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), what negates it, etc.
Prerequisite: NONE (all topics are independent of previous sessions).
Text: Fiqh al-Sunnah by al-Sayyid Sabiq
Time: Sundays 7:15 - 8:25 PDT
Basic Outline of the Class
Topic 1: Things that nullify Ablution
Bottom of page 35 to page 36 of the text book.
Deep Sleep
Syed Sabbiq is distinguishing between different circumstances of sleeping. Discusses sleeping while sitting and he quotes ibn Hajjar, who says that there is an authentic narration from Anas, wherein some of them would sleep on their sides and then get up and pray.
Albani notes this hadith is also in the collection of Imam Ahmad(??) and he says that it is sahih and describes getting up and praying without performing wudu. He says this hadith is proof that sleep does not invalidate under all circumstances. Albani says this contradicts hadith of Safwan which is quoted by Syed Sabbiq, wherein during travel the prophet would ask them to not remove socks for three days unless they were not in state of janaba which includes urination, defecation and sleeping. So he says this hadith contradicts that sleep does not invalidate wudu. He says this hadith is more conclusive about sleep since it is a report about the prophet wherein the narration from Anas is not. So it is proof that sleep invalidates wudu. When you sleep, you loose guard and you don’t know whether you passed gas or not.
Review different opinions among the ulema
There are at least seven different opinions among the fuqaha. The basic question is whether act of sleeping invalidate wudu or does the act of sleeping act as an proxy to invalidate wudu since you don’t know whether you wudu is broken or not.
Some scholars such as Abu Musa and Syed ... say that sleep does not invalidate wud
Ishaa ibn Rubaiyah, Al Mazni, Ibn Hazn and others says sleep invalidates wudu under all circumstances
Abu Hanfia says that sleeping on your side invalidates wudu
Any deep sleep invalidates wudu and light sleep does not invalidate it does not matter for how long. Light sleep you are still conscious about your surroundings. This is the opinion of Imam Malik.
If a person is sitting on the floor and you nod off, then it does not invalidate wudu according to the Shafiee madhab.
Short sleep whether sitting or standing does not invalidate wudu according to Hambali madhab
Old opinion of Imam Shafiee based on weak hadith which is why he changed his opinion, that any sleep during salat such as if you dozed off during the sajdah does not invalidate wudu.
Evidences for sleep not invalidating wudu
Surah Maidah verse about ablution which describes the different cases when you have to make wudu, such as sexual defilement, relieving yourself, contact with woman after which you have to make wudu. There is no mention of sleeping. Is that a good proof? Just because it is not mentioned there it does not mean that it does not invalidate wudu. In the tafseer of the ayat, some scholars say that first phrase is considered to be waking up from sleep (naum).
You will not find any ayat that directly states that sleep is going to invalidate wudu. And then some say that you don’t do wudu just because you might have invalidated wudu. If you made wudu for dhuhr prayers and you dont remember the wudu is broken and then you are uncertain, then you dont have to make wudu. However if you had gone to the bathroom and then if you don’t remember that you did wudu, then you have to make wudu.
The thing that is certain is not to be removed by something that is doubtful.
Hadith of Anas recorded by Imam Muslim, clearly states that some sahaba dozed off and then they got up and prayed. They were waiting for the prophet for Isha prayers and sometimes the prophet delayed the prayers and some of the sahaba would lie down on their sides while they waited. If Anas noticed it, then we can be sure that the prophet must have noticed it too. And if they were doing something wrong, then Allah swt would surely have notified the prophet.
There is also a narration in Bukhari and Muslim. Iqamah was made. Prophet was in the mosque and he was talking to a group of people and some of them dozed off while waiting. And then the prophet came and led the prayers.
Hadith of .... where he slept in his aunt Maymunah’s house (The prophet’s house). The prophet woke him up for prayer and he stood, and when he stood on the prophet’s left, he moved him to the right.
Evidences for sleep invalidating wudu
Can the hadith of Safwan about not removing socks while traveling, can this hadith be considered marfoo’ ?
It is a sign that sleep invalidate wudu.
All scholars agree that if you loose consciousness then you have to perform wudu. And if sleep causes you to loose consciousness then it must invalidate the wudu.
Eye is drawstring for the buttocks. Once you loose control of your eyes or you doze off, then ...
One of the narrators of this class is Baqeeyah ibn Waleed, he committed tadlees at taswiyah. If he is mentioned in the chain then we have to be very careful about the hadith.
Information on Tadlees al Taswiyah:
Worst type of Tadlees.
Example: There is a chain going back to the Prophet (A->B->C->D->E. The narrator E thinks that narrator C is not an accepted narrator so narrator E drops C and says an’ from narrator D to narrator B.
This is dangerous and you do not tamper with what you are transmitting.
Conclusion
Light sleep does not invalidate wudu
Deep sleep wherein you loose consciousness does invalidate wudu.
If you are in khutbah and if you feel that you are dozing off, you are supposed to move.
If you know that you dozed off and you knew what the khatib was saying then you don’t have to make wudu.
Loss of Consciousness
Continuing with the book. Albani does not have any comments. Syed Sabbiq says that there is ijmaa among scholars. When you loose consciousness it invalidates wudu.
Among the Shafiees of Khurasan, they argue that drunkenness does not invalidate wudu. In their fiqh, they hold a drunkard responsible for his actions and his words, so if they are going to hold them accountable for their actions, that means they have not lost consciousness.
Some say that when you loose consciousness, you have to perform ghusl. The prophet asked for water for ghusl when he was on his deathbed, when he had to go and make prayers. However this action of the prophet could have been as a relief from fever. It is not a commandment for us to perform ghusl when we loose consciousness.
Differences between fainting and deep sleep.
When you faint and loose consciousness it is because of sudden loss of blood pressure, it is involuntary and it might be difficult to wake a person from loss of consciousness. Whereas when a person has deep sleep, it might voluntary or involuntary sleep, you might be able to wake them up from sleep. So some do not consider sleep as equivalent to loosing consciousness.
Touching the sexual organ without any "barrier" (clothes, and so on) between the hand and the organ.
Hadith Busrah bint Safwan
"the five[1]."
al-Bukhari called it the most authentic report on that topic[2].
Ibn 'Abdul-Barr[3]
Said Ibn as-Sakin[4], "That hadith is from the best of what has been related on this topic." In the wording of Ash-Shaf’i[5]: "If one of you grasps his private part without any barrier in between the hand and the private part, he should make ablution (wuduu)”[6]
On the authority of ‘Amr ibn Shuaib from his father from his grandfather (radiAllahu anhum) “Any man who touches his penis must perform ablution. Any woman who touches her vagina must perform ablution."
The Hanafis are of the opinion, based on the hadith of Talq, that touching the sexual organ does not have to perform ablution. The prophet said no, you do not have to perform ablution, since it is part of you.
Let us assume that these two hadiths are both authentic and they are very contradictory.
What do we do in this case where there is a conflict (ta’arrud) between the evidences?
Three things can be done:
1. الجمع - Reconcile. This is the preferred approach. This is because if both the texts are authentic, you need not discard a text that is authentic. However you need to have a reasonable conclusion. Some scholars say: If a woman touches accidentally, it doesn’t apply. But there is nothing in the text that can support that. In reconciliation, they would say that hadith A applies to case 1,2,3 and hadith B applies to case 4,5.
2. الترجيح - Showing one piece of evidence to be stronger than the other one. This can get subjective about what one considers stronger. If you have a hadith that is mutawaatir and another hadith that is borderline (hasan li ghayrihi), then you say that one piece of evidence is stronger than the other. Hence you take the stronger piece. This approach is weaker than reconciliation (1). This is because you recognize both texts as authentic. But you are throwing away text which is authentic. [This happens when there is an apparent contradiction]
Sometimes people say that this hadith in Sahih al Bukhari, while there is another apparently contradicting hadith in Sahih Muslim. So we give preference to the one in Sahih al-Bukhari. This is completely unacceptable tarjeeh, even though we agree that as a whole Sahih alBukhari is better than Sahih Muslim]
3. النسخ - Abrogation. One report is earlier and the other report is later. Hence the later report abrogates the earlier one. For abrogation, the requirements are stringent. If we were to claim abrogation, what are the things we might look at:
i. If we could determine one of them became Muslim in the last years of Islam while the other one was much earlier.
ii. Principle in Shariah – initially there were no laws and then laws came. Something you don’t have to do may be abrogated by something you have to do. The command not to do wuduu could be an earlier command and to do wuduu could be the later command.
Al Albani's comments
Al Albani is going to comment on hadith of Talq which says that you don’t have to make wuduu because it is just part of your body.
This is a very subtle reference to the fact that ablution is not obligatory if the touch does not involve any kind of shahwaa (desire). Because in that case you can say that touching it resembles any other part of the body. However if it is touch with any kind of desire, you cannot compare it with touching any other part of the body. Then it is a different case. Usually when you touch, it is not touch with shahwaa.
Therefore it is not evidence for the Hanafis who say that touching the private parts do not invalidate the wuduu. Instead it is evidence for those who say that touching without shahwaa does not invalidate the wuduu. Touching with shahwaa invalidates the wuduu. By this we make jamaa' between these hadith. This is also the conclusion of Ibn Taymiyya in some of his books, according to what I remember.
The Hanafis are doing tarjeeh here.
Comments on the footnote:
As San'ani is concluding that hadith of Talq is not acceptable.
The hadith of Talq narrated by Qais ibn Talq is weak. Qais ibn Talq is definitely weak according to what Sh. Jamaal was able to find about him.
Historically Talq came to Medina and took part in the building of the Prophet's mosque. Abu Hurairah and Busra who narrate the other information became Muslim much later. That is a possible occasion if one wants to resort to an Naskh.
Talq was a sahaabi. The real problem is Qais ibn Talq
Imam Ahmad and Yahya ibn Maeen say in one narration that Qais ibn Talq is weak.
Some scholars - Ad Darimi (Sunan of ad Darimi) and al Ajli (compiler of book on Jarh wa Tadeel) accept him.
Ad Daraqutni does not accept him.
Ibn Abi Hatim said he asked his father and Abu Zar'ah about Qais and they said he is not hujjah.
The narration from Abu Hurairah and Busra indicate that you have to do wuduu.
Syed Sabiq includes this under the acts that do nullify the ablution.
Opinions of different madhahibs
Hanafis: Touching the private part does not invalidate the wuduu whatsoever. This is also the opinion of Sahnoon (student of the students of Imam Malik and one of the compilers of the work called al Mudawana in the Maliki Fiqh) among the Malikis.
Any kind of touching breaks Wuduu – This was the conclusion of Asbagh from among the Malikis. This is the Shafi opinion and the Hanbali opinion. However the Shafis and the Hanbalis disagree a little bit. Shafis say it has to be touch with the palm of the hand. Reason they say this is because in one of the hadith that is quoted, the hadith says to grasp the private part with the inside of the hand. Hanbalis say that any kind of touching, either outside or inside is the same.
Third opinion - It is mustahabb (this is another kind of jama') to make wuduu from touching the private part. This is the opinion of the western scholars from North Africa and Andalus from among the Malikis.
Fourth opinion - If you touch the private part with shahwaa, then you have to repeat the wuduu. This is the conclusion of a number of Baghdadi followers of Imam Malik.
Another opinion - If you touch it intentionally, then it invalidates the wuduu. If you do not touch it intentionally then it does not invalidate the wuduu. This is the opinion of some of the Malikis.
[If you are doing Taqleed of Malikis, what would you do]
Evidence for those who say touching breaks Wuduu
1. Hadith of Busra - recorded by Imam Malik in al Muwatta
2. Ibn Abi Shayba records something similar on the authority of Umm Habeeba, However the chain there is broken.
3. At Tabarani records from Abu Hurairah:
If any of you grasps his private part without a barrier, then wuduu becomes obligatory on you.
According to Ibn Hajar this hadith looks saheeh. This is at least hasan (according to Sh Jamaal). Al Albani says that this hadith is saheeh.
4. Hadith of ‘Amr ibn Shuaib from his father from his grandfather (narrated by Imam Ahmad)
This hadith is about a man and woman touching his private parts [hasan]
Here at least it is supported by hadith of Busra.
5. Daraqutni - reports from Ibn Umar - weakness in that chain
6. Ibn Majah - Abu Ayyub al Nasari - weakness in that chain
(The weakness in both not that great - so can be used as supporting evidences)
Evidence of those who say that touching the private part does not break wuduu
1. Hadith of Talq - It contains the narrator Qais ibn Talq. The best that can be said about Qais ibn Talq is that he is layyin al hadeeth (fragile). If he is layyin, we will not accept his narration unless it is supported by other narrations.
We have a case of a narrator who is layyin and at the same time he is contradicting number of reports from other sahaaba.
Al Albani does say that the hadith of Talq is either sahih or hassan and even Ibn Hajr says that is hassan. [Ibn Hajr calls him layyin - this is in a different book – These books could be written years apart]
2. Logical argument – Sh. Jamaal didn’t discuss this
3. Logical argument - This question of touching the private part is something that afflicts everyone. So if it is something that breaks the wuduu (Umum al Balwaa), some of the madhahib say that in order to accept the hadith related to it, it has to be mutawaatir or mustafeedh[7] and cannot be a lower level ahaad. In this particular case, this is a Hanafi argument. Their argument is that you cannot establish an umum al balwaa based on the hadith of Busrah. [If As-Sanani’s comment is correct, they cannot even claim it]
Evidences for those who say it is not obligatory but only recommendation
They accept hadith of Talq as someone asking the Prophet (s): Is it obligatory to make wuduu and him saying : No, it is not obligatory to make wuduu. They understand the hadith of Busrah as recommendation from Prophet (s). This is jama'.
Evidences for those who say: If touching is related to shahwaa then you have to make wuduu, otherwise not
If you are touching without shahwaa, there is no difference between touching the private part and any other part of your body. The only difference could be if it is done with shahwaa. This is the way they are making jama'.
Secondly they say that the hadith of Talq is about touching private part while in salaah (Sh. Jamaal is not sure where they got it from) One would hope that there would be a barrier while in salaah.
Sometimes the reconciliation is based on nothing much. So what you end up saying may not be very strong.
[1] The four sunan (An Nasa’i, Abu Dawood, Ibn Maajah, at Tirmidhi) and Ahmad
[2] This does not necessarily mean that the hadith is authentic. It just means that the narration is stronger than others.
[3] Ibn Hibban included it in his sahih collection; Al-Hakim and Ibn ‘Abdul Barr classified it as sahih. Ibn ‘Abdul Barr is a leading Maliki scholar from Spain and a great scholar of hadith (His opinion is worth listening to).
[4] Ibn as Sakin has a collection of sahih hadith.
[5] This is how Ash-Shaf’i related this.
[6] Nowhere in the text does Syed Sabiq make it clear that this is a statement of the Prophet. In fact, this is a hadith of the Prophet, upon whom be peace . Ad-Daraqutni also related it and it is sahih. - J .Z.
