Taken and translated from ila’ us sunan, vol. 6 pg 47.
Here are the main topics discussed in the document:
- The chapter primarily discusses the manner of performing the Witr prayer as three connected rak’ahs without separating them with tasleem (salutation).
- It addresses the obligation of sitting for tashahhud (testification of faith) after the first two rak’ahs when performing Witr as three rak’ahs.
- The document highlights the prohibition of praying Witr as a single rak’ah, referencing the concept of “Butayra” (performing a single, isolated rak’ah resembling a severed entity).
- The text mentions the recitation of specific surahs in the rak’ahs of Witr.
- It explores the differing opinions among the Companions regarding the permissibility of resuming voluntary prayers, specifically Witr, after interruptions like speech or salam.
- The document presents the view that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) generally did not say salam in the first two rak’ahs of Witr when praying three connected rak’ahs.
- It argues for the preference of the collective reports of the majority of Companions over the individual reports, particularly regarding the manner of performing Witr.
- The text clarifies that the phrase “saying salam” in some hadith narrations can refer to performing the tashahhud after every two rak’ahs, rather than the final salutation.
- It discusses the interpretation of hadiths that mention Witr being one, five, or seven rak’ahs, explaining that these do not necessarily contradict the view of three connected rak’ahs or may refer to preceding voluntary prayers.
- The document emphasizes the consensus of the majority of Companions and the four Imams on the validity of performing Witr as three rak’ahs.
- It addresses the view that performing only three rak’ahs for Witr is disliked if not preceded by other voluntary prayers, as it could resemble the Maghrib prayer.
- The text mentions that Witr and other voluntary prayers should generally not be performed in congregation outside of Ramadan.
- It highlights the principle in jurisprudence that verbal statements (qawl) of the Prophet (peace be upon him) take precedence over narrations of his actions (fi’l) when determining religious rulings.
- The document criticises those who reject the Hanafi school’s position on Witr without fair consideration of the evidence.
- It refutes the notion that performing Witr as a single rak’ah has a strong basis in the Sunnah and discusses narrations attributed to Ibn Umar and others regarding this.
- The text highlights narrations indicating that some Companions like Ibn Mas’ud strongly disliked or refuted the performance of Witr as a single rak’ah.
- It discusses the significance of the consensus (ijma’) of the people of Madinah on performing Witr as three connected rak’ahs.
Chapter on praying the Witr with three connected rak’ahs without separating them with tasleem, the obligation to sit after the two rak’ahs, prohibition of praying Witr with a single rak’ah, and the mention of recitation in Witr.
1652 – Narrated from Sayidatuna ‘Aisha rd that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ used to not say the salam in the two raka’at of witr. Reported by an-Nasa’i (1/248) and he remained silent about it, and in Athar as-Sunan (2/11): Its chain is authentic, reported by al-Hakim in “al-Mustadrak” (1/204) with the wording: “She said: The Messenger of Allah ﷺ used not to say salam in the first two raka’at of the witr,” and he said this hadith is authentic on the condition of the two Shaykhs, and adh-Dhahabi agreed with him in his “Talkhis” and said: on their condition etc.
1652 – Reported by an-Nasa’i in as-Sunan as-Sughra, through the chain from Ismail bin Mas’ud, narrated to us by Bashr bin al-Mufaddal, narrated to us by Sa’id from Qatadah from Zurarah bin A’wa from Sa’d bin Hisham from Sayidatuna ‘Aisha rd, Book of Night Prayer, Chapter: How is the Witr with Three? The Indian Edition 1/191, Maktaba Dar-us-Salam Riyadh number: 1697. And reported by al-Hakim in al-Mustadrak, Book of Witr with a chain on the condition of the two Shaykhs, Maktaba Nizar Mustafa Makkah al-Mukarramah 2/440-441, number: 1139, and the old edition 1/304. And mentioned by an-Nimawi in Athar as-Sunan, Book of Prayer, Chapters of Witr, Chapter: The Witr with Three, Maktaba Madaniyyah Deoband 163, number: 613.
1653 – And from her, she said: “The Messenger of Allah ﷺ used to perform witr with three, not saying salam except in the last of them.” Reported by al-Hakim (1/204) and he testified to it saying: And this is the witr of Amir al-Mu’mineen ‘Umar bin al-Khattab rd, and from him the people of Madinah took it, and adh-Dhahabi remained silent about it in his “Talkhis,” thus it is hasan. And so it was transmitted by az-Zaila’i (1/277) in Nasb ar-Rayah with the wording: “Does not say salam,” and likewise transmitted by al-Hafiz in “ad-Darayah” (114) with the wording: “Does not say salam except in the last of them,” and both attributed it to al-Hakim.
1653 – Al-Hakim recorded it in Al-Mustadrak through the chain of Abu Nasr Ahmad ibn Sahl, who narrated from Salih ibn Muhammad, from Shayban ibn Farukh Abu Shaybah, from Aban, from Qatadah, from Zurarah ibn Awfa, from Sa‘d ibn Hisham, from Aisha rd., and mentioned it in Kitab al-Witr (Maktaba Nizar Mustafa, Makkah 2/441, Hadith No. 1140; Old Edition 1/304).
Az-Zayla‘i cited it in Nasb ar-Rayah, in Kitab as-Salah, under Bab Salat al-Witr, as “The 101st Hadith”, (Maktaba Dar Nashr al-Kutub, Lahore 2/118; New Edition 2/114).
Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar also referenced it in Ad-Dirayah, in Kitab as-Salah, under Bab Salat al-Witr (Maktaba Ashrafiyyah, Deoband 1/146).
As for the statement: “From Aisha rd.” and “From her etc.”, I say: Both narrations clearly establish the first two rulings of this chapter. However, they are seemingly contradicted by what is found in Sahih al-Bukhari: (1) “That Abdullah ibn Umar rd. used to say salam between the single rak’ah and the two rak’ahs in Witr, to the extent that he would even tend to some of his needs.”
Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar commented in Fath al-Bari (2/401) (2): “Even more explicit than this is what Sa’id ibn Mansur reported with an authentic chain from Bakr ibn Abdullah al-Muzani, who said: ‘Ibn Umar prayed two rak’ahs, then said: “O servant! Prepare the mounts for us.” Then he stood up and performed Witr with one rak’ah.'”
Al-Tahawi also narrated (3) from the route of Salim ibn Abdullah ibn Umar from his father: “That he used to separate his shafa’ (even-numbered rak’ahs) from his Witr with a salam and informed that the Prophet ﷺ used to do the same.” Al-Tahawi commented: “Its chain is strong.”
I say: This does not indicate that Ibn Umar rd. would perform Witr as a single, isolated rak’ah. Rather, the most it establishes is that he performed Witr as three rak’ahs, but he considered it permissible to separate the last rak’ah from the first two by saying salam and even engaging in brief speech when needed. As Al-Hafiz mentioned in Fath al-Bari (2/401) (4): “Its apparent meaning is that he would normally pray Witr continuously, but if something preoccupied him, he would pause and then resume, building upon what he had already prayed.”
This leads to a separate legal discussion: whether it is permissible to continue a prayer after pausing for speech or salam. There is agreement that such a practice is not allowed in obligatory prayers or other voluntary prayers. However, the Companions differed on whether this applied to Witr. Ibn Umar and some other Companions believed that one could resume Witr after a pause, even after speaking, making salam, or even experiencing hadath (minor ritual impurity) and sleeping—an opinion which is supported by the discussion on invalidating Witr and pairing it with an extra rak’ah at the end of the night, as will be mentioned later.
We have already detailed in the chapters on hadath during prayer that speech, whether little or excessive, whether by mistake or intentionally, invalidates the prayer outright. A fundamental condition for continuing a prayer is the absence of speech in between. We have proven this through authentic marfu’ hadiths with general wording that do not distinguish between different types of prayer, whether Witr or otherwise. These texts must therefore be relied upon, and the statements and practices of these Companions must be interpreted accordingly. Likewise, the hadith “There are no two Witrs in one night” (5) negates the validity of nullifying a previously performed Witr and adding another rak’ah to it, as we will discuss.
The overall conclusion is that Ibn Umar rd. used to perform Witr as three rak’ahs, keeping them connected. However, he did not consider speech or salam after the first two rak’ahs as something that prevented him from adding the third rak’ah afterward. In his view, this did not sever the initial state of consecration (tahrimah). It is unanimously reported from him that Witr consists of three rak’ahs. This is evident from his statement recorded in the following narration:
“‘Uqbah ibn Muslim said: ‘I asked Ibn Umar about Witr, and he said: “Do you know what the Witr of the day is?” I said: “Yes, the Maghrib prayer.” He said: “You have spoken the truth, or you have done well.”‘” (6)
Do you not see that when he was asked about Witr, he compared it to the Witr of the day, meaning that Witr is like Maghrib? This clearly indicates that, in his view, Witr was three rak’ahs, just like Maghrib. This is precisely our stance. We have also explained why we do not follow his opinion regarding speech and salam between the rak’ahs. This is our response to his action.
As for what Al-Tahawi narrated from Ibn Umar rd., in which he attributed it to the Prophet ﷺ: “That he used to separate his shafa’ from his Witr with a salam and informed that the Prophet ﷺ used to do so.” A similar version is reported by Ahmad and others: “The Messenger of Allah ﷺ used to separate Witr and shafa’ with a salam, and he would make us hear it,” as mentioned in Talkhis al-Habir (1/117) (7).
The response to this is that we do not find any other Companion narrating this practice from the Prophet ﷺ except Ibn Umar rd., as far as we know. However, several other Companions reported differently. Aisha rd. narrated: “The Prophet ﷺ would not say salam in the two rak’ahs of Witr.” (8) In another version: “He used to perform Witr with three rak’ahs and would not say salam in the first two.” (9) Both of these reports have sahih and hasan chains. In yet another narration recorded by Ahmad: “Then he performed Witr with three rak’ahs without separating them.” (10) This narration also has a hasan chain.
Ubayy ibn Ka’b rd. corroborated this by saying: “He would not say salam except at the end.” (11) Its chain is sahih. Anas ibn Malik rd. also reported that: “He performed Witr with three and only said salam at the end.” Then he added: “I took this from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.” (12)
Ibn Mas’ud rd. narrated a marfu’ hadith stating: “The Witr of the night is three rak’ahs, just like the Witr of the day—Maghrib.” (13) Its chain is hasan, as will be discussed. This hadith establishes that Witr is to be performed continuously, just as Maghrib is.
Since the reports of these Companions indicate that the Prophet ﷺ did not separate the rak’ahs of Witr, we do not follow the narration of Ibn Umar rd. on this matter. Instead, we give preference to the collective reports of the other Companions, as they are superior in both riwayah (transmission) and dirayah (understanding) over the lone report of Ibn Umar rd.
From the perspective of riwayah (transmission), the preference is evident because a greater number of narrators hold more weight than a single individual. Furthermore, Sayyidatuna Aisha rd. observed the Witr of the Prophet ﷺ more frequently than Ibn Umar rd., as the Prophet ﷺ would perform Witr in his home consistently and mostly at the end of the night. Ibn Umar rd. was not present at such times nor in his home after Isha. Likewise, Sayyiduna Anas rd. witnessed aspects of the Prophet’s ﷺ prayer that other men did not, due to his close service to him.
From the perspective of dirayah (understanding), separating shafa’ (the even-numbered rak’ahs) from Witr is unprecedented in both obligatory (fard) and voluntary (nafl) prayers. Thus, the narration of the majority aligns with qiyas (analogical reasoning), whereas the report of Ibn Umar rd. does not. Al-Hazimi stated in An-Nasikh wal-Mansukh: “The twenty-second principle of preference is that when one of two narrations conforms to qiyas while the other does not, preference must be given to the one that aligns with qiyas.” This was cited in Nasb ar-Rayah (1/278) (14).
For this reason, when Al-Hasan al-Basri was told that Ibn Umar rd. would say salam after two rak’ahs in Witr, he replied: “Umar rd. was more knowledgeable than him; he would rise for the third rak’ah with takbir (after sitting in the second rak’ah).” This was reported by Al-Hakim in Al-Mustadrak (1/304) (15) and was left unchallenged by both him and Adh-Dhahabi. Here, Al-Hasan rd. applied the principle of preference (tarjih), considering Umar’s rd. practice superior to that of his son and indicating that it was more in line with proper fiqh.
The narration of Ibn Umar rd. confused some scholars, leading them to state: “To be fair, responding to it is difficult, and the easiest approach is to say that all authentic reports on the matter are valid and permissible. However, the mujtahid (jurist) selects the position that appears most convincing to him based on intuition or other supporting factors.” I say: May Allah disgrace the one who falsely claims broad insight in knowledge! By Allah, no one makes such a statement except someone with a limited understanding of hadith. As for the one whom Allah has blessed with true insight and deep comprehension of knowledge, he has no need to rely on the mujtahid’s intuition. Rather, he will perceive the superiority of what Imam Abu Hanifah rh. determined in this issue over other opinions as clearly as one sees the sun without obstruction.
Since it has been established that the narration of the majority is given preference over the solitary report of Ibn Umar rd., his narration requires interpretation. The easiest explanation is that his practice occurred before the prohibition of nullifying Witr and before the restriction against adding a single rak’ah to an earlier, separate prayer. This is indicated by the hadith “There are no two Witrs in one night” (16), for it is certain that some Companions would perform Witr at the beginning of the night and later nullify it by adding a rak’ah at the end of the night. This ruling is not based on mere opinion, as it involves retroactively affecting a previously completed prayer despite the occurrence of salam, hadath (ritual impurity), sleep, and a prolonged time gap. This could only have been permissible at the beginning of Islam through direct instruction from the Prophet ﷺ.
Just as this narration implies that it was initially allowed to add a rak’ah to Witr after hadath and sleep, it similarly implies that adding a third rak’ah to an earlier two was permissible even after salam and speech, as there is no difference between adding a third or a fourth rak’ah in this matter. However, once the Prophet ﷺ prohibited performing two Witrs in one night, forbade nullifying Witr, and prohibited al-Butayra (17), the ruling of linking one prayer to another after salam, hadath, and an extended break was completely invalidated.
Nevertheless, Ibn Umar rd. and others among the Companions were unaware of this later prohibition, so they continued the practice of adding a rak’ah to two rak’ahs after salam, just as they continued nullifying Witr. And Allah knows best. It cannot be argued that this explanation involves claiming naskh (abrogation) without evidence, for when a restrictive (hazr) and a permissive (ibahah) ruling coincide, the restrictive ruling is considered the latter ruling to avoid requiring multiple instances of naskh. This principle was detailed in the introduction.
1654 – Narrated from Abdullah ibn Abi Qais, he said: “I asked ‘Aisha rd how many rak’ahs did the Messenger of Allah ﷺ perform the witr with?” She said: “With four and three, six and three, eight and three, and ten and three, and he would not perform the witr with more than thirteen nor less than seven.” Reported by Ahmad, Abu Dawud, and al-Tahawi, and its chain is hasan as mentioned in Athar as-Sunan (2/11).
1654 – Ahmad reported it in his Musnad with a sahih chain through the route of ‘Abd ar-Rahman from Mu’awiya from Abdullah ibn Abi Qais mentioning it, in the Musnad of the Women, the hadith of Lady ‘Aisha rd, 6/149, number: 25674, and verified by Shu’aib al-Arnaut, number: 25159. Abu Dawud also reported it in his Sunan with a sahih chain, Book of Prayer, Chapters on Voluntary Prayers, Chapter on the Night Prayer, the Indian edition 1/193, Maktaba Dar-us-Salam Riyadh number: 1362. Al-Tahawi reported it in Sharh Ma’ani al-Athar, Book of Prayer, Chapter on Witr, Maktaba Zakariyya Deoband 1/201, Maktaba Asifiyya Delhi 1/168, Maktaba Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah Beirut 1/371, number: 1656. An-Nimawi mentioned it in Athar as-Sunan, Book of Prayer, Chapter on the Witr of Three Rak’ahs, Maktaba Madaniyyah Deoband pages: 163-164, number: 615.
As for the statement: “From Abdullah ibn Abi Qays etc.”, I say: Its indication toward the first ruling of this chapter—namely, that Witr is to be performed as three connected rak’ahs—is clear. Had the Prophet ﷺ been separating the two rak’ahs of Witr with salam, the correct manner of expression would have been to say: “He used to perform Witr as six and one, eight and one, ten and one, or twelve and one,” as is evident. Since all three rak’ahs are grouped into a single phrase, it indicates that they were connected.
As for the narration reported by the majority of the compilers of hadith, except At-Tirmidhi, from Sayyidatuna Aisha rd., in which she said: “The Messenger of Allah ﷺ would pray eleven rak’ahs between finishing the Isha prayer and Fajr, saying salam between every two rak’ahs and performing Witr with one”, as mentioned in Nayl al-Awtar (2/279) (18), its meaning is that he would perform tashahhud after every two rak’ahs. The usage of “saying salam” to mean tashahhud is well known in hadith literature, as is clear to those who have studied them.
If we were to interpret it as referring to Taslim at-Tahlil (the concluding salam that formally ends a prayer), then its meaning would be that he would say salam after every two rak’ahs except for the two rak’ahs of Witr. This is because Sayyidatuna Aisha rd. explicitly stated at the beginning of this chapter, as recorded by An-Nasa’i and Al-Hakim, that the Prophet ﷺ “would not say salam between the two rak’ahs of Witr” (19). In another version: “He used to perform Witr with three and would not say salam except at the end.” (20). Furthermore, another narration recorded by Ahmad states: “He performed Witr with three and did not separate them.” (21)
A clear and explicit narration always takes precedence over a general one. In this case, the statement “He would say salam between every two rak’ahs” in the version reported by the majority is not explicitly referring to the two rak’ahs of Witr. Rather, it supports the interpretation that we have provided—understanding it as general speech, where the wording includes all cases but is not necessarily absolute in all instances. However, An-Nasa’i, Al-Hakim, and Ahmad have explicitly reported narrations from Aisha rd. that affirm that there was no salam between the two rak’ahs of Witr and that all three rak’ahs were connected with only one final salam.
Moreover, the narration about saying salam after every two rak’ahs originates from Urwah narrating from Aisha rd., and his transmission from her in this chapter is inconsistent, as will be demonstrated. Therefore, it cannot be used as definitive evidence against us, nor can sound and undisputed narrations be opposed with such a report.
Her statement “Then he performed Witr with one” means that he performed Witr with one rak’ah joined to the preceding even-numbered rak’ahs (shafa’). However, since the act of making the prayer Witr is technically completed with the final rak’ah, she said “Then he performed Witr with one,” meaning that the last rak’ah itself was the one that transformed the preceding prayer into Witr.
1655 – Narrated from ‘Amrah from ‘Aisha rd that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ used to perform the witr prayer with three rak’ahs. In the first rak’ah, he would recite “Sabbih isma rabbika al-A’la” (Glorify the name of your Lord, the Most High), in the second: “Qul ya ayyuha al-kafiroon” (Say, O disbelievers), and in the third: “Qul huwa Allahu ahad” (Say, He is Allah, One), “Qul a’udhu bi rabbil-falaq” (Say, I seek refuge in the Lord of the dawn), and “Qul a’udhu bi rabbin-nas” (Say, I seek refuge in the Lord of mankind). Reported by ad-Daraqutni, al-Tahawi, and al-Hakim who authenticated it as mentioned in Athar as-Sunan (2/12). Al-Hafiz said in “al-Talkhis al-Habir” (3/118): Al-Aqeeli stated its chain is sound, but the hadith of Ibn Abbas and Ubay bin Ka’b which omits the Mu’awwidhatayn is more authentic, and Ibn al-Jawzi mentioned that Ahmad and Yahya bin Ma’in denied the addition of the Mu’awwidhatayn.
1655 – Ad-Daraqutni reported it in his Sunan with a hasan chain through the route of Hussein bin Ismail, who narrated from Abu Ismail at-Tirmidhi, who narrated from Ibn Abi Maryam, who narrated from Yahya bin Ayub, from Yahya bin Said, from ‘Amrah about ‘Aisha rd, as mentioned in the Book of Witr, in the last chapter of what is recited in the rak’ahs of witr and the qunut within it, Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah Beirut 2/25, number: 1660, Dar al-Ma’rifah Beirut 2/34. Al-Tahawi also reported it in Sharh Ma’ani al-Athar, Book of Prayer, Chapter on Witr, Zakariyya Deoband 1/200, Asifiyya Delhi 1/170, Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah Beirut 1/370, number: 1654. An-Nimawi mentioned it in Athar as-Sunan, Book of Prayer, Chapter on the Witr of Three Rak’ahs, Madaniyyah Deoband p. 164, number: 617. Al-Aqeeli’s comment: “Its chain is sound etc.” is mentioned by al-Hafiz in al-Talkhis al-Habir, Book of Prayer, Chapter on Voluntary Prayers, Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah Beirut 2/47, under hadith number: 533, and the old edition 1/118.
As for the statement: “From ‘Amrah etc.” I say: Her statement, “He used to perform the witr with three,” clearly indicates that the three rak’ahs were connected by a single salam.
1656 – Narrated to us by Abu al-Nadr, who said Muhammad, meaning Ibn Rashid, narrated from Yazid ibn Ya’far from al-Hasan al-Basri from Sa’d ibn Hisham from ‘Aisha (rd) that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, after praying the ‘Isha prayer, would enter the home and then pray two rak’ahs, followed by two longer rak’ahs, and then perform the witr with three rak’ahs without separating them. Reported by Ahmad and its chain is considered reliable as mentioned in Athar as-Sunan (p. 11). I say: As for Abu al-Nadr, there is no need to inquire about him since all the sheikhs of Ahmad are trustworthy. Muhammad ibn Rashid has been critiqued but has been authenticated, and Yazid ibn Ya’far was said by ad-Daraqutni to be reliable, and mentioned by Ibn Hibban in the trustworthy ones, and adh-Dhahabi said in “al-Mizan”: “He is not a proof” in T’ajil al-Manfa’ah (p. 455), and this is a mild criticism, so the chain is hasan and it is also mentioned by al-Hafiz in “al-Talkhis” (1/116) who remained silent about it.
1656 – Reported by Ahmad in his Musnad, Hadith of Lady ‘Aisha, 6/155-156, number: 25738. An-Nimawi also mentioned it in Athar as-Sunan, Book of Prayer, Chapter on Witr, of three rak’ahs, Madaniyyah Deoband p. 163, number: 614. In its chain is Yazid ibn Ya’far, who has been critiqued, see Mizan al-I’tidal by adh-Dhahabi, verified by Ali Muhammad al-Bajawi, Dar al-Ma’rifah Beirut 4/442, number: 9768. Also see T’ajil al-Manfa’ah by al-Hafiz, verified by Ikram Allah Imdad al-Haqq, Dar al-Basha’ir Beirut 2/381, number: 1194. And see al-Talkhis al-Habir, Book of Prayer, Chapter on Voluntary Prayers, the old edition 1/116, Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah Beirut 2/40, number: 0518.
As for the statement: “Narrated to us by Abu al-Nadr etc.” I say: It contains a clear and explicit indication that the three [rak’ahs] were connected and that there was no separation between them with a salam.
1657 – Narrated from Abu Salamah ibn Abdur Rahman that he asked ‘Aisha rd how was the prayer (i.e., the tahajjud) of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ during Ramadan? She said: “The Messenger of Allah ﷺ did not exceed eleven rak’ahs in Ramadan or at other times. He would pray four rak’ahs, and you should not ask about their beauty and length, then he would pray another four, and you should not ask about their beauty and length, then he would pray three.” The hadith was reported by al-Bukhari (1/154) and Muslim (1/254).
1657 – Reported by al-Bukhari in his Sahih, Book of Tahajjud, Chapter on the Night Prayer of the Prophet ﷺ in Ramadan and other times, the Indian edition 1/154, number: 1136, p. 1147. And reported by Muslim in his Sahih, Book of the Traveler’s Prayer, Chapter on the Night Prayer and the number of rak’ahs of the Prophet ﷺ etc., the Indian edition 1/254, Maktaba Bayt al-Afkar, number: 738.
As for the statement “From Abu Salamah etc.”, I say: Her statement “He would pray four, then he would pray four, then he would pray three” indicates what has already been established in the previous narrations, confirming through multiple reports from Sayyidatuna Aisha rd. that Witr consisted of three rak’ahs with a single taslimah.
As for the narration in Sahih Muslim where Aisha rd. said: “The Messenger of Allah ﷺ would pray thirteen rak’ahs at night, performing Witr with five, without sitting in any part of them except in the last one” (Sahih Muslim 1/254) (22), this report comes through Hisham ibn Urwah from his father. However, Urwah’s narration from Aisha rd. regarding the Prophet’s ﷺ Witr is inconsistent.
For instance, Ibn Shihab az-Zuhri narrated from Urwah from Aisha rd. that “The Messenger of Allah ﷺ would pray eleven rak’ahs at night, performing Witr with one. After completing it, he would lie on his right side until the mu’adhin came, then he would pray two light rak’ahs.” This is the version recorded by Malik from az-Zuhri, with corroboration from Amr ibn al-Harith and Yunus, as reported in Sahih Muslim (1/254) (23), Al-Tahawi, and Ibn Abi Dhi’b in Sharh Ma’ani al-Athar (1/167). In another report, he added: “He would pray from the time he finished Isha until Fajr and would say salam after every two rak’ahs.” (24) This narration establishes that the entirety of his night prayer from Isha until Fajr was eleven rak’ahs, with Witr being a single rak’ah.
Malik also narrated from Hisham ibn Urwah from his father from Aisha rd.: “The Messenger of Allah ﷺ would pray thirteen rak’ahs at night, then, when he heard the call to prayer, he would pray two light rak’ahs.” (Sharh Ma’ani al-Athar 1/167) (25). This narration mentions that his night prayer was thirteen rak’ahs excluding the two rak’ahs of Fajr, but it does not provide any indication regarding how his Witr was performed.
Similarly, Abdullah ibn Numayr narrated from Hisham from Urwah from Aisha rd.: “The Messenger of Allah ﷺ would pray thirteen rak’ahs at night, performing Witr with five, without sitting in any part of them except in the last one.” This was recorded by Muslim and Al-Tahawi (26). However, it is unclear whether the thirteen rak’ahs mentioned here include the two rak’ahs of Fajr or not. Additionally, this version contradicts az-Zuhri’s narration that states he performed Witr with one. It also states that he would not sit in any rak’ah except in the last, while az-Zuhri narrated that he would say salam after every two rak’ahs.
Al-Tahawi commented: “Since the narrations from Urwah through Aisha rd. about the Witr of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and his night prayer are inconsistent, they do not constitute proof. Therefore, we rely instead on what others narrated from her.” After presenting alternative reports, he concluded: “This establishes that Witr consists of three rak’ahs without any salam in between. As for the narration from Hisham ibn Urwah from his father stating that the Prophet ﷺ performed Witr with five without sitting except in the last one, we could not determine its meaning. The general reports from Urwah and others from Aisha rd. contradict it, and the report upheld by the majority takes precedence over what Hisham uniquely narrated by himself.” (Sharh Ma’ani al-Athar 1/169) (27).
Likewise, the hadith from Umm Salamah rd. in which she said: “The Prophet ﷺ would perform Witr with five or seven rak’ahs without separating them with salam or speech” is inconsistent in its chain, just as Urwah’s narration from Aisha rd. is inconsistent in its text. This hadith of Umm Salamah rd. was recorded by An-Nasa’i through Jarir from Mansur from al-Hakam from Miqsam from Umm Salamah rd. as a marfu’ report. However, Isra’il contradicted him, narrating it as Mansur from al-Hakam from Miqsam from Ibn Abbas rd. from Umm Salamah rd. as a marfu’ report. Furthermore, Yazid narrated from Sufyan ibn Husayn from al-Hakam from Miqsam, who said: “Witr is seven, and no less than five.” (Al-Hakam) then said: “I mentioned this to Ibrahim an-Nakha’i, and he asked, ‘Who narrated it?’ I replied, ‘I do not know!’ Later, I traveled for Hajj and met Miqsam, so I asked him, ‘Who narrated it?’ He replied, ‘The reliable source (thiqat) from Aisha rd. and Maymunah rd.'” (Sunan al-Nasa’i 1/250) (28).
In this third narration, Miqsam attributed the report to Aisha rd. and Maymunah rd. through an unnamed narrator, without specifying whether it was marfu’ or not. Therefore, it is not valid as conclusive proof. Even if we assume its authenticity, it must be understood as referring to the prohibition of reciting salam and speaking audibly rather than an absolute prohibition of separating them. It should also be interpreted as emphasizing the preference for preceding Witr with other voluntary prayers—whether two, four, or more rak’ahs—rather than performing only three rak’ahs, in order to avoid resembling Maghrib.
This is the correct understanding of the hadith reported by Abu Salamah and Abdur Rahman al-A‘raj from Abu Hurayrah rd.: “Do not perform Witr with three; instead, perform Witr with five or seven and do not make it resemble Maghrib.” This was recorded by Ad-Daraqutni, Al-Hakim, and Al-Bayhaqi (29). Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar commented: “Its chain meets the conditions of Al-Bukhari and Muslim.” Muhammad ibn Nasr al-Marwazi, Ibn Hibban, and Al-Hakim also recorded from Ikrimah ibn Malik from Abu Hurayrah rd. a similar marfu’ narration: “Do not perform Witr with three, making it resemble Maghrib. Instead, perform Witr with five, seven, eleven, or more than that.” (30) Al-Iraqi graded its chain as sahih.
Muhammad ibn Nasr and Al-Tahawi narrated from Ibn Abbas rd. that he said: “Witr is seven or five, and we dislike three as Butayra.” (31) Al-Iraqi authenticated this narration. Similarly, Aisha rd. said: “Witr is seven or five, and I dislike it being three as Butayra.” This was also narrated by Muhammad ibn Nasr and Al-Tahawi, and Al-Iraqi authenticated it as well, as mentioned in Athar as-Sunan (2/6) (32).
This statement does not indicate an absolute prohibition of performing Witr as three rak’ahs. How could it, when it is authentically established from the Prophet ﷺ in both his words and actions? Moreover, the majority of the Companions accepted this practice, as will be detailed later. Likewise, all four Imams, whom we follow in matters of religion, unanimously agreed on the validity of Witr as three rak’ahs, though they differed concerning the number of rak’ahs below or beyond that. Instead, the meaning of these statements is as we have explained—that the prohibition is regarding limiting Witr to only three rak’ahs, implying that it is preferable to precede Witr with additional voluntary prayers, whether two, four, or more.
Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar reconciled between the hadiths that describe Witr as three connected rak’ahs and the hadiths discouraging Witr in that manner due to its resemblance to Maghrib by interpreting the prohibition as referring to performing three rak’ahs with two tashahhuds. (33) Some scholars regarded this as a sound reconciliation. Al-Qastallani stated: “Performing Witr as three rak’ahs without two tashahhuds is superior to performing it with two tashahhuds, to distinguish it from Maghrib.” (34)
I say: This explanation is extremely weak and far-fetched, to the point that no intelligent person would adopt such an interpretation. It is a clear error because the statement “Do not perform Witr with three; instead, perform Witr with five, seven, or nine” clearly refers to the number of rak’ahs, as is immediately understood from the text. There is no indication—neither explicitly nor implicitly—that it refers to the number of tashahhuds. Thus, the meaning is as we have stated: the prohibition applies to performing only three rak’ahs without preceding them with additional voluntary prayers, in order to distinguish it from Maghrib. This is also the conclusion found in at-Ta‘liq al-Hasan (2/13) (35).
I say: The explanation provided by Al-Nimawi was derived from the words of Al-Tahawi rh. in Sharh Ma’ani al-Athar (1/169) (36). Those who argue for performing Witr as a single rak’ah cannot use these narrations to prohibit Witr as three rak’ahs because these reports make no mention of performing Witr with one rak’ah. Rather, they instruct that Witr should be performed as five, seven, or more, after prohibiting three. This would necessitate their acknowledgment that Witr with more than three rak’ahs is superior or even obligatory—which none of them assert. Consequently, these narrations contradict their own argument.
Furthermore, they cannot cite what Muhammad ibn Nasr narrated with a chain authenticated by Al-Iraqi from Sulayman ibn Yasar, who was asked about Witr with three rak’ahs, to which he responded: “I dislike three; do not make voluntary prayers resemble obligatory ones. Perform Witr with one rak’ah, five, or seven.” This was recorded in Nayl al-Awtar (2/281) (37).
This is because Sulayman ibn Yasar was a Tabi‘i, and his statements are not considered as conclusive proof according to their own methodology. Even according to our methodology, the statements of Tabi‘un cannot be used as evidence when they contradict marfu‘ hadiths or the statements of the Companions. In this case, the matter is settled by stronger evidence, as will be explained.
The narration of Hisham ibn Urwah from his father from Aisha rd. stating: “Then he performed Witr with five rak’ahs without sitting in any of them except the last one”—even if we assume its authenticity—is also understood as referring to a period before the ruling of Witr with three rak’ahs was established. The same applies to the narration of Ibn Abbas rd.: “Then he performed Witr with five rak’ahs without sitting between them.” This was recorded by Abu Dawud with a chain that has some weakness, as mentioned in Athar as-Sunan (2/5) (38). The meaning of “He did not sit except in the last one” and “He did not sit between them” will be clarified later.
The opposing side has no valid evidence in what was narrated by the Four Sunan and others (excluding At-Tirmidhi) from Abu Ayyub al-Ansari rd., who said that the Prophet ﷺ stated: “Witr is a right and an obligation upon every Muslim. Whoever wishes to perform Witr with five, let him do so. Whoever wishes to perform Witr with three, let him do so. And whoever wishes to perform Witr with one, let him do so.” This was recorded in Athar as-Sunan (2/7) (39).
This narration does not support their argument because they themselves do not accept it as marfu‘ (directly attributed to the Prophet ﷺ). Rather, they hold that it is mawquf (a statement of the Companion). Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar stated in Talkhis al-Habir: “Abu Hatim, Adh-Dhuhli, Ad-Daraqutni in Al-‘Ilal, Al-Bayhaqi, and others authenticated that it is mawquf, and this is the correct position.” (Talkhis al-Habir 1/116) (40).
For us, this narration is understood as referring to a period before the ruling of Witr as three rak’ahs was firmly established. As mentioned earlier, performing Witr with one rak’ah was initially permitted, but then the prohibition of Butayra and performing two Witrs in one night was introduced. Likewise, performing Witr with five rak’ahs in a single taslimah may have been permissible at the beginning, but then the ruling was firmly established at three rak’ahs, based on the Prophet’s ﷺ statement: “Witr is three, like Maghrib.” This was the consensus of the majority of the Companions, as will be explained.
Even if we assume that the statement “Whoever wishes to perform Witr with five, let him do so” refers to performing Witr as five rak’ahs with a single takbirat al-ihram, it is still possible that the intended meaning is to perform three rak’ahs as Witr, while adding two voluntary rak’ahs before or after it, making the total number five. In this case, the whole set of rak’ahs is being called Witr, and Allah knows best.
1658 – Narrated from Ibn Abbas rd: “He spent the night at the house of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. When the Prophet ﷺ woke up, he used a miswak (tooth-stick), performed wudu, and recited: ‘Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and the earth…’ until he completed the surah. Then he stood and prayed two rak‘ahs, prolonging his standing, bowing, and prostration. Then he finished and slept until he breathed heavily. He repeated this three times—six rak‘ahs in total—each time using the miswak, performing wudu, and reciting these verses. Then he performed witr with three rak‘ahs.”
This hadith was reported by Muslim through the narration of Ali bin Abdullah bin Abbas from him (1/261).
1658 – Reported by Muslim in Sahih Muslim, Book of the Traveler’s Prayer, Chapter on the Night Prayer and Supplication of the Prophet ﷺ, Indian edition 1/261, Maktaba Bayt al-Afkar, number: 763.
As for the statement “From Ibn Abbas rd. etc.”, I say: This hadith comes from the narration of Husayn from Habib ibn Abi Thabit, and it is one of the narrations that Ad-Daraqutni criticized in Sahih Muslim for differing from the other reports in the number of rak’ahs. In this narration, there are six rak’ahs, whereas in the other reports, there are thirteen rak’ahs. This was noted by An-Nawawi in Sharh Muslim (1/261) (41). He then justified its inclusion by explaining that Muslim did not mention it in the main collection but rather in the supporting narrations (mutaba‘at), which have a lesser standard than primary narrations. Qadi Iyad responded by stating that it is possible to reconcile this narration with the other reports.
I say: Habib ibn Abi Thabit was not the sole narrator of this hadith; rather, he was corroborated by Yunus ibn Abi Ishaq, who narrated from Al-Minhāl ibn ‘Amr from Ali ibn Abdullah ibn Abbas from his father with a similar wording, recorded by Al-Tahawi with a sahih chain (Sharh Ma’ani al-Athar 1/169). Similarly, Muhammad ibn Ali was not the only one to narrate it, as he was supported by Al-Minhāl ibn ‘Amr, who narrated it from Ali ibn Abdullah with a similar wording. Likewise, Ali ibn Abdullah was corroborated by Kuraib, the freed slave of Ibn Abbas, who narrated from Ibn Abbas rd.: “The Messenger of Allah ﷺ prayed two rak’ahs after Isha, then two rak’ahs, then two rak’ahs, then two rak’ahs, then performed Witr with three.” This is recorded in Sharh Ma’ani al-Athar (1/170) (42).
This narration establishes that his night prayer consisted of nine rak’ahs, excluding the two rak’ahs after Isha. This is precisely the same as what is found in the narration of Ali ibn Abdullah. Said ibn Jubayr also corroborated this report in Al-Tahawi (1/169) with a sahih chain. He narrated from Ibn Abbas rd.: “I spent the night at the house of my aunt, Maymunah rd.. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ prayed Isha, then came and prayed four rak’ahs, then five rak’ahs, then two rak’ahs, then slept until I heard his snoring or light breathing, then he went out for prayer.” This narration also indicates that his night prayer was nine rak’ahs, excluding the Sunnah of Isha and the two rak’ahs of Fajr. The hadith is sahih and free from any defect, and it establishes that his Witr consisted of three rak’ahs, which by its apparent meaning were connected.
As for what Kuraib narrated from Ibn Abbas rd. in Al-Tahawi (1/170) “Then he performed Witr with one”, its meaning is that he performed Witr with one rak’ah along with two that preceded it, making the total three. This aligns with the meaning of the hadiths of Ali ibn Abdullah and Said ibn Jubayr. How can it be otherwise when Kuraib himself previously narrated: “Then he performed Witr with three”?
Additionally, Yahya al-Jazzar also narrated from Ibn Abbas rd.: “The Messenger of Allah ﷺ used to perform Witr with three rak’ahs,” as recorded by An-Nasa’i (1/249) and Al-Tahawi (1/170). Its chain is sahih (43).
This is not contradicted by what Al-Bukhari narrated in Kitab al-Manaqib (1/53) from Ibn Abi Mulaykah, who said: “Mu‘awiyah performed Witr with one rak’ah after Isha while a freed slave of Ibn Abbas was present. The freed slave then went to Ibn Abbas rd. and informed him, to which Ibn Abbas rd. said: ‘Leave him; indeed, he has accompanied the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.’” In another version: “It was said to Ibn Abbas rd.: ‘What do you say about Amir al-Mu’minin Mu‘awiyah? He performed Witr with only one rak’ah.’ He replied: ‘He is correct; he is a jurist.’” (44)
This narration does not indicate that performing Witr with one rak’ah was considered permissible by Ibn Abbas rd.. If it were, his students would have known about it and would not have strongly objected to Mu‘awiyah’s action. Rather, this narration suggests that the people of Makkah, who were students of Ibn Abbas rd., were unfamiliar with Witr being performed as a single rak’ah.
As for his statements “Leave him; he accompanied the Prophet ﷺ” and “He is correct; he is a jurist,” they mean that he was correct in his own opinion, as he was a mujtahid. Ibn Abbas rd. intended by this response to deter the younger Tabi‘un from objecting to the senior Companions, especially those among them who were fuqaha and mujtahidun, for every mujtahid is deemed correct in his own reasoning and is rewarded for his ijtihad, even if he is ultimately incorrect. This is supported by his statement: “Leave him; he accompanied the Prophet ﷺ,” and it is even clearer in the version recorded by Al-Tahawi with a hasan chain from Ata that a man said to Ibn Abbas rd.: “What do you say about Mu‘awiyah? He performed Witr with only one rak’ah,” intending to criticize Mu‘awiyah. Ibn Abbas rd. replied: “Mu‘awiyah is correct.” (Sharh Ma’ani al-Athar 1/170) (45).
This narration shows that Ibn Abbas rd. affirmed Mu‘awiyah’s action only to deter the man from openly criticizing him. That Ibn Abbas rd. did not actually believe this to be correct is evident from what was cited earlier—that he himself objected to Mu‘awiyah’s practice, which will be detailed further.
This explanation is superior to what Al-Tahawi rh. stated: “It is possible that Ibn Abbas rd.’s statement, ‘Mu‘awiyah is correct,’ was said out of taqiyyah (precautionary diplomacy), meaning that he was correct in another matter since he lived in Mu‘awiyah’s time. It is not possible that Ibn Abbas rd. considered correct an act of Mu‘awiyah that contradicted what he knew to be the practice of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.” Al-Tahawi then cited a narration with his chain from Abu Mansur, who said: “I asked Ibn Abbas rd. about Witr, and he said: ‘It is three rak’ahs.'” (Sharh Ma’ani al-Athar 1/171) (46).
I say: Indeed, Ibn Abbas rd. could not have deemed correct something that contradicted his own knowledge and fatwa, but it is plausible that he regarded Mu‘awiyah’s action as correct in Mu‘awiyah’s own reasoning, since he was a mujtahid who may have based his ruling on some evidence that he deemed valid. Therefore, Ibn Abbas rd.’s statement “Mu‘awiyah is correct” means that Mu‘awiyah was correct in his own judgment, not that he was correct according to Ibn Abbas rd. himself.
As for what some critics wrote against this interpretation—claiming that Al-Tahawi’s explanation is weak and indicative of bias, which is unbefitting of scholarly objectivity—this is incorrect. There is nothing far-fetched, weak, or biased about Al-Tahawi’s interpretation. Taqiyyah, in the sense that Al-Tahawi intended, is not always prohibited; rather, it is permissible in certain circumstances. Do these objectors not know that Ibn Abbas rd. was among the close supporters of Ali rd., those who opposed Mu‘awiyah rd. and fought against him during Ali’s rd. lifetime? Later, they pledged allegiance to Mu‘awiyah rd. mostly out of necessity (taqiyyah), with only a few doing so willingly. They also pledged allegiance to Yazid afterward under similar conditions.
Nevertheless, our interpretation of Ibn Abbas rd.’s words remains stronger than Al-Tahawi’s, although his explanation is also plausible and not to be dismissed outright. Sheikh Abdul Haqq stated in As-Sirat al-Mustaqim: “The strong reaction of those present to Mu‘awiyah’s action and their objection to it, along with Ibn Abbas rd.’s vague approval of him by mentioning his jurisprudence and companionship with the Prophet ﷺ, clearly indicates that performing Witr as a single rak’ah was not commonly known.” (Hashiyat al-Bukhari 1/531) (47).
I say: Our objective is to establish the superiority of performing Witr as three rak’ahs over performing it as one. We do not claim that Witr with one rak’ah has no basis in the Shari‘ah at all, for we acknowledge that some Companions performed it. However, this was not the prevalent practice among them, as evidenced by this narration. Only a few of them followed this view, as will be detailed, and those who performed Witr as one did so out of unawareness of the prohibition against Butayra and performing two Witrs in one night, among them being Mu‘awiyah rd.
1659 – Narrated from Ibn Abbas rd: “The Messenger of Allah ﷺ used to recite in the witr prayer: Sabbih isma rabbika al-a‘la in the first rak‘ah, Qul ya ayyuhal-kafirun in the second, and Qul huwa Allahu ahad in the third.” Reported by at-Tirmidhi (1/61).
Imam an-Nawawi stated in al-Khulasa: “Its chain is sahih,” as mentioned in Nasb ar-Rayah (1/277). Al-‘Iraqi in Takhrij al-Ihya (1/176) reported it as narrated by at-Tirmidhi, an-Nasa’i, and Ibn Majah with a sahih chain.
1659 – Reported by at-Tirmidhi in his Jami‘ with a sahih chain, Chapters on Witr, Chapter on What is Recited in Witr, Indian edition 1/106, Maktaba Dar-us-Salam Riyadh, no. 462.
Also cited by an-Nawawi in al-Khulasa, Chapter on the Validity of Witr with One or Three, Maktaba Mu’assasat ar-Risalah Beirut 1/556, no. 1885.
Reported by an-Nasa’i in as-Sunan as-Sughra, Book of Night Prayer and Voluntary Prayers of the Day, Difference in the Narrations of Abu Ishaq in the Hadith of Said ibn Jubayr from Ibn Abbas on Witr, Indian edition 1/191, Maktaba Dar-us-Salam Riyadh, no. 1703.
Reported by Ibn Majah in as-Sunan, Chapters on Witr, Chapter on What is Recited in Witr, Indian edition 1/82, Maktaba Dar-us-Salam Riyadh, no. 1172.
See also Nasb ar-Rayah by az-Zayla‘i, Book of Prayer, Chapter on Witr Prayer, Maktaba Dar Nashr al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah Lahore 2/119.
See Takhrij al-Ahadith by al-‘Iraqi, Maktaba Dar Ibn Hazm Beirut, p. 407, no. 5.
1660 – Narrated from ‘Abdur Rahman ibn Abza: “He performed witr with the Prophet ﷺ, and he recited in the first rak‘ah Sabbih isma rabbika al-a‘la, in the second Qul ya ayyuhal-kafirun, and in the third Qul huwa Allahu ahad. When he finished, he said: Subhan al-malik al-quddus three times, elongating his voice on the third.”
Reported by at-Tahawi, Ahmad, ‘Abd ibn Humayd, and an-Nasa’i with a sahih chain (Athar as-Sunan 2/10-11).
In at-Ta‘liq al-Hasan, it is mentioned that ‘Abdur Rahman ibn Abza has two narrations: one from Ubayy ibn Ka‘b from the Prophet ﷺ, and another directly from the Prophet ﷺ. Al-‘Iraqi stated: “Both are narrated by an-Nasa’i with a sahih chain.” Further investigation confirms that he was a Sahabi, as indicated by his statement in at-Tahawi’s narration: “He performed witr with the Prophet ﷺ.”
