The Distinguished Jurists Primer by Ibn Rushd

This part covers the acts of prayer that are not considered performed on time and these are repetition (iSdda), delayed performance (qadd?), and rectification (jabr) of excesses or shortfalls by means of prostrations (for forgetfulness). In this part there are thus three chapters. The first chapter is about fidda (repetition or re-performance). The second chapter is about qadd> (delayed performance). The third chapter covers rectification that is accomplished with prostrations.

The discussion in this chapter relates to the causes that require repetition of a prayer, and these are factors vitiating prayer. They agreed that a person who prays without purification, whether intentional or due to forgetfulness, is obliged to repeat his prayer (after purification). Similarly, one who prays in a direction other than the qibla, whether by intention or by mistake. On the whole, then, a person who violates one of the conditions of prayer is under an obligation of a repeat performance (in the correct way). (All this is by agreement of the jurists.) The jurists disagreed because of their dispute over the validating conditions.

There are disputed issues related to this topic that are beyond the basic elements of prayer. One of these is their agreement that the occurrence of a cause of hadath (losing the state of purification) terminates (invalidates) prayer. They disagreed, in this case, on wherher it requires the repetition of prayer from the beginning, including a rakfa or two completed prior to the occurrence of hadath, or to continue the prayer based on that already performed. The majority maintained that he is not to base it on continuation neither in the case of hadath nor for another terminating cause (like making unauthorized movements), except in the case of a nosebleed alone. Some of them were of the view that he does not base it on continuation at all, either for hadath or for a nosebleed. This is al-ShafiTs opinion. The Kufts maintained that he is to base the prayer on continuation in all kinds of hadath.

The reason for their disagreement is that there is no recorded, tradition of permissibility from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) in such a case (i.e. continuation), but it is established that Ibn TJmar had a nosebleed and based the (repetition of the) prayer on continuation (after washing away his blood and) without performing ablution. Those who maintained that this act on the part of a Companion amounts to a precedent, for he could not have based such an act upon analogy, permitted such an act. Those for whom a nosebleed does not amount to hadath permitted continuation in the case of a nosebleed only, and this is Malik’s opinion. Those for whom a nosebleed is a cause of hadath permitted continuation in all cases of hadath on the basis of analogy. And those who maintained that an act of a Companion is not to be relied upon unless it is a precedent from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), did not permit continuation either in the case of hadath or a nosebleed, for there is consensus on the point that a worshipper praying in a direction other than the qibla has breached his prayer and also when he is making excessive movements.

The jurists disagreed on whether the passing of something in front of the worshipper terminates his prayer when he is praying without a curtain (sutra), or when the thing passes between him and the curtain. The majority maintain that none of these terminates the prayer, and there is no obligation for repetition on the worshipper. A group of jurists maintained that prayer is cut off by (the passing of) a woman, a donkey, or a black dog.

The reason for this disagreement is the conflict of a pronouncement with an act, as Muslim has recorded from Abu Dharr that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “A woman, a donkey, and a black dog [passing before a worshipper in prayer] cut off prayer”. Muslim and al- BukharT, (on the other hand), have recorded from cAJisha that she said, “I found myself lying in front of the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), when he was praying, in the same way as the body in a funeral is placed”. Opinions similar to that of the majority have been related from AII and from Ubayy. There is no dispute among the jurists about the abomination of something passing in front of a single worshipper (praying alone) or in front of the imam when praying without a sutra, or of passing between him and the sutra. They saW no harm, however, in passing anything behind the curtain. Likewise, they saw no harm in passing in front of the followers, because of the authenticated tradition of Ibn cAbbas, and of others. Ibn cAbbas said, “I came on the back o f a donkey, when I was approaching puberty, and the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) was leading the people in prayer. I passed in front of some of the rows. I dismounted, leaving the ass to graze, and joined one of the rows. No one objected to my act”. This, in their view’, resembles a musnad (i.e. a tradition attributed to the Prophet), but this is subject to scrutiny.

The majority agreed about the abomination of something passing before the praying worshipper because of the warning issued in this regard, and also because of the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) “Push him away, for he is the devil”.147

They disagreed about belching during prayer; there are three opinions. One group of jurists regarded it as an abomination, but did not impose repetition of prayer on the person who belched. Another group made repetition obligatory on a person belching. A third group made a distinction between that which was heard and that which was not. The reason for their disagreement stems from the vacillation of (the definition of) belching between being Speech and non-speech.

They agreed that laughter cuts off prayer. They disagreed about smiling. Their disagreement about smiling is based on the question of whether it can take the ruling of laughter.

They disagreed about the prayer of the person suppressing the call of nature (hdqin). The majority of the jurists consider abominable that a person should pray while he is suppressing the call of nature, because of the tradition of Zayd ibn Arqam, who said, “I heard the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) saying, ‘If one of you desires to go to the privy, he should do so before commencing prayer’ ”, and because of what is related from <A>isha from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) that he said, “No one should pray in the presence of food, nor when he is suppressing the two dirts”, that is, urination and defecation, and also because of the report of the proscription from TJmar.

A group of jurists maintained that prayer of such a person is not valid, and he has to repeat it. Ibn al-Qasim’s report from Malik indicates that the prayer of a person suppressing the call of nature is invalid. The reason^is that he reported from him that such a person must repeat the prayer before the expiry of the time, otherwise he has to do so as qadd>.

The reason for their disagreement arises from their dispute over the proscription whether it indicates the invalidity of the (performance of the) thing prohibited, or it merely indicates the sinfulness of the act in that condition, when the act so proscribed is originally obligatory or permissible. Those who upheld the invalidity of such a prayer relied on the tradition reported by the Syrians, with some reporting it from Thawban, while others from Abu Hurayra from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), who said, “It is not permitted for a believer to pray when he is forcibly suppressing the call of nature”. Abu TJmar said that it is a tradition with a weak transmission, and it therefore has no legal force.

They disagreed about responding to the salutation by the praying worshipper. A group of jurists, among whom are Sa Td ibn al-Musayyab, al-Hasan ibn al- c Hasan al-BasrT, and Qatada, permitted it. Another group disallowed responding in words, but permitted it with a gesture, and this is the opinion of Malik and aI-Shafi T. Others c prohibited responding by words or by gesture, and this is the opinion of Nu(mam. One group permitted an inward (silent) response, while others said that he should respond when he has finished praying.

