Continuation of the explanation of the hadith: “The purification of the vessel of any one of you, if a dog has drunk from it, is to wash it seven times, the first of which with soil.”
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : We say that this is correct: if the matter is in doubt, and this is a useful rule, that if the matter revolves around whether the preposition is for enumeration, or for choice, or for doubt, then the preferred interpretation is to take it as what?
The student: As enumeration.
The Shaykh : Yes, as enumeration or choice, depending on the context and the indication. Why is this preferred? Because interpreting it as doubt is a criticism of the narrator’s memory, and the default is that there is no such criticism. But if we find a narration in the same hadith, then here we interpret it as doubt, because the narration without doubt is considered clear and decisive, and the absence of doubt is considered ambiguous. The legal rule when there is a clear and decisive text and an ambiguous one is that we interpret what? The ambiguous is interpreted according to the clear and decisive, so that all becomes clear and decisive. So we say that these narrations which the author brought, and it appears that he only brought them to clarify that a person has the choice between having the soil in the first washing or the last, we do not agree with the author’s intended meaning if that is his intention; rather, we say it is for doubt, and this doubt is interpreted according to what is without doubt, which is that the washing is done with the soil first. This is not only the most authentic narration, but it is also the most correct in terms of meaning, because having the soil in the first washing lightens the impurity in the remaining washings, since what comes after the first does not need soil, and this undoubtedly lightens the process. But if we made it in the last washing, the six washings before it would all need soil. I will give you an example that makes this clear: if we put the soil in the first washing, then washed it in the second, and some of the water ran onto a person’s garment or a person’s vessel, how would he wash it? He would wash it six times without soil. Why? Because the soil has already been used? Answer, everyone?
The student: In the first one.
The Shaykh : In the first one. Good. But if he put the soil in the last one, and the water ran onto something in the second washing, how would he wash it?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Six times, one of which with soil, because the soil was not used in the first washing. So having the soil in the first washing is more authentic in terms of the report and more correct in terms of reasoning. Accordingly, this is the relied-upon position: the first of them with soil. Here we ask: why did the author (may Allah have mercy on him) bring this hadith in the chapter on water, when it would be more appropriate for it to be in the chapter on removing and explaining impurity? It is said: he only brought it to clarify that if a dog drinks from a small amount of water, it must be avoided and it becomes impure, even if it has not changed. Because if it is obligatory to purify the vessel that was contaminated by this water from which the dog drank, then the impurity of the water itself is even more so. For this reason, the author (may Allah have mercy on him) brought it in this chapter.
The student: As enumeration.
The Shaykh : Yes, as enumeration or choice, depending on the context and the indication. Why is this preferred? Because interpreting it as doubt is a criticism of the narrator’s memory, and the default is that there is no such criticism. But if we find a narration in the same hadith, then here we interpret it as doubt, because the narration without doubt is considered clear and decisive, and the absence of doubt is considered ambiguous. The legal rule when there is a clear and decisive text and an ambiguous one is that we interpret what? The ambiguous is interpreted according to the clear and decisive, so that all becomes clear and decisive. So we say that these narrations which the author brought, and it appears that he only brought them to clarify that a person has the choice between having the soil in the first washing or the last, we do not agree with the author’s intended meaning if that is his intention; rather, we say it is for doubt, and this doubt is interpreted according to what is without doubt, which is that the washing is done with the soil first. This is not only the most authentic narration, but it is also the most correct in terms of meaning, because having the soil in the first washing lightens the impurity in the remaining washings, since what comes after the first does not need soil, and this undoubtedly lightens the process. But if we made it in the last washing, the six washings before it would all need soil. I will give you an example that makes this clear: if we put the soil in the first washing, then washed it in the second, and some of the water ran onto a person’s garment or a person’s vessel, how would he wash it? He would wash it six times without soil. Why? Because the soil has already been used? Answer, everyone?
The student: In the first one.
The Shaykh : In the first one. Good. But if he put the soil in the last one, and the water ran onto something in the second washing, how would he wash it?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Six times, one of which with soil, because the soil was not used in the first washing. So having the soil in the first washing is more authentic in terms of the report and more correct in terms of reasoning. Accordingly, this is the relied-upon position: the first of them with soil. Here we ask: why did the author (may Allah have mercy on him) bring this hadith in the chapter on water, when it would be more appropriate for it to be in the chapter on removing and explaining impurity? It is said: he only brought it to clarify that if a dog drinks from a small amount of water, it must be avoided and it becomes impure, even if it has not changed. Because if it is obligatory to purify the vessel that was contaminated by this water from which the dog drank, then the impurity of the water itself is even more so. For this reason, the author (may Allah have mercy on him) brought it in this chapter.