What is your opinion of the one who holds that the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), “There is no prayer for the one who does not recite al-Fatihah,” means: there is no complete prayer?

Al-Halabi : In your mention of the issue, even if it was only briefly, you touched upon part of it. The question I have written now, of course, is: What is your opinion of the one who said regarding the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): that the intended meaning is “there is no complete prayer,” based on his saying: and that the meaning of *khadaj* in his view is “incomplete,” so he concluded from this that al-Fatihah is not a pillar of the prayer.

The Shaykh : Of course, this answer is wrong, and it is a Hanafi answer. This answer is based on the previous philosophy, meaning that if the hadith were *mutawatir* (mass-transmitted) in their view, they would not have given this answer. But they built this answer on the premise that this hadith is an *ahad* (limited chain) hadith, whereas it is *mutawatir* according to the Imam of the Hadith scholars. And they have a verse that they say cannot be specified by this hadith, so they say: We do not reject the hadith entirely, but we interpret it so that it does not conflict with the definitive Qur’anic text. Do you understand how?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : This interpretation is, without a doubt, an error. For we would say, as an Arabic expression, The original meaning of "la" (no) is that it is a negator, negating the thing or the reality of the thing; it is not established to negate perfection except by a circumstance. So they remained compelled to this interpretation because they are looking with their right eye to the saying of Allah the Exalted: As for this verse, it is evidence for the obligation of recitation, which is whatever is easy. If it were not for this verse, their position regarding the hadith would not have been that position. And if it were not for the fact that the hadith, despite the existence of the verse, was a singular report (ahad) and not mass-transmitted (mutawatir), they would not have resorted to such an interpretation. As for the hadith But this is not evidence for them, because completeness—or let us say the opposite, deficiency—may imply the loss of the thing from its origin, or it may imply the preservation of it. So the fact that his saying (peace and blessings be upon him) is evidence that this prayer has no existence and no benefit is closer to the idea that this prayer has an entity and an existence, but it is deficient. That is, it is not correct to interpret the hadith in light of the other hadith that we will mention on another occasion, which is his saying (peace and blessings be upon him) until he said (peace and blessings be upon him) This is an explicit text that the prayer is complete, accompanied by varying degrees. The hadith specifies the varying degrees, while at the same time the evidence is that this prayer is not invalid. They want to interpret in this sense. This interpretation is wrong. Why? Because in the Arabic language, they say "akhdaajat al-naqah," meaning it aborted. What did it bring? A miscarriage. So the hadith is in the Arabic style; it does not mean the apparent meaning of the first hadith. But nevertheless, they were compelled to this interpretation due to the previous premise: that they have a verse, and the verse is definitive in its establishment, while the hadith is a singular report. So it is not permissible for us to specify the generality of the verse with a singular report. However, we have another answer: we say, "Subhan Allah (Glory be to Allah), they have a philosophy, another philosophy that we learned from them, naturally from them, which is that creed is not established, and it is also not permissible to restrict the generality of the Qur'an except with a text that is definitive in its indication and definitive in its establishment. Two conditions: definitive establishment and definitive indication. But here, they are confronted with a reality derived from this specific philosophy of theirs, and it is said: It is not permissible for you to interpret the hadith, whose indication is definitive but whose establishment is not definitive, with a Qur'anic verse whose establishment is definitive but whose indication is probable, not definitive. So now here the indication is probable, it is not a definitive indication. If its indication were definitive, they would have a point of view to say, "The indication is definitive; we cannot specify it with what? The generality of the hadith." But the truth is not only that the indication of the verse is not definitive; their reasoning with the verse is wrong from the start, because the meaning of the verse is: "Perform what is easy for you of the night prayer." That is, the verse is in one place and they are in another. The context of the verse is the standing of the night prayer: how many rak'ahs? Whatever is easy from the Qur'an, whatever is easy for you of the night prayer. Here, as the scholars say, the Qur'an was mentioned, which is the part, and the whole, which is the prayer, was intended. An example is the saying of Allah the Exalted: "Establish the prayer of the dawn" "Establish the prayer of the dawn" means the Fajr prayer. means the Fajr prayer was witnessed. The part was mentioned and the whole was intended. The recitation was mentioned and the prayer was intended. Similarly, the saying of Allah the Exalted: does not mean the actual recitation, but it means the prayer. The part was mentioned and the whole was intended. This is an Arabic style to indicate the importance of recitation in the prayer, to show that recitation in the prayer is a pillar of it, and that if one does not recite in the prayer, he has no prayer. Returning to the hadith So there is no contradiction between the hadith and the verse, because the context of the hadith is what a person must recite in every rak'ah, and the context of the verse is making things easy for people when they stand to pray at night, so they pray whatever is easy for them.