[7] Mustafeedh: A hadith that started out as ahaad and then became well established. i.e. It is mutawaatir, but its roots are from one or two sahaaba
The hadith of Talq is about touching the private parts in salat. Somebody is asking the prophet about touching private parts in the salat. This hadith is used by the Hanafis as evidence that touching private parts does not invalidate wudu. But it is irrelevant, it is not related to touching the private parts without any barrier.
Talq’s hadith is related to the salat and with that complete text related to the salat, al Albani accepts that hadith. And since the hadith of Talq and hadith of Busra are talking about two different categories and do not contradict each other.
If you start with the premise that touching private part without barrier invalidate wudu, then maybe it is hypothetical question that is being asked with barrier in salat. So then why should it invalidate salah, since you are touching with barrier.
The source is one for the hadith of Talq, but different narrations mention the part of the salat and some do not. And that source is questionable. If we had two sources, and one source mentioned salat and one did not, then we might have to consider whether it is related to salat or not.
When you have two hadith that are contradicting then you have to reconcile them, but here the hadith do not contradict at all. All we are left with it is that touching private parts invalidate wudu. We still have to consider what kind of touching?
Those who say that if you touch your private part without shahwah or desire then it breaks wudu, if they start with the hadith of Talq. Then it raises the question what about touching your other parts of the body with shahwah, does that invalidate your wudu?
Some say wudu is invalidated if you touch with your palm of your hand and not invalidated with the back of your hand. It is based on hadith of Abu Huraira where the action is described as grasping and they also say that back of hand is unintentional.
From the perspective of the linguists the touching is with the palm of the hand.
The last opinion is about the intention or lack of intention when touching the private parts invalidates or does not invalidate the wudu. What would be the proof for their opinion?
Classroom discussion: So under what conditions do you think touching private parts would invalidate wudu?
1. Intentionally
2. With Shahwah
* 3. With palm or inside of the hand (the word used in hadith of Abu Huraira is afdam)
4. Any touch
And some combinations of the above conditions.
The sheikh mentioned there is evidence for condition #3. Since the word afdam or grasp is mentioned in the hadith of Abu Huraira.
Then he cancelled out condition #2 since there is no evidence for it.
So what is the evidence for condition #1? There is no evidence for it.
So the conclusion is that any touch as long as it is with the palm or inside of the hand whether it is intentional or unintentional, with or without desire would invalidate wudu. And this just happens to be the Shafiah madhab.
Malikis are kind of split.
Now we are discussing both male and female
The clearest evidence would be hadith of Amir ibn Shuyab from his father and his grandfather which Sayyid Sabbiq mentioned. Arnaut says that the chain is sahih.
Report from umm Habiba says that any woman who touches her private part must make wudu.
Those who say that woman touching her private parts does not break wudu, is quoted from Imam Ahmed, it is in the Hambali book. Imam Ahmed was asked about it and he said that I did not hear anything about it. When he was asked about hadith of Amir ibn Shuyab, he smiled and he replied that he does not accept any hadith from one of the narrator. So Imam Ahmed does not like the chain, but it is hasan.
The hadith of Busra does not mention the female private parts since it specifically mentions the male private parts. Could you make analogy in that case?
Since we have hadith of Abu Huraira and Amir ibn Shuyab then we can conclude that women touching private part invalidates wudu and we don't have to answer the above question of analogy.
What about wife touching husband’s private parts and vice versa and parent touching the private part of their children for example cleaning them after they relive themselves?
Since Hanafis accept hadith of talq they say it does not invalidate wudu.
The Hanafi argument is that there is no evidence that touching somebody elses private part does not invalidate wudu. They say even if you accept the hadith of Busra, then it is not specific enough, since it mentions touching your private parts. This is a dhahiri approach. They also mention a hadith that is weak which the sheikh is not going to mention.
Ibn Qudam says that whoever has touched private part of another person is committing sin and he says it leads to shahwah and it leads to al madhi. It is strange because husband or wife could touch each other’s private parts, or parent could touch a child’s part, or it could be for medical reasons.
So you could say that you could consider a safe approach and say that touching private parts would invalidate wudu or you could become dhahiri and say that it does not invalidate wudu.
In the next section we will be discussing touching your wife with shahwah and without shahwah and invalidating wudu, so we will revisit this issue later.
Next we will discuss actions that do not nullify wudu.
Actions that nullify ablution - missed the discussion, I was late joining the class ...
Touching a woman without any kind of barrier (touching skin to skin)
Ayesha reported that prophet kissed her while fasting. She stated that kissing does not nullify ablution. She further said that she touched his feet while he was praying and she further said that the prophet kissed one of his wives ..... Recorded by Bukhari and Muslim.
Statement and the narrators are trustworthy. Does it mean that hadith is authentic. There are other conditions to be met before it can be considered sahih.
Al Albani has no comments.
Opinion of various scholars
1. One opinion is that it does not nullify the action, unless they are naked and their private parts touch one another and then it nullifies the wudu - Hanafi madhab
2. Any touching of the woman violates the wudu - Shafiee madhab
3. If the touch is with desire (shahwa) then it violates the wudu, if the touch is without desire then it does not violate the wudu - Malaki and Hambali opinion
4. If the touch is intentional then it breaks the wudu, if it is unintentional then it does not break wudu - Opinion of Dawood, founder of Dhahiri school
Evidence that touching woman does not violate wudu
1. There is no explicit, authentic evidence that shows that touching woman violates wudu. In order to show that it violates the wudu, we would need to present authentic evidence.
2. Hadith of Ayesha that prophet kissed one of wives and he went to perform prayers without making wudu. Shuyab al Arnaut, Albani and others accept this evidence as sahih. However there is some defect in the narration. This narration is found in Musnad Ahmed. However there are some issues with the chain and the text of the hadith. It is not clear that the text of the hadith is preserved properly. In some narrations it mentions fasting. Some say it is a weak narration.
3. Umm Salema says that prophet kissed her while fasting and this action did not break the fast nor did it break the wudu. This evidence also has some weakness. Again this narration has some weakness in its chain. Some scholars say that this hadith is actually the hadith of ayesha and there has been some mixup.
4, Narration from at Tabarani. Abu Masood says that he kissed his wife and went to pray and then he asked the prophet, and the prophet did not object to it.This hadith is weak.
5. Narration from Ayesha. She put her hand on the bottom of his feet while he was praying. And then another narration that the prophet touched her legs while he has praying. Both of these hadith are considered authentic. From this hadith we can conclude that touching without desire does not invalidate wudu.
Some scholars say it is a hardship and touching a woman occurs a lot and it does not invalidate wudu.
Some scholars say, If touching woman invalidate wudu, then touching any human being, a man touching a man, or a woman touching a woman, should invalidate wudu. Is this a valid argument?
Evidence that touching woman does violate wudu
1. Surah Maida verse 6 which talks about wudu. Part of the verse says
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِذَا قُمْتُمْ إِلَى الصَّلَاةِ فَاغْسِلُوا وُجُوهَكُمْ وَأَيْدِيَكُمْ إِلَى الْمَرَافِقِ وَامْسَحُوا بِرُءُوسِكُمْ وَأَرْجُلَكُمْ إِلَى الْكَعْبَيْنِ ۚ وَإِن كُنتُمْ جُنُبًا فَاطَّهَّرُوا ۚ وَإِن كُنتُم مَّرْضَىٰ أَوْ عَلَىٰ سَفَرٍ أَوْ جَاءَ أَحَدٌ مِّنكُم مِّنَ الْغَائِطِ أَوْ لَامَسْتُمُ النِّسَاءَ فَلَمْ تَجِدُوا مَاءً فَتَيَمَّمُوا صَعِيدًا طَيِّبًا فَامْسَحُوا بِوُجُوهِكُمْ وَأَيْدِيكُم مِّنْهُ ۚ مَا يُرِيدُ اللَّهُ لِيَجْعَلَ عَلَيْكُم مِّنْ حَرَجٍ وَلَٰكِن يُرِيدُ لِيُطَهِّرَكُمْ وَلِيُتِمَّ نِعْمَتَهُ عَلَيْكُمْ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَشْكُرُونَ
Sahih International
O you who have believed, when you rise to [perform] prayer, wash your faces and your forearms to the elbows and wipe over your heads and wash your feet to the ankles. And if you are in a state of janabah, then purify yourselves. But if you are ill or on a journey or one of you comes from the place of relieving himself or you have contacted women and do not find water, then seek clean earth and wipe over your faces and hands with it. Allah does not intend to make difficulty for you, but He intends to purify you and complete His favor upon you that you may be grateful.
Some scholars ibn Masud and Umar interpret لَامَسْتُمُ النِّسَاءَ simply as touching. Ibn Abbas says that it لَامَسْتُمُ النِّسَاءَ means sexual intercourse. In other places of Quran, Allah swt uses a shorter version la mast to mean sexual intercourse. There is some more evidence in the surah that points to the fact that it must mean sexual intercourse.
When can you resort to tayammum, when you have minor impurity or major impurity? If you understand it to mean just touching a woman then do you need to resort to tayammum. Some scholars say that Allah swt is describing all of the conditions under which you can resort to tayammum.
لَامَسْتُمُ النِّسَاءَ is a figure of speech for sexual intercourse.
Hadith of Ayesha about kissing. Are you going to say that it is without desire. The burden of proof to show that touching with desire invalidates wudu. There could be times where kissing one’s wife could invalidate wudu. When does this happen? If person excretes the sexual fluids, madhi, then it invalidates the wudu, which could be the result of kissing. So the wudu is violated by excretion of madhi.
So if we say touching or kissing does not invalidate wudu. Then can we say that touching private parts also does not invalidate wudu.
What about touching hair and finger nails of women? Since it is not skin. Imam Shafiee says that it does not invalidate wudu. However the opinions will parallel the opinion of direct contact to skin.
Touching woman with a barrier
It is interesting how things change with barrier. Some scholars says that it does not invalidate wudu if we touch with barrier - Shafiee and Hambali. If the barrier is very thin and if the one who is touching is intending to get some pleasure out of it and regardless of the barrier, it invalidates wudu - Maliki opinion.
Touching a woman to whom you are a mahram
Regardless of the woman if you are mahram or ajnabi to, it invalidates wudu - Maliki
Shafiee - invalidates wudu irregardless of desire or no desire.
Hanafi - Does not invalidate wudu
Later shafiee scholars such as Imam Nawawi who accepted the hadith of ayesha, say that it is our religion and say that touching woman does not invalidate wudu. Imam Shafiee said that if the hadith of Ayesha is authentic then it is my madhab.
Continuing with the topic of things that do not invalidate wudu
Bleeding does not invalidate wudu
Text: Bleeding from an unusual place ... nose bleed or cuping .... some sahabas continued prayer even while bleeding ... a muallaq hadith
Muallaq hadith is one from the title of the chapter which does not have a complete isnaad.
Some of these reports are mentioned earlier when discussing whether blood is impure or not. Unusual place of bleeding is mentioned to highlight that it is not the menstrual bleeding of women.
The report from Hassan in muallaq form is an authentic hadith also reported by Abi ibn Shayba. The other reports quoted above from various sources are also authentic.
Difference of opinions among scholars
If blood is impure does not mean that it invalidates wudu. It just needs to be cleaned.
Hanafis as general principle and also Hambalis agree that if there is any impurity that comes out of the body then that invalidates the wudu
Malikis and Shafiees that bleeding does not in itself invalidate wudu, you just have to clean it. They say that you need clear evidence that bleeding invalidates wudu or if something impure comes out then it invalidates wudu.
There is no evidence that human blood is impure, there is no evidence that blood needs to be cleaned from your clothing before you can prayer.
If blood is not impure then how can you apply the principle that anything impure that comes out of the body invalidates wudu, since blood is not impure then it should not invalidate wudu.
Menstrual period invalidates wudu. Mustahaba - bleeding not related to menstrual cycle - woman has to make wudu for the time of the prayer. They can use this as evidence for invalidating wudu. Shafiees say that this bleeding invalidates wudu because it originates from a place that is related to impurity, and the bleeding of the sahaba while pray was related to wounds that were not related to impurity.
Vomiting does not invalidate wudu.
Is vomit impure?
The basic ruling is that everything is pure unless there is evidence otherwise.
And another basic ruling is that anything impure that comes out of the body does not invalidate wudu unless there is evidence otherwise.
Eating camel meat does not nullify wudu
Hadith from Jabber, do we need to make wudu after eating mutton, if you wish you make wudu otherwise you don’t have to. If you eat camel meat, then you make wudu. Then he said, shall I pray in the sheep pastures? Recorded by Ahmad and Muslim.
Then ibn Barra al azam said, somebody asked prophet about making wudu from camel’s meat, he said do wudu due to it. Then he was asked about wudu from mutton and he said you do not have to make wudu due to it. Then he was asked about making prayer in camel’s den and sheep pasture, he replied that you are not allowed to pray in camel’s den since they are from the shayateen, and it is okay to pray in sheep pasture because they are blessed.
Majority say that eating camel’s meat does not invalidate wudu. Those who say that eating camel’s meat invalidate wudu are from the old opinion of Imam Shafiee, Hambali opinion, and Ahl al Hadeeth.
Originally anything that was cooked by fire, you had to make wudu. That has been abrogated. Was it abrogated for everything?
We have specific evidence that eating camel’s meat invalidates wudu, the burden of proof is to show that this view is not abrogated.
Syed Sabbiq says that the majority of the sahaba and khulafa al rasheeden say that eating camel’s meat does not invalidate wudu.
Al Albani’s comment
How is it possible that the hadith of Jabber and ibn Barra was not known to Khulafa al rasheedin (the four rightly guided khalifs)? Then he says that this question is irrelevant. If you have the hadith then it does not matter what is the prevalent opinion of the khulafa.
You should not blindly follow madhab. How can you reject hadith of the prophet? How can you follow the madhab over the hadith of the prophet. Albani says that the only reason for Syed Sabbiq goes against hadith is where is the authentic chain from the khulafa al rasheedin that shows that they said that eating camel meat does not invalidate wudu. He says that this claim is incorrect.
ibn Taymiyyah says (in Qaweed al Nurani, it is part of fatawaa, in the volume of usool al fiqh) what has been narrated from the four khulafa or majority of sahaba was that the statement was that eating cooked meat does not invalidate wudu but they did not say eating camel meat does not invalidate wudu. So the majority of the sahaba were of the opinion that you do not have to perform wudu from eating cooked meat.
Eating raw camel meat or cooked camel meat does invalidate wudu. And the evidence is statement of Abu Bakr and Umar that when they ate camel’s meat it would invalidate wudu.
It is confirmed from Jabber that Syed Sabbiq quotes, that we used to make wudu when we ate camel’s meat.
Conclusion is that eating camel’s meat does invalidate wudu.
Doubts whether one has released gas does not invalidate wudu
Wudu is only invalidated if he is certain. It is based on the ijmaa of the muslimeen.
Question of doubt, majority of opinion is you act upon what you are certain. If you are certain that you made wudu and doubt that you broke wudu, then you have the wudu. If you are doubtful that you made wudu, then you have to make wudu.
Legal maxim says, what is known based on certainty is not to be removed based on doubt.
