Islamic Fiqh > Prayer > The pillars and conditions of prayer > Prayer on the mat, the khumra and carpets
Contents
Updated on 25 September 2026 at 3:23 PM
This part belongs to the full section: All sections of this part.
Ibn Battal (may Allah have mercy on him) said: everything prayed upon, as long as a man or more, is called a mat (hasir), not khumra; and all of it is woven from palm leaves and the like (Fath al-Bari 1/583).
Imam an-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the validity of prayer on the mat and all that the earth produces is a matter of consensus (Sharh Muslim 5/163).
Ash-Shawkani (may Allah have mercy on him) reports that most people of knowledge, as at-Tirmidhi said, held the recommendation of praying on the mat; except that some scholars chose praying on the ground as recommended (Nayl al-awtar 2/129; Sunan at-Tirmidhi 2/153). An-Nawawi said: this is carried to the recommendation of humility by direct contact with the earth itself (Sharh Muslim 5/163).
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya (may Allah have mercy on him) said: there is no dispute among people of knowledge on the validity of prayer and prostration on coverings of the kind of the earth, like the khumra and the mat; the dispute concerns disliking what is not of the kind of the earth, like spread hides of livestock, and dyed woolen carpets and rugs. Most people of knowledge permit that too, and it is the school of the people of hadith, like ash-Shafi'i and Ahmad, and the school of the people of Kufa, like Abu Hanifa and others. They also argued its permissibility from the hadith of Aisha: the bedding was not of the kind of the earth, but of leather or wool (Majmu' al-fatawa 22/174-175).
As for the Malikis, prostration on a garment of linen, wool or cotton is disliked with them, likewise carpets of hair and leather and the saddles of beasts; but standing on them is not disliked.
Ibn Bashir (may Allah have mercy on him) relates that the verifiers held: if the origin is luxury, whatever involves luxury is disliked, even among what the earth produces, like fine rushes mats; and whatever involves no luxury is not disliked, even among what the earth does not produce, like wool without aim of refinement (Mawahib al-jalil 1/545, 547; al-Mudawwana 1/128; ash-Sharh as-saghir 1/225; al-Mabsut 1/206; Umdat al-qari 4/108; Awn al-ma'bud 2/253; Tuhfat al-ahwadhi 2/249; al-Mughni 2/271).
The proofs of the validity of prayer on mats and the like are many. The first is the hadith of Anas ibn Malik: his grandmother Mulayka invited the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) to a meal she had prepared for him; he ate from it, then said:
Rise, that I may pray for you. Anas said: I went to a mat of ours, blackened by long use, and sprinkled it with water. The Messenger of Allah stood and I lined up behind him, and the old woman behind us; he prayed 2 rak'as for us and then turned away.Narrated by al-Bukhari 380 and Muslim 658
Al-Bukhari says, in the chapter on prayer on the mat: Jabir and Abu Sa'id prayed standing on the ship. Ibn al-Munir said: the reason he placed prayer on the ship in the chapter of prayer on the mat is that they share that prayer upon them is prayer other than on the ground, lest an imaginer conceive that contact with the ground is a condition, per his words in the famous hadith: "make your face touch the dust" (Fath al-Bari 1/583).
Second proof: Maymuna (may Allah be pleased with her) said:
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) used to pray on the khumra.Narrated by al-Bukhari 381
Third proof: Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (may Allah be pleased with him) entered upon the Prophet and said: "I saw him praying on a mat on which he prostrated" (Muslim 519, 661). An-Nawawi said: herein is proof of the validity of prayer on whatever separates one from the ground, garment, mat, wool, hair or other, whether produced by the earth or not; and this is our school and that of the majority. The qadi (Iyad) said: what grows from the earth involves no disapproval; carpets and the like not of vegetable growth: prayer on them is valid by consensus, but the ground is better, unless there is need of heat, cold or the like; for the secret of prayer is humility and submission; and Allah knows best (Sharh Muslim 4/211).
Fourth proof: Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) reports that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) "had a mat which he spread by day and rolled up by night" (al-Bukhari 697). Al-Hafiz mentions it in al-Fath in this other wording: "he had a mat which he spread and prayed upon", by meaning or according to a version of al-Bukhari.
Fifth proof: Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) said:
The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) would pray while I lay stretched between him and the qibla, on the bed in which he and his family slept. When he intended the witr, he would wake me and I would pray.Narrated by al-Bukhari 384, Muslim 512 and Ahmad (6/231); the wording is al-Bukhari's
This bed was of leather stuffed with palm fibres.
Speech in the prayer is necessarily one of 3 cases: speaking deliberately for other than the prayer's interest; speaking for the prayer's interest; or speaking forgetfully, or in ignorance of the prohibition of speech in prayer.
First: speaking deliberately for other than the prayer's interest. The people of knowledge agreed that whoever speaks in the prayer for other than its interest, nor for a reason requiring speech, while knowing the prohibition: his prayer is void. Ibn al-Mundhir (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the people of knowledge agreed that whoever speaks in his prayer deliberately, not intending to set right anything of its affair: his prayer is corrupt (al-Ijma' 25). An-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: speaking deliberately without the prayer's interest nullifies it by consensus; Ibn al-Mundhir and others reported this consensus, based on the hadith of Mu'awiya ibn al-Hakam, the hadith of Ibn Mas'ud, that of Jabir, that of Zayd ibn Arqam and others (al-Majmu' 4/95).
The main proof is the hadith of Mu'awiya ibn al-Hakam as-Sulami.
