Category Archives: It-haf al-Talib

The Book of Fasting (Ithaf al-Talib)

ithaf talib fasting

Salam

With Ramadan approaching I thought it might be useful to upload a document I worked on back in 2009.  Please find a link to the excellent beginners text on Hanafi fiqh entitled Ithaf al-Talib along with its commentary Minhaj al-Raghib.  There are selections of this text on this site in a draft form, however I believe Shaykh Zaqir Adam from the Dar al-Arqam organisation in Leicester is working on a comprehensive translation of this text.

Book Of Fasting- Gift For Seeker v3

It-haf al-Talib: Fiqh Of Tayammum

Salam.  I have been working occasionally on the wonderful beginners level aqidah-fiqh-tasawwuf text from al-Ahsa.  Those who have visited the blog in the past will have noticed that other sections from this work have been posted.  May Allah (the Exalted) give us tawfiq to complete this work.  A reminder: The text of  ‘It-haf al-Talib’ is in bold, and the other notes are based on the authors and editors commentary and footnotes. Please refer to other posts on the blog for more details about this blessed text.

Chapter on Tayammum

-In the sacred law (shariah) it is the intending the use of clean earth, and its use in a specific manner for the performance of an act of worship.

[Integrals of Tayammum]  Its integrals are two things:  1- The two strikes  2- Complete covering

[Conditions of Tayammum] Its conditions are six:  1- The intention[1] 2-The Wiping  3-That it be with three fingers or more  4-The soil  5-That it be clean  6-The absence of water

[Recommended Acts of Tayammum]  Its recommended acts are eight:  1-Striking with the inner part of the hands  2-Passing them forward  3-Passing them backwards  4-To dust them both off  5-To spread out the fingers  6-The tasmiyah  7 -Order[2] 8-Continuity.

[Reasons Permitting Tayammum]

One who is unable to use water Which is unqualified (mutlaq) and is of a sufficient amount to purify with due to it being a distance Even in a city of a mile Which is a third of a farsakh, 4000 steps, and is a cubit and half from the general cubit (aamah), which in turn is 24 fingers.[3]

or due to illness From which a person fears an increase in the illness or a delay in the healing based on a predominant view, or the opinion of an expert Muslim cold From which he fears harm or illness, even in a city, this is for a person in a state of major ritual impurity (junub)[4] if they do not possess the fees for a bath house (hammam).  If they do possess this then there is agreement that it is not permitted.  As for the person in a state of minor ritual impurity it is said tayammum is permitted for them.  Al-Aini said[5] in ‘Sharh al-Kanz’:  The correct view is that it is not permitted for a resident person in a state of minor ritual impurity to perform tayammum (i.e. if they possess enough money to use washing facilities).

fear of an enemy Whether it be a human or other, whether he fears for himself, his properties or trusts thirst Whether he fears it at that moment or in the future, or for a friend amongst fellow travellers, his riding animal even if it be a dog.  Likewise his need for it for making dough or the removal of filth[6]

absence of a means Such as a rope and a bucket, for all of the previously mentioned reasons performs tayammum, intending Purification from ritual impurity (hadath) upon his person.  It is not a condition to specify the removal of major ritual impurity (janabah) from the minor ritual impurity, or the making of the prayer permissible, or an intended worship[7] which is not correct without purification such as prayer and prostration of recitation.  Such that if a person made tayammum for the entry to a masjid, calling the adhan or iqamah he cannot perform the prayer with this tayammum.  The time of the intention is:  At the time of striking the hands upon that which the person will be making tayammum from, or at the time of wiping the body parts with dust which they have come in contact with.

with two strikes Even if it be from other than the person making tayammum.  So for example if he intends tayammum and orders another to perform tayammum on him it is correct/valid.

Note: If a persons face and arms come in to contact with dust during strong winds for example, or a wall collapses creating a large amount of dust in the air and the person wipes his face and arms accompanied by an intention then it will be correct.

covering Meaning with the wipe the face and hands along with the elbows[8] A person should remove the ring, rub between the fingers and wipe all of the skin and hair of the face even if The person performing tayammum is in a state of major ritual impurity (janabah) or menstruating Or in a state of post natal bleeding[9]

With a pure substance from the type[10]of the earth Such as dust, pebbles, stones, mountainous salt not sea salt.  If the dust is admixed with something else, if the dust is predominant then it is permissible, if not then it is not.

It is correct Meaning tayammum before The entry of the time Likewise one performance of tayammum and for more than one obligatory (prayer) Because it is regarded as absolute purity such as wudu.[11]

[Nullifiers Of Tayammum]

It is nullified by Referring to tayammum because it is a substitute for it and therefore takes its ruling That which nullifies wudu, And It is also nullified by the disappearance/absence of the reason which permitted it in the first place.  Thus if a person performed tayammum due to an illness it is nullified by his recovery.  Likewise due to cold when the weather is no longer cold or the absence of an enemy, or the presence of a means. to access water.  All of these are included in his statement:

The ability to use a sufficient amount of water For his purification even if only washing each part once.

Completion: It is compulsory to seek water for the distance of a ghalwah[12] which is 300 cubits[13] if he thinks it is close by[14]


[1] The difference between the Wudu and Tayammum such that the intention is not required as a condition for the validity of wudu, but however is a condition for the validity/correctness of tayammum is because wudu (and its like such as ghusl) is that they are performed with water which is cleansing substance by nature.  So when a person performing wudu or bathing uses water the desired aim of purification and cleanliness is achieved from the use of the water.  As for Tayammum it performed by the use of soil/dust which by its nature is a soiling substance.  However the sacred law has regared it as being a purifying substance due to need.  Therefore if any one of us were to wipe their face with soil/dust we would not know if this was a soiling or purification of our face except by the accompaniment of an intention.  Therefore it is necessary for the intention for the wiping of the face and hands/arms with dust as being an act of purification.  Maraqi al-Falah (p.660).

[2] That a person start with the face and then the hands/arms as was the practice of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace).

[3] It is equivalent to approximately 50 centimetres, therefore based on this a farsakh would be 3000 metres, a mile would be a third of this and would be approximately 1000 metres.  According to Abu Yusuf (Allah have mercy on him) if the water is at distance such that if the person went towards it, performs wudu, and his caravan should depart and disappear from sight, it is defined as being distant and then tayammum becomes permissible (Ibn al-Hummam 1/85).  Some of the scholars defined it as that if ones voice would not reach a place, then it is regarded as being distant, see al-Mabsut of al-Sarakhsi (1/115).