1660 – Reported by an-Nasa’i in as-Sunan as-Sughra with a sahih chain, Book of Night Prayer and Voluntary Prayers of the Day, The Differences in Narration from Shu‘bah on the Hadith of Qatadah in this Matter, Indian edition 1/195, Maktaba Dar-us-Salam Riyadh, no. 1742.
Reported by Ahmad in his Musnad, Hadith of ‘Abdur Rahman ibn Abza, 3/406, nos. 15429-15430.
Reported by at-Tahawi in Sharh Ma‘ani al-Athar, Book of Prayer, Chapter on Witr, Indian edition 1/205, Maktaba Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah Beirut 1/379, no. 1693, and Maktaba Asifiyya Delhi 1/172.
Cited by an-Nimawi in Athar as-Sunan; see at-Ta‘liq al-Hasan on Athar as-Sunan, Book of Prayer, Chapter on Witr with Three Rak‘ahs, Madaniyyah Deoband, p. 163, under hadith no. 612.
1661 – Narrated from Ubayy ibn Ka‘b rd: “The Messenger of Allah ﷺ used to recite in witr: Sabbih isma rabbika al-a‘la in the first rak‘ah, Qul ya ayyuhal-kafirun in the second, and Qul huwa Allahu ahad in the third. He would not offer salam except at the end and would say, after salam: Subhan al-malik al-quddus three times.”
Reported by an-Nasa’i (1/249).
In Nayl al-Awtar (2/279), it is stated: “Its narrators are trustworthy except for ‘Abdul ‘Aziz ibn Khalid, who is maqbul (acceptable).” It also states (2/287) that al-‘Iraqi graded its chain as sahih. Athar as-Sunan graded it as hasan (2/10). Ad-Daraqutni (1/175) narrated this hadith with a sahih chain, adding: “When he finished, he would say: Subhan al-malik al-quddus three times, elongating his voice on the last, saying: Rabb al-mala’ikati wa ar-ruh (Lord of the angels and the Spirit).”
1661 – Reported by an-Nasa’i in as-Sunan as-Sughra with a sahih chain, Book of Night Prayer and Voluntary Prayers of the Day, The Differences in Narration of the Hadith of Ubayy ibn Ka‘b in Witr, Indian edition 1/191, Maktaba Dar-us-Salam Riyadh, no. 1702.
Reported by ad-Daraqutni in as-Sunan, Book of Witr, What is Recited in the Rak‘ahs of Witr and the Qunut, Maktaba Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah Beirut 2/22, no. 1644.
Cited by ash-Shawkani in Nayl al-Awtar, Book of Prayer, Chapter on Witr with One Rak‘ah and Three, Maktaba Dar al-Hadith Cairo 3/39, Maktaba Bayt al-Afkar, p. 488, no. 921.
Cited by an-Nimawi in Athar as-Sunan, Book of Prayer, Chapter on Witr with Three Rak‘ahs, Madaniyyah Deoband, pp. 162-163, no. 611.
As for the statement “From Ibn Abbas rd. up to the statement: from Ubayy ibn Ka‘b rd. etc.”, I say: Its indication of the Prophet ﷺ performing Witr as three rak’ahs is clear, and the hadith of Ubayy ibn Ka‘b rd. explicitly states that they were connected. With this, and with the previously mentioned marfu‘ hadiths, the claim made by Imam Ar-Rafi‘i in Sharh al-Wajiz is completely refuted, where he stated:
“The practice that the Prophet ﷺ consistently adhered to was performing Witr as a single rak’ah.”
Similarly, the statement of Muhammad ibn Nasr al-Marwazi is also refuted, where he said:
“We did not find an authentic and explicit hadith from the Prophet ﷺ that he performed Witr as three rak’ahs connected. Yes, it is established that he performed Witr as three rak’ahs, but the narrators did not clarify whether they were connected or separated.” (At-Ta‘liq al-Hasan 2/9-10) (48).
I say: What could be a clearer clarification than Sayyidatuna Aisha rd.’s statement: “Indeed, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ would not say salam between the two rak’ahs of Witr”? This was narrated by An-Nasa’i and Al-Hakim (49).
And her statement: “He used to perform Witr as three rak’ahs and would not say salam except at the end.”
And her statement: “He used to perform Witr as three rak’ahs and would not separate them.” This was narrated by Al-Hakim and Ahmad.
And the statement of Ubayy ibn Ka‘b rd.: “He would not say salam except at the end.” (50).
These narrations establish beyond doubt that the Witr of the Prophet ﷺ was three rak’ahs performed continuously without separation.
1662 – Narrated from al-Miswar ibn Makhramah: “We buried Abu Bakr at night, and ‘Umar said: ‘I have not performed witr.’ So he stood up, and we lined up behind him, and he led us in three rak‘ahs without offering salam except at the end.”
Reported by at-Tahawi (1/173). In Athar as-Sunan, it is stated: “Its chain is sahih” (2/12).
1662 – Reported by at-Tahawi in Sharh Ma‘ani al-Athar, Book of Prayer, Chapter on Witr, Indian edition 1/205-206, Maktaba Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah Beirut 1/381, no. 1700, and Maktaba Asifiyya Delhi 1/173.
Cited by an-Nimawi in Athar as-Sunan, Book of Prayer, Chapter on Witr with Three Rak‘ahs, Madaniyyah Deoband, p. 164, no. 618.
As for the statement: “From al-Miswar ibn Makhramah etc.” I say: This narration indicates that witr is three rak‘ahs without offering salam except at the end. ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab performed it in the presence of a large number of the Sahabah, with only a few absent. This was akin to a consensus (ijma‘) among them on the matter. So how can anyone claim that witr with three connected rak‘ahs is not established from the Prophet ﷺ? Do you think the Sahabah would gather on an action they had not learned from him? Absolutely not! Such a thing is impossible.
This is not contradicted by what al-Bayhaqi narrated in al-Ma‘rifah from Qabus ibn Abi Zubyan from his father: “‘Umar ibn al-Khattab entered the mosque and prayed one rak‘ah. He was told, ‘You prayed only one rak‘ah.’ He replied, ‘It is voluntary (tatawwu‘); whoever wishes may add, and whoever wishes may decrease.’” (51). This narration includes Qabus ibn Abi Zubyan, who was weakened by several scholars. Abu Hatim said: “He is not a reliable authority.” An-Nasa’i said: “He is not strong.” Ibn Hibban said: “He had poor memory and narrated from his father what has no basis.” Ibn Ma‘in was especially critical of him, though he also authenticated him. This is mentioned in at-Ta‘liq al-Hasan (2/9) (52).
I say: Therefore, this narration does not contradict the matn (main hadith), as its chain consists of narrators from Sahih al-Bukhari, except for Ibn Abi Dawud, the teacher of at-Tahawi, who is thiqah (trustworthy). He narrated from Yahya ibn Sulayman al-Ju‘fi, who is among the narrators of al-Bukhari, who said: “Ibn Wahb narrated to us, saying: ‘Amr (ibn Dinar) informed me from Ibn Abi Hilal (Sa‘id) from Ibn as-Sabbāq (‘Ubayd) from al-Miswar ibn Makhramah.” All of these narrators are from the authors of the six books and Sahih al-Bukhari.
Additionally, the narration of Qabus does not indicate that the one rak‘ah he prayed was witr; it only states that he prayed a rak‘ah. The discussion here is about performing witr with one rak‘ah—so understand this point.
Earlier in this chapter, we cited al-Hakim’s narration stating that witr with three rak‘ahs without offering salam except at the end was the witr of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab, which the people of Madinah adopted. Thus, ‘Umar’s practice of performing witr with three connected rak‘ahs is well known and undeniable. Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, in at-Tamhid, listed a group of Sahabah who were reported to have performed witr with three rak‘ahs without offering salam except at the end. They included ‘Umar, ‘Ali, Ibn Mas‘ud, Zaid, Ubayy, and Anas—as cited in Jawhar an-Naqi (1/210) (53).
Ibn al-‘Arabi, in his commentary on at-Tirmidhi (2/176), stated: “One rak‘ah was not legislated except for witr.” I say: The strongest conclusion is that it was initially legislated but later abrogated by the prohibition of al-batira’ (a single rak‘ah witr), as will be discussed later.
The narration of al-Miswar also provides evidence for performing witr in congregation outside of Ramadan, since Abu Bakr as-Siddiq passed away on a Monday in Jumada al-Awwal in the 10th year of Hijrah, as mentioned in Tahdhib al-Kamal (5/316) (54). However, this was a coincidental occurrence rather than a deliberate arrangement.
It is stated in ad-Durr that witr and other voluntary prayers should not be performed in congregation outside of Ramadan, meaning that doing so in an organized manner is disliked (makruh). This ruling is also mentioned in Radd al-Muhtar (1/741) (55).
1663 – Narrated from ‘Abdur Rahman ibn Yazid, from ‘Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud rd: “Witr is three rak‘ahs, just like the witr of the day—Salat al-Maghrib.”
Reported by at-Tahawi (1/173). In Athar as-Sunan (2/12), it is stated: “Its chain is sahih.”
I say: Muhammad also reported it in his Muwatta’ (p. 146) with a chain whose narrators are those of Sahih Muslim, with the wording: “Witr is three, like Maghrib prayer,” etc.
1663 – Reported by at-Tahawi in Sharh Ma‘ani al-Athar, Book of Prayer, Chapter on Witr, Indian edition 1/206, Maktaba Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah Beirut 1/382, no. 1702, and Maktaba Asifiyya Delhi 1/173.
Cited by an-Nimawi in Athar as-Sunan, Book of Prayer, Chapter on Witr with Three Rak‘ahs, Madaniyyah Deoband, p. 165, no. 619.
Reported by Muhammad in al-Muwatta’, Book of Prayer, Chapter on Salam in Witr, Maktaba Zakariyya Deoband, p. 150, no. 262.
As for the statement: “From ‘Abdur Rahman ibn Yazid etc.” I say: This narration indicates that witr consists of three rak‘ahs. The comparison to the Maghrib prayer implies the necessity of sitting for tashahhud after two rak‘ahs, just as is done in the prayer it is being compared to. It also suggests that witr should not be reduced to less than three rak‘ahs, similar to Maghrib. This is an authentic, connected narration.
1664 – Narrated from Anas rd: “Witr is three rak‘ahs, and he used to perform witr with three rak‘ahs.”
Al-Hafiz stated in ad-Dirayah (p. 115): “Its chain is sahih.”
Reported by at-Tahawi in Ma‘ani al-Athar (1/173).
1664 – Reported by at-Tahawi in Sharh Ma‘ani al-Athar, Book of Prayer, Chapter on Witr, Indian edition 1/206, Maktaba Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah Beirut 1/1704, and Maktaba Asifiyya Delhi 1/173.
See also ad-Dirayah ma‘a al-Hidayah, Book of Prayer, Chapter on Voluntary Prayers, Maktaba Ashrafiyya Deoband 1/147.
1665 – Narrated from Thabit, who said: “Anas led me in the witr prayer, while I stood on his right and his freed slave Khafina stood behind us. He performed three rak‘ahs and did not offer salam except at the end. I assumed that he was doing this to teach me.”
Reported by at-Tahawi (1/176), and al-Hafiz authenticated it in ad-Dirayah (p. 115).
1665 – Reported by at-Tahawi in Sharh Ma‘ani al-Athar, Book of Prayer, Chapter on Witr, Indian edition 1/206, Maktaba Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah Beirut 1/382, no. 1705, and Maktaba Asifiyya Delhi 1/173.
See also ad-Dirayah ma‘a al-Hidayah, Book of Prayer, Chapter on Voluntary Prayers, Maktaba Ashrafiyya Deoband 1/147.
As for the statement: “From Anas” and the statement: “From Thabit, etc.”—these narrations indicate the first part of the chapter, affirming that witr consists of three rak‘ahs.
1666 – Narrated from ‘Uqbah ibn Muslim, who said:
“I asked Ibn ‘Umar about witr, and he said: ‘Do you know the witr of the day?’ I replied, ‘Yes, the Maghrib prayer.’ He said, ‘You have spoken correctly and excellently.’”
Reported by at-Tahawi (1/164). Its narrators are thiqah (trustworthy), and al-Hafiz’s words in ad-Dirayah (p. 113) indicate that he considered it authentic, as he cited it in opposition to a sahih hadith, and a sahih narration is only opposed by one of equal authenticity.
The marfu‘ hadith of Ibn ‘Umar was previously mentioned: “The Maghrib prayer is the witr of the day, so perform witr for the night prayer,” which al-‘Iraqi authenticated. This hadith aligns with the meaning of Ibn ‘Umar’s statement.
1666 – Reported by at-Tahawi in Sharh Ma‘ani al-Athar, Book of Prayer, Chapter on Witr, Indian edition 1/197, Maktaba Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah Beirut 1/362, no. 1627, and Maktaba Asifiyya Delhi 1/164.
See also ad-Dirayah ma‘a al-Hidayah, Book of Prayer, Chapter on Witr Prayer, Maktaba Ashrafiyya Deoband 1/146.
1667 – Narrated from ‘Amir ash-Sha‘bi, who said:
“I asked Ibn ‘Umar and Ibn ‘Abbas: ‘How was the night prayer of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ?’ They replied: ‘Thirteen rak‘ahs—eight rak‘ahs, followed by witr with three, and two rak‘ahs after Fajr.'”
Reported by at-Tahawi (1/165). Its narrators are those of as-Sahih, except for at-Tahawi’s teacher Ibn Abi Dawud, who has already been mentioned multiple times as thiqah (trustworthy).
1667 – Reported by at-Tahawi in Sharh Ma‘ani al-Athar, Book of Prayer, Chapter on Witr, Indian edition 1/197, Maktaba Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah Beirut 1/362, no. 1628, and Maktaba Asifiyya Delhi 1/165.
As for the statement: “From ‘Uqbah, etc.”—I say: This narration indicates that witr, according to Ibn ‘Umar rd, consists of three rak‘ahs, like Maghrib, as previously mentioned. However, he held the view that separating them and building the third rak‘ah upon the first two was permissible. We have already discussed this matter in detail. This is also supported by the narration of ash-Sha‘bi that follows, where he asked Ibn ‘Umar rd and Ibn ‘Abbas rd about the night prayer of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, and they replied: “He used to perform witr with three.”
This does not contradict what Ibn Hibban narrated through the route of Kuraib from Ibn ‘Abbas rd:
“The Prophet ﷺ performed witr with one rak‘ah,” as mentioned in at-Talkhis (1/116) (56).
Nor does it contradict what Muslim narrated from Abu Majliz (1/257) (57):
“I asked Ibn ‘Abbas rd about witr, and he said: ‘I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say: “A single rak‘ah from the last part of the night.”
I also asked Ibn ‘Umar rd, and he said: ‘I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say: “A single rak‘ah from the last part of the night.”‘”
Likewise, ‘Uqbah ibn Hurayth reported:
“I heard Ibn ‘Umar rd narrate that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: ‘The night prayer is in twos (rak‘ahs), and when you fear that dawn is approaching, perform witr with one rak‘ah.’
It was asked to Ibn ‘Umar rd: ‘What is meant by “two by two”?’ He replied: ‘That you offer salam after every two rak‘ahs.'”
The intended meaning of “one rak‘ah” in these narrations is that it is added to the shaf‘ (two preceding rak‘ahs), so that these reports do not contradict the other narrations.
Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar rh, in Fath al-Bari, while commenting on the hadith of Ibn ‘Umar rd:
“When one of you fears that dawn is approaching, he should perform a single rak‘ah, which will serve as witr for what he has already prayed” (58), stated:
“Some have used this hadith as proof that separating witr is superior to connecting it. However, this is countered by the fact that the hadith does not explicitly indicate separation. Rather, it could mean: ‘Pray a single rak‘ah added to the two that have already been prayed.'” (Fath al-Bari 2/410) (59).
This implies that the interpretation we have provided for these narrations is neither far-fetched nor forced, contrary to what some have claimed. Instead, it is a reasonable and plausible understanding, as al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar’s words indicate.
1668 – Narrated from Abu Khalidah, who said:
“I asked Abu al-‘Aliyah about witr, and he replied: ‘The companions of Muhammad ﷺ taught us—or we taught them—that witr is like the Maghrib prayer, except that we recite (aloud) in the third rak‘ah. This is the witr of the night, just as Maghrib is the witr of the day.’”
Reported by at-Tahawi. In Athar as-Sunan, it is stated: “Its chain is sahih.” (Sharh Ma‘ani al-Athar 1/173).
1668 – Reported by at-Tahawi in Sharh Ma‘ani al-Athar, Book of Prayer, Chapter on Witr, Indian edition 1/206, Maktaba Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah Beirut 1/382, no. 1701, and Maktaba Asifiyya Delhi 1/173.
Cited by an-Nimawi in Athar as-Sunan, Book of Prayer, Chapter on Witr with Three Rak‘ahs, Madaniyyah Deoband, p. 165, no. 621.
As for the statement: “From Abu Khalidah, etc.”—I say: This narration clearly indicates that performing witr with three connected rak‘ahs was a well-known practice among the Sahabah. Likewise, their statement “like the Maghrib prayer” implies the obligation of sitting for tashahhud after two rak‘ahs.
Abu al-‘Aliyah was among the senior Tabi‘un. He witnessed the Jahiliyyah period and accepted Islam two years after the passing of the Prophet ﷺ. He met Abu Bakr rd and prayed behind ‘Umar rd, as mentioned in Tahdhib al-Kamal (13/284) (60). He encountered a number of Sahabah and narrated from them.
His statement:
“They taught us that witr is like the Maghrib prayer, except that we recite in the third rak‘ah. This is the witr of the night, just as Maghrib is the witr of the day,”
serves as definitive evidence in support of the position of Abu Hanifah rh regarding witr. He did not differentiate between witr and Maghrib in any aspect other than what Abu al-‘Aliyah reported from the Sahabah—that recitation is done in the third rak‘ah.
1669 – Narrated from al-Qasim, who said:
“We have seen people since the time we have reached understanding performing witr with three rak‘ahs, and all of it is permissible. I hope there is no harm in any of it.”
Reported by al-Bukhari (1/135).
I say: His statement, “all of it is permissible,” is his own ijtihad (independent reasoning), and the ijtihad of a Tabi‘i is not considered authoritative proof.
1669 – Reported by al-Bukhari in Sahih al-Bukhari, Book of Witr, Chapter on What is Reported Regarding Witr, Indian edition 1/135, under hadith no. 983, section 993.
1670 – Narrated from Abu al-Zinad, who said:
“The seven jurists—Sa‘id ibn al-Musayyib, ‘Urwah ibn az-Zubayr, al-Qasim ibn Muhammad, Abu Bakr ibn ‘Abd ar-Rahman, Kharijah ibn Zayd, ‘Ubaydullah ibn ‘Abdullah, and Sulayman ibn Yasar—as well as other Mashayikh among the people of jurisprudence and virtue, would sometimes differ on matters, so I would follow the opinion of the majority and those whose reasoning was most sound. Among what I preserved from them in this way was that witr is three rak‘ahs, and one does not offer salam except at the end.”
Reported by at-Tahawi (1/175). In Athar as-Sunan, it is stated: “Its chain is hasan.” (1/13).
1670 – Reported by at-Tahawi in Sharh Ma‘ani al-Athar, Book of Prayer, at the end of Chapter on Witr, Maktaba Zakariyya Deoband 1/207, Maktaba Asifiyya Delhi 1/175, Maktaba Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah Beirut 1/385, no. 1716.
Cited by an-Nimawi in Athar as-Sunan, Book of Prayer, preceding the Chapter on Those Who Said That Witr is Three, Madaniyyah Deoband, p. 165, no. 623.
As for the statement: “From al-Qasim and from Abu al-Zinad, etc.”—I say:
The statement of al-Qasim, “We have seen people since the time we have reached understanding performing witr with three,” serves as evidence that performing witr with three rak‘ahs was an established and well-known practice among the Sahabah. Al-Qasim did not witness any of them performing witr with a single rak‘ah. However, he personally considered it permissible based on his own ijtihad (independent reasoning), whereas authoritative proof lies in transmission (naql), not opinion (ra’y).
Similarly, the narration of Abu al-Zinad indicates the consensus of the jurists of Madinah that witr consists of three rak‘ahs without offering salam except at the end. This stands as a great and decisive proof in favor of the opinion of Abu Hanifah rh on this matter.
1671 – Narrated from Abu al-Zinad, who also said:
“‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz affirmed that witr should be performed as three rak‘ahs without offering salam except at the end, based on the statement of the jurists.”
Reported by at-Tahawi. In Athar as-Sunan, it is stated: “Its chain is sahih.” (Sharh Ma‘ani al-Athar 1/175).
1671 – Reported by at-Tahawi in Sharh Ma‘ani al-Athar, Book of Prayer, preceding the Chapter on Recitation in the Two Rak‘ahs of Fajr, Maktaba Zakariyya Deoband 1/207, Maktaba Asifiyya Delhi 1/175, Maktaba Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah Beirut 1/385, no. 1715.
Cited by an-Nimawi in Athar as-Sunan, Book of Prayer, Chapter on Witr with Three Rak‘ahs, Madaniyyah Deoband, p. 165, no. 624.
As for the statement: “From Abu al-Zinad also, etc.”—I say:
The affirmation of ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz that witr is three rak‘ahs without offering salam except at the end, based on the statement of the jurists, serves as evidence of the consensus (ijma‘) of the people of Madinah on this matter. A later consensus nullifies any preceding disagreement, as stated in Nur al-Anwar (p. 220) (61) and other usul (principles of jurisprudence) books.
Thus, what is narrated from Ibn ‘Umar rd regarding the permissibility of separating the third rak‘ah of witr from the first two is no longer considered, since Ibn ‘Umar was from the people of Madinah, as is well known, and the scholars of Madinah later unanimously opposed that view.
Furthermore, Malik reported in al-Muwatta’ from Ibn Shihab:
“Sa‘d ibn Abi Waqqas rd (who was from the people of Madinah and among the Muhajirun who settled there) used to perform witr with one rak‘ah after ‘Isha’.”
Then Malik commented:
“However, this is not the practiced view among us; rather, the minimum witr is three.” (Al-Muwatta’, p. 44) (62).
Thus, the practice of Sa‘d rd is no longer considered a valid proof, as the consensus of the scholars of Madinah after him went against what he practiced.
1672 – Narrated from Yūnus (a thiqah, a senior teacher of Muslim), who reported from Sufyān ath-Thawrī, from Ḥuṣayn (Ibn ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān, a thiqah), from Abū Yaḥyā (Ziyād al-A‘raj), who said:
“Al-Miswar ibn Makhramah and Ibn ‘Abbas rd stayed up conversing until the red glow appeared (referring to the moon). Then Ibn ‘Abbas fell asleep and did not wake up until he was startled by the voices of the people in az-Zawra’ (a marketplace in Kufa). He then said to his companions: ‘Do you think I will still have time to perform three—meaning witr, the two rak‘ahs of Fajr, and the Fajr prayer itself—before the sun rises?’ They replied: ‘Yes!’ So he performed them.” This occurred at the latest part of the time for Fajr prayer.
Reported by at-Tahawi (1/171), and its chain is sahih.
