Islamic Fiqh > Prayer > Group prayer and the rules of the imam > The imam: capacity, special cases and precedence
Contents
Updated on 24 September 2026 at 7:46 PM
A continuation of the fiqh study on congregational prayer and the imam: after discussing the sinful imam, this chapter reviews the other personal qualities required of the imam, namely sound reason, maturity, being male, the ability to recite and the ability to perform the pillars of prayer. It then deals with the cases in which the imam leads the prayer while in a state of ritual impurity, praying behind a sick imam who sits, the ranking of those entitled to lead, and the question of taking payment for leading the prayer. The positions of the four schools are given with their classical references and the hadiths on which each view rests.
Those who require integrity rely on the general scope of the Prophet's (peace and blessings be upon him) statement: "Let the people be led by the one who recites their Book best." They excepted no flagrant sinner (fasiq) in favor of an upright man, and invoking a general wording outside its intended subject is a weak proof. Other jurists distinguished between a sin affecting the conditions of the prayer's validity and a sin concerning matters outside the prayer, on the basis that the imam is only required for his own prayer to be valid (Bidayat al-Mujtahid, 1/204).
The jurists then agree that the imam must possess reason. The imamate of the drunkard is therefore invalid, as is that of the bound madman, or the madman in the midst of his fit. The reason is the invalidity of their own prayer for themselves, upon which the prayer of others cannot be built. As for the one with intermittent fits, his imamate is valid during his lucid intervals (al-Tahawi on Maraqi al-Falah, 157; Ma'ani al-Athar, 1/490; Radd al-Muhtar, 1/550; Hashiyat al-Adawi, 1/377; al-Thamar al-Dani, 1/148; Jawahir al-Iklil, 78; Kashshaf al-Qina, 1/475-476).
The jurists differ concerning the child who has not reached puberty although he can recite: is the prayer behind him valid? According to the majority of jurists, namely the Hanafis, Malikis and Hanbalis within the school, valid imamate in the obligatory prayer requires an adult imam: the imamate of a discerning minor for an adult is therefore not valid in their view. Imamate is a state of perfection, and the child does not belong to the realm of perfection; he does not lead men, like the woman.
The imam is a guarantor and the muezzin is held in trust: O Allah, guide the imams and forgive the muezzins.Authentic hadith, reported by Abu Dawud (517) and others
The Shafi'is and Imam Ahmad in one narration hold that maturity is not a condition of imamate: the imamate of the discerning minor is therefore valid. Imam al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) wrote: "Every child whose prayer is valid has a valid imamate, outside the Friday prayer, without disagreement among us; regarding Friday there are two views, the sounder being validity", by virtue of the general scope of the Prophet's statement: "Let the people be led by the one among them who recites the Book of Allah best" (reported by Muslim, 673), which includes the child, and by the hadith of Amr ibn Salama al-Jarmi.
When the time of prayer comes, let one of you call the adhan and let the one among you with the most Quran lead you. They searched, and none knew more than I, for I used to recite what I learned from the caravans; so they placed me in front of them although I was six or seven years old.Reported by al-Bukhari (4051)
Since the child is thus permitted to call the men to prayer, they may take him as their imam, like the adult. The scholars point out, however, that the adult has greater title than the child, even if the child recites better or is more versed in jurisprudence, since being led by an adult is valid by consensus. That is why it is explicitly reported in al-Buwayti that being led by a child is disliked.
In supererogatory prayers, such as the tarawih, the imamate of a discerning minor for an adult is valid according to the majority of jurists: Malikis, Shafi'is, Hanbalis in one view, and some Hanafis. It does not result in building a strong act upon a weak one, and the supererogatory prayer admits leniency; that is why the congregation is formed through him in this case. The Hanbalis in one narration, which is the choice adopted among the Hanafis, hold on the contrary that the discerning minor may never lead an adult: the child's supererogatory prayer is inferior to the adult's, since it entails no make-up if annulled, and a strong act is not built upon a weak one. As for a discerning minor leading his like, it is permitted in the five prayers and others, according to all jurists (Tabyin al-Haqa'iq, 1/140; al-Bahr al-Ra'iq, 1/380; al-Mabsut, 2/149; Ma'ani al-Athar, 1/494; Radd al-Muhtar, 1/550; Fath al-Qadir, 1/310-311; al-Tahawi, 157; al-Ishraf ala nukat masa'il al-khilaf, 1/368, no. 284; Jawahir al-Iklil, 1/78; al-Sharh al-saghir, 1/288; Tafsir al-Qurtubi, 1/353; Bidayat al-Mujtahid, 1/204; al-Umm, 1/166; Kifayat al-akhyar, 179; al-Thamar al-Dani, 1/148; Hashiyat al-Adawi, 1/377; al-Majmu, 5/326, 231; Nihayat al-muhtaj, 2/168; al-Mughni, 2/438-439; Kashshaf al-Qina, 1/480; al-Insaf, 2/266; Fath al-Bari, 2/217; Nayl al-awtar, 3/203).
