“Resolving the Confusion Regarding Fasting Six Days of Shawwal” (Raf’ al-Ishkal ‘an Siyam Sitta Ayyam min Shawwal) is the title of a definitive book by the eminent scholar, hadith master (Hafiz), jurist, and legal theorist Abu Sa’id Salah al-Din Khalil bin Kikaldi al-‘Ala’i al-Shafi’i (d. 761 AH).
In this work, Ibn Kikaldi refutes a controversial claim made by the Hafiz Abu ‘Umar bin Hasan (known as Ibn Dihyah) in his book The Well-Known Knowledge on the Virtues of Days and Months. Ibn Dihyah’s claim attacked the authenticity of the famous hadith:
“Whoever fasts Ramadan and then follows it with six days of Shawwal, it is as if he fasted the entire year.
This book is considered one of the most important works addressing a specific hadith issue—an issue for which the author of Sahih Muslim dedicated a chapter titled: “Chapter on the Recommendation of Fasting Six Days of Shawwal Following Ramadan.” Although it was recorded by the four Imams of the Sunan, the hadith remains a subject of historical debate.
To help resolve this confusion, we will review Ibn Dihyah’s claim regarding the weakness of the fasting six days of Shawwal hadith, reveal the brilliant arguments Ibn Kikaldi used to dismantle that claim, and conclude with scholarly opinions on the best time to perform this fast.
The Core Conflict: Ibn Dihyah’s Claim
Judging hadiths is a rigorous science. It requires investigation and clear scientific evidence that respects the foundations of Jarh wa Ta’dil (narrator evaluation and criticism). So, how did Ibn Dihyah attempt to weaken the Shawwal hadith?
Abu al-Khattab bin Dihyah stated: “This hadith is not authentic from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, because it revolves around Sa’d bin Sa’id, and he is very weak. Malik abandoned him and rejected this hadith from him…”
Ibn Dihyah’s claim relies on the assertion that the hadith depends solely on a “very weak” narrator (Sa’d bin Sa’id) whom Imam Malik allegedly abandoned. However, we cannot accept this statement without examining how the eminent scholar Ibn Kikaldi systematically dismantled it.
Ibn Kikaldi’s Refutation: Defending the Shawwal Fast
In his book, Ibn Kikaldi dissected Ibn Dihyah’s claims, pausing at each argument to dismantle it using the strict rules of Jarh wa Ta’dil. Here are his primary refutations:
Argument 1: The Hadith is in Sahih Muslim
Ibn Kikaldi completely rejected the claim that the hadith is unauthentic. He pointed out that Imam Muslim recorded this hadith in his Sahih, a collection universally accepted by Islamic scholars. Muslim famously stated: “I only placed what they agreed upon.” Ibn Kikaldi asked with astonishment: “How can it be said of a hadith that Muslim recorded, and whose narrators he used as proof, that it is ‘not authentic’?”
Argument 2: Multiple Narrators Exist
Ibn Dihyah claimed the hadith revolves entirely around one weak narrator, Sa’d bin Sa’id. Ibn Kikaldi proved this false by showing the hadith was also narrated by Safwan bin Sulaym and Yahya bin Sa’id the Judge (Sa’d’s brother) from ‘Umar bin Thabit. Abu Dawud, Al-Nasa’i, and Ibn Hibban all recorded it through these alternative, reliable chains.
Argument 3: Imam Malik’s Stance Clarified
Ibn Dihyah claimed that Imam Malik abandoned the narrator and rejected the hadith. Ibn Kikaldi dismantled this from two angles:
- Terminology: A narrator is only labeled “very weak” if they are an abandoned fabricator. Sa’d bin Sa’id does not fall into this severe category.
- Imam Malik’s Intent: In Al-Muwatta, Imam Malik only objected to acting upon the hadith in a specific public manner to prevent misconceptions; he did not reject the hadith itself or its narration. Furthermore, commentators on Sahih Muslim (like Al-Qurtubi and Al-Qadi ‘Iyad) never mentioned any defamation of this hadith. Ibn Kikaldi even suggested Ibn Dihyah may have confused two different narrators who shared the name Sa’d bin Sa’id.
Argument 4: The Trustworthiness of Al-Darawardi
Regarding the claim that the narration was rejected (Munkar) from Al-Darawardi, Ibn Kikaldi noted that Al-Darawardi was a highly trustworthy narrator frequently used as proof by Muslim and Al-Bukhari. None of the Imams ever accused Al-Darawardi of deception (Tadlis), making any claim against his narration unacceptable without hard proof.
Fiqh Rulings: When to Fast the Six Days of Shawwal
Having established the authenticity of the hadith, a frequent question arises: What is the proper time to fast the six days of Shawwal? Should they be consecutive or separate?
There is a mild, accommodating disagreement among scholars regarding this issue:
- No specific timeframe: Scholars like Imam Al-Isfarayini did not specify a particular time within the month.
- Beginning of the month: Scholars like Ibn al-Mubarak preferred fasting the six days immediately at the beginning of Shawwal.
- Throughout the month: Scholars like Yusuf bin Hasan bin ‘Abd al-Hadi encouraged believers to strive for them at any point: “Let the poor, sinful person strive to achieve them, even if throughout the whole month.”
Because there is no textual evidence mandating consecutive fasting, the matter is flexible. You may fast them at the beginning, middle, or end of the month.
A Spiritual Reminder
All days and nights belong to Allah and should be seized for His obedience. As Bakr bin ‘Abdullah al-Muzani wisely said: “There is no day that Allah brings forth… except that it calls out: O son of Adam, seize me, for perhaps you will have no day after me.”
By Sheikhna Muhammad Ammo
