Benefits of the Hadith: (If one of you is invited, let him respond . . .) .
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : In this hadith:
The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) commanded responding to the invitation, even if the person is fasting. Then, when he attends, if he is fasting, he makes du'a. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not specify what du'a to make, so one makes the appropriate du'a: for example, saying:
May Allah increase you, may Allah bless you, may Allah forgive you, may Allah make this pleasant for you. The important thing is the appropriate du'a. He also commanded that whoever is not fasting should eat and consume food.
It is derived from this hadith:
First: The obligation of responding to the invitation. Where is this taken from?
From his saying:, and the apparent meaning of the hadith is that it is general for every invitation. The Zahiriyyah adopted this view, and they said: It is obligatory for the one who is invited to respond, subject to the conditions we mentioned previously.
The majority of scholars hold that responding to an invitation other than a wedding is a recommended practice (sunnah), and responding to a wedding is obligatory. However, this distinction is not apparent. Rather, the apparent view is that responding to the invitation is obligatory, especially if not responding leads to harm, such as if the inviter is a relative or a friend who would interpret the non-response in other ways. In this case, the obligation becomes necessary.
Among the benefits of the hadith: Responding is obligatory even for the fasting person who does not eat, based on his saying:Sahih Muslim 1431.
Among the benefits of the hadith: If he is fasting, he does not eat, but makes du'a. However, if he sees that not eating leads to harm, it is better for him to eat. Otherwise, it is better for him to remain fasting, especially if he has told the inviter that he is fasting.
A person can attend if he is fasting, sit with the people, and serve them. How does he serve them?
He brings them food, cuts the meat for them. If the food is hot, he fans it with a fan. He puts his hand in the food and then places it on his knee. He talks as if the conversation is what kept him from eating. The important thing is that the person can, in front of the people, hide his fasting.
Among the benefits of the hadith: It is prescribed for the one who is not fasting to eat, based on his saying:, and it is not befitting for people to attend an invitation and then not eat.
Scholars differed on whether the command to eat is for obligation or not:
Some said: It is for obligation, based on the apparent command, and because the man prepared the food specifically for them to eat. If he invited twenty people to a wedding feast, served it, sat down, and said to them: "Please, go ahead," and they said: "By Allah, we are not going to eat. People, I just made this and served it to you," and they said: "We are not eating. We responded, yes, and that is enough," that would be considered foolishness. Perhaps, if he were a fool, he might hit each person with a whip and say: "Get out." Yes, and what is the meaning of preparing food and what is the meaning of inviting people to it?
So that they eat. For this reason, some scholars said: The command is for obligation, based on the apparent meaning of the hadith, and because not eating leads to harm.
If it were said that eating is a collective obligation (fard kifayah), meaning it is not an individual obligation (fard 'ayn), except if not eating leads to harm, such as if there is enmity and severing of ties between the inviter and the one who does not eat, then eating becomes necessary in this case.
If someone asks: Does not the statement of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him):Jami` at-Tirmidhi 780Sahih (Darussalam), negate the obligation? Because if eating were obligatory, the Sunnah would not contradict it, right?
Yes, this indicates that the command is not for obligation, because if it were obligatory, the fasting person would have to break his fast to eat.
But it does not prevent it from being a collective obligation (fard kifayah), where the action is accomplished by some of them.
And his saying (peace and blessings be upon him):Sunan Abi Dawud 2460Sahih (Al-Albani), it appears from this division that the fasting referred to is voluntary fasting, because the norm is that obligatory fasting is shared by people; they are all fasting the obligatory fast. Although there are many examples and cases where fasting is obligatory for a person, such as expiation (kaffarah) or making up a missed fast (qada'), while it is not obligatory for others.
" And he has from the hadith of Jabir something similar to it, and he said:Sunan Abi Dawud 3740Sahih (Al-Albani) " :
Meaning, the fasting person may eat if he wishes, or he may refrain. But which is better?
One looks at the benefit. If the benefit is in breaking the fast, he breaks it. If the benefit is in remaining fasting, he remains fasting.
