيدُ أَنْ تَقُومَ‏ فَاسْتَوِ جَالِساً ثُمَ‏ قُمْ‏.

Abū Baṣīr narrates from Abū ʿAbdillah (a) who said: When you raise your head from the second prostration of the first unit while you intend on getting up, sit steadily, then get up.

Grading: There are two possibilities here – first is that this tradition is genuinely mursal since Shaykh Ṭūsī neither mentions a chain of narrators for it in Tahdhīb nor in his Istibṣar; or one could argue that there is indeed a chain for it and Ṭūsī intentionally did not cite it for brevity, or it was dropped by one of the scribes.

Regarding the second possibility, there are around 24 different chains of transmissions in Tahdhīb which end with Samā’ah narrating from Abū Baṣir. These traditions cover a wide range of topics from ṭahārah to ḥudūd. Despite this, one may be inclined to say that in the specific chapter of kayfīyyah al-ṣalāt, Shaykh Ṭūsī narrates four traditions from Ḥusayn b. Sa’īd – who we know possessed a Kitāb al-Ṣalāt – whose chains end at Samā’ah b. Mihrān from Abū Baṣir. One of these traditions is the one that concerns us above and is without a complete chain, while three of them^[56] have a complete chain as follows:

Ḥusayn b. Saʿīd from Faḍalah b. Ayyūb from Ḥusayn b. ‘Uthmān from Samāʿah b. Mihrān from Abū Baṣīr.

Given this, one may argue that our tradition is not mursal, rather it possesses the same chain as the other three traditions in the same chapter and that it was omitted intentionally or accidentally.

However, this possibility can be weakened by saying that though this specific chapter does only mention these 4 traditions ending with Samāʿah from Abī Baṣīr, but this is not to say that these are the only traditions concerning Ṣalāt ending with these names. In fact, two different chains exist in chapters immediately following it^[57] also concerning laws of Ṣalāt as follows:

عَلِيُّ بْنُ مَهْزِيَارَ عَنْ فَضَالَةَ بْنِ أَيُّوبَ عَنِ الْحُسَيْنِ بْنِ عُثْمَانَ عَنْ سَمَاعَةَ بْنِ مِهْرَانَ عَنْ أَبِي‏ بَصِير

الْحُسَيْنُ بْنُ سَعِيدٍ عَنْ عُثْمَانَ بْنِ عِيسَى عَنْ سَمَاعَةَ عَنْ أَبِي‏ بَصِيرٍ قَالَ سَمِعْتُ أَبَا عَبْدِ اللَّه‏

As such, given that there are other possible chains narrating traditions on Ṣalāt, the mere existence of three traditions in one chapter does not mean that the fourth tradition should necessarily be of the same chain. This is in addition to the fact that since complete chains have been mentioned for a vast majority of traditions in that chapter, even repetitive ones, it is odd for Ṭūsī to have omitted this specific chain both in Tahdhīb and Istibṣar for any other reason except that there is genuine irsāl in the tradition. This irsāl is also pointed out by Fakhr al-Dīn.^[58]

Some have tried to strengthen the narration through the method of taʿwīḍ al-sanad, by saying that the path of Shaykh Ṣadūq to Samāʿah is authentic, and the path of Ṭūsī to all of Ṣadūq’s books and traditions is also authentic. Though there are many problems with the method of taʿwīḍ al-sanad, even if we were to accept it, this justification is not sensible since there is no way to know if this specific tradition even existed in Ṣadūq’s corpus – particularly when we do not find it in any of his extant works today.

Meaning: The narration is very clear and has verbal signification where the Imam commands Abū Baṣīr to sit up straight after the second sajdah of the first rakʿah, then get up. This command is to be understood as wujūb without the existence of any other contextual indicators. Interestingly, even this narration specifically mentions the first rakʿah and hence the prima-facie of the wujūb will only be applicable to the first rakʿah.

Ḥadīth #4 – Tahdhīb^[59]

عَنْهُ عَنْ يَعْقُوبَ بْنِ يَزِيدَ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ الْحَسَنِ بْنِ زِيَادٍ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ أَبِي حَمْزَةَ عَنْ عَلِيِّ بْنِ الْحَزَوَّرِ عَنِ الْأَصْبَغِ بْنِ نُبَاتَةَ قَالَ: كَانَ أَمِيرُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ ع إِذَا رَفَعَ رَأْسَهُ مِنَ السُّجُودِ قَعَدَ حَتَّى يَطْمَئِنَّ ثُمَّ يَقُومُ فَقِيلَ لَهُ يَا أَمِيرَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ كَانَ مِنْ قَبْلِكَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ وَ عُمَرُ إِذَا رَفَعُوا رُءُوسَهُمْ عَنِ السُّجُودِ نَهَضُوا عَلَى صُدُورِ أَقْدَامِهِمْ كَمَا تَنْهَضُ الْإِبِلُ فَقَالَ أَمِيرُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ ع إِنَّمَا يَفْعَلُ‏ ذَلِكَ‏ أَهْلُ‏ الْجَفَاءِ مِنَ‏ النَّاسِ‏ إِنَ‏ هَذَا مِنْ‏ تَوْقِيرِ الصَّلَاةِ.

Aṣbagh b. Nubātah says: When Amīr al-Mu’minīn (a) would raise his head from prostration, he would sit until he would be stable, then he would get up. It was said to him, O Amīr al-Mu’minīn, before you when Abū Bakr and ‘Umar would raise their heads from prostration, they would rise up on the back of their feet just like a camel rises up. Amīr al-Mu’minīn (a) said: Only the harsh amongst the people do that. This (act of sitting) is a reverence for the Ṣalāt.

Grading: Ḍa‘īf due to ‘Alī b. Hazawwar who is not mentioned in Imāmī works, and in Sunnī works he has been weakened very harshly and accused of tadlīs.

Meaning: This narration has been used to argue for wujūb, but the reason for that is not clear. The Imam was seen performing the jilsah al-istirāḥa, but when asked about the caliphs he (a) said only those who are harsh get up directly, and that jilsah al-istirāḥa is from the matters of giving respect to the prayers (tawqīr al-ṣalāt).

The reasoning in the tradition and the description of those who do not perform the sitting acts as a connected contextual indicator (qarīnah muṭṭaṣilah) for us to understand istiḥbāb from the actions of the Imam and not wujūb – for it is a sign of respect, not a condition of its validity. This is what Ṣāḥib al-Jawāhir also alludes to when he says this narration gives the scent of istiḥbāb.^[60]

Ḥadīth #5 – Khiṣāl^[61]

حَدَّثَنَا أَبِي رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا سَعْدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ قَالَ حَدَّثَنِي مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عِيسَى بْنِ عُبَيْدٍ الْيَقْطِينِيُّ عَنِ الْقَاسِمِ بْنِ يَحْيَى عَنْ جَدِّهِ الْحَسَنِ بْنِ رَاشِدٍ عَنْ أَبِي بَصِيرٍ وَ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ مُسْلِمٍ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع قَالَ حَدَّثَنِي أَبِي عَنْ جَدِّي عَنْ‏ آبَائِهِ ع‏ أَنَّ أَمِيرَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ ع عَلَّمَ أَصْحَابَهُ فِي مَجْلِسٍ وَاحِدٍ أَرْبَعَمِائَةِ بَابٍ مِمَّا يُصْلِحُ لِلْمُسْلِمِ فِي دِينِهِ وَ دُنْيَاه‏…

اجْلِسُوا فِي الرَّكْعَتَيْنِ‏ (في التحف « بعد السجدتين») حَتَّى تَسْكُنَ جَوَارِحُكُمْ ثُمَ‏ قُومُوا فَإِنَ‏ ذَلِكَ مِنْ فِعْلِنَا

Amīr al-Mu‘minīn said: Sit between the two units (in al-Tuḥaf: after the two prostrations) until your limbs are tranquil, then get up. That is from our actions.