I was praying with the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) when a man among the people sneezed; I said: may Allah have mercy on you. The people glared at me; I said: may my mother lose all she has! What is the matter with you, staring at me? They began striking their thighs with their hands. When I saw them wishing to silence me, I fell silent. When the Messenger of Allah finished the prayer, by my father and mother, I never saw before or after him a teacher who taught better than him; by Allah, he neither overpowered me, nor struck me, nor insulted me. He said: this prayer admits nothing of the speech of people; it is only glorification, magnification and the recitation of the Quran.Narrated by Muslim 537
Zayd ibn Arqam (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "we used to speak during the prayer in the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him); one of us would speak to his companion of his need, until the descent of: 'Guard the prayers, and the middle prayer, and stand before Allah in devotion' (The Cow 2:238); the command of silence was given to us" (al-Bukhari 4290; Muslim 539); and according to Muslim: "and we were forbidden speech".
Ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "we used to greet the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) while he prayed, and he would answer us; when we returned from the Negus (an-Najashi), we greeted him and he did not answer us. We said: O Messenger of Allah, we used to greet you and you would answer us! He said: the prayer contains occupation" (al-Bukhari 1141; Muslim 538; agreed upon). In another wording: "Allah introduces into His decree what He wills: Allah has introduced that you not speak in the prayer" (Abu Dawud 924; Ibn Hibban in his Sahih 6/15; authentic hadith). It is the same for the imam, the led, and the one praying alone.
The jurists differed over the worshipper who speaks deliberately for the prayer's interest, as when he doubts and asks the one behind him, or alerts the imam when he has not understood: does his prayer become void by that?
The Hanafis and Shafi'is hold that whoever speaks in his prayer, even for its interest, his prayer becomes void, whether imam or led; by the surah and the hadiths forbidding speech in prayer, and by his words (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him):
If an impediment befalls you in the prayer, let the men glorify and the women clap.Narrated by al-Bukhari 6767 and Muslim 421
Had speech for its interest been permitted, it would have been easier and clearer.
An-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: second case: speaking for the prayer's interest, as when the imam rises for a fifth rak'a and one says: I prayed 4, or the like. Our school and that of the majority of scholars: the prayer becomes void. Al-Awza'i said: it does not, and it is a version from Malik and Ahmad, per the hadith of Dhul al-Yadayn. The majority's proof: the generality of authentic hadiths forbidding speech, and the Prophet's words just cited; had speech for its interest been permitted, it would have been easier and clearer (al-Majmu' 4/95).
The Malikis hold that the prayer does not become void, conditioned on interest, per the hadith of Dhul al-Yadayn. Abu Hurayra (may Allah be pleased with him) reports: the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) led us in one of the prayers, zuhr or asr, and saluted after 2 rak'as; he went to a post in front of the mosque and leaned on it in anger, with Abu Bakr and Umar in the assembly fearing to speak, and the people hurried out. The prayer had been shortened. Dhul al-Yadayn rose and said: O Messenger of Allah, has the prayer been shortened or have you forgotten? The Prophet looked right and left and said: what does Dhul al-Yadayn say? They answered: he spoke true, you prayed only 2 rak'as. So he prayed 2 rak'as, saluted, then said takbir, prostrated, then rose saying takbir, then said takbir and prostrated, then rose saying takbir and saluted (al-Bukhari 468; Muslim 573).
In this hadith the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and his Companions spoke, then continued their prayer; and in the Messenger of Allah we have a fine model. It is speech uttered intending to alert and set right the prayer, so it did not invalidate it, like the glorification; and it is speech with no forbidden deliberation, like forgetfulness. For alerting to the prayer's interest may occur by what is not permitted for anything else: its origin is the clapping for women (al-Ishraf ala nukat masa'il al-khilaf 1/306-307; al-Istidhkar 1/498; at-Tamhid 1/343; Tafsir al-Qurtubi 3/214; Hashiyat ad-Dusuqi 1/289; Kifayat at-talib 2/523; ash-Sharh as-saghir 1/228).
From Ahmad, 3 versions: the first, invalidity for both imam and led, per the generality of the prohibition hadiths, like the school of Abu Hanifa and ash-Shafi'i; the second, invalidity of the led one's prayer and validity of the imam's, conditioned on interest, the version chosen by al-Kharqi; the third, validity of both, with the interest condition, as in the hadith of Dhul al-Yadayn (al-Mughni 2/236, 243; al-Ifsah 1/192; Fath al-Bari of Ibn Rajab 7/154; Sunan at-Tirmidhi 2/256; Manar as-sabil 1/120).
Third case: speech in the prayer by forgetfulness or ignorance. The Malikis, Shafi'is and Ahmad in one version hold that whoever speaks in his prayer forgetfully or in ignorance, with little speech, his prayer does not become void; for the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) spoke in the hadith of Dhul al-Yadayn, and he did not order Mu'awiya ibn al-Hakam to repeat the prayer though he had spoken in ignorance; and that for which ignorance excuses, forgetfulness excuses too.
This hadith of Mu'awiya ibn al-Hakam as-Sulami, reported by Muslim (537), was cited in full above. His words to the Prophet, "may Allah have mercy on you", for another's sneeze, and his exchange with the people, are the very illustration of speech in ignorance: the Prophet taught him without imposing repetition.
Added are his words (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "error and forgetfulness have been lifted from my community"; and the fact that Dhul al-Yadayn said to him: has the prayer been shortened or have you forgotten? and he answered: "none of that happened". The locus of the proof is that he spoke absentmindedly, when by his view he had already left the prayer; then when reminded, he continued his prayer and prostrated for forgetfulness. And it is speech resembling the words of the salutation.
