Commentary on Fiqh al-Sunnah VII
Explanation of the well-known book available in English and Arabic, covering the basic material and then highlighting most interesting topics. This session's emphasis will be on wudhu(ablution) and other forms of purification.
Prerequisite: NONE (all topics are independent of previous sessions).
Text: Fiqh al-Sunnah by al-Sayyid Sabiq
Time: Sundays 6:00 - 7:15 PDT (time for final session TBA)
Overview of the Course: Fiqh al-Sunnah VII
Required Textbooks:
Al-Sayyed Sabiq, Fiqh al-Sunnah (available most places where Islamic books are sold)
Grading:
Final Exam 100% or 90% (One final, May 30, one week before last week of class)
Pop Quiz 10% at the discretion of the instructor
Basic Outline of the Class
Topic 1: Ablution
Topic 2: Ghusl (time permitting)
2010-04-04 Class Notes
Sunnan acts related to wudu
Page 31 - Running one's finger through his beard.
Couple of hadith quoted. The first hadith should be reported by Uthman and not Ayesha. This was an error in the translation of the book from Arabic, attributed to editorial error.
Hadith of Uthman has been described by Bukhari as the most authentic report on this issue, however it is not recorded in Bukhari. This statement was recorded by Tirmidhi, who was a student of Bukhari.
Al Bayhaki says that the chain is hasan. When a scholar says that it is the most authentic does not mean it is authentic, it is strongest of the weak narration.
According to Yahya ibn Main, this narration is weak.
Imam Ahmad said, every narration that speaks about putting water through beard is defective or weak.
Mohamed Jafar al Qahtani - he has a collection of mutawatir hadith (many different chains) - mutawatir in its words or in its meaning. He includes water through the beard in his collection and he lists many sahaba that narate it.
Theoretical question: If I tell you that this hadith has been reported by 17 sahaba. Do the chains back to the sahaba have to be authentic? Yes. Otherwise how can you claim that the hadith has been reported by 17 sahaba?
So the book claims it to be mutawatir but none of the chains are authentic. So it is not really mutawatir.
Tirmidhi called it hasan hadith.
As described by the prophet, you take your fingers through the beard, some say bottom up. Among the different madhab, there is difference of opinion among running water through the beard whether it is part of the wudu or not. And if it is, whether it is obligatory.
Dominant opinion, if the beard is thick then you are required to run your fingers through your beard. This is the opinion of shafieeh, hambali, etc hanafi
According to Abu Haneefah, it is permissible to do this during the wudu but it is not bida'h. If you are performing hajj then you are not supposed to do it, because of the fear that you might remove some hair and it is forbidden to cut your hair during hajj.
Opinion among maliki - Disliked, wajeeb, sunnah.
There is no doubt that the chains are weak which is the conclusion of the scholars of hadith. Just as Imam Ahmad concludes.
If the weakness of the chain is not greatly weak
Authorities in Islamic Law are Sahih and Hasan
Other types of hadith are Dhaeef, Dhaeef Jiddan and then there are fabricated hadith. These are not authorities of proofs in Islamic Law.
There is a concept of hasan al li ghairi - hasan because of supporting evidence.
Suppose we have a narrator A who is pious and is wara'. But he makes lots of mistakes while transmitting hadith. We reject his narration. But suppose we get independent corraboration of what this person has narrated. But if this independent corraboration also has a weakness in its chain due to some other narrator B. Again B is in the same category as A, he is pious but is weak in transmitting hadith.
Some scholars do not accept hasan al ghairi as authority in Islamic law.
A good number of the chains in Qahtani collection as dhaeef jiddan. However a good number are also just dhaeef. Such that it can be moved to be hasan as concluded by Albani. However Albani's work does not contain much details.
We can say based on the above reasoning that prophet used to run water through his beard. However that does not answer the question whether it is sunah or obligatory.
What would be the basis of Maliki opinion that it is makroo'?
If there is no authentic narration and if you reject that hadith, then you cannot add any innovation to an act of worship.
There are some scholars that they say it is wajeeb, on what basis?
Because of the wording of the hadith that my lord has commanded me to do so. One of the toughest graders of hadith, ibn Qattan says that this hadith is sahih.
If you are making ghusl, it is obligatory to wash your beard and some of them make an analogy. According to the sheikh, it is a strange analogy.
Conclusion from the Sheikh is that it is not wajeeb and not a sunnah.
Beard is considered different from the face. And in the verse of the quran it is not mentioned when describing the acts of wudu.
Descriptions of taking water from bottom of the beard to the top - these are ijtihaad of the fuqaha
Any time shareeah does not define something precisely then no one has the right to strictly define it. Any way you take water and run it through your beard is okay.
Page 31 - Run water through fingers and toes
There is a hadith missing in the translation. Recorded Ahmad, Tirmidhi and ibn Majah. On the authority of ...mustawrid ibn shaddad I saw the messenger run water through his toes and use his little finger to run between his toes. It is recorded by the five minus Ahmad.
Albani does not make any comments after this passage. He has declared hadith of ibn Abbas to be sahih.
The second hadith which is not in the translation and Albani has also declared it to be sahih. There is a narrator in the chain who is usually rejected by Albani but he accepts this narration.
