On the issue of disagreement between the Shafi'i and Hanafi schools, and following a Shafi'i or Hanafi imam?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
Al-Albani: So their disagreement did not lead to any estrangement or quarreling, and it did not lead to what you have joined us in denying, which is division in the first practical pillar of Islam, which is prayer. As we all know, among them were those who held what Abu Hanifa, for example, adopted later, namely that the emission of blood invalidates the ablution, and among them were those who held what Imam al-Shafi'i held, that it does not invalidate it. We do not wish to multiply examples, as they are well known, but despite that, their imam was one, their prayer was one, their congregation was one, and so on. Whereas we see Muslims today differing in their prayer and in their imams; these refuse to pray behind this imam because he is of a different school than theirs, and vice versa. I have had unfortunate experiences with the closest people to me, or among the closest people to me; when I was in a mosque where the prayer was established and it was for a Shafi'i imam, ... yes, so I said to a man among the closest people to me: "Come to prayer, for the iqamah has been called." He said: "This prayer is not for us." And this is something that many of the learned may not say with their tongues because it is a great matter in reality, but they do it intentionally.
Al-Bouti: No, this is not a place for denial ... .
Al-Albani: Yes, but here we want to draw attention to an issue which, in reality, regarding the research I want to discuss with you, is considered secondary. Since the occasion has arisen, there is no harm in pointing it out. You mentioned in your letter the consensus on a Hanafi praying behind a Shafi'i and vice versa. Based on what we know, there is a great disagreement, and not only that; but the stronger position and the one issued as a fatwa in both the Shafi'i and Hanafi schools is the dislike of praying behind one who differs in school. This is the least ruling, otherwise.
Al-Bouti: What do you remember of my words on this topic in the letter?
Al-Albani: Your letter is with you, perhaps.
Al-Bouti: No, I mean, what do you remember of my letter? I said that there are those who deny it, and these are denied for their denial.
Al-Albani: No, you cited the consensus, and we will hear your phrase now. This consensus, from the scientific side, you are required to cite, there is no evidence!
Al-Bouti: Do you mean you see the permissibility of a Hanafi praying behind a Shafi'i, or do you see the impermissibility?
Al-Albani: No, I am not speaking about my opinion now, so please, I am asking you now, and you may ask me whatever you wish after you answer my question. I said: I wanted to research a fundamental issue, so the discussion forced us to research this secondary issue. You cited the consensus in more than one place, I think, and you said here on page eight with ten: "And therefore the scholars agreed on the validity of a Hanafi following a Shafi'i or Maliki, and vice versa." This is by consensus.
Al-Bouti: Validity is contradictory, I mean, is dislike contradictory to validity?
Al-Albani: No, no, my research is on validity now.
Al-Bouti: Until now, the response to my words is your saying: "Although some jurists dislike it," dislike does not contradict validity.
Al-Albani: Correct, the research now has two branches: the first branch is the permissibility of praying behind one who differs in school without any doubt that justifies one who follows a certain school to separate from the congregation that was established with an imam of a different school.
Al-Bouti: This is what we did not discuss.
Al-Albani: Never mind, the second issue: the validity of the prayer; this consensus you cited on the validity of praying behind one who differs in school, we do not see it as correct; because you know, I believe, that if a Shafi'i knows from a Hanafi that he follows his school which says to him, for example: "If he performs wudu and touches a woman, he prays based on this wudu," then the prayer of the Shafi'i behind the Hanafi is invalid, not valid.
Al-Bouti: Who said this?
Al-Albani: The scholars of the Shafi'i school.
Al-Bouti: They said, I mean, the one issued as a fatwa among the Shafi'is, even though the following of a Shafi'i behind a Hanafi makes his prayer invalid?
Al-Albani: Yes, and this is as it is said: "Is a fatwa issued while Malik is in Medina?" That is it.
Al-Bouti: ... I see with my eyes if it is confirmed to be true.
Al-Albani: I told you now: if he knows from this Hanafi imam that if he touches a woman and then does not renew the wudu.
Al-Bouti: I mean, he knows that with certainty?
Al-Albani: I say: if he knows.
Al-Bouti: Okay; this is not what is explicitly stated.
Al-Albani: How is it not what is explicitly stated? ... .
Al-Bouti: You are talking about the Shafi'i man if he sees a Hanafi in the mihrab; is it permissible for him to follow him or not? It is permissible, of course.
Al-Albani: Your words are absolute, your words are absolute.
Al-Bouti: And this is what we were talking about.
Al-Albani: No, your words are absolute.
Al-Bouti: Absolute and not general, you know the difference between general and absolute.
Al-Albani: My sir, I know this. Please.
Al-Bouti: If you use the phrase of generality, it includes all the particulars, including the particular you are talking about, so the objection is returned to my words. But if you use the means of absoluteness without restriction and without generalization, we say: the prayer of the Shafi'i behind the Hanafi is valid, and the prayer of the Hanafi behind the Shafi'i is valid. This is called absoluteness, and in this case, this statement is not objected to by the absoluteness of the particulars for which prayer is disliked or forbidden due to a specific reason. This is known to you.
Al-Albani: I ask you; do you now admit that this statement is absolute? Is that not so?
Al-Bouti: Yes, completely.
Al-Albani: Okay; is it not from the scientific rules that the absolute proceeds on its absoluteness until something comes to restrict it?
Al-Bouti: Absoluteness is true for some particulars, the absolute sentence.
Al-Albani: Never mind, I asked you a question, and I hope for an answer to the question. Is it not from the scientific rules that the absolute proceeds on its absoluteness until something comes to restrict it?
Al-Bouti: This statement, Professor, needs to be interpreted.
Al-Albani: Never mind, please interpret it.
Al-Bouti: ... It needs interpretation.
Al-Albani: Please.
Al-Bouti: Does the absolute apply to all its particulars or to some of its particulars?
Al-Albani: It applies to some of its particulars, correct, but when something comes to restrict it, this restriction reduces the particulars.
