Explanation of the author's statement: "He should use stones, then perform istinja' with water, and using stones is sufficient for him if the excreted matter does not spread beyond the usual place."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : ... not as it is in the text I have, which is more correct, meaning: he should use stones, then perform istinja' with water. Using stones is with stones or whatever substitutes for them, and istinja' is with water. The author says: he should use stones, then perform istinja' with water, and this is obligatory. That is why he said: "and using stones is sufficient for him." When a person relieves himself, he is in one of three states: either he purifies himself with water, or he purifies himself with stones, or he purifies himself with stones and then water. Which is more complete in purity? The latter: using stones and then performing istinja' with water. However, if he limits himself to stones, which is using stones, it is permissible with the following conditions, if Allah wills. And if he performs istinja' with water, it is permissible according to the stronger opinion, even though there is an old disagreement from some of the Salaf who disliked istinja' and said, "How can I dirty my hand with this stench and filth?" But the correct view is that it is permissible, and scholarly consensus was established afterwards that it is permissible to limit oneself to water. The evidence for this is the statement of Anas ibn Malik (may Allah be pleased with him) He performs istinja' with water. Similarly, the hadith of al-Mughirah ibn Shu'bah. This is evidence for the permissibility of limiting oneself to istinja' with water. As for the reasoning, it is apparent, because the original means of removing impurities is water. Just as you remove impurity from your foot, or from a part of your body, or from your clothes, or from the ground, you remove it with water, so likewise you remove it with water if it is from what comes out of you. So there is evidence in this, and there is reasoning. As for using stones, they are also sufficient, and one may limit oneself to them, because that is established by the statement of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and his action. The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) used to use stones without water, as in the hadith of Ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him) And in a narration, he said: This indicates the permissibility of limiting oneself to using stones. As for the evidence from his statement, it is the hadith of Salman al-Farisi (may Allah be pleased with him), who said: This is evidence that stones are sufficient. As for combining them, I do not know it to be reported from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), but in terms of meaning, there is no doubt that it is more complete, much more complete... And Allah knows best. Write this down. He says: "He should use stones, then perform istinja' with water, and using stones is sufficient for him if the excreted matter does not spread beyond the usual place". "Using stones is sufficient for him" means sufficient instead of water. Using stones is sufficient instead of water. So the author (may Allah have mercy on him) has informed us that using stones is sufficient, and the action of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and the statement of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) indicate this. As for the action of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), it is as in the hadith of Ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him) This indicates that using stones is sufficient. Similarly, the hadith of Abu Hurayrah, where he gathered stones for the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and brought them in his garment, placed them near him, and then left, and this is in Sahih al-Bukhari. It is also evidence that using stones is sufficient. The hadith of Salman al-Farisi (may Allah be pleased with him) also indicates this, and in it, the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade us from performing istinja' with less than three stones. This is his statement. So the sufficiency of using stones is established by the statement of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and his action. This indicates the statement of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) that if impurity is removed by any remover, the place becomes pure. We have mentioned this before at the statement of the author, at the statement of the author, O my memorizer, in the text of al-Zad: "It does not remove the state of ritual impurity, nor does it remove the accidental impurity except it".
The questioner : This water.
The Shaykh : This water. Yes, this water. He says: it does not remove it, it does not remove the impurity, this is other than water. And we mentioned there, we told you that they say in tayammum that it is a permission, not a remover. And likewise in using stones, they say it is a permission, not a remover. I hope and repeat: do not forget what has passed... In any case, this supports the statement of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) that if the impurity is removed by any remover, the place becomes pure. And his statement is closer to the transmitted and rational evidence than the statement of those who say that nothing removes impurity except pure water. Using stones is sufficient. The author stipulated conditions for using stones. He said: "If the excreted matter does not spread beyond the usual place. The usual place" means the place where it is customary for urine to spread from the head of the penis, and for feces to spread from inside the thighs, the two plates on the ring of the anus. This is the usual place. If it spreads, if it goes beyond the usual place, it is not sufficient except with water. Using stones is not sufficient. Did you understand? What is the evidence for this condition? They say there is no evidence, but there is reasoning. It is that using stones has gone beyond what is obligatory of removing impurity with water, so it is outside the rule. And what is outside the rule, one limits it to what is customary. Do you understand? It is said: what has gone beyond the custom and spread to an additional place, this is where using stones is not applied. Using stones is only applied to what is known and customary. Why? Because the original means of removing impurity is water. It is limited to using stones in what is customary because that is the apparent case. And what goes beyond the custom, it is not sufficient except with water. Did you understand? It is clear now. I repeat the reasoning for the second time. They say: because limiting oneself to stones and the like in removing urine or feces has gone beyond its counterparts. No, it has gone beyond its counterparts. If it has gone beyond its counterparts, it must be limited to what is customary. So what exceeds the custom, the original means of removal is what? Water. The original means of removal is water. Good. If someone said: if it goes beyond the usual place by a lot, it is true that it is not sufficient except with water. For example, if urine splashes on his thigh, or on his shin, or on his knee, it is apparent that water is necessary in it, because it is not the place of excretion nor close to it. And as for what is close, it is excused. And what is close, it is excused. And perhaps this does not contradict the words of the jurists. Good. If we say that the condition is that it does not go beyond the usual place, if it goes beyond the usual place, do we say that each place has its ruling? Meaning, do we say that what has not gone beyond the usual place, using stones is sufficient in it, and what goes beyond it, water is necessary? This is the apparent statement of them. And some of the scholars, some of the companions, the companions of Imam Ahmad, said: if it goes beyond the usual place, it is not sufficient in the whole except with water. The difference between the two opinions is clear. Those who say if it goes beyond the usual place, it is not sufficient except with water, say: because when the condition is not fulfilled, the whole is defective. And those who say that only what exceeds the custom needs water, and what is on the usual place, using stones is sufficient for it, say: the ruling revolves with its cause. So what exceeds the usual place is washed, and what is on the usual place, using stones is sufficient in it.
The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) used to relieve himself, and I and a boy of my age would go with a water skin and a date, and he would perform istinja' with water.
كان النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يقضي حاجته فأنطلق أنا وغلام نحوي بإداوة من ماء وعنبة فيستنجي بالماءThat the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) went to relieve himself and asked Ibn Mas'ud to bring him stones, so he brought him two stones and a dung, and he took the two stones and left the dung and said: this is impure or unclean.
أن الرسول عليه الصلاة والسلام ذهب يقضي حاجته وطلب من ابن مسعود أن يأتيه بأحجار فأتاه بحجرين وروثة فأخذ الحجرين وترك الروثة وقال هذه رجس أو نجسBring me something else
ائتني بغيرهاThe Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade us from using less than three stones for cleaning ourselves after relieving ourselves, or from using less than three stones for cleaning ourselves after relieving ourselves.
نهانا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أن نستجمر بأقل من ثلاثة أحجار أو أن نستنجي بأقل من ثلاثة أحجارThat the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) went to the place of relief and ordered him to bring three stones. He found two stones but did not find the third, so he took a piece of dung and went with it to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). He took the two stones and threw away the dung, saying, "It is impurity, it is impurity."
أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أتى الغائط وأمره أن يأتي بثلاثة أحجار فوجد حجرين ولم يجد الثالث فأخذ روثة فذهب بها إلى الرسول عليه الصلاة والسلام فأخذ الحجرين وألقى الروثة وقال إنها رجس إنها رجسThe questioner : This water.
The Shaykh : This water. Yes, this water. He says: it does not remove it, it does not remove the impurity, this is other than water. And we mentioned there, we told you that they say in tayammum that it is a permission, not a remover. And likewise in using stones, they say it is a permission, not a remover. I hope and repeat: do not forget what has passed... In any case, this supports the statement of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) that if the impurity is removed by any remover, the place becomes pure. And his statement is closer to the transmitted and rational evidence than the statement of those who say that nothing removes impurity except pure water. Using stones is sufficient. The author stipulated conditions for using stones. He said: "If the excreted matter does not spread beyond the usual place. The usual place" means the place where it is customary for urine to spread from the head of the penis, and for feces to spread from inside the thighs, the two plates on the ring of the anus. This is the usual place. If it spreads, if it goes beyond the usual place, it is not sufficient except with water. Using stones is not sufficient. Did you understand? What is the evidence for this condition? They say there is no evidence, but there is reasoning. It is that using stones has gone beyond what is obligatory of removing impurity with water, so it is outside the rule. And what is outside the rule, one limits it to what is customary. Do you understand? It is said: what has gone beyond the custom and spread to an additional place, this is where using stones is not applied. Using stones is only applied to what is known and customary. Why? Because the original means of removing impurity is water. It is limited to using stones in what is customary because that is the apparent case. And what goes beyond the custom, it is not sufficient except with water. Did you understand? It is clear now. I repeat the reasoning for the second time. They say: because limiting oneself to stones and the like in removing urine or feces has gone beyond its counterparts. No, it has gone beyond its counterparts. If it has gone beyond its counterparts, it must be limited to what is customary. So what exceeds the custom, the original means of removal is what? Water. The original means of removal is water. Good. If someone said: if it goes beyond the usual place by a lot, it is true that it is not sufficient except with water. For example, if urine splashes on his thigh, or on his shin, or on his knee, it is apparent that water is necessary in it, because it is not the place of excretion nor close to it. And as for what is close, it is excused. And what is close, it is excused. And perhaps this does not contradict the words of the jurists. Good. If we say that the condition is that it does not go beyond the usual place, if it goes beyond the usual place, do we say that each place has its ruling? Meaning, do we say that what has not gone beyond the usual place, using stones is sufficient in it, and what goes beyond it, water is necessary? This is the apparent statement of them. And some of the scholars, some of the companions, the companions of Imam Ahmad, said: if it goes beyond the usual place, it is not sufficient in the whole except with water. The difference between the two opinions is clear. Those who say if it goes beyond the usual place, it is not sufficient except with water, say: because when the condition is not fulfilled, the whole is defective. And those who say that only what exceeds the custom needs water, and what is on the usual place, using stones is sufficient for it, say: the ruling revolves with its cause. So what exceeds the usual place is washed, and what is on the usual place, using stones is sufficient in it.