Is the hadith "Do not fast on Saturday" abrogated?

The questioner : The hadith in *Sabil al-Salam* states that it is disturbed, and it also states that it is abrogated.

The Shaykh : Do not say "it says"; say "it reports," because there is a difference between "says" and "reports."

The questioner : Yes, it is not the opinion of the author of the book.

The Shaykh : That is why you should say "it reports" and not "it says."

The questioner : I said that *Sabil al-Salam* attributes this to the book, not to the author. Also, in *Bidayat al-Mujtahid*, *Sabil al-Salam* says that it is abrogated by the hadith that it reports... because it did not give its opinion; it reports that the hadith is disturbed because it is a report from a single narrator, and it reports from so-and-so and so-and-so, then it reports afterwards that the hadith is abrogated. I believe the abrogation is attributed to al-Nasa'i or to Abu Dawud, so to al-Nasa'i in *Bidayat al-Mujtahid*, because in both cases it abrogates the hadith in *Sabil al-Salam* that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) used to fast most often on Saturday and Sunday, and when asked about that, he said, meaning, we must differ from the Jews and the Christians. Yes. Then in *Bidayat al-Mujtahid*, the hadith is abrogated by another hadith, different from the one mentioned in *Sabil al-Salam*. Also, in *Fiqh al-Sunnah*, it brings the hadith and puts number one, saying "except for what is obligatory upon you of fasting, or a vow, or a voluntary fast," and completes its hadith by saying "such as fasting on the Day of 'Arafah." So truly, look, at least three reliable books. This is what I was able to look into after the topic was raised, because the topic, as it was presented for the first time in this form, if it passed before the scholars, they would be confused by the matter and say that fasting on Saturday is permissible.

The Shaykh : You are right. Let us deal with the topic one by one. Do we start with the abrogation or the disturbance?

The questioner : By Allah, it is up to you.

The Shaykh : No, I mean, yes, it is up to me, but what is the choice you are making? Do you have a definition of a disturbed hadith in your mind?

The questioner:
I may not have the precise definition, but I have a concept of it. I mean, a disturbed hadith, if it is a report from a single narrator...

The Shaykh : .....

The questioner : For example, so-and-so narrates from so-and-so, and he did not hear from him, and so-and-so is trustworthy, but he did not hear from so-and-so. This is generally the case.

The Shaykh : This hadith that was said to be disturbed revolves around a Companion named Abdullah ibn Busr. Some hadith scholars narrate it with a valid chain from him, saying "I heard the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him)." This is one aspect. The second aspect is from Abdullah ibn Busr from his sister al-Sama', who said "I heard the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him)." This is what they mean by disturbance: that it comes in different forms. Did he hear it from the Messenger of Allah, or did he hear it from his sister from the Messenger of Allah? And I think there is a third aspect now, but I am not remembering it. This is what the claimants of disturbance in the hadith claim. This is the disturbance. If we return to the science of terminology, when they speak about the disturbed hadith and say that it is the one that comes in different forms, sometimes in the chain and sometimes in the text, the hadith scholars say, and this is part of their precision, the hadith...
They do not say "abrogated." The actual statement is that the action indicated that the prohibition is not for prohibition. As for the entire prohibition being abrogated, that means the ruling is suspended legally, because the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) did the opposite of it.

The questioner : Repeat, our Shaykh, what is the first statement?

The Shaykh : Some scholars have a position that is more moderate than the position of those who say the hadith is abrogated by his (peace and blessings be upon him) action. What do they say? They say his action indicated that the prohibition is not for prohibition, but for discouragement. So they preserved the text and did not suspend it entirely as the first group did. They said there is a prohibition, but the prohibition is not for prohibition, but for discouragement. And if it is said that the prohibition is for discouragement, it will be said: is it better to fast or to leave it? The answer will be: leave it, because it is disliked. Why would you trouble yourself with it? Here comes the hadith we mentioned in the session after lunch: "Fasting on Saturday is neither for you nor against you." This hadith is different from that one. This gives us some of the meaning of that one, and that one testifies to this one, because when it says "neither for you nor against you," it means it turns the Muslims away from fasting on Saturday, right? Or do you not imagine a sane person would trouble himself without reward, but with dislike? What else is there besides what I mentioned? We mentioned the disturbance and the abrogation.

The questioner : And the abrogation has two aspects: one aspect mentioned in *Sabil al-Salam* and one aspect mentioned in *Bidayat al-Mujtahid*.

The Shaykh : And he

The questioner : And it is that it is abrogated by the hadith of Juwayriyah, that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) came on a Friday and she was fasting.

The Shaykh : Abrogation requires knowing what is earlier and what is later. This is a condition of the abrogating and the abrogated among hadith scholars. Here we do not have a dating that determines what is earlier and what is later. In this case, we must resort to combining and reconciling by one of the great rules. Now, the combination is by what came before, so we say we have two cases that we discussed with...The Shaykh : Al-Ashqar today. The majority of Muslims who fasted on Saturday did not fast on Friday, most of them. So these people are directly subject to the hadith, because it is not said "the day before it or the day after it," because they did not fast on Friday.

