have to repeat it; his prayer remains valid whether he had been unaware of the impurity, had known of it but forgotten, or had been conscious of it yet unable to remove it.

Al-Nawawī attributes this opinion to the majority of scholars, and then says in al-Majmūʿ: “Ibn al-Mundhir said: ‘This is also my view; it is the position of Rabīʿah and Mālik. The proof for it is strong, and it is the preferred view.’ ”

If what we have adopted is correct, the ḥadīth proves that removing impurity is not a condition for the validity of the prayer, for the Prophet ﷺ continued from what he had already prayed before taking off his sandals. Had it been a prerequisite he would have started the prayer anew, for the absence of a condition entails the absence of that which depends on it, as is established in legal theory. Al-Shawkānī states:

“Those who cite this ḥadīth as evidence that removing impurity is a prerequisite for a valid prayer are, as we have shown, adducing a proof against themselves, not in their favour. The Prophet’s persistence in the prayer he had begun before removing his sandals, without recommencing it, demonstrates that purity was not a condition. The majority reply that what is meant by qadhir (filth) here is merely something repulsive—like mucus, spittle, and the like—and that filth does not necessarily constitute legal impurity. They further say it may have been a small amount of blood that is excused, and that Gabriel told him only so that his clothes would not be soiled by something offensive.”

This reply is undermined by what is stated in al-Bāriʿ, in his commentary on the verse ‘…or one of you comes from relieving himself’ (al-Māʾidah 6), where he explains that Allah used ghāʾiṭ as a euphemism for filth, and by the statement