Is it unlawful for a mother to wear clothes that she was forced to wear, and to pray in them, based on the principle of "whatever is built upon falsehood is itself false"?

Disobeying one's mother is a grave major sin. Therefore, whoever forced his mother to wash his clothes must repent and seek her forgiveness. Wearing these clothes and praying in them is permissible, and the prayer is valid, as the sin is external to the act of prayer itself.

As for one who stole a phone, he has committed a great sin, and it is impermissible for him to use it; he must return it. The reward for good words spoken through it is based on the principle of "disconnection of aspects." If the speech is intertwined with the act of theft, there is no reward. However, if it is separate from it, he is rewarded for his speech but sinful for his theft.

Jurists and scholars of legal theory discuss this issue, similar to the matter of praying on usurped land. Some hold that if the act is singular, the prayer is invalid. Others believe that if the act has two aspects (obedience and disobedience), the prayer is valid despite the sin. The speech of the thief using a stolen phone falls under this difference of opinion.