As for al-Shāfiʿī, he followed his own principle, with which many later jurists among Ahmad’s followers agreed: any of these sounds in which two letters are distinctly articulated constitutes speech that invalidates prayer. This is the strictest opinion on this issue and the furthest removed from the evidence. If they establish that these sounds invalidate prayer because they fall within the meaning of “speech” in the words of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, it is self-evident that these sounds do not fall within that meaning. If their ruling rests on analogy, that analogy is unsound: when speaking, a person intends meanings that he expresses in words, and this distracts the worshipper. As the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said:

“Prayer demands one’s full attention.”

These sounds, however, are natural, like breathing. It is well known that even if a person breathes more than necessary, his prayer is not invalidated. These sounds differ from breathing only in being audible. To invalidate prayer merely because of a sound is to establish a ruling without any basis or parallel. Moreover, hadiths concerning clearing the throat and blowing have been reported, as mentioned earlier. Furthermore, the prayer is certainly valid, so it is not permissible to invalidate it on the basis of doubt. We do not know that the reason for prohibiting speech is the supposed feature common to speech and these sounds. Rather, this amounts to establishing a ruling on the basis of doubt unsupported by evidence.

This disagreement concerns someone who makes such sounds for a reason other than fear of Allah. If he makes them out of fear of Allah, the position of Ahmad and Abū Hanīfa is that his prayer is not invalidated, whereas al-Shāfiʿī’s position is that it is invalidated because this constitutes speech. The former opinion is more correct, for when this arises from fear of Allah, it belongs to the same category as remembering Allah and supplicating to Him, for it is speech