al–Qaul as-Saheeh Fee Masalatut-Taraaweeh English islamic book pdf download

al–Qaul as-Saheeh Fee Masalatut-Taraaweeh English islamic book pdf download

al–Qaul as-Saheeh
Fee
Masalatut-Taraaweeh
FORM THE WORKS OF
Imaam Muhammad Abdur-Rahmaan Mubaarakpooree
Imaam Muhammad Shams ul-Haqq A’adheemabaadee
Imaam Muhammad bin Ismaa’eel al-Ameer as-Sana’anee
Imaam Nazeer Ahmad Rehmaanee al-A’adhamee
Imaam Abdul-Jabbaar Khandayaalwee
Imaam Ubaidullaah Rehmaanee Mubaarakpooree
Imaam Badee ud deen Shah Raashidee as-Sindhee
Imaam Muhammad Naasir ud deen al-Albaanee
Allaamah Muhammad Ismaa’eel as-Salafee
Shaikh Safee ur-Rehmaan Mubaarakpooree
Shaikh Muhammad Ra’ees Nadwee
Shaikh Abu Taahir Zubair Alee Za’ee
Shaikh Abdul-Ghafoor al-Atharee
In this booklet we have established, the evidences utilized for 20 raka’hs are weak
and there is not a SINGLE Saheeh hadeeth or athar that mentions the Messenger
of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee Was-Sallam) prayed or commanded 20 raka’hs
Taraaweeh. This booklet also contains the evidences for praying 8 raka’hs and
establishes this to be the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee
Was-Sallam), the Practice of the Companions and those upon their way, All in
light of the statements and understanding of the Scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah WalJama’ah From amongst the Imaams of the Salaf, the Scholars of hadeeth of the
past and present and the Jurists Up Until 1424H
By
Abu Hibbaan Malak & Abu Khuzaimah Ansaari
© Maktabah Ashaabul Hadeeth
al-Qaul as-Saheeh Fee Masalatut-Taraaweeh © Maktabah
Ashaabul-Hadeeth
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 alMu’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 alMu’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
2
al-Qaul as-Saheeh Fee Masalatut-Taraaweeh © Maktabah
Ashaabul-Hadeeth
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
3
al-Qaul as-Saheeh Fee Masalatut-Taraaweeh © Maktabah
Ashaabul-Hadeeth
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 alAllaamah Muhammad Ismaa’eel (d.1246H) the author of TaqwiyyatulEemaan. 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 RafulYadain (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 atTaubah).
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
4
al-Qaul as-Saheeh Fee Masalatut-Taraaweeh © Maktabah
Ashaabul-Hadeeth
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.” (alEi’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.

5
al-Qaul as-Saheeh Fee Masalatut-Taraaweeh © Maktabah
Ashaabul-Hadeeth
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
6
al-Qaul as-Saheeh Fee Masalatut-Taraaweeh © Maktabah
Ashaabul-Hadeeth
Ramadhaan or other than Ramadhaan he would not exceed 11 raka’hs.” (alHadeeth) 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 utTahdheeb (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 alMajrooheen Minal Muhadditheen (1/100 no.14) of Imaam Ibn Hibbaan
7
al-Qaul as-Saheeh Fee Masalatut-Taraaweeh © Maktabah
Ashaabul-Hadeeth
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 utTahdheeb (1/130), Kitaab adh-Dhu’afaa Wal-Matrookeen (1/41), Kitaab adhDhu’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 alHasan 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 WalMatrookeen (1/41 no.86) of Ibn al-Jawzee.
Haafidh Ibn Hajr also said in Taqreeb, “Matrook al-Hadeeth.” (Taqreeb utTahdheeb (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).
8
al-Qaul as-Saheeh Fee Masalatut-Taraaweeh © Maktabah
Ashaabul-Hadeeth
See also al-Mughnee Fidh-Dhu’afaa (1/20), adh-Dhu’afaa (1/59-60), alKaamil (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 LilFataawa (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 alMuwwaqizah 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 asSana’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.
9
al-Qaul as-Saheeh Fee Masalatut-Taraaweeh © Maktabah
Ashaabul-Hadeeth
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 ulGhaleel
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 asSabeel (2/191-192 no.445)
The Statement of Imaam Muhaddith al-Albaanee From SalaatulTaraweeh
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
10
al-Qaul as-Saheeh Fee Masalatut-Taraaweeh © Maktabah
Ashaabul-Hadeeth
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 alHaawee 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.
11
al-Qaul as-Saheeh Fee Masalatut-Taraaweeh © Maktabah
Ashaabul-Hadeeth
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 alUloom 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.”
12
al-Qaul as-Saheeh Fee Masalatut-Taraaweeh © Maktabah
Ashaabul-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 alAlbaanee, above.
Shaikh Abdul-Hayy Lucknowee
Abdul-Hayy Lucknowee have criticized this hadeeth in their works. (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).
13
al-Qaul as-Saheeh Fee Masalatut-Taraaweeh © Maktabah
Ashaabul-Hadeeth
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 asSadeed (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
14
al-Qaul as-Saheeh Fee Masalatut-Taraaweeh © Maktabah
Ashaabul-Hadeeth
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 alKubraa (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 alJa’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 alHussain 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
15
al-Qaul as-Saheeh Fee Masalatut-Taraaweeh © Maktabah
Ashaabul-Hadeeth
list of his teachers and students and he fails to mention Finjuwayah alDinawaree to be from his students. (se 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.
16
al-Qaul as-Saheeh Fee Masalatut-Taraaweeh © Maktabah
Ashaabul-Hadeeth
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)
17
al-Qaul as-Saheeh Fee Masalatut-Taraaweeh © Maktabah
Ashaabul-Hadeeth
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 alMubaarakpooree said in at-Tuhfah (2/85), “Nimawee said in Aathaar asSunan, “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 asSunan (pg.253 no.285).
18
al-Qaul as-Saheeh Fee Masalatut-Taraaweeh © Maktabah
Ashaabul-Hadeeth

