in Majmaʿ al-Zawāʾid, and that is a mistake—or at the very least an unwarranted leniency—on the part of all of them.

Furthermore, the Hanbalis have confined this ḥadith to the fast of a vow; that is the fast which the guardian may perform on behalf of the deceased. As for an obligatory fast, no one may observe it on behalf of anyone else. This is also the position of the transmitter of the report, ʿĀʾishah, as well as of Ibn ʿAbbās, who narrates the next ḥadith. I have quoted their statements on the matter in Aḥkām al-Janāʾiz, section 106. This view accords with the principles and wisdom of the Sharīʿah. Ibn al-Qayyim championed it in Tahdhīb al-Sunan and likewise in Iʿlām al-Muwaqqiʿīn; I reproduced his words in the book just mentioned, and they are precious—let the reader consult them.

The author then says: “Aḥmad and the compilers of the Sunan transmit from Ibn ʿAbbās that a man came to the Prophet ﷺ and said, ‘Messenger of Allah, my mother died while she owed a month of fasting; shall I make it up on her behalf? …’ He replied, ‘Yes’ ….”

I say: This wording suggests that no one of higher authenticity than those cited has reported the narration, but that is not the case. Both Shaykhān recorded it in the Book of Fasting from Ibn ʿAbbās, and in their version the wording is: “She died while owing a fast of a vow.”

Accordingly, the ḥadith concerns the fast of a vow; it must not be cited as evidence for the obligatory fast, as the author has done. In short, the ḥadith supports the Hanbalis, not the Shāfiʿis—so take heed!

The drafting of Part Three was completed on 19/8/73 AH, and this is the last of my notes on Fiqh al-Sunnah. I ask Allah to make it an aid for students of knowledge and a path they may follow to gain understanding of the religion, and to accept it from me. He alone is the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing.