Welcome, guest. You are not logged in.
Log in or join for free!
Stay logged in
Forgot login details?

Stay logged in

For free!
Get started!

Text page

Legal Sexual help by islam

hadieths about soluti0n of semen

`Â’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.”

Both of these hadîth are related in Sahîh Muslim. The first narration is also related in Sunan al-Tirmidhî, Sunan Abî Dâwûd, Sunan al-Nasâ’î, Sunan Ibn Mâjah, Sunan al-Bayhaqî, Sunan al-Dâraqutnî, and other sources.

The context of the hadîth is given in Sahîh Muslim. A man had stayed one night at `Â’ishah’s residence. The next morning, her servant saw him washing his clothing, so she went to `Â’ishah and informed her of it. `Â’ishah sent back a message asking the man why he was washing his clothes. He sent back to her a message saying that he had seen in a dream what a sleeper sees. She sent back to him saying: “It would have been enough for you, if you saw it on your clothing, to simply wash the spot. If you did not see it, it would have been enough to sprinkle water around it, for I would simply rub it off the clothes of Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) and he would pray in them.”

Its legal implications:

The hadîth brings up the question of whether semen is a pure or impure substance. This is a famous point of disagreement among scholars who are divided into two opinions.

The first opinion is that semen is impure and must be removed from a person’s clothing and body before that person can pray. This is the verdict of the Mâlikî and Hanafî schools of thought. It is also one of Ahmad b. Hanbal’s opinions and the preferred view of al-Shawkânî.

Those who say that semen is an impure substance offer the following evidence and arguments to support their case:

1. They cite the hadîth that mention washing semen off of clothing as well as the hadîth that mention rubbing or scratching it off. This includes the hadîth under discussion. It also includes the following hadîth where `Â’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.” [Sahîh al-Bukhârî and Sahîh 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.

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 feces, 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 `Abbâs, Abû Hurayrah, `Umar, and Ibn Mas`ûd to the effect that semen must be washed off of what it touches.

6. They also cite the hadîth where Mu`âwiyah b. Abî 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 hadîth is related in Sunan Abî Dâwûd, Sunan al-Nasâ’î, Sunan Ibn Mâjah, and other sources. Al-Albânî classifies it as an authentic hadîth in his assessment of Sunan Abî Dâwûd [al-Albânî, Sahîh Abî Dâwûd (1/74)]

The scholars who consider semen to be an impure substance argue that Umm Habîbah 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 Habîbah 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.” [Sûrah 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 hadîth as evidence for the impurity of semen: “A garment needs to be washed only to remove feces, urine, pre-seminal fluid, blood, and semen.” [Sunan al-Daraqutnî, Musnad al-Bazzâr, Sunan al-Bayhaqî, and others]

After mentioning this hadîth in his Sunan, al-Dâraqutnî comments: “It has not been related on the authority of anyone else besides Thâbit b. Hammâd who is a very weak narrator. Ibrâhîm and Thâbit are both weak.” [Sunan al-Dâraqutnî (1/127)]

Ibn `Adî records this hadîth in his book about weak narrators when he discusses Thâbit b. Hammâd. He writes: “I know of no one else besides Thâbit b. Hammâd to have narrated this hadîth from `Alî b. Zayd…Thâbit b. Hammâd has related other hadîth besides these, wherein he contradicts – in both their texts and chains of transmission – hadîth related by reliable narrators. His hadîth are false and contradictory.” [Ibn `Adi, al-Kâmil fî Du`afâ’ al-Rijâl (2/524525)]

Al-Haythamî writes about this hadîth: “It has been related by al-Tabarânî in al-Awsat and al-Kabîr as well as by Abû Ya`lâ. All of its chains of transmission center upon Thâbit b. Hammâd who is a very weak narrator.

Al-Bayhaqî, after relating the hadîth in his Sunan, writes: “This is false and baseless. It is related with no other chain of transmission besides that of Thâbit b. Hammâd from `Alî b. Zayd from Ibn al-Musayyib from `Ammâr. `Alî b. Zayd’s hadîth are not suitable as evidence and Thâbit b. Hammâd is suspected of fabricating hadîth.” [Sunan al-Bayhaqî (1/15)]

Ibn al-Turkumân, in his commentary on al-Bayhaqî’s work, clears Thâbit of the crime of hadîth fabrication, saying: “As for his being accused of fabricating hadîth, after thoroughly researching the matter, I did not come across anyone else besides al-Bayhaqî to have made such a claim. Al-Bayhaqî himself mentions this hadîth elsewhere – in his book al-Ma`rifah – and merely declared Thâbit to be a weak narrator without accusing him of fabrication.” [Ibn al-Turkumân, al-Jawâhir al-Naqî (1/15)]

This hadîth is not authentic, a fact attested to by none other than those who recorded the hadîth, such as al-Dâraqutnî, Ibn Adî, al-Bazzâr, and al-Bayhaqî.

The second opinion put forward by scholars about semen is that it is a pure substance. This is the position of the Shâfi`î school of thought. It is the more accurate of the two opinions attributed to Ahmad. It is also the view held by Ahl al-Hadîth and by the Zâhirî school of thought. A number of Companions held this view, as stated by al-Nawawî in his commentary on Sahîh Muslim. It is also the preferred opinion of Ibn Taymiyah, Ibn al-Qayyîm, al-San`ânî, and others.

Those who consider semen to be pure have the following evidence to support their opinion:

1. They cite the hadîth 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 Hibbân 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-Ihsân (4/221)]

Ibn Khuzaymah also cites the hadîth of `Â’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.” [Sahîh 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 ...

This page:

Help/FAQ | Terms | Imprint
Home People Pictures Videos Sites Blogs Chat