Is the hadith of Anas (may Allah be pleased with him), in which he prayed Fajr with a congregation after the first congregation had finished, cited as evidence for the permissibility of repeating the second congregation?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : ...the hadith regarding their homes. In another narration, in another report, Imam al-Tabarani narrates in his *Al-Mu'jam al-Kabir* from Abdullah ibn Mas'ud that he was in his house with two men. The adhan for the Zuhr prayer was called, so they prepared for it and then all of them went out. By the time they reached the mosque, the people were already leaving the mosque; the prayer had ended. So he took them back to the house and prayed with them as a congregation in the house. This is a report different from the report of al-Hasan al-Basri.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh: Go ahead.
The questioner : In *Musannaf 'Abd al-Razzaq*, it is stated that the Companion Anas (may Allah be pleased with him) prayed the Fajr prayer with the Tabi'un after the first congregation had finished.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : So, do we cite this hadith as evidence for the obligation of the second congregation prayer?
The Shaykh : No. If you had remembered the condition I mentioned earlier, you would have known that this report does not indicate the opposite of what was stated. I told you that Imam al-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) and other imams ruled that repeating the congregation is not prescribed in a mosque that has a regular imam and a regular mu'adhdhin. The report of Anas is only valid as evidence if the mosque in question is described as having a regular imam and a regular mu'adhdhin. This description is certainly not present in this report. It is not correct to say that the hadith or the report is general; because generality and universality apply to legislative texts (insha'), not to reports of actual events. When you are talking about a specific event, that event has no generality. That means the mosque has one of two characteristics: either it has a regular imam and a regular mu'adhdhin, or it does not. Since the mosque is not described as having a regular imam and a regular mu'adhdhin, citing this report as evidence is invalid. This is from one perspective.
From another perspective, even if the report explicitly stated that the mosque had a regular imam and a regular mu'adhdhin, we would say: This is the action of a Companion who contradicted the actions of the other Companions, at the head of whom was Abdullah ibn Mas'ud, let alone the other group that al-Hasan al-Basri described when he said: "The Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), when they entered the mosque and found that the imam had already prayed, would pray individually." So we are left with a contradiction between the group of Companions, led by Ibn Mas'ud, as evidenced by al-Tabarani's report in *Al-Mu'jam al-Kabir*, and the report of Anas ibn Malik on the other side. There is no doubt that the soul is more at ease with the practice of the group of Companions than with the practice of one of them who acted contrary to the group's practice. Especially since Ibn Mas'ud was among the group, and he was much more knowledgeable in fiqh than Anas ibn Malik.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh: Go ahead.
The questioner : In *Musannaf 'Abd al-Razzaq*, it is stated that the Companion Anas (may Allah be pleased with him) prayed the Fajr prayer with the Tabi'un after the first congregation had finished.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : So, do we cite this hadith as evidence for the obligation of the second congregation prayer?
The Shaykh : No. If you had remembered the condition I mentioned earlier, you would have known that this report does not indicate the opposite of what was stated. I told you that Imam al-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) and other imams ruled that repeating the congregation is not prescribed in a mosque that has a regular imam and a regular mu'adhdhin. The report of Anas is only valid as evidence if the mosque in question is described as having a regular imam and a regular mu'adhdhin. This description is certainly not present in this report. It is not correct to say that the hadith or the report is general; because generality and universality apply to legislative texts (insha'), not to reports of actual events. When you are talking about a specific event, that event has no generality. That means the mosque has one of two characteristics: either it has a regular imam and a regular mu'adhdhin, or it does not. Since the mosque is not described as having a regular imam and a regular mu'adhdhin, citing this report as evidence is invalid. This is from one perspective.
From another perspective, even if the report explicitly stated that the mosque had a regular imam and a regular mu'adhdhin, we would say: This is the action of a Companion who contradicted the actions of the other Companions, at the head of whom was Abdullah ibn Mas'ud, let alone the other group that al-Hasan al-Basri described when he said: "The Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), when they entered the mosque and found that the imam had already prayed, would pray individually." So we are left with a contradiction between the group of Companions, led by Ibn Mas'ud, as evidenced by al-Tabarani's report in *Al-Mu'jam al-Kabir*, and the report of Anas ibn Malik on the other side. There is no doubt that the soul is more at ease with the practice of the group of Companions than with the practice of one of them who acted contrary to the group's practice. Especially since Ibn Mas'ud was among the group, and he was much more knowledgeable in fiqh than Anas ibn Malik.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.