Is the fact that the Witr prayer was not reported from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) as having been prayed in Muzdalifah, despite the general principle that he did not leave it behind during travel?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : The fact that the Witr prayer was not reported, O Shaykh, in Muzdalifah, does this count as evidence for not praying the Witr? Considering we have the general principle that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not leave it behind during travel?
The Shaykh : Yes, it appears that this is a specific journey that does not fall under the general principle I mentioned earlier. Because we believe, without a doubt, that the narrator reported the event in its entirety. If he had seen the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) pray anything after the obligatory prayer, he would have reported it. Therefore, it is not correct to say that the lack of a report is not considered evidence, because that would even be a distant indication that the narrator did not properly convey the incident. We all know that they reported things that were not necessary to report, such as setting up the camp between the two prayers. What is the value of mentioning the setting up of the camp compared to the value of mentioning whether the Messenger (peace be upon him) prayed the Witr after the Isha prayer? There is nothing, and no comparison between the two. However, their narration of the story with this precision, including their mention of setting up the camp and their failure to mention that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) prayed the Witr prayer, which was his habit to pray whether traveling or resident, is not due to negligence, but rather because it did not occur. If it had occurred, it would have been reported. Yes.
The questioner : O Shaykh, it does not fall under that category!
Another questioner : The Fajr prayer, O Shaykh. Are the two rak'ahs of Fajr like the Witr?
The Shaykh : Their ruling is the same, both in affirmation and negation.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : I hope you do not distribute the hadith.
The Shaykh : Yes, it appears that this is a specific journey that does not fall under the general principle I mentioned earlier. Because we believe, without a doubt, that the narrator reported the event in its entirety. If he had seen the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) pray anything after the obligatory prayer, he would have reported it. Therefore, it is not correct to say that the lack of a report is not considered evidence, because that would even be a distant indication that the narrator did not properly convey the incident. We all know that they reported things that were not necessary to report, such as setting up the camp between the two prayers. What is the value of mentioning the setting up of the camp compared to the value of mentioning whether the Messenger (peace be upon him) prayed the Witr after the Isha prayer? There is nothing, and no comparison between the two. However, their narration of the story with this precision, including their mention of setting up the camp and their failure to mention that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) prayed the Witr prayer, which was his habit to pray whether traveling or resident, is not due to negligence, but rather because it did not occur. If it had occurred, it would have been reported. Yes.
The questioner : O Shaykh, it does not fall under that category!
Another questioner : The Fajr prayer, O Shaykh. Are the two rak'ahs of Fajr like the Witr?
The Shaykh : Their ruling is the same, both in affirmation and negation.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : I hope you do not distribute the hadith.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.