Explanation of the Hadiths of Fasting from *Bulugh al-Maram*, the statement of 'Amir ibn Yasir (may Allah be pleased with him)

The Shaykh : Therefore, the author, Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him), followed the previous hadith with a second one; and that is his statement: "And from 'Amir ibn Yasir (may Allah be pleased with him), he said: 'Whoever fasts on the day of doubt has disobeyed Abu al-Qasim.' Al-Bukhari mentioned it as a suspended narration, and the five [books] connected it, and Ibn Khuzaymah and Ibn Hibban graded it as authentic."
"Al-Bukhari mentioned it as a suspended narration"; perhaps many of you know the point of this qualification in his statement: Al-Bukhari mentioned it as a suspended narration. Usually, he says: Al-Bukhari narrated it, Muslim narrated it, or it is agreed upon, as you heard in the first hadith. Here, we hear him say: Al-Bukhari mentioned it as a suspended narration. The reason for this is that the hadiths of Imam al-Bukhari in his *Sahih* are divided into two sections, and the first section is divided into two sections. The first two sections are marfu' hadiths and mawquf hadiths. In *Sahih al-Bukhari*, the hadiths mentioned in it are of two types: hadiths traced back to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), and the other section is hadiths stopped at the Companions or those below them.
The first section, which is specific to marfu' hadiths, is divided into two sections: connected hadiths and suspended hadiths.
The connected hadiths are those which Imam al-Bukhari presents with his connected chain of narration from him to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). This is the section intended in the statements of scholars when they say that *Sahih al-Bukhari* is the most authentic book after the Noble Qur'an, or as some precise in expression put it: the most authentic thing compiled in hadith.
The intended meaning of this statement is not absolute, but rather it refers to this first section, which is the connected hadiths that the author al-Bukhari presents with his connected chains of narration from him to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). As for the other section, it is the suspended hadiths. The suspended hadiths in *Sahih al-Bukhari* are also, in their own right, divided into two sections: the first is authentic and the other is weak.
The suspended hadiths in *Sahih al-Bukhari* are divided into two sections in terms of authenticity: authentic and weak. Therefore, it is not correct for us to understand that statement we read in the depths of the books that al-Bukhari's book is the most authentic thing compiled absolutely, but rather this is understood with respect to the first section, which is the hadiths that al-Bukhari traced back from him to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). This section specifically is the most authentic of the hadiths collected in a book. As for the second section, which is the suspended hadiths, it contains both authentic and weak ones.
What is the difference? How can we distinguish between the first section and the second section of al-Bukhari's hadiths? The distinction is made by looking at the form in which al-Bukhari mentions the hadith. If he mentioned it starting with his statement: "Haddathani" (narrated to me) so-and-so, and then presented the chain from him to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), then this means that this hadith is from the first section.
And if he mentioned it without a complete chain of narration at least, for example, if he says: The Messenger of Allah said, then he did not present its chain from him to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), so this is from the second section; that is, from the section of suspended hadiths in *Sahih al-Bukhari*. Or he might say, for example: Abu Hurayrah said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said. And so the examples multiply according to the multiplication of intermediaries between al-Bukhari and the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), until sometimes he mentions the hadith suspended on one of al-Bukhari's sheikhs. He mentions the hadith suspended on one of his sheikhs. Here, the matter becomes confused for one who does not pay attention to *Sahih