Abū Naḍrah al-ʿAwfī reported that Abū Saʿīd told them that they had once asked the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—about the Witr, and he replied: “The Witr is before dawn.”
The jurists subsequently differed over whether it may be offered after the break of dawn. Some prohibited it completely, while others allowed it so long as the Dawn Prayer had not yet been performed.
Those who upheld the first view include Abū Yūsuf and Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan—the two foremost students of Abū Ḥanīfah—as well as Sufyān al-Thawrī. The second view is held by al-Shāfiʿī, Mālik, and Aḥmad.
The root of their disagreement is the seeming clash between the Companions’ practice and the transmitted texts. On its face, the textual evidence indicates that praying Witr after dawn is impermissible, such as the ḥadīth of Abū Naḍrah just cited and the report of Abū Ḥudhayfah al-ʿAdawī, recorded by Abū Dāwūd, in which the Prophet said:
“He has set its time for you between the ʿIshāʾ Prayer and the rising of dawn.”
All scholars of legal theory agree that whatever comes after the word “until” (ilā) is the opposite of what precedes it when the word denotes a limit. Although this involves what is called dalīl al-khiṭāb, it is a category unanimously accepted, like His words: “Then complete the fast until nightfall” (Qurʾān 2:187) and “wash … up to the elbows” (Qurʾān 5:6). The jurists concur that what lies beyond the limit differs from what lies within it.
As for the contrary practice, it is related that Ibn Masʿūd, Ibn ʿAbbās, ʿUbādah ibn al-Ṣāmit, Ḥudhayfah, Abū al-Dardāʾ, and ʿĀʾishah used to pray Witr after daybreak yet before the Dawn Prayer, and no opposing report from any other Companion is known. Some have claimed that this amounts to consensus, but the claim is meaningless, for a statement cannot be ascribed to one who remained silent; in other words, consensus cannot be alleged when the views of others are unknown.
Indeed, with respect to this issue, how can one say that no disagreement among the Companions has been transmitted when the starkest disagreement is precisely that between the very Companions who narrated these ḥadīths and those who deemed Witr after dawn permissible?
In my estimation, their conduct does not conflict with the transmitted texts permitting Witr after dawn; rather, their allowance belongs to the realm of making up a missed prayer (qaḍāʾ), not to performing it within its appointed time (adāʾ). Only had they regarded Witr after dawn as being within its time would their opinion clash with the reports—reflect on this.
Thus, the real point of contention concerns whether making up a time-bound act of worship requires a fresh command distinct from the original command to perform it on time. This interpretation better fits their case, for most of what is transmitted about them is that they were seen making up the Witr before the obligatory prayer yet after dawn. Even if the statement reported from Ibn Masʿūd—namely, that the time for Witr lasts from after the final ʿIshāʾ Prayer until the Dawn Prayer—is taken as a direct assertion, it is not