(Do not pray the 'Asr prayer except in Banu Quraizah) Some people use this as evidence to permit disagreement in all cases, and to validate the position of every party involved in the disagreement.

The questioner: Hadith: , There is a great deal to say about this. That is, some of the innovators use it for what they want, and some others use it. Of course, we want the correct understanding, do we not?

The Shaykh: Here is a question that says: And this is also one of the problems of the present time, and of some of the groups. This group or that group, from among those who want to smooth over the bad reality in which the Muslims find themselves, to our great regret. They do not want to bring about reform in the land; rather, they want to leave the old as it is. They do not want to revive the Sunnah that people have killed off due to their ignorance or their negligence. And they do not want to fall under the generality of the previous hadith after understanding it correctly: the hadith.
I say: Many people cling to maintaining the disagreements that we have inherited today over these long centuries. And these disagreements, would that they had stopped at what they call errors. I say—and I mean what I say—would that these disagreements had stopped at what they call branches. But, to our regret, they have gone beyond that to what they also call principles. And by my saying that they call them branches and principles, I mean that this is a modern innovation that has entered the Muslims, and it has made the Shari'ah in their view two parts: a part that must be attended to, and a part that does not need to be attended to. Whoever does that has done well, and whoever does not, there is no blame on him.
And one of the afflictions, or one of the misfortunes—if this expression is correct—of the aforementioned division is that those who adopted it will not act according to what they called principles, nor according to what they called branches. Rather, their religion will become mere desires. That is because dividing Islam into principles and branches:
First: It requires extensive knowledge of the Book and the Sunnah. And as you see—to our great regret—those qualified for this in this age are few, and very few. Because most of those who are thought to be people of knowledge are only people of knowledge of a school of jurisprudence or of the schools of jurisprudence. As for the Qur'an and the Sunnah, and the authentic Sunnah in particular, very few of the scholars of the present age are characterized by this correct knowledge. I say: To divide or to establish Islam as two parts, principles and branches, requires this extensive knowledge of the Book and the Sunnah.
And second: Is it possible for the Muslims, if they gathered on one platform, in one place, all the people of knowledge and the people of true knowledge; if they gathered on one platform; is it possible for them to make Islam two parts, principles on which they agree, and branches on which they agree? Or will there remain some matters where some of them include them in the first part, and some of them include them in the second part? In that case, what is the state of the common Muslims? If the people of knowledge disagree, and as you see, until now, the truth of the Mighty and Majestic: , then disagreement is part of human nature. So if they gathered on one platform and wanted to clarify to people what is permissible to be in the first part, and what is permissible to be in the other part; they would not be able to agree on that. Rather, they would remain disagreeing. Therefore, my firm belief is that it is not permissible to distinguish between one law and another, saying this is a principle that one must not be lax in, and this is a branch in which one may be lax. Yes, if what is meant by branch and principle is what corresponds to the obligatory and what corresponds to the recommended practice; this is undoubtedly a possible matter. But that is not what is intended. What is intended is what relates to creed, and what relates to worship. And what relates to creed is the principle, and it is that which must be relied upon and held to, and nothing of it must be neglected. And what relates to acts of worship; the matter is easy. Especially since they came with a hammer: "Whoever follows a scholar will meet Allah safe!" And because of the popularity of this phrase, many people assume that it is a hadith from the Messenger—peace and blessings be upon him—and it has no basis even in the fabricated hadiths. There is no basis for this phrase; "Whoever follows a scholar will meet Allah safe" even in the fabricated hadiths. And we can say: This is a freshly fabricated hadith; meaning a hadith in the present age. And this is one of the problems of this age, that phrases circulate there that we have not found even in the fabricated hadiths. Where did they come from? From that source from which the old fabricated hadiths came, for which books of fabrications were written.
And the point is: Those whom we referred to use as evidence for the meaning of this phrase "Whoever follows a scholar will meet Allah safe" an authentic hadith. And their use of it as evidence is entirely similar, in terms of deviation from its correct meaning, to the use by the innovators of their saying that there is a good innovation in Islam, with the hadith: . What is this authentic hadith on which those who affirm disagreement rely? And they never want to lead the Muslims to the saying of the Lord of the Worlds . Consider with me this verse It did not say creed and non-creed, it did not say principle and branch, but rather in any matter of the rulings of the Shari'ah, the verse.
Those who do not want to, and do not set out with us, to reform what the people before us corrupted, say: Our evidence for that is the hadith of Banu Quraizah, when the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—sent a group of his Companions to Banu Quraizah, he said to them: , and they set out in haste. Then the time of 'Asr caught up with them, so they split into two groups, into two opinions. Some said: We must pray 'Asr before its time ends. And some said: No, our Prophet said: . So they disagreed. Some of them actually prayed 'Asr in the usual time before the sun set, and some delayed the prayer. When they returned to the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—and mentioned to him the disagreement that occurred between them, the error now is from those people who narrate the hadith incorrectly, intentionally or by mistake, their Lord knows them best. But the reality is that they say that the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—approved both groups in their actions. And this is an error in narration and in understanding. As for the narration, because the hadith is in "the two Sahihs" as we mentioned, from the narration of 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar ibn al-Khattab—may Allah be pleased with them both—he said: When the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—heard of their disagreement, Ibn 'Umar said: "So he did not rebuke any group of them." He did not rebuke any group of them. He did not approve them all, rather he did not rebuke. And this is the requirement of the Shari'ah by its general rules, as you all know—may Allah will it—from his saying—peace and blessings be upon him: .
