Islamic Fiqh > Prayer > Group prayer and the rules of the imam > Second case: the imam unaware of his state until the end of the prayer
Contents
Updated on 25 September 2026 at 3:23 PM
This part belongs to the full section: All sections of this part.
Second case: the imam prays in minor or major impurity without knowing it until the end of the prayer. All agree that the imam must repeat the prayer; the jurists differ on the followers: must they repeat it too?
The Hanafis hold that the prayer of one who prayed behind a man in major or minor impurity without knowing it is not valid and he must repeat: his prayer is tied to that of his imam, and if the imam has no prayer, neither has he. It is reported from the Prophet: "Whoever leads a people and it then appears that he was in minor or major impurity repeats his prayer, and they repeat it." Imam al-Zayla'i notes in Nasb al-raya (2/58) that this hadith is rare, with a report from Ali reported by Muhammad ibn al-Hasan in his Book of Reports: concerning the man who leads the people in major impurity, "he repeats, and they repeat". Added to this are the hadiths of this chapter reported by al-Daraqutni and al-Bayhaqi from Abu Jabir al-Biyadi from Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib: the Prophet allegedly prayed with the people in major impurity, then repeated, and they repeated. Al-Daraqutni notes that it is mursal and al-Biyadi weak; al-Bayhaqi declares him abandoned, Malik not accepting him and Ibn Ma'in accusing him of lying, al-Shafi'i having said of whoever reports from him: "may Allah whiten his 2 eyes" (a curse); al-Nawawi confirms in al-Khulasa that the report is known only through him and that all agreed on his weakness.
The Hanafis further argue that everything which does not allow being led with knowledge does not allow it with ignorance, like the unbeliever and the woman; that every purity which is a condition of validity is the same whether known or unknown, like one's own purity; and that the imam's lack of purity is treated as the follower's, the proof being that he may not pray if he learns of it. To the objection that the informed follower's prayer is invalid only because he believes his imam is not praying, it is answered that if the imam is pure and the follower believes otherwise, his prayer behind him is not valid on the belief alone. Nothing prevents his informed prayer from being invalid for 2 causes, the absence of purity and the belief; if the imam is pure, it is invalid for the belief alone, which shows that purity acts more strongly on the prayer than belief, so the ruling cannot be suspended on the weaker cause while the stronger of the 2 exists. Hence whoever knows the absence of his own purity may not pray because of that absence, not because of his belief (al-Tajrid of al-Qaduri, 2/721, 723; al-Hidaya, 1/58; al-Banaya, commentary on al-Hidaya, 2/368; al-Inaya, 2/97; Tabyin al-Haqa'iq, 1/144; al-Bahr al-Ra'iq, 1/388).
The majority of jurists, namely the Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis, hold that if the imam prays with the congregation in minor or major impurity without knowing it, he and his followers, until the end of the prayer, the followers' prayer is valid and the imam's invalid, by the consensus of the companions. It is reported of Umar (may Allah be pleased with him): "He led the morning prayer, then went out to the water basin and poured the water; finding on his garment the trace of a nocturnal emission, he repeated the prayer, and they did not repeat it" (reported by Malik in the Muwatta, 80-82, by al-Shafi'i in al-Umm, 1/80, and in his Musnad, 1/343, by Abd al-Razzaq, 2/347, and al-Bayhaqi in al-Kubra, 1/170). From Muhammad ibn Amr ibn al-Harith al-Khuzai: "Uthman led the dawn prayer; in the morning, as the day rose, the trace of major impurity was found on him. He said: 'I have grown old, by Allah, I have grown old, by Allah', repeated the prayer and did not order them to repeat it" (reported by al-Daraqutni, 1/364, and al-Bayhaqi in al-Kubra, 2/400, with an authentic chain).
Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "If a man in major impurity leads the people and completes the prayer with them, I order him to perform ghusl and repeat, without ordering them to repeat" (reported by Ibn Abi Shayba in the Musannaf, 1/398, with a weak chain). From Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with both of them): "He led the dawn prayer, then remembered that he had prayed without wudu; he repeated it, and they did not repeat it" (reported by Abd al-Razzaq in his Musannaf, 2/348, with an authentic chain). This report became widespread with no divergence reported against it, amounting to consensus: impurity is among what remains hidden, with no way for the followers to know it, and the one praying behind the imam is therefore excused.
The same applies to the report of Anas ibn Malik (may Allah be pleased with him): "The Prophet entered the prayer, pronounced the takbir and we pronounced it with him; he then gestured to the people to remain as they were, and we remained standing until the Messenger of Allah returned, having performed ghusl, his head dripping with water, and he led their prayer." Had there been no prayer for them, he would not have required them to keep standing: proof that the imam's lack of purity does not prevent the formation of the follower's prayer when he is unaware of his state.
Ibn Qudama wrote: "The imam who prays with the congregation in minor or major impurity without knowing it, he and his followers, until the end of the prayer: their prayer is valid and the imam's invalid. This is reported of Umar, Uthman, Ali and Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them), and stated by al-Hasan, Sa'id ibn Jubayr, Malik, al-Awza'i, al-Shafi'i, Sulayman ibn Harb and Abu Thawr. It is reported from Ali: 'he repeats, and they repeat', stated also by Ibn Sirin, al-Sha'bi, Abu Hanifa and his companions, the imam having led them while impure as if he had known. Our proof is the consensus of the companions (may Allah be pleased with them), by the reports of Umar, Uthman, Ali and Ibn Umar, all reported by al-Athram. This report became widespread with no divergence reported, which amounts to consensus, and what was reported from Ali in divergence was not established. It is also reported from al-Bara ibn Azib that the Prophet said: 'If a man in major impurity leads the people, he repeats his prayer and the people's prayer is completed', a hadith reported by Abu Sulayman Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Harrani in a booklet, which the compiler did not find" (al-Mughni, 2/293; al-Rawd al-murbi, 1/264).
The follower's excuse disappears if the imam knows his own impurity, for he is then mocking the prayer by doing what is unlawful; it disappears likewise if the follower learns of the imam's state, for he then has no excuse for being led by him, and the excused one is not made the object of analogical reasoning. The ruling on impurity of clothes, body or place is the same as on ritual impurity, since it belongs to purity and resembles it, and it is even more hidden from the imam and the follower; another narration exists, however, regarding impurity: the imam's prayer is also valid if he forgot it.
Al-Mawardi wrote, after citing the reports of the companions: "No dissent among the companions is known, which proves consensus; and whoever has a prayer annulled for a reason particular to him, the prayer of another must not be annulled by the annulment of his, whose archetype is the follower in major impurity whose prayer is not annulled by the imam's. If the annulment of the imam's prayer by impurity entailed that of the follower, then when impurity occurs during the prayer and annuls it, the follower's prayer would have to be annulled by the annulment of the imam's, contradicting their consensus on the validity of the follower's prayer; the annulment of the imam's prayer by impurity occurring during the prayer therefore proves that prior impurity does not annul the follower's prayer. The analogical analysis confirms that the annulment of the imam's purity does not entail the invalidity of the follower's prayer when he is unaware of his state while following him, like the one whose impurity is prior; and whoever acted upon a valid state of purity, his ruling is not annulled by the return of the prior state, like the woman who married after her waiting period expired and then revoked her act" (al-Hawi al-kabir, 2/239).
