A Reminder For The Sisters

Shaykh Saalih Al Fawzaan (hafidahullaah) said:

“It is upon the woman who fears Allaah and the hereafter to stay away from what many of the women are doing today such as being lackadaisical with the hijab and easy-going with wearing decorative garments when going outside and being lax with using perfume when going out of the house and intermingling with men and joking with them.

Allaah, The Most High, said to His Prophet’s wives:

“Then do not be soft in speech, lest he in whose heart there is a disease (of fornication) should be moved with desire. But rather speak in an honorable manner.” (Surah Ahzaab: 32)

If a woman has a need to speak to a man that is not one of her mahaarim, she may speak to him, but with a casual tone that has no softness or gentleness in it, and not in a joking or laughing manner.

Rather her speech must be ordinary and in accordance with what necessity dictates a question and an answer  as per the need only.

She must not speak in a tone that appears friendly, laughing or teasing, or in a mellow or beautiful voice, thus stirring the desire of the one who has a disease in his heart. This is based on Allaah’s saying:

“But rather speak in an honorable manner.” (Surah Ahzaab: 32)

So the Muslim women of today must fear Allaah with respect to themselves and their societies.”

Four Essays On The Obligation Of Veiling, Chapter: Advice To Muslim Women, p. 72

From The Signs That A Slave (Of Allaah) Is Blessed

Imaam Ash-Shaatibee said:

From the signs that a slave (of Allaah) is blessed:

1. It is easy for him to perform acts of obedience

2. His actions coincide with the Sunnah

3. His companions are the righteous people

4. He has good manners towards his brothers (in Islaam) 2) 5. He is generous towards the creation (of Allaah) 

6. He has concern and is devoted to the Muslims 

7. He spends his time wisely

[Al-I’tisaam, 2/152]

The Evil Of The Homosexual

Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jowziyyah رحمه الله تعالى said: 

“Both of them – fornication and homosexuality – involve immorality that goes against the wisdom of Allaah’s creation and commandment. For homosexuality involves innumerable evil and harms, and the one to whom it is done would be better off being killed than having this done to him, because after that he will become so evil and so corrupt that there can be no hope of his being reformed, and all good is lost for him, and he will no longer feel any shame before Allaah or before His creation. The semen of the one who did that to him will act as a poison on his body and soul. The scholars differed as to whether the one to whom it is done will ever enter Paradise. There are two opinions which I heard Shaykh al-Islam (may Allaah have mercy on him) narrate.” 

(al-Jawaab al-Kaafi, p. 115).

The Husband Must Provide For His Wife

Shaykh Sālih Al-Fawzān حفظه الله said:

"The husband is entitled to prevent his wife from being hired or employed, as he is supposed to provide for her to meet all her needs. This is also because being hired or employed makes the wife too busy to fully observe her husband's rights or to look after her children. Work may also expose the wife to immoral situations, especially nowadays, when decency and modesty have become rare whereas the callers to evil and immorality have increased. And women nowadays mingle with men in offices and workplaces involving seclusion, so the danger is great and staying away from such places is obligatory without a shadow of a doubt."

A Rudimentary Discourse Proving Anwar’s Ignorance In Differentiating Between A Donkey And A Horse

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira is the statement of Allah’s Messenger -sallahu alayhi wa sallam: “Sufficient for a man to be lying is that he narrates everything he hears.” 

Imam An-Nawawi said: Lying is that a person states what opposes the factual (i.e. reality), hence he says such and such occurred yet he is lying. Or he says so and so said whilst he is a liar. Thus it is the declaring/stating of that which opposes the factual. [رياض الصالحين]

Sheikh Muhammad ibn Saalih Al Uthaymin said: Included in lying is the lying as it pertains to discourse among the people, circulating between the people. So he -the liar- says “I said to so and so this” yet he did not say it. Or he says “So and so said this” yet he did not say it. He says “So and so came” but he did not come. This (type of lying) is also prohibited and is a sign of hypocrisy, just as the Prophet -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- said: “The sign of the hypocrite are three. Whenever he speaks he lies…” til he eventually said “…Thus a person is prohibited from speaking in two circumstances. The first being that he -the speaker- knows the -factual- situation contradicts what he is saying, the second is that he speaks in a matter of which he has no knowledge. All of this is prohibited. [شرح رياض الصالحين]

