If the imam stands up for the fifth rak'ah of a four-rak'ah prayer, believing he is standing for the fourth, what should the ma'mum do?

The questioner : The second part: If the imam stands up for the fifth rak'ah of a four-rak'ah prayer, believing he is standing for the fourth, and among the ma'mum there is one who believes the imam has stood for the fifth, what should the ma'mum do?

The Shaykh : He should follow him.

The questioner : Even though he knows that he has stood for the fifth.

The Shaykh : Yes, exactly. If we pose this question in another form regarding the first question: the person behind the imam sees him move from the second prostration, and instead of sitting for the first tashahhud, he sees him stand up. Why did the imam follow his own reason? Because he thinks this is the third or first rak'ah, and they are mistaken. So what does the follower do? He follows him and stands with him, even though he knows the imam is mistaken. Therefore, the follower's knowledge of the imam's error does not remove the obligation to follow that imam.

The questioner : Even if he knows that this is a fifth rak'ah and it is not a four-rak'ah prayer; meaning, this is a four-rak'ah prayer.

The Shaykh : Even if it were, because the distinction in the issue of error between what invalidates the prayer when done intentionally and what does not invalidate the prayer when done intentionally, there is no evidence for this. Rather, the hadith we mentioned earlier, when the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) prayed the Dhuhr prayer five rak'ahs, is the core evidence for this question. Because the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) prayed five, and they were certain that he had prayed five, so they followed him and did not remain with their previous knowledge that we are supposed to pray four rak'ahs and the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) made a mistake. I know that many scholars and the general students of knowledge follow them in this matter, saying that the Companions of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) followed the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) because it was the time of legislation. This is a correct statement. And now there is no new legislation, and this is also a correct statement. But I say that the fact that the time of the Companions was the time of legislation does not mean that this ruling was specific to that time. Why? Because if that were the case, it would have been obligatory for the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to clarify it to us. And here the scholars of usul al-fiqh say, "Delaying clarification until the time of need is not permissible." So if the matter were that the Companions followed the Messenger because a new ruling might have been revealed, and this is what they themselves indicated when it was asked, "Did you add to the prayer?" He said If the Messenger had held in his mind this jurisprudence that many scholars mention when they restrict this incident to the time of the Companions, do you think he would have concealed this knowledge or would he have conveyed it? He would have conveyed it. And I have used this argument on many occasions because it is truly a very strong argument. If one of the scholars or jurists who knows this ruling and believes in it—that that incident was specific to the time of the Companions—experienced this incident that happened to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), would he not look at the people? Would he not say, "Why did you follow me?" Or would he remain silent? Or is it obligatory for him to clarify? It is obligatory for him to clarify if he is knowledgeable and righteous. Would he conceal it? Well, if we assume the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) had one of two possibilities: either in his mind was like what is in the mind of this scholar, or in his mind was the understanding of that scholar who says this is a general issue and not specific to the time of the revelation of the revelation. But if it were specific to the time of the revelation of the revelation, what would the Messenger have had to say to them?

The questioner : He would clarify if such a thing happened, clarifying the ruling of the Shari'ah.

The Shaykh : Exactly, this is it. So when he did not clarify, what do we understand? That this is the ruling, or that there is no difference between that time and this time.

The questioner : But O Shaykh, "If I forget, remind me" Did he not say this?

The Shaykh : This is not a clarification, my brother.

The questioner : "If I forget, remind me" was in a second incident.

The Shaykh : Yes, what is the problem with that?

The questioner : Is the ma'mum not obligated to remind him if he stands for the fifth?

The Shaykh : That is not the issue, my brother.

The questioner : The question I want to mention now is: I did not follow him. Does my prayer become invalid? He stood for the fifth and I did not follow him.

The Shaykh : My brother, may Allah reward you. Does your prayer become invalid by transferring the discussion? No, your prayer does not become invalid. But are you sinful or not? There is a stage below that. Why do you raise the issue to embarrass... Is my prayer invalid? I will not tell you your prayer is invalid, but it is enough for me to tell you that you are sinful. Why? Because you contradicted the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) in his saying So you sinned. As for whether the prayer is valid or not valid, that is a second issue. It is not enough for a person to avoid contradiction just to not be sinful; it is not enough unless we tell him that the prayer is invalid.

The questioner : What is it, O Shaykh? Do you want to excuse all the students of knowledge in this time because they hear things that are not even recorded in the books? An issue like this issue and an opinion like this opinion.

The Shaykh : You be a person... My brother, let the issue be what came in the Sunnah: the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) prayed five. The imam today prays five. What is the obligation of the followers?

The questioner : I remember, Subhan Allah, Subhan Allah.

The Shaykh : My brother, that is not the issue. The issue was about reminding. On the contrary, that is it. The reminding happened, but he did not respond.

The questioner : Because he believes he stood for the fourth.

The Shaykh : So you are now developing the topic into an issue where there is no disagreement: Are they not obligated to remind? Yes, they did. Did he respond? No, he did not respond. Well, what do the followers do here? The question is here, the research is here. Either it is said... as a specific issue and the answer has preceded, or it is said no, the Shari'ah is not established by probabilities, and the clear evidence is not abrogated by mere probability. What is the evidence that this ruling is specific to the time of the Companions? Is there evidence?

The questioner : The time of legislation.