Madhhab Comparison

Raise the hands only at the opening takbir; do not raise them at ruku or rising from it. The Hanafis follow the report of Ibn Mas'ud (ra) that the Prophet ﷺ only raised at the start. (Sunan Abu Dawud 748)

Raise the hands at the opening takbir, going into ruku, and rising from ruku — based on the report of Ibn Umar (ra). (Sahih al-Bukhari 735-737)

The well-known Maliki position is to raise the hands only at the opening takbir, like the Hanafis. (Sunan Abu Dawud 748)

Raise the hands at the opening takbir, going into ruku, and rising from it — agreeing with the Shafi'is on the report of Ibn Umar (ra). (Sahih al-Bukhari 735-737)

Witr is wajib (obligatory, one level below fard). Missing it intentionally is sinful and it must be made up.

Witr is sunnah mu'akkadah (highly emphasised sunnah), not obligatory. The Prophet ﷺ called it an extra prayer. (Sunan Abu Dawud 1418)

Witr is sunnah mu'akkadah — strongly emphasised but not obligatory. Ali (ra): "Witr is not obligatory like your fard prayers." (Sunan al-Nasa'i 1676)

Witr is sunnah mu'akkadah — the most emphasised of the voluntary prayers, but not obligatory. (Sunan Abu Dawud 1416)

Qurbani is wajib upon every resident, sane adult Muslim who owns the nisab during the days of Eid al-Adha. (Sunan Ibn Majah 3123 — graded hasan)

Qurbani is sunnah mu'akkadah (strongly recommended), not obligatory; abandoning it without excuse is disliked.

Qurbani is sunnah mu'akkadah for one who is able. Allah commands sacrifice in the Quran Majeed. (Quran 22:36)

Qurbani is sunnah mu'akkadah; it is disliked for one who can afford it to leave it. (Sunan al-Tirmidhi 1505)

The Basmala is recited silently before al-Fatiha in every rak'ah; it is not said aloud. Based on the practice of the major Companions. (Sahih Muslim 399)

The Basmala is a verse of al-Fatiha and is recited aloud in the audible prayers along with al-Fatiha. (Sunan al-Nasa'i 906)

The Basmala is not recited (aloud or silently) before al-Fatiha in the obligatory prayer; recitation begins with al-Hamdu. (Sahih Muslim 399)

The Basmala is recited silently before al-Fatiha; it is not said aloud, agreeing with the Hanafis. (Sahih Muslim 399)

The follower does not recite al-Fatiha behind the imam (in silent or audible prayer); the imam's recitation suffices. (Quran 7:204; Sahih Muslim 404)

The follower must recite al-Fatiha behind the imam in every rak'ah: "There is no prayer for one who does not recite the Opening of the Book." (Sahih al-Bukhari 756)

The follower recites al-Fatiha in the silent prayers but remains silent and listens in the audible prayers. (Sahih al-Bukhari 756; Quran 7:204)

The follower recites al-Fatiha in the silent prayers; in the audible prayers he listens, reciting only during the imam's pauses. (Quran 7:204)

Touching a woman, with or without desire, does not break wudu by itself; only the actual emission of fluid (madhy) would. This is based on the report that the Prophet ﷺ kissed one of his wives and went to pray without a fresh wudu. (Sunan Abu Dawud 179)

Direct skin-to-skin touching between a man and a non-mahram woman (this includes one's own wife — 'mahram' here means close blood relatives one could never marry) breaks wudu, regardless of desire, based on the Quranic phrase "or you have touched women", which the Shafi'is read in its literal sense. (Quran 4:43)

The well-known Maliki position is that touching a woman breaks wudu only if it is accompanied by desire (shahwah); touching without desire does not, reading the same verse as referring to touch that stirs desire. (Quran 4:43)

Like the Malikis, the Hanbalis hold that touching a woman with desire breaks wudu, while touching without desire does not, based on the same reading of "or you have touched women". (Quran 4:43)

Blood or pus that flows beyond the site of a wound, and a mouthful of vomit, both break wudu. The main evidence cited is the report that the Prophet ﷺ said whoever vomits, has a nosebleed, or emits fluid should leave the prayer, renew wudu, then continue, though hadith specialists grade this report weak. (Sunan Ibn Majah 1221)

Neither flowing blood nor vomiting, in any quantity, breaks wudu; only what exits from the two private passages does. The report used by others to argue otherwise is considered weak (da'if) by the muhaddithun, so it is not treated as binding. (Sunan Ibn Majah 1221)

Agreeing with the Shafi'is, the Malikis hold that blood, pus, or vomit exiting from other than the two private passages does not break wudu, regardless of quantity, since the report cited for this ruling is weak. (Sunan Ibn Majah 1221)

Like the Hanafis, the Hanbalis hold that a substantial (fahish) amount of blood, pus, or vomit exiting the body from other than the two private passages breaks wudu, relying on the same report together with the practice attributed to several Companions. (Sunan Ibn Majah 1221)

Washing the limbs in the order given in the Quran is sunnah (recommended), not fard; wudu remains valid even if the limbs are washed out of order, since the verse lists them with the connective "and" rather than a command to sequence them. (Quran 5:6)

Washing the limbs in the Quranic order is fard (a condition for the validity of wudu); reversing the order invalidates it, since the Shafi'is read the sequence in this verse as itself legislating the order. (Quran 5:6)

Like the Shafi'is, the Malikis hold that tartib is fard; washing the limbs out of the Quranic order invalidates the wudu. (Quran 5:6)

The Hanbalis also hold tartib to be fard, agreeing with the Shafi'is and Malikis against the Hanafis. (Quran 5:6)

Muwalah — washing each limb before the previous one dries — is sunnah, not a condition for wudu's validity; a long pause between limbs (for example due to a busy task) does not invalidate the wudu already performed. (Quran 5:6)

In the well-known (jadid) position, muwalah is sunnah rather than fard for the Shafi'is as well; a delay between washing the limbs does not by itself invalidate the wudu. (Quran 5:6)

The Malikis hold muwalah to be fard: if a limb dries before the next one is washed, without a valid excuse, the wudu must be started afresh. (Quran 5:6)

Agreeing with the Malikis, the Hanbalis hold muwalah to be fard, so an unjustified delay long enough for the limbs to dry requires starting the wudu again. (Quran 5:6)

Amin is said silently after al-Fatiha, whether one is praying alone, leading, or following, based on the general instruction to say Amin without singling out a specific narration that commands raising the voice. (Sahih al-Bukhari 781)

Amin is said audibly in a jahri (audible) prayer, whether leading or following, based on the report that the Prophet ﷺ raised his voice when saying it after al-Fatiha. (Sunan Abu Dawud 932)

