What is the ruling on responding to the caller to prayer?

The Shaykh : The other matter I see as being of great importance to address and remind you of is: if you do not respond to the caller to prayer at all, do you commit a sin?

The questioner : No

The Shaykh : So, if you do not respond to the caller to prayer with "There is no power nor strength except in Allah," you do not commit a sin. And if you say what the caller said in response to everything he said, you do not commit a sin; rather, you are following the speech of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). In summary, I understand from this collection of narrations, and perhaps there are other things I do not remember now, that there is leeway in the matter.

The questioner : Even in reconciling them?

The Shaykh : May Allah forgive you, this is what I explicitly denied, and I gave you an example. Hehehehe. Yes.

The questioner : Our Shaykh, I recall a statement of yours, may Allah preserve you.

The Shaykh : May Allah preserve you

The questioner : In *Tammam al-Mannah*, I do not know. It may appear that there is a contradiction until we remove the confusion.

The Shaykh : May Allah reward you with good.

The questioner : Regarding the issue of, meaning, repeating the caller's words, it seems you leaned toward obligation in *Tammam al-Mannah*, and you said this is what is in my mind.

The Shaykh : No, it is the exact opposite.

The questioner : And you even mentioned that some hadiths were reported that they used to speak. I said this does not contradict repeating the words or something like that. Do you have *Tammam al-Mannah*, Abu ...?

The questioner : A moment.

The Shaykh : I argue with the hadith narrated by Imam Malik in *al-Muwatta*.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : That when the caller to prayer began the call on Friday and 'Umar was on the pulpit, we would engage in conversation. When the sermon began, we would stop. I argue with this.

The questioner : To prove that it is not obligatory?

The Shaykh : Yes, to establish our Salafi principle of following the Salaf. Today we are speaking on this point: we do not see interpreting texts, whether they relate to commands or prohibitions, except within the limits of what has been transmitted to us from the statements of the Salaf and scholars. So, for example, if a report comes to us interpreting a command as not being for obligation, we cannot say it is obligatory by returning to the general rule. And the opposite is the case if they differed; then we return to the rule and take the position of obligation. The same applies to prohibition, whose original ruling is forbiddance. I cited a phrase from Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) regarding dyeing hair. When the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "The Jews and Christians do not dye their hair, so differ from them," he said regarding dyeing, "I fear it may be obligatory." I fear is what he said; it is not that it is obligatory, holding fast to the original ruling because he was awaiting the practice. If the practice and fatwas proceeded on the basis that it was obligatory, he would be the boldest of people in directing it; otherwise, he would be cautious.

The questioner : Allahu Akbar.

The Shaykh : And caution here means boldness, yes. And therefore I also said in this specific type, we find Imam al-Shafi'i and Imam Ahmad, and many of their like among the Imams of the Salaf, saying about things we know today are forbidden, they use the term "disliked." I dislike such and such, and I dislike such and such, even though it is forbidden in our view. But our situation now is different from theirs. Now, all opinions are confined to us, so there is no one who differs, for example, in interpreting a text from some of the texts. So, if this indicates, as is said today, something, it indicates their scrupulousness and their lack of boldness in rushing to declare something forbidden or obligatory. Other than that.