Continuation of the explanation of the author's statement: "… and the one who calls to prayer should do so in his place if it is easy, and it is not valid except in order and consecutively from a person of integrity, even if he is a singer or one who makes grammatical errors…"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : It is also not valid. Also, it must be one person; it is not valid from two. So if two people disputed over the adhan and one of them said, "You do the first two takbirs, I do the tashahhud, you do the two calls to prayer, and I do the final takbir and the tashahhud," is that acceptable? No, it is not acceptable. All right. If the mu'adhdhin is prevented from completing the adhan by an excuse, does he complete it or start over? He starts over, according to the author's statement. It must be from one person. We derived from his word "integrity" that he must be a Muslim. So if a disbeliever called the adhan, it would not be valid, because this is an act of worship, and it is not valid except from a Muslim. All right. If a person who is an open sinner, such as one who shaves his beard or one who … openly defies the ruler, called the adhan, it would not be valid according to the author's statement. All right. Integrity is a condition. If a recorded adhan was used? It is not from a man of integrity. We said, no, it is not valid. So the adhan is not valid, because the adhan is an act of worship. In fact, it was mentioned to us that it is better than leading the prayer. So how can we record the adhan? And Allah, he called the adhan. And if it is not valid to record an imam's prayer and then tell people to follow this recording, is it valid or not? It is not valid. If one person recorded an imam's prayer with a good voice and performance and put it in front of you during the prayer and said, "Allahu Akbar, say Allahu Akbar," and said, "And not the astray, say Ameen," and so on, we say this is not acceptable, because leading the prayer is an act of worship. All right. Does his statement "from a person of integrity" indicate that sanity is a condition? Yes, because integrity necessitates sanity, since a madman is not described as having integrity, and … the pen has been lifted from him. So the word "integrity" must mean a Muslim, sane, and a person of integrity. Yes. Male, not a transgressor.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Integrity, integrity. All right. Integrity … Now we have stipulated that he must be one person, a Muslim, sane, male, and a person of integrity. Five conditions. From his statement "from a person of integrity," he said "even if he is a singer or one who makes grammatical errors". If he is a singer, the singer is one who uses it for musical entertainment, meaning he calls the adhan in a way that is musical, as if he is dragging out the words of a song. It is permissible, but he commits a sin. But he commits a sin. And his statement "or one who makes grammatical errors". The one who makes grammatical errors is one who commits a grammatical mistake, meaning a violation of Arabic rules. But grammatical errors are divided into two types: a type with which the adhan is not valid, which is the one that changes the meaning, and a type with which the adhan is valid with dislike, which is the one that does not change the meaning. So let us look. If the mu'adhdhin said "Allah Akbar" (with a plural ending), this is not valid because it invalidates the meaning, because "Akbar" is the plural of "Kabir" like "Ibsh" for "Ibsh," and "Kabir" is the one that is struck for play. This changes the meaning significantly. If he said "Allah Wakbar" (replacing the hamza with a waw), then this is valid. This is permissible in the Arabic language when the hamza is open after a damma, it can be turned into a waw, so you say "Allah Wakbar." This does not change the meaning. If he said "I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah" (with a fathah on the ra of "Rasul"), yes, there is no doubt that this is a grammatical error that changes the meaning from the well-known language. The well-known language, there is no doubt, lengthens the meaning in it, because "I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah" now has a name and an attribute, and the name and the predicate have not yet come. "I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah," the predicate has not yet come. But there is a rare language, but it is an Arabic language from Abu Umar ibn Abi Rabi'ah, one of the four Arabs, who said in it: "We are our guards, he said "And let your steps be light, we are our guards, lions". Yes, he said "We are our guards, lions." "Guards" is the name of "Inna" and "Lions" is the predicate of "Inna," and it is in the accusative case, and it is in the accusative case. So if it has been reported in the Arabic language that the predicate of "Inna" can be in the accusative case, and there is no doubt that the mu'adhdhins who say "I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah" (with a fathah) have no doubt that they intend "Messenger" to be the predicate, and there is no doubt, and they do not expect the predicate to come, then we say, praise be to Allah, that the Arabic language tolerated this grammatical error from these mu'adhdhins. However, some mu'adhdhins who make grammatical errors put "Messenger" in the accusative case no matter how much you teach them, they will continue. Their tongues have taken hold of it so that they cannot say "Messenger of Allah" (with a dammah) ever. Is there any remedy? I say, "I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah" (with a dammah), "I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah" (with a dammah). We say now, you have hit the mark. Say it always. If he calls the adhan, he says "I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah" (with a fathah), because it is the voice of his teacher, because his tongue has taken hold of it. All right. If he said
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, the grammatical error that does not change the meaning. If he said "Hayya 'ala al-Salah" (with an alif), is it permissible or not?
