Why Were Fifty Prayers Reduced to Five During the Miʿraj?

Answered by Shaykh Faraz Rabbani

Question

During the Night Journey and Ascension (Isra and Miʿraj), the obligation was first set at fifty prayers and then reduced to five after the counsel of Musa (peace be upon him). If Allah already knew what His servants could bear, why was it set at fifty?

Was the original command genuinely meant to stand? And does a change in the command imply any change in Allah’s knowledge or will—is “Allah changed His mind” simply the wrong way to describe it?

Answer

In the Name of Allah, the Merciful and Compassionate

Allah Himself does not change. What changed was the command, and that change was always known and always willed.

“Allah changed His mind” is not just imprecise. It describes a belief that Sunni theology rejects. Some retellings miss this point and can mislead. Choose your teachers with care.

The tradition answers in four steps: first, the narrations; second, the commentators; third, the Sira; fourth, the theologians.

One. What the Narrations Say

Two phrases in the hadith seem to pull in opposite directions. They fit together once you see their meaning.

The first comes at the end of the exchange. After the final reduction of the number of prayers, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) reported what he was told: “He said: They are five and they are fifty. I did not change the word. [Bukhari]

The second comes as he departs: “When I had passed on, a caller called out: I have put My obligation into effect, and I have lightened it for My servants.” [Bukhari, from Malik ibn Saʿsaʿa; and Bukhari, which adds: “and I reward a good deed tenfold”]

The first phrase matters. At the last reduction, the Divine Speech says the word does not change. The tradition itself rejects the idea you were concerned about.

In his commentary on Sahih Bukhari, Imam Ibn Hajar (Allah have mercy upon him) explains it as marking the difference between the earlier exchanges and the last one: the repeated petitioning shows that the Prophet understood the command on each occasion was not by way of binding imposition, unlike the final time, whose wording indicates that it was. [Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari]

And note what “five and fifty” means. Ibn Hajar: five in number with respect to performance, fifty in reckoning with respect to reward. [Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari]

The fifty prayers were not taken away. They moved from your actions to your record.

Two. What the Commentators Made of the Difficulty

The scholars did not ignore the difficulty. They disagreed, and their disagreement teaches us.

One position, from Imam Khattabi (an early commentator), is that the fifty were never definitively binding at all, because the petitioning for relief issued from two Prophets, and what is definitively obligatory does not admit of lightening.

However, Mulla Ali al-Qari rejects this: what is not obligatory needs no request for lightening in the first place. His conclusion: “The correct view is that He first made fifty obligatory, then had mercy on His servants and abrogated them with five.” [Qari, Mirqat al-Mafatih]

The Fifty Were a Real Obligation

The fifty prayers were a real command. The question is: for whom, and when were they lifted?

This is where Ibn Hajar does the decisive work. Ibn Battal had said the fifty were abrogated by the five before they were ever prayed.

Ibn al-Munayyir objected that all parties—those who permit abrogation before the act and those who deny it—agree that abrogation is inconceivable before promulgation, and here the change came before promulgation, so the problem defeats everyone. Ibn Hajar answers:

If he means before promulgation to anyone, that is not granted. If he means before promulgation to the community, that is conceded—but then with respect to them, it is not abrogation at all.

It is an abrogation with respect to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), because he was definitively obligated to it, then it was abrogated after it had been conveyed to him and before he acted. [Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari]

That resolves your question. The fifty were a genuine obligation—upon the Prophet, in that assembly. They never reached the community as a standing duty, so for us there was no abrogation at all; only the five ever arrived.

What occurred was abrogation before the act, which Imam Nawawi records as permissible and as the very point this hadith is cited to prove. [Nawawi, Sharh Sahih Muslim]

Imam Bulqini sharpens it with the technical vocabulary: the lightening from fifty to five is not properly called abrogation with respect to the community, because the ruling was never attached to them in an actualized way, since it was never conveyed to them.

And he adds the line that answers the theological half of your question: what is meant by the “lifting” of a ruling is the severing of its attachment to those under obligation, for the ruling in itself is eternal and is not lifted. [Sakhawi, Fath al-Mughith]

The Whole Sequence, Including the Reduction, Was Planned. The Sira Says This Plainly

Was the whole sequence, including the reduction, planned? The Prophetic biography (Sira) answers yes, and in so many words.

Imam Salihi distinguishes two registers of the decree. “The decree which He decreed together with decreeing that it not be carried into effect, by reason of an intermediary or a supplication—that is His imposing here of the fifty prayers; for when He commanded the fifty first, His will had already gone forth that it not be executed, and He made Musa’s counsel there a cause for its removal. And the decree whose execution He decreed and which no repeller repels—that is His imposing of the five; for when He commanded them and His will had already gone forth to put them into effect, Musa’s words availed nothing at that point.” [Salihi, Subul al-Huda wa’l-Rashad]

Musa (peace be upon him) was not overruling anything. He was the appointed means.

And on why the Prophet stopped asking, the same work says: the unseen disclosed that the eternal knowledge had attached to these five remaining—and that is why they remained. [Salihi al-Shami, Subul al-Huda wa’l-Rashad]

Four. What the Theologians Settled

That something should emerge to Allah which He had not previously known, or that a new opinion should arise in Him: this is badaʾ.

Imam Zarqani gives both senses and rules on both: both are impossible for Allah, because they entail prior ignorance and the origination of knowledge. He is described in pre-eternity and everlastingly with unrestricted, encompassing knowledge of all that was, all that will be, and all that is; He cannot be originated, nor can He be a locus of originated things. [Zarqani, Manahil al-Irfan fi Ulum al-Quran]

Then the formula that answers your question in one sentence: “His knowledge does not change or alter; the change is in the object known, not in the knowledge… abrogation is an alteration in the object known, not in the knowledge; a change in the created, not in the Creator; and a disclosure to us of part of what Allah’s eternal all-encompassing knowledge had already determined… it is an alteration with respect to us, but pure clarification with respect to the Lawgiver.” [Zarqani, Manahil al-Irfan]

Imam Shahrastani makes the same point as a formal argument: abrogation does not entail any change in Allah’s Knowledge (badaʾ), because He was knowing of that obligation at the time of its being directed upon the servant, and knowing of its removal at the time of the abrogation, so no newly arisen matter appeared to Him that He had not known, nor did He lift the ruling because something else appeared to Him. [Shahrastani, Nihayat al-Iqdam]

In your case, both the fifty and the reduction were always in Allah’s knowledge. Nothing was discovered.

The Objection Was Raised and Answered Long Ago

Your worry is not new. Tahanawi records the dispute precisely: “The condition of abrogation is the capacity for belief in the ruling; there is no need for capacity for the act, in our view. For the Muʿtazila, it is not valid before the act, because the purpose of it is the act; so, before the act occurs, it would be badaʾ.

Our proof is that he (Allah bless him and give him peace) was commanded on the night of the Ascension with fifty prayers, then what exceeded five was abrogated, without there having been any capacity for the act.” [Tahanawi, Kashshaf Istilahat al-Funun]

So the exact objection you raise—“that would mean Allah changed His mind”—is stated in the tradition, attributed to those who held it, and the Isra is given as the refutation rather than the problem.

Imam Iji, listing the sects, names the Badaʾiyya as a sect that permitted that Allah should will a thing and then have something become manifest to Him that had not been, “and it follows from this that the Lord would not be knowing of the outcomes of affairs.” [Iji, al-Mawaqif] That is the doctrine. It is not ours.

The Precise Distinction You Asked For

Thus, Allah’s Knowledge, Will, and Speech are eternal attributes and do not change. What stands in time is not the attribute but its relationship to created things—the address actually reaching a servant who exists and is under obligation.

When a ruling is abrogated, the attribute is untouched; what ends is the connection of that ruling to those bound by it, at a moment eternally appointed.

