for the abrogation of qunūt in Maghrib while establishing the continued validity of qunūt in Fajr.

If you say, “Qunūt in Maghrib was performed in response to calamities, not as a regular practice,” your opponents among the hadith scholars will reply: “Yes, that is so, and exactly the same applies to qunūt in Fajr. What is the difference?” They say: “The evidence that qunūt in Fajr was performed in response to a calamity, rather than as a regular practice, is that Anas himself reported this. Your principal authority for regular qunūt is none other than Anas, yet Anas reported that it was qunūt in response to a calamity and that the Prophet subsequently discontinued it.” In the two Sahīh collections (1), Anas is reported to have said: “The Messenger of Allah—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—performed qunūt for a month, supplicating against certain tribes (2) among the Arabs, then discontinued it.”

Second: Shabābah narrated from Qays ibn al-Rabī‘, from ‘Āsim ibn Sulaymān, who said: “We said to Anas ibn Mālik, ‘Some people claim that the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—continued to perform qunūt in Fajr.’ He replied: ‘They are lying. The Messenger of Allah—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—performed qunūt for only one month, supplicating against a tribe (3) among the polytheists.’” (4)

Although Yahyā judged Qays ibn al-Rabī‘ to be weak, others declared him trustworthy, and he is no less reliable than Abū Ja‘far al-Rāzī. How, then, can Abū Ja‘far be accepted as an authority for his statement, “He continued to perform qunūt until he departed this world,” while Qays is not accepted as an authority for this hadith, when he is more trustworthy than Abū Ja‘far, or at least equally so? Moreover, those who judged Abū Ja‘far to be weak are more numerous than those who judged Qays to be weak. The assessment of Qays as weak is known only from Yahyā, who stated his reason for it. Ahmad ibn Sa‘īd ibn Abī Maryam said: “I asked Yahyā about Qays ibn al-Rabī‘, and he replied: ‘Weak; one should not