consists of separate acts which, by consensus, need not be performed as one uninterrupted act.

No one may object: “If someone performs extensive movements for a valid excuse, as in the prayer of fear, or inadvertently gives the salām, he is still legally considered to be praying. The proof is that if he were then deliberately to engage in conversation or speech that invalidates prayer, make extensive movements unnecessarily, turn his back to the direction of prayer unnecessarily, or uncover his private parts, his prayer would become invalid. Were he no longer praying, these things would not invalidate his prayer. This therefore does not constitute a breach of the required continuity.”

The answer is that this is, in fact, among the strongest proofs of what we have said. It is well known that these actions and the lengthy interruption excused in his case—such as going to face the enemy and then returning to his position, or someone who inadvertently gave the salām rising and going to one side of the mosque and leaning against it—are neither obligatory nor recommended acts of prayer. Nor can they be included among such acts in the way that prolonging the standing, bowing, prostration, or sitting can. These four postures are themselves acts of prayer. Prolonging them, or introducing into them minor movements that are not prescribed in prayer, does not prevent them from remaining part of the prayer.

Those other actions, however, are not acts of prayer. The worshipper was commanded to perform extensive movements during the prayer of fear only for the sake of jihad, and comparable actions done inadvertently are excused because Allah has pardoned this community for mistakes and forgetfulness. Thus, an interruption between the successive parts of prayer occurs sometimes through an action that necessitates altering its form, and sometimes through an action for which the person incurs no sin