Interventions related to the previous question regarding the difference in intention between the imam and the follower?

The questioner: O our Shaykh - may Allah bless you - ; regarding the previous question, one point remains. If the imam entered and had already prayed the obligatory prayer, then he prayed the voluntary prayer with the followers, like the story of Mu'adh, where it was a voluntary prayer for him and an obligatory prayer for them; does this contradict his saying - peace and blessings be upon him - : regarding the imam?

The Shaykh: How does it contradict, when you are arguing with the story of Mu'adh?

The questioner: ... Was Mu'adh praying a voluntary prayer or was it an obligatory prayer?

The Shaykh: It was a voluntary prayer for him, and it is mentioned in the hadith.

The questioner: The narration is authentic; al-San'ani did not adopt this narration.

The Shaykh : How?

The questioner: Al-San'ani.

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner: He says: No, he says: Mu'adh was praying an obligatory prayer, he says: ... .

The Shaykh: I did not understand, what does al-San'ani say?

The questioner: He says: Mu'adh was praying an obligatory prayer, he was not praying a voluntary prayer.

The Shaykh: Mu'adh was praying an obligatory prayer?

The questioner: And he spoke about: "It was a voluntary prayer for him."

The Shaykh: No, this is without doubt ... .

The questioner: No, al-San'ani spoke about the other hadith, not the hadith of Mu'adh, so it would be ... and this ... .

The Shaykh: May Allah guide you, the hadith of 'Umar that we mentioned earlier, the hadith of Mu'adh is an authentic hadith, and in it: .

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh: And I mentioned to you at the beginning of the research the prayer of the Prophet - peace be upon him - in the prayer of fear twice; in the first time he prayed with a congregation, then another group came and he prayed two rak'ahs with them another time. What is this prayer? Was the second one that the Prophet prayed an obligatory prayer? So then? Suppose that what you quoted - and the responsibility is on you - suppose that what you quoted from al-San'ani was a correct quotation, and then suppose that what al-San'ani mentioned based on your quotation is itself correct, it does not harm us at all; because we have the hadith of the prayer of fear. But in my knowledge, the hadith of Mu'adh: is a correct addition; and therefore this addition can be considered correct even by those who do not accept the hadith of Mu'adh with this addition; because they were unable to refute the indication of the hadith in the manner you quoted from al-San'ani; because the Hanafis - as you know - .
... would have refuted this with the Shafi'is, but they did not find a way to that statement, so they adopted a statement that may be difficult for many people, but I, by the grace and mercy of Allah, found that this statement has no value. They say: It is not in the hadith that the Prophet - peace and blessings be upon him - became aware of this incident, and since the Prophet did not become aware, then there is no proof in this action. This is a method of refuting some of the incidents that occurred during the time of Prophethood and the Message, a method that is customary and consistent with them; and therefore they refuted many established and correct proofs with it. For example, when the Shafi'is argued against them that the flow of blood does not break the wudu' no matter how much it is, in the hadith of the Ansari who stood guarding the army that had descended during his journey.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Oh?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh: Yes, they said: When this man continued in his prayer, we have no knowledge that the Prophet - peace be upon him - became aware of this incident and approved it; and therefore we deny the validity of this story for arguing for what the Shafi'is adopted, which is that a large amount of blood does not break the wudu'. So it appeared to me many years ago that this argument which the Hanafis rely on is a refuted and rejected argument; and that is from two aspects. The first aspect is that I say it is very, very, very unlikely that the Prophet - peace be upon him - did not become aware of the incident of Mu'adh and the incident of the Ansari; because it is assumed of the leader of the congregation that such matters are not hidden from him, especially since they relate to legal rulings and he is responsible for them.
As for the incident of Mu'adh, you know the story of the owner of the camel who ... one day saw Mu'adh and had begun Surat al-Baqarah, so he left him and prayed the obligatory prayer alone, then he went on his way. And Mu'adh sensed it or was told about it later, so he started to criticize him, and the matter reached the Ansari, so he complained about Mu'adh to the Prophet - peace and blessings be upon him - so he sent for him, and said to him as you know: أفتَّانٌ أنت يا معاذ ؟! أفتَّانٌ أنت يا معاذ ؟! أفتَّانٌ أنت يا معاذ ؟! بحسبك أن تقرأ بـ وَالشَّمْسِ وَضُحَاهَا و سَبِّحِ اسْمَ رَبِّكَ الْأَعْلَى ونحوها من السور Are you a tempter, O Mu'adh? Are you a tempter, O Mu'adh? Are you a tempter, O Mu'adh? It is sufficient for you to recite "And the sun and its radiance" and "Glorify the name of your Lord, the Most High" and similar surahs , then he said: to the end of the hadith.
So the Prophet knew that Mu'adh was praying with the people while he saw him praying behind him - peace be upon him -; so it is very unlikely that the Prophet - peace be upon him - did not have knowledge of that. Likewise, I say regarding the incident of the Ansari whose leg bled, this is a very strange incident, the news of which reached the narrator of the hadith, who is Jabir ibn 'Abd Allah al-Ansari, and did not reach the master of the people and their Prophet - peace and blessings be upon him -. This is similar to the impossible; this is the first answer.
The second answer: What are they aiming at when they say that the Prophet - peace be upon him - we have no text that he knew about it? Because they agree with all Muslims that if the Prophet knew and approved, it became a proof. Well; we say secondly: Suppose the Prophet did not know, but the Lord of the Prophet knew, and He is more important than the knowledge of the Prophet; because He is the one who reveals to the Prophet whatever He wills of rulings; so what is this huge problem that they hide behind when they say: We have no text that the Prophet became aware? And if they were told: Do you not have certain, definitive knowledge that the Lord of the Prophet became aware? They would say: Yes; so which is more important, that the Prophet became aware or that the Lord of the Prophet became aware? Without doubt the answer will be: The Lord of the Prophet. Since the Lord of the Prophet became aware, and then He approved the Prophet for what happened; that is: without the Prophet knowing, on the assumption of the Hanafis; so the proof is established whether we assume that the Prophet became aware or that the Prophet did not become aware; because in both cases the Lord of the Prophet has become aware, and in that is the sufficient proof.
On this basis, the story of Mu'adh ibn Jabal is a proof for the permissibility of praying the obligatory prayer behind the voluntary prayer, and this is supported by what we mentioned from one of the characteristics of the prayer of fear.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh: Yes, he is referring to this.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Yes, that is right.