The jurists of the four schools and others agree that being male is a condition for leading men in the obligatory prayer. A woman's imamate over men is therefore not valid in the obligatory prayer. The Prophet's statement "Keep them back where Allah has kept them back" amounts to a prohibition of praying behind them; Jabir reports from the Prophet: "Let no woman lead a man in prayer" (weak hadith: reported by Ibn Majah, 1081, and al-Bayhaqi, 390/171), and a woman's imamate over men involves a temptation linked to her person.
The first text is reported by Abd al-Razzaq in the Musannaf (3/5115) as a statement stopped at Ibn Mas'ud; al-Ajluni cites it in Kashf al-Khafa (1/69, no. 156) and reports from the commentary on al-Hidaya that its elevation to the Prophet is not established, so it is safer to regard it as a statement of Ibn Mas'ud; Ibn Hajar mentions it in Fath al-Bari (1/294) as reported at a stop on Ibn Mas'ud, with a chain he declares authentic. Ibn Hazm transmits the consensus on the prohibition: "They agreed that a woman does not lead men while knowing she is a woman; if they do so, their prayer is invalid by consensus" (Maratib al-Ijma, 27). Imam Ibn Hubayra (may Allah have mercy on him) similarly wrote: "They agreed that a woman may not lead men in the obligatory prayers" (al-Ifsah, 1/133).
The jurists differ, however, on her leading men in the tarawih alone, and the majority, namely the Hanafis, Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis within the school, forbid it. Al-Nawawi wrote: our companions agreed that neither an adult man nor a child may pray behind a woman, as reported by Qadi Abu al-Tayyib and al-Abdari; neither does the hermaphrodite pray behind a woman, nor a hermaphrodite behind a hermaphrodite, as the author mentioned; a woman's prayer behind a hermaphrodite, however, is valid. Restricting the prohibition of a woman leading men to the obligatory prayer would be inaccurate: it covers the obligatory prayer, the tarawih and all supererogatory prayers. This is our school and that of the majority of scholars of the early and later generations (may Allah have mercy on them); al-Bayhaqi reported it from the seven jurists of Medina among the successors, and it is the doctrine of Malik, Abu Hanifa, Sufyan, Ahmad and Dawud. Abu Thawr, al-Muzani and Ibn Jarir held that the prayer of men behind her is valid, as reported by Qadi Abu al-Tayyib and al-Abdari. Shaykh Abu Hamid stated that the doctrine of all the jurists is the invalidity of men's prayer behind her, with the exception of Abu Thawr, and Allah knows best (al-Majmu, 5/338).
Imam Ahmad, in a narration attributed to him, allows a woman to lead men in the tarawih on condition that she stands behind them and prays behind them. Al-Insaf (2/263-264) reports that a woman's imamate over men is not valid, this being the madhhab unconditionally; another narration makes it valid in the supererogatory; a third makes it valid in the tarawih explicitly, and this is the more widespread among the early scholars. Al-Zarkashi wrote that Ahmad's explicit statement and the choice of most of his companions is that she may lead them in the tarawih. Ibn Qudama reports from some of Ahmad's companions the permission for a woman to lead men in the tarawih while remaining behind them, relying on Umm Waraqa bint Abdallah ibn al-Harith, for whom the Messenger of Allah appointed a muezzin who called for her, and whom he ordered to lead the prayer of the people of her house, a hadith of general import covering men and women alike.
