Whether the Reward of the Twelve Voluntary Rak'ahs Requires Continual Consistency
Questioner: "...whoever prays twelve rak'ahs [voluntary daily prayers], Allah builds for him a house in Paradise" - is this every day, for whoever maintains them?
It seems from the hadiths that consistency is required - in one narration "whoever maintains," in another "whoever perseveres," in another "whoever prays" "whoever prays twelve in a day" - this may suggest that whoever prays twelve in a single day earns Paradise; this is the apparent meaning. But the other wording, "whoever maintains/perseveres," suggests continuity is required until one meets one's Lord. Some say don't restrict the reward - don't restrict Allah's favor, it is immense - true, and no one doubts this. But the wordings "prayed," "persevered," and "maintained" have all come. If we take "maintained" to mean continual devotion... I don't mean to be overly strict, because the issue is similar to voluntary fasting - if one breaks it midday, some said he still gets the reward recorded, others said only the possibility remains. The point is the disagreement remains present in these matters; what matters is tracing the texts - it is a matter of scholarly inference, not blind partisanship in scholarly matters, because disagreement is not itself a basis for preference, and it does not violate the sanctity of knowledge, fiqh, ijtihad, or weighing evidence. If a clear text has come from the Prophet ﷺ, there is no issue; but sometimes a text can bear more than one meaning, so one exercises ijtihad to reach the correct view.
Like voluntary fasting begun mid-day - this is not disputed in the sense that, for example, the Malikis and Ibn Hazm say this is not valid at all - one must intend from the start of the day. But it has been reported from some Companions that if one intends before midday - a condition, by consensus - that nothing has occurred before that [to break the fast potential] - it is said this is valid, because it can still be called "a day" as long as midday has not passed. This is a matter of scholarly dispute; some permit this scenario.