Explanation of the author's statement: "… If he enters the state of consecration based on independent legal reasoning and it is revealed to be before the time, it is voluntary; otherwise, it is obligatory."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He says "If he enters the state of consecration based on independent legal reasoning and it is revealed to be before the time, it is voluntary; otherwise, it is obligatory". "If he enters the state of consecration based on independent legal reasoning". Why did he say "based on independent legal reasoning" and not "based on certainty"? Because if he enters the state of consecration with certainty, it is not possible for it to be revealed that it was before the time, because certainty means witnessing the matter itself with assurance. But if he enters the state of consecration based on independent legal reasoning, meaning he entered the prayer based on independent legal reasoning and it is revealed—what does the subject refer to? It does not refer to him, yes, it refers to the state of consecration. So, the state of consecration is revealed to be before the time, and thus it is voluntary. Even if we suppose that when you said "Allahu Akbar," the upper edge of the sun had disappeared, meaning only something like a wire remained of the sun, and you said "Allahu Akbar" and it disappeared, we say your prayer is now voluntary because you entered the state of consecration, meaning you said the takbir for entering the state of consecration, before the time, so your prayer becomes voluntary.
Now, if he says, "I only meant the duration of 'Allahu Akbar,'" we say, but "Allahu Akbar" is the takbir of entering the state of consecration, and it is a pillar of the prayer. Therefore, this means that you performed a pillar of the prayer outside its time, so it is not valid.
He says "and it is revealed to be before the time, it is voluntary". And his statement "and it is revealed to be before the time", may Allah have mercy on him, indicates that if the matter remained as he judged it and nothing was revealed, then the prayer is valid as an obligatory prayer, because he entered it in the manner he was commanded to do. And whoever performs an act of worship in the manner he was commanded to do, and its invalidity is not revealed, it is valid, even if in reality it is not valid. That is, as long as the matter is not revealed to him, even if we suppose that he entered the state of consecration before the time, it is an obligatory prayer.
And his statement "otherwise, it is obligatory". Otherwise, otherwise, what does it mean? It means, otherwise, if it is revealed to be before the time, it is obligatory. And this includes three scenarios. The first scenario is that it is revealed that it is within the time and the matter is clear, so it is obligatory.
The second is that it is revealed that it is after the time, so it is obligatory.
The third is that the matter is not revealed, so it is also obligatory. It is obligatory. So the scenarios are four. If he enters the state of consecration based on independent legal reasoning, he does not escape from four cases. The first case is that it is revealed that it was before the time, so it is voluntary. The second is within the time, so it is obligatory. The third is after the time, so it is obligatory. The fourth is that the matter remains ambiguous, nothing is revealed, so it is obligatory. Is that right, or not?
Now, if someone asks, "If it falls into the scenarios where it is obligatory, the matter is clear in them, but in the first scenario, why did it become voluntary when he did not intend it, and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said?" The answer is that it should be said that the obligatory prayer actually includes two intentions: the intention of prayer and the intention that it is an obligatory prayer. The intention that it is an obligatory prayer is invalidated because it is revealed that it was before the time. What remains? The intention that it is a prayer.
Therefore, it is appropriate to mention a rule here, or to draw attention to a rule mentioned by the jurists, which is their statement: "What is revealed to be non-existent becomes voluntary, such as a collective obligation that was not one's duty, or an obligatory prayer whose time had not entered". For example: "What is revealed to be non-existent becomes voluntary, such as a collective obligation that was not one's duty, or an obligatory prayer whose time had not entered". A person thought he prayed without ablution, so he repeated the prayer, then he remembered that he had prayed with ablution. This missed prayer was not his duty. So, the fact that this prayer is voluntary is because he thought the time had entered, but it had not. It also becomes voluntary. So, what is the rule? "What is revealed to be non-existent becomes voluntary, such as a collective obligation that was not one's duty, or an obligatory prayer whose time had not entered". Yes.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, this does not harm.
Now, if he says, "I only meant the duration of 'Allahu Akbar,'" we say, but "Allahu Akbar" is the takbir of entering the state of consecration, and it is a pillar of the prayer. Therefore, this means that you performed a pillar of the prayer outside its time, so it is not valid.
He says "and it is revealed to be before the time, it is voluntary". And his statement "and it is revealed to be before the time", may Allah have mercy on him, indicates that if the matter remained as he judged it and nothing was revealed, then the prayer is valid as an obligatory prayer, because he entered it in the manner he was commanded to do. And whoever performs an act of worship in the manner he was commanded to do, and its invalidity is not revealed, it is valid, even if in reality it is not valid. That is, as long as the matter is not revealed to him, even if we suppose that he entered the state of consecration before the time, it is an obligatory prayer.
And his statement "otherwise, it is obligatory". Otherwise, otherwise, what does it mean? It means, otherwise, if it is revealed to be before the time, it is obligatory. And this includes three scenarios. The first scenario is that it is revealed that it is within the time and the matter is clear, so it is obligatory.
The second is that it is revealed that it is after the time, so it is obligatory.
The third is that the matter is not revealed, so it is also obligatory. It is obligatory. So the scenarios are four. If he enters the state of consecration based on independent legal reasoning, he does not escape from four cases. The first case is that it is revealed that it was before the time, so it is voluntary. The second is within the time, so it is obligatory. The third is after the time, so it is obligatory. The fourth is that the matter remains ambiguous, nothing is revealed, so it is obligatory. Is that right, or not?
Now, if someone asks, "If it falls into the scenarios where it is obligatory, the matter is clear in them, but in the first scenario, why did it become voluntary when he did not intend it, and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said
Actions are only by intentions
إنما العمال بالنياتTherefore, it is appropriate to mention a rule here, or to draw attention to a rule mentioned by the jurists, which is their statement: "What is revealed to be non-existent becomes voluntary, such as a collective obligation that was not one's duty, or an obligatory prayer whose time had not entered". For example: "What is revealed to be non-existent becomes voluntary, such as a collective obligation that was not one's duty, or an obligatory prayer whose time had not entered". A person thought he prayed without ablution, so he repeated the prayer, then he remembered that he had prayed with ablution. This missed prayer was not his duty. So, the fact that this prayer is voluntary is because he thought the time had entered, but it had not. It also becomes voluntary. So, what is the rule? "What is revealed to be non-existent becomes voluntary, such as a collective obligation that was not one's duty, or an obligatory prayer whose time had not entered". Yes.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, this does not harm.