Abū Yaḥyā’s real name is Ziyād, and he was the freed slave (mawla) of Qays ibn Makhramah, and it is also said that he was the mawla of the Ansar. He narrated from Al-Ḥasanayn (i.e., Al-Ḥasan and Al-Ḥusayn), Ibn ‘Abbas, and others. Among those who narrated from him were Ḥuṣayn ibn ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān and ‘Aṭā’ ibn as-Sā’ib. He was authenticated by Ibn Ma‘īn, Abū Dāwūd, and others, as mentioned in Tahdhib at-Tahdhib (3/291).
1672 – Reported by at-Tahawi in Sharh Ma‘ani al-Athar, Book of Prayer, Chapter on Witr, Maktaba Zakariyya Deoband 1/203, Maktaba Asifiyya Delhi 1/171, Maktaba Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah Beirut 1/376, no. 1681.
In its chain is Ziyād, who is thiqah (trustworthy), as mentioned by Al-Hafiz in Tahdhib at-Tahdhib, under the entry of Ziyād Abū Yaḥyā al-Makki, Maktaba Dar al-Fikr Beirut 3/210, no. 02182.
As for the statement: “Narrated from Yūnus, etc.”—I say: This narration serves as evidence that witr with a single rak‘ah was not regarded as sufficient by Ibn ‘Abbas rd.
At-Tahawi stated:
“It is inconceivable that witr, according to him, would be valid with less than three rak‘ahs, yet he would perform it as three rak‘ahs at that moment, despite fearing the time of Fajr would run out.” (63).
1673 – Narrated from Salām ibn Sulaym al-Ḥanafī, from Abū Ḥamzah, from Ibrāhīm an-Nakha‘ī, from ‘Alqamah, who said:
“‘Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd rd informed us: ‘The least that witr can be is three rak‘ahs.’”
Reported by Muḥammad al-Imām in al-Muwaṭṭa’ (p. 141). Its narrators are thiqāt (trustworthy) from the narrators of as-Ṣaḥīḥ, except for Abū Ḥamzah, the companion of Ibrāhīm (an-Nakha‘ī), whose real name is Maymūn. He was criticized for his retention (ḥifẓ), and some scholars weakened him.
At-Tirmidhī stated: “He was criticized for his memory.”
Abū Ḥātim said: “He is not strong, but his ḥadīth is recorded.”
Ya‘qūb ibn Sufyān said: “He is not abandoned (matrūk) in ḥadīth, nor is he a definitive proof (ḥujjah), etc.” (Tahdhīb at-Tahdhīb 10/396).
I say: His ḥadīth is ḥasan (acceptable), and at the very least, it can be considered and used as supporting evidence due to corroborating reports.
1673 – Reported by Muḥammad in al-Muwaṭṭa’, Book of Prayer, Chapter on Salam in Witr, Maktaba Zakariyya Deoband, p. 150, Maktaba al-‘Ilmiyyah, p. 96, no. 265.
In its chain is Abū Ḥamzah, who has been critiqued. Al-Ḥāfiẓ mentioned him in Tahdhīb at-Tahdhīb, under the biography of Maymūn al-Qaṣṣāb al-Kūfī, Maktaba Dār al-Fikr Beirut 8/452-453, no. 7339.
As for the statement: “Narrated by Salām ibn Sulaym, etc.”—I say:
The statement of Ibn Mas‘ūd rd, “The least that witr can be is three rak‘ahs,” explicitly indicates that performing witr with only one rak‘ah is not sufficient, as is evident. This was precisely the intent of Ibn Mas‘ūd, as he was refuting those who performed witr with a single rak‘ah, as will be mentioned later.
Thus, this narration does not indicate the permissibility of performing more than three rak‘ahs for witr. Furthermore, it is an inferred meaning (mafhum), which is not considered authoritative proof (ḥujjah).
1674 – Narrated from Abū Ḥanīfah, who reported from Abū Ja‘far, who said:
“The Messenger of Allah ﷺ would pray between ‘Isha’ and Fajr thirteen rak‘ahs—eight rak‘ahs as voluntary prayer, three rak‘ahs of witr, and two rak‘ahs of Fajr.”
Reported by Muḥammad in al-Muwaṭṭa’ (p. 145). It is a mursal (disconnected) narration but ṣaḥīḥ (authentic).
Abū Ja‘far is Muḥammad ibn ‘Alī ibn al-Ḥusayn, known as al-Bāqir, and he is a thiqah (trustworthy) and virtuous narrator from the fourth generation, as mentioned in Taqrīb at-Tahdhīb (p. 191).
1674 – Reported by Muḥammad in al-Muwaṭṭa’, Book of Prayer, Chapter on Salam in Witr, Maktaba Zakariyya Deoband, p. 149, Maktaba al-‘Ilmiyyah, p. 95, no. 259.
In its chain is Abū Ja‘far, who is thiqah, as mentioned by Al-Ḥāfiẓ in Taqrīb at-Tahdhīb, Maktaba Dār al-‘Āṣimah Riyadh, p. 879, no. 6191, and Maktaba Ashrafiyyah Deoband, p. 497, no. 6151.
1675 – Narrated from Abū Ḥanīfah, who reported from Ḥammād, from Ibrāhīm an-Nakha‘ī, from ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb rd, who said:
“I would not wish to leave witr as three, even if I were given red camels in exchange.”
Reported by Muḥammad in al-Muwaṭṭa’ (p. 146). It is a mursal narration but ṣaḥīḥ (authentic), as the mursal reports of an-Nakha‘ī are considered ṣaḥīḥ among scholars, as has been mentioned multiple times before.
1675 – Reported by Muḥammad in al-Muwaṭṭa’, Book of Prayer, Chapter on Salam in Witr, Maktaba Zakariyya Deoband, pp. 149-150, Maktaba al-‘Ilmiyyah, p. 96, no. 260.
1676 – Narrated from Ismā‘īl ibn Ibrāhīm, from Layth, from ‘Aṭā’, who said that Ibn ‘Abbās rd said:
“Witr is like the Maghrib prayer.”
Reported by Muḥammad in al-Muwaṭṭa’ (p. 146).
Ismā‘īl here is most likely Ismā‘īl ibn ‘Ulayyah, as I suspect, since he was a friend of Ibn al-Mubārak and was appointed as a judge in Baghdad during the later years of Hārūn ar-Rashīd’s reign, as mentioned in Tahdhīb at-Tahdhīb (1/274-275).
Since Muḥammad grew up in Kūfa and later settled in Baghdad and narrated there, it is plausible that he heard from Ismā‘īl, and that Ibn ‘Ulayyah heard from Layth, as he narrates from his generation. Thus, the chain is ḥasan (acceptable).
1676 – Reported by Muḥammad in al-Muwaṭṭa’, Book of Prayer, Chapter on Salam in Witr, Maktaba Zakariyya Deoband, p. 150, Maktaba al-‘Ilmiyyah, p. 96, no. 263.
In its chain is Ismā‘īl ibn Ibrāhīm ibn Miqsam, who is thiqah (trustworthy), as mentioned in Maktaba Dār al-Fikr Beirut 1/291-292, no. 450.
As for the statement: “Narrated by Abū Ḥanīfah until the statement: Narrated by Ismā‘īl, etc.”—I say: The indications of these reports regarding the first part of the chapter are evident.
1677 – Narrated from Yaḥyā ibn Zakariyyā al-Kūfī, who reported from al-A‘mash, from Mālik ibn al-Ḥārith, from ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān ibn Yazīd an-Nakha‘ī, from ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd rd, who said:
“The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: ‘The witr of the night is like the witr of the day—the Maghrib prayer.’”
Reported by ad-Dāraqutnī (1/173), who stated:
“Yaḥyā ibn Zakariyyā, known as Ibn Abī al-Ḥawājib, is weak (ḍa‘īf), and no one else narrated this hadith as marfū‘ from al-A‘mash except him.”
I say: Ibn Abī al-Ḥawājib was listed as trustworthy (thiqah) by Ibn Ḥibbān, as recorded in Lisan al-Mizan (6/255). Thus, there is a difference of opinion regarding him. A narrator in such a case can be considered, especially when corroborating reports exist.
Indeed, ad-Dāraqutnī also narrated this hadith through another chain, from Ismā‘īl ibn Muslim al-Makkī, from al-Ḥasan, from Sa‘d ibn Hishām, from ‘Ā’ishah rd, with a similar wording. Ibn al-Jawzī cited it through ad-Dāraqutnī in al-‘Ilal and deemed it defective due to Ismā‘īl ibn Muslim al-Makkī, as mentioned in Naṣb ar-Rāyah (1/277).
While Ismā‘īl was weakened by scholars, Abū Ḥātim stated: “He is not abandoned (matrūk), and his hadith is recorded.”
Similarly, Ibn ‘Adī said: “His hadith is written down.”
And Ibn Sa‘d narrated from Muḥammad ibn ‘Abdullāh al-Anṣārī: “He was a man of opinion, legal verdicts, insight, and hadith retention, so I used to write from him due to his prominence.” (Tahdhīb at-Tahdhīb, 1/332-333).
Based on the established principle mentioned previously, this hadith is ḥasan (acceptable) in its marfū‘ form. The marfū‘ addition does not contradict the mawqūf version and can be accepted from a narrator whose reliability is debated—especially when a supporting narration exists.
1677 – Reported by ad-Dāraqutnī in Sunan ad-Dāraqutnī, Book of Witr, Chapter on Witr Being Three Like Maghrib, Maktaba Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah Beirut 2/20, no. 1637, Maktaba Dar al-Ma‘ārif 2/27.
Cited by az-Zayla‘ī in Naṣb ar-Rāyah, Chapter on Witr Prayer, Hadiths of the Chapter, Maktaba Dar Nashr al-Kutub Lahore 2/119-120, new edition 2/116.
In its chain is Yaḥyā ibn Zakariyyā, who is weak (ḍa‘īf), as mentioned by al-Ḥāfiẓ in Lisan al-Mizan, Maktaba Idārat at-Ta’līfāt al-Ashrafiyyah Multan 6/255, no. 899.
In the alternate chain, Ismā‘īl ibn Muslim is also present, and his reliability has been questioned. He is mentioned by al-Ḥāfiẓ in Tahdhīb at-Tahdhīb, under the letter alif, entry of Ismā‘īl ibn Muslim al-Makkī, Maktaba Dar al-Fikr Beirut 1/341, no. 524.
As for the statement: “From Yaḥyā ibn Zakariyyā, etc.”—I say:
Although the muḥaddithūn (hadith scholars) have critiqued the elevation (rafa‘) of this hadith and deemed its mawqūf (halted at Ibn Mas‘ūd rd) version to be ṣaḥīḥ (authentic), the one who narrated it as marfū‘ (attributed to the Prophet ﷺ) is a ḥasan al-ḥadīth (acceptable narrator). Furthermore, another narrator of similar standing has supported its marfū‘ transmission.
Thus, there is no reason to reject this additional wording (ziyādah), as we have mentioned in the main text.
1678 – Narrated from Thābit, from Anas rd, who said:
“O Abū Muḥammad! Take knowledge from me, for I have taken it from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, and the Messenger of Allah ﷺ took it from Allah, and you will not take from anyone more reliable than me.”
He then prayed ‘Ishā’, followed by six rak‘ahs, offering salam after every two rak‘ahs, and then he performed witr with three rak‘ahs, offering salam at the end of them.
Reported by ar-Rūyānī and Ibn ‘Asākir, and its narrators are thiqāt (trustworthy), as cited in Kanz al-‘Ummāl (4/196).
I say: This narration holds the status of being marfū‘ (attributable to the Prophet ﷺ).
1678 – Reported by Ibn ‘Asākir in Tārīkh Dimashq, through the chain of Umm al-Bahā’ al-Baghdādī, who reported from Abū al-Faḍl ar-Rāzī, from Ja‘far ibn ‘Abdullāh, from Muḥammad ibn Hārūn ar-Rūyānī, from Abū Kurayb, from Zayd ibn Ḥabbāb, who said: Maimūn Abū ‘Abdullāh narrated to me from Thābit, who narrated from Anas rd, mentioning the full narration.
Cited in Tārīkh Dimashq, under the letter alif, in the biography of Anas ibn Mālik ibn an-Naḍr, Maktaba Dār al-Fikr Beirut, edited by ‘Amr ibn ‘Azāmah al-‘Amrawī, 9/363, hadith no. 829.
Also cited by ‘Alī al-Muttaqī in Kanz al-‘Ummāl, Book of Prayer, Section on Actions, Chapter on Witr, Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah Beirut, 8/33, hadith no. 21897.
As for the statement: “From Thābit, etc.”—I say:
This narration clearly indicates that the witr prayer of the Prophet ﷺ was performed as three connected rak‘ahs without offering salam between them. This is evident from Anas rd narrating this as an action (‘amal), as indicated by his words:
“Take from me, for I have taken from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, and you will not take from anyone more reliable than me.”
This narration serves as a refutation against those who have reported that witr should be separated into two rak‘ahs followed by one. We have already established that performing witr as three connected rak‘ahs is the strongest and most preferred opinion—so reflect upon this.
1679 – Narrated from Ḥafṣ, from ‘Umar, and from al-Ḥasan, who said:
“The Muslims have unanimously agreed that witr is three rak‘ahs and that salam is not given except at the end.”
Reported by Ibn Abī Shaybah. In its chain is ‘Amr ibn ‘Ubayd, who is matrūk (abandoned in hadith), as Al-Ḥāfiẓ stated in ad-Dirāyah (p. 115).
I say: He is not among those whose reports are unanimously rejected. Ibn ‘Adī compiled several hadiths from him, most of which have preserved texts, as adh-Dhahabī mentioned in al-Mīzān (2/295).
Furthermore, ‘Abd al-Wārith ibn Sa‘īd—who is one of the major scholars and among the narrators of the Ṣaḥīḥ collections—said:
“Had I not known that everything narrated by ‘Amr ibn ‘Ubayd was truthful, I would never have narrated from him.” (Tahdhīb at-Tahdhīb, 6/443).
Additionally, Ibn Ḥibbān stated:
“He used to fabricate hadith due to delusion, not intentionally.” (Tahdhīb at-Tahdhīb, 8/75).
Thus, his narrations may be accepted for corroboration (mutāba‘āt), but not as independent proof.
1679 – Reported by Ibn Abī Shaybah in Muṣannaf, Book of Prayer, Chapter on Those Who Perform Witr with Three or More, Maktaba Mu’assasat ‘Ulūm al-Qur’ān, edited by Muḥammad ‘Awwāmah, 4/492-494, no. 6904, and the old edition 2/294, no. 6834.
Mentioned by Al-Ḥāfiẓ in ad-Dirāyah in the margin of al-Hidāyah, Chapter on Witr Prayer, among the āthār supporting witr as three, Maktaba Ashrafiyyah Deoband 1/147.
In its chain is ‘Amr ibn ‘Ubayd ibn Bāb, who has been critiqued. He is listed by adh-Dhahabī in Mīzān al-I‘tidāl, Maktaba Dār al-Ma‘ārif Beirut, edited by ‘Alī Muḥammad al-Bajāwī, 3/276, no. 6404.
The statement: “Had I not known that everything he narrated was truthful, etc.” is mentioned by Al-Ḥāfiẓ in Tahdhīb at-Tahdhīb, in the biography of ‘Abd al-Wārith ibn Sa‘īd, Maktaba Dār al-Fikr Beirut, 5/344, no. 4373.
Also, see Tahdhīb at-Tahdhīb, in the biography of ‘Amr ibn ‘Ubayd ibn Bāb, Maktaba Dār al-Fikr Beirut, 6/182, no. 5242.
As for the statement: “From Ḥafṣ, etc.”—I say:
In its chain is ‘Amr ibn ‘Ubayd, and we have already established that he is not unanimously deemed unreliable. Rather, some scholars have considered him trustworthy. Those who accused him of fabricating hadith were referring, as explained by Ibn Ḥibbān, to the fact that he did not fabricate intentionally but would err due to misinterpretation (wahm).
Moreover, it is evident that what he narrated is not munkar (rejected), as there is supporting evidence from the narration of Abū al-‘Āliyah, the statement of al-Qāsim, and the two narrations from Abū az-Zinād mentioned earlier. These support the consensus (ijmā‘) of the Ṣaḥābah and the jurists of Madīnah on this matter.
Thus, it is necessary to accept what ‘Amr ibn ‘Ubayd reported when it aligns with these supporting narrations. In summary, it has become clear that performing witr as three rak‘ahs, without giving salam except at the end, was a well-established and widely accepted practice among the Muslims, including the Ṣaḥābah and the Tābi‘īn.
1680 – Narrated from ‘Ā’ishah rd as a marfū‘ report in a long hadith:
“And he ﷺ would say: ‘In every two rak‘ahs, there is the tashahhud.’”
Reported by Muslim (1/194) in his Ṣaḥīḥ. This narration was previously mentioned in the chapter on the posture for tashahhud.
1680 – Reported by Muslim in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, Book of Prayer, Chapter on What Describes the Prayer, Indian edition 1/194, Maktaba Bayt al-Afkār Riyadh, no. 498.
It was also cited earlier in I‘lā’ as-Sunan, in volume three of this work, under the Chapter on the Posture of the Two Tashahhuds, hadith no. 835.
As for the statement: “From ‘Ā’ishah as marfū‘, etc.”—I say:
This narration clearly supports the third part of the chapter. The inclusion of the first two rak‘ahs of witr within the general statement “In every two rak‘ahs, there is the tashahhud” indicates the obligation of sitting in the first two rak‘ahs of witr as well.
Know that in some narrations, the word taslīm (salutation) appears in place of taḥiyyah (greeting), as in the narration of Muslim from ‘Uqbah ibn Ḥurayth, who said: “I asked Ibn ‘Umar: What does ‘mathnā mathnā’ (two by two) mean? He said: ‘A salutation (taslīm) after every two rak‘ahs.’” (Fatḥ al-Bārī, 1/398) (64).
Here, taslīm means taḥiyyah, and its usage in hadith to refer to the tashahhud is common, as the tashahhud includes greetings upon the Prophet ﷺ and the righteous servants of Allah. This is further supported by the hadith narrated by al-Ṭabarānī from Abū Rifā‘ah:
“The key to prayer is purification, its opening is takbīr, and its closing is taslīm. And in every two rak‘ahs, there is a taslīmah (salutation), and there is no prayer for the one who does not recite Sūrat al-Fātiḥah and another surah in every rak‘ah, whether obligatory or voluntary.” (Ḥāshiyat Musnad al-Imām, p. 56) (65).
Similarly, Abū Ḥanīfah narrated from Abū Sufyān, from Abū Naḍrah, from Abū Sa‘īd as a marfū‘ report with the same meaning. He added: “And in every two rak‘ahs, say the salutation (fasallim).” In another narration from al-Muqri’, it is recorded:
“I asked Abū Ḥanīfah: What does the statement ‘in every two rak‘ahs, say the salutation’ mean? He replied: ‘It means the tashahhud.’” Al-Muqri’ then said: ‘He has spoken correctly.’” (Musnad al-Imām, p. 58) (66).
It is clear that the phrase “In every two rak‘ahs, there is a salutation” and “In every two rak‘ahs, say the salutation” in this hadith is unanimously understood to refer to tashahhud, as it applies to all prayers, not just ṣalāt al-layl (night prayer).
Furthermore, al-Ṭabarānī narrated in al-Kabīr from Umm Salamah that the Prophet ﷺ said:
“In every two rak‘ahs, there is tashahhud and salutations upon the messengers and upon those who follow them from among the righteous servants of Allah.”
In its chain is ‘Alī ibn Zayd, and scholars have differed regarding the acceptance of his reports, though some have declared him trustworthy (thiqah). (Majma‘ az-Zawā’id, 1/197) (67).
I say: This ‘Alī ibn Zayd is Ibn Jud‘ān, and we have mentioned multiple times that his hadith is ḥasan (acceptable). This narration explicitly explains why taslīm is used to refer to tashahhud.
Thus, Ibn ‘Umar’s statement defining mathnā mathnā as taslīm after every two rak‘ahs is interpreted in this sense. However, even if we concede that he meant taslīm as the final exit salutation (taslīm at-taḥlīl), we say: The Prophet’s ﷺ interpretation is superior to that of the narrator.
The Sunan al-Arba‘ah (the four Sunan collections) include a hadith from al-Faḍl ibn ‘Abbās, narrated by al-Tirmidhī and an-Nasā’ī (68), which is the correct and preferred version. Similarly, al-Muṭṭalib narrated it in other collections (69). The Prophet ﷺ said:
“Prayer is performed two by two, with tashahhud in every two rak‘ahs, humility (khushū‘), supplication (taḍarru‘), and submissiveness (tamasukun).”
We have previously established in volume three of this book that this hadith is ṣaḥīḥ according to Ibn Ḥibbān’s criteria, or at the very least ḥasan according to others. It explicitly clarifies that mathnā mathnā means that tashahhud is performed in every two rak‘ahs—so understand this well.
As for the version of al-Mustadrak from ‘Ā’ishah rd that states: “The Messenger of Allah ﷺ would perform witr with three rak‘ahs, not sitting except in the last of them,”—this does not serve as evidence against our position. This is because in another version, the wording is: “He would not give taslīm except in the last of them”, as mentioned earlier (70).
The latter version is preferred due to the narration of Sa‘īd ibn Abī ‘Arūbah, from Qatādah, from Zurārah ibn Awfā, from Sa‘d ibn Hishām, from ‘Ā’ishah rd, who said:
“He ﷺ would not give taslīm in the two rak‘ahs of witr,”
as reported by an-Nasā’ī and al-Ḥākim (71), with the wording:
“He would not give taslīm in the first two rak‘ahs of witr.”
This was narrated by a group of trustworthy narrators from Sa‘īd ibn Abī ‘Arūbah, including Bishr ibn al-Mufaḍḍal (an-Nasā’ī), Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan ash-Shaybānī in al-Muwaṭṭa’ (p. 146) (72), Yazīd ibn Zuray‘ and Abū Badr Shujā‘ ibn al-Walīd (ad-Dāraqutnī, 1/175) (73), ‘Abd al-Wahhāb ibn ‘Atā’ and ‘Īsā ibn Yūnus (al-Ḥākim, 1/304) (74), and Muṭ‘im ibn al-Miqdām (al-Ṭabarānī in as-Ṣaghīr), as cited in at-Ta‘līq al-Ḥasan (2/11) (75).
All of them narrated it with the wording: “He would not give taslīm.”
On the other hand, Abān ibn Yazīd contradicted this narration in some versions of al-Mustadrak by stating: “He would not sit (for tashahhud),” while in other versions, he agreed with the wording “He would not give taslīm.”
Therefore, the correct stance is to prefer the version that aligns with Sa‘īd ibn Abī ‘Arūbah’s narration, since multiple trustworthy narrators reported it with the wording “He would not give taslīm.” Especially considering that Sa‘īd ibn Abī ‘Arūbah is a trustworthy and precise (ḥāfiẓ) narrator and the most reliable authority on Qatādah. Although he was known for tadlīs, he explicitly stated ḥaddathanā (he narrated to us) in ad-Dāraqutnī’s version.
