Islamic Classes‎ > ‎2011 Summer‎ > ‎

Fiqh us Sunnah Summer 2011

Fiqh us Sunnah XI

Required Textbooks: Al-Sayyed Sabiq, Fiqh al-Sunnah
Grading: No exam
When: Sundays 4:30 PDT - 5:45 PDT June 5, 2011 to July 30, 2011 (Please note that the last class is on a Saturday and not a Sunday)
Basic Outline of the Class: Ghusl

2011-06-05 Class Notes

We finished covering wiping over the socks and will now be moving on to cover ghusl. As usual we will read from the book and discuss it.

Reading from pg 49. Some part of the text was left out in the translation for this first part.

Shariah proofs for sanctioning of ghusl
The proofs presented to demonstrate that ghusl is sanctioned by the shari’ah.

We know that the first and second verse are a reference to ghusl.  However, one can argue that this is also a reference to wudhu, as wudhu is an act of purification.  This is not a good starting point since we have better proofs. In several hadith of the Prophet saas, we have references to ghusl through kanayya (figurative speech?).

What Sayyid Sabbiq did was not unique for him, other fiqh books did the exact same thing by quoting these two verses.  However, some other fiqh texts also quoted supporting ahadith.

Definition of the word ghusl
Ghasl (or ghasala) is the verb and ghusl is the ism or noun.

How would you define ghusl?  
Syed Sabbiq defines it as washing the entire body with water.  

A definition must include everything that falls into that set (jamih??) and it must exclude everything that does not fall within the set.  

A better definition of ghusl would be the use of pure water over the entire body according to specific prerequisites and essential components/practices/principles.  Pure water must be used and there are specific actions and sequences that must be followed.

Ghusl can be divided into obligatory and recommended (will be covered later).

Actions requiring ghusl:

Five actions/events that require ghusl:

I. Discharge of Al-Many owing to stimulation while asleep or awake for both males and females.  

This aspect of the issue has ijma.  It should refer to both men and women.  Al Kisani from the Hanafis, Ibn Juzay from the Malikis, An Nawawi from the Shafi’s, Ibn Qudama from the Hanbalis all say that there is ijma on this point.
The translation gives you the meaning of the hadith.  the sheikh gave the arabic of the hadith.  “water is due to water.” What is meant here is the washing is due to the fluid being excreted (eg. the semen coming out).  What is agreed upon is this excretion is due to sexual stimulation while awake or asleep and is obligatory to make ghusl.  If a male or female experience a wet dream, they must make ghusl.

There are some important points about al Many which are listed on page 45 of the textbook.

Point #1: Discharge of sperms not due to stimulation such as cold weather or illness.
Point #2: If one has a wet dream but does not find any traces of ejaculation
Point #3: If one wakes from sleep and finds some moistness, but does not recall any wet dream, though he is sure it is sperm, what should he do?
Point #4: If a man squeezes his penis, to avoid ejaculation.
Point #5: Sperm on the clothes during prayer
Point #6: Touching the two circumcised parts

Regarding the hadith stated on the 2nd paragraph related to the point of discharge of sperms without any type of stimulation such as cold weather or illness.

Al Albani’s comments: He has a comment on the story described in the hadith in the 2nd paragraph.  He says that this statement that “one learned man is more difficult for Satan than one thousand followers (worshippers?).”  This statement is narrated in this books by At Tirmidhi without the story around it. Tirmidhi labeled this hadith as weak.  Al Iraqi says that the chain is very weak for this statement. As for the story, “I have not come across its chain yet but I do not think it is sahih as it has some objectionable aspect to it.”   

Sheikh Jamaal was able to find the story.  It is in a book called Tariq Dimishq (65 volumes) by Ibn A’skr.  One of the narrators it goes through is a weak narrator.  

Given that the story is weak, it cannot be used to support this point.  

There is a difference in opinion regarding whether the secretion comes out without sexual opinion.  Sayyid does not refer to any difference of opinion here.  Here you can get the conclusion that there is ijma here but in reality it’s far from it.  

Two different opinions about ejaculation
Hanifis, Malikis, Hanbalis: If the secretion is not due to sexual stimulation, if the sperm does not come out due to ejaculation, then ghusl is not required.

According to the shafi’s: no matter how the sperm comes out, it is obligatory to make ghusl, whether it is due to stimulation or otherwise.  

The evidence of the majority:
They quote Surah at Tariq, “let man observe from what he was created, he was created from a fluid ejected.”

How can this be used as evidence?
They say that the fluid is that fluid that can product children and Allah swt gave its description as “a fluid ejected,” therefore if it is not ejected then it cannot produce children and therefore ghusl is not required.  There is no tie-in with this and the point that they are trying to prove.

Another piece of evidence has to do with the story of Ali Ibn abi Taalib.  He had madhi come out; it’s a fluid that comes out as a result of sexual stimulation and is basically a lubricant, pre-seminal fluid.  It is not made of the same material as sperm.  In this case, one does not need to make ghusl.  He went to the Prophet saas and asked him about this and the Prophet saas told him that if you see this fluid, wash your private part and make wudhu the same as for salaah, but if the fluid is ejected then make ghusl.  The last part (about ejection) is problematic as it is not authentic.  This hadith is in Sahih Bukhari and Muslim but do not contain this additional part regarding ejection.  Therefore, this evidence cannot be used.

Al Albani did not comment on this.  From what the sheikh could find, this narration is the same as the other hadith that is mentioned.  This last addition to the hadith is shaad.  This narration is from Abu Dawuud.

If this last part was authentic, would it prove their point?  No.  If you negate the statement, then no ghusl is needed.  

A => B
no A => no B
only true if:
iff A => B   (if and only if)
if no A => no B

(classic set theory :) )

=> means implies
A = ejaculation
B = ghusl

This would be a very strong proof for the majority opinion if this section of the hadith was authentic.

The shafi’s have some evidence as well. (According to the shafi’s, no matter how the sperm comes out, it is obligatory to make ghusl, whether it is due to stimulation or otherwise.)

One of their pieces of evidence is a hadith mentioned earlier; ghusl is a result of sperm.  If this statement is taken in its generality, if sperm comes out then one must make ghusl.

They also make an analogy where they are forcing the if-then argument using an opinion from the other schools that if the male organ is inserted into the female organ one must make ghusl, regardless of whether sperm comes out.

Their next argument is a case of analogy.  If you wake up in the morning and you see sperm or liquid on your bed, then by seeing that the individual must make ghusl.  It make have come out without any stimulation.  

The strongest evidence is a hadith that has been abrogated by another hadith later.

Neither side has strong evidence.  

One contemporary scholar, Dubiyyan a Dubiyyan, concluded that the default case is that ghusl is not obligatory unless there is direct or a preponderance of evidence that it is obligatory.  What is meant is that if it comes out as a result of sexual stimulation then ghusl must be made; in all other cases the default ruling is that it does not require ghusl unless there is evidence to show otherwise.

The third proof is this hadith that is mentioned by Sayyid Sabiq.  

Now comes an even trickier question:

One question about ghusl as a result of ejaculation, suppose some of the sperm comes out much later or after some time has passed since the sexual stimulation.  What is the case now, is the ghusl required for the amount that came out directly after the stimulation and again when the remaining amount is released?  They are divided on this issue.  

One opinion is that the coming out of the sperm does not need to be at the same time as the sexual stimulation; any time it comes out as a result of the stimulation requires ghusl.  

Any time the ejaculate moves within the body, it requires ghusl.  This is the opinion of one of the students of Abu Hanifa.

An opinion of another student of Abu Hanifa is that the two must go together (the movement of location and the ejaculation).

What is the evidence used?  There is no direct evidence.  Logical arguments are used.

Those who say it has to be at the same time as the sexual stimulation argue that there is no evidence for anything else.  This is a very strange argument.  No one could know exactly what is going on in the body during sexual stimulation.  To use this as a fiqh indicator is a virtual impossibility and contradicts many basic tenants of fiqh.  

The strongest view amongst these according to the sheikh is that the obligation is the result of two things: the sperm coming out and also the sexual stimulation.  When the sperm comes out without any sexual stimulation, there is no clear evidence that the sperm coming out later obligates ghusl.  However, they do have the hadith about the woman that asked and the Prophet saas said that if you see the liquid you must make ghusl.  What did she ask about?  She asked specifically about the wet dream, so the presence of the sexual stimulation is implied with wet dreams.  

Sperm is considered sperm.  It is washed off for cleanliness but washing it is not required for salaah.  

2011-06-12 Class Notes

Hadith on page 50, this hadith is part of the same story about Ali Abu Taalib that he had madhi and he went to the prophet and asked him about it. And the prophet asked him to wash it. This part of the hadith is authentic. But the additional part of this hadith on page 50, Al Albaani does not have any comments on it. So shaikh went and checked on it and found out that Al Albaani says that it is Sahih and we have conflict between Albaani’s comments and Dubyan’s conclusions.

So Sayid Sabbiq’s conclusion is correct. So sperm comes out for any other reasons other than sexual stimulation or ejaculation then you do not have to perform ghusl. You only have to perform ghusl in case of ejaculation (due to sexual stimulation.)

Actions requiring ghusl

Continuing reading of the text. Reminder we are still talking about actions requiring ghusl

If one has a wet dream but no traces of ejaculation are found:

The original arabic is different, something has been left off from the translation.  he says that in the hadith of Umm Salaym in which she asked what happens if a woman has a wet dream and the prophet saas said she has to make ghusl if she sees the liquid.  But then he says: However, if it comes out after she is awake then she must make ghusl.  This is an interesting statement in the light of hte previous point made.  If the sperm comes out after but doesn’t come out as ejaculation, ghusl is not required.  There seems to be some kind of contradiction or inconsistency.  

What is the difference in the case of women?
The sperm from the man is a result of ejaculation, in case of the women, she has fluid, which is like madhi, and it is result of sexual stimulation. We have two conditions, sexual stimulation and ejaculation, in case of women, if there is no fluid coming out, then there should not be any reason for ghusl.

Next paragraph (3): Doubt of sperm, should perform ghusl to be on the safe side

There is something wrong in the translation here.  This book was translated in the early years of personal computers.  This was sent to them handwritten and was then entered by the publisher electronically.

here’s how it should read: (The next two paragraphs should replace the text in the book)
If he awakes from sleep and finds moisture but does not remember a wet dream, then if he is certain that it is sperm than he must make ghusl because most likely it came out as a result of a wet dream and he doesn’t remember the wet dream.  

If he is sure it is not sperm, he should make ghusl anyway in accordance to ihtiyaat.  Mujahid and Qattada said he does not need to make ghusl until he is certain that the fluid came out due to ejaculation.  They said because he was certain that he was in a state of taharah and that state cannot be removed by something that is doubtful; it can only be removed by something certain.  

If you wake up and see remnants of fluid on your clothes, there are three cases:
1.) You are certain it is sperm or madhi (semen)
The opinion of the vast majority is, regardless if a wet dream is remembered, one must make ghusl.  It is not a condition that you know that there was sexual excitement or that it came out with force.  It is sufficient that it came out while sleeping.  In the case of Umm Sulaym, the Prophet saas said yes if you see the liquid.  Seeing the liquid is the key point even though she mentioned a wet dream.  

If you are certain that it is madhi, then the majority says you must make ghusl.

2.) If you are certain that it is mani (pre-seminal fluid)
Then according to Abu Hanifa and Muhammad (his student), you have to make ghusl regardless whether you remember a wet dream or not.  One of the reasons they say that (from their books), after some time the mani can look like madhi (after some time you might not be able to distinguish the two).  

Abu Yusuf, the other famous student of Abu Hanifa, if you don’t remember a dream and it doesn't look like sperm to you, then you don’t need to make ghusl.  

3.) You cannot tell, there is doubt whether it is mani or madhi
However, you remember a wet dream, then in the Hanafi madhab there is complete agreement that ghusl must be made.

If you don’t remember a wet dream, Abu Hanifa and Muhammad say you have to make ghusl while Abu Yusuf says that you do not.   

In the Maliki madhab, even if you have doubt about whether it is mani or madhi, you must make ghusl.  It looks like they are giving preference to being on a cautious side and therefore make it obligatory.

The Shafi’ madhab says it is not obligatory to make ghusl at all.  

The Hanbali position is interesting: if you wake up and find moisture but do not know if it is sperm or not, if before you did something with your wife or thought of something that would move the sperm in your body, then you must make ghusl. If you did not have any interactions with your wife before going to bed, then you do not have to make ghusl.

In matters of obligation, there is no obligation unless it is clearly required.

In this day in age however, invoking ihtiyaat is the better option.

Now comes the next question alluded to by Sayyid Sabiq but did not make it in the translation:
if you have sexual excitement during the sleep but nothing came out.  However, while you are awake the sperm comes out but not in the way that is considered due to sexual excitement.  

Q from the shaikh to the students: How would you answer if your son asked you this question?

Footnote: Remember Hanafis do not accept the concept of mafhoom al mukhalafah and it is reflected in their opinions.

Views on sperm comes out without ejaculation while you are awake (delayed result of sexual stimulation but without ejaculation)
According to Abu Hanifa and Muhammad and almost everybody else: it is obligatory to make ghusl.
While Yusuf and one opinion of the Maliki say that it is not obligatory.  The sheikh believes that the non-obligatory opinion is stronger.

The Shafi opinion here is consistent with their other rulings, irrespective of how the sperm comes out, you have to perform ghusl.  The other views of Shafiees however are not consistent.  They believe that sexual excitement is a sufficient condition to require ghusl while the hadith adds a requirement for ejaculation.

Next paragraph (4): You can try to control ejaculation by pinching but after your actions, the sperm still comes out.
No comment on this.

Footnote: No need to discuss other actions which are haraam, so people perform haraam actions and then want to know how to handle it.

Paragraph 5:
Noticed sperm on the clothes after performing the prayers. You have to repeat your prayers.

You would think that there would be more differences of opinions, based on waking up from a wet dream. Here you have no doubt that there is sperm on your garments, and you did not notice it. You wake up and change your clothes, and perform your prayers, when you are about to go to sleep again, you noticed the garments from the previous night and find out the remnants of sperm.

You need to make an intention for ghusl. If you just took a shower when you woke up and then at the end of the day, you realized that you had remnants of sperm on your clothes from the previous night, then you still have to repeat your prayers.

The sheikh could not find any difference of opinion here, that you must make ghusl and must repeat all of your prayers since you last remember even if you don’t remember any wet dream.  This obviously means that you are certain that it is sperm.  

By the way, if you find a physical impurity on your clothing, do you have to repeat the prayer?

We have direct evidence from the hadith, that finding physical impurity on your clothes after the fact does not invalidate your prayers. There is a hadith where Jibrael came and informed the prophet about impurity on his clothes.

Two important concepts
Tark al-mahdoor: not leaving what you are supposed to avoid.  
fi’l al ma’mur: doing the thing you’re obligated to do. Action obligated to do, if you do not do what you’re obligated to do it will affect the validity of the salat.

You could make an intention for ghusl for every shower, regardless of the purpose, whether it is for Jumah or some other reasons. Albaani has an interesting opinion that you have to make two ghusls, one for Jumah and one for taharah from the madhi. We will discuss it later.

The next topic seems clear and simple and easy and you would think that there would be ijma on the subject but that isn’t the case.

If someone makes ghusl and then after making ghusl, more sperm comes out, does he have to repeat the ghusl?  

the different madhab views:
one opinion is that it is not obligatory to make ghusl.  Maliki and Hanbali (the well-known opinion) opinion.
Imam Ahmed + Shafi’s => must make ghusl.
Hanafi view => they tie it back to the sexual act.  If the sperm comes out before you urinate or sleep or walk a lot or any of those things, then you must make ghusl again.  They are tying it back to the original sexual act.  If it happens after any of those, then you don’t need to make ghusl.
Al Ozaey (sp?) => states the exact opposite of hanafi view.

6/19/2011 - Need to merge the notes from Br Asif here and mine below.

Continuing on pg 51.

The four madahab agreed with what is said by Sayyid here.

At Tirmidhi stated that the majority of the ulimah state that if the two parts come together ghusl must be made.  There seems to be another view that ghusl is not required if there is no ejaculation.  This is the view of Dawuud ad Dahiri, several tabi’ien and sahabah.  Al Bukhari’s view on this is a bit cloudy, he said that making ghusl would be the cautious approach.  

The reason there is a difference of opinion on this point is that there are hadith that state different things.  The majority of scholars arrived at that conclusion is a basic understanding amongst them that the text not requiring ghusl has been abrogated by the other text.  Those who say ghusl is not obligatory simply by the two circumcised parts coming into contact, they had a number of reports.  bukhari reports a narration from Uthman that references making wudhu of the salaah (need to fill in the rest).

Some scholars object to the narrator, Yahya ibn abi Kathir. They say he’s the only one narrating in this way and contradicts others. They say this hadith would be shaad. Ali bin Madini and Imam Ahmed reject this narration. This is from Bukhari and Muslim.

How would we respond to this?

Ibn Hajr’s response is that there are many other hadith that give this response other than this narration through Yahya ibn abi Kathir.

This is supported by other narrations (such as Muslim and A’ishah and is the opinion of several sahabah and tabi’ien) so there is no reason to categorize it as shadh.

The other response to the narration is stating that this is how it was early in Islam and was abrogated by later reports that were already quoted by Sayyid Sabiq.  Most likely this narration that is being quotes was after the time of the Prophet saas.  Either the leading sahabah did not know it or it was not a strong narration.  

Al Bukhari and Muslim both record that Obayy Ibn Kaab asked the Prophet saas about having intercourse with his wife without ejaculation and the Prophet saas said wash the part that made contact and make wudhu and pray.  Al Bukhari also records from Sayid Al Khudri where the prophet saas asked for one of the Ansar to come and his hair was dripping and the Prophet saas said perhaps we made you finish early and he said yes.  The Prophet saas said all you have to do is make wudhu if you stop before you’re finished.  

Muslim also records from Sayid ibn Khudri a very similar narration where they are going out to visit an area called Quba and asks for a man to come out.  In the narration from Muslim, the Prophet saas says water is only due to water, meaning the water of ghusl is only needed when there is ejaculation.  

There is another response to this; what is meant to this last statement (water due to water) has to do with a wet dream and not in the case of finishing early.

The chain of this narration is weak and the story goes against the narration (regarding the hadith of wet dreams). (is this correct?)

Those are the evidences that the people who say it is not obligatory to make ghusl if you do not ejaculate rely on.

Those who say it is obligatory first say that the narrations above are probably abrogated as there are hadith recorded by Muslim and Bukhari that says if anyone sits between the four parts of the body and exerts himself then ghusl is obligatory on both.

How would the others respond to that?

They say this one is not explicit because when the Prophet saas said when the person exerts himself could mean exerting himself by ejaculation, not just entering the female’s part.  Their understanding is that could mean they could be having intercourse without ejaculation.  

Also, there is an explicit narration in Muslim that states if he does not ejaculate - this is the counter to the comment about the first part.

Another proof that is used is similar to that one except it states exerts himself + ghusl becomes obligatory.
There is some question whether this is a statement of A’ishah or from the Prophet saas.  

There is a narration from Abu Dawud from Obayy ibn Kaab that says the fatwa that the people were giving is that the meaning of “water is due to water” was a special exemption given by the Prophet saas was abrogated by a following ruling from the Prophet saas that required making ghusl.
It could have been that Obayy did not hear of this happening before but then later heard about another incident.

They have two other narrations basically saying the same thing; originally ghusl did not have to be made but then it was required.  These narrations are weak but are supported by other hadith.  

There’s also a narration of Imam Malik where Zaid ibn Thaabit

Now we have a narration saying that Uthman and A’ishah had a similar opinion.

Finally, there are scholars that said the sahabah came to an ijma that ghusl should be made when the circumcised parts make contact with each other.

The conclusion is that it is best to make ghusl when there is penetration during intercourse.  

It’s not often the case that the four madahab agree to something.  This leads to another interesting question that is relevant nowadays.

Suppose there is penetration while there is something keeping the two parts from touching each other (ie condom is used).  In this case, we don’t have ejaculation and we don’t have physical contact between the two parts.  

On this point the scholars differ.

In the Shafi’ school, ghusl is not obligatory.  This is also the well-known view amongst the Hanbalis.
Some of the Malikis and one of views among the Shafi and a view from the Hanbalis is that it is obligatory.  
There is a third view of the Malikis and the Hanafis that if the thing blocking the contact is very thin then ghusl must be made; if it is thick then ghusl is not required.
The sheikh is not aware of what the Hanafi opinion is on this issue.  

The sheikh is is of the position that one must make ghusl.  
If he sits between the four and exerts himself, then ghusl is obligatory, regardless of whether the parts physically touch each other. (based on the last hadith mentioned and also being the safer and more cautious approach).

Moving on...

Women and their period, concerning childbirth and menstruation.

First of all, the name in the translation should be Fathimah bint Hubaish.

Female circumcision refers to the removal of the foreskin on the clitoris; this is not the “circumcision” that is well-known in the modern day for women (which is not in accordance to Islam).

When does the woman need to make ghusl once the period has finished?  (timing wise)

The strongest opinion is that she is required to make ghusl for the prayer.  If she becomes pure at 10 am, then she doesn’t need to make ghusl until dhuhr time.  If there is a large window for dhuhr and she feels that she is pure during any time in that window, she can make ghusl and pray.  If she knows she is pure close to the end of the window, she must make ghusl so that she can pray on-time.

What about an-nifas?
An Nifas is post-partum bleeding.  Also known as lokia (sp?).  
In general, nifas is considered the same or treated the same as menses, so one should make ghusl at the end of it and the same things that are forbidden while in the menses is forbidden for her in this case.

Scientifically speaking, this lokia is basically the body releasing everything that is related to or built up in relation to childbirth and facilitates the body reconstitutes itself.  You will see the blood change color over time.

What about the bleeding that the woman has during childbirth?  She has gone into labor which could last for many hours and can overlap several prayer times.  Sometimes women see blood during the time of labor.  Is that blood coming out treated the same as nafas or would it be treated differently?  

If you have a miscarriage and you have bleeding, when is this bleeding considered nifas and when is it not considered nifas?
Most miscarriages are accompanied with some kind of bleeding.  
There are differences of opinion regarding miscarriages and entering into nifas.  There doesn’t seem to be any difference in opinion that if a woman miscarriages after four months (we have hte creation of a human being at this time), this bleeding will be a result of nifas.  As we know, the fetus goes through different stages.  Nutfa - almost still basically liquid.  Alaqa - hanging clot (becomes a bloody formation).  Mudgha - has a form and looks like a chewed up piece of flesh.  After this, the rooh is breathed into it and it becomes human.  in some interpretations of the hadith, this happens in 4 months.  The sheikh says that in some understanding, it happens within the first 40 days.  the terms will be used but the timings will not be used as there are differences of opinion there.

According to the Hanafis, if any portion of a human being comes out, whether it is like a finger, hair or something, then it is considered nifas.  
The Hanbali view: If the thing comes out in the shape of the human being, then it will be considered nifas.
The Maliki view: Everything from alaqa on would be nifas.
The Shafi’ view: If the alaqa or mudagha comes out and hte specialist says this is of a human being then they will consider it nifas.
One view from the Hanbali school: if it is mudgha, then it will be nifas.
Others say anything beyond 4 months.

If there is bleeding while in labor as opposed to after the child is born, what is to be done.

if there is a bleeding because of miscarriage before the 4 month deadline? Jalal’s view, bath is required either way.

2011-06-19 Class Notes - Shakeel’s notes here, need to merge them with Asif’s notes above

We are on page 51 of the textbook. Touching of the two uncircumscribed parts, meaning the penis and vagina. If there is any kind of sexual intercourse, even if there is no ejaculation, requires ghusl.

