Whoever regarded the permissibility of combining two prayers within the time of one of them thus treated make-up (qaḍāʾ) as equivalent to on-time performance (adāʾ).
The Mālikīs, for their part, considered sequence obligatory for missed prayers from the standpoint of time rather than of the act itself. They invoked the Prophet’s—peace and blessings be upon him—statement: “Let him perform it when he remembers it.” They contend that once a person remembers a forgotten prayer, that very moment becomes its time; hence the prayer he is currently engaged in must be invalidated. This reasoning, however, is untenable: if the moment of remembrance is deemed the time of the missed prayer, it is equally the time of the present prayer—or of several missed prayers if more than one has been forgotten. Given that the time is one and the same, the only conceivable cause of invalidation would be the requirement of sequence, analogous to the order that exists among the units of a single prayer. Neither of the two prayers has a greater claim to that time than the other, unless specific evidence establishes precedence.
In my judgment, the only possible root for obligating sequence among missed prayers is the concession of combining prayers, according to those who allow it; for while the performed prayers have distinct times, sequence in make-ups can be imagined only when the same time applies to both prayers. Contemplate this carefully, for it is subtle. I suspect that Mālik—may Allah have mercy on him—derived his ruling by analogy with combining. The scholars collectively deemed ordering multiple missed prayers commendable provided one does not fear the loss of the current prayer, citing the Messenger of Allah—peace and blessings be upon him—who performed the five prayers in order on the Day of the Trench. Those who obligate make-up for the deliberate abandoner have taken this event as proof, but their argument is baseless: the incident was abrogated and, moreover, arose from a legitimate excuse.
As for restricting the obligation of sequence to five prayers or fewer, it has no foundation unless one alleges consensus. Such, then, is the ruling on make-up when an entire prayer has been missed.
[Make-up of part of the prayer]
When only part of the prayer is missed, the need for make-up arises in two situations: (1) forgetfulness, and (2) the imam moving ahead of the follower—meaning that the follower misses a portion of the imam’s prayer.
If the follower has missed part of the prayer, three foundational issues must be considered:
- When is a rakʿah deemed missed?
- Is performing what he missed after the imam concludes regarded as on-time performance or make-up?
- When do the rulings applying to the imam’s prayer bind him and when do they not?
With respect to the first issue—determining when a rakʿah is missed—two situations arise:
• He enters while the imam has already bowed.
• He is already behind the imam but, through inattentiveness or crowding, fails to bow with him.
As for the first situation, three views are reported. The first—and it is the position of the majority—is that if he reaches the imam before the latter raises his head from bowing and bows with him, he is considered to have caught the rakʿah and need not make it up; and these