Friday, May 23, 2014

Blood as an Impurity (Tamaam al-Minnah)

Then the author listed out the impurities and among others he said [pg. 8]:

In this Chapter, there are a few matters which the author (Sayyid Saabiq) did not make an analytical thorough study, neither in matters of hadeets nor the matters of fiqh. 

1. As for the matters of Hadeets, then it is as follow:

a. His statement on the Atsar narrated from al-Hasan:
“This was mentioned by al-Bukhari”
implies as if to him (the author), it is a Mawsul (continuous) chain of narration. As this is the meaning of such a statement in Hadeets Terminology when “al-Bukhari” is mentioned. In fact, al-Bukhariy narrated it in a Mu‘allaq form (discontinued chain) without any Isnaad and Ibn Abie Shaibah narrated it in a continuous form with a Sahih Isnaad as in al-Fath: 1/281.

b. He said:
“He did not make any comment on it, giving the idea that this narration is reliable, as a matter of fact it isn’t. Ibn Abie Shaibah narrated it in his Musannaf: 1/137-138: Shurayk narrated to us, from ‘Imraan bin Muslim from Mujaahid from Abu Hurairah.”
I  (Shaykh al-Albaaniy) say: 

This Isnaad is Da‘ief (weak), not a reliable one; Shurayk – he is Ibn ‘Abdillah al-Qadi – a weak narrator due to his poor memory and his teacher; ‘Imraan bin Muslim, most probably he is al-Fazari al-Koufi, as it has been mentioned by the scholars, that among the narrators who narrated from him was Shurayk, but they did not mention Mujaahid as one of his teachers! The other one (i.e the other ‘Imraan bin Muslim) is al-Azdiy al-Koufi and they mentioned Mujaahid to be one of his teachers, but they never mentioned Shurayk as one of his students (as a narrator who narrated from him)!

[i. from Shurayk – ‘Imraan bin Muslim al-Fazari al-Koufi – (never from Mujaahid)
ii. (No “Shurayk” narrated) – ‘Imraan bin Muslim al-Azdiy al-Koufi – Mujaahid]

If he is the first one (i) then he is a tsiqah (reliable) narrator, if he is the second (ii), then he is a Rafidi Khabiets (a bad Shi‘ite), Wallahu a‘lam.

Then, apart from being weak, it is opposing what is authentic from Abu Hurayrah, who said:
 “لا وضوء إلا مِن حدث – There is no wudu’ except due to Hadats” 
narrated by al-Bukhariy in a Mu‘allaq state and Isma‘iel al-Qadi narrated it in a continuous chain with an Isnad which is Sahih as mentioned by al-Hafiz and it has been narrated with Marfu‘ status with its wording:
 “إلا من صوت أو ريح – except due to a sound or wind” 
and its Takhreej is detailed in “al-Mishkat”: 310 – with a second analysis and also in “al-Irwa’”: 1/ 145 and 153, as well as Sahih Abi Dawud: 196 and Muslim narrated it with a similar version.

It also contradicts the hadeets of the Ansari companion, who prayed the Night Prayer (Qiyam al-Layl) and was hit by an arrow shot by a Mushrik, he pulled it out (from his body) just to be shot with another three arrows, yet he continued his prayer, making his bowing and prostration, even while he was bleeding. This is as how al-Bukhaariy narrated in a Mu‘allaq way, while Ahmad and others narrated with a continuous chain. Its Takhreej is provided in Sahih Abi Dawud: 193 and it is to be taken as of a Marfu‘ status, since it’s almost impossible that the Prophet was oblivious of this, such that, if a lot of blood (from bleeding) invalidates wudu’, he would have clarified it, for the fact that “تأخير البيان عن وقت الحاجة لا يجوز – To delay the clarification of a ruling at the time when it is needed is unlawful” (for the Prophet), a well-known principle in Usul al-Fiqh. Even if we take it that the Prophet was unaware of this incident, yet nothing is hidden to Allah, the One Who Knows all that is in the heavens and earth. If it is a cause for the nullification of wudu’ or an impurity (نجس), Allah would have inspired the Prophet or revealed to him, as clearly understood by everyone.

This is the opinion of al-Bukhaariy as he manifested this by mentioning the Mu‘allaq narrations as mentioned previously and further emphasized in al-Fath and it is also the opinion of Ibn Hazm: 1/255

2. And his complacency in his analysis from the aspect of the matters of fiqh, some points:

a.       The ruling of menstrual blood and other types of human blood (other than menstruation), the blood of “permissible” animals (i.e. lawful animals for consumption if slaughtered according to Islamic rites, eg. cows and goats) - all these types of blood were treated as the same ruling, is clearly a vile error, for the following reasons:

 i.    There is no daleel (proof) to support this, not from the Sunnah and not even from the Book (al-Quran) and the original ruling is of “no ruling – براءة الذمة” unless there is a nas (textual statement/proof) otherwise.

ii.        It opposes to what is in the Sunnah. As for the blood of a Muslim specifically, then the hadeets of the al-Ansari (companion) who was praying while he was bleeding, as mentioned earlier.

      Whereas with regard to animal blood, then it has been proven a reliable narration from Ibn Mas‘oud (may Allah be pleased with him) that he slaughtered a camel and some of its blood spilled onto him and when the minor call for prayer (Iqamah) was summoned, he went to pray without taking ablution.

      Narrated by ‘Abdur Razzaaq in “al-Musannaf”: 1/125, Ibn Abie Shaybah: 1/392, at-Tabaraani in “al-Mu‘jam al-Kabier: 9/284 with a Sahih Sanad/chain and also by al-Baghawiy in “al-Ja‘diyaat”: 2/887/2503 and the end part was also narrated from Abu Musa al-Ash‘ariy: “I don’t care if I were to slaughter a camel and its blood and innards were to spill on me, then I would just perform the prayer/solat without touching water. But the sanad is weak.  

b.   His statement which differentiates (the ruling based on) the quantity of blood; a little or a lot. 

Even if this has been said by some scholars of the past, yet it has no daleel (proof) from the Sunnah. In fact, the hadeets of the Ansariy (the companion who prayed while he was bleeding) negates this as it can be easily understood. The author (Sayyid Sabiq) did not cite any evidence to support these differences in ruling based on the quantity of blood except with the Atsar (report from) Abu Hurayrah mentioned earlier. And it has been made known to you of its weakness. If it is to be taken with a Marfu‘ status, then in it’s Isnaad there is a Matruk narrator, as in Nayl al-Awtar and I had clarified it in ad-Da‘iefah: 4386. Ibn Hazm made an excellent refutation on these differences in ruling (base on the amount of blood; a little or a lot) at the end of the 1st Part of his al-Muhalla. Whoever wishes, let him refer to it. Likewise al-Qurtubiy and Ibn al-‘Arabiy in their Tafseer books, so if you want, you can look it up in al-Jami‘ li Ahkam al-Qur’an: 8/263.

What is most astonishing is that here, the author made all types of blood, as of the same ruling, without him excluding the blood of “permissible” animals (i.e. animals lawful for consumption if slaughtered according to Islamic rites, eg. cows and goats), yet he differentiated between the impurity of the human urine and the purity of the urine of permissible animals. So the author ruled out that this type of animal urine is pure, justifying so based on the original ruling, (i.e. no daleel/proof to justify otherwise means “the original ruling of permissibility or purity, stands and is applicable/valid unless proven otherwise”, using this principle:   البراءة الأصليةas a basis of justification). Then why didn't the author take this (principle of) “original ruling” here, since the evidences are the same?

Copyright 2011
Template by freethemelayouts