Allah commanded fifty, then five, and He always knew and willed both. Musa’s counsel was the means Allah chose. The night was not a negotiation. It was a disclosure of mercy, so we would see what was lifted from us and know its weight.

Fifty prayers were set so we would know that five are a gift. The reward of fifty remains. Nothing was taken away.

And Allah knows best.

[Shaykh] Faraz Rabbani

Related SeekersGuidance Answers

• Supplication Changes Decree; Asking for the Impossible — Shaykh Yusuf Weltch — the Preserved Tablet distinguished from pre-eternal knowledge.
• Can Supplication Change Destiny? — Shaykh Faraz Rabbani — supplication as an appointed means within the decree, not a revision of it.
• How Do We Understand Allah’s Transcendence in Relation to Time? — Mawlana Ilyas Patel — time is created; no temporal sequence attaches to the divine attributes.
• What Are the Types of Abrogation (Naskh) in the Quran? — Shaykh Anas al-Musa — the technical meaning of naskh and its three types.

Related SeekersGuidance Courses

• Introduction to Beliefs: Sanusi’s Umm al-Barahin — Shaykh Abdul-Rahim Reasat on the classical creedal primer — the divine attributes and their rational proofs.
• Beliefs: Ghazali’s Qawaʿid al-Aqaʾid — Shaykh Faraz Rabbani and Shaykh Mohammed Tayssir Safi on core beliefs, proofs, and the cultivation of faith.

Shaykh Faraz Rabbani is a recognized specialist scholar in the Islamic sciences, having studied under leading scholars from around the world. He is the Founder and Executive Director of SeekersGuidance.

Shaykh Faraz stands as a distinguished figure in Islamic scholarship. His journey in seeking knowledge is marked by dedication and depth. He spent ten years studying under some of the most revered scholars of our times. His initial studies took place in Damascus. He then continued in Amman, Jordan.

In Damascus, he was privileged to learn from the late Shaykh Adib al-Kallas. Shaykh Adib al-Kallas was renowned as the foremost theologian of his time. Shaykh Faraz also studied under Shaykh Hassan al-Hindi in Damascus. Shaykh Hassan is recognized as one of the leading Hanafi jurists of our era.

Upon completing his studies, Shaykh Faraz returned to Canada in 2007. His return marked a new chapter in his service to the community. He founded SeekersGuidance. The organization reflects his commitment to spreading Islamic knowledge. It aims to be reliable, relevant, inspiring, and accessible. This mission addresses both online and on-the-ground needs.

Shaykh Faraz is also an accomplished author. His notable work includes “Absolute Essentials of Islam: Faith, Prayer, and the Path of Salvation According to the Hanafi School.” This book, published by White Thread Press in 2004, is a significant contribution to Islamic literature.

His influence extends beyond his immediate community. Since 2011, Shaykh Faraz has been recognized as one of the 500 most influential Muslims. This recognition comes from the Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Center. It underscores his impact on the global Islamic discourse.

Shaykh Faraz Rabbani’s life and work embody a profound commitment to Islamic scholarship. His teachings continue to enlighten and guide seekers of knowledge worldwide.

«النصوص» · Source-Texts

[صحيح البخاري ٣٤٩، كتاب الصلاة، باب كيف فرضت الصلوات في الإسراء، ١‏/٧٨–٧٩] «فَرَاجَعْتُهُ فَقَالَ: هِيَ خَمْسٌ وَهِيَ خَمْسُونَ، لَا يُبَدَّلُ الْقَوْلُ لَدَيَّ»

[صحيح البخاري ٣٨٨٧، كتاب مناقب الأنصار، باب المعراج، ٥‏/٥٢–٥٤] «قَالَ: فَلَمَّا جَاوَزْتُ نَادَى مُنَادٍ: أَمْضَيْتُ فَرِيضَتِي، وَخَفَّفْتُ عَنْ عِبَادِي» — عن مالك بن صعصعة.