The reason for their disagreement stems from whether the response to a salutation is a kind of speech during prayer, which is proscribed. Those who maintained that it is a kind of speech prohibited in prayers, and restricted the verse, “When ye are greeted with a greeting, greet ye with a better than it or return it”148 with traditions proscribing speech during .prayer, said that it is not permitted to respond during prayer. Those who maintained that it is not included in the prohibited speech, and those who restricted the proscribing traditions with the command for responding to a greeting, permitted a

They disagreed about responding to the salutation by the praying worshipper. A group of jurists, among whom are Sa Td ibn al-Musayyab, al-Hasan ibn al- c Hasan al-BasrT, and Qatada, permitted it. Another group disallowed responding in words, but permitted it with a gesture, and this is the opinion of Malik and aI-Shafi T. Others c prohibited responding by words or by gesture, and this is the opinion of Nu(mam. One group permitted an inward (silent) response, while others said that he should respond when he has finished praying.

The reason for their disagreement stems from whether the response to a salutation is a kind of speech during prayer, which is proscribed. Those who maintained that it is a kind of speech prohibited in prayers, and restricted the verse, “When ye are greeted with a greeting, greet ye with a better than it or return it”148 with traditions proscribing speech during .prayer, said that it is not permitted to respond during prayer. Those who maintained that it is not included in the prohibited speech, and those who restricted the proscribing traditions with the command for responding to a greeting, permitted a response during prayer. Abu Bakr ibn al-Mundhir has said that those who say that the greeting is not to be responded to at all have opposed the sunna, for Habib has reported that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) returned the greeting, with a gesture, of those who greeted him while he was praying.

The discussion in this chapter covers the identification of the person for whom qaddW is obligatory, the description of the types of qadd, and its conditions.

The Muslim jurists agreed that the person for whom qadd is obligatory is one who forgets (to pray) or is asleep (till the expiry of the time). They disagreed about the case of one who delays praying intentionally and about one who faints. The Muslim jurists agreed about the obligation of qadd for a person who misses prayer due to forgetfulness or sleep, because of the authentic reports about the words and acts of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him). By his words I mean the saying, “The Pen has been lifted on three counts”, and here he mentioned one sleeping, and also his saying, “If one of you slept through [the time of] prayer or forgot it, then let him make up for it when he remembers”. It is also reported that he himself overslept once till sunrise and then offered it as qadd' About the person who intentionally neglects prayer till its time is over, the majority hold that he is a sinner and qadd is obligatory on him. Some of the Zahirites have held that he is a sinner, but he is not to observe qadd. One of the Zahirites who held this was Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm.

The reason for their disagreement is due to their dispute over two things. The first is the permissibility of employing qiyds (analogy) in the law. The second is the construction of analogy for the person who intentionally neglects to pray over one who forgets, once the validity of qiyds has been conceded. Those who made qadd obligatory on him maintained that if qadd has been imposed upon the person forgetting, whom the law has exempted in so many cases, it is appropriate that it be obligatory for the intentional forsaker who has no excuse. Those who did not permit the analogy of the person forgetting for the intentional relinquisher maintained that the person forgetting and the intentional relinquisher are opposites, and analogy cannot be undertaken for opposites, as the ahdm of the opposites are different, and that analogy is to be constructed for similar cases. The truth here is that if obligation (for qadffi) is considered as an enhanced liability (penalty) analogy would be true to form but if it is considered as compassion for the person forgetting, for he has an excuse—and this benefit should not be denied to him—then the intentional relinquisher is the opposite of the person forgetting and the analogy is not formed since the person forgetting has an excuse while the intentional relinquisher does not. The principle is that qada? is not obligatory because of the command of add? (timely performance), but through a renewed command, as maintained by the Mutakallimun, for the person forgetting lacks one of the conditions enabling him to perform the act in a valid manner, and this (condition) is time, which is one of the conditions of validity, and a delay in time amounts, in analogy, to a concession for him. There is a tradition, however, that settles the case of the persons forgetting and the persons sleeping; the case of the intentional relinquisher vacillates between being similar to their case and not being so. It is Allah who guides to the truth.

For the person fainting, a group of jurists dropped qada? altogether, while another group imposed qada? upon him. Some of them stipulated qada* of a specified number (of prayers) saying that he is to offer as qadd? five prayers or whatever is less. The reason for their disagreement arises from the vacillation of his case between that of one asleep and the insane person. Those who held him to be similar to one sleeping imposed qadd* on him, while those who compared him to an insane person waived qadd? in his case.

There are two kinds of qadd?\ qadd? of the whole prayer, and qadd* in part. In the qadd* of the w'hole, the examination is of the description of qadd?, its conditions, and its time. The description of qada? is identical to the description of add?, if the two prayers Jtave the same description with respect to the obligations. If, however, the circumstances of the two prayers are different, like remembering during a journey a prayer he missed when he was in a settlement, or remembering while in a settlement a prayer he missed during a journey, then, the jurists disagree about'this, holding three opinions. A group of jurists said that he is to offer qada* identical to the one he missed, disregarding his present condition. This is the opinion of Malik and his disciples. Another group of jurists said that he is always to offer the prayer in its complete form, whether the prayer he missed was in a journey or in a settlement. Thus, according to their opinion if he remembers during a journey a prayer he missed in the settlement, he is to pray it as a prayer of the settlement, and if he remembers in a settlement a prayer he missed during a journey he is to pray it as a prayer of the settlement. This is al-ShafiTs opinion. A third group of jurists said that he is always to pray as a prayer based on the present situation; thus, he is to offer qadd? during a journey as a curtailed prayer for a prayer missed in a settlement, and he is to offer in a settlement the prayer of a settlement for a prayer he missed during a journey. Those who likened qadd to add* took into account the time of the present situation and rendered the hukm according to it on the analogy of the sick person who remembers a prayer that he forgot while healthy, or that of the healthy person who remembers a prayer that he forgot during an illness, that is, his obligation is to pray the obligation of the prayer in the current situation. Those who compared qadd with debts imposed the obligation of praying as qadd a prayer identical to the one forgotten. Those, however, who imposed the obligation of always praying the prayer of the settlement took into account the description in one case and the circumstances in the other, that is, if he remembers a prayer of the settlement during a journey the description of the prayer offered' as qadd is to conform with the description of the prayer missed, but if he remembers the prayer of a journey within a settlement the current situation is taken into account. This amounts to a disarray (of thought) outside the ambit of analogy, unless the opinion is based on the principle of precaution, which can be conceived particularly when curtailment (of prayer in a journey) is considered as an exemption.

