(Q. 12 - 2) We Have Sent It Down As An Arabic Qur Ān - Praying Behind The Lisper PDF

(q.
12:2) We Have Sent It Down

Islamic As An
Law and Arabic
Society 23 Qurʾān
(2016) 23-51 23
Islamic Law
and
Society
brill.com/ils
(Q. 12:2) We have sent it down as an Arabic Qurʾān:

Praying behind the Lisper
Shady Hekmat Nasser

University of Cambridge
sn296@cam.ac.uk
Abstract
Muslims are required to recite the Qurʾān properly according to the complex rules of
Qurʾānic recitation. This is especially the case during liturgical practices such as ritual
prayers. The leader (imām) of congregational prayers (ṣalāt al-jamāʿah) is expected to
be more learned in the Qurʾān than the individuals he is leading, and a better reciter.
The case of the lisper (al-althagh) poses a challenge: An imām who lisps would be recit-
ing the Qurʾān incorrectly and, in many cases, might change the meaning of the verses.
In this article I discuss the problem of the lisper and the situations in which he is
allowed to serve, or is forbidden from serving, as an imām for a group of individuals. I
also discuss and analyse the positions of several jurists from different schools of law
after first providing background on lisping, speech disorders and the general require-
ments of imāmah.
Keywords
lisper (althagh) – prayer (ṣalāt) – imām – Qurʾān – Islamic law – Arabic language
* This article is best read in conjunction with my article, “The Grammatical Blunders of Qurʾān
Reciters: Zallat al-qāriʾ by Abū Ḥafṣ al-Nasafī (d. 537/1142),” Journal of Abbasid Studies, 2 (2015):
1–37. The author would like to thank David S. Powers for his thorough editing and valuable
feedback, which significantly diminished many instances of lisping and laḥn of English style.
ISSN 0928-9380 (print version) ISSN 1568-5195 (online version) ILS 1
Islamic
© Law and
koninklijke brillSociety 23 (2016)
nv, leiden, 23-5110.1163/15685195-02312p02
2016 | doi
24 Nasser
…
imāmatu l-althaghi li’l-faṣīḥi
fāsidatun fī l-rājiḥi l-ṣaḥīḥi
(Al-Khayr al-Ramlī d. 1081/1671)
⸪
Introduction
The Successor Yaḥyā b. Waththāb (d. 103/721) was, according to al-Ṭabarī (d.
310/923), the chief reader of late-first-century Kūfah. His student al-Aʿmash (d.
148/765) is reported to have said: “Yaḥyā b. Waththāb was the most skilful in
Qurʾānic recitation. When he would recite the Qurʾān in the mosque, one could
not hear the slightest motion from the congregation; [it was] as if the mosque
were empty.”1 Only when Yaḥyā b. Waththāb died did people start to flock
around al-Aʿmash to study the Qurʾān.2 ʿĀṣim b. Abī al-Najūd (d. 127/745),
whose Reading is among the seven canonical Readings of the Qurʾān, also testi-
fies to Yaḥyā’s mastery of recitation: “kāna wa-’llāhi qāriʾan.”3
Yaḥyā b. Waththāb was a client (mawlā) of Banū Kāhil of Banū Asad b. Khu-
zaymah, and he was of Persian descent from Qāshān-Iṣbahān.4 After settling in
Kūfah, he became an influential Qurʾān master and reader who led the ritual
prayer ceremony.5 Indeed, he became an imām who led “his own people”
1 Shams al-Dīn al-Dhahabī (d. 748/1348), Maʿrifat al-qurrāʾ al-kibār ʿalā l-ṭabaqāt wa’l-aʿṣār, ed.
Ṭayyār Ạltīqūlāg, 4 vols. (Istānbūl: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, İslâm Araştırmaları Merkezi, 1995),
1:160–1.
2 Abū Nuʿaym al-Iṣbahānī (d. 430/1038), Dhikr akhbār Iṣbahān, 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1931–1934),
2:333.
3 Muḥammad Ibn Saʿd (d. 230/845), Kitāb al-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr, ed. ʿAlī Muḥammad ʿUmar, 11 vols.
(Cairo: Maktabat al-Khānjī, 2001), 8:416.
4 His father Waththāb was captured in Qāshān and entrusted to Ibn ʿAbbās (d. 68/687), with
whom he stayed for several years. Waththāb was subsequently given permission to return to
Qāshān. When he and his son Yaḥyā stopped in Kūfah en route to Qāshān, Yaḥyā decided to
remain in Kūfah to pursue knowledge and education. See Abū Nuʿaym, Akhbār Iṣbahān, 2:333.
On Qāshān, a city in the vicinity of Iṣbahān, see Abū ʿAbd Allāh Yāqūt al-Ḥamawī (d. 626/1229),
Muʿjam al-buldān, 5 vols. (Beirut: Dār Ṣādir, 1977), 4:296.
5 Skilled Qurʾān reciters are expected to lead ritual prayers based on the Prophetic tradition,
with its different variants: “ya⁠ʾummu al-qawma aqra⁠ʾuhum li-kitābi llāhi” (He who leads the
Islamic Law and Society 23 (2016) 23-51

(q. 12:2) We Have Sent It Down As An Arabic Qurʾān 25
( qawmahu) in prayers. At some point, al-Ḥajjāj b. Yūsuf (d. 95/714), then gover-
nor of Kūfah, decreed that non-Arabs were no longer allowed to lead prayers in
Kūfah.6 When Yaḥyā’s “people” asked him to step down as their imām, al-Ḥajjāj
asked: “Who is this man and why is he stepping down?” Someone answered:
“This is Yaḥyā b. Waththāb. You have decreed that only Arabs may lead prayers.”7
Al-Ḥajjāj exclaimed: “I have not forbidden the likes of him [from leading
prayers]!” (laysa ʿan mithli hādhā nahaytu).8
The anecdote does not end with the Kūfan governor reinstating Yaḥyā as the
imām of the Persian community in Kūfah, but rather with Yaḥyā exhibiting
signs of irritation on account of al-Ḥajjāj’s decision. He asked his fellow Per-
sians to seek another imām for themselves because, even if it were up to him,
he would no longer want to lead their prayers. Al-Ḥajjāj’s objection was no
doubt based on linguistic grounds: A man who does not speak proper Arabic
should not occupy a leading religious post in the Arab–Muslim community.
According to ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān (d. 86/705), al-Ḥajjāj’s patron, a gram-
matical error (laḥn) committed in public was as abominable as the blistering
people [in prayers] must be the most learned among them in the Book of God). See Abū
l-Ḥusayn Muslim b. al-Ḥajjāj (d. 261/875) and Muḥyī l-Dīn al-Nawawī (d. 676/1277), Ṣaḥīḥ
Muslim bi-sharḥ al-Nawawī, 18 vols. (Cairo: al-Maṭbaʿah al-Miṣriyyah bi’l-Azhar, 1929), 5:172.
For different versions of this ḥadīth, see Bashshār ʿAwwād Maʿrūf et al, al-Musnad al-jāmiʿ, 22
vols. (Beirut: Dār al-Jīl, 1993), 13:92–3.
6 Al-Ḥajjāj is famous for his eloquence in speech and for attaching great importance to “pure
Arabic”. See EI2, s.v. “al-Ḥadjdjādj b. Yūsuf” (Albert Dietrich), 3:39–43. His efforts in developing
the Arabic script and contributing to the early standardization of the Qurʾān are a topic of
discussion among scholars. See Omar Hamdan, “The Second Maṣāḥif Project: A Step Towards
the Canonization of the Qurʾanic Text,” in The Qurʾān in Context, ed. Angelika Neuwirth et al.
(Leiden: Brill, 2010), 795–835.
7 In some fiqh and sunan works, the following account is often cited in the section devoted to
“imāmat al-aʿjamī”. A group of pilgrims were preparing to pray near Mecca. A non-Arab man
(aʿjamī al-lisān) from Banū al-Sāʾib stepped forward to lead the group. However, al-Miswar b.
Makhramah (d. 64/683) pulled him back and pushed forward another man. When ʿUmar b.
al-Khaṭṭāb (d. 23/644) enquired about this incident, al-Miswar answered apologetically: “O
commander of the faithful, let me explain myself (anẓirnī). The man was a foreigner and it
was the pilgrimage season. I was concerned that some pilgrims would hear his recitation and
then mimic his foreign accent.” ʿUmar approved of al-Miswar’s decision and acknowledged
that his actions were correct (qad aṣabta). See Abū Bakr al-Bayhaqī (d. 458/1066), al-Sunan
al-kubrā, ed. Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Qādir ʿAṭā, 11 vols. (Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-ʿilmiyyah, 2003),
3:127.
8 Dhahabī, Maʿrifat al-qurrāʾ, 1:160–1. Cf. Mustafa Shah, “Exploring the Genesis of Early Arabic
Linguistic Thought: Qurʾanic Readers and Grammarians of the Kūfan Tradition (Part I)”,
Journal of Qurʾanic Studies 5:1 (2003): 47–78 at 66–7.

26 Nasser
sores on the face of one suffering from smallpox and the reason for his prema-
ture graying.9 The statement attributed to al-Ḥajjāj (laysa ʿan mithli hādhā na-
haytu) suggests that this prohibition is based on linguistic proficiency, not
ethnic origins. Regardless of its authenticity, the anecdote clearly demon-
strates the challenges faced by the newly converted non-Arab communities
during the first century of Islam in their attempt to integrate into the linguistic,
religious, and social fabric of the Arab-Muslim civil communities.10 However, I
would not dismiss ethnic and racial motives as sources for al-Ḥajjāj’s decree.
Inasmuch as supreme leadership (al-imāmah al-kubrā) can be transmitted
only within Quraysh,11 some traditions and narratives also give a Qurashī man
precedence with regard to leading the ritual prayer.12
It is hardly surprising that later accounts seek to vindicate Yaḥyā b. Waththāb
and show his supremacy as a Qurʾān reader, including a bizarre testimony that
he was the best reciter ever to urinate on the ground (aqra⁠ʾu man bāla ʿalā
turāb).13 Indeed, in one report, Yaḥyā is cited as an authority on the Arabic
language, with an ironic interjection from the transmitter that he was one of
the most eloquent Arabs (wa-kāna min fuṣaḥāʾ al-ʿarab).14 Although all Mus-
lims are equal in the eyes of God and his Prophet, non-Arab Muslims are at a
9 Abū ʿUmar Ibn ʿAbd Rabbihi (d. 328/940), Al-ʿIqd al-farīd, ed. Muḥammad Saʿīd al-ʿAryān,
9 vols. (Cairo: al-Maktabah al-tijāriyyah al-kubrā, 1953), 2:275.
10 Cf. Marshall G.S. Hodgson, The Venture of Islam, 3 vols. (Chicago: The University of Chi-
cago Press, 1977), 1:41–3, 226–30.
11 EI2, s.v. “Khalīfa” (P.M. Holt), 4:937–53; Wilferd Madelung, The Succession to Muḥammad:
A Study of the Early Caliphate (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 1–56. See
the different Prophetic traditions on this topic under kitāb al-imārah in Muslim, Sharḥ
al-Nawawī, 12:199–204.
12 Jurists generally agree that the following characteristics are preferable in the imām: Legal
and religious knowledge (fiqh), proper Qurʾān recitation (qirāʾah), piety (waraʿ), seniority
(sinn), noble lineage (nasab), and being a descendant of a Companion who participated
in the hijrah. Under nasab, Quraysh has primacy over all the other tribes, and the Hāshim
and Muṭṭalib clans have primacy over all the other clans within Quraysh. See Muḥyī l-Dīn
al-Nawawī (d. 676/1277), Rawḍat al-ṭālibīn wa-ʿumdat al-muftīn (Beirut: Dār Ibn Ḥazm,
2002), 158–9.
13 Dhahabī, Maʿrifat al-qurrāʾ, 1:161.
14 Philologists cite Yaḥyā b. Waththāb as the authority on ḥadīth al-ʿaṭās (sneezing), in
which he explains that Arabs use both “sammata” and “shammata” to bless someone who
sneezes. This is in reference to the Prophetic tradition “fa-shammata aḥadahumā wa-lam
yushammit al-ākhar” (the Prophet blessed one person after sneezing but did not bless the
other). See Abū Muḥammad b. Ḥayyān Abū l-Shaykh al-Anṣārī (d. 369/979), Ṭabaqāt
al-muḥaddithīn bi-Iṣbahān wa’l-wāridīn ʿalayhā, ed. ʿAbd al-Ghafūr al-Balūshī, 4 vols. (Bei-
rut: Dār al-risālah, 1992), 1:356–8. Cf. Muslim, Sharḥ al-Nawawī, 18:120; Majd al-Dīn Abū

