why no expiation for not doing salat or zakat?
-
There are many directives in the Quran for which the Quran stipulates no expiation if not performed or if performed incorrectly.
Some of which?
• The writing of loans and credit
• The laws of divorce
• The laws of combat
• The laws of marriage
• The laws of inheritance
In fact, I will go so far as to say that the majority of the laws of the Quran have no expiation if not performed or if performed incorrectly.
-
peace uq,
Thanks for the reply.
I had a think about the examples you suggested and I couldn't really pinpoint what specifically you were referring to. Can you clarify with some specific examples?
I am trying to consider what are the differences in nature between those acts that have expiation and those that do not. For instance, in the examples you mentioned, they are not for all believers, i.e. they would only apply if one happened to be in that situation, and they all involve interaction with another party who may be effected.
I agree that most of the "laws" in The Quran have no expiation if not done.
-
Peace Wakas,
Rather than give specific examples of commandments that do not require expiation, I think it would suit our purposes better to analyze those commandments that do require expiation.
The following is not an exhaustive list?
• The expiation of murder and of manslaughter
• The expiation of a broken oath
• The expiation of not performing sawm
• The expiation of shaving your head during hajj and of not having a sacrificial offering
• The expiation of swearing to God that you will not approach your wife
That's off the top of my head. There could be a couple more.
-
For clarification, "expiation" is defined as "the act of making amends or repiration for guilt or wrong doing". This is distinct to "punishment" which is defined as "the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offence".
So, making up missed days of abstinence (sawm) and making a sacrificial offering in hajj if one prematurely shaves one's head, are both?I reckon?forms of expiation.
Whereas, 100 lashes for the fornicator and capital punishment for the murderer are both?I reckon?forms of punishment.
Thus, the distinction I present here lies in the difference between violating an explicit prohibition and between being unable to fulfil an obligation.
I reckon this to be an important distinction because the Quran does not use the word to describe expiation (as in the first two examples above). But it does use the word to describe punishment (as in the second two examples above).
-
salat and expiation
I find that the word aqeemoo (و conveys a meaning of steadfastness, maintaining, keeping up with, to be constant in. I understand this to mean that we should make salat a consistent and regular part of our lives.
As some have already said, salat is not "time-restricted", and it seems to me it is left to us as to what is consistent and regular.
Since I find that the Quran does not provide any metric regarding salat, I would not know how to determine when I have failed... and it would only be upon my failure that maybe I would wish to know how to expiate for my failure.
-
A revision of my last post re
it seems to me it is left to us as to what is consistent and regular.
It seems to me the meaning of being steadfast/constant in prayer is that we are to pray BOTH in good times and in bad, instead of only in bad. I suggest this because
- I find that the Quran points out how disbelievers only pray/worship God during times of adversity e.g. 2211
- That God tests us as a means to identify those characterized as #1 above e.g. 7217
So to revise what I said earlier
... it seems to me it is left to us as to what is consistent and regular, as long as we're praying both in good times and in bad. -
A revision of my last post re
It seems to me the meaning of being steadfast/constant in prayer is that we are to pray BOTH in good times and in bad, instead of only in bad. I suggest this because- I find that the Quran points out how disbelievers only pray/worship God during times of adversity e.g. 2211
- That God tests us as a means to identify those characterized as #1 above e.g. 7217
So to revise what I said earlier
... it seems to me it is left to us as to what is consistent and regular, as long as we're praying both in good times and in bad.Hmmmm...
I think the Quran is clear as to the times of prayer.
As for why there is no expiation. I think that is a question raised with the intention of addressing whether salat and zakat are time restricted obligatory "performances"
I don't think we can question God as to why there is no expiation for salat.
Take it as it is and obey.
There are so many alternatives God has given in the book if you fear you won't be able to perform salat, shortening prayer, reading what's easy of the Quran, you can say your prayer on foot or while riding.
You are also given aplroximately a window of an "hour" for each salat
There is basically no excuse for missing salat and if it is missed, just ask forgiveness.
You can supplicate to God in humility and privacy any time.But the Salat is indeed for the believers a Book maqwutan
Although I will state that salat and zakat are more affairs related to our personality and our hearts (i.e.Making contact and upholding the Reading and being generous and loving towards the needy and the relatives). -
Not so clear to me... can you help clarify for me? Since my request is off-topic, feel free to PM me?
I will PM you if GOD so wills promptly.
I also failed to realize that Uq basically answered the OP, by stating that there is essentially a difference between not fulfilling an obligation and exceeding a prohibition.
-
After multiple years later. I had a conversation with chatGPT about this topic:
https://www.academia.edu/146219028/Why_no_expiation_or_making_up_of_missed_salat_in_Quran_and_also_zakat_U can skip to the end for the summary:
Conclusion (Qurʾān-only)
Zakat in the Qurʾān is best understood as general purification / betterment / moral
development.
