Said Sheikh Ibn Uthaymeen rahimahullah: • Each of kosher is holy • Each of the unclean and the forbidden • It is not every unlawful it unclean (Ash Syarhul Mumti, 1 / 77)
Connecting our conversations in the previous issue of discussion that our knowledge unclean uncleanness agreed upon by scholars, so in this edition we will present what to our knowledge the disputed issue uncleanness, accompanied by an explanation which rajih (strong) from the dispute, whether it is unclean or not the unclean, wallahu al muwaffiq.
Dog drool History has come in Shahihain and besides both of the books of hadith, mentioned the hadeeth of Abu Hurairah that the Prophet sallallaahu radliallahu anhu alaihi wasallam said: "If the dog drink from a vessel of any one of you, let him wash the vessel had as many as seven times".) (Narrated by Bukhari no. 172 and Muslim, no. 279)
In Muslim history there are additional: "The first laundry mixed with earth".
Washing mentioned in the hadith above shows the filthy dog saliva and this is what rajih opinion (strong) as the restraints by Abu Hanifa, Ats Thaury, a history of Ahmad, Ibn Hazm, Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah and others. This opinion is corroborated also by Syaukani in the book-book.
As we mentioned above that in unclean problems that we discuss here, there is a dispute, then so does this dog saliva problem. There were also other opinions. Some peoples of the entire body of scientific opinion that dogs unclean. It is the opinion jumhur hadith scholars to postulate that have been mentioned above. They say: "Because saliva from the mouth of a dog (which he was unclean) then the whole body more mainstream again for convicted uncleanness."
And others say the dog saliva is not odious, while the command is just a matter washed ta `bbudiyah (worship), not because of his uncleanness. It is the opinion of the restraints of Imam Malik and others ..
Sperm There are two opinions on this seminal issue. The first opinion says odious is the second opinion says otherwise, sperm is sacred. Strong in this case is the notion of sperm and this sacred restraints by Imam Ahmad, Syafi `i and in addition to the two. And this is what rajih opinion. Imam Nawawi rahimahullah said: "Most scholars argue that the sacred semen." (Sharh Saheeh Muslim juz 3, p. 198).
They evidence the hadeeth of Ayesha radliallahu anha who just scrape marks that had dried semen on underwear Prophet sallallaahu 'alaihi wasallam without washing them. (As narrated by Imam Muslim in shahihnya no. 288, 290). Although it also showed that Aisha narrated radliallahu anha used to wash sperm attached to the clothes he sallallaahu 'alaihi wasallam (as narrated by Bukhari in shahihnya no. 229, 230, 231, 232 and Muslim, no. 289)
But these two are not mutually contradictory history (history scraping or washing). This was said by Ibn Hajar al Hafidz Al Atsqalani rahimahullah: "This hadeeth which indicates the former washed sperm that stick to clothing and hadith that shows dikeriknya semen is not contradictory because it can be collected between them clearly for who believes his sacred semen. Hadeeth about washing brought to the law istihbab (his favorite secondhand washing sperm that stick to clothes) in order to clean not because of obligation. This is the way adopted by Imam Syafi `i, Ahmad and ashab hadith." (Fath Bari juz 1 thing. 415) Rahimahullah Imam Nawawi said: "If semen is unclean certainly not enough to simply eliminate them chirping." ("Sharh Saheeh Muslim, juz 3, p.. 198)
Blood We mean in this discussion is in addition to menstrual blood and childbirth agreed uncleanness as we describe in the previous pembahasaan .. Indeed, in this case also there is a dispute but that rajih / strong blood is sacred. It's good to see the discussion we presented Sheikh Albani rahimahullah: "(Those who argue filthy blood) also refute the hadith Al Ansari is arrows by an idolatrous when he was praying in the night. Then he drew an arrow stuck in his body. Then he arrows again with three arrows, but he still continued his prayers in a state of the blood continues to pour from his body, as narrated by Imam Bukhari in mu `allaq (isnaad disconnected from Imam Bukhari to the hadith narrators) and the maushul (continued isnaad) by Imam Ahmad and any other , dishahihkan in "Saheeh Sunan Abu Dawud" (no. 193). hadeeth is convicted marfoo `(to the Prophet sallallaahu 'alaihi wasallam) because it is impossible he sallallaahu' alaihi wasallam did not notice this.