Another Shaykh: The professor's words are correct, but your answer has nothing ... correct.
Al-Albani: ... .
Another Shaykh: If something is made absolute, it is intended from it ... , so the prayer behind the differing imam, his words are correct, but the intended meaning of the one who says: it is permissible for the ma'mum to pray behind the one who differs in his school, his intention is if it is not contradictory in terms of validity, but if there is something contradictory in terms of validity ... the prayer is invalidated.
Al-Bouti: And therefore there is no contradiction between the absoluteness of the phrase and this which ... .
Al-Albani: No, there is a contradiction!
Another Shaykh: The answer ... you say: if something is made absolute, the complete is intended from it, my intention is like this, otherwise you won't get out, or if I mean we want the complete from it, do not include the particulars he talks about.The Shaykh .
Al-Albani: I am asking another question, my dear professor.
Al-Bouti: No, let's clarify it.
Al-Albani: No, I want another question on the same topic, and it is a question that goes beyond the previous research. The one who reads this letter and stops at this text will never understand what you mean.
Al-Bouti: Because the phrase is absolute?
Al-Albani: Yes, because the absolute proceeds on its absoluteness. So if at least you had placed a restriction on this phrase in another place, we would say this absolute was restricted in another place. But you, if you allow me, but you repeated this statement in another occasion, and also, as you know, if the absolute is repeated with the same absoluteness in another place, it means confirming the absoluteness and confirming ... the absoluteness. Like generality, if it is repeated in the expression of the Lawgiver, if the general expression is repeated, this repetition indicates that this is a general absolute that has not been subjected to specification. So you, sir.
Al-Bouti: Professor, this is your technical terminology. We say:
Al-Albani: What is the terminology from your side? Clarify it.
Al-Bouti: In your terminology, you may define it as you wish.
Al-Albani: And what is it?
Al-Bouti: And you have no right to impose it on me.
Al-Albani: No problem, but what is the terminology, Professor?
Al-Bouti: I am saying now: The scholars are in agreement that it is permissible to pray on stone, on the ground, or on a mat. The scholars are in agreement, and this statement is not to be refuted in any way. This statement does not contradict the fact that prayer on impure ground is not valid, nor does it contradict the fact that prayer on a mat that has been touched by impurity is not valid. I do not think anyone has said that the second statement refutes the first general statement.
Al-Albani: I agree with you on this, but...
Al-Bouti: Our case is the same thing.
Al-Albani: No, no, there is a big difference.
Al-Bouti: I say: The scholars are in agreement on the permissibility of a Shafi'i praying behind a Hanafi, and vice versa, in the absolute case. However, if the Shafi'i is certain that the Hanafi has committed something that invalidates the prayer according to his view, that is another case which we are not discussing specifically. But if you use a general term, you may hold me accountable. If you say "in all cases" or "in all forms it is valid," you may hold me accountable for this expression.
Al-Albani: The example you mentioned is correct.
Al-Bouti: Good; and this is like it.
Al-Albani: If you allow me, I agree with you; because the example is correct, but the thing being exemplified is not correct. Why? Because I told you: This message that is read does not assume that the reader is a jurist. Similarly, the layperson who knows that it is said that prayer on the ground is permissible does not assume in his mind that it is permissible even if it is impure; because it has become, as if it is known from the religion by necessity, that prayer on impure ground is not valid. Therefore, this knowledge that is established in the minds of all Muslims, even the laypeople, when they read an expression from you or from me or from someone else that prayer on the ground is permissible, they never assume this generality in their minds; because it is concentrated in their minds and in their knowledge, due to their lay status, that prayer on impure ground is invalid. Therefore, this knowledge...
Al-Bouti: No...
Al-Albani: - If you allow me, let me finish my speech -; this knowledge is what removes the danger from the generality in the example I cited, and the matter is not as you mentioned in your message; because you - specifically - because if you want to say...
Al-Bouti: What is the difference between the example and the thing being exemplified?
Al-Albani: The difference - may Allah bless you - is that not everyone who reads this message knows this condition that is in your mind and in your knowledge.
Al-Bouti: So the objection is not to the correctness of the expression, but that there are people who need to be brought down to the level of their understanding.
Al-Albani: The objection is to the generality from the perspective of usul al-fiqh (the principles of jurisprudence) first, as I started the discussion.
Al-Bouti: ... This is a general statement, not an ordinary one.
Al-Albani: If you allow me, secondly, the objection is to the example I cited. I say: There is a difference in the example. The example I cited, no one finds fault with it; why? Because how it is established in the mind of every addressee, and the matter is not so here. In any case, there is something else more important than what preceded. What do you want? If you want to place this restriction; meaning, if you want me or any reader to understand this expression from you with the following restriction that we understood from you: The scholars are in agreement on the validity of a Hanafi following a Shafi'i or a Maliki, and vice versa, on the condition that the imam has not committed something that invalidates the prayer according to the view of the follower. Well, does anyone there say the opposite of this statement, even you, to strengthen the issue and say: "The scholars are in agreement"? Who are you addressing with this statement? And what is the benefit and what is the result of this word? There is no disagreement among the scholars. Please, because you are now trying to solve an existing problem, you do not want to address a matter agreed upon by Muslims. All Muslims, despite their different schools of jurisprudence, believe that a Muslim imam, if... prays and the conditions for the validity and completeness of the prayer are met according to the view of the follower, they are all in agreement on this restriction, in agreement... on the prayer, and no one denies this.
Al-Bouti: There are people from the Salafi group who claim or think that those who follow... of the four schools of jurisprudence do not permit the Shafi'i from them...
Al-Albani: No, my professor, we...
Al-Bouti: They told me this statement.
Al-Albani: Be patient, "And the defect of news is only in its narrators"; they told you, what did they tell you?
Al-Bouti: Of course, their statement is not correct.
Al-Albani: Allow me, allow me a moment.
Al-Bouti: But they say: As for the scholars of the schools or those who follow one of the four schools of jurisprudence, the Shafi'i does not permit them to pray behind a Hanafi, and therefore the prayer niches (mihrabs) are multiplied.
Al-Albani: Allow me a moment, allow me a moment. The problem that you are reporting from those people is the one you fell into; they generalized, and you generalized. They generalized the opposite, the invalidity, and they mean the restrictions I mentioned, and you generalized the validity, and you mean the restriction you mentioned. So, when such a council is held, and this is one of the benefits of meetings...
Al-Bouti: No, no, let's stay here... there is a big difference.
Al-Albani: Allow me to clarify, to clarify my statement.
Al-Bouti: I clarified it.
Al-Albani: I did not say that.
Al-Bouti: The statement... they said; they picked up a very small detail; which is the case if the Shafi'i is certain of the invalidity of the Hanafi's prayer, and they took "correction" as an expression for this detail. Who said that this expression is correct?
Al-Albani: Who are they?
Al-Bouti: The group about whom I say that they attribute to the school followers the invalidity of the Hanafi's prayer behind the Shafi'i. You say your answer is that they are not in their expression except like my expression.
Al-Albani: Yes.
Al-Bouti: They took one detail and colored all the cases with it; meaning, they said this about the man who believes that the Hanafi's prayer is invalid. What do you mean? The person who tells me that the Shafi'i does not pray behind the Hanafi, and the Hanafi does not pray behind the Shafi'i, means the Shafi'i who believes in the invalidity of the Hanafi's prayer, or vice versa. This expression is not like my expression; why? Because they did not take the generality in the broadest meaning, but rather picked up only one detail and did not express it as a detail.
Al-Albani: But they expressed it, my professor. What did he say? We are unfortunately going to waste effort on what so-and-so said and so-and-so said. We did not gather for this.
Another Shaykh: A small word.
Al-Albani: Please.
Another Shaykh: ... between you and him.
Al-Albani: Correct.
Another Shaykh: That we are speaking in scientific rules. I... the first time the statement... as an acknowledgment of the truth, but in... if the man who looks at the book, I do not say this book, another book.
Al-Albani: Good.
Al-Bouti: Another well-known book.
Al-Bouti: For example, for example.
Al-Albani: Good; please.
Al-Bouti: A man said to his wife: If you pray, you are divorced, and then she prayed a prayer without its conditions.
Al-Albani: She did not pray.
Another Shaykh: So why? Although he said: If you pray, because if the word is generalized, the complete individual is intended. So this man now, you asked, and I know who knows that he knows if the man is Shafi'i, for example, blood came out of him and the Hanafi prays behind him, it is not permissible, so his intention is not that... So the truth is with you that as a precaution he should have remained silent, but if it is a scholar who reads and is fair, he says this is carried to the complete individual.
Al-Albani: I mean, this is your correct statement, but how do I know that the professor means this restriction, how do I know it? I am now leaving the topic, let's know from him, meaning I did not intend it, and...
Al-Bouti: The rules are between us, Professor.
Al-Albani: ... We are speaking within the rules, he is saying that... Please.
Another Shaykh: ... truthfully ... there is a difference between a person and his heart; if you find a book from the books and an expression like this that allows for such and such, I say: this is a general statement that is to be understood as applying to the complete individual. I do not want to debate you.
Al-Albani: Very good.
Another Shaykh: Because the rules of knowledge require it to be so.
Al-Albani: If you would allow me here.
Another Shaykh: Please go ahead.
Al-Albani: In some clarification; I know from the Shafi'i school that some of them say that the prayer of a Shafi'i behind a Hanafi is valid, even if he sees in him something that invalidates the prayer or the ablution. I know that in the school of Imam al-Shafi'i, if a Shafi'i who follows the Shafi'i school prays behind a Hanafi, Maliki, or Hanbali imam, and sees in him something that invalidates his ablution or prayer according to his own school; this is a view that some scholars of the Shafi'i school have issued as a ruling. However, the stronger position among them—please—the stronger position among them is the well-known one in the Shafi'i school... Let me get to the point of my speech, as they say. So when I read the professor's words here, I can understand his opinion without seeing the restriction; perhaps his opinion aligns with this anomalous view in the school that says the prayer behind a non-Shafi'i is valid even if one sees in him something that invalidates it. How can I say that Professor Sa'id holds this and that? So the generality here is as I said.
Another Shaykh: This opinion that you, sir, mention, perhaps it exists; I do not say it does not exist, I say: I do not deny it, but it is completely rejected, and no one pays attention to it, no one. And I do not say it is the weaker position, no; it is abandoned. So this opinion does not come to the mind of anyone that a student of knowledge is not supposed to be a teacher; a student of knowledge assumes this assumption.
Al-Albani: My dear professor, your words are correct regarding your own point of view, and perhaps—also—Professor Sa'id sees it that way too, but I do not know the unseen. I understand his opinion and your opinion from your book; this expression was not given a restriction.
Another questioner: How does it follow from that?
Al-Albani: Yes?
Another questioner: How does it follow from that... if no restriction was placed on it?
Al-Albani: That people understand the opposite of what is intended.
Another questioner : ... .
Al-Albani: No, it will not be so; this book was written so that people understand, not so that they do not understand, but so that they understand the truths.
Al-Bouti: I think there is a means, which is the convention; that it is applied to the complete individual.
Another Shaykh: ... it is a truth, but the answer is that the book is for the one who reads and understands knowledge, not for the ignorant.
Another questioner: The professor mentions this statement in the context of explaining the reconciliation between the schools, and that there is no such fanaticism, of course, regarding the schools, adherence, and strictness, and denying that the prayer is invalidated behind one who differs in school. Therefore, it was necessary to clarify this issue, otherwise in this case, the problem remains standing.
Another questioner: ... he says how do we validate it, while the Companions each had a school, and they prayed behind one another... here... he did not say with the condition that there is no such difference... our speech here is not that this statement is wrong, we say it is to be understood as applying to the complete individual, this is a rule.
Another questioner: I say from this statement.
Al-Bouti: This rule removes the confusion between you and me, my professor.
Al-Albani: It is not the confusion between you and me, the confusion is between you and the group among whom the message was published and this statement was made general, and they do not understand from it this restriction that you published.
Al-Bouti: Meaning you, sir, understood.
Al-Albani: I say more than what you say.
Al-Bouti: Since you understood that this generality is to be understood as applying to the general.
Al-Albani: I understood now.
Al-Bouti: Why now?
Al-Albani: Because now I heard your opinion! ... .
Al-Bouti: This is not my opinion, I am stating a rule, not my opinion.
Al-Albani: No, I intend this.
Al-Bouti: The generality, understanding the general as applying to the complete individual, is not my opinion!
Al-Albani: My dear professor, Professor Sa'id, now I understood your opinion that you do not adopt the anomalous view existing in the Shafi'i school; that the prayer is valid behind one who differs in school even if something comes from him that invalidates the prayer and the ablution. Now I understood this, before I did not know it. So now I say: if I were asked about this view? I would say this is a general statement intended for the specific, the specific restriction, the clarified restriction.
Al-Bouti: No, not the specific, I do not intend the specific, no, professor.
Al-Albani: It is restricted, my brother... the wording, I am telling you it is a general statement I intend with the restriction of... .
Al-Bouti: Even if you did not know my opinion now.
Al-Albani: Yes.
Al-Bouti: Was it not the requirement, based on the rules of expression and knowledge, to understand from the general its complete individual; meaning the prayer that has nothing in it.
Al-Albani: Glory be to Allah! I say there are some other scholars of the Shafi'i school who broaden the subject.
Al-Bouti: This is left unmentioned, left unmentioned, without me intending for it to enter... .
Al-Albani: This is my intention, meaning, from here came the confusion, professor. This is an admission from you that you may intend and you may not intend.
Al-Bouti: No, it is left unmentioned, this expression does not bear the implication... .
Al-Albani: Now, is there a difference if after this restriction, I ask you another question; if the Hanafi imam did not do something invalidating, but did something that makes the prayer disliked; is the prayer of the Shafi'i behind this imam disliked?
Al-Bouti: Valid, I said valid.
Al-Albani: Allow me to ask you, I am not asking you about validity now, the subject of validity is finished, we understood from you frankly that this general statement is not intended except with the restriction of validity, as the professor favored... .
Al-Bouti: I intend that I used an expression that includes dislike and includes permissibility, so I said validity even if it is forbidden.
Al-Albani: It is fine, I want now to clarify with you; the prayer of the Shafi'i behind the Hanafi who did something that makes the prayer disliked.
Al-Bouti: Contrary to the school.
Al-Albani: I am asking you for your opinion, my professor?
Al-Bouti: By Allah, I have no opinion, I am a transmitter, I am transmitting an opinion... .
Al-Albani: Glory be to Allah! Do you have no school? And we are in the schools!
Another Shaykh: He is asking about the school, not about an opinion... .
Al-Bouti: No, he says: I am asking you for your opinion.
Al-Albani: Okay; allow me, your school.
Another Shaykh: Your opinion; meaning information from your school that you follow.
Al-Albani: Yes, correct.
What is it, my professor, let us clarify the matters, we up to this hour do not know from you that you have a school and you have an opinion, do you see how? I know your school, your opinion, your opinion is your school, meaning you do not go out of the school, is this what I know? Okay; therefore, like the favor of the professor, if I said your opinion? I mean your school.
Al-Bouti: No... my opinion within the school.
Al-Albani: Allow me, sir, every matter needs clarity.
Al-Bouti: ... it has a context, why... what is your opinion? Meaning what do you consider stronger in the school?
Al-Albani: No problem, my dear professor.
Another questioner: ... you are discussing the words now... .
Al-Bouti: He intends the school.
Another questioner: You are discussing the words, coming!!
Al-Albani: Okay; who discusses the words? He says my opinion, I mean his school; because I do not know for him an opinion separate from the school.
Al-Bouti: As I said just now that there is a difference, you were not before, you said to him: is there a difference? He said to me: I want your opinion, so you intend by opinion something other than the school.
Al-Albani: Okay; allow me, now if I said to you in the issue there are two views, would the problem be finished?
Al-Bouti: I told you, professor, I told you in... .
Another Shaykh: ... because we have in the Shafi'i school two late scholars who are relied upon, so this is Ibn Hajar... until he says: praying alone is better for you than praying behind him, whereas with al-Ramli it is not disliked, and the Hanafi says: the two al-Ramlis agreed - the Hanafi al-Ramli and the Shafi'i al-Ramli - , so this is what you, sir, indicate that there is a difference... between Ibn Hajar and al-Ramli, and in the Shafi'i school these two men are like... the ruling... .
Al-Albani: If there are two opinions in the issue, is there not a stronger and a weaker opinion in the school of jurisprudence?
Another Shaykh: ... I told you, in your presence: there is none here.
Al-Albani: What do you mean by "there is none"?
Another Shaykh: No, here al-Shafi'i and al-Ramli are equal; even the mufti is free to issue a fatwa based on al-Shafi'i's opinion or al-Ramli's opinion.
Al-Albani: So this is your school's position on this issue?
Another Shaykh: Yes.
Al-Buti: But you, Professor, asked me after I had clarified this; you said: "But I want your opinion."
Al-Albani: Glory be to Allah, ... your opinion? You did not give your opinion on the issue. In reality, you gave two opinions on the issue; that is not an answer. I do not accept an answer like that; because if I were asked, "What is the professor's opinion on the issue?" I would say: "There are two opinions on the issue!"
Al-Buti: ... there are indeed two opinions.
Al-Albani: I understand, my master, but there is a stronger opinion and a weaker one. It is necessary, I mean, for the professor, that there be a stronger and a weaker one, because there cannot be two opinions on the issue!