Grading: Ḍa‘īf – Qāsim b. Yaḥya and Ḥasan b. Rāṣhid do not have any tawthīq and Sayyid Khū’ī had strengthened them through their occurrence in Kāmil al-Ziyārāt^[62] – a view he himself later changed. This is a lengthy tradition and it has no unified context (siyāq), often mentioning matters which are obligatory and recommended in a mixed manner.

Meaning: The prima-facie of this sentence is in istiḥbāb, since it says this is from “our actions” (min fi‘linā). If it was from the obligatory conditions of the Ṣalāṭ, such a causal explanation would be meaningless.

Ḥadīth #6 – ‘Awālī al-La’ālī^[63]

وَ قَالَ ع لِمَنْ عَلَّمَهُ الصَّلَاةَ ثُمَّ اسْجُدْ مُمَكِّناً جَبْهَتَكَ‏ مِنَ الْأَرْضِ ثُمَّ ارْفَعْ حَتَّى تَرْجِعَ مَفَاصِلُكَ وَ تَطْمَئِنَّ جَالِساً.

The Prophet (p) said to the one who he (p) was teaching the Ṣalāt: Then prostrate so that your forehead touches the earth, then raise it until your joints fold back, and sit stably.

Grading: Ḍa‘īf – there is no chain for this tradition, and it appears that parts of it were taken from a Sunnī Prophetic narration.^[64]

Meaning: It is not clear that this narration is talking about the jilsah al-istirāḥa, rather it could be speaking about the siting in between the two prostrations. This becomes even more clear if we consider this line to have been taken from the Prophetic narration found in al-Sunan al-Kubra.

Ḥadīth #7 – Aṣl of Zayd al-Narsi^[65]

زيد عن ابى الحسن موسى ع‏ انه كان اذا رفع رأسه فى صلوته من السجدة الاخيرة جلس جلسة ثم‏ نهض‏ للقيام‏ و بادر بركبتيه من الارض قبل يديه.

When Abū al-Ḥasan Mūsa (a) would raise his head in the last prostration of his prayers, he would sit and then raise up to stand, and he begin rising his knees from the earth before his hands.

Grading: Ḍa‘īf – the extant Aṣl of Zayd itself is problematic and a discussion on it is outside the scope of this paper.

Meaning: Since this narration implies a recurring practice by the Imam, it may be possible to understand istiḥbāb from it.

The same tradition is found in Biḥār^[66] but with a few additional words:

كِتَابُ زَيْدٍ النَّرْسِيِّ عَنْ أَبِي الْحَسَنِ مُوسَى ع‏ أَنَّهُ كَانَ إِذَا رَفَعَ رَأْسَهُ فِي صَلَاتِهِ مِنَ السَّجْدَةِ الْأَخِيرَةِ جَلَسَ جَلْسَةً ثُمَ‏ نَهَضَ‏ لِلْقِيَامِ‏ وَ بَادَرَ بِرُكْبَتَيْهِ مِنَ الْأَرْضِ قَبْلَ يَدَيْهِ وَ إِذَا سَجَدَ بَادَرَ بِهِمَا الْأَرْضَ قَبْلَ رُكْبَتَيْهِ.

When Abū al-Ḥasan Mūsa (a) would raise his head in the last prostration of his prayers, he would sit and then raise up to stand, and he begin rising his knees from the earth before his hands, and when he would prostrate he would place his hands on the earth before his knees.

Ḥadīth #8 – Aṣl of Zayd al-Narsi^[67]

وَ مِنْهُ قَالَ سَمِعْتُ أَبَا الْحَسَنِ ع يَقُولُ‏ إِذَا رَفَعْتَ رَأْسَكَ مِنْ آخِرِ سَجْدَتِكَ‏ فِي الصَّلَاةِ قَبْلَ أَنْ تَقُومَ فَاجْلِسْ جَلْسَةً ثُمَّ بَادِرْ بِرُكْبَتَيْكَ إِلَى الْأَرْضِ قَبْلَ يَدَيْكَ وَ ابْسُطْ يَدَيْكَ بَسْطاً وَ اتَّكِ عَلَيْهِمَا ثُمَّ قُمْ فَإِنَّ ذَلِكَ وَقَارُ الْمُؤْمِنِ الْخَاشِعِ لِرَبِّهِ وَ لَا تَطِيشُ مِنْ سُجُودِكَ مُبَادِراً إِلَى الْقِيَامِ كَمَا يَطِيشُ هَؤُلَاءِ الْأَقْشَابُ فِي صَلَاتِهِمْ.

I heard Abā al-Ḥasan (a) say: When you raise your head in the last prostration of your Ṣalāṭ, before you stand, sit and then raise your knees up from the earth before your hands. Extend your hands out and rely upon them, then stand up. This is from the dignity of a believer who is humble towards his Lord, and do not be frivolous by raising directly up from your prostration, like the baneful do in their Ṣalāṭ.

Grading: Ḍa‘īf – the extant Aṣl of Zayd itself is problematic as mentioned in the previous narration.

Meaning: The prima-facie of this narration signifies istiḥbāb and not requirement, due to use of words like it is a sign of a respect of a believer who is fearful of His Lord.

An important point to note is that none of the above traditions implied the invalidity of one’s prayers if they did not perform the jilsah.

Ḥadīth #9 – Qurb al-Isnād^[68]

وَ عَنْهُ، عَنْ بَكْرِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ الْأَزْدِيِّ قَالَ: سَأَلَهُ أَبُو بَصِيرٍ- وَ أَنَا جَالِسٌ عِنْدَهُ- عَنِ الْحُورِ الْعِينِ، فَقَالَ لَهُ جُعِلْتُ فِدَاكَ أَ خَلْقٌ مِنْ خَلْقِ الدُّنْيَا أَمْ خَلْقٌ مِنْ خَلْقِ الْجَنَّةِ فَقَالَ لَهُ مَا أَنْتَ وَ ذَاكَ عَلَيْكَ بِالصَّلَاةِ فَإِنَّ آخِرَ مَا أَوْصَى بِهِ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ص وَ حَثَّ عَلَيْهِ الصَّلَاةُ إِيَّاكُمْ أَنْ يَسْتَخِفَّ أَحَدُكُمْ بِصَلَاتِهِ فَلَا هُوَ إِذَا كَانَ شَابّاً أَتَمَّهَا وَ لَا هُوَ إِذَا كَانَ شَيْخاً قَوِيَ عَلَيْهَا وَ مَا أَشَدُّ مِنْ سَرِقَةِ الصَّلَاةِ فَإِذَا قَامَ أَحَدُكُمْ فَلْيَعْتَدِلْ وَ إِذَا رَكَعَ فَلْيَتَمَكَّنْ وَ إِذَا رَفَعَ رَأْسَهُ فَلْيَعْتَدِلْ وَ إِذَا سَجَدَ فَلْيَنْفَرِجْ وَ لْيَتَمَكَّنْ وَ إِذَا رَفَعَ رَأْسَهُ فَلْيَلْبَثْ حَتَّى يَسْكُن‏

Bakr b. Muḥammad al-Azdī said, Abū Baṣīr asked him (a) a question regarding al-Ḥūr al-‘Ayn while I was sitting besides him. He said, “May I be sacrificed upon you, are they from the creation of the world or of heaven?” He (a) replied, “What have you to do with them? Be observant of your Ṣalāṭ. The last thing the Prophet (p) willed and would urge was the Ṣalāṭ. Be wary of anyone of you taking his Ṣalāṭ lightly, let it not be the case that when one is young, they do not complete it, and when one is old, they are not strong enough for it. What is more severe than theft of the Ṣalāt, so when one of you stands up, then be steady, and when one goes into rukū’, then be stable, and when one raises his head then be steady, and when one prostrates they should open up and be stable, and when one raises his head then he should remain as such until he is tranquil.

Grading: There is a lengthy discussion on Qurb al-Isnād. If someone accepts the work, then this narration is authentic since Bakr b. Muḥammad al-Azdī is thiqa as per Najāshī, but if someone casts doubt on whether this work can be accepted, then this narration is either of no value, or it may be used as a witness (shāhid), as it is attributed to Sayyid Borujerdī.^[69] In this paper we will be treating this report as authentic.

Meaning: Some have said that this narration signifies wujūb on jilsah al-istirāḥa, but through the absolute nature (iṭlāq) of the phrase “and when one raises his head then he should remain as such until he is tranquil”. In other words, this command is inclusive of someone sitting between two prostrations or sitting after the second prostration.

However, since the Imam (a) is in a state where he is mentioning the acts in the order that they appear in the Ṣalāt, his silence after mentioning what one should do after the prostration is to be understood to be about the first prostration. In other words, the narration does not continue to mention what one should do after the second prostration and the method of getting up from it, while these are acts that follow only after the first prostration.

Ḥadīth #10 – Fiqh al-Riḍā^[70]

ثُمَّ ارْفَعْ رَأْسَكَ وَ تَمَكَّنْ‏ مِنَ‏ الْأَرْضِ ثُمَ‏ قُمْ‏ إِلَى الثَّانِيَةِ فَإِذَا أَرَدْتَ أَنْ تَنْهَضَ إِلَى الْقِيَامِ فَاتَّكِئْ عَلَى يَدِكَ وَ تَمَكَّنْ مِنَ الْأَرْضِ ثُمَّ انْهَضْ قَائِماً

Then raise your head and remain steady on the ground, then rise up for the second unit. When you decide to rise up to stand, then lean on your hands and be steady on the ground, then raise up to stand.

Grading: Ḍa’īf – Fiqh al-Riḍā’s attribution to the Imam is unknown and in fact this is most likely not a narration, rather the view of Ibn Bābuwayh or another scholar, given Shaykh Ṣadūq writes something similar– with some additions – in al-Faqīh^[71] without attributing the words to an Imam.

Meaning: This narration says that when you get up from the second prostration, you should remain steadily on the ground and then get up. This seems to imply that one should perform the jilsah al-istirāḥa before rising.

 

Ḥadīth #	Grading	Signification
1	Ṣaḥīḥ	Permissibility of sitting
2	Ṣaḥīḥ	Istiḥbāb
3	Ḍa‘īf (Mursal)	Wujūb
4	Ḍa‘īf	Istiḥbāb (due to the cause given as tawqīr al-ṣalāt)
5	Ḍa‘īf	Istiḥbāb (due to cause given as “it is from our actions”.
6	Ḍa‘īf	Not speaking about jilsah al-istirāḥa
7	Ḍa‘īf	Istiḥbāb (due to continuity of Imam Kāẓim’s (a) action)
8	Ḍa‘īf	Istiḥbāb (due to cause given as waqār al-mu’min)
9	Ṣaḥīḥ	Not speaking about jilsah al-istirāḥa
10	Ḍa‘īf	Not the words of the Imam (a)

 

3.2) Narrations signifying permissibility or istiḥbāb of abandoning the sitting

Ḥadīth #1 – Istibṣār^[72] and Tahdhīb^[73]

فَأَمَّا مَا رَوَاهُ‏ عَلِيُّ بْنُ الْحَكَمِ عَنْ رَحِيمٍ قَالَ: قُلْتُ لِأَبِي الْحَسَنِ الرِّضَا ع أَرَاكَ إِذَا صَلَّيْتَ فَرَفَعْتَ رَأْسَكَ مِنَ السُّجُودِ فِي الرَّكْعَةِ الْأُولَى وَ الثَّالِثَةِ فَتَسْتَوِي جَالِساً ثُمَّ تَقُومُ فَنَصْنَعُ كَمَا تَصْنَعُ فَقَالَ لَا تَنْظُرُوا إِلَى مَا أَصْنَعُ اصْنَعُوا مَا تُؤْمَرُونَ.

Raḥīm said: I said to Abī al-Ḥasan al-Riḍā (a), “ I see that when you pray, you raise your head from the prostration in the first and third unit, and sit steadily, then you raise up. So, should we do as you do?” He (a) replied, “Do not look at what I do, rather do what you are told to do.”

Grading: Ḍa’īf – Raḥīm is most likely Raḥīm ‘Abdūs al-Khalanjī Abū Aḥmad who is present in Kāmil al-Ziyārāt, but his condition is unknown. In addition, the path to ‘Ali b. al-Hakam is also unknown.

Meaning: This is a strange tradition as the Imam (a) says to Raḥīm to not look at the way he prays and rather listen to what he commands him to do. On the onset it seems that the Imam is saying do not do as I do, rather do as I tell you and that this seems to signify that Raḥīm does not have to sit the way the Imam (a) is seen doing.

Ḥadīth #2 – Istibṣār^[74] and Tahdhīb^[75]

مَا رَوَاهُ‏ أَحْمَدُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عِيسَى عَنِ الْحَجَّالِ عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ بُكَيْرٍ عَنْ زُرَارَةَ قَالَ: رَأَيْتُ أَبَا جَعْفَرٍ وَ أَبَا عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع إِذَا رَفَعَا رُءُوسَهُمَا مِنَ السَّجْدَةِ الثَّانِيَةِ نَهَضَا وَ لَمْ يَجْلِسَا.

