make them up, and this appears to be correct. Two explicit views are reported from Ahmad on this underlying issue: if someone prays in a place where camels rest, unaware of the prohibition, and then learns of it, must he repeat the prayer? There are two reported views. Likewise, if someone prays without performing ablution after eating camel meat, unaware of the prohibition, and then learns of it, must he repeat the prayer? There are two explicitly reported views.

Another view is that someone who leaves prayer out of ignorance of its obligation must make it up if he was in the territory of Islam, but not if he was in the territory of war. This is the well-known position in the school of Abū Hanīfah.

If a fasting person does something that invalidates the fast, unaware that it is forbidden, must he repeat the fast? There are two views within Ahmad’s school. The same applies to someone who unknowingly commits a prohibited act during Hajj.

The underlying question is whether a revealed ruling becomes binding on a legally accountable person before it reaches him. There are three views on this within the school of Ahmad and elsewhere. One view is that it does become binding; another is that it does not; and a third is that an initial ruling becomes binding, but an abrogating ruling does not.

The more evident view is that none of these acts of worship must be made up, and that a revealed ruling becomes binding only after it has reached the person, because Allah Most High says:

“ So that I may warn you through it, and whoever it reaches.”

And He says:

“We never punish until We have sent a messenger.”

And He says:

“So that people would have no argument against Allah after the messengers.”

There are numerous passages like this in the Quran. He, glorified is He, has made clear that He does not punish anyone until what the Messenger brought has reached him. Whoever knows that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah and believes this, but does not know much of what