The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) appointed a muezzin for her who called the adhan for her, and ordered her to lead the prayer of the inhabitants of her house.Hadith judged hasan: reported by Abu Dawud (592), al-Daraqutni (1/403) and al-Bayhaqi in al-Sunan al-Kubra (3/130)
Ibn Qudama replies that this hadith only permitted her to lead the women of the people of her house, an addition reported by al-Daraqutni that must be accepted; and even without that addition, the report would have to be restricted in this way, because the permission concerned the obligatory prayers, as shown by the appointment of a muezzin for her, whereas the call to prayer is legislated only for the obligatory prayers, and there is no disagreement that she does not lead men in the obligatory prayers. To further restrict the permission to the tarawih and require her to stand behind them would be an arbitrary ruling contrary to the principles without any proof; and even if it were established for Umm Waraqa, it would be a permission specific to her (al-Mughni, 2/414; al-Mubdi, 2/72; al-Insaf, 2/263-264; Kashshaf al-Qina, 1/479; al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya, 1/58; Majmu al-Fatawa, 23/248; al-Taj wal-Iklil, 2/92; al-Fawakih al-Dawani, 1/205; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 2/22; Bidayat al-Mujtahid, 1/204; al-Majmu, 5/338; al-Ifsah, 1/210; Kifayat al-akhyar, 180; Maratib al-Ijma, 27).
Al-Zarkashi also writes that a woman may lead neither a man nor an ambiguous hermaphrodite, based on the hadith of Jabir: "Let no woman lead a man in prayer" (reported by Ibn Majah); the hermaphrodite may be regarded as a man and may lead a woman, as al-Khiraqi later stated explicitly. These words cover the obligatory and the supererogatory; for the obligatory there is no dispute; as for the supererogatory, al-Khiraqi's words also appear to indicate prohibition, a narration reported by Ibn Abi Musa, which is the choice of Abu al-Khattab and Abu Muhammad, applying the generality of the hadith; but Ahmad's explicit statement in al-Marrudhi's narration, which is the choice of most of the companions, is that she may lead them in the tarawih while remaining behind them.
It is also reported that Umm Waraqa asked the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him): "I pray, and the inhabitants of my house and my freed slaves pray with me in my prayer; among them are men and women who pray following my recitation although they have no Quran." He said: "Bring the men forward, stand with the women, and they will pray following your prayer." She was proficient in the recitation of the Quran and asked the Prophet for permission to appoint a muezzin in her house, which he granted while ordering her to lead the prayer of the inhabitants of her house (reported by al-Marrudhi with his chain, then by Abu Dawud).
Al-Zarkashi derives from it the conditions of this dispensation: that she be proficient in recitation and that her companions be unable to read or know only the Fatiha or some short passage with her. The Qadi holds, where there is difference of opinion, that her imamate is permitted only for the recitation, not for the rest of the prayer, relying on what Abu Talib reported from him: a woman leads a man while she recites; when she recites, he bows and bows with her; this is in the voluntary prayer, not the obligatory. The Qadi explains: the man bowed before her, which shows that he is imam for that, since such is the object of the dispensation. It remains to ask whether the other voluntary prayers follow the status of the tarawih by analogy, as appears in Abu Talib's narration, or whether this is specific to the tarawih, as appears in al-Marrudhi's narration; the Qadi's choice for ordinary voluntary prayers rests on the need to listen to the Quran in prayer: two views exist (Sharh al-Zarkashi, 1/239).
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya (may Allah have mercy on him) wrote that the Sunna explicitly stated in the hadith of Umm Waraqa al-Ansariyya is that a woman leads men when necessary, as in the night prayers of Ramadan, if she recites and they do not, and that she stands behind them: a woman does not stand in the row of men, nor in front of them (Jami al-Masa'il, 1/92).
As for a woman leading women, the scholars differ on its validity. The Malikis require the imam to be male: a woman therefore leads neither men nor women, whether in the obligatory or the supererogatory prayer, since imamate falls under guardianship. It is established from the Prophet: "A people will never prosper who entrust their authority to a woman"; and whoever cannot be an imam for men, such as the madman and the child, cannot be one for women (al-Ishraf, 1/370, no. 286; al-Tawdih, 1/456; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 2/22).
The majority of jurists, namely the Hanafis, Shafi'is, Hanbalis and al-Lakhmi among the Malikis, allow a woman to lead women, relying on the hadith of Umm Waraqa quoted above. The Hanafis and Imam Ahmad in one narration dislike it for them, however, because it necessarily involves abandoning a duty or a recommendation: the adhan and iqama are disliked for them, as is her standing in front of them; so when women pray in congregation behind a woman, she stands in the middle of them. Ibn Qudama states that no disagreement is known on this among those who allow it.
Covering herself is indeed recommended for her, so stretching out in prostration is not recommended for her, and her position in the middle of the row is more concealing, since she is thus screened on both sides; hence this position was recommended for her, as for the one who prays naked: if he prayed in front of them, its validity is possible, since it is a place of standing in general, which was also the place of standing for men; but it may not be valid, since she contradicted her own place of standing, like a man who contradicts his (al-Mughni, 2/416-417; al-Bahr al-Ra'iq, 1/372; al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya, 1/85; al-Sharh al-saghir, 1/285; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 2/22; al-Hawi al-kabir, 2/356; al-Majmu, 5/339; Kashshaf al-Qina, 1/479; al-Insaf, 2/265).
Al-Lakhmi wrote: "As for her leading women, the correct position is that it is valid from the outset in the absence of a man to lead them, and it is better than each of them praying alone; it is disliked when a man able to lead them is present. If they do it, their prayer suffices them, their situation being identical, and no report from the Prophet forbids their imamate" (al-Tabsira, 1/328). Ibn Rushd wrote: "They differed concerning the imamate of a woman: the majority hold that she may not lead men; they differed on her leading women, which al-Shafi'i allows and Malik forbids; Abu Thawr and al-Tabari hold an exceptional view, allowing it without restriction. The majority only agree on forbidding her to lead men, for if it were permitted it would have been transmitted from the early generations; and since the sunna for women in prayer is to stand behind the men, it appears that they may not step ahead of them, by the Prophet's statement: 'Keep them back where Allah has kept them back.' Hence some allow her imamate for women of equal standing, which was also transmitted from some of the early generations."
The imamate is also valid of the one who prays on gravel or carries on his body or clothes an excused impurity: being led by him is valid by consensus, since when impurities are excused for their possessor they are excused for others. This is also the famous Maliki position on the imamate of the one suffering from urinary incontinence, seminal incontinence or other excused conditions. The Hanafis, Hanbalis and a weak view among the Shafi'is require, however, that an imam leading healthy people be free of all such excuses: excused people pray with real impurity and their excuse does not extend to others for lack of necessity; moreover, the imam guarantees the follower's prayer, and a thing does not guarantee what is above it. The imamate of an excused person for his like is permitted by consensus of the jurists unconditionally, provided their excuse is the same (al-Majmu, 5/348-349; Hashiyat al-Tahawi, 157; Fath al-Qadir, 1/318; al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya, 1/84; Hashiyat al-Dasuqi, 1/330; Mughni al-muhtaj, 1/241; Kashshaf al-Qina, 1/476).
The imam must be able to recite and memorize the minimum required for the validity of the prayer. For a reciter, the imamate is therefore not valid of the illiterate, that is, the one who does not master the Fatiha or alters a letter of it even if he masters the rest (definition by Ibn Qudama); of the one who merges a letter into another outside the prescribed place of merging (al-aratt); of the one who substitutes one letter for another, such as r for gh or s for th (al-althagh, definition by al-Nawawi); nor of the mute.
Al-Nawawi wrote: "This illiterate, this merger and this substituter: if he is able to learn, his prayer in itself is invalid and he cannot be followed, without disagreement; if he cannot, because his tongue does not obey him, or because the time is too short and he could not learn before, his prayer is valid for himself; whoever is in the same state may be led by him by consensus, since he is his like. If a reciter who does not know the whole Fatiha, or who knows less of it than he, is led by him, two explicit views exist, and a third excluded: the sounder, which is the recent view, is that being led by him is invalid; the earlier view is that it is invalid in the loud prayer and valid in the silent prayer; the third, excluded, holds it valid unconditionally. The compilers agree that the correct position is the invalidity of being led by him, which is the doctrine of Malik, Abu Hanifa, Ahmad and others."
