On the ruling of declaring a disbeliever one who abandons prayer, citing the Book, the Sunnah, the sayings of the Companions, and correct reasoning, where the listener assumes the issue is as such; what is your opinion regarding their argumentation using the verse from Surat al-Tawbah: “...so they are your brothers in religion,” along with other evidence?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : This is what I intended when I said, regarding Islam, that we should leave those lands as an easy prey for the disbelievers.
The questioner : 'Ali ibn Ma'bad, a Tabi'i.
The Shaykh : 'Ali ibn Ma'bad is not a Tabi'i; that is not how you say it.
The questioner : This is a later author of a book.
The Shaykh : It is possible; and from 'Ali ibn Ma'bad from Abu Hurayrah.
The questioner : I said, for the reminder, it is narrated from 'Ali ibn Ma'bad from Abu Hurayrah the hadith of the marketplace.
The Shaykh : 'Ali ibn Ma'bad may have narrated it; 'Ali ibn Ma'bad, my brother, is not a Tabi'i, but he is from...
The questioner : O our Shaykh, some scholars declare a disbeliever one who abandons prayer. We have discussed this extensively, and they also cite the Book, the Sunnah, the sayings of the Companions, and correct reasoning, and the listener assumes the issue is indeed so. We hope, may Allah preserve you, for a clarification and detailed answer. First, they cite the Qur'an, arguing with the verse in Surat al-Tawbah:[At-Tawbah 9:11] They say the implication of the verse indicates that if they do not do so, they are not your brothers, and brotherhood is not negated by sins, however great, but is negated by exiting Islam. How valid is this argumentation with this verse? It is not hidden from you that the context is about the polytheists.
The Shaykh : My answer is from two aspects: brotherhood may be general or specific. If the brotherhood negated here due to abandoning what Allah has made obligatory is general brotherhood, then their statement is correct. However, there is no evidence compelling opponents to this opinion with their claim, given the possibility that the negated brotherhood is specific brotherhood. This is a strong argument for them, because they distinguish between one who abandons prayer and one who abandons zakah, in that they do not declare one who abandons zakah a disbeliever or apostate, as they do with one who abandons prayer. And since the abandonment of zakah was mentioned alongside the abandonment of prayer, their answer is a dialectical one, but it is correct. We have already presented the scientific answer; so their answer regarding one who abandons zakah is our answer regarding one who abandons prayer.
The questioner : This is a compulsion upon them.
The Shaykh : But the answer regarding the verse has already been given; I have nothing else.
The questioner : Is it not said that He arranged those actions upon the repentance, which is the repentance of Islam, and thus if this repentance is absent, the performance of those other actions has no fruit? This is regarding the repentance, and those are subordinate to the repentance, and the context is about the polytheists.
The Shaykh : The statement is not clear.
The questioner : I mean, now[At-Tawbah 9:11] the speech is about the polytheists.The Shaykh : Okay.
The questioner : So he began the discussion with the repentance, which is the repentance of entering Islam, and thus arranged those matters. So “your brothers in religion” does not imply that it is prior to prayer and giving zakah, but rather due to the repentance in which they entered, and establishing prayer and giving zakah are subordinate to the repentance. Therefore, we do not negate his brotherhood in religion due to his abandonment of prayer alone, because before prayer he repented, or otherwise it is the original state.
The Shaykh : Well, but the answer remains that its implication is contradiction: “your brothers” or “they are not your brothers.”
The questioner : And this is the correct view, due to the repentance, not due to the prayer.
The Shaykh : How? Because his intention is not yet clarified: the implication of contradiction, and where is the proof? “If they do not establish prayer and give zakah, they are not your brothers.”
The questioner : There is before his saying “establishing prayer and giving zakah” the phrase “if they do not repent,” and those actions are subordinate.
The Shaykh : Fine, if we say “if they do not repent, they are not your brothers.”
The questioner : Of course.
The Shaykh : Well, if they do not repent and do not pray.
The questioner : This becomes the other discussion you mentioned, our professor.
The Shaykh : This is... about him, my brother.
The questioner : In your opinion, we will say “if they do not repent and establish prayer and give zakah, they are not our brothers.”The Shaykh : Yes, we cannot say that the intended meaning is only in the first sentence, which is repentance, but rather repentance, establishing prayer, and giving zakah. This group, if negated, equals the negation of brotherhood. But this negated brotherhood is absolute brotherhood, meaning they are polytheists as they were before. To the extent they lack, the brotherhood decreases, so the negated one is the brotherhood of perfection, likeMishkat al-Masabih 35Hasan (Zubair `Aliza'i) negation of perfection, not negation of validity.
