Intentionally Abandoning a Single Prayer | Shaykh Saleh al-Fawzan حفظه الله

[Omar del Sur]

 

[Abdalla]

This is a well covered and widely discussed topic. There are several interpretations of it. You just gave the Hanbali view. Imam Shafi’i and Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal discussed had a debate and Imam Shafi’i won the debate.

Ibn al-Subki documented in Tabaqat al-Shafiyyah al-Kubra 2/61. Imam Ahmad debated Imam Shafi’i on the point of one who abandons the prayer for no reason. The account is as follows: Shafi’i said to Imam Ahmad, “Do you say that he disbelieves?” Imam Ahmad replied, “Yes.” Imam Shafi’i again questioned him, “If he became a disbeliever, with what does he become a Muslim?” Imam Ahmad replied, “He says, ‘La ilaha illa Allah, Muhammad Rasul Allah.” Imam Shafi’i then asked, “The individual remained with this statement, he never left it?” Imam Ahmad then said, “He returns to Islam by praying.” Imam Shafi’i replied, “The disbeliever’s prayer is invalid and he is not judged with Islam by it.” Then, Imam Ahmad gave up and remained silent.'

Correct view is the one who misses prayer out of laziness has committed a major sin but does not become a kafir.

 

[Omar del Sur]

This is a well covered and widely discussed topic. There are several interpretations of it. You just gave the Hanbali view. Imam Shafi’i and Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal discussed had a debate and Imam Shafi’i won the debate.

Ibn al-Subki documented in Tabaqat al-Shafiyyah al-Kubra 2/61. Imam Ahmad debated Imam Shafi’i on the point of one who abandons the prayer for no reason. The account is as follows: Shafi’i said to Imam Ahmad, “Do you say that he disbelieves?” Imam Ahmad replied, “Yes.” Imam Shafi’i again questioned him, “If he became a disbeliever, with what does he become a Muslim?” Imam Ahmad replied, “He says, ‘La ilaha illa Allah, Muhammad Rasul Allah.” Imam Shafi’i then asked, “The individual remained with this statement, he never left it?” Imam Ahmad then said, “He returns to Islam by praying.” Imam Shafi’i replied, “The disbeliever’s prayer is invalid and he is not judged with Islam by it.” Then, Imam Ahmad gave up and remained silent.'

Correct view is the one who misses prayer out of laziness has committed a major sin but does not become a kafir.

Before I respond any further, I just want to emphasize to people reading- don't trust the opinions of SomaliSpotters on Islam. Don't trust my opinion, don't trust the opinion of the person I'm quoting.

Sheikh Fawzan is one of the greatest scholars alive. It would be crazy to take my opinion or the opinion of any SomaliSpotter over the opinion of Sheikh Fawzan.

You are in serious danger if you do that kind of thing.

Now I can point to for example.... a topic where if I recall correctly there was a difference of opinion between Sheikh Fawzan and Sheikh Ibn Baz. Maybe someone agrees with one or the other- but the opinion has some scholar backing it.

But it's crazy to treat some person here as being equal to Sheikh Fawzan. It's a really dangerous thing.

 

[Omar del Sur]

This is a well covered and widely discussed topic. There are several interpretations of it. You just gave the Hanbali view. Imam Shafi’i and Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal discussed had a debate and Imam Shafi’i won the debate.

Ibn al-Subki documented in Tabaqat al-Shafiyyah al-Kubra 2/61. Imam Ahmad debated Imam Shafi’i on the point of one who abandons the prayer for no reason. The account is as follows: Shafi’i said to Imam Ahmad, “Do you say that he disbelieves?” Imam Ahmad replied, “Yes.” Imam Shafi’i again questioned him, “If he became a disbeliever, with what does he become a Muslim?” Imam Ahmad replied, “He says, ‘La ilaha illa Allah, Muhammad Rasul Allah.” Imam Shafi’i then asked, “The individual remained with this statement, he never left it?” Imam Ahmad then said, “He returns to Islam by praying.” Imam Shafi’i replied, “The disbeliever’s prayer is invalid and he is not judged with Islam by it.” Then, Imam Ahmad gave up and remained silent.'

Correct view is the one who misses prayer out of laziness has committed a major sin but does not become a kafir.

I don't know where you copied and pasted this from but according at least to IslamWeb:

Debate between Imaams Ahmad and Ash-Shaafi‘i about unbelief and leaving prayer

Explore the debated positions of Imams Ahmad and AshShaafi‘i on unbelief and the significance of prayer. This discussion, documented by Ibn alSubki, highlights differing views on whether one who abandons prayer becomes a disbeliever and how to return to Islam. Imam Ahmad asserts that abandonment...

www.islamweb.net

Shaykh, is this story true: ''There is a debate between Imams Shafi’i and Ahmad which Ibn al-Subki documented in Tabaqat al-Shafiyyah al-Kubra 2/61. Imam Ahmad debated Imam Shafi’i on the point of one who abandons the prayer for no reason. The account is as follows: Shafi’i said to Imam Ahmad, “Do you say that he disbelieves?” Imam Ahmad replied, “Yes.” Imam Shafi’i again questioned him, “If he became a disbeliever, with what does he become a Muslim?” Imam Ahmad replied, “He says, ‘La ilaha illa Allah, Muhammad Rasul Allah.” Imam Shafi’i then asked, “The individual remained with this statement, he never left it?” Imam Ahmad then said, “He returns to Islam by praying.” Imam Shafi’i replied, “The disbeliever’s prayer is invalid and he is not judged with Islam by it.” Then, Imam Ahmad gave up and remained silent.''May Allah reward you.

Answer​

All perfect praise be to Allaah, The Lord of the Worlds. I testify that there is none worthy of worship except Allaah, and that Muhammad, sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, is His slave and Messenger.
Neither the historical transmission nor the content of this debate is correct. In regard to its chain of transmission, Shaykh Al-Albaani said after quoting it: “The story is not authentic and As-Subki

pointed out to this fact, as he mentioned at the beginning of it, "It was related that…", which means that it is disconnected (i.e. there is interruption in the chain of its narrators).” [End of quote]
As regards unsoundness of the content, Imaam Ash-Shaafi‘i

was too knowledgeable to have made these statements, and Imaam Ahmad

is too knowledgeable to have been unable to respond to him. It is known that if someone apostatizes for any reason, he re-embraces Islam by declaring of the Two Testimonies of Faith along with repenting from what caused his apostasy. Hence, those who are of the view that a person who abandons the prayer becomes an unbeliever say that he does not become a Muslim again unless he prays and utters the Two Testimonies of Faith at the same time. This is very clear.
Addressing this story and considering it weak, the prominent scholar Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen

said:
“The expressions mentioned in the story are crude and it is very unlikely that Imaam Ash-Shaafi‘i said such things to Imaam Ahmad, as he was known to have high esteem befitting the position of Imaam Ahmad and the position of Imaam Ash-Shaafi‘i. Moreover, this debate contradicts what is well-known about Imaam Ahmad's School, because according to his School, a person who goes out of the fold of Islam due to abandoning the prayer does not become a Muslim again unless he performs the prayer, and if he performs the prayer, he is ruled to be a Muslim. This is what is known from his School.
Hence, it should be known that if someone goes out of the fold of Islam due to committing any act (whereby he becomes an unbeliever), he does not become a Muslim just by uttering the Two Testimonies of Faith – that nothing has the right to be worshipped but Allaah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allaah – until he rectifies what led to his apostasy. For example, if we assume that he says, I bear witness that nothing has the right to be worshipped but Allaah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allaah but he denies the obligation of Zakah, or fasting, or Hajj, then he does not become a Muslim just by saying, 'I bear witness that None has the right to be worshipped but Allaah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allaah', unless he affirms the obligatoriness of whichever of these fundamental rites whose obligatoriness he denied.
In any case, the principle regarding an apostate is that if he apostatizes by committing any act of disbelief, then it is not sufficient for him just to testify that nothing has the right to be worshipped but Allaah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allaah, unless he rectifies what we ruled to be disbelief.
Based on this, we say that a person who abandons the prayer is an unbeliever even if he testifies that nothing has the right to be worshipped but Allaah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allaah, and he does not become a Muslim unless he performs the prayer. We consider him an unbeliever for a reason, so this reason for which we considered him an unbeliever must cease to exist in order for us to consider him a Muslim. If the reason for us considering him an unbeliever ceases to exist, then we will rule that he is a Muslim. It is on this basis that there is a difference between one who is an unbeliever by origin, who embraces Islam by testifying that nothing has the right to be worshipped but Allaah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allaah, and between an apostate who apostatizes by committing any act of apostasy, who cannot be ruled as a Muslim unless the matter for which we considered him an unbeliever ceases to exist.
The issue is based on this. In our view about this debate, first, it is unlikely that it actually occurred between the two prominent and honorable Imaams as it was known that they revered and honored each other, and these harsh words could not have been used by Imaam Ash-Shaafi’i to address Imaam Ahmad as we know that they revered and honored each other. Second, the fact that this story is found in the book At-Tabaqaat Ash-Shaafi‘iyyah does not mean that it is authentic; rather, any statement that is attributed to a particular person must have a chain of narrators that goes back to him. Some statements have no chains of transmission, and some could be unsoundly attributed to someone and is therefore not taken into account. Third, this debate contradicts the well-known opinion of Imaam Ahmad

that if someone apostatizes due to him abandoning the prayer, he does not become a Muslim unless he performs the prayer even if he testifies that nothing has the right to be worshipped but Allaah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allaah.” [End of quote]
Allaah Knows best.

 

[Omar del Sur]

According to Sheikh Albaani, the story cited by @Abdalla never happened:

"Neither the historical transmission nor the content of this debate is correct. In regard to its chain of transmission, Shaykh Al-Albaani said after quoting it: “The story is not authentic and As-Subki

pointed out to this fact, as he mentioned at the beginning of it, "It was related that…", which means that it is disconnected (i.e. there is interruption in the chain of its narrators).” [End of quote]"

Sheikh Uthaymeen said it is unlikely that the story is authentic. the islamweb link goes into detail. it is really dangerous to follow the opinions of random people on the internet (including myself) rather than follow scholars like Sheikh Fawzan.

Debate between Imaams Ahmad and Ash-Shaafi‘i about unbelief and leaving prayer

Explore the debated positions of Imams Ahmad and AshShaafi‘i on unbelief and the significance of prayer. This discussion, documented by Ibn alSubki, highlights differing views on whether one who abandons prayer becomes a disbeliever and how to return to Islam. Imam Ahmad asserts that abandonment...

www.islamweb.net

 

[Omar del Sur]

actually @Abdalla I think you did something really dishonest... I think your copy and paste was from that same islamweb fatwa that I linked and I think you left off the part where the fatwa is saying that the alleged story never happened. the Islamweb fatwa is what pops up when I search the text you posted. where did you copy and paste that from if not the islamweb fatwa?

 

[Abdalla]

According to Sheikh Albaani, the story cited by @Abdalla never happened:

"Neither the historical transmission nor the content of this debate is correct. In regard to its chain of transmission, Shaykh Al-Albaani said after quoting it: “The story is not authentic and As-Subki

pointed out to this fact, as he mentioned at the beginning of it, "It was related that…", which means that it is disconnected (i.e. there is interruption in the chain of its narrators).” [End of quote]"

Sheikh Uthaymeen said it is unlikely that the story is authentic. the islamweb link goes into detail. it is really dangerous to follow the opinions of random people on the internet (including myself) rather than follow scholars like Sheikh Fawzan.

Debate between Imaams Ahmad and Ash-Shaafi‘i about unbelief and leaving prayer

Explore the debated positions of Imams Ahmad and AshShaafi‘i on unbelief and the significance of prayer. This discussion, documented by Ibn alSubki, highlights differing views on whether one who abandons prayer becomes a disbeliever and how to return to Islam. Imam Ahmad asserts that abandonment...

www.islamweb.net

Its a famous story which I heard many years ago from my teacher. It was also written in a book of the famous Muhadith Al-Subki

Value Sheikh Fawzaan immensely. I took few lessons on his famous book (the sharh of zaad al-mustaqni).

Regardless of the authenticity, the merits of the debates remain. When the Sheikh says he has to re-enter Islam, does the one who neglects his prayer have to retake the Shahadah? A shahadah he never left?

 

[Omar del Sur]

Its a famous story which I heard many years ago from my teacher. It was also written in a book of the famous Muhadith Al-Subki

Value Sheikh Fawzaan immensely. I took few lessons on his famous book (the sharh of zaad al-mustaqni).

Regardless of the authenticity, the merits of the debates remain. When the Sheikh says he has to re-enter Islam, does the one who neglects his prayer have to retake the Shahadah? A shahadah he never left?

I'm a nobody. I'm not looking to debate this. If you are a scholar honoring us with your presence alhamdulilaah. But meanwhile I intend on going with Sheikh Fawzan on this.

 

[Hamzza]

This is a well covered and widely discussed topic. There are several interpretations of it. You just gave the Hanbali view. Imam Shafi’i and Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal discussed had a debate and Imam Shafi’i won the debate.

Ibn al-Subki documented in Tabaqat al-Shafiyyah al-Kubra 2/61. Imam Ahmad debated Imam Shafi’i on the point of one who abandons the prayer for no reason. The account is as follows: Shafi’i said to Imam Ahmad, “Do you say that he disbelieves?” Imam Ahmad replied, “Yes.” Imam Shafi’i again questioned him, “If he became a disbeliever, with what does he become a Muslim?” Imam Ahmad replied, “He says, ‘La ilaha illa Allah, Muhammad Rasul Allah.” Imam Shafi’i then asked, “The individual remained with this statement, he never left it?” Imam Ahmad then said, “He returns to Islam by praying.” Imam Shafi’i replied, “The disbeliever’s prayer is invalid and he is not judged with Islam by it.” Then, Imam Ahmad gave up and remained silent.'

Correct view is the one who misses prayer out of laziness has committed a major sin but does not become a kafir.

I'm more convinced by Imam Ahmed's opinion, there are clear Nusuus from Hadith and Quran saying the Tariku Salat is not Muslim.


As-Subki being a Shafi'i is obviously biased for Imam al Shafi'i.

 

[Omar del Sur]

I'm more convinced by Imam Ahmed's opinion, there are clear Nusuus from Hadith and Quran saying the Tariku Salat is not Muslim.


As-Subki being a Shafi'i is obviously biased for Imam al Shafi'i.

if you read my posts here- it's likely this story never happened.

and according to Albaani, As-Subki himself suggested the story wasn't authentic:

"Shaykh Al-Albaani said after quoting it: “The story is not authentic and As-Subki pointed out to this fact, as he mentioned at the beginning of it, "It was related that…", which means that it is disconnected (i.e. there is interruption in the chain of its narrators"

 

[Abdalla]

I'm more convinced by Imam Ahmed's opinion, there are clear Nusuus from Hadith and Quran saying the Tariku Salat is not Muslim.


As-Subki being a Shafi'i is obviously biased for Imam al Shafi'i.

The Shafi’i madhab says Tariku Salah is not kafir unless he does it on purposes or out of kibr. But if he does it out of laziness, then he’s a major sinner. The Hanbalis say he’s a kafir regardless.

I want to know, how does one re-enter Islam? Because they haven’t stepped away from the Shahadah not have they abandoned it.

 

[Abdalla]

As-Subki being a Shafi'i is obviously biased for Imam al Shafi'i.

This is btw a flawed reasoning. I could easily say that ibn Uthaymin being a Hanbali is biased for Imam Ahmed and would deny this ever taking place.

The stories of the salaf are not preserved like Ahadeeth. Don’t expect a mutawatir chain narrations of the stories. All of them have flaws if we test them like we test ahadeeth.

 

[Hamzza]

The Shafi’i madhab says Tariku Salah is not kafir unless he does it on purposes or out of kibr. But if he does it out of laziness, then he’s a major sinner. The Hanbalis say he’s a kafir regardless.

This applies to all Fard Ibadat btw. For example, the one who doesn't fast Ramadan on purpose or denies the obligation of Fasting is kafir by Ijma.

It's clear the Hadith of the Tariku Salat refers to the person who neglects the prayers.

I want to know, how does one re-enter Islam? Because they haven’t stepped away from the Shahadah not have they abandoned it.

By this logic, only Shirk will take a person out of the fold of Islam. There are many Nullifiers of Islam that don't involve Shirk. If I deny the existence of the Angels am I not a Kafir? If yes, how will I re-enter Islam having not abandoned the Shahadah?

 

[Waa dhamatay]

Does that mean praying late or dozing off after prescribed time makes you kafir?

 

[Abdalla]

actually @Abdalla I think you did something really dishonest... I think your copy and paste was from that same islamweb fatwa that I linked and I think you left off the part where the fatwa is saying that the alleged story never happened. the Islamweb fatwa is what pops up when I search the text you posted. where did you copy and paste that from if not the islamweb fatwa?

I had it from there. But I didn’t read the whole page, as I just wanted the story. I know some question the authenticity, ibn uthaymin had a lecture about it, it’s on YouTube.

Don’t say it never happened. It was reported by Imam al-Subki, who lived in the 7th hijri century.

Again, don’t expect stories from the salaf to have a strong narration chains as the hadiths.

 

[Abdalla]

This applies to all Fard Ibadat btw. For example, the one who doesn't fast Ramadan on purpose or denies the obligation of Fasting is kafir by Ijma.

It's clear the Hadith of the Tariku Salat refers to the person who neglects the prayers.


By this logic, only Shirk will take a person out of the fold of Islam. There are many Nullifiers of Islam that don't involve Shirk. If I deny the existence of the Angels am I not a Kafir? If yes, how will I re-enter Islam having not abandoned the Shahadah?

Not believing in the Angels will make you a kafir, the same goes for denying the obligatory status of paying zakat, fasting and praying.

We are talking about someone who acknowledges all of them, however due to laziness he doesn’t pray, or doesn’t pray on time, or skips one salah and prays the other. Hanbalis declare that person as a kafir.

However there’s a clear Hadith wherein the prophet says (I’ll paraphrase) that the first thing Allah will judge is the obligatory prayer, if his obligatory prayers are deficient, Allah will look into his nawaafil.

Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “The first action for which a servant of Allah will be held accountable on the Day of Resurrection will be his prayers. If they are in order, he will have prospered and succeeded. If they are lacking, he will have failed and lost. If there is something defective in his obligatory prayers, then the Almighty Lord will say: See if My servant has any voluntary prayers that can complete what is insufficient in his obligatory prayers. The rest of his deeds will be judged the same way.”

The fact that deficient prayers do not result to direct hellfire indicates that one who’s negligent in his prayers is not a clear cut kafir.

 

[Hamzza]

Not believing in the Angels will make you a kafir, the same goes for denying the obligatory status of paying zakat, fasting and praying.

Ok, how does the one who denies the existence of the Angels and the obligation of the prayers re-enter Islam marka? Because he hasn't stepped away from the Shahadah, he still acknowledges the oneness of Allah ﷻ and also acknowledges Prophet Muhammad ﷺ.

However there’s a clear Hadith wherein the prophet says (I’ll paraphrase) that the first thing Allah will judge is the obligatory prayer, if his obligatory prayers are deficient, Allah will look into his nawaafil.

Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “The first action for which a servant of Allah will be held accountable on the Day of Resurrection will be his prayers. If they are in order, he will have prospered and succeeded. If they are lacking, he will have failed and lost. If there is something defective in his obligatory prayers, then the Almighty Lord will say: See if My servant has any voluntary prayers that can complete what is insufficient in his obligatory prayers. The rest of his deeds will be judged the same way.”

The fact that deficient prayers do not result to direct hellfire indicates that one who’s negligent in his prayers is not a clear cut kafir.

The Hadith most probably refers to the one whose Fard prayers are deficient because he forgot or something like that. A person who neglects his Wajib prayers out of laziness doesn't pray Nawafil. والله أعلم

We are talking about someone who acknowledges all of them, however due to laziness he doesn’t pray, or doesn’t pray on time, or skips one salah and prays the other. Hanbalis declare that person as a kafir.

 

[Hamzza]

@Omar del Sur @Abdalla

Hukm of the Tariku Salat according to the four madhabs:

Hanafi: he will be imprisoned until he prays
Maliki & Shafi'i: he doesn't Apostate but will be killed for Hadd
Hanbali: he will be killed for apostasy

Leaving Fard Salat is a bigger sin than Zina and murder.

 

[Garaad diinle]

@Omar del Sur @Abdalla

Hukm of the Tariku Salat according to the four madhabs:

Hanafi: he will be imprisoned until he prays
Maliki & Shafi'i: he doesn't Apostate but will be killed for Hadd
Hanbali: he will be killed for apostasy

Where is this hadd extrapolated from?

 

[Hamzza]

Where is this hadd extrapolated from?

The Shafi'i/Maliki hukm is Tazeer not Hadd, the author of the article got it wrong