The Pillars:

1. The First Pillar of Prayer: Standing
2. The Second Pillar of Prayer: Takbīrat al-Iḥrām
3. The Third Pillar of Prayer: Recitation of Sūrah al-Fātiḥah

The Meaning of a Rukn (Pillar) and Other Categorisations Within Acts of Worship

The linguistic meaning of rukn (pillar) is the strongest erected side of a structure. For this reason, the corners of any room may be referred to as the room’s pillar, as it is the strongest, most heavily supportive portion of the wall.

From a judicial standpoint, the pillars of any act of worship are the individual aspects that fulfil that act of worship, those that render it invalid when absent. For all acts of worship consist of a series of statements and actions. Among them, are those whose absence will render that act of worship invalid regardless of circumstance. These are granted the Islamic judicial designation of rukn (pillar). Among these acts and statements as well are those whose absence will render the act of worship invalid but only in certain defined circumstances. These aspects of the act of worship are termed wajibāt (obligations). There are also aspects of the act of worship that may be omitted but do not render it completely invalid. These are termed masnūnat (recommended acts).

[Q]: What is the evidence to support this breakdown of the aspects that fulfil a single act of worship, such that you have designated some of them as pillars, others as obligations, and the rest as recommended acts? We recite the Qurʾān and read the books of Sunnah and find no such hierarchy mentioned.

[A]: The Islamic scholars fully acquaint themselves with the passages in the Qurʾān and the Sunnah that relate to performing acts of worship and have summarised the methodology of performing them using these judicial rulings. They attribute these rulings directly to the passages from these sources. In order to facilitate full comprehension of these acts by the students of Islām, they compose their books describing these acts of worship in chapters that observe the hierarchy mentioned. For dividing the aspects of a single act of worship in this way undoubtedly facilitates deeper understanding and comprehension of the judicial rulings that govern that act. Contrarily, if the act of worship was simply described, its rulings mentioned in an unordered and scattered way, the student studying Islamic jurisprudence would fail to correctly discern the aspects of these acts of worship whose absence stipulate invalidity and those that do not.

The First Pillar of Prayer: Standing¹

The evidence that standing is a pillar of ṣalāh is the statement of the Most High:

وَقُومُوا لِلَّهِ قَانِتِينَ

“And stand before Allāh with obedience.”
(Al-Baqarah, 2:238)

As for the Sunnah, the ḥadith narrated on the authority of ʿImrān ibn Ḥuṣāyn (رضي الله عنه) in which the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said: “Pray standing. If you are unable, then pray sitting. If you are unable, then pray on your side”.²

Standing is the pillar of ṣalāh that precedes every other one, as the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said: “If you stand to perform ṣalāh, then perform wuḍūʾ completely, then face the direction of the qiblah and say the takbīr”.³ The one who ‘stands to perform ṣalāh’ will similarly stand when actually performing it. This is also consistent with the natural order in which the actions of ṣalāh are executed. One begins by standing, then he says the takbīr and so on. If, for example, one was to say the takbīrat al-īḥrām (the first takbīr of the ṣalāh) without standing first, his ṣalāh would be deemed invalid provided he is performing a farḍ ṣalāh.

The Ruling on Standing When Performing Nafl (Supererogatory) Ṣalāh

[Q]: How could standing be considered a pillar? Did the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) not say: “The ṣalāh of a sitting person is deserving of half the reward of the one who performs it standing”.⁴ Does this not prove that a person who prays while sitting is deserving of reward for his ṣalāh despite not standing? If standing was a pillar as you claim, this sitting person should be fundamentally undeserving of any reward (because his ṣalāh is considered invalid).

[A]: Salāh is categorised into that which is farḍ (obligatory) and nafl (supererogatory). The ḥadīth that mentions both the standing and the sitting person performing ṣalāh being deserving of reward pertains only to the performance of nafl (prayers). This interpretation is further bolstered by the aforementioned ḥadīth of ʿImrān ibn Ḥuṣayn (in which he (صلى الله عليه وسلم) ordered ṣalāh to be performed standing, only allowing sitting or lying down in the circumstance of inability). In this vein, we state that standing is not considered a pillar of nafl ṣalāh. Rather, when performing nafl, standing is considered Sunnah (i.e., recommended: the one who stands is deserving of reward and the one who sits is undeserving of punishment when performing nafl). This is supported by the ḥadīth in which it was narrated that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) used to perform his nafl ṣalāh while riding on the back of his mount when traveling.⁵ If standing was considered a pillar of nafl ṣalāh, he (صلى الله عليه وسلم) would not have prayed it while sitting on his mount. Rather, he would have descended and prayed on the ground in the normal fashion. For this reason, he (صلى الله عليه وسلم) would not perform the farḍ prayer while riding on his mount in the same manner. Had he (صلى الله عليه وسلم) done so, standing would not be considered a pillar of ṣalāh.