So, the one who is rewarded is not to be rebuked. From this, we should take a lesson. This is a digression that may be a bit long, so please forgive me. From this hadith, we should understand that if we see an imam among the imams of the Muslims who has contradicted a correct sunnah, we should not belittle him or criticize him. Rather, we should seek an excuse for him, for he was exercising independent legal reasoning (ijtihad). If he was correct, he has two rewards; if he was wrong, he has one reward. Among the excuses explained by the Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) in his book *Raf' al-Malaam 'an al-A'immah al-A'lam* (Lifting Blame from the Distinguished Imams) is that the sunnah had not yet been collected at that time. The sunnah was scattered across the Islamic lands to which the first Companions of the Messenger (peace be upon him) had dispersed, and thus the sunnah became scattered. The Muslim scholars were not able to collect this sunnah until the end of the second century and the third century, and so on. Therefore, it was a distinguishing feature of the later Muslim scholars that they collected more of the sunnah than the imam who came before them. Consequently, we find that reality testifies that the one who collected the most is the latest in era. The imam who collected the most sunnah and hadith among the four imams is Imam Ahmad, followed by his teacher al-Shafi'i, followed by his teacher, Imam Malik. The last to come in terms of era is the first imam, Abu Hanifah, who had the least hadith. This is because he rarely left Kufa, where he was raised, grew up, and learned, except on the rare occasion of Hajj or 'Umrah. He did not travel around the lands to collect the sunnah as al-Shafi'i did on his journey to Egypt, and as his student Imam Ahmad did, who traveled around the lands.
The point is: His statement in the hadith, "He did not rebuke any group of them," is fully consistent with the observation that they were exercising independent legal reasoning (ijtihad). Did he approve of their actions? No, because the secret of this matter is that he did not clarify. Here a traditional question arises, or as they say today, it poses itself: Why did the Messenger (peace be upon him) not clarify which group was correct and which group was wrong? Whereas we find the exact opposite in another case. It is reported in *Sunan Abu Dawud* and others that two men from the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) went out traveling. Then the time for prayer came, and they did not find water. They performed dry ablution (tayammum) with clean earth and prayed. Then they found water. One of them repeated the prayer, and the other did not. When they returned to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), he said to the one who repeated the prayer: , and to the one who did not repeat it: . Also, this hadith—and the hadith has many connections—do you think the one who repeated it was the one who did better? Or the one who did not repeat it? Or in other words: If this story happened to some people later—and this naturally happens often, and this is the point—is the sunnah, or is the more correct opinion, that the one who prayed with tayammum should repeat the prayer after finding water, or should he stick to the prayer he performed and not repeat it?
If we stop without reflecting on what is in the previous hadith, it might come to mind that it is better to repeat the prayer, because the Messenger (peace be upon him) said: . But this answer is wrong. We say he told him: because he was exercising independent legal reasoning (ijtihad), and because the sunnah was not available to him. But our reality today is that we know the sunnah, and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said to the one who did not repeat it: . So, whoever is afflicted with what the one who repeated the prayer was afflicted with should not repeat the prayer today, because that person was excused and was exercising independent legal reasoning (ijtihad). And "there is no independent legal reasoning (ijtihad) in the presence of an explicit text," and it is not permissible to contradict the sunnah. And he (peace be upon him) said in the authentic hadith: . So, in this incident, we understand that the one who prayed with tayammum and then found water does not repeat the prayer, because that would be contrary to the sunnah.
The point of this incident is that the Messenger said to so-and-so: , and to so-and-so: . And why did he not say, "You hit the sunnah," and "You have your reward twice"?
The answer is: Because this incident did not recur. The incident of contradicting the prayer—the system of the prayer—, and , and whoever does not catch it has no prayer for him. This incident did not recur, and therefore he (peace be upon him) was content with not rebuking them. Why did it not recur?
Suppose now that exactly this incident happened to the first caliph, the Rightly Guided Caliph, who said to those he sent to a certain place: "Do not pray 'Asr except in that place." These Muslims would not differ if the time caught up with them, because they know that Islam has been completed, as He (the Exalted) said: . If it was possible for rulings to change during the time of the Messenger (peace be upon him) because revelation was still descending upon him in succession, then there is no way for that to happen after the death of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). So, if a Muslim caliph, indeed a Rightly Guided Qurayshi, said to a group of them: "Do not pray 'Asr except in such-and-such a place," and then the time for 'Asr became tight for them, it would be obligatory for all of them, and there would be absolutely no difference among them regarding whether they pray now or pray in that place. The reason is that in the incident of Banu Quraizah, there was a doubt among some of them that this was a new ruling. The Messenger said: . But if something like that happened after the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), no one has the right to introduce a specification or restriction into a general text or a general principle after the death of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), because Islam has been completed, so there is no room for correction.