This part contains eight chapters. The first chapter is about the identification °f the timings. The second is about the call for prayer (adhan) and the call for commencement (iqdma). The third chapter relates to the identification of the direction in prayer (qibla). The fourth chapter relates to the covering of the Pnvate parts (satr al-^awra) and the dress for prayer. The fifth chapter covers the stipulation of purification from impurities in prayer. The sixth chapter is about the identification of places where prayer can be undertaken and those where it cannot. The seventh chapter deals with the conditions of the validity of prayer. The eighth chapter is about intention (niyya), and the question of its stipulation in prayer

This chapter is first divided into two sections. The first relates to the identification of the timings for prayer. The second examines the timings during which prayer is forbidden.

This section is also divided into two sub-divisions. The first relates to regular prayer timings within which a prayer has to be performed (extended as well as preferred). The second relates to timings for those facing a necessity.

The basis for this topic are the words of the Exalted, “Worship at fixed hours no __ hath been enjoined on the believers”. The Muslim jurists agreed that the five (obligatory) prayers have five determined periods, performance of prayer during which is a condition for the validity of the prayer. (They also agreed) that each of these periods is divided into preferred and extended parts. They disagreed about the limits of such preferred and extended parts. There are five issues in this.

They agreed, except for a deviant disagreement attributed to Ibn cAbbas and a reported dispute over the time of performing Friday congregational prayer (jumu^a), as will be mentioned, that the beginning of the timing for the midday (zuhr) prayer, before which praying not allowed, is the declining of the sun. They disagreed with respect to the zuhr period on two points, the end of its extended timing and the time that is preferable (for prayer).

Malik, al-ShafiT, Abu Thawr, and Dawud said that the end of its extended timing is when the shadow of a thing becomes equal to its length. Abu HanTfa said, in one narration from him, that it is when the shadow of a thing becomes twice its length, which is the beginning of the period of the next prayer (W). According to another report from him, the last timing for the noon prayer is when the shadow of a thing is equal to its length, while the first timing for the <asr prayer is when the shadow is twice the length (of a thing), and the period between those when the shadow is the same as the length and when it is twice as much is not suitable for the noon prayer. This (latter opinion) was upheld by his two disciples, Abu Yusuf and Muhammad.

The reason for disagreement over this is the conflict of traditions. It is related about the prayer led by Jibril (Gabriel) “that he prayed zuhr with the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) on the first day when the sun declined, and on the second day when the shadow of each thing was equal to its length. He then said, ‘The timing is what is between these’”. It is related that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Your stay on earth compared to that of nations who came before you is like the length of the time which is between the (asr prayer and sunset. The People of the Torah were given the Torah and they acted upon it till it was midday, and became unable (to continue) after that. It was then granted to them qirdt™ after qlrdt. The People of InjU (New Testament) were then given the InjU and they acted upon it till it was the time for casr, being unable to do so after that. It was then granted to them in qirat at a time. We were given the Qur°an and we acted upon it till it was sunset. It was then granted to us two ^frars at a time. The People of the Book said, ‘O Lord, you have given these people two qtrdts at a time, while you gave us one at a time, when our performance was for a greater period?’ Allah, the Exalted, replied, ‘Have I done any injustice in compensating you?’ They said, ‘No’. He said, ‘Then it is My benevolence, I grant to whom I will’”.

Malik and al-Shafi T followed the c tradition in which Jibril led the Prophet in prayer, while Abu HanTfa followed the apparent meaning in the other tradition. The reason is that if the interval between the beginning of W and sunset is shorter than that from the beginning of zuhr up to the time of <asry in accordance with the implication of this tradition, it is necessary that the beginning of the time for’W be when the shadow is more than the height of a thing, and that this be the end of the time for zuhr. Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm said, “It is not as they believe. I have examined the matter and found that the shadow is equal to the height when nine hours and a fraction of the day have passed”. The QadT (Ibn Rushd) said, “I am doubtful about the fraction, I believe he said a third”.

They disagreed about the <asr prayer on two points. The first is about the merging of its first timing with the end of the timing for the zuhr prayer. Second, about its own end. With respect to the merging of the timings, Malik, al-ShafiT, Dawud, and a group of jurists agreed that the beginning of the timing for <asr prayer is, in fact, the end of the period for zuhr, and this occurs when the shadow of a thing becomes equal to its height. Malik, on the other hand, maintained that the last portion of the period for zuhr and the first portion of the period for <asr—a stretch of time sufficient for four (ordinary) rak<as—is a common time for both prayers. According to al-ShafiT, Abu Thawr, and Dawud the end of the period for zuhr is the point of time at which the timing for casr begins, and is an indivisible moment. Abu HanTfa, as we have said, maintained that the first timing for <asr is that when the shadow o' a thing is twice its height, and the reason for his disagreement with them over this has preceded.

Malik’s disagreement with al-Shafi T, and with those who adopted the c same opinion as his on this issue, is based on the conflict of the tradition about Jibril with the tradition of cAbd Allah ibn TJmar. In the prayer led by Jibril, it is stated that he prayed zuhr with the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) on the second day at the time at which he had prayed W on the first day. The tradition of cAbd Allah ibn TJmar is that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “The timing of zuhr continues as long as the timing of ^asr has not begun”. This has been recorded by Muslim. Those who preferred the tradition about Jibril, deemed the timing as merged, while those who preferred the tradition of cAbd Allah, did not consider the timings as merged. In the case of the tradition about Jibril, it is possible to interpret it in such a way that would agree with the tradition of cAbd Allah, for it is likely that the narrator (of the tradition about Jibril) overemphasized the fact due to the proximity of the timings. The tradition about the imama of Jibril has been declared sahih by al-TirmidhT, while Ibn TJmar’s tradition has been recorded by Muslim.

In their disagreement about the last timing for W, there are two narrations from Malik. The first maintains that the last timing is when the shadow of each thing is twice its height. This is also al-ShafiTs opinion. The second narration maintains that the last timing continues as long as the sun has not turned yellow. This is also Ahmad ibn Hanbal’s opinion. The Zahirites said that the timing ends just one rak'a-lmt before sunset.

The reason for their disagreement is based on the existence of three traditions, the apparent meanings of which conflict. The first is the tradition of c Abd Allah ibn TJmar, recorded by Muslim, which states, “When you pray W, there is time for it till the sun turns yellow”. Some of the versions say, “The time for <a$r prevails till the sun turns yellow”. The second is the tradition of Ibn Abbas about the c imama of Jibril, which states that “he prayed W with him on the second day when the shadow of each thing was twice its height”. The third is the widely known tradition of Abu Hurayra, “Anyone who has been able to perform a rakfa of the 'asr prayer before sunset has caught the time of tosr, and anyone who has been able to perform a rak^a of the morning prayer before sunrise has caught the right time of the morning prayer”.

They disagreed about the evening prayer [maghrib), whether it has an extended time like all other prayers? A group of jurists held that it has a limited time that is not extendible. This is the best known report from Malik and al- Shafi‘L Another group of jurists held that it has an extended time between sunset and the disappearance of the evening twilight (shafaq). This was the opinion of Abu HanTfa, Ahmad, Abu Thawr, and Dawud, and this opinion has also been related from Malik and al-Shafi‘T.

