The Distinguished Jurists Primer by Ibn Rushd

The jurists agreed about the stipulation of intention (niyya) for the validity of prayer, because prayer is the foremost form among the different kinds of ritual worship that have been ordained in the law without being assigned a rational interest {maslaha), that is, a tangible interest. They disagreed, however, about whether it is a condition that the niyya of the follower should conform with the niyya of the imami In other words, is it permitted for a follower to pray zuhr when the imam is praying W? And, is it permitted for the imam to be praying supererogatory zuhr when the follower prays fard? Malik and Abu HanTfa maintained that it is obligatory that the intention of the follower conform with the intention of the imam, while al-ShaficT held that it is not obligatory.

The reason for their disagreement is the conflict between’ the implication of the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “The imam has been appointed so that he may be followed”, and the tradition of Mu<adh that he used to pray with the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) and then lead his people la prayer. Those who maintained that this was specific to the case of Mu^dh and that the general implication of the words of Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “The imam has been appointed so that he may be followed”, includes intention, stipulated the conformity of the imam's intention with that of the follower. Those who maintained that the permission granted to Mu<adh extends to all the believers, which is the principle, said that there can be two possible interpretations of the other (former) tradition: first, that its general implication does not include intention, for its apparent meaning relates to (external) acts, in which case it would not conflict with Mu^dh’s tradition; or it may include intention, in which case Mu’adh’s tradition has restricted the generality.

' Related to niyya are issues that have no concern with matters expressly stated’in the law, and we decided to drop them, as our primary purpose is the discussion of issues that are directly related to matters expressly stated in the law.