Shafi’i Fiqh: The Proofs that Touching A Woman Breaks Wudhu’

29 Comment(s)

1. On Aug 22, 2007, Umm Layth said:

   Very beneficial. It makes full sense now. Jazaka Allahu khairan.

2. On Apr 15, 2008, alwi said:

   Jazakallah and Shukrun for the information, just a quick question, my wife is hanafi and i am shafi, i try to keep wudu at all times, however if my wife touches me by mistake sometimes, does that break my wuzu,

   please reply

3. On Apr 15, 2008, fazel said:

   Alwi.
   What a surprise you and your wife do not share the same mazhab. To answer your question, yes, it breaks your wudhu’ since you are shafii. No matter it is purposely or by mistake.

4. On Apr 16, 2008, Ibn Umer said:

   Shaykh Nuh ‘becomes Hanafi’ for this, to fulfill the sunnah of sleeping with wudu.

   The different madhhabs are not different religions, let’s not forget that. No harm, insha Allah , in adopting the Hanafi position to attain the afore-mentioned sunnah.

5. On Apr 16, 2008, musa ali said:

   salam,
   ibn umer, i was under the impression that what you mentioned above was historically frowned upon if not forbidden (especially amongst the ahnaf)

   Have any prominent figures from the 4 madhahib written to support what you mentioned above? Jazakullah bi khair

6. On Apr 28, 2008, tru_quran said:

   Assalaamu ‘Alaykum,

   someone from sunniforum posted this hadith

   ‘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

   akhi Abul Layth, do you know how the Shafi’is explain this hadith?

7. On Apr 28, 2008, Shafie student said:

   This link may help insha’Allah http://www.duai.co.za/fatawa/touching_women.html

8. On Apr 28, 2008, tru_quran said:

   That site doesn’t talk about this particular hadith in question

9. On Apr 29, 2008, tru_quran said:

   anyone ?

10. On Apr 29, 2008, fazel said:

    This particular hadith, does not specifically tell us whether Aisha touch Rasulullah ’s skin or not.

11. On Apr 29, 2008, tru_quran said:

    jazak’Allah khair

12. On Apr 29, 2008, Abul Layth said:

    This particular hadith, does not specifically tell us whether Aisha touch Rasulullah ’s skin or not.

    Firstly, I apologize for not responding quickly enough for truquran. I have been trying to stay away from the net as much as possible, and have decided I will only be getting online less. Secondly, What Sayyidi Fazel, barak Allahu alayh has stated is the explanation given by Imam An-Nawawi in his Sharh of Sahih Muslim.

    He states:

    وَعَلَى قَوْل مَنْ قَالَ يُنْتَقَض وَهُوَ الرَّاجِح عِنْد أَصْحَابنَا يُحْمَل هَذَا اللَّمْس عَلَى أَنَّهُ كَانَ فَوْق حَائِل فَلَا يَضُرّ

    And as for those who state that [touching] nullifies one’s wudhu’, and it is the correct view according to our companions, that there was a barrier between her hands and the actual foot - so there is no harm.

    [rough & quick translation]

    There may be a possible second explanation as well. In order to nullify the explanation of 5:7 by way of using this athar, one must prove that this incident occurred after the revelation of 5:7, as the command for performing wudhu due to touch was given within this verse and it was revealed in medinah.

    In other words, it is possible that this “touch” of ‘Aa’ishah - even though “touch” is not used in this hadith and “placed” is - could have occurred prior to 5:7. Thus it is not a explicit proof. That is just my thoughts though.

    Abul Layth

13. On May 6, 2008, tu_quran said:

    barak’Allahu feekum

14. On Jul 12, 2008, Hasan said:

    What Imam Nawawi said cannot be used as proof because he was a Shafi’i, and therefore not objective. I mean, the hadith says simply that Aisha touched the Prophet’s foot. Where is a barrier implied? “My hand touched….” Simply put, Aisha is saying clearly that her hand (and not a glove or any sort of thing) made contact with the Prophet’s foot.

    One of the reasons I am a Hanafi (actually a major one) is that the Shafi’i madhab is simply impractical. The Shafi’i madhab was never practiced by any Muslim government because it would have caused excessive problems. But the Hanafi Madhab was instituted by several governments (ottoman, many Middle Eastern, South Asian, etc.) in this case it is the same. For example. during hajj, one is almost certain to make contact with the opposite sex. Is one to run out and make wudu every single time?

15. On Jul 12, 2008, Abul Layth said:

    If you have a shirt on, for example, and I “touch your shoulder” - have I touched you?

    Yes! One can use the term “touch” for laying hands on an individual while a garment is present. An-Nawawi and the Shafi’i grammarians knew this well.

    The Shafi’i madhab was never practiced by any Muslim government because it would have caused excessive problems

    Excessive problems? Firstly the premise of your argument is faulty. What do you say of the Amir Al-Mu’minin, the Mamluk Ruler, Al-Ashraf Khalil appointing Badr-ud-Din Muhammad ibn Jama’ah to Qadhi Al-Qudha, as well as Shaykh Ash-Shuyukh in all of his kingdom?

    What of Salahud-Din Ayyubi appointing Shafi’i jurists to the position of Qadhi-Al-Qudat? In fact, this position was held only by Shafi’is in Egypt until Imam Baybars ordered the appointed Shafi’i Qadhi Al-Qudat (in 660 A.H) Taajud-Din Abdul Wahhab bint Al-’Aaz to appoint as his deputies qadhis from the 3 other madh-habs. [See Ibn Kathir's Bidayah Wan-Nihaya] Ath-Thahir Baybars was the one to install in the Ayyubid Dynasty the concept of an independent Qadhi for each school for the Muslims of the lands.

