Share this Data

அமலா : "என்ன உன் கணவர் தூக்கதுல 'ஹலோ.. ஹலோ..'ன்னு டெலிபோன்ல பேசறது மாதிரி பேசறாரு?"
:
விமலா : "நான்தான் சொன்னேனே, அவருக்கு தூக்கத்துல 'கால்' போட்ற பழக்கம் இருக்குன்னு!! "

The virtue of fasting six days of Shawwaal

 The virtue of fasting six days of Shawwaal

What is the ruling on fasting six days of Shawwaal? Is it waajib (obligatory)?

Published Date: 2013-08-10

Praise be to Allaah.

Fasting six days of Shawwaal after the obligatory fast of Ramadaan is Sunnah Mustahabbah, not waajib. It is recommended for the Muslim to fast six days of Shawwaal, and in this there is great virtue and an immense reward. Whoever fasts these six days will have recorded for him a reward as if he had fasted a whole year, as was reported in a saheeh hadeeth from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Abu Ayyoob (may Allaah be pleased with him) reported that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "Whoever fasts Ramadaan and follows it with six days of Shawwaal, it will be as if he fasted for a lifetime." (Narrated by Muslim, Abu Dawood, al-Tirmidhi, al-Nisaa'i and Ibn Maajah).

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) explained this when he said: "Whoever fasts for six days after (Eid) al-Fitr has completed the year: (whoever does a good deed (hasanah) will have ten hasanah like it)." According to another report: "Allaah has made for each hasanah ten like it, so a month is like fasting ten months, and fasting six days completes the year." (al-Nisaa'i and Ibn Maajah. See also Saheeh al-Targheeb wa'l-Tarheeb, 1/421). It was also narrated by Ibn Khuzaymah with the wording: "Fasting for the month of Ramadaan brings the reward of ten like it, and fasting for six days brings the reward of two months, and that is the fasting of the whole year."

The Hanbali and Shaafa'i fuqaha' explained that fasting six days of Shawwaal after fasting Ramadaan makes it as if one has fasted for an entire year of obligatory fasts, because the multiplication of the reward applies even to naafil fasts, because each hasanah brings the reward of ten like it.

Another of the important benefits of fasting six days of Shawwaal is that is makes up for any shortfall in a person's obligatory Ramadaan fasts, because no one is free of shortcomings or sins that have a negative effect on his fasting. On the Day of Resurrection, some of his naafil deeds will be taken to make up the shortcomings in his obligatory deeds, as the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "The first thing for which people will be brought to account on the Day of Resurrection will be their salaah (prayer). Our Lord, may He be glorified and exalted, will say to His angels – although He knows best – 'Look at the salaah of My slave, whether it is complete or incomplete.' If it is perfect, it will be recorded as perfect, and if something is lacking, He will say, 'Look and see whether My slave did any voluntary (naafil) prayers.' If he did some voluntary prayers, [Allaah] will say, Complete the obligatory actions of My slave from his voluntary actions.' Then all his actions will be dealt with in a similar manner." (Narrated by Abu Dawood).

And Allaah knows best.

General

* The addition of the word “kareem” in the du‘aa’ of Laylat al-Qadr is not proven

-

It is quoted in Saheeh at-Tirmidhi by Shaykh al-Albaani (may Allah have mercy on him):

3513: Qutaybah told us: Ja‘far ibn Sulaymaan ad-Dab‘i told us, from Kahmas ibn al-Hasan, from ‘Abdullah ibn Buraydah, from ‘Aa’ishah, who said: I said: O Messenger of Allah, if I realise when it is Laylat al-Qadr, what do you think I should say? He said: “Say: Allahumma innaka ‘Awfuwwun Kareem, tubhibb al-‘afwa, fa‘fu ‘anni (O Allah, You are forgiving and most generous, You love forgiveness, so forgive me).” The shaykh (may Allah have mercy on him) deemed it to be saheeh. But the same hadith was narrated by Ibn Maajah (3850) and in as-Silsilah as-Saheehah, Shaykh al-Albaani stated that the additional word “Kareem (most generous)” was added by one of the scribes. Did the shaykh fail to notice the additional word “kareem” in Saheeh at-Tirmidhi, or is it saheeh in his opinion? If it is not proven in his opinion, then why did he not point out in Saheeh at-Tirmidhi that it is something that has been added?

-

Praise be to Allah

Shaykh al-Albaani (may Allah have mercy on him) was a scholar and critic of hadith who examined the reports and tried his best in doing so, but he was vulnerable to forgetfulness and error, like other scholars, and that does not detract from his standing in the slightest; rather he will be rewarded for that, by Allah’s leave, receiving a single reward. That is by the grace and kindness of Allah, may He be exalted, to the scholars and fuqaha’; He grants them a single reward for their mistakes, and grants them a double reward for what they get right. What matters is that researchers and seekers of knowledge follow the correct methodology in research and do not follow blindly; the status of a scholar does not prevent them from reviewing the evidence and conducting their own research, for academic research should be objective and neutral, and should only be based on real research and examination, and it should not be restricted to some particular names of great scholars, no matter how well versed and prominent they may be.

