Is the hadith of Dhu al-Yadayn cited as evidence for correcting the prayer?

The questioner : One of the brothers says: Is it valid to cite the hadith of Dhu al-Yadayn as evidence for the permissibility of correcting the prayer, given that we remember that the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was a time of legislation, and that Dhu al-Yadayn was an inquirer who was not aware of the reality of the completion of the prayer, and that this hadith is to be understood in terms of ignorance of the ruling?

The Shaykh : This is entirely incorrect. The issue is not related to Dhu al-Yadayn alone; rather, it is related to him and then to the Prophet (peace be upon him), who asked the Companions by saying: . The question of the Messenger is a statement. Suppose Dhu al-Yadayn was ignorant; we assume that the Messenger (peace be upon him) does not approve of an ignorant person’s ignorance but rather alerts him. None of that occurred in this story. On the contrary, he followed him when he said to those around him: "Is Dhu al-Yadayn truthful?" They said: "Yes." Therefore, the claim that this case ended because the time was a time of legislation—we say: Did any legislation come after that which clarifies that if this case is repeated, it is not permissible to take the ruling from it because it has been abrogated? Nothing of the sort has come at all. In addition to this, there are general texts stating that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: . The principle regarding every mistake a Muslim makes is that he is not held accountable for it unless there is evidence that compels us to say that this evidence makes the general rule an exception to such and such. For example, a man eats in Ramadan or drinks, and you all know his saying (peace be upon him): . He has no obligation to make up the fast and no expiation. Why? Because he forgot. This is a specification of the previous hadith: . But this is not a consistent rule. Sometimes a man prays a prayer, and after finishing the prayer, it becomes clear that he was not in a state of purity, not in a state of wudu. Here, the ruling differs from the previous case of the building. Or sometimes a man performs wudu for prayer, and then it is revealed to him in one way or another that his wudu was incomplete, that it was invalid. In that case, his prayer is consequently invalid, as came in the authentic hadith: . This is held accountable. So this is a ruling that is an exception to the rule. In short, if there is a rule and it has exceptions, we combine applying it in cases other than the exceptions and not applying it in the exceptions. This is how jurisprudence works regarding specific texts and general texts. The general text remains general except for what is excluded by a legal text. In that case, we say this general text is specified by this specific text. This is what we say regarding this question. Yes.