Another example of the tacitly approved Sunnah regarding the issue of whether blood invalidates the ablution or not

The Shaykh : Another example to confirm this rule for you, which is also a matter in which the scholars disagreed, like the first issue. The scholars disagreed on whether blood coming out of a person in a state of wudu' invalidates the wudu' or not? In the first issue, there were two opinions, but in the other issue, there are three opinions: it invalidates absolutely, it does not invalidate absolutely, and it invalidates if a large amount comes out, but not if it is a small amount. Three opinions. And peace be upon you. First of all, I say that there is also no explicit text from him (peace and blessings be upon him) that is authentic stating that it invalidates or does not invalidate. Similarly, we do not have a text from his actions, but we have a story similar to the story of Mu'adh with his people, but it has a grandeur and a fear and awe that causes the heart of the Muslim to tremble when he hears it in its context, as mentioned in *Sunan al-Daraqutni* and *Sunan al-Bayhaqi*, and also in *Al-Mustadrak* by Abu Abdullah al-Hakim al-Naysaburi, from the hadith of Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him), who said: You know that the Arabs in the past had a special science of tracking footprints in their travels in the desert. One of them would guard the first half of the night while the other slept, and vice versa. So one of them put down his weapon and slept, and the other got up to guard. But here the grandeur of the story and the fear begin. This noble Companion did not want to waste that quiet night for just one duty, which is guarding, and which is actually sufficient for him as a favor, but the desire to do good made it seem to him that he should perform another act of worship in addition to the guarding, regarding which he (peace and blessings be upon him) said in some hadiths other than this story: So he was a guard in the path of Allah, and he took this good news from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) when they pledged to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to guard the army. He was not satisfied with just this act of worship, but he wanted to add another act of worship to it, which was to pray to Allah while the people were sleeping. So he got up to pray while guarding, watching with his eyes in case an enemy would ambush the sleeping army. And peace be upon you. And the polytheist was watching the situation with extreme precision to carry out his oath not to enter the village until he took revenge from the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). And there he saw that Companion standing upright, not far from him, performing prayer. So he took a spear from his quiver, placed it on his bow, and shot it at him. Jabir says, and this is an indication of the precision of the shooting: He did not say he hit him in the leg; he placed it in his leg as if the shooting was done by hand placement. What did this Companion do? He threw this spear to the ground, and the blood was spurting from him profusely, and he was standing praying. When the polytheist saw that his target was still standing, he knew that he had not hit him with a fatal blow, so he shot him with the second spear and placed it in his leg, but he continued and went on like this with three spears, placing each one in his leg. Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him) says: And here is the point regarding the fear. As for the example, it has become clear to you. A questioner asked about what happened to him, and he said: There is a phrase used by the Sufis and placed in the wrong context. They say so-and-so in dhikr "was overcome by the state." Do you understand this word? I think it means he was remembering, and then he fell to the ground. What is "overcome by the state"? Most of them are liars, as came from some of the Salaf. It was said to one of them, and he was one of their jurists, and without doubt, when one of these people falls, they say how did he fall? He said, out of fear of Allah. That learned jurist said, if he is truthful, we will place him on this wall and then recite to him whatever we wish from the words of Allah, the Qur'an. If he is overcome by the state, he will be truthful. Of course, this scenario does not happen, but the truth is that this noble Companion was overcome by the state; he was absent from his existence and no longer felt the pain of his wounds. So he expressed that by saying: Meaning, my destruction was in it, but he was sane. He was absent from his pain, but, Glorified and Exalted is He, he was not absent from his mind and thought. He was thinking that he was now in the obedience of Allah and in the worship of Allah. So if he had endured what he was feeling of this divine manifestation, the polytheist would have continued shooting at him, and then certainty would have come to him. If he had done that and endured the shooting of the polytheist until death, he would have wasted the duty that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered him to perform, which is guarding the Companions. So I do not prefer my desire, even if it is in the obedience of Allah the Exalted, to the wasting of the benefit of guarding the Muslims, because if he preferred his desire, an army of polytheists might come and destroy these sleeping Companions, and he would be the cause of that because he responded to his desire, which is obedience to Satan. No, it is obedience to the Most Merciful, but there is a greater benefit than his personal benefit, which is continuing in that worship of Allah the Exalted. Therefore, he limited himself to just two rak'ahs, not out of fear of death, but out of fear, let us say, of spiritual death, which is neglecting his duty of performing the function of guarding his Companions. Here ends this wonderful story, as you feel with me. The point of it is this: this man is a Companion like Mu'adh, and an Ansari like Mu'adh. If he had received from his school, from which he graduated, which is the school of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), if he had received from it that blood invalidates wudu', merely when he felt the first shot and the first flow of blood from his body, he would have cut off the prayer because his wudu' was invalidated on the claim that the outflow of blood invalidates it, and with the invalidation of his wudu', his prayer would have become invalid. But none of that was the case; rather, he endured all the wounds of the second and third shots until he prayed two rak'ahs. So this Companion did not receive from the Prophetic school that wudu' is invalidated by the outflow of blood, no matter how much it is. Here too, the discussion proceeds between the two schools: the school of al-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him), who says that blood does not invalidate wudu', and this is one of his proofs, and the school of the Hanafis, who say that blood invalidates wudu', no matter how small it is, merely when it comes out of the place of the wound, even by the amount of a thousand. What do these people answer regarding the hadith of this wounded Ansari? They said, it is not as they said in the story of Mu'adh; there is no mention in the hadith that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) looked into what happened to this Companion and approved it. There is nothing of this. The answer is the same answer related to the story of Mu'adh. But here the matter is stronger, in that this story has extreme strangeness, and this strangeness completely removes the possibility that this story was hidden, not from Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) as a Prophet and Messenger, but as the head of an army who orders people to descend in a place and orders the two men to perform the duty of guarding, and so on. One of the guards is hit by the first, second, and third shot and continues in his prayer, and then Jabir knows it and the Prophet of Jabir does not know it? This is farthest from sound reason. Nevertheless, our answer is also the previous answer: if the Messenger of Allah did not know this strange, peculiar incident, then without doubt Allah the Exalted knew it. So if the outflow of blood were an invalidator of wudu', Allah the Exalted would have revealed to His Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that so-and-so had such and such happen to him and he continued in his prayer, and this is not permissible because the outflow of blood is an invalidator of wudu'. If it is among the rules of the scholars of usul al-fiqh that it is not permissible to delay clarification from the time of need, they say this regarding the Messenger, who does not go beyond being a human being by the text of the Noble Qur'an, but his Lord of the worlds chose him over the humans with his message, as He said in the Noble Qur'an: So he is a human like us, but revelation is sent to him. So if we say that it is possible, as we said in the first story, that it was hidden from the Messenger of Allah, and this is very far-fetched as I mentioned just now, then it is not hidden from Allah. So if it is not permissible for the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) to delay clarification from the time of need, then that is for Allah, the Lord of the worlds, the true legislator. If He wants to forbid something and its occasion comes, then He will clarify it. Here the occasion came, and He did not clarify it to the Messenger for the Messenger to perform his duty: So the approval of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) of a thing occurs in its time, whether by assuming that he looked into it or by assuming that he did not look into it, as some jurists want to claim. Allah the Exalted is behind it, seeing and encompassing it. So the approval of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) of a thing occurs in its time, even if he is absent from it and far from it. As long as he has not issued a ruling that contradicts that reality, that reality becomes a Shari'ah ruling.