The term nullifiers refers to the happenings that invalidate wudu. It is sometimes expressed as events to avoid the thought that wudu was invalid from its origin.

The intended meaning is that wudu becomes invalid after the occurrence of the nullifying event, not that it was invalid from the beginning. The jurists divide the nullifiers into what exits from the 2 passages, and what is connected to the possibility of exit such as sleep, touching and similar causes. (al Fiqh ʿala al Madhahib al Arbaʿah, ʿAbdul Rahman al Jaziri, 1/50–55)

Abu al Maali al Juwayni said that the basis of purification from minor ritual impurity, its instrument, its place and the division between washing and wiping have no known rational rule, and the reference is to stopping where the texts stop. (Ghayath al Umam, Abu al Maali al Juwayni, p. 511)

Ijma on what exits from the front and back, on urine, faeces, semen, wind and losing your mind breaks your wudu

Ibn al Mundhir said that the jurists agreed that the exit of faeces from the rear passage, urine from the front passage of a man and woman, semen, wind from the rear passage, and the loss of reason in any way that it is lost, each one of these nullifies wudu. He quoted the verse:

أَوْ جَاءَ أَحَدٌ مِّنْكُمْ مِّنَ الْغَائِطِ

“Or one of you comes from relieving himself.” (al Maidah 6)

(al Ijma, Ibn al Mundhir, p. 19)

They understood this as covering what exits from the usual place, in its usual form, such as urine, stool and wind. Menstrual blood and post partum bleeding exiting from the front passage also nullify wudu and obligate ghusl.

Usual and rare excretions

Al Mawardi divided what exits from the 2 passages into usual and rare. Usual includes faeces, urine, sound, wind and menstrual blood. Rare includes pre seminal fluid, post urinary fluid, worms, pebbles, urinary incontinence and the blood of a woman with non menstrual bleeding. (al Hawi al Kabir, al Mawardi, 1/176–177)

The Shafiʿis and Hanafis include both usual and rare excretions among the nullifiers, since they all exit from the place of ritual impurity. Malik and his companions do not consider rare excretions such as pebbles, worms and incontinence to break wudu, when they exit from the usual passage in a state of health.

They reason with the hadith “There is no wudu except from sound or wind”, understanding it as referring to the usual occurrences, and by the instruction to the woman with non menstrual bleeding to pray even if the blood drips on to the mat, without ordering her to repeat wudu for the blood itself. (Bidayat al Mujtahid, Ibn Rushd, 1/58; Hashiyat al Dusuqi, al Dusuqi, 1/185; al Sharh al Saghir, Ahmad al Sawi, 1/94; Badai al Sanaei, al Kasani, 1/101; Radd al Muhtar, Ibn Abidin, 1/260; Rawdat al Talibin, al Nawawi, 1/226; al Mughni, Ibn Qudamah, 1/214; al Ifsah, Ibn Hubayrah, 1/75)

Al Mawardi answers that the verse “Or one of you comes from relieving himself” covers both usual and rare excretions, and he strengthens the obligation of wudu for pre seminal fluid through the report that the Prophet ﷺ ordered wudu specifically for it, and that it exits from the usual place of ritual impurity. (al Hawi al Kabir, al Mawardi, 1/176–177)

Semen and its effect

In the discussion of semen there is a specific difference. Al Jaziri mentions that semen which exits without usual pleasure is treated in 2 ways. The Malikis say that if semen exits without usual pleasure, it does not obligate ghusl but only nullifies wudu, contrary to the other imams.

The Shafiʿis say that emission of semen obligates ghusl whenever it is confirmed as semen, whether with pleasure or without, so once it is established that it is semen, ghusl becomes obligatory, and in their madhhab emission of semen does not additionally nullify wudu, for it has already obligated the greater purification. (al Fiqh ʿala al Madhahib al Arbaʿah, 1/50–55)

Al Najjar summarises the Shafiʿi position from the later texts. Al Nawawi said that everything exiting from one of the 2 passages, whether material or wind, rare or usual, pure or impure, nullifies wudu, except semen, which obligates ghusl alone in the sound view, though there is a rare view that it also makes wudu obligatory. (Rawdat al Talibin, al Nawawi, 1/72)

He mentions that some Shafiʿis such as al Qadi Abu al Tayyib, al Damiri, al Rafiʿi and others found strong the view that semen both obligates ghusl and breaks wudu, arguing that it is something exiting from the 2 passages like menstruation, for which ghusl and wudu together are established, and that al Mawardi and Ibn Atiyya inclined towards this.

The practical benefit of the view that semen does not break wudu is that when someone already in minor hadath performs ghusl for janabah only, there would be a disagreement about the validity of his prayer; whereas if semen does not break wudu, then ghusl by itself suffices for both. (al Najm al Wahhaj, Ibn al Malak, 1/266; Mughni al Muhtaj, al Khatib al Shirbini, 1/112)

What exits from other than the front and the back

The jurists differed about whether impurity leaving the body from other than the front and rear passages, such as the pus of an abscess, blood of a wound, cupping, bloodletting, nosebleed, vomiting and similar matters, breaks wudu.

The Hanafis and Hanbalis hold that impurity exiting from other than the 2 passages breaks wudu.

Ahmad explicitly linked this to gross and abundant amounts: if what exits is gross and abundant, wudu is broken; if the amount is small there are 2 narrations, the sounder of which is that wudu is not broken.

Al Buhuti connects this to the athar of Ibn Abbas: “If the blood is gross and abundant, he must repeat the prayer.”

Ahmad said that a number of companions spoke in this way, mentioning Ibn Umar pressing a boil and blood coming out, then praying without repeating wudu, and Ibn Abi Awfa pressing an abscess, and that no opposition from other companions is known, so he treats this as consensus on differentiating gross from small amounts. (Kashshaf al Qinaa, al Buhuti, 1/124; Badai al Sanaei, al Kasani, 1/101; al Hidayah, al Marghinani, 1/14; al Bahr al Raiq, Ibn Nujaym, 1/33; Radd al Muhtar, Ibn Abidin, 1/260–261; al Talqin, Ibn Jallab, 1/47; Hashiyat al Dusuqi, al Dusuqi, 1/190; Bulghat al Salik, al Sawi, 1/94; Kifayat al Akhyar, al Husni, p. 76; al Mughni, Ibn Qudamah, 1/220; al Tahqiq, Ibn al Jarud, 1/143; Nayl al Awtar, al Shawkani, 1/235; Manar al Sabil, Ibn Duwayan, 1/44; Awn al Mabud, Shams al Haqq al Azimabadi, 1/231)

The Malikis, Shafiʿis and Ibn Taymiyyah hold that the exit of impurity from other than the 2 passages does not break wudu, whether the amount is little or much. Only the place that the impurity touches has to be washed, while wudu remains valid until broken by something textually established.

Al Nawawi emphasised that this is because the basic rule is the absence of hadath until the Sharia proves it, and analogy is not valid here, for the cause of hadath is not something that can be grasped by reason. Ibn al Mundhir said clearly: “There is no wudu because of any of that, for I do not know any proof with those who obligate wudu for it.” Al Nawawi praised his precision and lack of fanaticism. (al Majmu, al Nawawi, 2/65)

Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said that the stronger view is that wudu is not obligatory because of touching the penis, nor because of touching women, nor because of the exit of impurities from other than the 2 passages, nor because of loud laughing in the prayer, nor because of washing a dead person, for the proof of those who obligate wudu in these cases is not sound, while the stronger evidences indicate that it is not obligatory, but wudu is clearly recommended. (Majmu al Fatawa, Ibn Taymiyyah, 20/525–526; 25/237–238)

Sleep and losing your mind

Loss of mind in general, such as insanity, fainting, seizure or intoxication, is treated by the 4 madhhabs as nullifying wudu, because the person no longer feels what exits from him. This includes anaesthetics and drugs that remove consciousness.

Sleep is treated as a special type of loss of mind. The jurists agree that significant sleep is connected to nullification of wudu, because of the hadith:

«العَيْنُ وِكَاءُ السَّهِ، فَمَنْ نَامَ فَلْيَتَوَضَّأْ»

“The eye is the tie of the rear passage, so whoever sleeps, let him perform wudu.” (Abu Dawud 203; Ibn Majah 477; others, graded hasan; al Majmu, al Nawawi, 2/23)

And because of the report of Safwan ibn Assal: “The Messenger of Allah ﷺ used to command us when we were travelling not to remove our leather socks for 3 days and nights except because of janabah, but because of faeces, urine and sleep.” (al Tirmidhi 96; al Nasaʾi 158; Ahmad 18116, 18120; Ibn Khuzaymah 17, 196)

Al Jaziri summarises the 4 madhhabs and relates their detail on sleep as follows. (al Fiqh ʿala al Madhahib al Arbaʿah, 1/50–55)

Hanafis

The Hanafis hold that sleep itself is not a nullifier according to the sound view, but rather what may arise from it of unperceived hadath. Sleep only nullifies wudu when the sleeper has lost control of his body such that his joints relax.

Thus wudu is nullified when he sleeps lying on his side, on his back or on one of his hips. If he sleeps while sitting with his sitting bones firmly planted on the ground or something stable, his wudu is not broken according to the sounder view, because that posture usually allows him to feel any exit of wind.

If he sleeps sitting but leaning on a cushion, then the cushion is removed. If he falls and his sitting bones separate from the ground, his wudu is broken; if he remains seated with his sitting bones still in contact, his wudu remains.

Likewise, wudu is not broken if he sleeps standing, in full bowing, or in prostration within the prayer, because in those postures he is supported.

Light sleep while lying on his side that does not prevent him hearing the speech of those near does not break wudu. They take as proof the hadith “Wudu is only required for the one who sleeps lying down, for when he lies down his joints relax”, reported by Abu Dawud, al Tirmidhi, Ahmad and al Tabarani. (Abu Dawud 203; al Tirmidhi 85; Musnad Ahmad; al Tabarani; al Fiqh ʿala al Madhahib al Arbaʿah, 1/50–55)

Abu Bakr al Jassas explains that what obligates wudu is the common type of sleep where it is correct to say he rose from sleep, which is the sleep of one who lies on his side; as for one who dozes sitting or prostrating, he said that the early generations and jurists of the regions agreed that wudu is not obligatory for one who sleeps sitting without leaning.

He quoted the narrations from Ibn Abbas and Anas that the companions would sleep waiting for the prayer then pray without repeating wudu. (Ahkam al Qurʾan, Abu Bakr al Jassas, 3/322, 3/333; Badai al Sanaei, al Kasani, 1/123, 1/127; Radd al Muhtar, Ibn Abidin, 1/207)

Malikis

The Malikis, in the well known view, make the consideration the depth of sleep, not the posture. Heavy sleep breaks wudu in every posture, lying, sitting, standing or prostrating. Heavy sleep is known by the person not sensing loud sounds near him, not feeling something dropping from his hand or the loosening of his posture, or the flow of saliva.

Light sleep, where he does sense these things, does not break wudu, but if long it is recommended to renew wudu. Some Malikis combined depth and posture, saying heavy sleep always breaks wudu, and in light sleep, wudu is broken in lying and prostration but not in standing and sitting. (al Sharh al Saghir with Bulghat al Salik, Ahmad al Sawi, 1/98; Hashiyat al Dusuqi with al Sharh al Kabir, al Dusuqi, 1/192; al Ifsah, Ibn Hubayrah, 1/74)

Shafiʿis

The Shafiʿis treat sleep as a nullifier whenever the sitting place is no longer firmly planted on the ground. If the person sleeps while sitting with his sitting bones fixed on the ground or similar support, his wudu does not break whether the sleep is long or short.

If he sleeps lying on his side, on his back, or in a posture where there is a gap between his sitting bones and their support, his wudu breaks in all cases, in and outside prayer.

They treat drowsiness differently: heaviness of the head in which he still hears the speech of those present, even if he does not understand, does not break wudu. (al Majmu, al Nawawi, 2/17–27; Sharh Sahih Muslim, al Nawawi, 4/66; Tarh al Tasrib, al Iraqi, 2/45; Mughni al Muhtaj, al Khatib al Shirbini, 1/115; Kifayat al Akhyar, al Husni, p. 77; al Ifsah, Ibn Hubayrah, 1/74)

Al Nawawi reconciles the hadiths by carrying “whoever sleeps let him perform wudu” on the case of not being firmly planted, and the narrations of the companions sleeping in the masjid then praying without wudu on the case of seated sleep with firm support. He quotes the explicit definition of drowsiness from al Shafiʿi and his companions. (al Majmu, 2/17–27)

Hanbalis

The Hanbalis divide sleep into 3 categories. Sleep while lying down breaks wudu whether little or much. Sleep while sitting has narrations: one is that any sleep breaks wudu, another that only heavy sleep breaks it, and another that sitting sleep does not break wudu at all even if long.

Ibn Qudamah notes that the outward words of Ahmad tend to equate standing and sitting, because in both positions the place of the event is brought together and in standing one is less likely to be overcome.

Many of the companions of the madhhab thus treat standing like sitting, so that long sleep in that posture does not break wudu. Sleep while bowing or prostrating, according to the madhhab, breaks wudu, especially if more than slight, because the place of the event is separated.

Some narrations treat slight sleep in bowing or prostration as non nullifying, but this is not the relied upon view. Ibn Taymiyyah inclined to the view that only lying sleep breaks wudu, while sleep in the postures of prayer does not break it, especially in the case of sitting and standing. (al Mughni, Ibn Qudamah, 1/223–225; Kashshaf al Qinaa, al Buhuti, 1/125; al Insaf, al Mirdawi, 1/199–200; Manar al Sabil, Ibn Duwayan, 1/45; Majmu al Fatawa, Ibn Taymiyyah, 20/525–527)

Touching the penis and other private parts

All the jurists agree that if a person touches his private part with a part of the body other than the hand, such as the thigh or forearm, his wudu is not broken. The disagreement is about touching with the inner hand.

Hanafis

The Hanafis hold that touching the penis does not break wudu, whether with or without desire, with the palm or inner fingers, whether the private part is his own or someone else’s. They take as proof the hadith that a man, described as a bedouin, asked the Messenger of Allah ﷺ about a man who touches his penis during the prayer, and he said: “It is only a part of you, or a piece of you.” (Abu Dawud 181–182; al Tirmidhi 85; al Nasaʾi 165; Ibn Majah 483)

Based on this, the penis is like the rest of his limbs. They interpret the hadith “Whoever touches his penis let him perform wudu” as using wudu in its linguistic sense of washing the hands, so they recommend washing the hand from touching it when intending prayer, and they recommend renewing wudu in order to leave disagreement, as long as he does not enter into something disliked in his madhhab.

However, they say wudu is broken when a person inserts his finger or something similar into the front or rear passage until it disappears inside and then withdraws it moist or with odour. (al Mabsut, al Sarakhsi, 1/66; al Bahr al Raiq, Ibn Nujaym, 1/45; Fath al Qadir, Ibn al Humam, 1/55; Hashiyat al Tahtawi, Tahtawi, 1/61; Radd al Muhtar, Ibn Abidin, 1/278)

Malikis

The Malikis hold that wudu is broken by an adult touching his own connected penis with the palm of the hand or its inner side, or the inside or side of the fingers, or their tips, without a barrier, whether he intended pleasure or not and whether he felt pleasure or not, whether he remembered or forgot.

Touching with a part of the body other than the hand, such as the thigh, or touching through a barrier, does not break wudu.

They do not consider a woman touching her own front passage to break her wudu, even if she inserts the finger and feels pleasure, nor touching the ring of the rear passage, nor touching the place of surgical removal if the penis has been cut off, nor touching the testicles or pubic region. If a person touches the penis of another person or the front passage of a woman, this is treated under the general ruling of touching with desire. (al Istidhkar, Ibn Abd al Barr, 1/249–250; Mawahib al Jalil, al Hattab, 1/300, 6/433; al Kafi, Ibn Abd al Barr, 1/12; Bidayat al Mujtahid, Ibn Rushd, 1/65–66)

Shafiʿis and Hanbalis

The Shafiʿis and Hanbalis in the madhhab hold that wudu is broken by touching the penis, whether one’s own or another’s, child or adult, living or dead, as long as the penis has not disintegrated such that the name no longer applies.

The touching must be with the inner side of the palm or fingers without a barrier; the Shafiʿis define the inner side as what is covered when the hand is closed, so touching with the edge of the palm or finger tips does not nullify wudu in their view.

They also say that a woman’s wudu is broken if she touches her own front passage, and that wudu is broken by touching the natural opening of the rear passage, front or back. (al Majmu, al Nawawi, 2/45–55; Mughni al Muhtaj, al Khatib al Shirbini, 1/35; al Ifsah, Ibn Hubayrah, 1/79; al Mughni, Ibn Qudamah, 1/228–232; al Insaf, al Mirdawi, 1/202, 1/209–210; al Awsat, Ibn al Mundhir, 1/194, 1/212–213)

The Hanbalis do not differentiate between the inner and outer side of the hand, because of the wording in the hadith of Abu Hurayrah: “If one of you places his hand on his private part and there is no screen and no barrier between them, let him perform wudu”, and the back of the hand is included in hand. (al Mughni, Ibn Qudamah, 1/230)

They base their position on several ahadith, including the hadith of Busrah bint Safwan that the Prophet ﷺ said: “Whoever touches his penis, let him perform wudu”, and the report of Abdullah ibn Amr that he said: “Any man who touches his private part must perform wudu, and any woman who touches her private part must perform wudu”, and the hadith of Umm Habibah: “Whoever touches his private part, let him perform wudu.” (Abu Dawud 180; al Tirmidhi 82; al Nasaʾi 444; Ibn Majah 479, 481; Ibn Hibban 1118; al Bayhaqi, al Sunan al Kubra, 617, 630, 652; Ahmad 7076)

They argue that these texts transfer the ruling from the basic state of non obligation, so they are given precedence over the hadith of Taliq, which leaves the ruling upon the basic state. Some of the scholars used the hadith of Taliq on touching above a barrier, since the apparent situation of one praying is not to directly touch the penis in prayer. (al Mughni, Ibn Qudamah, 1/228–230; al Majmu, al Nawawi, 2/45–55; Hashiyat Ibn al Qayyim ʿala Sunan Abi Dawud, 1/212–214)

Touching the rear passage

The Shafiʿis and Hanbalis in the madhhab hold that touching the ring of the rear passage breaks wudu, analogising it to the front passage as one of the 2 places of ritual impurity, and applying the wording “private part” to both front and rear. This is limited to touching the ring itself, not what is near it. (al Majmu, al Nawawi, 2/51; al Awsat, Ibn al Mundhir, 1/212–213; al Mughni, Ibn Qudamah, 1/232; al Insaf, al Mirdawi, 1/209)

The Hanafis, Malikis and another narration from Ahmad hold that touching the rear passage does not break wudu, restricting the hadith of touching to the penis, which is more likely to cause exit, and pointing out that touching the ring is not normally intended. (al Awsat, Ibn al Mundhir, 1/212–213; al Bahr al Raiq, Ibn Nujaym, 1/45; al Istidhkar, Ibn Abd al Barr, 1/249; al Bayan wa al Tahsil, Ibn Rushd al Jadd, 18/45; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, al Khurashi, 1/158; al Qawanin al Fiqhiyyah, Ibn Juzayy, p. 22; al Mughni, Ibn Qudamah, 1/232; al Insaf, al Mirdawi, 1/209)

Woman touching her private part

The Shafiʿis, the Hanbalis in the madhhab, and Malik in a narration hold that a woman’s wudu is broken if she touches her private part, based on the hadith “Any woman who touches her private part must perform wudu.” (Ahmad 7076; Ibn al Jarud, al Muntaqa, 19; al Bayhaqi, al Sunan al Kubra, 652; al Majmu, al Nawawi, 2/55; al Mughni, Ibn Qudamah, 1/232; al Insaf, al Mirdawi, 1/209–210; al Qawanin al Fiqhiyyah, Ibn Juzayy, p. 22)

The Hanafis, the Malikis in the famous view, and Ahmad in another narration hold that her wudu is not broken, reasoning that the text clearly mentions the penis, and that a woman touching her private part does not usually lead to exit, so the meaning is not the same.

