Regarding the prohibition of fasting on Saturday, and whether the matter has been unknown from the time of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) to our day?

The questioner : He said: Can the truth be buried; meaning, from the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)? Is this permissible? I said: No, this is not to be expected. He said: Regarding the issue of fasting on Saturday; meaning, it is not known from the previous scholars, or do you know, for example, who said this? And he discussed it. My answer was: Not knowing a thing—as you have taught us—does not imply its non-existence. I asked him and said to him: Where is the fiqh? Meaning, there may be someone more knowledgeable in fiqh than the four Imams (may Allah have mercy on them), but their fiqh was not recorded. And the Shaykhs of al-Bukhari, for example, have their share of fiqh, but their fiqh is not recorded. And before all that, where is the fiqh of the Companions, for example, in the form we see now? Meaning, was it recorded and so on? But that brother kept speaking and we were in dialogue, so we want to benefit from you in this matter.

The Shaykh : I say: My benefit in this matter is sometimes in a way different from what you know from me.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : I say: I am almost overcome with anger at these young men whom you sometimes call some of the youth, or you say some of our brothers say this and that. What has this brother studied of knowledge? What has he acquired? What has he studied from the books until he comes to say: Yes, it was lost, meaning, from the time of the Companions to today it was lost. What defines him? I mean, repeat your phrase now, how did I treat this example?

The questioner : May Allah have mercy on you.

The Shaykh : What did he say initially?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Do not say: Yes. Answer; what did he say initially?

The questioner : Yes—O Shaykh—, initially he asked me, saying: Is the truth, meaning, not apparent; meaning, from the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) until now?

The Shaykh : Okay; why is he saying this? I say: Why are you saying this?

The questioner : Yes, because the truth is not apparent to him in itself.

The Shaykh : Okay; did he study the issue?

The questioner : Yes, yes.

The Shaykh : Did he study the issue?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Did he research?

The questioner : They have no research, but the extent of their research is only names; there is nothing else.

The Shaykh : What is the issue of names, what names?

The questioner : This is their argument, the extent of their argument... The scholars say, this... is their argument, there is no scholarly discourse.

The Shaykh : What do the scholars say?

The questioner : Their argument is that, for example, we...

The Shaykh : What do the scholars say?

The questioner : The scholars, for example, said with the prohibition of fasting on Saturday, yes.

The Shaykh : This is a departure from the research.

The questioner : Yes, yes.

The Shaykh : How is it yes, yes?

The questioner : Regarding, it was our topic about fasting on Saturday.

The Shaykh : My brother, it is understood that the topic is fasting on Saturday, whereas the last topic raised this question.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : By what right does he direct this question? Your answer, according to what he hears from the scholars.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : What did he hear from the scholars regarding his question?

The questioner : Ah, he is, as he says, meaning, he did not see anyone who prohibits regarding the issue of fasting if one is alone and it is not an obligatory prayer.

The Shaykh : Okay; did he not see in the present age and in the past ages from which his question began with the Companions and you descended?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Why is he asking this question?

The questioner : The same words, the same words, but meaning—Glory be to Allah!—the influence remains; meaning, the influence of people currently in the atmosphere of the scholars, until I said this word; I said: As long as we are influenced by the issue of the atmosphere of the majority, I have a project, which is the abolition—and there is no power nor strength except by Allah!—of the issue of returning to the Book and the Sunnah, just a statistical process where we return to the issues; this issue, for example, nine said this, this one three said this; so this is forbidden according to the opinion of nine against three, this, for example, is obligatory six against two, and so on, we are left with numbers, one volume for all the fiqh issues, one volume and we rely on numbers by numbers, meaning, just, so I... in the same issue that fasting, that even the scholars did not agree on one matter, there is, for example, one who weakened the hadith. There, no; one who said: The hadith is authentic but it is abrogated. There is one who said: The hadith is neither weak nor abrogated, but we have, meaning, we have fiqh issues in the matter, and so they were confused in the reasoning and permissibility, but the final result—yes, indeed—in a specific result—for example—in what we know, but they did not agree on a unified scientific matter, so I requested discussion in the matter, meaning, a scientific discussion without the names, without this matter.

The Shaykh : The discourse, the research with one who claims knowledge has a style, meaning, he thinks in himself that he is a scholar.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : And with one who explicitly says, by Allah, I am not a scholar, there is another style. When he claims knowledge, we say to him—as you heard just now: Did you study the topic with a wide study and reach a result that no one from the scholars said what will be heard now, or if it is unknown, it is not.

The questioner : ... was ... a little.

The Shaykh : Yes?

Another questioner : Slow down a little.

The Shaykh : But if he is from the general people, what does he want with all this in this call; that someone said or someone did not say, and so on? It is upon us to present the knowledge, but one who does not understand anything comes to object with this objection; this is not the concern of the one who does not know, that is the concern of the one who knows; at that time, as it is said: War is a back-and-forth; meaning: The debate is a back-and-forth; it is said at that time—my brother—as you said: It is not necessary that the lack of knowledge implies knowledge of the thing; "Not knowing a thing does not imply knowledge of its non-existence," now this word, if I said it, most people would not understand it, how do you research with them the thorny issue in this regard, which is so great that the scholars and jurists differed in it?

Those present: Peace be upon you.