Ibn Rushd wrote: "They differed when the imam leads them in major impurity and they learn of it after the prayer. Some say: their prayer is valid; others: it is invalid; others distinguish between the imam aware of his major impurity and the forgetful imam: if aware, their prayer is invalid; if forgetful, it is not. Al-Shafi'i followed the first view, Abu Hanifa the second, Malik the third. The cause of their disagreement is whether the formation of the follower's prayer depends on the validity of the imam's. Whoever sees no dependence rules their prayer licit; whoever sees it declares it invalid; whoever distinguishes between forgetfulness and deliberateness intends the apparent sense of the earlier report: the Prophet pronounced the takbir in a prayer, gestured to the people to wait, went out and returned with the trace of water on his body; it appears that they built upon their prayer, while al-Shafi'i holds that if the prayer were dependent, they would have had to begin the prayer a second time" (Bidayat al-Mujtahid, 1/113).
Ibn Taymiyya was asked about a man who led the prayer without wudu unknowingly, or carried an impurity unknown to him: is his prayer licit, and that of those behind him? He replied: "The follower who has not learned of the imam's impurity before the prayer is completed has no repetition to make according to al-Shafi'i, nor according to Malik and Ahmad if the imam was unaware; he alone repeats if he was in impurity. Such was the sunna of the rightly guided caliphs: they led the people, saw the major impurity after the prayer, repeated alone and did not order the people to repeat. And Allah knows best" (Majmu al-Fatawa, 23/369). He adds: "As for the formation of the follower's prayer through the imam's, people hold 3 views. The first: no dependence exists, each person prays for himself, being led having as its benefit the multiplication of reward through the congregation: this is the dominant view in the Shafi'i school's origin, although contradicted by the prohibition of the reciter being led by the illiterate, of the man being led by the woman, and by the invalidity of the prayer of one who follows someone without prayer, like the unbeliever and the impure. The proof is the Prophet's statement about the imams: 'If they do well, it is for you and for them; if they do wrong, it is for you and against them' (reported by al-Bukhari, 662, in a wording: 'they pray for you; if they do well, it is for you; if they err, it is for you and against them').
"The second: the follower's prayer is formed through the imam's and depends on it unconditionally: every defect in the imam's prayer extends to the follower's, based on 'The imam is a guarantor' (authentic hadith: reported by Abu Dawud, 517, and al-Tirmidhi, 207); on this view, one led by a forgetful impure man repeats as his imam does: this is Abu Hanifa's view and a narration of Ahmad chosen by Abu al-Khattab, some going so far as to forbid the pure from being led by the one who performed tayammum, because of the inferiority of his purity. The third: the follower's prayer is formed through the imam's, but the defect extends to it only in the absence of excuse on both sides: the imam who believes in his purity is excused in his imamate, and the follower in his following. This is the view of Malik and Ahmad, and the reports of the companions fall under it; it is the most balanced of the views, as we said regarding the deficient imam whose ruling in case of need differs from his ruling without need, his prayer being judged as his personal prayer. From this view also follows the validity of being led by an imam who omits what the follower holds to be an obligation of the prayer, if the imam has an acceptable interpretation, such as not performing wudu after passing wind or after touching his private parts; the imam's belief in the validity of his prayer here is like his belief in its validity when unaware of impurity, and even stronger, for there he must repeat. A proof of this last view is what al-Bukhari reported in his Sahih from Abu Hurayra (may Allah be pleased with him): the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said:
They pray for you: if they do well, it is for you and for them; if they err, it is for you and against them.Reported by al-Bukhari (662)
It is therefore an explicit text that the imam's error falls on him alone: whoever prayed believing in his purity while in minor or major impurity, or carrying impurity, is in error in his belief; his error falls on him and he repeats; as for the followers, this prayer counts for them and they bear nothing of his error, as the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) explicitly stated. Likewise, if the imam omits part of the prayer's obligations relying on an interpretation wrong in the followers' eyes, such as touching his private parts then praying, wiping over his turban then praying, omitting the basmala, or praying with an impurity the followers do not excuse, the prayer counts for the followers and they bear nothing of their imam's error (Majmu al-Fatawa, 23/370, 372).
Third case: the imam learns during the prayer of his own impurity, or the followers learn of it. The majority of jurists, namely the Hanafis, Malikis and Hanbalis, hold that if the imam learns his state during the prayer and leads them on regardless, unknowingly or out of shyness, or if the followers learn of the imam's state, they must interrupt the prayer and begin it again: they were led by someone whose prayer is invalid with the knowledge of either of them, like the one led by a woman. This obligation applies only if either of them had knowledge: if ignorance persists in both until the end, there is consensus on the validity of their completed prayer, for requiring the followers to repeat while ignorance persists would be burdensome and disperse them, unlike the case where they learn during the prayer (al-Jami li-masa'il al-Mudawwana, 1/256; al-Taj wal-Iklil, 2/417; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 2/23; Tahbir al-Mukhtasar, 1/415; al-Tajrid, 2/721, 723; al-Hidaya, 1/58; al-Banaya, 2/368; al-Inaya, 2/97; Tabyin al-Haqa'iq, 1/144; al-Bahr al-Ra'iq, 1/388; al-Mughni, 2/293-294).
If part of the followers learns of it without the rest, the Hanbalis state explicitly that the prayer of all is annulled. Ibn Qudama wrote: "The sounder position is that annulment affects only the one who knew, to the exclusion of the one who did not, for what annuls is a particular attribute, so the one it belongs to alone is affected by annulment, like the one whose impurity is his own" (al-Mughni, 2/294).
Malik said: "If the impure man leads the people one or 2 rak'as and then remembers his major impurity, let him appoint a deputy to complete with them the rest of the prayer, and their prayer is completed; if he remembers only after finishing, the prayer of those behind him is complete, and he alone repeats. If he leads them while remembering his major impurity, the prayer of all of them is invalid; likewise if he remembers during the prayer and leads them on unknowingly or out of shyness: he has ruined it for them." Ibn al-Qasim added: "Any imam overtaken by what annuls his prayer who leads them on has his prayer annulled: they must repeat as soon as they learn of it." It is also reported that if the follower learns of his imam's state, his prayer is annulled by one unambiguous view (Tahbir al-Mukhtasar, 1/415; al-Jami li-masa'il al-Mudawwana, 1/256; al-Taj wal-Iklil, 2/417; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 2/23).
The Shafi'is build their prayer upon what is already performed, whether the imam knew or the followers learned: what has passed of their prayer is valid, so they build upon it, like the one who rises for a fifth rak'a and pronounces the tasbih without returning. Al-Nawawi wrote: "If he learns during the prayer of the imam's state, he must leave him and complete his prayer alone, building on what he prayed with him; if he remains in imitation for a moment or has no intention of leaving, his prayer is invalid by consensus... If he learns nothing until the salam, his prayer suffices him, whether the imam knew his state or not: such is the madhhab by which the majority settled" (al-Majmu, 4/256, 258). Another narration from Ahmad reports that if the followers learn of the imam's state, they build their prayer upon what has passed (al-Mughni, 2/294).
Ibn Abd al-Barr wrote: "Malik and al-Shafi'i differed over the imam who continues his prayer remembering his major impurity, or remembering he is without wudu, or having begun it thus, while being known as a Muslim. Malik and his companions say: if he learns he is not pure and continues deliberately, the prayer of the one behind him is invalid, for he has ruined it for them. Al-Shafi'i says: the people's prayer is entirely valid, with no repetition for them, since they are not required to know what is hidden from them and they prayed behind a Muslim man as far as they know. This is the view of the majority of the jurists of the lands and of the majority of the people of hadith, and Ibn Nafi', Malik's companion, followed it.
The argument of the latter: no difference exists between the imam's deliberateness and forgetfulness, since the followers are not required to know the unseen; their state is identical, and their prayer is invalid only if they learn their imam is not pure and then follow him: they are then themselves the causes of their annulment. As for the imam, he does not annul their prayer by what is hidden from them of his state, his case remaining distinct for himself: he is sinful if he continues deliberately, and no sin upon him if he is unaware and forgets" (al-Tamhid, 1/183; al-Istidhkar, 1/290).
