The jurists agreed that things stipulated to be relinquished in prayer include words as well as acts. The acts include all acts permissible outside prayer that are not part of prayer, except the killing of a scorpion or a snake during prayer, about which they disagreed due to the existence of a conflict between a tradition on the issue and analogy. They agreed, I think, about the permissibility of minor movements.

The words include all those that are not part of prayer. In this too, they agreed that they invalidate prayer, if uttered intentionally, because of the j words of the Exalted, “And stand up with devotion to Allah”,109 and also because of the report from the Prophet, “Allah stipulates any command of His that He likes, and He stipulates that you should not speak during prayers”.

This is the tradition of Ibn Mas'ud. The tradition of Zayd ibn Arqam reads, “We used to speak during prayer, till the words, “And stand up with devotion to Allah”, were revealed and we were commanded to maintain silence and prohibited from speaking”. Further, there is the tradition of Mu<awiya ibn al- Hakam al-SulamT, who said, “I heard the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) saying, ‘The speech of people is not suitable for our prayer, for prayer is praise (of Allah), the repetition of the word of taw hid, thanksgiving, and the recitation of the Qur’an’”. They disagreed, however, about this on two points. First, when a person speaks out due to forgetfulness, and second when he speaks out intentionally for correcting an error in prayer. AFAwzaT deviated from this saying that a person who speaks out in prayer for saving a life or for another serious matter may continue his prayer after that. Malik’s widely known opinion is that intentional speech with a view to rectification does not invalidate prayer. Al-ShafiT said that speech invalidates it, whatever its nature, except in the case of forgetfulness. Abu HanTfa said that prayer is invalidated by speech without exception.

The reason for their disagreement stems from the conflict of the apparent meaning of the traditions. The preceding traditions imply the general prohibition of speech, and appear to conflict with Abu Hurayra’s tradition, which says, “The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) once concluded his prayer after two ra&as, Dhu al-Yadayn [a man so called] asked him, ‘Has the prayer been shortened, or did you forget, O Messenger of Allah?’ The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, ‘Did Dhu al-Yadayn speak the truth?’ They said, ‘Yes’. The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) stood up and prayed the remaining two rak'as and then concluded with the salutation’”. The apparent meaning here is that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) spoke'and so did the people with him, and they continued the prayer after this speech, which did not cut off their prayer. Those who followed this apparent meaning, and maintained that this speech was specific to the rectification of prayer, exempted it from the general implication (of prohibition); This is Malik ibn Anas’s opinion. Some maintained that there is no evidence in the tradition to indicate that they spoke intentionally during prayer, and said that it appears they spoke thinking that the prayer had been shortened, while the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) spoke thinking that the prayer had been completed. Further, they added that the report that the people spoke after the statement of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “The prayer has not been shortened nor did I forget”, was not proved authentic in their view; therefore the tradition implies the permissibility of speech for a person who is not speaking intentionally. Thus, the reason for the disagreement between Malik and al-ShaficT about the exemption from the general implication is their dispute over the meaning of this tradition, though al-ShaficT also relied for this upon a general principle, which is the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “Liability for mistake and forgetfulness has been removed from my umma”. Abu HanTfa, on the other hand, interpreted the proscribing traditions in their general meaning and held them to have abrogated the tradition of Dhu al- Yadayn, and as being preferred over it.