Section
If, however, a traveller leads residents in two rakสฟahs and then rises to complete his prayer, and they follow him, then, if the imam had begun intending to offer the prayer in full on the basis of an interpretation, they must repeat it both within its prescribed time and after it has elapsed. It is also said that they need not repeat it. This is based on the disagreement concerning someone who was required to pray alone but prayed behind an imam. Another opinion is that they must repeat it within its prescribed time, as must the imam.
If they remain seated and do not follow him, their prayer is invalidated by their remaining seated instead of following him, according to the view that, had they followed him, they would have had to repeat it within its prescribed time, although their prayer would have been valid. Their prayer is valid, however, according to the view that, had they followed him, they would have had to repeat it both within its prescribed time and after it has elapsed. By analogy with Sahnลซnโs position, they must repeat it within its prescribed time, just as the imam must. I do not recall any explicit transmitted ruling on this matter.
If, however, the imam began intending to pray only two rakสฟahs, then deliberately offered the prayer in full and they followed him, they must repeat it both within its prescribed time and after it has elapsed, according to the view requiring the imam to do likewise. According to the view requiring him to repeat it only within its prescribed time, whether they must repeat it is subject to the disagreement already mentioned concerning the case in which he deliberately began intending to offer the prayer in full and they followed him. If they remain seated and do not follow him, the ruling is as explained in the preceding case.
If, however, the imam began intending to pray only two rakสฟahs, then inadvertently offered the prayer in full and they followed him, one opinion is that this does not suffice for them; another is that their prayer is valid. This follows the disagreement concerning an imam who inadvertently prays a fifth rakสฟah and is followed in it by someone who missed one rakสฟah of the prayer. This is according to the view that the imamโs prostrations for forgetfulness suffice. According to the view that he must repeat the prayer within its prescribed time, or both within its prescribed time and after it has elapsed, the ruling is as explained in the preceding case.
If they remain seated and do not follow him, they complete their prayer once the imam pronounces the closing salutation, and their prayer is valid. They perform the prostrations for forgetfulness just as the imam does, according to the view that the imam prostrates for his forgetfulness and his prayer is valid. According to the view that the imam must repeat the prayer both within its prescribed time and after it has elapsed because of the extent of his forgetfulness, they need neither perform the prostrations for forgetfulness nor repeat the prayer, since they themselves did not forget.
Section
If, however, the travelling imam offered the prayer in full with them only because he had intended to take up residence before beginning it, their prayer is valid if they follow him. If they remain seated and do not follow him, their prayer is invalid. And Allah Most High is the source of success.