and al-Zubaydī (1), Sufyān ibn ‘Uyaynah, and Yūnus ibn Yazīd al-Aylī, on the authority of al-Zuhrī. Some attributed it to the Prophet, but most hadith scholars say that the version attributed to the Companion is more authentic. Al-Tirmidhī said (2): “It has also been transmitted through Nāfi‘ as Ibn ‘Umar’s own statement, and this is more authentic.” Others consider its attribution to the Prophet authentic because the narrator who attributes it to him is reliable and upright. The hadith of ‘Ā’ishah, too (3), has been transmitted both as a statement of the Prophet and as her own statement, and scholars have disagreed over the authenticity of its attribution to the Prophet.

If its attribution to the Prophet is not established, the question does not arise. If it is established, it is known that he said this only after fasting Ramadan became obligatory, which was later than the command to fast on ‘Āshūrā’. This introduced a new binding ruling—forming the intention to fast during the night—rather than abrogating a ruling established by a directive. Thus, fasting on ‘Āshūrā’ with an intention formed during the day was valid before fasting Ramadan became obligatory and before forming the intention during the night became obligatory. Subsequently, the obligation to fast on ‘Āshūrā’ was abrogated by the obligation to fast Ramadan, and the requirement to form the intention during the night was introduced. This is one approach.

A second approach, that of the followers of Abū Hanīfah, holds that the obligation to fast on ‘Āshūrā’ comprised two things: the obligation to fast that day and the validity of doing so with an intention formed during the day. The designation of that particular fast as obligatory was then abrogated by the prescription of another obligatory fast, while the ruling that fasting with an intention formed during the day is valid remained unabrogated (4).

A third approach holds that obligation (5) depends on knowledge of it, and that the obligation to fast on ‘Āshūrā’ was only