Consequently, if a reciter prays behind an illiterate, the follower's prayer is invalid and the imam's valid, and likewise that of the illiterate followers: such is the doctrine of the school and of Ahmad. Abu Hanifa and Malik hold, however, that the prayers of both imam and follower, reciter and illiterate alike, are invalid, because the latter could have prayed behind a reciter: his prayer is invalid for neglecting a recitation he was able to perform. The Shafi'i school argues that one whose following is not permitted followed him: the imam's prayer is therefore not annulled by the follower's being led by him, like a woman praying among men (al-Majmu, 5/354-356; al-Hawi al-kabir, 2/325; al-Inaya, 1/375; Maraqi al-Falah, 757; al-Dasuqi, 1/328; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 2/26; al-Taj wal-Iklil, 2/98; Kashshaf al-Qina, 1/480; al-Mughni, 2/412; al-Ifsah, 1/210; al-Insaf, 2/268).
It is disliked to be led by the fa-repeater (the one who repeats the letter fa) and the ta-repeater (the one who repeats the letter ta), as well as by the one whose pronunciation error does not change the meaning, according to the Shafi'is and Hanbalis. The Hanafis hold that the fa-repetition, the ta-repetition and the lisping defect (the tongue moving from s to th or from r to gh, and the like) bar the imamate (al-Majmu, 5/357; Nihayat al-muhtaj, 2/166; Kashshaf al-Qina, 1/483; al-Mughni, 2/413; Maraqi al-Falah, 157; Ibn Abidin, 1/550; Nur al-Idah, 1/50).
Among the Malikis there are six views on the matter. In al-Sharh al-saghir: the prayer is valid despite an error in recitation, even in the Fatiha, if it is not deliberate; the follower is sinful if someone else able to recite well is present, otherwise not; the prayer is valid behind the one who does not distinguish dad from za while pronouncing both emphatic letters, as in the dialect of some Arabs who turned dad into za (the k having entered their language); likewise behind the one who turns the soft h into the heavily aspirated h, or r into l, or dad into d, as among some non-Arabs; but if the error or the substitution of letters is deliberate, he may not be followed.
In Bulghat al-salik (1/288), the first of the six views holds the prayer valid whether the meaning changed or not; the second invalidates it for any error without restriction; the third for an error in the Fatiha; the fourth when the meaning changes; the fifth, reported from Ibn Rushd, deems it disliked; the sixth holds it valid. Qadi Abd al-Wahhab al-Maliki writes for his part that the illiterate cannot be imam for a reciter, contrary to one of al-Shafi'i's two views. The question has two aspects: the first is that no prayer is formed for the reciter behind him; the second is that no prayer is formed for the illiterate either when a reciter able to lead exists.
The proof of the first aspect is the Prophet's statement: "The imam is a guarantor", which requires that he act as deputy of the follower in the recitation, something impossible for the illiterate; and the statement: "Let the one among them who recites the Book of Allah best lead you", which negates the imamate of the illiterate. Otherwise one of two forbidden results would follow: either the recitation is dropped from the follower, who could then validly pray without recitation, neither from himself nor from the imam; or it is imposed on him, which means that being led has no effect on the dropping of the recitation, contrary to the purport of imamate. As for the second aspect, the illiterate who knows a reciter is behind him could perform his prayer with recitation by being led by him, who would bear its charge; if he abandons that recourse, he is like the reciter praying without recitation, and that is not permitted (al-Ishraf, 1/370-372, no. 287).
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya (may Allah have mercy on him) was asked whether the prayer of one who makes an error in the Fatiha is valid. He replied: "An error in the Fatiha that does not change the meaning does not invalidate the prayer, whether one is an imam or praying alone, as in 'rabbi l-'alamin' and 'wa d-dallin'. As for readings such as 'al-hamdu li-Llahi rabba, rabbi, rabbu', 'al-hamdu li-Llahi wa l-hamdi li-Llah' with the d pronounced with damma or kasra, and 'alayhim' in its variants, these do not count as errors. As for the error that changes the meaning, if its author knows its meaning, as the one who recites 'sirata lladhina an'amta alayhim' knowing it is a first-person pronoun, his prayer is not valid, even if he does not know that it changes the meaning; if he believes it is a second-person pronoun, the matter is disputed, and Allah knows best" (al-Fatawa al-kubra, 2/185).
