What is the difference between (whoever innovates) and the other narration (whoever performs an act) regarding the invalidation of the act, because the other implies changing its form to make it invalid?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner: All right, Shaykh, let us also pause here so that we do not return to the previous discussion.
The Shaykh: All right.
The questioner:, and the other narration is: .
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : .
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner: It implies that one changes the form that was known from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him).
The Shaykh: Correct.
The questioner: So the act, meaning if it is not in accordance with his action, is rejected; it is a change in the form, but of course, our Shaykh, it is clear that the ignorant person and the one who interprets the text are excluded.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner: Like the one who performs ... this and knows that it is not permissible, for example, or ... .
The Shaykh: Take it easy, we need to enter a very important issue, which is that this hadith is one hadith; the second one that you mentioned is the first hadith, the hadith of Aisha, but it was narrated in two narrations. The first narration is agreed upon by al-Bukhari and Muslim, and the other narration is unique to Muslim without al-Bukhari. So here, this hadith is a narration in meaning.
The questioner : The second one.
The Shaykh: The second one, yes, it will be a narration in meaning, so we are forced in that case to interpret the second narration by the first narration, because it is stronger and more authentic in terms of narration first, and then it is more authentic in terms of understanding second, because we do not have [a case] where a person comes with an act that is not from the Sunnah in prayer that invalidates the prayer, but rather this act is the invalid one. This means the answer to the other narration: If this hadith had not come in the first wording, we would have been forced to stop at it and take its apparent meaning, the first narration, the second one, excuse me, the second narration, yes.
The Shaykh: All right.
The questioner:
Whoever innovates
مَن أحدثWhoever performs an act
مَن عَمِلَ عملًاThe Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner :
that is not in accordance with our command
ليس عليه أمرناThe Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner: It implies that one changes the form that was known from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him).
The Shaykh: Correct.
The questioner: So the act, meaning if it is not in accordance with his action, is rejected; it is a change in the form, but of course, our Shaykh, it is clear that the ignorant person and the one who interprets the text are excluded.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner: Like the one who performs ... this and knows that it is not permissible, for example, or ... .
The Shaykh: Take it easy, we need to enter a very important issue, which is that this hadith is one hadith; the second one that you mentioned is the first hadith, the hadith of Aisha, but it was narrated in two narrations. The first narration is agreed upon by al-Bukhari and Muslim, and the other narration is unique to Muslim without al-Bukhari. So here, this hadith is a narration in meaning.
The questioner : The second one.
The Shaykh: The second one, yes, it will be a narration in meaning, so we are forced in that case to interpret the second narration by the first narration, because it is stronger and more authentic in terms of narration first, and then it is more authentic in terms of understanding second, because we do not have [a case] where a person comes with an act that is not from the Sunnah in prayer that invalidates the prayer, but rather this act is the invalid one. This means the answer to the other narration:
Whoever performs an act
مَن عَمِلَ عملًا
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.