disadvantage: They must master Arabic if they want to recite the Qurʾān pri-
vately or publicly and in liturgical ceremonies, particularly if one wants to be-
come imām in congregational prayers. The problem is obvious: the Qurʾān is
the word of God, Who revealed it to His Prophet in perfect and “pure” Arabic,
to be recited according to complex rules relating to the accurate and proper
articulation of letters, assimilation (idghām), hamzah alleviation (takhfīf al-
hamzah), and the lengthening and shortening of vowels, all purportedly taught
by Muḥammad to his Companions.15 In the celebrated al-Muqaddimah al-Jaz-
ariyyah, Ibn al-Jazarī (d. 833/1429) denounces as sinners those who do not re-
cite the Qurʾān correctly and according to the proper rules of recitation
(tajwīd).16 But what happens if a “pure” Arab, even the most eloquent of them,
has a lisp? A lisp may cause a change in the meaning of the word: An unfortu-
nate lisper who changes, for example, the sīn into a thāʾ would recite “bi-’thmi
allāh” (in/by the sin of God) instead of “bi-’smi allāh” (in the name of God), and
a lisper who articulates shīn instead of sīn would recite Q. 67:11 “fa-suḥqan li-
aṣḥābi sh-shaʿīr” (curse the inhabitants/owners of the Barley!) instead of “fa-
suḥqan li-aṣḥābi s-saʿīr (curse the inhabitants of the Blaze!). If the individual
were praying or reciting privately, his lisp would not nullify the validity of his
prayer; however, the situation is completely different in a public setting: A lisp-
er might jeopardize the validity of his prayer and the prayer of those he is lead-
ing if he were to take a leadership role as an imām for congregational prayers.
In the following pages I will explore the juristic discussion of the per
missibility of praying behind a lisper, with special attention to his legal status,
qualifications, and disqualifications to become imām of ritual prayers, and
to the distinction between a lisper who leads a group of lispers and another
who leads non-lispers. I will also consider the legal status of a lisper who suf-
fers from a speech disorder that makes it impossible for him to articulate one
or more Arabic letters properly and of a lisper or a non-Arab who has not mas-
tered Arabic. The topic of lisping in ritual prayers is often discussed in
l-Saʿādāt Ibn al-Athīr (d. 606/1210), al-Nihāyah fī gharīb al-ḥadīth wa’l-athar, ed. ʿAlī Ḥasan
al-Ḥalabī (Dammām: Dār Ibn al-Jawzī, 2000), 491.
15 Shady Hekmat Nasser, The Transmission of the Variant Readings of the Qurʾān: The Problem
of tawātur and the Emergence of shawādhdh (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 98–100.
16 “wa’l-akhdhu bi’l-tajwīdi ḥatmun lāzimu man lam yujawwidi l-Qurāna āthimu
li-annahū bihi l-ilāhu anzalā wa-hākadhā minhu ilaynā waṣalā”
(Following the rules of tajwīd is absolutely necessary. He who does not recite the Qurʾān
properly is a sinner, for God revealed the Qurʾān with tajwīd, and we received it from Him
in exactly this manner). See Abū l-Khayr Ibn al-Jazarī (d. 833/1429), al-Muqaddimah fī-mā
yajib ʿalā qāriʾ al-Qurʾān an yaʿlamah, ed. Ayman Rushdī Suwayd (Jaddah: Dār Nūr
al-Maktabāt, 2006), 3.

28 Nasser
connection with laḥn (solecism). Thus, one should not think of lisping as a
speech defect of limited interest to Muslims. Laḥn and lisping go hand-in-
hand and neither is considered to be more important than the other. The
issue at stake is how one properly recites the Qurʾān. What may appear to be a
prejudice of the jurists against certain social and ethnic classes is in fact a
deep-seated concern for preserving the Qurʾān. As members of the Muslim
community, lispers and solecists deserve the attention of jurists, but more im-
portantly, their case is in fact part of the complex issue of the nature of the
Qurʾān. The contradictions we encounter in the opinions of Muslim jurists are,
in my opinion, due mainly to uncertainty in formulating the exact parameters
of the Qurʾān as a liturgical text. Consequently, the jurists’ inability to balance
theory and practice, that is, the unsuccessful enforcement of their theoretical
legal system, at least in the case of proper Qurʾān recitation during prayers
among lay Muslims, leads to further problems. Although I focus here on lisping
and other speech problems, I will refer to laḥn when necessary.17 Before pro-
ceeding, let us review the subject of lisping and other important speech de-
fects.
Definitions and Terminology
At the beginning of his al-Bayān wa’l-tabyīn, al-Jāḥiẓ (d. 255/869) invokes

God’s mercy to avoid His wrath, a wrath that would cause people to become
tongue-tied and utter inarticulate speech (al-ʿiyy wa’l-ḥaṣar).18 Such a mis
fortune must be distinguished from that of a person afflicted with speech
disorders, which al-Jāḥiẓ meticulously catalogues:19 al-lajlāj;20 dhū l-lafaf wa’l-
17 My initial plan was to discuss both lisping and laḥn in ritual prayers. However, the legal
opinions concerning an imām who commits grammatical errors are slightly stricter than
those regarding an imām who lisps. Moreover, I found more and richer materials on the
topic of laḥn in prayer, and, thus, I dedicated a separate article to laḥn in recitation and
prayers, along with a detailed discussion and translation of significant portions of a trea-
tise by Abū Ḥafṣ al-Nasafī (d. 537/1142), entitled zallat al-qāriʾ. See Shady Hekmat Nasser,
“The Grammatical Blunders of Qurʾān Reciters: Zallat al-qāriʾ by Abū Ḥafṣ al-Nasafī (d.
537/1142),” Journal of Abbasid Studies, 2 (2015): 1–37.
18 Abū ʿUthmān ʿAmr b. Baḥr al-Jāḥiẓ (d. 255/869), al-Bayān wa’l-tabyīn, ed. ʿAbd al-Salām
Hārūn, 4 vols. (Cairo: Maktabat al-Khānjī, 1998), 1:3.
19 Ibid., 1:12.
20 Al-lajlāj is someone who speaks heavily and unclearly. See Jamāl al-Dīn b. Manẓūr (d.
711/1311), Lisān al-ʿArab, ed. ʿAbd Allāh ʿAlī al-Kabīr et al., 6 vols. (Cairo: Dār al-maʿārif,
[n.d.]), 5:4000.

ʿajalah;21 al-tamtām; al-althagh; al-fa⁠ʾfāʾ; dhū l-ḥubsah; dhū l-ḥuklah;22 and dhū
l-ruttah (al-aratt).23 But a lisper may be eloquent and expressive, as exempli-
fied by the illustrious Wāṣil b. ʿAṭāʾ (d. 131/748).24
Lisping (al-luthghah) manifests itself in the pronunciation of several conso-
nants. Al-Jāḥiẓ identifies the phenomenon with the consonant rāʾ, when a per-
son vocalizes a ghayn25 or a dhāl or a yāʾ; rāʾ → ghayn is the most common and
least repulsive (aqalluhā qubḥan) among all the mutations. Other consonants
21 Also called al-alaff, i.e. an inarticulate slow speaker. Al-alaff is also defined as someone
who assimilates one consonant into another. Ibid., 5:4055.
22 The definitions of these terms will follow shortly.
23 Al-ruttah is defined as haste in speech, altering the lām into a yāʾ, speaking with a foreign
accent, or humming and muttering; Lisān al-ʿArab, 3:1575; Abū l-ʿAbbās al-Fayyūmī (d.
770/1368), al-Miṣbāḥ al-munīr, ed. Khaḍir al-Jawād (Beirut: Maktabat Lubnān, 1987), 83,
209. Jurists usually refer to the aratt as someone who performs unnecessary assimilation
and fuses one consonant with another; Shams al-Dīn al-Khaṭīb al-Shirbīnī (d. 977/1570),
Mughnī l-muḥtāj ilā maʿrifat maʿānī alfāẓ al-Minhāj, ed. Muḥammad Khalīl ʿAytānī, 4 vols.
(Beirut: Dār al-maʿrifah, 1997), 1:364; Shihāb al-Dīn al-Qarāfī (d. 684/1285), al-Dhakhīrah,
ed. Muḥammad Ḥajjī, 14 vols. (Beirut: Dār al-gharb al-islāmī, 1994), 2:246.
24 Abū Hilāl al-ʿAskarī (d. 395/1005) distinguishes between faṣāḥah and balāghah. He does
not consider a lisper (althagh) or a stutterer (tamtām) to be faṣīḥ since each lacks the tool
(the tongue, the lafẓ) that allows delivery of words in a perfect and eloquent form. How-
ever, their speech might be faṣīḥ if delivered by another articulate individual; Abū Hilāl
al-ʿAskarī (d. 395/1005), Kitāb al-Ṣināʿatayn: al-kitābah wa’l-shiʿr, ed. ʿAlī Muḥammad
al-Bijjāwī and Muḥammad Abū l-Faḍl Ibrāhīm (Cairo: Dār iḥyāʾ al-kutub al-ʿarabiyyah,
1952), 7–8.
25 A common motif in Arabic literature is the poet’s praise for the lisp of his beloved. The
lisp is described as attractive and even desirable. Ibn al-Wardī (d. 749/1349) wrote:
althaghu bi’l-rāʾi zāra baytī fa-jāʾanā ḥāsidun wa-aṣghā
qultu: afiq fa’l-ḥasūdu barrā qāla: afiq fa’l-ḥasūdu baghghā
(A lisper on the rāʾ visited my house, but an envious slanderer was eavesdropping on
us. I said to him/her: Wake up! The envious one is outside (barrā), and he repeated:
Wake up! The envious one is outthide (baghghā));
Abū Ḥafṣ Ibn al-Wardī (d. 749/1349), Dīwān Ibn al-Wardī (Qusṭanṭīniyyah: Maṭbaʿat
al-Jawāʾib, 1882), 312. Abū Nuwās (d. 199/813) also has several lines in which he adores the
lisp of his young companions. For example:
wā bi-abī althagha lājajtuhu fa-qāla fī ghunjin wa-ikhnāthi
lammā ra⁠ʾā minnī khilāfī lahu kam laqiya ’l-nāthu mina ’l-nāthi
(My lover the lisper and I were bickering and arguing. When I showed him my naughty
behaviour he said with feminine coquetry:
How often one perthon [nāth] suffers at the hands of another perthon [nāth]!).
See al-Ḥasan b. Hāniʾ Abū Nuwās (d. 199/813), Dīwān Abī Nuwās, ed. Ewald Wagner, 5 vols.
(Beirut: Klaus Schwarz Verlag, 2003), 5:301.

30 Nasser
affected by lisping are sīn – pronounced thāʾ, qāf – pronounced ṭāʾ, and lām –
pronounced yāʾ or kāf. Al-Jāḥiẓ addresses the rāʾ-lisp in more detail and shows
its different permutations: rāʾ → yāʾ (ʿAmr → ʿAmy); rāʾ → ghayn (ʿAmr → ʿAmgh);
rāʾ → dhāl (ʿAmr → ʿAmdh); and rāʾ → ẓāʾ (ʿAmr → ʿAmẓ).26
The terms al-ta⁠ʾtāʾ, al-tamtām, and al-fa⁠ʾfāʾ refer to individuals afflicted by
speech defects associated with tāʾ, mīm, and fāʾ, respectively.27 Someone af-
flicted by al-ḥubsah or al-ʿuqlah is slightly more expressive but s/he speaks
heavily and with some difficulty. One who suffers from al-luknah introduces
non-Arabic sounds into his/her Arabic speech; his/her foreign accent domi-
nates the articulation of the Arabic sounds. Finally, a person impaired by al-
ḥuklah has a medical disorder that places him in the same category as a mute
(akhras) who can communicate with others only by hand gestures.28
That al-Jāḥiẓ devotes forty pages to these speech problems29 demonstrates
the importance of lisping and stuttering, which seem to have been common in
early Arab–Muslim communities.30 Indeed, the inability to articulate more
difficult consonants is also attested among the early Arab “native speakers”, if
we trust the narratives on the confusion between ḍād and ẓāʾ.31
26 Jāḥiẓ, Bayān, 1:35–7.

27 There is also al-wa⁠ʾwāʾ, the person who stutters on the wāw.
28 Jāḥiẓ, Bayān, 1:37–8, 40.
29 The terms are usually defined, with examples and anecdotes, under their respective
entries in, for example, Lisān al-ʿArab, Tāj al-ʿarūs, and Tahdhīb al-lughah. The definitions
sometimes overlap.
30 A lisp was often a defining characteristic. For example, when authors mention Wāṣil b.
ʿAṭāʾ, they sometimes identify him as “al-althagh”. The epithet “al-althagh” is attached to
the name of some Ḥadīth transmitters, such as Ḥusayn al-althagh and ʿAlī b. ʿĪsā
al-Mukharrimī al-althagh. See Abū l-Fatḥ al-Shahrastānī (d. 548/1153), Al-Milal wa’l-niḥal,
ed. ʿAbd al-Amīr Muhannā and ʿAlī Ḥasan Fāʿūr, 2 vols. (Beirut: Dār al-maʿrifah, 1993), 1:59,
180; Abū Nuʿaym al-Iṣbahānī (d. 430/1038), Ḥilyat al-awliyāʾ wa-ṭabaqāt al-aṣfiyāʾ, 10 vols.
(Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-ʿilmiyyah, 1988), 9:78; Abū Bakr al-Bayhaqī (d. 458/1066), Maʿrifat
al-sunan wa’l-āthār, ed. ʿAbd al-Muʿṭī Amīn Qalʿajī, 15 vols. (Damascus: Dār Qutaybah,
1991), 3:324; Bayhaqī, Sunan, 9:485; Abū Muḥammad Ibn Abī Ḥātim al-Rāzī (d. 327/
938), Ādāb al-Shāfiʿī wa-manāqibuh, ed. ʿAbd al-Ghanī ʿAbd al-Khāliq (Cairo: Maktabat
al-Khānjī, 1993), 36–7.
31 The authors of qirāʾāt and tajwīd manuals agree that ḍād is the most difficult consonant
to articulate correctly. Ibn al-Jazarī says that it is difficult to utter ḍād accurately; some
people pronounce it as ẓāʾ, zāy, or dhāl, while others pronounce it like an emphatic lām.
All these forms are unacceptable. Abū l-Khayr Ibn al-Jazarī (d. 833/1429), al-Nashr fī
l-qirāʾāt al-ʿashr, ed. ʿAlī Muḥammad al-Ḍabbāʿ, 2 vols. (Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-ʿilmiyyah),
1:220. Anecdotes about ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb (d. 23/644) and the Prophet being the only

The Lisper as Imam (imāmat al-althagh)
Abū Ghānim ʿUmar b. Muḥammad was a student of, and assistant to, the great
Shāfiʿī jurist Ibn Surayj (d. 306/918). Both men suffered from a mild lisp. When
Abū Ghānim was reviewing some legal questions with his master, he came
upon the question of whether or not it is permissible to pray behind one who
lisps (masʾalat imāmat al-althagh). Abū Ghānim was embarrassed to ask Ibn
Surayj – who was a lisper – if his imāmah for congregational prayer was valid,
so he asked if he himself, that is, Abū Ghānim, might lead the ritual prayer –
despite his being a lisper. Ibn Surayj answered: “Yes, your imāmah is valid. And
so is mine.”32 The anecdote demonstrates the importance of the problem of
lispers as a legal topic. Moreover, it indicates that Ibn Surayj was sensitive
about his lisp.33 That he provided a pre-meditated answer to his student while
individuals able to correctly pronounce the ḍād are fictitious. The Prophetic tradition
“anā afṣaḥu man naṭaqa bi’l-ḍād” (I am the most eloquent among Arabs/I am the most
articulate in pronouncing the ḍād) is unanimously rejected by Ḥadīth critics even though
this tradition is widely used in classical sources. See Badr al-Dīn al-Zarkashī (d. 794/1392),
al-La⁠ʾāliʾ al-manthūrah fī l-aḥādīth al-mashhūrah, ed. Muṣṭafā ʿAbd al-Qādir ʿAṭā (Beirut:
Dār al-kutub al-ʿilmiyyah, 1986), 160; Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 604/1207), Mafātīḥ al-ghayb,
32 vols. (Beirut: Dār al-fikr, 1981), 1:70; Shams al-Dīn al-Sakhāwī (d. 902/1428), al-Maqāṣid
al-ḥasanah fī bayān kathīr min al-aḥādīth al-mushtahirah ʿalā l-alsinah, ed. ʿAbd Allāh
al-Ṣiddīq (Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-ʿilmiyyah, 1979), 95. See also Ramaḍān ʿAbd al-Tawwāb,
“Mushkilat al-ḍād al-ʿarabiyyah wa-turāth al-ḍād wa’l-ẓāʾ,” Majallat al-majmaʿ al-ʿilmī
al-ʿirāqī 21 (1971): 214–38; Jonathan A.C. Brown, “New data on the delateralization of ḍād
and its merger with ẓāʾ in classical Arabic: contributions from Old South Arabic and the
earliest Islamic texts on ḍ / ẓ minimal pairs,” Journal of Semitic Studies 52:2 (2007): 335–68.
32 Tāj al-Dīn al-Subkī (d. 771/1369), Ṭabaqāt al-shāfiʿiyyah al-kubrā, ed. ʿAbd al-Fattāḥ al-Ḥulw
and Maḥmūd al-Ṭanāḥī, 10 vols. (Cairo: Dār iḥyāʾ al-kutub al-ʿarabiyyah, 1964), 3:471; cf.
Abū l-Maḥāsin al-Rūyānī (d. 502/1108), Baḥr al-madhhab fī furūʿ madhhab al-imām
al-Shāfiʿī, ed. Aḥmad ʿIzz and ʿInāyah al-Dimashqī, 14 vols. (Beirut: Dār iḥyāʾ al-turāth
al-ʿarabī, 2002), 2:415. Ibn Surayj prohibited the imāmah of a lisper but then permitted it
for himself and Abū Ghānim since their lisps were mild. See Sulaymān b. Muḥammad
al-Bujayrimī (d. 1221/1806), Tuḥfat al-ḥabīb ʿalā sharḥ al-Khaṭīb, 5 vols. (Beirut: Dār al-
kutub al-ʿilmiyyah, 1996), 2:335.
33 It has been brought to my attention by one of the reviewers that Ibn Surayj’s argument
may have been biased due to the fact that he himself was a lisper, which may have com-
promised his objectivity. While this may be true, it is difficult to assess the situation based
on this single incident without taking into consideration the legal literature on public and
private interests (maṣlaḥa). The argument cuts both ways: Either Ibn Surayj favored his
private maṣlaḥa over the public interest in order to retain his privileges as imām, or he put
forward the public interest and chose the lesser of two evils, i.e., to allow lisping while

32 Nasser
putting himself forward as an example shows his pre-occupation with this

problem. A lisp may undermine the authority of the imām of the congrega-
tional prayer, a position of importance that is associated with political and re-
ligious privileges. The case of Yaḥyā b. Waththāb is an example of how an imām
may lose his authority due to lisping or laḥn – although other motives may
have been related to his downfall.
In fiqh compendia, discussions of lisping during prayers and the eligibility
of an imām who lisps are usually found in the kitāb al-ṣalāt34 under the topics
of the congregational prayers and qualifications of the imām.35 Several condi-
tions and criteria are stipulated for the validity of imāmah, including reciting
the Qurʾān correctly (ṣiḥḥat al-qirāʾah). This stipulation is largely based on the
Prophetic tradition “ya⁠ʾummu l-qawma aqra⁠ʾuhum li-kitāb Allāh” (He who
leads people [in prayers] must be the best of them with respect to Qurʾān
recitation).36 However, the jurists disagree over his level of expertise in Qurʾān
recitation and what constitutes bad or improper recitation. Most jurists ad-
dress two essential points, which lead to subsidiary issues. First, how much
“Qurʾān” should the imām know in order to qualify as “aqra⁠ʾuhum li-kitāb
Allāh”? Second, what is the threshold for errors beyond which the jurists would
invalidate the imām’s prayer and the prayers of those he is leading?
reciting the Qurʾān rather than prohibiting a lisper from becoming imām. This problem
deserves treatment in an article in which conflicts of interest, personal bias, taʿāruḍ and
tazāḥum are discussed in greater detail.
34 One finds some minor digressions on the lisper in the chapter on divorce, especially in
Ḥanafī works. In most cases, uttering a verbal formula of divorce, for example, “ṭāliq/
ṭalāq”, causes the divorce to become effective. Jurists discuss whether a divorce may be
initiated by distorted variants (alfāẓ muṣaḥḥafah) of the word “ṭalāq”, such as talāq,
talāgh, ṭalāgh, talāk, or ṭalāk. See Muḥammad Amīn Ibn ʿĀbidīn (d. 1252/1836), Radd
al-muḥtār ʿalā l-Durr al-mukhtār sharḥ Tanwīr al-abṣār, ed. ʿĀdil Aḥmad ʿAbd al-Mawjūd
and ʿAlī Muḥammad ʿAwaḍ, 13 vols. (Riyad: Dār ʿālam al-kutub, 2003), 4:459–61; Shams
al-Dīn al-Ramlī (d. 1004/1596), Nihāyat al-muḥtāj ilā sharḥ al-Minhāj, 8 vols. (Beirut: Dār
al-kutub al-ʿilmiyyah, 2003), 6:426–9. A distinction must be made between someone who
cannot utter the word “ṭāliq” because of a speech disorder or illiteracy and someone who
distorts the letters intentionally. See Abū Bakr al-Bakrī al-Dimyāṭī (d. 1310/1893), Ḥāshiyat
iʿānat al-ṭālibīn, ed. Muḥammad Sālim Hāshim, 4 vols. (Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-ʿilmiyyah,
1995), 4:18–20; cf. al-Mawsūʿah al-fiqhiyyah, 39 vols. (Kuwait: Wizārat al-awqāf wa’l-shuʾūn
al-islāmiyyah/Dār al-ṣafwah, 1995), 29:27.
35 For example, ṣalāt al-imām wa-ṣifat al-a⁠ʾimmah, al-imāmah, al-jamāʿah, man huwa aḥaqq
bi’l-imāmah, man yaṣluḥ imāman li-ghayrihi, or mā yamnaʿ ṣiḥḥat al-iqtidāʾ.
36 See footnote 5.

