8 or 20 Rakahs for Taraaweeh – Qaul as-Saheeh Fee Masalatut Taraaweeh

qaul cover

DOWNLOAD PDF >>> Qaul as-Saheeh Fee Masalatut Taraaweeh

 

Alhamdullilahi Rabbil A’lamin, Wasalatu Wasalam Ala Rasoolillahil Karim,

Wa, Ba’d

Qaul as-Saheeh Fee Masalatut Taraaweeh

by

Abu Hibban & Abu Khuzaimah Ansaari

Contents Page

Introduction

Evidences Utilized By The Hanafee’s For Claiming Taraaweeh is 20 Raka’hs

The Claim

THE FIRST EVIDENCE – The Narration of Ibn Abbaas and Its Answer

The Statement of Allaamah al-Imaam Muhammad Abdur-Rahmaan Mubaarakpooree

The Details Concerning Ibraaheem bin Uthmaan

The Words ‘Sakatu Anhu’ (I) Remain Silent About him) of Ameer al-Mu’mineen Fil Hadeeth Muhammad bin Ismaa’eel al-Bukhaari.

The Statement of Imaam Muhammad bin Ismaa’eel al-Ameer as-Sana’anee.

The Statement of Imaam Muhaddith al-Albaanee From Irwaa ul-Ghaleel.

The Statement of Imaam Muhaddith al-Albaanee From Salaatul-Taraaweeh

The Statement of Shaikh Safee ur-Rehmaan Mubaarakpooree.

 

The Hanafee Scholars on Ibraaheem bin Uthmaan

Imaam Zailaa’ee Hanafee

Shaikh Ibn Humaam

Shaikh Ainee Hanafee

Shaikh Abdul-Hayy Lucknowee

Shaikh Anwar Shah Kashmiri Hanafee Deobandee

Maulana Muhammad Zakariyyah Khandhelwi Hanafee Tableeghee

Maulana Habeeb ur-Rehmaan A’adhamee Deobandee Hanafee

 

THE SECOND EVIDENCE – The Narrations of Umar and Their Answers

(1) The First Narration- Of Yazeed bin Rumaan and Its Answer

 

(2) The Second Narration – Of Saa’ib bin Yazeed

The Text, The Chain, The Answer.

Firstly: – Abu Abdullaah al-Hussain ibn Muhammad ibn al-Hussain Finjuwayah al-Dinawaree,

Secondly: – Alee ibn al-Ja’ad

Another Narration – Ibn Abee Dhubaab

 

(3) The Third Narration – Of Yahyaa bin Sa’eed and Its Answer

 

THE THIRD EVIDENCE – The Narrations of Alee

(1) The First Narration and Its Answer.

Concerning Hammaad bin Shu’ayb

The Words ‘FeeHee Nazar’ (Look Into His Hadeeth) of Ameer al-Mu’mineen Fil-Hadeeth Muhammad bin Ismaa’eel al-Bukhaari.

The Words ‘Munkar al-Hadeeth’ (His Ahadeeth are Rejected) of Ameer al-Mu’mineen Fil-Hadeeth Muhammad bin Ismaa’eel al-Bukhaari.

Concerning A’taa bin Saa’ib

 

(2) The Second Narration and Its Answer

 What Is A Mu’adhal Narration and The Ruling Upon it.

 

THE FOURTH EVIDENCE–The Narrations of Ubayy bin Ka’ab and there Answers

(1) The First Narration and Its Answer

(2) The Second Narration and Its Answer

 

THE FIFTH EVIDENCE – The Narration of Abdullaah ibn Mas’ood and it Answer

Hanafee Objection On The Acceptance of Mursal Narrations.

The Answer Of Imaam Muhaddith al-Albaanee

The Statement of Other Scholars from the Scholars of Hadeeth and Jurists

Shaikh Habeeb ur-Rehmaan al-A’adhamee Hanafee Deobandee and His Distortion Of the Words of al-Imaam ash-Shaafi’ee, Who Was One of the Lamps of This Ummah.

 

The Sunnah of Taraaweeh is 8 Raka’hs and the Evidences for This.

The Recommended Method For Taraaweeh is 8+3 with Witr.

 

THE FIRST EVIDENCE – The Hadeeth of A’aishah

The Hanafee Objection.

Ten Answers to This Objection.

 

THE SECOND EVIDENCE – The Hadeeth Of Umar – From Imaam Maalik from Saa’ib bin Yazeed

Note- The Claim of Idhtiraab and Its Answer

Further Elucidation The Hadeeth is not Mudhtarib And The lack of Understanding of the Hanafee’s And Its Answer

 

THE THIRD EVIDENCE – The First Hadeeth of Jaabir al-Ansaari

The Second Hadeeth of Jaabir – Of Ubayy ibn Ka’ab

The Objections (Hanafee)

 

The First Hanafee Objection.

The Answer To the First Objection.

 

The Second Objection.

The Answer To the Second Objection.

 

The Third Objection

The Answer To the Third Objection.

The Criticism’s of Imaams Nasaa’ee and Uqailee are not Accepted According To the Principles of the Hanafee Deobandee’s.

 

The Hanafee Scholars On the Hadeeth of Jaabir

Haafidh Zailaa’ee

Shaikh Ibn Humaam

Shaikh Mulla Alee Qaaree

Shaikh Anwar Shah Kashmiree

 

The Position of Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah

The False Claim of there Being Consensus on 20 Raka’hs

The Criterion of the Hanafee’s – The Practice in Makkah and Madeenah

The Understanding of the Earlier Hanafee Scholars

The Position of the Other Scholars.

 

Introduction

We present the introduction in the words of the Shaikh, the Imaam al-Allaamah Muhammad Ismaa’eel (d.1246H) the author of Taqwiyyatul-Eemaan. The hanafees claim he was a hanafee so we have mentioned some of his statements in rebuking of them and at the same time elucidating the problem why the muqallideen especially the hanafee’s have so much rigid bigotry and partisanship and the problems associated with it. he says,

“Chapter Exaggeration in Taqleed and Ta’assub (bigotry). People have exaggerated a lot in the taqleed of one particular individual and have made rigid bigotry obligatory upon themselves to the extent that they have prohibited an individual from performing ijtihaad and from doing taqleed of other Imaams. And this is that non-curable illness which destroyed the shee’ahs and these people (ie the muqallideen) have also reached the realms of destruction but the only difference is that the shee’ahs have reached a greater level of destruction. They (the shee’ahs) started to find texts to back up the statements of their Imaams and these people (ie the muqallideen) have also adopted this way and begun to figurative explain well known narrations that opposed the statements of their Imaams. However they should have weighed and presented the statements of their Imaams to these narrations and texts and if they (the statements) coincided with the text they should have accepted them or otherwise rejected them.” (Tanweer ul-Aynain Fee Ithbaat Raful-Yadain (pg.44-45)

He further said, “And I am amazed when I see a person has the ability to return to a clear and conclusive hadeeth of the Messenger of Allaah (Saalalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam) which opposes the statement of his Imaam and yet they still hold doing taqleed permissible and I wonder how is this permissible. So if he does not leave the statement of his Imaam in such a situation then he has with him Shirk Fir-Risaalah (Association partners in the Messengership of the Prophet.).” then the Shaikh goes onto mention the hadeeth of Adiyy bin Haatim in Jaami at-Tirmidhee in regards to the verse of Allaah, “They have taken their monks and rabbis Lords besides Allaah.” (Soorah at-Taubah).

He goes onto say further, “So we find from this hadeeth that if a person comes to know the evidences from the Book and the Sunnah and he still adheres to the statement of a specific Imaam and begins to figurative explain these evidences, then such a person has traits of Christianity in him and there is the danger that he may have taken some aspects of Shirk in him. And there is extreme amazement on such a nation, who instead of fearing such taqleed they declare those who abandon this taqleed to be great oppressors. Then how well does the following verse fit such people, “How shall I fear those whom you associate and yet you do not fear that you have associated partners with Allaah for which Allaah has not revealed any evidence, so which of the two are upon the truth, if only but you knew.” So think and be just and do not be from those people who have doubts and we seek refuge in Allaah from being amongst those who have bigotry. (Tanweer ul-Aynain Fee Ithbaat Raful-Yadain (pg.49-51).

Shaikh Abdul Hayy Lucknowee Hanafee said, “A group of the Hanafee’s are engrossed in extreme partisanship and bigotry adhering strongly to the books of fataawa (verdicts) and when these people come across an authentic hadeeth or a clear athar which is contrary to their madhab then they say, “If this hadeeth was authentic then the Imaam would have definitely issued verdicts according to it and not contrary to this, then it is the ignorance of these people.” (al-Naaf’e al-Kabeer (pg.145)

Throughout their books the hanafee’s use ahadeeth from the Musannaf of Imaam Abee Shaybah when they feel obliged to do so but look at some of bigotry of these people against this very same book of Musannaf.

So Asbaq bin Khaleel said, “It is more beloved to me that a head of a Pig is put in my books then I have (to read) Musannaf Ibn Abee Shaybah.” (refer to Siyar A’lam an-Nabula (13/288.290), Leesaan ul-Meezaan (1/458), Nafh at-Tayyib (3/273), Tarteeb al-Madarak (3/143-144), Tadhkirratul-Huffaadh (2/630)

Similarly Imaam Shaatibee said from the fourth harm of taqleed is that the muqallid holds the statement and opinion of his Imaam to be the Sharee’ah and he does not even consider listening to the opinion of another mujtahid but rather he hurls abuse, disparaging statements and criticisms at the other.” (al-Ei’tisaam (2/348).

And lastly Shaikh Anwar Shah Kashmiree Hanafee Deobandee mentioned a statement which puts the hanafee’s and the other muqallideen and their traits in pure perspective, he says, “I have witnessed these people and they formulate defective and erroneous principles, so what else can be wished for after this. So when one of them finds a weak hadeeth according to his madhab he formulates the rule or principle that due to numerous routes (of this weak hadeeth) the blame of weakness is lifted or removed. Similarly when they find an authentic hadeeth contradicting their madhab they immediately formulate the rule and principle that the hadeeth is Shaadh (ie weak due to opposing something more authentic that it.” (Faidh al-Baaree (2/348)

So this is the first treatise in regards to this issue of Taraaweeh, Inshallaah there is another treatise that is to be released shortly also which is a research paper on how the hanafee deobandee’s changed and altered a hadeeth in Sunan Abee Dawood, attempting to deceptively prove taraaweeh to be 20 raka’hs. May Allaah save us from altering the words of Allaah and his Messenger.

 

Evidences Utilized By The Hanafee’s For Claiming Taraaweeh is 20 Raka’h’s

Our Claim

The Imaam the Muhaddith, al-Allaamah Abu Muhammad Badee ud deen Sindhee said, “The Ahlul-Hadeeth claim it is not authentically established from any companion that they prayed 20 raka’hs of taraaweeh and the narrations that are mentioned in this regard are all principally weak.” (Tanqeed as-Sadeed Bir-Risaalah Ijtihaad Wat-Taqleed (pg.264).

The First Evidence – The Narration of Ibn Abbaas

Ibn Abbaas (Radhiallaahu Anhuma) said, “The Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam) would pray 20 raka’h (taraaweeh) and Witr in Ramadhaan.” (Musannaf Ibn Abee Shaybah (2/393). Baihaqee also references it in Sunan al-Kubraa (2/496), Khateeb Baghdaadee in Taareekh Baghdaad (6/113), (2/45) and others.

The wording mentioned by Imaam Baihaqee is as follows, “The Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam) would pray 20 raka’h (taraaweeh) and Witr without the jama’ah”

The Answer

First and foremost, when this hadeeth mentions, “…without the jama’ah” it does not constitute evidence for hanafee’s as they claim the Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam) prayed 20 raka’hs in jama’ah. So this cannot be utilized by the hanafee’s in deducing Taraaweeh is 20 raka’hs.

The chain of this narration is as follows, Ibraaheem bin Uthmaan from Hakam from Miqsam from Ibn Abbaas.

The Statement of Allaamah al-Imaam Muhammad Abdur-Rahmaan Mubaarakpooree

Imaam Allaamah Abdur-Rahmaan Mubaarakpooree said, “This hadeeth is very weak and the deduction is incorrect and deducing from this hadeeth is not correct. Haafidh Zailaa’ee said in Nasb ur-Raayah, “It is defective due to Abee Shaybah Ibraaheem bin Uthmaan, the grandfather of al-Imaam Abee Bakr ibn Abee Shaybah, and they are agreed upon him being weak. Ibn Adiyy said he was weak in al-Kaamil, then it also opposes the authentic hadeeth from Abee Salamah bin Abdur-Rahmaan when questioned A’aishah (Radhiallaahu Anha), “What was the prayer of the Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam) in Ramadhaan?” She replied, “Whether Ramadhaan or other than Ramadhaan he would not exceed 11 raka’hs.” (al-Hadeeth) End of the words of Zailaa’ee.

Nimawee said in Ta’leeq Aathaar as-Sunan, “Transmitted by Abd bin Humaid al-Kashee in his Musnad and Baghawee in his Mu’ajam, Tabaraanee in Mu’ajam al-Kabeer and Baihaqee in his Sunan, all of them via the route of Abee Shaybah Ibraaheem bin Uthmaan, the grandfather of Imaam Abee Bakr ibn Abee Shaybah, and he is weak. Baihaqee said after transmitting it said “Abu Shaybah Ibraaheem bin Uthmaan al-Absee al-Koofee is alone in reporting it and he is weak.” End

Mizzee said in Tahdheeb ul-Kamaal, “Ahmad, Yahyaa and Abu Dawood said he is weak, Yahyaa also said he is not trustworthy, Nasaa’ee and Daulaabee said Matrook al-Hadeeth (rejected in hadeeth), Abu Haatim said weak in hadeeth and Sakatu Anhu (remained silent on him) he said also Saaleh (Good), weak and do not write his hadeeth. Thereafter al-Mizzee said from his rejected narrations are, his narration that the Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam) prayed 20 raka’h in Ramadhaan.” End (See Tahdheeb al-Kamaal (2/147-151) for this)

This is also what is mentioned in Meezaan (ul-Ei’tidaal). Haafidh (Ibn Hajr) said in Taqreeb, “Matrook al-Hadeeth.” End of the words of Nimawee. Shaikh Ibn Humaam said in Fath ul-Qadeer after mentioning this hadeeth, “Weak due to Abee Shaybah Ibraaheem bin Uthmaan the grandfather of Imaam Abee Bakr ibn Abee Shaybah, they are agreed upon his weakness and he also opposes the authentic hadeeth.” End of his words.

Ainee said in Umdatul-Qaaree after mentioning this hadeeth said, “And Abu Shaybah and he is Ibraaheem bin Uthmaan al-Absee al-Koofee the Qaadhee of Waasit and the grandfather of Abee Bakr ibn Abee Shaybah. Shu’bah said he was a liar and Ahmad, Ibn Ma’een, Bukhaari and Nasaa’ee and others said he was weak. Ibn Adiyy mentioned this hadeeth to be from (ie Ibraaheem’s) his rejected hadeeth in al-Kaamil.” End of his words. (Tuhfatul-Ahwadhee Sharh Jaam’e at-Tirmidhee (3/445-446).

The Details Concerning Ibraaheem bin Uthmaan

Then he is Abu Shaybah Ibraaheem bin Uthmaan al-Absee al-Koofee.

Imaam Baihaqee after mentioning this narration directly after it says, “Abu Shaybah Ibraaheem bin Uthmaan is alone in reporting it and he is weak.” (Sunan al-Kubraa (2/496), (Nayl al-Awthaar (3/58) of Imaam Shawkaanee.

Imaam Uthmaan ad-Daarimee mentions from Imaam Ibn Ma’een who said, “He is not trustworthy.” (Meezaan ul-Ei’tidaal (1/170 no.145), Tahdheeb ut-Tahdheeb (1/130), al-Jarh Wat-Ta’deel (2/115 no.347), Kitaab adh-Dhu’afaa Wal-Matrookeen (1/41 no.86)

Imaam’s Ahmad, Yahyaa, Abu Dawood and Abu Zur’ah said, “Weak.” (Meezaan ul-Ei’tidaal (1/170), Tahdheeb ut-Tahdheeb (1/130 no.229), al-Jarh Wat-Ta’deel (2/115), Kitaab adh-Dhu’afaa Wal-Matrookeen (1/41), Kitaab al-Majrooheen Minal Muhadditheen (1/100 no.14) of Imaam Ibn Hibbaan

Imaam Bukhaari remained silent concerning him. (Meezaan ul-Ei’tidaal (1/170), Tahdheeb ut-Tahdheeb (1/130), Dhu’afaa as-Sagheer (no.5 pg.1), Taareekh as-Sagheer (pg.190) and Taareekh al-Kabeer (1/310 no.982) of Imaam Bukhaari.

