Fiqh al-Sunnah IV
Sheikh Jamaal Zarabozo
July 12, 2009
Page 30 of Fiqh al-Sunnah
Purifying the ground
Hadith of the prophet about the bedouin urinating in the masjid and order of prophet to wash it water to purify the ground.
Particular instance without having a general guidance means we cannot apply it to all cases.
Hadith of the prophet who told a young man who wanted to go on jihad that jannah lied at the feet of his mother.
When hadith is stated in a specific or particular way, we have to be careful to apply it generally.
There is a difference of opinion about what needs to be done when there is impurity on the ground. Scholars distinguish between different cases.
Maliki madhab - pouring water in any case will purify it
Shafai and Hanbali - If the impurity has some kind of weight, then you have to dig up the ground and turn it over
Hanafi - Gave consideration to the elevation of the ground
Solid impurity has to be removed.
Purifying food in which a dead animal has fallen. Or some impurity falling into food.
If something impure falls into liquid then the entire liquid might get contaminated. It depends on the viscosity of the liquid.
Ants, flies etc are not considered impure because they do not have blood.
Most of the hadith are about impurities falling into viscous substances from which you can scoop out the impurity.
Purifying the skin of a dead animal. If skin is tanned, it is purified.
Question about purifying the fur of an animal.
Is the fur of a dead animal impure or pure?
Skin of a sheep is pure, but when the animal is dead it becomes impure, why? Meat and blood of a dead animal is impure. What about fur of a dog or a pig? Can it be purified?
Some say, tanning it does not purify it. Malaki and Hanbali madhab.
Some say you can use it in dry circumstances but not wet for eg as a water carrier.
Some say you can purify it by tanning it
Tanning purifies all furs or skins except humans and pigs.
Is it permissible to donate human skin for skin graft after you death? Or is it impure?
Three major categories:
Some say tanning only purifies the animals that we can slaughter. It is the conclusion of ibn Taymiyyah.
Tanning only purifies skins of all animals that are considered pure when they are alive, for example cat is pure but we cannot slaughter it for consumption.
Tanning purifies skins of all animals
Mayta Fur/skin (Opinions)
|- Cannot be purified
|- All fur/skin can be purified
|- All except dogs and pigs
|- All except pigs
|- All animals that were pure when alive
|- All animals that can be slaughtered
One of the famous texts
You should not use the skin of a dead animal
Hadith or chain is weak
The word that is used is skin before being tanned
Skin of carion (dead animal) can be used if it is tanned - Hadith from Imam Malik. It is weak hadith
Sahih Muslim did not have chapter titles, They were added later by Imam Nawawi. Imam Muslim presented them in the order of the strength. The weakest hadith is the last.
Maymunah's story about the dead sheep which was intended to be a gift and the prophet telling her to tan the skin and give it as a gift.
Hadith of the prophet was stated in a general manner that seem to apply to every kind of skin.
Other hadith that contradict are weak.
Exception is the skin of beast of prey (tigers, lions, etc), there is some hadith that we should not use their fur or skin
Angels do not enter household where there is skin/fur of beast of prey???????
Page 15 of the textbook
Purifying the skin of a dead animal
The hadith at the top of the page: "If the animal's skin is tanned, it is purified," is narrated by Muslim and not Bukhari, so there is that mistake in the text that should be noted.
Purifying mirrors and similar objects
We are talking about smooth surfaces such as swords, glass or anything that is not porous, if you wipe over it, can it be considered pure?
Purify by simply wiping the impurities and if there are any impurities remain then you further purify it or if there are any impurities remain then it is still considered pure?
Shafai and Hanbali view is that you have to wash it
Hanafi view is simply wiping is enough
Those who consider water is required for purity will have the opinion that you have to wash it.
Did the sahaba carry the sword while praying?
Removing impurities from the body, clothing and place of worship
A. Is it a condition shart شرط for the prayer?
B. Is it an obligatory act واجبات related to the prayer?
C. Is it a recommended act related to the prayer?
شرط If the condition is not met the prayer is not valid
What are the pre-requisites شرط for prayer?
1. Spiritual purity tahaarah طهارة
2. Facing the Qibla
3. Time of the prayer
If someone prays knowing that there is some impurity on it and he has the ability to remove it, then his salaat is not valid. - Opinion of Shafai, Hanafi, and some Hanbali
Maliki opinion - It is sunnah to remove impurity
Imam Malik has narrated that if someone prays with impurity on him and does so due to lack of knowledge or necessity, then if it is still time for prayer then he must repeat it.
Another opinion it is obligatory
If it is still in the time, he should repeat the prayer and it is the opinion of Imam Shawkani
What is the evidence for the above opinion?