Jurists from different legal schools stipulate similar conditions for the val
idity of imāmah, including Islām,37 puberty (bulūgh),38 sanity (ʿaql),39 being
male (dhukūrah),40 correct Qurʾān recitation (qirāʾah), and freedom from
physical defects (al-salāmah min al-aʿdhār) such as chronic nosebleeds (ruʿāf )
or flatulence (infilāt al-rīḥ).41 Some jurists also stipulate stuttering or lisping.
37 Non-Muslims and infidels may not lead Muslims in ritual prayer. Shīʿīs are sometimes
added to these two groups. Sunnī jurists emphasize that someone who denies the cali
phate or companionship of Abū Bakr or who curses him and ʿUmar is in the same cate-
gory as someone who denies resurrection/judgment day and the Prophet’s intercession.
See Ḥasan b. ʿAmmār al-Shurunbulālī (d. 1069/1659) and Aḥmad al-Ṭaḥṭāwī (d. 1231/1816),
Marāqī l-falāḥ bi-imdād al-Fattāḥ sharḥ Nūr al-īḍāḥ wa-najāt al-arwāḥ, ed. Ṣalāḥ ʿUwayḍah
(Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-ʿilmiyyah, 2004), 108; Abū l-Ḥasan al-Māwardī (d. 450/1058),
al-Ḥāwī l-kabīr fī fiqh madhhab al-imām al-Shāfiʿī, ed. ʿAlī Muʿawwaḍ and ʿĀdil ʿAbd
al-Mawjūd, 18 vols. (Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-ʿilmiyyah, 1994), 2:333–6; ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn al-Mar
dāwī (d. 885/1480–1), al-Inṣāf fī maʿrifat al-rājiḥ min al-khilāf ʿalā madhhab al-imām
al-mubajjal Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, ed. Muḥammad Ḥāmid al-Fiqī, 12 vols. (Cairo: Maṭbaʿat
al-sunnah al-muḥammadiyyah, 1955), 2:258–9.
38 Imāmat al-ṣabī is a topic of debate among jurists. See Shirbīnī, Mughnī, 1:366; Muḥyī
l-Dīn al-Nawawī (d. 676/1277), al-Majmūʿ sharḥ al-Muhadhdhab, ed. Muḥammad Najīb
al-Muṭīʿī, 23 vols. (Jaddah: Maktabat al-irshād), 4:144–7; Ṭaḥṭāwī and Shurunbulālī,
Marāqī, 108; Abū Saʿīd Saḥnūn b. Saʿīd al-Tanūkhī (d. 240/855), al-Mudawwanah al-kubrā,
4 vols. (Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-ʿilmiyyah, 1994), 1:177; Muwaffaq al-Dīn Ibn Qudāmah
(d. 620/1223), al-Mughnī, ed. ʿAbd Allāh al-Turkī and ʿAbd al-Fattāḥ al-Ḥulw, 15 vols. (Riyad:
Dār ʿālam al-kutub, 1997), 3:70–1.
39 The requirement of sanity excludes the intoxicated person (sakrān) and the individual
who shows signs of mental instability. See Ṭaḥṭāwī and Shurunbulālī, Marāqī, 108; Saḥnūn,
Mudawwanah, 1:177; Ibn Qudāmah, Mughnī, 3:17–26; Nawawī, Majmū, 4:156.
40 The issue of women leading other women or men in ritual prayer is controversial. See the
different legal opinions on this question, as mapped out by Christopher Melchert,
“Whether to keep women out of the mosque: a survey of medieval Islamic law,” in Au
thority, Privacy and Public Order in Islam: Proceedings of the 22nd Congress of L’Union euro
péenne des arabisants et islamisants, ed. B. Michalak-Pikulska and A. Pikulski (Leuven:
Peeters, 2006), 59–69, at 59 footnote 4 and 64–7; cf. Shirbīnī, Mughnī, 1:365–6; Ṭaḥṭāwī and
Shurunbulālī, Marāqī, 108–9; Ibn Qudāmah, Mughnī, 3:32–7; Rūyānī, Baḥr, 3:14–16;
Nawawī, Majmū, 4:151–2; Abū ʿUmar Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr (d. 463/1071), Al-Kāfī fī fiqh ahl
al-Madīnah al-mālikī (Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-ʿilmiyyah, 1992), 46. The jurists also discuss
hermaphrodites (khunthā mushkil), generally prohibiting them from leading men or
other hermaphrodites in prayer. See Mardāwī, Inṣāf, 2:265–6; Qarāfī, Dhakhīrah, 2:241–2.
41 Jurists argue about whether a person who suffers from uncontrollable flatulence or uri-
nary incontinence (salas al-bawl; the person is called salis al-bawl) may lead others in
prayer. An individual who suffers from salas al-bawl has two reasons (aʿdhār) to invalidate
his own prayer: najas and ḥadath. On the other hand, a ma⁠ʾmūm with uncontrollable
flatulence has one reason (ʿudhr) – which is a ḥadath – while the imām with urinary

34 Nasser
The jurists devised a ranking system in order to determine who may lead a
group in ritual prayer and who makes the best imām. With some minor dis-
agreements, the following qualify for the imāmah: an individual with state or
official authority (dhū sulṭān), such as a judge, an amīr or a wālī; the owner or
resident of the space in which people are praying (ṣāḥib al-manzil); the person
most knowledgeable in the rituals of prayer and rules of Qurʾān recitation
(al-aʿlam wa’l-aqra⁠ʾ); the most pious (al-awraʿ); the most senior (al-asann); the
best in character (al-aḥsan khuluqan); the most handsome (al-aḥsan wajhan);
the most prestigious within a family (al-ashraf nasaban); the person with the
most delightful and pleasant voice (al-aḥsan ṣawtan); and, finally, the one with
the cleanest garment (al-anẓaf thawban). All things being equal, one either
tosses a coin or votes in order to determine who will be the imām.42 Among
those whose imāmah is controversial and reprehensible (makrūh) are the slave
(ʿabd),43 the blind (aʿmā),44 the Bedouin (aʿrābī), the uneducated illegitimate
incontinence has two reasons: ḥadath (the act of urinating, which invalidates the prayer)
and najas (the impurity resulting from the presence of urine on his clothes). See Shirbīnī,
Mughnī, 1:367; Ṭaḥṭāwī and Shurunbulālī, Marāqī, 108; Ibn ʿĀbidīn, Ḥāshiyat Ibn ʿĀbidīn,
2:323–4; Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, Kāfī, 47; Shams al-Dīn Ibn Mufliḥ al-Maqdisī (d. 763/1362), Kitāb
al-Furūʿ, ed. ʿAbd Allāh al-Turkī, 12 vols. (Beirut: Muʾassasat al-risālah, 2003), 3:29–30.
42 Ibn Qudāmah, Mughnī, 3:5–8; Mardāwī, Inṣāf, 2:244–8; Ṭaḥṭāwī and Shurunbulālī, Marāqī,
111–14; Ibn ʿĀbidīn, Ḥāshiyat Ibn ʿĀbidīn, 2:294–8; Nawawī, Majmū, 4:176–80; Māwardī,
Ḥāwī, 2:351–5; Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, Kāfī, 46–7; Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad (or Maḥammad)
b. Aḥmad Mayyārah al-Fāsī (d. 1072/1662), al-Durr al-thamīn wa’l-mawrid al-maʿīn, 2 vols.
(Cairo: al-Bābī al-ḥalabī, 1954), 2:58. Other unusual criteria for determining the best imām
include being the richest among the group and having the best wife (al-aḥsan zawjatan).
A bizarre criterion suggested by some Ḥanafī scholars is having a big head but small body
(al-akbar ra⁠ʾsan wa’l-aṣghar ʿuḍwan). Some have interpreted “al-aṣghar ʿuḍwan” as having a
small penis, a view rejected by Abū l-Suʿūd (d. 1172/1758). See Muḥammad b. ʿAlī Iskandar
Abū l-Suʿūd al-Ḥanafī al-Miṣrī (d. 1172/1758), Fatḥ Allāh al-muʿīn ʿalā sharḥ al-Kanz li’l-
ʿallāmah Mullā Miskīn, 3 vols. (Karachi: Maṭbaʿat al-Muwayliḥī, 1870), 1:207; cf. Ibn ʿĀbidīn,
Ḥāshiyat Ibn ʿĀbidīn, 2:296.
43 The imāmah of a slave is reprehensible unless he is pious, knowledgeable, and skilful in
reciting the Qurʾān. See Ibn Qudāmah, Mughnī, 3:267; Ibn Mufliḥ, Furūʿ, 3:8; Ṭaḥṭāwī and
Shurunbulālī, Marāqī, 112; Nawawī, Majmū, 4:183; Shirbīnī, Mughnī, 1:366–7. The Mālikīs
are stricter on this issue. Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr states that a slave should not lead the Friday
congregational prayer; yet, some Medinan and Mālikī jurists (e.g. Ashhab b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz
al-Qaysī (d. 204/819–20), ʿAbd al-Malik b. Ḥabīb (d. 238/853), and Abū l-Ḥasan al-Lakhmī
(d. 478/1085–6)) allow it. See Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, Kāfī, 46; Jamāl al-Dīn Ibn al-Ḥājib (d. 646/
1249), Jāmiʿ al-ummahāt, ed. Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Akhḍar al-Akhḍarī (Damascus:
al-Yamāmah li’l-ṭibāʿah wa’l-nashr wa’l-tawzīʿ, 2000), 110.
44 A blind imām may not be able to orient worshipers toward the qiblah and he may not be
aware of impurities (najāsah) on his garment. See Ibn Qudāmah, Mughnī, 3:27–8; Ṭaḥṭāwī

child (walad al-zinā al-jāhil), the sinner or one who disobeys God’s commands
(fāsiq), and the innovator (mubtadiʿ).45
Proper recitation of the Qurʾān (qirāʾah) is a mandatory criterion required of
the imām, who must also be knowledgeable about the Qurʾānic passages he is
reciting. A recommended criterion (mandatory according to some jurists) is to
be free of speech disorders such as stuttering and lisping, which negatively
impact the recitation of the Qurʾān during prayer. The best imām within the
group is the person who surpasses the others in his ability to recite the Qurʾān
accurately and properly (al-aʿlam wa’l-aqra⁠ʾ). As for the Bedouin (al-aʿrābī),
jurists do not allude to the notion of faṣāḥah or eloquence, despite its associa-
tion with them. Rather, the aʿrābī here is the ignorant, uncivilized nomad who
is unfamiliar with the etiquette and ceremonial expressions of ritual prayer.
The aʿrābī in this context is usually equated with al-badawī, al-qarawī, al-kurdī,
and al-turkumānī.46
The problem of praying behind a lisper, stutterer, or solecist (lāḥin/laḥḥān)
emerged in fiqh as early as the 3rd/9th century. Jurists elaborated on this topic
in detail, supplied multiple examples and possibilities, and provided different
scenarios, including the case of the imām who lisps on one letter while the
ma⁠ʾmūm (the individual led in the prayer) lisps on another. The discussion of
laḥn and the extent to which the imām is permitted to commit grammatical
mistakes are usually considered in relation to lisping and stuttering. The legal
outcome and reasoning in these two cases differ slightly, although the argu-
ments are intertwined.
The Ḥanafīs, Shāfiʿīs, and Ḥanbalīs47 generally agree that a lisper cannot
lead ritual prayer. They distinguish, however, between a lisper who attempts to
improve his pronunciation (henceforth lisper-A), and a lisper who does not
(henceforth lisper-B). The three schools agree that the prayer of lisper-B, along
and Shurunbulālī, Marāqī, 112; Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, Kāfī, 46. The Shāfiʿīs are more lenient on
this topic. They are neutral with regard to the imām’s being blind or sighted. See Shirbīnī,
Mughnī, 1:366–7; Jamāl al-Dīn al-Isnawī (d. 772/1370), al-Muhimmāt fī sharḥ al-Rawḍah
wa’l-Rāfiʿī, ed. Abū l-Faḍl al-Dimyāṭī, 10 vols. (Casablanca: Dār Ibn Ḥazm, 2009), 3:307.
45 Jurists often attribute ignorance, illiteracy, and incivility to Bedouins. A badawī is fre-
quently contrasted with the civilized cosmopolite (al-ḥaḍarī). See Ibn Mufliḥ, Furūʿ, 3:9–
10, 20–4; Mardāwī, Inṣāf, 2:274–5; Ṭaḥṭāwī and Shurunbulālī, Marāqī, 112–3; Ibn ʿĀbidīn,
Ḥāshiyat Ibn ʿĀbidīn, 2:298–302; Shirbīnī, Mughnī, 1:368; Māwardī, Ḥāwī, 2:322–3, 28–30;
Nawawī, Majmūʿ, 4:147, 50–1, 58, 75, 81, 83; Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, Kāfī, 46, 48; Ibn al-Ḥājib, Jāmiʿ
al-ummahāt, 109–10.
46 Cf. Ibn ʿĀbidīn, Ḥāshiyat Ibn ʿĀbidīn, 2:298.
47 Ibn Abī Yaʿlā (d. 458/1131) disagreed with the Ḥanbalīs and adopted a position closer to
that of the Mālikīs. See al-Mawsūʿah al-fiqhiyyah, 6:176; cf. Ibn Qudāmah, Mughnī, 3:31–2.