What is affirmed by certainty is not removed by what is doubtful
This is one of the basic legal maxims (one of five) in usool al fiqh
Opinion of Malikis and Hasan al Basri
First opinion is that doubt does not invalidate wudu
Second opinion is that doubt itself invalidates wudu, also from Imam Malik
Third opinion, doubt invalidates wudu outside of the salah and not inside the salah. It is based on the hadith which states someone feels while he is in prayer. The second hadith says that he should not leave the masjid.
Prophet did not mention anything about outside the mosque. You have the general maxim about doubt and certainty.
Strongest opinion based on the principle, that when you have doubt about something, then you act upon what you are certain about.
Laughing in the prayer
Abu al Aliya (Tabeeya) from the prophet
Mursal hadith
Whoever laughs in prayer must repeat salah -
Daral Qutni reports that he heard from the prophet, that whoever laughs (qarqara) loudly in the prayer must repeat the wudu and the salat. Chain for this hadith is very weak
Daral Qutni also reports from Abu Huraira .... if persone laughs he must repeat the salat ... chain is very weak
Hanafis are very strict on adding anything to the salat. They take description in Surah Maidah as conditions for wudu. This verse does not mention anything about laughing for wudu. SO it is strange that they take the weak hadith as condition for invalidating wudu.
If someone speaks in the prayer, invalidates prayer but not their tahara (purity). Exception is the condition when prophet was reminded that he had not completed the rakats after he thought he had finished his prayers.
Speaking is human conversation.
Washing a dead person
Majority of scholars say that washing dead person does not invalidate wudu. Three out of the four madhabs. One narration from Imam Ahmad about this affect.
Another opinion is that it does invalidate wudu. Unique opinion of Hanbali.
Imam Shafiee that it is sunnah to perform wudu after you have washed the deceased
Report from Abdul Razzak, ibn Abbas was asked does a person need to make wudu after washing a dead person, he said no because then you would say that the dead person was impure. .... mentioned something that he made wudu ..... Recorded by Bukhari in muallaq form without its isnaad. However it is recorded in active voice indicating that Bukhari had a sahih chain to ibn Abbas. It is a statement of ibn Abbas, it is not a hadith of prophet.
Another report from ibn Abbas that prophet said that it is sufficient to wash you hand after washing a dead person since the deceased are pure. Al Hayyaki says that chain is weak but ibn Hajr said that chain is sahih.
Abdul Razzak reported from ..... chain of this hadith is weak
Some say that you have to make ghusl after washing a dead person.
Ahmad reports from Abu Huraira that the prophet said that who ever washed it must make ghusl and whoever carries it must make wudu. This is most likely a statement of Abu Hurarira and not of the prophet. It is weak as a statement of the prophet.
Imam Ahmad was asked by Abu Dawood, he said that there is not authentic hadith about ......
Imam Ahmad said that body of dead person is pure
Al Harat al Akbar - Major Harat - things that make it compulsory for you to do ghusl
Al Harat al Asghar - Minor Harat - thing that make it compulsory for you to do wudu
So things that require you to make ghusl, does it also enforce you to make wudu. Or just doing ghusl sufficient.
Does he have to do wudu to remove the lesser impurity or is it okay to directly go and make ghusl to remove the larger impurity?
Requirements of ghusl do not include wudu. You can do ghusl without doing wudu. Do you have to do wudu after or before ghusl?
Majority opinion is that you remove impurity by doing ghusl. Second opinion (hanbali), everything that obligates ghusl also obligates wudu except death (Sheikh is unsure about the clause except death, may be there is a word missing or something else).
Third opinion, you have to make wudu while making ghusl in order for ghusl to be sahih, this is madhab of Dawood al Dhahiri.
Evidence for majority opinion.
Surah Maida - there is no mention of having to perform wudu when Allah swt describes the conditions for ghusl.
There is no mention of wudu when there are hadith describing ghusl.
Some say there is ijmaa that you dont have to wudu when you make ghusl.
Hambali opinion - Major harat means that you have minor harat. They say that you have to perform intention to do wudu while making ghusl. There is no action without intention. And if you do not intend to do wudu, it means the impurity has not been removed.
Evidence for Dhahiri opinion - Mujmaal - undetailed - only way we can know the details is to study the action of the prophet. When he did ghusl, he used to do wudu. And since the command from Allah swt is to purify, And since the way prophet implemented ghusl, then we have to do wudu first before doing ghusl.
Since we have authentic hadith of the prophet which described ghusl where he does not mention to describe wudu. And we can say that it is not a required condition for ghusl. And prophet did wudu before ghusl for some other reasons.
Circumbulating the Kaaba
Tawaaf is kind of salat where it is allowed for you to speak
Tawaaf is kind of salat therefore lessen the amount of speaking
Being free from minor harat is condition for tawaaf - wudu is condition for soundness of tawaaf - Shafiee, Hambali ... opinion
Wudu is obligatory for tawaaf ..... If you do not have wudu, the tawaaf is still valid but now you have to sacrifice an animal. - Strongest hanafi opinion and opinion of Imam Ahmad.
Ibn Tamayiia has an opinion that it is wajib to be free from the menses and it is sunnah to be free from the lesser harat where wudu is needed.