Fourth case: the imam loses purity during the prayer and appoints someone to lead the people. The men of knowledge agree that if the imam deliberately loses purity during his prayer, it is annulled. They differ on the case where he loses it unintentionally: is the prayer of the followers annulled as well, or may he appoint another imam who leads them without their prayer being annulled? The majority of jurists, namely the Hanafis, Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis within the school, hold that if impurity overtakes the imam unintentionally, the followers' prayer is not annulled and the imam appoints a substitute who leads them, by the Prophet's statement: "If one of you passes wind during the prayer or something escapes him, let him turn away, perform wudu, then resume his prayer as long as he has not spoken" (weak and mursal hadith: reported by al-Daraqutni, 564).
When the Messenger of Allah ordered Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) to lead the people, he felt some relief and went out supported by 2 men, although Abu Bakr had already begun the prayer. Hearing the shuffling of the Messenger of Allah, he moved back, then the Prophet stepped forward and began the recitation where Abu Bakr had stopped.Reported by al-Bukhari (633) and Ibn Khuzayma in his Sahih (1616)
Abu Bakr had indeed moved back because he was unable to continue, and continuing amounts to stepping ahead of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), Allah having said:
"O you who believe, do not put yourselves forward before Allah and His Messenger."
Surah Al-Hujurat, 49
This report thus becomes a rule for every imam unable to complete: let him step back and appoint a substitute. Ibn Abd al-Barr wrote: "This hadith proves the lawfulness of appointing a deputy in the prayer when the imam loses purity or is prevented from completing it. The imam who becomes impure has greater title to be replaced than Abu Bakr, who stepped back without impurity: the impure man indeed cannot continue this prayer, whereas Abu Bakr could, were it not for the excellence of the Messenger of Allah going before, and it was also possible for him to remain and continue because of the Messenger of Allah's gesture to stay in his place, which is not the case of the impure man. Hence appointing a substitute is admitted by the majority of the scholars" (al-Tamhid, 21/104; al-Istidhkar, 2/311). It is reported of Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) that when impurity overtook him during the prayer he stepped back and put a man forward, and the same is reported of Uthman. The worshippers indeed need to complete their prayer with an imam, and the imam has committed himself to it: if he cannot fulfill his commitment, he seeks the help of one who can, out of care for them, lest their prayer be annulled by dispute (Bada'i al-sana'i, 1/224-225; al-Mabsut, 1/176-177).
The Malikis say: the imam who loses purity unintentionally does not annul the follower's prayer, unless he continues the imamate after the impurity, in which case it is annulled; likewise if he has a nosebleed, or remembers his major impurity or his lack of wudu: he appoints a deputy before leaving. If he continues after remembering, or begins knowingly, he has ruined it for them. If he does not, they appoint a deputy among themselves; if they do not and pray individually, their prayer suffices them; if they separate and each group appoints its own imam, their prayer is annulled (Uqd al-jawahir al-thamina fi madhhab alam al-Madina, 1/145; Uyun al-masa'il, 140; al-Jami li-masa'il al-Mudawwana, 2/835; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 2/23).
Imam al-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "The choice, when the imam loses a purity that bars him from prayer, such as a nosebleed or the annulment of wudu, is that if a rak'a or more of his prayer has passed, the people pray individually without putting anyone forward. If they put a man forward, or the imam puts one forward who completes the rest of the prayer with them, their prayer suffices them; likewise for the second, third and fourth imam, and likewise if the second or third imam puts forward someone from among the people of the prayer, or if someone steps forward of his own accord without the imam putting him forward: the same ruling, and their prayer suffices them in all these cases.
"Abu Bakr had indeed begun the prayer for the people, then stepped back and the Messenger of Allah stepped forward: Abu Bakr became a follower after being imam, and the people prayed with Abu Bakr following the prayer of the Messenger of Allah after having begun with that of Abu Bakr. It would be the same if an imam stepped back without impurity and another stepped forward: the prayer of those behind him would suffice them. I prefer, however, that the imam not do so, and in this none equals the Messenger of Allah; if he does it and the one behind prays following his prayer, their prayer is licit and suffices them" (al-Umm, 1/175).
Imam al-Amrani (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "If the imam loses purity during the prayer, or remembers that he was impure, or an event interrupts him, may he appoint a deputy? Two views exist. The first, the ancient view: it is not permitted. The proof: the report that the Prophet entered ihram with his companions, then remembered he was in major impurity; he said to them: 'Remain as you are', went out, performed ghusl, returned with his head dripping with water, entered ihram with them and prayed" (reported by al-Bukhari, 614). "Had the substitution been permitted in the prayer, he would have appointed someone to lead them; so did Umar (may Allah be pleased with him). It is reported of Ali that he entered the prayer with the people, went out, performed wudu, returned and led their prayer, then said: 'I touched my private parts', from which it is known that substitution is not permitted. Moreover, the imam's ruling differs from the follower's: the imam recites the sura aloud and prostrates for his forgetfulness, unlike the follower; to allow the substitution, the follower's ruling would become contradictory.
"The second view, the recent view: it is permitted, and Malik and Abu Hanifa also say so, and it is the correct one. The proof: the Messenger of Allah appointed Abu Bakr to lead the people during his final illness; he officiated for 17 days; one day the Messenger of Allah felt some relief, went out supported by 2 men, stood at Abu Bakr's left and led the people: Abu Bakr and the people followed the Prophet after having followed Abu Bakr. It is also reported that the Prophet went out to reconcile the clans of Amr ibn Awf; the iqama was called, Abu Bakr stepped forward and led part of the prayer; the Messenger of Allah arrived, the people began clapping loudly, Abu Bakr never turning in the prayer; at the loud clapping he turned, saw the Messenger of Allah and stepped back; the Prophet said to him: 'Stay where you are', stepped forward and led their prayer" (reported by al-Bukhari, 1143, 2544). "The proponents of this view say: the Prophet's act when he remembered his major impurity during the prayer does not prove that substitution is forbidden, only that it is not obligatory. Such is our position" (al-Bayan, 2/612-613; al-Muhadhdhab, 1/96; al-Majmu, 4/209, 211).
Ibn Qudama wrote: "If impurity overtakes the imam, he may appoint a deputy to complete the prayer with them; this is reported of Umar, Ali, Alqama, Ata, al-Hasan, al-Nakha'i, al-Thawri, al-Awza'i, al-Shafi'i and the exponents of opinion. Another narration from Ahmad reports that the followers' prayer is annulled; Ahmad said: 'I used to hold the substitution licit, then I recoiled from it.' Abu Bakr says, in a single narration, that their prayer is annulled, for he has lost a condition of the prayer's validity in the person of the imam, and their prayer is annulled as if he had lost purity deliberately.
"Our proof: Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), when stabbed, took the hand of Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf, put him forward and he completed the prayer with them, before a gathering of companions and others without anyone rejecting it: this was therefore a consensus. Ahmad himself used to cite the statements of Umar and Ali, which carry authority with him, so there is no departing from them. His words 'I recoiled from it' amount only to hesitation, and a momentary hesitation does not annul an established consensus. It is therefore permitted for the imam to appoint a deputy who completes the prayer with them, as Umar did; if he does not, the followers putting one of themselves forward is permitted; and if they pray individually, it is permitted. Al-Zuhri said of the imam whom blood, a nosebleed or madhi prevents: 'Let him turn away and say: complete your prayer.'" The 2 later views of the Shafi'i school give as the choice that the people pray individually in this case; Ahmad's hesitation perhaps concerned only the substitution, not the validity of the followers' prayer, since he explicitly stated that their prayer is not annulled by the imam's laughter, all the more so then. And if each group of followers puts forward an imam who leads them, this falls under the school's analogy: it is licit, the doctrine of the Shafi'i school. The exponents of opinion say: the prayer of all of them is invalid. Our proof: they may pray individually, so they may put men forward, as at the beginning of the prayer; and if some put a man forward while the others pray individually, it is permitted (al-Mughni, 2/295).
No disagreement exists among the jurists that the most knowledgeable and the best reciter goes ahead of the rest of the people, even if the group includes someone more excellent in piety, in the sunna and in other qualities. They differ only on the choice between the 2: the best reciter or the most versed in jurisprudence? Imam Ahmad and Abu Yusuf among the Hanafis give priority to the best reciter, the one who masters the whole Quran and knows the rules of the prayer, even if the other knows more in jurisprudence and masters of the Quran what suffices for the prayer.
The proof is the Prophet's statement (peace and blessings be upon him): "Let the people be led by the one who recites the Book of Allah best; if they are equal in recitation, then the most knowledgeable of the Sunna; if they are equal in the Sunna, then the first to have migrated; if they are equal in migration, then the first to have embraced Islam." In al-Ashaj's version: "the eldest" instead of "the first to have embraced Islam" (reported by Muslim, 673). And the hadith of Abu Sa'id: "If they are 3, let one of them lead them, and the most entitled to the imamate is the one who recites best" (reported by Muslim, 672). Ibn Umar reports: "When the first band of emigrants arrived at Quba before the arrival of the Messenger of Allah, Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhayfa, used to lead them, and he was the most versed among them in the Quran" (reported by al-Bukhari, 660), although among them were Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Salama ibn Abd al-Asad. In the hadith of Amr ibn Salama: "Let the one among you with the most Quran lead you" (reported by al-Bukhari, 4051). Finally, recitation is a pillar of the prayer: the able one is therefore prior, like the one able to stand facing the one unable.
The 3 imams, Abu Hanifa, Malik and al-Shafi'i, hold that the most knowledgeable of the rules of fiqh has greater title than the best reciter as long as his recitation suffices for the prayer: after that degree of recitation, the prayer needs knowledge to deal with whatever incidents may occur, and recitation itself needs the knowledge of the error that invalidates it. The most knowledgeable is therefore prior, to the point that they say: if the most knowledgeable avoids the apparent grave sins and the best reciter is more pious than he, the most knowledgeable takes precedence. The Prophet only gave priority to the best reciter in the hadith because in that era the best reciter was the most knowledgeable, teaching them the Quran with its meanings and rules; in our time a man may be skilled in the Quran without any share in knowledge, and the most knowledgeable takes precedence.
Moreover, the Prophet said: "Order Abu Bakr to lead the people in prayer" (reported by al-Bukhari, 633 and 646, and Muslim, 418), although someone there recited more but was not more knowledgeable, the Prophet having said: "The best reciter among you is Ubayy" (authentic hadith: reported by al-Tirmidhi, 3790 and 3791, who judged it hasan sahih, Ibn Majah, 154, Ibn Hibban in his Sahih, 16/74, and al-Hakim in al-Mustadrak, 3/477). Abu Sa'id said: "Abu Bakr was the most knowledgeable of us" (reported by al-Bukhari, 454 and 3454, and Muslim, 2382), and this hadith is the later of the 2 commands of the Messenger of Allah, hence the one to rely upon. The need for jurisprudence is moreover greater than the need for recitation: recitation serves only one pillar, while jurisprudence is required for all the pillars, obligations and sunna (Fath al-Qadir, 1/303; Tabyin al-Haqa'iq, 1/134; Ma'ani al-Athar, 1/495; al-Tahawi, 1/201; al-Tuhfa, 2/362; Umdat al-qari, 5/203; al-Dhakhira, 2/253, 255; Jawahir al-Iklil, 1/83; al-Majmu, 5/370, 374; Nihayat al-muhtaj, 2/176; al-Mughni, 2/395; Fath al-Bari, 2/171; al-Ifsah, 2/171).
The jurists differ on the lawfulness of taking payment for leading the prayer. The early Hanafis, the Shafi'is in the sounder view, the Hanbalis within the school and Ibn Habib among the Malikis hold that taking payment for the imamate of the obligatory prayer is not permitted, nor for the supererogatory, such as the tarawih in the sounder view: the imam prays for himself, and as soon as he prays whoever wishes follows him, even without the intention of imamate; if he expects something from his intention, it is the attainment of the congregation's merit, a benefit that does not accrue to the one hired. Al-Nawawi wrote: "Being hired for the imamate of the obligatory prayers is invalid, likewise for the tarawih and the other voluntary prayers, according to the sounder view: the imam prays for himself, and as soon as he prays whoever wishes follows him, even without the intention of imamate; if he expects something from his intention, it is the attainment of the congregation's merit. Whoever allows it has likened it to the call to prayer made for wages" (Rawdat al-talibin, 4/18).
The Malikis in the famous view, the later Hanafis, which is the view given in fatwa among them, the Shafi'is in one view and the Hanbalis in one narration hold that taking payment for the imamate is permitted, as wages for a public office, like the call to prayer. Ashhab reports from Malik that he was asked about praying behind a man hired to stand for the people in Ramadan; he replied: "I hope there is no harm in it; if there is harm, it falls upon him, not upon the one who prays behind him." Ibn al-Qasim reports from him that he disliked it, and specifies that this dislike is stronger for the obligatory prayer.
The Malikis say: taking payment for the prayer, that is, for its imamate taken alone, obligatory or voluntary, is disliked, and more strongly for the prescribed prayer; if the contract takes place it is valid and enforceable in judgment, like hiring for the pilgrimage. The prayer behind the one who takes payment is valid with no dislike attached to him, hiring not being forbidden to him in a way that would disparage him and affect his imamate; it is only disliked for him, and leaving it is better. The imamate of one who does what it is better to leave is not disliked, just as the imamate of one who leaves what it is better to do among the voluntary prayers is not disliked. The dislike concerns only the payment taken from the worshippers; if it comes from the public treasury or the mosque's endowments, there is no dislike, for it falls under assistance, not hiring (al-Istidhkar, 5/418; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 1/236; al-Bayan wa-l-tahsil, 1/469).
As for receiving a stipend for the imamate, all agree on its lawfulness. Al-Qarafi (may Allah have mercy on him) wrote: "Receiving stipends for the imamate is agreed upon as lawful, for it belongs to the category of good works, not of hiring, contrary to what many jurists thought. Some only admit receiving a stipend for the imamate of the prayer on the basis of the lawfulness of hiring, and refrain out of caution because of the disagreement over that lawfulness, not understanding that the lawfulness of stipends is like that of endowments, without the slightest disagreement: the stipend is by no means a compensation. How could it be otherwise, since they allowed receiving stipends in the narrowest of domains where compensation is absolutely excluded, namely judgment and arbitration between people? There is thus no scruple in taking stipends for the imamate from this angle" (al-Furuq, 3/8; see also Mukhtasar al-Wiqaya, 2/119; al-Bahr al-Ra'iq, 5/249; al-Jawhara al-nayyira, 3/360; Majma al-anhar, 3/533; al-Lubab, 1/489; Hashiyat Ibn Abidin, 4/143; Tanqih al-fatawa al-Hamidiyya, 5/420-421; Rawdat al-talibin, 4/18; Mughni al-muhtaj, 3/399; al-Najm al-wahaj, 5/353; Nihayat al-muhtaj, 5/332; Majmu al-Fatawa, 30/202; al-Insaf, 6/45-46; Kashshaf al-Qina, 4/13; Sharh muntaha al-iradat, 4/41; Manar al-sabil, 2/217-218).