36 Nasser
with the prayers of those he is leading, are invalid and must be repeated. Lis
per-A may still serve as an imām but only for other lispers. The Ḥanafīs make
an exception for lisper-B: Since, according to some Ḥanafī jurists, reciting the
Fātiḥah in ritual prayer is not obligatory (in the second half of the prayer) lis
per-B may lead the prayer if he is able to correctly recite any other passage from
the Qurʾān. The Mālikīs do not distinguish between lisper-A and lisper-B;48
both are eligible to lead prayers and lisping is not a factor in determining the
eligibility of the imām.49 Al-aratt50 (someone who assimilates letters incor-
rectly, for example, pronouncing “al-muttaqīm” instead of “al-mustaqīm”) is
treated as a lisper (althagh) and shares the same legal status. As for the stut-
terer (fa⁠ʾfāʾ, tamtām, ta⁠ʾtāʾ), only the Ḥanafīs include him under the category of
the lisper. The Shāfiʿīs and the Ḥanbalīs distinguish the stutterer from the lisp-
er, allowing the former, reluctantly (karāhah), to lead prayers, regardless of
how articulate the individuals he is leading may be. The Mālikīs treat the stut-
terer like the lisper and do not find his imāmah to be reprehensible (makrūh).51
Five Shāfiʿī Positions
In Minhāj al-ṭālibīn, al-Nawawī (d. 676/1277) states that an imām who is ummī
cannot lead a ma⁠ʾmūm who is qāriʾ: “wa-lā [taṣiḥḥu qudwatu] qāriʾin bi-um
miyyin fī l-jadīd.”52 One must pay attention to the terminology here: The qāriʾ in
this context is someone who knows how to recite the Qurʾān properly, whereas
the ummī does not. Consequently, an illiterate man may still be a qāriʾ if
he is able to recite the Qurʾān correctly. Conversely, one may be highly edu
cated and versed in many languages yet still be classified as ummī if s/he can-
not recite the “Arabic” Qurʾān in an acceptable manner. Jurists narrow down
the definition of the ummī. Al-Nawawī continues: “[al-ummī] wa-huwa man
yukhillu bi-ḥarfin aw tashdīdatin min al-Fātiḥah wa-minhu arattu yudghimu
fī ghayri mawḍiʿihi wa-althaghu yubdilu ḥarfan.” (The ummī is someone who
48 See the discussion and disagreement among some Mālikī jurists in Qarāfī, Dhakhīrah,
2:245–6.
49 ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Jazīrī, al-Fiqh ʿalā l-madhāhib al-arbaʿah, 5 vols. (Beirut: Dār al-kutub
al-ʿilmiyyah, 2002), 1:374–5.
50 See footnote 23.
51 Jazīrī, al-Fiqh ʿalā l-madhāhib al-arbaʿah, 1:375.
52 On the new (jadīd) versus the old (qadīm) positions of al-Shāfiʿī, see Ahmed El-Shamsy,
“The First Shāfiʿī: The Traditionalist Legal Thought of Abū Yaʿqūb al-Buwayṭī (d. 231/846),”
Islamic Law and Society 14:3 (2007): 301–41, at 317; Lamīn al-Nājī, al-Qadīm wa’l-jadīd fī fiqh
al-Shāfiʿī, 2 vols. (Cairo: Dār Ibn ʿAffān, 2007), 1:107–82.

mispronounces a letter or a shaddah in the Fātiḥah. [Included under this cat-

egory are people] such as the aratt, who assimilates letters incorrectly, and the
althagh, who alters them.) “Illiteracy” here is defined specifically in connection
with the Fātiḥah, whose correct recitation is key to a valid ritual prayer.
Al-Nawawī transitions from prohibition of the lisper/ummī to the reprehensi-
bility (karāhah) of the stutterer (tamtām, fa⁠ʾfāʾ) and the solecist (lāḥin). None-
theless, if the imām, due to linguistic incompetence (ʿajaza lisānuhu), changes,
for example, “anʿamta” to “anʿamtu” or “anʿamti” in Q. 1:7 he invalidates the
prayers of those he is leading, and, specifically, of those who are able to recite,
or learn how to recite, correctly. If the imām is physically incapable of chang-
ing the way he recites, his prayer and the prayers of those he is leading are
valid as long as he recites the Fātiḥah adequately, in which case he is classified
as ummī. Finally, al-Nawawī emphasizes that the imāmah of the ummī is simi-
lar to that of women, that is, just as a woman invalidates the prayer of men
praying behind her, so too an ummī invalidates the prayer of the better Qurʾān
reciters praying behind him.53 None of the numerous commentaries on the
Minhāj54 add much to these specifications given by al-Nawawī, who follows
the prevailing Shāfiʿī position on this issue. This position is considered the new
or revised opinion (al-jadīd) of al-Shāfiʿī (d. 204/820).
Tracing this position back to al-Umm, we find an extensive discussion by
al-Shāfiʿī that sheds light on the problem and the reasoning behind prohibiting
the lisper from leading the prayer. Ritual prayer is a succession of ceremonial
acts that must be performed using the necessary verbal proclamations, with-
out which the individual may not access this ritual. The first important verbal
proclamation is the takbīr; al-Shāfiʿī emphasizes that saying “Allāhu akbar”
is the door through which one accesses ritual prayer (wa-lā yakūnu dākhilan
[ fī l-ṣalāti] bi-ghayri al-takbīri nafsihi). In other words, the prayer ceremony
53 One possible reason behind this comparison, leaving aside social and gender consider-
ations, is related to visible and invisible impediments to valid prayers. When the impedi-
ments are visible (bayyin, ẓāhir) to the group praying behind the imām, their prayers are
invalidated and must be repeated. Thus, lisping, being a woman, and declaring oneself to
be an unbeliever are generally clear and easy to detect. On the other hand, if the imām is
junub (ritually impure) or some invisible najāsa (ritual impurity) is attached to his gar-
ments, those praying behind him do not have to repeat their prayers because such imped-
iments are difficult to detect. See Muḥyī l-Dīn al-Nawawī, Minhāj al-ṭālibīn wa-ʿumdat
al-muftīn, ed. Muḥammad Shaʿbān (Beirut: Dār al-minhāj, 2005), 120–1; cf. Rawḍat
al-ṭālibīn wa-ʿumdat al-muftīn, ed. Zuhayr al-Shāwīsh, 12 vols. (Beirut: al-Maktab al-islāmī,
1991), 1:349–50.
54 ʿAbd Allāh al-Ḥabashī, Jāmiʿ al-shurūḥ wa’l-ḥawāshī, 3 vols. (Abū Dhabi: al-Mujammaʿ
al-thaqāfī, 2008), 3:1909–31.

38 Nasser
cannot be initiated unless one unlocks it with the words “Allāhu akbar”. Other
synonymous phrases such as “Allāhu al-kabīr”, “Allāhu al-ʿaẓīm”, “Allāhu al-
jalīl”, “al-ḥamdu li-llāh”, and “subḥāna Allāh” do not produce the desired results
and do not facilitate the individual’s entry into the ceremony. On the other
hand, adding certain words and phrases to “Allāhu akbar”, so long as they do
not change the meaning of this phrase, does not undermine the effectiveness
of the takbīr. For example, saying “Allāhu akbaru min kulli shayʾin wa-aʿẓam” or
“Allāhu akbar kabīran” or “Allāhu al-akbar wa-huwa al-kabīr” still set the ritual
prayer in motion.55
The phrase “Allāhu akbar” is, therefore, a necessary formulaic utterance re-
quired to enter the legal state of ritual prayer, without which the individual’s
prayer is invalid. All the letters of the phrase must be fully articulated. Al-Shāfiʿī
emphasizes that if one fails to pronounce just the final rāʾ of akbar, the prayer
is invalid.56 Now, what happens if the person does not know Arabic and cannot
articulate “Allāhu akbar”? In this case, he may perform the takbīr in his own
language, temporarily, so long as he immediately embarks upon learning the
takbīr, tashahhud, and the Qurʾānic passages required for prayer. Once he
learns the takbīr in Arabic, he may never revert to performing takbīr in any
other language; if he does, his prayer is invalid. Similarly, if one has a speech
disorder (khabal lisān), as in the case of the mute, and cannot enunciate the
takbīr properly, he must strive to imitate the sound of the letters as best as he
can in order for his prayer to be valid.57
After perfecting the takbīr, the person faces a second obstacle: Qurʾān reci-
tation. The foundation of all discussions on reciting the Qurʾān during prayer,
and what to recite, is based on a series of traditions in which the Prophet in-
structs a man to begin his prayer as follows: “Face the qiblah and perform
takbīr. Then recite umm al-Qurʾān [the Fātiḥah] followed by any other Qurʾānic
passages you are familiar with.”58 Since the traditions use the word iqra⁠ʾ, al-
Shāfiʿī concludes that the Prophet addressed only those capable of the act of
qirāʾah. In this case, the ability to recite is restricted to the Fātiḥah. In variants
of these traditions, we find phrases such as “recite anything you know from the
Qurʾān”. If an individual is incapable of reciting the Fātiḥah or any other verse
from the Qurʾān, his prayer is nevertheless valid so long as he verbally exalts
55 Muḥammad b. Idrīs al-Shāfiʿī, al-Umm, ed. Rifʿat Fawzī ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib, 11 vols. (al-Man
ṣūrah: Dār al-wafāʾ, 2001), 2:227.
56 Ibid., 2:228.
57 Ibid., 2:228–9.
58 The tradition is widely reported in several ḥadīth collections. See Bayhaqī, Sunan, 2:55, 90,
176, 520; Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Nasāʾī (d. 303/915), Sunan al-Nasāʾī bi-sharḥ al-Suyūṭī
wa-Ḥāshiyat al-Sindī, ed. Maktab taḥqīq al-turāth al-islāmī, 5 vols. (Beirut: Dār al-maʿrifah,
1990), 1:538, 75; Bashshār ʿAwwād Maʿrūf, al-Musnad al-jāmiʿ, 5:431.

God and glorifies Him. As soon as he learns merely one verse from the Qurʾān,
his prayer is no longer valid if he solely exalts God and glorifies Him, no matter
what set of verbal utterances he uses; rather, he must recite what he has al-
ready learned from the Qurʾān. Moreover, if this individual learns seven verses
or more from the Qurʾān (the Fātiḥah comprises seven verses), he must recite
all these verses in order to compensate for his ignorance of the Fātiḥah, regard-
less of how long or short these verses are and whether they occur in one sūrah
or in several sūrahs.59
An individual may be unable to fulfill the language requirements for a valid
ritual prayer due to illiteracy in Arabic,60 affliction with a speech disorder, or
being incapable of memorizing and reciting any number of verses from the
Qurʾān. Jurists are generally lenient with such individuals so long as they make
a good-faith effort to improve their pronunciation and recitation. The jurists go
so far as to validate the prayer of an illiterate so long as he can utter the phrase
“al-ḥamdu li-llāh”, accompanied by the ceremonial acts of bowing and prostra-
tion. The case is different when it comes to congregational prayer. The leader
of the congregation, the imām, is not another individual engaged in private
worship. He represents a group of Muslims and bears the responsibility of
leading them, on his authority, through the prayer ceremony. In some respects,
he is like an emissary who represents the religious authority of the state,
whether the gathering takes place in public on Friday or in a private space. The
imām is responsible for the shortcomings of the people he is leading. The ex-
ceptions made for the individual in his private act of worship do not apply to
the imām.
Al-Shāfiʿī states the following rule: “If one cannot recite the Fātiḥah, he is
not allowed to lead someone who can recite it. If he does, his prayer is still
valid; however, the ma⁠ʾmūm’s prayer is invalidated.” Al-Shāfiʿī is not comfort-
able (lā uḥibb) with the fact that the imām knows only the Fātiḥah, while the
ma⁠ʾmūm knows both the Fātiḥah and additional verses from the Qurʾān. In this
case, he is uncertain of the validity of the ma⁠ʾmūm’s prayer (fa-lā yabīnu lī an
yuʿīda man ṣallā khalfahu). Be that as it may, if the imām knows neither the
Fātiḥah nor any other verse from the Qurʾān, he may still lead other individuals
who also do not know the Fātiḥah or any other Qurʾānic passages. Summing up
this argument with another rule, al-Shāfiʿī concludes: “He who knows a few
verses from the Qurʾān has precedence over one who knows nothing.”61
59 Shāfiʿī, Umm, 2:230–2.

60 Cf. Travis E. Zadeh, The Vernacular Qurʾan: Translation and the Rise of Persian Exegesis
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 69–81.
61 Shāfiʿī, Umm, 2:232.

