The discussion of the rules in this chapter is covered in seven sections. The i*grSt is about the identification of the ahkam of congregational prayers. The ‘second is about the identification of the conditions of imama and about the person who has precedence for imama and the conditions specific to him. The third is about the position of the followers with respect to the imam and the specific to the followers. The fourth is about the things in which a person follows the imam and those in which he does not follow him. The fifth j s about the manner of following (the imam). The sixth is about the acts that the imam bears on behalf of the followers. The seventh is about the question of how far can the invalidation of the imam's prayer be extended to the followers.

In this section there are two issues. The first is whether prayer with the congregation is obligatory on the person who hears the call. The second issue relates to the following question: if a person enters the mosque and prays (separately before the congregational prayer is held), is it obligatory upon him to repeat the same prayers with the congregation?

The jurist disagreed about (the issue), with the majority maintaining that it is either a sunna or a communal obligation (fard kifaya). The Zahirites maintained that prayer with the congregation is obligatory for each mukallaf (individual with legal capacity).

The reason for their disagreement arises from the conflict of the interpretations of the traditions on this issue. Thus, the apparent meaning of the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “Prayer with the congregation is superior to praying alone by twenty-five degrees or by twenty-seven degrees” conveys that congregational prayers belong to the category of recommended ahkam. This means that it is a perfection over and above the obligatory prayer, as if the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) had said that prayer with the congregation is more perfect than the prayer of the (solitary) individual. Perfection is something additional to sufficiency. There is the well-known tradition about the blind man, who sought permission to stay away from congregational prayers as there was noone to lead him to it (the congregation). The Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) granted him the exemption (at first), but then said to him, “Can you hear the call?” He said, “Yes”. He said, “In that case I do not find any exemption for you”. This is explicit about its obligation in the absence of a valid excuse. This is recorded by Muslim. Among those that strengthen this tradition is that related by Abu Hurayra, the authenticity of which is agreed upon and it states that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “By Him in whose hands is my life, I had almost resolved to order the collection of firewood in bundles, order the call for prayer, then order a person to lead the people in prayers (on my behalf), and then chase reluctant men (in their houses) and to burn down their houses over them. By Him in whose hands is my life, if any of them had known that he would find a meaty bone or two good meat legs, he would be present at ish&'\ There is also the tradition of Ibn Mascud, in which he said, “The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) taught us the paths of right guidance, and among these guided paths is prayer in a mosque where the call has been issued”. In some of its versions it is said, “If you were to give up the practice of your Prophet you would be led astray”.

Each group (of these jurists) followed the method of reconciliation by interpreting (in his own way) the tradition adopted by the contender and turning it toward the apparent meaning of the tradition adopted by them. Thus, the Zahirites said that it is probable that grading can be found in things all of which are obligatory. Consequently, the obligatory congregational prayer has precedence, by the stated degrees, over the prayer of the solitary individual who has a valid excuse. They said that because of this there is no contradiction between the traditions. They also argued that this is similar to the case him) that “the prayer of one sitting is half that of one standing (that is, though one is superior both are obligatory)”.

The others construed the tradition about the blind man to apply to the call for the Friday prayer as that is the call which it is obligatory by agreement to answer by one who hears it. This, however, is far-fetched, Allah knows best. The text of the tradition states that Abu Hurayra said, “A blind man came up to the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) and said, ‘0 Messenger of Allah, I have no one who can lead me to the mosque’. He then asked the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) to exempt him so that he may pray in his house. The Prophet granted him the exemption. When the man turned around to go, he called him saying, ‘Do you hear the call for prayer?’ The man said, ‘Yes’. He said, ‘Then answer it’”. It1S unlikely that this can be understood to mean the call for the Friday prayer. Moreover, going to the Friday prayer is obligatory upon everyone resident in th e town even if he does not hear the call, and I am not aware of any ^agreement over this. Further, this tradition is opposed by the tradition of qjtban ibn Malik mentioned in al-Muwatta\ which says that TJtban ibn Malik, a blind man who used to lead people in prayers, said to the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “It is (sometimes) dark and raining with flooding all around, and I am a man who has lost his sight. So come, O Messenger of Allah, to pray in my house in a corner that I have set aside to be the place of prayer”. The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) came to him and said, “Where would you prefer that I pray?” He pointed out a spot in the house and the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) prayed there.

The person who entered the mosque and prayed may have done it in one of two ways: he may have prayed alone, or he may have prayed with the congregation. If he has prayed alone, a group of jurists maintain that he is to repeat the prayer with the congregation, except in the case of the sunset prayer (maghrib) only. Those who upheld this opinion are Malik and his disciples. Abu Harnfa said that he is to repeat the prayer, except the sunset and the middle prayer (casr), while al-AwzacT exempted the sunset and the morning prayers, and Abu Thawr exempted the middle and the morning prayers. Al- ShafiT said that he is to repeat all the prayers.

They agreed generally about the repetition of the prayers (with the congregation) because of the tradition of Bishr ibn Muhammad from his father “that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said to him when he entered the mosque and did not pray with him, ‘Why is it that you did not pray with the people, are you not a Muslim?’ He said, ‘Of course I am, O Messenger of Allah, but I had prayed with my family.’ The Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said to him, ‘When you come you must pray with the people, even if you have already prayed’”. The jurists disagreed due to the likelihood of the restriction of this general implication by means of analogy or an evidence. Those who interpreted it in its (unrestricted) general meaning made the repetition of all prayers obligatory, and this is the opinion of al-ShafiT. Those who exempted from this only the sunset prayer, restricted the general meaning through qiyas al-shabah. This was done by Malik (God bless him). He argued that repeating the sunset prayer, which is an odd number (of rak^as)y would make it an even number and it would no longer remain odd as the total would come to six rak^as. Thus, it would be moved from its own category to the category of another prayer, which would invalidate it. There is weakness, however, in this analogy as the salutation has caused a separation between the two odd prayers, and adopting the general meaning is better than effecting a restriction by means of such analogy Stronger than this argument is what is maintained by the Kufts, who argued that if he repeats the sunset prayer he has performed two odd prayers, and there is a tradition that “two odd numbered prayers cannot be performed in one night”. Abu Hanifa, on the other hand, said that the second prayer would be like supererogatory prayers. Thus, if a person repeats the middle prayer (W) he would be observing a supererogatory prayer after the <asr prayer which is prohibited. He therefore exempted the middle prayer on the basis of this analogy and the sunset prayer because it is odd-numbered, and odd- numbered prayers are not to be repeated. This analogy is good'if al-Shaficj concedes to them that the repeated prayer is supererogatory. Those who made a distinction between the morning prayer and the middle prayer for this purpose did so because the traditions do not conflict about the prohibition of praying after the morning prayer, while they do conflict about prayer after the middle prayer, as has already been mentioned. This is al-AwzaTs opinion.

This section is about the identification of the conditions for imama, identification of the person who has precedence, and about the ahkam specific to the imam. In this section there are four issues.

They disagreed about the person who has precedence for imama. Malik said that he is the one most learned (about the rules of prayer), and not one who is the best reciter (of the Qur’an). This was also al-ShaficFs opinion. Abu Hanifa, al-Thawff, and Ahmad said that the best reciter is to lead them.

The reason for their disagreement comes from the dispute over the meaning of the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “The person who recites the Book of Allah best is to lead his people, and if two are equal in recitation then one who has greater knowledge of the sunna. If they are equal with respect to the sunna then the one who emigrated [to Medina] first. If they are equal with respect to emigration then the one who embraced Islam first. A man is not to lead another person who is under his authority, nor is he to take advantage of another person’s hospitality without his permission”. This is a tradition that is agreed upon for its authenticity, but the jurists differed about its meaning.' Among those who interpreted- it through its apparent meaning is Abu HanTfa. Some of them understood the words “best reciter” to mean the most learned in the law, as they believed that the need for fiqh in imama is greater than that for recitation. Further, the best reciter among the Companions was necessarily the best in legal knowledge contrary to the situation that prevails today.

The jurists disagreed about the imama of a minor who had not attained puberty but he could recite. A group of jurists permitted this due to the generality of this tradition and due to the tradition of <Amr ibn Salama that he used to lead his people in prayer when he was a minor. A group of jurists prohibited this absolutely, while another permitted it f or supererogatory prayers, but not for obligatory prayers, which is a narration from Malik.

The reason for the disagreement stems from the question of whether a person can lead another in prayer when such prayer is not obligatory for him, but is obligatory for the person being led. This is due to the difference in the niyya of the person leading and that of the follower.

They disagreed about the imama of the disobedient (fasiq). A group of jurists rejected it outright, while another permitted it without qualification. A third group made a distinction on the basis of the degree of certainty of his disobedience, and said that if his (the imam's) disobedience is certain the worshipper is (obliged) to repeat his prayer always, but if it is probable, it is recommended that the worshipper repeat the prayer. This opinion was preferred by al-Abhan from among the opinions in the school. There were those who made a distinction according to whether there was a basis for his disobedience, like one who drinks nabidh (a beverage of dates considered prohibited by some) and relies on the opinion of the jurists of Iraq for doing so; thus they permitted prayer behind a person (leader) who relies on some basis, but not behind one who does not have such a basis. The reason for their disagreement stems from the fact that it is something that is not expressly stated by the law, and the analogies are in conflict.

Those who maintained that as fisq (disobedience) does not invalidate prayer, and that the follower does not need more than the validity of the imam's prayer—that is, according to the opinion of those who hold that the imam performs the prayer on behalf of the follower—permitted the iniama of the fasiq. Those who compared imama to the rendering of testimony and suspected the fasiq of performing an invalid prayer, just as the (fasiq) witness is suspected of rendering false testimony, did not permit his imama. It is for this reason that some of the jurists made a distinction on the basis of whether his fisq is based on some legal justification. The distinction based on whether his disobedience is definitive or probable is almost similar to this, for when his fisq is certain it is as if he does not have a legal justification for it.

The Zahirites preferred to permit the imama of the disobedient on the basis of the general implication of the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “The best reciter is to lead them”. They said that the disobedient has not been exempted from this. Arguing on the basis of a general implication, however, is deemed weak when the issue is not directly addressed by the text. Some jurists made a distinction between the case where a person’s disobedience is related to one of the conditions of the validity of prayer and where it is related to matters outside the ambit of prayer; this is so because it is a condition for the imam that his prayer be valid.

They disagreed about the imdma of a woman. The majority maintained that s he cannot lead men, but they disagreed about her leading women (in prayer). Al-Shafi i c permitted this while Malik prohibited it. Abu Thawr and al-Tabari deviated (from the majority opinion) and permitted her imdma in absolute terms.

The majority agreed to prohibit her from leading men, because had this been permitted such permission would have been transmitted from the first generation (of Islam). Further, a known practice in prayer is that women should stand behind men; therefore it is obvious that their being at the front is not permitted. The Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Keep them behind insofar as Allah has kept them behind”. It is for this reason that some jurists permitted them to lead women, as they have equal precedence for purposes of prayer. This has also been narrated from some members of the first generation.

Those who permitted her imdma argued on the basis of the tradition of Umm Waraqa recorded by Abu Dawud “that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) used to visit her at her house and appointed a mttadhdhin for her to recite the adhan for her. He ordered her to lead the members of her household in prayer”.

There are many issues under this topic of imdma, including their disagreement about the qualifications stipulated for the imam. We have left out their discussion as they are not expressly mentioned in the law.

The QadT (Ibn Rushd) said: “What we have aimed for in this book is the discussion of issues that have been transmitted and of those that are closely related to the transmitted issues”.

There are four issues in this that are related to those expressly transmitted. The first is whether it is the imam who pronounces amin (amen) after he has completed the recitation of the umm al-Qur*dn, or is it the follower who does that. The second is when does he pronounce the takbir of commencement. The third is whether he is to be led on if he waivers in the recitation. The fourth is whether his place of prayer is to be higher than that of the followers.

About the issue whether the imam is to pronounce dmin (amen) once he has completed the recitation of the umm al-Kitdb, Malik held, in the narrations of Ibn al-Qasim and the Egyptians from him, that he is not to pronounce dmin. The majority maintained that he is to say dmin just like the follower. This is also one narration from .Malik through the Medinites.

The reason for the disagreement are two traditions that have conflicting apparent meanings. First is the tradition of Abu Hurayra, which is agreed upon for its authenticity. He said, “The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, ‘When the imam pronounces dmin. you should pronounce it too’”. The second tradition is what is recorded by Malik, also from Abu Hurayra, that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “When the imam says ‘ghayr al-maghdubi <-alayhim wa ld*ddalin'. then you should say The first tradition is explicit about the pronouncing of dmin by the imam. The second tradition indicates that the imam does not pronounce dmin. for had he been required to pronounce dmin why would -the follower be asked to pronounce it after the completion of the recitation of the umm al-Kitab and before the imam's uttering of dmin. The imam as the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “has been appointed so that he be followed”. (This holds true) unless the act in issue has been excluded from the words of the imam, that is, the follower may either say dmin at the same time as the imam or before him. Thus there is no evidence in this tradition about imam's pronouncing of dmin and it only includes the hukm of the follower. It appears that Malik adopted the method of preference for the tradition that he narrated because it is the listener who says dmin and not the reciter. The majority preferred the first tradition because it was explicit and because there is nothing in it about the hukm of the dmin of the imam. The difference between this tradition and the other is on the issue of the dmin of the follower and not whether the imam is to say dmin. so think over this.

It is possible that the first tradition be interpreted so as to say that the meaning of the words “When the imam pronounces dmin. you should pronounce it too” is that (you should say it) when the imam reaches the point of dmin. It is said that pronouncing dmin is a form of prayer but this amounts to swerving from an apparent meaning to something that is not implied by the tradition, unless this is done through analogy, that is, the words of the Prophet should be read as saying, “When the imam says <ghayr al-maghdubi ^alayhim wa la'ddalin”. then you should say Wn” for the imam does not say “dmin”.

In this section there are five issues as follows:

The majority of the jurists agreed that the practice for one person (male) is to stand on the right side of the imam, because of its being established through the traditions of Ibn cAbbas and others. If there are three persons besides the imam they are to stand behind the imam. They differed when there are two persons besides the imam. Malik and al-ShafiT said that they are to stand behind the imam, while Abu HanTfa, his disciples, and the KufTs said that the imam is to stand between them.

Their disagreement is due to two conflicting traditions on this. The first is the tradition of Jabir ibn cAbd Allah, who said, “1 stood on the left of the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), so he took hold of my hand and brought me around till I stood on his right side. Jabir ibn Sakhr then came, performed the ^ablution, and stood to the left of the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him). He took hold of our hands at the same time and pushed us till we stood behind him”. The second tradition is Ibn Mascud’s, that he prayed with cAlqama and al-Aswad while standing between them. He related this from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him). Abu TJmar said that the narrators of this tradition differed. Some of them stopped at Ibn Mascud, while others linked it up to the Prophet. The correct view is that it is mawquf (stops at the Companion).

The practice for a woman is that she stands behind a male follower, when there is one man besides the imam, or she stands behind the imam if she is alone. I am not aware of a disagreement over this, because it is established from the tradition of Anas that has been recorded by al-BukharT “that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) prayed with him and his mother or his aunt. He said, ‘He made me stand on his right and made the woman stand behind us’ In that which is also related from him by Malik, he sa ys, “We formed a row, the orphan and I, behind the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) and the old woman stood behind us”. The practice for one single person is that he stands to the right of the imam, because of the tradition of Ibn Abbas when he spent the night at Maymuna’s c place. A group of jurists said that he should stand on his left. There is no disagreement about a single woman standing behind the imam, and if she is praying together with another man, the man is to stand by the side of the while the woman is to stand behind him.

The jurists agreed that the first row is to be desired; similarly standing close together and the straightening the rows, because of the confirmation of the command from the Messenger of Allah’ (God’s peace and blessings be upon him). They disagreed in ths case of a person standing alone behind a row. The majority of the jurists say that his prayer is valid, while Ahmad, Abu Thawr, and a group of jurists said that his prayer is invalid.

The reason for their disagreement arises from the dispute over the authenticity of the tradition of Wabisa and its conflict with practice. The tradition of Wabisa is that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “No prayer (is counted) for the person standing alone behind a row”. Al-Shafi T said c that this is contrary to the case of the old woman standing behind a row in the tradition of Anas. Ahmad said that there is no legal force in this (argument) as it is the practice for women to stand behind men, and Ahmad, as we have said, considered the tradition of Wabisa authentic. Others have said that it has wavering isnad and such a tradition cannot serve as a legal evidence. The majority argued on the basis of the tradition of Abu Bakra that he prayed alone, separately from the row, and the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) did not order him to repeat the prayer. He said to him, “May Allah increase your eagerness, but do not repeat that”. If this (remark) is interpreted as recommendation (for praying alongside others in a line), there is no conflict between the traditions of Wabisa and Abu Bakra.

There was a dispute among the early jurists as to whether a person who hears the iqama should increase his pace to reach the mosque for fear of missing part of the prayer. It is related from TJmar and Ibn Mascud that they used to walk rapidly upon hearing the iqama. It is related from Zayd ibn Thabit, Abu Dharr, and other Companions that they did not deem it proper to rush to the mosque, rather they held that one should approach it with composure and tranquility. This is the opinion upheld by the jurists of the provinces, because of the confirmed tradition of Abu Hurayra, “If the iqama has been pronounced do not approach it in a rush, but come to it in a tranquil state”. It appears that the reason for disagreement over this arose either because this tradition had not reached them or because the Book contradicts it in the words of the Exalted, “So \\e(fa'stabiqu\ compete) with one another in good works”,123 “And the foremost in the race, the foremost in the race: Those are they who will be brought nigh”,124 “And vie ($dri<u: rush forward) with one another for forgiveness from your Lord”. On the whole, the principles of the law bear testimony of competition in good works, but if the tradition is authentic it is necessary to make an exception for prayer from among other good works.

When is it considered recommended to stand up for prayer? Some prefer the time at the beginning of the iqama on the principle that eagerness is desirable. Some prefer it when the words “qad qdmati's-salah” are being pronounced, while others prefer it on the pronouncement of the words “hayya '■ala'l- falah”. Some say that when people see the imam (it is time togetup)rwhile others, like Malik (God be pleased with him), have not fixed any (specific) time, for this depends on the capacity of the individual, and there is no transmitted evidence for it, except the tradition of Abu Qatada that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “When the prayer is about to commence, do not get up till you see me”. If this is proved authentic, it is necessary to act in accordance with it, but the issue remains indeterminate, I mean, there is no law for it, and whenever someone gets up then it is proper. Malik and the majority of the jurists maintain that a person who arrives when the imam is in the ruku< position, and fears that he will lose a rakca}26 if he hesitates or tries to reach the first row, he may bow behind the first row and then move forward while bowing. ALShafiT considered this abominable, while Abu Hamfa made a distinction between a group and an individual, considering it abominable for an individual, but permissible for a group. The position taken by Malik is related from Zayd ibn Thabit and Ibn Mascud. The reason for their disagreement stems from their dispute over the authenticity of the tradition of Au Bakr, which says that “he entered the mosque when the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) was leading the people in prayer and they were bowing. He bowed too and then moved towards the row. When the Messenger of Allah had finished praying, he said, “Who moved?” Abu Bakr said, “It was I”. He said, “May Allah advance your eagerness, but do not repeat it”.

Malik and the majority of the jurists maintain that a person who arrives when the imam is in the ruku< position, and fears that he will lose a rakca}26 if he hesitates or tries to reach the first row, he may bow behind the first row and then move forward while bowing. ALShafiT considered this abominable, while Abu Hamfa made a distinction between a group and an individual, considering it abominable for an individual, but permissible for a group. The position taken by Malik is related from Zayd ibn Thabit and Ibn Mascud. The reason for their disagreement stems from their dispute over the authenticity of the tradition of Au Bakr, which says that “he entered the mosque when the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) was leading the people in prayer and they were bowing. He bowed too and then moved towards the row. When the Messenger of Allah had finished praying, he said, “Who moved?” Abu Bakr said, “It was I”. He said, “May Allah advance your eagerness, but do not repeat it”.

The jurists agreed that it is obligatory on the follower to follow the imam in all his utterances and acts, except in reciting the words “samfa Allahu liman hamidah^ and when the imam is seated because of illness, according to those who permit imdma while sitting.

About their disagreement over the exception in reciting the words “samfia Allahu liman hamidah”, a group of jurists said that the imam pronounces only these words when he raises his head after bowing, and the follower, then, pronounces only the words “rabband wa lafcal-hamd”. Among in those who held this opinion are Malik, Abu HanTfa, and others. Another group of jurists maintained that the imam and the follower both say “samta Allahu liman hamidah rabband wa lak>al-hamcT\ and that the follower follows the imam repeating with him as in the case of takbir. It is related from Abu Hanifa that when one person is praying with an imam, both should pronounce it together. There is no dispute about one single person and the imam reciting the whole (both parts of the statement) together.

The reason for disagreement over this (the former case) is based on two conflicting traditions. The first is the tradition of Anas that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “The imam has been appointed so that he may be followed. When he bows you must bow, and when he straightens up you must straighten -up. When he says ‘sarnFa Allahu liman hamidah,’ you must say ‘rabband wa laPal-hamd?”. The second is the tradition of Ibn TJmar “that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), when he began praying, would raise his hands to the level of the shoulders, and when he straightened up from bowing would say ‘sami'a Allahu liman hamidah rabband wa laPal-hamcT Those who preferred the meaning of the tradition of Anas maintained that the follower is not to say “samfia Allahu liman hamidah”, and the imam is not to say “rabband wa laPal-hamd”. This belongs to the category of the implication of the text (dalil al-khitdb) for it assigns to the unexpressed case a hukm opposite that of the expressed case. Those who preferred the tradition of Ibn TJmar maintained that the imam does say “rabbana wa laPal-hamd*\ and it is obligatory on the follower to follow the imam in saying “samifa Allahu liman hamidah'\ because of the general application of the words of the prophet “The imam has been appointed so that he may be followed”. Those who reconciled the two traditions made a distinction between the imam and the follower, and the truth in this is that the tradition of Anas requires—through the implication of its text—that the imam does not say urabb and wa la&al- hanuT\ and that the follower does not say “samfia Allahu liman hamidah” while the tradition of Ibn TJmar requires explicitly that the imam says “rabband wa lafial-hamd". It is not proper that an explicit text be given up because of an implication of the text, as the explicit text is stronger than its implication. The tradition of Anas requires, through its general application, that the follower is to say “samifa Allahu liman hamidah'\ in conformity with the general implication of the words, “The imam has been appointed so that he may be followed”, while it implies that he should not say these words. Thus it becomes-necessary to make a choice between the general meaning and the implication of the text, and there is no dispute that the general meaning is stronger than the implication of the text, though the general meaning can also vary with respect to strength and weakness, and it is not unlikely that some implications can be stronger than the general meanings. The issue, then, upon my life, is one that is subject to interpretation, that is, with respect to the follower.

This relates to the prayer of one standing behind one who is seated. The gist of the opinions is that the healthy person is not to pray an obligatory prayer while seated when praying alone or as an imam, because of the words of the Exalted, “And stand up with devotion to Allah”. There were three opinions about the case of the follower who was in sound health and prayed behind an imam who was not well and prayed while seated. The first opinion is that the follower is to pray behind him in the sitting posture. Included among those who upheld this opinion are Ahmad and Ishaq. The second opinion is that he should pray standing behind (the imam). Abu ‘Umar ibn cAbd al-Barr has said that this is the opinion of most of a body of jurists of the provinces: al- Shafi T, his c disciples, Abu HanTfa, his disciples, the Zahirites, Abu Thawr, and others. These jurists made an addition saying that the followers are to pray behind him while standing even if he is unable to bow and prostrate and merely makes a gesture (with his head). Ibn al-Qasim has related that the imima of a person seated is not permitted, and that if they pray behind him seated or standing, their prayer is void. It is related from Malik that they are to repeat their prayers before the expiry of the time, but this has been based on the idea of disapproval not prohibition, though the first opinion is well-known from him.

The reason for their disagreement springs from the conflict of traditions ver this (issue), and also the conflict of <-amal with traditions, that is, the o practice of the people of Medina according to Malik. There are two conflicting traditions in this. The first is the tradition of Anas that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “If he prays while sitting then you should pray while seated”. A tradition from ‘A’isha conveys the same meaning. Her tradition says that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) prayed seated while complaining (he was not well). The people wanted to pray behind him while standing, but he gestured to them that they should be seated. When he had finished, he said, “The imam has been appointed so that he may be followed. If he bows, you must bow, and when he straightens up, you must straighten up too. If he is seated, then, you must pray while seated”. The second tradition is from cA5isha “that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) went out to the people when he was ill, an illness from which he [later] died. He reached the mosque and found Abu Bakr leading the people -in prayer. Abu Bakr began to retreat, but the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) gestured to him that he should stay where he was. The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) sat down beside Abu Bakr, who then followed the Messenger of Allah’s in prayer and the people followed Abu Bakr in the prayer”.

The jurists adopted two methods for interpreting these traditions: the method of abrogation (naskh) and the method of preference. Those who adopted the method of abrogation maintained that the apparent meaning of ( A’isha’s tradition is that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) led the people in prayer and Abu Bakr was the transmitter, for it is not possible that there be two imams for the same prayer. Further, the people were standing and the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) was sitting. Thus, this is necessarily an act of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), and since it was later (shortly before the end of his life) it abrogates his prior acts (related to the same issue). Those who adopted the method of preference, preferred the tradition of Anas, for they said that the tradition of c A isha has varying narrations over the question of who was the imam, the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) or Abu Bakr. Malik, however, has no basis for reliance in transmission, as both traditions agree on the permissibility of imdma while sitting, and they only differ about the standing or sitting of the follower. This led Abu Muhammad ibn Hazin t0 say that in the tradition of ‘A’isha there is nothing to show whether the people prayed while standing or sitting, and it is not proper to relinquish the expressed rule in favour of a rule that has not been expressly stated.

This comprises two issues. First is the time of the initial takbir, while the second is the hukm of the person who raises his head before the imam does so.

In their dispute over the initial takbir, Malik preferred that the follower should pronounce it after the imam has finished pronouncing it; if he pronounces it with the imam he (Malik) still holds it to be valid, while some said that it is not so. But if he pronounces it before the imam it is not acceptable. Abu HanTfa and others have said that he may pronounce the takbir with the imam, but if he finishes the pronouncement before the imam it becomes invalid. There are two narrations from al-ShaficT on this. First is like the opinion of Malik and this is the better known opinion, and the second is that if the follower pronounces takbir before the imam it becomes invalid.

The reason for disagreement is that there are two conflicting traditions on 1 this issue. The first includes the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “If he pronounces takbir, you should pronounce it too”. The second is the narration “that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) pronounced the initial takbir in one of his prayers and then gestured to the people that they should wait. He went away and then returned’ w ith remnants of moisture on his head”. The apparent meaning of this is that takbir was pronounced (again) after theirs, for his takbir before this was not counted because of the absence of purification. This too is based upon his (al- ShafiTs) principle that the prayer of the follower is not dependent upon the prayer of the imam. There is no indication in the tradition whether they renewed their takbir. Thus, it is not proper to interpret it either way without evidence. The principle, however, is to follow (the imam), which can only be after the imam's pronouncement of takbir.

About the person who raises his head (from the ruk# or bowing or sujud or prostrating) before the imam, the majority are of the view that he has made an error, but his prayer is valid and it is obligatory on him to revert and follow the imam. Yet, a small group of jurists held that his prayer is nullified because of the proclaimed warning related to it, namely, the words of the Prophet (God's peace and blessings be upon him), “Is the person, who raises his head before the imam, not afraid that Allah may turn his head into the head of donkey”.

They agreed that that no exemption is granted to the follower from the obligations of prayer, except for the recitation. They disagreed about this (the recitation by the follower) holding three opinions. First, some held that the follower should undertake his recitation behind the imam in prayers with inaudible recitation, but he should not recite behind him when the recitation is audible to him. Second, that he should not recite behind the imam at all. Third, that he should recite the umm al-Kitab and the rest in the case of prayers with inaudible recitation, and only the umm al-Kitdb in the case of prayers with audible recitation. Some made a distinction between the case of prayers with audible recitation when the follower can hear the imam's recitation and when he cannot hear him. Thus, they made recitation obligatory for him when he cannot hear the imam, but they prohibited him from doing so when he can hear him. The first view was held by Malik, except that he preferred recitation in the case of inaudible recitation. The second opinion was held by Abu Hanifa and the third by al-ShaficT. Ahmad ibn Hanbal made the distinction between the situation where the follower is able to hear the imam's recitation and the situation where he is not.

The reason for their disagreement stems from the conflict of traditions on this topic and the interpretation of some on the basis of others. There are four traditions on the topic. The first is the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “There is no prayer, except with the Jatihat al-Kitdb". This is in addition to the traditions conveying the same meaning, which have discussed under the issue of the obligation of recitation. The second is a tradition recorded by Malik from Abu Hurayra that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) finished his prayer reciting in an audible voice, and said, “Did one of you recite with me just now”. A man said “Yes, I did O Messenger of Allah”. He said, “I say: How am I being challenged in the (recitation of the) Qur’an”. The people stopped reciting while praying behind the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) when the recitation was made in an audible voice. The third is the tradition of TJbada ibn al-Samit, who said that “the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) led us in the morning prayer and the recitation became difficult for him.When he had finished he said, ‘I see that you recite behind the imam'. We said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘Do not do it, except for the umm al-Qu^an' Abu TJmar said that the tradition of TJbada here is a narration from Makhul and other narrations have continuous chains and are authentic. The fourth tradition is that of Jabir from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), who said, “The recitation of a person who has an imam leading him is undertaken by the imam". There is also a fifth tradition that has been declared authentic by Ahmad ibn Hanbal. It is the narration that reports the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) as saying, “When the imam recites listen silently”.

They agreed that if he (the imam) is suddenly overcome by hadath (like releasing wind) during prayer and stops, the prayer of the followers is not invalidated (they continue individually or one of them steps forward and leads them). They disagreed over the case where the imam leads them in prayer in a state of ritual impurity, and they come to know of this after the prayer. A group of jurists said that their prayer is valid, while another group said that their prayer is invalid. A third group made a distinction on the basis of whether the imam was aware of his sexual defilement or was ignorant of it. They said that if he was aware of it their prayer is invalidated, but if he was unaware of it their prayer is not invalidated. The first opinion was held by al- Shafi T and the second by Abu HanTfa, while the third was held by Malik.

c The reason for their disagreement derives from their dispute over whether the validity of the follower’s prayer is dependent upon the validity of the imam's prayer. Those who did not consider it to be dependent said that the prayer is valid, while those who considered it to be dependent said that their prayer is invalidated.

Those who made a distinction between forgetfulness and intentional silence took into account the apparent meaning of the preceding tradition, which says “that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) pronounced the takbir in one of his prayers and then (interrupting his prayer) gestured to the people that they should wait. He went away and on his return there were remnants of moisture on his body”. The apparent meaning of this is that they continued their prayer (building upon the part they prayed before the Prophet interrupted his prayer). Al-ShaficT (supporting this ruling) argued that had their prayer been dependent upon his prayer they would certainly have recommenced the prayer (with a fresh takbir).