Reply to Abu Layth on Joining Ṣalāhs without an Excuse
Mar 15, 2016 22:06:34 GMT
StudentOfTheDeen and asad786ahmed like this
Post by Zameel on Mar 15, 2016 22:06:34 GMT
As some readers would be aware, the individual who calls himself “Mufti Abu Layth Maliki” has recently said that it is permissible to pray Ẓuhr/‘Aṣr and Maghrib/‘Ishā’ together even without a valid Shar‘ī excuse. He states that actual and real combining is allowed. For example, it would be permissible to pray both Ẓuhr and ‘Aṣr at the start of Ẓuhr time. Abu Layth claims that his “fatwa” is based on the opinion of Ashhab from amongst the early Mālikī authorities and on a ḥadīth of Ibn ‘Abbās (may Allāh be pleased with him). We will firstly analyse the view of Ashhab and then the ḥadīth of Ibn ‘Abbās in light of what he has mentioned.
The Madhhab of Ashhab
Ashhab ibn ‘Abd al-Azīz (140 – 204) was a famous Egyptian jurist and companion of Imām Mālik. Abu Layth claims it was his view that combining between two ṣalāhs without a valid Shar‘ī excuse is permissible. Below we will present what Ashhab actually said.
Ibn Abī Zayd al-Qayrawānī (d. 386 H), the famous author of the Risālah, quotes Ashhab as follows:
“Ashhab said:…The non-traveller also has a dispensation to do that [i.e. join Ẓuhr and ‘Aṣr/ Maghrib and ‘Ishā’], although it is better not to. He has this dispensation because he is praying in one of the two times that Jibrīl stipulated. When the shadow becomes the same length (as a standing object), this is the end time of Ẓuhr and the start time of ‘Aṣr…This is also the case with Maghrib and ‘Ishā’. The disappearance of the twilight is a common time for both of them…The Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) joined at the end of one time and the start of the other time. That is, to complete Ẓuhr when the shadow is the same length (as a standing object), or to start it when the shadow is the same length; and then to stand and pray ‘Aṣr after it. Or to complete Maghrib when the twilight has disappeared or to begin it at that time; and then offer ‘Ishā’ thereafter.” (Nawādir, 1:263) [1]
According to a well-known view in the Mālikī madhhab, Ẓuhr and ‘Aṣr have a shared time. That is, when the shadow of a standing object becomes equal to its length, the time of ‘Aṣr enters. However, the time of Ẓuhr does not end immediately at the start of ‘Aṣr, but there is a small window of time when they can both be prayed. This is based on the ḥadīth in which Jibrīl led the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) in ṣalāh. In this ḥadīth, it states that he led him in Ẓuhr on the second day when the shadow of a standing object was the same length; and this is despite the fact that he led him in ‘Aṣr on the first day at the very same time. Based on this, according to a well-known position in the Mālikī madhhab, there is a shared time between Ẓuhr and ‘Aṣr. This is also the case with Maghrib and ‘Ishā’: there is a small window of time when they can both be prayed just after the twilight disappears. Ashhab, who upholds this opinion, says Ẓuhr and ‘Aṣr can be combined even without a valid excuse, but only by praying each within their own respective times.
Ashhab’s comment: “because he is praying in one of the two times that Jibrīl stipulated” means that he is praying Ẓuhr at the time that Jibrīl prayed on the second day i.e. in the common time of Ẓuhr and ‘Aṣr. His subsequent explanation shows that he believes each of the two ṣalāhs are prayed in their own times.
Ibn Yūnus (d. 451), a great mujtahid in the Mālikī school, also quotes Ashhab saying the exact same thing. (al-Jāmi‘ li Masā’il al-Mudawwana, pp. 712-13)
Qāḍī ‘Iyāḍ (d. 544 H) in his commentary on Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim says:
“All the ‘ulamā’ have opined that it is not permissible to combine between two ṣalāhs without an excuse, except for a fringe group amongst them from the early Muslims, like Ibn Sīrīn, and from our [Mālikī] authorities, Ashhab. They permitted it for a need and excuse as long as it is not made a habit. ‘Abdul Malik said something similar for Ẓuhr and ‘Aṣr. Their proof for this is the ḥadīth of Ibn ‘Abbās, and the statement: ‘He did not want to cause inconvenience to his ummah.' He (‘Abdul Malik) interpreted that to mean delaying the first ṣalāh until the end of its time and bringing the second to the start of its time, as interpreted by Abu l-Sha‘thā and ‘Amr ibn Dīnār in the Book of Muslim. Ashhab also explained the ḥadīth in the same way. He said: ‘Because he prayed at the second of the two times that Jibrīl prayed’...Once this is so, there is no disagreement.” (Ikmāl al-Mu‘lim, 3:36) [2]
Qāḍī ‘Iyāḍ makes it clear that there is no disagreement, since Ashhab did not say it is permissible to perform these ṣalāhs outside of their own times. They are each performed in their respective times but with an apparent combining. Also note: the above references are quoting Ashhab’s words directly, explicitly showing he meant apparent combining.
It becomes very clear from the above that Ashhab did not advocate a real combining. Moreover, some Mālikī authorities quote Ashhab as sharing the view of the Ḥanafīs: that apart from Ḥajj, there is never a real combining, only apparent combining. The author of Manāhij al-Taḥṣīl says: “The disputed scenario (of joining ṣalāhs) is a traveller combining outside of ‘Arafa and Muzdalifa. Mālik and al-Shāfi‘ī said it is permissible to combine in general. Abū Ḥanīfa and his followers said it is impermissible. Ashhab amongst the students of Mālik agreed with him.” (Manāhij al-Taḥṣīl, 1:419) [3]
Hence, the position of Ashhab cannot be used to claim there is an opinion of actual combining (without a valid Shar‘ī excuse) in the Mālikī madhhab, even if some later scholars misunderstood his opinion to mean this. From the clear quotes from him above, no room remains for interpretation. If Abu Layth wishes to respond, he should address the clear reference to apparent combining found in Ashhab’s statement and also Qāḍī ‘Iyāḍ’s comment that based on Ashhab’s own explanation, no disagreement really exists.
The Ḥadīth of Ibn ‘Abbās
A well-known ḥadīth of Ibn ‘Abbās found in most of the famous collections of ḥadīth says that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) joined Ẓuhr/‘Aṣr & Maghrib/‘Ishā’ without any apparent excuse like fear, travel, rain etc. Ibn ‘Abbās explained that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) did this so that no inconvenience is caused to the ummah.
Abu Layth claims that the Ḥanafīs who interpret the ḥadīth of Ibn ‘Abbās to mean an apparent combining have clearly erred.
It should be noted first of all that Imām al-Tirmidhī said that no one from the people of knowledge acted on the apparent meaning of this ḥadīth. (Sharḥ ‘Ilal al-Tirmidhī, p. 4) Hence, al-Tirmidhī is effectively quoting consensus on the invalidity of the view that Abu Layth is promoting.
But what then is the explanation of this ḥadīth?