Zurārah said: I saw Abā Ja‘far (a) and Abā ‘Abdillah (a), when they would raise their heads from the second prostration, they would raise up and would not sit.

Grading: Muwaththaq – due to ‘Abdullah b. Bukayr who was a Faṭaḥī.

Meaning: This tradition says that Zurārah had seen Imam Bāqir (a) and Ṣādiq (a) standing straight up after the second sajda and not performing the jilsah al-istirāḥa. This tradition signifies that Zurārah had seen two Imams perform this, but there is no clear signification on whether this was a repeated act or not. Some jurists have understood the continuity of the act by the Imams (a) in which case it would signify that not sitting is mustaḥabb, which results in a contradiction with the reports in the first set. However, if we say that this narration does not imply continuity at all and there is no reason to assume so, then all it shows is permissibility of abandoning the jilsah.

Ḥadīth #3 – Faqīh,^[76] Amālī,^[77] Kāfī^[78] and Tahdhīb^[79]

This tradition is being cited as a witness only, as it has not been primarily used to argue for or against the jilsah al-istirāḥa by the jurists. The famous tradition of Ḥammād b. ‘Īsa, despite being in the communicative state (maqām al-bayān) of mentioning details of the Ṣalāt such as the manner of sitting between two prostrations, it is silent on the jilsah al-istirāḥa after the second prostration:

وسجد السجدة الثانية وقال كما قال في الأولى، ولم يستعن بشيء من جسده على شيء في ركوع ولا سجود، كان مجنّحاً ولم يضع ذراعيه على الأرض. فصلى ركعتين على هذا ويداه مضمومتا الأصابع وهو جالس في التشهد، فلما فرغ من التشهد سلّم

Possible Reconciliations

Looking at the traditions, we arrive at the following conclusions:

1) In the first category of traditions, we have 2 authentic traditions out of 10, and in the second category we have 1 muwaththaq tradition out of 2, while the third narration of Ḥammād was merely brought as a witness. The reliable traditions in the first category (# 1 and 2) do not prove obligation of the jilsah al-istirāḥa, while ḥadīth 4, 5, 7, 8 are very apparent in istiḥbāb. Ḥadīth #3 signifies wujūb, but it is a mursal tradition of Samā‘ah. On the contrary, the reliable tradition in the second category – the ḥadīth of Zurārah – does not prove obligation of sitting, but rather shows the permissibility of abandoning the jilsah.

2) None of the traditions in the first set individually or even collectively have the probative force to establish wujūb of jilsa al-istirāḥa. Only one tradition signifies wujūb, but it is mursal, while the rest of the traditions – albeit strong or weak – either signify istihbab or are not speaking about the subject matter at all.

3) Given the above two points, we will deal with the traditions in two possible scenarios: a) the case where one accepts traditions based on probativity of a report that is mawthūq al-ṣudūr, and b) the case where one accepts traditions based on probativity of a solitary report (ḥujjīyyah khabar al-wāḥid):

Ḥujjīyyah Mawthūq Bih

3.1) In the first scenario, it is very difficult to attain wuthūq in the second set of traditions. This is because we only have one muwaththaq tradition while the other is by an unknown narrator named Raḥīm. As for the first set of traditions, we have two authentic narrations while the rest are all weak. However, collectively speaking, the probability of attaining wuthūq in their general meaning is much greater due to a greater number of traditions, from a variety of books, through various different chains. If one attains wuthūq in the general contents of the first set of traditions, then we do not even arrive at the opportunity to reconcile between the two set of traditions since the subject-matter of contradiction does not exist. To reiterate, we do not have wuthūq in the second set of traditions while we have wuthūq in the first set of traditions. Since the first set of traditions signify istiḥbāb, the verdict as per the view of ḥujjīyyah mawthūq al-ṣudūr would be the istiḥbāb of jilsah al-istirāḥa in Ṣalāt.

Ḥujjīyyah Khabar al-Wāḥid

3.2) In the second scenario, we are confronted with one muwaththaq tradition of Zurārah from the second set and two ṣāḥīḥ traditions from the first set – both are binding. Based on the explanation we have given for the tradition of Zurārah in that it does not imply continuity, there is no contradiction between these two set of traditions since the ḥadīth #2 from the first set establishes istiḥbāb while Zurārah’s tradition from the second set simply shows that two Imams (a) abandoned a mustaḥabb practice on some occasion. In conclusion, even according to the view of ḥujjīyyah khabar al-wāḥid, the verdict would be the istiḥbāb of jilsah al-istirāḥa in Ṣalāt.

However, many jurists saw an apparent contradiction between these two set of traditions, either because they understood the first set to be signifying wujūb and the second to be signifying permissibility; or because both sets signify opposite mustaḥabb acts.

We will discuss a number of customary reconciliations (jam‘ ‘urfī) that have been proposed to resolve the apparent contradiction between these traditions:

i) The narrations on sitting down are for old age

Many Ahl al-Sunnah jurists have tried to reconcile a similar contradiction in their own traditions by saying that the traditions which indicate the Prophet (p) or some of the companions would sit before getting up are to be understood in context of their old age or in cases where they were weak or ill, while the actual ruling is that one should not sit and rather one should stand up directly. Perhaps someone can argue that this explanation is an appropriate way to reconcile the two set of Shī’ī traditions.

However, there is no contextual indicator to prefer this reconciliation and in fact there are contextual indicators on the contrary. The main barrier to this reconciliation is that some of the traditions in the first set make it clear that this sitting is a sign of respect for the prayers and a sign of dignity for the believer. This shows it to be something preferred and has nothing to do with old age or weakness.

Additionally, one could also say that the tradition of Zurārah where he had seen two Imams (a) stand up directly in their prayers, if it were to imply continuity in their (a) practice, would have at the very least included an instance of Zurārah having witnessed Imam Bāqir (d. 114 AH) praying at an older age. Yet it does not seem to be the case that the Imam (a) ever had to sit before getting up.

ii) Predicate on istiḥbāb

For those who believe Zurārah’s tradition does not imply an extent of continuity in the Imams’ (a) practice, then the most reasonable reconciliation is to predicate the first set of traditions on istiḥbāb and Zurārah’s tradition on an occasion where the Imams (a) did not sit.

In this reconciliation, the first set of traditions either remains on their prima-facie of istiḥbāb, while those that apparently signified wujūb are to be predicated on istiḥbāb given that the second set of traditions are understood to mean permissibility of abandoning the sitting. As a result, the permissibility of not siting is reconciled with the obligation and this appears to be the most reasonable reconciliation.

Irreconcilable Contradiction

Some jurists have said Zurārah’s tradition does in fact imply continuity, in which case it would signify istiḥbāb of not sitting. If this is correct, then this tradition contradicts the istiḥbāb of sitting proven in the first set. In this situation, one would have no choice but to say that the contradiction is irreconcilable since the first set implies istiḥbāb of sitting while the second set implies istiḥbāb of not sitting. The subsequent step would be to go to the murajjiḥāt manṣūṣah, and if those are not applicable, then one must recourse back to an appropriate procedural principle:

i) Taqīyya

After determining the two set of traditions to be contradictory, a number of scholars have argued that the second set of traditions is to be understood through the lens of taqīyyah. Some have cited that the tradition of Imam Riḍā (a) as a contextual indicator to show that the Imam was telling his followers to do taqīyyah^[80] by not sitting or else he would not tell someone to not learn from his own actions (i.e. his sitting). In addition, taqīyyah is a real possibility when we find that standing straight up directly was a popular ruling amongst the non-Shī’a. Therefore, we predicate the first set of traditions to be in a state of non-taqīyyah and the second on taqīyyah which would mean the istiḥbāb of jilsah al-istirāḥa.

