Consensus of the Companions on Twenty Rak’ahs of Taraweeh
Mufti Shabbir Ahmad Qasmi’s First Argument:
This narration from Muwatta Imam Malik and Sunan al-Kubra is often presented by many followers, although this narration is not even worthy of being presented because the narrator Yazid bin Roman is among the younger generation of the Tabi‘in; he did not live during the time of Hazrat Umar. Since he was not present in that era, how can he narrate about that time? Obviously, he must have heard this from someone else, but who that person was is unknown and obscure.
Point of Reflection:
On one hand, there is this narration in which Yazid bin Roman, who himself was not present during the time of Umar Farooq, narrates from unknown narrators a statement that contradicts authentic hadith, and even the Hanafi scholars admit that its chain is disconnected and incomplete. Accordingly, Allama Zailai in Nasb al-Rayah fi Takhrij Ahadith al-Hidayah and Allama Ayni in Umdat al-Qari Sharh Bukhari have acknowledged this, and similarly other Hanafi scholars have also admitted it. Allama Ayni states:
قال البيهقي: والثلاث هو الوترو يزيد لم يدرك عمر ففيه انقطاع
That is, this narration mentions twenty rak’ahs of Taraweeh and three rak’ahs of Witr, but Yazid bin Roman did not live during the time of Hazrat Umar, so this narration has a broken chain.
On the other hand, there is another narration from the same Muwatta which is authentic and has a connected chain. Imam Malik says:
عن محمد بن يوسف عن السائب بن يزيد انه قال: امر عمر بن الخطاب ابي بن كعب وتميما الداري ان يقوما للناس باحدي عشرة ركعة قال: وقد كان القاري يقرأ بالمثاني حتي كنا نعتمد على العصى من طول القيام وما كنا ننصرف الا فى فروع الفجر.
Saib bin Yazid says that Hazrat Umar bin Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) ordered Ubayy bin Ka’b and Tamim Dari (may Allah be pleased with them) to lead the people in eleven rak’ahs.
He says: The reciter used to recite long surahs (one rak’ah contained one hundred verses). Due to the length of standing, we were compelled to lean on sticks, and we would finish the Taraweeh prayer just a little before Fajr.
It is clear from this that Qasmi Sahib’s argument is merely ineffective and useless. To use it as evidence means nothing else but that they have no valid argument to prove their claim.
② Mufti Sahib’s Second Argument:
This narration that Mufti Sahib has quoted, I wish he had also quoted the chain of narration from Baihaqi, but he did not do so. Instead, he narrated from Hazrat Saib bin Yazid.
So why is this so?
So this is because the narration of Hazrat Saib bin Yazid, which is authentic, mentions only eleven rak’ahs, which we have quoted with reference to Muwatta and has been discussed in the answer to the first argument.
Mufti Sahib quoted a narration from the same Saib bin Yazid mentioning twenty rak’ahs so that less knowledgeable people get confused and cannot make a decision. And Mufti Sahib succeeds in his trick. Also, if the entire chain of narration that Al-Bayhaqi has transmitted were mentioned, the whole deception would be exposed, and the well-planned game would be spoiled. But as long as the Ahl al-Hadith exist in this world, they will continue to expose the fabrications made to imitate the non-Ahl al-Hadith people. So let us perform this duty today.
Imam Al-Bayhaqi transmitted the chain of narration of this hadith as follows:
وقد اخبرنا ابو عبدالله الحسين بن محمد بن الحسين بن فنجويه الدينوري بالدامغان حدثنا احمد بن محمد بن اسحاق السني اخبرنا عبد الله بن محمد بن عبد العزيز البغوي حدثنا على بن جعفر اخبرنا ابن ابي ذئب عن يزيد بن خصيفة عن السائب بن يزيد قال كانوا الخ.
Dear viewers!
In the chain of narration, there is a narrator named Husain bin Muhammad bin Hasan bin Fanjawiyah al-Dinawari.
The famous hadith critic Imam al-Dhahabi says about him:
قال شيرويه فى تاريخه كان ثقة صدوقا كثيرا الرواية للمناكير.
Sahib al-Firdaws al-Daylami Imam Shirwayh bin Shahdhar bin Shirwayh said:
Ibn Fanjawiyah is trustworthy and truthful, but he frequently narrates weak (denounced) traditions.
The second narrator in this hadith is Yazid bin Khasifah, about whom the famous muhaddith Imam Ajuri says that Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal declared him a denier of hadith. Imam Ahmad’s verdict is also agreed upon by Imam al-Dhahabi, who, after quoting Imam Ahmad’s criticism in his book
, remains silent.
