The Proofs that Touching A Woman Breaks Wudu'

63 Comments

1. 

   abdullah al-marbuqi - September 2, 2009

   السلام عليكم ورحمة الله

   Regarding the authenticity of hadith sayyidah Aishah ummul mu’minin radiya Allah ‘anha, here there is a detail reply from Maulana Taha hafizahu Allah ta’ala.

   Aside from Imam Shafi‘i the authenticity of this hadith has been called into question by a number of eminent muhaddithin, both on the basis of the identity of the ‘Urwah who narrates the hadith from Sayyidah ‘A’ishah radiyallahu ‘anha, at times on grounds of a problem with continuity in the chain between the narrator Habib ibn Abi Thabit and ‘Urwah. Many of the muhaddithin were of the opinion that this ‘Urwah is not the famous ‘Urwah ibn al-Zubayr, the nephew and pupil of Sayyidah ‘A’ishah, but an unknown person known as ‘Urwah al-Muzani; and quite a few were of the persuasion that Habib did not hear this hadith from ‘Urwah. It has even been suggested by some experts that one of the narrators confused the hadith of kissing not invalidating the fast, with kissing not invalidating wudu. Here follows a list of hadith critics and their criticism against this hadith:

   al-Bukhari: His student al-Tirmidhi states: I heard Muhammad ibn Isma‘il [al-Bukhari] declaring this hadith as weak. He said: Habib ibn Abi Thabit [one of the narrators in the chain] did not hear [hadith] from [his purported source] ‘Urwah. (Jami‘ al-Tirmidhi no. 86)

   Yahya ibn Sa‘id al-Qattan: He denounced two of Habib ibn Abi Thabit’s narrations as “akin to nothing”. This hadith one of the two. (cited by Abu Dawud, al-Sunan no’s. 179-180)

   al-Tirmidhi: After narrating the hadith he states: Our companions (i.e. the scholars of hadith) have abandoned the hadith of ‘A’ishah on this issue because it is not authentic due to the state of its chain of narration. (Jami‘ al-Tirmidhi no. 86)

   Yahya ibn Ma‘in: When asked by his pupil ‘Abbas al-Duri about the status of Habib ibn Abi Thabit he declared him as a reliable narrator, but pointed at two of his ahadith as defective. One of the two is this hadith. (cited by al-Bayhaqi, Ma‘rifat al-Sunan wal-Athar vol. 1 p. 216, al-Dhahabi, Siyar A‘lam al-Nubala vol. 5 p. 290, and al-Mizzi, Tahdhib al-Kamal vol. 5 p. 362)

   Abu Hatim al-Razi: Ibn Abi Hatim states: I heard my father say: The hadith of ‘A’ishah on not making wudu due to kissing, i.e. the hadith of al-A‘mash from Habib from ‘Urwah, is not authentic. (Ibn Abi Hatim, al-‘Ilal no. 110)

   Sufyan al-Thawri: This hadith was mentioned to Yahya ibn Sa‘id, and he said: Sufyan al-Thawri amongst all men knew this matter best. He claimed that Habib did not hear any [hadith] from ‘Urwah. (cited by al-Daraqutni, al-Sunan vol. 1 p. 139) He also stated that the ‘Urwah from whom Habib narrates the hadith is not ‘Urwah ibn al-Zubayr, but the unknown ‘Urwah al-Muzani. (cited by Abu Dawud, al-Sunan no’s. 179-180)

   al-Daraqutni: In his Sunan Imam al-Daraqutni points out the defects of all the various versions of the hadith. He also points out how the hadith of invalidating fasting came to be confused with the hadith of invalidating wudu. (al-Daraqutni, al-Sunan vol. 1 pp. 135-145)

   al-Bayhaqi: After pointing out the defects in the chain of the hadith he states that the authentic version of the hadith concerns the invalidation of fasting, but that some unreliable narrators reshaped it into the invalidation of wudu. He also states that had the hadith about invalidating fasting been authentic, he would certainly have followed it. (al-Bayhaqi, al-Sunan al-Kubra vol. 1 pp. 126-127)

   Reply
2. 

   abdullah al-marbuqi - September 2, 2009

   DIVIDED OPINION

   The above does not mean, however, that there has been consensus upon the weakness of the hadith. Other experts (eg. Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr) were of the opinion that the hadith is passably authentic. Serious students of the subject would know that the process of authentication does not always lead to clear and unambiguous outcomes. While it is quite true that it often yields an unequivocal result, either of authenticity or otherwise, it is equally true that there sometimes ensues a situation of divided opinion, with some scholars accepting, and some rejecting authenticity. The present hadith happens to be one such case.

   The difficulty of passing decisive and unambiguous judgement on the authenticity of this particular hadith can well be gauged from the fact that even the late Shaykh al-Albani fell victim to equivocation on the issue. In his Da‘if Sunan Abi Dawud (p.16) he lists the hadith as unauthentic; while in Sahih Sunan Abi Dawud (p. 36) and Da‘if Sunan al-Tirmidhi (no.75) he takes the diametrically opposite view. One cannot help wondering how the good doctor was able to make an absolutely decisive judgement on this hadith when even al-Albani appears to have been unsure.

   CONTRADICTION

   From the aforementioned it becomes clear that the charge of contradicting the hadith which is leveled against Imam al-Shafi‘i is based upon nothing but blind acceptance of one opinion in a disputed case. Imam al-Shafi‘i was most certainly aware of the hadith, but like al-Bukhari, al-Tirmidhi, Sufyan al-Thawri, Abu Hatim al-Razi, Yahya ibn Sa‘id and others, he was not convinced of its authenticity, and therefore he made a conscious and informed decision not to employ it to restrict the generality of Allah’s words in the verse of wudu: or you touched women. (5:6) Thus, in step with eminent fuqaha of the Sahabah such as Sayyiduna ‘Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud and Sayyiduna ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar radiyallahu ‘anhum, he asserted that this verse covers even a man’s act of kissing his wife, and as such this act would render his wudu invalid.

   Reply
3. 

   tru_Qur'an - December 19, 2009

   just to add….

   In Umdatul Salik it says on page # 72, section Purification,

   CONTACT OF MAN AND WOMAN’S SKIN

   e7.3 The third cause of minor ritual impurity is when any, no matter how little, of the two skins of a man and woman touch(N: husband or wife, for example) when they are not each other’s unmarriagable kin (Ar.mahram, def:m6), even if they touch without sexual desire, or unintentionally, and even if with tongue or a nonfunctional or surplus limb; though touching does not include contact with teeth, nails, hair, or a severed limb.

   Ablution is also nullified by touching an aged person or a corpse (N: of the opposite sex) but not by touching a member of one’s unmarriagble kin, or a child who is younger than the age that usually evokes sexual interest.

   One’s ablution is not nullified when one is uncertain about:

   1. whether one touched a male or a female;
   2. whether one touched hair or skin;
   3. or whether the person one touched was of one’s marriagable kin or not.

   [End Quote]

   ..if touching took place with a BARRIER in between, then wudu is still intact and is not nullified.

   Reply
4. 

   Hasan - December 21, 2009

   Assalamu Alaikum

   Albani does not contradict himself on this issue. He puts both the mursal hadith of Ibrahim at Taimiyy and Urwah’s hadith in his Sahih Sunan At Tirmidhi and Sahih Sunan Abi Dawud. Not that his opinion matters though, but I thought that it should be noted that he did not vacillate on this matter.+

   Reply
5. 

   Hasan - April 16, 2010

   Assalamu Alaikum

   I was watching a video of the Pseudo Salafi Bilal Philips, who said that some Shafi’i scholars were asked what to do in Hajj since one would consistently be touching a woman and losing wudu. According to him, those Shafi’i scholars replied that they should say “labbayk allahumma hajjan hanafiyyan.”

   Philips did not give any reference, saying vaguely that some “Shafi’i scholars” said that. He is trying to prove that switching over from maddhab when one desires is permissible. Does anyone know the veracity of such a statement? Did any Shafi’i scholar state such a thing?

   Reply
6. 

   MOHAMED - May 24, 2010

   SALAAMS

   MAY ALLAH REWARD YOU FOR YOUR WORK. IM A FOLLOWER OF THE SHAFI MATHAB AND WOULD LIKE KNOW IF MY WIFE WOULD BE TERMED AS MY MAHRAM IN THE CASE OF “The third (nullifier of wudhu’) is the touching of skin by a man and a woman, except for the mahram (permanently unmarriageable persons; example – Mother) according to the strongest opinion” IF NOT,ARE THERE MULTIPLE DEFINITIONS FOR THE WORD MAHRAM?
   IF THERE ARE,PLEASE INFORM ME AND ALSO IN WHICH CIRCUMSTANCES ARE THEY APPLICABLE?
   SHUKRAN

   Reply
7. 

   Abul Layth - May 24, 2010

   Salamu ‘alaykum,

   Your wife is “marriageable” and not of the “unmarriageable” to you brother, hence you married her :). Touching her does break your wudu’. So what is referred to here are those individuals who either by blood, or by breastfeeding, are related to you. Yes, your wife is your mahram, but not by blood or by breastfeeding, only through the contract of Marriage.

   Reply
8. 

   Asim - May 25, 2010

   Wa salam u alaikum

   1.

   I don’t think anybody with sound reasoning would argue that ‘touching’ can literally mean ‘touching’.

   2.

   The real issue, is why should one construe touching ‘literally’ in the above verses as opposed to ‘idiomatically’, meaning ‘coitus’. To establish literal usage from hadith ascribed to the Prophet (S) regarding the case of adultery is really not relevant to the argument. It is common sensical to understand that in this particular situation, the Prophet (S) was comparing ‘touching’ or ‘fondling’, however one wants to define it, in contrast to sexual intercourse, meaning the language itself points to what the usage for ‘touching’ is. It is in only one situation where the above article tries to address the linguistic proof:

   “What is their proof that “lamastum – contact” means with the hand? Firstly, the Shafi’is recite this without the elongation of the Alif after the lam. So it is recited as: لمستم (lamastum). The literal meaning alludes to the touch that is less than coitus. Both recitations are reported authentically.”

   I am really confused by the reasoning, because based upon the same premises provided in the above argument regarding the ‘linguistic aspect’, the Shafii’s should construe verses of surah Baqarah, verses 236 and 237, as ‘physically touching by hand’ as well. No scholars from any age, including the Shafii, as far as I am aware, have taken these directives regarding divorce as related to what happens when one physically touches with one’s hand a woman one has just married, as opposed to having sexual intercourse. This respective point is not taken into account above, so I am assuming the Shafii’s haven’t necessarily taken it into consideration, as far as this particular argument is concerned.

   3.

   Further, the narrations ascribed to the Companions seem to be preferred to statements attributed directly to the Prophet (S). Are not the Shafii’s violating the very principles of their own methodology?

   Reply
9. 

   Hasan - May 25, 2010

   Assalamu Alaikum Akhi Asim,

   You seem to have misunderstood the proofs Sidi Abul Layth posted above. The point that he was trying to make when mentioning that the Prophet said اليد زناها اللمسis that the word “lams” can be used both in the literal and figurative sense, and that is shown by the fact that the Prophet did use it literally. No one is denying that it can be used to mean coitus, as there are many instances in the Quran where Allah uses it in the figurative sense: Surah Maryam, Allah says قَالَتْ أَنَّى يَكُونُ لِي غُلَامٌ وَلَمْ يَمْسَسْنِي بَشَرٌ
   where Maryam expresses surprise that she can have a son when she has not been ‘touched’ by a man.” However, Allah does use the word literally as well: in Surah Ali Imran, verse 24:

   ذَلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ قَالُوا لَنْ تَمَسَّنَا النَّارُ إِلَّا أَيَّامًا مَعْدُودَاتٍ

   “That is because they say that the fire will not touch us except for a few days.”

   Here the term is used literally. So it is shown that the word can be used literally and figuratively.

   The reason that the Shafi’i jurists have preferred the literal definition is that they consider the hadith where the Prophet touched one of his wives without redoing his wudu to be weak, or even if correct, abrogated. As for the sahih hadith, there is no proof that there was direct contact between the Prophet and his wives, since there could have been a barrier in between. So in reality, according to Shafi’i usul (juristic principles), there is no hadith attributed to the Prophet that supports “lams” being figurative that is sahih. Therefore, they rely on the statements of Companions–which are sahih. Rest assured that the Shafi’i maddhab is correct according to its usul, and the Shafi’i jurists and are not violating their own methodology, as has been verified by thousands of Shafi’i fuqaha and muhaddithin. Do you really think it is possible that you discovered something that the all the Shafi’i jurists failed to take into consideration?

   Reply
10. 

    Asim - May 25, 2010

    Wa salaam u alikum,

    Brother, I don’t believe I did misunderstand it. I acknowledge that the Shafii position, as well as other positions besides the Shafii, hold it can be used ‘idiomatically’ as well as literally.

    My points were the following:

    1.

    To argue the position of touching from a hadith which clearly constrasts coitus with ‘touching’ is really irrelevant to the argument, because in such cases it is clear that touching can only refer to fondling, otherwise the very comparison between the act with sexual intercourse would be absurd in the hadith attributed to the Prophet (S). Nobody that holds an opinion contrary to the Shafii’s denies this point.

    2.

    Refer once again to the following words:

    “What is their proof that “lamastum – contact” means with the hand? Firstly, the Shafi’is recite this without the elongation of the Alif after the lam. So it is recited as: لمستم (lamastum). The literal meaning alludes to the touch that is less than coitus. Both recitations are reported authentically.”

    The above argument is not related to hadith, but is purely a LINGUISTIC ARGUMENT.

    The idea that WITHOUT ELONGATION of the alif after the lam renders the ‘lamastum’ to “a touch that is less than coitus” does not seem to be with proof, BASED UPON VERSES 236 and 237 OF SURAH BAQARAH. There is no elongation in the respective verses, and every single scholar acknowledges that this ‘touch’ refers to sexual intercourse. How can one call this proof, when other verses of the Quran establish otherwise?

    3.

    Further, in all the verses your provided above, the idiomatic or literal usage is not established by any hadith, it is established from the context itself. Whenever the Quran refers to touching of a woman by a man, it is always in the context of sexual intercourse. The issue of fire touching the Israelites is clearly a case of literal touching.

    4.

    The actual hadith is the following:

    ‘A’isha reported: One night I missed Allah ’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) from the bed, and when I sought him my hand touched the SOLES OF HIS FEET while he was in the state of prostration; they (feet) were raised and he was saying:” O Allah , I seek refuge in Thy pleasure from Thy anger, and in Thy forgiveness from Thy punishment, and I seek refuge in Thee from Thee (Thy anger). I cannot reckon Thy praise. Thou art as Thou hast lauded Thyself.” Sahih Muslim Book #4, Hadith #986

    It is clear that the Prophet (S) was in a state of prostration, with he feet raised. What barrier is there, in the privacy of one’s home? Does a person search for another like this, with gloves on?

    By viokating their own methodology, I mean that sayings ATTRIBUTED to Companions, if they can be at all, which I doubt, are preferred over the hadeeth?

    Reply
11. 

    Asim - May 25, 2010

    The onus of the ‘touching’ between the Prophet (S) and Aisha (R) with something between them would be on those that hold otherwise, because such type of touching in the house, searching for a person, while in the bed, is commonly held in everyday speech to be the same literal touching, the Shafii is arguing against.

    Reply
12. 

    Asim - May 25, 2010

    From another linguistic point:

    The ‘touching of women’ isn’t about wudhu in the verse anyways, it is referring to when tayammum can be performed. It seems Sexual intercourse is mentioned particularly, because the reader may get the impression that tayammum would be different for the person who was in janabah. The reason for this inference is because, in a case where there is water, he/she has to perform a full bathe, as stipulated in the beginning portion of the verse, instead of a normal wudhu.

    A man came to ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab and said, “I became Junub but no water was available.” ‘Ammar bin Yasir said to ‘Umar, “Do you remember that you and I (became Junub while both of us) were together on a journey and you didn’t pray but I rolled myself on the ground and prayed? I informed the Prophet about it and he said, ‘It would have been sufficient for you to do like this.’ The Prophet then stroked lightly the earth with his hands and then blew off the dust and passed his hands over his face and hands.”

    Narrated ‘Abdur Rahman bin Abza:

    ‘Ammar said to ‘Umar “I rolled myself in the dust and came to the Prophet who said, ‘Passing dusted hands over the face and the backs of the hands is sufficient for you.’ “

    Reply
13. 

    Hasan - May 25, 2010

    Wa ‘alaikum assalam

    1. I don’t think that the argument is irrelevant, since it establishes that “lams” can mean touching with the hand. And this is the opinion of Ibn ‘Umar, ‘Umar ibn Al-Khattāb, Abdullah ibn Mas’ūd.

    أَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو عَبْدِ اللَّهِ الْحَافِظُ وَأَبُو سَعِيدِ بْنُ أَبِى عَمْرٍو قَالاَ حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو الْعَبَّاسِ : مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَعْقُوبَ حَدَّثَنَا إِبْرَاهِيمُ بْنُ مَرْزُوقٍ حَدَّثَنَا عُثْمَانُ بْنُ عُمَرَ عَنْ شُعْبَةَ عَنْ مُخَارِقٍ عَنْ طَارِقِ بْنِ شِهَابٍ أَنَّ عَبْدَ اللَّهِ يَعْنِى ابْنَ مَسْعُودٍ قَالَ فِى قَوْلِهِ تَعَالَى (أَوْ لاَمَسْتُمُ النِّسَاءَ) قَوْلاً مَعْنَاهُ مَا دُونَ الْجِمَاعِ

    Ibn Mas’ud said, “‘or if touching a woman’” means what is less than intercourse.

    Imam Shafi’i reports that Abdullah ibn ‘Umar held the same opinion, with the chain Malik from ibn Shihab as Zuhri from Salim from his father Abdullah ibn ‘Umar. You cast aspersion on the fact that these statements were actually those of the Companions (“I mean that sayings ATTRIBUTED to Companions, if they can be at all”), but this sanad is one of the strongest of all isnad.Indeed some muhaddithin, such as Ahmad ibn Hanbal, consider Malik from ibn Shihab from Salim from Ibn Umar to be the strongest chain in all ahadith.

    2. You said that in Surah Baqarah, lams is not elongated, but it is! The letter waw in “tamassuhunna” is a letter of elongation, just as an alif is. Do you think that somehow the Shafi’i grammarians overlooked this point?

    3. No one is denying that “lams” can mean intercourse; the question is what it means in this context. You said that in the Qur’an, whenever lams is mentioned with respect to women, it means intercourse. But how many examples are there in the Qur’an that you are using to prove your point? Three? Four? Certainly not enough to establish conclusively that whenever used with respect to women, lams means intercourse. Whereas the hadith literature is filled with instances where the Prophet used lams with respect to women literally. Don’t get me wrong. As Ibn Rushd mentions in Bidayat al Mujtahid, the Kufan linguists felt that lams in this context did mean it figuratively. But the point is that there is ikhtilaf, and for thousands of years, our a’immah have tolerated this ikhtilaf.

    4. It is possible that A’isha touched the Prophet without a barrier. Indeed, as you mentioned, it might even be probable, since what are the chances that she had a glove on in the middle of the night (although the Prophet might have been wearing socks). However, it makes no difference to the Shafi’i position. As Hafiz Ibn Hajar mentions in Fath, if there actually was touching without a barrier, then this took place before the verse in Surah Ma’idah was revealed, and the hadith is abrogated.

    Remember that the Shafi’i position is correct according to its usul. Don’t question that. If Imam Shafi’i or some of the earlier jurists made an error, then the later jurists would have corrected it. That does not mean that the Hanafi position is any less strong, according to their usul. There are authentic athar that prove that Abdullah ibn Abbas’s position was that lams is intercourse. They have mursal hadith which prove that as well, but mursal hadith are not accepted by the Shafi’is whereas it is accepted by the Hanafis. The bottomline is that both the two, indeed all the maddhahib, including the defunct maddhahib, are correct according to their usul.

    Reply
14. 

    Asim - May 26, 2010

    1.

    “You said that in Surah Baqarah, lams is not elongated, but it is! The letter waw in “tamassuhunna” is a letter of elongation, just as an alif is. Do you think that somehow the Shafi’i grammarians overlooked this point?”

    That is not the elongation of the LA. Take the following example from the very same ayahs, regarding the verb divorced. In surah Baqarah 236, Allah states:

    talAqtumun al-Nisa

    In the very next verse, 237, Allah states:

    talAqtumoo huna

    The former is on the same pattern as the respective verse in surah Maidah, while the latter is on the same pattern, as “touching women” in verse 236 of surah Baqarah. They BOTH have the same meaning. It is the pronoun, in this case, that determines this elongation with the ‘wa’. The same is the case with ‘wa mati A’oo huna, or “provide for them”.

    2.

    “I don’t think that the argument is irrelevant, since it establishes that “lams” can mean touching with the hand.”

    What I mean by irrelevant, is that one already knows that lams can refer to touching literally, however one wnats to define it, or figuratively. Confirming the usage from hadith doesn’t bring anyything more to the table regarding the argument. The issue is how does one determine whether it is used figuratively or literally in the Quran or hadith. It is the same point as when you stated, “No one is denying that “lams” can mean intercourse; the question is what it means in this context.”

    3.

    “But how many examples are there in the Qur’an that you are using to prove your point? Three? Four? Certainly not enough to establish conclusively that whenever used with respect to women, lams means intercourse. Whereas the hadith literature is filled with instances where the Prophet used lams with respect to women literally.”

    It is enough to show that the Quran uses it in this context. Your argument regarding the Prophet (S) would have validity, if the Prophet (S) himself affirmed that this particular Quranic verse, when referring to touching, literally meant touching. Those hadith, as I pointed out, clearly point to literal usage, so to take this to the Quran is not valid, because the style of usage between the statements attributed to the Prophet (S) and the Quran are different.

    4.

    Aisha (R) specified the soles of the feet, and again, the hadith is actually referring to when TAYAMMUM CAN BE MADE, meaning the occasion of revelation would not have anything to do with an injunction regarding touching the women.

    5.

    I would like to point out another point, and that is, “coming from offices of nature” is actually an idiomatic phrase as well…

    Reply
15. 

    Abul Layth - May 26, 2010

    Aisha (R) specified the soles of the feet, and again, the hadith is actually referring to when TAYAMMUM CAN BE MADE, meaning the occasion of revelation would not have anything to do with an injunction regarding touching the women.

    How would the hadith be referring to tayyammum? It has no mention within it of such! The occasion of revelation is necessary in order to prove that it is not abrogated by the verse of the Qur’an in the Shafi’i view. The ahadith brought forth above show that the Nabi ‘alayhis salam used Lams to refer to what is less than intercourse. What does this do?

    1) It proves that such was the usage amongst the early arabs.

    2) It lends credence to the many authentic aathaar from Umar, Ibn Umar, and Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud that the intended meaning in this verse is what is less than intercourse. The proof lays within the aayah as well as sexual defilement was mentioned prior under “junub”, whereas after it all of the named were matters of hadath al-asghar not hadath al-akbar. Your attempt to point out allegorical phrases means nothing, because:

    1) وَإِن كُنتُم مَّرْضَى أَوْ عَلَى سَفَرٍ

    Is not allegorical

    2) يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ إِذَا قُمْتُمْ إِلَى الصَّلاةِ فاغْسِلُواْ وُجُوهَكُمْ وَأَيْدِيَكُمْ إِلَى الْمَرَافِقِ وَامْسَحُواْ بِرُؤُوسِكُمْ وَأَرْجُلَكُمْ إِلَى الْكَعْبَينِ

    is not allegorical

    3) فَلَمْ تَجِدُواْ مَاء فَتَيَمَّمُواْ صَعِيداً طَيِّباً فَامْسَحُواْ بِوُجُوهِكُمْ وَأَيْدِيكُم مِّنْهُ مَا يُرِيدُ اللّهُ لِيَجْعَلَ عَلَيْكُم مِّنْ حَرَجٍ وَلَـكِن يُرِيدُ لِيُطَهَّرَكُمْ وَلِيُتِمَّ نِعْمَتَهُ عَلَيْكُمْ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَشْكُرُونَ

    is not allegorical.

    So there are more times within the verse that non-allegory is used; furthermore, when using ghaa’it amongst the ‘arabs it is understand literally as the toilet. In the Qamus you will see it to mean literally ‘toilet’.

    Your argument, in our view, is thus futile, and the reliance upon the righteous Sahabah in their understanding, as well as the usage of the Nabi ‘alayhis salam.

    was-salam
    Abu Layth

    Reply
16. 

    Asim - May 26, 2010

    Wa salaam,

    1.

    Sorry Brother, I meant to say the portion that relates specifically to ‘touching the womenin in the Quranic verse is referring to when tayammum can be made, not the conditions of wudhu. This was clear in my previous post, when I stated the following:

    “The ‘touching of women’ isn’t about wudhu in the verse anyways, it is referring to when tayammum can be performed. It seems Sexual intercourse is mentioned particularly, because the reader may get the impression that tayammum would be different for the person who was in janabah. The reason for this inference is because, in a case where there is water, he/she has to perform a full bathe, as stipulated in the beginning portion of the verse, instead of a normal wudhu.”

    How can ibn Hajr claim that the Quranic verse was abrogating the injunction that touching women does not invalidate wudhu from a verse which specifies when tayammum can be made?

    2.

    “So there are more times within the verse that non-allegory is used; furthermore, when using ghaa’it amongst the ‘arabs it is understand literally as the toilet. In the Qamus you will see it to mean literally ‘toilet’.”

    1.

    AN idiom constitutes a WHOLE phrase, not just a word. The idiom means “coming from the toilet”.

    2.

    Literally coming from a toilet does not break wudhu, it is actually answering the call of nature, which is an English idiom, that breaks the wudhu.

    As is obvious, even in the case when wudhu is mentioned IN REGARDS TO TAYAMMUM, idiomatic usage is established.

    “1) It proves that such was the usage amongst the early arabs.”

    We don’t need to prove it, nor do we need to prove idiomatic usage. Everybody recognizes that both exists in the language.

    Reply
17. 

    Asim - May 26, 2010

    Wa salaam,

    1.

    This should read:

    Sorry Brother, I meant to say the portion that relates specifically to ‘touching the women” IN THE QURANIC VERSE is referring to when tayammum can be made, not the conditions of wudhu. This was clear in my previous post, when I stated the following:

    Reply
18. 

    Asim - May 26, 2010

    Further, I have heard that one of the arguments from the UMM for literally touching is that junb is first mentioned, followed by wudhu, and then the lams. Because the lams is closer to the wudhu, it is referring to litreally touching, as opposed to ejaculation.

    The reason I mention this argument, IF THE OPINION IS CORRECT, this is two-fold:

    1.

    You stated the following:

    “So there are more times within the verse that non-allegory is used;”

    The Umm does not mention the amount of times things are stated non-allegorically, but used the fact that LAMS is closer to the GHAITH than JANABAT.

    2.

    This argument from UMM in itself is weak, because these directives regarding “coming from the bathroom” and “touching women” are about tayammum. Of course it is going to come right next to “coming from the bathroom”.

    Reply
19. 

    Asim - May 26, 2010

    “Your argument, in our view, is thus futile, and the reliance upon the righteous Sahabah in their understanding, as well as the usage of the Nabi ‘alayhis salam.”

    Again, this is why I made the comment regarding the violation of one’s own methodology.

    Not a single statement of the Prophet (S) establishes that ‘touching’ IN THIS PARTICULAR VERSE refers to physically touching, or sexual intercourse for that matter. All the hadeeth above, only establish the word can be used literally.

    The only real evidence one has, is the hadith about Aisha touching the Prophet (S) while praying, and he (S) did not perform wudhu.

    This leaves us with statements attributed to Companions (R), which, according to my understanding, cannot be taken as authoritative in the school, but you would obviously know better.

    Reply
20. 

    Abul Layth - May 26, 2010

    The statements of companions, particularly the four Caliphs that were rightly guided (and here ‘Umar is referred to), is a hujjah according to many of the Shafi’iyin.

    The proof, specifically for the rightly guided Caliphs comes from the Hasan hadith of the Prophet Muhammad ‘alayhis salam where he stated, “Be upon my sunnah and the sunnah of the khulafa’ Ar-Rashidin” [Sunan At-Tirmidhi]

    This argument from UMM in itself is weak, because these directives regarding “coming from the bathroom” and “touching women” are about tayammum. Of course it is going to come right next to “coming from the bathroom”.

    I agree that it is “of course” going to come after “relieving one’s self” as both are hadath al-asghar.

    You stated the following:
    “So there are more times within the verse that non-allegory is used;”
    The Umm does not mention the amount of times things are stated non-allegorically, but used the fact that LAMS is closer to the GHAITH than JANABAT.

    I stated such, and I certainly believe it is an irrelevant point, because you attempted to seek as a secondary point to your argument that coming from the gha’it was “allegorical”, which it is to some extent, but does not necessitate or even require that the speaker then use allegory for Lamastum an-nisaa’. So in our view, such a point is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

    Reply
21. 

    Abul Layth - May 26, 2010

    I should point out that the Hanbalis, as voiced by Ibn Rajab Al-Hanbali, also hold that the authentic statement of the four Caliphs are a proof in the law [Jami' Al-'Ulum wal-Hikam].

    A proof also within the authentic Sunnah of the Nabi ‘alayhis salam is the hadith reported by Tirmidhi and Imam Ahmad (r) by way of Hudhayfa (radiya Allahu ‘anhu),

    “Truly I know not the remaining extent of my stay among you, so take for your leader the two that come after me Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, follow ‘Ammar’s guidance, and whatever Ibn Mas’ud narrates to you believe it!”

    A proof regarding ‘Umar ibn Al-Khattab (r) is within the authentic Hadith of the Nabi ‘alayhis salam,

    “Allah has engraved truth upon the tongue of Umar and within his heart!” [Tirmidhi; Hasan Sahih Gharib, Ibn Hibban ; Arna'ut's edition saying it is Hasan, by Abu Dharr Al-Ghifari in the Musnad of Imam Ahmad ; Arna'ut said Hasan chain, by Abu Hurayrah with a by Imam Ahmad and Ibn Hibban (arna'ut again declaring a Hasan chain), from Bilal and Mu'awiya in At-Tabarani as well]

    Reply
22. 

    Asim - May 26, 2010

    “I stated such, and I certainly believe it is an irrelevant point, because you attempted to seek as a secondary point to your argument that coming from the gha’it was “allegorical”, which it is to some extent, but does not necessitate or even require that the speaker then use allegory for Lamastum an-nisaa’. So in our view, such a point is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.”

    1.

    It is not a secondary point in establishing the ‘figurative’ usage, it is a point which establishes that idiomatic usage exists in this same verse, when referring to using the bathroom.

    “The statements of companions, particularly the four Caliphs that were rightly guided (and here ‘Umar is referred to), is a hujjah according to many of the Shafi’iyin.”

    1.

    Whether or not this is correct, I was referring to statements attributed to Companions IN LIGHT OF STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO THE PROPHET (S).

    Just to make some other points:

    “Truly I know not the remaining extent of my stay among you, so take for your leader the two that come after me Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, follow ‘Ammar’s guidance, and whatever Ibn Mas’ud narrates to you believe it!”

    1. Ammar is said to have rubbed his body in dust in a state of JANABAH, and when going to the Prophet (S), the Prophet (S) simply told him to perform tayammum, which would actually provide more support for the Quranic verse in Maidah as referring to “sexual intercourse”.

    2.

    Ibn Masud (R) is not narrating a hadith in the above.

    3.

    The Prophet (S) is also reported to have prayed for Abdullah ibn Abbass (R) to be given understanding of the Quran, and he (S) held the opinion, per hadith, that ‘touching’ refers to sexual intercourse. Companions (R) are not infallible in their opinions, even if the opinions attributed to them is correct.

    Reply
23. 

    abdoeragmaan - May 27, 2010

    http://www.duai.co.za/touchingwudhu.shtml

    Reply
24. 

    Abul Layth - May 27, 2010

    Salamu ‘alaykum Brother ‘Asim,

    1.
    It is not a secondary point in establishing the ‘figurative’ usage, it is a point which establishes that idiomatic usage exists in this same verse, when referring to using the bathroom.

    Such does not prove that Lamastumun Nisaa’ is to be used through metaphor though, and that the literal meaning is inapplicable, it is only proof for ‘gha’it’. That is the point I was expressing beloved brother.

    Ammar is said to have rubbed his body in dust in a state of JANABAH, and when going to the Prophet (S), the Prophet (S) simply told him to perform tayammum, which would actually provide more support for the Quranic verse in Maidah as referring to “sexual intercourse”.

    We do not disagree that it lends support to sexual intercourse, as sexual intercourse is touching, and as we have proven before “touching” or “contact” can refer to intercourse as well or even to what is lesser; i.e. kissing, touching with the hand etc, as stated by Ibn Mas’ud, Ibn Umar and Umar (radiya Allahu Anhum ajma’in)! It also lends support to the Shafi’i opinion that tayammum is valid for hadath Al-Asghar which is achieved by touching the non-Mahram. So such an argument does not disprove that “touching” here excludes what is less than intercourse!

    2.
    Ibn Masud (R) is not narrating a hadith in the above.

    The statement of “narrating” is not restricted to hadith from the Nabi (saaws). The Nabi (‘alayhis salam) simply said “narrate”, or it could even mean in the language “to tell”, or “to inform”.

    3.
    The Prophet (S) is also reported to have prayed for Abdullah ibn Abbass (R) to be given understanding of the Quran, and he (S) held the opinion, per hadith, that ‘touching’ refers to sexual intercourse. Companions (R) are not infallible in their opinions, even if the opinions attributed to them is correct.

    _____________________________

    Touching does include sexual intercourse. No one denies this in the Shafi’i madhdhab or elsewhere. Saying that it includes Jimaa’ (intercourse) does not necessitate that it does not exclude what is lesser than it.

    As for the opinion of the beloved Abdullah Ibn ‘Abbas (radiya Allahu ‘anhu), Imam Ad-Daraqutni narrates through a Sahih (authentic) chain that Ibn ‘Abbas said, “There is not from Kissing, the [necessity of] wudu’” [505 of The Sunan]

    The Shafi’is, as displayed by Imam Al-Bayhaqi and Ad-Daraqutni were not ignorant of the view of Ibn ‘Abbas on this issue. The Shafi’is hold that Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas (radiya Allahu ‘anhu) is mistaken in this position and contradicts Sahabah holding more rank than he in fiqh; namely Amir Al-Mu’minin Umar ibn Al-Khattab – who it is permitted to follow based upon the ahadith we have mentioned above – and this has precedent as well with the early Muslims for it is authentically reported in Al-’Ilal from Imam Ahmad through Ayyub from Ash-Sha’bi who said, ‘see what Muhammad’s community agreed upon for Allah will not make it concur upon misguidance, if they differed then see what Umar ibn Al-Khattab held, then follow it!’ , Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud, and Abdullah ibn ‘Umar – leading the way for the Medinan school of fiqh (radiya Allahu anhum ajma’in). Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas (radiya Allahu ‘anhu) was known to have made mistakes in fiqh, such as holding the view of Muta’ah being permitted [Bukhari 5516, musannaf Abdur Razzaq; 14022], and when more Sahabah of higher rank than he contradict him accordingly, they are to be preferred in opinion, especially when it agrees with the apparent of the Qur’an.

    May Allah bless you and the men before us who disagreed pertaining this issue Amin!

    Reply
25. 

    Asim - May 27, 2010

    “We do not disagree that it lends support to sexual intercourse, as sexual intercourse is touching, and as we have proven before “touching” or “contact” can refer to intercourse as well or even to what is lesser; i.e. kissing, touching with the hand etc, as stated by Ibn Mas’ud, Ibn Umar and Umar (radiya Allahu Anhum ajma’in)! It also lends support to the Shafi’i opinion that tayammum is valid for hadath Al-Asghar which is achieved by touching the non-Mahram. So such an argument does not disprove that “touching” here excludes what is less than intercourse!”

    Wa salaam u alaikum Brother,

    Can you clarify the above, because I may be misunderstanding the argument. Is the above stating that ‘touching’, in verse 5:7, can carry both meanings at the same time, i.e. there is nothing to restrict the meaning to literal or figurative?

    “Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas (radiya Allahu ‘anhu) was known to have made mistakes in fiqh, such as holding the view of Muta’ah being permitted.”

    If such a case equivalent, per your school. The differences regarding muta, per the hadeeth books, is whether or not the Prophet (S) prohibited it explicitly. The above case is an issue of language and how the word is used in this particular verse of the Quran?

    May Allah bless you for your time and patience. I surely learned and am learning from this discussion.

    Reply
26. 

    Abul Layth - May 27, 2010

    Salamu ‘Alaykum Br. ‘Asim,

    Can you clarify the above, because I may be misunderstanding the argument. Is the above stating that ‘touching’, in verse 5:7, can carry both meanings at the same time, i.e. there is nothing to restrict the meaning to literal or figurative?

    Lamastum un -Nisa’ or “touching of women” refers to one meaning: “touching”. Through intercourse touching occurs, therefore the verse includes any type of “touching”; therefore brother what I am stating is the verse does include intercourse as intercourse is a type of touching, just as kissing is a type of touching, just as grabbing is a type of touching. The term ‘lamastum/touch’ is a general term that encompasses other ‘types’ of “touch”. That is what I was trying to make clear in the statement above.

    If such a case equivalent, per your school. The differences regarding muta, per the hadeeth books, is whether or not the Prophet (S) prohibited it explicitly. The above case is an issue of language and how the word is used in this particular verse of the Quran?

    The words of ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Abbas (radiya Allahu anhu) are a legal verdict. Re-read the authentic athar again in the Sunan Ad-Daraqutni and you will see that this was his fiqhi opinion, obviously deduced from his interpretation of the Qur’an. What we are saying is that in matters of fiqh, Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas (radiya Allahu ‘anhu) was not superior to the four Caliphs and even other of the Sahabah (radiya Allahu ‘anhum). In this case, the Shafi’is chose to accept Imam Umar, Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud, and Abdullah ibn ‘Umar’s fiqhi verdict as well as explanation of what “touch” refers to in the Qur’anic ayah.

    And as always, Allah ultimately knows best in this affair, and as the four Imams would say, ‘This is what is correct according to our understanding’. In our view, no one incurs sin for not holding our view in this matter, as valid disagreement exists, though we certainly believe the Shafi’i view is stronger.

    was-salam,
    Abu Layth

    Reply
27. 

    Asim - May 28, 2010

    Wa salam u alaikum,

    “That is what I was trying to make clear in the statement above.”

    My point was that the hadith of Ammar actually reveals that mis-understandings could have resulted from how to perform tayammum for a state of hadth al-AKBAR, as opposed to when one is in a state of hadth al-ASGHAR, because the Quran deals differently with the two, WHEN WATER IS AVAILABLE. Again, the Quranic stipulation in 5:7 regarding ‘touching women’ is in the context of when one can perform tayammum, NOT THE CONDITIONS OF WHAT NULLIFIES WUDHU.

    How can one derive an opinion on what nullifies wudhu from a verse that is speaking about when one can perform tayammum?

    Reply
28. 

    Abul Layth - May 28, 2010

    How you ask! Because tayammum is only made for hadath, and whatever involves hadath is a nullifier of Taharah. Hence “touching” is Quranically a nullifier :)

    Reply
29. 

    Asim - May 29, 2010

    So your argument is that the nullifiers of wudhu is derived from a verse regarding tayammum? If such is the case, then, logically, should not one apply this derivation to any form of ‘touching’ women, meaning when one performs sexual intercourse, one only have to perform wudhu?

    I would like to add a different angle to the argument, that doesn’t seem to be noticed by any of the above arguments or the normal arguments of the schools.

    “O ye who believe! when ye prepare for prayer, wash your faces, and your hands (and arms) to the elbows; Rub your heads (with water); and (wash) your feet to the ankles. If ye are in a state of ceremonial impurity, BATHE YOUR WHOLE BODY.”

    The Quran makes two distinctions of the type of washing, wudhu and ghusl, obviously when water IS available.

    After speaking abut ‘illness’ and ‘travelling’, the Quran then refers to “going to the bathroom’ and ‘touching women’, meaning the Quran is clarifying these two conditions of when wudhu and ghusl are required when water IS NOT available.

    Going to the bathroom should be equated to what requires wudhu, while ‘touching women’ should be equated to the state of ‘janabah’.

    And Allah knows best.

    Reply
30. 

    Asim - May 29, 2010

    This would leave the question as to why the Quran doesn’t simply say, when you are unclean perform tayammum…. I would argue that it is in this verse that the Quran stipulates two types of washing, depending upon the hadath. One may surmise that tayammum would require something additional for hadath AL AKBAR, because of this distinction, so the Almighty deemed it fit to clarify that cleanliness for janabah itself can be satisfied by tayammum through the phrase “when you have touched women”.

    This maybe the reason why the verse was revealed, which is why I pointed to the hadith of Ammar. Other variations of the hadith report that Umar (R) was in janabah also, and he (R) did not perform tayammum, while Ammar (R) did, but by rolling around in the dirt.

    Reply
31. 

    Abul Layth - May 29, 2010

    So your argument is that the nullifiers of wudhu is derived from a verse regarding tayammum? If such is the case, then, logically, should not one apply this derivation to any form of ‘touching’ women, meaning when one performs sexual intercourse, one only have to perform wudhu?

    Tayammum is made with the absence of water. It is made for Hadath, whether Akbar or Asghar. Tayammum is thus only made for actions which nullify wudu’ and place one in either hadath al-akbar or hadath al-asghar. “Touching” a female non-mahram, at the most basic level involves nullifying wudu’, entering one into Hadath Al-Asghar. This necessitates wudu’, and if one cannot find water, as Allah says, demands that one make tayammum. As for intercourse, it enters one into the state of Janabah – as the aayah states – which is Hadath Al-Akbar. In the absence of water, tayummum too becomes the substitute, but only as a dispensation. So the question you raise is if one only has to make tayyammum for janabah in the absence of water, why not only make wudu’, and the answer is that such is only done by dispensation from Allah – in the case of no water, whereas the Qur’anic principle laid down regarding Janabah is ghusl, not wudu’. The argument you have raised is ignoring the fact that tayammum is a divine dispensation, and steps outside of what would be “normal” deduction or even analogy. Your argument is thus futile.

    I would like to add a different angle to the argument, that doesn’t seem to be noticed by any of the above arguments or the normal arguments of the schools.
    “O ye who believe! when ye prepare for prayer, wash your faces, and your hands (and arms) to the elbows; Rub your heads (with water); and (wash) your feet to the ankles. If ye are in a state of ceremonial impurity, BATHE YOUR WHOLE BODY.”
    The Quran makes two distinctions of the type of washing, wudhu and ghusl, obviously when water IS available.
    After speaking abut ‘illness’ and ‘travelling’, the Quran then refers to “going to the bathroom’ and ‘touching women’, meaning the Quran is clarifying these two conditions of when wudhu and ghusl are required when water IS NOT available.
    Going to the bathroom should be equated to what requires wudhu, while ‘touching women’ should be equated to the state of ‘janabah’.

    This is simply a restatement of the arguments before. There is no proof for such a view, and we have already shown its weakness in that there is no dalil qati’i to state such. The apparent meaning of “touching” is just that, and there is no dalil to state otherwise in this affair.

    The second part of the question is conjecture. One cannot surmise that more would be needed for tayammum considering such was never stated divinely. None of what you have stated is dalil qati’i.

