render the prayer and wudoo' invalid?
Praise be to Allah.
Firstly:
One of the conditions of prayer being valid is avoidance of najaasah
on one's body and garment and in the place where one is praying. If a
person prays when there is some najaasah on his clothes or body, or
carries a child who has some najaasah on him, or carries a bottle in
which there is some najaasah, his prayer is rendered invalid according
to the majority of scholars, but his wudoo' is not rendered invalid.
Ibn Qudaamah (may Allah have mercy on him) said in al-Mughni (1/403):
If the worshipper carries a sealed bottle in which there is some
najaasah, his prayer is not valid, because he is carrying an impurity
that could not be overlooked, so it is similar to the case if the
najaasah was on his body or clothes.
End quote.
See: al-Mawsoo'ah al-Fiqhiyyah, 40/99; al-Majmoo', 3/157; Kashshaaf
al-Qinaa', 1/289
Secondly:
Nullification of the prayer only occurs if the worshipper carries the
child knowing that thereis some najaasah on him.If he did not know, or
heknew that there was some najaasah on him, but when he picked him up
he had forgotten about it, then his prayer is still valid.
An-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said in al-Majmoo', 3/163:
With regard to scholarly opinions on one who prays with some najaasah
on him that he forgot about or was unaware of, the more correct view
according to our madhhab is that he has to repeat the prayer. This is
the view of Abu Qilaabah and Ahmad. However the majority of scholars
say that he does not have to repeat it. Ibn al-Mundhir narrated that
from Ibn 'Umar, Ibn al-Musayyab, Tawoos, 'Ata', Saalim ibn'Abdullah,
Mujaahid, ash-Sha'bi, an-Nakha'i, az-Zuhri, Yahya al-Ansaari,
al-Awzaa'i, Ishaaq and Abu Thawr. Ibn al-Mundhir said: This is also my
opinion. It is also the view of Rabee'ah and Maalik. The evidence for
it is strong and it is the favoured view. End quote.
Al-Mirdaawi said in al-Insaaf, 1/486
The words "If he realised(after finishing the prayer) that it was
present whilst he was praying, but he was unaware of it or forgot it,
then there are two opinions.
One opinion says that hisprayer is valid. This is thecorrect view
according to the majority of later scholars and was the view favoured
by the author [i.e., Ibn Qudaamah]… and Shaykh Taqiy ad-Deen [i.e.,
Ibn Taymiyah]
The second opinion says that his prayer is not valid and he has to
repeat it. And this is what we think is the correct view. End quote.
Shaykh Ibn 'Uthaymeen (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
If (a person) prays with some impurity on his body, i.e., some
najaasahgot on him and he did not wash it off, or there is some
impurity on his garment or in the place where he is praying, then his
prayer is not valid according to the majority of scholars. But if he
was not aware of this najaasah, or he was aware of it but then he
forgot to wash it off until he had completed his prayer, then his
prayer is valid and he does not have to repeat it. The evidence for
that is that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him)
led his Companions in prayer one day and tookhis shoes off (whilst
praying), and the peopletook their shoes off. When the Prophet
(blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) had finished the prayer, he
asked them why they had taken their shoes offand they said: We saw you
take off your shoes so we took off our shoes. He said: "Jibreel came
to me and told me that there was some impurity on them." If theprayer
was to be deemed invalid because of the najaasah when hewas unaware of
it, then the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) would
have started the prayer all over again.
So avoiding impurities on the body and clothes and in the place where
one prays is one of the conditions of prayer being valid. But if a
person did not avoid impurity because he wasunaware of it or becausehe
forgot, then his prayer is still valid whether he knew about it before
he prayed then forgot to wash it off, or he did not find out about it
until after he had prayed.
If you were to say: What is the difference between this and one who
prays without wudoo' because he forgot or was unaware (of the ruling),
as the one who prays without wudoo' because he forgot or was unaware
(of the ruling) was instructed to repeat it, but the one who prays
with some impurity because he forgot or was unaware (of it) is not
instructed to repeat it?
Our answer is: The difference between them is that wudoo' or ghusl
come under the heading of doing something that is enjoined, whereas
avoiding impurity (najaasah) comes under the heading of refraining
from something that is prohibited. Failing to do something that is
enjoined cannot be excused on the grounds of ignorance or forgetting,
unlike doing something that is prohibited.
And Allah knows best.
--
- - ▓███▓ Translator:-> http://translate.google.com/m/ ▓███▓ - -
No comments:
Post a Comment