The reason for their disagreement over this arises from the conflict of the tradition of the imdma of Jibril with the tradition of ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Umar. The tradition about the imdma of Jibril states that he offered the maghrib prayer at the same time (at sunset) on both days, while the tradition of ‘Abd Allah says, “It is time for the maghrib prayer till the disappearance of shafaq*. Those who preferred the tradition* about the imdma of Jibril determined a single (limited) time for it, while those who preferred ‘Abd Allah’s tradition determined an extended time for it. The tradition of ‘Abd Allah has been recorded by Muslim, while the tradition of the imdma of Jibril has not been recorded by either of the two shaykhs (al-BukharT and Muslim), that is, the tradition of Ibn ‘Abbas, which says that he led the prayer for the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) in ten prayers that explained the prayer timings and then said, “The time is between these two”. What is stated in ‘Abd Allah’s tradition about this is also found in the tradition of Burayda al-Aslami that has been recorded by Muslim, and is the fundamental source for this topic. They (the jurists) said that the tradition of Burayda is preferable as it is a later tradition belonging to the era of Medina and was in response to a question about the timings of prayer, while the tradition of Jibril belongs to the initial stipulation of the duty (of prayer) at Mecca.

They disagreed about the second evening prayer (<ish&) on two points. First, about the beginning of its timing and second, about its end. About the beginning of its timing, Malik, al-ShaficT, and a group of jurists held that it is the disappearance of -the red evening twilight, while Abu HanTfa said that it is the disappearance of the white twilight that comes after the redness.

The reason for their disagreement over this issue stems from the equivocality of the term “shafaq” in the Arabic language. Just as fajr (morning), is of two kinds, so is shafaqz red and white. The disappearance of the white shafaq necessarily implies that what follows is the beginning of the night.92 There is no disagreement among them that it is established from the tradition ofBurayda and the tradition about the imdma of Jibril that he offered the night prayer on the first day at the disappearance of the shafaq.

The majority preferred their opinion on the basis of the established report “that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) used to offer ^isha* after the disappearance of the moon on the third night”, while Abu HanTfa preferred his opinion on the basis of what is established about delaying ^isha^ and the recommendation for delaying it in the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “If I had not feared hardship for my umma, I would have delayed this prayer up to midnight”.

They disagreed over the end of its latest timing into three opinions. First, that it is the first third of the night. Second, that it is midnight. Third, that it is up to sunrise. The first opinion, that is, it is the first third of the night, was held by al-Shafi T and Abu HanTfa, and is c the widely known view of Malik. A second report from Malik is.also related, which holds it to be midnight. The third view is that of Dawud, The reason for disagreement over this derives from the conflict of traditions. In the tradition about the imdma of Jibril it is stated that he prayed with the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) on the second day at the end of the first third of the night. In the tradition of Anas he says that “The Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) delayed <ish& till midnight”. This has been recorded by al-BukharT. It is also reported in the tradition of Abu Sa id al-KhudrT and that c of Abu Hurayra from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) that he said, “If I did not fear hardship for my umma I would have delayed <ish& up to midnight”. In the tradition of Ibn Qatada it is implied that neglecting sleep is not significant, but what is significant is delaying a prayer till it is time for the next.

Those who based their opinion on the preference of the tradition about the imama of Jibril fixed it as the third of the night, while those who preferred the tradition of Anas said that it is the middle of the night. The Zahirites relied upon the tradition of Abu Qatada saying that it is general and later in time than the tradition about the imama of Jibril, and, therefore, abrogates it. Had it not abrogated it the conflict would have led to dropping the \hukm. It is, therefore, necessary to abide by the prevailing consensus, as they agreed that the time lapses after the coming of the fajr time (dawn), but they disagreed about what is before that. In addition, they related from Ibn cAbbas that the time, in his view, was up to fajr. Thus, it becomes obligatory that the prevailing hukm about the (latest) time continue, till agreement about its lapsing earlier is found. I believe that this is also upheld by Abu Hanifa.

They agreed that the first timing for the morning prayer is true dawn (the appearance of the morning twilight) and it ends at sunrise, except what is related from Ibn al-Qasim and some of the disciples of al-ShaficT that the latest timing is when there is light (i.e. daybreak). They disagreed about its preferred timing. The Kufts, Abu Hanifa, his disciples, al-ThawrT, and most of the jurists of Iraq maintain that the best time for it is when there is light (the beginning of daybreak), while Malik, akShaficT, his disciples, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Abu Thawr, and Dawud maintained that darkness preceding light is the preferred time for it.