Imaam Tirmidhee said, “Munkar al-Hadeeth.” (Tahdheeb ut-Tahdheeb (1/130)

Imaam Nasaa’ee and Daulaabee said, “Matrook al-Hadeeth.” (he would narrate rejected ahadeeth) (Meezaan ul-Ei’tidaal (1/170), Tahdheeb ut-Tahdheeb (1/130), Kitaab adh-Dhu’afaa Wal-Matrookeen (1/41), Kitaab adh-Dhu’afaa Wal-Matrookeen (no.11 pg.1) of Imaam Nasaa’ee

Imaam Abu Haatim said, “Weak in Hadeeth, remained silent and rejected his hadeeth.” (al-Jarh Wat-Ta’deel (2/115), Tahdheeb ut-Tahdheeb (1/130), Kitaab adh-Dhu’afaa Wal-Matrookeen (1/41).

Juzjaanee said, “Dropped.” Saaleh Jazrah said, “Weak, do not write his hadeeth. He narrates abandoned ahadeeth from Hakam.” Abu Alee Neesaabooree said, “He is not strong.” (Tahdheeb ut-Tahdheeb (1/130)

Imaam Shu’bah said he was a liar. (Meezaan ul-Ei’tidaal (1/170), (Tahdheeb ut-Tahdheeb (1/130)

Haafidh Ibn Hajr said, “I say, Ibn Sa’ad said, “He is weak in hadeeth.” Daarqutnee said, “Weak.” Ibn al-Mubaarak said, “Throw him away.” Abu Taalib said, “From Ahmad who said he was Munkar al-Hadeeth, similar to al-Hasan bin A’amaarah.” Ibn Adiyy mentioned about Abee Shaybah, “He did not hear from al-Hakam except one hadeeth.” (Tahdheeb ut-Tahdheeb (1/131), al-Jarh Wat-Ta’deel (2/115 no.347), Kitaab adh-Dhu’afaa Wal-Matrookeen (1/41 no.86) of Ibn al-Jawzee.

Haafidh Ibn Hajr also said in Taqreeb, “Matrook al-Hadeeth.” (Taqreeb ut-Tahdheeb (no.217 pg.112)

Imaam Dhahabee after bringing the statement of the Imaams of Hadeeth says, “From the abandoned (Manaakeer) narrations of Abee Shaybah (Ibraaheem bin Uthmaan) is what is narrated by al-Baghawee from Mansoor bin Abee Mazaahim from Abu Shaybah from al-Hakam from Miqsam from Ibn Abbaas, “The Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam) would pray 20 raka’h (taraaweeh) and Witr in the month of Ramadhaan without a jama’ah.” (Meezaan ul-Ei’tidaal Fee Naqd ar-Rijaal (1/169-170 no.145).

Imaam Dhahabee also said, “They are agreed upon him being weak.” (Deewaan adh-Dhu’afaa Wal-Matrookeen (1/52 no.211) of Imaam Dhahabee.

Haafidh al-Haithamee said, “In it (this narration) is Abu Shaybah Ibraaheem and he is weak.” (Majma’a az-Zawaa’id (3/172).

See also al-Mughnee Fidh-Dhu’afaa (1/20), adh-Dhu’afaa (1/59-60), al-Kaamil (1/239-241), adh-Dhu’afaa Wal-Matrookeen (no.7) of Imaam Daarqutnee, Taareekh Baghdaad (6/113), Ibn Sa’ad (6/384).

Imaam Suyootee severely criticized the narrator of this hadeeth and said, “This hadeeth is VERY weak and it cannot be used as proof.” (al-Haawee Lil-Fataawa (1/347), al-Masaabeeh (p.3)

The Words ‘Sakatu Anhu’ (I) Remain Silent About him) of Ameer al-Mu’mineen Fil-Hadeeth Muhammad bin Ismaa’eel al-Bukhaari.

lbn Katheer explains: “If aI-Bukhaari says about a man ‘(I) remain silent about him’ or ‘Look into his hadeeth’ then he is in the lowest and worst of the levels with him.” (Ikhtisaar Uloom al-Hadeeth (p.73) and al-Baa’ith al-Hatheeth (1/320).

The above also has been mentioned by many scholars of hadeeth including Haafdih Sakahwee, Haafidh al-A’raaqee, Imaam Suyootee etc. See the discussion on FeeHee Nazar of the words of Imaam Bukhaari and his meaning in using them. Refer to the general books of mastalah al-Hadeeth and also to the work of the hanafee deobandee Zafar Ahmad Thanawee Uthmaanee’s Qawaa’id Uloom al-Hadeeth (pg.254-258), he also says these two statements ie FeeHee Nazar and Sakatu Anhu are from the (most highest grades) first or second grade’s of criticism (pg.258)

Imaam Dhahabee said, “The statement of Imaam al-Bukhaari “(I) remain silent on him” on its apparent is neither praise or criticism but we know his usage is that his hadeeth are to be abandoned.” (al-Muqaddimah al-Muwwaqizah Fee Ilmal-Mastalah al-Hadeeth (pg.320) of Imaam Dhahabee Ma’a Sharh Kifaayatul-Hifzah of Shaikh Saleem al-Hilaalee as-Salafee.

The Statement of Imaam Muhammad bin Ismaa’eel al-Ameer as-Sana’anee.

The Shaikh said, “As for the narration concerning 20 raka’hs then it is not Marfoo except that which has been narrated by Abd bin Humaid and Tabaraanee via Abu Shaybah Ibraaheem bin Uthmaan from Hakam from Maqsam from Ibn Abbaas that the Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam) prayed 20 raka’hs of Taraaweeh and witr.

The author of Subl a-Rashaad said Ahmad, Ibn Ma’een, Imaam Bukhaari, Imaam Muslim, Abu Dawood, Tirmidhee and Nasaa’ee all opined this individual (Abu Shaybah Ibraaheem bin Uthmaan) was weak and Shu’bah said he was a liar and Ibn Ma’een said he is not trustworthy and counted this hadeeth to be from the rejected narrations he narrated.

Azraa’ee said in al-Mutwasat that which is narrated from the Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam) that in the two nights that he led the prayer was in 20 raka’hs is rejected. Zarkashee said in al-Khaadim the claim that the Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam) led the people in 20 raka’hs is not correct and that which is established from the authentic narrations is that no number of raka’hs are specified.

The narration in Jaabir mentions the Messenger of Allaah led the people in 8 raka’hs and Witr and then we waited for him the next day but he did not come.” Transmitted by Ibn Hibbaan and Ibn Khuzaimah in their Saheehs.

Transmitted Baihaqee the narration of Ibn Abbaas by the way of Abee Shaybah and then said it is weak and then narrates other narrations…. But none of them are Marfoo (raised) and we are to mention the narration of A’aishah which is agreed upon that the Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam) did not exceed 11 raka’hs and witr in the month of Ramadhaan or in any other than it……” End of his Words. (Subl as-Salaam Sharh Buloogh al-Maraam (3/27-29)

 

The Statement of Imaam Muhaddith al-Albaanee From Irwaa ul-Ghaleel

The Muhaddith mentions in his book, “Imaam Tabaraanee said, “This is not narrated from Ibn Abbaas except with this chain.” Baihaqee said, “When Abu Shaybah is alone in reporting, then he is weak.”

I say, “Haithamee has mentioned in al-Majma’a (3/172) and this Abaa Shaybah is weak.” Haafidh said in al-Fath, “The chain is weak.” Al-Haafidh Zailaa’ee also said it is weak in Nasb ur-Raayah (2/153) before (discussing the) chain and he rejected it due to its text, he said, “And it opposes the authentic hadeeth from A’aishah when she said the Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam) would not exceed 11 raka’hs in the month of Ramadhaan or other than it, transmitted by the Shaikhain.”

Similarly Haafidh Ibn Hajr increased upon this and said, “A’aishah was more knowledge about the affairs of the Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam) in the night.” Haafidh Dhahabee also mentions in Meezaan this narration to be from the abandoned narrations of Abee Shaybah. The Faqeeh Ahmad bin Hajr said in al-Fataawa al-Kubraa this hadeeth has severe weakness.

I hold the opinion it is Mawdoo (fabricated) due to 3 affairs, which I have mentioned in Ahadeeth ad-Da’eefah Wal-Mawdoo’ah (no.546) so refer to it whoever wishes to.” (Irwaa al-Ghaleel Fee Takhreej Ahadeeth Manaar as-Sabeel (2/191-192 no.445)

The Statement of Imaam Muhaddith al-Albaanee From Salaatul-Taraweeh

Allaamah al-Albaanee established the following chapter heading, “The Hadeeth for 20 Raka’hs Is Very Weak and Not Permissible To Act Upon.” and said, “and Said (Haafidh Ibn Hajr) in al-Fath (4/205-206) under the explanation of the first hadeeth, “And that which has been narrated by Ibn Abee Shaybah from the hadeeth of Ibn Abbaas in which the Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam) prayed 20 raka’hs and witr in Ramadhaan, then the chain of this hadeeth is weak and it contradicts the hadeeth of A’aishah (Radhiallaahu Anha) which is narrated in the Saheehain, and she was more knowledgeable about the Prophets (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam) affairs in the night.” Haafidh Zailaa’ee preceded him in this meaning in Nasb ur-Raayah (2/153).

I say: This hadeeth of Ibn Abbaas is extremely weak as Suyootee said in al-Haawee lil-Fataawa (2/73) and the defect in this is Abaa Shaybah Ibraaheem ibn Uthmaan. Haafidh Ibn said in Taqreeb, Matrook al-Hadeeth. This hadeeth has not been narrated by any other narrator in any other route except this one, and he Ibraaheem is in all of them.

Tabaraanee said, “This has not been narrated from Ibn Abbaas except with this chain.” Baihaqee said, “This is the single report of Abu Shaybah and he is weak.” Similarly Haithamee said he was weak in al-Majma’a (3/172). The reality is that he is very weak as mentioned by the statement of Haafidh Ibn Hajr who said he was abandoned in hadeeth, and this is what is correct. Ibn Ma’een said he is not trustworthy, Juzjaanee said, “dropped.” Shu’bah said he was a liar. Bukhaari remained silent on him.

So Haafidh Ibn Katheer mentioned in Ikhtisaar Uloom al-Hadeeth (pg.118), “When al-Bukhaari says about a man ‘They remain silent about him’ then he is in the lowest and in the worst of the levels with him.”

Hence in this regard I have opined and ruled this hadeeth is Mawdoo (fabricated) as it contradicts the hadeeth of A’aishah and Jaabir as mentioned before from words of the two Haafidh’s ie Zailaa’ee and Asqalaanee and Haafidh Dhahabee has mentioned this (hadeeth) to be from the rejected narrations.

The Jurist Ibn Hajr al-Haithamee said in al-Fataawa al-Kubraa (1/195) after mentioning this hadeeth, “It has an extreme weakness. The scholars of hadeeth whilst criticizing him said his narrations are criticized and from them is the abandoned narration which he narrated, “All the nations were destroyed in such a month and Qiyaamah will also occur in this month of such and such” as-Subkee said, “The condition for acting upon a weak hadeeth is that its weakness is not severe.” Dhahabee said, “The narrator which Shu’bah says is a liar then one should not even differ with him”

I say: So the mentioning of Subkee’s statement by Haithamee indicates he did not hold the opinion to act upon 20 raka’hs.” (Salaatul-Taraaweeh (ps.19-20).

The Statement of Shaikh Safee ur-Rehmaan Mubaarakpooree.

The Shaikh said, “There is not a single authentic hadeeth for praying 20 raka’h Taraaweeh. The narration which Abd bin Humaid and Tabaraanee have narrated via Abu Shaybah Ibraaheem bin Uthmaan from Hakam from Miqsam from Ibn Abbaas that the Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam) prayed 20 raka’hs of Taraaweeh, is extremely weak because Imaam Ahmad, Ibn Ma’een, Imaam Bukhaari, Imaam Muslim, Abu Dawood, Tirmidhee and Nasaa’ee all opined this individual was weak and Shu’bah said he was a liar.

On the contrary there are authentic and raised (Marfoo) ahadeeth that mention that the Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam) prayed 8 raka’h for taraaweehs. That is why the Sunnah is 8 raka’h Taraaweeh.

Allaamah Ibn Humaam also said this, he said in the explanation of Hidaayah, Fath ul-Qadeer Taraaweeh is but 8 raka’hs and any addition to this is recommended and will be counted as optional prayers. Similarly Allaamah Muhammad Anwar Kaashmiree, the former Shaikh ul-Hadeeth of Daar al-Uloom Deoband said in Urf ash-Shadhee there is no alternative but to accept that the Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam) prayed 8 raka’hs Taraaweeh and it is not proven in any narration that he (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam) prayed Taraaweeh and Tahajjud separately. (Ittihaaf al-Kiraam Sharh Buloogh al-Maraam (1/260). End of his words.

Allaamah Muhammad Taahir Hanafee said, “That which has been narrated from Ibn Abbaas aswell as being weak also opposes the hadeeth of A’aishah in the Saheehain. And A’aishah knew more than Ibn Abbaas concerning the Prophets night prayers.” (Majma’a al-Bahaar (2/77)

Allaamah Abu Tayyib Sindhee said, “The chain of this hadeeth is weak and it also opposes the hadeeth of A’aishah which is in the Saheehain. Therefore this (hadeeth) is not proof.” (Sharh Tirmidhee (1/423).

The Hanafee Scholars on Ibraaheem bin Uthmaan

Imaam Zailaa’ee Hanafee

Then concerning the narrator Ibraaheem bin Uthmaan and this narration of Ibn Abbaas Imaam Zailaa’ee Hanafee (d.762H) said, “It is defective due to Abee Shaybah Ibraaheem bin Uthmaan, the grandfather of al-Imaam Abee Bakr ibn Abee Shaybah, and they are agreed upon him being weak. Ibn Adiyy said he was weak in al-Kaamil, then it also opposes the authentic hadeeth from Abee Salamah bin Abdur-Rahmaan when questioned A’aishah (Radhiallaahu Anha), “What was the prayer of the Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam) in Ramadhaan?” She replied, “Whether Ramadhaan or other than Ramadhaan he would not exceed 11 raka’hs.” (Nasb ur-Raayah (1/293).

He also said “Imaam Ahmad said he was Munkar al-Hadeeth (he would narrated abandoned hadeeth).” (Nasb ur-Raayah (1/53).

Imaam Zailaa’ee Hanafee in another place in Nasb ur-Raayah (2/66) concerning another of his hadeeth said it is weak and on (2/67) he mentions the statement of Imaam Baihaqee who said he was, “Weak.” Further Imaam Zailaa’ee brings the statement of Abul-Fath Saleem bin Ayoob ar-Raazee who said, “They are agreed upon him (ie Ibraaheem bin Uthmaan) being weak.” (Nasb ur-Raayah (2/153).

Shaikh Ibn Humaam

Shaikh Ibn Humaam said in Fath ul-Qadeer after mentioning this hadeeth, “Weak due to Abee Shaybah Ibraaheem bin Uthmaan the grandfather of Imaam Abee Bakr ibn Abee Shaybah, they are agreed upon his weakness and he also opposes the authentic hadeeth.”

Shaikh Ainee Hanafee

Shaikh Ainee said in Umdatul-Qaaree after mentioning this hadeeth said, “And Abu Shaybah and he is Ibraaheem bin Uthmaan al-Absee al-Koofee the Qaadhee of Waasit and the grandfather of Abee Bakr ibn Abee Shaybah. Shu’bah said he was a liar and Ahmad, Ibn Ma’een, Bukhaari and Nasaa’ee and others said he was weak. Ibn Adiyy mentioned this hadeeth to be from (ie Ibraaheem’s) his rejected hadeeth in al-Kaamil.” (Umdatul-Qaaree (1/128).

For the above three statements also refer to Tuhfatul-Ahwadhee of Imaam Abdur-Rahmaan al-Mubaarakpooree and Salaatul-Taraaweeh of Imaam al-Albaanee, above.

Shaikh Abdul-Hayy Lucknowee

Abdul-Hayy Lucknowee has criticized this hadeeth in his work. (see Fataawa of Abdul-Hayy (1/354).

Shaikh Anwar Shah Kashmiri Hanafee Deobandee

Anwar Shah Kashmiri said about this hadeeth, “As for the 20 raka’h from the Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam), then it is with a weak chain and it being weak is agreed upon.” (al-Urf ash-Shadhee (1/166).

Maulana Muhammad Zakariyyah Khandhelwi Hanafee Tableeghee

Maulana Zakariyyah Khandhelwi said, “There is no doubt the specificity of 20 raka’h taraaweeh has not been established marfoo’an from the Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam) with an authentic route according to the principles of the scholars of hadeeth. As for that which has been narrated in the narration of Ibn Abbaas, then it has been spoken about (criticized) according to their (muhadditheen’s) principles.” (Awjaz al-Masaalik Sharh Muwatta Imaam Maalik (1/397).

Maulana Habeeb ur-Rahmaan A’dhamee Deobandee Hanafee

After writing his book on this issue, even he was forced to say, “Nonetheless we accept that Ibraaheem is a weak narrator and due to him this hadeeth is also weak.” (Raka’aat at-Taraaweeh (pg.59). 

 

The Second Evidence – The Narrations of Umar

The First Narration- Of Yazeed bin Rumaan

Yazeed bin Rumaan said, “The people in the time of Umar used to pray 23 raka’hs.” (Muwatta Imam Maalik (1/38), Sunan al-Kubraa (2/496) of Imaam Baihaqee.

The Answer

Concerning Yazeed bin Rumaan, Haafidh Ibn Hajr said, “Trustworthy, a narrator of the fifth level and he died in 130H.” (Taqreeb ut-Tahdheeb (no.7763 pg.1074) and Tahdheeb ut-Tahdheeb (11/282 no.8033)

And the Haafidh said in the introduction to Taqreeb, “The fifth level is of the smaller (successors) ones, they saw either one or two companions and some of them hearing from the companions is not established, like A’amash.” (Muqaddimah Taqreeb ut-Tahdheeb (pg.82)

Imaam Badee ud deen said, “This narration is not authentic because Yazeed bin Rumaan did not encounter the time of Umar, rather he was of a later time and we do not know who he heard this from and whether that individual was truthful or a liar. So relying upon an unknown narrator is issues pertaining to the religion, is wrong. The narration is not clear and it also opposes a clear and authentic narration that mentions 11 raka’hs. The hanafee’s themselves have admitted Yazeed bin Rumaan did not meet Umar, see Allaamah Zailaa’ee’s Nasb ur-Raayah (2/154), Ainee Hanafee’s Banaayah Sharh Hidaayah (1/867) and Nimawee in Aathaar as-Sunan (2/158). (Tanqeed as-Sadeed (pg.265)

Allaamah al-Albaanee said, “Imaam Baihaqee mentioned this narration in his book al-Ma’arifah and it has a weakness and he said, Yazeed ibn Rumaan did not encounter Umar. Haafidh Zailaa’ee also supported this in Nasb ur-Raayah (2/154). Imaam Nawawee also said this athar is weak (al-Majmoo’a (4/33), he said “Imaam Baihaqee narrated this but it is mursal because Yazeed ibn Rumaan did not encounter Umar.” Similarly Ainee also weakened it and said, “The chain is disconnected.” (Umdatul-Qaaree Sharh Saheeh al-Bukhaari (5/357). Therefore this narration is not worthy that it be used as proof when this narration is weak due to being disconnected between Ibn Rumaan and Umar. Similarly it opposes the authentic narration from Umar which mentions 11 raka’hs.” (Salaatul-Taraaweeh (pg.53-54).

Imaam Baihaqee also said, “The chain is disconnected, Yazeed bin Rumaan who was trustworthy, did not meet Umar.” (al-Jaami Shu’bal-Eemaan (6/444 no.3000)

The hanafee author of Kabeeree said, “Yazeed bin Rumaan did not meet Umar, hence this athar is disconnected.” (Kabeeree (pg.351).

Shaikh Nimawee Hanafee said, “Yazeed bin Rumaan did not encounter Umar bin Khattaab.” (Ta’leeq al-Hasan A’la Aathaar as-Sunan (pg.253 no.284).

The Second Narration – Of Saa’ib bin Yazeed

The hanafee’s cause much confusion regarding this narration by not mentioning clearly the text of the narration or its references with their chains so that a clear understanding can be achieved. So note the narrations and their variations alongside their specific chains and their answers thereafter, inshallaah.

The Text

Saa’ib bin Yazeed said the people would pray 20 raka’hs during the time of Umar and in the era of Uthmaan they would stand for such long periods that the people would become tired and would lean on their sticks.” (Sunan al-Kubraa (2/496) of Imaam Baihaqee.)

The Chain

Informed me Abu Abdullaah al-Hussain ibn Muhammad ibn al-Hussain Finjuwayah ad-Dinawaree from Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Ishaaq as-Sunnee from Abdullaah ibn Muhammad ibn Abdul Azeez al-Baghawee from Ali ibn al-Ja’ad from Ibn Abee Dhi’b – Yazeed ibn Khaseefah from Saa’ib ibn Yazeed,

Answer.

Firstly: – Abu Abdullaah al-Hussain ibn Muhammad ibn al-Hussain Finjuwayah al-Dinawaree

The narrator Abu Abdullaah al-Hussain ibn Muhammad ibn al-Hussain Finjuwayah al-Dinawaree, is unknown Majhool and no biography of him can be found to establish his trustworthiness. So this narration is weak.

Imaam Abdur-Rahmaan Mubaarakpooree said, “The chain includes Abu Abdullaah bin Finjuwayah al-Dinawaree and I do not know of his condition and so it is upon the people who claim its authenticity to prove (Abu Abdullaah al-Dinawaree) to be trustworthy….” (Tuhfatul-Ahwadhee (3/447).

Shaikh Taaj ud deen as-Subkee mentioned the biography of Ahmad bin Muhammad ibn Ishaaq as-Sunnee (the one who Finjuwayah al-Dinawaree is supposed to have narrated from) in great detail and with this he mentioned a list of his teachers and students and he fails to mention Finjuwayah al-Dinawaree to be from his students. (see Tabaqaat ash-Shaafiyyah (2/96).

However we find the statement of Imaam Dhahabee where he states, “Sherwiyyah said in his Taareekh that (Finjuwayh al-Dinawaree) is trustworthy, truthful but he would narrate many abandoned narrations readily and he authored many works.” (Siyar A’laam an-Nabula (17/383).

Secondly: – Alee ibn al-Ja’ad

The narrator Alee ibn al-Ja’ad, is criticised for being a shee’ah, he would curse and criticise Mu’awiyyah and other companions. (See Tahdheeb ut-Tahdheeb (7/248-250 no.4763).

Thirdly:

The chain also contains Yazeed bin Khaseefah.

Imaam al-Muhaddith al-Albaanee said, “This chain with the words 20 is good from the angle of the people of hold 20 raka’hs permissible for the Taraaweeh prayer and on its apparent the chain seems authentic and some have even said it is authentic however it contains defects which if looked at will render the narration weak and make it from the realms of weak rejected narrations due to the following reasons,

Number One.

Even though Yazeed ibn Khaseefah is trustworthy, Imaam Ahmad ibn Hanbal said he is “Munkar al-Hadeeth” (rejected in hadeeth), and him being mentioned in Dhahabee’s Meezaan ul-Ei’tidaal is sufficient to say he is not clear. So from the statement of Imaam Ahmad we find that ibn Khaseefah would sometimes narrate narrations in which he would be alone and other trustworthy narrators would not narrate. This is mentioned by the hanafee scholar Abdul Haiy Lucknowee (Ar-Raf’a Wat-Takmeel (p.14-15). Hence this narration (of Ibn Khaseefah) opposes narrators who were more preserving then him and therefore this narration is shaadh (is A narration that opposes more authentic narrations) according to the principles of hadeeth.

We know two sets or reports stem from Saa’ib ibn Yazeed one from Muhammad bin Yoosuf and the other Yazeed bin Khaseefah

1) Muhammad ibn Yusuf – the narration that mentions 11 rakahs in Muwatta Imaam Maalik

2) Yazeed ibn Khaseefah – the narration that mentions 20 rakahs

Now both these narrations oppose each other and so precedence will be given to the narration of Muhammad ibn Yoosuf mentioning 11 raka’hs. As there are unknown narrators in the 20 raka’h (the Shaikh here is mostly likely referring to Abu Abdullaah al-Hussain ibn Muhammad ibn al-Hussain Finjuwayh al-Dinawaree,) chain and because Muhammad ibn Yoosuf is more trustworthy then Yazeed ibn Khaseefah. Haafidh Ibn Hajr said concerning Muhammad ibn Yoosuf, “Thiqatun Thabt” ie trustworthy, firm and established whereas for Yazeed ibn Khaseefah he only says, “Thiqah” trustworthy only.

Number Two

There is Idhtiraab in the narration of Ibn Khaseefah in regard to the numbering, ie different number for the raka’hs are mentioned from Yazeed Ibn Khaseefah. Sometimes he mentions 11 and at other times he mentions 20 and 21. Further more this narrator is opposing a more trustworthy narrator then himself.

Number Three

Muhammad ibn Yoosuf was the nephew of Saa’ib ibn Yazeed and due to this closeness Muhammad ibn Yoosuf was more aware and knew the narration of his uncle better than anyone else and its preservation. (Salaatul-Taraaweeh (pg.49-51) (Summarised)

Fourthy:

This opposes the more authentic narration of Saa’ib ibn Yazeed. See further ahead.

Another Narration

There is another narration from Saa’ib bin Yazeed reported by Ibn Abdul Barr which states the people would stand for 23 raka’hs during the time of Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) (cited from Umdatul-Qaaree (5/357) via al-Haarith bin Abdur-Rahmaan bin Abee Dhubaab

Ibn Abee Dhubaab

Imaam al-Albaanee said the narrator Ibn Abee Dhubaab’s memory deteriorated. Ibn Abee Haatim said, my father said (Abee Haatim) “Darwardee would narrate rejected narrations from him, he is not strong.” Abu Zur’ah said, “There is no harm in him.” Ibn Hazm said, “Weak.” He was not trusted by Imaam Maalik nor was he narrated on by him, as mentioned by Imaam Ibn Hajr. (Refer to Tahdheeb ut-Tahdheeb (2/135-136 no.1090), Meezaan ul-Ei’tidaal (2/172-172 no.1631), al-Jarh Wat-Ta’deel (3/79-82 no.365) (see Salaatul-Taraaweeh (pg.52)

The Third Narration – Of Yahyaa bin Sa’eed

Ibn Abee Shaybah in his Musannaf narrates from Wakee from Maalik from Yahyaa bin Sa’eed that Umar bin al-Khattaab ordered a man to lead them in prayer for 20 raka’ahs. (Musannaf Ibn Abee Shaybah (2/89/2).

The Answer.

Allaamah al-Albaanee said, “Then this is also disconnected.” Allaamah al-Mubaarakpooree said in at-Tuhfah (2/85), “Nimawee said in Aathaar as-Sunan, “The narrators are trustworthy but Yahyaa bin Sa’eed did not encounter (meet) Umar.” So Nimawee is correct in saying that there is disconnection in the chain and therefore it is not correct to deduce from it. It also opposes the authentically established chain of Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) in which he ordered Ubayy bin Ka’ab and Tameem ad-Daaree to lead the people in 11 raka’hs, transmitted by Maalik in Muwatta as cited previously. It also opposes that which is established from the Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam) in an authentic hadeeth.” (Salaatul-Taraaweeh (pg.54-55), Tuhfatul-Ahwadhee (3/445)

Imaam Ibn Hazm said Yahyaa ibn Sa’eed was born approximately 25 years after the death of Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu). (al-Muhallaa (10/60)

Haafidh Ibn Hajr said, “Yahyaa bin Sa’eed bin Qais al-Ansaari al-Madanee (Abu Sa’eed al-Qaadhee, Thiqatun-Thabt), from the Fifth level. He died in 144H or after it.” (Taqreeb ut-Tahdheeb (no.7609 pg.1056)

And the Haafidh said in the introduction to Taqreeb, “The fifth level is of the smaller (successors) ones, they saw either one or two companions and some of them hearing from the companions is not established, like A’amash.” (Muqaddimah Taqreeb ut-Tahdheeb (pg.82)

 

As cited above, Shaikh Nimawee Hanafee said, “I say the narrators are trustworthy but, Yahyaa bin Sa’eed did not meet Umar.” (Ta’leeq Aathaar as-Sunan (pg.253 no.285).

 

The Third Evidence – The Narrations of Alee

The First Narration

From Hammaad bin Shu’ayb from A’taa bin Saa’ib from Abu Abdur-Rahmaan as-Silmee, and he narrates from Alee that Alee summoned reciters and ordered one of them to lead the people in 20 raka’hs and Alee would lead them in the Witr.” (Baihaqee (2/496).

The Answer.

Muhaddith Abdur-Rahmaan Mubaarakpooree said, “Nimawee after mentioning this athar said, Hammaad bin Shu’ayb is weak, Dhahabee said in Meezaan, Ibn Ma’een and others said he was weak, Yahyaa (ibn Ma’een) said another time, do not write his hadeeth, Bukhaari said Feehee Nazar (look into him), Nasaa’ee said weak, Ibn Adiyy said most of his hadeeth are not supported.” End of the words of Nimawee. I say The affair is as Nimawee said.” (Tuhfatul-Ahwadhee (3/444).

Allaamah al-Albaanee said, “The chain of this athar is weak. The memory of A’taa bin Saa’ib deteriorated and Hammaad bin Shu’ayb is also an extremely weak narrator. Imaam Bukhaari said about him, “Feehee Nazar (look into him).” And another time “Munkar al-Hadeeth.” And when Imaam Bukhaari says these words about a narrator then the narrator is not trustworthy and nor are his narration’s used as support. (see Tadreeb of Suyootee, Mukhtasar Uloom al-Hadeeth of Ibn Katheer, at-Tahreer of Ibn al-Humaam, ar-Rafa’a Wat-Takmeel (pg.15) of Abul-Hasanaat and Tuhfatul-Ahwadhee (2/75), all of them agree that when Imaam Bukhaari uses this statement concerning a narrator then he does so with this meaning……)

I say: Muhammad bin Fudhail opposes Hammaad bin Shu’ayb as the wording of his narration in Ibn Abee Shaybah from A’taa bin Saa’ib with the brief words of, “From Alee when they stood (to prayer) in Ramadhaan.” does not mention the number of raka’h absolutely and Muhammad bin Fhudail is a trustworthy narrator . So we find when a trustworthy narrator opposes Shu’ayb bin Hammaad then Shu’ayb bin Hammaad will be declared weak. Therefore according to this principle this narration is rendered to be rejected. (Salaatul-Taraaweeh (pg.66-67)

Concerning Hammaad bin Shu’ayb

Haafidh Ibn Hajr said, “Ibn Ma’een declared him to be weak and another time he said, “Do not write his ahadeeth.” Bukhaari said, “Feehee Nazar (look into him).” Nasaa’ee said, “Weak.” Ibn Adiyy said, “Most of his hadeeth are not supported and they are abandoned narrations that are narrated from him by a group.” Uqailee said, “He is not supported except by another, that is like him.” Abu Haatim said, “He is not strong.” Abu Zur’ah said, “Weak.” Ibn al-Jarood mentioned from Bukhaari he said about him, “Munkar al-Hadeeth.” Abu Dawood said, “Weak.” And another time he said, “His hadeeth are rejected.” Saajee said, “His hadeeth have weakness.” (Leesaan ul-Meezaan (2/395 no.2962) of Ibn Hajr, see also adh-Dhu’afaa (1/312) of Imaam Uqailee.)

As mention Imaam Bukhaari said, “Feehee Nazar (Look into him.)” (Kitaab Taareekh Kabeer (3/25 no.101) of Imaam Bukhaari

Imaam Ibn Abee Haatim said, “Abbaas Dooree said I heard Yahyaa ibn Ma’een say, “Hammaad bin Shu’ayb Abu Shu’ayb, Weak.” He said, I asked my father about him and he said, “He is not strong….” He said, “I asked Abu Zur’ah and he replied, “Koofee Weak in hadeeth.” (al-Jarh Wat-Ta’deel (3/142 no.625).