On the other hand, Abān ibn Yazīd, despite being trustworthy, is of a lower rank than Sa‘īd. Additionally, no other narrator corroborated his wording “He would not sit.” In contrast, Sa‘īd was corroborated by Hishām ad-Dustawā’ī, Mu‘ammar, and Hammām, as al-Bayhaqī stated in al-Ma‘rifah:
“Abān ibn Yazīd narrated from Qatādah, stating that the Prophet ﷺ would not sit except in the last rak‘ah of witr, but this contradicts the narrations of Ibn Abī ‘Arūbah, Hishām ad-Dustawā’ī, Mu‘ammar, and Hammām from Qatādah.” (at-Ta‘līq al-Ḥasan, 2/15) (76).
Thus, Abān’s wording is not preserved (ghayr maḥfūẓ), especially since he was solely narrated from by Shaybān ibn Farūkh, who was ṣadūq (truthful) but prone to mistakes and was accused of Qadarī beliefs (Taqrīb at-Tahdhīb, p. 86) (77).
If what Abān stated is considered authentic, then the negation of qa‘ūd (sitting) in his narration should be understood as referring to the qa‘ūd in which taslīm (salutation) occurs, in order to reconcile between the different aḥādīth. This type of reconciliation is similar to how ash-Shawkānī reconciled between the aḥādīth regarding witr with seven rak‘ahs. In one narration, it states:
“He did not sit except in the sixth and seventh rak‘ahs.”
While in another narration, it states:
“He prayed seven rak‘ahs and did not sit except in the last of them.”
Both narrations were reported by an-Nasā’ī (78). Ash-Shawkānī commented:
“The first narration affirms sitting in the sixth rak‘ah, while the second narration negates it. These can be reconciled by interpreting the negation of sitting in the second narration as negating the qa‘ūd that includes taslīm.” (Nayl al-Awṭār, 2/284) (79).
The response to the narration of ‘Urwah from ‘Ā’ishah in Muslim—which states:
“The Messenger of Allah ﷺ used to pray thirteen rak‘ahs at night, performing witr with five, and he would not sit except in the last of them.” (Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, 1/256) (80)—has already been explained in detail earlier, so it should be recalled.
Furthermore, Imām ash-Shāfi‘ī reported in his Musnad (p. 124) (81):
“‘Abd al-Majīd narrated to us from Ibn Jurayj, from Hishām ibn ‘Urwah, from his father, from ‘Ā’ishah as a marfū‘ narration: ‘He ﷺ used to perform witr with five rak‘ahs, neither sitting nor giving taslīm except in the last of them.’”
All the narrators are from the ranks of the Ṣaḥīḥ collections (Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim), except al-Bukhārī did not narrate from ‘Abd al-Majīd, although he is trustworthy (thiqah) and has been reported by Muslim and others.
This narration includes the additional wording: “nor giving taslīm,” which supports the interpretation that the negation of qa‘ūd refers specifically to the qa‘ūd in which taslīm occurs.
Regarding the narration reported by Muslim which states:
“He used to pray nine rak‘ahs, not sitting in any of them except in the eighth rak‘ah, where he would mention Allah, praise Him, and supplicate Him. Then he would rise without giving taslīm, and then stand to pray the ninth rak‘ah, after which he would sit, mention Allah, praise Him, supplicate, and then give a taslīm that we could hear.” (Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, 1/256) (82).
In Abū Dāwūd’s version, which he remained silent on (i.e., indicating acceptance), he narrated from Muḥammad ibn Bashshār, who narrated from Yaḥyā ibn Sa‘īd, from Sa‘īd, from Qatādah with a similar chain, stating:
“He would pray eight rak‘ahs without sitting in them except in the eighth rak‘ah, where he would sit, mention Allah, and then supplicate. Then, he would give taslīm that we could hear, and then he would pray two rak‘ahs while sitting after giving taslīm, followed by a single rak‘ah.” (Sunan Abī Dāwūd, 2/293) with Badhl al-Majhūd (83).
This version contradicts the previous narration, which states:
“He did not sit except in the eighth rak‘ah, and then he rose without giving taslīm.”
An-Nasā’ī also recorded this hadith in as-Sunan al-Kubrā (84) with the same chain and wording as Ibn Bashshār, and then commented at the end:
“Abū ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān (an-Nasā’ī) said: ‘This is how it appeared in my book, but I do not know from whom the error in the placement of his witr has originated.’” (Badhl al-Majhūd, previous reference) (85).
Abū Dāwūd also narrated it through Bahz ibn Ḥakīm, from Zurārah, from ‘Ā’ishah, with the wording:
“He prayed eight rak‘ahs, not sitting in any of them until the eighth, where he sat, did not give taslīm, and then recited in the ninth. Then he sat, supplicated as much as Allah willed him to, and then gave a single, loud taslīm that almost woke up the people of the household.” (Badhl al-Majhūd, previous reference) (86).
This narration contradicts the Ḥanafī position in two aspects:
- The omission of qa‘ūd (sitting) at the end of every two rak‘ahs.
- Connecting witr with additional voluntary rak‘ahs beyond three.
The response to both objections is as follows:
The meaning of her statement “He did not sit in any of them until the eighth” is that he did not sit for a long sitting, nor did he give taslīm audibly and distinctly, until the eighth rak‘ah, where he sat for a prolonged period without giving taslīm. Then, he prayed the ninth rak‘ah, after which he sat and then gave a distinctly loud taslīm.
This does not necessitate omitting taslīm after the sixth rak‘ah or omitting qa‘ūd after every two rak‘ahs, as is evident. Rather, the most that can be inferred from it is that he delayed the long sitting and the loud, pronounced taslīm until the eighth and ninth rak‘ahs.
If we were to take all the narrations at their apparent meanings, then adhering to the qawl (verbal statement) and acting upon it would be more obligatory and preferable. This is especially true since the narrations regarding how the Prophet ﷺ prayed at night are highly varied, particularly those reported by Sayyidatuna ‘Ā’ishah (rd.), which exhibit significant differences, making it difficult to reconcile them—as is evident to anyone who carefully examines what we have mentioned and thoroughly investigates the aḥādīth in their various chains and wordings.
Among these narrations is what we previously referenced concerning witr with seven rak‘ahs. In one narration from Abū Dāwūd and an-Nasā’ī, it states:
“When he grew older and gained weight, he performed witr with seven rak‘ahs, sitting only in the sixth and seventh and giving taslīm only in the seventh.” (Sunan Abī Dāwūd and an-Nasā’ī) (87).
In another narration from an-Nasā’ī via a different chain (1/25), it states:
“He prayed seven rak‘ahs and did not sit except in the last of them.” (88).
For this reason, some scholars deemed these narrations as muḍṭarib (inconsistent). Moreover, narrating actions that allow multiple interpretations and do not establish a universal ruling does not override his ﷺ verbal statement:
“In every two rak‘ahs, there is taḥiyyah (tashahhud).” (89).
This statement establishes a general ruling, affirming the obligation of sitting after every two rak‘ahs, whether in farḍ or nafl prayers. Similarly, the Prophet ﷺ stated:
“The prayer at night is performed two by two.” (90).
He then explained this by clarifying that one should perform tashahhud in every two rak‘ahs. The apparent meaning indicates the obligation of qa‘ūd (sitting) after every two rak‘ahs, as the subject is restricted by the predicate, which necessitates limiting night prayer to a mathnā (two-by-two) format in this specific way.
Some scholars have argued that a juristic perspective necessitates interpreting the command to sit (qa‘ūd) in the statement “In every two rak‘ahs, there is taḥiyyah” as applying only to farḍ prayers and leaving nawāfil (voluntary prayers) as they were practiced in the aḥādīth fī‘liyya (narrations of action), applying them as they have been reported.
I say: This is not proper jurisprudence in any sense. The qawl (verbal statement) takes precedence over fi‘l (action) and is not opposed by action unless there is accompanying evidence indicating that emulation (ta’assī) is obligatory—something we clarified in the introduction, and which is absent here. This is because the Prophet ﷺ did not perform Ṣalāt al-Layl publicly in front of people; rather, he prayed it in his house while people were asleep.
Thus, the various ways in which it has been described lack evidence that makes them binding as examples for emulation, especially given their numerous inconsistencies and strong contradictions in their narration. How, then, can a general command be restricted based on such reports? The qawl (verbal statement) constitutes a definitive proof that is binding upon the ummah and cannot be abandoned or specified except by an equivalent proof.
Understand this well, be cautious, and be among those who possess deep insight. This is what we promised to clarify in the section on the sitting posture in tashahhud, under the ḥadīth of ‘Ā’ishah mentioned in both the main text here and in that chapter.
1681 – Reported by Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, may Allah be pleased with him, elevated to the Prophet ﷺ, who said: “When you sit in every two units of prayer, say the greetings to Allah, etc.” Recorded by al-Nasa’i (174/1). The Shawkani mentioned in “al-Nayl” (165/2) that it was narrated by Ahmad through various narrators, all of whom are trustworthy. It was previously mentioned in the chapter on the obligation of the tashahhud.
1681 – Al-Nasa’i recorded it in his Sunan al-Sughra with a sound chain of narrators, in the Book of Tashahhud, How to Perform the First Tashahhud, Indian version 130/1, Maktaba Dar al-Salam Riyadh, number: 1164. Ahmad also recorded it in his Musnad, Musnad Abdullah ibn Mas’ud 437/1, number: 4160. Al-Shawkani mentioned it in Nail al-Awtar, Book of Prayer, Chapter on the Command for the First Tashahhud and its Omission by Mistake, Maktaba Dar al-Hadith Cairo, 626/2, Maktaba Beit al-Afkar, page: 413, number: 766.
As for the statement: “From Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, etc. I say: Its indication of what was indicated by the aforementioned Hadith of Aisha is clear, because ‘إذا’ implies a certain occurrence, unlike ‘إن’ which implies doubt. Thus, it indicates the obligation of sitting and reciting the tashahhud at the end of every two rak’ahs, and it is also a narrative Hadith which is explanatory and thus takes precedence over other narrations which apparently contradict it in the manner of his prayers at night, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. It is evident that suggesting possibilities in actions is more likely than in statements, as actions do not imply generality nor do they provide a comprehensive ruling, but rather they are narrations of something that can be interpreted in various ways, unlike statements which are binding evidence as previously mentioned. Thus, it is surprising how some people start suggesting possibilities in statements and leave actions as they are, and is this not merely arbitrary and invalidating evidence with what is not suitable as evidence for lacking accompanying proof, and is this not just bias against the Hanafis and prejudice against them by suggesting possibilities in their evidence, while clearly recognizing its strength openly and neglecting that in the arguments of their opponents despite the apparent weakness secretly and publicly.
As for what Al-Hakim narrated through the route of Hasan ibn al-Fadl: Muslim ibn Ibrahim and Sulayman ibn Harb narrated to us, they said: Jarir ibn Hazim narrated to us from Qais ibn Sa’d from ‘Ata “that he would perform the Witr with three [rak’ahs], not sitting nor reciting the tashahhud except in the last of them etc. (1/305) (91), there is no evidence in it because the action of a Tabi’i when it contradicts authentic hadiths (marfu’) and suspended reports (mauquf) is insignificant, especially since in its chain is Hasan ibn al-Fadl ibn al-Samh Abu Ali al-Za’farani al-Basri from Muslim ibn Ibrahim. Abu al-Hasan ibn al-Munadi said: Many people narrated from him then it was revealed so they abandoned him and discarded his hadith and Ibn Hazm said: Unknown etc. from Lisan (2/244) (92). Similarly, there is no evidence in what Al-Hakim narrated about Hasan: It was said to him that Ibn Umar would greet [with salam] in the two rak’ahs of Witr, so he said: Umar was more knowledgeable than him; he would rise in the third with takbir: (1/304) (93), meaning he would rise in the third after sitting and reciting the tashahhud with takbir, and when the possibility comes, the argument becomes invalid.
1682 – Narrated by Ibn Umar: A man asked the Messenger of Allah ﷺ about the night prayer, and the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, “The night prayer is to be performed two rak’ahs at a time.” This hadith was reported by al-Bukhari in Fath al-Bari (2/397).
1682 – It was reported by al-Bukhari in his Sahih, in the Book of Prayer, under the chapter ‘The circles and sitting in the mosque’, Indian edition 1/68, number: 467, pp. 472-268, p. 473. And it was also reported by Abu Dawud in his Sunan, in the Book of Prayer, under the chapter ‘The night prayer is two by two’, Indian edition 1/187, Maktaba Darussalam Riyadh, number: 1326. Refer to Fath al-Bari by al-Hafiz, in the Book of Prayer, under the chapter ‘The circles and sitting in the mosque’, Dar al-Rayyan edition 1/669, and Ashrafiya Deoband edition 1/739, number: 467, p. 472.
As for the statement: “From Abdullah ibn Umar, etc. I say: The statement of the Prophet ﷺ, ‘The night prayer is [to be performed] two [rak’ahs] at a time,’ implies the negation of less than two, because the subject is restricted in the predicate, meaning the night prayer is nothing but two rak’ahs at a time. The Prophet ﷺ explained this in the hadith of Fadl ibn Abbas mentioned earlier by saying: ‘You perform the tashahhud in every two rak’ahs,’ which necessitates the negation of any deficiency from them. This was explicitly stated by Hafiz Ibn Daqiq al-Eid in Ihkam al-Ahkam (2/84) (94). He said: And using this as evidence for this opinion, namely prohibiting the performance of supererogatory prayers in a single rak’ah, is more appropriate than those who argued that if a single rak’ah were a prayer, it would not prevent the shortening of the Fajr and Maghrib prayers, as that argument is weak. If it is said: This also implies the negation of adding more than two. I say: No! For the meaning of his statement, ‘two by two,’ is not as some have claimed, that he would give salam after every two rak’ahs, but rather it means to perform the tashahhud for every two as it is explicitly stated in the hadith of Fadl, and its wording: ‘The prayer is two by two, you perform the tashahhud in every two rak’ahs’ (95), and it is general concerning the night prayer and others. Therefore, the overall meaning is that the prayer is no less than two, and it necessarily includes the tashahhud in every two rak’ahs, so there is no negation of adding more at all. Yes, restricting the subject in the predicate indeed implies the negation of less than that definitely, so understand.”
1683 – Narrated by Abu Ghasan Malik ibn Yahya al-Hamdani, who said: ‘Abd al-Wahhab narrated to us from ‘Ata, who said: ‘Imran ibn Hadeer informed us from Ikrimah, who said: “I was with Ibn Abbas rd. in the presence of Mu’awiyah. They conversed until a portion of the night had passed. Then Mu’awiyah stood up and performed one rak’ah of prayer. Ibn Abbas rd. then asked, ‘From where do you think he derived this [practice]?'”
Abu Bakrah then narrated: ‘Uthman ibn ‘Umar told us, ‘Imran also narrated to us with a similar chain, except that he did not mention ‘the donkey’.” Reported by al-Tahawi in Sharh Ma’ani al-Athar (1/171), and I have not found the biography of his teacher Abu Ghasan in the first chain, but there is no harm because in the second chain, all the men are trustworthy and well-known.
1683 – Reported by al-Tahawi in Sharh Ma’ani al-Athar, Book of Prayer, Chapter on the Witr, Nehdi edition 1/203, Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut, 1/366, numbers 1677-1678, and Al-Asfiya Library, Delhi, 1/171.
Exposition of Some People’s Treachery in Transmission and the Response to Their Criticism in al-Tahawi as Stated by Ibn Taymiyyah:
As for the statement: “Narrated to us Abu Ghasan Malik ibn Yahya etc. I say: The statement of Ibn Abbas rd.: ‘From where do you think he got it?’ is clear in its denial of performing the witr with a single rak’ah. And God guides some people. What great treachery and severe concealment of knowledge, for he only brought out this hadith in ‘Ihya’ ‘an Ma’ani al-Athar’ by al-Tahawi with only its first chain, and he commented that I have not reached the verification of its chain until he said: Then, I find it unlikely that this statement truly came from Ibn Abbas rd., and even if the chain is authentic, it is unlikely for someone like him to call a companion a donkey. And he completely ignored the second chain although al-Tahawi first reported the hadith from Abu Ghasan al-Hamdani from Abd al-Wahhab from Ata from Imran ibn Hadeer, then he said: Narrated to us Abu Bakrah, he is Bukar ibn Qutaibah al-Thaqafi al-Basri, whom al-Hakim said in ‘Al-Mustadrak’: Trustworthy, reliable (1/160) (96), and al-Dhahabi concurred with his authentication, he said: Narrated to us Uthman ibn Umar, he is from the people of the congregation Ibn Umar ibn Faris ibn Luqait al-Ubdi from the people of Basra, trusted by Ahmad and Ibn Ma’in and Ibn Sa’d, and al-Ajli said: Trustworthy, firm in hadith, and Abu Hatim said: Truthful etc. from Tahdhib (7/143) (97). He said: Narrated to us Imran (he is Imran ibn Hadeer al-Sudusi al-Basri from the men of Muslim, trustworthy, abundant in hadith, described by Yazid ibn Harun and Uthman ibn al-Haytham as one of the most truthful people etc. from Tahdhib (8/125) (98). So he mentioned with his chain the same except that he did not mention the donkey etc.
Thus, this chain has no defect and no one unknown in it, and it does not contain the word ‘donkey’ which some people found unlikely. So I do not know why he did not consider this chain and focused only on the first chain, and is this not just bias against the Hanafis and prejudice against them. And even more so is his statement: It cannot be said: That al-Tahawi mentioned the trace arguing with it while he is among the scholars of hadith and jurisprudence thus it becomes evidence, because he is not among the critics of hadith, then he mentioned from ‘Minhaj al-Sunnah’ by Ibn Taymiyyah al-Harrani (4/194): al-Tahawi is not his custom to critique hadith like the critique of the people of knowledge, and therefore he narrated in ‘Sharh Ma’ani al-Athar’ various hadiths, and he mostly weighs what he sees evidence from analogy, and most of it is criticized in terms of the chain does not establish and does not address that, for his knowledge in the chains is not as the knowledge of the people of knowledge with it even though he was abundant in hadith, a scholar etc. (99) I say: This speech shows signs of partisanship and the marks of bias are clear in it, and all of that and God is a lie without doubt, for if he meant that he does not distinguish between the authentic and the sick then it is a cursed statement which is rejected and denied most strongly by anyone who has perused ‘Sharh Ma’ani al-Athar’ and ‘Mushkil al-Athar’ and other major compositions of his, for al-Tahawi may God have mercy on him often discusses in them the authenticity of the chains and their weakness, and reveals their strength and frailty, and debates like a debater of the people of hadith, and discusses like a discussion of the critics, and suffice it then al-Dhahabi himself among the preservers whom they refer to their endeavor in weakening the men and authenticating them and verifying the traces and falsifying them, and said: The Imam, the scholar, the preserver, the owner of the unique compositions said Ibn Yunus: He was trustworthy, firm, a jurist, wise, no one like him was left etc. (3/30). (100)
And mentioned by al-Suyuti in ‘Husn al-Muhadara fi man kana bi Misr min Hufaz al-Hadith wa Nuqadih’, and he said: The Imam, the scholar, the preserver, the owner of the unique compositions and he was trustworthy, firm, a jurist, no one like him was left etc. (1/147). (101) And in ‘Ghayat al-Bayan li al-Itqani’: I say: There is no meaning to their denial against Abu Ja’far, for he is trusted by their community with his abundant knowledge, diligence, piety, and his advancement in knowing the madhabs and others, if you doubted in his matter then look at ‘Sharh Ma’ani al-Athar’ do you see its like in the other madhabs let alone our madhab ended from ‘Fawa’id al-Bahiya’ (p. 18). (102)
The hadith about the Prophet’s supplication causing the sun to return, which Ibn Taymiyyah criticized Al-Tahawi for, was not regarded seriously by the hadith scholars. They did not consider Ibn Taymiyyah’s statement and did not pay attention to it. Instead, they relied on Al-Tahawi’s improvement of it, followed by Qadi Iyad in Ash-Shifa, refuting those who thought it was fabricated, such as Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Jawzi and other risk-takers, as elaborated by As-Sakhawi in Al-Maqasid Al-Hasanah (p. 107) (103) and Al-Qastallani in Al-Mawahib, and As-Suyuti in his works like Mukhtasar Al-Mawdu’at and Manahil As-Safa in Hadiths of Ash-Shifa, and An-Nukat Al-Badi’at, and Ash-Shihab Al-Khafaji in Naseem Ar-Riyad in explanation of Ash-Shifa of Iyad and other scholars and hadith scholars, similarly in Ghayth Al-Ghamam by the author of Fawa’id Al-Bahiya (p. 58). This indicates that Ibn Taymiyyah’s criticism did not impact Al-Tahawi among the prominent scholars, how could it when reliable preservers are not criticized by those criticized? Indeed, Ibn Taymiyyah, may God have mercy on him, despite his extensive knowledge and extreme bravery, his sharp intellect, and his reverence for religious sanctities, was accused by major hadith scholars and historians like Adh-Dhahabi, Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani, Az-Zarqani, and As-Safadi of lacking rationality, excessive rigidity that was not pleasing, and crossing limits in it.
Hafiz Ibn Hajar said in Ad-Durar Al-Kaminah: Ibn Taymiyyah was vigorous among his peers and felt that he was a mujtahid, thus he refuted both the lesser-known and well-known scholars, the ancient and the modern, and he even went as far as to fault Umar, may God be pleased with him, in something, and he said about Ali that he made mistakes in seventeen issues, opposing the text of the Quran. Due to his bias towards the Hanbali madhhab, he attacked the Ash’aris to the extent that he insulted Al-Ghazali, which nearly led to his killing by some people, as paraphrased from Ghayth Al-Ghamam (p. 57). (104)
As for Ibn Taymiyyah’s statement: Therefore, he narrated various hadiths in Sharh Ma’ani Al-Athar, this is not the first bottle broken in Islam. Do you not see Ibn As-Salah in his introduction, An-Nawawi in his Taqrib, and Al-Iraqi in his Alfiyah saying that the Sunan contain authentic, good, weak, and denounced hadiths, and Adh-Dhahabi’s statement in Siyar A’lam An-Nubala’ that what weakened Ibn Majah’s Sunan was the denounced and, it is said, fabricated hadiths etc., and As-Suyuti’s statement in Zahr Ar-Rabi ‘Ala Al-Mujtaba that, apart from the two Sahihs, Sunan An-Nasa’i contains the least weak and criticized books, closely followed by the books of Abu Dawud and At-Tirmidhi etc. (106)
And likewise, Ibn Taymiyyah’s ruling in Minhaj As-Sunnah that Al-Bayhaqi’s compilations contain weak and fabricated hadiths etc. Al-‘Ayni said in Al-Binayah: Ad-Daraqutni narrated in his Sunan sick, well-known, denounced, strange, and fabricated hadiths without comment), and Ibn Dihyah and Ibn Hajar and others explicitly stated that Al-Hakim’s Mustadrak and his other compositions contain weak and fabricated narrations etc. from Ghayth Al-Ghamam (p. 56). (107) If narrating various hadiths lowers a hadith scholar’s rank and excludes him from the group of critics, then let it be committed that An-Nasa’i, Abu Dawud, Ad-Daraqutni, Al-Bayhaqi, Al-Hakim, and others are not critics, and moreover, it necessitates that this claimant also excludes Al-Bukhari and Muslim from the critics as well; because they report weak, mursal (sent), and mawquf (stopped) narrations in their books despite their commitment to authenticity, as is clear to anyone who has perused the introduction of Fath Al-Bari by the Hafiz, and the introduction to the explanation of Sahih Muslim by An-Nawawi. (108)
And the excuse that they reported those for corroboration and evidence does not suffice, for a sound compilation is not at all a place for weak hadiths due to the potential for deception and misguidance. If an observer sees a hadith in a book whose author has committed to its authenticity, he assumes it to be authentic based on that commitment, and the weak need corroboration and evidence, not the authentic, unless it is said that those weak hadiths are authentic to them, and if we concede this, why can it not be said similarly of a weak hadith intended by Al-Tahawi, and argued with, especially when he narrated it through multiple routes as is his usual practice in Sharh Ma’ani Al-Athar and others, for he does not argue with a hadith except after listing many of its routes, and multiple routes can raise a weak hadith to the level of good at times, and authentic at others, then after that, if he sees it corresponding to the correct analogy, which is one of the evidences of the law and one of the factors favoring the side of authenticity, then there is no novelty in arguing with it in this case, and by my life, Al-Tahawi’s practice in his book is not like Al-Bayhaqi’s practice in his Sunan Al-Kubra, for he mentions therein a hadith for his madhhab and its chain is weak, he authenticates it or remains silent about discussing its narrators, and he mentions a hadith for our madhhab, and in it that man whom he authenticated or remained silent about he weakens, and such occurs in many places, and whoever doubts that, let him peruse Al-Jawhar An-Naqi in response to Al-Bayhaqi, for it is a great book witnessing for its author’s extensive insight and abundant preservation of narrations and knowledge of men, and yet if Al-Bayhaqi’s rank does not fall below the critics, and that does not exclude him from the people of the craft, and Al-Tahawi’s rank falls below them by less than that, then this is a strange practice indeed.
