What is the ruling on fasting on Saturday in voluntary prayers?

The questioner : What is the ruling, O Shaykh, on fasting on Saturday in voluntary prayers?

The Shaykh : It is not permissible to fast on that day, and the hadith on this matter is explicit; namely, his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): . This hadith is, first of all, authentic without doubt. What is said in some books—that so-and-so says this hadith is a lie, and so-and-so says it is disturbed—this arose either because the hadith did not reach the one who said it at all; this is with regard to the one who called it a lie. Or, it is because he did not follow the paths of the hadith with good, precise tracking, so he said it is a disturbed hadith. The disturbed hadith is, without doubt, among the categories of weak hadith according to the scholars of hadith. Some of them explicitly stated the authenticity of the hadith. These are three positions from the hadith perspective: one person says it is a lie, and this is refuted against the one who said it, if it is true that he said it, because it was reported as a hanging narration without a chain. Then the second opinion is that it is a disturbed hadith, and this was said by many scholars of hadith, including Imam al-Nasa'i. And some authenticated and strengthened the hadith, such as al-Hakim, Ibn Khuzaymah, Ibn Hibban, al-Tirmidhi, and many others. Among these, we can include Imam Abu Dawud al-Sijistani, the author of the "Sunan" known by it, in the group of those who authenticated this hadith. This is because, although he reported that that Imam said it was a lie, he himself said: it is an abrogated hadith. In that case, the student of knowledge understands from a scholar's statement about a hadith that it is abrogated that it is a hadith established from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). Otherwise, if it were not established, there would be no need to claim what? Abrogation? So this means authentication in an indirect way, but it is authentication without doubt or ambiguity.
Everyone who says about a hadith: this is an abrogated hadith; the necessary implication is that it is an authentic hadith. Imam Abu Dawud says: this is an abrogated hadith. So, when we finish presenting the scholars' opinions from the hadith perspective regarding this hadith, we say: whoever invalidates what is said about a hadith that a group of Imams authenticated and which has several paths; whoever invalidates what is said about such a hadith—that it is a lie; then this is of no consideration, and one should not waste time discussing it. The second defect is disturbance; there is no doubt that whoever tracks the paths and chains of this hadith cannot do anything but admit that there is disturbance in it. But this does not mean that he can say: it is a disturbed hadith. And perhaps it is not hidden from some of you that there is a difference between saying: there is disturbance in this hadith, and saying: it is a disturbed hadith; because if we say: it is a disturbed hadith, that equates to a weak hadith.
There is no harm in me mentioning a point to you on the occasion of the two lines, these equal "="; I was a young man, after my beard had grown as they say, and in my father's shop for repairing watches, a middle-aged man came to me. He was an officer in the Turkish army, and I later learned from him that his name was "Najm al-Din Bey," according to the custom of the Turks at that time. He took a watch out of his pocket; watches at that time were mostly pocket watches. He presented it to me, and while I was opening it for inspection, he began to praise and commend us, according to what he had heard that we are a group of honest people, skilled in repairing watches, and so on. So I said to him: It is not fitting for you to give this praise, because you have not dealt with us yet. And I pointed to the hairs that were growing on my beard, and I said: do not be deceived by this, try us and then judge. He said: No—here is the point—the Muslim has intuition. So the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: . I quickly replied to him: This is a weak hadith. And I was a young man, and it is very strange, meaning a young man like this brother or this one to say: this is a weak hadith. And a middle-aged man, and with the fewness of those who grew beards at that time, so he was growing a beard, even if it was light, according to the common people's saying in the Levant: "The best of beards is the one that is a sign."

Those present : [Everyone laughs!]

The Shaykh : The point is: the man's eyes rolled in his face. He said: How is this a weak hadith? We read it recently from the Shaykh. I said to him: Where did you read it? He said: In "al-Risalah al-Qushayriyyah." So I entered with him here into a hadith that made him lose his mind. I said to him: "al-Risalah al-Qushayriyyah" is not a book of hadith? It is a book of Sufism, and knowledge is specialization. So if we want to know an authentic hadith, we do not take it from books of Sufism, we take it from books of hadith. If we want to know a jurisprudential issue, we take it from books of jurisprudence, and so on. He stood confused, so he began to ask me: Who did you study under? I said to him: I did not study under anyone. He said: You must have studied under Shaykh "Badr al-Din." Shaykh "Badr al-Din" was said of us at that time in his era: "The Muhaddith of the Levant." I said to him: No. He said: Then it was Shaykh Ali al-Daqir. I said to him: No. He said: Then it was? I said: This is personal study. In summary, and without a long story as they say in our place there; he said: I want to bring you the chain of the hadith. I said to him: Welcome. He was absent for two or three days, and I was sitting in the shop. Our shop's frontage had a western frontage, the setting of the sun in summer, so we would lower the iron shutter and leave a small opening for the customer. I did not feel anything until a paper was thrown into my lap. Where is this? I did not see him again. I opened the paper, and there was the hadith, transmitted from "al-Risalah al-Qushayriyyah" with the chain, indeed. I said: I wish he had stayed so I could give him the answer!
The important thing is he came to take the watch according to the appointment. He said to me: Did you see the hadith?—here is the joke now—. I said to him: Yes, I saw the hadith. He said to me: What did you see? I said that I saw that the author weakens the hadith—here is the point—. He said: No, what are you saying? I transmitted it, I did this, and so on. And at that time, we had pens called "copying" pens; meaning not dry, it was not like that at that time, one person would do this and write. So what did I write for him? I wrote for him: This chain, I read it for him, from 'Atiyyah al-'Aufi from Abu Sa'id al-Khudri, he said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said. I wrote for him: 'Atiyyah, two lines equal "=" weak according to the scholars of hadith; so as long as al-Qushayri mentioned the hadith with the chain, it means—O reader—look at the chain. I do not bear the responsibility of the chain, I narrated the hadith as it came to me with its chain, this is its chain, so you study the men. We know that 'Atiyyah al-'Aufi is a weak man.
The point is: if it is said about a hadith: it is a disturbed hadith; what does it equal?

The questioner : It is a weak hadith.

