Discussion of the issue: Praying over the absent. And the issue
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : This is also one of the great religious innovations, where some people say that if you want to sleep, you should pray the funeral prayer over every Muslim who has died on the face of the earth. Where are we in relation to this Sunnah? The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not do it, nor did the Companions. The correct view is that one does not pray over the absent person at all, except if no one has prayed over him, such as a man who was lost and we do not know that anyone prayed over him; in that case, one prays over him. Or if a person died among disbelievers and we do not know that the Muslims prayed over him, then we pray over him, as in the case of the Negus. As for anything else, the prayer is not prescribed.
Indeed, great people who had a standing of truth in Islam died, and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not pray over them, nor did the people pray over the Caliphs when they died, and they were who they were. Accordingly, praying over the absent person is not prescribed, except for whom? Except for the one over whom no one has prayed, for whom the prayer becomes obligatory. Yes, if the ruler orders that a funeral prayer be performed for so-and-so or so-and-so, then at that time this is obedience to the ruler in a matter of independent legal reasoning, and there is no harm in it. There is no harm in doing what he has ordered, provided it is in matters of independent legal reasoning. Therefore, a problem arises now among the traveling brothers. As you know, travelers must appoint one of them as their leader if there are three or more. This leader is to be obeyed, and obedience to him is obligatory because he is one of those in authority. If they disagree on a matter of independent legal reasoning, we refer to the leader and say, "What do you say?" For example, they disagree on whether this is a journey in which the prayer is shortened or not. Some say it is a journey in which the prayer is shortened, and some say it is not a journey, so the prayer is not shortened. We say, "Take the leader's opinion," even if the leader does not have knowledge of jurisprudence, but he sees it in the public benefit to compel them to adopt one of the opinions, then there is no harm, and they are obligated to obey his order, because this is not disobedience; it is a matter of independent legal reasoning. As for what contradicts an explicit text, there is no obedience to anyone in it, ever. Yes.
Indeed, great people who had a standing of truth in Islam died, and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not pray over them, nor did the people pray over the Caliphs when they died, and they were who they were. Accordingly, praying over the absent person is not prescribed, except for whom? Except for the one over whom no one has prayed, for whom the prayer becomes obligatory. Yes, if the ruler orders that a funeral prayer be performed for so-and-so or so-and-so, then at that time this is obedience to the ruler in a matter of independent legal reasoning, and there is no harm in it. There is no harm in doing what he has ordered, provided it is in matters of independent legal reasoning. Therefore, a problem arises now among the traveling brothers. As you know, travelers must appoint one of them as their leader if there are three or more. This leader is to be obeyed, and obedience to him is obligatory because he is one of those in authority. If they disagree on a matter of independent legal reasoning, we refer to the leader and say, "What do you say?" For example, they disagree on whether this is a journey in which the prayer is shortened or not. Some say it is a journey in which the prayer is shortened, and some say it is not a journey, so the prayer is not shortened. We say, "Take the leader's opinion," even if the leader does not have knowledge of jurisprudence, but he sees it in the public benefit to compel them to adopt one of the opinions, then there is no harm, and they are obligated to obey his order, because this is not disobedience; it is a matter of independent legal reasoning. As for what contradicts an explicit text, there is no obedience to anyone in it, ever. Yes.