Discussion of the issue of making up the prayer for the one who deliberately neglected it, and discussion of the invalidity of analogizing the divorce of the intoxicated person to the divorce of the angry person, and clarification that it is a defective analogy.

The Shaykh: And thus, what should not be excluded is excluded, or what he does not intend in his consciousness and in his natural state to speak of; so this person is excused by the Shari'ah; because he did not consume the cause that leads him to such a thing which he takes lightly after his return to sanity. As for the intoxicated person, it is forbidden for him to drink a drop of intoxicants, let alone a cup of it, let alone cups of it; until he becomes unaware and does not feel what he is doing, and he mixes things up, and so on. So analogizing the intoxicated person to the angry person—this, as Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him and forgive us and him) says, is the most defective analogy on the face of the earth. His school is that there is no analogy in Islam, and this is, of course, one of his anomalies; and therefore, when he says this phrase that I quoted from him, he presents before it what is not the school of the majority of Muslims. He says: "All analogy is invalid, and this is the very essence of invalidity from it." All analogy is invalid, and this means that when we discuss the analogy of some jurists who expand in analogy in an impermissible way, they present the premise by saying: This analogy is all invalid, and this is the very essence of invalidity from it, and it is the most defective analogy on the face of the earth; why? Because it is from the category of analogizing the opposite to the opposite.
And in reality, some scholars fall into this; they analogize the one who is not excused to the one who is excused. They analogize—for example—the one who leaves the prayer deliberately and intentionally to the one who leaves the prayer while sleeping or forgetting. The sleeper and the forgetful one, by the text of the hadith, are commanded to perform the prayer when they remember it or wake up for it. They say: Yes, by analogizing the one who deliberately left the prayer to the one who forgot it. This is an analogy like what Ibn Hazm said is the most invalid analogy on the face of the earth, like the one who analogizes the intentional killer to the killer of what? Mistake. Who says this analogy is correct? Such a thing has been said in some legal rulings, including this issue of making up the prayer that was missed. You find many people, even the elderly, not only in this era where we see contradictions, where we see young people who have broken free from all the constraints of the Shari'ah, and on the other hand—praise be to Allah—we see young people turning to obedience, including prayer. But we see even in this era some adults entering the mosque, and we see them standing, sitting, and praying, so we feel that these people are making up what is upon them.
Where did this fatwa come from? Even though this analogy is analogizing the opposite to the opposite. He was an open sinner, he was a wicked person, he was negligent, he was leaving the prayer, working in his trade, in his youth, in his arrogance. Then he became forty or fifty years old and turned to his Lord. Now, what does he need? To make up these prayers that he took out of their time deliberately and intentionally. We ask the jurists: What is your evidence? He (peace and blessings be upon him) said: . They say: If the sleeper and the forgetful one were commanded to make up the prayer, then the one who did it deliberately.

Eid Abbasi : A fortiori.

The Shaykh: By a fortiori argument. No, the opposite is the correct one entirely.
So I say—for example—the oath; if a person swore an oath without lying in it; meaning: his oath was not of the type of the grave oath (al-yamin al-ghamus), but rather he swore an oath and saw it this way, then it became clear to him that he was mistaken in his oath. So the hadith came to say: . This has an expiation. So the grave oath, he tells you: "By the Great Allah, yesterday when you came to my house, I was not there," and he is a liar, he was there, and he confirms his oath by saying: "By the Great Allah." Does this have an expiation? Some have said: Yes, it has an expiation. What is the evidence? By analogy to: . My brother, what does this have to do with that? This person swore truthfully. He was angry with a person because he made a mistake with him, so he said: "By Allah, I will never come to you again." Then he returned to his senses and said: This boycott has no Islamic justification. So he went to him and made expiation for his oath. This is what the Wise Lawgiver commanded. As for one who lies "shukra" (thank you) and swears by Allah falsely; this has no expiation. Therefore, the principle of expiations in Islam is established to make up for a deficiency that occurs from a person who is overcome by circumstances.
We return to the analogy of whom? The intoxicated person to the angry person. This is analogizing the opposite to the opposite. The angry person is excused, the intoxicated person is not excused; so this is not attached to that. That one is intoxicated and consumed the causes that lead him to violating the Shari'ah; because he is drowning in violation of the Shari'ah. And what is built on a defective foundation is defective. As for this angry person; the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said: . He was confronted with what stirred him and angered him, and he could not do anything else at all. Therefore, we see what came in the questioner's question that some scholars issued a fatwa that this is an error; meaning: analogizing the divorce of the intoxicated person to the divorce of the angry person is an incorrect analogy. I say: This statement is the correct one. Analogizing the divorce of the intoxicated person to the divorce of the angry person is incorrect. The divorce of the angry person does not take effect; because he went out of the natural state, this state by which Allah (Mighty and Majestic) tied all the obligations: do this, do not do that, without his intention. He went out of his state without his intention. As for that intoxicated person, he went out of his state with his intention.
Other than that?

Eid Abbasi: I entered ... .