The questioner : And they did not fast on Sunday, because it is the festival.

The Shaykh : The important thing is that these people contradicted the hadith explicitly. Now, let us assume one person fasted on Friday and fasted on Saturday. Based on whose hadith? Juwayriyah's. The answer, by one rule or more than one rule from what came before: fasting on Friday is not prescribed except on the day before it and the day after it. But is this obligatory? The hadith is saying "except for what is obligatory upon you." So the permission in the hadith of Juwayriyah is permissive, and the hadith of Abdullah ibn Busr is present. The present is preferred over the permissive. It is clear. Therefore, the issue does not need much discussion for one who knows the scientific and jurisprudential rules.

The questioner : Your speech today has become complete, because we did not hear from you previously what you reported from al-Tahawi.

The Shaykh : Yes, there are people who, unfortunately, due to their ignorance, assume that this is the opinion of Al-Albani. We did not hear this from our early fathers, and they brought it to us two or three days ago in front of the mosque. It became like this among the people. But the truth is, Allah (Mighty and Majestic) preserves His religion. I do not imagine a hadith like this, explicit, comprehensive, and exclusive, that the entire Ummah agrees to leave it, to leave acting upon it. This is impossible. And yet, I mention something because the reality is that studying the hadith aspect is different from the jurisprudential aspect. And when I am tracing a book like *Irwaa' al-Ghalil*, the hadith aspect prevails on me: authenticating and weakening. Among the sources that narrated this hadith is *Sharh Ma'ani Athar al-Tahawi*. In *Irwaa'*, this is mentioned for me. So it occurred to me yesterday, I no longer remember, I know that al-Tahawi is a noble, wide-ranging scholar... in this regard, from the jurisprudential aspect.

The questioner : The book *Mushkil al-Athar*.

The Shaykh : *Sharh Ma'ani al-Athar* is not *Mushkil*. He has two books: one is named *Sharh Ma'ani al-Athar* and the other is named *Mushkil al-Athar*. I am saying *Sharh Ma'ani al-Athar*. So the hadith traced for me in *Irwaa'* is also from the path of *Sharh Ma'ani al-Athar*. So I said to myself, let me return from the jurisprudential aspect... from what came before you, etc. And there, the first thing he says is that a group said "it is disliked to fast on Saturday," and he mentioned the hadith. And he said the others said "except the day before it and the day after it," etc. And I mentioned to Shaykh Muhammad that in my mind, a long time ago, that Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned this meaning. But now we have an earlier chain, because this is Ibn Taymiyyah from three hundred years and more.

The questioner : Regarding the same topic, meaning, he also followed him, even though it is an issue, because it is only an hour old. Now, regarding fasting on Saturday, whether it is isolated on 'Arafah, the ruling applies to its isolation on 'Ashura', it applies to it in any... So if, for example, a question came that it passed over the Companions, especially the first decade, years, if not more or less, fasting on Saturday while in 'Arafah or in 'Ashura', did it come from the Companions that they prohibited fasting on it, or that they did not fast on it? Because this matter encompasses all Muslims, so it is supposed to have an effect on the Ummah and its application in a broader way.

The Shaykh : This question has two answers for me: a dialectical answer and a scientific answer. The dialectical answer is the opposite: did it come...

The questioner : That they fasted on it? No report has come.

The Shaykh : This question is not directed at me; I direct it to the one who directs it, whoever it is. The result of this confrontation is the dismissal of this speech.The questioner : I understand what you mean. In other words, this question has been raised regarding two groups. We do not have a ruling that says "this way" or "that way" as a general principle. But yes, we have this hadith. As for its strength, I have it in *Sahih al-Jami'*: "Fasting on Saturday is neither for you nor against you." I have strengthened it with the hadith "Do not fast on Saturday," but that is sound only as a report stopping at a Companion. The Companion said, "Fasting on Saturday is neither for you nor against you." Who is the one who forbids this? It is a report stopping at a Companion. I no longer remember now whether it was Anas ibn Malik or Abu Hurayrah; it is not mentioned in my notes, but it is from a Companion with a sound chain: "Fasting on Saturday is neither for you nor against you." And this is based on the standard of the one who fasts the whole year: did he fast or did he invalidate his fast by fasting the whole year?
So, fast, O Muslim. Who is the one who harms himself by fasting the whole year for free, except a fool? So, regarding fasting on Saturday, the Companion said, "It is neither for you nor against you." So, this is from our side, and it is also our argument, even though the words of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) are sufficient for us from the perspective of...

The questioner : You are a professor. You mentioned statements regarding fasting on Saturday in the new editions of *Sahih al-Targhib*. Is it currently in print, or has it already been printed?

The Shaykh : Yes, it is naturally in print. Perhaps they printed it on the way back. I no longer remember, because we submitted it a long time ago.

The questioner : Also, regarding the issue, which may be the conclusion for this topic: the issue of forbidden fasting. It has not been reported from any of the jurists that they added fasting on Saturday alone. They agreed on the prohibition of fasting on the day of Eid al-Fitr and the day of Eid al-Adha, and the days of Tashreeq. Even though they permitted fasting on the days of Tashreeq for the pilgrim, some of them said that these days are not forbidden, but there is disagreement; they are disliked. It has not been reported on the tongue of any jurist that fasting on Saturday is a forbidden term, for example, in a chapter titled "What is Disliked to Fast." And in this sense, the issue of "except what is obligatory upon you"—even though you answered during the conversation—let us suppose it is disliked for the sake of caution, and it is better to leave it. But the phrase "except what is obligatory upon you" does not give fasting on Saturday the degree of prohibition and sin for the one who fasts. It only means "it is neither for you nor against you," meaning he tired himself without reward. I do not know, but I lean toward this opinion. I do not reach the degree of making fasting on Saturday forbidden.

The Shaykh: Why?

The questioner : Due to the existence of other evidences that I mentioned in the other hadiths.

The Shaykh : These were mentioned in the research... by way of transmission. So, they are either abrogating or clear. If they are abrogating, it is not permissible for you to say it is disliked, because the text "Do not fast on Saturday" has been abrogated.

The questioner : The other hadiths.

The Shaykh : No, he says the other hadiths that I mentioned. I summarize the statement into two parts: verbal and practical. The statement of the Messenger of Allah from his actions: these hadiths were transmitted. I am not saying I said they were transmitted; I am saying they were transmitted. That these abrogated the hadith "Do not fast on Saturday," correct? If you accept that these abrogated that hadith, you will have no room to say, "I hold that the hadith is to be understood as a recommendation of dislike (tanzihiyyah) and not as prohibition," because the hadith is abrogated.

The questioner : No, the hadith is not abrogated. We reconcile the texts.

The Shaykh : So, I now adopt the position that you adopt: that the hadith "Do not fast on Saturday" is not abrogated, but you say it is not for prohibition. Why?

The questioner : Due to the existence of other texts indicating the permissibility of the Messenger of Allah, verbally or practically, such as his fasting and his saying to al-Jawariyyah, "Do you fast the day after it?" His statement indicates the permissibility of fasting on Saturday.

The Shaykh : Wait a moment, because the issue requires new detail. You have people who fast as it happened, and we have discussed this, but it seems you forgot. People fasted on Saturday without fasting on Friday. For those who fasted on Saturday without fasting on Friday, is the dislike a prohibition or a recommendation? If you say, as you said earlier, that it is a recommended dislike, what is the evidence? The hadith of al-Jawariyyah has no relation to this, correct?

The questioner : Regarding the permissibility of fasting on Saturday.

The Shaykh : Regarding those who fasted on Saturday but did not fast on Friday, the hadith of al-Jawariyyah has no bearing on this issue. So, what is your opinion of these people? Did they commit a prohibited dislike or a recommended dislike? If you say it is a recommended dislike, what is the evidence? We have set aside the hadith of al-Jawariyyah now; it has no relation to the issue. So, what is the evidence that the dislike is a recommended dislike? I told you this. So, it is not permissible to say, "I hold the hadith to be a recommended dislike," because the question remains: why do you say dislike? I have a recommended dislike, and the hadith is first a prohibition, and the original ruling of a prohibition is prohibition unless there is evidence. And this evidence is now missing for us. But we have in the core of the hadith evidence that confirms that the prohibition is for prohibition, which is his saying (peace and blessings be upon him), "Except what is obligatory upon you. If one of you finds nothing but the bark of a tree, let him chew it." This confirms that the prohibition is not for recommendation.

The questioner : The same hadith confirms that the prohibition is not for recommendation, but in the other hadiths...

The Shaykh : May Allah forgive you.

The questioner : But I say, from the perspective that I fully understand what you want and have grasped it, but how can the other hadiths... how can the two hadiths we mentioned... how can the hadith of al-Jawariyyah... this is not from my opinion.

The Shaykh : The hadith of al-Jawariyyah, in this context, has no relation. The hadith of al-Jawariyyah relates to the one who fasts on Friday. And we say, these are the ones who fasted on the Day of 'Arafah, which is Saturday, but did not fast on Friday. So, for these people, is it a recommended dislike or a prohibited dislike?

The questioner : It rises from a recommended dislike to a prohibited dislike.

The Shaykh : This is it. If that is the case, can we say it is sometimes a recommended dislike and sometimes a prohibited dislike? That is not reasonable. So, if we return to the one who fasted on Friday and followed it with fasting on Saturday, we say that the hadith of al-Jawariyyah permits this. But the hadith "Do not fast" has a specific context and does not permit it. So, there is no contradiction at all.