camels, or omits prayer after embracing Islam because he does not know that it is obligatory for him, or the like—is he required to make up these obligations?

There are two positions within the school. In some cases, a position is expressly transmitted; in others, it is inferred by the school’s jurists. The underlying issue is whether a revealed injunction concerning the detailed rulings of the Sharia becomes binding upon a Muslim before it reaches him. Al-Qādī Abū Yaʿlā mentioned two juristic views on this in a separate treatise. There is also a third view, chosen by some scholars of the school, which distinguishes between an abrogating injunction and an initial injunction: abrogation takes effect only after the abrogating injunction reaches the person, unlike an initial injunction.

They have established, with numerous proofs, that making up the omitted obligations is not required in any of these cases, and that an injunction becomes binding only after it has been conveyed, both generally and in detail. Thus, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, did not instruct Abū Dharr to make up his prayers when he refrained for a time from praying with dry ablution while in a state of major ritual impurity. Nor did he instruct ʿUmar ibn al-Khattāb to do so in the incident involving ʿAmmār ibn Yāsir. Nor did he instruct anyone who ate until he could distinguish a white tethering cord from a black one to repeat the fast. There are numerous similar examples in the Sharia.

Indeed, if a disbeliever is pardoned upon embracing Islam for obligations he omitted through lack of belief—even though Allah had imposed them upon him and he is punished for neglecting them—then for Him to pardon a Muslim for obligations he omitted because he did not believe them obligatory, when He does not punish him