Besides: speech in the prayer falls under omissions, which are excused by error and forgetfulness as in fasting, indeed more; for abstaining from food and drink in fasting is a pillar, and speech in the prayer is a prohibition whose sin is lifted by consensus: if its sin is lifted, it does not remain forbidden. If forgetful eating does not contradict the fast, though abstaining is its pillar, then forgetful speech does not contradict the prayer, all the more.
The ignorant one is excused only if newly converted to Islam, or raised far from the scholars; one whose conversion is old or who grew up near the scholars, his prayer becomes void, for the fault of his education. Likewise if he knows the prohibition of speech in the prayer without knowing it invalidates it, as one who knows the prohibition of fornication without knowing its punishment: he is punished without dispute.
Imam Abu Hanifa, and Ahmad in a version that is the view of some Malikis, hold the prayer void: by the generality of the hadiths forbidding speech; and because it is not of the kind instituted in the prayer, no indulgence being granted; and there is no difference in ruling between the deliberate and the forgetful, though they differ in sin and deserving of warning; but for the rulings of the prayer's corruption and the obligation to repeat, they do not differ. Do you not see that the forgetful one who eats, breaks his ritual state or has relations in the prayer has the deliberate one's ruling for what concerns him of the rules of these additions: whether the speech be plain (sadhij), issuing from the worshipper by choice or constraint, whether a sound be required of him, as saving a blind man, or not.
The jurists differed on the invalidation of the prayer of one who addresses another with a passage of the Quran while praying: as saying to one named Yahiya or Moussa: "O Yahiya, take the Book with strength" (Maryam 19:12); or: "And what is in your right hand, O Moussa?" (Taha 20:17); or saying to the one at the door: "whoever enters it is safe" (Aal Imran 3:97).
The majority of jurists, the Hanafis, Malikis and Shafi'is, hold the prayer void for every address intended by a Quranic passage. Ibn Abidin (may Allah have mercy on him) says: the apparent is that it is corrupted, even if the one addressed does not bear that name, so long as the address is intended.
The Malikis conditioned the invalidity of addressing by the Quran on intending to inform out of its place: as if one were reciting the Fatiha or other, someone asks permission to enter and one cuts off at: "Enter it in peace, in safety" (al-Hijr 15:46). But if the informing intended falls in its place, the prayer does not become void: as if someone asks to enter while one recites: "The righteous will be amid gardens and springs" (al-Hijr 15:45), and one raises the voice on: "Enter it in peace, in safety" (al-Hijr 15:46), intending to grant permission of entry; or it comes after completing the Fatiha.
The Shafi'is conditioned invalidity on intending only to inform, or intending nothing; for in both cases it resembles the speech of men, and it is not Quran except with the intention of recitation. If one intends, with the informing, the recitation, the prayer does not become void: it is Quran, and it is as if one intended the Quran alone.
Al-Khattabi ash-Shirbini (may Allah have mercy on him) said: if one utters a passage of the Quran intending to inform, like "O Yahiya, take the Book" (Maryam 19:12), making understood to the one asking that he take the thing; or like the words to one asking leave to enter: "Enter it in peace" (al-Hijr 15:46); or the words to one being forbidden an act: "Youssouf, turn away from this" (Youssouf 12:29): if one intends with it, that is with the informing, recitation, the prayer is not void, for it is Quran, as if one intended the Quran alone; for Ali was praying when a man of the Kharijites entered and said: no judgment but Allah's and His Messenger's; and Ali recited: "So be patient: the promise of Allah is true" (ar-Rum 30:60). Otherwise, if one intends the informing only, or intends nothing, the prayer is void by it; for it then resembles the speech of men, and it is not Quran except with the intention.
The book ad-Daqa'iq draws from the Minhaj's text 4 cases: intending the recitation; intending the recitation and the information; intending the information alone; intending nothing. In the first 2 the prayer does not become void; in the last 2 it does. This detail also applies to answering the imam with the Quran, pronouncing the takbir aloud or the ta'min: if one intends the response with the recitation, or the recitation alone, or the takbir or the ta'min alone, or with information, it does not invalidate; otherwise it invalidates, even if the words of some later scholars suggest otherwise (Mughni al-muhtaj 1/196).
The Hanbalis hold valid the prayer of one who addresses another with a passage of the Quran. Al-Buhuti (may Allah have mercy on him) relies on what al-Khallal reports by his chain from Ata ibn as-Sa'ib: we asked leave to enter upon Abd ar-Rahman ibn Abi Layla while he prayed; he said: "Enter Egypt, Allah willing, in safety" (Youssouf 12:99). We said: what have you done? He said: we had asked leave to enter upon Abdallah ibn Mas'ud while he prayed and he said: "Enter Egypt, Allah willing, in safety" (Youssouf 12:99). And because it is Quran, the prayer is not corrupted by it, as if he had not intended the alert.
The qadi (Iyad) said: if in praise one intends remembrance or the Quran, the prayer does not become void; if one intends to address a man, it becomes void; if he intends both, 2 views: if he utters what does not distinguish the Quran from other speech, like saying to a man named Ibrahim: "O Ibrahim" (Hud 11:76) and the like, his prayer is corrupted; for this is people's speech, without the distinguishing mark of the Quran; it resembles assembling scattered words of the Quran, saying: "O Ibrahim" (Hud 11:76), "take the Book" (Maryam 19:12), "the Most Great" (ar-Ra'd 13:9) (Kashshaf al-Qina' 1/381).
