The Book of Faith-08a
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The reciter: Yahya ibn Yahya narrated to us: Jarir informed us from Mughirah from al-Sha'bi, who said: Jarir ibn Abdullah used to narrate from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that he said: Sahih Muslim 70.
The Shaykh : These are three hadiths, and it is not said that they are three wordings in one hadith; they are all from Jarir, and they are all different. The first says:, and the second says: Sahih Muslim 69, meaning he has no covenant with Allah, and it is close to disbelief, and the third: Sahih Muslim 70, and "prayer" is indefinite in a context of negation, so it is comprehensive.
So, is it that his obligatory and voluntary prayers are not accepted? Or only the voluntary ones? The scholars have two opinions on this:
The first is that the prayer intended here is only the voluntary prayer, and they reasoned this by saying that the obligatory prayer is excluded by the Shari'ah, and that the master does not have the right to occupy the slave with the obligatory prayer.
Some of them said: Rather, the hadith is general, and this is from the category of punishment for him. There is a difference between a slave who is in the obedience of his master and present with him, where the master orders him to do something and he says: "I want to pray the obligatory prayer," and a slave who has run away from his master. As for the first, there is no doubt that the master does not have the right to occupy him during the time of the obligatory prayer. As for the second, he has escaped and fled from his master. For this reason, Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "The invalidity of his obligatory prayer is strong". This is the choice of Ibn Aqil (may Allah have mercy on him), one of the followers of Imam Ahmad, and it is the apparent meaning of the hadith's generality: that his prayer is not accepted. But does this mean: it is not accepted, i.e., it is invalid, and he must repeat it if he is returned to his master? Or does the negation of acceptance mean that this sin counterbalances the prayer? So his prayer is as if it is not accepted? This is a problem, because the hadiths that come with this kind of expression, some of them indicate that the negation of acceptance is a negation of validity, such as:Sunan Abi Dawud 60Sahih (Al-Albani), such as: Sunan al-Bayhaqi 1:167.
And in some of them, it indicates that it is not accepted but it is not repeated; it is not invalid, such as:Sunan an-Nasa'i 5669Da'if (Darussalam) Sunan an-Nasa'i 5669Da'if (Darussalam). It is said: The negation of acceptance, if it is for leaving an obligatory act in the worship or for doing a forbidden act in it, then it is a negation of validity; otherwise, it is not.
When the slave runs away from his master, his prayer is not accepted.
إذا أبق العبد لم تقبل له صلاةٌThe Shaykh : These are three hadiths, and it is not said that they are three wordings in one hadith; they are all from Jarir, and they are all different. The first says:
He has committed disbelief
فقد كفرresponsibility with regard to him was absolved
فقد برئت منه الذمةhis prayer is not accepted
لم تقبل له صلاةSo, is it that his obligatory and voluntary prayers are not accepted? Or only the voluntary ones? The scholars have two opinions on this:
The first is that the prayer intended here is only the voluntary prayer, and they reasoned this by saying that the obligatory prayer is excluded by the Shari'ah, and that the master does not have the right to occupy the slave with the obligatory prayer.
Some of them said: Rather, the hadith is general, and this is from the category of punishment for him. There is a difference between a slave who is in the obedience of his master and present with him, where the master orders him to do something and he says: "I want to pray the obligatory prayer," and a slave who has run away from his master. As for the first, there is no doubt that the master does not have the right to occupy him during the time of the obligatory prayer. As for the second, he has escaped and fled from his master. For this reason, Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "The invalidity of his obligatory prayer is strong". This is the choice of Ibn Aqil (may Allah have mercy on him), one of the followers of Imam Ahmad, and it is the apparent meaning of the hadith's generality: that his prayer is not accepted. But does this mean: it is not accepted, i.e., it is invalid, and he must repeat it if he is returned to his master? Or does the negation of acceptance mean that this sin counterbalances the prayer? So his prayer is as if it is not accepted? This is a problem, because the hadiths that come with this kind of expression, some of them indicate that the negation of acceptance is a negation of validity, such as:
Allaah, the Exalted, does not accept the prayer of any of you when you are defiled until you performed ablution.
لا يقبل الله صلاة أحدكم إذا أحدث حتى يتوضأAllah does not accept charity from stolen war spoils, nor prayer without purification.
لا يقبل الله صدقة من غلول ولا صلاة بغير طهورAnd in some of them, it indicates that it is not accepted but it is not repeated; it is not invalid, such as: