Islamic Fiqh > Purification (Tahara) > Ablution (wudu): complete guide > What nullifies ablution and doubt
Contents
Updated on 24 September 2026 at 1:14 PM
This page completes the study of the nullifiers of wudu (ablution) according to the juridical encyclopedia al-Mawsua al-fiqhiyya: emission from the two passages, impurities exiting elsewhere on the body, sleep, touching the private part, touching women, camel meat, laughter during prayer, apostasy, and doubt. Each position is attributed to its school exactly as the Arabic source attributes it, together with the Quranic and prophetic evidences, the hadith gradings given in the source's footnotes, and the references to classical works kept in parentheses. The paragraphs follow the order of the encyclopedia's leaves without omitting any of them.
Imam Abu al-Ma'ali al-Juwayni (may Allah have mercy on him) sets the framework: purification from hadath is not something whose rationale is perceptible to the intellect, and the same applies to its instrument, its location, and its division into washed and wiped parts. There exists in the Law no intelligible principle to rely upon: everything goes back to tawqif, that is, to revealed text alone (Ghiyath al-Umam, p. 511). The jurists then listed the nullifiers of wudu: they agreed on some and differed over others, as the following detail shows.
Ibn al-Mundhir (may Allah have mercy on him) reports their agreement: the exit of feces from the anus, the exit of urine from the penis, likewise for the woman (from her anus and her private part), the emission of mani (semen), the passing of wind from the anus, and the loss of consciousness, by whatever means the mind is lost, are all hadaths, each of which nullifies purification and makes wudu obligatory (al-Ijma', 19). The proof is the word of Allah the Most High:
"...or if one of you comes from relieving himself"
Surah Al-Ma'idah, 6
The exception: Imam Malik and his companions do not consider wudu nullified by an unusual emission (nadhir), such as a stone, worms, or incontinence (Bidayat al-Mujtahid 1/58; Hashiyat al-Dusuqi 1/185; al-Sharh al-Saghir 1/94; Badayi' al-Sana'i' 1/101; Radd al-Muhtar 1/260; Rawdat al-Talibin 1/226; al-Mughni 1/214; al-Ifsah 1/75).
Imam al-Mawardi (may Allah have mercy on him) expounds: know that what makes wudu obligatory falls into five sections, the first being what exits from the two passages, the penis and the anus. Emission from them is of two kinds: customary and unusual. The customary: feces, urine, sound, wind, and menstrual blood; wudu is required for them, in accordance with the word of Allah the Most High cited above (Al-Hawi al-Kabir 1/176-177).
The unusual: madhy (pre-seminal fluid), wady, worms, stones, urinary incontinence, and the blood of istihadah (chronic non-menstrual bleeding). The jurists differed over whether wudu is required for this category. The view of al-Shafi'i and Abu Hanifa: wudu is required for the unusual emission just as for the customary one. Malik says: no wudu for it, relying on the Prophet's words (peace and blessings be upon him): "No wudu except from a sound or a wind", meaning the customary emission comparable to sound and wind, which indicates the exclusion of the unusual. And the Prophet said to the woman suffering from istihadah: "Pray, even if the blood drips onto the mat in streams": her wudu was not nullified by istihadah blood because it is unusual. Malik reasons: if the customary emission exiting from an unusual aperture does not require wudu because of its rarity at that place, then the unusual emission exiting from the customary aperture should not require wudu either, because of its rarity.
The proponents of obligation reply: our proof is the word of Allah: "or if one of you comes from relieving himself" (Surah Al-Ma'idah, 6), which covers the unusual as well as the customary. 'Abbas ibn Anas reports: I heard 'Ali say in Kufa: I said to 'Ammar: ask the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) about the madhy that afflicts one of us when he approaches his family, for his daughter is my wife and I would be shy to ask myself. 'Ammar asked him, and the Prophet replied:
"Wudu is sufficient for that."Reported in the source with the chain: 'Abbas ibn Anas from 'Ali and 'Ammar (Al-Hawi al-Kabir 1/176)
This hadith made wudu obligatory for madhy, which is an unusual emission: the same therefore holds for every unusual emission. Moreover, it exits from the customary aperture: it must nullify wudu just as the customary emission does. As for the hadith "No wudu except from a sound or a wind", it carries no apparent import to which the ruling could be attached, and it in fact proves the obligation of wudu for sound and wind. As for the report of the woman in istihadah, it is not probative: that woman was in a state of hadath, and her prayer was accepted only out of necessity. And when the customary exits from an unusual aperture, it is not rarity that removes wudu, but the fact that the exit occurs outside the customary aperture (Al-Hawi al-Kabir 1/176-177).
The Shafi'is nevertheless stipulated, in the sound view of their school, that the emission of mani makes ghusl (major ablution) obligatory and does not nullify wudu, whether the emission occurred from a mere look or from a dream, provided the person could have remained seated. Indeed, Allah imposed the greater of the two duties, namely ghusl specifically as mani, and not the lesser, namely wudu generically as an emission; it is like the zina of the married person, which incurs the greater of the two penalties as zina of a married person, without incurring the lesser as zina in general. Menstruation and postnatal bleeding, for their part, impose both ghusl and wudu: they prevent the very validity of wudu and cannot coexist with it, unlike mani, with which wudu remains valid in the case of chronic mani flow (an-Najm al-Wahhaj 1/266; Mughni al-Muhtaj 1/112).
According to Judge Abu al-Tayyib, the emission of mani nullifies wudu, and one thereby enters a state of janabah and hadath. Al-Damiri comments: it is a strong view, for mani exits from the two passages like menstruation, which imposes ghusl and wudu by agreement, as al-Mawardi and Ibn 'Atiyyah report. This is why al-Shaykh (al-Juwayni) chose it and al-Rafi'i authenticated it in his book "al-Mahmud", a very extensive work that reached the prayer chapter in eight volumes and remained unfinished.
The fact that the emission of mani does not nullify wudu yields two benefits. The first: if one was in a state of hadath and then performed ghusl for janabah, the validity of the ensuing prayer is debated among them; whereas here, if one performs ghusl without a prior hadath, the prayer is valid without disagreement. The second: if the janabah was not accompanied by any hadath and one performed tayammum being unable to use water, one may pray any number of obligatory prayers with a single tayammum, as long as no hadath occurs and water remains inaccessible; it is like the menstruating woman who performs tayammum to make intercourse or prayer lawful: if she then has a hadath, intercourse and staying in the mosque remain lawful for her as long as she finds no water and menstruation does not return (an-Najm al-Wahhaj 1/266; Mughni al-Muhtaj 1/112).
Imam al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) sums up: everything that exits from either of the two passages, whether a body or wind, from the private part or anus of man or woman, whether unusual like blood and a stone, or customary, whether inherently impure or pure like a worm or a stone, nullifies wudu, except mani: its emission does not nullify wudu but makes ghusl obligatory. There exists in the school a deviant view (shadhdh) that it also imposes wudu (Rawdat al-Talibin 1/72).
The jurists differed over the case of something impure exiting from the rest of the body outside the two passages: a wound, bloodletting, cupping, nosebleed, vomiting, blood: is wudu nullified or not? The Hanafis and the Hanbalis hold that impurities exiting outside the two passages nullify wudu, wherever they exit from. But Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) specifies: if the emission is profuse, wudu is nullified; if it is slight, there are two narrations: one nullifies, the other does not, and the latter is the most correct.
Al-Buhuti explains: that a small amount does not nullify comes from the meaning of Ibn 'Abbas's statement about blood: "If it is profuse, he must repeat the prayer." Ahmad said: a number of Companions spoke to this effect; Ibn 'Umar squeezed a pimple, blood came out, and he prayed without renewing wudu; Ibn Abi Awfa squeezed a boil; other cases are reported, with no known contradictor among the Companions: it was thus a consensus (Kashshaf al-Qina' 1/124; Badayi' al-Sana'i' 1/101; al-Hidayah 1/14; Bahr al-Ra'iq 1/33; Radd al-Muhtar 1/260-261; al-Mughni 1/220; Nayl al-Awtar 1/235; Manar al-Sabil 1/44; 'Awn al-Ma'bud 1/231).
The Malikis, the Shafi'is, and Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah hold that the exit of these things does not nullify wudu. Al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) says: whether little or much, it is the same; only the obligation of washing the spot of the body touched by the exiting impurity remains, and wudu stands, unless nullified by another cause. For the default is non-nullification until the Law establishes it, and it did not establish it here; and analogical reasoning is barred in this chapter, because the legal cause of nullification is not intelligible. Al-Nawawi reports: Abu Bakr Ibn al-Mundhir (may Allah have mercy on him) said: no wudu for any of that, for I know of no proof from those who impose it. Al-Nawawi comments: this is the speech of Ibn al-Mundhir, whose mastery and verification are beyond doubt, whose immense knowledge of the Sunna, discernment in sound proofs, and freedom from partisanship are acknowledged (al-Majmu' 2/65).
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) says: the more apparent view is that wudu is not obligatory for touching the penis, nor for touching women, nor for impurities exiting outside the two passages, nor for laughter, nor for washing the dead: the proponents of obligation have no valid proof; the preponderant evidences indicate non-obligation, but the recommendation is clear: it is therefore recommended to perform wudu (Majmu' al-Fatawa 20/525-526). And elsewhere: by this method one knows that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not make wudu obligatory for touching women nor for impurities exiting outside the two passages; no one has reported, through an established chain, that he commanded it, although it is known that the people constantly practiced cupping, vomited, and were wounded in jihad and otherwise; a Companion even opened a vein to let blood out (that is phlebotomy), and no Muslim reported that he commanded his Companions to renew wudu for it (Majmu' al-Fatawa 25/237-238; see also al-Talqin 1/47; Hashiyat al-Dusuqi 1/190; Kifayat al-Akhyar p. 76; al-Mughni 1/220).
Imam Ibn Rushd (may Allah have mercy on him) structures the disagreement: the scholars of the great cities differed over the nullification of wudu for what exits the body as impurity, in three schools. The first considers the exiting substance alone, wherever it exits: Abu Hanifa and his companions, al-Thawri, Ahmad, and a group, along with predecessor Companions; they say: every impurity that flows from the body and exits makes wudu obligatory, like blood, profuse nosebleed, phlebotomy, cupping, and vomiting, except phlegm according to Abu Hanifa. Abu Yusuf, among Abu Hanifa's companions, says: if it fills the mouth, wudu is required; and none of them takes account of a small amount of blood, except Mujahid.
The second school considers the two apertures, the penis and the anus: everything that exits from these two passages nullifies wudu, whatever it is, blood, a stone, or phlegm, and whether the exit occurs in a state of health or of illness. This is the view of al-Shafi'i and his companions, and of Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Hakam among Malik's companions. The third school considers the exiting substance, the aperture, and the mode of exit together: everything that exits from the two passages customarily, namely urine, feces, madhy, wady, and wind, if the exit occurs in a state of health, nullifies wudu; they impose no wudu for blood, a stone, a worm, or incontinence. This is the view of Malik and all his companions.
The cause of their disagreement, Ibn Rushd continues: when the Muslims agreed upon the nullification of wudu for what exits the two passages (feces, urine, wind, madhy), in light of the text of the Book and the convergence of reports, three interpretations opened up. The first: the ruling is attached only to the very substances of the things agreed upon, as Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) holds. The second: the ruling is attached to these things inasmuch as they are impurities exiting the body, since wudu is a purification and purification is affected by impurity. The third: the ruling is attached to these things inasmuch as they exit from these two passages; on these last two readings, the command of wudu for the unanimously agreed hadaths falls under the specific intended as general, whereas according to Malik and his companions it is a specific carried on its specificity. Al-Shafi'i and Abu Hanifa therefore agree that the command falls under the specific intended as general, and they differ over which general is intended.
Malik strengthens his school with the principle that the default is to carry the specific upon its specific meaning until evidence indicates otherwise. Al-Shafi'i argues: the intended target is the aperture, not the exiting substance, since all agree that wudu is obligatory for wind exiting from below and not for wind exiting from above, though it is one and the same substance, the difference lying in the two apertures: an indication that the ruling attaches to the aperture; and this argument is weak, for the two winds differ in nature and odor. Abu Hanifa argues: the intended target is the exiting impurity, for impurity affects purification, and this purification, though legal, resembles real purification, I mean purification from impurity; he relies on the hadith of Thawban: the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) vomited, broke his fast, and performed wudu; on what is reported from 'Umar and Ibn 'Umar making wudu obligatory for nosebleed; and on the Prophet's command to the woman in istihadah to perform wudu for every prayer.
Al-Shafi'i and Abu Hanifa agree on nullification for the unanimously agreed hadaths even when they exit in a state of illness, because of the Prophet's command that the woman in istihadah perform wudu for every prayer, istihadah being an illness. Malik, for his part, holds that illness has here the effect of a dispensation, by analogy also with what is reported about the woman in istihadah, and because the hadith of Fatimah bint Abi Hubaysh is unanimously recognized as authentic, the disagreement concerning the addition "wudu for every prayer", which Abu 'Umar Ibn 'Abd al-Barr nevertheless authenticated. Malik also reasons by analogy with the man whose blood overwhelms him from a wound that does not stop, like the report that 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) prayed while his wound was gushing blood (Bidayat al-Mujtahid 1/58, 60).
Sleep is a natural lapse that befalls a person without his choosing, preventing the outer and inner senses from functioning while they remain intact and the intellect remains present: the servant becomes incapable of discharging his duties. The jurists of the four schools agree that sleep in general nullifies wudu, and likewise the sleep of one lying down, leaning, or reclining, because of the Prophet's words (peace and blessings be upon him):
"The eye is the cord of the anus: whoever sleeps, let him perform wudu."Hadith whose grading the source gives further on (hasan); the "anus" is the place of exit and the "cord" is the tie that binds the mouth of the waterskin: wakefulness is to the eye what the cord is to the waterskin, and when the eye sleeps the cord loosens and hadath may escape
They then differed over one who sleeps in one of the prayer postures, or seated on the ground with his posterior firmly planted: is his wudu nullified? Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him) says: it is not, however long the sleep, if he is in one of the prayer postures; but if he lies on his side and lies down, his wudu is nullified. Abu Bakr al-Jassas (may Allah have mercy on him) explains: what makes wudu obligatory is the customary sleep of which one who leaves it can be said to have "risen from sleep"; now of one who sleeps seated, prostrating, or bowing, it is not said that he rose from sleep: that is said only of the sleeper lying down.
Al-Jassas continues: the predecessors and the generality of the jurists of the cities agreed not to impose wudu on one who sleeps seated without leaning on anything. 'Ata' reports from Ibn 'Abbas that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) delayed the 'Isha' prayer one night until the people slept, then they awoke; 'Umar came and said: the prayer, O Messenger of Allah; he went out and prayed without mentioning that they had renewed wudu (an authentic hadith according to the source, grading given further on). Anas (may Allah be pleased with him) reports:
"We used to come to the mosque of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) and wait for the prayer: some of us would doze and some would sleep, and we did not renew wudu."An authentic hadith according to the source, which refers its grading further on
The source further reports, through the chain of Abu Yusuf from Muhammad ibn 'Abdillah, from 'Ata', from Ibn 'Abbas: the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) used to pray the dawn prayer without renewing wudu; he was asked about it and said: "I am not like you: my eyes sleep but my heart does not sleep; were I to have a hadath, I would know it." The source's note specifies that this full wording was not located: what is established in the two Sahihs is the sentence "My eyes sleep and my heart does not sleep" (al-Bukhari 1147; Muslim 738). This hadith shows that sleep in itself is not a hadath: the obligation of wudu targets the possible hadath that the sleeper does not perceive, which is the prevailing case in sleep, per the hadith: "The eye is the cord of the anus: when the eye sleeps, the cord loosens" (a hasan hadith per the source). The ruling of hadath therefore attaches to deep sleep in which the sleeper does not sense what exits from him, in the customary sleep where the sleeper lays his side on the ground, not knowing what issues from him; but if he is seated or in a prayer posture without need, such as standing, bowing, or prostrating, his purification is not nullified, for in these postures a person is on his guard: were a hadath to occur, he would know it (Ahkam al-Qur'an 3/322-333; Badayi' al-Sana'i' 1/123-127; Radd al-Muhtar 1/207).
