Excuse me for starting this thread. I thought it to be a good way to get some of the questions, that we were unable to post to Br. Moosa due to time restrictions, answered.
My question from yesterday's fiqh lesson:
Q: Regarding ibn Umar's fasting on the day of shak, isn't it correct that the one who narrates a ḥadīth has the most correct understanding of its content? How did the ullema come to know that his understanding/judgement was not the correct understanding? Did other companions clarify that his actions were incorrect?
Is this a case of 'itabar, where a scholar would then search to see if other companions did something similar? And if that was the case that other than ibn umar also fasted on the day of shak, would the ruling change?
Please benefit us, barakallaahu feek.
Last edit: 11 years 4 months ago by . Reason: changed title to make topic clearer
wa 'alaykumus-salāmu wa rahmatullaahi wa barakaatuh
A number of companions, like Ibn 'Abbās, Abū Hurayrah, and others spoke against this error. Abū Hurayrah said, "Anyone who fasts on the day the people doubt (the 30th of Sha'baan) has disobeyed Abal-Qaasim (the Prophet) ṣallallāhu 'alayhe wa sallam.
And the saying that "the Companion who narrates the ḥadīth is most knowledgeable about its meaning" is general and not absolute, since individual companions were not protected from error like the Prophet (ṣallallāhu 'alayhe wa sallam) was, and it is possible that one of them could contradict something they narrated from the Prophet (ṣallallāhu 'alayhe wa sallam), thinking it to be abrogated, forgetting it, or for another reason. So it is not absolute, and this case is a clear indication of that.