Following an Imām Belonging to Another Madhhab

According to the Ḥanafī madhhab, one may pray behind an imām belonging to another madhhab. However, if the ṣalāh of the imām is valid according to the imām’s madhhab but is not valid according to the madhhab of the muqtadī, and the muqtadī is aware of this, then his ṣalāh behind the imām will not be valid. This is because it is the muqtadī’s madhhab that is considered when assessing the validity of his ṣalāh behind the imām, and not the imām’s.

This is the clearly articulated position of the Ḥanafī madhhab. Below are a few texts showing this:

In al-Aṣl, Imām Muḥammad writes:
This ruling is based on the principle that once an individual who performed tayammum due to the absence of water becomes aware that water is available, his tayammum is invalidated and he will have to perform wuḍū’. In the scenario described here, the muqtadī is aware of the presence of water while the imām is not. Hence, for the muqtadī, the ṣalāh of the imām (who performed tayammum due to the absence of water) would not be valid as his tayammum has now become void. Thus, his ṣalāh behind the imām is not valid. After mentioning this ruling from al-Aṣl, al-Sarakhsī explains the basis of the ruling as follows:
This ruling from al-Aṣl represents the unanimous verdict of Imām Abū Ḥanīfah, Imām Abū Yūsuf and Imām Muḥammad.

In al-Jāmi‘ al-Ṣaghīr, Imām Muḥammad writes:
The reverse scenario of this is that the muqtadīs are aware that the imām has prayed in a different direction, and in this case, their ṣalāh behind him is not valid. Al-Sarakhsī also uses this ruling to prove the same principle. Thus, he writes:
In al-Nawāzil, Faqīh Abu l-Layth reports:
Faqīh Abu l-Layth also reports:

[Note: According to the view here described, if according to the madhhab of the imām, his own ṣalāh would be invalid, but according to the madhhab of the muqtadī, it would be valid, the muqtadī’s ṣalāh behind him is valid, as it is the muqtadī’s view that is always considered and not the imām’s. However, the Faqīh Abū Ja‘far al-Hinduwānī held a stricter position, that in this case too, the muqtadī’s ṣalāh behind the imām will not be valid. In other words, according to Abū Ja‘far al-Hinduwānī, it is necessary for the imām’s ṣalāh to be valid according to both the imām’s madhhab and the muqtadī’s madhhab in order for the muqtadī’s ṣalāh behind him to be valid. Unfortunately, al-Hinduwānī’s view has been misunderstood by some to mean he only considers the madhhab of the imām for the validity of the ṣalāh of the muqtadī. But as explained, this is not the case. This becomes clear when one refers to the original source for Hinduwānī’s statement in al-Nihāyah of al-Sighnāqī, where he quotes Hinduwānī’s view via Ẓahīr al-Dīn al-Tumurtāshī. Raḥmatullāh al-Sindī in his treatise on this subject also clarified this as being Hinduwānī’s view, and it is not that he disregarded the madhhab of the muqtadī for assessing the validity of his ṣalāh behind the imām.]

Faqīh Abu l-Layth also reports:
It is clear that the basis for this ruling is that according to the muqtadī, the imām prayed in the wrong direction at the start of his ṣalāh, so in his belief the imām’s ṣalāh is not valid. But because the imām did what was obligatory on him, his ṣalāh would be valid for himself.

In brief, the position described above is the clear position of the Ḥanafī madhhab. There was no disagreement on this in the first several centuries of the madhhab, besides an opinion reported from Abū Bakr al-Jaṣṣāṣ al-Rāzī, whose transmitted view on this issue has therefore been considered a fringe and rejected (shādhdh) opinion. Hence, the later Ḥanafī faqīh, Raḥmatullāh al-Sindī (930 – 993 H), author of the famous Lubāb al-Manāsik on Ḥajj, explains:
Raḥmatullāh al-Sindī further states:
Thus, the authorities of tarjīḥ and taṣḥīḥ in the Ḥanafī madhhab have only authenticated views that uphold this basic principle, and there is no authentication of a view violating this principle. 

Some later scholars belonging to the Ḥanafī madhhab have moved away from this accepted principle. These opinions are referred to as personal “tafarrudāt” or “ikhtiyārāt” of these scholars, and are not from the madhhab. Thus, they are not permissible to follow.

From the ‘ulamā’ of Deoband, the vast majority of the celebrated early muftīs belonging to the school have given fatwā on the correct Ḥanafī position as described above. (See: Fatāwā Dār al-‘Ulūm Deoband/‘Azīz al-Fatāwā, Dār al-Ishā‘at, 3:137; Ta’līfāt Rashīdiyyah/Fatāwā Rashīdiyyah, Idārah Islāmiyyāt, p. 292; Imdādul Fatāwā, Maktabah Dārul ‘Ulūm Karāchī, 5:306; Kifāyat al-Muftī, Dār al-Ishā‘at, 3:92; Imdād al-Aḥkām, Zakariyyā Book Depot, 2:116, 151, 206; Fatāwā Maḥmūdiyyah, Jāmi‘ah Fārūqiyyah Karāchī, 6:369, 375-6, 380-2; Aḥsan al-Fatāwā, HM Saeed, 3:282; Fatāwā Raḥīmiyyah, Dār al-Ishā‘at, 4:172; Fatāwā Khayr al-Madāris, Maktabah Imdādiyyah, 2:400).

Zameelur Rahman
May, 2017