The following article entitled The Ruling of the Jumu‘ah Prayer on the Day of ‘Īd in Light of Textual Evidence is specific to any Eid day which falls on a Friday. The article was written some years back as may be deciphered from the preface.
As the day of ‘Īd draws near, the exuberance and joy of Muslims becomes increasingly manifest. After devoting an entire month to fasting, worshiping, and other religious obligations, a believer embraces the joyous occasion of ‘Īd al-Fitr spiritually uplifted and reformed. It is with immense grief, however, that during such blessed days we witness reoccurring episodes of futile quarreling in many Masjids, thus stripping the atmosphere of the unity greatly needed in our times. What makes the matter more disheartening is that these arguments too often ensue regarding issues wherein there exists a legitimate scope for differences in Islāmic jurisprudence. A common example, which by now has become somewhat of a cliché, is the issue of moon-sighting, or more sardonically put, “moon-fighting.”
With the possibility of ‘Īd al-Fitr happening this year on the blessed day of Jumu‘ah, there comes along an important question in respect to Islāmic jurisprudence: will a person be absolved from performing the Jumu‘ah prayer due to performing the ‘Īd prayer? As was witnessed on numerous occasions, issues of such a nature serve as a pretext for the unlearned to quarrel and exhibit their intolerance and ignorance.
The excerpt before you is a section from I‘lā al-Sunan of the great Hadīth scholar Mawlānā Zafar Ahmad al-‘Uthmānī pertaining to the issue at hand. The author discusses the various evidences on the subject while cogently substantiating the view of the majority (that is, the view of three of the four schools of Islāmic law and even the view of the Literalist school ) that one is not exempted from performing the Jumu‘ah prayer by virtue of performing the ‘Īd prayer. Nevertheless, according to Imām Ahmad, one will be exempted and therefore the matter will stand as expressed by ‘Allāmah Zāhid al-Kawtharī:
Thus, the follower of evidence is not allowed to depart from restricting the dispensation (of not praying Jumu‘ah due to the ‘Īd prayer) to the people of the village… However, a Hanbalī muqallid is excused for following what is documented in the books of his madhhab, even though the issue may be weak in terms of evidence, as is the ruling for anyone who adheres to the followed Imāms. 
In order to make the article more reader friendly, an idiomatic translation was adopted in several places. Select passages from an article on the subject by ‘Allāmah Zāhid al-Kawtharī were added in the footnotes. These passages and the translator’s footnotes were placed in square brackets.
The Ruling of the Jumu‘ah Prayer on the Day of ‘Īd in Light of Textual Evidence
By Mawlānā Zafar Ahmad al-‘Uthmānī
Translated by Muntasir Zaman
- It is narrated from Ibn Shihāb that Abū ‘Ubayd, the freed slave of Ibn Azhar, said, “I was present for ‘Īd with ‘Uthmān ibn ‘Affān. He came and prayed, and when he finished he gave a sermon saying, “Two ‘Īds have been joined together for you on this day of yours. If any of the people from al-‘Āliyah (an area outside the city of Madinah) wish to wait for the Jumu‘ah they may do so, and if any of them wish to return, I have given them permission.
Narrated by Mālik in his Muwatta’. Al-Bukhārī cited this chain of transmission under the chapter “Fasting on the Day of al-Fitr.”
- Ibrāhīm ibn Muhammad informed us, he said: Ibrāhīm ibn ‘Uqbāh narrated to me from ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz who said, “Two ‘Īds were joined during the era of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), so he said, ‘Whoever from the people of al-‘Āliyah wish to remain back, let him remain back comfortably.’”
