Fiqh us Sunnah - 2011 Fall Session
Required Textbooks: Al-Sayyed Sabiq, Fiqh al-Sunnah
Grading: No exam
When: After November 6, the class time changes to 5:15 PST - 6:30 PST
Basic Outline of the Class: Ghusl
Guest lecture from Br Wael about the situation in Egypt, due to a technical snafu with notes for today’s class. Hopes for Muslims in Egypts by Br Wael.
ibn Umar performed ghusl for the day of Arafat. Would that be enough evidence for you to do so? How many of you performed ghusl for the day of Arafat when you made hajj?
In all four madhab it is considered mustahab to perform ghusl for the day of Arafat. Ibn Taymiyaah says it is not mustahab.
There is a narration from Abdullah Ibn Ahmed (son of Imam Ahmed), When Imam Ahmed died his son Abdullah completed the compilation of the musnad but he distinghuished between the hadeeth Imam Ahmed wanted to add and what he added into Musnad, which are known as Zawaaid-al-Musnad.
In Zawaaid there is hadeeth Prophet (saw) used to have ghusl on Jumaa’, day of Arafat, Youm-al-Nahr and Eid al-fitr. However this narration is Mawdoo3. In general there are no fabricated hadeeth in Musnad Ahmed unless you are talking about Zawaaid. Some people claim that there is Fabrication in Musnad which is false as this is found in Zawaaid. (Abdullah ibn Ahmed took care to make note of what he added to the musnad that is not from his father.)
In kitaab-al-Umm by Imam Shafiee, when Ali was asked by someone when to make ghusl, Ali said you can make ghusl any time you wish. and he said if you are asking about special ghusl (as mustahabb?) he said Jumuah, Arafah and 2 eids. This chain is saheeh.
Ibn Taymiyah says that if this action was in any way related to the rites of Hajj, then prophet saw would have explained it, as he said “take the rites of hajj from me” and it is not recorded by anyone that he performed such a ghusl. Ibn Taymiyaah says using the principle of tark-al-sunnah in matters of ibaadah, if the prophet did not do certain actions, then we should not do so either. He says if somebody makes ghusl to remove bad smell etc, then it is okay, but if he does it as an act of ibadaa, then he says it is not okay.
So we have statement of Ali and actions of ibn Umar, but nothing directly from the prophet. Statement is stronger than action.
What if Ibn Umar made 10 hajj and in all 10 hajj on the day of Arafath he made Ghusl, what do you say about that?
Remember the story of a cockroach and an economist, where he concludes that if you cut off all of the legs of the cockroach then it cannot hear. Shaikh was trying to highlight that statements are stronger than actions, but I missed the story that he was trying to convey here.....
Suppose Ibn Umar felt dirty every time on the day of Arafat, so without knowing significance from him then this is not strong evidence. But statement of the Ali when he was asked about special Ghusls then he mentioned day of Arafat, what about this? Should this statement of Ali be considered as Marfoo3, because of Ibadaah is that you don’t make ijtihaad, so this gives much more weight to the statement of Ali.
There is another thing here though, that is in general it is considered good thing to make Ghusl where there are large gathering and you might be offensive to others if you don’t make ghusl. So therefore may be based on this aspect it is time to make Ghusl? What about this argument?
This doesn’t make strong evidence. Syed Sabbiq stops here.
Performing ghusl while staying at Muzdalifah
All four Madhabs say that it is mustahabb to perform ghusl while staying in Muzdalifah but Ibn Taymiyyah say it is not Mustahabb. There is no specific evidence for this position, the only argument is that it is time for people to get together, so in general not to smell bad you should make ghusl.
Even while going to jamaraat (stoning the devils), the Hanafis, Shafaii and Hanbali say it is mustahaab to make Ghusl.
Note: When you talk about taqleed, there is so much variation within the madhab, you get regional schools
Al Albaani’s comments on this section of ghusl
He says that “there are some confirmed ghusls that Syed Sabbiq did not mention, that I would like to mention.”
Ghusls for acts not mentioned by Sayyid Sabbiq according to Al Albaani
1. Making ghusl for every act of sexual intercourse. This is based on hadeeth that Prophet (Saw) has many wife and when he visited more than one wives during a night he used to make ghusl in between and some one asked why not make one ghusl for which he said this is “Azka wa It7ar” i.e pure. From this he derived that it is making ghusl for every act of sexual intercourse.
2. Women who have unusual flow of blood it is mustahabb for them to make ghusl for every prayer or once for Dhuhr and Asr if they plan to combine those two prayers and once for maghrib and isha if they combine them. This is based on report where prophet (Saw) ordered Umm Habeeba to perform ghusl for every Prayer. In another narration it is reported that to delay Dhurh till Asr and then make ghusl and pray and delay maghrib till Isha and make ghusl and then to fajr. This is been debated by Ulema. As per Albani this is saheeh.
3. It is mustahab for you to make ghusl after you regain consciousness. He was close to death and he would loose consciousness and he would ask if people prayed and then he would ask them to put him in a tub of water and then again he would lose consciousness and based on this Al-Albani says it is mustahabb. Losing consciousness includes while undergoing operation, according to many ulema it is mustahabb to make Ghusl afterwards i.e after regaining consciousness. One opinon in Hanbali and Shafiee madhab, it is obligatory to make ghusl. What about making wudu ? Is this person obligated to make Wudu ? Yes, it is obligation to make wudu as this is kind of sleep but more stronger. So now the debate if it is obligatory to make ghusl or recommended or neither ? The person doesn’t have to make wudu just for waking up but to perform Ibaadah.
Shaikh Jamaal Zarabozo’s comment on whether it is mustahab to make ghusl after regaining consciousness.
Those people who say it is obligatory to make ghusl, what is their evidence? We are trying to determine what is the evidence that ghusl is mustahab after waking from unconsciousness, we know that we have to perform wudu after we wake up, for the salah that is upon us.
The evidence for those who say it is obligatory is that they say falling unconsciousness is cause for releasing “mani” or sperm. Sleeping for example, if you sleep you don’t make ghusl unless you have a wet dream, so to say it is obligatory is weird. Those who say it is mustahabb they rely on the hadeeth quoted above.
Malikis say it is not mustahabb at all, they say the reason Prophet performed ghusl was to give himself strength. According to Imam Malik it was to give strength.
Dubyan Dubyan extends Imam Malik’s position even further: If you need strength make ghusl, otherwise just to pray make wudu.
If it was obligatory there would have been very strong evidence to back it. Even when you look at the text of hadeeth “Faghtasil” which means to wash yourself, not necessarily ghusl.
Shaikh Jamaal Zarabozo’s conclusion: It is not obligatory to make ghusl after regaining consciousness.
4. It is mustahabb for you to make ghusl, anytime you bury a mushreeq. this is based on report from Ali Ibn Talib when Abu Talib died Prophet (Saw) asked Ali to dig the grave and after this Prophet (saw) asked Ali to make ghusl.
Albani’s comments end here, the next types of ghusl are based on Sh. Jamaal’s research of fiqh books:
5. Salat al khusoof (salat for eclipse) and salat for seeking rain salat-al-istiskaa
Shafiees and Hanabalis it is mustahabb, due to gathering of people due to bad smell. If you have bad smell then you have to remove it.
6. Ghusl after hijaama (cupping of blood to cure disease). According to the Hanafi, Shafiee and one view in Hanbali school they say it is sunnah to make ghusl. There are some narrations that Ali used to make ghusl after hijaama.
It is also narrated by Ibn Abbas that if some one does hijaamah it is good to make ghusl, but it is not obligatory, also there are statements of other sahabah as well. We know that prophet performed hijaama but there is no evidence that he made ghusl after making hijaama.
Now moving onto the next paragraph in the textbook on page 57 which discusses the principles of ghusl and starts with the intention. Then he includes washing the whole body, is there anything that he missed? In most of the fiqh books they only give these two arkaans, but some mention the third which is clean water.
The Principles of Ghusl or Arkaan of Ghusl
Starting with the act of Intention for performing ghusl. We read the statement from the textbook.
Is Sayyid Sabbiq’s statement controversial? He does not mention any difference of opinion, he simply states it.
Controversial aspects of Sayyid Sabbiq’s statement about the intention for performing ghusl
He says that intention cannot be vocalized and he says that you need intention to make ghusl. The whole paragraph is controversial. Even the act of intention itself for ghusl has lot of discussion in madahab. There is difference of opinion about the Niyyah in different acts of purification, in particular the hanafis they say the niyyah when it comes to ghusl and wudu it is sunnah and is not one of the arkaan, or fard however for tayammum they require explicit niyyah. All other madahab say that for wudu, ghusl and tayammum the niyyah is one of the shuroot (stronger than fard). They critique Hanafi view by saying that to differentiate between ibaadah and customary acts this is where you should have niyyah. since tayammum is not customary act why do we even require any intention
For other madhabs if you are talking about ghusl, wudu or tayammum, the niyah is shuroot. Al-Awzai who is taba tabiee for him wudu, ghusl or tayammum can be done without any intention.
For those who say It is not obligatory to have intention, what is the reason?
There are some actions you can rationalize and some you cannot rationalize like tayammum cannot be rationalized at all. For them if something can be rationalized, for those case niyyah is not required. Other extreme of rationalizing, removing the najasa (impurity), you do not need to make an intention to remove impurity, you do the act and it is sufficient rationalization for the act, meaning you did the act for the sake of removing impurity.
Wudu and ghusl is in between it is cleaning at the same time it is ibaadah and they put these acts closer to cleaning and thus they say there is not need to have intention, for them niyyah for wudu and ghusl is sunnah and not obligatory.
The others say that it is more towards Ibaadah (not towards cleaning) and thus they say it is one of the shuroot. Wudu is not for cleaning, say for instance you make wudu and then you lose it by passing the gas, then the argument leaning towards cleaning does not hold good as you just made wudu.
They both used verse from the Quran 5:6 as the evidence for their claim. How do you use this verse to support either way? Is this verse relevant at all?
This verse is talking about how to make wudu and this verse starts by iraadat salah i.e. when you are intending to pray, so this “idha kumtum”, they say intention has to be there for salat. So if you want to make ghusl or wudu you should have intention of going to salat, therefore it is not sufficient without that intention to make ghusl or wudu.
Comment from student: Suppose if you want to read the Quran, you have to make wudu and they would say that this wudu does not suffice to perform salaath so you have to make one more wudu.
Hanafis say, in this verse Allah ordered wudu and ghusl in mutlaq form, in an unrestricted manner, and you cannot restrict it without any evidence. They say how can you throw any other restriction on what has been revealed in a mutlaq form, they say that you cannot add intention. They say it does mot say make niyah. They say how can you add another condition to what it states. The intention mentioned in the verse is the intention for the prayer. Hanafis say the intention is Sunnah it is like removing najasah, that is if you remove najasah means you removed and same thing it is for ghusl, if you had ghusl you had it.
Shaikh Jamaal Zarabozo says that this verse cannot be used as the evidence by either camps. As both of their arguments can be countered.
What about the Hadeeth “Every action is based on intention” can we use this as evidence?
If you wash your entire body without making the intention of ghusl, does it constitute ghusl? Or if you take
dive into the ocean and you have covered your entire body with water and did not make intention for ghusl, does it count as ghusl? Can he retroactively say that I have performed ghusl? Does it meet the requirement of ghusl?
Hanafis say that the intention is sunnah, so if you meet all of their requirements for ghusl without intention, can they say later that they made ghusl?
If somebody washes their entire body, can they say that they have made ghusl?
Discussion of evidences of intention for making ghusl
In Qur’an 98:5, Allah swt says “Wa maa umiroo illa ya’budullah....” what about this verse?
وَمَا أُمِرُوا إِلَّا لِيَعْبُدُوا اللَّهَ مُخْلِصِينَ لَهُ الدِّينَ
Wudu is independent action of ibaadah so for any ritual act of worship you got to have intention clear in mind.
In anohter verse that Hanafis quote as their evidence (Maida:6),
مَا يُرِيدُ اللَّهُ لِيَجْعَلَ عَلَيْكُم مِّنْ حَرَجٍ وَلَٰكِن يُرِيدُ لِيُطَهِّرَكُمْwherein Allah swt says that he does not intend to make hardship for you and he wants to purify you. So they are saying that Allah swt intends to purify you and hence there is no need for us to make intention.
Then they say that all of the evidence that point to the act of performing ghusl does not mention making niyyah.
e.g. Hadeeth from Abu Dawood some one asked Prophet on how to purify Prophet showed him how to make wudu, he did not mention anything about niyyah.
Counter argument: Hadeeth of person who did not pray properly and when he came back to the prophet, and prophet described him how to pray. But he did not mention anything about intention. Does this imply that we should not make intention for the salah?
Similarly they quote another hadith of a woman who came to prophet saw and asked how to wash yourself. Prophet said it is sufficient to take three handful of water, there is no mention of niyyah.
Non-hanafis make analogy between ghusl and wudu for their case of intention and on the other hand Hanafis make analogy between Ghusl and removing najasa (impurity) for their case of not requiring intention.
Shaikh Jamaal Zarabozo has no doubt that niyyah is required for wudu and ghusl but how to prove is the question, Shaikh is not convinced with any evidence that is provided.
Abu Ashkar in “Maqasad al-mukallafeen” discusses this that act of removing najasa is not an act of ibadah. You are required to remove najasa to perform an act of ibaada but it is not an act of ibaada in and itself. Wudu and Ghusl on the other hand are acts of worship and require intention to make these acts only for Allah and not like any mundane act.
The main point for Shaikh Jamaal is that wudu and ghusl are independent acts of ibaadah and hence you need intention. But to use specific evidence is where he is shaky.
What is the place of intention, is it tongue, mind, or heart?
We are discussing the role of intention while making ghusl. The place for intention is the heart, another place for intention is the brain and this opinion is attributed to Imam Ahmed and Abu Hanifa. Some scholars say that the place for the intention is between head and heart. The most scholars agree that it is heart or mind. It boils down to the question whether aqal is in brain or heart?
Can akal be translated as mind?
From a western perspective, the place for intelligence is the brain. No question about that
Allah swt says in the Quran, they have hearts with which they do not understand, (lahum qulubun la yafqahoon biha) and Allah swt says that he has placed a seal on their heart and they cannot understand (jaala ala qulubihum akinnatan la yafqahoon). Shaikh then quoted another verse, which I failed to note down.
There is big debate within Islamic scholars, as to the place of aqal. One thing we agree is that the place for the intention is not the tongue.
Is stating the niyyah with their tongue before starting the salah required? We are discussing saying out aloud before salah, but the same principles apply to ghusl.
Vast majority of scholars say that it is not sanctioned to state niyah out loud, some claim there is ijmaah with the exception of niyyah for the Hajj.
There is one opinion among Hanafi and Shafiee school, that it is mustahab to state the niyaah. Some of them say that niyaah should be stated silently, and some of them say it should be stated loudly.
The point is you can find this in some of the hanafi books of Fiqh like Ibn Abideen, who was the Hanafi faqih from Syria, he states there are some Hanafi scholars who say it is stated and some say it should be done aloud. In the Shafiee school as well it is of opinion that it should be stated. But vast majority of the scholars of the opinion niyyah should not be stated and should not be said aloud.
What is the evidence for stating out niyaah out loud?
The biggest problem with that opinion to say either to state it or state it aloud ? In shafiee school this niyyah is very specific statement. Where do you get this statements from ? Is there nay hadeeth to show that Prophet said this. There is no proof for this which is been narrated through any chain not even through weak chain. Fallacious logical arguments are used as rationale for stating niyyah, e.g. that the person becomes aware of the action that he is about to do is for the sake of Allah swt.
The problem with this argument is that niyyah can become routine habit, even when you state it or say out loud. Niyaah has to be in the heart, if you add more words that add and it becomes the routine, it looses its meaning. And more ever it has not been narrated anywhere in the Sunnah of the prophet.
The Shaifee school, they admit that there is no evidence for it, but they state it as a logical argument for stating out the niyyah out loud. This is kind of remind the individual on what he is doing.
If someone were to do that, as if speaking to himself, some thought in his mind, to remind himself what he is doing, if he does it irregularly to make himself aware of his actions, there is nothing wrong in it.
The signs of intention are by the actions that you do. The motivation behind the action that itself highlights the intention. For example if you want to pray and be close to Allah, this is reflected in the action itself. On the other side if someone does this for someone to be seen then his action is of no value as his intention is not to please Allah, Thus if you formalise it, it does not make it more sincere action. Thus if you state something and then there is no real intention in your heart but you said you did this as part of routine and this does not mean anything. If you state the wrong thing like you state you are praying Asr but you are actually praying Dhuhr, what about this ? Now you have the intention to pray Dhuhr but you are stating as Asr in this sense intention has to be specific you have to know what you are doing.
If you went to shower and you are not hanafi and then you step out after washing and then you say “Oh that was ghusl” this wont be sufficient as the intention to perform to ghusl wasn’t there. Same thing goes with wudu where you are washing you hands and all of sudden you see that you are doing wudu, but this wont to be sufficient. As intention is in the heart and you have to have intention in your heart about the action what you are doing. This intention in the heart has to be there. For example, if you want to record anything you push the button to record, here you dont need to state something specifically, pushing of the button is intended to record as long as you know what you are doing.
In general, people does not make wudu without any intention, but in the case of ghusl, these days people do take shower for different reasons, thus intention does make a difference here. If he is in the state of janabah, he has to have the right intention to take a shower. If someone takes the shower daily at around 7 before going to office but if he is janabah and he has to go for fajr prayer then he makes sure that he has to have ghusl before going to prayer and then takes shower, thus this has intention behind it.
Continuing reading next paragraphs from the book.
Washing all bodily parts:
This is not the strongest argument, he says that meaning of tahara is to make Ghusl and he present the last verse (quoted in the book), unless he takes taghtasilu as fiqh term to take ghusl, it is not obvious from the general meaning of the word taghasilu.
The confusion with Syed Sabiq’s approach to implying washing all body parts through the quoted verses:
The first 2 verses quoted, “then purify yourself” the question is what you need to do to purify, it says fatahharu. If I wash 90% of body and did not wash the feet, does this fulfil the obligation.
Then he says what does purifying means, and he quotes the verse of surah Nisa unitll Taghtailu. Meaning of the word taghtasiluis vague, the shariah has to define it. There is nothing in the word which says you have to wash all the body.
How does Shariah define taghtashilu?
This is mujmal (unspecified or ambiguous) word, thus we have to look at the hadith of the prophet saw and see how he practiced this verse? the definition of this verse is seen in the hadeeth of Prophet and from sunnah it is clear that “washing” means to wash full body. Thus the verse in and itself does not provide the clarity on this.
There is Ijama of ulema that it means to wash all the parts of the body. So there is no issue in this.
There are hadeeth either Prophet himself was described to wash everything or when told others how to make ghusl, he told them to wash everything.
When we say it is obligatory to wash entire body, what about rinsing inside of mouth and nose ? Is this part of Ghusl ? We are talking about minimum requirement not talking about mustahab action. Lets leave this discussion for later.
What about the washing any internal parts, like women washing inside private part or inside the eye lids? Some ulema say washing inside private part is not sanctioned by the Shariah and the same ruling is true for eye lids.
Other condition for performing ghusl is to use pure water is not mentioned by Sayyid Sabbiq.
You cannot use water which is impure. You cannot use other liquids like milk or oil. there is some difference of opinion about Nabeedh.
Correction for next section heading: In Arabic it says “Sunan acts of Ghusl” where in the book it says “How Ghusl is performed”
(Missing part in the translation) S. Sabiq begins this section by “it is sunnah for the one who makes ghusl to adhere to the acts of Prophet to perform ghusl and then the passage continues
Continuing reading next paragraphs from the book.
Details of exactly what needs to be washed as described by a hadith of the Prophet saws narrated by Ayesha and another hadith narrated by Maymunah
Al-Albani has no comments on this passage.
The hadeeth which is mentioned about making the Wudu before ghusl, is this the only order that we know ? Is this the only that it can be done ? Based on what we finished doing is this the only way the Ghusl to be done ?
These are sunan acts, such as to make wudu, the Arkaan of the ghusl is to wash entire body with niyyah. You don’t have to follow all of these steps to make Ghusl valid.
