among the Salaf ⦗1⦘ that a prayer performed in a usurped dwelling remains valid ⦗2⦘, on the grounds that they never instructed the wrongdoers to repeat it ⦗3⦘. Yet he could hardly adduce even four reports from the early generations in which oppressors sought a ruling about repeating prayers they had offered on seized property and were told that those prayers sufficed. The theologians, however, are wont to marshal a host of rational and transmitted proofs that are in fact specious; hence the abundant censure the Salaf directed at them. Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Rāzī, when speaking about the oneness of Allah’s knowledge and power, said ⦗4⦘:
“Section One:
On the unity of Allah’s knowledge and power. Imām al-Ḥaramayn, in al-Shāmil ⦗5⦘, reports from Abū Sahl al-Ṣaʿlūkī, one of our scholars, that Allah the Exalted is knowing by an infinite number of distinct knowledges,
(1) See al-Juwayni, al-Burhan fi Usul al-Fiqh, vol. 1, p. 288, for his proof of this consensus.
(2) According to the apparent reading of both reports and one of al-Shafi‘i’s positions, prayer performed in a usurped location (mawḍi‘ maghsub) is invalid. The alternative reading—which is the position of Abū Ḥanīfa, Mālik, and al-Shafi‘i’s second opinion—regards it as valid, since the prohibition does not concern the prayer itself. Ibn Qudāma, preferring the first view, argues that worship rendered in a manner explicitly forbidden cannot be valid—comparable to the prayer or fast of a menstruating woman—“for prohibition entails both banning the act and moral culpability in performing it; how then can one be obedient in what is disobedience?” By contrast, Aḥmad holds that Friday prayer is valid in a usurped location: if the mosque (or part of it) is seized, those excluded miss the Friday service. See Ibn Qudāma, al-Mughni, vol. 2, pp. 74–75; al-Muqni‘ (with marginalia), vol. 1, pp. 127–128; al-Bahuti, Kashf al-Qina‘, vol. 1, pp. 343–344.
(3) In the original manuscript it reads “lā” (no), whereas the reading “min” (from), attested in both S and Ṭ, is correct.
(4) al-Razi, Nihayat al-Uqul fi Dirayat al-Usul (manuscript), fol. 157.
(5) The autograph reads “al-Shamli,” which is erroneous. The work is a five-volume treatise on kalām according to the Ash‘ari school. See Haji Khalifa, Kashf al-Zunun, vol. 2, p. 1024; Mu‘jam al-Muallifin.