Review and discussion under the hadith (that a man asked the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): “Do I perform wudu after eating the meat of sheep? . . .”).
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : It indicates the obligation of wudu from camel meat. What is the basis for this obligation, Sharafi?
The student: The basis for the obligation is that he was given a choice regarding the meat of sheep.
The Shaykh : He was given a choice between performing wudu and not performing it.
The student: Regarding the meat of sheep, this indicates that the command does not return to his will, but rather it is necessary.
The Shaykh : Well done. Since he was given a choice regarding the meat of sheep, it indicates that wudu is necessary for camel meat, and that is the case.
We also established that the meat of camels includes everything within its skin?
The student: We established that, and we said: If someone says to his servant, “Buy me some meat!”
The Shaykh : No, no, that is not it. This is an objection raised against it. We established that because when “meat” is used in a general sense, it includes everything in the animal. Is the complete evidence sound?
The student: His saying, Exalted is He:[Al-Ma'idah 5:3] and the verse includes everything in the pig.
The Shaykh : Yes, complete. This is correct. Also, which is more abundant in camels: red meat or what else?
The student: What else.
The Shaykh : What else is more abundant. So how can the ruling be attached to the lesser rather than the greater?
And we explained to you that some of the scholars (may Allah have mercy on them) attach rulings to the lesser rather than the greater in what the hadith indicates, and that this methodology is not correct. We have passed over the discussion of this in the book *Iqtida' al-Sirat al-Mustaqim*, and we mentioned an example of this:Sahih Muslim 1147: where some scholars interpreted it as referring to the fasting of a vow, even though the fasting of a vow is little compared to the fasting of Ramadan.
Fine, we raised the objection that if that were the case, it would follow that its broth, i.e., the broth of camel meat, invalidates wudu. What is the answer? Yes?
The student: The answer is the hadith of the 'Uraynah. When the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered them to drink from their milk, he did not order them to perform wudu.
The Shaykh : Yes, that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not order the 'Uraynah, whom he ordered to drink from the urine and milk of camels, to perform wudu. And if wudu is not obligatory from milk, which is between dregs and blood, how is it with broth, which is separated, and is essentially water in which the meat was cooked? Is that clear?
Fine, but despite that, we said: The best is to perform wudu, because some of the scholars said that wudu is obligatory from broth and obligatory from milk, but it does not appear that that is obligatory, rather it is better.
Does the meat include raw and cooked, Mahmoud?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Does this include even the raw?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : How did you know that?
The student: The Prophet used a general term.
The Shaykh : Yes, the generality of the meat of camels.
Fine, if someone says: This hadith is abrogated by the hadith of Jabir as well: How is the answer?
The student: Abrogation only returns to the case where reconciliation is not possible.
The Shaykh : He says: The claim of abrogation cannot be accepted except with two conditions.
The student: The first: knowing the chronology.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: The second: the impossibility of reconciling the two hadiths.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: And here, first: the chronology is not known, and second: reconciliation between them is possible.
The Shaykh : No, he knows the chronology. The last of the two matters was:Sunan an-Nasa'i 185.
The student: Reconciliation is possible here, and that is by interpreting his saying “leaving wudu from what fire has touched” as referring to other than the meat of camels, so we interpret the meat of camels as being under the general rule.
The Shaykh : Here the relationship is between the general and the specific. The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered wudu from what fire has touched, not from the meat of camels, so that we would say: The last of the two matters was leaving wudu from the meat of camels. That is not the case. For this reason, Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “There are two authentic hadiths in this: the hadith of al-Bara' ibn 'Azib, and the hadith of Jabir ibn Samurah” indicating wudu from the meat of camels, and that is the case.
The student: The basis for the obligation is that he was given a choice regarding the meat of sheep.
The Shaykh : He was given a choice between performing wudu and not performing it.
The student: Regarding the meat of sheep, this indicates that the command does not return to his will, but rather it is necessary.
The Shaykh : Well done. Since he was given a choice regarding the meat of sheep, it indicates that wudu is necessary for camel meat, and that is the case.
We also established that the meat of camels includes everything within its skin?
The student: We established that, and we said: If someone says to his servant, “Buy me some meat!”
The Shaykh : No, no, that is not it. This is an objection raised against it. We established that because when “meat” is used in a general sense, it includes everything in the animal. Is the complete evidence sound?
The student: His saying, Exalted is He:
Prohibited to you are dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine
حرمت عليكم الميتة والدم ولحم الخنزيرThe Shaykh : Yes, complete. This is correct. Also, which is more abundant in camels: red meat or what else?
The student: What else.
The Shaykh : What else is more abundant. So how can the ruling be attached to the lesser rather than the greater?
And we explained to you that some of the scholars (may Allah have mercy on them) attach rulings to the lesser rather than the greater in what the hadith indicates, and that this methodology is not correct. We have passed over the discussion of this in the book *Iqtida' al-Sirat al-Mustaqim*, and we mentioned an example of this:
'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) as saying: If anyone dies in a state (that he had to complete) some fasts, his heir must fast on his behalf.
من مات وعليه صيام صام عنه وليهFine, we raised the objection that if that were the case, it would follow that its broth, i.e., the broth of camel meat, invalidates wudu. What is the answer? Yes?
The student: The answer is the hadith of the 'Uraynah. When the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered them to drink from their milk, he did not order them to perform wudu.
The Shaykh : Yes, that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not order the 'Uraynah, whom he ordered to drink from the urine and milk of camels, to perform wudu. And if wudu is not obligatory from milk, which is between dregs and blood, how is it with broth, which is separated, and is essentially water in which the meat was cooked? Is that clear?
Fine, but despite that, we said: The best is to perform wudu, because some of the scholars said that wudu is obligatory from broth and obligatory from milk, but it does not appear that that is obligatory, rather it is better.
Does the meat include raw and cooked, Mahmoud?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Does this include even the raw?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : How did you know that?
The student: The Prophet used a general term.
The Shaykh : Yes, the generality of the meat of camels.
Fine, if someone says: This hadith is abrogated by the hadith of Jabir as well:
The last of the two practices of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) was to leave off performing wudu for what has been touched by fire.
كان آخر الأمرين من رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ترك الوضوء مما مست النارThe student: Abrogation only returns to the case where reconciliation is not possible.
The Shaykh : He says: The claim of abrogation cannot be accepted except with two conditions.
The student: The first: knowing the chronology.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: The second: the impossibility of reconciling the two hadiths.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: And here, first: the chronology is not known, and second: reconciliation between them is possible.
The Shaykh : No, he knows the chronology. The last of the two matters was:
That last of the two matters from the Messenger ofAllah (ﷺ) was leaving off ablution from that which had been touched by fire.
كان آخر الأمرين ترك الوضوء مما مست النارThe student: Reconciliation is possible here, and that is by interpreting his saying “leaving wudu from what fire has touched” as referring to other than the meat of camels, so we interpret the meat of camels as being under the general rule.
The Shaykh : Here the relationship is between the general and the specific. The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered wudu from what fire has touched, not from the meat of camels, so that we would say: The last of the two matters was leaving wudu from the meat of camels. That is not the case. For this reason, Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “There are two authentic hadiths in this: the hadith of al-Bara' ibn 'Azib, and the hadith of Jabir ibn Samurah” indicating wudu from the meat of camels, and that is the case.