They differed over the order (of offering prayers), that is, they disagreed about the obligation of observing an order among the forgotten prayers, and between them and the add prayer. Malik maintained that observing a sequential order is obligatory for five prayers or whatever is less, and that the person is to begin with a forgotten prayer even if the time of the current prayer is to be missed. He went as far as saying that if he is occupied with the current prayer and remembers a forgotten prayer, the current prayer is invalidated for him. Similar views were expressed by Abu HanTfa and al-ThawrT, except that they upheld the obligation of a sequential order only when the period for the current prayer is long enough (for the qadd and the add prayers). These jurists agreed about the dropping of the obligation of order in the case of forgetfulness. Al-Shafi T said c that there is no obligation of maintaining an order, but if he does this and the time is long enough to accommodate the current prayer, it is commendable.

The reason for their disagreement stems from the conflict of the traditions on the issue, and also from their difference over the existence of a resemblance between qadd and add. There are two conflicting traditions on the issue. The first is what is related from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) that he said, “A person who has forgotten a prayer [and remembers it] while he is offering another with an imam should continue with the imam. After he has offered this prayer, he should repeat [offer] the prayer he has forgotten and then repeat the prayer he offered with the imam”. The disciples of al-ShaficT consider this to be a weak tradition, while they authenticate the tradition of Ibn cAbbas that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “If one of you forgets a prayer and remembers it while he is offering another prescribed prayer, then, he should complete that which he is offering and once he has finished it he should offer as qadd the forgotten prayer”. Yet the authentic tradition on this topic is one that has preceded, where the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) are: “If one of you slept through [the time of] prayer or forgot it, then let him observe the prayer when he remembers”.

Their disagreement by way of comparing qadd with add is that those who maintained that a sequential order in add (timely performance) is binding because the timings are specific to the prayer, and the prayers are ordered in themselves, as time cannot be conceived except as sequential, did not extend this obligation to qadd, for there is no specific time for qadd. Those who maintained that the order in prayers is sequential with respect to the act, even if the time is the same like the combining of two prayers in the time specific to one, held qadd to be similar to add. The Malikites were of the opinion that the sequential order be obligatory for the delayed prayer with respect to time and not with respect to the the act, because of the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “He should offer it when he remembers”. They said that the time for the forgotten prayer is the time when it is remembered, therefore, it is necessary that the prayer he is currently offering be invalid at that time. This is meaningless, because if the time a prayer is remembered is the time for the forgotten prayer, then it is the time for the current prayer also, or of the forgotten prayers if there are more than one prayer. If the timing is the same then there is no question that the occurring disturbance in it is due to the sequence between the prayers, like the sequence of the different parts of one prayer, for one prayer is not more deserving of the time than its companion prayer, as the time is the same for both, unless an evidence of a sequence can be adduced. I am not in possession of anything here that I may render as a principle governing this topic with respect to a sequence in forgotten prayers except (the sequence in) combining, according to those who concede it. The sequential prayers have different timings and the sequence in qadd is conceived essentially in a single time for two prayers taken together. Understand this, for there is some ambiguity here. I believe that Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, made an analogy for this from combining (jam*). All, however, adopted preference (istihsan) of sequence in forgotten prayers, when there is no apprehension of the current prayer being lost, because of the five prayers offered consecutively by the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) on the day of the Battle of Khandaq (Ditch). Those who make qadd* obligatory for the intentional relinquisher argued on the basis of this (case), but this has no strength for it (the precedent) stands abrogated, and further.it was a forced delay with a legitimate excuse. As for the determination of the number five or whatever is less, there is no basis for it, unless it is said that it is consensus (ijmtf). This, then, is the hukm of qadd* that takes place for the whole prayer.

The qadd* that is offered for part of the prayer is either due to forgetfulness or it is due to the imam having advanced further than the follower, that is, the follower loses part of the prayer of the imam. In the case where the follower has lost part of the prayer, there are three fundamental issues. The first is when is a rak^a considered to be lost. Second, does the observance of what is lost, after the prayer of the imam, amount to add* or qadd*? Third, when is the hukm of the prayer of the imam applicable to him and when is it not?

The question as to when a rak^a is deemed to be lost entails two issues. First, when the worshipper joins in when the imam has bent for the ruku\ and second, when he is praying with the imam and forgets to follow him in the ruk# or something in the nature of jostling occurs that prevents him from- doing so.

There are three opinions on this issue. The first, which is held by the majority, is that if he can catch up with the imam before he raises his head from the ruk# and is able to bow with him, then, he has caught the rakfa and there is no qadd* for him. These jurists differed on whether it is a condition for This person joining in that he pronounce two takbirs., the initial takbir and one for the or is the takbir of the ruk& to be sufficient for him, and if it is deemed compensated, is it a condition for it that he intends through it the initial takbir also? Some of them said that a single takbir would be sufficient if he includes in it the intention of the initial takbir. This is the opinion of Malik and al-ShafiT but, the preference in their view is for two takbirs. A. group of jurists said that (pronouncing) two takbirs is necessary. Another group said that one is sufficient even if he does not intend the initial takbir through it.

The. second opinion is that if the imam has gone into ruku\ the person has lost the rak'a, and that he cannot attain it unless he had done so after standing with the imam. This is attributed to Abu Hurayra. The third opinion is that if he approaches the last row when the imam has raised his head from the ruku\ but some of those in the row have not and he joins them in ruku\ he has gained the rak^ay for some are leading the others. This was upheld by al- Sha^T. The reason for this disagreement derives from, the vacillation of the meaning of the term rak a between the act c of bowing alone, and the combined meaning of bowing and standing taken together. The Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) has said, “One who has caught a rak'a of the prayer has caught the prayer”. Ibn al-Mundhir states that this tradition was established as authentic from the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him). Those for whom the term rak^a is applied to mean both bowing and standing said that if the person has missed the standing posture with the imam, he has lost the rak^a. Those for whom the term rakfa is applied to bowing itself deemed .the catching of bowing as the attainment of the rakfa. The equivocality (ishtardk) that is found in this term is its vacillation between the literal and the technical meanings, as the term in its literal sense applies to bowing only, but in its technical meaning it applies to standing, bowing, and ,prostrating. Those who maintained that the term rakza in the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “One who has caught a rakW, applies to the technical meaning, and also did not adopt the opinion of those who accept part of what is indicated by names, said that it is necessary for the person to observe all three acts with the imam, that is, standing bowing and prostrating. It is possible that those who were inclined to consider bowing only took into account the major part indicated by the term, as the person who has been able to participate in bowing has caught two parts, while the person who has missed bowing has been able to secure one part alone. On the basis of this, their disagreement refers to the dispute about accepting part of what is denoted by a term or by the entire denotation. It is possible to find disagreement with both views.

He who takes into account the bowing of the followers in the (last) row does so because the rak'a of the prayer may be attributed to the imam alone or it may be attributed to the imam as well as the followers. The reason for disagreement, therefore, are the equal probabilities of such an association, that is, in the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “One who has caught a.ra^a of the prayer has caught the prayer”, and the opinion of the majority here has a higher probability.

The reason for their disagreement over whether he is to pronounce one takbir or two, that is, the follower joining the prayer when the imam is bowing, stems from whether it is a condition for the initial takbir that it be pronounced while standing. Those who maintained that the posture in which it is pronounced is a condition for it, on the basis of the act of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), and also on the grounds that every takbir is an obligation, said that there must be tvi® takbirs. Those who maintained that the posture is not a condition for it on the basis of the general implication of the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “Its commencement is the takbir”, and also because, in their view, only the initial takbir is obligatory, said it is permitted to him to pronounce that (the initial takbir) alone. Those who permitted him to pronounce a single takbir without intending the initial takbir adopted, it is said, the opinion of those who do not consider the initial' takbir to be an obligation, and it is also said that they adopted the opinion of those who permit the delaying of the intention (niyya) of prayer till after the initial takbir. This is because the intention of the initial takbir has no meaning except in association with the intention of commencing prayer. As the initial takbir has two attributes, associated intention and precedence, that is, its occurrence at the beginning of the prayer, they stipulated both attributes, and said that there should be an accompanying niyya- Those who were satisfied with a single attribute were also satisfied with a single takbir even if it was not associated with intention.

About the person forgetting to follow the imam in rukuc till the imam prostrates, a group of jurists said that if he has failed to observe the rukuz with him, he has lost the rak'a and it is obligatory for him to offer it as qada? (before his own salam). Another group of jurists said that he can count the rakfa (as performed) if it is possible for him to complete the fukuS before the imam has commenced the next rak'a. A third group of jurists said that he is to follow him and count the rakfa as performed as long as the imam has not raised his head after bowing in the second rak^a. This disagreement exists among the disciples of Malik, and there is considerable dispute over details, along with disagreements among them relating to whether what was missed occurred due to forgetfulness or due to jostling, and whether it happened in a jumu^a prayer or another, and whether this situation was faced by the follower in the first rakfa or in another rak'a.

Since our purpose is not to record the details of the opinions or to derive them, but only to indicate the fundamental issues and their (underlying) principles, we say the following:

The reason for the the disagreement in this issue arises from the dispute about whether it is a condition for the movements of the follower that they should accompany (or immediately follow) those of the imam, and whether this condition applies to all the three constituent acts of the rak^a, that is, standing, bowing and prostrating, or is it a condition only for some of them? Further, when does his act go against him if this act does not (immediately) follow the act of the imam, that is, when he is performing one act and the imam is performing the next? Those who held that it is a condition for each constituent act of a single rak'a—that is, the act of the follower should be concurrent with the same act of the imam, for otherwise this would amount to dissociating himself from the imam, and the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) has said, “The imam has been appointed so that he be followed, so do not go against him”—said that if he fails to accompany the imam in the ruku\ even though a small part of it, he would miss the rak^a. Those who took into account only a part of it said that he collects the rak'a if he collects a part of the rak'a before the imam rises for the next rakfa, and this does not amount to going against him. If the imam has risen into the second rak'a and the follower is pursuing him (in the acts of the first), then, this amounts to going against him for the first rakfa. Those who said that he may pursue his acts as long the imam has not bowed in the next rak'a, held the opinion that it is not a condition/or each segment of the act of the/follower that it coincide with each segment of the act of the imam nor as a whole, but the condition is only that it take place after it. They agreed that if the imam has risen after bowing in the second rak'a, then, the follower is not to count that rakfa as performed, if he has been pursuing his acts in it, for these would be assigned the hukm of the first while the imam is subject to the hukm of the second, and this evidently amounts to going against him.

The second of the three fundamental issues that act as principles of the topic is whether the performance by the follower of the part of the prayer he has missed, from the imam's prayer, amounts to add or qadd. There are three opinions on this issue.

A group of jurists said that the part he observes after the imam's salutation is qadd and what he has observed with the imam is not the first part of his prayer. Another group said that what he observes after the salutation of the imam is add and what he observed with the imam is the first part of his prayer. A third group made a distinction between words and acts and said that he performs the words as qaddy that is, the recitation, and continues on with the acts, meaning add thereby. Thus, according to the first opinion, the opinion which regards the missed part that the follower performs as qadd, the person who is able to catch one rak^a of the maghrib prayer will stand up when the imam ends his prayer with the salutation and offer two rak'as reciting the umm al-Qur'an and another sura in each one of them, without adopting the sitting posture in between the two. In accordance with the second opinion, that is based on continuation, he will stand up for one rak^a reciting in it the umm al-Qir'dn and another sura and then adopt the sitting posture, after which he will rise for another rak^a and recite in it only the umm al- QuPan. In accordance with the third opinion, he will stand up for a rak'a reciting in it the umm al-Qur'dn and another sura and then take the sitting posture, after which he will rise for the second rak*u also reciting in it the umm al-Qur>dn and another sura.

All three opinions have been attributed to the School (Malik’s) and the authentic opinion from Malik is that he performs the words as qadd> and continues in the acts, because there is no discrepancy in his opinion about the sunset prayer that if the person catches one rakfa (with the imam) then he is to stand for the second rakfa and then adopt the sitting posture; and there is no dispute about his opinion that the person is to recite the umm al-Qur*dn and another sura as qada?. The reason for disagreement was that in some versions of the well-known tradition it is laid down: “Pray what you are able to catch and complete what you have lost”, and completion implies that what he has been able to observe is the first part of his prayer. In other versions the words are, “Pray what you are able to catch and offer as qadd? what you have lost”, where qada> implies that what he has been able to observe (with the imam) is the last part of his prayer. Thus, those who adopted the opinion of completion said that what he has observed is the first part of his prayer. Those who adopted the opinion of qadd> said that what he observed was the last part of his prayer. Those who adopted the method of reconciliation deemed the words to be qadd? and the acts as add*. This, however, is weak, that is, part of the prayer should be add? and part qad&.

Their agreement on the obligation of a sequential order in the parts of the prayer, and on the occasion of pronouncing the initial takbir is the commencement of prayer, implies the existence of a clear evidence that what he has been able to observe (with the imam) is the first part of the follower’s prayer, but the intention of the imam and that of the follower have differed about the sequential order, so think over it. It appears that this is what was taken into account by those who maintained that his observance is the last part of the prayer.

A group of jurists said that if he is able to catch a rak'a of jumu^a then he has observed the jumu^a prayer, and he is to perform the second rak'a after the salutation of the imam, but. if he catches less than a rak^a he is to pray the four rak'as as zuhr. This is the opinion of Malik and al-ShafiT. Another group of jurists said that he is to complete two rakfas irrespective of what he has been able to catch of the prayer with the imam. This is Abu HanTfa’s opinion. The reason for disagreement in this matter stems from what is supposed to be a conflict between the general implication of the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “Pray what you are able to catch (behind the imam), and complete what you have missed”, and the meaning of his words, “He who has caught a raV-a of a prayer (behind the imam) has caught the prayer”. Those who decided on the basis of the words, “complete what you have missed”, made it obligatory that the follower pray two vak'as even if he has been able to catch (a little) less than two rak^as. Those for whom there is an implied word in the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “he has caught the prayer”, that is, he has caught the hukm of the prayer, said that the (indirect) indication of the text (dalil al- khiidb) implies that one who has caught less than one rak^a has not caught the hukm of the prayer. The implied word, however, in this text has multiple possibilities, for it is possible that it means the merit of the prayer, it is possible that it means the time of the prayer, and it is also possible that it means the hukm of the prayer. Perhaps the possible meaning in one of these is not more obvious than the other. If this is the case, then it belongs to the category of mujmal (unelaborated implication), which does not imply a hukm, and the other (text with a) general meaning becomes preferable. If, however, we concede that it is obvious in one of these implied meanings, for example, the hukm of the prayer in accordance with the opinion1 of those who hold this, then, this obvious meaning is not in conflict with the general meaning (in the other text), unless it is treated as a category of the indication of the text (rfa/f/ al-khitab), but the general meaning is stronger, unanimously, than the indication of the text, especially an indication based on several probabilities or on the obvious meaning. On the other hand, the opinion of those who maintain that the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “he has caught the prayer”, include all the implied meanings, is weak and unknown in Arab usage, unless it is maintained that there is such a customary or technical meaning.

On the issue of the follower following the imam in prostrations, that is, the prostrations of forgetfulness, a group of jurists fixed one rak'a as the basis, that is, that he should catch at least a rak'a with the imam', another group of jurists did not take this into account. Those who did not take this into account decided on the basis of the general implication of the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “The imam has been appointed so that he be followed”. Those who took the rak'a into account decided according to the meaning of the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “He has caught the prayer”. It is for this reason that they also differed on the third sub-issue.

A group of jurists said that if the traveller catches less than one rak'a of the prayer of the imam (who is) in a settlement he is not to complete the rest of the prayer as one having the status of the resident, but if he catches one rakfa completion is binding upon him.

This, then, is the hukm of qadd* for part of the prayer when the imam had started prayer before the follower.

The jurists agreed with respect to the hukm of qadffi for part of the prayer that occurs because of the forgetfulness of the imam or of the individual (praying independently), that he is to observe as qadd> whatever is an essential element (rukn) of the prayer, that is, an obligation, and it is not valid for him unless he performs this (part). There are, however, issues in it over which they disagreed, with some making qada> (making up the missing parts) obligatory in them and the others imposing repetition, as in the case of the person who forgets to make four prostrations in four rakfasy missing one prostration in each rak'a. K group of jurists, thus, said that he rectifies the fourth by the prostrating and deems the earlier rak'as as nullified and then repeats them. This is Malik’s opinion. Another group of jurists said that the prayer is nullified as a whole and repetition becomes binding upon him. This is one of the narrations from Ahmad. A third group said that he performs four consecutive prostrations and his prayer stands completed. This was held by Abu HanTfa, al-Thawri, and al-Awza T. A fourth group said that c the fourth is rectified with two prostrations. This is al-ShafiTs opinion.

The reason for the disagreement over this stems from the consideration of sequential order. Those who took it into account in the rak'as and prostrations nullified the prayer. Those who took it into account for prostrations alone nullified the ra&aSy except the last on the analogy of what a follower misses of the prayer of the imam. Those who did not take sequential order into account permitted the prostrations of the (entire) prayer at one time in a single rak^ay especially when they believed that a sequential order is not obligatory in an act that is repeated in each rak^ay that is, in the prostrations, because each rak'a comprises standing, bowing, and prostrating and the prostration is repeated. Thus, the disciples of Abu HanTfa thought that as the prostrations are repeated it is not obligatory to take into account repetition in the sequential order. Of the same nature is a disagreement among the disciples of Malik about the person who forgets to recite the umm al-QuPan in. the first rak'a. It is said that the rak'a is not to be counted (as observed) and is to be performed as qad&\ it is said that he is to repeat the entire prayer, and it is also said, that he is to make prostrations of forgetfulness for making his prayer complete.

There are a number of cases under this topic and all are not expressly stated in the texts, but our purpose here is to record those that are of the nature of Principles.

The prostrations transmitted in the law apply in one of two cases: first, in unintended excess or deficiency of acts or words; and second, in the case of doubt in the acts of the prayer. In the case of the prostrations resulting from forgetfulness, and not from doubt, the discussion is covered in six sections. The first section is about the identification of the hukm of the prostrations. The second is about their occasions in the prayer. The third relates to the identification of the species of the acts and the acts themselves because of which the prostrations are made. The fourth is about the description of the prostrations of forgetfulness. The fifth is about the identification of the person for whom the prostrations are obligatory. The sixth is about the means with which the follower alerts the imam about his forgetfulness.

They disagreed about the prostrations of forgetfulness, whether they are an obligation or a sunna. Al-Shafi T held that c they are a sunna^ while Abu Harnfa held them to be an obligation, but as one of the conditions of the validity of prayer. Malik made a distinction between the prostrations of forgetfulness caused by forgetting words or forgetting some acts, and also those caused by an excess or a deficiency. He said that the prostrations of forgetfulness that are performed because of deficient acts are obligatory, and are, according to him, one of the conditions of the validity of prayer. This is the well-known report. It is also reported from him that prostrations on account of deficiency are obligatory and prostrations on account of excess are recommended.

The reason for their disagreement arises from their dispute about the interpretation of the acts of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) related to this topic, whether they convey an obligation or recommenda­tion. Abu Hanifa interpreted the acts of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) as obligatory, as that is the principle in his view, for they occur as an elaboration of an obligatory act. The Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Pray as you see me praying”. Al-ShafiT interpreted his acts as conveying recommendation, and he deviated from the original meaning of the principle on the basis of analogy. He held that as prostrations, in the view of the majority, do not become a substitute for an obligation, but are a substitute for a recommended act; therefore, a substitute for something that is not obligatory cannot be obligatory. For Malik there was greater emphasis on the acts as compared to the words, for they form the structure for the prayer more than the words, I mean, the obligations that are related to acts are more than those related to words. Thus, it was as if he held that there is greater emphasis for the acts as compared to words, even though the prostrations of forgetfulness become a substitute only for acts that are not obligatory. His distinction between prostrations made on account of deficiency and those made for excess, in accordance with the second narration, is based on the fact that the prostrations on account of deficiency are stipulated as compensation for what is dropped from the acts of the prayer, while prostrations on account of excess are like a repentance not a substitute.

