Majmu' al-Fatawa - Ibn Taimiya - (22/604)

Majmu' al-FatawaIbn Taimiya

It is also said that voluntary prayers were prescribed to make up for deficiencies in obligatory prayers, as reported in the Sunan collections from the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace:

“The first deed for which a servant will be called to account is prayer. If he has performed it completely, well and good; otherwise it will be said: ‘See whether he has any voluntary prayers.’ If he has voluntary prayers, his obligatory prayer will be completed through them. The same will then be done with the rest of his deeds.”

This completion encompasses deficiencies of every kind.

[As for intrusive thoughts that dominate the prayer, a group of scholars—including Abū Abd Allah ibn Hāmid, Abū Hāmid al-Ghazālī, and others—said that this also necessitates assistance, citing the report transmitted in the two Sahīh collections from Abū Hurayrah, may Allah be pleased with him, that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said:

“When the caller gives the call to prayer, Satan retreats, passing wind so that he cannot hear the call. When the call is finished, he returns. When the call to commence the prayer is made, he retreats; when it is finished, he returns and intrudes between a person and his thoughts, saying: ‘Remember such-and-such; remember such-and-such,’ reminding him of things he had not been thinking about, until the man no longer knows how many units he has prayed. If any of you experiences this, let him perform two prostrations before giving the salutation.”

There is also an authentic report from the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace: “Prayer with intrusive thoughts, without qualification.” He made no distinction between a little and a great deal.] (*)

There is no doubt that the fewer the intrusive thoughts during prayer, the more complete it is. Thus, in the two Sahīh collections, Uthmān, may Allah be pleased with him, reports that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said:

“Whoever performs ablution as I have just done, then prays two units of prayer without engaging

(*) Shaykh Nāsir ibn Hamad al-Fahd stated (p. 189): Several points should be noted: First: This passage contains an omission, as indicated by two things: 1. The context: Ibn Hāmid and Abū Hāmid, mentioned here, hold that a person troubled by intrusive thoughts must repeat the prayer. Yet the evidence cited for their position plainly supports the view that repetition is not required. 2. He mentions both views in 22/612: he first presents the view of Ibn Hāmid and Abū Hāmid, then the view of those who do not require repetition, and then cites this evidence in support of the second view. Thus, the omitted material consisted of the evidence for the first view and the statement of the second view. For the views and their evidence, see 22/611–613. Second: The statement attributed here to the Shaykh—“It has been authentically reported from the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace: ‘Prayer with intrusive thoughts, without qualification.’ He made no distinction between a little and a great deal”—appears to be a textual corruption, likewise indicated by two things: 1. No authentic hadith exists with this wording. 2. Elsewhere, commenting on the hadith about Satan and his whispering to someone praying, he states (22/613): “The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, explained that Satan reminds him of things until he no longer knows how much he has prayed. He instructed him to perform two prostrations for forgetfulness, but did not instruct him to repeat the prayer, nor did he distinguish between a little and a great deal.” This passage effectively explains what he stated briefly in the earlier passage. Accordingly, the correct wording—and Allah knows best—is: “The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, declared prayer valid despite intrusive thoughts, without qualification, and made no distinction between a little and a great deal.” Third: This defect also occurs in al-Fatāwā al-kubrā, 2/24.

