Discussion of 'Umar's independent legal reasoning in enforcing the triple pronouncement of divorce.

The Shaykh: For example, 'Umar ibn al-Khattab

The questioner : May Allah be pleased with him.

The Shaykh: When he made the divorce pronounced with the phrase "three, three" count as three, this is exactly contrary to the Sunnah. When a report stopping at a Companion contradicts an explicit text, it is not said that this is independent legal reasoning, nor is it said that it is a matter where independent legal reasoning is not applicable. Rather, it is said that he saw a circumstance he deemed appropriate and seized the opportunity, meaning he acted in it because the opportunity presented itself. As for us coming and using the hadith to negate this, how does this example contradict you? You are asking about it exactly.

The questioner: May Allah bless you.

The Shaykh: Yes, and even if there were no hadith prohibiting gathering in circles, this would indicate that it cannot be said to be a report traced to the Prophet in its ruling, but rather an opinion he held for a specific reason. We do not say, for example, that he contradicted the Shari'ah. This is what I intended to elaborate on earlier when I mentioned 'Umar ibn al-Khattab and the enforcement of divorce with the phrase "three, three." Although this is contrary to the Sunnah, we do not say that he was mistaken, but that he had a specific independent legal reasoning limited to his time. We are not justified in adopting it as a permanent Shari'ah ruling because it contradicts the permanent Shari'ah now. As for the report of Abu Hurayrah that you asked about, if there were no prohibition against gathering in circles on Friday, it would contradict many established legislations regarding Friday. These legislations are established by the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and the application of his Companions of this saying. Oh Allah, in the name of Allah.
Abu Layla: Listen, my brothers.

The Shaykh: I said that regarding the independent legal reasoning of 'Umar ibn al-Khattab when he made the divorce pronounced with the phrase "three, three" count as three, it is not necessary for us to say that he was mistaken. Although, for us and based on what we know of his guidance (peace and blessings be upon him) and his Sunnah, it is an error. But for him, and given his view of the society he lived in, there may have been a Shari'ah justification for him to adopt that ruling, which is contrary to the original rule, in order to deter those who contradict the Sunnah, and it was a good independent legal reasoning on his part.
Likewise, I wanted to say regarding what is established from Abu Hurayrah that he used to lecture the people and preach to them on Friday before the prayer, it is not necessary to say that he was mistaken in that, because it may have been for a specific occasion that presented itself. It is not necessary that this occasion occurred only once; it may have occurred more than that. For example, let us say that a preacher from the preachers of the mosques, or a scholar from the scholars of the Muslims, and the people are gathered in the mosque on Friday. One is praying the greeting of the mosque, and another is performing voluntary prayer as he pleases, as came in the authentic hadith, and another is sitting remembering Allah the Exalted and Majestic, especially if he turns to reading Surat al-Kahf and so on. Each of them is occupied with his portion or his worship. It occurred to one of those scholars in that gathering that one of them had contradicted the Sunnah, or that he said a word that is not permissible, so he stood up to preach to the people. In such an occasion, it is not said that this is not permissible, or that he contradicted the hadith, or that he contradicted the prohibition of gathering in circles on Friday. This was an occasion that presented itself to him, and it may present itself to him a second or third time. Even if this is not explicit in the hadith or in the report of Abu Hurayrah, the important thing is that the report of Abu Hurayrah allows for the possibility that it was to address a real matter that occurred to him. Whether he was right or wrong in the sight of Allah is his account with Allah. But since we find a way or means to not say that he was mistaken, because it does not completely contradict the hadith of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) in his prohibition of gathering in circles on Friday, unless he actually gathered a group and sat to study with them continuously. In that case, we would not care and would be cautious in saying that he contradicted the Sunnah. But even then, it can be said that he contradicted the Sunnah, but it did not reach him or was not conveyed to him, and in that case, the matter is much easier than that of 'Umar ibn al-Khattab, for example, who knew that the Sunnah of divorce with the phrase "three" is considered one divorce. Because in the hadith where he made it three, Ibn 'Abbas said that divorce in the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) with the phrase "three" was considered one divorce, and likewise in the caliphate of Abu Bakr, and likewise in part of the caliphate of 'Umar. Then it occurred to him to make it three, and he looked into the matter and enforced it as three. There is an explicit text that he knew this. But the answer, as previously mentioned, is that he did so out of independent legal reasoning to educate those who contradict the Sunnah of divorce prescribed in the Qur'an As for Abu Hurayrah, there is no such explicit contradiction in his report. Therefore, it is possible that the matter was for an occasion that presented itself to him once or more than once. In conclusion, this hadith is not suitable to be a restriction on the general, comprehensive prohibition of gathering in circles on Friday, which is an authentic hadith from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). Rather, we say that this is contrary to the hadith, but perhaps he was excused for a matter that occurred to him. But if the hadith were of the type where it is more likely than not, though not certain, that a Companion does not speak from his own independent legal reasoning or opinion where it could be an error, but rather it is more likely than not that he received it from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), and in such a case, the scholars of hadith say that this is a report stopping at a Companion in the ruling of a report traced to the Prophet, because it is not said to be based merely on opinion.