• Home
  • |
  • It-haf: Nullifiers of Wudu -Pt.6

April 1, 2008

It-haf: Nullifiers of Wudu -Pt.6

It is Nullfied by:
– Meaning the wudu

That which exits
– Meaning appears

from the two passageways,
– The front and the rear, even if it be a small amount, whether it be an excretory product or not[1]

the flowing of filth[2]
– Such as blood and pus

from other than them,
– Meaning other than the two passageways, by the impurity flowing to a place which is required to be washed in wudu or ghusl. Therefore blood flowing within the eye from one side to the other is not regarded as nullifying the wudu.
The defintion of flowing is: that the the blood rises and flows from the cut.
If a person has a cut and wipes away the blood as soon as it appears, such that if he had not then it would have flowed onto the skin, then the wudu is still nullified. If someone squeezes a cut such that the blood flows, then also the wudu is nullified according to the chosen opinion.
If a person bites an object and then notices traces of blood on the object, or cleans the mouth with a toothstick and notices blood on it, the wudu is not nullified aslong as it is not known if there was a flow of blood.

vomiting a mouthful
– Meaning filling the persons mouth, such that it is not possible to close the mouth except with difficulty.[3]

if not phlegm,
– Wudu is only nullified if that which is vomited is food. As for phlegm by itself, its being vomited does not nullify even if it is a large amount. If the phlegm vomited is admixed with food, that which dominates is taken into consideration, and thus the ruling will be given to that which is more. Likewise clotted blood which descends from the head does not nullify[4]

sleep of one not firmly seated[5],
– In his method of sitting, such that he falls asleep whilst on his side, lying back down or face down. Wudu is therefore not nullified by one sleeping firmly seated in a cross legged position even if leaning against something where it to be removed they would fall back.[6]
A person falling asleep whilst performing prayer in the sunnah manner does not nullify his wudu.[7]

– Whichever form it may take, it is defined as being when the intellect is overcome and causes the person to faint.

– It is defined as being when the intellect no longer fully exists.

– It is defined as that a person would not walk in an absolute straight line

loud laughter[9]
– whether deliberately or forgetfully, it is defined as being heard by the person themselves and the one next to them.

of an adult praying,
– Thereby excluding those who are not adult, therefore the laughter of a child in his prayer does not nullify their wudu, however it would still nullify the prayer.
Also the loud laughter of an adult is a nullifier of wudu only in a complete prayer, thereby excluding the funeral prayer and prostration of recitation (sajdah al-tilawah), however it would still nullify the prayer itself.

lustful touching.
– By the coming in contact of the private parts[10]

Additional Rulings: If a doubt occurs in a persons mind whether they have washed some parts of the body or not, then they are to wash that bodypart aslong as they have not finished the wudu, if this doubt ocurs after finishing the wudu then they are not to go back and wash. Likewise if he is certain that he has not washed one of the body parts but is not sure which one it is, he washes the left foot as it is one of the last body parts to be washed.
If a person is certain of their being in a state of purity and has doubts whether they are in a state of ritual impurity then they take go with the view of which they are certain, likewise the opposite. If he is certain of both occuring but is not sure of which of them occurred first then the person is to regards themselves as pure.
If a person has doubts about the purity of water and clothing then this doubt is given no credence.

[1] The hanafi scholars hold the view that something such as a stone where it to be excreted by an individual nullifies the wudu, even though it is not normally regarded as being an excretory product. One of the evidences they cite in support of this view is that which is reported by al-Darqutni in his Sunan (1/151 with al-Taliq al-Mughni) from Ibn Abbas in a marfu form that: ‘Wudu is from that which exits not that which enters’, the chain contains the narrator Shubah regading whom there is some disagreement, some of the scholars of hadith declared him trustworthy whilst others weakened him. The more correct view is that it is a mawquf narration of Ibn Abbas as related by Saeed bin Mansur. Al-Bayhaqi said that it was also reported from Ali. See Fath al-Qadeer (1/25).
[2] Al-Darqutni reports in his Sunan (1/157) that the Messenger of Allah (s) said: ‘Wudu is from every flowing blood’. For other evidences and reasoning refer to Fath Bab al-Inayah (1/62).
[3] Abu Dawud (2381), al-Nasai, al-Tirmidhi (87) who said: this is the most authentic thing regarding this subject, al-Hakim in his Mustadrak (1/426) who said: Sahih according to the two Sheikhs (Bukhari and Muslim) all narrate that: Abu Darda said : ‘The Prophet (s) vomited and then performed wudu. Later I met Thawban in the masjid of Damascus and I mentioned it to him. Thawban said: He is right; I poured water for the wudu of the Prophet (s)’.
[4] All that which is not an impurity, such as non flowing blood, vomit less than a mouthful in not filth according to Abu Yusuf, whereas Muhammad bin Hasan said that it was filth out of precaution, however the fatwa is with the position of Abu Yusuf. This rule has been expressed by some as: ‘That which is not an impurity is not filth’. Therefore any of the above if they were to come into contact with an object or liquid would not cause them to become filthy.
Al-Aini said in his work al-Binayah (1/128) that flowing blood from a cut which does not reach an area which has to be washed (in wudu or ghusl) is classified as being pure (tahir) according to the most apparent view. This was the view of Abu Yusuf and was also the position chosen by al-Karkhi, Abu Abdullah al-Qallas, Muhammad bin Salamah, Abu Nasr, Abul Qasim and Abu Layth. Muhammad bin Hasan’s view was that it was still filth (najas) and he was supported in this view by Abu Bak
r al-Askaf and Abu Jafar al-Hindawani.
The author of al-Hidayah supported the first view and declared it to be Sahih, as was quoted by al-Tumurtashi in Fath al-Ghaffar who added that this position was relied upon by the authors of the mutun and therefore is the madhab position.
In al-Jawharah al-Nayyarah (1/9) its mentioned that fatwa will be given according to the position of Abu Yusuf if it comes into contact with solid materials like clothes and the body, and that fatwa will be given according to the position of Muhammad bin Hasan if it comes into contact with liquids such as water. This position was cited by Ibn Nujaim in al-Bahr (1/115), al-Tumurtashi in Fath al-Ghaffar, al-Haskafi in al-Dur al-Mukhtar (1/95) and was affirmed by the author of glosses on al-Dur al-Mukhtar, namely al-Tahtawi, Ibn Abidin and al-Rafi.
[5] Ibn Abidin (1/141) mentions that sleep is a natural state which occurs in humans without their control, it prevents the outward and inner senses from fully functioning despite their being sound. It also prevents the use of the intellect despite its being present.
Sleep and that which is mentioned after it from unconsciousness, insanity and intoxication are situations where there is a possibilty that the person may have entered a state of ritual impurity without noticing, therefore it is regarded as being so out of precaution.
The above rulings are deduced from the following hadiths: Aishah (ra) said that the Messenger of Allah (s) fell unconscious, He awoke and washed to pray, He then again fell unconscious, then awoke and washed’, reported by al-Bukhari and Muslim.
And based on His (s) words ‘ The eyes are the strap of the rear passageway, so the one who sleeps should perform wudu’, reported by Ahmad, Abu Dawud, Ibn Majah and graded Hasan by Ibn al-Salah, al-Nawawi and al-Munhiri. For further details refer to Nasb al-Rayah (1/44-47).
[6] Due to the hadith of Anas who said ‘The companions of the Messenger of Allah (s) waited for the Isha prayer until their heads began nodding up and down from drowsiness and sleep. They would then pray without doing wudu ‘ reported by Muslim, al-Tirmidhi and Abu Dawud. See al-Talkhis al-Habir (1/180).
[7] Due to the hadith of Ibn Abbas (ra) that the Prophet (s) said: ‘The one who sleeps whilst in the sajda does not have to perform wudu except if he lies down, for if he lies down his joints become loose’ reported by Ahmad (1/256) Abu Dawud (202) al-Tirmidhi (77) and others. See Nasb al-Rayah (1/44-45) of al-Zaylai.
[8] Ibn Abidin (1/144) defined it as a state which overcomes the mind due to alchohol and its like causing the intellect not to function properly, resulting in it not being able to differentiate between matters which are good and evil.
[9] Loud laughter is defined as that which can be heard by the person themselves and those next to them. Laughter on the other hand is defined as being heard by the person themselves but not by the person next to them, this nullifies the prayer and not the wudu. Smiling is that to which there is no sound, it neither affects the prayer nor the state of wudu. See Tabyin al-Haqaiq of al-Zaylai (1/11).
The evidence for it is that which is reported by Ibn Adiyy in al-Kamil from the hadith of Ibn Umar who said: ‘The Messenger of Allah (s) said: Whoever laughs out aloud in the prayer must repeat the wudu and the prayer’. Its chain contains Baqiyyah who is a mudallis, however he has explicitly stated hearing, and a truthful mudallis if explicit about hearing results in the removal of the problem of tadlis in the chain. And Baqiyyah belongs to this category of narrators. See Nasb al-Rayah (1/48).
Abu Hanifah narrates in his Musnad that He (s) said ‘While the Messenger of Allah (s) was praying with the people, a person with a problem with his sight, walked into a covered well and fell. At this some people burst out laughing. The Messenger of Allah (s) said: whoever amongst you laughed out loud should repeat their wudu and their prayer’. See Fath al-Qadir (1/35)
This is an issue in which the Hanafis are alone in following the hadith and have abandoned analogy (qiyas) because of it. It is a clear proof that the Hanafis give precedence to the hadith over anology and that they are the most stringent of people in following the hadith. See al-Lubab (1/45)
[10] Without a barrier between the two desirous individuals, this is the position of Abu Hanifah and Abu Yusuf. They argue that this situation would normally result in the emission of madhi (pre-seminal fluid) which nullifies the wudu and is treated like the scenario of sleep mentioned earlier. It is evident however that mere contact between the two private parts of two individuals is does not always result in the release of madhi, even if it be with desire, and therefore does not nullify the wudu. This was the view of Muhammad bin Hasan and was relied upon by many of the scholars. See Hashiyah Ibn Abidin.

Related Posts

The Book of Fasting (Ithaf al-Talib)

The Book of Fasting (Ithaf al-Talib)

It-haf al-Talib: Fiqh Of Tayammum

It-haf al-Talib: Fiqh Of Tayammum

It-haf: Leftover Water -Pt.11

It-haf: Leftover Water -Pt.11

It-haf: Water for Purification -Pt.10

It-haf: Water for Purification -Pt.10

Saleh Abu Hashim

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked

{"email":"Email address invalid","url":"Website address invalid","required":"Required field missing"}