Imaam Dhahabee said, “Ibn Ma’een and other declared him to be weak.” Yahyaa (ibn Ma’een) said another time, “Do not write his hadeeth.” Bukhaari said, “Look into him.” Nasaa’ee said, “weak.” Ibn Adiyy said, “Most of his hadeeth are not supported.” Uqailee said, “He is not supported except by another, that is like him.” Abu Haatim said, “He is not strong.” (Meezaan ul-Ei’tidaal (2/366 no.2257)

The Words ‘FeeHee Nazar’ (Look Into His Hadeeth) of Ameer al-Mu’mineen Fil-Hadeeth Muhammad bin Ismaa’eel al-Bukhaari.

Imaam Abdur-Rahmaan Mubaarakpooree said, “BENEFIT: Shaikh Ibn al-Humaam said in at-Tahreer, when al-Bukhaari says about a man FeeHee Nazar, then his hadeeth is not proof, nor can it be used as a support or correct in reliability.” End of the words of Ibn al-Humaam. I say: The athar of Alee is not to be used as proof or as a support or correct in its reliability as in the chain is Hammaad bin Shu’ayb and Bukhaari said about him FeeHee Nazar.” (Tuhfatul-Ahwadhee (3/444).

lbn Katheer explains: “If aI-Bukhaari says about a man ‘(I) remain silent about him’ or ‘Look into his hadeeth’ then he is in the lowest and worst of the levels with him.” (Ikhtisaar Uloom aI-Hadeeth (p.73)

This is what Haafidh as-Sakhawee also explained in his Fath ul-Mugeeth (pg.161) and that Bukhaari means by this that his hadeeth are to be rejected.

Imaam Dhahabee said, “Also his habit of saying ‘Feehee Nazar’ means they are accused (of being liars) or they are not trustworthy and they according to him are with the example and condition of being weak.” (al-Muqaddimah al-Muwwaqizah (pg.321).

Shaikh Abdul-Hayy Lucknowee said, “When Bukhaari says about a narrator Feehee Nazar, then it indicates (he the narrator) is accused (of being a liar) according to him (ie Imaam Bukhaari.)…” (ar-Raf’a Wat-Takmeel (pgs.388, 399)

al-Kawtharee said, “Bukhaari said (about a narrator) Fee Hadeethee Nazar (look into this hadeeth) and this is statement is extreme criticism with him (ie according to Imaam al-Bukhaari.” (See his Taneeb (pg.105),

However there is a difference between FeeHee Nazar and Fee Hadeethee Nazar, as the second just refers to the fact that this particular hadeeth of his in question needs to be looked into and the narrator maybe good, yet al-Kawtharee fails to make a distinction between the two statements (See at-Tankeel Bimaa Fee Taneeb al-Kawtharee Minal-Abaateel (1/204-205) of Imaam Mu’allimee al-Yamaanee, so according to his (Kawtharee’s) understanding Hammaad bin Shu’ayb is to be abandoned.

The Shaikh of the hanafee deobandee’s Shaikh Zafar Ahmad Uthmaanee al-Hanafee deobandee, whom the mu’tassub and muqallid Abdul-Fattah Abu Guddah said about, the Allaamah, the Muhaqqiq, al-Muhaddith, the Faqeeh and the list of his praise for him was endless, said, “Tanbeeyyah, In Mentioning The Meaning of Bukhaari Regarding his statements FeeHee Nazar and Sakatau Anhu.” Bukhaari means by these two statements that the hadeeth of the narrator be rejected.” (Qawaa’id Uloom al-Hadeeth (pg.254).

Then Abdul-Fattah Abu Guddah in his notes to this book mentions the meaning of this terminology of Bukhaari from other Shaikhs like Imaam Suyootee in Tadreeb, al-Fiyyah of A’raaqee (2/11) and from Abdul-Hayy Lucknowee from Raf’a Wat-Takmeel)

The Words ‘Munkar al-Hadeeth’ (His Ahadeeth are Rejected) of Ameer al-Mu’mineen Fil-Hadeeth Muhammad bin Ismaa’eel al-Bukhaari.

As Imaam al-Albaanee mentioned when Imaam Bukhaari says about a narrator Munkar al-hadeeth, then it is not lawful to narrate from such a narrator.

Imaam Bukhaari said, “All those narrators about who I say, Munkar al-Hadeeth, then it is not lawful to narrates from them.” (Meezaan ul-Ei’tidaal (1/5), (2/202), Tabaqaat ash-Shaafiyyah al-Kubraa (2/9), Tadreeb ar-Raawee (pg.235) of Suyootee, Fath ul-Mugeeth (pg.163) (2/42-43 Edn.) of A’raaqee and (pgs.344-346) of Sakhaweee, ar-Raf’a Wat-Takmeel (pg.129, 149) of Lucknowee, al-Baa’ith al-Hatheeth (1/320) of Allaamah Muhammad Ahmad Shaakir and Kifaayatul-Hifzah (pg.321) Sharh Muqaddimah al-Muwwaqizah, See also Seeratul-Bukhaari (pg.67) of Imaam Abdus-Salaam Mubaarakpooree.

The Shaikh of the hanafees and deobandee’s, Zafar Ahmad Thanawee Uthmaanee said, “and his terminology of Munkar al-Hadeeth on one denotes it is not lawful to narrate from him, and this is how it is mentioned in Tadreeb ur-Raawee.” (See Qawaa’id Uloom al-Hadeeth (pg.258), Then he goes onto say with others Munkar al-Hadeeth is from the third grade of criticism ie weak in hadeeth.)

Concerning A’taa bin Saa’ib

Another narrator in this chain A’taa bin Saa’ib was forgetful.

Imaam Dhahabee said, “…He became forgetful in the end and his memory deteriorated. Ahmad said, “Those who heard from him in the beginning (then their ahadeeth) are authentic and those who heard from him after, then their (hadeeth) are nothing.” Yahyaa said, “Not worthy as being used as proof.” Ahmad bin Abee Khaithamah said from Yahyaa who said, “ (A’taa’s) hadeeth are weak except those (narrated) from Shu’bah and Sufyaan.” And Imaam Nasaa’ee, Imaam Bukhaari, Imaam Ejlee, Abu Haatim and others said the same. (Meezaan ul-Ei’tidaal (5/90-92 no.5647), Tahdheeb ut-Tahdheeb (7/177-180 no.4754), al-Jarh Wat-Ta’deel (6/332-334 no.1848), Taareekh al-Kabeer (6/465 no.3000)

Haafidh Ibn Hajr said, “Truthful but became forgetful.” (Taqreeb ut-Tahdheeb (no.4625 pg.678)

Zailaa’ee Hanafee said, “But he became forgetful at the end and all those who narrated from him, did so after he started to forget except Shu’bah and Sufyaan.” (Nasb ur-Raayah (3/58)

Ibn Akyaal mentioned him in his book of forgetful narrators, al-Kawaakib an-Neeraat Fee Ma’arifah Min Ikhtilaat Min Rawaah ath-Thiqaat (no.327)

Nimawee Hanafee also criticized this hadeeth therefore resort to his Ta’leeq al-Hasan A’la Aathaar as-Sunan (pg.254 no.291).

The Second Narration

Abul-Hasnaa said Alee ordered a man to lead the people in 20 raka’ahs in Ramadhaan. (Musannaf Ibn Abee Shaybah (3/393), Baihaqee in al-Kubraa (2/497)

The Answer.

Imaam Abdur-Rahmaan Mubaarakpooree said (after citing the above narration), “Nimawee said in Ta’leeq Aathaar as-Sunan, “This athar is revolves around Abil-Hasnaa and he is not known.” (Imaam Mubaarakpooree continued and said “I say it is as Nimawee said, Haafidh said in Taqreeb in the tarajamh of Abil-Hasnaa he is majhool (unknown), Dhahabee said in Meezaan he is not known.” (Tuhfatul-Ahwadhee (3/444)

Allaamah al-Albaanee said, “Imaam Baihaqee (2/497) after mentioning this athar declares the chain to be weak. I say the defect is Abul-Hasnaa and about him Imaam Dhahabee said, “He is not known.” Haafidh Ibn Hajr said, “Majhool (unknown).” I say, there is another defects and that two narrators between Alee and Abul-Hasnaa are omitted, therefore this athar is Mu’adhal.”

Haafidh Ibn Hajr whilst mentioning the Abul-Hasnaa’s biography narrates a hadeeth concerning Slaughtering and mentions the chain as (Abul-Hasnaa) from al-Hakam bin Utaibah from Hansh and he from Alee. Therefore in this chain, between Abul-Hasnaa and Alee two narrators (ie two ways) are present.” (Salaatul-Taraweeh (pg.66)

For the narration above mentioning the narration of slaughtering then refer to (Tahdheeb ut-Tahdheeb (12/66 no.8386), and this Abul-Hasnaa has also been called Hussain as mentioned by al-Haafidh.

Haafidh Ibn Hajr said, Abul-Hasnaa is Majhool (unknown.) (Taqreeb ut-Tahdheeb (no.8112 pg.1134)

Haafidh Dhahabee said, “He is not known” (Meezaan ul-Ei’tidaal (7/356 no.10114) (al-Hakam bin Utaibah narrates from him.)

Shaikh Nimawee Hanafee said, “He is not known.” (Haashiyyah Aathaar as-Sunan (pg.255).

Allaamah Abdur-Rahmaan Mubaarapooree concluded, “NOTE: The deduction from these two athaar of Alee in which he ordered the praying of 20 raka’hs, then we have come to know these two athars are weak and it is not correct to use them as evidence and they also oppose that which is established from the Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam) in the authentic hadeeth.” (Tuhfatul-Ahwadhee (3/444)

What Is A Mu’adhal Narration and The Ruling Upon it.

In Summary it is as Haafidh Ibn Hajr said, (a mu’adhal narration is) “If two or more narrators one after the other consecutively are missed or dropped.” (Nazhatun-Nazhar (pg.80).

Haafidh Ibn as-Salaah and in his support and agreement Imaam Nawawee and Badr bin Jama’ah said the following, “Mu’adhal is the chain of narration in which two or more narrators are missing or dropped.” (Muqaddimah (pg.59), al-Irshaad (pg.68) and al-Minhal (pg.47).

Taahaa bin Muhammad al-Bayqoonee said, “Wal-Mu’adhalu as-Saaqitu Minhu Ithnaan. (and al-Mu’adhal, from it dropped are two.)” (al-Manzoomah al-Bayqooniyyah (18th couplet), Ta’leeqaat al-Athariyyah A’la Manzoomah al-Bayqooniyyah (pg.48) of Shaikh Alee Hasan al-Halabee al-Atharee 

See also Ma’arifatul-Uloomal-Hadeeth (pg.36) of Imaam Haakim, al-Iqtiraah (pg.192) of Ibn Daqeeq al-Eed, al-Muqna’a 1/145-148) of Ibn al-Mullaqin, at-Taqayyid Wal-Aydah (pg.81) of A’raaqee, Ikhtisaar Uloom al-Hadeeth (pgs. 43-46), an-Nukt Ala Kitaab Ibn as-Salaah (2/575-582), Nukhbatul-Fikr (pg.3), Qasb as-Sukar Nazam Nukbatul-Fikr (50th Couplet) of Imaam Sana’anee, Fath ul-Mugeeth (1/158-159) of Sakhawee, Tadreeb ar-Raawee (1/174), Qafu al-Athar (p.69), of Ibn al-Hanablee, Tawdheeh al-Afkaar (1/324) of Sana’anee and others

and as Haafidh ibn as-Salaah explained, “al-Mu’adhal is a special of specific type of manqa’ata (disconnected) narration, so every mu’adhal narration is manqa’ata and not every manqa’ata narration is mu’adhal, and a group have called (mu’adhal) a mursal narration as mentioned previously.” (Muqaddimah (pg.59).

Hence such narration’s are weak with agreement

The Fourth Evidence – The Narrations of Ubayy bin Ka’ab

The First Narration

This is the chain which includes Abdul-Azeez bin Rufa’e and he narrates, that Ubayy bin Ka’ab would lead in 20 raka’hs and 3 witr in Ramadhaan in the Prophets city. (Musannaf Ibn Abee Shaybah (2/90/1)

The Answer

It is very strange how the hanafee’s use this narration especially when they themselves claim they do not know the authenticity of its chain. It is as if they have just thrown all these narrations together to make their false claim stronger.

Shaikh Habeeb ur-Rehmaan A’adhamee Deobandee Hanafee said about this narration, “The condition of the chain of this narration is not known but because it supports the narration of Yazeed bin Rumaan, then even if it is of a weak chain there is no harm in it.” (Raka’aat Taraaweeh (pg.65)

The Shaikh, the Allaamah Nazeer Ahmad Rehmaanee al-A’adhamee said upon this point of Habeeb ur-Rehmaan, “Never mind your saying even if it is of a weak chain, because you would even say what is the harm if it was a fabricated (Mawdoo) chain because in either case another evidence can be used by the hanafee madhab as the number of evidences increases by one for you? So when you do not even know the condition of the chain why have you assumed it is of the level of being weak? Why cannot it be fabricated.” (Anwaar al-Masaabeeh Ba-Jawaab Raka’aat Taraaweeh (pg.273).

Imaam al-Albaanee said there is a disconnection in the chain between Ubayy ibn Ka’ab and Abdul-Azeez bin Rufa’e and according to Tahdheeb ut-Tahdheeb there is a gap of more than 100 years between them and so Nimawee Hanafee said, “Abdul-Azeez did not meet Ubayy.” Mentioned by al-Mubaarakpooree (in Tuhfah (2/75) and in agreeing with this he (al-Mubaarakpooree said) “The affair is as Nimawee said that his athar of Ubayy ibn Ka’ab is disconnected and alongside this it opposes that which is established from Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) in which he instructed Ubayy ibn Ka’ab and Tameem ad-Daaree to lead the people in 11 raka’hs. It also opposes that which is established from Ubayy ibn Ka’ab that he led the women in 8 raka’hs and Witr in Ramadhaan in his house, this has been mentioned previously.” (Salaatul-Taraaweeh (pg.67-68), Tuhfatul-Ahwadhee (3/445).

Ubayy bin Ka’ab died in 23H (although there are differences see Taqreeb ut-Tahdheeb (no.285 pg.120)

The Second Narration

This has a different wording and at the end of the narration it mentions, “And Ubayy ibn Ka’ab led them in 20 raka’hs” (cited by adh-Dhiyaa al-Maqdisee in al-Mukhtarah (1/384)

With the following chain, from Abee Ja’afar ar-Raazee from Rabee’a bin Anas from Abee A’aaliyyah from Ubayy bin Ka’ab.

The Answer

Imaam al-Albaanee said this chain is weak. Abu Ja’afar who is Eesaa bin Abee Eesaa bin Mahhaan. Imaam Dhahabee mentioned him in adh-Dhu’afaa and said, “Abu Zur’ah said, “Would err excessively.” Ahmad said, “Not strong.” Another time he said, “Good in hadeeth.” Falaas said, “Bad memory.” And others have said he was trustworthy.” Imaam Dhahabee also said in al-Kunna, “All of (the scholars) have criticised him.” Haafidh Ibn Hajr said in Taqreeb, “Bad memory.” Ibn Qayyim said in Zaad al-Maa’ad (1/99), “One of abandoned narrations and he is not proof when alone in reporting even with one of the Ahlul-Hadeeth.”

The Shaikh went on to say his narrations oppose more trustworthy narrators and then the Shaikh mentioned some example of such narrations. (Salaatul-Taraaweeh (pg.69-70)

 

The Fifth Evidence – The Narration of Abdullaah ibn Mas’ood

That Abdullaah bin Mas’ood after finishing Eeshaa prayer would pray 20 raka’hs and 3 Witr as narrated by A’amash from Abdullaah ibn Mas’ood. (Qiyaam al-Layl (pg.91)

The Answer

Muhaddith Mubaarakpooree and Shaikh al-Albaanee said, “This is also disconnected as A’amash did not meet Abdullaah ibn Mas’ood.” (Tuhfah (2/75). (Tuhfah (3/445) latest edn.)

