-
Ruling On The Exiting Of Less Than Excused Amount Of Najasah In Wudu
Asselamu aleykum,
The scholars states that very small amount of najasah on body is excused in Islam. My question is, does that ruling apply on the exiting of that amount of najasah from private parts too?
I mean if very small amount is forgiven, then does that means that if that much impurity is exited from private parts, then does the wudu become obligated again, as this is also not spreading impurity?
Kindly clarify.
-
8 Replies
-
Ruling On The Exiting Of Less Than Excused Amount Of Najasah In Wudu
updated 7 months, 3 weeks ago
2 Members
·
8
Replies
-
No, it does not.
Since excretion of things which nullify Wuzu is an absolute directive whether it is small in quantity or big in quantity, while clean and decent clothes come both as an extension of this directive and under etiquettes of Salah and it is subjective in nature therefore, some room is availabe in its application.
The excuse for wuzu nullifiers can be available on grounds of Usar and not on grounds of quantity excreted.
Please also see:
-
As you acknowledged earlier in the Discussion 87106, that if the sweating is emitted from the anus then that does not require the repetition of wudu. Now, when the sweating exits, it of course discharges some najasah that is present in the anus with it. So how is that different?
-
I am really sorry for the inconvenience, and for asking the question, regarding the validity of wudu again. But, I am suffering from extremely doubtful waswasas. Because, either i walk, or in namaz, i am standing from prostration,. I thinks that my wudu is invalidated because the urinary meatus is stretched because of being touched with the undergarments (It generally happens only in the jeans and underwears, but not in the salwar kamiz because of it being loose, so it does not falls under the category of Usar). As it is well known that, the external urinary meatus is not closed properly, and it remains evident, especially after istinjah. Also, That does not cause urine to be emitted from urethra, but it could emits the lesser amount of urinal traces out.
I fear that i would stop praying (which is the obligation on every Muslim) because it is getting harder for me. So, I also asked this question on ChatGPT as it would tell the views of all scholars, and the reply was;
“The difference in opinions regarding the emission of impurity (najasah) from the urethral opening and its effect on the validity of wudu (ablution) can be attributed to varying interpretations within different schools of thought in Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh). Here are some general tendencies found within different schools of thought:
1. Hanafi School: According to the Hanafi school, a small amount of impurity emitted from the urethra does not invalidate the wudu unless there is a continuous flow or it reaches a quantity that is noticeable. They consider minor impurities to be excused and do not break the state of ritual purity.
2. Maliki School: The Maliki school generally holds a stricter view, stating that any emission of impurity from the urethra, regardless of the amount, invalidates the wudu. They do not make a distinction based on the quantity of impurity emitted.
3. Shafi’i School: The Shafi’i school takes a middle ground, stating that a small amount of impurity does not break the wudu unless it is accompanied by certain factors, such as a continuous flow or reaching a quantity that is perceptible or noticeable.
4. Hanbali School: The Hanbali school, similar to the Maliki school, generally holds the view that any emission of impurity from the urethra invalidates the wudu, regardless of the amount.
It is important to note that these are generalized tendencies within each school of thought, and individual scholars within each school may have nuanced views or variations in their interpretations. It is recommended to consult with a knowledgeable scholar from the specific school of thought you follow to obtain precise guidance based on that school’s teachings.”
As you acknowledged earlier that the emission of sweating from the anus (which also emits the lesser quantity of najasah with it), does not invalidates the wudu, kindly clarify this question as well. Many people from whom i asked the question did not understand my question, so i thinks you also didn’t got the question (in Discussion 87106). I am really sorry for the inconvenience. But, the views of Ustaz Javed Ahmad Ghamidi (ha) are generally accurate, so i trust in this platform more than any other platforms. Again, i am really sorry for the inconvenience, Thanks sir.
-
A person has to assess his situation honsetly and then decide for himself. The guiding principle for relaxation in Ibadah is ‘Usar‘ (undue diffuculty which is over and above the normal difficulty which could be as a result of medical condition or any other genuine reason). If it is a medical condition or result of incontinence (i.e. Wudu Nullifier which is happening frequently for which a person has no control for something which usually should be under control of a person); In such instances, one can be considered excused from redoing Wudu everytime this happens. In all such instances, it is an obvious that such a thing which is usually visible when it happens should be visible to the person otherwise, one cannot assume on his own based on mere doubts that his wudu has terminated.
Therefore, if the wudu nullifier can be clearly identified and it is none of the conditions mentioned above which could fall under ‘Usar‘ then wudu would be considered terminated. In case of sweat as mentioned above (assuming that there is no Usar), it should be ignored, unless it can be clearly identified that soemthing has excreted which is a wudu nullifier. Only in such case, wudu should be redone. Mere doubts, in the absence of clear evidence should be ignored.
-
-
The question is still not clarified to me. Is the wudu only invalidated if the traces of najasah are evident, or can be seen or in principle every amount of najasah is sufficient to invalidate the wudu?
-
I am actually very sure that urethra has been opened and touched with the clothes by it’s inner side, as a result of bumping with the clothes, and it of course has some urinal traces which are remained after urinating. Also sweating usually 100% has some traces of najasah. One can not deny that.
-
To prove the statement i can provide the statement of Ibn Qudamah (the Hanbali scholar, the Hanbalis are thought to be strict in this condition unlike, Hanafis) about nearly a similar situation regarding which he said; “If he drops oil into his urethra, then it comes out again, it invalidates wudu’, because it came out of the passage, which cannot be free of some impure wetness that accompanies it. Therefore wudu’ is invalidated thereby, just as when only impurity (najasah) comes out.” (Al-Mughni 1/125). Is the Farahi understanding same as the Hanbali perspective on this regard?
-
This is fiqh, which is a human endeavour and is prone to be subjective at scholarly level.
What is concrete is Sunnah in this regard which clearly establishes the nullifiers of Wudu. The next thing is fiqh which deals with different application matters like the ones mentioned by you.
We know that urination and defecation nullify the Wudu. And it is only logical that urination and defecation need to be identifiable so that the person should be aware that his wudu has been nullified. In case of traces which cannot be identified, the person is not liable to redo his wudu because that would be equivalent to putting undue burden on the Person which is against the Quranic principles of ‘Yusar‘ and ‘La-yukallifullahu Nafsan illa wusaha‘. When a person knows it is sweat then it is sweat, traces of impurity which are not identifiable should be ignored.
Btw, if one opts for the option as mentioned above with reference to Ibn-e-Qudamah, then it would also made it obligatory for the person to first wash himself properly the way he would do so after urination or defecation because now his situation has been made similar to that of a person who has defecated or urinated.
-
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