    Al-Qalqashandi mentions that Ibn Khallikaan was the Qadhi al Qudat of Damascus when the system of Baybars came. Then the following A’immah were appointed for their schools:

    The Shafi’i chief qadhi, Shams al-Din Ahmad ibn Khallikan

    Shams al-Din ‘Abdallah al-Adhru’i for the Hanafis

    Zayn al-Din ‘Abd al-Salam al-Zawawi for the Malikis,

    and Shams al-Din ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Qudama for the Hanbalis…

    Prior to this the Shafi’i jurists pretty much ran the legal show.

    Imam As-Subki, a Shafi’i, in fact states that every Ayyubid leader who was not Shafi’i fell quickly, and example being Al Muthaffar Sayfud Din Al Qutuz who was a Hanafi, only ruled ONE year.

    What of the many years that preceded in the Dynasty wherein the position was held by Shafi’i jurists?

    What of Nitham Al-Mulk’s, the Seljuk ruler, propogation of the school as taught by Imam Al-Ghazzali (rahimahullah) in the Nithaamiyyah college?

    So, there is more than substantial proof that the Shafi’i madh-hab has - and will continue to be - practically applied in Muslim lands.

    Lastly, you should leave the issue of touching the opposite gender in Hajj up to the Shafi’i jurists and their massive Sunni Following around the world, not up to what you think their ruling is - while not having studied the madh-hab first hand. I would like to you remind you that the most populated Muslim country in the world is majority Shafi’i. Such should be enough of an eye opener for you to see the validity of its applicability.

16. On Jul 12, 2008, Hasan said:

    “I would like to you remind you that the most populated Muslim country in the world is majority Shafi’i.”

    That is correct. Indonesia has about 200 million muslims that are mostly Shafi’i. But all of Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Turkey and most of Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon are Hanafi. That amounts to over 900 million Muslims that are Hanafi. So over two thirds of all Muslims are Hanafi. Therefore, if the Shafi’i maddhab has a “massive” followwing, then there are no words that can describe the Hanafi followers.

    Which does not really mean anything. Numbers are not really a proof of superiority–Christianity has more followers currently than Islam.

    As for practicality, I would have thought that the widespread acceptance of the hanafi madhab would have been enough. This becomes even more impressive when considering the fact that Abu Hanifah’s madhab gained traction despite the fact that he was not Arab and enjoyed none of the personal advantages that the other founders did. Imam Shafi’i rahimahullah enjoyed perps the most of these advantages. He was a native of Mecca and a Quraishi and Muttalibi from his father’s side and a hashimi on his mother’s. This was important back on those times (and still is) because of the belief of Arab superiority that permeated everywhere. Abu Hanifa rahimahullah did not enjoy this advantage. Far from being a Quraishi and hashimi, he was not even an Arab. His birthpace Kufah did not rank at the same level as Mecca and Medina. That despite this, his system of jurisprudence gained wider currency in the Islamic world is a sure proof that it suited human needs. Explaining why Malik’s system gained dominance in the Maghrib and Spain, Ibn Khaldun wrote: “The inhabitants of the Maghrib and Spain were still at the stage of Bedouin primitivism and had not made the same progess as the people of iraq (Abu Hanifah’s people) had made. That was why no fiqh other than that of Imam Malik made headway there.”

    Indeed the reason that the Hanafi madhab is followed by most Muslims today is that most rulers of Islamic countries followed it. After the Abbasid dynasty had collapsed, a dynasty that did not follow any school of thought except their own whims (and even then, some rulers such as Harun ar Rashid followed the Hanafi madhab, most of the governments immediately put into effect the hanafi legal system. The Seljuks wee of hanafi persuasion. Mahmud Ghaznawi put into effect the hanafi school in India that lasted from the Moghul empire to today, Nur al Din Zangi was a Hanafi. Salah ad Din was a Shafi’i, but many of his family members were Hanafi. The Circassians of Egypt were hanafis. The Turkish Sultans and Ottomans were all Hanafi.

    The point I am trying to make is that Abu hanifah’s school gained traction because it was practical. It did not bring excessive difficulty that other schools brought. As Imam Shibli Numani states: “There are many precepts of other Imams that would make life unlivable. For example, according to Imam Shafi’i rahimahullah, the following acts are impermissible: bathing or performing ablution with water heated on fire fueled by manure, eating out of clay vessels that are baked on such fire, using vessels made of tin, glass, crystal, and agate, wearing garments made of wool, sable fur, and leather (in which prayer cannot be offered); vessels, chairs and saddles with silver work on them, and even common sales in which there is no delcaration of selling and buying is declared haram. Abu Hanifa considers all these acts permissible.” As the Quran says, “God wishes to be gentle and not strict with you. The Prophet declared “I come to you with a gentle and easy Shariah.”

    I drink from a glass and eat in glass plates; I pray in a leather jacket. And everytime I buy something, I do not publicly declare that i am buying it and the seller is selling it–we simply perform the transaction. If i followed the Shafi’i madhab, I would not be able to do any of that.

    In any case, the point about making wudu’ after touching a woman is not rejected by the Hanafi madhab because it makes things easier. And if anyone has studied the positions of various schools, then they know that many times, the difference is simply over a perspective. In this case, whether the Prophet actually touched Aisha’s skin while praying or not. The hadith is ambiguous on that matter. As for the hadith that stated the the Prophet used to kiss his wives and pray without making wudu after that, it can be regarded stron or weak, depending on how one classifies hadith.

