Ghusul.

 

There are three farzes to be observed when making a ghusl in the Hanafî Madhhab, five farzes in the Mâlikî Madhhab, two in the Shâfi’î Madhhab, and one farz in the Hanbalî Madhhab. In the Hanafî Madhhab:

 

1– To wash inside the mouth once with water. It is farz to wet between the teeth and inside the tooth sockets. [A Muslim who is in the Hanafî Madhhab cannot have their teeth filled or crowned unless there is a darûrat to do so. They can have a prosthesis made, so that they can remove it and wash under it whenever they have to make a ghusl. A Muslim who has had his teeth filled or crowned without a darûrat will be a Muslim with an ’udhr on account of the haraj (difficulty) he has thereby encountered; he will have to imitate one of the Shâfi’î and Mâlikî Madhhabs when making a

ghusl. In that case, however, they will have to add, “I am imitating the Shâfi’î (or Mâlikî) Madhhab,” to their niyyat whenever they are to make a ghusl or an ablution and when performing namâz.]

 

2– To apply water into the nostrils once.

 

3– To wash the entire body once. It is farz to wash those parts of the body which do not cause haraj (difficulty) for washing. If a part of the body cannot be washed on account of a darûrat, i.e. a cause that exists in creation and which is not one’s own making, it will be forgiven (by Allâhu ta’âlâ) and the ghusl made will be sahîh (valid, sound).

 

As is stated in the book entitled Durr-ul-mukhtâr, food remains between the teeth and/or in the tooth sockets will not prevent the ghusl made from being sahîh. This is the case according to the fatwâ. [Fatwâ is a conclusive explanation wherein an authorized Islamic scholar answers Muslims’ questions on a religious matter. Sources and documents on which the fatwâ is based are appended to the fatwâ.] For, water will penetrate them and wet the place under them. If the remains are solid, the scholars said that they would prevent water’s penetration. And that is the truth of the matter. Ibni ’Âbidîn ‘rahima-hullâhu ta’âlâ’ explains the matter as follows: It is written in the book entitled Khulâsa-t-ul-fatâwâ, as well, that they will not prevent (water’s penetration because water, a liquid, will pass through the food (so as to wet the place under it). If it is found out that water is not passing through the food remains, the ghusl made will not be sahîh, a fact which is acknowledged by all scholars unanimously. The same is stated also in the book entitled Hilya-t-ul-mujallî, (written by Ibni Emîr Hâjj) Halabî ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih’, d. 879 [1474 A.D.].) If the remains have solidified under constant pressure, they will not let water pass through, and so the ghusl made will not be sahîh. For, there is not a darûrat in this. [In other words, it is not something that has happened by itself.] Nor is there any haraj [in cleaning these parts (or the body).]

It is written in the book entitled Halabî-i-saghîr: If a person makes a ghusl with remains of bread or food or other things between his teeth, his ghusl will be sahîh, according to fatwâs, even if he thinks that the water (used in the ghusl) has not passed through the remains. That the fatwâ given agrees with this is written in Khulâsa-t-ul-fatâwâ. According to some scholars, the ghusl made will not be sahîh if the remains are solid. This final judgment is written also in the book entitled Zahîra-t-ul-fatâwâ, (written by Burhân-ad-dîn Mahmûd bin Tâj-ud-dîn Ahmad bin ’Abd-ul-’Azîz Bukhârî ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih’, 551 [1156 A.D.]–martyred in 616 [1219].) It is the valid judgment concerning the matter. For, the water used will not reach below them. And there is not a darûrat or haraj, either.

It is stated as follows in the book entitled Durr-ul-Muntaqâ: [Written by ’Alâ-ud-dîn Haskafî ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih’ (1021, Haskaf – 1088 [1677 A.D.]).] Concerning the ghusl made when there are food remains in your tooth sockets, there are Islamic scholars who argue that the ghusl will be sahîh as well as those who believe the other way round. For safety’s sake, the food remains ought to be removed beforehand. As is stated in Tahtâwî’s commentary to Marâq-il-falâh, if there are food remains in the tooth sockets or between the teeth, ghusl will be sahîh. For water is a fluid and will seep through them easily. If the food remains have been hardened by chewing, they will prevent ghusl. So is written in the book entitled Fat-h-ul-qadîr.

It is stated in the book entitled Bahr-ur-râiq that ghusl will be sahîh if there are food remains in the tooth sockets or between the teeth. For, water is a fine substance which will seep through anything. The same is written in the book entitled Tejnîs (or Tajnîs). Sadr-ush-shehîd Husâmaddîn said that ghusl made in that state will not be sahîh and that therefore the remains must be removed and the water must be made to flow through the tooth interiors. It will be safer to remove the remains and wash under them.

It is stated in the book entitled Fatâwâ-i-Hindiyya: The argument closer to the truth is the one that holds that ghusl made by a person with food remains in their tooth sockets or between their teeth will be sahîh. The same argument is written in Zâhidî. However, it is advisable to remove the remains and make water flow into the sockets. As is stated in the book entitled Qâdikhân, it is written in the book entitled Nâtifîthat ghusl made while there are food remains around the teeth will not have been made adequately and that it is necessary to remove them and wash the places under them.

It is written in the book entitled al-Mejmû’at-uz-zuhdiyya: If the food remains between the teeth become like solid dough and prevent the penetration of water, regardless of their amount, they will prevent ghusl as well. The same is written in Halabî. It cannot be argued that “there is no haraj, difficulty in removing the food remains, but fillings and crownings cannot be removed; so there is haraj in removing them.” Yes, there is haraj. Yet when something done by man causes haraj, it becomes an ’udhr for him to imitate another Madhhab. It does not become an ’udhr to omit a farz. A person’s being absolved from a farz requires impossibility of imitating another Madhhab, which in turn means coexistence of a darûrat and a haraj. If it should be asked, “Having one’s teeth filled or crowned is intended to prevent toothaches and to protect one from loss of teeth. Then isn’t there a darûrat for doing so, (i.e. for being absolved from the farz and thereby doing without washing the tooth sockets,)” then our answer will be, “There being a darûrat requires there not being a (prescribed) way out by imitating another Madhhab.”

The argument, “The mandate of having to wash the teeth when making a ghusl shifts to the outer surfaces of the fillings or crownings,” is not appropriate in Islam. Tahtâwî (Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Ismâ’îl) states in his annotation to (Shernblâlî’s) book entitled Imdâd-ul-Fattâh: “When the ablution of a person who put on his mests after having made an ablution breaks, the breaking of the ablution affects the mests instead of the feet.” [Please see the third chapter of the fourth fascicle of Endless Bliss for expressions such as ‘mests’ and ‘having an ’udhr (excuse)’.] This statement in books of Fiqh appertains exclusively to ablution–making and mest–wearing. To tailor it so as to fit into situations pertaining to tooth crowning, and even to ghusl–making, means to have a shot at issuing personal fatwâs. Nor would it be apposite to compare a filled or crowned tooth to thick beard. For, whereas it is not compulsory to wash the skin under thich beard when making an ablution, it is farz, (and so it is compulsory,) to wash the skin under it when making a ghusl. A person who argues that it is not farz “to wash the skin under thick beard when making a ghusl since it is not farz to wash the skin under thick beard when making an ablution,” will not wash the skin under his thick beard. Thereby, the ghusl made by that person and by people who believe him, and ergo the prayers of namâz performed by them, will not be sahîh.

Nor would it be something consistent with books of Fiqh to draw a comparison of crownings and fillings with ointments applied to fissures on feet or with wooden splints fastened to wounded or broken limbs or with plaster casts and bandages. For, when there is haraj or a possible damage in removing them from wounds and broken limbs, it is not possible to imitate another Madhhab. On account of these three reasons, one will be absolved from having to wash under them.

Since you have the freedom of choice to have a rotten and aching tooth filled or crowned because you do not want to have it extracted and replaced with a removable false tooth or a set of false teeth furnished with a half or complete palate, to have your teeth filled or crowned or to have a fixed bridge of teeth made will not engender a darûrat. To say that there is a darûrat will not, on its own, constitute a cause to absolve you from the obligation of washing the areas under them. For, it is possible to imitate another Madhhab. No one has the right to exploit the groundless argument that there is a darûrat as a tool for castigating other people, who obey books of Fiqh and imitate the Shâfi’î or Mâlikî Madhhab.