The well-known Maliki position agrees with the Hanafis that Amin is said silently, following the general instruction to say Amin rather than the narrations that describe a raised voice. (Sahih al-Bukhari 781)

Agreeing with the Shafi'is, the Hanbalis say Amin audibly in the jahri prayers, citing the same kind of report of the Prophet ﷺ raising his voice with it. (Sunan Abu Dawud 933)

Qunut is recited regularly only in Witr; in Fajr, as in any other prayer, it is added only during a calamity befalling the Muslims (qunut al-nazilah), based on the Prophet's ﷺ practice of reciting qunut in Fajr for a month specifically to invoke against certain tribes. (Sahih al-Bukhari 1003)

Qunut is recited every day in Fajr, in the second rak'ah after rising from ruku', based on the continuation of this practice by Abu Hurairah (ra), who said his prayer resembled that of the Prophet ﷺ. (Sahih al-Bukhari 797)

The well-known Maliki position agrees with the Shafi'is that qunut is recited daily in Fajr, based on the same continued practice reported from Abu Hurairah (ra). (Sahih al-Bukhari 797)

Agreeing with the Hanafis, the Hanbalis hold that qunut in Fajr is only for a calamity (qunut al-nazilah), not a daily practice, based on the same report of the Prophet's ﷺ month-long qunut against specific tribes. (Sahih al-Bukhari 1003)

The hands are folded below the navel, based on the report from Ali (ra) that it is sunnah to place one hand on the other in prayer below the navel. (Sunan Abu Dawud 756)

The hands are folded below the chest and above the navel, based on the report that the Prophet ﷺ placed his right hand on his left and folded them firmly on his chest in prayer. (Sunan Abu Dawud 759)

The well-known Maliki position in obligatory prayer is sadl — letting the hands hang down at the sides rather than folding them — since the Malikis do not read the report about folding on the chest as obligating it; folding (qabd) is also transmitted and permitted in their school. (Sunan Abu Dawud 759)

The dominant riwayah in the Hanbali school agrees with the Hanafis that the hands are folded below the navel, based on the same kind of report describing this as the established practice. (Sunan Abu Dawud 758)

A traveller does not truly combine two prayers into one time; each is prayed within its own time (though Zuhr may be delayed to its very end and Asr prayed at its very start, giving the appearance of combining), since the Quran explicitly legislates only shortening the prayer for a traveller, not merging two prayers' times, apart from the established exception at Arafah and Muzdalifah during Hajj. (Quran 4:101)

A traveller covering the distance that permits shortening the prayer may combine two prayers (Zuhr with Asr, or Maghrib with Isha) in either the earlier or later time, whether moving or resting, as a general concession of travel. (Sahih Muslim 705)

The well-known Maliki position ties combining prayers more specifically to actually being in motion on the journey, based on the report that the Prophet ﷺ combined Maghrib and Isha "when he was in a hurry on a journey", rather than treating it as available at every halt. (Sahih Muslim 703)

Agreeing with the Shafi'is, the Hanbalis treat combining prayers as a general concession available to a traveller covering the qasr distance, whether moving or halted, based on the Prophet's ﷺ combining of Zuhr with Asr and Maghrib with Isha during the expedition to Tabuk. (Sahih Muslim 706)

Gold and silver jewellery is zakatable wealth in itself, so zakāh must be paid on it every year once it reaches the niṣāb, whether it is worn for adornment or kept as savings — the general command to pay zakāh on gold and silver applies to it regardless of use. This follows the hadith of the two women whose gold bangles the Prophet ﷺ told to pay zakāh on, warning that neglecting it would bring bangles of fire on the Day of Judgement (Sunan Abu Dawud 1563).

No zakāh is due on gold or silver jewellery kept for permissible personal adornment and worn in customary amounts; zakāh applies only once it is held as stored wealth or exceeds what is customary. This follows the well-known practice recorded from the Companions' households — the athar that Ibn 'Umar (ra) adorned his daughters and slave-girls with gold jewellery and took no zakāh from it (Muwatta Malik 588).

The mashhūr Maliki position, and Imam Malik's own stated view, is that jewellery kept and worn for permissible personal use is exempt from zakāh; only gold or silver kept unworn as stored wealth, or jewellery beyond customary use, must be zakated. Malik himself narrated and affirmed the practice of Ibn 'Umar (ra) on this point (Muwatta Malik 588).

As with the Shafi'is and Malikis, the mashhūr Hanbali position is that jewellery worn for permissible personal adornment is not zakatable, following the same practice-based reasoning recorded from the Companions' households (Muwatta Malik 588).

Cupping does not break the fast. Ibn 'Abbas (ra) reported that the Prophet ﷺ was cupped while he was fasting, showing that the act itself does not invalidate the fast (Sahih al-Bukhari 1939).

As with the Hanafis, cupping does not break the fast, based on the same report that the Prophet ﷺ had himself cupped while fasting (Sunan al-Tirmidhi 776).

Cupping does not break the fast; Hisham ibn 'Urwa reported that his father 'Urwa used to be cupped while fasting and would not break his fast on account of it (Muwatta Malik 663).

Cupping breaks the fast, both for the one who cups and the one who is cupped, based on the Prophet's ﷺ statement: "The cupper and the one who is cupped have broken their fast" (Sunan Abu Dawud 2367).

The niyyah for each day's obligatory fast must be made or renewed before dawn (fajr) of that day; a single intention made at the start of the month does not automatically carry over to every day. This follows the report: "Whoever does not determine to fast before dawn, there is no fast for him" (Sunan al-Tirmidhi 730).

As with the Hanafis, the niyyah for the obligatory fast of Ramaḍān must be renewed each night before dawn, since each day's fast is treated as a distinct act of worship requiring its own intention (Sunan al-Tirmidhi 730).

A single niyyah made on the first night of Ramaḍān suffices for the whole month and does not need to be renewed each night, since the fast of Ramaḍān is treated as one connected act of worship — Allah says, "whoever among you witnesses the month, let him fast it" (Quran 2:185), addressing the fast in relation to the month as a single whole.

As with the Hanafis and Shafi'is, the niyyah must be renewed each night before dawn for the obligatory fast of Ramaḍān (Sunan al-Tirmidhi 730).

Eating or drinking forgetfully does not break the fast at all; it remains completely valid with no qaḍā' required, based on: "Whoever eats or drinks forgetfully should complete his fast, for it is Allah who has fed him and given him drink" (Sahih al-Bukhari 1933).

As with the Hanafis, forgetful eating or drinking does not invalidate the fast and no qaḍā' is owed, based on the same hadith (Sahih Muslim 1155).

The mashhūr Maliki position differs here: eating or drinking forgetfully invalidates the obligatory fast (though without sin) and the day must be made up (qaḍā'), though no kaffārah is owed. Imam Malik's own principle, recorded in the Muwaṭṭa', is that an obligatory act of worship, once begun, must be preserved and completed in its due form (Muwatta Malik 681).

