Whoever held that the posture in which the opening takbīr is uttered is itself a condition—because it is tied to the Prophet’s own practice, peace and blessings be upon him—and who further regarded every takbīr in the prayer as obligatory, concluded that two takbīrs are indispensable.
By contrast, whoever maintained that the specific posture is not a condition, invoking the general sense of his statement, peace be upon him, “its consecration is the takbīr,” and who considered only the opening takbīr to be mandatory, ruled that a single takbīr is sufficient.
As for the view that one may utter only one takbīr without intending by it the opening takbīr, it has been said that this rests on the school which holds the opening takbīr not to be obligatory. Others have said rather that it is built on the position allowing the intention of the prayer to be delayed until after the opening takbīr, for “intending the opening takbīr” means nothing other than coupling the intention with entering the prayer. The opening takbīr therefore possesses two qualities: a concurrent intention and primacy—that is, occurring at the very beginning of the prayer. Whoever stipulates both qualities insists on the concurrent intention; whoever is content with only one of them is satisfied with a single takbīr unaccompanied by intention.
The second issue concerns a follower who, through inattentiveness, fails to bow with the imam until the imam has already prostrated. One group says that if he misses the bowing, he has missed the rakʿah and must make it up. A second group says the rakʿah will count for him provided he can complete his own bowing before the imam rises for the second rakʿah. A third group maintains that he should continue to follow the imam and still count the rakʿah so long as the imam has not yet raised his head from the bowing of the second rakʿah. This divergence is found among Mālik’s companions, with further details: whether the lapse stemmed from forgetfulness or overcrowding; whether it occurred in the Friday prayer or in another prayer; and whether it happened to the follower in the first or the second rakʿah. Our purpose here is not to detail the school’s positions or derive them, but simply to indicate the principles and foundations of the issues.
We therefore say: The root of the disagreement is whether it is a condition for the follower’s act to coincide with the imam’s act, or whether such coincidence is unnecessary—and whether this requirement pertains to all three components of the rakʿah (standing, bowing, and prostration) or only to some of them. Moreover, when the follower’s act does not coincide with the imam’s—meaning each is performing a different act—at what point is this considered a divergence? Whoever deems coincidence necessary for every component of a single rakʿah—that is, the follower’s act must keep pace with the imam’s, otherwise it is divergence, and the Prophet, peace be upon him, said, “Do not differ from him”—holds that if the follower fails to catch even the slightest part of the imam’s bowing, the rakʿah does not count. Whoever requires coincidence in only some components says that he catches the rakʿah if he bows before the imam rises to the second rakʿah; this is not considered differing from him. Should the imam rise to the second rakʿah and the follower then follow him, the follower has diverged from him in the first rakʿah. As for those who say he may follow the imam so long as the imam has not yet bowed in the second rakʿah, they hold that it is not a condition for any part of the follower’s act—whether partially or wholly—to coincide with the imam’s; it is sufficient that his act come after the imam’s. They are, however, unanimously agreed that