Who does the server start with?

The Shaykh : It has become a followed legal opinion in the books of jurisprudence that when the server enters, he starts with the eldest of the people, then with the one on his right. Here is the scientific observation: they argue using a hadith in al-Bukhari narrated by two Companions, one of whom is Anas ibn Malik and the other is Sahl ibn Sa'd. They state that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was brought milk mixed with water in a cup, and he drank from it. There was a Bedouin on his right, and in a narration from Ibn Abbas, a young boy, and on his left were the elders of Quraysh, or the seniority of Quraysh, among whom was Abu Bakr al-Siddiq. So when the Messenger drank, he asked permission from the one on his right to give the one on his left. He said: "By Allah, O Messenger of Allah, I would not prefer anyone to the leftover of your drink." So he gave it to him and said: And in a narration: The hadith ends. They take from this hadith that the server started with the Prophet. If this were the Sunnah, it would have been possible to smooth out and facilitate this argument if the hadith had been like this in all its narrations! But in both the narration from Anas and the narration from Sahl, there is a very important addition, which, as they say today in the language of the modern age, puts the dots on the letters and clarifies the story completely. The addition is: "The Messenger of Allah asked for water, so it was brought to him." The difference between the narration with the addition and the addition itself is a very fundamental difference. Based on the first narration, if one stops there and is asked about the other narration, the answer regarding the addition of the other narration differs completely. Why did the server start with the Prophet? Because he asked for water. So it says: "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) asked for water, so it was brought to him." So it is not valid to argue with the hadith that the Sunnah for the server is to start with the eldest of the people. If the eldest of the people, or a young person, asks, he starts with him. But if the server wants to serve all the people, he starts with the one on his right. This is a text that admits no argument at all. And whoever said otherwise is excused because he did not come across the addition. And the addition is undoubtedly authentic in al-Bukhari. Then, the understanding of the story confirms this addition completely. Look now, without the addition: "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) was brought..." to the end of the story. When he drank and there was a remainder in the cup, he wanted to serve... to the end of the story. So the Prophet served the one on his right and apologized, especially in some narrations, that 'Umar was watching the situation. 'Umar, and what do you know about 'Umar, with the sensitivity and intelligence he had, so it was as if he gave him the answer that he should not blame him, that he started with the young one or the Bedouin on the right, for the rightmost is prescribed. Now, when 'Umar ibn al-Khattab gave the cup to Ibn Abbas, he was the server. So if the rule that some scholars and sheikhs say is that he starts with the eldest of the people, he would have had to start with Abu Bakr. So he himself did not apply this rule. This confirms that starting with the Prophet was not because he was the eldest of the people, and he is undoubtedly their eldest, but because he was the server. This is one point. And the other is that Islam, as is known from all its legislations, is a practical matter, not a theory. Linking the server's serving to the eldest of the people involves difficulty, especially since the custom of the server of the people, as is observed now in Arab countries, is that he is not a scholar or a jurist, but is from the common people. So the one who wants to start with the eldest of the people, especially if they are many and their ages, statuses, and social ranks vary, and so on, this man will fall into a dilemma. This is secondly. And thirdly, the eldest of the people often conflicts with the status of the people. For example, a ruler from the rulers whom many Islamic states are afflicted with, or a high-ranking young employee attends a gathering, and there are senior scholars and righteous people, and so on. But this poor dervish will not start with them; he will start with that high-ranking employee! This is exactly like the issue of standing up for those who permitted it. For whom? They said for the scholar, for the righteous king, and for the righteous people, and so on. So apply it, where are the righteous kings and where are the righteous people? Certainly, if a king from the most sinful of sinners came, would they start with him and stand up for him? It is possible that a righteous man, a poor dervish with no name or fame, for whom no one moves, comes. So the saying that it is permissible to stand up for the righteous king, for the scholar, and so on, became a pretext and a means for standing up for the sinful. And so on. This is the issue of starting with the eldest of the people. I say that in such an occasion, this server must be Ibn Khaldun of his time to know the statuses of people and their ages. This is called attaching to the impossible. What is the Sunnah, my brother? The rightmost, then the rightmost. He entered from here, and by Allah, whether old or young, go with the one walking. This is how the religion of Allah is easy and not difficult.

The questioner : If they said to us, for example, that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) wanted to give to the elders of Quraysh, and they were on his left, and if Ibn Abbas had given permission, they would say, for example, that we start with the elders, even if they are on the left, because originally no one in the gathering takes precedence over them, or their hearts would not be pleased if they did not start with them. If they argued with this?

The Shaykh : I did not understand what they are saying. Why did the Messenger not start with the elders of Quraysh?

The questioner : Because Ibn Abbas did not give them permission?

The Shaykh : Before that, before that, the Messenger did not give permission. Who did he start with?

The questioner : With Ibn Abbas, because he was on his right.

The Shaykh : Why?

The questioner : Because he was on his right.

The Shaykh : Well, do they do so?

The questioner : They tell you that we can start with the right, but their hearts will not be pleased...

The Shaykh : Did they adopt a rule so that when they fall into such a problem, they find an exit for it?

The questioner : Perhaps not...

The Shaykh : From here is the answer, my brother. He starts from here. Did they apply the rule and then fall into a problem like the one the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) fell into? This is all a double, I call it a game. Why? Because this detail is handled in one way or another, but what is the rule? Does the server start with the eldest of the people or with his right? Here is the point. It starts from here. If they say no, with his right, we agree. They bring us this picture. We will say: This is my right, the youngest of the people, and this is the eldest of the people. Do you give me permission to serve so-and-so? He says: Yes. Well, you served him, and after that, who comes? The one on the right or the one here? He gave permission regarding you. Well, but he does not give permission for the turn to continue. So if he wants to go down to the issue, where? To the right. So now we have two answers. The first answer: We return to the rule. Do we believe in it and have we applied it practically? Praise be to Allah. The second answer: Such a problem is handled by asking for permission. If he gives permission, then it is fine. If he does not give permission, we proceed according to the rule. If he gives permission, it does not continue in a sequence. It stops only at the one who was given permission. I think this is the answer.