The Shaykh's response to those who claim that the hadith prohibiting fasting on Saturday is a fabricated hadith
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Regarding the issue of Saturday, I have not heard or read your statements, but there was a Shaykh who spoke on the issue, citing the views of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim. He mentioned that Ibn al-Qayyim cited al-Awza'i and Yahya al-Qattan as having weakened the hadith, meaning... the hadith. And he said in the end: "This is a defective hadith." The hadith follows the fact that what the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) fasted most often was Saturday and Sunday... He mentioned methods of preference and such, and also cited evidence that Ibn Taymiyyah had transmitted...
The Shaykh : We had mentioned the words of Ibn al-Qayyim and his Shaykh, Ibn Taymiyyah, in *Manar al-Sabil*. In any case, and I hope you are with us in this, we are not Taymiyyis, correct? Ah, we are followers of the truth wherever it is. We learned from the aforementioned scholars this principle: the truth is not known by men, but men are known by the truth. Know the truth, and you will know the men. Ibn Taymiyyah is, without a doubt, more knowledgeable than his student Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah. Obviously, he is not an infallible Prophet. So we look at his opinions and ideas with the same lens he used to look at the issues of those who opposed him, preferring what he deemed appropriate based on the evidence of the Book and the Sunnah. So I mentioned in *Al-Arwah*, and perhaps in other works not yet published, that the scholars divided over this hadith into groups. Some of them cited the Imam of the Abode of Migration as saying the hadith is a lie. This is the worst statement made about this hadith, because declaring a hadith a lie can only be done in one of two ways, and there is no third: either it was not narrated except through a liar and a weak narrator, in which case it is said to be a lie or fabricated; or it contradicts a text from the Book of Allah or a hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) that is established and authentic from him, in which case it is said to be opposed to the Book and the Sunnah and is cast aside. This hadith contains none of that. Therefore, this transmission found in some books, to which some contemporary doctors cling—who are truly strangers to the science of hadith, the science of jurisprudence, the principles of hadith science, and the principles of jurisprudence—had published an article in the newspaper *Al-Sabil* just before the Day of 'Arafah. The doctor's name is... I do not know if it is a real name or a pseudonym, because we know that in the present age they take such a path. The name of this doctor is Jamal Abu Hassan or Abu Ihsan. I am currently doubtful. In any case, his name does not concern me; his research does. In this research, he cited a summary that suited him from what I had mentioned in *Al-Arwah*. Among that was the claim that some Imams declared this hadith a lie. If this declaration of falsehood had reached us with a correct chain from Imam Malik, stating that he said this hadith is a lie, we would have rejected it. We would not say, "This is the statement of a scholar of his stature and position with us," but we are also not Malikis. Rather, we weigh his words with the scale of the straight Shari'ah. How so, when this transmission has no saddle and no bridle? Therefore, it is cast aside. If that had been reported from Malik with a correct chain, we would reject it because it contradicts the authentic hadith. This is the worst that has been said about this hadith.The Shaykh : The principle mentioned by those scholars is that the truth is not known through men, but rather men are known through the truth. As Ibn Taymiyyah said, "Know the truth, and you will know the men." He is undoubtedly more knowledgeable than his student, Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah. Of course, he was not an infallible prophet. Therefore, we look at his opinions and ideas from the same perspective from which he looked at the issues of those who disagreed with him, preferring what he deemed appropriate based on the evidence of the Book and the Sunnah. I mentioned in *Al-Irwaa*—and perhaps in other unpublished works as well—that the scholars divided over this hadith into groups. Some of them reported from the Imam of the Abode of Migration that the hadith is a lie. This is the worst statement made about this hadith, because declaring a hadith to be a lie can only be done in one of two ways, with no third option: either it was narrated only through a liar and a fabricator, in which case it is called a lie or a fabrication; or it contradicts a text from the Book of Allah or a sound, authentic hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), in which case it is said to be opposed to the Book and the Sunnah and is cast aside. This hadith contains none of that. Therefore, this report found in some books, which some contemporary doctors cling to—though they are truly strangers to the science of hadith, the science of jurisprudence, and the principles of both—was published in the newspaper *Al-Sabil* just before the Day of 'Arafah. It was an article by a doctor whose name I do not know if it is real or a pseudonym, because we know that in the present age they take such paths. The name of this doctor is Jamal Abu Hassan or Abu Ihsan; I am currently doubtful. In any case, his name does not concern me; his research does. In this research, he quoted a summary that suited him from what I had mentioned in *Al-Irwaa*, including the claim that some of the Imams declared this hadith a lie. If this denial had been transmitted to us with a sound chain from Imam Malik, stating that he said this hadith is a lie, we would have rejected it and would not say, "This is the statement of a scholar of his stature and position with us," but we are also not Malikis; rather, we weigh his words with the scale of the straight Shari'ah. How can it be otherwise when this report has no camel and no bridle? Therefore, it is cast aside. If that had been reported from Malik with a sound chain, we would reject it because it contradicts the sound hadith. This is the worst that has been said about this hadith.
