Firstly:
It is essential to establish a general principle before addressing the specifics of the question:
There is a distinction between narrating a ḥadīth and understanding or interpreting it. Additionally, there is a difference between the authenticity or weakness of a ḥadīth and acting upon its implications.
To elaborate, a narrator of a ḥadīth does not necessarily comprehend its jurisprudential implications. An example of this can be seen with those who memorize the Qur᾽ān; while they might excel in memorization and recitation, many may not grasp the interpretation of even the shorter chapters, whereas someone less proficient in memorization but specialized in exegesis (tafsīr) might understand it thoroughly. Each has their share and portion of knowledge.
Similarly, the relationship between the authenticity of a chain of narration and acting upon a ḥadīth is complex. A ḥadīth might have an authentic chain but not be acted upon, or it might have a weak chain yet be widely practiced. We have provided examples of this in a previous fatwā, but to briefly illustrate:
The ḥadīth of Ibn ῾Abbās regarding issuing three divorces in one sitting is authentic and recorded by Imam Muslim. However, the four major schools of jurisprudence did not act upon it, instead recognizing the validity of issuing multiple divorces simultaneously.
Conversely, the principle “Every loan that brings a benefit is usury” lacks an authentic elevated narration (marfū῾) but has been adopted by the four major schools.
Therefore, it is crucial to differentiate between the narration of a ḥadīth and its jurisprudential understanding.
Secondly:
Shaykh Al-Albani was a scholar specialized in Ḥadīth narration and the study of narrators (men of Ḥadīth), not in jurisprudence, as is well-known. His followers often attribute to him more than he claims for himself, relaying from him extensive discussions on jurisprudence, exegesis, and creed in informal settings. This is an injustice to the scholar.
Casual conversations and gatherings differ from scholarly writings and the craft of jurisprudence. Not everyone maintains the same precision in speech as they do in their writings, where they have access to references and ample time. This is why some scholars disliked debating jurisprudence, as it involves haste not present in the contemplative process of writing.
Shaykh Al-Albani was renowned in the science of Ḥadīth but had limited contributions to the fields of jurisprudence, its principles, and theology, despite authoring dozens of books. Even in his limited jurisprudential works, he approached them from a narrational perspective rather than following the methodology of jurists.
Moreover, Shaykh Al-Albani has some anomalous fatwās attributed to him, including:
- Prophets do not possess absolute infallibility.
- The Messenger (peace be upon him) could forget verses he had conveyed to the people.
- Advocating for the demolition of the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) green dome and relocating his grave from his mosque.
- Claiming that the Messenger (peace be upon him) is not the best of all creation in the sight of Allāh.
- Advising against praising or extolling the Prophet (peace be upon him).
- Prohibiting travel with the intention of visiting Prophet Muḥammad (peace be upon him).
- Declaring the kissing of the Noble Qur᾽ān as an innovation and misguidance.
- Suggesting that the people of Palestine should leave their land and emigrate.
- Prohibiting offering condolences at gravesites and gathering in places or halls for this purpose.
- Considering taking Friday as a day off as an innovation.
- Prohibiting women from wearing gold jewelry in circular shapes.
These and other jurisprudential fatwās diverge from the consensus of jurists and established schools, and in some cases, he criticized the understanding and transmission methods of these schools.
Thirdly:
Regarding fasting on Saturday alone, there is a ḥadīth narrated by ῾Abdullāh ibn Busr from his sister Al-Ṣammā᾽ (may Allāh be pleased with them) that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “Do not fast on Saturdays except for what has been made obligatory upon you. If one of you finds nothing but a grape peel or a piece of a tree’s branch, let him chew on it.” [Narrated by Abū Dāwūd, Al-Tirmidhī, Ibn Mājah, and ᾽Aḥmad in his Musnad].
This narration is the primary evidence for those who prohibit fasting on Saturdays alone. However, it is insufficient as evidence for the following reasons:
- Weakness of the Narration
- Inconsistency in the Narration
- Contradicting Stronger Evidence
- Ambiguity in Meaning
- Weakness of the Narration:
Many scholars have commented on the weakness and inconsistency of this narration about fasting on Saturday. Among them:
- Imam Mālik stated: “This is false.”
- ᾽Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal remarked: “Yaḥyā ibn Sa῾īd avoided it and refused to narrate it to me,” even though ῾Aḥmad included it in his Musnad.
- Al-Nasā᾽ī commented: “This ḥadīth is inconsistent.”
- Ibn Ḥajar noted: “Its narrators are trustworthy, but it is inconsistent,” adding that it contains severe inconsistencies.
- Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned: “It has been reported that the predecessors rejected it.”
- Inconsistency in the Narration:
This ḥadīth is inconsistent in its transmission. At times, it is attributed to Al-Ṣammā᾽; other times to ῾Aā᾽ishah; other times to ῾Abdullah ibn Busr; sometimes ῾Abdullāh ibn Busr reports it from his aunt, other times from his maternal aunt, and yet other times from his sister. Its various chains are numerous and inconsistent.
- Contradicting Stronger Evidence:
There are several narrations suggesting the permissibility of fasting on Saturday alone. Some of them include:
- Ḥadīth of ῾Aā᾽ishah: It mentions that the Prophet (peace be upon him) “did not mind which days of the month he fasted.”
- Ḥadīth of ῾Abdullāh ibn ῾Amr: The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “Fast one day and break the fast one day; that is the fasting of Dāwūd (David) (peace be upon him) and it is the best of fasting.” He did not exclude Saturday or any other day, despite the possibility of its occurrence.
- Ambiguity in Meaning:
Even if we assume the authenticity of the narration, its meaning is open to interpretation regarding the specific designation of Saturday, not merely fasting on it. This specification carries the suspicion of imitating the Jews in their reverence for Saturday. Therefore, someone who dedicates every Saturday to fasting falls under the prohibition due to imitation. Otherwise, Saturday is like any other day.
Based on this, there is no harm in fasting on Saturday if it coincides with an occasion for fasting, such as the Day of ῾Arafah or ῾Ashūrā᾽, or as part of a habit like fasting every other day, or to fulfill a vow.
Fatwā issued by Dr. Khālid Naṣr
