13. OBLIGATIONS OF WUḌŪʾ V Shaykh Kehlan al-Jubury

بسم اهلل الرمحن الرحيم احلمد هلل رب العاملنيأهلل وسلم وبارك على نبينا حممد وعلى اله و صحبه أمجعني و صلى

It just came to mind, an āyah of Allāh - we know the book of Allāh is an ocean of knowledge - āyah 43 from Sūratʾl-Aḥzāb. Allāh said just before that āyah [from āyah 41-42]:

ه ذكرا كثيرا﴿ ها ال ذين آمنوا اذكروا الل هو ال ذي يصل ي عليكم وملائكته ٤٢لاوسب حوه بكرة وأصي ٤١ يا أي ورليخرجكم لمات إلى الن ﴾٤٣ وكان بالمؤمنين رحيما م ن الظ

“O you who have believed, remember Allah with much remembrance, and exalt Him morning and afternoon. It is He who confers blessing upon you, and His angels

[ask Him to do so] that He may bring you out from darknesses into the light. And ever is He, to the believers, Merciful.”

SubḥānAllāh, we need this āyah all the time and just a few weeks ago, I thought about it for a while and I found that it's full of lessons. I want to share some of them with you. Allāh commanded the believers to remember and mention His name a lot.

ها ال ذين آمنوا﴿ ﴾يا أي

This command is directed to the believers.

ه ذكرا كثيرا﴿ ﴾هو ال ذي يصل ي عليكم وسب حوه بكرة وأصيل اذكروا الل

The word yuṣallī in the Arabic language is mentioned as a present verb. We call it in Arabic, fiʿl muḍāriʿ which indicates continuity. Allāh continuously does it. Yuṣallī ʿalaykum and the word ṣalāh has different meanings in Arabic. Sometimes, it’s the opposite of laʿana because Allāh mentions at the end of this Sūrah:

ه لعن ﴿ ين إن الل ﴾الكافر

[Meaning] That He has cursed the believers.

So it (ṣalāh) is opposite to laʿana. What I understand from [the use of] ṣalāh here is that Allāh praises the believers and He brings them closer to Him. Allah also maintains and gives them. That's the meaning of ṣalāh - it has all these meanings: praise, bringing them closer and maintaining them continuously. Wa malāʾikatuh also pray for you. Now everybody will think the prayer of Allāh is sufficient, so why does Allāh mention His angels? We know that the angels are obedient. Allāh created them to obey Him and they are sinless. They are completely obedient to Allāh . So the question [remains], why does Allāh mention His angels? Why the [mention of] angels who are perfect, who are completely obedient, to pray for people like us who are sinful with a lot of mistakes and problems? I think we can take from that that no matter how pious you are, how good you are, how close to Allāh [you might be], don’t be proud. Always remember those people who need your help. Don’t look down on other believers who may have less knowledge or less status than you. Instead of looking down on them, pray for them. Help them get out from their misguidance. It’s like the statement of Abū al-ʿĀliyah . When he passed by some people criticising a

man who was sinful, he said, “Why are you criticizing him?” They said, “He is sinful”. He said, “Well if your friend or brother falls in a well what should you do? Should you help him get out or should you just stand there and criticize him?” So the angels pray for the human being and this is also to remind us that there is no comparison between the Creator and the creation. He mentions His angels and He said “Me and My angels pray for the believers”. This is to show that the intercession of other believers is acceptable. We believe that the prophets intercede, the pious people intercede and the believers [can too] - that is why we make duʿāʾ for each other. We pray janāzah for the Muslims when they pass away, this is a kind of intercession and Muḥammad has so many intercessions for his ummah. One of them is the major shafāʿah on the Day of Judgment.

