Hud: (114) And establish prayer at the two ends...

"And establish prayer"—meaning the prescribed (obligatory) prayer. The meaning of its establishment is performing it in its entirety. It is also said: being constant in it, and it is also said: performing it at the beginning of its time.

"Of the day"—meaning its beginning and its end. Its accusative case is due to it being an adverb of time (zarf). Some weaken its being an adverb, but its being linked to the adverb provides the reason for its accusative case.

"And at the approaches of the night"—meaning hours of it near the day; for it is derived from azlafahu if he brought it near. Al-Layth said: It is a portion from the beginning of the night, and Tha'lab said the same. Abu Ubaydah, al-Akhfash, and Ibn Qutaybah said: It is an absolute term for its hours and times, and every hour is a zulfa. They cited for this the verse of al-Ajjaj: "A traveler, worn down by weariness from what he detested, traversing the nights, zulafan (approaches) after zulafan, the height of the crescent moon until it curved." It is conjoined to "the two ends of the day," and "of the night" is in the place of a descriptor for it.

Regarding the "prayer of the two ends," it is said: the Morning (Subh) and Afternoon (Asr) prayers. This was narrated from al-Hasan, Qatadah, and al-Dahhak. Abu Hayyan favored this, based on the fact that the "end" (taraf) of a thing must be part of that thing, and he insisted that the beginning of the day is from the dawn (Fajr). Sometimes the "end" of a thing is applied metaphorically to what is adjacent to its beginning and its end; thus, it is possible to consider the day from sunrise, while holding the validity of what they mentioned regarding the first end prayer by making the dual form here like their saying: "The pen is one of the two tongues," although it has been said that this is anomalous.

It was narrated from Ibn Abbas—and al-Tabari preferred it—that the meaning is the Morning and Sunset (Maghrib) prayers. If the day is from the beginning of dawn to sunset, then the Sunset is a metaphorical "end," and it is the literal "end" of the night. If it is from sunrise to sunset, then the Morning is like the Sunset, a metaphorical "end." Mujahid and Muhammad ibn Ka'b al-Qurazi said: The first end is the Morning, and the second is the Noon (Dhuhr) and Afternoon (Asr). Ibn Atiyyah preferred this. You know that there is obscurity in placing the Noon in the second end, as the Noon is the middle of the day, and the middle is not called an "end" except by a far-fetched metaphor.

The "prayer of the approaches" (zula) is according to most: the Sunset and Evening (Isha) prayers. Al-Hasan narrated in this regard a report raised (marfu') to the Prophet from Ibn Abbas, who interpreted the prayer of the approaches as the Atmah (night) prayer, which is the first third of the night after the disappearance of the twilight. It is sometimes applied to the time of the late Evening prayer. Those who said: "The prayer of the two ends is the Noon and Afternoon, and the prayer of the approaches is the Sunset, Evening, and Morning" are being strange. It is said: The meaning of zulafan is "nearness," and according to this, its syntax—as in al-Kashshaf—should be joined to "the prayer," meaning: "Establish the prayer at the two ends of the day, and establish zulfan (acts of nearness) from the night," meaning: prayers by which you draw near to Allah—the Almighty and Majestic. It is said: The meaning here is the Evening prayer and the Night Vigil (Tahajjud), which were obligatory upon him—upon him be peace and blessings—or the Evening and Witr, according to what Abu Hanifah—may Allah be pleased with him—held, or the total, as the surface appearance of the plural suggests. It may be interpreted as the Sunset and Evening prayers, and some chose this. The application of the plural to the dual has come down, so there is no need to insist that this is because every rak'ah is an act of nearness, thus achieving proximity beyond three in what was mentioned.

Talhah, Ibn Ishaq, and Abu Ja'far recited zulufan with a damma on the lam, either as a plural of zulfa (where the middle vowel was changed to follow the first), or as a singular noun like unuq, or as a plural of zalif in the meaning of zulfa, like raghif and rughuf. Mujahid and Ibn Muhaysin recited with the lam quiescent (sukūn), like busr with a damma and sukūn in busrah. According to this, it is—as stated in al-Bahr—a collective noun. In a narration from them, they recited zulfan like hubla, which is in the meaning of zulfa, for the feminine ta and its alif may alternate, such as qurba and qurbah. It is permitted that this alif be a substitute for the tanwin to treat the wasl (connection) like the waqf (pause).

