just as when he ends the prayer with the salām and then remembers, in which case the salām is disregarded.

Ahmad and Mālik say: He intended what he performed to belong to the second rakʿah, not the first. Once he has recited or bowed in the second rakʿah, he can count it as the first, since the requirement to maintain the order of the rakʿahs is waived when there is a valid excuse. There is therefore no reason to invalidate this rakʿah. His action would be out of its proper place only if this rakʿah were treated as the second; if it is treated as the first, he has performed the action in its proper place.

If it is said that he had already intended the second rakʿah and intended his prostration in it to belong to the second, then preserving the order within the parts of a single rakʿah—by not assigning some of its parts to another rakʿah—takes precedence over preserving the order between the two rakʿahs. Treating the first as the second is permissible when there is a valid excuse, as in the case of someone who joins the prayer late. But treating the prostration of the second rakʿah as completing the first has no parallel in the revealed law. A detailed discussion of this belongs elsewhere.

The point here is that the requirement to observe the prescribed order in ablution is waived because of forgetfulness, as is the requirement of continuity, according to Mālik’s view. The same applies to excuses other than forgetfulness, such as the water being far away, as reported from Ibn ʿUmar. If an interruption in the prayer itself is permissible because of a valid excuse, then this applies all the more to ablution. This is evidenced by the prayer in circumstances of fear described in Ibn ʿUmar’s hadith, and by the hadiths concerning the prostrations of forgetfulness.