The hadith of Rafi' regarding the believer reciting al-Fatihah: Is it defective due to 'an'anah?

The questioner : Regarding, O Shaykh, the hadith of Rafi' ... the believer reciting al-Fatihah, is it defective due to 'an'anah ...?

The Shaykh : It is so, because either it is narrated through an intermediary who is unknown, I think his name is Nafi', or the intermediary is omitted, which is tadlis (concealment of a defect in a chain). Therefore, his hadith is sometimes considered defective due to 'an'anah, and sometimes due to the unknown narrator. Added to this is that its text does not indicate the obligation of reciting al-Fatihah for the follower; that is because the command for something after it has been prohibited does not necessitate its obligation, but rather the command for something after it has been prohibited only indicates its permissibility, not its obligation. Examples of this from the Qur'an are well known and mentioned in the science of usul al-fiqh (the principles of jurisprudence) across the different schools of jurisprudence; for example, His saying - the Exalted - : , so His command here to hunt is the lifting of the previous prohibition for the one in ihram (the consecrated state of pilgrimage) that he should not hunt. Similarly, His saying - the Exalted - : , so this command to disperse after the completion of the prayer does not mean its obligation, but rather means its permissibility; because it is preceded by His saying - Mighty and Majestic - : , so this command which indicates leaving the action was lifted by His saying - the Exalted - : . If we use this principle of usul al-fiqh and return to the hadith, assuming its authenticity with the same wording; .
is a prohibition, is an exception to the prohibition which indicates permissibility but not obligation. As for the sentence after that - which is His saying - peace and blessings be upon him - : is a sentence explaining the reason for this ruling. If the ruling is obligatory, it is an explanation for this obligatory ruling; if the ruling is recommended, it is an explanation for this recommended ruling; and if the ruling is permissibility, it is also an explanation for this permissible ruling. If this is understood, it becomes very clear that the hadith does not indicate the obligation of recitation by the follower behind the imam in the loud prayer. And what confirms this are matters, the clearest of which is: that this hadith, which contains the aforementioned defect, came in "Musnad al-Imam Ahmad" with a wording that confirms that this command does not mean obligation, but rather means the weaker position of permissibility; where its wording was: , so His saying: means if it is absolutely necessary for one of you to want to recite, let him recite with al-Fatihah of the Book; because the original rule is that there is no prayer for one who does not recite with al-Fatihah of the Book.
Therefore, the stronger opinion is what Imam Ahmad - may Allah have mercy on him - held in this issue, and Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah followed him in that the follower must recite in the quiet prayer, and remain silent in the loud prayer, and not recite as long as he hears the recitation of the Qur'an from the imam. And by this, the evidences that appear to contradict each other are gathered, and they are saved from contradiction when we place each evidence in its appropriate place, taking into account what may contradict it. At that time, it is necessary to reconcile the texts, as is known from the rules of the science of usul al-fiqh (the principles of jurisprudence) and usul al-hadith (the principles of hadith) as well. Al-Hafiz al-Iraqi - may Allah have mercy on him - mentioned in his "Sharh" (commentary) on "Mukhtasar Ibn al-Salah" in the section on differing hadiths: that if two differing hadiths that appear to contradict each other come, it is obligatory to reconcile them by one of the many ways of reconciliation which exceeded one hundred ways and more - and upon you be peace and the mercy of Allah and His blessings - . And this is a very important matter, otherwise the student of knowledge will fall into confusion. For example, we read His saying - the Exalted - : , so if we stop at this verse and do not take what the hadiths brought regarding the permissibility of the dead of the sea and locusts, we would forbid eating them; because the Qur'anic text includes them ; so this is a rule from the rules of reconciling texts, which is expressed as the general and the specific. If a specific text contradicts the general text, the general text is specified by the specific text.
And it is not required here what some schools of jurisprudence say, that it is not permissible to specify the general text that is certain or mass-transmitted by the specific text that is an individual report. This is not a condition, even though some mention it in their books of usul al-fiqh (the principles of jurisprudence). But we see them, despite that, contradicting their principles in some branches and in some sub-branches, among which is what we are discussing now. The rule they stated: "It is not permissible to specify the general whose existence is certain - and the Qur'an is of that - by the individual report whose existence is probable"; despite that, they agreed with the majority of Muslims on the permissibility of the dead of fish and locusts; even though the hadith in that is, at the least, not mass-transmitted. So they specified the certain by the probable. On this basis, it is necessary to reconcile the contradicting texts. We have the noble verse: perhaps you ... a general text, which is contradicted by the other general text: , here two generals contradicted each other; so which of the two generals is applied to the other general; the Qur'anic general or the hadith general?
There is no difference for us between the Qur'an and the hadith in terms of the obligation to act with both of them. And the philosophy that is said in what we mentioned earlier, this reason is argued by the majority of scholars, indeed even by those who established that rule, and where they did not apply it in many other matters that branched out from the contradiction of applying this rule. There is no difference for us between the verse and the hadith in terms of the obligation to act with both of them. But here two generals contradicted each other, so which of them is specified by the other? Here is the precision of the matter. If we look at the schools of jurisprudence, we say the Hanafis specified the hadith by the Qur'an, and so did some of those who do not obligate recitation in the loud prayer. And the others reversed it and said: We specify the Qur'an by the hadith. And the result is completely different; whoever specifies the verse by the hadith, it means the following: except by reciting al-Fatihah behind the imam. And whoever reverses that says: except for one who hears the recitation of al-Fatihah with proficiency; so he must be silent and quiet, . And the issue remains the precise consideration in preferring one of the two schools over the other, and what we saw ... a specification occurs to it, at that time the text that specifies the general text is specified by another. And it is not permissible to specify the general that has not been specified at all by the general text that was specified by another. This is very precise speech, but it may need clarification with an example.
It is the example now before us ... .