Suhaib Webb – Maliki Fiqh Ishmawi’s Primer (Part Four) Things That Break Wudu
AI: Summary ©
AI: Transcript ©
Welcome back to our explanation
of.
And we were talking about the
those things which,
necessitate what he calls
And as I said, now I'm reading for
you
this book that contains evidences. Some of the
evidences of the Med have this book is
relatively
good, although at times, as I discussed
years ago with Shah Hamel Taharian,
that sometimes the author uses evidences which aren't
used by the Malekis.
We'll talk about that in the future.
At the same time, I plan to read
this book with you,
Al Jawayr Azakiyah,
because this book is going to give you
a more like legalese reading of
it. Whereas what I'm teaching you now is
going to give you the basics of the
school,
The basic evidence is of the school, and
help you kinda begin to frame sort of
the practices that you engage in. The other
text is going to train you in a
very different way
that also is going to kinda complete the
process of building the mind of of someone
who's literate,
in in particular.
And last time, as I said, we're talking
about
and the sheikh, he says.
Now one of the things that violates wudu
necessitates
the obligatory
practice of wudu
is lemis. Lemmis means to rub like this.
So he says, well, be lemis. And what
he means here is to touch the opposite
*.
And the strong opinion,
amongst the Madoches is that this this includes,
like, all adult
males or females.
Alright?
What is the evidence before we we talk
about these 4 different kind
of iterations of touching the opposite gender, whether
you're male or female?
It's the 43rd chapter of the 4th chapter
of
the
Quran.
The verse is mentioning those things which necessitate,
and it mentions sexual befallment. And then later
on, it mentions
talking here about, of course,
if you were to touch the opposite gender.
There is a difference of opinion amongst the
earliest
scholars on this verse.
Starts with the sahaba, Sayyidina ibn Abbas radiAllahu
anhu and others, and then this difference
continues to spread out, and you find that
one opinion is kind of adopted and defended
by Sadat al Hanafiya, and then the other
is adopted in opinion
and defended, and then even nuanced by the
other Methaheb.
So, Saydna,
Imam Abu Hanifa says that
and there's
which
is
which
is
which means, you know, you touched
the opposite gender. Here it says you touched
a woman, but it's understood to be a
woman or a man. Like, so for a
woman touches a man, the same applies to
her.
Talk about that in the future as Ibn
al Rosh said. These kind of things are
generally applied to everybody.
Sayna Imam Abu Hanifa said that here, lamas
doesn't mean to touch. Lamas means *
because Sayna Maryam alayhi sallam says,
No man touched
me. He said she didn't mean, like, physical
touch.
Right? What she meant was
*. It's a very strong argument. So Imam
Abu Hanifa is going with the secondary meaning
of this word. He's going with the figurative
meaning instead of the literal meaning, and here
you start to see something that sometimes scholars
are going to to argue over is something
haqqiqa or majaz.
Haqqiqa means a literal meaning, which means that
a
word is understood
according
to
its known meaning. Right?
Majaz means
that the meaning of the word
is now taken to something else. Right? A
figurative meaning that has what's called karina, has
some supporting evidence for it. We'll talk about
this in the future, but what you wanna
think about now is
that the fuqaha at times, especially when it
comes to the Quran and Hadith,
one of the things that they're going to
argue about, and this goes back to the
time of the Sahaba,
right, is is it the literal meaning or
the figurative meaning? Sayedna Imam Zamasheri,
alayir Hamel, he wrote an entire dictionary on
the literal and the figurative called.
So Sayidna imam Abu Hanifa,
he's going to say that the of
this word,
the meaning of this word is *.
The response from the majority of the ulema
is very strong
and as they say, listen, Allah already mentioned
* in the verse.
Why would he mention it again?
So in the beginning of the verse,
Don't come to prayer
if you're in a state of intoxication until
your mind is is
right, and
if you are in a state of sexual
defilement, this is redundant, and there's no redundancy
in the Quran.
So their argument is no, lemmas here means
lemmas,
to touch.
But then
these fuqaha,
the Madakhi and the Shefiya and some of
the others,
had to contend with other evidences that the
Hanafis responded with. Said, well,
the hadith of Sayda Aisha Fakat to
She says, one time,
you know, I lost, you know, I woke
up and I couldn't find the messenger of
Allah.
Then I searched for him with my hand
until I found the bottom of his feet
and I touched him and he was in
prayer. He was making dua
Allah, I seek refuge in your pleasure from
your anger.
Another narration says
he was praying and he didn't stop and
go make so
that's the response.
Also the narration, which is a good narration,
the
prophet
used to kiss
and he would pray and he didn't make
udul. So now the Hanafis are boxing.
You see this going back and forth with
etiquette,
with with ihtiram,
with respect.
So we find that the other these
are and these
are authentic,
there's no difference on this issue. However,
you fail to note something, and that is
the argument
from the majority is that
if
the touch, and this is from the Malekis,
the Shafi'is have their own thing, but the
Malekis in particular say if this touch
is coupled
with
sexual excitement,
pleasure.
So that's why the sheikh, he says
It says that,
you know,
touching
an or even
your maharam
falls into 4 types.
And the entire,
what we talked about before, the of the
here
is the cause of what's going to obligate
wudu is
The intention
or the presence of it.
And this is a very fascinating
chapter, although it seems very easy, and when
we read
Al Jawahir, Azakiyah,
and the explanation of Imam al Sufti Bissin,
not
lie, man,
you're gonna be, like, wow, man. This is
deep.
Like, it's interesting. Not necessarily because of the
act, right, of touching, not touching, but how
it begins to be expanded to other things
and other discussions.
So the sheikh, he says,
before I continue again, 43rd chapter of the
43rd verse of the 4th chapter of the
Quran, extremely important here.
And then those narrations, the narration of Sayida
Aisha, another one of
Sayda are now shading it, and the argument
here is that
touching without any type of desire in the
Maliki Medheb
doesn't violate wudu, but when the touch is
accompanied with passion,
then it violates wudu. Why? We talked about
this axiom before.
Now you see how things come together, that
one. Something draws near to something else, it
takes on its ruling. And you can see
this is debatable.
And
and you're kissing
your spouse, right,
you may experience
pre seminal emission,
And the strong opinion in the Med Heb,
the later, later, later scholars is if a
woman also experiences,
sexual excitement
in our private
areas. These things necessitate.
Amongst men,
So we find something interesting in the Maliki
method that that when it comes to purity,
they're when it comes to the the things
which are conditions of worship,
they're very, very conservative at times.
It's called
cautious, so they say, you know, you may
have inadvertently
had some kind of
leak, right, related to this passion,
and therefore
therefore, you are obligated
to make.
So they say,
and this is the med have in general,
touching the opposite gender
falls under 4 types. Number 1,
So now the nia,
the internal,
has met the external.
The heart
is aligned with the actions. So the person
intends,
you know, to feel a sense of passion
and then physically experience
that passion.
Then in that situation, because the and action
have aligned, and here the illah
is sense of passion and pleasure, and sexual
excitement,
that person has to make.
The second,
Now we see something else. The second one
is that I didn't have the intention,
but I experienced it. I also have to
make wudu. So the first one,
the first example, the first scenario, and there's
about 16 of them, I'm only gonna give
you 4,
is that
The concern is for the intention and the
action. But now there's no niyyah, but there's
still the action. The
action
is given
consideration.
That's why I say
when our people who who go by what
we see.
Right? So what's happened has happened, and there's
a ruling for that. Oh, but I didn't
there's a ruling for that.
I have to stick to the rule.
The third,
If that person
That person
had the intention but didn't experience
it in the school, say,
Why you see something powerful, the power of
the intention, the power of the niya. So
the intention was there,
but the outcome wasn't there. So the
So the first one, niya, action. The second
one, action without niya. The third, niya, without
the action. In all of those,
and
finally
and here the person has no intention and
there is no experience of that kind of
passion, then there is no wudu obligated upon
that person.