If someone laughs during prayer, only the prayer is broken; the ablution (wudu’) is not broken, because:
Proof No. ➊
◈ Hafiz Ibn al-Mundhir (d. 318 AH) writes:
أجمع أهل العلم على أن الضحك فى غير الصلاة لا ينقض الطهارة ولا يوجب وضوءا أجمعوا على أن الضحك فى الصلاة ينقض الصلاة .
“The scholars are unanimously agreed that laughing outside of prayer does not nullify the state of purity, nor does it make ablution obligatory. They are also unanimously agreed that laughing during prayer nullifies the prayer.”
Proof No. ➋
◈ Ata’ ibn Abi Rabah narrates:
عن جابر قال؛ كان لا يرى على الذى يضحك فى الصلاة وضوءا .
“(The Companion of the Messenger of Allah) Sayyidina Jabir (ibn Abdullah al-Ansari) may Allah be pleased with him, did not consider ablution necessary for the one who laughs during prayer.”
Proof No. ➌
◈ “Hisham says that my brother laughed during prayer, and Urwah told him to repeat the prayer, and did not tell him to perform ablution.”
Proof No. ➍
◈ عن عطاء فى الرجل يضحك فى الصلاة، قال؛ ان تبسم فلا ينصرف، وان قهقه استقبل الصلاة، وليس عليه وضوء .
“Imam Ata’ ibn Abi Rabah said about a person who laughs during prayer: if he showed a smile, he will not break the prayer; but if he laughed loudly, he will repeat the prayer, though there is no ablution upon him.”
Proof No. ➎
◈ Abdur Rahman ibn al-Qasim says:
ضحكت وأنا أصلي مع أبى، فأمرني أن أعيد الصلاة .
“I was praying with my father when I laughed, and he ordered me to repeat the prayer.”
Proof No. ➏
◈ Muhammad ibn Sirin, a Tabi’i, says:
كانوا يأمر وننا و نحن صبيان، اذا ضحكنا فى الصلاة أن نعيد الصلاة .
“When we were children and laughed during prayer, (the scholars) would order us to repeat the prayer.”
● Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal
, Imam al-Shafi’i
, and Imam Ishaq ibn Rahawayh
also hold this fatwa.
● Imam Abu Bakr ibn Abi Shaybah says:
يعيد الصلاة و لا يعيد الوضوء .
“One who laughs during prayer will repeat the prayer, but will not repeat the ablution.”
↰ The blind followers (of taqlid), in opposition to the majority of the Ummah and to Sayyidina Jabir ibn Abdullah may Allah be pleased with him, say that if someone laughs during prayer his ablution is broken, and they order him to renew the ablution, although they have no authentic evidence for this.
We present, in extreme brevity, a review of their evidences according to the principles of the muhaddithin:
Proof No. ➊
Sayyidina Abu Musa al-Ash’ari said that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ was leading the people in prayer when a man came and fell into a pit in the mosque; he had a defect in his sight. Many people laughed during the prayer. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “The one who laughed should perform ablution again and repeat the prayer.”
Commentary:
Its chain is “da’if”,
In it Hisham ibn Hassan is a “mudallis”, and he is narrating with “an” (عن); the “an” narration of a trustworthy mudallis is “da’if” except in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim.
——————
Proof No. ➋
Abu al-Aliyah al-Riyahi said that a blind man fell into a well while the Prophet ﷺ was leading the Companions in prayer, and some people who prayed behind him laughed, so he ﷺ said: “The one who laughed should perform ablution again and repeat the prayer.”
Commentary:
Its chain is “da’if” due to “tadlis” and “inqita'” (break in the chain).
◈ Imam Ibn al-Mundhir says:
حديث أبى العالية مرسل، والمرسل لا تقوم به الحجة .
“The hadith of Abu al-Aliyah is mursal, and a mursal hadith cannot establish a proof.”
It should be remembered that the religion is the name of connected, authentic narrations.
——————
Proof No. ➌
Hasan al-Basri narrates from the Prophet ﷺ that he was leading the prayer when a blind man came from the direction of the qiblah intending to pray; the people were occupied in the Fajr prayer. This blind man fell into a pit, some people laughed, until they burst into loud laughter. When the Prophet ﷺ finished the prayer, he said: “The one who laughed loudly should repeat both the ablution and the prayer.”
Commentary:
This is a “mawdu'” (fabricated) hadith, because:
➊ It is mursal, and a mursal narration is “da’if”.
➋ The narrator of the book, Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani, is a “kadhdhab” (liar).
➌ The teacher of Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani is, by agreement, “da’if and matruk”; there is no authentic chain proving that he was “thiqah” from any trustworthy imam.
——————
Proof No. ➍
It is narrated from Ma’bad that the Prophet ﷺ was occupied in leading the prayer when a blind man came intending to pray and fell into a pit; some people laughed, until they burst into loud laughter. When he ﷺ finished the prayer, he said: “The one who laughed loudly should repeat both the ablution and the prayer.”
Commentary:
This narration is extremely “da’if”, because:
➊ In it there is “irsal”; Ma’bad al-Juhani is a Tabi’i, and Imam al-Daraqutni himself called it “mursal”; Zayla’i the Hanafi also described it as “mursal”.
➋ In it there is the “tadlis” of Imam al-Hasan al-Basri.
➌ Its chain depends on Nu’man ibn Thabit, who is by consensus “majruh” (criticised).
——————
Proof No. ➎
Sayyidina Ibn Umar, may Allah be pleased with both of them, narrates that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “The one who laughed during prayer should repeat both the ablution and the prayer.”
Commentary:
This narration is also “da’if” (weak), because it has “inqita'” (a broken chain): Imam Ata’ bin Abi Rabah’s hearing from Sayyidina Ibn Umar is not established.
◈ Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal says:
قدرآي ابن عمر و لم يسمع منه .
“Certainly he saw Sayyidina Ibn Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, but he did not hear from him.”
◈ The same has been said by Imam Ali bin al-Madini, may Allah have mercy on him, and by Imam Abu Abdullah as well.
Moreover, in this chain Baqiyyah bin al-Walid, although according to the majority he is “thiqah” (reliable),
he was guilty of “tadlis al-taswiyah” (concealment of a weak link by omitting a weak narrator), so the chain must be one of continuous hearing (musalsal bil-sama’).
◈ Hafiz Ibn Hajar writes about another narration:
بقية صدوق، لكنه يدلس و يسوي، قد عنعنه عن شيخه و شيخ شيخه .
“Baqiyyah is a truthful (saduq) narrator, but he practised tadlis al-taswiyah; he narrated from his shaykh and his shaykh’s shaykh with the word ‘an’.”
◈ Hafiz Ibn al-Mulaqqin writes:
لكن بقية رمي بتدليس التسوية، فلا ينفعه تصريحه بالتحديث .
“Baqiyyah is charged with tadlis al-taswiyah, so merely stating hearing from his shaykh is of little benefit.”
There is another reason this narration is “da’if”: after mentioning it, Imam Ibn Adi says:
و محمد الخزاعي هذا هو من مجهولي مشايخ بقية، ويقال عن بقية فى هذه الحديث عن محمد بن راشد عن الحسن، ومحمد بن راشد أيضا عن الحسن مجهول .
“Muhammad al-Khuza’i in this narration is one of Baqiyyah’s unknown shaykhs; and in this chain Muhammad bin Rashid from al-Hasan is also reported, and Muhammad bin Rashid, who narrates from Hasan al-Basri, is also unknown.”
◈ Hafiz Ibn Hajar
and Hafiz Dhahabi
have also adopted this view.
◈ Ibn al-Turkmani al-Hanafi writes:
ابن راشد هذا و ثقه ابن حنبل و ابن معين…
We say: Ibn al-Turkmani al-Hanafi has fallen into serious confusion and error. He took Muhammad al-Khuza’i, who is “majhul” (unknown), to be Muhammad bin Rashid al-Makhuli, and imposed the “tawthiq” (authentication) of a “thiqah” narrator upon an “majhul” one. Following Ibn al-Turkmani blindly, Zafar Ahmad Thanwi Deobandi, by calling him Muhammad bin Rashid al-Makhuli and declaring this narration “hasan” on that basis, is acting out of ignorance. This is because none of the scholars mention Hasan al-Basri among the teachers of Muhammad bin Rashid al-Makhuli, nor is his name found among the students of Hasan al-Basri. Therefore Hafiz Dhahabi, may Allah have mercy on him, wrote:
محمد بن راشد عن الحسن نكرة . “Muhammad bin Rashid, who narrates from Hasan al-Basri, is unknown.”
↰ It is established that Muhammad al-Khuza’i in this narration does not refer to Muhammad bin Rashid al-Makhuli, but to someone else whose biography could not be found. To confirm our point, it was enough that Muhammad bin Rashid al-Makhuli’s hearing from Hasan al-Basri is not found; the explicit statements of the muhaddithun are an added confirmation.
——————
Proof No. ➐
From Imran bin Husayn, may Allah be pleased with him, it is narrated that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said:
اذا قهقه أعاد الوضوء و الصلاة .
“Whoever laughs (in prayer), let him repeat the ablution and the prayer.”
Commentary:
This chain is “mawdu'” (fabricated), because:
➊ In it, the narrator Amr bin Ubayd is “matruk” (abandoned) and “kadhdhab” (a liar) and a “da’i ila al-bid’ah” (propagator of innovation),
◈ Yunus bin Ubayd says:
كان عمرو بن عبيد يكذب فى الحديث .
Meaning: “Amr bin Ubayd used to lie in hadith.”
◈ Abu Hatim says he is “matruk al-hadith” (his narrations are abandoned).
◈ Humayd says:
لا تاخذ عن هذا شيئا، فانه يكذب على الحسن .
“Do not narrate anything from him, for he lies against Hasan al-Basri.”
◈ Amr bin Ali says:
كان متروك الحديث، صاحب بدعة .
◈ Nu’aym bin Hammad says that he asked Imam Abdullah bin al-Mubarak on what basis the muhaddithun declared Amr bin Ubayd “matruk”; he said, “He is a propagator of innovation.”
➋ Its second narrator, Umar bin Qays al-Makki, is also “matruk”.
➌ In it there is also the “tadlis” of Hasan al-Basri.
——————
Proof No. ➑
Amir al-Sha’bi says: “This laughter is a trial; such a person shall repeat the ablution and the prayer.”
Commentary:
Its chain is “da’if” (weak), because in it the narrator Ash’ath bin Sawwar is “da’if”.
Imam Muslim narrated from him in a supporting narration (mutabi’ah), and in it Abu Khalid al-Ahmar, who is also “mudallis”, is present.
——————
Proof No. ➒
Ibrahim al-Nakha’i says that if a person laughs during prayer, he should repeat both the ablution and the prayer.
Commentary:
In this, the identity of the narrator Mughira is what needs to be determined. Secondly, this is the statement of Ibrahim al-Nakha’i; it is neither the Quran, nor a hadith, nor the consensus of the Ummah. Are the Al-e-Taqlid followers of Imam Ibrahim al-Nakha’i, or of Imam Abu Hanifa?
↰ Therefore, to say that laughing during prayer breaks wudu is false, indeed “abtal al-abatil” (the most false of falsehoods). The wudu of a person who is already in a state of wudu will break only when proof is established from the Sunnah or consensus.
↰ Laughing or guffawing is not among the things that break wudu, such as minor or major excretion, sleep, wind, etc. These things break wudu whether they occur during prayer or outside it. But those who say that laughing during prayer breaks wudu hold that laughing outside prayer does not break wudu. This is a strange logic!
The Al-e-Taqlid say that if wind is emitted during prayer, wudu breaks, and the worshipper must perform wudu again; building upon the part of the prayer he has already performed, he should complete the rest. If he did not speak in between, the prayer is not invalidated; if he spoke, the prayer becomes invalid and it becomes necessary to perform the prayer anew. The same people say that if laughter comes during prayer, both wudu and prayer must be repeated. It is thus clear that in their view, laughing during prayer is a greater matter than emitting wind.
◈ Mr. Abdul Shakoor Lucknawi Farooqi Deobandi writes:
“Wudu is not broken by the laughter of a non-adult, even if it occurs during prayer.”
◈ He further writes:
“Wudu is not lost by laughing during the funeral prayer or during the prostration of recitation, whether the person is an adult or a non-adult.”
Whereas this distinction is not proven from the Shariah; it is merely their words. See how gravely these people mock Islam’s system of cleanliness and purity!
Remember that wudu is part of faith. It should also be made clear that Lucknawi wrote about this book of his: “In every issue, only the opinion on which the fatwa is given will be written.”
↰ The most surprising thing is that these same people say that if, at the end of the prayer before giving the salam, one sits for as long as it takes to recite the tashahhud, and then deliberately emits wind, or laughs loudly, or laughs, or does any act contrary to prayer, the prayer is complete. فيا للعجب !
Even more astonishing is that those who say that laughing during prayer breaks both wudu and prayer hold that if one slanders someone or speaks obscenely during prayer, the wudu will not break. The meaning is clear: in their view, laughing during prayer is a greater crime than slandering someone.
Let us look at a record of a debate on this:
البويطي يقول؛ سمعت الشافعي يقول؛ قال لي الربيع؛ أنا أشتهي أن أسمع مناظر تك و اللؤلوي، قال؛ فقلت له؛ ليس هناك، قال؛ فقال؛ أنا أشتهي ذلك، قال؛ فقلت؛ متي شئت، قال؛ فأرسل الي فحضرني رجل ممن كان يقول بقولهم، ثم رجع الي قولي، فاستتبته و أرسل الي اللؤلوي، فجاء، فأتينا بطعام، فأكلنا ولم يأكل اللؤلوي، فلما غسلنا أيديناقال له الرجل الذى كان معي؛ ما تقول فى الرجل قذف محصنة فى الصلاة ؟ قال؛ بطلت صلاته، قال؛ فما حال الطهارة ؟ قال؛ بحالها، قال؛ فقال له ؛ فما تقول فى من ضحك فى الصلاة ؟ قال؛ بطلت صلاته و طهارته، قال؛ فقلت؛ قذف المحصنات فى الصلاة أيسر من الضحاك فى الصلاة ؟ قال؛ فأخذ اللؤلوي نعله وقام، قال ؛ فقلت للفضل؛ قد قلت لك؛ ان ليس هناك .
“Buwayti says: I heard Imam (Muhammad bin Idris) al-Shafi’i say: Fadl bin Rabi’ (who was the doorkeeper of the Commander of the Faithful Harun al-Rashid) said to me: I want to hear a debate between you and (Hasan bin Ziyad) al-Lu’lu’i (the liar, a Hanafi jurist). I said: He is not capable of it. He said: I want it arranged. Imam al-Shafi’i (may Allah have mercy on him) says: I said: When do you want the debate arranged? Then he (Fadl bin Rabi’) summoned me (for the debate). In the meantime a man came to me who had previously been a follower of al-Lu’lu’i, and later adopted my position; I took him along with me. He (Fadl bin Rabi’) also summoned al-Lu’lu’i, and he came. Food was brought to us, and we all ate, but al-Lu’lu’i did not eat. When we were washing our hands, the man who was with me asked al-Lu’lu’i: What do you say about a person who slanders a chaste woman during prayer? He said: His prayer is invalid. He asked again: What about his wudu? Al-Lu’lu’i said: It remains intact. He asked al-Lu’lu’i: What do you say about a person who laughs during prayer? He answered: His wudu and prayer are both invalid. He said: I asked al-Lu’lu’i: Do you consider slandering a chaste woman with adultery during prayer a lesser crime than laughing during prayer (since there only the prayer is broken, while here both wudu and prayer are broken)? Upon this, al-Lu’lu’i picked up his sandals and fled. Imam al-Shafi’i (may Allah have mercy on him) says: I told Fadl bin Rabi’ that I had already told him that this man lacks the capacity to debate.”
Regarding Abu Ja’far Muhammad bin Zahir al-Nasai, the narrator of this debate:
◈ Imam Abu Hatim al-Razi says:
لم يكن به بأس .
Dear readers! Now judge for yourselves: can those who present such ridiculous and sensational rulings contrary to religion and faith be well-wishers of the religion? What name will you give to this opposition to the Shariah?