وَيُقَالُ: إنَّ النَّوَافِلَ شُرِعَتْ لِجَبْرِ النَّقْصِ الْحَاصِلِ فِي الْفَرَائِضِ كَمَا فِي السُّنَنِ عَنْ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَنَّهُ قَالَ: {أَوَّلُ مَا يُحَاسَبُ عَلَيْهِ الْعَبْدُ مِنْ عَمَلِهِ الصَّلَاةُ فَإِنْ أَكْمَلَهَا وَإِلَّا قِيلَ: اُنْظُرُوا هَلْ لَهُ مَنْ تَطَوُّعٍ فَإِنْ كَانَ لَهُ تَطَوُّعٌ أُكْمِلَتْ بِهِ الْفَرِيضَةُ ثُمَّ يُصْنَعُ بِسَائِرِ أَعْمَالِهِ} . وَهَذَا الْإِكْمَالُ يَتَنَاوَلُ مَا نَقَصَ مُطْلَقًا. [وَأَمَّا الْوَسْوَاسُ الَّذِي يَكُونُ غَالِبًا عَلَى الصَّلَاةِ فَقَدْ قَالَ طَائِفَةٌ - مِنْهُمْ أَبُو عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنُ حَامِدٍ وَأَبُو حَامِدٍ الْغَزَالِيُّ - وَغَيْرُهُمَا: أَنَّهُ يُوجِبُ الْإِعَانَةَ أَيْضًا لِمَا أَخْرَجَاهُ فِي الصَّحِيحَيْنِ عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ: {إذَا أَذَّنَ الْمُؤَذِّنُ أَدْبَرَ الشَّيْطَانُ وَلَهُ ضُرَاطٌ حَتَّى لَا يَسْمَعَ التَّأْذِينَ فَإِذَا قُضِيَ التَّأْذِينَ أَقْبَلَ فَإِذَا ثُوِّبَ بِالصَّلَاةِ أَدْبَرَ فَإِذَا قَضَى التَّثْوِيبَ أَقْبَلَ حَتَّى يَخْطِرَ بَيْنَ الْمَرْءِ وَنَفْسِهِ فَيَقُولُ: اُذْكُرْ كَذَا اُذْكُرْ كَذَا لِمَا لَمْ يَكُنْ يَذْكُرُ حَتَّى يَظَلَّ الرَّجُلُ لَا يَدْرِي كَمْ صَلَّى فَإِذَا وَجَدَ أَحَدُكُمْ ذَلِكَ فَلْيَسْجُدْ سَجْدَتَيْنِ قَبْلَ أَنْ يُسَلِّمَ} . وَقَدْ صَحَّ عَنْ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ {الصَّلَاةُ مَعَ الْوَسْوَاسِ مُطْلَقًا} . وَلَمْ يُفَرِّقْ بَيْنَ الْقَلِيلِ وَالْكَثِيرِ]. (*) وَلَا رَيْبَ أَنَّ الْوَسْوَاسَ كُلَّمَا قَلَّ فِي الصَّلَاةِ كَانَ أَكْمَلَ كَمَا فِي الصَّحِيحَيْنِ مِنْ حَدِيثِ عُثْمَانَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ عَنْ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَنَّهُ قَالَ: {إنَّ مَنْ تَوَضَّأَ نَحْوَ وُضُوئِي هَذَا ثُمَّ صَلَّى رَكْعَتَيْنِ لَمْ يُحَدِّثْ

(*) قال الشيخ ناصر بن حمد الفهد (ص ١٨٩): هنا أمور: الأول: أن هذا الكلام فيه سقط، يدل عليه أمران: ١ - السياق: فإن ابن حامد وأبا حامد اللذين ذكرهما هنا يريان الإعادة على المسوس، إلا أن الدليل الذي ذكره لهما دليل من لا يرى الإعادة كما هو ظاهر. ٢ - أنه ذكر القولين في: ٢٢/ ٦١٢، فذكر قول ابن حامد وأبي حامد، ثم ذكر قول من لا يوجب الإعادة، ثم ذكر هذا الدليل على القول الثاني. فيتبين من هذا أن السقط كان دليل القول الأول، وذكر القول الثاني، وانظر الأقوال والأدلة في الموضع المذكور: ٢٢/ ٦١١ - ٦١٣. الثاني: أن ما ذكر هنا عن الشيخ من قوله (وقد صح عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم: " الصلاة مع الوسواس مطلقا " ولم يفرق بين القليل والكثير) يظهر أنه تصحيف، يدل عليه أمران أيضاً: ١ - أنه لا يوجد حديث صحيح بهذا اللفظ. ٢ - أنه ذكر في موضع آخر في تعليقه على حديث الشيطان ووسوسته للمصلي: ٢٢/ ٦١٣: (فقد أخبر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أن الشيطان يذكره بأمور حتى لا يدري كم صلى، وأمره بسجدتين للسهو، ولم يأمره بالإعادة، ولم يفرق بين القليل والكثير) فهذا الكلام كالشرح لما أجمله في الموضع الأول. لذلك فصواب العبارة - والله أعلم -: (فقد صحح النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم الصلاة مع الوسواس مطلقاً، ولم يفرق بين القليل والكثير). الثالث: أن هذا الخلل موجود في (الفتاوى الكبرى) أيضاً: ٢/ ٢٤.