The Maliki famous view explicitly says that even if she inserts one or more fingers into the private part, wudu is not obligatory. (Bulghat al Salik, Ahmad al Sawi, 1/101; al Kafi, Ibn Abd al Barr, 1/12; al Majmu, al Nawawi, 2/55; al Mughni, Ibn Qudamah, 1/232; al Insaf, al Mirdawi, 1/209–210)

Touching the private part of another

The Shafiʿis and Hanbalis hold that whoever touches the private part of another person, even a small boy or a dead person, the wudu of the one who touches is broken, not that of the one touched.

They argue that touching another person’s private part is more likely to stir desire and cause discharge, so if touching one’s own private part breaks wudu, touching another’s does so even more. (al Majmu, al Nawawi, 2/45, 47; Mughni al Muhtaj, al Khatib al Shirbini, 1/35; al Mughni, Ibn Qudamah, 1/231; al Kafi, Ibn Qudamah, 1/45; al Insaf, al Mirdawi, 1/209–210; Kashshaf al Qinaa, al Buhuti, 1/128; al Ifsah, Ibn Hubayrah, 1/78)

The Hanafis maintain that touching the private part of another person does not break wudu in any case. (al Mabsut, al Sarakhsi, 1/66; al Istidhkar, Ibn Abd al Barr, 1/256; al Fatawa al Hindiyyah, 1/13)

The Malikis say that if someone touches another person’s penis, he takes the ruling of one who touches in general: if he intends pleasure or finds it, wudu is broken, otherwise it is not. (Mawahib al Jalil, al Hattab, 1/299; al Dhakhira, al Qarafi, 1/225; al Thamar al Dani, al Mayyara, 1/30; al Sharh al Kabir, al Dardir, 1/121; al Fawakih al Dawani, al Nafrawi, 1/116; Hashiyat al Adawi, al Adawi, 1/176; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, al Khurashi, 1/157; Manah al Jalil, al Amir, 1/113)

Touching women

The jurists have 3 main positions on touching women.

Touching does not break wudu

The Hanafis, Ahmad in one narration and Ibn Taymiyyah hold that touching women does not break wudu at all, whether with desire or without, unless there is direct contact at the level of what is just below intercourse in intensity in some detailed Hanbali discussions.

They take as proof the hadiths of Aisha that she would be lying in front of the Prophet ﷺ with her legs towards his qiblah, and when he wanted to prostrate he would pinch her so she drew back her legs, and that he ﷺ “kissed some of his wives then went out to prayer and did not perform wudu” (Abu Dawud 179; al Tirmidhi 86; al Nasaʾi 1/104; Ibn Majah 502)

As well as the story of the man who obtained from a woman what was less than intercourse and was told that his prayer erased his sin, without mention of wudu. (Badai al Sanai, al Kasani, 1/119, 1/121; Radd al Muhtar, Ibn Abidin, 1/277–278; al Mughni, Ibn Qudamah, 1/249; Muslim 2763, 2765)

They also rely on the interpretation of Ibn Abbas that “or you touched women” in the verse of wudu refers to intercourse, and they say touching is not in itself hadath nor a usual cause of hadath, and that touching spouses is frequent so if it broke wudu, hardship would follow. (Badai al Sanaei, al Kasani, 1/119–121)

Any touching of marriable woman breaks wudu

The Shafiʿis and a narration from Ahmad hold that if a man touches with his skin the skin of a woman who is not permanently forbidden to him, and she is of an age normally desired, then the wudu of both is broken, whether or not there is desire, and whether old or young, beautiful or otherwise.

They treat the wife the same as other marriageable women, but say touching a female mahram, or a small girl who is not normally desired, does not break wudu, and touching hair, teeth or nails does not break wudu. They take the verse:

أَوْ لَامَسْتُمُ النِّسَاءَ

“Or you have touched women.” (al Nisaʾ 43)

and Ibn Masud’s reading او لمستم as evidence, understanding lams as skin contact.

Al Shafiʿi quoted Ibn Umar as saying that a man’s kissing of his wife or touching her with his hand is included in lams for which wudu is needed. (Musnad al Shafiʿi, 1/11; al Majmu, al Nawawi, 2/30; al Muhadhdhab, al Shirazi, 1/23; al Mughni, Ibn Qudamah, 1/250)

Touching with desire breaks wudu

The Malikis and Ahmad in his well known view hold a middle position: touching with desire breaks wudu, touching without desire does not. Ibn Abd al Barr reports that in the early usage of the companions, “touching” in the verse was understood either as intercourse itself or as preliminaries of intercourse and similar acts, and that no one intended by it a slap or a touch that contains no desire. (al Istidhkar, Ibn Abd al Barr, 1/255)

The Malikis stipulate for breaking that the one who touches is adult, that he intends pleasure or in fact feels it, that the one touched is a person who is normally desired, and that there is bare skin or a thin cover. If the garment is thick and he merely grasps a limb, wudu does not break unless he intends or feels pleasure.

They treat hair as a part of the body, so touching a woman’s hair with intention of pleasure or feeling it breaks wudu. If a woman touches a man with her hair, her wudu is not broken, since she does not feel through her hair. Touching with nail or tooth does not break wudu, due to the usual lack of feeling. (Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, al Khurashi, 1/155; Hashiyat al Sawi, al Sawi, 1/235; Manah al Jalil, al Amir, 1/112)

If the one touched is a mahram such as mother or daughter, and the one touching only intends pleasure but does not actually feel anything, wudu is not broken. Kissing on the mouth is treated as touching that usually brings pleasure, so it breaks wudu in all cases unless it is a kiss of mercy or farewell with no pleasure felt; if pleasure is felt then it breaks wudu.

If the one touched is adult and feels pleasure, his wudu also breaks; if he intends pleasure he is treated as a toucher. Mere thought or looking, even with erection, does not break wudu, though the exit of pre seminal fluid requires wudu and the exit of semen requires ghusl. (Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, al Khurashi, 1/155; Hashiyat al Sawi, 1/235)

On kissing specifically, Malik and al Shafiʿi held that a man kissing a woman breaks wudu, whether she is lawful or unlawful, whether pleasure is felt or not, except kisses of mercy such as a man kissing his small daughter.

Ahmad in the well known view held that kissing with desire breaks wudu, but without desire does not.

Abu Hanifah and Ahmad in a firm narration, as Ibn Qudamah reports, held that kissing does not break wudu in either case, relying on the hadith that the Prophet ﷺ kissed some of his wives then prayed without wudu, and the principle that obligation requires textual proof. (al Istidhkar, Ibn Abd al Barr, 1/255; al Sharh al Saghir, al Dardir, 1/99; al Awsat, Ibn al Mundhir, 1/118, 1/130; al Ifsah, Ibn Hubayrah, 1/79; Badai al Sanaei, al Kasani, 1/130; al Mughni, Ibn Qudamah, 1/248–249)

On kissing a mother or daughter, Ibn al Mundhir said that all the people of knowledge whose speech he preserved agreed that a man kissing his mother, daughter or sister out of honour and mercy does not break wudu, nor does mere touching when handing something, except one of the 2 sayings attributed to al Shafiʿi.

He argued with the practice of the Prophet ﷺ praying while carrying Umamah bint Abi al As, where it is certain that some skin contact occurs, and with the continuous practice of people embracing their close relatives without any scholar treating it as hadath. (al Awsat, Ibn al Mundhir, 1/130–131)

Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah sets out the 3 sayings and gives preference to either the view that touching does not break wudu at all when lamastum is understood as intercourse, or the view that only touching with desire breaks wudu, explaining that attaching nullification to mere touching of skin without desire is against the foundations, the consensus of the companions and the evidence, and that when touching is mentioned in the Qurʾan about a man and woman together the usual understanding is touching of desire. He points out that those who hold the Shafiʿi literal view still exclude mahram women and young girls, which shows they too depart from full literalism. (Majmu al Fatawa, Ibn Taymiyyah, 20/525–527; 21/235)

Eating camel meat

The majority of the jurists, the Hanafis, Malikis, Shafiʿis in the madhhab and Ahmad in a narration, hold that eating camel meat does not break wudu. They rely on the hadith of Jabir that “The last of the 2 matters from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ was that he left wudu from what fire has touched”, and on the general principle expressed in the report “Wudu is because of what exits, not because of what enters”, though this report is weak as marfuʿ and better established as mawquf upon Ibn Abbas.

They also reason that if eating pork does not break wudu, though it is forbidden, then other meats are less deserving of breaking wudu, and that food is not among the causes of hadath. (Abu Dawud 192; al Tirmidhi 80; al Nasaʾi 1/108; Ibn Majah 4/278; Ibn Hibban 1124; Badai al Sanaei, al Kasani, 1/130–131; al Majmu, al Nawawi, 2/69–70; al Muhadhdhab, al Shirazi, 1/24; Rawdat al Talibin, al Nawawi, 1/72; Kifayat al Akhyar, al Husni, p. 36; al Insaf, al Mirdawi, 1/216)

The Hanbalis in the madhhab, and among the Shafiʿis al Nawawi, al Bayhaqi, Ibn al Mundhir and Ibn Khuzaymah, hold that eating camel meat breaks wudu. Al Nawawi said this is the stronger view from the side of proof and what he believes to be more weighty, for there are 2 authentic hadiths in this regard for which he did not find a satisfactory answer. (al Majmu, al Nawawi, 2/70; Rawdat al Talibin, 1/72; Sharh Sahih Muslim, 4/45)

They rely on the hadith of Jabir ibn Samurah that a man asked the Prophet ﷺ about wudu from camel meat and he said: “Yes”, and about wudu from sheep meat and he said: “If you wish then do wudu and if you wish then do not.” (Muslim 360) They also rely on the hadith of al Bara ibn Azib that the Prophet ﷺ was asked about wudu from camel meat and said: “Perform wudu from it”, and about sheep meat he said: “Do not perform wudu from it.” (Abu Dawud 184; al Tirmidhi 81; Ibn Majah 494; Ahmad 20907; Ibn Hibban 3/310)

Ibn Qudamah answers the majority’s appeal to the hadith of Jabir by saying that abrogation is not sound here.

He explains that either the abrogation of wudu from what fire touches occurred with the same hadith that distinguishes camel meat from sheep meat, which would make the command to perform wudu from camel meat contemporary with the permission regarding cooked foods and thus not abrogated by it, or it occurred earlier, so that camel meat remains an exception. He notes that the hadith of camel meat is specific and more authentic, whereas the hadith of Jabir is general, and the general cannot abrogate the specific.

He also refutes interpreting wudu linguistically as washing hands in this context, because the questioner was asking about the religious ruling of wudu, and the Prophet ﷺ distinguished between camel and sheep meat in a way that cannot be explained merely by washing the hands from fat.

He says that some of those who reject wudu from camel meat nonetheless obligated wudu for laughing aloud in the prayer or for touching the penis, relying on weaker and more disputed narrations. (al Mughni, Ibn Qudamah, 1/240–244; Tanqih al Tahqiq, Ibn Abd al Hadi, 1/71; Kashshaf al Qinaa, al Buhuti, 1/130; al Insaf, al Mirdawi, 1/216; al Awsat, Ibn al Mundhir, 1/138–142; Majmu al Fatawa, Ibn Taymiyyah, 21/260–265)

Washing the deceased

The Hanbalis in the madhhab hold that washing the deceased breaks wudu. If someone in wudu washes a dead Muslim or non Muslim, male or female, adult or child, his wudu is broken, because usually he will not avoid his hand touching the private parts of the deceased, and the presumption of this takes the place of actual knowledge, similar to presuming the occurrence of hadath during heavy sleep. (al Mughni, Ibn Qudamah, 1/246; Badai al Sanaei, al Kasani, 1/130; Hashiyat al Tahtawi, 1/55; Kashshaf al Qinaa, al Buhuti, 1/129–130; al Ifsah, Ibn Hubayrah, 1/81; al Insaf, al Mirdawi, 1/215)

The Hanafis, Malikis, Shafiʿis and Ahmad in another narration, which Ibn Qudamah and Ibn Taymiyyah prefer, hold that washing the deceased does not make wudu obligatory.

They argue that obligation comes only from the Sharia, and no authentic text obligates wudu after washing the deceased, nor is it in the meaning of matters textually mentioned, and that washing a dead person is like washing a living person. Ibn Qudamah carries what has been reported from Ahmad about wudu after washing the deceased on recommendation, not obligation. (al Mughni, Ibn Qudamah, 1/246; Badai al Sanaei, 1/130; Hashiyat al Tahtawi, 1/55; Bidayat al Mujtahid, Ibn Rushd, 1/67; al Istidhkar, Ibn Abd al Barr, 1/174; Kashshaf al Qinaa, 1/129–130; al Ifsah, Ibn Hubayrah, 1/81; al Insaf, 1/215; Majmu al Fatawa, Ibn Taymiyyah, 20/526)

Laughing aloud in the prayer

All scholars agree that laughing aloud outside the prayer does not break wudu. They differed about loud laughter in the prayer.

The Malikis, Shafiʿis and Hanbalis hold that loud laughter in the prayer does not break wudu, but it invalidates the prayer.

They reason that laughter is a sound like speech and crying, not an impure excretion, and that no authentic text obligates wudu because of it, and that Obligation comes only from the Lawgiver.

Ibn Taymiyyah mentions a view in the madhhab of Ahmad that wudu after loud laughter is recommended as part of repentance, referring to the general hadith that when a Muslim commits a sin, then performs wudu, prays 2 rakahs and seeks forgiveness, Allah forgives him, without singling out laughter as hadath. (Majmu al Fatawa, Ibn Taymiyyah, 21/242; al Thamar al Dani, al Mayyara, 1/186; al Manhaj al Qawim, Ibn Hajar al Haytami, 1/66; al Kafi, Ibn Abd al Barr, 1/13; al Hawi al Kabir, al Mawardi, 1/202–204; al Mughni, Ibn Qudamah, 1/227; al Ifsah, Ibn Hubayrah, 1/82; Kashshaf al Qinaa, al Buhuti, 1/131)

The Hanafis count loud laughter in the prayer among the nullifiers of wudu, if it occurs from a praying adult who is awake in a complete prayer with bowing and prostration, whether he is using water wudu, tayammum or ghusl, and whether he laughed deliberately or forgetfully.

They rely on the report of Abu al Aliyah that the Prophet ﷺ was praying with his companions when a blind man fell into a pit in the masjid and the people laughed, so he ordered those who laughed to repeat wudu and prayer.

They classify loud laughter as that which is heard by those nearby, laughter as that which only he hears, and smiling as what has no sound; loud laughter nullifies both wudu and prayer, laughter nullifies prayer only, and smiling nullifies neither. (al Darqutni, 1/62, 1/163, 1/169, 1/171; al Bayhaqi, al Sunan al Kubra, 1/146; al Bahr al Raiq, Ibn Nujaym, 1/42; Badai al Sanaei, al Kasani, 1/127)

Some Hanafi authors treated loud laughter as a type of hadath; others said it is not hadath but a matter for which wudu is made obligatory as a punishment and deterrent, because it contradicts humility in prayer.

Ibn Abidin prefers this second saying, noting that it agrees with analogy and the fact that the narrations mention only repeating wudu and prayer without describing it as hadath. He mentions a practical difference: if it is hadath, then touching the mushaf and writing the Qurʾan are forbidden; if it is a deterrent obligation, then they remain permitted despite the requirement to repeat wudu for prayer. (Radd al Muhtar, Ibn Abidin, 1/275; al Bahr al Raiq, 1/42; Badai al Sanaei, 1/127)

Apostasy

Apostasy is to commit something that takes a person out of Islam by speech, belief or doubt.

The Malikis in the well known view and the Hanbalis hold that apostasy is a nullifier of wudu. If someone in wudu apostatises and then returns to Islam, he is not permitted to pray until he performs wudu again, even if his earlier wudu had not been broken by anything else. They rely on the verse:

وَلَقَدْ أُوحِيَ إِلَيْكَ وَإِلَى الَّذِينَ مِنْ قَبْلِكَ لَئِنْ أَشْرَكْتَ لَيَحْبَطَنَّ عَمَلُكَ

“And it has already been revealed to you and to those before you, that if you associate partners, your work will surely become worthless.” (al Zumar 65)

and the fact that wudu is one of the acts nullified by apostasy. Ibn al Qasim, among the Malikis, also narrated a view that wudu is only recommended in this situation, not obligatory. (Jawahir al Iklil, al Shinqiti, 1/21; Mawahib al Jalil, al Hattab, 1/299–300; al Khulasah al Fiqhiyyah, al Qararah, 1/19; al Qawanin al Fiqhiyyah, Ibn Juzayy, p. 22; al Mughni, Ibn Qudamah, 1/226; al Ikhtiyarat, Ibn Taymiyyah, p. 29)

The Hanafis and Shafiʿis hold that apostasy is not among the causes of hadath, so wudu is not broken by it, and someone who returns to Islam may pray with his previous wudu if nothing else has broken it. They rely on the verse:

وَمَنْ يَرْتَدِدْ مِنْكُمْ عَنْ دِينِهِ فَيَمُتْ وَهُوَ كَافِرٌ فَأُولَئِكَ حَبِطَتْ أَعْمَالُهُمْ فِي الدُّنْيَا وَالْآخِرَةِ

“Whoever among you turns back from his religion and dies while he is a disbeliever, then such are those whose deeds have become worthless in this world and in the Hereafter.” (al Baqarah 217)

They understand this as making death in the state of disbelief the condition for deeds to become void. (Jawahir al Iklil, 1/21; Mawahib al Jalil, 1/299–300; al Khulasah al Fiqhiyyah, 1/19; al Qawanin al Fiqhiyyah, p. 22; al Majmu, al Nawawi, 2/77; Nihayat al Muhtaj, 1/15; al Mughni, 1/226; al Ikhtiyarat, p. 29)

Sins of the tongue

Lying, backbiting, indecent talk, slander and other sins of speech do not break wudu by consensus. Ibn al Mundhir said that all the people of knowledge whose sayings he preserved agreed that slander, false witness, lying and backbiting do not oblige purification and do not nullify wudu.

He mentioned that some of the early Muslims recommended wudu for ugly speech, but he treated this as recommendation, and pointed out that there is no proof to obligate wudu for any kind of speech. He quoted the hadith that whoever swears by al Lat and al Uzza should say: “There is no god but Allah”, and the Prophet ﷺ did not command wudu for that. (al Awsat, Ibn al Mundhir, 1/230; al Iqna, al Hajawi, p. 72–73; al Majmu, al Nawawi, 2/78; al Mughni, Ibn Qudamah, 1/277; Muslim 1647)

Al Nawawi confirms this consensus and notes that some Shiah reports of obligating wudu for such sins are not given weight. He, following al Shafiʿi, Ibn al Mundhir and al Bayhaqi, uses the hadith of Abu Hurayrah about saying “la ilaha illa Allah” and giving charity after sinful speech as proof that wudu is not connected to such speech. (al Majmu, al Nawawi, 2/78)

Doubt concerning hadath

The majority of the jurists, the Hanafis, Shafiʿis and Hanbalis, apply the principle that certainty is not removed by doubt. Thus if someone is certain of wudu and doubts whether he has broken it, he remains upon wudu. If he is certain of hadath and doubts whether he has performed wudu, he remains without wudu.

They base this on the hadith of Abdullah ibn Zayd about the man who imagines that he finds something in the prayer and is told not to leave until he hears a sound or finds a smell, and on the similar hadith of Abu Hurayrah. (al Bukhari 137; Muslim 361, 276)

If someone is certain that both wudu and hadath occurred, but does not know which was later, then according to the Hanbalis and what al Nawawi relates as the more correct Shafiʿi view, he looks to his earlier state: if he knows he was in hadath first then performed wudu, then doubts a second hadath, he is treated as in wudu; if he knows he was in wudu first then hadath, then doubts a second wudu, he is treated as in hadath; if he does not know his earlier state, wudu is obligatory.

The Hanafis in the well known view treat him as in wudu, because they regard purity as closer to the basic rule. (Radd al Muhtar, Ibn Abidin, 1/183; Badai al Sanaei, al Kasani, 1/132; Hashiyat al Qalyubi, al Qalyubi, 1/37–38; Rawdat al Talibin, al Nawawi, 1/77; al Mughni, Ibn Qudamah, 1/258–259; Mughni al Muhtaj, al Khatib al Shirbini, 1/39; Mukhtasar Ikhtilaf al Ulama, al Tahawi, 1/153; al Ifsah, Ibn Hubayrah, 1/82)

The Malikis take the opposite path: doubt about hadath or its cause breaks wudu, unless it is mere obsessive whispering. So if someone is sure of his wudu then doubts whether wind or touching occurred, or is sure of hadath then doubts whether he performed wudu, or knows both wudu and hadath occurred but does not know which came first, he repeats wudu.

Al Hattab notes that this is when the doubt occurs before prayer; if he has already prayed then doubts afterwards, there are 2 sayings.

The Malikis clarify 3 forms of doubt that all oblige wudu: doubting a nullifier after certain wudu, doubting wudu after certain nullifier, and being unsure which of wudu or nullifier came first, as long as the doubt is not an ongoing obsession. (Mawahib al Jalil, al Hattab, 1/300; Jawahir al Iklil, al Shinqiti, 1/21; al Khulasah al Fiqhiyyah, al Qararah, 1/19; al Dhakhira, al Qarafi, 1/217–218; al Kafi, Ibn Abd al Barr, 1/12–13)

Brief Overview

Taken together, the discussions of al Jaziri in al Fiqh ʿala al Madhahib al Arbaʿah (1/50–55) and Yasir al Najjar in Mawsuʿat al Fiqh ʿala al Madhahib al Arbaʿah (1/390–439) show that the nullifiers of wudu, according to the 4 madhhabs, revolve around:

Excretions from the 2 passages, usual and rare, with detailed disagreement over rare excretions and semen.

Impurities exiting from other than the 2 passages, where Hanafis and Hanbalis treat gross amounts as nullifiers and Malikis, Shafiʿis and Ibn Taymiyyah do not.

Loss of mind and sleep, with fine distinctions in posture and depth.

Touching the penis and other private parts, with Hanafis denying nullification, Shafiʿis and Hanbalis affirming it whenever the inner hand touches without barrier, and Malikis placing conditions.

Touching women, with 3 recognised madhhabs: unrestricted nullification (Shafiʿis), no nullification (Hanafis and one narration from Ahmad), and nullification when there is desire (Malikis and the well known Hanbali view).

Eating camel meat, where the Hanbalis and a group of Shafiʿis hold wudu to be obligatory in deference to explicit hadith, and the rest do not.

Washing the deceased, where the Hanbali madhhab obligates wudu and the rest recommend it.

Laughing aloud in the prayer, where only the Hanafis treat it as a cause to repeat both wudu and prayer, while the other madhhabs treat it as invalidating the prayer alone.

Apostasy, where Malikis and Hanbalis treat it as nullifying wudu, and Hanafis and Shafiʿis do not.

Sins of the tongue, where there is consensus that they do not break wudu, despite recommendation of wudu as part of repentance.

Doubts about hadath, where the majority build upon certainty and the Malikis treat doubt itself as necessitating renewal of wudu.

Full Article

ʿAbdul Raḥmān al Jazīrī on the Views Of The Madhhabs On The Nullifiers Of Wudu

The word nullifiers is the plural of nullifier. It is said, I undid a thing, when I spoiled it. It may be said that using the word nullifiers, which indicates spoiling the wudu from its origin, suggests that the wudu has already been described as invalid before the occurrence of the event.

On this basis, the prayer done with it before the coming of the corrupting factor would be invalid, because it is assumed that it became characterised by invalidity from its origin. For this reason, some of them expressed it with the word events, the plural of event, to escape this objection.

The answer is that what is meant is its invalidity after the occurrence of the event that nullifies it, not that it is described as invalid from the beginning.

The nullifiers of wudu are divided into categories.

The first is what comes out from one of the two passages, the front and the back. This is divided into two types, because it is either usual or unusual.

The second is what may lead to something coming out from one of the two passages. This is divided into four types.

- The first of them is the disappearance of the mind.
- The second is touching a woman that one desires, and the beardless youth is similar to her. This nullifies under conditions that you will come to know.
- The third is touching the penis and the like without a barrier. This also nullifies in some madhhabs and not in others. The fourth is what comes out from other than the front passage and the back passage, such as blood, and in that there is detail that you will come to know.

So in total, the categories of nullifiers are eight, and here is their explanation.

First type: what comes out from one of the two passages in the usual way

The first is what comes out from one of the two passages in the usual way. Some of this only nullifies wudu, and some of it obligates ghusl.

As for what nullifies wudu but does not obligate ghusl, it is urine, madhy, and wady. Urine is known. Madhy is a thin yellow fluid that comes out from the front passage at the time of arousal in most cases. Wady is a thick white fluid that resembles semen and usually comes out after urination.

Similar to wady is haady, which is a white fluid that comes out from the front passage of a pregnant woman before she gives birth. Semen that comes out without pleasure is also included, and it is known. It is not hidden that all of these things come out from the front passage.

Malikis say: semen that comes out without usual pleasure does not obligate ghusl, rather it only nullifies wudu, contrary to the imams. Shafi’is say: the emission of semen obligates ghusl whether it comes out with pleasure or without pleasure, so whenever it is confirmed that it is semen, ghusl becomes obligatory.

Their madhhab on this will be mentioned in the discussion of ghusl. Along with it obligating ghusl, it does not nullify wudu according to them.

As for what comes out from the back passage, it is stools and wind. The wisdom behind wudu being nullified by wind has already been explained at the beginning of the discussions of purity, so refer back to that if you wish. All of these things are agreed upon as nullifiers of wudu.

Second type: what comes out from one of the two passages in an unusual way

The second is what comes out from one of the two passages in an unusual way, such as small stones and worms and blood and pus and fluid from infection. That nullifies wudu, whether it comes out from the front passage or from the back passage.

Malikis say: wudu is not nullified except by what usually comes out from the usual exit, on condition that its exit from the usual passage is in a state of health. So small stones, worms, blood, pus and infected fluid that come out from one of the two passages do not nullify wudu, on condition that the stone or worm is generated inside the stomach.

As for if it was not generated in the stomach, for example he swallowed a stone or a worm, then it came out from the usual passage, that would nullify wudu, because in that case it would be something unusual.

These are the matters that come out from one of the two passages.

The discussion that remains is about wudu being nullified by something other than excretion. You have already known that they are four types.

First of the four: Loss of thought, including sleep

The first is that the mind of the person in wudu disappears, either due to insanity or seizure or fainting, or by taking something that brings about the disappearance of the mind, such as wine, hashish, anaesthetic, and other things that cause the mind to go. Among that is sleep.

Sleep is a nullifier of wudu, not because of itself according to three of the madhhabs. They give the example of someone who descends into hot water, then it overcomes him and he ejaculates.

Hanbalis say: sleep itself nullifies wudu, even if he firmly places his sitting bone on something that would normally prevent the exit of wind, except if the sleep is slight.

Hanafis say: sleep itself does not nullify wudu according to the sound view, contrary to Shafi’is and Hanbalis. Sleep only nullifies wudu in three situations.

The first is that he sleeps lying on his side.
The second is that he sleeps on his back.
The third is that he sleeps on one of his hips. In these cases he is not in control of himself because his joints are relaxed. As for if he sleeps while sitting and his sitting bone is firmly placed on the ground or something else, then wudu is not required from him according to the sounder view.

If in this situation he is leaning on a cushion or pillow or the like, then the cushion is removed while he is asleep: if he falls and his sitting bone comes away from the ground, his wudu is nullified. If he remains sitting and his sitting bone does not move, his wudu is not nullified. Likewise his wudu is not nullified if he sleeps standing, or bowing with complete bowing as in his full bowing in prayer, or prostrating, because in these states he is supported.

If he sleeps a light sleep while lying on his side, such that he hears the speech of those near him, his wudu is not nullified. If he does not hear, then it is not nullified. The proof that sleep does not nullify except in the case of lying on the side is his saying: “Wudu is only required for the one who sleeps lying down, for when he lies down his joints become relaxed.”

This was related by Abu Dawud (d. 275 AH) and al Tirmidhi (d. 279 AH) and it was related by Ahmad (d. 241 AH) in his Musnad and al Tabarani in his Mujam.

Hanafis made analogy with lying on the side in two other cases, which are sleeping on his back and sleeping on one of his hips, because the reason for nullifying, which is the relaxation of the joints, is present in both.

The sleep of the person with a continuous excuse such as chronic incontinence of urine or continuous wind does not nullify wudu, because what comes out from him due to the excuse does not nullify wudu while he is awake, so it does not nullify it while he is asleep even more so.

Shafi’is say: sleep nullifies wudu if the sleeper is not firmly placing his sitting bone on the place he is on, such that he sleeps sitting or riding without any gap between his sitting bone and its place. If he sleeps on his back or side, or there is a gap between his sitting bone and its place because he is thin, his wudu is nullified.

Drowsiness, which is heaviness in the head while he still hears the speech of those present even if he does not understand it, does not nullify wudu, unlike full sleep.

Hanbalis say: sleep nullifies wudu in all states, except if it is considered slight by custom and the person is sitting or standing.

Malikis say: sleep nullifies wudu if it is deep, whether short or long, whether the sleeper is lying, sitting, or prostrating. It is not nullified by light sleep, whether long or short, but wudu is recommended after light sleep if it is long.

For wudu to be nullified by short deep sleep, it is a condition that the exit is not blocked, such as someone who wraps a cloth and puts it between his buttocks and sits on it, then wakes up in that state. As for long deep sleep, it nullifies wudu absolutely, even if the exit is blocked.

Deep sleep is when the person does not feel sounds, or the loosening of his sitting posture if he is sitting with his legs drawn up, or something falling from his hand, or his saliva flowing, and the like.)*

Second type of the non excretion nullifiers: touching one who is desired

The second of the non excretion nullifiers is touching one who is desired, whether this is a woman or a youth. The jurists have agreed by convention that lams, touching, is sometimes by the hand and sometimes by other parts of the body. As for mas, it is what is with the hand only. Each of these has its rulings.

Shafi’is and Hanbalis have agreed to merge the rulings of mas with the rulings of lams, unlike Malikis and Hanafis. Malikis and Hanafis mention the ruling of lams on its own and the ruling of mas on its own. They restrict mas to what is with the hand. The matter in this is easy.

As for touching one who is desired, it nullifies wudu under conditions that differ between the madhhabs.

Shafi’is say: the touching of a woman who is not lawful to him nullifies wudu in all cases, even without pleasure, even if the man is very old and the woman is an ugly old woman. This is the established view in the Shafi’i madhhab, whether the one who touches is old or young. It may be said that normally there is no pleasure in touching such an old ugly woman. They answer that as long as she is alive, there is always someone who may find pleasure in her.

Touching only nullifies on condition there is no barrier between the skin of the one who touches and the one touched. A thin barrier is enough according to them, even if it is a layer of dirt and dust, not sweat. Touching a man does not nullify wudu even if the one touched is a beautiful beardless youth, though it is recommended to renew wudu in that case.

Touching a female does not nullify her wudu when she touches a woman like herself, nor even the hands of a child or man, or a woman, and it only nullifies if both the one who touches and the one touched are of an age at which they are usually desired according to people with sound temperaments.

They make an exception from the woman’s body for her hair, her tooth and her nail. Touching these does not nullify wudu even if he finds pleasure in it, because usually there is no pleasure in touching them. It may be said that the tooth is in the mouth and people sing about teeth and find more pleasure in them than in other parts of the body. How can it be imagined that usually there is no pleasure in touching them.

The Shafi’is say that if you ignore touching the mouth and what surrounds the teeth, the tooth itself is only a bone in which there is no pleasure. That is what they mean when they say that usually there is no pleasure in touching it.

Wudu is nullified by touching a dead woman. It is not nullified by touching a woman who is permanently unlawful to marry, who is a mahram, whether by lineage, or breastfeeding, or marriage ties. As for those who are not permanently unlawful to marry, such as the sister of the wife, her paternal aunt, or her maternal aunt, then touching any of them nullifies wudu.

Likewise wudu is nullified by touching the mother of a woman with whom he had intercourse by mistaken intercourse and her daughter, because that marriage is forbidden permanently, but the prohibition is not due to lineage or breastfeeding or marriage ties. You have known that all of that is called lams as it is called mas.

Hanbalis say: wudu is nullified by touching a woman with desire, with no barrier, whether she is not lawful to him or a mahram, whether alive or dead, whether young or old, as long as she is of an age at which she is usually desired.

A woman is the same as a man in this, such that if she touches a man, her wudu is nullified with the mentioned conditions. Touching nullifies only if it is with a part of the body that feels, other than hair, tooth and nail, because touching these three does not nullify wudu.

The wudu of the one who is touched is not nullified even if he feels pleasure. Touching a man does not nullify wudu, even if the one touched is a beautiful youth, nor does the touching of a woman by another woman, nor of a person with indeterminate sex by another of the same type, even if pleasure is felt.

From this you know that Hanbalis agree with Shafi’is that touching a woman without a barrier nullifies wudu even if she is an ugly old woman, as long as she is of an age at which she is usually desired. They differ with them about touching a mahram woman. Hanbalis say that it nullifies in all cases, even if the person in wudu touches his mother or his sister, his wudu is nullified by that touching, contrary to the Shafi’is.

They also agree with them that the touching of a man by a man does not nullify even if the one touched is a beautiful beardless youth, though Shafi’is say that wudu is recommended in that case. Both agree that touching the woman’s hair, nail and tooth does not nullify, and they only differ on some slight details which Shafi’is mention, so we have given the full detail of each madhhab separately.

Malikis say: if the person in wudu touches another person with his hand or any part of his body, his wudu is nullified under conditions, some of which concern the one who touches and some of which concern the one touched.

As for the one who touches, it is a condition that he is adult, that he intends pleasure or in fact finds it without intending it. Whenever he intends pleasure, his wudu is nullified even if he does not actually feel pleasure in the touching. The same applies if he does not intend pleasure but he does feel it.

The one touched must be bare skinned, or covered with a thin cover. If the cover is thick, wudu is not nullified except if the touching is by grasping his limb and intending pleasure or finding it. The one touched must be someone who is usually desired, so wudu is not nullified by touching a small girl who is not desired, such as a girl of five years, nor by touching an old woman from whom the desire of men has ceased, because souls are repelled by her.

Hair is included among the parts of the body. Wudu is nullified by touching the hair of a woman if pleasure is intended or felt, because there is no disagreement that hair is something that people find pleasure in. As for if a woman touches a man with her hair, her wudu is not nullified, because she does not feel with her hair. Likewise, wudu is not nullified by touching with a nail or tooth, due to the usual lack of feeling in them.

You have known that the basis in touching is the intention or finding of pleasure, whether the one touched is a woman who is not lawful to him, or his wife, or a youth who is beardless, or a young man whose beard has just grown and whom people usually find pleasure in.

As for if the one touched is a mahram such as his mother or his daughter or his paternal aunt or his maternal aunt and the one who touches desires her, but does not actually feel pleasure, his wudu is not nullified merely by intention of pleasure, unlike the case when she is not a mahram.

Kissing on the mouth is a form of touching and it always nullifies wudu, even if pleasure is not intended or felt, or the kiss is by compulsion. It does not nullify if it is for farewell or mercy, when the aim in itself is that, with no pleasure being felt. If he does feel pleasure, then it nullifies.

All of this is for the one who touches. As for the one who is touched, if he is adult and feels pleasure, his wudu is nullified. If he intends pleasure, he becomes someone who touches and the ruling of the one who touches applies to him.

Wudu is not nullified by thought or looking without touching, even if pleasure is intended or felt, or he has erection. If madhy (pre-seminal fluid) comes as a result of thought or looking, his wudu is nullified due to the madhy. If semen comes out, ghusl is required because of the semen.

Hanafis say: touching does not nullify wudu with any part of the body, even if the one who touches and the one touched are both bare skinned. So if a man in wudu lies with his wife in one bed with no clothes and their bodies are touching, their wudus are not nullified except in two cases.

The first case is that something comes out of either of them such as madhy and the like. The second case is that he places his private part on her private part. That nullifies the wudu of the man on two conditions.

The first is that the man is erect. The second is that there is no barrier that prevents body heat from being felt.

As for the woman’s wudu, it is nullified as soon as their private parts touch in that way when the man is erect. If it is imagined that a woman lies with another woman and their private parts touch in that way, their wudus are nullified as soon as the private parts touch while they are both bare.

There is another case, which is that a man and a man touch each other with their private parts while bare skinned, as may occur in a bath house in crowded conditions. The ruling here is that their wudus are not nullified unless the one who touches is erect.

From this you know that Hanafis differ from the other imams in this ruling. As for Malikis, they make nullification depend on the intention or finding of pleasure, so they differ with Shafi’is and Hanbalis regarding touching an old woman who is not desired. Malikis said that it does not nullify wudu, while Shafi’is and Hanbalis said that it nullifies.

They differ also with them regarding touching a beautiful beardless youth. Malikis said it nullifies wudu, while Shafi’is and Hanbalis said that it does not nullify.