Al-Buti: By Allah, I do not know ... both exist in the school of jurisprudence.
Al-Albani: Fine; let us get to the heart of the matter. I am now summarizing what I understood from you: that this general statement is intended with the condition of validity, just as the honorable father said. Then, regarding the case where the prayer is not invalid but contains things that make the prayer disliked, there are two opinions on the issue. Do you think this applies to all the details? For example, if we say a Hanafi man recited the tashahhud and stood up without sending blessings upon the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), this prayer ...
Al-Bouti: No, this is not a place for denial ... .
Al-Albani: Yes, but here we want to draw attention to an issue which, in reality, regarding the research I want to discuss with you, is considered secondary. Since the occasion has arisen, there is no harm in pointing it out. You mentioned in your letter the consensus on a Hanafi praying behind a Shafi'i and vice versa. Based on what we know, there is a great disagreement, and not only that; but the stronger position and the one issued as a fatwa in both the Shafi'i and Hanafi schools is the dislike of praying behind one who differs in school. This is the least ruling, otherwise.
Al-Bouti: What do you remember of my words on this topic in the letter?
Al-Albani: Your letter is with you, perhaps.
Al-Bouti: No, I mean, what do you remember of my letter? I said that there are those who deny it, and these are denied for their denial.
Al-Albani: No, you cited the consensus, and we will hear your phrase now. This consensus, from the scientific side, you are required to cite, there is no evidence!
Al-Bouti: Do you mean you see the permissibility of a Hanafi praying behind a Shafi'i, or do you see the impermissibility?
Al-Albani: No, I am not speaking about my opinion now, so please, I am asking you now, and you may ask me whatever you wish after you answer my question. I said: I wanted to research a fundamental issue, so the discussion forced us to research this secondary issue. You cited the consensus in more than one place, I think, and you said here on page eight with ten: "And therefore the scholars agreed on the validity of a Hanafi following a Shafi'i or Maliki, and vice versa." This is by consensus.
Al-Bouti: Validity is contradictory, I mean, is dislike contradictory to validity?
Al-Albani: No, no, my research is on validity now.
Al-Bouti: Until now, the response to my words is your saying: "Although some jurists dislike it," dislike does not contradict validity.
Al-Albani: Correct, the research now has two branches: the first branch is the permissibility of praying behind one who differs in school without any doubt that justifies one who follows a certain school to separate from the congregation that was established with an imam of a different school.
Al-Bouti: This is what we did not discuss.
Al-Albani: Never mind, the second issue: the validity of the prayer; this consensus you cited on the validity of praying behind one who differs in school, we do not see it as correct; because you know, I believe, that if a Shafi'i knows from a Hanafi that he follows his school which says to him, for example: "If he performs wudu and touches a woman, he prays based on this wudu," then the prayer of the Shafi'i behind the Hanafi is invalid, not valid.
Al-Bouti: Who said this?
Al-Albani: The scholars of the Shafi'i school.
Al-Bouti: They said, I mean, the one issued as a fatwa among the Shafi'is, even though the following of a Shafi'i behind a Hanafi makes his prayer invalid?
Al-Albani: Yes, and this is as it is said: "Is a fatwa issued while Malik is in Medina?" That is it.
Al-Bouti: ... I see with my eyes if it is confirmed to be true.
Al-Albani: I told you now: if he knows from this Hanafi imam that if he touches a woman and then does not renew the wudu.
Al-Bouti: I mean, he knows that with certainty?
Al-Albani: I say: if he knows.
Al-Bouti: Okay; this is not what is explicitly stated.
Al-Albani: How is it not what is explicitly stated? ... .
Al-Bouti: You are talking about the Shafi'i man if he sees a Hanafi in the mihrab; is it permissible for him to follow him or not? It is permissible, of course.
Al-Albani: Your words are absolute, your words are absolute.
Al-Bouti: And this is what we were talking about.
Al-Albani: No, your words are absolute.
Al-Bouti: Absolute and not general, you know the difference between general and absolute.
Al-Albani: My sir, I know this. Please.
Al-Bouti: If you use the phrase of generality, it includes all the particulars, including the particular you are talking about, so the objection is returned to my words. But if you use the means of absoluteness without restriction and without generalization, we say: the prayer of the Shafi'i behind the Hanafi is valid, and the prayer of the Hanafi behind the Shafi'i is valid. This is called absoluteness, and in this case, this statement is not objected to by the absoluteness of the particulars for which prayer is disliked or forbidden due to a specific reason. This is known to you.
Al-Albani: I ask you; do you now admit that this statement is absolute? Is that not so?
Al-Bouti: Yes, completely.
Al-Albani: Okay; is it not from the scientific rules that the absolute proceeds on its absoluteness until something comes to restrict it?
Al-Bouti: Absoluteness is true for some particulars, the absolute sentence.
Al-Albani: Never mind, I asked you a question, and I hope for an answer to the question. Is it not from the scientific rules that the absolute proceeds on its absoluteness until something comes to restrict it?
Al-Bouti: This statement, Professor, needs to be interpreted.
Al-Albani: Never mind, please interpret it.
Al-Bouti: ... It needs interpretation.
Al-Albani: Please.
Al-Bouti: Does the absolute apply to all its particulars or to some of its particulars?
Al-Albani: It applies to some of its particulars, correct, but when something comes to restrict it, this restriction reduces the particulars.
Another Shaykh: The professor's words are correct, but your answer has nothing ... correct.
Al-Albani: ... .
Another Shaykh: If something is made absolute, it is intended from it ... , so the prayer behind the differing imam, his words are correct, but the intended meaning of the one who says: it is permissible for the ma'mum to pray behind the one who differs in his school, his intention is if it is not contradictory in terms of validity, but if there is something contradictory in terms of validity ... the prayer is invalidated.
Al-Bouti: And therefore there is no contradiction between the absoluteness of the phrase and this which ... .
