What is the authenticity of the statement by Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim regarding the weakening of the hadith prohibiting fasting on Saturday? And what is the authenticity of this hadith?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh: Here, where is the question that you want?
The questioner: ... Do you have a question because the Shaykh?
Another questioner: Regarding the issue of this, no problem, we will return to the issue of Saturday. I did not hear, I read your statements.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner: That is, there was a shaykh who was speaking about the case and cited the statements of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim in his speech. Ibn al-Qayyim cited al-Awza'i and Yahya al-Qattan regarding the weakening of the hadith, meaning the casting of doubt on the hadith. He said in al-Muntaqa: "This hadith is defective." And the hadith is the one that was, and no one said it was not defective! And he said: Is this preferred over that in the chains of narration for determining the stronger position, or something like that? And he mentioned evidence as well in what Ibn Taymiyyah affirmed ... .
The Shaykh: We had mentioned the statement of Ibn al-Qayyim and his Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah in Minar al-Sabil, and in any case, and I hope you are with us in this, we are not Taymiyyis.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh: Ah, so we are followers of the truth wherever it is. We learned fromThe Shaykh : the aforementioned this principle, that the truth is not known by men, but rather men are known by the truth. So know the truth and you will know the men. Ibn Taymiyyah, and he is undoubtedly more knowledgeable than his student Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah, is obviously not an infallible prophet. So we look at his opinions and his ideas with the same lens that he used to look at the issues of the opponents, and he preferred from them what he saw as suitable for the evidence of the Book and the Sunnah. So I mentioned in al-Irwaa', and perhaps in other than al-Irwaa' as well, which has not yet been published, that the scholars divided over this hadith into a group. So some of them transmitted from the Imam of the City of Migration that the hadith is a lie, and this is the most corrupt statement said about this hadith. Because the hadith being a lie cannot be reached except by one of two ways, and there is no third: either it was not transmitted except through the path of a liar and fabricator, and it is said about this hadith that it is a lie or fabricated, or it contradicts a text from the Book of Allah or from the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) that is established and authentic from him, and it is said that it is opposed to the Book and the Sunnah, so it is cast aside. This hadith has nothing of this or that. And therefore, this transmission that is transmitted in some books and clung to by some contemporary doctors who are truly strangers to the science of hadith and the science of fiqh, to the principles of the science of hadith, and to the principles of the science of fiqh, they had published before the Day of 'Arafah, they published an article in the newspaper al-Sabil by a doctor whose name I do not know if it is a real name or a pseudonym, because we know in the present age that they take such a path. The name of this doctor: Jamal Abu Hassan or Abu Hassan, I am now in doubt. The important thing is not his name to me, but his research. So he transmitted in this research a summary that suits him from what I had mentioned in al-Irwaa', and from that that some of the Imams denied this hadith. And this denial, if it had come to us with a correct chain from Imam Malik that he said about this hadith that it is a lie, we would have returned it, and we would say: This is the statement of a scholar who has his status and position with us. But we are not - also - Malikis.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: But we weigh his words with the scale of the straight Shari'ah. So how is it when this transmission has no rein and no bridle? So then it is cast aside. If that had come from Malik with a correct chain, we would reject it, because it contradicts the authentic hadith. This is the worst that was said about this hadith.
The questioner: ... Do you have a question because the Shaykh?
Another questioner: Regarding the issue of this, no problem, we will return to the issue of Saturday. I did not hear, I read your statements.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner: That is, there was a shaykh who was speaking about the case and cited the statements of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim in his speech. Ibn al-Qayyim cited al-Awza'i and Yahya al-Qattan regarding the weakening of the hadith, meaning the casting of doubt on the hadith. He said in al-Muntaqa: "This hadith is defective." And the hadith is the one that was
He used to fast (peace and blessings be upon him) on Saturday
كان يصوم - صلى الله عليه وسلم - السبتThe Shaykh: We had mentioned the statement of Ibn al-Qayyim and his Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah in Minar al-Sabil, and in any case, and I hope you are with us in this, we are not Taymiyyis.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh: Ah, so we are followers of the truth wherever it is. We learned fromThe Shaykh : the aforementioned this principle, that the truth is not known by men, but rather men are known by the truth. So know the truth and you will know the men. Ibn Taymiyyah, and he is undoubtedly more knowledgeable than his student Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah, is obviously not an infallible prophet. So we look at his opinions and his ideas with the same lens that he used to look at the issues of the opponents, and he preferred from them what he saw as suitable for the evidence of the Book and the Sunnah. So I mentioned in al-Irwaa', and perhaps in other than al-Irwaa' as well, which has not yet been published, that the scholars divided over this hadith into a group. So some of them transmitted from the Imam of the City of Migration that the hadith is a lie, and this is the most corrupt statement said about this hadith. Because the hadith being a lie cannot be reached except by one of two ways, and there is no third: either it was not transmitted except through the path of a liar and fabricator, and it is said about this hadith that it is a lie or fabricated, or it contradicts a text from the Book of Allah or from the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) that is established and authentic from him, and it is said that it is opposed to the Book and the Sunnah, so it is cast aside. This hadith has nothing of this or that. And therefore, this transmission that is transmitted in some books and clung to by some contemporary doctors who are truly strangers to the science of hadith and the science of fiqh, to the principles of the science of hadith, and to the principles of the science of fiqh, they had published before the Day of 'Arafah, they published an article in the newspaper al-Sabil by a doctor whose name I do not know if it is a real name or a pseudonym, because we know in the present age that they take such a path. The name of this doctor: Jamal Abu Hassan or Abu Hassan, I am now in doubt. The important thing is not his name to me, but his research. So he transmitted in this research a summary that suits him from what I had mentioned in al-Irwaa', and from that that some of the Imams denied this hadith. And this denial, if it had come to us with a correct chain from Imam Malik that he said about this hadith that it is a lie, we would have returned it, and we would say: This is the statement of a scholar who has his status and position with us. But we are not - also - Malikis.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: But we weigh his words with the scale of the straight Shari'ah. So how is it when this transmission has no rein and no bridle? So then it is cast aside. If that had come from Malik with a correct chain, we would reject it, because it contradicts the authentic hadith. This is the worst that was said about this hadith.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.