It is mentioned in Majma ‘ul Anhur
قال صاحب الفرائد المراد من الاشربۃ الحلو المخلوط بالماء کالدبس
والشھد .
If such a thing is mixed in it, the aim of which is to
remove dirt or was mixed and cooked in it then unless the thinness and fluidity
of that water does not vanish, it is valid for Wudu. Categorical statements
have already been presented from Fathul Qadeer, Fatawa Khania and Fatawa Imam
Sheikh Al Islam Tamartaashi (in this regard).
It is mentioned in Bahr:
اما لو کانت النظافۃ تقصد بہ کالسدر والاشنان والصابون یطبخ بہ فانہ
یتوضؤ بہ الا اذا خرج الماء عن طبعہ من الرقۃ والسیلان ۔
It is in Hindiya:
وان طبخ فی الماء ما یقصد بہ المبالغۃ فی النظافۃ کالاشنان والصابون
جاز الوضوء بہ بالاجماع الا اذا صارثخینا فلا یجوز ھکذا فی " محیط السرخسی
".
Similarly, if an amount of saffron or dye is mixed in
water, whereby clothes can now be dyed with it, then in this case, this water
is not valid for Wudu even though the thinness and fluidity may still be prevailing
because this water will now not be called water. It will be classified as a
colour or dye.
It is in Raddul Muhtar:
ومثلہ الزعفران اذا خالط الماء وصار بحیث یصبغ بہ فلیس بماء مطلق من
غیر نظر الی الثخانۃ۔
It is in Muniya:
لا تجوز بالماء المقید کماء الزعفران. ا ھ قال فی الحلیۃ محمول علی
ما اذا کان الزعفران غالبا۔
Most likely it is in Hindiya
وان غلبت الحمرۃ وصارمتما سکا لا یجوز التوضی کذا فی فتاویٰ قاضیخان۔
If it is not of the condition where it can be used to dye
clothing then it can be used for Wudu. It is in Sagheeri as follows:
القلیل من الزعفران یغیر الاوصاف الثلثۃ مع کونہ رقیقا فیجوز الوضوء
والغسل بہ .
It is in Hindiya:
التوضی بماء الزعفران والزردج والعصفر یجوز ان کان رقیقا والماء غالب
۔
Similarly, if alum or gall-nut is mixed in it, allowing
one to be able to write with it (like ink) then in such a case Wudu is not
permissible with it because it is no longer regarded as water but will be
called ink.
It is in Tajnees, Bahrur Raa’iq, Hindiya and Raddul Muhtar:
وکذا اذا طرح فیہ زاج او عفص وصار ینقش بہ لزوال اسم الماء عنہ ۔
If it cannot be used for writing, then Wudu with it is
permissible, even if it becomes black, because the name has not actually
changed.
It is in Hindiya:
اذا طرح الزاج او العفص فی الماء جاز الوضوء بہ ان کان لا ینقش اذا
کـتب کذا فی " البحر " نا قلاعن " التجنیس ".
It is in Fatawa Khania:
اذا طرح الزاج فی الماء حتی اسود لکن لم تذھب رقتہ جاز بہ الوضوء ۔
It is in Huliya:
صرح فی التجنیس بان من التفریع علیٰ اعتبار الغلبۃ بالاجزاء قول
الجرجانی اذا طرح الزاج اوالعفص فی الماء جاز الوضوء بہ ان کان لا ینقش اذا کتب
فان نقش لا یجوزوا لماء ھو المغلوب.
Similarly, if gram, potherb or any other grain etc is
soaked in the water; or if mud, mortar or lime was mixed with it then as long
as its fluidity is still prevailing, Wudu with it is permissible otherwise not.
The details in regards to all of these are present in all the general books (of
Fiqh).
