the salām and at other times after it. Even if this had been reported, it would indicate that both are permissible. Thus, the claim of abrogation in this matter is invalid.

How could his command to prostrate after the salām in a particular situation, and his own practice of doing so, be invalidated by something that does not contradict them?

As for those who maintain that all such prostrations should be performed after the salām and cite the hadith of Thawbān recorded in the Sunan collections:

“For every lapse of forgetfulness, there are two prostrations after the salām,”

this report is weak, because Ibn ‘Ayyāsh narrates it from narrators of the Hijaz, and his narrations from them are weak by agreement of the hadith scholars. They also cite the hadith of Ibn Ja‘far:

“Whoever is in doubt about his prayer should perform two prostrations after giving the salām.”

However, its chain includes Ibn Abī Laylā. Al-Athram said, “Neither report is established as authentic.” Moreover, the latter may be like the hadith of Ibn Mas‘ūd:

“If he is in doubt, he should determine what is most likely correct,”

and may be an abridged version of that report. Such a report cannot stand against the authentic hadith of Abū Sa‘īd concerning doubt:

“He commanded two prostrations before the salām,”

nor against the hadith of Ibn Buhaynah recorded in the two Sahīh collections, which is a foundational report for the rulings on forgetfulness in prayer: he omitted the first tashahhud and prostrated before the salām. These authentic hadiths demonstrate the weakness of every position that generalizes by placing all such prostrations before the salām or all of them after it. What remains is to distinguish between the cases.

It may therefore be said: the Lawgiver is wise and does not distinguish between two things unless there is a difference between them. He would not prescribe some prostrations after the salām and others before it unless there were a difference between the two.