or a quarter of it, or a fifth, or a sixth,” until he said, “or a tenth.” Thus, he—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—explained that a person may have only a tenth of his prayer recorded for him.

Ibn Abbās said: “You have only that part of your prayer to which you were attentive.” But does this invalidate the prayer and require it to be repeated? This requires a distinction.

If heedlessness occupies less of the prayer than attentiveness, and attentiveness predominates, the prayer need not be repeated, although its reward is diminished. For the transmitted texts abundantly establish that forgetfulness does not invalidate prayer; rather, certain instances of it are remedied by the two prostrations for forgetfulness. If, however, heedlessness predominates over attentiveness, the scholars hold two views:

The first is that the prayer is not valid inwardly, even if it is valid outwardly—for purposes such as safeguarding one’s life—because the purpose of prayer has not been achieved. It resembles the prayer of someone who prays to show off, which, by agreement, does not inwardly discharge his obligation. This is the view of Abū Abd Allāh ibn Hāmid, Abū Hāmid al-Ghazālī, and others.

The second is that the obligation is discharged, so he need not repeat the prayer, even though he receives no reward or recompense for it. This is like the fast of someone who does not abandon false speech and acting upon it: he gains nothing from his fast but hunger and thirst.

This is the view transmitted from Imam Ahmad and other imams. They cited as evidence the report in the two Sahīh collections, narrated by Abū Hurayrah from the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—that he said:

“When the muezzin gives the call