al-Bukhari*, and he thinks that this hadith is from the first connected section because he started the chain from one of his sheikhs. But here, one must be alert to the following point: If al-Bukhari says: So-and-so said, and he is one of his sheikhs, then the scholars differed on whether this is included in the first section (i.e., the connected hadith) or included in the second section (which is the suspended hadith). Because if he says: Haddathani so-and-so, the possibility is raised and the problem is removed. But if he says: So-and-so said, then they differed here. And due to this disagreement, some of the early scholars fell into a misconception, so they weakened a hadith from al-Bukhari's hadiths because al-Bukhari did not say when he suspended the hadith on his sheikh: Haddathani so-and-so. And this specific sheikh is Hisham ibn 'Amir. He said in the hadith of condemning amusements: to the end of the hadith.
Al-Bukhari presented the hadith with his connected chain of narration from him to the Messenger (peace be upon him), but when he started the chain from his sheikh, he did not say: Haddathani so-and-so, but rather he said: So-and-so said. And this expression, according to Hisham, has the form of a suspension; because as we said earlier, how do we know the suspended hadith from the traced hadith? That he says: The Messenger of Allah said, without mentioning the chain, or he says: Abu Hurayrah said, without mentioning the chain to him, or he says: Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib said. I say: meaning the forms multiply until this last form comes: Hisham ibn 'Amir said, and he mentioned the chain: Haddathani so-and-so from so-and-so to Abu Malik al-Ash'ari, who is a well-known Companion, who said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said, and he mentioned the hadith.
When Ibn Hazm came upon this hadith in *Sahih al-Bukhari*, he criticized it by saying it is suspended, criticizing it as being broken between al-Bukhari and Hisham ibn 'Amir. If it is said to him: Hisham ibn 'Amir is one of al-Bukhari's sheikhs; where is the break? He says: Yes, he is one of al-Bukhari's sheikhs, but al-Bukhari usually when he narrates from thisThe Shaykh : he explicitly states the narration, saying: Haddathani Hisham ibn 'Amir. For some reason, he did not say in this specific hadith: Haddathani Hisham ibn 'Amir.
This statement is sound, but the later scholars said: It is not obligatory that the reason for al-Bukhari saying "Hisham said" contrary to his habit of saying "Haddathana Hisham" is that he did not hear this hadith from Hisham. Rather, the reason is that he narrated the hadith in a session of discussion and did not narrate the hadith in a session of formal narration; meaning al-Bukhari, like any teacher or hadith scholar, is either in a regular session where an opportunity for a question or delivering a sermon arises, and he speaks without preparing for the lesson, whereas in a session of formal narration, he reviews his sources and books that he has in preparation for delivering the lesson. So they say: Therefore, it is permissible that al-Bukhari did not say here "Haddathani Hisham ibn 'Amir" because he had not reviewed his sources, but rather he said "Hisham said" as a matter of caution and prudence.
The discussion around this specific hadith and proving that it is authentic is long, and we do not, of course, want to go too far afield from what we are dealing with. The purpose is that this specific hadith is classified by some scholars in the section of suspended hadiths. But since the man on whom the hadith is suspended is one of al-Bukhari's sheikhs, this type of suspended hadith is not classified in the second section; meaning the suspended hadiths that contain both authentic and weak ones; because Hisham is known to be one of al-Bukhari's sheikhs. And if it is said that al-Bukhari did not hear this hadith from Hisham, as Ibn Hazm said, then a consequence follows. And I want now to ask those of our brothers who are engaged in this, for the sake of sharpening the mind, what is the consequence? If it is said: Al-Bukhari, when he suspended this hadith on Hisham ibn 'Amir, and it is assumed—as Ibn Hazm said—that he did not hear it from him, and he says: Hisham said; then the hadith is from which of the sections?

The questioner : It would be weak in that case.

The Shaykh : What? It would be weak. That is a second issue. From which of the sections?

Another questioner : From the suspended ones.

The questioner : From the suspended ones, broken, broken; meaning there is a break in it.

The Shaykh: Go ahead.

Another questioner : We would have accused al-Bukhari of tadlis.

The Shaykh : Yes; this is the correct answer.

Another questioner : Al-Bukhari is accused of tadlis (concealment of a defect in a chain).

The Shaykh : This is the correct answer; because tadlis is when a narrator reports from someone he met what he did not hear from him, and al-Bukhari met Hisham and narrated many hadiths from him directly, as we mentioned. So if we assume that al-Bukhari did not hear this specific hadith from Hisham, and therefore—as Ibn Hazm says—said "Hisham said," that would mean al-Bukhari is a tadlis narrator. But the Imam al-Bukhari is not known for tadlis; so it is not permissible to attribute tadlis to him. That is why we said earlier that the scholars mentioned the other reason; which is that he had not reviewed the hadith to be certain that he heard it from him. As for intentionally narrating from a sheikh of his a hadith he did not hear from him, that means he is a tadlis narrator, and he is not known for tadlis.
This is a discussion regarding the suspended hadiths in "Sahih al-Bukhari." The suspended hadiths are of two types: authentic and weak. This cannot be known, in the majority of cases, except by looking at the chains of these suspended hadiths outside of "Sahih."

Another questioner : ... by looking.

The Shaykh : Who is looking?

Another questioner : Al-Bukhari is looking.

The Shaykh : Therefore, he narrated from him in the Sahih with the verb "narrated" (hadatha). He narrated many hadiths through the route of Hisham, so he is trustworthy in his view. Once we understand this discussion regarding the suspended hadiths and that they contain both authentic and weak ones, the purpose of the author's statement here regarding the hadith: "Whoever fasts on the day of doubt has disobeyed Abu al-Qasim" becomes clear. He said al-Bukhari mentioned it as a suspended hadith. Why did he mention this? Because if he had said "al-Bukhari narrated it," he would have been committing tadlis. If the author had said "al-Bukhari narrated it," he would have been committing tadlis. Where does the tadlis come from? From misleading the reader into thinking this is one of the most authentic hadiths; because al-Bukhari's hadiths—as we said—are the most authentic hadiths. But the scholars mention that there is a second category that is not among the most authentic hadiths, which are the suspended hadiths. So that the reader would be aware and knowledgeable about the type of this hadith in al-Bukhari, he said: al-Bukhari mentioned it as a suspended hadith.
And the meaning of this is that the reader of this precise takhrij (tracing a hadith to its sources) must be alert that this hadith may have something in it; it may be from the second category. From the second category; the second category of al-Bukhari's hadiths are the suspended hadiths. And the suspended hadiths are divided into two types: authentic hadiths and weak hadiths.
Perhaps this is from the second category of weak hadiths; so you must be alert and verify this hadith; is it from the authentic suspended hadiths or the weak ones?
And as an answer to a question like this, he followed the previous takhrij, which is his statement: "Al-Bukhari mentioned it as a suspended hadith," with his statement: "And the five connected it, and Ibn Khuzaymah and Ibn Hibban authenticated it." And since the author transmitted this authentication from these two Imams, it indicates that this suspended hadith in "Sahih al-Bukhari" is from the first category, the authentic one. That is, the suspension is of two types: authentic and weak. So when they said "Ibn Khuzaymah and Ibn Hibban authenticated it," it indicated that this suspended hadith in "Sahih al-Bukhari" is from the authentic category, which is the first of the two categories of suspension.
But this following of this takhrij, "and Ibn Khuzaymah and Ibn Hibban authenticated it," must also be taken with some caution; because the two mentioned, Ibn Khuzaymah and Ibn Hibban, are known for leniency in authentication among the scholars of hadith; because they authenticate hadiths from some unknown narrators in the chain of hadith. And Ibn Hibban is broader in his steps in this field than his sheikh Ibn Khuzaymah. Ibn Hibban authenticates hadiths of unknown narrators much more than his sheikh Ibn Khuzaymah. And this difference appears clearly to whoever read the book "Sahih Ibn Khuzaymah," of which the first and second volumes have been printed, and read "Sahih Ibn Hibban," even through "Mawarid al-Zam'an fi Zawa'id Sahih Ibn Hibban." He will find the difference clear between the two books and their two authors.
That is because we find that Ibn Khuzaymah, in his book "Sahih," in many cases, brings the hadith and follows it or precedes it with his statement: "If it is authentic." In "Sahih," he brings the hadith and describes it with his statement: "If it is authentic, then so-and-so, I do not know him by any criticism or vindication." He brings it in the Sahih. And the point is not that he brings it as authentic; the point now is that he defects the hadith due to the unknown narrator. Whereas you do not find such a thing in "Sahih Ibn Hibban"; he does not defect a hadith at all due to an unknown narrator. And this is an extreme leniency in authenticating hadiths of unknown narrators, unlike Ibn Khuzaymah; so he is not broad in his steps in authenticating hadiths of unknown narrators. But we find such authentication from him. Since that is the case, it is necessary to be cautious in using as evidence the hadiths attributed to "Sahih Ibn Khuzaymah," and especially to "Sahih Ibn Hibban," due to their leniency in authentication as we mentioned.
But if the one transmitting the authentication, the authentication of Ibn Khuzaymah and Ibn Hibban, is like al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar, then at that time the soul is reassured by his transmission, because he is one of the Imams who are preservers of knowledge, and one of the greatest among the later scholars we know who are knowledgeable in the science of al-jarh wa al-ta'dil (the critique and vindication of narrators) and have a comprehensive grasp of the routes of hadith and knowledge of their defects. With this combination, the soul is reassured that this suspended hadith in "Sahih al-Bukhari" is an authentic hadith; because Ibn Hajar, after attributing it to the five, followed it with his statement that Ibn Khuzaymah and Ibn Hibban authenticated it and approved them for that. So the approval by Ibn Hajar of that reassures the soul that the hadith is authentic.
But this does not mean that the authentication is by Ibn Hajar for its own sake. It may be authentic in his view for other reasons. And this is what is established for me: that this hadith, if my memory does not fail me regarding some unknown narrator in its chain, but it has another route by which the hadith was strengthened, so it became authentic for other reasons, not for its own sake.
What remains after this is to understand this terminology: he says "The five narrated it." The five sometimes refers to the four authors of the Sunan plus Imam Ahmad, who is the fifth. And this is the usage here, in this book. The intended meaning of the five is the four authors of the Sunan: Abu Dawud, al-Nasa'i, al-Tirmidhi, and Ibn Majah. The fifth is Ahmad in his "Musnad." Sometimes the five refers to Muslim and the four authors of the Sunan. And this is a specific usage in "al-Muntaqa" by Ibn Taymiyyah, the grandfather of the Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him).
So the meaning of this takhrij is that this hadith was mentioned by al-Bukhari in his "Sahih" without a chain, as a suspended hadith. And it was mentioned by the four authors of the Sunan and Imam Ahmad with a connected chain to 'Amir ibn Yasir. And Ibn Khuzaymah and Ibn Hibban authenticated it.
Then this hadith—regarding the text now—is mawquf (a report stopping at a Companion); because it says: 'Amir ibn Yasir said: "Whoever fasts on the day of doubt..." He did not say: The Messenger of Allah said. So its apparent status is mawquf: "Whoever fasts on the day of doubt has disobeyed Abu al-Qasim." So is this hadith in the ruling of marfu' (a report traced to the Prophet) or in the ruling of mawquf?
Now we wait for an answer from the people of fiqh and knowledge. So whoever has knowledge or an answer, whether he is right or wrong, the purpose is the exchange of knowledge. Whoever has knowledge or an answer, raise his finger?
Please proceed.