Different madhab have different opinion
The word in Arabic for fingers and toes is the same. Hence sometimes they translate it as fingers of the feet.
Hanafi, shafieeh, hambali and one among the Maliki (ibn Rushd) conclude it is sunnah to put water though the fingers and the toes but more recommended to put water through the toes.
2nd opinion of the maliki is it is wajeeb for putting the water through the fingers and sunan to put it through the toes.
3rd opinion of the maliki is that is wajeeb for putting the water through the fingers and toes.
Another view of the maliki because of the vast geographical differences, it is sunnan. Another opinion it is wajeeb.
Ibn Qayeem it is is sunnah to do sometimes not always. His argument is related to the weakness of the hadith.
2010-04-11 Class Notes
Wash between fingers and toes
Some scholars say it is obligatory based on hadith of ibn Masud - Hambali scholar - hadith is weak - it is a statement of ibn Masud and not a hadith of the prophet - wash fingers before it is touched by hellfire.
Washing between toes is more emphasized washing between your toes - Why do some scholars say that?
More of a logical argument. When you wash your hands, fingers open much more widely than the toes. So there is possibility that water does not go between the toes. That's why toe is more emphasized than the hand.
Obligation of washing all the parts that you should wash. Here we are talking about using little finger or fingers to wash between the toes. If the shareeah leaves it open then we should also leave it open.
Preferable to remove jewelry - even though this report is not authentic, one must still follow it. Yambaghi does not mean must, it means you should, it is not the level of obligation.
Is it possible that the ring is very tight fitting and is it possible that the shareeah overlooks the area between the finger and you don't have to remove the ring. Is there a principle of hardship that you can use?
If the ring has some play and water goes underneath it, then do you have to remove the ring? Is it mustahab?
Some scholars say it is mustahab to just move it and you don't have to remove it. However if the water does not reach underneath the ring, then you have to remove it. This is opion of Shafaeeh, Hanafi. and Hambali opinion.
Maliki opinion is that you dont have to remove it if the ring is loose. Another Maliki opinion is if the ring is tight then you have to try to move it to get the water underneath it.
Narration from ibn Majjar that the prophet used to move his ring, however this is a weak narration.
We dont have any evidence from the prophet. There is possibility that the prophet used to remove his ring. We don't have evidence that he wore the ring all of the time.
There is ijmaa that you have to wash every part and that obligation can only be removed by another text and there is no such text. The only other argument would be of hardship, like removing of the imaama.
At one point, prophet was wearing a garment where it was difficult to remove his arm for making wudu, but he went out of his way to wash his arm even though he was wearing the garment.
Washing second and third time
Hanafi, Malaki, Hanbali - You do every thing three times except the head. It is mustahab
Shafaeeh - even head and ear has to be wiped three times
Narration from Imam Malik There is no such thing as washing it two or three times, you just basically wash
Some Hanafi - a person is sinning if he customarily washes the part just once
There are authentic narrations that prophet washed once, twice and three times. So minimum reqt is washing it once. Is there any evidence that the prophet required washing two or three times. Syed Sabbiq states to wash three times. If anyone did more than three times, then he is doing something wrong.
Is there any evidence that the prophet required washing three times? There is no command that you have to do it three times?
If there is no text that the prophet asked us to wash three times and we have authentic traditions that the prophet washed once, twice and three times.
Then it is permissible to wash once, twice and three times. Prophet used to do it differently then it is okay for us to follow him. Once sometimes, twice sometimes, three sometimes.
Or would you prefer wash three times since three is better than once or twice. And to be able to say we want to be complete and wash three times?
It is not authentically narrated to wipe the head more than one time.
Beginning each action with the right side
Hadith narrated by Ayesha ... prophet used to start from the right hand side when you put his shoes etc
Doing good things or nice things you start with right. When you leave the masjid you put your left foot first since you are leaving a good place.
If you washed your left side first, would it harm the validity of the wudu? If you did it accidently.
Imam Shafiee and Imam Ahmad - Consider washing the right side first to be wajib - but these attributions are not authentic
It is sunnah to start from the right side
ibn Mundhar - Qitaab al ijmaa - he collects that he has found a consensus on. In his book, he says that there is ijmaa that one who starts from the left instead of right does not have to restart or redo the wudu.
Statement of ... if you start from the left, you have lost some fadl virtue, but his wudu is still valid
2010-04-18 Class Notes
Rubbing arms with water
Original arabic text had a mistake and that is missing in the translation. 2/3 of madh of water is the correction.
Whether or not while making wudu, is it necessary to take the water to rub the water over the arm or is it sufficient to put your arm under running water without rubbing it. Syed Sabbiq says it is sunan act and it is not obligatory act.
Majority of scholars say it is mustahab and not wajib. There is an opinion which states it is a shurut of wudu. It is the opinion of Imam Maliki and Muzni an important Shafiee scholar and At-Taa says it is shurut of wudu
If you look at the evidence of the majority, one of the evidences they use has to do with ghusl. Is it obligagory to rub every part of your body? It is not obligatory. How is it evidence for what we are studying? If it is not obligatory for ghusl then you don't have to follow it in wudu. Is that convincing argument? It is not very convincing.
The Malikis say that washing means putting the water and rubbing. Hence it is one of the shurut of wudu according to the Malikis.
Goal is not from the cleanliness point of view, so it is irrelevant to the discussion.
Can we say that putting your arms under running water is washing?
According to ibn Hazn, he says that linguistically there is no proof that you have to rub to perform ghusl (washing). So it is sufficient if you simply run water over it, and it complies with the linguistic definition of ghusl (washing).
Neither side is presenting convincing arguments. Prophet used to rub his arms, so it is atleast mustahab.
Close Sequence
There should be no acts unrelated to wudu between the acts of performing wudu. There is a missing portion in the translation. The amount of time between actions is based on urf (customs).
According to Syed Sabbiq this practice of close sequence is sunnan.
If the break is something small then there is no harm according to all madhab. The duration is determined by urf. They differ only in the case of a long break.
According to Hanafi and last opinion of Shafiee and Dhahiri, this act of close sequence is simply sunnan. According to the Malikis, close sequence is obligagory if one remembers it, however if one forgets it due to some excuse or reason then it is overlooked. According to the Hambalis, the close sequence is an obilgation at all times.
The most apparent meaning or dhahir meaning from the hadith is that the prophet did the action one after the other in close sequence.
Evidence that it is not obligatory but sunnah:
Allah swt has ordered us to wash the body parts but not is close sequence. So if do it closely, right after another is okay, it doesn't matter as long as you wash the body parts.
Secondly, they make an analogy between wudu and ghusl. Close sequence is not obligatory in ghusl so it is not obligatory in wudu. What works for stronger (ghusl) should work for the weaker (wudu)?
Another evidence is from Muwatta of Imam Malik:
Abdullah ibn Umar urinated and then he made wudu. He was making wudu, he wiped his head and that time he was called to perform janazah in the mosque. After entering the mosque, he wiped over his scandals and then he prayed over the deceased. It is an authentic narration from Nafi. This action was in front of lot of sahabi and they did not object to this action of Abdullah ibn Umar.
How can you counter this evidence?
Evidence that is it obligatory:
Narration from ibn Muslim: Umar al Khattab narrates that a person made wudu and he missed a spot on his foot. Prophet saw it and asked him to go back and make your wudu. So he went back and redid the wudu and then performed the prayers.
Qadiyat, Maliki scholar, said this hadith is evidence of close sequence. And the prophet did not say that go and wash the part that you left.
According to Nawawi, the statement of the prophet that go back and make your wudu does not imply that you redo the wudu or simply wash the part that you missed.
Nawawi's point is that if the text can be interpreted in more than one way, you cannot force your understanding of the text on others.
Musnad of ???
Prophet saw person who missed a spot in wudu and he ordered him to redo the wudu. However the chain of this hadith is weak. One of the narrators in Baqiyat ???? who we discussed in the uloom al hadith class and the tadlees topic.
Another hadith ....
Weak narration
Another evidence for obligatory. We don't have any hadith of the prophet were he paused the act of wudu and continued from where he left. If it is was permissible then he would have shown it to us. They say wudu is one act of ibadah and you cannot break it and restart from where you left.
If you forget or for some reason you cannot do it once, the strongest evidence of Dhul Yaden. The prophet made prayers and then he rested, then dhul yaden came and asked him if the prayer had been shortened, then the prophet went back and completed the prayers because he had forgotten to complete the prayers.
So if you could restart the prayers because you forgot, then if it is true for salat, then it is true for wudu.
Where does the burden of proof lie?
Is hajj one act of ibadah?
2010-04-25 Class Notes
Wiping the ears
Sunnah is to wipe the interior of the ears ....
Correction in the second paragraph, it should be ibn Abbas instead of Umar.
Albani does not have any comment directly here, but he has an opinion of the hadith of ibn Abbas, it is daif jiddan (very weak).
First opinion: Sunnah
Wiping of the ears is a sunnah, not an obligatory act, and according to syed sabbiq, if you skip this act, you don't have to go back. It is opinion of majority and Imam Ahmad and Ibn Hazn
Important point about opinion of majority
Opinion of jamhur => Majority of the opinion means 3 of the 4 madhab, not neccesary a poling of the opinion of all of the scholars.
Jamhur is also a name of a person.
Second Opinion: Obligartory
The second opinion, it is obligatory to wipe the ears, it is well known opinion of the hambali and opinion of Ishaq ibn Rahuiya. It is also the opinion of some Maliki scholars.
Proof of first opinion that it is sunnah
1. An-Nawawi said that At-Tabari said in ikhtalaf al fuqaha, that one who does not wipe his ears, his wudu is sahih.
2, ibn Abdul ... also says that Shafiee says that ears are neither from the head or the face, so if you do not have to wipe it.
Ishaq ibn Rahuiya was a colleague of Imam Ahmad
3. Hadith of Abdullah ibn Zaid, it is the sets of the hadith that describes the wudu performed by the prophet. In that hadith as collected by Imam Muslim, there is no mention of wiping of the ears. If it is obligatory then how is it possible that these hadith do not mention the wiping of the ears. The hadith is very explicit. There is no mention of the ears.
