Fasting on Saturday, and the Shaykh’s clarification of when a statement constitutes a general legislative ruling

The questioner : I would like to return to a point you discussed in the morning regarding fasting on Saturday?

The Shaykh : We have not been fed in this matter? No harm, please proceed, but with one condition: that the people do not get bored.

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh : Yes, please proceed.

The questioner : I understood from your words that it is not permissible to fast on Saturday except in Ramadan?

The Shaykh : No, it is not only in Ramadan.

The questioner : No, please allow me to finish...

The Shaykh : No, no, do not give a lecture. I am telling you no, so this understanding is not correct.

The questioner : All right.

The Shaykh : So do you want to give a lecture on the edge of a cliff? This understanding is not correct; because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said - - : , so now I ask you: A man has days of Ramadan to make up.

The questioner : This is assumed, of course.

The Shaykh : Be patient, but it is not Ramadan, he does not fast in Ramadan.

The questioner : It is assumed.

The Shaykh : Okay, that is one case, and the other is a man who made a vow upon himself.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Is this Ramadan?!

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Yes?

Another questioner : And another who has to fast two consecutive months.

The Shaykh : That is it, ... are these not obligations?

The questioner : You mean other than the obligatory ones?

The Shaykh : Yes?

The questioner : Apart from the assumed case? What does assumed mean?

The Shaykh : That is not my statement, this is the statement of the Prophet of all: .

The questioner : All right.

The Shaykh : But you attributed to me saying "except in Ramadan"!! I did not say that first, rather this is your understanding.

The questioner : All right.

The Shaykh : And it is itself an error, as you have now realized, okay, continue with the discussion.

The questioner : For example, if Saturday coincides with the Day of 'Arafah or the Day of 'Ashura.

The Shaykh : May Allah forgive you, you are making us regress, making us traditionalists... as they say .

The questioner : But if you would broaden your chest, may Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh : This is a discussion that took place there, and you will force me to return to the same answer - again - that was given there.

The questioner : No, absolutely not, but briefly.

The Shaykh : Ah, please "whoever does not come with you, come with him", please.

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh: Please proceed.

The questioner : Your fatwa and your word are heard, and you are accepted and there are things that are not denied, so I say: If Saturday coincides with the Day of 'Arafah, or the Day of 'Ashura, or one of the white days, or six days of Shawwal; is it not permissible to fast? Is that so?

The Shaykh : A hundred percent, that is how it is.

The questioner : Well done, okay, because I was remembering two hadiths in this matter, so I would like you to clarify the point of contradiction, meaning in the hadith of 'A'ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) that he (peace and blessings be upon him): "used to fast three days of every month; Saturday, Sunday, and Monday, and in the other month he would fast Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday", and al-Tirmidhi graded it as good, but I have no knowledge of the precise scrutiny of the chain.

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner : The second hadith is the hadith of Ibn 'Abbas from Umm Salama; that they asked her about the fasting of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), so she said: , so they objected to Kuraib who transmitted to them the narration of Umm Salama, and they themselves stood up and asked her, so she said: , and it was authenticated as al-Shawkani says by Ibn Hibban, Ibn Khuzaymah, and al-Hakim, and al-Dhahabi agreed with him, so I find this hadith difficult.

The Shaykh : You have the right to find it difficult.

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh : And you did not have the right to attribute to me what I did not say.

The questioner : I am sorry. The word "Ramadan" in its ruling and in its meaning.

The Shaykh : Okay, as for the fact that the matter is difficult for you, the answer is indeed taken from my previous answers regarding other than this hadith, but often people or some people do not care about the rules and the principles, and therefore they want an answer for every branch and every hadith, and now I am reminding you of what took place there, when some of the noble shaykhs graciously came and brought the hadith of Juwayriyah and you were present.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : My answer was that this hadith permits fasting on Saturday, correct?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Okay, your first and second hadith permit fasting on Saturday, have you heard the answer to that hadith? So I tell you now briefly, which may be followed by detail: The answer you heard regarding the hadith of Juwayriyah is exactly the answer regarding the hadith of Umm Salama and the first hadith, the answer is the same, with some reservation I will mention later, but I want to remind you that that answer is the answer.

The questioner : The same answer applies.

The Shaykh : It is the answer in the sense that this is the explanation that we may be forced to mention as long as you wished for us to go back, and to regress backward.

The questioner : Our Shaykh, if the brothers have a desire...

The Shaykh : No problem.

The questioner : The Shaykh tells you briefly.

The Shaykh : What does he say?

The questioner : Briefly.

