Islamic Fiqh > Prayer > The pillars and conditions of prayer > Conditions of the obligation of prayer
Contents
Updated on 24 September 2026 at 7:46 PM
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 two 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 four 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 three: 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 five 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 three: [...] 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 three...", 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 five prayers, since that does not remove fasting, still less prayer; he is like the sleeper. 'Ammar fainted three times, then upon waking said: "Have I prayed?" They said: "You have not prayed for three days"; he performed ablution and prayed those three 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 four 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 five 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 three: 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 seven years of age and beat him for abandoning it at ten, according to the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): "Order your children to pray when they are seven years old, and beat them for leaving it at ten, 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 two 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 two 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 two 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 two thighs or two 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 two 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 two hands and the two feet; it is even related from him that her two feet are awra. The Malikis, the Shafi'is and Ahmad in one report say: the whole woman is awra except her face and her two 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 two 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 two 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 two 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 two hands; concerning the hands there are two 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 two 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 two 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 two 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 two 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 two 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 two 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 two feet; and the foot is a place whose uncovering is not permitted in ihram, so it is not permitted in prayer, like the two 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 two hands, two 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 two 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 two 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 sixteen or seventeen 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 two 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 two '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 four 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 two "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 two 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 two 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 two: 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 two 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 three imams Malik, al-Shafi'i and Ahmad, and the two 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).
4. The recitation of al-Fatiha. The jurists differed over its ruling in prayer for the imam and the one praying alone: is it a pillar and an obligation among the obligations of prayer, whose omission invalidates the prayer? An obligation that falls if omitted forgetfully, with repetition due if omitted deliberately? Or a sunna that may be left? These are the two views of the scholars.
The first view is that of the majority of jurists: the Malikis in the madhhab, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis in principle, hold that reciting al-Fatiha is a pillar of prayer: whoever leaves it while able has an invalid prayer, according to the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): "There is no prayer for one who does not recite the opening of the Book" (reported by Bukhari (756) and Muslim (394)).
From al-'Ala' ibn Abd al-Rahman, from his father, from Abu Hurayra (may Allah be pleased with him): the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "Whoever prays a prayer without reciting in it the Mother of the Book, it is deficient", three times, "incomplete". It was said to Abu Hurayra: "We are sometimes behind the imam". He said: "Recite it to yourself, for I heard the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) say: Allah said: I have divided the prayer between Me and My servant in two halves, and My servant shall have what he asks. When the servant says: 'Praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds', Allah says: 'My servant has praised Me'. When he says: 'the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful', Allah says: 'My servant has extolled Me'. When he says: 'Master of the Day of Judgment', Allah says: 'My servant has glorified Me', and once: 'My servant has entrusted his affair to Me'. When he says: 'You alone we worship and You alone we ask for help', He says: 'This is between Me and My servant, and My servant shall have what he asks'. When he says: 'Guide us along the straight path, the path of those You have favored, not of those who earned anger, nor of those astray', He says: 'This is for My servant, and My servant shall have what he asks'"Reported by Muslim (395)
In another wording, from al-'Ala' ibn Abd al-Rahman, from his father, from Abu Hurayra (may Allah be pleased with him): the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "A prayer is not sufficient in which the opening of the Book is not recited". I said: "What if I am behind the imam?" He took my hand and said: "Recite it to yourself, O Persian"Sahih hadith: reported by Ibn Khuzayma in his "Sahih" (490), Ibn Hibban in his "Sahih" (1789) and al-Daraqutni (1238)
And according to the hadith of Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (may Allah be pleased with him): "We were commanded to recite the opening of the Book and what one can of it" (sahih hadith: Abu Dawud 818, Ahmad 3/45 and 97, Ibn Hibban in his "Sahih" 5/92; al-Hafiz said in "al-Fath" 2/284: its chain is strong).
The scholars said: all these traditions indicate the obligation of reciting al-Fatiha in prayer. His saying (peace and blessings be upon him): "There is no prayer for one who does not recite the opening of the Book" indicates the negation of validity; and his saying: "it is deficient", three times, indicates defect and corruption: the recitation of al-Fatiha is thus a condition of the prayer's validity. His saying: "A prayer is not sufficient in which the opening of the Book is not recited" shows that the meaning of "it is deficient" is a defect with which the prayer does not suffice, not a defect with which it would be valid. And Allah's saying in the sacred hadith: "I have divided the prayer between Me and My servant" expresses the recitation of the opening of the Book by the word "prayer", which shows it is among its obligations, as He expressed the dawn prayer by "the Quran of dawn" (Surah 17, 78) and the bowing by "bow with those who bow" (Surah 2, 43), showing it is among its obligations. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) further said to the man who had done poorly in his prayer: "When you face the qibla, say Allah Akbar, then recite the Mother of the Book, then recite what you wish, or what Allah wishes you to recite..." to the end of the hadith (hasan hadith: Abu Dawud 859, Ahmad in "al-Musnad" 4/340, al-Shafi'i in his "Musnad" 1/34, Ibn Hibban in his "Sahih" 5/88). It is among the finest of proofs, for the Prophet mentioned in it only the obligatory ("al-Tamhid" 20/192, "al-Ishraf" 1/253-254 no. 174, "al-Taj wa-l-Iklil" 1/518, "Tafsir al-Qurtubi" 1/117, "Ahkam al-Qur'an" by Ibn al-Arabi 1/6 and 2/365, "al-Sharh al-Saghir" 1/206, "al-Awsat" 3/99-101, "al-Majmu'" 3/273, "Kifayat al-Akhyar" 147, "al-Mughni" 2/24, "al-Ifsah" 1/164, "Fath al-Bari" 2/283).
The second view is that of the Hanafis, Imam Malik and Ahmad in a report from them: the prayer suffices without the opening of the Book with sin; the prayer of one who omits it deliberately is not void, and if he forgets, the prostration of forgetfulness is due from him. The Hanafis ranked the recitation of al-Fatiha among the obligations of prayer, established by the solitary report added to Allah's saying: "So recite what you can of the Quran" (Surah 73, 20); the addition, though not permitted, must be acted upon, hence their view of its obligation. Al-Fatiha and the rest of the Quran are equal in rulings, thus in prayer. Allah's saying: "So recite what you can of the Quran" indicates that it is obligatory to recite what one can of the Quran, the verse being revealed concerning recitation in prayer, as shown by what follows: "Indeed, your Lord knows that you stand nearly two thirds of the night" up to "So recite what you can of the Quran" (Surah 73, 20); the umma does not differ that this concerns the night prayer, and with us it is general: the night prayer and other supererogatory and obligatory prayers, by the generality of the wording.
As for the hadith of Ubada: "There is no prayer for one who does not recite the opening of the Book", they interpreted it as negating perfection, not reality: its meaning with them is "no complete prayer for one who does not recite the opening of the Book"; hence their position: the prayer is valid with disapproval. As for the hadith of Abu Hurayra: "it is deficient, it is deficient...", they find in it what supports them, for the deficient denotes the deficient one, which indicates validity with deficiency: were it not valid, it would not have been called deficient, for naming a thing deficient refutes its invalidity; one does not describe a defect in a void thing from which nothing is established. Do you not see that a she-camel that never conceived is not said to have miscarried; it is only said of one that delivered an incomplete offspring or before full term: the one that never conceived is not described as deficient. The validity of prayer without the opening of the Book is thereby established, deficiency not negating the root, but rather presupposing the root for the description of deficiency to be sound. Abbad ibn Abdallah ibn al-Zubayr also related from Aisha, from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): "Every prayer without the recitation of the opening of the Book is deficient": he established it as deficient, and establishing deficiency presupposes the root. And it is related from the Prophet: "A man prays and there is written for him half of it, a fifth or a tenth": he did not invalidate a part by deficiency.
Moreover, the sahih hadith in the two "Sahih"s, concerning the man who had done poorly in his prayer, from Abu Hurayra (may Allah be pleased with him): the Messenger of Allah entered the mosque, a man entered, prayed, then came and greeted the Messenger of Allah; he returned the greeting and said: "Go back and pray, for you have not prayed". The man went back and prayed as he had prayed, then came and greeted him; the Messenger of Allah said: "And upon you be peace", then: "Go back and pray, for you have not prayed"; this three times. The man said: "By Him who sent you with the truth, I can do no better; teach me". He said: "When you rise to pray, say Allah Akbar, then recite what you can of the Quran, then bow until you are calm in bowing, then rise until you stand upright, then prostrate until you are calm in prostration, then rise until you are sitting calmly, then do that in all your prayer" (reported by Bukhari (724) and Muslim (397)). His saying: "then recite what you can of the Quran" belongs to the moment of explanation: had al-Fatiha been obligatory, he would have mentioned it; what is related as "then recite the opening of the Book" is unknown, the famous being what we set out; even were it established, it would imply nothing, for he may have mentioned both commands, making one obligatory and the other sunna ("Ma'ani al-Athar" 1/362, 503, "al-Tajrid" by al-Quduri 1/485, 490, "al-Mabsut" 1/19, "Bada'i' al-Sana'i'" 1/111, 160, "al-Bahr al-Ra'iq" 1/312-313, al-Tahtawi 1/165, "Tabyin al-Haqa'iq" 1/109, "Ahkam al-Qur'an" by al-Jassas 1/18, 25, "'Umdat al-Qari" 6/18). Khalil said in the commentary of the "Mukhtasar" of Ibn al-Hajib: its being an obligation in general is the transmitted text; and Ibn Ziyad said of one who prays without reciting: no repetition is due from him, al-Waqidi relating it from Malik; al-Maziri likewise transmits from Ibn Shablon the falling away of the obligation of al-Fatiha absolutely, "for it is attributed to the imam, and the imam is not attributed an obligation" ("al-Tawdih fi sharh Mukhtasar Ibn al-Hajib" 1/335-336).
The jurists differed over the obligation of reciting al-Fatiha in every rak'a: must he recite it in every rak'a, or does it suffice in two rak'as of a four-rak'a prayer? The Malikis in the madhhab, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis hold that it is obligatory upon the imam and the one praying alone in every rak'a of the five prayers without restriction, based on the hadith of the man who had done poorly in his prayer: "then do that in all your prayer" (sahih hadith cited earlier), and in a report: "then do that in every rak'a" (reported by Ibn Hibban in his "Sahih" 1787); he taught him therein to recite the Mother of the Book. And according to Abu Qatada (may Allah be pleased with him): the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) "used to recite in the first two rak'as of the dhuhr and the asr the opening of the Book and a surah, sometimes making us hear the verse, and he recited in the last two rak'as the opening of the Book" (reported by Muslim (451)). And the Prophet said: "Pray as you have seen me pray", agreed upon. And Allah's saying in the sacred hadith: "I have divided the prayer between Me and My servant..." (reported by Muslim (395)). The scholars said: the "prayer" intended here is al-Fatiha, so named because the prayer is not valid without it ("al-Ishraf" 1/258 no. 177, "Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil" 1/269, "Tathbir al-Mukhtasar" 1/285, "al-Majmu'" 3/307-308, "Sharh Muslim" 4/103, "al-Mughni" 2/23, "al-Ifsah" 1/161).
The Hanafis hold that the recitation of al-Fatiha is due neither to the imam nor to the one praying alone except in two rak'as of the four-rak'a prayers and of the maghrib, unspecified: whether the first two, the last two, or one of each; it is however preferable that the recitation be in the first two. As for the two rak'as of the dawn prayer, recitation is obligatory in them, according to Allah's saying: "So recite what you can of it" (Surah 73, 20), and according to the hadith of Abdallah ibn Ubaydallah: "I visited Ibn Abbas with some young men of Banu Hashim; we said to one of our youths: ask Ibn Abbas whether the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) used to recite (aloud) at the dhuhr and the asr. He replied: no, no. It was said to him: perhaps he recited to himself. He said: far be it, that is even graver than the first answer; he was a servant under command, who conveyed what he was sent with, and he singled us out from the rest of people by nothing except three traits: the command to perform ablution fully, the prohibition of consuming charity, and the prohibition of mating the donkey with the horse" (sahih hadith: reported by Abu Dawud 808). And from Ikrima, from Ibn Abbas: "I do not know whether the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) recited at the dhuhr and the asr" (reported by Abu Dawud 809 and Ahmad 1/249, 257). And according to Ubada: the Messenger of Allah said: "There is no prayer for one who does not recite the Mother of the Book", which implies no more than once.
Imam al-Kasani (may Allah have mercy on him) said: in the last two rak'as it is preferable to recite the opening of the Book; if he glorifies Allah three times in each rak'a in place of al-Fatiha, or remains silent, his prayer suffices him, with no sin if deliberate, and no forgetfulness if forgetful; thus Abu Yusuf related from Abu Hanifa that he has the choice between reciting al-Fatiha, glorifying and silence: such is the answer of the apparent report (zahir al-riwaya), the view of Abu Yusuf and Muhammad ("Ma'ani al-Athar" 1/361-362, Ibn Abidin 1/511, "Tuhfat al-Fuqaha" 1/129).
As for Imam Malik, Ibn Khuzayma Mandadh said: Malik's view does not differ: one who forgets al-Fatiha in a rak'a of a two-rak'a prayer, like the dawn prayer, has an invalid prayer that does not suffice him; his view differs concerning one who omits it forgetfully in a rak'a of a four- or three-rak'a prayer: he says at one time that he repeats the prayer, at another that he performs the two prostrations of forgetfulness, the report of Ibn Abd al-Hakam and others from Malik; it has also been said: he repeats that rak'a and prostrates for forgetfulness after the salam. Ibn Abd al-Barr (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the sound position is the invalidation of that rak'a and its replacement, like one who omits a prostration forgetfully: such is the choice of Ibn al-Qasim ("al-Tamhid" 20/192-213, "Tafsir al-Qurtubi" 1/117).
