befall others. Doing whatever of these duties lies within one’s ability, while leaving what one is unable to do, is therefore the middle course between the two extremes.

Upon this principle are based the questions of migration and resolve, which underlie the issue of leading prayer: [only what lies within one’s capacity should be done].

For this reason, Ahmad—according to an explicit report from him—and a group of his companions held that, when needed, someone performing an obligatory prayer may follow an imam who is offering a voluntary prayer, as in the fear prayer, or when the person performing the obligatory prayer does not know how to recite, as in the hadiths of Amr ibn Salama and Muādh, and similar cases. According to one of the two reports from Ahmad, however, he did not permit this in the absence of need. As for the report that he permitted it unconditionally, there is nothing further to discuss. Some of his companions, however, did not permit it under any circumstances.

Thus, there are three positions on this issue, both within his school and elsewhere. Unconditional prohibition is the well-known position of Abū Hanīfa and Mālik, just as unconditional permissibility is the position of al-Shāfiī.

This resembles the question of a follower separating from his imam before the concluding salutation. Three reports are related from Ahmad. The middle position is that this is permissible when needed, as the first group does in the fear prayer and as did the man for whom Muādh prolonged the night prayer, when its length became too burdensome for him. The second report prohibits it unconditionally, as does Abū Hanīfa’s position, while the third permits it unconditionally, as does al-Shāfiī’s position. For this reason, according to the well-known report from Ahmad, he permitted a woman to lead men in prayer when necessary—for example, if she knew how to recite while they did not—so that she could lead them in the tarāwīh prayer, just as “the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, permitted