“...but he does not perform the prostration merely because he is uncertain whether he omitted an obligation.” That is, if he is uncertain whether he omitted an obligation after having moved beyond its proper place, is this treated like actually omitting it—such that he must perform the prostration for forgetfulness—or is it treated like having performed it, such that no prostration is required?

For example, after rising from prostration, he is uncertain whether he said, “Glory be to my Lord, the Most High,” or did not say it.

The answer is that there are two views on this issue:

The first view is that uncertainty over omitting an obligation is treated as omitting it, and he must perform the prostration for forgetfulness, because he is uncertain whether he performed it or not, and the basic presumption is that it was not performed. Since the basic presumption is non-performance, this man did not recite the first tashahhud, and he must therefore perform the prostration for forgetfulness.

The second view: (1) No prostration is required of him, because he is uncertain about the cause that necessitates the prostration—namely, omitting the tashahhud—and the basic presumption is that the cause did not occur. Thus, the obligation to perform the prostration does not apply to him. This is the established position of the school.

However, the first reasoning is more correct: the basic presumption is non-performance, and this presumption precedes the obligation of the prostration for forgetfulness, so we adopt it.

If we follow the stronger view (2), namely acting upon what seems more likely, then if it seems more likely to you that you recited the tashahhud, no prostration is required of you; but if it seems more likely to you that you did not recite the tashahhud, then you must perform the prostration. In this case, the prostration is performed before the salām, because it is due to a deficiency; and every prostration due to a deficiency is performed before the salām.