remains in force; for the alleged abrogation of praying while the imam is seated does not invalidate the underlying rationale. It only shows that another, weightier consideration—such as the fact that standing is an obligatory pillar of the prayer—has overridden it. An obligation is not set aside merely because of a superficial resemblance, and this is a matter subject to scholarly ijtihad. Where such outward resemblance does not entail dropping an obligation, the rationale given by the Messenger of Allah remains unimpaired, because standing during the prayer is not, in reality, an act of imitation and therefore carries no censure. Whenever a ruling is tied to a particular rationale and is then abrogated while that rationale is still present, the abrogation must be due either to another factor that outweighed it at the time or to a weakening of its effect; to claim that the original rationale was itself invalid is impossible. All of this would apply only if the ruling here were actually abrogated—yet the sound position is that the hadith is still operative (muhkam, i.e., definitive and not abrogated). Several Companions continued to act upon it after the Prophet’s death, fully aware of how he prayed during his final illness. His command on the matter has been transmitted through numerous explicit and authentic reports, which preclude the notion that the hadith of his illness abrogates it, as explained elsewhere. Accordingly, the hadith remains operative either because both modes are permissible—standing does not contradict sitting—or because a distinction must be drawn between an imam who begins the prayer seated and one who begins it standing: the latter situation is not included in the phrase, “and when he prays seated,” nor is the mischief that the Prophet identified present. Moreover, basing the latter portions of the prayer on its initial posture is more appropriate than basing them on the imam’s current posture. Further details are discussed in other contexts.