The Implication of Contrariety in the Hadith: (Whoever eats or drinks while forgetting; there is no making up for him)

The questioner : How is the implication of contrariety in his saying (peace and blessings be upon him), as narrated by al-Daraqutni, which is an authentic hadith, to be answered: ?

The Shaykh : What is the implication of contrariety that you mean?

The questioner : That whoever eats or drinks.

The Shaykh : This is the explicit wording of the hadith; what do you mean by the implication?

The questioner : Intentionally, in which case he must make up the fast and pay the expiation, as is apparent from the hadith.

The Shaykh : Ah, does this implication mean?

The questioner: Yes.

Another questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Be patient—may Allah reward you—there is a question here.
First: It is reported in the hadith of the man who had intercourse with his wife in Ramadan that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered him to pay the expiation, and in some of the multiple narrations, it is stated that he (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered him to make up that day. The implication you referred to in al-Daraqutni’s hadith can be understood in light of this explicit text, which serves as evidence or proof. This is because the Wise Lawgiver only ordered the performance of every act of worship in its proper time to purify the hearts of the believing servants. For example, regarding prayer, when He (the Exalted) said: , if a Muslim intentionally leaves the prayer and delays it beyond its time, then wishes to make it up, as is expressed in some books of jurisprudence, this making up requires specific evidence. Otherwise, the Qur’anic text and the Prophetic hadiths of similar meaning would be meaningless and of no value, because it would be the same for him whether he prayed the prayer in its time or after its time; his prayer would be accepted. Although he may be sinful if he prayed it outside its time, the important point is that he shares in the validity of the prayer with the one who maintained its performance in its time. There is a very great difference between the one who performed the prayer in its time and the one who performed it outside its time. The first is sinful, unlike the second, who is rewarded because he carried out the divine command to maintain the performance of prayer in its time.
Second: It is stated in the authentic hadith that he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: . If a person sleeps through a prayer or forgets it, then wakes up for it or remembers it, the time for this forgotten prayer or the one he slept through is to immediately perform it at the time of remembering. If he says to himself, "The time for this prayer has passed, so I will pray it after I finish preparing for it," he has missed the second time that the Wise Lawgiver extended for him due to the excuse of sleep or forgetfulness. He cannot make it up in a time other than that second time, which he also wasted intentionally and deliberately. Once we understand this, it becomes clear that the timing of the prayer times is not a matter of indifference in which a person has the choice to maintain it or let it go. They are never equal, for example. If a person performs the worship in its designated time, there is no doubt that his worship is valid, provided that the remaining conditions and pillars are met. However, if he neglects the condition—which is the condition of time—then the one who says that he must perform that worship in another time needs a text, as is the case with the hadith of the man who had intercourse with his wife in Ramadan. He (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered him to pay the major expiation, and additionally to make up the day he broke his fast through intercourse. We do not have a text that orders every intentional breaker of the fast, like the one who had intercourse, to make up the fast. Therefore, we say that the implication of the word in al-Daraqutni’s hadith has a limited indication regarding the hadith of the one who broke his fast through intercourse in Ramadan, and the implication of the rest has no effect or consideration.
Yes.