Islamic Fiqh > Prayer > The pillars and conditions of prayer > Islam as a condition of the call to prayer
Contents
Updated on 25 September 2026 at 3:23 PM
This part belongs to the full section: All sections of this part.
This part of the fiqh encyclopedia deals with the conditions of validity of prayer and its pillars. It examines, with the exact positions of the schools: the conditions of Islam, sanity and puberty, the covering of the awra and its limits, facing the qibla, knowing that the time has entered, then the pillars of prayer: the intention, the opening takbir, standing, reciting al-Fatiha, bowing, rising from bowing, prostration, sitting between the 2 prostrations, the closing salam and stillness.
Without any disagreement, the call to prayer remains valid and one builds upon it; speaking during it is disliked by consensus. But if the adhan is interrupted by a long pause, by sleep, fainting or insanity, or by lengthy talk, it is no longer counted and restarting it becomes obligatory, according to the Hanafis, the Malikis and the Hanbalis, as well as the Khorasanis among the Shafi'is.
Al-Rafi'i said: "the more apparent view is the obligation of restarting the call when the interruption is long", while the Iraqis among the Shafi'is deny invalidation, which is the explicit position of Imam al-Shafi'i in "al-Umm"; restarting remains recommended however. The Hanbalis added to the cases of the adhan's invalidation interruption by forbidden speech, insult, slander or the like, even if slight.
The qualities of the muezzin: 1. Islam. The jurists of the 4 schools agree that Islam is a condition for the validity of the adhan; the call of the disbeliever is therefore invalid, for he is not among the people of worship and does not believe in the prayer to which the adhan is an announcement, so that his act amounts to mockery.
Al-Qadi Abd al-Wahhab, the Maliki (may Allah have mercy on him), transmits from the school: a woman does not make the call to prayer for men; Malik said: "none calls except the one who leads the prayer", while Abu Hanifa considered it permitted; hence the Maliki rule: the call of whoever cannot lead the prayer is not counted, like that of the disbeliever and the insane person ("al-Ishraf" on "Nukat masa'il al-khilaf", 1/237-238, case no. 157).
As for the Hanafis, Imam al-Kasani (may Allah have mercy on him) wrote: if a woman makes the call for some people, it suffices them with no need to repeat it, the purpose being attained, namely the announcement; it is however narrated from Abu Hanifa that repeating it is recommended ("Bada'i' al-Sana'i'" 1/150, "al-Bahr al-Ra'iq" 1/277, "Ma'ani al-Athar" 1/472, "Tuhfat al-Fuqaha" 1/111, "Hashiyat al-Tahtawi" 1/133, "al-Sharh al-Saghir" 1/170, "al-Majmu'" 4/163, "al-Mughni" 1/530, "al-Ifsah" 1/135).
4. Puberty. The jurists agree that the call of a child who lacks discernment is invalid and must be repeated, for what does not issue from a mind is not counted. As for the discerning child, his adhan is permitted according to the Hanafis, the Malikis, the Shafi'is and Imam Ahmad in one report, if he relies on a just adult for knowing the entrance of the time; without such support, his call is invalid. Abu Hanifa disliked this: "I dislike that one who has not yet had a wet dream makes the call, for people do not count it". Ahmad, in the second report, held that call to be of no account.
As for the apostate, the jurists differed on whether prayer is obligatory for him. The majority of jurists, the Hanafis, Malikis and Hanbalis in principle, hold that prayer is not due to him, so that he need not make up the prayers he missed when he returns to Islam, apostasy having rendered him like an original disbeliever. The Shafi'is and Imam Ahmad in one report require making up the prayers after his return to Islam, as a means of hardening him, since prayer was imposed on him by Islam and does not fall away by his denial, like a debt a man acknowledges then apostatizes without its being extinguished for him.
b. Sanity. The jurists agree that prayer is due only from a person of sound mind, not from the insane; according to the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): "The Pen has been lifted from 3: the sleeper until he wakes, the child until he reaches puberty, and the insane until he regains his mind" (sahih hadith: Abu Dawud 4398, 4401, 4403; Ibn Majah 2041; Ibn Khuzayma in his "Sahih" 2/102; Ibn Hibban in his "Sahih" 1/355). Since his episode may last long, demanding makeup from him would be too hard, and he has been excused.
The schools however differed over one whose mind is impaired by illness, fainting or a lawful medicine.
The Hanafis distinguish impairment caused by an affliction coming from Allah from that caused by man. In case of madness or fainting, even from the fright of a beast or a man: if the absence lasts a day and a night, the 5 missed prayers must be made up; beyond that, there is no making up because of the hardship. If he comes to during the sixth period, unless his regaining consciousness occurs at a known moment, he must make up what was missed if it is less than a day and a night, as in the case of one whose fever subsides at dawn: he briefly regains consciousness then relapses; this brief return counts and cancels the prior status of being unconscious if it was less than a day and a night. If his regaining consciousness has no known moment, as when he suddenly speaks like a healthy person then collapses again, such a return does not count.
If the impairment is caused by man, as with hemp, wine or a medicine, he must make up what he missed however long the period. According to Muhammad (al-Shaybani), hemp and lawful medicine remove the duty to make up, the state being like illness. Ibn Abidin clarifies: placing "medicine" after "hemp" is explanatory, meaning hemp drunk as medicine; drunk for intoxication it is a disobedience committed by himself, like wine; and if he drinks wine under duress, he is treated like the hemp case, with the same divergence (Ibn Abidin 2/102, "al-Bahr al-Ra'iq" 2/127).
Sleep does not remove the duty to make up, for it usually does not exceed a day and a night, lacking the hardship of prolonged unconsciousness (references above).
The Malikis hold that prayer falls away from one whose mind is impaired by madness or fainting, unless the excuse ceases while there remains of the time of the prayer what suffices for one rak'a, after estimating the obtaining of purification by water or by earth; if the remainder does not suffice for a rak'a, the prayer falls away. One whose mind is impaired by unlawful intoxication must pray in all circumstances, as must the sleeper and the distracted: as soon as they come to, prayer is due from them, whether the remaining time suffices for a rak'a together with the needed purification or not, and even if the time has fully elapsed ("al-Sharh al-Kabir" 1/184).
The Shafi'is say: prayer is not due from one whose mind is impaired by madness, fainting, dementia, intoxication or illness, according to the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): "The Pen has been lifted from 3: [...] and the insane until he comes to" (takhrij cited above). The text names the insane, and every case of impairment by a lawful, excusing cause is assimilated to him, whether the period is short or long, unless those causes cease while there remains of the time of the prayer the duration of a takbir at least; for the degree that triggers the obligation encompasses the rak'a and what is less, not reaching what is less than a takbir; however, making up the prayer is recommended for the unconscious, the insane and their like. If the impairment stems from something unlawful, such as drinking an intoxicant or taking a medicine without need, making up becomes due upon recovery, for the mind was impaired by something unlawful and the obligation does not fall away.
The Shafi'is add: as for one distracted from prayer, the sleeper who misses it, and one ignorant of its obligation, performance is not due from them because they bear no duty, but making up is due from them, according to the hadith: "Whoever forgets a prayer or sleeps through it, his expiation is to pray it when he remembers it", reported by Muslim; the ignoramus newly entered into Islam is treated like the distracted and the sleeper ("al-Majmu'" 3/7, "al-Muhadhdhab" 1/51, "Mughni al-Muhtaj" 1/131).
The Hanbalis restrict non-obligation to the insane person who never comes back to his mind, based on the hadith of Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) from the Prophet: "The Pen has been lifted from 3...", for he is not among the people of duty, being like the child; the same applies to the incurable simpleton. One whose mind is veiled by illness, fainting or a lawful medicine owes the 5 prayers, since that does not remove fasting, still less prayer; he is like the sleeper. 'Ammar fainted 3 times, then upon waking said: "Have I prayed?" They said: "You have not prayed for 3 days"; he performed ablution and prayed those 3 prayers (reported by Ibn al-Mundhir in "al-Awsat" 2292 with a very weak chain, and by al-Daraqutni 2/8 in close wording: 'Ammar became unconscious at the dhuhr, asr, maghrib and isha; al-Bayhaqi in "al-Ma'rifa": he woke at midnight and prayed the 4 prayers; al-Shafi'i said: this is not established from 'Ammar, and if it were established it would be interpreted as recommendation). The same is related from Imran ibn Husayn and Samura ibn Jundub with no known opponent, which amounts to a consensus; all the more since fainting is usually brief and guardianship is not established over it, unlike madness.
The same applies to one whose mind is impaired by something unlawful, such as intoxication: he makes up his prayers, his intoxication being a disobedience that cannot justify the lifting of the obligation. The 5 prayers are likewise due from the sleeper, in the sense that he makes them up upon waking, according to the hadith: "Whoever sleeps through a prayer or forgets it..."; were they not due from him during his sleep, making them up would not be due from him, as with the insane person, and the same applies to the distracted ("al-Mughni" 1/503-504, "al-Kafi" 1/93, "Kashshaf al-Qina'" 1/222-224, "al-Mubdi'" 1/300, "Matalib Uli al-Nuha" 1/273).
c. Puberty. The jurists agree that it is a condition among those for prayer to be obligatory: no duty upon the boy or the girl who has not reached puberty, and no makeup required of them after puberty, according to the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): "The Pen has been lifted from 3: the child until he reaches puberty..." (hadith cited above); demanding makeup would be too hard, childhood lasting long, so he has been excused.
The guardian must however order the child to pray at 7 years of age and beat him for abandoning it at 10, according to the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): "Order your children to pray when they are 7 years old, and beat them for leaving it at 10, and separate them in their beds" (sahih hadith: Abu Dawud 495, al-Daraqutni 1/230, al-Bayhaqi 2/229). The majority of scholars, the Hanafis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis, read this command as obligation; the Malikis as recommendation ("Hashiyat Ibn Abidin" 1/234-235, "Ahkam al-Qur'an" by al-Jassas 1/243, "al-Sharh al-Saghir" 1/177, "Hashiyat al-Dasuqi" 1/186, "al-Majmu'" 3/7, "Mughni al-Muhtaj" 1/131, "Kashshaf al-Qina'" 1/225, "al-Mughni" 1/501).
"...your hands up to the elbows, wipe your heads and your feet up to the ankles; if you are in a state of major ritual impurity, purify yourselves"
Surah 5, 6
The foundation also includes the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): "No prayer is accepted without purification, nor charity from what has been unlawfully taken", reported by Muslim. Al-Shirazi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: purity from legal impurity is a condition of the validity of prayer. Al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: this is a matter of consensus, and no prayer is valid without purity, whether by water or by tayammum under its conditions, be it the obligatory prayer, the supererogatory, the funeral prayer or the prostrations of recitation and of gratitude; this is our school, and all the scholars have said so. Ibn Abd al-Barr (may Allah have mercy on him) said: they reached consensus that purity of garments, of water and of the body is among the conditions of prayer ("al-Majmu'" 3/138; "al-Tamhid" 22/242; see "al-Ifsah" 1/139).
c. Covering the awra. The scholars agree that covering the awra is a general obligation (fard wajib) upon the children of Adam, and that no one may pray naked while able to cover his awra with clothing; if he does not cover it while able, his prayer does not suffice him.
They differed: is this covering a condition of prayer or not? The majority, the Hanafis, Shafi'is, Hanbalis and some Malikis, hold that covering the awra is one of the conditions of the prayer's validity, according to Allah's saying: "O children of Adam, wear your adornment at every place of prayer", that is, at every prayer; and according to what Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): "Allah does not accept the prayer of a menstruating woman without a khimar (head covering)" (sahih hadith: Abu Dawud 641, al-Tirmidhi 377, Ibn Majah 655). They also rely on the consensus on invalidating the prayer of one who leaves off his garment while able to cover with it and prays naked.