[ابن حجر، فتح الباري ١‏/٤٦٣] «وَدَلَّتْ مُرَاجَعَتُهُ ﷺ لِرَبِّهِ فِي طَلَبِ التَّخْفِيفِ تِلْكَ الْمَرَّاتِ كُلَّهَا أَنَّهُ عَلِمَ أَنَّ الْأَمْرَ فِي كُلِّ مَرَّةٍ لَمْ يَكُنْ عَلَى سَبِيلِ الْإِلْزَامِ، بِخِلَافِ الْمَرَّةِ الْأَخِيرَةِ»

[ابن حجر، فتح الباري ١‏/٤٦٣ — الحلّ] «قُلْتُ: إِنْ أَرَادَ قَبْلَ الْبَلَاغِ لِكُلِّ أَحَدٍ فَمَمْنُوعٌ، وَإِنْ أَرَادَ قَبْلَ الْبَلَاغِ إِلَى الْأُمَّةِ فَمُسَلَّمٌ، لَكِنْ قَدْ يُقَالُ: لَيْسَ هُوَ بِالنِّسْبَةِ إِلَيْهِمْ نَسْخًا، لَكِنْ هُوَ نَسْخٌ بِالنِّسْبَةِ إِلَى النَّبِيِّ ﷺ؛ لِأَنَّهُ كُلِّفَ بِذَلِكَ قَطْعًا ثُمَّ نُسِخَ بَعْدَ أَنْ بُلِّغَهُ وَقَبْلَ أَنْ يَفْعَلَ»؛ وفيه «الْمُرَادُ هُنَّ خَمْسٌ عَدَدًا بِاعْتِبَارِ الْفِعْلِ وَخَمْسُونَ اعْتِدَادًا بِاعْتِبَارِ الثَّوَابِ»

[النووي، المنهاج شرح صحيح مسلم ٢‏/٢٢٢] «وَاحْتَجَّ الْعُلَمَاءُ بِهَذَا الْحَدِيثِ عَلَى جَوَازِ نَسْخِ الشَّيْءِ قَبْلَ فِعْلِهِ، وَاللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ» —

[الملا علي القاري، مرقاة المفاتيح ٩‏/٣٧٦٤] «وَأَقُولُ: مَا لَمْ يَكُنْ وَاجِبًا لَا يَحْتَاجُ إِلَى سُؤَالِ التَّخْفِيفِ قَطْعًا، فَالصَّحِيحُ مَا قِيلَ أَنَّهُ تَعَالَى فِي الْأَوَّلِ فَرَضَ خَمْسِينَ، ثُمَّ رَحِمَ عِبَادَهُ وَنَسَخَهَا بِخَمْسٍ»

[السخاوي، فتح المغيث ٣‏/٦٥ — عن البلقيني] «وَزَادَ الْبُلْقِينِيُّ فِي الْحَدِّ كَوْنَ الْحُكْمِ الَّذِي رُفِعَ مُتَعَلِّقًا بِالْمَحْكُومِ عَلَيْهِ، لِيَخْرُجَ بِهِ تَخْفِيفُ الصَّلَاةِ لَيْلَةَ الْإِسْرَاءِ مِنْ خَمْسِينَ إِلَى خَمْسٍ، فَإِنَّهُ لَا يُسَمَّى نَسْخًا لِعَدَمِ تَعَلُّقِهِ بِالْمَحْكُومِ عَلَيْهِمْ، أَيْ تَعَلُّقًا تَنْجِيزِيًّا لِعَدَمِ إِبْلَاغِهِ لَهُمْ»؛ وفيه «وَالْمُرَادُ بِارْتِفَاعِ الْحُكْمِ قَطْعُ تَعَلُّقِهِ بِالْمُكَلَّفِينَ، إِذِ الْحُكْمُ قَدِيمٌ لَا يَرْتَفِعُ»

