The Shaykh’s warning regarding the issue of opening the door of precaution in religion, and that it may lead to opening the door of adding to the religion.

The Shaykh : And opening the door of precaution in religion is opening a major door to adding to the religion. In reality, there are many examples of this regarding certain jurisprudential rulings. Perhaps those present know that some schools of jurisprudence obligate one who has prayed the Friday prayer to pray the midday prayer after finishing it. Some schools of jurisprudence obligate this, but other schools do not obligate it. The first school obligates it on the basis that the prayer was not valid, so this one is prayed. But this other school says that there is scholarly disagreement regarding its conditions; if the conditions are met, the Friday prayer is valid, and if they are not met, the prayer is not valid. So, out of precaution, it is good to pray the midday prayer after the Friday prayer. This precaution leads its proponent to contradict what is known from the religion by necessity, namely that Allah the Exalted has only made obligatory five prayers in every day and night. It also leads to contradicting another explicit text, which is His saying (peace and blessings be upon him): So we know that what is prescribed for the day of Friday is the Friday prayer. If the Friday prayer is not valid like the midday prayer, then as for praying twice, once with the intention of Friday and once with the intention of midday, this contradicts this hadith, as well as contradicting that which is known from the religion by necessity. The hadith says: So in the same time, the time of midday, he prayed two prayers: the Friday prayer and then the midday prayer. Therefore, it is not permissible for a person to precede the ruling explicitly stated in the Shari'ah out of precaution, or out of what the common people say, "more good is better." There is no good after what Allah the Exalted has legislated through the tongue of His Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). In summary, this hadith, in the time when the Muslim is forbidden to precede Ramadan by fasting one or two days, clarifies that there is no objection to fasting what was customary for him before Ramadan. If it is his custom to fast, for example, three days of every month, and Ramadan comes, he may fast these three days. He may fast two days. He may fast one day, as long as he did not intend to fast specifically for the sake of Ramadan, because Ramadan has a limited number of days. He fasted only to carry out that prescribed custom he was accustomed to. Thus, this hadith, whose authenticity is agreed upon by scholars, covers directly what scholars have differed on regarding fasting the day of doubt. Fasting the day of doubt: some say it is prescribed, also out of precaution, and some say it is not prescribed. The aforementioned hadith is evidence and support for the opinion that says fasting the day of doubt is not prescribed. That is because it will come in the authentic hadiths that Ramadan is established by sighting the moon. If there is no sighting, then completing the month, meaning the month of Sha'ban, is thirty days. So why would a person fast the day of doubt?