The details of this are that Abdullaah bin Mas’ood (Radhiallaahu Anhu) died in 22H as mentioned by Imaam Dhahabee (see his al-Kaashif (2/116) and he also says A’amash was born in 60H. (al-Kaashif (1/320).

Shaikh al-Albaanee goes onto say the defect is that the narration is mu’adhil as there seems to be two narrators omitted between A’amash and Ibn Mas’ood. (Salaatul-Taraweeh (pg.71), see above for the ruling of a mu’adhal narration

And the Haafidh said in the introduction to Taqreeb, “The fifth level is of the smaller (successors) ones, they saw either one or two companions and some of them hearing from the companions is not established, like A’amash.” (Muqaddimah Taqreeb ut-Tahdheeb (pg.82).

Hanafee Objection On The Acceptance of Mursal Narrations.

The hanafee’s claim after admitting the narrations above are (Mursal) (ie companions have been omitted from the chains) that each narration supports each other and thereby strengthening each other and therefore these weak ahadeeth support each and hence the weakness from them is removed. (As mentioned by Shaikh Habeeb ur-Rehmaan al-A’adhamee in Raka’aat Taraaweeh)

The Answer

Shaikh Anwar Shah Kashmiree Hanafee Deobandee mentioned a statement which puts the hanafee’s and the other muqallideen and their traits in pure perspective, he says, “I have witnessed these people and they formulate defective and erroneous principles, so what else can be wished for after this. So when one of them finds a weak hadeeth according to his madhab he formulates the rule or principle that due to numerous routes (of this weak hadeeth) the blame of weakness is lifted or removed. Similarly when they find an authentic hadeeth contradicting their madhab they immediately formulate the rule and principle that the hadeeth is Shaadh (ie weak due to opposing something more authentic that it.” (Faidh al-Baaree (2/348)

Shaikh al-Allaamah al-Albaanee answered this and said, “This is incorrect for two reasons,

The First Reason

It may seem these narrations have been narrated via many routes but in reality this is not the case. As there are only 3 athars and they are, Saa’ib bin Yazeed’s which is continuous (in its chain), and Yazeed bin Rumaan’s and Yahyaa bin Sa’eed al-Ansaari’s are disconnected. So it is possible the narrators of one athar affect the narrators of another athar and vice versa therefore by this possibility the deduction maybe dropped.

The Second Reason.

We have established 11 raka’hs previously from the narration of Maalik from Muhammad bin Yoosuf from Saa’ib and this is authentic. So that which opposes the narration of Maalik is wrong, similarly that which opposes Muhammad bin Yoosuf by Ibn Khaseefah and Ibn Abee Dhubaab is Shaadh. So from the knowledge of hadeeth we find Shaadh(‘s) (narration’s) are abandoned, rejected and errors and erroneous (narrations) do not strengthen.

Ibn as-Salaah said in al-Muqaddimah (pg.86), “When a narrator is alone in reporting something then we look into it ie that which he is alone in reporting is he opposing (people) who are more preserving than and have better integrity, if he is then his narration will be Shaadh and rejected. And if does not oppose and he narrates something which the others have not done so, and he is trustworthy, preserving and reliable then his narration will be accepted.”

And there is no doubt we are taking about the first type, hence his narration will be declared to be rejected, hence Shaadh narrations are not reliable nor are they worthy to be used as supports.

As for the narration of Yazeed bin Rumaan and Yahyaa bin Sa’eed, they are disconnected and it is not permissible to say one supports the other. The Shaikh then goes onto mention the statement of Shaikh ul-Islaam Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah who said, “The people differ in accepting the mursal narrations. The correct saying is that (mursal narrations) are of three types, Maqbool (accepted), Mardood (Rejected) and Mauqoof (stopped). The mursal narration that opposes trustworthy narrators will be rejected, however if there are two chains of a mursal narration and the Suyookh of the narrators are different then the narration will be considered to be authentic and truthful. Therefore mentioning from two different narrators as a habit is not to be understood to be incorrect.” (From a manuscript of Haafidh Ibn Abdul-Haadee which is preserved I al-Maktabah az-Zaahiryyah in Damascus. (Hadeeth no.405 Q 225-276) (Salaatul-Taraaweeh (pg.56-59)

The Statement of Other Scholars from the Scholars of Hadeeth and Jurists

Imaam Ibn Hazm said, “A mursal hadeeth is one in which a narrator or more is missing between the Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam) and one narrator, this is also know as manqata’a (disconnected), and it is not accepted and it cannot constitute evidence because its basis is of majhool (unknown).” (al-Ahkaam Fee Usool al-Ahkaam (2/2)

Imaam Muslim said, “The Mursal narrations according to me and the saying of the people of knowledge is that it is not evidence.” (Muqaddimah Saheeh Muslim (1/24), Imaam Nawawee agreed with this statement of Imaam Muslim, see his Irshaad (pg.81)

Imaam Tirmidhee said, “The hadeeth that is mursal is not authentic according to the majority of the People of Hadeeth and more than one person from amongst them said they are weak.” (al-Ellal (pg.245) of Imaam Tirmidhee.)

Imaam Ibn Abee Haatim said, “I heard my father (Abu Haatim) and Abu Zur’ah saying the mursal narrations are not evidence and evidence is only that which has an authentic and continuous/linked chain.” (Kitaab al-Maraaseel (p.7).

Imaam Ibn as-Salaah said, “Know the ruling concerning a mursal narration is the same as the ruling concerning a weak hadeeth, except if it is established via another route.” (Muqaddimah (pg.53), al-Irshaad (pg.80) and Taqreeb (pg.7) both of Imaam Nawawee,

Imaam Khateeb al-Baghdaadee said, “Said Muhammad ibn Idrees ash-Shaaf’iee and others amongst Ahlul-Ilm (People of Knowledge) it is not allowed to act upon them (ie Mursal narrations.) and said also this the Imaams and Scholar from amongst the preservers of hadeeth (Huffaadh al-Hadeeth) and the scrutinizers of narrations.” (al-Kifaayah Fee Ilm ar-Riwaayah (pg.384).

Haafidh A’raaqee said, “Most of the Ahlul-Hadeeth (People of Hadeeth) have said Mursal narrations are weak and one cannot use them for evidence.” (Fath ul-Mugeeth (pg.69)

Imaam’s Nawawee and Suyootee said, “And the Mursal hadeeth is weak and not evidence according to the Majority of the Scholars of Hadeeth (Muhadditheen) and (Imaam) Shaafi’ee and with many of the jurists and people of principle (Usool).” (Tadreeb ar-Raawee Sharh Taqreeb Lil-Nawawee (pg.77)

In summary Imaam Khateeb Baghdaadee said, “After this detail the position we have adopted is that it is not obligatory to act upon mursal narrations and mursal narrations are not accepted.” (al-Kifaayah (pg.387).

Haafidh Ibn as-Salaah said, “And what we have mentioned that mursal narrations cannot be deduced from and grading them to be weak then this is the position of the majority of the Preservers of Hadeeth (Huffaadh) and the scrutinizers of narrations and this is the opinion they have repeated in their works.” (Muqaddimah (pg.55).

Imaam Nawawee said, “Mursal narrations are not evidence according to me and according to the majority of the scholars of hadeeth, a group of jurists and the majority of the people of principles.” (Sharh Muhazzab (1/103).

 

And lastly Haafidh Elaa’ee said, “Most of the Maailkee’s and the Muhaqqiq (researching/truth following) hanafee’s like Tahaawee and Abu Bakr ar-Raazee(Jassaas) have said that in the situation of conflict or contradiction the mu’tasil (continuous) narration will be given precedence over the mursal narration.” (Jaam’e Tahseel (pg.34).

Hence it is narrated from Imaam Tahaawee that he said, “Without doubt the Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam) did not pray 20 raka’hs but rather he prayed 8 raka’hs and this is also the position of Ibn Humaam Hanafee and others.” (See Radd ul-Mukhtaar Sharh Durr al-Mukhtaar (1/295).

Shaikh Habeeb ur-Rehmaan al-A’adhamee Hanafee Deobandee and His Distortion Of the Words of al-Imaam ash-Shaafi’ee, Who Was One of the Lamps of This Ummah.

Shaikh Habeeb ur-Rahmaan Hanafee said, “Although the mursal narration is not accepted by Imaam Shaafi’ee, he clarifies this and says it is only accepted when a mursal narration is supported by either another mursal or a Musnad narration…” (See his Raka’aat Taraaweeh (pg.62).

The Answer

This is a distortion of the words of Imaam ash-Shaafi’ee and missing out his exact opinion concerning mursal narrations aswell as his explanation of this issue.

The distortion here, and a very very cunning one indeed, by Shaikh Habeeb ur-Rehmaan A’adhamee is that he mentions Imaams Shaafi’ee’s position as, “he clarifies this and says it is only accepted when a mursal narration is supported by either another mursal or a Musnad narration…” However Imaam Shaafi’ee only said this about the mursal narrations from the MAJOR SUCCESSORS (Kibaar Taabi’een) and not from the Minor Successors (Sighaar Taabi’een).

So Habeeb ur-Rehmaan attempted to deceive the people by showing any mursal narration from any of the successors is accepted, as long as it is supported in some way.

Imaam Shaafi’ees position was as Imaam Ibn Katheer mentioned, “He (Shaafi’ee) said in his book ar-Risaalah the mursal narrations of the Major Successors are evidence, on the condition they are also narrated via another route, even if the other route is mursal or if they are supported by a statement of a companion and the majority of the Scholars or the narrator names his man (ie narrator) he is except but trustworthy.

So with these conditions the mursal narration will constitute proof but it will still not reach the level of Mu’tasil (ie a continuous chain to the Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam).” Imaam Shaafi’ee also said, “Mursal narrations from other than the major successors (ie those successors who were from the middle or minor level), then I do not know anyone who accepted them.” (Ikhtisaar Uloom al-Hadeeth (pg.15) Haafidh Ibn Hajr has also something similar to this in Fath ul-Baaree.).

So these mursal narrations are the narrations of Yazeed ibn Rumaan’s, Yahyaa bin Sa’eed’s, Abdul-Azeez bin Rufa’e’s and A’amash from Abdullaah ibn Mas’ood.

Abdul-Azeez bin Rufa’e

Hafidh Ibn Hajr said, “Trustworthy from the fourth level…” (Taqreeb ut-Tahdheeb (no.4123 pg.612)

The Fourth Level

Haafidh explained the fourth level of people to be those who narrate from the Major Successors. (See Taqreeb ut-Tahdheeb (pg.81)

Yazeed bin Rumaan

Haafidh Ibn Hajr said, “ a narrator of the Fifth level.” (Taqreeb ut-Tahdheeb (no.7763 pg.1074) and Tahdheeb ut-Tahdheeb (11/282 no.8033)

Yahyaa bin Sa’eed

Haafidh Ibn Hajr said, “…Thiqatun-Thabt, from the Fifth level…” (Taqreeb ut-Tahdheeb (no.7609 pg.1056)

A’amash

Haafidh Ibn Hajr said he was also from the Fifth level (see Taqreeb ut-Tahdheeb)

The Fifth Level

And the Haafidh said in the introduction to Taqreeb, “The fifth level is of the smaller (successors) ones, they saw either one or two companions and some of them hearing from the companions is not established, like A’amash.” (Muqaddimah Taqreeb ut-Tahdheeb (pg.82).

So all four narrator are from the fourth or fifth level and are therefore from the middle or minor successors, none of them are from the major successors. Hence the condition of Imaam ash-Shaafi’ee is also not fulfilled.

The Sunnah of Taraaweeh is 8 Rak’ahs and the Evidences for This.

The Recommended Method For Taraaweeh is 8+3 with Witr.

The First Evidence – The Hadeeth of A’aishah

Ummul Mu’mineen A’aishah (Radhiallaahu Anha) narrates The Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee-Wasallam) after finishing the Eesha prayer he would pray 11 raka’hs till the morning and after every 2 raka’ah he would make the salutation and he would pray one witr…” (Saheeh Muslim (1/254).

Abu Salamah bin Abdur-Rahmaan asked A’aishah, “How was the prayer of the Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee-Wasallam) in Ramadhaan.” She replied, “Whether Ramadhaan or other than the month of Ramadhaan, he would not exceed 11 raka’hs.” (Saheeh al-Bukhaari (3/25, 4/205), Saheeh Muslim (2/66), Saheeh Abu Awaanah (2/327), Abu Dawood (1/210), Tirmidhee (2/302-303) Shaakir edn, Nasaa’ee (1/248), Saheeh Ibn Khuzaimah (2/192) Imaam Maalik’s Muwatta (1/134), Muwatta of Imaam Muhammad (pg.138) Baihaqee Sunan al-Kubraa (2/495-496), Musnad Ahmad (6/36, 73, 104), Buloogh al-Maraam Ma’a Subl as-Salaam (3/35-36), Nayl al-Awthaar (3/58), Umdatul-Qaaree (11/128) of Mulla Alee Qaaree Hanafee.

Hanafee Objection.

The hanafee’s object here and say this hadeeth is concerning Tahajjud and not Taraweeh.

The First Answer.

Tahajjud, Taraaweeh, Qiyaam al-Layl, Qiyaam Ramadhaan are all different names for the same prayer. (see Fath ul-Qadeer (1/319) of Ibn Humaam and Bahr ur-Raa’iq (2/52), see also Fath ul-Mulhim (2/322) of Shaikh Shabbeer Ahmad Uthmaanee Hanafee

If this is the case as the hanafee’s claim that the hadeeth of A’aishah is pertaining to the Tahajjud prayer then we say it is not established at all that the Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee-Wasallam) prayed Tahajjud and Taraaweeh separately (in the month of Ramadhaan). Therefore it is upon the hanafee’s to prove he prayed these two prayers separately.

So Imaam Abdul-Jabbaar Khandayaalwee said, “Some hanafee’s have limited this hadeeth of A’aishah in Bukhaari to tahajjud, then firstly this is a fallacy which is given to the general folk because it is not established from any narration the Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee-Wasallam) prayed taraaweeh and tahajjud separately in the month of Ramadhaan. The three (3) nights the Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee-Wasallam) prayed with the companions is referred to as taraaweeh, whereas in these 3 nights, in one night he prayed from the beginning of the night right to its end. So we also find from this the time of taraaweeh prayer is from after Eeshaa up until sunrise…” (al-Insaaf Raf’a Ikhtilaaf Musama bih Khaatimah Ikhtilaaf (pg.63-64).

Shaikh al-Allaamah al-Muhaddith Ubaidullaah Mubaarakpooree said, “Taraaweeh, tahajjud and Qiyaam of Ramadhaan, all are really the one and same, the long hadeeth of Abu Dharr (Radhiallaahu Anhu) in Ibn Maajah is a clear evidence of this claim. The summary of it is that Abu Dharr (Radhiallaahu Anhu) said, “We kept the fasts of Ramadhaan with the Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam), then he led us in Qiyaam (Taraweeh prayer) on the 23rd night (when seven nights were left) till about one third of it passed. He did not observe it on the 24th, then on the 25th night he led us till about half the night passed. We requested to offer superarogatory prayer during the whole night. The Messenger of Allaah said, “He who observes Qiyaam along with the Imaam till he finishes it, then it is as if he offered prayer the whole night.” Then he did not observe the Qiyaam with us on the 26th night, then finally on the 27th night he gathered his wives, members of his household and the people and he led everyone in the Qiyaam (Taraaweeh prayer) till we feared of missing the dawn meal.” (Ibn Maajah (no.1327) (2/287) (Arabic/English), (Saheeh Ibn Maajah no.1344 and no.1100) according to the numbering of Shaikh al-Albaanee (1/395) 1417edn, Abee Dawood (1/217 Saheeh no.1245), A’un al-Ma’bood (4/174 no.1372) Tirmidhee (1/72-73), Saheeh Nasaa’ee (1/338) Musannaf Ibn Abee Shaybah (2/90/21), Sharh Ma’anee al-Aathaar (1/206) of Tahaawee, Qiyaam al-Layl (p.89) of Muhammad ibn Nasr Marwazee, al-Faryaabee (2/71-72), Baihaqee (2/294) Irwaa (no.447) of Imaam Al-Albaanee, Mishkaat (no.1298), Salaatul Taraaweeh (p.16-17) of Shaikh al-Albaanee. Muhaddith Al-Albaanee who said “Saheeh” Nayl al-Awthaar (3/54 no.944) of Imaam Shawkaanee who said, “All The narrators of this chain according to Ahlus-Sunan are the narrators of the Saheehs.” Tuhfatul-Ahwadhee (3/437-438 no.803), Athaar as-Sunan (p.347) of Shaikh Nimawee Hanafee, E’laa as-Sunan (7/38) of Dhafar Ahmad Thanawee Hanafee)

Imaam Tirmidhee after transmitting the hadeeth said, “Hasan-Saheeh,” Allaamah Mubaarakpooree said, “Transmitted by Abu Dawood, Nasaa’ee, Ibn Maajah. Abu Dawood remained silent. Mundhiree mentioned it with the authentication of Tirmidhee. Haafidh Ibn Hajr al-Makkee said about the above hadeeth, “This hadeeth was authenticated by Tirmidhee and Haakim.” (Tuhfatul-Ahwadhee (3/438).

