-
Ijma And Tawatur In The Context Of Wuzu And Acts Which Nullify It
Does passing wind nullify wudu? I have heard this idea comes from ahad Hadith and not from Sunnah i.e. ijma and tawatur of Muslims.
-
57 Replies
-
Ijma And Tawatur In The Context Of Wuzu And Acts Which Nullify It
updated 4 years, 1 month ago
5 Members
·
57
Replies
-
Yes it does. It is a well known ‘nawaqis’ of Wuzu and doesn’t depend on ahad.
-
Isn’t it likely that the scholars of the time (due to their culture and thought) accepted this as a sunnah even though it was just from an ahad khabr. Then because the entire society looked up to them it became accepted and since then was turned into sunnah?
-
Yes! but chances are very nominal.
-
Please could you elaborate
-
The presence of ijma and tawatur renders the possibility of such a mishap to minimal. The same way it does for Quran and other established history.
-
But isn’t Qur’ān qawli tawatur and easier to be preserved than Sunnah which is amali tawatur?
-
How? It is very very likely that these scholars took these Hadith and started a sunnah and we simply have no record of it because it was just accepted and caused no riot because all people simply believed in hadith that way
-
How is it very likely? The overwhelming evidence suggests otherwise.
-
If we don’t focus just on this specific topic but speaking in general- we have found many such traditions (beard + adhan In newborn’s ear) being started and can trace them back to a hadith. But who’s to say that there are a few traditions that
1. We don’t have any trace back to a hadith but in reality it was taken from one
2. People just accepted it without stumbling because they thought hadith were a source of Islam
-
If you have a strong evidence that suggests that other than a mere conjecture then please do present that, otherwise denying the presence of ijma and tawatur is a mere denial of absolute truth.
And one should be consistent with the application of their argument, if some factors can amend Sunnah then the same factors can amend the Quran as well.
-
People taking beard as a sunnah. It’s not falsifiable to say that the sunnah was always taken/recorded from ijma and tawatur.
The Quran was never regarded as being taken from ahadith in that way.
-
“- we have found many such traditions being started and can trace them back to a hadith
“I think almost all of them
-
Well maybe not all such as salah and hajj which were part of the society. But it’s not unlikely that little tweaks were added here and there like making number of sunnah a set number and perhaps some things that break wudu extra
-
And how is quoli tawatur easier to be preserved than amali tawatur? amali tawatur extends to more masses than the quoli tawatur.
-
Amali tawatur extends to more masses but looses it’s original form gradually
-
I think we can say some aspects of amali tawatur are more easily lost. Like no one will start doing three sajdas instead of two but little things like placing hands or sitting in a specific way perhaps could be changed
-
-
How can you say that the chances are nominal. It seems like a strong possibility to me
-
If anything it seems that they would be the opposite of nominal
-
Because of the culture and atmosphere at that time around hadith
-
-
If it does nullify Wudu, why do you have to redo Wudu and not Istinja? That doesn’t make sense
-
It’s because it’s just wind, what’s there to wash or wipe?
-
Exactly. Then why do Wudu all over again? If at all, it should have made one do istinja again, rather than wudu.
-
Wudu doesn’t necessarily clean anything, it just give you ihsaas of cleanliness and purity
-
Those who claim beard as Sunnah have a very broad definition of Sunnah and it includes akhbar-i-ahad for them as well. But no one ever claimed that it was initiated as a part of religion and transmitted through ijma of Sahaba asa religion. Their basis of argument is always Ahad.
As for Salah and where to place hands, that is why they are not considered necessary parts of Salah.
Amali tawatur losing its form while quoli tawatur not losing, seems like an inconsistency. The same way scholars can amend Sunnah (as claimed), the very scholars can amend Quran without even knowing.
<font face=”inherit”>The definition of ijma and tawatur enatils that whenever any such thing is amended, the masses will be there to correct it which </font>unfortunately<font face=”inherit”> is not the case with ahad.</font>
-
Last part doesn’t always have to be true. The same way people nowadays ‘learn a new sunnah from ahadith’ it could probably be accepted in that time with no backlash. The same way castles of thought like fiqh and kalaam were built on ahadith and the masses accepted it no problem.
Also the masses are not in control. The state is. They could’ve very easily destroyed all records of any disagreement. And anyway- the masses have to follow the state so if they choose a particular method (eg taking sunnah from ahad) the masses will simply accept it
-
And yet we can easily distinguish that from the very ijma and tawatur.
If 1300 years are preserved (for your satisfaction
) through ijma and tawatur, then based on simple extrapolation and theory of probability, the chances of any amendment in first 100 years become very nominal, which makes this evidence overwhelmingly strong. Unless one can counter it with an equally overwhelming evidence by showing a significant discord in the ijma and tawatur that is being transmitted as religion (both Quran and Sunnah). -
We could distinguish it if we have the records. Who’s to say the records weren’t destroyed by the state trying tk enforce the khabr ahad narrative?
(Thanks for satisfying me 😂😂)
The evidence is today and the books of fiqh. Sunnah was always taken from ahadeeth
-
-
And who is to say that Quran wasn’t destroyed (God forbid) some where down the lane and this is not the same Quran that was originally given to us by The Prophet (SWS)? How can we trace it back to original Quran?
-
Well for the Quran it was never taken from ahad ahadeeth unlike the sunnah. And anyway just because our reasoning may lead us to be suspicious fo the Quran it doesn’t mean our reasoning is wrong
-
-
The application of your reasoning should be consistent and I am interested to know how you justify Quran while at the same time you question Sunnah?
Not taken from Ahad? what’s your proof. I say during sometime , a few scholars plotted a scheme and destroyed original Quran (God forbid) and started a new Quran and it became popular? So how would you negate that?
-
See- a few scholars plotting a scheme here would not work as the Quran was memorised exactly and orally snd was a fabric of the Islamic civilisation- as it is today. Sunnah was mostly transferred this way, but was believed to be able to be changed by ahadeeth by adding some rules or tweaking the sunnah a bit- the same way it is today.
So the society would not accept a change in the Quran also because it was God’s exact words. Whereas they would accept in their worldview sunnah being formed from ahadeeth
-
There is a big chunk who believe in seven Qirats of Quran as being equally divine wordings revealed for the ease of Ummah, so Ahad did influence Quran actually. But it can all be disproved from the same ijma and tawatur the way some amendment in Sunnah can be disproved.
-
Yes- we can trace how those qiraat were from ahad because we have the ability to look at those records. But not everything is recorded. So society also accepted a change in the Quran. So why wouldn’t they accept a change in the sunnah too?
-
No body accepted a change in Quran because ijma of ilm always stood with one Qirat to disprove other Qirats. This is the magic of Ijma, the same is true for Sunnah as well.
-
But sir you yourself just said they accepted the change. They accepted the qiraat. It was only later that it was disproved and still only the Farahi school to my knowledge accepts there to be one Quran
-
Farahi school has only made these facts more prominent otherwise major scholars of Qirat in the past already conceded this fact. These seven just got popular and seven Qirats of Quran became a misnomer, otherwise there were as many as 30 or even more reported through Ahaad (some of which gained tawatur later on starting from Ahad), but ijma of ilm always conceded this fact that only Tawatur is that of Qirat-e-aama. It is only through ijma and tawatur that this can be disproved otherwise Quran would’ve had lost its authenticity. The same is the case with Sunnah.
-
The scholars of fiqh wouldn’t say that you could get sunnah from other than ahadeeth if I’ve understood correctly. The first thing they say when you start to talk about Hadith is how would you know how to pray without Hadith. This shows that they relied more heavily on them rather than the transmission of ijma and tawatur. And if the society was forced to accept them then all records of disagreement would be destroyed and it would be the major opinion to accept Hadith for sunnah and allow them to tweak it
-
Which scholars of fiqh are you talking about?
All the scholars whether it be Shafii, Ibn-e-abdul bar, Shatbi, Shah wali ullah and others, they clearly distinguish Sunnah in two parts, one that is transmitted through ijma and tawatur and second which is transmitted through ahaad. There is consensus that the former is as equally a part of religion as is Quran and denying it would bring into question one’s belief. The only debate is on the latter part, how to perceive it, what is its nature and where to place it in the whole framework of religion and this debate is an ongoing one but doesn’t affect an iota of the former part of Sunnah as agreed by everyone.
-
These same scholars tweaked the sunnah that was transmitted by ijma by using ahadeeth to see what breaks wudu etc. Blood not invalidation wudu was not transferred by ijma nor tawatur. So ahadeeth had to come in.
-
Things that invalidate wuzu are well known to everyone. The blood thing is a matter of fiqh and ijtihaad and is clearly distinguished from other known nawaqis of wuzu.
Only 3-5% of religion in fiqh books is Sunnah in the former meaning and is clearly distinguished from the rest of the fiqh and its interpretation.
-
So how do we know if passing wind is of the former or latter category? How do we not know that it was put into the former category because the society allowed for that to be done?
-
Its of a former category and there has never been any disagreement on its staus as being a nawaqis of wuzu. The same has been transmitted through ijma and have been in practice since then. The best way to disprove it would be to present an equally compelling evidence of both practice and ijma where it is not considered a nawaqis of wuzu.
-
How do you know there were never any disagreements?
-
Burden of proof is on you, I stand in the light of ijma and Tawatur.
-
That’s assuming that the ijma and tawatur wasn’t built on the state synthetically creating it by crushing opposition
-
You’re throwing mere conjectures while all the available evidence stands in opposition of that.
I’ll give you 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 % probability of that happening
-
The available evidence shows the Islamic state crushing all opposing ideas and shows them relying on ahadeeth to gather the sunnah. So I think you need to increase the chances a bit 😅
-
OK! I’ve increased it a bit.
But the point you just mentioned, the ijma of ilm again negates that. Because despite all the disagreements, there has never been any disagreement on the former category of Sunnah and its status as being equal to Quran (not even among the scholars holding extreme discord against each other).
-
Could you show some references of scholars holding this view?
Because almost all fiqh books when talking about a sunnah mention ahadeeth to my knowledge
-
For starters, please refer to Imam Shaafii’s Ar-Risala and Ibne-Abdul-Bar’s Jamai Bayan-ul-ilm.
-
And Imaam Malik’s Amal ahl madinah too?
-
This actually negates the notion of your akhbar-i-ahad narrative. Imam Malik also gives preference to ijma and tawatur, but more preference to ijma and tawatur of Medina, which doesn’t change the former category of Sunnah.
-
This definitely helps a lot. I’ll be sure to annoy you further when I think of something 😅
-
Sure! I am always ready to be annoyed
-
“It was only later that it was disproved and still only the Farahi school to my knowledge accepts there to be one Quran”
Not true. Read Abu al-Qasim al-Khoei’s version on Qirat issue – same as Farahi scholars!
-
-
Don’t we have a copy of the mushaf from Uthman (R) s time saved in some museum or something which we can compare to today’s mushaf?
-
We have no full mushaf. Anyway the Quran’s transmission was not by writing- it was oral. And the status of the Quran would not allow it to be tweaked like the sunnah was with ahadeeth
-
) through ijma and tawatur, then based on simple extrapolation and theory of probability, the chances of any amendment in first 100 years become very nominal, which makes this evidence overwhelmingly strong. Unless one can counter it with an equally overwhelming evidence by showing a significant discord in the ijma and tawatur that is being transmitted as religion (both Quran and Sunnah).
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
