Explanation of the author's statement: "… mukallaf (one of legal age and sound mind) …"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : The author says "mukallaf". Linguistically, taklif (legal responsibility) means imposing something that involves hardship. It is the hardship of imposing something that involves hardship. However, in the Shari'ah, it is not so, because the Shari'ah does not impose anything that involves hardship at all. [Al-Baqarah 2:286] But in the Shari'ah, it means imposing what is required by the address of the Shari'ah. Yes, this taklif means imposing on him what is required by the address of the Shari'ah, whether it results in hardship for him or not. In fact, if it involves hardship, the Shari'ah does not impose it on him. Taklif includes two descriptions: reaching puberty and having sound mind. So, the meaning of mukallaf is one who has reached puberty and is of sound mind. Therefore, one who has not reached puberty is not obligated to pray, based on textual and rational evidence. Likewise, one who is not of sound mind is not obligated. As for the textual evidence, it is the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): Musnad Ahmad 956Sahih because of corroborating evidence] (Darussalam) As for the rational evidence, it is because both the child and the insane person are not qualified for reasoning, as their intention, whatever it may be, is deficient. For this reason, the non-mukallaf differs from the mukallaf in some matters. What is permitted for the child in terms of play and amusement is not permitted for others. Yes, likewise, the child is given leeway in obligatory matters that is not given to others. So much so that something that would be a major crime for an adult is not a crime for a child. If he commits zina or steals, his hand is not cut off. No, his hand is not cut off because he is not mukallaf. His reasoning is deficient, and his intention is likewise deficient. For this reason, obligatory acts are lifted from him. And the insane person is even more so. What do you say about an adult who is insane?
The questioner : He is not mukallaf.
The Shaykh : He is not mukallaf. Yes, he is not mukallaf. All right. The author says "except for a menstruating woman and a woman in post-natal bleeding". If you say that prayer is not obligatory for a child, did the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) not obligate a person to order his son or daughter to pray at seven and beat them for it at ten? Would a person beat someone for something that is not obligatory on them? The answer to that is to say that as for obligating the parent to order his children and beat them, it is because this is part of completing the care and fulfilling the responsibility he has taken on. The father is qualified for this responsibility. Yes, he is qualified for the responsibility. So, he is obligated to order them to pray at seven and beat them for it at ten, because that is part of completing the discipline and fulfilling the responsibility, not because prayer is obligatory on the child. All right, if the child is six years old, intelligent and good, does he order him or not? No. The apparent meaning of the hadith is that he does not order him, because the limit for testimony is seven. Because at seven, a person generally has the ability to distinguish. If we say that the ability to distinguish is not specific to an age or determined by age, but rather by meaning, and that the ability to distinguish is to understand the address and respond to it, as indicated by the derivation, do we tie the ruling to this or not? This is a matter of consideration. It could be said that we tie the ruling to the ability to distinguish. It could also be said that we tie it to seven, and the Lawgiver is wiser than us. Perhaps before seven, a person cannot bear being ordered, even if he is intelligent. All right, if he is nine years old and leaves off prayer, do we beat him?
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : We do not beat him. We do not beat him at all. The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) is wiser than us. He said, "Beat them for it at ten." And on this basis, perhaps I would beat my son for prayer on a Monday and not beat him on a Sunday. Yes, that is correct.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : We say that ten years have been completed. The last day is Monday. Ten years have been completed. Someone might envy you and say, "Yesterday you did not beat him. If I had known you were going to beat him today, I would not have left off prayer." We say, "We start from today." Yes, we start from today, and the excuse is removed. All right, even other than the parent, anyone who is responsible for this child is addressed with what the parent is addressed with, except in the presence of the parent. Unless the trust is entrusted to him, in which case he is not qualified. For this reason, if the father does not marry off his daughter, the guardianship passes to the next guardian. Yes, that is correct. All right, what does the question actually say? I forgot, look.
Allah does not charge a soul except [with that within] its capacity
لا يكلف الله نفسا إلا وسعهاfrom the crazy - or insane- one until he comes back to his senses, and from the minor until he grows up
رفع القلم عن ثلاثة عن المجنون حتى يفيق وعن الصغير حتى يبلغThe questioner : He is not mukallaf.
The Shaykh : He is not mukallaf. Yes, he is not mukallaf. All right. The author says "except for a menstruating woman and a woman in post-natal bleeding". If you say that prayer is not obligatory for a child, did the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) not obligate a person to order his son or daughter to pray at seven and beat them for it at ten? Would a person beat someone for something that is not obligatory on them? The answer to that is to say that as for obligating the parent to order his children and beat them, it is because this is part of completing the care and fulfilling the responsibility he has taken on. The father is qualified for this responsibility. Yes, he is qualified for the responsibility. So, he is obligated to order them to pray at seven and beat them for it at ten, because that is part of completing the discipline and fulfilling the responsibility, not because prayer is obligatory on the child. All right, if the child is six years old, intelligent and good, does he order him or not? No. The apparent meaning of the hadith is that he does not order him, because the limit for testimony is seven. Because at seven, a person generally has the ability to distinguish. If we say that the ability to distinguish is not specific to an age or determined by age, but rather by meaning, and that the ability to distinguish is to understand the address and respond to it, as indicated by the derivation, do we tie the ruling to this or not? This is a matter of consideration. It could be said that we tie the ruling to the ability to distinguish. It could also be said that we tie it to seven, and the Lawgiver is wiser than us. Perhaps before seven, a person cannot bear being ordered, even if he is intelligent. All right, if he is nine years old and leaves off prayer, do we beat him?
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : We do not beat him. We do not beat him at all. The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) is wiser than us. He said, "Beat them for it at ten." And on this basis, perhaps I would beat my son for prayer on a Monday and not beat him on a Sunday. Yes, that is correct.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : We say that ten years have been completed. The last day is Monday. Ten years have been completed. Someone might envy you and say, "Yesterday you did not beat him. If I had known you were going to beat him today, I would not have left off prayer." We say, "We start from today." Yes, we start from today, and the excuse is removed. All right, even other than the parent, anyone who is responsible for this child is addressed with what the parent is addressed with, except in the presence of the parent. Unless the trust is entrusted to him, in which case he is not qualified. For this reason, if the father does not marry off his daughter, the guardianship passes to the next guardian. Yes, that is correct. All right, what does the question actually say? I forgot, look.