As long as the fasting is not obligatory. If the fasting is obligatory, it is not permissible for him to eat; rather, he must remain fasting, because the legal principle is: " Whoever begins an obligatory act of worship must complete it, except for a legal excuse that permits him to break it ", okay.
The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) commanded responding to the invitation, even if the person is fasting. Then, when he attends, if he is fasting, he makes du'a. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not specify what du'a to make, so one makes the appropriate du'a: for example, saying:
May Allah increase you, may Allah bless you, may Allah forgive you, may Allah make this pleasant for you. The important thing is the appropriate du'a. He also commanded that whoever is not fasting should eat and consume food.
It is derived from this hadith:
First: The obligation of responding to the invitation. Where is this taken from?
From his saying:
Let him respond
فليجبThe majority of scholars hold that responding to an invitation other than a wedding is a recommended practice (sunnah), and responding to a wedding is obligatory. However, this distinction is not apparent. Rather, the apparent view is that responding to the invitation is obligatory, especially if not responding leads to harm, such as if the inviter is a relative or a friend who would interpret the non-response in other ways. In this case, the obligation becomes necessary.
Among the benefits of the hadith: Responding is obligatory even for the fasting person who does not eat, based on his saying:
In case he is fasting, he should pray (in order to bless the inmates of the house), and if he is not fasting he should eat.
فإن كان صائما فليصل، وإن كان مفطرا فليطعمAmong the benefits of the hadith: If he is fasting, he does not eat, but makes du'a. However, if he sees that not eating leads to harm, it is better for him to eat. Otherwise, it is better for him to remain fasting, especially if he has told the inviter that he is fasting.
A person can attend if he is fasting, sit with the people, and serve them. How does he serve them?
He brings them food, cuts the meat for them. If the food is hot, he fans it with a fan. He puts his hand in the food and then places it on his knee. He talks as if the conversation is what kept him from eating. The important thing is that the person can, in front of the people, hide his fasting.
Among the benefits of the hadith: It is prescribed for the one who is not fasting to eat, based on his saying:
Let him eat
فليطعمScholars differed on whether the command to eat is for obligation or not:
Some said: It is for obligation, based on the apparent command, and because the man prepared the food specifically for them to eat. If he invited twenty people to a wedding feast, served it, sat down, and said to them: "Please, go ahead," and they said: "By Allah, we are not going to eat. People, I just made this and served it to you," and they said: "We are not eating. We responded, yes, and that is enough," that would be considered foolishness. Perhaps, if he were a fool, he might hit each person with a whip and say: "Get out." Yes, and what is the meaning of preparing food and what is the meaning of inviting people to it?
So that they eat. For this reason, some scholars said: The command is for obligation, based on the apparent meaning of the hadith, and because not eating leads to harm.
If it were said that eating is a collective obligation (fard kifayah), meaning it is not an individual obligation (fard 'ayn), except if not eating leads to harm, such as if there is enmity and severing of ties between the inviter and the one who does not eat, then eating becomes necessary in this case.
If someone asks: Does not the statement of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him):
if he is fasting then let him pray
فإن كان صائما فليصلYes, this indicates that the command is not for obligation, because if it were obligatory, the fasting person would have to break his fast to eat.
But it does not prevent it from being a collective obligation (fard kifayah), where the action is accomplished by some of them.
And his saying (peace and blessings be upon him):
If he isn to fasting, he should eat
إن كان مفطرا فليطعم" And he has from the hadith of Jabir something similar to it, and he said:
If he wishes he may eat, but if he wishes(to leave), he may leave.
فإن شاء طعم وإن شاء تركMeaning, the fasting person may eat if he wishes, or he may refrain. But which is better?
One looks at the benefit. If the benefit is in breaking the fast, he breaks it. If the benefit is in remaining fasting, he remains fasting.
As long as the fasting is not obligatory. If the fasting is obligatory, it is not permissible for him to eat; rather, he must remain fasting, because the legal principle is: " Whoever begins an obligatory act of worship must complete it, except for a legal excuse that permits him to break it ", okay.