This fits perfectly with our expiation framework:
o Relational, identity-based acts → no make-up / no expiation
o Procedural, measurable acts → make-up/expiation exists
In other words: Ṣalāt and Zakat share the same Qurʾānic logic regarding moral accountability vs.
procedural compensation.Qurʾānic Expiation / Make-Up Checklist
A. Expiation / Make-Up Exists (Yes)An act requires compensation if ALL of these Qurʾānic conditions are met:
- Procedural / measurable act
o The act is external and quantifiable (e.g., days of fasting, animal sacrifice).
o Qurʾān examples: fasting (2:184), Hajj/‘Umrah (2:196), ẓihār (58:3–4), hunting in sacred
months (5:95). - Specific violation occurred
o A prohibition or obligation was concretely broken.
o Example: missed fast day, interrupted pilgrimage, broken oath. - Material / external consequences
o The act has objective impact on others or the ritual order.
o Example: sacrificial animal replaces missed Hajj rite; charity or fasting compensates for
ẓihār. - Restoration / replacement is possible
o A substitute action can meaningfully restore the obligation.
o Qurʾān prescribes alternative acts (2:196, 5:95, 58:3–4).
B. Expiation / Make-Up Does Not Exist (No)
An act cannot be made up or expiated if ANY of these Qurʾānic features apply:
- Relational / identity-based act
o The act defines conscious alignment or orientation, not a tally.
o Examples: ṣalāt (4:43, 74:43, 107:4–5, 19:59), zakāt (2:267, 30:39). - Time-specific, instantaneous engagement
o Missed moment cannot be retroactively “experienced”.
o Example: missed ṣalāt moment or heedless engagement; cannot be redone later. - No tangible violation of others or external order
o Missing or neglecting it does not create a measurable deficit.
o Example: personal act of worship; moral consequence exists, but no procedural debt. - Correction = moral / conscious return, not substitution
o The Qurʾān emphasizes renewed awareness, alignment, or moral return, not a
replacement ritual.
o Example: turning back to ṣalāt (4:43, 107:4–5), moral purification through generosity (2:267,
30:39).
Summary Rule
Expiation / Make-Up exists only when the act is: measurable, procedural, violated, and
externally restorable.
Relational, instantaneous, or identity-defining acts (like ṣalāt or Qurʾānic zakāt) cannot be made up — moral return is the Qurʾānic solution.Note: AI may make mistakes here and there. Posted as food for thought. Always seek knowledge and verify information
- Procedural / measurable act
-
What I am struggling with is something very basic but also very deep, and it connects directly to the question about why the Quran provides expiation for some obligations but not for Salat and Zakat.
We are debating Salat and Zakat in great detail, even though they are among the most frequently mentioned and foundational concepts in the Quran. People disagree on whether they are rituals, moral orientations, financial systems, ethical principles, or some combination of all of these. And yet, no clear consensus emerges. This matters because the question of expiation depends entirely on the nature of the act itself. One cannot ask why there is no make-up or compensation unless one is clear about what kind of obligation Salat and Zakat actually are.
This raises a serious question for me. If these concepts were so central to the Quran, how is it possible that we still cannot agree on what they actually mean, while at the same time we are confident that other duties like fasting or pilgrimage are clearly defined enough to allow compensation when missed. And if we decide to reject Hadith as religious authority, that may be fine, but we cannot simply reject history itself. People lived with the Prophet. A society existed for decades while revelation was ongoing. They must have had a practical understanding of these commands and of what failure or neglect meant in real life.
Conventional Islam did not appear suddenly. It took shape over time, influenced by political authority, empire, legal systems, and the need to standardize practice across vast regions. Salat and Zakat eventually became formalized into procedures and policies. There were rules, numbers, timings, thresholds, and legal manuals. Along with that formalization came a strong sense of consequence, guilt, and accountability tied to procedural compliance. This development did not happen overnight. It evolved gradually after the death of the Prophet, across generations.
Today, most Muslim sects agree on the outward form of Salat and the financial structure of Zakat, even if they disagree on details. That level of agreement suggests that some shared understanding existed early on. However, the Quran itself does not frame Salat and Zakat in the same way it frames fasting or pilgrimage when it comes to missed performance or compensation. This difference may be intentional rather than accidental.
At the same time, something clearly went wrong in how consequences were internalized. Many Muslims today feel intense guilt over missing a single prayer, as if it were an irreparable failure, yet feel little inner disturbance over lying, injustice, exploiting others, harming or disobeying parents, or consuming what does not belong to them. That imbalance cannot come from the Quran itself. The Quran consistently condemns injustice and hypocrisy and repeatedly criticizes ritual that is disconnected from ethics. It never introduces a system of compensatory payments or substitute actions for missed Salat or neglected Zakat in the way it does for fasting or pilgrimage-related violations.
This imbalance is probably why many Quran-focused readers push back against ritualism altogether and question why there is no expiation for Salat and Zakat. But rejecting everything inherited is just as easy and just as shallow as accepting everything without thought. It is simple to say that most of traditional Islam got it wrong, but that also ignores lived history and human continuity.
