The Shaykh gave examples of the tacitly approved Sunnah and its status as a proof, using the hadith of Mu'adh ibn Jabal regarding the issue of a voluntary worshipper praying behind an obligatory worshipper

The Shaykh : I think that many of you, if not all of you, know, if Allah wills, the hadith of Mu'adh ibn Jabal (may Allah be pleased with him), narrated in *Sahih al-Bukhari* from the hadith of Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him), who said: He prayed the obligatory prayer behind the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), then he would go to his people and lead them in that same obligatory prayer, namely the 'Isha' prayer. But since it is known in the Shari'ah from the explicit and authentic saying of him (peace and blessings be upon him): If Mu'adh prayed twice in a day, what does the saying of him (peace and blessings be upon him) and the action of Mu'adh indicate? What does it point to? The action of Mu'adh, before we use it as evidence for something that may appear to contradict the saying of him (peace and blessings be upon him) in appearance but not in reality, rather it serves to clarify it. Before we clarify this specific point, we must establish what we were just discussing: that the action of a Companion during the time of him (peace and blessings be upon him) is considered a proof. Once this fact becomes clear to us, we return to say that the action of Mu'adh clarifies the saying of him (peace and blessings be upon him). To clarify this, I quoted the hadith in full, on the occasion of my earlier statement that scholars may differ on a matter that occurred during the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): is it a proof or not? This issue is whether it is permissible for one who is performing a voluntary prayer to pray behind one who is performing an obligatory prayer, or not? There are two opinions among scholars on this issue: those who say it is permissible and those who say it is not. Those who say it is permissible are the Shafi'is among the four schools of jurisprudence and the people of hadith. Those who say it is not permissible are the Hanafis, and they have no legal proof other than opinion, as they say it is not permissible to build the strong upon the weak. The strong is the one who is performing an obligatory prayer, and the weak is the one who is performing a voluntary prayer. This is a statement that may appear acceptable or sound at first glance. And upon you be peace. But if we set this opinion aside and look first at the action of this noble Companion, and second at the main point of my speech, we will find that that opinion has no weight in the Shari'ah. This is because Mu'adh ibn Jabal (may Allah be pleased with him) was one of the jurists of the Companions, and it was reported regarding him that among the Companions of him (peace and blessings be upon him), he was the most knowledgeable about what is lawful and what is forbidden. From this angle alone, it is sufficient for us to prefer what Mu'adh did over that later opinion which resembles philosophy: "It is not permissible to build the strong upon the weak." We say, "Bring your proof if you are truthful," for there is no proof. Therefore, what Mu'adh did is more beloved to us and more pleasing to us than an opinion that emerged later, after the first generation of the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). But this is not all; there is what I mentioned earlier that we are addressing, which is this action performed by Mu'adh: praying the obligatory prayer behind the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), then leading his people in this prayer, which was a voluntary prayer for him and an obligatory prayer for them. The people of opinion mentioned earlier approved of this. What do they say? They say there is nothing in the hadith of Jabir in this story of Mu'adh that indicates that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) became aware of it. And we say with them that there is no explicit statement in the hadith that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) became aware of it. But I make an exception and say: if there is no explicit text in the story, or if there truly is no explicit text in the story that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) became aware of this action of Mu'adh, then we ask here: is it reasonable that one of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) would perform an action like this, related to worship, and it would be, in reality, an error, and yet he would be approved in that? The answer is from two aspects: There is no doubt that Mu'adh could not be approved in this action on the assumption that it was an error. But is it theoretically possible that it was hidden from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)? There is no doubt that reason accepts this possibility; it is possible that it was hidden from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) because he is a human being, and we cannot believe that he encompassed all things in knowledge, because this is an attribute by which our Lord (Blessed and Exalted is He) is unique, apart from all of creation. So if we assume that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not become aware of the action of Mu'adh, and this is theoretically unlikely, because if it happened once or twice, we would dismiss the previous possibility that the Messenger did not become aware of it. But if that was his practice, meaning he continued with it, it is very unlikely that it would be hidden from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). But we say, let us assume for the sake of argument that it was hidden, with this clarification and the continuity of this action, let us assume it was hidden from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). Would it be hidden from the Lord of the Worlds? The answer is no. Here is the general point, so please pay attention to it. If we assume for the sake of argument that this possibility exists, meaning that the Messenger (peace be upon him) might not have become aware of it, but this is impossible for the Lord of the Worlds, who knows the secret and what is even more hidden, and nothing is hidden from Him on earth or in the sky. So we are certain that the Lord of the Worlds became aware of it. And secondly, either the Lord of the Worlds is pleased with the action of Mu'adh or He is not pleased. If it is the latter, He would not approve of it; rather, He would inspire His Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to mention to Mu'adh that what he is doing is an error in the Shari'ah. Did anything of this kind come? The answer is no. Therefore, we should link what occurred during the time of the Messenger (peace be upon him) with the pleasure of Allah in it, as long as Allah did not inspire His Prophet to deny it or change it. Thus, we arrive at the main point, and we say: whether the Messenger became aware of it or not, the approval of the Lord of the Worlds of His Prophet regarding this reality that occurred, whether with His knowledge or without His knowledge, the approval of the Lord of the Worlds is Shari'ah. So the matter, which was the subject of discussion regarding the approval of the Messenger, returns to the approval of the Lord of the Messenger, and this is a matter in which no Muslim has any doubt. At that time, we can say that the matter that occurs during the time of the Messenger (peace be upon him) is one of the five legal rulings, at least permissibility, except in one case: if a text from the speech of the Messenger (peace be upon him) or from his action contradicts what occurred and is claimed to have been approved by him, then at that time his saying or his action takes precedence over his approval. Yes, this is the point: that the Sunnah is the action and the saying of the Messenger (peace be upon him), and the approval from him or from the Lord of the Worlds. And this is undoubtedly stronger, as you have known, all of this is Shari'ah.