The Ruling on Standing with Assistance

A person must stand to pray even if he can only do so by supporting himself, whether this be by means of a stick, a column, or a wall. If someone is unable to stand without such support, then it is permissible for him to pray while holding on to such things. If, however, he is able to stand unsupported it would be impermissible for him to hold on to anything when standing to pray. Although, in this matter, we may overlook a slight supportive leaning or inclining.

In this matter, the severity of the inability to stand should be determined by considering what would happen if the object being used for support is removed. If, upon its removal, the person would fall down, then this should be considered severe inability. Otherwise, if upon its removal, the person remains standing, then it should not be considered severe.

[Q]: Such determining methodologies are unencompassing. This is because if a person is fully aware of the imminent removal of an object he is using to support himself, he can prepare himself and avoid falling down. If this removal is sudden, a person may fall down even if his inability is not severe.

[A]: The determining factor here is whether the supporting implement is carrying his weight. If it is, then he should not stand to pray. Otherwise, he must stand. Some scholars have postulated that the generality in the statement of the Most High “And stand before Allāh with obedience” and the saying of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) “Pray standing” are both encompassing, inclusive of people who are only able to stand by supporting themselves with something, who would fall down if it was removed. While it is permissible for one to support himself when standing to pray, the jurists (رحمهم الله) say that this support should not be one of complete dependence such that the person falls down when it is removed. They justify this stance saying that such supported standing removes the difficulty and hardship associated with fulfilling the order to stand, like a person who props himself up against a wall to pray.

The Ruling on a Hunched Posture When Standing

[Q]: What is the furthest extent of this obligation to stand? For example, must the person performing ṣalāh be able to hold himself upright, or is it permissible for him to stand kneeling over with a bent back?

[A]: The ṣalāh of a person who naturally inclines forward slightly is valid.

If, however, this person is (able to straighten himself) but his posture is bent over when he stands to the extent that it reaches the degree of rukūʿ, so hunched over that he appears to be bowing when he stands, then he should not be considered standing. If he prays bent over in this way, his ṣalāh would not be considered valid, except if this hunched over state is related to sickness and an inherent inability to stand upright.

If a person’s natural physical form is such that his back is always bent and that his standing is akin to his rukūʿ, then he should still stand. This is because the ability to stand is predicated upon the straightening of one’s back and legs, the tightening of the associated muscles in order to hold the weight of one’s body upright. If one is unable to straighten his back, then the obligation of straightening his legs remains.

The Ruling on Those Fearful of Falling Down Whilst Standing

[Q]: A person is able to stand but is afraid of falling down if he does so. Should he be released from the obligation of standing to pray?

[A]: Yes, as the Most High said:

وَقُومُوا لِلَّهِ قَانِتِينَ﴿٢٣٨﴾‏ فَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ فَرِجَالًا أَوْ رُكْبَانًا

“And stand before Allāh with obedience. And if you fear (an enemy), perform ṣalāh (pray) on foot or riding.”
(Al-Baqarah, 2:238)

In the circumstance mentioned here, a person does not have to perform the rukūʿ or sujūd in the normal manner, despite those two actions being pillars of the ṣalāh that are more established and certain than standing. Thus, it is even more appropriate that the obligation to stand when praying is similarly foregone in such a circumstance.

The Second Pillar of Prayer: Takbīrat al-Iḥrām⁶

Takbīrat al-Iḥrām: The First Takbīr of the Ṣalāh

The second pillar of the ṣalāh is to say the takbīrat al-iḥrām (the first takbīr of the salāh with which one begins its performance). This takbīr specifically is a pillar of the ṣalāh. No other takbīrāt said over the remaining course of the ṣalāh are considered pillars in the same way [but are considered wājibāt instead].

Evidence of the Takbīrat al-Ihrām Being a Pillar of the Ṣalāh

The evidence of this is the statement of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) in the ḥadiīth of al-Musī al-Ṣalāh (to the one who performed his ṣalāh mistakenly and was corrected by the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) thrice): “Face the direction of the qiblah and then say the takbīr”⁷ and his (صلى الله عليه وسلم) statement in another ḥadīth: “The impermissibility [attributable to performing ṣalāh like talking, eating, walking, etc.] begins with the takbīrat [al-iḥrām]”. The ḥadīth of al-Musīʾ al-Ṣalāh proves that this takbīr is a pillar of the ṣalāh because when correcting him, he (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said: “Return and pray, for you have not prayed”. This indicates that when he (صلى الله عليه وسلم) finally informed him of the correct manner of praying he included the ṣalāh’s pillars in his statement, that is, the acts of ṣalāh whose absence would render the ṣalāh incorrect. We may also say that he (صلى الله عليه وسلم) intended to include every obligatory aspect of the ṣalāh in that ḥadīth, even its prerequisites like performing wuḍūʾ in a completely encompassing manner.

