to complete the prayer, then the one who failed to catch it at all is even more clearly not to be told to pray it. This is nothing but a form of stern deterrence, a warning against neglecting the prayer. For such a person the Wise Lawgiver has prescribed no expiation, lest he fall into the habit of wasting the prayer again under the pretext that he can make it up later. Absolutely not—there is no make-up for the deliberate offender, as this noble ḥadīth and the previous report from Anas declare: “There is no expiation for it except that.”

From this it becomes obvious to anyone granted some knowledge and understanding of the religion that the statement of certain later scholars—“If the sleeper or the forgetful person, both of whom are excused, may make up the prayer after its time, then the one who deliberately abandons it is even more entitled to do so”—is a faulty analogy, indeed perhaps the most corrupt analogy ever proposed. It is an attempt to compare one thing with its direct opposite, and such a comparison is patently invalid: how can the inexcusable be equated with the excused, or the willful offender with the heedless?

How can a man for whom Allah has legislated no expiation be likened to one for whom He has legislated an expiation? The only cause for such confusion is heedlessness of the meaning intended by this noble ḥadīth, and Allah has enabled us to clarify it. All praise is due to Allah for His guidance.

The eminent scholar Ibn al-Qayyim—may Allah have mercy on him—has an important, detailed discussion of this issue, one that, to my knowledge, has no equal in usefulness and precision. To complete our study I shall quote two sections from it: one that refutes this analogy, and another that answers those who rely on this ḥadīth to prove the contrary of what we have established.

He, may Allah have mercy on him, said after citing the foregoing view:

“The reply has several aspects. First, we counter it with something more authentic—or at least equally authentic—by saying: the fact that the excused person, obedient to Allah and His Messenger and guilty of no negligence in fulfilling what he was commanded, may validly make up the prayer after its time and have it accepted, does not entail the validity and acceptance of the same act from one who oversteps Allah’s limits, squanders His command, and deliberately and defiantly abandons His right. To analogize the latter to the former with regard to the validity of worship, its acceptance, and the discharge of liability is among the most corrupt forms of analogy.”

Second, the person excused by sleep or forgetfulness did not actually perform the prayer outside its appointed time; rather he offered it within