"Indeed, good deeds remove evil deeds"—meaning they expiate them and remove the accountability for them. Otherwise, the evil deeds themselves are accidents that existed then ceased. It is said: They erase them from the scrolls of deeds, and some reports bear witness to this. It is said: They prevent committing them, like His saying—the Almighty: "Indeed, prayer prohibits immorality and wrongdoing." While this is unlikely in itself, it is contrary to what is narrated from the Companions and the Successors—may Allah be pleased with them all—so it should not be relied upon.

The apparent meaning is that "good deeds" includes the obligatory prayers and others, and other acts of obedience, obligatory or not. It is said: The meaning is only the obligatory ones, due to the report: "The five prayers, Friday to Friday, and Ramadan to Ramadan, are expiations for what is between them." In this, it is confirmed by the hadith of Abu Hurayrah—may Allah be pleased with him—who said: I heard the Messenger of Allah—may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him—saying: "If the Imam says 'Amin,' then say 'Amin,' for the angels say 'Amin.' Whoever’s 'Amin' coincides with the 'Amin' of the angels, his past sins will be forgiven." In a narration—which Yahya ibn Nusayr is unique in reporting, and he is one of the reliable ones—it adds: "and his future sins." It is established that fasting the day of Arafah expiates the past and future year. Abu Dawud extracted in the Sunan with a sound chain from Sahl ibn Mu'adh ibn Anas from his father that the Messenger of Allah—may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him—said: "Whoever eats food then says: 'Praise be to Allah who fed me this food and provided it for me without any power or strength from myself,' his past sins are forgiven. Whoever wears a garment and says: 'Praise be to Allah who clothed me with this and provided it for me without any power or strength from myself,' his past and future sins are forgiven," and other reports regarding the expiation of sins through actions that are not obligatory.

It is said: The meaning is the obligatory prayers, because in some versions of the report regarding the cause of revelation, Abu al-Yusr from the Ansar kissed a woman, then regretted it and came to the Messenger of Allah—may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him—and informed him of what he did. He—upon him be peace and blessings—said: "Wait for the command of my Lord." When he prayed, he said—upon him be peace and blessings: "Go, for it is an expiation for what you did." This view was narrated from Ibn Abbas, Ibn Mas'ud, and Ibn al-Musayyib. The apparent view is that this is their limiting to one important individual case of a general rule, and the cause of revelation does not preclude generality, as is not hidden. In a narration from Mujahid, it is the saying: "Glory be to Allah, praise be to Allah, there is no god but Allah, Allah is the Greatest, and there is no power nor strength except by Allah, the High, the Great." In this is what is in it.

The "evil deeds" according to most are the minor sins, because the major sins are not expiated—as they said—except by repentance. They argued for this with what Muslim narrated from al-'Ala: "The five prayers are an expiation for what is between them, provided major sins are avoided." This was problematized because minor sins are already expiated by avoiding major sins according to the text: "If you avoid the major sins which you are forbidden, We will expiate your minor sins." So what is it that the five prayers expiate? Al-Bulqini answered that this objection is invalid because the meaning of the verse is that you avoid them throughout your entire life, and its meaning is constancy in this state from the time of faith or accountability until death. What is in the hadith is that the prayers expiate what is between them, i.e., that day, if major sins are avoided on that day. So there is no contradiction. Al-Samhudi followed this up, saying: "You can say: The avoidance of major sins throughout the entire life is not realized except with the performance of the five prayers in it every day, so the expiation is achieved by what the hadith contains. What is the benefit of the avoidance mentioned in the verse?" Then he said: "You can answer that this is from the category of doing two things, each of which is an expiation. Some scholars have said: If expiations gather, their rule is that if they are sequential, the previous one expiates; if they happen together, then one of them, as Allah wills, expiates. As for the rest, its reward remains for him, and that reward for each of them will be such that it equates to the expiation of minor sins if they existed. Likewise, if he does one of the expiatory acts and has not committed a sin."

In al-Nawawi’s Sharh Muslim, there is something similar, except he mentioned that if the expiatory act coincides with a major sin or major sins and does not coincide with a minor sin, we hope that the major sins will be lightened. It is refuted against his saying—that the meaning of "if you avoid" is throughout the entire life—that this is clearly forbidden. The apparent meaning is that the reward for avoiding major sins at any time expiates the minor sins occurring at that time. In the Tafsir of the Qadi, there is evidence supporting this, and also what the Imam, the Proof of Islam, mentioned in the discussion on repentance: that the rule of a major sin is that the five prayers do not expiate it, and that avoiding major sins expiates minor ones by virtue of His saying—the Exalted: "If you avoid the major sins that..." etc. But avoiding a major sin only expiates the minor one if he avoids it with ability and will, like someone who has the power to approach a woman and restrains himself from falling into it and limits himself to looking and touching. His struggling with his soul to refrain from the intercourse has a greater effect on illuminating his heart than his stepping forward to look in darkening it. This is the meaning of its expiation. If he were impotent and his abstinence was only due to necessity, or he was capable but abstained for fear of someone else, then this does not serve for expiation at all. So whoever does not desire wine by his nature, even if it were permitted, he would not drink it, so his avoidance does not expiate for him the minor sins which are its preliminaries, such as listening to music and strings. This is apparent, indicating that good deeds remove evil deeds. There is no doubt that avoiding major sins, when accompanied by intent, is a good deed. We only restricted it to that—even if the exit from the obligation of the prohibition does not depend on it—because he is not rewarded for the avoidance without that.