Al-Albani: No, there is a contradiction!
Another Shaykh: The answer ... you say: if something is made absolute, the complete is intended from it, my intention is like this, otherwise you won't get out, or if I mean we want the complete from it, do not include the particulars he talks about.The Shaykh .
Al-Albani: I am asking another question, my dear professor.
Al-Bouti: No, let's clarify it.
Al-Albani: No, I want another question on the same topic, and it is a question that goes beyond the previous research. The one who reads this letter and stops at this text will never understand what you mean.
Al-Bouti: Because the phrase is absolute?
Al-Albani: Yes, because the absolute proceeds on its absoluteness. So if at least you had placed a restriction on this phrase in another place, we would say this absolute was restricted in another place. But you, if you allow me, but you repeated this statement in another occasion, and also, as you know, if the absolute is repeated with the same absoluteness in another place, it means confirming the absoluteness and confirming ... the absoluteness. Like generality, if it is repeated in the expression of the Lawgiver, if the general expression is repeated, this repetition indicates that this is a general absolute that has not been subjected to specification. So you, sir.
Al-Bouti: Professor, this is your technical terminology. We say:
Al-Albani: What is the terminology from your side? Clarify it.
Al-Bouti: In your terminology, you may define it as you wish.
Al-Albani: And what is it?
Al-Bouti: And you have no right to impose it on me.
Al-Albani: No problem, but what is the terminology, Professor?
Al-Bouti: I am saying now: The scholars are in agreement that it is permissible to pray on stone, on the ground, or on a mat. The scholars are in agreement, and this statement is not to be refuted in any way. This statement does not contradict the fact that prayer on impure ground is not valid, nor does it contradict the fact that prayer on a mat that has been touched by impurity is not valid. I do not think anyone has said that the second statement refutes the first general statement.
Al-Albani: I agree with you on this, but...
Al-Bouti: Our case is the same thing.
Al-Albani: No, no, there is a big difference.
Al-Bouti: I say: The scholars are in agreement on the permissibility of a Shafi'i praying behind a Hanafi, and vice versa, in the absolute case. However, if the Shafi'i is certain that the Hanafi has committed something that invalidates the prayer according to his view, that is another case which we are not discussing specifically. But if you use a general term, you may hold me accountable. If you say "in all cases" or "in all forms it is valid," you may hold me accountable for this expression.
Al-Albani: The example you mentioned is correct.
Al-Bouti: Good; and this is like it.
Al-Albani: If you allow me, I agree with you; because the example is correct, but the thing being exemplified is not correct. Why? Because I told you: This message that is read does not assume that the reader is a jurist. Similarly, the layperson who knows that it is said that prayer on the ground is permissible does not assume in his mind that it is permissible even if it is impure; because it has become, as if it is known from the religion by necessity, that prayer on impure ground is not valid. Therefore, this knowledge that is established in the minds of all Muslims, even the laypeople, when they read an expression from you or from me or from someone else that prayer on the ground is permissible, they never assume this generality in their minds; because it is concentrated in their minds and in their knowledge, due to their lay status, that prayer on impure ground is invalid. Therefore, this knowledge...
Al-Bouti: No...
Al-Albani: - If you allow me, let me finish my speech -; this knowledge is what removes the danger from the generality in the example I cited, and the matter is not as you mentioned in your message; because you - specifically - because if you want to say...
Al-Bouti: What is the difference between the example and the thing being exemplified?
Al-Albani: The difference - may Allah bless you - is that not everyone who reads this message knows this condition that is in your mind and in your knowledge.
Al-Bouti: So the objection is not to the correctness of the expression, but that there are people who need to be brought down to the level of their understanding.
Al-Albani: The objection is to the generality from the perspective of usul al-fiqh (the principles of jurisprudence) first, as I started the discussion.
Al-Bouti: ... This is a general statement, not an ordinary one.
Al-Albani: If you allow me, secondly, the objection is to the example I cited. I say: There is a difference in the example. The example I cited, no one finds fault with it; why? Because how it is established in the mind of every addressee, and the matter is not so here. In any case, there is something else more important than what preceded. What do you want? If you want to place this restriction; meaning, if you want me or any reader to understand this expression from you with the following restriction that we understood from you: The scholars are in agreement on the validity of a Hanafi following a Shafi'i or a Maliki, and vice versa, on the condition that the imam has not committed something that invalidates the prayer according to the view of the follower. Well, does anyone there say the opposite of this statement, even you, to strengthen the issue and say: "The scholars are in agreement"? Who are you addressing with this statement? And what is the benefit and what is the result of this word? There is no disagreement among the scholars. Please, because you are now trying to solve an existing problem, you do not want to address a matter agreed upon by Muslims. All Muslims, despite their different schools of jurisprudence, believe that a Muslim imam, if... prays and the conditions for the validity and completeness of the prayer are met according to the view of the follower, they are all in agreement on this restriction, in agreement... on the prayer, and no one denies this.
Al-Bouti: There are people from the Salafi group who claim or think that those who follow... of the four schools of jurisprudence do not permit the Shafi'i from them...
Al-Albani: No, my professor, we...
Al-Bouti: They told me this statement.
Al-Albani: Be patient, "And the defect of news is only in its narrators"; they told you, what did they tell you?
Al-Bouti: Of course, their statement is not correct.
Al-Albani: Allow me, allow me a moment.
Al-Bouti: But they say: As for the scholars of the schools or those who follow one of the four schools of jurisprudence, the Shafi'i does not permit them to pray behind a Hanafi, and therefore the prayer niches (mihrabs) are multiplied.
Al-Albani: Allow me a moment, allow me a moment. The problem that you are reporting from those people is the one you fell into; they generalized, and you generalized. They generalized the opposite, the invalidity, and they mean the restrictions I mentioned, and you generalized the validity, and you mean the restriction you mentioned. So, when such a council is held, and this is one of the benefits of meetings...
