Are all the actions of the prayer obligatory, given that the command for the actions of the prayer was mentioned in (Pray as you have seen me praying)?

The questioner : Because you have previously stated, on the assumption that the command for the actions of the prayer was mentioned , the actions here that are in the prayer?

The Shaykh : May Allah guide you, Abu Abd al-Rahman, are you justifying your error or the error of Ibn Hazm?

The questioner : ... you are speaking, meaning ... very well.

The Shaykh : Yes, but you are in no need of this talk.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : You are in no need of this talk now. Your saying "on the assumption" — what do you want to clarify with this talk? I see that you are in no need of it. Your saying "on the assumption" and whatever else you want to say — what do you want to clarify? What you want to clarify is either obscure or clear. Is it obscure to me or to you?

The questioner : I hope it is not obscure to you, but to me it is from the perspective of the ...

The Shaykh : No, it is not obscure to you, because you mentioned, my brother, "Guide you, Ibn Hazm says: The command indicates obligation and indicates the obligation of many of the actions that enter into what is commanded." Then you added to that and said: "But I see that in some of the actions of the prayer, in your expression, which clarifies its error to you, he says: These actions do not necessitate obligation." This is what you said, and this is understood. So what do you want to clarify now? It is a tautology.

The questioner : Because he did not explain to us the reason for the exception, that this is not obligatory, but these matters are for obligation. He says this is not for obligation. What is the evidence that this is not for obligation?

The Shaykh : There is no god but Allah. Where were you and where have you come to, Abu Abd al-Rahman? Now the question has not even crossed the mind of the one who said "on the assumption." You wanted just now to explain something that is already explained, clear, and evident. Now you say "he did not explain the evidence." This is a correct statement. So what is the relationship between the evidence and your saying "on the assumption"? And I cut off your speech because you were going to say something you had clarified before. Now, "he did not explain the evidence" — you say "he did not explain the evidence," and the matter is finished.

The questioner : It remains as is.

The Shaykh : It remains as the rule, but whoever finds the evidence must clarify it. Whoever does not find the evidence includes it in the rule. Therefore, for example, I often, in such a case, Now, is the opening supplication a recommended practice or obligatory? It is known that it is a recommended practice. I say, based on the generality of the hadith: that it should be obligatory for the opening supplication to be obligatory. And when we say it should be obligatory, we do not mean it should be a pillar, because if someone claimed that the opening supplication is a pillar, we would refute him; because the Messenger said: ; so with this text, he negated the pillar status of anything other than al-Fatihah. Is that clear? Or not much?

The questioner : Because, clear, clear.

The Shaykh : No, no, do not explain, do not explain, may Allah guide you.

The questioner : But the lack of clarity ...

The Shaykh : Do not explain, may Allah guide you. Let me proceed. I am asking you, is it clear up to here?

The questioner : Is this clear up to here?

The Shaykh : Finish, stay in your place. I am saying if someone claims that the opening supplication is a pillar, we refute him with this hadith. But the fact that something is obligatory does not necessitate that it is a pillar. So I said at the beginning of this research or this talk, that it can be said that the opening supplication is obligatory. Why? Because it falls within the generality of his saying - peace and blessings be upon him - : , and we have not known that the Prophet - peace and blessings be upon him - opened the prayer as the Malikis say: Allahu Akbar, Alhamdulillah Rabb al-Alamin. This has absolutely no basis in the Sunnah. If there were anything of this in the Sunnah, we would say the opening supplication is not obligatory, rather the opening supplication is not prescribed, and consequently the seeking of refuge, and thirdly the Basmalah, meaning one might say: Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim, but this is not correct. But on the contrary, always ... this is obligatory in what I mentioned, unless there is ... of the Muslims ... The original in that is the generality, unless there is a preventer. So I think now, regarding the original subject you mentioned about Ibn Hazm, that he had a preventer in himself but did not address explaining it. That is it.

The questioner : Our Shaykh, the issue of these preventers is broad, meaning ...

The Shaykh : Of course, it is broad without a doubt, and this is one of the reasons, one of the reasons for the difference, I say, in the opinions of the scholars. This is settled. It is one of the reasons for the difference in the opinion of one scholar in one issue.