The Shaykh’s explanation of the hadith regarding the virtue of congregational prayer and a detailed discussion of the issue of repeating the second congregation.

The Shaykh : The eleventh hadith. It was narrated from Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) that he said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: . It is agreed upon by al-Bukhari and Muslim, and this is the wording of Muslim.
And his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): is with an open ya and ha and a zay; meaning: he drives them out and rouses them.
This hadith explains the virtue of congregational prayer, and not only that; but also the virtue of the steps one takes to attend congregational prayer, and not only that; but also sitting in the mosque waiting for the congregational prayer. In all these preliminaries before the congregational prayer, there are these virtues and these good deeds that he (peace and blessings be upon him) mentioned. As for the congregational prayer itself, its virtue is twenty-seven degrees, as in some explicit hadiths. This is an explanation of the "bids" (a few) mentioned in this hadith; where he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: . So "bids" here, linguistically, is known to mean less than ten. Its explanation came in a hadith—also in al-Bukhari and Muslim—of twenty-seven degrees. This number does not contradict the other narration of twenty-five degrees; because it is a known principle among scholars of usul al-fiqh and scholars of hadith that one always takes the additional amount, whether in rulings or in reports. So the twenty-five are included in the twenty-seven, and each of the two numbers, twenty-five and twenty-seven, explains "bids" from the Arabic perspective. Therefore, what one should believe is that congregational prayer exceeds individual prayer, whether they pray it in the house or in the market, by twenty-seven degrees.
It is necessary here to draw attention to an issue in which scholars have differed in the past, and what the Salaf practiced is what clarifies the disagreement and resolves it; namely, understanding the congregation that has this virtue: , and in the other wording: . Is this congregational prayer every congregation held in every mosque at any time, or is it one single congregation that is not repeated or multiplied?
This is an issue of disagreement, and what is stronger when the evidence for the issue is reviewed is that the congregation that has this virtue is the first congregation, which is prayed behind the regular imam. It is not sufficient for it to be merely the first congregation; for a group might come to the mosque in a hurry, start the prayer, take the lead, and encroach upon the regular imam, so they pray in congregation, then they leave, and then the regular, official congregational prayer is held. In that case, that congregation is not the first one that has this virtue; because it is a congregation that is aggressive and encroaching upon the regular congregation. So the congregation that has this virtue is the first congregation and the congregation restricted to the imam who was appointed as the imam for this mosque.
So this first congregation is the one that has this virtue of twenty-seven degrees. It is not the first one that precedes the regular congregation, nor is it the second, third, fourth, or more than that which follows the regular congregation. The evidence for this restriction is the reality of practical communal life in the era of Prophethood and Messengership and in the era of the righteous Salaf.
It was reported in "Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah" from the narration of al-Hasan al-Basri (may Allah have mercy on him) that he said: "When the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) entered the mosque and found that the imam had already prayed, they prayed individually." Imam al-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) referred to this narration, who elaborated on this issue in a way we hardly find in any other book by the early scholars. He said in the first part of his book "Al-Umm": "If a group enters the mosque and finds that the imam has already prayed, they pray individually. If they pray in congregation, their prayer is sufficient for them, but I dislike that; because it was not the practice of the Salaf, and they were able to gather again, but they did not do so; because they disliked to gather in a mosque twice." This general report from al-Hasan al-Basri about the noble Companions that they did not multiply the congregation in the mosque gives us a picture of the life they lived in their mosques regarding congregational prayer, which is that they were keen to maintain the first congregation. If it was missed by them for some excuse, let alone without an excuse, they prayed individually.
And this is what is indicated by hadiths traced to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), but with some derivation and reflection. Among them is the hadith of Abu Hurayrah—also—which al-Bukhari and Muslim narrated in their "Sahih"s. He said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: meaning the 'Isha' prayer.
In this hadith, there is a clear indication of the prohibition of lagging behind the congregational prayer; because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) intended to burn the houses of those who lagged behind it. This is clear, and we have no further discussion on it. The discussion is in what we are currently addressing; namely, the repetition of the congregation. So what is the relationship between this hadith and the non-prescription of repeating the congregation?
Let us imagine the actual situation today in many mosques of Muslims regarding repetition and multiplication. Which congregation would this explicit threat in this hadith fall upon if we assume there are many congregations? The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) says: . So if the Messenger (peace be upon him) actually carried out the burning, and those people defied him in their homes and he intended to burn them, what is this, O Messenger of Allah? You are lagging behind the congregational prayer. No, O Messenger of Allah, we are praying with the second congregation, with the third congregation, with the fiftieth congregation. Would the argument of the Messenger be established against those who lagged behind at that time, or is the matter the opposite?
If we observe this, we understand that this Prophetic argument is not established against those who lag behind the congregational prayer unless we keep in mind that truth which al-Hasan al-Basri first informed us of, and then Imam al-Shafi'i supported in his previous statement just now. Otherwise, the argument of the Messenger would be invalidated—and may that be far from him!—by someone saying: O Messenger of Allah, if we missed the prayer with you, we pray—for example—with Mu'adh in his mosque, we pray with Abu, we pray with so-and-so, assuming they were multiplying the congregation in the mosque as is the case today in large and small mosques. Or it can be said that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) says to them: It is true that there are many congregations, but I am concerned with the first congregation among all the congregations. This is possible for someone to say as well. And whether it is the first possibility or the second, the argument is established that when a Muslim hears the call of Allah saying: "Hayya 'ala al-salah, Hayya 'ala al-falah," it means the first congregation; because the Messenger (may the prayers and peace of Allah be upon him) intended to burn those who lagged behind it.
So, when we hear the hadiths that clarify that the congregational prayer is twenty-seven degrees better than the prayer of the individual, we should not understand the word “congregation,” or more precisely, we should not understand that the “al” in “congregation” is for totality and comprehensiveness. Rather, it is for the definite article of reference. So we say: the congregational prayer is the first congregation, with the previous condition: that it does not encroach upon the regular congregation. So the congregational prayer is the first congregation; the “al” here is not for totality and comprehensiveness, but for the definite article of reference.
This is evidence from the perspective of reality that shows us the impact of a wrong opinion on its holder. When the permissibility of the second congregation and those after it became established in the opinion of many people, it turned them away from caring that the prayer be performed with the first congregation. On the other hand, when such an error did not become established in their minds regarding the Friday prayer, they did not have this wrong impact, and all of them pray the Friday prayer at its time. This is from the perspective of reality.
And from the perspective of transmitted reports, we have found, along with the previous hadith of Abu Hurayrah which says in its first part: = -- Be kind to your neighbor -- = we have found, along with the previous hadith of Abu Hurayrah: to the end of the hadith, which includes meaning the Isha prayer. We have found, along with this hadith, a similar hadith regarding the Friday prayer, narrated by Imam Muslim in his *Sahih* from the hadith of Abdullah ibn Mas'ud, who said—may the prayers and peace of Allah be upon him—: . So, just as the Messenger—may the prayers and peace of Allah be upon him—said regarding the congregational prayer, he said the same thing completely regarding the Friday prayer.
And this indicates to us two things. The first thing is that the congregational prayer is an obligation, just like the Friday prayer. Naturally, the similarity here does not necessarily have to be one hundred percent; because saying “Zayd is like a lion” means from a certain perspective. Therefore, I mean that the congregational prayer is like the Friday prayer in terms of its obligatoriness, but obligatoriness has degrees. This is what the hadith indicates first. Second, just as the Friday prayer is not repeated in the same mosque, and therefore he intended to burn the houses of those who lagged behind it, so too the congregational prayer is not repeated; and therefore he intended to burn the houses of those who lagged behind it.
From this, the four Imams agreed on the non-prescription of the second congregation: Abu Hanifah, Malik, al-Shafi'i, and Ahmad in a narration from him. They all agreed that the second congregation is not prescribed. The Hanafis apply the term “disliked” to it, and they mean by “disliked” the type of dislike that entails prohibition. However, they specified—and especially among them Imam al-Shafi'i—that the mosque in which repeating the congregation is disliked is the mosque that has a regular imam and a regular mu'adhdhin. Because the realization of these two characteristics in the mosque is what gathers the Muslims in that mosque: the imam and the mu'adhdhin. As for a mosque on the side of the road that has no mu'adhdhin calling them and no imam gathering them, repeating the congregation is not disliked in this mosque. The difference is very clear, and it is what these scholars and jurists aimed at. That is because repeating the congregation in a mosque that has a regular imam and a regular mu'adhdhin results in the division of the congregation. And the congregational prayer was not named “congregational” except for the purpose of gathering. So, any action that opposes the purpose of the prescription of the congregation, which is the division of the gathering, is naturally contrary to the Shari'ah. Therefore, it is not prescribed to adopt any cause or any means that leads to the division of the first congregation.
As for the mosque that has no regular imam and no regular mu'adhdhin, there is no congregation to be divided. On the contrary, there are congregations that are gathered. For example, a family in a house where some of them pray in congregation, and others are busy or absent, then they return to the house and pray a second congregation. No one says that this is disliked, because it does not lead to the division of an organized congregation. Therefore, those scholars said that this ruling regarding the dislike of repeating the congregation is specific to the mosque that has a regular imam and a regular mu'adhdhin.
Therefore, when we hear the hadiths that clarify that the congregational prayer is twenty-seven degrees better than the prayer of an individual, we should not understand the word "congregation" — or, more precisely, we should not understand the "al" in "al-jama'ah" to indicate totality and comprehensiveness. Rather, it is for the definite article (al-'ahd). So we say: the congregational prayer is the first congregation, subject to the previous condition; that is, it must not be a congregation that transgresses against the regular congregation. Thus, the congregational prayer is the first congregation; the "al" here is not for totality and comprehensiveness, but for the definite article.
