Explanation of the author's statement: "Or if the hand of a person who stood up from a sleep that invalidates wudu' is immersed in it"

The Shaykh : He said, "Or if the hand of a person who stood up from a sleep that invalidates wudu' is immersed in it". The pronoun in "immersed in it" refers to the small amount of water, meaning in the small amount of water. "The hand of a person who stood up": when "hand" is mentioned alone, it means up to the wrist. The wrist means up to the wrist joint. This is the hand, and it includes the entire hand, not just part of it. The entire hand means that if the whole palm is immersed in it. "A person who stood up from a sleep": the explanation mentions that it is the hand of a Muslim, a person of legal age, who stood up from a sleep at night that invalidates wudu'. The thing that invalidates wudu' will come later, if Allah wills, and it is that excessive sleep, whether in general or light sleep for someone who is not standing or sitting, as will come to us, if Allah wills, in the section on the things that invalidate wudu'. Okay, "immersed in it," and we said the pronoun refers to the small amount of water. The hand, the palm, the whole palm, of a person who stood up. The author only mentioned "standing," but the explanation mentions that it is the hand of a Muslim, a person of legal age, from a sleep at night, not a sleep during the day, that invalidates wudu'. Not light sleep; the light sleep that does not invalidate wudu' does not matter. Now we return to the example. This is a man who stood up from sleep at night, and he has a pot with water in it, so he immersed his hand in it. He immersed his hand up to the elbow in this water. It is now pure (tahir) but not purifying (mutahhir). He can no longer use it. What is the evidence? The evidence is the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): . Now, the hadith is authentic, and it contains the prohibition of immersing the hand in water and the reasoning. This is the evidence. But we will discuss, if Allah wills, the argumentation based on it. However, let us first take the ruling, and then we will respond later to know whether this ruling is correct or not. "The hand is immersed in it". If the hand is immersed in a large amount of water, is it purifying (mutahhir) or pure (tahir)? It is purifying. Okay, if a person immerses his leg in it, not his hand, is it purifying? It is purifying. Why? Because the author says "hand," the hand of a person who stood up.

The questioner : What is the example?

The Shaykh : No, it is not an example. Good, if he dipped his forearm in it, is the water pure or purified? How does he dip his forearm? Yes, like this. Sometimes he says, "Like this, from the elbow." We say this makes it pure, clear. Good, if a disbeliever dipped his hand in this water, a disbeliever dipped his hand in the water, is it pure and the Muslim becomes purified but not purifying? The Muslim becomes pure but not purifying, and the disbeliever remains pure. Good, if a madman got up from his sleep at night and dipped his hand, is it pure? And the sane person becomes pure but not purifying. A child who is not accountable, under six years old, came and dipped his hand in the water; it is pure because he is not accountable. Good, if he dipped his hand while getting up from a nap during the day, for example, a person slept a long sleep during the day, then got up and dipped his hand in the vessel, is it pure? Pure. Good, if he slept a short sleep at night and then dipped his hand in it, it is also pure because it must be something that breaks the ablution. Good, this is the school of thought. Where did they take from that it must be a Muslim? Because he said and the address is to the believing Muslims. Where did they take from that it must be accountable? They said because the address is only directed to those who are accountable; the address is not directed to those who are not accountable. Like this. Where did they take from that it must be from sleep at night? From his saying Where did it spend the night? And spending the night does not occur except at night. For this reason, they stipulated these conditions. And it also breaks the ablution; they took this because they said and a short sleep, a person is aware of himself, so it does not harm. This is the source of the conditions from the hadith. But if you reflect on the issue, you will find that it is weak. First, because the hadith does not indicate it; the hadith does not indicate it. Because the hadith contains the prohibition of dipping the hand in the water, and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not address the water. And in his saying there is evidence that the water does not change in ruling; its ruling does not change. Because this reasoning indicates that the issue is from the category of precaution, not from the category of certainty by which certainty is lifted. And we now have certainty, which is that the water is pure. This certainty cannot be lifted except by certainty; it is not lifted by doubt. So based on this, we say that the hadith does not indicate what I mentioned. Then, the hadith, if the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited the Muslim from dipping his hand before washing it three times, then the disbeliever is even more so, because the cause in the sleeping Muslim is the cause in the sleeping disbeliever. And regarding the fact that the address was not directed to disbelievers, we say that the correct view among you is that disbelievers are addressed by the branches of the Shari'ah. This is not a ruling of obligation; this is a ruling of establishment, because the water and its ruling change by it. Then we say that the discerning child is addressed by such things, even if he is not punished. So what if a discerning child comes, and his hand may be contaminated with impurity, and he may not clean himself and touches his private parts while sleeping? If he dips his hand in the water, it does not harm. The accountable person who guards himself is the one who causes harm. So it becomes clear that this view is weak in terms of evidence and reasoning. As for evidence, because the hadith does not indicate it in any way. And as for reasoning, because these conditions they mentioned are contradicted in some issues, where the water transitions from being purifying to being merely pure. If we accept that, it is more likely than the conditions they mentioned, such as the hand of the disbeliever and the hand of the child who has not reached discernment. What is the stronger opinion in this issue? If a person dips his hand in the vessel before washing it, the correct view is that it remains pure. But it is said to the person, "You have erred and not hit the mark," why? Because of the contradiction of the command of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), because of the contradiction of his command. If someone asks, "What is the wisdom in it not being permissible?" We say the wisdom: the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) reasoned it by his saying If he says, "If I put my hand in a bag, I know that it did not touch anything impure from my body. Then I may have slept while I was in a state of lawful cleaning, and there is nothing impure on my body. And let us suppose it touched the penis or the anus; does it become impure? It does not become impure. If I know where my hand spent the night, my hand spent the night with me in my bed, and it spent the night covered in a bag. And also my body is pure. So how is this interpretation correct?" The jurists (may Allah have mercy on them) said that the cause of the prohibition here is not known to us, so acting upon it is from the category of pure worship; it is an act of worship, we do not know. But this view contradicts the apparent meaning of the hadith. The apparent meaning of the hadith is that the issue is reasoned So how does this reasoning agree with the reality I mentioned, which is that the hand is preserved and the body is pure, and there is no danger? Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said that this reasoning is like the reasoning of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in his saying It is possible that this hand was tampered with by Satan and he brought to it things that are harmful to the person or contaminate the water and spoil it. For this reason, the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited the person from dipping his hand until he washes it three times. And what the Shaykh (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned is sound. Otherwise, if we returned to the tangible matter, the person would know where his hand spent the night. But the Sunnah explains some of it and clarifies some of it. And the summary of the position in this issue is that if the conditions mentioned by the jurists are met and he dips it in a small amount of water before washing it three times, then the water is pure but not purifying, or it is not pure but not purifying? And the correct view is that it is pure, but this man has sinned by contradicting the prohibition of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) where he dipped it before washing it three times. So we say that you have erred with this action, but the water is pure. And because of the weakness of this view, they said if a person does not find anything else, he uses it and then performs dry ablution. For example, a person who has no water except this water in which he dipped his hand; they say he uses it for ablution and then performs dry ablution as a precaution. He uses it as a precaution and then performs dry ablution as a precaution. So they obligated on him two purifications: the purification of dry ablution and the purification of the water. But where is this in the Book of Allah or in the Sunnah of His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) that we obligate on a man to perform ablution with water and perform dry ablution, so we obligate on him both purifications? This is not found in the Qur'an, nor in the Sunnah, nor in scholarly consensus, nor in correct reasoning. This is the opinion of the one who says either you use the water or you use the earth. As for combining them, or obligating on you two acts of worship, one of which is a substitute for the other, this is very far-fetched. But because of their feeling (may Allah have mercy on them) of the weakness of the view that the water transitions from being purifying to being merely pure, because of their feeling of this weakness, they said he uses the water and performs dry ablution. Just as they said in the issue before it, which is if a woman removed her state of ritual impurity with a small amount of water and the man did not find any water other than it, they said he uses it and then performs dry ablution. And this is also weak. And the correct view is that Allah has never obligated on His servants two acts of worship; either this or this.