Category Archives: It-haf al-Talib

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).