An Important Point Regarding the Saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): “The congregational prayer is twenty-seven degrees better than the prayer of one alone.”

The Shaykh : Here is a scientific point that I hope you will pay attention to, because it is very, very important. Some people have used the hadith of the congregational prayer as evidence for the legitimacy of repeating the congregation in a mosque that has a regular imam and a regular mu'adhdhin. Their understanding of the hadith, in linguistic terms, is that the definite article "al" in "al-jama'ah" (the congregation) indicates comprehensiveness and inclusiveness. They interpret "the congregational prayer" to mean the prayer of every congregation, because the definite article "al," according to scholars of language, rhetoric, and eloquence, falls into two categories: either it indicates generality and inclusiveness, or it indicates something known in the mind (the specific). The difference between these two uses of "al" is very vast. If "al" in "al-jama'ah" is understood to mean generality and inclusiveness, then the argument using the hadith is valid, meaning that every congregation established in any mosque is a legislated congregation, and its reward is twenty-seven degrees. However, if it is understood to refer to something specific in the mind, then this generalization is invalid, and it is restricted to a specific congregation. So, what is correct, and how can one distinguish between the two? If we say that "al" indicates comprehensiveness and inclusiveness, then it is valid to argue for the legitimacy of every congregation after the obligatory prayer that was prayed with the first congregation. But if "al" is interpreted as referring to something specific, not comprehensiveness and inclusiveness, then it is restricted to one single congregation. What is that single congregation? It is the one known in the Shari'ah and established in the mind. All of you can visualize with me what I am about to mention now: The Messenger (peace be upon him) addressed his Companions with this hadith. If his Companions did not know of any congregation in his mosque other than one single congregation, then when they heard his saying (peace be upon him): , would they think that the intended meaning of this virtue is the congregations that had not yet come into existence? No, that does not cross the mind at all. What crosses the mind is the known congregation. Therefore, it is said that this "al" is for the specific (known) and not for comprehensiveness and inclusiveness. Conversely, if we assume that many congregations were being held in his mosque (peace be upon him), sometimes he would lead the people, and sometimes Abu Bakr would lead them in the same prayer—Zuhr, 'Asr, Maghrib, 'Isha', and so on—and then he (peace be upon him) said: , where would their understanding go? To these multiple congregations? So, if you know that in the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) there was only one congregation, then the "al" here is restricted to the specific (known) and not for comprehensiveness and inclusiveness. From here, we arrive at the important jurisprudential rule, which is: "It is obligatory to interpret the hadiths of the Messenger (peace be upon him) with one another." The verbal hadith is interpreted by the practical hadith. I will give you a sensitive example, and then we will conclude with a summary of the important rule. And the Messenger (peace be upon him) said: We entered the mosque at the time of the Zuhr prayer, for example, and each of us would move to a side and cover himself with a sutrah and pray the pre-Zuhr sunnah. Then it occurred to one of them, and he called out, "O group, why are you praying alone? Come, let us pray in congregation." He (peace and blessings be upon him) said: He (peace be upon him) said: Is this person correct or mistaken? I will say according to your view: No, he is mistaken. But why do you say he is mistaken? Without offense, it is because this was not the custom. However, if it had been the custom, then the ruling on the congregation would be like the congregation that the brother is asking about—repeating the obligatory prayer a second and third time. That has become the custom, so there is no objection to it. But this scenario that I described to you just now, immediately the minds and understandings react: No, this is blameworthy. But notice with me that this blameworthy act falls within the general indication of the congregational prayer, and "the hand of Allah is with the congregation." But if we return to the previous understanding that the congregation is not for comprehensiveness and inclusiveness, but rather for the specific (known), we now return to say: Is this congregation, the congregation of the nafilah in the rawatib, a known one? Was it known in the time of the one who said: and ? The answer is no. Therefore, it is not permissible to argue using the generality of a hadith when the practice in the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not follow that generality. Is this clear, and is there no ambiguity in it?

The questioner : No, it is clear.

The Shaykh : Because I want to build a shake upon it.

Another questioner : ...

The Shaykh : I want to build a shake upon it, which may be, I mean, a circumstance. The shake that we mentioned against the Saudis in bringing disbelievers into their lands. You know that in those lands, when one of them raises his head from ruku', he holds his left hand with his right hand. You must have heard lectures or treatises written on this matter. You will not find for them any evidence except like the evidence of "the hand of Allah is with the congregation" or like the evidence of the congregational prayer—that is, arguing with a general text that was not practiced. So, paying attention to this rule is very, very necessary. And in the end, I say that the foundation of every bid'ah (religious innovation) that we all agree to deny is arguing with general evidences that were not practiced. So, take heed, O you who have insight. Now.