who has forgotten his state of impurity must repeat the prayer, just as his imam must. This is the position of Abū Hanīfah and one view reported from Ahmad, adopted by Abū al-Khattāb. Some who hold this view, such as Muhammad ibn al-Hasan, even maintain that someone who has performed ablution should not follow someone who has performed dry ablution, because the latter’s purification is less complete than his own.

The third view is that the follower’s prayer is linked to the imam’s prayer, but a deficiency carries over into the follower’s prayer only when neither has an excuse. Where there is an excuse, the deficiency does not carry over. Thus, if the imam believes himself to be ritually pure, he is excused for leading the prayer, and the follower is excused for following him. This is the view of Mālik, Ahmad and others. The reports transmitted from the Companions on this issue are to be understood accordingly. It is the most balanced of the views, as we have explained concerning deficiencies in the imam himself: the ruling concerning him when there is a need differs from the ruling when there is no need. The ruling concerning his prayer thus follows the ruling concerning him.

This principle also governs following an imam who has omitted something the follower considers obligatory for prayer, when the imam is acting on an admissible interpretation—for example, when he does not renew his ablution after the discharge of impurities or after touching his penis, and similar cases. The imam’s belief here that his prayer is valid is comparable to his belief that it is valid when he is unaware of his state of ritual impurity; indeed, it is even more justified, since in the latter case he is required to repeat the prayer. This too is a useful principle.

The soundness of this view is supported by the report al-Bukhārī included in his Sahīh, from Abū Hurayrah, may Allah be pleased with him, that the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said:

“They pray