onto his clothing or body in a large amount, his prayer is invalid by agreement. The fourth condition is that he must not speak out of ignorance or deliberately, for if he does so, his prayer is invalid by agreement.

There are also two disputed conditions. The first is that he must not speak forgetfully. Scholars differed concerning someone who does so. Ibn Habīb said that he may not resume, because the Sunnah permits a person with a nosebleed to resume only so long as he has not spoken, without distinguishing between forgetful and deliberate speech. Ibn Sahnūn related from his father that he resumes his prayer and performs the prostrations for forgetfulness, unless the imam has not yet finished his prayer, in which case the imam bears that responsibility on his behalf.

The second is that he must not step on dry filth. Scholars differed concerning someone who does so: Ibn Sahnūn said that his prayer is invalidated, while Ibn Abdūs said that it is not. As for walking along a road containing animal dung and urine in order to wash off the blood, this does not invalidate his prayer. He has no choice but to walk along the road to wash off the blood, just as he may have no choice but to pray there; he is not, however, compelled to step on dry filth. This was stated by Ibn Hārith.

Section

Resuming the prayer after a nosebleed is not obligatory; it is merely permissible. Scholars differed over which course is preferable and recommended. Ibn al-Qāsim preferred ending the prayer with the salutation or with speech, in accordance with analogy. He said that if the person begins anew without having spoken, he must repeat the prayer. Mālik—may Allah Most High have mercy on him—preferred resuming, in adherence to the early generations, even though this runs contrary to analogy and reasoned analysis. This accords with his principle [that established practice carries greater weight than analogy, because uninterrupted practice can have its origin] only in revealed instruction.

Ibn Habīb, however, stated something that implies that resuming is obligatory: if an imam suffers a nosebleed and verbally appoints someone to replace him, whether speaking out of ignorance or deliberately, both his prayer and theirs become invalid. He thus held that the imam’s ending his prayer through speech after a nosebleed invalidates their prayer, just as it would if he spoke out of ignorance or deliberately without having a nosebleed. The correct position is that given in al-Mudawwanah: their prayer is not invalidated. For when he suffers a nosebleed, ending his prayer is permissible according to one opinion and recommended according to another. How, then, could the congregation’s prayer be invalidated by his doing something that is permissible or recommended for him?