Benefits of the Hadith (The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) saw a man, and on his foot . . .).

The Shaykh : In this hadith, there are benefits:
Among them is the obligation to cover the limbs with purification, because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) ordered this man to go back and perfect his wudu'.
And indicating this ruling is the statement of Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He: , so if the face is not fully covered, the command is not obeyed, and the same is said regarding the hands, the head, and the feet.
And among its benefits is that it is obligatory to remove whatever prevents water from reaching, it is obligatory to remove whatever prevents water from reaching, whether it is little or much, even if it is like a fingernail, and the word: may mean like a clipped fingernail or like a full fingernail, and in any case, it indicates that if something like a fingernail comes between the limb and the water, what is obligatory?
Its removal, otherwise it cannot be said that he washed it.
But two issues remain for us:
The first issue: if the ring is tight, what is it usually?
Does it prevent water from reaching, so is it obligatory to move it so that water enters between it and the limb, or is it not obligatory?
We say: it appears that it is obligatory if it is very tight such that it prevents water from reaching, one must move it in order for the water to reach its inner part, and it is possible that it is not obligatory, and we take this possibility from the fact that the Messenger (may Allah's prayer and peace be upon him) wore a ring and it is not reported from him that when he wanted to perform wudu' or ghusl, he removed it, and we do not know if this ring was tight or loose, did you understand?
Why? We say: it is possible, but it is objected to this last point, whether it is tight or loose, that if possibility exists, the argument is invalid, so if it is possible that it is loose and possible that it is tight, and the principle with us is that it is obligatory to reach the water to the place of purification, then we do not take the second possibility, which is that it is tight.
The second issue: if a person has a dental prosthesis, is it obligatory for him to remove it during rinsing, or separate it if it is wide or tight, or is it said that it is not obligatory to cover the mouth with rinsing?
The latter, because the jurists stated that it is not obligatory to cover the mouth with rinsing, and based on that, it is not obligatory for a person to remove the dental prosthesis, nor to loosen it so that water enters with it.
The third issue: women use henna on their heads, and henna clumps on the head and prevents water from reaching, so is that excused as wiping the head of a man with a turban and wiping the head of a woman with a head covering is excused according to the opinion that says so, or not?
We say: it is excused, and the evidence for this from the Sunnah is that the Messenger (may Allah's prayer and peace be upon him) in his state of ihram clumped his head with honey and gum, and this prevents direct contact with the hair, so this is a proof for him from the Sunnah other than analogy to the turban and head covering, and women always use, as I told you: they use henna and clump it on their heads.
Also, there is jewelry that a woman ties to her head, it has loops that enter the hair in this loop in order to hold it, and it is called by people: al-hammah, because it is placed on the crown of the head, and it is the size of the palm, meaning a piece of jewelry the size of the palm that a woman places on her head and then sews it to the hair of the head through the loops in it, do we say: is it permissible to wipe over it or is it obligatory to remove it or loosen it so that her hand enters from under it?
The answer: it is permissible to wipe over it, because it is of the same kind as henna and of the same kind as the head covering, rather it is stronger because it is sewn with the hair of the head itself, and women have always used it in the past and the scholars did not point this out.
Now, is the small amount excused for those who find it difficult to guard against a preventer of water reaching, like the owners of paints who use them, they paint the walls, they do not escape having something of the paint stick to their hands, so is that excused if it is small?
The Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him) chose that it is excused if it is small, and this extends: that the small amount is excused, and the jurists (may Allah have mercy on them) agreed with him regarding the dirt that is in the fingernails, the long fingernails, and I hope you do not have long fingernails, the long fingernails have dirt under the nail that prevents water from reaching, so this is excused even by the jurists (may Allah have mercy on them) they excuse it because it is difficult to guard against it, and if we said to a person: it is obligatory that you dig out your fingernails at every wudu', it would be hardship, and what the Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him) went to is correct, but in what is difficult to guard against, and that is with whom?
With the owners of paints who paint the walls with them, these are undoubtedly excused.
In another substance other than paint that sticks to the skin and refuses to be removed from the skin until you put benzene on it, and benzene usually removes paints, what is the benefit, and what do we do with this?
The student: We peel it.

The Shaykh : Now, peeling is fine, ordinary gum is clear here.
The student: Is it gum?

The Shaykh : No, no, gum, gum, it is squeezed out.
The student: It is removed with the skin.

The Shaykh : It is dissolved with the skin, meaning then we must get a razor and shave the skin here?
The student: It goes away after a period.

The Shaykh : It goes away after a period, meaning two or three days, and it prevents water from reaching, in any case, I mentioned this so that you guard against it, otherwise there is no doubt that if a person is unable to do so and it is not possible except as the brother Sa'd said, we must remove the skin, this is not obligatory to remove the skin, this is undoubtedly excused, but a person should strive not to approach it, and praise be to Allah, now the means to prevent that are many, there are plastic gloves, if you want to use them or guard, in any case guard against it because it is dangerous.
And among the benefits of this hadith is the obligation of enjoining good, and its aspect is that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered him to perfect his wudu'.
But if someone says: this is an action, and the bare action according to the principles scholars does not indicate obligation?
It is said: this action was done in obedience to the statement of Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He: , and what occurred of the action of the Messenger (may Allah's prayer and peace be upon him) in obedience has the ruling of the command that he obeyed.
And among the benefits of the hadith is that leaving the commanded thing is not excused by ignorance, rather it must be done, and its aspect is: that this man was either ignorant or forgetful, either ignorant thinking that the water had covered the entire foot, or thinking that it is not obligatory for the water to cover the entire foot, or forgetful, and despite that, the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) did not ask him for details, but ordered him to perfect his wudu'.
And among the benefits of this hadith is the condition of continuity if we take his statement: to mean walk?
The student: Repeating.

The Shaykh : On repeating the wudu', and the scholars (may Allah have mercy on them) differed in continuity, is it a condition in wudu' or not?
And it appears that it is a condition because wudu' is one worship, and if continuity is not maintained between its parts, it disintegrates. If someone says: you can wash your face at nine in the morning, then wash your hands at ten, then wipe your head at eleven, then wash your feet at twelve, is it said: that this man performed wudu'?
In fact, he did not perform wudu', but he washed his limbs, and then the statement of Allah the Exalted: is conjoined to it, and it is known that the answer to the condition follows the condition immediately, as evidenced by the fact that it is linked by the fa' indicating order and succession.
So if we say: washing the faces comes immediately, we say: and what is conjoined to it also comes immediately, and this is a good derivation regarding the indication from the verse.
So if someone says: and is order a condition, meaning: if the one who did not get water on the first limbs, does he wash what is below it?
Meaning, let us suppose that it is in the hand, do we say: wash the hand, then wipe the head, then wash the foot, or is the order dropped?
The answer: the order is not dropped, rather he washes it and what comes after it, and the analogy is if a person forgets the bowing, he prostrates from standing and then remembers, do we say: bow and do not prostrate, or bow and do what comes after it?
The second, bow and do what comes after it, because order is necessary.
But some of the people of knowledge also say: that the order is dropped by ignorance and forgetfulness, and based on this opinion: there is no harm in washing what he did not wash of the limbs and limiting it to that.
Now, if this happens in the ghusl, meaning a person finds something on his body after performing the ghusl for janabah that prevents the water from reaching what is underneath it, do we say: remove the barrier and wash what is underneath it, or do we say: remove the barrier and perform the ghusl in full?
Yes, the first option, because there is no prescribed order in the ghusl; in the ghusl, you may start with the head or the feet, it is all the same. The order is only in the wudu'. For this reason, Allah the Exalted said: and He did not mention from where we should begin.
So if someone asks, for example: Did the man return?
It is necessary, meaning some people bring up commands, and I have pointed this out because it is important: they bring up commands and then say: It was not reported from the Companions. We say: That is not a condition. We worship Allah by what we hear, and it is not a condition of that that we know whether the Companions acted upon it or not. For example, supplication on Friday from the entry of the imam until the end of the prayer is likely to be answered. So does a person supplicate between the two sermons, or do we say: Do not supplicate between the two sermons because the Companions did not do it?
The answer is: The first option, he supplicates between the two sermons, because the principle is that the Companions will do what? What they were commanded to do or what they were guided to of the truth. This is the principle. And the fact that he says: It is not possible except that we know they acted in error. But if we know that they acted in a manner contrary to what the absolute command requires, then at that time the absolute command is restricted by their action. And I think you know the difference between the two matters?
Yes, meaning if a command is reported and we do not know that the Companions did it, we say: The command remains as it is. But if we know that they did it in a specific manner, we are restricted to that specific manner. An example of that is the 'Umrah:
No, because the Companions acted upon this, but they did not act upon the basis that they repeat the 'Umrah every day or every week. Rather, the Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him) reported the consensus of the Salaf on the dislike of excessive 'Umrah and consecutiveness between them. He mentioned it in the Fatawa. In any case, these are subtle issues regarding the matter of action.
Now, if someone asks: If you say that supplication between the two sermons is recommended, do you say that the hands are raised?
We say: The principle in supplication is that among its etiquettes is raising the hands, and there is no harm in raising the hands. Raising the hands in supplication is divided into three categories:
A category where the Shari'ah has come that there is no raising in it except in a specific situation, and a category where the Shari'ah has come that there is no raising in it absolutely. This category is where the Shari'ah has come with leaving it. And a category where the Shari'ah has come with raising the hands in it, and a category where it is silent, nothing was reported:
The first one, where raising the hands is reported in specific things, is supplication in the sermon, the Friday sermon. Raising the hands in supplication in the Friday sermon, whether by the imam delivering the sermon or by the listeners, this is an innovation. The Companions rebuked Marwan for it, I think it was Marwan ibn al-Hakam. But it is established from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that he raised his hands in supplication in what?
In the prayer for rain and the prayer for relief from harm.
The second: What is reported as having no raising absolutely, and that is supplication in the prayer. During the prayer, the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) used to supplicate in his prayer and not raise his hands. He would supplicate between the two prostrations and his hands would be on his thighs, he would not raise them.
The third: What is silent upon. The principle for what is silent upon is raising, but it may occur to a person that raising did not take place, such as his saying (peace and blessings be upon him) when he finished burying the dead: : So the apparent situation is that they do not raise their hands, because the narrator did not say "then he raised his hand and supplicated," for example. But if a person raised his hand and said: This is the principle, we cannot deny it to him without clear evidence.