Imām al-Shāfi‘ī narrated it, and its chain is sound and mursal. The teacher of the Imām is weak according to the majority, but reliable according to him and Hamdān ibn al-Asbahānī. Ibn ‘Uqdah said, “I thoroughly examined the narrations of Ibrāhīm, and he is not munkar in Hadīth.” Ibn ‘Adī said, “It is as he said.” (Tahdhīb)  Ibrāhīm ibn ‘Uqbah is from the narrators of Muslim and is reliable. (Tahdhīb) 
‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz, the Amīr al-Mu’mīn, is from the greatest of the Successors, and the mursal report of his likes is accepted and a proof according to us. There is an uninterrupted Prophetic (marfū‘ mawsūl) narration which is restricted to people of al-‘Awālī (plural of al-‘Āliyah) narrated by al-Bayhaqī from the narration of Sufyān ibn ‘Uyaynah from ‘Abd al-‘Azīz ibn Rufay‘, from Abū Sālih, from Abū Hurayrah, and its chain of transmission is weak” (al-Talkhīs al-Habīr). When a mursal report is supported by an uninterrupted narration even if it is weak, it is unanimously taken as evidence, as mentioned earlier several times.
In al-Muwatta’, Imām Muhammad said, “‘Uthmān only gave concession to the people of al-‘Āliyah, as they were not from the city. And this is the opinion of Abū Hanīfah.”
‘Uthmān issued this statement in the presence of the Companions. Therefore, if the concession was inclusive of both the people of the village and the people of the city, as Ahmād ibn Hanbal opines, then they would have objected to his specific reference to the people of al-‘Āliyah. Thus, it is established that the concession is restricted to those upon whom Jumu‘ah is not mandatory and therefore Jumu‘ah will not be abandoned due to ‘Īd.
How could this be the case (i.e. how can Jumu‘ah be abandoned due to ‘Īd) when the obligation of Jumu‘ah is proven from the Qur’ān and consensus, and it is mandatory upon the people of the city? As such, it is impermissible to relinquish the obligation from them by that which is inferior except by a definite piece of evidence (nass qat‘ī) similar to it. However, this will be an attempt to accomplish the impossible because the reports which Ahmad (Allah be pleased with him) adduced as proof to absolve the people of the city from Jumu‘ah due to ‘Īd are solitary reports (āhād) with the possibility of being specific to the people of the village and outskirts.
Among them is what Ibn Mājah narrated on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbās that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Two ‘Īds have joined together on this day of yours. Whoever wishes, it has sufficed him for his Jumu‘ah. We will observe Jumu‘ah, if Allah so wills.” Al-Sindī said, “In al-Zawā’id it is mentioned: the chain of transmission is authentic and the narrators are reliable. Abū Dāwūd narrated in his Sunan from Abū Hurayrah via this chain of transmission.”
In al-Talkhīs al-Habīr, it is mentioned:
In its chain is Baqiyyah who narrated from Shu‘bah, from Mughīrah al-Dabbī, from ‘Abd al-‘Azīz ibn Rufay‘, from Abū Sālih via this route. He was corroborated by Ziyād ibn ‘Abd Allah al-Bakkā’ī from ‘Abd al-‘Azīz, from Abū Sālih. Al-Dāraqutnī preferred the mursal version for the narration of ‘Abd al-‘Azīz from Abū Sālih. Likewise, Ahmad preferred the mursal version. Ibn Mājah reports it from Abū Sālih, from Ibn ‘Abbās instead of Abū Hurayrah. This is an error which he himself notified.
Even if we accept its authenticity as a Prophetic statement, the explanation is that the people from the village would congregate for the prayer of the two ‘Ids in a manner other than what they would for other prayers, as is the custom. It would be burdensome for them to wait for the Jumu‘ah prayer after completing the ‘Īd prayer. Thus, when the Messenger of Allah (pace and blessings be upon him) completed the prayer of ‘Īd, his announcer proclaimed, “Whoever among you wishes to perform Jumu‘ah, then he may do so. And he who wishes to return, let him return.”
This was addressed to the villagers who congregated there. The proof for this is he clearly said, “We will be observing Jumu‘ah.” The intent of the plural (We) is undoubtedly the people of Madīnah. Therein lies a clear indication that the address in his statement “Whoever among you wishes to pray” was to the villagers and not the people of the city.
This is supported by the aforementioned mursal report of ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-Azīz in the text wherein he states, “Two ‘Īds joined during the era of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), so he said, ‘Whoever from the people of al-‘Āliyah wish to remain back may comfortably do so.” In the narration of ‘Abd al-‘Azīz ibn Rufay‘ from Abū Sālih, from Abū Hurayrah it is similarly restricted to “the people of al-‘Awālī.”
We explained earlier that the combination of a mursal and uninterrupted report is definitely suitable for adducing as legal proof; notwithstanding the permissibility of proposing a possibility (al-ihtimāl) by means of a weak report as well. Hence, it is incorrect to deduce from the apparent generality in the words of the narration of Ibn Mājah and Abū Dāwūd “Whoever wishes, it will suffice him for Jumu’uah” that the people of the city are absolved from Jumu‘ah due to ‘Īd, because this is possibly specific to the people of the village. This is supported by the words “We will perform Jumu‘ah” and by the mursal report of ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz and the uninterrupted report of Abū Hurayah which restricts it to them. Thus, when there exists a possibility, deduction is invalid.
In light of the aforementioned, the following statement of the erudite scholar al-Shawkānī in Nayl al-Awtār is disproven, “Indeed the statement of ‘Uthmān does not specify the statement of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him).” You have seen that we did not specify the Prophetic narration except by another Prophetic narration. When it is possible to specify a solitary report by means of the indication of reason, custom, and analogy-as it is established in legal theory, then specifying it by means of a statement of a Companion is possible to a greater extent. This is because a Companion is most knowledgeable regarding the intent of the Prophet, especially according to those who regard the statements of the Companions as proof.
The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) performed the ‘Īd prayer and then gave concession for Jumu‘ah, so he said, “Whoever wishes to pray, let him pray.”
The words “Whoever wishes to pray, let him pray” is specific to the people of the village and outskirts because of what we mentioned.
It is mentioned in al-Talkhīs al-Habīr, “Ibn al-Madīnī authenticated it…Ibn al-Mundhir said, “This narration is unproven; Iyās ibn Abī Ramlah, the narrator from Zayd, is unknown.” I say: al-Hākim authenticated it in al-Mustadrak and al-Dhahabi in his abridgment. It is strange that they authenticated it whereas the chain of transmission contains Iyās ibn Abī Ramlah, who is unknown. In Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb, al-Hāfiż writes:
‘Uthmān ibn al-Mughīrah al-Thaqafī narrated from him. Ibn Hibbān mentioned him in al-Thiqāt (this will not remove the jahālah [being unknown] from him, for Ibn Hibbān has a particular methodology in accrediting unknown narrators, as we have mentioned several times). Ibn al-Mundhir said, “Iyās is unknown.” Ibn al-Qattān said, “He is as he mentioned.”
Likewise, in al-Mizān al-Dhahabī declared him as unknown. In al-Taqrīb, it is mentioned, “He is an unknown narrator from the third category.” As you can see, none besides ‘Uthmān ibn al-Mughīrah narrated from him. He has no one else narrating from him, and no other narration is known from him save this one narration. Such a person will definitely be classified as an unknown narrator.
A person is only regarded as a known narrator according to the Hadīth scholars when two reliable people narrate from him. In view of this, will their authentication be anything apart from an arbitrary judgement and underpinning for their legal opinions? If we were to authenticate the Hadīth of such an unknown narrator, the Hadīth scholars would have retorted harshly; Allah is sought for assistance. Yes, if Ibn Hibbān authenticated it, we would not argue because he has a particular methodology in accrediting unknown narrators.
Some people said:
Thus, it is gathered that the narration of Zayd was authenticated by Ibn al-Madīnī the teacher of al-Bukhārī and the Imām of Imāms Ibn Khuzaymah, and it was narrated by al-Nasa’ī who remained silent about it. Those who did not authenticate it did not produce any evidence.
What can serve as a stronger evidence than the fact that only one person narrates from Iyās ibn Abī Ramlah? He narrates only one hadith, and he is alone in its transmission. Whoever claims that the narration is authentic, let him present one reliable narrator from him besides ‘Uthmān ibn al-Mughīrah al-Thaqafī, so that he no longer remains unknown due to two people narrating from him. Otherwise, how can authentication be accepted when the narrator is unknown, as al-Dhahabī did? This is because in his Mizān he classified Iyās as an unknown narrator, and then he authenticated his narration in Talkhīs al-Mustadrak. This is despite the opponent not being able to benefit from his authentication, because the statement of the Prophet “Whoever wishes to pray (Jumu‘ah), let him pray” was specific to the people from the outskirts due to the evidence mentioned earlier. So understand this well, and do not be among the negligent.
The Hanbalīs also deduce from what Musaddad and al-Marwazī narrated regarding the two ‘Īds and it has been authenticated as mentioned in Kanz al-‘Ummāl, and what al-Hākim narrated in al-Mustadrak and he authenticated it according to their (al-Bukhārī and Muslim) condition, which al-Dhahabī confirmed, from Wahb ibn Kaysān that he said:
Two ‘Īds were joined in the era of Ibn al-Zubayr. He delayed coming out until the day was bright. Thus, he gave a sermon and then descended and prayed two raka‘āt. (Thereafter, Ibn al-Zubayr and) The people did not pray Jumu‘ah. Some people criticized this and it was mentioned to Ibn ‘Abbās, so he said, “He achieved the Sunnah.” They mentioned this to Ibn al-Zubayr who said, “I saw ‘Umar ibn al-Khattāb practice in a similar manner when two ‘Īds were joined in his era.
Al-Nasa’ī narrated it and remained silent about until the words “the Sunnah.” In Nayl al-Awtār, it is mentioned, “The narrators are narrators of al-Sahīh.” Abū Dāwūd narrated it and remained silent about it. Al-Nawawī said, “The chain is sound (hasan)” as mentioned in Nasb al-Rāyah.
In (Sunan) Abī Dāwūd, it is also transmitted from ‘Atā’ ibn Abī Rabāh that he said:
On the day of ‘Īd on Jumu‘ah, Ibn al-Zubayr led us in prayer in the beginning part of the day. Thereafter, we went for the Jumu‘ah prayer, but he never came, so we prayed individually. At the time, Ibn ‘Abbās was at Tā’if. When he came, we mentioned to him what had transpired. He said, “He achieved the Sunnah.”
Al-Zayla‘ī said, “Al-Nawawī said: Its chain meets the prerequisites of Muslim.” In one of his narrations “He combined both of them, so he prayed them as two raka‘āt in the morning. He did not pray anything else besides these two until he prayed ‘Asr.” In Nayl al-Awtār, it is mentioned, “Its narrators are narrators of al-Sahīh.”
The above incident cannot be used as evidence (to show that the ‘Id prayer suffices for Jumu’ah). This is because all the congregants unanimously objected to Ibn al-Zubayr’s action, and not a single Companion approved of his action except for Ibn ‘Abbās. An issue that is not recognized by the majority of people during the era of the Companions, but rather is objected to by them, cannot be the basis to nullify a unanimously accepted obligation.
It is evident that Ibn al-Zubayr and Ibn ‘Abbās (Allāh be pleased with them) were young during the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), so it is possible that they did not hear the Prophet’s announcer proclaim, “Whoever among you wishes to pray, let him pray, and whoever wishes to return, let him return” which was addressed to the people of the village. Hence, they did not grasp the intent of this proclamation and thus they took it as a general ruling for the people of the city as well. Consequently, Ibn al-Zubayr combined Jumu‘ah and ‘Īd, and Ibn ‘Abbās said regarding it, “He achieved the Sunnah” i.e. he is correct in what he heard from the announcer of the Prophet ‘Whoever wishes to pray, let him pray’ according to what he understood.
As for the statement of Ibn al-Zubayr “I saw ‘Umar ibn al-Khattāb do the same when two ‘Īds were joined,” it is possible that ‘Umar did that due to an excuse known to the people and unknown to Ibn al-Zubayr because of which they objected to him and they did not object to ‘Umar. Otherwise, it is highly unlikely that Ibn al-Zubayr would do the same as he did and the people recognized it from ‘Umar but objected to him.
Furthermore, all that has been narrated regarding this from Ibn al-Zubayr does not indicate that Jumu‘ah should be abandoned because of ‘Īd, but rather the most that it proves is that he prayed Jumu‘ah before zawāl when the two ‘Īds were joined. This is because on that occasion he delivered the sermon before the prayer whereas the sermon of the ‘Īd prayer is unanimously after the prayer. This is also because of what is narrated by Abī Dāwūd “He combined both of them, so he prayed them as two raka‘āt.” Therefore, it is incorrect to deduce from it the concession to abandon Jumu‘ah because of the ‘Īd prayer, but rather the most that is understood from it is the permissibility of bringing the prayer of Jumu‘ah before zawāl on the day of ‘Īd.
As such, the discussion now returns to the timing of the Jumu‘ah prayer, which we have already dealt with earlier. We have proven that the Hanbalīs in fact have no proof in what they deduced for the permissibility of performing the Jumu‘ah prayer before zawāl. Rather, it is established from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that its timing is after zawāl. There is also no proof for them in the report of Ibn al-Zubayr as well because this only shows that bringing the Jumu‘ah prayer before zawāl is specific only to the occasion of two ‘Īds joining, and they do not express such specification.
Furthermore, there is no evidence in the statement or action of a Companion when it conflicts with the saying and practice of the Prophet, especially when it is known that the people objected to the action of Ibn al-Zubayr and rebuked him for it. This is in spite the view of the Hanbalīs that when ‘Īd happens on the day of Jumu‘ah, those who were present for the ‘Īd prayer will be absolved apart for the Imām. According to them, he will not be absolved unless there are no congregants with whom he can perform the Jumu‘ah prayer. This is because of the statement of the Prophet “and indeed we will be observing the Jumu‘ah prayer,” and because if he were to abandon it, then the observance of the Jumu‘ah prayer will be prevented in respect to those upon whom it is mandatory and those who wish to observe it even though they are absolved. Ibn Qudāmah mentioned this in al-Mughnī.
The action of Ibn al-Zubayr is in opposition to the consensus as he did not perform other than the two raka‘āt prior to zawāl until he prayed ‘Asr despite the presence of those with whom he could have performed the Jumu‘ah prayer. ‘Atā’ said, “We then went for the Jumu‘ah, but he did not come out, so we prayed individually” as mentioned earlier.
In Subul al-Salām, al-Amīr al-Yamānī writes:
Al-Shāfi‘ī and a group are of the opinion that the Jumu‘ah prayer cannot be opted out as a concession i.e. after the ‘Īd prayer, on the basis that the evidence for the obligation of Jumu‘ah is general for all days and the aforementioned narrations and reports are not suitable to specify it due to weakness in their chains of transmission. I say: Ibn Khuzaymah authenticated the narration of Zayd ibn Arqam, and no one criticized it. Thus, it is suitable to specify because generality (‘ām) can be specified by solitary reports.
It is already known that the narration of Zayd ibn Arqam has Iyās who is unknown. Ibn al-Mundhir said, “This narration is unproven; Iyās ibn Abī Ramlah, the narrator from Zayd, is unknown.” Ibn al-Qattān said, “It is as he said.”[—]because according to us the definite generality (al-‘ām al-qat‘ī) cannot be specified by solitary reports. Moreover, according to us, the narration of Zayd is restricted to the people of the outskirts due the statement of ‘Uthmān, the mursal report of ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz, and the uninterrupted Prophetic narration via Abū Hurayrah. And when there exists a possibility, deduction is invalid.
