his iqāmah. These are two opposing positions. The middle course is to regard neither form as disliked. Although Ahmad and other leading scholars of hadith prefer Bilāl’s adhān and iqāmah because he consistently used them in the presence of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, this is like preferring particular Quranic readings, forms of the tashahhud, and the like.

Following the Sunnah fully in such matters includes practising one form on some occasions and another on others, and using one form in one place and another elsewhere. Abandoning a practice established in the Sunnah and adhering exclusively to another may lead to treating a sunnah as an innovation and a recommended act as obligatory. This, in turn, may lead to division and disagreement when others practise the alternative form. A Muslim must therefore observe the general principles that ensure adherence to the Sunnah and the unity of the Muslim community, especially in matters such as congregational prayer.

Those with the soundest approach in this regard are the scholars of hadith who have learned the Sunnah and followed it. Some leading jurists have relied on weak hadiths in these matters, while others have relied primarily on the practice they found in their own locality, treating it alone as the Sunnah to the exclusion of other practices—even though the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, allowed latitude in this matter, and all these forms are Sunnah.

Some of them may even have identified Bilāl’s adhān and iqāmah with the forms they found in their own locality, whether in Kufa, Syria, or Medina. Yet Bilāl gave the adhān only rarely after the death of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him. Rather, the one who gave the adhān in Medina was Sa‘d al-Qarazī, the muezzin of the people of Qubā’.