Continuation of the answer regarding the ruling on the greeting of the mosque?

The Shaykh : We said that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), who would ascend the pulpit immediately, did this. This is evidence that he did not pray the greeting of the mosque. However, it is a grave error to take the action of the Messenger (peace be upon him) as evidence that the matter of the greeting is not obligatory. Why? First, it is not valid to analogize the person who enters the assembly, who sits in the mosque wherever it is convenient for him to sit, to the analogy of the Messenger. I am not saying "the preacher" now, because you will hear a distinction, but rather to the analogy of the Messenger (peace be upon him) sitting on the pulpit, not on the ground of the mosque. Because I will say to this person:The questioner : Did the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), when he went out from his house, from his chamber, to his pulpit, sit down without sitting? In what way is he interpreting this? In what way is he interpreting it? We say that this obligation, in the best case, is for him to consider this matter as a recommended practice (sunnah), less than that as a recommended act (mustahabb), less than that as a recommended act (mandub). And I do not think the matter would reach the point, unless I say he is ignorant, of him saying it is permissible. Do you not agree with me on this? Now, did the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), when he went out from his house to his pulpit and sat down before being greeted in the mosque, leave the matter under any of these interpretations? Did he leave at least the recommended act (mandub) in his opinion? If he says so, I will say to him now: The imams of the mosques, as far as my knowledge extends, all of them enter the mosque as the general worshippers enter. That is, they do not have a house next to the eastern or western wall of the mosque such that they go directly from their house to the pulpit. There is no such mosque today on the face of the earth, as far as we know. Is it prescribed for this imam to do what the Messenger (peace be upon him) did? He enters with those entering from the door of the mosque and sits. Is it permissible for him to do that as the Messenger (peace be upon him) did?

The questioner : To ascend the pulpit.

The Shaykh : He does not sit. So, the ruling for the one who sits in the mosque on Friday differs from that imam who is, to this day, the unique imam. He is not unique only in the attribute of prophethood and messengership, but he is also unique in the attribute of going directly from his house to the pulpit. The imams of the mosques today enter the mosque ten minutes, a quarter of an hour, less or more before the time, it is not important, but they sit in the mosque as the general people sit. So this detail shows us that it is not valid to analogize every person entering the mosque, first on Friday, and second on all days of the week, to the Messenger going out from his house to his pulpit. It is said briefly: This is a specific ruling for whom? A specific ruling for the preacher if he wants to follow the Messenger (peace be upon him), who goes out from his house directly to his pulpit. So this ruling is dropped from him, whether it is said to be for obligation, or for the recommended practice (sunnah), or for recommendation (mustahabb), or for recommendation (mandub). Is the answer clear up to here?

The questioner : Yes, it is clear. But the problem here is that if we say it is for the recommended practice (sunnah), we say we divert that matter from obligation to recommendation (mandub) by his ascending the pulpit, and that this specificity is for the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) because he enters the pulpit directly.

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner : So it is not valid for it to be a diverting factor; rather, it is a specific situation.

The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.

The questioner : It is not a valid indication.

The Shaykh : This is it, this is the first point.

The questioner : Now, my Shaykhs.

The Shaykh : Listen, secondly, there is a barrier. Even if we assume that the house of the Messenger (peace be upon him) was not adjacent to his mosque, that he was outside the mosque and entered and ascended the pulpit directly, the answer remains the same answer. And a third and final picture: even if we assume that he entered the mosque and sat, entered the assembly before the time by a few minutes, sat, and did not pray the greeting, there is the known matter. So we say it is not permissible to divert the matter from obligation to the rulings below it, because the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) sat and did not pray the greeting. This is more precise than all the pictures we mentioned earlier. And the question is: Why? The answer is that we are facing a jurisprudential rule, which says: "When his (peace be upon him) saying conflicts with his action, his saying is given precedence over his action." Because his (peace be upon him) saying is a general Shari'ah, and his action may be a general Shari'ah, and it may be a specificity for him, and it may be for an excuse for him. There are many, many, and very many "maybes" for that reason. So they said that when the saying and the action conflict, the saying is given precedence over the action. There are many, many, and very many examples of this, collected in the Prophetic Characteristics. There is a book by the Hafiz al-Suyuti in three volumes titled "The Prophetic Characteristics." Among the most famous is that our Lord, Mighty and Majestic, permitted the Messenger (peace be upon him) to marry whatever women pleased him, while for his Ummah, He permitted them only four of them. So they said that this is a specificity for the Messenger (peace be upon him). And this was confirmed by the story of that man who came to him and had become Muslim, and he had nine women under his protection. So he said to him: "Keep four of them and divorce the rest." So a person cannot say: "The Messenger (peace be upon him) married whatever he wished, and he died with nine women under his protection. So why can't I marry?" And "There was for you in the Messenger of Allah an excellent example." The answer is: No, his saying is given precedence over his action. "Keep four of them and divorce the rest." So when the saying conflicts with the action, the saying is given precedence over the action. When can we say we reconcile the saying and the action, and divert the saying that obligates by its apparent meaning to something by his (peace be upon him) action? We say this if we have evidence that his action came later than his saying, and that his saying was earlier than his action. So his action at that time is an explanation of his command, and that it is not for obligation. Likewise, it is said regarding prohibitions. The original ruling for all prohibitions is that they are for prohibition, unless an indication comes, even if it is his (peace be upon him) action. So his action diverts the prohibition from prohibition to dislike (makruh). But it is required in the prohibition what is required in the command, that we know that his action is later than the command and prohibition, so that it is a diverting factor and carries us to combine the command and his action, and the prohibition and his action. Is it clear up to here?

The questioner : Is that clear?

The Shaykh : Now, I say that even if we found evidence, and this is not far from existing, that we have evidence that his action was after the command, in what we are in, we say that even here it is not permissible to divert the command from obligation to what is below it, as we mentioned, and I will not repeat the detail. Why? Because of that hadith agreed upon by al-Bukhari and MuslimThe Shaykh : And it is that the man, when he entered, and it was Salik al-Ghatafani, and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was preaching on Friday, he saw him sitting and said to him: "O so-and-so, did you pray?" He said: "No." He said: "Stand up and pray two rak'ahs." Then he turned to the assembly sitting before him and said to them: So we all know, if Allah wills, that enjoining good and forbidding evil, and the preacher is preaching on the pulpit, it is not permissible, or let me say explicitly, it is forbidden (haram). Enjoining good and forbidding evil are obligatory for every Muslim. He enjoins good and forbids evil. This obligation in general becomes forbidden in the specific case that the preacher is preaching. So when we hear that hadith, where the one entering the mosque is commanded to pray two rak'ahs, and the preacher is preaching, and we combine this command with that prohibition , your saying "listen" is enjoining good, and it is forbidden while the preacher is preaching. So if he commanded the two rak'ahs while the preacher is preaching, it indicates that these two rak'ahs are more important than enjoining good and forbidding evil, because enjoining good and forbidding evil was dropped while the preacher is preaching. So as long as he commanded the two rak'ahs while the preacher is preaching, how can it be said that this is recommended (mustahabb)?

The questioner : Who commanded? The preacher, my Shaykh, who commanded the two rak'ahs.

The Shaykh : The Messenger.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : .

The questioner : I mean, here enjoining good and forbidding evil is specific even to the preacher. That is, it is forbidden for him to say, and not for the people.

The Shaykh : We are now, my brother, talking about whom?

The questioner : About the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him).

The Shaykh : No, we are not talking about the preacher, nor the one entering who hears the preacher.

The questioner : About the one entering.

The Shaykh: All right.

The questioner : But my problem is that enjoining good and forbidding evil is forbidden.

The Shaykh : The preacher is delivering the sermon. It is not about the preacher; it is about the people. If you say to your companion on Friday, "Be quiet, while the preacher is delivering the sermon," the issue is not about the preacher, but rather, in answer to your question now, you have suggested to me a new legal perspective on this matter, which is to confirm that the command to perform the two rak'ahs is for obligation. Is it for obligation? How? The default for the preacher is that his sermon is general for the people. For the preacher to interrupt his sermon to address the person who entered the mosque and sat down, saying, "O so-and-so," interrupting his sermon to the congregation and directing his speech directly to this person who left off these two rak'ahs, severing the connection between him and the congregation and directing his speech to this individual, asking him, "Did you pray?" He says, "No." He says, "Stand up and pray." Is this the concern of a recommended act where a person has a choice between praying and not praying? No. This aspect alone, without what I mentioned earlier regarding the direction of the command, is sufficient for the alert Muslim, free from desire and blind following, to understand that the command is on its original basis, which is that it is obligatory. Because if the command were for recommendation, this preacher would not care, especially since he is the master of mankind. Every time someone enters and has not prayed the two rak'ahs, he would say, "Stand up and pray the two rak'ahs," and then he would direct the address to the entire congregation and make it a general ruling, saying: .