It is in the Bada’i of Imam Malik al Ulama:
تغیر الماء المطلق بالطین او بالتراب او بالجص او بالنورۃ او بوقوع
الاوراق او الثمار فیہ او بطول المکث یجوز التوضؤبہ لانہ لم یزل عنہ اسم الماء
وبقی معناہ ایضاً ۔
Also, from the definition of Mutlaq water and from all
the details presented, it has become completely clear that, the mere alteration
of the qualities is not sufficient grounds for the water to be restricted;
until such time that the name of the water is not changed. The water in which
gram was soaked, or a small amount of saffron was soaked, a little gall-nut was
mixed, thereby not allowing it to become useful for writing or similar things
which have been clarified in the books of Fiqh and which is still valid for
Wudu. In this regard, have the qualities of such waters not been altered? If
the changing of the qualities makes the water absolutely and completely
restricted then it could never be valid for Wudu. Now, we will present statements
which show that even though all 3 qualities have changed, it is still regarded
as valid for Wudu. If a rope which is hanging in a well, causes the colour,
taste and smell of the water to be altered, i.e. all 3 qualities are altered,
Wudu with it is still permissible.
It is has been mentioned in the Fatawa of Imam Sheikh al Islam Tamartaashi:
سئل عن الوضوءِ والاغتسال بماء تغیر لونہ وطعمہ وریحہ بحبلہ المعلق
علیہ الاخراج الماء فھل یجوز ام لااجاب یجوز عند جمہور اصحابنا اھ(1) ملتقطا.
During autumn months if leaves fall into the water in
abundance, causing the 3 qualities to be altered then even if the colour has changed
to an extent that if it is taken in the hand, it can be noticed but if the
fluidity is still prevailing then according to the proper Madhab, it is
permissible for Wudu.
It is in Siraaj Wahaaj, Fatawa Alamgiri, Jauhira Nayyira
and the Fatawa of Imam Gharbi Tamartaashi:
فان تغیرت اوصافہ الثلثۃ بوقوع اوراق الاشجار فیہ وقت الخریف فانہ
یجوز بہ الوضوء عند عامۃ اصحابنا رحمہم اللہ تعالٰی .
It is also in Fatawa Imam Gharbi from Mujtaba Sharah Qudoori:
لو غیرالاوصاف الثلثۃ بالاوراق ولم یسلب اسم الماء عنہ ولا معناہ عنہ
فانہ یجوز التوضؤ بہ.
It is in Inaaya, Huliya, Bahr, Nahr, Miskeen and Raddul Muhtar:
المنقول عن الاسا تذۃ انہ یجوز حتی لو ان اوراق الاشجار وقت الخریف
تـقع فی الحیاض فیتغیر ماء ھا من حیث اللون والطعم والرائحۃ ثم انھم یتوضؤن منھا
من غیر نکیر ۔
It is in Durr-e-Mukhtar:
وان غیر کل او صافہ فی الاصح ان بقیت رقتہ ای واسمہ ۔
It is in Raddul Muhtar under the statement فی الاصح
مقابلہ ما قیل انہ ان ظہرلون الاوراق فی الکف لا یتوضؤ بہ لکن یشرب
والتـقیید بالکف اشارۃ الی کـثرۃ التـغیر لان الماء قدیری فی محلہ متغیرا لونہ لکن
لو رفع منہ شخص فی کفہ لا یراہ متغیرا تامل.
If dates were put into water, causing the water to become
sweetened, yet it did not reach the extent of become Nabeez (traditional date
drink) then it is unanimously agreed that Wudu with it is permissible.
It is in Hilya, Tabayyan and Hindiya as follows:
'' الماء الذی القی فیہ تمیرات فصارحلوا ولم
یزل عنہ اسم الماء وہو رقیق یجوز بہ الوضوء بلا خلاف بین اصحابنا .''