Lesser harat - those things that nullify wudu
Greater harat - those things that nullify ablution
Opinion of Shafiee, Hambali: It is pre-requisite or shart for tawaaf that you should be free of lesser harat and greater harat.
Second opinion: Free of lesser harat and greater harat is obligatory. However tawaaf can be sound without it. Since you are However one has to sacrifice an animal to overcome the shortcoming. It is opinion of Hanafis and of Imam Ahmad
Finally Imam Taymiyah’s opinion, it is obligatory to be free of greater harat and sunnah to be free of lesser or minor harat.
Evidence for the first opinion
Hadith recorded by Bukhari and Muslim in which Ayesh is describing the prophet performing the hajj. The first thing he did was he made wudu and then he made tawaaf.
Hadith from Jabir recorded by Muslim where in the prophet said take the rites of Hajj from me for I don’t know whether I will make hajj again.
Sometimes the prophet did something and he himself did not consider it to be sunnah, some he consdered mustahab, etc
IN matters of prayer or salat, he said you need to follow my actions. Did everything he did in Salat obligatory upon us?
When he says take the manasik of hajj from me, there are some actions that are obligatory, some are sunnah, some are less than sunnah.
So based on these two hadith what would be considered obligatory?
Suppose this was the only piece of evidence, then you would err of the side of caution and consider it to be sunnah, some others would say it is mustahab, and some others said it was obligatory, according to the classroom discussion.
We have hadith from Sahih Bukhari, narrated by Ayesha, which says, they went out to make hajj, at certain point Ayesha received her menses, and when prophet approached her, she was crying, and he asked her is that because of her menses, he said this condition is for all the daughters of Adam and he said that do all of the rituals of Hajj except tawaaf until you are purified.
It reflects upon the major harat and not the minor harat.
There is also a narration in both Bukhari and Muslim in which Safiyan wife of the prophet received her menses during the final hajj of the prophet and he said, is she going to delay us. And he was informed that she had already performed tawaaf and then he said let us go. (Here the implication is that she had performed her tawaaf before the menses)
Evidence for second opinion
Hadith recorded by Tirmiddhi, this is the hadith mentioned by Syed Sabbiq which says that tawaaf is kind of prayer, except that Allah swt has made it permissible to speak during tawaaf.
This is most likely statement of ibn Abbas. This is the opinion of many scholars including Taymiyyah, Al Nawawi.
Some scholars object to it, because when you compare it to prayer and have only exception, when in fact there are many differences. Just to highlight would mean that this is not a statement of the prophet.
There is another hadith that Al Albani says that is sahih, which simply says tawaaf is kind of salat so therefore reduce the amount of speech. It is recorded by Tabarani from ibn Abbas. Syed Sabbiq says this is sahih.
Salat after Tawaaf - Two rakaat after the tawaaf. Is this a good argument. The prayer is sunnah, so how can you make something obligatory based on a sunnan act following the tawaaf, according to Kamran, a student in the class.
In Quran, when Allah swt describes when Ibrahim built the kaaba and he is commanded to purify the house for ..... and then it is said to make two rakaat.
ibn Abu Darr, ibn Abu Rashd, and An Nawawi claim that there is ijmaa that you should be free of major harat for Tawaaf.
Question about women in the menses should not perform tawaaf. There is ijmaa among the scholars.
If wudu was a prerequisite for tawaaf, the prophet would have explained it properly and the sahaaba would have preserved this knowledge. Statement of ibn Qayyum and his student.
What do you think about the absence of conveying important message?
When the prophet made the hajj, there were many new muslims and we have no report of commanding or asking anybody to perform wudu before tawaaf.
Salaat has tuhur as pre-requisite or obligation or key. Takbeer marks the beginning of the prayer and tasleem represents the end of the prayer.And then there are other differences among salat and tawaaf such as eating, drinking, laughing etc.
Ibn Taymiyyah claims that there is no evidence that wudu is required for tawaaf.
Hadith recorded by .... : Prophet relived himself and then a meal was brought to him, then somebody said you did not make wudu, the prophet replied why should I, I am not intending to pray right now.
Ibn Taymiyyah understands from this wudu is necessary for salat and not for anything else
Ibn Shayba asked .... about person who makes tawaaf without tahara and he said that there is nothing wrong.
Wudu is sunnah because we know from the hadith of Ayesha that the prophet made wudu before performing tawaaf.
What should a woman do if she has plane reservations for her departure and she is in her menses? Should she perform tawaaf?
One opinion is that tawaaf in such state is not valid - Maliki, Shafiee, well known opinion among Hanafis
Second opinion is that being free from menses is not a shurut, however it is obligatory to sacrifice an animal. Opinion of Hanafi and Imam Ahmad. They differ whether it should be a camel or a sheep.
Last opinion is that if she is not able to be in the state of tahara, then she should go ahead and perform tawaaf, Ibn Taymiyyah says because of the state of necessity, it is beyond her control and she does not have to perform sacrifice. This is the most reasoned opinion according to Sheikh Jamaal Zarabozo.
The evidence for sacrificing animal is from the fiqh of Hajj, if you do not fulfill any obligatory act of hajj then you have to sacrifice an animal.