Al-Kharashi (may Allah have mercy on him) cites Khalil: "Is al-Fatiha obligatory in every rak'a, or in the majority? A divergence: the first view is Malik's in the Mudawwana, set forward by Ibn Shas, Ibn al-Hajib, Abd al-Wahhab and Ibn Abd al-Barr, based on the hadith: 'Whoever prays a prayer without reciting in it the Mother of the Book, it is deficient, deficient, deficient', that is, incomplete, reading 'prayer' as every rak'a, the apparent from the context, the place of recitation being every standing; as one says: every prayer without bowing or prostration. Others say: it is obligatory in the majority, sunna in the minority, Malik returning to this view, set forward by the author of 'al-Irshad', Ibn Askar al-Qarafi, and it is the apparent of the madhhab, though he weakened it in 'al-Tawdih'. It has been said that one rak'a suffices, the view of al-Mughira." The explanation follows: if it is omitted forgetfully and cannot be made up, that rak'a is invalid; if it can be made up and is, the prayer is valid; if it is not made up or omitted deliberately, the whole prayer is invalid, for it is a sunna whose obligation became famous; if omitted forgetfully, he prostrates before the salam, otherwise the prayer is invalid, unless the omission concerns only three sunnas. Al-Tata'i said: from "the majority" is understood that what is omitted is the recitation of a three- or four-rak'a prayer; if it is omitted in a rak'a of a two-rak'a prayer, or in two rak'as of a four-rak'a prayer, the ruling is not so; Ibn 'Ata' Allah relates in his commentary two views, the more famous: he continues and prostrates before the salam, or repeats, the madhhab of the Mudawwana; the second is that of Asbagh and Ibn Abd al-Hakam: he cancels the rak'a and prostrates after the salam; in the commentary: he continues, prostrates before the salam, and repeats as a precaution ("Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil" 1/270-271, "Tathbir al-Mukhtasar" 1/287).
The jurists agree that, if the follower catches the imam bowing, the recitation is lifted from him: they agree indeed on the falling away of the recitation by the imam's bowing. If he catches him standing, does he recite behind him, or does the imam's recitation suffice him? The jurists differed into several views.
First view: the obligation of reciting al-Fatiha behind the imam, whether the prayer is silent or recited aloud: this is the madhhab of the Shafi'is. They argue from the generality of his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): "There is no prayer for one who does not recite the opening of the Book" (reported by Bukhari (723) and Muslim (394)): a general term embracing the imam and the follower, the prayer being silent or aloud; whoever does not recite the opening of the Book, his prayer is not valid.
Ubada ibn al-Samit (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "We were behind the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) in the dawn prayer; the Messenger of Allah recited, and the recitation weighed upon him; when he finished he said: 'Perhaps you recite behind your imam?' We said: 'Yes, quickly, O Messenger of Allah'. He said: 'Do not do so, except the opening of the Book, for there is no prayer for one who does not recite it'"Weak hadith: reported by Abu Dawud (823), al-Tirmidhi (247) who judged it hasan sahih, and al-Bayhaqi in "al-Kubra" (2/165)
And because one obligated to the standing of recitation is obligated to recite with ability, like the imam and the one praying alone. And according to Abu Hurayra (may Allah be pleased with him): the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "Whoever prays a prayer without reciting in it the Mother of the Book, it is deficient...", three times; it was said to Abu Hurayra: "And we are behind the imam". He said: "Recite it to yourself" (reported by Muslim (395)). As for Allah's saying: "And when the Quran is recited, listen to it attentively and be silent" (Surah 7, 204), we were only commanded silence with regard to speech and what is not permitted in prayer.
Second view: if the prayer is silent, he recites behind the imam; if it is recited aloud, he does not recite: this is the madhhab of the Hanbalis. Imam Ahmad said: if he hears in the aloud prayer, he does not recite; if he does not hear, he recites. The proof is Allah's saying: "And when the Quran is recited, listen to it attentively and be silent" (Surah 7, 204); the scholars agree it concerns hearing the Quran in prayer, with no difference that this address was revealed in this meaning. Imam Ahmad said: the people reached consensus that this verse concerns prayer. And this can only be in the aloud prayer, for the silent is not heard.
From Abu Hurayra (may Allah be pleased with him): the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) rose from a prayer and said: "Which of you has just recited along with me?" A man said: "I did, O Messenger of Allah". He said: "I was saying: why should I contend over the Quran?" The people then ceased reciting along with the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) in the prayers in which he recited aloud, having heard that from himSahih hadith: reported by Abu Dawud (848)
Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) said: it is also a consensus: Ahmad said: we have not heard anyone of the people of Islam say that if the imam recites aloud, the prayer of the one behind him does not suffice unless he recites; this the Prophet and his Companions and the Successors said; this is Malik among the people of the Hijaz, al-Thawri among the people of Iraq, al-Awza'i among the people of Syria, al-Layth among the people of Egypt: they never told a man who prayed while his imam recited without reciting himself that his prayer was void; for it is a recitation not owed to the one overtaken (masbuq), so it is not owed to others, like the surah ("al-Mughni" 2/117-119, "al-Ifsah" 1/162-163, "Kashshaf al-Qina'" 1/451). Abu Dawud said: Imam Ahmad was asked: he (the follower) recited the opening of the Book, then heard the imam's recitation? He said: "He stops when he hears the imam's recitation and listens to the recitation", following Allah's saying: "And when the Quran is recited, listen to it attentively and be silent" (Surah 7, 204), and the Prophet's saying (peace and blessings be upon him): "and when he recites, be attentive".
Third view: he recites nothing of the Quran in the aloud prayer, even if he does not hear the imam's recitation, and he recites in the silent prayer by recommendation: this is the madhhab of the Malikis. Al-Qurtubi transmits from Malik that one recites nothing of the Quran behind the imam in the aloud prayers; in the silent prayers one recites the opening of the Book: leaving it is a fault, but nothing is required ("Tafsir al-Qurtubi" 1/118-119, "Bidayat al-Mujtahid" 1/219). Ibn Abd al-Barr (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the scholars reached consensus that Allah's saying "And when the Quran is recited, listen to it attentively and be silent" (Surah 7, 204) did not come for every place where the Quran is heard, but intends the prayer: it is the clearest proof that one does not recite with the imam in what he recites aloud; witnessed by the Messenger of Allah's saying (peace and blessings be upon him): "and when he recites, be attentive" (reported by Muslim (404); see "al-Istidhkar" 1/465-466). Imam Ibn 'Arafa said: al-Fatiha is not imposed upon the follower, contrary to Ibn al-Arabi for the silent prayers; and he does not recite it in the aloud prayer even if he does not hear the imam's recitation, contrary to Ibn Nafi' ("al-Taj wa-l-Iklil" 1/197). Bahram al-Damiri said: his saying "to an imam and one praying alone" intends that the follower is not demanded the recitation except as a recommendation in the silent prayers ("Tathbir al-Mukhtasar" 1/285).
Al-Qadi Abd al-Wahhab (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the obligation of recitation has fallen from the follower, contrary to al-Shafi'i, according to Allah's saying: "And when the Quran is recited, listen to it attentively and be silent" (Surah 7, 204), the obligation of listening forbidding everything that distracts from it; and according to the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): "The imam was only appointed to be followed: when he says Allah Akbar, say it; when he recites, be attentive". This hadith contains several proofs: the command to listen, which negates the obligation of recitation; he taught what the follower must do behind the imam without mentioning recitation; he showed what the follower does in likeness of the imam and what is not permitted him contrary to him. The view that the follower must recite invalidates this point of distinction.
"Whoever has an imam, the imam's recitation serves as his recitation"Hasan hadith: reported by Ibn Majah (850)
Abdallah ibn Shaddad relates: "A man recited behind the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) while another prevented him; when the prayer ended, he said to him: the imam's recitation serves as your recitation". And Abu al-Darda' (may Allah be pleased with him) said: the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) was asked: "Is there a recitation in every prayer?" He said: "Yes". A man of the Ansar said: "This one is therefore obligatory". The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "I do not see the imam leading the people without sufficing them" (sahih as a Companion's statement: reported by al-Nasa'i 923 and Ahmad 27570). And Abu Qilaba relates that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "Do you recite behind your imam?" Some said: yes; some said: no. He said: "If you must do so anyway, then let one of you recite the opening of the Book to himself" (reported by Ibn Abi Shayba in his "Musannaf" 3757).
This hadith contains several proofs: he did not rebuke the one who said no; his saying "if you must do so anyway" is not said of an obligation, but of what is better left than done; he commanded him to recite "Praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds" to himself, which implies the prohibition of voicing it. And his saying: "Every prayer without the recitation of the opening of the Book is deficient, except behind the imam" (reported by Bukhari in the chapter on recitation behind the imam, 350-351, as a weak hadith), for it is a state of following, as if he caught him bowing. And were it obligatory upon the follower, it would never fall from him, as with the imam and the one praying alone: since it fell at the bowing, that shows it is not obligatory. Chapter: if he recites while the imam recites aloud, that is disliked without invalidating his prayer, contrary to some; for recitation behind the imam does not void the follower's prayer, like silent recitation ("al-Ishraf" 1/262-265, cases no. 181-182).
Fourth view: the follower does not recite behind the imam, neither in the silent prayer nor in the aloud one, and recitation behind the imam is never recommended for him: this is the view of the Hanafis. Allah's saying: "And when the Quran is recited, listen to it attentively and be silent" (Surah 7, 204) requires listening and silence at the recitation of the Quran in prayer and elsewhere; if an indication of the permissibility of leaving listening existed elsewhere, its requirement would still stand in prayer; and as the verse indicated the prohibition of reciting behind the imam in what he recites aloud, it indicates the prohibition in what he recites quietly, for He imposed listening and silence at the recitation of the Quran without conditioning the state of reciting aloud versus quietly: if he recites aloud, listening and silence are owed from us; if he recites quietly, silence is owed from us by the very wording, since we know he is reciting the Quran.
They also say: the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "Whoever prays behind an imam, the imam's recitation is a recitation for him" (hasan hadith: reported by Ibn Majah 850 and al-Bayhaqi in "al-Kubra" 2/159), a term embracing the silent and the aloud prayers; and he said: "The imam was only appointed to be followed; when he says Allah Akbar, say it; when he recites, be attentive".
It is related that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) prayed the dhuhr or the asr and said: "Which of you was reciting behind me: 'Glorify the name of your Lord, the Most High'?" A man said: "I was, and I intended only good by it". He said: "I knew that one of you was contending it with me"Reported by Muslim (398)
That is, contending it with me; this shows the disapproval of recitation in a silent prayer, all the more in the aloud one. They say finally: were recitation obligatory upon the follower, it would never fall from him, as with the imam and the one praying alone; since it fell at the bowing, that shows it is not obligatory ("Ahkam al-Qur'an" by al-Jassas 4/218-222, "Tabyin al-Haqa'iq" 1/131, "Sharh Fath al-Qadir" 1/339, "al-Ifsah" 1/162).
The Hanafis say finally: were recitation obligatory upon the follower, it would not have fallen from the one overtaken, like the other pillars; they therefore assimilated the follower's recitation to that of the overtaken in the ruling of falling away, making it not legislated ("Ahkam al-Qur'an" 4/218-222, "Tabyin al-Haqa'iq" 1/131, "Sharh Fath al-Qadir" 1/339, "al-Ifsah" 1/162).
5. Bowing. The umma agrees that bowing is a pillar of prayer, according to Allah's saying: "O you who have believed, bow and prostrate" (Surah 22, 77), and the established hadiths on this, among them the hadith of the man who had done poorly in his prayer: according to Abu Hurayra (may Allah be pleased with him), the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) entered the mosque, a man entered, prayed and greeted the Prophet; he returned the greeting and said: "Go back and pray, for you have not prayed"; he went back and prayed as he had prayed, then came and greeted him; he said: "Go back and pray, for you have not prayed"; this three times. The man said: "By Him who sent you with the truth, I can do no better; teach me". He said: "When you rise to pray, say Allah Akbar, then recite what you can of the Quran, then bow until you are calm in bowing, then rise until you stand upright, then prostrate until you are calm in prostration, then rise until you are sitting calmly, then do that in all your prayer" (reported by Bukhari (724/760) and Muslim (397)). This shows that the acts named in the hadith never fall away, otherwise they would have fallen from the Bedouin ignorant of them. The consensus on this was transmitted by al-Nawawi, Ibn Qudama, Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Hubayra and many others.
By way of preamble: he comes with another takbir for the bowing at the moment of descending into it; the first takbir is a pillar that never falls, the second is the takbir of the bowing; the text transmitted from Ahmad is that it falls here, one takbir sufficing, transmitted by Abu Dawud and Salih; it is also related from al-Shafi'i, Malik and the partisans of opinion (Ibn Abidin 1/323, al-Tahtawi 1/295, "al-Istidhkar" 1/63, "Mawahib al-Jalil" 2/83, "al-Qawanin" 1/50, "al-Majmu'" 4/187, "Kashshaf al-Qina'" 1/460, "Mukhtasar ikhtilaf al-'ulama" 1/259, "al-Tamhid" 7/73).
6. The rising (i'tidal). The scholars differed on the obligation of rising from the bowing and of straightening up standing. Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him) said: neither of the two is obligatory; if he descends from the bowing to the prostration, that is disliked for him but suffices, Allah not having commanded it: He commanded only the bowing, the prostration and the standing; were it obligatory, it would entail an obligatory remembrance, like the first standing. Some Hanafi jurists however hold the obligation of rising from the bowing, among them the verifier Ibn al-Humam and his student Ibn Amir al-Hajj, who went so far as to say it is the correct position, on account of the Prophet's constancy in it, the command in the hadith of the man who had done poorly in his prayer, and what Qadi Khan relates: the prostration of forgetfulness is owed to one who leaves the rising from the bowing forgetfully. Ibn Abidin (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the conclusion is that the most correct, by transmission and by reasoning, is the obligation of straightening the pillars; as for the standing pause, the sitting and their straightening, the famous view in the madhhab is sunna, its obligation also being narrated, which concords with the proofs and constitutes perfection: Ibn al-Humam and the later scholars; Abu Yusuf held the whole obligatory, chosen in "al-Majma'", as did al-'Ayni; al-Tahawi related it from our three imams; it is said in "al-Fayd": it is more precautionary (Ibn Abidin 1/464, "Ma'ani al-Athar" 1/508-509).
The Malikis in one view, and the Shafi'is and Hanbalis, hold that rising from the bowing is an obligation: one who does not raise his head from the bowing does not have that rak'a counted until he stands erect. This is the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to the man who had done poorly in his prayer: "then rise until you stand upright" (sahih hadith cited earlier); and the Prophet persisted in it, according to Abu Humayd's description of the Prophet's prayer (peace and blessings be upon him): "when he raised his head, he stood straight until every vertebra returned to its place" (reported by Bukhari (794)); and his saying: "Pray as you have seen me pray"; and his saying: "No prayer suffices in which a man does not straighten his back in the bowing and the prostration" (sahih hadith: al-Tirmidhi 265, al-Nasa'i 1027, Ibn Majah 870, Ibn Hibban in his "Sahih" 5/217, al-Bayhaqi in "al-Kubra" 2/88 who said: its chain is sahih; al-Tirmidhi said: hasan sahih; acting upon this is the practice of the scholars, the Companions of the Prophet and those after them). Ibn Abd al-Barr (may Allah have mercy on him) said: he said (peace and blessings be upon him): "A man's prayer does not suffice him so long as he does not straighten his back in his bowing and his prostration" (reported by Imam Ahmad in his "Musnad" 17144 with a sahih chain, in the wording: "no prayer suffices anyone who does not straighten his back in the bowing and the prostration").
Abu Hanifa said of one who passes from the bowing to the prostration without raising his head that it suffices him; Abu Yusuf said: it does not suffice him. Al-Thawri, al-Awza'i, al-Shafi'i, Ahmad, Ishaq, Dawud and al-Tabari say: if he does not raise his head from the bowing, that rak'a is not counted until he stands erect. Abu Umar (Ibn Abd al-Barr) said: the hadiths of this chapter support the validity of this view; what Ibn Wahb relates from Malik is the correct position, held by the scholars; as for Ibn Abd al-Hakam's version, Ibn al-Qasim related the like of it; I know of no one who held this view before Abu Hanifa, and the hadiths traced to the Prophet refute him ("al-Tamhid" 19/8; see "al-Istidhkar" 2/164, "Tafsir al-Qurtubi" 5/423, "Hashiyat al-Adawi" 1/335, "al-Taj wa-l-Iklil" 1/524, "al-Fawa'ih al-Dawani" 1/180, "Hashiyat al-Dasuqi" 1/241, "Mughni al-Muhtaj" 1/165, "al-Majmu'" 3/367, "al-Mughni" 2/58, "Matalib Uli al-Nuha" 1/496, "Majmu' al-Fatawa" 22/535, "al-Ifsah" 1/168, "Sharh Muslim" 4/96).
Most Malikis then hold that straightening in the rising from the bowing is a sunna, not a pillar of prayer: he prostrates for its omission forgetfully, and the prayer is invalidated by its deliberate omission, for it is a sunna whose obligation became famous. Al-Dasuqi said: our master Abu al-Hasan al-Adawi said this is the preferred view, as is deduced from al-Hattab's words ("Hashiyat al-Dasuqi" 1/241). Al-Qadi Abd al-Wahhab (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the straightening in the rising from the bowing is not established at Malik; some of our shaykhs claim it is established according to his view, which is al-Shafi'i's view; what I have seen as text from Ibn al-Qasim and Ali ibn Ziyad from him is: if he descends before the straightening, nothing is due from him; the proof is that the straightening is a standing: were it an obligation, its sequel would be a bowing, like the first standing; and the standing is a pillar before the bowing: its obligation must therefore not repeat within the rak'a, like the recitation; and this rising is intended only for the separation between the bowing and the prostration: less than the straightening therefore suffices, the separation being realized by it; everything intended for a separation suffices once that separation occurs; and the rising leaves the state of bowing or near-bowing, as if he had straightened.
Issue: rising from the bowing is obligatory even if the straightening within it is not obligatory; if he descends to prostrate while bowing, it does not suffice him according to the apparent of the madhhab. I saw in some books, from Malik or one of his companions, that it suffices him, but nothing to rely upon. Our proof, contrary to Abu Hanifa, is his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): "A man's prayer does not suffice him in which he does not straighten his back in the bowing and the prostration", and his saying: "then rise until you stand upright"; the bowing being a pillar, the separation between the two is owed, in likeness of the rising from the prostration ("al-Ishraf" 1/276-277, cases no. 190-191). The limit of straightening among the Malikis is not being bent, perfection being erectness until every limb returns to its place; his remaining slightly bent during his straightening and stillness does no harm, this posture not removing him from standing. The Shafi'is and the Hanbalis state explicitly that stillness is required in the straightening ("al-Istidhkar" 2/164, "Tafsir al-Qurtubi" 5/423, "Hashiyat al-Adawi" 1/335, "al-Taj wa-l-Iklil" 1/524, "al-Fawa'ih al-Dawani" 1/180, "Hashiyat al-Dasuqi" 1/241, "Mughni al-Muhtaj" 1/165, "al-Majmu'" 3/367, "al-Mughni" 2/58, "Matalib Uli al-Nuha" 1/496, "Majmu' al-Fatawa" 22/535, "al-Ifsah" 1/168, "Sharh Muslim" 4/96).
7. Prostration. The jurists agree that prostration is among the pillars of prayer, according to Allah's saying: "Bow and prostrate" (Surah 22, 77), and the hadith of the man who had done poorly in his prayer cited earlier, including: "then prostrate until you are calm prostrating"; the divergence in it is like that concerning the stillness of the bowing. They agree that prostrating on seven limbs is legislated: the prominences of the face, the two hands, the two knees and the extremities of the feet.
"I have been commanded to prostrate on seven bones: the forehead (and he pointed with his hand to his nose and his two hands), the two knees and the soles (ends) of the two feet"Bukhari (776) and Muslim (490), from the hadith of Ibn Abbas
They then differed over the obligation in that. Abu Hanifa said: the obligation is the forehead or the nose, without preference, such that placing either of them in a situation of choice suffices him; placing the forehead alone is permitted without disapproval, and the nose alone with disapproval. Imam al-Shafi'i held the obligation of the forehead, in a single view: if he confines himself to it, it is permitted, part of it sufficing; the nose is recommended: if he leaves it, it is permitted; if he confines himself to the nose leaving the forehead, it is not permitted; concerning the rest of the limbs he has two views, the sound one being obligation, as will come: if he violates one of those limbs, his prayer is not valid. The version from Malik diverged: Ibn al-Qasim relates from him that the obligation attaches to the forehead; as for the nose, if he neglects it, he repeats within the time by recommendation, not after the time has passed; if he neglects the forehead while able and confines himself to the nose, he repeats always. Ibn Habib (among his companions) said: the obligation attaches to both together; Ashhab relates from him the view of Abu Hanifa. Al-Qadi Abd al-Wahhab, the Maliki (may Allah have mercy on him), said: if he prostrates on his forehead without his nose, it suffices him, and we recommend the repetition within the time; Ibn Habib said: it does not suffice him; the like is related from Ibn Abbas and others.
Our proof is his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): "I have been commanded to prostrate on seven limbs", where he mentions the forehead without mentioning the nose; what is besides the forehead of the face does not require prostration upon it, like the chin; and the face is a limb of prostration: a part must therefore suffice, like the hands. If he prostrates on his nose without his forehead while able, it does not suffice him, contrary to Abu Hanifa, according to his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): "then he prostrates, setting his forehead firmly", and the version: "his forehead to the ground, until his joints are calm" (sahih hadith: reported by Abu Dawud 858); the nose is a place of the face: it therefore does not replace prostration on the forehead, the original being the chin; and every limb whose prostration may be omitted without excuse does not suffice alone, like the rest of the limbs of prostration.