    The opinion of Umar, Ibn Mas’ud, and Ibn Umar could only have been taught from the Nabi Muhammad (‘alayhis salam). It is therefore, in our view, necessary to the follow Khalifah, and the Imams in this practice, as well as the Thahir of Qur’an, as according to principle the Thahir (apparent) is given precedence unless clear proof is presented to prove otherwise. We believe that no such clear proof exists.

    and Allah always Knows Best,
    was-salam,
    Abu Layth

    Reply
32. 

    Asim - May 30, 2010

    “The argument you have raised is ignoring the fact that tayammum is a divine dispensation, and steps outside of what would be “normal” deduction or even analogy.”

    This was my point regarding your following comment:

    “How you ask! Because tayammum is only made for hadath, and whatever involves hadath is a nullifier of Taharah. Hence “touching” is Quranically a nullifier”

    How do you deduce that touching a women literally nullifies wudhu when the verse is speaking about tayammum? Wudhu itself is a divine dispensation….

    “This is simply a restatement of the arguments before. There is no proof for such a view, and we have already shown its weakness in that there is no dalil qati’i to state such.”

    The point is, contextually there is proof for the view. The Quran is speaking about when wudhu is needed and when ghusl is needed. It is only logical that when the Quran is referring to conditions of tayammum, it is referring to the very same things spoken in that same verse earlier.

    “The opinion of Umar, Ibn Mas’ud, and Ibn Umar could only have been taught from the Nabi Muhammad (‘alayhis salam).”

    ibn Abbass (R) wasn’t aware of it? Wouldn’t they have to ascribe it to the Prophet (S), considering per hadith, the Companions were very stringent in ascribing it to the Prophet (S)?

    Reply
33. 

    Abul Layth - May 30, 2010

    How do you deduce that touching a women literally nullifies wudhu when the verse is speaking about tayammum? Wudhu itself is a divine dispensation….

    We adduce such because tayammum is only needed to remove actions that place one in hadath, and nothing more, therefore it must nullify wudu’. Such would be like asking, “How do you adduce from the verse that defecation nullifies wudu’?” It is because tayammum is only necessary to lift hadath. Wudu’ is the basic command, not the rukhsah brother.

    ibn Abbass (R) wasn’t aware of it? Wouldn’t they have to ascribe it to the Prophet (S), considering per hadith, the Companions were very stringent in ascribing it to the Prophet (S)?

    Ibn ‘Abbas was not aware that the Nabi ‘alayhis salam had forbidden Muta’ah until the day of judgement either. The response to Abdullah Ibn ‘Abbas (radiya Allahu ‘anhu) not knowing of the “touching of a woman nullifying wudu’” is that:

    This verse (5:7) was revealed later on in the lifetime of the Nabi ‘alayhis salam. So for many years touching women did not break wudu’ as no command had been revealed regarding it. It is probable that such was not clarified for Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas (radiya Allahu ‘anhu), just as Muta’ah was not clarified for him.

    Reply
34. 

    Asim - May 31, 2010

    1.

    “We adduce such because tayammum is only needed to remove actions that place one in hadath, and nothing more, therefore it must nullify wudu’. Such would be like asking, “How do you adduce from the verse that defecation nullifies wudu’?” It is because tayammum is only necessary to lift hadath. Wudu’ is the basic command, not the rukhsah brother.”

    I don’t follow. Wudu and GHUSL are the basic commands, not wudhu alone, meaning there are TWO types of hadath being mentioned here. There isn’t just the nullification of wudhu being spoken about, but a situation when wudhu is not enough and ghusl has to be performed. Where is the divine dispensation that tayammum can be performed for ghusl, if the Quran, per your understanding, is arguing that ‘touching women’ refers to the situation of wudhu?

    2.

    “This verse (5:7) was revealed later on in the lifetime of the Nabi ‘alayhis salam. So for many years touching women did not break wudu’ as no command had been revealed regarding it. It is probable that such was not clarified for Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas (radiya Allahu ‘anhu), just as Muta’ah was not clarified for him.”

    So then when was verse 4:43 revealed?

    “O ye who believe! Approach not prayers with a mind befogged, until ye can understand all that ye say,- nor in a state of ceremonial impurity (Except when travelling on the road), until after washing your whole body. If ye are ill, or on a journey, or one of you cometh from offices of nature, or ye have been in contact with women, and ye find no water, then take for yourselves clean sand or earth, and rub therewith your faces and hands. For Allah doth blot out sins and forgive again and again.”

    This verse clearly indicates that the injunctions related to tayammum were revealed at a time when alcohol had not yet been forbidden, meaning it was not relatively late in Medina, in fact, quite early.

    Reply
35. 

    Abul Layth - May 31, 2010

    Salamu ‘alaykum Brother Asim,

    I don’t follow. Wudu and GHUSL are the basic commands, not wudhu alone, meaning there are TWO types of hadath being mentioned here. There isn’t just the nullification of wudhu being spoken about, but a situation when wudhu is not enough and ghusl has to be performed. Where is the divine dispensation that tayammum can be performed for ghusl, if the Quran, per your understanding, is arguing that ‘touching women’ refers to the situation of wudhu?

    The divine rukhsah is found in several of the authentic sayings of the Nabi ‘alayhis salam:

    1) The general words of the Nabi ‘alayhis salam as reported from Hudayfah, “The earth has been made pure for us when we do not find water.” [Sahih Muslim]

    2) The hadith of ‘Ammar ibn Yasaar that you mentioned previously found within the Sahihayn wherein he stated “I was junub”…up until the Nabi ‘alayhis salam taught him tayammum.

    Furthermore, I already stated that Laamastum An-Nisaa “touching women” can possibly include sex, as how does one have sex without touching? Such was mentioned by the Shafi’i, Imam Al-Baghawi as well! Our argument is that it is not restricted to sex and that it INCLUDES what is less than intercourse, keeping inline with the Thahir (literal) meaning of the Qur’an, as such takes precedence – as the principle states: “Thahirul Kitaab Awlaa’”, unless dalil qati’i can be presented otherwise.

    This verse clearly indicates that the injunctions related to tayammum were revealed at a time when alcohol had not yet been forbidden, meaning it was not relatively late in Medina, in fact, quite early.

    Nevertheless, in Medinah, and post non-nullifaction of touch. Our argument still stands unscathed. I should correct the aayah reference, it is 5:6 not 5:7.

    There was another point I wanted to make, and that is in reference to the claim that “Laamastum” is was not recited as “lamastum” – which would even be more clear towards “touching with the hand” as argued by the Shafi’is. Someone had made the claim that such is not the recitation.

    Imam Al-Mawardi in his Tafsir, “An Nukt Wal-’Uyun”, Regarding (4:43):

    أَوْ لاَمَسْتُمُ النِّسَآءَ

    Or the “Laamastumun-Nisa’ (touching of women)”

    فيه قراءتان:

    إحداهما: { لَمَسْتُمُ } بغير ألف، قرأ بها حمزة والكسائي.

    والأخرى: { لاَمَسْتُمُ } ، وهي قراءة الباقين.

    Regarding the recitation of this verse there are two modes:

    1) Lamastum (without the elongation of the alif أ) this was the recitation of Hamzah and Al-Kasa’i.

    2) Laamastum, with the elongation of the alif, and this is the recitation of the rest.”

    And Allah Knows Best,
    was-salam

    Reply
36. 

    abdoeragmaan - June 1, 2010

    Salaams
    With all due respect-from what I know about this site is that it is according to the shafi madhab & it aims at sending the shafi message across. It is nice to voice the opinions of the other madhahib & learn these views. But at this point in time it isn’t necessary as there is a decay in the talab of I’lm as far as shafi’s go, & more greatly in terms of fardh ayn with the general public. So it is senseless to debate this because it isn’t benefitting the shafi’ masses as the website aims to & would create doubts. So could this stop & could the focus shift back to the original niyyah so that the more basic questions could be answered & laymen could benefit.
    Could the brother who is obviously not from our madhab just understand that this is our view, & it is correct according to our methodology, it came under the scrutiny of many great ulamah-greater than all of us put together. I find that you are undermining our ulama who had knowledge of tafseer, linguistics, the study of hadith & usul, some of whom are the forerunners in those fields & others the master of them. So for you to come now after so many years to say that they all read it wrong is ludicrous, baseless & insult. This is our view & that is that-please don’t take offence but the type of impute that doest increase clarity of the issue or questions that don’t bring about understanding are just not important at this time.
    & it wouldn’t make anything fall off anyone if they chose the stricter view, which is ours in this regard- the strictest views almost always cover the stronger view. The debate should go on but I feel that this isn’t the platform.

    Reply
37. 

    Abul Layth - June 1, 2010

    Salamu ‘alaykum beloved Br. abdoeragmaan ,

    It is true that the goal of this site is to forward and support the opinions of our school. Such does not prohibit, or even squelch dissent from our views. We are confident in the views of our school, and our ‘Ulama’ have spent centuries formulating responses to those who challenge the views that we hold. We welcome those who question our views while sincerely seeking to know our methods of arriving to our legal verdicts. I can certainly understand your concerns that you have voiced against “fulan” for disparaging the views of our school, nevertheless, our Imams of old were disparaged as well and they were wise enough to patiently endure what their opponents conjured against them.

    In having discussions such as these, I personally do not believe they should be squelched, as long as proper adab is observed. If one is here to argue about the Book of Allah, without sincere enquiry, then such is prohibited! However, I believe the best of brother ‘Asim in his search for the truth, and I believe he is not here to argue, but to learn.

    The benefit in these discussions can be seen in the fact that what we left out of the articles can later be added, and further points of proof can be extended or even modified so that the students of knowledge can benefit. From this particular discussion I was able to add further points of argumentation of our school to the original article, such as specifically showing the recitation of “Lamastum” – which clearly means contact/touching and does not allude to intercourse – was an established Qira’ah by way of Al-Kasa’i and Khalaf from Hamzah. This point was only briefly alluded to in the original article, and we have expanded upon it in the updated article by adding from the works of tafsir (Qur’anic exegesis).

    What I suppose I am getting at beloved brother is that we should encourage honest discourse and sincere questioning. None of our Imams ever discouraged such, even from the laymen! If people have doubts by the discussion at hand, then they should ask for clarification. Allah says, “Ask the people of Dhikr if you do not know!” He ta’ala encouraged learning and seeking knowledge. One cannot achieve such without asking. These are just my personal thoughts beloved brother, and I mean no offense, and I ask you to forgive any of our shortcomings.

    Jazakum Allahu Khayran,
    was-salam
    أخوك
    Abul Layth

    Reply
38. 

    abdoeragmaan - June 2, 2010

    Salaams

    I just feel that at this point in time there are people stuck in ghaflah & we need eradicate that & spend more time in that. like the imaams who always go on about your beard & the length of your pants during salah but half of the jamah’s salah is batil because the pray in hipsters & the aurah is exposed. we need to concentrate more at what is benificial at this time. there are many questions in response to other articles which are left unanswered & these would be more benificial. when Reading sh Asims posts-it is obvious that he is not agreeing with our view & is trying to proof us wrong instead of just giving his view & moving on, “agreeing to disagree”. This is why other websites have ulama sections-you would lose the person who is just starting out because it seems way too complicated.