Likewise the 2 imams Abu Hanifa and Muhammad (may Allah have mercy on them) hold void the prayer for any answer intended as dhikr or praise, contrary to Abu Yusuf: as if asked: is there with Allah another god? and he answers: "there is no god but Allah" (as-Saffat 37:35); or: what do you own? and he answers: "the horses, the mules and the donkeys" (an-Nahl 16:8). If the answer is not praise, it invalidates by consensus: if asked, what do you own? and he answers: camels, cows, slaves; for it is neither Quran nor praise. But if he informs him of an ill and he recites the istirkar, or converses praising, or marvels with glorification or the tahlil while in prayer: it is corrupted according to Abu Hanifa and Muhammad, contrary to Abu Yusuf; for in his view what is praise or Quran does not change by intention, while in their view it changes.
They explicitly stated that wishing mercy to a sneezer in the prayer for another corrupts the prayer: if someone sneezes and the worshipper says to him "may Allah have mercy on you", his prayer is corrupted; for it falls within people's exchange and counts among their words. Contrarily, if the sneezer or the hearer says: praise be to Allah; it does not corrupt his prayer, for it was not recognized as a response, unless he intends instruction: then it corrupts. And if one sneezes and wishes himself "may Allah have mercy on you, O my soul", the prayer does not become void: it is not an address to another, so it is not counted among people's speech, as when one says: may Allah have mercy on me.
The Shafi'is and Hanbalis hold that the prayer does not become void by dhikr and supplication, unless he addresses someone, as saying to a sneezer: may Allah have mercy on you: it becomes void by that. Excepted from that is address to Allah and to His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), which does not void the prayer, like "there is no power but by Allah". The Hanbalis explicitly stated its disapproval, due to the disagreement over invalidation.
Their proof of its permissibility is what Rifa'a ibn Rafi' (may Allah be pleased with him) reported.
I prayed behind the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him); I sneezed and said: praise to Allah, abundant, pure and blessed in it, blessed upon him, as our Lord loves and is pleased. When the Messenger of Allah finished the prayer he said: who spoke in the prayer? No one spoke. He repeated it a second time: who spoke in the prayer? No one spoke. Then a third: who spoke in the prayer? Rifa'a ibn Rafi' ibn Afra' said: it was I, O Messenger of Allah. He said: what did you say? He said: I said: praise to Allah, abundant, pure and blessed in it, blessed upon him, as our Lord loves and is pleased. The Prophet said: by Him in Whose hand is my soul, I saw 30-odd angels competing which of them would carry it up.Narrated by at-Tirmidhi 404 and an-Nasa'i (2/245); al-Bukhari 799 without mention of the sneezer
This is also supported by the hadith of Mu'awiya ibn al-Hakam as-Sulami cited earlier: I was praying with the Messenger of Allah when a man among the people sneezed and I said: may Allah have mercy on you... It follows that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) forbade the hearer wishing mercy to the sneezer, without forbidding the sneezer the praise (al-Majmu' 4/93; Mughni al-muhtaj 1/196; al-Mughni 2/251; Kashshaf al-Qina' 1/381; Matalib uli an-nuha 1/537).
The Malikis hold permitted praising for the sneezer, reciting the istirkar for a calamity one is told of, and the like, while recommending to leave it; as they explicitly permitted the tasbih, the tahlil and the hawqala, intending instruction, in any place of the prayer, for the whole prayer is a place for it (Hashiyat ad-Dusuqi 1/283, 285; at-Taj wa-l-iklil 2/33-34).
The jurists differed on sighing and groaning in the prayer: do they invalidate it? Abu Hanifa and Ahmad say: the prayer does not become void if it comes from fear of Allah; for it is of the kind of Allah's remembrance and invocation: it is speech requiring awe of Allah and desire toward Him, and this is fear of Allah in the prayer. Allah praised Ibrahim (peace be upon him) for being awah, full of humble sighs: "Ibrahim was indeed forbearing, devoted" (at-Tawba 9:114); it was explained as one who sighs out of fear of Allah.
Al-Kasani (may Allah have mercy on him) said: if he groans in his prayer or weeps and his weeping rises: if it comes from mention of Paradise or the Fire, the prayer is not corrupted; if from pain or calamity, it corrupts it. For the groaning or weeping of mention of Paradise and the Fire stems from fear of Allah's punishment and His painful retribution, and hope of His reward: it is pure worship; that is why Allah praised His friend Ibrahim for being awah: "Ibrahim was indeed forbearing, devoted" (at-Tawba 9:114), and elsewhere: "Ibrahim was indeed forbearing, given to humble sighs, returning to Allah" (Hud 11:75), because he sighed much in prayer. And: "the heart of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) had within it a humming like that of the boiling pot in prayer." Since it is so, the sound emitted by such a groan is not of the speech of people and does not corrupt; for the sigh and the weeping of mention of Paradise and the Fire are like explicitly mentioning Paradise and seeking refuge from the Fire, and that does not invalidate. But if it comes from pain or calamity, it is of people's speech, and people's speech corrupts.
It is reported from Abu Yusuf: if he says ah, his prayer is not corrupted, even from pain or calamity; and if he says awwah, it is corrupted; for the first is not of the kind of speech, resembling clearing the throat and breathing; the second is of the kind of speech. But the answer is what we mentioned (Bada'i' as-sana'i' 1/235).
Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) said: groaning does not interrupt the prayer of the sick, and I dislike it for the healthy. Ibn Abd al-Hakam reports from Malik: sobbing, groaning and breathing do not interrupt the prayer.
Imam ash-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) said: if 2 letters of these sounds become manifest, it is speech that invalidates. Shaykh al-Islam (Ibn Taymiyya, may Allah have mercy on him) said: this is the harshest view in this question and the farthest from proof; for if they establish invalidation by these sounds entering the meaning of "speech" in the words of the Messenger of Allah, it is necessarily known that these do not enter the meaning of speech; and if by analogy, it does not hold: in speech the speaker intends meanings he expresses by his words, and that occupies the worshipper, as the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "the prayer contains occupation". These sounds, however, are natural like breathing; and it is known that if one exceeds in breathing beyond need, the prayer does not become void; they differ from breathing only by the sound: invalidating the prayer by mere sound is establishing a ruling without origin or precedent. Besides, hadiths came with coughing and breathing; and the prayer is valid with certainty: it may not be voided by doubt (Majmu' al-fatawa 22/621-623; at-Tamhid 22/134; al-Mughni 2/247; Tafsir al-Qurtubi 10/342; Umdat al-qari 5/190).
The jurists differed on weeping: does it invalidate the prayer? The 3 imams, Abu Hanifa, Malik and Ahmad, hold that weeping from fear of Allah or mention of Paradise or the Fire does not void the prayer; if from bodily pain or a calamity in wealth or family, the prayer becomes void. The proof is Allah's words: :
"They fall upon their faces, weeping, and it increases them in humility"
Surah al-Isra, 17:109
"they fell prostrate, weeping"
Surah Maryam, 19:58
This establishes Therein is indication that weeping in the prayer, from fear of Allah, does not interrupt it; for Allah praised them for weeping in prostration, without distinguishing the prostration of prayer from that of recitation and the prostration of gratitude.
His words: "and it increases them in humility" (al-Isra 17:109) intend their weeping in the state of prostration: He increases them in humility upon their humility.
Mutarraf ibn Abdallah ibn ash-Shikhkhir reports from his father:
I came to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) while he prayed, and his heart had within it a humming like that of the boiling pot, that is, he was weeping.Narrated by Abu Dawud 904, an-Nasa'i 1214 and Ahmad (4/25-26); authentic hadith
Abdallah ibn Shaddad said: I heard Omar's sobbing (nashij) (may Allah be pleased with him), while I was in the last rows of the dawn prayer, as he recited: "I complain of my grief and sorrow only to Allah" (Youssouf 12:86) (al-Bukhari 1/252 suspended; connected by Sa'id ibn Mansur in his Sunan 5/405, Ibn Abi Shayba 1/312, 7/224 and Abd ar-Razzaq in his Musannaf 2/114; al-Hafiz says in Taghliq at-ta'liq 2/300: its chain is authentic).
The nashij, on the pattern fa'il, comes from "he sobbed" when pressed by weeping in his throat or trembling in his chest without weeping openly; every sound begun like a breath is nashij, mentioned by Abu al-Ma'ali in al-Muntaha; in al-Muhkam: the nashij is the strongest of weeping; it is said: an urge raising the breath, like separation. Abu Ubayd said: the nashij is like the weeping of a child making his voice resound in his chest without releasing it. They said: Omar sobbed and no Companion disapproved of him, though they were behind him: it thereby became consensus.
Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "no horseman was among us on the day of Badr except Miqdad; and I saw that none of us remained standing but the Messenger of Allah under a tree, praying and weeping until morning" (Ibn Khuzayma in his Sahih 2/52; Ibn Hibban in his Sahih 6/32, titled: mention of the permissibility of one's weeping in his prayer when not for worldly causes; Ahmad in his Musnad 1/125; authentic hadith).
Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) reports that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said in his illness: "Order Abu Bakr to lead the people in prayer." Aisha said: I said: Abu Bakr, when he stands in your place, is a tenderhearted man who cannot be heard weeping by the people; rather order Omar to lead. He said: order Abu Bakr to lead the people in prayer. Aisha said to Hafsa: tell him that Abu Bakr, standing in his place, cannot be heard weeping by the people; rather order Omar. Hafsa did so; the Messenger of Allah said: enough; you are truly the companions of Youssouf: order Abu Bakr to lead the people in prayer. Hafsa said to Aisha: I never received from you but harm (al-Bukhari 684; Muslim 418). In a version of al-Bukhari: "Abu Bakr is a tenderhearted man (asif)". The point of the proof: the Prophet, once resolved to appoint Abu Bakr after being informed that recitation overcame him with weeping, established thereby its permissibility (Umdat al-qari 5/190, 251; Ahkam al-Qur'an of al-Jassas 5/37-38; al-Istidhkar 2/355; at-Taj wa-l-iklil 2/33; Mukhtasar ikhtilaf al-ulama 4/395; Nayl al-awtar 2/369-370; Fath al-Bari 2/206; al-Mughni 2/247).
Imam ash-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) holds void the prayer of one who weeps in it, even from fear of the hereafter (al-Iqna' 1/148; Mughni al-muhtaj 1/195).
Ibn al-Mundhir (may Allah have mercy on him) said: they agreed that laughter in the prayer breaks it (al-Ijma' 20/25; al-Awsat 1/226).
The jurists differed on the ruling of one who recites in his prayer from the mushaf: does his prayer become void by that? Abu Hanifa holds that whoever recites from the mushaf in his prayer without being a memorizer, his prayer is corrupted by that. Two paths are reported from him: the first, that carrying the mushaf, looking into it and turning its pages are numerous acts that are not among the acts of the prayer, with no need to bear it in it: the prayer is corrupted; the second, that he is prompted from the mushaf and becomes like one prompted by another; on this second path, no difference between a mushaf laid down and carried; on the first they differ: if it lies before him and he recites from it without carrying or turning pages, or recites Quran written on the mihrab, his prayer is not corrupted, for want of the corrupting element, the numerous act.