4. The hadith of Uthman, another hadith that describes the wudu of prophet, recorded by Bukhari.
Commentary on sunnah acts versus obligatory acts of wudu
There might be times you might be in a hurry or at a camp and you can do things once which are not obigatory but if you have time and water then do the wudu to the best of your ability and do the acts three times. Follow the sunnah as much as you can. And if you drop your sunnah accidently or due to forgetfullness, you do not have to go back and redo the wudu.
Proof of second opinion that it is obligatory
What kind of argument can you present that it is obligatory?
Allah swt says in the Quran that you have to wipe the head. There is a hadith that says that the ears are part of the hadith.
Some will say that even if we accept that the ears are part of the head will say that only part of the head needs to be wiped, so they are not convinced that it is obligatory.
Another piece of evidence, hadith recorded in Muwatta of Imam Malik. On authority of Abdullah Sanabahi when he washes a part then sins escape from that part and when he washes the head then sins escape from it until they fall from the ear.
Sins falling from ear does not mean that it is obligatory. This hadith is mursal (sahaba missing in the chain).
Another variant of the above hadith is that sin fall from the hair.
Another evidence, hadith recorded by ibn Abbass that is quoted by Syed Sabbiq on page 32. He mentions wiping the ears.
The hadith with the portion of wiping the ears is not authentic. Without that portion it is authentic.
Even with that portion it does not mean it is obligatory since there are other hadith that does not mention wiping the ears.
Hanafi opinion
It is the same water that you use to wipe the head and use it to wipe the ear.
The jamhur opinion - Shafiee, Hambali, Maliki
It is mustahab to take new water to wipe the ears
There is difference of opinion whether ears are washed or wiped, ie doing it when you wash your face or when wiping the head.
Opinion of the sahaba that ears are part of the head.
Majority use the index finger to clean the ear.
For every action the madhabs present more details on how to perform the actions.
The fuqaha cannot restrict or provide more guidelines on exactly how to wash your hands, this way to that way. etc.
Elongating the streaks of light
Muslims will appear on the day of judgement with light emanating and ....
Correction: Related by Ahmad and it is his wording and the chain is sahih according to the standards of Bukhari and Muslim.
So it is not the same as saying that it is sahih according to Bukhari and Muslim.
Hakim and others said that the narrators are sahih according to Bukhari and Muslim. There is more to grading haidith then just the narrators.
Hadith al Ahkam - Hadith related to ahkam
Shawkani's commentary on ???
Grandfather of ibn Taymiyyah
Bulug al mara - ???
Hadith reported by Abu Huraira which describes the light and elongating the streaks of light when performing the wudu.
Sometimes this hadith is narrated as statement made by the prophet. This is called idraaj. Misquote and part of the hadith...
The other hadith reported by Abu Zara and others. In Albani's book it says that recorded by Ahmad and Bukhari and Muslim. The wording is that of Ahmad. And then he says that it is not from Bukhari and Muslim. Syed Sabbiq does not mention any of this in his commentary. Maybe he had a different edition of ALbani's book
In any case the hadith by Abu Hurairah and Abu Zara is authentic.
Ghurran Muhajjeelin
What is al ghurra?
Ghurra is a small part of the forehead of horse, it could also mean best thing
Muhajjeelin is bright and white.
Ummah will come with their forehead shining and bright.
What is meant by Abu Hurraira when he says elongating al ghurra?
Abu Hurairah used to wash his hands uptil his upper arms and feet upto his calf.
Is there any room to elongate?
Syed Sabbiq's statement is that washing the forehead to elongate.
Some scholars that there is no such thing as elongating al ghurra.
Statement of Abu Hurrairah is vague there is nothing about elongating ghurra or forehead.
Ghurra is the same word as ????
Whether or not it is sanctioned to elongate ghurrah
Hanafi opinion
Elongating ghurra is Adab al wudu
Shafeeah and Hambali
It is sanctioned to lengthen ghurrah and tahjeel. It is not bida, it is above mubaha, since it is rewarded. We can debate whether it is mustahab or less
Maliki opinion
??? It is ????
Lengthening the tahjeel is an extreme beyond the limits set by shareeah.
THey interpret it as ....
Third opinion
It is sanctioned to lengthen the tahjeel but not the ghurra. This is the sheikh's opinion too.
Tahjeel - the white parts of the feet of the horse above the hooves. So for us it means to elongate washing arms and feet.
Evidence
I saw Abu Hurrairah make wudu and he washed his arm until the upper arm ........ Abu Hurrairah says that is how I saw the prophet do so.
Sahih Muslim - Whoever can elongate ghurra must do so
Imam Muslim does not have any chapter headings, it is hadith after hadith. The chapter headings were added by Nawawi. What Imam Muslim used to do, if there is text that is defective, then he would present it after presenting the three variations of a hadith. to highlight that thre is some issue with that hadith. And that is the case according to ibn Hajr for this Abu Hurrairah's hadith.
2010-05-02 Class Notes
Page 32-33 of the text book
Economizing the use of water
Prophet used to perform ghusl with 1 saa of water and ablution with 1 madd of water - related by Bukhari and Muslim
How much water is sufficient for wudu - 1 madd and how much water is sufficient for ghusl - 1 saa, one man said it is not sufficient for me, ibn Abbas said it was sufficient for one better than me.
Extravagance is washing part more than 3 times even when from a gushing stream. Hadith
There will be people of my nation who will transgress in their supplication and purifying themselves - hadith related by musnad Ahmed
How much is madd and saa?
Madd is 1/4 of saa.
Madd is how much you can hold when you cup your hands and four of these is a madd.
Al Hathimi - Majma al Zawahid - hadith not found in the six books. Zawahid - the unique hadith that are not found in some other works
The hadith quoted above by ibn Abbas is weak.
Syed Sabbiq says that the hadith about extravagance is weak hadith.
Al Albani originally said this hadith is weak and then he finally concluded that it is hasan. Sheikh is not convinced about it.
Other scholars found it weak. Even though that is the case, the last narration is weak
The last hadith quoted above about transgressions has all thiqaat narrators but it has a broken chain. Albani concluded that it is sahih.
Economizing the use of water is adaab of wudu according to the hanafi madhab. The majority of scholars say that extravagance is makrooh. Imam Malik objected to someone who was using so much water that water was dripping from their hands. Opinion of shafiee scholar and ibn Taymiyyah, if someone uses too much water then he is an innovator and if he does it because he thinks it is religious to do so, then he should be punished. So he thinks that it must be haraam.
Shareeah has not put strict limits, however idea of israaf or extravagance is not allowed in Islaam. Israaf of wealth and water. You can adjust the volume of the water.
None of these hadith provide any definitive argument on how much water should be used. You cannot be extravagant, but as a principle you must not waste water. You cannot go beyond washing 3 times because if you do, you are exceeding the sunnah and also wasting water.
Supplication while performing wudu
Oh Allah forgive my sins and .... while performing wudu.
Al albaani says he has two comments - it is not related to wudu but it is related to salat. Since the hadith says he did wudu and then he prayed and then he did the supplication. The second comment: this hadith is not in sunnan nisaai, it is in amaal al yawm wal layl, it is a book about dua.
Conclusion is that there is no dua to be made during wudu
Supplication after ablution
Hadith of Umar - gates of paradise will be open and he will be able to enter from any of it, for those who perform ablution and make supplication
Hadith of Tawrani and Al Awsad -
Conclusion was ???
2010-05-09 Class Notes
Supplications during wudu and after wudu
Some books of fiqh mention that there is a particular dua for each act of wudu. The Hanafi madhab says it is mustahab to make dua at each act of wudu, make my face bright, give me book in my right hand, don't give me my back in my left hand. These kind of dua have no source from the prophet. Something of this nature is not a matter ijtihaad, it has to originate from prophet. These dua are from Ali but the chain is very weak. Any hadith that mentions adkaar of wudu or dhikr of wudu, every such hadith is a fabrication.
Hanafi and Shafiee books mention that you should make the dua of the prophet for either each action of the wudu or after the wudu. Again there is no basis for this dua.
There is a hadith that whoever recites Surah Al Qadr after the wudu, he will among the siddiqeen, whoever recites twice will be shuhaada and whoever recites it three times will be among the ambiyaan. This is again a fabricated hadith. It is definitely a rejected hadith. There is good possibility that it is a fabricated hadith.
Perfection of wudu
Continuing with the text book pages .... perfection of wudu ... paradise becomes his.... description of the wudu of uthman... whoever makes wudu like this and make two rakat without any distractions his past sins will be forgiven
Scholars emphasize the fact that wudu has to be done completely and accurately and that the prayer has to be done with complete attention, ie make wudu the best you can and do your best to make your prayer like you have never prayed before with complete devotion and then Inshallah Allah swt will forgive your sins
If the prophet ordered us to do something what should we do? For example he ordered us to pray two rakat when you enter masjid, then what should you do if you enter the masjid and the iqamah has been called? We will discuss it later in some class.
Any two rakat is sufficient of tahyaat ul masjid. Any two rakat that you pray even the sunnah prayers before salat constitute the tahyat ul masjid.
General cleanliness
Continue with the text book ... general cleanliness... washing the inner corners of the eyes and the wrinkles of the face and wiping the neck. The hadith related to them do not reach the level to be included in the book.
Al Albani's comment on this passage. He says that neck is not part of the cleanliness of the wudu and he believes it is not permissible to wash the neck unless there is evidence. You cannot make such ruling simply based on opinion of cleanliness. Albani does comment on the hadith that states that if you wipe the neck, it will save you from the crime of stealing public property. Albani says that this hadith is munkar and he says that none of the hadith mentioned wiping the neck except the hadith from his father and his grandfather that we will study shortly.
According to hanafi madhab, it is considered mustahab to wipe the neck. There is one narration in Shafiee madhab and one narration from Imam Ahmad. Maliki say it is makroo. majority of shafiee say that you do not wipe the neck in wudu.
Hadith refered to by Albani that says his father reported that his grandfather saw the prophet wipe his back of the head and the neck.
Some say neck is part of the wudu. In Arabic language the neck is not the part of the head, linguistically. So to argue that the neck is part of the head is not correct.
Washing the corners of the eye or washing under the eyelids. Ibn Umar used to do this and it said that he became blind because of excessive washing of eyes.
All scholars say that this is not narrated from the prophet. And the incident about ibn Umar which points out that the act can cause harm and it should be avoided. Ibn Umar was excessive, such as washing the insides of the eyes and following the path or route followed by the prophet to an extreme.
Washing the wrinkles. If the wrinkles are deep then water might not reach the folds of the wrinkles.
Drying yourself after wudu - Should you dry yourself or should you not dry yourself?
Two points that everyone has agreed upon are:
1. It is not haraam to use a towel after wudu
2. If there is some need to use a towel then there is no dislike in doing so
Hanafi, Malaki, Hambali - It is mubaha to use towel after wudu and ghusl and it is also one of the opinion of shafiee
One of the opinion of hambali - it is disliked
Another opinion by ibn Abbas - it is disliked after wudu but mubaha after ghusl
Shafiee opinion - Imam Nawawi has given us five views
1. The most popular opinion that it is mustahab not to use towel but at the same time it is not makroo if you use the towel
2. It is makroo to use towel
3. It is simply mubaha to use or not to use it
4. It is mustahab because you can remove the impurity that is loosened by the wudu
5. It is disliked during the summer but not during the winter
There is no real evidence on either side. Basically it is mubaha (permissible)
Facing Qiblah while making wudu
The majority of scholars say it is mustahab to face qiblah while making wudu.
Dubyan Abi Dubyan's opinion: He states the following general opinion: The correct view is that it is not mustahab unless there happens to ijmaa on this issue. There is no evidence for this act but if there is ijmaa then it is mustahab. There is no difference of opinion about the fact that it is mustahab to face the qiblah.
It is not allowed to perform qiyaas (analogy) for the acts of ibadaah.
Speaking while making wudu
Hanafi and Maliki - Refraining from speaking is considered part of adhaab or ettiquettes of wudu. Adhaab is below sunnah.
Another opinion, Hambali - It is disliked to speak
Imam Nawawi - It is sunnan of wudu to not speak if there is no need to do so
Narration in Al Darr Qutni. Uthman was making wudu and somebody said salaam and Uthman did not respond until he finished the wudu. And then he said that the only thing that prevented me from responding to you was the hadith of the prophet ....
Is this proof that it is haraam?
The most you can say it that there is a special reward. However this hadith is not authentic.
Another hadith is that the prophet said he did not respond is because he was not in the state of wudu, he was making wudu. We can say that the prophet did not wan to mention the name of Allah swt while not in the state of wudu but you cannot conclude that it is not permissible to not to speak during wudu. This hadith is an incorrect narration, the correct narration is that the prophet did not respond while he was urinating.
Why is it permissible to speak during the wudu?
They start by saying that the burden of proof is on one who says it is not permissible to speak during wudu. Another evidence they give is about ghusl and they mention this hadith from Sahih Muslim where the prophet responded to a question while making ghusl.
It is permissible to speak but if there is no need to do so then it is better to remain quite.
Actions that are done by many people while making wudu that are not part of the wudu
1. Putting your finger in your mouth while making wudu for rinsing
2. Some say you should use your right hand only to wash your face
3. A practice is to say zamzam when you see someone making wudu
4. Washing the private parts
2010-05-16 Class Notes
Continuing with the text book and acts of wudu
Discussion about the relationship between Wajib and Haraam; and between Mustahabb and Makrooh.
If you leave something that is Fard, then you are committing haraam. What about leaving something that is mustahab?
In the Hanafi books, leaving what is mustahab is not makrooh, unless there is specific evidence or daleel pointing to a specific act. Not doing the mustahab is known as Khilaf al aula, it goes against what is preferable, it is slightly over makrooh tanzeel. For example if someone does not pray salat ad dhuha (mid morning prayer), there is no text that states it is not allowed to do it. In salah tul Eid, it is good not to eat until after salah but it is not makrooh.
In Shafiee text, Imam Nawawi says there are two opinion. The mashoor opinion it is not makrooh when you leave an act that is mustahab. They also use the term khilaf al ula.
In Maliki school, leaving the mustahab is makrooh.
Ibn Uthaymeen does not agree that leaving mustahab is makrooh. Leaving mustahab is one thing and Makrooh is one thing.
Khilaf al aula is closest to being mubaha or you can say it is the highest level of makrooh.
Is there any difference in wudu between males and females?
In principle all laws apply to males and females unless there is evidence otherwise. Nawawi says that there is no difference between males and females wrt wudu except for the ruling about thick beards.
Actions that nullify the wudu
Continuing with the book ... feces ... urine ... passing gas ... one should be certain of the action of passing gas by either sound or smell ... al madhi ... sperm or vaginal discharge ...
Al Albani's comments (sheikh thinks he is reading from a different edition), he blames Syed Sabbiq for simply quoting Ibn Abbas. He says that by simply quoting Ibn Abbas, Syed Sabbiq is implying that there is nothing about this topic from the prophet. However Syed Sabbiq does quote the prophet but he does not say reported by Bukhari and Muslim.
What is al-madhi?
Secretion due to sexual excitement. In the previous classes when we were discussing pure and impure things we discussed al-madhi. To discuss something is pure or impure is immaterial, here if you pass al madhi or wind then it invalidates your wudu. Wind by itself is pure but passing wind invalidates your wudu.
Al Madhi is the excretions due to sexual excitement. You have to wash it and if it gets on your cloths you have to wash it also. There is clear evidence that Al Madhi invalidates the wudu. And there is ijmaa on this point.
Al-mani is the forceful sperm fluid and when you discharge it, then you have to perform ghusl. For Al-madhi, you just have to wash your private parts (penis and testacles).
White secretion invalidates wudu. The narration by ibn abi shaybah has some weakness.
Do other secretions from private parts invalidate the wudu?
For example, Kidney stones independent of urine or feces do they invalidate wudu?
Scholars disagree on this topic, however vast majority jamhoor except maliki say that anything that comes out will negate the wudu. Malikis say that only the items mentioned above will invalidate the wudu. Maliki argument is that not all excretions from the body are impure and hence nullifying the wudu. However the question of impurity is wrong, for example wind is not considered impure, so here it is not the substance but the place where it occurs.
The safe opinion is that whatever another than the mentioned items that comes out of the outlets (anus or penis, etc) will nullify the wudu.
Blood discharge from men's private parts will also nullify the wudu.
What about women who are mustahara? Irregular bleeding.
What is the source for the bleeding? It is a vein, it is not menses. So women who can distinguish the bleeding and know that it is not menstrual periods can continue praying. But for those who cannot distinguish it is a difficult situation. One wudu??? is enough for the irregular bleeding and their prayers are considered valid. Sources of this blood is a vein. Pg 43 in the text has a paragraph that touches on this topic.
Hanafi opinion is that it negates wudu and she has to perform wudu for every prayer. Shafiee opinion is that she should make wudu for every farida but she may perform as many nawafil with that tahara as she pleases. So if she combines dhuhr and asr then she has to make wudu for each prayer. Hanafis ask why would performing prayers invalidate wudu in the case of Shafiee opinion. Malikis say that this irregular bleeding does not invalidate the wudu and it is not obligatory upon her to make wudu.
Hadith of Fatima bint Abi Ubaysh - she had prolonged flow of blood and shall I leave salah. Prophet said that it is simply your vein and it is not your menses. So you cannot leave your salah, when your menses come, then leave your salah. This is in Sahih Bukhari.
Isnaad of Bukhari ... Hisham ibn Urwa, Urwa (nephew of Aisha), Aisha, .... then he said, my father said, then make wudu for every salat until the time for menses comes. This hadith is now problematic
This is a mualaq hadith, where Bukhari does not present the entire evidence. Here he is making a new quote from Hisham but does not prevent an isnaad for it. We have many mualaq hadith in Bukhari. Here the mualaq hadith is in the body of the hadith? Not sure what it means
What should we do with the mualaq hadith of Bukhari?
Is there any basic principle? One of the general principles is to see have Bukhari quoted it. If he used active voice then Bukhari considered it to be sahih from the person he quoted from, but if Bukhari used a passive voice then he is expressing some doubts.
There is a second issue, it sounds like it is quote from Urwa and not a statement from the prophet. The way it is quoted in Sahih Bukhari, it is definitely not the statement of Urwa. The statement is talking directly to Fatima, it is an amr, so it is a clear sign it is not a statement of Urwa but a statement of the prophet.
2010-05-23 Class Notes
Leave prayer during menses and then wash the blood and then pray.
Discussing hadith of Hisham ibn Urwa, Urwa (nephew of Aisha), Aisha, .... then he said, my father said, then make wudu for every salat until the time for menses comes.
The problem with hadith is that there is no isnaad for "he said", this is known as Muallaq Hadith or abbreviated format.
One of the reasons why muallaq hadith is that the hadith might be weak or it might not be standards of sahih bukhari that is hadith might be acceptable but they don't meet the stricter requirements of Imam Bukhari and hence quoted in muallaq format or abbreviated format
Bukhari distinguishes between active voice and passive voice. If he used active voice then Bukhari considered it to be sahih from the person he quoted from, but if Bukhari used a passive voice then he is expressing some doubts.
If hadith is accepted then it implies Hanafi view, Shafiee view and Dhahiri view. If the hadith is not accepted then we have the maliki view. Hanafi opinion is that it negates wudu and she has to perform wudu for every prayer. Shafiee opinion is that she should make wudu for every farida but she may perform as many nawafil with that tahara as she pleases. So if she combines dhuhr and asr then she has to make wudu for each prayer. Hanafis ask why would performing prayers invalidate wudu in the case of Shafiee opinion. Malikis say that this irregular bleeding does not invalidate the wudu and it is not obligatory upon her to make wudu.
Many scholars reject it as statement of the prophet and say it is statement of Urwa - Muslim, Abu Dawood, and others are those who reject it. They say other narrations that are stronger that it shows that it is statement of Urwa and not statement of the prophet. However that conclusion of theirs ... Contemporary scholar who has that view is Dubyan Abi Dubyan and he concludes that irregular bleeding does not invalidate wudu. He also adds the case of the one that has urinary tract infection, he puts the two together.
