Mālik that a voluntary circumambulation suffices in place of the obligatory pilgrimage circumambulation after a considerable interval has elapsed. It is also comparable to Ashhab’s statement that if someone recites a verse of prostration during prayer and, through forgetfulness, bows in response, that unit of prayer counts; and to their statement that if someone’s intention shifts during prayer to a voluntary prayer, his prayer remains valid.

The distinction Mālik—may Allah Most High have mercy on him—draws between someone whose intention shifts during prayer to a voluntary prayer and someone who rises to pray, then changes his intention and pronounces the takbīr intending it as the takbīr for bowing—which is a sunnah—is based on taking account of scholarly disagreement. Many scholars require the intention to be renewed upon entering prayer, whereas no scholar requires it to be renewed at every essential act of prayer. Taking account of scholarly disagreement is part of his approach. Saʿīd ibn al-Musayyab and Ibn Shihāb, however, applied their underlying principle consistently, without taking account of others’ disagreement.

If someone deliberately pronounced the takbīr for bowing while remembering the opening takbīr, his prayer would unanimously be deemed invalid, just as it would be invalid if he deliberately changed his intention during prayer to that of a voluntary prayer.

Anyone who interprets Ibn al-Musayyab and Ibn Shihāb as holding that the opening takbīr is a sunnah, that prostration for forgetfulness makes up for its omission by someone praying alone, and that the imam bears responsibility for it on behalf of those praying behind him, has plainly misrepresented them. If they regarded it as a sunnah, the imam would bear responsibility for it on behalf of those behind him, whether or not they pronounced the takbīr for bowing, just as he bears responsibility for their recitation and all the sunnah acts of prayer, however numerous. Likewise, prostration for forgetfulness would suffice for someone who omitted it, whether praying alone or leading others, even without pronouncing the takbīr for bowing. If the congregation forgot it because of his forgetfulness, his leading them in the two prostrations for forgetfulness would suffice for them. If, however, they pronounced the opening takbīr while he did not, before he began reciting, their prayer would be invalid because they had entered it before him—if one holds that the congregation’s prayer is dependent on their imam’s prayer.

This interpretation cannot be correct, because it contradicts their explicit statement that the takbīr for bowing suffices in place of the opening takbīr. By making its sufficiency conditional upon the takbīr for bowing, they indicated that they regard the opening takbīr as obligatory. They nevertheless hold that the takbīr for bowing suffices in its place for someone praying alone, an imam, or someone praying behind an imam. Thus, according to their position, none of these people, if they omit the opening takbīr, enters prayer except through the takbīr for bowing, which they regard as its substitute. This accords with the interpretation we have explained: the earlier intention becomes linked to that takbīr, making entry into prayer valid.

If someone praying behind an imam omits the opening takbīr but pronounces the takbīr for bowing, his prayer is valid according to their position. He enters prayer through the takbīr for bowing, which suffices in place of the opening takbīr because it becomes linked to his earlier intention, while the imam bears responsibility for recitation on his behalf. This applies if he pronounces the takbīr for bowing while standing. If someone praying alone omits the opening takbīr but pronounces the takbīr for bowing, the latter suffices in place of the former, making his entry into prayer valid