first: his claim of opposition to the Quran and the ḥadīth by placing half of the prayer, and the invalidity of this opposition has already been explained, showing that it is in agreement with them, so there is no need to repeat it. second: his claim of opposition also to his five ḥadīths, which are known to have weak and rejected isnāds, opposing the authentic ḥadīths, including the ḥadīth of the translation. Therefore, no one has authenticated them! third: it is possible that the two rakʿahs were legislated when fifty prayers were enjoined upon him (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) on the night of the Isrāʾ, then they were reduced to five, and completed as four by four! This is a rational assumption—and from his own mind!—which suffices to narrate without refutation due to its opposition to authentic texts. fourth: due to the continuous transmission of the explanation of its rakʿahs from Jibrīl on the morning of the night of the Isrāʾ! This is a lie and slander that no Muslim before him has said, and it is a repetition of the second opposition. What is continuously transmitted is only the prayer of Jibrīl (peace be upon him) with the Prophet (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) without the explanation of the rakʿahs. Rather, if it were said that what is continuously transmitted is that it was enjoined as two rakʿahs by two rakʿahs, it would not be far from the truth, as the ummah has accepted its ḥadīth, as mentioned earlier. In summary, the man is obsessed with opposing the scholars due to his poor understanding, which makes him perceive the authentic as weak and the weak as authentic. Among what he also weakened from the authentic ḥadīth is the earlier ḥadīth of ʿUmar (p. 748): "The prayer of travel... two rakʿahs complete without shortening... on the tongue of your Prophet" (p. 23) and the ḥadīth of Ibn ʿAbbās: "Indeed, Allāh enjoined the prayer on the tongue of your Prophet for the traveler as two rakʿahs..." He also judged it as anomalous! (pp. 22-23). And from his malice and deceit with his readers is that these authentic ḥadīths, which he weakens, he does not present so that the readers do not realize they are authentic and thus at least doubt his weakening of them! The ḥadīth of Ibn ʿAbbās was narrated by Muslim, Abū ʿAwānah, Ibn Khuzaymah, and Ibn Ḥibbān in
أولا: مخالفته بزعمه للقرآن وحديث وضع شطر الصلاة، وقد سبق بيان بطلان هذه المخالفة، وأنه موافق لهما، فلا داعي للإعادة. ثانيا: أنه مخالف بزعمه أيضا لأحاديثه الخمسة، وقد عرفت أنها ضعيفة الأسانيد منكرة مخالفة للأحاديث الصحيحة، ومنها حديث الترجمة. ولذلك لم يصححها أحد! ثالثا: أنه يجوز أن يكون شرعت الركعتان حين فرض عليه ﷺ ليلة الإسراء خمسون صلاة، ثم خففت إلى خمس وكملها أربعا أربعا! وهذا تجويز عقلي - ومن عقله هو! - يغني حكايته عن رده لمعارضته للنصوص الصحيحة. رابعا: لما تواتر من بيان ركعاتها من جبريل صبيحة ليلة الإسراء! وهذا كذب وزور لم يقله أيضا مسلم قبله، وهو تكرار للمخالفة الثانية. والمتواتر إنما هو صلاة جبريل ﵇ بالنبي ﷺ دون بيان الركعات. بل لو قيل بأن المتواتر أنها فرضت ركعتين ركعتين لما كان بعيدا عن الصواب، لتلقي الأمة لحديثها بالقبول كما تقدم آنفا. وبالجملة فالرجل مغرم بالمخالفة للعلماء بسوء فهمه الذي يصور له الصحيح ضعيفا والضعيف صحيحا، ومما ضعفه أيضا من الحديث الصحيح حديث عمر المتقدم (ص ٧٤٨): "صلاة السفر.. ركعتان تمام غير قصر.. على لسان نبيكم" (ص ٢٣) وحديث ابن عباس: "إن الله فرض الصلاة على لسان نبيكم على المسافر ركعتين..". حكم عليه أيضا بالشذوذ! (ص ٢٢ - ٢٣). وإن من خبثه ومكره بقرائه، أن هذه الأحاديث الصحيحة والتي هو يضعفها، لا يخرجها حتى لا يتنبه القراء أنها صحيحة فيشكون على الأقل بتضعيفه إياها! فحديث ابن عباس رواه مسلم وأبو عوانة وابن خزيمة وابن حبان في