Therefore we may say that Shaykh al-Albaani (may Allah have mercy on him) failed to point out the erroneous addition of the word “kareem” in the hadith about the du‘aa’ of Laylat al-Qadr, as the hadith was narrated via many chains of narration, and it was narrated by the authors ofJaami‘s,Sunans andMusnads, and not one of them mentioned this extra word “kareem”; rather all of them narrated the well-known version of the du‘aa’: “Allahumma innaka ‘Awfuwwun, tubhibb al-‘afwa, fa‘fu ‘anni(O Allah, You are forgiving, You love forgiveness, so forgive me).”

But this mistake occurred in al-Albaani’s bookSaheeh at-Tirmidhi(no. 3513) only.

With regard to his bookSilsilat al-Ahaadeeth as-Saheehah– concerning which researchers are agreed that the research that was put into it was more precise and deeper than that of his other books,Saheeh as-SunanandDa‘eef as-Sunan– the shaykh pointed out this erroneous addition and said:

InSunan at-Tirmidhiafter the word “ ‘Afuw” there appears this additional word “Kareem”, for which there is no basis in the earlier sources or any other sources that were narrated from the earlier sources. What appears to be the case is that it is something that was inserted by one of the scribes or modern typists. It does not appear in the Indian edition ofSunan at-Tirmidhion which al-Mubaarakfoori’s commentary,Tuhfat al-Ahwadhi(4/264), was based, or in other editions.

What supports that is the fact that in some of his reports, an-Nasaa’i narrated it via the same isnaad as at-Tirmidhi, as both of them narrated it from their shaykh, Qutaybah ibn Sa‘eed, without this addition.

This addition also appears in an essay by our brother ‘Ali al-Halabi, entitledMuhadhdhab ‘Amal al-Yawm wa’l-Laylah li Ibn as-Sunni(no. 202), but it is not narrated by as-Sunni, because he narrated from his shaykh, an-Nasaa’i – as stated above – from Qutaybah, but he attributed it to at-Tirmidhi and others. What would have been more appropriate is to put this word between brackets, as is the practice nowadays, to highlight the fact that it was only mentioned by at-Tirmidhi. To be accurate, however, this word should not be mentioned at all except to point out that it has no basis.

End quote fromSilsilat al-Ahaadeeth as-Saheehah(13/140).

Hence some researchers regard al-Albaani’s comment here, inSilsilat al-Ahaadeeth as-Saheehah– as constituting a clear retraction of his having regarded this addition as sound inSaheeh at-Tirmidhi.

Whatever the case, whether you call it retraction or a conclusion that is separate from the first conclusion, what matters is that he stated the correct view and corrected the mistake.

What is most likely to be the case is that this extra word, with which people are familiar, was taken from some editions of the books of hadith, not from the reports of the hadith itself, meaning that the scholars who narrated the hadith with this extra word “kareem” only did so because they found some manuscripts that contained the extra word “kareem”, as the commentators said concerning theMu’sasat ar-Risaalahedition ofMusnad al-Imam Ahmad(42/236): In “Q” it says “‘Afuwwun kareem.” End quote. “Q” is a symbol referring to a particular manuscript to which they referred. See their Introduction (1/104). Similarly, with regard to the al-Maknaz edition (11/6118, no. 26021), the commentators said: In “Q” it says “‘Afuwwun kareem.”

Hence many scholars transmitted the hadith with this additional word in their books, such as: Ibn al-Atheer inJaami‘ al-Usool(4/324); al-‘Imraani inal-Bayaan fi’l-Madhhab ash-Shaafa‘i(3/568); al-Khaazin inLubaab at-Ta’weel fi Ma‘aani at-Tanzeel(4/452); Ibn al-Qayyim inBadaa’i‘ al-Fawaa’id(2/143); al-Khateeb ash-Sharbeeni inal-Iqnaa‘ fi Hall Alfaaz Abi Shujaa‘(1/274); al-Ameer as-San‘aani inat-Tahbeer li Eedaah Ma‘aani at-Tayseer(4/268); at-Tahtaawi inHaashiyat ‘ala Maraaqi al-Falaah Sharh Noor al-Eedaah(p. 401).

All of them narrated the hadith with the additional word “kareem” and without mentioning any isnaad. Some of them attributed it toSunan at-Tirmidhi. This is assuming that the manuscripts were copied accurately.

But today we have no doubt that this additional word is not part of the original text of the hadith, because dozens of books of hadith mentioned the text of this hadith without this additional word. We referred to editions that were checked against many manuscripts ofSunan at-Tirmidhi, and we did not find any reference to this additional word, such as the edition annotated by Bashaar ‘Awaad (5/490), and another edition annotated by Shu‘ayb al-Arna’oot (6/119).

And Allah knows best.

* Is he sinning if he ignores the view of someone who gave him a fatwa because he did not mention the evidence for his fatwa?