This is a very important reminder in light of a recent tweet of Anwar Wright wherein lying is utilized in order to legitimize a fraudulent criticism against several Salafis. The dishonesty on his part is that which causes some -including myself- to have a low opinion of him due to the blatant and brazen contradiction of his speech with reality. His speech is as follows:

“I’m amazed at a people who are vocal about Salafis and promote the Sa’fiqah agenda, but they were booted from a whatsapp group because of defending Shadeed saying ‘he’s erred, but we cannot take him out of Salafiyyah’! Jokes!”

This is a clear twisting of what is factual on Anwar’s part, but unfortunately there will be some that have a bigoted love for him consequently making it impossible for them to accept that. Thus there are two other possibilities that could exonerate him from the previously mentioned crime. 

1. He did not see the entire discussion, on the contrary someone showed him selected comments that consisted of the possible meaning to which he understands.
2. Just as the shameless cheerleader behind Al-Minhaj Magazine’s twitter account Anwar also must have been given too much credit in the intelligence department due to him being unable to differentiate between a defense of someone, and a caution from others exceeding limits as it pertains to passing rulings on people, specifically the ruling of tabdi. The language and usage of speech distinguishing one from the other is explicitly clear, making the one unable to discern one from the other being equivalent to one eating a yellow peeled fruit that’s as bitter as can be, yet calls it an orange when in reality it’s a lemon. Or on the level of a person that has two animals in front of him but cannot distinguish the horse from the donkey.

As for the first possibility it is less probable due to Anwar’s statement in another tweet: “Long arguments in this group about not making Tabdee’ of Shadeed, but when one clearly makes Tabdee’ on shaykh Abdullah…crickets!” The discussion in the group about Shadeed was long, and I imagine he took the time to read the comments, yet he utilizes sensationalism in order to trick the people into believing what did not occur. There was not a defense of Shadeed on the contrary there was a cautioning from going beyond bounds as relates to Shadeed by passing rulings against him no scholar before them have passed. Simple. Thus Anwar is either a shameless liar, or the biggest buffoon involved in dawah today for not being able to distinguish between the two (which is highly unlikely), and Allah knows best. 

The following is a question and its answer that sparked the conversation Anwar refers to in his tweet. The very inception of this conversation depicts the illegitimate assessment of Anwar and further indicates that he is either a shameless liar, or the biggest buffoon involved in Dawah today.

Questioner: I am aware of all his mistakes and I do not defend him in any of them, and I warn from him the same way you do, but my only question here is, are we qualified to precede the ulama in tabdee in this situation on an individual who’s salafiyyah was established?

Ilyaas Aidarus Al-Kanadi: So, then students are able to remove people from salafiyyah without referring back to the people of knowledge? I don’t believe anyone differs on how false his statements are and how they are -I believe Ilyaas meant to put “not” here- aligned with the manhaj of the Salaf, however mentioning his errors that we all are in agreement on, does not answer the question.

The question is do students and laymen have the right to remove someone from salafiyyah without referring back to the scholars?

Me (Najeeb Al Anjelesi): The answer is no. Plain and simple. That’s a new precedent I’ve never heard from people of knowledge and Allah knows best.

Ilyaas Aidarus Al-Kanadi: Refuting the errors and warning against him is one thing. Making rulings and removing him from Salafiyyah without going back to scholars is another. The two matters are very different. 

The inception of this conversation illustrates the position of the admin of this Whatsapp group as this sentiment was recurring throughout this lengthy discussion. Thus the following understanding is extracted from the previously cited speech:

1. Acknowledgement of the mistakes, errors, and misguidance of Shadeed.
2. Cautioning against preceding the scholars in passing a ruling of tabdee, that being a stark contrast to defending Shadeed as Anwar ignorantly alleged.
3. A distinction between refuting and warning against Shadeed and from declaring him to be an innovator (by students and laymen).

Therefore how can it be alleged that there was a defense of Shadeed in light of what was previously mentioned? How was he defended? Which mistakes of his were defended? Who defended him? Indeed this is a tremendous lie invented by the pitiful one Anwar that emphasizes the fact that he is willing to lie viciously in order to discourage the people from aiding and assisting those to which he harbors animosity. If this is not the case then he would have to be the biggest buffoon in dawah for his inability to distinguish between a defense and what was previously highlighted.

Sheikh Rabee said: “Lying is worse than innovation [in the religion], O brothers, and a liar is considered worse than an innovator by the People of Sunnah; an innovator [may] be narrated from-[The people of Sunnah] narrated from [some of] the Qadariyyah [sect], they narrated from the Murj’iah, and they nrrated from other than them from the different kinds of people of innovation, so long as the innovation did not fall into disbelief and the [narrator] was not a liar. If a liar were to say he was with the People of Sunnah, he would be considered by them to be of a lower level than the People of Innovation…” (1)  

The following are some statements of the admin throughout the discussion to which Anwar references that clearly shows the stance of the admin and how it dramatically differs with the fabrication invented by Anwar and spread to the masses. They are as follows:

1: Do Not Proceed The Scholars 

Ilyaas Aidarus Al-Kanadi -at one point in the discussion- said: And from my knowledge, there have been those who scholars saw doing worse than what Shadeed is doing and they did not make tabdee of them, rather they warned against their mistakes until the hujjah was established. Haajooree didn’t have CLEAR mistakes for years before tabdee was made of him? Halabi? Mashoor? Ma’ribi? Abdulrahman Abdulkhaliq? They did and they were CLEAR. Yet, which students went around preceding the scholars and making tabdee of them? This was left for the scholars. If you open this door for laymen, you will only see atrocities take place. Each one thinking he is qualified since the affair is “clear.”

He -Ilyaas- also said: What leniency is there in returning the affair back to scholars for a ruling on him instead of opening the door for anyone to enter into this field like this?

Abu Yusuf Khaleefah -at one point in the discussion- said: Tabdee is not for us, nor is Takfir.

He also said: Passing a ruling is for the people of knowledge.

Hisham Abouzeid -at one point in the conversation- said: I agree with this. It is unacceptable for students of knowledge to cross their limits and precede the scholars in this matter. And let there be no confusion regarding my stance on Shadeed I view him to be misguided and hold many of his positions to be deviant. However, to make tabdee is a different level.

I -myself- said during the course of the discussion: Sheikh Ubayd speaking against him is not the issue, the sheikh criticized him for something worse than what he’s being criticized for now, that being the Salafiyyah is not a card that will get you into jannah, yet with that he said “I fear he’s an Ikhwaani” which is not tabdee. 

And many more statements of this nature recurring throughout the discourse that indicate the discouragement from preceding the scholars in matters of this nature. We stop where they stopped and say what they said. Also therein are clear statements acknowledging the mistakes of Shadeed with no excuses being made for him, thus where is the defense? 

2: Acknowledgement Of Shadeed’s Mistakes

Abu Yusuf Khaleefah -during the discourse- said: Are the statements of Shadeed misguidance? Yes.

He also said throughout the discourse: Refuting errors and misguidance is a must.

Ilyaas Aidarus said: His misguidance is clear.

HishamAbouzeid -during the discourse- said: If anyone wants to benefit us with highlighting more of Shadeed’s errors and refuting them through text, then please do so. I bear witness that this forum is open for accepting the truth irrespective of who it is for or who it is against.

And the statements in this regard are plentiful none of which has therein a defense or excuse being made for Shadeed’s errors.

3: Encouragement To Contact The Scholars

I-myself- said throughout the discourse: My advice, for the brothers who are in Saudi now, compile Shadeed’s statements and take it to one of the scholars but don’t precede them.

I also said: Thus my advice, for all the 966 country code holders, compile Shadeed’s statements and take it to the closest aalim for a definitive ruling, but don’t set an evil precedent by preceding them in a right that’s due to them.

Ilyaas Aidarus -at one point- said: But to say since it’s clear to us that he is upon falsehood, khalaas, we take him out? And if we say go back to the scholars for that then (the claim made against us) we are being lenient?

Khalil Davis -at one point- said: As Salaamu alaykum. Baarakallahu feekum brothers. I think the above advice from our brother Najeeb should suffice. Those who are now in Saudi compile his statements and take them to one of the scholars. I think too much time texting is being wasted along with time talking about Shadeed. Don’t dignify him by wasting all your precious words on him…

We clearly see that there is no defense of Shadeed, truthfully what we see is a cautioning from delving into matters that are not the place of small  students of knowledge (like found here in the states) nor laymen. Sheikh Ahmad An-Najmi was asked: What are the guidelines as it relates to innovation, and when is it permissible for me to describe a person with it? He replied: “First, innovation is the introducing into the religion that which is not from it -til he eventually said- second, describing (others) with innovation and boycotting the innovator that is to whom the scholars have declared to be an innovator. So do not be hasty o you small students in passing rulings upon an individual -even though he may have innovation with him- until you present his case to the scholars, and they assist you in that affair. Outside of that do not indulge in anything regarding it (thataffair).” [الفتاوى الجلية]

Thus this shows that once again Anwar has criticized Salafis over a non issue and likewise indulged in sensationalism in a cheap attempt to dupe his audience into believing the scenario was what it was not. Or maybe he really does not know the difference between a defense and cautioning from going beyond bounds as it relates to passing rulings of tabdi on others, hence making him equivalent to one who cannot distinguish between a donkey and a horse, and Allah knows best.

Written by Najeeb Al Anjelesi

7/29/2018 

  

---

1: Link:http://www.miraathpubs.net/en/lying-is-worse-than-innovation-in-the-religion/

Commentary On Abu Yusuf Khaleefah’s Response To The Tweet Of Anwar Wright

On July 14, 2018 our brother Abu Yusuf Khaleefah -under Masjid Nur Allah’s official twitter account- tweeted the following: 

This was a direct response to a portion of a tweet from Anwar Wright, wherein the mixing of truth with falsehood by twisting the reality of certain occurrences was utilized, in order to substantiate false accusations against several (unnamed) Salafi callers. The portion of his tweet addressed here is as follows:

“I’m Amazed at a people that have the likes of Muftari Munir causing confusion in their own backyard (NYC) and we’ve yet to see one ilmi  refutation from them on him. Add to that no refutation from their زعيم who claims to “know Tahir better and longer than everyone else”. And the amazement doesn’t stop here…!”

Although it is widely believed that Anwar’s speech was directed at Abu Yusuf Khaleefah, this conclusion -at this point- is speculative due to the absence of any name being mentioned. Likewise due to the presence of several salafi callers within New York i.e. our two elders Dawud Adib and Abdur Ra’uf Shakir along with our brother Abu Yusuf. Thus keeping in accordance with the principle لا ينسب إلى ساكت قول والسكوت في وفت الحاجة بيان There’s no attributing to one who remains silent (in an affair) a statement (clarifying his view and or position), and silence in the time of need is a declaration (i.e. of one’s view/position) we will leave it to Anwar to make clear who it is he criticized in his speech.

Regardless if the criticism is directed at all three or one among the three, one thing is made explicitly clear, that being that the basis of Anwar’s criticism is incorrect, false, and blatantly misplaced. This is made clear when contemplating on the following points extracted from this conversation.

1: Anwar’s criticism is a non issue

Khaleefah clearly illustrates this by mentioning the ruling to enjoining good and prohibiting evil. It is a communal obligation and not an obligation made binding upon every individual. Thus Anwar’s amazement and criticism is not due to any violation of Islamic principles and guidelines, on the contrary it’s based solely on his own preference, and his preference bears no weight when compared to truth and guidance. Thus his criticism -in reality- is a non issue.

Sheikh Rabee ibn Haadi said: “Criticism is for the purpose of purifying the people, often times it is a criticism of them (specifically) and other times it is a notification with regards to their mistakes or their misguidance. These affairs Islam has brought forth consequently prohibiting the wealth, blood, and honor (of a Muslim). However the blood is permissible if -the one whose blood is spilled- is a taker of life (i.e. murderer, killer), or an adulterer, or one who has abandoned his religion (an apostate) and separated from the Muslim body/community. These things make permissible his blood.

Coinciding with that is he who errs and or goes astray, he losses his honor. Thus that is made clear with the condition that the clarification is advice for Allah’s sake and that the one giving advice intents to clarify the truth and warn the Islamic Nation against falling into the mistakes and misguidance. Hence the presence of these conditions are imperative.” [النقد منهج شرعي]

In light of this, Anwar’s amazement is deemed to be baseless, and nothing more than his imagination getting the better of him by way of whispers from the Shaitan. As Anwar has done nothing here but give precedence to his preference and nothing more. Furthermore, if preference was a yardstick in this matter, wouldn’t it be more preferred that Anwar puts out something knowledge based against Mufti Muneer? After all Mufti did do a 3 part series against Anwar that-to my knowledge- he has not responded to til this very day. Thus one of three conclusions can be drawn concerning Anwar and his awareness of the rulings pertaining to enjoining good and prohibiting evil.

1. One who is ignorant with regards to its rulings and as a result should remain quiet with regards to affairs that are beyond his knowledge.
2. One who is fully aware of its rulings yet strives to deceive his audience into believing there’s an actual issue with whoever the intended criticism is directed towards, while knowing that his criticism -in light of the principles- is one big fat nothing burger.
3. One who is aware of its rulings but has not been given success by Allah in how to properly apply what he knows, resulting in the overt blunder he has fallen into with his baseless criticism.

What is evident from Anwar’s own writing is that the first possibility is the least probable. As Anwar said, in a document titled “Meeting the people where they are, or meeting the people where they need to be“: “I would like to conclude by mentioning some important Fatwa by the Imam, Shaykh Abdul Aziz bin Baz. The Shaykh was asked about the ruling on commanding the good and forbidding by those charged with authority or those who are from the general people. Here is a portion of what he said in his lengthy reply:

...And in summary, commanding the good and forbidding the evil is a great affair and a holy obligation and a duty upon the Muslims; if those who are sufficient from (the people of) a land or town performs it, its obligation falls from the rest (of the Muslims). but if it’s not performed by those sufficient to do so, it becomes a duty upon the rest (of the Muslims) and they are sinful for leaving it off. Also, if you are in a locality, a town, a country, a masjid or a neighborhood where there is a manifest evil and it is not prohibited, it is upon you to prohibit it and not to be negligent in that, because perhaps there is no one other than you who can prohibit it and take your place… to the end of the speech he quoted.

Thus the first option is the least probable, and only Allah is well acquainted with his reality as it relates to the last two options. 

2. Anwar’s usage of sensationalism

Sensationalism is the use of shocking or exciting stories or language at the expense of accuracy, in order to provoke public interest or excitement. This is exactly what Anwar utilizes in a cheap attempt to legitimizes his non issue. In reality it is a twisting of truth, a fallacy, and an unsubstantiated claim that resembles a characteristic of hypocrisy related to action. The Prophet -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- said: “There are four If combine in a person is (by way of these four characteristics) a pure hypocrite, and if there is a characteristic from these four -within him- then he has within him a characteristic of hypocrisy until he abandons it..” From the four he -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- mentioned was: “When he disputes he is immoral.”

Ibn Hajr Al-Asqalaani said about this characteristic: “It is a turning away from truth and trickery/dupery as pertains to disproving it. It is quite often classified under the first characteristic (of hypocrisy as relates to action) that being lying in speech/conversation.” This was done quite often in his declaration of amazement, especially in the portion pertaining to Shadeed (which will be addressed sooner than expected inshaa’llah), and likewise in the focal part of his speech being addressed now. 

Anwar dishonestly said: “Add to that no refutation from their زعيم…” which he translated as ringleader suggesting that the previously mentioned brothers or one among them are flunkies, yes men, and lackeys to some personality. But none of the aforementioned brothers are known to be stooges to anyone, nor is anyone at Masjid Ahlul Hadith, or the contributors to Salafy Ink. On the contrary this is an accusation that has been hurled at Anwar and his cohorts for years. As some honestly wonder if he were to disagree with Abu Khadeejah on a matter, what would his status in the crew be? This is pure sensationalism and nothing more, it’s a repulsive slander expected from a lowlife degenerate, not from a Islamic University graduate. Now that’s truly amazing.  

3. Anwar’s double standards

A double standard is the application of different principles for the exact same circumstance or in laymens’ terms having a different rule for the same thing or circumstance. It’s two identical things and or circumstances being measured with different standards or rules. Thus it is, in reality, a bias or prejudice for something (i.e. a person, group, organization, etc) that leads to unfair conduct in judgement. Thus whoever there is a bias held for, an excuse is always made and judgement concerning him/her is favorable. However he who is not looked at with that same sentiment, conduct and judgement of him is always negative.  Allah says:

يأيّها الذين آمنوا كونوا قوّامين لله شهداء بالقسط ولا يجرمنكم شنئان قوم على ألا تعدلوا اعدلوا هو أقرب للتقوى

“O you who believe! Stand firm for Allah as just witnesses, and do not let enmity and hatred ofa people prevent you from justice. Be just as that is nearer to piety…” [Al-Ma’idah: 8] 

Unfortunately Anwar and his cohorts are drowning in double standards and have been accused of such for years. Within his brief statement above is yet another example of such. Anwar said: “Add to that no refutation from their زعيم who claims to ‘know Tahir better and longer than everyone else.’ “ In this statement he mentions Tahir Wyatt and the absence of a refutation against him. Tahir is accused of speaking against salafis yet keeping quiet against the people of innovation. As a result Anwar and his cohorts have criticized, warned against, and ostracized him from their communities yet this same exact characteristic that Tahir is described with, fits Abu Muhammad Al Maghribi to the letter. Al Maghribi is not known to have -in the past- warned against or refuted any person from the people of innovation, on the contrary the only known warning he has ever made against anyone is Abu Abdis Salaam Al Juyaanee, a well known salafi caller. 

So why question your imaginary best friend O Anwar whom you referred to as a ringleader about a refutation against Tahir yet you don’t ask Al Maghribi that? Where is his refutation against the people of innovation in his locality or in any locality of which he has been a resident? Why, while Maghribi was in Newark, was his dawah referred to, by some salafis, as the love boat dawah? Anyone who is able to answer these questions truthfully will see that there’s a clear double standard. Once again he prefers that someone he does not think of favorably refute Tahir while he who he does think of favorably doesn’t refute anybody whatsoever except salafis, which is the very claim levied against Tahir that justifies refutations against him. Now that’s the real joke Anwar. 

In conclusion, when looking at the previously highlighted points we see the childish nature of Anwar and the reality of his elementary scribbling found in the pitiful tweet. As Anwar has done nothing more than expose the fact that he holds animosity for salafis over non issues and encourages others with the same by utilization of deception. The remainder of his tweet will face the same scrutiny to illustrate the reality of this individual and his lowly conduct by Allah’s permission, and with Him is success.

Written by Najeeb Al Anjelesi 

7/28/2018

The Things that Nullify Wudoo : Shaikh ‘Abdul-Muhsin Al-‘Abbaad

The Things that Nullify Wudoo : Shaikh ‘Abdul-Muhsin Al-‘Abbaad

His explanation of Shuroot as-Salaat of Imaam Ibn ‘Abdil-Wahhaab

Al-Ibaanah.com

The author (Imaam Muhmmad bin ‘Abdil-Wahhaab) stated: “The things that nullify (nawaaqid) the ablution are eight:

(1) Whatever comes out from the two private parts;

(2) Any foul impure substance that comes out from the body;

(3) Loss of consciousness (i.e. sleep/insanity);

(4) Touching a woman with sexual desire;

(5) Touching one’s private part with the hand, whether it is the frontal or rear (private part);

(6) Eating the meat of camels;

(7) Bathing a deceased person; and

(8) Apostating from Islaam, may Allaah protect us from that!”

The Explanation:

First: “Whatever comes out from the two private parts”: This refers to everything that comes out from the two private part areas, such as feces, urine, passing gas, blood, sperm, female ejaculation and so on. The Prophet (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said: “Allaah does not accept the prayer of any of you if he releases (something) from his private parts, until he performs wudoo.” [Reported by Al-Bukhaaree (6954) and Muslim (537) from Abu Hurairah (radyAllaahu ‘anhu)]

Second: “Any foul impure substance that comes out from the body”: The scholars have differed concerning blood that is emitted from other that the two private parts – does it nullify the wudoo or not? Some of the scholars have taken the view that this does not cancel out the wudoo, since nothing has been authentically reported on the Messenger of Allaah (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) concerning that. Some other scholars have taken the view that it only cancels out the wudoo if a lot of this foul substance is emitted. This is the view that was reported on some of the Sahaabah and Taabi’een, and this is the same opinion that the author has preferred here, may Allaah have mercy on him. This is taking the view that is most cautious and more removed from differing. See al-Mughnee (1/247), the Majmoo’ Fataawaa of Shaikh Ibn Baaz, may Allaah have mercy on him (10/159) and the Fataawaa of the Permanent Committee for Verdicts (5/261).

Third: “Loss of consciousness (i.e. sleep/insanity)”: Wudoo is nullified by the loss of consciousness, whether due to insanity, drunkenness, fainting or deep sleep. As for the sleep in which one is drowsy and lightly dozes without him losing his sense of feeling, such as when one is sitting or standing and he dozes off, so his head bops back and forth, then he becomes conscious, this does not nullify the wudoo. Muslim reported in his Saheeh (376) from Anas (radyAllaahu ‘anhu) that: “The Companions of Allaah’s Messenger would sleep then pray without performing (new) wudoo.” The wording of this hadeeth as reported by Abu Dawood (200) states: “The Companions of Allaah’s Messenger (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) would wait for the ‘Ishaa prayer to the point that their heads would bop around. Then they would pray without performing (new) wudoo.” This proves that the loss of consciousness does not nullify wudoo in itself, but rather that it is just the most likely scenario where one’s wudoo will be broken. What also proves this is the statement of the Prophet (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam): “The drawstring of the anus is the eyes. So whoever falls asleep must perform (a new) wudoo.” [Reported by Abu Dawood (203) from ‘Alee (radyAllaahu ‘anhu) and its chain of narration is sound. See Irwaa-ul-Ghaleel (113). An-Nawawee, Al-Mundhiree and Ibn as-Salaah have also been quoted as declaring it hasan (sound).]

Fourth: “Touching a woman with sexual desire”: The opinion preferred here by the author is just one of the three opinions that exist on this issue. The second view holds that touching a woman nullifies one’s wudoo absolutely without exception. The third view states that touching a woman does not break one’s wudoo in the absolute sense, regardless of whether it is done with sexual desire or not, so long as nothing is emitted (i.e. ejaculation) with desire. This (last) opinion is the most correct of all the opinions because of the lack of there being any authentic texts that indicate that this nullifies the wudoo. See the Fataawaa (10/132-138) of Shaikh Ibn Baaz, may Allaah have mercy on him.

Fifth: “Touching one’s private part with the hand, whether it is the frontal or rear (private part)”: This view that has been preferred here by the author is the view of the majority of the scholars, and it is the correct view. This is if the touch occurs without any barrier between the hand and the private part, regardless of whether one touches his own private part or the private part of someone else, or if the one being touched is young or old, dead or alive. This is based on the hadeeth narrated by Busrah bint Safwan (radyAllaahu ‘anhu) who reported that the Prophet (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said: “Whoever touches his penis must perform wudoo.” [Reported by At-Tirmidhee (82) and others and he said it was a “hasan saheeh hadeeth.” See Irwaa-ul-Ghaleel (116) and the Fataawaa of the Permanent Committee for Verdicts (5/263-266)]

Sixth: “Eating the meat of camels”: There are two opinions from the scholars concerning the wudoo of one who eats the meat of camels. The first is the view of the majority of the scholars, which is that one is not required to perform wudoo from eating their meat. The second view states that one is obligated to perform wudoo because of that regardless of whether the meat is raw or cooked. As for the milk that comes from camels and the juice (gravy) of their meat as well as the food that is cooked along with its meat, then these things do not nullify one’s wudoo. What proves that one is required to perform wudoo because of eating the meat of camels is the hadeeth of Jaabir bin Samurah (radyAllaahu ‘anhu) that a man once asked the Messenger of Allaah (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam): ‘Should I perform wudoo after eating the meat of sheep?’ He (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said: ‘If you wish, perform wudoo and if you wish do not perform wudoo.’The man then asked: ‘Should I perform wudoo after eating the meat of camels?’ He (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said: ‘Yes, perform wudoo from the meat of camels.’ The man asked: ‘Can I pray in the sheep stables?’ He (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said: ‘Yes.’ The man asked: ‘Can I pray in the camel resting areas?’ He (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said: ‘No.’ ” [Reported by Muslim (360)]

Then there is also the hadeeth of Al-Baraa bin ‘Aazib (radyAllaahu ‘anhu) in which he said: “The Messenger of Allaah (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) was asked about performing wudoo after eating the meat of camels, so he replied: ‘Perform wudoo from that.’ And he was asked about the meat of sheep, so he replied: ‘Do not perform wudoo from that.’ Then he was asked about praying in the resting area of the camels, so he replied: ‘Do not pray in the resting areas of the camels for indeed these places are from the devils.’ Then he was asked about praying in the sheep stables, so he replied: ‘Pray in them for indeed these areas are a blessing.’” [Reported by Abu Dawood (184) and others with an authentic chain of narration]

The fundamental principle with regard to a command (from the Prophet) is that that matter becomes an obligation. And the fundamental principle with regard to the mention of wudoo here is that it refers to the Islamic definition of wudoo. So this command is not to be interpreted as a recommendation nor is the wudoo here to be interpreted according to its linguistic meaning, which is washing the hands and rinsing. This is due to the lack of there being something that turns away this fundamental principle. See Irwaa-ul-Ghaleel (118). In his explanation of Saheeh Muslim, An-Nawawee mentioned the difference of opinion of the scholars concerning having to retake wudoo from the meat of camels, saying: “Ahmad bin Hanbal and Ishaaq bin Raahwaih reported two hadeeths concerning this – i.e. performing wudoo from the meat of camels – the hadeeth of Jaabir and the hadeeth of Al-Baraa. This is the view with the strongest proofs even if the majority of the scholars disagree with it.” Also refer to Majmoo’ Fataawaa of Shaikh Ibn Baaz (10/156-158), may Allaah have mercy on him, and the Fataawaa of the Permanent Committee for Verdicts (5/273-277).

Seventh: “Bathing a deceased person”: The scholars have differed into two opinions on the ruling of whether one is required to perform wudoo as a result of washing a dead person’s body. The first opinion is that it is obligatory to perform wudoo after washing the body of a deceased person, while the second states that it is just recommended. Ibn Qudaamah mentioned these two opinions in al-Mughnee (1/256) and inclined towards the view that it is recommended. Abu Dawood (3161) reported from the hadeeth of Abu Hurairah in marfoo’ form: “Whoever washes a dead person, should perform ghusl. And whoever carries his body, should perform wudoo.” Al-Albaanee mentioned it in Irwaa-ul-Ghaleel (144) and in the book Ahkaam-ul-Janaa’iz (53), quoting Ibn Al-Qayyim, Ibn Al-Qattaan, Ibn Hazm, and Ibn Hajr Al-‘Asqalaanee as declaring it authentic. He (i.e. Al-Albaanee) also mentioned that it most likely indicates its recommendation not its obligation, due to an authentic hadeeth in that regard from Ibn ‘Abbaas as well as a narration from Ibn ‘Umar, may Allaah be pleased with them.

If while washing the body, a person touches the private part of the person he is washing without there being a cover between him and the private part, he then becomes obligated to perform the wudoo for having touched the private part, not because he washed the deceased body. Also see the Fataawaa of Shaikh Ibn Baaz (10/165), may Allaah have mercy on him.

Eighth: “Apostating from Islaam, may Allaah protect us from that”: What the author, may Allaah have mercy on him, mentioned here from one losing his wudoo due to apostasy, is what Ibn Qudaamah attributed to the madh-hab of Imaam Ahmad in al-Mughnee (1/238). Furthermore, he attributed the view that apostasy doesn’t nullify the wudoo to the other three Imaams. So if a person performs wudoo and then apostates from Islaam, then returns back to it before committing one of the things that would break his wudoo, except apostasy, then he remains in his state of wudoo, according to the second opinion. So he is not required to repeat the wudoo. However, according to the first view, he is required to repeat the wudoo. But as for the opinion mentioned by the author, then it is the most cautious one and the farthest removed from differing, based on the statement of the Prophet (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam): “Leave that which makes you doubt for that which doesn’t make you doubt.”