What is the criterion for distinguishing between an incident that has the scope of a general ruling and an incident specific to a particular case?

The questioner : The second question: What is meant, may Allah reward you,The Shaykh : by the scholars' statement: "This is an incident specific to a particular case, with no general application"? And what is the criterion for distinguishing between an incident that has the scope of a general ruling and an incident specific to a particular case, with an example? May Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh : The evidence is that if the apparent meaning of an incident contradicts scriptural proofs, it is not permissible to adopt this incident and use it to negate the scriptural proofs, which have a broader scope of indication than it. Those proofs indicate the legitimacy of a certain act on a continuous basis, or the illegitimacy of something on a continuous basis. Then a specific incident occurs, and its apparent meaning seems to contradict those proofs, which encompass many rulings. By their generality, they indicate the opposite of what the specific incident indicates. In this case, it is said that this incident is specific to a particular case and has no general application.

The questioner : Peace be upon you

The Shaykh : And upon you be peace. In that case, the scholars say regarding that incident that it does not carry a general indication, so it is confined to its limits, its circumstances, and its context. Why? Because it contradicts other proofs. These proofs are more comprehensive, broader, and wider in their indication than the indication of this real-world incident. If there is nothing to contradict the specific incident, then it remains a continuous Shari'ah ruling, and it is adopted in the sense that it is not as they say: "It has no general application." So, if an event occurred during the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and there was nothing to contradict it, it was adopted and applied in all its details, times, and forms. However, if this specific incident contradicts other proofs that are stronger and more comprehensive in their indication, then, so that we do not negate these stronger proofs with this specific incident, we say it is an incident specific to a particular case with no general application. I mention that I personally have used this term for some Prophetic hadiths. For example, his statement (peace and blessings be upon him): . Many people take from this hadith the legitimacy of repeating the second and third congregations, and so on. They separate this Prophetic statement from the occasion and the incident for which the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said these words. It is well known that the reason for the hadith is that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) one day prayed the 'Asr prayer and said the closing salam. A man entered wanting to pray his obligatory prayer, so he (peace and blessings be upon him) said to those around him: . A man stood up and prayed with him. Some people, both in the past and present, take from this hadith the permissibility, or even the recommendation, of a second congregation. They look at his statement (peace and blessings be upon him) in isolation from the occasion: . And they conclude by saying, "This is a second congregation, so why do you deny the legitimacy of the second congregation?" The answer from the principles of jurisprudence is brief, but it must be detailed for the general public. This is an incident specific to a particular case with no general application. What does that mean? It means that this incident did not repeat during the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). It occurred on this specific occasion, so it does not indicate the legitimacy of such a congregation always and forever, as happens today. Rather, it indicates only what that specific incident indicated. The specific incident is that a man entered the mosque wanting to pray alone after he had missed the congregation. So he (peace and blessings be upon him) said to those who had already prayed the obligatory prayer in the prescribed congregation, which is the first congregation: . A man stood up and prayed with him. This has no general application, meaning it does not indicate the legitimacy of any congregation held in the same mosque. Rather, it indicates only what this specific incident indicated. Therefore, it is not permissible to use the hadith as evidence for what happens today, where a man enters the mosque congregation and the imam has already prayed, so one of them steps forward and leads them as an imam. Then someone like me would say, "My brother, this congregation is not prescribed. How can it be, when the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said: ?" We say, "My brother, the Messenger said this, and his statement is true and truthful. But this does not mean the legitimacy of any congregation on any occasion. Rather, it means a congregation with very limited specifications, namely as it happened for that man who entered wanting to pray alone. So a man from those who had prayed with the first congregation gave him charity and prayed with him. The evidence that this hadith does not carry this general indication, as they imagine, is that we ask: In this second congregation, where they entered the mosque and one of them led them, was there among them anyone who had not prayed with the first imam? They all prayed behind him. Who was the one giving charity and who was the one receiving it? There was none. They were all poor. There was no one among them who was wealthy enough to give charity to another. This is unlike the incident that occurred during the time of the Prophet, where he said to the one who prayed behind him: . One of them stood up and prayed with him, meaning he gave him charity, because he was wealthy, because he had caught up with twenty-five degrees of prayer, or twenty-seven, let alone praying behind the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), which has another virtue. So it is true that he gave charity to this man who wanted to pray alone. But these five or ten who entered the mosque and one of them led them, there was no one giving charity and no one receiving it. They were all poor. They all missed the virtue of the first congregation. For such an incident, it is said to have no general application. That is, the generality that those who use this hadith as evidence for the legitimacy of every congregation rely on. This argument now clashes with the proofs that indicate there is no second congregation in Islam in the same mosque. Because when the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) was leading the people in prayer, he said: . That is, the 'Isha' prayer. The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) threatened to burn the houses of those who lagged behind in the congregational prayer, meaning that there is no second congregation. I think you are with me now. An imam of a mosque wants to emulate the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and follow in his footsteps, but he holds the wrong opinion that the second congregation is prescribed, and the third, and so on, until the second time. He wants to threaten the people with the same Prophetic threat. So one of the attendees stands up. You tell him, "My brother, you are mistaken, because if he does not pray with the first congregation, he prays with the second. His threat is only valid, and his warning effective, if the majority know from him that there is no second congregation. This is confirmed by the fact that such a threat came regarding the Friday prayer, the Friday prayer which Muslims are obligated to attend, that it does not repeat in the same mosque. And this is from the grace of Allah, that their expansion in congregations did not extend to the Friday prayer. He (peace and blessings be upon him) said: . This second hadith of ours is in Sahih Muslim from the hadith of Ibn Mas'ud. Our first hadith is from the hadith of Abu Hurayrah in the two Sahihs. Just as the second hadith indicates that there is no second congregation in the Friday prayer, because the Messenger threatened to burn the houses of those who lagged behind in the Friday prayer, so the first hadith indicates that there is no second congregation after the first congregation. And therefore he threatened to burn the houses of those who lagged behind. Otherwise, may Allah forbid that the argument of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) be refuted, some people would say, "O Messenger of Allah, we pray the second congregation after you, which you have permitted and prescribed." But because it was established among the Companions that there is no other congregation, the warning and threat of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) to them that he would burn their houses stood firm. As for the fact that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) did not carry out his threat, this is well known, and its answer is known to the scholars. Because among those who lag behind in the congregational prayer in their homes are those for whom it is prescribed to lag behind, namely women: , as came from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). And therefore, in reality, this threat in this hadith is one of the very important Prophetic political methods, because on one hand it achieves the threat he wants to use to warn those who lag behind, and on the other hand it is not carried out due to the presence of a barrier. The barrier is the presence of women in the houses, and the presence of offspring and children, and so on. So it is not permissible to burn the houses with the people inside them. But it is sufficient that the later generations, who know the obligation of attending the congregational prayer, understand that this threat is enough for them, even if it was not practically carried out against them due to the presence of the barrier, which we mentioned earlier. So this, and many other things, indicate that there is no second congregation. And with this, the answer to this term becomes clear.

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh : If Allah wills.