Homework - Find the evidence for option A or B
You need more evidence for A as compared to B.
Visit Surah Muddaththir, Hadeeth about dirt on the shoes of the prophet, and hadeeth of menstruating blood
Asmaa’ bint Abi Bakr (radhiya Allahu ‘Anhā) narrated that a woman came to the Nabi (Sallallahu ‘Alayhi Wa Sallam) and said, “What should one do if menstrual blood gets on their garment?” The Nabi (Sallallahu ‘Alayhi Wa Sallam) said to her, “She should scrape it off, then rub the area with water, then pour water over it, and then one can make Salāh in it.”
Also another question:
What would happen in the case of Imam leading the prayer finds out he has impurity on his clothes. Is the prayer of the followers valid?
What is the ruling considering removing impurities from one's body, clothes, and place of prayer?
Here are the different rulings
a. It is one of the prerequisites of the prayer
b. It is one of the obligatory parts of the prayer
c. It is a sunnah
Differences between a and b.
a - It invalidates your prayers
b - If you did it involuntarily your prayers might be valid, however you are considered sinful for not removing impurities
What are the proofs for the rulings?
a - Hanafi,Shafai, Hambali
b - Maliki
1. Urine/punishement in the grave
Hadith about the grave and person who was not careful in urinating properly and was punished in the grave
This could support a and b. c is not likely because it ruling c does not consider the act to be sinful
2. Wa theyba baka' وذيبة بقى
Verse from the quran
Support a and b
3. Hadith about menses
Support a and b
We can rule out c
4. Removing the shoes for prayers
Angel Gabriel came and informed the prophet about impurity on the shoe and prophet removed the shoes
Supports a and b
If you intentionally pray facing a different qibla direction or intentionally do not remove prayers then your prayer is invalid, what is the evidence for this?
There is no additional evidence to support this claim. So the best ruling is b.
Purifying shoes and leather socks
You can simply wipe the shoes on the ground to remove the impurity.
Some scholars require water to remove impurities particularly shafai madhab
Hanafi madhab - Removing impurities by wiping applies only for shoes and leather socks and nothing else. The impurity cannot be urine, it has to have some mass to it.
Malaki - Impurity can only be only manure of animals
Some madhabs claim the impurity is some dust which can be purified by wiping
In some narrations it talks about walking through pure ground
Rope used for hanging impure clothes might be used if it is dried via sunlight or wind then it can be used to hand pure clothes
If a liquid falls on you, you need not inquire whether is pure or impure, and if somebody asks, then you do not have to answer it.
Quoted a saying from Umar about passing a gutter and his companion asking the owner of the house whether water is pure or impure, Umar told the home owner not to answer this question.
This narration has no chain
Why should you not answer the question? Because it not proper in the first place to ask the question and by answering the question you are encouraging something
What is the difference between being careful and waswasa thoughts that have no evidence.
Ihtyaat should have some evidence
Exteremism is wrong
Lackadaisical is wrong too
Assume things are pure unless there is evidence to prove otherwise
We are on page 16 of the textbook
Is mud najas or not?
What is the actual principle that is described here?
If there is no clear sign about impurity if mud gets on your clothes then you can assume it is pure. Unless you know for sure. For example, there is a sewer nearby and the mud is the result of the drainage from the sewer.
Fiqh as Sunnah Text: "If a person finishes his prayer and sees some impurities on his clothes or body of which he was not previously aware, or he was aware of them but forgot about them, or he did not forget about them but he was not able to remove them, then his prayer is still valid and he need not repeat it. This opinion is supported by Allah's statement, "And there is no sin for you in the mistakes you make unintentionally." (al-Ahzab 5). Many of the companions and those of the following generation gave this legal verdict."
Principle is of hardship
You knew about it but forgot to remove it before the prayers
Can you think of a better evidence than what he quoted? (i.e. Surah Ahzab). Is making a mistake same thing as forgetfulness? (No it's not). With respect to Salat, is there a better/analagous opinion available? One of them is, removing the shoes issue. Also the issue of Qiblah changing (they just continued prayer). These two evidences are probably better to be used here than what was used. But it gives the same conclusion as stated.
What about forgetfulness? You knew about impurity but you forgot it. What about that one? E.g. you were told the direction of qiblah is this way and then next time as well you pray in the wrong direction.
In fiqh there are different levels of laws. There is yaqeen (certainty). Then there is dhann (many definitions of dhann. In some cases known as yaqeen, sometimes as conjecture). Then there is shakk (doubt). And Wahn (wrong perception).
Derived from Legal Maxim: "Is something is obligatory (lets say X) needs to be done. However X cannot be accompolished unless we do Y along the way. This makes Y also Wajib. If you're not sure where the impurity is, then washing the whole garment becomes obligatory"
Which takes precedence? time of prayer or removing of najasah. If it's simply wajib (in your opinion) then praying within the time is wajib.
Anytime there's a conflict b/w Shurut and Wajib, it's easy. The more important takes precedence. E.g, you're in a city you can't figure out the qiblah, should you go to another city where you know the qiblah but you'll miss the prayer time or the other choice is, you just pray without knowing the proper qiblah? which one takes precedence?
Ulema say, praying in proper time is priority over removing najasah. Same thing with qiblah, it's secondary to the time.
In the case of maghrib/isha or dhuhr/asr, cleaning najasah takes preference since those two salahs can be combined. But in case of Fajr, time takes preference.
Ibn Taymiyah would say that time takes preference over anything else. Others, maybe less so. In general, most of the ulemah give a lot of preference to time. "Kitabam Mawqoota".
Suppose it's late fajr for example, you wake up in such a time that if you were to make wudu and started the prayer, by the time you started prayer etc, the prayer would be finished. (He didn't give the answer, told us to think about it for a couple of years before we get to it).
Text From Book: "
Clothes that have street mud on them need not be washed. Reported Kamyal ibn Ziyad, "I saw 'Ali wading through the mud, after which he entered the mosque and prayed without washing his legs."
If a person finishes his prayer and sees some impurities on his clothes or body of which he was not previously aware, or he was aware of them but forgot about them, or he did not forget about them but he was not able to remove them, then his prayer is still valid and he need not repeat it. This opinion is supported by Allah's statement, "And there is no sin for you in the mistakes you make unintentionally." (al-Ahzab 5). Many of the companions and those of the following generation gave this legal verdict.
If a person can not determine what part of his clothes contain the impurity, he should wash the whole garment. This is based on the axiom, "If an obligation cannot be fulfilled except by performing another related act, then that act also becomes obligatory."
If a person mixes his pure clothes with his impure clothes (and gets confused between them), he should investigate the matter and pray once in one of the clothes. This is similar to the question of the exact direction of the qiblah. It does not matter if the proportion of pure clothes was large or small."
"`alal faur" على الفور
you do it immediately
removing najasah, is it alal faur or alal taraakhee?
Sunnah to remove it alal faur.
(Arabic keyboardhttp://www.yamli.com/arabic-keyboard/ )
Removing of impurities najasah
Does the removing of impurities require intention?
In the Hanafi madhab is niyat required for ghusl and wudu etc? Is it a shurut?
No it is not, then of course it will not be required for removing impurities in hanafi madhab
Malikis have two strange opinions
It is required for impurity with pre-seminal fluid madhi. In a hadith of Ali, prophet was asked about madhi and he replied wash private parts. It implies ghusl and needs intention. Standard opinion only to remove madhi you require intention
Some impurities can be overlooked.
Principle of hardship
For example hard to remove stains on garment - throw the garment or continue using the garment
Does the garment become pure or is it metaphorically pure?
Item becomes pure in reality according to Hanbali
It is still najas but the ruling of najasa has simply been removed according to Hanafi, Shafai and some Hanbali
Discussion about carrying something with Allah's name to the bathroom
Prophet saw had a ring with name of Allah on it. However the part of the hadith which talks about him removing the ring before going to the bathroom is weak.
There are many defects that leads to Sheikh Jamaal's conclusion that it is weak. So is there any other evidence that would lead you to conclude that it is not allowed to carry something wtih Allah's name in the bathroom.
We will talk later about uttering Allah's name in the bathroom.
What about taking Quran into the bathroom?
There is agreement among scholars that it is disrespectful to the quran. It is okay to carry PDAs which have quran in electronic format since it is not considered to be a mushaf. Also in case of hardship during travel you can carry quran which is in your hand luggage into the bathroom.
Well known opinion among majority of scholars including hanbali. It is simply disliked and not forbidden. Imam Ahmad says it is permissible. A number of scholars wrote that opinion. There is no dislike for entering bathroom with that. Without any evidence we cannot say that it is disliked.
Some scholars says it is haraam to carry the words of Allah to the bathroom.
qiraah is disliked
afdhaal is etiquette
If you say it is forbidden then you have to present some evidence.
Book reading pg 17 “He should move and hide himself from others.”
Hadiths are weak in this section however there are many so that can raise each other to a hasan level. However there is a hadith in Bukari and Muslim that state that the Prophet would go far away to use the restroom.