Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (3/246)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

and that it is obligatory with qualification; this is the view preferred by Shaykh al-Islam (1). The point is that he says: “It is part of the view of those who hold it to be obligatory without qualification.” Thus, if we say that the passer must be prevented when he is one whose passing invalidates the prayer, this becomes part of the view of those who hold it to be obligatory without qualification.

If someone were to ask: How can we account for the author’s wording, whose apparent meaning is permissibility, despite the sunnah containing a command to prevent the passer?

The answer is that it may be understood to mean that permissibility here is stated in contrast to the assumption that it is forbidden, or in contrast to its being disliked. This is because repelling a passer involves an action and movement not belonging to the acts of prayer, whose basic ruling is either that it is disliked or that it is prohibited. Thus, permissibility here would mean the negation of dislike or the negation of prohibition. This does not preclude the ruling from being that it is recommended. That is, this interpretation could be advanced; however, what prevents it is that there is a known, independent view in this issue holding it to be permissible.

His statement, “in front of him,” means: in front of the person praying.

There is a difference of opinion concerning what is meant by “in front of him” (2). It was said: the area extending three cubits from the feet of the person praying. It was also said: the distance of an average stone’s throw—not an exceptionally forceful throw or a weak one. And it was said: whatever the person praying may advance toward without invalidating his prayer. Another view is that the matter is referred back to customary usage: whatever is regarded as being in front of him is considered in front of him, and whatever is not customarily regarded as being in front of him is not in front of him.

It was also said: the space between his feet and his place of prostration. This is the closest of the views, because the person praying is not entitled to more space than he needs for his prayer. Therefore, he has no right to prevent people from using what he does not need.

(1) Al-Ikhtiyarat, p. 64. (2) Al-Insaf, 2:94.

وتفصيل؛ وهو اختيار شيخ الإسلام (١). والشاهد أنه يقول: وهو بعضُ قول من يوجبه مطلقاً. فإذا قلنا: يجب مَنْعُ المار إذا كان ممن يقطع الصَّلاةَ، صار بعض قول مَن يوجبه مطلقاً، فإن قال قائل: كيف نعتذر عن كلام المؤلِّف حيث إن ظاهره الإباحة مع ورود السُّنَّة بالأمر به؟ فالجواب: أنه يمكن أن يُحمل على أن الإباحة هنا في مقابلة توهُّمِ المَنْعِ، أو في مقابلة الكراهة، لأن رَدَّ المار عَمَلٌ وحركة مِن غير جنس الصَّلاة، والأصل فيها إما الكراهة؛ وإما المنع، فتكون الإباحة هنا يُراد بها نفي الكراهة، أو نفي المنع، فلا ينافي أن يكون الحكم مستحبًّا، يعني: يمكن أن يُقال هذا، لكن يمنعه أن هذه المسألة فيها قول بالإباحة مستقلٌّ معروف. وقوله: «بين يديه». أي: بين يدي المصلِّي. وقد اختُلف في المراد بما بين يديه (٢)، فقيل: إنه بمقدار ثلاثة أذرع مِن قدمي المصلِّي. وقيل: بمقدار رَمية حَجَر، يعني بالرَّمي المتوسط لا بالقويِّ جدًّا ولا بالضعيف. وقيل: ما للمصلِّي أن يتقدَّم إليه بدون بطلان صلاتِه. وقيل: إن مَرْجِعَ ذلك إلى العُرف، فما كان يعدُّ بين يديه، فهو بين يديه، وما كان لا يُعدُّ عُرفاً بين يديه، فليس بين يديه. وقيل: ما بين رجليه وموضع سجوده. وهذا أقرب الأقوال، وذلك لأن المصلِّي لا يستحقُّ أكثر مما يحتاج إليه في صلاته، فليس له الحقُّ أن يمنعَ النَّاس مما لا يحتاجه.

(١) «الاختيارات» ص (٦٤). (٢) «الإنصاف» (٢/ ٩٤).