The strongest explanation of this ḥadīth is that it is an apparent combining, not an actual combining. The Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) prayed Maghrib outside its preferred time and delayed it right until its end time. In principle, to do this is disliked, but to do so on occasion – even without an excuse – is permissible. So in order to show the ummah that it is permissible on occasion, the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) delayed Maghrib right until its end time and prayed ‘Ishā’ at its start time. And he did the same with Ẓuhr and ‘Aṣr. He did this so the ummah doesn’t become inconvenienced and feel they have to always pray Maghrib at the start of its time, or Ẓuhr at the start of its time. Thus, a well-known Mālikī commentator of Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, al-Ubbī, states that the purpose of this ḥadīth is “to clarify that it is permissible to delay a ṣalāh to its end time.” (Ikmāl Ikmāl al-Mu‘lim, 2:357)
Moreover, there is a version of this ḥadīth of Ibn ‘Abbās which clarifies that it is an apparent combining. Al-Nasa’ī narrates with an authentic chain to Ibn ‘Abbās: “I prayed Ẓuhr and ‘Aṣr together and Maghrib and ‘Ishā’ together with the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace). He delayed Ẓuhr and prayed ‘Aṣr early. He delayed Maghrib and prayed ‘Ishā’ early.” After mentioning this narration, al-Shawkānī says: “Thus, this is Ibn ‘Abbās, the narrator of the ḥadīth, stating explicitly that what he narrated, in terms of the aforementioned combining, is an apparent combining.” [5]
Furthermore, al-Bukhārī and Muslim both record a conversation that took place between the narrators of this ḥadīth: ‘Amr ibn Dīnār and his teacher, Abu al-Sha‘thā’ (d. 93 H), who is the narrator of this ḥadīth from Ibn ‘Abbās. ‘Amr ibn Dīnār said: “I believe he delayed Ẓuhr and prayed ‘Aṣr early, and he delayed Maghrib and prayed ‘Ishā’ early.” Abu al-Sha‘thā’ then said: “I believe so.”
To support his view, Abu Layth quotes al-Nawawī who said the view of it being an apparent combining is weak or unacceptable. But in response to al-Nawawī, Ibn Ḥajar says:
“What al-Nawawī considered weak [i.e. apparent combining] was regarded as good by al-Qurṭubī and considered strong by Imām al-Ḥaramayn. Amongst the early scholars, Ibn al-Mājishūn and al-Ṭaḥāwī were certain of it. Ibn Sayyid al-Nās supported it saying that Abu l-Sha‘thā who is the narrator of the ḥadīth from Ibn ‘Abbās said this.” (Fatḥ al-Bārī) [4]
Ibn Ḥajar himself favoured the interpretation of “apparent combining.”
As Ibn Ḥajar mentions, the notable Mālikī commentator on Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, Abu l-‘Abbās al-Qurṭubī (d. 656), favoured this interpretation. Al-Qurṭubī adds that this interpretation is supported by the fact that there is consensus that a ṣalāh cannot be prayed outside its time without a valid excuse. (al-Mufhim, 2:347)
Hence, the explanation of the ḥadīth as “apparent combining” is supported by the Ṣaḥābī who narrated it, the narrators of the ḥadīth, and major Mālikī scholars like al-Qurṭubī and al-Ubbī. Yet, Abu Layth claims it is not just a weak interpretation, but rejected and unacceptable!
This should serve as further proof that Abu Layth is not reliable as a source of Islamic knowledge: He did not present the view of Ashhab correctly [perhaps due to a lack of research], and he dismissed a sound and proper interpretation of the ḥadīth of Ibn ‘Abbās as invalid.
Moreover, the view he is promoting, if it ever existed, is a fringe and marginal opinion (shādhdh), that is not follow-able. Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr in Tamhīd (12:210), Qāḍī ‘Iyāḍ in the quote from him above and others have said this is a marginal and isolated opinion. Scholars have warned against adopting such fringe opinions.
It goes without saying that Abu Layth and his fatwas should be avoided. Ibn Sīrīn (may Allāh have mercy on him) famously said: “This knowledge is religion. So be careful about who you take your religion from.”
Note
Abu Layth also referred to an opinion attributed to the great imām from the Salaf, Muḥammad ibn Sīrīn. It should be noted firstly that imams and scholars of the Salaf who do not have a dedicated group of scholars that historically worked towards transmitting, preserving and explaining their madhhabs, their transmitted opinions should not be relied upon (unless authentically narrated and clear). [6] This is made clear by the fact that great scholars who quote the opinions of the founders of madhhabs other than their own often make mistakes.
This also appears to be the case here, as it is authentically transmitted from Ibn Sīrīn that he did not allow joining without a valid reason. It appears that Ibn Sīrīn held the Ḥanafī view that true combining is not allowed outside of ‘Arafa and Muzdalifa. (Muṣannaf Ibn Abī Shaybah, 5:398) [7]
EDIT: The above was reviewed by some Mālikī scholars/students before posting.