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
19
al-Qaul as-Saheeh Fee Masalatut-Taraaweeh © Maktabah
Ashaabul-Hadeeth
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 ulEi’tidaal (2/366 no.2257)
The Words ‘FeeHee Nazar’ (Look Into His Hadeeth) of Ameer alMu’mineen Fil-Hadeeth Muhammad bin Ismaa’eel al-Bukhaari.
Imaam Abdur-Rahmaan Mubaarakpooree said, “BENEFIT: Shaikh Ibn alHumaam 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 alMuwwaqizah (pg.321).
20
al-Qaul as-Saheeh Fee Masalatut-Taraaweeh © Maktabah
Ashaabul-Hadeeth
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 alKawtharee fails to make a distinction between the two statements (See atTankeel 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 alHanafee 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
Tabreeb, 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 alBukhaari.
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 alHadeeth, 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.)
21
al-Qaul as-Saheeh Fee Masalatut-Taraaweeh © Maktabah
Ashaabul-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 alKabeer (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 anNeeraat 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
22
al-Qaul as-Saheeh Fee Masalatut-Taraaweeh © Maktabah
Ashaabul-Hadeeth
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 utTahdheeb (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 asSunan (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 alBayqooniyyah (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-Mulqin, atTaqayyid 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 alAthar (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
23
al-Qaul as-Saheeh Fee Masalatut-Taraaweeh © Maktabah
Ashaabul-Hadeeth
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 alMasaabeeh 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-
24
al-Qaul as-Saheeh Fee Masalatut-Taraaweeh © Maktabah
Ashaabul-Hadeeth
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 alMubaarakpooree (in Tuhfah (2/75) and in agreeing with this he (alMubaarakpooree 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 utTahdheeb (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. (SalaatulTaraaweeh (pg.69-70)
25
al-Qaul as-Saheeh Fee Masalatut-Taraaweeh © Maktabah
Ashaabul-Hadeeth
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).
26
al-Qaul as-Saheeh Fee Masalatut-Taraaweeh © Maktabah
Ashaabul-Hadeeth
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.
27
al-Qaul as-Saheeh Fee Masalatut-Taraaweeh © Maktabah
Ashaabul-Hadeeth
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.)
28
al-Qaul as-Saheeh Fee Masalatut-Taraaweeh © Maktabah
Ashaabul-Hadeeth
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 ashShaaf’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 alHadeeth) and the scrutinizers of narrations.” (al-Kifaayah Fee Ilm arRiwaayah (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 arRaazee(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
29
al-Qaul as-Saheeh Fee Masalatut-Taraaweeh © Maktabah
Ashaabul-Hadeeth
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 alHadeeth (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 utTahdheeb (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
30
al-Qaul as-Saheeh Fee Masalatut-Taraaweeh © Maktabah
Ashaabul-Hadeeth
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 utTahdheeb)
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.
31
al-Qaul as-Saheeh Fee Masalatut-Taraaweeh © Maktabah
Ashaabul-Hadeeth
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
32
al-Qaul as-Saheeh Fee Masalatut-Taraaweeh © Maktabah
Ashaabul-Hadeeth
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 alQaasimiyyah (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 arRamadhaan 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).
    33
    al-Qaul as-Saheeh Fee Masalatut-Taraaweeh © Maktabah
    Ashaabul-Hadeeth
  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 ashShadhee (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 alMuhadithin 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.
  10. Haafidh Zailaa’ee Hanafee (Nasb ur-Raayah (2/153).
    34
    al-Qaul as-Saheeh Fee Masalatut-Taraaweeh © Maktabah
    Ashaabul-Hadeeth
  11. Imaam Ibn Hajr al-Asqalaanee (ad-Diraayah (1/203).
  12. Shaikh Ibn Humaam Hanafee (Fath ul-Qadeer (1/467).
  13. Shaikh Ainee Hanafee (Umdatul-Qaaree (11/128).
  14. 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 alBukhaari 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 ashShadhee (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.
    35
    al-Qaul as-Saheeh Fee Masalatut-Taraaweeh © Maktabah
    Ashaabul-Hadeeth
    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), alFaryaabee (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 alA’amaal (8/407), Ma’arifah as-Sunan of Baihaaqee (2/367-368), Qiyaam alLayl (pg.200), Abu Bakr Neesabooree in al-Fawaa’id (1/135), Musannaf Abdur