What is meant by touching here, is penetration, if there is only touching without penetration then there is no requirement for ghusl, according to all of the scholars.

In the four madhabs, agree with Syed Sabbiq says. Tirmidhi says this is the opinion  the majority including, Abu Bakr, Uthman, Ali and Ayesha among others. However there seems to be another view that ghusl is not obligatory if there is no ejaculation, it is the view of some sahabah and tabieen, including Dawood ad Dhahiri. Bukhari’s view on this is cloudy, he says it is safe to perform ghusl.

We have different hadith of the prophet saas saying different things on this topic.  Majority of the scholars are of the view that one of the text is abrogated by the other text.

View: Ghusl is not obligatory for two part simply coming in contact with one another.
Evidences for this view:
.... Uthman said that I heard it from the messenger of Allah.  I asked Ali ibn Taalib about it .... and somebody else, and they said the same thing. Recorded by Bukhari and Muslim.

Some people reject this due to one of the narrators, yahya ibn katheer, because he is contradicting other narrations. They say it is shaadh, since it contradicts other narrations of the same report. They quote .... and Imam Ahmad reject this narration.

Ibn Hajr says that if you are looking for another hadith that says the same thing, then you can find other narrations that are not from Yahya ibn Katheer.

So there is no reason to reject it, because you can find the same report from other sahaba and tabieen.

The other response to this narration is that this is referring to something that was early in Islam and it is abrogated by later in Islam, specifically by the report quoted by Syed Sabbiq.

Bukhari and Muslim both record that ibn al Kaab asked the prophet what should he do if the private parts touch but there is no ejaculation, the prophet replied to wash the parts only. So you can see why Bukhari had this view about this topic.

Abu Sayid al khudri narrates that the prophet asked the Ansar to come and he came with wet dripping hair, and the prophet asked him, did we ask you to hurry (implying from sexual intercourse with his wife), then all you have to do is to make wudu, if you did not finish.

Another narration from Abu Sayid al Khudri where in prophet said    .... inna ma al mau wal mau ..... water is only due to water ....  which means that ghusl is only due for ejaculation. Another interpretation is that this hadith is only for wet dreams.

Narration by ibn Abbas ......... missed it ......

So these are the evidences offered by people who say it is not obligatory to make ghusl if only your private parts touch but there is no ejaculation.

Those who say it is obligatory to make wudu, they say that the above hadith are abrogated and they present the evidence a hadith by the prophet when you sit in four corners ...... and the person exhorts himself, then he has to perform ghusl.

So how would the first group respond to the above evidence.  They say that the person is not exhorting himself, they say it means that the person has not ejaculated.

The problem with their counter argument, is that there is another hadith in Sahih Muslim that adds to the above hadith that the person ejaculates then the ghusl is obligatory. So here the argument is that if exhortion meant ejaculation, then this additional part would not have been added.

Another evidence is that if a person sits in four corners and the two uncircumscribed parts touch each other, then the ghusl is obligatory.

Sunan Abu Dawood and narrated by ibn al Kaab that the ghusl was not required earlier but it was made obligatory later for two uncircumscribed parts touching each other.

Statement from Ayesha and Rafay ibn Khudaij, the chain is weak for it, which clearly state that earlier ghusl was not required and then later it was required.

Muwatta of Imam Malik which states that Ubay ibn al Kaab or Zayd was of the opinion that ghusl is not required and then before he died, he changed his opinion.

Again from Muwatta of Imam Malik, says  the Uthman used to say that Umar ibn Khattab and Ayesha would say, if two uncircumscribed parts touch each other then ghusl is required Implying that Uthman was of an earlier opinion and then he changed his mind.

It does some clear, that originally it was a different ruling and then it became more strict. This is one of the reasons why four madhab agree on this topic.

One topic that is more relevant nowadays, what if there is a condom used for sexual intercourse and did not ejaculate, does he have to make ghusl.

In this case, there is no ejaculation and the two uncircumscribed parts do not come in touch with each other.  

These opinions are from An Nawawi.
On this point, the madhabs differ. In shafiee school, there is no ghusl required, also the hanbali opinion. Some of the maliki and one view of shafiees and hanbalis is that is it obligatory. A third view of shafiee is that if the thing blocking is very thin (people used different apparatus to block pregnancy) then you have to make ghusl.

Shaikh says that he has to make ghusl because of one hadith.
Hadith reported by ibn Abbas says the prophet said, If he sits between the four and then he exhorts himself, then he has to make ghusl.

According to shaykh, this hadith implies that since the above hadith is using the word he exhorts himself and does not use the word the two uncircumscribed parts touch each other, because of this hadith, you are required to make wudu.  And this is the safest opinion.

Page 51: Women and their period. Do not approach them until they become pure and approach them in a way prescribed by Allah swt. Prayer is not required for menstruating women........

The name should be Fatima bint Khubaysh and not ..... this is an error in the book.

There is ijmaa among the ulema that ghusl is required for menstruating women. When does the woman have to make ghusl, after she finishes her menstruating period?

Suppose her bleeding stops at 10:00 AM and she does not have to make any prescribed prayers at this time, when should she make ghusl?

The strongest opinion is that she is required to make ghusl for the prayer. If she becomes pure at 10:00 AM then she does not have to make ghusl until Dhuhr time. If the time she becomes pure is close to the time for which the prayer is ending, then she has to make an effort to make those prayers by performing ghusl immediately.

Nifaas or Post-partum bleeding is treated the same as menses. So you have to make ghusl at the end of it, and the same things that are forbidden for women on menses are also forbidden for women who are recovering from Nifaas.

What about bleeding during child birth and the labor lasts for long time and the prayers during this long labor?

Syed Sabbiq does not get into a couple of topics related to Nifaas which are miscarriage and bleeding related to it, and bleeding while in labor.

During miscarriage, when there is nifaas and when is it not nifaas?  The bleeding that accompanies miscarriage is not nifaas, then what should she do about the bleeding that occurs during the miscarriage?

If a woman miscarries after four months, then there is no disagreement that the bleeding is considered nifaas.

Different stages of foetus
Nutfah - just a drop of fluid
Alaqah - a hanging clot, a blody formation
Mudgah - has a form, it looks like a chewed piece of flesh
Then ruh is breathed into the foetus, which happens in 40 days, but some hadith are interpreted incorrectly as 120 days ( which is 4 months).

So the question is when is it considered nifaas.

According to the Hanafi, if any portion of the foetus that looks like a human being and it comes out, then it is considered nifaas.

Hambali view: If the foetus comes out as a shape of human being, then it will be considered nifaas.

Maliki view: Everything from Alaqah onwards is considered nifaas.

Shafiee view: If the alaqah or mudgah is expelled and it looks like a human being, then it will be considered nifaas.  (Shaikh says during alaqah or mudgah, you cannot tell that it looks a like a human being.)

Another view: I missed capturing it......

Some say, anything beyond four months is considered nifaas.

If she had bleeding, that was before the deadline of nifaas occurs as defined by the different madhabs, then what should you do?

If a woman has miscarriage so early and she does not know about it, and she has bleeding, but it is not her menses, what should she do about this bleeding?  

If a woman sees blood and she determines that it is not her menses, and she does not know that it is nifaas, then what should she do?
She does not know that she is pregnant, so should the the ruling for nifaas not apply to her.

For homework discuss this with your wives and answer the above question. (Sorry about the fact that I am writing for the male perspective, all of the students who are collaborating on the notes are men.)

2011-06-26 Class Notes

We are discussing when is the bleeding considered nifaas. There are a number of opinions, none of them have strong evidence to support them.

If she is in early stages of pregnancy, it is difficult for her to recognize it. If it is nifaas, then she does not have to make up her prayers or fasting and there is significant differences between nifaas and menstrual bleeding.

Alaqa and mudghah are misunderstood any way, whether it is 40 days or 4 months. And since it is questionable, then you cannot use it.  So you cannot use 4 months as a basis for her opinion.

So the woman has to rely on the type of bleeding. Only if she sees spotting and it is result of pregnancy and it somehow resembles foetus, then the ruling of nifaas is applied. If she just sees blood even mixed with skin, then it is considered to be menstrual bleeding and the ruling for nifaas should not apply.

The ruling for nifaas, is tied to a cause, the expelling of foetus, either live or still born. And she has to see something that resembles a foetus, which is Hanbali ruling. And it does not matter at what stage that comes out. Mudgha is not a foetus it is more like a chewed flesh. Peace of flesh can come out even without pregnancy and should not be considered nifaas.

Shaikh is reminding us that women can have spotting or bleeding during pregnancy even if she does not have a miscarriage. He is reminding us to not confuse with this type of bleeding.

Q. Can we use science to determine if it is nifaas? A. Using elaborate tests and microscopic analysis is beyond what shariah requires, it would be extremism.

Comment from a student: Bleeding during implantation stage in almost 50% of the cases is not due to nifaas.

Note: the ahkaam of nifas and haidh are the same, the only point we are making above is to determine if the bleeding is due to miscarriage or not.

When the woman is in labor and about to give birth, she can have bleeding at that time. Is this also considered nifaas?  We know after the child birth, it is nifaas.  Remember the labor can last for many hours and we are trying to determine what should be the ruling for bleeding during the labor.

Hanafi and one Shafai’i opinion: It is not considered nifaas.
Malaki and Hanbali opinion: It is nifaas.
Another Hanafi opinion: it depends on how much of the child has come out or “crowned.”

Evidence is not strong for any of these positions.

Dubyan Dubyan: It is nifaas.

In the view of the physicians the nifaas will only be after the baby comes out.

Shaikh Jamaal: But it should not be considered nifaas, even though Dubyan quotes science books. Shaikh is not convinced by Dubyan’s arguments.

Bleeding just before childbirth (before labor starts)
Majority view (Maaliki, Shafaii, Hanafi): It is not nifaas
Hanbali view: If it is a day or two before childbirth but the woman has entered into contractions, then it is considered nifaas.

So the stronger opinion is that bleeding just before child birth is not nifaas.

Now we move on to the time after child birth and the women already has her nifaas. Now there is cessation of bleeding, and then it re-occurs, what should she do? e.g. if it stops for a day or two, how would women know if this is the end of nifaas or is it going to start over again? The problem is that you don’t know the exact date for the nifaas to end, however, there are color changes by which women can tell if it is about to end.

Nifaas is for forty days more or less??? And she can have bleeding on and off during this period. When does she determine that the period of nifaas has ended?

Nifaas usually is discharge that contains blood/mucus etc. It usually goes through 3 stages. In the first stage which is like 3-5 days, the discharge is very red and contains the largest amount of blood. Next stage, a week or so, turns thinner and becomes brownish or pink color.  In the final stages, the fluid is whitish or yellowish. The last stage lasts the longest. That is mostly made up of mucus.

One of opinion is that times of bleeding and times of no bleeding is considered nifaas as long as it takes place within the first 40 days. This is the hanafi opinion. Suppose you saw blood one time and 40 days later she sees blood, that would be considered nifaas. The whole thing is nifaas. This is problematic, suppose Ramadhan is in the middle, now you’re saying all of it is nifaas, any fasting she did is no longer valid. Very difficult position to take. According to Abu Yusuf and Muhammad Ash Shaybani (hanafi school) , they say that if the time she doesn’t see blood is less than 15 days, then all of it would be considered nifaas, but if she stops having blood or having any liquid come out for more than 15 days, then the first would be considered nifaas and after that would be considered menses.

Malikis, they also set this 15 day limit. First one is nifaas and after that it counts as menses. Anything less than 15 days, they would consider all of that as nifaas. In case of shafis, they have pretty much same kind of view.

In case of hanbalis, it’s considered mashkook...some say she prays and she fasts and makes up for the other days. They don’t have really strong evidence for what they’re saying. Even the evidence of 15 days is based on the hadeeth which is not really authentic.

