A chapter in Sahih al-Tirmidhi states that nothing breaks the prayer, and the chapter following it states that nothing breaks the prayer except a woman, a donkey, and a black dog. How is this reconciled?

The questioner : In Sahih al-Tirmidhi, which has been authenticated, there is a chapter on what has been reported that nothing breaks the prayer, and the chapter after it is on what has been reported that nothing breaks the prayer except a dog, a donkey, and a woman. Which one should be acted upon? Which of the two hadiths should be acted upon? It was reported that nothing breaks the prayer from Ibn Abbas, who said, "I was riding behind al-Fadl on a donkey..."?

The Shaykh : Well known, well known. What is your question?

The questioner : e: The question is whether we act on the basis that nothing breaks the prayer, or on the basis of the other hadith that nothing breaks it except a dog, a donkey, and a woman?

The Shaykh : "Breaking" has two meanings: breaking in the sense of invalidating the prayer, and breaking in the sense of diminishing the reward of the prayer. The breaking in the first sense is what the hadith mentions regarding the woman, the donkey, and the black dog...

The questioner : e: Does it invalidate the prayer completely?

The Shaykh : It breaks the prayer and invalidates it. The second type of breaking is everything else, based on his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): And in the hadith or the other narration: So this breaking means a deficiency in the prayer that does not invalidate it. This is the intent of the first hadith and the intent of the other hadith. Is that clear?

The questioner : e: It is clear; but I want to ask a question.