Explanation of the author's statement: "And it is permissible to assist him and to dry his limbs."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He said "And it is permissible to assist him and to dry his limbs". "It is permissible to assist him" means assisting the one performing wudu by bringing water to him, or even by pouring it on him while he is performing wudu. What is the evidence for its permissibility? We say that the opinion of permissibility does not require evidence, because that is the original ruling. However, we also say that the evidence is that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) used to be assisted in wudu, such as the assistance of al-Mughirah ibn Shu'bah to him, where the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) would perform wudu and al-Mughirah would pour water on him. If you ask, "Is this not prescribed and a recommended practice, since it falls under the category of cooperating in righteousness and piety, meaning that you do not limit it to mere permissibility?" The answer is that we say: It is undoubtedly from the category of cooperating in righteousness and piety, but this is an act of worship that a person should perform himself. It is not reported from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that whenever he wanted to perform wudu, he would ask someone to assist him. Therefore, permissibility is the balanced position. Some scholars said that assisting the one performing wudu is disliked unless there is a need for it. They reasoned this by saying that it is an act of worship and a person should not seek the help of others for it. But the correct view of the school of thought is that it is permissible. He said "And to dry his limbs". Drying them means making them dry. The evidence? The evidence is the absence of evidence. How is the absence of evidence the evidence? If someone asks you for evidence, do you say the evidence is the absence of evidence? Yes, the evidence for the prohibition is that the original ruling is permissibility, so it is permissible for a person to dry his limbs. If you ask, "How do you respond to the hadith of Maymunah, where she mentioned that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) performed ghusl, and she said, 'I brought him a towel, but he turned it away and began to shake the water off with his hand'?"
The questioner : A cloth, not a towel.
The Shaykh : With the towel.
The questioner : We answer this by saying that it was either due to a reason regarding the towel, such as its lack of cleanliness, or because he preferred in that situation to shake his limbs with water. Is this just an action?
The Shaykh : We say yes, this is a specific case that allows for several possibilities. It was either due to a reason regarding the towel, such as its lack of cleanliness, or he feared that wetting it with water was not appropriate, or something similar. The point is that there are possibilities. However, her bringing the towel to him may be evidence that it was his custom to dry himself, otherwise she would not have brought it. In any case, the correct view is what the author said: that drying the limbs is permissible, because the original ruling is the absence of prohibition and permissibility. We have passed through several times that the original ruling for matters other than acts of worship, such as contracts and actions, is permissibility and lawfulness, until evidence of prohibition is established.
The questioner : A cloth, not a towel.
The Shaykh : With the towel.
The questioner : We answer this by saying that it was either due to a reason regarding the towel, such as its lack of cleanliness, or because he preferred in that situation to shake his limbs with water. Is this just an action?
The Shaykh : We say yes, this is a specific case that allows for several possibilities. It was either due to a reason regarding the towel, such as its lack of cleanliness, or he feared that wetting it with water was not appropriate, or something similar. The point is that there are possibilities. However, her bringing the towel to him may be evidence that it was his custom to dry himself, otherwise she would not have brought it. In any case, the correct view is what the author said: that drying the limbs is permissible, because the original ruling is the absence of prohibition and permissibility. We have passed through several times that the original ruling for matters other than acts of worship, such as contracts and actions, is permissibility and lawfulness, until evidence of prohibition is established.