Imam Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him) however said: if a quarter of a limb, whatever it be, of the light or the serious awra becomes exposed, his prayer is valid; if more becomes exposed, it is not. Al-Karkhi said: if a dirham-sized amount of the 2 private parts becomes exposed, it is invalid; less, it is not ("Radd al-Muhtar" 1/404, "al-Bahr al-Ra'iq" 1/283, "al-'Inaya" 1/424, "Ma'ani al-Athar" 1/376-377).
Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) said: if something slight becomes exposed, his prayer is valid, whether of the light or the serious awra; if it is much, the prayer is invalid, the distinction holding so long as what usually happens is not judged slight ("al-Ifsah" 1/139, 151, 316, "al-Mughni" 2/130, "Kashshaf al-Qina'" 1/263).
Imam al-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) said: if anything of the worshipper's awra becomes uncovered, his prayer is not valid, whether much or little is uncovered, whether the worshipper be a man or a woman, in the presence of people or alone, and whether the prayer be supererogatory, obligatory, the funeral prayer, the tawaf, or the prostrations of recitation and gratitude; for the obligation of covering is established by Aisha's hadith, with no difference between man and woman by agreement, and once covering is established it demands the whole awra: specifying a part is not accepted except with a clear proof ("al-Majmu'" 3/169, "al-Ifsah" 1/139, 151, 316).
The Malikis: the sound position with them is that covering the serious awra is owed with the ability to cover, as a conditional obligation; if he cannot, he prays naked. As for the awra that is not serious, covering it is obligatory without being a condition: if he prays with it exposed, knowingly and deliberately, he is disobedient and sinful, but the obligation has fallen from him. The preferred view is that one who prays with the serious awra exposed forgetfully must always repeat, contrary to the one who treats forgetting as an excuse against repetition.
Al-Qadi Abd al-Wahhab (may Allah have mercy on him) said: our companions differed over covering the awra in prayer. Some say: it is among the conditions of validity together with mentioning Allah and ability; if unable, he prays naked and it suffices him, likewise if he forgets; but if he prays with the awra exposed, knowing he possesses what would cover it and being able, his prayer is void. Others say: it is a prescribed obligation and not among the conditions of validity; if he prays with the awra exposed knowingly and deliberately, he is disobedient and sinful, but the obligation has fallen from him.
The argument of the first view: Allah's saying: "O children of Adam, wear your adornment at every place of prayer; eat and drink, and do not be excessive, for He does not love those who are excessive" (Surah 7, 31), where it was said: clothing in the prayer and the tawaf; and the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): "Pray as you have seen me pray", and he prayed clothed in a garment; and his saying: "Allah does not accept the prayer of a menstruating woman without a khimar"; and the agreement that one is commanded to cover the awra, forbidden to expose it outside prayer, and that its obligation in prayer is confirmed: the view denying it as a condition of validity refutes all this.
The argument of the second view: the saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him): "The prayer of one of you is not complete until he performs ablution as Allah commanded him", up to his saying: "then he faces the qibla and says the takbir"; he informed of that by which the prayer is completed without mentioning the disputed points; and describing something as a condition of some worship or as an obligation among its obligations indicates that it is specific to it, owed along with it, and that its obligation falls with the fall of that to which it is attached, like ablution for prayer, tayammum, the intention, fasting in retreat, ihram in hajj and the rest of the obligations of acts of worship. Now covering the awra is not specific to prayer, since it is owed outside it too: so it is known that it is not one of its conditions. Everything among the obligations of prayer requires, when absent, a substitute that takes its place when unable within the worship, like ablution; and the consensus that one who finds nothing with which to cover his awra and fears the loss of the time may pray naked is a proof that covering is not a condition of prayer and that tayammum does not apply to it: for if unable, he prays only within the time, tayammum being a substitute taking its place, and the time being what is required.
The jurists differed over the limit of a man's awra: is it what lies between the navel and the knee, or only the 2 private parts? The majority of jurists, the Hanafis, Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis in principle, hold that a man's awra is what is between the navel and the knee; a man may therefore look at another man's body except what is between the navel and the knee, except in case of necessity, according to what Imam Ahmad relates in his "Musnad" from Jarhad: the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) saw him with his thigh uncovered and said: "O Jarhad, cover your thigh, for the thigh is awra" (sahih hadith: Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi 2795, al-Bayhaqi in "al-Kubra" 2/228, Ibn Hibban in his "Sahih" 4/609).
"If any one of you marries his female slave to his male slave or his hired worker, he must not look at anything of her awra, for what is below the navel down to the knee is awra"Hasan hadith: reported by Abu Dawud (4113, 4114) and al-Daraqutni (1/230)
This is an explicit text, and the free man and the slave are equal in it, the text embracing both. The Hanbalis however hold, in one report, that the awra is the 2 private parts, according to what Anas ibn Malik (may Allah be pleased with him) relates: "The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), on the day of Khaybar, uncovered his thigh to the extent that I could see the whiteness of the thigh of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)" (reported by Bukhari (364) and Muslim (1365)).
Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) relates: "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) was lying in my house with his 2 thighs or 2 shins uncovered; Abu Bakr asked permission to enter, he granted it, and he remained in that state while talking; then Umar asked permission, he granted it likewise and he talked; then Uthman asked permission..." to the end of the hadith (reported by Muslim (2401)). This indicates that the thigh is not awra, for it is not an outlet of impurity, like the shin; one may therefore look at all of a man except the 2 private parts.
As for the navel, it is permitted to look at it according to the majority, the Hanafis, Malikis and Hanbalis, and it is the sound position among the Shafi'is, though one Shafi'i view makes it awra. The proof is what is related from Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them): when he wore the izar he would expose his navel; and Abu Hurayra said to al-Hasan (may Allah be pleased with him): "show me the place the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) used to kiss of you"; he exposed his navel and Abu Hurayra kissed it; and the evident practice of people, who expose their navels in the bathhouses without anyone disapproving, is a proof that it is not awra. Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) did likewise when clothing himself, and were it awra, his uncovering it would not have been tolerated.
They then differed: may he look at the knee? The Hanafis and the Shafi'is in one view hold that looking at the knee is not permitted, according to the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): "The knee is of the awra" (reported by al-Daraqutni 1/231; in its chain appears Abu al-Junub, declared weak by al-Daraqutni); for the knee is a limb composed of the shin bone and the thigh bone in a manner hard to distinguish, and the thigh is awra while the shin is not: where confusion exists, precaution is required, unlike the navel, which designates a known spot admitting no confusion.
Abu Hanifa said: the whole woman is awra except the face, the 2 hands and the 2 feet; it is even related from him that her 2 feet are awra. The Malikis, the Shafi'is and Ahmad in one report say: the whole woman is awra except her face and her 2 hands. The Hanbalis hold, in the madhhab, that the woman is entirely awra except her face.
Al-Qadi Abd al-Wahhab, the Maliki (may Allah have mercy on him), said: the woman's whole body is awra except her face and her 2 hands, contrary to the one who says she may not uncover her face and hands, namely Ahmad ibn Hanbal, according to Allah's saying: "and not to reveal their adornment except that which appears thereof" (Surah 24, 31), where it was said: the face and the 2 hands; and because uncovering them is required of her in ihram: were it awra, she would not be permitted to uncover it, unlike the rest of her body. She may not uncover the rest of her body, and the prayer does not suffice her with its uncovering according to both views, contrary to Abu Hanifa, who divides the awra into light and serious: the serious is the 2 private parts; if he uncovers more of them than a dirham's size, the prayer is invalid; the light is what goes beyond them: if he uncovers less than a quarter, it is permitted, based on "wear your adornment at every place of prayer" (Surah 7, 31) and "and not to reveal their adornment except that which appears thereof" (Surah 24, 31).
Umm Salama said: "O Messenger of Allah, may a woman pray in a khimar and a loose gown (dir') without an izar (waist wrapper)?" He said: "Yes, if it is ample enough to cover her feet"Weak hadith: reported by Abu Dawud (640)
This is because every limb a quarter of which becomes exposed prevents the prayer's validity, likewise if less than a quarter is exposed, like the serious awra; and because he uncovered of his awra what he could have covered, like the quarter. Their measurement by the quarter and by the dirham's size is a claim they do not grade in detail for one who exceeds it or falls short ("al-Ishraf" 1/302-304, cases no. 218-219).
Imam Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) said: if anything other than her face becomes uncovered from the free woman, she repeats the prayer. There is no school difference over the fact that a woman may uncover her face in prayer and that she may not uncover what goes beyond the face and the 2 hands; concerning the hands there are 2 reports and the scholars differed. Most agree that she may pray with her face uncovered, and the scholars agree that the free woman must cover her head when she prays, and that if she prays with her whole head uncovered, she must repeat.
Abu Hanifa said: the 2 feet are not awra because they usually appear, like the face; and if less than a quarter of a woman's hair, of the quarter of her thigh or of the quarter of her belly becomes uncovered, her prayer is not invalid. Malik, al-Awza'i and al-Shafi'i said: the whole woman is awra except her face and her 2 hands, and the rest must be covered in prayer, for Ibn Abbas said of Allah's saying "and not to reveal their adornment except that which appears thereof" (Surah 24, 31): the face and the 2 hands. Moreover the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade the woman in ihram to wear gloves and the niqab: were the face and hands awra, covering them would not have been forbidden; and need drives to uncovering the face for selling and buying, and the hands for taking and giving.
Some companions (of the Hanbali school) say: the woman is entirely awra, based on the hadith from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): "The woman is awra", reported by al-Tirmidhi who judged it hasan sahih; but a concession was made to her for uncovering her face and 2 hands, covering them being burdensome; and looking at the face was permitted for the marriage proposal, for it is the seat of beauty. Such is the position of Abu Bakr al-Harith ibn Hisham: "the woman is entirely awra down to her fingernail".
The proof of the obligation to cover the 2 feet is what Umm Salama relates: "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) was asked whether a woman may pray in a loose gown (dir') and a khimar without an izar". He said: "If the gown is ample enough to cover her 2 feet" (reported by Abu Dawud, who said: a group stopped it at Umm Salama, i.e. it is their statement); and Ibn Umar relates that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "Allah does not look at one who drags his garment out of vanity". Umm Salama asked: "What then will the women do with their hems?" He said: "Let them let them down a hand-span". She said: "Then their feet will become uncovered". He said: "Then let them let them down a cubit, no more" (reported by al-Tirmidhi, who judged it hasan sahih). This indicates the obligation of covering the 2 feet; and the foot is a place whose uncovering is not permitted in ihram, so it is not permitted in prayer, like the 2 shins. As for their measuring of invalidity by an excess over the quarter of the limb, it is an arbitrary judgment with no proof; measurement is not settled by mere opinion. The obligation of covering the head is established by the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): "Allah does not accept the prayer of a menstruating woman without a khimar", reported by al-Tirmidhi who judged it hasan.
As for the 2 hands, 2 reports were mentioned. The first: their covering is not owed, based on what precedes. The second: it is owed, according to the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): "The woman is awra", a general term except what the proof specifies; and Ibn Abbas's view (face and hands) is contradicted by Abu Hafs, from Abdallah ibn Mas'ud: "and not to reveal except that which appears thereof" (Surah 24, 31) refers to garments. And uncovering the 2 hands is not owed in ihram: what is forbidden there is wearing anything tailored to their size, just as it is forbidden for a man to wear trousers and what he covers his awra with.
Chapter: if something slight is uncovered from the woman other than the face and the 2 hands, I know of no clear, sound view on that. The apparent view of al-Kharqi is that if anything other than her face and hands becomes uncovered from the woman, this entails the invalidity of the prayer even by the uncovering of something slight, for it may be attributed to the much, as we established for the man's awra, where the slight is excused; and guarding against the slight is burdensome, so it is excused by analogy to the slight of the man's awra. Chapter: it is disliked for a woman to veil her face while praying, for the face is the place of contact with what one prostrates to, by her forehead and nose, like the covering of the mouth for a man, which the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade. Ibn Abd al-Barr said: they reached consensus that the woman uncovers her face in prayer and in ihram.