It is possible that Salat and Zakat always had outward forms, recognizable practices that people performed regularly. It is also possible that these acts were never meant to be treated as procedural debts that could be missed and later paid off. If Salat and Zakat are acts of continuous alignment, moral orientation, and conscious engagement, then the absence of expiation makes sense. One does not compensate for a broken relationship with a substitute action. One returns, realigns, and corrects course.
The earliest Muslim community did not receive a policy document explaining how to compensate for missing Salat, nor a formula for making up neglected Zakat. They received guidance gradually, in motion, within a shared language and moral culture. Meaning came before codification. Orientation came before standardization.
We may never fully reconstruct exactly how the first community practiced every detail or how they internally understood failure in these acts. That may not be a failure of preservation, but a deliberate feature of the Quran. The Quran preserves principles and direction, not mechanisms for procedural repair in every case. Moral responsibility was never meant to be reduced to accounting.
So the real question may not be why there is no expiation for Salat and Zakat, but what kind of acts they are meant to be. If they are identity-forming, relational, and continuous, then they do not lend themselves to make-up or substitution in the way time-bound, measurable acts do.
Living with that uncertainty is uncomfortable, but perhaps it is necessary. The Quran does not demand false certainty. It repeatedly calls for reflection, humility, sincerity, and awareness of human limits. If I am at a loss, it is not because the Quran is unclear, but because I see the cost of oversimplifying acts that were never meant to be reduced to procedural debts.
And that, perhaps, is the most honest way to bring this discussion back to the original question about consequences and expiation.
-
i asked it to analyse this article, bearing in mind its expiation analysis above:
https://mypercept.co.uk/articles/covenant-quran.htmlBased strictly on Qurʾān and the article:
Dīn = living covenant
Covenant = sustained attachment and fidelity
Ṣalāt = vertical attachment (God-ward orientation)
Zakāt = horizontal attachment (social purification and joining)
Remove either:
You sever what God commanded to be joined (2:27, 13:21)
You exit covenantal space
Expiation becomes meaningless
You do not “make up” for absence of relationship — you either return to it or remain outside it.
One-line conclusion
Ṣalāt and zakāt are not expiate-able because they are not acts within the covenant — they are the covenant in lived form.
-
Recent thought: possible reason why if one missed salat time they cannot make up for it another time, is because it is communal.
e.g. from Layth:
features of Salat that are clearly group related:- The ablution or cleaning with soil (clearly a people thing)
- The audible voice during the Salat (again, someone has to be listening)
- The examples of Salat are always group related (e.g. 4:102)
- The hypocrites doing Salat are doing so "to be seen" (by whom, the group) - 4:142
- The call to Salat 5:58 (audible declaration - for the group)
-
I get the "Salat is communal” angle (call to salat, fear salat in groups, hypocrites doing it to be seen). But if its that public/communal why don’t we find its steps laid out(# of rakas etc). like we find inheritance shares laid out? The Quran specifies numbers when ambiguity causes injustice and disputes. For salat it seems to assume a known living practice and focuses on purpose (dhikr, humility, not showing off) and on adjustments in fear/travel/illness. Maybe the ʿillah is simply that ṣalat was already practiced and transmitted from prophets so the Quran didn’t re-document mechanics, it corrected the orientation. If that’s true, then “communal” alone may not be the reason there’s no make-up rather it’s more that salat is covenant/relationship, you return to it rather than repay a missed slot.
-
IMO, salat al fajr = quran al fajr. Pretty self explanatory.
Thus there is little need to make it regimented, provide an exact sequence etc. There is structure with flexibility:
https://www.quranvshadith.com/salat.html -
If Salat is communal in the sense of synchronized participation (call, rows, fear format), then it cannot be merely individual recitation without some shared form. A communal act presupposes recognizable structure. Since the Quran does not codify detailed procedure, it seems more likely that it assumes an already known practice and focuses on orientation rather than mechanics.
-
Along with salat’s basic purpose, the regular, timed salat for believers (17:78, 11:114, 24:58) seems to serve as a test of priorities, as reflected in the instruction to leave even business behind (62:9,11) and the guidance to maintain salat even in times of fear (4:101-102, 2:239). In that sense, the timing would appear to be binding (kitāban mawqūta, 4:103) even on an individual who is alone or unable to reach a group.
There are verses that depict salat in a group context. At the same time, Zakariya is described as being in salat (3:39), which appears to reflect an individual moment.
The Qur’an does not state explicitly whether a missed salat can or cannot be made up, which seems to leave that space open.
And ablution could also function as a personal act of mental and physical resetting.
Likewise, reciting/reading in an audible voice (17:110) might help an individual maintain focus, even if alone, and can also act as a gentle reminder to those nearby (close relatives/colleagues etc).And the call to salat may serve not only those who attend, but also as a reminder to anyone who hears it, even if they cannot join.
The Qur’an speaks of moderation (17:110; 31:19) as well as engaging others with wisdom and in the best manner (e.g. 16:125; 41:34), which may also guide how expressions/acts of devotion are carried out in shared spaces.
