in which no distinction has been established between the case treated by juristic preference and other cases. Thus, the strongest position is to distinguish between additions and omissions, and between doubt resolved by judging what is most likely and doubt resolved by proceeding on the basis of certainty.

This is one of the positions reported from Ahmad. Mālik’s position is close to it, but not identical. Besides giving effect to all the texts, this position draws a rationally intelligible distinction.

When there is an omission, such as leaving out the first tashahhud, the prayer needs to be made whole. The prostrations that make it whole are performed before the salām so that the prayer is completed through them, since the salām releases one from the prayer. When there is an addition, such as an extra rak‘ah, two additions should not be combined within the prayer. Rather, the prostrations are performed after the salām, for they serve to humiliate Satan and are like an independent prayer through which one remedies the deficiency in one’s prayer. Indeed, the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, treated the two prostrations as equivalent to a rak‘ah.

Likewise, when someone doubts and acts on what he judges most likely, he has completed his prayer, and the two prostrations serve only to humiliate Satan; they therefore follow the salām. Mālik, however, does not endorse acting on what one judges most likely, nor prostrating after the salām in this case.

Similarly, if someone pronounces the salām while part of his prayer remains, then completes it, he has thereby completed his prayer, while the earlier salām constitutes an addition. In this case, the prostrations follow the salām because they serve to humiliate Satan.