1684 – Narrated to us by Ali, he is Al-Baghawi ibn Abdul Aziz, narrated to us Abu Nu’aym Al-Fadl ibn Dukayn, narrated to us Al-Qasim ibn Ma’n, narrated to us Husayn, he is ‘Abd ibn ‘Abd al-Rahman, from Ibrahim An-Nakha’i who said: “It reached Ibn Mas’ud that Sa’d performed the Witr prayer with one rak’ah, so he said: ‘A single rak’ah has never sufficed.'” Reported by Al-Tabarani in his Mu’jam, Az-Zaila’i (1/378), and all its narrators are trustworthy as we will mention, and Ibrahim’s narration from Ibn Mas’ud is mursal, but his mursal narrations are authentic, especially from Ibn Mas’ud.
1684 – Reported by Al-Tabarani in Al-Kabir, Maktaba Dar Ihya Al-Turath Al-Arabi, Beirut 9/283, number: 9422. Mentioned by Az-Zaila’i in Nasb Al-Raya, chapter on the prayer of Witr, the narrations, Maktaba Dar Nashr Al-Kutub Lahore, new edition 2/117 (previously 2/121).
As for the statement: “Narrated to us Ali ibn Abdul Aziz etc. I say: He is Al-Baghawi, the Hafiz who resided in Mecca, trustworthy, yet he was known to accept compensation for narrating hadiths, justifying this by stating his financial need. When Ibn Ayman was asked if such actions could be considered blameworthy, he responded: ‘No! The faults they criticize are related to dishonesty, whereas he remained a reliable individual.’ Ad-Daraqutni affirmed his trustworthiness and reliability,” as summarized from Al-Lisan (4/24) (110). Abu Nu’aim, identified as Al-Fadl ibn Dukayn, was a highly regarded Hafiz and considered reliable among the narrators associated with the consensus of scholars. Similarly, Al-Qasim ibn Ma’n is recognized as a virtuous and trustworthy individual among the narrators used by Abu Dawud and An-Nasa’i. Husayn, who is Ibn Abdur Rahman As-Sulami, also known as Abu Al-Hudhayl, is acknowledged as trustworthy within the group, as noted in At-Taqrib (111). Ibrahim An-Nakha’i’s reliability is beyond question.
The report explicitly illustrates Ibn Mas’ud’s disapproval of performing the Witr prayer with a single rak’ah, asserting that it has never been sufficient, neither for Witr nor for other prayers. This account holds more weight than the earlier mentioned narration of Ibn Sirin, as cited in An-Nil (112), because Ibrahim An-Nakha’i had a closer association and better understanding of Ibn Mas’ud compared to Ibn Sirin. Furthermore, this assertion does not allow for alternative interpretations, unlike the report by Ibn Sirin, which describes an action susceptible to multiple interpretations, such as each individual potentially adding a single Witr rak’ah to a preceding even number of rak’ahs. Here, the verbal account precedes the action in terms of evidential strength.
Moreover, Ibrahim’s narration has been corroborated (mutaba’ah) by several notable scholars. Qasim ibn Ma’n relayed this from Husayn, and this was further supported by Qadi Abu Yusuf, who similarly reported from Husayn. Hammad ibn Abi Sulayman also transmitted from Ibrahim that Ibn Mas’ud criticized Sa’d for this practice. Abu Hamza further supported this chain, narrating from Ibrahim who received it from Alqama, who quoted Abdullah stating: “The least that Witr can be is three rak’ahs” (113), as was previously documented. This statement effectively negates the validity of performing the Witr with just one rak’ah.
Regarding Ibn Sirin’s account, we have not verified its chain of transmission (sanad), nor do we know if its narrators have been corroborated by others (mutaba’a). Therefore, it cannot fundamentally challenge Ibrahim’s well-supported narrative. It appears that some individuals have tried to portray these narrations as contradictory, despite acknowledging the absence of a chain for Ibn Sirin’s report. They attempted to authenticate and strengthen its narrators as mentioned by Ash-Shawkani in An-Nil (114), yet they neglected the narrators. They overlooked the robustness of Ibrahim’s narration, which stands firmer in terms of its chain, content, narrational integrity, and scholarly analysis, as we have elaborated.
1685 – Narrated by Ya’qub, he is Abu Yusuf Al-Qadi ibn Ibrahim, narrated to us Husayn from Ibrahim from Ibn Mas’ud who said: “A single rak’ah has never sufficed.” Reported by Muhammad in his Muwatta’ (Az-Zaila’i 1/278, p. 146). I say: Such statements are not made based on personal opinion; thus, they are considered marfu’ (attributed to the Prophet by implication).
1685 – Reported by Muhammad in Al-Muwatta’, Book of Prayer, Chapter on Salam in the Witr, Maktabat Zakariya Deoband, p. 150, Al-Maktaba Al-‘Ilmiyya, p. 96, number: 264. Also mentioned by Az-Zaila’i in Nasb Al-Raya, Chapter on Prayer of Witr, the narrations, Maktaba Dar Nashr Al-Kutub Lahore, new edition 2/116 (previously 2/120-121).
1686 – Narrated by Bukar ibn Abi Qutayba who said: Abu Dawud (he is Al-Tayalisi) told us, narrated to us Hammad, he is Ibn Salamah from Hammad ibn Abi Sulayman from Ibrahim: “that Ibn Mas’ud criticized such (i.e., performing Witr with one rak’ah) upon Sa’d.” Reported by Al-Tahawi (Sharh Ma’ani Al-Athar 1/174) and all its narrators are trustworthy, and its chain is authentic, although it is mursal (Ibrahim’s narration from Ibn Mas’ud lacks a direct link), but as previously mentioned, Ibrahim’s mursal narrations concerning Ibn Mas’ud are considered authoritative.
1686 – Reported by Al-Tahawi in Sharh Ma’ani Al-Athar, Book of Prayer, Chapter on Witr, Maktabat Zakariya Deoband 1/207, Maktabat Asafiya Delhi 1/1784, Dar Al-Kutub Al-‘Ilmiyya Beirut 1/384, number: 1713.
1687 – Narrated by Abdullah ibn Muhammad ibn Yusuf, narrated to us Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Isma’il, narrated to us my father, narrated to us Al-Hasan ibn Sulaiman, narrated to us Uthman ibn Muhammad ibn Rabee’ah ibn Abi ‘Abd Al-Rahman, narrated to us ‘Abdul Aziz ibn Muhammad Al-Darawardi from ‘Amr ibn Yahya from his father from Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri rd.: that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ forbade the bateerah (performing Witr with one rak’ah). Reported by Abu Umar Ibn Abdul Barr in Al-Tamhid and Abdul Haq mentioned in his Ahkam: “The dominant aspect of the hadith of Uthman ibn Muhammad ibn Rabee’ah is confusion,” and similarly Ibn Al-Qattan stated, “Below Al-Darawardi, no one is to be overlooked,” and the hadith is considered irregular (shadh) and not given consideration unless the integrity of its narrators is known, Az-Zaila’i (1/302). Al-Hafiz said in Lisan Al-Mizan: “This pertains only to Uthman alone; otherwise, the rest of the chain contains reliable narrators, with a possibility that Ibn Al-Qattan might not have been aware of the state of some of them,” and Az-Zaila’i, after reviewing Ibn Al-Qattan’s statement, mentioned that the teacher of Ibn Abdul Barr is “the Imam, the trustworthy, the Hafiz,” and Ibn Yunus said about Al-Hasan ibn Sulaiman: “He was a trustworthy Hafiz,” as noted in Al-Jawhar An-Naqi (1/210). Uthman ibn Muhammad ibn Rabee’ah, Al-Aqili commented, “The dominant aspect of his hadith is confusion, and no one has spoken about him except Al-Aqili, and his words are insignificant, and Al-Hakim has reported from him in Al-Mustadrak.”
1687 – Reported by Ibn Abdul Barr in Al-Tamhid li Ma fi Al-Muwatta’ min Al-Ma’ani wa Al-Asanid, chapter on the letter Nun, Nafi’ ibn Jirjis, under the first hadith, Maktabat Wizarat Amum Al-Awqaf wa Al-Shu’un Al-Islamiyyah, research by Mustafa ibn Ahmad Al-Alawi, 1/254. Also, Az-Zaila’i mentioned it in Nasb Al-Raya, Chapter on Prayer of Witr, the narrations, Maktaba Dar Nashr Al-Kutub Lahore 2/120, new edition 2/116. And the statement of Al-Hafiz: “This pertains only to Uthman alone etc.,” mentioned in Lisan Al-Mizan, biography of Uthman ibn Muhammad ibn Rabee’ah, Management of Ashrafiya Multan publications, 4/152, number: 357. And the statement by Al-Aqili: “The dominant aspect of his hadith is confusion etc.” mentioned by Ibn Al-Turkmani in Al-Jawhar An-Naqi in the margin of Al-Bayhaqi, Book of Prayer, at the end of the chapter on Witr with one rak’ah, old edition (Library of Majlis Da’ira Al-Ma’arif) 3/27.
1688 – Narrated by Muhammad ibn Ka’b Al-Qurazi: “The Prophet ﷺ forbade the bateerah.” Al-Iraqi said, “This is a weak mursal hadith,” Nail Al-Awtar (2/278), and similarly, An-Nawawi in Al-Khulasa: “It is weak and mursal,” for Az-Zaila’i 1/303. I say: It has supporting evidence as previously mentioned, and a weak hadith, when its routes are multiple, is strengthened as mentioned in the introduction.
1688 – Reported by Ash-Shawkani in Nail Al-Awtar, chapters on Voluntary Prayers, chapter on performing Witr with one and three etc., Maktabat Dar Al-Hadith Cairo 3/37, Maktabat Bayt Al-Afkar Riyadh, p. 487, under number: 0917. Also reported by An-Nawawi in Khulasat Al-Ahkam, Book of Voluntary Prayers, chapter on the validity of performing Witr with one or three etc., section on its weak narrations, Maktabat Mu’assasat Al-Risalah Beirut, research by Hussein Ismail Al-Jamal, 1/557, number: 1888. Mentioned by Az-Zaila’i in Nasb Al-Raya, Book of Prayer, chapter on Sujood As-Sahw, the thirty-second hadith after one hundred, Maktaba Dar Nashr Al-Kutub Lahore 2/173, new edition 2/175.
As for the statement: “Narrated to us Abdullah ibn Muhammad ibn Yusuf etc.,” I say: From what we discussed in the text about verifying the chain and examining its narrators, this hadith has no defect, except what has been said about Uthman ibn Muhammad ibn Rabee’ah: that he is predominantly associated with confusion in his narrations. This is a mild criticism, as is evident to those familiar with the levels of criticism terms. No one, to our knowledge, has accused him of lying or being unreliable. Thus, the claim relayed by some, attributing to Ibn Hazm, that “the prohibition of performing the Witr as a single rak’ah has not been established from the Prophet ﷺ, and his narration is disregarded and false,” is refuted. How can it be disregarded and false when none of its narrators are disregarded or accused of lying? Indeed, they are all trustworthy, except for Uthman, who is neither abandoned nor a liar. Ibn Hazm was overly rigorous in his criticism, as mentioned in the introduction, so his opinion should not be considered decisive.
Furthermore, some people swear by divorce to always oppose the Hanafis and consistently undermine their evidence by citing opinions of rigid and extreme critics who exceed the bounds. They refute those who agree with them and support their argument. They criticize Ibn Turkmani for his statement: “No one has spoken about Uthman except Al-Aqili, and his words carry little weight, and Al-Hakim has included him in Al-Mustadrak (115).” They said: “It is strange, indeed most strange, that he says no one has spoken about him except Al-Aqili, as he quotes in his book statements from Al-Mizan and Ibn Al-Qattan, and the criticism exists in both, yet he claims what he does, and Allah is the Guide. O Allah, show us the truth as truth and grant us the follow it, Amen.”
I say, O tasteless and shameless one! Is there mention in Al-Mizan (116) from Abdul Haqq and Ibn Al-Qattan (117) and others more than what Al-Aqili said? No! Indeed, they all said what he said and followed his pattern. Al-Aqili is older than Ibn Al-Qattan and Abdul Haqq and others, having died in the year 322 as in At-Tadhkirah (3/50) (118), and Abdul Haqq died in the year 514, and Ibn Al-Qattan in the year 628, as also noted in it (4/140 and 192) (119). Uthman ibn Muhammad ibn Rabee’ah, who narrated from Malik, as appears from Al-Lisan (4/152) (120), was mentioned by Ad-Daraqutni: “Narrated to us Abu Bakr An-Naysaburi, told us Al-Hasan ibn Sulaiman, told us Muhammad ibn Uthman ibn Rabee’ah from Malik ibn Anas etc.,” and mentioned by Al-Khatib among those who narrated from Malik as in Tazyeen Al-Mamalik by As-Suyuti (p. 28) (121). It is impossible for later scholars like Abdul Haqq and Ibn Al-Qattan and their likes to speak of him except in terms agreed upon by earlier scholars, and no earlier scholars spoke of him except Al-Aqili, who alone said: “His narrations are predominantly confused,” and as for the words of Abdul Haqq and Ibn Al-Qattan, they are merely following Al-Aqili, saying only that the predominant aspect of Uthman’s hadith is confusion, and this is a light criticism, as is evident.
As for Ibn Al-Qattan’s statement that the hadith is irregular and should not be relied upon unless the integrity of its narrators is known, you have seen in Al-Hafiz’s statement that the rest of the chain consists of trustworthy narrators. Ignorance of some who do not recognize their integrity does not harm us, as others have acknowledged it. The irregularity is negated by the supporting evidence for the hadith, including what will be mentioned from Muhammad ibn Ka’b Al-Qurazi: “The Prophet ﷺ forbade the Butayra (122),” and although it is a weak mursal narration, the multiplication of its routes lends it strength. This includes what was previously mentioned from Ibn Mas’ud rd. that he criticized Sa’d for performing the Witr with one rak’ah, saying: “A single rak’ah has never sufficed” (123), and its chain is authentic, and what Al-Tahawi narrated: Narrated to us Sulaiman ibn Shu’aib, said: Narrated to us Bishr ibn Bakr narrated to us Al-Awza’i, said: Narrated to us Al-Mutalib ibn Abdullah Al-Makhzumi: “A man asked Ibn Umar about the Witr? He ordered him to separate [the Witr from the regular prayers], and the man said: ‘I fear people will say: It is,’ Ibn Umar said: ‘Do you want the way of Allah and His Messenger ﷺ? This is the way of Allah and His Messenger ﷺ'” (1/165) (124), and this chain’s narrators are all trustworthy. Ibn Umar heard this from the man and did not deny it nor said: ‘The prohibition of performing the Witr alone has no basis,’ suggesting that the prohibition of performing the Witr alone was known among Muslims at that time. Therefore, the man said: ‘I fear people will say: It is the Butayra,’ which strengthens what Uthman ibn Muhammad ibn Rabee’ah narrated. Hence, the hadith is then good and suitable for argumentation. How could it not be when Uthman is not disregarded nor accused of lying, and only some have spoken lightly of him, and a hadith like this is used for argumentation when supported by sound evidence from the statements of the Companions rd.
As for the narration in Al-Bayhaqi, in which Ibn Umar said: “You have spoken the truth; the Witr of the night is one rak’ah. This is what the Messenger of Allah ﷺ commanded.” I said: “O Abdur Rahman! People say that this is Al-Butayra.” He replied: “My son! That is not Al-Butayra. Rather, Al-Butayra is when a person prays a single rak’ah without completing its bowing, prostration, or standing,” as summarized (3/26) (125). This narration is not valid as proof, as its chain contains Salamah ibn Al-Fadl Al-Abrash, who is weak. Moreover, Ibn Umar’s interpretation is not superior to the explanation of Al-Butayra narrated in a marfu’ (explicitly attributed) hadith by Abu Sa’id and widely recognized among the people, so understand this well.
Furthermore, this narration does not contradict what Al-Bukhari reported from Ibn Umar: “That he would say salam between the single rak’ah and the two rak’ahs in Witr” (126). This is because the action of a Companion does not contradict a marfu’ statement, especially since Ibn Mas’ud, who was greater in rank than Ibn Umar, condemned Sa’d for doing the same. Al-Tahawi commented: “It is inconceivable that Abdullah (Ibn Mas’ud) would criticize Sa’d, despite his nobility and knowledge, unless he was certain about the ruling. If Ibn Mas’ud had only differed with Sa’d based on personal reasoning (ra’y), then his opinion would not have been superior to Sa’d’s, nor would he have criticized him for it if it were merely an issue of personal judgment. Instead, Ibn Mas’ud’s knowledge of this matter was based on something other than mere opinion” (Sharh Ma’ani Al-Athar 1/174) (127).
Similarly, it is not contradicted by what Al-Tahawi narrated through the route of Salim ibn Abdullah ibn Umar from his father: that he would separate his even-numbered rak’ahs (shafa’) from his Witr by saying salam and informed that the Prophet ﷺ used to do so (128). The narration regarding separating Witr was reported uniquely by Ibn Umar rd. from the Prophet ﷺ, whereas Ubayy ibn Ka’b, Aisha, Anas, and Ibn Mas’ud all reported from him ﷺ that “he would perform Witr with three and would not say salam except at the end of them” (129), as mentioned previously.
Moreover, what Ibn Umar narrated is merely a description of an action, whereas the hadith prohibiting Al-Butayra is a direct statement. In principles of hadith, verbal statements take precedence over actions. Additionally, Ibn Umar’s narration is a report of permissibility (ibahah), whereas the hadith prohibiting Al-Butayra establishes a prohibition (hazr). When there is a conflict between a permissive and prohibitive ruling, the prohibition is given precedence to avoid requiring multiple instances of abrogation, as explained in Al-Muqaddimah.
As for what Al-Bukhari narrated from Ibn Umar: “A man asked the Prophet ﷺ about the night prayer, and he said: ‘The night prayer is two by two, and when one of you fears that dawn is approaching, let him pray one rak’ah, which will serve as Witr for what he has prayed'” (130), it does not serve as evidence, as Al-Hafiz stated in Fath Al-Bari. His wording is: “Some have used his statement ‘let him pray one rak’ah’ as evidence that separating Witr (by saying salam between them) is superior to connecting it. However, this has been refuted on the basis that the statement is not explicit in favoring separation; rather, it can be understood as meaning that the one rak’ah is to be added to two preceding rak’ahs” (2/400) (131). And Allah knows best.
And recall what we have previously mentioned, which indicates that Ibn Umar rd. did not perform Witr with a single, isolated rak’ah but rather with three, while considering separation between them. Similarly, Sa’d rd. followed the same practice, as recorded in Ma’ani Al-Athar by Al-Tahawi:
“Narrated to us Abu Umayyah, who is Muhammad ibn Ibrahim At-Tartusi. Ibn Yunus and Abu Dawud authenticated him, and Al-Khallal said: ‘He was an Imam in hadith, a leading authority of his time, highly esteemed in rank,’ as noted in At-Tahdhib (9/15) (132). Narrated to us Abdul Wahhab ibn Ata Al-Khuffaf, who is truthful and among the narrators of Muslim and the four Sunan, as mentioned in At-Taqrib (p. 134) (133). He said: Narrated to us Abu Dawud ibn Abi Hind from ‘Amir who said: ‘The family of Sa’d and the family of Abdullah ibn Umar would say salam after two rak’ahs in Witr and then perform a single rak’ah as Witr'” (Sharh Ma’ani Al-Athar 1/174) (134).
This chain is authentic. Al-Tahawi commented: “Ash-Sha’bi has clarified in this narration the practice of the family of Sa’d regarding Witr, who followed his example and adhered to his practice. Their Witr, which was a single rak’ah, was in fact a Witr that followed a preceding prayer, from which they separated it with salam. This, therefore, aligns with the position of those who hold that Witr consists of three rak’ahs, etc.” (135).
As for the narration attributed to Sayyiduna Uthman rd. that he performed Witr with one rak’ah, as recorded in Sharh Ma’ani Al-Athar by Al-Tahawi, it states:
“Narrated to us Abu Bakrah (whose authentication has already been mentioned), narrated to us Abu Dawud (he is At-Tayalisi), narrated to us Fulayh ibn Sulayman Al-Khuza’i (a narrator from Al-Bukhari’s collection), narrated to us Muhammad ibn Al-Munkadir (a narrator from all the six major collections), from Abdur Rahman At-Taimi, who was a Companion. He said: ‘I resolved that no one would surpass me in night prayer, so I stood to pray, and I felt the presence of someone standing behind me. When I looked, I saw that it was Sayyiduna Uthman ibn Affan rd., so I moved aside for him. He stepped forward and began reciting the Quran, continuing until he completed it. Then he bowed and prostrated… When he finished, I said: “O Leader of the Believers! You prayed only one rak’ah!” He replied: “Indeed, that was my Witr.”‘” (Sharh Ma’ani Al-Athar 1/174) (136).
Al-Tahawi responded to this narration by explaining that it is possible Uthman rd. had performed his shafa’ (even-numbered units of prayer) earlier and then performed Witr at the time Abdur Rahman observed him. The fact that Abdur Rahman expressed surprise at Uthman’s practice indicates that the commonly accepted method of performing Witr among the Companions at the time was different from what Uthman did. Furthermore, Abdur Rahman was himself a Companion (137).
In summary, every Companion from whom it has been reported that they performed Witr with a single rak’ah—such as Uthman, Ibn Umar, Sa’d, and Mu’awiyah rd.—faced criticism from their fellow Companions. Ibn Abbas rd. and his followers objected to Mu’awiyah’s practice, Ibn Mas’ud rd. criticized Sa’d and reproached his action, and Abdur Rahman At-Taimi objected to Uthman rd.
