The Distinguished Jurists Primer by Ibn Rushd

There are two sections in this chapter. The first section is about the words of prayer, while the second is about its acts.

The fundamental issues in this chapter are nine.

The jurists disagreed about takbir (pronouncing the words: “Alldhu Akbar”—Allah is Supreme) into three opinions. A group of jurists said that all pronouncements of takbir in prayer are obligatory, while another group said hat all pronouncements are not obligatory, which is a deviant opinion. The majority hold that the initial takbir alone is obligatory.

The reason for disagreement among those who made all its instances obligatory and those who made only the takbir of ihram obligatory stems from the conflict of the transmitted words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) with his transmitted acts. The transmitted saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) is in the widely known tradition of Abu Hurayra that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said to a man, whom he was teaching how to pray, “When you resolve to pray, complete the ablution and face the qibla, then, pronounce the takbir followed by recitation”. The meaning here is that it is only the first takbir that is obligatory, and had another takbir been obligatory, he would have mentioned it to him, just as he mentioned the other obligations of prayer. The transmitted acts of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) include Abu Hurayra’s tradition “that he prayed pronouncing the takbir each time he bowed or straightened up, and then said, T give you in my prayer a semblance of the prayer of the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him)’”. Included (in the transmitted acts) is also the tradition of Mutarrif ibn Abd Allah ibn al-Shikhkhir, who said, Hmran ibn al-Husayn and c I followed CA!T ibn AbT Talib, may Allah be pleased with him, in prayer, and he pronounced takbir when he prostrated, and when he raised his head after bowing. When he had completed the prayer, we went away and Imran took hold of my hand and said, ‘This reminds me of Muhammad’s prayer’ ”.

Those who upheld its obligation, followed these acts transmitted in these traditions, and said that the principle is that all acts of the Prophet that have been described as an explanation of an obligatory act are to be construed as obligatory, as is justified by the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “Pray as you see me praying and acquire from me your acts of devotion”.

The first group said that what is implicit in these traditions indicates that the acts of the Companions were for an affirmation (of the obligation) takbir. Therefore, Abu Hurayra said, “I provide you with a semblance of the prayer of the Messenger of Allah”, while Qmran said, “I am reminded by this of Muhammad’s prayer”. With respect to the opinion of those who deemed all instances of the takbir as supererogatory, it is weak. Perhaps, they constructed an analogy for it from all those pronouncements of dhikr (remembrance) that are not obligatory, just as they constructed an analogy for the takbir of ihram upon all other instances of takbir.

Abu TJmar ibn cAbd al-Barr said that what supports the majority opinion is the report by Shu^a ibn al-Hajjaj from al-Hasan ibn Qmran from <Abd Allah ibn Abd al-Rahman ibn AbzT from his c father, who said, “I prayed with the Prophet (God’s peace and Blessings be upon him) and he did not pronounce the takbir, and I prayed with TJmar ibn <Abd al-cAziz and he did not pronounce the takbir”. Further, the report by by Ahmad ibn Hanbal from TJmar (God be pleased with him) that he did not pronounce the takbir when he prayed alone. It appears that these jurists maintained that takbir is meant to be an indication by the imam to the followers about his movements, and it also appears that those who considered it all supererogatory also held on to this reason.

Malik said that it is not allowed to pronounce takbir, except with the words Alldhu Akbar, while al-Shafi T said that c the forms Alldhu Akbar and Alldhu al- Akbar are both permitted. Abu HanTfa said that takbir is permitted with all those words that convey the same meaning, like Allah is the Greatest (al- A zam) and Allah is Greater {al-A jail).

c The reason for their disagreement is whether it is the words or their meaning that are prescribed for the opening. The Malikites and the Shafifites argued on the basis of the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “The key to prayer is purification, its sanctity starts with al-takbir, and it. is discharged with the salutation”. They said that the definite article “at” is exhaustive and indicates that the hukm is confined to the thing expressed, and that it is not permissible without anything else. Abu HanTfa does not agree with them about this principle, for such a meaning, in his view, arises from the literal category of zto/iZ al-khitdb (the indirect implication of the text), which requires the assigning of a meaning opposite that of the expressed subject to the unexpressed categories. The dalil al-khitdb is a method not used by Abu HanTfa.

A group of jurists said that tawjih is obligatory in prayer. It is either the statement after takbir, “I (have) tum(ed) (my face) to One Who created the heavens and the earth”, which is al-ShafiTs opinion, or it is the glorification of Allah, which is Abu HanTfa’s opinion, or it is a combination of both, which is Abu Yusufs opinion, who was the disciple of Abu HanTfa. Malik said that tawjih is not obligatory in prayer, nor is it a sunn a.

The reason for disagreement is the conflict of traditions about tawjih practice (of the people of Medina), in Malik’s view, or is based upon the dispute over the authenticity of the relevant traditions. The QadT (Ibn Rushd) said that it is established in the Sahihayn from Abu Hurayra “that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) used to remain silent between takbir and (later) recitation. So I said, 4O Messenger of Allah for you I would offer as ransom my father and mother. In this silence of yours between takbir and recitation, what do you say?’ He said, and I quote, ‘0 Allah, distance me from my errors, as You have distanced the east from the west, O Allah, cleanse me of errors like a white dress cleansed of filth, O Allah, wash away my errors with water, snow, and the morning dew’”.

A group of jurists preferred some occasions for silence during prayer including the moment following the initial takbir, after the recitation of the umm a I-Qur^an, and after the completion of recitation just before bowing. Some of those who upheld this are al-ShaficT, Abu Thawr, and al-AwzaT. These were denied by Malik, his disciples, and by Abu HanTfa, and his disciples.

