Explanation of the Book of Ablution, Ghusl, Menstruation, and Tayammum-01a
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The reciter: Ali narrated to us, saying: Sufyan narrated to us, saying: Al-Zuhri narrated to us from Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib from 'Abbad ibn Tamim from his uncle: .
The Shaykh : In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Al-Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "Chapter: One does not perform ablution on account of doubt until he becomes certain". Then he cited the hadith as evidence. The heading here is broader than the hadith; it is broader than the evidence. The scholars do not consider this a correct approach, for the ruling to be broader than the evidence. The reverse is correct, meaning that the evidence is broader than the ruling. This is correct, because the ruling remains one of the instances of the general rule. But to cite something specific as evidence for something general, this does not hold.
However, here we say that the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him):Sunan Abi Dawud 176Sahih (Al-Albani) his intended meaning, without doubt, is until he becomes certain. But he shifted from mental estimation to sensory perception, because no doubt remains in that.
As for mental estimation, which is doubt, that is set aside. So, on this basis, the intended meaning of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) is:Sunan Abi Dawud 176Sahih (Al-Albani) meaning until he becomes certain. But he mentioned the sound and the wind by way of exemplifying the tangible thing.
And this hadith is one of the foundational principles of the Shari'ah, which is that it is said: The original state is that what was is as it was. This is a rule.
The second rule: Certainty is not removed by doubt. And both rules are a great and important rule in every chapter of knowledge, every chapter of knowledge.
The third: If one doubts the existence of something, the original state is its non-existence. So the original state is its non-existence. All these three rules are derived from this hadith. For example: A man broke his ablution, he had a state of ritual impurity, then he doubted whether he performed ablution or not. What do we say?
We say: It is obligatory for you to perform ablution if you want to pray. Because the original state is that what was is as it was, and because certainty is not removed by doubt. How is certainty not removed by doubt?
Because you were certain of the state of ritual impurity and you doubted the state of purity, and certainty is not removed by doubt.
What is the third rule? If we doubt something, the original state is its non-existence. So here we doubted whether the ablution occurred or not. And the original state is its non-existence. And this benefits you in every chapter of Islamic jurisprudence.
For example: A man doubted whether he bowed or did not bow. Meaning he is now prostrating and doubts whether he bowed or did not bow. Yes, so what is the original state?
The original state is that he did not bow. The original state is that he did not bow. Okay, a person doubts whether he left the first tashahhud or not. Does he prostrate or not? A man doubts whether he performed the first tashahhud or not. Yes?
The student: ...?
The Shaykh : What is the detail?
The student: The detail if the preponderance of evidence is present.
The Shaykh : No, there is no [issue] if the preponderance of evidence is present.
The student: ...?
The Shaykh : What is it?
The student: ...?
The Shaykh : If it is ruled that he left the tashahhud, is the prostration for forgetfulness obligatory for him or not?
The student: It is obligatory.
The Shaykh : It is obligatory. Okay, do you agree with him?
The student: ...?
The Shaykh : No, during it. Yes.
The student: ...?
The Shaykh : There is no [issue] with the preponderance of evidence.
The student: ...?
The Shaykh : If you agreed with Salim.
The student: ...?
The Shaykh : Say, and what do you say?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Let us leave this. Many doubts are not acted upon in the first place.
This issue has two opinions among the scholars: The school of thought says he does not prostrate, and they gave the reason, saying: Because he doubted the cause of the obligation of prostration, and the original state is its non-existence. Because the cause of the obligation of prostration is leaving the tashahhud, and the original state is the non-existence of the cause.
And the second opinion: He prostrates, because the original state is the non-existence of the act. And this is closer to the rules. The original state is that you did not perform the tashahhud. And if this is the original state, it means that the prostration now is necessary. And this is the correct view: that if you doubt leaving an obligatory act, whether you left it or performed it, whether it is the first tashahhud or the tasbih or the takbir other than the takbir of ihram?
Then you prostrate for forgetfulness, because the original state is its non-existence. But Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him) has a note in this chapter, which is that what a person was accustomed to, the original state is the continuation of the custom. And he built upon this: The one who swore an oath to do something, and doubted whether he said "if Allah wills" or not, and he broke the oath, is the expiation obligatory for him?
The school of thought says the expiation is obligatory for him, because the original state is the non-existence of the exception. The original state is that he did not say: "if Allah wills," so the expiation is obligatory for him.
And according to Shaykh (may Allah have mercy on him), if it was his custom that when he swore an oath he said "if Allah wills," then there is no expiation on him. He relied on that on the Prophet's (peace and blessings be upon him) returning the woman with irregular bleeding to her custom. He said: For this is evidence that the custom is established and that one returns to it. In any case, these rules benefit the student of knowledge.
So now we take from this hadith: That if we doubt the existence of something, the original state is its non-existence. Okay.
He complained to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) about the man who imagines that he finds something in the prayer, so he said: Do not turn away or leave until he hears a sound or finds a wind.
أنه شكى إلى رسول الله صلّى الله عليه وسلم الرجل الذي يخيل إليه أنه يجد الشيء في الصلاة، فقال : لا ينفتل أو لا ينصرف حتى يسمع صوتا أو يجد ريحاThe Shaykh : In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Al-Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "Chapter: One does not perform ablution on account of doubt until he becomes certain". Then he cited the hadith as evidence. The heading here is broader than the hadith; it is broader than the evidence. The scholars do not consider this a correct approach, for the ruling to be broader than the evidence. The reverse is correct, meaning that the evidence is broader than the ruling. This is correct, because the ruling remains one of the instances of the general rule. But to cite something specific as evidence for something general, this does not hold.
However, here we say that the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him):
he hears a sound or perceives a smell (of passing wind)
حتى يسمع صوتا أو يجد ريحاAs for mental estimation, which is doubt, that is set aside. So, on this basis, the intended meaning of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) is:
he hears a sound or perceives a smell (of passing wind)
حتى يسمع صوتا أو يجد ريحاAnd this hadith is one of the foundational principles of the Shari'ah, which is that it is said: The original state is that what was is as it was. This is a rule.
The second rule: Certainty is not removed by doubt. And both rules are a great and important rule in every chapter of knowledge, every chapter of knowledge.
The third: If one doubts the existence of something, the original state is its non-existence. So the original state is its non-existence. All these three rules are derived from this hadith. For example: A man broke his ablution, he had a state of ritual impurity, then he doubted whether he performed ablution or not. What do we say?
We say: It is obligatory for you to perform ablution if you want to pray. Because the original state is that what was is as it was, and because certainty is not removed by doubt. How is certainty not removed by doubt?
Because you were certain of the state of ritual impurity and you doubted the state of purity, and certainty is not removed by doubt.
What is the third rule? If we doubt something, the original state is its non-existence. So here we doubted whether the ablution occurred or not. And the original state is its non-existence. And this benefits you in every chapter of Islamic jurisprudence.
For example: A man doubted whether he bowed or did not bow. Meaning he is now prostrating and doubts whether he bowed or did not bow. Yes, so what is the original state?
The original state is that he did not bow. The original state is that he did not bow. Okay, a person doubts whether he left the first tashahhud or not. Does he prostrate or not? A man doubts whether he performed the first tashahhud or not. Yes?
The student: ...?
The Shaykh : What is the detail?
The student: The detail if the preponderance of evidence is present.
The Shaykh : No, there is no [issue] if the preponderance of evidence is present.
The student: ...?
The Shaykh : What is it?
The student: ...?
The Shaykh : If it is ruled that he left the tashahhud, is the prostration for forgetfulness obligatory for him or not?
The student: It is obligatory.
The Shaykh : It is obligatory. Okay, do you agree with him?
The student: ...?
The Shaykh : No, during it. Yes.
The student: ...?
The Shaykh : There is no [issue] with the preponderance of evidence.
The student: ...?
The Shaykh : If you agreed with Salim.
The student: ...?
The Shaykh : Say, and what do you say?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Let us leave this. Many doubts are not acted upon in the first place.
This issue has two opinions among the scholars: The school of thought says he does not prostrate, and they gave the reason, saying: Because he doubted the cause of the obligation of prostration, and the original state is its non-existence. Because the cause of the obligation of prostration is leaving the tashahhud, and the original state is the non-existence of the cause.
And the second opinion: He prostrates, because the original state is the non-existence of the act. And this is closer to the rules. The original state is that you did not perform the tashahhud. And if this is the original state, it means that the prostration now is necessary. And this is the correct view: that if you doubt leaving an obligatory act, whether you left it or performed it, whether it is the first tashahhud or the tasbih or the takbir other than the takbir of ihram?
Then you prostrate for forgetfulness, because the original state is its non-existence. But Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him) has a note in this chapter, which is that what a person was accustomed to, the original state is the continuation of the custom. And he built upon this: The one who swore an oath to do something, and doubted whether he said "if Allah wills" or not, and he broke the oath, is the expiation obligatory for him?
The school of thought says the expiation is obligatory for him, because the original state is the non-existence of the exception. The original state is that he did not say: "if Allah wills," so the expiation is obligatory for him.
And according to Shaykh (may Allah have mercy on him), if it was his custom that when he swore an oath he said "if Allah wills," then there is no expiation on him. He relied on that on the Prophet's (peace and blessings be upon him) returning the woman with irregular bleeding to her custom. He said: For this is evidence that the custom is established and that one returns to it. In any case, these rules benefit the student of knowledge.
So now we take from this hadith: That if we doubt the existence of something, the original state is its non-existence. Okay.