The Madhhab of Ashhab
Ashhab ibn ‘Abd al-Azīz (140 – 204) was a famous Egyptian jurist and companion of Imām Mālik. Abu Layth claims it was his view that combining between two ṣalāhs without a valid Shar‘ī excuse is permissible. Below we will present what Ashhab actually said.
Ibn Abī Zayd al-Qayrawānī (d. 386 H), the famous author of the Risālah, quotes Ashhab as follows:
“Ashhab said:…The non-traveller also has a dispensation to do that [i.e. join Ẓuhr and ‘Aṣr/ Maghrib and ‘Ishā’], although it is better not to. He has this dispensation because he is praying in one of the two times that Jibrīl stipulated. When the shadow becomes the same length (as a standing object), this is the end time of Ẓuhr and the start time of ‘Aṣr…This is also the case with Maghrib and ‘Ishā’. The disappearance of the twilight is a common time for both of them…The Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) joined at the end of one time and the start of the other time. That is, to complete Ẓuhr when the shadow is the same length (as a standing object), or to start it when the shadow is the same length; and then to stand and pray ‘Aṣr after it. Or to complete Maghrib when the twilight has disappeared or to begin it at that time; and then offer ‘Ishā’ thereafter.” (Nawādir, 1:263) [1]
According to a well-known view in the Mālikī madhhab, Ẓuhr and ‘Aṣr have a shared time. That is, when the shadow of a standing object becomes equal to its length, the time of ‘Aṣr enters. However, the time of Ẓuhr does not end immediately at the start of ‘Aṣr, but there is a small window of time when they can both be prayed. This is based on the ḥadīth in which Jibrīl led the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) in ṣalāh. In this ḥadīth, it states that he led him in Ẓuhr on the second day when the shadow of a standing object was the same length; and this is despite the fact that he led him in ‘Aṣr on the first day at the very same time. Based on this, according to a well-known position in the Mālikī madhhab, there is a shared time between Ẓuhr and ‘Aṣr. This is also the case with Maghrib and ‘Ishā’: there is a small window of time when they can both be prayed just after the twilight disappears. Ashhab, who upholds this opinion, says Ẓuhr and ‘Aṣr can be combined even without a valid excuse, but only by praying each within their own respective times.
Ashhab’s comment: “because he is praying in one of the two times that Jibrīl stipulated” means that he is praying Ẓuhr at the time that Jibrīl prayed on the second day i.e. in the common time of Ẓuhr and ‘Aṣr. His subsequent explanation shows that he believes each of the two ṣalāhs are prayed in their own times.
Ibn Yūnus (d. 451), a great mujtahid in the Mālikī school, also quotes Ashhab saying the exact same thing. (al-Jāmi‘ li Masā’il al-Mudawwana, pp. 712-13)
Qāḍī ‘Iyāḍ (d. 544 H) in his commentary on Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim says:
“All the ‘ulamā’ have opined that it is not permissible to combine between two ṣalāhs without an excuse, except for a fringe group amongst them from the early Muslims, like Ibn Sīrīn, and from our [Mālikī] authorities, Ashhab. They permitted it for a need and excuse as long as it is not made a habit. ‘Abdul Malik said something similar for Ẓuhr and ‘Aṣr. Their proof for this is the ḥadīth of Ibn ‘Abbās, and the statement: ‘He did not want to cause inconvenience to his ummah.' He (‘Abdul Malik) interpreted that to mean delaying the first ṣalāh until the end of its time and bringing the second to the start of its time, as interpreted by Abu l-Sha‘thā and ‘Amr ibn Dīnār in the Book of Muslim. Ashhab also explained the ḥadīth in the same way. He said: ‘Because he prayed at the second of the two times that Jibrīl prayed’...Once this is so, there is no disagreement.” (Ikmāl al-Mu‘lim, 3:36) [2]
Qāḍī ‘Iyāḍ makes it clear that there is no disagreement, since Ashhab did not say it is permissible to perform these ṣalāhs outside of their own times. They are each performed in their respective times but with an apparent combining. Also note: the above references are quoting Ashhab’s words directly, explicitly showing he meant apparent combining.
It becomes very clear from the above that Ashhab did not advocate a real combining. Moreover, some Mālikī authorities quote Ashhab as sharing the view of the Ḥanafīs: that apart from Ḥajj, there is never a real combining, only apparent combining. The author of Manāhij al-Taḥṣīl says: “The disputed scenario (of joining ṣalāhs) is a traveller combining outside of ‘Arafa and Muzdalifa. Mālik and al-Shāfi‘ī said it is permissible to combine in general. Abū Ḥanīfa and his followers said it is impermissible. Ashhab amongst the students of Mālik agreed with him.” (Manāhij al-Taḥṣīl, 1:419) [3]
Hence, the position of Ashhab cannot be used to claim there is an opinion of actual combining (without a valid Shar‘ī excuse) in the Mālikī madhhab, even if some later scholars misunderstood his opinion to mean this. From the clear quotes from him above, no room remains for interpretation. If Abu Layth wishes to respond, he should address the clear reference to apparent combining found in Ashhab’s statement and also Qāḍī ‘Iyāḍ’s comment that based on Ashhab’s own explanation, no disagreement really exists.
The Ḥadīth of Ibn ‘Abbās
A well-known ḥadīth of Ibn ‘Abbās found in most of the famous collections of ḥadīth says that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) joined Ẓuhr/‘Aṣr & Maghrib/‘Ishā’ without any apparent excuse like fear, travel, rain etc. Ibn ‘Abbās explained that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) did this so that no inconvenience is caused to the ummah.
Abu Layth claims that the Ḥanafīs who interpret the ḥadīth of Ibn ‘Abbās to mean an apparent combining have clearly erred.
It should be noted first of all that Imām al-Tirmidhī said that no one from the people of knowledge acted on the apparent meaning of this ḥadīth. (Sharḥ ‘Ilal al-Tirmidhī, p. 4) Hence, al-Tirmidhī is effectively quoting consensus on the invalidity of the view that Abu Layth is promoting.
But what then is the explanation of this ḥadīth?
The strongest explanation of this ḥadīth is that it is an apparent combining, not an actual combining. The Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) prayed Maghrib outside its preferred time and delayed it right until its end time. In principle, to do this is disliked, but to do so on occasion – even without an excuse – is permissible. So in order to show the ummah that it is permissible on occasion, the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) delayed Maghrib right until its end time and prayed ‘Ishā’ at its start time. And he did the same with Ẓuhr and ‘Aṣr. He did this so the ummah doesn’t become inconvenienced and feel they have to always pray Maghrib at the start of its time, or Ẓuhr at the start of its time. Thus, a well-known Mālikī commentator of Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, al-Ubbī, states that the purpose of this ḥadīth is “to clarify that it is permissible to delay a ṣalāh to its end time.” (Ikmāl Ikmāl al-Mu‘lim, 2:357)
Moreover, there is a version of this ḥadīth of Ibn ‘Abbās which clarifies that it is an apparent combining. Al-Nasa’ī narrates with an authentic chain to Ibn ‘Abbās: “I prayed Ẓuhr and ‘Aṣr together and Maghrib and ‘Ishā’ together with the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace). He delayed Ẓuhr and prayed ‘Aṣr early. He delayed Maghrib and prayed ‘Ishā’ early.” After mentioning this narration, al-Shawkānī says: “Thus, this is Ibn ‘Abbās, the narrator of the ḥadīth, stating explicitly that what he narrated, in terms of the aforementioned combining, is an apparent combining.” [5]
Furthermore, al-Bukhārī and Muslim both record a conversation that took place between the narrators of this ḥadīth: ‘Amr ibn Dīnār and his teacher, Abu al-Sha‘thā’ (d. 93 H), who is the narrator of this ḥadīth from Ibn ‘Abbās. ‘Amr ibn Dīnār said: “I believe he delayed Ẓuhr and prayed ‘Aṣr early, and he delayed Maghrib and prayed ‘Ishā’ early.” Abu al-Sha‘thā’ then said: “I believe so.”
To support his view, Abu Layth quotes al-Nawawī who said the view of it being an apparent combining is weak or unacceptable. But in response to al-Nawawī, Ibn Ḥajar says:
“What al-Nawawī considered weak [i.e. apparent combining] was regarded as good by al-Qurṭubī and considered strong by Imām al-Ḥaramayn. Amongst the early scholars, Ibn al-Mājishūn and al-Ṭaḥāwī were certain of it. Ibn Sayyid al-Nās supported it saying that Abu l-Sha‘thā who is the narrator of the ḥadīth from Ibn ‘Abbās said this.” (Fatḥ al-Bārī) [4]
Ibn Ḥajar himself favoured the interpretation of “apparent combining.”
As Ibn Ḥajar mentions, the notable Mālikī commentator on Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, Abu l-‘Abbās al-Qurṭubī (d. 656), favoured this interpretation. Al-Qurṭubī adds that this interpretation is supported by the fact that there is consensus that a ṣalāh cannot be prayed outside its time without a valid excuse. (al-Mufhim, 2:347)
Hence, the explanation of the ḥadīth as “apparent combining” is supported by the Ṣaḥābī who narrated it, the narrators of the ḥadīth, and major Mālikī scholars like al-Qurṭubī and al-Ubbī. Yet, Abu Layth claims it is not just a weak interpretation, but rejected and unacceptable!
This should serve as further proof that Abu Layth is not reliable as a source of Islamic knowledge: He did not present the view of Ashhab correctly [perhaps due to a lack of research], and he dismissed a sound and proper interpretation of the ḥadīth of Ibn ‘Abbās as invalid.
Moreover, the view he is promoting, if it ever existed, is a fringe and marginal opinion (shādhdh), that is not follow-able. Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr in Tamhīd (12:210), Qāḍī ‘Iyāḍ in the quote from him above and others have said this is a marginal and isolated opinion. Scholars have warned against adopting such fringe opinions.
It goes without saying that Abu Layth and his fatwas should be avoided. Ibn Sīrīn (may Allāh have mercy on him) famously said: “This knowledge is religion. So be careful about who you take your religion from.”
Note
Abu Layth also referred to an opinion attributed to the great imām from the Salaf, Muḥammad ibn Sīrīn. It should be noted firstly that imams and scholars of the Salaf who do not have a dedicated group of scholars that historically worked towards transmitting, preserving and explaining their madhhabs, their transmitted opinions should not be relied upon (unless authentically narrated and clear). [6] This is made clear by the fact that great scholars who quote the opinions of the founders of madhhabs other than their own often make mistakes.
This also appears to be the case here, as it is authentically transmitted from Ibn Sīrīn that he did not allow joining without a valid reason. It appears that Ibn Sīrīn held the Ḥanafī view that true combining is not allowed outside of ‘Arafa and Muzdalifa. (Muṣannaf Ibn Abī Shaybah, 5:398) [7]
EDIT: The above was reviewed by some Mālikī scholars/students before posting.
[1]
قال أشهب...وللمقيم أيضًا في ذلك رخصة، وإن كان الفضل في غير ذلك، والرخصة له؛ لأنه يصلي في أحد الوقتين الذي وقَّت جبريل عليه السلام، فإذا فاء الفيء قامةً كان للظهر آخر وقت، وهو العصر أول وقتها، وأول الوقت فيها أحب إلينا. وإذا ساغ ذلك للحاضر جاز للمسافر، وإن لم يجدَّ به السير، وكذلك له في المغرب والعشاء، ويكون مغيب الشفق وقتًا لهما يشتركان فيه مع ما روي من جمع المسافر ولم يذكر جدَّ السير به، وأما في جدِّ السير فيجمع عليه وقد جمع النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم في آخر وقت هذه وأول وقت هذه، وذلك أَنْ يقضي الظهر والفيء قامة، أو يبتدئها والفيء قامة، ثم يقيم فيصلي العصر بعدها، أو يقضي المغرب وقد غاب الشفق، أو يبتدئها حينئذ، ثم يُقيم فيصلي بعدها العشاء (النوادر والزيادات، ج١ ص٢٦٣)
[2]
وذهب كافة العلماء إلى منع الجمع بين الصلاتين فى الحضر لغير عذر إلا شذوذاً منهم من السلف ابن سيرين، ومن أصاحبنا أشهب، فأجازوا ذلك للحاجة والعذر ما لم تتخذ عادة، ونحوه لعبد الملك فى الظهر والعصر، وحجتهم فى ذلك حديث ابن عباس، وقوله: " أراد ألا يحرج أمته " وتأول ذلك على تأخير الأولى إلى آخر وقتها وتقديم الثانية لأول وقتها، على ما تأوَّله أبو الشعثاء وعمرو بن دينار فى كتاب مسلم، وبه [علَّا] (3) أشهب الحديث قال: لأنه يصلى فى آخِرِ الوقتين اللذين وقَّت جبريل - عليه السلام - فى حديث ابن عباس، وإذا كان هذا لم يكن خلافاً، وظاهر حديث ابن عباس يحتمل الوجهين (إكمال المعلم، ج٣ ص٣٦)
[3]
وأما المختلف فيه فهو جمع المسافر في غير عرفة والمزدلفة، فذهب مالك والشافعي إلى جواز الجمع على الجملة، ومنعه أبو حنيفة وأصحابه، ووافقه أشهب من أصحاب مالك (مناهج التحصيل، دار ابن حزم، ج١ ص٤١٩)
[4]
قال الحافظ: وهذا الذي ضعفه قد اسحسنه القرطبي ورجحه إمام الحرمين وجزم به من القدماء ابن الماجشون والطحاوي وقواه ابن سيد الناس بأن أبا الشعثاء وهو راوى الحديث عن ابن عباس قد قال به....فالجمع الصوري أولى (نيل الأوطار، ٢٤ ص٢٦٧)
[5]
ومما يدل على تعيين حمل حديث الباب على الجمع الصوري ما أخرجه النسائي بلفظ: ((صليت مع النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم الظهر والعصر جميعا والمغرب والعشاء جميعا، أخر الظهر وعجل العشاء، وأخر المغرب وعجل العشاء.)) فهذا راوى حديث الباب قد صرح بأن ما رواه من الجمع المذكور هو الجمع الصوري (نيل الأوطار، ٢٤ ص٢٦٧)
[6]
فإن قيل: نحن نسلم منع عموم الناس من سلوك طريق الإجتهاد لما يفضي ذلك إلى أعظم الفساد، لكن لا نسلم منع تقليد إمام متبع من أئمة المجتهدين غير هؤلاء الأئمة المشهورين. قيل: قد نبهنا على علة المنع، وهو أن مذاهب غير هؤلاء لم يشتهر ولم ينضبط، فربما نسب إليهم ما لم يقولوه أو فهم عنهم ما لم يريدوه، وليس لمذاهبهم من يذب عنها وينبه على ما يقع من الخلل فيها بخلاف هذه المذاهب المشهورة (مجموع رسائل الحافظ ابن رجب الحنبلي، الفاروق الحديثية، ج. ٢ ص. ٦٢٦)
[7]
أزهر عن ابن عون قال: ذكر لمحمد بن سيرين أن جابر بن زيد يجمع بين الصلاتين، فقال: ما أرى أن يجمع بين الصلاتين إلا من أمر
يزيد بن هارون عن هشام (بن حسان) عن الحسن (البصري) ومحمد (ابن سيرين) قالا: ما نعلم من السنة الجمع بين الصلاتين في حضر ولا سفر إلا بين الظهر والعصر بعرفة وبين المغرب والعشاء بجمع (مصنف ابن أبي شيبة، ج٥ ص٣٩٨)