The reason for their disagreement arises from their dispute over the authenticity of Abu Hurayra’s tradition, who said, “The Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) observed three occasions for silence in his prayer: between his pronouncing the initial takbir while beginning the prayer, before beginning the recitation of the fatihat al-Kitab, and after he had finished reciting before bowing”.

The jurists disagreed about reciting the basmala, the words meaning, “In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the* Merciful”, before beginning recitation in prayer. Malik prohibited this in the prescribed prayer, whether loudly or inaudibly, at the beginning of the umm al-Qur>dn or any other sura, but he permitted it with supererogatory prayers. Abu HanTfa, al-ThawrT, and Ahmad said that it is to be pronounced inaudibly in each rakfa with the umm al- Qu^dn. Al-Shafi T said that c it is to be pronounced aloud in case of audible recitation and in a whisper in case of the inaudible. In his view it is a verse of the fatihat al-Kitab, which was also the opinion of Ahmad, Abu Thawr, and Abu TTbayd. Al-Shafi T, however, c differed about whether it was a verse of every sura or a verse of surat al-Naml and fatihat al-Kt tab alone? Both opinions are related from him.

The reason for disagreement in this refers to two factors. First is the conflict of traditions on the topic, while the second relates to the dispute whether basmala is a verse of fatihat al-Kitdb. The traditions relied upon by those who drop it include that of Ibn Mughaffal, who said, “My father heard me when I was reciting the basmala, and said, ‘O my son, beware of innovation, The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) prayed behind Abu Bakr, and Umar, and Tjmar, and I said that Ibn Mughaffal is one who recited it. Abu Umar ibn al-Barr said that Ibn Mughaffal is the narrator of this tradition as related by Malik about the tradition of Anas, who said, 'I prayed behind Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman (God be pleased with them), and none of them recited the tasmiya at the beginning of the prayer.' Abu Umar said that the traditions are of the view that the narrations of this tradition are confused, and it cannot be accepted as a persuasive evidence. There is one instance it has been related through a chain that he did recite it (marifa), and on another occasion the chain did not extend to him, while some versions mention Uthman and others do not. Some of its versions say that they did not pronounce the basmala loudly.

The traditions opposing these include the tradition of Nu^ym ibn ‘Abd Allah al-Mujammir, who said, “I observed prayer led by Abu Hurayra and he recited the basmala before the umm al-Qur>dn and before the sura, and he pronounced takbir while bowing and while straightening up. He then said, ‘I provide you with a semblance of the prayer of the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him)’ ”. Included in these is the tradition of Ibn c Abbas “that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) used to pronounce the basmala aloud”. Another tradition is from Umm Salama, who said, “The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) used to recite the basmala and the verse meaning, ‘Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds’”.

The conflict of these traditions is one factor giving rise to disagreement about the recitation of the basmala in prayer. The second reason, as we have said, is whether it is a verse only of the umm al-Kitab or also of each sura, or whether it is not a verse at all?

Those who deemed it a verse of the umm al-Kitab made its recitation obligatory because of the obligation to recite the umm al-Kitdb in their view, while those who deemed it a verse at the beginning of each sura made its recitation obligatory along with the sura as well. There has been extensive disagreement over this issue, and the issue is subject to interpretation. The strangest thing that occurred in this issue is when they asked: What is the basis of their disagreement, is it that the basmala is a verse of the Qur’an, even in cases other than the surat al-Naml, or is it a verse of the Qur’an in surat al- Naml alone? They relate, as a rebuttal of al-Shafi‘Fs argument, that had it been a part of the Qur’an in places other than surat al-Naml, the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) would have explained it, as the Qur’an has been transmitted through tawdtur. This is what the QadT111 Sajd and thought it was irrefutable. Abu Hamid (al-Ghazali) defended al-Shafi<ps position by saying that, had it been something other than the Qur’an, it would have been obligatory upon the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) to explain it. All this is confused and meaningless for how is it possible to say about a single verse that it is a part of the Qur’an on one occasion and that it is not a part of it on another? In fact, it may be said that it has been established to be a part of the Qur’an wherever it is mentioned, and that it is a also a verse of surat al-Naml. Whether it is a verse of the umm al-Qur>dn and of each sura used as a beginning, is disputed. The issue is subject to interpretation, as it is the opening for all the chapters, and is a part of siiraj al- Naml. Think over this for it is self-evident. Allah knows best.

The jurists agreed that prayer without recitation is not valid, whether the omission is intentional or out of forgetfulness, except what is related from TJmar (God be pleased with him) that he prayed and forgot to recite. He was told about this, and he asked how the bowing and prostrations go? When he was told that they were normal, he said, “Then there is no harm”. But this is a solitary (gharib) tradition in their view, although it is included by Malik in his al-Muwatta*, in some versions of it. Further, there is the report from Ibn ‘Abbas that he did not recite in prayer not requiring audible recitation, and said, “The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) recited in some prayers, but kept silent in others, so we recite where he recited and maintain silence where he kept silent”. He was asked whether there was recitation in zuhr and 'asr prayers, and he replied, “No!” The majority followed the tradition of Khabbab “that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) used to recite in the zuhr and 'asr prayers. He was asked: ‘How did you come to know this?’ He replied, ‘By the movement of his beard’”. The KufTs relied on Ibn ‘Abbas’s tradition for relinquishing the obligation of recitation in the last two rak^as of prayer, because of the equivalence of audible and inaudible prayer with respect to the silence of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) in these two rakfas.

Those who held that recitation is obligatory in prayer, disagreed as to what is to be recited. Some of them maintained that the obligation here is to recited the umm til-Qu^dn f°r one wo h has memorized it, and that there is no limitation about additional recitation. Some of them made it obligatory in each some for-the major part of prayer, some for half the prayer, and others for one rak^a in each prayer. The first opinion was held by al-ShaficI, and it j s also the widely known view of Malik, but it is also related from him that if he recites it in two of a four-ra&fe prayer it would be valid. Al-Hasan al-BasrT and many jurists of Basra held that recitation in ra&a is sufficient. The obligation according to Abu HanTfa is for reciting any verse that the person may. choose, while his disciples held that the minimum is three short verses or a lengthy verse, like that about dayn (debt). This was the case for the first two rak^as and for the remaining two he deemed as recommended {mustahabb) to recite tasbih, “words glorifying the name of Allah”, and not recitation. This was upheld by the KufTs. The majority consider recitation as recommended {mustahabb) in all the ra&as.

The reason for this (disagreement) stems from the conflict of traditions on the topic, and the conflict of the apparent meaning of the Book with a tradition. One of the conflicting traditions is the authentic tradition of Abu Hurayra, “A man entered the mosque and prayed. He then came up to the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) and greeted him and the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) responded to the salutation and' said, ‘Go back and pray, for you have not prayed’. He prayed again and returned, but the Prophet ordered him to pray again. He did so three times, till the man said, ‘By the One Who has sent you in truth, I cannot do better than this’. The Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said to him, ‘When you arise for prayer, complete the ablution and face the qiblay then pronounce takbir. After that recite what is convenient for you from the Qur’an, and then bow and remain in that position for a while, then raise yourself till you are firmly erect, then prostrate for a while, then sit up for a while, then prostrate again for a while, then rise till you are erect and stable. Then; do this in your entire prayer” ’. Conflicting with this are two confirmed traditions, which are recorded by al-BukharT and Muslim. First is the tradition of cUbada ibn al-Samit that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “He has not prayed, the one who has not recited the fatihat al- Kitdb”. The second is the tradition of Abu Hurayra that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “When a person prays without reciting the umm al-Qur'an, it is lost, lost, lost”.

Abu Hurayra’s former tradition apparently indicates that it is sufficient in a prayer for a worshipper to recite whatever is convenient for him from the Qur’an, while the tradition of TJbada ibn al-Samit and the latter tradition of Abu Hurayra imply that the umm al-Qur>dn is a condition for (the validity of) prayer. The apparent meaning of the words of the Exalted, “So recite of it whatever is easy (for you)”, also support Abu Hurayra’s former traditio 117 n The jurists disagreeing over this issue either decided to adopt the method of reconciliation for these traditions or they adopted the method of preference and the same meaning emerges from both opinions. The reason is that those who maintained the obligation of reciting whatever is easy from the QuPan said that this is preferable, for the apparent meaning of the Book conforms with it, and they may also hold by way of reconciliation that the purpose of TJbada’s tradition is to deny perfection (of such prayer), not its validity, while the purpose of Abu Hurayra’s (latter) tradition is to indicate its validity, as it imparts instruction about the obligations in prayer.

These jurists may also adopt these two methods (for the second opinion) by saying that the traditions (requiring any recitation) are greater in number and a widely known tradition from Abu Hurayra supports this view, and this is the tradition in which Allah, the Exalted, says, “I have divided prayer in half between Myself and My servant, one-half is for Me and one-half for My servant, and My servant gets what he asks for. The servant says, ‘Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the worlds’, and Allah says, ‘My servant has praised Me . . (till the end of the tradition). These jurists may also argue that the words of the Prophet, “recite whatever you can from the QuPan”, are ambivalent, while the other traditions are explicit, and the explicit govern the ambivalent. There is a difficulty that arises from the meaning of the word “wo” (what) which signifies “whatever is easy”. The other interpretation can be valid here if “what” indicates, in accordance with the usage of the Arabs, what is implied by the lam al^ahd (i.e., the “a/” if it alludes to an already known thing), so that the text will be assumed to mean “recite what is easy for you from the Qurian”, and its implication will be (recite) the umm al-Qufan, as the definite article “a/” indicates the previously mentioned object. It is necessary to take this into consideration in the usage of the Arabs, and if you find that the Arabs do this, that is, make a concession in the implication of ma to indicate a determined object, then such an interpretation is to be adopted, otherwise there is no cause for it. The issue, as you can see, is ambiguous, and this ambiguity would be removed if abrogation is established.

The disagreement among those who deemed obligatory the recitation of umm al-Kitab as to whether it is so in every rak^a or in part of the prayer, is caused by the differences over the reference of the pronoun in the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “the one who has not recited the fatihat al-Kitab in it fihd”, whether it is the whole prayer or every part of the prayer. Because, the person who has recited it as a whole (not in every rak^a), or in some, that is in one rakfa or more, cannot be included'in Ambit of the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) includes those who have not recited it in every part. It was this ikhtilaf that led Abu Hanifa to decide in favor of relinquishing recitation of the surah in part of the prayer, that is in the last two rak'ahs. Malik preferred the recitation of al-hamd and a surah in the last two rak'ahs of a four-rak'ah prayer, and al-hamd alone in the last two. Al-Shafi't preferred that al-hamd and a surah be recited in all four rak'ahs of the zuhr prayer. Malik favored the authentic tradition related to Abu Qatada that 'the Prophet (God's peace and blessings be upon him) said that in the first two rak'ahs of zuhr and the fatiha al-kitab in the last two rak'ahs.' As for Abu Sa'id, he maintained the same meaning of the authentic tradition of Abu Sa'id that 'the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) recited both verses in the first two rak'ahs.’ They did not disagree about due to the differences between the two traditions about it. The tradition of Abu Sa'id says that 'in the first two rak'ahs of he used to recite both verses, and in the last two rak'ahs as well.

The majority agreed about the prohibition of the recitation of the Qurian while bowing and prostrating, because of the tradition of cAli about it. According to this tradition, he (the Prophet) said, “Jibril prohibited me from reciting the Qurian while bowing and prostrating”. Al-Tabari said that it is an authentic tradition, and it was followed by the jurists of the various regions. Some of the Tabi un decided to allow c this, and it is also the opinion of al- Bukhari, because the tradition did not prove to be authentic for him, Allah knows best.

They disagreed on whether bowing and prostrating require determined words from the worshipper. Malik said that there is nothing determined for them. Al-ShafiT, Abu HanTfa, Ahmad, and a group of jurists said that the worshipper repeats the words, “Praise the name of thy Lord, the Tremendous”,113 three times while bowing, and the words “Praise the name of thy Lord, the Most High”,114 three times while prostrating, in accordance with the tradition of TJqba ibn cAmir. Al-Thawri maintained that it was preferable if the imam were to repeat these words five times, so that the follower would have time to repeat them thrice.

The reason for disagreement here stems from the conflict of Ibn SAbbas’s tradition with the tradition of Uqba ibn Amir. In Ibn Abbas” tradition the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) is reported to have said,, have been prohibited from reciting the Qur’an while bowing and prostrating You should glorify the Lord while bowing and strive in making supplications while prostrating, for it is a deserving form for their being answered”. In the tradition of ‘Uqba ibn cAmir, it is stated that when the verse “Praise the name of thy Lord, the Tremendous”,115 was revealed, the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) is reported to have said, “Recite this while bowing”, and when the verse “Praise the name of they Lord, the Most High”,116 was revealed he said, “Recite this while prostrating”'.

Similarly, they disagreed about supplication when bowing,'after they had agreed about glorification of Allah. Malik deemed this reprehensible because the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said}'“You should glorify the Lord while bowing and strive in making supplications while prostrating”. A -group of jurists said that supplication is permitted while bowing. They relied for this on traditions that state, “The Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) used to make supplications while bowing”. This is aL Bukharfs opinion, who relied upon cA’isha’s tradition. She said, “The Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) used to say while bowing and prostrating, ‘Glory to You O Allah, our Lord, and all grateful praise for You. O Allah, forgive me’”.

Abu HanTfa does not permit supplication in prayer, using words other than the words of the Qur’an, but Malik and aLShaficT allow it. The reason for disagreement is based upon the dispute over whether it is (mundane) speech.

They disagreed about tashahhud and its preferred text. Malik, Abu HanTfa, and a group of jurists held that tashahhud is not obligatory, while another group upheld its obligation, which was adopted by al-ShafiH, Ahmad, and Dawud. The reason for their disagreement arises from the conflict of analogy with the apparent meaning of traditions. Analogy requires its association with all other arkdn (elements) that are not obligatory in prayer, because of their agreement over the obligation of (reciting) the Qur’an (alone) in prayer, and that tashahhud is not a part of the Qur’an so that it may be obligatory. In a tradition from Ibn cAbbas, he -says, “The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) used to teach us the tashahhud as he would teach us a sura of the Qur’an”. This implies an obligation, along with the principle that the words and the acts of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) must be construed to imply obligation till an evidence to the contrary is It is noted. The principle followed by others is contrary to this, which states that it is not applicable to associate with matters whose obligation has been established by agreement or where obligation has been expressly mentioned. Unless their obligation has been expressed and specified, the preference given to the words of tashahhud, as explicitly mentioned by the Prophet.

In preferring the words of tashahhud, Malik goes before Allah, good works, and prayers are for Allah. People from the community testify, 'All greetings are for Allah, and blessings are upon you.' The words are: 'I testify that there is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is His servant and Messenger.' The jurists of Kufa, Abu Hanifa and others, preferred the tashahhud due to 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Mas'ud. Ibn Umar said that the recitation of this tradition occurs through the authenticity of the tradition because of its transmission from the words of 'Abd al-Rahman (God's peace be upon him) as well as prayers and good works. The words are: 'O Allah, good for peace, and blessings be upon Muhammad, and the mercy of Allah and His Messenger.' Al-Shafi't and others testify that Muhammad is His servant and Messenger. He related from them that he said, 'Salutations are for you, O Prophet, and blessings be upon you.' He says, 'Salutations are for the other servants of Allah. I testify that there is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is His Messenger The reason for disagreement sterns from their conviction about the preferred words. Those who were convinced about the preference of one of the three traditions followed it. Many jurists maintained that all this is a matter of choice, like words of adhdn and takbir in the case of funerals, the two cZ/s, and some other matters that have been attributed to the Prophet through tawatur. This appears to be the truth, Allah knows best.

Al-Shafi T stipulated blessings upon the Prophet c (God’s peace and blessings he upon him) as a condition of tashahhud, saying that it is an obligation because of the words of the Exalted, “Lo! Allah and His angels shower blessings on the Prophet. O ye who believe! Ask blessings on him and salute him with a worthy salutation”.117 He maintained that this salutation is the salutation in prayer.118 * The majority maintained that this is the salutation that is made after prayer.

A group of the Zahirites said that it is obligatory for the worshipper reciting tashahhud to seek the refuge of Allah from four things described in a tradition: the torment of the grave, the torment of Hell, the trial {fitna) of the Antichrist, and the trial of life and death. Because, it is established in the tradition “that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) used to seek refuge from them at the end of his tashahhud. Some versions of this tradition state: “When one of you completes the last tashahhud., he should seek refuge of Allah from four things”. The tradition has been recorded by Muslim.

They disagreed about salutation after prayer. The majority upheld its obligation, while Abu Hanifa and his disciples said that it is not obligatory. Some of those who maintained that it is obligatory said that it is obligatory upon the individual, and the imam, to make a single salutation, when others said that they make two (one to the right and one to the left).

The majority (who held that it is obligatory) followed the apparent meaning of ‘AIFs tradition, in which the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Its termination is the salutation”. Those among them who said that the obligation is for making two salutations followed the established tradition that “the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) offered two salutations”, and this is the case for those who construe his (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) acts to imply obligation. Malik preferred two salutations for the follower and a single salutation for the imam, though it is related from him that the follower offers three salutations, the first for termination, the second for (to greet) «the imam, and the third for (to greet) the person on his left. Abu Hanifa followed what was related by ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Ziyad al-Ifnql that both ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Rafi‘ and Bakr ibn Sawadah related from ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Amr ibn al-‘As who said, “If a man has taken the sitting posture at the end of his prayer and he passes wind before offering the salutation his prayer is complete”. Abu ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said that the preceding tradition of ‘Al? is more authentic according to the traditionists, as the tradition of ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Amr ibn al-‘As has been narrated only by al-IfriqT, a case that is considered weak by the traditionists.

The Qadi (Ibn Rushd) said: “If it is authentic by way of transmission, its text is subject to interpretation, because it does not indicate that completion of prayer is not possible without a salutation, except by way of the (indirect) implication of the text (dalil al-Khitab), which is a construction that is considered weak by most. The majority, on the other hand, may say that the definite article, ‘af, which signifies inclusion is stronger than the (indirect) implication of the text in indicating the hukm of the unexpressed category, which is the opposite of the expressed hukiri\

They disagreed about the recitation of Jim#.119 During the iridal in the last rak^a Malik maintained that qunut is recommended for the dawn prayer, while al-Shafi T said that c it is a sunna, Abu HanTfa held that reciting qunut is not permitted in the dawn prayer, and its place is in the witr prayer. A group of jurists said that, in fact, qunut is to be recited in every prayer. Some said that is recited only in the month of Ramadan, some said that it is recited in its second half, and others said that it is recited in the first half.

The reason for this disagreement is the conflict of traditions transmitted from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) with analogy constructed upon other prayers, that is, analogy based upon those prayers in which qunut is recited for those in which it is not. Abu TJmar ibn cAbd al- Barr said that recitation of qunut was a prevailing practice among the first generation during the month of Ramadan, in which the disbelievers were cursed following the sunna of the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), who made a supplication for cursing WaH and Dhakwan, and the group who killed the residents of BPr Macuna. Al-Layth ibn Sa^ said that for a period of forty-five years he had not offered qunut, except behind an imam making such a supplication. He said that for this he had followed the tradition that was related from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) that “he made supplications for a month or forty (days) pleading on behalf of one group and cursing others till Allah, the Glorious and Exalted, censured him in the verse: ‘It is no concern at all of thee (Muhammad) whether He relent toward them or punish them; for they are transgressors’”.120 The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) gave up the supplication and did not repeat it till he met Allah. Al-Layth said that since the time he bore this tradition with him, he did not make a supplication. This was also the opinion of Yahya5 ibn Yahya5. The Qadl (Ibn Rushd) said: “The elderly scholars mentioned -to me that this practice also prevailed among us at his mosque in Cordova, and it continued^ till our time or close to our time”.

Muslim has recorded a report from Abu Hurayra “that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) used to recite the qunut in the dawn prayer then information reached us that he relinquished this when the verse, Tt is no concern at all of thee (Muhammad) whether He relent toward them or punish them; for they are transgressors’,121 was revealed. He also recorded from Abu Hurayra that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) used to supplicate during zuhry 'ishcP, and the dawn prayers. In addition, he has recorded a tradition from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) that ‘he continued to recite grow; for one month during the dawn prayer invoking a curse upon Banu Usayya’”. 1

They disagreed about the text of the qunut. Malik preferred that it be with the words: WO Allah, we seek Your help, we seek Your forgiveness, we seek Your guidance, we believe in You, we bow and humble ourselves before You, we devote ourselves to You, and we shun him who denies You. O Allah, You it is we worship, and for You we pray and prostrate ourselves, toward You we strive and hasten, seeking Your mercy, and fearing Your torment, for Your torment is about to chase the disbelievers”. The jurists of cIraq call these the two surahs^ and it is reported that they are to be found in the mushaf of Ubayy ibn Ka<b. Al-Shafi i c and Ishaq said that the text of the qunut is: “O Allah, guide us with those You have guided, and deliver us with those You have delivered, guard us from the consequences of what You have decreed, You are the One Who decrees and there is no decree for You, You are the Glorious, our Lord, and the Exalted”. This was related by al-Hasan ibn CA1T through authentic channels that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him)

had taught him this prayer to be used as a supplication in prayer. <Abd Allah ibn Dawud said: “Do not follow in prayer the person who does not supplicate using the two surahs”. A group of jurists said that there is no special text prescribed for the qunut.

In this section there are eight fundamental issues:

The jurists disagreed about raising of the hands in prayer on three points: first, about its hukm; second, about the occasions when the hands are raised; and third, about the extent to which they are to be raised.

Regarding the hukm, the majority maintained that raising of the hands is a sunnah of prayer, while Dawud and a group of his disciples maintained that it is an obligation. These jurists are further divided into sub-groups. Some of them made it obligatory in the takbir of ihrdm alone, some made it obligatory at the beginning of the prayer, while reciting the first words of takbir, and at the time o f bowing, that is, while lowering the body for ruk& and while raising it, some made it obligatory on these two occasions and at the time of prostration, an d this in accordance with their disagreement about the occasions on which they are to be raised.

The reason for their disagreement is the conflict of the apparent meaning of Abu Hurayra’s tradition, which contains instructions about the obligations of prayer, with the (reported) acts of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be U pon him). Abu Hurayra’s contains the statement that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) instructed him about takbir, but he did not order him to raise his hands, while it is established from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) through traditions reported by Ibn TJmar and others that “he used to raise his hands at the beginning of prayer”.

About their disagreement over the occasions for raising the hands, the jurists of Kufa, Abu Harnfa, Sufyan al-Thawri, and all their other jurists, said that the worshipper is not to raise his hands, except at the time of the first takbir. This is also a narration of Ibn al-Qasim from Malik. Al-ShaficT, Ahmad, Abu TJbayd, Abu Thawr, the majority of the Ahl al-Hadith, and the Zahirites upheld the hukm of raising of the hands at the time of the first takbir, and at the time of bowing, and while rising up from bowing. This is also related from Malik, except that it is an obligation according to some of these jurists, while it is a sunna in Malik’s view. Some of the Ahl al-Hadith upheld the raising of the hands at the time of prostration and on rising from it.

The reason for all this disagreement is related to the conflict of the traditions relevant to the issue, and the conflict of some of these with the practice at Medina. One of these traditions is that of cAbd Allah ibn Mascud and al- Bara> ibn <Azib “that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) raised his hands once for the first takbir and did not do so again”. The second tradition is reported by Ibn TJmar from his father “that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) used to raise his hands up to the level of his shoulders at the beginning of prayer, and he also raised them when he straightened up after bowing and said, ‘Allah listens to one who praises Him, our Lord, all praise is for You’, but he did not do this while prostrating”. This is a tradition that is agreed upon for its authenticity (by al- Bukhari and Muslim) and they believed that it was reported from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) by about thirteen individuals from among his Companions. The third tradition is reported by WaJil ibn Hujr, which contains an addition over the tradition of Ibn TJmar “that he used to raise his hands while prostrating”.

Among those who interpreted raising of the hands here to imply recommendation or obligation, there are some who restricted it to apply to the first takbir by preferring the tradition of cAbd Allah ibn Mascud and the tradition of al-Bara’ ibn cAzib, which is Malik’s opinion in conformity with practice (at Medina). Some of these jurists preferred the tradition of <Abd Allah ibn TJmar and thus upheld raising of the hands on two occasions, that is while bowing and at the beginning because of its being widely known and because all of them agreed about it. Those among them who considered it to be an obligation interpreted it to be so, while those who deemed it to be a recommendation interpreted them to imply a recommendation. Those who adopted the method of reconciliation said that it is necessary to combine the additions with each other in accordance with what is contained in the tradition of Wa5il ibn Hujr. Thus, the jurists adopted two methods with respect to these traditions: the method of preference or the method of reconciliation.

The reason for their disagreement over whether interpreting the raising of hands implies recommendation or obligation is the same reason that we have stated earlier that some of the jurists maintain that the principle about the acts of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) is that they be construed as an obligation till an evidence is adduced to show the contrary, while others maintain that the principle is not to add to what has been established as an obligation of prayer through an authentic saying or through consensus, except on the basis of an explicit evidence. This explanation has already preceded in our description and there is no reason to repeat one single point many times.

The level to which the hands are to be raised has been determined by some to be up to the shoulders. This was the opinion of Malik, al-ShaficT, and a group of jurists. Some of them held it to be the level of the ears, which was upheld by Abu HanTfa. Some jurists 4^eld that they be raised to the level of the chest. All this is related from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), except that the most authentic of these reports is that they be raised up to the shoulders, and that is upheld by the majority. Raising them up to the ears is more authentic than raising them up to the chest, and is more widely known.

Abu HanTfa maintained that ftiddl on rising from the rukuc and during it is not an obligation. Al-ShaficT said it is obligatory. Malik’s disciples differed about whether the foremost opinion in the school implies that it is a recommendation or an obligation, as no explicit opinion is narrated from him on this.

The reason for disagreement here is whether the obligation is met by conforming with a part of that to which the term applies or by complying with the whole of it. Those for whom the obligation is met by complying with a term to which the term is applied, did not stipulate the maintenance of riddle while bowing. Those for whom the obligation is met by the whole stipulated raising in prayer, as this is established from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) in a preceding tradition: 'Bow, resting on a limb, and raise yourself resting a while'; therefore, it is necessary to construe this as an obligation.

What must be maintained, the principle is not to construe the acts of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) relating to his acts in prayer as obligatory unless evidence indicates this, had recourse to this tradition; for this reason also they did not consider raising of the hands as obligatory nor even the other acts and pronouncements besides the first takbir and recitation. Think over it for it is a principle that opposes the first principle (of interpreting the acts as obligatory), and is the cause of disagreement in most of these issues.

The jurists disagreed about the sitting posture (in prayer). Malik and his disciples said that the person is to lower himself on his buttocks toward the ground, with his right foot raised resting on the inside of its toes and his left leg bent under him and bend the left foot. In his view, the sitting posture for a woman is the same as that of a man. Abu HanTfa and his disciples said that a man is to plant his right foot on the ground and seat himself on his left foot. Al-Shafi T distinguished between the posture c in the middle of the prayer and the posture at the end; for the posture during the middle he followed the same opinion as that of Abu HanTfa, and for the last posture the same opinion as Malik’s.

