A discussion on the ruling of raising the voice in dhikr after the prayer.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Did every expression that came with the word "was" carry this meaning?
The Shaykh : I seek refuge in Allah, but here the evidence we mentioned to you, some of which, establishes that the word "voice" implies harm and disturbance. Therefore, when we encounter such texts, we treat the report using "was" here, or the report with "was," according to a rule different from the well-known rule: "The Messenger of Allah used to do such and such," which is a continuous practice. But when those hadiths that contradict raising the voice in takbir came, I told you that Imam al-Shafi'i said, and this was from the perspective of the underlying cause.
The questioner : And if someone says that these hadiths that came regarding the prohibition of raising the voice are general, and that this one is specific to raising the voice in dhikr after the prayer, while the hadiths that may have been mentioned regarding the prohibition of ... and the like are not in the prayer.
The Shaykh : This is not reasonable. As long as there is harm, it is not reasonable that there would be specific harm.
The questioner : Fine, and if he responds by saying, "Fine, and the harm is removed if everyone raises their voice, meaning if I and you and you and you raise our voices, the harm is removed," and if he says, "Does that mean the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ... was not this cause known to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)?"
The Shaykh : This is imagination. You raise your voice with what? With the dhikr you made me hear, and I raise my voice by reciting Ayat al-Kursi. Does that not cause some disturbance between us?
The questioner : Like the raising of the voice in the two 'Id prayers, there is no disturbance.
The Shaykh : I hope you will answer. It is different there. There, in the two 'Id prayers, the recitation and dhikr are unified.
The questioner : But it was not ...
The Shaykh : And here it is varied, and you feel that the issue is completely different, so you go back and forth and do not respond.
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : I am telling you, you are reciting the takbirs and I am reciting Ayat al-Kursi, and I am raising my voice with Ayat al-Kursi and you are raising your voice with the takbirs. Are you not disturbing me and I am not disturbing you? It is not possible that I am harming you and you are harming me, so the affliction is more widespread.
The questioner : And what was from the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), how is it to be understood? I mean, if someone says, "Was this not in the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and the Prophet approved it? I mean, it was not only the Prophet who raised his voice."
The Shaykh : There is an implication, may Allah reward you. There is an implication, which is teaching.
The questioner : Fine, teaching as for the Prophet, but raising the voice as for the Companions, where is the cause of teaching? I mean, Ibn Abbas could not be in the last rows and, being young, only hear the takbir of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him).
The Shaykh : In order to look at the Messenger, did you learn or not? And this clarifies for you a question that came to me recently: the reciter of the Qur'an and the teacher of the Qur'an for the fair sex. Do you know what that is?
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : The fair sex, you do not know? Women. Is it permissible for this teacher to hear the woman's recitation to determine if she is correct or has learned or not? I answered that it is not permissible. But the point here is not that; the point is why this teacher asks to determine if the girl or those girls have grasped the lesson from him and memorized it well or not. Do you understand how? The matter is exactly the same.
The questioner : Fine, in another hadith they cited, Shaykh, I mean, perhaps I can mention its text. From 'Urwah ibn al-Zubayr (may Allah be pleased with them both), he used to say in the end of every prayer.
The Shaykh : In every one of these.
The questioner : He would glorify with them, meaning he would raise his voice.
The Shaykh : I know, yes, yes, it is all from the same category. And you must have knowledge of a jurisprudential principle: if two hadiths conflict, one from his (peace and blessings be upon him) action and the other from his saying, and reconciliation between them is not possible, which is the stronger position at that time? The saying or the action?
The questioner : We prioritize the saying.
The Shaykh : Yes, so in our current reality, we apply this rule, then ...
The questioner : Fine, and if reconciliation is possible.
The Shaykh : Do not rush me. Then in another rule, if the prohibitive and the permissive conflict, which is prioritized?
The questioner : The prohibitive.
The Shaykh : What is the prohibitive here? The one with you or the one with me?
The questioner : The one with you, Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Fine, and what is the one with you?
The questioner : Permissive.
The Shaykh : Therefore, the one with me is stronger than the one with you from two aspects.
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : That I have the saying, which is prioritized over the action, and I have the prohibition, which is prioritized over the permissive, so there is no doubt in this. And therefore, you will find the scholars have precise insights. When Imam al-Shafi'i, who is among the most knowledgeable of the four Imams, let alone others, says that this was for the time of teaching, why does he interpret it this way? Because he finds these massive textual prohibitions preventing disturbance, so he prioritizes the saying over the action and the prohibitive over the permissive. This is very clear, were it not for the custom.
The Shaykh : I seek refuge in Allah, but here the evidence we mentioned to you, some of which, establishes that the word "voice" implies harm and disturbance. Therefore, when we encounter such texts, we treat the report using "was" here, or the report with "was," according to a rule different from the well-known rule: "The Messenger of Allah used to do such and such," which is a continuous practice. But when those hadiths that contradict raising the voice in takbir came, I told you that Imam al-Shafi'i said, and this was from the perspective of the underlying cause.
The questioner : And if someone says that these hadiths that came regarding the prohibition of raising the voice are general, and that this one is specific to raising the voice in dhikr after the prayer, while the hadiths that may have been mentioned regarding the prohibition of ... and the like are not in the prayer.
The Shaykh : This is not reasonable. As long as there is harm, it is not reasonable that there would be specific harm.
The questioner : Fine, and if he responds by saying, "Fine, and the harm is removed if everyone raises their voice, meaning if I and you and you and you raise our voices, the harm is removed," and if he says, "Does that mean the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ... was not this cause known to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)?"
The Shaykh : This is imagination. You raise your voice with what? With the dhikr you made me hear, and I raise my voice by reciting Ayat al-Kursi. Does that not cause some disturbance between us?
The questioner : Like the raising of the voice in the two 'Id prayers, there is no disturbance.
The Shaykh : I hope you will answer. It is different there. There, in the two 'Id prayers, the recitation and dhikr are unified.
The questioner : But it was not ...
The Shaykh : And here it is varied, and you feel that the issue is completely different, so you go back and forth and do not respond.
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : I am telling you, you are reciting the takbirs and I am reciting Ayat al-Kursi, and I am raising my voice with Ayat al-Kursi and you are raising your voice with the takbirs. Are you not disturbing me and I am not disturbing you? It is not possible that I am harming you and you are harming me, so the affliction is more widespread.
The questioner : And what was from the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), how is it to be understood? I mean, if someone says, "Was this not in the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and the Prophet approved it? I mean, it was not only the Prophet who raised his voice."
The Shaykh : There is an implication, may Allah reward you. There is an implication, which is teaching.
The questioner : Fine, teaching as for the Prophet, but raising the voice as for the Companions, where is the cause of teaching? I mean, Ibn Abbas could not be in the last rows and, being young, only hear the takbir of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him).
The Shaykh : In order to look at the Messenger, did you learn or not? And this clarifies for you a question that came to me recently: the reciter of the Qur'an and the teacher of the Qur'an for the fair sex. Do you know what that is?
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : The fair sex, you do not know? Women. Is it permissible for this teacher to hear the woman's recitation to determine if she is correct or has learned or not? I answered that it is not permissible. But the point here is not that; the point is why this teacher asks to determine if the girl or those girls have grasped the lesson from him and memorized it well or not. Do you understand how? The matter is exactly the same.
The questioner : Fine, in another hadith they cited, Shaykh, I mean, perhaps I can mention its text. From 'Urwah ibn al-Zubayr (may Allah be pleased with them both), he used to say in the end of every prayer.
The Shaykh : In every one of these.
The questioner : He would glorify with them, meaning he would raise his voice.
The Shaykh : I know, yes, yes, it is all from the same category. And you must have knowledge of a jurisprudential principle: if two hadiths conflict, one from his (peace and blessings be upon him) action and the other from his saying, and reconciliation between them is not possible, which is the stronger position at that time? The saying or the action?
The questioner : We prioritize the saying.
The Shaykh : Yes, so in our current reality, we apply this rule, then ...
The questioner : Fine, and if reconciliation is possible.
The Shaykh : Do not rush me. Then in another rule, if the prohibitive and the permissive conflict, which is prioritized?
The questioner : The prohibitive.
The Shaykh : What is the prohibitive here? The one with you or the one with me?
The questioner : The one with you, Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Fine, and what is the one with you?
The questioner : Permissive.
The Shaykh : Therefore, the one with me is stronger than the one with you from two aspects.
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : That I have the saying, which is prioritized over the action, and I have the prohibition, which is prioritized over the permissive, so there is no doubt in this. And therefore, you will find the scholars have precise insights. When Imam al-Shafi'i, who is among the most knowledgeable of the four Imams, let alone others, says that this was for the time of teaching, why does he interpret it this way? Because he finds these massive textual prohibitions preventing disturbance, so he prioritizes the saying over the action and the prohibitive over the permissive. This is very clear, were it not for the custom.