Chapter: the prayer of the slave woman with uncovered head is valid, and I know of no dissent except al-Hasan: he alone among the scholars made the khimar obligatory upon the slave woman when she marries or when a man takes her for himself; he recommended veiling for her in prayer. This is because Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) beat a freedwoman of the family of Anas whom he saw veiled and said: "Undo your head, and do not resemble the free women"; this shows the custom was well known among the Companions without being rebuked, Umar rebuking the contrary; and Abu Qilaba said: Umar ibn al-Khattab never allowed, during his caliphate, a freedwoman to veil herself, "for veiling is only for free women" ("al-Mughni" 2/155-158).
d. Facing the qibla. The jurists agree that facing the qibla, with ability, is one of the conditions of the prayer's validity, according to Allah's saying: "So turn your face toward the Sacred Mosque; and wherever you are, turn your faces toward it" (Surah 2, 144), that is, toward its direction, as the Arabs say of a people "they share with us", when their houses face theirs.
Al-Bara' ibn 'Azib (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), upon first arriving in Medina, stayed with his forefathers, or rather his maternal uncles, among the Ansar; he prayed toward Bayt al-Maqdis (Jerusalem) for 16 or 17 months, and the first prayer he offered was the asr; a group prayed with him, then a man who had prayed with him passed by the congregation of a mosque who were bowing and said: I bear witness by Allah that I prayed with the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) facing Mecca; so they turned, as they were, toward the House"Reported by Bukhari (40/4216)
The linguists say: the origin of "qibla" is direction; the Kaaba was named qibla because the worshipper faces it and it faces him ("al-Durr al-Mukhtar" 1/427, "Ma'ani al-Athar" 1/378, "al-Bahr al-Ra'iq" 1/299, "al-Sharh al-Kabir" 1/222, "al-Majmu'" 3/189-191, "Fath al-Bari" 1/553, "al-Mughni" 1/545, "al-Insaf" 2/3, "al-Ifsah" 1/151).
The jurists agree that knowing that the time of prayer has entered is one of the conditions of the prayer's validity, according to Allah's saying: "Indeed, prayer has been decreed upon the believers at specified times" (Surah 4, 103), that is, an obligation bound to precise moments: it is not permitted to perform the obligation before its time; and according to Allah's saying: "Establish prayer at the decline of the sun until the darkness of the night and the Quran of dawn; indeed, the recitation of dawn is ever witnessed" (Surah 17, 78); and according to the hadith of Jibril mentioned earlier concerning the times.
They then differed over the validity of a prayer performed on the basis of a strong presumption. Abu Hanifa, al-Shafi'i and Ahmad say: the prayer is valid as such; if one discovers it was offered before the time, one makes it up. Malik said: the prayer is not valid except with entering into it together with certainty that its time has entered ("al-Mabsut" 1/148, "Ma'ani al-Athar" 1/338, Ibn Abidin 1/370, "al-Tamhid" 7/81, "al-Istidhkar" 1/418, "al-Taj wa-l-Iklil" 1/405, al-Dasuqi 1/201, "Bulghat al-Salik" 1/152, 269, "al-Awsat" 2/384, "Kifayat al-Akhyar" 133, "Kashshaf al-Qina'" 1/248, "Matalib Uli al-Nuha" 1/306, "al-Ifsah" 1/151).
The Hanafis added a fourth category, the etiquettes (adab): what the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) did once or twice without persisting in it, such as the addition in the glorifications of the bowing and the prostration (Ibn Abidin 1/456, 477, "Kashshaf al-Qina'" 1/385, "Matalib Uli al-Nuha" 1/493, "Manar al-Sabil" 1/100, 108). As for the Malikis and the Shafi'is, they divided the words and acts of prayer into pillars and sunnas, in general terms, and the Malikis added the virtues (recommended acts).
The sunnas according to the Shafi'is are of 2 sorts: the parts (ab'ad), sunnas compensated by the prostration of forgetfulness whether the worshipper omits them deliberately or forgetfully; they are so named for the certainty of their rank through compensation, by likeness to real parts. And the forms (hay'at): the sunnas that are not compensated by the prostration of forgetfulness ("al-Sharh al-Saghir" 1/201, 211, "Hashiyat al-Dasuqi" 1/231 ff., "Mughni al-Muhtaj" 1/148, "Sharh Rawd al-Talib" 1/140, "Kifayat al-Akhyar" 142, 155).
The pillars of prayer according to the jurists: 1. The intention. The intention is the resolve to perform the act of worship seeking nearness to Allah; there is no divergence among the jurists of the umma that it is an obligation among those of prayer and that prayer is not contracted without it; Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Nawawi, Ibn Qudama, Ibn Hubayra and many others transmitted the consensus that the prayer is invalid without an intention, according to Allah's saying: "And they were not commanded except to worship Allah, being sincere to Him in religion" (Surah 98, 5), sincerity being a work of the heart, the intention and the willing of Allah alone; and according to the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): "Deeds are only by intentions" (reported by Bukhari (1) and Muslim (155)). The meaning of intention is purpose (al-qasd).
Imam Ibn al-Mundhir (may Allah have mercy on him) said: all those whose statements are preserved among the scholars agree that the prayer does not suffice without an intention. They differed over the time when the intention must be formed: al-Shafi'i used to say: "it occurs with the takbir: it neither precedes the takbir nor comes after it". It is related from al-Nu'man (Abu Hanifa): if he says the takbir without an intention, except that the intention preceded it, the prayer is valid. Abu Bakr (al-Sayrafi) said: I hold al-Shafi'i's statement, for it concords with the Sunna ("al-Ishraf" 2/5, "al-Ijma'" 42).
The intention requires specifying the obligation and the kind of prayer: is it the dhuhr or the asr? ("Radd al-Muhtar" 1/414-415, "Ma'ani al-Athar" 1/409, "Hashiyat al-Dasuqi" 1/233, "al-Sharh al-Saghir" 1/202, "al-Majmu'" 3/323, "Mughni al-Muhtaj" 1/148, "Kifayat al-Akhyar" 142, "al-Mughni" 2/13, "Kashshaf al-Qina'" 1/313, "al-Ifsah" 1/152-153). For the worshipper is either alone, an imam, or a follower. If he is alone and prays a supererogatory prayer, the intention of praying for Allah suffices him, for the supererogatory prayer has no added attribute over the root of prayer requiring a specific intention: it becomes for Allah through the general intention of prayer; this is why the supererogatory fast outside Ramadan is performed with the general intention. If he prays an obligatory prayer, the general intention of prayer does not suffice him, since being obligatory is an attribute added to the root of prayer: he must intend it, intending the obligation of the time or the dhuhr of the time; the intention of an undefined obligation does not suffice, for the other obligatory prayers are lawful in that time, hence the need for specification. Likewise the Friday prayer, the 2 'Id prayers, the funeral prayer and the witr, specification being attained thereby. If he is an imam, the answer is the same ("Ma'ani al-Athar" 1/410).
The Shafi'is in the soundest view, and the Hanbalis, say: specifying whether the prayer is present or a makeup is not required: if he prays under cloud cover and discovers after the time that it had passed, his prayer is valid, he having intended it as performance ("Rawdat al-Talibin" 1/226, "Manar al-Sabil" 1/190).
2. The opening takbir. It is the worshipper's utterance opening the prayer: "Allah is the greatest", or any remembrance by which one enters into prayer according to the Law ("al-Ta'rifat al-Fiqhiyya" by al-Barakti al-Majaddadi 235, "Tuhfat al-Fuqaha" 1/275, "al-Bunaya" 2/121). The takbir by which one enters the prayer is called the takbir of ihram because it makes forbidden the permissible things that conflict with prayer ("al-Tahtawi 'ala al-Durr" 1/22, "Nihayat al-Muhtaj" 1/439, "Kashshaf al-Qina'" 1/330). The Hanafis mostly call it the takbir of opening or the sacralizing takbir; sacralization being the act of making something unlawful, the ha' affirming the noun. The wisdom of opening the prayer with the takbir is to alert the worshipper to the greatness of the One before whom he stands to worship Him, described by every perfection, all besides Him being lowly; He is too great to have a likeness among perishable creation: the heart submits, the limbs humble themselves, the heart is emptied of others and filled with lights ("al-Futuhat al-Rabbaniyya" 2/157, "Kashshaf al-Qina'" 1/330).
The 4 imams agree that the takbirat al-ihram is an obligation among the obligations of prayer and a pillar of its pillars, without which the prayer is not valid, according to his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): "The key of prayer is purity; its sacralization is the takbir; its desacralization is the salam" (sahih hadith: Abu Dawud 61, 618; al-Tirmidhi 3; Ibn Majah 275). In the 2 "Sahih"s, concerning the man who had done poorly in his prayer: "When you rise to pray, perform ablution well, then face the qibla and say the takbir" (reported by Bukhari (5897) and Muslim (397)).
Al-Nawawi said: it is among the finest of proofs, for the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) mentioned in this hadith only the obligatory ("al-Bunaya" 2/109-110, Ibn Abidin 1/437, "al-Tamhid" 9/185, "Bidayat al-Mujtahid" 1/174, "Mukhtasar Khalil" 1/28, "Tafsir al-Qurtubi" 1/175, "Fath al-Bari" 2/217, "al-Majmu'" 3/240, "Kifayat al-Akhyar" 145, "al-Mughni" 2/10, "Kashshaf al-Qina'" 1/330, "al-Ifsah" 1/152-153). We have shown that the intention is an obligation of prayer, and there is no divergence among the jurists on the preference of pairing the takbirat al-ihram with the intention. Al-Qurtubi said: the umma agreed on the obligation of the intention at the takbirat al-ihram, but the jurists differed on the validity of preceding the takbir with the intention ("Tafsir al-Qurtubi" 1/176).
The Hanafis, the Hanbalis and the Malikis in one of the 2 views hold the validity of preceding the takbir with the intention in general: if he forms the intention, during ablution, of praying the dhuhr, without then engaging in an act showing disregard, such as eating, drinking or talking, then arrives at the place of prayer without the intention being present, his prayer is valid by the prior intention; for prayer is an act of worship whose intention may precede it, like fasting, and preceding the act with the intention does not remove the doer from balance nor from sincerity, as with fasting and zakat handed to his agent, like other acts during worship. This is what the Hanafis call legal pairing (al-muqarana al-hukmiyya).
The Shafi'is and the Malikis in the second view hold the obligation of pairing the takbir with the intention, according to Allah's saying: "And they were not commanded except to worship Allah, being sincere to Him in religion" (Surah 98, 5), "being sincere" being a state at the time of worship, state describing the doer's condition at the moment of the act, and sincerity being the intention; and according to the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): "Deeds are only by intentions". The intention is a condition from which the worship must not be empty, like the other conditions.
Al-Qadi Abd al-Wahhab (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the intention of prayer must accompany the takbirat al-ihram, whether he begins it with the takbir or preceded with it and kept it in mind until he said the takbir; but if he forms the intention then forgets until the takbir, it does not suffice him, contrary to Abu Hanifa: if his intention has strayed a little before the takbir, it suffices him, for it is a takbir devoid of the pairing of the intention, like one distanced by distance and divorced from ablution, prayer being in this stricter still ("al-Ishraf" 1/243, case no. 165). Al-Nawawi, following Imam al-Haramayn and al-Ghazali, chose to be content with customary pairing for ordinary people: he is counted as ready for prayer, imitating the early generations in their leniency in this.
If the intention comes after the takbirat al-ihram, the takbir does not suffice and the prayer is void, for prayer is an act of worship that does not divide; were the delay of the intention allowed, there would follow a portion without the intention of worship and a portion with it, which would entail division: this is what the Hanafis and Malikis said ("al-Ikhtiyar" 1/47-48, "Maraqi al-Falah" 118, "al-Bahr al-Ra'iq" 1/292, "al-Qawanin" 42, "Hashiyat al-Adawi" 1/277, "Mughni al-Muhtaj" 1/152, "al-Mughni" 2/16, "al-Ifsah" 1/153, "Mukhtasar al-Fatawa al-Misriyya" 1/9, "I'anat al-Talibin" 1/178).
3. Standing. The jurists agree that standing in the obligatory prayer is an obligation upon one who is able, and that whoever violates it while able has an invalid prayer, according to Allah's saying: "And stand before Allah, devoutly obedient" (Surah 2, 238), and the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to Imran ibn Husayn: "Pray standing; if you cannot, then sitting; if you cannot, then on your side" (reported by Bukhari (1066)); al-Nawawi and others transmitted consensus on this. Ibn Abd al-Barr (may Allah have mercy on him) said: there is no divergence among the scholars: one who prays an obligation sitting while able to stand is not sufficed by that, standing being an obligation upon everyone able, and likewise the bowing and the prostration ("al-Tamhid" 10/190).
They also agree that one unable to stand prays sitting, based on Imran's hadith cited earlier ("al-Majmu'" 3/228-229 and 4/266, "Kifayat al-Akhyar" 144, "Ma'ani al-Athar" 1/342, "al-Sharh al-Saghir" 1/204, "al-Sharh al-Kabir" with "al-Mughni" 1/474, "Kashshaf al-Qina'" 1/385, "al-Ifsah" 1/152), Allah's saying: "Allah does not charge a soul except according to its capacity" (Surah 2, 286), and what Anas (may Allah be pleased with him) relates: "The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) fell from a horse and bruised his right side; we entered upon him to nurse him; the time of prayer came and he led us in prayer sitting, and we prayed behind him sitting" (reported by Bukhari (1063)).
The Shafi'is say: standing requires erectness: if he bends to near the limit of bowing, his prayer is not valid. If he can stand only with a helper and is not harmed by standing, he must seek one who raises him; if he finds no volunteer, he must hire him at a fair wage if he finds one. If he can stand without the bowing and prostration due to a back ailment, he must do so, being able to stand. If standing requires a support such that, were it removed, he would fall, his prayer is valid with disapproval. One who cannot be erect and is at the rank of the bowing, like the hunchback from age or illness, must stand in that state, increasing the bend for the ritual bowing if able ("Mughni al-Muhtaj" 1/153, "Kifayat al-Akhyar" 144).
The Hanbalis say: if standing is possible for him but he fears interrupting his recovery or worsening his illness, or it causes him extreme hardship, he may pray sitting; Malik said so, based on Allah's saying: "He has not placed upon you in the religion any difficulty" (Surah 22, 78), and because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) prayed sitting when his side was bruised; the apparent is that one whose side is bruised is not totally unable to stand. If he can stand by leaning on a staff, against a wall, or on one of his 2 sides, he must do so, for he is able to stand without harm; likewise if he can stand but in the posture of one bowing, like the hunchback: he must do so, for it is a like standing; and if he can, during the prayer, move to the sitting position, he moves to it and completes it.
If he can stand but cannot bow or prostrate, he gestures the bowing or the prostration: gesturing the bowing standing and the prostration sitting; this is also al-Shafi'i's view. Abu Hanifa said: standing falls from him ("al-Sharh al-Kabir" with "al-Mughni" 2/474-477). The Malikis divide the pillar of standing into 2: the standing of the takbirat al-ihram and the standing for reciting al-Fatiha; the standing intended is independent standing: saying the takbirat al-ihram sitting or bent, or standing supported by a post, does not suffice in the obligatory for one able to stand, such support being one whose removal would make the standing fall ("Hashiyat al-Dasuqi" 1/231, "al-Sharh al-Saghir" 1/204).
The Hanafis say: standing is a pillar that falls from one truly or legally unable. Legal inability: severe pain, fear of worsening his wound by standing, the dripping of his urine, the exposure of a quarter of his awra, or being too weak to read anything at all; if he can read something while standing, he must read to the extent of his ability, the rest sitting. Or the fast of Ramadan: were he to fast Ramadan, he would pray sitting; were he to break the fast, he would pray standing: so he must fast and pray sitting, sitting becoming necessary by his legal inability to stand, since standing would entail the loss of purity, covering, recitation or fasting, by consensus ("al-Bahr al-Ra'iq" 2/121, Ibn Abidin 2/96).
However, the Hanafis also say: one who can stand but cannot bow or prostrate: standing falls from him. Imam al-Kasani (may Allah have mercy on him) said: if he can stand without bowing and prostrating, he prays sitting by gesture; and if he prays standing by gesture, it suffices him, though it is not recommended for him. Zufr and al-Shafi'i say: it does not suffice him, unless he prays standing; they argue from what we relate from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to Imran ibn Husayn: "if you cannot, then sitting", sitting being conditioned on the inability to stand, and there is none here; and standing is a pillar not abandoned with ability, as if he were able to stand, bow and prostrate. Gesturing in the standing state is lawful in general, as when a man is in mud and mire, walking, or in fear of the enemy, walking: he prays standing by gesture; the same applies here.
Our answer: usually, one unable to bow and prostrate is more unable to stand, for rising from sitting to standing is harder than bending from standing to bowing; and the usual is treated as the certain in rulings, so he is as if unable for both; yet if he prays standing it is valid, for he undertook an act not required of him, as if he undertook the bowing: valid though not owed. Prostration is the root, the other pillars being like its followers: this is why prostration is counted without standing, as the prostration of recitation, whereas standing is not counted without prostration, nor even legislated without it; when the root falls, the follower necessarily falls. This is why bowing fell from one from whom prostration fell, though he was able to bow, bowing being at the rank of a follower; the same applies to standing, even more so, bowing expressing more than standing the magnification and the servility of the worshipper. If then he undertakes to pray standing, it is valid as said, but not recommended, for standing without prostration is not legislated, unlike the case where he is able to stand, bow and prostrate: the root has not fallen from him, nor its follower ("Bada'i' al-Sana'i'" 1/106-108).