    Personally, I take it one further level and ask why Allah would want an individual to make wudu after touching the opposite sex. If it involved sexual intercourse, then there is no doube ablution is needed, because other hadiths clarify that point. But if it is simply an accidental touch, or even not accidental (provided it is lawful), why is there any harm in it? Does Allah consider women impure and thus not touchable? That reminds me of the untouchables of the Hindu religion.

    Some scholars will object to my line of reasoning and declare that reasoning and analogy (qiyas) have no part in Islamic law. I respectfully disagree. Islam makes sense to me, and that is the reason I am a Muslim. I use my intellect to worship Allah . Does Allah not say in various places in the Quran, “Why do you not ponder?”

    In the end, I do not really think that it makes much of a difference because Allah knows our intentions and judges us by that. And as for the difference itself, did not the Prophet say that “Difference is a blessing for my ummah”?

    And Allah knows best.

17. On Jul 13, 2008, Abul Layth said:

    Bismillah,

    1) The countries that you quoted being “Hanafi” are not 100% Hanafi. In fact they have large populations that are indeed Shafi’is, though they are still in the minority in those areas.

    2) You claimed that the madh-hab is not practical, and I proved to you - and you seemed to not understand the point of my response - that the madh-hab has been practical since its inception and for over a thousand years after up and until today. Your ridiculous reasoning for your claim of its impracticality is illegitimate as well as foolish - only showing your stupidity of the madh-hab and its rulings. What I have shown is that the Madh-hab flourished even under Ottoman control, Shaam and Masr remained dominately Shafi’i.

    Now, I have absolutely nothing against the great Madh-hab of Abu Hanifah, nor the Maaliki madh-hab or even the Jariri or Laythi schools. I have no quarrel at with these noble guilds, and I do not think lower of them. In my view, all of these schools are upon the truth based upon their own principles.

    Based upon your responses to other posts I made, you seem to misread my comments. For example you apparently think I am anti-Hanafi in your comments here:

    http://seekingilm.com/archives/71#comment-5126

    Wherein you stated:

    Everyone should remember that the Imams respected one another and loved one another, and so should we

    I did not bash the Hanafi madh-hab at all in that post. In fact, if you had read the post properly, I was praising them for their bashing of pseudo-salafism and its anti-madh-hab approach to Islam.

    I said:

    I am not condemning the Western Hanafi’s approach at all. In fact, I have nothing but the best wishes for their english ‘western’ revival. The fact is, however, I believe that there is a plot at hand. The plot: to invite the layman Muslim of the west to Hanafism. Of course! Ask an ardent Hanafi if he believes his madh-hab to be the ‘best’ or ’strongest’ in proofs, and he will not hesitate to answer with an elated “Yes!’. They do not hide the fact that they believe Imaam Abu Hanifah to be “Imam-e-Azam”, superior to all others.

    “Best wishes”…I believe that the Hanafis are upon the truth based upon their own principles, so why would I think less of them? The article I wrote there was simply an observation I made by the rising stardom of the Hanafi works.

    If you had read further down in the comments you would have seen my words:

    I support, as I said in the article, any intellectually defensive strategies against the pseudo-salafi cultic movement.

    Secondly, I do not think anyone denies the stupendous status of Imaam Abi Haneefah. He is our rabbaani, our Sayyid. However, I do not believe he is “Imaamu-’Atham”. In fact he alludes to this himself.

    I also said nearly a year after that comment in the comments:

    Being part of a madh-hab does not mean that bigotry and partisanship are warranted. Rather, in being true to the forefathers of the schools, the students should come to love the other a’immah and their followers just as much as they love their own. This is the beauty of the pluralism amongst Ahlus Sunnah. Love is based upon taqwa and Allah ’s love for that individual, not based upon whim and those of your school.

    I also stated:

    Maybe some individuals fall short of the articles point. Though one may call it sectarian to be elated at the resurgence of Sunnism, I prefer to call it pride in Islam. I did not mean “plot” in a negative fashion at all. This post was purely positive in that it is anti-bida’ah. Lastly, to share one’s observations of the condition of Ahlus Sunnah is not at all counter to being a Taalib ul ilm.

    So get it right and stop your misreading please.

    Thirdly, this article regarding the nullification of wudu’ by touching the opposite gender was written for Shafi’is, and is proof for them for their stance in english. It is not for a Hanafi, save for the one interested in comparative fiqh.

    Lastly, I did not want to refute you further, but you have failed to respond to the arguments and proofs of the Shafi’is. A) The proofs from the Qur’an B) The linguistic support through the Sunnah C) The tafasir and understandings of many of the earliest Muslims.

    You seem to think the Hanafi opinion is the only legitimate view; It is not. Nor do I believe that the Hanafi view is illegitimate. As I have said multiple times on Seekingilm, both are correct based upon their own principles.

    And Allah is the All-Knowing!

18. On Jul 15, 2008, Hasan said:

    “What I have shown is that the Madh-hab flourished even under Ottoman control, Shaam and Masr remained dominately Shafi’i.” I would hardly describe the conditions in which the Shafi’i maddhab existed in Egypt as “flourishing.” Insurrections and mutiny was common by Jews and Christians at the time. And for good reason.

    –EDITED: comment off topic: read rules of website: http://seekingilm.com/rules—

    “Lastly, I did not want to refute you further, but you have failed to respond to the arguments and proofs of the Shafi’is. A) The proofs from the Qur’an B) The linguistic support through the Sunnah C) The tafasir and understandings of many of the earliest Muslims.”

    I already stated that that everything is a matter of perspective. But if you want more proof, have it your way:
    First, you made it sound as if lams is always used to mean touching literally. You even quote a hadith in Bukhari and Muslim narrated by Abu Huraira in which the Prophet distinguishes between lams (actual touching) and zina (fornication), and other ahadith that actually distinguish touching from sexual intercourse. However, there is no need to refer to ahadith because the Quran also has the word “lams” in a place other than Surah Al Maidah. In Surah Al Baqarah, the verse, “Wa ‘In Ţallaqtumūhunna Min Qabli ‘An Tamassūhunna.” (And if you divorce them before you have touched them). This “touch” implies sexual intercourse, and even Shafi’i admits this. In almost every case, when the word “touching” is used in proximity to women (or the other sex), it means sexual intercourse. This is an error that no native speaker of Arabic could commit.

    However, as you have shown, “touching” can be taken literally as well (except when referring to women and the other sex). In Ali Imran, verse 24, Allah says “Dhālika Bi’annahum Qālū Lan Tamassanā An-Nāru ‘Illā ‘Ayyāmāan Ma`dūdātin” (That is because they say that fire shall not touch us but for a number of days). So how to distinguish whether this “touch” is lieral or not? Well there is another proof in the the relevant verse itself. We give a portion of the verse’s transliteration once again:

    “Wa ‘In Kuntum Marđá ‘Aw `Alá Safarin ‘Aw Jā’a ‘Aĥadun Minkum Mina Al-Ghā’iţi ‘Aw Lāmastumu An-Nisā’”
    (But if you are ill or on a journey or any of you comes from answering the call of nature, or you have been in contact with women). All mujtahids interpret the word gha’it as metaphorical; for taken literally, it would render it necessary for anyone coming from a lower place to a higher place to perform ablution. Thus, it is clear that that word is metaphorical. To place one literal phrase followed by a metaphorical one is a weakness of language, and any linguist will corroborate that (it is confusing to the reader). That would be Arabic unworthy of the Quran which contains Arabic unrivaled throughout history.
    There are other evidences that prove that touching a woman does not break wudu. However, I wish to point out that a lot of the arguments quoted above and by other Shafi’i’s that attempt to prove that touching a woman nullifies wudu were probably not advanced by Shafi’i himself but by his followers who could not accept that he had made a human mistake. But Shafi’i was a human, and not infallible. And I think that Shafi’i’s humanness actually made him greater, because if he were not, then his accomplishments would not be as impressive.

    And Allah knows best.

19. On Jul 17, 2008, Ikhlas said:

    Assalamu alaykum

    Brother Hasan, I would like to point out that unintentinally you are coming across rather self conceited. You have stated that the Shafi Madhab is inpractical, and that Imam Shafi couldn’t spot a simle error in the Arabic Language. I would encourage you be confident in your Hanafi position, and practice it with yaqin, but i would also suggest that you refrain from putting down the positions of other schools especially since the position of Wudu becoming nullified is not the position of Imam Shafi it is the position of Ibn Musud, Ibn Umar. Ash Shafi simply felt this the strongest and certainly the most precautionary view. Are you suggesting that the sahaba did not know the Arabic language!!! We will not find out until yaumul qiyama who is correct, rather it is your job as a non scholar to practice and perform action upon what you know.If you happen to be a scholar then i would question why you are wasting time refuting positions which have exsisited from the begining and will remain to the end, instead of benifiting your community by teaching them how to perform wudu prayer.ETC. The article was somthing to help out those who follow the shafi school not to start a back and forth discussion. If you don’t like to see the evidences of other schools don’t read the article. Jazakullah Khairan

20. On Jul 17, 2008, Abul Layth said:

    What I have shown is that the Madh-hab flourished even under Ottoman control, Shaam and Masr remained dominately Shafi’i.” I would hardly describe the conditions in which the Shafi’i maddhab existed in Egypt as “flourishing.” Insurrections and mutiny was common by Jews and Christians at the time. And for good reason.

    I have already given examples of the madh-hab flourishing, and I needn’t waste more of my time responding to your hijacking of the real topic at hand. Now to the good fiqh material:

    First, you made it sound as if lams is always used to mean touching literally.
    You even quote a hadith in Bukhari and Muslim narrated by Abu Huraira in which the Prophet distinguishes between lams (actual touching) and zina (fornication), and other ahadith that actually distinguish touching from sexual intercourse. However, there is no need to refer to ahadith because the Quran also has the word “lams” in a place other than Surah Al Maidah. In Surah Al Baqarah, the verse, “Wa ‘In Ţallaqtumūhunna Min Qabli ‘An Tamassūhunna.” (And if you divorce them before you have touched them). This “touch” implies sexual intercourse, and even Shafi’i admits this. In almost every case, when the word “touching” is used in proximity to women (or the other sex), it means sexual intercourse. This is an error that no native speaker of Arabic could commit.

    Every āyah is taken in its proper context. The āyāt you have quoted are easily responded to by the Shāfi’ī linguists and Fuqahā’, as well as the legal terminology employed by our beloved Nabī (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam). Was it an error of one of the greatest masters of the language, Umar ibn Al Khattāb (radhiya Allahu ‘anhu)? Or Ibn Umar? Or Ibn Mas’ud?

    The fact is your claim is ridiculously invalid, and only shows your own weakness in the language, as its masters certainly had no problems with the grammatical structure of the āyah.

    You say:

    You even quote a hadith in Bukhari and Muslim narrated by Abu Huraira in which the Prophet distinguishes between lams (actual touching) and zina (fornication), and other ahadith that actually distinguish touching from sexual intercourse. However, there is no need to refer to ahadith because the Quran also has the word “lams” in a place other than Surah Al Maidah.

    Rasūlullah (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam), our beloved master, is the explainer of the Qur’an. The Qur’an is full of proofs for the necessity of turning to his affair when there is disagreement, such as His (ta’alā)’s statement,

    فَلاَ وَرَبِّكَ لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ حَتَّىَ يُحَكِّمُوكَ فِيمَا شَجَرَ بَيْنَهُمْ ثُمَّ لاَ يَجِدُواْ فِي أَنفُسِهِمْ حَرَجاً مِّمَّا قَضَيْتَ وَيُسَلِّمُواْ تَسْلِيماً

    “But no, by the Lord, they can have no (real) Faith, until they make thee judge in all disputes between them, and find in their souls no resistance against Thy decisions, but accept them with the fullest conviction.”

    And His, the exalted’s, words:

    يا أيها الذين آمنوا أطيعوا الله وأطيعوا الرسول وأولي الأمر منكم فإن تنازعتم في شيء فردوه إلى الله والرسول إن كنتم تؤمنون بالله واليوم الآخر ذلك خير وأحسن تأويلا

    “O ye who believe! Obey Allah , and obey the messenger and those of you who are in authority; and if ye have a dispute concerning any matter, refer it to Allah and the messenger if ye are (in truth) believers in Allah and the Last Day. That is better and more seemly in the end.”

    So, when He (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) clarifies a ruling, it is his explanation that stands for the Muslim. The Shāfi’ī Imāms do not deny that “Lams” can mean coitus. They argue that in this context it refers to the literal meaning of lams – specifically with the recitation of “lāmastum” with the elongated ا, which in the language refers to less than coitus. Their argument does not just stem from the linguistic usage – but the Sunnic usage – as well as the understanding of the earliest Muslims. Ahlul-Hadīth, unlike Ahlul-Ra’i, cling to the statements of the Nabī, as well as the forefathers in explaining the texts, and such suffices them.

    We have produced several authentic proofs to justify the both the legal as well as the linguistic usage of “Lams” amongst the ‘arabs and the Sahābah:

    1) The athar of Ibn ‘Umar that kissing is from “lams”. (in the above article)

    2) The authentic statement of Ibn Mas’ūd: القبلة من اللمس وفيها الوضوء، واللمس ما دون الجماع – That kissing and what is less than intercourse is “Al-Lams”.

    3) The Nabī (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam)’s saying that the zinā of the hand is “lams”. (above)

    4) The story of the companion 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 لَمَسْ

    “Maybe you kissed her or just touched her (lams).”

    From the clearest proofs that the Nabī (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) understood Al-Lams to be less than touch legally!

    5) The authentic statement of ‘Umar (radhiya Allahu ‘anhu) “Verily, kissing is from touching, so make wudhu’ from it.”

    All the above incidents mentioned above are regarding the legal explanation of “Al-Lams”. The statements of Ibn Umar and Amīr Al-Mu’minīn Umar ibn Al-Khattāb (radhiya Allahu ‘anhu) fall within the explanation of the “Al-Lams” in this specific verse.

    There is yet another argument that went unmentioned and that is the narrations utilized by the Hanafīs, radiya Allahu Anhum, are abrogated by the verse in the Qur’ān mentioned above. This view was also forwarded by Ibn Hazm when he said, “There is nothing narrated in this chapter [of kissing not nullifying wudu’] that is authentic. And if it were authentic then it would be said that all of that occurred prior to the revelation of the verse of Wudu’regarding Al-Lams.”

    [See Ibn Hajr's Talkhis-Al-Habir where he quotes His words: Vol 1 page 354, published by Adwaa' us-Salaf]

    Lastly, I would like to respond to the ridiculous statement of Hasan when he claimed:

    However, I wish to point out that a lot of the arguments quoted above and by other Shafi’i’s that attempt to prove that touching a woman nullifies wudu were probably not advanced by Shafi’i himself but by his followers who could not accept that he had made a human mistake.

    Many of the arguments utilized by the Shāfi’īyyah are in fact the arguments of Imām Ash-Shāfi’ī. For example the report of Ibn Umar that states, “Whoever kisses a woman, or jassahā with his hand, then upon him is wudu’”, was quoted from Imam Ash-Shaf’ī’is Al-Umm 1/15.’

    Many of the other reports can be found in the Musnad of Imām Ash-Shāfi’ī as well. Imām Ash-Shāfi’ī even went on to refute some of the early Hanafī āthār used for their stance. An example was the narration that went through Ma’bad ibn Nubātah from Muhammad ibn ‘Amrū ibn ‘Atā’ from ‘ā’ishah from the Nabī (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) that stated that he kissed his wives and did not remake wudu’.” (reported by Abdur-Razzāq in his Musannaf 510)

    Imām Ash-Shafi’ī declared Ma’bad “unknown” as recorded by the Bayhaqi and Ibn Hajr. There are many other examples that can be seen if one simply opens the books of the Shafi’ī jurists. Your claim is bātil, and you should stop your unfounded conjecture.

    [Regarding Ma'bad, Ibn Abdul Barr, the Maliki, stated in his Al-Istidhkaar, "He is majhul and according to us there is no support in what he narrates." (1/324)]

21. On Jul 17, 2008, Hasan said:

    I apologize if I presented my arguments too strongly. It was never my intention to do so (read my first response, and you will see that it was a simple response.) Nevertheless, I was forced to respond in such a manner because of certain comments that questioned the facts I had posted. Also, my method of response (which involves the quote that I am addressing followedd by my comment) is simply reflective of the fact that I am a law student and am used to debunking erroneous statements methodically and systematically.

    “You have stated…that Imam Shafi couldn’t spot a simple error in the Arabic Language.” This is a misunderstanding of what I said. When I said that no native Arabic speaker could make such a mistake, I was not referring to Imam Shafi’i. It was a way of corroborating what I said; in essence, I was saying, “ask any native Arabic speaker, and he will confirm what I have stated.”

    Time and time again, I state that I have nothing against the shafi’i maddhab. I love Imam shafi’i so much that I named my son after him, which is more than most Shafi’i’s can say. My arguments are not against Shafi’i the person, but the arguments presented in this article. And as I said before, I highly doubt that those arguments were propounded by Shafi’i in the first place.

    “You have stated that the Shafi Madhab is impractical.” I provided a lengthy explanation on my proofs for this, but the seekingilm team censored my article and removed what I said. If you want further information on my line of reasoning, I can post it on an article discussing exactly that.

    “The position of Wudu becoming nullified is not the position of Imam Shafi it is the position of Ibn Musud and Ibn Umar.” What is the stated position of each companion and each person is many times not the actual position of that person. To provide an example, read “Qabd vs Sadl:An argument that the true Maliki opinion is right hand over the left” by clicking on the following link:

    http://seekingilm.com/archives/335

    In this article, the author voices his opinion that Malik’s opinion and the practice of the people of Madina was not sadl, but qabd, even though most Malikis maintain the converse. So even if the “opinion” of an individual is said to be something, it might not be. Perhaps the best example of this is in hadith where the Prophet was said to have an opinion even though many ahadith are fabricated.

    The reason that I am mentioning this is that although the Companion’s had some differences in opinion about certain issues, those issues were those that had not bbeen clarified by the Prophet. Whether the correct position is that touching a woman nullifies wudu or not, I am certain that the prophet made it clear in his lifetime. Therefore, I doubt that many great Companions may have had a difference of opinion about the matter. This is simply my opinion, and I may be wrong, but it does make sense.

    “I would also suggest that you refrain from putting down the positions of other schools.” If “putting down the positions of other schools” means that I refrain from attempting through this forum and website to arrive at the truth, and to not convey that truth to others, then I am afraid that I cannot comply with your request.

    “We will not find out until yaumul qiyama who is correct….I would question why you are wasting time refuting positions which have exsisited from the begining and will remain to the end.” Questions that have existed from the beginning of time include whether God exists, (for people who believe He does exist) what is they way to salvation, what is the purpose of life, etc. These are all questions that cannot be answered definitively. Are we to refrain from arguing from our beliefs? Even though Muslims cannot absolutely prove that Islam is 100% true (and I know this will cause some controversy, but I am not elaborating as seekingilm will simply erase what I write), why do we attempt to proselytize others? Then, in your opinion, is attempting to prove something that cannot be established definitively baseless? Should Muslims cease to do so?

    “The article was somthing to help out those who follow the shafi school not to start a back and forth discussion.” That is an unIslamic statement. That cannot be the purpose of the article, because it is addressed to all Muslims, not just Shafi’i’s. The Prophet’s message was addressed to anyone who listned to him, not just Shafi’i’s. And this article, even though written by a Shafi’i and trying to prove that view, is not really trying to prove the Shafi’i view, but rather the Prophet Muhammad ’s view.

    “If you don’t like to see the evidences of other schools don’t read the article.” Again, a very narrow-minded and unIslamic statement. Islamically, you should be encouragin me to pursue other sources of knowlegde. Instead, you are trying to quench my thirst! It is surprising that where before, this subject would have invited an intense and fruitful discussion, people today are trying to prevent any such discussion from taking place. In addition, your statement assumes a lot, albeit incorrectly unfortunately. I never said that I don’t like evidences contrary to my beliefs. In fact, I stated outright that I learned a lot from this article. Indeed, I hope that more articles are posted to increase my knowledge in matters that I am deficient in.

22. On Jul 18, 2008, Ikhlas said:

    As salamu alaykum Hasan

    I will not waste time answering your strange interpretation of what i have said as “unislamic”. Abul layth’s mail shows your presumtions about the lack of differnce between the sahaba to be completley incorrect. If you choose not to acknowledge a diffrence from the Sahaba on this issue then this is your narrow mindedness manifesting. If you really believe the Shafi Madhab is unpractical then this is again your unfortunate narrow mindedness and know that the issues the madhab differ the the mujtahid are not many. I would suggest that you have not studied the Madhab(Shafi) with teacher in any great detail. The hanfis have positions in there books which are not practiced, such as the permissability to write the Quran in blood for shifa, which you will find in the Hashiya of Ibn Abideen, however when teaching the text the teacher will point out that this can not be acted upon. There are other “inpractical” historic positions within the madhab that are not applied because the madhab as a whole does not find these position strong. I would ask you to give the Shafi school the same benifit of the doubt there is a difference in learning from books and learning from teachers, teachers often give an alternative stronger opinion from the school when teaching texts perhaps if you had consulted a Shafi teaher with your questions, as long as they are questions and not accuations as above, then i am sure you would have found satifactory answers.Learning should not be through debate Brother, and i pray that Allah gives you an increase in knowledge along with adab. May Allah rewarded you for wanting to know more.
    (I have heard the Hanafi reasoning before, on the inpractical nature of our madhab and to be honest it is mostly bigoted nonsense, it would be rare fo ryou to find the same accusation flying back from Shafis certainly not my teachers who state the Hanfis are correct according to there understanding. As for the Maliki position of letting the hands hang down at the side then there is a difference within the madhab itself, the stronger opinion being to let them hang down. This is different from Our school in which there is no difference in Wudu being nullified by touching a non mahrem, the only diffence in our school is in the details i.e the weaker positions states that to touch hair and nails is included,as nullifiers as is touching a young or old women, however the mutamid position is that different to this.I hope i have not offended you i would only wish good for you, so please take the above as advice not a telling off as such

    Jazakullah Khairan

    Jazakullah Khiran

23. On Jul 18, 2008, Hasan said:

    Assalamu Alaikum Ikhlas

    I admit that I said that the Shafi’i maddhab is impractical, and for most people this will sound incorrect. That is because most people think on a personal level, and the Shafi’i maddhab is, in fact, as practical on the individual level as any other maddhab. On the level of a government and administration, however, it is my belief, and many other objective people, Muslims and non Muslims, hanafis and non hanafis, agree with me, that the Shafi’i maddhab simply cannot cope with the intricacies and difficulties that come with a large group of people. Populations consist of a diverse assemply of people who have different ideas and different goals. And all these people’s rights and goals need to be acknowledged. If even one group’s rights are not given problems will begin to exist.

    Thus, when I said “impractical”, I did not mean unlawful or repulsive; rather I meant that problems will initiate. I do not know exactly what you mean by writing Quran in blood, nor do I agree with it (and I disagree with the position of the Hanafi maddhab on many instances), but it is not impractical, because it can easily be done. That is what I meant by impractical, and I believe that maybe you did noy fully understand what I meant by saying that word, and so it seemed I was saying something much more offensive than what I meant to say. As I said before, I actually wrote a comprehensive argument to support my argument, but the seekingilm team thought it wise to suppress it.

    As for your advice to learn from a Shafi’i teacher, my first teacher and my current one is a Shafi’i. (He is no small imam, but the most well-known in the North East). I respect him for his knowledge and I ask Allah to bless him for encouraging me to pursue fiqh in addition to my law studies to get a good feel for the differences in Islamic and American law. I believe that it will make me a better litigator some day.

    Debating is not disallowed in my opinion. No one should be offended, first because I did not launch any personal attacks on anyone, only at ideas which is the way it should be done; and second because it is so constructive. I enjoy it (which is one of the reasons that I am a Hanafi–because it encourages such debate, in contrast to some scholars such as Imam Malik). I also realize that this is a predominantly Shafi’i website, with three of its four members being Shafi’i, and I promise that in the future I will try to be more tactful (which is something not encouraged at Yale).

    Also, I did not state that I believe that the Companions had no difference at all–that would be a very narrow-minded view indeed. However, in my opinion, they would not have a difference in large matters that were clarified by the Prophet–issues that came to completion before the end of his lifetime. In my humble opinion, that is not the case here. I believe that the Prophet would have clarified the correct opinion, and that most of the Sahaba would have known the correct position. If the Prophet did not clarify most of the rulings, then Allah would not have allowed him to leave this world.

    I would also like to thank you for being so cordial. I think it is one of the beautiful things about Islam that someone can disagree with another Muslim, but still love him. This is in contrast to the many denominations of Chrisitans who hate one another and have killed each other in the past.

24. On Jul 20, 2008, Abul Layth said:

    What is the stated position of each companion and each person is many times not the actual position of that person.

    It is not simply a “statement”, but an athar with an isnād. The Isnād is what allows us to verify what is, and what is not valid. The statements of Ibn ‘Umar, ‘Umar ibn Al-Khattāb, Abdullah ibn Mas’ūd (radiya Allāhu ‘Anhum) have authentic chains reported from them attesting to what the article claimed: that “Lams” is less than coitus.

    As for Abdullah ibn ‘Umar (radhiya Allahu ‘anhu)’s opinion then it is reported by Imām Ash-Shāfi’ī from Imām Mālik from Ibn Shihāb Az-Zuhrī from Sālim from His father Abdullah ibn Umar. Such a chain is beyond questionability. If you had read the article properly you would have seen the isnād:

    أَخْبَرَنَا مَالِكٌ عَنْ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ عَنْ سَالِمِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ عَنْ أَبِيهِ قَالَ قُبْلَةُ الرَّجُلِ امْرَأَتَهُ وَجَسُّهَا بِيَدِهِ مِنْ الْمُلَامَسَةِ فَمَنْ قَبَّلَ امْرَأَتَهُ أَوْ جَسَّهَا بِيَدِهِ فَعَلَيْهِ الْوُضُوءُ

    Imām Ash-Shāfi’ī reports the following narration: Mālik reported from Ibn Shihāb from Sālim ibn Abdullah ibn Umar from his father (Abdullah ibn Umar) that he said,

    “The man kissing his wife or touching her (note: the word is jass. ‘Aisha Bewley translates it as “fondles”. Indeed that is a probably meaning, but the Qāmūs also says “touch” is synonymous wallahu ‘alim) with his hand is from “the one who touches (lams), and so whoever kisses or touches his woman with his hand then upon him is wudhu’.”