The implementation of this pillar stipulates that the person performing ṣalāh says the takbīr with his tongue which is fundamentally understood by the term ‘say’. This means that the takbīr is not to be made in one’s heart or mind as this is not what is instructed. For, if it was, it would have to have been explicitly clarified (since it is an act of worship and not subjective).

The Formulation of the Takbīr in Ṣalāh

As for the takbīrat al-īḥrām, it is to say the phrase ‘Allāhu Akbar’ only. No other phrase may be used in the ṣalāh, even if the meaning is similar. For example, saying instead ‘Allāhu al-Ajall’ (Allāh is the Most Majestic) or ‘Allāhu Ajall’ (Allāh is more majestic than everything besides Him) or ‘Allāhu Aʿdham’ (Allāh is Greater than everything besides Him) or similar statements. These are all considered invalid replacements to the takbīr as the wordings of all statements of remembrance are tawqīfī (extracted directly from the sources of legislation without the application of subjective opinion or personal reasoning). As such, it is impermissible to replace any statement of remembrance with any other phrase. Also, the phrase used as a replacement may not completely exemplify the meaning of the original statement, even if we surmise that to be the case. For example, if a person was to say ‘Allāhu al-Akbar’, some scholars claim that this statement may be used in place of the takbīr, while others say that it is invalid which is the correct opinion. This is because the word ‘Akbar’ in Arabic means ‘greater than’ and what exactly Allāh is greater than is removed in this statement which in Arabic acts as an indication that He is greater than everything. This is contrary to ‘al-Akbar’ which simply means the eldest or most senior. For example, ‘This son of mine is al-Akbar’, the eldest of my sons. In this way, the mere addition of the ‘al’ to the word Akbar completely changes the meaning of the statement. Additionally, this specific phrase has been narrated in aḥādīth and the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said: “Whoever implements an action that is not from among our matter [of Islām] will have that action rejected”.⁸ Therefore, it is obligatory to say the takbīr as ‘Allāhu Akbar’ only.⁹

The Meaning of the Takbīr

[Q]: What is the meaning of the takbīr? Why is it specifically used to begin the performance of ṣalāh instead of any other statement of remembrance?¹⁰

[A]: Its meaning is that Allāh’s–the Most High— essence, names, and attributes are all greater than everything besides Him. This greatness and superiority encompasses every single sphere of greatness. As Allāh—the Exalted in Might—said:

وَمَا قَدَرُوا اللَّهَ حَقَّ قَدْرِهِ وَالْأَرْضُ جَمِيعًا قَبْضَتُهُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ وَالسَّمَاوَاتُ مَطْوِيَّاتٌ بِيَمِينِهِ ۚ سُبْحَانَهُ

“They made not a just estimate of Allāh such as is due to Him. And on the Day of Resurrection the whole of the earth will be grasped by His Hand and the heavens will be rolled up in His Right Hand. Glorified is He.”
(Al-Zumar, 39:67)

يَوْمَ نَطْوِي السَّمَاءَ كَطَيِّ السِّجِلِّ لِلْكُتُبِ ۚ كَمَا بَدَأْنَا أَوَّلَ خَلْقٍ نُّعِيدُهُ ۚ وَعْدًا عَلَيْنَا ۚ إِنَّا كُنَّا فَاعِلِينَ

“And (remember) the Day when We shall roll up the heavens like a scroll rolled up for books, as We began the first creation, We shall repeat it, (it is) a promise binding upon Us. Truly, We shall do it.”
(Al-Anbiyāʾ, 21:104)

وَلَهُ الْكِبْرِيَاءُ فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ ۖ وَهُوَ الْعَزِيزُ الْحَكِيمُ

“And His (alone) is the Majesty in the heavens and the earth, and He is the All-Mighty, the All-Wise.”
(Al-Jāthiyah, 45:37)

Thus, every conceivable meaning that may apply to extreme majesty is confirmed for Allāh—the Exalted in Might.

There are also scholars that claim that the meaning of ‘Allāhu Akbar’ (Allāh is greater than everything) is the same as ‘Allāhu Kabīr’ (Allāh is the Most Great). However, this interpretation is quite inaccurate as there is a clear and appreciable difference between ‘greater than everything’ and ‘most great’, despite the fact that Allāh has named himself ‘Kabīr’ (Most Great) as in the āyah:

عَالِمُ الْغَيْبِ وَالشَّهَادَةِ الْكَبِيرُ الْمُتَعَالِ

“All-Knower of the unseen and the seen, the Most Great, the Most High.”
(Al-Raʿd, 13:9)

There is still a clear difference between ‘greater than everything’ and ‘most great’. Those who have interpreted them as possessing the same meaning have done so in order to escape an alleged comparison between the Creator and all that He created. However, this attempt to escape has landed them in that which is even more vile than what they are fleeing from, as they have used a phrase that—if taken at face value—indicates that the Creator and the creation are equal in some sense. This is akin to the interpretation provided by some for the āyah:

إِنَّ رَبَّكَ هُوَ أَعْلَمُ بِمَن ضَلَّ عَن سَبِيلِهِ وَهُوَ أَعْلَمُ بِالْمُهْتَدِينَ

“Verily, your Lord knows better, who (among men) has gone astray from His Path, and He knows better those who are guided.”
(Al-Qalam, 68:7)

There are those who have interpreted أَعْلَمُ (Aʿlam) “knows better” to mean عالم (Ālim) “knower”. They claim this interpretation alleging that the phrase “knows better” indicates both Allāh and His creation have knowledge (and may be similar to one another). We answer them saying: What prevents you from interpreting it to mean that Allāh knows better than every single possessor of knowledge? Then, if we were to adopt your allegedly correct interpretation of ‘knower’, this word does not itself eliminate the possibility of other ‘knowers’ besides Him (or that they could be equal to Him in knowledge). To further clarify, if I were to describe someone saying “so-and so knows better than everyone else’ or ‘so-and-so is a knower’, which of these statements ascribes a greater degree of knowledge to this person? Is it the former statement that clearly indicates that no one is comparable to this person in terms of knowledge, or the latter statement that does not negate the existence of other ‘knowers’ besides him? The answer is clearly the former statement ascribes a greater degree of knowledge. Then, if Allāh here describes Himself saying that He “knows better”, how could it be correct for you to interpret this saying that he is merely a ‘knower’. This interpretation represents a clearly deficient meaning.

In this way, we can conclusively say that ‘Allāhu Akbar’ means that Allāh is greater than everything. The removal of exactly what He is greater than from this statement in Arabic acts as an indication that He is greater than any and everything, just as He ‘knows better’ than anyone ascribed to any degree of knowledge.¹¹

Questions and Answers Related to the Takbīrat al-Iḥrām

Fulfilling the Pillar of Takbīrat al-Iḥrām for Those Unable to Speak

[Q]: If a person is unable to use his tongue to say it—for example, because he is mute and unable to use his mouth to form words—is the obligation of having to say it foregone with respect to this person, or should he intend it in his heart, or simply move his tongue and lips soundlessly?

[A]: He should intend it within his heart. This is because the statement of ‘Allāhu Akbar’ constitutes a phrase that is both said with the tongue and intended in the heart of the speaker. As one does not make such a statement except after feeling the meaning of those words in his heart and believing in them. As such, if one is unable to say it with his tongue, then the obligation of intending it with his heart remains. Thus, he should intend it with his heart without moving his tongue or lips.

This position is contrary to the position taken by some scholars that he should soundlessly move his lips and tongue. They justify this position saying that the ability to say words constitutes two things: firstly moving one’s tongue and lips and secondly producing sound. So if one is unable to make sound, it is still obligatory for him to physically move his tongue and lips. We reply to this opinion saying: The mere physical movement of one’s tongue and lips devoid of sound is not itself an intended act of worship. Rather, it occurs as a means towards the facilitation of speech. If speech itself cannot occur anyways, then the means that would ordinarily be taken to facilitate it should similarly be foregone. In fact, the mere physical movement of one’s tongue and lips devoid of sound represents a form of playful movement and mockery. For what possible benefit could one derive from simply manipulating his lips and tongue while completely unable to speak? Thus, the correct opinion in this issue is that a mute individual should simply intend the takbīr in his heart when praying, without moving his tongue or lips as this represents a form of needless movement and playful mockery in the ṣalāh being performed.

The Loudness in Proclaiming the Takbīr

[Q]: Must one [who is praying by himself] be able to hear his own takbīr for it to be considered valid?

[A]: There is a difference of opinion in this issue among the scholars. The position of the Ḥanbalī madh’hab is that, when saying the takbīr, one must make a sound that is sufficiently loud enough that he is able to hear himself regardless of whether those praying beside him are also able to hear him. According to this opinion, the takbīr that is said so quietly that the speaker cannot hear himself is considered invalid. However, this opinion is weak.

The correct opinion in this issue is that saying the takbīr loud enough for one to hear oneself is not considered a valid prerequisite. This is because saying the words loud enough to be heard is itself an additional requirement above simply saying or enunciating a phrase. This requirement is, therefore, additional to that which has been narrated in the Sunnah and would require supporting evidence to be instated. Fundamentally, if a person is certain that he has pronounced the words of the statement being made, enunciating each of its letters appropriately, but he is unable to hear himself say the words because of, for example, the quiet nature of his tone or a cacophonous background noise or any other reason, then the correct opinion is that whatever statement or phrase that is said should possess validity and be instated as far the ṣalāh is concerned. It is most inappropriate for us to set a prerequisite with regards to making these statements that is additional to what has been narrated in legislative evidence, which is simply the requirement to ‘say’ these statements [with no narration mentioning how loud it must be].