Allaamah Muhaddith Ubaidullaah Mubaarakpooree Rehmaanee went onto say, “It is clear from this narration that the Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam) led the taraaweeh prayer in three parts of the night and by praying it after Eeshaa until the end of the night he informed us of its time. It is likely that no time would have remained for tahajjud, (as taraaweeh on the 27th night was prayed so late in the night to the extent that there were fears of missing the dawn meal) therefore no doubt remains about taraaweeh and tahajjud being one prayer.

It is in Urf ash-Shadhee (lessons on Tirmidhee by Maulana Muhammad Anwar Shah Kashmiree Deobandee) that, “There is no way out or alternative in accepting that the taraaweeh of the Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam) was eight (8) raka’hs, and it is not established by any narration he prayed taraaweeh and tahajjud separately.”(Urf ash-Shadhee (1/166). End of the Shaikhs Words.

Muhammad Qaasim Nanautwee the founder of Deoband writes, “it is written from the people of knowledge that Taraaweeh (Qiyaam ul-Ramadhaan) and Tahajjud (Qiyaam ul-Layl) are in reality both One prayer.” (Fuyoodh al-Qaasimiyyah (pg.13)

The Second Answer

The scholars of hadeeth of hadeeth also placed this hadeeth under chapter headings of Qiyaam ar-Ramadhaan (The Standing in Ramadhaan) and Taraaweeh.

1. Saheeh al-Bukhaari; The book of Fasting; The Book Of the Taraaweeh Prayer; Chapter The Virtue in Standing Ramadhaan.

2. Muwatta Muhammad bin al-Hasan ash-Shaybaanee (pg.141); Chapter standing In The Month of Ramadhaan And What is From Its Virtue. Shaikh Abdul-Hayy Lucknowee said in the notes to this, “Qiyaam ar-Ramadhaan and Taraaweeh is the one and the same thing.” Likewise Abdul-Hayy mentioned this in his book Tuhfatul-Akhyaar Fee Ahya Sunnatil-Abraar and in his notes to Waqaayah.

3. Imaam Baihaqee, “Chapter. What is Narrated In Regards to the Number of Raka’hs of Standing In The Month Of Ramadhaan.” (Sunan al-Kubraa (2/495-496).

4. Imaam Suyootee mentioned this hadeeth of A’aishah in his book titled, “al-Masaabeeh Fee Salaatul-Taraaweeh” (pg.9).

5. Haafidh Zailaa’ee has mentioned it in his; The Book of Prayer; Chapter Standing In the Month of Ramadhaan(Nasb ur-Raayah (2/153).

6. Shaikh Ibn Humaam in Fath ul-Qadeer; The Book of Prayer; The Chapter In Standing In the Month of Ramadhaan (Fath ul-Qadeer (1/407)

7. Shaikh Nimawee Hanafee mentioned this hadeeth in; The Chapter of Taraaweeh 8 Raka’hs. (Ta’leeq al-Hasan Ma’a Aathaar as-Sunan (pg.248).

8. Shaikh Abdul-Hayy Lucknowee Hanafee mentioned this hadeeth in Ta’leeq al-Mumajjid A’la Muwatta Muhammad; Standing in Ramadhaan (pg.141).

9. Shaikh Anwar Shah Kashmiree Hanafee mentioned in, Chapter What is Said Concerning Qiyaam In the Month of Ramadhaan (al-Urf ash-Shadhee (1/166).

The compiler of al-Albani Unveiled (pg.57-58) mentions a self-refutation point that his blind following, Ta’assub and ta’hazzub have led him to do so without him realizing what he has actually wrote. He writes, “The Imam al-Muhadithin al-Bukhari (Rahamihaullah) has placed the hadith from Aisha under at least two sections of his Sahih, first Bukhari, vol 2, chapter 15 no.246 English Ed) and then under the section of 32: The Book of Taraweeh Prayers. (see Sahih al-Bukhari 3/230 pg.128).

This means that Imam Bukhari believed that the prayer mentioned by Aisha was that of Tahajjud only, and since the tahajjud prayer is performed also in Ramadan, then Imam Bukhari also quoted the same hadith under the Book Of Taraweeh Prayers, but Allaah knows best.” (End of his words.)

Then this individual with little comprehension failed to realize aswell as the other hanafee’s that Imaam Bukhaari held the Tahajjud prayer to also be the prayer we know as Taraaweeh in the Month of Ramadhaan. Furthermore Imaam Bukhaari by bringing the very same hadeeth in the following two chapters elucidates he held both the prayers with the different names to be the same prayer, as opposed to bringing two different hadeeth in the two different chapters.

The Third Answer

No Scholar of the earlier times has said this hadeeth is not concerning the Taraaweeh prayer.

The Fourth Answer

A number of Scholars have presented this hadeeth when refuting the weak ahadeeth for 20 raka’hs for Taraaweeh.

1. Haafidh Zailaa’ee Hanafee (Nasb ur-Raayah (2/153).

2. Imaam Ibn Hajr al-Asqalaanee (ad-Diraayah (1/203).

3. Shaikh Ibn Humaam Hanafee (Fath ul-Qadeer (1/467).

4. Shaikh Ainee Hanafee (Umdatul-Qaaree (11/128).

5. Imaam Suyootee (al-Haawee Lil-Fataawa (1/348).

The Fifth Answer

The questioner asked concerning Ramadhaan and hence the Qiyaam in Ramadhaan, which is known as Taraaweeh, the questioner did not even ask concerning Tahajjud prayer.

Hence Imaam Abdul-Jabbaar Khandayaalwee said, “Thirdly:- The questioner only questioned regarding Qiyaam Ramadhaan which we refer to as taraaweeh and the questioner did not even ask concerning the tahajjud prayer. Rather the Mother of the Believers A’aishah answered in addition to what the questioner asked and explained the Qiyaam in Ramadhaan and outside of Ramadhaan so the questioner would know the prayer of the Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam) other than the Qiyaam of Ramadhaan ie the tahajjud prayer. Hence the hadeeth narrated by A’aishah in Saheeh al-Bukhaari is a clear evidence for 8 raka’h taraaweeh and 3 Witr’s and this is also supported and explained by the hadeeth in Ibn Khuzaimah and Ibn Hibbaan.” (al-Insaaf Raf’a Ikhtilaaf Musama bih Khaatimah Ikhtilaaf (pg.64).

The Sixth Answer

According to the hanafee position Taraaweeh prayer and the Tahajjud prayer are two different prayers. So according to the Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee-Wasallam) prayed 23 (20+3) raka’hs first (as Taraaweeh) and then 11 raka’hs (8+3) (as Tahajjud) just as they deduce from the Hadeeth of A’aishah.

However the problem here is that this will necessitate the Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee-Wasallam) prayed the witr prayer twice in one night, when the Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee-Wasallam) said, “There are no two Witr prayers in one night.” (Tirmidhee (1/107), Abu Dawood, Nasaa’ee, Saheeh Ibn Khuzaimah and Saheeh Ibn Hibbaan)

The Seventh Answer

Shaikh Anwar Shah Kashmiree Hanafee Deobandee accepted and admitted Tahajjud and Taraaweeh are the one and the same prayer and there is no difference between the two. (See his Faidh al-Baaree (2/420) and al-Urf ash-Shadhee (1/166). He said, “According to my preference taraaweeh and tahajjud are one prayer, although there are differences in their attributes.”

The Imaam and Shaikh of the Deobandee Hanafee’s Rasheed Ahmad Gangohee also held the position that Tahajjud and Taraaweeh were both the same prayer. (see his al-Lam’a ad-Duraaree (2/285)

The Eighth Answer

Umar bin al-Khattaab also understood Tahajjud and Taraaweeh to be the same prayer. (see Faidh al-Baaree (2/420) of Anwar Shah).

The Ninth Answer.

 Numerous scholar prohibited the people from praying the Tahajjud prayer who had already prayed the Taraaweeh prayer. (see Qiyaam al-Layl of Muhammad Nasr al-Marwazee from Faidh al-Baaree (2/420).

The Tenth Answer

The Other Ahadeeth like Jaabir’s mention the Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee-Wasallam) prayed 8 raka’hs and Witr in the month of Ramadhaan.

The Second Evidence – The Hadeeth Of Umar – From Imaam Maalik from Saa’ib bin Yazeed

Imaam Maalik from Muhammad bin Yoosuf from Saa’ib bin Yazeed that Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) ordered Ubayy ibn Ka’ab and Tameem ad-Daaree to lead the people in 11 raka’hs.

Muwatta Imaam Maalik (1/114), Musannaf ibn Abee Shaybah (2/391-392), Sunan Sa’eed ibn Mansoor as quoted from al-Haawee lil-Fataawa (1/349), Saheeh Ibn Khuzaimah (1/184), as-Sunan al-Kubraa of Baihaaqee (2/496), al-Faryaabee (1/76, 2/75), Sharh Ma’anee al-Athaar (1/193), A’un al-Ma’bood (4/175), al-Mukhtarah of Haafidh Dhiyaa al-Maqdisee from Kunzul al-A’amaal (8/407), Ma’arifah as-Sunan of Baihaaqee (2/367-368), Qiyaam al-Layl (pg.200), Abu Bakr Neesabooree in al-Fawaa’id (1/135), Musannaf Abdur Razzaaq from Kunzul A’amaal, Mishkaat al-Masaabeeh (1/115), Sharh As-Sunnah of Baghawee (4/120), al-Muhazzab Fee Ikhtisaar as-Sunan al-Kabeer of Dhahabee (2/461), Kunzul A’amaal (8/407), as-Sunan al-Kubraa of Nasaa’ee from Tuhfatul Ashraaf of Mizzee (8/22), Nayl al-Awthaar (3/57), Tuhfatul-Ahwadhee (3/442), of Allaamah Mubaarakpooree, Aathaar as-Sunan (p.250) of Nimawee Hanafee, Also transmitted by Imaam Umar bin Shaybah (d.262H) in Taareekh al-Madeenah (2/713).

Muhaddith Mubaarakpooree aid, “Narrated also by Sa’eed bin Mansoor, Abu Bakr bin Abee Shaybah. Nimawee said in Aathaar as-Sunan, “The chain is authentic.” (Tuhfatul-Ahwadhee (3/442)

Haafidh Ibn Abdul-Barr said, “Maalik mentioned 11 raka’hs and others have mentioned 21 raka’hs.” (Tamheed (8/114).

Imaam Bukhaari has brought a hadeeth in his Saheeh in the Book of Hajj with the exact same Chain, therefore the narrators are trustworthy according to the conditions of Imaam al-Bukhaari. Similarly Imaam Tirmidhee said about a chain like this Hasan-Saheeh.

Imaam Suyootee said about its chain “This athar is at the highest level of authenticity.” (al-Masaabeeh Fee Salaatul Taraaweeh (pg.15) of Imaam Suyootee and in his al-Haawee lil-Fataawa (1/350), Qiyaam ul-Layl of Marwazee (pg.200)

Dhiyaa al-Maqdisee authenticated this athar. (See Ikhtisaar Uloom al-Hadeeth (p.77) of Ibn Katheer).

As did Imaam Baaji (Zurqaanee’s Sharh of Muwatta (1/238)

Imaam Badee ud deen after mentioning the narration above said, “The chain of this hadeeth is absolutely authentic. Saa’ib bin Yazeed is a famous companion and Muhammad bin Yoosuf is from the famous trustworthy narrators and his biography is mentioned in Taqreeb and in Tahdheeb ((9/534) and there is no defect in this chain, it is continuous and authentic and its wording is also clear that Ameer Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) ordered 11 raka’hs.” (Tanqeed as-Sadeed (pg.264).

The Hanafee Scholar, Nimawee said “The chain is authentic” Aathaar as-Sunan (pg.250)

Note- The Claim of Idhtiraab

The compiler of Al-Albani Unveiled (pg.59-61) cites the research of a pamphlet from Madrasah Arabia Islamia, Azadville, South Africa) where both hanafee parties eventually conclude this hadeeth of Imaam Maalik is Mudhtarib (ie interchanged) and hence weak and unacceptable.

The Answer

Imaam Abdur-Rahmaan Mubaarakpooree after bringing a narration of Saa’ib bin Yazeed via a different chain including Abu Uthmaan Basree and Abu Taahir Faqeeh which mentions in the time of Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) the people would observe 20 raka’hs and witr, he cites Nimawee as saying he could find out about these two narrators and then agrees with him.

Thereafter he says, “…It also opposes that which has been transmitted by Sa’eed bin Mansoor in his Sunan, he said, “Hadathana (narrated to us) Abdul-Azeez bin Muhammad Hadathanee (narrated to me) Muhammad bin Yoosuf Sami’tu (I heard) as-Saa’ib bin Yazeed Yaqool (say), “In the time of Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) we used to observe 11 raka’hs.” Haafidh Jalaal ud deen Suyootee said in Risaalah al-Masaabeeh Fee Salaatul-Taraaweeh after mentioning this athar, “This athar is at the highest level of authenticity.”

Allaamah Mubaarakpooree went onto say, “It also opposes what has been narrated by Muhammad bin Nasr in Qiyaam al-Layl via the route of Muhammad bin Ishaaq from Muhammad bin Yoosuf from his grandfather as-Saa’ib bin Yazeed who said, “In the time of Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) we would pray 13 raka’hs in Ramadhaan.” It also opposes that which has been narrated by Maalik in his Muwatta from Muhammad bin Yoosuf from Saa’ib bin Yazeed who said, “Umar bin al-Khattaab ordered Ubayy bin Ka’ab and Tameem ad-Daaree to lead the people in 11 raka’hs.” So the athar of Saa’ib bin Yazeed narrated by Baihaqee (mentioning 20 raka’hs) then it is not correct to use it as evidence.” (Tuhfatul-Ahwadhee (3/447)

Shaikh al-Imaam al-Albaanee after mentioning the hadeeth says, “I say This chain (of this hadeeth of Muhammad bin Yoosuf from Saa’ib bin Yazeed) is very authentic and Muhammad bin Yoosuf the teacher of Imaam Maalik is trustworthy with agreement. And the Shaikhain (Ie Imaams Bukhaari and Muslim) have used his as poof. Saa’ib bin Yazeed is a minor Companion and he performed Hajj with the Prophet (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam). This narration is by the way of Maalik, transmitted by Abu Bakr Neesaabooree in al-Fawaa’id (1/135), Faryaabee (1/76 2/75) and Baihaqee in as-Sunan al-Kubraa (1/496).

Maalik is supported in his narration of 11 raka’hs by Yahyaa bin Sa’eed al-Qattan in Musannaf Ibn Abee Shaybah (2/89/2) (2/391-392), Ismaa’eel bin Umayyah, Usaamah bin Zaid, Muhammad bin Ishaaq with al-Neesaabooree and Ismaa’eel bin Ja’afar al-Madanee with Ibn Khuzaimah in the hadeeth of Alee bin Hujr (1/1864), and all of they mention from Muhammad bin Yoosuf (11 raka’hs). Except Ibn Ishaaq as he says, “13 raka’hs.” As narrated by Ibn Nasr in Qiyaam al-Layl (pg.91).

The Shaikh goes onto say, “I say: The number 13 as mentioned by Ibn Ishaaq then he is alone in reporting it. However this narration coincides with the narration of A’aishah in the standing in Ramadhaan and It has been mentioned previously that the Sunnah’s for Fajr have been included in this, in the footnotes (pg.16-17) in this manner the narration of Ibn Ishaaq is coincided with the narrations from the group.