Regarding Yazid bin Khasifah, the author of Mashahir al-Ulama al-Amsar states: وكان يهم كثيرا اذا حدث من حفظه
Meaning, when he narrates hadith relying on his memory, he is often mistaken.
From the above statements, it is clear that this narration is not reliable for argument. Firstly, because its chain contains weak narrators; secondly, because it contradicts authentic narrations; thirdly, because it contradicts the authentic narrations of companions like Hazrat Aisha and Hazrat Jabir, etc., who describe the night prayer (Qiyam al-Layl) of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). It is evident that accepting that Hazrat Umar Farooq (may Allah be pleased with him) gave a ruling contrary to the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) is completely against his status and rank. The narrations that state he ordered only eleven rak’ahs are more deserving of acceptance both in terms of chain and text, as well as considering the status and rank of Hazrat Umar Farooq (may Allah be pleased with him). Therefore, those narrations should be accepted, and the narrations under discussion should be rejected.
③ Mufti Sahib’s Third Argument
Answer:
Mufti Sahib, please provide the chain of narration for this report, but where to copy it from? Even Allama Bayhaqi himself did not copy its chain of narration, and obviously Hazrat Umar bin Shakhl is among the companions of Ali, and there is a considerable gap of intermediaries between Imam Bayhaqi and him. Who those intermediaries are is unknown.
Imam Bayhaqi mentioned it by saying “Warwina,” meaning it was narrated to us. Who narrated it and who told him? There is no detail available. What kind of argument is this to rely on such a narration? Have you forgotten what you wrote about the issue of folding hands below the navel?
And the report of Tawus bin Kaysan is not a Marfu‘ Hadith (directly from the Prophet), and there is no record of who the narrators are between Tawus and the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. Insisting on folding hands on the chest through such narrations and criticizing and accusing those who do not fold their hands—what kind of justice is this?
Why, Mufti Sahib, is this report of Umar bin Shakhl considered a Marfu‘ Hadith? And can you tell who the narrators are between Umar bin Shakhl and Imam Bayhaqi? Can you provide their names and identities? Insisting on twenty Rak‘ahs of Taraweeh through disconnected, non-Marfu‘ narrations and accusing those who do not pray eleven Rak‘ahs—where is the justice in this?
Look at your own words and actions.
If we say anything, it will be considered a complaint.
One more thing I want to write by way of indication: Mufti Sahib and his supporters should read carefully and pay attention. The question here is not whether someone has prayed twenty Rak‘ahs or not. Those who have prayed have prayed different numbers of Rak‘ahs at different times. The issue that is undisputed between us and you is not whether anyone has prayed twenty Rak‘ahs or not. The real issue is: How many Rak‘ahs of Taraweeh did the Messenger of Allah ﷺ actually perform? Is twenty Rak‘ahs of Taraweeh the Sunnah of the Prophet? Did the Rightly Guided Caliphs order twenty Rak‘ahs to be prayed?
And obviously, it is not proven by any authentic chain of narration that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ prayed twenty Rak‘ahs of Taraweeh, or that he ordered twenty, or that the Companions prayed twenty Rak‘ahs in his time.
Similarly, it is not proven that any of the Rightly Guided Caliphs ordered twenty Rak‘ahs. Whatever is narrated in this regard is either not explicit or, if explicit, is not authentic. And you and your supporters confuse ordinary Muslims by not speaking straightforwardly.
The question is not how many Rak‘ahs were prayed in any era; the question is how many Rak‘ahs the Messenger of Allah ﷺ performed.
And you all avoid this and save yourselves by presenting weak narrations and disputed reports about the Rightly Guided Caliphs, and you consider deceiving people and boasting about it as your victory. As the saying goes:
The orator of the city is baseless in his colorful speech,
He insists on a few unfounded matters.
④ Mufti Sahab’s Fourth Argument:
Answer:
Mufti Sahab did not provide the chain of narration for this effect. Let us tell you its chain of narration as follows:
اخبرنا ابوالحسين بن الفضل القطان ببغداد اخبرنا محمد بن احمد بن عيسي بن عبدك الرازي حدثنا ابو عامر عمرو بن تميم حدثنا احمد بن عبدالله بن يونس حدثنا حماد بن شعيب عن عطاء بن السائب.
Dear Viewers!
This narration is not reliable because its chain includes Hammad bin Shu’aib Al-Maani Al-Kufi, whom hadith critics have declared weak. Accordingly, the author of Mizan al-I’tidal states:
ضعفه ابن معين وغيره وقال يحيي مرة: لا يكتب حديثه وقال البخاري: فيه نظر وقال النسائي: ضعيف وقال ابن عدي اكثر حديثه مما لا يتابع عليه. وقال ابوحاتم، ليس بالقوي.
Imam Yahya bin Ma’in declared him weak and also said: His hadiths are not worthy of being recorded. Imam Bukhari said “feehi nazar,” meaning it is not acceptable as evidence.
Imam Nasai declared him weak, and Imam Ibn Adi said: Most of his hadiths are such that others do not follow him. Imam Abu Hatim said: He is not strong.
Not only did the earlier scholars declare him weak and unreliable, but even the famous scholar of the Deobandi circle, Allama Naimvi, says:
Hammad bin Shu’aib is weak. Meaning Hammad bin Shu’aib is weak.
Now how can Mufti Sahib’s claim be proven from such a source?
⑤ Mufti Sahib’s fifth argument:
Answer:
Mufti Sahib did not copy its chain of narration.
The chain is as follows:
اخبرنا ابوعبدالله بن فنجويه الدينوري حدثنا احمد بن محمد بن اسحاق السني حدثنا احمد بن عبدالله بن البزار، حدثنا سعدان بن يزيد حدثنا حكم بن مروان السلمي انباء الحسن بن صالح عن ابي سعيد البقال عن ابي الحسناء ان علي.
In this narration, Abu Saeed Baqqal is an extremely weak narrator because he is also a mudallis and is narrating from ‘an. Therefore, he is not acceptable. Imam Dhahabi said about him: To my knowledge, no one has authenticated him.
Imam Nasai declared him weak.
In this narration, the narrator named Abu al-Hasna’s meeting with Hazrat Ali is not established, so this narration is disconnected in chain and not reliable for evidence.
⑥ Mufti Sahib’s sixth argument:
This narration mentioned by the author Ibn Abi Shaybah is also weak because it is disconnected in chain.
Abdul Aziz bin Rafi’ did not meet Abi bin Ka’b.
Because Abi bin Ka’b died in 19 AH or 33 AH and Abdul Aziz bin Rafi’ died in 130 AH, and no one has clarified that he narrated from Abi bin Ka’b. All his narrations are from the younger companions and senior Tabi’in.
⑦ Mufti Sahib’s seventh argument:
Answer:
Mufti Sahab did not write the chain of narration, but we inform that this narration of the author Ibn Abi Shaybah is very weak, unreliable, and rejected. Because one of its narrators, Harith, is a Rafidi liar and false.
But see the innocence of Mufti Sahab, he wants to deceive the public by writing such a liar, false, and Rafidi as Hazrat Harith, making it seem that he is a great scholar and jurist, whereas
تقريب التهذيب calls him a heretical Rafidi and weak in hadith, and this statement is narrated from Imam Shu’bi.
Imam Dhahabi, may Allah have mercy on him, in Siyar A’lam al-Nubala
narrated from the famous hadith scholars Ali ibn al-Madini and Abu Khaithamah that Harith is a great liar.
It is regrettable that Mufti Sahab presents the narrations of liars against authentic hadith.
⑧ Mufti Sahab’s eighth argument:
Answer:
Mufti Sahab did not quote the chain of narration. Ibn Abi Shaybah narrated the chain as follows:
حدثنا ابن نمير عن عبد الملک عن عطاء۔
A joke:
Mufti Sahib, while determining Ata’s identity, stated in the translation that Ata bin Abi Ruma said.
However, Ata bin Abi Ruma is not a known narrator of Hadith; where Mufti Sahib derived this from, only he knows. Here, Ata refers to Ata bin Abi Rabah according to the scholars of Hadith, who often narrated Mursal traditions.
The famous Hadith critic Yahya bin Saeed al-Qattan says about him:
كان عطاء ياخذ عن كل ضرب
Ata was not cautious in taking Hadith; he used to narrate from all kinds of people.
Similarly, Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (may Allah have mercy on him) says:
ليس فى المرسلات شيء اضعف من مرسلات الحسن وعطاء بن ابي رباح فانما كان ياخذان عن كل احد
Among the Mursal narrators, there is no other narrator whose narrations are weaker than those of Hasan al-Basri and Ata bin Abi Rabah. The reason is that these individuals used to narrate from everyone.
Now, what does Mufti Sahib want to prove from these statements of the Tabi‘in—that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) used to pray twenty Rak‘ahs of Taraweeh, or that later people prayed twenty Rak‘ahs of Taraweeh? Obviously, the first point is not proven by this, and the second point is not much of a debate because later people prayed not only twenty but various numbers of Rak‘ahs of Taraweeh, among which eight is the most famous number.
And it is clear that there is no dispute about how many Rak‘ahs were prayed later; the question is what is the Sunnah of the Prophet—eight or twenty? And the narrations you are quoting do not prove that the Prophet (peace be upon him) prayed twenty Rak‘ahs. And when this is not proven, your claim is false.
⑨ Mufti Sahib’s Ninth Argument:
حدثنا الفضل بن دكين عن سعيد بن عبيد.
Answer:
Mufti Sahib has also quoted from a Tabi’i in this narration, who belongs to the third generation of the Tabi’in, that they used to pray twenty rak’ahs in Ramadan.
The question is not how many rak’ahs people prayed later; the question is how many rak’ahs the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) prayed. And obviously, if this narration does not prove that, then your claim is not proven.
It would be pointless to say that these people must have received any chain of narration from the Prophet regarding how many rak’ahs they prayed. Otherwise, they would not have done so, because if they had any chain of narration, they would have definitely mentioned it, but they did not mention any chain.
⑩ Tenth Argument:
حدثنا وكيع عن مالك بن انس عن يحيي بن سعيد.
Answer:
Mufti Sahib’s tenth argument is that the narrators of this hadith are trustworthy, but unfortunately, Yahya bin Saeed Al-Ansari did not live during the time of Hazrat Umar. In such a case, his statement that Hazrat Umar ordered a person to lead them in twenty rak’ahs is obviously not correct. From whom did he hear this? He himself was not present during Hazrat Umar’s time. Obviously, he must have heard it from someone else, and who that is, is unknown. Therefore, this chain of narration is broken and is not reliable for argument in this discussion.
It should be noted that the fact that Yahya bin Saeed Al-Ansari did not live during Hazrat Umar’s time is not said out of bias but is a fact acknowledged even by the scholars of Deoband. For example, Allama Naimvi says in his book Aathar-us-Sunan:
رجاله ثقات – لكن يحيي بن سعيد الانصاري لم يدرك عمر
The narrators of this hadith are trustworthy, but Yahya bin Saeed Al-Ansari did not live during Hazrat Umar’s time.
Furthermore, keep in mind that on one hand, this is a narration with a broken chain, and on the other hand, there is a hadith which Imam Malik has transmitted with a sound chain in Al-Muwatta, stating that Hazrat Umar ordered Abi bin Ka’b and Tamim Dari to lead eleven rak’ahs.
In such a situation, how can a broken chain hadith be accepted when there is a sound hadith available?
Also remember that Yahya bin Saeed is not narrating the sayings, actions, or approvals of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, but rather he is speaking about the time of Hazrat Umar. The matter concerning the time of Hazrat Umar ibn Al-Khattab رضي الله عنه is beyond dispute.
Mufti Sahib Shabbir Ahmad Qasmi’s Baseless but Loud Claims
Qasmi Sahib writes:
The practice of the Rightly Guided Caliphs and the majority of the Companions regarding twenty rak’ahs of Taraweeh has already been presented before you. Now, who has the courage to oppose the Rightly Guided Caliphs and the noble Companions and say that there is no proof for twenty rak’ahs of Taraweeh?
Regarding Qasmi Sahib’s simplicity, one feels like saying:
Who would not die from such simplicity, O God,
They fight without even a sword in hand.
The evidences you have provided for the practice of the Rightly Guided Caliphs and the majority of the Companions have all been presented before everyone. Also, it seems you do not include Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him) among the Rightly Guided Caliphs because you have not narrated any statement, action, or speech of his. Then, among the Caliphs to whom you have attributed the practice of twenty rak’ahs, none of them said that this practice was of the Messenger of Allah. What you have narrated about Hazrat Umar and his era is weak and unreliable, and besides, it contradicts the authentic hadith from Hazrat Umar Farooq (may Allah be pleased with him). Now tell me, can this be called proof?
The issue under discussion between you and us is not whether anyone has prayed twenty rak’ahs of Taraweeh or not. We accept that at different times, the Ummah has practiced different numbers of rak’ahs under the name of Taraweeh.
Even the chief scholar of the Hanafis, the commentator of Bukhari, Allama Aini, in his famous commentary ‘Umdat al-Qari’ on Sahih al-Bukhari, in the section “Salat al-Taraweeh: The Virtue of Standing in Ramadan,” writes:
وقد اختلف العلماء فى العدد المستحب – فى قيام رمضان على اقوال كثيرة.
Regarding the recommended number of rak’ahs in the standing of Ramadan, scholars have many opinions. Then he narrates eleven opinions. The details are as follows:
① 47 rak’ahs narrated from Al-Aswad bin Yazid
② 38 rak’ahs narrated from Imam Malik
③ 41 rak’ahs according to the people of Madinah
④ 39 rak’ahs according to the people of Madinah during the caliphate of Umar bin Abdul Aziz
⑤ 34 rak’ahs by Zararah bin Auni in the last ten nights
⑥ 28 rak’ahs from the first to the twentieth of Ramadan
⑦ 24 rak’ahs by Saeed bin Jubair
⑧ 20 rak’ahs by most scholars
⑨ 16 rak’ahs by Abu Mujliz
⑩ 13 rak’ahs by Muhammad bin Ishaq
⑪ 11 rak’ahs adopted by Imam Malik for himself. Also by Imam Abu Bakr ibn al-Arabi.
The Ummah has prayed different numbers of rak’ahs at different times; this is admitted by all your scholars (except a few biased ones), and you are well aware of this. Then claiming that this is the unanimous practice of the Rightly Guided Caliphs and the majority of the Companions is equivalent to throwing dust in people’s eyes.
These eleven opinions that we have quoted from the Hanafi commentator of Bukhari, Allama Aini, are mostly opinions from after the time of the Companions, which directly means that claiming consensus is false and fraudulent. Now your statement that who has the courage to oppose the noble Companions and the Rightly Guided Caliphs is a mischief that causes discord and is the favorite pastime of our addressed Mufti Sahib. Mufti Sahib always labels different voices as opposing voices and sows discord. I want to ask Mufti Sahib: will you consider these ten opinions that Allama Aini has written as opposing the Companions, the Rightly Guided Caliphs, and the majority of the Ummah?
Will you declare Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him), the people of Madinah, Zararah bin Auni, Saeed bin Jubair, Abu Ali Muhammad bin al-Haqq, and Abu Bakr ibn al-Arabi as opponents of the Companions and the Rightly Guided Caliphs? The Ummah has prayed twenty rak’ahs as well as more than eleven and fewer than that at different times. Just as the practice of twenty rak’ahs is attributed to others besides the Messenger, similarly, the practice of those who pray more than eleven rak’ahs is also the practice of others. You do not pray as many rak’ahs as the Messenger prayed, nor do others. Then how can you be right and others wrong? Where is the justice in that? Even more unjust is your labeling of a person who prays rak’ahs that are authentically and explicitly proven from the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) as an opponent of the Companions and an insult to the Rightly Guided Caliphs.
And by not following the practice of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq’s time, abandoning the Sunnah of the Messenger, and leaving the practice of Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq’s time, while all the Companions used to pray eight rak’ahs, you are acting as a staunch Sunni. You are opposing the Companions and the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) because you have abandoned the practice of the Messenger’s time and the era of Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq, during which all the Companions unanimously followed one number, and you have adopted a later practice. And you have adopted this later practice not out of love or respect for the Companions but only because the Imam you follow has decreed so. You follow the Imam, not the Companions, and act accordingly. If, God forbid, the Imam had not adopted the opinion of eleven rak’ahs, you would have twisted a thousand interpretations to declare the Imam right and us wrong.
You wrote:
“Who has the courage to oppose the noble Companions and say that there is no proof for twenty rak’ahs?”
Respected!
Who has denied that someone in the Ummah did not pray twenty rak’ahs of Taraweeh? The denial is regarding the proof of twenty rak’ahs of Taraweeh from the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ through an authentic hadith. And what doubt is there? The proofs you have provided, regardless of their authenticity, are from people other than the Prophet. Neither have you presented nor can you present a single authentic hadith from the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ as proof. Respected! Neither all the Companions nor the vast majority agreed that twenty rak’ahs are the Sunnah of the Prophet. At most, you can say that praying twenty rak’ahs is permissible and nothing more. The claim of twenty rak’ahs from the four Imams is also false, which we will prove later. We again say that the Sunnah of twenty rak’ahs requires evidence, and those who pray twenty rak’ahs have no evidence that the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ prayed twenty rak’ahs of Taraweeh.
Whoever says that there is proof from the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ for twenty rak’ahs and that there is consensus on eleven rak’ahs, perhaps they do not fear Allah.