Observations: There are three reasons why taqīyyah does not sound like a reasonable explanation. Firstly, the tradition of Zurārah implies that he saw two Imams (a) praying in a manner that they would stand up directly after the second prostration and that this was witnessed to some extent of continuity. It is extremely far-fetched for Zurārah to have seen the Imams (a) praying in a state of taqīyyah the multiple times he would have seen them praying – most likely in Medina.

As for the tradition of Imam Riḍā (a), it is also possible that in the mind of the questioner (Raḥīm) what was established was the mere permissibility of sitting and the fact he kept seeing the Imam (a) sit in his prayers could have led him to speculate that the sitting is legally mustaḥabb or even has wujūb, hence he came and asked the Imam (a) about it. In response to his concern the Imam (a) tells him to obey what he is told, and not what he necessarily sees lest he speculates such an act has istiḥbāb or wujūb.

Sayyid Ṣādiq Rūḥānī also alludes to this possibility^[81] regarding the tradition of Imam Riḍā (a). With the possibility of this interpretation, it is not possible to use this tradition to certainly reconcile these two contradictory traditions by predicating the second set on taqīyyah.

Finally, the reason for taqīyyah still does not seem to be very clear, because non-Shī’ī jurists themselves had a dispute on this matter and a number of their scholars held the view that it is obligatory to sit before getting up. In fact, Sayyid Murtaḍa himself confesses^[82] that Shāfi’ī agreed^[83] with the Imāmīs and a report also shows that the Medani jurist Imam Mālik himself would do the same thing.^[84]

ii) Subsequent Murajjiḥāt Manṣūṣah

If predicating the second set on taqīyyah is nullified, there are a number of other possible murajjiḥāt that could subsequently be used. Either one could prefer those traditions which are more popular, although in our situation it is difficult to establish the popularity of any one tradition over the other, or they would go with the traditions whose narrators are more trustworthy, or that which is in line with the more popular verdict amongst the Shī’ī jurists and so on. In resorting to most of these murajjiḥāt, the consequent verdict would remain istiḥbāb of jilsah al-istirāḥa.

Conclusion

Through the course of this paper, we have seen that other than one mursal tradition of Samā‘ah, no other tradition signifies the wujūb of the jilsah al-istirāḥa. In fact, the vast majority of traditions on the jilsah either explicitly, or implicitly, signify istiḥbāb. Furthermore, the argument through consensus and absence of liability are also not applicable and cannot be used to establish wujūb of the jilsah. As per the arguments made in this paper, the jilsah al-istirāḥa is mustaḥabb and abandoning it does not invalidate the Ṣalāt.

Nevertheless, in some traditions, the Imams (a) have described this jilsah as a sign of respect for the prayers and as well as a sign of dignity for a believer who is to show humility in front of his Lord. These traditions show that the sitting is a highly recommended act and perhaps this is what Sayyid Murtaḍa intended when he used the word wujūb for it. As a few Sunnī traditions also indicate, this appears to have been a Prophetic Sunnah, and as per some Shī’ī traditions it seems that it was forgotten soon after the demise of the Prophet (p), perhaps during the time of the first two caliphs.

 

Appendix A – Non-Imāmī Traditions

What follows is a collection of traditions found in non-Imāmī works on the subject.

Traditions apparently signifying recommendation of jilsah al-istirāḥa:

1) Ṣaḥīḥ Bukhārī^[85]

حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ بَشَّارٍ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى، عَنْ عُبَيْدِ اللَّهِ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنِي سَعِيدُ بْنُ أَبِي سَعِيدٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم دَخَلَ الْمَسْجِدَ، فَدَخَلَ رَجُلٌ فَصَلَّى فَسَلَّمَ عَلَى النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَرَدَّ وَقَالَ ‏”‏ ارْجِعْ فَصَلّ، فَإِنَّكَ لَمْ تُصَلِّ”‏‏.‏ فَرَجَعَ يُصَلِّي كَمَا صَلَّى ثُمَّ جَاءَ فَسَلَّمَ عَلَى النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَقَالَ ‏”‏ ارْجِعْ فَصَلِّ فَإِنَّكَ لَمْ تُصَلِّ ‏”‏ ثَلاَثًا‏.‏ فَقَالَ وَالَّذِي بَعَثَكَ بِالْحَقِّ مَا أُحْسِنُ غَيْرَهُ فَعَلِّمْنِي‏.‏ فَقَالَ “‏ إِذَا قُمْتَ إِلَى الصَّلاَةِ فَكَبِّرْ، ثُمَّ اقْرَأْ مَا تَيَسَّرَ مَعَكَ مِنَ الْقُرْآنِ، ثُمَّ ارْكَعْ حَتَّى تَطْمَئِنَّ رَاكِعًا، ثُمَّ ارْفَعْ حَتَّى تَعْتَدِلَ قَائِمًا، ثُمَّ اسْجُدْ حَتَّى تَطْمَئِنَّ سَاجِدًا، ثُمَّ ارْفَعْ حَتَّى تَطْمَئِنَّ جَالِسًا، وَافْعَلْ ذَلِكَ فِي صَلاَتِكَ كُلِّهَا ‏”‏‏

 

2) Ṣaḥīḥ Bukhārī^[86] and Sunan al-Nasā’ī^[87]

حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ الصَّبَّاحِ، قَالَ أَخْبَرَنَا هُشَيْمٌ، قَالَ أَخْبَرَنَا خَالِدٌ الْحَذَّاءُ، عَنْ أَبِي قِلاَبَةَ، قَالَ أَخْبَرَنَا مَالِكُ بْنُ الْحُوَيْرِثِ اللَّيْثِيُّ، أَنَّهُ رَأَى النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم يُصَلِّي، فَإِذَا كَانَ فِي وِتْرٍ مِنْ صَلاَتِهِ لَمْ يَنْهَضْ حَتَّى يَسْتَوِيَ قَاعِدًا‏

3) Sunan Abī Dāwūd^[88]

حَدَّثَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ حَنْبَلٍ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو عَاصِمٍ الضَّحَّاكُ بْنُ مَخْلَدٍ، ح وَحَدَّثَنَا مُسَدَّدٌ، حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى، – وَهَذَا حَدِيثُ أَحْمَدَ قَالَ – أَخْبَرَنَا عَبْدُ الْحَمِيدِ، – يَعْنِي ابْنَ جَعْفَرٍ – أَخْبَرَنِي مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَمْرِو بْنِ عَطَاءٍ، قَالَ سَمِعْتُ أَبَا حُمَيْدٍ السَّاعِدِيَّ، فِي عَشْرَةٍ مِنْ أَصْحَابِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم مِنْهُمْ أَبُو قَتَادَةَ قَالَ أَبُو حُمَيْدٍ أَنَا أَعْلَمُكُمْ بِصَلاَةِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏.‏ قَالُوا فَلِمَ فَوَاللَّهِ مَا كُنْتَ بِأَكْثَرِنَا لَهُ تَبَعًا وَلاَ أَقْدَمَنَا لَهُ صُحْبَةً ‏.‏ قَالَ بَلَى ‏.‏ قَالُوا فَاعْرِضْ ‏.‏ قَالَ كَانَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم إِذَا قَامَ إِلَى الصَّلاَةِ يَرْفَعُ يَدَيْهِ حَتَّى يُحَاذِيَ بِهِمَا مَنْكِبَيْهِ ثُمَّ يُكَبِّرُ حَتَّى يَقِرَّ كُلُّ عَظْمٍ فِي مَوْضِعِهِ مُعْتَدِلاً ثُمَّ يَقْرَأُ ثُمَّ يُكَبِّرُ فَيَرْفَعُ يَدَيْهِ حَتَّى يُحَاذِيَ بِهِمَا مَنْكِبَيْهِ ثُمَّ يَرْكَعُ وَيَضَعُ رَاحَتَيْهِ عَلَى رُكْبَتَيْهِ ثُمَّ يَعْتَدِلُ فَلاَ يَصُبُّ رَأْسَهُ وَلاَ يُقْنِعُ ثُمَّ يَرْفَعُ رَأْسَهُ فَيَقُولُ ‏”‏ سَمِعَ اللَّهُ لِمَنْ حَمِدَهُ ‏”‏ ‏.‏ ثُمَّ يَرْفَعُ يَدَيْهِ حَتَّى يُحَاذِيَ بِهِمَا مَنْكِبَيْهِ مُعْتَدِلاً ثُمَّ يَقُولُ ‏”‏ اللَّهُ أَكْبَرُ ‏”‏ ‏.‏ ثُمَّ يَهْوِي إِلَى الأَرْضِ فَيُجَافِي يَدَيْهِ عَنْ جَنْبَيْهِ ثُمَّ يَرْفَعُ رَأْسَهُ وَيَثْنِي رِجْلَهُ الْيُسْرَى فَيَقْعُدُ عَلَيْهَا وَيَفْتَحُ أَصَابِعَ رِجْلَيْهِ إِذَا سَجَدَ وَيَسْجُدُ ثُمَّ يَقُولُ ‏”‏ اللَّهُ أَكْبَرُ ‏”‏ ‏.‏ وَيَرْفَعُ رَأْسَهُ وَيَثْنِي رِجْلَهُ الْيُسْرَى فَيَقْعُدُ عَلَيْهَا حَتَّى يَرْجِعَ كُلُّ عَظْمٍ إِلَى مَوْضِعِهِ ثُمَّ يَصْنَعُ فِي الأُخْرَى مِثْلَ ذَلِكَ ثُمَّ إِذَا قَامَ مِنَ الرَّكْعَتَيْنِ كَبَّرَ وَرَفَعَ يَدَيْهِ حَتَّى يُحَاذِيَ بِهِمَا مَنْكِبَيْهِ كَمَا كَبَّرَ عِنْدَ افْتِتَاحِ الصَّلاَةِ ثُمَّ يَصْنَعُ ذَلِكَ فِي بَقِيَّةِ صَلاَتِهِ حَتَّى إِذَا كَانَتِ السَّجْدَةُ الَّتِي فِيهَا التَّسْلِيمُ أَخَّرَ رِجْلَهُ الْيُسْرَى وَقَعَدَ مُتَوَرِّكًا عَلَى شِقِّهِ الأَيْسَرِ‏.‏ قَالُوا صَدَقْتَ هَكَذَا كَانَ يُصَلِّي صلى الله عليه وسلم

4) Ṣaḥīḥ Bukhārī^[89]

حَدَّثَنَا مُعَلَّى بْنُ أَسَدٍ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا وُهَيْبٌ، عَنْ أَيُّوبَ، عَنْ أَبِي قِلاَبَةَ، قَالَ جَاءَنَا مَالِكُ بْنُ الْحُوَيْرِثِ فَصَلَّى بِنَا فِي مَسْجِدِنَا هَذَا فَقَالَ إِنِّي لأُصَلِّي بِكُمْ، وَمَا أُرِيدُ الصَّلاَةَ، وَلَكِنْ أُرِيدُ أَنْ أُرِيَكُمْ كَيْفَ رَأَيْتُ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم يُصَلِّي‏.‏ قَالَ أَيُّوبُ فَقُلْتُ لأَبِي قِلاَبَةَ وَكَيْفَ كَانَتْ صَلاَتُهُ قَالَ مِثْلَ صَلاَةِ شَيْخِنَا هَذَا ـ يَعْنِي عَمْرَو بْنَ سَلِمَةَ ـ قَالَ أَيُّوبُ وَكَانَ ذَلِكَ الشَّيْخُ يُتِمُّ التَّكْبِيرَ، وَإِذَا رَفَعَ رَأْسَهُ عَنِ السَّجْدَةِ الثَّانِيَةِ جَلَسَ وَاعْتَمَدَ عَلَى الأَرْضِ، ثُمَّ قَامَ‏

Traditions apparently signifying recommendation of standing up directly:

6) Muwatta of Imam Mālik^[90]

وَحَدَّثَنِي عَنْ مَالِكٍ، عَنْ صَدَقَةَ بْنِ يَسَارٍ، عَنِ الْمُغِيرَةِ بْنِ حَكِيمٍ، أَنَّهُ رَأَى عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ عُمَرَ يَرْجِعُ فِي سَجْدَتَيْنِ فِي الصَّلاَةِ عَلَى صُدُورِ قَدَمَيْهِ فَلَمَّا انْصَرَفَ ذَكَرَ لَهُ ذَلِكَ فَقَالَ إِنَّهَا لَيْسَتْ سُنَّةَ الصَّلاَةِ وَإِنَّمَا أَفْعَلُ هَذَا مِنْ أَجْلِ أَنِّي أَشْتَكِي

7) Traditions from Muṣannaf of ‘Abd al-Razzāq^[91]

عَنِ التَّيْمِيِّ، عَنْ كَهْمَسٍ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللهِ بْنِ يَسَارٍ، إِذَا سَجَدَ وَضَعَ رُكْبَتَيْهِ ثُمَّ يَدَيْهِ ثُمَّ وَجْهَهُ، فَإِذَا أَرَادَ أَنْ يَقُومَ رَفَعَ وَجْهَهُ، ثُمَّ يَدَيْهِ، ثُمَّ رُكْبَتَيْهِ‏.‏

عَنِ ابْنِ جُرَيْجٍ، قَالَ‏:‏ أَخْبَرَنِي عَمْرُو بْنُ دِينَارٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ الزُّبَيْرِ قَالَ‏:‏ مَا كَانَ يُكَبِّرُ إِلاَّ وَهُوَ يَهْوِي وَفِي نَهْضَتِهِ لِلْقِيَامِ‏.‏

