And they also cite the sayings of the Companions, the saying of the Commander of the Faithful, 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him): "There is no share in Islam for one who abandons prayer."

The questioner : And they also cite the sayings of the Companions, the saying of the Commander of the Faithful, 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him): "There is no share in Islam for one who abandons prayer." The "share" (hazm) is a portion, and here it is an indefinite noun in a context of negation, which makes it general: no portion, whether small or large. This is the saying of 'Umar ibn al-Khattab. What is the answer to it, and is this evidence valid?

The Shaykh : By Allah, I do not have an answer for this right now. It is in *al-Targhib*, but I do not know if it is authentic. I am not recalling it right now.The questioner : In *Sahih al-Targhib*?

The Shaykh : I say no, it is in *al-Targhib*, but I do not know if it is authentic or not.
Al-Halabi : Its authenticity is what comes to mind, perhaps.

The Shaykh : Its authenticity. Do you remember who narrated it?

The Shaykh : "There is no share in Islam," a saying of a Companion. Yes, but this does not go beyond the previous discussion. Now, what comes to mind is, for example, "no faith." What is the difference? "No religion, no share,"... What I want to add to what came before is that this is an indefinite noun that implies comprehensiveness. This is correct Arabic, but this is when there are no proofs that compel us to restrict this implication. Otherwise, if we take the hadith , and , and similar expressions, we would end up with the exit of the Khawarij school. But when this text is combined with such a text, especially since it is *mawquf* (stopping at a Companion) and not *marfu'* (traced to the Prophet), and when it is combined with the hadiths that affirm faith for one who testifies that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and that he will be saved from eternal abode in the Fire, then at that time we are compelled to say that this scientific and jurisprudential term, in that this is a negated indefinite noun which implies comprehensiveness, this is if we look at this text in isolation. But if we look at the other proofs, then at that time we say "no share" is like our saying "no faith" and "no religion" and similar, meaning no complete share, just as we also said regarding brotherhood.

The questioner : Meaning no complete brotherhood?
Al-Halabi : Our Shaykh, in *al-Muwatta*, *al-Muwatta* of Yahya al-Laythi from Malik: Malik narrated to us from Hisham ibn 'Urwah from his father that al-Miswar ibn Makhramah informed him that he entered upon 'Umar ibn al-Khattab on the night he was stabbed, so he woke 'Umar for the Fajr prayer, and 'Umar said: "Yes, and there is no share in Islam for one who abandons prayer."

The Shaykh : It seems this is in al-Bukhari.
Al-Halabi : Yes, I did not want to say that it is in al-Bukhari. By Allah, it occurred to my heart that it is in al-Bukhari, but I did not want to say it because he did not indicate it, even though it is his habit to indicate it, Fu'ad 'Abd al-Baqi, but he did not indicate it.

The Shaykh : This is authentic, yes.

The questioner : Similarly, the answer to the saying of 'Abdullah ibn Shuqayq: "The Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)..." the answer to...

The Shaykh : It is all from this same vein.

The questioner : The precise or correct view is either from the side of the correct view, and it is said: Is it conceivable that a man who has a mustard seed of faith in his heart, who knows the greatness of prayer and Allah's care for it, would then persist in abandoning it? This is something that is not possible. And I have considered the proofs cited by those who say that one is not declared a disbeliever, and I found that they do not go beyond the sayings of the four schools. Either there is no proof in them at all, or they are restricted by a description that makes abandoning prayer impossible, or they are restricted by a state in which one who abandons prayer is excused, or they are general and are specified by the hadiths of disbelief for one who abandons prayer.

The Shaykh : Whose words are these?

The questioner : These are the words of Ibn Uthaymeen.

The Shaykh : Ibn Uthaymeen is good. He is the first to contradict this statement.

The questioner : The first to contradict this statement.

The Shaykh : The author is the first to contradict what he authored and said in this passage, because the research among them is not about one who has not prayed a single prayer in his life, but rather one who abandoned two prayers, and so on. This ruling applies to him, meaning the Hanbalis who differ from the majority. Their restriction is not "And upon you be peace and the mercy of Allah and His blessings..." Did you notice the beginning of his phrase? "Is it conceivable?"

The questioner : Yes, exactly.

The Shaykh : What is this?

The questioner : Is it conceivable that a man who has a mustard seed of faith in his heart, who knows the greatness of prayer and Allah's care for it, would then persist in abandoning it? This is something that is not possible.

The Shaykh : What does "persist in abandoning it" mean? Until death? Or before death?

The questioner : The apparent meaning of the statement is that he never prayed at all.

The Shaykh : That is it. This is not their saying, meaning if he did not pray for a full day, is he a Muslim or a disbeliever? In their view, he is a disbeliever. Ah, that is why we call this a rhetorical language, a poetic language to capture the minds of listeners. I say, just as he says, "it is not conceivable," but the issue is not one of conceivability or inconceivability. The issue, as he (peace be upon him) said: , "for indeed deeds are by their endings." "And upon you be peace and the mercy of Allah and His blessings." Meaning, the truth, my brothers, is that these Hanbalis have not clarified their school of thought on the issue of one who abandons prayer. You have often heard them speak on the radio, and they do not clarify the issue in a way that every listener of their words understands: does he become a disbeliever by abandoning one prayer, or by abandoning five prayers in a day and night, or not, and so on. You do not understand this issue from them at all. And if they want to cling to the apparent meanings of the proofs, "Whoever abandons a prayer intentionally, the covenant of Allah and His Messenger is broken with him." One prayer takes him out of the religion according to their understanding of these texts, without regard for other texts. And if we imagine or assume that they set a limit, for example, if they say, "If he abandons one prayer, he does not become a disbeliever; but if he abandons five prayers, he becomes a disbeliever," we say to them: What is the proof? And they cannot find a way to do that. Therefore, the issue is not resolved except by the school of Ibn 'Abbas: "practical disbelief and creedal disbelief." One who abandons one prayer while deeming it permissible is an apostate from his religion. But one who abandons one prayer while believing in it and acknowledging his shortcoming with Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He) is a sinner and a criminal, and his matter is up to Allah (Mighty and Majestic): if He wills, He will punish him, and if He wills, He will forgive him. Because this is an action, and Allah (Mighty and Majestic) says: "Indeed, Allah does not forgive association with Him, but He forgives what is less than that for whom He wills." And I do not know why the shaykhs there keep repeating this issue to the Muslim world without, as it is said today, "putting the dots on the letters," saying, "One prayer makes one a disbeliever," or "One prayer does not make one a disbeliever, five prayers make one a disbeliever." And when they enter into this detail and this specification, the weakness of their school becomes apparent, because there is no way to set a limit. And consequently, if they set a limit, the theoretical statement that I read to you earlier falls away.

The questioner : I remember that I said to him: What is your opinion of the hadith that says: ? He said: This is from the general that is specified.

The Shaykh : Strange.

The questioner : Meaning, the generality did not enter the hadith at all.

The Shaykh : Yes, they counter with the hadiths that say "Whoever does such and such has disbelieved," many hadiths. Are these hadiths also specified for "whoever has not done any good at all"? No, the one who says this is the one who was saved by faith, not by abandoning the deed.