Allama Ibn Taymiyyah and Twenty Rak’ahs of Taraweeh
Mufti Shabbir Ahmad Deobandi’s Helplessness:
Mufti Shabbir Ahmad Qasmi of Madrasa Shahi said:
“The unique views of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah are considered a matter of pride by non-followers for themselves.”
Response:
And Deobandis, with raised eyebrows, send curses and insults; when they see their point being supported, they do not hesitate to bestow the great title of Sheikh al-Islam upon the Sufi, and if another opportunity arises, they also declare them apostates, rebels, and sinners from Ahl al-Sunnah. Those who have experienced the opportunism of these people understand their words well, but those who are not familiar with their changing temperament in appearance, speech, and behavior are repeatedly deceived. Mufti Qasmi’s statement that the unique views of Allama Ibn Taymiyyah are considered a matter of pride by the non-followers is an expression of his heartfelt anger and refers to the topic of triple talaq, about which these gentlemen mischievously propagate that it is among the unique views of Allama Ibn Taymiyyah and his student Allama Ibn al-Qayyim, and that the Ahl al-Hadith have adopted it as a matter of imitation. However, this is merely their misleading propaganda and has no connection with the truth.
Shabbir Ahmad Qasmi has declared Allama Ibn Taymiyyah to be in agreement with his own stance. By quoting an incomplete passage, he has given the impression that the Deobandi position is the same as that of Allama Ibn Taymiyyah, whereas there is a world of difference between the two positions. Deobandis, by imitation, consider twenty rak’ahs to be obligatory and necessary; any more or less than this is considered wrong and against consensus. Whereas Allama Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, mentioned three schools of thought in his fatwa: twenty rak’ahs, forty-one rak’ahs, and eight rak’ahs, and at the end of the discussion he said: “And the correct view is that all of these are good.” Fatwa
meaning all these opinions are correct and valid.
Where is this expansion and where is that rigidity and narrowness which has become the hallmark of Deobandism? Now let us tell you what Allama Ibn Taymiyyah said and show how Deobandi Mufti Shabbir Ahmad Qasmi quoted Ibn Taymiyyah’s words half and incomplete to impose his own will and cover up the truth.
Text presented by Mufti Qasmi:
Now let’s see what the original text in the fatwa is:
وكان النبى صلى الله عليه وسلم قيامه بالليل هو وتره يصلي بالليل فى رمضان وغير رمضان احدى عشرة ركعة او ثلاث عشرة ركعة لكن كان يصلها طوالا. فلما كان ذلك يشق على الناس قام بهم أبى بن كعب فى زمن عمر بن الخطاب عشرين ركعة يوتر بعدها ويخفف فيها القيام فكان تضعيف العدد عوضا عن طول القيام وكان بعض السلف يقوم باربعين ركعة فيكون قيامها اخف ويوتر بعدها بثلاث. وكان بعضهم يقوم بست وثلاثين ركعة يوتر بعدها.
And the night prayer of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), which he performed in Ramadan and outside Ramadan, was eleven or thirteen rak’ahs, but he would pray these rak’ahs with long standing. During the time of Hazrat Umar ibn al-Khattab, when this long standing became difficult for the people, Hazrat Ubayy ibn Ka’b led the people in twenty rak’ahs and then prayed Witr; in these twenty rak’ahs, the standing was lighter. So, instead of long standing, the number of rak’ahs was increased. For this reason, some of the pious predecessors used to pray forty rak’ahs, but their standing was lighter and easier compared to twenty; they also prayed three rak’ahs of Witr at the end. And some of the predecessors prayed thirty-six rak’ahs and then performed Witr.
Dear viewers
Carefully observe both texts and see how our Mufti Sahib’s act was to quote a half-incomplete text and draw a conclusion from it, and out of fear that his secret might be exposed, he did not quote the entire text. Let us tell you. Mufti Shabbir Ahmad Qasmi Sahib made two claims in his booklet. There is consensus among the Companions on twenty rak’ahs; doing less or more than this is against consensus.
Second claim:
The Prophet of Allah used to pray twenty rak’ahs of Taraweeh. In this statement by Allama Ibn Taymiyyah, both claims were exposed and all the efforts of the Mufti Sahib were rendered useless. Because Allama Ibn Taymiyyah clearly stated four things very explicitly in this statement:
① The Prophet of Allah used to pray eleven and sometimes thirteen rak’ahs.
② The Prophet’s standing (Qiyam) was long and tiring. Later generations, feeling uneasy about the long standing, replaced the long Qiyam with longer rak’ahs. Ten doubled to twenty, some prayed forty rak’ahs, which is even less than twenty, and some prayed thirty-six; all of this was done for ease.
