In the madhhab, it is held that a child leading an adult in prayer is not valid; is it permissible to refute them by analogy to the reasoning given for the permissibility of one suffering from incontinence leading one who does not suffer from it?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Shaykh, may Allah bless you. Regarding the madhhab, it states: a child cannot be an imam for an adult. A child cannot, because the child's prayer is voluntary.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : And the adult's prayer is obligatory.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : Therefore, it is not appropriate for him to lead, as that would place the adult in a lower rank than the voluntary prayer, and this is not valid. You also cited evidence in the reasoning regarding the prayer of one suffering from incontinence. You said: the madhhab also states regarding one suffering from incontinence...
The Shaykh : Do not take both; take one.
The questioner : No, I am based on evidence.
The Shaykh : Take one, may Allah bless you.
The questioner : It is not the same issue as this question.
The Shaykh : Fine.
The questioner : You also cited evidence regarding one suffering from incontinence. I say: the madhhab states: one suffering from incontinence does not pray, and does not lead one who is not an imam for the one...
The Shaykh : who does not suffer from incontinence.
The questioner : who does not suffer from incontinence. And you cited the reasoning that if this were a man performing tayammum or performing wudu, the one performing tayammum leads the one performing wudu. So do we now say in this reasoning as well: that the prayer of the child is valid, and that is a refutation of this reasoning, and it is also valid?
The Shaykh : The prayer behind a child, may Allah bless you, has an authentic hadith in *Sahih al-Bukhari* And what has come by explicit text does not require analogy. As for the prayer of the one performing voluntary prayer behind the one performing obligatory prayer, such as an adult man praying the rawatib, and another boy comes and prays behind him, we also say: it is valid.
The questioner : I want the evidence for the reasoning you gave regarding incontinence.
The Shaykh : Regarding what?
The questioner : The reasoning you gave regarding one suffering from incontinence, the one performing wudu and the one performing tayammum. Do we also take this reasoning as a refutation of the one who says the madhhab [holds that] the child and the adult [cannot lead each other]? We also say: this one performing tayammum is lower than him, and the one performing wudu is higher. I say: the one performing tayammum is lower than the one performing wudu.
The Shaykh : Fine.
The questioner : We tell him: is this reasoning also a refutation of the issue?
The Shaykh : We say: it is permissible for the one performing wudu to follow the one performing tayammum, meaning that the one performing tayammum is the imam for the one performing wudu.
The questioner : I understand you, Shaykh, but the evidence you cited, do we apply it to both issues?The Shaykh : How to both issues?
The questioner : The derived cause.
Another questioner: The derived cause, do we also apply it to the child and the adult to refute them with this reasoning?
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner : As long as the child [is said to] not lead the adult?
The Shaykh : No, there is a difference between them, because the one performing tayammum and the one performing wudu are both praying an obligatory prayer, unlike the child and the adult, where the child prays a voluntary prayer and the adult prays an obligatory prayer.
And likewise, the one performing voluntary prayer behind the one performing obligatory prayer.
The questioner : Yes, it appears you did not understand me, Shaykh.
Another questioner: On a single analogy.
The Shaykh : It is not on a single analogy, absolutely not on a single analogy.
The questioner : Meaning the same cause, the same cause, we apply it to the child and the adult, and we say: we also refute them with this cause.
The Shaykh : We refute them with the hadith. The hadith now contains an authentic hadith It is finished.
The questioner : May Allah reward you with good, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : And the adult's prayer is obligatory.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : Therefore, it is not appropriate for him to lead, as that would place the adult in a lower rank than the voluntary prayer, and this is not valid. You also cited evidence in the reasoning regarding the prayer of one suffering from incontinence. You said: the madhhab also states regarding one suffering from incontinence...
The Shaykh : Do not take both; take one.
The questioner : No, I am based on evidence.
The Shaykh : Take one, may Allah bless you.
The questioner : It is not the same issue as this question.
The Shaykh : Fine.
The questioner : You also cited evidence regarding one suffering from incontinence. I say: the madhhab states: one suffering from incontinence does not pray, and does not lead one who is not an imam for the one...
The Shaykh : who does not suffer from incontinence.
The questioner : who does not suffer from incontinence. And you cited the reasoning that if this were a man performing tayammum or performing wudu, the one performing tayammum leads the one performing wudu. So do we now say in this reasoning as well: that the prayer of the child is valid, and that is a refutation of this reasoning, and it is also valid?
The Shaykh : The prayer behind a child, may Allah bless you, has an authentic hadith in *Sahih al-Bukhari*
That 'Amr ibn Salama led his people while he was six or seven years old
أن عمرو بن سلمة أم قومه وهو ابن ست أو سبع سنينThe questioner : I want the evidence for the reasoning you gave regarding incontinence.
The Shaykh : Regarding what?
The questioner : The reasoning you gave regarding one suffering from incontinence, the one performing wudu and the one performing tayammum. Do we also take this reasoning as a refutation of the one who says the madhhab [holds that] the child and the adult [cannot lead each other]? We also say: this one performing tayammum is lower than him, and the one performing wudu is higher. I say: the one performing tayammum is lower than the one performing wudu.
The Shaykh : Fine.
The questioner : We tell him: is this reasoning also a refutation of the issue?
The Shaykh : We say: it is permissible for the one performing wudu to follow the one performing tayammum, meaning that the one performing tayammum is the imam for the one performing wudu.
The questioner : I understand you, Shaykh, but the evidence you cited, do we apply it to both issues?The Shaykh : How to both issues?
The questioner : The derived cause.
Another questioner: The derived cause, do we also apply it to the child and the adult to refute them with this reasoning?
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner : As long as the child [is said to] not lead the adult?
The Shaykh : No, there is a difference between them, because the one performing tayammum and the one performing wudu are both praying an obligatory prayer, unlike the child and the adult, where the child prays a voluntary prayer and the adult prays an obligatory prayer.
And likewise, the one performing voluntary prayer behind the one performing obligatory prayer.
The questioner : Yes, it appears you did not understand me, Shaykh.
Another questioner: On a single analogy.
The Shaykh : It is not on a single analogy, absolutely not on a single analogy.
The questioner : Meaning the same cause, the same cause, we apply it to the child and the adult, and we say: we also refute them with this cause.
The Shaykh : We refute them with the hadith. The hadith now contains an authentic hadith
That the boy led his people while he was six or seven years old
أن الصبي أم قومه وهو ابن ستة أو سبع سنينThe questioner : May Allah reward you with good, O Shaykh.