They disagreed about (the time) when the prostration of forgetfulness is to be made; there were five opinions. The ShafFites held that the occasion for the prostrations of forgetfulness is always immediately before the salutation. The Hanafites maintained that the occasion for them is always after the salutation. The.Malikites made a distinction saying that if the prostrations are on account of a deficiency their occasion is before the salutation, but if they are on account of excess their occasion is after the salutation. Ahmad ibn Hanbal said that the prostrations are made before the salutation for the occasions on which the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) prostrated before the salutation and they are made after the salutation for occasions on which the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) prostrated after the salutation. Those that are besides these occasions for them the prostrations are always before the salutation. The Zahirites said that the prostrations are to be made only for the five occasions on which the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) made them. Besides these cases, if the omission was for something obligatory he has to make them, but if they are recommended the person is under no obligation.

The reason for their disagreement stems from the established fact that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) made prostrations at times before salutation and at others after it. Thus, it is established from the tradition of Buhayna, who said, “The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) led us in praying two rakfas after which he stood up, not taking the sitting posture, and the people stood up with him. When he had performed the prayer, he made two prostrations while still seated”. It is established from the tradition of Dhu al-Yadayn that has preceded where he bad (first) made the salutation from the two rak^as. Those who permitted analogy in the prostrations of forgetfulness—I mean, those who held the extension of the hukm for the occasions on which he (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) prostrated to the cases similar to them in these authentic traditions—held three (differing) opinions. The first is based on the method of preference (tarjih) and the second on the method of reconciliation (jam*). The third is based on the method or reconciliation between preference and (original) reconciliation.

Those who preferred the tradition of Ibn Buhayna maintained that the prostrations are before the salutation. They argued for this on the basis of the authentic tradition of Abu SaTd al-Khudff that the Prophet (God’s^peace and blessings be upon him) said, “If one of you is in doubt about his prayer and does not recollect how many he prayed, three or four, he should pray a rak<a and prostrate twice while he is sitting prior to the salutation. If the rak^-a he prayed happens to be the fifth he will be converting it to an even count with these two prostrations, but if it is the fourth, the two prostrations are an affront to the devil”. They said that in this are prostrations for an excess before the salutation, for it is possible for a fifth to occur. They also argued on the basis of what is related from Ibn Shihab, who said, “One of the last commands from the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and1 blessings be upon him) was about prostrations before the salutation”.

Those who preferred the tradition of Dhu al-Yadayn said that the prostrations are after the salutation. They argued for the preference of this tradition that the tradition of Ibn Buhayna had been opposed by the tradition of MughTra ibn Shu^a “that the Prophet (God’s peace and'blessings be upon him) stood up after the two rakfas and did not sit down, he then made prostrations after the salutation”. Abu TJmar said that this tradition is not equal in terms of transmission so that it may be opposed by it. They also argued for it on the basis of the authentic tradition of Ibn Mas<ud “that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) prayed a fifth rak'a out of forgetfulness and made prostrations for his forgetfulness after the salutation”.

Those who adopted the method of reconciliation said that these traditions do not contradict each other, as the prostrations in them that are after the salutation are due to excess, and the prostrations before salutation are due to deficiency; thus it is obligatory that the hukm of the prostrations in the remaining cases be like these cases. They said that this (reconciliation) is preferable to interpreting the traditions as being in conflict.

' Those who adopted the method of reconciliation as well as preference said that prostrations are to be made in cases in which the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) made the prostrations and in a manner in which he made them, for this is the hukm of those cases. The occasions on which the Messenger of Allah did not make the prostrations, the hukm for them is that of prostrations prior to the salutation. It was as if they made analogy for these over those in which the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) made prostrations before salutation, but not on the prostrations that he made after the salutation, while the original occasions on which he made the prostrations retained their rule. Thus, from one aspect they maintained the hukm of the occasions for which they occurred and assigned them differing ahkdm, this being a kind of reconciliation and the removal of conflict between the implications. From another aspect they extended the meaning of some to the exclusion of others, and attached those on which the law is silent to them, this being a kind of preference, that is, they made an analogy from those prostrations that were made before the salutation but not from those that were after the salutation.

As to those, and these are the Zahirites, who did not understand from these cases a hukm existing outside of these cases, confined their hukm to the cases of their occurrence; thus they confined the prostrations in these cases to these cases alone. Ahmad ibn Hanbal’s view, on the other hand, is intertwined partially with the view of the Zahirites and partially with that of those who made the analogy, because he confined the- prostrations after the salutation, as we have said, to cases that occurred in the traditions and did not extend them, while he extended (by analogy) the cases of prostrations occurring before the salutation.

For each of these jurists there are evidences through which they come to prefer their opinions by means of analogy, I mean, for those upholding analogy. Our purpose in this book is not the copious recording of disagreement necessitated by analogy just as it is not our purpose to mention the issues on which the law is silent except to a minimum, and that too when they are well- known and serve as principles for cases besides them or when their occurrence is very frequent.

The five cases in which forgetfulness is associated with the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) are: first, when he stood up after praying two rak'-as as in the tradition of Buhayna; second, when he made the salutation after praying two rak'-as, as recorded in the tradition of Dhu al- Yadayn; third, when he prayed five rak^-as^ according to what is in the tradition of Ibn TJmar, which is recorded by Muslim and al-Bukhari; fourth; when he made the salutation after praying three ra&as according to the tradition of <Imran ibn al-Husayn; fifth, the prostrations on account of doubt according to what is in the tradition of Abu SacTd al-Khudri, which will come up later.

They disagreed about the reason why prostrations of forgetfulness have been obligatory. It is said that they are obligatory because of an excess or deficiency (in the prayer), and this is the well-known view. It is also said that they are obligatory because of forgetfulness itself, and this was the view of the Ahl ah Zahir and al-ShafiT.

