A discussion on the topic of excuse by forgetfulness in Islamic legal rulings, including speaking during prayer while in a state of forgetfulness.

The questioner : ... it may happen, and it was rare, so he spoke during the prayer. This is forgetfulness, and it applies. This man was not actually in a state of forgetfulness... he knew, so the analogy of forgetfulness to ignorance...

The Shaykh : No, this is not an analogy. , , but the ruling is like this, meaning this hadith indicates that the speech of the ignorant person in prayer does not invalidate it, but the forgetful person is like him, but not by analogy, rather by other evidence.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : There is a difference, Abu Yahya; is the original ruling regarding forgetfulness that one is held accountable, or is it not? Because it is agreed upon that there is no accountability in the Hereafter, but the intended meaning is accountability in this world. So, the one who spoke in prayer while forgetful = -- ... ... -- = spoke in prayer while forgetful, and ate in Ramadan while forgetful. It is known to everyone regarding the one who ate in Ramadan while forgetful that Allah fed him and gave him drink. So, is the one who is forgetful in prayer treated with the same treatment as the fasting person in Ramadan who ate while forgetful, where it is said: there is no blame on him, or is it said: his prayer is invalid?
Here there is a long disagreement among the Hanafis on one side, and those who agreed with them, and the Shafi'is on the other side, and those who agreed with them. The Hanafis interpret the hadith: as removing accountability in the Hereafter. The Shafi'is and others say: No, the text is absolute. What is the benefit 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 reverse this and say: 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 the original ruling is that one is held accountable in this world, unless a text comes that contradicts this original ruling, in which case one is not held accountable. And they meet with the Shafi'is on the issue of fasting where one broke the fast while forgetful, saying: We do not speak here, there is a specific text that says his fast is valid. But in matters where there is no text, their original ruling is accountability. The Shafi'is are the opposite; they say: 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 major ritual impurity while ignorant and forgetful; 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; so was a text found? We say: Yes, a text was found; because 'Umar ibn al-Khattab, during his caliphate, led the people in the Fajr prayer, then found a trace of wet dream in his garment, and said a word meaning that we were tested by eating fat. It appears that fat causes desire or increases fluid or something similar, so he performed the full ritual bath and repeated the prayer, and did not order the people to repeat the prayer; so this is an exception to the rule according to the Shafi'i school, and it aligns with the rule according to the Hanafi school; do you see how? We return to this forgetful person who spoke in prayer while forgetful, so here according to the rule adopted by the jurist; if he adopts the Shafi'i rule, he says: his prayer is valid. If he adopts the Hanafi rule, he says: the prayer is invalid; because there is no specific text that validates it, or a specific text that invalidates it, rather the issue returns to the rules.
So the point of all this is that it does not apply here, so a person prayed like this and does not repeat the prayer, or builds upon it, or something similar; because the issue is an issue of adopting a rule. If we adopt the rule of his saying - peace be upon him - absolutely: then we say: this one who spoke in prayer while forgetful, there is no repetition required for him; because accountability is removed from him by the rule of the hadith. If there is a text that orders 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 upon rules and then details. These details either meet with the rule, in which case it is good, or they differ, in which case these details are excepted from the rule.