The decision of the Saudi authorities to appoint Muhammad Al-Issa as a preacher and imam for pilgrims this year aroused great resentment, and then some Islamic formations issued a statement that included two things, the first: the demand of the Saudi authorities to isolate Al-Issa, because - according to the statement - “an income in his religion and his honesty”, and secondly: the demand of pilgrims to Refraining from praying with this man who is intrigued to pray in their camps in congregation.
The statement based his position on a general claim, which is that the imamate of Al-Issa for pilgrims “includes legitimate and realistic corruptions, and it is contrary to God’s law and its provisions” which are represented in “that only a Muslim who is free from flaws in the origin of his religion assumes the imamate.”
The statement cited a list of Al-Issa’s reprehensible actions to conclude that his actions “blame the origins of his religion,” and summed up: his adherence to the Zionists, his love for the Hindu priest, his prayers for the victims of the Holocaust, his incitement against Muslims in France, his partnership with Tony Blair, and his declaration that Jews and Christians are his brothers, despite That Sheikh Saleh Al-Fawzan had declared an infidel according to the text of the statement signed by many personalities with a movement orientation.
The statement, in fact, reflects the phenomenon of politicizing jurisprudence, which I have previously criticized on more than one occasion, and it is a phenomenon practiced by Islamic regimes and kinetic formations alike. Hence, the duty of a scientific “legal statement” in such situations is fraught with some challenges. On the one hand: How do we Is it the duty of a scientific statement without understanding that we support this or that political position?
On the other hand, the authority of the “Shari’a Statement” has become a subject of conflict between some regimes on the one hand and Islamic movements or organizations on the other.
And both parties claim that they speak in the name of Sharia, while both of them ignore the same jurisprudential heritage and do not take into account the scientific dispute, because it comes from a political position that cannot be tolerated like that.
Away from the political conflict, I will outline the problematic aspects of the statement referred to in specific points, because - in what I think - they help to clarify and understand, and this is in fulfillment of the jurisprudential knowledge that constitutes the source of the legitimate statement here, away from partisanship and political discoloration. Our problem today is with many statements that carry The Islamic characteristic is that it does not liberate scientific issues first, and then it falls into the consequences of downloading it to contemporary reality secondly.
The first point: the statement carried the following title “A Shariah Statement on the Ruling of the Imamate of Jesus and His Sermon in Arafa.” The reader expects to read a “jurisprudential statement” that presents the opinions of the jurists and their explanations and then weighs them according to specific reasons. Not from afar, especially since the issue raised deals with two matters:
The first: the ruling on the imam of an unspecified immoral imam (which is what is called the general jurisprudential ruling).
And the other: downloading the rulings of the imam of the sinner on the person of al-Issa who is the subject of the discussion here, and looking into the proof of his immorality according to the view of the signatories at least (which is called the investigation of the mandator).
If we edited the general jurisprudential ruling and its merits, we could then discuss its transmission to Zayd or Amr, but the author of the statement did not come out of the issue, and he misrepresented it in vague terms, even though the “Shari’ah statement” imposes clarity and scientific accuracy, as it requires the care of scientific dispute and honesty in dealing With the four considered schools of jurisprudence, not just random selection from them according to political whim, especially since the statement used the fatwa of Sheikh Al-Fawzan to suggest the infidelity of Al-Issa, even though some of the signatories to the statement did not agree with Al-Fawzan on dozens of issues other than these.
The mandate for managing pilgrims is a political mandate, leadership and management, and then it was noted in it and in its conditions that Imam Al-Mawardi mentioned the practical nature associated with ensuring the safety of pilgrims and their performance of their rituals for the ritual, and the implications of this mandate are broader than simply appointing a person to lead the people on the day of Arafa
The second point: that the Islamic movement relied for decades on the jurisprudence of Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi - may God Almighty protect him - who carried the banner of facilitating people in jurisprudence and seeking ways out for them to live by Sharia in contemporary life. The dispersal of different groups on the Day of Arafat, which is supposed to embody the unity of the Muslim community of every race, color and sect, turning his back on the doctrine of the majority of jurists, which is that praying behind the immoral - if we agree with them on the corruption of Jesus - is permissible, as I will explain shortly.
The third point: the statement predominated over the political psyche, and therefore it was devoid of the scientific editing that was supposed to address two separate issues:
The first issue: the qualities required in the person of the imam in prayer (and the imam in Arafat is the imam of prayer), and the distinction in them between what is an attribute of health and what is an attribute of perfection, and then evaluate the decision of the Saudi authorities to choose Al-Issa for this symbolic religious position on this memorable day.
And the other issue: the ruling on praying behind Muhammad Al-Issa in particular, and this requires diagnosing his apparent condition and weighing it with the scale of jurisprudence, then downloading the ruling on the imam of the sinner on him.
The statement was not satisfied with confusing the two issues only, but also made use of the second issue in order to protest against the appointment decision, which falls within the first issue. Hence, the pilgrims called for leaving the prayer behind Al-Issa as an expression of political protest against the appointment decision.
I am not a supporter of Al-Issa, but rather I am against his political positions, and I see that his appointment carries a negative political message, but at the same time, I believe that the political objection to the decision to appoint Al-Issa must be separated from the ruling on pilgrims’ prayer, which is a devotional act. Which dictates taking care of the jurisprudential dispute when issuing any “shar’i statement” and giving priority to the religious interests of the people. It is the right of Muslims to know the various considered jurisprudential opinions, and not to impose on them a specific opinion governed by a prior political position in isolation from any consistent scientific method.
The fourth point: The statement indicated that prayer and sermon on the day of Arafat are included in the “wilayat of Hajj” which is part of the legal mandates, but it fell short in bringing this issue down to the incident we are dealing with, and an illusion that the issue can be resolved in general terms, and the statement of this is that the mandate of Hajj two hits:
Wilayat of managing pilgrims: It is a political mandate, leadership and management, and then it was noted in it and in its conditions mentioned by Imam Al-Mawardi the practical nature associated with ensuring the safety of pilgrims and their performance of their rituals to perform the ritual.
The implications of this guardianship are broader than simply appointing a person to lead the people on the Day of Arafat, and it can be said that the dispute over political guardianship is also a political dispute.
Wilayat over the establishment of Hajj: It is a guardianship in the same way as the imamate in the establishment of prayers, and the conditions of the imam in prayer are general conditions that are summarized in Islam, puberty, reason, masculinity and other things that are stipulated for the validity of following the example, and no consideration of political positions such as those mentioned in the statement from the actions of Jesus Which we condemn, or at least some of them, but they do not affect the validity of his Imamate or his prayer in jurisprudence.
You see that the two types of guardianship here do not help the source of the statement to decide what they ended up with, contrary to what they imagined. To say that one of the purposes of the legal mandate of Hajj is to “maintain the beliefs, morals and ideas of pilgrims.” It is not from the functions of the sermon of Arafa that nor the ability of the imam on the day of Arafa to do that, rather the sermons of Arafa have often been politicized to serve the purpose of the Saudi authorities, which is something that must The major ritual is preserved on his behalf, and the mandate of Hajj - in the classical jurisprudential conception - is broader than what has become of the order in organizing Hajj today, as the imam and preacher on the Day of Arafah does not have any state beyond the mere imamate and sermon.
Fifth point: The statement demanded the pilgrims to abandon prayer behind Jesus on the day of Arafat “for fear that prayer behind him is not acceptable because he exceeds the limit decided by scholars of praying behind every righteous and immoral person,” according to the text of the statement.
It is strange that the signatories to the statement call on people to abandon the unified prayer on the day of Arafah as a mere thought, which is their fear that “praying behind him will be unacceptable,” with complete disregard for the doctrines of jurists in the ruling on praying behind the immoral imam.
There are two different schools of jurisprudence regarding the prayer behind the sinner:
The first doctrine: the permissibility of praying behind an immoral person with dislike, and it is the doctrine of the majority of jurists, if he prays behind an immoral person, his prayer is valid and he does not repeat, because the hadiths in this sense, and that it is permissible to follow the example of those who witnessed the two testimonies, and because Ibn Omar used to pray behind Al-Hajjaj bin Yusuf Al-Thaqafi, and that Al-Hasan and Al-Hussein - may God be pleased with them both - were praying behind Marwan bin Al-Hakam and Al-Waleed bin Uqbah.
The Hanafis said: It is suitable for the imamate - in general - every sane Muslim, so he entered into that the immoral Muslim, and it is approved by the Malikis that prayer is valid with the dislike behind the immoral, practical immorality, such as an adulterer and a drinker of alcohol. In his heresy, is it an expiation or not.
As for the Shafi’is, they permitted prayer behind the immoral imam with makrooh, but they said that the object of disliking the imam of the immoral person is only for the non-disobedient.
The other doctrine: It is absolutely not permissible to pray behind an immoral person, and it is the school of the Hanbalis who said: The imam of an immoral person is absolutely not valid, whether his immorality is belief or practice, and whether his immorality is announced or hidden.
In the case of hidden immorality, the follower must inform him himself that he has seen it, and the Hanbalis differed after that regarding the story of their doctrine in the repetition of prayer behind the immoral person if it occurred. There is no repetition of it, and if his immorality is known, in the repetition there are two narrations, and some of them said that if the immoral imam was hidden in his immorality, the follower did not promise his prayer behind him, and if the imam was pretending to be immoral, in the repetition there are two narrations.
The sixth point: The statement stated that Jesus “exceeded the limit of what the scholars decided to pray behind every righteous and immoral person.” Therefore, they called people to leave prayer behind him, and this is an unscientific speech. Behind him is not correct, and not only that he “fears” that it will not be true, in addition to the fact that the statement did not explain to us what this limit was exceeded, especially since the statement confuses two things: belief immorality and practical immorality. Praying behind an immoral person is even valid as well. The immorality identified by the jurists is the immorality that violates one of the conditions for the validity of prayer, such as praying while drunk or deliberately innovating.
As for religious immorality, it is a controversial issue among the jurists, O God, unless the signatories of the statement declared Jesus to be infidels, in this case only the prayer behind him is invalidated for those who believed his disbelief, but the statement was ambivalent in this and relied on the fatwa of Al-Fawzan and did not act according to its requirements.
The goal here was not to support the decision to appoint Al-Issa, who I do not see fit for this symbolic function and the greatness of the ritual of Hajj, but my goal here is to clarify the necessity of separating the political movement activity and the legal statement that imposes duties of a different kind, and not to exploit the authority of “Sharia” to pass certain political positions with Complete disregard for the doctrinal legacy, and God knows best.