They agreed that touching does not nullify wudu unless the one touched is bare skinned or covered with a thin cover. Malikis added that if the garment is thick and the one in wudu grasps his body with his hand and intends pleasure or finds it, wudu is nullified.

Third type of the nullifiers that lead to excretion: touching with the hand

The third of the nullifiers that may lead to something coming out from one of the two passages is touching with the hand. The ruling of this has detail.

If he touches someone else with it, he is someone who touches, and the rulings of touching mentioned earlier apply to him.

If he touches himself, the usual case is that a person does not find pleasure in touching any part of his own body. However narrations have come that indicate that whoever touches his own penis, his wudu is nullified, and there are narrations that touching it does not nullify wudu. Because of that, the madhhabs differed in this.

Those who said that touching a man’s own penis does not nullify wudu took as proof narrations, among them what the authors of the Sunan related, except Ibn Majah, that the Prophet ﷺ was asked about a man who touches his penis during the prayer. He said, “It is only a part of you.” (Jami’ At Tirmidhi 85) This narration was also related by Ibn Hibban in his Sahih, and al Tirmidhi said, this narration is the best that is related in this chapter.

Those who said that touching the penis nullifies wudu took as proof many narrations, among them the saying of the Prophet ﷺ, “Whoever touches his penis should perform wudu.”

The three imams agreed that touching the penis nullifies wudu. Hanafis alone differed and said that it does not nullify. Here is the detail of their madhhabs.

Hanafis say: touching the penis does not nullify wudu, even if it is with desire, whether it is with the palm of the hand or the inner side of the fingers, because a man came to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, as if he was a Bedouin, and said, O Messenger of Allah, what do you say about a man who touches his penis in prayer. He said, “It is only a part of you, or a piece of you.” (Graded hasan by Shuʿayb al Arnaʾut in Takhrij Sunan Abi Dawud 1/183. Also recorded by al Tirmidhi 85 in a shortened form with slight differences in wording, Ibn Majah 483 with slight differences and without mention of the prayer, and al Nasaʾi 165 with slight differences.)

However, it is recommended for him to renew his wudu, to come out of the difference of the scholars, because an act of worship on which there is agreement is better than one over which there is disagreement, on condition that he does not commit something disliked in his madhhab.

Some Hanafis interpreted the word mas, touching, in the saying, “Whoever touches his penis let him perform wudu” as the wudu of language, which is washing the hands, so it is recommended that he wash his hands from touching it when he wants to pray.

Likewise, wudu is not nullified by touching any other part of his own body. If he touches his private part or his back passage, his wudu is not nullified, nor is it nullified if a woman touches her private part.

However, if he inserts his finger or something like it, such as the tip of a syringe, and hides it inside, his wudu is nullified, because in that case it is like something entering the inside and then coming out. If he inserts part of it without hiding it and then withdraws it moist or with a smell, his wudu is nullified, otherwise it is not.

Likewise, if a woman puts her finger or some cotton in her front passage and it comes out moist, her wudu is nullified, otherwise it is not.

Malikis say: wudu is nullified by touching one’s own penis under conditions. The person must touch his own penis that is still connected to him. If someone else touches his penis, he is a toucher and the ruling of touching applies to him. He must be adult, even if he is blind. The wudu of a child is not nullified by this touching.

The touching must be without a barrier. It must be with the palm of the hand or its side, or with the inside of the fingers or their sides, or with the fingertip, even if it is extra, as long as it has the same feeling and control as one of the original fingers.

Wudu is not nullified if he touches it with another part of his body, such as his thigh or forearm, and it is not nullified if he touches it with a stick or from above a barrier. Wudu is nullified by touching that meets these conditions whether he feels pleasure or not, and whether he does it intentionally or forgetfully.

Wudu is not nullified if a woman touches her front passage, even if she inserts her finger and feels pleasure. Nor is it nullified if he touches the ring of the back passage, nor if he inserts his finger in it on the sound view, even though that is forbidden if there is no need. It is not nullified if he touches the place of surgical removal where the penis has been cut. Nor if he touches the testicles or the pubic area, even if he finds pleasure.

As for touching the penis of someone else or the front passage of a woman, that is touching and the ruling of touching applies to it.

Shafi’is say: wudu is nullified by touching the penis whether it is still connected or separated, as long as it has not disintegrated after separation such that the name no longer applies. If it has disintegrated, touching the place of cutting does not nullify.

Nullification by this touching is on condition that there is no barrier, and that the touching is with the inside of the palm or fingers. The inside is what is covered when the hand is closed on itself with light pressure, so wudu is not nullified by touching with the edge of the palm or finger tips or the space between them.

Shafi’is, like Hanbalis, do not restrict mas to touching a man’s own penis. They say that mas includes touching someone else’s penis. They say that touching the penis nullifies wudu whether it is his own or someone else’s, even if it is the penis of a small boy or a dead person, and only the wudu of the one who touches is nullified, not that of the one touched.

Likewise, wudu of a woman is nullified if she touches her front passage, and wudu of the one who touches the natural opening of the back passage, front or back, is nullified.

Fourth type of the nullifiers due to excretion from the two passages: what comes out from the body from other than the front and back

The fourth of the nullifiers due to excretion from the two passages is what comes out from the body from other than the front passage and the back passage, such as the pus that comes out from an abscess, or blood that comes out because of that or because of a wound and the like. Every impure thing alters wudu, with detail in the madhhabs.

Hanbalis say: wudu is nullified by every impure thing that comes out from the rest of the body, other than the front passage and back passage whose ruling was mentioned earlier, on condition that it is plentiful. What is plentiful or little is judged according to each person in himself, taking into account the state of his body, in strength and weakness, and in thinness and largeness. If blood, for example, comes out of a thin person and is much compared to his body, it nullifies, otherwise it does not. Vomit is included in this according to them.

Wudu is nullified by apostasy. If the person in wudu leaves the religion of Islam, his wudu is nullified. That often happens from some ignorant people overcome by severe anger who curse the religion and utter words of disbelief without any concern, then regret afterwards. These people have their wudu nullified if they were in wudu.

It is not hidden that this is one of the punishments of apostasy. If people knew that apostasy envelops and nullifies deeds, they would restrain themselves and guard their tongues from uttering words that harm greatly and bring no benefit at all.

Hanafis say: wudu is not nullified by apostasy, even though apostasy destroys many religious acts and financial dealings and the like. This has been explained in the fourth volume of this book, so whoever wishes may refer to it.

Shafi’is say: apostasy does not nullify wudu if he apostatises and he is free of an excuse like continuous incontinence. As for the one who has such an excuse, his wudu is nullified by apostasy because his purity is weak.

Wudu is not nullified by laughing loudly in the prayer, nor by eating the meat of a camel, nor by washing a dead person.

Hanafis say: loud laughter in the prayer nullifies wudu. There are narrations about that, among them what al Tabarani related from Abu Musa (may Allah be pleased with him), who said: while the Messenger of Allah ﷺ was praying with the people, a man came and fell into a pit that was in the masjid, and his sight was defective.

Many of the people laughed while they were in the prayer. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ ordered those who laughed to repeat wudu and to repeat the prayer.

Loud laughter is that he laughs with a sound that those beside him can hear. If this happens, his wudu is nullified even if the laughter is short, unlike if he laughs with a sound that only he hears and not those near him. In that case his wudu is not nullified although his prayer is invalid. Wudu is only nullified by loud laughter when the one praying is adult, whether male or female, whether he does it deliberately or forgetfully. As for a child, his wudu is not nullified by loud laughter.

It is also a condition that the laughter occurs in a prayer that has bowing and prostration. If it is during a prostration of recitation or the like and he laughs loudly, his prostration is invalid but his wudu is not nullified.

If he deliberately leaves the prayer by loud laughter instead of the salam, his wudu is nullified and his prayer is valid, because according to them leaving the prayer does take place without salam, as will come, but with this he has behaved badly while he is conversing with his Lord and he has left the salam which is obligatory, as will come in the book of prayer.

Hanbalis say: wudu is nullified by eating the meat of a camel and by washing a dead person.

Wudu is also not nullified by doubt about a state of excretion. There are two possible cases.

The first case is that he performs wudu with certainty, then doubts whether he has had an excretion after that wudu or not. This doubt does not nullify his wudu, because it is doubt about the occurrence of an excretion after wudu, and doubt does not remove the certainty of purity.

The second case is that he performs wudu with certainty and he has excreted with certainty, but he doubts whether he performed wudu before the excretion, in which case his wudu would have been nullified by that excretion, or whether he performed wudu after the excretion, in which case his wudu remains. In this situation there are two matters.

The first is that he remembers before that first wudu and the excretion which of the two came first.

Malikis say: wudu is nullified by doubt about an excretion or about its cause, such as if he doubts after certain wudu whether wind came out of him or whether he touched his penis or not. Or he doubts after certain excretion whether he performed wudu or not.

Or he doubts after certain excretion and certain wudu which one was first, the nullifier or the wudu. All of this nullifies wudu, because responsibility is only removed by certainty and the one who doubts has no certainty.

If he does not know which came first, then if he remembers that before that wudu and excretion he was in a state of excretion, he is considered to be in wudu, because he has certain knowledge of the first excretion that occurred from him before that wudu and certain knowledge of the wudu that he did after it, and there is doubt about a second excretion after that wudu, whether it occurred before the later wudu or after it. Doubt does not lift wudu, so he is in a state of wudu.

An example is that he performs wudu after the dhuhr prayer with certainty, and that he has a nullifying excretion with certainty, but he doubts, did the nullifying excretion occur first, so that the wudu remains valid, or did the wudu occur first, so that his wudu is nullified by that excretion. In this situation, he looks to his state before dhuhr.

If he remembers that he was in excretion before dhuhr, he is considered in purity after it, because he has certain knowledge of the first excretion from him before dhuhr, and certain knowledge of wudu done after dhuhr, and there is doubt about a second excretion after dhuhr, whether it occurred before wudu or after it, and doubt does not remove the first certainty.

The second matter is that he remembers that he was in wudu before dhuhr, then he performs wudu after it and has excretion. In this situation there is detail.

If it is his habit to renew wudu, he is considered to be in a state of excretion with certainty after fajr, because he was in wudu before it with certainty, then he renewed wudu after it and then had excretion and he does not know which came first.

He is not considered as someone who doubts about nullification of wudu, because he was in wudu first with certainty, then he had excretion with certainty, and his second wudu is considered a renewal of the first wudu which was done after excretion with certainty, so renewal is not a lifting of that excretion.

If it is not his habit to renew wudu, he is considered in purity, because his second purity lifts the excretion about which there is doubt.

All of this is when he doubts about his wudu after completing it. As for if he doubts about a limb while he is making wudu, he must repeat washing the limb about which he doubts.

It is not hidden that these fine details are mentioned so that students of knowledge may benefit from them. As for the general people, it is not necessary that they know such fine points, except in situations of need, such as if someone is in a place where there is little water or it is difficult for him to repeat wudu because of old age or weakness or cold and it is not permissible for him to use dry ablution and the like. The scholars have not fallen short in clarifying any ruling, whether the public benefit from it or a few.

Hanbalis say: in this case he acts contrary to his earlier state, even if it was his habit to renew wudu.

al Fiqh ʿalā al Madhāhib al Arbaʿah by ʿAbdul Raḥmān al Jazīrī 1/50–55

Yasir al Najjar on The Madhhabs Nullifiers On Wudu & Their Evidences

All of the written information below has been taken from Kitab Mawsuʿat al Fiqh ʿala al Madhahib al Arbaʿah (The Book of the Encyclopaedia of Fiqh According to the Four Madhahib) by Yasir al Najjar.

https://dn710603.ca.archive.org/0/items/19_20250223/01%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B7%D9%87%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A9.pdf

Nullifiers of wudu

Abu al Maali al Juwayni (d. 478 AH) said: The basis of purification from minor ritual impurity is not something whose meaning is grasped, and likewise its instrument, its place, and its division into what is washed and what is wiped; there is no rational rule for that in the Sharia on which we can rely, rather its reference is to stopping where the texts stop. (Ghayath al Umam, Abu al Maali al Juwayni, p. 511)

The fuqaha have mentioned the things that nullify wudu. They have agreed on some of them and differed concerning others, as will now be set out in detail.

First: What exits from the two passages

Ibn al Mundhir (d. 318 AH) said: They are agreed that the exit of faeces from the rear passage and the exit of urine from the penis, and likewise for a woman, meaning from her rear passage and front passage, and that the exit of semen, and the exit of wind from the rear passage, and the loss of reason in whatever way the reason is lost, are happenings that each one of them nullifies purification and makes wudu obligatory. (Al Ijma, Ibn al Mundhir, p. 19)

This is because of the saying of Allah the Exalted:

أَوْ جَاءَ أَحَدٌ مِّنْكُمْ مِّنَ الْغَائِطِ ۝

“Or one of you comes from relieving himself.” (al Maidah 6)

However, Imam Malik (d. 179 AH) and his companions did not hold that wudu is broken by rare things such as pebbles, worms, and incontinence. (Bidayat al Mujtahid, Ibn Rushd, 1/58; Hashiyat al Dusuqi, al Dusuqi, 1/185; al Sharh al Saghir, Ahmad al Sawi, 1/94; Badai al Sanaei, al Kasani, 1/101; Radd al Muhtar, Ibn Abidin, 1/260; Rawdat al Talibin, al Nawawi, 1/226; al Mughni, Ibn Qudamah, 1/214; al Ifsah, Ibn Hubayrah, 1/75)

Imam al Mawardi (d. 450 AH) said: Know that what makes wudu obligatory is one of five types. The first of them is what exits from the two passages, and they are the front passage and the rear passage, and what exits from them is of two categories, something usual and something rare.

The usual is faeces, urine, sound, wind, and menstrual blood, and wudu is required for these, in agreement with the saying of Allah the Exalted:

أَوْ جَاءَ أَحَدٌ مِّنْكُمْ مِّنَ الْغَائِطِ ۝

“Or one of you comes from relieving himself.” (al Maidah 6)

The rare is pre seminal fluid, post urinary fluid, worms, pebbles, urinary incontinence, and the blood of a woman with non menstrual bleeding.

They have differed about whether wudu is obligatory because of these. The madhhab of al Shafi’i and Abu Hanifa is that wudu is obligatory because of them just like the usual.

Imam Malik said: Wudu is not obligatory because of them, reasoning with the saying of the Prophet ﷺ: “There is no wudu except from sound or wind,” meaning what is usual like sound and wind, so this indicates that it is absent for what is rare.

And the Prophet ﷺ said to the woman with non menstrual bleeding: “Pray even if the blood drips onto the mat drop after drop,” and he did not consider her wudu to be broken by the blood of non menstrual bleeding because it is rare.

He said: And because what usually exits, if it exits from somewhere other than the normal place of ritual impurity, does not make wudu obligatory because it is rare, so when something not usual exits from the normal place, it should not make wudu obligatory because it is rare.

Our proof is the saying of Allah the Exalted:

أَوْ جَاءَ أَحَدٌ مِّنْكُمْ مِّنَ الْغَائِطِ

“Or one of you comes from relieving himself.” (al Maidah 6)

This applies to what is rare and what is usual. And Abbas ibn Anas said: I heard Ali, in Kufa, say: I said to Ammar, ask the Messenger of Allah ﷺ about pre seminal fluid that touches one of us when he comes near his wife, for his daughter is under me and I feel shy of him. So Ammar asked him, and he ﷺ said: “Wudu is enough because of it.”

This hadith only made wudu obligatory because of pre seminal fluid, and that is something rare, so likewise wudu is obligatory because of every rare thing. And because it is something exiting from the normal place of ritual impurity, so it must break wudu just like what is usual. (al Hawi al Kabir, al Mawardi, 1/176 and 1/177)

As for his saying: “There is no wudu except from sound or wind,” it has no clear outward wording on which the ruling can be based, then it contains evidence for the obligation of wudu because of sound and wind even if that is rare, just as it obligates it even if it is usual.

As for the report about the woman with non menstrual bleeding, there is no evidence in it, because the woman with non menstrual bleeding is in a state of ritual impurity, and the prayer is valid from her only because of necessity.

As for what is usual when it exits from somewhere other than the normal place, the reason for the absence of wudu is not that it is rare, but the reason is that it exits from somewhere other than the usual place.

Yet the Shafi’is have clearly stated in the sound view of their madhhab that the exit of semen makes ghusl obligatory and does not break wudu, whether he ejaculated only by looking or in a dream, while keeping his sitting place firmly on the ground, so his wudu is not broken, because it obligated the greater of the two matters, which is ghusl, due to its specific nature as semen, so it does not obligate the lesser of them.

Which is wudu, by the general nature of being something that has exited, like adultery of one who is previously married, which when it obligated the greater of the two legal punishments because of being adultery from someone previously married, did not obligate the lesser of them because it is adultery.

Ghusl was made obligatory because of menstruation and non menstrual post partum bleeding along with their making ghusl obligatory, because they prevent the validity of wudu, so they cannot be combined with wudu, contrary to the exit of semen, for wudu can coexist with it in the case of chronic seminal incontinence, so it can be combined with it. (al Najm al Wahhaj, Ibn al Malak, 1/266; Mughni al Muhtaj, al Khatib al Shirbini, 1/112)

And it is reported from al Qadi Abu al Tayyib (d. 450 AH) that the exit of semen breaks wudu and makes a person both in major ritual impurity and in minor ritual impurity.

Al Damiri (d. 808 AH) said: This is strong, because it is something exiting from the two passages, like menstruation, and that makes ghusl and wudu obligatory by agreement, as al Mawardi (d. 450 AH) and Ibn Atiyya (d. 541 AH) have mentioned.

For this reason, the shaykh chose it and al Rafi’i (d. 623 AH) authenticated it in his book al Mahmood, and it is an extensive book in which he reached the chapter of the prayer in eight volumes but did not complete it.

There are two benefits in saying that the exit of semen does not break wudu.

The first: If he was already in minor ritual impurity and then performed ghusl for janabah, there is disagreement about the validity of his prayer, whereas here, if he performs ghusl, his prayer is valid without disagreement.

The second: If his janabah is separate from minor ritual impurity, and he performs tayammum for it because he is unable to use water, then he may pray as many obligatory prayers as he wishes with one tayammum so long as he does not break wudu and is not able to use water, just as a menstruating woman who performs tayammum to make marital relations or prayer permissible, then breaks wudu after that, her husband is permitted to have relations with her and she is permitted to remain in the masjid so long as she does not find water or her menstruation does not return. (al Najm al Wahhaj, Ibn al Malak, 1/266; Mughni al Muhtaj, al Khatib al Shirbini, 1/112)

Al Nawawi (d. 676 AH) said: Whatever exits from one of the two passages, whether it is something material or wind, from the front passage of a man or woman or their rear passage, whether it is rare like blood and pebbles, or usual, whether its essence is impure or pure, like worms and pebbles, except semen, then the exit of semen does not break wudu, rather it only makes ghusl obligatory. And there is a rare view that it also makes wudu obligatory. (Rawdat al Talibin, al Nawawi, 1/72)

The jurists have differed regarding when some impurity exits from the rest of the body besides the two passages, such as from a wound, cupping, bloodletting, nosebleed, vomiting, and blood: does his wudu break or not?