Another questioner: O Shaykh, some scholars say this is specific to Mu'adh?

The Shaykh: We were afraid that it would be said to be specific to the Prophet, so we became saying: Specific to Mu'adh!!

The questioner: ... specificity - Shaykh - which means the Companion wanted to ... for the 'Eid, so he said to him: This is specific and does not suffice for anyone else.

The Shaykh: Good, how did we know the specificity? Is it not by the saying of the Prophet when he said: ? Well, did he say this to Mu'adh?

The questioner: No, he did not say it.

The Shaykh: No; so the proof is dropped, and then do not forget what we said earlier that the Prophet prayed with his Companions the prayer of fear a second time ... perhaps it is said here, and it is the lightest of these, that it is specific to the Prophet; because the Prophet has many specific matters.

The questioner: The hadith: .

The Shaykh: Yes, it has no relation to our topic; because the one who gave charity was the follower, and the one who prayed as imam, I say, and the one who prayed as imam is the one who is obligated; so here the case is reversed.

The questioner: Is it established that .

The Shaykh: The follower is praying a voluntary prayer, and the imam is praying an obligatory prayer. As for your saying: Is it established, if you mean is it established by a text outside this narration? The answer: I do not know, but the narration itself suffices us from this question; because the narrator said in this hadith: ; do you not see with me that if he said: "So he prays with him" the meaning would be different? Without doubt there is a big difference. "Prays with him" means as imam, "prays with him" means as follower; and therefore it becomes clear to us that this hadith has no relation to the topic of the obligated person following the voluntary person, but this has relation to another issue that was established in other hadiths; and that is the permissibility of repeating the obligatory prayer with the intention of a voluntary prayer, and this, as mentioned earlier in the prayer of fear, for what I mentioned earlier.
This man who prayed behind this latecomer had already prayed behind the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) the obligatory prayer. Then the Messenger encouraged the congregation to have one of them pray with him, so he stood up. In one narration, it is Abu Bakr, but that is a weak narration. He prayed with him. This is cited as evidence for the permissibility of repeating the obligatory prayer with the intention of a voluntary prayer; otherwise, it is not permissible to repeat it with the intention of the obligatory prayer, due to his saying (peace be upon him): .

The questioner: ... So he said: "He prays with him." So sometimes the issue is that he is the imam. But if he stands up and prays with him, both possibilities remain.

The Shaykh: All right, a preference is necessary. Do we prefer one, or do we remain in doubt?

The questioner: Does the preference rest solely on the fact that he did not say it?

The Shaykh : Hmm.

The questioner: Solely on the fact that he did not say it.

The Shaykh: Yes, because it is assumed that the Messenger, , is not supposed to obscure the matter for people. Since every Arab understands the difference between "prays with him" and "prays alongside him," it is assumed that he would use the word that clarifies and explains. So he should have said: "He prays with him." When he said: , the first wording is explicit in the matter that he is the imam. The second, if we do not say it is explicit that he is the follower, is at least apparent that he is the follower, and that is sufficient.