Darûrat means a supernatural cause that compels one to do something (or not to do something), i.e. a cause that cannot be helped. Examples of a darûrat are an Islamic commandment and prohibition, a vehement pain, danger of losing one of one’s limbs or one’s life, and to have no other option. Haraj, on the other hand, means difficulty or hardship to prevent something you have done from preventing you from performing an act that is farz or from causing you to commit an act that is harâm. Commandments and prohibitions of Allâhu ta’âlâ, as an ensemble, are called Ahkâm-i-islâmiyya. When observing one of the rules of the Ahkâm-i-islâmiyya, i.e. when performing one of the commandments or avoiding one of the prohibitions, you follow the widely-known and chosen one of the statements made by the scholars of your own Madhhab concerning the matter. If a haraj (difficulty) in following that chosen scholarly statement arises on account of something you have done, you follow a less preferable and weaker one of the scholarly statements (made by other scholars who, too, are in your own Madhhab). If there is a haraj in following that statement as well, then you imitate another Madhhab and follow that Madhhab concerning that matter. If there is haraj in following that other Madhhab as well, then you look into the matter to see whether or not there is a darûrat in doing the thing which causes haraj:

 

1– When there is a darûrat in doing something that (is farz and which) causes haraj, you will be absolved from having to do that farz.

 

2– When there is not a darûrat in doing something that causes haraj, [e.g. fingernail polish,] or there is a darûrat and also a few ways of doing that thing and you choose the way that entails haraj, the act of worship that you do (in the way that entails haraj) will not be sahîh. You have to perform that farz by utilizing the way without haraj. That another Madhhab should be imitated in case of haraj, hardship, (i.e. if you choose the way that entails haraj,) regardless of whether or not there is a darûrat, is written in books entitled Fatâwa-l-hadîthiyya (written by Ibn-i-Hajar-i-Mekkî ‘rahmatullâhi ’alaih’, 899 [1494 A.D.] – 974 [1566], Mecca,) and Khulâsa-t-ut-tahqîq (by ’Abd-ul-Ghanî Nablusî ‘rahmatullâhi’alaih’, 1050 [1640 A.D.], Damuscus – 1143 [1731],) in Tahtâwî’s ‘rahima-hullâhu ta’âlâ’ annotation to Sherblâlî’s ‘rahimuhullâhu ta’âlâ’ book entitled Merâq-il-felâh, and in the book entitled Ma’fuwât by Halîl Es’irdî ‘rahima-hullâhu ta’âlâ’. Molla Halîl (Es’irdî) passed away in 1259 [1843 A.D.]. A Hanafî Muslim who wants to have his aching or rotten tooth filled or crowned instead of having it extracted and replaced with a removable prosthesis or a set of teeth furnished with a palate will have to imitate the Shâfi’î or Mâlikî Madhhab as he makes a ghusl. For, it is not farz in these two Madhhabs to wash one’s mouth and nostrils when making a ghusl. And it is quite easy to imitate the Shâfi’î or Mâlikî Madhhab. You will have to make niyyat, i.e. pass through your heart, that you are imitating the Shâfi’î or Mâlikî Madhhab when making a ghusl or an ablution and when beginning to perform namâz or, if you forget, after performing namâz or when you remember to do so. In that case, the ablution and the ghusl that you make and the namâz that you perform will have to be sahîh (valîd, sound) according to the Shâfi’î or Mâlikî Madhhab. For them to be sahîh according to the Shâfi’î Madhhab, you will have to renew your ablution when your skin touches the skin of a woman other than the eighteen women who are eternally harâm for you to make nikâh with [Please see the twelfth chapter of the fifth fascicle of Endless Bliss for women with whom nikâh is not permissible.] and when the palm of your hand touches your own qaba awrat, (i.e. the pubic or anal area of your own body,) and recite the Fâtiha Sûra inwardly when you perform namâz (in jamâ’at) conducted by an imâm. Please scan the sixth chapter of the fourth fascicle of Endless Bliss to learn what should be done when imitating the Mâlikî Madhhab! To imitate another Madhhab does not mean to change your Madhhab. A Hanafî Muslim who imitates another Madhhab has not gone out of the Hanafî Madhhab. He adapts himself to that Madhhab only in farzes and mufsids. He observes the rules of his own Madhhab in wâjibs, makrûhs, and sunnats.

