If a matter is reported containing only the action of a Companion, do we follow it, such as 'Amir ibn Yasir making up the prayer when he fainted?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Shaykh, may Allah reward you. Shaykh: Regarding a matter where only the action of a Companion is reported, do we follow the action of the Companion alone?
The Shaykh : This depends on the scholarly disagreement: is the action and statement of a Companion a proof or not? The correct view is that the statements of the Companion jurists are a proof, but with two conditions: the first condition is that it does not contradict an explicit text.
The second condition is that it does not contradict another Companion. If it contradicts an explicit text, it is rejected and not accepted.
The questioner : May Allah preserve you, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Be patient. And if it contradicts the statement of another Companion, it is obligatory to seek the stronger position. Whichever is stronger, its statement is more preferable to follow. For example, if a Companion who is not known for frequently sitting with the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and is not known for his jurisprudence differs from another Companion who is known for sitting with the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and taking from his jurisprudence, then the second is more preferable to follow than the first.
The questioner : Well, Shaykh, is 'Amir ibn Yasir among the Companion jurists whose statements and actions are followed, or not?
The Shaykh : Followed in what?
The questioner : In his action.
The Shaykh : What action?
The questioner : For example, the issue of fainting, Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : So he acted and made up the prayers. Do we say, since the matter was not reported except for this action alone by 'Amir ibn Yasir, and he is a Companion, so we follow it? What is your opinion, Shaykh?
The Shaykh : This depends on the scholarly disagreement. Furthermore, his action does not indicate obligation, because the bare action of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him and his family), which is a proof, does not indicate obligation. Perhaps he (may Allah be pleased with him) considered it good when he fainted to make up what he missed.
However, the stronger view is that he is not obligated to make it up; that is, the one who fainted is not obligated to make up the prayer. So if a person is involved in an accident and remains unconscious for two or three days, then regains consciousness, he has no obligation to make up the prayer. But if the cause of the fainting was voluntary, such as being anesthetized for a surgery, and he remains unconscious for half a day, a day, or two days without regaining consciousness from the anesthesia, then in this case he is obligated to make it up, because his fainting was voluntary. Yes.
The questioner : Another question.
The Shaykh : There is a questioner.
The Shaykh : This depends on the scholarly disagreement: is the action and statement of a Companion a proof or not? The correct view is that the statements of the Companion jurists are a proof, but with two conditions: the first condition is that it does not contradict an explicit text.
The second condition is that it does not contradict another Companion. If it contradicts an explicit text, it is rejected and not accepted.
The questioner : May Allah preserve you, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Be patient. And if it contradicts the statement of another Companion, it is obligatory to seek the stronger position. Whichever is stronger, its statement is more preferable to follow. For example, if a Companion who is not known for frequently sitting with the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and is not known for his jurisprudence differs from another Companion who is known for sitting with the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and taking from his jurisprudence, then the second is more preferable to follow than the first.
The questioner : Well, Shaykh, is 'Amir ibn Yasir among the Companion jurists whose statements and actions are followed, or not?
The Shaykh : Followed in what?
The questioner : In his action.
The Shaykh : What action?
The questioner : For example, the issue of fainting, Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : So he acted and made up the prayers. Do we say, since the matter was not reported except for this action alone by 'Amir ibn Yasir, and he is a Companion, so we follow it? What is your opinion, Shaykh?
The Shaykh : This depends on the scholarly disagreement. Furthermore, his action does not indicate obligation, because the bare action of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him and his family), which is a proof, does not indicate obligation. Perhaps he (may Allah be pleased with him) considered it good when he fainted to make up what he missed.
However, the stronger view is that he is not obligated to make it up; that is, the one who fainted is not obligated to make up the prayer. So if a person is involved in an accident and remains unconscious for two or three days, then regains consciousness, he has no obligation to make up the prayer. But if the cause of the fainting was voluntary, such as being anesthetized for a surgery, and he remains unconscious for half a day, a day, or two days without regaining consciousness from the anesthesia, then in this case he is obligated to make it up, because his fainting was voluntary. Yes.
The questioner : Another question.
The Shaykh : There is a questioner.