Because of this hadith and its like, we say: it is obligatory that the texts of the Shari'ah and the sayings of the Messenger—may the prayers and peace of Allah be upon him—be interpreted in light of reality and the noble Prophetic life.
So it is not permissible for us to come to an absolute text and apply it today in its absolute sense, even though we know that it was not applied in its absolute sense during the time of Prophethood and Messengership. Likewise, it is not permissible for us to come to a general text and apply it in its generality, even though we know that it was not applied in its generality. Observing this rule saves its holder from deviation and from falling into innovations in matters in which the masses of people fall when they come to such absolute or general texts and interpret them by restricting them only to the Arabic style, without returning to observe what the Messenger—may the prayers and peace of Allah be upon him—interpreted, either by his saying, his doing, or his approval.
And perhaps what clarifies for you this important and dangerous rule, in addition to this hadith which we were discussing, is to bring you closer to this topic with the well-known verse: . If we wanted to interpret this verse relying only on the Arabic style, we would understand from His saying—Exalted is He—: any thief, any thief; whether he stole a pencil of lead or a pencil of gold, this is called a thief and this is called a thief. Are this thief and that one both equal in that they fall under the generality of His saying—Exalted is He—: ? As for the Arabic language, the answer is: yes. But as for the Prophetic reality and the Prophetic interpretation, the answer is: no. Why? Because the Messenger—may the prayers and peace of Allah be upon him—used to say: . So, less than a quarter of the stolen amount does not permit cutting off the hand of this thief.
So, how do we finally understand ? The “al” is for the definite article of reference, not for totality and comprehensiveness; meaning: the one who stole what is worth a quarter of a dinar or more is the one who deserves the cutting off mentioned in the complete verse, and so is the female thief. This is from the side of the absolute mention of the thief in the verse. We understood that this absoluteness is not intended by the verbal explanation of the Messenger—may the prayers and peace of Allah be upon him.
Then He, the Exalted, said: . Do you see, is the hand in the language limited to the palm, or does it include the forearm, or is all of this considered a hand? All of this is a hand. Do you see, if a person steals a quarter of a dinar or more, is it permissible to cut off his hand from here? Linguistically, the answer is yes, because it is a hand; wherever you cut, you have cut off the hand. But legally, is it permissible to cut off the thief's hand from here? The answer is no. Where did we take this from? From the practical, real-world explanation of the Messenger (peace be upon him); he used to cut from here, not from here, and not from here. This is an example to which hundreds of examples must be added. How much we need today, in the present age, to keep this rule in mind, because many people come to general texts that have not been acted upon in practice, and they use them as evidence, saying: "The general text is a proof." We say: Yes, but if the general text has not been acted upon in its generality, it is not a proof. If it has not been acted upon in its generality, it is not a proof.
For example, if a person claims to have jurisprudence and understanding, while on the other hand he aims at approximation and what they claim is the equalization of the rights of men and women—this massive call today that has diverted many Muslims from Islamic creed and Islamic rulings—they say, for example, that the woman is the counterpart of the man, and that distinguishing between the woman and the man is rigidity and regression, so we must treat the woman as we treat the man. And they may not lack some texts that support them in this direction. For example, the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said in "Sahih Muslim": . And often a gathering is held in a house, in a family, and it happens that a woman among these people is the most knowledgeable in jurisprudence and the best reciter. So is it permissible for a jurist who wants this approximation between women and men to say: "My brother, the Messenger said: ; so who is the best reciter among us? Fatimah. Get up, O Fatimah, and lead us in prayer as imam!"
This is a proof that you laugh at, and you have the right to do so, but if you notice that their argument based on the generality is correct, it is correct. However, the answer to refute this so-called valid call is: Did the practice of the righteous predecessors proceed by arguing with this hadith in its generality such that the woman is brought forward for her jurisprudence to lead the men? The answer is no. Likewise, for example, in judgment and issuing fatwas, do we appoint a woman to issue fatwas to the people, to judge between the people, while she is a jurist and a judge, and has been given qualities that may not be found in many men? The answer is no. Why? Because it contradicts the life of the predecessors: the Companions and those after them. There were many female jurists and many female hadith narrators among them, and yet the distinction in rulings and transactions between men and women remained as it is known today among the majority of Muslims.
The examples in this regard are many, and very many. But finally, I conclude the illustration with a sensitive and realistic example. Today, there is a trend among Muslim women—not the women who display their adornment who do not care about the forbidden and the lawful. The new trend among Muslim women is that a number of them emerge claiming to be female callers to Islam. You see them going right and left and traveling for what? For the sake of da'wah (calling to Islam), and they are called female callers, just as there are male callers, there are also female callers. This is a religious innovation in Islam that Muslims do not know at all. And this means opening the door for women to take on the rulings and characteristics of men.
It is not far off that a time will come when we see women sitting and appointing themselves to issue fatwas, and appointing themselves to judge; so what is the proof to refute these directions, some of which have already spread, and some of which—Allah knows best—will come later? The answer is: .
These are some examples to clarify that if a general text is not acted upon, it is not permissible to rely on its generality.