and that he transmits fabricated material, such as the narration, “No community ever perishes except in Ādhār, and the Hour will not be established except in Ādhār,” and that his report on the tarāwīḥ prayer is one of his peculiar inventions.

Al-Subkī has explicitly stated that the only time a weak ḥadīth may be acted upon is when its weakness is not severe.

Al-Dhahabī said, “When someone like Shuʿbah declares a man a liar, his ḥadīths are not to be considered.”

I say: In what al-Haytamī cites from al-Subkī there is a subtle hint that he himself does not endorse the practice of twenty rakʿahs; reflect on this.

After mentioning the ḥadīth of Jābir as transmitted by Ibn Ḥibbān, al-Suyūṭī went on to say:

“In short, the twenty-rakʿah practice is not established as something the Prophet ﷺ actually did. The report in Ibn Ḥibbān’s Ṣaḥīḥ only corroborates the position we have adopted, namely, holding fast to what al-Bukhārī narrated from ʿĀʾishah—that he ﷺ never exceeded eleven rakʿahs in Ramadan or at any other time. Further proof of this is that whenever the Prophet ﷺ performed an act of worship he maintained it without fail, just as he continued to pray the two rakʿahs he made up after ʿAṣr even though prayer at that time is ordinarily forbidden. Had he ever prayed twenty rakʿahs, even once, he would never have abandoned them; and had it happened, it could not have escaped ʿĀʾishah’s notice, after what she has already related.” ⦗23⦘

I say: These words strongly indicate that he chose eleven rakʿahs and rejected the twenty mentioned in the ḥadīth of Ibn ʿAbbās because of its extreme weakness; ponder this. ⦗24⦘

3 – The Prophet’s ﷺ restricting himself to eleven rakʿahs is proof that it is impermissible to add to that number.

From what has preceded it is clear that the number of rakʿahs for the night vigil (qiyām al-layl) is eleven, by an authentic textual proof taken from the practice of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. Careful reflection shows that he maintained this number throughout his life, without increasing it, whether in Ramadan or at any other time. Once we bear in mind that in the regular sunnahs and in other prayers—such as the rain prayer and the eclipse prayer—the Prophet ﷺ also fixed a specific number of rakʿahs, and that the scholars universally regard his adherence to that number as proof that it may not be exceeded, the same must apply to the tarāwīḥ prayer. It likewise may not be increased beyond the legislated number, for it shares with those other prayers his ﷺ commitment to a set number. ⦗26⦘

He never went beyond it; whoever claims otherwise must furnish proof—something as difficult as stripping thorns from dry wood.

Tarāwīḥ is not an unrestricted supererogatory prayer in which the worshipper may choose any number he likes; rather, it is an emphatic sunnah that resembles the obligatory prayers inasmuch as it is legislated in congregation, as the Shāfiʿīs have said. From this angle it is even more deserving than the regular sunnahs of being kept to its reported form. For that very reason they forbade combining four rakʿahs of tarāwīḥ in a single salutation, thinking that such a form is unattested, and they argued, “Tarāwīḥ resembles the obligatory prayer because congregational performance is sought for it; therefore it must not be altered from what has been transmitted.”

Consider how they prohibited linking one pair of rakʿahs to another—though each pair is itself reported—because, in their view, joining them would alter the transmitted form of separation. ⦗27⦘

Do we not then have an even stronger case, on the very same grounds, to forbid the addition of ten rakʿahs that have absolutely no basis in authentic Sunnah? Indeed, we do—this case is, if anything, more compelling. Will no one take heed?

Even if we were to regard tarāwīḥ as an unfettered voluntary prayer for which the Lawgiver set no specific number, we would still not be permitted to bind ourselves to a fixed figure that we never exceed, because the principles of ʾuṣūl establish that it is impermissible to commit to a description in any act of worship that has not come from him ﷺ.

Shaykh Mullā Aḥmad Rūmī al-Ḥanafī, the author of Majālis al-Abrār, summarises the matter as follows:

“The fact that an act was not done in the earliest generation can be due only to one of six reasons: either there was no need for it, a preventing factor existed, lack of awareness, indolence, dislike, or its being unlawful. The first two are ruled out with respect to purely bodily acts of worship, for the need to draw near to Allah never ceases, and after the advent of Islam nothing hindered that. One cannot think the Prophet ﷺ unaware of the matter or too lazy to perform it—that would be an odious supposition leading to disbelief. Nothing remains, therefore, but that the act is blameworthy and unlawful. The same applies to anyone who introduces, into purely bodily acts of worship, a feature that did not exist in the time of the Companions. If introducing such a feature rendered the act a ‘good innovation,’ there would be no reprehensible innovation in worship; yet the jurists have classed the Raghaʾib prayer and congregating for it, melodious intonations in sermons, in the adhān, and in Qurʾān recitation during bowing, chanting dhikr aloud before a bier, and similar practices among the condemned innovations. If someone claims they are good, we reply: Whatever the legal proofs establish as good is no longer an innovation, and the universal wording of the ḥadīth, ‘Every innovation is misguidance,’ and, ‘Whoever introduces into our affair something that does not belong to it, it is rejected,’ remains as it is. The general rule is only restricted by explicit evidence, and a restricted general text is still proof in what lies outside the restriction. Whoever alleges another restriction for a newly introduced practice must provide evidence—Qurʾān, Sunnah, or a consensus confined to the qualified scholars; popular custom and the practice of most lands are of no concern. Whoever invents, as a means of drawing near to Allah, a word or deed has legislated in the religion what Allah has not allowed. It is therefore clear that every innovation in purely bodily acts of worship is nothing but blameworthy.” ⦗28⦘

Suspicions and their answers:

Now that we understand from this text that it is impermissible to add to the established number, it remains to complete the benefit by presenting a few of the objections that some people may raise concerning