Is it valid to cite the story of Mu'awiyah ibn al-Hakam al-Sulami, who spoke during prayer out of ignorance, as evidence that one who speaks while forgetting or out of ignorance does not invalidate his prayer?

Al-Halabi : ...and speaking in it, regarding the non-invalidity of the prayer of one who speaks while forgetting or out of ignorance. Is his citation correct?

The Shaykh : Of course.
Al-Halabi: That is nothing new in this regard, especially since the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) did not order him to repeat the prayer.

The Shaykh : It is this.
Al-Halabi : May Allah reward you with good.

Another questioner: Forgetting is lenient...
Al-Halabi: No problem, he brought it up because of this...

The Shaykh: Why did he speak?

The questioner: When he forgot, he did not act according to the command.

The Shaykh: No, he did not forget; this was ignorance.

The questioner: No, the brother spoke while forgetting or out of ignorance. He spoke while forgetting that he was in prayer, so he spoke during the prayer. Does forgetting apply? This man was not forgetting because he did not know? So applying the analogy of forgetting to...

The Shaykh: No, this is not by analogy , , but the ruling is like this: this hadith indicates that the ignorant person speaking in prayer does not invalidate it, but the one who forgets is like him; however, not by analogy, but by other evidence.

The questioner: Sir, the issue is absolute. If I prayed while forgetting that I had performed wudu' and then remembered later, I would perform wudu' and then the prayer.

The Shaykh: There is a difference, Abu Yahya. Is the original ruling accountability regarding forgetting? Accountability, not otherworldly accountability, because it is agreed upon that there is no otherworldly accountability; but the intended meaning is worldly accountability. So the one who spoke in prayer while forgetting... and the one who ate in Ramadan while forgetting, it is known to everyone regarding the one who ate in Ramadan while forgetting . So, is the one who forgets in prayer treated with the same treatment as the fasting person in Ramadan who ate while forgetting? Is it said there is no harm on him, or is it said your prayer is invalid? Here there is a long disagreement among the Hanafis on one side and those who agree with them, and the Shafi'is on the other side and those who agree with them. The Hanafis interpreted the hadith as removing otherworldly accountability. The Shafi'is and others say no, the text is absolute. What is the result of the disagreement between the two groups? The Hanafis say the rule is that one is held accountable in this world, not in the Hereafter; this is agreed upon. The original ruling is that one is held accountable in this world except for a text. The Shafi'is reversed this, saying the original ruling is that one is not held accountable in this world except for a text. There is no doubt that the Shafi'is are the most successful in truth here. Why? Because the Hanafis do not have evidence supporting this original ruling, which is that one is held accountable in this world unless a text comes contrary to this original ruling, in which case one is not held accountable. And they agreed with the Shafi'is on the issue of fasting where one broke the fast while forgetting, saying we are not speaking of a specific text here, we say his fast is valid, but in matters where there is no text, their original ruling is accountability. The Shafi'is are the opposite, saying the original ruling is that one is not held accountable except for a text. Once we know this detail, we return and say: a man prayed and then found a trace of janabah while ignorant and forgetting, what does he do, does he repeat the prayer or not? If we apply the Hanafi rule, it does not require a pause. If we apply the Shafi'i rule, we do not repeat the prayer except for a text. Did we find the text? We say yes, we found the text, because 'Umar ibn al-Khattab during his caliphate prayed the Fajr prayer with the people, then he found a trace of wet dream in his garment, and he said a word meaning "we were afflicted by eating fat." And it appears that fat causes desire or increases fluid or something similar. So he performed ghusl and repeated the prayer, and he did not order the people to repeat the prayer. So this is an exception to the rule according to the Shafi'i school; it is in line with the rule according to the Hanafi school. We return to this one who forgot and spoke in prayer. So here, according to the rule adopted by the jurist, if he adopted the Shafi'i rule, his prayer is valid. If he adopted the Hanafi rule, the prayer is invalid because there is no specific text that validates it or a specific text that invalidates it; rather, the issue is returning to the rules. The point of all this is that it does not apply here if a person prayed like this, does he repeat his prayer or build upon it or something similar, because the issue is adopting a rule. If we adopt the rule of his saying (peace and blessings be upon him) absolutely: , then we say this one who spoke in prayer while forgetting, there is no repetition for him because accountability is lifted from him by the rule, by the hadith. If there is a text ordering him to repeat, we say by the text. This is as Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said in another important matter: "The original ruling in acts of worship is prohibition except for a text, and the original ruling in customs is permissibility except for a text." This is a very great thing. And upon this, the Shari'ah is built on rules, then on details. These details either meet the rule, so yes, he is, or they differ, so these details are excepted from the rule.