What about mentioning the basmalah at the begining of wudu? Now suppose you’re making the ghusl with wudu inside of it. Is Basmalah required or not?
Opinions of different school:
So Imam Malik for example, he rejects the idea of saying basmalah before the wudu and ghusl as well. He said “I have never heard that before, are you intending to slaughter an animal?”
But in some madhab, shafi and hanafi, it’s considered sunnah to mention the basmalah. IN the maliki madhab, regardless of what imam malik said, they said it’s the fadaail (just above mubaah, lowest rank). In another view, shafi madhab, it is not mustahab to say basmalah for the one who’s sexually defiled, so it’s makrooh. Finally, in hanbali, it is fard to say it. Some of the same arguments they use similar to the ones you used before for wudu. There is hadeeth like, any affair started without mentioning the name of Allah is devoid of blessings but that is a weak hadith. There’s also the hadith there’s no salaah without wudu and no wudu without name of Allah mentioned on it. It is one of the widely debated hadeeth, Abu Ishaaq al-huwayni, concludes that it is authentic. Abu Ishaaq al-huwayni (contemporary scholar).
But what we do see, other than the hadith about the wudu, there’s no mention of the basmalah in any other text for ghusl. Like hadeeth of prophet described as performing the ghusl or where he was telling how to do ghusl, there was no mention of basmalah. So it is a little bit weak.
Also Syed Sabiq didn’t mentioning anything about saying basmalah so he’s probably not of the opinion as well.
Washing the private parts at the beginning of the ghusl:
Is the washing of the private part, is it to remove impurity, is it to remove something not impure, something not that good or is it simply part of the actions you do without there being a specific reason. It could be all three possibilities. Can you make ghusl without being in the state of janabah? would you wash the private part? If so why, if not, why not? Is the purpose of the washing of private part, is it to remove something impure? Suppose even in the case of janaba, you have relations and before going to sleep you clean yourself down there, and in the morning you make ghusl. Do you have to wash it again in the ghusl as a sunnan? Is this, washing the private parts based on the illa, an absolute sunnah under all circumstances or is it just related if there’s some impurity on it?
Is the male sperm pure or impure? it’s not to wash away something impure, if it’s not the mani, it could be the madi. But most likely it’s not meant to wash away something impure. Different schools differ about this act. Whether it’s an absolute sunnah or not.
Hanafis they say it’s mustahab under all circumstances. The shafis they say no, and they kind of cling on to one very specific thing. In some of the narrations of maymunah, it said “he washed the private part and whatever was there which is harmful” This is what shafi’s based their opinion on.
You can make ghusl without doing this, if you see something impure i.e madi, you have to remove it and if you have something which is not impure, it is good to wash it, like Ayesha scraped the sperm from the cloth.
There we take the washing of the private part as a sunan act of ghusl without any specific illah. The evidence for that is that prophet saw described the ghusl of juma’ as the ghusl of janaba’, i.e. even none of these impurities are there, it is preferred and sunan act to wash it.
The washing of the private part, you dont use right hand you take the water in right hand put in the left hand and then wash. What is mostly disapproved off is to use the right hand for washing the private part after urinating, in that case you should use the left hand. Otherwise for cleaning private parts during ghusl you can use the right hand, but sunnah is to use the left hand even during ghusl.
The other thing that Sayed Sabbiq described here, for example in the hadeeth of Maimuna, he would wipe his hand on the earth after washing the private part, what is meant here was to try to remove remnant of impurities from the private part, now a days you can use the soap to do that.
With respect to wudu there is dispute about washing the hands in the begining, similarly for washing the hands here also has the same dispute, is washing the hand for cleaning the hand or is it part of ghusl?
There are number of questions related to washing of the hands in ghusl.
1) When should the hand be washed while making ghusl?
Hands should be washed even before making ghusl and even before cleaning the private parts for the ghusl. And this can be seen from the authentic narration of Ayesha. And another narration from Maymunah in Sahih Bukhari, where she said that he made wudu like the wudu of salah … (the first hadith quoted by Syed Sabiq)
In one of the narration from Maymunah, it describes the sequence to be different than the above narration. Where it says that he made the wudu like the wudu of salah except for washing the feet, and he washed his private parts, ….Ibn Hajr commenting on this in Fath al-Bari says that one of the narration from Maymunah uses “thumma” between each step of the ghusl which implies some kind of order, whereas the above narration simply has conjunction (wa) between each step which does not implies any order. He says that unless you take this understanding then this narration goes against all of the narrations on ghusl by Maymunah and Ayeesha. The reason for this difference is that sometime the question is asked differently (e.g. which parts did he washed vs. how he performed the ghusl) and the narration is not capturing the question, rather the response.
2) when washing the hands, do you wash both of them?
In some hadith, e.g. hadith of ibn Umar, he washed his right hand first and then used this to pour water on his left hand to wash his private parts.
One narration from Maymunah has that she poured water for him and he washed his right hand, ….
There are other plenty of narrations, talking about washing both the hands in the beginning and these narrations are authentic. So we have explicit narration on both the ways.
3) What is the purpose of this washing ? is it ritual act of ghusl or is it just for the cleaning the hand ?
If it is part of cleaning, if your hands are not dirty then you don’t need to clean them, you might not need to clean it three times as well, which some of the narrations mentions.
What about niyyah, do we have to do niyyah before this washing or not ? If this is to clean, then you wash the hand then have niyyah.
Strongest opinion is that washing the hand is part of ritual act of ghusl irrespective of if the hands are clean or not, thus intention should be before the washing.
Ibn Hajr says that washing the hands is not due to ghusl, but due to waking up from sleep and making ghusl, thus making this as specific washing. But we do ghusl even after we wake up from sleep, thus this argument doesn't look good. This kind of interpretation you can see in fiqh of books and in some book of hadith like this in which Ibn Hajr quotes in Fath-ul-baari. This kind of interpretation is not required, you follow what is apparent in the text.
4) How many times?
The washing of the hands is from one to three times, all are correct. There is a narration from Ibn Abbas of his own ghusl in which he washed 7 times, this narration is not authentic. This narration back to Ibn Abbas is not authentic.
Discussion on Wudu part of Ghusl:
1) Is it obligatory to maku wudu or sunnah ?
2) Can the wudu be before or after the ghusl?
3) What is the niyyah when you make the wudu ?
4) If you make ghusl without wudu does it remove all of the impurities or leave the minor impurities so that you cannot pray salah without another wudu?
5) Do you do with 3 times like other wudu?
Wudu before making ghusl
All of the scholars agree that to do the wudu is at least sunnah.
Majority (Shafie, Hanafee, Maliki, Hanbali and ibn Hazm) say, this is explicitly sunnah.
Same say it is shuroot for soundness of the ghusl. This is narrated by Dawood A_Dahrhir, One narration from Imam Ahmed and Abu thawr.
Person who is sexually defiled and also invalidated the wudu, then it is obligatory for him to make wudu. This is opinion of Some shafiee, Some Hanafis and some hanbalis. They make it dependent on the state of the person.
Evidence for those who say it is obligatory to make wudu:
In Surah Maidah, Allah swt says: Wa Inkumtum Junubun fatahharu ...
if you are in the state of sexual defilement then you have to purify. Thus the command to purify yourself, what does this mean? In this case the details are not given so you have to look in sunnah, which the Qur’an does not explain (mujmal), for details. They argue that if the command is an obligation in the Qur’an and if it is mujmal then everything that Prophet does as an explanation of undetailed laws then becomes an obligation.The command Fathahharoo is command and we go to Sunnah for details and whatever Prophet did to implement this command it becomes an obligation. They say Prophet always used to make wudu in implementation of this command, then this wudu becomes obligatory part of ghusl.
Evidence for those who say it is sunnah to make wudu:
Majority of scholars consider fathaaharoo not as mujmal but as mubayyin which means that it is clear and understood because in other verse, you should not approach the prayer in the state of janabah until you wash yourself “hataa taghtasiloo”, so they say washing is something known and this explains fathaahroo which means washing only.
In addition to that when Prophet explained how to make ghusl in different occasions, Prophet (saw) once was explaining ghusl to Umm Salama he said it is sufficient to pour water three times over your body, in Sahih Bukhari and other places, thus this does not mention wudu as part of the ghusl. This is what led majority if scholars to say wudu is not necessary part of ghusl. At-Tabari claims that there is Ijmah on this, but this claim looks like doubtful.
Therefore the conclusion is that the wudu is only sunnah act of the ghusl. Ghusl in essence has two requirements, niyyah and washing the entire body.
When is the wudu made? we have concluded that it is sunnah act to make wudu during ghusl. But when is the wudu made?
It is very clear from all the hadith that you make the wudu before ghusl, Majority of scholars agree on that, the only thing they differ about is when you wash your feet.
i) Some people say it is preferred to leave the washing of the feet till the end of ghusl.
ii) Some say it is preferred to wash feet while making the wudu,
iii) Some say it is up to you.
iv) Hanbalis says it is up to you and it is better to do afterwards.
Washing feet: when?
Those who say you have to wash feet as part of wudu (before ghusl) base it on the authentic report in Bukhari from Ayesha, when he used to make ghusl, he would wash hands… make wudu as wudu of the salaat. ( Will get this hadith) and she continued this description and narrated by Maymunah as well.
There is another narration from Ayeesha in the Musnad of Adu Dawood At-Tayalisi (not the author of sunan) he narrates from Ayesha that the Prophet would not make wudu or wash any of the parts after Ghusl. (Authentic narration)
Ibn Umar said something similar to that (which is also authentic).
There is difference of opinion about when to wash the feet while making ghusl. We will discuss this later because of some missing notes.
Should the wudu be after washing the body or before washing the body?
The narration of Ayesha in al-Bukhari that prophet would make the wudu before washing the rest of the body. And the narration of Ayesha in Musnad of At-Tayalisi, Prophet would not wash any other part after Ghusl, are very clear.
Ibn rajab al-hanbali on his commentary on Sahih Bukhari also named Fath ul bari, said that there is no authentic narration that prophet made wudu after washing the body.
Wudu should not be made after the ghusl
No narration of wudu after the ghusl, but some people say it is better to make wudu after ghusl, This is one of the opinion in the hanbali. ibn Rajab’s comment may have to do with refuting this opinion within hanbali madhab.
Some say you have choice, if you are talking about permissiblity it is true, but if you are talking about sunnah and what is authenticated in sunnah, this is not the case.
Conclusion: Wudu comes before ghusl and washing of the feet maybe delayed
From all the evidence, wudu comes before ghusl, the only thing is washing of the feet may be delayed.
Steps of ghusl after making wudu - Wash remainder of the body beyond what you did in wudu
Once you make the wudu, and now you wash the rest of the body, you will not re wash the parts that you washed as part of wudu. You pour water on you and wash rest of the parts, not the part of body which is covered in the wudu. All of the narration talks about “he poured water over the rest of the body”. Don’t redo the hand, the face but wash the rest. You do not need to worry if you cover the rest, but this should not be intentionally. Once you are done with it, then you don’t have redo it. If is not that you cannot touch those parts, those parts will get touched anyways. When you make wudu those parts which are part of the wudu is already been washed, So while doing the ghusl you don’t have to start with hand and then wash face thinking as part of ghusl.
This raises the question, If you make ghusl without wudu, will that remove the state of minor impurity ?
Different opinions about wudu and ghusl
First Opinion: Ghusl takes the place of wudu in all the circumstance irrespective of minor impurity, sexual defilement. If you make ghusl you are getting in to the state of purity. This is the view of Hanafis and Malikis and strongest opnion of Shafiee and conclusion of Ibn Taymiyyah. This removes both major and minor imputirites
Second Opinion: The minor impurity is not removed until you make wudu regardless if you make wudu before or after ghusl. This is one of the opinion of Shafiee and opinion of Hanbali.
Third Opinion: Major and minor impurity are not joined unless you have the intention. Opinion of Imam Ahmed himself and one opinion in Shafiee madhab. The ghusl will remove both the major and minor impurities if you have intention that ghusl should remove both.
Evidences for the first opinion
Those who say that ghusl removes all impurities, is based on the verse of the Quran, that says that you should not come close to the salaat until you made ghusl (wa la junubun hatta taghtasilu). They say that this verse orders ghusl and it does not order you to make wudu. Therefore it is permissible for you to perform salah → ghusl has removed any kind of impurities
Hadeeth of the prophet in which he he was sexually defiled and he asked for water, he covered himself and made Ghusl and he said that pure soil is enough (wudu) for Muslims, even if he does not find water for 10 years and if he does find it, then you should put that on your skin.
Again this hadith does not mention any obligation of wudu.
They also speak about the fact, when you make wudu you purify yourself irrespective of impurity you did. e.g. if you went to bathroom 20 times, after that only one wudu is enough. This is the feature of spiritual impurity. Thus if you remove this spritaul imputiry then it should be sufficient for any kind of impurity.
They also say that the wudu which is part of the ghusl, the intention behind that it is not to remove the minor impurity but it is simply washing those parts first as kind of honor (sharaf) to those parts, but has nothing to do with having intention of removing minor impurity.
In this regards they also quote the hadith when the daughter of Prophet died he said that you wash the body but you begin by washing the places of wudu, which is an honor for these parts and is not intended to remove minor impurities.
Evidences for the second opinion.
Those who say minor impurity is not removed by ghusl they base it on the famous hadeeth of Intention, innalam amal bi niyyah. They say that you have to have the intent to remove all the impurities. If you don’t have this intention then you will remove only those impurity that has been intended not others.
Counter: They are not answering the question, if you make the intention for ghusl, first you have the question does this remove the minor impurity, first you have to establish this. As if you made the intention for ghusl it would be sufficient for whatever it is sufficient for. Majority agrees that ghusl does not even require wudu. Majority of scholars think this is very strange position where major impurity does not remove the minor impurity.
When prophet described ghusl to some people, he said it is sufficient to wash the body and so forth. Many people did make ghusl after wet dream. Now you have to make wudu after sleeping, as sleep invalidates the wudu. In no time Prophet is saying that in addition to this washing you have to make wudu. In the verse as well, faghtasiloo i.e washing is sufficient for prayer. Rest of the opinions are minority of opinion.
Evidences for the third opinion “
It is a minor opinion and we will not discuss it.
This idea of intention is much more discussed by the fuqaha than even by the Prophet. We don’t see the hadith making wudu for reading quran or something else. we make wudu to be in the state of purity. We don’t find any narration from Sahabah or Tabiee that they make wudu for prayer and they couldn’t do other act because they didn’t had the intention to do that.
Q: What about ghusl of Friday or other special ghusl? these require special intention
A: One thing is that, e.g. it was Friday but you never had in your mind that it is Friday. You made the regular ghusl on Friday and you come out of the shower and later someones reminds you that it is Friday, thus this ghusl does not suffice for Friday ghusl as you never had the intention. But you are in the state of purity anyways. You cannot have Ghusl of Juma’ without its intention, but even w/o intention of Ghusl of Juma’ you are in state of purity. This is what we are concerned here, that whether ghusl puts you in the state of complete purity.
Q: Any kind of touching of private parts break wudu, when you made ghusl and then you touched private parts, do you have to redo the wudu?
Details about wudu before ghusl
When you make the wudu, is it just like wudu with 3 times or not ?
Different opinions of how to perform wudu before ghusl
1. Only malikis says just once, but the rest agree to do just like wudu, 3 times.
2. Duybaan ad-dubyaan, just once as the intention is not for wudu it is just to wash these parts before, thus do it only once.
Rinsing of Mouth and Nose within Wudu:
Is it obligatory or only sunnah? There is difference of opinion:
1. For the Malaikis and Shafiee it is sunnah to rinse the mouth and nose in both ghusl and wudu.
2. For the hanbalis it is wajib in both ghusl and wudu.
3. For Hanafis it is sunnah in wudu and obligatory in ghusl
4. For some others: it is obligatory in wudu and sunnah in ghusl
The strongest opinion, if we go back to the hadith where he explained to women and saying put the water to hair 3 times and wash your body (in saheeh muslim), there is no question that rinsing of mouth and nose are sunnah. So they are not obligatory in both wudu and ghusl.
Question: if we follow opioion # 1: which says minor and major is removed by ghusl, can I say this means if you loose wudu before completion of ghusl, you do not have to repeat the wudu, as that wudu was not meant for removing the impurity rather washing those parts earlier?
Answer: have to do the wudu and ghusl, re-do everything??? (not sure, the whole discussion was not captured)
As soon as you finish the actions of the ghusl, any other actions that you do such as soap, shampoo is not part of the ghusl and your ghusl is over. And if you accidentally touch your private parts, and if you agree with the opinion that any accidental touching invalidates your wudu, then all that happens is that you have invalidated your wudu, but your ghusl is complete.
While you are performing ghusl and have not completed it yet, there should not be any actions that invalidate its validity. For example if you pass gas, then you have to redo your ghusl.
If you are in state of janabah and you passed gas afterwards, then if you perform wudu, this wudu does not help you with your purity. You have to make ghusl first to enter into the state of purity.
There is no wudu when you make ghusl, it is just the order of the actions. It is not a wudu. Ghusl is ghusl. The order you do the actions are similar to wudu when you do ghusl, but is not wudu, you are simply washing these part earlier as an honour (sharf). Is this clear?
You cannot use shampoo or soap for the actions of the ghusl. Water looses it quality when mixed with soap or shampoo. Ghusl has to be done only with water. Therefore finish the acts of ghusl first and then afterwards you can continue with the soap and shampoo part.
We were discussing what to do with the head while making ghusl. When you do wudu, you just wipe. Does this make sense in ghusl?
Some questions that we will try to answer while discussing the head
i) When you do the steps of wudu when you make ghusl, do you wipe over your head?
ii) Should you wipe over your head?
iii) Do you separate your hair, to make sure water gets to the root?
iv) How many times do you have to wash the head? 3 times?
v) Is there a difference for men and women in terms of washing over the head?
vi) Do women need to undo their braided hair when making the ghusl?
i), ii) Different opinions about wiping over the head while making ghusl
There is narration from Abu Hanifa, Imam Malik and Imam Ahmed that you do not wipe over the head, for them washing of the head suffices. Ibn Rabaj (hanbali) says wiping over head is makrooh while making ghusl. Majority opinion within these schools, you do wipe over the head like you wipe over during the wudu.
Those who say you do not wipe over, the hadeeth which describes the ghusl of Prophet like hadeeth of Maimuna (which is quoted by Syed Sabiq), none of them exclusively talks about the wiping over the head.
This hadeeth from Maimuna (the last hadith quoted by syed sabiq), in this hadeeth she does not say that Prophet did acts of wudu but she broke it down one by one, she does not mention wiping over the head although she mentions the rinsing of mouth and nose. They also claim that the word ghusl itself means washing and there is no wiping involved.
Those who say we have to wipe the evidence is , hadeeth from Ayesha in Bukhari where Prophet did wudu like he made Wudu for salah. Those who say we should not wipe they say to this hadeeth that, when she said Ayesha said to make Wudu like Wudu for salah this is like mujmal, like lacking the details of wudu. For them if you do most of the acts of the wudu it would qualify as the wudu of salah.
A contemporary scholar Dubyaan Ad-Dubyaan, is of the opinion that you dont wipe in ghusl, he searched through different hadeeth related to ghusl, there is no hadeeth which explicitly mentions of Prophet (saw) wiping the head.
What you can do is that you can present some hadeeth, when she was asked of ghusl she explained all of the steps of the ghusl but no mention of wiping over the head where she mention of rinsing of nose.
There is other report from Maimuna, that the Prophet (sa) made wudu like wudu for salat except for washing his feet, this is reported in Bukhari. Mujmal will not work as there is takhsees been done.
Everyone agrees that wiping is not obligatory as you don’t have to do all of the steps of the wudu, you dont have to rinse you mouth for completion of ghusl. If they describe that he did the action of wudu except for washing his feet, should not the burden of proof be to find an explicit statement that says he did all of the actions of wudu except the wiping of head. Since the norm is to wipe the head if someone is doing the wudu.