Sh: lot of it goes to what the Woman knows about herself. Typically, it would be 4-5 weeks after child birth. If a woman has nifaas, the strongest opinion is that its during the time of nifaas (esp if she has had children before) if she has purity the time of nifaas, then it’s all considered nifaas. If it comes back later and she thought it was over then she has to make up the days. It’s not something fixed, in order to require her to make ghusl everytime she’s not bleeding is hardship and this is not in shariah and we don’t see this with the sahabah. The period of time for nifaas is 4-6 weeks.

As it says in the hadith, they would sit for 40 days, some ahadith say 60 does but that’s extreme. So within that 40 days period if there is nothing established in terms of pattern that she knows from her family, then she goes by that (40 days).

The problem is  with respect to fasting, if she fasts while she was in nifaas, she’ll have to make up the fast, as her fastind during nifaas does not count. It is possible for woman to give birth and not have much nifaas, in the books of fiqh, they even have question if she gives birth and she doesn’t see any bleeding. If she gives birth and doesn’t see blood, does she have to make ghusl.

Syed Sabbiq does not deal with the details of nifaas. Specficically, what is the shortest and longest period of nifaas?  Shaikh has not brought the notes, and is inquiring the students whether they are interested in learning more about it later?  Looks like the consensus is that nobody is interested in it. So we will skip it.

Fiqh us Sunnah page 52: Death: Perform ghusl for the deceased.

When muslim dies it is obligatory to wash the dead.

Is there ijmaa on it? Except for the shaheed, for others we have to make ghusl.

Maliki opinion: It is sunnah and not waajib. (it seems)

Shaikh asks, do all of you think it’s wajib and what’s your evidence? We have ijma in the room. Shaikh wants to know based on what evidence?

Hadith from Sahih Bukhari where in the daughter of the Prophet saws died and he commanded the women to wash her body three times or odd number of times and to use kafura.

Ibn Abbas reported while they were in Arafah, someone fell from an animal and Prophet (saw) said, wash him with water + sidr and do not cover him since he’s a hajji. In both of them, Prophet (saw) used the imperative so the default is obligatory. Some of them, they say that there is ijma that you have to wash the body. Ibn al-humaam the hanafi scholar said it’s obligatory by ijma and nawawi also says it’s ijma by muslimeen. ibn Hajr on nawawi said this is a big step from him because the difference of opinion is well known. In his commentary of at-Tabari he claims it’s sunnah. They also point the best of creation Prophet (saw) was washed like his daughter was washed and so was abu bakr and the other sahaba.

Also another hadeeth describing the rights of a muslim upon another muslim. What are the rights of a muslim.
1, Responding to sneeze of a muslim
2. Give advice when requested
3. Respond to salaam
4. Visit the sick
5. Follow the janaazah
6. Respond to an invitation

In one of the narration of this hadith, it says the first 6 and then after that it says, to wash them after he dies.

How did the Malikis get to where they got? They use the same ahadeeth about the death of the Prophet’s daughter, but how do they get there? The hadeeth of when the Prophet’s daughter died, he told them to wash with sidr in odd numbers, 3 or 5 or 7...and then he said, “if you see fit to do so”. He’s talking to the women. This part here, does this go back to 3,5 or 7 or does this go back to the washing the body as a whole. They say that it goes back to washing the body as the whole. They also say, if it was obligatory he wouldn’t see wash it 3 or 5 or 7. They’re using this one hadeeth but they are not talking about the other hadeeth which was about arafah which has the clear hadeeth and this probably is the strongest opinion that it is obligatory to wash the body.

One more category that Syed Sabbiq does not discuss, does the one who washes the body have to make ghusl after washing the body?

Hanafi view: it is not sunnah
Maliki and : It is sunnah
Hanbali: Obligatory to make ghusl
Hanafi view: If you wash a kafir then you have to make ghusl
Hanafi (This was Hanbali) view: If you wash a kafir then you have to make wudu.

There is a direct clear hadith on this issue, “whoever washes the deceased should make ghusl and whoever carries the deceased should make wudu”. What about this hadith? This hadith is from Abu Hurairah. Difference of opinion whether it’s a statement of Prophet or Abu Hurayrah. Some scholars say it’s abu hurariah (bukhari and others) and others (ibn hazm, albani) say it’s hadeeth.

Another hadith from Ayesha, make ghusl for four situations, sexual defilement, for jumuah, hijama (cupping of the blood) and after washing the deceased. (Musnad Ahmed).

Another hadeeth from Al-Mugheera, that he heard the prophet (saw) say whoever washes the deceased should make wudu.

Hudayfah, Tabarani, whoever washes the deceased should make wudu.

Bukhari records, from tariq al-kabir, whoever washes should do ghusl. (Abu Saeed al-khudri)

Albani says, ….

2011-07-03 Class Notes

Shaikh has an errata for the last class, he calls it a logistic error and wants to correct it now. We are discussing when is it obligatory to make ghusl. And we discussed the ghusl for the dead person and then we discussed the person who washes the dead person. The mistake made by Shaikh is that later on in the textbook, Sayyid Sabeeq discusses the ghusl for the person who washes the dead person. And we will read from pages 56 and 57 for the person washing the corpse.  So we will jump ahead and read from those pages.

Ghusl for the person who washes a dead person
In this passage, we see that the hadeeth scholars such as ibn al Mundhar and Rafie’e reject this hadeeth. ibn Habban called it sahih. Both Tirmidhi and ibn Habban are not the most stringest of hadeeth critics. If you tell ibn Al Madeeni (whose name is mispelled in the book) and ... reject the hadeeth and Habban and Tirmidhi accept it, then I will not be able to tell much about the quality of the hadeeth??????

Al Albaani’s comment on this hadeeth
One of his comments is that the narration from Umar who said some of us would perform ghusl and some of us would not, the way Sayyed Sabeeq reports it, it is not correct, he reports it using passive voice, which indicates the quality of the hadeeth. and then he says that Sayyed Sabeeq is not consistent on this point.  Al Albani agrees that the statement from Umar is authentic.

When a hadith is quoted, it should be quoted from its strongest and most respected source.  It is not considered proper not to mention the best source.

Related by Khateeb with a sahih chain => Al Albani says this is not quite proper as Daraqutni also recorded this in Sunan so it would have been best had he mentioned ad Daraqutni.

Al Albani goes down to the narration of Asma about washing the body of her husband, Abu Bakr Siddiq; one could get the impression that this chain is sahih but the chain is actually broken.  This is recorded by Imam Malik in his Muwatta.  Malik records it from his sheikh.  The link gives the impression that the narrator above Malik is the son of Abu Bakr but he is not and he never met Asma (therefore, the break is between Asma and Malik’s narrator)

Al Albani said that if this narration of Asma is authentic, its apparent meaning is that it is obligatory to perform this ghusl.  How did he reach this conclusion?  If this report is authentic, then the apparent meaning is that it is obligatory to make this kind of ghusl as stated by Al Haakim. (In the hadeeth Asma is asking the muhajeer if she can be excused from making ghusl because of the cold weather and that she is fasting.)  He’s arguing that the only reason that she does not need to make ghusl is that it was extremely cold and she was fasting.  Is this a strong proof?  

Many of them say that it is statement of Abu Hurairah and not a statement of the prophet. We have number of scholars rejecting it such as Ali ibn Madeeni and others, while some accept the hadeeth. There is a big divide about this hadeeth if it is authentic or not. What should you do in a case like this? What do you usually do?

Do you suspend judgement?
Do you skip it?
Do you apply ihtihaat acting cautiously and make wudu? Shaikh likes this opinion of a student.

Narration from Ahmad reporting Ayesha, she said that the prophet made ghusl on four occasions, friday prayers, sexual defilement, cupping and washing the deceased. And this is a weak narration (the chain is weak). It is from Musnad Ahmad on the authority of Ayesha.

Narration from Mugheera, which is also weak (the chain is weak).

Scholars like ibn Hajr and al Albaani, who put together all of the reports on this topic, without a detailed analysis of the various reports and looking at face value, it looks like the report can be raised to the level of hasan.

Hanafis say it is not sunnah to wash and others, because they say there is no authentic evidence for it. A number of scholars of hadeeth do not accept the hadeeth.

Sometimes there is a defect in the chain and when you analyse the narrations and you come to a conclusion that all of the narrations have same defects and they cannot support each other. But this hadeeth has some supporting evidence to raise it to the level of hasan.

Sometimes leaning on cautious, it might lead you to do an act that is not obligatory or leave an act that is obligatory. this is in response to a question about saying bismillah for some actions......

Those who argue against making ghusl, point to a narration reported by Ibn Hakam, it is reported as a statement of the prophet, but most likely it is a statement of ibn Abbas.  it says that you do not have to make ghusl since the deceased are not impure and it is sufficient to wash your hands. As a hadeeth it is weak. But as a statement of ibn Abbas it is Authentic.

So we have two viewpoints, one from Abu Hurairah and one from ibn Abbas.

We also have report from Ayesha recorded by Ibn Abi Shaybah who said that it is not obligatory to make ghusl. This is a saheeh report.

In general if you touch something impure, do you have to make ghusl?
It is a tawfeeqiyah action.
We dont have any evidence that it is due to avoid any diseases coming from the deceased, it is out of hikmah.

Even if something is not impure, you still might want to wash your hands. This makes sense. Nowadays people use gloves when handling the deceased.

Narration recorded by Ibn Abi Shaybah, where ibn Umar buried a deceased, he applied camphor to it and yet he did not wash after performing the action. Here it does not indicate that ibn Umar washed the body. (It looks like the chain is sahih.) So it is not relevant for our discussion as this statement does not directly deal with ghusl of the dead.

Typo in the first paragraph of pg 57, should be from Ibn Umar not Umar. (An example of tahreef)

Last time we discussed that you have to perform ghusl if you wash a kaafir. It is based on the statement of ,,, regarding the death of Abu Taalib the uncle of the Prophet.  Ali said that he died as a Mushreeq and prophet told him to go and attend his burial and then we came back, prophet told him to make ghusl. This is recorded in Musnad Ahmed.

Q: Is it allowed to wash the body of kaafir?
A: In general there is no prohibition. They will not get the rewards of washing a deceased Muslim. It is for sanitary reasons, since you are expelling the contents of the gut of the deceased.

In Musnad Ahmed there is hadeeth from Ali When Abu talib died Ali came to prophet said Abu talib had died and Prophet  told him to be there. Ali said he died as mushrik and prophet told Ali to be there in the burial, to dig the  grave and to put him in the grave and when he came back prophet asked him to make ghusl Albani says this is saheeh sh. feels this weak.
Also similar Hadeeth from Ali  is also recorded in Abu Dawud and An-nasai as well

Albaani disagrees with others on this hadeeth. He says it is sahih. Shaikh thinks that it is weak narration. Since this hadeeth is not relevant. The wording of the hadeeth is to go and bury him, to dig the grave. There is no clear evidence that he went and washed the body. So it is not a case of washing the kaafir. And the reason for making ghusl maybe for a different reason, maybe due to digging.

Make Wudu after washing the deceased:
There is also an opinion that one should make wudu after washing the deceased.  This is narrated by (from?) Imam Ahmed.  Sheikh is not aware of any evidence for this.  When do you have to make wudu?  There is evidence for that.  For this particular case, there is no supporting evidence.

Then there are those who conclude it mustahab to make ghusl and it’s not obligatory.  

The hadith of Abu Hurairah which is given in the book, Even those who accept this hadith, the majority of them understand the meaning of the hadith to be one of recommendation not of obligation.  It is an indirect command from the Prophet saas.  it is still considered an amr; you would only go from obligation to less-than-obligation if you have some other evidence to support that.  Al Albani said that we, (based on the hadith of Abu Hurairah), would say that it is obligatory to make ghusl after washing the deceased if it wasn’t for two other narrations.  One is the narration mentioned earlier from Ibn Abbas (Al Albani accepts this as hadeeth from the Prophet saas) saying that the deceased is not impure and one does not need to make ghusl as deceased is not impure and that washing the hands is sufficient.  He also points to the narration of Ibn Umar (In text book this says as Umar) that is also found in Sayyid Sabbiq; we would also perform ghusl and some would not.