Among the Malikis, the retained view (sahih) is that the criterion is the quality of sleep, not the sleeper's posture, whether lying, standing, or other. Whenever the sleep is deep, it nullifies in every posture, whether the sleeper lies down, prostrates, sits, or stands. The sign of deep sleep: the one experiencing it does not perceive loud sounds near him, or holds an object that falls from his hand without him noticing. If the sleep is not deep, in that he hears the loud sounds nearby, feels the object fall from his hand or feels his saliva flowing, there is then no nullification at all, due to its lightness: this is the way of al-Lakhmi.
Others combined the quality of sleep when it is deep and the sleeper's posture when it is not: deep sleep requires wudu in every posture and position; as for light sleep, they say: wudu is required for the sleeper lying down or prostrating, and not for the one standing or sitting. Al-Sawi notes that this way is attributed in "al-Tawdih" to 'Abd al-Haqq and others, but that the first way is the most famous: it is the way of Ibn Marzuq (al-Sharh al-Saghir with Bulghah al-Salik 1/98; Hashiyat al-Dusuqi 1/192; al-Ifsah 1/74).
Among the Shafi'is, the sound view, supported by al-Shafi'i's own text, is the one al-Nawawi reports: if the sleeper keeps his posterior planted on the ground or a similar support, wudu is not nullified; if he does not keep it planted, it is nullified whatever the posture, in prayer or outside it. Little and much sleep are alike, to reconcile the reports on the question, among them that of 'Ali (may Allah be pleased with him):
"The two eyes are the cord of the anus: whoever sleeps, let him perform wudu."A hasan hadith: reported by Abu Dawud (203), Ibn Majah (477) and others; graded hasan by al-Nawawi in al-Majmu' (2/23)
And the hadith of Safwan (may Allah be pleased with him), in direct attribution to the Prophet: "...but from feces, urine, and sleep" (a hasan hadith: reported by al-Tirmidhi 96, al-Nasa'i 158, Ahmad 18116 and 18120, Ibn Khuzaymah in his Sahih 17 and 196). And the hadith of Anas (may Allah be pleased with him): "The Companions of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) would sleep then pray without renewing wudu", with the version: "until their heads drooped" (Muslim 376; Abu Dawud 200). Anas also reports: the iqamah for the 'Isha' prayer was called; a man said: I have an errand; the Prophet stood and conferred with him until the people, or some of the people, slept, then they prayed; in one version: "until his Companions slept, then he came and led them in prayer": both versions are reported by Muslim in his Sahih. And from Ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him): "The Messenger of Allah was kept one night from the 'Isha' prayer; he delayed it until we slept in the mosque, then we awoke, then slept, then awoke, then he came out to us"; and from Ibn 'Abbas: "The Messenger of Allah delayed the 'Isha' one night until the people slept and awoke, then slept and awoke" (al-Bukhari 545; Muslim 639). Al-Bukhari reported these two hadiths with this wording, whose apparent meaning is that they prayed with those same ablutions.
Al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) says: Malik and al-Shafi'i reported, through an authentic chain, that Ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) would sleep seated then pray without renewing wudu. And the reasoning: from the sleeper whose posterior is not planted, wind most often escapes, and the Law raised this apparent likelihood to the level of certainty, just as it raises the testimony of two witnesses, which yields only presumption, to certainty for establishing liability. As for the first hadith (the eye and the cord), it is carried upon the sleep of one whose posterior is not planted, and to this one must resort in order to reconcile the authentic hadiths. Al-Nawawi further reports: al-Shafi'i said in "al-Umm", as did his companions: wudu is not nullified by drowsiness (nu'as), and that is the Sunna, without disagreement; the proof is the hadith of Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him):
"The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) stood to pray at night; I stood at his left side and he placed me on his right; whenever I dozed, he would take hold of my earlobe; he prayed eleven rak'ahs."Reported by Muslim
Al-Shafi'i and his companions thus distinguish: in sleep there is a takeover of the mind and the collapse of sight and the other senses; in drowsiness the mind is not overcome, the senses merely slacken without collapse (al-Majmu' 2/17 and 27; Sharh Sahih Muslim 4/66; Tarh al-Tathrib 2/45; Mughni al-Muhtaj 1/115; Kifayat al-Akhyar p. 77; al-Ifsah 1/74).
Among the Hanbalis, sleep falls into three categories. The first: the sleep of one lying down; it nullifies wudu, whether slight or long, and this is the view of all who affirm nullification by sleep. The second: the sleep of one seated; if long, it nullifies according to one narration, and if slight, it does not nullify. They prove it by the generality of the hadith of the eye and the cord, and by the statement of Safwan ibn Ussall (may Allah be pleased with him): "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), when we traveled, would order us not to remove our leather socks for three days and their nights, except from janabah, but (to remove them) from feces, urine, and sleep." They restrict it to slight sleep through the hadith of Anas ("they would sleep then pray without renewing wudu"), which specifies neither quantity nor smallness; now the head of a sleeper droops even after slight sleep: it is therefore certain for the slight, on which the ruling is based, while what exceeds it remains conjectural, and a certain generality is not abandoned for mere conjecture. Moreover, nullification by sleep is explained by its leading to hadath: with abundance and dominance of sleep it leads to it without the person sensing the escape, unlike slight sleep; and the long cannot be analogized to the slight, for they differ in their consequence.
It is reported from Imam Ahmad that it does not nullify; it is reported from him that the sleep of the seated does not nullify, even if long: this is the choice of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah; and it is reported from him that only the sleep of one lying down nullifies. The third category: everything outside these two states, namely the sleep of one standing, bowing, or prostrating. Narrations came from Ahmad: the first: it nullifies, and this is the school's view, for no text came to particularize it out of the general nullification hadiths, nor anything of like meaning, since the seated person is on guard because the place of hadath rests on the ground, whereas in the one bowing and the one prostrating the place of hadath gapes open; the second: it does not nullify unless it becomes much. It is said in "al-Insaf": the sound view of the school is that the sleep of the standing is like that of the seated: much of it does not nullify, per Ahmad's own text. It is said in "al-Mughni": the apparent view with Ahmad is the equivalence of the seated and the standing, for they resemble each other in the lowered position and the closing of the aperture, and the standing one is perhaps farther from hadath, since he cannot sink into sleep: were he to sink, he would fall. And in "al-Insaf": this is the view of the majority of the school's companions.
As for the sleep of the one bowing and the one prostrating: if slight, the school's view is that it nullifies; it is reported from Ahmad that the slight sleep of the bowing and prostrating one does not nullify, and this is the view of the majority of the school's companions; it is further reported from him that the sleep of the standing and the bowing does not nullify but that of the prostrating one does (al-Mughni 1/223 and 225; Kashshaf al-Qina' 1/125; al-Insaf 1/199-200; Manar al-Sabil 1/45).