 

With the statements made by scholars of Fiqh concerning ghusl are still there, attempts are being heard to solve the question of teeth with the writings of incompetent people who do not even belong to a certain Madhhab. They say that it has been stated in a fatwâ written in the 1332 [1913 A.D.] issue of the periodical entitled Sebîl-ur-rashâd that it is permissible to have a tooth filled. We would like to say first of all that the so-called periodical is beset with articles written by reformers and other people without a certain Madhhab. One of its writers, namely Ismâ’îl Hakki of Manastir (Bitola), is an insidious freemason. Another one, Ismâ’îl Hakki of Izmir, is ahead of all those idiots who were misguided by Mehmet Abduh, the masonic mufti of Cairo and a reformer of Islam. He received high school education in Izmir and finished teachers’ training school in Istanbul. He has a weak religious education and little religious knowledge. Ingratiating himself with members of Union Party, he became a madrasa teacher and tried to spread Abduh’s reformist and subversive ideas. The eulogy that Ismâ’îl Hakki wrote for the book entitled Telfîq-i-madhâhib, a translation from Rashîd Ridâ of Egypt and rendered by Ahmed Hamdi Akseki, one of his disciples victimized by his venomous subterfuges, betrays his inner malice.

 

This very Ismâ’îl Hakki in the aforesaid periodical enlarged on the conflicting arguments among the scholars of Fiqh concerning whether it is permissible to tie the teeth with a gold wire and, putting forth the books, e.g. the commentary to (Muhammad Sheybânî’s book entitled) Siyar-i-kebîr, which inform about the consensus of scholars on that there is a darûrat in tying the teeth with a gold wire instead of a silver one, concluded that the matter concerning the teeth is a darûrat. However, the question he had been asked was whether ghusl made by a person with a filled or crowned tooth would be sahîh, rather than whether teeth should be tied with gold or silver. Writing a long and detailed discourse on something not asked about and which was commonly known, Ismâ’îl Hakki of Izmir wrote his conclusion as an answer to the real question. What he did is sheer falsification in knowledge. It is an attempt to write one’s own opinion in disguise of a fatwâ given by Islamic scholars. His attempt is even worse than that. Quoting the Fiqh scholars’ written statements on ghusl, he dubs them into his personal opinions. For instance, he says, “As is stated in Bahr, it is not obligatory to make water touch places where it is difficult to make it reach.” On the other hand, the statement written in the book entitled Bahr reads: “… parts of the body where it is difficult to make water reach.” Thereby he likens something which one does indispensably to something which one experiences indispensably. Nor is he righteous in his using the statement, “If it would harm a woman to wash her head, then she does not wash her head,” which is written in Durr-ul-mukhtâr, as a proof to show that ghusl made by a person with a filled tooth will be jâiz (permissible, acceptable). The head’s being harmed by contact with water is something on account of a physical illness. The crowning or filling of a tooth is one’s own choice. It is for this reason that the question of whether ghusl made by people with food remains in their tooth sockets will be jâiz is separately dealt with in the book entitled Durr-ul-mukhtâr.

 

The tricks and misdeeds mentioned so far would fall short of describing the wickedness of Ismâ’îl Hakki of Izmir. He was, for instance, unprincipled enough to attempt to misemploy Islamic scholars as false witnesses for himself by saying, “It is not a requirement (of ghusl) to make water reach below gold and silver crownings and fillings or to wash places under them. Scholars of Fiqh unanimously state that there is a darûrat in the concerned teeth and that it is not obligatory to make water reach parts (of the body) with a darûrat.” None of the scholars of Fiqh in the Hanafî Madhhab said that it is a darûrat to have your teeth crowned or filled. In fact, tooth crowning or filling does not date as far back as the times wherein scholars of Fiqh lived. In the sixty-fourth page of the commentary to the book entitled Siyar-i-kebîr, which he adduces as a proof, Imâm Muhammad Sheybânî ‘rahima-hullâhu ta’âlâ’ is quoted to have said that it would be jâiz (permisible) for a person to replace his fallen tooth with a gold tooth or to fasten his teeth with a gold wire. The book does not make any mention of tooth crowning. It is a trumped-up addendum forged by Ismâ’îl Hakki of Izmir. Masonic men of religion, people without a certain Madhhab and heretics, who appeared later, had recourse to all sorts of trickery to deceive Muslims and to preach sedition among them. They wrote wrong and subversive articles.

 

Imâm Muhammad Sheybânî) ‘rahima-hullâhu ta’âlâ’ stated that a tottering tooth could be tied with a gold, as well as a silver, wire. He did not say that it would be jâiz to crown or fill it with gold. Such things have been implanted by Ismâ’îl Hakki and the like.

 

Muftis and other valuable men of religion contemporary with Ismâ’îl Hakki of Izmir provided answers so as to reveal the truth versus the untrue and beguiling article of which we have presented samples in the previous paragraphs. One of those estimable scholars is Yûnus-zâde Ahmed Vehbî Efendi of Bolvadin, (Turkey.) ‘rahima-hullâhi ta’âlâ’. This deeply learned person with extensive religious knowledge proved that Islamic scholars had been unanimous on that ghusl made by a person with filled tooth socket would not be sahîh.

 

Administration of the periodical entitled Sebîl-ur-rashâd must have been wise to the meagre ruse employed in the jerry-made article written by the Izmirer, so that they deemed it necessary to support the article with further proof by adding to it the fatwâ with the conclusive remark that reads, “… the ghusl will be sahîh,” in the second edition, dated 1329 [1911 A.D.], of the book of fatwâs entitled Majmû’a-i-Jedîda. However, the so-called fatwâ does not exist in the first edition, dated 1299 A.H., of the book. The misleading remark was inserted into the second edition by Mûsâ Kâzim, a shaikh-ul-islâm brought to office by the notorious Party of Union. Hence, the periodical entitled Sebîl-ur-Rashâd attempted to adduce a statement concocted by a freemason as support for an article written by a reformer of Islam. Not a single scholar of Fiqh said ‘darûrat’ about tooth crowning or filling. People who say or write so are either masonic men of religion or Islam’s reformers or people without a certain Madhhab or Islamically ignorant people suborned or deceived by wahhabite heretics, and none other than them.

 

Ahmad (bin Muhammad bin Ismâ’îl) Tahtâwî ‘rahima-hullâhu ta’âlâ’ states as follows in his annotation to (Shernblâlî’s book entitled) Merâq-il-falâh: “When you (join a jamâ’at and) follow an imâm (conducting the namâz in jamâ’at and) who is in one of the other three Madhhabs, the namâz you perform (behind that imâm) will be sahîh with the proviso that something that nullifies namâz according to your own Madhhab should not exist on the imâm (even if it is something that will not nullify namâz according to his own Madhhab) or, if one of such nullifiers exists on him, you should not know about it as you follow him. This is the more dependable qawl (statement, report). According to another qawl, if the imâm’s namâz is sahîh according to his own Madhhab, it will be sahîh to follow him even if it is seen that his namâz is not sahîh according to your own Madhhab.” The same rule is written in Ibni ’Âbidîn. As is understand from this statement which is written both in Tahtâwî’s annotation and in Tahtâwî ‘rahima-hullâhu ta’âlâ’, there are two differring scholarly qawls concerning whether the namâz performed by a Hanafî Muslim without a crowned or filled tooth will be sahîh when he performs it in a jamâ’at conducted by an imâm who has crowned or filled teeth: According to the former qawl, it is not sahîh for a Hanafî Muslim without any crowned or filled teeth to follow an imâm with crowned or filled teeth. For, the imâm’s namâz is not sahîh according to the Hanafî Madhhab. According to the latter qawl, if the imâm is imitating one of the Shâfi’î and Mâlikî Madhhabs, it will be sahîh for the Hanafî Muslim without any crowned or filled teeth to follow him, (i.e. to perform the namâz behind him, or to join the namâz in jamâ’at conducted by him.) This is the ijtihâd of Imâm Hindûwânî ‘rahmatullâhi ’alaih’. The same rule applies in the Shâfi’î Madhhab as well. Unless it is known that a sâlih imâm with crowned or filled teeth is not imitating the Mâlikî or Shâfi’î Madhhab, Hanafî Muslims who have no crowned or filled teeth ought to join the namâz in jamâ’at conducted by that imâm. It is not permissible to ask him whether he is imitating the Mâlikî or Shâfi’î Madhhab in a prying manner. The latter qawl is a weak one. However, as we stated earlier in the text, when there is haraj (difficulty), it is necessary to act on a weak (da’îf) qawl. That a weak qawl should be acted on to prevent a fitna is written in Hadîqa as well. If a person despises the (four) Madhhabs and does not perform his acts of worship in a manner compatible with the teachings written in books of Fiqh, it will be concluded that he is not Sunnî. And a person who is not Sunnî is either a bid’at holder and a heretic, or he has lost his îmân and become a murtadd (renegade, apostate). We are not saying that you should not have your teeth filled or crowned. We are showing our brothers and sisters who have had them filled or crowned ways of performing their acts of worship in an acceptable way. We are showing them easy ways.

