What is your opinion regarding the view held by some scholars of interpreting the statement of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) (that such and such a matter is obligatory), such as his saying (the ghusl on Friday is obligatory)?

The questioner : We are listening to the second part of the question.

The Shaykh : You have done well in reminding me of it.

The questioner : It is the discussion concerning the word "obligatory."

The Shaykh : Yes, that is it. In fact, it appears to me that "obligatory" is like the command. Just as the original ruling of a command is obligation, so too is the word "obligatory"; its original meaning is what the wording explicitly indicates, which is obligation. And just as a command, whose original ruling is obligation, does not always remain so, but may be taken out of obligation to something less by evidence or a circumstance that stands for that, so too is the word "obligatory," and similar to it is the word "right." The original meaning of these is what their apparent meaning indicates. So when the hadith came, "The ghusl on Friday is obligatory upon every pubescent person," it should not be understood except according to the apparent meaning of the wording, like his saying (peace be upon him): ... for the sake of recommendation. This very evidence is what diverts the word "obligatory" to the meaning of emphasis, which you quoted from Imam al-San'ani, emphasizing the recommended nature of that thing. But if no evidence is established, we should remain with the apparent text and not interpret it, because as you know, every phrase in the Arabic language has an apparent meaning, and it is not permissible to depart from this meaning except by external evidence or a circumstance accompanying it or external to it. And if the intention of this question is the same ruling regarding the ghusl on Friday, then what I see is that the ghusl on Friday, as he (peace be upon him) said, and that there is nothing found that diverts this command or that explicit word of obligation from its original meaning, so that we say this is an emphasis on the legitimacy of the ghusl on Friday and its recommended nature. The hadith that the majority of scholars use as evidence for interpreting the command from obligation to recommendation, and interpreting the obligation and the "right" that came in some hadiths as an emphasis on the recommended nature, is his saying (peace be upon him): This hadith, first, is not in its authenticity and establishment like those hadiths, because there is discussion regarding all its chains, although I personally am comfortable with its authenticity due to the totality of its chains. And on that basis, we must reconcile this hadith with those other hadiths that are explicit in obligation. We do not see in this hadith, whose authenticity is disputed and whose authenticity is preferred by us, that it diverts the command from obligation to recommendation. This is from two aspects. The first aspect is that whoever performs wudu on Friday and prays, there is no doubt, that is good and excellent, meaning he did not perform ghusl, so his prayer on Friday is not invalid, but rather it is valid, and this validity is due to his performing wudu. The ghusl is not a condition for the validity of the Friday prayer, but rather it is a condition for the day of Friday and a condition for the one who attends Friday. So whoever does not attend Friday for some reason, it is not obligatory for him to perform ghusl, and it is sufficient for him to perform wudu and pray his obligatory prayer. So the hadith, "Whoever performs wudu on Friday, that is good and excellent," this remains on its apparent meaning, because if we say that the ghusl on Friday is recommended, it is better with wudu. And if we say that the ghusl on Friday is a confirmed sunnah, it is better and better with wudu. And if we say that the ghusl on Friday is obligatory, it is better and better and better with wudu. So there is no contradiction between this hadith and that hadith. And this is if we knew that this hadith was later than those hadiths, and there is no way to know that. And this is the way to reconcile the hadiths, and we have no need then to interpret the command as not being for obligation, and to interpret the word or phrase "right" or "obligatory" as not being on its apparent meaning. Then we observe the method of gradual legislation for this ruling, which is the ghusl, that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not command them to perform ghusl directly, but rather he said to them: This contains a share and encouragement, and it does not contain a command. And the Lady Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) said that the Ansar were people of clear water and work, so they used to wear wool, and when they came to the mosque, the smell of the wool on their bodies would come out because of their sweat from their work. So he (peace be upon him) said, among other things, Then, in another hadith, the explicit command to perform ghusl came, so they were raised to a level and rank. This is a known method in the Shari'ah that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) prepares the Muslims to accept rulings that they were not accustomed to, as you know, for example, the method of prohibiting alcohol, and this is not hidden from you. But I remind you of something that may be hidden from some of you. Allah obligated upon the Muslims, before the month of Ramadan, fasting on the day of Ashura. The Arabs were not like a polytheistic nation; they were not like the Jews and the Christians who had heavenly laws, even if human distortions had affected them, but the Arabs did not have these laws. So he commanded them to fast one day in the year to prepare them for this blessed month that was obligated upon them later. And therefore the Lady Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) said, as in Sahih al-Bukhari and Muslim: This is a known method of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) of how he prepares the Muslims for the rulings that will be revealed to them from the Lord of the Worlds through the noble Prophet. So I understand that his saying (peace be upon him), as in the hadith of Aisha and in the authentic collections: this is different from his saying: this is different from his saying: for example, or as previously explained. So it is not permissible to nullify these texts and interpret them, or interpret them because of that hadith, while reconciliation is possible. And another thing, these smells that were the cause of the initial legislation, which is his saying (peace be upon him): we find them today as a phenomenon, even among the cultured, comfortable youth who claim to care about their cleanliness, contrary to their Shari'ah. For example, he shaves his beard for the sake of cleanliness, enters the mosque on Friday, and there the smell of the feet is found to be foul because they wear these socks, and your feet were not washed well on that day. Otherwise, if they had performed ghusl as the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) commanded, we would not find such smells in the mosque. We say this regarding the cities and the capitals of the countries. What is said regarding the villages and the farmers, who are supposed to be like the Ansar in that they are workers for themselves? The wisdom of legislation requires that the command remains on its apparent meaning, because if we say it is a sunnah, people sometimes perform ghusl and sometimes do not. So the wisdom of legislation requires that this remains an effective command on every Friday, and this cannot be the case unless the obligation of this ghusl on every Friday is established in the minds of the obligated ones. This is what I see, and Allah knows best.