بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Report 1) Ibn ‘Abbās narrated: “Allāhs messenger (ﷺ) used to pray in ramadān twenty rak’ah and witr“.

Ibn Hajr said: this has a weak isnād, furthermore it contradicts the hadīth of ‘Āishah in the two Sahīhs (Muslim and Bukhārī). And she is more knowledgeable of the prophets (ﷺ) condition at night than anyone else.

Al-Albānī said: the hadīth of Ibn ‘Abbās is very weak, as stated by as-Suyūtī in al-hāwī al-fatāwī (2:73), and his reason is that it includes Abū Shaybah Ibrāhīm bin ‘Uthmān, whose narrations are rejected, as stated by Ibn Hajr in al-Taqrīb; “abandoned in hadīth“. Ibn Hajr Al-Haythamī said: “this hadīth is extremely weak, the imāms have been severe in criticising and condemning one of its narrators – he narrated fabricated hadīths such as ‘no nation was destroyed except in March’…” (al-Fatāwā al-Kubrā 1:195)

All the narrations of this hadīth include this narrator in their isnād, as al-Bayhaqī said: ‘This is solely reported by Abū Shaybah; and he is weak”. Al-Haythamī also said that he is weak in al-Mujma’ 3:172. Ibn Ma’īn said: “He is not trustworthy”.

As-Suyūtī said: “We conclude that praying twenty rak’ah was not proven to be done by the prophet (ﷺ)”.

Report 2) Abdul-Razzāqs report from Muhammad bin Yūsuf: “Umar commanded the people to pray twenty-one rak’ah“.

This wording is incorrect for two reasons:

A) It contradicts the authentic report of ‘Umar commanding the people to pray 11 rak’ah. [Muhammad bin Yūsuf narrated that as- Sā’ib ibn Yazīd said, “Umar ibn al-Khattab ordered Ubayy ibn Ka’b and Tamīm ad-Dārī to lead the people in Qiyām with eleven rak’ah. Collected by Imām Mālik in his Muwatta, Ibn Abī Shaybah and others]

B) Abdul-Razzāq is the only narrator with this wording.

Abdul-Razzāq is defective because he became blind towards the end of his life, making his reporting faulty. This was mentioned by Ibn Hajr in al-Taqrīb. An-Nasā’ī said: “the reports from him are questionable – for those who reported from him towards the end of his life”.

Ibn as-Salāh said: “The ruling in regard to those who get confused in their reporting is that: reports are acceptable from narrators who reported from them before confusion ; and they are rejected from those who narrated after confusion, or at a tine that is not known whether before or after”.

This report of Abdul-Razzāq is of the third type (it is not known whether he reported it before or after the confusion), so it cannot be accepted.

Report 3) Ibn Khusayfahs report: “They used to stand in prayer in Ramadān during the time of ‘Umar with twenty rak’ah, they used to read hundreds of ayāt, and they would lean on their canes during the time of’ Uthmān because of the long duration of the prayer“.

This report is the main evidence for those who claim that it is permissible to pray twenty rak’ah. However, it has several elements of weakness, making it defective and rejected:

A) Ibn Khusayfah (reporter of the hadīth) is munkar in reporting as indicated by Imām Ahmad. Thus, al-Dhahabī included him in al-Mizān (the list of narrators criticised by the scholars of hadīth). Ibn Khusayfah sometimes reports things that are not reported by more trustworthy narrators – this current report is of this type.

B) Ibn Khusayfah is inconsistent in the number that he reported; in one narration he mentions “I think that as-Sā’ib said,” Twenty-one”.

His statement ‘twenty-one‘ in this narration differs from ‘twenty’ in the previous one. Also Ibn Khusayfah saying ‘I think’ indicates an inconsistency in reporting the number and that he did not memorise it properly. This alone is sufficient to reject this report – particularly when we know that it contradicts with that of one who is more reliable than himself.

Report 4) Ibn Abū Thubāb reported: “Qiyām during the time of ‘Umar was twenty-three rak’ah“.

The isnād of this report is weak because of Ibn Abī Thubābs poor memory. Ibn Abī Hātim said: My father said ad-Dārawardī reported rejected hadīths from Abū Thubāb; he is not strong; he records hadīths from less trusted narrators.

Mālik would not accept this report as mentioned by Ibn Hajr; who also said: “He is truthful but faulty”.

One cannot accept such a reporters narration because of his likely errors, especially in the current report, which conflicts with that of trustworthy and precise reporter, namely Muhammad bin Yūsuf who reported “Eleven rak’ah“.

Furthermore the status of the other narrators in the isnād of this report is unknown because Ibn Abdul-Barr’s book (who collected the hadīth) is not accessible for us to see the isnād and check the narrators.

Report 5) Yazīd bin Rūmān reported: “the people stood in Qiyām during the time of ‘Umar with twenty-three rak’ah“.

In al-Ma’rifah, al-Bayhaqī indicated the weakness of this report by saying : “Yazīd bin Rūmān did not encounter ‘Umar”. This was also said by al-Nawawī in al-Majmū. Al-‘ Aynī said: “it’s isnād is disconnected”.

Thus this report is weak because of the disconnection between Yazīd and ‘Umar, and is not taken as evidence. Especially since it contradicts with the authentic reports from ‘Umar that he commanded the people to pray eleven rak’ah.