The jurists agree that one who touches his private part with a part of his body other than his hand does not have his wudu nullified. They then differed, when he touches it with the inside of his palm, into three schools. The first: the Hanafis and Imam Ahmad in a narration chosen by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah: touching the private part does not nullify wudu and obligates nothing; it is merely recommended, because of the hadith of Talq ibn 'Ali:
"We came to the Prophet of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him); a man came, looking like a bedouin, and said: O Prophet of Allah, what do you think of a man who touches his private part after performing wudu (in one version: during the prayer)? The Prophet said to him: Is it anything but a piece of you? (or: a limb of you)"An authentic hadith: reported by Abu Dawud (181, 182), al-Tirmidhi (85), al-Nasa'i (165) and Ibn Majah (483)
They argue: it is a limb of his body, so it is like the rest of his body, like one who touches his thigh, his nose, or his foot. They add: it is nevertheless recommended to perform wudu, to leave the disagreement (al-Mabsut 1/66; Bahr al-Ra'iq 1/45; Fath al-Qadir 1/55; Hashiyat al-Tahtawi 1/61; Radd al-Muhtar 1/278; al-Mughni 1/228; al-Insaf 1/202; al-Ikhtiyarat p. 28).
The second school: the Shafi'is, the Hanbalis according to the school's view, and the Malikis according to the better-known view: one who touches his private part with his hand has his wudu nullified. They prove it by several hadiths of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), among them what Busrah bint Safwan (may Allah be pleased with her) reported:
"Whoever touches his private part, let him perform wudu."An authentic hadith: reported by Abu Dawud (180), al-Tirmidhi (82), al-Nasa'i (444) and Ibn Majah (479)
"If one of you puts his hand upon his private part with no veil or barrier between them, let him perform wudu."A hadith of Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him), authentic: reported by Ibn Hibban in his Sahih (1118) and al-Bayhaqi in al-Sunan al-Kubra (630)
"Any man who touches his private part, let him perform wudu; and any woman who touches her private part, let her perform wudu."A hadith of 'Abdullah ibn 'Amr (may Allah be pleased with him), authentic: reported by Imam Ahmad (7076), Ibn al-Jarud in al-Muntaqa (19) and al-Bayhaqi in al-Sunan al-Kubra (626)
"Whoever touches his private part, let him perform wudu."A hadith of Umm Habibah (may Allah be pleased with her), authentic: reported by Ibn Majah (481) and al-Bayhaqi in al-Sunan al-Kubra (617); also reported from Abu Ayyub
They discuss the hadith of Talq: even were it authentic, the hadith of Abu Hurayrah and its counterparts would take precedence, for Talq arrived in Medina while the mosque was being built and there reported the hadith containing the episode of touching the private part, whereas Abu Hurayrah embraced Islam in the year of Khaybar, six years later; now one retains the most recent of the Prophet's practice. They further say: the hadith of Talq keeps the original rule, that of Busrah transfers it, and the transferring report takes precedence, for the rulings of the Lawgiver transfer from what the people were upon. And the reporters of nullification are more numerous and their hadiths more famous: they come from Busrah, Umm Habibah, Abu Hurayrah, and Zayd ibn Khalid (may Allah be pleased with them) all together. Moreover, the difference between the private part and the rest of the body is established in both insight and sense: it is established from the Messenger of Allah that "he forbade a man to touch his private part with his right hand" (al-Bukhari 153; Muslim 267); this indicates that the private part does not resemble the rest of the body, and this is why the right hand is kept away from it: were the private part like the thumb, the hand, or the foot, the prohibition on touching it with the right hand would be meaningless. And analogizing the private part to the rest of the body does not hold, for it carries rules unique to it: the obligation of ghusl through penetration, the legal penalty, the dowry, and others.
They add: the hadith of Talq is interpreted as concerning touch over a barrier, for he said: "I asked him about touching the private part during the prayer", and the apparent meaning is that one does not touch one's private part in prayer without a barrier. There is no difference, according to the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis in one view, between deliberate and unintentional touching; according to a narration from Ahmad, and it is a Maliki view, wudu is nullified only when the touch is intended. Ahmad ibn al-Husayn reports: Ahmad was asked: wudu for touching the private part? He did like this and clenched his hand, that is, when one grips it (al-Mughni 1/228 and 230; al-Insaf 1/202; al-Majmu' 2/45 and 55; Ibn al-Qayyim's commentary on Abu Dawud's Sunan 1/212-214; Mughni al-Muhtaj 1/35; al-Ifsah 1/79; al-Awsat of Ibn al-Mundhir 1/194).
The third school: the Malikis. Ibn 'Abd al-Barr (may Allah have mercy on him) expounds: Malik's position on the obligation of wudu for touching the private part fluctuated, and his doctrine differed. What settled among his companions of the Muslim West: one who touches his private part is ordered to perform wudu so long as he has not prayed; if he prayed, he is ordered to repeat the prayer while the time remains; once the time has passed, no repetition is due from him (al-Istidhkar 1/249-250; al-Kafi 1/12; Bidayat al-Mujtahid 1/65-66).
His companions and followers differed into four views. Some impose no wudu on one who touches his private part, nor any repetition of prayer after touching it, neither in the time nor outside it: among them Sahnun and al-'Itqi. Others require repetition within the time: Ibn al-Qasim and Ashhab, and it is a narration of Ibn Wahb. Others yet hold the wudu obligatory and the repetition of the prayer required within the time and after it: among them Asbagh ibn al-Faraj and 'Isa ibn Dinar, and it is the position of Ibn 'Umar, who repeated the dawn prayer after sunrise, as well as the view of al-Shafi'i. As for Isma'il ibn Ishaq and his Baghdad companions among the Malikis, such as Ibn Kabir, Ibn al-Muntab, and Abu al-Faraj al-Abhari, they condition the touch on the presence of pleasure, like the touching of women in their view: if he felt pleasure touching his private part, wudu is due from him, and if he prayed after touching it without performing wudu, he repeats the prayer forever, even outside the time; if he felt no pleasure in the touch, nothing is due from him; this is a fourth view, and those who hold it equate the inside and the outside of the palm (al-Istidhkar 1/249-250; Mawahib al-Jalil 1/300 and 6/433; al-Kafi 1/12; Bidayat al-Mujtahid 1/65-66).
The Malikis according to the retained view and the Shafi'is say: wudu is nullified only by touching with the inside of the palm, for the outside of the hand is not the organ of touch: it is like the case of touching it with one's thigh (al-Istidhkar 1/249; al-Majmu' 2/245). The Hanbalis make no difference between the outside and the inside of the palm, because of the Prophet's hadith (peace and blessings be upon him) about the hand brought with no veil or barrier: the outside of the palm is part of the hand, and "bringing the hand" is contact without barrier; and it is a part of his hand to which the rulings of the whole hand attach: it resembles the inside of the palm (al-Mughni 1/230).
Touching the anus. The jurists differed over one who touches his anus: is his wudu nullified? The Shafi'is and the Hanbalis according to the school's view: yes, with no difference between touching the private part and touching the anus, because of the hadith of 'A'ishah: "Whoever touches his private part, let him perform wudu" (Ibn Majah 481; al-Bayhaqi 617; also from Abu Ayyub). The term "farj" (private part) designates in Arabic both the front passage and the rear passage; and since the anus is one of the two passages of hadath, touching it must constitute a hadath like touching the front passage. If the obligation of wudu for touching the anus is established, it attaches to touching the ring itself and not to what neighbors and adjoins it; likewise, wudu for touching the private part concerns the private part itself, not what neighbors it: the pubic mound, the testicles, or what lies between the two passages (al-Majmu' 2/51; al-Awsat 1/212-213; al-Hawi al-Kabir 1/196-197; al-Mughni 1/232; al-Insaf 1/209).
The Hanafis, the Malikis, and the Hanbalis according to one narration: wudu is not nullified, for the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "Whoever touches his private part, let him perform wudu": the ruling specified the private part, and the anus is not within its meaning, for it is not intended for touching and does not lead to the exit of anything (al-Awsat 1/212-213; Bahr al-Ra'iq 1/45; al-Istidhkar 1/249; al-Bayan wa al-Tahsil 18/45; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil 1/158; al-Qawanin al-fiqhiyya p. 22; al-Mughni 1/232; al-Insaf 1/209).
Touching an animal's private part. Al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) says: touching the private part of a beast does not nullify wudu according to us, and this is the view of all scholars (al-Majmu' 2/51).
A woman touching her private part. The jurists differed: is her wudu nullified? The Shafi'is, Malik in one narration, and the Hanbalis according to the school's view: if the woman touches her private part, her wudu is nullified just like the man's, because of the hadith: "Any woman who touches her private part, let her perform wudu" (grading cited above). The Hanafis, the Malikis according to the prevailing view, and Ahmad in one narration: her wudu is not nullified, for the well-known hadith concerns touching the male private part, and the woman's touching of her private part is not within its meaning, because it does not invite the exit of anything: wudu is therefore not nullified (al-Qawanin al-fiqhiyya 1/22; al-Majmu' 2/55; al-Mughni 1/232; al-Insaf 1/209-210).
The Malikis, according to their prevailing view, specify: the woman's wudu is not nullified by touching her private part, even if she "inserts", that is, introduces a finger or several fingers into her private part (Bulghah al-Salik 1/101). Ibn 'Abd al-Barr (may Allah have mercy on him) reports the nuances: it is reported from Malik that she is in this like the man, in all the states of disagreement already described, and wudu is due from her: this is the better-known view; it is reported from him that he lightened it and imposed wudu only if she "inserts", insertion being interpreted as seeking pleasure. Isma'il ibn Abi Uways says: I asked Malik ibn Anas about the woman who touches her private part: is wudu due from her? Malik said: if she inserts, wudu is due from her. I said to him: what is inserting? He said: that she introduces her hand between the two lips (al-Kafi 1/12).
Touching another person's private part. The jurists differed over one who touches another's private part, even a child's: is his wudu nullified? The Shafi'is and the Hanbalis: the wudu of the toucher is nullified, whether the person touched is small or grown, alive or dead, for touching another's private part is a sin, more conducive to desire and to emission, whereas a person's need drives him to touch his own private part: if wudu is nullified for touching one's own, it is nullified a fortiori for another's (al-Majmu' 2/45 and 47; Mughni al-Muhtaj 1/35; al-Mughni 1/231; al-Kafi 1/45; al-Insaf 1/209-210; Kashshaf al-Qina' 1/128; al-Ifsah 1/78). The Hanafis: wudu is never nullified by touching another's private part (al-Mabsut 1/66; al-Istidhkar 1/256; al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya 1/13). The Malikis: if he touches another's private part, his ruling in this is the ruling of one touching his own: if he intends pleasure or finds it, his wudu is nullified, otherwise not: this is their doctrine; however, al-Qarafi in "al-Dhakhira" stated non-nullification without detail (Mawahib al-Jalil 1/299; al-Dhakhira 1/225; al-Thamar al-Dani 1/30; al-Sharh al-Kabir 1/121; al-Fawakih al-Dawani 1/116; Hashiyat al-'Adawi 1/176; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil 1/157; Minhah al-Jalil 1/113).
The jurists differed over the ruling on touching women: does it nullify wudu in every case, with or without desire, or never nullify it, or nullify it when done with desire and not otherwise? Three views among the people of knowledge. The first: the Hanafis and Ahmad in one narration, which is the choice of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah: touching women does not nullify wudu in any case, unless one has direct contact reaching to the brink of penetration. Evidences: the hadith of 'A'ishah (may Allah be pleased with her):
"I used to sleep in front of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), my legs toward his qiblah; when he wanted to prostrate, he would poke me and I would fold my legs, and when he rose, I would stretch them out."Reported by al-Bukhari (375) and Muslim (512)
"He kissed one of his wives, then went out to the prayer without performing wudu."An authentic hadith of 'A'ishah: reported by Abu Dawud (179), al-Tirmidhi (86), al-Nasa'i (1/104) and Ibn Majah (502)
And what Abu Umamah (may Allah be pleased with him) reported: while the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) was in the mosque, seated among us, a man came and said: O Messenger of Allah, I have committed an offense warranting a penalty, apply it to me. The Messenger of Allah kept silent; the man repeated his request and he kept silent again; the prayer was called; when he finished, the man followed him, and I too followed the Messenger of Allah to see what he would answer the man. The man caught up with him and repeated his request, and the Messenger of Allah said to him: "When you left your house, did you not perform wudu and perform it well? He said: yes, O Messenger of Allah. He said: then you attended the prayer with us? He said: yes, O Messenger of Allah. The Messenger of Allah said to him: then Allah has forgiven you your offense (or: your sin)" (Muslim 2765). And in a version reported from 'Abdullah: a man came to the Prophet and said: O Messenger of Allah, I had relations short of intercourse with a woman at the far end of Medina; here I am, decide of me what you wish. 'Umar said: Allah had covered you: would that you had covered yourself. The Prophet gave no answer; the man rose and left; the Prophet sent a man after him and recited to him this verse:
"And establish prayer at the two ends of the day and at the approach of the night: indeed, good deeds do away with misdeeds. That is a reminder for those who remember."
Surah Hud, 114
A man among the company said: O Prophet of Allah, is this for him specifically? He said: no, it is for all people (Muslim 2763). The Hanafis further argue: touching is not a hadath in itself, nor a cause of the customary occurrence of hadath: it resembles a man touching a man, or a woman touching a woman; and the touching of spouses is of constant occurrence: making it a hadath would plunge people into hardship. As for the verse "or you have touched women" (Surah Al-Nisa', 43), it is reported from Ibn 'Abbas, the interpreter of the Quran, that the intended "touching" is intercourse. And obligation can only come from the revealed Law: nothing came in this sense, nor anything equivalent (Badayi' al-Sana'i' 1/119-121; Radd al-Muhtar 1/277-278; al-Mughni 1/249).
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) defines his position: likewise the touching of women with desire, if one says it is recommended, that is tenable; but as for its being obligatory, no proof rises for it except its opposite, and no one has ever been able to relate from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that he commanded his Companions to perform wudu for touching women, nor for impurities exiting outside the two passages, given how universally prevalent these cases are; and the meaning of "or you have touched women" is intercourse, as Ibn 'Abbas and others interpreted it, for multiple reasons (Majmu' al-Fatawa 20/525). He then says: the more apparent view is that wudu is not obligatory for touching the private part, nor women, nor for impurities exiting outside the two passages, nor for laughter, nor for washing the dead: the proponents of obligation have no valid proof; the preponderant evidences indicate non-obligation, but the recommendation is clear: it is therefore recommended to perform wudu for touching women with desire (Majmu' al-Fatawa 20/526-527).
The second school: the Shafi'is and Imam Ahmad in one narration: if a man touches the skin of a woman, or a woman the skin of a man, with no barrier between them, the wudu of the toucher and the touched is nullified in every case, with or without desire. Proof: the word of Allah: "or you have touched women" (Surah Al-Nisa', 43), which Ibn Mas'ud read as "aw lamastum" (the accomplished form of the verb); now the primary meaning of touching is the meeting of the two skins. Allah the Most High reports the jinn as saying: "...we sought to touch heaven" (Surah Al-Jinn, 8); and the poet said: "I touched with my hand his hand, seeking wealth" (cited by the source for the word's plain meaning). Imam al-Shafi'i says in his Musnad: Malik informed us, from Ibn Shihab, from Salim, from his father:
"A man's kissing his wife, or feeling her with his hand, falls under mulamasah: whoever kisses his wife or feels her with his hand, wudu is due from him."Reported in the Musnad of al-Shafi'i (1/11)
The woman intended is one lawful to marry (a non-relative) as well as the wife; as for the woman permanently forbidden in marriage, touching her does not nullify wudu; likewise, touching the young non-related girl who is not an object of desire does not nullify wudu (al-Majmu' 2/30; al-Muhadhdhab 1/23; al-Mughni 1/250).