As with the Hanafis and Shafi'is, forgetful eating or drinking does not break the fast and requires neither qaḍā' nor kaffārah (Sunan al-Tirmidhi 721).

Hajj al-Qirān (combining the intention of 'Umrah and Hajj in one iḥrām) is considered the most virtuous, since it is reported to be the form the Prophet ﷺ himself performed: "The Messenger of Allah performed Qirān for Hajj and 'Umrah, so he performed one tawaf for both of them" (Sunan al-Tirmidhi 947).

Hajj al-Ifrād (performing Hajj on its own, separately from 'Umrah) is considered the most virtuous, based on reports that a number of the Companions entered iḥrām for Hajj only: "We, the companions of the Prophet, entered iḥrām for Hajj only, and nothing else" (Sunan al-Nasa'i 2805).

As with the Shafi'is, Hajj al-Ifrād is considered the most virtuous form, based on the same reports of the Companions entering iḥrām for Hajj alone (Sunan al-Nasa'i 2805).

Hajj al-Tamattu' ('Umrah followed later by Hajj, with the iḥrām lifted in between) is considered the most virtuous, based on the Prophet's ﷺ statement to his Companions: "If I had formerly known what I came to know recently, I would not have driven the hady with me and would have finished the state of iḥrām along with the people" (Sahih al-Bukhari 7229).

A woman may not travel a distance that shortens prayer, including for Ḥajj, without her husband or a maḥram accompanying her; without one she is not considered able (mustaṭī'ah) to make the journey, based on: "A woman should not travel except with a dhū-maḥram" (Sahih al-Bukhari 1862).

A maḥram is not a strict condition for a woman's Ḥajj travel specifically; she may travel with a group of trustworthy, upright women or companions if she feels secure, since the underlying concern is safety rather than an absolute requirement — as when 'Umar (ra) sent the wives of the Prophet ﷺ for Ḥajj escorted by 'Uthman ibn 'Affan and 'Abdur-Rahman ibn 'Awf, neither of whom was their maḥram (Sahih al-Bukhari 1860).

As with the Shafi'is, a maḥram is not an absolute condition for a woman's Ḥajj obligation to remain in force; Imam Malik himself ruled that a woman without a maḥram "does not abandon what Allah has made obligatory for her" and may go in a group of women (Muwatta Malik 957).

As with the Hanafis, a maḥram (or husband) is required for a woman's Ḥajj travel; without one she is not considered able to make the journey, based on the same general prohibition (Sahih al-Bukhari 1862).

A sane, adult (bāligha) woman may contract her own marriage without a walī; his involvement is recommended but not a condition for validity, though he retains the right to object if she marries beneath her social standing (kafā'ah). This follows Allah's address to women not to be prevented from marrying (Quran 2:232) and the report that "a woman previously married has more right to herself than her guardian" (Sahih Muslim 1421).

A walī is a condition for the validity of any woman's marriage contract, virgin or previously married; a marriage she contracts for herself without one is invalid, based on: "There is no marriage without the permission of a guardian" (Sunan Abu Dawud 2085).

As with the Shafi'is, a walī is a condition for the validity of the marriage contract; a woman cannot contract her own marriage, based on the same principle: "There is no marriage except with a walī" (Sunan al-Tirmidhi 1101).

As with the Shafi'is and Malikis, a walī is a strict condition for the validity of a woman's marriage contract, based on: "There is no marriage except with a guardian" (Sunan Ibn Majah 1881).

Masah over khuffayn (leather socks) is a valid concession accepted by all four Sunni schools in place of washing the feet. The Hanafis hold it is time-limited: one day and one night for a resident, and three days and three nights for a traveller, following the Prophet's ﷺ own stipulation of this limit. (Sunan Abu Dawud 157)

Agreeing with the Hanafis, the Shafi'is hold that masah is limited to one day and one night for a resident and three days and three nights for a traveller, based on the same stipulation attributed to the Prophet ﷺ. (Sunan Abu Dawud 157)

The well-known Maliki position is that masah on khuffayn is not restricted to any fixed time period at all — unlike the other three schools, a khuff put on in a state of purity may continue to be wiped over until it is removed or a state requiring ghusl occurs. Malikis read the addition to this same report — that the Prophet ﷺ 'would have extended it had he been asked' — as showing the three-day mention was not meant as a strict, unconditional limit. (Sunan Abu Dawud 157)

Like the Hanafis, the Hanbalis hold masah is limited to one day and one night for a resident and three days and three nights for a traveller. (Sunan Abu Dawud 157)

A dog's saliva is impure, but the Hanafis hold that a vessel it has licked becomes pure once washed until the trace of impurity is gone, three washes ordinarily being sufficient; the command in the hadith to wash it seven times is read as a strong recommendation for thoroughness rather than a binding count. (Sahih al-Bukhari 172)

The vessel must be washed exactly seven times, one of them with earth or sand, based on the explicit wording of the hadith: "The purification of the utensil belonging to any one of you, after it is licked by a dog, lies in washing it seven times, using sand for the first time." (Sahih Muslim 279)

The well-known Maliki position is that a live dog, like other live animals, is not considered najis (impure) in itself in Maliki fiqh; washing the vessel seven times, one with sand, is done in obedience to the hadith as a matter of taʿabbud (a non-rationalised act of worship) rather than because the saliva itself is treated as ritually impure. (Sahih Muslim 279)

Agreeing with the Shafi'is, the Hanbalis hold the vessel must be washed seven times, one of them with earth. (Sahih al-Bukhari 172)

Water remains mutahhir (fit for purification) as long as it is still commonly termed "water" in ordinary usage. If a pure substance (such as soap or flour) mixes in and changes it so significantly that it takes on a new name and is no longer simply called "water," it becomes mudāf (a compound liquid) and can no longer be used for wuḍūʾ or ghusl, though it remains ṭāhir and fit to drink. This follows the general principle that Allah sends down water from the sky as a means of purification. (Quran 8:11)

Agreeing with the Hanafis, the Shafi'is hold that water changed by a pure substance to the point that it is no longer termed "water" cannot be used for purification, though a slight change does not affect it. (Quran 8:11)

The mashhūr Maliki position is notably more lenient: water remains mutahhir even if its colour, taste, or smell changes due to a pure substance mixing in, so long as it remains liquid water and has not been transformed into an altogether different substance. (Quran 8:11)

Agreeing with the Hanafis and Shafi'is, the Hanbalis hold that water changed by a pure substance to the point of no longer being termed "water" cannot be used for purification. (Quran 8:11)