The Shaykh : Weak, but if it is said to us: a hadith with disturbance, it is not necessary that it equals [weakness], it may equal it and it may not; how is this?
They mentioned in the science of terminology—and we know this by experience—that not every hadith in which disturbance occurs is defective and weakened, but rather what is defective and weakened is if the disturbance of the hadith is from equal strong aspects; so this disturbance is from multiple aspects, each aspect equaling the other in strength; this means that the narrator was not able to control the hadith; and therefore sometimes he says this, and sometimes he says this. But if the chain or one of the paths of this hadith—now we say it is disturbed—is stronger than the other paths; then at that time we study this stronger path with a special study, and as long as it is stronger, we cancel the other paths, so the hadith comes out of being disturbed; because one of its paths is stronger. Then we study this stronger path with a special objective study; if it gives us authenticity, we say: it is an authentic hadith, and the disturbance is in weaker paths. And if it gives us weakness, we say: it is a weak hadith, not because it is disturbed, but because the strongest path has weakness in it.
I bring this closer to you with an example, and examples, as our Lord taught us in the Qur'an: , "so that they may understand":
When a hadith comes, for example, from the Imam al-Zuhri—and you all know that he is a mountain of trustworthiness, precision, and memorization, and so on—from Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, the master of the Tabi'un, and this is from Abu Hurayrah; al-Zuhri from Sa'id from Abu Hurayrah is a sound chain with no issue in it. But those who narrated the hadith from al-Zuhri, some of them bring it from below him, bringing what? Disturbance. So some of them say, for example, as we mentioned to you: al-Zuhri from Sa'id from Abu Hurayrah. If it were not for the other versions, what would we say about this chain? Without a doubt, it is authentic. Yes, but when another trustworthy person, other than the one who narrated the first version from al-Zuhri, says: from al-Zuhri from Sa'id ibn al-Musayib from a man from Abu Hurayrah; ah, there is an issue here; he has inserted an unknown person between Sa'id and Abu Hurayrah. A third person comes and narrates again from al-Zuhri from Sa'id from a person he names, but this person is unknown, as if he said: from a man... and he lists the examples. He names him, but this named person is weak; this named person is weak. So if it came only through the path of al-Zuhri from Sa'id from this weak person from Abu Hurayrah, the hadith would be weak. When these versions come, these versions show you what the hadith is? One whose chain is disturbed.
Now, if we assume that we have presented four versions; these four narrators from al-Zuhri, each of whom brought us a version, are all trustworthy, we cannot prefer one path over another; we say: this hadith is what? Disturbed. But if we assume that one of these four who narrated from al-Zuhri a version of the four is the most precise in memorization; then his path becomes the stronger position, and the other paths become the weaker position, so we discard them and study this stronger path. Let us assume now that the stronger path regarding the narrator from al-Zuhri is the first path, for example, Yunus ibn Yazid al-A'ili from al-Zuhri from Sa'id from Abu Hurayrah; this is a sound chain, and it does not harm us that it came from other paths; because those who narrated the hadith from al-Zuhri through the other paths are not in the position of this Yunus ibn Yazid al-A'ili in terms of precision and strength.
Now we reverse it; if we assume that the stronger version is the second one, which says: from al-Zuhri from Sa'id from a man from Abu Hurayrah; the hadith has exited being disturbed; because this version is stronger, but this version does not give the hadith authenticity; because it contains what? An unknown man, and so on. I think it has become clear to you, meaning, how a hadith becomes disturbed, and when it is not disturbed even if it comes from different versions.
Our previous hadith: has disturbance but is not disturbed; why? Because it came from three paths on one face; meaning, three trustworthy people narrated the hadith from - La ilaha illa Allah - the hadith, my master, its Tabi'i is Thawr ibn Yazid al-Shami from Khalid ibn Ma'dan from Abdullah ibn Busr, this is a Companion, indeed he is the last of the Companions of the Messenger - peace be upon him - to die in Sham. Khalid ibn Ma'dan is trustworthy, and the six [compilers] relied on him, and among them, of course, are "the two Sahihs." The narrator from him, Thawr ibn Yazid, al-Bukhari relied on him, and he is trustworthy. So multiple paths came on one face from this noble Companion, so the hadith is authentic, and it does not harm us that it came from other versions; for example: from these versions that remained in my mind from Abdullah ibn Busr - the same path - Thawr from Khalid from Abdullah ibn Busr from his deaf sister, what is the difference? The first was from the Companion himself, he said: I heard the Messenger of Allah - peace and blessings be upon him - say: , a version of the disturbance from Abdullah ibn Busr from his deaf sister, a third version from his deaf aunt, a fourth version from Aisha, exiting being his sister or his aunt or so on, but all these versions are weaker compared to the first version which the three trustworthy people narrated, so whoever studies this hadith says finally: this hadith is disturbed, but its disturbance does not affect its authenticity; because some of its stronger paths are authentic in themselves.
Another important thing in the subject: It is established from Abdullah ibn Busr that he said: "Fasting on the day of Saturday is neither for you nor against you," this is a fatwa from the narrator of the hadith, this strengthens the rank of the hadith from the jurisprudential aspect, "Fasting on the day of Saturday is neither for you nor against you"; this is the expression of one who draws from the spring of prophethood and the message; because it is exactly equal to: , now; what does a person take from the hadith: ; does he fast?

Those present: No.

The Shaykh : He does not fast. What do we take from the saying of this Companion: "Fasting on the day of Saturday is neither for you nor against you"; does he fast? We do not fast; why? Because if we want to fast, we fast for the reward, and he is telling you: it is not for you. So if he said: nor against you, meaning nor against you, just as he said: "He did not fast and he did not break the fast"; so Islamic jurisprudence gives us, if we did not have the first hadith: ; we have the saying of this Companion and there is no other Companion's saying that contradicts it; we say: this is the jurisprudence of a noble Companion, so we are with him, we do not fast on the day of Saturday.
But the hadith is actually more important than the saying of this Companion; why? Because the saying of a Companion may be subject to specification; meaning, assume it is elevated to the Messenger - peace be upon him -; it may be subject to specification, and this is what some scholars did with the first hadith: . They said: unless it is a day with it, and they argued for this with a hadith that appears to be a proof; because the hadith is authentic in al-Bukhari, and it is the hadith of Juwayriyah when the table was placed in front of the Messenger - peace be upon him - so he invited her to eat, she said: I am fasting. He said: . She said: No. He said: . She said: No. He said: . So this hadith gives, on the surface, the opposite of our first hadith; meaning: he permitted fasting on the day of Saturday, in order to get rid of the singularity of Friday by fasting.
Our answer then is in two ways; the first way, and this is what happened in 'Arafah last year; most people fasted on the day of Saturday and they did not have news of fasting on the day of Friday; because they do not fast on the day of Friday, just as they do not fast on Saturday and Thursday like most people, but the day of 'Arafah has this established virtue in the Sunnah that it expiates the past year and the coming year, so most people fasted on the day of Saturday alone.
The students of knowledge, those who read in the books and do not have the ability to distinguish, come to discuss; yes, did the Messenger permit Juwayriyah to fast on the day of Saturday?
Our answer then is in two ways:
The first way: We say to those who fasted on the day of 'Arafah on the day of Saturday and did not fast on the day of Friday; what is their excuse? These people did not fast on the day of Friday so that they would be permitted to fast on the day of Saturday; so these people contradicted the hadith in its core: .
We say to those who may have actually fasted on Friday and who intend to act upon the hadith of Juwayriyah: We say: No, it is not permissible for you to fast on Friday, even if you intend to fast on Saturday. Why? Because there are general scientific, usuli, and fiqhi rules. Now, what pertains to the subject of preference (tarjih) and combining, and so on. Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) says: If two hadiths from the category of acceptable ones are in conflict, it is necessary to reconcile them by one of the methods of reconciliation. Al-Hafiz al-Iraqi, in his commentary on "Introduction to the Sciences of Hadith" by Ibn al-Salah, mentioned more than one hundred ways to reconcile two conflicting hadiths. If reconciliation between two conflicting hadiths is not possible, then what comes? The seeking of the abrogating and the abrogated. Among the methods of preference, if a prohibiting hadith and a permitting hadith conflict, the prohibiting one is given precedence over the permitting one. Now, the hadith of Juwayriyah is a permitting one; because it allowed fasting on Saturday. And we have now discussed this for the one who fasted on Friday. As for the one who did not fast on Friday, our problem with him is finished. Yes. The one who fasted on Friday, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) allowed him in that hadith and others to fast on Saturday. But the hadith of Abdullah ibn Busr is a prohibiting one; meaning: it is given precedence over the permitting hadith of Juwayriyah; because we cannot combine them by any of the many methods indicated by Al-Hafiz al-Iraqi (may Allah have mercy on him) except by this method: prohibiting and permitting. And this is a rule derived from evidence in the Shari'ah, among which is: . Allah does not burden you with fasting on Friday so that you fast on Saturday and fall into contradicting the hadith: . And if we wanted to do what some scholars of the past said, which is to specify the hadith: with the hadith of Juwayriyah; the result would be something repugnant to the speech of the Messenger of Allah, one of whose characteristics is his saying: . Now; the one who was given the comprehensive words said: absolutely, then he excepted one thing and said: . What are we doing now? Except in what is obligatory upon you. And if you fast with it on Friday; "except" is a negation. After this general prohibition and the specific exception The permitting one; the permitting one which is the hadith of Juwayriyah (may Allah be pleased with her).
And the closest example to what we are saying, and I said this on the occasion of the festival—Subhan Allah!—Saturday was the Day of 'Arafah, Sunday was the first day of the festival, the Day of Sacrifice, and Monday was the first day of the days of Tashriq. Now; did anyone fast on Sunday? The answer is: No. Even though those who oppose the hadith: argue with it, and today one person asked me in the mosque; he told me that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) used to fast on Saturday and used to fast on Sunday, and when asked, he would say: "They are days of festival for the Jews and the Christians, so I love to fast on them." Now; it came.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Yes?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Yes, he brought this hadith. Now; Sunday came, which is a day of festival for us, and the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) used to fast on it as an obligation—I say as an obligation because this hadith is weak in its chain, though it is established with us recently—; so suppose the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) used to fast on Sunday, as we know with certainty that he used to fast on Thursday, and he used to fast on what? Monday. Now; did anyone fast on the day of the festival, which is Sunday, and which is among the days the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) used to fast, as some say based on some hadiths? No...