 

There are fifteen kinds of gusl: Five of them are farz, five of them are wâjib, four of them are sunnat, and one of them is mustahab. Ghusls that are farz: When a woman’s (or a girl’s) menstrual or puerperal period is over, after coitus, i.e. sexual intercourse, after lustful seminal ejaculation, after a nocturnal emission and seeing semen in one’s bed or underpants, it is farz to make a ghusl before the prescribed time of an unperformed namâz is over.

 

Ghusls that are wâjib: It is wâjib to wash a dead Muslim and for a child to make a ghusl as soon as it reaches the age of puberty. When husband and wife sleeping together wake up and see some seminal fluid between them and do not know which party it belongs to, it is wâjib for both of them to make ghusl. When you see on yourself some seminal remains and cannot estimate the time when it was ejaculated, then it will be wâjib for you to make a ghusl. And, when a woman bears a child, it is wâjib for her to make a ghusl even if no bleeding has taken place. (It is farz to make a ghusl in case of bleeding.)

 

Ghusls that are sunnat: To make a ghusl for Friday and ’Iyd days and at the time of Ihrâm –regardless of your niyya (intention)– and before climbing Arafât (hill). [Please see the fourth chapter of the fourth fascicele of Endless Bliss for ‘ghusl’, and the seventh chapter of its fifth fascicle for details on ‘Hajj’.] Ghusl that is mustahab: When a disbeliever becomes a Believer, it is –farz for him (or her) to make a ghusl if he (or she) was junub before becoming a Believer, (which means a state which necessitates a ghusl. Otherwise, it is– mustahab for him (or her) to make a ghusl.

 

There are three harâms in ghusl:

 

1– For both sexes to expose parts of their body between immediately below the navel and between the knees in the presence of other people of their sex when making ghusl; (in other words, it is harâm for men to show their body limbs between below the navel and below the knees to other men, and for women to show their same body areas to other women, as they make a ghusl.)

 

2– According to a qawl, it is harâm for Muslim women to show themselves to non-Muslim women when making a ghusl. (This rule must be observed at other times as well.)

 

3– Waste of water; (in other words, it is harâm to use more than necessary water when making a ghusl.)

 

In the Hanafî Madhhab, there are thirteen sunnats to be observed when making a ghusl:

 

1– To make istinjâ with water. In other words, to wash the anus and the genitals.

 

2– To wash the hands below the wrists.

 

3– If there is any real najâsat on the body, to remove it.

 

4– To be over-attentive in making mazmaza and istinshâq. (Masmaza means to rinse the mouth with water, and istinshâq means to snuff up water through the nostrils.) Ghusl will not be sahîh if there is a space as wide as the point of a needle unmoistened within the mouth or inside the nostrils. To make an ablution for namâz when beginning to make a ghusl.

 

5– To make niyya(t) for making a ghusl.

 

6– To rub each limb being poured water on, with hands.

 

7– To pour water first on the head, and next on the right and left shoulders, three times each.

 

8– To make khilâl between fingers and toes. In other words, to moisten between fingers and toes.

 

9– Not to turn your front or back towards the Qibla.

 

10– Not to talk on worldly matters when making o ghusl.

 

11– To make mazmaza and istinshâq three times each.

 

12– To begin washing each limb from the right.

 

13– Not to urinate at the place where you are making a ghusl if it is a place where the water (being used for the ghusl) is making up pools. There are other sunnats in addition to these sunnats which we have listed.

 

Please follow and like us: