and therefore was not broken by the ʿAsr prayer; rather, ʿAsr was performed beforehand. In the same way, the Friday preacher’s aim is to address the congregation—commanding, forbidding, and admonishing them—after which the prayer immediately follows; hence they ought not to divert themselves from that purpose, especially since the prostration can be carried out right after it.

This shows that the prostration of recitation is waived when something of higher priority takes precedence. Do you not see that if a person were to recite to himself on Friday, it could be said that it is not recommended for him to prostrate while the rest of the people do not—just as it is not legislated for a follower in prayer to make a prostration for his own forgetfulness? Following the imam is more important than the prostration, all the more so when one is outside the prayer. Even if we hold that private recitation is recommended, it is comparable to the follower’s silent recitation behind his imam; and should he recite a passage containing a prostration, he would not prostrate apart from the imam. I know of no disagreement on this point.

Thus, maintaining visible conformity with the imam is better than the prostration of recitation or the prostration for forgetfulness; indeed, one is forbidden to perform them in that context. On that particular Friday the people only prostrated because ʿUmar did; had he not done so, they would not have prostrated at that moment. Therefore, if ʿUmar’s report is to be understood as meaning that such a prostration was not prescribed in that circumstance, it offers no evidence—even if the report were traced back to the Prophet.

Moreover, the prostration performed for Qur’anic recitation is one of the manifest rites of Islam: when the Qur’an is recited in the mosque, everyone prostrates to Allah, Lord of all worlds, and leaving it off undermines that rite; hence