the first group to its place, where it completed the prayer; then the second group did likewise.” This manner of praying is described in the two Sahīh collections. It is permissible and not disliked according to the leading hadith scholars, such as Ahmad and others. It is also Abū Hanīfah’s preferred form of prayer in circumstances of fear, since it differs from prayer in safety only in turning away from the direction of prayer and making extensive movements. Both are permissible for a valid excuse.

A similar case is someone whose ablution is involuntarily invalidated. Most scholars—including Abū Hanīfah and Mālik, as well as al-Shāfi‘ī according to one opinion and Ahmad according to one transmitted position—hold that he should renew his ablution and resume his prayer from where he left off, provided that he has not invalidated it through deliberate speech or the like. This is reported from most of the Companions. There are also two reports with disconnected chains from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) concerning this. Al-Shāfi‘ī and others accept such a report as evidence when the majority of the Companions have acted upon it.

Likewise, if someone inadvertently gives the salām to end his prayer—as the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did in the hadith of Dhū al-Yadayn—and then completes the prayer, this interruption and separation between its parts does not prevent its completion. In that incident, the prayer was interrupted by his rising and going to the wooden beam, leaning against it, interlacing his fingers, and resting his cheek upon them; by his speech and that of the man who alerted him, questioned him, and told him that he had not forgotten and that the prayer had not been shortened; and by the replies of those who agreed with the man who had alerted him.

It is well known that, had he done this deliberately, it would have invalidated the prayer, without dispute. Thus, if prayer—which has only been prescribed as a continuous act—is treated differently when its parts are separated for a valid excuse and when they are separated without one, how can separating the acts of ablution be treated alike with and without a valid excuse, even though ablution