Yes, if a servant falls into a violation, then it is proper for him to ask, so that he may repent from having fallen into sin and make up what was obligatory—if he has neglected an obligation or committed something prohibited. He is free of blame if he has not fallen into sin, such as when the command was merely recommended and the prohibition merely discouraged.

And [a place that is] unlawfully seized, …

His statement, “and [a place that is] unlawfully seized,” means: Prayer is not valid in an unlawfully seized place. Something unlawfully seized is anything taken from its owner by force and without right, whether it was taken under the form of a contract or without any contractual form.

For example, if one person comes to another, unlawfully seizes his land, and prays there, his prayer is invalid because the land has been unlawfully seized.

Likewise, if someone says to another, “Sell me your land,” and he replies, “I will not sell it,” whereupon the first says, “Sell it, or I will kill you,” and the owner sells it under duress: if the one who coerced him prays there, his prayer is invalid, even though it was acquired under the form of a contract.

I know of no textual proof indicating that prayer on unlawfully seized land is invalid. However, those who hold this view reason that a person has been prohibited from remaining in that place because it is another person’s property. Thus, when he prays, his prayer is prohibited, and a prohibited prayer is invalid, due to the Prophet’s statement, may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him: “Whoever performs an action that is not in accordance with our matter, it is rejected.” (1) They also argue that it is contrary to worship: how can one worship Allah through disobeying Him?

The second view on the matter is that prayer in an unlawfully seized place is valid, though sinful (2), because prayer itself has not been prohibited in an unlawfully seized place; rather,