Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (2/26)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

The same applies to one who abandons it out of negligence: if the imam or his deputy summons him and he persists, and the time for the second prayer becomes too short for it, …

His statement, “The same applies to one who abandons it out of negligence, and the imam or his deputy summons him, whereupon he persists, and the time for the second prayer becomes too short for it”: He distinguished this issue from the first by saying, “The same applies,” because this case has conditions. Thus, if a person abandons it out of negligence and laziness while acknowledging that it is obligatory, he is a disbeliever whose disbelief is major and takes him outside the fold of Islam—but subject to two conditions:

The first, mentioned in his words, “and the imam or his deputy summons him,” means: summons him to perform it. What is meant here by “the imam” is the one holding supreme authority in the land.

The second, mentioned in his words, “and the time for the second prayer becomes too short for it,” is that he then becomes a disbeliever. Accordingly, if he abandons a single prayer until its time has elapsed, he is not a disbeliever. The apparent meaning is that this applies whether or not that prayer may be combined with the following one. On this basis, the well-known position of Imam Ahmad among his companions is that no one who abandons the prayer can be judged a disbeliever unless the imam summons him, because we have not established that he abandoned it out of laziness; he may have had an excuse—something he considers an excuse, though it is not in fact an excuse. But if the imam summons him and he persists, we know that he has no excuse.

As for stipulating that the time for the second prayer must have become too short, this is because he may think it permissible to combine prayers without an excuse. Because of the possibility of this assumption, we do not judge him to be a disbeliever.

However, the correct view—without doubt—is that adopted by some of the companions: that the imam’s summons is not a condition (1), due to the apparent meaning of the evidences and the absence of any evidence requiring it.

Also, with regard to matters for which a person is declared a disbeliever, do we say that he is not declared a disbeliever

(1) See al-Insaf, 3/30.

وَكَذَ تَارِكُهَا تَهَاوُناً وَدَعَاهُ إِمامٌ أو نَائِبُهُ فَأَصَرَّ وَضَاقَ وَقْتُ الثَّانِيَةِ عَنْهَا، ......... قوله: «وكذا تاركُها تهاوناً، ودَعَاهُ إمامٌ أو نائبُه فأَصرَّ وضَاقَ وَقْتُ الثَّانية عنها»، فَصَلَ هذه المسألة عن الأولى بقوله: «وكذا»، لأنَّ هذه لها شروط، فإذا تركها تهاوناً وكسلاً مع إقراره بفرضيتها، فإنَّه كافرٌ كفراً أكبرَ مخرجاً عن المِلَّة ولكن بشرطين: الأول: ذكره بقوله: «ودَعَاهُ إمامٌ أو نائبُه»، أي: إلى فعلها. والمراد بالإمام هنا: مَنْ له السُّلطة العُليا في البلد. والثاني: ذكره بقوله: «وضاقَ وقتُ الثَّانية عنها» فإنَّه يكفرُ. وعليه؛ فإذا ترك صلاة واحدة حتى خرج وقتها، فإنَّه لا يكفر، وظاهره أنَّه سواءٌ كانت تُجمع إلى الثانية أو لا تُجمع، وعلى هذا؛ فمذهب الإمام أحمد المشهور عند أصحابه أنَّه لا يمكن أن يُحْكَمَ بكفر أحد تركَ الصَّلاةَ إذا لم يَدْعُهُ الإمامُ؛ لأننا لم نتحقَّق أنه تركها كسلاً؛ إذ قد يكون معذوراً، بما يعتقده عذراً وليس بعذرٍ، لكن إذا دعاه الإمام وأصرَّ علمنا أنه ليس معذوراً. وأما اشتراطُ ضِيْقِ وقت الثانية؛ فلأنَّه قد يظنُّ جوازَ الجمع من غير عذرٍ. فلاحتمال هذا الظَّنِّ لا نحكم بكفره. ولكن القول الصَّحيح ـ بلا شكٍّ ـ ما ذهب إليه بعض الأصحاب من أنه لا تُشترط دعوةُ الإمام (١)؛ لظاهر الأدلَّة، وعدم الدَّليل على اشتراطها. وأيضاً: هل نقول في المسائل التي يُكفَّر بها: إنَّه لا يُكفَّر

(١) انظر: «الإنصاف» (٣/ ٣٠).