③ Saying that there was consensus (Ijma) on twenty rak’ahs is wrong because forty and thirty-six rak’ahs were prayed later, which proves that there was no consensus, and no one accepted consensus on twenty. If they had accepted it, they would not have opposed consensus by praying forty or thirty-six rak’ahs.
④ The increase in the number of rak’ahs was not due to a desire for more worship or to pray more. It was difficult to recite at least one Juz’ in eight rak’ahs compared to twenty, and twenty was easier, so twenty rak’ahs were prayed for ease. Similarly, those who prayed thirty-six increased the number of rak’ahs for further ease, and those who prayed forty sought even more ease. Now, the Deobandis’ slander should appear as slander to the common people that Ahl al-Hadith pray eight rak’ahs for ease.
Allama Ibn Taymiyyah’s second statement as written by Qasmi Sahib:
You have read the statement. Qasmi Sahib has rendered the translation so poorly that the meaning is not understood. Allama Ibn Taymiyyah says:
If the question is which act is superior, whether eight rak’ahs, twenty rak’ahs, or forty rak’ahs, then the answer depends on the capability of those who are praying. If those praying Taraweeh have the strength to endure a long standing, then ten rak’ahs of Taraweeh and three Witr are preferable, which was the practice of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him.
And if those praying Taraweeh do not have the endurance for a long standing, then twenty rak’ahs are preferable, which is the practice of most Muslims, and ten and forty are intermediate practices. And if one prays forty rak’ahs or fewer or more than that, all these cases are permissible and none of these cases are disliked.
This has been stated by many Imams such as Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, etc.
Dear viewers!
Qasmi Sahib had also omitted some text at the end of this passage; we have translated the entire passage.
Now you can estimate how useful Allama Ibn Taymiyyah’s statements are for Qasmi Sahib.
There is a world of difference between Allama Ibn Taymiyyah’s stance and the Deobandi stance. The Deobandis are so stubborn on twenty that they cannot see anything beyond it, while Allama Ibn Taymiyyah permits from eight to forty and considers all of them good and better. The opinion of twenty, thirty-six, or forty is, according to them, for weak and feeble people, and they also explicitly state that the Prophet of Allah used to pray only eleven or thirteen. People increased the number of rak’ahs for ease so that fatigue would not occur.
It is clear from all these statements that Qasmi Sahib’s position is proven incorrect; neither the twenty rak’ahs are established from the actions, sayings, or approvals of the Prophet, nor are they established by consensus. Rather, people performed twenty rak’ahs for ease. The original Sunnah of the Prophet is eleven or thirteen, which the Prophet used to pray. If someone prays more for ease—twenty, thirty-six, forty, or more—then since these are voluntary prayers, there is room for it, and it cannot be called wrong. This is something that Allama Ibn Taymiyyah has quoted in many places in his fatwas, which supports the Ahl al-Hadith position, not the Deobandi position.
The Helplessness of Maulvi Qasmi Deobandi
At the end of the booklet, Qasmi Sahib has titled a section:
“Eight Rak’ahs of Taraweeh are not proven from the Salaf.”
Under this, he has posed three questions, and these questions themselves reveal his helplessness and weakness, and it seems that he has lost his case. He is merely raising these questions as a temporary defense. Let us examine these questions and also provide answers to them. Qasmi Sahib writes:
The question to the non-followers (ghair muqallideen) is: After the time of Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), which companions and righteous predecessors performed eight rak’ahs of Taraweeh in congregation in the mosque, in which year and in which city? Please provide proof.
Dear Viewers!
Qasmi Sahib asks why, after the time of Hazrat Umar, do you think he is asking this question, because he himself knows that during the time of Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), and similarly during the era of Abu Bakr Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him), and throughout the entire period of the Prophethood, the Messenger, the companions, and the female companions only prayed eight rak’ahs of Taraweeh. Then in the question, he asks which individuals performed eight rak’ahs of Taraweeh congregationally in the mosque.
Why the restriction of congregational prayer in the mosque? Is it not possible that he knows that individually people continued to pray only eight rak’ahs, so he imposed the restriction of congregational prayer in the mosque.
Now let us answer his question:
Answer:
Qasmi Sahib, why should we get entangled in this dispute over who prayed how many rak’ahs? These are favorite pastimes of gentlemen like you; you keep calculating them.
We have seen the Prophet; how many rak’ahs do you pray?
We have also seen that when you lead this prayer in congregation, you lead only eight rak’ahs, and when we saw that even the Companions themselves prayed only eight, the existence of twenty rak’ahs of Taraweeh was neither in the time of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ nor in the era of Siddiq Akbar. Similarly, when Hazrat Umar Farooq (RA) ordered the Companions to pray Taraweeh in congregation, he also ordered only eight rak’ahs. The ahadith have passed; please observe them.