After mentioning the report of Ibn al-Zubayr “Indeed two ‘Īds were joined in one day, so he combined them both by praying them as two raka‘āt in the morning and he did not increase upon it until he prayed ‘Asr,” al-Amīr al-Amānī writes:
The view that the Jumu‘ah prayer is the original (obligation) on its day and Zuhr is a substitute substantiates the validity of this opinion. This is because when the obligation of the original falls with the possibility of performing it, the substitute falls. The commentator (Sharf al-Dīn al-Maghribī) supported the view of Ibn al-Zubayr.
I say: it is clear that ‘Atā’ informed that Ibn al-Zubayr did not come for the Jumu‘ah prayer. This is not explicit proof that he did not pray Zuhr at his home. Hence, it is incorrect to be certain that the view of Ibn al-Zubayr is that the Zuhr prayer is not necessary on the day of Jumu‘ah when it is ‘Īd [upon those who performed the ‘Īd prayer], due to the possibility of him praying at home. Rather, the statement of ‘Atā’ that they prayed individually i.e. Zuhr, indicates that no one is of the opinion that it is no longer necessary. It cannot be said that his intent was they prayed Jumu‘ah individually, because it unanimously accepted that it will only be correct in congregation.
Furthermore, the opinion that the original (obligation) on the day of Jumu‘ah is the Jumu‘ah prayer while Zuhr is its substitute is disapproved. Rather, Zuhr is the original obligation which was mandated on the night of al-Isrā’ while the obligation of Jumu‘ah was afterwards. Moreover, if Jumu‘ah is missed Zuhr becomes unanimously obligatory, so Jumu‘ah is a substitute for Zuhr. We have established this in a separate treatise.
After mentioning the mursal report of ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz and the report of ‘Uthmān, Imām al-Shāfī‘ī writes in al-Umm:
When the day of al-Fitr is on the day of Jumu‘ah, the Imām will perform the ‘Īd prayer at the time when praying is permissible. He will then grant permission to those who were present with him, apart from the people of the city, to return to their families if they wish and not come back for Jumu‘ah. They have the choice of remaining back until they perform the Jumu‘ah prayer or returning after leaving if they are able to in order to perform the Jumu‘ah prayer. If they do not do it, there is no problem, if Allah wills.
This is not permissible for any of the people of the city i.e. to abandon the Jumu‘ah prayer, except with a valid excuse even if it is the day of ‘Īd. Similarly, if it is the day of al-Ad-hā, the ruling will not change so long as it is a city wherein Jumu‘ah prayer can be observed and ‘Īd prayer can be performed. The people of Minā will not perform the prayer al-Ad-hā and Jumu‘ah because it is not a city.
This indicates the necessity of a city for the obligation Jumu‘ah according to al-Shāfi‘ī as well and that it is not obligatory upon the people of the village according to him, so understand this.
In the commentary of al-Hidāyah by al-‘Aynī it is mentioned:
Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said, “The view that Jumu‘ah and Zuhr drop due to the ‘Īd prayer is an abandoned and marginalized view and will not be regarded. The interpretation is that it is addressed to the people of the village and those upon whom Jumu‘ah is not obligatory.
And Allāh the Exalted knows best, and His knowledge is most complete.
 Al-‘Uthmānī, I‘lā’ al-Sunan, vol.8, pp.92-99
 See: al-Kawtharī, Maqālāt, p.157
 Ibid, p.164
 Al-Kawtharī, Maqālāt, pp.156-164
 Vol.1, p.159
 Vol.1, p.145
 Vol.1, p.46
 [Al-Kawtharī writes (p.161), “This ruling cannot be perceived by reason. Hence, the narration of ‘Uthmān will have the status of a Prophetic narration.”
