Is the intended meaning of the definite article "al" in the hadith the word "disbelief" in the sense of a mental covenant, i.e., disbelief that expels one from the religion (between a man and disbelief is the abandonment of prayer)?

The questioner : My last question, O Shaykh, is this: This morning, in a discussion about the issue of the one who abandons prayer, I mentioned a hadith in *Sahih Muslim* from Jabir , and I mentioned that there are hadiths that came with and other hadiths, but the word "disbelief" with the definite article "al" did not appear except in the issue of prayer in this hadith.

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : So, based on the meanings of "al" in the language, whether it is for totality or for a specific covenant, what do we derive from it? Is not the covenantal disbelief, which is the disbelief of exiting the religion, or is it totality? If it is totality, then this is stronger in argument. So how do you respond to the one who argues with this hadith that the intended disbelief is major shirk?

The Shaykh : And what does the hadith say?

The questioner : Narrated by Muslim.

The Shaykh : So whoever abandons the prayer.

The questioner : He has committed disbelief.

The Shaykh : Where is the definition, the totality, and the comprehensiveness? Where are they?

The questioner : Between disbelief and shirk, this is in the word "disbelief" and "shirk." Is there not totality here?

The Shaykh : If it were disbelief, if he intended practical disbelief, the expression would be different.

The questioner : But may Allah reward you with good. I heard you in an old talk that the ruling is always taken as the highest of the highest. So, for example, here we now have . This can be interpreted as a practical matter, but now "disbelief" and "shirk" have come, knowing that there is no hadith in which the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) explicitly stated that it is disbelief or shirk except in the issue of abandoning prayer. Does this not mean that one can argue with it for the disbelief of the one who abandons prayer as a creedal disbelief?

The Shaykh : I think you know that any hadith has an apparent indication to which the mind turns, but if a legal obstacle prevents the mind from turning to this apparent indication, then what is called ta'wil (interpretation) and reconciliation between hadiths comes in. For example, his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): . If we look at this generalization, does it not mean that he is a disbeliever, because he denied faith absolutely?

The questioner : But "faith" here is indefinite.

The Shaykh : Does an indefinite noun not imply comprehensiveness?

The questioner : It implies comprehensiveness, yes.

The Shaykh : So he denied faith absolutely, , and there are many such things in the legal texts. But when a person combines this text with another text, he is forced to say "not complete faith."

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Not complete religion, and on this basis many hadiths have been interpreted.
Like his saying (peace and blessings be upon him), according to the majority of the imams, . This is a denial of the prayer, meaning the prayer is invalid. But those who say that this prayer with the congregation is obligatory, but it is not a condition or a pillar of the prayer, are forced to interpret this hadith in light of the other hadiths . The intention here now is not to finalize the ruling on such a hadith, but rather to remind of the methods of the scholars in the path of reconciling a hadith that indicates something by its apparent meaning, and then when they combine it with other hadiths, they are forced to depart from this apparent indication and understand that the indication of the hadith is in light of the other hadiths. And there are many hadiths in this regard, for example: . What comes to mind?

The questioner : That he does not enter Paradise ever.

The Shaykh : He does not enter ever, but when you come to hadiths that indicate that a Muslim does not remain in the Fire forever, no matter how much he sins, and you mention, for example, the hadith of the card and the like . All these hadiths, when combined with a hadith like , or the talebearer, or the one who commits adultery with his wife, or so on, one is forced to understand the hadith other than what comes to mind. Let the famous hadith be so, because there is absolutely nothing in the Shari'ah that a person becomes a disbeliever by abandoning an act while he believes that this act is a sin.

The questioner : Well, some narrations that support this view, like the issue, meaning the saying of Abdullah ibn Shuqayq: "They did not consider any act whose abandonment is disbelief except prayer", and like the hadith of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him): , or "the first thing to be lost," and so on. And Imam Ahmad said: "A thing whose end has gone, nothing of it remains".

The Shaykh : All this is not a text on takfir, which is exiting the religion. And we said in the session, and we said in the session, when does one become a disbeliever with one prayer?

The questioner : They differ.

The Shaykh : No problem, why did they differ?

The questioner : Because of their understanding of the issue of the one who abandons it: did he abandon it entirely or did he abandon some of it.

The Shaykh : Well, so there is no definitive text on the issue, otherwise they would not have differed.

The questioner : The definiteness is from the side of disbelief, not the amount of abandonment. This is the view of the scholars.

The Shaykh : You say "scholars"! Most scholars say the opposite of what the scholars say.

The questioner : Yes, but I mean those who said it, and they are many of the later scholars.

The Shaykh : I understand, but I say that in such an issue, it is not permissible to discard the theory of the others regarding such hadiths. The hadith of Abdullah ibn Shuqayq, if you look at it in light of what hadith?

The questioner : They did not consider.

The Shaykh : They did not consider. Well, is this correct? Correct, I mean in terms of meaning? Is there disbelief here and the saying of the Messenger: ? The Companions do not see that.

The questioner : Disbelief that expels from the religion, O Shaykh.
Another questioner: Clarify this. Specify it. The Companions, from their understanding of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) of his words, clarified that this disbelief is the disbelief that expels from the religion.

The Shaykh : Who clarified it? May Allah bless you.

The questioner : The Companions.

The Shaykh : No, no.

The questioner : The Companion says: "They did not see anything whose abandonment is disbelief except prayer". And hadiths came from the Messenger that this is disbelief, and fighting a Muslim is disbelief, and so on. So we say that the Companions understood that that is disbelief that expels from the religion from the other hadiths they understood from the Messenger, like the hadith of disbelief and shirk, and so on, and they understood that the rest is not.

The Shaykh : My brother, your saying "they understood" requires something other than this text: "They did not see anything of the acts whose abandonment is disbelief except what? Prayer". Well, abandoning zakah, for example?

The questioner : They did not see.

The Shaykh : And Hajj?

The questioner : If he means that as a sinner, not as a disbeliever, they did not see, according to this text.

The Shaykh : Of course, the research is about prayer, starting from prayer, not about the disbeliever, because if he denied it, the matter is over. Well, What is the difference? Come, Glory be to You, O Allah, and praise be to You. I bear witness that there is no god but You.