[4] If there is surety of there being harm in the performance of wudu there is agreement that tayammum is permitted for him, because harm is repelled by statements of the sacred law. See Rad al-Muhtar ala Dur al-Mukhtar (1/156).  The basis for this is that which is reported by Imam Ahmad in ‘al-Musnad’ (3/204) from Ibn Abbas from Amr bin al-Aas that he performed prayer with the people whilst in a state of major ritual impurity.  When they came to Madinah they asked the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) who questioned him regarding it.  He replied:  O Messenger of Allah I feared that the cold would kill me, as Allah (the Most High) has said: ‘Do not kill yourselves, Indeed Allah is Most Merciful with you’ so I performed tayammum and prayed.  At this the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) laughed.

[5] He is Mahmud bin Ahmad bin Musa bin Ahmad bin Hussein bin Yusuf bin Mahmud al-Ayntabi, al-Halabi and then al-Qahiri, al-Hanafi.  Better known as al-Aini (Badr al-Din, Abul Thana, Abu Muhammad).  A jurist, scholar of Usul, Mufassir, expert in hadith, historian, grammarian, poet.  He was fluent in both Arabic and Turkish.  He was born in Kaykan on the 17th of Ramadan in the year 762 Hijri and passed away in Cairo in 4/12/855 Hijri.  From his numerous include:  His commentary of Sahih al-Bukhari in 21 volumes called Umdat al-Qari, Uqd al-Juman fi Tarikh Ahl al-Zaman in 19 volumes, Ramz al-Haqaiq fi Sharh Kanz al-Daqaiq in fiqh.  See Mujam al-Muallifin (12/150) and Fawaid al-Bahiyyah (p.205).

[6] Meaning more than a dirham in terms of size.

[7] Intended worship (ibadah maqsudah) is that which which is not obligated is the course of having to perform another act of worship.  See Bahr al-Raiq (1/157).

[8] Jabir reports from the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:  ‘Tayammum is two strikes, a strike for the face, and a strike for the hands up to the elbows.’  Reported by al-Hakim in ‘al-Mustadrak’ (1/180).

[9] Meaning a menstruating and post natal bleeding woman both of whose bleeding has ceased.

[10] Everything which burns with fire and becomes ash such as leaves and wood.  Likewise everything which is malleable such as metal, gold, and silver.  Also everything which is consumed by the earth such as grains and seeds.  All of these are not regarded as being from the type of the earth.  All such objects/materials which are not like the above are to be regarded as being from the type of the earth.  Therefore all that which is not from the type of the earth is not permissible to make tayammum from if it is not covered in dust.  As for that which is from the type of the earth it is permissible to make tayammum from it even if it does not have dust on it with the condition that it is pure.  See al-Zaylai ala al-Kanz (1/38-39).  The basis for this are His (the Exalted’s) words:  ‘Perform tayammum from pure earth’.  The earth is defined as that which is apparent upon the land from its type.  And that which is from the hadith of Jabir: ‘…the earth was made a masjid and pure for me…’ reported by al-Bukhari (335) and Muslim (3).

[11] Because tayammum is akin to wudu due to the order in the noble verse where He (the Exalted) said:  ‘If you do not find water then perform tayammum with pure earth’ (al-Maidah:6) and His (Allah bless him and give him peace) saying:  ‘Dust is a purification for a Muslim even if it be for 10 Hajj’s if he does not find water’  reported by Abu Dawud (333) and Ibn Hibban (1308 ) al-Hakim (1/176-177 ) from Abu Dharr.  It was graded Sahih by al-Tirmidhi (124) who said it was Hasan Sahih.  I say:  However it is superior to repeat it for every obligatory prayer to remove oneself from the difference of opinion regarding the matter.

[12] Ghalwah:  It is the furthest point at which an archers arrow will fall.  From al-Layth:  a complete farsakh is 25 ghalwah, and from Ibn Shuja: a ghalwah is the distance of between 300-400 cubits. In modern measurements it would equal approximately 184.80 metres.  See ‘Mujam Lughah al-Fuqaha’ (p.334).

[13] Even by looking in its directions if it is evident by looking.

[14] Meaning has a strong view because it necessitates action in practical acts, as opposed to doubt for no ruling is built upon it.

It-haf: Leftover Water -Pt.11

Salam. Alhumdulilah we continue with our eleventh lesson on the hanafi fiqh text from al-Ahsa entitled ‘It-haf al-Talib’ by Sh. Abu Bakr al-Mulla. This lesson covers the rulings related to water which has come into contact with humans and various animals. I chose to use the term ‘remnant’ as opposed to ‘leftover’. As always feedback for these rough drafts is welcome. Wassalam

**********

[Rulings of Remnants]
The remnant of a human,
– Meaning that which remains after his drinking it, even when in a state of janabah. Or that of a disbeliever whose mouth is clean.

that whose meat is consumed
– Including a horse according to the most correct opinion

is pure,
– And purifying without being disliked to use

And
– The remnants

Of a dog[1], pig and predatory animal
– Such as a leopard and fox

is filthy,
– It is regarded as heavy filth[2]

And
– The remnants

of a cat[3],
– Which is domesticated

undomesticated chicken
– Which walks in filth, if it does not then there it is not disliked

And
– The remnants of a

predatory bird
– Such as a hawk, falcon, kite and crow. If one is sure that there is no filth on its beak its remnant is not disliked

is disliked.
– It is slightly (tanzihi) disliked to use whilst other pure water is available, however if other pure water is not available it is not disliked. Likewise its consumption by a poor person is not disliked.[4]

A donkey
– Which is domesticated

and mule (baghl) are doubtful.
– Meaning it is pure, but there is no certainty in its being purifying. If a person can not find any other purifying water they perform wudu with this and also perform tayammum out of precaution. It is correct to perform either of the two first.[5]

And perspiration is like the remnant.
– Meaning the sweat of all animals takes the ruling of purity and impurity as that of the remnant. Therefore it follows that the sweat of a donkey if it comes into contact with water renders it doubtful

[1] The evidence that a dogs drinking from water renders it impure are the words of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless Him and give Him peace) that He said: “If a dog drinks from one of your containers, wash it three times.” The is due to it being impure. It is desirable that it be washed seven times because of the varying transmissions of this hadith, and also that one of the washings be with soil/dust. The evidence that anything which a pig drinks from is impure is the text of the Quran, in His words: ‘It is filth’
[2] Because its saliva is produced from its body which is impure, thereby extension its saliva will also be impure. Therefore when it drinks from water it saliva comes into contact with it and renders it impure. See Maraqi al-Falah (p.19).
As for Imam Malik, he holds the view that their remnants are not impure, because he holds the view that all living creatures are pure. Imam al-Shafi agrees with Imam Malik regarding the purity of predatory animals due to that which is reported by Ibn Majah from Abu Hurayrah that he said: ‘The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless Him and give Him peace) was asked regarding the watering pools between Makka and Madinah, it was said to Him that dogs and predatory animals drink from them. He said: It has what it has drunk, and what remains is for us to drink and is pure.’ They also cite as evidence the narration: ‘Can we perform wudu from that which donkeys have leftover (from drinking)? He said: Yes, and also that which has been leftover from all predatory animals’. Reported by al-Darqutni in his Sunan (1/62)
The hanafis evidence for the impurity of that which predatory animals have drunk from is that which is reported from Umar and Amr bin al-Aas that they came to a pool of water, Amr bin al-Aas said: ‘O owner of the pool, do predatory animals drink from your water? Umar said: O owner of the pool do not tell us’. It is reported by Malik in al-Muwatta (1/23). The proof in this narration is that if the owner of the pool of water had informed them of predatory animals drinking from it, the companions would not have been able to us the water due to the prohibition of doing so.
The evidences for the two hadith cited as proof for the other madhabs is that the they relate to the earlier period of Islam before the meat of predatory animals was made forbidden, or that the question was asked regarding large pools of water which are not rendered impure by these animals drinking from them. The hanafis also say that the narrations contain some weakness, the first contains the narrator Abd al-Rahman bin Zayd, the second contains Dawud bin Husain, he was weakened by Ibn Hibban and Ibn Abi Habibah, and also weakened by al-Darqutni in al-Sunan. See Fath Bab al-Inayah (1/103)
[3] Because it does not avoid filth. The karaha here is tanzihi, even though when karaha is mentioned alone it usually refers to tahrimi as is the practise of the hanafi scholars.
[4] Meaning its leftovers are not disliked for a poor person to eat. Included in this are the likes of bread and other food items which may come in contact with them as they are not free of its saliva. This however does not apply to the left over food items which have not come into contact with their saliva as opposed to water as clarified in ‘al-Hilyah’. The author also indicates to it being disliked for a rich person because he can find other than it. This is when it is thought that its beak is filthy. See Hashiyah Ibn Abidin (1/225).
[5] The cause for the remnants of donkeys being doubtful is the conflicting evidences regarding the permissibility of consuming its meat. There are narrations which indicate to it being permissible, and narrations which state indicate the opposite. When there was a conflict of evidences the hanafis chose that the remnant being purifying was doubtful, also with the mule being born from a donkey it takes its ruling. See Fath Bab al-Inayah (1/107).

It-haf: Water for Purification -Pt.10

Salam, after a break we continue with our postings of the translation of the text ‘It-haf al-Talib’ by Sh. Abu Bakr al-Mulla, along with commentary and footnotes based loosely on the authors and Sh. Yahya al-Mulla’s notes. As mentioned previously the matn is in bold. The rulings in this part of the work (with regards to the different types of water) can be a little confusing but hopefully will not be off putting. Wassalam
********

Section: [The Waters by Which Purification Is Correct*]
It is correct/valid to purify
– From ritual impurity (hadath) and filth (khabath)

with absolute water,
– It is that which is usually described as water without any qualification

such as water from the sky
– Meaning that which descends from it such as rain, snow and hail[1]

and
-water from the

ground,
– Such as from a spring, well, river and ocean, these are just examples of waters found on the ground, and are not meant to be taken as a limiting of the types of waters which can be used.
Therefore it is not correct to remove a state of ritual impurity with water from a tree or fruit, even it appears by itself without being squeezed according to the more apparent view, as its appearing by itself has no impact upon its being conditioned. As water from a tree or fruit is conditioned by not being normally described as water, as opposed to the other types of water mentioned above which when seen are described as being water without necessarily having to add any other condition.
Subsidiary ruling: It is correct to attain purity with water which can become salt.

even if it changes
– Meaning the absolute water

due to being stagnant.
-Meaning because of it. Being stagnant is to stay still and not flow, it is conditioned as such because if a person was to know that the water changed due to some filth then purification with it is not correct. And the basis with doubt is purity.

Not
– Meaning it is not correct to purify from ritual impurity

with water whose nature
– Its nature is liquidity, flowing, quenching/irrigating and causing to grow

has changed by cooking[2],
– Such as water used to cook any items in such as chickpeas and not intended to increase the cleansing quality of the water. For in the case when something is cooked with the water to increase its cleansing properties such as Ushnan[3] and its like, then purification with it is correct as long as the water remains a liquid.

or is admixed
– Meaning the absolute water

with something pure which dominates it,
– Meaning the water, because the ruling is for that which is dominant. Dominance is defined in the case when water is admixed with solids is that the water is no longer a liquid nor flowing, whether this admixed substance be to cleanse such as Ushnan and soap, with or without cooking. Or from other than it such as saffron, fruits and leaves of trees, if they are mixed with water it is correct to purify with it, even if it changes the colour, odour or taste, but with the condition that the name water and its attributes still apply to it, such liquidity, flowing and quenching thirst.[4]

As for liquids: if the admixed amount from them are the same as the three attributes[5] of water such as rosewater which no longer has an odour, and used water based on the fatwa position that it is pure, then the volumes of water will be taken into consideration. If the absolute water is more, then wudu will be permissible with it, however if other liquids are more than the absolute water then it will not be valid to use.
If the admixed liquid differs from water in all of its attributes such as vinegar, if when mixed with water it changes it, or is more than it, it is not valid to perform wudu with it, if the above does not occur then it will be permissible to use this mixed water.

If the admixed liquid differs with the water in one attribute, then the consideration will be whether there is dominance of the attributes which differ. An example of this is milk, it differs from water in that its colour and taste is different, if the colour or taste of the milk dominates the waters colour or smell then wudu will not be valid with this mixed water, however if this does not occur then it will be valid. Likewise liquid from a watermelon only differs with water in terms of its taste, dominance will be considered by the taste becoming apparent.

or changes
– Meaning one of its three attributes

due to an impurity.
-Whether a small or large amount, whether flowing or stagnant

Neither
– Is purification valid/correct

with a small amount of stagnant water[6]in which filth has fallen,
– Likewise if the person is reasonably sure that some filth has fallen into the water, even if a small amount, such as a drop of urine, however small amounts of excrement are excused especially in wells. The chosen view is that criteria for small and large amount is that the one looking at it not regard it to be a large amount.

Neither
– Is it correct to remove a state of ritual impurity

with water used to remove ritual impurity
– For both major and minor ritual impurity, even if without an intention such as the wudu of a person in ritual impurity in order to cool off, likewise a person in ritual impurity washing a body part not washed in wudu, such as the knee etc, the more correct view is that the water is not regarded as used because of this.

Or
– Is used

for an act of obedience,
– Meaning reward, such as renewing the wudu. Other acts of obedience are: washing the hands before eating with the intention of fulfilling the sunnah[7].

The scholars have differed over when water is regarded as becoming ‘used’. Some of them mentioned that it becomes ‘used’ by its mere separating from the body part/limb being washed, not the actual time it is on the body part itself, and this was the position of the verifying scholars. A large number of the scholars mentioned that water does not become ‘used’ until it flows and settles in a place, this was the chosen position of al-Nasafi[8]

it is pure
– In of itself

but not purifying.
– For one in the state of ritual impurity, because it is not absolute water. It is permissible to benefit from it and use it for other things.

Flowing
– The more correct view is that which people regard as flowing

and Stagnant water which reaches ten by ten cubits,
– Meaning all o
f its four sides are ten cubits in length and the surface area of the water be 100 cubits, this is if the pool of water is square shaped. The fatwa position regarding its depth is that the when water is scooped from it the bottom of the pool does not become visible. Flowing water and that which reaches ten by ten cubits

does not become filthy
– By filth falling in it

except by an trace (athar) becoming apparent,
– Meaning of an impurity in it

and they are taste, colour and smell/odour.
– Of an impurity. What has been mentioned regarding ten by ten cubits is the position cited in many of the books of the hanafi madhab, because it is helps to give a guideline for those who are not sure as to what constitutes a large pool of water. Even though the chosen view is the leaving it up to the person faced with the situation. A large pool of water is defined such that one is reasonably sure that an impurity falling in one side of the pool would not spread to the other side, this is reported from Abu Hanifah (Allah have mercy on him) as the Zahir al-Riwayah. The author cited this position in his other fiqh work entitled ‘Jawahir al-Masail’[9] mentioning in its commentary that which supports this position as cited by the author of al-Bahr.[10]
Note: All liquids in terms of when considering them to be a small or large amount are akin to water, as mentioned in al-Bahr.

[1] Purification with snow and hail is only after both of them have been melted such that they become dripping water
[2] Meaning because of cooking, as when water used for cooking it no longer remains absolute water and term water would not be normally and unrestrictedly applied to it.
[3] It is a plant which is used to clean clothes and the body, it has a similar effect to that of soap.
[4] Because the ruling is based on that which is dominant as the Prophet (Allah bless Him and give Him peace) as reported in al-Nasai : ‘Bathed on the day of al-Fath from a container containing a trace of dough’, and it is evident that there will be some change taking place in the water due to the presence of the dough.
And al-Bukhari, Muslim and others report that: ‘While a man was riding (his Mount) in ‘Arafat, he fell down from it (his Mount) and broke his neck (and died). The Prophet (Allah bless Him and give Him peace) said, “Wash him with water and Sidr and shroud him in two pieces of cloth, and neither perfume him, nor cover his head, for he will be resurrected on the Day of Resurrection saying, ‘Labbaik,’ (i.e. like a pilgrim).’ A deceased person is not washed with that which is not permissible for a living person to purify with.
As for the issue of the covering of the head and perfuming of the deceased pilgrim the position of the hanafi scholars is based on another proof which is discussed in their works. See Fath Bab al-Inayah (1/81-82) of Mulla Ali al-Qari.
[5] The three attributes of water are the absence of taste, colour and smell.
[6] Meaning even if it does not change any of its attributes. Imam Malik however regards the changing of the attributes of the water as being the cause for it not being fit for use, whether it be a small or large amount. This is due to His (Allah bless Him and give Him peace) saying: ‘Water is pure except if its odour, taste or colour change due to an impurity occurring in it’, it was reported by al-Bayhaqi in al-Sunan (1/260).
And His (Allah bless Him and give Him peace) saying: ‘Water is pure and is nothing makes it impure’ which was reported by Abu Dawud (1/54-55).

The hanafi scholars did not hold this view because the first hadith mentioned is not strong as was mentioned al-Bayhaqi, and the second hadith is not taken in its absolute/general sense due to His (Allah bless Him and give Him peace) saying: ‘None of you should urinate in stagnant water nor bathe in it from janabah’ in other versions the wording are: ‘then bathe from it’ and ‘then bathe in it’ as mentioned in the Sahih’s. The hanafi scholars argued that if the urinating in water would not render the water unusable then there would be no benefit in the prohibition. See Fath Bab al-Inayah (1/87).
[7] Imam Malik (Allah have mercy upon him) was of the view that it is permissible to purify with used water because it is pure and has come in contact with a pure area, and therefore remains upon its pure state, such as if the water had been used to wash an already clean garment.
[8] See Kanz al-Daqaiq (1/95) along with its commentary al-Bahr al-Raiq.
The author of Kanz al-Daqaiq is: Abdullah bin Ahmad bin Mahmud al-Nasafi, al-Hanafi (Hafidh al-Din, Abul Barakat). He was a jurist (Faqih), Usuli, Mufassir and theologian. He passed away in the year 710 [AH] in the place ‘Idhaj’. From his authored works are:
-Umdah al-Aqaid on theology and its commentary called al-Itimad
-Madarik al-Tanzil wa Haqaiq al-Tawil in Tafsir
-Manar al-Anwar in Usul al-Fiqh
-Al-Kafi fi Sharh al-Wafi and Kanz al-Daqaiq, both of them on hanafi fiqh.
Refer to Mujam al-Muallifin (6/32) and Kashf al-Zanun (2/1515).
[9] Jawahir al-Masail: A text on hanafi fiqh authored by Sheikh Abu Bakr al-Mulla, he began writing a commentary of it, however he did not complete it as mentioned in his biography. The commentary was completed by his son Sheikh Abdullah who passed away in the year 1309 [AH].
[10] Referring to al-Bahr al-Raiq Sharh Kanz al-Daqaiq (1/78). It was authored by the Jurist Zayn al-Din bin Ibrahim, better known as Ibn Nujaim al-Misri al-Hanafi. He was a Faqih and Usuli. From his other works are Sharh al-Manar in Usul al-Fiqh and al-Ashbah wa al-Nazair amongst others. He passed away in the year 970 [AH]. See Mujam al-Muallifin (4/192).

The hadith of the Qullatain: The hanafi scholars did not base their rulings on the hadith of the ‘qullatain’ as they regarded it as not being established, as was stated by Ali bin al-Madini (the Sheikh of al-Bukhari). It was graded as weak by a group of scholars, amongst them Hafidh Ibn Abd al-Barr, Qadi Ismaeel bin Ishaq and Abu Bakr Ibn al-Arabi. Al-Bayhaqi said it was not strong, and it was left by al-Ghazali and al-Ruyani despite their close following of the Shafi school (Allah have mercy on all of them).

The hanafi scholars also argue that Ibn Abbas and Ib Zubair ordered the emptying of the well of Zamzam due to someone dying in it, they argue that if the hadith of the ‘qullatain’ was Sahih it would have been cited as an evidence by the other companions and tabieen. The narration was also weakened by Abu Dawud due to idtirab in its chain and text. See Fath Bab al-Inayah (1/86).

It-haf: When Ghusl is Sunnah -Pt.9

It Is Recommended
– Meaning to bathe

For: The Friday [prayer],
– If a person was to bathe due to being in a state of janabah and then performed the Friday prayer with this act of purification they will be regarded as gaining the reward for bathing.

Two Eid prayers,
– The Fitr and al-Adha.
Bathing [1] is recommended for the prayer according Abu Yusuf, similar to the case of the Friday prayer[2]. If the Eid and Jumah prayer fall on the same day then one bath is sufficient.

Ihram
– Meaning when wishing to enter it, whether it be for Umrah or Hajj. This bath is in order to attain cleanliness not purity. Therefore a woman bathes even if she is in her menstrual period or experiences post birth bleeding. Due to this one does not make tayammum for this bath in the absence of water as mentioned in Maraqi al-Falah.[3]

And
– And for the one performing Hajj in

Arafah
– Before the standing

Additional Rulings:
It is desirable for the following to bathe:
Someone who has embraced Islam, even if they are in a state of purity[4], a person who reaches maturity/puberty[5], one regaining sanity, after cupping, washing the deceased, the night of bara’ah[6], night of al-Qadr, standing in Muzdalifah, when entering Makkah and for the Tawaf al-Ziyarah, the Kusuf prayer, rain prayer, entering Madinah, one who wears a new garment, one repenting from a sin, returning from a journey and a woman experiencing irregular bleeding which ceases.

************
[1] Abu Dawud (354), al-Tirmidhi (497) and al-Nasai (1380) relate from Qatadah from Hasan from Samurah who said: ‘The Messenger of Allah (Peace and Blessings be Upon Him) said :Whoever performs wudu on Friday, then it is good, and whoever bathes it is better’.
Ibn Majah and al-Tabarani report from Ibn Abbas that He (Peace and Blessing be Upon Him) ‘Would bathe on the day of the two Eids’.
[2] There is a difference over bathing for the Jumah prayer. Abu Yusuf was of the view that it was sunnah for the Jumah and Eid prayer. Muhammad bin al-Hasan al-Shaybani and al-Hasan bin Ziyad were of the view that it was sunnah to bathe for the day. This difference of views becomes evident in the following scenarios:
– A person bathes before Fajr and then offers the Jumah prayer from this bathing, then according to Abu Yusuf he will have gained reward, according to the other view this person would have not. This is because they condition the bathing to have occurred on the actual Friday itself.
-Likewise in the case that a person bathes but then nullifies their wudu, then performs wudu and offers the Jumah prayer, according to them both he will have gained reward, but not according to Abu Yusuf, as they both do not view an interruption (of a period of ritual impurity) between the bath and offering the prayer to be of consequence, as opposed to Abu Yusuf. See Al-Binayah (1/179).
This issue was discussed by Sheikh Abd al-Ghani al-Nablusi in Nihayah al-Murad Sharh Hadiyyah Ibn Imad (p.189) and concluded that aslong as a person has an intention when bathing to fulfil this sunnah it is no of no consequence if they nullify their wudu and need to re perform their wudu again in order to offer the prayer.
Ibn Abidin supported this view in his Hashiyah (1/114) and added that in Miraj al-Dirayah it is mentioned even if a person was to bathe on Thursday or the night preceding Jumah they will have fulfilled the sunnah which is to remove any bad odours from the body.
[3] Maraqi al-Falah (p.63). Maraqi al-Falah Sharh Nur al-Idah is authored by Abu al-Ikhlas al-Hasan bin Ammar bin Ali bin Yusuf al-Shurunbulali, from the area called Sharablulah. He was born in the year 994 (AH) and passed away in year 1069 (AH). See Mujam al-Muallifin (3/265).
[4] It is fard (obligatory) on a person who enters Islam whilst junub, in a menstrual period or experiencing post birth bleeding to bathe.
[5] This applies to both male and female. The fatwa position is fifteen years for both of them if no signs of puberty are apparent. This therefore excludes them reaching maturity by the occurring of a wet dream, making a female pregnant in the case of a male. And in the case of a female the occurring of the menstrual cycle and pregnancy. In these cases a bath must be taken. See Hashiyah al-Tahtawi ala Maraqi al-Falah (p.63).
[6] Which is the middle night of the month of Shaban.

It-haf: What Necessitates Ghusl -Pt.9

It Is Necessitated By:
– Meaning those matters which make it obligatory (fard) for a person to perform ghusl

Ejaculation
– Meaning the appearance

of semen
– From the private parts, whether it be whilst awake or when asleep
The semen of a man is thick and white in colour[1], the semen of women is thin and yellow.

accompanied by desire,
– Meaning with pleasure, even if experienced during an erotic dream[2].
Therefore if a person finds that there is a flow of semen to the outside of the body due to being struck then ghusl is not compulsory.
Likewise it is a condition for ghusl to be compulsory that it be accompanied by desire at the time of its separating from its place in the body[3] even if it does not appear outside of the body.

inserting of the head of the private part[4]
– It is that which is above the area that is circumcised, even if it is entered with something covering it through which warmth can be sensed according to the correct opinion.

In the front and rear,
– Of a human

upon both of them,
– Meaning the doer and the one to whom it is done, regardless of whether ejaculation takes place

the one awakening to find
– Meaning one awakening knowing, or seeing on himself

Semen
– Whether he recalls an erotic dream or not

or pre seminal fluid,[5]
– If he recalls having an erotic dream, due to the possibility that it maybe semen which has thinned due to the atmosphere/weather[6]. It is a thin white fluid which appears when aroused.[7] If a person has an erotic dream and awakes to find not wetness but later pre seminal fluid exits from them, then they do not have to perform ghusl. If however semen was to exit then they must perform ghusl.

the end of menstruation and post birth bleeding[8]
– Meaning after purity from its filth by the ending of the menstrual cycle. If a woman gives birth and does not see any blood it is compulsory for her to perform ghusl according to Imam Abu Hanifah out of precaution, his two students however differed.

[1] Al-Zaylai adds in Tabyin al-Haqaiq (1/17) that its odour is similar to that of pollen.
[2] This same ruling also applies to women, see al-Mabsut by al-Sarkhasi (1/70).
[3] The place of semen in the body of a male is a males back, and a bone near the chest for a female. See al-Dur al-Mukhtar with al-Hashiyah (1/159).
Therefore if the semen appears without being accompanied by desire, such as if the person was to lift a heavy object, or is struck on the back and semen appeared, then they do not have to bathe. He (Taala) said: ‘And if you are junub then purify’, the junub is someone who fulfils his desire. See Fath al-Qadeer (1/41-42).
[4] Muslim (1/56) reports from Aishah (ra) ‘the Messenger of Allah (s) said: ‘…If the two circumcised parts encountered each other, ghusl is obligatory’.
[5] Pre Seminal fluid (madhi) is that which appears at the time of foreplay etc.
[6] The person awakening from their sleep but does not recall having an erotic dream, and finds on their clothing or bedding or body semen, there is agreement that they must perform ghusl.
As for if a person awakes to find pre seminal fluid (madhi), if they recall having an erotic dream there is agreement that they must perform ghusl.
Likewise if they have a doubt if it is semen or pre seminal fluid along with their recalling having had an erotic dream. This is because of the possibility that the fluid that is found may have been semen but has thinned due to the atmosphere/weather, and therefore this fluid is regarded as semen out of precaution.
If the person awakening is certain that the fluid found is pre seminal fluid (madhi) there is agreement that it is not compulsory to perform ghusl.
If the person awakes and does not know if the fluid found is semen or pre seminal fluid and also do not recall having an erotic dream it is compulsory to perform ghusl according to Abu Hanifah and Muhammad bin al-Hasan, because of the possibility of it exiting accompanied by desire, then the person forgot and the semen was thinned by the atmosphere, in difference to the view of Abu Yusuf. The scholars mentioned that Abu Yusufs position is more in conformity with analogy (qiyas) and Abu Hanifah and Muhammad bin Hasans position is more precautionary. The details for this discussion can be found in Fath al-Qadeer (1/42).
[7] The corresponding fluid excreted by women is called al-qathi as mentioned by al-Zaylai (1/17) and Ibn Abidin (1/122). Al-Shalabi (1/17) mentioned that it is called al-taqthi.
As for al-Wadi: it is a thick fluid which exits after a person urinates. Ibn Abidin (1/122) mentioned that it is a white thick fluid which appears after urinating.
For both al-madhi (pre seminal fluid) and al-wadi ghusl is not required, rather wudu is perfomed. Sharh al-Kanz by al-Zaylai (1/17).
[8] The evidence for the necessity of ghusl are His (the Exalted) words: ‘Do not go near them until they purify’ [al-Baqarah:222], purifying here refers to bathing (ghusl). Post birth bleeding is regarded being like menstruation due to consensus (ijma) and analogy to menstruation. Fath Bab al-Inayah (1/79).

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]

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

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

intoxication[8],
– 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.

It-haf: Makruhat of Wudu -Pt.5

Disliked (Makruh) Acts of Wudu[1]
From its disliked (makruh)[2] acts are:
Striking the face with water, excessive use of water[3], to not wash the body parts thoroughly, wiping three times with new water.

[1] The makruhat of wudu are not mentioned in the main text, rather the author mentions them in his commentary Minhaj al-Raghib p.80.
[2] Makruh according to the fuqaha is of two types: ‘makruh tahrimi’ which is meant when the term makruh or karaha is used in its unqualified sense, its ruling is that avoiding it is compulsory (wajib) as mentioned in Fath al-Qadeer.
The second type of makuh is: ‘makruh tanzihi’, its ruling is that avoiding it is better than performing it.
One will find in the books of the hanafi madhab that at times the scholars may classify something as being makruh, but do not specify whether it is tahrimi or tanzihi. In this case it is necessary to look at evidences for that particular issue. If the prohibition regarding it is conjectural (zanni) then it is classified as makruh tahrimi. If the evidence is not prohibitory in meaning but rather indicates that the thing should be left then it is tanzihi. For a more detailed and precise discussion refer to al-Bahr al-Raiq (2/20).
[3] Excess is defined as using more water than is required to perform wudu, due to the hadith of Abdullah bin Umar: ‘The Messenger of Allah (s) passed by Sa’d while he was performing wudu and said, “What is this extravagance, Sa’d?” He said, “Is there extravagance in the use of water?” He said, “Yes, even if you are at a flowing river’. Reported by Ahmad (1/222) and Ibn Majah (425)

It-haf: Mustahab Acts of Wudu -Pt.4

Its Desirable (Mustahab) Acts:
– Meaning of washing (wudu), it is also called mandub, adab and fadilah. It is defined as that which was performed by the Prophet (s) once/at times, and left at other times, and that which is beloved to the early muslims (salaf).[1]

Beginning from the right,
– Meaning with the right side when washing the hands and feet[2] not the face nor ears.

wiping the neck,
– With the back of the hands[3] the throat is not wiped because to do so would be an innovation.

the transmitted invocations during it
– There are a number of invocations mentioned which can be recited whilst washing and wiping the various body parts.[4]

Additional Rulings: From the etiquettes (adab) of washing (wudu) are: To face the qiblah in other than the state of istinja[5], to perform it before the entering of the prayer time except for the one with a chronic excuse[6], the moving of a loose ring[7], not seeking help from another person[8], to not engage in wordly talk, to join between the intention of the heart and verbalizing with the tongue, the lengthening of the white patches/streaks[9], the recitation of surah al-Qadr and praying two units[10] in other than a disliked prayer time.[11]

[1] In the work Tuhfa al-Fuqaha (1/21) of Ala al-Din al-Samarqandi said the difference between sunnah and adab is defined as that: the sunnah is that which was the continuous practice of the Messenger of Allah (s) which was only left by Him (s) once or twice. Adab is defined as being that which was performed by the Messenger of Allah (s) once or twice and was not habitually performed.
The scholars have stated that there is no difference between the terms: mustahab, mandub, adab, fadilah, nafl. See Dur al-Mukhtar with al-Hashiyah (1/123).
[2] Beginning with right side when washing has been mentioned as being mustahab in a number of works of the hanafi madhab such as al-Kanz, al-Tanwir and Sharh al-Durar. It has been classified as being sunnah in the work al-Shirah and in al-Hidayah as being from the fadail.
However Abu Dawud (4141) and Ibn Majah (402) report that He (s) said: ‘If you perform wudu then begin from your right side’, it is also reported by Ibn Khuzaimah (178) Ibn Hibban (1078) in their Sahih’s. A number of companions who relate His (s) manner of performing wudu clearly mention his beginning the washing the hands and feet from the right hand side, this therefore indicates this was His (s) regular practice as the companions related what they saw from His (s) habitual performance, therefore it is a sunnah.
[3] Abu Ubaid al-Qasim narrates in al-Tahur (192/386) from al-Qasim bin Abd al-Rahman from Musa bin Talha said: ‘He who wipes his neck with his head will be protected from the ghul on the day of judgement’.
Ghul: a ring of steel placed around the neck to debase and torture. The hadith is Mawquf but it takes the ruling of Marfu as the content of the hadith was not mentioned based merely on opinion. It is strengthened by that which is mentioned in a marfu form is Musnad al-Firdaws from the hadith of Ibn Umar that: ‘Wiping the neck is a protection from the ‘ghul’ on the day of judgement’ however its chain is weak, except that that it is agreed that the weak hadith are acted upon in virtuous actions’. See Fath Bab al-Inayah (1/57) and Talkhis al-Habir (1/135-136).
[4] Al-Tahtawi said in his Hashiyah ala Maraqi al-Falah (p.45): Ibn Ameer Hajj said: Our Sheikh the Hafidh of his age, Shihab al-Din bin Hajr al-Asqalani was asked regarding the narrations cited in the Muqaddimah of Abu Layth regarding the invocations for the limbs. He answered: They are weak and the scholars are lenient when mentioning the weak hadith and acting upon it in virtuous actions. None of them are established from the Messenger of Allah (s), neither from his statements, nor actions. Therefore there is no harm in acting upon them based on the principles of the weak (hadith) along with its conditions.
Imam al-Nawawi said in al-Adhkar (p.81) that the jurists (fuqaha) have said it is mustahab to recite the prayers whilst washing each body part.
[5] Because it is an act of worship or a prelude to it, therefore one chooses for it the best place which is to face the direction of prayer (qiblah).
[6] A person with a chronic excuse is someone repeatedly nullifying his wudu and is unable to control it. This person performs wudu for the time of every prayer, and his wudu is nullified with the prayer time finishing. Therefore should he perform wudu before the entering of the prayer time- eg. Performing wudu near the end of the time of Zuhr so that he may pray Asr- his wudu is nullified as soon as the time for Asr starts. His wudu will only have lasted till the end of Zuhr time. Therefore in the case of a person with a chronic excuse there is no benefit in his performing wudu before the time for that prayer starting.
In the case of the person whom is normal and does not have a problem (ie. Someone who is not classified as having a chronic excuse) it is sunnah for them to make wudu for the prayer before the time of prayer entering. After the entry of the prayer time it becomes fard (obligatory) to perform wudu. This is one of the issues wherein a sunnah act is superior to a fard action, Imam al-Suyutis versification of these issues can be found in al-Ashbah wa al-Nazair (p.275).
[7] As for a ring which is tightly fitted on the finger then it is necessary to move it in wudu and ghusl in order for the water to reach the skin area it covers. Because the Prophet (s): ‘When He would perform wudu for the prayer would move the ring on His finger’ reported by Ibn Majah (449).
[8] Meaning not seeking help with the actual washing and wiping of the body parts. As for someone pouring water for the one performing wudu, or providing water for them then there is nothing disliked in this, even if it was requested.
Al-Bukhari said in his Sahih (1/248 with the Sharh of Ibn Hajar) that: The Messenger of Allah (s) departed from Arafah came to al-Shuab and relieved himself. Usamah s
aid: I poured water for Him whilst He performed wudu…’.
[9] The Messenger of Allah (s) said, “My nation will come with bright streaks of light from the traces of ablution…If one can lengthen his streak of light, he should do so’, reported by al-Bukhari (1/45).
What is meant by lengthening the streaks of light is going beyond the obligatory area to be washed in wudu.
[10] Due to His (s) words: ‘If one performs and perfects his ablution and prays two rak’ah with his heart and face (completely on his prayer), Paradise becomes his’, reported by Muslim (17).
[11] Because the leaving of a disliked act is superior to the performance of a desired act.

It-haf: Sunnah Acts of Wudu -Pt.3

Its Recommended (Sunnah) Acts[1]:
– Meaning of washing (wudu)

The intention[2],
– It is by intending to remove the state of ritual impurity, or to be able to offer the prayer, or an act of worship which can only be performed whilst being in a state of ritual purity. One forms the intention at the time of the washing of the face[3], and its place is the heart.

the tasmiyah,
– Starting the washing (wudu) with the name of Allah (taala), before the istinja and after it, however not when one is uncovered nor in a place where there is filth present[4]
If a person performing wudu forgets to mention it at the beginning but then recalls and mentions it in during the washing (wudu), they will be regarded as not having performed the recommended act, this is different to the ruling of mentioning the tasmiyah during the course of a meal[5] However if one forgets to mention the tasmiyah at the beginning they should still utter it if they recall it during the washing (wudu).
Its wording is[6]: Bismillah al-Adheem, Wal-Hamdulilah ala Deen al-Islam

washing the hands up to the wrists three times[7]
– Both before and after istinja, whether awakening from sleep or not. It is also recommended to wash them when washing the arms

the toothstick[8],
– Meaning its use, it is desirable (mustahab) that it is with the right hand, that the toothstick be flexible, a hands length and thickness of the small finger. The sunnah method to hold it is that: the right little finger is at the bottom of the toothstick, with the other three fingers being above it and the thumb being below the top of the toothstick as is reported from Ibn Masud[9] (ra).
If a toothstick is not available then the use of the finger or cloth is sufficient and of equal reward.[10]
Note: It is desirable to to use the toothstick in a number of places: When the teeth are yellow, to change the odour of the mouth , when awakening from sleep, when standing up to pray, when wishing to recite to the Quran[11]

washing the mouth,
– Meaning water reaching all of the mouth

rinsing the nose,
– By the water reaching the soft part of the nose
Note: washing the mouth and rinsing the nose are two emphasized sunnahs which are based on five sunnahs, namely: order, cleaning three times, taking new water[12], performing these with the right hand and thoroughly washing and rinsing when not fasting.
The limits for them in the washing of the mouth is that the water reaches the head of the throat, and in rinsing that it goes past the soft part of the nose

combing the beard
– For other than the one in a state of ihram with a scoop of water, the method of performing it is to enter the fingers in the beard going from the bottom to the top, this is after the washing of the face three times[13], the back of the hand is faced towards the neck