All of this supports the validity of the reports prohibiting Al-Butayra, for if performing Witr with a single rak’ah or separating the rak’ahs with salam had been commonly accepted among the Companions, they would not have objected to those who practiced it. The truth, therefore, lies with our esteemed A’imma of the Hanafi school, may Allah be pleased with them, that Witr consists of three rak’ahs, like Maghrib, joined with two tashahhuds, and one does not say salam except at the end. This is established from the Prophet ﷺ both in his actions and words, and it is what the majority of the Companions adhered to after him, as we have detailed earlier.
Indeed, if an objective researcher were to analyze the hadiths related to this matter, they would acknowledge the strength of what Imam Abu Hanifah extracted from this vast ocean of narrations. However, some individuals, and those who follow them—whom Allah has filled with enmity toward this great Imam alone—have been deprived of fairness and justice, and they have instead chosen the path of bias and aggression. They refuse to accept his position unless a camel passes through the eye of a needle. Allah is the Guide to the straight path, and He is sufficient for us, and He is the best Disposer of affairs.
(1) Al-Bukhari recorded it in Sahih al-Bukhari, in Kitab al-Witr, under Bab Ma Ja’a fi al-Witr (Indian Edition 1/135, Hadith No. 981, Folio: 991).
(2) Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar referenced it in Fath al-Bari, in Kitab al-Witr, under Bab Ma Ja’a fi al-Witr, beneath the narration of Ibn Umar rd. (Maktaba Ashrafiyyah, Deoband 2/612, Maktaba Dar ar-Rayan lil-Turath 2/559, Hadith No. 981, Folio: 991).
(3) Al-Tahawi recorded it in Sharh Ma‘ani al-Athar, in Kitab as-Salah, under Bab al-Witr Rak‘ah min Akhir al-Layl (Maktaba Zakariyya, Deoband 1/197, Maktaba Asfiyyah, Delhi 1/164, Maktaba Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut 1/361, Hadith No. 1624).
(4) Fath al-Bari, in Kitab al-Witr, under Bab Ma Ja’a fi al-Witr, beneath the statement “That Abdullah ibn Umar rd. used to say salam etc.” (Maktaba Ashrafiyyah, Deoband 2/612, Maktaba Dar ar-Rayan lil-Turath 2/559, Hadith No. 981, Folio: 991).
(5) Abu Dawud recorded it in Sunan Abi Dawud, from Talaq ibn Ali, in Kitab as-Salah, under Bab fi Naqd al-Witr (Indian Edition 1/203, Maktaba Dar as-Salam, Riyadh, Hadith No. 1439).
(6) Al-Tahawi recorded it in Sharh Ma‘ani al-Athar, in Kitab as-Salah, under Bab al-Witr (Maktaba Zakariyya, Deoband 1/197, Maktaba Asfiyyah, Delhi 1/164, Maktaba Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut 1/362, Hadith No. 1627).
(7) Ahmad recorded it in Musnad Ahmad, in Musnad al-Mukthirin, under Musnad Abdullah ibn Umar rd. (2/76, Hadith No. 05461). Al-Tahawi recorded it in Sharh Ma‘ani al-Athar, in Kitab as-Salah, under Bab al-Witr (Maktaba Zakariyya, Deoband 1/197, Maktaba Asfiyyah, Delhi 1/164, Maktaba Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut 1/361, Hadith No. 1624). Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar cited it in Talkhis al-Habir, in Kitab as-Salah, under Bab Salat at-Tatawwu‘ (Maktaba Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut 2/41, Hadith No. 522; Old Edition: Matba‘ah al-Ansari, Delhi 1/117).
(8) An-Nasa’i recorded it in Al-Mujtaba, in Kitab Qiyam al-Layl, under Bab Kayfa al-Witr bi-Thalath? (Indian Edition 1/191, Maktaba Dar as-Salam, Riyadh, Hadith No. 1699).
(9) Al-Hakim recorded it in Al-Mustadrak, in Kitab al-Witr (Maktaba Nizar Mustafa, Makkah 2/441, Hadith No. 1140; Old Edition 1/304).
(10) Ahmad recorded it in Musnad Ahmad, in Musnad an-Nisa’, under Hadith of Sayyidatuna Aisha rd. (6/155-156, Hadith No. 25738), and in the edition verified by Shu‘ayb al-Arna’ut (Hadith No. 25223).
(11) An-Nasa’i recorded it in As-Sunan as-Sughra, in Kitab Qiyam al-Layl, under Dhikr Ikhtilaf Alfaz an-Naqilin bi-Khabar Ubayy ibn Ka‘b fi al-Witr (Indian Edition 1/191, Maktaba Dar as-Salam, Riyadh, Hadith No. 1702).
(12) Al-Tahawi recorded its meaning in Sharh Ma‘ani al-Athar, in Kitab as-Salah, under Bab al-Witr (Maktaba Zakariyya, Deoband 1/206, Maktaba Asfiyyah, Delhi 1/173, Maktaba Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut 1/382, Hadith Nos. 1704-1705).
(13) Ad-Daraqutni recorded it in Sunan ad-Daraqutni, in Kitab al-Witr, under Bab al-Witr Thalath ka-Thalath al-Maghrib (Maktaba Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut 2/20, Hadith No. 1637; Maktaba Dar al-Ma‘rifah 2/27).
(14) Az-Zayla‘i mentioned it in Nasb ar-Rayah, in Bab Salat al-Witr, before the 102nd Hadith (Maktaba Dar Nashr al-Kutub, Lahore 2/122).
(15) Al-Hakim recorded it in Al-Mustadrak, in Kitab al-Witr (Maktaba Nizar Mustafa, Makkah 2/441, Hadith No. 1141; Old Edition 1/304).
(16) Abu Dawud recorded it in Sunan Abi Dawud, from Talaq ibn Ali, in Kitab as-Salah, under Bab fi Naqd al-Witr (Indian Edition 1/203, Maktaba Dar as-Salam, Riyadh, Hadith No. 1439).
(17) The hadith on the prohibition of Butayra was mentioned by Az-Zayla‘i in Nasb ar-Rayah, narrated from Abu Sa‘id rd. that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ “forbade Butayra—that a man should perform only one rak‘ah as Witr.” Az-Zayla‘i attributed it to At-Tamhid by Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, in Bab Salat al-Witr (Maktaba Dar Nashr al-Kutub, Lahore 2/120), after Hadith No. 101.
(18) Muslim recorded it in Sahih Muslim, in Kitab Salat al-Musafirin, under Bab Salat al-Layl etc. (Indian Edition 1/254, Maktaba Bayt al-Afkar, Riyadh, Hadith No. 736).
Al-Bukhari recorded its meaning in Sahih al-Bukhari, in Kitab al-Witr, under Bab Ma Ja’a fi al-Witr (Indian Edition 1/135, Hadith No. 984, Folio: 994).
Abu Dawud recorded it in Sunan Abi Dawud, in Kitab as-Salah, under Bab fi Salat al-Layl (Indian Edition 1/189, Maktaba Dar as-Salam, Riyadh, Hadith No. 1340).
An-Nasa’i recorded it in Al-Mujtaba, in Kitab al-Adhan, under Idhan al-Mu’adhdhinin al-A’immat bi-Salah (Indian Edition 1/79, Maktaba Dar as-Salam, Riyadh, Hadith No. 686).
Ibn Majah recorded it in Sunan Ibn Majah, in Kitab Iqamat as-Salah, under Bab Ma Ja’a fi Kam Yusalli bi al-Layl? (Indian Edition 1/96, Maktaba Dar as-Salam, Riyadh, Hadith No. 1358).
Ibn Taymiyyah cited it in Al-Muntaqa, along with Nayl al-Awtar, in Abwab Salat at-Tatawwu‘, under Bab al-Witr bi-Rak‘ah wa bi-Thalath etc. (Maktaba Dar al-Hadith, Cairo 3/38, Maktaba Bayt al-Afkar, Riyadh, p. 488, Hadith No. 920).
(19) An-Nasa’i recorded it in As-Sunan as-Sughra, in Kitab Qiyam al-Layl, under Bab Kayfa al-Witr bi-Thalath? (Indian Edition 1/191, Maktaba Dar as-Salam, Riyadh, Hadith No. 1699).
Al-Hakim recorded it in Al-Mustadrak, in Kitab al-Witr (Maktaba Nizar Mustafa, Makkah 2/440-441, Hadith No. 1139; Old Edition 1/304).
(20) Al-Hakim recorded it in Al-Mustadrak, in Kitab al-Witr (Maktaba Nizar Mustafa, Makkah 2/441, Hadith No. 1140; Old Edition 1/304).
(21) Ahmad recorded it in Musnad Ahmad, in Musnad an-Nisa’, under Hadith of Sayyidatuna Aisha rd. (6/155-156, Hadith No. 25738), and in the edition verified by Shu‘ayb al-Arna’ut (Hadith No. 25223).
(22) Muslim recorded it in Sahih Muslim, in Kitab Salat al-Musafirin, under Bab Salat al-Layl wa ‘Adad Rak‘at etc. (Indian Edition 1/254, Maktaba Bayt al-Afkar, Riyadh, Hadith No. 737).
(23) Muslim recorded it in Sahih Muslim, in Kitab Salat al-Musafirin, under Bab Salat al-Layl wa ‘Adad Rak‘at etc. (Indian Edition 1/253-254, Maktaba Bayt al-Afkar, Riyadh, Hadith No. 736).
(24) Al-Tahawi recorded it in Sharh Ma‘ani al-Athar, in Kitab as-Salah, under Bab al-Witr (Indian Edition 1/199, Maktaba Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut 1/367, Hadith No. 1643; Maktaba Asfiyyah, Delhi 1/167).
(25) Al-Tahawi recorded it in Sharh Ma‘ani al-Athar, in Kitab as-Salah, under Bab al-Witr (Indian Edition 1/200, Maktaba Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut 1/368, Hadith No. 1645; Maktaba Asfiyyah, Delhi 1/167).
(26) Muslim recorded it in Sahih Muslim, in Kitab Salat al-Musafirin, under Bab Salat al-Layl wa ‘Adad Rak‘at etc. (Indian Edition 1/254, Maktaba Bayt al-Afkar, Riyadh, Hadith No. 737).
Al-Tahawi also recorded it in Sharh Ma‘ani al-Athar, in Kitab as-Salah, under Bab al-Witr (Indian Edition 1/200, Maktaba Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut 1/368-369, Hadith Nos. 1647-1648; Maktaba Asfiyyah, Delhi 1/167).
(27) Al-Tahawi mentioned it in Sharh Ma‘ani al-Athar, in Kitab as-Salah, under Bab al-Witr (Indian Edition 1/201, Maktaba Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut 1/371, Hadith No. 1657; Maktaba Asfiyyah, Delhi 1/169).
(28) See As-Sunan as-Sughra by An-Nasa’i, in Kitab Qiyam al-Layl wa Tatawwu‘ an-Nahar, under Bab Kayfa al-Witr bi-Khams wa Dhikr al-Ikhtilaf ‘ala al-Hakam fi Hadith al-Witr (Indian Edition 1/192, Maktaba Dar as-Salam, Riyadh, Hadith Nos. 1715-1717).
(29) Ad-Daraqutni recorded it in Sunan ad-Daraqutni, in Kitab al-Witr, under “Do not make Witr resemble Maghrib Salah” (Maktaba Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut 2/19, Hadith Nos. 1634-1635).
Al-Hakim recorded it in Al-Mustadrak, in Kitab al-Witr (Maktaba Nizar Mustafa al-Baz, Makkah 2/440, Hadith No. 1138).
Al-Bayhaqi recorded it in As-Sunan al-Kubra, in Kitab as-Salah, under Bab Man Awtara bi-Thalath Mawsulat etc. (Maktaba Dar al-Fikr 4/127, Hadith No. 4920).
(30) Ibn Hibban recorded it in Sahih Ibn Hibban, through the narration of Abdur Rahman from Abu Hurayrah, in Kitab as-Salah, under Dhikr az-Zajr ‘an An Yutir al-Mar’ bi-Thalath Rak‘at Ghayr Mafsulah (Maktaba Dar al-Fikr 3/310, Hadith No. 2426).
Al-Hakim recorded it in Al-Mustadrak, in Kitab al-Witr (Maktaba Nizar Mustafa al-Baz, Makkah 2/440, Hadith No. 1137).
(31) Al-Tahawi recorded it in Sharh Ma‘ani al-Athar, in Kitab as-Salah, under Bab al-Witr (Indian Edition 1/203, Maktaba Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut 1/375, Hadith No. 1673; Maktaba Asfiyyah, Delhi 1/170).
(32) Al-Tahawi recorded it in Sharh Ma‘ani al-Athar, in Kitab as-Salah, under Bab al-Witr (Indian Edition 1/201, Maktaba Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut 1/371, Hadith No. 1657; Maktaba Asfiyyah, Delhi 1/169).
See also Athar as-Sunan by An-Nimawi, in Kitab as-Salah, under Bab al-Witr bi-Khams aw Akthar min Dhalik (Maktaba Madaniyyah, Deoband, pp. 158-159, Hadith Nos. 591-594).
(33) Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar mentioned it in Fath al-Bari, in Kitab al-Witr, under Bab Ma Ja’a fi al-Witr (Maktaba Dar ar-Rayan, 2/558; Maktaba Ashrafiyyah, Deoband 2/611, Hadith No. 980, Folio: 990).
(34) Al-Qastallani mentioned it in Irshad as-Sari, in Kitab al-Witr, under Bab Ma Ja’a fi al-Witr (Maktaba Dar al-Fikr 3/4, Hadith No. 980, Folio: 990).
(35) An-Nimawi mentioned it in At-Ta‘liq al-Hasan ‘ala Athar as-Sunan, in Kitab as-Salah, under Bab Man Qal: Inna al-Witr bi-Thalath Innama Yusalli bi-Tashahhud Wahid (Maktaba Madaniyyah, Deoband, p. 165, Hadith No. 625).
(36) See Sharh Ma‘ani al-Athar by Al-Tahawi, in Kitab as-Salah, under Bab al-Witr (Indian Edition 1/201, Maktaba Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut 1/371, Hadith No. 1657; Maktaba Asfiyyah, Delhi 1/169).
(37) See Nayl al-Awtar, in Kitab as-Salah, under Bab al-Witr bi-Rak‘ah wa bi-Thalath etc. (Maktaba Dar al-Hadith, Cairo 3/41; Maktaba Bayt al-Afkar, p. 489, Hadith No. 923).
(38) Abu Dawud recorded it in Sunan Abi Dawud, in Kitab as-Salah, under Bab fi Salat al-Layl (Indian Edition 1/192, Maktaba Dar as-Salam, Riyadh, Hadith No. 1358).
An-Nimawi mentioned it in Athar as-Sunan, in Kitab as-Salah, under Bab al-Witr bi-Khams aw Akthar min Dhalik (Maktaba Madaniyyah, Deoband, p. 157, Hadith No. 588).
(39) Abu Dawud recorded it in Sunan Abi Dawud, in Kitab as-Salah, under Bab Kam al-Witr (Indian Edition 1/201, Maktaba Dar as-Salam, Riyadh, Hadith No. 1422).
An-Nasa’i recorded it in As-Sunan as-Sughra, in Kitab Qiyam al-Layl wa Tatawwu‘ an-Nahar, under Bab Dhikr al-Ikhtilaf ‘ala az-Zuhri fi Hadith Abi Ayyub fi al-Witr (Indian Edition 1/192, Maktaba Dar as-Salam, Riyadh, Hadith Nos. 1712-1713).
Ibn Majah recorded it in Sunan Ibn Majah, in Abwab al-Witr, under Bab Ma Ja’a fi al-Witr bi-Thalath wa Khams etc. (Indian Edition 1/83, Maktaba Dar as-Salam, Riyadh, Hadith No. 1190).
None of these sources recorded the hadith with the wording “Wajib.”
An-Nimawi mentioned it in Athar as-Sunan, in Kitab as-Salah, under Bab al-Witr bi-Rak‘ah (Maktaba Madaniyyah, Deoband, p. 160, Hadith No. 599).
(40) Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar mentioned it in Talkhis al-Habir, in Kitab as-Salah, under Bab Salat at-Tatawwu‘ (Old Edition 1/116, Maktaba Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut 2/37, Hadith No. 508).
See also Al-Khilafiyyat by Al-Bayhaqi, under Mas’alah (69) – “Al-Witr Sunnah” (Maktaba ar-Rawdah lil-Nashr wa at-Tawzi‘, Cairo 2/218, Hadith No. 1412).
See also Al-‘Ilal by Ad-Daraqutni, under Hadith Abi Ayyub al-Ansari, edited by Mahfuz ar-Rahman (Maktaba Dar at-Taybah, Riyadh, Hadith No. 1005, pp. 98/6-99).
(41) See Sharh an-Nawawi ‘ala Muslim, in Kitab Salat al-Musafirin, under Bab Salat an-Nabi ﷺ wa Du‘a’uhu bi al-Layl (Indian Edition 1/261-262; Al-Minhaj, Maktaba Dar Ibn Hazm, p. 637, Hadith No. 763).
(42) Al-Tahawi recorded it in Sharh Ma‘ani al-Athar, in Kitab as-Salah, under Bab al-Witr (Indian Edition 1/202, Maktaba Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut 1/374, Hadith No. 1671; Maktaba Asfiyyah, Delhi 1/170).
(43) See Sharh Ma‘ani al-Athar by Al-Tahawi, in Kitab as-Salah, under Bab al-Witr (Indian Edition 1/202, Maktaba Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut 1/373-374, Hadith Nos. 1665-1666, 1670; Maktaba Asfiyyah, Delhi 1/169-170).
See also As-Sunan as-Sughra by An-Nasa’i, in Kitab Qiyam al-Layl wa Tatawwu‘ an-Nahar, under Dhikr al-Ikhtilaf ‘ala Habib etc. (Indian Edition 1/191-192, Maktaba Dar as-Salam, Riyadh, Hadith Nos. 1705-1706).
(44) Al-Bukhari recorded it in Sahih al-Bukhari, in Kitab Fada’il Ashab an-Nabi ﷺ, under Dhikr Mu‘awiyah rd. (Indian Edition 1/531, Hadith No. 3626, Folio: 3764-3627, Folio: 3765).
(45) Al-Tahawi recorded it in Sharh Ma‘ani al-Athar, in Kitab as-Salah, under Bab al-Witr (Indian Edition 1/203, Maktaba Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut 1/375, Hadith No. 1676; Maktaba Asfiyyah, Delhi 1/170).
(46) Al-Tahawi recorded it in Sharh Ma‘ani al-Athar, in Kitab as-Salah, under Bab al-Witr (Indian Edition 1/203, Maktaba Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut 1/376, Hadith No. 1679; Maktaba Asfiyyah, Delhi 1/171).
(47) See Hashiyat al-Bukhari, in Kitab Fada’il Ashab an-Nabi ﷺ, under Dhikr Mu‘awiyah, (Indian Edition 1/531, Hashiyah No. 11).
(48) An-Nimawi mentioned it in At-Ta‘liq al-Hasan ‘ala Athar as-Sunan, in Kitab as-Salah, under Bab al-Witr bi-Rak‘ah (Maktaba Madaniyyah, Deoband, p. 162, Hadith No. 606).
(49) An-Nasa’i recorded it in As-Sunan as-Sughra, in Kitab Qiyam al-Layl, under Bab Kayfa al-Witr bi-Thalath (Indian Edition 1/191, Maktaba Dar as-Salam, Riyadh, Hadith No. 1699).
Al-Hakim recorded it in Al-Mustadrak, in Kitab al-Witr (Maktaba Nizar Mustafa al-Baz 2/441, Hadith No. 1139).
(50) Al-Hakim recorded it in Al-Mustadrak, in Kitab al-Witr (Maktaba Nizar Mustafa al-Baz 2/441, Hadith No. 1140).
Ahmad recorded it in Musnad Ahmad, in Hadith of Sayyidatuna Aisha rd. (6/155, Hadith No. 25738).
(51) Al-Bayhaqi recorded it in Ma‘rifat as-Sunan wa al-Athar, in Kitab as-Salah, under Bab at-Tawassu‘ fi ‘Adad at-Tatawwu‘ (Maktaba Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut 2/322, before Hadith No. 1404).
(52) An-Nimawi mentioned it in At-Ta‘liq al-Hasan ‘ala Athar as-Sunan, in Kitab as-Salah, under Bab al-Witr bi-Rak‘ah (Maktaba Madaniyyah, Deoband, p. 161, Hadith No. 606).
(53) See At-Tamhid by Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, edited by Mustafa ibn Ahmad al-‘Alawi and Muhammad ‘Abd al-Kabir al-Bakri (Maktaba Wizarat ‘Umum al-Awqaf wa al-Shu’un al-Islamiyyah, 13/249-250).
See also Al-Jawhar an-Naqi ‘ala as-Sunan al-Kubra by Al-Bayhaqi, in Kitab as-Salah, under Bab al-Witr bi-Rak‘ah (Maktaba Majlis Da’irat al-Ma‘arif, Hyderabad 3/25-26).
(54) Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar mentioned it in Tahdhib at-Tahdhib, under Harf al-‘Ayn (Maktaba Dar al-Fikr 4/394, Hadith No. 3557).
(55) Ad-Durr al-Mukhtar with Radd al-Muhtar, in Kitab as-Salah, under Bab al-Witr wa an-Nawafil (Karachi Edition 2/48, Maktaba Zakariyya, Deoband 2/500).
(56) Ibn Hibban recorded it in Sahih Ibn Hibban, in Kitab as-Salah, under Dhikr al-Khabar al-Mudhhad Li-Qawl Man Za‘ama anna al-Witr etc. (Maktaba Dar al-Fikr 3/310, Hadith No. 2425).
Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar mentioned it in Talkhis al-Habir, in Kitab as-Salah, under Bab Salat at-Tatawwu‘ (Old Edition 1/116, Maktaba Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut 2/39, Hadith No. 515).
(57) Muslim recorded it in Sahih Muslim, in Kitab Salat al-Musafirin, under Bab Salat al-Layl wa ‘Adad Rak‘at etc. (Indian Edition 1/257, Maktaba Bayt al-Afkar, Riyadh, Hadith No. 753).
(58) Al-Bukhari recorded it in Sahih al-Bukhari, in Kitab al-Witr, under Bab Ma Ja’a fi al-Witr (Indian Edition 1/135, Hadith No. 980, Folio: 990).
(59) Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar mentioned it in Fath al-Bari, in Kitab al-Witr, under Bab Ma Ja’a fi al-Witr (Maktaba Dar ar-Rayan 2/558; Maktaba Ashrafiyyah, Deoband 2/610, Hadith No. 980, Folio: 990).
(60) See Tahdhib at-Tahdhib by Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar, under Harf ar-Ra’ (Maktaba Dar al-Fikr 3/110, Hadith No. 2017).
(61) See Nur al-Anwar, under Mabhas al-Ijma‘, discussing the statement from Al-Manar: “It is said that for later consensus to be valid, the absence of prior disagreement is a condition according to Abu Hanifa, but this is not correct in the sound view.” (Maktaba Nu‘maniyyah, Deoband, p. 220).
(62) Malik recorded it in Al-Muwatta’, in Kitab as-Salah, under Al-Amr bi al-Witr (Maktaba Zakariyya, Deoband, p. 44).
See also Aujaz al-Masalik (Maktaba Dar al-Qalam, Damascus, Hadith No. 267).
(63) At-Tahawi stated it in Sharh Ma‘ani al-Athar, in Kitab as-Salah, under Bab al-Witr (Maktaba Zakariyya, Deoband 1/203; Maktaba Asfiyyah, Delhi 1/171; Maktaba Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut 1/372, Hadith No. 1681).
(64) Muslim recorded it in Sahih Muslim, in Kitab Salat al-Musafirin, under Bab Salat al-Layl etc. (Indian Edition 1/257, Maktaba Bayt al-Afkar, Riyadh, Hadith No. 749).
Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar mentioned it in Fath al-Bari, in Kitab al-Witr, under Bab Ma Ja’a fi al-Witr, in reference to the statement: “Mathna Mathna” (Maktaba Ashrafiyyah, Deoband 2/608; Maktaba Dar ar-Rayan li at-Turath 2/556, Hadith No. 980, Folio: 990).
(65) At-Tabarani recorded it in Musnad ash-Shamiyyin, from Sayyiduna Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri rd., with variation in wording (Maktaba Mu’assasat ar-Risalah, Beirut, edited by Hamdi ibn ‘Abd al-Majid as-Salafi, 2/289, Hadith No. 1360).
It was also cited by Muhammad Hasan al-Isra’ili as-Sanbali in the footnotes of Musnad al-Imam al-A‘zam by Muhammad as-Sindi, in Kitab as-Salah, under At-Taslim min al-Janibayn (Old Edition, Asah al-Matabi‘, Lucknow, p. 56).
(66) Muhammad ‘Abid ibn Ahmad ‘Ali as-Sindi mentioned it in Musnad al-Imam al-A‘zam, in Kitab as-Salah, under At-Taslim min al-Janibayn (Old Edition, pp. 50-58).
(67) At-Tabarani recorded it in Al-Mu‘jam al-Kabir (Maktaba Dar Ihya’ at-Turath al-‘Arabi, 23/367, Hadith No. 869).
Al-Haythami mentioned it in Majma‘ az-Zawa’id, in Kitab as-Salah, under Bab at-Tashahhud wa al-Julus wa al-Isharah bi al-Isba‘ fihi (Maktaba Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut, 2/139; New Edition, Hadith No. 2839).
(68) At-Tirmidhi recorded it in Sunan at-Tirmidhi, in Abwab as-Salah, under Bab Ma Ja’a fi at-Takhashshu‘ fi as-Salah (Indian Edition 1/87, Maktaba Dar as-Salam, Riyadh, Hadith No. 385).
An-Nasa’i recorded it in As-Sunan al-Kubra, in Kitab as-Sahw, under Dhikr Ikhtilaf Shu‘bah wa al-Laith etc., prior to Kitab at-Tatbiq (Maktaba Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut, 1/212, Hadith No. 615).
(69) Abu Dawud recorded it in Sunan Abi Dawud, in Kitab as-Salah, under Abwab at-Tatawwu‘, Bab fi Salat an-Nahar (Indian Edition 1/183, Maktaba Dar as-Salam, Riyadh, Hadith No. 1296).
Ibn Majah recorded it in Sunan Ibn Majah, in Kitab Iqamat as-Salah, under Bab Salat al-Layl wa an-Nahar Mathna Mathna (Indian Edition 1/93-94, Maktaba Dar as-Salam, Riyadh, Hadith No. 1325).
(70) Al-Hakim recorded it in Al-Mustadrak, in Kitab al-Witr (Maktaba Nizar Mustafa, Makkah al-Mukarramah 2/441, Hadith No. 1140; Old Edition 1/304).
(71) An-Nasa’i recorded it in As-Sunan as-Sughra, in Kitab Qiyam al-Layl, under Bab Kayfa al-Witr bi-Thalath? (Indian Edition 1/191, Maktaba Dar as-Salam, Riyadh, Hadith No. 1699).
Al-Hakim recorded it in Al-Mustadrak, in Kitab al-Witr (Maktaba Nizar Mustafa, Makkah al-Mukarramah 2/440-441, Hadith No. 1139; Old Edition 1/304).
(72) Muhammad recorded it in Al-Muwatta’, in Kitab as-Salah, under Akhir Bab as-Salam fi al-Witr (Maktaba Zakariyya, Deoband, p. 151; Al-Maktaba al-‘Ilmiyyah, p. 96, Hadith No. 266).
(73) Ad-Daraqutni recorded it in Sunan ad-Daraqutni, in Kitab al-Witr, under Bab Ma Yuqra’ fi Rak‘at al-Witr (Maktaba Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut, 2/23, Hadith No. 1649; Maktaba Dar al-Ma‘rifah 2/32).
(74) Al-Hakim recorded it in Al-Mustadrak, in Kitab al-Witr (Maktaba Nizar Mustafa, Makkah al-Mukarramah 2/440-441, Hadith No. 1139; Old Edition 1/304).
(75) At-Tabarani recorded it in Al-Mu‘jam as-Saghir, in Bab al-Mim min Ismihi Muhammad (Maktaba Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut, p. 679, Hadith No. 999; Old Edition, Al-Matba‘ah al-Ansariyyah, Delhi, p. 206).
An-Nimawi mentioned it in At-Ta‘liq al-Hasan ‘ala Athar as-Sunan, in Kitab as-Salah, under Bab al-Witr bi-Thalath Rak‘at (Maktaba Madaniyyah, Deoband, p. 163, Hadith No. 612).
(76) Al-Bayhaqi recorded it in Ma‘rifat as-Sunan wa al-Athar, in Kitab as-Salah, under Bab al-Witr bi-Thalath Raka‘at Mawsulat bi-Tashahhudayn etc. (Maktaba Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut 2/320, Hadith No. 1400).
An-Nimawi mentioned it in At-Ta‘liq al-Hasan ‘ala Athar as-Sunan, in Kitab as-Salah, under Bab Man Qala Inna al-Witr bi-Thalath Innama Yusalli bi-Tashahhud Wahid (Maktaba Madaniyyah, Deoband, p. 167, Hadith No. 626).
(77) Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar mentioned it in Taqrib at-Tahdhib, in the biography of Shayban ibn Farukh al-Habti (Maktaba Dar al-‘Asimah, Riyadh, No. 441-442).
(78) An-Nasa’i recorded it in As-Sunan as-Sughra, in Kitab Qiyam al-Layl wa Tatawwu‘ an-Nahar, under Bab Kayfa al-Witr bi-Sab‘ (Indian Edition 1/193, Maktaba Dar as-Salam, Riyadh, Hadith No. 1719-1720).
(79) Ash-Shawkani mentioned it in Nayl al-Awtar, in Kitab as-Salah, under Bab al-Witr bi-Rak‘ah wa bi-Thalath etc. (Maktaba Dar al-Hadith, Cairo 3/44; Maktaba Bayt al-Afkar, p. 491, Hadith No. 926).
(80) Muslim recorded it in Sahih Muslim, in Kitab Salat al-Musafirin, under Bab Salat al-Layl wa ‘Adad Raka‘at etc. (Indian Edition 1/254, Maktaba Bayt al-Afkar, Hadith No. 737).
(81) Imam ash-Shafi‘i recorded it in Al-Umm, in Kitab as-Salah, under Bab Ma Ja’a fi al-Witr bi-Rak‘ah Wahidah (Maktaba Bayt al-Afkar, p. 104, Hadith No. 244).
(82) Muslim recorded it in Sahih Muslim, in Kitab Salat al-Musafirin, under Bab Salat al-Layl wa ‘Adad Raka‘at an-Nabi ﷺ (Indian Edition 1/256, Maktaba Bayt al-Afkar, Hadith No. 746).
(83) Abu Dawud recorded it in Sunan Abi Dawud, in Kitab as-Salah, under Bab fi Salat al-Layl (Indian Edition 1/190, Maktaba Dar as-Salam, Riyadh, Hadith No. 1343).
Refer also to Badhl al-Majhud, in Kitab as-Salah, under Bab fi Salat al-Layl (Al-Maktaba al-Yahyawiyyah, Saharanpur 2/293; Maktaba Dar al-Basha’ir al-Islamiyyah, Beirut 5/601, Hadith No. 1343).
(84) An-Nasa’i recorded it in As-Sunan as-Sughra, in Kitab Qiyam al-Layl, under Kayfa al-Witr bi-Tis‘ (Indian Edition 1/193, Maktaba Dar as-Salam, Riyadh, Hadith No. 1721).
(85) Refer to Badhl al-Majhud, in Kitab as-Salah, under Bab Salat al-Layl (Al-Maktaba al-Yahyawiyyah, Saharanpur 2/293; Maktaba Dar al-Basha’ir al-Islamiyyah, Beirut 5/601, Hadith No. 1346).
(86) Abu Dawud recorded it in Sunan Abi Dawud, in Kitab as-Salah, under Bab Salat al-Layl (Indian Edition 1/190, Maktaba Dar as-Salam, Riyadh, Hadith No. 1346).
(87) Abu Dawud recorded it in Sunan Abi Dawud, in Kitab as-Salah, under Bab Salat al-Layl (Indian Edition 1/190, Maktaba Dar as-Salam, Riyadh, Hadith No. 1346).
An-Nasa’i recorded it in As-Sunan as-Sughra, in Kitab Qiyam al-Layl, under Bab Qiyam al-Layl (Indian Edition 1/181, Maktaba Dar as-Salam, Riyadh, Hadith No. 1602).
(88) An-Nasa’i recorded it in As-Sunan as-Sughra, in Kitab Qiyam al-Layl, under Kayfa al-Witr bi-Tis‘ (Indian Edition 1/193, Maktaba Dar as-Salam, Riyadh, Hadith No. 1719).
(89) Muslim recorded it in Sahih Muslim, in Kitab as-Salah, under Bab Ma Yajma‘ Sifat as-Salah etc. (Indian Edition 1/194, Maktaba Bayt al-Afkar, Hadith No. 498).
(90) Abu Dawud recorded it in Sunan Abi Dawud, in Kitab as-Salah, under Bab Salat al-Layl Mathna Mathna (Indian Edition 1/187, Maktaba Dar as-Salam, Riyadh, Hadith No. 1326).
(91) Al-Hakim recorded it in Al-Mustadrak, in Kitab al-Witr (Maktaba Nizar Mustafa al-Baz 2/441, Hadith No. 1142).
(92) Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar mentioned it in Lisan al-Mizan, in Harf al-Ha’ (Maktaba Idarah al-Ta’lifat al-Ashrafiyyah 2/244, Hadith No. 1028).
(93) Al-Hakim recorded it in Al-Mustadrak, in Kitab al-Witr (Maktaba Nizar Mustafa al-Baz 2/441, Hadith No. 1142).
(94) Ibn Daqiq al-‘Id mentioned it in Ihkam al-Ahkam, under At-Tanafful bi-Rak‘ah Fardah (Maktaba as-Sunnah al-Muhammadiyyah 1/317).
(95) At-Tirmidhi recorded it in Jami‘ at-Tirmidhi, in Abwab as-Salah, under Bab Ma Ja’a fi at-Takhashshu‘ fi as-Salah (Indian Edition 1/87, Maktaba Dar as-Salam, Riyadh, Hadith No. 385).
(96) Refer to Al-Mustadrak by Al-Hakim, in Kitab at-Taharah (Maktaba Nizar Mustafa al-Baz 1/239, Hadith No. 569).
(97) Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar mentioned it in Tahdhib at-Tahdhib, in Harf al-‘Ayn (Maktaba Dar al-Fikr 5/504-505, Hadith No. 4640).
(98) Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar mentioned it in Tahdhib at-Tahdhib, in Harf al-‘Ayn (Maktaba Dar al-Fikr 6/233, Hadith No. 5333).
(99) Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned it in Minhaj as-Sunnah, edited by Muhammad Rashad Salim (Maktaba Jami‘at al-Imam Muhammad ibn Saud al-Islamiyyah 8/195-196).
(100) Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar mentioned it in Lisan al-Mizan, in Harf al-Alif (Maktaba Idarah al-Ta’lifat al-Ashrafiyyah, Multan 1/276, Hadith No. 836).
(101) As-Suyuti mentioned it in Husn al-Muhadharah, in Dhikr man Kana bi-Misr min Huffaz al-Hadith, edited by Muhammad Abu al-Fadl Ibrahim, (Maktaba Dar Ihya’ al-Kutub al-‘Arabiyyah, 1/350, No. 49).
(102) ‘Abd al-Hayy al-Lakhnawi mentioned it in Al-Fawa’id al-Bahiyyah, in Tarjamah Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Salamah at-Tahawi, (Maktaba Dar as-Sa‘adah, Misr, p. 34).
(103) Refer to Al-Maqasid al-Hasanah by As-Sakhawi, edited by Muhammad ‘Uthman al-Khasht, (Maktaba Dar al-Kitab al-‘Arabi, Beirut, p. 365, No. 519).
(104) Refer to Ad-Durar al-Kaminah by Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar, edited by Muhammad ‘Abd al-Ma‘id, (Maktaba Majlis Da’irat al-Ma‘arif, Hyderabad, India, 1/179).
(105) Refer to Siyar A‘lam an-Nubala’, (Maktaba Dar al-Hadith, Cairo, 1/101).
Also refer to Al-Alfiyyah by Al-‘Iraqi, in Aqsam al-Hadith, reviewed by Dr. ‘Abd al-Karim ibn ‘Abdullah, (Maktaba Dar al-Minhaj li-Nashr wa-Tawzi‘, Riyadh, p. 093).
(106) Refer to Muqaddimat Hashiyat Sunan an-Nasa’i as-Sughra, along with Sunan an-Nasa’i as-Sughra, in Al-Bab ar-Rabi‘ fi Tarjamat al-Mu’allif wa-Dhikr Sunanih, (Indian Edition, p. 21).
(107) Refer to Al-Binayah by Al-‘Ayni, in Kitab as-Salah, under Fasl fi al-Qira’ah, (Al-Maktaba al-Ashrafiyyah, Deoband, 2/316).
(108) Refer to Muqaddimat an-Nawawi ‘ala Sharhih with Sahih Muslim, (Indian Edition, 1/15-16), and in Al-Minhaj, (Maktaba Dar Ibn Hazm, p. 21-25).
Also refer to Muqaddimat Fath al-Bari, in Al-Fasl ath-Thani, (Maktaba Dar ar-Rayan, p. 10-13, Al-Maktaba al-Ashrafiyyah, Deoband, p. 8-13).
(109) Ash-Shawkani mentioned it in Nayl al-Awtar, in Kitab as-Salah, under Bab al-Witr bi-Rak‘ah wa bi-Thalath wa-Khams etc., (Maktaba Dar al-Hadith, Cairo, 3/36; Maktaba Bayt al-Afkar, p. 487, Hadith No. 917).
(110) Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar mentioned it in Lisan al-Mizan, in Harf al-‘Ayn, (Maktaba Idarah al-Ta’lifat al-Ashrafiyyah, Multan, 4/241, Hadith No. 648).
(111) Refer to Taqrib at-Tahdhib, in Harf al-Fa’, for Fadl ibn Dukayn, (Maktaba Dar al-‘Asimah, Riyadh, p. 782, Hadith No. 5436; Maktaba Ashrafiyyah, Deoband, p. 446, Hadith No. 5401).
Also, in Harf al-Qaf, for Qasim ibn Ma‘n, (Maktaba Dar al-‘Asimah, Riyadh, p. 795, Hadith No. 5532; Maktaba Ashrafiyyah, Deoband, p. 452, Hadith No. 5497).
Likewise, in Harf al-Ha’, for Husayn ibn ‘Abd ar-Rahman as-Sulami, (Maktaba Dar al-‘Asimah, Riyadh, p. 253, Hadith No. 1378; Maktaba Ashrafiyyah, Deoband, p. 170, Hadith No. 1369).
(112) Refer to Nayl al-Awtar by Ash-Shawkani, in Abwab Salat at-Tatawwu‘, under Bab al-Witr bi-Rak‘ah wa bi-Thalath wa-Khams etc., (Maktaba Dar al-Hadith, Cairo, 3/37; Maktaba Bayt al-Afkar, Riyadh, p. 487, Hadith No. 917).
(113) Muhammad recorded it in Al-Muwatta’, in Kitab as-Salah, under Bab as-Salam fi al-Witr, (Maktaba Zakariyya, Deoband, p. 150; Al-Maktaba al-‘Ilmiyyah, p. 96, Hadith No. 265).
(114) Refer to Nayl al-Awtar, in Abwab Salat at-Tatawwu‘, under Bab al-Witr bi-Rak‘ah wa bi-Thalath etc., (Maktaba Dar al-Hadith, Cairo, 3/37; Maktaba Bayt al-Afkar, Riyadh, p. 487, Hadith No. 917).
(115) Ibn at-Turkmani mentioned it in Al-Jawhar an-Naqi, in Hamish as-Sunan al-Kubra li’l-Bayhaqi, in Kitab as-Salah, under Bab al-Witr bi-Rak‘ah, (Old Edition, 3/27).
(116) See Mīzān al-Iʿtidāl by al-Dhahabī, Letter ʿAyn, in the biography of ʿUthmān ibn Muḥammad ibn Rabīʿah, Maktaba Dār al-Maʿrifah Beirut, edited by ʿAlī Muḥammad al-Bajāwī, 3/53, Hadith No. 5560.
(117) Also, see Bayān al-Wahm wa al-Iyhām fī Kitāb al-Aḥkām by Ibn al-Qaṭṭān, Section Two: On the Imām, Chapter: Mentioning Hadiths That He Weakened Due to Their Narrators, Even Though They Are Similar, etc., Maktaba Dār Ṭayyibah Riyadh, edited by al-Ḥusayn Āyat Saʿīd, 3/154, before Hadith No. 864.
(118) Tadhkirat al-Ḥuffāẓ by al-Dhahabī, 11th Generation, Biography of al-ʿUqaylī, the Ḥadīth Master and Imām Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad ibn ʿAmr, Maktaba Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah Beirut 3/36, Hadith No. 814.
(119) See Tadhkirat al-Ḥuffāẓ, 17th Generation, Biography of ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, and also 18th Generation, Biography of Ibn al-Qaṭṭān, Maktaba Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah Beirut 4/97-134, Hadith Nos. 1100-1130.
(120) Lisān al-Mīzān, Letter ʿAyn, in the biography of ʿUthmān ibn Muḥammad ibn Rabīʿah, Maktaba Idārat Taʾlīfāt Ashrafiyyah Multan 4/153, Hadith No. 357.
(121) Mentioned by al-Suyūṭī in Tazyīn al-Mamālik bi-Manāqib al-Imām Mālik, Chapter on Those Who Narrated from Him Among the Notables and Ḥadīth Masters, Maktaba Dār al-Rashād al-Ḥadīthah, Casablanca, Morocco, p. 69.
(122) Cited by al-Shawkānī in Nayl al-Awṭār, Chapters on Supererogatory Prayers, Chapter: Witr with One Rakʿah, etc., Maktaba Bayt al-Afkār Riyadh, p. 487, Hadith No. 917, and also mentioned in the main text as Hadith No. 1688.
(123) Narrated by al-Ṭabarānī in al-Kabīr, Maktaba Dār Iḥyāʾ al-Turāth al-ʿArabī 9/283, Hadith No. 9422, and previously mentioned in the main text as Hadith No. 1684.
(124) Narrated by al-Ṭaḥāwī in Sharḥ Maʿānī al-Āthār, Book of Prayer, Chapter on Witr, Maktaba Zakariyya Deoband 1/197, Maktaba Āṣifiyyah Delhi 1/165, Maktaba Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah Beirut 1/363, Hadith No. 1629.
(125) Narrated by al-Bayhaqī in al-Sunan al-Kubrā, Chapters on Supererogatory Prayers, Chapter: Witr with One Rakʿah, etc., Maktaba Dār al-Fikr Beirut 4/118, Hadith No. 4896.
(126) Narrated by al-Bukhārī in Ṣaḥīḥ, Book of Witr, Chapter: What Has Been Reported About Witr, Indian edition 1/135, Hadith No. 981, Page 991.
(127) Stated by al-Ṭaḥāwī in Sharḥ Maʿānī al-Āthār, Book of Prayer, Chapter on Witr, Maktaba Zakariyya Deoband 1/207, Maktaba Āṣifiyyah Delhi 1/174, Maktaba Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah Beirut 1/384, Hadith No. 1713.
(128) Narrated by al-Ṭaḥāwī in Sharḥ Maʿānī al-Āthār, Book of Prayer, Chapter on Witr, Maktaba Zakariyya Deoband 1/197, Maktaba Āṣifiyyah Delhi 1/164, Maktaba Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah Beirut 1/361, Hadith No. 1624.
(129) Narrated by al-Ḥākim in al-Mustadrak, from ʿĀʾishah (رضي الله عنها), Book of Witr, Maktaba Nizār Muṣṭafā Makkah al-Mukarramah 2/441, Hadith No. 1140, and Indian edition 1/304.
(130) Narrated by al-Bukhārī in Ṣaḥīḥ, Book of Witr, Chapter: What Has Been Reported About Witr, Indian edition 1/135, Hadith No. 980, Page 990.
(131) Stated by al-Ḥāfiẓ in Fatḥ al-Bārī, Book of Witr, Chapter: What Has Been Reported About Witr, under the statement: He prayed one Rakʿah, Maktaba Ashrafiyyah Deoband 2/610, Maktaba Dār al-Rayyān lil-Turāth al-ʿArabī 2/558, Hadith No. 980, Page 990.
(132) Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb, Letter Mīm, in the biography of Muḥammad ibn Ibrāhīm ibn Muslim, Maktaba Dār al-Fikr Beirut 7/15, Hadith No. 5901.
(133) Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb, Letter ʿAyn, in the biography of ʿAbd al-Wahhāb ibn ʿAṭāʾ, Maktaba Dār al-ʿĀṣimah Riyadh, p. 633, Hadith No. 4290, and Maktaba Ashrafiyyah Deoband, p. 368, Hadith No. 4262.
(134) Narrated by al-Ṭaḥāwī in Sharḥ Maʿānī al-Āthār, Book of Prayer, Chapter on Witr, Maktaba Zakariyya Deoband 1/207, Maktaba Āṣifiyyah Delhi 1/174, Maktaba Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah Beirut 1/384, Hadith No. 1712.
(135) Stated by al-Ṭaḥāwī in Sharḥ Maʿānī al-Āthār, Book of Prayer, Chapter on Witr, Maktaba Zakariyya Deoband 1/207, Maktaba Āṣifiyyah Delhi 1/174, Maktaba Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah Beirut 1/384, Hadith No. 1713.
(136) Narrated by al-Ṭaḥāwī in Sharḥ Maʿānī al-Āthār, Book of Prayer, Chapter on Witr, Maktaba Zakariyya Deoband 1/206, Maktaba Āṣifiyyah Delhi 1/174, Maktaba Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah Beirut 1/383, Hadith No. 1708.
(137) Stated by al-Ṭaḥāwī in Sharḥ Maʿānī al-Āthār, Book of Prayer, Chapter on Witr, Maktaba Zakariyya Deoband 1/206, Maktaba Āṣifiyyah Delhi 1/174, Maktaba Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah Beirut 1/384, Hadith No. 1708.