to acknowledge what the Messenger has made obligatory. Such a person is subject to the rulings concerning apostates, and scholars hold three opinions on this:

The first is that he need not make up anything he neglected during his apostasy or before it—whether prayer, fasting, or zakat—on the grounds that apostasy has nullified his deeds and that, upon returning, he embraces Islam anew and begins his acts of worship afresh. This is the well-known position in the schools of Abū Hanīfa and Mālik, and one view within Ahmad’s school.

The second is that he must make up what he neglected during his apostasy and before it. This is al-Shāfiʿī’s position and one of the positions transmitted from Ahmad.

The third is that he need not make up what he neglected during his apostasy, but must make up what he neglected before it. This is the well-known position transmitted from Ahmad.

If, however, one of these people is ignorant and believes the Messenger to be truthful, but supposes that the religion he brought exempts some people who have reached puberty from these obligations—as various groups who have kept company with ignorant shaykhs suppose, and as a group of ignorant shaykhs themselves suppose, while also experiencing states arising from the self and from Satan—then their case turns on the following question: must someone who neglected prayer before knowing that it was obligatory make it up?

There are three opinions on this, including two positions within Ahmad’s school. The first is that he is not required to make it up under any circumstances, on the grounds that the ruling conveyed by the divine address does not take effect