the one who abandons prayer will be in the Fire due to his faith, even if it is the weight of a mustard seed. Many of the prominent Ḥanbalī scholars have explicitly stated this, such as Ibn Qudāmah al-Maqdisī—as mentioned previously in Abū al-Faraj's transmission from him. Ibn Qudāmah stated: "If someone neglects any of the five acts of worship out of indifference, he does not become a disbeliever." This is found in his book "al-Muqniʿ," and similarly in "al-Mughnī" (2/298-302) in his lengthy discussion on the matter, where he mentioned the differing opinions and the evidence for each side. He then concluded with what is in "al-Muqniʿ," which is the indisputable truth, and this is also supported by the authors of "al-Sharḥ al-Kabīr" and "al-Inṣāf," as mentioned earlier. Once you understand the correct opinion of Aḥmad, what al-Subkī mentioned in the biography of Imām al-Shāfiʿī in "Ṭabaqāt al-Shāfiʿiyyah al-Kubrā" (1/220) does not apply. He said: "It was narrated that Aḥmad debated with al-Shāfiʿī about the one who abandons prayer. Al-Shāfiʿī said to him: O Aḥmad! Do you say he becomes a disbeliever? He replied: Yes. Al-Shāfiʿī said: If he is a disbeliever, how does he become a Muslim? Aḥmad replied: He says: There is no deity but Allāh, Muḥammad is the Messenger of Allāh. Al-Shāfiʿī said: The man continues to say this and has not abandoned it!! Aḥmad replied: He becomes a Muslim by praying. Al-Shāfiʿī said: The prayer of a disbeliever is not valid, and one cannot be judged a Muslim by it. Aḥmad was silenced and remained quiet." I say: This does not apply to Aḥmad (may Allāh have mercy on him) for two reasons: First, the narration is not established, and al-Subkī (may Allāh have mercy on him) indicated this by introducing it with "It was narrated," so it is disconnected. Second, it was mentioned based on the claim that Aḥmad considers a Muslim a disbeliever merely for abandoning prayer, which has not been proven about him as previously explained. This only applies to some shaykhs who still claim disbelief merely for abandonment! I hope they will retract this after reviewing this authentic ḥadīth and the statement of Aḥmad and other prominent Ḥanbalī imams who agree with him;
تارك الصلاة من النار بإيمانه ولو مقدار ذرة. وبهذا صرح كثير من كبار علماء الحنابلة المحققين؛ كابن قدامة المقدسي - كما تقدم في نقل أبي الفرج عنه -، ونص كلام ابن قدامة:" وإن ترك شيئاً من العبادات الخمس تهاوناً؛ لم يكفر". كذا في كتابه "المقنع "، ونحوه في "المغني " (٢/٢٩٨- ٣٠٢) في بحث طويل له؛ ذكر الخلاف فيه وأدلة كل فريق؛ ثم انتهى إلى هذا الذي في " المقنع"؛ وهو الحق الذي لا ريب فيه؛ وعليه مؤلف " الشرح الكبير" و" الإنصاف " كما تقدم. وإذا عرفت الصحيح من قول أحمد؛ فلا يرد عليه ما ذكره السبكي في ترجمة الإمام الشافعي؛ من " طبقات الشافعية الكبرى " (١/ ٢٢٠)، قال:" حكي أن أحمد ناظر الشافعي في تارك الصلاة؛ فقال له الشافعي: يا أحمد! تقول: إنه يكفر؟ قال: نعم. قال: إذا كان كافراً فبم يسلم؟ قال: يقول: لا إله إلا الله محمد رسول الله. قال: فالرجل مستديم لهذا القول لم يتركه!! قال: يسلم بأن يصلي. قال: صلاة الكافر لا تصح ولا يحكم بالإسلام بها. فانقطع أحمد وسكت ". فأقول: لا يرد هذا على أحمد ﵀ لأمرين: أحدهما: أن الحكاية لا تثبت، وقد أشار إلى ذلك السبكي ﵀ بتصديره إياها بقوله: " حُكي"، فهي منقطعة. والآخر: أنه ذكر بناءً على القول بأن أحمد يكفر المسلم بمجرد ترك الصلاة؛ وهذا لم يثبت عنه كما تقدم بيانه؛ وإنما يرد هذا على بعض المشايخ الذين لا يزالون يقولون بالتكفير بمجرد الترك! وأملي أنهم سيرجعون عنه بعد أن يقفوا على هذا الحديث الصحيح؛ وعلى قول أحمد وغيره من كبار أئمة الحنابلة الموافق له؛