Introduction
When a latecomer joins the congregational prayer in the middle, is he praying the last part of his ṣalāt with the imam (adraka ākhir ṣalātih) before being required to repay the first part that he had missed; or, is he beginning his ṣalāt regardless of where the imam is (adraka awwal ṣalātih)?
Put another way: How should a follower who joins the congregational prayer late count his units (rakaʿāt)? Should he follow the imam’s count or begin his own?
This was a controversial question which generated two contradictory answers and split the jurists among the companions and other early authorities into different camps.[1]
The settled position of Abū Ḥanifah (d. 150), Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal (d. 241), and ignoring some slight nuance, Mālik b. Anas (d. 179), was that the latecomer (masbūq) counts with the imam and then repays (yaqḍī) what he has missed after. This is what the overwhelming majority of Sunnis do to this day.
To illustrate with an example: If a latecomer joins the congregation for ʿishāʾ in the 3rd unit he will pray the 3rd and 4th units with the imam. Then, when the imam completes the ṣalāt, the latecomer will stand and repay the 1st and 2nd units he had missed by reciting both al-Ḥamd and another sūra in them.
It is al-Shāfiʿī (d. 204) alone out of the so-called four Imams who dissented based on a single (!) Prophetic hadith whose wording and interpretation is disputed (more on this in a future segment). He states that the latecomer should consider the unit he joins the imam to be his first.
The Position of al-Bāqir and Jaʿfar
Long before al-Shāfiʿī, however, this was the position already promulgated by Muḥammad al-Bāqir (d. 114) and Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq (d. 148), as preserved in the Imāmī corpus.
These two Imams coined the maxim: “Do not make the beginning of your ṣalāt its ending” – meaning do not begin with the ending (i.e. do not pray the 3rd and 4th units before the 1st and 2nd).
The maxim could already be found in the famous and reliable book of al-Ḥalabī, a companion of Jaʿfar, which was in wide circulation amongst Imāmīs:[2]
وَرَوَى الْحَلَبِيُّ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع أَنَّهُ قَالَ: إِذَا فَاتَكَ شَيْءٌ مَعَ الْإِمَامِ فَاجْعَلْ أَوَّلَ صَلَاتِكَ مَا اسْتَقْبَلْتَ مِنْهَا وَلَا تَجْعَلْ أَوَّلَ صَلَاتِكَ آخِرَهَا
Kulaynī reports that ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Ḥajjāj asked Jaʿfar what a latecomer, who catches the last two units of the congregational prayer with the imam, should do when it comes to recitation (of al-Ḥamd and another sūra)?
Jaʿfar responds:
وَسَأَلْتُهُ عَنِ الَّذِي يُدْرِكُ الرَّكْعَتَيْنِ الْأَخِيرَتَيْنِ مِنَ الصَّلَاةِ: كَيْفَ يَصْنَعُ بِالْقِرَاءَةِ؟ فَقَالَ: اقْرَأْ فِيهِمَا؛ فَإِنَّهُمَا لَكَ الْأُولَيَانِ، وَلَاتَجْعَلْ أَوَّلَ صَلَاتِكَ آخِرَهَا
“Recite (al-Ḥamd and another sūra) in them, for they are the first two (units) for you. Do not make the beginning of your ṣalāt its ending!”[3]
Both Muḥammad al-Bāqir and Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq were well-aware that they were in the minority when it came to this ruling and that most of the Medinans and Kufans did the opposite of what they were teaching.
We find the following exchange in another report:[4]
مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيى، عَن أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ، عَنْ مَرْوَكِ بْنِ عُبَيْدٍ، عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ النَّضْرِ، عَنْ رَجُلٍ: عَنْ أَبِي جَعْفَرٍ عليه السلام، قَالَ: قَالَ: أَيَّ شَيْءٍ يَقُولُ هؤُلَاءِ فِي الرَّجُلِ الَّذِي يَفُوتُهُ مَعَ الْإِمَامِ رَكْعَتَانِ؟ قُلْتُ: يَقُولُونَ: يَقْرَأُ فِيهِمَا بِالْحَمْدِ وَسُورَةٍ. فَقَالَ: هذَا يُقَلِّبُ صَلَاتَهُ يَجْعَلُ أَوَّلَهَا آخِرَهَا قُلْتُ: كَيْفَ يَصْنَعُ؟ قَالَ: يَقْرَأُ فَاتِحَةَ الْكِتَابِ فِي كُلِّ رَكْعَةٍ
Al-Bāqir: “What do these (i.e. ʿāmmah) say about a man who misses two units with the imam?”
The interlocutor: “They say that he recites in them (i.e. the units he had missed) al-Ḥamd and a sūra.”
Al-Bāqir: “Such a one has inverted his ṣalāt, he has made its beginning its ending!”
The interlocutor: “What should he do?”
Al-Baqir: “He should recite al-Fātiḥa (alone) in each unit.”
Note: An Imāmī is free to choose between tasbīḥ or al-Fātiḥa alone in the 3rd and 4th units.
This particular case is just one of many demonstrating that the Imāmī madhhab was not a product of either the ʿamal of Medina or the Kufan background of most of its narrators. It was instead driven entirely by an obsessive need to collect and follow the rulings of al-Bāqir and Jaʿfar, with these two having inherited their positions from ʿAlī.
ʿAlī as the Ultimate Source in the Imāmī madhhab
Al-Bāqir and Jaʿfar considered the true knowledge of the Prophetic sunna as deriving solely from ʿAlī. Consider al-Bāqir’s statement which is illustrative of this:
إنه ليس أحد عنده علم إلا شيء خرج من عند أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام، فليذهب الناس حيث شاؤوا، فوالله ليس الأمر إلا من ههنا ـ وأشار بيده إلى بيته
“No one possesses a piece of (true) knowledge except that it is something which issued from the Commander of the Faithful. So let the people go wherever they want to (seeking answers), for I swear by Allah (that) the matter is not but from here – and he pointed with his hands towards his house”[5]
Even in this particular issue, their position ultimately derived from ʿAlī.
Thus we find Jaʿfar narrating on the authority of his father who quotes ʿAlī as having said:
احمد بن محمد بن عيسى عن محمد بن يحيى عن طلحة بن زيد عن جعفر عن ابيه عن علي عليه السلام قال: يجعل الرجل ما أدرك مع الامام أول صلاته
“A man reckons what he catches with the imam (i.e. prays together with the Imam) to be the beginning of his ṣalāt”
Jaʿfar comments:
قال جعفر: وليس نقول كما يقول الحمقاء
“We do not say as the fools (ḥumaqāʾ) do!”[6]
I say: Jaʿfar would only have commented thus if he was sure of what the true position was. His frustration is entirely understandable in light of the fact that even for a fundamental matter as ṣalāt, the unjustified proliferation of authorities, with each authority wanting to have an opinion, meant that basic rulings were being distorted and the ṣalāt of the masses thrown into doubt!
Corroboration from the Proto-Sunni Corpus
That ʿAlī held this position can be independently corroborated from Sunni sources.
Ibn Abī Shayba (d. 235) includes the following report in his Muṣannaf:[7]
حدثنا أبو بكر قال: حدثنا هشيم قال: أخبرنا منصور عن الحسن عن علي أنه كان يقول: من أدرك مع الإمام ركعتين قال: يقرأ فيما أدرك
ʿAlī used to say: “Whoever catches two units with the Imam recites (al-Ḥamd and another sūra) in those same.”
Al-Shāfiʿī had already included this same report in his treatise Ikhtilāf ʿAlī wa Ibn Masʿūd before noting that Abū Ḥanifah and the Kufans do not follow ʿAlī’s position on this:[8]
وَهُمْ لَا يَقُولُونَ بِهَذَا يَقُولُونَ إنَّمَا يَقْرَأُ فِيمَا يَقْضِي لِنَفْسِهِ
“They do not hold by this, rather they say that he recites (al-Ḥamd and another sure) when he is repaying (yaqḍī) for himself.”
This is because they took the position of Ibn Masʿūd on this. Ibrāhīm al-Nakhaʿī (d. 96) reports from the latter:[9]
حدثنا أبو بكر قال: حدثنا عبد اللَّه بن إدريس عن (حصين) عن إبراهيم عن عبد اللَّه قال: ما أدركت مع الإمام فهو آخر صلاتك
“What you catch with the imam then that is the last part of your ṣalāt”
As for ʿAlī then he held the exact opposite as narrated by Bayhaqī (d. 458) via his chain to Abū Isḥāq (d. 127) from al-Ḥārith (d. 65) from ʿAlī:
أَخْبَرَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ مُوسَى بْنِ الْفَضْلِ النَّيْسَابُورِيُّ، أنبأ الْحَسَنُ بْنُ يَعْقُوبَ الْعَدْلُ، ثنا يَحْيَى بْنُ أَبِي طَالِبٍ، أنبأ عَبْدُ الْوَهَّابِ بْنُ عَطَاءٍ، ثنا إِسْرَائِيلُ، عَنْ أَبِي إِسْحَاقَ، عَنِ الْحَارِثِ، عَنْ عَلِيٍّ رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهُ أَنَّهُ قَالَ: مَا أَدْرَكْتَ فَهُوَ أَوَّلُ صَلَاتِكَ
“What you catch (with the imam) then that is the first part of your ṣalāt”[10]
Conclusion
Thus it came to be that some authorities sided with one companion, others sided with another companion, while yet others employed their analogical reasoning. But for those who follow hadith al-thaqalayn it was clear for them what they should do.
Footnotes
[1] Consult Ibn Rushd’s (d. 595) primer Bidāyat al-Mujtahid for an accessible introduction (https://shamela.ws/book/21739/190/).
[2] Man lā Yaḥḍuruhu al-Faqīh (https://lib.eshia.ir/11021/1/404).
[3] Al-Kāfī (https://ar.lib.eshia.ir/27311/6/343). The chain is reliable.
[4] Al-Kāfī (https://ar.lib.eshia.ir/27311/6/349).
[5] Al-Kāfī (https://ar.lib.eshia.ir/27311/2/327).
[6] Tahdhīb al-Aḥkām (https://lib.eshia.ir/10083/3/46). Jaʿfar does not generally need to justify taking his rulings from ʿAlī and an Imāmī narrator would have accepted his statement as final without requiring him to give his chain back to ʿAlī (as all the other reports on this question in the Imāmī corpus attest to), but since the narrator of this particular report from Jaʿfar, Ṭalḥa b. Zayd, is noted as being an ʿāmmī (proto-Sunni) then Jaʿfar gives him his chain. Despite Ṭalḥa being an ʿāmmī, his book of hadith (from which this report is presumably taken) was considered reliable (muʿtamad) by our scholars. See Fihrist al-Ṭūsī (https://lib.eshia.ir/86948/1/86).
[7] Muṣannaf Ibn Abī Shayba (https://shamela.ws/book/333/8310).
[8] Al-Umm (https://shamela.ws/book/1655/1933).
[9] Muṣannaf Ibn Abī Shayba (https://shamela.ws/book/333/8319).
[10] Sunan al-Bayhaqī (https://shamela.ws/book/7861/4123).
Shiitic Studies 