The Hanafis and Hanbalis hold that impurities exiting from somewhere other than the two passages from any part of the body break wudu. However, Imam Ahmad (d. 241 AH) said: If what exits is gross and abundant, then it breaks wudu, but if what exits is small in amount, then there are two narrations.

One of them is that it breaks wudu.

The second is that it does not break wudu, and this is the correct one.

Al Buhuti (d. 1051 AH) said: As for the small amount of that not breaking wudu, that is due to the implication of the saying of Ibn Abbas that concerning blood: “If it is gross and abundant, then he must repeat the prayer.”

Ahmad said: A number of the companions spoke about that. Ibn Umar pressed a boil and blood came out, then he prayed and did not perform wudu. Ibn Abi Awfa pressed an abscess, and he mentioned others, and it is not known that any of the companions opposed them, so that is consensus. (Kashshaf al Qinaa, al Buhuti, 1/124; Badai al Sanaei, al Kasani, 1/101; al Hidayah, al Marghinani, 1/14; al Bahr al Raiq, Ibn Nujaym, 1/33; Radd al Muhtar, Ibn Abidin, 1/260 and 1/261; al Talqin, Ibn Jallab, 1/47; Hashiyat al Dusuqi, al Dusuqi, 1/190; Bulghat al Salik, al Sawi, 1/94; Kifayat al Akhyar, al Husni, p. 76; al Mughni, Ibn Qudamah, 1/220; al Tahqiq, Ibn al Jarud, 1/143; Nayl al Awtar, al Shawkani, 1/235; Manar al Sabil, Ibn Duwayan, 1/44; Awn al Mabud, Shams al Haqq al Azimabadi, 1/231)

The Malikis, the Shafi’is, and Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH) hold that the exit of these things does not break wudu.

Al Nawawi said: That is the case whether that is little or much. Only the place that the impurity exiting from the rest of the body touches must be purified, and the wudu remains until it is broken for some other reason. This is because the basic rule is that there is no breaking of wudu until it is established by the Sharia, and it has not been established, and analogy is not valid in this chapter because the cause of breaking wudu is not rationally grasped.

Al Nawawi said: Abu Bakr ibn al Mundhir (d. 318 AH) said: There is no wudu because of any of that, because I do not know any proof with those who obligate wudu from it.

Al Nawawi said: This is the speech of Ibn al Mundhir, and there is no doubt about his skill and precision, his investigation, his wide knowledge of the Sunnah, his knowledge of authentic evidences, and his lack of fanaticism. (al Majmu, al Nawawi, 2/65)

Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said: What is stronger is that wudu is not obligatory because of touching the penis, nor because of women, nor because of the exit of impurities from other than the two passages, nor because of loud laughing in the prayer, nor because of washing a dead person, for those who obligate wudu in these cases do not have an authentic proof, rather the stronger evidences indicate that it is not obligatory, but it is clearly recommended, so it is recommended to perform wudu. (Majmu al Fatawa, Ibn Taymiyyah, 20/525 and 20/526)

He said in another place: And by this method it is known that he, meaning the Prophet ﷺ, did not make wudu obligatory because of touching women, nor because of impurities exiting from other than the two passages, for no one has transmitted with a chain that is established in such matters that he commanded that, despite the fact that the people were constantly having cupping done, vomiting, and being wounded in jihad and other than that, and he cut the vein of one of his companions so that blood would come out from it, and that is bloodletting, and no Muslim has transmitted that he commanded his companions to perform wudu because of that. (Majmu al Fatawa, Ibn Taymiyyah, 25/237 and 25/238; al Talqin, Ibn Jallab, 1/47; Hashiyat al Dusuqi, al Dusuqi, 1/190; Bulghat al Salik, al Sawi, 1/94; Kifayat al Akhyar, al Husni, p. 76; al Mughni, Ibn Qudamah, 1/220; al Tahqiq, Ibn al Jarud, 1/143; Nayl al Awtar, al Shawkani, 1/235; Manar al Sabil, Ibn Duwayan, 1/44; Awn al Mabud, Shams al Haqq al Azimabadi, 1/231)

Imam Ibn Rushd (d. 595 AH) said: The scholars of the regions have differed about breaking of wudu because of what exits from the body of impurity into three madhhabs. Some of them considered only what exits to be relevant, from wherever it exits. This is Abu Hanifa and his companions, and Sufyan al Thawri (d. 161 AH), and Ahmad, and a group. Some of the companions support this view.

They said: Every impurity that flows out from the body and exits from it obligates wudu, like blood, gross, flowing nosebleed, bloodletting, cupping, and vomiting, except phlegm according to Abu Hanifa.

Abu Yusuf (d. 182 AH), one of the companions of Abu Hanifa, said: If it fills the mouth then wudu is obligatory. None of these considered a small amount of blood to be relevant except Mujahid.

Another group considered the two passages, the penis and the rear passage, to be relevant and said: Everything that exits from these two passages breaks wudu, whatever it is that exits, blood, pebbles, or phlegm, and in whatever way it exits, whether it exits in the usual way or due to illness. Those who said this include al Shafi’i (d. 204 AH) and his companions, and Muhammad ibn Abd al Hakam (d. 268 AH) from the companions of Malik.

Another group considered the exiting substance, the place from which it exits, and the manner of its exit together.

They said: Everything that exits from the two passages that is usual in exit, which is urine, faeces, pre seminal fluid, post urinary fluid, and wind, if it exits in a state of health, breaks wudu. They did not see wudu as obligatory because of blood, pebbles, worms, nor because of incontinence. Those who said this include Imam Malik and all his companions.

The reason for their differing is that when the Muslims agreed that wudu is broken by what exits from the two passages of faeces, urine, wind, and pre seminal fluid because of the outward wording of the Book and the convergence of narrations about that, three possibilities arose.

One possibility is that the ruling was attached only to the very substances agreed upon, as Malik saw.

The second possibility is that the ruling was attached to them because they are impurities exiting from the body, since purification is an act connected to impurity.

The third possibility is that the ruling was also attached to them because they exit from the two passages, so on these last two views the command regarding wudu from those agreed happenings is from the category of a specific ruling intended for a general class, whereas for Malik and his companions it is from the category of a specific ruling carried upon its own specific nature.

Al Shafi’i and Abu Hanifa agreed that the command about them is from the category of a specific ruling intended for a general class, and differed about which general class is intended.

Malik prefers his madhhab because the basic rule is that a specific ruling is carried upon its specific nature until a proof indicates otherwise.

Al Shafi’i argues that what is intended by it is the place of exit not the exiting substance, due to their agreement upon the obligation of wudu because of wind that exits from below and their agreement that wudu is not obligatory because of wind that exits from above, and both are one and the same substance, and the difference is the difference of the two places of exit, so this is an indication that the ruling is for the place of exit. This is weak, because the two winds differ in description and smell.

Abu Hanifa argues that what is intended by that is the exiting impurity, because impurity affects purification, and this purification, even though it is a legal purification, has some similarity to tangible purification from impurity.

He also argues with the hadith of Thawban: “The Messenger of Allah ﷺ vomited, then broke his fast, then performed wudu,” and with what is reported from Umar and Ibn Umar about obligating wudu because of nosebleed, and with what is reported from his ﷺ command to the woman with non menstrual bleeding to perform wudu for every prayer, so the understood meaning for Abu Hanifa from all of this is the exiting impurity.

Al Shafi’i and Abu Hanifa only agreed upon obligating wudu from the agreed happenings even if they exit as illness because of his ﷺ command to the woman with non menstrual bleeding to perform wudu for every prayer, while non menstrual bleeding is an illness.

As for Malik, he saw that illness here has an effect of concession, by analogy also with what is reported that the woman with non menstrual bleeding was not commanded except to perform ghusl only.

The hadith of Fatimah bint Abi Hubaysh is agreed upon for its authenticity, and they differ about this addition in it, meaning about the command to perform wudu for every prayer, but Abu Umar ibn Abd al Barr (d. 463 AH) authenticated it, by analogy with someone whose wound is overwhelmed by blood and does not stop, just as it is reported that Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, prayed while his wound was pouring blood. (Bidayat al Mujtahid, Ibn Rushd, 1/58 and 1/60)

Third: Sleep

Sleep is a natural period that occurs to a person without choice and prevents the apparent and hidden senses from working, while they remain sound, and it prevents the use of the mind while it exists, so the servant is not able to fulfil duties.

The jurists of the four madhhabs agree that sleep in general breaks wudu, and likewise sleep of one who lies down, reclines, or leans breaks wudu, because of the saying of the Prophet ﷺ: “The eye is the tie of the rear passage, so whoever sleeps, let him perform wudu.” (The word as sahh is the ring of the rear passage, and al wika is the string with which the mouth of the waterskin is tied, so wakefulness of the eye is compared to the tie of the waterskin, and when the eye sleeps that tie is loosened and the event occurs.)

Then they differed about one who sleeps in one of the positions of those who pray, or one who sleeps while firmly planting his sitting place on the ground, does his wudu break or not?

Abu Hanifa (d. 150 AH) said: It does not break, even if it is long, if he is in one of the positions of the prayer. As for if he falls onto his side and lies down, his wudu is broken.

Abu Bakr al Jassas (d. 370 AH) said: What obligates wudu is the usual sleep about which it is reasonable to say that he rose from sleep, and whoever sleeps while sitting or prostrating or bowing, it is not said that he rose from sleep, rather that is only said concerning the sleep of one who lies down.

Then he said: The early generations and the jurists of the regions have agreed in denying that wudu is obligatory upon one who sleeps while sitting without leaning on anything. Ata narrated from Ibn Abbas that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ delayed the night prayer one night until the people slept, then woke up, so Umar came and said: Prayer, O Messenger of Allah. Then he came out and prayed, and he did not mention that they performed wudu.

And it is narrated from Anas: “We used to come to the masjid of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and wait for the prayer, and some of us would become drowsy and some of us would sleep, and we would not repeat wudu.”

We have mentioned the differing of the jurists in this in another place. Abu Yusuf narrated from Muhammad ibn Abdullah from Ata from Ibn Abbas from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ that he used to pray Fajr without performing wudu. He was asked about that, and he said: “I am not like one of you. My eyes sleep but my heart does not sleep. If I had passed wind I would know it.” (This wording has not been found with this exact form. What is established in the two sahihs is his saying: “My eyes sleep but my heart does not sleep,” narrated by al Bukhari 1147 and Muslim 738.)

This hadith indicates that sleep in itself is not a ritual impurity, and that obligating wudu because of it is only due to what might occur of an event in it that he does not feel, and that is what usually happens to a sleeper. It is narrated from the Prophet ﷺ that he said: “The eye is the tie of the rear passage, so when the eye sleeps the tie is loosened.” (This is a hasan hadith)

So when it is usually the case in sleep in which the sleeper is heavy that an event occurs without his awareness of it, sleep of that type is given the ruling of an event. This is in the usual sleep in which the sleeper places his side on the ground, which occurs in one who lies down without him knowing what happens from him.

If he is sitting or in one of the positions of the prayer without necessity, like standing, bowing, and prostrating, his purification does not break, because in these positions a person is careful, and if an event occurs from him he is aware of it. (Ahkam al Qur’an, Abu Bakr al Jassas, 3/322 and 3/333; Badai al Sanaei, al Kasani, 1/123 and 1/127; Radd al Muhtar, Ibn Abidin, 1/207)

As for the Malikis, the correct view with them is that the consideration is the nature of the sleep, not the posture of the sleeper, whether lying, standing, or otherwise. So whenever the sleep is heavy it breaks wudu in every case, whether the sleeper is lying, prostrating, sitting, or standing. And the sign of heavy sleep is that he does not sense loud sounds close to him, or that he had something in his hand and it falls and he does not sense it.

If the sleep is not heavy, such that he hears the loud sounds close to him or feels the falling of what was in his hand or feels the flow of his saliva, then wudu is not broken in any case, because of its lightness. This is the method of al Lakhmi.

Some of them considered the nature of the sleep together with heaviness and the posture of the sleeper together with non heavy sleep. As for heavy sleep, wudu is obligatory because of it in every posture and in every position.

As for non heavy sleep, they said: Wudu is obligatory in lying down and prostrating and not obligatory in standing and sitting. Al Sawi said: In al Tawdih this method is attributed to Abd al Haqq and others, but the first method is the more famous, and it is the method of Ibn Marzuq (d. 781 AH). (al Sharh al Saghir with Bulghat al Salik, Ahmad al Sawi, 1/98; Hashiyat al Dusuqi with al Sharh al Kabir, al Dusuqi, 1/192; al Ifsah, Ibn Hubayrah, 1/74)

As for the Shafi’is, the sound view with them that al Shafi’i himself clearly stated in his books is what Al Nawawi has related, where he said: It is the sound view in terms of the madhhab and the evidence, that if he sleeps while firmly planting his sitting place on the ground or something similar, his wudu does not break, and if he is not firmly planting it, then it breaks in every posture, in the prayer and outside the prayer.

In their madhhab, little sleep and much sleep are the same, in order to combine the narrations in this chapter.

Among them is the hadith of Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, that the Prophet ﷺ said: “The two eyes are the tie of the rear passage, so whoever sleeps, let him perform wudu.” (This is a hasan hadith, narrated by Abu Dawud 203, Ibn Majah 477, and others. Al Nawawi considered it hasan in al Majmu 2/23.) And the hadith of Safwan, may Allah be pleased with him, raised: “Rather it is because of faeces, urine, and sleep.” (This is a hasan hadith, narrated by al Tirmidhi 96, al Nasa’i 158, Ahmad 18116 and 18120, and Ibn Khuzaymah in his Sahih 17 and 196.)

And the hadith of Anas, may Allah be pleased with him: “The companions of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ used to sleep, then pray, and not perform wudu,” and in one wording: “until their heads trembled.” (Narrated by Muslim 376 and Abu Dawud 200.)

And from Anas that the iqamah for the night prayer was given, so a man said: I have a need. Then the Prophet ﷺ stood and addressed him in a low voice until the people slept or some of the people slept, then they prayed, and in another wording: “until his companions slept, then he came and prayed with them.” Muslim narrated both. (Sahih Muslim 376; also recorded by Ahmad 13941, whose wording is cited, and by Abu Dawud 200 and al Tirmidhi 78 with slight variations.)

And from Ibn Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ was detained one night from the night prayer until we slept in the masjid, then we woke up, then slept again, then woke up, then he came out to us, and “The Messenger of Allah ﷺ delayed the night prayer one night until the people slept, then woke up, then slept, then woke up.” Al Bukhari narrated both hadiths with this wording, and their outward sense is that they prayed with that same wudu. (Sahih Muslim 638c)

Al Nawawi said: Malik and al Shafi’i narrated with an authentic chain that Ibn Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, “used to sleep while sitting, then pray without performing wudu.”

And because one who sleeps without firmly planting his sitting place does usually pass wind without sensing its exit, so the Sharia placed this apparent state in the position of certainty, just as the testimony of two witnesses, which only gives probable knowledge, is placed in the position of certainty regarding the occupation of a person’s liability.

As for the first hadith, it is carried upon the sleep of one who is not firmly planting his sitting place, and this is necessary so that the authentic narrations can be combined.

Al Nawawi said: Al Shafi’i said in al Umm, and the companions said: Wudu is not broken by drowsiness, which is light sleep, and this has no disagreement, and its evidence from the narrations is the hadith of “The Messenger of Allah ﷺ standing, meaning to pray at night, so I stood to his left, so he placed me on his right side, so whenever I became drowsy he would take hold of the lobe of my ear, and he prayed eleven rak’ahs.” (Sahih Muslim 904; also recorded by Abu Dawud 1178, al Nasaʾi 1478, and Ibn Hibban 2843 with similar wording)

Al Shafi’i and the companions said: The difference between sleep and drowsiness is that in sleep the mind is overcome and the sense of sight and the other senses fall away, whereas in drowsiness the mind is not overcome and only the senses grow weak without falling away. (al Majmu, al Nawawi, 2/17 and 2/27; Sharh Sahih Muslim, al Nawawi, 4/66; Tarh al Tasrib, al Iraqi, 2/45; Mughni al Muhtaj, al Khatib al Shirbini, 1/115; Kifayat al Akhyar, al Husni, p. 77; al Ifsah, Ibn Hubayrah, 1/74)

As for the Hanbalis, they divide sleep into three categories.

The first is the sleep of one who is lying down. This breaks wudu whether it is little or much, and this is the saying of everyone who holds that sleep breaks wudu.

The second is the sleep of one who is sitting. If it is much, it breaks wudu according to one narration, and if it is little, it does not break wudu.

They give evidence for this with the generality of the hadith: “The eye is the tie of the rear passage, so whoever sleeps, let him perform wudu” and with the saying of Safwan ibn Assal, may Allah be pleased with him: “The Messenger of Allah ﷺ used to command us when we were travelling not to remove our leather socks for three days and nights except because of janabah, but because of faeces, urine, and sleep.”

They said: We only made them specific to much sleep because of the hadith of Anas, may Allah be pleased with him: “The companions of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ used to sleep, then pray, and not perform wudu.”

It does not clarify whether that sleep was much or little, and a sleeper’s head trembles due to a little sleep, and that is definite concerning a small amount, so it is acted upon. What is more than that is possible, and a definite general text is not left for something merely possible.

And because breaking wudu with sleep is explained by its leading to an event, and with much and heavy sleep it leads to that and he does not sense its exit from him, contrary to a small amount. And analogy between much sleep and small sleep is not valid between them, because they differ in the degree to which they lead to an event.

From Imam Ahmad it is also narrated that it does not break wudu, and another narration from him is that the sleep of one who sits does not break wudu even if it is much. Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah chose this, and it is reported from him that none of the types of sleep break wudu except sleep while lying down.

The third is what is other than these two positions, which is the sleep of one who is standing, bowing, or prostrating. There are several narrations from Ahmad about all of this.

One narration is that it breaks wudu, and this is the madhhab, because nothing has been narrated that makes this position specific from the generality of the narrations that sleep breaks wudu, and it is not similar in meaning to the case where something has been made specific. The one who sits carefully guards the place of the event by placing it on the ground, whereas the place of the event separates in bowing and prostrating.

The second narration is that it does not break wudu unless the sleep is much.

In al Insaf it is said: The correct view in the madhhab is that the sleep of one who stands is like the sleep of one who sits, so much sleep of this type does not break wudu. Ahmad explicitly stated this.

In al Mughni it is said: The outward wording from Ahmad indicates equality between one who sits and one who stands, because they are similar in the lowering of the body and the coming together of the place of the event, and one who stands may be further from an event than one who sits because he is not able to be heavy in sleep, for if he were heavy he would fall.

In al Insaf it is said: This is the view of the majority of the companions.

As for the sleep of one who bows or prostrates, if it is little then the madhhab is that it breaks wudu.

From him it is narrated that the little sleep of one who bows or prostrates does not break wudu, and this is the view of the majority of the companions. From him it is narrated that the sleep of one who stands and bows does not break wudu whereas the sleep of one who prostrates breaks it. (al Mughni, Ibn Qudamah, 1/223 and 1/225; Kashshaf al Qinaa, al Buhuti, 1/125; al Insaf, al Mirdawi, 1/199 and 1/200; Manar al Sabil, Ibn Duwayan, 1/45)

Fourth: Touching the penis

The jurists agree that whoever touches his private part with another part of his body besides his hand, his wudu is not broken.

Then they differed when he touches it with the inner part of his palm, into three madhhabs.

The first madhhab: The Hanafis and Imam Ahmad (d. 241 AH) in one narration that Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah chose, hold that touching the penis does not break wudu and that wudu is not obligatory because of touching the penis, rather it is only recommended.

They base this on the hadith of Taliq ibn Ali, who said: “We came to the Prophet of Allah ﷺ, and a man came who seemed to be a bedouin and said: O Prophet of Allah, what do you say about a man who touches his penis after he has performed wudu?” and in one wording: “during the prayer”. So the Prophet ﷺ said to him: “Is it anything but a piece of you, or a part of you?” (This is an authentic hadith, narrated by Abu Dawud 181 and 182, al Tirmidhi 85, al Nasa’i 165, and Ibn Majah 483.)

They said: And because it is one of his limbs, so it is like the rest of his body, like one who touches his thigh, nose, or leg.

They said: But wudu is recommended, in order to come out of the disagreement. (al Mabsut, al Sarakhsi, 1/66; al Bahr al Raiq, Ibn Nujaym, 1/45; Fath al Qadir, Ibn al Humam, 1/55; Hashiyat al Tahtawi, Tahtawi, 1/61; Radd al Muhtar, Ibn Abidin, 1/278; al Mughni, Ibn Qudamah, 1/228; al Insaf, al Mirdawi, 1/202; al Ikhtiyarat, Ibn Taymiyyah, p. 28)

The second madhhab: The Shafi’is and Hanbalis in the madhhab, and the Malikis in the more famous view, hold that whoever touches his private part with his hand, his wudu is broken. They rely on several ahadith about the breaking of wudu because of touching the penis, among them what Busrah bint Safwan, may Allah be pleased with her, narrated that the Prophet ﷺ said: “Whoever touches his penis, let him perform wudu.” (This is an authentic hadith, narrated by Abu Dawud 180, al Tirmidhi 82, al Nasa’i 444, and Ibn Majah 479.)

And the hadith of Abu Hurayrah, may Allah be pleased with him, that the Prophet ﷺ said: “If one of you places his hand to his private part and there is no screen and no barrier between them, let him perform wudu.” (This is an authentic hadith, narrated by Ibn Hibban in his Sahih 1118 and al Bayhaqi in al Sunan al Kubra 630.)

And what Abdullah ibn Amr, may Allah be pleased with him, narrated that the Prophet ﷺ said: “Any man who touches his private part must perform wudu, and any woman who touches her private part must perform wudu.” (This is an authentic hadith, narrated by Ahmad 7076, Ibn al Jarud in al Muntaqa 19, and al Bayhaqi in al Sunan al Kubra 652)

And what Umm Habibah, may Allah be pleased with her, narrated, that she said: I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say: “Whoever touches his private part, let him perform wudu.” (This is an authentic hadith, narrated by Ibn Majah 481 and al Bayhaqi in al Sunan al Kubra 617, and it is also narrated from Abu Ayyub.)

They said: If the hadith of Taliq were authentic, the hadith of Abu Hurayrah and those with him would be given precedence over it, because Taliq came to Madinah when they were building the masjid and mentioned this hadith in which is the incident of touching the penis. Abu Hurayrah, however, accepted Islam in the year of Khaybar, six years after that, and rulings are taken from what is later in time of his ﷺ command.

They said: The hadith of Taliq remains upon the basic rule, whereas the hadith of Busrah transfers from that basic rule, and the text that transfers is given precedence, because the rulings of the Lawgiver transfer from what they were upon.

They said: The narrators of breaking wudu are more and their ahadith are more famous, for they are narrated from Busrah, Umm Habibah, Abu Hurayrah, Zayd ibn Khalid, and others, may Allah be pleased with them all.

And also, it is established that there is a difference between the penis and the rest of the body in looking at it and feeling it.

It is established from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ that “he forbade a man to touch his penis with his right hand”, so that indicates that the penis is not similar to the rest of the body, and for this reason the right hand is kept away from touching it, so it indicates that it is not like the nose, thigh, or leg.

Therefore, analogy between the penis and the rest of the body is not sound, because rulings that are unique to it are attached to it, for ghusl is obligatory because of entering it, and because of it the legal punishment and dowry and other things are attached. (al Mughni, Ibn Qudamah, 1/228 and 1/230; al Insaf, al Mirdawi, 1/202; al Majmu, al Nawawi, 2/45 and 2/55; Hashiyat Ibn al Qayyim on Sunan Abi Dawud, Ibn al Qayyim, 1/212 and 1/214; Mughni al Muhtaj, al Khatib al Shirbini, 1/35; al Ifsah, Ibn Hubayrah, 1/79; al Awsat, Ibn al Mundhir, 1/194; al Istidhkar, Ibn Abd al Barr, 1/250; al Kafi, Ibn Abd al Barr, 1/12)

They also said that the hadith of Taliq should be understood as referring to touching with a barrier in between, because he said: “I asked him about touching the penis in the prayer,” and the outward sense is that a person does not touch the penis in the prayer without a barrier.

According to the Shafi’is and Hanbalis, there is no difference between touching intentionally and touching unintentionally.

In one narration from Imam Ahmad, and this is one view among the Malikis, wudu is not broken except when his intention is to touch. Ahmad ibn al Husayn said: Ahmad was asked about wudu because of touching the penis, and he did this, clenching his hand, meaning if he took hold of it.

The third madhhab is that of the Malikis. Ibn Abd al Barr (d. 463 AH) said: The saying of Malik (d. 179 AH) about obligating wudu because of touching the penis is unsettled, and his madhhab in that is different.

What his madhhab has settled upon with the people of the Maghrib among his companions is that whoever touches his penis is ordered to perform wudu so long as he has not prayed. If he prays he is ordered to repeat the prayer in its time, and if its time has passed he is not ordered to repeat it.

His companions and followers have differed in four sayings.

Some of them do not see wudu as obligatory upon one who touches his penis, nor the repetition of the prayer for one who prays after touching it whether in time or after the time. Among those who held this view are Sahnun (d. 240 AH) and al Ittiqi.

Ibn al Qasim and Ashhab, and this is one narration from Ibn Wahb, held that he must repeat in the time.

Some of them held that wudu is obligatory upon him, and that one who prays after touching it must repeat in the time and after the time. Among them are Asbagh ibn al Faraj (d. 225 AH) and Isa ibn Dinar (d. 212 AH), and this is the madhhab of Ibn Umar, because he repeated the Fajr prayer because of touching it after the sun had risen, and this is the saying of al Shafi’i.

As for Ismail ibn Ishaq and his Baghdadi Maliki companions such as Ibn Kabir, Ibn al Muntab, and Abu al Faraj al Abhari, they considered the presence of pleasure in touching it, like touching women in their madhhab.

So if the one who touches his penis feels pleasure, wudu is obligatory upon him, and if he prays having touched it before performing wudu, he repeats the prayer always, even if the time has gone.

If he does not feel pleasure in touching it there is nothing upon him. This is a fourth saying, and whoever held this view equated the inner and outer side of the palm. (al Istidhkar, Ibn Abd al Barr, 1/249 and 1/250; Mawahib al Jalil, al Hattab, 1/300 and 6/433; al Kafi, Ibn Abd al Barr, 1/12; Bidayat al Mujtahid, Ibn Rushd, 1/65 and 1/66)

The Malikis in the correct view, and the Shafi’is, say that wudu is not broken by touching it except with the inner side of the palm, because the back of the hand is not the tool of touching, so it is similar to touching it with the thigh. (al Istidhkar, Ibn Abd al Barr, 1/249; al Majmu, al Nawawi, 2/245)

The Hanbalis say that there is no difference between the back of the palm and its inner side, because of the saying of the Prophet ﷺ: “If one of you places his hand to his private part and there is no screen and no barrier between them, let him perform wudu,” and the back of his hand is from his hand, and placing the hand means touching without a barrier, and because it is part of his hand, and the rulings connected to the general wording of hand apply to it, so it is similar to the inner side of the palm. (al Mughni, Ibn Qudamah, 1/230)

Touching the buttocks

The jurists differed about the ruling of one who touches his rear passage: does his wudu break or not?

The Shafi’is and Hanbalis in the madhhab hold that his wudu breaks, and they do not differentiate between touching the front passage and touching the rear passage in breaking wudu, because of the hadith of Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her, that the Prophet ﷺ said: “Whoever touches his private part, let him perform wudu.”

The term private part is used for both the front passage and the rear passage together, and because it is one of the two places of ritual impurity, so touching it must be a ritual impurity, like the front passage.

When wudu is established because of touching the rear passage, this relates to touching the ring itself and not what is near it and attached to it. Likewise, wudu because of touching the penis relates to touching it, not what is near it from the pubic region, the testicles, or between the two passages. (al Majmu, al Nawawi, 2/51; al Awsat, Ibn al Mundhir, 1/212 and 1/213; al Mughni, Ibn Qudamah, 1/232; al Insaf, al Mirdawi, 1/209)

The Hanafis and Malikis and Hanbalis in another narration hold that his wudu does not break, because of the saying of the Prophet ﷺ: “Whoever touches his penis, let him perform wudu.” He specified the penis with the ruling, and this is not similar to it, because the intention is not to touch it and it does not usually lead to the exit of anything, so it does not break wudu. (al Awsat, Ibn al Mundhir, 1/212 and 1/213; al Bahr al Raiq, Ibn Nujaym, 1/45; al Istidhkar, Ibn Abd al Barr, 1/249; al Bayan wa al Tahsil, Ibn Rushd al Jadd, 18/45; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, al Khurashi, 1/158; al Qawanin al Fiqhiyyah, Ibn Juzayy, p. 22; al Mughni, Ibn Qudamah, 1/232; al Insaf, al Mirdawi, 1/209)

Wudu because of touching the private part of an animal

Al Nawawi (d. 676 AH) said: Touching the private part of an animal does not break wudu according to us, and all the scholars say this. (al Majmu, al Nawawi, 2/51)

A woman touching her private part

The jurists differed about the ruling of a woman who touches her private part: does her wudu break or not?

The Shafi’is, Malik in one narration, and the Hanbalis in the madhhab, hold that if a woman touches her private part, her wudu breaks like a man, because of the hadith: “Any woman who touches her private part must perform wudu.”

The Hanafis, the Malikis in the famous view, and Ahmad in one narration, hold that her wudu does not break, because the famous hadith is about touching the penis, and a woman touching her private part is not similar in meaning, because it does not usually lead to the exit of anything, so it does not break wudu. (al Qawanin al Fiqhiyyah, Ibn Juzayy, p. 22; al Majmu, al Nawawi, 2/55; al Mughni, Ibn Qudamah, 1/232; al Insaf, al Mirdawi, 1/209 and 1/210)

The Malikis in the famous view say: The wudu of a woman is not broken by touching her private part, even if she is very gentle, meaning that she inserts one finger or more of her fingers into her private part. (Bulghat al Salik, Ahmad al Sawi, 1/101)

Ibn Abd al Barr (d. 463 AH) said: Malik differed in what is narrated from him about a woman touching her private part. It is narrated from him that she in that is like a man, upon what we have mentioned of the differing states of the man in that, and wudu is obligatory upon her, and this is the more famous.

It is narrated from him that he made that light and did not obligate wudu from it except if she is very gentle, and gentleness is explained as pleasurable touching. Ismail ibn Abi Uways said: I asked Malik ibn Anas about a woman who touches her private part, is wudu obligatory upon her? Malik said: If she is very gentle wudu is obligatory upon her. I said to him: What is very gentle? He said: She inserts her hand between the two lips. (al Kafi, Ibn Abd al Barr, 1/12)

Whoever Touches the Private Part of Another

The jurists differed over the ruling on whoever touches the private part of another person’s penis, even if he is a small child. Does the wudu of the one who touches it break or not?

The Shafi’is and Hanbalis held that whoever touches the private part of another person, the wudu of the one who touches is broken, even if the one touched is small or old, alive or dead. This is because touching the penis of another person is a sin, and it is more likely to stir desire and cause discharge, while a person has a need to touch his own penis.

So if his wudu is broken by touching his own penis, then by touching the penis of another person it is even more deserving of breaking. This is a form of indication that comes before the explicit proof. (Al-Majmu, al-Nawawi, 2/45, 47; Magni al-Muhtaj, al-Khatib al-Shirbini, 1/35; al-Mughni, Ibn Qudamah, 1/231; al-Kafi, Ibn Qudamah, 1/45; al-Insaf, al-Mardawi, 1/209, 210; Kashshaf al-Qina, al-Bahuti, 1/128; al-Ifsah, Ibn Hubayrah, 1/78).

The Hanafis held that wudu is not broken at all by touching the penis of another person. (Al-Mabsut, al-Sarakhsi, 1/66; al-Istidhkar, Ibn Abd al-Barr, 1/256; al-Fatawa al-Hindiyyah, group of Hanafi imams, 1/13).

The Malikis said: if someone touches the penis of another person, then his ruling is the same as the one who touches in general: if he intends pleasure or he finds it, his wudu is broken, otherwise it is not. This is their madhhab. However al-Qarafi (d. 684 AH) in “al-Dhakhira” mentioned non-breaking without giving this detail. (Mawahib al-Jalil, al-Hattab, 1/299; al-Dhakhira, al-Qarafi, 1/225; al-Thamar al-Dani, al-Mayyara, 1/30; al-Sharh al-Kabir, al-Dardir, 1/121; al-Fawakih al-Dawani, al-Nafrawi, 1/116; Hashiyat al-Adawi, al-Adawi, 1/176; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, al-Khurashi, 1/157; Manah al-Jalil, al-Amir, 1/113).

Fifth: Touching Women

The jurists differed over the ruling on touching women. Does it break wudu in all cases, whether with desire or without desire, or does it never break it, whether with desire or without desire, or does it break wudu if it is with desire and not break it if it is without desire? These are three sayings of the people of knowledge.

The Hanafis and Ahmad in one narration – and this was the choice of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, held that touching women does not break wudu at all, unless he directly touches her with intense contact and ends at what is less than penetration.

They used the hadith of Aishah who said: “I used to sleep in front of the Prophet ﷺ while my legs were in his direction of prayer, and when he wanted to prostrate he would pinch me, so I would draw back my legs, and when he stood I would stretch them out.” (Narrated by al-Bukhari 513)

And from her that he ﷺ: “Kissed some of his wives, then went out to the prayer and did not do wudu.” (An authentic hadith: narrated by Abu Dawud, 179; al-Tirmidhi, 86; al-Nasa’i, 1/104; Ibn Majah, 502.)

And because of what Abu Umamah narrated: he said, “While the Messenger of Allah ﷺ was in the masjid and we were sitting with him, a man came and said, ‘O Messenger of Allah, I have committed a hadd offence, so carry out the punishment upon me.’

The Messenger of Allah ﷺ kept silent about him. Then he repeated and said, ‘O Messenger of Allah, I have committed a hadd offence, so carry out the punishment upon me.’ He remained silent. Then the prayer was established.

When the Prophet ﷺ finished, Abu Umamah said, ‘The man followed the Messenger of Allah ﷺ when he left, and I followed the Messenger of Allah ﷺ to see what he would answer the man with. The man caught up with the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and said, “O Messenger of Allah, I have committed a hadd offence, so carry out the punishment upon me.”

Abu Umamah said, “The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said to him, ‘Tell me, when you left your house, did you not do wudu and do it well?’

He said, ‘Yes, O Messenger of Allah.’ He said, ‘Then did you not pray with us?’

He said, ‘Yes, O Messenger of Allah.’ He said, ‘Indeed Allah has forgiven your hadd, or he said: your sin.’(Narrated by Muslim, 2765.)

And in a narration from Abdullah: “A man came to the Prophet ﷺ and said, ‘O Messenger of Allah, I courted a woman in the farthest part of the city, and I obtained from her what is less than that I touch her, so here I am, so decide concerning me as you wish.’ Umar said to him, ‘Allah has concealed you; if only you had concealed yourself.’ The Prophet ﷺ did not say anything, so the man stood and left. The Prophet ﷺ sent after him a man to call him, and he recited to him this verse:

﴿وَأَقِمِ الصَّلَاةَ طَرَفَيِ النَّهَارِ وَزُلَفًا مِنَ اللَّيْلِ إِنَّ الْحَسَنَاتِ يُذْهِبْنَ السَّيِّئَاتِ ذَلِكَ ذِكْرَى لِلذَّاكِرِينَ﴾

“ Establish the prayer at the two ends of the day and in the early part of the night. Indeed, good deeds erase bad deeds. That is a reminder for those who remember. ” (Hud: 114)

Then a man from the people said, ‘O Prophet of Allah, is this especially for him?’ He said, ‘Rather it is for all people.’ ” (Narrated by Muslim, 2763.)

They said: touching is not a hadath in itself, nor is it a cause for the occurrence of hadath in most cases, so it is like a man touching a man or a woman touching a woman. And because the touching of one spouse to the other is something that often happens; if it were made to be hadath people would fall into hardship.

As for the verse:

أَوْ لَامَسْتُمُ النِّسَاءَ

“ Or you have touched women. ” (al-Nisa: 43)

it has been reported from Ibn Abbas (d. 68 AH) that what is intended by touching here is intercourse. He is the interpreter of the Qur’an.

And because obligation comes from the Sharia, and nothing has come in the Sharia for this, and it is not in the meaning of what the Sharia has mentioned. (Badai al-Sanai, al-Kasani, 1/119, 121; Radd al-Muhtar, Ibn Abidin, 1/277, 278; al-Mughni, Ibn Qudamah, 1/249.)

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said: “Likewise touching women with desire, if it is said it is recommended to do wudu then this is reasonable, but as for it being obligatory then the proof can only support the opposite of that.

No one at all can ever transmit from the Prophet ﷺ that he used to command his Companions to do wudu from touching women, nor from the impure things that come out, despite the general occurrence of that. And His saying, the Most High:

أَوْ لَامَسْتُمُ النِّسَاءَ

the intended meaning in it is intercourse, as Ibn Abbas and others interpreted it in many ways.” (Majmu al-Fatawa, Ibn Taymiyyah, 20/525.)

Then he said:“The stronger view is that wudu is not obligatory from touching the penis, nor from touching women, nor from the exiting of impurities from other than the two private passages, nor from laughing aloud, nor from washing the deceased.

Those who obligate have no authentic proof. Rather the stronger proofs show the absence of obligation. But recommendation is clearly reasonable, so it is recommended to do wudu from touching women with desire.” (Majmu al-Fatawa, Ibn Taymiyyah, 20/526, 527).

The Shafi’is and Imam Ahmad in a narration held that if a man touches the skin of a woman or a woman touches the skin of a man with no barrier between them, then the wudu of the one who touches and the one touched is broken in every case, whether with desire or without desire. They used His saying, the Most High:

أَوْ لَامَسْتُمُ النِّسَاءَ

“ Or you have touched women. ” (al-Nisa: 43)

And Ibn Masud (d. 32 AH) read it as: “Or you touched women.” The real meaning of touching is the meeting of two skins. Allah, the Most High, said informing about the jinn that they said:

وَأَنَّا لَمَسْنَا السَّمَاءَ

“ And we touched the heaven. ” (al-Jinn: 8)

And the poet said:

لمَستُ بكَفِّي كَفَّه أَبتَغي الغِنى

“I touched his palm with my palm seeking wealth.”

Imam al-Shafi’o said in his Musnad: “Malik narrated to us from Ibn Shihab from Salim from his father, that he said: ‘A man’s kissing of his wife or fondling her with his hand is from touching, so whoever kisses his wife or fondles her with his hand, wudu is upon him.’” (Musnad al-Shafii, al-Shafii, 1/11; al-Majmu, al-Nawawi, 2/30; al-Muhadhdhab, al-Shirazi, 1/23; al-Mughni, Ibn Qudamah, 1/250).

What is intended by “woman” here is a non-mahram woman whom it is permissible for a man to marry, and likewise the wife. As for a woman permanently forbidden to him, whom he is not permitted to marry, then his wudu is not broken by touching her. Likewise, his wudu is not broken by touching a young foreign girl who is not normally desired. (Al-Majmu, al-Nawawi, 2/30; al-Muhadhdhab, al-Shirazi, 1/23; al-Mughni, Ibn Qudamah, 1/250).

The Malikis and Imam Ahmad in his well-known view held that touching, if it is with desire, breaks wudu, otherwise it does not.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah was asked whether touching women, breaks the wudu or not?

He answered and said: As for breaking wudu by touching women, there are three sayings for the jurists: two extremes and a middle.

The weakest of them is that it breaks by touching even if there is no desire, if the one touched is a person who is normally a source of desire. This is the saying of al-Shafi’i, relying upon His saying, the Most High:

أَوْ لَامَسْتُمُ النِّسَاءَ

and in the other reading: أو لمستم

The second saying is that touching does not break in any situation, even if it is with desire, like the saying of Abu Hanifahand others, and both sayings are mentioned as narrations from Ahmad.

But the apparent madhhab of Ahmad is like the madhhab of Malik and the seven jurists of Madinah are upon the view that touching, if it is with desire, breaks, otherwise it does not. There is no saying in this issue that is reasonable except this saying or the one before it.

As for hanging breaking upon mere touching, then this is against the foundations, against the consensus of the Companions, and against the reports. The one who says it has neither a text nor analogy. For if touching in His saying, the Most High:

أَوْ لَامَسْتُمُ النِّسَاءَ

is intended by it touching with the hand, kissing and the like, as Ibn Umar (d. 73 AH) and others said, then it is known that whenever the likes of that are mentioned in the Book and Sunnah, what is intended by it is what is with desire, such as His saying in the verse of i’tikaf:

وَلَا تُبَاشِرُوهُنَّ وَأَنْتُمْ عَاكِفُونَ فِي الْمَسَاجِدِ

“And do not approach them while you are in i’tikaf in the masjids.” (al-Baqarah: 187)

The direct touching of a person in i’tikaf without desire is not forbidden for him, unlike direct touching with desire.

Likewise the person in ihram, who is even more restricted: if he directly touches a woman without desire, it is not forbidden for him and no sacrifice is due from him.

Likewise His saying:

ثُمَّ طَلَّقْتُمُوهُنَّ مِنْ قَبْلِ أَنْ تَمَسُّوهُنَّ

“Then you divorced them before you touched them.”

and His saying:

لَا جُنَاحَ عَلَيْكُمْ إِنْ طَلَّقْتُمُ النِّسَاءَ مَا لَمْ تَمَسُّوهُنَّ

“ There is no blame upon you if you divorce women if you have not touched them. ” (al-Baqarah: 236)

For if he touched her with a touch empty of desire, no waiting period is due because of it, no dowry becomes fixed by it, and no prohibition of in-law relationship appears by it, by agreement of the scholars, unlike if he touches a woman with desire, but does not be alone with her and does not have intercourse with her. In that case there is well-known disagreement between the scholars in the madhhab of Ahmad and others over whether the dowry becomes fixed by that.

So whoever claims that His saying:

أَوْ لَامَسْتُمُ النِّسَاءَ

includes touching even if there is no desire has departed from the language with which the Qur’an came, and even from the language of people in their custom.

For when touching is mentioned in a way where the man and woman are paired, it is understood that this is touching of desire, just as when intercourse is mentioned paired between man and woman, it is understood that intercourse by the private part is intended, not by the foot.

Also, they do not say that the ruling is attached to touching women in general, rather to a certain type of women, and that is whoever is usually a source of desire.

As for touching one who is not usually a source of desire, such as female mahrams and a small girl, then it does not break. So he has left what he claimed of literal meaning and made a condition that has no basis by text or analogy.

The established bases of the texts distinguish between touching with desire and touching without desire; they do not distinguish between whether the one touched is normally a source of desire or not. And this is the touching that has an effect in all other acts of worship, like ihram, i’tikaf, fasting and other than that.

So when this saying is not pointed to by the apparent wording, and is not indicated by analogy, it has no basis in the Sharia.

As for the one who attached breaking to desire, then the apparent known usage in such expressions is a proof for him, and the analogy of the basic principles of the Sharia is a proof for him.

And whoever does not make touching a breaker in any case, he holds that touching is intended by it intercourse, as in His saying, the Most High:

وَإِنْ طَلَّقْتُمُوهُنَّ مِنْ قَبْلِ أَنْ تَمَسُّوهُنَّ

“And if you divorce them before you touch them. ” (al-Baqarah: 237)

and its many parallels. And in the Sunan it is narrated that the Prophet ﷺ: “Kissed some of his wives, then prayed and did not do wudu.” (Hadith authenticated by Ibn ʿAbd al Barr in al Istidhkar 1/301; also recorded by Abu Dawud 179, al Tirmidhi 86, al Nasaʾi 170, Ibn Majah 503, Ahmad 25766 with slight variations, and by ʿAbd al Razzaq in al Musannaf 510, whose wording is cited.) but it has been criticised.

Also, it is known that people touching their women is something common that always happens; if that were something that breaks wudu the Prophet ﷺ would have made it clear to his Ummah, and it would have been famous among the Companions.

No one has transmitted that any Companion used to do wudu merely for his hand meeting his wife’s hand or that of other women, nor has anyone transmitted any hadith from the Prophet ﷺ in that regard. So it is known that this is a false saying, and Allah knows best.” (Majmu al-Fatawa, Ibn Taymiyyah, 21/235).

Ibn Abd al-Barr (d. 463 AH) said: “What Malik and his companions held of stipulating pleasure and the presence of desire at touching is more correct, if Allah wills. Because nothing has come from the Companions in the meaning of touching except two sayings:

One of them: intercourse itself.

The other: what is less than intercourse from the preliminaries of intercourse and what resembles it.

And it is known in the saying of those who say it is what is less than intercourse that they meant what is not intercourse, and they did not intend a slap nor a man kissing his daughter out of mercy, nor touching without pleasure.”

So when it is not permissible to say that touching was intended by it a slap and what resembles it, nothing remains except that touching is what contains pleasure and desire. Because there is no disagreement that if a man slaps his wife or treats her wound, or a woman breastfeeds her children, that wudu is not upon any one of them. Likewise one who intended touching but did not find pleasure is in their ruling. (Al-Istidhkar, Ibn Abd al-Barr, 1/255).

The Malikis mentioned details in touching. They said: wudu is broken by the one in wudu touching a person who is normally desired, with his hand or a part of his body, even if it is by an extra limb, or the touching is of a nail or joined hair.

This is with certain conditions.

Conditions Regarding the One Who Touches

The one who touches must be an adult.
The one who touches must intend pleasure or find it, except if the one touched is from his mahrams and the one who touches does not find pleasure, then wudu is not broken. And wudu is broken if he finds pleasure while touching, even if he did not intend it at first. If intention and pleasure are both absent, then there is no breaking.

As for kissing on the mouth, it breaks wudu absolutely: whether he intends pleasure or finds it or does not find it, because it is usually a cause of pleasure.

The same in breaking is true for the one who kisses and the one kissed if they are both adults, and the adult among them if the other is someone who is normally desired, even if the kiss happened by coercion. So willingness is not a condition for breaking. As for if the kiss is for farewell or for mercy, then it does not break wudu unless he finds pleasure.

If he intended pleasure or found it by looking or by thought, wudu is not broken. If pre-seminal fluid exits, wudu is obligatory because of the pre-seminal fluid. If semen exits, ghusl is obligatory because of the semen. (Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, al-Khurashi, 1/155; Hashiyat al-Sawi, al-Sawi, 1/235; Manah al-Jalil, al-Amir, 1/112).

A Man Kissing a Woman

Imam Malik and al-Shafi’i held that if a man kisses a woman his wudu is broken, whether she is lawful for him or not lawful, and whether he finds pleasure in that or not, except if the kiss is for mercy such as a man kissing a little girl from his daughters. (Al-Istidhkar, Ibn Abd al-Barr, 1/255; al-Sharh al-Saghir, al-Dardir, 1/99; al-Awsat, Ibn al-Mundhir, 1/118, 130; al-Ifsah, Ibn Hubayrah, 1/79).

Imam Ahmad in his well-known view held that if a man kisses a woman with desire, his wudu is broken, and if he kisses without desire, it is not broken.

Imam Ahmadsaid: “The people of Madinah and Kufa have always said that kissing is from touching and it breaks wudu, until recently when Abu Hanifah (d. 150 AH) appeared among them; so they said it does not break wudu, and they took the hadith of Urwah.” (Al-Mughni, Ibn Qudamah, 1/248, 249; al-Ifsah, Ibn Hubayrah, 1/79).

Imam Abu Hanifah and Imam Ahmad in a firm narration from him, as Ibn Qudamah said, held that if a man kisses a woman with desire or without desire, wudu is not obligatory upon him, due to what Urwah narrated from Aishah that the Prophet ﷺ: “Kissed some of his wives then went out to the prayer and did not do wudu. ” (Hadith authenticated by Ibn ʿAbd al Barr in al Istidhkar 1/301; also recorded by Abu Dawud 179, al Tirmidhi 86, al Nasaʾi 170, Ibn Majah 503, Ahmad 25766 with slight variations, and by ʿAbd al Razzaq in al Musannaf 510, whose wording is cited.)

And because obligation is from the Sharia and nothing has come in this regard, and it is not in the meaning of what the Sharia has mentioned. (Bada’i al-Sanai, al-Kasani, 1/130; al-Mughni, Ibn Qudamah, 1/248, 249; al-Ifsah, Ibn Hubayrah, 1/79).

Kissing One’s Daughter or Mother

Ibn al-Mundhir (d. 318 AH) said: “All those whose speech we preserve from the people of knowledge have agreed that there is no wudu upon a man if he kisses his mother or his daughter or his sister, honouring them and showing kindness when coming from a journey, or if some part of his body touches some part of her body when handing something to her, and he only intended to hand it, except what is mentioned from one of the two sayings of al-Shafi’i.

For some of his Egyptian companions related from him two sayings in this issue:

One of them: that wudu is obligatory because of it.

The other: like the saying of the rest of the people of knowledge. I have not found this issue in his Egyptian books which we read to al-Rabi.

I do not know if that is established from al-Shafi’i or not, because the one who related it did not mention that he heard it from him. And if that were established from him, then his saying that agrees in it with the people of Madinah, Kufa and the rest of the people of knowledge would be more fitting for him.”

Then he said: “It has been established that the Prophet ﷺ prayed while carrying Umamah bint Abi al-As. Abu Qatadah narrated: ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ used to pray while carrying Umamah, the daughter of Zaynab, daughter of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, and of Abi al-As ibn al-Rabi. When he stood he carried her, and when he prostrated he put her down.’ ” (Narrated by al-Bukhari 516; Muslim, 543.)

Abu Bakr said: “In the Prophet ﷺ carrying Umamah bint Abi al-As there is proof for the correctness of the saying of the common people of knowledge. For it is known by common habit that whoever carries a small child hardly avoids some part of his body touching some part of her body. Allah knows best.

With the presence of the obligation of purity from that, it would be obligatory. Obligatory duties are not permissible to affirm except with proof. People in past and present have always known that a man embraces his mother and grandmother and kisses his small daughter a kiss of mercy, and they do not see that as breaking purity nor making wudu obligatory in their view.

If that were a hadath that breaks purity and makes wudu obligatory, the people of knowledge would have spoken about it as they spoke about a man touching his wife and kissing her.” (Al-Awsat, Ibn al-Mundhir, 1/130, 131).

Sixth: Eating Camel Meat

The jurists differed over the ruling on whoever eats camel meat. Does his wudu break or not?

The majority of the jurists, the Hanafis, Malikis and Shafi’is in the madhhab, and Imam Ahmad in a narration, held that whoever eats camel meat, wudu is not obligatory upon him.

They used the hadith of Jabir ﵁ that he said: “The last of the two matters from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ was that he left wudu from what fire has touched. ” (An authentic hadith: narrated by Abu Dawud, 192; al-Tirmidhi, 80; al-Nasa’i, 1/108; Ibn Majah, 4/278; Ibn Hibban, in his Sahih, 1124.)

And because if wudu is not broken by eating pork, though it is forbidden, then more so it should not be broken by other than it. And because it is food, so it is like other foods.

They also used the hadith: “Wudu is from what comes out, not from what enters. ” (Narrated by al-Darqutni, 1/151, marfu; and al-Bayhaqi, al-Bayhaqi, 1/261, mawquf from Ibn Abbas. In its chain is al-Fadl ibn al-Mukhtar, who is very weak, and in it is Shubah, the freed slave of Ibn Abbas, who is weak. Ibn Addi said: the origin of this hadith is that it is mawquf. Al-Bayhaqi said: it is not established as marfu. Sa’id ibn Mansur narrated it from the route of al-A’mash from Abu Zabyan from him. Al-Tabarani narrated it from the hadith of Abu Umamah. Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar said: its chain is weaker than the first. Talkhis al-Habir, Ibn Hajar, 158.)

Al-Kasani (d. 587 AH) said: “The meaning in this issue is that hadath is the exiting of something impure in reality or something that is a cause for the exiting, and nothing of that has occurred.” (Bada’i al-Sanai, al-Kasani, 1/130, 131; al-Majmu, al-Nawawi, 2/69, 70; al-Muhadhdhab, al-Shirazi, 1/24; Rawdat al-Talibin, al-Nawawi, 1/72; Kifayat al-Akhbar, al-Hisni, 36; al-Insaf, al-Mardawi, 1/216).

The Hanbalis in the madhhab – and this was chosen by al-Nawawi (d. 676 AH), al-Bayhaqi (d. 458 AH), Ibn al-Munzir (d. 318 AH) and Ibn Khuzaymah (d. 311 AH) from the Shafi’is – held that wudu is obligatory from eating camel meat.

Al-Nawawi said: “This is the strong or correct view from the side of the proof, and it is what I believe is more weighty, for in it there are two authentic hadiths of the Prophet ﷺ for which there is no satisfactory answer. A group of our verifying companions among the people of hadith chose it.” (Al-Majmu, al-Nawawi, 2/70; Rawdat al-Talibin, al-Nawawi, 1/72; Sharh Sahih Muslim, al-Nawawi, 4/45).

They used as proof the hadith of Jabir ibn Samurah , that a man asked the Prophet ﷺ: “He said, ‘O Messenger of Allah, should we do wudu from camel meat?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ (Narrated by Muslim, 360.)

And from al-Bara ibn Azib that he said: “The Messenger of Allah ﷺ was asked about wudu from camel meat, and he said: ‘Do wudu from it.’ And he was asked about meat of sheep, so he said: ‘Do not do wudu from it.’ ” (An authentic hadith: narrated by Abu Dawud, 184; al-Tirmidhi, 81; Ibn Majah, 494; Ahmad, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, 20907; Ibn Hibban, Ibn Hibban, in his Sahih, 3/310. Abu Hatim Ibn Hibban, after mentioning this hadith, said: “In the man asking about wudu from camel meat and about prayer in their resting places, and the Prophet ﷺ distinguishing between the two answers, I see a proof that he intended the obligatory wudu for prayer and not washing the hands. If it had been washing the hands from fat, then meat of camels and sheep would have been equal in that. It had been the case that leaving wudu from what fire has touched remained with the Muslims for a time, then it was abrogated, and camel meat remained excluded from what was permitted after prohibition.”)

Ibn Qudamah (d. 620 AH) said: “As for their hadith from Ibn Abbas ﵁, it has no basis, and it is only from the words of Ibn Abbas, stopped upon him. Even if it were authentic, we would be obliged to put our hadith before it, because our hadith is more authentic and more specific, and the specific is given precedence over the general.

Their hadith from Jabir ﵁ does not oppose our hadith either, due to its authenticity and its specificity. For if they say the hadith of Jabir is later and so it abrogates, we say: abrogation by it is not sound for four reasons:

First: the command to do wudu from camel meat is later than the abrogation of wudu from what fire has touched or at least concurrent with it, because the Prophet ﷺ combined in that hadith between the command to do wudu from camel meat and the prohibition of wudu from sheep meat, and sheep meat is from what fire has touched.

So either the abrogation occurred with this prohibition or with something before it. If it was by this, then the command to do wudu from camel meat is simultaneous with the abrogation of wudu from what fire has changed, so how can it be abrogated by it? One of the conditions of abrogation is that the abrogating comes later. If the abrogating was before it, then it is not permissible that it be abrogated by what is before it.

Second: that eating camel meat only breaks wudu because it is camel meat, not because it is from what fire has touched.

For that reason it breaks wudu even if it is raw. So abrogating one of the two aspects does not establish abrogation of the other aspect, just as if a woman were forbidden because of suckling and because she is a stepdaughter, abrogating the prohibition because of suckling would not be abrogation of the prohibition because of being a stepdaughter.

Third: that their hadith is general and ours is specific, and the general is not abrogated by the specific, because one of the conditions of abrogation is that combining is impossible, and combining between specific and general is possible by restricting the general to what is other than the place of specification.

Fourth: that our hadith is authentic, widespread and has the strength of authenticity, spread and specificity, and their hadith is weak, lacking these three aspects, so it is not permissible that it abrogate it.

If they say: the command to do wudu in your hadith is open to recommendation, so we carry it upon that, and it is open that what is meant by wudu before food and after it is washing the hands.

For when wudu is joined with food, it implies washing the hand, just as he ﷺ used to command wudu before and after food, and he specified that with camel meat because it has more heat and more fat than other meat.

We say: as for the first, it contradicts the apparent wording in three ways:

First: that the requirement of the command is obligation.

Second: that the Prophet ﷺ was asked about the ruling of this meat, so he answered with a command to do wudu from it. It is not permissible to carry that upon other than obligation, because that would be confusing the questioner, not answering.

Third: that he ﷺ linked it with the prohibition of wudu from sheep meat, and the intended meaning of prohibition here is negation of obligation, not prohibition, so the command must be carried upon obligation so that the distinction is complete.

As for the second, it is not sound for four reasons:

First: that it necessitates carrying the command upon recommendation, for washing the hand on its own is not obligatory, and we have shown its invalidity.

Second: that when wudu appears on the tongue of the Lawgiver, it is obligatory to carry it upon the legal meaning, not the linguistic, because what appears is that he uses the words by their legal meanings.

Third: that it came as an answer to the questioner about the ruling of wudu from its meat and prayer in its resting places, so nothing is understood from that except wudu intended for prayer.

Fourth: that if he had intended washing the hand, he would not have distinguished between it and the meat of sheep, for washing the hand from both is recommended. So he said: ‘Whoever spends the night with the smell of fat on his hand and something harms him has only himself to blame.’

The extra fat they mention is a small matter that does not justify this distinction, and Allah knows best.

Then there must be a proof which takes the wording from its apparent meaning, and the evidence must have enough strength to match or exceed the strength of the apparent meanings being abandoned, and they have no proof.

Their analogy is invalid, for it is a mere extension without meaning. The absence of the ruling in other foods is due to the absence of the reason, not because they are foods. So there is no effect to their being foods and the presence of that is like its absence.

It is strange that our opponents in this issue obligated wudu by weak hadiths that contradict the foundations.

Abu Hanifah (d. 150 AH) obligated it by laughing aloud in the prayer and not outside it by a hadith from the mursal narrations of Abu al-Aliyah, and Malik (d. 179 AH) and al-Shafi’i (d. 204 AH) obligated it by touching the penis by a hadith in which there is disagreement and which is opposed by something similar to it, but they did not obligate it by touching the rest of the limbs, and they left this authentic hadith which has no opponent, despite its being difficult to interpret and the strength of its indication, because they thought it opposed a mere extended analogy.” (Al-Mughni, Ibn Qudamah, 1/240, 244; Tanqih al-Tahqiq, Ibn Abd al-Hadi, 1/71; Kashshaf al-Qina, al-Bahuti, 1/130; al-Insaf, al-Mardawi, 1/216; al-Awsat, Ibn al-Munzir, 1/138, 142; Majmu al-Fatawa, Ibn Taymiyyah, 21/260, 265).

Seventh: Wudu after Washing the Deceased

The jurists differed over the ruling on someone who is in wudu and then washes a deceased person. Does his wudu break or not?

The Hanbalis in the madhhab held that wudu is obligatory after washing the deceased. That is, if a person is in wudu and then washes a deceased person, his wudu breaks, whether the one washed is small or big, male or female, Muslim or disbeliever.

This is because usually he does not avoid his hand falling upon the private part of the deceased, so the presumption of that takes the place of the actual fact, just as sleep is made to take the place of hadath. (Al-Mughni, Ibn Qudamah, 1/246; Badai al-Sanai, al-Kasani, 1/130; Hashiyat al-Tahtawi, al-Tahtawi, 1/55; Fatawa Ibn Taymiyyah, 20/526; Bidayat al-Mujtahid, Ibn Rushd, 1/67; al-Istidhkar, Ibn Abd al-Barr, 1/174; Kashshaf al-Qina, al-Bahuti, 1/129, 130; al-Ifsah, Ibn Hubayrah, 1/81; al-Insaf, al-Mardawi, 1/215, 215).

The Hanafis, Malikis and Shafi’is and Imam Ahmad in a narration which Ibn Qudamah (d. 620 AH) and Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah chose held that wudu is not obligatory upon one who washes a deceased person.

Because obligation comes from the Sharia, and nothing has been transmitted in this regard, and it is not in the meaning of the matters that are textually mentioned, so the ruling remains upon the original. And because this is washing a human being, so it is like washing someone alive. But recommendation is clearly reasonable, so it is recommended that he does wudu.

Ibn Qudamah (d. 620 AH) said: “What has been reported from Ahmad (d. 241 AH) is to be carried upon recommendation, not obligation, for his speech shows the absence of obligation.”

But recommendation is clearly reasonable, so it is recommended that he does wudu. (Al-Mughni, Ibn Qudamah, 1/246; Badai al-Sanai, al-Kasani, 1/130; Hashiyat al-Tahtawi, al-Tahtawi, 1/55; Fatawa Ibn Taymiyyah, 20/526; Bidayat al-Mujtahid, Ibn Rushd, 1/67; al-Istidhkar, Ibn Abd al-Barr, 1/174; Kashshaf al-Qina, al-Bahuti, 1/129, 130; al-Ifsah, Ibn Hubayrah, 1/81; al-Insaf, al-Mardawi, 1/215, 215).

Eighth: Laughing Aloud in the Prayer

All the people of knowledge agreed that whoever is in wudu and then laughs aloud outside the prayer, his wudu does not break.

However, they differed about one who laughs aloud in his prayer. Does his wudu break or not?

The majority of the jurists, the Malikis, Shafi’is and Hanbalis, held that laughing aloud in the prayer is not a hadath that breaks wudu.

Because it does not break wudu outside the prayer, so it does not break it inside, and because it is not an impure excretion, rather it is a sound like speech and crying. And because obligation comes from the Lawgiver and the Lawgiver has not stated obligation of wudu in this, nor in anything to which this can be compared.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said: “Wudu because of laughing aloud is recommended in one of the two sayings in the madhhab of Ahmad (d. 241 AH). The hadith related in the affair of those who laughed aloud and were ordered to do wudu has as its aspect that they sinned by laughing. It is recommended for every sinner to do wudu and pray two rakahs, as is narrated in the Sunan from Abu Bakr that the Prophet ﷺ said: ‘No Muslim commits a sin, then does wudu and prays two rakahs, then seeks Allah’s forgiveness for that sin, except that it is forgiven for him. ’(An authentic hadith: narrated by Abu Dawud, 1521; al-Tirmidhi, 406, 3006; Ibn Majah, 1395.) (Majmu al-Fatawa, Ibn Taymiyyah, 21/242; al-Thamar al-Dani, al-Mayyara, 1/186; al-Manhaj al-Qawim, Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, 1/66; al-Kafi, Ibn Abd al-Barr, 1/13; al-Hawi al-Kabir, al-Mawardi, 1/202, 204; al-Mughni, Ibn Qudamah, 1/227; al-Ifsah, Ibn Hubayrah, 1/82; Kashshaf al-Qina, al-Bahuti, 1/131).

The Hanafis listed laughing aloud in the prayer among the matters that break wudu, if it occurs from a praying adult who is awake in a complete prayer with bowing and prostration, whether he is in wudu or on dry ablution or in ghusl, according to the correct view, and whether the laughing aloud was deliberate or forgetful. They used what Abu al-Aliyah narrated, that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ:

“ Was praying with his Companions when a blind man came and fell into a pit, so the people laughed. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ ordered those who laughed to repeat wudu and prayer. ” (Narrated by al-Darqutni, 1/62, 163, 169, 171; al-Bayhaqi, al-Bayhaqi (d. 458 AH), in al-Sunan al-Kubrah, 1/146. He said: “This hadith is mursal, and the mursal narrations of Abu al-Aliyah are nothing, for he did not mind from whom he took hadith.”)

Laughing aloud is that which is heard by others nearby. Laughing is that which he hears himself but others nearby do not hear. Smiling is what has no sound even if the teeth appear.

They said: laughing aloud nullifies wudu and prayer together; laughing nullifies prayer only; smiling nullifies nothing.

Based on that, the wudu of a child or sleeping person is not nullified by laughing aloud in the prayer according to the correct view among them, just as the wudu of one who laughs aloud outside the prayer is not broken, and nor is the wudu of one whose laughing aloud occurs in a prayer that is not complete, such as the funeral prayer or prostration of recitation.

Then it was said: laughing aloud is among the matters of hadath(state of ritual impurity that prevents a person from performing acts that require purification, such as salah, until purification is renewed) according to them. And it was said: it is not hadath; rather wudu is obligatory because of it as a punishment and a deterrent.

Because the aim of the prayer is to show humility, submissiveness and honouring of Allah, the Most High, and laughing aloud contradicts that, so it is suitable that his wudu is broken as a deterrent. The stronger view is that it is not hadath, otherwise the adult and the non-adult would be the same in it.

Ibn Abidin (d. 1252 AH) said: “In al-Bahr it was given weight that the second saying is stronger, because it agrees with analogy, as laughing aloud is not an impure excretion but is a sound like speech and crying, and because it agrees with the hadiths narrated about it. For in them there is only the order to repeat wudu and prayer, and that does not necessarily mean that it is hadath.”

He said: “The benefit of this difference appears in the permissibility of touching the mushaf and writing the Qur’an. Whoever makes it hadath forbids that, like other forms of hadath, and whoever obligates wudu as punishment and deterrent permits touching the mushaf and writing the Qur’an.” (Radd al-Muhtar, Ibn Abidin, 1/275; al-Bahr al-Raiq, Ibn Nujaym, 1/42; Badai al-Sanai, al-Kasani, 1/127).

Ninth: Apostasy

Apostasy is to commit something that takes a person out of Islam, whether by speech or belief or a doubt that takes him out of Islam.

The jurists differed in the case of a person who is in wudu and then commits apostasy, we seek refuge in Allah. Does his wudu break by this, and is apostasy a hadath (state of ritual impurity that prevents a person from performing acts that require purification, such as salah, until purification is renewed), or does his wudu not break, so that if he returns to Islam while still upon his wudu and nothing else has broken his wudu, he may pray with that wudu?

The Malikis in the well-known view and the Hanbalis held that apostasy, we seek refuge in Allah, is a hadath that breaks wudu.

So if a person apostatises, we seek refuge in Allah, then returns to Islam and comes back to the religion of truth, it is not permitted for him to pray until he does wudu, even if he was in wudu before his apostasy and his wudu was not broken by other reasons. They used His saying, the Most High:

وَلَقَدْ أُوحِيَ إِلَيْكَ وَإِلَى الَّذِينَ مِنْ قَبْلِكَ لَئِنْ أَشْرَكْتَ لَيَحْبَطَنَّ عَمَلُكَ

“And it has already been revealed to you and to those before you, that if you associate partners, your work will surely become worthless. ” (al-Zumar: 65)

And wudu is an act.

Ibn al-Qasim (d. 191 AH) related that wudu is recommended in this situation. (Jawahir al-Iklil, al-Shinqiti, 1/21; Mawahib al-Jalil, al-Hattab, 1/299, 300; al-Khulasah al-Fiqhiyyah, al-Qararah, 1/19; al-Qawanin al-Fiqhiyyah, Ibn Juzayy, 22; al-Majmu, al-Nawawi, 2/77; Nihayat al-Muhtaj, al-Ramhurmuzi, 1/15; al-Mughni, Ibn Qudamah, 1/226; al-Ikhtiyarat, Ibn Taymiyyah, 29).

The Hanafis and Shafi’is held that apostasy is not among the causes of hadath, so wudu is not broken by it. They used His saying, the Most High:

“Whoever among you turns back from his religion and dies while he is a disbeliever, then such are those whose deeds have become worthless in this world and in the Hereafter. ” (al-Baqarah: 217)

So he made death while in that state the condition for actions becoming void. (Jawahir al-Iklil, al-Shinqiti, 1/21; Mawahib al-Jalil, al-Hattab, 1/299, 300; al-Khulasah al-Fiqhiyyah, al-Qararah, 1/19; al-Qawanin al-Fiqhiyyah, Ibn Juzayy, 22; al-Majmu, al-Nawawi, 2/77; Nihayat al-Muhtaj, al-Ramhurmuzi, 1/15; al-Mughni, Ibn Qudamah, 1/226; al-Ikhtiyarat, Ibn Taymiyyah, 29).

Does Lying, Backbiting and False Speech Break Wudu?

Lying, backbiting, indecent talk, slander and other such sins do not break wudu, by consensus of the people of knowledge.

Ibn al-Munzir (d. 318 AH) said: “All those whose saying we preserve from the scholars of the cities have agreed that slander, false testimony, lying and backbiting do not make purification obligatory and do not break wudu.

We have narrated from more than one of the early people that they ordered wudu because of filthy speech, and that with us is recommendation from whoever ordered it. We do not know of any proof that obligates wudu because of any type of speech. It has been established that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: ‘Whoever swears by al-Lat and al-Uzza, let him say: there is no god but Allah.’ (Sahih Muslim 1647a)

And he did not command wudu for that. (Al-Awsat, Ibn al-Munzir, 1/230; al-Iqna, al-Hajawi, 72, 73; al-Majmu, al-Nawawi, 2/78; al-Mughni, Ibn Qudamah, 1/277).

Imam al-Nawawi (d. 676 AH) said: “Ibn al-Mundhir (d. 318 AH) said in his two books, al-Ishraf and al-Ijma, and Ibn al-Sabbagh said: the scholars have agreed that wudu is not obligatory because of ugly speech such as backbiting, slander, false testimony and other than that.

And al-Ruyani (d. 502 AH) related from the Shiah that they obligated wudu because of that. The Shiah are not given weight in their opposition.”

Al-Shafi’i (d. 204 AH), then Ibn al-Munzir (d. 318 AH), then al-Bayhaqi (d. 458 AH) and our companions used as a proof in this issue the hadith of Abu Hurayrah, that the Prophet ﷺ said:

“ Whoever in his oath says ‘by al-Lat and al-Uzza’, let him say: ‘there is no god but Allah’, and whoever says to another: ‘come, let us gamble’, let him give charity. ”

Narrated by al-Bukhari and Muslim. (Al-Majmu, al-Nawawi, 2/78).

Doubt Concerning Hadath (state of ritual impurity that prevents a person from performing acts that require purification, such as salah, until purification is renewed)

The majority of the jurists, the Hanafis, Shafi’is and Hanbalis, held that if someone is sure of purity and doubts hadath, or is sure of hadath and doubts purity, then he remains upon what he is sure of. That is, if he knows that he did wudu and doubts whether he broke it or not, he builds upon that he is pure. And if he was in hadath and doubts whether he did wudu or not, then he is not in wudu and he discards the doubt.

They used what Abdullah ibn Zayd narrated: “Someone complained to the Prophet ﷺ about a man who imagines that he finds something in the prayer. He said: ‘He must not leave until he hears a sound or finds a smell.” Agreed upon. (Narrated by al-Bukhari, 137; Muslim, 361.)

And Muslim narrated from Abu Hurayrah that he said: the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “If one of you finds something in his belly and it is problematic to him whether something has come out of him or not, then he must not leave the masjid until he hears a sound or finds a smell. ” (Narrated by Muslim, 276.)

If he is sure of purity and hadath together and does not know which of them was last, like one who is sure that at the time of zuhr he did wudu once and was in hadath once and does not know which of them was after the other, then he returns to his state before the sun passed the zenith according to the Hanbalis, and this is the more correct view among the Shafi’is and some Hanafis.

Based on this, if he was in hadath before both, then now he is pure, because he is sure of purity and doubts whether hadath came after it, and the original ruling is that nothing comes after it. And if he was pure before both, then now he is in hadath, because he is sure of hadath and doubts whether purity came after it, and the original ruling is that nothing came after it. If he does not know his state before both, wudu is binding on him because the two possibilities conflict without any preference.

The Hanafis in the well-known view said: if he is sure of both and doubts which is first, he is in wudu. (Radd al-Muhtar, Ibn Abidin, 1/183; Badai al-Sanai, al-Kasani, 1/132; Hashiyat al-Qalyubi, al-Qalyubi, 1/37, 38; Rawdat al-Talibin, al-Nawawi, 1/77; al-Mughni, Ibn Qudamah, 1/258, 259; Magni al-Muhtaj, al-Khatib al-Shirbini, 1/39; Mukhtasar Ikhtilaf al-Ulama, al-Tahawi, 1/153; al-Ifsah, Ibn Hubayrah, 1/82).

The Malikis clearly stated that wudu breaks in the case of one who doubts whether he broke it or not. So if he is sure of wudu then doubts and does not know whether he broke it after wudu or not, he should repeat his wudu, unless the doubt is obsessive.

Al-Hattab (d. 954 AH) said: “This is if he doubts before the prayer. As for if he has prayed then doubts whether he broke it or not, there are two sayings.”

The doubt that obligates wudu has three forms:

That he doubts the nullifier, a hadath or a cause, after he knows that his purity came first.
That he doubts purity after knowing the nullifier and does not know whether he did wudu after it or not.
That he knows both purity and hadath but doubts which of them came first.

All three forms obligate wudu. (Mawahib al-Jalil, al-Hattab, 1/300; Jawahir al-Iklil, al-Shinqiti, 1/21; al-Khulasah al-Fiqhiyyah, al-Qararah, 1/19; al-Ifsah, Ibn Hubayrah, 1/82; al-Dhakhira, al-Qarafi, 1/217, 218; al-Kafi, Ibn Abd al-Barr, 1/12, 13).

Kitab Mawsuʿat al Fiqh ʿala al Madhahib al Arbaʿah by Yasir al Najjar 1/390–439

Author

ISHAQ. K

Navigation Menu For The Summary

Navigation Menu For The Full Article

Yasir al Najjar on The Madhhabs Nullifiers On Wudu & Their Evidences

Summary

Meaning of nullifiers and general division

Ijma on what exits from the front and back, on urine, faeces, semen, wind and losing your mind breaks your wudu

Usual and rare excretions

Semen and its effect

What exits from other than the front and the back

Sleep and losing your mind

Hanafis

Malikis

Shafiʿis

Hanbalis

Touching the penis and other private parts

Hanafis

Malikis

Shafiʿis and Hanbalis

Touching the rear passage

Woman touching her private part

Touching the private part of another

Touching women

Touching does not break wudu

Any touching of marriable woman breaks wudu

Touching with desire breaks wudu

Eating camel meat

Washing the deceased

Laughing aloud in the prayer

Apostasy

Sins of the tongue

Doubt concerning hadath

Brief Overview

Full Article

ʿAbdul Raḥmān al Jazīrī on the Views Of The Madhhabs On The Nullifiers Of Wudu

First type: what comes out from one of the two passages in the usual way

Second type: what comes out from one of the two passages in an unusual way

First of the four: Loss of thought, including sleep

Second type of the non excretion nullifiers: touching one who is desired

Third type of the nullifiers that lead to excretion: touching with the hand

Fourth type of the nullifiers due to excretion from the two passages: what comes out from the body from other than the front and back

Yasir al Najjar on The Madhhabs Nullifiers On Wudu & Their Evidences

Nullifiers of wudu

First: What exits from the two passages

Third: Sleep

Fourth: Touching the penis

Touching the buttocks

Wudu because of touching the private part of an animal

A woman touching her private part

Whoever Touches the Private Part of Another

Fifth: Touching Women

Conditions Regarding the One Who Touches

A Man Kissing a Woman

Kissing One’s Daughter or Mother

Sixth: Eating Camel Meat

Seventh: Wudu after Washing the Deceased

Eighth: Laughing Aloud in the Prayer

Ninth: Apostasy

Does Lying, Backbiting and False Speech Break Wudu?

Doubt Concerning Hadath (state of ritual impurity that prevents a person from performing acts that require purification, such as salah, until purification is renewed)

Author

Share this:

Like this:

Related

Related Post

Discover more from ATHARI ARCHIVE