The third school: the Malikis and Imam Ahmad according to the prevailing report: if the touching is with desire, it nullifies, otherwise not. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) treats the question in detail: the nullification of wudu by touching women carries three views, two extremes and a middle. The weakest: nullification by mere touching, even without desire, when the person touched is of those who customarily arouse desire: this is al-Shafi'i's view, clinging to the verse "or you have touched women" and the other reading "aw lamastum". The second: touching never nullifies, even with desire: this is the view of Abu Hanifa and others; both views are related as narrations from Ahmad, but the apparent doctrine of his school is that of Malik and the seven jurists of Medina: if the touching is with desire, it nullifies, otherwise not. There is no tenable view in the question except this one or the one before it.
Attaching nullification to mere touching contradicts the principles, the consensus of the Companions, and the transmitted reports, and its proponent has neither text nor analogy. If "touching" in the verse means the contact of the hand, the kiss, and the like, as Ibn 'Umar and others said, then it is established that wherever such expressions are used in the Book and the Sunna, they mean what is accompanied by desire, like His word concerning i'tikaf: "and do not have relations with them while you are retaining in the mosques" (Surah Al-Baqarah, 187): the contact without desire of a man in i'tikaf is not forbidden to him, unlike contact with desire. Likewise the pilgrim in ihram, whose rule is stricter: if he touches a woman without desire, it is not forbidden for him and incurs no sacrificial blood. Likewise His word: "then you divorce them before touching them" (Surah Al-Ahzab, 49) and: "There is no blame upon you if you divorce women you have not touched" (Surah Al-Baqarah, 236): if a man touches her with a touch devoid of desire, no waiting period is due, the dowry is not settled, and the prohibition of affinity is not established, by consensus of the scholars; unlike touching with desire without seclusion or intercourse: the settlement of the dowry therein is a well-known dispute among the scholars in the doctrine of Ahmad and others.
Whoever claims that "or you have touched women" covers touching even without desire departs from the language in which the Quran came, indeed from people's ordinary usage: when touching between man and woman is mentioned, one understands the touch of desire, just as when intercourse between man and woman is mentioned, one understands intercourse of the private part, not of the foot. Moreover, the advocate of nullification does not say the ruling attaches to touching women absolutely, but to a category: those who arouse desire; now touching those who do not, such as close relatives and the young girl, does not nullify: he has thus abandoned the apparent meaning he claims and set a condition with no basis in any text or analogy. The revealed principles distinguish between touching with desire and touching without it, not between a desirable person and one who is not: it is the touch with desire that carries effect in all acts of worship, such as ihram, i'tikaf, fasting, and others.
As for the one who attaches nullification to desire, the recognized apparent meaning and the analogy of the Law's principles are proofs for him. And the one who does not make touching a nullifier in any case understands "touching" as intercourse, as in "and if you divorce them before touching them" (Surah Al-Baqarah, 237) and its many parallels; in the Sunan it appears that "the Prophet kissed one of his wives then prayed without performing wudu", but this hadith has been discussed. Moreover, it is well known that touching one's wife is a universal occurrence: were it to nullify wudu, the Prophet would have expounded it to his community, and it would have been famous among the Companions; yet no one reported that any Companion performed wudu at the mere meeting of his hand with his wife or anything else, and no one transmitted a hadith to that effect from the Prophet: this view is therefore void, and Allah knows best (Majmu' al-Fatawa 21/235).
Ibn 'Abd al-Barr (may Allah have mercy on him) concludes: the position of Malik and his companions, conditioning nullification on pleasure and desire at contact, is the most correct, if Allah wills. The Companions transmitted nothing on the meaning of mulamasah except two sayings: one, intercourse itself; the other, what is short of intercourse, among the things leading to it and resembling it. It is established that those who said "short of intercourse" meant what is not intercourse, without meaning the slap, the kiss of compassion from a man to his daughter, or touching without pleasure. Since it is impermissible to say that "touching" means the slap and the like, nothing remains but the touch in which pleasure and desire are found; for there is no disagreement about one who slaps his wife, dresses her wound, or the woman who suckles her children: no wudu is due from any of them; likewise for one who intends the touch without feeling pleasure: he falls under their rule (al-Istidhkar 1/255).
The Malikis then detail: wudu is nullified when the purified person touches someone customarily desirable, with the hand or any part of the body, even a supernumerary limb, and even if the touch is upon a fingernail or attached hair. This under conditions. Conditions of the toucher: first, that he be of age; second, that he intend pleasure or find it (except that if the person touched is a close relative and he feels no pleasure, wudu is not nullified); likewise wudu is nullified if he finds pleasure during the touch even without intending it at the outset; if intention and pleasure are both absent, there is no nullification. As for the kiss on the mouth, it nullifies wudu in every case, whether pleasure is intended, found, or not, for it is the seat of pleasure; and nullification applies equally to the kisser and the kissed if both are of age, or to the adult of the two if the other is among those customarily desired, even if the kiss is merely given (Mawahib al-Jalil and the Maliki sources cited by the source).
Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Ahmad in a firm narration from him, as Ibn Qudamah says, hold that if a man kisses a woman, with or without desire, no wudu is due from him, because of the already cited hadith of 'A'ishah: "He kissed one of his wives then went out to the prayer without performing wudu", and because obligation belongs to the revealed Law, nothing of which came in this sense nor in an equivalent sense (Badayi' al-Sana'i' 1/130; al-Mughni 1/248-249; al-Ifsah 1/79).
As for a man kissing his daughter or his mother: Ibn al-Mundhir (may Allah have mercy on him) reports: all the scholars whose views we preserve agreed that no wudu is due from a man who kisses his mother, his daughter, or his sister in honor and kindness upon a return from travel, nor for the contact of a part of his body with a part of theirs when handing something over; except what is related of one of al-Shafi'i's two views: certain of his Egyptian companions attributed to him two views in the question: the first makes wudu obligatory, the second accords with the view of the rest of the scholars. Ibn al-Mundhir specifies: I have not found this question in his Egyptian books that we read under al-Rabi', and I do not know whether it is established from him or not, for the one who reported it did not say he heard it from him; and were it established, the view agreeing with the Medinan, the Kufan, and the rest of the scholars would suit him better.
The source finally recalls the historical proof: it is established that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) prayed while carrying Umamah, daughter of Abu al-'As; Abu Qatadah reports:
"The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) used to pray while carrying Umamah, daughter of Zaynab, daughter of the Messenger of Allah, and of Abu al-'As ibn al-Rabi': standing, he would carry her; prostrating, he would set her down."Reported by al-Bukhari (494) and Muslim (543)
Abu Bakr (Ibn al-Mundhir) comments: the Messenger of Allah's carrying Umamah proves the soundness of the common view of the scholars, for it is known and established that whoever carries a little girl is almost never without his body touching hers, and it has been customary at all times for a man to embrace his mother and grandmother and kiss his young daughter with a kiss of compassion, no one considering this to nullify purification or require wudu; and were it a nullifying hadath, the scholars would have discussed it as they discussed a man's touching and kissing of his wife (al-Awsat 1/130-131).
The jurists differed over one who eats camel meat: is his wudu nullified? The majority: the Hanafis, the Malikis, the Shafi'is according to the school's view, and Imam Ahmad in one narration: no wudu is due from him. Evidences: the hadith of Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him):
"The last of the two commands from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) was to leave wudu for what the fire has touched."An authentic hadith: reported by Abu Dawud (192), al-Tirmidhi (80), al-Nasa'i (1/108), Ibn Majah and Ibn Hibban in his Sahih (1124)
And if wudu is not nullified by eating pork, which is unlawful, it is a fortiori not nullified by anything else; and it is a food like other foods. They also rely on the hadith: "Wudu is for what exits, not for what enters" (reported by al-Daraqutni 1/151 in direct attribution, and by al-Bayhaqi 1/261 as a statement of Ibn 'Abbas; the source's note declares it weak in its chains: al-Fadl ibn al-Mukhtar therein is very weak, and Shu'bah the freed slave of Ibn 'Abbas is weak; Ibn 'Adi says the origin of the hadith is its stop at Ibn 'Abbas, and al-Bayhaqi: it is not established in direct attribution; al-Tabarani reports it from Abu Umamah and Ibn Hajar judges its chain weaker still, Talkhis al-Habir 158). Al-Kasani sums up the principle: hadath is the exit of impurity, in act or through its cause, and that is absent here (Badayi' al-Sana'i' 1/130-131; al-Majmu' 2/69-70; al-Muhadhdhab 1/24; Rawdat al-Talibin 1/72; Kifayat al-Akhyar p. 36; al-Insaf 1/216).
The Hanbalis according to the school's view, and it is the choice of al-Nawawi, al-Bayhaqi, Ibn al-Mundhir, and Ibn Khuzaymah among the Shafi'is: wudu is obligatory for eating camel meat. Al-Nawawi says: it is the strong view, or the correct one in terms of evidence, the one whose preponderance I believe: it rests upon two authentic hadiths without sufficient answer, and it was chosen by a group of the verifying traditionists among our companions (al-Majmu' 2/70; Rawdat al-Talibin 1/72; Sharh Sahih Muslim 4/45). Evidences: the hadith of Jabir ibn Samurah: a man asked the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him):
"O Messenger of Allah, must we perform wudu for camel meats? He said: Yes."Reported by Muslim (360)
The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) was asked about wudu for camel meats: he said: "Perform wudu for it." He was asked about sheep meats: he said: "Do not perform wudu for it."A hadith of al-Bara' ibn 'Azib, authentic: reported by Abu Dawud (184), al-Tirmidhi (81), Ibn Majah (494), Ahmad (20907) and Ibn Hibban in his Sahih (3/310)
Imam Ahmad and Ishaq ibn Rahawayh say: there are here two authentic hadiths from the Prophet: the hadith of al-Bara' and that of Jabir ibn Samurah. The source's note relates that Ibn Hibban, after citing al-Bara's hadith, comments: the questioner's question concerned wudu for camel meats and prayer in their enclosures, and the Prophet's differentiation between the two answers shows, in my view, that he meant the obligatory wudu for prayer, not the washing of hands: had it been washing hands of grease, camel and sheep meats would have been alike; now the abandonment of wudu for what the fire touched was first in force, then abrogated, and camel meats remained excepted from the totality of what was permitted after the prohibition.
Ibn Qudamah defends this school in detail: their hadith of Ibn 'Abbas has no basis in attribution to the Prophet; it is only his own stopped statement; and even were it authentic, our hadith would take precedence over it, being more authentic and more specific, and the specific takes precedence over the general; the hadith of Jabir on what the fire touched likewise does not contradict ours, given the authenticity and specificity of ours. Should they say: the hadith of Jabir is later, hence abrogating, we reply: abrogation by it is impossible for four reasons. The first: the command of wudu for camel meats is later than or simultaneous with the abrogation of wudu for what the fire touched, for he joined the command of wudu for camel meat to the prohibition of wudu for sheep meat, which is among what the fire touched: either the abrogation occurred through this prohibition, and the command for camel meat is simultaneous with the abrogation, and how could what is simultaneous with the abrogation be abrogated by it when a condition of abrogation is that the abrogating be later; or it occurred through something earlier, and the earlier cannot abrogate. The second: eating camel meat nullifies only inasmuch as it is camel meat, not inasmuch as it is cooked by fire: hence it nullifies even when raw; the abrogation of one of the two aspects is not the abrogation of the other, like a woman forbidden both through suckling and as a stepdaughter: abrogating the suckling prohibition does not abrogate that of the stepdaughter.
The third: their text is general and ours specific, and the general does not abrogate the specific, for a condition of abrogation is the impossibility of harmonization, and harmonizing the specific and the general is possible by carrying the general upon everything except the place of particularization. The fourth: our text is authentic, widespread, and possesses the strength of authenticity, diffusion, and specificity, while theirs is weak, lacking these three strengths: it cannot abrogate. Should they say: the command of wudu in your text admits of recommendation, and we carry it upon that; or that by wudu he meant the washing of hands before and after food, as the Prophet ordered wudu before and after food, specifying camel meat for its heat and strong odor: we answer on the first point that it contradicts the apparent meaning threefold. One: the demand of a command is obligation. Two: the Prophet was asked about the ruling of this meat and answered with the command of wudu: carrying it otherwise would be deception upon the questioner, not an answer. Three: he joined the command to the prohibition of wudu for sheep meat, where the prohibition means negation of obligation, not unlawfulness: the command must therefore be carried upon obligation for the distinction to exist.
On the second point (the washing of hands), it does not hold for four reasons. One: it would imply carrying the command upon recommendation, whereas the mere washing of hands is not obligatory, and we have shown the falsity of the first reading. Two: when the word wudu comes upon the tongue of the Lawgiver, it must be carried upon its legal sense, not its linguistic one, for the apparent assumption is that he speaks only in his established terms. Three: the text came as an answer to the questioner's question about the ruling of wudu for their meats and prayer in their enclosures: nothing other than the wudu intended for prayer is understood from it. Four: had he meant the washing of hands, he would not have differentiated it from sheep meat, for washing the hands is recommended for both; and hence he said: "Whoever spends the night with the odor of grease on his hands and something befalls him, let him blame none but himself" (an authentic hadith: al-Tirmidhi 1859 and 1860; Ibn Majah 3297; the source's note defines, after Ibn al-Athir in al-Nihayah 3/317, "ghamar" as the grease and strong odor of meat). What they adduce of the stronger odor of camel is slight and does not warrant differentiation, and Allah knows best.
Ibn Qudamah concludes: a proof is then required to divert the word from its apparent meaning, and that proof must have strength equal to the abandoned appearances, and greater; yet they have no proof, and their analogy is void: it is formal without any valid ratio, and the absence of ruling for other foods stems from the absence of the operative cause, not from being a food: being a food thus has no effect, its presence equalling its absence. And it is astonishing that our opponents, in this question, imposed wudu through weak hadiths contradicting the principles: Abu Hanifa imposed it for laughter in prayer and not outside it through a hadith of the mursal reports of Abu al-'Aliyah; Malik and al-Shafi'i imposed it for touching the private part through a contested hadith, counterbalanced by its like, without regard to touching the other limbs; and they left aside (what is authentic in the matter). Ibn Qudamah finally specifies: what is reported from Ahmad is carried upon recommendation and not obligation, for his statement entails negation of obligation; but the recommendation is clear: performing wudu is therefore recommended (al-Mughni 1/246; Badayi' al-Sana'i' 1/130; Hashiyat al-Tahtawi 1/55; Majmu' al-Fatawa 20/526; Bidayat al-Mujtahid 1/67; al-Istidhkar 1/174; Kashshaf al-Qina' 1/129-130; al-Ifsah 1/81; al-Insaf 1/215).