The questioner : So this last paragraph answered an argument from the Sunnah, which is their saying that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) saidSunan Ibn Majah 1078Sahih (Darussalam) and that These hadiths are not to be taken at their apparent meaning.
The Shaykh : Disbelief less than disbelief; this was explained by Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him).
The questioner : Well, there is further clarification in this.
The Shaykh : This is sufficient for now.
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.” “Share” means portion, and here it is an indefinite noun in a context of negation, so it is general: no share, little or much. This is the saying of 'Umar ibn al-Khattab. What is the answer to this, and is this argumentation valid?
The Shaykh : The answer to this is found in al-Targhib, but I do not know if it is correct. I say it is found in al-Targhib, but I do not know if it is authentic or not. I do not remember who narrated “There is no share in Islam.”
The questioner : A saying of a Companion.
The Shaykh : A saying of a Companion. Yes, this question does not go beyond the previous discussion. Now it occurs to me, like what is the difference and and “no share.” And as mentioned before, this is an indefinite noun that implies comprehensiveness. This is correct Arabic, but this is when there are no proofs compelling 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, especially since it is mawquf and not marfu', 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 we are compelled to say that this scientific jurisprudential term, in that this is a negated indefinite noun which implies comprehensiveness, is if we look at this text in isolation. But if we look at other examples, then we say “no share” is like our saying in and similar, meaning no complete share, as we also said regarding brotherhood.
The questioner : In “al-Muwatta”, the Muwatta of Yahya ibn 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 to be in al-Bukhari, this.
The questioner : Yes, I did not want to say it is in al-Bukhari, and Allah knows it occurred to my heart that it is in al-Bukhari, but I did not want to say it exactly as he indicated, because it is his habit to indicate, Fu'ad 'Abd al-Baqi.
The Shaykh : This is authentic.
The questioner : And the answer would also be to the saying of 'Abdullah ibn Shuqayq: “The Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)...”
The Shaykh : It is all of this sort.
The questioner : The precise or correct view remains. As for the aspect of correct reasoning, 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 impossible. And I have considered the evidence cited by those who say he does not become a disbeliever, and I found it does not go beyond four types: either there is no evidence in it at all, or it is restricted by a description with which abandoning prayer is impossible, or it is restricted by a state in which one is excused for abandoning this prayer, or it is general and is specified by the hadiths of the disbelief of one who abandons prayer.
The Shaykh : What is this?
The questioner : This is Ibn Uthaymeen.
The Shaykh : This is the first person to contradict this statement. The author is the first to contradict what he wrote and said in this paragraph, because the issue in their view is not about one who has never prayed in his life, but rather about one who leaves off two prayers, and so on. This ruling applies to him, meaning the Hanbalis who differ from the majority. In reality, our brothers, these Hanbalis, are not clear in their school of jurisprudence regarding the issue of the one who leaves off prayer. I have often heard them speak on the radio, but they do not clarify the issue in a way that every listener can understand from their words. Do they declare a disbeliever the one who leaves off one prayer, or the one who leaves off five prayers in a day and night, or what? You cannot understand this issue from them at all. And if they want to cling to the apparent meanings of the evidence, saying that whoever leaves off a prayer intentionally has broken the covenant of Allah and His Messenger, then one prayer takes him out of the religion according to his understanding of these texts, without regard for the other texts. And if we imagine or suppose that they set a limit, for example, saying that if one leaves off one prayer he is not a disbeliever, but if he leaves off five prayers he is a disbeliever, we would say to them: What is the evidence? And they would be unable to find a way to that. Therefore, the issue is not resolved except by the school of Ibn 'Abbas: practical disbelief and doctrinal disbelief. Whoever leaves off one prayer while considering it permissible is an apostate from his religion. But whoever leaves off 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 affair 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:[An-Nisa 4:48] And I do not know why the scholars there keep repeating this issue to the general Muslim public without, as it is said today, putting the dots on the letters, saying that one prayer makes one a disbeliever, or that one prayer does not make one a disbeliever, but five prayers do. And when they enter into this detail and this limitation, the weakness of their school becomes apparent, because there is no way to set a limit. And thus, if they set a limit, the theoretical statement I read to you earlier falls away.
The questioner : I remember that I said to him: What do you say about the hadith that says: He said: This is from the specific general, and I do not know what the generality in the hadith is in the first place.
The Shaykh : They counter by saying that the hadiths in which it is said "whoever does such and such has disbelieved" are numerous. These hadiths are also specified by "whoever has never done any good." There is no one who holds that the one who was saved was saved by leaving off the action, but rather by faith.
The questioner : In the hadith about the person, the meaning is: If ... five times, then there is no faith in him. If He wills, He will admit him to Paradise, and if He wills, He will forgive him. This is the hadith.
The Shaykh : Yes, this hadith is well known:
The questioner : 'Ali ibn Ma'bad, a Tabi'i.
The Shaykh : 'Ali ibn Ma'bad is not a Tabi'i; that is not how you say it.
The questioner : This is a later author of a book.
The Shaykh : It is possible; and from 'Ali ibn Ma'bad from Abu Hurayrah.
The questioner : I said, for the reminder, it is narrated from 'Ali ibn Ma'bad from Abu Hurayrah the hadith of the marketplace.
The Shaykh : 'Ali ibn Ma'bad may have narrated it; 'Ali ibn Ma'bad, my brother, is not a Tabi'i, but he is from...
The questioner : O our Shaykh, some scholars declare a disbeliever one who abandons prayer. We have discussed this extensively, and they also cite the Book, the Sunnah, the sayings of the Companions, and correct reasoning, and the listener assumes the issue is indeed so. We hope, may Allah preserve you, for a clarification and detailed answer. First, they cite the Qur'an, arguing with the verse in Surat al-Tawbah:
But if they repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, then they are your brothers in religion
فإن تابوا وأقاموا الصلاة وآتوا الزكاة فإخوانكم في الدينThe Shaykh : My answer is from two aspects: brotherhood may be general or specific. If the brotherhood negated here due to abandoning what Allah has made obligatory is general brotherhood, then their statement is correct. However, there is no evidence compelling opponents to this opinion with their claim, given the possibility that the negated brotherhood is specific brotherhood. This is a strong argument for them, because they distinguish between one who abandons prayer and one who abandons zakah, in that they do not declare one who abandons zakah a disbeliever or apostate, as they do with one who abandons prayer. And since the abandonment of zakah was mentioned alongside the abandonment of prayer, their answer is a dialectical one, but it is correct. We have already presented the scientific answer; so their answer regarding one who abandons zakah is our answer regarding one who abandons prayer.
The questioner : This is a compulsion upon them.
The Shaykh : But the answer regarding the verse has already been given; I have nothing else.
The questioner : Is it not said that He arranged those actions upon the repentance, which is the repentance of Islam, and thus if this repentance is absent, the performance of those other actions has no fruit? This is regarding the repentance, and those are subordinate to the repentance, and the context is about the polytheists.
The Shaykh : The statement is not clear.
The questioner : I mean, now
But if they repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, then they are your brothers
فإن تابوا وأقاموا الصلاة وآتوا الزكاة فإخوانكمThe questioner : So he began the discussion with the repentance, which is the repentance of entering Islam, and thus arranged those matters. So “your brothers in religion” does not imply that it is prior to prayer and giving zakah, but rather due to the repentance in which they entered, and establishing prayer and giving zakah are subordinate to the repentance. Therefore, we do not negate his brotherhood in religion due to his abandonment of prayer alone, because before prayer he repented, or otherwise it is the original state.
The Shaykh : Well, but the answer remains that its implication is contradiction: “your brothers” or “they are not your brothers.”
The questioner : And this is the correct view, due to the repentance, not due to the prayer.
The Shaykh : How? Because his intention is not yet clarified: the implication of contradiction, and where is the proof? “If they do not establish prayer and give zakah, they are not your brothers.”
The questioner : There is before his saying “establishing prayer and giving zakah” the phrase “if they do not repent,” and those actions are subordinate.
The Shaykh : Fine, if we say “if they do not repent, they are not your brothers.”
The questioner : Of course.
The Shaykh : Well, if they do not repent and do not pray.
The questioner : This becomes the other discussion you mentioned, our professor.
The Shaykh : This is... about him, my brother.
The questioner : In your opinion, we will say “if they do not repent and establish prayer and give zakah, they are not our brothers.”The Shaykh : Yes, we cannot say that the intended meaning is only in the first sentence, which is repentance, but rather repentance, establishing prayer, and giving zakah. This group, if negated, equals the negation of brotherhood. But this negated brotherhood is absolute brotherhood, meaning they are polytheists as they were before. To the extent they lack, the brotherhood decreases, so the negated one is the brotherhood of perfection, like
He who is not trustworthy has no faith, and he who does not keep his covenant has no religion.