The reason for their disagreement is the conflict of traditions. There are three traditions on the issue. The first, which is established by the agreement of all, is the tradition of Abu Humayd al-SacidT describing the prayer of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him). It contains the words, “When he sat down after two rak*as> he did so on his left leg and raised his right foot, but when he sat down at the end he bent his left leg and raised the right one sitting on his hips [on the left side]”. The second is the tradition of Wa’il ibn Hujr, which says, “When he sat down in prayer, he raised his right foot and sat on the left”. The “third tradition is related by Malik from cAbd’ Allah ibn TJmar, who said, “The sunna in prayer is that you raise your right foot and bend your left leg”. It is a primary authority, because of his saying, “The sunna in prayer”. In a report from al-Qasim ibn Muhammad he showed- them the sitting posture during tashahhud, and raised his right foot and turned in the left, but he sat on his left hip not on his foot, saying “This is what c Abd Allah ibn <Abd Allah ibn ‘Umar showed me, and said that his father used to adopt this posture”.

Malik followed the method of preference on the basis of this tradition, while Abu Hanlfa favoured preference on the basis of Weil’s tradition. Al-ShaficT adopted the method of reconciliation based on the tradition of Abu Humayd. Al-Tabari left it to the choice of the individual and said, “All these postures are permissible, and their adoption is commendable because they have been established through authentic reports from the Messenger of Allah”. This is a commendable opinion, as it is better to base the varying acts on selection rather than on conflict. This kind of conflict may often occur between acts as opposed to words, or in words opposed to words.

The jurists disagreed about the sitting postures in the middle of the prayer (that is, on rising from the second prostration of the second rak^a and before standing up for the third) and at the end. Most of the jurists held that the posture in the middle of the prayer is sunna and is not an obligation. One group deviated from this and said that it is an obligation (fard). Likewise, the majority held that the sitting posture at the end of the prayer is obligatory, but some deviated and held that it is a sunna. The reason for their disagreement is the conflict of the implication of the text with analogy constructed upon one sitting posture over the other. This is so as in the preceding tradition of Abu Hurayra; the words are: “Then sit up and rest a little, while seated”. According to the apparent meaning of this tradition the sitting posture is obligatory in the entire prayer. Those who adopted it said that all sitting postures are obligatory. It is howevSa laid down in the confirmed tradition of Ibn Buhayna that “the messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) dropped the middle sitting posture and did not repeat it, and then prostrated on account of it”. It is also established from him that he dropped two rak'as but performed them again, as he did for one rakfa. From this the jurists understood the difference between the hukm of the middle sitting posture and the hukm of a rak'a. As a rakfa was obligatory for them by consensus, it followed that the middle sitting posture was not obligatory. It is on this basis that the jurists differentiated between the two sitting postures and maintained the prostrations of forgetfulness are performed for sunan and not for obligations (furud). Those who considered it to be an obligation maintained ‘that the prostrations of forgetfulness are specific to the middle posture, (if left out) as distinguished from the other obligations, and that cannot be counted as evidence that it (the middle posture) is not obligatory.

Those who maintained that both sitting postures are a sunna considered that he last sitting posture is to be so on the analogy of the middle sitting posture after having considered the middle sitting posture to be so on the basis of the evidence relied upon by the majority for considering it as sunna. Thus, the reason for their disagreement, in actual fact, refers to the conflict between reasoning and the implication of words or with the implication of acts. Some jurists, those who considered that the sitting postures are both obligatory, did so because for them the acts of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) are the basis for declaring the acts of prayer as obligatory, unless there is an evidence indicating the contrary. Both bases taken together imply here that the last sitting posture is obligatory, for which reason the majority adopt this opinion. As there is only analogy opposing these two bases, that is, of words and acts, the weakest of the opinions is that which holds both sitting postures to be a sunna Allah knows best.

It is established from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) that “he used to place his right hand on his right thigh and his left hand on his left thigh, and that he used to point with his finger [an indication of Divine Unity]”. The jurists agree that this form of the sitting posture is to be preferred to others in prayer, but they differed about the movement of the finger because of the conflict of traditions in this, the established act being that he merely used to point it (not to shake it).

The jurists differed about placing one hand over the other in prayer. Malik disapproved this in obligatory prayers, but permitted it in supererogatory prayers. A group of jurists, and these are the majority, maintained that this act is among the sunan of prayer. The reason for their disagreement is that confirmed traditions have been reported in which the description of the Prophet’s prayer have been transmitted, but it has not been transmitted that he used to place his right hand over his left during prayer, while it has also been related that the people were commanded to do this. This has been related in the description of the prayer of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) in the tradition of Abu Humayd. A group of jurists, therefore, held that the traditions in which this is established imply an addition over those in which this addition has not been transmitted, and an addition has to be accepted. Another group said that it is necessary to adopt the traditions in which this addition has not been transmitted as these are more in number, and also because it (this practice) is not compatible with the acts of prayer for it belongs to the category of seeking support; therefore, Malik permitted it in supererogatory and not in obligatory prayers. It appears that it depicts a posture of humility, which is appropriate for it.

A group of jurists preferred that when a person is in the odd rakfa of his prayer he should not stand up (after the second prostration) till he has straightened up in the sitting posture (for resting), while another group preferred that he rise up straight from the prostrations. The first was the opinion of al-Shafi(T and a group of jurists and the second was the opinion of Malik and a group of jurists.

The reason for the disagreement is that there are two conflicting traditions in this. The first is the confirmed tradition of Malik ibn al-Huwayrith “that he saw the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) pray, and when he was in the odd rakfa of his prayer he did not stand up after the prostration till he had straightened up in the sitting posture”. In the tradition of Abu Humayd about the description of the prayer of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) it is said “that when he raised up his head after the second prostration in the first rak% he stood up and did not seat himself”. Al-Shafici adopted the first tradition, while Malik adopted the second.

They also differed about whether a person prostrating should place his hands on the ground before kneeling, or whether he should kneel before placing his hands. Malik’s view favours kneeling before the placing of hands. The reason for their disagreement is that in the tradition of Ibn Hujr, he said: “I saw that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) would kneel while prostrating before reaching for the floor with his hands, and would withdraw his hands before his knees while rising up”. It is related from Abu Hurayra “that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, ‘When one of you is about to prostrate he should not kneel down like a camel, but should place his hands before kneeling’”. cAbd Allah ibn <Umar used to place his hands before his knees. Some of the traditionists have said that the tradition of Wa’il ibn Hujr is more authentic than that of Abu Hurayra.

The jurists agreed that prostration is on seven limbs, the forehead, the (two) hands, the (two) knees, and the inside of the toes, because of the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “I have been commanded to prostrate on seven limbs”. They differed about the person who prostrates and fails to employ one of these limbs: is his prayer invalidated? A group of jurists said that his prayer is not invalidated as the term “prostration” applies only to the face. Another group said that it is invalidated if he does not prostrate on the seven limbs stated in the tradition.

They did not differ, however, on the point that one who prostrates on his forehead and nose is considered to have prostrated on his face, but they ^agreed on whether prostration oh one or the other was permissible. Malik said that if he prostrates on his forehead and not the nose it is permitted, but if Ixe prostrates on his nose and not on his forehead it is not permitted. Abu Hanifa said that this is allowed. Al-ShafiT said that the prostration is not valid unless he prostrates on both.

The reason for their disagreement arised from the question of whether the obligation is to comply with part of that to which the term is applicable or to comply with the whole. This is so as the term face has been used in the tradition of Ibn cAbbas which says, “I have been commanded to prostrate on seven limbs”. Those who maintained that the obligation is to comply with part of that to which the term is applicable said that it is sufficient if he prostrates on either the forehead or the nose. Those who maintained that the term prostration applies to the person who prostrates on his forehead only, but does not apply to one who prostrates on his nose only, permitted prostration on the forehead and not on the nose alone. This amounts to delineation of the part that achieves compliance with the obligation when such part is implied by the term, and it is based upon the opinion of those who distinguish between parts of a thing. They maintain that compliance with (the important) part of it fulfils the obligation, while compliance with another part (that is not important) does not. Think over this as it is one of the principles of this topic. (Had prostration on the nose alone been permitted) it would have been possible for one to say that even if the nose barely touches the ground prostration is valid. Those who maintain that the obligation is to comply with all that is included in the term make it obligatory for a person to prostrate on his forehead as well as his nose. Al-ShafiT says that the ambiguity that is found in the words has been removed by the acts of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) and has been explained, for he used- to prostrate on his forehead and his nose as has been stated in a tradition that when he completed one of his prayers there were marks of dust, and water on his forehead and nose, thus, his act has elaborated the unelaborated tradition.

Abu TJmar ibn Abd al-Barr c said that one of the hadith authorities related the tradition of Ibn cAbbas and mentioned the face and the nose in it. The Qadi Abu al-Walid (Ibn Rushd) said that some of them have mentioned only the forehead, and both narrations are in the compilation by Muslim, the latter being an evidence for Malik.

They also disagreed on whether it is a condition for the prostrations that the hands be conspicuously placed on the prayer-mat on which the face rests? Malik said that this is a condition of prostration, and I believe it is a condition of perfection. A group of jurists said that this is not a condition for prostration.

Within this topic is also their disagreement about prostrating on the bands of the turbans. The jurists are divided into three opinions about it. One opinjOn prohibits it, while another allows it. A third makes a distinction between prostrating on a small fraction of the band or on the major part of it, anj whether or not a part of the forehead touches the ground. This disagreement is found all over the school and among the jurists of the regions. In al-Bukhari there is a tradition to the effect that they used to prostrate on caps and turbans Those who did not uphold as obligatory to let the hands rest on the floor in prostration argued on the basis of Ibn cAbbas’s opinion that “The Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) ordered that we prostrate on seven limbs without folding back the clothes or hair”, and also on analogy upon the knees in prayer and upon prayer in boots. It is possible to argue on the basis of the general implication here for prostrating on the band of the turban.

The jurists agreed on the disapproval of during prayers on the basis of the prohibition (specified) in the tradition (which refers to) “a man sitting during prayer in the posture of a dog”. They differed, however, about the implications of the term. Some of them maintained that the prohibited is the sitting posture of a man when he seats himself on his buttocks and folds up his thighs like posture of a dog or a lion. There is no disagreement among them that this is not one of the postures of prayer. Another group maintained that the i/o5 that has been frowned upon is the resting of the buttocks on the ankles between the two prostrations while the feet are resting on the toes. This is Malik’s opinion as it is related that Ibn TJmar used to do this because his feet used to ache. Ibn <Abbas <ised to say that “sitting on the feet in this way is the sunna of your Prophet”. It is recorded by Muslim.

The reason for their disagreement is the vacillation of the term r/#, (frowned upon in prayers) between the literal meaning and the legal meaning, that is, the meaning to which this term has been restricted by the law. Those who said that it conveys a literal meaning identified it with the posture of a dog. Those who said that it conveys the legaL meaning said that it indicates one of the postures prohibited during prayer, and as it is established from Ibn TJmar that the posture of a person sitting on his ankles letting his feet rest on their toes is not a sunna of prayer they were led to believe that it is this posture that has been prohibited. But this is a weak (argument) as terms for which no legal meaning has been established must be understood in their literal sense till such time that a legal meaning is established for them. This is unlike those terms for which legal meanings have been established, that is, these must be understood in their legal meaning till an evidence indicates their interpretation of the sin.Further, the tradition of Ibn TJmar has been contradicted byy the tradition of Ibn Abbas