Al-Bouti: No, no, let's stay here... there is a big difference.
Al-Albani: Allow me to clarify, to clarify my statement.
Al-Bouti: I clarified it.
Al-Albani: I did not say that.
Al-Bouti: The statement... they said; they picked up a very small detail; which is the case if the Shafi'i is certain of the invalidity of the Hanafi's prayer, and they took "correction" as an expression for this detail. Who said that this expression is correct?
Al-Albani: Who are they?
Al-Bouti: The group about whom I say that they attribute to the school followers the invalidity of the Hanafi's prayer behind the Shafi'i. You say your answer is that they are not in their expression except like my expression.
Al-Albani: Yes.
Al-Bouti: They took one detail and colored all the cases with it; meaning, they said this about the man who believes that the Hanafi's prayer is invalid. What do you mean? The person who tells me that the Shafi'i does not pray behind the Hanafi, and the Hanafi does not pray behind the Shafi'i, means the Shafi'i who believes in the invalidity of the Hanafi's prayer, or vice versa. This expression is not like my expression; why? Because they did not take the generality in the broadest meaning, but rather picked up only one detail and did not express it as a detail.
Al-Albani: But they expressed it, my professor. What did he say? We are unfortunately going to waste effort on what so-and-so said and so-and-so said. We did not gather for this.
Another Shaykh: A small word.
Al-Albani: Please.
Another Shaykh: ... between you and him.
Al-Albani: Correct.
Another Shaykh: That we are speaking in scientific rules. I... the first time the statement... as an acknowledgment of the truth, but in... if the man who looks at the book, I do not say this book, another book.
Al-Albani: Good.
Al-Bouti: Another well-known book.
Al-Bouti: For example, for example.
Al-Albani: Good; please.
Al-Bouti: A man said to his wife: If you pray, you are divorced, and then she prayed a prayer without its conditions.
Al-Albani: She did not pray.
Another Shaykh: So why? Although he said: If you pray, because if the word is generalized, the complete individual is intended. So this man now, you asked, and I know who knows that he knows if the man is Shafi'i, for example, blood came out of him and the Hanafi prays behind him, it is not permissible, so his intention is not that... So the truth is with you that as a precaution he should have remained silent, but if it is a scholar who reads and is fair, he says this is carried to the complete individual.
Al-Albani: I mean, this is your correct statement, but how do I know that the professor means this restriction, how do I know it? I am now leaving the topic, let's know from him, meaning I did not intend it, and...
Al-Bouti: The rules are between us, Professor.
Al-Albani: ... We are speaking within the rules, he is saying that... Please.
Another Shaykh: ... truthfully ... there is a difference between a person and his heart; if you find a book from the books and an expression like this that allows for such and such, I say: this is a general statement that is to be understood as applying to the complete individual. I do not want to debate you.
Al-Albani: Very good.
Another Shaykh: Because the rules of knowledge require it to be so.
Al-Albani: If you would allow me here.
Another Shaykh: Please go ahead.
Al-Albani: In some clarification; I know from the Shafi'i school that some of them say that the prayer of a Shafi'i behind a Hanafi is valid, even if he sees in him something that invalidates the prayer or the ablution. I know that in the school of Imam al-Shafi'i, if a Shafi'i who follows the Shafi'i school prays behind a Hanafi, Maliki, or Hanbali imam, and sees in him something that invalidates his ablution or prayer according to his own school; this is a view that some scholars of the Shafi'i school have issued as a ruling. However, the stronger position among them—please—the stronger position among them is the well-known one in the Shafi'i school... Let me get to the point of my speech, as they say. So when I read the professor's words here, I can understand his opinion without seeing the restriction; perhaps his opinion aligns with this anomalous view in the school that says the prayer behind a non-Shafi'i is valid even if one sees in him something that invalidates it. How can I say that Professor Sa'id holds this and that? So the generality here is as I said.
Another Shaykh: This opinion that you, sir, mention, perhaps it exists; I do not say it does not exist, I say: I do not deny it, but it is completely rejected, and no one pays attention to it, no one. And I do not say it is the weaker position, no; it is abandoned. So this opinion does not come to the mind of anyone that a student of knowledge is not supposed to be a teacher; a student of knowledge assumes this assumption.
Al-Albani: My dear professor, your words are correct regarding your own point of view, and perhaps—also—Professor Sa'id sees it that way too, but I do not know the unseen. I understand his opinion and your opinion from your book; this expression was not given a restriction.
Another questioner: How does it follow from that?
Al-Albani: Yes?
Another questioner: How does it follow from that... if no restriction was placed on it?
Al-Albani: That people understand the opposite of what is intended.
Another questioner : ... .
Al-Albani: No, it will not be so; this book was written so that people understand, not so that they do not understand, but so that they understand the truths.
Al-Bouti: I think there is a means, which is the convention; that it is applied to the complete individual.
Another Shaykh: ... it is a truth, but the answer is that the book is for the one who reads and understands knowledge, not for the ignorant.
Another questioner: The professor mentions this statement in the context of explaining the reconciliation between the schools, and that there is no such fanaticism, of course, regarding the schools, adherence, and strictness, and denying that the prayer is invalidated behind one who differs in school. Therefore, it was necessary to clarify this issue, otherwise in this case, the problem remains standing.
Another questioner: ... he says how do we validate it, while the Companions each had a school, and they prayed behind one another... here... he did not say with the condition that there is no such difference... our speech here is not that this statement is wrong, we say it is to be understood as applying to the complete individual, this is a rule.
Another questioner: I say from this statement.
Al-Bouti: This rule removes the confusion between you and me, my professor.
Al-Albani: It is not the confusion between you and me, the confusion is between you and the group among whom the message was published and this statement was made general, and they do not understand from it this restriction that you published.
Al-Bouti: Meaning you, sir, understood.
Al-Albani: I say more than what you say.
Al-Bouti: Since you understood that this generality is to be understood as applying to the general.
Al-Albani: I understood now.
