On this basis, Ahmad’s explicit ruling concerned only someone who omitted this forgetfully. Thus, he was asked, “What if he forgot only to rinse his mouth?” He replied, “Rinsing the nose is, in my view, more emphatically required.” This concerns someone who forgot to do so and then prayed. He said, “He should rinse both and repeat the prayer.” He considered repeating the prayer more emphatically required when rinsing the nose had been omitted, because the authentic hadiths command it.

The same applies to the report traced back to the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him. All those who described his ablution reported that he began by rinsing his mouth and nose. This report recounts a single occurrence, so one cannot be certain that he acted deliberately. Accordingly, there is no Prophetic precedent for deliberately postponing these two acts; rather, the precedent concerns forgetfulness. For the case of forgetfulness is established with certainty: even assuming there is doubt, the apparent likelihood is that he had forgotten. If it is permissible when done deliberately, it is all the more permissible when done forgetfully. Someone who forgets is therefore excused in either case, unlike someone who acts deliberately.

This is the third view: distinguishing between someone who deliberately reverses the prescribed order of ablution and someone excused by forgetfulness or ignorance. It is the strongest view, supported by the statements of the Companions and the majority of scholars. It also accords with the school’s principles in other matters and is Ahmad’s explicit position in the case from which Abū al-Khattāb derived his ruling by analogy.

One such case is departing from the prescribed order between slaughtering the sacrificial animal and shaving the head. Someone who does so out of ignorance is excused, without disagreement within the school. As for someone who does so knowingly and deliberately, two positions are reported from Ahmad.