As for the saying of Ibn Abdul-Barr that, “I do not know a single person say 11 raka’hs except Maalik.” So this is a clear error, al-Mubaarakpooree said in Tuhfatul-Ahwadhee (2/74), “An false error.” Zurqaanee also refutes this in Sharh al-Muwatta (1/25) and says, “It is not as he (Ibn Abdul-Barr) has said. This narration has been narrated by Sa’eed bin Mansoor from Muhammad bin Yoosuf by mentioning 11 raka’hs as Maalik said.”

I say: The chain is very authentic as Suyootee said in al-Masaabeeh and this report alone is sufficient to refute the statement of Ibn Abdul-Barr…” (Salaatul-Taraaweeh (pg.45-47)

Further Elucidation The Hadeeth is not Mudhtarib And The lack of Understanding of the Hanafee’s

The above claim of mudhtarib cited by the compiler of Al-Albani Unveiled (pg.59-61) who cites it from Madrasah Arabia Islamia, Azadville, South Africa and they took it from Habeeb ur-Rehmaan A’dhamee’s book on Taraaweeh.

They claim the narration of Muhammad bin Yoosuf who narrates 11 raka’hs, contradicts that what has been narrated by Abdur-Razzaaq who narrates 21 raka’hs, and therefore it is mudhtarib.

The Answer

So the definition of Mudhtarib hadeeth is one which is reported more than once from a single narrator, or from two or more narrators, which disagree and all of similar strength such that one cannot be preferred to the others. (See Imaam Suyootee’s Tadreeb ur-Raawee (1/262).

The narration of Imaam Maalik is preferred over the narration of Abdur-Razzaaq because the strength of the memory of Imaam Maalik was preferred over Abdur-Razzaaq’s therefore it is not mudhtarib.

The narrator who narrates Abdur-Razzaaq’s book of Fasting is Ishaaq bin Ibraaheem ad-Dabaree. (see Musannaf Abdur-Razzaaq (4/153).

So Dabaree heard the works of Abdur-Razzaaq from him when he was seven (7) years old and he was not a companion of hadeeth. He would also report rejected ahadeeth from Abdur-Razzaaq, which contradict what is authentic. Some scholars have even authored whole books containing the mistakes and errors in transmission of ad-Dabaree with regards to the Musannaf. (See Meezaan ul-Ei’tidaal 1/331-332 no.732).

Imaam Muhaddith al-Albaanee said this narration (of Abdur-Razzaaq that mentions 21 raka’hs) cannot be presented and firstly trustworthy narrators mention 11 raka’hs.

Secondly Abdur-Razzaaq is alone in reporting and although Abdur-Razzaaq is trustworthy the Haafidh and the famous author his memory deteriorated as he became blind. Haafidh Ibn Hajr has mentioned this in Taqreeb and Haafidh Ibn as-Salaah counted him from those people whose memories deteriorated at the end. Hence he said in his Muqaddimah Uloom al-Hadeeth (pg.407), Ahmad bin Hanbal mentioned he (Abdur-Razzaaq) became blind at the end so whoever would inform him he would accept it, and those who heard after he became blind are nothing. Nasaa’ee said look into those who wrote from him in the end.”

And he (ibn as-Salaah said in the introduction of the aforementioned chapter (pg.391), ““The ruling concerning such narrators is that the ahadeeth narrated by them before they started to forget are accepted and the ahadeeth they narrated after they started to forget are not accepted. Also concerning the narrators there are doubts about (is which ahadeeth of theirs) was narrated before or after they became forgetful are not accepted.”

I say: This athar is of the third type (of the ones mentioned by Haafidh Ibn as-Salaah) ie we do not know when this hadeeth was narrated from him after or before he started to forget. So there are contraindications and contradictions in this narration so how can it be accepted.” (Salaatul-Taraaweeh (pg.47-49) Summarized).

 

The Third Evidence – The First Hadeeth of Jaabir al-Ansaari

Jaabir (Radhiallaahu Anhu) narrates that the Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam) led us in prayer in Ramadhaan and he prayed 8 raka’hs and witr. (Saheeh Ibn Khuzaimah (2/138 no.1070), Saheeh Ibn Hibbaan (4/62,64 no.2401, 2406), A’un al-Ma’bood (4/175), Mu’ajam as-Sagheer (1/190) of Tabaraanee, Mukhtasar Qiyaam al-Layl (pg.197), Subl as-Salaam (3/28), Nayl al-Awthaar (3/58)

The chain is hasan as indicated by Haafidh Ibn Hajr Asqaalanee in Fath ul-Baaree (3/10) and in Talkhees al-Habeer (1/119).

The authors of the books of Saheeh by bringing a narrator of a saheeh hadeeth in their books indicates their authenticity according to them (ie Imaams Ibn Khuzaimah and Ibn Hibbaan). (See al-Iqtaraah (pg.55) of Ibn Daqeeq al-Eed and Nasb ur-Raayah (1/149) and (3/264). Haafidh Ibn as-Salaah mentioned the same in is Uloom al-Hadeeth.

Nimawee Hanafee also authenticated it in Aathaar as-Sunan (p.248)

Also authenticated by Maulana Abdul Hayy Lucknowee Hanafee in Umdatur Raayah (1/207) and Ta’leequl Mumajjid (p.138) who said it was extremely authentic.

The Second Hadeeth of Jaabir – Of Ubayy ibn Ka’ab

On the authority of Jaabir (Radhiallaahu Anhu) that Ubayy Ibn Ka’ab (Radhiallaahu Anhu) came to the Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam) and said, “I did something yesterday night” the Messenger of Allaah said, “What did you do?” he said, “Some women came to my house and said they did not know much Qur’aan so we shall pray behind you and will listen to the Qur’aan.” So I led them in 8 raka’hs of prayer and offered the Witr prayer.” The Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam) remained silent and thus it became the Sunnah.” (Musnad Abee Ya’ala (3/336-337 no.1801), Qiyaam al-Layl (no.155) Majma’a az-Zawaa’id (2/74)

Haafidh al-Haithamee said, “Narrated by Abu Ya’ala, Tabaraanee in al-Awsth and its chain is Hasan.” (Majma’a az-Zawaa’id (2/74).

The Objections (Hanafee)

The likes of Abdur-Raheem Laajpooree Hanafee in his fataawa and the other hanafee scholars like Habeeb ur-Rehmaan al-A’dhamee have raised the following objections and highly ignorant individuals in the west based upon their blind following have re-iterated some of these objections and authored ridiculous books like, “Al-Albani Unveiled…” namely one Sayf ad-Din Ahmad ibn Muhammad (see (pg.62-63) of this book

The First Hanafee Objection.

They say the hadeeth is weak and in attempting to answer this hadeeth they say a narrator in the chain, Muhammad bin Humaid ar-Raazee was weak and a liar and they by mentioning this declare this narration of Jaabir to be weak. Then this is extreme ignorance and indicates their lack of research in the field of hadeeth.

The Answer To the First Objection.

Muhammad bin Humaid is only a narrator of the narration in Qiyaam al-Layl (pg.197) and there are other narrator who have also narrated this hadeeth from the central narrator Ya’qoob bin Abdullaah al-Qummee, they are,

1. Ja’afar bin Humaid al-Koofee (see al-Kaamil (5/889), Mu’ajam as-Sagheer (1/190) of Tabaraanee and Meezaan ul-Ei’tidaal (5/385 no.6561)

2. Abu Rabee’a (Musnad Abee Ya’ala al-Mausalee (3/336), Saheeh Ibn Hibbaan (1/23 no.920)

3. Abdul-A’la bin Hammaad (Musnad Abee Ya’ala and al-Kaamil of Ibn Adiyy)

4. Maalik bin Ismaa’eel (Saheeh Ibn Khuzaimah (2/138)

5. Ubaidullaah Ibn Moosaa (Saheeh Ibn Khuzaimah (2/138 no.1070).

Imaam Shams ul-Haqq A’adheemabaadee has also mentioned some of the chains above in his explanation of Sunan Abee Dawood (see his A’un al-Ma’bood (4/175). All the above narrators are trustworthy, therefore the objection is invalid.

The Second Objection.

They the hanafee’s say Ya’qoob bin Abdulllaah al-Qummee is weak because Imaam Daarqutnee said he was weak.

The Answer To the Second Objection.

Ya’qoob al-Qummee is trustworthy according to the majority of the scholars of hadeeth.

Imaam Tabaraanee after narrating this hadeeth of Ya’qoob al-Qummee said, “This is not narrated from Jaabir bin Abdullah except with this chain, and he (Ya’qoob) is alone in reporting it, and he is Thiqah (Trustworthy).” (Mu’ajam as-Sagheer (1/190) this is further supported by what Haafidh Ibn Hajr mentions from Imaam Tabaraanee concerning Ya’qoob al-Qummee in Tahdheeb.)

Imaam Dhahabee said, “The (Aalim) Scholar of the people of Qum…..Nasaa’ee and others said, “There is no harm in him.” Daarqutnee said, “He is not strong.” I say (ie Imaam Dhahabee) Bukhaari transmitted from him (in his Saheeh) in note form…” (Meezaan ul-Ei’tidaal (7/278 no.9823), ath-Thiqaat (7/645) of Ibn Hibbaan.

Imaam Dhahabee also mentioned Ya’qoob al-Qummee in his monumental work Siyar al-A’laam an-Nabula (8/299-300) and said about him, “al-Imaam al-Muhaddith al-Mufassir.” (The Imaam, The Scholar of Hadeeth and the Explainer)

Haafidh Ibn Hajr said, “Nasaa’ee said, “There is no harm in him.” Abul-Qaasim Tabaraanee said, “He is Trustworthy.” Daarqutnee said, “He is not strong.” Ibn Hibbaan mentioned him in ath-Thiqaat. Jareer bin Abdul-Hameed would say about him, “A believer from the house of Fir’aun.” Muhammad bin Humaid ar-Raazee said when I entered Baghdaad I was welcomed by Imaams Ahmad and Ibn Ma’een and they asked me about the Ahadeeth of Ya’qoob al-Qummee.” (Tahdheeb ut-Tahdheeb (11/340 no.8143), Tabaqaat al-Muhadditheen BaAsbahaan (2/177 no.86) of Abush-Shaikh, Ibn Hibbaan mentions him in his ath-Thiqaat (7/645) and also mentions the above.

And Abdur-Rahmaan ibn Mahdee narrated from him (Ya’qoob al-Qummee). (Tahdheeb ut-Tahdheeb (11/340) and Tabaqaat al-Muhadditheen BaAsbahaan (2/177 no.86).

Imaam Dhahabee said, “Imaam Ahmad said, “The men who Abdur-Rahmaan ibn Mahdee narrates from are trustworthy.” (Siyar al-A’laam an-Nabula (9/203), Taareekh Baghdaad (10/243), Sharh Ellal (1/80), Tahdheeb ut-Tahdheeb (6/281).

And Abdur-Rahmaan ibn Mahdee would only narrate from trustworthy narrators. (Tadreeb ur-Raawee (1/317).

Haafidh Dhahabee also said, “Truthful.” (al-Kaashif (3/255).

Imaam Ibn Khuzaimah graded his hadeeth to be authentic and Shaikh Noor ud deen Haithamee said his hadeeth were Hasan.

As mentioned by Imaam Dhahabee, Imaam Bukhaari has narrated from him in his Saheeh al-Jaami in ta’leeq form and he does not criticize him in his Taareekh al-Kabeer (8/391 no.3443), therefore he (Ya’qoob) is trustworthy with Imaam Bukhaari according to Dhafar Ahmad Thanawee Deobandee Hanafee. (See Qawaa’id Uloom al-Hadeeth (pg.136).

Haafidh Ibn Hajr remained silent on the hadeeth reported by him alone in Fath ul-Baaree (3/10) and this keeping silent by him is an evidence for the authenticity of this hadeeth. (see Qawaa’id Uloom al-Hadeeth (pg.55) of Dhafar Ahmad Thanawee Deobandee Hanafee).

The Third Objection

The Hanafee’s say Eesaa bin Jaariyyah in this chain is weak and Imaam’s Ibn Ma’een, Nasaa’ee, as-Saajee, Uqailee, Ibn Adiyy and Abu Dawood criticized him and some said he was Munkar al-Hadeeth ie rejected in hadeeth. (Refer to Meezaan and Tahdheeb n the tarjamah of Eesaa)

The Answer To the Third Objection.

The criticisms of Eesaa bin Jaariyyah are vague, unclear and non-detailed becase none of the criticisms are backed up by evidence or reason.

Shaikh Abdul-Hayy Lucknowee said, “The condition for vague and unclear criticism to be accepted is that there is no praise (for the same narrator) and that is the narrator who has been criticized has not been praised by any scholar of hadeeth. Therefore if any scholar of hadeeth has praised him and spoken of his trustworthiness then the vague criticism will be rejected.” (ar-Raf’a Wat-Takmeel (pg.6)

The Scholars of hadeeth who criticized Eesaa bin Jaariyyah from the ones mentioned above, are considered to be “Mutashaddideen Fil-Jarh” (Severe and Harsh in Criticism) according to the HANAFEE’S themselves and the evidence for this is what the Hanafee Scholar Abdul-Hayy Lucknowee said about these Scholars of hadeeth when they criticized Abu Haneefah. (See his Zafar al-Amaanee (pg.282).

Similarly Shaikh Abdul-Hayy Lucknowee said (concerning the Mutashaddideen Scholars), “From them is Abu Haatim and Nasaa’ee and Ibn Ma’een and Ibn Qattaan and Yahyaa al-Qattaan and Ibn Hibbaan and other than them who are known to be severe and harsh in criticism.” (Raf’a Wat-Takmeel (pg.18)

________________________NOTE WELL_____________________

With what face do the hanafee’s deobandee’s quote the Muhadditheen when on one hand they curse and revile them by mentioning highly degrading words concerning them and using words to describe them which are nothing but venomous disparagements.

So The Shaikh of the deobandee hanafee’s and tableeghee’s Zakariyyah Khandhelvi said, “Look and listen to the Dhulm (oppression and tyranny) of these scholars of hadeeth.” (See his Taqreer Bukhaari (3/104).

Similarly these Hanafee Deobandee muqallideen and other’s like them, and they number many have notoriously and continuously referred to the People of the Sunnah, the Ahlul-Hadeeth, Ahlul-Athar and the Salafi’s as “Ghair Muqallid’s” (ie non-blind followers) as a derogatory term. However they fail to realize this very same word they coin and concoct for the Sunni’s in a disparaging manner was also used for Abu Haneefah by themselves.

So Shaikh Ashraf Alee Thanawee said, “And it is YAQEENEE (Certain/conclusive) that Imaam A’dham Abu Haneefah was a GHAIR MUQALLD.” (Majaalis Hakeem al-Ummat (pg.345) compiled by Muftee Muhammad Shafee Deobandee the father of Taqee Uthmaanee Hanafee Deobandee.)

“And They would blame others, But they would be the culprits themselves.”

Another renowned Hanafee Deobandee scholar Muhammad Hasan Sanbhalee has sworn and abused the Sunni’s and Ahlul-Hadeeth so much so that whilst expressing his utmost enmity for the Sunni’s says, “Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Qayyim, Shawkaanee, Ibn Hazm and Dawood Dhahiree were all DOGS.” (See his Nazam al-Faraa’id (pg.102) printed in Lucknow).

And there are many statements like this from them just refer to the works of the Affaak Zaahid al-Kawtharee. From one of his despicable statement’s is that he said Imaam Ahmad bin Hanbal the Great Imaam of the Sunni’s was not a Jurist he was only a scholar of hadeeth. (Refer to Tankeel (1/167)

We say the Hanafee’s should take care as we see them continuous upon this otherwise we will have to mention what we feel is not necessary like Musailamah Kadhaab the one who claimed Prophethood for himself was a hanafee. (See Seerah Ibn Hishaam (4/246) and it is known Mirzaa Ghulaam Ahmad Qaadiyaanee was a hanafee. And have you also forgotten Bishr ibn Gayth al-Mareesee was also a Hanafee so refer to (your) the Hanafee books of Tabaqaat. So check yourselves

The Criticism’s of Imaams Nasaa’ee and Uqailee are not Accepted According To the Principles of the Hanafee Deobandee’s.

Its quite ironic and amazing how the hanafee deobandee’s forget their own words, yet they are quick to mention things without thinking. So Shaikh Habeeb ur-Rehmaan Hanafee Deobandee, the one who brought the above criticism of the Scholars of hadeeth on Eesaa bin Jaariyyah in his book Raka’aat Taraaweeh, also said, “To take from Uqailee (referring to his discussion on A’taa Khurasaanee) is incorrect, this is because the scholars of hadeeth do not trust Uqailee’s weakening (of narrators).” (see A’laam al-Marfoo’a (pg.6) of Habeeb ur-Rehmaan.)

Then Habeeb ur-Rehmaan writes about Imaam Nasaa’ee, “Nasaa’ee has made him (ie Zubair bin Sa’eed) weak. However firstly his criticism is vague and unclear and secondly he is quick (hasty) and harsh, therefore his declaring him to be weak is not taken.” (A’laam al-Marfoo’a (pg.8

The criticisms by the other scholars are also vague. Eesaa bin Jaariyyah according to the majority of the scholars is trustworthy and truthful or Hasan al-Hadeeth.

Imaam Bukhaari mentioned him in at-Taareekh al-Kabeer (6/385 no.2721) and he did not mention any criticism on him.

Imaam Abu Zur’ah said there is no harm in him. (al-Jarh Wat-Ta’deel (6/273 no.1513), Meezaan ul-Ei’tidaal(5/385 no.6561), Tahdheeb ut-Tahdheeb (8/179 no.5508)

Imaam Abu Haatim ar-Raazee mentioned him and did not mention any criticism concerning him. (al-Jarh Wat-Ta’deel (6/273) and Abu Haatim remaining silent about a narrator, is his authentication of that narrator according to the hanafee scholar Dhafar Ahmad Thanawee Uthmaanee (See Qawaa’id Uloom al-Hadeeth (pg.248) checked by Abu Guddah Abdul-Fattah al-Hanafee).

Imaam Ibn Hibbaan mentioned him in ath-Thiqaat. (ath-Thiqaat (5/214), Tahdheeb ut-Tahdheeb (8/179)

Imaam Ibn Khuzaimah authenticated his hadeeth as well as Imaam Ibn Hibbaan. Shaikh Haafidh Ibn as-Salaah said, “It is sufficient for a hadeeth to be authentic, that it is present in the book in which their authors declared they would mention such ahadeeth, like the book of Saheeh compiled by Ibn Khuzaimah.” (al-Muqaddimah (pg.9).

al-Haithamee has declared his hadeeth to be good (Majma’a az-Zawaa’id (2/72) and he also declared him (ie Eesaa) to be trustworthy (Majma’a az-Zawaa’id (2/185).

Haafidh Ibn Hajr remained silent on his hadeeth. (See Fath ul-Baaree (3/10)

Hafidh Dhahabee mentioned this hadeeth in Meezaan ul-Ei’tidaal (5/385) and said, “The chain is of a middle level.”

Shaikh al-Bausaree said his hadeeth are good in Misbah uz-Zajaajah az-Zawaa’id Sunan Ibn Maajah (no.4241).

Haafidh Mundhiree said concerning one of his hadeeth, “The chain of this is good.” (Targheeb Wat-Tarheeb (1/507).

Imaam Suyootee after mentioning the statement of Ibn Abdul-Barr said, “Transmitted by Ibn Hibbaan in his Saheeh from the hadeeth of Jaabir from the Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam) that he prayed 8 raka’hs and witr and this is what is authentic.” (Tanweer al-Hawaalik (1/103).

 

The Hanafee Scholars On the Hadeeth of Jaabir

Haafidh Zailaa’ee

Haafidh Zailaa’ee also cited this hadeeth and did not mention any criticism regarding it in two places in his book, therefore this proves this hadeeth was authentic according to him. (See Nasb ur-Raayah (1/276) and (1/293)

Shaikh Ibn Humaam

He also cited this hadeeth and did not mention any criticism on it. (see Fath ul-Qadeer (1/181).

Shaikh Mulla Alee Qaaree

Mulla Alee Qaaree mentioned the statement of his teacher, Ibn Hajr without any criticism at all, he says, “And in the Saheeh of Ibn Khuzaimah and Ibn Hibbaan that the Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam) prayed 8 raka’hs and witr.” (Mirqaat Sharh Mishkaat (2/175).

In another place he categorically writes, “It is authentically established from the Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam) that he prayed 8 Raka’hs and Witr.” (Mirqaat (2/174).

Shaikh Anwar Shah Kashmiree

Anwar Shah said, “The prayer which the Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam) led the companions in prayer in Ramadhaan was a total of 11 raka’hs as reported from Jaabir by Ibn Khuzaimah, Muhammad bin Nasr and Ibn Hibbaan and it was 8 raka’hs and witr, and the witr were 3 raka’hs.” (Kashf as-Satr (pgs. 27, 33).

Therefore, the criticisms of Eesaa bin Jaariyyah by the scholars of hadeeth are not detailed and as he has been also praised, then the praise is taken over the non-detailed criticism. So this hadeeth of Jaabir is at the level of being Hasan.

We ask why in this instance are the criticisms of the Imaams like Imaam Nasaa’ee, Uqailee and Ibn Adiyy taken regarding Eesaa bin Jaariyyah and rejected when the exact same statements are mentioned from them regarding Abu Haneefah.

The Position of Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah

Shaikh ul-Islaam Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah said, “If the one praying the taraaweeh prayer can cope with a lengthy standing then whilst acting upon the norm of the Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam) whose taraaweeh prayer was 13 raka’h with witr, is more virtuous.” (Majmoo Fataawa (23/113)

He also accepts the taraaweeh prayer of the Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam) in Ramadhaan and in the other months to be 13 raka’hs (Majmoo Fataawa (23/120), see also Mulla Alee Qaaree’s Mirqaat Sharh Mishkaat (2/175). (note Shaikh ul-Islaam counts the Sunnah of the Fajr prayer in this number of 13)

The False Claim of There Being Consensus on 20 Raka’hs

Allaamah Muhaddith al-Asr Imaam al-Albaanee said the claim of some of people claiming that there has been Ijmaa on 20 raka’hs is not acceptable and Allaamah Mubaarakpooree said this claim is (baatil) False (See Tuhfah (2/76). Imaam al-Albaanee argues that if the claim of Ijmaa was correct then the jurists of the later times would not have opposed it, whereas we find statements mentioning more and less than 8 raka’hs so an Ijmaa is not established just by the fact of mentioning it in a book and when we further check them we find most of the claims of Ijmaa are incorrect.

The Shaikh goes onto mention the statement of Imaam Nawaab Siddeeque Hasan Khaan, who said the people have fallen careless in quoting and mentioning Ijmaa’s and the one who is aware even of a little of these madhabs knows that the people of these madhab are indulges in such great corruption….” And the Shaikh continues his beautiful explanation (See as-Siraaj al-Wahhaaj Min Kashf Mataalib Saheeh Muslim bin al-Hajjaaj (1/3) from Salaatul-Taraaweeh (pg.72-74) of Imaam al-Albaanee

Imaam Ibn al-Mundhir who died in the year 318H authored a book called “al-Ijmaa” in which he mentions all the issues upon which there has been Ijmaa and according to him there were approximately 765 issues and yet he does not mention any such claim on this Ijmaa on taraaweeh being 20 raka’hs.

Imaam Nawawee said, “An established Sunnah cannot be denied or rejected on the basis of the practice of a majority or a minority.” (Sharh Saheeh Muslim (1/369).

Shaikh Shaah Waleeullaah Muhaddith Dhelawee said, “There is no room for Ijmaa or Qiyaas contrary to the (established) Sunnah.” (Tafheemaat Aalhiyyah (1/41)

 

The Criterion of the Hanafee’s – The Practice in Makkah and Madeenah

The hanafee’s say the people pray 20 raka’hs in Makkah and Madeenah and since they are the places, the ‘Wahabiyyah’ control, why do we pray 8 raka’hs.

The Answer

Then the position of the major scholars of Saudia Arabia is clear like the brightness of the Sun and they have said, “Salaatul-Taraaweeh is the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam) and the evidence for this is that the Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam) did not exceed 11 raka’hs in the month of Ramadhaan or in any other month.” (Signed Shaikhs Abdullaah bin Qa’ood, Abdullah bin al-Ghudayaan, Abdur-Razzaaq al-Afeefee, Abdul-Azeez bin Baaz, Fataawa Lajnatud-Daa’imah (7/194).

They also said, “And superior is that which the Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam) practiced regularly, that one should pray 8 raka’hs and make salutation after every 2 raka’hs and then pray 3 Witr with humility and tranquility and recite the Qur’aan with tarteel. This is established in the Saheehain from A’aishah (Radhiallaahu Anha) who said, “The Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam) did not exceed 11 raka’hs in the month of Ramadhaan or in any other month.”…” (Fataawa Lajnatud-Daa’imah (7/212).

al-Allaamah ash-Shaikh Ibn al-Uthaymeen said, “The Salaf differed in regards to the number of raka’hs for the Taraaweeh prayer and witr, some have said 41, some have said 39 some have said 23, some have said 19 and some have said 13, some have mentioned 11 and some have mentioned a number other than these but from these statements the one that is given precedence is the 11 raka’hs or 13 raka’hs. As in the Saheehain (Bukhaari and Muslim) from A’aishah mention 11 raka’hs and from Ibn Abbaas (Radhiallaahu Anhuma) he mentions 13 raka’hs from Bukhaari. It is in al-Muwatta from Saa’ib bin Yazeed who said Umar bin al-Khattaab ordered Ubayy bin Ka’ab and Tameem ad-Daaree to lead the people in 11 raka’hs.” (Majaalis Shahar Ramadhaan (pg.19).

The Understanding of the Earlier Hanafee Scholars

Please refer to the treatise of Shaikh Allaamah Abdul-Jaleel Saamroodee in this regard, also;-

Abu Yoosuf mentions in his book from Abu Haneefah narrates from Abee Ja’afar Muhammad bin Alee al-Baaqir that the Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam) would pray 8 raka’hs and 3 witr between the prayers of Eeshaa and Fajr and then he would pray the Sunnahs of the Fajr prayer.” (Kitaab al-Aathaar no.170 pg.34). Imaam Tahaawee has also mentioned similar narration in his Sharh Ma’anee al-Aathaar (1/69-174). (note the generality of this narration ie the Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam) would always pray 8 raka’hs)

Similarly the Masaaneed Of Abu Haneefah mentions, “The prayer of the Prophet of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam) would be 13 raka’hs, which included the 3 for Witr and 2 for the Sunnahs of Fajr.” (Masaaneed Imaam A’dham (1/388) Chapter 5)

The Position of the Other Scholars.

After the position of the scholars mentioned above including those from the Ahnaaf some others who held the same opinion as 11 raka’hs are as follows,

Imaam al-Hadeeth wal-Maghaazee, Muhammad bin Ishaaq born 80H and died in 150-151H and we was from the time of the companions and successor, he said, “I have not heard any narration more affirmed and established than the hadeeth of Saa’ib that mentions the Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam) prayed 13 raka’hs in the night.” (Qiyaam al-Layl (pg.157).

As for the narration of 39 from Imaam Maalik from Ibn al-Qaasim (in Mudawwanah) Then firstly clearly contradicts the more authentic narration from Imaam Maalik mentioning 1 raka’hs. Secondly although Ibn al-Qaasim was trustworthy, the issues he narrates from Imaam Maalik need to be looked into because Imaam Abu Zur’ah said, “The People talk about (negatively) the issues Ibn al-Qaasim mentions from Maalik.” (Kitaab adh-Dhu’afaa (pg.534)

Imaam Shaafi’ee narrates the hadeeth, which is in Imaam Maaliks Muwatta from Imaam Maalik himself and says, (Akhbarana) informed me Maalik from Muhammad bin Yoosuf from Saa’ib bin Yazeed who said Umar bin al-Khattaab commanded Ubayy bin Ka’ab and Tameem ad-Daaree to lead the people in 11 raka’hs. (See Sunan al-Kubraa (2/496), Sharh Ma’anee al-Athaar, Kunzul A’maal (8/263), Aathaar as-Sunan (pg.255) of Nimawee.

Imaam Ibn al-Arabee (the author of Ahkaam al-Quraan and not the Kaafir soofee Ibn Arabee) said after bringing the various reports of the number of raka’hs for Taraaweeh says, “The correct position is that Taraaweeh is 11 raka’hs. The Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam) prayed 11 raka’hs and the origin of more raka’hs is not established. Then why should not this be adhered to, the limit to which was adhered to in the time of the Prophet when the Messenger of Allaah’s prayer as 11 raka’hs in the month of Ramadhaan or in any other month, hence following him is obligatory.” (A’aridhal Ahwadhee Sharh Jaami at-Tirmidhee (4/19).

Shaikh Ainee Hanafee mentioned the position of Imaam Maalik himself was that he prayed 11 raka’hs. (see Umdatul-Qaaree (11/127).

Imaam Suyootee mentions the position of Imaam Maalik and says, “Allaamah Jauree informed us concerning Imaam Maalik that his statement was 11 raka’hs of Taraaweeh was beloved to him because Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) also gathered the people to pray 11 raka’hs and the prayer of the Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam) was also 11 raka’hs. Another narration mentions 13 raka’hs with witr, now I do not know where these additional raka’hs have come from.” (al-Masaabeeh Fee Salaatul-Taraaweeh (2/77). Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah also mentions 11 raka’hs to be position of Imaam Maalik (see his Ikhtiyaaraat ilmiyyah (pg.38)

Imaam Badee ud deen says after mentioning the above statement of Imaam Suyootee, “We find the following things from the words of Imaam Maalik,

(1) The Imaam (Maalik) held the position of 11 raka’hs and not 20.

(2) This amount was beloved and favoured with him

(3) This number (of 11) was also acted upon by Umar.

(4) This is the number which Umar gathered the companions upon and this is what the Ijmaa is upon.

(5) This is also the number prayed by the Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee-Was-Sallam)

(6) There is no evidence as regards to an increase to 11 raka’hs.

(7) According to Imaam Maalik this increase (ie more than 11) is something new and created in the religions.

Therefore the claim of Ijmaa is incorrect and the attribution of 20 raka’hs to Umar is also incorrect.” (Tanqeed as-Sadeed (pg.267-268)

Shaikh Allaamah Muhammad Ameer as-Sana’anee said, “That which the majority of the people have agreed upon (that taraaweeh is 20 raka’hs) in an innovation…” (Subl as-Salaam (3/29).

The hanafee scholar Shaikh Abdul-Haqq mentions during the time of Umar bin Abdul-Azeez the people used to pray 8 raka’hs according to the Prophets Sunnah. (Maa Thabt Ba-As-Sunnah (pg.122).

Imaam Nawaab Siddeeque Hasan Khaan has also mentioned the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam) to be 1 raka’hs. (See his Hidaayatus-Saa’il (pg.138), see his A’un al-Baaree Hal Mushkilaat al-Bukhaari (4/375-376).

Imaam al-Allaamah Abu Tayyib Muhammad Shams ul-Haqq A’adheemabaadee mentioned the statement of the author of Tuhfatul-Akhyaar who was Shaikh Abdul-Hayy Lucknowee who said the Rightly guided Khulafa prayed 20 raka’hs for Taraaweeh and then said this is incorrect and it is not established from Abu Bakr and Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhuma) that they prayed 20 raka’hs even once. (A’un al-Ma’bood Sharh Sunan Abee Dawood (4/175)

Shaikh Ahmad Alee Saharanpooree Hanafee said, “The summary of all this discussion is that the standing in Ramadhaan is 11 raka’hs and Witr which is the Sunnah. The Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam) prayed this in congregation…………..And this is what Ibn Humaam said.” (Haashiyyah Saheeh al-Bukhaari (1/154).

Shaikh Abdur-Rahmaan Banna established the following chapter heading in Musnad Ahmad, “The permissibility For Praying 8 Raka’hs for Salaatul-Taraaweeh other than the Witr.” and then he mentioned two ahadeeth of A’aishah (Radhiallaahu Anha) that Taraaweeh is only 8 raka’hs. (See Fath ur-Rabbaanee Ma’a Musnad Ahmad (3/13) and according to Imaam Shaikh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah Imaam Ahmad bin Hanbal held an opinion of 11 raka’hs. (See his Ikhtiyaaraat ilmiyyah (pg.38).

By the two weak slaves of Allah in need of your Duas

Abu Hibban & Abu Khuzaimah Ansaari

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s