Abu Hanifa was argued for by what Ibn Abi Dawud reported from Ibn Abbas: "the Commander of the Believers Omar (may Allah be pleased with him) forbade us that people be led in prayer from the mushaf" (Ibn Abi Dawud in al-Masahif 217).
Abu Bakr ar-Razi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: Abu Hanifa's view applies to one who has not memorized the Quran and cannot recite except from the mushaf; as for the memorizer, his prayer is not corrupted according to all of them. Sarakhsi and Abu Nasr as-Saffar followed him, arguing that this recitation is annexed to his memorization, not to his being prompted from the mushaf; decided firmly in Fath al-Qadir, an-Nihaya and at-Tabyin. Ibn Najim said: it is the more apparent, as is known (Ma'ani al-Athar 2/133; al-Bahr ar-ra'iq 2/11; al-Mabsut 1/202; al-Hidaya sharh al-Bidaya 1/62; Ibn Abidin 1/624).
The majority of jurists, the Malikis, Shafi'is, the Hanbalis in the school, and Abu Yusuf and Muhammad among the Hanafis, hold that if he recites the Quran from the mushaf his prayer does not become void, whether he has memorized it or not; only it is disliked for him in the obligatory, except ash-Shafi'i, for it resembles the practice of the people of the Book, as Abu Yusuf and Muhammad said. Ibn Najim (may Allah have mercy on him) said: know that resembling the people of the Book is not disliked in everything: we eat and drink as they do; the forbidden is resemblance only in what is blameworthy and in what is done aiming at resemblance, as Qadikhan mentioned. On this basis, without intention of resemblance, it is not disliked with them (al-Bahr ar-ra'iq 2/16).
Ibn al-Qasim says in al-Mudawwana: Malik said there is no harm in leading the people from the mushaf in Ramadan for the voluntary prayer; and he disliked it in the obligatory (al-Mudawwana 1/224; see al-Ishraf ala nukat masa'il al-khilaf 1/307-308; at-Taj wa-l-iklil 2/73).
An-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) says: if he recites the Quran from the mushaf, his prayer does not become void, whether he has memorized or not; it is even required of him if he has not memorized the Fatiha, and even if he turns his pages at times it does not become void. This is our school and that of Malik, Abu Yusuf and Muhammad. He says: our companions argued that he performed the recitation; reflection and looking, by consensus, do not void the prayer outside the mushaf, all the more; and prompting in the prayer does not void it with us without dispute (al-Majmu' 4/105).
Al-Insaf says: it is permitted for him to look into the mushaf, meaning to read in it; this is the school, the view of most of the companions, many of whom decided it decisively. From him other versions: it is permitted in the voluntary; or permitted only for the non-memorizer; or: doing it voids the obligatory; it is said: and the voluntary. The first is the school.
The proof of permission is that Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) was led in prayer by her freedman Dhakwan from the mushaf (al-Bukhari 1/245 suspended; connected by Ibn Abi Shayba 2/123 and Abd ar-Razzaq 2/294; al-Hafiz says in Taghliq at-ta'liq 2/291: authentic). Az-Zuhri was asked about a man reciting in Ramadan from the mushaf; he said: our best used to read from the mashaif. Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) said: what is permitted to recite outwardly is permitted by analogy, as with the memorizer; and we do not concede that this requires a long act, and if numerous it is continuous; the disapproval was specified to the memorizer, for he is thereby diverted from humility in the prayer, like looking at the place of prostration without need; and it was disliked in the obligatory absolutely, for custom does not require it there (al-Mughni 2/129; see al-Ifsah 1/181; Ikhtilaf al-ulama 1/47; Mukhtasar ikhtilaf al-ulama of al-Bayhaqi 1/208-209).
The Hanafis hold that repeating the Fatiha in the obligatory is not prescribed and is disliked for him; in voluntary prayers it is not disliked (Majma' al-anhur 1/157; Hashiyat at-Tahtawi 1/170).
The Malikis say: if he repeats the Fatiha in the rak'a, his prayer does not become void according to the school; he sins if deliberate, and prostrates for forgetfulness if forgetful (Hashiyat ad-Dusuqi 1/297; Bulghat as-salik 1/227).
The Shafi'is say: if he repeats the Fatiha twice forgetfully, it does no harm; if deliberately, 2 views: the correct stated one is that it does not become void, for it does not break the form of the prayer; the other: it becomes void, like repeating the bowing. An-Nawawi says: the school is that it does not become void (al-Majmu' 4/102; Hashiyat Qalyubi 1/173).
The Hanbalis say: repeating the Fatiha is disliked for him, for it was not reported from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) nor from his Companions; and to exit the disagreement of those who void it by it: for it is a pillar, and the difference between the verbal pillar and the physical pillar is that repeating the verbal one does not break the form of the prayer. Al-Insaf says: this is the school, followed by the masses of the companions, many deciding it; it is said: it becomes void, a version in al-Furu' and others, and he stated them generally in ar-Ri'aya al-kubra (al-Insaf 2/99; al-Furu' 1/429; Sharh Muntaha al-iradat 1/209).
The jurists agreed that once one adds an act of the kind of the prayer, standing, sitting, bowing or prostrating, deliberately, his prayer becomes void. Ibn Qudama says: addition in the prayer divides into additions of words and additions of acts; and the additions of acts take 2 kinds. The first: addition of the kind of the prayer, like standing in the place of sitting, sitting in the place of standing, adding a rak'a or a pillar: if done deliberately, his prayer becomes void by consensus; if forgetful, he prostrates for it, whether little or much, per the Messenger of Allah's words (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him):
When a man adds or subtracts, in his prayer, let him perform 2 prostrations.Narrated by Muslim
The second kind: addition not of the kind of the prayer, like walking, scratching and moving about: the prayer becomes void by its excess, and the slight is excused; with no prostration for it, and no difference between deliberate and forgetful (al-Mughni ma'a ash-sharh al-kabir 2/197).
Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the second section: additions of words; these also divide in 2: what deliberate commission voids the prayer, like the salutation and the speech of men; if he does it forgetfully and saluted out of place, he prostrates per what we mentioned in the hadith of Dhul al-Yadayn; and if he speaks in the prayer forgetfully, does the prayer become void or does he prostrate for forgetfulness? Two versions.
The second genre: what deliberate commission does not void the prayer; of 2 types. The first: coming with a remembrance instituted in the prayer out of its place, like recitation in bowing and prostration, the tashahhud in standing, the prayer upon the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) in the first tashahhud, or reciting the surah in the 2 rak'as of the 4-rak'a prayer or the last of Maghrib and the like; if he does it forgetfully, is the prostration of forgetfulness instituted for him? Two versions: the first, no; for the prayer does not become void by its deliberate commission, so no prostration for its forgetfulness, like omitting the sunnahs of act. The other: the prostration is instituted for him, per his words (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "when one of you forgets, let him perform 2 prostrations sitting" (Muslim). If we say the prostration is instituted for him, it is recommended not required, for it is a repair of what is not required, like the repair of the other sunnahs. Ahmad said: the forgetfulness for which prostration is required is only what was reported from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him); for the origin is the non-obligation of prostration.
The second type: coming with a remembrance or supplication the Law did not intend in the prayer, like saying: amin, Lord of the worlds; or saying in the takbir: Allah is greater, great; the prostration is not instituted for him; for the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) heard a man saying in the prayer: "praise to Allah, abundant, pure and blessed, as our Lord loves and is pleased", and did not order him to prostrate.
Question: when he sat for the tashahhud out of its place, the length of a rest sitting, the qadi says: the prostration is required of him, whether we hold the rest sitting sunnah or not; for he did not intend it by his sitting, he intended other, and it was forgetful. It is possible it is not required of him; for it is an act which, deliberate, does not void the prayer: no prostration for forgetfulness, like the slight act not of the kind of the prayer (ash-Sharh al-kabir wa-l-Mughni 2/197; ash-Sharh as-saghir 1/227; al-Majmu' 4/102; I'anat at-talibin 1/226; Matalib uli an-nuha 1/536; Manar as-sabil 1/119).
When the worshipper omits a pillar of the prayer, it is necessarily deliberate, forgetful or in ignorance; and each case has its ruling. If he omits it deliberately, the jurists agree that his prayer becomes void by that and is not valid from him, and the prostration of forgetfulness does not suffice.
If he omits it forgetfully or in ignorance, they agree that he makes it up if making up is possible; otherwise his prayer is corrupted with the Hanafis. Al-Kasani says in Bada'i' as-sana'i' (2/250-251): if one omits a prostration from these prayers, what is missed may be of the dawn prayer, or of zuhr, asr and isha, or of Maghrib; and the worshipper may or may not have added to their rak'as: if what is missed is of the dawn and he has not passed its 2 rak'as, that he omits from it a prostration then remembers before saluting, or after saluting before speaking, he makes it up, whether he knows it was from the first or second rak'a or not; for it left its place and the prayer was not corrupted by its omission: its making up is required, for it is a pillar. If he does not make it up before leaving the prayer, it is corrupted, like recitation in the first 2 rak'as: it is made up in the last 2, for it is a pillar; and if not made up before leaving the prayer, it is corrupted and the making up is required, even if it left its original place, given the existence of the place for the standing of the opening takbir. And see Ibn Abidin 1/464.
The majority say: only the rak'a from which the pillar was omitted lapses, when the omitted pillar is other than the intention and the opening takbir; for if they were those, he restarts the prayer, not having prayed.
It comes in Kashshaf al-Qina': whoever forgets a pillar other than the opening takbir, by whose omission the prayer is not contracted, and likewise the intention on the view of its being a pillar, and remembers it after entering the recitation of the next rak'a: that rak'a lapses, the one from which the pillar was omitted, explicitly stated; for he omitted a pillar without being able to make it up, merged as it is with the next rak'a; his rak'a is annulled and the one he entered becomes its substitute, without repeating the opening. Explicit in Athram's version. If the omission is from the first, the one he entered becomes its substitute: the second becomes his first, the third his second, the fourth his third, and he performs one rak'a; likewise for the second and third.
From it is learned that what passed of the rak'as before the one whose pillar was omitted does not lapse; Ibn az-Zaghawani said: rather it does, and Ibn Tamim and others distanced that. If he returns to what he omitted knowingly and deliberately, his prayer becomes void, for he omitted the duty deliberately; if he returns forgetfully or ignorantly, the prayer does not become void, but what he does in the rak'a whose pillar was omitted is not counted, for it was corrupted upon his entry into the recitation of another, never returning to validity, mentioned in ash-Sharh.
And if he remembers the forgotten pillar before his entry into the recitation of the next, he must return and perform it, for the standing is not intended in itself: it carries the required recitation, which is intended; and he remembered it in its place, like one who omits a prostration of the last rak'a and remembers before the salutation: he performs it at once, and performs afterwards what follows of pillars and duties, by the obligation of order. If he remembers the bowing while seated, he performs it and what follows; if he prostrated once then rose before his second prostration forgetfully: if he had sat for rest, he prostrates the second while sitting for rest, it being in its place; otherwise he sits then prostrates the second, catching up what he missed; and if he had sat for the first prostration to rest, it does not discharge him from the sitting of rest, its obligation standing.
