Benefits of the Hadith (There is no wudu for one who does not mention the name of Allah upon it).
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : One of the benefits of this hadith is that wudu is not valid without the mention of the name of Allah, based on what?
Based on the fact that the negation is a negation of perfection, and the jurists (may Allah have mercy on them) adopted this view, except that they say: the mention of the name is not a condition nor a pillar. We say to them: you must make it either a condition or a pillar. There is no strangeness in an act having verbal pillars; for example, the prayer has actions and it has verbal pillars, such as the takbir of ihram, al-Fatihah, and the final tashahhud. So we say: either make it a pillar or make it a condition. But they say: No, it is obligatory and is dropped by forgetfulness; it is obligatory and dropped by forgetfulness. This is strange, because if we say that the negation here is a negation of validity, then the mention of the name becomes a pillar or a condition that is not dropped by error.
And among the benefits of this hadith is the importance of the mention of the name, because either the validity of the wudu or the perfection of the wudu depends on it. There is no doubt that the mention of the name has importance, to the extent that it was reported from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him):Sunan Ibn Majah 1894Da'if (Darussalam), and this hadith has a discussion, but al-Nawawi authenticated it.
Now, what indicates its importance is that if you slaughter a sheep without mentioning the name, with a sharp knife that lets the blood flow, it becomes forbidden like carrion that died of natural causes. But if you mentioned the name, it becomes lawful. And what indicates this is also that if a person sits at his food and eats without mentioning the name, Shaytan shares in it with him. But if he mentions the name, Shaytan does not share in it with him. So it is a guard, a protector from Shaytan when you mention the name while eating or drinking.
The scholars (may Allah have mercy on them) differed regarding the obligation of mentioning the name when eating and drinking: some said it is obligatory, and some said it is a recommended practice (sunnah). The correct view is that it is obligatory, and that a person must mention the name when he intends to eat or drink.
And among the benefits of this hadith is that the one who does not mention the name of Allah upon it, his wudu is not valid, based on his saying:Sunan Abi Dawud 102Sahih Maqtu' (Al-Albani), or it is not complete according to the view that the negation here is a negation of perfection. So, is ghusl analogized to wudu?
Is tayammum analogized to wudu?
Is removing impurity analogized to wudu?
These are three things, all of which are possible to be branches:
As for ghusl, someone might say: it is analogized to wudu, and that is because ghusl includes wudu. If that is the case, then the mention of the name in it is like the mention of the name in wudu. However, a person feels a heaviness in his soul regarding equating ghusl with wudu, because the original rule is that there is no analogy in acts of worship; that is, what is a condition in one act of worship cannot be transferred to another act of worship except with evidence. But the mention of the name is, in any case, better and more preferable.
Is tayammum analogized to that? Meaning, do we say: if you want to perform tayammum, you must mention the name just as if you wanted to perform wudu?
Samir, where did you go? Answer, answer, yes, answer, come on, answer.
The student: Is tayammum analogized to wudu?
The Shaykh : Well, do we say: if wudu is not valid except with the mention of the name, then tayammum for minor ritual impurity is the same?
Whoever said analogy in the first case said analogy in the second case, because the substitute has the ruling of the substituted. And someone might say: it is not possible to analogize here, because the purity of tayammum differs greatly from the purity of water. The purity of tayammum relates to how many limbs, Sami, how many?
The student: Two limbs.
With two limbs, which are they?
The student: The hands and the face.
And the purity of water?
The student: With four.
The Shaykh : With four limbs in the minor impurity, and with the whole body in the major impurity. So we say: it is not possible to analogize tayammum to wudu.
Then, the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said to 'Amir ibn Yasir, and he taught him tayammum:Bulugh al-Maram 129, and he did not mention the name. And the occasion is one of what?
Teaching and clarification, and it is not possible to delay clarification from the time of need. And this view is more correct: meaning that the mention of the name is not a condition in tayammum, nor is it even a recommended practice (sunnah) in it. Unless someone says: it falls under the generality of:Sunan Ibn Majah 1894Da'if (Darussalam). If someone says that, it might be permissible for him. Otherwise, the original rule is that the mention of the name is not prescribed for it, because the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) taught tayammum and did not mention the name.
The fourth: Do we analogize removing impurity to wudu?
Meaning, if you want to remove impurity from your garment, you must say: In the name of Allah? The answer is: No, it is not possible and it is not permissible to analogize it, because removing impurity is from the category of omission, and wudu is from the category of action, and it is not possible to analogize them. And because removing impurity does not require intention, while wudu requires intention. Removing impurity does not require intention, meaning that if your garment falls into water and it has impurity in it, and then the impurity is removed in this water, then the garment is what? It becomes pure, so you do not need intention.
So, the thing that we can say frankly: that the mention of the name is prescribed in it is wudu, because there is an explicit text regarding it. The rest is by analogy, some of which is close and some is not close.
Among the benefits of this hadith is that the mention of the name in wudu, and what did we say?
We say: it is a recommended practice (sunnah). Why?
Two things make us say that it is a recommended practice (sunnah):
The first thing: that this hadith has a discussion, as Imam Ahmad said: "Nothing is established in this chapter". And the original rule is the presumption of original permissibility; the original rule is that the conscience is free, and we do not burden Allah's servants with anything except with evidence. Meaning, where is your argument before Allah if a man performs wudu and does not mention the name, and then you say to him: repeat the wudu, your worship is invalid? Where is your argument before Allah? And the issue is not as simple as untangling a knot, as the common people say; it is a religion, and you will be asked on the Day of Resurrection: why did you issue this fatwa when you did not know?
Therefore, we say: the mention of the name does not appear to be obligatory, nor that it is a condition, nor that it is a pillar, because this hadith has what?
It has a discussion. And if it has a discussion, it is not possible to burden Allah's servants with it and to invalidate their worship if it is not present.
The second evidence: that all those who described the wudu of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and those who taught it to the people, such as 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him), did not mention the name of Allah. And 'Umar taught it to the people while he was the Caliph after the death of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), and he did not mention the name. If the mention of the name had been a condition or obligatory, it would have been something that people would strive to transmit, and they would have transmitted this and explained it to the people with a sufficient explanation.
As for the things analogized to it, which are: ghusl, tayammum, and removing impurity, you have known what is in them.
Based on the fact that the negation is a negation of perfection, and the jurists (may Allah have mercy on them) adopted this view, except that they say: the mention of the name is not a condition nor a pillar. We say to them: you must make it either a condition or a pillar. There is no strangeness in an act having verbal pillars; for example, the prayer has actions and it has verbal pillars, such as the takbir of ihram, al-Fatihah, and the final tashahhud. So we say: either make it a pillar or make it a condition. But they say: No, it is obligatory and is dropped by forgetfulness; it is obligatory and dropped by forgetfulness. This is strange, because if we say that the negation here is a negation of validity, then the mention of the name becomes a pillar or a condition that is not dropped by error.
And among the benefits of this hadith is the importance of the mention of the name, because either the validity of the wudu or the perfection of the wudu depends on it. There is no doubt that the mention of the name has importance, to the extent that it was reported from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him):
Every important matter that does not start with praise of Allah, is devoid (of blessings).
كل أمرٍ ذي بال لا يبدأ فيه باسم الله فهو أبترNow, what indicates its importance is that if you slaughter a sheep without mentioning the name, with a sharp knife that lets the blood flow, it becomes forbidden like carrion that died of natural causes. But if you mentioned the name, it becomes lawful. And what indicates this is also that if a person sits at his food and eats without mentioning the name, Shaytan shares in it with him. But if he mentions the name, Shaytan does not share in it with him. So it is a guard, a protector from Shaytan when you mention the name while eating or drinking.
The scholars (may Allah have mercy on them) differed regarding the obligation of mentioning the name when eating and drinking: some said it is obligatory, and some said it is a recommended practice (sunnah). The correct view is that it is obligatory, and that a person must mention the name when he intends to eat or drink.
And among the benefits of this hadith is that the one who does not mention the name of Allah upon it, his wudu is not valid, based on his saying:
the ablution of a person who does not mention the name of Allah is valid
لا وضوء لمن لم يذكر اسم الله عليهIs tayammum analogized to wudu?
Is removing impurity analogized to wudu?
These are three things, all of which are possible to be branches:
As for ghusl, someone might say: it is analogized to wudu, and that is because ghusl includes wudu. If that is the case, then the mention of the name in it is like the mention of the name in wudu. However, a person feels a heaviness in his soul regarding equating ghusl with wudu, because the original rule is that there is no analogy in acts of worship; that is, what is a condition in one act of worship cannot be transferred to another act of worship except with evidence. But the mention of the name is, in any case, better and more preferable.
Is tayammum analogized to that? Meaning, do we say: if you want to perform tayammum, you must mention the name just as if you wanted to perform wudu?
Samir, where did you go? Answer, answer, yes, answer, come on, answer.
The student: Is tayammum analogized to wudu?
The Shaykh : Well, do we say: if wudu is not valid except with the mention of the name, then tayammum for minor ritual impurity is the same?
Whoever said analogy in the first case said analogy in the second case, because the substitute has the ruling of the substituted. And someone might say: it is not possible to analogize here, because the purity of tayammum differs greatly from the purity of water. The purity of tayammum relates to how many limbs, Sami, how many?
The student: Two limbs.
With two limbs, which are they?
The student: The hands and the face.
And the purity of water?
The student: With four.
The Shaykh : With four limbs in the minor impurity, and with the whole body in the major impurity. So we say: it is not possible to analogize tayammum to wudu.
Then, the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said to 'Amir ibn Yasir, and he taught him tayammum:
This would have been enough for you
إنما كان يكفيك أن تقول بيديك هكذاTeaching and clarification, and it is not possible to delay clarification from the time of need. And this view is more correct: meaning that the mention of the name is not a condition in tayammum, nor is it even a recommended practice (sunnah) in it. Unless someone says: it falls under the generality of:
Every important matter that does not start with praise of Allah, is devoid (of blessings).
كل أمر ذي بال لا يبدأ فيه باسم الله فهو أبترThe fourth: Do we analogize removing impurity to wudu?
Meaning, if you want to remove impurity from your garment, you must say: In the name of Allah? The answer is: No, it is not possible and it is not permissible to analogize it, because removing impurity is from the category of omission, and wudu is from the category of action, and it is not possible to analogize them. And because removing impurity does not require intention, while wudu requires intention. Removing impurity does not require intention, meaning that if your garment falls into water and it has impurity in it, and then the impurity is removed in this water, then the garment is what? It becomes pure, so you do not need intention.
So, the thing that we can say frankly: that the mention of the name is prescribed in it is wudu, because there is an explicit text regarding it. The rest is by analogy, some of which is close and some is not close.
Among the benefits of this hadith is that the mention of the name in wudu, and what did we say?
We say: it is a recommended practice (sunnah). Why?
Two things make us say that it is a recommended practice (sunnah):
The first thing: that this hadith has a discussion, as Imam Ahmad said: "Nothing is established in this chapter". And the original rule is the presumption of original permissibility; the original rule is that the conscience is free, and we do not burden Allah's servants with anything except with evidence. Meaning, where is your argument before Allah if a man performs wudu and does not mention the name, and then you say to him: repeat the wudu, your worship is invalid? Where is your argument before Allah? And the issue is not as simple as untangling a knot, as the common people say; it is a religion, and you will be asked on the Day of Resurrection: why did you issue this fatwa when you did not know?
Therefore, we say: the mention of the name does not appear to be obligatory, nor that it is a condition, nor that it is a pillar, because this hadith has what?
It has a discussion. And if it has a discussion, it is not possible to burden Allah's servants with it and to invalidate their worship if it is not present.
The second evidence: that all those who described the wudu of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and those who taught it to the people, such as 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him), did not mention the name of Allah. And 'Umar taught it to the people while he was the Caliph after the death of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), and he did not mention the name. If the mention of the name had been a condition or obligatory, it would have been something that people would strive to transmit, and they would have transmitted this and explained it to the people with a sufficient explanation.
As for the things analogized to it, which are: ghusl, tayammum, and removing impurity, you have known what is in them.