[الصالحي الشامي، سبل الهدى والرشاد ٣‏/١٤٩] «فَالْقَدَرُ الَّذِي قَدَّرَهُ وَقَدَّرَ أَلَّا يَنْفُذَ بِسَبَبِ وَاسِطَةٍ أَوْ دُعَاءٍ هُوَ فَرْضُهُ هُنَا لِلْخَمْسِينَ صَلَاةً … وَالْقَدَرُ الَّذِي قَدَّرَ إِنْفَاذَهُ وَلَا يَرُدُّهُ رَادٌّ هُوَ فَرْضُهُ لِلْخَمْسِ صَلَوَاتٍ» ؛ وفي ٣‏/١٤٨ «وَكَشَفَ الْغَيْبُ أَنَّ الْعِلْمَ الْقَدِيمَ تَعَلَّقَ بِبَقَاءِ هَذِهِ الْخَمْسِ، وَلِهَذَا بَقِيَتْ»

[الزرقاني، مناهل العرفان ٢‏/١٨٠–١٨٣] «وَكِلَاهُمَا مُسْتَحِيلٌ عَلَى اللَّهِ تَعَالَى لِمَا يَلْزَمُهُمَا مِنْ سَبْقِ الْجَهْلِ وَحُدُوثِ الْعِلْمِ» … «وَعِلْمُهُ سُبْحَانَهُ لَا يَتَغَيَّرُ وَلَا يَتَبَدَّلُ، إِنَّمَا التَّغَيُّرُ فِي الْمَعْلُومِ لَا فِي الْعِلْمِ … أَنَّ النَّسْخَ تَبْدِيلٌ فِي الْمَعْلُومِ لَا فِي الْعِلْمِ، وَتَغْيِيرٌ فِي الْمَخْلُوقِ لَا فِي الْخَالِقِ … تَبْدِيلًا فِي حَقِّنَا بَيَانًا مَحْضًا فِي حَقِّ صَاحِبِ الشَّرْعِ»

[الشهرستاني، نهاية الإقدام في علم الكلام ص٢٧٨] «وَالنَّسْخُ لَا يُؤَدِّي إِلَى ذَلِكَ، لِأَنَّهُ كَانَ عَالِمًا بِذَلِكَ التَّكْلِيفِ عِنْدَ تَوَجُّهِهِ عَلَى الْعَبْدِ، وَكَانَ عَالِمًا بِرَفْعِهِ عِنْدَ النَّسْخِ، فَلَمْ يَظْهَرْ لَهُ أَمْرٌ مُتَجَدِّدٌ لَمْ يَعْلَمْهُ»

[التهانوي، كشاف اصطلاحات الفنون ٢‏/١٦٩٣] «شَرْطُ النَّسْخِ التَّمَكُّنُ مِنَ الِاعْتِقَادِ وَلَا حَاجَةَ إِلَى التَّمَكُّنِ مِنَ الْفِعْلِ عِنْدَنَا، وَعِنْدَ الْمُعْتَزِلَةِ لَا يَصِحُّ قَبْلَ الْفِعْلِ لِأَنَّ الْمَقْصُودَ مِنْهُ الْفِعْلُ، فَقَبْلَ حُصُولِهِ يَكُونُ بَدَاءً. وَلَنَا أَنَّهُ عَلَيْهِ السَّلَامُ أُمِرَ لَيْلَةَ الْمِعْرَاجِ بِخَمْسِينَ صَلَاةً ثُمَّ نُسِخَ الزَّائِدُ عَلَى الْخَمْسِ مَعَ عَدَمِ التَّمَكُّنِ مِنَ الْفِعْلِ»

[الإيجي، المواقف — البدائية] «الْبَدَائِيَّةُ جَوَّزُوا الْبَدَاءَ عَلَى اللَّهِ تَعَالَى، أَيْ جَوَّزُوا أَنْ يُرِيدَ اللَّهُ شَيْئًا ثُمَّ يَبْدُوَ لَهُ … وَيَلْزَمُهُ أَنْ لَا يَكُونَ الرَّبُّ عَالِمًا بِعَوَاقِبِ الْأُمُورِ»