This chapter is also divided into two sections. The first is about adhan (the call for prayer). The second is about iqdma (the call for the commencement of prayer, or the second call for prayer).

This section is subdivided into five divisions. First about the description of the adhan. Second, about its hukm. Third, about its timing. Fourth, about its (prescribed) conditions. Fifth, about the response of the listener.

The jurists disagreed about adhan giving four widely known descriptions. The first prescribes the dual pronouncement of takbir, four repetitions of the shahdda, and the dual pronouncement of the remaining (words). This is the opinion of the jurists of Medina, Malik and the others. The later followers of Malik preferred tarjF, which requires the dual pronouncement of the shahdda in a lower tone followed by its dual pronouncement in a louder voice. The second is the Meccan version of the adhan, which was upheld by al-Shafi T. It c requires four pronouncements of the first takbir and the two sAaAarfas, and the dual pronouncement of the remaining adhan. The third description is that of the Knfis. It involves four pronouncements of the first takbir and the dual pronouncement of the remaining parts of the adhan. This was Abu HanTfa’s opinion. The fourth description is that of the adhan of the Basrans. It requires four pronouncements of the first takbir, three pronouncements of shahdda., of Aflyja 'ala's-salah, and of hayya (-ald>l-faldh. The mifadhdhin begins with tstehadu an Id ilaha illdWdhu till he reaches hayya 'ala'l-faldh, he then repeats them a second time, I mean, the four sentences, one after the other and then repeats them a third time. This was the opinion of al-Hasan al-Basrl and of Ibn Sinn.98

The reason,for the difference between these four descriptions is the conflict of the traditions and the communication of a differing practice to the jurists The jurists of Medina argue for their opinion on the basis of the continuous practice prevailing in Medina. The same is the case with the Meccans, who argue on the basis of the practice reaching them, so also the KufTs and the Basrans. Each group has traditions that support their opinion.

The dual pronouncement of takblr in the beginning, in accordance with the view of the jurists of Hijaz, is related through authentic chains from Abu Mahdhura and cAbd Allah ibn Zayd al-Ansaff, as is its fourfold pronouncement related from both of them through different chains. Ah Shafi T said that c these are additions that it is obligatory to accept, as they are supported by the communication of the practice at Mecca. With respect to tarjfi that was preferred by the later followers of Malik, it is related through Abu Qudama, although Abu TJmar said that Abu Qudama is considered a weak narrator by them (the traditionists). As for the Kufis, they rely on the tradition of Ibn AbT Layla, which says “that cAbd Allah ibn Zayd saw a man in a dream who stood in the gap of a wall wearing two green garments; he made the call for prayer repeating twice, and then made the tqama, repeating twice. He informed the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him)

about it, after which Bilal stood up and made the call repeating twice, and then made the iqama repeating twice”. The tradition reported by al-BukharT is from the report by Anas only, which says, “Bilal was commanded to proclaim the adhan repeating tw ice r and to make i&aama in single pronouncements, except the sentence ‘prayer is about to comftience’, which is to be repeated twice”. The version recorded by Muslim through Abu Mahdhura is in accordance with the description of the adhan of Hijaz.

It was due to the existence of This conflict about the versions of the adhan that Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Dawud maintained that these differing descriptions have been prescribed by way of choice and not as an obligation to follow one of them, and that people have a choice in this matter.

They disagreed about the pronouncement by the mu*adhdhin for the morning prayer, “prayer is better than sleep”, whether it is to be pronounced or not. The majority maintained that it is to be pronounced, while others held that it is not to be pronounced as it is not a part of the adhan practiced as a sunna. This was upheld by al-ShaficT. The reason for their disagreement is their dispute whether it was pronounced in the days of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), or whether it was added during the reign of Umar.

The jurists disagreed about the hukm of adhan. whether it is obligatory or an emphatic sunna, and if it is obligatory whether it is a universal obligation or a communal one. It is related from Malik that adhan is an obligation for congregational mosques, and it is related that it is an emphatic sunna (for them). He did not consider it an obligation for the individual, or even a sunna. Some of the Zahirites said that it is a universal obligation, while others said that it is an obligation upon groups, whether on a journey or in a settlement. Some other Zahirites maintained that it is obligatory for a group during travel. Al-Shafi T and Abu HanTfa agreed that c it is a sunna for the individual and the group, except that it is emphatic in the case of the group. Abu TJmar said that there is complete agreement that it is an emphatic sunna or an obligation for persons in a settlement, because of the tradition “that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) did not recite ths.adhan when he heard the call, but he did so when he did not hear it”.

