its price was unlawful; however, the particular coins were not specified in the contract, because the price became a liability owed by the purchaser, and he paid it with stolen coins.

The evidence that the prayer is invalid is that covering oneself is an act of worship; and when an act of worship is performed in a prohibited manner, it has been performed contrary to the command of Allah and the command of His Messenger, and is therefore rejected. The Prophet ﷺ said: “Whoever performs a deed that is not in accordance with this matter of ours, it is rejected.” (1) . . .

Moreover, covering oneself is one of the conditions of prayer, while wearing this garment is prohibited. An obligation and a prohibition cannot both apply to one and the same thing. Thus, he wears this prohibited garment for prayer as something obligatory, yet wearing it is prohibited because it is unlawful. In this case, obligation and prohibition conflict; and when they conflict, the existence of what is prohibited is treated in the Sacred Law as though it did not exist. Thus, he has not fulfilled the obligation required of him, and this covering is consequently as though nonexistent, because he has substituted what is forbidden for what was commanded. The command and the prohibition have thus clashed, so the command is nullified, and it is as though he had not done what he was commanded to do. This is a strong line of reasoning, supported by the hadith narrated from the Messenger ﷺ concerning the man who lets his lower garment hang below his ankles: he commanded him to repeat the prayer. (2) This indicates that one condition of the garment by which one covers the private parts is that it be permissible.

Many scholars are of the view that the prayer is not invalidated if one covers his private parts with an unlawful garment, (3) because the covering has been achieved by it and the two matters are separable: the prohibition against wearing the garment is not due to the prayer itself; rather, it is an absolute prohibition,