Based on these narrations, Al Albani concludes that it is mustahab and not wajib to make ghusl after washing the deceased; the sheikh feels that this is the strongest opinion.  There is some sign that it is to be done and can be done but at the same time, even if we disagree with Al Albanis’ judgment on these hadith, we can come to a similar ruling that it is a mustahabb act.

Ad Dubyan Dubyan concludes that saying ghusl is required after washing the dead is weak and it is a mustahab act.  He believes that the evidence used to say that the act is obligatory has some weakness.

Now we can go back to pg 52 and deal with the next issue discussed.

A non Muslim upon embracing Islam:

The last part where it is said that it is recorded by Ahmad in other collections.  This version of the story differs from the version that is in Al Bukhari and Muslim’s compilations.  The portion that differs is the portion that we are interested in right now, where he tells the person to go and make ghusl.  According to Sayed Sabiq it looks like it is obligatory to have ghusl. Al-Albani does not have any comments on this. This probably means 2 things , it is obligatory to give ghusl and also he agrees with this hadeeth.

There are four opinions:
1.) The bathing is obligatory  for anyone embracing Islam (i.e. the ghusl is to be made at the time of embracing Islam) -  Maliki and well known opinion of Hanbali schools.
2.) The bathing is not obligatory under any such circumstances.  A view held by some of the Hanbalis.
3.) The bathing is mustahab (recommended) for anyone embracing Islam (i.e. the ghusl is to be made at the time of embracing Islam). This is the view of the Hanafi, Hanbali and Maliki schools
4.) The bathing is recommended unless an individual is in a statement of sexual defilement or a woman is in a state of menstural bleeding or post-partum bleeding and if they need to be in a state of prayer, they have to make ghusl. They mean that at the point of sahadah this is recommended but bathing becomes obligatory when the time of prayer arrives, this is separate Ghusl. This is the view of the Shafi’is.

2011-07-10 Class Notes

We discussed the four opinions about whether ghusl is required for a person embracing Islam.

A number of reports in which a person embraced Islam and the Prophet ordered him to make ghusl. Ahmad, Abdur Razzark, and Abu Hurairah reports different events with different chains, but all of them mention the fact that the Prophet ordered a new Muslim to make ghusl

Tabarani reports that prophet asked him to wash with sidr and shave off his hair from the time of kufr.

Prophet said the same thing to Qatadawa Rahawi.

He also ordered people to be circumcised even if they were 80 years old.

Dhaqeeqi reports from .....

The problem with all of the narrations is they are weak and have problem with them. Al-Albani concludes they come to the state of Hasan. The above hadeeth are used as evidences for people who claim it to be obligatory to perform ghusl.

Those who say it is not obligatory,say that there is no authentic evidence, they reject the above hadeeth as weak, and you cannot have a ruling without authentic evidence. Many sahaba accepted Islam, but there is no general report that a person has to perform ghusl when accepting Islam. What do you think about the above argument? Does it make sense?  Many tribes were accepting Islam and we don’t find any evidences for it.

One of the responses is that not having report is not the same as reporting negation. For something like this, it’s not very strong. They also say about the hadeeth of Mua’dh bin Jabal about him going to Yemen in Sahih Bukhari. What did the Prophet (saw) tell Mua’dh bin Jabal. He tells them you’re going to come to a people who are ahl kitab. First thing is to invite them to the kalima then prayer then obligation of fasting and then avoid the best of their wealth and be fearful of the dua’a of the oppressed person for there is no barrier b/w their dawa and Allah (swt). how are they using this hadeeth as evidence of no obligation? Because he didn’t specify. But response to that is, he didn’t give the specific details in this hadith so that’s not a very strong evidence. Other evidence, many people accepted Islam and there is no narration about them. Those who say mustahab, one of the interpretations is, when the prophet (saw) ordered something, it can be a strict obligation or recommendation.

If you accept those ahadith, you’d have to say it’s is Mustahab. It would be difficult to say it’s obligatory because of no general evidence for it. Some say that the hadeeth about removing the hair of kufr, they say it was in a particular case. If you do not accept those ahadeeth, then clearly it is the case there is no evidence that at the time it is obligatory or recommended. However before praying, someone could argue. You have to enter in the state of tahara and violating the state of tahara has nothing to do with intentions but has to do with some action that you did. It’s true they were in a state of kufr so to be on the safe side, if possible, before Salaah, they should do it. For the salaah, sheikh believes you have to make ghusl. So what about that when the person accepts islam and they ask him to join the prayer. Should we tell them..the prayer is now but you have to be in a proper state of prayer. Whats important, to make ghusl or join the jama’.

Once they embrace Islam, do they have to follow all of the required acts, for example they have to start fasting if they embraced Islam in Ramadan, then if they have to perform the required acts, they also have to meet the pre-requisites.

The reports from prophet where he ordered them to make ghusl, it might have been because the time for prayer is due and they have to meet the pre-requisites, and hence the ghusl is for the prayer and not just for accepting Islam.

Do the dawah training classes, ever bring up this question of making ghusl after accepting Islam?

In the Hanafi madhab, if you tell someone, don’t become Muslim now but do it after Friday prayers, then you have committed kufr. You cannot tell him to not become Muslim now, in the Hanafi madhab.

Imam Nawawi in response to Islam wiping away sins, said that if you owe somebody money or if you have unjustly killed somebody and there is qasaas (blood money) due, then it is not forgiven. And then he says that ghusl is obligatory as it is a pre-requisite for salah, since the person could be in state of sexual defilement and he says that accepting Islam does not ......

Based on Nawawi, if it is the shafiee opinion, then you have to make ghusl after accepting islam.

The ghusl of a kafir is not a valid ghusl. He cannot just say that I am now performing ghusl.  But if a person is intended to enter Islam and performs ghusl then his ghusl is valid. So a person can take shahadah and then performs ghusl, if there is a witness ceremony in the masjid, then his ghusl is valid.

Footnote: Shaykh said he became Muslim long before he met any Muslim in the small town he lived in at that time. He followed a book from an Orientalist, T P Hughes, who was a missionary and according to the shaikh he was “a very strict Hanafi” in jest because he explained the hanafi madhab in his book.  He learnt how to pray according to the Hanafi madhab, this book was written in the 1800s. It is a book on “Mohammadens.”

Acts that are forbidden to the impure

What does Sayid Sabiq mean by the impure?
He does not mean that you need to perform wudu, but you are in the state of janabah.

Prayer is invalid in state of impurity
The first act according to the author that you cannot perform is pray. Shaikh asked the student to stop reading.

What is the evidence that you cannot pray in state of impurity?

Hadith in Sahih Muslim. “The prayer is not accepted without purification”. Nawawi says that there is ijmaa among the Muslims that it is forbidden to pray in the state of impurity, regardless of his knowledge about the state, or if he is ignorant about it, or if he has forgotten about it. There is no sin if he prayed because of ignorance, but if he did it knowingly then he is committing a sin???

Surah Maidah, “the verse of wudu”

There is a hadith where in prophet stood up to pray and he asked the sahaba to stay where they are and then he left them to make ghusl, then he came back dripping wet and then he prayed. [Al-Bukhari] So it shows that he forgot about his state of impurity, he went and performed ghusl and led the prayer.

Q: A handout from some class mentions that if you are going to miss jamaah and need to perform ghusl, then you can join the jamaah by making wudu
A: Sometimes you have a conflict of interest, here it is between catching jamaah and making ghusl. This is strange, because praying in jamaah is one of the shuroot (according to one opinion) but it is not obligatory. But if you are going to miss Fajr, then the conflict is much bigger, you have to make prayer in time and you have to make ghusl. We will discuss it later. We have a requirement for soundness of prayer versus missing the prayer. This scenario is different than the one asked by the student.

Ibn Hazm says that if you are in close proximity of the masjid, then performing salah in jamaah is a pre-requisite for the soundness of the prayer. This is one opinion. Which means if you dont pray in jamaah then your prayer is invalid.

Circumbulating(Tawaf) the Kabah is invalid in state impurity
We discussed this earlier, so will skip it.

Minor impurities:
Is it necessary for a woman to be in a state of purity when making tawaaf?

We have very clear evidence that they cannot make tawaaf when in their menses.

We have the hadith of A’ishah regarding this.

Touching or carrying the Qur’an
Al Albani’s comments:
He starts first commenting at the point where Sayyid Sabbiq is saying that it is allowed to touch things that contain parts of the Qur’an that are in letters, books, tafsirs and so on.  He says that this statement is based on the view that it is impermissible for one to touch the qur’an while in sexual defilement; Sayyid does not provide any evidence regarding this.  He says that the evidence use d there is the hadith that says no one shall touch the Qur’an except those who are purified.  Tahir is a homonym and you cannot force one particular meaning on it unless you have evidence to show that.  Sayyid interprets tahir to mean the one who is not sexually defiled.  He says that, at that point we have refuted him and have shown in reality that there is no evidence that it is impermissible for a believer to touch the Qur’an at any time.  There is no evidence to say otherwise in regards to those who have the burden of proof in a case like this.

The evidence against Al Albani’s view is not explicit nor sahih and is not strong enough to oppose his conclusion. We agree with Al-Albani’s view

His comments regarding reciting the Qur’an:
Al-Albani’s view:
Regarding the Hadeeth of Ali which is quoted in the text. Al-Albani comments, (the first hadith referenced by Sayyid Sabbiq)
The hadith used as supporting evidence is a weak hadith as one of its narrators, Abdullah Ibn Salama, is not acceptable and Ibn Hajr also accepts this fact.

Regarding the 2nd hadith used
Al Albani continues to bring up the defects in the hadith and concludes that the hadith is not acceptable at all.  He goes on to say that if that hadith is not acceptable,

Al Albani says that since both of these hadith are not acceptable, it goes back to the default case of permissibility.  He later quotes Ibn Abbas and a few others as saying the chain is authentic and there is no harm in reciting the Qur’an while in a state of janaba.

The four madhabs and majority of scholars including Ibn Taymiyaah, say that it is forbidden for people in a state of major impurity to touch the Qur’an.

Some say it is mustahabb to be in the state of Tahara: Al-baihaqi says this is view of Iraqi scholars and some say this is Ibn Mundhir’s madhab (Sheikh is not convinced with this)

2011-07-17 Class Notes

Not permissible for woman in menses to recite any of the Quran, Hanafi, Shafaii, well known Hanbali view, even in Maaliki school they are not supposed to recite but they make distinction between stages of bleeding

It is permissible for a woman to recite the Qur’an it is Shafaii’s old opinion and it is the conclusion of ibn Hazm and of ibn Taymiyyah and others. Some Hanbali say she can recite a verse or two.

Narration from Abu Hanifa, that she can recite less than a verse.

We have discussed this topic before and we concluded that it is permissible for a menstruating woman to recite the Quran, this is the strongest opinion. And it is permissible for menstruating woman to touch the quran, and it is a strong opinion but not as strong as the opinion for reciting the Quran.

For a person who is sexually defiled, the situation is different than that of a menstruating woman, it is temporary and they can get out of this state anytime because they can purify themselves at any time and hence the ruling for is different. And this case of sexually defiled applies for both genders.

Hanafi, Shafaii, Hanbali and Maalili, not allowed to recite the Quran.

However ibn Abbas Sayyed ibn Musayyab and ibn Hazm are of the opinion that it is permissible for them to recite the Quran.  The .... My connection is choppy, can somebody volunteer to take notes please????

Narration from Ali, first in SS.
What did Al Albaani say about that hadith?
It is a weak hadith. (it can be statement of Ali)

There is also another narration which is different from the one narrated by Ali, that is also a weak hadith.

Those two are the strongest evidences that those who are sexually defiled cannot recite the quran. but they are definitely not authentic in Shaykh’s opinion.

Another hadeeth in Tirmidhi by Ibn Umar that prophet said that the sexually defiled and the menstruating woman should not recite anything from the quran.
This hadith is also weak.

There’s another naration recorded by Daraqutni where the Prophet saas tells Ali that he is pleased that he has what I have...
This one chain is very weak
Daraqutni by Ali, I am pleased for you .., do not recite the quran in junub, not in sajadah and rukooh, very week.
All of the narrations that we have of this nature are weak.  however, it seems to be authentically narrated from Umar Khattab that he disliked that any narrated the Qur’an while in a state of sexual impurity.  Yakrah, the word used, in the earlier generations means unliked and also means haram to the sahabah, but it is not definitive as by saying Umar disliked something could mean that is it haram or makrooh (it is vague). For example, if Umar used the word Yakarah, it could mean either haraam or makrooh, and this word is vague.

Similarly there are stories from Ibn Masoud and Ikramah from Salimah; these stories indicate that it is not allowed for a sexually defiled person to recite the qur’an.  All of these are weak.  the question then is could these possible be put together and raised to a level where they have a basis and can be used/are acceptable as proof?  Some people might take this approach on this issue.  This is the approach that has probably lead to the four madahab to their positions.  

Those who say it’s allowed to recite the Qur’an while in a state of sexual defilement:
their first proof is that there is no place where there is any clear authentic evidence where one must make ghusl before reciting the Qur’an.
All of those different hadith and stories given by the other scholars, either they are weak or they respond to them as specific stories of different events but are not given as general principles.

They also say that Allah swt orders us to recite the Qur’an and ponder over the meaning of the Qur’an.
If you have this command, which is general, the burden of proof is on those who say under certain circumstances you can only do this.  If reports through weak narrators or that are weak in general are not sufficient to meet this burden of proof.

What can be the strongest interpretation of the verse?

What about the narration in Sahih Muslim of Aisha (ra) where she said that the Prophet saas would always remember Allah swt.  If you make a general statement like this, there is more than one form of dhikr.  

The problem with this hadith is that it is a little vague with respect to the particular issue that we are speaking about currently.  The meaning would definitely apply to the Qur’an, but it is vague in this instance and needs a little more help to draw any conclusions in context of our current discussion. If you say Quran does not fall under the term dhikr here, then you are particularizing the hadith which is very general. The problem with that hadith is that it is little vague wrt the issue we are dealing with, as remembering Allah all of the time is normally understood as other than Quran.

Dhikr is a broad term and does not just mean making tasbeeh and dua’a.  It can include reading/pondering on the Qur’an.  This is something that can depend on one’s ‘urf and can vary greatly between ‘urf.  What was the ‘urf during the time of Aisha (ra)?  We don’t have a lot of information on this.

Footnote: Shaikh gave an example of dhikr and urf. Somebody asked him what should he do before the Jumuah khutbah begins, and Shaikh replied, you can say sallalahu alaiyhi wa salam to the prophet, read the Qur’an or make dhikr. So he clearly used the word dhikr to mean something different than reading the Qur’an.

There is also a hadith in Sahih Muslim in which the Prophet saas answered the call of nature and was brought some food.  He ate without making wudhu in between.  Someone asked him that he did not make wudhu and he responded that he does not intend to pray so he doesn’t need to make wudhu.
How can this be used as an argument in our discussion?
The purpose of wudhu and ghusal is for prayer and if you are not intending to pray, you can recite the quran w/o making wudhu or ghusl. Little shaky argument.

Ibn Abbas was reciting the Qur’an while in a state of sexual defilement (this is in Ibn Mundar’s work Al Ousit) and someone mentioned to him that he was reciting while in sexual defilement.  He responded that what he knows by heart is more than what he is reciting.  This means that even though you are reciting a small portion of the Qur’an, it is always in you and in fact is even more than you are reciting.

What can we get from this?
We have two things, the argument (of having more quran in his heart) and that the statement above is from Ibn Abbas.  It does not seem to be a strong argument.  It does mean that Ibn Abbas was not aware of any evidence against reciting while in a state of sexual defilement.  The sheikh does not feel that this is a strong argument but this is from Ibn Abbas.  When you put everything together, as we discussed before, the burden of proof is on those who say the act is not permissible and the sheikh does not believe that this burden of proof has been fulfilled.

Out of Ihtiyaat, you may avoid doing it as sexually defiled can easily get out of this state, esp now a days. If at night you recite the quran and you do not want to make ghusl till fajr, you may do this.

The one who is in a state of sexual defilement is in a completely different state than other cases where a woman is in a state of her menses.  The ability and opportunity to make ghusl to remove the impure state is different in both cases and the need/necessity is different as well.  Another example is when one is in sexual defilement and is not planning on making ghusl until before fajr yet the individual needs to recite dua’a before sleeping.  Ihtiyaatan would dictate here to avoid reciting the dua’a (includes verses from Qur’an) until making ghusl.  If one goes ahead and makes the dua’a and dhirk before sleeping while in this state and the individual does not feel there is sufficient evidence to dictate otherwise, there is no harm in making the dua’a and dhikr in this case.

In this situation, we are going against the rulings of the four madahab in this case.  These four do not constitute ijmaa’a and there is no sanctity that has to be given to these four if they agree on something.  It is not a comfortable situation to be in but at the same time you have to go with what the evidence shows and what seems to be the truth.  You will always be able to find scholars who disagree with the four madahab on points/issues like this.  Rule of thumb: follow the evidence and determine what the strongest position is.

Continuing on page 54 which discusses whether ghusl is required for staying in the mosque.

Staying in the mosque while in a state of sexual defilement:
In the original text, all that the author mentions is the one who is in the state of sexual defilement and does include the menstruating women. However in the english translation (our textbook), both of those groups are listed.

There is a sentence missing in the English translation: these two hadith indicate that it is not permissible for a menstruating woman or a sexually defiled person to stay in the mosque, right after saying that the hadith is recorded by Ibn Majah.

Let us see what Al Albani’s comments are.

First, Al Albani speaks about the hadith from Abu Dawud for which there is a footnote.  Al Albani goes on later and then mentions that the author narrates from Umm Salima.  Her name is jusrah bint dujjajah

He first starts out by saying that the way the author presents these reports gives the impression that these are two unrelated reports, but in reality that is not true; they are one hadith coming through one isnad.  The hadith is mudtarab through one narrator, Jusrah Bint Jujaja, sometime she would say Ayeesha and other time she would say Umm Salima (Mudhtarab: meaning it has been narrated in contradictory ways such that we cannot determine which is correct).  That way that the narration is narrated gives the impression that it is two different hadith but it is not.  This person that it goes through who narrates in different ways is not an acceptable narrator.  Al Bukhari says about her that she has some very strange things in her narrations, thus in general you will find in general that the scholars of hadiht do not accept her narrations.

Then Al Albani says that this hadith has two corroborating reports for it.  However, these corroborating reports are not satisfactory enough to raise the status of this hadith; in other words, they are not strong enough to raise them.  One is matrook and the other one is through a liar.  Al Albani has said that he has discussed this book in Da’if Sunan ibn Abu Dawuud but in fact it is not in that book.  His source work “al-Umm” was not published until near the time of his death of after this work is called al-umm sunan abi dawud. .  He discusses this in his source work but not in the part that was originally published.

Then he says, in our opinion on this issue, our view is the same as the opinion for one touching the Qur’an for the one who is sexually defiled.  The burden of proof is on those who say it is not permitted.  There is no such proof.  This is also what Imam Ahmad and others have said.  The sheikh is not sure about the chain of this claim as Imam Ahmad says it is ok to pass through and stay in the mosque in that state but not touch the Qur’an.

Al Albani quotes a book, Sharh assunnah by albaghawi where Imam Ahmad and al-mazni says it is allowed for the sexually defiled to stay in the mosque and Ahmad considers those hadith weak where it is said that the one who is sexual defilement cannot stay in the mosque.  The verse that says, يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا تَقْرَبُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَأَنتُمْ سُكَارَىٰ حَتَّىٰ تَعْلَمُوا مَا تَقُولُونَ وَلَا جُنُبًا إِلَّا عَابِرِي سَبِيلٍ حَتَّىٰ تَغْتَسِلُوا ۚ وَإِن كُنتُم مَّرْضَىٰ أَوْ عَلَىٰ سَفَرٍ أَوْ جَاءَ أَحَدٌ مِّنكُم مِّنَ الْغَائِطِ أَوْ لَامَسْتُمُ النِّسَاءَ فَلَمْ تَجِدُوا مَاءً فَتَيَمَّمُوا صَعِيدًا طَيِّبًا فَامْسَحُوا بِوُجُوهِكُمْ وَأَيْدِيكُمْ ۗ إِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ عَفُوًّا غَفُورًا
O you who believe! Approach not As-Salat (the prayer) when you are in a drunken state until you know (the meaning) of what you utter, nor when you are in a state of Janaba, (i.e. in a state of sexual impurity and have not yet taken a bath) except when travelling on the road (without enough water, or just passing through a mosque), till you wash your whole body. And if you are ill, or on a journey, or one of you comes after answering the call of nature, or you have been in contact with women (by sexual relations) and you find no water, perform Tayammum with clean earth and rub therewith your faces and hands (Tayammum). Truly, Allah is Ever Oft-Pardoning, Oft-Forgiving.
, he says that this verse also applies to the one who is sexually defiled.  Surah an Nisa, verse 43.  Then he comments later on this report from At Tabari that it should be from Ibn Abi Habeeb but he also says that this report is weak because the chain is broken.  He puts as a footnote, he notes that As Shawkani did not realize that these are just one narration where he considered it two which added to his certain-ness of his conclusion.  

Al Albani did not leave much in what the author had to say.  Half of it he says is not authentic or strong.

This question of staying in the mosque while being defiled, what are the madahab views on this?
Not allowed to stay: This is the view of the Hanafis, Malikis and Shafi’s.
The Hanbalis say that he can stay on the mosque but he must make wudhu first.  Making wudhu is a symbolic act of purification enough to allow you to stay in mosque but would not allow you to pray.

According to Ibn Hazm, one can stay in the mosque without any purification.

Those who say it is not allowed to stay in the mosque start with this verse from Surah An Nisa, verse 43.
Let’s analyze this verse and check to see if this verse is really relevant.

This verse talks about praying not about entering the masjid in particular.  Could salaat mean the place of prayer here?  Or does it mean the prayer itself?  First it talks about being drunk, don’t come to the prayer until you understand what you are saying.  Does this mean prayer or the place of prayer?  Commonly at that time, if you are in a journey and are sexually defiled, it would not be uncommon to make tayyimum as a form of purification.  There are a few narrations from Ibn Masoud and Ibn Abbas where they explained this last part as meaning just passing through the mosque.  However, the sheikh says that both of those chains back to them are not authentic.

With respect to Ibn Abbas, there is an authentic narration from him through At Tabari that talks about this last part of the verse  refers just to the traveler (musaafir) and not passing through the mosque

There is also a narration from Ali where someone who is in a state of sexual defilement who cannot find water should make tayyimum and pray.

The strongest opinion is that what is meant by “la taqrabus salah” is the actual prayer and not the place of prayer.  and “Aabiri as sabeel” means musaafir (traveller)

The other reports as we said from Aisha (ra) and Umm Salima (ra) are also weak as we said before.

There is a hadith from Ali where the Prophet saas said that the angels do not enter the house if there is a sexually defiled person, or a picture or a dog.  This is not authentic with the “sexually defiled person” in there; that text is munkr and shaadh.  Would that have been relevant anyway?  The angels being referred to are the angels of mercy; the other angels will be there (those that record your deeds).

This portion here, the portion from Zaid ibn Aslam, where he states that the companions used to walk through the mosque while sexually defiled.  Al Albani did not comment on this; we would think that because of him not commenting on it, it would be acceptable.  It looks like a borderline case but does look to be acceptable.  The most you can get from this is that you can pass through the mosque but it does not really say that you can stay in the mosque.

Those who say that the person can stay in the mosque:
The burden of proof is on those who say you cannot stay in the mosque.  Then they also say that it is allowed for a mushrik to enter the mosque.  There is more than one narration where the Prophet saas kept mushrikeen as prisons in the mosque.  Would this be considered a good evidence to say that therefore someone who is sexually defiled should be allowed to stay in the mosque?  Could you argue that the mushrik does not believe in the inviolability of the mosque and therefore we do demand from the mushrikh from what we would expect from a Muslim?  If this is the case, this cannot be used as evidence for this argument.

Therefore, that evidence which also looked strong for their argument is in fact not strong evidence. This is called Qiyas maa al farq, analogy where the things are completely different. The mushrik even though will be sexually defiled, cannot get out of that state anyway even after doing ghusl, as his ghusl is not valid. Therefore the ruling for mushrik will be different than that for the believer to enter the mosque.

[Note: staying means anything longer than just walking through the masjid, for example to get your shoes from the shoe rack on the other side of the masjid and you simply walk through the masjid.]

What about the hadith from Al Bukhari where the Prophet saas took Abu Hurairah to the masjid by hand and he escaped while sitting with the Prophet saas to make ghusl.  When he returned, the Prophet saas was sitting there still.  The Prophet asked where he went and Abu Hurairah said that he needed to make ghusl due to sexual defilement.  The Prophet saas then said that a believer is never impure (in a complete sense).  The Prophet saas touched him, you can eat or drink while in a state of sexual defilement.  You are in a ritual state of impurity that prevents you from praying but you do not actually become something that is najas.  Therefore, should you be able to enter the mosque?  Suppose someone has some impurity on this clothing, is it allowed form him to enter the mosque?  

Have you ever heard that since you have impurity on your clothes that you cannot enter the mosque? No. And neither has the shaikh.

What about the hadith of Aisha where they went on hajj and she was crying because she feared that she could not finish and the Prophet saas said to do everything the hujjaj do except making tawaaf.  Is it common for the hujjaj to go and sit in the Harram, making dhikr and comtemplating? It is not a right but it is common.  Some people understand from this that therefore she can enter the mosque because the Prophet saas did not say do everything and stay out away from the mosque.

The conclusion, wAllahu alam, is that we do not find any clear and conclusive evidence that says one who is in a state of sexual defilement cannot stay in the masjid.  Culturally speaking and based on current time, there are not many cases where someone would stay in the mosque while being in this case, so ihtiyaatan would indicate that we should avoid doing this.  

2011-07-24 Class Notes

The next topic in Fiqh us Sunnah is actions for which ghusl is preferred or mustahab. And the first one he mentions is that ghusl is mustahab for Friday prayers. He does not say that it is waajib?

Reading from the book ... actions for which ghusl is preferred from the Fiqh us Sunnah book.

Ibn Abi Shaiba - there is a typo in the book, it says ‘Abzi Shaiba

Al Albaani’s comments on this section
He starts with one statement, “some of the ulema say that ghusl for Jumuah is obligatory”, he says that is the haqq or truth regarding which there is no deviation. The hadiths that indicate that are clear and stronger than the ones which are used to show that it is mustahab.

He says look at the hadeeth of Umar, he says that this hadeeth is evidence against them, the fact that Umar objected to Uthman while on the minbar in front of sahaba is evidence that the action is obligatory. If someone ordered something in front of sahaba which is not obligatory they would object to it and would not remain silent.

What about that story of Umar?  Not talking about the authenticity.  That story is evidence for which sides?  Which side does it lean to?  

Ghusl is not a prerequisite for the soundness of the jummah prayer but it is waajib, so if you were not doing it then you would be committing a sin.  This is what Al Albani is saying; this is the strongest evidence against what the author is trying to prove.

Al Albani says similarly, the hadith of Abu Hurairah, “whoever make ablution of friday and perfects his ablution …..”

Syed Sabiq quotes Ibn Hajr later about this hadith but Al Albani points out that in Fath al Bari ibn hajr esponded to using this hadith says that this hadith does not negate the obligation of making ghusl.  Then Ibn Hajr says that in fact that it is also narrated in the sahih with different wording. “whoever makes ghusl on Friday and perfect his ghusl ….” (“man aghtasala” instead of “man tawadhah”)

Therefore, Ibn Hajr is saying that the mention of wudhu is in reference to someone who has made ghusl before but something has happened and needs to make wudhu again.

Al Albani says that the hadith that clearly obligate ghusl before jummah are not contradicted by the hadith that show that it is mustahab to do so.

The problem with that entire report of Umar is that it is open to interpretation.  You have the author interpreting it one way and Al Albani interpreting it another way.  The sheikh feels that the only thing you can get out of it is that Umar said that prophet ordered us to make ghusl before jummah and Uthman did not object to it nor did any of the Sahabah objected to Umar saying that the Prophet saas ordered us to make ghusl before jummah.

Default case for Amr or command is that they are waajib. Forget about all of the other interpretations.  This is an important point in fiqh; if someone puts up one interpretation of something and another person puts up a different interpretation and the strength and validity of the interpretations cannot be established, then both interpretations must be nullified. Therefore we can drop the Umar’s hadith as the evidence and go with the default case of Amr that we drive out of that hadith.

Hadeeth: Ghusl on the day of jummah is waajib on every adult male. (“al-ghusal waajib ala kullin muhtalam”)

All those who are of the opinion that ghusl is not waajib have a problem with the above hadeeth, they claim that the word waajib means something else in the above hadeeth. Waajib in the Arabic language means something which is emphasized and if not mandatory then very close to mandatory. This is one of the few hadith where prophet (saas) used the term “waajib”.

The Prophet saas also said, anyone of you who attends the jummah prayer should make ghusl.  This is in the form of an indirect imperative/command (falyaghtasil).  It is not the same as a direct command (‘amr).  Now we have the hadith of Umar and this other hadith.  

Hadeeth: Ghusl is waajib on every adult male for Jummah, and he should use miswak and use some perfume if they can find it. (Sahih Bukhari)

Amr ibn Sulaim As Sauli said as for the ghusl, I bear witness that it is obligatory and as for the other two, it is stated but wa-Allahu aalam if these are obligatory as well.  This hadith in Sahih Al Bukhari.

Does this hadith support the view of making ghusl is obligatory or not?
Some say that this is a strong argument that making ghusl for jummah is not obligatory due to addition of miswaak and perfume.  

Is using perfume obligatory for Jummah?
If you have access to it, you should use it. So it becomes obligatory if you have access to it.

Is using miswak obligatory for Jummah?
Yes according to the above hadeeth.

Hadeeth: The Prophet saas also said, it is a right on the muslim that every 7 days he must wash his body. ... and it continues further...???

Is this relevant at all to our discussion?
The sheikh believes that this is not relevant.

How about this hadith: whoever makes wudhu on jummah is good and fine, but whoever makes ghusl is better.
Would this be strong evidence to not make it obligatory?
Al Albani says that this hadith is hasan.  He says that this hadith does not actually contradict that making ghusl is obligatory. As you can pray juma with wudu only and it will be sound.

Logically if you look at the big picture, you have all these other hadeeth that imply obligations and this one hadeeth that does not imply obligation. So we have to look at this hadeeth in light of the other hadeeth rather than other way around. The camp who calls ghusl on Juma as mustahab take one or two pieces of evidence in their support and try to reinterpret all other authentic evidence, which is not the right approach.

Dubian ad-Dubian rejects this hadith as weak.  This is a famous situation.  There is a lot of dispute about al Hasan al Basri and the hadith he narrated from As-Samura.  Al Bukhari said that al-Hasan only heard very few hadith from As-Samura.  He also says that there is some shakiness in this hadith.

At the most, this is hasan while the others are definitely sahih.

It’s weaker with respect to its chain and quantity.  If there was no way to interpret this in the light of others, then we have a problem here.

There is one view that says the ghusl is obligatory for jummah only when you are smelling.  what is this based on ?

This is the hadith where the people would come (according to Aisha) from the outskirts through dust while sweating a lot and approached the Messenger (SWS) and he told them “If only you would clean yourself for this day of ours” Lau (haraf tamanni) is particle of .... it is hope
The Prophet saas said this because he felt that the way they were coming to the jummah was not appropriate.

Ibn Abbas was asked if it was obligatory to make ghusl on Friday/  He said no, it is important to clean yourselves.  Many of the poor people used to wear wool clothes and would sweat profusely on hot days.  According to Ibn Abbas, the ghusl was all about because someone was smelling bad.  SOme people prayed in the Prophet’s mosque and sometimes they would pray in their own masajid but on Jumaa they would all come from far disctance to pray in prophet’s mosque.  The masajid were quite small with low roof and were packed with sweaty people on hot days.
This supports the view that ghusl is obligatory for a specific situation or condition.

Ibn Hajr does not like this report.  He said that it is confirmed that Ibn Abbas has an opposing view.  First of all, we have other reports from Ibn Abbas where he says that the order for ghusl has been made unrestricted; the part which comes from prophet indicates that it is obligatory the other interpretation is by a Sahabi and does not negate the obligation of ghusl.  Ibn Hajr does not accept this as strong evidence.

Those basically are the evidences related to that.  

What are your conclusions, is it waajib or mustahab?

Various positions:
(1) Those scholars that say ghusl is obligatory for those who attend the jummah prayer:
Abu Hurairah, Hasan Al Basri, Al-Albaani, one narration from Imam Ahmed and Imam Malik to that extent.  one narration from the Imam x means that it is not the well know opinion among the madhad. e.g. in this case the majority view within Hanbali and Maaliki madhab is that ghusl is mustahab for jummah.

(2) Ghusl for Jumaa’ is mustahab. View held by a vast majority of scholars, ibn abdul Barr says that there is ijmaa on this except for one narration from Imam Ahmad.
The sahih hadith are interpreted by this group to mean that making ghusl is highly recommend but not obligatory.

(3) Ibn Tayymiyah’s view is that ghusl becomes obligatory if and only if your state requires it.

Which group has to make more taweel, is it the group that says it is mustahab or is it the group that says waajib? Ans: The group that says mustahab

By the time of the death of the Prophet (saas), the sahaba were richer, did he go and change his opinion and say that previously I asked you to do ghusl and now I do not want you to do so?

We should realize a very important point that the statements from Ayeesha and ibn Abbas may describe the history of how the hukum for Ghusl was developed. But it should not be confused as a condition of ghusl.

Even though this was the history behind why the prophet (saws) asked them to make ghusl, but there is difference on why it was made obligatory and the conditions for it.

What about applying the concept of ihtiyaat here?

The two hadeeth are not contradicting, you could say that I order you to do so and it is better for you to do so. (Footnote: If I ask you to do something and then I say that it is better if you do so, these two do not contradict one another.)

Bin Baaz says that your rights upon me are waajib on me, which is a famous Arab quote, to illustrate that rights are waajib. Even though Bin Baaz does not say that ghusl is obligatory for Jumuah.

The sheikh would personally not rest the case on a hadith of that nature.  Al Albani says that it is hasan.

Is the ghusl for the day of jummah or for the salaat?  
There is a difference of opinion here.

(1) It is for the salaat. Beginning time is the time of fajr (when the time of ghusl starts), Note: The time for the ghusl will be discussed next time.
This is the opinion from  malikis, shafi’s, Hanbalis

(2): the ghusl is for the salaat and the time you perform it is such that you are going to pray the jummah with on taharah of that ghusl.  This is the opinion of Abu Yusuf amongst the Hanafis.

(3) Ghusl is for the day of jummah; if you make it just before sundown, you have performed the sunnah.  This is the view of some hanafis and also is the view of Ibn Hazm.  This may be related to the hadith where it says that one should clean themselves every seven days.

we have a statement from the Prophet saas that says if you are coming to jummah then you should make ghusl.  

Strongest opinion is that it is related to the Jumaa and not the day of Friday.

