لا ينتقض الوضوء بخروج الدم من البدن
هل ينتقض الوضوء بخروج الدم من البدن ؟.الحمد لله
خروج النجاسة من البدن لها ثلاثة أحوال : الأولى :
أن تكون بولا أو غائطاً وخرجت من المخرج المعتاد ، فهذا ناقض للوضوء ، بأدلة الكتاب والسنة والإجماع .
قال الله تعالى : ( وَإِنْ كُنْتُمْ مَرْضَى أَوْ عَلَى سَفَرٍ أَوْ جَاءَ أَحَدٌ مِنْكُمْ مِنَ الْغَائِطِ أَوْ لامَسْتُمُ النِّسَاءَ فَلَمْ تَجِدُوا مَاءً فَتَيَمَّمُوا صَعِيداً طَيِّباً فَامْسَحُوا بِوُجُوهِكُمْ وَأَيْدِيكُمْ مِنْهُ ) المائدة/6 .
وروى الترمذي (96) عَنْ صَفْوَانَ بْنِ عَسَّالٍ رضي الله عنه قَالَ : ( كَانَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَأْمُرُنَا إِذَا كُنَّا سَفرًا أَنْ لا نَنْزِعَ خِفَافَنَا ثَلاثَةَ أَيَّامٍ وَلَيَالِيهِنَّ إِلا مِنْ جَنَابَةٍ ، وَلَكِنْ مِنْ غَائِطٍ وَبَوْلٍ وَنَوْمٍ ) . صححه الألباني في صحيح الترمذي .
فذكر الغائط والبول والنوم من نواقض الوضوء .
الثانية :
أن تكون بولا أو غائطاً وخرجت من غير المخرج المعتاد ، كمن أجريت له عملية جراحية وصار يخرج منه الخارج من فتحة في بطنه – مثلاً ، فهذا ناقض للوضوء لأن الأدلة السابقة تدل على نقض الوضوء بخروج البول والغائط ، وعمومها يشمل خروجها من المخرج المعتاد أو غيره .
الثالثة :
أن تكون النجاسة الخارجة من البدن غير البول والغائط ، كالدم ، والقيء عند من قال بنجاسته من العلماء .
فهذا مما اختلف العلماء فيه ، فذهب بعضهم – كالإمام أبي حنيفة وأحمد على اختلاف بينهما في تفصيل ذلك – إلى أنه ناقض للوضوء .
واستدلوا على ذلك بعدة أدلة :
1- قول النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم للمرأة المستحاضة : ( إِنَّمَا ذَلِكِ عِرْقٌ ، فتَوَضَّئِي لِكُلِّ صَلاةٍ ) .
قالوا : فَعَلَّلَ وجوبَ الوضوءِ بأنه دم عرق ، وكلُّ الدماء كذلك .
2- ما رواه الترمذي (87) عَنْ مَعْدَانَ بْنِ أَبِي طَلْحَةَ عَنْ أَبِي الدَّرْدَاءِ رضي الله عنه أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَاءَ فَأَفْطَرَ فَتَوَضَّأَ ، فَلَقِيتُ ثَوْبَانَ فِي مَسْجِدِ دِمَشْقَ ، فَذَكَرْتُ ذَلِكَ لَهُ ، فَقَالَ : صَدَقَ ، أَنَا صَبَبْتُ لَهُ وَضُوءَهُ . صححه الألباني في صحيح الترمذي .
وقد ذهب كثير من العلماء إلى أن خروج النجاسة من البدن لا ينقض الوضوء ، واحتجوا بأن الأصل عدم نقض الوضوء ، وليس هناك دليل صحيح يدل على نقض الوضوء بذلك .
قال النووي رحمه الله :
" وأحسن ما أعتقده في المسألة أن الأصل أن لا نقض حتى يثبت بالشرع ، ولم يثبت " انتهى .
وأجابوا عن أدلة من قالوا بالنقض بما يلي :
أما حديث المستحاضة ، فأجابوا عنه بأن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أراد بذلك نفي كونه دم حيض ، أي ليس هذا الدم دم حيض وإنما هو دم عرق ، وإذا كان كذلك فإنك لا تتركين الصلاة ، بل تصلين ، غير أنك تتوضأين لكل صلاة .
قال النووي في "المجموع" : " لو صح – يعني حديث المستحاضة- لكان معناه إعلامها أن هذا الدم ليس حيضاً ، بل هو موجب للوضوء لخروجه من محل الحدث ، ولم يُرِدْ أن خروج الدم - من حيث كان - يوجب الوضوء " انتهى .
وأما حديث ثوبان ، فأجابه عنه بعدة أجوبه :
1- أنه ضعيف . قال النووي في "المجموع" " وأما الجواب عن احتجاجهم بحديث أبي الدرداء فمن أوجه : أحسنها أنه ضعيف مضطرب , قاله البيهقي وغيره من الحفاظ " انتهى .
2- أنه –مع تقدير ثبوته وصحته- لا يدل على نقض الوضوء بخروج القيء ، لأنه مجرد فعل من الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم فيدل على استحباب الوضوء من القيء ، لا على وجوبه .
مع أن الاستدلال بهذا الحديث مبني على أن القيء نجس ، وقد سبق في جواب السؤال (42929) ذكر اختلاف العلماء في ذلك ، وأن الراجح طهارته ، لأنه لا دليل على القول بنجاسته .
انظر : "المجموع" (2/63-65) ، "المغني" (1/233، 234) ، (1/247- 250) ، "الشرح الممتع" (1/185- 189) .
والله أعلم .
الإسلام سؤال وجواب
هنا
_________________________________
Wudoo’ is not invalidated by bleeding from the body
Is wudoo’ invalidated by bleeding from the body?.
Praise be to Allaah.
If impure substances come out of the body, one of the following three scenarios must apply:
-1-
It is urine or stools and comes out from the usual exit. This invalidates wudoo’, according to evidence from the Qur’aan and Sunnah, and scholarly consensus.
Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“But if you are ill or on a journey, or any of you comes after answering the call of nature, or you have been in contact with women (i.e. sexual intercourse), and you find no water, then perform Tayammum with clean earth and rub therewith your faces and hands”
[al-Maa’idah 5:6]
Al-Tirmidhi (96) narrated that Safwaan ibn ‘Assaal (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to command us, if we were travelling, not to take off our khufoof (leather slippers, socks and the like) for three days and three nights except in the case of janaabah, but not stools, urine or sleep. Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Tirmidhi.
Stools, urine or sleep are things that invalidate wudoo’.
-2-
If urine or stools come out from a place other than the usual exit, such as one who has had surgery and they now come out from an opening in his stomach, for example. This invalidates wudoo’ because the evidence quoted above indicates that wudoo’ is invalidated when urine and stools come out, and the general meaning indicates that this applies whether they come out of the usual exit or elsewhere.
-3-
The impurity that is coming out of the body is not urine or stools, such as blood and vomit, according to those scholars who say that vomit is impure.
This is a matter concerning which the scholars differed. Some of them – such as Imam Abu Haneefah and Ahmad – were of the view that they do invalidate wudoo’, although they differed concerning the details.
They quoted a number of texts as evidence for that:
1 – The words of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) to the woman who was suffering from istihaadah (non-menstrual vaginal bleeding): “That is from a vein, so do wudoo’ for every prayer.” They said: The reason why wudoo’ is required may be that it is bleeding from a vein, and this applies to every kind of bleeding.
2 – The report narrated by al-Tirmidhi (87) from Ma’daan ibn Abi Talhah from Abu’l-Darda’ (may Allaah be pleased with him), that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) vomited and broke his fast, then he did wudoo’. I met Thawbaan in the mosque of Damascus and mentioned that to him. He said: That is right; I poured the water for his wudoo’. Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Tirmidhi.
Many scholars are of the view that the emission of impurities from the body does not invalidate wudoo’, and they quoted as evidence the fact that the basic principle is that wudoo’ is not invalidated, and there is no saheeh evidence to indicate that wudoo’ is invalidated by that.
Al-Nawawi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
My inclination concerning this matter is to say that the basic principle is that wudoo’ is not invalidated unless there is proof in sharee’ah, and there is no proof in this case. End quote.
They responded to the evidence quoted by those who say that it does invalidate wudoo’ by noting the following:
With regard to the hadeeth about the woman who was suffering from istihaadah, they responded that what the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) meant by that was to point out that it was not menstrual blood, rather it was bleeding from a vein, and as that was the case, she should not stop praying, rather she should pray, but she should do wudoo ‘ for every prayer.
Al-Nawawi said in al-Majmoo’: If it – the hadeeth about the woman who was suffering from istihaadah – is saheeh, what it means is that this bleeding is not menstrual blood, rather it requires wudoo’ because it comes out from the same area as urine comes out. It does not mean that the emission of blood, from any site, requires wudoo’. End quote.
With regard to the hadeeth of Thawbaan, they noted several points in response to it:
1 – That it is da’eef (weak). Al-Nawawi said in al-Majmoo’: As for the response to their quoting the hadeeth of Abu Darda’ as evidence, the response to that can be made in several ways, the best of which is that it is da’eef mudtarab (weak). This was stated by al-Bayhaqi and other scholars. End quote.
2 – Even if it is saheeh, it does not indicate that wudoo’ is invalidated by vomiting, because it is simply a report of something that the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did. It indicates that it is mustahabb to do wudoo’ after vomiting, not that it is obligatory.
Moreover, quoting this hadeeth as evidence is based on the view that vomit is impure (najis), and in the answer to question no 42929 we have stated that the scholars differed concerning this matter, but the most likely view is that it is pure, because there is no evidence to support the view that it is impure.
See: al-Majmoo’ 2/63-65; al-Mughni, 1/233, 234 and 1/247-250; al-Sharh al-Mumti’, 1/185-189
And Allaah knows best.
Islam Q&A
