and al-Shāfiʿī and al-Thawrī. Ibn Abd al-Barr (1), reporting their position, said that they did not permit it for anyone (2).

I say: Al-Shāfiʿī explicitly stated that it was disliked (3). The jurists of his school differed over whether this meant that it was forbidden or merely discouraged, holding two views. Those who deemed it forbidden cited the Prophet’s prohibition (peace and blessings be upon him), arguing that a prohibition entails that the act is forbidden.

They argued: Ā’ishah’s words, “out of mercy for them,” do not preclude its being forbidden; rather, they confirm it. It was out of his mercy for them that he forbade it to them. Indeed, all his prohibitions for the Muslim community are acts of mercy, protective restraint (4), and safeguarding.

They argued: As for his fasting continuously with them after forbidding it, this was not approval of their conduct—how could it have been, when he had forbidden them? Rather, it was a rebuke and a disciplinary measure. He therefore tolerated their continuous fasting after his prohibition to further its purpose: reinforcing his warning and making the wisdom behind the prohibition clear by allowing them to experience the harm for which he had forbidden it. Once the harm of continuous fasting and the wisdom behind its prohibition became clear to them, they would be more inclined to accept the prohibition and abandon the practice. For when they recognized what was involved in (5) continuous fasting and experienced the resulting weariness in worship and neglect of religious duties of greater importance and weight—such as vigour in carrying out Allah’s commands, humility in performing His obligatory acts of worship, and fulfilling their outward and inward requirements (intense hunger runs counter to all this and prevents the servant from attaining it)= it became clear to them