How do we reconcile the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) (When the prayer is called, there is no prayer except the one that was called) with our statement that it is permissible for a man to pray

The questioner: A man’s prayer, if he is, for example, a latecomer to the prayer, entering the mosque while they are praying the afternoon prayer and he owes the midday prayer, is naturally permissible with the intention of the midday prayer. Does this not conflict with the hadith of the Messenger of Allah - (peace and blessings be upon him): , and in another wording: ? Is there a conflict, or how do we reconcile them?

The Shaykh: Is the conflict with the first narration or the second?

The questioner: The second .

The Shaykh: The second.

The questioner: ... an addition, yes.

The Shaykh: Okay, is it authentic?

The questioner: By Allah, Ibn Hajar mentioned that it is authentic in "al-Fath".

The Shaykh: It is not authentic.

The questioner: You know better than Ibn Hajar.

The Shaykh: But... did you understand its authenticity from his authentication of it, which I do not think is the case, or at least I do not remember it?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh: Or from his citing it and remaining silent on it?

The questioner: From his citing it and remaining silent on it.

The Shaykh: That does not hold, because this specific narration has weakness in its chain, and it also contradicts the first authentic narration in Muslim, so it becomes a denounced narration, not merely an anomalous one. Therefore, this is an example of hundreds of examples showing that Islamic jurisprudence does not stand unless a filtering process is applied to the hadiths, because many weak hadiths cause the scholar-jurist to deviate from the truth in what he derives from authentic hadiths, because they have some narrations that are not valid. This is the example. Know this, and we return to the authentic narration: . At that point, the argument using this hadith for the issue raised earlier is not explicit in its indication of invalidating that prayer, which is also an obligatory duty in the reality of the issue. Furthermore, if this authentic hadith, in its apparent indication, points to the opposite of what we mentioned, then this indication conflicts with a prior indication, which is the performance of obligatory duties as they were timed and categorized. If one were to tell the person who wants to pray the sunset prayer behind someone praying the night prayer to delay the sunset prayer until after the night prayer, in order to implement the first hadith , he would contradict the agreed-upon system among Muslim scholars. This is a place in the issues where differences are tolerated, and it is said: . On this basis, I say that the original principle is what should be maintained always and forever, except for explicit evidence. And since our hadith is not explicit in contradicting what we mentioned earlier, we remain on the agreed-upon original principle.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh: It has not passed by me; it needs review. Do you remember who he attributed it to?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh: This is narrated in meaning; this matter is...

The questioner: ... our Shaykh, on...

The Shaykh: Yes, yes, this is a matter... but the first hadith, before this last one, needs review, even though it supports... more.