Had a lot of blood that he would cancel ablution alaihi wasallam would have explained that, because it should not delay the necessary information at the time as it is known from the rules of the science of usul. If it is considered the Prophet sallallaahu 'alaihi wasallam did not know these companions act there would be nothing in heaven or on earth is hidden from Allah ta `ala. If blood is impure or cancel ablution Allah will revealed to his prophet as it is obviously not hidden from anyone. This opinion restraints by Imam Bukhari as he is against partial exposure of the mu `atsar allaq, which is made clear by Ibn Hajar in Fath Bari and it is the opinion of Ibn Hazm". Then he said: "The discussion of this issue in terms of jurisprudence, can be reviewed as follows: First: Equalizing menstrual blood with the blood of others such as human blood and blood from animals that eat meat is an obvious mistake from the two sides; 1. There is no proof that shows it is from the Qur'an and Sunnah, while the law regardless of blood origin odious presumption unless there is the argument. 2. Such equations of counter information that comes in the Sunnah. The blood of a Muslim are specifically indicated in the hadith Al Ansari who was covered with blood when the prayer and he still continued his prayer. While the blood of animals indicated in the hadeeth narrated from Ibn Mas `ud radliallahu anhu, he was slaughtering a camel until he was exposed to blood following camel droppings, then called iqamah then he went away and did not perform ablution prayers again. (History Abdurrazzaq "Al Mushannaf" 1 / 125, Ibn Abi Syaibah 1 / 392, Ath Thabrani "Mu` jamul Kabir "9 / 284 with a saheeh isnaad from it. And also narrated by Al Baghawi" Al Ja `diyaat" 2 / 887 / 2503). Uqbah narrated from Abi Musa Al-Ash `ari:" I do not care if I slaughter a camel until I was covered with dirt and blood. Then I pray without me touching the water. " And sanad atsar of Abu Musa is dlaif (weak). Then he continued: Second: Distinguish between a little blood with the blood of many (unclean or not), although this opinion has been preceded by priests, then there is no proof that showed even the hadith Al Ansari cancel this opinion. (See Tamamul Minnah things, 51-52)
Infidel Ibn Hazm and the people of the Ahlu dhahir stick with what is understood from the hadeeth of the Prophet sallallaahu 'alaihi wasallam: "Those were not defiled Islam" (Narrated by Bukhari no. 283 no.371 and Muslim)
To declare himself unclean infidels and they strengthen this opinion with the word of Allah ta `ala in the letter of At-Tauba verse 28: "Only those who were unclean idolaters." (Surat At-Tauba: 28)
However jumhur scholars argue this opinion by stating that what is meant by the hadith of the Prophet sallallaahu 'alaihi wasallam is the Muslim holy limbs because he used to distance himself from the unclean, as for the idolaters do not keep themselves from unclean. Who is meant by the verses above are unclean idolaters it in terms of belief and in kekotorannya.
Also with the argument that Allah Ta `ala in the Qur'an allows Muslims to marry women peoples of the book while a husband who violated his wife certainly can not be separated from contact with the sweat of his wife, along with it is not obligatory upon the husband for purification because of contact with his wife , but because Jima `compulsory bath. Also Prophet sallallaahu 'alaihi wasallam never ablution from the water and tied up a woman musyrikah Atsal Tsumamah bin at a mosque when it was idolatrous, and so forth. (Fath Bari 1 / 487, Nailul Authar 1 / 45, Sailul Jaraar 1 / 38, 39, Ash Syarhul Mumti `1 / 383) And this is what rajih jumhur opinion.
Liquor (Liquor) Khamar are all things that intoxicate both made from grapes, dates, wheat or otherwise. This wine is unlawful as indicated in the Qur'an, Sunnah and consensus' (agreement) of the Muslims. Then if the wine is odious?
Jumhur scholars view this wine unclean subhanahuwa postulate Allah ta `ala: "O those who believe, in fact alcohol, gambling, sacrificing to idols and gambled the fate of the arrows is the devil ... rijs of their deeds." (Surat al Maidah: 90)
They explain rijs here with unclean, but that is true of the opinion that there is, alcohol is not unclean and it is the opinion Ra'yi Ar Rabi `ah, Al-Layth, Al Muzani, Syaukani, Sheikh Albani, Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen and besides them.
As for the dimakud with the revelations of Allah in surat Al-Maidah above, may Allaah have mercy Syaukani Imam said: "When wine here coupled with الأنصاب and الأزلام mention the words that accompany it turned rijs meaning (in verse) to the odious than the shar` i '. (Ad Darari, p.. 20)
Shaykh Ibn 'Uthaymeen rahimahullah also explained about the meaning of the verse in surat Al-Maidah is that what is meant here is unclean unclean meaningful (in meaning) is not defiled hissiyah (sensory) from two sides:
1. Wine is included with الأنصاب, الأزلام and الميسر and unclean here are meaningful. 2. Indeed rijs here is associated with His word: ((من عمل الشيطان)) so that its meaning rijs Amali (actions) not rijs `Aini (object of unclean) who was convicted with him all things unclean.
Vomiting human That man is not rajih vomiting unclean because there is no theorem that states impiety. The opinions that say throw it unclean been refuted by the priest in his book Sailul Syaukani rahimahullah Jaraar (1 / 43). He stated: "I've mentioned to you at the beginning of the book Thaharah that everything was legal origin is sacred and can not move from this original law unless the argument which moves right (saheeh) and deserve to be a stronger argument nor balanced. When we get the theorem is then of course very well, but if we do not get it compulsory for us to tawaqquf (silence) in the place we are forbidden to talk about it. Then we say to those who consider it unclean vomit with the assumption that this means: - Allah Subhanahu wa Ta `ala has been required to His servant a liability. - Vomiting is saying it should be washed unclean - Prevented the validity of prayer in the presence of vomiting it. So we asked him to bring this proposition.
If this guy brought the argument to the hadith Ammar: "You just wash your clothes when exposed to urine, faeces, vomit blood and semen." So we said this hadith is not solid from shahihnya side, or from side hasannya not even down to the lowest level for a proof and diamalkan. So how can this law be determined by Ammar this while hadith hadith does not deserve to be a determination of law that even the lowest of any one individual from the servants of God ..
If this guy said again: "It has come word that the vomiting was canceled ablution." And we answered: "Is there any information that does not cancel ablution except the case of unclean". If you say yes, then you will never have a way to say so (that the vomiting was unclean). If you say that to have said some of the People Furu `(jurists) that vomiting is one branch of the impurity. So we said if greeting some people it is a theorem that could strengthen his opinion against someone? If you say so, then really you have to say words that are not spoken by anyone from the Muslims. If you say no, then we declare: why do you argue with things that are not used by someone to argue against others. And Allaah knows best (Quoted from the magazine Asy Syariah, the work of al Ustadz Muslim. URL Source http://www.asysyariah.com/print.php?id_online=25)
(by: Moslem Comunity)
Connecting our conversations in the previous issue of discussion that our knowledge unclean uncleanness agreed upon by scholars, so in this edition we will present what to our knowledge the disputed issue uncleanness, accompanied by an explanation which rajih (strong) from the dispute, whether it is unclean or not the unclean, wallahu al muwaffiq.
Dog drool History has come in Shahihain and besides both of the books of hadith, mentioned the hadeeth of Abu Hurairah that the Prophet sallallaahu radliallahu anhu alaihi wasallam said: "If the dog drink from a vessel of any one of you, let him wash the vessel had as many as seven times".) (Narrated by Bukhari no. 172 and Muslim, no. 279)
In Muslim history there are additional: "The first laundry mixed with earth".
Washing mentioned in the hadith above shows the filthy dog saliva and this is what rajih opinion (strong) as the restraints by Abu Hanifa, Ats Thaury, a history of Ahmad, Ibn Hazm, Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah and others. This opinion is corroborated also by Syaukani in the book-book.
As we mentioned above that in unclean problems that we discuss here, there is a dispute, then so does this dog saliva problem. There were also other opinions. Some peoples of the entire body of scientific opinion that dogs unclean. It is the opinion jumhur hadith scholars to postulate that have been mentioned above. They say: "Because saliva from the mouth of a dog (which he was unclean) then the whole body more mainstream again for convicted uncleanness."
And others say the dog saliva is not odious, while the command is just a matter washed ta `bbudiyah (worship), not because of his uncleanness. It is the opinion of the restraints of Imam Malik and others ..
Sperm There are two opinions on this seminal issue. The first opinion says odious is the second opinion says otherwise, sperm is sacred. Strong in this case is the notion of sperm and this sacred restraints by Imam Ahmad, Syafi `i and in addition to the two. And this is what rajih opinion. Imam Nawawi rahimahullah said: "Most scholars argue that the sacred semen." (Sharh Saheeh Muslim juz 3, p. 198).