2011-07-31 Class Notes

The question is about the jummah prayer and when should the ghusl for the jummah prayer should be done.  Is it for the day or for the salaat and if it is for the salaat then when should it be done?

ibn Hazim is of the opinion is that ghusl for jummah is that ghusl is for the day.  We refuted his opinion last time.  We stated several hadiht where the Prophet saas said whoever is coming to jummah must make ghusl.  

So that raises the question, what is the time for ghusl on Jummah, and it is related to the Friday prayers. If you perform it before Friday prayers.....

If somebody makes it on Thursday night, then it is not considered ghusl for Jummah prayers.

Since it is not obligatory, making ghusl anytime after Fajr is considered okay. This has been related from Hasan al Basri, Mujahid and others.

Imam Malik said that the ghusl is related to going to the jummah prayer.  In other words, you should make ghusl at the time that you are going to the ghusl prayer.  This is more closely related to the hikmah behind the ghusl.  This ghusl is more about cleanliness than purification.  There is no direct evidence from the hadiht we described that it has to be just before leaving, but if ghusl is made after fajr and when you reach jummah and are sweaty and smelly, you have defeated the purpose.  If you can tie the making of ghusl to going to jummah, that is definitely the best according to the sheikh.

We also mentioned the fact that after you make ghusl and break wudhu, then you just have to make wudhu.  Abu Yusuf hwoever is of the opinion that the ghusl must be made again; this opinion has also been narrated in one narration from Imam Ahmed but the majority of scholars say as a whole that it is sufficient to just make wudhu.  Abdurahman ibn Abzi used to make wudhu if he invalidated his ghusl for Jummah.

What about the question that Jalaal brought up one time before; on the day of jummah, is it considered recommended to have intercourse with one’s wife before the jummah prayer?  There is a hadith where the Prophet saas relates this indirectly by using the arabic word, making somebody else to make ghusl, .... Arabic word ghasala.....   

Some people understand this as having intercourse with your wife before going to jummah.  The understanding is also to make it easier for you to lower your gaze and focus more on the jummah prayer.  Some scholars have come to this interpretation and it is one of the views in the Shafi’i school.  However, the word ghasala is not well known to mean make someone else in a state to make ghusl but rather can just be an emphasis to make ghusl.

This question then leads to the next question.  When you make ghusl for jummah, suppose you are sexually defiled, now you need to make ghusl for sexual defilement and also make ghusl for jummah.  Is one ghusl sufficient or does the ghusl need to be repeated?

A few scholars are of the opinion that the intention of making ghusl for different reasons can be combined.

Ibn Hazim and al Albani adamently oppose this opinion of combining the two ghusls.  This includes the ending of menses, sexual defiled and for jummah.

If a woman’s menses ended on Friday morning and she has had sexual relations with her husband, then she has to make ghusl for menses, then ghusl for sexual defilement, then ghusl for Friday prayers. So if somebody asks you when it would be needed to make three ghusls for Friday prayers.

So how does somebody make three ghusls?

Al Albaani’s argument
If somebody has to make up the month of fasting of Ramadan, then you cannot combine it with the fasting of Ramadan. If you missed four days of fasting in Ramadan and you did not make it up until next Ramadan, and the Ramadan has started, you cannot combine the fasting of the missed fasts of the previous Ramadan with the fasting of the current month of Ramadan.

He also quotes Abu Qatadah who said perform another ghusl to somebody who made ghusl after sexual defilement on Friday prayers. Since Al Albaani is quoting it, he calls it sahih.

Is it proper to make analogy between different acts of ibaadah?
It is not proper to do so, and it is surprising to see Albaani do that. And if you make analogy, then you are doing to avoid qiyaas al .....

What is better make analogy between ghusl and wudu or ghusl and fasting?

Lets say you invalidate your wudu by different ways. How many times are you supposed to make wudu?
Once is sufficient, even if you are going to the mosque.

So which analogy is better.

If this hadeeth that we discussed which we discussed about ghusala. And al ALbaani leads towards this hadeeth and the meaning of it that you are encouraged to make your wife to have ghusl too. Then

The hadeeth that he quoted from Qatadah, does not show how Qatadah understood this hadeeth. Somebody might argue that there might be some problems with that hadeeth too.

Strongest argument is that one ghusl is sufficient.

What about somebody who is not going to jummah prayers? Are they required to make ghusl if they are not going to the mosque. Women for example.

What if a woman decides to go to the mosque, does she have to make jummah?

Anybody who is going to the mosque on Friday, he has to make ghusl.

Conclusion: There is no ghusl for musafeer or sick or menstruating woman who is not going to mosque on Friday prayers.

Q: Would a person get rewards for ghusl even if they are not going to the mosque on Friday prayers?
A: The hadeeth that we quoted last time that we should make ghusl at least once a week. But you are dissecting this hadeeth, you are just picking the ghusl. The hadeeth is a package for makeing ghusl, using miswak and applying perfume for Friday prayers. The key step is going to the Friday prayers.

Some of those rewards might be for all of the actions, going early to Friday prayers, not separating people in the musallah, and other actions listed in the hadeeth. You have to comply with all of the actions in the hadeeth for the rewards.

Ibn Hazm’s view is not a strong argument, I missed this argument??????

A: Shaikh says how can you isolate one action from the above hadeeth. If a woman is not obligated to go to the Jummah prayers.

It is also a great blessing from Allah swt, that he ties in great reward for actions that are obligated upon us.

So if you see that this is a sign that women should do these actions listed in the hadeeth to get the same rewards.  If a woman stays at home and she is intending to perform those actions, then maybe she might get rewards as above.

Hadeeth: Woman praying in her courtyard is better than her praying in .....  

Continuing on with the next paragraph on pg 56.

Ghusl and ‘Eid prayers.
The principle of cleanliness for Jummah can be extended to the ‘Eid salaah and the prayers in general.  With respect to Jummah, we have specific evidence and therefore we give it emphasis above and beyond what is normally required.  In general, we have principles of cleanliness.

There are a number of hadith where the Prophet saas is reported to have made ghusl or stated that people should make ghusl related to ‘Eid.  All of these narrations are in-authentic.  They are not even “decently bad” reports, they are all very weak or fabricated.

We have narrations of Ali and another Sahabi that they used to make ghusl for the ‘Eid; so we do have some evidence from the actions of the Sahabah.  

There seems to be an opinion that it is not sanctioned to make ghusl for the ‘Eid prayer.  Their basic argument is that this is an act of ibadah and therefore can only worship Allah swt based on what He showed us and since there is no evidence that the Prophet saas make ghusl for ‘Eid then we cannot do this either.  Would this be sufficient to say that it is mustahab?  

All four Madahab recommend that ghusl be made for ‘Eid.

Suppose the Eid is on Saturday and you made ghusl for Friday prayers and you decide that you are clean enough and that you do not have to make it again?

By the way this is an important question, because if ghusl for Eid is not obligatory, then might be people might show up on time for Eid prayers. There are many members in the family and it takes a lot of time for all of them to make ghusl. Shaikh is trying to make us think, what is the ruling for ghusl for Eid prayers.

In some of the madahab, there are ghusl for going to Musdalifah, for throwing stones in the Jamaraat, for the Salaat al Kusoof, Istikha, etc.

If it is not mustahab, then what time should you make ghusl for Eid prayers?

We do know that Jummah is kind of Eid, but it is different than the Eid of Eid.

Based on the reasoning that if ghusl is mustahab for Jummah prayers and Eid is more special than Jummah prayers, and that there is addtional hadeeth about ghusl for Eid prayers, we can say that it is mustahab to perform ghusl for Eid prayers. (This reasoning was given by a visitor to the class and Shaikh admonished the students that we did not come up with this reasoning or did not put it as eloquently as he did. Sad :-( )

The question now is when is it to be done.  Does it also have to be after salaat ul Fajr?  

The different opinions among the different madahab.

There is one opinion is that its time is after salaat ul fajr.  This is the opinion of Khalil in the Maliki school and one of the views in the Hanafi schools.

Others say that it is permissible to do it before fajr.  Maliki view, Shafi view, one narration from Imam Ahmed.  They differ on what time at night.  One says that it can be done anytime after maghrib.

Some of the Shafi’s say that it must be done after midnight. The reason for this ghusl is to be clean and not sweaty and stinky for the prayers.

The time between fajr and eid-ul adha is very tight which explains some of these fiqh rulings.  Others say that it is related to going to the prayer and kind of distinguish between the early obligation and the next obligation and they try to squeeze in the ghusl somewhere.

There is no direct evidence and therefore the matter is flexible inshaAllah.

The next topic is making ghusl for Hajj.

Al Uqaily (there is a typo in the book, this is the correct name)

According to the scholars => should be according to the majority of the scholars.

The author says that making ghusl for Hajj and Umrah is mustahab.  

What about women in their menses or post-partum bleeding?

What is the purpose behind this ghusl?  It is not something used to enter a state of purity in this case but it is more to enter a state of ihram (ghusl would be for cleanliness).
Therefore, she would also perform this ghusl.

Ibn Umar said that it is from the sunnah for a man to make ghusl if he intends to enter a state of ihram.  This is an authentic statement from the Sahabi who says it is of the sunnah.

This narration that the author quotes that Zaid ibn Thaabit said that he saw the Prophet saas to undress to change his clothing to make ghusl; the issue with this hadith is that there is a scholar of hadith named Abu Zinad (Reference to Abu Zinad can be found in the notes for Uloom al Hadeeth class, who compiled a book) who’s son narrated this hadith.  The problem is that he (son of Abu Ziand) is the only one who narrates this from his father.  This particular son, Abdulrahman, is not the kind of individual who we would accept solitary narrations of this manner.  This is a kind of shaadh hadith (Refer to the Uloom al Hadeeth class to see the discussion about Shaad hadeeth and solitary reports).  There are other narrations from A’ishah and Ibn Abbas but they all have some weakness to them.

Footnote: Jabar is the defacto authority on the actions of Hajj as performed by the Prophet saas. And this sahabi was the defacto authority on the actions of ???????

There is a report in Sahih Muslim from Jabar the sahabi narrating the hajj of the Prophet saas.  This is the most comprehensive narration we have on this subject of Hajj.  In this narration, in one case Asma bin Umays gave birth as they were going to make Hajj.  The Prophet saas said to make ghusl and to put on your garment and protect it from bleeding and enter into the state of ihram.  It is an order from the Prophet saas.  

In another narration from Sahih Muslim, A’ishah was crying and the Prophet inquired as to why she was crying and she said that she has entered into her menses and the people have entered into hajj.  The Prophet saas said that Allah swt has written for the daughters of Adam to make ghusl and enter into a state of ihram.  The sheikh feels that this is enough evidence to at least say that it is mustahab at minimum.

Ibn Hazim says based on these reports that it is obligatory to make ghusl before entering into a state of ihram.

There seems to be what some scholars claim is ijma’ that making ghusl for entering a state of ihram is wajib not mustahab as this ghusl is for cleanliness not for ritual purity.

Continuing on pg. 57...

Making ghusl upon entering Makkah.

The author did not mention this point: is this ghusl for entering Makkah or for making tawaaf.  The first thing the Prophet saas would do upon entering Makkah would be to make tawaf.  If it is for tawaf, then should those who are menstruating or in post-partum bleeding make ghusl for this.  The Malikis and Ibn Tayymiyyah say that this ghusl is for the tawaf.  All of the other scholars say that it is for entering makkah.  If you look at the statement of Ibn ‘Umar, it is just about entering Makkah and there is nothing that links it to the tawaf in any way.  Strictly speaking, it looks like it is based on entering Makkah and is not related to tawaaf.  

It is missing in the English translation and missing in the original arabic... it makes one wonder what the point is... it is recorded by Al Bukhari and Muslim.  If you go back to these reports, it said in the morning after praying fajr he would make ghusl.  He said that then he would enter Makkah during the daytime.  Then he said this is what the Prophet saas would do.  The most important thing was left out of the Arabic text and the english translation.