The Shaykh : Okay, may Allah reward him with good, we say now briefly: These hadiths that you mentioned now, or these two hadiths like the hadith of Juwayriyah, we did not bring anything new except that we increased the number, so the hadiths permitting it became, instead of one hadith which is the hadith of Juwayriyah; the total became three hadiths, and all these three hadiths fall within the circle of permitting the disputed fasting; which is fasting on Saturday, and if this statement I am making now is accepted and I do not think anyone will dispute it, then the answer has already been given for this, because there is no difference between the hadith of Juwayriyah in that it indicated the permissibility of fasting on Saturday, and there is no difference consequently between the hadith of Umm Salama; because it indicated the same indication, and finally the third hadith, so what was an answer to the first hadith was an answer to the second hadith, and what was an answer to the second hadith was an answer to the third hadith, and finally that answer is an answer to the three hadiths!
This is in terms of applying the science of usul al-fiqh, that "the prohibitive is preferred over the permissive", and we gave approximate examples, and some of the nobles on your right from those who attend the gatherings of knowledge, said when he heard the example I gave you and you were all present: Suppose it came on a Monday or a Thursday which is a festival day; do you prefer to fast it with its virtue? Or do you prefer to leave this fasting because it coincided with a festival day, and the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited fasting on a festival day? Some of the noble attendees explicitly said, by Allah, that this example convinces us completely, and we used to say the opposite of what he saysThe Shaykh : , but now this example is a very clear example, because if a prohibitive and a permissive conflict, the prohibitive is preferred over the permissive, perhaps you remember with me that all this discussion took place in that session.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : So now what did we benefit from - no blame - you adding to the first hadith of Juwayriyah two other hadiths, and they are like the first? All of them are within the subject of permissibility, and at that time the rule as we mentioned "if a prohibitive and a permissive conflict, the prohibitive is preferred over the permissive", this is from the jurisprudential aspect.
From the hadithical aspect, the hadith of Ibn 'Abbas that you mentioned earlier, the truth is that I had graded it as good in some of my books in past years, then it became clear to me that there is a man of unknown reliability in it, and therefore I retracted my strengthening of this hadith and grading it as good as you transmitted from al-Tirmidhi, and I included it in the section that has not yet been printed of "Da'if al-Targhib wa al-Tarhib", while it was in the first edition of "Sahih al-Targhib wa al-Tarhib" it was present in it, and now when we reprinted the first volume of "Sahih al-Targhib wa al-Tarhib" and it became clear to me that there is that defect; I removed this hadith from the Sahih, so the new edition which is from the printing of Dar al-Ma'arif does not have this hadith, because I transferred it to "Da'if al-Targhib wa al-Tarhib", so we say.
Al-Halabi: Our Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Yes?
Al-Halabi : I sent it in "al-Silsilah al-Da'ifah" part four.

The Shaykh : It is present - also - may Allah reward you with good, we return to say: So whoever is still convinced or convinced that this hadith is established as you saw from al-Tirmidhi; the jurisprudential answer is sufficient for him, and whoever is convinced by what I am convinced of that it is a hadith with a weak chain; we repeat the word we said there, that this dead person does not deserve this condolence, a weak hadith that contradicts an authentic hadith has no value, as for the second hadith which I am mentioning now - not certain - that there is disturbance in its text, and in some of its narrators - also - some of the unknown, and perhaps our brother 'Ali will extend to us his support.
Al-Halabi : Our Shaykh, there is a disconnection between 'A'ishah and the narrator from her, and I asked you about it so you did not include it in "Sahih al-Tirmidhi", so consequently it is the share of the other book.

The Shaykh : "Da'if al-Tirmidhi".
Al-Halabi : "Da'if al-Tirmidhi".

The Shaykh: This is it. So, I returned, my professor, with the humility of Hinnan, having gained nothing except the Syrian military system's "Stay in your place."
Al-Halabi: Our Shaykh, we have benefited, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh: May Allah reward you with good .

The questioner : If you would allow me.

The Shaykh: Please proceed.

The questioner: - Also - from the principles of jurisprudence.

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner: That is, "When the statement and the action conflict, the statement is given precedence over the action."

The Shaykh: Well done, may Allah reward you with good.

The questioner: Second, a principle - also - from the principles of jurisprudence.

The Shaykh: But I hope you will direct this remark to your neighbor.

The questioner: Yes, he is a specialist in principles.

Another questioner: The same hadith of al-Sammah; I came across a statement attributed to Imam Malik that it is a lie, and Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri says: "This is from the hadith of the Khawarij," and al-Layth ibn Sa'd says to us: "I did not narrate it, and I kept it secret; except that it spread," and it was reported from Ibn Taymiyyah that he says: "Anomalous," and Abu Dawud says it is abrogated; so what is your opinion?

The Shaykh: I also tell you: It is as if you were not present in that morning session. I personally reported from Abu Dawud that he mentioned a comment from Imam Malik - I was also precise in mentioning it - a comment that he said: "The hadith is invalid," and this is what you did not say just now.

The questioner: And that the truth is that it is a lie.

The Shaykh: I say. Yes?

The questioner : A lie, a lie.

The Shaykh: Fine, and the thing is that Abu Dawud himself said: "This hadith is abrogated," so I am not unaware of these statements that weaken the value and status of this hadith, but what do you want from me if I found for myself first, and for others second, four chains for this hadith? Is it valid to say of a hadith that has four chains, at least some of which are valid in themselves, that it is "an invalid hadith" or a "false hadith," hmm?

The questioner: The statements of the Imams are what confused me, I mean.

The Shaykh: Fine - if Allah wills - the confusion has vanished and fallen.

The questioner: The confusion still remains.

The Shaykh: It still remains?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh: Glory be to Allah!
Al-Halabi: Ibn Hajar and others denied this word from Imam Malik ... .

The Shaykh: That is what is expected, but why does the confusion still remain in the professor's mind, as long as you are attested to be, I mean, among the people of knowledge of the principles?

The questioner: We seek the truth - if Allah wills - .

The Shaykh : If Allah wills. Well, what about the others?

The questioner: The principle that al-Shawkani repeats: "When his statement - may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him - and his action conflict, the action is attributed to specificity, or the statement is given precedence over the action; because his action may imply specificity"?

The Shaykh: Excuse me, it is not necessary that it be attributed to specificity, but rather it is attributed to one of three possibilities: either specificity, and this is the last resort a jurist can take; the first is to say that this text that came from the Messenger - peace be upon him - as an action may be based on the original permissibility; because legislation, and we also mentioned this in a recent session where we addressed this today in the morning; that the Messenger - peace be upon him - may do something based on the original innocence.

The questioner: Today?
Al-Halabi : Yes, today.

The Shaykh: Today ... as I recall, so when the statement conflicts with his action - peace be upon him - the statement is given precedence over the action; this is a scientific principle of jurisprudence, and it is very necessary for students of knowledge to be mindful of this principle; because if they first believe in it, and then apply it well second; some of the issues that have been in your mind will vanish, they will certainly vanish because you are convinced that this principle is a correct principle; "When the statement conflicts with the action, the statement is given precedence over the action"; why? Because the statement of the Messenger - peace be upon him - is general legislation, until it came in the science of principles that the command issued by the Messenger - may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him - directed to an individual of the Ummah; it is an address to the entire Ummah, is this not from the principles? So what if the command is directed to the Ummah to the end of the hadith, so if a command is issued by the Messenger - peace be upon him - to an individual of the Ummah, and it is established for us that the Prophet - may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him - did the opposite of this command; we say the command is general legislation, and the action may be subject to and encompassed by what makes it specific to him - peace be upon him - , not from the known specificities, which are among his virtues - peace be upon him - and his characteristics in which no one of the people shares with him, until some of which not even some of the prophets and messengers share with him, as is known.
So when his command - peace be upon him - or his statement conflicts with his action, the statement is given precedence over the action for this reason, that his statement is general legislation, his action may or may not; that is: it may be general legislation and it may not be, there is no doubt that it is general legislation with two conditions, we mentioned the first condition in the morning, which is that it be an act of worship, and that it not be a custom, because customs do not enter into religious matters, the second condition is that there be no contradicting statement issued by the Messenger - may Allah's prayer and peace be upon him - as we are now in the midst of, so if we find a statement that contradicts his action - peace be upon him - we take his statement and leave his action; because his statement is the general legislation, and his action may or may not.
Now we investigate this issue; how do we explain the action of the Prophet - may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him - for something contrary to what he addressed his Ummah with?
It is very easy to say: This action, if we do not have evidence that clarifies that it came after the statement, then it is attributed to the original state, which is the original innocence; because the Shari'ah did not come with the rulings all at once, and the story of intoxicants and the gradualness in their prohibition is the clearest example, from the examples that indicate to us that intoxicants were permissible on the original state, and we may not say lawful, but rather on the original innocence, so if a report comes to us that so-and-so of the people drank intoxicants, but his drinking of intoxicants may have been in that time, so if the hadith about the action of the Messenger - peace be upon him - comes as we are now in the midst of, he used to fast on Saturday, it may have been before this new legislation by his statement: , so it is possible that this action was in the time of permissibility, secondly it may have been for an excuse, an action that came from him - peace be upon him - for an excuse; so at that time we say as long as it is possible that it was for an excuse; then we give precedence to the statement over the action, as came in the principle, thirdly and finally we say: it may be a specificity for the Messenger - peace be upon him - , as long as his action conflicts with his statement, the statement is given precedence over the action, what I wanted to say with this is in several possibilities, and they are three, either his action was on the original state, and that it was for an excuse, or that it was for a specificity for him - may Allah's prayer and peace be upon him - in which no one of the people shares with him.