From Imam Ahmad, two versions. The first: the obligation attaches to the forehead alone, the view of Abu Yusuf, Muhammad and al-Shafi'i as mentioned: if he omits prostration upon it in a situation of choice, it does not suffice him. The second: it attaches to both, the forehead and the nose, the famous version, according to what Ibn Abbas relates: the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "I have been commanded to prostrate on seven bones: the forehead (and he pointed with his hand to his nose and his two hands), the two knees and the soles of the two feet"; his pointing to his nose shows he meant it; and his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): "There is no prayer for one whose nose does not touch the ground as much as his forehead" (sahih hadith: reported by al-Daraqutni 1319). The holders of the obligation of the forehead argue: were he to prostrate on his nose alone, it would not suffice him, by the consensus of the Companions: Ibn al-Mundhir transmitted the consensus of the Companions that prostration on the nose alone does not suffice.
Ibn al-Mundhir said: I know of no one who preceded him (Abu Hanifa) to this view; perhaps he held that the forehead and the nose are one limb, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), upon mentioning the forehead, indicating his nose; the single limb suffices by prostration on one of its parts. It is a view contrary to the sahih hadith and the preceding consensus: it therefore does not stand ("Ma'ani al-Athar" 1/344, "al-Hidaya" with "Sharh al-Bidaya" 1/50, "Tabyin al-Haqa'iq" 1/117, Ibn Abidin 1/499, "al-Dhakhira" 2/195, "Tafsir al-Qurtubi" 1/346, "al-Ishraf" 1/83, "al-Sharh al-Saghir" 1/209, "Mughni al-Muhtaj" 1/169, "al-Majmu'" 3/385, "Sharh Muslim" 4/186, "Fath al-Bari" 2/346, "al-Mughni" 2/67-69, "al-Ifsah" 1/169, "Kashshaf al-Qina'" 1/350, "Manar al-Sabil" 1/103).
Prostration on the rest of the limbs. The Shafi'is in the sound position and the Hanbalis hold that prostration on the rest of the limbs is obligatory, based on the hadith of Ibn Abbas cited earlier. Ibn Umar relates from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): "The two hands prostrate as the face prostrates: when one of you places his face, let him place his two hands; when he raises them, let him raise them" (sahih hadith: reported by Abu Dawud 892, al-Nasa'i 1092, Ibn Khuzayma in his "Sahih" 1/320). Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the prostration of the face does not negate that of the rest: if he omits prostration on one of these limbs, his prayer is not valid; if he cannot prostrate on some of them, he prostrates on the rest, bringing the sick limb near the ground as much as he can, without being owed raising anything toward it; for prostration is descent, which is not obtained by raising what one prostrates upon; if prostration on the forehead falls due to an impediment or otherwise, prostration on the rest falls, it being the root and the others its followers: the root fallen, the follower falls. This is why Ahmad said of the sick man who raises up to his forehead something upon which to prostrate that it suffices him.
Abu Hanifa, Malik and al-Shafi'i in the second view, and Ahmad in a version, say: prostration on the rest of the limbs is not owed, prostration being on the forehead, according to the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): "My face prostrated", which indicates prostration on the face; and one who prostrates on his face is named a prostrator, whereas placing the rest on the ground does not name him so: the command to prostrate therefore refers to that by which one is named a prostrator. Al-Amidi mentioned this version from Ahmad; al-Qadi said in "al-Jami'": it is the apparent of Ahmad's words, for he explicitly addressed the sick man who raises something upon which to prostrate: it suffices him, though he omitted prostration on his two hands. They also say: the hadith of Ibn Abbas "I have been commanded to prostrate on seven bones" is interpreted as sunna, based on the end of the hadith: "and I do not gather up my hair"; they explicitly stated the absence of invalidity by gathering it, which shows the command is not at the level of obligation; one does not say: then prostration on the forehead is not obligatory, for it is included in the seven: we say the obligation of prostration is drawn from Allah's saying: "Bow and prostrate" (Surah 22, 77), the reality of prostration being the placing of the forehead on the ground.
8. Sitting between the two prostrations. The jurists differed: is it a pillar of prayer or a sunna? Imam Malik, al-Shafi'i and Ahmad hold that it is a pillar of prayer, according to the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to the man who had done poorly in his prayer: "then rise until you sit upright", and in a version: "until you sit calmly, and do that in all your prayer", reported by the two shaykhs (Bukhari and Muslim); and in the two "Sahih"s: "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), when he rose from prostration, would not prostrate (again) before sitting upright"; and the rising from prostration being obligatory, the straightening after it is obligatory, like the rising from the last prostration.
Imam Abu Hanifa holds that sitting between the two prostrations is not obligatory but sunna; Abu Hanifa even deems sufficient raising the head to the size of a sword's hilt, for it is a sitting of separation between two like things: it is therefore not obligatory. What is relied upon among the Malikis is the validity of the prayer of one who does not lift his hands from the ground during the sitting between the two prostrations, provided he straightened. Al-Qadi Abd al-Wahhab (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the straightening in the sitting between the two prostrations follows the regime of the straightening in the rising from the bowing, already mentioned ("al-Ishraf" 1/281, "al-Sharh al-Kabir" 1/240, "al-Sharh al-Saghir" 1/209, "al-Fawa'ih al-Dawani" 1/183, "al-Qawanin al-Fiqhiyya" 1/46, "Mawahib al-Jalil" 1/522, "Kifayat al-Akhyar" 152, "al-Hawi al-Kabir" 2/130, "al-Mughni" 2/75, "al-Ifsah" 1/171, "Manar al-Sabil" 1/103).
Upstream of the taslim, in the final tashahhud: most of his companions (of Ahmad) hold that the prayer upon the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is obligatory; the other view, which al-Nawawi calls anomalous, is that it is due from them. The apparent of Ahmad's words is that the obligatory is the prayer upon the Prophet alone, like the madhhab of al-Shafi'i. Abu Hamid (among Ahmad's companions) said: the measure of what suffices is that there be owed the prayer upon him (peace and blessings be upon him) and upon his family, and upon the family of Ibrahim, and the blessings upon Muhammad, upon the family of Muhammad and upon the family of Ibrahim, according to the hadith Ahmad relied upon. The majority hold the validity of the prayer with any one of these established formulas ("al-Bahr al-Ra'iq" 1/341, "Tabyin al-Haqa'iq" 1/123, Ibn Abidin 1/512, "al-Sharh al-Kabir" 1/251, "Minhaj al-Jalil" 1/265, "Tafsir al-Qurtubi" 14/235, "al-Majmu'" 3/428-430, "al-Rawda" 1/265, "Mughni al-Muhtaj" 1/176, "al-Mughni" 2/94-96, "al-Ifsah" 1/175-176, "Kashshaf al-Qina'" 1/358, "Sharh Muslim" 4/110, "Manar al-Sabil" 1/104).
11. The taslim. There is no divergence among the jurists: coming with the taslim is legislated, according to the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): "The key of prayer is purity; its sacralization is the takbir; its desacralization is the salam"; and the Prophet used to salute at the end of his prayer. The jurists however differed: is the taslim an obligation or a sunna?
The majority of jurists, the Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis, hold it to be an obligation without which the prayer is not valid, based on the preceding hadith: "its desacralization is the salam": the salam is there specified as the desacralizing agent, which shows that desacralization by the salam is determinate, not attainable without it; prayer being an act of worship with desacralization and sacralization, desacralization in it is a pillar, by analogy to the tawaf in the hajj; and according to the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): "Pray as you have seen me pray"; and it is established of him (peace be upon him) that he "closed the prayer with the salam" (reported by Muslim (498)), persisting in it without leaving it ("al-Ishraf" 1/287-288 no. 204, "al-Dhakhira" 2/199, "Hashiyat al-Dasuqi" 1/241, "Bidayat al-Mujtahid" 1/184, "Sharh Muslim" 4/193, "Mughni al-Muhtaj" 1/177, "al-Mughni" 2/104-105, "al-Ifsah" 1/176-177, "Kashshaf al-Qina'" 1/361, "Manar al-Sabil" 1/105).
Imam Abu Hanifa holds that the taslim is not determinate for exiting the prayer: if he exits by an act or an impurity conflicting with prayer, it is permitted, the taslim being sunna and not a pillar; for the Prophet did not teach it to the man who had done poorly in his prayer: were it obligatory, he would have commanded it, explanation not being deferred beyond the moment of need; and one of the two salams not being obligatory, the same applies to the other. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), teaching the tashahhud to Ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him), said: "When you have said this or done this, you have discharged what is upon you; if you wish to stand, stand; if you wish to sit, sit" (takhrij cited earlier; al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar said in "al-Diraya" 1/157: the memorizers agree this addition is interpolated from Ibn Mas'ud's words, among them Ibn Hibban, al-Daraqutni, al-Bayhaqi and al-Khatib, the proof being clear).
Al-Kasani said: arguing by this hadith is twofold: he made it acquitting of what is upon him at this act or word, the term "what" (ma) being general for the unknown: he must therefore discharge all that is upon him; were the taslim an obligation, he would not discharge everything without it, the taslim remaining due. And he gave him the choice between standing and sitting without conditioning the wording of the salam: were it an obligation, he would not have given him the choice; the pillar of prayer is that by which it is performed, and the salam is an exit from the prayer and a leaving of it, being speech addressed to another, hence conflicting with the prayer: how could it be a pillar of it? ("Bada'i' al-Sana'i'" 1/194, "Sharh Ma'ani al-Athar" 1/440). What is relied upon among the Hanafis is that the salam is wajib, by the Prophet's constancy (peace and blessings be upon him) in it; and constancy is proof of obligation where evidence of non-obligation exists, as here: it is therefore wajib without being an obligation ("Bada'i' al-Sana'i'" 1/163).
Ibn al-Mundhir (may Allah have mercy on him) said: all those whose statements we preserve among the scholars agree that the prayer of one who confines himself to one salutation is valid (sahih hadith: reported by al-Tirmidhi 296, Ibn Majah 98, 919, 920, Ibn Khuzayma in his "Sahih" 1/360, Ibn Hibban in his "Sahih" 5/335). Al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the scholars counted upon agree that only one salutation is obligatory; if he confines himself to it, it is recommended that he salute facing his face, for Aisha, Salama ibn al-Akwa' and Sahl ibn Sa'd related that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) "used to salute in the prayer with a single salutation facing his face"; if he saluted twice, he placed the first on his right and the second on his left. Ibn Mas'ud said: "I saw the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) salute on his right and his left until the whiteness of his cheek could be seen" (sahih hadith: reported by Abu Dawud 996, Ibn Majah 914 and others, and by Muslim in brief 581).
Al-Qadi (Abu Ya'la), among the Hanbalis, however relates another version from Imam Ahmad according to which the second salutation is obligatory, and he said: it is the sounder. Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the sound position is the first, Ahmad's text not being explicit on the obligation of the two salutations: he said "the two salutations are more in conformity with the Messenger of Allah", and the hadith of Ibn Mas'ud and others lead more to it; it may be understood as lawfulness and recommendation, not obligation, as others held; his saying in a version: "the two salutations seem most meritorious to me" leads to it; and Aisha, Salama ibn al-Akwa' and Sahl ibn Sa'd related that the Prophet "saluted a single salam", and the Muhajirun saluted a single salam: the reports and the Companions' statements (may Allah be pleased with them) are thereby combined such that lawfulness and sunna are two salutations, and the obligation one; the validity of this consensus is shown by what Ibn al-Mundhir related, there being no alternative; and the Prophet's act (peace and blessings be upon him) is interpreted as lawfulness and sunna, most of his acts in prayer being sunna without being obligatory: nothing prevents interpreting this act as sunna, the proof existing. As for his saying in the hadith of Jabir: "it suffices one of you", he means attaining the sunna: "to place his hand on his thigh then salute his brother on his right and his left": none of that is obligatory; such is the divergence in the obligatory prayer. As for the funeral prayer, the supererogatory, and the prostration of recitation, there is no divergence: one exits them with a single salutation; al-Qadi said: it is a single version, which Ahmad explicitly stated for the funeral prayer and the prostration of recitation; the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) never saluted in the funeral prayer except with a single salutation ("al-Mughni" 2/108-110, "al-Ijma'" by Ibn al-Mundhir 25, "al-Ifsah" 1/177, "Mawahib al-Jalil" 1/530, "'Awn al-Ma'bud" 3/209, "Hashiyat al-Dasuqi" 1/241, "Mughni al-Muhtaj" 1/177, "Kashshaf al-Qina'" 1/361, "al-Majmu'" 3/425, "Manar al-Sabil" 1/105).
12. Stillness. The jurists differed over its ruling in prayer. The Shafi'is, the Hanbalis and Abu Yusuf among the Hanafis hold that it is a pillar of prayer, based on the hadith of the man who had done poorly in his prayer: the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) entered the mosque, a man entered, prayed and greeted the Prophet; he returned the greeting and said: "Go back and pray, for you have not prayed"; he went back and prayed as he had prayed, then came and greeted him; he said: "Go back and pray, for you have not prayed"; this three times. The man said: "By Him who sent you with the truth, I can do no better; teach me". He said: "When you rise to pray, say Allah Akbar, then recite what you can of the Quran, then bow until you are calm in bowing, then rise until you stand upright, then prostrate until you are calm in prostration, then rise until you are sitting calmly, then do that in all your prayer".
This hadith explains the least of the obligations; the argument by it has three aspects: he commanded him to repeat, and repetition is due only upon the corruption of the prayer, corruption through the loss of a pillar; he denied that what was performed was a prayer by his saying "for you have not prayed"; and he commanded him stillness, the general command implying obligation. Al-Bukhari relates from Zayd ibn Wahb: "Hudhayfa saw a man who was not completing his bowing and prostration and said to him: you have not prayed; were you to die, you would die upon other than the fitra upon which Allah created Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him)" (reported by Bukhari (758)). Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) said: it was used to argue the obligation of stillness in the bowing and the prostration and the invalidation of the prayer by its violation ("Fath al-Bari" 2/275).
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya (may Allah have mercy on him) said: this man who was not completing his prayer left the stillness, or the straightening, or both: he must have left some of that; the pecking of the crow and the separation between the two prostrations the size of a sword's hilt, and the descent from the bowing to the prostration cannot be diminished while remaining what could be called bowing or prostration; this man performed what could be called bowing and prostration, but did not complete them; Hudhayfa said "you have not prayed", negating the prayer; then: "were you to die, you would die upon other than the fitra upon which Allah created Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him)", and other than the sunna: both mean here the religion and the Law, not the performance of recommended acts, which does not merit such blame and threat: hardly anyone dies having performed all the Prophet's recommended acts ("Majmu' al-Fatawa" 22/534-540). And from Abu Mas'ud al-Badri (may Allah be pleased with him): the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "No prayer suffices in which a man does not straighten his back in the bowing and the prostration" (sahih hadith cited earlier). Shaykh al-Islam said: this is explicit that the prayer does not suffice so long as the man does not straighten from the bowing and rise erect from the prostration; this shows the obligation of straightening in the bowing and the prostration; this issue, though not the issue of stillness, accords with it and accompanies it: the hadith is an explicit text of the obligation of straightening; straightening being obligatory to complete the bowing and the prostration, stillness in them is more obligatory still ("Majmu' al-Fatawa" 22/534).
The place of stillness with them is the bowing, the prostration, the straightening from the bowing, and the sitting between the two prostrations. The Hanafis, except Abu Yusuf, hold that stillness in prayer, which they call "the straightening of the pillars" or the resting of the limbs, is not an obligation but a sunna according to al-Jurjani's takhrij, wajib according to al-Karkhi's, which is correct; hence its deliberate omission is disliked, and the prostration of forgetfulness is due if omitted forgetfully. The place of straightening with them is the bowing and the prostration; some Hanafis chose the obligation of straightening in the rising from the bowing and the sitting between the two prostrations as well. It is said in "al-Bahr": the resting of the limbs in the bowing and the prostration until the joints are calm, and at the least the measure of a glorification, is wajib according to al-Karkhi's takhrij, which is correct, as in the "Sharh al-Muniyya", and sunna according to al-Jurjani's, and obligation according to what al-Hawi transmitted from the three. What the great mass transmitted is that it is wajib at Abu Hanifa and Muhammad, obligation at Abu Yusuf; the obligation is shown by constancy, weakening al-Jurjani's view; Muhammad was asked about omitting it and said: "I fear it may not be valid"; and from al-Sarakhsi: one who omits the straightening must repeat ("al-Bahr al-Ra'iq" 1/316).
Al-Kasani (may Allah have mercy on him) said: stillness in the bowing is wajib at Abu Hanifa and Muhammad, as al-Karkhi mentions, to the point that if he omits it forgetfully, the prostration of forgetfulness is due from him; al-Jurjani mentions that it is sunna... the correct is what al-Karkhi mentioned, for stillness belongs to the completion of the pillar, and completing the pillar is wajib, like completing the recitation with al-Fatiha; do you not see that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) likened the Bedouin's prayer to non-existence? Prayer is judged void only by absence: either by the absence of its root through leaving a pillar, or by diminution through leaving a wajib, becoming thereby absence in one respect; leaving a sunna is not likened to non-existence, causing no gross diminution; hence omitting it is most strongly disliked, to the point that it is related from Abu Hanifa: "I fear his prayer may not be valid" ("Ma'ani al-Athar" 1/510). Ibn Abidin transmits from "al-Bahr": the requirement of the proof is the obligation of stillness in the four, that is, the bowing, the prostration and the sitting between the two prostrations, by constancy in all of that, the command in the hadith of the man who had done poorly in his prayer, and what Qadi Khan relates of the prostration of forgetfulness being due to one who omits the rising from the bowing forgetfully; and in "al-Muhit": if he omits forgetfully the straightening of the pillars or the standing pause between the bowing and the prostration, the prostration of forgetfulness is due from him; the same applies to the sitting between the two prostrations, the discourse in both being one; the obligation of the whole is the choice of the verifier Ibn al-Humam and his student Ibn Amir al-Hajj, who even said it is the correct position. Ibn Abidin said: the conclusion is that the most correct, by transmission and reasoning, is the obligation of straightening the pillars; as for the standing, the sitting and their straightening, the famous in the madhhab is sunna, the obligation being narrated, which concords with the proofs and constitutes perfection, and the later scholars; Abu Yusuf held the whole obligatory, chosen in "al-Majma'" and by al-'Ayni; al-Tahawi related it from our three imams; it is said in "al-Fayd": it is more precautionary (Ibn Abidin 1/464, "al-Bahr al-Ra'iq" 1/317, al-Tahtawi 1/157, "Tabyin al-Haqa'iq" 1/118, "'Umdat al-Qari" 6/18-19, "Mughni al-Muhtaj" 1/158, "Kifayat al-Akhyar" 150, "al-Majmu'" 3/368, "al-Ifsah" 1/167, "al-Tahqiq" by Ibn al-Jawzi 1/388, "Manar al-Sabil" 1/104, "al-Insaf" 2/113). Al-Hasan relates from Abu Hanifa, concerning one who does not straighten his back in the bowing: if he is closer to standing than to completing the bowing, it does not suffice him; if he is closer to completing the bowing than to standing, it suffices him, establishing the greater in place of the whole ("Ma'ani al-Athar" 1/509).
The Malikis, for their part, differ over stillness. Al-Dasuqi said: the view of its obligation was authenticated by Ibn al-Hajib, the famous of the madhhab being that it is sunna; hence Zarruq and al-Bunani say: one who omits the stillness repeats within the time according to the famous view; it has been said that it is a virtue ("Hashiyat al-Dasuqi" 1/241). To Ibn al-Hajib's view rallied al-Qurtubi and others. Al-Qurtubi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: when Allah said: "Bow and prostrate" (Surah 22, 77), some of our scholars and others said: what suffices is what is named bowing and prostration, likewise of standing, without conditioning stillness, taking the least of the name, as if they had not heard the established hadiths on the invalidation of the prayer. Ibn Abd al-Barr (may Allah have mercy on him) said: neither a bowing nor a prostration nor a pause after the bowing nor a sitting between the two prostrations suffices until he straightens, bowing, standing and prostrating; this is the sound view in the report, held by the majority of scholars and specialists; it is the version of Ibn Wahb and Abu Mus'ab from Malik. Abu Bakr Ibn al-Arabi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the versions multiplied from Ibn al-Qasim and others on the obligation of the separation and the falling away of stillness: it is a great error; the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did it, commanded it and taught it; if Ibn al-Qasim had an excuse, perhaps not having had access to it, what of you, to whom knowledge has come and the proof established?
Al-Qurtubi then mentions the hadith of Rifaa ibn Rafi' within the hadith of the man who had done poorly in his prayer, then says: this is the explanation of the prayer adorned in the Book, taught by the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and conveyed by him to all people; whoever does not stop at this explanation, who violates what the Merciful imposed upon him and does not comply with what reached him from his Prophet is among those intended by Allah's saying: "Then there succeeded after them a succession who neglected the prayer and followed their desires" (Surah 19, 59) ("Tafsir al-Qurtubi" 1/347-348, "Ahkam al-Qur'an" by Ibn al-Arabi 1/143, "al-Ishraf" 1/280-281 no. 197, "al-Sharh al-Saghir" 1/211, "Jawahir al-Iklil" 1/49).
The majority of jurists, the Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis, hold that the minimum of stillness is the immobility of the limbs: each posture reaches its minimum when the limbs concerned come to rest in the required position, in the bowing, the prostration, the straightening and the sitting. It is on this point that this first batch of the chapter's sheets ends, the continuation of the detail being treated in the following parts of the encyclopedia.