to complete the prayer, then the one who did not catch it at all is more deserving not to be commanded with it. This is only to deter and prevent him from neglecting the prayer, as the wise lawgiver did not make an expiation for such a person so that he would not return to neglecting it again, using the excuse that he can make it up after its time. No, there is no making up for the deliberate [neglect], as indicated by this noble ḥadīth and the previous ḥadīth of Anas: "There is no expiation for it except that." From this, it becomes clear to anyone who has been granted some knowledge and understanding in religion that the statement of some of the later scholars, "And if the sleeper and the forgetful of the prayer—both of whom are excused—make it up after its time has passed, then the one who deliberately leaves it is more deserving," is an erroneous analogy. Rather, it may be one of the most corrupt analogies on the face of the earth, because it is an analogy of opposites, which is evidently flawed. How can it be correct to analogize the unexcused with the excused and the deliberate with the forgetful? And [how can it be correct] for one whom Allāh has not made an expiation, to be compared to one for whom Allāh has made an expiation! The reason for this is nothing but heedlessness of the intended meaning of this noble ḥadīth, and Allāh, the Exalted, has granted us success in clarifying it, and all praise is due to Allāh for His guidance. The esteemed Ibn al-Qayyim, may Allāh have mercy on him, has an important and detailed discussion on this issue, which I believe has not been preceded by anything similar in benefit and investigation. I consider it a completion of this discussion to convey two sections from it, one of which refutes this analogy. The other responds to those who used this ḥadīth as evidence for the opposite of what we have explained. He, may Allāh have mercy on him, said after mentioning the previous statement: "The response to it is from several aspects: one of them is the opposition with what is more authentic or similar, which is to say: it does not follow from the validity of making up the prayer after its time for the excused—the one obedient to Allāh and His Messenger, who did not neglect in doing what he was commanded and its acceptance from him—that it is valid and accepted from one who transgresses the limits of Allāh, neglects His command, and deliberately and unjustly abandons His right. So, analogizing this to that in terms of the validity of worship, its acceptance from him, and the discharge of obligation by it is one of the most corrupt analogies." The second aspect: that the one excused by sleep or forgetfulness did not perform the prayer outside its time, but in