Now, leaving aside the actions of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, leaving aside the actions of the Companions, leaving aside the practice of the era of Siddiq Akbar, leaving aside the order of Farooq-e-Azam himself, and looking at the sayings and actions of later people—this can only be the practice of those who are confused in thought and action, who give importance to others over the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, whose actions do not please the Prophet’s practice. This cannot be the practice of those who recite the Kalima of the Prophet and acknowledge obedience to him, who understand the meaning and significance of “اطيعوا الله وأطيعوا الرسول” and follow him, and who seek his intercession.
When have we ever said that no one prayed twenty rak’ahs of Taraweeh? People have prayed twenty, thirty-six, forty-nine, and forty rak’ahs. The debate is not about how many people prayed. The debate is how many the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ prayed? How many rak’ahs did he lead the Companions in congregation for three nights? How many did the Companions pray in the era of Siddiq Akbar? And when Hazrat Umar Farooq ordered Ubayy ibn Ka’b and Tamim ad-Dari to lead Taraweeh in congregation, how many rak’ahs did he order them to lead? Obviously, the answer to all these questions is eight rak’ahs.
When it is established from the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ that he did not pray twenty rak’ahs, then insisting only on twenty and cursing those who pray the eight rak’ahs he prayed—is this not giving importance to others over the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ? And is this permissible for a Muslim who claims love for the Prophet and boasts of obedience to him?
Qasmi Sahib, what has happened to you? Why do you prefer following men and imitating them over following the Prophet? Why do you like the actions of men more than the actions of the Prophet? Why is all your attention on the practices after the era of Umar Farooq? Why do you not look at the time of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ or the era of Siddiq Akbar? Why do you not look at the actions of Umar Farooq himself? Are these times not worthy of being the standard for practice? It is regrettable for you and your followers and disciples that not only has your temperament deteriorated, but you and your disciples have changed your Qiblah (direction of guidance). Your tongue, your pen, your activities, and your efforts are busy supporting others instead of the Prophet, yet you do not even realize what you are doing.
Alas, the caravan’s goods of failure kept going,
From the heart of the caravan, the sense of loss kept going.
Iqbal
Qasmi Sahib’s Second Question:
Also, who among the pious predecessors has rejected the twenty rak’ah Taraweeh?
Answer:
Respected, no one before called the twenty rak’ahs of Taraweeh the Sunnah of the Prophet, nor was there a need to refute it. If you prove that someone among the Salaf called the twenty rak’ahs the Sunnah of the Prophet, then we will also tell you who denied it. This false claim has now been started by the Deobandi followers, which people felt the need to refute. Even the Hanafi scholars before the Deobandis did not call the twenty rak’ahs the Sunnah of the Prophet. Accordingly, among the Hanafi scholars, the most famous jurist, Kamal al-Din Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahid al-Siwasi, known as Ibn al-Hummam al-Hanafi, who died in 681 AH, states in his famous book Fath al-Qadeer Sharh al-Hidayah:
فتحصل من هذا كله ان قيام رمضان سنة احدى عشرة ركعة بالوتر فى جماعة فعله صلى الله عليه وسلم، ثم تركه لعذر، افاد انه لولا خشية ذلك لواظبت بكم.
ولاشك فى تحقيق الامن من ذلك بوفاته صلى الله عليه وسلم فيكون سنة وكونها عشرين سنة الخلفاء الراشدين، وقوله صلى الله عليه وسلم عليكم بسنتى وسنة الخلفاء الراشدين ندب سنتهم ولا يستلزم كون ذالك سنة، اذ سنته بمواظبته بنفسه او لعذر، وبتقدير عدم ذالك العذر، انما استفدنا انه كان يواظب على ما وقع منه وهو ما ذكرنا
فتكون العشرون مستحبا، وذلك القدر منها هو السنة كالاربع بعد العشاء مستحبة، وركعتان منها هي السنة
From the above details, it is clear that standing in Ramadan is Sunnah, and it is eleven rak’ahs including Witr, which the Prophet (peace be upon him) performed in congregation. But later, due to an excuse, he did not perform it in congregation. From this, it is also understood that if this excuse had not arisen, he would have certainly continued it regularly. Eleven rak’ahs including Witr, and there is no doubt that after the Prophet’s death, this excuse ceased, so Taraweeh became Sunnah and remains so. As for the matter of twenty rak’ahs, that is the Sunnah of the Rightly Guided Caliphs. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: Hold firmly to my Sunnah and the Sunnah of my Rightly Guided Caliphs. Through this statement, he encouraged adherence to the Sunnah of the Caliphs. But this does not necessarily mean that the Sunnah of the Caliphs is called the Sunnah of the Prophet. Because the Sunnah of the Prophet is only that which he himself regularly practiced or abandoned beforehand due to some excuse. And when we assume the absence of an excuse, it follows that if there had been no excuse, he would have continued with the number of rak’ahs proven from him, which, as mentioned, is eleven rak’ahs.
Therefore, the twenty rak’ahs of Taraweeh will be considered recommended (mustahabb), and the eleven rak’ahs including Witr are the Sunnah of the Prophet. Just as in the case of the four rak’ahs after Isha, only two of those are Sunnah and two are recommended.
This is the same view expressed by Sahib al-Bahr al-Raiq Ibn Najim al-Hanafi, Sahib Mirqat Mulla Ali al-Qari, Allama Tahtawi, Allama Shami Sahib al-Radd al-Muhtar, and other eminent Hanafi scholars.
Dear Viewers!
Take a look once at the statement of Allama Ibn al-Hamam; he has emphatically and logically written that calling twenty rak’ahs of Taraweeh a Sunnah is incorrect. It can be called Mustahabb or the Sunnah of the Caliphs. The Sunnah of the Prophet is only eleven rak’ahs including Witr.
Nowadays, Deobandi clerics are not willing to accept the words of their senior scholars. When will they accept ours? Without evidence, it is forcibly said that twenty rak’ahs are the Sunnah of the Prophet. In the past, or what you call the era of the Salaf, no one dared to call twenty rak’ahs the Sunnah of the Prophet, so how can anyone deny that? You forcibly call twenty rak’ahs the Sunnah of the Prophet, and that is why the Ahl al-Hadith scholars had to strongly refute your claim.
Qasmi Sahib writes:
Non-followers who are trying to prove themselves as Salafi in the Holy Hijaz
Answer:
Qasmi Sahib! The Ahl-e-Hadith are the true Salafis both in India and in the lands of Hijaz; they never needed to become false Salafis, neither in the past nor today. Such deceptions have only been the lot of our Deobandis. The elders wrote books full of baseless accusations like “Shihab Saqib.” The youngsters insist on proving themselves Salafi, but when the veil is lifted on Maturidi and Sufi beliefs, they vent their anger on the Ahl-e-Hadith of India, hurling baseless accusations and insults.
There was a gentleman who passed away just a few months ago. A scholar deserving of all praise. He went to Hijaz with a huge project and a budget of millions of rupees. When the secret was revealed and the project was not approved, in reaction he made enmity with Ahl-e-Hadith his mission. All the Deobandis patted him on the back and things went on. Books started coming out rapidly, and the champions of Muslim unity made him a hero. The accusations, fabrications, and lies were so extreme that they surpassed even the elders, but his entire capital was the collection of books by Maulvi Mehdi Hasan Sahib, which he had written in the past in enmity against Ahl-e-Hadith or in Pakistan, blindly and misleadingly echoing the slanders and misleading books of a few mad imitators.
If we bring up the issues of the students of Imam Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him) and other Hanafi jurists, they immediately say these are weak, non-Mufti Hanafi issues and objections to Hanafi fiqh on their basis are not valid. Yet they create a ruckus over these same issues, which Ahl-e-Hadith have already refuted a hundred times, without any shame.
The peculiarities of Nawab Sadiq-ul-Hasan Khan Sahib and Nawab Waheed-uz-Zaman Khan Sahib were neither issues of the Jamaat nor are they today; rather, these are actually Hanafi fiqh issues that have been ingrained in their minds since the time they considered the Hanafi madhhab as an alternative to Islam and actively participated in its support and defense. For evidence, see “Ahbab Deoband Ki Jamaat Ahl-e-Hadith Par Kuch Taaza Karam Farmaiyen.”
A teacher from Darul Uloom Deoband, who has been diligently performing the duty of enmity against Ahl-e-Hadith for quite some time, in response to one of his advertisements, this book is enough to show that the objections made against Ahl-e-Hadith are actually objections against Hanafi fiqh, which today’s Deobandis knowingly or unknowingly are throwing mud at Ahl-e-Hadith for. And the result, as someone said:
Whoever digs a pit, his beard will burn
He is setting fire in his own house.
Anyway, there are more opportunities for this. We return once again to the writing of Maulvi Shabbir Ahmad Qasmi.
Maulvi Sahib writes:
On what courage and audacity are they raising their voice against the consensus of the Companions, the Rightly Guided Caliphs, and the Pious Predecessors?
Answer:
We have already explained the reality of this; look back. The consensus you are referring to does not exist anywhere in reality. Similarly, the defense of the Rightly Guided Caliphs and the Pious Predecessors is merely a temporary diversion, the reality of which we have clarified earlier.
