What is the ruling on the follower reciting al-Fatihah behind the imam in the loud prayers?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : The ruling on reciting al-Fatihah in the loud prayers
The Shaykh : In the prayer, what?
The questioner : In the loud prayer behind the imam, I mentioned that there is a hadith of abrogating and abrogated. I want clarification?
The Shaykh : Yes, we said that recitation was permissible behind the imam who recites aloud, then the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) gradually prohibited recitation behind him in the loud prayers with an absolute prohibition; due to the hadith of Abu Hurayrah when he said: Abu Hurayrah said: "So the people stopped reciting behind the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in what the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) used to recite aloud." I know that this addition differed in its connection and disconnection, and we answered that with what would lengthen the discussion, but it suffices that the meaning of this hadith with this addition corresponds to the Quranic and Prophetic original, which is [Al-A'raf 7:204] It is an absolute text, then the hadith came authentic, authenticated by Muslim through the narration of Sunan an-Nasa'i 921Sahih (Darussalam) and this was supported by the stronger opinion among the majority of scholars that one who catches the imam bowing has caught the rak'ah despite not having recited al-Fatihah.
Another questioner : Your Eminence, we return to the principle you mentioned at the beginning, then we return to the issue of reciting al-Fatihah.
The Shaykh : Perhaps returning is better.
Another questioner : So the principle, you said that the action is a sign that diverts the statement if the chronology is known, and knowing the chronology, as the scholars of usul say, is required in abrogation, but in combining, many scholars of usul, as far as I know, do not require knowing the chronology, but they say that there is a principle with them that they establish: acting on both hadiths is better than discarding one of the hadiths, and combining is better. So is the requirement of chronology in making the sign a diverting sign from obligation to recommendation, or from prohibition to dislike, considered from the category of abrogation?
The Shaykh : Of course, I remind you of what you may have forgotten: what is the specific text called among the Salaf?
The questioner : It is called abrogated.
The Shaykh : The specific?
The questioner : It is called abrogating, I am sorry.
The Shaykh : Ah, so the specific is abrogating...
The questioner : Among the Salaf, but abrogation among the later scholars of usul.
The Shaykh : You reminded me of something just as I reminded you, because when you first mentioned it, you mentioned what is known among the later scholars, so I wanted to remind you of what is known among the earlier scholars, and now the purpose of this is to remind you that specification is a type of abrogation...
The questioner : And is knowing the chronology required in specification?
The Shaykh : Be patient a little, specification is a type of abrogation because it removes part of the general text, while the abrogating removes the text from its root, correct or not?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : So in the way of reconciling the prohibiting and the permitting in this case, so that we do not nullify the statement, because when we explained this, why do we say the statement is preferred over the action? And why do we say the prohibiting is preferred over the action? For many very strong reasons, so that we do not nullify the statement of the Messenger and his prohibition by an action that occurred from him, which may be on the original basis, which is the original presumption of permissibility, and it may be for an excuse, and it may finally be for a specific reason, and the evidence, when doubt touches it, the argumentation falls, as your scholars and jurists say, is that not so?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : As long as the action may be one of these three possibilities, we do not want to lower his statement (peace be upon him), which is a general legislation, from its apparent indication except by a strong sign, and therefore in this case it is necessary for us to say that this action is later than the statement and it is a practical clarification from him (peace be upon him) that his statement is to be understood as recommendation, so the prohibiting came contrary to the original, and the action came with the original, and this is each to its own case, the statement is a general Shari'ah, the action may and may, and what does not have "may" is stronger than what has "may", is that not so?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Ah, and therefore his statement (peace be upon him) remains, we should preserve it, and this principle is very important and it has a relation to many branches of fiqh, for example, do you know, if Allah wills, well his statement (peace be upon him): You are on your previous logic nullifying the generality of this hadith, is my suspicion the suspicion of a Muslim or not?
Another questioner : Yes, they say it is permissible...
The Shaykh : No, do not tell me "they say", tell me what you say?
Another questioner : From the perspective of reading for the people of fiqh, we say I believe that I follow the scholars who say that facing and turning one's back is permissible in buildings and not permissible in the desert.
