two rakʿahs, whereas the hadith of Imrān states that it was after three, as does the hadith of Rāfiʿ. This account also explicitly identifies the prayer as ʿAsr, as do the hadith of Imrān and other reports. Whether the incident occurred once or twice is disputed, but this is not the place to discuss that.

The point here is that, once it is established that the hadith of Dhū al-Yadayn has not been abrogated, it establishes that such speech and actions do not invalidate prayer. There are several views on this within the school of Ahmad and among others. According to one report from him, ordinary speech and speech uttered by mistake do not invalidate prayer. This is also the position of Mālik and al-Shāfiʿī, and it is the strongest view. Further support comes from the following hadith:

“Muʿāwiyah ibn al-Hakam al-Sulamī invoked Allah’s mercy upon someone who sneezed during prayer. When the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, heard him, he said to him, ‘No human speech is permissible in this prayer of ours.’”

He did not instruct him to repeat the prayer. This man had been unaware that speaking was prohibited. Ahmad’s followers take two approaches concerning someone who is unaware of the ruling.

The first treats him like someone who forgets.

The second holds that his prayer is not invalidated, even if the prayer of someone who forgets is invalidated, because an abrogating ruling does not take effect until the person learns of it.

This distinction, however, is weak in this case. It applies only to someone who continued to follow the abrogated ruling because the abrogating ruling had not reached him, as happened with the people of Qubāʾ. Here, however, the abrogated ruling itself had not reached him