The questioner : It is mawquf.

The Shaykh : Why?

Another questioner : Because... that is to say.

The Shaykh : So my question—pay attention—was not whether it is mawquf or marfu'? Is it in the ruling of marfu', in the ruling of marfu' or mawquf? It is mawquf, clearly.

Another questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Because we said that the hadith came from 'Amir ibn Yasir, he said. And it did not come from 'Amir ibn Yasir, he said: The Messenger of Allah said. So this hadith is mawquf? Mawquf; but the question is whether it is in the ruling of marfu' or not?
The Shaykh: Whoever has an answer, raise his finger again.
Please proceed.

Another questioner : It is mawquf because it is not—as is said—said by opinion; because it is not from the matters of the unseen; because for the matters of the unseen, it is said that it has the ruling of marfu', and it is not said by opinion. So this is not from the matters of the unseen.

The Shaykh : Okay, do you have something or is this it?

Another questioner : The answer is that it is marfu', marfu' because... it is not said by opinion.

Another questioner : On the contrary, it is.

The Shaykh : That is, the opposite, it is like it.

Another questioner : Yes... because it is not said by opinion.

The Shaykh : Why is it not said to be based on opinion? Yes, clarify, clarify why? Why is it not said to be based on opinion? Now.

Another questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : You did not raise your finger, Professor...

Another questioner : I did.

The Shaykh : Yes?

The questioner : I did.

The Shaykh : Fine; but you were not given permission to speak, the conversation is with the brother here.

The questioner : His son, his son.

The Shaykh : Why? Yes?

The questioner : With his son.

The Shaykh : His son, welcome, we need an explanation of why this hadith is considered marfu' (traced to the Prophet).

The questioner : It is because it is not said to be based on opinion.

The Shaykh : I mean, because he said: "He has disobeyed Abu al-Qasim"?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Fine, extend it with your support, Professor, since this is his son?

Another questioner : I mean, the issue involves disobedience; because the Messenger , this is something that 'Ammar would not dare to say from himself, and in it...

Another questioner: Peace be upon you.

Those present : And upon you be peace and the mercy of Allah.

The questioner : This is considered marfu' (traced to the Prophet).

The Shaykh : Fine; what is the evidence that this is marfu' (traced to the Prophet) other than what you mentioned?

Another questioner : Because it is a devotional matter, a devotional command, and devotion depends on the person of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), and what came from Allah (Mighty and Majestic) is not said...

The Shaykh : Fine; is there anyone who has an explanation regarding this answer? Perhaps other people have an answer different from what was mentioned, perhaps other people also agree with the two respondents here, but we need additional reasoning if there is none, we hear the answers of the others, what?

Another questioner : The hadith is mawquf (stopping at a Companion).

The Shaykh : Regarding this answer, or not?

Another questioner : Refuting his answer, I mean?

The Shaykh : No, not a refutation; a reasoning.

Another questioner : A reasoning.

The Shaykh: Yes.

Another questioner : He said: A devotional command is not said to be based on opinion, and it is established from the Companions many opinions in devotional matters that contradict the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him); so based on his statement, every opinion that came from a Companion in a devotional matter must be raised to the level of marfu' (traced to the Prophet), and the truth is contrary to that.

The Shaykh : Did you hear, Professor...?

Another questioner : ...he has disobeyed.

The Shaykh : Yes, but the brother is pointing out that there are rulings that are said to be forbidden, and said to be obligatory, and these are matters of ijtihad (independent legal reasoning), and the Companions differed in that; therefore this reality undermines the argument that I resorted to.
Fine; please proceed.

Another questioner : I say it is marfu' (traced to the Prophet), and that is indicated by 'Ammar's statement "he has disobeyed Abu al-Qasim," as if it implies that he understood this ruling from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him).

The Shaykh : Fine; anything else?

Another questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh: Go ahead.

Another questioner : The hadith is mawquf (stopping at a Companion) and not marfu' (traced to the Prophet), and the reason is that if I were in his place, I would have understood this matter from the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him): , , and so on; so Ibn 'Umar understood that the addition...

Another questioner : 'Ammar.

Another questioner : Excuse me, 'Ammar understood the disobedience to Abu al-Qasim by this action from the general hadiths regarding religious innovation.

The Shaykh : Fine; do you have something?

Another questioner : I have to say: this hadith has the status of marfu' (traced to the Prophet) to the Prophet.

The Shaykh : Why?

Another questioner : Because 'Ammar with this word only "he has disobeyed Abu al-Qasim" as if he heard, I mean, we all assert that he heard the Messenger say that, but...

The Shaykh : Fine; we need evidence?

Another questioner : The evidence is his saying: "disobeyed Abu al-Qasim."

The Shaykh : You.

Another questioner : As if he is referring to the other hadith that I previously spoke about, that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade advancing before Ramadan by fasting one day.

The Shaykh : Are there others who have something different? Whether they are right or wrong; the important thing is discussion and understanding.
Yes.

Another questioner : I say: this has the status of marfu' (traced to the Prophet).

The Shaykh : It has the status of marfu' (traced to the Prophet).

Another questioner : Because I mean this is not said from the category of opinion, then there is the issue of halal and haram, also in the hadith of Abu Hurayrah when the man I mean left the mosque and called the adhan, he said: "As for this one, he has disobeyed Abu al-Qasim."

The Shaykh: Yes.

Another questioner : So this is the status of marfu' (traced to the Prophet), I mean.

The Shaykh : Yes, but you brought an answer that was refuted from here.

Another questioner : This is a matter of halal and haram, I mean... halal and haram is not said I mean except from Allah.

The Shaykh : ...they differed in many matters; this one says: halal, and this one says: haram, and this one says: obligatory, and this one says: not obligatory, in many matters they differed.

Another questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : So it is possible that the reason for the difference is ijtihad (independent legal reasoning), so the prohibition by a Companion of a matter does not mean it is marfu' (traced to the Prophet), nor does his permission of a matter mean it is marfu' (traced to the Prophet); because this is from the sources of ijtihad (independent legal reasoning), and the answer is what you heard from Professor Ali; and that is what we referred to when we spoke about the hadith: , and we said: that this hadith includes fasting the Day of Doubt; because it is the day before Ramadan, so this hadith includes fasting the Day of Doubt, so when 'Ammar ibn Yasir explicitly stated in the hadith... that whoever fasts the Day of Doubt has disobeyed Abu al-Qasim; his assertion that he has disobeyed Abu al-Qasim is based on the first hadith; because it says: , so whoever advances has disobeyed, so from here it is said the hadith has the status of marfu' (traced to the Prophet) for this hadith, and were it not for this hadith, it would be said this is his opinion and ijtihad (independent legal reasoning), and it does not mean that the mujtahid's (scholar qualified to derive rulings) explicit statement that whoever did such-and-such has disobeyed Allah and His Messenger that he received it directly from Allah and His Messenger, because we all know that the Imams used to forbid matters by way of qiyas (analogical reasoning), and this qiyas (analogical reasoning) is sometimes clear to all people and sometimes hidden from some people at least, then in the end sometimes he is right and sometimes he is wrong, but he is not blamed when he forbids or prevents something by way of what? Ijtihad (independent legal reasoning).
But some scholars have etiquette in that, for example, Imam Ahmad is known for rarely explicitly forbidding something unless it is textually established, likewise Malik, and they only express that by saying: "I dislike it," "I dislike it," "it is disliked," they do not go beyond that, and this is in reality part of their piety and part of their precision in expressing legal rulings, fearing that they will be judged: why did they forbid it when there is no text forbidding it?
In summary: this hadith has the status of marfu' (traced to the Prophet) by the evidence of the hadith before it; and therefore we said that the author followed the first hadith with the second to include the second, which is specific or more specific, in the first hadith, which is more general.
In summary: it becomes clear to us from the two mentioned hadiths that fasting the Day of Doubt is not permissible, and this is a matter in which there has been disagreement since ancient times, and this disagreement must not be considered as long as this first hadith explicitly forbids the Muslim from advancing before Ramadan by fasting one day or two days, a general prohibition, which includes fasting the Day of Doubt, and 'Ammar ibn Yasir (may Allah be pleased with him) explicitly stated that; therefore we should not let our minds be confused by this long, extended disagreement that we find here in the explanation and in other explanations of the much disagreement among scholars regarding the permissibility of fasting the Day of Doubt or its impermissibility; as long as the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade advancing before Ramadan, and no person of intellect and soundness doubts that whoever fasts the Day of Doubt has advanced by one day before Ramadan, and this is included in the prohibition mentioned earlier.