Report 6) Yahyā bin Sa’īd reported: “Umar bin al-Khattāb commanded a man to lead the people in prayer with twenty rak’ah“.

The isnād of this report is disconnected.

The great scholar al-Mubārakfūrī said: “An-Nīmawī said in Āthar as-Sunan, ‘it’s narrators are trustworthy, but Yahyā bin Sa’īd al-Ansārī did not encounter ‘Umar.’ This is true, and this report is disconnected, and may not be taken as evidence. In addition, it conflicts with what was reported with authentic isnād that ‘Umar commanded Ubayy bin Ka’b and Tamīm al-Dārī to lead the people with eleven rak’ah. It also conflicts with what is confirmed from Allāhs messenger (ﷺ) with authentic isnād. (Tuhfat al-Ahwadhī 2:85)

Report 7) Abū al-Hasnā reported : “Alī commanded a man to lead them in ramadān with twenty rak’ah“.

Al-Bayhaqī said: “The isnād of this report is weak”.

It’s weakness comes from Abū al-Hasnā, whom al-Dhahabī said: “He is not known”.

Ibn Hajr said : “He is not known to the scholars”.

Another problem in this report is that there are two narrators missing between Abū Al-Hasnā and ‘Alī.

Report 8) Hammād bin Shu’ayb reported fron Atā bin As-Sā’ib from Abdurrahmān as-Sulamī : “Alī summoned the reciters in Ramadān and commanded one of them to lead the people with twenty rak’ah. Alī would then lead them in witr“.

This report is weak for three reasons:

A) Atā bin As-Sā’ib reports became inconsistent due to old age – when Hammād bin Shu’ayb narrated from him.

B) Hammād bin Shu’ayb is very weak, as al-Bukhārī indicated “His reports are rejected”. Al-Bukhārī does not make such statements except for those whose reports must totally be avoided. Thus this report isn’t taken as a witness of evidence.

C) Muhammad bin Fudayl who is a trustworthy narrator differed with Hammād in reporting this. Ibn Abī Shaybah narrated the same report from Atā, in an abbreviated form, saying “Alī lead them in Qiyām prayer of ramadān”. This report doesn’t mention the number of rak’ah. Since Muhammad bin Fudayl is trustworthy, and did not report the same as Ibn Shu’ayb, the latter’s report is considered weak according to the rules of hadīth specialists.

Report 9) Abdul-‘Azīz bin Rafī reported: “Ubayy bin Ka’b led the people in al-Madīnah in the Qiyām of ramadān with twenty rak’ah followed by three witr“.

The isnād of this report is disconnected between Abdul-Azīz bin Rafī and Ubayy bin Ka’b, the time difference between their deaths being about a hundred years or more.

The great Indian scholar An-Nīmawī said: “‘Abdul-Azīz bin Rafī did not meet Ubayy bin Ka’b”.

Al-Mubārakfūrī said: ‘This report from Ubayy is disconnected, furthermore it contradicts with what has been confirmed from Umar that he commanded Ubayy bin Ka’b and Tamīm ad-Dārī to lead the people with eleven rak’ah. It also conflicts with what has been confirmed from Ubayy that he led some women at his house in Qiyām of ramadān with eight rak’ah and witr [1]’.

[1] This narration is the following: Abū Ya’lā reported from the hadīth of Jābir, that Ubayy bin Ka’b said to Allāhs messenger (ﷺ), ‘I have done something last night in ramadān.’ He (ﷺ) replied: ‘What is it, Ubayy?’. He said, ‘Some of the women in my house told me, “we cannot read Qur’ān so can you lead us in the prayer?” So I led them with eight rak’ah followed by witr’. The prophet (ﷺ) did not say anything which made it an approved sunnah. Al-Haythamī said: “It’s isnād is hasan”.

Report 10) Abū Ja’far al-Rāzī reported from al-Rabī’ bin Anas, from Abū ‘Āliyah, from Ubayy bin Ka’b: that Umar commanded him to lead the people in the Qiyām of ramadān saying ‘The people fast during the day and are unable to recite Qur’ān well; so will you recite the Qur’ān for them at night? ‘ He replied,’ O commander of the believers! This thing has not been done before!’ Umar said,’ I know but it is better.’ So he led them with twenty rak’ah.

The isnād of this report is weak. Abū Ja’far al-Rāzīs name is Īsā bin Abī Īsā bin Māhān. Abu Zar’ah said: “He makes frequent mistakes”. Ibn al-Qayyim said: “He is known for his munkar reports. None at all among the scholars of hadīth would accept his lone reports”.

This also contradicts the previous authentic report of Umar commanding Ubayy bin Ka’b to lead the people with eleven rak’ah.

Another problem with this report is Ubayy said, ‘this thing has not been done before‘. One cannot imagine Ubayy saying this, nor Umar agreeing to it, when this was the practise of the prophet (ﷺ) that both of them must have witnessed or known.

Report 11) Zayd bin Wahab reported:  “‘Abdullāh bin Mas’ūd would lead us in the prayer during ramadān, finishing the prayer while there was still some part of the night”. Al-A’mash added: “He prayed twenty rak’ah and three witr“.

Al-Mubārakfūrī said regarding this report: This is also disconnected because Al-A’mash did not encounter Ibn Mas’ūd.

(All the above has been taken and summarised from Kitāb Qiyām al-Layl of Al-Albānī, compiled by Muhammad Al-Jibaly, edition 2)