لا إيمان لمن لا أمانة له ولا دين لمن لا عهد لهThe questioner : So this last paragraph answered an argument from the Sunnah, which is their saying that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said
Between a person and Kufr (disbelief) is abandoning the prayer.
بين الرجل وبين الكفر ترك الصلاةThe covenant between us and them, so whoever leaves it off has disbelieved
العهد الذي بيننا وبينهم فمن تركها فقد كفرThe Shaykh : Disbelief less than disbelief; this was explained by Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him).
The questioner : Well, there is further clarification in this.
The Shaykh : This is sufficient for now.
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.” “Share” means portion, and here it is an indefinite noun in a context of negation, so it is general: no share, little or much. This is the saying of 'Umar ibn al-Khattab. What is the answer to this, and is this argumentation valid?
The Shaykh : The answer to this is found in al-Targhib, but I do not know if it is correct. I say it is found in al-Targhib, but I do not know if it is authentic or not. I do not remember who narrated “There is no share in Islam.”
The questioner : A saying of a Companion.
The Shaykh : A saying of a Companion. Yes, this question does not go beyond the previous discussion. Now it occurs to me, like
There is no faith
لا إيمانThere is no religion
لا دينThere is no faith
لا إيمانNo one enters Paradise
لا يدخل الجنةThere is no faith
لا إيمانThere is no religion
لا دينThe questioner : In “al-Muwatta”, the Muwatta of Yahya ibn 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 to be in al-Bukhari, this.
The questioner : Yes, I did not want to say it is in al-Bukhari, and Allah knows it occurred to my heart that it is in al-Bukhari, but I did not want to say it exactly as he indicated, because it is his habit to indicate, Fu'ad 'Abd al-Baqi.
The Shaykh : This is authentic.
The questioner : And the answer would also be to the saying of 'Abdullah ibn Shuqayq: “The Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)...”
The Shaykh : It is all of this sort.
The questioner : The precise or correct view remains. As for the aspect of correct reasoning, 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 impossible. And I have considered the evidence cited by those who say he does not become a disbeliever, and I found it does not go beyond four types: either there is no evidence in it at all, or it is restricted by a description with which abandoning prayer is impossible, or it is restricted by a state in which one is excused for abandoning this prayer, or it is general and is specified by the hadiths of the disbelief of one who abandons prayer.
The Shaykh : What is this?
The questioner : This is Ibn Uthaymeen.
The Shaykh : This is the first person to contradict this statement. The author is the first to contradict what he wrote and said in this paragraph, because the issue in their view is not about one who has never prayed in his life, but rather about one who leaves off two prayers, and so on. This ruling applies to him, meaning the Hanbalis who differ from the majority. In reality, our brothers, these Hanbalis, are not clear in their school of jurisprudence regarding the issue of the one who leaves off prayer. I have often heard them speak on the radio, but they do not clarify the issue in a way that every listener can understand from their words. Do they declare a disbeliever the one who leaves off one prayer, or the one who leaves off five prayers in a day and night, or what? You cannot understand this issue from them at all. And if they want to cling to the apparent meanings of the evidence, saying that whoever leaves off a prayer intentionally has broken the covenant of Allah and His Messenger, then one prayer takes him out of the religion according to his understanding of these texts, without regard for the other texts. And if we imagine or suppose that they set a limit, for example, saying that if one leaves off one prayer he is not a disbeliever, but if he leaves off five prayers he is a disbeliever, we would say to them: What is the evidence? And they would be unable to find a way to that. Therefore, the issue is not resolved except by the school of Ibn 'Abbas: practical disbelief and doctrinal disbelief. Whoever leaves off one prayer while considering it permissible is an apostate from his religion. But whoever leaves off 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 affair 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
إن الله لا يغفر أن يشرك به ويغفر ما دون ذلك لمن يشاءThe questioner : I remember that I said to him: What do you say about the hadith that says:
A caller will call out: Take out of the Fire whoever has never done any good
ينادي منادٍ أخرجوا من النار من لم يعمل خيرًا قطThe Shaykh : They counter by saying that the hadiths in which it is said "whoever does such and such has disbelieved" are numerous. These hadiths are also specified by "whoever has never done any good." There is no one who holds that the one who was saved was saved by leaving off the action, but rather by faith.
The questioner : In the hadith about the person, the meaning is: If ... five times, then there is no faith in him. If He wills, He will admit him to Paradise, and if He wills, He will forgive him. This is the hadith.
The Shaykh : Yes, this hadith is well known: