Explanation of the author's statement: "… or if it is impure, he repeats it …"

The Shaykh : The author (may Allah have mercy on him) says: "Or if he prayed in a garment that is impure, he repeats it". If he prayed in a garment that is impure, he repeats it. By "impure garment" is meant an impurity that is not excused. If it is an impurity that is excused, there is no blame on him for praying in it, such as a small amount of blood. A small amount of impure blood is excused, except if it comes from the private parts, according to the stronger opinion, in which case it is not excused, as mentioned previously. The important point is that if he prayed in a garment that is impure with an impurity that is not excused, he must repeat the prayer. What is the evidence? We take the evidence from the condition of the purity of the garment. We have already mentioned the evidence for the condition of the purity of the garment, is that not so? Good. Abd al-Rahman?

The questioner : His saying, the Exalted: .

The Shaykh : According to one of the opinions, yes. His saying, the Exalted: According to one of the opinions, Isa?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Yes, three?

The questioner : When the boy urinated on his garment, he ordered water to be poured over it.

The Shaykh : One might say this was to remove the dirt?

The questioner : To remove the impurity from the garment.

The Shaykh : Yes, from the dirt. If it were mucus, a person would remove it.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Yes?

The questioner : … the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said … then pray in it.

The Shaykh : Then pray in it. Good, correct. The hadith of Ibn Abbas that one of them did not purify himself from urine, because this may include not purifying his garment. Also, the evidence is the Bedouin who urinated in the mosque; the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered that a bucket of water be poured over his urine. If the place of prayer, which is separate from the one praying, must be purified, then the garment, which is attached to the one praying, is even more so.
Good, these are several pieces of evidence. But if he prayed in an impure garment, the author says he repeats it. He repeats it absolutely, yes, absolutely, whether he was aware or unaware, or remembering or forgetting, or having the means or lacking them. Is that right? Six details, six details. Whether he was remembering or?

The questioner : ..

The Shaykh : No, or forgetting. Aware, having the means, or lacking them. Is that right? Good.
He prayed in an impure garment knowing about the impurity. His prayer is not valid, it is known, because he opposed the command of Allah and His Messenger, so he must repeat the prayer.
He prayed in a garment that was impure, but he did not know until he had prayed. When he finished the prayer, he found the impurity. We say: Repeat your prayer. The author says "he repeats it" and did not specify. Repeat your prayer because you neglected a condition of the prayer, and neglecting a condition is not forgiven. If the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said to the man who did not settle in his bowing: and he said: , then you must repeat it.
Impurity affected him and he prayed while remembering the impurity. Does he repeat it? Both garments were affected. Does he repeat it or not? He repeats it.
Impurity affected him and he forgot. He forgot that it had affected him, or he forgot to wash it, then he prayed. Does he repeat it? Yes, he repeats it.
Good, impurity affected his garment, and he had nothing to wash it with, and he had no other garment, and he prayed in it. Does he repeat it? Yes, he repeats it, according to the author's statement.
He has another garment, or he has water, but they said today it is cold … when will the garment dry if I wash it? I don't want to wash it, I will pray in it. Does he repeat it or not? He repeats it. Does he repeat it or not?
Good, he has another pure garment, but he said: I don't … from my garment in this cold. If he sees his skin, he gets the shivers. Yes, leave it and start praying. He prayed while having another garment. Is that right?

The questioner : He repeats it.

The Shaykh : He repeats it? He repeats it?

The questioner : Unanimously.

The Shaykh : According to the author's statement … in the author's statement, so now the cases are: aware, unaware, remembering, forgetting, having the means, and lacking the means. In all of them, he repeats it. This is what the author held, and his reasoning, as we mentioned before, is that some scholars said that if he was unaware, or forgetting, or lacking the means, he does not have to repeat it. If he was unaware, or forgetting, or lacking the means, he does not have to repeat it. They cited as evidence His saying, the Exalted: So Allah, the Exalted, said: "I have done it." This verse is general and is considered one of the greatest and most important principles of Islam. Who taught us this supplication? Allah, Mighty and Majestic, is the one who taught us this supplication and obligated upon Himself, Mighty and Majestic, to do so. He said: as that is authentic in the hadith narrated by Muslim.
So, this man who prayed in an impure garment and did not know about the impurity until after he finished: is he mistaken or not mistaken? He is mistaken. He is "mukhtai'" (mistaken), not "khati'" (errant). You must know the difference between "khati'" and "mukhtai'." If he knew about the impurity, we would say he is "khati'." But now he is "mukhtai'"; he did not know. We say this man does not have to repeat the prayer, according to this great principle which is considered a foundation in the Islamic religion. Is that right or not? Good.
So we say there is a specific evidence in this matter. When Jibril informed the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that there was something in his sandals, he took them off and continued his prayer. If an impure garment whose impurity is unknown invalidates the prayer, he would have repeated it from the beginning. This is a specific evidence.
Good, what about forgetting? We said the stronger opinion is that if he forgot, whether he forgot that there was impurity in it or forgot to wash it, the correct view is that he does not have to repeat it. What is the evidence? And another evidence by analogy in "the two Sahihs" from Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him). The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: Eating and drinking in fasting is a prohibited act, and praying in an impure garment is also a prohibited act. So when the ruling of forgetting was dropped in the chapter of fasting, we analogize the ruling of forgetting in the chapter of prayer to it. So, he does not have to repeat it. If someone says: "You obligated him to repeat it because the difference between him and the unaware person is apparent, because the unaware person did not know about the impurity at all, so he is excused, but the one who forgot was negligent and did not hasten to wash it, so he is not excused. So compel him to repeat it, even if he forgets to wash it today. Is that right or not?" He does not forget. He does not forget to wash it. So what is the answer if someone says this? It is said: "You must distinguish in the ruling between the unaware person and the one who forgot, because the one who forgot has a type of negligence, and what should have been done is to hasten to wash it. And this was from the way of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) to hasten to remove impurity. The one who urinated in the mosque, what did he say? So he ordered to hasten . And the boy who urinated in his lap, he called for water and poured it over it. And a person is exposed to forgetting, especially if he is one who forgets a lot. Why would he be negligent? So what is the answer to this cause which may prevent classifying the one who forgot with the unaware person? Yes, Shaker?

The questioner : ... .
Another questioner: Yes, yes, yes.

The questioner : We say what appears from … (peace and blessings be upon him) is that he was forgetting, as evidenced by the fact that he (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered the Companions that if one of them wanted to pray in his sandals, he should look to see if there was thorn or … And it is known that he (peace and blessings be upon him) does not order something unless it will happen or … So if he looks, the ignorance is gone, and only forgetting remains.

The Shaykh : No, what appears from the hadith is that he (peace and blessings be upon him) was unaware that there was something in them, because he said: and he did not say "remind me." Yes?
Another questioner: I say that when he was forgetting and meant that he forgot to wash it, he became unaware of his state. And the difference between him and the first unaware person is that this one is unaware of the ruling, and the other is unaware of his state.

The Shaykh : No, he is not unaware of his state.

The questioner : The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) forgot.

The Shaykh : The one who is unaware of his state is the one who does not know about the impurity. This is unawareness of the state. And the one who is unaware of the ruling is the one who does not know that the impurity must be removed.
Another questioner: Yes, when he forgot to wash it, it became unawareness of the state.

The Shaykh : It does not become unawareness of the state. And stay away from you, philosophers, these will hit you on the head. The difference between ignorance and forgetting is great. Forgetting is the heart's distraction from a known thing. How can you say he is unaware? Yes, Ibrahim?
Another questioner: It might be said this is an analogy …

The Shaykh : No, it is not an analogy.

The questioner : I mean, this is a reasoning against a text.

The Shaykh : He says if the text was exactly like this, I would not have said anything.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : These general rulings can be specified. In my view, and Allah knows best, the answer to this is that the Prophet's (peace and blessings be upon him) action in this matter was on the basis of recommendation, not obligation. This is because Allah the Exalted did not make wudu' obligatory, which is greater than removing impurity, except when standing up for prayer . So if a person becomes in a state of ritual impurity an hour before prayer, he is not required to perform wudu', even though there is a possibility that he will stand up to pray and forget that he became impure or that he had performed wudu' for the impurity. If that is the case, the difficulty is resolved. The closest to me in responding to this strong objection is to say that the Prophet's (peace and blessings be upon him) action was on the basis of recommendation and desirability in hastening to remove impurity, not on the basis of obligation. We say this with the evidence that Allah did not make purity from ritual impurity obligatory for us, which is stronger and more emphatic than purity from physical impurity, except when standing up for prayer.
Now, what... in this chapter... we will complete this and give you... six minutes, if Allah wills, yes?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Now, what remains for us? "Finding" If he is lacking and has only this impure garment, we have mentioned that the author's wording indicates that he?

The questioner : Repeats it.

The Shaykh : He prays with it and repeats it. There are three opinions in this issue: the first is that he prays with it and repeats it; the second is that he prays naked; and the third is that he prays and does not repeat it. Those who said that he prays and repeats it said that he prays covering his 'awrah because covering is obligatory, and he repeats it because he is carrying impurity with this garment, carrying impurity while praying with this garment, so he must repeat it, and he must cover himself because this garment covers the 'awrah.
And those who said he prays without... naked and does not repeat it said that this garment is not permissible to wear in prayer, and the fact that he is compelled to do so does not justify him carrying it while it is impure, so he must take it off and pray naked.
As for those who said that he prays in it without repeating it, they said that covering is obligatory, and that carrying the impure thing in this case is due to dire necessity, because he has nothing with which to remove this impurity and nothing to replace this garment, so he is compelled to wear it and compelled to wear impurity. And Allah the Exalted said . It is known that if you look at this opinion and ask, do we compel this person to pray in impurity and draw near to Allah with his garment stained with impurity, and then say this prayer is not accepted and he must repeat it? If we oblige him to pray twice, a rejected prayer and an accepted prayer, it may be ten years later, Allah knows best. The point is that this is an opinion that if a person considers it, he knows it is far-fetched.
Or do we say he is compelled to take off his garment and pray naked? This is uglier, for the image of a naked man before Allah Mighty and Majestic is uglier than being a carrier of an impure garment out of dire necessity. Yes, and Allah the Exalted is more worthy of being shy before Him.
The third possibility remains for us: that we compel this man to the impure garment for the sake of covering the 'awrah and drop the ruling of repeating the prayer from him, because Allah does not oblige His servants to perform worship twice, ever. This is the strongest of the opinions: that if he finds an impure garment and finds no other and it is not possible to wash it, he prays in it and there is no repetition required of him.
Then the author said "not from one who is detained". We will leave it for the next lesson.

The questioner : Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Yes?