 [Al-Būsīrī, Misbāh al-Zujājah fī Zawā’id Ibn Mājah, pp.788-789]
 Vol.1, p.146
 Vol.1, p.164
 [In Bulūgh al-Marām, when Ibn Hajar says, “Narrated by the five” it refers to Imāms: Ahmad, Abū Dāwūd, al-Nasa’ī, al-Tirmidhī (who in this case was excluded) and Ibn Mājah. See his preface to Bulūgh al-Marām]
 [However, prior to narrating the hadith in reference, Ibn Khuzaymah said, “If the narration is authentic (in sahh al-khabar) for I do not know regarding Iyās ibn Abī Ramlah any accreditation or criticism” (Sahīh Ibn Khuzaymah, vol.2, p.359). When Ibn Khuzaymah uses expressions such as “in sahh al-khabar,” he indicates towards his uncertainty regarding the authenticity of the narration. See: al-Suyūtī, Tadrīb al-Rāwī, vol.1, p.115]
 As cited in Bulūgh al-Marām vol.1, p.183. [Al-Kawthari writes (p.160), “In the chain is Isrā’īl ibn Yūnus who Ibn al-Madīnī and Ibn Hazm classified as weak. Although the two Shaykhs (al-Bukhārī and Muslim) have selectively narrated some of his hadith, this is not from their selection.”
 [Al-Kawtharī writes (p.161), “As for the authentication ascribed to ‘Alī ibn al-Madīnī, it is a misunderstanding of the authentication of Abū Mūsā al-Madīnī for all that is contained in Musnad Ahmad-and this narration is transmitted therein. The scholars of Hadīth have refuted this view of Abū Mūsā…”]
 Vol.1, p.288
 Vol.1, p.388
 Vol.1, p.131
 [See the above quote of al-Kawtharī]
 [Al-Kawtharī writes (pp.160-161), “The silence of al-Nasa’ī and Abū Dāwūd only indicates that it is suitable for consideration according to them if it is transmitted via another chain. Where is the suitability for consideration from the suitability of deducing as legal proof, especially when it conflicts with what is established from the Qur’ān, abundantly transmitted Sunnah, and inherited practice?”]
 Vol.4, p.337
 Vol.1, p.236
 Vol.1, p.417
 [Al-Kawtharī writes (p.163), “Regarding ’Abd al-Hamīd ibn Ja‘far in the chain of al-Nasa’ī (from Wahb ibn Kaysān), although Muslim selectively narrates some of his hadith, al-Thawrī has classified him as weak, Ibn al-Madīnī accused him of qadar, and Abū Hātīm said about him, “Indeed, he will not be used as proof.” Therefore, his hadith will not be suitable for legal proof just as the addition in al-Mustadrak that Ibn al-Zubayr said, “I saw ‘Umar practice in a similar manner” will not be suitable because it is via the route of the same ‘Abd al-Hamīd al-Ja‘far.]
 Vol.3, p.164 [al-Kawtharī writes (p.162), “There is a difference of opinion regarding Asbāt ibn Nasr in this chain: Abū Nu‘aym classified him as weak and Abū Zur‘ah objected to Muslim for transmitting his hadith, and Ahmad was undecided about his matter. Ibn Hajar said, “Truthful, errs often, narrates strange reports.” Muslim’s selection of some of his narrations, apart from the route of Muhammad ibn Tarīf (as is the case here), does not indicate that he unconditionally meets the prerequisite of Muslim as is evident from Shurūt al-A’immah al-Khamsah (p.62). And al-A‘mash is a mudallis and he used the expression ‘an (i.e. from the authority of)…]
 Vol.2, pp.212, 213
 Vol.1, p.164
 Vol.1, p.212
 [Al-Kawtharī (p.158) quotes Abū al-Walīd al-Bājī (al-Muntaqā, vol.1, p.317) as saying, “Ibn Wahb, Mutarrif, and Ibn Mājishūn related from Mālik that it (permission for the people of the village) is permissible…and that is the view of Abū Hanīfah and al-Shāfi‘ī.” He then quotes (p.158) Ibn Hazm al-Zahirī (al-Muhallā, vol.3, p.303) as saying, “When ‘Īd happens on a day of Jumu‘ah, the ‘Īd prayer will be performed and then the Jumu‘ah prayer definitely. Any report that goes against this is unauthentic… Abū Muhammad (Ibn Hazm) said: Jumu‘ah is obligatory and the ‘Īd prayer is voluntary; a voluntary act cannot nullify an obligatory act.”]