The best answer to the problem is to say: "Provided major sins are avoided" in the report is not a condition for the essence of expiation, but rather for the scope of the expiation to include all sins between the five prayers. It is equivalent to exempting major sins from the sins. It is as if it were said: The five prayers are an expiation for all the sins between them, and their expiation for everything is in the period where major sins were avoided, or it is restricted to the avoidance of major sins; otherwise, the prayers are not an expiation for all sins, but only for the minor ones. Even if this is contrary to the appearance of the condition returning to the essence of expiation, the indication of the verse called for turning away from it to this, in order to reconcile the evidences. In this, one must consider what they said regarding the gathering of things that expiate minor sins.

The Hafiz Ibn Hajar mentioned after quoting al-Bulqini’s words: "If the objection were to arise, the release from it is easy, because the avoidance of major sins is not completed except by performing the five prayers. Whoever does not perform them is not considered as avoiding major sins, because leaving them is among the major sins. Thus, the expiation depends on performing them." This is not free from debate. Among those who clearly stated that "provided major sins are avoided," etc., is in the meaning of an exception, quoting some of them, is al-Muhibb al-Tabari. He said in his Ahkam: "Scholars differed regarding the matter of the expiation of minor sins through acts of worship; is it conditional upon avoiding major sins? There are two views: One of them is yes, which is the apparent meaning of his saying—peace be upon him: 'provided major sins are avoided,' for its appearance is conditional, as is required by 'if you avoid' coming in some narrations. So if major sins were avoided, they were expiatory for them, otherwise not. The majority went to this, as mentioned by Ibn Atiyyah. Some said: It is not conditional, and the condition in the hadith is in the meaning of an exception, and the estimation is: 'Expiatory for what is between them except the major sins.' And this is the most apparent."

This having been said, al-Zarkashi mentioned that they differed as to whether repentance is a condition for expiation or not. A group went to the necessity, and another to the lack thereof. In al-Bahr, it states that the conditionality is the text of the skilled jurists. Perhaps the disagreement is built upon the disagreement regarding the conditionality of avoidance or not. Whoever made the avoidance of major sins a condition for the expiation of minor sins did not make repentance a condition, and made this a peculiarity for the one who avoids major sins. He did not make it a condition except for those who made it a condition. The report of Abu al-Yusr indicates this, as the narrations are overwhelming that he came regretful, and regret is repentance. Even if his information—peace be upon him—to him that the Afternoon prayer expiated what he did only happened after his regret, the apparent unqualified nature of the hadith requires that the expiation was by the prayer itself. For repentance by itself wipes out what preceded it, so if we made it a condition with acts of worship, acts of worship would not be expiatory, and it has been established that they are expiatory, so the consideration of repentance with them falls away.

This is a summary with additions. It is not hidden that this requires insisting on the view that the regret of Abu al-Yusr was not valid repentance; otherwise, the expiation would have been by it, as it was the predecessor. Some insisted on the view of it being valid repentance, except that it was a repentance that was not accepted and did not expiate the sin. You know that there is a discussion regarding repentance not expiating sin. It is reported from al-Subki that he said: "The acceptance of repentance from disbelief is قطع (definitively) by grace. Regarding the certainty of the acceptance of the sinner's repentance, there are two sayings for the people of the Sunnah." The preferred view according to the Imam of the Haramayn is that the expiation of sin by repentance is speculative (zanni). Al-Nawawi claimed it is the sounder view. In Sharh al-Burhan: "The sound view with us is the certainty of the expiation." Al-Halimi said: "It is not obligatory upon Allah—the Almighty—to accept repentance, but since He informed about Himself that He accepts repentance from His servants, and it is not permitted that He break His promise, we knew that He—the Almighty and Majestic—does not reject a valid repentance out of His grace." Similar to this difference is the difference regarding expiation by avoiding major sins and the like: is it definitive or speculative?

