Discussion on fasting on Saturday, and the Shaykh’s clarification of when a statement constitutes a general legislative ruling.

The questioner : I would like to return to a point you discussed in the morning regarding fasting on Saturday.

The Shaykh : We have not had our fill of this topic. There is no harm, please proceed, on one condition: that the people do not get bored.

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh : Yes, please go ahead.

The questioner : I understood from your words that it is not permissible to fast on Saturday except in Ramadan.

The Shaykh : No, it is not only in Ramadan.

The questioner : No, please allow me to finish...

The Shaykh : No, no, do not give a lecture. I am telling you no, meaning that this understanding is not correct.

The questioner : Okay.

The Shaykh : So, do you want to give a lecture on the edge of a cliff? This understanding is not correct, because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said in clear Arabic: Now, I ask you: a man has days of Ramadan to make up.

The questioner : That is assumed, of course.

The Shaykh : Be patient, but it is not Ramadan; he does not fast in Ramadan.

The questioner : It is assumed.

The Shaykh : Fine, that is one case. The other is a man who made a vow upon himself...

The questioner : Yes, exactly.

The Shaykh : Is this Ramadan? Yes.

Another questioner : And another who has to fast two consecutive months.

The Shaykh : This is it, meaning there are many circumstances. Are these not circumstances?

The questioner : Meaning, apart from the assumed case?

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner : Apart from the assumed case? What does assumed mean?

The Shaykh : This is not my statement; this is the statement of the Prophet of all people:

The questioner : Okay.

The Shaykh : But you attributed to me the phrase "except in Ramadan." I did not say that first; rather, that was your understanding.

The questioner : Okay.

The Shaykh : And it is wrong in itself, as you have now realized. Fine, continue with the discussion.

The questioner : Meaning, if for example Saturday coincides with the Day of 'Arafah or the Day of 'Ashura.

The Shaykh : May Allah forgive you. You are making us regress, making us traditionalists as they say. [Laughter]The Shaykh : (may Allah have mercy on him).

The questioner : But if you would broaden your chest, may Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh : This is a discussion that took place there, and you will force me to return to the same answer I gave there previously.

The questioner : No, not at all, but in a summarized form.

The Shaykh : Yes, please. Whoever comes with you, come with him, please.

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh: Go ahead.

The questioner : Your fatwa and your word are heard and accepted, and there are things that are not denied. So I say: if Saturday coincides with the Day of 'Arafah, or the Day of 'Ashura, or one of the white days, or the six days of Shawwal, is it not permissible to fast? Is that how it is?

The Shaykh : A hundred percent, that is how it is.

The questioner : Well done. Fine, I was remembering two hadiths on this, and I would like you to clarify the point of conflict. In the hadith of 'A'ishah (may Allah be pleased with her), it is stated that he (peace and blessings be upon him) used to fast three days of every month: Saturday, Sunday, and Monday, and in the next month he would fast Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. Al-Tirmidhi graded this as good, but I am not aware of a detailed verification of the chain of narration.

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner : The second hadith is the hadith of Ibn 'Abbas from Umm Salama, in which they asked her about the fasting of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and she said: They rejected the narration of Kuraib, who had conveyed Umm Salama's report to them, and they stood up themselves and asked her, and she said: And it was authenticated, as al-Shawkani, Ibn Hibban, Ibn Khuzaymah, and al-Hakim stated, and al-Dhahabi agreed with them. So I find this hadith problematic.

The Shaykh : You are right to find it problematic.

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh : And you had no right to attribute to me what I did not say.

The questioner : I am sorry. The word "Ramadan" in its ruling and in its meaning.

The Shaykh : Fine. As for the fact that you find the matter problematic, the answer is indeed taken from my previous answers regarding matters other than this hadith. But often, people, or some people, do not care about the rules and the principles. Therefore, they want an answer for every branch and every hadith. Now, I am reminding you of what took place there when some of the noble Shaykhs came with the hadith of Juwayriyah, and you were present...

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : My answer was that this hadith permits fasting on Saturday, correct?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Fine. Your first and second hadiths permit fasting on Saturday. Have you heard an answer to that hadith? I tell you now, briefly, and the details may follow: the answer you heard regarding the hadith of Juwayriyah is the exact same answer for the hadith of Umm Salama and for the first hadith. The answer is the same, with some reservation that I will mention later. But I want to remind you that that answer is the answer.

The questioner : The same answer applies.

The Shaykh : "It is the answer" means this is the explanation that we may be forced to mention, since you wished for us to go back and become traditionalists, regressing backward.

The questioner : Our Shaykh, if the brothers have a desire...

The Shaykh : No problem.

The questioner : Shaykh... he says briefly.

The Shaykh : He says what?

The questioner : Briefly.

The Shaykh : Fine, may Allah reward him with good. We say now, briefly: these hadiths you mentioned now, or these two hadiths, like the hadith of Juwayriyah, we have not brought anything new except that we increased the number. So the hadiths permitting it, instead of one hadith, which is the hadith of Juwayriyah, the total became three hadiths. All these three hadiths fall within the scope of the permissibility of the disputed fasting, which is fasting on Saturday. If this statement I am making now is accepted, and I do not think anyone will dispute it, then the answer has already been given for this, because there is no difference between the hadith of Juwayriyah in that it indicates the permissibility of fasting on Saturday, and consequently there is no difference between the hadith of Umm Salama, because it indicates the same indication. And finally, the third hadith: whatever was the answer to the first hadith was the answer to the second, and whatever was the answer to the second was the answer to the third. And finally, that answer is the answer to the three hadiths. This is from the perspective of applying the principles of jurisprudence, that the present (specific case) takes precedence over the permissive (general rule). We gave approximate examples. And some of the nobles on your right, who attend the gatherings of knowledge, said when they heard the example I gave you, and you were all present: suppose it is Monday or Thursday, a day of 'Eid. Do you prefer to fast it because of the virtue in it? Or do you prefer to leave this fasting because it coincides with the day of 'Eid, and the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade fasting on the day of 'Eid? Some of the noble attendees stated, by Allah, this example convinces us completely, and previously we used to say the opposite of what he says.The Shaykh : But now, this example is very clear, because if a present case and a permissive rule conflict, the present case takes precedence over the permissive rule. Perhaps you remember with me that all this discussion took place in that session...

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Now, what have we gained, and without blame, from the fact that you added to the first hadith, the hadith of Juwayriyah, two other hadiths, which are like the first? They are all within the subject of permissibility. And at that time, the rule, as we mentioned, is that if a present case and a permissive rule conflict, the present case takes precedence over the permissive rule. This is from the jurisprudential perspective. From the hadith perspective, regarding the hadith of Ibn 'Abbas that you mentioned just now, the truth is that in past years I graded it as good in some of my books. Then it became clear to me that there is a man in it whose reliability is unknown. So I retracted my strengthening and grading of the hadith as good, as you quoted from al-Tirmidhi, and I included it in the section of *Da'if al-Targhib wa al-Tarhib* that has not yet been printed, whereas it was present in the first edition of *Sahih al-Targhib wa al-Tarhib*. Now, when we reprinted the first volume of *Sahih al-Targhib wa al-Tarhib* and it became clear to me that it has that defect, I removed this hadith from the *Sahih*. The new edition, which is from Dar al-Ma'arif, does not contain this hadith, because I moved it to *Da'if al-Targhib wa al-Tarhib*. So we say...
Al-Halabi: Our Shaykh.

The Shaykh: Yes.
Al-Halabi : I sent it in *Al-Silsilah al-Da'ifah*, part four.

The Shaykh : It is also there, may Allah reward you with good. We return to say: whoever is still convinced, or is convinced, that this hadith is established, as you saw from al-Tirmidhi, the jurisprudential answer is sufficient for him. And whoever is convinced, like I am convinced, that it is a hadith with a weak chain, we repeat the word we said there: this dead person does not deserve this condolence. A weak hadith that contradicts an authentic hadith has no value. As for the second hadith, which I am mentioning now, I am not certain that there is a disturbance in its text, and also some ignorance in some of its narrators. Perhaps our brother Ali will provide us with support.
Al-Halabi : Our Shaykh, there is a break between 'A'ishah and the narrator from her, and I asked you about it, so you did not include it in *Sahih al-Tirmidhi*. Therefore, it belongs to the other book.

The Shaykh : *Da'if al-Tirmidhi*.
Al-Halabi : *Da'if al-Tirmidhi*.

The Shaykh : This is it. So if you return, my teacher, you hide your longing? I didn't seek anything other than the Syrian military system. Stay in your place, you're going.The Shaykh : He laughs, may Allah have mercy on him.
Al-Halabi: Our Shaykh, we have benefited, oh Shaykh.

The Shaykh : May Allah reward you with good. He laughs.The Shaykh : (may Allah have mercy on him).

The questioner : If you would allow me.

The Shaykh: Go ahead.

