The statement and action of a Companion.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
Its ruling and its evidentiary status
If only the action of a Companion is reported in a matter, is his action taken as evidence to be cited?An example of that is: The issue of 'Amir ibn Yasir (may Allah be pleased with him) making up some of the prayers he missed due to fainting?
This depends on the scholarly disagreement: is the action and statement of a Companion a proof or not? The correct view is that the statement of the jurists among the Companions is a proof,But with two conditions: The first condition: that it does not contradict an explicit text.
The second condition: That it does not contradict another Companion.
If it contradicts an explicit text, it is rejected and not accepted. If it contradicts the statement of another Companion, one must seek the stronger position; whichever is stronger, its statement is more preferable. For example, if a Companion who is not known for frequently sitting with the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and is not known for his jurisprudence differs from another Companion who is known for frequently sitting with the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and for his jurisprudence, the latter's statement is more preferable to be followed than the former's.
As for the matter the questioner mentioned, which is 'Amir making up the prayers he missed due to fainting, this is also based on the disagreement regarding the evidentiary status of a Companion's action. Furthermore, 'Amir's action does not indicate obligation; because the mere action of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), which is a proof, does not indicate obligation, so how could the action of another? He (may Allah be pleased with him), when he fainted, considered it preferable to make up what he had missed.
So the stronger position is: That he is not obligated to make it up, meaning the one who fainted is not obligated to make up the prayer. If a person were involved in an accident and remained unconscious for two or three days, then regained consciousness, he would have no obligation to make up the prayers. However, if the cause of the fainting was voluntary, such as being anesthetized for a surgery and remaining unconscious for half a day or two days without regaining consciousness, then in this case he is obligated to make up the prayers; because his fainting was voluntary.
If only the action of a Companion is reported in a matter, is his action taken as evidence to be cited?An example of that is: The issue of 'Amir ibn Yasir (may Allah be pleased with him) making up some of the prayers he missed due to fainting?
This depends on the scholarly disagreement: is the action and statement of a Companion a proof or not? The correct view is that the statement of the jurists among the Companions is a proof,But with two conditions: The first condition: that it does not contradict an explicit text.
The second condition: That it does not contradict another Companion.
If it contradicts an explicit text, it is rejected and not accepted. If it contradicts the statement of another Companion, one must seek the stronger position; whichever is stronger, its statement is more preferable. For example, if a Companion who is not known for frequently sitting with the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and is not known for his jurisprudence differs from another Companion who is known for frequently sitting with the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and for his jurisprudence, the latter's statement is more preferable to be followed than the former's.
As for the matter the questioner mentioned, which is 'Amir making up the prayers he missed due to fainting, this is also based on the disagreement regarding the evidentiary status of a Companion's action. Furthermore, 'Amir's action does not indicate obligation; because the mere action of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), which is a proof, does not indicate obligation, so how could the action of another? He (may Allah be pleased with him), when he fainted, considered it preferable to make up what he had missed.
So the stronger position is: That he is not obligated to make it up, meaning the one who fainted is not obligated to make up the prayer. If a person were involved in an accident and remained unconscious for two or three days, then regained consciousness, he would have no obligation to make up the prayers. However, if the cause of the fainting was voluntary, such as being anesthetized for a surgery and remaining unconscious for half a day or two days without regaining consciousness, then in this case he is obligated to make up the prayers; because his fainting was voluntary.