Al‐Shawkānī likewise inclined toward this view. Commenting on the Prophet’s words—peace and blessings be upon him—“Whoever forgets a prayer…,” he wrote:

“Those who hold that a person who abandons the prayer deliberately is not to make it up base their case on the argument by implication (dalīl al-khiṭāb): when the stated condition is absent, the ruling tied to that condition is likewise absent. Thus, if the prayer’s omission was not due to forgetfulness, no make-up prayer is required. This is the position of Dāwūd, Ibn Ḥazm, and a number of al-Shāfiʿī’s followers. Al-Baḥr transmits it from the two sons of al-Hādī, from ‘the Ustādh,’ and—by one narration—from al-Qāsim and al-Nāṣir. Ibn Taymiyyah (Shaykh al-Islām) said: ‘Their opponents have absolutely no proof to which one may appeal when disagreement arises. Most of them assert that a make-up becomes obligatory only through a fresh command, yet here they possess no such command. Our dispute with them is not confined to whether a make-up is obligatory; we also contest whether any such make-up would even be accepted from him, and whether a prayer performed outside its appointed time can be valid at all.’

Ibn Taymiyyah examined the matter at length and adopted the opinion espoused by Dāwūd and those who sided with him. And the reality is just as he described: after extensive investigation I have found no evidence advanced by those who obligate the deliberate offender to make up the prayer—a group that comprises everyone other than the scholars already named—that could stand in the arena of debate or be relied upon for so weighty a foundational issue, save only the hadith, “The debt owed to Allah is more deserving of being repaid.” They cite it on the grounds that the generic noun in a genitive construct conveys universality, yet they themselves attach little importance to it.

Their strongest argument in this regard is their claim that the hadiths obligating the forgetful person to make up his prayer, by implication, obligate the deliberate offender as well. Because these texts instruct the lesser case, they say, they a fortiori apply to the greater; hence the ruling is proven by the implied meaning (fahwā al-khiṭāb) and an even stronger analogy (qiyās al-awlā).

This contention is rejected. Those who deny a make-up for the deliberate offender are not suggesting that his case is lighter than that of the forgetful one; rather, they maintain that the reason a make-up is not required of him is that it does not expunge the sin in the first place.