Explanation of the Book of Prayer-13

The Shaykh : And we took the benefits. He said: “And from him—meaning Muslim—was narrated from Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) that she said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) say:

No Salat (prayer) should be performed when the food has been served, nor should it be performed when a person is in need of relieving himself.

لا صلاة بحضرة طعام ولا وهو يدافعه الأخبثان

Riyad as-Salihin 1753

”.
This hadith should have come earlier. Where is its place? Meaning, if the author had placed it there, or delayed that one to here, because they are from the same chapter.
His saying (peace and blessings be upon him): “There is no prayer”: “La” is a negator of the genus. It can be a negator of the genus or a negator of the singular, meaning for one individual. The former is built, meaning its name is built because it is composed with it, and it signifies the explicitness of generality, meaning its negation is explicit in generality. An example of that is “There is no man in the house”, so it negates the genus of men, meaning there is not one man, nor two, nor three, nor half a man, because it is a negator of the genus, not of a specific individual. As for the negator of the singular, meaning for one individual, it functions like “laysa” and is not explicit in generality. So when the Arab man speaks and says: “There is not a man in the house”, it is not like his speech when he says: “There is no man in the house”. Why? Because “la” here is a negator of the genus. “There is no man in the house” is a negator of the genus, meaning no one of this genus exists. But if he says “There is not a man in the house,” we know that it is a negator of the singular, meaning there is not one man in the house, but rather two, three, or ten. For this reason, he says “There is not a man in the house, but rather ten.” But if he said “There is no man in the house,” he cannot say “but rather ten.” The difference is clear. So, looking at this hadith , is it a negator of the genus, meaning there is not one prayer, but rather two? Answer?
The student: No.

The Shaykh : No. So it is a negator of the genus, meaning that the genus of prayer—whether obligatory or voluntary, with bowing and prostration, or a funeral prayer—cannot be performed.
And is this negation a negation of existence? Meaning, no one can pray in the presence of food? Or is it a negation of validity? Or a negation of perfection? This is based on a known rule, which is that the original state of negation is that it comes to negate existence. This is the original rule. If it is impossible to interpret it as such because the thing exists, we move to the negation of legal existence, which is the negation of validity, because what is not valid in the Shari'ah, its existence and its non-existence are the same in the Shari'ah. If that is also impossible, because the evidence indicates the validity of this negated thing, we move to a third stage, which is the negation of perfection.
So, the negation of obligation here is impossible, because a person may pray in the presence of food, and may pray while struggling with the two impurities. The negation of validity? This is based on the obligation of khushu' (humility) in prayer. If we say that khushu' in prayer is obligatory, and that if a person is distracted from the presence of heart in all or most of his prayer, his prayer is invalid, then the negation here is of what? Of validity. And if we say that khushu' in prayer is a sunnah and not obligatory, then the negation here is of what? Of perfection.
It remains to be said: Can we interpret it as a negation of perfection while it is possible to interpret it as a negation of validity? The answer is no, because the original state of negation is the negation of reality, not perfection. And we have discussed this at the beginning of the chapter and clarified that what appears is what the majority went to, that khushu' in prayer is a confirmed sunnah. Even though the apparent wording of Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him) in “The Luminous Rules” is that it is obligatory, because he began to digress in the evidence and said, “And among what indicates the obligation of khushu' is...,” then he presented the evidence.
And his saying: This is not absolute, but rather in the presence of food that one is desirous of and whose consumption is lawful for him. This condition is necessary. If he is not desirous of it, he does not fall under the hadith. And if he is desirous of it but it is not lawful for him, he does not fall under the hadith, as we will clarify in the explanation or in the benefits.
So the “waw” is for the state, and “he” refers to the one praying. “Struggling with them” means sometimes he is able to endure the two impurities and sometimes he is not able. It is a struggle. And the two impurities are urine and feces. And “impurity” here is from ritual impurity, meaning that they are ritually impure, and their ritual impurity is by consensus, indeed by explicit text and consensus.