and his passing in front of the worshipper reduces the reward of the prayer, whereas his remaining there does not.

The early scholars among Ahmad’s followers differed over whether a devil from among the jinn invalidates the prayer if its passing in front of the worshipper is known. The more convincing view is that it does, based on the explanation given by the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and the apparent meaning of his words:

“Cut off my prayer.”

For the rulings established in the Sunnah concerning evil spirits among the jinn and devils among animals—with regard to purification, prayer in their dwelling places and passageways, and similar matters—are strongly supported by both explicit texts and analogy. This is why jurists versed in hadith have adopted them. However, knowledge of their basis in transmitted reports belongs to the specialists in hadith. Understanding their basis through analogy requires understanding both the inward and outward dimensions of the Sharia, rather than its outward dimension alone.

Had none of the leading scholars acted upon these authentic and beneficial teachings of the Sunnah, it would have been a blemish upon the Muslim community to abandon such teachings and adopt positions that do not compare with them in either transmitted evidence or reasoned judgment.

Ahmad—may Allah have mercy on him—was indeed astonished by those who set aside the hadith prescribing “ablution after eating camel meat,” despite its unquestionable authenticity and the absence of any opposing evidence, yet perform ablution after touching the penis, despite the conflicting hadiths on that subject and the fact that their chains of transmission are not as strong as those of the hadiths prescribing ablution after eating camel meat. For this reason, the two leading hadith scholars, al-Bukhārī and Muslim, passed over them. Although Ahmad, according to the well-known position reported from him, gives preference to the hadiths prescribing ablution