The Shaykh : We had mentioned the words of Ibn al-Qayyim and his Shaykh, Ibn Taymiyyah, in *Manar al-Sabil*. In any case, and I hope you are with us in this, we are not Taymiyyis, correct? Ah, we are followers of the truth wherever it is. We learned from the aforementioned scholars this principle: the truth is not known by men, but men are known by the truth. Know the truth, and you will know the men. Ibn Taymiyyah is, without a doubt, more knowledgeable than his student Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah. Obviously, he is not an infallible Prophet. So we look at his opinions and ideas with the same lens he used to look at the issues of those who opposed him, preferring what he deemed appropriate based on the evidence of the Book and the Sunnah. So I mentioned in *Al-Arwah*, and perhaps in other works not yet published, that the scholars divided over this hadith into groups. Some of them cited the Imam of the Abode of Migration as saying the hadith is a lie. This is the worst statement made about this hadith, because declaring a hadith a lie can only be done in one of two ways, and there is no third: either it was not narrated except through a liar and a weak narrator, in which case it is said to be a lie or fabricated; or it contradicts a text from the Book of Allah or a hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) that is established and authentic from him, in which case it is said to be opposed to the Book and the Sunnah and is cast aside. This hadith contains none of that. Therefore, this transmission found in some books, to which some contemporary doctors cling—who are truly strangers to the science of hadith, the science of jurisprudence, the principles of hadith science, and the principles of jurisprudence—had published an article in the newspaper *Al-Sabil* just before the Day of 'Arafah. The doctor's name is... I do not know if it is a real name or a pseudonym, because we know that in the present age they take such a path. The name of this doctor is Jamal Abu Hassan or Abu Ihsan. I am currently doubtful. In any case, his name does not concern me; his research does. In this research, he cited a summary that suited him from what I had mentioned in *Al-Arwah*. Among that was the claim that some Imams declared this hadith a lie. If this declaration of falsehood had reached us with a correct chain from Imam Malik, stating that he said this hadith is a lie, we would have rejected it. We would not say, "This is the statement of a scholar of his stature and position with us," but we are also not Malikis. Rather, we weigh his words with the scale of the straight Shari'ah. How so, when this transmission has no saddle and no bridle? Therefore, it is cast aside. If that had been reported from Malik with a correct chain, we would reject it because it contradicts the authentic hadith. This is the worst that has been said about this hadith.The Shaykh : The principle mentioned by those scholars is that the truth is not known through men, but rather men are known through the truth. As Ibn Taymiyyah said, "Know the truth, and you will know the men." He is undoubtedly more knowledgeable than his student, Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah. Of course, he was not an infallible prophet. Therefore, we look at his opinions and ideas from the same perspective from which he looked at the issues of those who disagreed with him, preferring what he deemed appropriate based on the evidence of the Book and the Sunnah. I mentioned in *Al-Irwaa*—and perhaps in other unpublished works as well—that the scholars divided over this hadith into groups. Some of them reported from the Imam of the Abode of Migration that the hadith is a lie. This is the worst statement made about this hadith, because declaring a hadith to be a lie can only be done in one of two ways, with no third option: either it was narrated only through a liar and a fabricator, in which case it is called a lie or a fabrication; or it contradicts a text from the Book of Allah or a sound, authentic hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), in which case it is said to be opposed to the Book and the Sunnah and is cast aside. This hadith contains none of that. Therefore, this report found in some books, which some contemporary doctors cling to—though they are truly strangers to the science of hadith, the science of jurisprudence, and the principles of both—was published in the newspaper *Al-Sabil* just before the Day of 'Arafah. It was an article by a doctor whose name I do not know if it is real or a pseudonym, because we know that in the present age they take such paths. The name of this doctor is Jamal Abu Hassan or Abu Ihsan; I am currently doubtful. In any case, his name does not concern me; his research does. In this research, he quoted a summary that suited him from what I had mentioned in *Al-Irwaa*, including the claim that some of the Imams declared this hadith a lie. If this denial had been transmitted to us with a sound chain from Imam Malik, stating that he said this hadith is a lie, we would have rejected it and would not say, "This is the statement of a scholar of his stature and position with us," but we are also not Malikis; rather, we weigh his words with the scale of the straight Shari'ah. How can it be otherwise when this report has no camel and no bridle? Therefore, it is cast aside. If that had been reported from Malik with a sound chain, we would reject it because it contradicts the sound hadith. This is the worst that has been said about this hadith.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.