at all. Thus, for him, the prohibition was a newly introduced ruling. But does a ruling take effect for a legally accountable person before the divine instruction reaches him?

The followers of Ahmad and others hold three views on this:

First, it takes effect in all cases.

Second, it does not take effect in any case.

Third, a distinction is drawn between an abrogating ruling and a newly introduced ruling.

On this basis, it may be said that the ruling conveyed by the instruction had not reached the person who was unaware of it. A distinction may also be drawn between someone who forgets and someone who is unaware. Do you not see that, by the agreement of the Muslims, someone who sleeps through a prayer or forgets it must perform it? Likewise, someone who forgetfully omits one of its obligatory elements and then remembers, before recalling that he prayed without ablution or omitted the recitation, bowing, or the like, must repeat the prayer.

As for someone who forgets a duty such as the first tashahhud, he should perform the prostrations of forgetfulness before the closing salutation. If he deliberately omits them, there are two views on whether his prayer is invalidated; the better-known view is that it is. If, however, he forgets them altogether, his prayer is not invalidated. Here, forgetfulness has resulted in the duty being waived entirely.

As for someone who is unaware, suppose he prays without knowing that ablution is required after eating camel meat, or prays in the places where camels rest without knowing that this is prohibited, and then learns of the ruling. There are two reports from Ahmad concerning whether he must repeat the prayer. However, the view more clearly supported by the evidence is that he need not repeat it, as we have explained at length elsewhere.