Tayammum is valid with anything belonging to the genus of the earth (jins al-arḍ) — soil, sand, stone, lime, and similar minerals — reading the Prophet's ﷺ statement broadly: "The earth has been made for me purifying and as a mosque." (Sunan Abu Dawud 489)

Tayammum is restricted to soil (turāb) that contains fine dust which clings to the hand; tayammum on bare stone or rock without dust on it is not valid, reading the wording: "and its dust has been made a purifier for us." (Sahih Muslim 522)

Agreeing with the Hanafis, the mashhūr Maliki position reads sa'īd (the surface fit for tayammum) broadly to include dust, sand, rock, and similar minerals, without requiring dust to actually cling to the hand. (Sunan Abu Dawud 489)

Agreeing with the Shafi'is, the Hanbalis restrict tayammum to fine dust or soil; tayammum is not valid on plain sand or stone that carries no dust. (Sahih Muslim 522)

Pouring or otherwise causing water to reach and cover the entire body is sufficient for ghusl; actively rubbing the skin (dalk) with the hands is recommended (mustahabb) but not a condition for its validity, based on the Prophet's ﷺ own answer that pouring water over the body sufficed without needing to work it through every strand of hair. (Sunan al-Nasa'i 241)

Agreeing with the Hanafis, the Shafi'is hold that dalk is not obligatory for ghusl; it is enough that water reaches every part of the body. (Sunan al-Nasa'i 241)

The mashhūr Maliki position holds that dalk — working the water into the skin and hair with the hands as it is poured — is fard (an obligatory condition) for a valid ghusl; water merely reaching the body without being worked in with the hands does not fulfil the obligation, drawing on reports that the Prophet ﷺ would dip his fingers in the water and run them through his hair during ghusl rather than simply letting water fall over it. (Sunan al-Nasa'i 247)

Agreeing with the Hanafis and Shafi'is, the Hanbalis hold dalk to be recommended, not obligatory, for a valid ghusl. (Sunan al-Nasa'i 241)

Congregational prayer for men is wājib (obligatory, one level below fard) — strongly binding though not a condition for the individual prayer's validity — drawing on the great weight the reports place on it, such as the Prophet's ﷺ statement that prayer in congregation is twenty-seven times greater in reward than praying alone. (Sahih al-Bukhari 645)

Congregational prayer is fard kifāyah — a communal obligation discharged once a sufficient number of people in a locality establish it visibly — though every individual is still strongly urged to attend, based on the same reports praising its great reward. (Sahih al-Bukhari 645)

The mashhūr Maliki position is that congregational prayer is sunnah muʾakkadah (a strongly emphasised sunnah) rather than a strict obligation binding on every individual. (Sahih al-Bukhari 645)

Congregational prayer is fard ʿayn — an individual obligation on every legally responsible man — though a prayer performed alone still counts as valid; the Hanbalis point to the severity of the Prophet's ﷺ words: "By Him in Whose hand my soul is, I was about to order firewood collected... then go and burn the houses of men who did not present themselves for the prayer." (Sahih al-Bukhari 644)

The two prostrations of forgetfulness are performed after completing the prayer with salām, based on the report of Ibn Mas'ud (ra) that "the Messenger of Allah ﷺ performed two prostrations for forgetfulness after salutation and talking." (Sahih Muslim 572)

The prostrations of forgetfulness are performed before the salām, immediately after the final tashahhud, based on the report that when the Prophet ﷺ stood up for a third rak'ah without sitting for tashahhud, he "said the takbir before taslim and performed two prostrations while sitting and then finished the prayer with taslim." (Sahih al-Bukhari 1224)

The mashhūr Maliki position ties the placement to the type of mistake: prostrations made on account of an omission (naqṣ) in the prayer are performed before the salām, while those made on account of an addition (ziyādah) — such as standing for an extra rak'ah, as in the report of the Prophet ﷺ praying five rak'ahs and then prostrating after the salām once informed — are performed after it. (Sahih al-Bukhari 6051)

Agreeing with the Shafi'is, the Hanbalis hold that sujūd al-sahw is generally performed before the salām, except when the salām itself was said too early before the prayer was actually complete, in which case the prostrations follow it. (Sahih al-Bukhari 1224)

Sujūd al-tilāwah is wājib (obligatory) upon both the reciter and the listener, reading the Quran's description of those who do not prostrate on hearing it recited as blameworthy: "And when the Qur'an is recited to them, they do not prostrate." (Quran 84:21)

Sujūd al-tilāwah is sunnah muʾakkadah, not obligatory, based on 'Umar's (ra) statement on the pulpit after prostrating for a verse of sajdah: "Allah has not made the prostration of recitation compulsory, but if we wish we may do it," after which he did not prostrate. (Sahih al-Bukhari 1077)

Agreeing with the Shafi'is, the Malikis hold that sujūd al-tilāwah is a confirmed sunnah rather than an obligation. (Sahih al-Bukhari 1077)

Agreeing with the Shafi'is and Malikis, the Hanbalis hold that sujūd al-tilāwah is sunnah muʾakkadah, not obligatory. (Sahih al-Bukhari 1077)

Reciting al-Fātiḥa is not treated as part of the funeral prayer's established form, since the reports describing the Prophet's ﷺ funeral prayers — such as for the Negus — mention only the four takbirs without specifying al-Fātiḥa; instead, thanā' (praise of Allah), salutations upon the Prophet ﷺ, and supplication for the deceased are offered after the takbirs. (Sahih al-Bukhari 1245)

Al-Fātiḥa is recited after the first takbir in the funeral prayer, based on the report of Talhah bin 'Abdullah that he prayed the funeral prayer behind Ibn 'Abbas (ra), who recited al-Fātiḥa aloud and, when asked, said, "it is sunnah and the truth." (Sunan al-Nasa'i 1987)

Agreeing with the Hanafis, the Malikis hold that the established reports on the Prophet's ﷺ funeral prayers describe takbirs, praise of Allah, and supplication for the deceased rather than a specific recitation of al-Fātiḥa. (Sahih al-Bukhari 1245)

Agreeing with the Shafi'is, the Hanbalis hold that al-Fātiḥa is recited after the first takbir in the funeral prayer. (Sunan al-Nasa'i 1987)

Only al-Fātiḥa is recited in the third and fourth rakʿahs of an obligatory prayer; nothing further is added, based on the Companions' report that they estimated the Prophet's ﷺ standing in the last two rakʿahs of Zuhr at about half the length of the first two — understood as roughly the time it takes to recite al-Fātiḥa alone. (Sahih Muslim 452)

Agreeing with the Hanafis, the Shafi'is hold that only al-Fātiḥa is recited in the third and fourth rakʿahs, with nothing added after it. (Sahih Muslim 452)

A portion of the Quran is recited after al-Fātiḥa in every rakʿah, including the third and fourth, reading the same Companions' report of continued — if shorter — standing in the last two rakʿahs as time allotted for further recitation rather than for al-Fātiḥa alone. (Sahih Muslim 452)

