Discussion on the fact that all prohibitions in acts of worship do not result in a ruling if they occur due to ignorance, forgetfulness, or coercion.

The Shaykh : And so we say regarding all prohibitions in acts of worship, all prohibitions in acts of worship are dropped and no ruling results from them if they occur with ignorance, or forgetfulness, or coercion, is that so? Because of the generality of the texts, and because the original basis for the penalty, or the ransom, or the expiation is to redeem the soul from transgression or to atone for the sin. Did the forgetful person or the ignorant person intend the transgression? Absolutely not, he did not intend the transgression. And for this reason, if he had been mindful, he would not have done it. Drinking in Ramadan out of forgetfulness, there is no making up of the fast, correct? The evidence is the hadith of Abu Hurayrah: If someone had said to this forgetful person: I want you to drink, and you are mindful that today is from Ramadan and you are fasting, would he refuse or agree?

The questioner : ...he refuses.

The Shaykh : He would refuse most strongly. So the forgetful person did not intend the transgression, he did not intend to transgress against Allah and His Messenger, so he is not a sinner. And if the ransom and the expiation are negated, how can a person redeem himself from something that is nothing, is that not so? So the stronger opinion is that all prohibitions in all acts of worship, if a person does them out of forgetfulness or under coercion, he owes nothing.
Mu'awiyah ibn al-Hakam entered with the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) into the prayer, ... he entered into the prayer and a man from the people sneezed and said, "Praise be to Allah." Mu'awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) knew that responding to the sneezer when he praises is obligatory, so he said, "May Allah have mercy on you," while he was praying. "May Allah have mercy on you," he was addressing him. So is the speech with a human or not? Good. So the people threw their gazes at him, meaning they looked at him in disapproval or approval? In disapproval. So he said, "Woe to my mother," (may Allah be pleased with him), meaning he regretted it. So he added more speech, and they began hitting their thighs to silence him, so he was silent. When he finished the prayer, the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) called him. Mu'awiyah said: "By my father and mother, I have never seen a teacher who taught better than him. May Allah send blessings and peace upon him. We will complete the rest of the hadith after the adhan, if Allah wills, ...
The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) called him, he called Mu'awiyah ibn al-Hakam and said: or as he said, and he did not order him to repeat the prayer. Why? Because he was ignorant. And the one who spoils his prayer was ordered to repeat it, even though he was ignorant. But the one who spoils his prayer left off something commanded, and the commanded matters are positive things that must be present, and the prohibited matters are negative things that must be absent. Then, the commanded matters can be made up by doing them, but the prohibited matters have passed. Yes, if it is during the prohibition or during the prohibited act, it can be made up by stopping it. In fasting, forgetfulness, you heard, and ignorance. The ignorance of 'Adi ibn Hatim (may Allah be pleased with him). He wanted to fast, and they used to take rulings directly from the Qur'an. So the verse says in it, Allah says: What did he do? He placed two ropes under his pillow, meaning two ropes used to tether camels, one white and one black. And he kept eating and drinking. Whenever he ate a little, he looked at the two ropes to see if the white had become distinct from the black. When the white became distinct from the black, he stopped. So he informed the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) of this, and he said to him: "Your pillow is indeed wide, if it had encompassed the white and the black ropes." Meaning the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) was marveling at him, meaning if the two ropes were not mentioned, it means the pillow is large. This is the correct view: that the Messenger was marveling at him. But the rhetoricians, may Allah forgive them, said: The Messenger said to him: You are dull, you do not know, because the width of the pillow indicates the length of the neck, and the length of the neck indicates dullness. Pay attention to the necks. Why did they say that? Because if the neck is long, the connection between the heart and the brain is far, which necessitates that he be dull. But, praise be to Allah, we have never seen a person with a long neck who is dull, absolutely not. So the important thing is that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) clarified to him that this is not correct and said: Did he order him to repeat it?

The questioner : No.

The Shaykh : Why?

The questioner : Ignorant.

The Shaykh : Ignorant, of what? Of the ruling or of the situation?

The questioner : Of the situation.

The Shaykh : No, Shaykh, of the ruling. He thought the meaning of the verse was this, so he was ignorant of the ruling. Ignorance of the situation is the hadith of Asma'. They broke their fast on a cloudy day in the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), then the sun appeared, and they were not ordered to make up the fast. This is ignorance of the situation, where they thought the sun had set, but it had not set. The important thing is that if you follow the general and specific texts, you will find that the doer of the prohibited act with ignorance, forgetfulness, and coercion owes nothing. And this is from the hundreds of thousands that fall under His saying in the Qudsi hadith: And in His saying in the Noble Qur'an: So the correct view in this issue is that we divide the prohibitions into these three categories: The first?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : One who did it without an excuse or need, what is its ruling?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Perfect, and the second.

The questioner : He did it intentionally for an excuse.

The Shaykh : What is the ruling?

The questioner : He owes nothing.

The Shaykh : He owes nothing at all!

The questioner : He owes the ransom, he commits it and he owes the ransom.

The Shaykh : The sin is dropped from him, but he owes the ransom. And the third?

The questioner : One who did it for an excuse.

The Shaykh : Excused, a condition.

The questioner : One who did it while excused.

The Shaykh : By what? Excused by forgetfulness, or ignorance, or coercion.

The questioner : He owes nothing, meaning no sin and no...

The Shaykh : Yes, this is the stronger opinion, and it is an opinion that encompasses the subject, and Allah knows best.