ور﴿ لمات إلى الن ﴾٤١ وكان بالمؤمنين رحيما هو ال ذي يصل ي عليكم وملائكته ليخرجكم م ن الظ

That is an amazing thing because Allāh said liyukhrijukum (He will take you from) ‘darknesses’ to the nūr, which means that He and His Angels pray for us while we are still in our darkness, simply because a person is a believer. He just makes this step and

has gotten the circle of īmān. Allāh and His Angels will come to those who pray for him and so he will eventually get out from many ‘darknesses’ to the light. But let’s look at what Allāh has said before - He said to us:

ه ذكرا كثيرا﴾ ها ال ذين آمنوا اذكروا الل ﴿يا أي

So we need two things: we need īmān and to remember Allāh all the time and mention His name. How can I say it? I don’t know how but it’s like a very beautiful reminder from Allāh . ‘I don’t want you to remember Me or mention My name. I created you, I gave you everything. I don’t need your praises even if you don’t read your ṣalāh, but remember I already pray for you. He said,

﴿ ي ل ذ ٱهو ﴾عليكمي يصل

He is the One who prays for you. So why don’t you pray to Allāh ? Why don’t you remember and thank Him? He and His Angels are already continuously praying for you.

ور﴾ لمات إلى الن ﴿هو ال ذي يصل ي عليكم وملائكته ليخرجكم م ن الظ

While you are still in your ‘darknesses’. Then in the end of the āyah, Allāh mentioned the reason of all this. He said:

﴾وكان بالمؤمنين رحيما﴿

All these things because He is All-Merciful with the believers. So once a person is a believer, then he will enter into this great honour and fortune. Something which nobody can describe or imagine that Allāh and His Angels pray for you. May Allāh make us amongst those people who are believers who remember Allāh and glorify Him in the morning and in the evening.

Ustādh Abu Eesa

Before we start the actual lesson formally, some folks asked me to clarify a few points which are topical, relevant and important, so I thought I would do that. It is the issue concerning insulting the Prophet . To insult Allāh wa āyātihi (and His verses), wa rasūlihi (and His prophets), as Allāh says in Sūratʾl-Tawbah:

ه وآياته ورسوله كنتم ﴿ يمانكم ٤٦ تستهزئونقل أبالل ﴾لا تعتذروا قد كفرتم بعد إ

“Say (O Muhammad, to those around you): “Is it Allāh and His signs (His verses, the Qurʾān, His Dīn) and His Messenger that you were making fun of?” Make no excuse;

you have indeed disbelieved after your belief.” (9:65-66)

Allāh makes it a very clear statement. Don’t make excuses, don’t try to justify yourself. You have indeed disbelieved after your belief. After your faith that you claim to have; your claim that “I am a Muslim” - just chuck it in the bin, you have disbelieved. There is a lot of discussion about this āyah and the levels and so on and so forth but the specific nature of the Prophet is a very sensitive one. It is a very sensitive one for every reason. I don’t need to really emphasize that. I just wanted to bring it down to what actually can be seen as istihzāʾ. Istihzāʾ (to make fun of) can be of a number of aspects. Of course, when you draw cartoons of the Prophet … Well, let us take it back when you look at this from an Islamic point of view, you would look at it in its best light and then you would make qiyās upon it.

Let's just say that you have a professional artist that is serious, proper, and paid - a guy that we want to do a job for us, and the best that there is, with no malice or bad intention whatsoever. We ask him to draw a picture of the Prophet (to draw) the exact opposite of a cartoon; a lifelike figure.

First of all, you need to know that there is a consensus of the scholars based upon the general texts of Islam, not specific evidences, what we call al-istiqraʾ wa tatabbuʿ, meaning the general mafhūm (the understanding of the principles). We said that ijmāʿ is something which in itself is a source of evidence. Don’t forget that. There is Qurʾān, then the Sunnah, then the ijmāʿ of the companions. It doesn't necessarily need to have a specific āyah or a ḥadīth. It's the general understanding of the spirit, the general precepts of the dīn that it is forbidden to draw the Prophet .

That's because we will never be able to recreate him, despite all of the details. Despite that we know that al-Ḥasan used to be so much like him - and that is narrated in an authentic ḥadīth - despite the fact that we know that from his family, Jaʿfar used to resemble him in an incredible way, and despite the fact that we know that a number of other Companions and tābiʿīn were described as being very similar to the image of the Prophet . Despite the fact that the shamāʾil of Imām al-Tirmidhi gives such immense detail. If you look at al-Manāwi and all of the other ʿulamāʾ who made the sharḥ or the shurūḥ of the shamāʾil, you will see even further details going in, from the earlobes to body markings,

and so on and so forth. Yet, despite that, no one ever tried, and no one ever attempted to draw the Prophet because you will never be able to achieve it.

The second point is that actually drawing, in principle, is something which is impermissible. To produce a lifelike image, and then draw it in principle - when we allow it for the uses that we have, we allow it for exceptions. We allow for the use of a benefit.

The third point would be that whenever you draw the Prophet you risk belittling him. The first one might be an attempt, (and) you are not going to get right. That's not necessarily belittling it. But then going ahead and drawing him (while) knowing you are not going to get it right, is a belittling of the Prophet and an insult to him. This of course would have levels. Am now referring to something which is being done in a professional way like E-FIT (Electronic Facial Identification Technique) - that whole process where they get the professionals in and describe him in a specific way (to be drawn out). I’m talking about something like that. What, then, of someone who does it in a cartoon fashion, with no intention to try to make it accurate in a caricature, in a manner which they know has nothing to do with the Prophet ? This is beyond the pale just right there, once they go into cartoon land. This might cancel out the prohibition of (number 2) drawing, because the scholars are much more lenient when it comes to the drawing/illustration of things which are not real. I don't want to get into the fiqh of pictures, that's a massive area but there's a basic principle that when it comes to the drawing, painting, or designing of those things which are fantasy and are well known, then the majority position is that it's something permissible. (This is) certainly the position that I hold, (since it's) not a real-life person, animal, or thing. Yes, you might be able to escape that if you go for cartoon, but then what's the intention behind the cartoon when you are attempting to portray the Prophet ? To take it to the third level, put that cartoon in a manner which is joking about the Rasūl , then again it's beyond the pale. There's actually a further level. The picture which was tweeted and Facebooked all over the place - this picture actually was theoretically just the Prophet and ʿĪsa just standing there, indulging in some kind of conversation. All three levels have been achieved of going beyond the pale. The reality which we know is that apparently - I haven't seen this - this picture is part of a series of other pictures that are beyond insulting.

They are fabrications, lies and ḥarām things being done with the characters. The reason that scholars prohibit things - you can add this as a reason to encompass all three reasons that I have mentioned - is because once you open that door to these kind of things, this is what you invite. You allow people then to put forward their ideas and

opinions, and you would have everyone having a free reign on what happens to the Prophet and his ʿizzah, . We can see it's a free/open season where everyone is doing what they want - drawing any picture and putting the name of Prophet there and then making it out to be insulting in some kind of way and so on and so forth. I want to say to you that this is completely impermissible at the basic level and once the istihzāʾ (the insult and the joking) get involved, then this becomes kufr and the person has left the dīn like that. He is either of three states unless he is utterly ignorant: when people have been warned, advised and told, then you cannot claim ignorance - then the person is either an (a) apostate, a murtad, or he is (b) a munāfiq (which is worse). He is a hypocrite, outwardly saying ‘I am a Muslim’, but internally not. Or he is worse than those two, which is (c) a heretic (zindīq) - the one who actively works against the Muslims. We know, of course, that this is the nature of the people who do these kind of things. I want you to know that what's important is that someone who would promote this kind of material and make statements to the like of “I don't find this offensive and I find Allah bigger than that as to not finding it offensive”... Speaking about Allāh like that and speaking about the dīn of Allāh in that manner… this is the speech of zandaqa - the speech of heretics, not the speech of the Muslims, not the speech of those who know the limits of Islām.

As for specifically applying the ruling of calling a person kāfir, murtad, or whatever, this is not possible to do based upon materials and what someone tweets. So we shouldn't go up to individuals and say to them “you are murtad”, “you are munāfiq”, etc. We say this is the statement, a state and the nature of someone who is like that.

It has to be individually judged upon a person in a clear setting where there is no doubt of any kind of misunderstanding, where all possible excuses of ignorance are dispelled, where a person is not following some crazy odd opinion in fiqh, etc. Every possible excuse needs to be extended, whether you like that person or not. That’s an absolute condition. That’s something for the scholars to do; they would sit down and then they would clarify that.