He was also asked about a man who is the imam of a town but not among the people of probity, while another man in the town dislikes praying behind him: is his prayer behind him valid? And if he does not pray behind him and abandons the congregational prayer, is he sinful? The one who dislikes praying behind him believes he does not pronounce the Fatiha correctly, although the town has people who recite better and are more versed. He replied: "Praise be to Allah. His not pronouncing the Fatiha correctly is highly improbable: most people, scholars and commoners alike, recite the Fatiha in a manner sufficient for the prayer. The hidden error and the one that does not change the meaning do not invalidate the prayer, and the Fatiha has many readings that were actually transmitted.
Whoever reads 'alayhim', 'alayhima' or 'alayhimu', or 'as-sirat', 'as-sirat' or 'az-zirat', does so according to famous readings; whoever reads 'al-hamdu li-Llah' or 'al-hamdu lu-Llah', or 'rabbu l-'alamin' or 'rabbi l-'alamin' with kasra, prays according to transmitted readings behind which the prayer is valid; reading 'rabbu l-'alamin' with damma or 'maliki yawmi d-din' with fatha is an error that does not change the meaning and does not invalidate the prayer. If he is a fixed imam and the town has someone more versed in recitation, one prays behind him, for the Prophet said: 'Let no man lead another man in his domain of authority.' And if he openly displays sin while no one else can hold the congregation together, one prays behind him as well and does not abandon the congregational prayer; whoever abandons it is sinful, contrary to the Book, the Sunna and the practice of the early generations" (al-Fatawa al-kubra, 2/316).
The imam must be able to perform the pillars of the prayer when he leads people in good health. The jurists differ concerning the imam who would pray by gesturing for bowing or prostration: is his prayer valid for them? The Shafi'is and Zufar among the Hanafis hold that the imamate of one who prays by gestures over a person able to bow and prostrate is permitted: the gesture takes the place of bowing and prostration, as tayammum takes the place of wudu and ghusl; just as the one who has performed wudu may pray behind the one who performed tayammum.
The majority of jurists, namely the Hanafis, Malikis and Hanbalis, hold that being led by the one who prays by gestures is not valid: the follower's state is stronger, and bowing and prostration are pillars of the prayer, so the able cannot be led by the unable. The Prophet said:
The imam has only been appointed to be followed: when he bows, bow; and when he prostrates, prostrate.Reported by al-Bukhari (378) and Muslim (409)
The hadith thus makes bowing and prostration a quality of the imam, absent in the one who prays by gestures: pointing to a thing is not performing it. The same applies to being led by one who has neither bowing nor prostration, like the crucified. Moreover, the gesture is not a substitute for bowing and prostration, since it is part of them, and a part of a thing is not its substitute; otherwise the follower would be led in part of the prayer and not in the other, which is impossible (al-Ishraf, 1/364, no. 276; Fath al-Qadir, 1/220, 224; Ibn Abidin, 1/396; al-Jawhara al-nayyira, 1/62; al-Dasuqi, 1/328; al-Istidhkar, 2/172; Mughni al-muhtaj, 1/240; al-Majmu, 5/353; Kashshaf al-Qina, 1/476; al-Mughni, 2/435).
The jurists differ, in three views, when the follower is healthy and prays behind a sick imam who prays seated.
First view: the follower prays seated behind an imam seated for an excuse, and standing is not permitted for him, by the Prophet's statement:
The imam has only been appointed to be followed: do not differ with him; if he prays seated, then pray seated, all of you.Reported by al-Bukhari (656) and Muslim (412)
Among its proponents is Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, who recalls that four companions did so after the Prophet: Usayd ibn Hudayr, Qays ibn Fahd, Jabir ibn Abdallah and Abu Hurayra (may Allah be pleased with them). The imam being seated, the followers must follow him, as in the tashahhud; if they pray standing behind him, two views exist on the validity of their prayer: one declares it invalid, the other valid. Among the Hanbalis, the seated man only leads one able to stand when two conditions are met. The first: that he be the fixed imam of the community, otherwise a pillar of the prayer would be dropped without need; the Prophet was the fixed imam when he acted thus, and it was recommended for him to appoint a deputy, people differing on the validity of his imamate and the standing prayer being more complete. The second: that his illness be one whose cure is hoped for, for making one whose ability to stand is no longer hoped for a fixed imam would result in their remaining seated permanently, which is not needed; the origin in this matter is the Prophet's act, whose recovery was hoped for (al-Mughni, 2/431, 434; Kashshaf al-Qina, 1/476; Majmu al-Fatawa, 23/406; al-Istidhkar, 2/176; Bidayat al-Mujtahid, 1/214).
Second view: the seated man does not lead the standing one, and the prayer behind him is not valid unconditionally: this is the view of Malik, Abd al-Malik, Mutarrif and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan, based on the report of Jabir al-Ju'fi from al-Sha'bi from the Prophet: "None shall lead the prayer seated after me" (reported by Malik in the Muwatta in the narration of Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani, 158, and by al-Daraqutni, 1/398; al-Daraqutni notes that only Jabir al-Ju'fi reports it from al-Sha'bi, that he is abandoned and the hadith is mursal: it establishes no ruling; al-Bayhaqi also reports it, 3/80, and al-Shafi'i, al-Nawawi, al-Bayhaqi and others weakened it). Added to this is the Prophet's statement: "The imam has only been appointed to be followed: do not differ with him", understood in its general scope in both belief and deed. The imam is incapable of a pillar of the prayer, and the able cannot be led by the unable, whose archetype is the one unable to recite; likewise one unable to stand cannot lead the standing, whose archetype is the one praying by gestures although able to stand (al-Istidhkar, 2/173; Bidayat al-Mujtahid, 1/114; al-Majmu, 5/351; Majmu al-Fatawa, 23/406; al-Mughni, 2/431; Fath al-Bari, 2/175; al-Ishraf, 1/362-363, no. 278).
Third view: the standing one may pray behind the incapable seated imam, but praying behind him seated is not valid: they pray behind him standing, since he is able to stand and may not abandon it, like the one praying alone; the imam's incapacity does not excuse the follower from that pillar, the merit of congregational prayer not vanishing with the diminution of the pillar. This is the view of Abu Hanifa, the Shafi'is and some Malikis, based on the hadith of Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her):
The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), during the illness from which he died, ordered that Abu Bakr be told to lead the people in prayer. She said: "Abu Bakr was ordered to lead the people in prayer. When he entered the prayer, the Messenger of Allah felt some relief: he rose, supported by two men, his feet dragging along the ground. When he entered the mosque, Abu Bakr heard his shuffling and moved back, but the Messenger of Allah gestured to him: 'Stay where you are.' The Messenger of Allah came and sat at Abu Bakr's left, and he led the people seated while Abu Bakr remained standing: Abu Bakr followed the Prophet's prayer, and the people followed Abu Bakr's prayer."Reported by al-Bukhari (633, 651, 681) and Muslim (148), in one of Muslim's narrations
This narration shows explicitly that the Prophet was the imam and Abu Bakr followed him: he sat at his left, and Aisha said "he leads the people" and "Abu Bakr followed him". In another narration of Muslim: "The Prophet led the people and Abu Bakr made them hear the takbir" (reported by Muslim, 418). Al-Nawawi explains that Abu Bakr raised his voice at the takbir when the Prophet pronounced his, the latter's voice being weakened by the illness. In the narrations of al-Bukhari and Muslim, the Prophet sat beside Abu Bakr, who remained standing following the Prophet's prayer, the people following Abu Bakr's prayer; the reports, many, all point this way. Al-Shafi'i and his companions see in them the abrogation of the earlier hadith "if he prays seated, then pray seated, all of you", which concerned an earlier illness, at the time when he had withdrawn to his wives (al-Majmu, 5/351-352): this hadith is the later of the two commands of the Messenger of Allah, and standing is a pillar he was able to perform, which he could not therefore abandon like the other pillars (al-Mughni, 2/431).
Ibn Qudama replies that Ahmad said of the hadith cited by the Shafi'is that it establishes no ruling, Abu Bakr having begun the prayer: if he begins standing, they pray standing. Ahmad thus points to the possibility of reconciling the two hadiths: the first concerns the one who begins the prayer seated, the second the one who begins standing, then falls ill and sits; once reconciliation is possible it is required, without abrogation. Ibn al-Mundhir reports in some accounts that the Prophet led the people, and in others that Abu Bakr was the imam. Aisha said: "The Prophet prayed behind Abu Bakr, seated, during the illness from which he died" (authentic hadith: reported by al-Tirmidhi, 362, and Ibn Majah, 1232), and Anas: "The Prophet prayed, during his illness, behind Abu Bakr, seated, wrapped in a garment" (reported by al-Tirmidhi, 363, whose chain al-Albani declared authentic). Al-Tirmidhi declared both hadiths hasan sahih, and noted that no prayer of the Prophet behind Abu Bakr is known outside these reports (al-Mughni, 2/432). As for the imamate of one incapable of performing the pillars over his like, it is permitted by consensus of the jurists (same references).
