❀ A Critical Review of the Two Types of Narrations in “Ṣalāh al-Muslimīn” ❀
Based on: Fatāwā ʿIlmiyyah, Vol. 1, Kitāb aṣ-Ṣalāh, Page 404
Many people are following the book “Ṣalāh al-Muslimīn” by Masʿūd Aḥmad. Is it reliable? Are its rulings authentic and valid for practice?
(Asked by: ʿAbd al-Sattār Soomro, Karachi)
Alḥamdulillāh, waṣ-ṣalātu was-salāmu ʿalā Rasūlillāh, Ammā baʿd!
The book “Ṣalāh al-Muslimīn” authored by Masʿūd Aḥmad—a known Kharijite and Takfīrī figure—contains two distinct categories of narrations:
These narrations are reliably quoted by the author from trusted Ahl al-Ḥadīth scholars, such as:
◈ Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī
◈ ʿAllāmah al-Shawkānī
◈ Shaykh al-Albānī, and others.
✔ No issue arises regarding these ḥadīths—they are valid and sound, al-ḥamdu lillāh.
A major concern arises with fabricated and unreliable narrations that Masʿūd Aḥmad wrongly labels as “Ṣaḥīḥ”.
Example:
In Ṣalāh al-Muslimīn, Fifth Edition, pages 305–307, a duʿāʾ al-qunūt is cited and claimed to be authentic, sourced from:
Muṣannaf ʿAbd al-Razzāq, Vol. 3, Page 116
“ʿan Maʿmar, ʿan ʿAmr, ʿan al-Ḥasan...”
The narrator ʿAmr here refers to ʿAmr ibn ʿUbayd, as evidenced by:
◈ Muṣannaf ʿAbd al-Razzāq (Ḥadīth 19985)
◈ Tahdhīb al-Kamāl (Vol. 14, p. 276)
He is a severely weak and discredited narrator:
✔ Declared a liar (kadhdhāb) by major hadith scholars like:
◈ Yūnus ibn ʿUbayd
◈ Ḥumayd al-Ṭawīl
◈ ʿAwf al-Aʿrābī
◈ Ibn ʿAwn
◈ Ayyūb as-Sakhtiyānī
✔ Ḥumayd al-Ṭawīl said:
“He lies upon al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī.”
✔ Abū Ḥātim al-Fallās and others declared him abandoned (matrūk).
For detailed references:
◈ Mīzān al-Iʿtidāl (Vol. 3, pp. 273–280)
◈ Tahdhīb at-Tahdhīb (Vol. 8, pp. 69–73)
To label such a sanad as “ṣaḥīḥ” is an egregious scholarly error and can only stem from someone like Masʿūd Aḥmad, who:
◈ Has no formal grounding in Qur’ān and Ḥadīth sciences
◈ Fails to understand religious texts through the methodology of the Salaf aṣ-Ṣāliḥīn
Therefore, this book should not be followed blindly or practiced upon without critical verification. Many of its rulings are based on weak or fabricated sources.
For sound and balanced guidance on this topic, the following verified book is highly beneficial:
“Mukhtaṣar Ṣaḥīḥ Ṣalāh an-Nabawī”
(Publisher: Maktabah al-Ḥadīth Hazro & Maktabah Islāmiyyah)
Publication Note:
Shahādat, March 2000
✔ Ṣalāh al-Muslimīn includes both sound and flawed narrations.
✔ It contains serious methodological and textual issues, especially mislabeling weak narrations as authentic.
✔ The author lacks recognized scholarly credibility in Ḥadīth sciences.
✔ Use authentic, peer-reviewed resources for correct Islamic practice.
ھٰذا ما عندي، واللہ أعلم بالصواب
Based on: Fatāwā ʿIlmiyyah, Vol. 1, Kitāb aṣ-Ṣalāh, Page 404
❖ Question:
Many people are following the book “Ṣalāh al-Muslimīn” by Masʿūd Aḥmad. Is it reliable? Are its rulings authentic and valid for practice?
(Asked by: ʿAbd al-Sattār Soomro, Karachi)
✿ Research-Based Response:
Alḥamdulillāh, waṣ-ṣalātu was-salāmu ʿalā Rasūlillāh, Ammā baʿd!
The book “Ṣalāh al-Muslimīn” authored by Masʿūd Aḥmad—a known Kharijite and Takfīrī figure—contains two distinct categories of narrations:
✦ ① Authentic and Ḥasan (Sound) Narrations
These narrations are reliably quoted by the author from trusted Ahl al-Ḥadīth scholars, such as:
◈ Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī
◈ ʿAllāmah al-Shawkānī
◈ Shaykh al-Albānī, and others.
✔ No issue arises regarding these ḥadīths—they are valid and sound, al-ḥamdu lillāh.
✦ ② Weak and Rejected Narrations
A major concern arises with fabricated and unreliable narrations that Masʿūd Aḥmad wrongly labels as “Ṣaḥīḥ”.
Example:
In Ṣalāh al-Muslimīn, Fifth Edition, pages 305–307, a duʿāʾ al-qunūt is cited and claimed to be authentic, sourced from:
Muṣannaf ʿAbd al-Razzāq, Vol. 3, Page 116
❖ The actual sanad (chain), as per Ḥadīth 4982 of
“ʿan Maʿmar, ʿan ʿAmr, ʿan al-Ḥasan...”
The narrator ʿAmr here refers to ʿAmr ibn ʿUbayd, as evidenced by:
◈ Muṣannaf ʿAbd al-Razzāq (Ḥadīth 19985)
◈ Tahdhīb al-Kamāl (Vol. 14, p. 276)
✿ The Reality of ʿAmr ibn ʿUbayd al-Muʿtazilī
He is a severely weak and discredited narrator:
✔ Declared a liar (kadhdhāb) by major hadith scholars like:
◈ Yūnus ibn ʿUbayd
◈ Ḥumayd al-Ṭawīl
◈ ʿAwf al-Aʿrābī
◈ Ibn ʿAwn
◈ Ayyūb as-Sakhtiyānī
✔ Ḥumayd al-Ṭawīl said:
“He lies upon al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī.”
✔ Abū Ḥātim al-Fallās and others declared him abandoned (matrūk).
For detailed references:
◈ Mīzān al-Iʿtidāl (Vol. 3, pp. 273–280)
◈ Tahdhīb at-Tahdhīb (Vol. 8, pp. 69–73)
✦ Conclusion on the Second Type of Narration
To label such a sanad as “ṣaḥīḥ” is an egregious scholarly error and can only stem from someone like Masʿūd Aḥmad, who:
◈ Has no formal grounding in Qur’ān and Ḥadīth sciences
◈ Fails to understand religious texts through the methodology of the Salaf aṣ-Ṣāliḥīn
⚠ Important Caution:
Therefore, this book should not be followed blindly or practiced upon without critical verification. Many of its rulings are based on weak or fabricated sources.
Recommended Alternative:
For sound and balanced guidance on this topic, the following verified book is highly beneficial:
“Mukhtaṣar Ṣaḥīḥ Ṣalāh an-Nabawī”
(Publisher: Maktabah al-Ḥadīth Hazro & Maktabah Islāmiyyah)
Publication Note:
Shahādat, March 2000
Final Summary:
✔ Ṣalāh al-Muslimīn includes both sound and flawed narrations.
✔ It contains serious methodological and textual issues, especially mislabeling weak narrations as authentic.
✔ The author lacks recognized scholarly credibility in Ḥadīth sciences.
✔ Use authentic, peer-reviewed resources for correct Islamic practice.
ھٰذا ما عندي، واللہ أعلم بالصواب
