The Book of Ghusl, and the saying of Allah the Exalted: “And if you are in a state of major ritual impurity, then purify yourselves. And if you are ill or on a journey, or one of you comes from the place of relief, or you have touched women, and you find no water, then perform dry ablution with clean earth, and wipe your faces and hands with it. Allah does not wish to place any hardship upon you, but He wishes to purify you and to complete His favor upon you, that you may be grateful.”

The Reciter: Imam al-Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) said in his Sahih: In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
The Book of Ghusl
And the saying of Allah the Exalted: .

The Shaykh : .
The Reciter: , and His saying, Glorious is His mention: .

The Shaykh : The author (may Allah have mercy on him) said: The Book of Ghusl. Ghusl is one of the two purifications with water, and the second is wudu'. Tayammum is the second purification with earth. Allah the Exalted mentioned all these categories in the noble verse in al-Ma'idah, saying: This is wudu', This is ghusl, This is tayammum. And Allah, Exalted and Exalted is He, indicated in this verse two nullifiers: one is a nullifier of wudu' and the second is a nullifier of ghusl, meaning one is a cause for wudu' and the second is a cause for ghusl. Thus, the noble verse encompassed all categories of purity and all categories of those who purify themselves with it. So let us return to it. As for the beginning of the verse which al-Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) did not mention, it has no connection to ghusl, and its meaning is clear because it is a description of wudu' with water. Allah the Exalted said: The one in a state of major ritual impurity is the one who emits semen with desire, and the Sunnah included with him the one who has intercourse even if he does not emit, due to the hadith of Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: So, major ritual impurity is the emission of semen with desire and intercourse. And His saying: Allah did not specify one limb over another, which indicates that if a person purifies his entire body at once, it suffices for him. For example, if we immerse ourselves in a pond intending ghusl and then come out, we say that his major ritual impurity has been lifted, because Allah did not specify one limb over another. If someone says the verse is general, and the Sunnah clarified the manner of ghusl, and the Sunnah clarifies the Qur'an, and on this basis, a person must perform ghusl as the Sunnah prescribed: he performs wudu' first, then pours water over his head, then washes the rest of his body. We said this is a strong argument, but it is refuted by what al-Bukhari narrated in the long hadith of 'Imran ibn Husayn, in which it says: And he did not tell him a specific manner, which indicates that the verse remains general and that the one in a state of major ritual impurity considers his entire body as one limb. He said: , or this is for variation, which is clear. or what is this for?
The Reciter: For variation.

The Shaykh : It is not correct to say it is for variation, because it is not a type of what came before or what came after, but it means the conjunction "and," meaning "and if you are ill or on a journey, and one of you comes from the latrine or has touched women." If it is asked, "Does it mean 'or' or 'and'?" we say, "Yes, you are speaking in the most eloquent of speech. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: . Which one means 'and'? The question is: Did you name yourself by it, or did you reveal it in your Book, or did you teach it to any of your creation, or did you keep it hidden in the knowledge of the Unseen with You? The first one, meaning 'you named yourself by it and revealed it in your Book,' because the One who revealed it in His Book named Himself by it without doubt. So here, 'or' means 'and.' Accordingly, in the noble verse, 'or' means 'and.' refers to one of the causes of the ablution, which is what comes out of the two passages. In there are two readings: and . The scholars (may Allah have mercy on them) differed on whether the intended meaning is touching a woman with the hand or sexual intercourse. There are two opinions among the scholars, and the correct one, without doubt, is that the intended meaning is sexual intercourse, for two reasons. The first reason is that it is the interpretation of Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him and his father), about which the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said: . He explicitly stated that it is sexual intercourse. The second reason is that if we made it mean touching a woman with the hand, the verse would mention two causes for the obligation of ablution and neglect what obligates the full bath. Are you with us or not? Good, because his saying: is the beginning of the purification by dry ablution. If we said that 'touching' here means touching a woman with the hand, then Allah the Exalted would have mentioned two causes that obligate ablution, namely coming from the latrine and touching a woman, and neglected what obligates the full bath. This is contrary to the eloquence of the Qur'an. Accordingly, we say that 'touching' here must mean sexual intercourse, so that Allah Mighty and Majestic has mentioned one of the nullifiers of ablution and one of the causes of the full bath. If someone asks, "Did 'touching' ever come to mean 'having intercourse'?" we say, "Yes, its synonym came, as in His saying: . The intended meaning of is 'before you have intercourse with them.' And His saying: indicates that the seeking precedes, because 'found' is not said except for one who sought and searched. So it is necessary to search when the time for prayer arrives. You must search for water. If you do not find it, means 'intend' . 'Al-Sa'id' (the earth) is everything that rises on the surface of the earth, such as dust, sand, stone, and the like. Everything that rises on the surface of the earth. But Allah conditioned that it be pure. What is the opposite of pure? The opposite of pure is foul, which is ritually impure. So if we assume that this earth has been urinated on by donkeys, and the urine of a donkey is ritually impure, then it is not permissible for me to perform dry ablution with it, even if it is called 'al-sa'id,' because it is ritually impure. Or if blood or the like is poured on it, then one does not perform dry ablution with it because it is ritually impure. The apparent meaning of the noble verse: even if the earth is forbidden, is there forbidden earth? Yes, such as usurped property. Accordingly, it is permissible to perform dry ablution with usurped earth. But here, wiping the nostrils or wiping the teeth with dust is not included, even though it was mentioned to us that the nose and mouth are part of the face, because the Sunnah clarified that, as will come, if Allah wills, in the chapter on dry ablution. And his saying: 'To where?' To the palm, because the hand, when mentioned without qualification, does not exceed the palm. For this reason, when Allah Mighty and Majestic said: , what is cut from the thief is only the palm. If someone asks, "Measure the purification of dry ablution by the purification of ablution and say that the limit of wiping must be the elbow," we say, "Analogy is not possible. First, because it is an analogy against an explicit text, and any analogy against an explicit text is invalid in consideration, because it will come to us in the hadith of 'Ammar that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not wipe except the palms. Second, because it is an analogy with a great difference. The purification of water covers the entire body in the full bath and covers the four limbs in the ablution, while the purification of dry ablution is in only two limbs. So it differs from it in origin and description. The purification of dry ablution is the same for both purifications, meaning the major purification from major ritual impurity and the minor purification. The purification of dry ablution is wiping, while the purification of ablution, or the purification of water, is washing. So it is absolutely impossible for this analogy to be valid. Also, this is a contradictory analogy, because if we accepted the analogy, then one who performs dry ablution for ablution would have to wipe up to the elbow, and one who performs dry ablution for major ritual impurity would only wipe the palms. This is a contradiction. In any case, there is no doubt that the obligatory and the Sunnah is to wipe only the palms. And his saying: Some scholars used this as evidence that this earth must have dust, because wiping from it is not realized except with dust that sticks to the hand. But this is not good, and the evidence for that is that it is established in the hadith of 'Ammar ibn Yasir that when the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) struck the ground with his hands, he blew on them to remove the dust. This indicates that the intended purpose is worshiping Allah Mighty and Majestic by striking the ground and wiping the face and hands. And his saying: Which of the two negated intentions is meant here? The legislative or the cosmic? The legislative. The evidence for that is that hardship befalls a person, so it is not negated by divine decree, but legislatively it is negated. And His (Exalted and Majestic is He) purification of us by ablution and the full bath is apparent. But where is His purification by dust through dry ablution? We say that what happened to the heart of humility before Allah and worship, and wiping its noblest limbs with dust, is the greatest purification. It is a great spiritual purification. This is because the soul may be drawn to ablution and the full bath because they involve physical purification, and a person always cleans himself. But this is nothing but mere humility and worship of Allah Mighty and Majestic. So its effect on the heart is greater than the effect of ablution and the full bath, and thus it purifies the person from spiritual impurities. With what? With what was prescribed for us and made easy for us. The previous nations, if a person had a state of ritual impurity and did not find water, the prayer remained a debt upon him and he could not pray it. Accordingly, if he traveled for a month and did not find water, how much would he make up? He would make up a month. And the Commander of the Faithful, 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him), held that one in a state of major ritual impurity does not perform dry ablution and waits until he is able to find water. But 'Ammar ibn Yasir (may Allah be pleased with him) mentioned it to him, and he returned to the correct view. Is 'la'all' here for hope? No, but it is for causation, meaning in order that you may thank Allah the Exalted for His blessing. 'La'all' cannot come in the speech of Allah with a referent to mean hope, because hope is seeking something whose occurrence is difficult and arduous, and Allah the Exalted is not afflicted with any difficulty or arduousness in anything. So whenever you find 'la'all' in the speech of Allah, it is for expectation, or if you wish, say for causation, according to the context. And His (Glorified is His mention) saying: Part of this verse is abrogated, and that is what is implied by his saying: . This indicates the permissibility of intoxication, but do not approach prayer while you are intoxicated. And if Allah forbade us from approaching prayer while we are intoxicated, it follows that a person must avoid intoxicants whenever the time for prayer approaches, so that he does not encounter prayer while intoxicated. For this reason, this verse was one of the stages in the prohibition of intoxicants. Intoxicants have four stages: permissibility, hinting at prohibition, prohibition at specific times, and absolute prohibition. How many states are there? Four. As for permissibility, it is in His saying: . This is permissibility. Even the verse in al-Baqarah indicates permissibility, but this one is explicit and that one indicates permissibility by necessity. The verse in al-Baqarah: If the reciter recites this verse, he will avoid intoxicants and gambling. Why, O Adam?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : We said that the listener of this verse, or the one who recites it, will avoid intoxicants and gambling because Allah said: The third stage is and I told you that it necessarily follows from this that a person must not become intoxicated when the time for prayer is near, so he will have five times at which he does not drink intoxicants. As for the fourth stage, it is the saying of the Exalted in Surat al-Ma'idah: And His saying, (Exalted and Majestic is He): Based on this, if there were a rich intoxicated man who had four wives, one hundred slave women, and five hundred palaces, and he said, "My wives are divorced, my slave women are free, and my houses are endowments," what do we say? Is it executed or not? The correct view is that it is not executed. The school of thought (madhhab) is that it is executed. So if he regains his senses, we would say, "May Allah repair your calamity; your wives are gone, your slave women are gone, and your palaces are lost." But the correct view, without doubt, is that it is not executed because Allah says: So, we take from the noble verse that all the words of the intoxicated person are not considered. Now, if he acknowledges a right to someone, is his acknowledgment considered? No, according to the correct view, it is not considered. Now, we are left with his actions. Are the actions of the intoxicated person considered? For example, if an intoxicated person destroys a person's property, is he liable? Yes, he is liable. Why? Because the right of a human being does not distinguish between a knowledgeable person and an ignorant one. So, if you ate someone's food thinking it was yours, are you liable for it? Yes. And if you turned over in your sleep onto someone's thing and destroyed it, you are liable for it. Now, if an intoxicated person kills a person, is he executed? Be careful, brothers. If he intentionally killed a person, took a knife, and slaughtered him, is this a right of a human being or not? This is a right of a human being. He is liable for the destruction, but he did not include intention. Be careful. He is liable for destruction, without doubt, but he did not include intention. Therefore, it is an error (mistake) in which blood money (diyah) is due, but there is no retaliation (qisas). The school of thought is that there is retaliation because they consider that all the actions and words of the intoxicated person are like the actions and words of the sober person, except that they excluded one issue.