A severe injunction has been laid down against standing for a man who remains seated, and he likewise forbade anything that resembles this practice, even when it is not intended as veneration. For that reason he prohibited prostrating to Allah while positioned before a man, and he forbade praying toward anything that has ever been worshipped apart from Allah, such as a fire and the like.

In this ḥadith he also forbade what resembles the conduct of the Persians and the Romans—even though our intention differs from theirs—by saying, “So do not do it.” After such a statement, what further latitude could remain for imitating them in mere outward form?

Moreover, whether the ruling in this ḥadith concerning the imam’s praying while seated is decisive or has been abrogated, the proof it contains still stands. Abrogating the sitting does not mean that the underlying rationale is invalid; it only indicates that a weightier consideration—such as the fact that standing is obligatory in the prayer—took precedence. An obligation is not set aside simply because of a superficial resemblance, and this is a matter for ijtihād. As for an outward resemblance that does not cancel an obligation, the rationale given by the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, remains sound.