Al-Bouti: Why now?
Al-Albani: Because now I heard your opinion! ... .
Al-Bouti: This is not my opinion, I am stating a rule, not my opinion.
Al-Albani: No, I intend this.
Al-Bouti: The generality, understanding the general as applying to the complete individual, is not my opinion!
Al-Albani: My dear professor, Professor Sa'id, now I understood your opinion that you do not adopt the anomalous view existing in the Shafi'i school; that the prayer is valid behind one who differs in school even if something comes from him that invalidates the prayer and the ablution. Now I understood this, before I did not know it. So now I say: if I were asked about this view? I would say this is a general statement intended for the specific, the specific restriction, the clarified restriction.
Al-Bouti: No, not the specific, I do not intend the specific, no, professor.
Al-Albani: It is restricted, my brother... the wording, I am telling you it is a general statement I intend with the restriction of... .
Al-Bouti: Even if you did not know my opinion now.
Al-Albani: Yes.
Al-Bouti: Was it not the requirement, based on the rules of expression and knowledge, to understand from the general its complete individual; meaning the prayer that has nothing in it.
Al-Albani: Glory be to Allah! I say there are some other scholars of the Shafi'i school who broaden the subject.
Al-Bouti: This is left unmentioned, left unmentioned, without me intending for it to enter... .
Al-Albani: This is my intention, meaning, from here came the confusion, professor. This is an admission from you that you may intend and you may not intend.
Al-Bouti: No, it is left unmentioned, this expression does not bear the implication... .
Al-Albani: Now, is there a difference if after this restriction, I ask you another question; if the Hanafi imam did not do something invalidating, but did something that makes the prayer disliked; is the prayer of the Shafi'i behind this imam disliked?
Al-Bouti: Valid, I said valid.
Al-Albani: Allow me to ask you, I am not asking you about validity now, the subject of validity is finished, we understood from you frankly that this general statement is not intended except with the restriction of validity, as the professor favored... .
Al-Bouti: I intend that I used an expression that includes dislike and includes permissibility, so I said validity even if it is forbidden.
Al-Albani: It is fine, I want now to clarify with you; the prayer of the Shafi'i behind the Hanafi who did something that makes the prayer disliked.
Al-Bouti: Contrary to the school.
Al-Albani: I am asking you for your opinion, my professor?
Al-Bouti: By Allah, I have no opinion, I am a transmitter, I am transmitting an opinion... .
Al-Albani: Glory be to Allah! Do you have no school? And we are in the schools!
Another Shaykh: He is asking about the school, not about an opinion... .
Al-Bouti: No, he says: I am asking you for your opinion.
Al-Albani: Okay; allow me, your school.
Another Shaykh: Your opinion; meaning information from your school that you follow.
Al-Albani: Yes, correct.
What is it, my professor, let us clarify the matters, we up to this hour do not know from you that you have a school and you have an opinion, do you see how? I know your school, your opinion, your opinion is your school, meaning you do not go out of the school, is this what I know? Okay; therefore, like the favor of the professor, if I said your opinion? I mean your school.
Al-Bouti: No... my opinion within the school.
Al-Albani: Allow me, sir, every matter needs clarity.
Al-Bouti: ... it has a context, why... what is your opinion? Meaning what do you consider stronger in the school?
Al-Albani: No problem, my dear professor.
Another questioner: ... you are discussing the words now... .
Al-Bouti: He intends the school.
Another questioner: You are discussing the words, coming!!
Al-Albani: Okay; who discusses the words? He says my opinion, I mean his school; because I do not know for him an opinion separate from the school.
Al-Bouti: As I said just now that there is a difference, you were not before, you said to him: is there a difference? He said to me: I want your opinion, so you intend by opinion something other than the school.
Al-Albani: Okay; allow me, now if I said to you in the issue there are two views, would the problem be finished?
Al-Bouti: I told you, professor, I told you in... .
Another Shaykh: ... because we have in the Shafi'i school two late scholars who are relied upon, so this is Ibn Hajar... until he says: praying alone is better for you than praying behind him, whereas with al-Ramli it is not disliked, and the Hanafi says: the two al-Ramlis agreed - the Hanafi al-Ramli and the Shafi'i al-Ramli - , so this is what you, sir, indicate that there is a difference... between Ibn Hajar and al-Ramli, and in the Shafi'i school these two men are like... the ruling... .
Al-Albani: If there are two opinions in the issue, is there not a stronger and a weaker opinion in the school of jurisprudence?
Another Shaykh: ... I told you, in your presence: there is none here.
Al-Albani: What do you mean by "there is none"?
Another Shaykh: No, here al-Shafi'i and al-Ramli are equal; even the mufti is free to issue a fatwa based on al-Shafi'i's opinion or al-Ramli's opinion.
Al-Albani: So this is your school's position on this issue?
Another Shaykh: Yes.
Al-Buti: But you, Professor, asked me after I had clarified this; you said: "But I want your opinion."
Al-Albani: Glory be to Allah, ... your opinion? You did not give your opinion on the issue. In reality, you gave two opinions on the issue; that is not an answer. I do not accept an answer like that; because if I were asked, "What is the professor's opinion on the issue?" I would say: "There are two opinions on the issue!"
Al-Buti: ... there are indeed two opinions.
Al-Albani: I understand, my master, but there is a stronger opinion and a weaker one. It is necessary, I mean, for the professor, that there be a stronger and a weaker one, because there cannot be two opinions on the issue!
Al-Buti: By Allah, I do not know ... both exist in the school of jurisprudence.
Al-Albani: Fine; let us get to the heart of the matter. I am now summarizing what I understood from you: that this general statement is intended with the condition of validity, just as the honorable father said. Then, regarding the case where the prayer is not invalid but contains things that make the prayer disliked, there are two opinions on the issue. Do you think this applies to all the details? For example, if we say a Hanafi man recited the tashahhud and stood up without sending blessings upon the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), this prayer ...
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.