The Links Between the Ṣalāh of the Imām and Those Being Led

1. Missing the First Tashahhud

The ṣalāh of those being led are linked to the ṣalāh of the one leading them in prayer. For this reason, the imām represents those praying behind him in the fulfilment of many actions. Among them, for example, is if the imām forgets the first tashahhud and stands. In this situation, those being led must follow their imām and stand as well. The evidence of this is the ḥadīth of ʿAbdullāh ibn Buḥaynah (رضي الله عنه) who narrates that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) once led them in Ṣalāh al-Ẓuhr and stood after having praying two rakʿahs without sitting and the people behind him stood with him (صلى الله عليه وسلم).¹

2. Jalsah al-Istirāḥah

Among them also is the brief sitting [in the first and third rakʿahs before standing to the second and fourth] which has been termed Jalsah al-Istirāḥah (the sitting of rest). The imām takes responsibility from those being led in determining its performance such that if the imām chooses not to sit, then it is legislated for those being led to also refrain from sitting. As the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said: “The imām has only been positioned such that you may emulate him”.² Also, because those being led will always sit in the second rakʿah of the imam [even if it is not the place of tashahhud for the one who arrives late to the ṣalāh] even though this sitting is more deserving of being observed [than jalsah al-istirāhāh], but it is performed at a different time in the ṣalāh just for the purpose of continuity with the imām. Here, the one being led will leave his sitting for the first tashahhud which is obligatory upon him just so that he may follow his imām. He will sit in the imām’s second rakʿak, which is most befitting, in order to follow the imām’s actions. For example, if a person enters into congregatory Ẓuhr or ʿAṣr ṣalāh in the second rakʿah, he will sit in his first rakʿah which is the imām’s second. The one being led will also refrain from sitting for his first tashahhud in his second rakʿah which would be the imām’s third. All for the purpose of following the imām.

Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah (رحمه الله) mentioned that if a person prays behind an imām that does not sit for jalsah al-istirāḥah, then he should refrain from sitting for it such that complete emulation is achieved. Conversely, if the imām sits for jalsah al-istirāḥah, then those being led should sit for it as well. Moreover, it is obligatory upon them to sit such that they do not precede the imām in standing. Even if the one being led does not view jalsah al-istirāḥah being observed for the purpose of following the imām to be a legislated act. Islamic legislation aspires for the achievement of complete consistency between the actions of the imām and those praying behind him.

As for the actions in ṣalāh that do not necessitate either preceding or delay with regards to following the actions of the imām, then the one being led may adopt that which he views to be most correct. For example, if the imām does not view raising his hands as being a legislated act when saying the takbīr for rukūʿ or standing from the first tashahhud, but those praying behind him view this raising of the hands to be recommended, then they may do so. This is because raising their hands does not stipulate delay in following the actions of the imām, nor does it cause them to precede him. As the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said: “If the imām says the takbīr, then also say the takbīr, if he performs rukūʿ then perform rukūʿ, if he performs sujūd then perform sujūd”.³ The word ‘then’ here denotes sequential order.

Another example would be if the imām sits in the tawarruk position⁴ in every tashahhud that precedes a taslīm, or in the second rakʿah, but those being led view this manner of sitting to only be applicable to the second tashahhud for any ṣalāh that has two tashahhuds. In this circumstance, it is valid for the one being led to not follow his imām in adopting this manner of sitting in the tashahhud of the second rakʿah. This is because such abandonment does not necessitate either preceding or delay in following the imām.

3. Sujūd al-Sahw

The imām also takes responsibility for the performance of sujūd al-sahw⁵ [for any mistakes made by those being led] provided that the person being led prayed with the imām from the beginning of the ṣalāh. For example, if a person being led sits for the first tashahhud thinking that it is the sitting between the two sujūds of each rakʿah. So he says: “رب اغفر لي وارحمني” [instead of the tashahhud]. Then, the imām makes the takbīr and stands. So, he stands with the imām [realising that he should have said the tashahhud]. [If he was praying by himself, he would have to perform sujūd al-sahw for missing the first tashahhud as in the ḥadīth of ʿAbdullāh ibn Buḥaynah (رضي الله عنه) mentioned in the first section]. However, because he is being led, he is not responsible for making sujūd al-sahw since he is being led by his imām (and must follow his actions), provided he did not miss any portion of the ṣalāh as a result of his own mistake. As, if he was to perform sujūd al-sahw by himself, it would be a form of opposing the actions of his imām. Conversely if, as a result of his mistake, he misses a portion of the ṣalāh then the imām may not represent his fulfilment of it.