In the speech of the scholar Najm al-Din al-Nasafi, Sadr al-Shari'ah, and others, it is stated that punishment for minor sins is permitted to occur, whether their perpetrator avoided major sins or not, due to their inclusion under His saying—the Almighty: "He forgives whom He wills and punishes whom He wills," and His saying—the Almighty: "It leaves no small or large [sin] except that it has enumerated it." Enumeration is only for questioning and requital, and other such verses and hadiths. The Mu'tazilah differed in this and did not allow the occurrence of punishment if major sins were avoided, and they argued with the verse: "If you avoid the major sins," etc. It is answered that the meaning of major sins is disbelief, and the plural is for the multiplicity of its types or the multiplicity of those who are characterized by it. The meaning of the verse is: "If you avoid disbelief, We will make you fit for the expiation of your evil deeds." The weakness of their argument is not hidden, and their answer to the argument of the Mu'tazilah is, by my life, weaker than it.

The author of al-Dhakha'ir went to the view that among the good deeds are those that expiate minor and major sins, as it has been confirmed in several reports: "Whoever does such and such, his past and future sins will be forgiven," and in some of them: "He emerged from his sins like the day his mother bore him." Whenever good deeds in the verse are carried upon the totality, the appropriate thing is to carry evil deeds upon it as well, and specification is contrary to the apparent meaning. The bounty of Allah—the Almighty—is vast. Ibn al-Mundhir inclined to this, and Ibn 'Abd al-Barr narrated it from some of his contemporaries. He meant, as it is said: Abu Muhammad the Hadith scholar. But some refuted him, saying: "He says: 'The major and minor sins are expiated by purification and prayer' due to the apparent hadiths, and this is manifest ignorance and an agreement with the Murji'ah in their saying. If it were as he claimed, there would be no meaning for the command to repent, and the Muslims have agreed that it is an obligation. It is also established from the hadith of Abu Hurayrah: 'The prayers are an expiation for what is between them as long as major sins are avoided.'"

In this, the claim that this is ignorance is not free from exaggeration, for the difference between the saying of the generality of expiation and the doctrine of the Murji'ah is very clear. If it were true that this is going to their saying, then it would require the same for repentance, for he agrees that it expiates minor and major sins, and it is among the actions of the servant. Just as it is permissible for Allah—the Almighty—to make this action a cause for the expiation of everything, it is permissible to make other actions likewise. His saying: "If it were as he claimed..." is rejected because it does not follow from the expiation of achieved sins that there is no command for repentance and that it is an obligation; for neglecting it is among the new sins that the previous expiation by performing wudu, for example, does not include. Do you not see that repentance from minor sins is obligatory according to what is narrated from al-Ash'ari, and the Imam of the Haramayn and his student al-Ansari narrated the consensus upon it? Yet all minor sins are expiated by the text of the Lawgiver even if one did not repent, as you have heard of the disagreement. The verification of this is that repentance is obligatory in itself immediately, and whoever delays it, his disobedience repeats with the repetition of times, as clarified by Sheikh 'Izz al-Din ibn 'Abd al-Salam. It does not follow from Allah—the Almighty's—expiation of His servant's sins that the obligation of repentance, with which he was charged, falls away—a continuous charge. Close to this is the lifting of sin from the sleeper if he brings the prayer out of its time along with the command to make it up. What was narrated from the hadith of Abu Hurayrah only came regarding a specific matter, so it does not exceed it, since the principle is the remaining of what is other than it upon its generality. This is something in which there is no room for analogy, such that it could be specified by analogy to that. Thus, it is not appropriate to attribute that speaker to ignorance, and the hope in Allah—His status is high—is strong. So it is said. In the station, there are further researches we have omitted to mention for fear of boredom; if you want them, you must look into the detailed books in the science of hadith.

"That is a reminder for those who remember."

Meaning: An exhortation for those who take heed. He specifically mentioned them because they are the ones who benefit from it. The reference is to what preceded regarding the instruction for steadfastness, the prohibition of tyranny, and leaning towards those who have wronged, and establishing the prayers at those times with the aforementioned interpretation. Al-Zamakhshari went to this, and Abu Hayyan favored that this is a reference to establishing the prayer, and the matter of the reminder is easy. It is said: It is a reference to the news that good deeds remove evil deeds. Al-Tabari said: A reference to the commands and prohibitions in this surah. It is said: To the Qur'an. Some of those who made the reference to the establishment interpreted the "reminder" as repentance.