No early scholar held this view. Reconciling the texts by means of a manner that contradicts what the texts entail and departs from what the scholars have said is an error. Moreover, this is an action contrary to one’s natural disposition and bodily nature. Every action in the prayer that runs contrary to one’s natural disposition and bodily nature requires evidence, because the prayer, in all its actions and words, is an act of worship. This is a principle to which I would like attention to be given:

“Every action that differs from the natural manner of bodily movement during its transitions requires evidence to establish it, so that it may be legislated.”

Accordingly, we say: the basic principle is that the limbs should be positioned as dictated by their natural state, unless evidence establishes otherwise. Thus, were it not for the report indicating that the feet should be placed together in prostration, (1) we would say that a person should leave them in their natural position: if the knees are apart, then the feet should likewise be apart. But since there is evidence indicating that they are joined together, we depart from this basic principle. Therefore, whatever has not been reported as departing from the body’s customary posture remains as it is according to the body’s customary posture.

Even with a barrier that is not one of the limbs used in prostration …

His statement, “Even with a barrier that is not one of the limbs used in prostration,” means that one prostrates upon the ground, even if there is a barrier which is not one of the limbs used in prostration. Such a barrier includes a garment, a headcloth, an outer cloak, and anything of the same kind as the ground; it also includes that which is not of its kind. This is general, but it must be pure, for it is not possible to prostrate upon something impure, since, as mentioned previously, one of the conditions of the prayer is to avoid impurity. (2)