40 Nasser
After emphasizing that leaving out any word or letter from the Fātiḥah or
committing intentional errors in recitation invalidates one’s prayer, al-Shāfiʿī
proceeds to discuss the case of the imām who lisps, stutters or commits gram-
matical errors (laḥn). He says: “I find it reprehensible (akrah) that a stutterer
(tamtamah) should lead ritual prayer; however, his imāmah is valid so long as
he is confident that he will recite what fulfills the prayer’s requirements. I also
find it reprehensible that a stammerer (fa⁠ʾfāʾ) should serve as imām, although
he may still lead ritual prayers. Furthermore, I prefer the imām to be neither an
aratt nor an althagh because his prayer is valid only for himself [and invalid for
the people he is leading].”62 Al-Shāfiʿī’s distinction between the stutterer and
the lisper is crucial because it provides insight into the complications caused
by the imām who lisps: Lisping often changes the meaning of words, whereas
stuttering seldom does. This distinction is highlighted by the Mālikī jurist Ibn
ʿAbd al-Barr (d. 463/1071) in his discussion of physical conditions and medical
problems that sully the imāmah. He emphasizes that the shortcoming of any
imām is a result of his ignorance about religion and the Qurʾān, rather than his
physical disabilities: “li-anna al-āfata fī al-imāmah āfatu al-dīn wa’l-qirāʾah lā
ʿāhatu al-abdān”.63
The problem may be broken down into its constituent elements. Initially, a
distinction must be made between: (1) a lisper who is praying privately as an
individual, and (2) a lisper who is leading others as their imām. Both (1) and (2)
may be further broken down into two sub-categories: (a) a lisper who struggles
to improve his pronunciation and articulation of the letters, and (b) a lisper
who does not. Again, (a) and (b) are further broken down into two groups: (x)
the lisper lisps in the Fātiḥah, and (y) the lisper does not lisp in the Fātiḥah.
Finally, (2) alone has two additional qualifications: (m) the lisper is leading
non-lispers, and (n) the lisper is leading other lispers. See Figure 1.
The writings of the Shāfiʿī jurists on the problem of the lisper are confusing
and contradictory. First, al-Shāfiʿī advocates two positions on this topic: An old
position (qadīm) and a revised one (jadīd).64 Second, some Shāfiʿīs attempted
to harmonize the two positions, creating a third, hybrid position. This third
hybrid position is erroneously attributed by al-Ghazālī (d. 505/1111) to al-Shāfiʿī
62 Ibid., 2:233, 51.

63 Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, Kāfī, 46.
64 On the Shāfiʿī approach to the qadīm and jadīd, see Ramlī, Nihāyat al-muḥtāj, 50–1; Abū
l-Qāsim al-Rāfiʿī (d. 623/1226), al-ʿAzīz sharḥ al-Wajīz (al-Sharḥ al-kabīr), ed. ʿAlī Muʿawwaḍ
and ʿĀdil ʿAbd al-Mawjūd, 13 vols. (Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-ʿilmiyyah, 1997), 2:158–9; Isnawī,
Muhimmāt, 3:308.

Whether or not one may pray behind the lisper according to al-Shāfiʿī
Figure 1

42 Nasser
as his new position.65 According to al-Nawawī, the revised Shāfiʿī position is

the dominant view, by a small margin only (al-aẓhar): A lisper cannot lead a
non-lisper in ritual prayer.66 Consequently, the ma⁠ʾmūm must repeat his prayer
whether it is audible (jahriyyah) or inaudible (sirriyyah).67 According to the old
Shāfiʿī position (al-qadīm), a lisper may lead non-lispers so long as the prayer is
inaudible. The reason for this allowance is explained as follows: Throughout
the duration of an inaudible recitation, a ma⁠ʾmūm who does not lisp can recite
correctly for himself. He is not bound by or penalized for the incorrect recita-
tion of the imām. However, if the prayer is audible, the imām must be qualified
and articulate because he compensates for the shortcomings of the ma⁠ʾmūm
and takes responsibility for observing the principles of recitation (taḥammul
al-qirāʾah). Since the audible recitation of an imām who lisps negatively im-
pacts an essential requirement of the ma⁠ʾmūm’s prayer, the imām is disquali-
fied from performing the audible recitation and leading individuals who do
not lisp.68
The third, hybrid, position is advocated by Abū Isḥāq al-Marwazī (d. 340/951)
and al-Muzanī (d. 264/878). They argue that according to al-Shāfiʿī’s old posi-
tion a ma⁠ʾmūm is responsible for his own recitation when the prayer is inau-
dible. Since al-Shāfiʿī’s new position obligates the ma⁠ʾmūm to recite the Qurʾān
in both audible and inaudible prayers, al-Marwazī and al-Muzanī extend the
ma⁠ʾmūm’s responsibility to the new position and validate his prayer, regardless
of whether or not the imām lisps. This third, hybrid, position, therefore, makes
the ma⁠ʾmūm responsible for his recitation and bypasses the inability of the
65 Nawawī, Rawḍat al-ṭālibīn, 156.

66 The terminology is important here. “Al-aẓhar” in this context does not mean the domi-
nant opinion. In the introduction to his Rawḍah and Minhāj, al-Nawawī differentiates
between the two sets of terms: al-aẓhar/al-aṣaḥḥ and ṣaḥīḥ/mashhūr. If the disagreement
on the topic is insignificant (ḍaʿīf), al-Nawawī uses ʿalā l-ṣaḥīḥ or ʿalā l-mashhūr, but if the
disagreement is strong, he uses ʿalā l-aṣaḥḥ or ʿalā l-aẓhar. Ibid., 6; Nawawī, Minhāj, 64–5;
Shirbīnī, Mughnī, 35–6.
67 Māwardī, Ḥāwī, 2:330. The dawn, sunset, and evening prayers are audible, whereas the
noon and afternoon prayers are inaudible. The distinction is based upon practices attrib-
uted to the Prophet, who reportedly recited the Qurʾānic passages audibly (jahr) or inau-
dibly (sirr) during each prayer. See Bayhaqī, Sunan, 2:275–8.
68 Shirbīnī, Mughnī, 1:364; Nawawī, Rawḍat al-ṭālibīn, 156, 58; Rāfiʿī, al-Sharḥ al-kabīr, 2:158;
Māwardī, Ḥāwī, 2:331. The audible and inaudible recitation of the Qurʾān during prayer is
disputed among jurists. Also, the different opinions attributed to al-Shāfiʿī in his qadīm
and jadīd positions are difficult to assess based on this one example and should be evalu-
ated with more examples in which the qadīm and jadīd positions contradict each other.
On the old and new positions of al-Shāfiʿī, why and how they differ, see further Nājī,
al-Qadīm wa’l-jadīd, 2:252–304.

imām to recite the Qurʾān correctly.69 Al-Muzanī is baffled by al-Shāfiʿī’s new

position (prohibition), saying: “He [al-Shāfiʿī] allows praying behind an imām
who is not in a state of ritual purity (junub); thus how could he not allow pray-
ing behind a lisper/ummī who is authorized to dispense with the recitation,
while a junub is never authorized, under any circumstance, to dispense with
ritual purity?”70 In other words, ritual purity is a key condition for a valid prayer
for both the imām and the ma⁠ʾmūm, both of whom, under normal circum-
stances, must be ritually pure. On the other hand, reciting the Qurʾān is only
one element of fulfilling the requirements of prayer and in many cases jurists
allow the imām to dispense with the recitation. Unlike ritual purity, recitation
is not a condition for initiating the prayer. Thus, al-Muzanī’s confusion stems
from the fact that while ritual purity is more important than reciting the Qurʾān
for fulfilling the requirements of prayers, al-Shāfiʿī was stricter in the case of
the lisper by not allowing non-lispers to pray behind him yet allowing the ritu-
ally pure to pray behind a junub.71
Al-Ghazālī compounds the confusion by mistaking the second Shāfiʿī view
(al-qadīm) for the third, hybrid, position adopted by al-Marwazī and al-Muzanī.
Several jurists comment on this confusion72 while tracing its origins back to
al-Ghazālī who, in his Wasīṭ, states that according to the revised Shāfiʿī position
a lisper cannot lead non-lispers because the imām is responsible for reciting
the Qurʾān on behalf of the ma⁠ʾmūm. This is consistent with the position of the
majority of Shāfiʿī jurists. Al-Ghazālī adds that according to the old position
advocated by al-Muzanī, a lisper may lead a non-lisper. According to the third,
hybrid, position, al-Ghazālī says, a lisper may not lead non-lispers in audible
prayers; yet, he may do so in inaudible prayers.73 This position is also attributed
to al-Juwaynī (d. 478/1085), whose opinion, along with that of al-Ghazālī, is
readily dismissed (naql fāsid) by al-Nawawī. Despite these dismissive com-
69 See footnotes 64 and 68. Shāfiʿī jurists who hold that the jadīd position abrogates the
qadīm reject the third, hybrid, view, postulated by Abū Isḥāq and al-Muzanī. However,
those who hold that the two positions do not necessarily contradict each other may
accept the hybrid view. See Rāfiʿī, al-Sharḥ al-kabīr, 2:158–9; Māwardī, Ḥāwī, 2:331; Rūyānī,
Baḥr, 2:419–20.
70 Abū Ibrāhīm al-Muzanī (d. 264/878), Mukhtaṣar al-Muzanī fī furūʿ al-shāfiʿiyyah, ed.
Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Qādir Shāhīn (Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-ʿilmiyyah, 1998), 37.
71 Refer to note 53 above.
72 Rāfiʿī, al-Sharḥ al-kabīr, 2:159; Nawawī, Rawḍat al-ṭālibīn, 156.
73 Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī (d. 505/1111), al-Wasīṭ fī l-madhhab, ed. Aḥmad Maḥmūd Ibrāhīm,
7 vols. (Cairo: Dār al-salām, 1997), 2:227.

44 Nasser
ments, al-Isnawī (d. 772/1370) defends al-Ghazālī’s position and provides argu-
ments for its validity.74
Al-Māwardī (d. 450/1058) aggravates the problem and creates more dis-
agreements among the Shāfiʿīs. According to al-Nawawī, the consensus of
Shāfiʿī jurists strongly suggests that the aforementioned three positions are
held regardless of whether or not the ma⁠ʾmūm is aware of the imām’s lisp.
Al-Māwardī disagrees on the ground that these positions are held only if the
ma⁠ʾmūm is unaware of the language proficiency of the imām. Otherwise, the
allowance made for the ma⁠ʾmūm in the second and third positions becomes
irrelevant.75 In sum, the Shāfiʿī position on praying behind the lisper may be
outlined as follows:
1. The new/revised Shāfiʿī position: A lisper may not lead a non-lisper in

ritual prayer.
2. The old Shāfiʿī position: A lisper may lead a non-lisper but only in inau-
dible prayers.
3. The hybrid position (1 + 2), as advocated by al-Muzanī and al-Marwazī:
A lisper may lead a non-lisper in ritual prayer.
4. Al-Ghazālī and al-Juwaynī: According to the old Shāfiʿī position, a lisper
may lead a non-lisper, whereas according to the hybrid position a lisper
may not lead a non-lisper in the audible prayer.
5. Al-Māwardī: It is permissible to pray behind a lisper so long as the ma⁠ʾmūm
is unaware that the imām lisps. Otherwise, he may not pray behind a lisper
under any circumstances.
One Mainstream Position of the Ḥanbalīs
The Ḥanbalīs generally adopt a view similar to the Shāfiʿīs’ new position. For
them, the key factor in determining the validity of the prayer of the ma⁠ʾmūm is
the correct recitation of the Fātiḥah. Again, the term ummī is used here to de-
note an individual who is unable to recite the Fātiḥah (even when only one
word is mispronounced), whereas the qāriʾ is the person who recites the
Fātiḥah correctly. A general rule laid down by al-Khiraqī (d. 334/945) asserts
that if one ummī simultaneously leads another ummī and a qāriʾ, the latter’s
prayer is invalidated and must be repeated.76 The lisper, the aratt (one who as-
74 Isnawī, Muhimmāt, 3:307; Nawawī, Majmū, 4:165.