    Razzaaq from Kunzul A’amaal, Mishkaat al-Masaabeeh (1/115), Sharh AsSunnah 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).
    36
    al-Qaul as-Saheeh Fee Masalatut-Taraaweeh © Maktabah
    Ashaabul-Hadeeth
    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 alHadeeth (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 asSunan (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) AbdulAzeez 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
    37
    al-Qaul as-Saheeh Fee Masalatut-Taraaweeh © Maktabah
    Ashaabul-Hadeeth
    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 asSaa’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 alKubraa (1/496).
    Maalik is supported in his narration of 11 raka’hs by Yahyaa bin Sa’eed alQattan 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 Qaiyaam 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)
    38
    al-Qaul as-Saheeh Fee Masalatut-Taraaweeh © Maktabah
    Ashaabul-Hadeeth
    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 AbdurRazzaaq 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 (AbdurRazzaaq) 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 asSalaah) ie we do not know when this hadeeth was narrated from him after or
    39
    al-Qaul as-Saheeh Fee Masalatut-Taraaweeh © Maktabah
    Ashaabul-Hadeeth
    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 ulBaaree (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)
    40
    al-Qaul as-Saheeh Fee Masalatut-Taraaweeh © Maktabah
    Ashaabul-Hadeeth
    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,
  15. Ja’afar bin Humaid al-Koofee (see al-Kaamil (5/889), Mu’ajam asSagheer (1/190) of Tabaraanee and Meezaan ul-Ei’tidaal (5/385
    no.6561)
  16. Abu Rabee’a (Musnad Abee Ya’ala al-Mausalee (3/336), Saheeh Ibn
    Hibbaan (1/23 no.920)
  17. Abdul-A’la bin Hammaad (Musnad Abee Ya’ala and al-Kaamil of Ibn
    Adiyy)
  18. Maalik bin Ismaa’eel (Saheeh Ibn Khuzaimah (2/138)
    41
    al-Qaul as-Saheeh Fee Masalatut-Taraaweeh © Maktabah
    Ashaabul-Hadeeth
  19. 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 alMa’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.” AbulQaasim Tabaraanee said, “He is Trustworthy.” Daarqutnee said, “He is not
strong.” Ibn Hibbaan mentioned him in ath-Thiqaat. Jareer bin AbdulHameed 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
42
al-Qaul as-Saheeh Fee Masalatut-Taraaweeh © Maktabah
Ashaabul-Hadeeth
(9/203), Taareekh Baghdaad (10/243), Sharh Ellal (1/80), Tahdheeb utTahdheeb (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.” (arRaf’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 WatTakmeel (pg.18)
43
al-Qaul as-Saheeh Fee Masalatut-Taraaweeh © Maktabah
Ashaabul-Hadeeth
_______________________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.
44
al-Qaul as-Saheeh Fee Masalatut-Taraaweeh © Maktabah
Ashaabul-Hadeeth
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 urRehmaan.)
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 azZawaa’id (2/185).
Haafidh Ibn Hajr remained silent on his hadeeth. (See Fath ul-Baaree (3/10)
Haafidh Dhahabee mentioned this hadeeth in Meezaan ul-Ei’tidaal (5/385)
and said, “The chain is of a middle level.”
45
al-Qaul as-Saheeh Fee Masalatut-Taraaweeh © Maktabah
Ashaabul-Hadeeth
Shaikh al-Bausaree said his hadeeth are good in Misbah uz-Zajaajah azZawaa’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.
46
al-Qaul as-Saheeh Fee Masalatut-Taraaweeh © Maktabah
Ashaabul-Hadeeth
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
47
al-Qaul as-Saheeh Fee Masalatut-Taraaweeh © Maktabah
Ashaabul-Hadeeth
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 asSiraaj 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 “alIjmaa” 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 WasSallam) 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
48
al-Qaul as-Saheeh Fee Masalatut-Taraaweeh © Maktabah
Ashaabul-Hadeeth
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 adDaaree 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)
49
al-Qaul as-Saheeh Fee Masalatut-Taraaweeh © Maktabah
Ashaabul-Hadeeth
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 alKhattaab 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).
50
al-Qaul as-Saheeh Fee Masalatut-Taraaweeh © Maktabah
Ashaabul-Hadeeth
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 alBukhaari (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 SalaatulTaraaweeh other than the Witr.” and then he mentioned two ahadeeth of
A’aishah (Radhiallaahu Anha) that Taraaweeh is only 8 raka’hs. (See Fath urRabbaanee Ma’a Musnad Ahmad (3/13) and according to Imaam Shaikh ulIslaam Ibn Taymiyyah Imaam Ahmad bin Hanbal held an opinion of 11
raka’hs. (See his Ikhtiyaaraat ilmiyyah (pg.38), al-Musfaa Sharh Muwatta
(1/771) of Shah Waleeullaah Dhelawee.

51