You stated in the description of the Prophet's (peace and blessings be upon him) prayer that the follower does not recite al-Fatihah in the loud prayers, and the author of *Subul al-Salam* mentioned many hadiths.

The questioner : In the description of the Prophet's prayer, you stated your opinion that the one praying behind the imam recites in the quiet prayers and does not recite in the loud prayers. In the book *Subul al-Salam*, the author presented evidence indicating that reciting the Mother of the Book is required in prayer always, and that the prayer is invalid without it. So, what is the authenticity of these hadiths first...?

The Shaykh : A question like this cannot be answered because it requires recalling the evidence, some of which is authentic and some is not. The authentic ones have one answer or more. But the questioner who truly wants to benefit by the shortest path should study the description of the prayer and the hadiths reported in it, note them down... then study what is in *Subul al-Salam* or other books of hadith jurisprudence. If a hadith is confusing to him or contradicts what is in the description of the prayer, he should mark it, record it, or write it on a paper and ask: "What is your opinion of this hadith? First, is it authentic? Yes, it is authentic. Second, does it indicate the obligation of reciting al-Fatihah behind the imam in the loud prayers, or is it not obligatory? This can be answered. But if you give us a topic on which the scholars of the Muslims have differed for more than a thousand years, and there is much evidence for both sides, I would not be able to answer this question in less than hours even if I had memorized the world. What can you say when we are like this? We ask Allah to include us in His mercy and favor. We recall some things and miss others, and many things."
I give you an example of this from these hadiths that are used as evidence by those who hold the view that reciting al-Fatihah behind the imam in the loud prayers is obligatory. The hadith is: The scholars who follow that school have relied on this hadith as evidence... but it contains no evidence at all. Why? And this naturally becomes clear, especially to one who has some knowledge of the principles of jurisprudence. The principles of jurisprudence state that if a command for something comes after a prohibition of it, then that command does not indicate obligation. If the wise Lawgiver commands something and had previously prohibited it, then that command does not indicate the obligation of that thing, but rather lifts the prohibition of it. Here, the hadith is like this: They said: "Yes" He said: "Do not do it, do not recite behind the imam." This is a prohibition. He said: This is an exception, an exception from the prohibition. It does not indicate obligation, but rather indicates permissibility. So where is the evidence for obligation? There is no evidence in the hadith for obligation. This is an example. And so, as I told you, the research is long. Look at a hadith like this one; it may be one of the hadiths that confused you. Look at a second hadith; perhaps we can give you the answer. Otherwise, the Qur'an and the authentic Sunnah agree on this topic: And the hadiths that appear on their surface to indicate obligation are either of this type that does not indicate obligation—what they indicate is only permissibility, and permissibility is the weaker position—or that it was in a stage of legislation. And we proceeded in our book *The Description of the Prophet's (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) Prayer* on this basis. And this is sufficient, and praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds.