Chapter: Those who do not consider wudu' to be required except from the two passages: the front and the back, and the saying of Allah the Exalted: ((Or one of you comes from the place of relief)).

The reciter: In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds, and may peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad and upon his family and all his Companions.
Imam al-Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) said in the Book of Ablution in his Sahih:
"Chapter: Those who do not consider wudu' to be required except from the two passages: the front and the back". And His saying, the Exalted: . And 'Ata said—regarding one from whose back worms come out, or from his penis something like a louse—: "he repeats the wudu'". And Jabir ibn 'Abdullah said: "If one laughs in prayer, he repeats the prayer but does not repeat the wudu'". And al-Hasan said: "If one cuts his hair and nails, or removes his leather socks, there is no wudu' required of him". And Abu Hurayrah said: "There is no wudu' except from a hadath". It is reported from Jabir: . And al-Hasan said: "The Muslims continued to pray in their wounds". And Tawus, Muhammad ibn 'Ali, 'Ata, and the people of al-Hijaz said: "There is no wudu' for blood". "Ibn 'Umar squeezed a boil and blood came out of it, and he did not perform wudu'". "And Ibn Abi Awfa spat out blood and continued in his prayer". And Ibn 'Umar and al-Hasan said—regarding one who performs cupping—: "He has no obligation except to wash his cupping sites".

The Shaykh : In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Al-Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "Chapter: Those who do not consider wudu' to be required except from the two passages: the front and the back". And this, meaning the things that invalidate wudu', must be established upon a foundation so that our rulings regarding what invalidates wudu' are based on a solid basis. When a person performs wudu' as Allah commanded, his state of hadath is lifted, is that not so?
So the lifting of his hadath is established by a legal proof, and this hadath cannot return except by a legal proof, based on the rule: "That which is established by a legal proof is not lifted except by a legal proof". Take this rule. For this reason, when it was complained to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him)—it was brought to him that a man was uncertain whether something had come out of him or not—he said: . So now he has performed wudu' in a legal manner, so it is not possible for him to exit this state of wudu' except by a certain matter. Build upon this rule all in which people have differed regarding what invalidates wudu'. So if anyone tells you that this invalidates wudu', say: Where is the proof?
I performed wudu' by the command of Allah in accordance with the Shari'ah of Allah, and it is not possible to invalidate this which is established except by a proof. For this reason, some scholars held the view that nothing invalidates wudu' except what comes out from the two passages only. Sleep does not invalidate it, nor touching the penis, nor touching the female organ, nor washing the dead, nor eating camel meat, nor anything else. Nothing invalidates it except what comes out from the two passages only. They cited as evidence for this the saying of Allah the Exalted: , and the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): , and the saying of Abu Hurayrah when he was asked about the hadath, he said: "It is urine or flatulence".
And based on this, if anyone says this invalidates wudu', say: The proof is upon you. For this reason, al-Bukhari titled the chapter: "Chapter: Those who do not consider wudu' to be required except from the two passages: the front and the back". "From the front and the back" is an apposition for his saying: "from the two passages" by repeating the operative word. What is the operative word?
"From". For this reason, if he had said: "Except from the two passages, the front and the back," it would be clear that it is an apposition. But an apposition is sometimes made by repeating the operative word and sometimes without repeating the operative word.
Then he cited as evidence for this, saying: And His saying, the Exalted: . What is the place of relief (ghayt)?
It is the low place. And the meaning is not that he came from the place of relief by walking, but rather that he came from the place of relief meaning having relieved his need in this place of relief, which is either urine or feces.
And 'Ata said regarding one from whose back worms come out, or from his penis something like a louse: "he repeats the wudu'". This means that 'Ata (may Allah have mercy on him) is saying that whatever comes out from the two passages invalidates the wudu', whether that is customary or not. The coming out of worms from the back is not customary. Worms mean... this is not customary. The customary thing that comes out from the back is food waste or wind. As for worms, they are rare. But 'Ata (may Allah have mercy on him) says that even the rare thing invalidates the wudu'. A group of scholars differed with him on this and said that the rare thing does not invalidate the wudu'. So if something comes out from the front like a louse, or from the back like worms, the wudu' is not invalidated. But the correct view is the saying of 'Ata in this, and it is the view of the majority, because what comes out from the two passages invalidates the wudu' in all cases. If wind, which has no substance and is not impure, invalidates the wudu', then anything else is all the more so.
And Jabir ibn 'Abdullah said: "If one laughs in prayer, he repeats the prayer but does not repeat the wudu'". If one laughs in prayer, he repeats the prayer but does not repeat the wudu'. Does anyone laugh in prayer?

The questioner : ...

The Shaykh : Either he remembers a situation, or he hears a saying, or he sees something. Some people, if they see a person fall from a height or a staircase, they laugh, is that not so? And some people also laugh if they hear a saying from among sayings. And perhaps, as the brother 'Umar ibn Maqbal said, he might remember something and laugh. He says: "He repeats the prayer but does not repeat the wudu'". This is a refutation of the saying of those who say that if one laughs loudly in prayer, he repeats the wudu' and the prayer. Meaning, he made loud laughter in prayer an invalidator of wudu'. But the correct view is that it does not invalidate the wudu', but it invalidates the prayer, because it is contrary to prayer to the greatest degree of contradiction. But if the hadith reported in that matter is authentic, then the command for wudu' was, and Allah knows best, because he committed a sin, so he performs wudu' for that, not because he brought about a hadath.
And al-Hasan said: "If one cuts his hair and nails, or removes his leather socks, there is no wudu' required of him". Al-Hasan (may Allah have mercy on him), if you see his speech and his fatwas, you will find that he is, or you will know that he is, truly one of the jurists. He says: "If one cuts his hair and nails, his wudu' is not invalidated". This means a man who cuts his mustache after he has washed his face and finished his wudu' trims his mustache. He says: The wudu' is not invalidated. A man who, when he finished his wudu', shaves his head. He says: The wudu' is not invalidated. And this is a reference to another saying that contradicts it. It says: If he cuts his nails, or trims his mustache, or shaves his head, the wudu' is invalidated, because a part of the limbs upon which purification was performed has separated and been removed. But this saying is very weak, and only a rarity of scholars said it. So the correct view is that his wudu' remains.
"Or removes his leather socks". This is from jurisprudence. He says: If he removes his leather socks, his wudu' remains, because removing the leather socks is like shaving the head; both are wiped. The head is wiped, and shaving it after wudu' does not invalidate the wudu'. The leather sock is wiped, and removing it after wudu' does not invalidate his wudu'. And this is a good analogy.
And it is not valid to object to him by saying: Wiping on the head is original, and wiping on the leather sock is a substitute. It is said: The 'illah (operative cause) is that you say that a limb or a part of the body upon which purification was performed has been removed. This is the 'illah for invalidating the wudu'. So we say: Also, the head, if he wiped it and then removed it, he has removed something upon which purification was performed. So it is incumbent upon you either to say that the wudu' is invalidated by shaving the head, or to say that the wudu' is not invalidated by removing the leather socks.
Then, we have the principle we mentioned earlier. What is it? That what is established by a legal proof cannot be negated except by a legal proof. So where in the Qur'an or the Sunnah is it stated that removing the leather socks invalidates the ablution? Even though removing the leather socks was common in the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and it was not a rare occurrence. Therefore, the motives for transmitting it would have been present if the ablution were invalidated by removing the leather socks.
And Abu Hurayrah said: "There is no ablution required except for a state of ritual impurity". And what is the state of ritual impurity according to Abu Hurayrah? Passing wind and urination, meaning what comes out from the two private parts. And on this basis, all the invalidators, whether eight, ten, or fewer, are not invalidators; they do not invalidate the ablution.
It is mentioned regarding Jabir: , and this story was reported in detail. Ibn Ishaq says: , it is known that if he removes it, the blood will gush out, . And he did not warn him. So, does blood coming out of the body invalidate the ablution or not?
It does not invalidate it, because if three arrows hit the body, the amount coming out must be significant. Therefore, the ablution is not invalidated by what comes out from other than the two private parts, whether it is blood or something else, even if it is much. And this is the stronger position. And on this basis, the ablution is not invalidated by vomiting, nor by blood coming out from other than the two private parts, whether it is little or much, because there is no evidence for the invalidation of the ablution by that.
What remains, Mansur, is that there is another issue in this hadith. What is it?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Meaning he finished his prayer. There is no issue with this. The actions do not have a separator. Is there another issue?
The student: Did he eat camel meat?

The Shaykh : He did not have any meat! The mujahid guards the people in jihad and he has nothing but pebbles. How could he have camel meat?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : No, we mentioned that what was done in the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) is a proof, whether he knew it or not, because if the Messenger did not know, then Allah knows.
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Yes, this is the issue. The issue is the impurity of human blood. That he continued in the prayer while the blood was gushing out; it must have soiled him. So how did he continue while the blood was gushing from him?
Some scholars used this story and similar ones as evidence that human blood is pure, except for what comes out from the two private parts. And they used the generality of the hadith: .
And those who said that blood is impure answered this hadith with a strange answer. They said: Perhaps the blood gushed out in a way that it came out of his body and his clothes.
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Glory be to Allah. Meaning, some scholars, may Allah have mercy on us and on them, when they believe something, they interpret texts contrary to their apparent meaning with a forced interpretation. Meaning, this wound became like urine coming out of the penis, coming out there and not touching the clothes or the body. This is an incorrect answer.
And some of them said, perhaps the blood was little, and most of it fell to the ground, and did not seep, for example, onto his thigh or his leg or his clothes. And this is weak, but it is less severe than the first.
And if someone were to say, meaning, if it were established that blood is impure, it would be possible to answer this with a better answer than the two: that it remained on his clothes, and his blood was for a dire necessity. He had no water to wash the blood with, nor clothes to change into.
But we have not yet found a clear text indicating the impurity of human blood. The most that is there is that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered menstruating women to wash the blood, the blood of menstruation, and to pray in their clothes. He said: , and they said, may Allah have mercy on them: the blood. here is for the reality and not for the covenant, and the meaning of the reality is, wash the blood off you because it is blood. So this would be evidence that blood is impure.
But saying this is far-fetched, because the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) was only speaking about the blood of menstruation. And on this basis, the intended meaning of in his saying: is the mental or remembered covenant, if he had remembered. And this is the most correct position: that it is not for explaining the reality nor for the generality, but for the blood that was asked about.
And we say the legal principle: "That what separates from a living thing is like its carrion". So the blood separated from the body, so it is like the carrion of a human being, and the carrion of a human being is pure.
And it is also said: What do you say if a person's hand is cut off, with the blood in it, is it pure or impure?
It is pure. So how can it be that if the limb is complete it is pure, and the blood, which the body does not need in the same way as the limb, is impure?
And for this reason, we see that the evidence indicates the purity of human blood. And if there were nothing else but the presumption of original permissibility, what does the presumption of original permissibility mean?
The original state is the absence of impurity until evidence is established for impurity. So on this basis, the action of this Companion was based on the original state, which is that blood is pure, I mean human blood.
He said, and al-Hasan said: "The Muslims continued to pray in their wounds". This is clearer than the first. "The Muslims continued to pray in their wounds". And the wounds of the Muslims by arrow and spear are not like a needle prick from which only a little comes out. So they are much blood, and yet they pray in their wounds. And the Commander of the Faithful, 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him), when he was wounded, he prayed and his wound was gushing blood, and he did not say: Bring me a new cloth other than the first one.
And Tawus, Muhammad ibn 'Ali, Ata, and the people of al-Hijaz said: "There is no ablution required for blood". And their saying is the correct one: that blood does not require ablution, except for what comes out from the two private parts. So what comes out from the two private parts of blood is an invalidator of the ablution, whether it is customary like the blood of menstruation, or not customary like the blood of a hemorrhoid or the like.
"And Ibn 'Umar squeezed a boil and blood came out of it, and he did not perform ablution". Even though blood came out, but whoever says that if blood is much it invalidates, and if it is little it does not invalidate, then the hadith of Ibn 'Umar is not a proof against him. Why?
Because what comes out of a boil is usually little.
"And Ibn Abi Awfa spat blood and continued in his prayer". And this is like the report of Ibn 'Umar.
And Ibn 'Umar and al-Hasan said regarding one who performs cupping: "He has nothing on him except to wash his cupping vessels". Meaning, and he does not have to perform ablution. He has nothing on him except to wash the cupping vessels, and he does not have to perform ablution. Why does he wash the cupping vessels?
In order to remove the blood. But this does not imply that it is impure. For the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him): . Even though it is pure, but because of the disgust of the appearance of blood, the cupping vessels are washed. Meaning, if a person had cupping on his head, for example, and came to the people and his hair was all clotted with blood, it would be an ugly sight, so he washes it for that reason.