Blood is not impure and urine is impure so to make this connection is strange. However he uses logical argument, bleeding from a vein does not invalidate wudu so how come this invalidates the wudu. And some other arguments such as shareeah does not put a burden on what you cannot control.
Shuyab Al Arnaut and others say that this is an authentic narration and woman is supposed to make wudu for every salat. This is a special case.
Shafiees and hanafis differ on the wakt or time of the salat. There is another hadith, prophet said that make wudu for every salat. This hadith is ghareeb jiddan, very strange because of the isnaad, the chain from Imam Hanifa to its precedent is strange, since they never met.
In order to know if something is open to taweel, you have to be strong in Arabic language.
Make wudu for every salat could mean that make wudu for every time of the salat. For example, I will come and see you at salat Asr, it could mean at the time of salat al asr.
In the view of the Dhahiris there is no taweel, there is taweel in the view of the shafiees. Shafiees are making taweel that wudu is for obligatory salat. Dhahiris are not making taweel, however they make taweel when studying aqeedah.
Hanafi view is the best because salat cannot invalidate wudu, for example when a woman combines dhuhr and asr she has to perform wudu for each obligagory salat. Shafiees say that time can invalidate wudu but it is a weak argument.
Ibn Uthaymeen also says that she has to do wudu for the time of the salat.
So as a shafieeh, can I choose to follow the hanafi opinion on this or do I have to follow the shafieeh opinion?
If you find a stronger opinion, then you should follow it. Follow stronger opinion and don't worry about the madhab.
Lets move on to a more controversial topic.
Not to take off socks for three days and nights .... wudu is not invalidated by nodding off or snoring while sitting ...
Does sleeping invalidate wudu?
Al Albani's comments: He says ibn Hajr mentions ibn Mubarak's statement and then he refutes it. The reason is because of the evidence that sahaba would lie down on their sides and then get up and perform salat without performing wudu. Some of the sahaba would make wudu and some would not. And this differs from what ibn Mubarak says. However we can reconcile that by saying that some would sleep while sitting or lying down, some would make wudu and some would not make wudu. .... However this seems to contradict the hadith of Safwan which mentions that sleep always invalidates wudu like defecation and urination. And this is definitely stronger (since it is a quote of the prophet) than the hadith of Anas which is about sahaba nodding off while sitting. The correct view, sleep negates wudu under all circumstances, there is no evidence to restrict the unrestricted sense. Who ever sleeps must make wudu. Because if you sleep you do not know whether you passed wind. So who ever sleeps must make wudu.
Let's list the various opinions on whether sleep invalidates wudu
1. Sleep does not invalidate wudu. Abu Musa and Said ibn Musaid and Ibn Umar
2. Any sleep invalidates wudu. I don't know of any sahaba of that opinion. Muzni leading scholars of Shafiee, Ibn Salam, and Ishaaq ibn W....
3. If someone sleeps lying down then it breaks wudu otherwise not. Abu Hanifa
4. Deep sleep nullifies wudu no longer how long and light sleep does not invalidate but if you are in light sleep for longer period then you should make wudu. Light sleep is you are aware of your surroundings. Maliki view
5. Buttocks firmly seated while sleeping does not invalidate wudu. Shafieeh view
6. Any light sleep done while standing or seating does not break wudu. Hambali view
7. Sleeping while in prayer does not invalidate wudu under any circumstance. An opinion stated by Imam Shafieeh in his older madhab.
Evidence the sleep does not invalidate wudu
In some madhab, sleep invalidates wudu. But in some wudu, sleep is a proxy for what you could have done like pass gas to break wudu and since you are sleeping you are not aware and hence indirectly breaks wudu.
One of the evidence used to show that sleep does not invalidate wudu is surah maidah verse 6. There is no mention of sleep in that verse. ida kuntum according to some tafseer means waking up from sleep.
Hadith of Anas, some of the sahaba would wake up from sleep and make salat without wudu.
Sina, Naas, Naum - different levels of sleep.
Hadith recorded by Bukhari and Muslim .....
Ibn Abbas stayed at prophet's house and the prophet woke him up from salat taraweeh and there is no statement that ibn Abbas making wudu.
2010-06-06 Class Notes
At-Tahawi author Commentary on hadith that have some issues, Sharr Mushkil al Athar or Bayan al Mushkil al Athar. He is a Hanafi scholar, he is himself from the Shafiee family. He put forward the argument that prayer cannot break wudu wrt the hadith of "Make ablution for every prayer" about the irregular bleeding of a woman.
Elongating of the streak
It was Abu Huraira's ijtihaad. We do not have any evidence that the prophet used to do this. We have hadith that whoever does more has done wrong. So the prophet rejects the ijtihaad of Abu Huraira.
It is mustahabb to face Qiblah while making wudu. Dubyan Abi Dubyan said there was ijmaa among scholars then it is mustahab, but there is no evidence that any scholars oppose this view, so he concludes there must be ijmaa. This is strange, you cannot say lack of opposition of a view, implies there is ijmaa among scholars.