Explanation of the author's statement: "... and likewise the one who abandons it out of negligence, and the Imam or his deputy calls him to it, but he persists, and the time for the second prayer becomes narrow for him, and he is not killed until he is called to repent three times in both cases."

The Shaykh : The author said "and likewise the one who abandons it out of negligence, and the Imam or his deputy calls him to it". He said "and likewise the one who abandons it," thereby distinguishing this from what came before. He did not say "and the one who denies its obligation or abandons it out of negligence," but rather "and likewise the one who abandons it." He distinguished this from the first case because this case has conditions. The author (may Allah have mercy on him) stipulated that the Imam or his deputy must call him, and that he must persist in abandoning it until the time for the second prayer becomes narrow. Thus, the author stipulated two conditions for his disbelief. We will first clarify the author's words. We say: if a person abandons it out of negligence and laziness, while affirming its obligation—saying, "I bear witness that there is no god but Allah, and I bear witness that Muhammad is His slave and Messenger, and I bear witness that the five prayers are obligatory"—but he abandons the prayer out of negligence, he commits major shirk (associating partners with Allah) that takes him out of the religion. However, this is subject to a condition: that the Imam or his deputy calls him. This means calling him to perform it. The condition is that the Imam calls him, perhaps several times, because he is the highest authority in the state, whether he is called an Imam, a King, a Caliph, an Amir, or a President. The important thing is that he holds the highest authority in the state; he is the Imam, or his deputy, such as an Amir. If the Imam or the Amir calls him to perform the prayer, but he persists, that is the second condition: that the time for the second prayer becomes narrow for him. If the time for the second prayer becomes narrow for him, he commits disbelief. If he is called and the time for the first prayer becomes narrow, he does not commit disbelief, even if the time passes; he does not commit disbelief by abandoning a single obligatory prayer until its time has passed. The apparent meaning of the author's words is that it is the same whether the first prayer is combined with the second or not. So, if he is called to the 'Asr prayer, he does not commit disbelief until the time for Maghrib becomes narrow for him, even though 'Asr is not combined with Maghrib. The author stipulated two conditions for his disbelief: the first is that the Imam or his deputy calls him; the second is that the time for the second prayer becomes narrow for it. If this man abandons the prayer, but the Imam or the Imam's deputy does not call him to perform it, as is the case now, unfortunately, he does not commit disbelief. He does not commit disbelief. Accordingly, the school of Imam Ahmad, as mentioned by his followers, is that one cannot rule that a person who abandons the prayer in our time is a disbeliever. Why? Because he is not called to it. People are left to their religion and their trust. Therefore, one does not rule that he is a disbeliever, because they stipulate this condition. Likewise, if the Imam or his deputy calls him, and the time for the first prayer becomes narrow and passes, and the Imam remains silent about him, he does not commit disbelief, because he must be called until the time for the second prayer becomes narrow for him. Now, regarding the 'illah (operative cause), we say: for example, the texts regarding the declaration of disbelief for the one who abandons the prayer do not contain these two conditions. So where did you derive these two conditions from? They said: because if the Imam does not call him, we do not know for certain that he abandoned it out of negligence, as he may be excused. He may be excused by an excuse he considers an excuse, though it is not one. So, if the Imam calls him and he persists, we know that the man is not excused. As for the time for the second prayer, he may think that combining prayers without an excuse is permissible. This is apparent in the case where the time for the second prayer, which is combined with the first, becomes narrow, but it is not apparent in the case where the time for the second prayer, which is not combined with the first, becomes narrow, such as 'Asr with Maghrib. They say: perhaps he is ignorant and thinks that all prayers are combined with one another. So, to avert the hadd (fixed punishment) from him, or to avert the ruling of declaring him a disbeliever, we say: we restrict this matter with these two conditions. However, the correct opinion, without doubt, is what some of the followers held, which is that the Imam's call has no effect. The Imam's call has no effect, because this is not found in the Book or the Sunnah. Also, regarding the other matters for which a person is declared a disbeliever, do you say that he does not commit disbelief unless the Imam calls him? No, they do not say that. The possibility of an excuse in those matters is like the possibility of an excuse in the case of the one who abandons the prayer. So, either you apply this condition in every place where the Shari'ah prescribes declaring a person a disbeliever, or you discard this condition regarding the prayer, just as it is discarded regarding other matters. Therefore, the correct view, based on the generality of the evidence, is that he commits disbelief whether the Imam or his deputy calls him or not. But does he commit disbelief by abandoning a single obligatory prayer? There is also disagreement among the scholars on this. Some said he commits disbelief by abandoning a single obligatory prayer; if he is negligent in abandoning a single obligatory prayer until its time passes, he is a disbeliever. Some said by abandoning two obligatory prayers. Some said by abandoning two obligatory prayers if the second is combined with the first. Accordingly, if he abandons Fajr, he commits disbelief when its time passes, but if he abandons Zuhr, he does not commit disbelief until the time for 'Asr passes. However, what appears to me from the evidence is that he does not commit disbelief unless he abandons the prayer in a way that he abandons it, not just a single prayer. I mean, he has resolved in his heart not to pray; he abandons the prayer. It is known that this man does not pray, not Zuhr, not 'Asr, not Maghrib, not 'Isha', and not Fajr. This is the one who commits disbelief. As for the one who prays an obligatory prayer and abandons an obligatory prayer, or prays an obligatory prayer and abandons two obligatory prayers, he does not commit disbelief, because it is not said that he abandoned the prayer, but rather that he abandoned a prayer, not the prayer. The hadith did not say "abandoning a prayer," and likewise . And because the original state is the continuation of Islam, we do not take him out of it except with certainty, because what is established with certainty is not removed except with certainty. So, the original state of this specific man is that he is a Muslim, and we do not take him out of the certain Islam except by the presence of evidence that takes him to disbelief with certainty. And as long as there is doubt in the matter, we do not take him out of Islam.