Answered by Sidi Salman Younas
I read in Talim-Ul-Islam by Mufti Muhammad Kifayatullah that Salaah is makrooh behind innovaters, fasiqs, illiterate slaves, ignorant rustics, careless blind and ignorant people of illegitimate parentage. Then he goes on to say that the salah behind the last 4 or so can be said without hesitation if they are actually learned, yet, it would be still be preferable to pray behind people who are not slaves, rustics, blind or illegitimate period. I can understand why the prayer behind innovaters and fasiqs is undesirable, there is no question about it, why are people who are slaves, rustics, blind or illegitimate people put at such a disadvantage. I could understand, also if the ruling of it being makrooh was also given to illiterate free, the learned non-rustics, the learned amongst the seeing and the learned of legitimate parentage. But why are these particular people who can’t really help themselves out of a certain condition be put down to such a condition. waiting for an answer…jazakullah khayr.. There seems to be an asnwer concerning the blind on this site but what about the others?
. salamu `alaykum
I pray you are well.
Later texts have clarified the above by stating that the legal cause behind the disliked nature of praying behind such individuals was due to their lack of knowledge or inability to properly fulfill the conditions of prayer [such as in the case of the blind]. (Radd al-Muhtar, bab al imamat) However, such texts also clarify that if this legal cause is not present the disliked nature of praying behind such individuals is lifted. (Bahr al-Ra’iq, bab al imamat) Rather, if such a legal cause is present within an individual outside the above mentioned categories it will be disliked to pray behind him also.
Thus, the reason behind the earlier texts of the school mentioning these individuals at the expense of others is due to the fact that in their milieu and time period the probability of such people meeting this legal cause was higher. Rustics, for example, were widely known to be illiterate. Similarly, slaves were generally occupied in serving their masters therefore often unable to seek knowledge. The blind were at risk of not fulfilling the conditions prior to prayer, such as ablution, being free of filth, or facing the direction of the Qibla. Such probability was lesser for others, even though there might have been amongst the free, the non-rustic, and the legitimate child one who did not possess sufficient knowledge to fulfill his obligations properly. However, due to the fact that this was less likely, the scholars of law did not mention them but only mentioned those types of individuals in whom ignorance of the law was generally more prevalent and manifest in their time period.
The purpose behind the earlier texts mentioning these categories of people was not to demean them but merely for the purpose of practicality. It is common to find such an approach in many early texts wherein things are discussed and rulings illustrated by giving examples rather than explicating underlying legal reasoning, which the commentators and later scholars did.
Otherwise, there have been numerous individuals of scholarly repute who have been blind, or who have been slaves [such as in the case of the earlier generation of Muslims] and so forth and our history attests to the high rank and respect they held in the eyes of other scholars and the general populace as a whole.
Wasalam
Salman