According to this view, one must remain still in bowing for the time it takes to say once, “Glory be to my Lord, the Magnificent”; in rising from it, for the time it takes to say, “Our Lord, and to You belongs all praise”; in prostration, for the time it takes to say, “Glory be to my Lord, the Most High”; and while sitting, for the time it takes to say, “My Lord, forgive me”—and so on.

If someone asks: Is there any apparent difference between the two views—our saying that stillness, however slight, suffices, and our saying that one must remain still for the duration of the obligatory remembrance?

The answer is: Yes. If a person remains still only briefly, for less than the duration of the obligatory remembrance, and forgets to say the obligatory remembrance but then continues his prayer, then according to the view that tranquillity consists of stillness, however slight, his prayer is valid. However, he must perform the prostration of forgetfulness for omitting an obligation. According to the view that one must remain still for the duration of the obligatory remembrance, his prayer is invalid, because he has not fulfilled the pillar, as he did not remain settled for the duration of the obligatory remembrance.

For this reason, some jurists made a distinction, saying: it must be for the duration of the obligatory remembrance in the case of one who remembers it, while stillness, however slight, suffices for one who forgets it.

They explained that if he forgets the obligatory utterance, it is waived in his case, though he must perform the prostration of forgetfulness. But if he remembers this utterance, his prayer is invalidated by deliberately omitting it. Thus, the prayer is invalid both because of his omission of an obligation and because he did not observe the required tranquillity.

If two men come to us asking, and one of them says, “I remained tranquil in bowing for the time it took me to say, ‘Glory be to my Lord, the Magnificent,’” then his prayer is valid according to both views.