75 Nawawī, Rawḍat al-ṭālibīn, 156; cf. Māwardī, Ḥāwī, 2:330.
76 Ibn Qudāmah, Mughnī, 3:29–30.

similates letters incorrectly), and the solecist (lāḥin) are all included under the
category of the ummī and, consequently, they may not lead individuals who
are capable of reciting the Qurʾān correctly, especially the Fātiḥah. Each one of
them may lead individuals with similar speech defects; that is to say, a lisper
may lead a lisper, an aratt may lead an aratt, and so on. In each case it is as-
sumed that the “flawed” imām is making an effort to improve his pronuncia-
tion and recitation; otherwise, neither the imām’s prayer nor that of the
ma⁠ʾmūm is valid. As for a stutterer (fa⁠ʾfāʾ, tamtām), his imāmah is accepted,
albeit reprehensible (makrūh). Unlike a lisper, a stutterer articulates the letters
correctly without changing the meaning of the words, despite the repetition
and prolongation of sounds.77
Al-Mardāwī (d. 885/1480–1) asserts that this is the position of the Ḥanbalī
school (al-madhhab) and the majority of their jurists. This is not accurate.
Some Ḥanbalī jurists claim that the imāmah of the ummī/lisper is valid but
only in the optional prayer (nāfilah, pl. nawāfil or ṣalāt al-taṭawwuʿ). Others
claim that an ummī (someone who cannot recite the Qurʾān) may never lead
another ummī unless the latter cannot find a qāriʾ (Qurʾān reciter) to follow.78
According to a fourth position advocated by Abū Yaʿlā Ibn al-Farrāʾ (d. 458/1066)
and Ibn al-Bannāʾ (d. 471/1079), a lisper may lead a non-lisper although this is
reprehensible (makrūh).79 Finally, Zayn al-Dīn al-Ḥanbalī al-Āmidī (d. 476/
1074) claims that a mild lisp does not disqualify the imām.80 In sum, the Ḥan
balīs hold the following positions:
1. The prevailing position: A lisper may not lead non-lispers.

2. Some claim that a lisper may lead non-lispers but only in optional prayers.
3. A lisper may not lead another lisper unless the latter is unable to find a
more articulate imām.
4. Ibn al-Farrāʾ and Ibn al-Bannāʾ find it reprehensible (makrūh) to allow
lispers to lead non-lispers.
77 Ibid., 3:31–2.
78 Najm al-Dīn Ibn Ḥamdān al-Ḥarrānī al-Ḥanbalī (d. 695/1295–6), al-Riʿāyah fī l-fiqh, ed. ʿAlī
b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Shihrī, 2 vols. (Riyad: Maktabat al-malik Fahd al-waṭaniyyah, 2007), 1:320–
1.
79 Naṣīr al-Dīn Ibn Sunaynah al-Sāmirī al-Ḥanbalī (d. 616/1219–20), al-Mustawʿib, ed. ʿAbd
al-Malik b. Dahīsh, 2 vols. (Mecca: Maktabat al-Asadī, 2003), 1:237; Mardāwī, Inṣāf, 2:268–
71.
80 Mardāwī, Inṣāf, 2:271; cf. Manṣūr b. Yūnus al-Buhūtī (d. 1051/1641), Kashshāf al-qināʿ ʿan
matn al-Iqnāʿ, ed. Ibrāhīm Aḥmad ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd, 10 vols. (Riyad: Dār ʿālam al-kutub,
2003), 1:568–9; Ibn Mufliḥ, Furūʿ, 3:30–3.

46 Nasser
5. Zayn al-Dīn al-Āmidī bases the validity of the imāmah of the lisper on the
severity of his lisp.
Strict Ḥanafīs
Ḥanafī jurists are stricter than the other legal schools with respect to the lisper
and leading ritual prayer. Not only do they include the stutterer (fa⁠ʾfāʾ, tamtām,
and ta⁠ʾtāʾ) under the category of the lisper, but they also do not tolerate lisping,
whether it takes place in the Fātiḥah or in any Qurʾānic passage recited during
the prayer. Consequently, according to Ḥanafī legal terminology the ummī is
not necessarily one who does not know the Fātiḥah but rather one who does
not know any verse from the Qurʾān ([iqtidāʾu] qāriʾin wa-huwa man yaḥfaẓ
āyah bi-ummiyyin wa-huwa man lā yaḥfaẓuhā).81 According to the Ḥanafīs, the
imām must be free of physical defects and flaws (al-salāmah min al-aʿdhār)
such as chronic nosebleeds (ruʿāf), stuttering and stammering (fa⁠ʾfa⁠ʾah, tam-
tamah), and lisping (lathagh). These speech impediments have the same legal
status as medical conditions that result in ritual impurity (ḥadath, najas).82
The only scenario in which Ḥanafī jurists allow one ummī/lisper to lead an-
other is when the latter is unable to find a qualified reciter (qāriʾ) to follow. If
one such reciter is available, yet not followed, the prayers of both the imām and
the ma⁠ʾmūm are invalid. Moreover, unlike Shāfiʿī and Ḥanbalī jurists who vali-
date the prayer of a lisper if he leads a non-lisper (while invalidating the latter’s
prayers), Ḥanafīs invalidate the prayers of both, citing Abū Ḥanīfah (d. 150/767)
in support of their argument.83 And whereas Shāfiʿīs and Ḥanbalīs are lenient,
to a certain degree, with regard to an imām who suffers from a mild lisp, Ḥanafīs
are indecisive, as demonstrated by the following statement in Radd al-muḥtār:
Query: The mild lisp

Al-Khayr al-Ramlī [d. 1081/1671]84 was asked about [an imām] who has a
mild lisp. He answered that our [Ḥanafī] scholars did not explore this
81 Sirāj al-Dīn Ibn Nujaym al-Ḥanafī (d. 1005/1596–7) and Abū l-Barakāt al-Nasafī (d.
710/1310), al-Nahr al-fāʾiq sharḥ Kanz al-daqāʾiq, ed. Aḥmad ʿIzzū ʿInāyah, 3 vols. (Beirut:
Dār al-kutub al-ʿilmiyyah, 2002), 1:252.
82 Ṭaḥṭāwī and Shurunbulālī, Marāqī, 108; Niẓām al-Dīn al-Balkhī (d. 1036/1627), Al-Fatāwā
l-hindiyyah, 6 vols. (Beirut: Dār Ṣādir, 1892), 1:85–6.
83 Sirāj al-Dīn al-Taymī al-Ḥanafī (d. 569/1173–4), al-Fatāwā l-sirājiyyah, ed. Muḥammad
ʿUthmān al-Bastawī (Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-ʿilmiyya, 2011), 98; Niẓām, al-Fatāwā l-hindi-
yyah, 1:86; cf. Ibn ʿĀbidīn, Ḥāshiyat Ibn ʿĀbidīn, 2:327–9.
84 Al-Khayr al-Ramlī is not the Shāfiʿī jurist Shams al-Dīn al-Ramlī (d. 1004/1596).

problem, unlike the Shāfiʿīs, who maintained that when the lisp is mild
and the imām’s articulation of the letters is minimally defective, the lisp
may be tolerated. Indeed, [al-Ramlī continues,] our [Ḥanafī] rules might
accommodate such a view.85
It is intriguing that the Ḥanafīs are the most intolerant of the four schools
when it comes to praying behind lispers and solecists. Early Ḥanafīs are known
to have allowed reciting the Qurʾān in Persian during ritual prayers, perhaps
due to the fact that Ḥanafī law “originated in Iraq and spread across Khurāsān
and the frontiers of Central Asia, areas with non-Arab minorities”.86 Indeed, it
is odd that, on the one hand, Ḥanafī jurists allow reciting a translated and para-
phrased Qurʾān while, on the other hand, they do not tolerate lisping and
grammatical errors during recitation. A distinction must be made, however,
between early and late Ḥanafī opinions, and also between and among the ear-
ly Ḥanafīs themselves, for Abū Yūsuf’s views often diverge from those of Abū
Ḥanīfa and al-Shaybāni.87 In my view, the early Ḥanafīs’ flexible understanding
of the Qurʾān, which warranted the allowance to recite the Qurʾān in Persian,
paraphrase the Qurʾān, and use non-canonical readings (shawādhdh) in ritual
prayer, compelled late Ḥanafīs to embrace a stricter position concerning the
imāmah of lispers and solecists. The later Ḥanafīs sought to reassure jurists
from other schools that the Ḥanafīs had abandoned the opinions of the early
masters, who deviated from the consensus of Muslim jurists on the nature of
the Qurʾān, its inimitability, and its key role in ritual prayer.
The Tolerant Mālikīs
Mālikī jurists are the most flexible and tolerant with regard to the imāmah of a
lisper. In his short digest of Mālikī law, al-Dardīr (d. 1201/1786) states: “… The
imām must have knowledge of the necessary Qurʾānic passages that fulfill the
requirements of prayer … which remains valid if the recitation involves sole-
cism (laḥn), even in the Fātiḥah. However, [the ma⁠ʾmūm] sins if he finds
85 Ibn ʿĀbidīn, Ḥāshiyat Ibn ʿĀbidīn, 2:329.

86 Zadeh, The Vernacular Qurʾan, 54.
87 Abū Ḥanīfa and al-Shaybānī argue that adding tuffāḥ (apples) to “fākihatun wa-nakhlun
wa-rummānun” (Wherein is fruit, the date-palm and pomegranate) in Q. 55:68 does not
invalidate prayer because apples are fruit; thus, the meaning of the verse does not change.
Abū Yūsuf rejects this position and does not allow additions, omissions, and paraphrasing
of the Qurʾānic verses. See further Nasser, “The Grammatical Blunders of Qurʾān Reciters”.

48 Nasser
another [reciter] to follow. [Prayer is also valid] behind an imām who cannot
distinguish between letters, as by confusing ḍād with ẓāʾ, on the condition
that it is not intentional.”88 Mālikī jurists frequently use the term “alkan” to
characterize a non-Arab who cannot pronounce Arabic letters correctly or an
individual who has a speech defect. Al-Dardīr declares, unequivocally, that the
imāmah of the alkan is permissible.89 He emphasizes this point in both of his
commentaries on Aqrab al-masālik (Mayyārah al-kabīr and Mayyārah al-ṣa
ghīr), in the section “clarifying the confusion regarding the validity of the
imāmah of those mistakenly presumed disqualified … [such as] the alkan”.90
As with Ḥanafīs, an important distinction must be made regarding the defi-
nition of the ummī. Mālikīs follow the other schools and define the ummī as an
individual who does not know the Fātiḥah or who commits a grammatical mis-
take while reciting it. However, they do not categorize the lisper as ummī, even
if he lisps in the Fātiḥah. As a result, the Mālikīs accept the imāmah of the
althagh/alkan. They argue that the alteration of letters comes naturally (ṭabʿ)
to the person and should not be categorized as a solecism that changes the
meaning.91 Even though Ibn al-Ḥājib (d. 646/1249) forbids a reciter from
praying behind a solecist and disqualifies an imām who is unable to recite the
Fātiḥah (because he is ummī and thus falls in the same category as a mute), he
nonetheless validates praying behind an alkan.92 Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr’s (d. 463/1071)
view is ambiguous. He allows praying behind an alkan so long as this imām
“aqāma ḥurūf umm al-Qurʾān”. It is not clear whether “aqāma”, in this context,
means to articulate correctly and accurately or to vocalize the letters as closely
as possible to their proper pronunciation, even if they are slightly misarticu
lated.93
88 Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Dardīr (d. 1201/1786), Aqrab al-masālik li-madhhab al-imām

Mālik (Cairo: Markaz al-amal, 2000), 22.
89 Ibid., 23.
90 al-Sharḥ al-ṣaghīr, ed. Muṣṭafā Kamāl Waṣfī, 4 vols. (Cairo: Dār al-maʿārif, 1986), 1:444–5;
Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Dardīr (d. 1201/1786) and Muḥammad b. ʿArafah al-Dusūqī,
Ḥāshiyat al-Dusūqī ʿalā l-Sharḥ al-kabīr, 4 vols. (Cairo: Dār iḥyāʾ al-kutub al-ʿarabiyyah,
[n.d.]), 1:328–9.
91 Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Ḥaṭṭāb al-Ruʿaynī (d. 954/1547), Mawāhib al-jalīl li-sharḥ Mukhtaṣar
Khalīl, ed. Zakariyyā ʿUmayrāt, 8 vols. (Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-ʿilmiyyah, 1995 ), 2:422–3.
92 Ibn al-Ḥājib, Jāmiʿ al-ummahāt, 109–10.
93 Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, Kāfī, 46.

Concluding Remarks
I have discussed the different (and sometimes contradictory) views of Muslim

jurists with regard to lispers and leading ritual prayer. Some jurists are strict:
They insist that a lisper may not lead prayer under any circumstances. Other
jurists are more flexible: They validate the imāmah of a lisper no matter how
severe his lisp and irrespective of the fluency in Arabic of the individuals pray-
ing behind him. It is worth mentioning that the Twelver Shīʿīs94 closely follow
the general framework discussed above. The Ẓāhirī Ibn Ḥazm (d. 456/1064), on
the other hand, challenges the dominant position and goes beyond the Mālikīs
by allowing an althagh, an alkan, a foreigner with a heavy accent (al-aʿjamī al-
lisān), and a solecist (laḥḥān) to lead ritual prayer. Ibn Ḥazm says: “I am utterly
astonished at those [jurists] who validate the prayer of a lisper when he leads
a non-lisper yet invalidate the prayer of the latter!”95
Regardless of their strictness or leniency, the jurists are keen to maintain a
basic level of accurate and proper recitation of the Qurʾān throughout prayer.
Strict jurists are careful not to discourage lay Muslims from fulfilling their fun-
damental duties because of a speech impediment. Lenient jurists are careful
not to let their flexibility impact the Qurʾān and all that it represents in the
Muslim imagination as the accurate and verbatim transmission of God’s words
to Muḥammad in “perfect Arabic”. Some jurists have advanced a theoretical
linguistic justification for leniency with regard to the lisper, arguing that the
lisp becomes a dialect (lughah); some scholars accept reciting the Qurʾān in
different dialects (lughāt) and using a combination of variant readings from
different systems of recitation.96
The word of God must be recited in its proper and accurate Arabic pronun-
ciation. One exception may open the door to others. This would lead to “cor-
rupting” the Arabic language and eventually the Qurʾān. No matter how often
jurists have accommodated the unpredictable and ever-changing life of the
common Muslim, the space for compromise continues to grow whenever new
94 For example, see al-Ḥasan b. Yūsuf al-Ḥillī (d. 726/1325), Nihāyat al-iḥkām fī maʿrifat
al-aḥkām, ed. Mahdī al-Rajāʾī, 2 vols. (Beirut: Dār al-aḍwāʾ, 1986), 2:147–8; Muḥammad b.
Jamāl al-Dīn al-ʿĀmilī (al-Shahīd al-Awwal) (d. 786/1385), Dhikrā l-shīʿah fī aḥkām
al-sharīʿah, 4 vols. (Qum: Muʾassasat Āl al-Bayt li-iḥyāʾ al-turāth, 1998), 4:396–8.
95 The legal justification offered by Ibn Ḥazm is similar to the third, hybrid, position advo-
cated by al-Marwazī and al-Muzanī; Abū Muḥammad ʿAlī Ibn Ḥazm (d. 456/1064),
al-Muḥallā bi’l-āthār, ed. Aḥmad Muḥammad Shākir, 11 vols. (Cairo: Idārat al-ṭibāʿah
al-munīriyyah, 1929), 4:217.
96 Ibn ʿĀbidīn, Ḥāshiyat Ibn ʿĀbidīn, 2:327; cf. Nasser, Transmission, 107; Isnawī, Muhimmāt,
3:52.

50 Nasser
and unconventional situations arise. In the present case, the lay Muslim’s main
concern is to perform his liturgical practices; he is oblivious and indifferent to
the grammatical and philological problems cherished and treasured by elite
linguists and jurists. The dilemma of the confusion between ḍād and ẓāʾ has
led several jurists to address this problem and allow the alteration between
the two letters in the recitation of the Qurʾān. The justification is simple: Many
people cannot distinguish between the two consonants, and linguists and
jurists should have no control over the masses. Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728/1328)
argues that it is not permissible to pray behind a lisper who alters the letters,
with the exception of ḍād, the alteration of which is common. Whereas Ibn
Taymiyyah inclines to allow the shift from ḍād to ẓāʾ, and thus grants the imām
license to recite “wa-lā l-ẓāllīn” instead of “wa-lā l-ḍāllīn”, other jurists prohibit
any alteration of letters on the ground that it entails a change of meaning here
from ‘astray’ (ḍalla) to ‘stay’ (ẓalla).97
Jurists who are generally flexible with regard to the lisper tend to be strict
with regard to the solecist (laḥḥān): They reject grammatical mistakes that
change the meaning of the Qurʾān. Jurists who tolerate lisping consider it
a physical defect over which the individual has no control. In support of
this point, they often cite Q. 2:286: “lā yukallifu llāhu nafsan illā wusʿahā” (God
charges no soul save to its capacity). These jurists argue that there is no justice
in forbidding lispers from fulfilling their social and religious roles due to an
insurmountable speech impediment. On the other hand, there is no excuse for
the solecist (laḥḥān); he must learn Arabic and avoid committing mistakes if
he is to lead ritual prayer. Laḥn is avoidable while lisping is not.98
Jurists clearly demarcate the boundaries between the imām and the
ma⁠ʾmūm and delineate the hierarchy of the congregational prayer by making a
capable leader responsible for the shortcomings of his followers. Even when a
lisper is allowed to lead others in ritual prayer, the allowance is limited to the
case in which both the imām and the ma⁠ʾmūm lisp in the same letter. If they
lisp in different letters, the imām is disqualified and the ma⁠ʾmūm must repeat
his prayer. For the same reason, if both the imām and the ma⁠ʾmūm are unable
to articulate the same word in the Fātiḥah, the imām may still lead prayers. If
97 Taqī al-Dīn Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728/1328), Majmūʿat al-fatāwā, ed. ʿĀmir al-Jazzār and
Anwar al-Bāz, 37 vols. (al-Manṣūrah: Dār al-wafāʾ, 2005), 23:198; cf. Rūyānī, Baḥr, 2:415;
Mardāwī, Inṣāf, 2:271; Ruʿaynī, Mawāhib al-jalīl, 2:422.
98 In his work on the flaws of Qurʾān reciters, Ibn al-Bannāʾ tries to prescribe remedies and
exercises to overcome certain speech defects. He suggests different methods of treatment
for the stutterer, the lisper, and the aratt. See Abū ʿAlī Ibn al-Bannāʾ (d. 471/1079), Bayān
al-ʿuyūb allatī yajib an yajtanibahā l-qurrāʾ, ed. Ghānim Qaddūrī al-Ḥamad (Amman: Dār
ʿAmmār li’l-nashr wa’l-tawzīʿ, 2001), 54–8.

both struggle with different words, the imām is automatically disqualified.99

The imām must always maintain his linguistic advantage over the ma⁠ʾmūm, for
if the ma⁠ʾmūm were more knowledgeable than the imām, the institution of
imāmah itself would be absurd.
These subtle details should be of interest to scholars and linguists who study
the history of Arabic and the transmission of the Qurʾān. The ongoing endeav-
ors of Muslim scholars to minimize the impact of external foreign elements
on the Qurʾān sometimes reach the level of obsession and zeal. Ibn al-Jawzī
(d. 597/1200–1) describes a scene in which Iblīs haunts certain individuals and
causes them to exaggerate the shaddah when they recite the Qurʾān. Their
obsession with the proper articulation of letters distracts them from under-
standing the true meaning behind what they are reciting. Ibn al-Jawzī says: “…
and I have seen those who, while trying to articulate the ḍād of “al-maghḍūb”,
spit jets out of their mouth side-by-side with the ḍād.”100
Social forums, message boards, and fatwā websites today are replete with
questions addressed to religious authorities in the Arab world. Individuals and
local communities alike protest against the imām of a local mosque who is un-
able to recite the Qurʾān properly during prayers: “Our imām reads ‘wa-lā
l-ḍālīn’ [without a shaddah on the lām]; is this permissible?” “Our imām is
Pakistani; he says: ‘al-hamdu’ and cannot say ‘al-ḥamdu’”. “Our imām makes
grammatical mistakes in some verses when he recites”. “Our imām reads ‘ihdinī
l-ṣirāṭa’”. “Our townsfolk dislike the imām because he lisps and changes the rāʾ
to a yāʾ”.101 These issues have been discussed in fiqh works for centuries. With
more than 1.5 billion non-Arab–Muslims at present, and 350 million Arabs who
speak English or French better than they speak Arabic, it is almost impossible
to control every congregational prayer in the Muslim world, let alone small
groups of believers who pray in private spaces. At the present time, it would
take more than one Ḥajjāj to restore order to proper Arabic and to forbid non-
Arabs from leading congregational prayers, but only after surviving the lashes
of ethnic – and language – discrimination.
99 Māwardī, Ḥāwī, 2:325–6; Rūyānī, Baḥr, 2:416; Ghazālī, Wasīṭ, 2:227.

100 Abū l-Faraj Ibn al-Jawzī (d. 597/1200–1), Talbīs Iblīs (Beirut: Dār al-qalam, 1982), 136.
101 For example, see fatwā 603 by dār al-iftāʾ al-miṣriyyah at: <http://www.al-eman.com>;
fatwās 228322, 251860, 251137, 252181, 238657, 237097, and 172659 by wizārat al-awqāf wa’l-
shuʾūn al-islāmiyyah in Qatar at: <http://fatwa.islamweb.net>.

(Q. 12 - 2) We Have Sent It Down As An Arabic Qur Ān - Praying Behind The Lisper PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Q. 12 - 2) We Have Sent It Down As An Arabic Qur Ān - Praying Behind The Lisper PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(q.

12:2) We Have Sent It Down

(Q. 12:2) We have sent it down as an Arabic Qurʾān:

Shady Hekmat Nasser

ISSN 0928-9380 (print version) ISSN 1568-5195 (online version) ILS 1

Islamic Law and Society 23 (2016) 23-51

Islamic Law and Society 23 (2016) 23-51

Islamic Law and Society 23 (2016) 23-51

Islamic Law and Society 23 (2016) 23-51

Definitions and Terminology

At the beginning of his al-Bayān wa’l-tabyīn, al-Jāḥiẓ (d. 255/869) invokes

Islamic Law and Society 23 (2016) 23-51

Islamic Law and Society 23 (2016) 23-51

26 Jāḥiẓ, Bayān, 1:35–7.

Islamic Law and Society 23 (2016) 23-51

The Lisper as Imam (imāmat al-althagh)

Islamic Law and Society 23 (2016) 23-51

putting himself forward as an example shows his pre-occupation with this

Islamic Law and Society 23 (2016) 23-51

Islamic Law and Society 23 (2016) 23-51

Islamic Law and Society 23 (2016) 23-51

Islamic Law and Society 23 (2016) 23-51

Five Shāfiʿī Positions

Islamic Law and Society 23 (2016) 23-51

mispronounces a letter or a shaddah in the Fātiḥah. [Included under this cat-

Islamic Law and Society 23 (2016) 23-51

Islamic Law and Society 23 (2016) 23-51

59 Shāfiʿī, Umm, 2:230–2.

Islamic Law and Society 23 (2016) 23-51

62 Ibid., 2:233, 51.

Islamic Law and Society 23 (2016) 23-51

Islamic Law and Society 23 (2016) 23-51

as his new position.65 According to al-Nawawī, the revised Shāfiʿī position is

65 Nawawī, Rawḍat al-ṭālibīn, 156.

Islamic Law and Society 23 (2016) 23-51

imām to recite the Qurʾān correctly.69 Al-Muzanī is baffled by al-Shāfiʿī’s new

Islamic Law and Society 23 (2016) 23-51

1. The new/revised Shāfiʿī position: A lisper may not lead a non-lisper in

One Mainstream Position of the Ḥanbalīs

74 Isnawī, Muhimmāt, 3:307; Nawawī, Majmū, 4:165.

Islamic Law and Society 23 (2016) 23-51

1. The prevailing position: A lisper may not lead non-lispers.

Islamic Law and Society 23 (2016) 23-51

Query: The mild lisp

Islamic Law and Society 23 (2016) 23-51

The Tolerant Mālikīs

85 Ibn ʿĀbidīn, Ḥāshiyat Ibn ʿĀbidīn, 2:329.

Islamic Law and Society 23 (2016) 23-51

88 Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Dardīr (d. 1201/1786), Aqrab al-masālik li-madhhab al-imām

Islamic Law and Society 23 (2016) 23-51

I have discussed the different (and sometimes contradictory) views of Muslim

Islamic Law and Society 23 (2016) 23-51

Islamic Law and Society 23 (2016) 23-51

both struggle with different words, the imām is automatically disqualified.99

99 Māwardī, Ḥāwī, 2:325–6; Rūyānī, Baḥr, 2:416; Ghazālī, Wasīṭ, 2:227.

Islamic Law and Society 23 (2016) 23-51

You might also like