The reason for their disagreement is the conflict in understanding the apparent meanings of the traditions. It is established that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said to Malik ibn al-Huwayrith and his companion, “When you are on a journey, pronounce the adhan and the iqama, and let the eldest among you lead the prayers”. Similarly, it is related that this was the continuous practice of the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) (when he was) in a congregation. Those who understood from this an absolute obligation said that it is obligatory (though they differed whether it is so only) upon groups or upon individuals as well. The first opinion is related by Ibn al-Mughallis from Dawud. Those who understood it to be an invitation to the group for prayer said that it is a sunna for the mosques or an obligation for those locations where the congregation assembles. The reason for disagreement is its (the adhan's) vacillation between being one of the pronouncements of prayer as its integral part or a means toward assembly.

The jurists agreed unanimously that adhan is not to be proclaimed before the (commencement of the) prescribed period of the prayer, except in the case of the morning prayer, over which they disagreed. Malik and akShafiT held that it is permitted to make the call before fajr, but Abu Hanifa prohibited this. A group of jurists maintained that if the call is made before fajr another call is to be made after fajr, because the obligation in their view is for adhan after Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm said that the call must be made after the commencement of the prescribed timing (for prayer), but if the call is made a short while before the timing it is permitted when the interval is short, just sufficient for the first mu'adhdhin to descend and the second to ascend.

The reason for their disagreement is that there are two conflicting traditions on this issue. The first is an authentic and widely known tradition, which is the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “Bilal mates the call when it is still night, so eat and drink till Ibn Umm Maktum makes the call”. Ibn Umm Maktum was a blind man, who did not make the call till he was told that it is morning. The second tradition is related from Ibn TJmar “that Bilal made the call before the break of dawn, so the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) ordered him to return and proclaim: ‘The servant [of Allah] [that is, Bilal] had slept’”. The tradition of the jurists of Hijaz is more authentic, while the tradition of the KufTs has 1 been related by Abu Dawud and declared authentic by many traditionists. The jurists decided with respect to these two traditions to adopt either the method of reconciliation or the method of preference. Those who adopted the method of preference were the jurists of Hijaz. They maintained that the tradition about Bilal is more authentic and relying on it is more plausible. The Kufi jurists adopted the method of reconciliation. They maintained that it is possible the call was made by Bilal at a time that was mistakenly taken to be the time of fajr, as his eyesight was weak, while the call was made by Ibn Umm Maktum when the time of dawn was certainly due. This is supported by what is related from 5

c A isha, who said, “The difference in time between their calls was a moment sufficient for one to descend and the other to ascend”.

Those who combine the two, that is, making the call before fajr and after it, do so on the basis of the obvious implication of what is related specifically about the morning prayer, I mean, in the time of the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) two calls were made by two mitdhdhins, Bilal and Ibn Umm Maktum.

This division includes eight issues. The first is whether it is a condition that the person who makes the call be the same person who pronounces the iqarna? Second, whether it is a condition of adhan that it should not be interrupted by any conversation? Third, whether it is a condition that the mifadhdhin be in a state of ritual purification? Fourth, is it a condition that the mtfadhdhtn face the qibla’i Fifth, whether it is a condition that the call be made while standing? Sixth, whether a call made while the mitadhdhin is riding is deemed reprehensible (makruh). Seventh, whether puberty is a condition for the person making the call? Eighth, whether it is a condition that no wages be taken for making the call?

About the issue of two men, one making the call and the other pronouncing the iqarna, the majority of the jurists of the regions maintain that this is permitted, while some maintained that this is not permitted. The reason for this disagreement is the existence of two conflicting traditions. First is al- SudaTs tradition, who said, “I went up to the Messenger of Allah, and when it was close to the dawn he ordered me to make the call. He then stood up for prayer and Bilal came to pronounce the iqama. The Messenger of Allah said, ‘The brother from Suda5 made the call, and he who makes the call is to pronounce the The second is the report that when cAbd Allah ibn Zayd saw the adhan in a dream, the Messenger of Allah ordered Bilal to make the call. He then ordered <Abd Allah, to pronounce the iqama.

