Benefits of the Hadith (That a man asked the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): “Do I have to perform wudu after eating sheep meat…”)

The Shaykh : In this hadith, there are many benefits:
Among them is the eagerness of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) to learn knowledge. For this reason, they did not leave out any small or large matter they needed in the religion without asking about it. One who follows up the questions posed by the Companions to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) will see that the statement of some ignorant people—that the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) did not delve deeply into knowledge or into asking about it—is a false statement. Rather, they did not delve as deeply as the later generations who cite examples and depict scenarios that are far from occurring, or even impossible to occur. The Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) took matters at their apparent level and did not delve deeply, but they were guided to the correct knowledge.
And among the benefits of this hadith is that sheep meat does not require wudu, whether it is raw or cooked. The indication of this is the generality of the statement: the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not specify, and the questioner did not ask for specification. Therefore, whoever eats sheep meat, whether raw or cooked, does not have to perform wudu.
If someone were to say: Did the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) not say: ?
We say: Yes, but this hadith is accompanied by what indicates that it is not obligatory, namely: wudu from what has been touched by fire, based on the statement of Jabir, I think it was Jabir: : he left off wudu. And this leaving off is to clarify permissibility. Accordingly, his statement: is general for cooked meat and raw meat.
And among the benefits of this hadith is the affirmation of the will of the servant, and that the servant has a complete will, based on his statement: . In this is a refutation of an innovating group that contradicts reason, transmitted texts, and sensory experience, namely: the Jabriyyah, who say that man has no will, but rather acts out of compulsion, not choice. When it was said to them: This implies that Allah the Exalted is unjust if He punishes him for a disobedience he did not will, they said: This would be injustice if the actor were acting in something not belonging to him, but if he is acting in his own property, it is not injustice. This is undoubtedly a false statement because Allah, Glorified and Exalted is He, said about Himself: , and He said in the Qudsi Hadith: : And in this is proof of its possibility; if He willed, He would be unjust, but He, Mighty and Majestic, does not do injustice. This indicates that their statement is false, and that man has a will.
But we deny another statement that is contrary to it, namely: the statement of the Qadariyyah, who say that man is independent in his will and desire. Because we know that the will and desire of the servant are from the will of Allah, Mighty and Majestic, meaning: they are subordinate to the will of Allah, and not independent. And man desires a thing, resolves upon it, confirms it, and then a preventer from Allah, Mighty and Majestic, comes, either by diverting the intention or by the existence of an external obstacle that prevents him from doing it. So the will of the servant is subordinate to the will of Allah. And the benefit of saying that it is subordinate to the will of Allah is that we know that whenever the servant wills a thing, Allah, Mighty and Majestic, has willed it. So when it occurs, we verify that. As for the mere will of the servant, the servant may will, and this will is undoubtedly from the will of Allah, but it may occur or it may not occur, because obstacles may arise that prevent man from doing what he intended.
And in this is also proof that a thing may be permissible by the Shari'ah, and the doer is not called an innovator, but it is not sought from the person. The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said to him: , and this is what I said, and I have proof for it:
بعث النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم رجلا على سرية فجعل يقرأ لأصحابه ويختم بـــــ قل هو الله أحد ، فبلغ ذلك النبي صلى الله عليه وعلى آله وسلم ولم ينكر عليه The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) sent a man on a raid, and he used to recite for his companions and conclude with "Say: He is Allah, the One." This reached the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family), and he did not disapprove of it., and this indicates that such an act is not called an innovation in the religion of Allah, and the person does not sin by it. But do we say that it is a Sunnah, and that it is recommended for a person when he recites in prayer to conclude with ?
We do not say this, because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not do it, and he did not order the Ummah to do it. The most that can be said is that he approved this man for this act, so it is permissible. Similarly, Sa'd ibn Ubadah asked him , meaning: in his garden and his palm trees . But do we say that this is a Sunnah?
No. And for this reason, when the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) mentioned dutifulness to parents after their death, he did not mention charity: he mentioned supplication, seeking forgiveness, honoring the friend, and maintaining family ties, and he did not mention charity. And if charity for the dead were prescribed in the sense that it is required of the one who has reached the age of accountability, that would be established by the verbal or practical Sunnah. But we do not say to one who gives charity for his parents: You are an innovator. Rather, we say: This is something the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) approved, and there is no harm in it.
So there is a difference between saying: This is a prescribed Sunnah for the Ummah to perform, and saying: If the doer does this, it is permissible.
So we take from this hadith and from other hadiths what we have now established.
And among the benefits of this hadith is the obligation of wudu from camel meat, based on his statement: . If someone were to say: The statement of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him): gives a dispensation from wudu for camel meat, because the man asked: Do I have to perform wudu? He said: , meaning: there is no harm, is that not so?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : Are you sure?
Yes, this is the implication of the wording if we consider it separate from the first: meaning: there is no obstacle. But if we compare the statement: with his statement regarding sheep meat: , that indicates that the meaning is that it is not up to your will, but you must perform wudu. And that is the case. And it is supported by the command of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to perform wudu from camel meat. He commanded wudu from camel meat. So when these two are combined, we know that camel meat breaks wudu, and that whoever eats it must perform wudu. It remains to consider whether this includes raw and cooked meat?
The answer is: Yes, it includes raw and cooked meat.
If someone were to say: This hadith is abrogated by the hadith of Jabir: ?
We say: Glory be to Allah, abrogation cannot be established except with two conditions:
Knowledge of the chronology, and the impossibility of combining the texts. And here we have no knowledge of the chronology, and combining them is not impossible. . This is what corresponds to this. And the word includes meat: camel meat, sheep meat, cow meat, and birds, and even bread. But Allah made it easy, and praise be to Allah for the Ummah, and this was abrogated.
As for abrogating something specific, that is not correct. So the hadith is clear and established.
If someone were to say: Does meat include red meat, white meat, and black meat like the liver and others?
The answer is: Yes.
If someone were to say: This contradicts custom, because if you told the servant: Take this and buy meat with it, and he came to you with intestines, would he have obeyed or not?
He would not obey. He would not obey. So intestines are not included in meat.
If he came to you with a liver?
He would not obey. It is said: The legal realities are not the customary realities.
What is a sheep in our custom?
The female of the sheep. And in the Shari'ah, it includes the female of the sheep and the female of the goat, and the male of the sheep and the male of the goat. So there is a difference between legal and customary realities. There is a difference between them. And the Lawgiver takes His words to refer to the legal realities, because He speaks in the language of the Lawgiver, so it is comprehensive. Then we say: Do you say that the meat of the pig in His statement: is specific to red meat?
They will say: No, it is general. And this is also like it, it is general, and there is no difference.
Thirdly: We say: There is no animal in the Islamic Shari'ah whose rulings are divided according to its parts, ever. This was found in the Jewish Shari'ah. Allah, Glorified and Exalted is He, forbade them some of the animals, some parts of the animals, because of their injustice: , and He clarified that in His statement: . This is clear: He forbade all the animals, :
So this is one animal whose rulings differed according to its parts. But in the Islamic Shari'ah, it is not possible. So if we say what some scholars (may Allah have mercy on them) said, that only red meat from camel meat breaks wudu, it would follow from that that the rulings of one animal are divided. So if this one eats from the liver, we say: Pray without wudu as long as you are on your first wudu. And the second one who ate from the red meat performs wudu. And it is one animal, watered with the same water and fed with the same food, so there is no difference.
If someone were to say: It follows from your analogy regarding pig meat that you must obligate wudu from the broth and from the milk?
The answer is that some scholars adhered to this position, stating that it is obligatory to perform wudu' from the broth of camel meat and from camel milk. This adherence refutes the objection raised by those who prohibited drawing an analogy to pork.
However, we say that the evidence indicates that wudu' from camel milk is not obligatory in the case of the 'Uraynites who fell ill in Madinah. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered them to join the zakat camels and drink from their milk and urine, but he did not say, "Perform wudu'." Even though the situation required him to say it if wudu' were obligatory, as they were people ignorant of the Shari'ah who needed clarification. This is what prevented us from making wudu' obligatory from camel milk, and from the broth even more so, it is not obligatory.
If someone were to ask: If one eats a small amount, like the head of a sparrow, does one perform wudu' or not?
The student: One performs wudu'.

The Shaykh : One performs wudu'? Yes, one performs wudu'. Can we say: If one eats what breaks the fast of a fasting person, one performs wudu', meaning even if it is a small amount, even if it is between the teeth?
The answer is that this is the apparent view. The answer is that as long as one eats something that has substance and reaches the stomach, it is obligatory for him to perform wudu'.
If someone were to ask: We understood the ruling, we accepted it, and we were pleased with it, and we said: It is for Allah the Exalted to rule as He wills. Do you equate camel meat with beef, since both are sufficient for seven sheep?
The answer is: No, we do not equate it with it, because this is a specific ruling regarding camels, so we do not equate beef with it.
Now, do you equate with it the forbidden meat, as if a person were compelled to eat pork and he ate it?
The answer is: No, because the operative cause is not the impurity of camel meat, so that we would equate this with that.
If someone were to ask: What is the operative cause then?
We say: We have an operative cause that no one denies, which is: This is a ruling of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). This is the operative cause; the ruling of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) is the operative cause and the wisdom. For this reason, 'A'ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) cited this same evidence when the woman asked her: . Thus, the ruling, which is the obligation of wudu' from camel meat, is considered among the devotional rulings in which a person has nothing but submission and obedience, regardless of whether he knows the reason or not. Did you understand? Although some scholars (may Allah have mercy on them) tried to derive an operative cause that is actually deep, saying: It is established that camels were created from the jinn, meaning their nature is jinn-like. It does not mean that Shaytan is their father or mother, no, just as He said: . The meaning is: His nature is haste. This is also like it: , meaning: Their nature is jinn-like, and their owner becomes arrogant and haughty, as the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: . This nature may cause a person to acquire this arrogance, elevation, and pride. Water cools the body and reduces heat. For this reason, a person is ordered to perform wudu' when he is angry to extinguish the heat of anger. If this is the operative cause, then this operative cause is an acquired trait. If it is not this, then the operative cause is the command of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family).