3. The phrase: “and the rise of ground lay between us and the qiblah” implies that, had the elevation been in some other direction, they would have prayed differently—just as outlined in the two preceding reports and elsewhere.

4. The ḥadīth highlights the Prophet’s ﷺ exemplary leadership: the skill with which he arranged the army, kept it clear of danger and ambush, and put all necessary precautions in place.

5. It also showcases his absolute fairness, a trait that marked every aspect of his life.
   • He was fair in the prayer itself, having the two detachments alternate so that neither was deprived.
   • He was fair in the units of prayer, for each group prayed one rakʿah with him.
   • He was fair in their positions behind him, giving both groups the honor of standing in the row closest to him.
   Such was his practice ﷺ in all matters.

6. The report proves that extensive movements required by the circumstances—such as advancing to a superior spot—do not invalidate the prayer. The ruling on movement and its categories was discussed earlier in the account of the Prophet ﷺ carrying Umāmah during prayer (hadith 91).

Important benefit:
Al-Ṣanʿānī said, when reviewing the scholars’ divergent views on the fear prayer: “My position is whatever is established by this ḥadīth; if the report is authentic, it is my school.” The same has been authentically transmitted from Imām al-Shāfiʿī, and likewise from Abū Ḥanīfah, Mālik, and Aḥmad. Indeed, this is the attitude of every believer: when something is soundly reported from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, yet someone—out of ignorance—voices an opposing opinion, the Prophet’s words take precedence over all others, in keeping with the verse, “Whatever the Messenger gives you, take it; and whatever he forbids you, refrain” [59:7]. This is precisely what it means to believe in his mission and prophethood.

The statements of the four Imams and others show that they did not encompass everything that reached us from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ—a fact beyond dispute. Only uninformed partisans bristle at the suggestion that their Imām never encountered a report that contradicts his legal position; they insist he knew it and deemed it abrogated or re-interpreted, or offer other excuses that do not stand up to critical scrutiny.

Hence, if someone follows his Imām in a question where an authentic text runs contrary to that Imām’s view, he is, in reality, not following his Imām at all—because the Imām explicitly declared that he must not be followed when his opinion conflicts with the revealed text. End of quote.