This excerpt is taken from the book Proof of Twenty Rak‘ahs of Tarāwīḥ in the Mirror of Reality, authored by Shaykh Riḍā’ullāh ʿAbdul-Karīm Madanī, written as a response to the treatise of Muftī Shabbīr Aḥmad Qāsmī.
In a manner even weaker, frailer, and more hollow than his earlier claim of consensus, Muftī Shabbīr Aḥmad Qāsmī has now claimed that there are some marfūʿ narrations regarding twenty rak‘ahs of Tarāwīḥ. One must admire Muftī Ṣāḥib’s crafty maneuver: he deliberately wrote “some marfūʿ narrations” in the title, but did not say “authentic marfūʿ narrations.” The reason is obvious—if even a single clear, authentic, marfūʿ narration had existed in the ḥadīth corpus, the Ḥanafī scholars would have found it long before Qāsmī Ṣāḥib. But something that does not exist cannot be found. Hence, helplessly, Qāsmī Ṣāḥib resorted to a narration which, according to all the scholars of ḥadīth—and even those Ḥanafī scholars who have an attachment to ḥadīth—is unanimously declared invalid, rejected, and weak.
You have already seen the ḥadīth. Qāsmī Ṣāḥib did not mention its chain, so we present it here. In Muṣannaf Ibn Abī Shaybah, its chain is as follows:
حدثنا يزيد بن هارون قال: أنا إبراهيم بن عثمان، عن الحكم عن مقسم عن ابن عباس…
The second narration cited by Muftī Ṣāḥib is from al-Sunan al-Kubrā. Again, he did not mention its chain, which is as follows:
أنبأ أبو سعد الماليني… عن أبي شيبة عن الحكم عن مقسم عن ابن عباس…
After mentioning this narration, Imām al-Bayhaqī stated:
تفرد به أبو شيبة إبراهيم بن عثمان العبسي الكوفي، وهو ضعيف
“This narration is uniquely reported by Abū Shaybah Ibrāhīm ibn ʿUthmān al-ʿAbsī al-Kūfī, and he is weak.”
Thus, whether it is the narration of Muṣannaf Ibn Abī Shaybah or al-Sunan al-Kubrā, both depend on the same narrator, Abū Shaybah Ibrāhīm ibn ʿUthmān al-ʿAbsī al-Kūfī. In reality, both narrations are one and the same. Either Qāsmī Ṣāḥib intentionally tried to present one narration as two, or he did so unknowingly. The stronger assumption is that he attempted to deceive the masses by turning one narration into two.
This assumption is strengthened by the fact that he quoted the narration from Sunan al-Bayhaqī but completely omitted Imām al-Bayhaqī’s explicit criticism declaring it unfit for evidence. Had he been sincere or truly presenting a scholarly review, he would have quoted Imām al-Bayhaqī’s statement and the extensive criticism of the scholars regarding this narration and its narrator. Instead, he selectively concealed them to create the impression that even those who pray twenty rak‘ahs have some proof showing that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ prayed twenty rak‘ahs of Tarāwīḥ.
The real issue is: How many rak‘ahs did the Messenger of Allah ﷺ pray? When no authentic narration is found, these Deobandī partisans compensate by making baseless claims—sometimes asserting consensus, sometimes claiming that ʿUmar رضي الله عنه ordered twenty rak‘ahs and that all Companions accepted it. To this day, they have proven neither that twenty rak‘ahs are authentically established from the Prophet ﷺ nor that there was any consensus upon them, nor that ʿUmar رضي الله عنه commanded them. Rather, authentic narrations exist to the contrary.
Let us now present the central narrator of these narrations—Abū Shaybah Ibrāhīm ibn ʿUthmān ibn Khawāstī al-ʿAbsī, the client of the judge of Wāsiṭ—before the court of the scholars of ḥadīth:
① Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal: He is weak.
② Imām Aḥmad (via Abū Ṭālib): Munkar al-ḥadīth.
③ Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn: Weak.
④ Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn: Not trustworthy.
⑤ Imām al-Bukhārī: Not worthy of mention.
⑥ Imām Abū Dāwūd: Weak in ḥadīth.
⑦ Imām al-Tirmidhī: Munkar al-ḥadīth.
⑧ Imām Abū Ḥātim: Weak in ḥadīth; his narrations are abandoned.
⑨ Muʿādh al-ʿAnbarī reports that Imām Shuʿbah instructed: Do not narrate from him; he is detestable.
⑩ Ibn Saʿd: Weak in ḥadīth.
⑪ al-Dāraquṭnī: Weak.
⑫ Ibn al-Mubārak: Discard him.
⑬ al-Zaylaʿī (Ḥanafī): Weak.
⑭ Ibn al-Humām (Ḥanafī): Unanimously weak.
⑮ Badr al-Dīn al-ʿAynī: Declared unreliable by Shuʿbah, Aḥmad, Ibn Maʿīn, al-Bukhārī, and al-Nasā’ī.
⑯ Abū al-Ṭayyib Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Sindhī al-Ḥanafī: Weak.
⑰ Imām al-Dhahabī: Weak.
⑱ ʿAbd al-Ḥayy al-Farangī Maḥallī: Unanimously weak.
⑲ Imām Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī: This ḥadīth is extremely weak and not proof.
And many others have declared both this narration and its narrator weak and unfit as evidence.
He knows the truth, yet refuses to accept it.
A false claim cannot support another false claim.
Thus, both foundations of Qāsmī Ṣāḥib’s argument have collapsed. Now he must seek another refuge—one sufficient to satisfy the ignorant:
Is There Any Authentic Marfūʿ Narration for Twenty Rak‘ahs of Tarāwīḥ?
Dear Readers!In a manner even weaker, frailer, and more hollow than his earlier claim of consensus, Muftī Shabbīr Aḥmad Qāsmī has now claimed that there are some marfūʿ narrations regarding twenty rak‘ahs of Tarāwīḥ. One must admire Muftī Ṣāḥib’s crafty maneuver: he deliberately wrote “some marfūʿ narrations” in the title, but did not say “authentic marfūʿ narrations.” The reason is obvious—if even a single clear, authentic, marfūʿ narration had existed in the ḥadīth corpus, the Ḥanafī scholars would have found it long before Qāsmī Ṣāḥib. But something that does not exist cannot be found. Hence, helplessly, Qāsmī Ṣāḥib resorted to a narration which, according to all the scholars of ḥadīth—and even those Ḥanafī scholars who have an attachment to ḥadīth—is unanimously declared invalid, rejected, and weak.
Ḥadīth No. ① Presented by Muftī Qāsmī
You have already seen the ḥadīth. Qāsmī Ṣāḥib did not mention its chain, so we present it here. In Muṣannaf Ibn Abī Shaybah, its chain is as follows:
حدثنا يزيد بن هارون قال: أنا إبراهيم بن عثمان، عن الحكم عن مقسم عن ابن عباس…
Reference: Muṣannaf Ibn Abī Shaybah: 2/163
Status of This Ḥadīth
Extremely weak—unfit for evidence, support, or even consideration. Its entire chain revolves around Abū Shaybah Ibrāhīm ibn ʿUthmān, who is a matrūk (abandoned) narrator according to the scholars of ḥadīth, as stated in al-Taqrīb. Imām al-Zaylaʿī (Ḥanafī) writes in Naṣb al-Rāyah that this ḥadīth is defective due to Abū Shaybah Ibrāhīm ibn ʿUthmān, and the scholars are unanimous about his weakness. Moreover, it contradicts the authentic ḥadīth narrated by Abū Salamah ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān from Sayyidah ʿĀ’ishah رضي الله عنها.Ḥadīth No. ② Presented by Muftī Qāsmī
The second narration cited by Muftī Ṣāḥib is from al-Sunan al-Kubrā. Again, he did not mention its chain, which is as follows:
أنبأ أبو سعد الماليني… عن أبي شيبة عن الحكم عن مقسم عن ابن عباس…
After mentioning this narration, Imām al-Bayhaqī stated:
تفرد به أبو شيبة إبراهيم بن عثمان العبسي الكوفي، وهو ضعيف
“This narration is uniquely reported by Abū Shaybah Ibrāhīm ibn ʿUthmān al-ʿAbsī al-Kūfī, and he is weak.”
Thus, whether it is the narration of Muṣannaf Ibn Abī Shaybah or al-Sunan al-Kubrā, both depend on the same narrator, Abū Shaybah Ibrāhīm ibn ʿUthmān al-ʿAbsī al-Kūfī. In reality, both narrations are one and the same. Either Qāsmī Ṣāḥib intentionally tried to present one narration as two, or he did so unknowingly. The stronger assumption is that he attempted to deceive the masses by turning one narration into two.
This assumption is strengthened by the fact that he quoted the narration from Sunan al-Bayhaqī but completely omitted Imām al-Bayhaqī’s explicit criticism declaring it unfit for evidence. Had he been sincere or truly presenting a scholarly review, he would have quoted Imām al-Bayhaqī’s statement and the extensive criticism of the scholars regarding this narration and its narrator. Instead, he selectively concealed them to create the impression that even those who pray twenty rak‘ahs have some proof showing that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ prayed twenty rak‘ahs of Tarāwīḥ.
What Is the Reality?
The reality is that no authentic narration exists in the books of ḥadīth proving that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq رضي الله عنه, or ʿUmar al-Fārūq رضي الله عنه ever commanded or prayed twenty rak‘ahs of Tarāwīḥ. The same applies to the other caliphs—no authentic narration has been established. It is a separate matter that some people prayed twenty or more rak‘ahs during later periods, but that is not the subject of discussion.The real issue is: How many rak‘ahs did the Messenger of Allah ﷺ pray? When no authentic narration is found, these Deobandī partisans compensate by making baseless claims—sometimes asserting consensus, sometimes claiming that ʿUmar رضي الله عنه ordered twenty rak‘ahs and that all Companions accepted it. To this day, they have proven neither that twenty rak‘ahs are authentically established from the Prophet ﷺ nor that there was any consensus upon them, nor that ʿUmar رضي الله عنه commanded them. Rather, authentic narrations exist to the contrary.
Let us now present the central narrator of these narrations—Abū Shaybah Ibrāhīm ibn ʿUthmān ibn Khawāstī al-ʿAbsī, the client of the judge of Wāsiṭ—before the court of the scholars of ḥadīth:
① Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal: He is weak.
② Imām Aḥmad (via Abū Ṭālib): Munkar al-ḥadīth.
③ Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn: Weak.
④ Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn: Not trustworthy.
⑤ Imām al-Bukhārī: Not worthy of mention.
⑥ Imām Abū Dāwūd: Weak in ḥadīth.
⑦ Imām al-Tirmidhī: Munkar al-ḥadīth.
⑧ Imām Abū Ḥātim: Weak in ḥadīth; his narrations are abandoned.
⑨ Muʿādh al-ʿAnbarī reports that Imām Shuʿbah instructed: Do not narrate from him; he is detestable.
⑩ Ibn Saʿd: Weak in ḥadīth.
⑪ al-Dāraquṭnī: Weak.
⑫ Ibn al-Mubārak: Discard him.
⑬ al-Zaylaʿī (Ḥanafī): Weak.
⑭ Ibn al-Humām (Ḥanafī): Unanimously weak.
⑮ Badr al-Dīn al-ʿAynī: Declared unreliable by Shuʿbah, Aḥmad, Ibn Maʿīn, al-Bukhārī, and al-Nasā’ī.
⑯ Abū al-Ṭayyib Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Sindhī al-Ḥanafī: Weak.
⑰ Imām al-Dhahabī: Weak.
⑱ ʿAbd al-Ḥayy al-Farangī Maḥallī: Unanimously weak.
⑲ Imām Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī: This ḥadīth is extremely weak and not proof.
And many others have declared both this narration and its narrator weak and unfit as evidence.
Conclusion
Presenting such a narration for proof—while all major scholars, including leading Ḥanafī authorities, have declared it weak—is evidence of Muftī Shabbīr Qāsmī’s desperation. There is no doubt that he is fully aware of these scholarly verdicts, yet sectarian bias has rendered him blind and deaf to them.He knows the truth, yet refuses to accept it.
Since the reality of these two narrations has become clear, and since Imām Badr al-Dīn al-ʿAynī has stated that Imām Shuʿbah declared this narrator a liar, and Imām al-Suyūṭī and others ruled the narration unfit as evidence, Qāsmī Ṣāḥib’s claim that:
is itself an admission that the claim of consensus is just as baseless as the claim that the Prophet ﷺ prayed twenty rak‘ahs.
A false claim cannot support another false claim.
Thus, both foundations of Qāsmī Ṣāḥib’s argument have collapsed. Now he must seek another refuge—one sufficient to satisfy the ignorant:
Let them keep repeating this chant and keep the masses firm upon it—for entering the thorny field of evidence is neither beneficial for them nor safe.
