A third view is also reported from him: speech invalidates the prayer unless it serves the prayer’s benefit, whether deliberate or inadvertent.

A fourth report makes an exception only for inadvertent speech serving the prayer’s benefit. This was the view preferred by my grandfather.

A fifth report holds that the prayer is invalidated, except in the case of an imam who speaks for the prayer’s benefit, whether deliberately or inadvertently.

The uncertainty arises from his initially addressing Dhū al-Yadayn, and from Dhū al-Yadayn’s replying to the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, “Yes, you have forgotten,” after the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, had said:

“I have neither forgotten, nor has the prayer been shortened.”

The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, spoke both these words and the following:

“Is what Dhū al-Yadayn says true?”

Those addressed also spoke, confirming what Dhū al-Yadayn had said. It was therefore argued that this was permissible only because the Prophet did not believe he was still in prayer. The same applied to Dhū al-Yadayn: his question to the Prophet was comparable to his concluding salām and that of the believers with him, following the Prophet’s lead. They did not know that he had forgotten; rather, they considered it possible that the prayer had been shortened. The same applied to the other Companions. Had they known both that he had forgotten and that it was impermissible to follow someone who forgetfully concluded the prayer with the salām, they would have alerted him by saying, “Glory be to Allah.” But they did not know both matters with certainty; rather, they considered one or both possibilities. Indeed, they believed that following him in prayer was obligatory without qualification until the matter became clear to them.

Those advancing this argument were then told: “The worshippers answered him by confirming what Dhū al-Yadayn had said, despite knowing that the prayer