Agreeing with the Malikis, the Hanbalis hold that some additional Quranic recitation is added after al-Fātiḥa in the third and fourth rakʿahs. (Sahih Muslim 452)

The adhān does not include tarjīʿ; each phrase, including the two testimonies of faith, is said once aloud without a quiet repetition beforehand, following Bilal's (ra) adhān as the Prophet ﷺ instituted it in Madinah: "Bilal was ordered to repeat the wording of the adhan twice, and the iqama once only." (Sahih al-Bukhari 605)

The adhān includes tarjīʿ — the two testimonies of faith are first said quietly, then repeated aloud — following the adhān the Prophet ﷺ personally taught Abu Mahdhurah (ra), which was transmitted with this repetition. (Sunan al-Tirmidhi 191)

Agreeing with the Shafi'is, the Malikis hold that tarjīʿ is included in the adhān, following the same narration of Abu Mahdhurah's (ra) adhān. (Sunan al-Tirmidhi 191)

Agreeing with the Hanafis, the Hanbalis hold that the adhān follows Bilal's (ra) form without tarjīʿ. (Sahih al-Bukhari 605)

The Hanafis set a specific minimum of ten dirhams; a marriage contracted for a lesser mahr still stands, but the amount is automatically raised to ten dirhams. This is tied by qiyas to the school's own threshold for the theft-punishment (hadd), based on a report that a hand was once cut off for a shield worth 'a dinar or ten dirhams' — a report hadith specialists generally grade as weak (shadh). (Sunan Abu Dawud 4387)

The Shafi'is hold that no minimum is fixed; anything of recognised value, however small, may serve as mahr. This follows the report of the Prophet ﷺ instructing a man who could not afford a garment to give his bride 'anything, even if it were an iron ring.' (Sahih al-Bukhari 5029)

The mashhūr Maliki position also sets a specific minimum — a quarter of a dinar, or three dirhams — by qiyas to the school's own theft-hadd nisab, reasoning that what makes a hand unlawful to cut should not be less than what makes intimacy lawful. Malik's own Muwatta records this as the value for which the Prophet ﷺ had a thief's hand cut off. (Muwatta Malik 1521)

As with the Shafi'is, the Hanbalis hold that no specific minimum is fixed for the mahr; any item of value, however modest, suffices, based on the same report of the Prophet ﷺ permitting a mahr as small as an iron ring. (Sahih Muslim 1425)

Kafā'ah — rough equivalence between spouses in lineage, religion, freedom, and profession — is not a condition for the validity of the marriage contract itself; a marriage concluded without it is valid. It is instead treated as a right belonging to the guardians, who may seek its annulment through a judge if a woman marries beneath her kafā'ah without their consent. The underlying concern for a suitable match is grounded in the Prophet's ﷺ statement that a woman is sought in marriage for her wealth, lineage, beauty, or religion, and that religion should be given preference. (Sahih al-Bukhari 5090)

As with the Hanafis, kafā'ah is not a condition for the basic validity (siḥḥah) of the contract; a marriage without it still takes effect. It instead gives the other guardians of equal standing a ground to object and seek its annulment, since the same hadith is read as establishing kafā'ah as a matter of consideration rather than a precondition. (Sahih al-Bukhari 5090)

The mashhūr Maliki position narrows the scope of kafā'ah mainly to religious commitment and freedom from concealed defects, rather than lineage, profession, or wealth as in the other schools; like them, it is not treated as a condition for the contract's validity. This follows the same hadith's emphasis on choosing a spouse for her religion above other considerations. (Sahih al-Bukhari 5090)

As with the Hanafis and Shafi'is, the Hanbalis hold kafā'ah (in lineage, religion, freedom, and profession) to be a right of the guardians rather than a condition for the contract's validity; a marriage lacking it is valid but open to objection. (Sahih al-Bukhari 5090)

The presence of at least two witnesses (two men, or one man and two women) at the time of the contract is a condition for the marriage's validity; a marriage concluded with no witnesses present at all is not valid, even if it is later publicised. This rests on the general Quranic principle of calling witnesses to weighty matters, which the Hanafis extend to the marriage contract. (Quran 65:2)

As with the Hanafis, two witnesses are a condition for validity — though the Shafi'is require them to be two men specifically, of upright character (ʿadl), since marriage is treated as a matter of lineage and honour rather than an ordinary financial transaction where a woman's testimony is accepted. This too rests on the general Quranic instruction to take witnesses. (Quran 65:2)

The mashhūr Maliki position does not make a fixed number of witnesses a condition for validity; what is required instead is that the marriage not be kept secret. 'Umar (ra) is reported to have refused to recognise a marriage witnessed by only one man and one woman as a 'secret marriage', showing that the Maliki emphasis falls on publicity (i'lān) rather than a specific witness count — though this athar's chain is graded weak (da'if mawquf) by later scholars. (Muwatta Malik 1117)

As with the Hanafis and Shafi'is, the Hanbalis hold two witnesses to be a condition for the marriage's validity, extending the same general Quranic principle of witnessing to the marriage contract. (Quran 65:2)

The classical Hanafi position is that three explicit pronouncements of divorce made in a single sitting count as three, producing an irrevocable (bā'in) divorce after which the couple may not remarry unless the wife first enters a genuine marriage with another man that ends in his death or divorce, with 'iddah observed. This follows the report that after treating triple pronouncements as one for a time, 'Umar (ra) — with the Companions' concurrence — made it binding as three because people had begun to take the matter lightly. (Sahih Muslim 1472)

As with the Hanafis, the classical Shafi'i position treats three pronouncements in one sitting as three, resulting in an irrevocable divorce requiring an intervening marriage before the original couple may remarry, based on the same report of 'Umar's (ra) ruling being accepted without objection from the Companions. (Sahih Muslim 1472)

As with the Hanafis and Shafi'is, the classical Maliki position also treats three pronouncements made together as three, on the strength of the same precedent from 'Umar's (ra) caliphate. (Sahih Muslim 1472)

The classical and dominant (mashhūr) Hanbali position likewise treats three pronouncements in one sitting as three; a minority view associated with some later jurists (including certain later Hanbalis such as Ibn Taymiyyah) held it as a single revocable divorce, but this was not the school's mainstream classical position. (Sahih Muslim 1472)

The 'iddah of a divorced woman who still menstruates lasts three complete menstrual periods (ḥayḍ); the waiting period ends when she begins her third menses after the divorce. This follows the Hanafi reading of the Quranic term qurūʾ as menstruation. (Quran 2:228)

The Shafi'is read the same Quranic term qurūʾ as referring to periods of purity (ṭuhr) between menses rather than menstruation itself; the 'iddah accordingly lasts three periods of purity, ending with the onset of the fourth menses after the divorce. (Quran 2:228)