WIPING VS. WASHING

I think there has been lots of confusion over al-ghasl and the concept of washing and wiping. We said last week that there's a clear difference between wiping and washing. In washing, water needs to run along skin and we did a little demonstration. I think the problem with what I was doing was that I was rubbing my hands, so people were probably thinking that wiping was involved. Wiping is a definite wipe of the hand. The

hand is wet and the surface underneath it is not all wetted because by nature, if you’re wiping over something, some part would be dry and some would be wet. Washing does not need [the use of] a hand. Theoretically, other than in the Māliki madh-hab, you get the shower nozzle and [let the pouring water fall over the body part]. In theory, you get the tap which is pouring and stick the hand under the tap - maybe a little touch here and there to make sure [the water touches the skin] but theoretically, that would be done. This is [the agreement of] the three imāms, and this is the position of many of the scholars. When I say the position of the majority, I mean (that is all that is required) as a minimum (to achieve the washing of that limb). Mālikis say you need al-dalk. Dalk is basically rubbing, massaging, or squeezing everything. So the water is there as well and then there is rubbing as well, but they make it a condition of the washing. So I am saying that we do not have any evidence to show that the Prophet ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص didn’t ever do dalk. This means that the basic principle is that he would use his hands. The proof for that is that there was no such thing as taps. These days, you are using a bath full of water because you’ve got your tap on and you wash your hands and your tap is still going. I am saying that obviously that is a lot of water going and whenever did the Prophet ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص have that much water? We see the exact opposite. The Prophet ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص made wuḍūʾ with a handful of water. What does that mean? There has to be rubbing involved. There has to be. The scholars then said that it is mustaḥabb, it is the Sunnah, it is the perfection of the wuḍūʾ. We have to understand that there is a big difference between the bare arkān or pillars, and obligations and then what comes as Sunnah aspects, and then perfections of the wuḍūʾ. Wuḍūʾ is one of those acts that have these three kinds of levels or three kinds of aspects. Take the hand, for example - the obligation can be done by me sticking my hand and arm all the way underneath the tap, making sure that the water covers the elbow, forearms and my fingers and all the obligation’s done.

The Sunnah would be to reduce the water, and then take that water and rub it in. The Sunnah is to wash it properly three times. What would perfection be? There is one obvious perfection. The ḥadīth of ghurran maḥajjalīn (to go further up the forearm and extend the washing everywhere above and beyond the normal limit). We mentioned this ḥadīth three or four weeks ago. The Companions would always rub much higher up the legs and arms so that higher parts are shining. That would be the level of perfecting the wuḍūʾ. We don’t have clear evidence that the Prophet ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص did that. Remember watching Shaykh Yasir’s presentation at IlmSummit? He chose this ḥadīth of isbāghʾl-wuḍūʾ fiʾl-

makrūhāt. One of the best actions that one can do is to do the wuḍūʾ perfectly, especially in difficult conditions. Isbāghʾl-wuḍūʾ means to perfect wuḍūʾ. Perfection of wuḍūʾ is to do these little things (go extra, use a little bit of water, do it with a lot of dhikr, thought and presence, etc.) Unless you follow the Māliki madh-hab...they obligate the need for rubbing. The Sunnah is to rub everything. But let’s say you didn’t have time - it’s sufficient for you to just soak [the feet] without touching them. Theoretically, also to just put your feet in a tub of water and move it so water goes everywhere [is sufficient]. Student: How come the water is running if you are moving at the same time?

Ustādh: Because the water is what is in contact between the hand and the limb itself. Whereas when you wipe at one point, it will become dry so the water is not running at that point.

WATER PERMEABLE NAIL POLISH

I want to go back to a question on the forums about nail polish. As I said to you last week, I think all this nail polish business is nonsense that I don’t accept. I know there are people out there who have gone and done some new permeable ones that allow water to go through. They’ve done studies where they get a tissue paper and paint the nail polish on top of it, and then they put the water on and put pressure on it. They look underneath the tissue to see if the tissue gets wet underneath and if the tissue does get wet, then it’s a proof that it is permeable. My comment on that is that in these kind of conditions when that is recreated, we have to understand that this has been created by the tissue being of a certain texture which sucks the water and it’s not the same as our nail. Its (the nail’s) structure and texture is not made to suck water, neither the texture nor the surface (unlike a tissue). The pressure has to be applied to the water itself, which then pushes it through and then of course the time [it takes has to be taken into consideration]. The pressure needs to be applied consistently and constantly over a small period of time and then it [water] seeps through. It works on tissue paper. If that can be proved to work on a nail then it’s okay. The reality is, who does that? Who has the confidence that it goes through and stays there for 10, 15, 20 seconds pushing down the water on the nail to put it through? I don’t know. It’s a risky thing.

Now just to add the dimension of this whole washing thing, if there was a woman who said ‘I have seen this product and it works,’ she will keep the nail polish on. Then she says, ‘I will stick my hands in a bowl of water for 20 seconds. I will let the water permeate in my nails and then wash my arms. I am putting pressure on my nails with the water.’ Since she trusts the company, this would theoretically be okay as wuḍūʾ. I

am just saying that I do not consider it valid and I do not allow it. I do not give permission for someone to do this.

I know women see henna as a Pakistani thing and consider it off-the-boat behaviour. Still, I think they need to have more confidence in this product. I don't know where the women develop their own henna but it's patronising to tell them that they should only wear nail polish during their menstrual cycle when they don’t need to make ablution.

WIPING VS. WASHING

The concept of washing and water and the idea that the difference between mas-ḥ (wiping) and ghasl (washing) is that actual water by itself can get the job done. I won’t really go into this now because this is going to be covered when we do ghusl. That's where all the masāʾil come. For example, I jump into the swimming pool with the intention of doing ghusl and then I jump out, is it done? Is ghusl done? Is my wuḍūʾ done? Am I ready for jumuʿah? In my opinion, that’s absolutely no problem, but we'll come to that later. Student: Does the definition of washing really matter? Some (like the Ḥanafīs) will say that it's to do with water dripping. At the end of the day we don't really care because the fact is, as you said, if wiping, the whole thing isn't soaked. Because people explain it in different ways that the hair is all dry... Ustādh: Correct. The actual issue is? Student: The fact that no parts are dry? Ustādh: Correct. The different madhāhib describe the nature of how the actual limb must be and how the water must run, as some say. Others say it must drop off. Some of the madhāhib say it has to be in a manner where when you hold the hand, water drops off, and all this kalām. Ultimately, they have no evidence. This is just general understanding of the texts. The real issue is that the whole thing needs to be completely soaked (wet). The skin has to be wet and I gave the ḥadīth last week and the week before where the Prophet saw the toenail (i.e. a small amount) dry and so he made him go back (and repeat his wuḍūʾ). So it's about the skin being covered. The Māliki madh-hab, which on top of the wetness wants the rubbing done because they saw the Prophet’s rubbing as intrinsic to the washing process. Whereas the majority of the scholars, our position (the Ḥanbali position), and Shaykh al-ʿUthaymīn’s position is that washing does not require the hand. Just like in the washing machine for example. When we soak something in a bucket, then we take it out and put it into cold water and then we take it out and give it a shake. That's called washing, isn't it?

سحالرأسومنهاألذنانوم

“…wiping the head, with the ears included…”

The head is included, as Shaykh al-ʿUthaymīn says. He says that the evidence for that

is the continual action of wiping the ears by the Prophet . That’s the actual proof. The fact is that the Prophet was never noticed not to have wiped his ears, and whenever he wiped his head, he wiped his ears. As far as Shaykh al-ʿUthaymīn is concerned, that’s the evidence. He says, as for what the other people (the majority) mention the ḥadīth of the Prophet,

األذنانمنالرأس

“The ears are from the head.”

That has been narrated by Imām Aḥmad, Abū Dāwud in the Book of Purification in the Chapter of Description of the Wuḍūʾ of the Prophet , no. 134, al-Tirmidhī, Ibn Mājah and all of them. He says that many of the muḥaddithīn narrated this ḥadīth via a plethora of paths, but every single chain that has been narrated has some weakness in it. That’s what the muḥaqqiq says. Shaykh al-ʿUthaymīn says that this (above) ḥadīth is said to be weak by many of the ʿulamāʾ, such as Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ. He was one of the later Shāfiʿī scholars of ḥadīth and he wrote a seminal book in the principles and studies of ḥadīth sciences called al-Muqaddimah. He’s a respected author. He pre-dates Ibn Ḥajr. Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ said this ḥadīth is weak. They said that all of its turuq (paths, narrations) are wāhiyah (weak). All of them have some kind of issue. When we are to combine all of these narrations, because they are so weak, we cannot even raise the ruling to fair. There are three [rulings] - there is ḍaʿīf, ḥasan, and ṣaḥīḥ – weak, acceptable and authentic. We cannot even raise it to ḥasan. This is Shaykh al-ʿUthaymīn’s opinion.

The muḥaqqiq of the book said that Ibn Ḥajr said if we look into all of these chains, it

is difficult not to say that the ḥadīth has a basis. It does i.e. the ḥadīth has an aṣl. It has a basis and it is not like they are saying [it is all so weak]. Many of the people

authenticated the ḥadīth in this manner. This is in his book, and in his comments on the work of Ibn Ṣalāḥ .

Not only does Ibn Ḥajr consider it to be acceptable, but Imām al-Tirmidhi considered

it to be acceptable as well. Regardless, we will consider this to be okay inshāʾAllāh.

I want you to know that regardless of how you establish whether ears are from the head, in principle the majority of the Salaf did not consider it an obligation to wipe the ears. The obligation came later on amongst the imāms, because they technically made it a part of the head and of course to wipe the head is a rukn (an obligation) and therefore because it is part of the head, then it needs to be done.

I just want to make a distinction in generations. The early tābiʿīn, salaf and so on were relaxed about the idea. They never obligated it. They used to see it as a Sunnah, whereas the later scholars of the madh-hab obligated it and made the ears part of the head. Thus, you have to follow the āyah where Allāh says to wipe your heads. There is a distinction which needs to be made. Also for those that did consider it to be an obligation, only one aspect is obligation. You have three aspects of the ear:

1. The ear hole

2. Inner ear

3. The outer ear

The outer ear is everything which is on the outside. The edge and on the outside that goes round. The inner ear will be everything which is inside. The ear hole will be where the finger goes in directly.

It is our position, the position of Shaykh al-ʿUthaymīn , certainly my position, and the

position of the madhāhib that the obligatory aspect of wiping the ear is the earhole (what is known as the thaqab, the earhole itself). So theoretically, if a person was to wipe his head and stick his finger in his ears, the job is done if you were to take the opinion that it is obligatory to wipe the ears. If you take the opinion that it is a Sunnah, then it doesn’t really matter. But I want you to know that the Prophet always used to do it, so we should do it. So, the obligatory aspect is the inside of the ear.

As for everything else that follows, this is ijtihād of the scholars and is considered to be a Sunnah. Then you see the most popular position of the ʿulamāʾ (there are some variations) but the most popular is that the ibhām (the thumb) is then wiping the outside, so we will put our fingers in our ears and then go around it using this. This is what is happening with the ear.

There is another version as well, which is that not only is the finger going in there, but then the finger now does the inside and then the outside is done by the thumbs as well. Like a three-pronged approach in, inside and then outside.

I do not want to say there is no basis for that, but I am saying what is understood from the ʿulamāʾ is that we have the obligatory and we have the external part of the ear covered by the ibhām.

And if one person is to go this way and come back, it is acceptable. If it is to be done in one manner, it is acceptable and to go all the way around is also acceptable. These are all extensions upon the aṣl which is that the wiping is done. And it’s not washing.

Remember what we said about taking water for the ears. What did we say? It is only Ibn ʿUmar who took water for the ears; there is nothing authentic from the Prophet [relating that he himself did that]. This means that once you’ve got the water and you’ve gone to the head and you’ve done the mas-ḥ… You’ve done mas-ḥ one or two or start from the middle and then go back (three) or four where you go down (four methods being shown on the video). Once that’s done, it’s straight on to the ears. There is no evidence to show that you go back to the water and get the hands wet again. This is because you’re not washing the ears. You carry on wiping. Wetness is not a function to clean the ears in the way that you’re thinking (proper clean).