    Reply
39. 

    Abul Layth - June 2, 2010

    Wa’alaykum Salam Sidi,

    Well, you may be correct in that some things may seem difficult on the lay people. Unfortunately that is the times we live in. The audience for this site is diverse and includes both students and laymen, so at times we struggle with how much detail we should put in the articles.

    If there are questions in the comments left unanswered it is because they need to be asked through the Q&A form through the website.

    Jazakum Allahu Khayran,
    Abu Layth

    Reply
40. 

    Asim - June 3, 2010

    Wa salaam Abu Layth,

    I hope all is well with you and your family. Can you kindly respond to the following comment I made earlier, which speaks directly to the aboe comment regarding the elongation of the lam. The following comment references surah Baqarah, verses 236-237:

    ”

    ‘You said that in Surah Baqarah, lams is not elongated, but it is! The letter waw in “tamassuhunna” is a letter of elongation, just as an alif is. Do you think that somehow the Shafi’i grammarians overlooked this point?’

    That is not the elongation of the LA. Take the following example from the very same ayahs, regarding the verb divorced. In surah Baqarah 236, Allah states:

    talAqtumun al-Nisa

    In the very next verse, 237, Allah states:

    talAqtumoo huna

    The former is on the same pattern as the respective verse in surah Maidah, while the latter is on the same pattern, as “touching women” in verse 236 of surah Baqarah. They BOTH have the same meaning. It is the pronoun, in this case, that determines this elongation with the ‘wa’. The same is the case with ‘wa mati A’oo huna, or “provide for them”.”

    Reply
41. 

    Asim - June 3, 2010

    “Furthermore, I already stated that Laamastum An-Nisaa “touching women” can possibly include sex, as how does one have sex without touching? Such was mentioned by the Shafi’i, Imam Al-Baghawi as well! Our argument is that it is not restricted to sex and that it INCLUDES what is less than intercourse, keeping inline with the Thahir (literal) meaning of the Qur’an, as such takes precedence – as the principle states: “Thahirul Kitaab Awlaa’”, unless dalil qati’i can be presented otherwise.”

    What does one consider dalil qati’i? Should we also apply this principle to surah 2, verses 236 and 237, based on the above, that what is being referred to is ‘literally’ touching?

    Reply
42. 

    Asim - June 3, 2010

    “The divine rukhsah is found in several of the authentic sayings of the Nabi ‘alayhis salam:”

    I thought we were referring to deriving the command of performing wudhu for literally touching a woman from the QURAN? If we are not, is this not violating the principle of the argument of ibn Hajr, the abrogation of the hadith of Aisha (R) occurred with this Quranic verse? How does one determine from this verse whether one has to perform WUDHU for literally touching a women, when the verse is referring to ‘tayammum’?

    In regards to ghusl, the argument for tayammum is from hadith attributed to the Prophet (S). Where are the sayings of the Prophet (S) that argue that ‘touching women literally’ nullifies wudhu? As I understand it, the narrations attributed to the Noble Companions are not ascribed to the Prophet (S), but understanding of the the meaning of ‘lams’. They are considered opinions of Companions (R), are they not?

    Reply
43. 

    Abul Layth - June 3, 2010

    Wa’alaykum Salam brother ‘Asim,

    Regarding the aayaat you have mentioned then they are not within the context mentioned in Ma’idah and Nisa’, and have been explained by the Sunnah and the Sahabah accordingly. These verses do not necessitate that we turn away from the Thahir meaning, when the context of this aayah is not clearly restricted to Janabah or hadath Al-Akbar, as the other aayaat are – as explained within their context and by the Nabi and Sahabah. Lamastum without the elongation – as is recited according to Hamzah and Kasa’i, literally means touch – as in placing one’s hand on another. I have already explained the context and the view of Imam Umar ibn Al-Khattab, Ibn Mas’ud, and Ibn Umar. This, in the Shafi’i view, clearly explains the intent of Allah ta’ala in revealing these aayaat. As Fakhrud-Din stated in his tafsir:

    والأصل حمل الكلام على حقيقته

    and this is the principle we follow in reviewing this verse.

    You can also find that Fakhrud-Din Ar-Razi did not ignore the verses you have mentioned while still maintaining that the correct view is that what is meant is the touch of the hand. Read his explanation and the quotations referenced here:

    http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=4&tSoraNo=4&tAyahNo=43&tDisplay=yes&Page=5&Size=1&LanguageId=1

    What does one consider dalil qati’i? Should we also apply this principle to surah 2, verses 236 and 237, based on the above, that what is being referred to is ‘literally’ touching?

    As for dalil qati’i, in this case it is a nass that clearly stipulates taking the meaning away from the Thahir. As for your other contentions you can read Fakhur-Ad-Din’s commentary here which I believe answers your questions:

    http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=4&tSoraNo=2&tAyahNo=236&tDisplay=yes&Page=1&Size=1&LanguageId=1

    I thought we were referring to deriving the command of performing wudhu for literally touching a woman from the QURAN? If we are not, is this not violating the principle of the argument of ibn Hajr, the abrogation of the hadith of Aisha (R) occurred with this Quranic verse? How does one determine from this verse whether one has to perform WUDHU for literally touching a women, when the verse is referring to ‘tayammum’?

    Because tayammum is only needed for hadath, and is used in place of wudu’ when water is not found – thus it is that which nullifies taharah – or else one would not need to make tayammum for it. If I followed your line of argumentation then defecating or urinating (ja’a ahadukum min al-gha’it) would also only need tayammum, as tayyamum is clearly mentioned after both of these acts – meaning that such would not need wudu’ – which is a batil way of looking at the aayah in our view – based upon the proofs of the Sunnah. I have already responded to this contention of yours, which is clearly a shady line of argumentation, and I am now starting to feel like I am going in circles, having to respond to the same contentions multiple times.

    In regards to ghusl, the argument for tayammum is from hadith attributed to the Prophet (S). Where are the sayings of the Prophet (S) that argue that ‘touching women literally’ nullifies wudhu? As I understand it, the narrations attributed to the Noble Companions are not ascribed to the Prophet (S), but understanding of the the meaning of ‘lams’. They are considered opinions of Companions (R), are they not?

    It is not we who must bring dalil qati’i from the noble tongue of the Nabi Muhammad ‘alayhis salam to prove that this verse is to be taken literally. I have told you several times now, a point you seem to consistently miss, that the principle in the law is as Fakhrud-Din Ar-Razi stated:

    والأصل حمل الكلام على حقيقته

    This is from the Usul of the religion. So the foundational principle of the law is that all words are taken literally unless there is a dalil qati’i to prove otherwise, and in our view there are no authentic words of the Prophet Muhammad (‘alayhis salam) that clearly and decisively show that this verse is not to be taken upon its foundational meaning; lamastum means touch. So, if someone claims that Lamastum means other than “touch”, then they would have to bring forth proof to justify such from the lawgiver. There is simply no other meaning for Lamastum, other than touching. It does not mean sex – like that of the elongated Laamastum which only through metaphor means such. The proofs brought by the Hanafis and those who take their opinion, do not meet the standards of our school to nullify the literal meaning for lamastum – touch. You can easily pick up Imam Al-Bayhaqi’s works or An-Nawawi’s and see their argumentations against the proofs brought by them against our stance. As the brother told you before, according to our principles we are correct.

    As I understand it, the narrations attributed to the Noble Companions are not ascribed to the Prophet (S), but understanding of the the meaning of ‘lams’. They are considered opinions of Companions (R), are they not?

    As for the words of Imam Umar, Abdullah Ibn ‘Umar, and Abdullah ibn Mas’ud (radiya Allahu ‘anhum), one could argue rafa’, but one doesn’t even need to do so, as their numbers are a hujjah based upon the principles as it stands within our madhdhab. I have already explained this point prior in above comments, and I certainly feel like I am going in circles again.

    Jazakum Allahu Khayran,
    Abu Layth

    Reply
44. 

    Asim - June 4, 2010

    “Because tayammum is only needed for hadath, and is used in place of wudu’ when water is not found – thus it is that which nullifies taharah – or else one would not need to make tayammum for it. If I followed your line of argumentation then defecating or urinating (ja’a ahadukum min al-gha’it) would also only need tayammum, as tayyamum is clearly mentioned after both of these acts – meaning that such would not need wudu’ – which is a batil way of looking at the aayah in our view – based upon the proofs of the Sunnah. I have already responded to this contention of yours, which is clearly a shady line of argumentation, and I am now starting to feel like I am going in circles, having to respond to the same contentions multiple times.”

    Wa salaam Brother,

    Just to clarify:

    1.

    I don’t follow your line of thought regarding my presumption. My presumption is that the category of “ja’a ahadukum min al-gha’it” is tied directly to the conditional statement of “and find no water”, meaning that the stipulation for tayammum can only occur when this conditional statement is satisfied. To make an analogy for ‘defecation’ violating only tayammum, and not wudhu, would be erroneous from my presumption.

    2.

    Prayer was an injunction ordained in the period of Mecca. The Muslims were already performing wudhu for hadath prior to the revelation of the verses of tayammum, as all scholars agree. Even ibn Hajr states that the relevant verse abrogates a specific rule regarding wudhu. This would obviously necessitate that the Arabs were already aware that ‘going to the bathroom’ nullified their ablution. If such is the case, the term “ja’a ahadukum min al-gha’it” cannot be seen as defining what nullifies wudhu, but it must be seen as referring to when tayammum can be performed. The same would be with the issue of contention regarding the category ‘lams’.

    3.

    With this clarification in mind, if we argue that these verses are deriving principles regarding wudhu, why stop at ‘touching women’ and not carry it all the way through? Following ibn Hajr’s line of reasoning, ‘going to the bathroom’ would NOT HAVE violated wudhu until this verse was actually revealed.

    Reply
45. 

    Asim - June 4, 2010

    Can you comment on the following, especially as it relates to Imam Razi’s comment:

    4.

    “It is not we who must bring dalil qati’i from the noble tongue of the Nabi Muhammad ‘alayhis salam to prove that this verse is to be taken literally.”

    ” I have told you several times now, a point you seem to consistently miss, that the principle in the law is as Fakhrud-Din Ar-Razi stated:

    والأصل حمل الكلام على حقيقته

    This is from the Usul of the religion. So the foundational principle of the law is that all words are taken literally unless there is a dalil qati’i to prove otherwise, and in our view there are no authentic words of the Prophet Muhammad (‘alayhis salam) that clearly and decisively show that this verse is not to be taken upon its foundational meaning; lamastum means touch.”

    a. Allah ALmighty states in the 2:150, “Whencesoever thou comest forth TURN THY FACE toward the Inviolable Place of Worship;”

    In 2:179, Allah states about the law of qisas, “AND THERE IS LIFE FOR YOU in (the law of) retaliation, O men of understanding, that you may guard yourselves.”

    In 2:187, Allah refers to approaching wives during Ramadan, but the words are taken to refer to sexual intercourse. Further, the stipulation of when to begin fast is drawn with a metaphor, i.e. when the white thread is distinguished from the black. In verse 223, Allah Almighty states, “Your wives are tilth for you, so APRPOACH your tilth when or how you will.”

    These are all principles of law, and figurative usage is clearly established NOT FROM STATEMENTS OF THE PROPHET (S).

    Even if we were to assume this above principle by Razi as correct, the hadeeth of Aisha (R) is used as a nass to establish that the words are taken figuratively. And if we return to this being abrogated by the Quranic verse, we then have to return to the original question of why stop at ‘literally touching womnen’ and not ‘defecation’?

    5.

    “As for dalil qati’i, in this case it is a nass that clearly stipulates taking the meaning away from the Thahir.”

    In this particular verse, there is a clear distinction between hadath-al-asghar and hadath al-akbar, when water IS available. Why would it not continue with this distinction when it refers to tayammum, when water is NOT available? Is it even logical that the proof of tayammum for ‘touching women’ be related to ‘literally touching women’, when the Quran is speaking about ‘coitus’ and ‘janabah’ in the beginning of the verse?

    6.

    “There is simply no other meaning for Lamastum, other than touching. It does not mean sex – like that of the elongated Laamastum which only through metaphor means such.”

    In 3:174, when referring to evil ‘touched them’, there is no elongation, and figurative usage is clearly established. Even when referring to the fire not touching the Bani Israel, in 2:80 there is no elongation and the ‘figurative usage’ is clearly established. The Israelites surely weren’t denying that the fire would burn them and not just touch them.

    Reply
46. 

    Abul Layth - June 4, 2010

    Salamu ‘alaykum Bro Asim,

    I have now responded to the same arguments by you multiple times and I am simply wasting my energies in so doing. This will be the last time I allow this discussion to continue, simply because, as I have pointed out in the last two responses I am responding to the same thing repeatedly.

    I don’t follow your line of thought regarding my presumption. My presumption is that the category of “ja’a ahadukum min al-gha’it” is tied directly to the conditional statement of “and find no water”, meaning that the stipulation for tayammum can only occur when this conditional statement is satisfied. To make an analogy for ‘defecation’ violating only tayammum, and not wudhu, would be erroneous from my presumption.

    The same connection is made with lamastum an-nisaa’.

    Prayer was an injunction ordained in the period of Mecca. The Muslims were already performing wudhu for hadath prior to the revelation of the verses of tayammum, as all scholars agree. Even ibn Hajr states that the relevant verse abrogates a specific rule regarding wudhu. This would obviously necessitate that the Arabs were already aware that ‘going to the bathroom’ nullified their ablution. If such is the case, the term “ja’a ahadukum min al-gha’it” cannot be seen as defining what nullifies wudhu, but it must be seen as referring to when tayammum can be performed. The same would be with the issue of contention regarding the category ‘lams’. With this clarification in mind, if we argue that these verses are deriving principles regarding wudhu, why stop at ‘touching women’ and not carry it all the way through? Following ibn Hajr’s line of reasoning, ‘going to the bathroom’ would NOT HAVE violated wudhu until this verse was actually revealed.

    We do not see your argument as relevant, and what I am about to say I have already said in response to this exact same contention you have mentioned before! As we see it, tayammum is a replacement for wudu’ when water is not found, as the aayah and ahadith stipulate. As such, it is performed for anything that nullifies taharah, as that is the purpose of tayammum. So by you saying that relieving one’s self cannot be seen as nullifying wudu’ in this verse, is absolute baatil because a) it does nullify wudu and b) if it nullifies wudu’, and water cannot be found then tayammum is performed. Tayammum is not performed except to remove hadath. Hence both relieving one’s self and touching a woman is hadath and if one cannot find water, then tayammum must be performed as the aayah stipulates. Lams al-nisa’, because tayammum is necessary for it, is that which nullifies taharah, and in this case because a) janabah had been previously mentioned in the verse, b) because it is being mentioned with hadath al-asghar, c) because the literal meaning of lamastum an-nisa’ means “touching of women” and there is no dalil qati’i to stipulate otherwise d) because Imam Umar, Ibn Mas’ud, and Ibn ‘Umar held it upon its literal meaning as well, we hold that it nullifies wudu’. We see your argument is baatil and mardud simply because you are attempting to restrict these two things to tayammum while ignoring the fact that tayammum is the rukhsah for what? It is the rukhsah for water, so what necessitates tayammum obviously necessitates the utilization of water. Such is not only rationale but proven within the tradition.

    a. Allah ALmighty states in the 2:150, “Whencesoever thou comest forth TURN THY FACE toward the Inviolable Place of Worship;”

    It is literal. Turning one’s face towards masjid al-haram is fard in the fard Salah by agreement.

    “AND THERE IS LIFE FOR YOU in (the law of) retaliation, O men of understanding, that you may guard yourselves.”

    Literal as well. There is life in the implementation of qisās, no doubt!

    In 2:187, Allah refers to approaching wives during Ramadan, but the words are taken to refer to sexual intercourse. Further, the stipulation of when to begin fast is drawn with a metaphor, i.e. when the white thread is distinguished from the black. In verse 223, Allah Almighty states, “Your wives are tilth for you, so APRPOACH your tilth when or how you will.”

    It seems like you are implying that we are rejecting majāz (metaphor) in the Qur’an. That is not what we stated at all. The Shāfi’ī Imāms have always defended majāz in the Qur’an, even in refutation of the Thāhiriyyah, and for me to have to state such is a pure waste of time. If the language offers proof, through way of shi’r (poetry) or statements from the salaf to substantiate ta’wīl, such is a nass in the law, as long as it does not contradict something that was authentically narrated from the Nabi (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam). As for these verses, they have been explained by the language and by authentic āthār from the Sahābah (radiya Allahu ‘anhum). All of these examples you have given do not nullify the qā’idah mentioned by Fakhrud-Dīn Ar-Rāzī (rahimahullah) above, as these āyāt have proof for their ta’wīl by way of the Sunnah and by way of the fatāwa and explanations of the Sahābah (radiya Allah ‘anhum). A quick glance at the works of tafsīr and ahadīth will justify what I have said here.

    Even if we were to assume this
    above principle by Razi as correct, the hadeeth of Aisha (R) is used as a nass to establish that the words are taken figuratively. And if we return to this being abrogated by the Quranic verse, we then have to return to the original question of why stop at ‘literally touching womnen’ and not ‘defecation’?

    This will be the near 10th time I have repeated the opinion of the Shāfi’īs regarding the narration of Ā’ishah (radiya Allahu ‘anhā). The above principle by Rāzī is correct, and it is a foundation of the law. The narratives of Ā’ishah do not disprove anything because a) they could be argued as defective or b) The hadīth pertaining to her touching the Nabī (saaws) could be interpreted as not breaking his wudu’ but breaking her own, as the āyah states or if YOU TOUCH WOMEN, meaning that the one who is touching (lāmis) nullifies their wudu’ but the malmūs (one touched) does not, and this is an opinion in our school, though not the mu’tamad. Or c) one could argue abrogation and we have already refuted your claimed response “return to the original question” three times now and I will not respond to it again.

    In this particular verse, there is a clear distinction between hadath-al-asghar and hadath al-akbar, when water IS available. Why would it not continue with this distinction when it refers to tayammum, when water is NOT available? Is it even logical that the proof of tayammum for ‘touching women’ be related to ‘literally touching women’, when the Quran is speaking about ‘coitus’ and ‘janabah’ in the beginning of the verse?

    We have responded to this claim prior as well, which shows me that you are not here to learn the school of Imām Ash-Shāfi’ī, but instead to waste our time in responding to the same arguments repeatedly. The distinction is not necessary at all because the āyah clearly states when “water is not found”, meaning that when water is not found for anything that nullifies wudu’, tayammum is its replacement. We have already stated that such is explained by the Nabi ‘alayhis salam as well through the hadīth of earth being made pure for us etc. It is rational that because janābah has already been spoken about in the verse, other than it would be spoken about so as to make the verse comprehensive, hence the mentioning of the ghā’iṭ – which has no relation at all to janābah was mentioned, and repetition would not be in order in our view. Read the previous responses for further explanation.

    As for the āyāt you quoted the word is not lams, but rather mass, which is an entirely different word! Such would be like making a similitude between jass and lams; and they are two different words in the language of arabic! To prove such to you and all else interested open the following page from Lane’s Lexicon:

    http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume7/00000201.pdf

    You will see that he says “mass” – which he says is more relevant to ‘feel’ is a synonym, as well as “jass”, and if you also pay careful attention he says that a term that is also a synonym is لامس, so he too makes a distinction that these are two separate words! Each word can hold a different meaning in the language!

    Furthermore, it is an issue of the word lams (without elongation) being used to mean sexual intercourse (jimā’), which it does not in the usage of the arabs. The Qur’ān and the Sunnah make it very clear that the word “lams” – without elongation – is not used except for touch:

    Al-An’ām 7:

    وَلَوْ نَزَّلْنَا عَلَيْكَ كِتَابًا فِي قِرْطَاسٍ فَلَمَسُوهُ بِأَيْدِيهِمْ لَقَالَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا إِنْ هَٰذَا إِلَّا سِحْرٌ مُّبِينٌ

    “And even if We had sent down to you, a written scripture on a page and they touched it with their hands, the disbelievers would say, “This is not but obvious magic.”

    Furthermore, the several ahadīth which you claimed were irrelevant due to your missing several points from it:

    زناها اللمس اليد
    “The fornication of the hand is ‘lams’ (touching).”

    The point in this hadīth is that the Nabī (‘alayhis salām) said lams not lāms with the elongation of the alif. Why? Because lams without the elongation cannot be interpreted as other than touch, and it would have not made proper sense in such a context.

    Another example of the word lams – and not lāms with the elongation – in the usage of the ‘arabs being the hadīth of Mā’iz ibn Mālik that fornicated and came to the Nabi (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa ‘alā Ālihi wa sallam) and told him that he committed adultery. The Prophet turned away from several times, and finally asked him,

    لَعَلَّكَ قَبَّلْتَ أَوْ لَمَسْتَ
    “Maybe you kissed her or just touched her (lams).”

    Again, this wording is lams and not lāms, which clearly shows the usage of the ‘arabs that lams means touch and nothing more.

    That is why those, such as Ibrahim An-Nakha’i who recited “Lamastum” without the elongation said it was what was less than intercourse, as found in As-Suyuti’s Ad-Durr Al-Manthur:

    وأخرج سعيد بن منصور عن إبراهيم النخعي. أنه كان يقرأ ” أو لمستم النساء ” قال: يعني ما دون الجماع.

    And it is reported by Sa’id ibn Mansur from Ibrahim An-Nakha’i that he used to recite “Aw lamastum An-Nisa’” (without the elongation) and he said regarding it “Meaning what is less than intercourse”.

    If you look carefully at all we have quoted, all of the ‘Ulama’ who have said it is what is less than intercourse, i.e. touching etc, recite it without the elongation of the alif in Lamastum. This is because according to the poetry and language of the ‘arabs lams (and here without the elongation) means with the hand. Yes it is possible with the elongation that it can be metaphorical, but it cannot be such without the elongation. This has been mentioned by the salaf and the Imams of the Shafi’is.

