What is the ruling on praying in a usurped house?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : The third question asks: If there is a usurped house and a person is compelled to reside in it, is his prayer in this house valid or not?
The Shaykh : The scholars have differed on the validity of prayer in a usurped house. Some said that the prayer is valid because the prohibition is against residing in the house, not against praying. Therefore, the prohibition is not specific to this act of worship, and any prohibition that is not specific to an act of worship does not invalidate it. For this reason, if a fasting person backbites someone, this act is forbidden, but it does not invalidate the fast, because it was not forbidden for the sake of the fast.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : However, if he ate or drank, his fast would become invalid because the prohibition is specific to fasting. Here, prayer in a usurped place is not prohibited in itself, but because he seized this house and usurped it. Therefore, staying in this house for prayer or anything else is forbidden. This is the opinion of many scholars that prayer in a usurped place is valid, but he is sinful for staying and seizing it without right.
The second opinion of the scholars in this issue is that his prayer is invalid because it took place in a usurped place, so it is like prayer that takes place in a time when it is forbidden to perform it. Thus, if absolute voluntary prayer takes place in a prohibited time, it is invalid because it is forbidden to perform this prayer in that time. Similarly, this usurped place, since it is absolutely forbidden to stay in it, staying in it for prayer is staying in a place where staying is forbidden, so the prayer is performed in a forbidden state and is invalid. This is the well-known position of the school of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal. However, if a person is confined in a usurped place and is unable to escape from it and prays, then his prayer is valid and he does not have to repeat it. Yes.
The Shaykh : The scholars have differed on the validity of prayer in a usurped house. Some said that the prayer is valid because the prohibition is against residing in the house, not against praying. Therefore, the prohibition is not specific to this act of worship, and any prohibition that is not specific to an act of worship does not invalidate it. For this reason, if a fasting person backbites someone, this act is forbidden, but it does not invalidate the fast, because it was not forbidden for the sake of the fast.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : However, if he ate or drank, his fast would become invalid because the prohibition is specific to fasting. Here, prayer in a usurped place is not prohibited in itself, but because he seized this house and usurped it. Therefore, staying in this house for prayer or anything else is forbidden. This is the opinion of many scholars that prayer in a usurped place is valid, but he is sinful for staying and seizing it without right.
The second opinion of the scholars in this issue is that his prayer is invalid because it took place in a usurped place, so it is like prayer that takes place in a time when it is forbidden to perform it. Thus, if absolute voluntary prayer takes place in a prohibited time, it is invalid because it is forbidden to perform this prayer in that time. Similarly, this usurped place, since it is absolutely forbidden to stay in it, staying in it for prayer is staying in a place where staying is forbidden, so the prayer is performed in a forbidden state and is invalid. This is the well-known position of the school of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal. However, if a person is confined in a usurped place and is unable to escape from it and prays, then his prayer is valid and he does not have to repeat it. Yes.