Like Maimuna’s report where there is explicitly mentioning of feet similarly we should find the report which explicitly says that (he did not?) wipe the head. Logically speaking you can say since you wash the head no need for wiping. But following the sunnah it is part to wipe the head. Eventually you are going to wash the head, that’s why the people who say wiping is not required, say why you have wipe while you are washing, they also say that you wont wash the parts of the body again which was part of wudu, then why would you wipe the head.
One important thing to note is that the hadeeth of Maimuna, the first one we quoted (the last in syed sabiq), this is Maimuna describing that time when Prophet (Sa) did the ghusl, she did not say that this is how Prophet (Saw) used to performed Ghusl.
Sh Jamaal’s conclusion is that logical arguments aside, the burden of proof is on the one who says that wiping is not needed and to find a report which explicitly saying wiping the head is not required because we have the reports which says Prophet (saw) did the action of Wudu.
iii) Separating of the hair of the head and making sure that the water reaches the roots
Is there any evidence for this particular action?
There is no authentic hadeeth that mentions reaching the roots of the beard while making wudu. But for ghusl this is different and we will discuss it now.
When you wash your hair, you can put water on top of the hair. The Sahaba had long and thick hair and if you just put the water on the top of the hair it wont get to the root.
Imam Malik says that there is no report that the Prophet did the action of seperating the hair in wudu but there is report in the case of Janabah. The first hadeeth syed sabiq quotes, in which he discribes the actions of the Prophet (saw), he quotes, that he would go down to the root of the hair. There is also report in Saheeh Muslim, which is also from Ayesha.
Ibn Rajab said that this is very important sunnah (from the practises of janabah) which is confirmed from Prophet (saw) but most of the fuqhas do not mention it except for author of Al-Mughni from us hanbali and also a book in Shafai school.
In the ghusl for Haid (menses) from Ayeesha in sahih muslim, it is also specifically mentioned when Prophet (saw) was asked about menses and in his explanation was to put the water so that it reaches the roots.
In the Mailiki school there are two opinions, some say it is obligatory to put the water down to roots.
However Dubyaan Ad-Dubyaan says it is not obligatory but it is just sunnah. And the reason he says, there is that for a couple of things. This action or description did not come in the form of shariah obligation like Prophet did not say go into the hair and put the water into root. But this has come to us as his action and the action does not mean obligation. But the Fi3l al mujarrid, the action which was continuously done by prophet (saw) this will still fall under mustahabb category. He also says that there is large number of other hadeeth which describes the ghusl from his statement and his action which does not mention this. There is long hadeeth in Bukhari where a person comes and tells him that he is state in the janabah and Prophet saw explained for him how to make ghusl he just said to pour water. There is also s hadeeth in Saheeh Muslim from Umm Salama where he said that it is sufficient to pour three handful of water over you. Also the hadeeth from Maimuna, it does not mention it. To extend his argument to further, even though he did this action but he did not always do it, thus making this action as Mustahabb.
After you do the action of wudu in ghusl, what would do you do next?
Even if it is sunnah act to take water down to the roots, still you are not required to make sure that each and every root was taken care of. Do we find any hadeeth that he did it more than three times? There is no requirement as such for making sure that each root was taken care of.
iv) How many times to wash the head?
Diifferent opinions about washing the head while making ghusl
1) Hanafi, Shafi, Hanbali and one opinion of Maliki that it is sunnah is to wash it three times.
2) Qurtubi and Qadi Ayadh from Maliki school say that there is no number and the goal is to wash the head and if the washing is completed in one time, then it is enough.
The view of majority of scholars is based on the hadeeth like the hadeeth from Bukhari on the authority of Ayesha and Maimoonah. It says 3 times, each time the whole head.
According to Malikis like Qurtubi and Qaadi 3iyaad, one of the things they says from the hadeeth we referred to above, for the evidence for washing whole head 3 times, they have some doubt in it, may be in order to get whole head Prophet (saw) might have poured 3 times. They use hadeeth from Ayesha in Sahih Muslim where he put water and started with right side of his head and then followed by left of the side of the head with cup of both hands, so based on this it is sunnah to wash entire head but not to repeat the action for 3 times. If you are talking about obligation, then all are in agreement that it is not required to 3 times. Dubyaan Ad-Dubyaan also comes to same conclusion.
Sh Jamaal conclusion is that washing three time is preferred as the hadeeth are very clear that he washed 3 times.
v) Difference in ghusl between men and women?
There is report from one sahabi which gives that the washing the head for the men and women is the same, it is 3 times for both men and women.
What about the starting from the right side of the body and then left side?
This is based on the norm of the starting from the right. If you have to make wudu then to start from the right is sunnah if we look at All of the hadeeth describing Prophet (saw), they describe it as he would wash rest of the body, there is no mention in these reports in particular that you start with the right except for the hadeeth of Ayesha where Prophet preferred to start from the right, when it comes to putting on clothing and when it comes to tuhoor and in his affairs.
Sh Jamaal conclusion: It is fine to start from the right.
(Footnote: By default when he became a Muslim, Shaikh Jamaal followed the Hanafi madhab, because of the textbooks in English were of the Hanafi madhab, even the books written by non Muslims. He mentioned in passing, “from his days of being a Hanafi”, but he did not clarify which madhab he follows now.)
Washing the body, does the body have to be washed 3 times?
It is mustahabb in hanafi and shafi and this is well known opinion in hanbali school as well. The well know opinion of Maliki and Conclusion of ibn taymiyyah is that it is not mustahabb.
In the description we see of Ghusl of Prophet, it simply says he washed the rest of the body, even the washing the head there is difference of opinion. Thus, it is interesting to know that it mustahabb to most of the schools, they might have got this from wudu where they do actions 3 times. Otherwise, there is no report from Prophet (saw) on this at all.
When the feet are supposed to be washed?
Do you do it when you make wudu or at the end or this does not matter?
One opinion is that you do not wash in the beginning, that is opinion of Hanafi and one opinion in Shafaii and one opinion in Maliki and one narration from Imam Ahmed.
Well known opinion in Shafi and Maliki madhab is to do while making wudu.
Well known in Hanbali madhab, you do it both time. This is not unusual in Hanbali, when prophet was described to do an act in more than one way and they cannot reconcile it, they would do the both to be safe. Whereas in other schools they will do it one or the other way.
One view (Sh doesn’t remember the name of the person but this is well known opinion) if the place where you are making ghusl is not clean then you leave to wash the feet where the place is cleaner.
There is one narration from Imam Ahmed he said it is the same whether you wash the feet with the wudu or later.
Hadeeth of Maimuna explicitly says that Prophet (saw) delayed the washing the feet. Another narration from Ayesha in Bukhari where Prophet did the wudu like salaath and then washed his body, this does not mention anything about leaving washing the feet till later.
Another narration from Ayesha from Umm Salamah she also does not mention of leaving the feet to later.
Sh. Jamaal’s opinion: you can do either way, as both are described in authentic texts.
Next question: Whether not you have to do action of ghusl one right after the other ? Can you wash the top part and then you do something in between like attend phone call and then wash the bottom, will this be allowed ?
2011-11-13 Class Notes
Al-Muwalah: To do things one after other.
First opinion is that to do thing one right after the other is sunnah. This is opinion of majority of scholars and ibn Hazm.
The second opinion is that Al-Muwalah is obligatory, this is maliki opinion and this is one of the views of the Hanbali school.
Evidence for it to be obligatory, (i) none to the narration highlights that he broke things and did some action later. (ii) Prophet (saw) made ghusl, his action explains the implementation (bayan) of Allah’s statement “In Kunthum Junuban fatahharu”, therefore whatever prophet did to comply to this obligation should be considered obligation unless there is proof otherwise. thus we have to follow the same. According to them the burden of proof is on the person who says that we can break it up.
Counter argument: Ghusl just implies washing the body, as in other verse it says (Hatta Taghtasilu) we find many examples of Propeht when he told people how to make Ghusl and he gae them minimum of the what is needed and when he did ghusl himself he added action to it, this is evidence that not all the things that Prophet saw did during ghusl can be considered as obligatory.
(iii) In wudu Al-mawalah is obligatory and thus it should be obligatory in Ghusl, they make Qiyaas on this. This was Maliki view for wudu as well so they are using their own position in wudu to argue for ghusl as well. However there is a difference of opinion about whether Al-mawalah is obligatory in wudu, thus there is no strong evidence to say it is obligatory. Thus you cannot apply that here.
Evidence for it to be sunnah: (i) The opposing side say there is no sign to say that it is obligatory and if it was obligatory Prophet (saw) would have shown some sign to make it obligatory. In all of the hadith where prophet told others to make ghusl there is no emphasis on this point.
(ii) In the Hadith of Maimuna, Prophet (Saw) did wash the feet later and moved out of the place and thus this shows that if there is break it is not a problem.
Conclusion: To do things one after the other is sunnah and a small break in not a problem.
Next question which syed sabiq did not discuss.
Do you have to take water and rub it against the skin? or can you just stand in front of shower for example ?
Maliki: You have to rub water on your skin (obligation). Only school who say this is Maliki school.
Al-Qarafi (a Maliki scholar) discusses that in Arabic language there is difference between Al-Ghams which is to rinse or put your limbs underwater and Al-Ghusl which is to wash by taking water and rubbing it over skin.
For Jumuah prayer, it is clear from the hadith of Prophet (saw), the part of reasoning for ghusl for Jumuah prayer is to be clean (to remove bad smell), if you just rinse under the water, are u going to smell better or worse without rubbing it ?
Majority opinion is that you don’t have to rub it, they base their opinion when Prophet (Saw) describe the ghusl where he told one women it is sufficient to pour the water over and there is hadith in SM, where Ayesha said he would put water vigorously to the roots of his hair and then pour the water over the rest of his body. And in all these hadiths there is no description at all to rub the water against the body.
Maliki also get into discussion on there are parts where you cannot reach and in this point they talk about getting slave or wife’s help. This goes against there position and make it weak due to excessive hardship for these arrangements.
Conclusion: There is no strong evidence to prove this point.