The upholders of the prostrations of forgetfulness, whether for excess or deficiency that may occur in the prayer by way of forgetfulness, agreed that the prostrations are on account of (omission of) the sunan of the prayer and not the obligations nor on account of the desirable acts (ragh&ib) (lesser than sunan). There is no liability in their view for omission of this category, that is, if the person forgets one of them in prayer, unless they happen more than once. For example, Malik is of the view that there is no obligation for prostrations on account of forgetting a single takbir, but there is a prostration for leaving out more than one act of this category. There can be no validity with the omission of obligations. They are to be performed and undertaken. The consequence of forgetting them is the repetition of the prayer as a whole, as has preceded in the discussion of what leads to repetition and what leads to qadd>, I mean, like a person who may relinquish one of the constituent elements of prayer.

The prostrations of forgetfulness on account of an excess, on the other hand, occur due to an excess in the obligations as well as the sunan. In this statement, there is no dispute among them; they disagree only on the basis of their dispute as to what acts are obligations and what are not, what are sunan and what are not, and what is a sunna and what is a desirable act ( raghiba). An example of which is qunut. According to Malik the person is not to make prostrations for relinquishing qunut for it is merely desirable (miwtaW) (lesser than a sunna) in his view, but he is to make prostrations according to al- Shafi T as it is a sunna in his view.

c This is not unclear for you because of the discussion that has preceded about their disagreement over what is a sunna, an obligation (farida), or a desirable act (raghiba). According to Malik and his disciples there are prostrations of forgetfulness for a minor excess in prayer, even if it is not from the category of prayer. It is necessary to know that sunna and raghiba, in their view, both belong to the recommended (nadb) category. They differ, however, when in their view it is (a) higher or a lower (recommendation), that is, the emphasis in the command about them. This has reference to the surrounding cir­ cumstances of this form, of worship. Their disagreement, therefore, becomes excessive in this category so much so that some of them hold that if certain sunan are relinquished intentionally or done intentionally if they were to be relinquished, their hukm becomes enhanced, that is, it becomes obligatory if it is a sunna, or a sin if it was a prohibition. This is to be found often with the disciples of Malik. You therefore find them agreeing, except for the Zahirites, that a person relinquishing sunan regularly as a whole is a sinner. Thus, a person relinquishing always the witr prayer or the two rak'as of the morning prayer would be a Jdsiq and a sinner. It is as if some forms of worship are obligatory in kind and in genus, like the five daily prayers, while some are SU nna in kind and obligation in genus, like witr and the two rak^as of the morning prayer and whatever is similar to them from among the sunan. Likewise, some of the desirable acts (ragh&ib) in their view are desirable in kind but sunan by genus, like what we have related from Malik about the obligation of prostrations on account of (omission of) more than one takbir, that is, for forgetting it. I do not think that they have a category that is sunna in kind as well as in genus.

The sunan according to the Zahirites are sunan in genus alone, because of the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) to the Bedouin who asked him about the obligations in Islam, “He will succeed if he speaks the truth, he will enter janna if he speaks the truth”, and this after the man had said to him, “I swear by Allah that I will not add to it or reduce from it”, that is, to or from the obligations, and this tradition has preceded.

They agreed under this topic on the requirement of the prostrations of forgetfulness for the omission of the middle sitting posture, differing over it whether it is an obligation or a sunna. Similarly, they disagreed whether-the imam may revert to it when he is reminded after rising from it. If he may revert to it, then at what stage?’The majority said that he may reverb to it as long as he has not stood up straight. A group of jurists said that he may revert to it as long as he has hot commenced the third rak^a. Another group of jurists said that he is not to revert to it if he has risen up to the measure of a spread out hand (shibr). If he reverts to it in the view of those who do not uphold that he should do so, his prayer is valid according to the majority, but a group of jurists said that it is nullified.

They (the jurists) disagreed about the description of the prostrations of forgetfulness. Malik was of the view that the hukm of the two prostrations of forgetfulness when they are after the salutation is that the person should recite the tashahhud and offer the salutation. This was Abu HanTfa’s opinion also as the prostrations in his view are after the salutation in each case. If the prostrations are before the salutation then he should recite the tashahhud alone, and the salutation of the prayer is the salutation for the prostrations. This was al-ShafiTs opinion as such prostrations are always before the salutation in his view. It is also related from Malik that he is not to recite tashahhud in the. case of those that are before the salutation. This was also the opinion of a group of jurists. Abu TJmar has said that the salutation after those that follow (come after) the salutation (of the prayer) is established from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), as for the tashahhud, 1 cannot trace it in an authentic narration.

The reason for this disagreement stems from their dispute over is the authenticity of what has been reported about it in the tradition of Ibn Mascud, that is, that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Recite the tashahhud and then offer the salutation”, and also the semblance between the prostrations of forgetfulness and the last two prostrations of the prayer. Those who compared the two did not make tashahhud obligatory, especially when both were within the same prayer. Abu Bakr ibn al-Mundhir has said that the jurists differed over this issue and had six opinions. One group said that there is no tashahhud in them and no salutation. This was the opinion of Anas ibn Malik, al-Hasan, and cAt2P. A second group said the opposite of this, that there is tashahhud as well as salutation in them. A third group said that there.is tashahhud, but not salutation. This was the opinion of al-Hakam, Hammad, and al-NakhaH. A fourth group said the opposite of this, that there is salutation in them, but not tashahhud. This is the opinion of Ibn Sirin. The fifth opinion is that it is up to the worshipper; if he likes he may recite the tashahhud and offer the salutation, but he is not obliged to do so. This is related from ApP. The sixth opinion is c that of Ahmad ibn Hanbal that if the person is prostrating after the salutation he is to recite the tashahhud, but if he is prostrating prior to the salutation he is not to recite the tashahhud. This is what we related from Malik. Abu Bakr said that it has been established from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) that he pronounced a takbir four times and then offered the salutation, but the authentication of his reciting tashahhud needs scrutiny.

They agreed that performing the prostrations of forgetfulness is a sunna for the single worshipper as well as the imam. They disagreed about the follower who forgets while praying behind the imam whether he is he under an obligation to make the prostrations. The majority maintained that the imam bears the responsibility for forgetfulness on behalf of the follower, but Makhul made a deviant statement making the prostrations binding for his own forgetfulness.

The reason for their disagreement arises from their dispute over wha constituent elements of prayer the imam bears on behalf of the follower. The; agreed that if the imam forgets something the follower follows him in hi prostrations of forgetfulness, even if he joined him after his forgetfulnes’ They disagreed as to when the follower is to prostrate if he has missed part of the prayer with the imam, who has to make the prostrations. A group of jurists said that he makes the prostrations with the imam and then stands up to perform the part he had missed, whether the imam performed his prostrations before or after the salutation. This was upheld by cAt5\ al-Hasan, al-. Nakha T, c al-ShaHn, Ahmad, Abu Thawr, and the upholders of ra*y (opinion). Another group of jurists said that he is to complete his prayer and then prostrate. This was held by Ibn Sirin and Ishaq. A third group of jurists said that if the imam makes the prostrations before the salutation, he should prostrate with him, but if the imam makes the prostrations after salutation he is to complete his own prayer and then make the prostrations. This was upheld by Malik, al-Layth, and al-Shafi T. The c fourth group of jurists said that he is first to make the prostrations with the imam and then to make them a second time after completing his prayer. This was held by al-Shafi€i.

The reason for their disagreement stems from their dispute over what is better and more meritorious. To follow the imam in the prostrations (of forgetfulness) at the same time or to prostrate after completing his own prayer? It was as if they agreed that following the imam is wajib because of the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “The imam has been appointed so that he be followed”, but disagreed over whether the time of prostrating for the follower was its regular determined occasion, that is, at the end of his own prayer, or whether the time was that of the prostrations of the imam. Those who preferred the combining the follower’s act with the act of the imam over the regular time of making the prostrations and held that it is a condition of the following, that is, that their acts should actually coincide, said that he should prostrate with the imam even if he did not prostrate at the time determined for the prostrations. Those who preferred the determined time of prostrations said that he should delay them till the end of his prayer. Those who made both forms obligatory placed an obligation on him for prostrating twice, but this is weak.

They agreed that the way to alert a person who forgets in his prayer is to pronounce tasbih (saying subhdna Allah). This, however, is for men because of what is established from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) that he said, “Why is it that I see you clapping hands (tasjiq) frequently. One , who is afflicted by something in his prayer should engage in the glorification of Allah (tasbih), for when he utters the tasbih, he will attract attention. And lapping hands is for women”.

! They disagreed in the case of women. Malik and a group of jurists said that tasbih is both for meh and women. Al-Shafi T and a group of jurists c said that tasbih is for men, while tasfiq (striking the back of the left hand with the palm of the right) is for women.

The reason for their disagreement arises from their dispute over the implication of the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “tasfiq is for women”. Those who held that the meaning of these words is that tasfiq is the hukm for women in case of forgetfulness, which is the apparent meaning, said that the women are to engage in tasfiq and not in tasbih. Those who comprehended a derogation of tasfiq from this said that men and women are equal in terms of tasbih, but there is some weakness in this view because it amounts to a departure from the apparent meaning without an evidence, unless an analogy with the case of men is drawn for women. The hukm for women is often different from that of men in the case of prayer, a fact which weakens the analogy.

With respect to performing the prostrations of forgetfulness that are occasioned by doubt, the jurists disagreed—holding three opinions—about the case of a person who feels doubt about (whether) his his prayer (was properly observed) and does not know how many rak^as he has offered: whether one, two, three, or four rak^as. A group of jurists said that he is to base the preceding part of the prayer on certainty, which is the least (number) for he is not to estimate, and after completing the prayer accordingly he should make the prostrations of forgetfulness. This is the opinion of Malik, al-ShaficT, and Dawud. Abu Hamfa said that if this is the first occasion (of doubt in the prayer) his prayer becomes invalid, but if it recurs he is to make an estimation and act on the basis of the preponderant conviction in his mind (about the number), and then he is to make the prostrations of forgetfulness following the salutation: Another group of jurists said that if the person is in doubt he is neither to have recourse to certain conviction nor to estimation, but is simply obliged to make the prostrations of forgetfulness.

The reason for their disagreement is the conflict derives from the apparent meanings of the traditions laid down on the issue, and there are three traditions on the subject. The first is the tradition prescribing continuation on the basis of certainty (the lesser number). This is the tradition of Abu SacTd al-KhudrT, who said, “The Messenger-of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, ‘If one of you falls in doubt about his prayer and does not know how many (rak^as) he has prayed, three or four, then he should relinquish his doubt and base his prayer on that of which he is certain, and thereafter make two prostrations before making the salutation. If he has prayed five they will even out his prayer, but if he has prayed to complete four, they will be an affront for the devil’”. It is recorded by Muslim. The second tradition is from Ibn Mascud that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be pon him) said, “If one of you forgets while praying, then he should make an estimate and thereafter make two prostrations”. Another version from him says, “He should make an inquiry into what appears to be the most correct [number], then make the salutation and thereafter make two prostrations, recite the tashahhud and make the salutation”. The third is the tradition of Abu Hurayra, which is recorded by Malik and al-BukharT, that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “When one of you stands up to pray the devil comes and confuses him so that he does not recollect how many (rakfas) he prayed, then, if one of you finds this he should make two prostrations while seated”. Of the same implication is the tradition of <Abd Allah ibn Ja far, which has been recorded by Abu Dawud, that c the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “One who is in doubt about his prayer should make two prostrations after it and then make the salutation”.

In these traditions the jurists adopted either the method of reconciliation or that of preference. Some of those who adopted the method of preference ignored the conflicting text, and some interpreted the conflicting text and reconciled it with the preferred interpretation. There were also those who combined the two ways, that is, reconciled some of them and preferred some, reinterpreting the meaning not preferred to suit the preferred interpretation. Some of them reconciled some of them and dropped the hukm of the others.

Those who adopted the method of preference in part and that of reconciliation in part, along with the interpretation of the unpreferred directing it to the preferred meaning, include Malik ibn Anas. He interpreted the tradition of Abu SacTd al-KhudrT to apply to the person who is not afflicted by doubt, and he interpreted the tradition of Abu Hurayra to apply to a person who is overcome by doubt and is afflicted by it. This (method) belongs to the category of reconciliation. He interpreted the tradition of Ibn Mas(ud so as to mean that the meaning of estimation here is having recourse to certainty. This acknowledged, in accordance with his methodology, all the traditions.

Those who adopted the method of reconciling part and dropping part, which is preference without interpreting the subordinated text (that is, not preferred text) include Abu Harnfa. He said that the tradition of Abu SacTd implies a hukm for the person who has no preponderant basis to rely on, while the tradition of Ibn Mascud applies to one who does have such a basis to rely on. He dropped the hukm of the tradition of Abu Hurayra, and this by saying that the traditions of Abu SacTd and Ibn Mascud include an addition, and when there is an addition it must be accepted and followed. This too is a kind of reconciliation. Those who preferred part and dropped part are those who said that he is liable simply to prostrations. The reason is that they preferred the tradition of Abu Hurayra and dropped the traditions of Abu SaTd and Ibn Mas ud. Thus, this is the weakest of the opinions.

c This is what we thought of recording in this division of the two divisions of the Book of Prayer, and which is a discussion of the obligatory prayers. We now turn to a discussion of the second division of the prescribed prayers and these are prayers that do not impose a universal obligation.