As with the Shafi'is, the mashhūr Maliki position reads qurūʾ as periods of purity (ṭuhr); the 'iddah is completed with three such periods, counted from the divorce. (Quran 2:228)

As with the Hanafis, the dominant Hanbali position reads qurūʾ as menstruation (ḥayḍ); the 'iddah lasts three menstrual periods, ending with the start of the third menses after the divorce. (Quran 2:228)

Khulʿ is structured as a mutual transaction: the wife offers to return her mahr (or another agreed sum) in exchange for release, and it takes effect only once the husband accepts the offer. In the precedent case of Thabit ibn Qais's wife, the Prophet ﷺ asked her whether she would return the garden given as her mahr, and then directed Thabit to accept it and pronounce one divorce — the husband's acceptance is part of the transaction. Where a husband withholds consent without valid reason, a judge may separate the couple through a different mechanism (tafrīq), which is treated distinctly from khulʿ proper. (Sahih al-Bukhari 5273)

As with the Hanafis, khulʿ is a mutual contract requiring the husband's acceptance of the wife's offer to be released in exchange for compensation, based on the same precedent of the Prophet ﷺ directing Thabit ibn Qais to accept the return of the mahr before pronouncing divorce. (Sahih al-Bukhari 5273)

As with the Hanafis and Shafi'is, khulʿ requires the husband's acceptance to take effect, since it is treated as an exchange contract between the two parties rather than a unilateral right of the wife, following the same precedent. (Sahih al-Bukhari 5273)

As with the other schools, the Hanbalis treat khulʿ as requiring the husband's acceptance of the offered compensation, based on the same report. (Sahih al-Bukhari 5273)

Pronouncing divorce while the wife is menstruating is prohibited (ḥarām) and contrary to the sunnah, but the pronouncement still takes legal effect (yaqaʿu); the sin lies in the timing, not the count. This follows the report that when Ibn 'Umar (ra) divorced his wife during her menses, the Prophet ﷺ ordered him to take her back — a command to 'take back' presupposes that a divorce had, in fact, occurred. (Sahih Muslim 1471)

As with the Hanafis, a divorce pronounced during menstruation is sinful to perform but still takes effect, based on the same report of the Prophet's ﷺ command to Ibn 'Umar (ra) to take his wife back after divorcing her in that state. (Sahih Muslim 1471)

As with the Hanafis and Shafi'is, the mashhūr Maliki position holds that such a divorce takes effect despite being sinful to pronounce, following the same precedent. (Sahih Muslim 1471)

As with the other schools, the Hanbalis hold that a divorce pronounced during menstruation takes effect though it is sinful to perform, based on the same report. (Sahih Muslim 1471)

The Hanafis do not recognise khiyār al-majlis as an independent option tied to physical separation; a sale is binding as soon as offer and acceptance are concluded. They read the Prophet's ﷺ words 'the two parties to a sale have the option so long as they have not separated' as referring to separation in speech — i.e. concluding the verbal exchange of offer and acceptance — rather than physically parting company. (Sahih al-Bukhari 2107)

The Shafi'is affirm khiyār al-majlis in its literal sense: either party may cancel the sale for any reason so long as they remain physically together at the place of the contract, based on the same hadith read according to its apparent (ẓāhir) meaning of physical separation. (Sahih al-Bukhari 2107)

As with the Hanafis, the mashhūr Maliki position does not treat physical separation as generating an option to cancel; the contract is binding once the offer and acceptance are completed, reading the hadith's 'separation' as referring to the conclusion of the verbal contract. (Sahih al-Bukhari 2107)

As with the Shafi'is, the Hanbalis affirm khiyār al-majlis literally: either party may cancel the sale until they physically part from the contract session, based on the same hadith. (Sahih al-Bukhari 2107)

All four schools agree that ribā al-faḍl — an unequal exchange of the same ribawi commodity — is prohibited among the six goods named by the Prophet ﷺ: gold, silver, wheat, barley, dates, and salt, each to be exchanged like-for-like, equal-for-equal, hand-to-hand. The Hanafis identify the underlying cause (ʿillah) as being sold by weight or measure (kayl or wazn); ribā al-faḍl accordingly extends to any commodity customarily traded by weight or volume, not only the six named goods. (Sahih Muslim 1587)

The Shafi'is identify two separate causes: for gold and silver, it is their function as currency (thamaniyyah); for the four foodstuffs, it is simply being a foodstuff (ṭaʿām), regardless of whether it is sold by weight or measure — extending the ruling broadly across foods, based on the same hadith. (Sahih Muslim 1587)

As with the Shafi'is, the Malikis identify thamaniyyah as the cause for gold and silver, but for the four foodstuffs they narrow the cause to being a storable staple (qūt muddakhar) rather than food in general, giving a narrower extension than the Shafi'i position, based on the same hadith. (Sahih Muslim 1587)

As with the Hanafis, the dominant Hanbali riwāyah identifies weight or measure (kayl or wazn) as the underlying cause, extending ribā al-faḍl to goods customarily sold by weight or volume, based on the same hadith. (Sahih Muslim 1587)

The well-known Hanafi position discourages bayʿ al-ʿīnah between the same two parties directly, treating it as disliked (makrūh) because of the underlying intent to reach a loan with an added return; the same outcome can be reached lawfully if a third party is inserted into the transaction. This is grounded in the general warning that engaging in ʿīnah transactions, becoming absorbed in agriculture, and abandoning jihād brings disgrace upon a people until they return to their religion. (Sunan Abu Dawud 3462) (Within the school: Abu Hanifah himself held the direct two-party form invalid (fasid) where the resale occurs before the first price is paid; Abu Yusuf validated it — the makruh characterisation reflects the school's settled practice, not a single unanimous ruling.)

The Shafi'is hold that bayʿ al-ʿīnah is formally valid (ṣaḥīḥ) as a contract, since their school generally does not invalidate a sale on account of the parties' underlying intention so long as the outward conditions of a valid sale are met — though it remains discouraged. (Sunan Abu Dawud 3462)

The Malikis prohibit bayʿ al-ʿīnah, applying their principle of blocking the means (sadd al-dharāʾiʿ) to a transaction whose outward form is a sale but whose substance is a loan with an increase, based on the same warning against ʿīnah transactions. (Sunan Abu Dawud 3462)

As with the Malikis, the Hanbalis prohibit bayʿ al-ʿīnah on the same sadd al-dharāʾiʿ reasoning, citing the same report. (Sunan Abu Dawud 3462)

The Hanafis hold that a sane, adult (bāligha) woman's consent is required for her marriage regardless of whether she is a virgin or previously married; a father has no power to compel (ijbār) her into a marriage she does not agree to once she has reached puberty and sound judgement. This follows the Prophet's ﷺ statement that a virgin should not be married off until her consent is sought, her silence being taken as her permission. (Sahih al-Bukhari 6968)

The Shafi'is hold that a father (or, in his absence, the paternal grandfather) retains the right of ijbār — to contract his virgin daughter's marriage without seeking her consent, even if she is an adult — reading the same hadith's instruction to seek her consent as recommended (mustaḥabb) rather than a binding precondition when the wali mujbir exercises this right. (Sahih al-Bukhari 6968) The school's own jurists hedged this authority with conditions — the match must be suitable (kafāʾah) with a proper mahr, there must be no enmity between father and daughter, and no harm to her — and seeking her consent remains strongly recommended.

As with the Shafi'is, the Malikis recognise the father's right of ijbār over his virgin daughter, reading the same hadith as encouraging the guardian to consult her rather than requiring her agreement as a condition of validity. (Sahih al-Bukhari 6968) The school's own jurists hedged this authority with conditions — the match must be suitable (kafāʾah) with a proper mahr, there must be no enmity between father and daughter, and no harm to her — and seeking her consent remains strongly recommended.

As with the Shafi'is and Malikis, the Hanbalis affirm the father's right of ijbār over his virgin daughter's marriage, reading the same hadith in the same way. (Sahih al-Bukhari 6968) The school's own jurists hedged this authority with conditions — the match must be suitable (kafāʾah) with a proper mahr, there must be no enmity between father and daughter, and no harm to her — and seeking her consent remains strongly recommended.

Four takbīrs are recited in the funeral prayer; this is the position on which the four schools converged, following the Prophet's ﷺ own practice when he led the funeral prayer for the Negus, the Christian king of Abyssinia, saying four takbīrs over him. (Sahih al-Bukhari 3879)

As with the Hanafis, four takbīrs are recited, based on the report that the Prophet ﷺ prayed over the Negus with four takbīrs — the same number transmitted from the Companions who continued this practice after him. (Sahih Muslim 952)

The Malikis likewise hold that four takbīrs are recited in the funeral prayer, following the same well-attested report of the Prophet's ﷺ prayer over the Negus. (Sahih al-Bukhari 1334)

Agreeing with the other three schools, the Hanbalis recite four takbīrs, this being the number the Prophet ﷺ himself used and which later became the settled practice, even though a few Companions are reported to have used a different count on isolated occasions. (Sahih Muslim 952)

The funeral prayer is farḍ kifāyah, discharged once a sufficient number of Muslims perform it — but this obligation is tied to the presence of the body; a funeral prayer cannot generally be offered for someone whose body is absent. The Prophet's ﷺ prayer over the Negus, who died in Abyssinia, is treated as a khuṣūṣiyyah (a matter particular to him) rather than a general legislation, since it is reported his body was made visible to him. (Sahih al-Bukhari 1245)

The funeral prayer is farḍ kifāyah, and it may also be validly prayed in absentia for a Muslim who died elsewhere without a funeral prayer being performed for them, based directly on the Prophet's ﷺ practice of announcing the Negus's death and leading the Companions in prayer for him despite his body being far away in Abyssinia. (Sahih al-Bukhari 1245)

As with the Hanafis, the well-known Maliki position holds that the funeral prayer is farḍ kifāyah tied to the presence of the body, and does not generalise the Prophet's ﷺ prayer over the Negus into an ordinary rule for absent bodies, treating it instead as particular to that occasion. (Sahih al-Bukhari 1245)

Agreeing with the Shafi'is, the Hanbalis hold that the funeral prayer, being farḍ kifāyah, may be discharged in absentia for a Muslim who died without a funeral prayer having been offered over him, citing the same report of the Prophet's ﷺ prayer for the Negus as a general precedent. (Sahih al-Bukhari 1245)

Washing the deceased is farḍ kifāyah — obligatory upon the Muslim community as a whole, discharged once a sufficient number undertake it. The Prophet's ﷺ direct command to the women washing his own daughter, "Wash her three, five, or more times if you see fit," is treated by the jurists as establishing this as a binding communal duty rather than a mere recommendation. (Sahih al-Bukhari 1254)

As with the Hanafis, washing the deceased is farḍ kifāyah, based on the same imperative the Prophet ﷺ gave concerning the washing of his daughter. (Sahih al-Bukhari 1263)

The Malikis likewise hold that washing the deceased is farḍ kifāyah, resting on the same Prophetic command reported by Umm 'Atiyyah. (Sahih Muslim 939)

Agreeing with the other three schools, the Hanbalis hold washing the deceased to be farḍ kifāyah, citing the same report. (Sahih Muslim 939)

A single complete washing that covers the whole body suffices to fulfil the obligation; washing an odd number of times — three, five, or seven if needed for cleanliness — is mustaḥabb (recommended), following the Prophet's ﷺ instruction: "Wash her an odd number of times, three, five, or more than that as you see fit." (Sunan al-Tirmidhi 990)

As with the Hanafis, one complete wash discharges the obligation, while repeating it an odd number of times is recommended, based on the same instruction given at the washing of the Prophet's ﷺ daughter. (Sahih al-Bukhari 1254)

The Malikis likewise hold that a single thorough wash is sufficient for validity, with an odd number of washes — three being the most common — recommended, citing the same hadith of Umm 'Atiyyah. (Sahih Muslim 939)

Agreeing with the other three schools, the Hanbalis hold one complete wash to be sufficient, with washing three, five, or seven times (always an odd number) recommended according to need, following the same hadith. (Sahih Muslim 939)

Only fish (samak) from the sea is ḥalāl without a separate act of slaughter; other sea creatures such as shrimp, crab, oyster, and lobster are not permitted, since the well-known Hanafi position restricts the two forms of dead meat made lawful without dhabḥ to fish and locusts, based on the report: "Two kinds of dead meat have been made lawful for us: fish and locusts." (Sunan Ibn Majah 3218)

All creatures that live only in the sea are ḥalāl, including shellfish, shrimp, crab, oyster, and lobster, without any need for a separate slaughter, based on the general ruling: "[The sea's] water is a means of purification, and its dead meat is permissible." (Sunan Abu Dawud 83)

As with the Shafi'is, all sea creatures are ḥalāl for the Malikis, including shellfish and crustaceans, resting on the same general principle that whatever lives only in the sea is lawful, whether caught alive or found dead. (Sunan al-Tirmidhi 69)

Agreeing with the Shafi'is and Malikis, the Hanbalis hold that all sea creatures, including shellfish and crustaceans, are ḥalāl without need of slaughter, citing the same general ruling about the sea's water and its dead. (Sunan al-Nasa'i 59)

Game caught by a trained hunting animal (dog, falcon, or similar) is ḥalāl without a separate slaughter, provided Allah's name was mentioned when releasing it — but if the animal is found to have eaten from the kill, the game becomes unlawful, since this shows it hunted for itself rather than for its owner: "But if the hound eats of it, then you should not eat thereof, for the hound has caught it for itself." (Sahih al-Bukhari 5484)

As with the Hanafis, game killed by a trained hunting animal is ḥalāl without slaughter when Allah's name is mentioned on release, and it becomes unlawful if the animal ate from it before the hunter reached it, based on the same report. (Sahih al-Bukhari 5483)

The mashhūr Maliki position differs here: the game caught by a trained hunting animal remains ḥalāl even if the animal ate from it before the hunter arrived, since the school does not treat the animal's eating as nullifying the training or the tasmiyah already made when it was released, resting on the general permission for game caught by taught hunting animals. (Quran 5:4)

Agreeing with the Hanafis and Shafi'is, the Hanbalis hold that game becomes unlawful if the trained hunting animal ate from it before the hunter caught up to it, citing the same report. (Sahih Muslim 1929)

The meat of an animal properly slaughtered by a genuine Jew or Christian is ḥalāl for a Muslim to eat, based on Allah's explicit ruling: "The food of those who were given the Scripture is lawful for you." (Quran 5:5)

As with the Hanafis, the Shafi'is hold that the slaughtered meat of a genuine Jew or Christian is ḥalāl for Muslims, based on the same verse. (Quran 5:5)

The Malikis likewise hold that meat slaughtered by a genuine Jew or Christian is ḥalāl, citing the same explicit Quranic ruling. (Quran 5:5)

Agreeing with the other three schools, the Hanbalis hold the slaughtered meat of a genuine Jew or Christian to be ḥalāl for Muslims, based on the same verse. (Quran 5:5)

Produce watered by rain, rivers, or natural springs without cost is subject to a 10% ushr; produce watered by artificial means (wells, machinery, or animal-drawn irrigation) is subject to only 5%, based on the Prophet's ﷺ ruling: "For that which is watered by the sky, rivers and springs, one-tenth; for whatever is irrigated by animals, one-half of one-tenth." (Sunan al-Nasa'i 2489)

As with the Hanafis, the Shafi'is apply the same 10%/5% split according to whether the produce was watered without cost or by artificial irrigation, based on the same report. (Sahih al-Bukhari 1483)

The Malikis likewise apply ushr at 10% for rain-fed or naturally watered produce and 5% for produce watered by artificial means, citing the same ruling as transmitted through their own chain. (Muwatta Malik 608)

Agreeing with the other three schools, the Hanbalis apply the same 10%/5% split, based on the same report. (Sunan Abu Dawud 1596)

Ushr is due on every amount of produce the land yields, however small, with no minimum niṣāb, since the general Quranic command to give the produce's due on the day of harvest is not qualified by any minimum quantity: "...and give its due on the day of its harvest." (Quran 6:141)

Ushr is due only once the harvested produce reaches a niṣāb of five awsuq (roughly 653 kg of the dry staple); anything less than this is exempt, based on: "No sadaqah is due on less than five awsuq." (Sahih Muslim 979)

As with the Shafi'is, the Malikis require the produce to reach the niṣāb of five awsuq before ushr becomes due, citing the same report. (Sahih al-Bukhari 1459)

Agreeing with the Shafi'is and Malikis, the Hanbalis also require a niṣāb of five awsuq before ushr is owed on produce. (Sahih al-Bukhari 1484)

Zakat al-Fitr may be paid in cash equal to the value of the specified staple (roughly one ṣāʿ of the local food, or half a ṣāʿ of wheat), since the underlying purpose is to relieve the poor's need on the day of Eid, which cash achieves as well as, or better than, the food itself; the amounts named in the hadith are read as fixing the value rather than requiring that exact substance. (Sahih al-Bukhari 1503)

Zakat al-Fitr must be paid in kind — from food items such as dates, barley, raisins, or the local staple — and cash is not accepted in its place, based on the Prophet's ﷺ specification of a ṣāʿ of dates or a ṣāʿ of barley. (Sahih al-Bukhari 1506)

As with the Shafi'is, the Malikis require Zakat al-Fitr to be given in the form of food, not its cash value, based on the same specification. (Sahih Muslim 984)

Agreeing with the Shafi'is and Malikis, the Hanbalis hold that Zakat al-Fitr must be paid as food, and its cash equivalent does not suffice. (Sahih Muslim 984)

Being in a state of wuḍūʾ for ṭawāf is wājib (obligatory) but not a shart (condition) for its validity; a ṭawāf performed without wuḍūʾ is technically valid though sinful, and a dam (expiatory sacrifice) is owed to make up for the shortfall. The Quran's command to perform ṭawāf carries no explicit condition of purity attached to it. (Quran 22:29)

Wuḍūʾ is a shart (condition) for the validity of ṭawāf, exactly as it is for prayer; a ṭawāf performed without it must be repeated, based on the Prophet's ﷺ statement: "Ṭawāf around the House is similar to ṣalāh, except that you may talk during it." (Sunan al-Tirmidhi 960)

As with the Shafi'is, the Malikis hold wuḍūʾ to be a condition for the validity of ṭawāf, likening it to prayer on the same basis. (Sunan al-Tirmidhi 960)

Agreeing with the Shafi'is and Malikis, the Hanbalis hold that wuḍūʾ is a condition for ṭawāf's validity, citing the same report equating ṭawāf with prayer. (Sunan al-Tirmidhi 960)

Either shaving the head completely (ḥalq) or merely trimming it (taqṣīr) is sufficient to exit iḥrām, though shaving is more virtuous; this obligation is wājib rather than a rukn (integral pillar), so if it is omitted a dam suffices to make up for it. The Prophet's ﷺ own supplication favoured those who shaved, asking forgiveness for them three times before finally including those who merely trimmed. (Sahih al-Bukhari 1728)

As with the Hanafis, both shaving and trimming are valid ways of exiting iḥrām, with shaving being preferred, based on the same report of the Prophet's ﷺ repeated supplication; the well-known Shafi'i position, however, counts ḥalq/taqṣīr among the arkān (integral pillars) of Ḥajj and ʿUmrah rather than merely a wājib, so iḥrām is not considered fully lifted until it is performed. (Sahih al-Bukhari 1728)

The Malikis likewise hold that trimming suffices while shaving is preferred, treating it as wājib rather than a rukn, based on the same report. (Sahih al-Bukhari 1728)

Agreeing with the Hanafis and Malikis, the Hanbalis hold ḥalq/taqṣīr to be wājib rather than a rukn, with either sufficing and shaving preferred, citing the same supplication of the Prophet ﷺ. (Sahih al-Bukhari 1728)