—while the other set is indeed contradictory in content, but its chains are unsound; such reports, therefore, cannot legitimately be set against the authentic ones. Ibn al-Qayyim writes in Zad al-Maad (1/111): “The narrations cited to oppose these hadiths are of two kinds: those that are sound but not explicit, and those that are explicit but unsound. One does not abandon a hadith on account of such opponents. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ used to pray while Aishah lay asleep in front of him, and that is unlike someone who passes by; a man is forbidden to walk in front of the worshipper, yet it is not disliked for him to remain seated there. The same applies to a woman: her passing nullifies the prayer, not her staying. Allah knows best.” As for the claim made by some that these hadiths have been abrogated, it is without proof. Many scholars— even those who do not uphold their literal sense—have rejected this notion, among them al-Nawawi, Ibn Hajar, and others. Al-Nawawi says in al-Majmu (3/251): “The abrogation asserted by some of our colleagues and others is unacceptable, for there is no evidence for it. The fact that the hadith of Ibn Abbas occurred during the Farewell Pilgrimage, i.e., at the end of the Prophet’s life, does not entail that it abrogates the earlier reports, for the narrations about invalidation could have come later. It is a settled principle of usul that such a case does not amount to abrogation. Moreover, even if abrogation were conceivable, reconciling the texts would take precedence, because that preserves them all; this, too, is a well-known rule.” I reply: Reconciliation is only required when there is a contradiction, and we have shown that no contradiction exists; hence the hadiths must be applied according to their apparent wording. Besides, the reconciliation they propose is untenable. They say that “cutting” here means cutting off khushu (concentration) and remembrance by distracting the worshipper and making him turn toward the passer-by, not that it actually invalidates the prayer. I further say: This is illogical, for it renders the explicit statement of the hadith void. The text restricts the cutting to the three items mentioned, yet their interpretation implies that the restriction is not intended, because there is no difference—regarding distraction from concentration—between a man passing in front of the worshipper and a woman. Indeed, what difference is there, on this explanation, between a menstruating woman and one who is not? Likewise, there is no difference between a donkey passing by and a horse, or