One condition remains: the imam must be free from losing any condition of the prayer's validity, such as purity from minor or major impurity. The imamate of one in a state of minor or major impurity, or of one carrying impurity, is not valid by consensus if he knows it: he violates a condition of the prayer while being able to fulfill it, with no difference between minor and major impurity, nor between impurity of clothes, body or place. The scholars detail, however, the case of the imam who prays in a state of impurity, whether aware of his state or not: is the prayer of the followers behind him valid? Is there a difference between their learning of his state during or after the prayer? And if the imam's prayer is annulled by a prior impediment, is the prayer of the followers annulled or valid, the imam then appointing a substitute? Four cases arise.
First case: the imam prays in minor or major impurity knowing his state, or the follower knows it. The jurists agree that if the imam prays in major or minor impurity knowing it, and the followers learn of it during or after the prayer, their prayer is annulled and they must repeat it. Al-Nawawi wrote: "If he prays behind someone in major impurity, from urine or otherwise, and knows the imam's state, he is sinful thereby and his prayer is invalid by consensus" (al-Majmu, 4/256, 258). The jurists then differ on the case where the imam knows his state but the followers do not: must they repeat the prayer? The majority of jurists, namely the Hanafis, Malikis and Hanbalis within the school, require the repetition of the whole prayer, imam and followers. Malik said: "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" (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-Mughni, 2/293-294; al-Kafi, 1/182; al-Insaf, 2/267-268).
The Shafi'is hold that repeating is not required of them. Al-Nawawi wrote: "If he was ignorant of the imam's state, outside the Friday prayer, his prayer is formed; 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, since he prayed part of his prayer behind an impure man knowing his state." Those who explicitly declared this invalidity in the absence of the intention to leave and of imitation of his acts include Shaykh Abu Hamid, Qadi Abu al-Tayyib in their annotations, al-Mahamili and several leading companions of the school. If he learns nothing until the salam, his prayer suffices him, whether the imam knew his own state or not, the follower's negligence being excluded in both cases: such is the madhhab, by which the majority settled.
Al-Shafi'i wrote, before the book of funerals in al-Buwayti, in lines: if the imam knows his state, the prayer of the followers is not valid; if he is forgetful, it is valid. The author of al-Talkhis concluded from it that if the imam does so deliberately, repetition is required, this being two explicit statements of al-Shafi'i in his view. Al-Qaffal replies in Sharh al-Talkhis that his companions judged that he had erred: the well-known position of al-Shafi'i is the absence of repetition even if deliberate, al-Shafi'i having only reported Malik's view; in another copy of Sharh al-Talkhis, most of the companions say there is no repetition even if deliberate, and some see two views in it; Shaykh Abu Ali al-Sindji reports that the companions rejected the author of al-Talkhis: the well-known position of al-Shafi'i is the absence of repetition even if deliberate.
The compiler affirms the existence of the two views, the text on the obligation of repetition having been seen in an authenticated copy of al-Buwayti and reported by the author of al-Talkhis, a trustworthy imam: it must therefore be accepted. Shaykh Abu Ali explains it by the fact that the imam who deliberately prays in impurity is trifling with the prayer, his acts not really being a prayer, even in his own belief: the prayer behind him is therefore not valid, like that of the unbeliever and of whoever does not regard his prayer as a prayer. To the objection that impurity may remain hidden, it is answered that the imam's deliberate prayer in impurity is rare, and the rare case does not remove the repetition; in every case, the correct and well-known view of the madhhab is the absence of repetition if the imam did it deliberately (al-Majmu, 4/256, 258).
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 two 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 two 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 two 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 three 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 two 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 two 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 seventeen days; one day the Messenger of Allah felt some relief, went out supported by two 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 two 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 two: 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 three, 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 three 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 two 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).