The answer is that he should intend it in his heart, because a person’s saying, “Allah is Most Great,” comprises both the utterance of the tongue and the statement of the heart. For he would not say with his tongue, “Allah is Most Great,” unless he had first said it in his heart and resolved upon it. Thus, if utterance with the tongue is impossible, the statement of the heart becomes obligatory: he says it in his heart and does not move his tongue or lips.

This is contrary to the view of some scholars, who maintain that he should move his tongue and lips, reasoning that speaking entails moving the tongue and lips; therefore, when producing sound is impossible, movement remains obligatory.

The response to this is that moving the tongue and lips is not an end in itself; rather, it is a means to something else, since speech cannot occur without it. When the primary objective becomes impossible, the means falls away. It then becomes mere movement and idle action. What benefit is there in a person moving his lips and tongue when he is unable to speak? The stronger view in this matter is that if a person is mute and unable to speak with his tongue, he should intend it in his heart and should not move his lips or tongue, because that is needless movement and idle action in the prayer.

His statement, “and he says”: if we hold that speaking is done with the tongue, is it a condition that one hear oneself utter these words?

The scholars differ over this (1). Some of them say that there must be a sound by which one can hear oneself. This is the established position of the school (2), even if the person beside him cannot hear it. Rather, he must hear himself; if he speaks without being heard