The questioner : Also, from the principles of usul al-fiqh (the principles of jurisprudence) ...

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : That is, if the statement and the action contradict each other, the statement is given precedence over the action.

The Shaykh : Well done. May Allah reward you with good.

The questioner : Second, another principle of usul al-fiqh (the principles of jurisprudence) ...

The Shaykh : But I hope you direct this speech to your neighbor.

The questioner : Yes, he is a scholar of usul al-fiqh (the principles of jurisprudence).

Another questioner : It is the same hadith of the deaf woman. I came across a statement attributed to Imam Malik that it is a lie, and Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri says this is from the hadith of the Hawtaniyyin, and al-Layth ibn Sa'd says to us, "I did not narrate it and I kept it secret except that it spread." It is also reported from Ibn Taymiyyah that he says it is anomalous (shadhdh), and Abu Dawud says it is abrogated. What is your opinion?

The Shaykh : I also tell you, it is as if you were not present in that morning session. I personally reported from Abu Dawud that he mentioned a comment from Imam Malik. You were precise in mentioning it as a comment, that he said the hadith is invalid (batil), and this is what you did not say just now.

The questioner : And the truth is that it is a lie.

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner : A lie, a lie.

The Shaykh : Well, the thing is that Abu Dawud himself said this hadith is abrogated. So I am not unaware of these statements that weaken the value and status of this hadith. But what do you want from me if I have established, first for myself and second for others, four chains of narration for this hadith? Is it permissible to say of a hadith that has four chains, some of which are at least authentic in themselves, that it is an invalid hadith or a lie? Huh?

The questioner : This is what confuses me regarding the statements of the Imams, meaning ...

The Shaykh : Well, if Allah wills, the confusion is gone and it has fallen.

The questioner : The confusion still remains.

The Shaykh : Still remains?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh: Glory be to Allah!
Al-Halabi : Ibn Hajar and others denied this word from Imam Malik.

The Shaykh : That is what is supposed to be the case, but why does the confusion still remain in the chest of the professor, since he testified that you are, meaning, from the people of knowledge of usul al-fiqh (the principles of jurisprudence)?

The questioner : We are seeking the truth, if Allah wills.

The Shaykh : If Allah wills. Well, what about the others?

The questioner : The principle that al-Shawkani repeats: "If the statement of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) contradicts his action, the action is interpreted as specific to him, or the statement is given precedence over the action, because his action may be specific to him"?

The Shaykh : Excuse me, it is not necessary to interpret it as specific to him. Rather, it is interpreted in one of three ways. Either it is specific to him, and this is the last resort a jurist can take. The first is to say that this text issued by the Messenger (peace be upon him) in action can be based on the original permissibility, because legislation—and we mentioned this also in a recent session where we dealt with this this morning—means the Messenger (peace be upon him) may do something based on the presumption of original permissibility?
Al-Halabi : Yes, today.

The Shaykh : I remember it this way. If the statement contradicts his action (peace be upon him), the statement is given precedence over the action. This is a scientific principle of usul al-fiqh (the principles of jurisprudence) that it is very necessary for students of knowledge to remember this rule, because if they first believe in it and then apply it correctly, some of the issues that have been in your mind will certainly disappear, because you are convinced that this rule is a correct rule: "If the statement contradicts the action, the statement is given precedence over the action." Why? Because the statement of the Messenger (peace be upon him) is general legislation. It has come in the science of usul al-fiqh (the principles of jurisprudence) that a command issued by the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) directed to an individual from the Ummah is an address to the entire Ummah. Is this not from the principles? What do you say if the command is directed to the Ummah? to the end of the hadith. If a command is issued by the Messenger (peace be upon him) to an individual from the Ummah, and it is established for us that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) did the opposite of this command, we say the command is general legislation, and the action may be subject to factors that make it specific to him (peace be upon him). This is not from the known specific privileges which are among his (peace be upon him) virtues and characteristics in which no one among people shares with him, and some of which not even some of the prophets and messengers share with him, as is well known. If his (peace be upon him) command or statement contradicts his action, the statement is given precedence over the action for this reason: his statement is general legislation, and his action may or may not be general legislation. There is no doubt that it becomes general legislation with two conditions, which we mentioned this morning. The first condition is that it be an act of worship and not a custom, because customs do not enter into religious rulings. The second condition is that there be no contradicting statement issued by the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), as we are currently dealing with. If we find a statement that contradicts his (peace be upon him) action, we take his statement and leave his action, because his statement is the general law and his action may or may not be. Now we are examining this "may or may not."