Explanation of the Book of Purification-20
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"And from Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him), who said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: Sahih al-Bukhari 291 Agreed upon by al-Bukhari and Muslim":
That is: the man, and the one who identified the man as the referent of the pronoun is the context, which is his saying: That is: the woman.
The intended meaning of "sitting" here is sitting for intercourse, and preparing for it. And his saying: It was said: they are her thighs and her legs.
And it was said: rather, they are her legs and her hands, and this latter view is the correct one, because sitting for intercourse occurs between these four: the two legs, and their number is two, and the two hands, and their number is two. And his saying: That is: he reached her limit, meaning: her capacity, and this occurs through penetration, for it reaches her with effort and hardship, especially if she is a virgin or if the man... the important point is that in any case, there must be hardship on the woman. His saying: On whom?
On both of them, because the Messenger mentioned an actor and an acted-upon, and said: That is: on this one and on this one, and it is not intended on the man alone or on the woman alone, but on both of them.
He said: "Agreed upon by al-Bukhari and Muslim, and Muslim added:": And this addition is undoubtedly beneficial, because the first one, which was agreed upon by the two Shaykhs, indicates the obligation of the full ritual bath whether he ejaculated or not, but it does not explicitly state the absence of ejaculation. So when the explicit statement of no ejaculation comes, it becomes clearer and more evident. Why?
Because if we were to restrict ourselves to his saying:Sahih al-Bukhari 291, it would be possible for someone to say: The full ritual bath becomes obligatory, what?
If he ejaculated, and they would make the preceding hadith a restriction for it. But when the wording: comes, this interpretation is cut off, and the meaning becomes that if he has intercourse, whether he ejaculates or not.
So if someone asks: Is there a contradiction between the two hadiths?
The answer is: There is no contradiction between them, because the indication of the non-obligation of the full ritual bath from the first hadith is an indication by implication. The jurists said: "And the implication is established when the difference occurs in a single form":
Meaning that it has no generality. This is the meaning of what I said. The implication has no generality, and if it has no generality, it does not contradict this.
How do we say it has no generality, because his saying: its implication is: no water, in the absence of water?
We say: Yes, this is as long as he did not have intercourse, because a person may enjoy his wife to a great extent but without intercourse, and the water may be ready to come out but does not come out, so this form is true. And if the implication is true in a single form, acting upon it is sufficient. Moreover, it was narrated that his saying: was in the beginning, then it was abrogated, and the full ritual bath became obligatory either from intercourse or from ejaculation.
When a man sits in between the four parts of a woman and did the sexual intercourse with her, bath becomes compulsory.
إذا جلس بين شعبها الأربع ، ثم جهدها فقد وجب الغسلIf he sits
إذا جلسbetween her limbs
بين شعبهاThe intended meaning of "sitting" here is sitting for intercourse, and preparing for it. And his saying:
her four limbs
شعبها الأربعAnd it was said: rather, they are her legs and her hands, and this latter view is the correct one, because sitting for intercourse occurs between these four: the two legs, and their number is two, and the two hands, and their number is two. And his saying:
then exerts himself with her
ثم جهدهاthen the full ritual bath becomes obligatory
فقد وجب الغسلOn both of them, because the Messenger mentioned an actor and an acted-upon, and said:
the full ritual bath becomes obligatory
وجب الغسلHe said: "Agreed upon by al-Bukhari and Muslim, and Muslim added:
and even if he does not ejaculate
وإن لم ينزلBecause if we were to restrict ourselves to his saying:
When a man sits in between the four parts of a woman and did the sexual intercourse with her, bath becomes compulsory.
إذا جلس بين شعبها الأربع ثم جهدها فقد وجب الغسلIf he ejaculated, and they would make the preceding hadith a restriction for it. But when the wording:
and even if he does not ejaculate
وإن لم ينزلSo if someone asks: Is there a contradiction between the two hadiths?
The answer is: There is no contradiction between them, because the indication of the non-obligation of the full ritual bath from the first hadith is an indication by implication. The jurists said: "And the implication is established when the difference occurs in a single form":
Meaning that it has no generality. This is the meaning of what I said. The implication has no generality, and if it has no generality, it does not contradict this.
How do we say it has no generality, because his saying:
Water is from water
الماء من الماءWe say: Yes, this is as long as he did not have intercourse, because a person may enjoy his wife to a great extent but without intercourse, and the water may be ready to come out but does not come out, so this form is true. And if the implication is true in a single form, acting upon it is sufficient. Moreover, it was narrated that his saying: