the camel; nor between the passing of a black dog and that of a red dog or any other kind. Yet the Lawgiver has explicitly distinguished between them. Any conflation that nullifies or cancels a restriction laid down by the Lawgiver is therefore unacceptable and must be rejected. The correct view is the one mentioned at the start of this discussion: the prayer is invalidated by the passage of a menstruating woman, a donkey, or a black dog. As for the unbeliever, the Magian, the swine, the Jew, and the Christian, ruling that their passage nullifies the prayer depends on sound evidence from the Prophet ﷺ. You have already seen that the hadith concerning the unbeliever has a broken chain, while the hadith about the swine and the rest is doubtful as to whether it is marfuʿ (traceable to the Prophet). No proof can be adduced until its chain is connected and its text is unquestionably raised. (1) This ḥadith indicates that sitting on graves is prohibited, for prohibition (nahy) by default signifies impermissibility. This is the view of the majority, as related by al-Sanʿani in Subul al-salām (2/157) and al-Shawkani in Nayl al-awṭār (4/75). A more accurate report, however, is that they hold it merely disliked (makruh), as transmitted by al-Nawawi in al-Majmūʿ (5/312) and by Ibn al-Jawzi, cited by Ibn Ḥajar in Fatḥ al-bāri (3/174). The correct ruling is that it is forbidden, because the basic principle of prohibition has not been displaced by any evidence reducing it to dislike; rather, other texts reinforce it, such as the narration from Abu Hurayra in which the Prophet ﷺ said: “For one of you to sit on a live coal that burns his clothes and reaches his skin is better for him than to sit on a grave.” Reported by Muslim (3/62); Abu Dawud (2/71); al-Nasa’i (1/287); Ibn Majah (1/1/474); and Ahmad (2/311, 389, 444).