The Shaykh : Look, you tired yourself, you tired yourself in vain, I said I think you are nullifying the general hadith with the hadith of action, you should have said to rest yourself, your suspicion is the suspicion of a believer, correct or not? But you tired yourself, and we want to rest you now, look at the importance of this principle, the narrator of the hadith is Abu Ayyub al-Ansari, and there is a principle, perhaps you remember it with me, which says that the narrator of the hadith is more aware of his narration than others, correct?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Fine, Abu Ayyub al-Ansari narrated this hadith, he said: So when we went to Sham, we found the latrines facing the Ka'bah, so we seek forgiveness from Allah...
The questioner : Then we turn away from them and seek forgiveness from Allah.
The Shaykh : Okay, he seeks forgiveness from Allah from what? From a permissible matter?
The questioner : From contradicting the hadith.
The Shaykh : Okay, what is your answer to this?
The questioner : The answer that the scholars say...
The Shaykh : No, no. Tell me you. Bring the scholars so we can discuss with them, I am not their servant, so bring what you say?
Another questioner : What I remember of their words, perhaps Abu Ayyub did not reach him the hadith of Ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) about tying the camel in the hadith of Marwan al-Asfar, and perhaps it did not reach him the hadith of Ibn 'Umar when he climbed on the house of Hafsa and found the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) and many of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) had missed the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), even Abu Bakr and 'Umar, the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) had been missed by them.
The Shaykh : This is a fact, there is no discussion in it, as Imam al-Shafi'i said, a Sunnah of the Sunnahs of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) may be hidden from the people, but the issue now, since you referred us to the action of Ibn 'Umar and to many of the Companions, is the issue disputed or agreed upon?
The questioner : The issue is disputed among the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them).
The Shaykh : So it does not benefit us that you refer us to the action of some of the Companions, because you will be opposed by other Companions, so we should now judge by the verse we mentioned earlier in the introduction of this session[An-Nisa 4:59] So the issue of touching a woman and the discharge of blood, for every statement there is a proponent from the Salaf, so now you mentioned the athar of Ibn 'Umar, is it mawquf or marfu'?
The questioner : This is a mawquf athar.
The Shaykh : The best speech is what is little and indicates, so that you rest yourself.
The questioner : It is mawquf, but there is a sign indicating that it is not said from the perspective of opinion.
The Shaykh : And what is it?
The questioner : When Ibn 'Umar tied the camel, he said that between me and it, this indicates the understanding of Ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him).
The Shaykh : This is his understanding, I am not discussing this, but where is the sign that it is in the category of marfu'?
The questioner : Imam al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said that this statement from Ibn 'Umar is a sign that it is not said from the perspective of opinion.
The Shaykh : I do not think you are al-Nawawi, so why do you argue with me using al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him)? The important thing is this is mawquf, let us return to the marfu' hadith, what is it? The hadith of...
The questioner :Sahih Ibn Hibban 8:396
The Shaykh : No, no, the hadith of Ibn 'Umar who climbed up.
The questioner : "I climbed on the house of Hafsa and found the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) relieving himself, turning his back to the Ka'bah and facing the House of Aqsa."
The Shaykh : Do you think that this incident happened from Ibn 'Umar intentionally or unintentionally?
The questioner : Unintentionally, by agreement.
The Shaykh : Okay, so if he had not climbed up, what happened to him, what remains of the hadith of Abu Ayyub?
The questioner : It remains in its generality and absoluteness.
The Shaykh : It remains in its generality, and when he discovered the Messenger facing or turning his back, does he know why?
The questioner: No.
The Shaykh : Do you know why?
The questioner: No.
The Shaykh : So we returned to the statement, this is one thing. Now the research moves us to an issue that may appear at first glance to have no connection to what we are discussing, what is your opinion on one who spits toward the qiblah, is it permissible?
The questioner : It is not permissible in the Shari'ah.
The Shaykh : If one spits toward the qiblah, is that permissible?
The questioner : It is not permissible to spit.
The Shaykh : May Allah reward you with good. Is spitting toward the qiblah a greater evil than urination and defecation?
The questioner : Urination and defecation.
The Shaykh : So why do we reverse the correct Islamic logic and say that urination and defecation are permissible because of the building, while spitting, which is pure and not like urination and defecation, we say is not permissible? This is completely contradictory logic, and we know from the words of the scholars that Islam does not differentiate between similar things, nor does it group together different things. Now, here, if there were a text prohibiting the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) from urinating in the building or defecating, or if there were a text permitting the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) to do so, we would say by analogy that spitting is permissible, a fortiori. But the issue here is completely reversed: spitting is not permissible, while urination and defecation are permissible. This requires a different kind of mind to accept such a contradiction. Then, what is the wisdom in permitting facing the qiblah in the building, when there is no difference in terms of respecting the direction we face in our prayer between the desert and the building? When we pray in mosques or in houses, are we not facing the Ka'bah out of respect for it, because we were commanded to turn toward it? Just as this respect remains and is a condition for the validity of the prayer, with no difference in that between the desert and the building, this respect should remain outside of prayer, a fortiori, especially if it involves something that the soul of a believer is ashamed to direct toward that direction to which the Muslim prays. Imagine with me now, and we have witnessed this in many houses: this is a room, and this is the Ka'bah, and there is a bathroom toilet facing the Ka'bah. This person faces the direction in his prayer, and that person faces it with his urine and feces. This is never acceptable in Islam. Therefore, we advise students of knowledge to study disputed issues free from narrow sectarianism. You grew up on the Shafi'i madhhab, so you are a Nawawi, for example, and there may be another man who grew up on the Hanafi madhhab, so he is a Zayla'i, and so on, and the Muslims remain scattered. So what unites them?
The questioner : The Book and the Sunnah.
The Shaykh : The Book and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah, and may Allah bless you. But this unity cannot be achieved except through objectivity, so that one does not say, "I am a Shafi'i and my study is Shafi'i, so I direct all the Shari'ah texts to what agrees with my madhhab," or "I say my study is Hanafi, so I direct all the evidence to what agrees with my Hanafi madhhab." No. We should surrender the leadership of our minds, our intellects, and all our thoughts to the Book of Allah and the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and by that, the Muslims can meet on a common word.
The questioner : How do we reconcile the two hadiths...
The Shaykh : Raise your voice.
The Shaykh : In the prayer, what?
The questioner : In the loud prayer behind the imam, I mentioned that there is a hadith of abrogating and abrogated. I want clarification?
The Shaykh : Yes, we said that recitation was permissible behind the imam who recites aloud, then the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) gradually prohibited recitation behind him in the loud prayers with an absolute prohibition; due to the hadith of Abu Hurayrah when he said:
He had intercourse with her.
قد خالجنيهاSo when the Qur'an is recited, then listen to it and pay attention that you may receive mercy.
وإذا قرئ القرآن فاستمعوا له و أنصتوا لعلّكم ترحمونThe Imam is appointed to be followed, so when he says the takbir, say the takbir, and when he recites, be silent
إنّما جعل الإمام ليؤتمّ به فإذا كبّر فكبّروا وإذا قرأ فأنصتواAnother questioner : Your Eminence, we return to the principle you mentioned at the beginning, then we return to the issue of reciting al-Fatihah.
The Shaykh : Perhaps returning is better.
Another questioner : So the principle, you said that the action is a sign that diverts the statement if the chronology is known, and knowing the chronology, as the scholars of usul say, is required in abrogation, but in combining, many scholars of usul, as far as I know, do not require knowing the chronology, but they say that there is a principle with them that they establish: acting on both hadiths is better than discarding one of the hadiths, and combining is better. So is the requirement of chronology in making the sign a diverting sign from obligation to recommendation, or from prohibition to dislike, considered from the category of abrogation?
The Shaykh : Of course, I remind you of what you may have forgotten: what is the specific text called among the Salaf?
The questioner : It is called abrogated.
The Shaykh : The specific?
The questioner : It is called abrogating, I am sorry.
The Shaykh : Ah, so the specific is abrogating...
The questioner : Among the Salaf, but abrogation among the later scholars of usul.
