Touching the Private Part Invalidates the Wudoo

The Salafi Proofs and their Authentication

First Evidence:

Sayyidah Busrah bint Safwaan (radiallah anha) narrated that:

“I heard the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) saying that, If any of you touches his private part should do Wudoo”.

[Refs: Muwatta Imaam Maalik: Chapter on doing wudoo after touching the private part, Musnad Ahmed Vol 6 Pg 406, 407, Sunan Daarimi: Kitaab at-Taharah: Chapter on doing wudoo after touching the private part: Vol 1: Pg 199: H. 724 725, Abu Dawood: Kitaab at-Taharah: Chapter on doing wudoo after tuching the private part: H. 181, Tirmidhi: Kitaab at-Taharah: Chapter on doing wudoo after touching the private part: H. 82, Sunan Nasaa’ee:  H. 163, 164, Ibn Maja: Kitaab at-Taharah: Chapter on doing wudoo after touching the private part H. 479, Ibn Hibbaan: H. 1109, 1110, 1111, 1112, 1113, 1114, Ibn Khuzaymah: H. 33, Mustadrak Haakim: Vol 1 Pg 138, Daraqutni: Vol 1 Pg 146, 147, Bayhaqi: Vol 1 Pg 128]

Imam Bukhaari said: “This narration is the most authentic among all the narrations narrated in this issue.” Imaam Tirmidhi, Imaam Ahmed, Imaam Ibn Hibbaan, Imaam Ibn Khuzaymah, Imaam Haakim, Imaam Daraqutni, Imaam Yahya ibn Ma’een, Imaam Bayhaqi, Imaam Dhahabi, Imaam Ibn Hajar and Imaam Albani (rahimahumullah) have all authenticated this narration.
[Al-Talkhees al-Habeer: Vol 1 Pg 122, Irwa ul-Ghaleel: Vol 1 Pg 150, Masaa’il al-Imaam Ahmed Pg 309]

Among the Hanafi Scholars: Shok Naimwi (Athaar as-Sunan: Pg 42), Maulana Taqi Uthmaani (Darse Tirmidhi Vol 1 Pg 305), Maulana Abdul Hay Lakhnawi: (As-Sa’ayah: Vol 1 Pg 267), Maulana Binnori (Ma’arif as-Sunan: Vol 1 Pg 295), Ibn Hummaam, and Mulla Ali Qaari (Mirqaat: Vol 1 Pg 341) have accepted the authenticity of the hadeeth of Busrah (radiallah anha).
Second Evidence:

Imaam Ishaaq bin Rahwayh narrated from al-Haytham bin Humayd, From al-‘Alaa bin al-Haarith, From Makhool, From Anbasah bin Abi Sufyaan, that:

Umm ul-Mu’mineen Sayyidah Umm Habeebah (radiallah anha) narrated that: “I heard the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) saying that the one who touches his private part should do wudoo’.”

[Musnad Ishaaq bin Rahwayh: 1860, Ibn Maja: H. 481, Abu Ya’la: Vol 6 Pg 336, Bayhaqi: Vol 1 Pg 130, Tahawi: Vol 1 Pg 45]

Imaam Abu Zur’ah, Imaam Haakim, Imaam Ahmed, and others have graded it to be Saheeh.
Imaam Ibn al-Sikan said: “I do not know any defect in it.” [Al-Talkhees al-Habeer: Vol 1 Pg 124, Al-Tamheed: Vol 17 Pg 192]
Allaamah Albaani also graded it Saheeh. [Irwa al-Ghaleel: 117]

Third Evidence:

Imaam Ibn Hibbaan narrated: Ali bin al-Hussain bin Suleman al-Mu’addal, and Imraan bin Fadalah ash-Sha’eeri informed us, they said: Ahmed bin Sa’eed al-Hamdaani narrated to us, he said: Asbagh bin al-Faraj narrated to us, he said: Abdur Rahmaan bin al-Qaasim (Saahib e Imaam Malik) narrated to us, From Yazeed bin Abdul Malik, and Naafi bin Abi Nu’aym al-Qaari, From al-Maqburi that:

Sayyidunah Abu Hurayrah (radiallah anhu) said the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) said: “When any of you reaches his hand to the private part, while there is nothing in between them, then you should do Wudoo’.”

[Saheeh Ibn Hibbaan: 1115, Bayhaqi : Vol 1 Pg 130, 131, Mustadrak Haakim: Vol 1 Pg 138, Daraqutni: Vol 1 Pg 147, Tabaraani Sagheer: H. 110, Tabaraani al-Awsat: H. 8829, 6664, 8904]

Imaam Ibn Hibbaan, Imaam Haakim, and Allaamah Dhahabi have graded it Saheeh. And Ibn Abdul Barr said its chain is Saalih. [Al-Tamheed: Vol 17: H. 195]

Fourth Evidence:

Imaam Ibn Maja said: Ibraaheem bin al-Mundhir al-Hizaami narrated to us,  Ma’b ibn Eesa narrated to us, (Ibn Maja said) and Abdur Rahmaan bin Ibraaheem ad-Dimashqi narrated to us, Abdullah bin Naafi’ narrated to us, From Ibn Abi Zi’b, From Uqbah bin Abdur Rahmaan, From Muhammad bin Abdur Rahmaan bin Thawbaan, that:

Sayyidunah Jaabir bin Abdullah (radiallah anhu) narrated that: The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) said: “When anyone of you touches his private part, it is necessary for him to do Wudoo’.” [Ibn Maja: Kitaab at-Taharah: Baab al-Wudoo’ min mass az-Zikr: 48]

Ibn Abdul Barr said that Its chain is Saalih. Allamah Zaya said: I don’t see any harm in its chain. [Al-Tamheed: Vol 17, Pg 193, Al-Talkhees: Vol 1 Pg 124]

Fifth Evidence:

Abdul Jabbaar bin Muhammad al-Khattaabi narrated to us, Baqiyyah narrated to us, From Muhammad bin al-Waleed az-Zubaydi, From Amr bin Shu’ayb, From his Father (Shu’ayb bin Abdullah), From his Grand father (Abdullah bin Amr bin al-Aas) radiallah anhu.

Sayyidunah Abdullah bin Amr bin al-Aas (radiallah anhu) narrated that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: “The man who touches his private part should do wudoo, and the woman who touches her private part should do wudoo’.” [Musnad Ahmed: Vol 2 Pg 223, Bayhaqi: Vol 1 Pg 132, Daraqutni: Vol 1 Pg 147]

Imaam Tirmidhi narrated from Imaam Bukhari in Kitaab al-Illal that this hadeeth is Saheeh according to me. [with reference to Al-Talkhees al-Habeer: Vol 1 Pg 124]

Baqiyyah is a Mudallis, but he has affirmed his hearing in Sunan Daraqutni: Kitaab at-Taharah: H. 474.

Sixth Evidence:

Sayyidunah Zayd bin Khaalid Al-Juhni narrated that I heard the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) said: “The one who touches his private part should do Wudoo’.”
[Musnad Ahmed: Vol 5 Pg 194, Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah: Vol 1 Pg 163, Tabaraani Kabeer: Vol 5 Pg 243, H. 5221, 5222, Musnad Bazzar: with reference to Majma az-Zawaid Vol 1 Pg 245, Bayhaqi in Al-Khilafiyaat and Ishaaq bin Rahwayh in his Musnad, Al-Talkhees al-Habeer Vol 1 Pg 124]

Haythami said: All its narrators are Saheeh, except Ibn Ishaaq and he is a Mudallis but he has affirmed his hearing here. Haafidh Ibn Hajar said: Its chain is Saheeh.

Seventh Evidence:

Sayyidunah Ubay Ayyub Al-Ansaari (radiallah anhu) narrated that, I heard the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) saying that: “The one who touches his private part should do wudoo.” [Ibn Maja: H. 482]

Eighth Evidence:

Sayyidunah Ibn Umar (radiallah anhu) narrated that: The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “The one who touches his private part should do wudoo’.”
[Musnad Bazzar, and Tabaraani Kabeer with reference to Majma az-Zawaaid: Vol 1 Pg 245, Daraqutni: Vol 1 Pg 146]

Ninth Evidence:

Umm ul-Mu’mineen Siddeeqah Aisha (radiallah anha) narrated that: “Woe to those who touch their private part and then perform Salaah without renewing their Wudoo’.” [Daraqutni: Vol 1 Pg 148]

Tenth Evidence:

This hadeeth, with the similar words, is narrated by Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas in Mustadrak Haakim, Abdullah bin Abbas in Bayhaqi, Nu’maan bin Bushayr, Anas, Ubay bin Ka’b, Mu’awiyah bin Haydah, in Ibn Mandah, and Sayyidah Arwi bint Anees in Bayhaqi. [Al-Talkhees al-Habeer Vol 1 Pg 126, and As-Sa’ayah: Vol 1 Pg 264, 265]

Of couse, in some of the ahadeeth mentioned, there are some weaknesses, but they become Hassan due to Shawaahid.

Athaar of Sahaabah (radiallah anhum)

(1) Umm ul-Mu’mineen Sayyidah Aisha Siddeeqah (radiallah anha) said: “When a woman touches her private part, should do Wudoo’. [Mustadrak Haakim: Vol 1 Pg 138, and Bayhaqi: Vol 1 Pg 131]

Imaam Haakim and Dhahabi have graded this athar to be Saheeh.

(2) Sayyidnah Ibn Umar (radiallah anhu) said: “When any of you touches his Dhikr (Private part), it is obligatory upon him to do Wudoo’.” [Muwatta Imaam Maalik: Baab al-Wudoo min mas al-furaj]

Ibn Umar’s son, Saalim said: “I saw my father, Abdullah ibn Umar (radiallah anhu) that he was doing wudoo after ghusl. I asked him, ‘Oh Father! Doesn’t ghusl suffice wudoo?’ so he replied:  Yes, but sometimes it happens that I touch my private part after ghusl, so that’s why I do wudoo’.” [Muwatta Imaam Maalik: Same Baab, Bayhaqi: Vol 1 Pg 131, Abdur Razzaq: Vol 1 Pg 115]

Imaam Saalim narrates another incidance of his father, Sayyidunah Ibn Umar (radiallah anhu) that, we were in a journey, he performed the prayer after the sun had risen, I said to him: ‘I have never seen you praying such a prayer before’, so he replied: ‘I performed wudo’ for the morning prayer, but my hand got touched by Dhikr (Private Part), and I could not remember, and prayed the morning prayer in that condition, so now I have reperformed the prayer after doing wudoo’.’ [Muwatta Imaam Maalik: Chapter same, Bayhaqi: Vol 1 Pg 131]

Imaam Haazmi said in his book “an-Naasikh wal Mansookh” that: “Ubay Ayyub al-Ansaari, Zayd bin Khaalid, Abu Hurayrah, Abdullah bin Amr bin al-Aas, Jaabir bin Abdullah, Umm Habeebah, and Busrah bint Safwaan (radiallah anhum) were of the view that wudoo’ is obligatoey after touching the private part.” [with reference to Ghayat ul-Maqsood: Vol 2 Pg 105]

Imaam Tirmidhi said that several Sahabah and Tabi’een held the same view. Imaam Awzaa’ee, Imaam Shafi’ee, Imaam Ahmed, and Imaam Ishaaq had the same view. [Tirmidhi ma’a Tuhfah: Vol 1 Pg 85]

Imaam Ibn Hazam after mentioning the names of some of the Sahabah said that: “Imaam Ata bin Abi Ribaah, Imaam Urwah, Imaam Sa’eed bin al-Musayyab, Abaan bin Uthmaan, Ibn Jurayj, Imaam Awzaa’ee, Imaam Layth, Imaam Shafi’ee, Imaam Dawood, Imaam Ishaaq, Imaam Ahmed, and others had the same view that touching the private part breaks the wudo’.” [Al-Muhalla: Vol 1 Pg 222]

The confesssion of Abdul Hay Lakhnawi Al-Hanafi

Maulana Abdul Hay has given a long discussion of almost 12 pages in As-Say’ah to this issue. Therefore, after mentioning the evidences of both the sides, he said:

“I say that this tahqeeq (that the narration of Talq bin Ali is Mansookh) is desrving to be accepted, because after seeing the evidences of both the sides, we come to know that the ahadeeth which affirm breaking of wudoo’ are more in number and stronger than those which say that the wudoo does not break, and the ahadeeth which say that the wudoo does not break are from the old times.” [As-Sa’ayah: Vol 1 Pg 267]

After that he refuted the muta’assib behaviour of Allamah Tahawi and Aynee, and at the end he has written very clearly that:

“The summary is that in this issue the view of those who say that the Wudoo breakes, is stronger. And the view of the other group is not equal in acceptance to this group. However, the opinion of those who say that touching the women does not break wudoo is stronger in light of the Akhbaar and Athaar. Know well, that we have discussed both these issues in great detail so that the Haqq becomes apparent and the batlaan of baatil becomes apparent. Even though the dislikers may dislike it, but I trust in Allah, and the people should only put their trust upon him.” [As-Sa’ayah: Vol 1 Pg 268]

The Evidences of those who say that touching the private part does not break wudoo and their refutation

First Evidence:

Mulazim bin Amar narrates from Abdullah bin Badar, from Qaiys bin Talq bin Ali, from his father (Talq bin Ali), from the Prophet (sallalahu alaiyhi wa sallam): ‘he was once asked about a person who touches his male organ during prayer to which he replied: it is only a part of your body’

This hadeeth is recorded by Imam Ahmed, Abu Dawood, Tirmidhi, Nasaa’ee, and Ibn Maja. Imaam Ibn Hibbaan has declared it Saheeh, and Ibn al-Madeeni said that this hadeeth is better than the hadeeth of Busrah.

Reply:

The Aimmah and Muhadditheen have proposed two different tatbeeqs for this narration.

First: This hadeeth is regarding touching without desire. The saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him) that: “It is only a part of you” contains a good indication that the wudoo does not break if touched without desire. Because this is the condition which is compared with the remaining parts of the body.

On the contrary, if it is touched with desire then it cannot be compared with the other parts of the body, because in the other parts of the body, sexual desire does not arise. This is such a clear fact that rejecting it is not possible. Therefore it is not at all the daleel of Hanafiyah, because according to them, the wudoo does not break in both the conditions (with desire or without desire).

The other condition of jama wa tatbeeq is also that, If the private part is touched and there is no barrior in between then it invalidates the wudoo and when there is a barrior or a cloth then the wudoo does not break. The following hadeeth supports this tatbeeq:

Sayyidunah Abu Hurayrah (radiallah anhu) said the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) said: “When any of you reaches his hand to the private part, while there is nothing in between them (the hand and the private part), then you should do Wudoo’.”

[Saheeh Ibn Hibbaan: 1115, Bayhaqi : Vol 1 Pg 130, 131, Mustadrak Haakim: Vol 1 Pg 138, Daraqutni: Vol 1 Pg 147, Tabaraani Sagheer: H. 110, Tabaraani al-Awsat: H. 8829, 6664, 8904]

Secondly: Even if this tatbeeq is not accepted, there still is not any Ikhtilaaf, because the narration of Talq bin Ali (radiallah anhu) has the probability of being Mansookh, because the narration of Talq bin Ali (radiallah anhu) is ancient and the narration of Abu Hurayrah (radiallah anhu) is the latest.

And according to the hanafiyah, if there are two contradictory ahadeeth, then the one which is ancient will be considered Mansookh. [Qawaaid fi Uloom ul-Hadeeth: Pg 47]

Therefore according to the principle of hanafiyah, the narration of Talq bin Ali (radiallah anhu) is mansookh.

Imaam Ibn Hibbaan said: “The narration of Sayyidunah Talq bin Ali (radiallah anhu) is Mansookh, because Talq bin Ali (radiallah anhu) came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) in the beginning of the first year of Hijrah when the Muslims were building Masjid Nabwi, while the hadeeth of Abu Hurayrah for the obligation of wudoo (is from later time). As we have mentioned before that Abu Hurayrah (radiallah anhu) embraced Islaam in 7 Hijri. So this indicates that the narration of Abu Hurayrah (radiallah anhu) was narrated seven years after the narration of Talq bin Ali (radiallah anhu).” [Saheeh Ibn Hibbaan under H. 1119]

After this Imaam Ibn Hibbaan has written the incidance when Talq bin Ali (radiallah anhu) accepted Islaam with a Saheeh chain, which took place in the beginning of the first year of Hjrah, and it is during that time when he heard the hadeeth of wudoo not breaking after touching the Dhikr, from the Prophet (peace be upon him), as is proven from Sunan Nasa’ee: H. 165: Baab Tark al-Wudoo min Zaalik.

Maulaana Abdul Hay Lakhnawi said:

“The probability that Talq (radiallah anhu) heard this hadeeth from the Prophet (peace be upon him) after Abu Hurayrah (radiallah anhu) embaced Islaam, is Mardood because of the narration in Sunan Nasa’ee because that hadeeth affirms that Talq (radiallah anhu) heard this hadeeth from the Prophet (peace be upon him) on the very day he came to the Prophet in Madeenah and emraced Islaam.” [As-Sa’ayah: Vol 1 Pg 260]

This is the reason he has written openly that:

“The justice in this issue is that if we use the way of Naskh, then the hadeeth of Talq is what will be consiered Mansookh not the other way around.” [At-Ta’leeq al-Mumajjad: Pg 55]

Thirdly: The hadeeth of Talq (radiallah anhu) is Mudtarib. Imaam Tabaraani has narrated the narration of Talq (radiallah anhu) with the following words:

“The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: The one who touches his private part should do wudoo’.” [Tabaraani Kabeer: Vol 7 Pg 334 H. 8252] Its chain is Da’eef.

Haafidh Ibn Hajar said: The narration of Talq is Mudtarib. [Dirayah: Vol 1 Pg 42]

Fourthly: It chain is also criticized. The narration of Talq (radiallah anhu) is narrated through four chains, and they depend upon the narrator Qays bin Talq. Qays is a Sudooq narrator as is mentioned in Taqreeb at-Tahdheeb (Pg 283), and the narrations of such a narrator are not accaptable without Mutab’iat. Imaam Abu Haatim said: He is not one of those whose narrations are taken as evidence. [Tahdheeb: Vol 7 Pg 399]

Imaam Shafi’ee, Imaam Abu Haatim, Imaam Abu Zur’ah, Imaam Daraqutni, Imaam Bayhaqi, Imaam Ibn Jawzi and others have graded this hadeeth to be Da’eef. [Al-Talkhees al-Habeer: Vol 1 Pg 125]

Second Evidence:

Salaam at-Taweel narrated from Ismaa’eel bin Raafi, From Hakeem bin Salamah, he narrated from a man of Bani Hanifah who is called Jari that: A man came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and said: “Oh Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him)! Sometimes, I am in the prayer and my hands strucks by my private part?” He (peace be upon him) said: “Keep performing your prayer.”
[Narrated Ibn Mandah in Ma’rifat is-Sahabah with reference to A’laa as-Sunan: Vol 1 Pg 116]

Reply:

In its chain, the narrator Salaam at-Taweel is Da’eef and Matrook.
Imaam Bukhaari said: “Muhadditheen have abandoned him.”
Imaam Yahya ibn Ma’een said: “He is nothing.”
Imaam Ahmed said: “He is Munkir ul-Hadeeth.”
Imaam Nasaa’ee said: “He is Matrook ul-Hadeeth.”
[Meezaan ul-I’tidaal: Vol 1 Pg 175]

The second narrator is Ismaa’eel bin Raafi’. Besides Imaam Ahmed and Imaam Yahya, a Jama’ah of Muhadditheen have declared him Da’eef. Daraqutni said: “He is Matrook ul-Hadeeth.” Ibn Adee said: “All his narrations are criticized.” [Meezaan ul-I’tidaal: Vol 1 Pg 227]

Haafidh Ibn Hajar in Al-Isaabah (Pg 234 Vol 1, Under the tajumah: 1139) and Molvi Abdul Hay Lakhnawi Hanafi in as-Sa’ayah (Pg 258 Vol 1) have declared this narration to be Da’eef.

Third Evidence:

Arqam bin Sharjeel said: During the prayer I itched my body , so (the hand) reached to the private part. I told this to Abdullah ibn Mas’ood (radiallah anhu), he said while laughing: “Cut it off! Where will you take it after taking it apart from you? This is only a part of your body.” [Narrated Tabaraani in Al-Kabeer, Majma az-Zawaaid: Vol 1 Pg 244]

Reply:

Firstly: This proof and the coming all the proofs are the sayings of Sahabah, whereas the sayings of Sahaabah are not Hujja in this issue from the very root, because this mas’la was differed upon among the Sahabah. And the Masaail in which Sahabah differ then the sayings of Sahabah are not Hujjah in that issue.

Secondly: In its chain the narrator Abu Ishaaq is present [Tabaraani Kabeer: Vol 9 Pg 2447 H. 9214]. And Abu Ishaaq is a Mudallis narrator.

Haafidh Ibn Hajar said: “He is famous in doing Tadlees as affirmed by Imaam Nasaa’ee and others.” [Tabaqaat al-Mudalliseen: Pg 42]

Imaam Ibn Hibbaan, Imaam Karabeesi, Imaam Tabari, and Imam Shu’bah etc have declared him Mudallis. [Tahdheeb : Vol 7 Pg 66] And this narration is narrated by ‘AN’.

The narrator narrating from Abu Ishaaq is Sufyaan ath-Thawree, and he is a Mudallis too. Imaam Dhahabi said: “He commits tadlees from Weak narrators.” [Mizaan ul-I’tidaal: Vol 1 Pg 169], and Imaam Sufyaan ath-Thawree has also not affirmed his hearing. If it be said that Israa’eel is present as a Muttabi’ of Sufyaan, so I would say that Abu Ishaaq is Mukhtalat too. And the narrations of Israa’eel from Abu Ishaaq are from after the Ikhtalaat of Abu Ishaaq. [Nihayat ul-Aghtabaat Pg 287]

Moreover, there is the probability of tadlees in this hadeeth at two places

Fourthly: If it be said that in Tabaraani, there is another Mutaabi’ of Sufyaan and Israa’eel, which is Ma’mar, then the answer to it will be that after the name of Ma’mar the letter “wa” is a Tasheef, in reality it should be “AN”. The evidence for it is that Imaam Tabaraani has narrated this narration through the chain of Imam Abdur Razzaaq. And in Musannaf Abdur Razzaaq (Vol 1 Pg 118 H. 430), its silsilah sanad is like this: “Narrated Abdur Razzaq, From (AN) Ma’mar, From (AN) Ath-Thawree and (wa) Israa’eel”, and this is correct.

Fourth Evidence:

Hassan Basri said: Five companions among the companions of Muhammad (peace be upon him): Ali bin Abi Taalib (radiallah anhu), Abdullah bin Mas’ood (radiallah anhu), Khuzayfah (radiallah anhu), Imran bin Hussain (radiallah anhu), and one more Sahaabi (had a discussion about the issue of touching the private part), one of them said: I do not care if I touch the Dhikr (sexual organ) or the nose, second one said: Or my thigh, and the third one said: Or my knees. [Narrated Tabaraani in al-Kabeer, Majma az-Zawaaid: Vol 1 Pg 244]

Reply:

Firstly: Right after this narration, Haythami has written that “Verily Hassan is a Mudallis and has not affirmed his hearing”

Secondly: This narration contains Inqita (disconnection). Because the samaa of Hassan Basri is not proven from any Badri Sahaabi (and Ali and Ibn Ma’sood are both Badri). Similarly, his samaa is also not proven from Imraan bin Hussain (radiallah anhu) [Maraseel Ibn Abi Haatim: Pg 31, 38].

In Mustadrak al-Haakim (Vol 4 Pg 567), a narration is narrated through the route of Al-Hassan from Imraan bin Hussain (radiallah anhu). While commenting on this hadeeth, Sarfaraaz Khaan Safdar Hanafi Deobandi said: Taking evidene from this hadeeth is Baatil and Mardood, firstly because in its chain Hassan al-Basri is narrating from Imraan bin Hussain. Imam Abu Haatim, Yahya ibn Sa’eed al-Qattaan, Ali ibn al-Madeeni, and Ibn Ma’een etc have affirmed that the samaa of Hassan is not proven from Imraan bin Hussain, see (Tahdheeb Vol 2 Pg 268), and Haafidh Ibn Hajr said: Hassan used to do a lot of Tadlees and Irsaal. Allaamah Dhahabi said: He is a Mudallis, when he narrates from a person from whom his meeting is not proven then his narration is not Hujjah [Tadhkirah Vol 1 Pg 7]. When his sama’at is not saheeh and the severe accusation of Irsaal and Tadlees is also ben laid upon him, then how can this narration be Saheeh in light of Usool ul-Hadeeth [Izalat ar-Rayb: Pg 237]. In short, this narration is Da’eef due to Tadlees and Inqitaa.

Fifth Evidence:

Qays said that a man asked Sa’d (radiallah anhu) about touching the private part, so he said: “If you think that it is an impure part of your body, then cut it off.” [Musannad Ibn Abi Shaybah: Vol 1 Pg 164]

Reply:

The narration on the invalidation of wudoo’ is also proven from Sa’d. His son, Mus’ab, said that: “I used to pick the Quraan up for Sa’d bin Abi Waqas to read from it. One day I itched, so Sa’d (radiallah anhu) said: I think you have touched your private part. I said: Yes! So Sa’d (radiallah anhu) said: Get up and do wudoo’. So I got up performed wudoo and came back.”
[Muwatta Imaam Maalik: Baab al-wudu min mas al-faraj, Bayhaqi: Vol 1 Pg 131, Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah: Vol 1 Pg 163].

This athar is also narrated by the Imaam of Ahnaaf, Muhammad bin al-Hassan in his al-Muwatta (Pg 50). Imam Tahawi has narrated the words “thus he ordered me to do wudoo” in Sharh Ma’ani ul-Athaar: Vol 1 Pg 58].

Sixth Evidence:

Abul Awaam Basri said that a man asked Ataa bin Abi Ribaah saying, Oh Abu Muhammad! A man touched his private part after performing the wudoo. A man among the people said: Abdullah ibn Abbas (radiallah anhu) used to say that if you think its impure then cut it off. Ataa bin Abi Ribaah said: “By Allah this is the saying of Ibn Abbaas.” [Muwatta Imam Muhammad: Pg 52]

Reply:

Firstly: Muhammad bin Hassan ash-Shaybaani is alone in narrating this narration. And he has been severely criticized by the Muhadditheen. In fact Imam Yahya ibn Ma’een said: “He is Kadhaab (Liar)” [Lisaan ul-Mizaan: Vol 5 Pg 122].

Secondly: The narration on the contrary to this narration has also been narrated from Sayyidunah Ibn Abbaas (radiallah anhu). Imaam Ataa bin Abi Ribaah said: “Ibn Umar and Ibn Abbaas (radiallah anhum) used to order such person to do wudoo’ who had touched his private part.” [Tahawi: Vol 1 Pg 58, Bayhaqi: Vol 1 Pg 131, and Musannad Ibn Abi Shaybah: Vol 1 Pg 64]

Seventh Evidence:

It is narrated form Ali bin Abi Taalib (radiallah anhu) regarding the touching of private part that he said: “I do not care if I touch my private part or the corner of my nose.” [Muwatta Imaam Muhammad Pg 52]

Reply:

Firstly: In its chain Ibraaheem Nakha’ee is present. Who is a tabi’ee with regards to ruwiyat (seeing the Sahabah) but he is not a tabi’ee with regards to riwayat (narrating from Sahabah). Meaning the samaa of Ibraaheem Nakha’ee is not proven from any Sahaabi.

Imaam Abu Haatim said: “The meeting of Ibraaheem Nakha’ee is not proven from any Sahaabi.” [Maraseel Ibn Abi Haatim: Pg 9].

Imaam Abu Zur’ah said: “The narration of Ibraaheem from Ali (radiallah anhu) is Mursal.” [Same: Pg 10]

Secondly: In its chain, Imaam Abu Haneefah is present. Who is weak with regards to memory.

Hafiz ibn Abdil Barr wrote in “Tamhid” v 11 p 48: Abu Hanifah narrated this Hadith from Musa ibn Abi ‘Aishah from Abdullah ibn Shaddad ibnul Hadi from Jabir ibn Abdillah from the Prophet (saw), and none mentioned this Hadith in a Musnad way (continuous chain) except Abu Hanifah and he has bad memory (Say ul Hifz) for Ahlul Hadith, and he opposed Huffaz such as Sufyan Ath-Thawri, Shu’bah, ibn ‘Uyaynah, Jariri and others who narrated from Musa ibn Abi ‘Aishah from Abdullah ibn Shaddad in a Mursal way (meaning name of Sahabi is omitted)”

Thirdly: The narrator Muhammad bin Hassan ash-Shaybaani is also presnt, who is a Kadhaab according to Imam Yahya ibn Ma’een.

In short this narration is absolutely Fabricated.

Eightth Evidence:

Baraa bin Qays said: I asked Khuzayfah bin Yamaan regarding a man who has touched his private part, so he replied: “This is like touching the head.” [Muwatta Imam Muhammad: Pg 55]

Reply:

This again is from Muhammad bin Hassan, who has been proven to be severely weak and Kadhaab.

Secondly: The narrator Al-Baraa bin Qays is also presnt in its chain. He is mentioned by Imam Abu Haatim in Kitaab al-Jarh wal Ta’deel (Pg 399 Vol 1) without any Jarh or Ta’deel. However, Imaam Ibn Hibbaan has mentioned him in his Kitaab ath-Thiqaat (Vol  4 Pg 77). But Ibn Hibbaan is Mutasaahil. He is famous in declaring Majhool and Da’eef narrators to be Siqah. Therefore, when he is alone in the tawtheeq of a Majhool narrator then it is not accepted.

If it be said that it also has another chain in Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah, then we would say that in it the narrator Hussain is present. It needs to be affirmed with reference that who is this Hussain? If it s Hussain bin Abdur Rahmaan Koofi then he is a Majhool as said in Taqreeb. Therefore, Maulaana Taqi Uthmaani declaring this narration to be Saheeh is not correct. (A’laa as-Sunan: Vol 1 Pg 194)

Ninth Evidence:

Umayr bin Sa’d Nakha’ee said: I was present in a Majlis (Company) where Ammar  bin Yaasir was also present, so the touching of private part was mentioned to him, He said: “It is only a part of your body. However, your palm also has other places apart from it.” [Muwatta Imaam Muhammad: Pg 55]

Reply:

Firstly: Certainly this athar is Saheeh with its chain. Even though the author of Muwatta Muhammad, Muhammad bin Hassan is Majrooh. But in Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah (Vol 1 Pg 164), Muhammad bin Fudayl and Imam Wakee’ are his Siqah Mutaabi’. But this narration is not Hujjah, because the Sahaabah have differed upon this issue. And the Masaail in which Sahaabah differ , then the sayings of Sahaabah are not Hujjah.

Secondly: There is no evidence for Hanafiya in this hadeeth because the words “However, your palm also has other places apart from it” points towards the Karahat (dislikness).

Maulaana Abdul Hay Lakhnawi Al-Hanafi, in his Haashiah of Muwatta, has explained the meaning of this hadeeth as: “It should not be touched without necessity” [At-Ta’leeq al-Mumajjad: Pg 55]

Now the meaning of necessity is only that the condition of a human is impulsive. And touching with a necessity is not the view of Hanafiyah.

In short, the claim of Hanafiyah is Aam (General), and they are presenting the Khaas (specific) evidence for it. Inna Lillahi wa inna ilaihi raji’oon.

This evidence is as if someone declares the meet of Pig to be permissible, and when he is asked for evidence so he recites the verse which is for a person who is forced. No wise person would denote it with evidence.

Thirdly: There is no contradiction between this Athar and the Marfoo ahadeeth, because this is regarding the condition of Intishaar. “It is only a part of you” point towards it, as has been said before.

Ninth Evidence:

Abu Darda (radiallah anhu) was once asked about touching the private part. So he replied: “It is only a part of your body.” [Muwatta Imaam Muhammad: Pg 58]

Reply:

Firstly: This naration is Mursal. Because the narrator narrating from Abu Darda is Habeeb bin Ubayd. And Imam Abu Haatim has affirmed that the narrations of Habeeb from Abu Darda are Mursal. [Kitaab al-Maraseel: Pg 29]

If someone says that in the published Nuskha of Muwatta, the words “Habeeb AN Ubayd AN Abu Darda” are present, then the answer to it is that it is Tasheef. In the reliable nuskhas, the words “Habeeb bin Ubayd AN Abu Darda” is present. For details see: [At-Ta’leeq al-Mumajjad: 58, 309, and Abkaar al-Munan: Pg 69]

And the author of Muwatta is also Majrooh. So this narration is severely weak.

The Inconsitency of Hanafiyah:

According to the Hanafiyah “Mubaasharatul Faahishah” (Laying down with each other completely naked) invalidates the wudu. Whereas according to their Fiqh and Usool, this should not be invalidated. Because in this, the most that can be said is that it causes their private parts to be touched with each other. And when the wudoo’ does not invalidate by touching it with hands then how does it break if it is touched with other parts of the body. Just as the wudoo’ does not break by touching head, nose, etc, and there are athaar narrated by Ahnaaf which say that the penis of a man and nose, knees etc are the same in ruling. So if their ruling is the same, then explain the reason for difference that if the wudoo does not break if a person touches his head with another person, then how does it break if a person touches his private part wih another person’s private part????

wama alaina illal balaghah

By: Shaikh Abu Suhayb Muhammad Dawood Arshad
Translated by: Raza Hassan

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s