Wednesday, April 23, 2014

Water & Its Categories (Tamaam al-Minnah)

Download the free edition of Fiqh as-Sunnah

The original text (translation) of Fiqh as-Sunnah quoted in a box, represent the translation of al-Ustadz ash-Shaykh Sayyid Sabiq’s words and the rest is from Tamam al-Minnah, the commentary of ash-Shaykh al-Albaniy on Fiqh as-Sunnah.

“Water and its divisions/categories – ” "The Shari'ah has divided Water into four kinds"
[pg. 2 paragraph: 2]

My (Shaykh al-Albaaniy) comment: There are 2 issues that need to be rectified:

Firstly: It is not from Ahmad’s narration. Instead, it is from his son’s “Zawa-id” (additional narration added to al-Musnad of Imam Ahmad): 1/76.

Secondly: He mentioned “رُوِيَ” at the beginning of the narration, implying its weakness, thus contradicting the 13th Principle (the principles pertaining to narrations as outlined by ash-Shaykh al-Albaniy in the Introduction) mentioned earlier, because this hadeets bears a Hasan isnad as in “Irwa’ al-Ghaliel” no: 13 and it has been classified Sahih by Ahmad Shakir in his commentary on “al-Musnad”: 2/19/564 and he clearly stated that it is from “Zawa-id”.

[Pg 4; last Paragraph before “Leftover Water”]

I (Shaykh al-Albaaniy) say: It’s not true. In fact, it is a Sahih hadeets.

A number of scholars classified it Sahih, among them Abu Ja‘far at-Tahawiy al-Hanafi. As for the Idtirab (mudhtarab – literally means shaky, i.e it has discrepancies/inconsistencies – a form of weakness) that he mentioned, then it is actually in some of its weak routes of narration, as I’ve clarified in “Sahih Abie Dawud”: 56-58 and and I also indicated as such in “Irwa’ al-Ghaliel” no: 23 and no: 172.

Yes, true. The meaning of the hadeets somewhat contradict the general meaning of Abu Sa‘ied’s hadeets (narration):
“الماء طهور لا يُنَجِّسُهُ شيء –Water is pure, nothing contaminates it” 
and this is the basis in this issue as substantiated by Ibn al-Qayyim in “Tahdzieb Sunan Abie Dawud”, thus for anyone who would like to confirm this, do refer to it as it is an important and great research and likewise do refer to “as-Sayl al-Jarrar”: 1/55, by asy-Shaukaniy as well.

[pg. 5; paragraph: 3]

I (Shaykh al-Albaaniy) say: This hadeets is Da‘ief (weak) as an-Nawawi said in al-Majmu‘: 1/173, and this is his full comment:
“I mention this hadeets, even though it is weak, it is for the sake of its popularity in the books (of Fiqh) of the Ashab[1],and probably some of them even relied on it as a basis, for that I highlighted this.” 
May Allah reward him with good.

I say: As for al-Baihaqiy’s saying which was mentioned, then apparently, it is based on his Takhriej[2] for this hadeets in his “Sunan al-Kubro”: 1/249-250, and what he meant was the Asanied[3]which revolve around Dawud bin al-Husayn from his father, even though all these chains (of narration) are weak (Da‘ief) as indicated by al-Baihaqiy’s very own words, for they (the chains) revolve around this aforementioned Dawud from his father from Jabir, even if Dawud was one of the narrators of ash-Shaykhayn (al-Bukhariy and Muslim accepted his narration), yet some of them (experts) classified him weak. However so, his father al-Husayn was regarded “layyin al-Hadeets” – (i.e. weak due to his weakness and his narration is only accepted if supported by another chain) as mentioned in “at-Taqrieb” and some weak narrators dropped (i.e did not mention) him such that the chain turned out to be “from Dawud from Jabir” and thus it is saved from the weakness of his father, but Dawud never met Jabir and hence the hadeets becomes Munqati‘ (a very weak hadeets due to a broken, discontinued chain).

Besides that, the Matan[4] (content/wording of the hadeets) is Munkar, opposes the hadeets of “al-Qullatayn”, because it was an answer from him when he was asked about water which had been left over by animals and predators (tigers, lions etc), whereby he said:
“إذا كان الماء قلتين لم يحمل الخبث – If the water is 2 qullah[5] it will not contain (or be contaminated by) any impurities”, 
in another narration: “لا يَنْجُس – will not be impure”. 

Ibn at-Turkumani in “al-Jawhar an-Naqiy”: 1/250:
“The apparent meaning implies that the left over water licked by these predators is impure, if it is not so, then the condition/requirement (of 2 qullahs) serves no purpose and it would have been meaningless”.

An-Nawawi made a similar statement in al-Majmu‘: 1/173)

Then Sayid Sabiq says (translation) [pg. 5; 12 lines from the bottom]:

I say: This is also weak (Da‘ief) as in it, based on the narration of ad-Daraqutniy (1/26), there is (a narrator by the name of) Aiyub bin Khaalid al-Haraaniy, whom al-Hafiz classified: “Da‘ief (Weak) narrator” and in addition to his weakness, he made an Idtirab (literally shaky - i.e it has discrepancies/inconsistency) in its Isnaad such that he said once: Muhammad bin ‘Ulwaan ‘an (via) Naafi‘ ‘an (from) Ibn ‘Umar and in another instance he said: Khattab bin al-Qaasim ‘an (from) ‘Abdil Kariem al-Jazari ‘an (from) Naafi‘ with the same wording.

This Ibn ‘Ulwaan as classified by al-Azdiy is Matruk (his narration is discarded due to his weakness as he is prone to lie or ever lied).

As for Khattab bin al-Qaasim is a tsiqah (trustworthy/reliable narrator) but he got confused (in his narration) prior to his death as in “at-Taqrieb”.

Furthermore, the narrator who narrated from Aiyub, Ismaa‘iel bin al-Hasan al-Haraaniy is unknown to me and al-Hafiz did indicate in his “at-Talkhies” the weakness of this hadeets and ash-Shawkaniy followed thus in “as-Sayl al-Jarrar”: 1/60.

Then he (Sayid Sabiq) says (translation) [pg. 5; 5 lines from the bottom]:

I say: This Atsar (a Sahabi (Companion) sayings/acts) is in “al-Muwatta’”: 1/46 from Yahya bin Sa‘ied from Muhammad bin Ibraahiem bin al-Harits at-Taymeee from Yahya bin ‘Abdir Rahmaan bin Hatib that ‘Umar …(till the end). So the Atsar is from the narration of Yahya bin ‘Abdir Rahmaan from ‘Umar and not from the narration of Yahya bin Sa‘ied from him, as mentioned in the book, most probably it is a typo of the author or a printing error. As such al-Baihaqiy narrated it (1/250) from the route of Maalik and ad-Daaraqutniy (1/22) from the narration of Hammaad bin Zayd: Yahya bin Sa‘ied narrated to us…with this route.

Besides, this Atsar is weak and not a confirmed narration from ‘Umar, since Ibn Hatib never met ‘Umar due to the fact that he was born during the reign of ‘Utsmaan, may Allah be pleased with him.

For that fact, an-Nawawi confidently stated in “al-Majmuu‘”: 1/174 that it is Mursal, Munqati‘, but then he made a re-evaluation and eventually said: “Except that this Mursal has a lot of Shawahid (supportive routes of narration) which strengthened it.

I say: (an-Nawawi was) Refering to the hadeets of Jaabir and Ibn ‘Umar which were cited earlier and you have known of the weaknesses of the sanad of these two hadeets and the peculiarity of the matan as they oppose the hadeets of “al-Qullatayn”, so do take note.

[1] The Companions i.e. immediate Disciples of ash-Shafi‘ie who took knowledge directly and personally from ash-Shafi‘ie and their opinions became the views in the Madzhab of  ash-Shafi‘ie, which are termed as Wajhun/Awjuh.

[2] Takhriej ( تخريج ): is the elaboration mentioning the references for the hadeets; Books of Hadeets (primary resources) like; as-Sihah (books titled Sahih e.g. Sahih al-Bukhariy), al-Masanied (Musnad – singular eg. Musnad Ahmad), as-Sunan (Sunan eg Sunan Abi Dawood), al-Ma‘ajim (al-Mu‘jam eg Mu‘jam at-Tabaraniy), al-Musannafaat (Musannaf eg. Musannaf Ibn Abie Shaibah) and others. Then with the mentioning of it’s Kitab (eg Book of Purification etc), Juzu’ (volume/part), Bab (Chapter/Topic) and number of the hadeets/first narrator’s name. Hence, the reader or researcher will be able to know where to look up for the cited/quoted hadeets in the article/write-up and this is “amaanah ‘ilmiyah” meaning being reliable/trustworthy in relaying the knowledge of Islam, specifically hadeets.  

[3] Singular is Sanad ( سند ): Sanad of a hadeets: the chain of narrators in a particular narration of a hadeets eg.: al-Imam Abu ‘Abdillah Muhammad bin Ismaa’iel al-Bukhariy said: “al-Humaidi  ‘Abdullah bin az-Zubair (al-Makkiy) narrated to us from Sufyaan (bin ‘Uyainah) who transmitted it from Yahya bin Sa’ied al-Ansariy, who narrated it from Muhammad bin Ibraahiem at-Taimiy who conveyed it saying that he heard  ‘Alqamah bin Waqqas al-Laitsiy relayed to him saying: I heard ‘Umar bin al-Khattab delivered on the mimbar/pulpit saying: I (i.e. ‘Umar) heard the Messenger of Allah said: Innamal a’maalu bin niyyaat (Verily deeds are but by their intention)…” Here the Sanad or chain of narrators are the narrators whose names are underlined; starting from Imam al-Bukhariy up until the Companion of the Messenger; ‘Umar bin Al- Khattab

[4] Matan (al-Matnu): Literally means content/wording of the hadeets; it is what follows the sanad, after the meantioning of the sanad has ended. Eg: al-Imam Abu ‘Abdillah Muhammad bin Ismaa’iel al-Bukhariy said: “al-Humaidi  ‘Abdullah bin az-Zubair (al-Makkiy) narrated to us from Sufyaan (bin ‘Uyainah) who transmitted it from Yahya bin Sa’ied al-Ansariy, who narrated it from Muhammad bin Ibraahiem at-Taimiy who conveyed it saying that he heard  ‘Alqamah bin Waqqas al-Laitsiy relayed to him saying: I heard ‘Umar bin al-Khattab delivered on the mimbar/pulpit saying: I (i.e. ‘Umar) heard the Messenger of Allah said: Innamal a’maalu bin niyyaat (Verily deeds are but by their intention)” So the underlined phrase in this eg is the Matan of a hadeets.

[5] Qullah – is a container which an ordinary person is able to carry when it is full of water. That is 1 qullah. Ash-Shafi‘ie estimated measured 2 qullah as a box-shaped container which has a side of 1¼ cubit length of a normal man. It is equivalent to 93.75 Sa‘ = 160.5 litres of water – Mu‘jam Lughat al-Fuqaha’: 368. 
Copyright 2011
Template by freethemelayouts