Explanation of the author's statement: "A splint that does not exceed the extent of the need, even in major ritual impurity."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : The author said "and on a splint". Is a splint (jibirah) a passive participle (ma'fulah) or an active participle (fa'ilah)?
The questioner : An active participle.
The Shaykh : What is a splint, so that we know whether it is an active or passive participle? A splint is sticks placed on a fracture and then tied to it so that the fracture aligns. This is the splint, and its modern equivalent is plaster. If this is the splint, is it a splint in the sense of "that which sets" (jabirah) or "that which is set" (mujburah)?
The questioner : That which sets.
The Shaykh : In the sense of "that which sets." Since we apply this term to the sticks, whereas "jibir" for the broken person is a passive participle, meaning "one who is set." The broken person is called a "jibir" by way of optimism, just as they call a bitten person "safe" (salim). Yes, they call the bitten person "safe" even though it is not known whether he will be safe or not. The barren land where there is no one, no water, and nothing is called a "mufazah" (desert). A person who wants to win land with no water, no vegetation, and nothing—this is a place of defeat, not a place of victory, but they call it a "mufazah" by way of optimism. Now, "on a splint", but it has conditions: "that it does not exceed the extent of the need". This is one of the conditions: that it does not exceed the extent of the need. "Exceed" means "transgress." So what is the need? The need is the fracture and whatever is near it that is required for binding it, not just the fracture alone. The fracture alone cannot be set. For example, if it is possible to make the sticks one shibr (span) long—I do not know if my two hands are one shibr long or not—it is possible to make them one shibr and a bit.
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : Why? Because it is in excess of the place of need. If it is possible to make it four fingers wide, meaning it can be tied and secured with four fingers, it is possible to make it five.
The questioner : No, no.
The Shaykh : It is not possible, it is not possible. Now, is it obligatory that we take thin bindings, or is it permissible even with thick bindings? We look: if we need the thick ones, we tie with them; if we do not need them, we take the thin ones. And on this basis, how do we interpret the need? It is the site of the fracture and whatever is near it that is required for binding. If there is a fracture in the finger, but we need to tie the whole palm so that the hand rests, is this a need? Yes, it is a need. We do not say, "There is a fracture in the finger, so tie only the finger." Since we need to bind this fracture, every need is [covered]. The second condition states: "that it does not exceed the extent of the need." "Even in major ritual impurity". The "even" (law) here indicates a refutation of a suspicion. It is a refutation of a suspicion, because earlier he said "in minor ritual impurity." If he had not said "even in major ritual impurity," we would have thought that wiping over it is not permissible except in minor ritual impurity. But it is permissible to wipe over it in both major and minor ritual impurity. The difference, first, is the evidence. The evidence is the hadith of the man with the head wound, on the view that it is a hadith that establishes the argument and is good (hasan). The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said:Sunan Abi Dawud 336 This is in the case of major ritual impurity, because the man was in a state of major ritual impurity. The reasoning is that wiping over a splint is a matter of dire necessity, and there is no difference in dire necessity between minor and major ritual impurity. This is unlike wiping over leather socks, which is a dispensation. The splint is weak, but some of its evidence supports other parts, and it is a splint whose evidence is set; some of it supports other parts. Also, it is possible to analogize it, even from a distance, to wiping over leather socks. We say that this is a limb covered by what is permissible to wear according to the Shari'ah, so its obligation is what? Wiping. Its obligation is wiping. But this analogy has some weakness, because wiping over leather socks is a dispensation and is time-bound, whereas this is the default ruling and is not time-bound. Wiping over leather socks is done in minor ritual impurity, whereas this is done in minor and major ritual impurity. Wiping over [leather socks] is done on most of the outer part of the foot, whereas this is done on the entire [limb]. Yes, so there is some consideration in the analogy. But from the principle, which is that this limb, which is obligatory to wash, is covered by what is permissible to cover it with according to the Shari'ah, wiping over it is permissible, just as with leather socks. And because wiping was mentioned as an act of worship in general, when we are unable to wash, we move to it as another stage. This is the position of the majority of scholars. Some scholars said that there is no wiping over a splint because its hadiths are weak, and they did not see that some of the evidence supports other parts, and they did not see the analogy, such as Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him). Ibn Hazm does not see wiping over it. Then those who said that wiping over it is not permissible differed: does the washing fall away without a substitute, or does it fall away to a substitute, which is dry ablution (tayammum)? That is, one performs ablution, washes what he is able to wash of the limbs of purity, and performs dry ablution for the place where the splint is.
The questioner : An active participle.
The Shaykh : What is a splint, so that we know whether it is an active or passive participle? A splint is sticks placed on a fracture and then tied to it so that the fracture aligns. This is the splint, and its modern equivalent is plaster. If this is the splint, is it a splint in the sense of "that which sets" (jabirah) or "that which is set" (mujburah)?
The questioner : That which sets.
The Shaykh : In the sense of "that which sets." Since we apply this term to the sticks, whereas "jibir" for the broken person is a passive participle, meaning "one who is set." The broken person is called a "jibir" by way of optimism, just as they call a bitten person "safe" (salim). Yes, they call the bitten person "safe" even though it is not known whether he will be safe or not. The barren land where there is no one, no water, and nothing is called a "mufazah" (desert). A person who wants to win land with no water, no vegetation, and nothing—this is a place of defeat, not a place of victory, but they call it a "mufazah" by way of optimism. Now, "on a splint", but it has conditions: "that it does not exceed the extent of the need". This is one of the conditions: that it does not exceed the extent of the need. "Exceed" means "transgress." So what is the need? The need is the fracture and whatever is near it that is required for binding it, not just the fracture alone. The fracture alone cannot be set. For example, if it is possible to make the sticks one shibr (span) long—I do not know if my two hands are one shibr long or not—it is possible to make them one shibr and a bit.
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : Why? Because it is in excess of the place of need. If it is possible to make it four fingers wide, meaning it can be tied and secured with four fingers, it is possible to make it five.
The questioner : No, no.
The Shaykh : It is not possible, it is not possible. Now, is it obligatory that we take thin bindings, or is it permissible even with thick bindings? We look: if we need the thick ones, we tie with them; if we do not need them, we take the thin ones. And on this basis, how do we interpret the need? It is the site of the fracture and whatever is near it that is required for binding. If there is a fracture in the finger, but we need to tie the whole palm so that the hand rests, is this a need? Yes, it is a need. We do not say, "There is a fracture in the finger, so tie only the finger." Since we need to bind this fracture, every need is [covered]. The second condition states: "that it does not exceed the extent of the need." "Even in major ritual impurity". The "even" (law) here indicates a refutation of a suspicion. It is a refutation of a suspicion, because earlier he said "in minor ritual impurity." If he had not said "even in major ritual impurity," we would have thought that wiping over it is not permissible except in minor ritual impurity. But it is permissible to wipe over it in both major and minor ritual impurity. The difference, first, is the evidence. The evidence is the hadith of the man with the head wound, on the view that it is a hadith that establishes the argument and is good (hasan). The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: