forgetful, the prayer is still valid; this is an early opinion reported from al-Shafi‘i.

2. The second narration: the prayer is invalid—whether he knew of the impurity, was unaware of it, or forgot.

3. The third: the prayer is valid even when the impurity remains, even if he knew of it and deliberately left it; removing it is recommended (sunnah). Our scholars have related a similar stance from Ibn ʿAbbās and Saʿīd ibn Jubayr.

Al-Nawawī then adduced, in support of the majority’s view, the previously cited verse and the commands contained in the foregoing hadiths. Yet it is plain that the most these commands establish is obligation, and obligation does not of itself entail that something is a prerequisite, for declaring a matter a condition is a juristic ruling that is established only by: an explicit statement from the Lawgiver that it is a condition, or by making the act conditional upon it with a particle of condition, or by negating the act in its absence (1)—a negation directed at its validity, not its perfection—or by denying the act’s outcome. It cannot be proven by a mere imperative alone, as al-Shawkānī (may Allah have mercy on him) explained.

The correct view, therefore, is that removing impurity is not a condition for the validity of prayer—this being the early position of al-Shafi‘i. Rather, it is obligatory by virtue of these commands, and whoever fails to comply is sinful. Thus, one who prays while impurity is on his body or clothing has abandoned an obligation, but his prayer is not invalid in the way it would be if a true condition of validity were missing, for the reasons already made clear.

The forthcoming hadith of Abū Saʿīd substantiates this.