عربي
Home


Articles

Articles

Ruling when the Friday Prayer and the E`ed Prayer Come on the Same Day
Author : The General Iftaa' Department
Date Added : 14-07-2015

Ruling when the Friday Prayer and the E`ed Prayer Come on the Same Day

When the E`ed occurs on a Friday, the Friday prayer remains obligatory because the E`ed prayer is a confirmed Sunna; whereas, the Friday prayer is an individual duty. Sunnah doesn`t invalidate an obligation, nor suffices for it. This is indicated by the following verse (What means): "O ye who believe! When the call is proclaimed to prayer on Friday (the Day of Assembly), hasten earnestly to the Remembrance of God, and leave off business (and traffic): That is best for you if ye but knew!" [Al-Jum`ah/9].

 

At the time of the Prophet (PBUH), E`ed occurred on a Friday, so he performed the E`ed prayer as well as the Friday prayer and delivered both sermons, and this is very famous in the books of Sunnah and the traditions. In addition, this is the opinion of the majority of the Muslim scholars: The Hanafites, The Malikites, The Shafites and in one narration of the Hanbalites.

 

He (PBUH) permitted the people from the outskirts not to attend the Friday prayer that day and instead offer the Zuhr prayer in their neighborhoods. The Prophet (PBUH) said: Two festivals (E'ed and Friday) have synchronized on this day. If anyone does not want to offer the Friday prayer, the E'ed prayer is sufficient for him. But we shall offer the Friday prayer." [Abu Dawood].

 

The majority of the Hanafite, Malikite and Shafite jurists said that the aforementioned Hadith applies to those who came from the outskirts of Medina in order to offer the E`ed prayer in the Prophet`s Mosque, and they aren`t obliged to offer the Friday prayer in principle, because they live in the outskirts of cities, far from populated areas. If they waited to offer the Friday prayer after having performed the E`ed prayer, they will face hardship and they will face the same hardship if they went home and returned to offer the Friday prayer, and this is why the Prophet(PBUH) permitted them not to attend the Friday prayer.

 

Therefore, it is more prudent to observe both prayers on that day, and as regards the opinion of some Hanbalite jurists states that whoever prays the E`ed prayer isn`t obliged to pray the Friday prayer, and should pray the Zuhr prayer instead, it contradicts prudence and acquittal.

 

As regards the opinion which states that praying the E`ed prayer invalidates the Zuhr prayer, this has never been stated by any of the four schools of jurisprudence and contradicts the provisions of Sharia which make offering five prayers for each day and night obligatory. Therefore, it is impermissible to apply this opinion, imitate it, or issue rulings based on it. Moreover, some narrations, related to some companions, state that the E`ed prayer makes the Friday prayer not obligatory if they happened on the same day, aren`t to be taken into consideration.

 

Finally, there is no room for dispute and  argument since Muslims are about to receive the Feast of Al-Fitr, rather, a Muslim should adhere to matters whose meanings are established, leave matters whose meanings are allegorical and follow the established opinions of the four juristic schools. And Allah Knows Best.

 

Article Number [ Previous | Next ]

Read for Author




Comments


Captcha


Warning: this window is not dedicated to receive religious questions, but to comment on topics published for the benefit of the site administrators—and not for publication. We are pleased to receive religious questions in the section "Send Your Question". So we apologize to readers for not answering any questions through this window of "Comments" for the sake of work organization. Thank you.




Summarized Fatawaa

Is it permissible to agree with a butcher to purchase the meat of an animal after it has been slaughtered — for instance, by buying the meat of a sheep at a price determined by the weight of its meat following slaughter, at a fixed rate per kilogram? And what is the ruling if the animal is being purchased with the intention of it being an uḍḥiyyah (sacrificial offering)?

 
 
 
 
 

All praise is due to Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
It is not permissible to sell livestock in the manner of pricing each kilogram of meat after slaughter at a fixed rate, because the meat within the animal prior to slaughter is unseen and unknown. This leads to jahālah (ignorance of the subject matter) and gharar (contractual uncertainty), both of which are among the invalidating factors in sales transactions.
However, it is permissible for the buyer to issue a promise to purchase the meat of the animal after slaughter at a specified price per kilogram, with the actual sale being concluded at the time of weighing the meat — at which point both the quantity of the goods and the total price become known. There is no Sharī'ah objection to this arrangement.
The jurists have stipulated that for a sale to be valid, both countervalues must be present and observable. Al-Khaṭīb al-Shirbīnī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states:
"It is valid to sell a heap of grain whose total measure is unknown to both contracting parties at a rate of one sā' per dirham. This sale is valid because the subject of sale is present and observable, and ignorance of the total price is not harmful since it is known in detail — and uncertainty is thereby lifted."— [Mughnī al-Muḥtāj, Vol.2/P.355]
As for the uḍḥiyyah, the 'aqīqah, and vowed blood sacrifices (al-dam al-mandhūr) — full ownership of the animal must be established prior to slaughter. It is not valid for such animals to be slaughtered while still in the ownership of the butcher. Rather, the animal must be purchased alive and then slaughtered with the intention of uḍḥiyyah or the like. And Allah Almighty knows best.

Is it permissible for someone who is unable to fast to pay the fidyah (ransom/compensation payment) to himself, due to his own poverty?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
It is not permissible, nor does it fulfill the obligation, for a sick person who is currently and permanently unable to fast to pay the fidyah (ransom/compensation payment) to himself, since it is a financial obligation owed by him, established as a standing debt upon him — much like any other debt he owes. If he were to pay it to himself, it would not thereby be discharged. So if he cannot find [anyone eligible to] pay it to, it remains a standing obligation upon him, and is not thereby waived. If Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, later grants him wealth, it becomes obligatory upon him to pay it out to the poor and needy.
Imam al-Khaṭīb ash-Shirbīnī (raḥimahullāh) said: "There is no difference in the obligation of the fidyah between the wealthy and the poor person; its benefit lies in its remaining established as a standing debt upon the poor person [until he is able to pay it] — and this is the more correct position (al-aṣaḥḥ), as indicated by the wording of ar-Rawḍah and its source text." [Mughnī al-Muḥtāj, Vol.2/P.174]
Accordingly: it is not permissible for a Muslim to pay the fidyah to himself while he remains poor. If the sick person is poor, he is not obligated to pay the fidyah immediately, and it remains a standing debt upon him until a time when he has sufficient means and wealth. And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.

What is the ruling of Islamic Law on obtaining financing from Islamic banks by bringing invoices in prior arrangement with the seller, then taking the cash after the financing is approved — with the purpose of settling debts and buying a car?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
It appears from the transaction described that its underlying purpose is to obtain cash through resorting to a legal artifice (ḥīlah/tawarruq-style trick), and it is not permissible to engage in such trickery or to coordinate with the various parties merely to obtain liquidity. This is because such artifices bring the sale closer in reality to a ribā-based (usurious) transaction, even if it outwardly appears otherwise.
The Prophet ﷺ said: "Do not commit what the Jews committed, thereby making lawful what Allah has made unlawful through the flimsiest of tricks." This was related by Ibn Baṭṭah in his book Ibṭāl al-Ḥiyal (p. 47), and many scholars have graded it as ḥasan (sound/acceptable).
We have already explained the impermissibility of engaging in such deceptive dealings with Islamic banks in Fatwa No. 516, so please refer to it. And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.

What is the ruling on offering a sheep as a sacrifice (Udhiyah) if its fat-tail is sound, except that when it was young, the tip of its fat-tail was cut so that it would grow larger? And what is the ruling in case of doubt regarding the amount that was cut?

 
In the Name of Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
 
Cutting a minor, insignificant portion from the tip of an animal's fat-tail (al-alyah) to encourage it to grow larger is not considered a defect, and it does not prevent the animal from being valid for sacrifice (Udhiyah).
 
It is stated in Tuhfat al-Muhtaj (Vol.9/P.352): "There is some scholarly deliberation regarding the common practice of cutting the tip of the fat-tail so that it grows larger. It could potentially be likened to a partial cut of the ear—supported by the jurists' general rule: 'even if it is a small amount.' On the other hand, if it is an exceptionally minor cut, it might have no effect on validity. This is explicitly clarified by the juristic exception to the general rule, which states that cutting a tiny piece from a large limb causes no harm. This latter view is more well-founded.
 
Furthermore, I found that some scholars investigated this matter and concluded: 'It should not affect validity if a custom-sanctioned portion of its fat-tail is removed during its youth to make it grow larger and look better, just as castrating a male animal causes no harm.' However, applying this unconditionally contradicts the established texts of the jurists, as understood from what I have laid out; thus, the restriction I specified is what must be relied upon."
 
Similarly, it is mentioned in Nihayat al-Muhtaj (8/135): "If a small piece is cut from the fat-tail to help it grow larger, the most well-founded view is that the sacrifice remains valid, as was given in a formal legal verdict (Fatwa) by my father [Shihab al-Din al-Ramli], may Allah be pleased with him. This is proven by the jurists' maxim: 'The loss of a tiny piece from a large limb causes no harm.'"
 
In cases where there is doubt as to whether the portion cut was large or small, the animal is still deemed valid for sacrifice. It is noted in Hashiyat al-Shubramallisi ‘ala Nihayat al-Muhtaj (Vol.8/P.135):
 
"This matter requires careful consideration, but the closer and more correct view is that it is valid. This is because soundness is the default state for the animal from which the piece was cut, and it aligns with what usually occurs—namely, that the part removed to help the fat-tail grow larger is naturally very small." And Allah the Almighty Knows Best.

See More