His statement, “It is obligatory, on the first occasion, to accept the invitation of a Muslim whom it is unlawful to shun, if he specifically invites one and there is no wrongdoing present”: the author now moves from explaining the ruling on the wedding feast to explaining the ruling on accepting its invitation when one is invited.

His statement, “It is obligatory”: “is obligatory” is a present-tense verb whose subject is “accepting the invitation.” This indicates that there must be an invitation; otherwise, accepting is not obligatory.

His statement, “on the first occasion,” means when it is held for the first time, excluding the second, third, fourth, and so on.

His statement, “of a Muslim,” excludes the disbeliever. Accepting a disbeliever’s invitation is not obligatory. Thus, if one has a disbelieving neighbor who holds a wedding and invites one to his wedding feast, accepting his invitation is not obligatory, though it is permissible. Accepting a disbeliever’s invitation is permissible, except where the occasion is intended as a religious rite; in that case, accepting it is prohibited, such as their festivals. For accepting an invitation to such occasions signifies approval of them, while they are observed as acts of religion. It would therefore be as though one approved of and affirmed their religion. Hence, by the agreement of the scholars, it is not permissible to congratulate them on such occasions, because approving the rites of disbelief is a grave matter—may Allah protect us.

As for their non-religious occasions, such as the birth of a child and marriage, some scholars maintain that congratulating them on these occasions is permissible, provided that doing so serves an interest, wards off harm, or is in reciprocation because they do the same for us. As for attending their funerals, that is not permissible.

His statement, “whom it is unlawful to shun,” informs us that among Muslims are those whom it is not unlawful to shun. This is because shunning is divided into categories: