The second issue concerns the manner of responding to the adhān, over which four opinions have been recorded:

(1) To repeat exactly what the muʾadhdhin says, including the two ḥayya ʿalā phrases. This was the view of some of the early generations, as cited in Sharḥ al-Maʿānī (86), acting upon the Prophet’s ﷺ instruction: “Then say just as he says.”

(2) To repeat everything except the two ḥayya ʿalā phrases, in place of which one says: lā ḥawla wa-lā quwwata illā bi-Allāh (there is no power nor strength except with Allah). This is the position of the majority—among them the Shāfiʿīs—based on the detailed ḥadith narrated from ʿUmar and Muʿāwiyah.

(3) To combine the ḥayya ʿalā phrases with the ḥawqalah (lā ḥawla wa-lā quwwata illā bi-Allāh). This is the opinion of some later Ḥanafīs, such as Ibn al-Humām, and it is one view within the Ḥanbalī school. Al-Ḥāfiẓ said: “Some later scholars of legal theory have stated that when a specific and a general text can be reconciled, both must be acted upon.” He continued: “Why, then, should we not say that it is recommended for the listener to combine the ḥayya ʿalā phrases with the ḥawqalah? This is indeed one position among the Ḥanbalīs.”

(4) To alternate: at times answering with the ḥawqalah and at other times with the ḥayya ʿalā phrases. This was adopted by Ibn Ḥazm and by several verifying later Ḥanafī scholars, and it is the correct view, if Allah wills. It allows both the general and the specific ḥadiths to be applied, each within its own scope, whereas combining them—as in the third opinion—creates a composite meaning that neither text, taken separately, conveys. Ibn al-Munḏir likewise said: “It is possible that this is a permissible area of variation, so one may do it this way at times and that way at others.”

This sanctioned variation has many parallels in the Sacred Law, such as the different opening supplications in prayer and the like, as