As for the one who is leading others in ṣalāh, he should say the takbīr loud enough for those behind him to hear, his volume level in accordance with the circumstance. That is, if he is only leading a single person, then it is sufficient for him to say the takbīr at a low volume. If he is leading a large congregation of people, then it is incumbent for him to raise his voice when saying the takbīrāt of the ṣalāh. If, despite his efforts, those behind him are so plentiful that they cannot hear his voice, then the congregation may appoint a person to repeat the takbīr on his behalf. This is supported by the ḥadīth in which the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) joined the congregatory ṣalāh while Abū Bakr was leading. [After Abū Bakr sensed his (صلى الله عليه وسلم) presence, he allowed the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) to lead the remainder of the ṣalāh] but, since his (صلى الله عليه وسلم) voice was weak from the sickness he was afflicted with and those in the congregation were unable to hear him, Abū Bakr stood on the Prophet’s (صلى الله عليه وسلم) right side, delivering the takbīrāt of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) to the congregation on his behalf, such that the takbīrāt of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) were made in a low voice and Abū Bakr would repeat it loudly to facilitate the congregation hearing him.

This is the fundamental state of delivering the takbīrāt of the imām. Although if there is no need for such a person because the voice of the imām reaches the congregation without it—whether directly or by means of a device or speaker—then it is not considered Sunnah to designate an individual to deliver the takbīrāt in this situation. There is complete agreement among the Muslims in this regard.

[Q]: Is it considered mustaḥabb (recommended) or wājib (obligatory) for the imām to raise his voice to a sufficient level that he is heard by those being led?

[A]: According to the Ḥanbalī madh’hab, it is considered mustaḥabb (recommended) not wājib (obligatory). That is, an imām may choose to lower his voice when saying the takbīr, just as the one praying by himself or being led by another may lower their voices. Although it is better for the imām to raise his voice. This is also the apparent opinion of the author of Zād al-Mustaqniʿ [al-Ḥajāwī] and is the correct view in this issue. The wisdom behind this includes:

1. Emulating the methodology of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) as, if the deliverance of the takbīrāt of the imām to those being led was not obligatory, it would not have been legislated for Abū Bakr to stand next to him (صلى الله عليه وسلم) and deliver his takbīrāt to the congregation.
2. One is unable to completely follow the actions of the imām without hearing his takbīrāt. The general principle in Islamic jurisprudence is that whatever is required to fulfil an obligation should also be considered obligatory. The raising of the imam’s voice in this instance is integral to the performance of the ṣalāh itself as, for example, if the imam stands from sujūd saying the takbīr in a low voice that no one hears, when will those being led ever know to stand as well (as they cannot see him while in sujūd)? They will not know to stand unless they hear him reciting al-Fātiḥah. Even the recitation of al-Fātiḥah loudly is mustaḥabb (recommended) only and may not be done in every single ṣalāh, nor every single rakʿah (except for Ṣalāt al-Fajr).

The Third Pillar of Prayer: Recitation of Sūrah al-Fātiḥah¹²

The third pillar of ṣalāh is the recitation of Sūrah al-Fātiḥah. This is considered a pillar of both compulsory and supererogatory ṣalāh. Al-Fātiḥah (the opening) derives its name from being the first sūrah that opens the noble Qurʾān.

Evidence of the Recitation of al-Fātiḥah Being a Pillar of Ṣalāh

The evidence of its recitation being considered a pillar is the statement of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم): “There is no ṣalāh for the one who does not recite the opening of the Book”.¹³ His (صلى الله عليه وسلم) saying “There is no ṣalāh” is a form of negation. Negation in legislative texts exists in a hierarchy of three levels:

1. Negation of existence: for example, the statement, ‘There is no Creator except Allāh” negates the existence of any being capable of creation, unlike Him.
2. Negation of Correctness and Soundness: referring to the manner in which an act is performed. In effect, such negation indicates non-existence of the act itself from a purely legislative standpoint. For example, the statement: ‘There is no ṣalāh without wuḍūʾ’ that is, there is no legislatively correct ṣalāh in the absence of wuḍūʿ, as a person may hypothetically perform ṣalāh without wuḍūʾ.
3. Negation of Perfection: for example, the statement of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) in the ḥadīth “There is no ṣalāh in the presence of food”¹⁴ Here, the negation applies to the ṣalāh being performed with perfection and concentration only. This is because the performance of ṣalāh in the presence of presented and desired food, is still considered correct.¹⁵

If we were to apply this (negation) hierarchy to the interpretation of the aforementioned ḥadīth: “There is no ṣalāh for the one who does not recite the opening of the Book”, we would conclude that the negation here cannot be one of non-existence since a person could hypothetically pray without reciting al-Fātiḥah. However, this person’s ṣalāh would not be considered legislatively correct, which is the second level of negation as clarified above. Considering this, the negation in the ḥadīth refers to the ṣalāh not being performed correctly.

Reciting al-Fātiḥah When Being Led by an Imām Reciting Aloud

The wording of the hadīth is general and does not mention any caveats or exceptions to this rule. The fundamental state of all such legislative texts is that they are interpreted with generality until and unless an exception is confirmed from another legislative text, either in the form of a statement, or scholarly consensus (ijmāʿ), or correct analogisation (qiyās). Regarding this ḥadith, no such exception exists to the generality of this hadīth.

[Q]: There is an āyah that would appear to indicate that a person being led by an imām reciting aloud represents a clear exception to this ḥadīth. As in the saying of the Most High:

وَإِذَا قُرِئَ الْقُرْآنُ فَاسْتَمِعُوا لَهُ وَأَنصِتُوا لَعَلَّكُمْ تُرْحَمُونَ

“So, when the Qurʾān is recited, listen to it, and be silent that you may receive mercy.”
(Al-Aʿrāf, 7:24)

Regarding this āyah, Imām Aḥmad said: “The scholars have unanimously agreed that this applies to the ṣalāh [meaning that a person would have to remain silent and listen to his imām while in ṣalāh, not reciting al-Fātihah]”.

[A]: The āyah is general in its meaning. That is, one is commanded to remain silent and listen to anyone reciting Qurʾān in his presence. However, the exception to this command for silence applies to Sūrat al-Fātihah specifically, which means that a person does not have to remain silent while his imām is reciting it during the congregatory ṣalāh. The evidence of this exception is the ḥadith narrated on the authority of ʿUbādah ibn al-Ṣāmit (رضي الله عنه) who said: The Messenger of Allāh (صلى الله عليه وسلم) led us in the ṣalawāt wherein the recitation is done aloud (i.e., Fajr, Maghrib and Ishāʾ) and he (صلى الله عليه وسلم) became confused in his recitation (due to the cacophonous sounds of the recitations of those behind him). When he (صلى الله عليه وسلم) was leaving the congregation afterwards, he said to them: “Do you recite during my recitation?” So some of us replied: “We certainly do so”. He (صلى الله عليه وسلم) replied: “Do not; as I was saying (to myself): ‘What is the matter with me that I find difficulty in reciting the Qurʾān, recalling its āyāt? So do not recite anything from the Qurʾān whilst I am reciting loudly except for the Mother of the Qurʾān (al-Fātiḥah)”.¹⁶ This ḥadīth is considered evidence that may be used to settle any argument or difference of opinion in this matter, as this occurred in a ṣalāh wherein the recitation is made aloud.

As for the statement of Imām Aḥmad (رحمه الله), it is most apparent to me—and Allāh knows best—that he was referring to the recitation of someone other than the imām leading the ṣalāh. For example, a man is praying and reciting the Qurʾān beside someone sitting in the masjid. Upon hearing him, it does not become obligatory for this person to remain silent and listen. Instead, he may busy himself with his own recitation, or he may stand and leave. This is contrary to a person who is in ṣalāh as he is commanded to remain silent and listen to his imām.

Recitation of al-Fātiḥah for the One Who Arrives Late to the Congregational Ṣalāh: An Exception to the Rule

The recitation of al-Fātiḥah is considered a pillar that must be fulfilled by every single person performing ṣalāh regardless of whether one is an imām leading others, being led, or praying individually. The only exception to this is the one who joins the congregatory ṣalāh late while the imām is in rukūʿ, or while he is standing but with an insufficient amount of time to recite it completely. The evidence for this exception is the authentic ḥadīth narrated on the authority of Abū Bakrah who joined a congregatory ṣalāh being led by the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) while the congregation was in rukūʿ. Abū Bakrah (رضي الله عنه) hurried to join and, not wanting to miss the rakʿah being performed, assumed the rukūʿ position before actually joining the row. He then walked forward while in a bowed position (rukūʿ) to join the row. When the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) had concluded the ṣalāh and was leaving, he (صلى الله عليه وسلم) asked regarding who had done so, to which Abū Bakrah (رضي الله عنه) replied: “It was me”. He (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said: “May Allāh increase your aspirations and fervour [in seeking the reward of congregatory ṣalāh], do not return to this act”.¹⁷ He (صلى الله عليه وسلم) never commanded him to repeat the rakʿah whose rukūʿ he performed only, even though he would not have recited al-Fātiḥah in that rakʿah. If that rakʿah was invalid, the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) would have ordered him to repeat its performance, as he (صلى الله عليه وسلم) did in the ḥadīth of al-Musīʾ al-Ṣalāh (to the man who had prayed incorrectly thrice and was ordered by the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) to repeat his ṣalāh each time). In this ḥadīth, because the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) never commanded him to repeat the rakʿah, it acts as an indication that the rakʿah he prayed was valid, and that a person who joins the congregation while they are in rukūʿ is not obligated to recite al-Fātiḥah in that rakʿah. This is clear evidence from a ḥadīth.