The questioner : It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : No, it lengthens the meaning, but he attached an alif. He attached an alif to the ya. It is no doubt that if it is according to the language of those who attach markers to the verb, he has now made the vocative how many? Two. He made them two. It is known that the mu'adhdhin does not call two people. The mu'adhdhin calls the general public, everyone who hears. So in that case, does the meaning change or not? It changes. But according to the well-known language of the Arabs, that the name of the verb is not attached to markers, we say now that this man lengthened the fathah until he made it an alif, and this does not change the meaning in an apparent way. So if he said "Hayya 'ala al-Salah" (with an alif) as we hear from some mu'adhdhins, then that does not change the meaning, and in that case, the adhan is valid, because it is a grammatical error that does not change the meaning.
The questioner : ... .
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Integrity, integrity. All right. Integrity … Now we have stipulated that he must be one person, a Muslim, sane, male, and a person of integrity. Five conditions. From his statement "from a person of integrity," he said "even if he is a singer or one who makes grammatical errors". If he is a singer, the singer is one who uses it for musical entertainment, meaning he calls the adhan in a way that is musical, as if he is dragging out the words of a song. It is permissible, but he commits a sin. But he commits a sin. And his statement "or one who makes grammatical errors". The one who makes grammatical errors is one who commits a grammatical mistake, meaning a violation of Arabic rules. But grammatical errors are divided into two types: a type with which the adhan is not valid, which is the one that changes the meaning, and a type with which the adhan is valid with dislike, which is the one that does not change the meaning. So let us look. If the mu'adhdhin said "Allah Akbar" (with a plural ending), this is not valid because it invalidates the meaning, because "Akbar" is the plural of "Kabir" like "Ibsh" for "Ibsh," and "Kabir" is the one that is struck for play. This changes the meaning significantly. If he said "Allah Wakbar" (replacing the hamza with a waw), then this is valid. This is permissible in the Arabic language when the hamza is open after a damma, it can be turned into a waw, so you say "Allah Wakbar." This does not change the meaning. If he said "I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah" (with a fathah on the ra of "Rasul"), yes, there is no doubt that this is a grammatical error that changes the meaning from the well-known language. The well-known language, there is no doubt, lengthens the meaning in it, because "I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah" now has a name and an attribute, and the name and the predicate have not yet come. "I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah," the predicate has not yet come. But there is a rare language, but it is an Arabic language from Abu Umar ibn Abi Rabi'ah, one of the four Arabs, who said in it: "We are our guards, he said "And let your steps be light, we are our guards, lions". Yes, he said "We are our guards, lions." "Guards" is the name of "Inna" and "Lions" is the predicate of "Inna," and it is in the accusative case, and it is in the accusative case. So if it has been reported in the Arabic language that the predicate of "Inna" can be in the accusative case, and there is no doubt that the mu'adhdhins who say "I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah" (with a fathah) have no doubt that they intend "Messenger" to be the predicate, and there is no doubt, and they do not expect the predicate to come, then we say, praise be to Allah, that the Arabic language tolerated this grammatical error from these mu'adhdhins. However, some mu'adhdhins who make grammatical errors put "Messenger" in the accusative case no matter how much you teach them, they will continue. Their tongues have taken hold of it so that they cannot say "Messenger of Allah" (with a dammah) ever. Is there any remedy? I say, "I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah" (with a dammah), "I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah" (with a dammah). We say now, you have hit the mark. Say it always. If he calls the adhan, he says "I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah" (with a fathah), because it is the voice of his teacher, because his tongue has taken hold of it. All right. If he said
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, the grammatical error that does not change the meaning. If he said "Hayya 'ala al-Salah" (with an alif), is it permissible or not?
The questioner : It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : No, it lengthens the meaning, but he attached an alif. He attached an alif to the ya. It is no doubt that if it is according to the language of those who attach markers to the verb, he has now made the vocative how many? Two. He made them two. It is known that the mu'adhdhin does not call two people. The mu'adhdhin calls the general public, everyone who hears. So in that case, does the meaning change or not? It changes. But according to the well-known language of the Arabs, that the name of the verb is not attached to markers, we say now that this man lengthened the fathah until he made it an alif, and this does not change the meaning in an apparent way. So if he said "Hayya 'ala al-Salah" (with an alif) as we hear from some mu'adhdhins, then that does not change the meaning, and in that case, the adhan is valid, because it is a grammatical error that does not change the meaning.
The questioner : ... .