The Ruling on a Child Leading an Adult and One Performing Tayammum Leading One Who Has Performed Wudu
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The school of thought says: A child does not lead an adult in prayer; because the child’s prayer is voluntary, and the adult’s prayer is obligatory, so the adult would be in a lower rank than the voluntary prayer, and this is not valid. And you cited as evidence regarding the prayer of one who has incontinence that the school of thought also says: that he does not lead the people.
The Shaykh: Do not take both, take one.
The questioner: I am in the evidence.
The Shaykh: Take one, may Allah reward you.
The questioner: It is not the same issue.
And you also cited as evidence from the one who has incontinence,The school of thought says: that the one who has incontinence does not lead the worshippers,And the reasoning: that if this were a man performing tayammum or wudu, then the one performing tayammum leads the one who has performed wudu,So do we now say regarding this reasoning also: Is the validity of the child’s prayer a refutation of this reasoning?The Shaykh: There is a hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari regarding praying behind a child: that 'Amr ibn Salama led his people while he was seven years old, and what is established by explicit text does not require analogical reasoning. As for the voluntary prayer of one who is performing an obligatory prayer, like an adult praying the regular voluntary prayers, if another child came and prayed behind him, we also say: it is valid.
The questioner: I want the evidence for the reasoning you provided that the one who has incontinence, that the one who has performed wudu and the one performing tayammum, so do we also take the reasoning as a refutation of the one who says regarding the child and the adult, we also say: the one performing tayammum is lower than the one who has performed wudu,We tell him: Is this reasoning also a refutation of the second issue?The Shaykh: We say: it is permissible for the one performing tayammum to lead the one who has performed wudu.
The questioner: But the evidence you cited, do we apply it to both issues themselves?The Shaykh: How do you mean both issues themselves?The questioner: The derived cause, do we apply it also to the child and the adult to refute them with this reasoning?The Shaykh: How?The questioner: As long as the school of thought says: that the child does not lead the adult?The Shaykh: No.
There is a difference between them, because the one performing tayammum and the one who has performed wudu both pray an obligatory prayer, unlike the child and the adult, where the child prays a voluntary prayer and the adult prays an obligatory prayer, and likewise the one praying voluntarily for the one praying obligatorily.
The questioner: It appears I did not understand you.
Interjection: On the same analogy.
The Shaykh: It is never on the same analogy.
The questioner: Meaning: the same cause, this cause we apply to the child and the adult,We say: We refute them with this cause.
The Shaykh: We refute them with the authentic hadith: that the child led his people while he was seven years old.
The questioner: May Allah reward you, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh: Do not take both, take one.
The questioner: I am in the evidence.
The Shaykh: Take one, may Allah reward you.
The questioner: It is not the same issue.
And you also cited as evidence from the one who has incontinence,The school of thought says: that the one who has incontinence does not lead the worshippers,And the reasoning: that if this were a man performing tayammum or wudu, then the one performing tayammum leads the one who has performed wudu,So do we now say regarding this reasoning also: Is the validity of the child’s prayer a refutation of this reasoning?The Shaykh: There is a hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari regarding praying behind a child: that 'Amr ibn Salama led his people while he was seven years old, and what is established by explicit text does not require analogical reasoning. As for the voluntary prayer of one who is performing an obligatory prayer, like an adult praying the regular voluntary prayers, if another child came and prayed behind him, we also say: it is valid.
The questioner: I want the evidence for the reasoning you provided that the one who has incontinence, that the one who has performed wudu and the one performing tayammum, so do we also take the reasoning as a refutation of the one who says regarding the child and the adult, we also say: the one performing tayammum is lower than the one who has performed wudu,We tell him: Is this reasoning also a refutation of the second issue?The Shaykh: We say: it is permissible for the one performing tayammum to lead the one who has performed wudu.
The questioner: But the evidence you cited, do we apply it to both issues themselves?The Shaykh: How do you mean both issues themselves?The questioner: The derived cause, do we apply it also to the child and the adult to refute them with this reasoning?The Shaykh: How?The questioner: As long as the school of thought says: that the child does not lead the adult?The Shaykh: No.
There is a difference between them, because the one performing tayammum and the one who has performed wudu both pray an obligatory prayer, unlike the child and the adult, where the child prays a voluntary prayer and the adult prays an obligatory prayer, and likewise the one praying voluntarily for the one praying obligatorily.
The questioner: It appears I did not understand you.
Interjection: On the same analogy.
The Shaykh: It is never on the same analogy.
The questioner: Meaning: the same cause, this cause we apply to the child and the adult,We say: We refute them with this cause.
The Shaykh: We refute them with the authentic hadith: that the child led his people while he was seven years old.
The questioner: May Allah reward you, O Shaykh.