Logically as well, if a person joins the congregation while they are in rukūʿ, he would have missed the standing portion of the rakʿah being performed which is where the recitation of al-Fātiḥah takes place. If the obligation of having to perform the standing portion of the rakʿah is foregone because of his tardiness, then the remembrances associated with that portion of the rakʿāh should similarly be foregone. This is akin to a person whose hand has been severed not being obligated to wash his hand when performing wuḍūʾ. As a general principle, the loss of the place where an act is usually performed (here, the standing position) will also stipulate the loss of everything done in that place (i.e., the recitation).

Reciting al-Fātiḥah in Every Rakʿāh

[Q]: If reciting al-Fātiḥah is obligatory, must one recite it in every single rakʿah of the ṣalāh, or is reciting it in at least one rakʿah sufficient?

[A]: There is a difference of opinion among the scholars in this issue. Among them are those who claim that reciting it in a single rakʿah is sufficient, evidencing this stance with the statement “There is no ṣalāh for the one who does not recite the opening of the Book” in that he (صلى الله عليه وسلم) here did not mention the obligation of reciting it in every single rakʿah of the ṣalāh being performed. Therefore, a person who recites it even a single time in his ṣalāh would have implemented this ḥadīth and, as such, his ṣalāh should be considered valid.

However, the correct opinion in this issue is that al-Fātiḥah must be recited in every single rakʿah of the ṣalāh. The evidence of this is as follows:

1. The ḥadīth in which the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) advised the man who prayed mistakenly thrice, after clarifying the correct way to pray a single rakʿah [including the recitation of al-Fātiḥah therein], he said: “Then repeat these actions in all the remaining portions of your ṣalāh”.¹⁸
2. The Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) used to recite it in every rakʿah and he (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said: “Pray as you see me pray”.¹⁹

In consideration of this, the recitation of al-Fātiḥah is a pillar in every rakʿah of the ṣalāh, its recitation an obligation on every person performing it. The only exception to this rule applies to the one who arrives late to the congregation, as evidenced by the aforementioned ḥadith of Abū Bakrah (رضي الله عنه).

Supplement: Clarification and Discussion of Other Positions in This Issue

Opinion One: Reciting al-Fātiḥah Is Not a Pillar of Ṣalāh

Other scholars have postulated that the recitation of al-Fātiḥah should not be considered a pillar of the ṣalāh due to the statement of the Most High:

فَاقْرَءُوا مَا تَيَسَّرَ مِنَ الْقُرْآنِ

“So, recite the Qurʾān as much as may be easy for you.”
(Al-Muzzammil, 73:20)

They also evidence this stance with the general statement of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) in the ḥadith of al-Musīʾ al-Salāh: “Then recite that which is easy for you which you have memorised from the Qurʾān”. This ḥadīth proves their position because he (صلى الله عليه وسلم) made this statement intending to clarify that which is obligatory in the ṣalāh [as the man he (صلى الله عليه وسلم) was speaking to was ignorant of the correct manner of praying]. Therefore, this circumstance is one that would require specification of a sūrah, provided reciting a specific one was absolutely obligatory. Thus, if reciting al-Fātiḥah was indeed an obligation, the man would have been commanded to recite it specifically as he was ignorant, clearly in dire need of being taught the correct methodology of prayer. Because al-Fātiḥah is not mentioned specifically in the ḥadīth despite the clear need for it, this indicates that its recitation cannot be obligatory.

Despite the compelling nature of the evidence and reasoning provided, we may answer it by pointing out that the nature of the command in the ḥadīth and the āyah is general: “that which is easy for you”. This generality has been further elaborated and expounded upon in other aḥādīth that prove the recitation of al-Fātiḥah to be obligatory. In Islamic fiqh, we interpret all general and encompassing legislative passages in light of other passages that are specific and meant to clarify them. Here, the general command to read “that which is easy for you” may be interpreted using other passages as referring specifically to the recitation of al-Fātiḥah. This interpretation is further bolstered by the fact that al-Fātiḥah may be considered the easiest portion of the Qurʾān to recite anyways, due to it being oft-repeated twice at the start of every ṣalāh where the recitation is done aloud, such that everyone has heard it several times at the very least. This is contrary to the rest of the Qurʾān. This interpretation is further supported by a narration of the ḥadīth of al-Musīʾ al-Ṣalāh mentioned by Abū Dāwūd in which he (صلى الله عليه وسلم) mentioned al-Fātihah specifically saying: “Then recite the Mother of the Qurʾān (al-Fātiḥah) and whatever else Allāh wills”.²⁰

Opinion Two: Reciting al-Fātiḥah Is a Pillar for the Imām and the One Praying by Himself Only

Other scholars have claimed that the recitation of al-Fātiḥah should be considered a pillar for the imām and the one praying by himself, but not for anyone being led by an imām regardless of whether the ṣalāh being performed is one where the recitation is done silently or aloud. According to this opinion, if a person was to say the takbīrat al-iḥrām, entering into the ṣalāh while being led by an imām, then simply stand silently until his imām says the takbīr for rukūʿ, the ṣalāh of this person should be considered valid. They evidence this stance with the statement of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم): “Whoever prays behind an imām, then the recitation of his imām takes the place of his own recitation”.²¹ Although the narration of this ḥadīth to the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) is not authentic. Rather, it is considered mursal (a narration attributed to the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) from anyone besides a companion). Mursal is a type of weak ḥadīth and is, therefore, not a valid form of evidence.

Opinion Three: Reciting al-Fātiḥah Is Not a Pillar for the One Being Led by an Imām in a Ṣalāh Where the Recitation is Aloud

Other scholars postulate that the recitation of al-Fātiḥah is a pillar that must be fulfilled by every person performing ṣalāh except for the one being led by an imām leading him in a ṣalāh where the recitation is done aloud. The proponents of this opinion evidence their stance with the following:

1. The ḥadīth narrated on the authority of Abū Hurayrah (رضي الله عنه) in which he said that when the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) forbade the companions from coinciding their recitation with that of their imām, they ceased their recitations completely in the ṣalawāt where the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) recited aloud.²²
2. When a person listens intently to the recitation of another, it is legislatively as if he is also reciting. The evidence of this is that if the reciter performs sujūd al-tilāwah, it is Sunnah for those listening intently to him to similarly perform sujūd, which indicates clearly that their listening to him is akin to them reciting as well. This is also evidenced by the āyah in which Allāh said to Mūsá:

   قَالَ قَدْ أُجِيبَت دَّعْوَتُكُمَا فَاسْتَقِيمَا

   “Allāh said: “Verily, the invocation of you both is accepted. So you both keep to the straight way (i.e. keep on doing good deeds and preaching Allāh’s Message with patience)”
   (Yūnus, 10:89)

   Despite the invocation referenced here being said by Mūsá only, as Allāh said:

   وَقَالَ مُوسَىٰ رَبَّنَا إِنَّكَ آتَيْتَ فِرْعَوْنَ وَمَلَأَهُ زِينَةً وَأَمْوَالًا فِي الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا رَبَّنَا لِيُضِلُّوا عَن سَبِيلِكَ ۖ رَبَّنَا اطْمِسْ عَلَىٰ أَمْوَالِهِمْ وَاشْدُدْ عَلَىٰ قُلُوبِهِمْ فَلَا يُؤْمِنُوا حَتَّىٰ يَرَوُا الْعَذَابَ الْأَلِيمَ

   “And Mūsá (Moses) said: ‘Our Lord! You have indeed bestowed on Firʿawn (Pharaoh) and his chiefs splendour and wealth in the life of this world. Our Lord! That they may lead men astray from Your path. Our Lord! Destroy their wealth, and harden their hearts, so that they will not believe until they see the painful torment.’”
   (Yūnus, 10:88)

   Here, Mūsá was the invoker and Hārūn would listen and say “Āmīn [O’ Allāh! Answer it]” to the invocation of his brother. Despite this, Allāh—the Exalted in Might—refers to them both as invokers. Hence, the one who listens intently to the recitation of another is himself—from a purely legislative standpoint—considered a reciter as well.

3. The recitation of the imām would be considered futile if it did not fulfil the responsibility of recitation for those being led. In this vein, why is the one being led reciting if his imām has already done so? Why is he allowing his recitation to coincide with that of his imām? This is indeed a ruling that represents a form of playful mockery, as we command the imām to recite a portion of the Qurʾān after he recites al-Fātiḥah while simultaneously those he is leading must recite their own Fātiḥah. This means that—at the very least—the beginning of his post-Fātiḥah recitation is effectively meaningless, no benefit being derived from it because nobody is listening [due to them being busy with their own respective recitations].The evidence to support this view is undoubtedly quite formidable, had it not been for the aforementioned ḥadīth in which the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) left Ṣalāt al-Fajr saying: “Do not recite whilst you are being led by an imām except the Mother of the Qurʾān; for there is no ṣalāh for the one that does not recite it”. The evidence used by those who hold this opinion is also general [i.e., general prohibition of engaging in one’s own recitation behind the imām], but the command to recite al-Fātiḥah is narrated specifically as an exception. In Islamic fiqh, a specific command is used to interpret what is meant by a general prohibition.

   As for their position that if a person listens intently to the recitation of another, it is legislatively as if he is also reciting, we respond: Yes, we are in full agreement with regards to this, but for every other sūrah besides al-Fātiḥah. For this reason, when those being led listen intently to the post-Fātiḥah recitation, it is as if they have recited that portion of the Qurʾān. Al-Fātiḥah is excluded from this because there is a clear ḥadīth that indicates its specificity in this regard.

   As for their claim that the recitation of the imām would be considered futile if it did not fulfil the responsibility of recitation for those being led, we respond: This is an analogisation (qiyās) that directly conflicts with the ḥadīth and, as such, should be considered invalid.

Endnotes:

Translated by: Riyāḍ al-Kanadī