    And Allah Knows Best!

    Abu Layth

    Reply
47. 

    Asim - June 12, 2010

    Wa salaam

    “So by you saying that relieving one’s self cannot be seen as nullifying wudu’ in this verse, is absolute baatil because a) it does nullify wudu and b) if it nullifies wudu’, and water cannot be found then tayammum is performed.”

    I did not say that it cannot be seen as nullifying this verse. What I stated was according to the logic that this verse abrogated the previous allowance to literally touch women, then the same should be carried to relieving one’s self.

    “We see your argument is baatil and mardud simply because you are attempting to restrict these two things to tayammum while ignoring the fact that tayammum is the rukhsah for what? It is the rukhsah for water, so what necessitates tayammum obviously necessitates the utilization of water.”

    I don’t believe I restricted it. The Quran also mentions illness and a journey as a condition when tayammum could be performed. If water alone was a condition, then the Quran would have no need to mention four categories, but simply “when water is not available”.

    ” The distinction is not necessary at all because the āyah clearly states when “water is not found”, meaning that when water is not found for anything that nullifies wudu’, tayammum is its replacement. ”

    1.

    The why does the Quran mention illness and being on a journey?

    2.

    Again, then why did Ammar roll in the dust and Umar, per the hadith, did not pray when they were both in a state of janabah? The distinction should be necessary if the Quran treats the two types of hadath differently, would they not?

    Reply
48. 

    Abul Layth - June 12, 2010

    Wa salaam

    “So by you saying that relieving one’s self cannot be seen as nullifying wudu’ in this verse, is absolute baatil because a) it does nullify wudu and b) if it nullifies wudu’, and water cannot be found then tayammum is performed.”
    I did not say that it cannot be seen as nullifying this verse. What I stated was according to the logic that this verse abrogated the previous allowance to literally touch women, then the same should be carried to relieving one’s self.

    And I did not say that you said that you saw it is “nullifying this verse”. And no, the same does not have to be seen for relieving one’s self either, as it simply clarifies that tayammum can be used for purification from hadath.

    “We see your argument is baatil and mardud simply because you are attempting to restrict these two things to tayammum while ignoring the fact that tayammum is the rukhsah for what? It is the rukhsah for water, so what necessitates tayammum obviously necessitates the utilization of water.”
    I don’t believe I restricted it. The Quran also mentions illness and a journey as a condition when tayammum could be performed. If water alone was a condition, then the Quran would have no need to mention four categories, but simply “when water is not available”.

    Your attempt was to try and restrict it and such can be seen in your words above. As for illness it is due to probable harm caused by using water – such that could lead to bodily shock etc. This was mentioned for clarification for the rukhsah for the Muslims, which is also part of the answer to your “1” question below.

    ” The distinction is not necessary at all because the āyah clearly states when “water is not found”, meaning that when water is not found for anything that nullifies wudu’, tayammum is its replacement. ”
    1.
    The why does the Quran mention illness and being on a journey?

    To show dispensation for extreme measures and to clarify. If water is found on a journey one does make wudu’ with water and does not make tayammum. What is being mentioned here by way of both illness and journey is a religious rukhsah, and this is obvious!

    It is certainly interesting how you also left out the mentioning of relieving one’s self, as such works against your argument, and shows that Allah is linking “the touching of women” with the act “of relieving one’s self” which both allude to hadath al-asghar in the language.

    2.
    Again, then why did Ammar roll in the dust and Umar, per the hadith, did not pray when they were both in a state of janabah? The distinction should be necessary if the Quran treats the two types of hadath differently, would they not?

    I have already answered this question and clarified it above in a previous comment, and I am done repeating myself.

    Was-Salam
    Abu Layth

    Reply
49. 

    Asim - June 13, 2010

    Wa salaam,

    “And no, the same does not have to be seen for relieving one’s self either, as it simply clarifies that tayammum can be used for purification from hadath.”

    But touching women is hadath per the Shafii school as well. How does this answer the objection regarding abrogation?

    “Your attempt was to try and restrict it and such can be seen in your words above. As for illness it is due to probable harm caused by using water – such that could lead to bodily shock etc. This was mentioned for clarification for the rukhsah for the Muslims, which is also part of the answer to your “1” question below.”

    My apologies if it seemed that I restricted it. It may have seemed so because we were focusing just on this aspect of the verse and that is ‘when water is not available’.

    As far as the clarification of the rukhsah, I would agree that it is mentioned for that purpose. But one can clarify the rukhsah for many reasons. Why would a clarification for literally touching women be a reason, when anything that breaks hadith al-asghar can fall under ‘going to the bathroom’, while the question of hadith al-akbar remains?

    “It is certainly interesting how you also left out the mentioning of relieving one’s self, as such works against your argument, and shows that Allah (SWT) is linking “the touching of women” with the act “of relieving one’s self” which both allude to hadath al-asghar in the language.”

    I don’t agree with the linguistic point, which we can leave for right now. Let us remain focused on the conceptual aspect first. There are three categories mentioned in this verse per your understanding, illness, journey, hadith-asghar. If hadith al-asghar is mentioned, then what is left for hadith al-akbar as regards to tayammum?

    The Quran deals with the two hadath differently in this very verse and in other verses as well conceptually, so the argument that hadath-al akbar can be applied to ‘touching women’ doesn’t seem sound.

    “To show dispensation for extreme measures and to clarify.”

    Isn’t major janabah an extreme measure? Wouldn’t clarification be necessary for this extreme measure?

    “I have already answered this question and clarified it above in a previous comment, and I am done repeating myself.”

    WHat you stated was that ‘touching women’ includes sexual intercourse. That doesn’t address the issue, which is, why did Umar (R) and Ammar (R) not take sexual intercourse as ‘touching women’ literally and not apply tayammum?

    Reply
    • 

      lena - January 17, 2012

      As Salam’ alaykum,

      I am a woman looking at this statement in the Quran ‘or if ye touch women’ and am finding it confusing to understand why it ‘speaks’ to men and not both men and women. I understand it is not literal in its meaning but why only direct it at men? Please help me clear this issue i have with this paragraph on tyammum as it is making me feel as a woman I am not to relate to this sentence and therefore tyammum doesn’t relate to me in this circumstance which is cerononial impurity.

      jzk

      Reply
      • 

        Shafiifiqh.com - January 22, 2012

        We are not certain what you mean lena, however, the scholars – due to other ahadith etc – state that the verse applies to both men and women. And Allah Knows Best.

        Reply
50. 

    abu-salih - July 31, 2010

    so if my foot touches my wife’s foot my wudu is broken

    Reply
51. 

    Isa - August 2, 2010

    As-Salamu ‘alaykum,

    With all due respect, my dear beloved brothers, if your nafs does not like the Shafi’i position, or you believe that other schools’ positions on this issue are stronger, then follow another school on this issue. It is well known that our school is the strictest on taharah, and perhaps the strictest overall. Trying to refute or question the position isn’t going to benefit your akhira in any way. The point is not to get caught up too much in the letter of the law to the detriment of the spirit of the law. For the Ahnaf they redo wudu as a mustahab after touching a woman to avoid ikhtilaf with other schools, even though they can validly touch a woman with desire then go to pray. It comes down to the different methodologies each school adopts to interpret the Shari’ah, of which Arabic and its meanings prior 150 AH plays a central role. The issue at hand here stems from linguistic interpretation, of which NONE of us here are qualified to comment on, apart from relaying what the masters have said.

    As I said earlier I mean no harm or disrespect and I love all the believers. It is just that I have noticed the nature of quite a few of the comments on this blessed website lack the etiquette befitting a student of knowledge. May Allah forgive all the believers (especially the great mujrim writing) and send eternal salutations upon His Emissary.

    Reply
52. 

    abu-salih - August 7, 2010

    wa alaykum salam Isa i am a follower of imam shafi minhaj my question was only b/c Abul Layth reported imam shafi stated in al umm that touching is with the hand and in the reliance and al maqasid it states all kinds of touching. i’m a person that needs to know details to the t mayb b/c i used to draw and b an artist. this ruling ain’t hard for me b/c i pass gas all the time so whats the diff with touching my wife i always make wudu anyways. for a lymen i know somthing the i have a decent library. my parents come to me for fiqh of the hanafi i can teach maliki and im insha Allahu Ta Ala will go through the reliance with my sister who through Allahu ta ala gave her himmma

    Reply
53. 

    Abu Layth - August 7, 2010

    Bro It is contact from skin to skin.

    Reply
54. 

    Abdullah ibn Adam - September 30, 2010

    At the end of the day what we all do is for Taqwa.

    Reply
55. 

    Aqil Zamir - October 1, 2010

    Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 9, Number 492:

    Narrated ‘Aisha:

    the wife of the Prophet, “I used to sleep in front of Allah’s Apostle with my legs opposite his Qibla (facing him); and whenever he prostrated, he pushed my feet and I withdrew them and whenever he stood, I stretched them.” ‘Aisha added, “In those days there were no lamps in the houses.”

    If touching nullifies ablution, how could our beloved Prophet Muhammad SAW perform salah in this hadith ?

    Reply
    • 

      admin - October 11, 2010

      The response of the shafi’iyyah are many fold to this athar and mentioned above in the article

      B) The authentic narrations thereof, such as ‘Ā’ishah saying that the Nabi (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa ‘alā Ālihi wa sallam) touched her leg while He was making Salāh, then regarding these they say this narration is abrogated by the verse of the Qur’an. Ibn Hajr, in his Fat-hul-Bārī, brings two other arguments: a) That the Nabi (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa ‘alā Ālihi wa sallam) touched her with a barrier, and if that is not the case b) it is specific for the Nabi (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa ‘alā Ālihi wa sallam). The first opinion definitely seems stronger. And Allah Knows Best.

      There exists another possible explanation, and that is that the one who is touching has their wudu’ broken, whereas the one who is touched does not. This is an opinion of the Shafi’i school, but not the relied upon view.

      Reply
56. 

    umar - December 30, 2010

    Assalamu Alaykum,

    sorry i am a bit confused with this issue.

    even if Aisha did touch the prophet (peace be upon him) feet,
    does the braking of wudu is only if it is non mahram?

    Reply
57. 

    Ibn Thahir - November 24, 2011

    Assalamu alaikum!

    Is it possible for me to translate this article into Tamil post in my blog?
    Sure i will credit you as the original author.

    Reply
    • 

      Shafiifiqh.com - January 22, 2012

      Wa’alaykum Salam,

      Yes you can translated the articles, we ask that you link back to the original on the website however.

      Reply
58. 

    K. - January 20, 2012

    most of good Shaafi books are in arabic and many dont speak arabic. can you recommend me any good english shaafi books i would appreaciate Jakhallah khair

    may Allah reward you all for you effort, this site was very needed by many Shaafi’ followers who dont speak Arabic.

    Reply
59. 

    Alex Gorin - January 22, 2012

    @K. By far the best material available in English is the ‘Reliance of the Traveller,’ a translation of ‘Umdat al-Salik.’ Although it is an excellent text, you need to find a teacher to explain the material as it assumes much on the student and has a lot of implicit detail.

    Reply