As for the hadith, we act by it: inability is a condition, but it is present here considering the usual; for the usual in this state is inability, ability being extremely rare, and the rare is treated as the non-existent. The sick person differs from the healthy only in what he cannot do: in what he can, he is like the healthy, for the distinction is grounded in the excuse and measured by it; thus if he prays before the time, without ablution or recitation, deliberately or by mistake, while able, it does not suffice him; and if unable, he gestures without recitation, for recitation is a pillar that falls with inability, like standing. Do you not see that it fell from the illiterate? Likewise, if he prays deliberately other than toward the qibla, it does not suffice him; by mistake it suffices him, the qibla having become confused for him with no one present to ask: he investigated, prayed, then realized his error, as with the healthy. And if the sick man faces other than the qibla and finds no one to turn him nor can do it himself, he prays as he is, for he lacks the ability; whether he repeats it upon healing, it is related from Muhammad ibn Muqatil al-Razi that he repeats it. According to the apparent of the answer, no repetition is due from him, for inability over attaining the conditions is not greater than inability over attaining the pillars, where repetition is not due: all the more here. If he has a wound on his forehead preventing prostration upon it, gesturing does not suffice him: prostration is on the nose, the nose being a mosque like the forehead, especially in necessity; since he can prostrate upon it, gesturing does not suffice him. If he is unable to gesture, which is the movement of the head, nothing is required of him in our view.
Zufr said: he gestures first with the eyebrows; if unable, with the 2 eyes; if unable, with his heart. Al-Hasan ibn Ziyad said: he gestures with his eyes and his eyebrows, not with his heart. Zufr's argument: prayer is a standing obligation that falls only by inability; what one is unable for falls, what one can is required to the extent of ability: if the eyebrows can, gesturing with them is more fitting, being closest to the head; if he is then unable, he gestures with his eyes, apparent limbs, the whole body having a share in this worship; then the heart, which also has a share in the worship in general, through the intention: do you not see that the intention is its condition of validity? At inability, the requirement passes to it. Al-Hasan's argument: the pillars of prayer are performed by the apparent limbs; the inward has no share in the pillars but in the condition, the intention, which also stands during gesturing: so the pillars and the condition are not all performed by it.
We answer: what Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them) relates: the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said concerning the sick man: "If he cannot (pray) sitting, then lying on his back he gestures; if he cannot, Allah is more apt to accept the excuse". The Prophet informed that he is excused before Allah in this state; were gesturing owed to him as you say, he would not be excused; and gesturing is not a real prayer, which is why the supererogatory by gesture is not permitted in a situation of choice: were it a prayer, it would be permitted, like the supererogatory sitting; the Law only established it as prayer's substitute, and the Law came only with the gesture of the head: nothing else takes its place. So when prayer has fallen from him by the ruling of inability, if he dies of that illness, he meets Allah with nothing due from him, not having reached the time of making up ("Bada'i' al-Sana'i'" 1/106-108).
Al-Qadi Abd al-Wahhab (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the sick man able to stand but unable to bow stands and gestures the bowing; it is not permitted for him to abandon standing after the bowing, contrary to Abu Hanifa who gave the choice of praying standing or sitting. Our proof is his saying (peace and blessings be upon him) to a sick man he visited: "Pray standing; if you cannot, then sitting": sitting being conditioned on the inability to stand, it is therefore not permitted with ability; and standing is a pillar of prayer not abandoned for the inability of something else, like recitation; one able to stand in the obligatory is like one able to bow; the substitute exists only for inability of what it replaces, not with the inability of something else.
Issue: the one unable to stand who begins the prayer sitting, then gains ability, must stand and build upon what preceded, contrary to Muhammad ibn al-Hasan: his prayer is void, for he was able to stand at the point of standing and had to rise and build; and the original rule: one able to stand who sits for the first tashahhud and completes it rises and builds upon his prayer, for what preceded of his prayer was valid according to his ability; his prayer must therefore not become void by the change of his state, like one able to stand who becomes unable in the course of the prayer and sits ("al-Ishraf" 1/365-366, cases no. 280-281). The pillar of standing is specific to the obligatory prayer, not the supererogatory, according to the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): "Whoever prays standing, that is better; whoever prays sitting has half the reward of the one standing; whoever prays lying down has half the reward of the one sitting" (reported by Bukhari (1064)).
It was stated earlier that standing is a pillar of prayer; the scholars however differed over the worshipper on a ship: is he permitted to leave standing while able, or not? The 3 imams Malik, al-Shafi'i and Ahmad, and the 2 companions among the Hanafis, hold that he may not leave standing there, except for inability, according to the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): "if you cannot, then sitting": yet this one is able to stand.
It is related that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was asked about prayer in a ship and said: "Pray in it standing, unless you fear drowning"Sahih hadith: reported by al-Daraqutni (1/395), al-Bayhaqi in "al-Kubra" (3/155) and al-Hakim (1/409), who authenticated it and al-Dhahabi concurred; also authenticated by al-Albani in "Sifat salat al-Nabi" (69), who added: the ruling of prayer on a plane is like that of the ship: pray standing if able, otherwise sitting, gesturing the bowing and the prostration; all the more if one fears the loss of the time
For standing is a pillar in prayer that falls only by an excuse, and there is none here. Imam Abu Hanifa said: if the ship is moving, he may pray sitting if he wishes; if it is moored to the shore, he does not pray sitting except for inability, for the rotation of the head in it is usual, and the usual is like the certain, established in its place, as travel was established in place of hardship, and sleep in place of impurity; standing remains preferable however, farther from the suspicion of divergence, and leaving the ship is preferable, for the heart is freer there ("al-Hidaya" 1/78, "al-'Inaya" 2/236, Ibn Abidin 1/445 and 2/101, "Ma'ani al-Athar" 1/355-356, "Hashiyat al-Tahtawi" 1/268, "Mukhtasar ikhtilaf al-'ulama" by al-Tahawi 1/354, "Tuhfat al-Fuqaha" 1/156, "al-Bahr al-Ra'iq" 2/126, "Fath al-Bari" 1/489, "'Umdat al-Qari" 4/109, "al-Ifsah" 1/152-153, "al-Mughni" 2/477, "Mawahib al-Jalil" 2/516, "al-Insaf" 2/311).