Question
I always thought that semen was an impure substance, like urine. This is what I have always been taught. However, someone recently told me that semen is pure, because it is the origin of the human being. Is this correct?
Answer
Whether semen is a pure or impure substance is a famous point of disagreement among Islamic legal scholars, who are divided into two opinions.
The first opinion is that semen is impure.
Because it is impure, they argue that it must be removed from a person’s clothing and body before that person can pray. This is the verdict of the Mālikī and Hanafī schools of thought. It is also one of Ahmad b. Hanbal’s opinions and the preferred view of al-Shawkānī.
Those who say that semen is an impure substance offer the following evidence and arguments to support their case:
1. They cite the hadīth that mention washing semen off of clothing, like where `A’ishah said: “Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) used to wash the semen off of his clothes. Then he would go for prayer wearing the same clothes while I could still see on them the residue of his washing.” [Sahīh al-Bukhārī and Sahīh Muslim]
They argue that washing is unnecessary except when there has been contamination by something impure. The fact that he used to wash the semen from his clothing is evidence that it is impure. The same can be said for rubbing and scraping it off. It still shows that the semen has to be removed. If an impure substance is removed from something by whatever means, that thing becomes pure.
They acknowledge that `A’ishah said, speaking about semen: “I would simply rub it off the clothes of Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) and he would pray in them.” In another narration, she said: “I used to, if it was dry, scrape it off his clothes with my nail.” [Sahīh Muslim]
However, they do not see the fact that water was not used to remove the semen to indicate that semen is pure. Instead, they see it as further proof that semen is impure.
They argue that Islamic Law shows leniency when it comes to the removal of impurities that are commonplace and difficult to avoid. Therefore, it is not surprising that Islamic Law would suffice with rubbing and scraping as a means for removing semen from clothing. Likewise, Islamic Law shows leniency with the urine of an infant boy, allowing a person to sprinkle water on it instead of having to wash it off. Some scholars also allow water to be sprinkled on clothing soiled by pre-seminal fluid. There are many other similar rulings in Islamic Law.
2. They also argue that the ejaculation of semen places a person in a state of major ritual impurity whereby that person is required to take a full bath. Any substance that causes a person to enter into a state of ritual impurity if it comes out of a person’s body should be considered a physically impure substance.
3. Some scholars compare semen to other filthy substances produced by the body, like urine and faeces, which are inarguably impure. By analogy, semen should take the same ruling, since it is also a filthy substance produced by the body.
4. Another argument advanced by some scholars is that semen comes out of the same orifice that urine does, so it should take the same ruling.
5. Some jurists cite statements attributed to various Companions like Ibn `Abbās, Abū Hurayrah, `Umar, and Ibn Mas`ūd to the effect that semen must be washed off of what it touches.
6. They also cite the hadīth where Mu`āwiyah b. Abī Sufyan asked the Prophet’s wife Umm Habibah: “Did Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) pray in the same clothing that he wore while having sexual relations?” She replied: “Yes, if he saw no spoilage upon it.”
This hadīth is related in Sunan Abī Dāwūd, Sunan al-Nasā’ī, Sunan Ibn Mājah, and other sources. Al-Albānī classifies it as an authentic hadīth in his assessment of Sunan Abī Dāwūd[al-Albānī, Sahīh Abī Dāwūd (1/74)]
The argument here is that Umm Habībah referred to semen as “spoilage”. Moreover, they argue, she made it clear that the Prophet (peace be upon him) would not pray in clothing that was so spoiled. This can only be because semen is impure.
Some scholars have objected to this evidence, pointing out that using the word “spoilage” for some substance is not a linguistic indicator that the substance in question is impure. Trash which is not impure is also referred to as “spoilage”.
Moreover, the “spoilage” that Umm Habībah was talking about may not even have been semen. She could just as easily have been speaking about the blood that comes from a woman during intercourse and that might get on a man’s clothing when he lies next to his wife in bed.
It is possible that the Prophet (peace be upon him) avoided praying in clothing tainted with semen merely out of consideration of proper decorum. Allah says: “O children of Adam! Take your adornment upon attending the mosques.” [Sūrah al-A`raf: 31] This might be the reason why he had the semen washed, rubbed, or scratched off.
7. Some scholars cite the following hadīth as evidence for the impurity of semen: “A garment needs to be washed only to remove faeces, urine, pre-seminal fluid, blood, and semen.” [Sunan al-Daraqutnī, Musnad al-Bazzār, Sunan al-Bayhaqī, and others]
After mentioning this hadīth in his Sunan, al-Dāraqutnī comments: “It has not been related on the authority of anyone else besides Thābit b. Hammād who is a very weak narrator. Ibrāhīm and Thābit are both weak.” [Sunan al-Dāraqutnī (1/127)]
Ibn `Adī records this hadīth in his book about weak narrators when he discusses Thābit b. Hammād. He writes: “I know of no one else besides Thābit b. Hammād to have narrated this hadīth from `Alī b. Zayd…Thābit b. Hammād has related other hadīth besides these, wherein he contradicts – in both their texts and chains of transmission – hadīth related by reliable narrators. His hadīth are false and contradictory.” [Ibn `Adi, al-Kāmil fī Du`afā’ al-Rijāl (2/524525)]
Al-Haythamī writes about this hadīth: “It has been related by al-Tabarānī in al-Awsat and al-Kabīr as well as by Abū Ya`lā. All of its chains of transmission center upon Thābit b. Hammād who is a very weak narrator.
Al-Bayhaqī, after relating the hadīth in his Sunan, writes: “This is false and baseless. It is related with no other chain of transmission besides that of Thābit b. Hammād from `Alī b. Zayd from Ibn al-Musayyib from `Ammār. `Alī b. Zayd’s hadīth are not suitable as evidence and Thābit b. Hammād is suspected of fabricating hadīth.” [Sunan al-Bayhaqī (1/15)]
Ibn al-Turkumān, in his commentary on al-Bayhaqī’s work, clears Thābit of the crime of hadīth fabrication, saying: “As for his being accused of fabricating hadīth, after thoroughly researching the matter, I did not come across anyone else besides al-Bayhaqī to have made such a claim. Al-Bayhaqī himself mentions this hadīth elsewhere – in his book al-Ma`rifah – and merely declared Thābit to be a weak narrator without accusing him of fabrication.” [Ibn al-Turkumān, al-Jawāhir al-Naqī (1/15)]
This hadīth is not authentic, a fact attested to by none other than those who recorded the hadīth, such as al-Dāraqutnī, Ibn Adī, al-Bazzār, and al-Bayhaqī.
The second opinion is that semen is a pure substance.
This is the position of the Shāfi`ī school of thought. It is the more prevalent of the two opinions attributed to Ahmad. It is also the view held by Ahl al-Hadīth and by the Zāhirī school of thought. A number of Companions held this view, as stated by al-Nawawī in his commentary on Sahīh Muslim. It is also the preferred opinion of Ibn Taymiyah, Ibn al-Qayyīm, al-San`ānī, and others.
Those who consider semen to be pure have the following evidence to support their opinion:
1. They cite the hadīth of `A’ishah that is under discussion, where she says that she rubbed or scraped the semen off his clothing and he would pray in it. They argue that if semen were impure, it would not be sufficient to merely rub or scrape it off. Even after it had dried, merely scraping it off would not remove the semen that had been absorbed by the fibers of the clothing. Therefore, scraping it off when it is dry – and likewise washing it off while it is still moist – must be merely a preferable act of cleanliness and not a required act of purification.
Ibn Hibbān writes: “`A’ishah used to wash the semen off the garment of Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) if it was moist and scratch it off if it was dry merely as a matter of personal preference, and the Prophet (peace be upon him) would pray in that garment. Therefore, we hold the view that moist semen should be washed off as a matter of preference and not because it is impure. It is sufficient to scratch it off if it is dry in accordance with the Sunnah.” [al-Ihsān(4/221)]
Ibn Khuzaymah also cites the hadīth of `A’ishah as proof that semen is a pure substance. He writes: “If something is impure, scratching it off of clothing without washing it will not be sufficient for its removal. The fact that the Prophet (peace be upon him) prayed in a garment from which dry semen was merely scratched off is sufficient proof that semen is not something impure.” [Sahīh Ibn Khuzaymah (1/145-147)]
There is no textual evidence that `A’ishah washed off the area after scratching off the dried semen. Also, any claim that this ruling was some special concession for the Prophet (peace be upon him) is a claim with absolutely no evidence to support it.
2. A very strong argument in favor of the view that semen is a pure substance is the general principle in Islamic Law that presumes all substances to be pure in the absence of evidence indicating otherwise. Nothing can be decreed impure except on the basis of direct evidence. Had semen been impure, it would have been a matter of importance affecting every Muslim, and it would therefore have been mentioned in the sacred texts as clearly and unambiguously as the impurity of urine and faeces.
3. The Prophet (peace be upon him) used to extract the semen from his garment with the help of a small, fragrant weed and then pray wearing the garment. If the semen was dry, he would simply rub it off his garment and then pray wearing it. [Musnad Ahmad (6/243), Sahīh Ibn Khuzaymah (294), Sunan al-Bayhaqī (2/418) and others]
This hadīth is graded as good by al-Albānī and al-A`zamī. It is also graded as good by al-Sa`ātī. [Fath al-Rabbānī (1/250)]
Conclusion:
On the basis of this evidence, the opinion that semen is a pure substance shows itself to be the more correct of the two opinions. There is not only direct evidence to support the purity of semen, but such a ruling is in accordance with the general presumption of purity that is a principle of Islamic Law.
Moreover, there is also no authentic and clear evidence to indicate anything to the contrary. We do not even have a statement of one of the Companions expressing the opinion that semen is impure. Those among the Companions who stated that it should be washed off were referring to a matter of preference and were not saying that semen is impure.
And Allah knows best.
-islamtoday.net
No comments:
Post a Comment