Those who adopted the method of abrogation maintained that <Abd Allah ibn Zayd’s tradition is earlier in time, while that of al-Sud#! is later. Those who adopted the method of preference said that cAbd Allah ibn Zayd’s tradition is more authentic, as al-SudaTs tradition is an individual narration from Abd al-Rahman ibn Ziyad al-IfriqT, who is not acceptable to them.

c Their disagreement about (the permissibility of) wages for adhan is based on the dispute about the authenticity of the tradition relevant to this issue, that is, the tradition of TJthman ibn AbT al-cAs, who said, “One of the last instructions that the Messenger of Allah gave me was to select a person for mtfadhdhin who would not take wages for making the call”. Those who prohibited this also made the analogy for adhan upon prayer.

The reason for disagreement over the remaining conditions is based upon the analogy of adhan upon prayer. Those who constructed such an analogy imposed such conditions as are found for prayer, while those who did not construct the analogy did not impose them. Abu TJmar ibn cAbd al-Barr said that we have related from Abu Wa5il ibn Hujr the tradition that “it is verified and is a practised sunna that no one makes the call unless he is standing, nor when he is ritually purified”. He said that the words of Abu WiPil, who was one of the Companions, that “it is a sunna" moves it to the category of musnad (attributed to the Prophet), which is stronger than analogy.

The QadT (Ibn Rushd) said that al-TirmidhT has recorded (a tradition) from Abu Hurayra that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “No one is to make the call except after ablution”.

The jurists disagreed* about the response of the listener to the m&adhdhin. K group of jurists said that he repeats, word for word, what the mifadhdhin says till the end of the call, while others said that he repeats what the mtfadhdhin says, except that when the mtfadhdhin says, “Come for prayer, come fOr salvation”, the listener is to say, “There is no might and no power, but that with Allah”.

The reason for disagreement over this is the conflict of traditions. It js reported in a tradition from Abu Sa(Td al-Khudri that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “When you hear the mtfadhdhin, repeat what he says”. It is reported by way of TJmar ibn al- Khattab and in a tradition from Mu'awiya that the listener in response to “Come for prayer, come for salvation”, should say: “There is no might and no power, but that with Allah”. Those who adopted the method of preference followed the general implication of Abu SaTd al-KhudrFs tradition, while those who qualified this general implication with the specific content (of the other tradition), reconciled the two traditions, and this is Malik ibn Anas’s opinion.

They disagreed over iqama on two points: its hukm and description. According to the jurists of the regions, its hukm is that of an emphatic sunna that is greater in strength than that for adhan, for individuals as well as for groups. In the Zahirite view, it is an obligation, but I am not aware of whether it is an independent obligation or as one of the obligatory parts of prayer. The distinction is that according to the former opinion prayer does not become invalid if it is relinquished, but on the basis of the latter view it does. Ibn Kinana, one of the disciples of Malik, said that if it is relinquished intentionally prayer is invalidated.

The reason for disagreement is their dispute about whether it comprises a part of the acts that were meant to be an unfolding of the unexplained command of performing prayer, and, therefore, it has to be construed as an obligation, because of the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “Pray as you see me praying”, or whether it comprises acts that have to be construed as a recommendation. The apparent meaning of Malik ibn al-Huwayrith’s tradition implies that it constitutes an obligation, either for the group or for the individual.

Its description, according to Malik and al-Shafi T, constitutes c a takbir in the beginning, which is twice, and the remaining is once, except the words, “Prayer is about to commence”, which are pronounced once in Malik’s view and twice in al-ShaficFs. According to the Hanafites, the iqama is pronounced in pairs, while Ahmad ibn Hanbal favoured an option between single and double pronouncement, in accordance with his opinion that there is a choice in making calls.

The reason for disagreement springs from the conflict of Anas’s tradition about this issue with that of Ibn Abi Layla, which has preceded. In the authentic tradition of Anas, Bilal was ordered to call the adhdn in a double pronouncement and the iqdma in a single pronouncement, except the words, “prayer is about to commence”. In Ibn AbT Layla’s tradition Bilal was ordered to call the adhdn as well as the iqanta in a double pronouncement.

The majority of the jurists maintain that women are under no obligation to pronounce the adhdn or the iqama. Malik held that if they pronounce the iqdma it is better, while al-ShafiT said that it is preferable if they pronounce both adhdn and iqdma. Ishaq was of the view that they are under an obligation to pronounce the adhdn and iqdma. It is related from cA5isha, and recorded by Ibn al-Mundhir, that she used to pronounce the adhdn as well as the iqdma. The disagreement refers to the dispute over whether a woman can lead the prayers. It is said that the original rule is that she has the same duties as a man, unless an evidence is adduced to qualify this, and it is also said that she has the same duties and it is only in some cases that a qualifying evidence is. required.