Share ::-

Is a man sinning if he does not accept the view of someone who told him that doing a certain action is unlawful or obligatory according to sharia, because he did not mention the evidence for that action being prohibited or obligatory?
-
Praise be to Allah
Firstly:
It is obligatory for the one who gives a fatwa concerning some religious matter to have knowledge about the matter concerning which he gives a fatwa, whether he rules it to be permissible or prohibited. Whoever knows something may speak of it, and whoever does not know should refer the matter of what he does not know to one who does know it.
Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And do not say about what your tongues assert of untruth, ‘This is lawful and this is unlawful,’ to invent falsehood about Allah . Indeed, those who invent falsehood about Allah will not succeed”
[an-Nahl 16:116].
As-Sa‘di (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
That is, do not declare things to be prohibited or lawful of your own accord, fabricating lies against Allah and attributing to Him words that He never said.
End quote fromTafseer as-Sa‘di(p. 451)
Abu Dawood (3657) narrated that Abu Hurayrah said: The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Whoever is given a fatwa that is not based on knowledge, his sin is borne by the one who gave the fatwa.”
Classed as hasan by al-Albaani inSaheeh Abi Dawood.
Shaykh Ibn Baaz (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
One of the gravest of crimes is issuing fatwas without knowledge; how many have gone astray and been doomed as a result of that, especially if the fatwa was utter in front of many people and came from one by whom some people were deceived. The dangers posed by that are great, and the consequences are severe. The one who issues fatwas without knowledge will bear a burden of sin like that of those who follow him.
End quote fromMajmoo‘ Fataawa Ibn Baaz(3/219).
Secondly:
With regard to accepting the view of one who says that something is unlawful or something is obligatory, but does not offer any evidence for that:
If the one who says that is not one of the well-known scholars, then he should not be followed in this opinion, and it is not obligatory for the one who hears him to accept his opinion or to follow it.
But if he is a scholar who is known for his knowledge and trustworthiness, then it depends:
If the one who asked him is a seeker of knowledge who can understand the evidence when it is presented to him and is able to check its validity, then he is not obliged to follow him just because he said that, until he explains to him the basis of his opinion and his evidence, because the seeker of knowledge is able to research the matter, find out about different views on a particular issue, weigh up the evidence and determine which evidence is stronger.
But if the one who asked him is an ordinary Muslim who is not able to understand the basis of the scholar’s view, and cannot weigh up the evidence and determine which is stronger, then he is obliged to follow the opinion of the mufti. This is what is required in his case, as Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):
“So ask the people of the message if you do not know”
[an-Nahl 16:43].
Moreover, not referring to a scholar and accepting his opinion causes people to miss out on knowledge altogether and leads to neglect of shar‘i rulings, and it opens the door to toying with the religion and following views that are contrary to the teachings of Islam.
But if he has any doubts about a scholar’s opinion, he may ask him about the evidence for that, if he is able to understand it when it is explained to him.
But what is better in his case, if he has any doubts, is to ask another scholar, one of those who are known for their religious commitment and trustworthiness, for the sake of his peace of mind and in order to ward off doubt and anxiety, not by way of toying with the religion, seeking out concessions or looking for errors on the part of the scholars.
If the questioner asks the mufti for evidence, then the mufti must explain it to him.
Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
The mufti must explain the evidence and basis for his ruling as much as possible, and he should not present his fatwa to the questioner on its own, without the evidence and basis for his ruling. If he does that, this shows that he is not a qualified scholar and that his share of knowledge is very little. The one who reflects upon the fatwas of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), whose word constitutes evidence in and of itself, will see that they highlighted the wisdom behind the ruling and the proof of its soundness.
End quote fromI‘laam al-Muwaqqi‘een, 4/123
Some muftis may not mention the evidence for their ruling because it is very subtle and the ordinary Muslim may not be able to comprehend it. The evidence may be based on an analogy (qiyaas) or some principle of fiqh or usool, and so on.
An-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
The ordinary Muslim should not ask the mufti for evidence or say: Why did you say such and such? If he wants to put his mind at rest by hearing the evidence, he may ask for it on another occasion, or in the same meeting after accepting the fatwa as it is.
End quote fromAadaab al-Fatwa wa’l-Mufti wa’l-Mustafti(p. 85).
An-Nawawi also said:
It is not wrong for the mufti to mention the evidence in his fatwa, if it is a clear and brief text.
As-Saymari said: He need not mention the evidence if he is giving a fatwa to an ordinary Muslim, but he may mention it if he is giving a fatwa to one who has knowledge, such as one who asks him about doing the marriage contract without a guardian. In that case it is good for him to say: The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “There is no marriage without a guardian”; or if he asks about taking back a divorced wife with whom the marriage was consummated, he may say: He may take her back, because Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):“And their husbands have more right to take them back” [al-Baqarah 2:228].
End quote fromal-Majmoo‘(1/52).
What may be understood from this is that if he is giving a fatwa to an ordinary Muslim, and the evidence is not a brief, clear text, then there is nothing wrong with him not mentioning the evidence in his fatwa.
And Allah knows best.