عَنِ ابْنِ جُرَيْجٍ، قَالَ‏:‏ أَخْبَرَنِي عَطَاءٌ، أَنَّهُ رَأَى مُعَاوِيَةَ فِي الرَّكْعَةِ الثَّالِثَةِ، كَذَا قَرَأَ الدَّبَرِيُّ، وَالثَّالِثَةِ مِنَ الرُّكُوعِ إِذَا رَفَعَ رَأْسَهُ مِنَ السُّجُودِ لَمْ يَتَلَبَّثْ قَالَ‏:‏ يَنْهَضُ وَهُوَ يُكَبِّرُ فِي نَهْضَتِهِ لِلْقِيَامِ قَالَ عَطَاءٌ‏:‏ تَعَجَّبْتُ مِنْ ذَلِكَ حَتَّى بَلَغَنِي أَنَّ الأَمْرَ كَانَ عَلَى ذَلِكَ‏.‏

عَنْ عَبْدِ اللهِ، عَنْ نَافِعٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ عُمَرَ، أَنَّهُ كَانَ يَقُومُ إِذَا رَفَعَ رَأْسَهُ مِنَ السَّجْدَةِ مُعْتَمِدًا عَلَى يَدَيْهِ قَبْلَ أَنْ يَرْفَعَهُمَا‏.‏

عَنِ ابْنِ عُيَيْنَةَ، عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي لَيْلَى، قَالَ‏:‏ سَمِعْتُ عَبْدَ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنَ يَزِيدَ يَقُولُ‏:‏ رَمَقْتُ عَبْدَ اللهِ بْنَ مَسْعُودٍ فِي الصَّلاَةِ فَرَأَيْتُهُ يَنْهَضُ وَلاَ يَجْلِسُ قَالَ‏:‏ يَنْهَضُ عَلَى صُدُورِ قَدَمَيْهِ فِي الرَّكْعَةِ الأُولَى وَالثَّالِثَةِ‏.‏

عَنِ الثَّوْرِيِّ، عَنِ الأَعْمَشِ، عَنْ إِبْرَاهِيمَ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ يَزِيدَ قَالَ‏:‏ كَانَ عَبْدُ اللهِ يَنْهَضُ عَلَى صُدُورِ قَدَمَيْهِ مِنَ السَّجْدَةِ الآخِرَةِ وَفِي الرَّكْعَةِ الأُولَى وَالثَّالِثَةِ‏.‏

عَنِ الثَّوْرِيِّ، عَنِ الأَعْمَشِ، عَنْ أَبِي عَطِيَّةَ، أَنَّ ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ، وَابْنَ عُمَرَ كَانَا يَفْعَلاَنِ ذَلِكَ‏.‏

عَنْ عَبْدِ اللهِ بْنِ عُمَرَ، عَنْ نَافِعٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ عُمَرَ، أَنَّهُ كَانَ يَقُومُ إِذَا رَفَعَ رَأْسَهُ مِنَ السَّجْدَةِ مُعْتَمِدًا عَلَى يَدَيْهِ قَبْلَ أَنْ يَرْفَعَهُمَا‏.‏

8) Traditions from Muṣannaf of Ibn Abī Shaybah^[92]

حَدَّثَنَا إسْمَاعِيلُ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ، عَنْ أَبِي الْمُعَلَّى، عَنْ إبْرَاهِيمَ، قَالَ‏:‏ كَانَ ابْنُ مَسْعُودٍ فِي الرَّكْعَةِ الأَولَى وَالثَّالِثَةِ لاَ يَقْعُدُ حِينَ يُرِيدُ أَنْ يَقُومَ حَتَّى يَقُومَ‏.‏

حَدَّثَنَا يَزِيدُ بْنُ هَارُونَ، قَالَ‏:‏ أَخْبَرَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَمْرٍو، عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ، قَالَ‏:‏ كَانَ أَشْيَاخُنَا لاَ يُمَايلُونَ، يَعْنِي إذَا رَفَعَ أَحَدُهُمْ رَأْسَهُ مِنَ السَّجْدَةِ الثَّانِيَةِ فِي الرَّكْعَةِ الأَولَى وَالثَّالِثَةِ يَنْهَضُ كَمَا هُوَ، وَلَمْ يَجْلِسْ‏.‏

حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنُ مَهْدِيٍّ، عَنْ سُفْيَانَ، عَنِ الزُّبَيْرِ بْنِ عَدِيٍّ، عَنْ إبْرَاهِيمَ؛ أَنَّهُ كَانَ يُسْرِعُ فِي الْقِيَامِ فِي الرَّكْعَةِ الأَولَى مِنْ آخِرِ سَجْدَةٍ‏.‏

حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو خَالِدٍ الأَحْمَرِ، عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَجْلاَنَ، عَنِ النُّعْمَانِ بْنِ أَبِي عَيَّاشٍ، قَالَ‏:‏ أَدْرَكْت غَيْرَ وَاحِدٍ مِنْ أَصْحَابِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى الله عَلَيه وسَلَّم، فَكَانَ إذَا رَفَعَ رَأْسَهُ مِنَ السَّجْدَةِ فِي أَوَّلِ رَكْعَةٍ وَالثَّالِثَةِ، قَامَ كَمَا هُوَ وَلَمْ يَجْلِسْ‏.‏

9) Amālī of Aḥmad b. ‘Isa (Zaydī Source)^[93]

باب صفة القيام في الصلاة والسجود والنهوض والقعود – ورأيت أحمد بن عيسى إذا رفع رأسه من السجدة الثانيه في الركعة الأولى من الفريضة ينهض من السجود إلى القيام، ولا يرجع بإليته إلى الأرض، وكذلك كان عبد الله بن موسى، ينهض من السجود إلى القيام، ولايرجع بإليته إلى الأرض.

وبه قال: حدثني ابن إسحاق قال: رأيت أحمد بن عيسى إذا نهض في صلاته إلى القيام لم يعتمد بيديه على الأرض. قال محمد: ورأيته حين ضعف يعتمد.

 

Appendix B – Table of Imāmī Scholars’ Opinions

Scholar	Verdict
Ibn Abī ‘Aqīl	Wujūb
Ibn al-Junayd	Ibāḥa
Ibn Bābuwayh	Wujūb
Shaykh Ṣadūq	Wujūb
Shaykh Mufīd	Unclear
Sayyid Murtaḍa	Wujūb
Shaykh Ṭūsī	Istiḥbāb
Sallār al-Daylamī	Unclear
Ibn Zuhra al-Ḥalabī	Istiḥbāb
Ibn Idrīs al-Ḥillī	Unclear
Muḥaqqiq Ḥillī	Istiḥbāb
Yaḥya b. Sa‘īd al-Ḥillī	Istiḥbāb
‘Allāmah Ḥillī	Istiḥbāb
Shahīd Awwal	Istiḥbāb
Muqaddas Ardebellī	Istiḥbāb
Muḥaqqiq Karakī	Istiḥbāb
Shahīd Thānī	Istiḥbāb
Bahā al-Dīn ‘Āmilī	Obligatory Precaution
Muḥaqqiq Sabzwārī	Istiḥbāb
Fayḍ Kāshānī	Istiḥbāb
‘Allāmah Majlisī	Obligatory Precaution
Fāḍil Hindī	Wujūb
Ṣāḥib al-Ḥadā‘iq	Wujūb
Waḥīd Bihbahānī	Istiḥbāb
Ḥusayn b. Muḥammad Baḥrānī Āl ‘Uṣfūr	Obligatory Precaution
Sayyid ‘Alī b. Muḥammad Ṭabāṭabā’ī Ḥā’irī	Obligatory Precaution
Mīrzā Qumī	Obligatory Precaution
Ḥasan Kāshif al-Ghiṭā	Istiḥbāb
Ṣāḥib al-Jawāhir	Istiḥbāb
Sayyid Muḥammad Kāẓim Yazdī	Obligatory Precaution
‘Abd al-Karīm Ḥā’irī Yazdī	Istiḥbāb
Āyatullah Borujerdī	Obligatory Precaution
Sayyid Muḥsin al-Ḥakīm	Obligatory Precaution
Sayyid Aḥmad Khonsārī	Istiḥbāb
Sayyid ‘Abd al-A‘la Sabzwārī	Istiḥbāb
Muḥammad ‘Alī Arākī	Istiḥbāb
Sayyid Khū’ī	Recommended Precaution
‘Alī Panāh Ishtihārdī	Wujūb
Sayyid Ṣādiq Rūḥānī	Istiḥbāb

 

Footnotes

[1] Vol. 3, pg. 400

[2] Vol. 1, pg. 315

[3] Pg. 106

[4] Vol. 7, pg. 384

[5] Pg. 46; also see Mukhtalaf al-Shī’a, vol. 2, pg. 172

[6] Pg. 234

[7] Vol. 1, pg. 361

[8] Vol. 1, pg. 113

[9] Pg. 71

[10] Vol. 1, pg. 98

[11] Pg. 79

[12] Vol. 1, pg. 228

[13] Vol. 2, pg. 215

[14] Pg. 75

[15] Vol. 1, pg. 255

[16] Vol. 3, pg. 199

[17] Pg. 169

[18] Vol. 3, pg. 399

[19] Vol. 1, pg. 181

[20] Vol. 2, pg. 269

[21] Vol. 2, pg. 307

[22] Vol. 2, pg. 734

[23] Pg. 38

[24] Vol. 2, pg. 287

[25] Vol. 3, pg. 116

[26] Vol. 82, pg. 185

[27] Vol. 4, pg. 103

[28] Vol. 8, pg. 203

[29] Vol. 8, pg. 73

[30] Pg. 102

[31] Vol. 1, pg. 124

[32] Vol. 2, pg. 623

[33] Kitāb al-Ṣalāt, pg. 192

[34] Vol. 10, pg. 182

[35] Al-‘Urwah al-Wuthqa, al-Sayyid Muḥammad Kāẓim al-Yazdī v. 2, pg. 576.

[36] Pg. 258

[37] Vol. 6, pg. 80 – transcribed by ‘Alī Ṣāfī Gulpaygānī (d. 1430 AH)

[38] Vol. 2, pg. 280 – transcribed by Fāḍil Lankarānī

[39] Vol. 6, pg. 408

[40] Vol. 1, pg. 379

[41] Vol. 7, pg. 20

[42] Vol. 2, pg. 280

[43] Fī Sharḥ al-‘Urwah al-Wuthqa, v. 15, pg. 185

[44] Vol. 15, pg. 459

[45] Fiqh al-Ṣādiq, v. 5, pg. 57

[46] Majma’ al-Fā’ida, vol. 2, pg. 269-270.

[47] Istiqṣā’ al-I’tibār fī Sharḥ al-Istibṣār, v. 5, pg. 238.

[48] There are differences of opinions on the nature of this principle’s priority over the principle of absence of liability (whether it is ḥukūmah or wurūd), and these differences go back to a jurist’s understanding of the nature of the former principle itself.

[49] See for example, Mīrzā Mūsa b. Mīrzā Ja’far (d. 1307) who in his Awthaq al-Wasā’il fī Sharḥ al-Rasā’il (pg. 475) writes:

فإذا شكّ في جزئيّة السّورة كانت أصالة عدم الجزئيّة حاكمة على قاعدة الاشتغال

[50] Vol. 1, pg. 328

[51] Vol. 2, pg. 82

[52] Vol. 2, pg. 325

[53] Sayyid Khū’ī in his Sharḥ al-‘Urwah gives the possibility that the word thāniya (second) is a scribal error for thālitha (third).

[54] Vol. 1, pg. 328

[55] Vol. 2, pg. 82

[56] Tahdhīb al-Aḥkām, v. 2, pg. 66, h #1; pg. 79, h # 62; pg. 130, h #269; pg.

[57] Ibid. pg. 145, h #26; pg. 320, h #163

[58] Istiqsa al-I’tibar fi Sharh al-Istibsar, v. 5, pg. 237

[59] Vol. 2, pg. 314

[60] Vol. 5, pg. 466

[61] Vol. 2, pg. 628

[62] al-Mustanad fi Sharh al-‘Urwah pg. 180

[63] Vol. 1, pg. 97

[64] See al-Sunan al-Kubra of al-Bayhaqī, v. 2, pg. 172

[65] Uṣūl al-Sitta ‘Ashar, pg. 201

[66] Vol. 82, pg. 184

[67] Uṣūl al-Sitta ‘Ashar, pg. 202

[68] Pg. 37

[69] Shaykh Āsif Muḥsinī mentions he had heard this from some of Sayyid Borujerdī’s students. See Buḥūth fī ‘Ilm al-Rijāl, pg. 428.

[70] Pg. 107

[71] Al-Faqīh, vol. 1, pg. 315

[72] Vol. 1, pg. 328

[73] Vol. 2, pg. 82

[74] Vol. 1, pg. 329

[75] Vol. 2, pg. 83

[76] Vol. 1, pg. 302

[77] Pg. 414

[78] Vol. 3, pg. 312

[79] Vol. 2, pg. 82

[80] Al-Nuj’ah, v. 2, pg. 285

[81] Fiqh al-Sadiq, v. 5, pg. 57

[82] Al-Intiṣār fī Infirādāt al-Imāmīyyah, v. 1, pg. 150

[83] Kitāb al-Umm, v. 1, pg. 139

[84] Ibid.

[85] https://sunnah.com/bukhari/10/151

[86] https://sunnah.com/bukhari/10/217

[87] https://sunnah.com/nasai/12/124

[88] https://sunnah.com/abudawud/2/340

[89] https://sunnah.com/bukhari/10/218

[90] https://sunnah.com/malik/3/53

[91] Muṣannaf of ‘Abd al-Razzāq

[92] Muṣannaf of Ibn Abī Shaybah

[93] Amālī of Imam Aḥmad b. ‘Īsa