Explanation of the author's statement: The eighth: Qunut in times of calamity. The ninth: Naming those being invoked against in prayer by their names and their fathers' names.

The Shaykh :"The eighth: Qunut in times of calamity" This is... a fiqh issue, or not? Qunut in times of calamity is clear: when a calamity befalls the Muslims, it is recommended that they be invoked for until it is resolved and lifted. This Qunut is prescribed not only in the Fajr prayer but in all prayers, as came in the hadith of Ibn Abbas, narrated by Ahmad and others, in all prayers when the need arises. However, the jurists excluded the plague, saying that Qunut is not performed for it because there is no text regarding it. It occurred in the time of whom? They said 'Umar. They also said it is a form of martyrdom, and it is not recommended to invoke for the removal of martyrdom or the removal of its cause. So if, for example, a plague strikes a town, and may Allah protect us, Qunut is not performed. But if they are afflicted by harm from others, Qunut is performed. What appears to me is that Qunut is for calamities that come from other than Allah, such as the harassment of Muslims, the tightening of restrictions on them, and the like. As for what comes from the action of Allah, what is prescribed for it is what the Sunnah brought. For example, for an eclipse, the eclipse prayer is prescribed; for earthquakes, the eclipse prayer is prescribed, as Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) did, and he said this: For drought, the prayer for rain is prescribed, and so on. And I do not know, up to this moment, that Qunut is prescribed for a matter that comes from Allah; rather, it is invoked for with the specific invocations that have come. Yes, if restrictions are placed on Muslims and they are harassed, and the like, then Qunut is performed following the Sunnah in this matter. So the jurists, may Allah have mercy on them, say that for every calamity that befalls the Muslims, Qunut is performed, except for the plague. Then who performs Qunut? Is it the Grand Imam, or the imam of every mosque, or every worshipper? The madhhab is that the one who performs Qunut is only the Grand Imam, who is the king. It was said that the imam of every mosque performs Qunut, and it was said that every worshipper performs Qunut, and this is the correct view due to the generality of the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him): . The ninth.
The student: Shaykh, Qunut in times of calamity relates to creed, and it is that one does not seek help except from Allah...

The Shaykh : This is taken from the third, from the third benefit.
"The ninth: Naming those being invoked against in prayer by their names and their fathers' names". Where do we take this from? Safwan ibn Umayyah, Suhaib ibn 'Amr, and al-Harith ibn Hisham named them by their names and their fathers' names. But is this prescribed or permissible? This is permissible. However, in the matter of cursing, the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited it, as you know. Now, if one invokes for people in prayer, is it permissible to name them by their names and their fathers' names? Yes, because this is like that. Naming a person is not considered from the speech of people. Do not think that this is from the speech of people about which the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said: . Because this is du'a and specifying the one being invoked for, and it does not exit from being du'a with this phrase. And du'a is addressing whom? It is addressing Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He).

The questioner : What is prohibited in prayer, is it cursing or du'a...

The Shaykh : No, cursing specific individuals. Cursing specific individuals. As for cursing disbelievers in general, there is no harm in it. And it is established from Abu Hurayrah that he used to perform Qunut and curse the disbelievers.

The questioner : ...

The Shaykh : Yes, the disbelievers...

The questioner : Du'a against a specific person...

The Shaykh : What is your opinion on it?
The student: Outside of prayer.

The Shaykh : He says outside of prayer.
The student: He said: O Allah, relieve the Muslims from him.

The Shaykh : There is no harm. O Allah, relieve the Muslims from him. There is no harm. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: . This has nothing wrong with it. But relieving the Muslims from them is not only by destruction, because it is by guidance or by destruction. So if you say, O Allah, relieve the Muslims from him, O Allah, protect them from his evil, or the like, O Allah, make his evil return to his own neck, this has no harm. As for destruction, it is a matter of consideration. For this reason, did the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) invoke against Quraysh? He did not say: O Allah, against them, O Allah, make it years upon them... This is an invocation against them with restriction, and restriction may be in the interest of the oppressor such that he returns to Allah (Mighty and Majestic) from his oppression. The important thing is that invoking for destruction is, in my view, a matter of hesitation. I have hesitation in it.
The student: Khubayb invoked against them.

The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: Khubayb ibn 'Uday.

The Shaykh : What did he say?
The student: When... he invoked against them for destruction.

The Shaykh : What did he invoke?
The student: He said: O Allah, destroy them utterly and leave none of them.

The Shaykh : And count them by number. This may be used as evidence, because this occurred in the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). Also, if the matter happened as he invoked, then none of them remained at the end of the year, and Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) did not deny it, nor did the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) deny it. Yes, this may be used as evidence for the permissibility of invoking for the destruction of the oppressor, but it needs to be looked into regarding the story. It may have had specific reasons that do not apply to every evil. Yes.
The student: ... .

The Shaykh : This is after the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), after the Prophet. And in it, if the hadith is authentic, he said: . Who is he?
The student: 'Utbah.

The Shaykh : 'Utbah ibn Abi Lahab. So if the hadith is authentic, in it is also evidence for invoking against him for destruction.
The student: ... .

The Shaykh : I think it is no longer... and what is the original story? Well, it needs to be looked into...
The eleventh: His story (peace and blessings be upon him) when it was revealed to him and he warned.
The student: The tenth.