The Shaykh : You reminded me of something just as I reminded you, because when you first mentioned it, you mentioned what is known among the later scholars, so I wanted to remind you of what is known among the earlier scholars, and now the purpose of this is to remind you that specification is a type of abrogation...
The questioner : And is knowing the chronology required in specification?
The Shaykh : Be patient a little, specification is a type of abrogation because it removes part of the general text, while the abrogating removes the text from its root, correct or not?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : So in the way of reconciling the prohibiting and the permitting in this case, so that we do not nullify the statement, because when we explained this, why do we say the statement is preferred over the action? And why do we say the prohibiting is preferred over the action? For many very strong reasons, so that we do not nullify the statement of the Messenger and his prohibition by an action that occurred from him, which may be on the original basis, which is the original presumption of permissibility, and it may be for an excuse, and it may finally be for a specific reason, and the evidence, when doubt touches it, the argumentation falls, as your scholars and jurists say, is that not so?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : As long as the action may be one of these three possibilities, we do not want to lower his statement (peace be upon him), which is a general legislation, from its apparent indication except by a strong sign, and therefore in this case it is necessary for us to say that this action is later than the statement and it is a practical clarification from him (peace be upon him) that his statement is to be understood as recommendation, so the prohibiting came contrary to the original, and the action came with the original, and this is each to its own case, the statement is a general Shari'ah, the action may and may, and what does not have "may" is stronger than what has "may", is that not so?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Ah, and therefore his statement (peace be upon him) remains, we should preserve it, and this principle is very important and it has a relation to many branches of fiqh, for example, do you know, if Allah wills, well his statement (peace be upon him):
Do not face the qiblah with urination or defecation, but face east or west.
لا تستقبلوا القبلة ببول أو غائط ولكن شرّقوا أو غرّبواAnother questioner : Yes, they say it is permissible...
The Shaykh : No, do not tell me "they say", tell me what you say?
Another questioner : From the perspective of reading for the people of fiqh, we say I believe that I follow the scholars who say that facing and turning one's back is permissible in buildings and not permissible in the desert.
The Shaykh : Look, you tired yourself, you tired yourself in vain, I said I think you are nullifying the general hadith with the hadith of action, you should have said to rest yourself, your suspicion is the suspicion of a believer, correct or not? But you tired yourself, and we want to rest you now, look at the importance of this principle, the narrator of the hadith
Do not face the qiblah with urination or defecation, but face east or west.
لا تستقبلوا القبلة ببول أو غائط , ولكن شرّقوا أو غرّبواThe questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Fine, Abu Ayyub al-Ansari narrated this hadith, he said: So when we went to Sham, we found the latrines facing the Ka'bah, so we seek forgiveness from Allah...
The questioner : Then we turn away from them and seek forgiveness from Allah.
The Shaykh : Okay, he seeks forgiveness from Allah from what? From a permissible matter?
The questioner : From contradicting the hadith.
The Shaykh : Okay, what is your answer to this?
The questioner : The answer that the scholars say...
The Shaykh : No, no. Tell me you. Bring the scholars so we can discuss with them, I am not their servant, so bring what you say?
Another questioner : What I remember of their words, perhaps Abu Ayyub did not reach him the hadith of Ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) about tying the camel in the hadith of Marwan al-Asfar, and perhaps it did not reach him the hadith of Ibn 'Umar when he climbed on the house of Hafsa and found the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) and many of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) had missed the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), even Abu Bakr and 'Umar, the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) had been missed by them.
The Shaykh : This is a fact, there is no discussion in it, as Imam al-Shafi'i said, a Sunnah of the Sunnahs of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) may be hidden from the people, but the issue now, since you referred us to the action of Ibn 'Umar and to many of the Companions, is the issue disputed or agreed upon?
The questioner : The issue is disputed among the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them).
The Shaykh : So it does not benefit us that you refer us to the action of some of the Companions, because you will be opposed by other Companions, so we should now judge by the verse we mentioned earlier in the introduction of this session
And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger
فإن تنازعتم في شيء فردّوه إلى الله والرّسولThe questioner : This is a mawquf athar.
The Shaykh : The best speech is what is little and indicates, so that you rest yourself.
The questioner : It is mawquf, but there is a sign indicating that it is not said from the perspective of opinion.
The Shaykh : And what is it?
The questioner : When Ibn 'Umar tied the camel, he said that between me and it, this indicates the understanding of Ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him).
The Shaykh : This is his understanding, I am not discussing this, but where is the sign that it is in the category of marfu'?
The questioner : Imam al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said that this statement from Ibn 'Umar is a sign that it is not said from the perspective of opinion.
The Shaykh : I do not think you are al-Nawawi, so why do you argue with me using al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him)? The important thing is this is mawquf, let us return to the marfu' hadith, what is it? The hadith of...
The questioner :
Do not face the qiblah with urination or defecation.
لا تستقبلوا القبلة ببول أو غائطThe Shaykh : No, no, the hadith of Ibn 'Umar who climbed up.
The questioner : "I climbed on the house of Hafsa and found the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) relieving himself, turning his back to the Ka'bah and facing the House of Aqsa."
The Shaykh : Do you think that this incident happened from Ibn 'Umar intentionally or unintentionally?
The questioner : Unintentionally, by agreement.
The Shaykh : Okay, so if he had not climbed up, what happened to him, what remains of the hadith of Abu Ayyub?
The questioner : It remains in its generality and absoluteness.
The Shaykh : It remains in its generality, and when he discovered the Messenger facing or turning his back, does he know why?
The questioner: No.
The Shaykh : Do you know why?
The questioner: No.
The Shaykh : So we returned to the statement, this is one thing. Now the research moves us to an issue that may appear at first glance to have no connection to what we are discussing, what is your opinion on one who spits toward the qiblah, is it permissible?
The questioner : It is not permissible in the Shari'ah.
The Shaykh : If one spits toward the qiblah, is that permissible?
The questioner : It is not permissible to spit.
The Shaykh : May Allah reward you with good. Is spitting toward the qiblah a greater evil than urination and defecation?
The questioner : Urination and defecation.
The Shaykh : So why do we reverse the correct Islamic logic and say that urination and defecation are permissible because of the building, while spitting, which is pure and not like urination and defecation, we say is not permissible? This is completely contradictory logic, and we know from the words of the scholars that Islam does not differentiate between similar things, nor does it group together different things. Now, here, if there were a text prohibiting the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) from urinating in the building or defecating, or if there were a text permitting the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) to do so, we would say by analogy that spitting is permissible, a fortiori. But the issue here is completely reversed: spitting is not permissible, while urination and defecation are permissible. This requires a different kind of mind to accept such a contradiction. Then, what is the wisdom in permitting facing the qiblah in the building, when there is no difference in terms of respecting the direction we face in our prayer between the desert and the building? When we pray in mosques or in houses, are we not facing the Ka'bah out of respect for it, because we were commanded to turn toward it? Just as this respect remains and is a condition for the validity of the prayer, with no difference in that between the desert and the building, this respect should remain outside of prayer, a fortiori, especially if it involves something that the soul of a believer is ashamed to direct toward that direction to which the Muslim prays. Imagine with me now, and we have witnessed this in many houses: this is a room, and this is the Ka'bah, and there is a bathroom toilet facing the Ka'bah. This person faces the direction in his prayer, and that person faces it with his urine and feces. This is never acceptable in Islam. Therefore, we advise students of knowledge to study disputed issues free from narrow sectarianism. You grew up on the Shafi'i madhhab, so you are a Nawawi, for example, and there may be another man who grew up on the Hanafi madhhab, so he is a Zayla'i, and so on, and the Muslims remain scattered. So what unites them?
The questioner : The Book and the Sunnah.
The Shaykh : The Book and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah, and may Allah bless you. But this unity cannot be achieved except through objectivity, so that one does not say, "I am a Shafi'i and my study is Shafi'i, so I direct all the Shari'ah texts to what agrees with my madhhab," or "I say my study is Hanafi, so I direct all the evidence to what agrees with my Hanafi madhhab." No. We should surrender the leadership of our minds, our intellects, and all our thoughts to the Book of Allah and the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and by that, the Muslims can meet on a common word.
The questioner : How do we reconcile the two hadiths...
The Shaykh : Raise your voice.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.