There is important usool in fiqh which Ibn Taymiyyah usually quotes, “We cannot claim the conclusion derived from your statement is your opinion”. (Lazim al-madhab laisa bil madhab)
Ghusl for Women: (Page 59)
Al-Albani has some comments here: He starts with talking about hadith from the Asma bint Yazeed, which Syed Sabiq quotes at the end, Al-Albani says there are 2 mistakes SS made, first of all the Jamaa’ (Group) did not record the entirety of Hadith as quoted by SS. Muslim, Abu Dawood, Ibn Majah and Ahmed they are the one who recorded in the way SS has it. “The group” is 6 + Ahmed. He says Bukhari and An-Nasai they only recorded the first portion without the portion in which she asked about Ghusl of Janabah.
The last part of Ayesha’s statement at the end “How good are the women of helpers”, Al-Bukhari records this in only muallaq form. Basically what he is saying that SS with his statement at the end gives the impression that even Bukhari has the whole narration.
He also notes that in none of the narration says that her name is Asma bint Yazeed. One narration in Muslim it identifies as Asma bint shakl.
Al-Albani says that it is clear that there is diffrence in ghusl wr.t to Hayd and sexual defilement. IN the case of Hayd the more emphasis is given on the water gets down to the roots of hair and while the hadeeth of Umm salama says she does not have to undo her hair and Al-Alabni conclused when it comes to undo the plaits of the hair it is obligatory when you are making the ghusl of Hayd and when it comes to ghusl of janabah it is not obligatory. This view is also view of Imam Ahmed, Ibn Qayyim and ibn Hazm.
Question of undoing the plaited hair.
Different madahab have different opinions:
According to Malikis, Shafiies and one narration from Imam Ahmed, women doesn’t have to undo the plaits neither for janabah nor for haydh.
Another view is that it is obligatory for Men to undo the hair and not the women, this is hanafi madhab.
She doesn’t have to undo in janaba but in haydh she has to, this is well known view in Hanbali school and opinion of Ibn Hazm Ibn al-Qayyam (who is hanbali) and Al-Albani.
Evidence for those who say that hair never has to be undone. (i) There is narration in Saheeh Muslim, same narration as the first one that SS quotes, from Umm salamah that women came to Prophet do I have to undo this for janabah or mensus (highlighted text is additional part in that narration). Prophet (saw) gave the same reply just as it is quoted by Syed Sabiq.
This narration Imam Muslim puts in the end and those familiar with SM they can see this is weaker narration then other narration. You can call it as Shaadh.
(ii) Another evidence Is the hadith of Ayesha and Ibn Amr quoted in the Book. How can this be evidence that she doesn’t have to do for both janabah and Haydh ? Is there something in this narration that tells that she is only talking about janabah. It sounds like she is talking about Janabah as she is making ghusl same time as Prophet (saw).
In any case it is not specific about what kind of Ghusl that is, if you have another text who is more specific you can take that as evidence.
Other narration from Asma which is in the book, does it mention that she has to undo her hair, even in the correct narration in which she came to Prophet and Prophet did not mention anything about undoing the hair. If she does not have to do for Haydh she does not have to do it for janaba’.
Ibn Umar used to tell his wives and women in his family not to undo the hair for both types of Ghusl but make sure the water gets into the roots (Ibn Abi Shaybah authentic narration)
Evidence for those who makes distinction between ghusl for Haydh and Janaba
Those who say that these ghusl are different they rely on report from Al-Bukhari concerning Ayesha was doing her Umrah and she got menses Prophet (saw) said leave the Umrah, undo the hair, (ghusl is implied here in between these two steps) comb your hair and then make ihram for Hajj. In the chapter heading in sahih bukhari it says “women undoes the hair for the ghusl of Haydh”. What about this report. Ibn Rajab in his commentary “Fath ul baari” who is hanabli scholar. He replies to Bukhari by saying this ghusl that Prophet told Ayesha is not the ghusl of ending the menses, but this ghusl is the ghusl to enter into the state of ihram for hajj. Similarly Prophet (Saw) when Asma bint Umais when she gave birth he told her to go to Dhul Hulaifa and then make ghusl to enter the state of Ihram, thus this ghusl is referring to the ghusl of Ihram. Ibn rajab says “in this case of entering ihram, which women is going to do once in her lifetime or at most once a year, it is not hardship to undo her plaits.”
Note: This ghusl for ihram is sunnah.
There is report in tabarani when women makes ghusl for haydh she has to undo her hair and for janabah she does not have to do it. (is weak narration)
Other rational arguments:
i) qiyas between ghusl of Ihram and obligatory ghusl (of haydh); weak argument
ii) It is not possible to get the water into the roots without undoing the hair, which is not true.
Conclusion: We do not have any explicit and clear evidence that plaits have to be undone for either case, thus as long as you can reach the water to the roots it is sufficient. In either case of ghusl, it is wajib to reach the roots with water and if a sister has to undo her plaits in order to get to the roots, she has to do it. If she can reach to the roots without undoing then it is not a problem.
We are on page 60 which discusses questions related to ghusl. Is one ghusl sufficient for sexual defilement and for Friday prayers, and for Eid prayers?
Sayyid Sabbiq says that if you have to make ghusl for two reasons, it is sufficient to make just one ghusl as long as you make an intention for both. On this point Al Albaani disagrees with him, he says that it is apparent to him that one ghusl is not sufficient, he says that you have to make separate ghusl for every act that obligates it. So you have to make separate ghusl for menses, for sexual defilement, for Friday prayers and for Eid prayers.
Ghusl for Jumuah is something distinct from the ghusl for sexual defilement. Part of his reasoning is that there is separate evidence for obligation of each of the ghusl, and hence you cannot combine them.
Then he gives an analogy, “if you have to make up days for Ramadan, you cannot combine it while fasting in the Ramadan of next year with the intention that it is for this Ramadan and the previous one, and he says that the same is true for salaat. And he says that there is no generality of intention, So you cannot invoke “all actions are based on their intention” this is obvious from the rest of text of hadith that follows it. So it has no relevance here, except to the point that you have to have separate intention for each of these separate acts. And finally he presents a report from Abdullah ibn Abi Qatadah, Abdullah was making ghusl and his father asked him whether he was making ghusl for Jumaa’, he said both. His father said that you have to make separate ghusl for Jumuah, since the prophet told him that if someone make ghusl on Jumuah then he is pure until the next Jumuah. Al Albaani considers this hadith as hasan even though it has some weakness to it.
Abu Qatadah was a sahabi. This is Abu Qatadah’s statement and his interpretation of this hadith of prophet on ghusl of jumaa does not seem correct. The part where he said “you have to make separate ghusl for jumaa” is not a statement of the prophet, and it cannot be considered marfooh. It is known as mawkoof report.
In one of the standard books of Hanbali fiqh, if the person makes one ghusl for Friday prayers and sexual defilement, then it will be sufficient for him as long his intention was there and we do not know of any difference of opinion on this (lesser than claiming ijmaa which is usually difficult to prove). This is reported from ibn Umar, Mujahid, Maakool, Imam Maalik, Auzai, Imam Shafiee, Khalifa Umar ibn Abdul Aziz and others.
Ibn Hazm and al Albaani do not accept this opinion.
Strenght of Al Albaani’s qiyas is weak: First of all he is making qiyaas between different acts of ibaadah. And what about the strength of his qiyaas. He is making qiyaas between combining fasting in month of Ramadan and combining ghusls due to various reasons. Wouldn’t there be a better qiyaas from examples of tahaarah itself?
Let us say you prayed Fajr and due to health reasons you went to bathroom 23 times, how many times do you have to make wudu for Dhuhr? Only once. Would this analogy be better than the one for combining fasts.
There is no mention from prophet saw that the Friday ghusl is different than anyother ghusl. Prophet made ghusl for Friday prayers even if he was not sexually defiled. What is the mafhoom al mukhalafah of this hadeeth. It says that ghusl for sexual defilement on the occasion of Friday would have been sufficient. Meaning only one ghusl is necessary.
Conclusion: One ghusl would be sufficient with proper intention. You don’t have to say it, it is all in your mind.
Suppose a person makes ghusl for Janabaa’ on Friday and then after the ghusl he realizes today is Jumuah. Then he has to make ghusl for Jumuah, since he did not have intention for it and even though it is a burden.
Footnote: About the question of making separate ghusls for all of the reasons leading to hardship and israaf. If your ijtihaad is leading to an opinion which causes hardship and israaf then it is a good indicator that it may be wrong. But we cannot use the hardship and israaf argument to argue against an authentic hadith.
Next paragraph on page 60 of the textbook.
Actions that you are prohibited under major impurity are greater than in minor impurity. The point that is being made is these actions are part of the ghusl and this is not a wudu within ghusl. It is just the order in which you wash your bodily parts to make ghusl as sunnah from Prophet (saw)
“Using this report from Ibn Umar as evidence, there is some question about this, as it is muwqoof, and it is not hujjah, even if the report is authentic” (footnote: it is ironic that he is making this statement after he presents the hadith of Abdullah ibn Abi Qatadah above) “The sunnah is to make wudu before ghusl and not after ghusl”. All ibn Umar is saying is that making wudu after ghusl is going too far. Al-Albani saying that wudu should be done before the ghusl and doing it after the ghusl is going against the Sunnah.
On second part of Ibn Arabi’s statement that the ulema has not differed on this, He says “In fact Ulema has differed about it, Ibn Arabi did not know” he quotes verse from the Quran that for every knowledgble person there is one above it and he quotes Ibn Hajr as sying Abu Thawr and Dawood and others said Ghusl does not replace the Wudu and you need to make Wudu as well.
We have discussed this earlier and we have discussed in details and we concluded the action is not wudu which you make in ghusl. So the actions in ghusl does take the place of wudu and we don’t need to make wudu and this is opinion of majority and this is supported by the report of Ibn Umar and Narration from Ayesha. Al Albaani is following a minority opinion, none of the sahaba had that view, so quoting that Abu Thawr and Abu Dawood had that view is not convincing.
One in the state of Janabah or Haydh, one is not allowed to do certain things, whereas other acts are allowed. we have discussed what is not allowed to do, there is not kind of uncleanliness attached to the human being. Jewish religion was different and they influenced Arabs on how the mensturating women are to be treated.
abu hanifah’s view goes against all madahib, even hanafi view. Truly unique. He was of the view that the sexually defiled person is in a state of impurity. The body of that individual also becomes impure. E.g. ibn abideen says in hashiya, it has been mentioned from Abu Hanifa that if a sexually defiled individual falls into the well, both the water and that individual are impure. This is not the view of hanafis as a whole.
What are some of the proofs that sexually defiled person does not become physically impure? even the sperm is not impure but you have entered the state of janabah, what is the proof for this claim ?
- You make tayammum which does not necessarily remove any of the physical impurities but this is considered as the replacement of Ghusl, this means you are not physically impure in junub state.
-In sahih bukhari we have hadeeth of Abu Hurairiah, The Prophet came across me in one of the streets of Medina and at that time I was Junub. So I slipped away from him and went to take a bath. On my return the Prophet said, "O Abu Huraira! Where have you been?" I replied, "I was Junub, so I disliked to sit in your company." The Prophet said, "Subhan Allah! A believer never becomes impure." (Bukhari)
- Abu hanifa says the Quran says “In kunthum junban fatahharu”, there is no purification without najasa, purifying what is already pure does not make any sense.
Para 4th page 60
SS statement seems to imply that it permissible for women to enter the public bath. He said then in fact this ruling does not imply to women at all and it is not allowed. There is hadith “whoever believes in Allah and last day should not enter public bath except that men are wearing the lion cloth ...and for women it is not allowed....
There is hadith from Ayeesha that when she met a group of people who said we are from shaam, and she said you are perhaps the people who allow their women to go to the public bath (hamam). This is narrated by Abu Dawood, Tirmidhi and ibn Majah and Al Albaani considers it authentic.
There is also a hadith that women who are sick or in nifaas can go the public bath. this hadith is weak.
There is couple of issue in this para, covering the awrah is it obligoatory or not? and question of public bath
What is meant by (hamam) public bath?
In Hijaaz they did not have public bath, based on this the hadith quoted above which Al Albani calls hasan is rejected by some scholars. However later on the public bath became common feature in Muslim countries. The point behind them was that in places where it gets very cold and not everyone has the capabilities to heat the water. So you would have these places where people would go for taking bath with heated water. Lot of fasad started happening at these places as the auraa was not properly covered etc. Dubyan Dubyan comments on this that “almost everyone now have hot running water in their homes so there is no need for people to go to these public baths anymore.
Sheikh commented that it is not an issue in US, but students reminded about dorms in college and gyms. In dorms there is way to get around that you can wear shorts to cover your auraa to avoid being nude in a public shower area and they don’t mind that as drunk students even take shower with full clothes on and nobody cares. In gyms you should try going to public baths where there is common shower area.
What is the Awrah between man and man, women and women ?
We are talking the min that needs to be concealed all the time, this has nothing to do with urf or custom, for example at the time of prophet men would cover everything most of the time. Culture will determine what is good to be covered while in public, however, we are talking about what needs to be covered between the individuals by law.
The strongest opinion for males: it is between naval down to covering the knee. Awrah between women and women is the same, due to lack of any other evidence to show otherwise. (If the women is breast feeding it is permissible for other women to see her breasts, she is not obligated to cover that while among women.)
It is obligatory to cover this Awrah, some say there is ijmaa on this. Allah swt says: Surah an-Nur v30
Tell the believing men to reduce [some] of their vision and guard their private parts. That is purer for them. Indeed, Allah is Acquainted with what they do.
In the hadith which is quoted by SS it continues that a man should lay under a blanket with other man and a woman should not lay under a blanket with other woman.
For salah the auraa is a little bit more, for men they should cover at least one shoulder (this is probably based on qiyas with ihraam) but if he has no other piece of clothing then the minimum auraa is enough. For women they should wear a khimaar to cover their entire body.
Uncovering the `Awrah when one is alone and not having any need to do so ?
e.g. you don’t need to make ghusl and you uncover your auraa while alone. According to some scholars, this is makrooh, when there is no need to do so. This is Hanafi and Maliki madhab and one view among shafaii
Another view is that it is not allowed (stronger than makrooh), this is the stronger view in the shafai school, well known opinion amongst hanbalis, and one opinion in the hanafi. This is just in general with no need to uncover and you’re alone in private. In between makrooh and not allowed.
Uncovering in order to make ghusl. Now we’re talking about some need to do so. There’s difference of opinion and evidence on both sides. We’ll be doing that later inshaAllah.
Uncovering the awrah to make ghusl when one is alone
The majority of the scholars say it is permissible and it is the opinion of the four madhabs and also the opinion of Imam Bukhari.
There is scholar by the name of Ibn Abi Layla, he is of the opinion that it is not permissible.
What is the evidence for the permissiblity to uncover the Awrah while taking bath?
In Bukhari there are couple of narration that has to do with what happened to Musa, where stone has stolen the cloth of Musa while Musa was bathing. Can we use this as evidence? You should do this in the place where you are in privacy, in the case of Musa he was in this place where no one was present. This is part of shariah of previous generation.
The other evidence in Bukhari is about the Prophet Ayyub where he was bathing in the nude. Again this is the shariah of the people of before us. Do we have anything in our shariah?
The evidence who say that it is haram ?
There is hadith in musnad Ahmed in which someone is asking the Prophet (Saw) about covering the Awrah, Prophet (saw) to cover the awrah in front of everyone except your wife and slave, Prophet (Saw) continued saying that if you are able to never look at Awrah of others. The person asked what about when he is alone Prophet (saw) said “Allah has most right to have shyness towards Him”. Dubyaan Ad-Dubyaan concludes this hadith has hasan isnaad.
Ibn Hajar says that the apparent meaning of this hadith is that to be naked in private is not allowed at all (ghair jaiz mutlaqan). This interpretation is based on the fact that “Allah has more right” implies obligation. The people answer this by interpreting this hadith in the light of another narration in Bukhari which uses the same expression…Someone came to prophet saw and asked that my sister has died and she made oath to make hajj, what should I do? Prophet saw said if she had debt would you pay it, then Allah has more right that His debt be paid”
The argument here is that “Allah has more right”, does not mean that something is obligatory. The understanding of ulema is that fasting on behalf of deceased or fulfilling the oath on behalf of deceased is an act of doing goodness to them and it is not considered as obligatory by most of scholars and based on that the other Hadeeth in Musnad Ahmed, it is not obligatory.
Finally some people say it is mustahabb and not obligatory, their argument is all the part of his body he can look at it and his wife can look at his private parts so if there is a need it is not a problem and they understand the hadith in musnad Ahmed as mustahabb not obligation.
For ghusl if it adds hardship Awrah can be exposed as it can be done for any other valid reason, e.g. (i) for circumcision (ii) for medical examination (iii) with your wife
There is no harm in uncovering the Awrah itself but the effects that it may lead to may be undesirable from shariah perspective.
In general when Prophet (saw) was making Ghusl, he used to do it in private behind a screen that is someone covers him, but we don’t have anything to prove that Prophet (Saw) uncovered his awrah within that privacy or not.
Based on what we have covered uncovering without any need to do would be at least “Makruh”.
Next Paragraph: There is no problem in drying oneself with a towel.
There are some schoalrs who say you should not use the towel, as they quote the hadeeth where Prophet (sa) was offered a towel and he did not use towel, at the same time we have some other hadith which specifies that the dried himself with towel. Thus, it is permissible to dry or not to dry yourself as we have evidence for both.
Next Paragraph: Sharing water with women
It is clear from the hadith that the water doesn’t become impure. The hadith mentioned is very specific and is clear. There is no difference of opinion that it is allowed.
Dry Ablution (At-Tayammum)
Lexically Tayammum means “to aim” or “to seek”.
There is a verse in Quran (2:267)
وَلَا تَيَمَّمُوا الْخَبِيثَ مِنْهُ تُنفِقُونَAnd do not aim toward the defective therefrom,
In this verse we see the word tayammum is used in its lexical meaning which is to seek or to intend something. This word is form Arabic language and when they define it from Shariah perspective they try to preserve the linguistic meaning as well, which is to seek out for clean soil
Each of the different madhabs have slightly difference definition for tayammum but they are all pretty close.
Proof of its legitimacy:
Correction: “that is, the earth” (This is outside the quotation, as this is explanation from the translator)
This form of ablution is viewed as a blessing...
The word is missing in the translation “the earth has been made a place of prayer and purification”
Based on this hadith, scholars conclude that the tayammum is the gift for this Ummah only as previous generation did not have this. As Allah swt mentions in Quran that prophet saw has removed the chains and hardship from people, it is referring to these kind of ease given to this umma only.
Ulema comment on this that the previous generation were required to pray in the certain place (churchs/synagoges) only and not like us. According to some of scholars that If they did not find water and the place to pray then they have to delay the prayer til they find water and right place to pray.
Q: weren’t they supposed to pray only once a weak?
A: Some Catholic sects pray 5 to 7 times a day, they have different levels, e.g. priests and nuns are required to pray more than ordinary folks. Some protestents pray 1-2 times a day.
The reason for its legitimacy: (More evidence)
Correction: As-Sayyid ibn Huthair.
Conjecture: May be they might have combined Maghrib and Isha and they slept. In the morning when it was time of Fajr there was no water and thus this verse was revealed
One of the thing from this hadith is that barakah can come through humans as well. As in this narration it is clear from As-Sayyid Ibn Huthair statement.
In narration of Bukhari it says “May Allah reward you, nothing occurs to you except that Allah makes way out of it for you and makes for Muslims a source of blessing”
Another thing we can see from this hadith, sahaba considered the easing in shariah as barakah.
Is tayammum a Rukhsah or is this Azeema?
Linguistically rukhsah means making something easier and simpler to do, similarly in shariah it means concession and something easier to do. This is not a fiqh term but this comes from Prophet (saw) “Allah swt loves for his rukhsah to be taken in the same way His azeema is to be followed”
Azeema linguistically means to have a strong resolve, some messangers were called of “uul-ul-3zm” for shariah it is default case to be followed when there are no special circumstance and the Rukhsah from sharia perspective is a kind of concession given to you due to some excuse or some inability to perform azeemah due to some difficulty or hardship.
If you are going to pray and you don’t have water, you have to make tayammum and this becomes obligatory, can something obligatory be considered Rukhsah?
The majority of scholars say that it is Rukhsah,
According to one opinion in Shafaee and well known opinion in Hanbali school it is Azeema.
Malikis and another opinion in shafaee school, it is Azeema if water is not available and it is Rukhsah otherwise.
Their argument is that when water is not available then tayammum is an alternative to water and it is not a concession. However, when water is available and you cannot make wudu with that water, e.g. due to some illness or other difficulties, then it is a concession (rukhsah).
Suppose for example, you need to make wudu and there is water available but it is owned by someone else but the cost of the water is something you cannot afford, this is case where water is available and you cannot use it as this is difficulty. In this case it is Rukhsah
If the water is available if we travel for 7 miles, in this case do we need to travel 7 miles or do tayammum in the place where you are ?
The reason why there is difference of opinion is that, some scholars have issue with claiming that something is Wajib and is Rukhsah at the same time. Their view is that Rukhsa is to make something permissible and not as an alternative.
There is one narration regarding the Hadith of Ayesha losing her necklace, which says “Ruqsah is revealed for them”, (fanazalat ilaihim rukhsat al-masah) this is weak narration.
Is there is any fiqh ramification to consider tayammum as Rukhsah or Azeema or is it just a discussion of faqeehs?
Is there is any fiqh ramification to consider tayammum as Rukhsah or Azeema or is it just a discussion of faqeehs?
Normal case when you resort to tayammum is when you don’t find water.Suppose you are travelling and you don’t have money to spare to buy water for wudu, then does it matter whether tayammum is rukhsah or azeemah?
It is confusing question, if you have don’t have water then tayammum becomes an azeema, this is the majority opinion.
Is there any case when tayammum becomes Ruqsah, such as when you cannot purchase water?
For example if the water is cold but it will not kill you, then performing tayammum is Rukhsah.
If the travel what you are doing is for Haram such as traveling to Las Vegas to gamble, then according to Shafiee then you cannot resort to ruqsah of shariah. While traveling to Las Vegas for haram purposes and the water is cold, then in this case tayammum is rukhsah but he cannot resort to this rukhsah as this travel is for something haraam according to scholars. If travelling is for Haram purposes and water is not available at all then it becomes Azeema not rukhsah and you can perform tayammum.
If you are traveling and the water is too expensive, then it becomes the same as water is not available.
Continuing with page 64 of the textbook.
Reasons for Tayammum to become permissible
Tayammum is permissible for the one who is in state of impurity whether it is major or minor, whether he is resident or traveling and it falls into one of the four cases, .... water is not available,
There are three major cases or sets for one to resort to tayammum.
1. Somebody does not have water. Water is not present.
2. Somebody is not able to use water. Water is present but is unable to use it due to illness or some other conditions.
3. Someone is afraid that he will miss the time of ibaadah if he tries to get the water.
Water is not present
With respect to first category, if the individual is a traveler and he cannot find water and he can do tayammum, there is Ijmaa on this.
Different opinions for when water is not present and you are not a traveler
What if he is not a traveler, if he is inside the city, and he cannot find water, can he make tayammum?
If you are not travelling and he cant find water, there is difference about what should be done.
One opinion is that you pray and do not repeat the prayer. This is one of the view in the Hanafi school, well known opinion Malaiki school, one opinion Shafiee school and Hanbali school.
Second opinion is that you make tayammum and pray, and then repeat your prayer after you find the water. This is the opinion of scholars Layth ibn Saad, well known opinion shafiee school and one of the opinions of the Hanbali school.
Third opinion you do not pray until you find water. This is one view in Hanafi school and one of the two narrations from Imam Maliki, Khurasani school of Shafiee and also a narration from Imam Ahmed.
Thus there is no Ijmaa on this issue, as we see difference of opinion in this topic.
Evidences for the above opinions about water not present and you are not a traveler
First opinion evidence, they argue that the verse of Tayammum says that if you don’t water then perform tayammum, “Falam tajido maa fa..” [4:23] Unavailability of water is only condition which is specified in this verse.
If someone is sick and is not traveling, according to all scholars, he can make tayammum even if he is not a traveler. They then argue that if a non traveler can make tayammum when he cannot find water, then they should be able to make tayammum when he is sick.
Hadith of the Prophet saws, when the Prophet was not traveling and someone said salaam to him, and the prophet did not respond to him, until he wiped his hands and face using a wall. Basically he did not respond until he was in a state of purity and he was not traveling at that time. Hadith is from Sahih Muslim.
Do yo think Prophet (saw) prayed after he did tayammum, is this entering complete purity?
Prophet (saw) is making tayammum when water is available, may be this is partial purity where Prophet (Saw) felt was necesary to respond to salam, as you dont have to be in the state of taharah for responding to salam. May be it is mustahabb, to be in the state of taharah to respond to salam.
Classroom discussion about different types of purity. So there was a sense of urgency of that moment and hence he resorted to tayammum to respond to the salaam.
Second opinion evidences: Rely in the verse on the Quran “In kuntuk ala safarin” the verse seems to be general
The previous hadith that we discussed put one in a state of taharah, then it would negate the above evidence kuntuk alaa safarin.
Is there a good response to the above evidence that you have to be a traveler to resort to tayammum?
The hadith of Abu Dharr in the book which is general. Also the verse In kuntum junuban aw ala safarin, you can take the last condition whcih says if you dont find water and apply this condition to the case if you are travelling or not.
Water in general would be available for the non traveler, so this would be an exception.
Evidence for third opinion: Repetition of an act requires a proof. Do we have any evidence of repeating the prayer.
There is a hadith where a person was asked to repeat the prayer when he did not perform it properly. Was he asked to go and repeat all of his prayers? Prophet determined that this person did not know how to pray and showed him how to pray and asked him to repeat only one prayer and not to repeat all of his previous prayers.
In general if the person performs Ibadah which he thinks right and later after months he comes to know that what he did was wrong, then he is not necessary to redo his ibadah. There is evidence to show this. But for that time he has to repeat that act. For example, if someone is praying for 20 years without reciting fatiha and one day after his prayer someone explains that he has to recite faitha and in this case he has to pray again that particular salath not the one in the past.
Being in the state of taharah is one of the pre-requisites, and if pre-requisite is not met so you go ahead and perfotm the ibaadah to the best of his ability.
What you do if the water you have is not sufficient to wudu ? What do you do in this case, ignore the fact of presence of water or make wudu as much you have water and then make tayammum ?
The opinion on this among the scholar.
1. You make tayammum and ignore the water, hanafi and Maliki view and Shafiee old view.
2. It is recommended to use the water and make tayammum for the rest.
3. It is obligatory to use that water and make tayammum for the rest. Ibn Hazm, Shafiee new opinion and Hanbali Opinion.
On this point some people make distiction between Wudu and Ghusl. They case in case of Ghusl you wash your body as much as you can and make tayammum after that. Hasan Al-Basri and ‘Ata they said the person wudu without water and pray and then they said if the amount of water only sufficient to wash face and hand and that is preferred to wash face and hand over tayammum and they said that if the eater is enough for washing face then do it and make tayammum for the hand.
Evidence for make tayammum and ignore water:
The argument that madhabs give here is rational argument.
What about verse “Fa taqaaluha masta ta3thum” To do to the best ability?
What about the principle “if you are not able to fulfill something that does not relieve of things what you are capable of fulflling”
Dubyaan Ad-Dubyaan, he has thirteen (13) books on taharah and one of the books is about book of wiping. He also has book on tayammum, he said in this book I used to be of opinion it is oblgaory to use water and make tayammum and after thinking for a while I am following the views fo hanafi and maliki, howver both view has some evidence. (smile)
Conclusion: Opinion #1 is stronger for the non traveler to make tayammum if water is not present.
Suppose for example, that you have impurity on your body, and if you have enough water to either remove impurity or make wudu, what should you do?
What is your opinion and your evidence for your opinion?
There is a substitute for wudu but there is no substitute for removing impurity. Which means that you use the water to remove the impurity and make tayammum in place of wudu.
Continuing with the text book, making tayammum in case water is present but cannot use it due to some circumstances such as illness.
When one is ill and he believes that water would worsen his condition or delay his recovery.
b) Performing tayammum when one is injured or ill
Albaani’s comments on this hadith
This hadith has been declared weak by Al-Bayhaqi and Ibn Hajr However it has supporting evidence in the hadith of Ibn Abbas that raises it to the level of hasan, except to the last part where it says he could have covered... this additional part is weak and rejected. He concludes that it is okay for Sayid Sabbiq to use it over here, but later when he uses it later to wipe over the cast, that is not a proper usage of that hadith.
If some one is sick, does it automatically qualify him to make tayammum? What level of concern must be be in order to perform tayammum? Should he fear for his life if he used water in order to perform tayammum?
Opinions about performing tayammum when one is incapable of using the water
It is been attributed Hasan al Basri and ‘Ata opinion, you should only use tayammum only if you fear for your life. However Ibn Abdul Barr said this is good opinion, this does not seem to be a correct attribution to Hasan and ‘Ata.
There are at least four different views about when can someone sick resort to tayammum. We will ignore the above wrongly attributed opinion.
Opinion #1 of the Dhahiri School: Any kind of sickness at all where you feel that there you will face difficulty or hardship to make wudu. This would be like having flu, where you can get up and go to bath room to make wudu but this will be headache to get up and go to bathroom. So this view says even in this case you can make tayammum. This is the dhahiri school
Opinion #2 which is the view of the majority is that only if you feel that your condition will worsen or delay your recovery, then you can perform tayammum.
Opinion #3: You fear that you are going to die or loose your limb. This is one of the opinions of Imam Malik, narration from Imam Ahmed and one opinion of Shafiee.
Strongest opinion is to remove the hardship. What do you mean by hardship here? It is not an excuse, it has to be related to illness and in that state of illness you feel hardship. It is extra burden upon you while you are sick. You cannot use argument of hardship while you are in work and to perform wudu is hardship, you cannot invoke this as this hardship has to do with respect to illness.
The goal is not to take advantage of the shariah or of the shariah to create hardships for you. But what happens if you got sick due to a haraam act, then you cannot avail yourself of the rukhsah.
c) If the water is cold enough to physically harm the user.
This is the case we have discussed about public bath. Making of wudu in and itself does not mean to harm you. Now a days inside a house we have warm water and it is not an issue.
Conclusion: Tayammum is not a option.