Post by StudentOfTheDeen on Apr 20, 2024 19:10:01 GMT
Following an Imām Belonging to Another Madhhab
By Mufti Zameelur Rahman
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:
قلت: أرأيت إن كان من القوم [المقتدين] متوضئون ومتيممون [والإمام متيمم]، وعلم المتوضئون بالماء ولم يعلم به الإمام ولا المتيممون حتى سلم بهم؟ قال: أما المتوضئون فصلاتهم فاسدة، وأما الإمام والمتيممون الذين لم يعلموا بالماء فصلاتهم تامة (الأصل للإمام محمد، دار ابن حزم، ج١ ص١٠٠)
“because [the muqtadī] believed the ṣalāh of his imām is invalid, since according to him, [the imām] performed ṣalāh with the purification of tayammum despite the presence of water, and when the muqtadī believes his imām’s ṣalāh is not valid, his own ṣalāh [behind him] is invalid.” (al-Mabsūṭ, 1:120)
In al-Jāmi‘ al-Ṣaghīr, Imām Muḥammad writes:
رجل أم قوما في ليلة مظلمة، فتحرى القبلة وصلى إلى المشرق وتحرى من خلفه فصلى بعضهم إلى المغرب وبعضهم إلى القبلة وبعضهم إلى دبر القبلة وكلهم خلف الإمام لا يعلمون ما صنع الإمام أجزأهم (الجامع الصغير)
A man leads a group in a dark night, and thus estimates the Qibla, praying towards the east, and those behind him estimate, some praying towards the west, some towards the Qiblah and some to the back of the Qiblah, while all of them are behind the imām, unaware of what the imām has done, it is valid for them. (al-Jāmi‘ al-Ṣaghīr)
“When the muqtadī believes his imām’s ṣalāh is not valid, his own ṣalāh [behind him] is invalid, just as when the Qiblah is not clear to them and the imām’s investigation leads him to one direction and the muqtadī’s to a different direction, his following him is not valid when he is aware that his imām prayed in a different direction to himself.” (al-Mabsūṭ, 1:120)
ذكر عن أبي مطيع [الحكم بن عبد الله البلخي (١١٥ – ١٩٩ ه)] أنه قال: كنت أصلي خلف هشام بن عروة يوم الجمعة – وهو يرى الماء من الماء، لا يرى الاغتسال من الجماع إلا بالإنزال – فخشيت أن لا تجوز صلاتي خلفه إذا فعل ذلك ولم يغتسل، وكنت لا أقدر أن أسأله عن ذلك، فقلت له: يرحمك الله، ترى الغسل يوم الجمعة واجبا؟ قال: أما إنني ما تركت الغسل يوم الجمعة منذ كذا وكذا سنة، فذهب الشغل عن قلبي (النوازل، رسالة دكتوراة، ص ١٢٠)
It is reported from Abū Muṭī‘ [al-Ḥakam ibn ‘Abdillāh al-Balkhī] (115 – 199 H) that he said: “I would offer ṣalāh behind Hishām ibn ‘Urwah on Friday, and he held the view of ‘water from water’, that is, he did not believe ghusl is necessary from intercourse unless there is ejaculation, so I was afraid that my ṣalāh behind him would not be valid if he did this and did not perform ghusl, but I was not able to ask him about this, so I said to him: ‘Allāh have mercy on you, do you regard ghusl on Friday to be necessary?’ He said: ‘Pay attention, indeed I have not left ghusl on Friday for this many years!’ The concern then went away from my heart.” (al-Nawāzil, p. 120)
قال نصير: سألت شدادا [ابن حكيم (في حدود ١٢٥ – ٢١٠ ه)] عن المقتدي يرى البول على ثوب الإمام أقل من قدر الدرهم، والمقتدي من رأيه أن لا تجوز الصلاة إذا كان البول قليلا أو كثيرا، ورأي الإمام أن الصلاة جاىزة، قال: على المقتدي أن يعيد الصلاة؛ قال: قلت له: فإن كان رأي المقتدي جواز الصلاة ورأي الإمام فساد الصلاة ولا يعلم به الإمام وعلم المقتدي؟ قال: لا يعيد الصلاة، وإنما أنظر إلى رأي المقتدي، قال نصير: وبه نأخذ (النوازل، رسالة دكتوراة، ص٢٠٩)
Nuṣayr [ibn Yaḥyā] (d. 268) said: “I asked Shaddād [ibn Ḥakīm] (ca. 125 – 210 H) about a muqtadī who sees urine less that the amount of a dirham on the garment of the imām, and the muqtadī believes that ṣalāh is not permissible when urine is little or much, while the imām believes the ṣalāh is valid. He said: ‘The muqtadī must repeat the ṣalāh.’ I said to him: ‘If the muqtadī’s belief is that the ṣalāh is valid but the imām’s belief is it is invalid, and the imām is not aware of it while the muqtadī is?’ He said: ‘He does not repeat the ṣalāh. I only consider the belief of the muqtadī.’” Nuṣayr said: “We adopt this view.” (al-Nawāzil, p. 209)
[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:
وروى إبراهيم بن يوسف عن أبي يوسف قال: لو أن رجلا أعمى صلى ركعة لغير القبلة فجاء رجل وسواه وأقامه إلى القبلة، واقتدى به، جاز للإمام ولا يجوز للمقتدي، قال الفقيه: هذا إذا كان الأعمى وقت الافتتاح لم يجد أحدا يسأله، فأما إذا كان بقربه من يسأله فلم يسأله وافتتح الصلاة لغير القبلة لم تجز صلاته (النوازل، رسالة دكتوراة، ص٢١١)
Ibrāhīm ibn Yūsuf (d. 241 H) narrated from Abū Yūsuf (113 – 182 H) that he said: “If a blind man were to pray towards other than the Qiblah and a man came and put him straight and turned him towards the Qiblah, and then followed him, the [ṣalāh] is valid for the [blind] imām but not for the muqtadī.” (al-Nawāzil, p. 211)
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:
“This is a view in which al-Rāzī was isolated, and he opposed the vast majority of the Mashāyikh, based on what has preceded…Thus, the view of al-Rāzī will not be counted as a [valid] disagreement [in the madhhab] due to its opposition to the vast majority.” (Ghāyat al-Taḥqīq)
“The basic principle in this is that the correct position on which the mashāyikh, both early and late, were upon…is that for the validity or invalidity of the ṣalāh, the belief of the muqtadī is considered in respect to himself, not the belief of his imām…And if he were to know about him [i.e. the imām] something that according to him would make the ṣalāh invalid, but not according to the imām, it is not permissible to follow him, based on what we said that the belief of the muqtadī is what is considered…And if he prays with him, he must repeat…This is the basic principle from which a Ḥanafī has no recourse.” (Ghāyat al-Taḥqīq)
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