I say: This mursal (interrupted-chain) report is sound, as will be shown, yet it does not prove a prohibition on the follower’s recitation, as some of our scholars have claimed. All that it shows is that the imam’s recitation fulfils the requirement on behalf of the one praying behind him, so that were the latter to remain silent his prayer would still be valid. The legal ruling on the follower’s own recitation must therefore be sought in other texts. Of the three positions mentioned, the most balanced and nearest to the truth is the middle one—the early view of Imam al-Shafi‘i, as set out in al-Muzhib, its commentary (3/313–314), and elsewhere. Those who declare the follower’s recitation obligatory rely on nothing but this hadith and the report of ‘Ubadah ibn al-Samit, “There is no prayer for the one who does not recite the Fatihat al-Kitab,” already discussed. Invoking the present hadith as proof, however, is clearly questionable. Works on usul (legal theory) establish that an exception (istithna) taken from a ruling indicates only the negation of that ruling for the item excepted; it does not establish an additional ruling. Thus the Prophet’s words “Do not do so” constitute a prohibition of reciting behind the imam in audible prayers, while his excepting the Fatiha merely shows that this prohibition does not apply to the Fatiha—in other words, that its recitation is neither disliked nor forbidden. Nothing in the wording points to the Fatiha being an indispensable pillar (rukn) or an obligation (wajib). If other evidence proves that, so be it; otherwise, this hadith cannot be cited for that purpose. One of the later Hanafi scholars comments: “A comparable case is the Divine saying, ‘La tuwa‘iduhunna sirran illa an taqulu qawlan ma‘rufa’ (Do not make secret proposals to them during the waiting period, except that you speak to them decently). Allah, Exalted be He, forbade an explicit proposal during the ‘idda but excluded indirect hints and euphemisms. By virtue of this exception, indirect speech is no longer prohibited; it has not become obligatory or required, and may still verge on being disliked. Similarly, He says, ‘Wa la tayammamu al-khabitha minhu tunfiquna wa lastum bi-akhidhihi illa an tughmidhu fihi’ (Do not aim for the inferior of your possessions to give in charity— that which you yourselves would not accept unless you overlook its defects). Is such overlooking and indulgence deemed obligatory by anyone? It is merely closing one’s eyes to the speck and dragging one’s hem over the offense.”