4. Recitation of the Qurʾān After al-Fātiḥah

The imām also takes responsibility for the recitation of other than Sūrah al-Fātiḥah in ṣalāh for the prayers that are performed in an audible voice, in which reading other than al-Fātiḥah is legislated. For example, in an audible ṣalāh the imām recites Sūrah al-Fātiḥah and those being led also recite it, then the imām recites other verses from the Qurʾān. Here, the imām has taken responsibility for this recitation which means that it is not legislated for those being led to additionally recite any portion of the Qurʾān besides al-Fātiḥah.

5. The Sutrah

Another example is that of the sutrah as the sutrah of the imām is the sutrah of those praying behind him (i.e. they do not need to seek out one whilst being led).

The Validity of the Ṣalāh of Those Being Led When the Imām’s Ṣalāh is Invalid: The First Opinion

Based on this connection between the ṣalāh of the imām and those being led, the companions of the Ḥanbalī madh`hab say: The ṣalāh of those being led is invalidated by the invalidity of the their imām’s ṣalāh. That is, if that which invalidates the imām’s ṣalāh occurs, then both his ṣalāh and the ṣalāh of those being led by him will be deemed invalid even in the absence of an invalidator with respect to those being led. There are no exceptions to this save for if the imām was to pray without being in a state of purity out of forgetfulness, or was ignorant that he had invalidated his state of purity, or only remembered his invalidation of the state of purity after the taslīm. In such circumstances, only the imām would have to repeat his prayer and not those who prayed behind him even according to the Ḥanbalī madh`hab.

The Imām Appointing Another Imām upon Invalidating His Prayer: The First Opinion – The Imām Must Appoint Another Imām Whilst Still in a State of Purity

Stemming from this view of complete invalidation, they also say that the imām may not appoint another imām from the congregation to complete the prayer on his behalf if his own ṣalāh is considered invalid. For example, if an imām remembers while praying that he had invalidated his state of purity previously—either by urination or flatulence or another invalidator—then his ṣalāh is considered invalid. Just as the ṣalāh of those being led is similarly invalid, necessitating the need for them to repeat their ṣalāh [from the beginning].

However, if the imām instead feels the imminent occurrence of an invalidator and appoints another imām before his ṣalāh has actually been invalidated, then this is permissible and the ṣalāh of those being led is not invalidated. This is because, in this circumstance, the imām has appointed one who may complete the congregatory ṣalāh before the invalidation of his own ṣalāh. In doing so, he would have successfully appointed an imām for them in a state wherein his ṣalāh is still valid. Then, the appointed imām would have begun leading the congregation while their ṣalāh remains in a state of validity, until he completes the remaining portion of the ṣalāh with them. This opinion views it as impermissible for the imām to appoint another—that is, after he has established the invalidity of his own ṣalāh.

Similarly, if an imām starts praying then remembers that he is not in a state of wuḍūʾ, then his ṣalāh would not have been successfully instated. This is because he is impure, and the ṣalāh of the impure cannot be instated. Thus, he may not appoint another as imām [as he is not the true imām himself]. Rather, those praying behind him must start their ṣalāh from the beginning due to the establishment of the invalidity of the imām’s ṣalāh during their prayer, which would stipulate that the ṣalāh itself was never instated in the first place [and, therefore, must be repeated from the beginning]. If the ṣalāh of the imām is invalidated, then the ṣalāh of those being led by him will similarly be deemed invalid due to the aforementioned connection between the ṣalāh of the imām and those being led. Also, because of the saying of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم): “The imām has only been positioned such that you may emulate him”. The leadership of the imām cannot be built upon a foundation of an invalid ṣalāh. This is the most famous opinion of the Ḥanbalī madh`hab.

The Imām Appointing Another Imām upon Invalidating His Prayer: The Second Opinion – The Imām Can Appoint Another Imām Regardless of His State of Purity

The second opinion in the Ḥanbalī madh`hab, which is also the stance taken by Shaykh al-Islām (Ibn Taymiyyah) and others among the scholars, is that the imām may appoint another to lead on his behalf [even if his own ṣalāh is in a state of invalidity] and that the ṣalāh of those being led is not automatically invalidated by the invalidation of the imām’s ṣalāh. Rather, if the imām’s ṣalāh is invalidated then only his ṣalāh should be deemed invalid. Herego, the ṣalāh of those being led remains valid. This is the correct opinion.

Its justification is that the fundamental, original state of the ṣalāh of those being led is validity. This means that we cannot invalidate it without an authentic piece of evidence. As for the imām, his ṣalāh is invalidated as stipulated by authentic pieces of evidence to that effect. As for those being led by him, they entered into the ṣalāh showing obedience to Allāh, praying in answer to His command, such that we may not invalidate their ṣalāh except with the command of Allāh. Where is the evidence from the Book of Allāh, the Sunnah of His Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم), or scholarly consensus (ijmāʿ) that the ṣalāh of those being led is invalidated by the invalidation of the ṣālāh of the one leading them? As for the various aforementioned connections between the ṣalāh of the imām and those being led, they do not stipulate the immediate invalidation of one because of the other.

Some scholars also use as evidence the incidents that followed the stabbing of ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb (رضي الله عنه) during Ṣalāh al-Fajr after which he ordered ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn ʿAwf (رضي الله عنه) to lead the congregation, but it was never narrated that he re-started the ṣalāh from the beginning. It was well-known in this incident that ʿUmar (رضي الله عنه) had invalidated his state of purity and had spoken saying: “This dog has killed me”.⁶ Also, because ʿUthmān (رضي الله عنه) once led the congregation in ṣalāh while in a state of major impurity due to forgetfulness. He repeated his ṣalāh and those who were led by him did not.⁷ Although this narration has been opposed as inapplicable due to ʿUthmān (رضي الله عنه) only remembering his state of major impurity after the taslīm.

In response, we state: If you concede that the general state of the ṣalāh of those being led holds validity due to their ignorance of the true state of their imām, then the claim that at the very least a portion of it is valid should be more deserving of acceptance. Then, there should be no differentiation between those being led knowing the state of their imām before or after the taslīm. As for the one who knows that the imām is not in a state of wuḍūʾ before commencing the prayer itself, it would be impermissible for him to start praying behind this imām. This is because he would have taken one whose own ṣalāh is invalid as his imām which represents a form of mockery.

The Course of Action if the Imām Realises His Ṣalāh is Invalidated

In consideration of this opinion, if the imām had previously invalidated his state of purity, or remembers while praying that he does not have wuḍūʾ, he should appoint a person from the congregation to complete the ṣalāh in his stead. It is impermissible for him to command those praying behind him saying: “re-start your prayers from the beginning”. This is because, by issuing such a command, he would have extricated them from the performance of an obligatory act of worship. Extrication from an obligatory act of worship that has been commenced is impermissible except with clear legislation that proves the permissibility of this abandonment. No such legislated reasoning exists here. For this reason, the scholars have stated: It is ḥarām for the one who has commenced the performance of an obligatory act of worship to abandon it except with a valid excuse. There is no valid excuse here as the fundamental state of their ṣalāh is validity and it is ḥarām for them to abandon its performance once started. If the imām does not appoint another to lead in his stead, then the congregation may put forward one among themselves to complete the remainder of the ṣalāh. If they choose not to, then the members of the congregation may complete their ṣalāhs individually. Although, the best course of action is that the imām appoints another as this lessens the disturbance associated with the imām’s absence.

Situations Where Invalidation of the Imām’s Ṣalāh Extends to Those Being Led

There is nothing that invalidates the ṣalāh of those being led due to the invalidation of their imām’s ṣalāh according to the correct opinion. The exception to this rule is all aspects of the prayer that are fulfilled by the imām on behalf of those being led, such that a discrepancy in it causes a discrepancy to the ṣalāh of those being led. This is because this aspect of the prayer is fulfilled by the imām, but applies to both the imām himself and those being led. For example, the sutrah of the imām is considered the sutrah of those praying behind him. If a woman was to traverse between the imām and his sutrah, this would invalidate the ṣalāh of both the imām and those being led. This is because the sutrah in question is shared here as evidenced by those being led not taking their own respective sutrahs. Moreover, if a person being led was to position his own sutrah, he would be considered an innovator, a person who unnecessarily burdens and punishes himself in worship. Therefore, violation of the imām’s sutrah is considered a violation with respect to those being led and both the ṣalāh of the imām and those being led will be invalidated because of it.

From this issue, we can also formulate an important judicial rule which is: Anyone who commences an act of worship, performing it as commanded, shall not have that act invalidated except in consideration of clear evidence. This is because the fundamental state is one of validity and complete innocence, unless and until evidence to prove invalidity is raised.

Source: Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ 2:318-324
Translated by: Riyāḍ al-Kanadī