And
– Rubbing in between the

fingers,
– of the hands and toes after washing the body part three times, the method of its performance with the hands is to interlace them, and with the feet is to rub with the small finger of the left hand starting with the small toe of the right foot and working all the way to the left foot.[14]

washing three times,
– The body parts that are to be washed, meaning to repeat the washing three times. This excludes wiping which is not to be performed three times.

wiping the whole head
– Once covering the whole head, it is a sunnah to start with the front part[15]

and ears,
– After wiping the head with the remaining moisture, the insides of the ears with the index finger, and the outer part with the thumbs, if no moisture remains on the hands after the wiping of the head then he may take new water for it.

order,
– As mentioned in the revealed texts, such that the he washes that which was mentioned first in the verse

continuity,
– It is the washing of the second body part before the first becoming dry

Rubbing
– Which is the passing of the hand over the body part whilst washing it[16]

[1] An emphasized (muakkadah) recommended act is one that which the Prophet (s) regularly performed and only left on occasion. As for that which He (s) did not regularly perform then it called desirable (mandub). See Maraqi al-Falah (p.38-39 with al-Hashiyah)
[2] It has been defined by some of the scholars as being the definite resolve and focus in the heart to perform an act, see Maraqi al-Falah (p.44 with al-Hashiyah).
[3] Ibn Nujaim in al-Ashbah wa al-Nazair (p.44) mentions that the basis for intentions are that they should be formed at the beginning of the act of worship, with regards to the washing (wudu) some scholars have said that it should be formed when washing the hands so as to gain the reward for the other recommended acts which are performed before the washing of the face.
[4] It is apparent that what is meant is that a person utters the tasmiyah before removing their clothing in order to relieve themselves. This is when a person relieves themselves in a place other than a bathroom. As for the bathroom a person would utter the tasmiyah before entering it, if he forgets to utter it in the beginning in either of these two cases he is to say it in his heart and not with his tongue, honouring the name of Allah (taala).
[5] Because the act of washing (wudu) is regarded as one whole act, whilst when eating each mouthful is regarded as a separate action. See Maraqi al-Falah (p.40)
[6] In Fath al-Qadeer it is mentioned that this wordin
g is reported from the early muslims (salaf), and it has also been said that it is reported from the Prophet (s).
[7] The evidence for the washing of the hands prior at the beginning of the wudu being recommended (sunnah) is the hadith ‘….’
The washing of the hands is a sunnah for all those who wish to make wudu, the condition of when waking up mentioned in the hadith is based on the common situation of a person performing wudu for the Fajr prayer after waking up.
[8] It is a recommended (sunnah) act due to His (s) words: ‘Were it not that I would be overburdening my community I would have ordered them to use a tooth-stick with each wudu’. Reported by Ibn Khuzaimah in his Sahih and was graded Sahih by al-Hakim. The hadith is also reported with the slight variation of wording “with each prayer” which is related in the six books of hadith
Imam al-Aini mentions that the scholars have differed over the toothstick whether it is from the sunan of wudu or the prayer or the religion, the last view is regarded as being the strongest and is reported from Imam Abu Hanifah. There are some hadith which support this view. See al-Binayah fi Sharh al-Hidayah (1/86-87) and Umdah al-Qari (6/181).
[9] Abdullah bin Masud (d.32 AH), one of the major companions, from the people of Makkah and early converts to Islam. He was one of the trustworthy servants of the Messenger of Allah (s). He was put in charge of the public treasury in al-Kufah, he then returned to al-Madinah during the khilafah of Uthman bin Affan (ra), passing away at around sixty years of age. See al-Alaam (4/137)
[10] the Messenger of Allah r said: ‘The finger suffices in place of the toothstick’, reported by al-Bayhaqi (1/40) from Anas with various wordings.
[11] In the Hashiyah Ibn Abidin it is mentioned quoting from al-Miraj that there is no specified number of times one should clean the mouth with a toothstick, rather the toothstick should be used until the person feels that the mouth is clean, it is desirable (mustahab) that it be three times with three scoops of water.
[12] Meaning taking new water, three times for washing the mouth, three times for rinsing the nose due to that which is reported by Abu Dawud (139) and al-Tabarani that the Messenger of Allah (s) performed wudu, he washed his mouth three times, and rinsed his nose three times, taking new water each time.
[13] Anas said “When the Prophet r performed wudu, he would take a handful of water and put it under his jaws, and pass it through his beard. And said: This is what my Lord ordered me to do”. Reported by Abu Dawud (145).

[14] Ibn al-Hummam in Fath al-Qadeer (1/20) said that this method is not a sunnah in of itself, rather it happens to be a way that the rubbing between the toes was performed.
Ibn Abbas said that the Messenger of Allah r said: “When you perform wudu then rub between your fingers and toes”, reported by al-Tirmidhi (39) who graded it Hasan.
[15] Due to the hadith of bin Zaid bin Asim which contains “Then inserted His hand and brought it out and wiped his head both front and back with his hands”, reported by the six, see Talkhis al-Habir (1/123,124).
Al-Zaylai commented in Tabyin al-Haqaiq that (1/5) that there is some discussion surrounding the method of wiping the head, the more apparent view is that the hands and the fingers are placed at the front of the head and are passed all the way up to the neck in a way which covers the whole head, then the ears are wiped with the fingers.
Ibn al-Hummam in Fath al-Qadeer (1/12) said that the not placing of the fingers or hands in some parts of the wiping so that they maybe used later has no basis in the sunnah, see also Hashiyah Ibn Abidin (1/89).
[16] Imam Maliks view was that rubbing and continuity were obligatory in washing (wudu) and bathing (ghusl), he is the only one of the Imams to hold this opinion. The evidence for them being sunnah is that Allah (taala) has ordered for washing in a general/absolute sense without conditioning continuity nor rubbing. See Fath Bab al-Inayah (1/56).