From the statements of the distinguished Jurists and
esteem Imams, it can be ascertained that merely the alteration of the
qualities, is not sufficient to classify the water to be invalid for Wudu,
until such time that it becomes some other thing for some other purpose, whereby
the name of water is no longer applicable to it. Now, in regards to the issue
being discussed, if the Huqqa was refreshed (i.e. prepared) using some used
water or some other thing which was not valid for Wudu, such as rose, or
essence of Gauzuban or essence of aniseed; then it must be noted that all of
these things were not valid for Wudu or Ghusl from inception, so what fault is
it of the Huqqa.
We have not even claimed that Wudu with such things is permissible.
The only time it can be objected to, is if the water was invalid for Wudu from
before, and if it became altered because of the Huqqa, then the same previous
ruling is applicable. Now, after preparing it, even if one smoked one round of
it, then it is common that the alteration of the qualities are not really felt,
so what argument can there be in this case, in regards to Wudu being permitted
with it, and in the case where there has been alteration, even if it is to all
the qualities, but the fluidity still remains. Based on statements of the A’ima
and the Ulama of the Madhab, no Hanafi should have any objection to this
because the definition of Mutlaq water is still applicable to it because
neither has the fluidity been diminished, nor has any such thing been mixed in
it which is more or equal and nor is it some other thing, which is for the
purpose of something else, whereby its name has been changed and it is not classified
as water any longer; but actually everyone still refers to it as water. Even
the person objecting is saying that ‘The Huqqa water is being said to be pure’
It is mentioned in Tanweerul Absaar and Durr-e-Mukhtar:
(یجوز بماء خالطہ طاھر جامد) مطلقا (کفاکہۃ و
ورق شجر ) وان غیر کل اوصافہ ( فی الاصح ان بقیت رقتہ ) ای و اسمہ ۔
It is in Ghurar
یجوز وان غیر اوصافہ جامد کزعفران و ورق فی الاصح ۔
It is mentioned Noor ul Idha
لا یضر تغیر اوصافہ کلہا بجامد کزعفران ۔
Now, as for the issue of it being attributed to the Huqqa
when it is being mentioned (by saying Huqqa Water), then this does not cause the
water to be completely restricted water, just as one says ‘clay pot water’ or
‘Deg water’. This attribution is an attribution of description and not
restrictive, such as in the case of saying ''
ماء البئر ماء البحر ماء الزعفران .''
It is in Tabayyan:
اضافتہ الیٰ الزعفران ونحوہ للتعریف کاضافتہ الی البئر.
It is in Shabia alal Zail’ee
اضافتہ الیٰ الوادی والعین اضافۃ تعریف لا تقیید لانہ تتـعرف ما ھیتہ
بدون ھذہ الاضافۃ ۔
If one has this notion, that it is impermissible because
the water of Huqqa has a foul odour, then firstly, this notion that the water
of Huqqa has a foul odour, is absolutely incorrect, and secondly the ruling is
based on it being Mutlaq or Muqay’yad and not in regards to whether it has a
good fragrance or an odour, such as in the case of Saffron; if saffron is mixed
in a huge quantity in water, whereby it can now be used to dye clothing, then
Wudu with it is not permissible, no matter how good the fragrance may be. Rose
(essence) has a beautiful scent, but it has been mentioned in the general books
that to use it for Wudu is impermissible. It is in Hidaya and Hindiya as
follows: '' لا بماء الورد .''
It is mentioned in Muniya and Ghuniya:
لایجوز الطھارۃ الحکمیۃ بماء الورد و سائر الازھار.
Will there be no foul smell, if leaves fall into the
water causing the 3 qualities to be altered? Whereas it has been proven from
the categorical statements of the Madhab that Wudu with this water is still
permissible. We have already heard the statement of Imam Sheikh al Islam Gharbi
Tamartaashi regarding a rope which is hanging in a well, thereby causing the 3
qualities of the water to be altered, yet he decrees its use permissible for
Wudu. If tar falls into the water causing the water to give off a strong foul
odour, Wudu is still permissible with this water, if it has not become thick.
It is in Fatawa-e-Zainiyah
سئل عن الماء المتغیر ریحہ بالقطران یجوز الوضوء منہ ام لا اجاب نعم
یجوز .
It has been mentioned in numerous books that the mere
alteration of the 3 qualities does not hinder the permissibility of Wudu (with
such water). None of the scholars have restricted its use due to either good
fragrance or foul odour, so Praise to Allah, the ruling is in accordance (with
what we have mentioned).
So, in the light of the clear evidence which we have
presented, it has been confirmed that this water is regarded as being pure and
a purifying agent. If one washes his face and hands and then runs out of water
to wash his feet, and has no other water to complete his Wudu, except for Huqqa
water, which is sufficient for him to wash his feet; then on the basis of no
other water being available to him at all, and the water of the Huqqa being
sufficient for washing the limbs of Wudu, the command of Tayammum cannot be
given, as
Almighty Allah commands:
(فَلَمْ تَجِدُوۡا مَآءً
فَتَیَمَّمُوۡا صَعِیۡدًا) ـ2ـ
‘It
water cannot be found, then perform Tayammum on pure sand’ (The order of
Tayammum cannot be given because he has water in his possession).
Those who refute and object to this must say whether they
are not opposing the command of Allah by not making use of the water available
to them, and performing Tayammum instead; and is his Tayammum valid or not in
such a situation?
He is definitely going against the command of Allah, and
his Tayammum is definitely invalid. However, if the time is still remaining
(i.e. sufficient for a Salaah), and there is a foul odour, then it is necessary
for one to wait for a while, until the odour fades away, as it is Makruh for a
foul odour to emit from the body whilst in Namaaz. Such a person will not be
permitted to enter the Musjid in this condition, as it is Haraam to enter the
Musjid with such a bad odour prevailing. In regards to raw garlic and onions,
it has been mentioned in the Hadith:
(( من اکل من ھذہ الشجرۃ المنتـنۃ فـلا یقربن
مسجدنا فان الملٰئکۃ تـتأذی مما یتأذی منہ الانس.))
‘One who eats from the foul-odour tree should not come
near our Musjid, as the Angels feel discomfort in that which causes discomfort to
humans’ [Reported in Bukhari and Muslim from Jabir رضی اللہ تعالیٰ عنہ
It has been further mentioned: ولا یمر فیہ بلحم نيءٍ ‘None should pass through a new Mosque, carrying raw
meat’. It is mentioned in Durr Mukhtar in this regard: واکل نحو ثوم.
It is in Raddul Muhtar:
'' ای کبصل ونحوہ مما لہ رائحۃ کریہۃ للحدیث
الصحیح فی النہی عن قربان آکل الثوم والبصل.''
It is for this reason that it is Haraam to burn paraffin and such
lamps and wicks which emit foul odour, in the Musjid. It is mentioned in Raddul
Muhtar:
قال الامام العینی فی شرحہ علی " صحیح البخاری " قلت علۃ
النہی اذی الملئکۃ و اذی المسلمین ولا یختص بمسجدہ علیہ الصلوۃ والسلام بل الکل
سواء لروایۃ مساجدنا بالجمع خلا فا لمن شذ ویلحق بما نص علیہ فی الحدیث کل مالہ
رائحۃ کریہۃ ما کولا اوغیرہ وانماخص الثوم ھہنا بالذکر وفی غیرہ ایضا بالبصل
والکراث لکثرۃ اکلہم لہا وکذلک الحق بعضہم بذالک من بفیہ بخراوبہ جرح لہ رائحۃ
وکذلک القصاب والسماک والمجذوم والابرص اولی بالالحاق ا ھ .
وصلی اللہ تعالٰی علی خیر خلقہ سیدنا محمد وآلہ وصحبہ وابنہ وحزبہ
اجمعین والحمد للہ رب العالمین واللہ سبحٰنہ وتعالٰی اعلم وعلمہ جل مجدہ اتم واحکم
۔
Muhammad Amjad Ali Aazmi Razvi
0 comments:
Post a Comment