innovation that had resulted from leaving off a sunnah

Wa alaikum as salam wa rahmatullah

Dear Ahmad and those who read this,

To begin:The purpose of the email was to highlight an innovation that had resulted from leaving off a sunnah. Everyone is aware that the sunnah of the Prophet was to pray the Eid prayer in the open, to my knowledge and based on the reports of reliable brothers, South Circular did not even consider this and according to one individual actually decided against it, perhaps South Circular can clarify this issue. Their silence is a concern though and it does call in to question the lack of accountability this Mosque feels toward the ummah at large. Please also note that the Imam of this mosque stated that he did not approve of the niqab (in June, when the hijab issue was kicking in) and recently the chairperson of the Muslim school in Dublin publicly stated that the Muslim school 'may not allow niqab', note also that the Imam of the South Circular mosque is also the Patron of the Muslim school and this is the opinion they hold. Not only do the Kuffar discuss the removal of rights, but our own Muslim brothers have the gall to state that they 'may not allow it'. Again in June Metro Eireann broke the news that a Muslim had been stripped of an award because he refused to shake the hands of a woman, when the Imam of South Circular was asked about this he opened his response with the comment: "there is "no one opinion" on how both male and female Muslims should approach the issue of shaking hands with the opposite gender. He said the guiding principle behind the practice is that the prophet Mohammad never touched the hand of a woman to whom he wasn't married. "The idea is that there can be no temptation," he explained. However, he added that the "majority" of Muslims in Ireland would shake hands with individuals of the opposite gender. As to what he encourages, he said "it depends on the situation", citing the risk of causing offence to non-Muslims in some situations." The Imam of South Circular mosque encourages Muslims to shake hands with members of the opposite sex to offset causing offence, what did the Prophet say? The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, when accepting the allegiance (bay'ah) of women: "I do not shake hands with women." And it was narrated that 'Aa'ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) said: "By Allaah, the hand of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) never touched the hand of any (non-mahram) woman; he used to accept their allegiance in words only." And Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
"Indeed in the Messenger of Allaah (Muhammad) you have a good example to follow for him who hopes for (the Meeting with) Allaah and the Last Day, and remembers Allaah much" [al-Ahzaab 33:21] Muslims in Ireland have a choice, the words of the South Circular Imam or the words of the noble example and Prophet, Muhammad ibn Abdullah - I know who I'd choose! Accountability ya ikhwan, that is what is plainly absent - when individuals, who have been given responsibility in our community can make such statements then we have dishonoured ourselves by not holding them to account. We need to get our house in order and it must be a top down approach!Secondly, the hadith which mentions the individual who arrived late for the congregational prayer has been explained by Shaikh Al Albani:
With reference to the hadeeth of Abu Sa'eed Al-Khudree (radi-Allaahu 'anhu), in which he said:
"A man entered the masjid when the Messenger (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam) had already prayed and his Companions were gathered around him (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam). This man wanted to pray, so the Prophet (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam) said: 'Is there not a man who can give charity to this person by praying with him?' So a man stood up and prayed with him."
And in the report of Abu Bakr Al-Bayhaqee, which is found in his Sunan Al-Kubraa, it is stated that this man was Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq (radi-Allaahu 'anhu). However, this report has weakness in its chain. The report that is authentic doesn't name the man in it. So these (scholars) have used this hadeeth as evidence and say:
"The Messenger (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam) has approved of the second congregation!"
The response to the use of this evidence is that we must consider that the congregation, which the hadeeth talks about, is not the same congregation that is being indicated in the question. This is since the congregation that the hadeeth refers to the congregation of a man who enters the masjid after the first congregation has finished and wants to pray alone. But the Messenger (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam) incited those of his Companions who had prayed with him already to let one of them get up and volunteer and pray a voluntary prayer. So someone did it and that is the way it occurred. So this congregation consists of two people: The one leading the prayer (Imaam) and the one being led (ma'moom). The Imaam is praying his obligatory prayer, while the ma'moom is praying a voluntary prayer. So who is the one who put this congregation together? If it were not for the one praying voluntarily, there would be no congregation. So therefore, this is a supererogatory and voluntary congregation, and not an obligatory congregation. And the differing (mentioned in the question) is only with regard to the second obligatory congregation. So due to this, using the hadeeth of Abu Sa'eed Al-Khudree (radi-Allaahu 'anhu) as evidence for this area of dispute is not correct. And what further confirms this is the fact that the hadeeth states:
"Is there not a man who can give charity to this person by praying with him?"
In this incident that occurred, there was someone who gave charity and there was someone who received charity. So if we were to ask a person with the least amount of knowledge and understanding:
"Who is the one giving the charity and who is the one receiving the charity in this situation, which the Messenger (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam) has approved of?"
The answer would be:
"The one giving the charity is the person praying the voluntary prayer, who had already prayed the obligatory prayer behind Allaah's Messenger (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam), while the one who is receiving the charity is the person who arrived late."
Now if we were to throw this same question on the congregation that is in dispute right now: for example six or seven people enter the masjid, and find that the Imaam has already prayed. So one of them leads the prayer and the rest follow him in a second congregation. So who is the one giving the charity amongst these people? And who is the one receiving the charity? No one can give the same answer as in the first example. So this congregation (of people) that has entered after the Imaam finished praying, all of them are praying their obligatory prayer. There is no one giving charity, nor is there anyone receiving charity. On the contrary, this obscurity is quite obvious and clear in the first example. The one giving charity is the person who is praying the voluntary prayer, who already prayed behind Allaah's Messenger (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam). His prayer was recorded as twenty-seven levels (of reward). So because of that, he is rich and therefore able to give away in charity to others. And the one who leads the prayer – and if it were not for that person giving charity, he would have prayed alone – he is poor and in need for someone to give him charity. This is since he did not earn what the person who is giving him charity earned (from reward).
So the reason for this person being the one giving the charity and that person being the one receiving the charity is clear. As for the scenario that is in dispute now, then the scenario is not clear, for all of the people (praying) are poor, since they have all missed out on the virtue of the first congregation. So the saying of Allaah's Messenger (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam):
"Is there not a man who can give charity to this person by praying with him."
doesn't apply here. Therefore, in a situation like this, it is not valid to use this incident (mentioned in the hadeeth) as evidence. Nor can it be used in reference to this issue, which is the area of our discussion.
We will link this to another evidence they use as proof, which is the Prophet's (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam) saying:
"Praying in the congregation is more virtuous than praying alone by twenty-seven degrees."
So they use the generality (in the hadeeth) as evidence, meaning they understand that the word "the" before the word congregation is for a general inclusion (of all congregations). This means that (according to them) every congregational prayer is more virtuous than praying alone. We respond by saying, basing it on the previously mentioned evidences that "the" is not for a general inclusion, but rather it is for a specific designation. This means that the congregational prayer – which the Messenger (sal-Allaahu 'alayhe wa sallam) prescribed, incited towards, ordered the people to attend, threatened those who abandoned it with burning their houses and which those who abandoned it were described as being hypocrites – is the prayer in congregation that is more virtuous than praying alone. And it is the first congregational prayer.
And Allaah, the Most High, knows best.
Thirdly, the individual who made the reference about devils is the same one who has left Islam to join the Qadiani cult in Galway. As such his comment has little bearing on issues concerning Muslims - that may appear blunt, however know that this individual , and all those in Galway, believes that all Muslims who reject the liar MIrza Ghulam Ahmad as the Promised Messiah and Mahdi are not Muslim. Please be aware of this and the pernicious evil that this group espouses. For more on this group, please click here and listen to the lecture on the clown of Qadian.
Finally, in writing this I am very aware of the statement of the Prophet when he said: "O you group of people that believe with your tongues but not with your hearts! Do not abuse the Muslims nor seek after their faults. For indeed, he who seeks after their faults, Allaah will seek after his faults. And whoever has Allaah seek after his faults, He will expose them, even if he may have committed them in the privacy of his own home." and I am sure that some will use this and other statements to censure criticism, however in explaining this Imam Zaid-ud-Deen Ibn Rajab Al Hanbalee says: "All of this talk is with respect to the scholars that are followed in the Religion. As for the people of innovation and misguidance and those who imitate the scholars but are not from them, then it is permissible to expose their ignorance and manifest their deficiencies, in order to warn others against following them". (The Difference between Advising and Condemning). Again ya ikhwan this goes back to the lack of accountability, when there is none - individuals do as they please.
And Allah knows best
Mujaahid