The people of knowledge agree that one who is in a state of wudu and then laughs outside prayer does not have his wudu nullified. They differed over one who laughs during his prayer: is his wudu broken or not? The majority: the Malikis, the Shafi'is, and the Hanbalis: laughter during prayer is not a hadath nullifying wudu, for it does not nullify it outside prayer and hence not inside either; it is not an exiting impurity but a sound, like speech and weeping; and obligation belongs to the Lawgiver: no text establishes the obligation of wudu herein, nor anything to analogize upon.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah nuances: wudu for laughter is recommended according to one of the two views in Ahmad's school; and the reported hadith commanding wudu for those who laughed is understood from the fact that they sinned by laughing, and it is recommended for whoever sins to perform wudu and pray two rak'ahs, as has come in the Sunan from Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said:
"There is no Muslim who commits a sin, then performs wudu and prays two rak'ahs, then seeks Allah's forgiveness for that sin, but that he is forgiven."An authentic hadith: reported by Abu Dawud (1521), al-Tirmidhi (406 and 3006) and Ibn Majah (1395)
And Allah knows best (Majmu' al-Fatawa 21/242; see also al-Thamar al-Dani 1/186; al-Manhaj al-Qawim 1/66; al-Kafi of Ibn 'Abd al-Barr 1/13; al-Hawi al-Kabir 1/202-204; al-Mughni 1/227; al-Ifsah 1/82; Kashshaf al-Qina' 1/131).
The Hanafis count laughter during prayer among the hadaths that nullify wudu, when it comes from an adult, awake praying person, in a complete prayer containing bowing and prostration, whether he is in wudu, tayammum, or major ablution according to the sound view, and whether the laughter is deliberate or inadvertent. They rely on what Abu al-'Aliyah reported:
"The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) was praying with his Companions; a blind man came and fell into a well; the people laughed; the Messenger of Allah commanded those who laughed to repeat the wudu and the prayer."Reported by al-Daraqutni (1/62, 163, 169, 171) and al-Bayhaqi in al-Sunan al-Kubra (1/146); the source's note criticizes it: it is a mursal hadith, and the mursal reports of Abu al-'Aliyah are worthless: he did not care from whom he took hadith
The Hanafi definitions: loud laughter (qahqahah) is what one's neighbors hear; laughter (dikk) is what one hears of oneself without one's neighbors; the smile is what has no sound, even if the teeth show. Qahqahah breaks wudu and prayer together; dikk breaks only the prayer; the smile breaks nothing. Consequently, the wudu of a child and of a sleeping person is not broken by laughter during prayer according to the soundest view among them, just as the wudu of one who laughs outside prayer, or during an incomplete prayer like the funeral prayer and the prostration of recitation, is not nullified.
It has been said among them: laughter is among the hadaths; and it has been said: it is not a hadath, but wudu is required through it as punishment and deterrence, for the purpose of prayer is the manifestation of humility, submission, and glorification of Allah the Most High, which laughter contradicts: the nullification of wudu therefore befits it as deterrence. The preponderant: it is not a hadath, else the adult and the child would be alike therein. Ibn 'Abidin (may Allah have mercy on him) reports that "al-Bahr" preferred the second view, for its conformity to analogy (it is not an exiting impurity but a sound, like speech and weeping) and to the hadiths reported on it: they contain only the command to repeat the wudu and the prayer, which does not entail its being a hadath. The benefit of the disagreement between the two views appears in the permissibility of touching the mushaf and writing the Quran: whoever makes it a hadath forbids it like the other hadaths; whoever imposes the wudu as punishment permits touching the mushaf and writing the Quran (Radd al-Muhtar 1/275; Bahr al-Ra'iq 1/42; Badayi' al-Sana'i' 1/127).
Apostasy (riddah) consists in doing what removes one from Islam, whether by word, by belief, or by a doubt that carries one out of Islam. The source's leaf concludes it with the hadith on pre-Islamic oaths: whoever swears (invoking an idol), let him say: "There is no deity except Allah"; and whoever says to his companion: come, let me gamble with you, let him give charity (reported by al-Bukhari and Muslim; al-Majmu' 2/78).
The jurists differed over the man in wudu who apostatizes (we seek Allah's refuge), then returns to Islam while his wudu has been broken by nothing else: may he pray with that wudu? The Malikis according to the prevailing view and the Hanbalis: apostasy is a hadath nullifying wudu; if a man apostatizes then returns to Islam and to the religion of truth, he may not pray until he performs wudu, even if he was in wudu before his apostasy and his wudu was broken by no other cause. Proof:
"It has been revealed to you and to those before you: if you associate others with Allah, your work will surely become void, and you will be among the losers."
Surah Az-Zumar, 65
Now purification is a work. Ibn al-Qasim transmitted the recommendation of wudu in this state. The Hanafis and the Shafi'is: apostasy is not among the causes of hadath, so wudu is not nullified by it, because of the word of Allah:
"...And whoever of you reverts from his religion and dies while a disbeliever: those are the ones whose deeds have become void in this world and the Hereafter."
Surah Al-Baqarah, 217
The condition of deeds becoming void is thus to die in that state (Jawahir al-Iklil 1/21; Mawahib al-Jalil 1/299-300; al-Khulasah al-fiqhiyya 1/19; al-Qawanin al-fiqhiyya p. 22; al-Majmu' 2/77; Nihayat al-Muhtaj 1/15; al-Mughni 1/226; al-Ikhtiyarat p. 29).
The majority of jurists, Hanafis, Shafi'is, and Hanbalis, hold: if one is certain of purity and doubts the hadath, or is certain of the hadath and doubts purity, the one of the two about which he is certain prevails. Concretely: if he knows he performed wudu and doubts whether he had a hadath or not, he proceeds upon being pure; if he was in a state of hadath and doubts whether he performed wudu or not, he is not in wudu, and the doubt is dismissed. Evidences: the hadith of 'Abdullah ibn Zayd (may Allah be pleased with him):
"The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was asked about the man who thinks he senses something during the prayer. He said: Let him not leave until he hears a sound or finds an odor."Reported by al-Bukhari (137) and Muslim (361)
"If one of you feels something in his belly and it becomes ambiguous to him whether something exited from it or not, let him not leave the mosque until he hears a sound or finds an odor."A hadith of Abu Hurayrah reported by Muslim (276)
If he is certain of purity and hadath together without knowing which came last, like one certain of having been pure at the time of Zuhr once and in hadath another time, not knowing which is later: he reverts to his state before midday, according to the Hanbalis, and this is the soundest view among the Shafi'is and some Hanafis. So, if he was in hadath before them, he is now pure, for he is certain of purity and doubts the lateness of the hadath, and the default is non-lateness; if he was pure before them, he is now in hadath, for he is certain of the hadath and doubts the lateness of purification, and the default is non-lateness; if he knows nothing of his state before them, wudu is due from him, by the clash of the two possibilities without arbiter. The Hanafis, in the prevailing view: if he is certain of both and doubts which came first, he is pure (Radd al-Muhtar 1/183; Badayi' al-Sana'i' 1/132; Hashiyat al-Qalyubi 1/37-38; Rawdat al-Talibin 1/77; al-Mughni 1/258-259; Mughni al-Muhtaj 1/39; Mukhtasar ikhtilaf al-'ulama' 1/153; al-Ifsah 1/82).
The Malikis, for their part, explicitly ruled upon the nullification of wudu for one who doubts whether he had a hadath or not: if he is certain of the wudu then doubts whether he had a hadath after the wudu or not, he must repeat his wudu, unless his doubt is chronic (the source's note defines the chronic doubt: the one that comes every day at least once). Al-Hattab specifies: this is if he doubts before the prayer; if he prayed then doubts whether he had a hadath or not, there are two views. The doubt requiring wudu takes three forms. One: doubting the nullifier, hadath or cause, after knowing the priority of one's purity. Two: doubting purity after knowing the nullifier, not knowing whether one performed wudu after it or not. Three: knowing with certainty both purity and hadath but doubting which came first. All three forms require wudu (Mawahib al-Jalil 1/300; Jawahir al-Iklil 1/21; al-Khulasah al-fiqhiyya 1/19; al-Ifsah 1/82; al-Dhakhira 1/217-218; al-Kafi 1/12-13).