    Takhrīj: Reported by Shāfi’ī in his Al-Umm 1/12 as well as the Musnad page 11, The Muwatta’ of Imām Mālik, chapter of Tahārah, Ad-Dāraqutnī in his Sunan who said ‘Sahīh’, Bayhāqī in his Sunan 1/124.

    You must now disprove this chain by using the science of hadīth in order to have any justification in casting doubt upon the validity of the stance being his said opinion.

    We also produced the isnād for the statement of Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, tarjuman al-Qur’an! Again, we shall requote the isnād in hopes that you can prove its absolute in authenticity:

    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.

    Takhrīj: Al-Hākim in his Mustadarak 1/229, Al-Bayhaqī in his Sunan Al-Kubrā 1/124.

    There is a second supporting chain for a similar statement reported from him mentioned by Imām Al-Bayhaqī in his Al-Khilāfiyyāt:

    From Abī ‘Abīdah from Abdullah who said, ‘Kissing is from touching (al-Lams), and there is wudhu’ for it, and “touching” is what is less than coitus.’

    Al-Bayhaqī states regarding this chain and wording, “There is irsāl in this chain, for Abā ‘Abīdah did not hear from his father.”

    This second chain is reported by Ad-Dāraqutnī in his Sunan who declared it Sahīh, Al-Hākim in the Mustadarak, Bayhaqī in his Sunan, and Abdur-Razzāq in his Musannaf 1/166.

    And lastly the isnād from Umar ibn Al-Khattāb:

    Imām Al-Bayhaqī also quotes the following narration from ‘Umar ibn Al Khattāb (radhiya allāhu ‘anhu wa ‘alayhis salām):

    أَخْبَرَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ الْحَافِظُ أَخْبَرَنَا إِسْمَاعِيلُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ الْفَضْلِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ الشَّعْرَانِىُّ حَدَّثَنَا جَدِّى حَدَّثَنَا إِبْرَاهِيمُ بْنُ حَمْزَةَ حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الْعَزِيزِ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ يَعْنِى ابْنَ عَمْرِو بْنِ عُثْمَانَ عَنِ الزُّهْرِىِّ عَنْ سَالِمٍ عَنِ ابْنِ عُمَرَ أَنَّ عُمَرَ بْنَ الْخَطَّابِ رَضِىَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ قَالَ : إِنَّ الْقُبْلَةَ مِنَ اللَّمْسِ فَتَوَضَّئُوا مِنْهَا.
    ‘Umar said, “Verily, kissing is from touching, so make wudhu’ from it.”
    Takhrīj: Reported by Ad-Dāraqutnī in his Sunan in his chapter on Tahārah and said after it, “Sahīh”. Also by Al-Hākim in his Mustadarak 1/229, and Bayhaqī in his Sunan Al-Kubrā 1/123.

    To cast doubt upon these statements being from these Sahāba requires proof. Bring it!

25. On Aug 28, 2008, Abi `Abbas al-Maliki said:

    salam `alaykum:

    By the way, I am a Maliki but I still call Imam Abi Hanifa (rahimahullah) as Imam al-`Azam

    Wa salamu `alaykum

26. On Aug 28, 2008, Abi `Abbas al-Maliki said:

    And Imam Malik is al-Najm wal Imam `Amal Ahl al-Madina (raDhiy allahu `anh)

27. On Nov 10, 2008, daywalker said:

    Assalamualaikum, i had question regarding this :

    The hands zinā (fornication) is touching”

    If i touch my wife with hand its not zina or ? Then how can i use this hadiths , that if i touch my wife then i gotta do wudu, allthough its not zina? Other hadiths is clear to me.

    And what is the rules in hajj? sorry if it has been allready answered, but cause of twisting topic, i lost my mood to read through all article.

28. On Nov 30, 2008, Abul Layth said:

    Wa’alaykum Salam wr wb,

    Beneath the hadith I stated:

    The proof is that sexual intercourse is actually distinguished from the “lams / touching” of the hand. Therefore the Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa ‘alā Ālihi wa sallam) made a distinction between intercourse and ‘touching’ of the hands.

    The usage of the term “lams” is what proves that what was intended was less than intercourse - or simply touching. The relationship with “lams” and one’s spouse is of no concern when what is meant by the utilization of this hadith is strictly proof via linguistic usage of the term “lams” in the language.

    Jazakum Allahu Khairan,
    Abul Layth

29. On Dec 4, 2008, tru_quran said:

    Assalaamu ‘alaykum,

    A word of advice from Imam Dhahabi(raheemahullah),

    ‘Do not think that your madhhab is the best, and the one most beloved by Allah , for you have no proof of this. The Imams, may Allah be pleased with them, all follow great goodness; when they are right, they receive two rewards, and when they are wrong, they still receive one reward.’ (al-Dhahabi, Zaghal al-`Ilm wa’l-Talab, 15, quoted in Sa`id Ramadan al-Buti, Al-Lamadhhabiya Akhtar Bid`a tuhaddid al-Shari`a al-Islamiya, 3rd edition, Beirut, 1404, 81.)

    [Quote taken from http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/ahm/newmadhh.htm ]

1 Trackback(s)

1. In defense of the Shafi’i position that touching your wife breaks your ablution « nur al huda on Nov 30, 2008