If he does not return to the omitted pillar he remembered before entering the recitation of the next: deliberately, his prayer becomes void, for deliberate omission of the duty; if he does not return forgetfully or ignorantly, only the rak'a lapses, for it is an undeliberated act, as if he had passed on before remembering the omitted one until entering the recitation. If he learns of the omitted one after the salutation, it is as if he omitted a whole rak'a; for the rak'a annulled by omitting a pillar is not counted: its existence equals its nonexistence, and if he saluted before remembering it, he saluted in a state of deficiency. He performs that rak'a with the customary sitting of rest, as mentioned earlier.
If he turns from the qibla or leaves the mosque, explicit text, and he prostrates before the salutation, transmitted by Harb; unlike omitting the rak'a entirely, he says in al-Mubdi'; and if the rest is prolonged or he breaks his ritual state, it lapses, for loss of continuity, as if he remembered on another day.
Imam an-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) adds: on the schools of the scholars regarding one who omits 4 prostrations of 4 rak'as, one prostration of each rak'a: we mentioned that our school is that 2 rak'as accrue to him, and that he performs 2 others under the condition mentioned. Al-Layth ibn Sa'd and Ahmad, per what shaykh Abu Hamid reports from them, say: nothing accrues to him but the opening takbir. Ibn al-Mundhir reports from al-Hasan, ath-Thawri, Abu Hanifa and the people of opinion that he performs at the end of his prayer 4 prostrations, his prayer being complete. From the Nakha'i: whoever forgets a prostration of zuhr and remembers it in the asr prayer, he continues his prayer and, when done, makes it up.
Malik and Ahmad, in the sounder of their 2 versions, say: nothing accrues to him but what he did in the fourth rak'a; in a version from them: he restarts the prayer.
As for one who omits a prostration or 2 of the first rak'a and remembers it in the second: we mentioned our school, that he returns to his first prostration. Ahmad says: if he remembers before entering the recitation, he returns; otherwise the first's ruling falls and he counts by the second. Malik says: he returns so long as he has not bowed (al-Majmu' 4/127). Its detail comes in the chapter on the prostration of forgetfulness.
The jurists hold that whoever forgets the first tashahhoud must return and perform it so long as he has not completed standing, per what al-Mughira ibn Shu'ba reports: the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said:
When one of you rises after the 2 rak'as without completing standing, let him sit; and if he has completed, let him not sit, and let him perform the 2 prostrations of forgetfulness.Narrated by Ibn Majah 1208, ad-Daraqutni (1/378), al-Bayhaqi in al-Kubra (2/343) and Ahmad in his Musnad (4/253); authentic hadith
And because he broke it and remembered before entering upon a pillar.
As for one who completed standing, aware, remembering the first tashahhoud, then returns to it after entering the recitation of the third: return is not permitted him, the view of most people of knowledge, per the earlier hadith. If he returns, the Hanafis in their sound view, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis hold his prayer void by that: the offence against the duty is complete once the duty was begun for other than it. If he is ignorant of the prohibition, or forgetful, it does not become void: he added in the prayer forgetfully; as soon as he knows the prohibition while in the tashahhoud, he rises without completing the sitting. If the imam remembers the tashahhoud before rising, after the led ones stood and entered the recitation, and he returns, the return is required of them.
Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) says: if he remembers after standing erect and before entering the recitation, the better is that he not sit; if he sits, it is permitted. Explicitly stated... It is possible the return is not permitted him, per the earlier hadith of al-Mughira, and because he entered upon a pillar: return is no longer permitted him, as if he had entered the recitation (al-Mughni 2/210).
Imam Malik, and some Hanafis, hold that whoever rises from 2 rak'as then returns to sitting after his standing: his prayer is complete, and the 2 prostrations of forgetfulness discharge it; his prayer does not become void by that, but he did wrong (Tabyin al-haqa'iq 1/196; al-Bahr ar-ra'iq 2/109; Ibn Abidin 2/82, 85; Kifayat al-akhyar 1/171; at-Tahtawi 1/302; Mawahib al-jalil 2/46-47; Nayl al-awtar 3/148; al-Majmu' 4/129; al-Istidhkar 1/522; at-Tamhid 10/185; Matalib uli an-nuha 1/516; Kashshaf al-Qina' 1/404; Manar as-sabil 1/118-119).
Ibn Abd al-Barr (may Allah have mercy on him) says in at-Tamhid, after citing the hadith of Abdallah ibn Buhayna: "the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) prayed 2 rak'as with us, then rose without sitting, and the people rose with him; when he finished his prayer and we awaited his salutation, he said takbir, then performed 2 prostrations sitting before the salutation, then saluted" (Muslim 570; Malik in the Muwatta 218).
It follows from the fiqh that if the worshipper rises from 2 rak'as and stands erect, he may not return; we said "stands erect" for one who rises is not named standing until he is truly erect, and the standing one is the erect one. In our hadith: "then he stood". Once erect it does not behoove him to return; for it is known that whoever stands erect in this matter cannot fail to remember of himself, or be reminded by the one behind him by glorification, especially people to whom it was said: "what befalls one in his prayer, let him glorify"; they are the most deserving of acting on what was memorized and conscious.
In either case, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) did not return to sitting after his standing: thus it behooves everyone who rises from 2 rak'as not to return. If he returns to sitting after his standing, his prayer is not corrupted with the majority of scholars, though they differ on his prostration of forgetfulness and his return; some later scholars said his prayer is corrupted, a weak view without ground (the commentary clarifies: before entering the recitation; and Allah knows best).