Reason Different Opinion in Breaking Wuduk

The reason for disagreement regarding this issue is the different interpretation of the term “ ‫َأ ْو‬
‫ ”اَل َمسْ ُت ُم ال ِّن َسا َء‬which means touching woman or contacted woman. This word derived from Surah
al-Maidah verse 6:
ً ‫صع‬
‫ِيدا‬ َ ‫ض ٰى َأ ْو َعلَ ٰى َس َف ٍر َأ ْو َجا َء َأ َح ٌد مِّن ُكم م َِّن ْال َغاِئطِ َأ ْو اَل َمسْ ُت ُم ال ِّن َسا َء َفلَ ْم َت ِج دُوا مَا ًء َف َت َي َّم ُم وا‬ َّ ‫َوِإن ُكن ُت ْم ُج ُنبًا َف‬
َ ْ‫اط َّهرُوا ۚ َوِإن ُكن ُتم مَّر‬
‫َط ِّيبًا‬
“And if you are in a state of janabah, then purify yourselves. But if you are ill or on a journey
or one of you comes from the place of relieving himself, or you have contacted women and
do not find water, then seek clean earth and wipe over your faces and hands with it.”
Opinion from madhab Shafie and Maliki
From the point of view of Madhab Shafie and Maliki, having contact between man and
woman, with desire or not, will nullify the ablution. Imam al-Nawawi supports this view in
Syrah al-Muhazzab (2/30):
‫ان َرقِي ًقا‬ ٍ ‫أنَّ ْال ِت َقا َء َب َش َر َتيْ اَأْلجْ َن ِبيِّ َواَأْلجْ َن ِب َّي ِة ينتقض سواء كان بشهوة وبقصد أم ال وال ينتقص َم َع وُ جُو ِد َح‬
َ ‫اِئل َوِإنْ َك‬
“Indeed, physical contact between ajnabi man and woman invalidates ablution regardless of
whether it is with desire or otherwise. However, the contact does not invalidate ablution if it
is not a direct contact if there is a barrier between them even if it is a thin cloth.”
Other than that, Syeikh Muhammad Zuhaili also supports the view of Madhab Shafie and
Maliki. In his book Al-Mu’tamad Fi Fiqh Al-Syafie: 1/87 stated that:
“What is meant by ajnabi woman is a woman who is permissible for him to marry.
And mahram means a woman whom he is prohibited from marrying. Skin contact with a
young female child does not invalidate ablution (if it is not with desire), the same as touching
the hair, nail, or teeth. Skin contact with an elderly invalidate ablution even if without
desire.”
Opinion from madhab Hanafi
The majority of scholars understood this verse as intercourse, not ordinary touching. Ibn
Abbas says Allah explained the intercourse in this verse metaphorically because of His
modesty. He explains private and intimate things with metaphoric expressions in the Quran;
touching a woman in verse indicates intercourse, not ordinary touching. The exact terms are
used in the following verse:
َّ‫ت ُث َّم َطلَّ ْق ُت ُم وهُنَّ مِن َق ْب ِل َأن َت َم ُّس وهُنَّ َفمَا لَ ُك ْم َعلَي ِْهنَّ مِنْ عِ َّد ٍة َتعْ تَ دُّو َن َها ۖ َف َم ِّت ُع وهُنَّ َو َس رِّ حُوهُن‬ َ ‫َيا َأ ُّي َها الَّذ‬
ِ ‫ِين آ َم ُنوا ِإ َذا َن َكحْ ُت ُم ْالمُْؤ مِنَا‬
‫َس َراحً ا َجمِياًل‬
O you who believe! When you have made a marriage contract with any of the believing
women (including those belonging to the People of the Book) and then divorce them before
you have touched them, you have no reason to ask them to observe any waiting period for
you. (Al-Ahzab:49)
The expression ‘you have touched them’ refers to intercourse. Again, there is a consensus on
this understanding, and all the scholars understood this expression as intercourse.
Most scholars understood this verse as intercourse, not the ordinary touching. Ibn Abbas says
Allah explained the intercourse in this verse metaphorically because of His modesty. He
explains private and intimate things with metaphoric expressions in the Quran; therefore,
touching a woman in verse indicates intercourse, not ordinary touching. The phrase ‘you have
touched them’ refers to intercourse. There is a consensus on this understanding, and all the
scholars understood this expression as intercourse.
A’isha reports: I used to sleep in front of Allah’s Apostle (PBUH) with my legs opposite his
qibla (facing him), and whenever he prostrated, he pushed my feet, and I withdrew them, and
whenever he stood, I stretched them. ‘A’isha added: In those days, there were no lamps in the
houses. (Bukhari & Muslim)
“The Prophet (PBUH) was kissing some of his wives and praying without renewing his
ablution” (Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah & Nasai)
According to Ibn Rushd in the book Bidayatul Mujtahid:
Those who made ablution obligatory upon touching the hand argued that “touching” is used
primarily to touch by hand. As the words vacillate between the primary and metaphorical
uses, it is better to confine it to the primary meaning unless evidence indicates the
metaphorical meaning.

Reason Different Opinion in Breaking Wuduk

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reason Different Opinion in Breaking Wuduk

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reason Different Opinion in Breaking Wuduk

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The reason for disagreement regarding this issue is the different interpretation of the term “ ‫َأ ْو‬

Opinion from madhab Shafie and Maliki

Opinion from madhab Hanafi

According to Ibn Rushd in the book Bidayatul Mujtahid:

You might also like