They evidence the hadeeth of Ayesha radliallahu anha who just scrape marks that had dried semen on underwear Prophet sallallaahu 'alaihi wasallam without washing them. (As narrated by Imam Muslim in shahihnya no. 288, 290). Although it also showed that Aisha narrated radliallahu anha used to wash sperm attached to the clothes he sallallaahu 'alaihi wasallam (as narrated by Bukhari in shahihnya no. 229, 230, 231, 232 and Muslim, no. 289)
But these two are not mutually contradictory history (history scraping or washing). This was said by Ibn Hajar al Hafidz Al Atsqalani rahimahullah: "This hadeeth which indicates the former washed sperm that stick to clothing and hadith that shows dikeriknya semen is not contradictory because it can be collected between them clearly for who believes his sacred semen. Hadeeth about washing brought to the law istihbab (his favorite secondhand washing sperm that stick to clothes) in order to clean not because of obligation. This is the way adopted by Imam Syafi `i, Ahmad and ashab hadith." (Fath Bari juz 1 thing. 415) Rahimahullah Imam Nawawi said: "If semen is unclean certainly not enough to simply eliminate them chirping." ("Sharh Saheeh Muslim, juz 3, p.. 198)
Blood We mean in this discussion is in addition to menstrual blood and childbirth agreed uncleanness as we describe in the previous pembahasaan .. Indeed, in this case also there is a dispute but that rajih / strong blood is sacred. It's good to see the discussion we presented Sheikh Albani rahimahullah: "(Those who argue filthy blood) also refute the hadith Al Ansari is arrows by an idolatrous when he was praying in the night. Then he drew an arrow stuck in his body. Then he arrows again with three arrows, but he still continued his prayers in a state of the blood continues to pour from his body, as narrated by Imam Bukhari in mu `allaq (isnaad disconnected from Imam Bukhari to the hadith narrators) and the maushul (continued isnaad) by Imam Ahmad and any other , dishahihkan in "Saheeh Sunan Abu Dawud" (no. 193). hadeeth is convicted marfoo `(to the Prophet sallallaahu 'alaihi wasallam) because it is impossible he sallallaahu' alaihi wasallam did not notice this.
Had a lot of blood that he would cancel ablution alaihi wasallam would have explained that, because it should not delay the necessary information at the time as it is known from the rules of the science of usul. If it is considered the Prophet sallallaahu 'alaihi wasallam did not know these companions act there would be nothing in heaven or on earth is hidden from Allah ta `ala. If blood is impure or cancel ablution Allah will revealed to his prophet as it is obviously not hidden from anyone. This opinion restraints by Imam Bukhari as he is against partial exposure of the mu `atsar allaq, which is made clear by Ibn Hajar in Fath Bari and it is the opinion of Ibn Hazm". Then he said: "The discussion of this issue in terms of jurisprudence, can be reviewed as follows: First: Equalizing menstrual blood with the blood of others such as human blood and blood from animals that eat meat is an obvious mistake from the two sides; 1. There is no proof that shows it is from the Qur'an and Sunnah, while the law regardless of blood origin odious presumption unless there is the argument. 2. Such equations of counter information that comes in the Sunnah. The blood of a Muslim are specifically indicated in the hadith Al Ansari who was covered with blood when the prayer and he still continued his prayer. While the blood of animals indicated in the hadeeth narrated from Ibn Mas `ud radliallahu anhu, he was slaughtering a camel until he was exposed to blood following camel droppings, then called iqamah then he went away and did not perform ablution prayers again. (History Abdurrazzaq "Al Mushannaf" 1 / 125, Ibn Abi Syaibah 1 / 392, Ath Thabrani "Mu` jamul Kabir "9 / 284 with a saheeh isnaad from it. And also narrated by Al Baghawi" Al Ja `diyaat" 2 / 887 / 2503). Uqbah narrated from Abi Musa Al-Ash `ari:" I do not care if I slaughter a camel until I was covered with dirt and blood. Then I pray without me touching the water. " And sanad atsar of Abu Musa is dlaif (weak). Then he continued: Second: Distinguish between a little blood with the blood of many (unclean or not), although this opinion has been preceded by priests, then there is no proof that showed even the hadith Al Ansari cancel this opinion. (See Tamamul Minnah things, 51-52)
Infidel Ibn Hazm and the people of the Ahlu dhahir stick with what is understood from the hadeeth of the Prophet sallallaahu 'alaihi wasallam: "Those were not defiled Islam" (Narrated by Bukhari no. 283 no.371 and Muslim)
To declare himself unclean infidels and they strengthen this opinion with the word of Allah ta `ala in the letter of At-Tauba verse 28: "Only those who were unclean idolaters." (Surat At-Tauba: 28)
However jumhur scholars argue this opinion by stating that what is meant by the hadith of the Prophet sallallaahu 'alaihi wasallam is the Muslim holy limbs because he used to distance himself from the unclean, as for the idolaters do not keep themselves from unclean. Who is meant by the verses above are unclean idolaters it in terms of belief and in kekotorannya.
Also with the argument that Allah Ta `ala in the Qur'an allows Muslims to marry women peoples of the book while a husband who violated his wife certainly can not be separated from contact with the sweat of his wife, along with it is not obligatory upon the husband for purification because of contact with his wife , but because Jima `compulsory bath. Also Prophet sallallaahu 'alaihi wasallam never ablution from the water and tied up a woman musyrikah Atsal Tsumamah bin at a mosque when it was idolatrous, and so forth. (Fath Bari 1 / 487, Nailul Authar 1 / 45, Sailul Jaraar 1 / 38, 39, Ash Syarhul Mumti `1 / 383) And this is what rajih jumhur opinion.
Liquor (Liquor) Khamar are all things that intoxicate both made from grapes, dates, wheat or otherwise. This wine is unlawful as indicated in the Qur'an, Sunnah and consensus' (agreement) of the Muslims. Then if the wine is odious?
Jumhur scholars view this wine unclean subhanahuwa postulate Allah ta `ala: "O those who believe, in fact alcohol, gambling, sacrificing to idols and gambled the fate of the arrows is the devil ... rijs of their deeds." (Surat al Maidah: 90)
They explain rijs here with unclean, but that is true of the opinion that there is, alcohol is not unclean and it is the opinion Ra'yi Ar Rabi `ah, Al-Layth, Al Muzani, Syaukani, Sheikh Albani, Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen and besides them.
As for the dimakud with the revelations of Allah in surat Al-Maidah above, may Allaah have mercy Syaukani Imam said: "When wine here coupled with الأنصاب and الأزلام mention the words that accompany it turned rijs meaning (in verse) to the odious than the shar` i '. (Ad Darari, p.. 20)
Shaykh Ibn 'Uthaymeen rahimahullah also explained about the meaning of the verse in surat Al-Maidah is that what is meant here is unclean unclean meaningful (in meaning) is not defiled hissiyah (sensory) from two sides:
1. Wine is included with الأنصاب, الأزلام and الميسر and unclean here are meaningful. 2. Indeed rijs here is associated with His word: ((من عمل الشيطان)) so that its meaning rijs Amali (actions) not rijs `Aini (object of unclean) who was convicted with him all things unclean.
Vomiting human That man is not rajih vomiting unclean because there is no theorem that states impiety. The opinions that say throw it unclean been refuted by the priest in his book Sailul Syaukani rahimahullah Jaraar (1 / 43). He stated: "I've mentioned to you at the beginning of the book Thaharah that everything was legal origin is sacred and can not move from this original law unless the argument which moves right (saheeh) and deserve to be a stronger argument nor balanced. When we get the theorem is then of course very well, but if we do not get it compulsory for us to tawaqquf (silence) in the place we are forbidden to talk about it. Then we say to those who consider it unclean vomit with the assumption that this means: - Allah Subhanahu wa Ta `ala has been required to His servant a liability. - Vomiting is saying it should be washed unclean - Prevented the validity of prayer in the presence of vomiting it. So we asked him to bring this proposition.
If this guy brought the argument to the hadith Ammar: "You just wash your clothes when exposed to urine, faeces, vomit blood and semen." So we said this hadith is not solid from shahihnya side, or from side hasannya not even down to the lowest level for a proof and diamalkan. So how can this law be determined by Ammar this while hadith hadith does not deserve to be a determination of law that even the lowest of any one individual from the servants of God ..
If this guy said again: "It has come word that the vomiting was canceled ablution." And we answered: "Is there any information that does not cancel ablution except the case of unclean". If you say yes, then you will never have a way to say so (that the vomiting was unclean). If you say that to have said some of the People Furu `(jurists) that vomiting is one branch of the impurity. So we said if greeting some people it is a theorem that could strengthen his opinion against someone? If you say so, then really you have to say words that are not spoken by anyone from the Muslims. If you say no, then we declare: why do you argue with things that are not used by someone to argue against others. And Allaah knows best (Quoted from the magazine Asy Syariah, the work of al Ustadz Muslim. URL Source http://www.asysyariah.com/print.php?id_online=25)
(by: Moslem Comunity)
0 comments: