who had lain down after the two units before Fajr. He sent someone to them to forbid them from doing so. They said: “We intend by this to follow the sunnah.” Ibn ‘Umar said: “Go back to them and tell them that it is a religious innovation.”
Abū Mijlaz (1) said: “I asked Ibn ‘Umar about it, and he replied: ‘Satan is toying (2) with you.’”
Ibn Mas‘ūd (3) said: “Why does a man, after praying the two units, roll about like a donkey? Once [he has given the closing salutation, he has] separated the two prayers (4).”
As for Ibn Hazm and those who follow him, they consider lying down in this manner obligatory. On the basis of this hadith, Ibn Hazm declares the prayer of anyone who does not do so invalid. This is one of the views in which he stood alone against the Muslim community. I have seen a volume on this subject (5) by one of his followers, in which he defended this position.
‘Abd al-Razzāq related in al-Musannaf (6), from Ma‘mar, from Ayyūb, from
(1) Recorded by Ibn Abī Shaybah (6450); its chain consists of trustworthy narrators.
(2) The reading follows manuscripts sād and jīm and agrees with the cited source. Manuscripts kāf and nūn read yal‘abu (“plays”); the word is undotted in qāf and ‘ayn.
(3) The al-Risālah edition, following al-Fiqī, reads “Ibn ‘Umar,” which is an error. The report was recorded by Ibn Abī Shaybah (6449). Its chain includes Hammād, possibly Ibn Abī Sulaymān, who has some weakness.
(4) The wording in square brackets is supplied from the cited source. The meaning is that the closing salutation suffices to separate the sunnah prayer before Fajr from its obligatory prayer, so lying down is unnecessary for that purpose. Manuscripts kāf, ‘ayn, qāf, mīm-bā’, and nūn read: “He does as a donkey does when it rolls about.” The printed editions, apart from the Indian edition, have the same reading. It seems to me that tama‘‘aka (“rolled about”) in these copies is a corruption of fasala (“separated”). When this corruption disrupted the sense, yatama‘‘aku (“rolls about”) was changed to yaf‘alu (“does”) in both places. The reading adopted from sād and jīm agrees with Ibn Abī Shaybah’s al-Musannaf.
(5) Fīhā (“on this subject”) is omitted in qāf and mīm-bā’.
(6) No. 4719. Also recorded by Ibn Abī Shaybah (6440, 6441) through several routes from Ibn Sīrīn, from him; its chain consists of leading authorities. Ibn Hazm also cited a similar version in al-Muhallā (2/198), through al-Hajjāj ibn Minhāl, from Jarīr ibn Hāzim, from Ibn Sīrīn.