The reason for their disagreement*stems from their dispute over the method of reconciling the apparent meanings of the traditions on this issue. It is reported from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) through Rafic ibii Khadq that he said, “Perform the morning prayer at the time of the daybreak. The more frequently you do so the greater reward there is for it”. Yet, the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) is reported to have said, when asked about the best acts, “Prayer at its first appointed timing”. Moreover, it is established about the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) “that after he offered the morning prayer, women used to depart wrapped in their woolen garments, and could not be recognized due to the darkness”. The apparent meaning of this tradition is that this was his usual practice.

Those who maintained that the tradition of Raf? is particular (fhass), while the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) “in its first appointed timing”, is general held that the former restricted the latter according to the well-known rule that the particular restricts the general. In this way they exempted the morning prayer from the general implication and rendered the tradition of 'A’isha as a report of an occasional, and not the usual, practice implying permissibility. Thus, they maintained that “praying into the light is preferable to prayer in the darkness”. Those who preferred the general tradition, because it .is explicit and evident and also agrees with ‘A’isha’s tradition, while Ratios tradition is subject to interpretation, as it can be interpreted as emphasizing the coming of fajr and as such there js no conflict between it and the tradition of cA>isha nor with the reported generality in this issue, said that the preferred timing is the early portion of the time.

Those who maintained that the latest timing for the morning prayer is the clear light of daybreak confined it to those under compulsion, in the tradition in which the prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “He who has performed one rakca of the morning prayer before sunrise has captured the morning prayer”. This resembles what the majority hold about <asr, and it is strange that they turned away from it on this issue (of the morning prayer) and agreed with the Zahirites (on the other issue). The Zahirites, therefore, have a right to question them about the difference between the two (similar situations).

The jurists of the regions, as we have said have confirmed the special prayer timings for necessity and excuse, while the Zahirites have denied them. The reason for their disagreement has already been mentioned. Those who confirmed them disagreed over three points. First, what are the prayers to which these timings are applicable? Second, what are the limits of these timings? Third, who are the persons with an excuse for whom an exemption has been made with respect to these timings and their dhkam y that is, with respect to the obligation of prayer and its waiver.

Malik and al-Shafi T agreed c that this special timing is applicable to four prayers: a timing common between zuhr and W, and a timing common between maghrib and <ishd?. They differed about their common aspect, as will be coming up in what follows. Abu HanTfa opposed them saying that this timing is for <asr alone, and there is no timing here that is common between them.

The reason for their disagreement over this is based on their dispute about the permissibility of combining of two prayers (jam*) during a journey at a time fixed for one prayer. This will be discussed later. Those who acted upon the text laid down for the 'asr prayer, that is, the established saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “He who is able to observe a rak'a of the W prayer prior to sunset has been able to perform W (in time)”, understood this to imply a concession, and did not permit it as a common timing for combination, because of the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “The timing of a prayer does not pass till the coming of the timing for the next”. They also used other arguments—^that we shall mention under the topic of combination—to maintain that this timing was only for the 'asr prayer. Those who permitted a common timing i n combination during a journey, permitted it for those facing a necessity on its analogy, as the case of the traveller too is that of necessity and excuse. On this basis they determined a time common between zuhr and 'asr, and another common between maghrib and <ish&.

Malik and al-Shafi T disagreed over c • the last common timing for two prayers. Malik said that it continues from the declining of the sun, for zuhr and W, to an extent of four rak'as for a resident and two rak'as for the traveller till a time sufficient for four rak'as for the resident and two rakfas for the traveller is left of the daytime. Thus, he determined the time specific to zuhr as the time for four rak'as in the case of the resident, and two rak'as for the traveller after the declining of the sun. He determined the time specific to W as the time for four rak'as for the resident and two rak'as for the traveller prior to sunset. It follows that a person who catches only the specific portion of a the time of prayer is obliged for the prayer that is specific to this time, if prayer was not binding upon him prior to this time.93 A person who has more time than this is to perform both prayers together. He fixed the last time for capturing the 'a$r prayer ('add? not qad&), as that of one rak'a prior to sunset. He determined similar common timings for maghrib and 'ishd prayers, except that on one occasion he made the time specific to maghrib to be an amount of time enough for three rak'as prior to the break of the dawn, and at another occasion he deemed it enough for the last prayer, as he did for W, saying that it is a time enough for four rak'asy which agrees with analogy. Moreover, he deemed the last timing for this (as W<f) to be the time required for one rak'a prior to the break of the dawn.

Al-ShafiT fixed a single limit for these common timings, which is a stretch of time sufficient for one rak'a prior to sunset, and this for zuhr and Wtogether; and the time sufficient for a rakfa prior to the breaking of the dawn in the case of maghnb and Hsh# together. It is also related from him that he said it is a moment sufficient for pronouncing takbir, that is, a person who is able to pronounce takbir prior to sunset is under an obligation to pray zuhr and < $r for that day.

a Abu HanTfa agreed with Malik in that the last timing for <asr for those under duress is equivalent to the time of one rakfo prior to sunset, but he did not agree about the common timings nor about timings specific to prayers.

The reason for their disagreement, that is, Malik’s and al-ShafiTs, is whether the assertion about the common timing for two prayers together implies that there are two types of timings, a timing specific for them and a timing common to them, or whether it implies that there is a single common timing alone. Al-Shafi Fs c argument is that combining (two prayers) indicates only a common timing, and not a timing specific to each. Malik, on the other hand, constructed an analogy basing the common timings in the case of necessity upon the common extended timings. This means that as the extended timing for zuhr and <asr has a common timing and an extended timing, it is necessary that the situation be the same in cases of necessity. Al- ShafiT does not agree with him about a common extended timing for zuhr and <asr.

Their disagreement in this issue is based, Allah knows best, on their disagreement over the prior issues, so ponder over it, as it is evident, Allah knows best.

The jurists agreed that these timings, that is, the timings of necessity, pertain to four types of people: a menstruating woman entering the period of purity or who begins menstruating before she has prayed; the traveller who remembers prayer in these timings at a time when he is in a settlement, or a settler who remembers it when he is travelling; a minor who attains puberty during these timings; and a disbeliever who accepts Islam. They disagreed about the person who has fainted. Malik and al-ShaficT said that his hukm is like that of a menstruating woman and is entitled to these timings, for he is not obliged to make up (by way of qadtf) for the prayer that he misses because of fainting. According to Abu HanTfa, however, he is obliged to make up for the prayer he has missed when the number of (lapsed) prayers is less than five. Thus, in his view, if he recovers from his fainting spell, he prays whenever he recovers. In the opinion of the others, if he recovers during the timings of necessity, he is obliged for the prayer within -whose timing he, recovers, but if he does not recover during such a time, the prayer is not binding upon him. The case of the person fainting will be treated in greater detail later. They agreed that if the woman becomes pure within a, prayer timing, this prayer alone is obligatory upon her. According to Malik, if she becomes pUre and enough time for four rak^as is left prior to sunset, then she is obliged fOr c asr alone, but if the time left is enough for five rak^as y she is under an obligation for both prayers, zuhr and W. In al-ShafiTs view, if the time for a single rak^a remains, she is obliged to observe both prayers together, as we have said, and according to his second opinion, she is to pray even when the time left is enough for a takbir. The same is the case of the traveller, in Malik’s view, who has forgotten to pray and becomes a resident within these timings or is a settler who is now travelling. Similarly, in the case of a disbeliever, who converts to Islam during these timings, that is, this prayer is obligatory upon him. The case of the minor is also similar.

The reason for Malik’s considering a rak^a as a part of the last timing, and al-ShafiTs considering a part of a rak^a, like the takbiry as the limit, is the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “Whoever is able to perform a rak^a of casr prior to the setting of the sun has caught the prayer of <asr (in time)”. This, in Malik’s view, is an indication of the minimum pointing to the maximum, while in al-ShafPFs view it is the maximum indicating the minimum. He (al-Shafici) supported this with the report, “Whoever is able to perform one prostration prior to the setting of the sun has been able to perform casr (in time)”. Since a prostration is just one part of a rak<ay he concluded that whoever is able to pronounce a takbir prior to the setting or the rise of the sun has been able to perform his prayer in time.

Malik maintains that the time for the menstruating woman is to be reckoned from the time when her period of purity terminates, so also the minor who attains puberty. If she is a disbeliever, her time is reckoned from the moment of conversion to Islam and not tfii termination of her period of purity, but there is disagreement over this. The person under a fainting spell is, in Malik’s view, like the menstruating woman, while he is like a disbeliever who has converted, in cAbd al-Malik’s view. Malik maintains that a menstruating woman, who begins to menstruate at a time before she has observed the prayer, her delayed performance (qad&) is waived, while al-ShaficT maintains that qada? is obligatory upon her. Qadd>, in fact, is obligatory in the opinion of those who maintain that prayer becomes obligatory, with the coming of the prayer time Thus, if a woman menstruates after the start of the time for prayer and the passage of a period sufficient for the prayer, qadff of this prayer is obligatory upon her. This, however, is not the view of those who maintain that prayer becomes obligatory not with the commencement of its time, but by the last part of it, which is Abu HanTfa’s view and not Malik’s, This, as you can see, is necessary in accordance with Abu HanTfa’s opinion, I mean, conforming with his principles, but not according to the principles of Malik.

The jurists disagreed about the times during which prayer (salah) is forbidden. First, about their number, and second, about the types of prayers affected by the proscription.

The jurists agreed that there are three time-segments in which prayer is proscribed: the time of sunrise, the time of sunset, and the interval between the moment the worshipper has finished the dawn (subh) prayer and sunrise. They disagreed about two timings: the time of the declining of the sun and the time after performing W prayer (up to sunset).

Malik and his disciples maintained that the proscribed times are four: the times of sunrise, sunset, the time after the dawn prayer up to sunrise, and the time after ‘asr up to sunset. They permitted prayer at the declining of the sun. Al-Shafi T maintained c that all these five time-segments are proscribed, except the time of the declining of the sun on Friday, and he permitted prayer during this time. A group of jurists exempted from this (proscription) the time after W.

The reason for disagreement over this is one factor out of two. First, the conflict of a tradition with a tradition, and second the conflict of a tradition with practice, in the view of those who acknowledge practice, that is, the practice of the people of Medina, as is the principle of Malik ibn Anas. When the proscription had been laid down and there was no opposition through words or acts, the jurists agreed upon it, but when a source of disagreement was found conflict occurred. Their disagreement over the time of the declining of the sun arises from the conflict of a tradition with practice. This is so as it has been established through the tradition of TJqba ibn cAmir al-Juham that he said, “There were three times in which the Messenger of Allah used to prohibit us from praying and burying our dead: when the sun begins to rise till it is fully risen, when the sun is at its height till it begins to decline, and when the sun begins to set till it sets completely”. It has been recorded by Muslim. The tradition of Abu <Abd Allah al-Sanabhi, which has been recorded by Malik in his al-Muwatta?, conveys the same meaning, but its chain of transmission is incomplete.

Some of the jurists prohibited prayer during all these three periods, while others exempted from this (prohibition) the time of the declining of the sun, either always, in Malik’s opinion, or only for Friday, which is al-ShafiTs view. Malik, who regards the Medinan practice as a source of law, and found only two timings in practice, but not the third, that is, at the time of the declining of the sun, made an exemption for the prohibition and permitted prayer during that time deeming the proscription as abrogated by practice Those who did not consider Medinan practice to be a source of law abided by the original principle of proscription. We have already talked about practice and its legal force in our book on juristic reasoning, which goes by the name of usul al-fiqh^ Al-Shafi T based his c opinion on the tradition related by Ibn Shihab from Tha4abah from Ibn AbT Malik al-QarazT, which proved to be authentic in his view. It states that they used to pray on Fridays until TJmar came out (for the Friday prayer), and it is known that TJmar used to come out after the declining of the sun, as is established from the tradition about the carpet that was spread next to the western wall of the mosque; TJmar used to come out when it was completely covered with the shade of the wall. Further, he relied on what is related by Abu Hurayra “that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited prayer at noon till the sun declined, except for Friday”. He, therefore, exempted prayer at the time of the declining of the sun on Fridays from this proscription.94 95 This tradition was strengthened, in his view, by the practice during the days of TJmar, though the tradition itself was deemed weak by him. Those who preferred the established tradition on this issue followed the original proscription (of praying during the declining of the sun even on Fridays).

The jurists disagreed about the prayers that are not permitted during these prohibited periods. Abu Harnfa and his disciples maintained that prayers are not permitted in these periods at all, neither prescribed obligation, nor a sunna prayer, nor the supererogatory prayers, except the <-asr prayer of the day. They further said that delayed performance (qadff) of the W prayer is permitted at sunset if a person has forgotten it.

Malik and al-Shafi T agreed that c delayed performance (qadd>) of obligatory prayers is permitted during these prohibited periods. Al-ShaficT also held that the only prayers that are not permitted during these periods are the supererogatory prayers without a necessitating cause, but those with a cause, like the funeral prayer, are permitted during such periods. Malik agreed with him about these prayers after W and after the dawn prayer, that is, with respect to all sunna prayers, but he exempted those that are observed due to a voluntary cause (pertaining to the worshipper himself), like the two rak'-as upon entering the mosque, for al-ShaficT permits these two rak^as after <asr and after the dawn prayer, while Malik does not.

Malik’s opinion differed about the permissibility of sunna prayers at sunrise and sunset. Al-Thawri maintained that the prayers not permitted during these times are those that are not obligatory (fard) prayers, and he did not make a distinction between the sunna and the supererogatory prayers.

Three opinions are thus arrived at in this issue. First, that prayer is not permitted at all (during these prohibited periods). Second, that these are sunna or supererogatory prayers, and are not the obligatory prayers. Third, that these are the supererogatory prayers and not the sun an. In pursuance of the narration, in which Malik prohibited the funeral prayer during sunset, we arrive at a fourth opinion. This opinion prohibits the supererogatory prayers alone after the break of dawn and after W, and both supererogatory and sunna prayers during sunset and sunrise.

The reason for disagreement is their dispute over reconciling the conflicting general implications on this issue, that is, those occurring in the traditions, as to which is restricted by the other. For example, the general meaning of the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “When one of you forgets to perform a prayer, let him perform it when he remembers it”, implies that he may do so at any time. Yet, the Prophet’s saying in the traditions proscribing prayers in these (stated) periods, like “The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) proscribed prayers during these times”, implies the inclusion (in the prohibition) of all categories of prayers obligatory, sunan, and supererogatory. When we construe the traditions in their general meanings a conflict occurs between them, which belongs to the category of conflict occurring between the general and particular words, either with respect to the time, or with respect to the term <saldk>.

Those who decided to make the exception with respect to time, that is, the exception of the particular from the general, prohibited prayers absolutely during these times.96 Those who made an exception for the obligatory prayers, whose qadd? is prescribed, did so from the general implication of the term salah that is applicable to the proscribed prayers, prohibiting what is besides the obligatory in these timings 97