Nasai

Benefits and Issues:
Relevance between the Chapter and the Hadith:
The first hadith narrated from Sayyiduna Abu Hurayrah radi Allahu anhu clearly provides the solution that the vessel into which a dog puts its mouth should be washed seven times with water. [صحيح بخاري 172]
However, the second hadith explicitly denies this, stating that the noble Companions radi Allahu anhum did not wash the place where a dog sat. [صحيح بخاري 174]
The reconciliation here is as follows:
Hafiz Ibn Hajar rahimahullah states in Fath al-Bari:
“This matter was in the early period of Islam when even the doors of the mosque, etc., did not exist. Afterwards, when the command regarding the respect and care of mosques was revealed, such things were prohibited, as is found in the narration of Sayyiduna Abdullah ibn Umar radi Allahu anhuma, where Sayyiduna Umar radi Allahu anhu proclaimed loudly: ‘O people! Refrain from idle talk in the mosque.’ So, when idle talk was prohibited, the same ruling applies to other matters as well. Therefore, in the earlier hadith, the command to wash the vessel licked by a dog seven times was given, and now that same ruling remains, which is supported by several ahadith. In fact, in some narrations, after washing the vessel licked by a dog seven times, there is also the command to wash it with earth (soil) on the eighth time—first with earth, then seven times with water.” [فتح الباري ج1 ص219۔ 220]

Therefore, the relevance between the chapter and the hadith is that the chapter does not specify how many times the vessel licked by a dog should be washed, but the hadith mentions seven times. The other hadith, which mentions not washing at all, is abrogated. Thus, not washing is abrogated, and washing is, a fortiori, correct. This is where the connection between the chapter heading and the hadith lies.

Benefit:
The mentioned hadith relates to zoology (the study of animals). The Noble Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam clarified a research finding fourteen hundred years ago, which scientists today are seen to accept, and this is a luminous proof of the Prophethood of the Noble Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam. There was a father and daughter, both medical doctors, residing in Egypt, and both were French. When the father read this hadith, he immediately placed a vessel of water before a dog. When the dog had drunk from it, he examined it under a microscope and found germs present. He poured out the water and washed the vessel several times; each time, germs were present in the vessel. Finally, when it was scrubbed with earth and then checked, not only were the germs dead, but the vessel had become pure. Upon this, both the doctor father and daughter embraced Islam.

The author of “Sunnat Nabawiyyah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam and Modern Scientific Research” writes:
“Modern research has proven that the saliva of a dog contains those germs which cause rabies in dogs, known in English as the Rabies Virus. When a dog licks a vessel, if those germs stick to the vessel, they cannot be removed or destroyed without scrubbing with earth. Soil has the property of destroying these germs. For this reason, Islam has commanded scrubbing with earth...

Long experiments, observations, and medical research have made both realities clear. Medical research has proven that the saliva of a dog contains a specific type of germ called the rabies virus, which causes a highly fatal and dangerous disease. Once its effects appear, no patient can survive. Similarly, research has also proven that, in addition to other elements, soil contains a large amount of ammonium, nitrate, and calcium oxide, which purify this type of virus.” [سنت نبوي صلى الله عليه وسلم اور جديد سائنسي تحقيقات، ج2، ص291]

Benefit Number 2:
Various wordings have been reported in the ahadith regarding purifying a vessel licked by a dog. In some hadith, washing three times is mentioned, in others five times, and in others seven times.

Ibn al-Mulaqqin rahimahullah, discussing these various narrations, states:
«انه روي من طريق ابي هريرة رضى الله عنه مرفوعاً التخيير بين الثلاث الخمس والسبع، فل كان السبع واجباً لم يخير بينه و بين الباقي لكنه ضعيف كمانبه الدار قطني فى سننه والبهقي فى ”خلافيات“» [التوضيح الشرح الجامع الصحيح، ج4 ص2455]
“That is, these narrations are reported marfu‘an from Sayyiduna Abu Hurayrah radi Allahu anhu. There is an option between washing three, five, or seven times. Thus, if seven times were obligatory, there would be no option among them. However, (the narrations of three and five) are weak, as mentioned by Imam Daraqutni in his Sunan and Imam Bayhaqi in his Khilafiyyat.”
In Sunan Daraqutni, washing three times is mentioned, but Imam Daraqutni states that its chain is mawquf.
In another narration, three, five, and seven times are mentioned; after this narration, Imam Daraqutni states that ‘Abd al-Wahhab has reported it uniquely from Isma‘il, and he is abandoned in hadith.
The third narration is similar; in its chain is ‘Abd al-Wahhab ibn al-Dahhak. Imam al-Nasa’i and others have said he is abandoned. For details, see:
① al-Ta‘liq al-Mughni ‘ala Sunan al-Daraqutni, vol. 92–96
② al-Tahqiq by Ibn al-Jawzi, vol. 1, p. 74
③ Mushkil al-Athar by al-Tahawi, vol. 1, p. 23
④ al-Khilafiyyat by al-Bayhaqi, vol. 1, pp. 379–382

Some scholars have considered the command to wash three or five times as abrogated. However, abrogation is not established without evidence; when the narrations are weak, there is no need to resort to the claim of abrogation.
[التحرير للكمال بن الهمام ص 229]
[امير بادشاه فى ”تيسيرالتحرير“ ج3، ص72]
[التقرير والتحبير لابن امير الحاج، ج2، ص266]
However, abrogation is not established by mere possibility; rather, scholars have mentioned several evidences for abrogation. For further research, referring to these books will be beneficial:
① Nayl al-Awtar 1/42
② al-Umm 1/6
③ Nasb al-Rayah, vol. 1, p. 131
④ Mughni al-Muhtaj 1/83
⑤ al-Muhadhdhab, vol. 1, p. 55
⑥ Sharh al-Nawawi ‘ala Muslim 3/185
④ al-Tanbih, p. 17
⑦ al-Sharh al-Saghir 1/85
⑧ al-Majmu‘, vol. 2, p. 585
⑨ Hashiyat al-Dasuqi 1/84
⑩ al-Mughni 1/73
⑪ Muqaddimat Ibn Rushd 1/21
⑫ Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat 1/97
⑬ Qawanin Ahkam al-Shari‘ah, p. 35
⑭ al-Muharrar 1/4
⑮ Fath Bab al-‘Inayah 1/149
⑯ al-Sharh al-Kabir 1/128
⑰ Kashshaf al-Qina‘ 1/208

Hadith Authentication (Takhrij al-Hadith):
[160۔ البخاري فى : 4 كتاب الوضوء : 33 باب الماء الذى يغسل به شعر الإنسان 172، مسلم 279، ابوداود 71]
Understanding the Hadith (Fahm al-Hadith): In one narration, it is mentioned that while washing the vessel seven times, wash it once with earth as well, whether at the beginning or at the end. [صحيح : صحيح أبوداود 64 66، ترمذي : كتاب الطهارة 91]
From this narration, it is understood that it is obligatory to wash the vessel in which a dog puts its mouth seven times. It is also understood from this that the saliva of a dog is impure and filthy, and for this reason, the command to wash it has been given.

«ولعاب كلب»

And the saliva of the dog (is impure).

➊ As narrated from Abu Hurairah radi Allahu anhu that the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said:
«إذا ولغ الكلب فى إناء أحدكم فليرقه ثم ليغسله سبع مرات أولاهن بالتراب»
“When a dog licks (puts its mouth) into the vessel of any one of you, he should spill (the water) and wash the vessel seven times, the first time with earth (soil).” [بخاري 172]
And in Jami‘ at-Tirmidhi, the wording is «وأخراهن أو أولاهنه» “the last time or the first time (should be with earth).” [ترمذي 91] 1

There is a difference of opinion among the jurists regarding whether the dog itself and its saliva are impure or not.

(Shafi‘is, Hanbalis) The dog and everything that comes from it, such as its saliva and sweat, etc., are all impure (their evidence is the aforementioned hadith). [المغني 52/1] 2

(Malikis) Neither is the dog itself impure, nor is its saliva. And the command to wash the vessel into which a dog puts its mouth is devotional (‘ibadah) and not due to impurity. [المغني 52/1] 3

(Hanafis) Only the dog’s mouth, its saliva, and its feces, etc., are impure; the dog itself is not impure because it is used for guarding and hunting. [بدائع الصنائع 63/1] 4

(The majority of jurists) The dog’s saliva is impure based on the aforementioned hadith. This proves that its mouth is also impure because saliva is a part of the mouth, and when the noblest part of the body (the mouth) is impure, then the rest of the body is, a fortiori, necessarily impure. [المحموع للنووي 567/2] 5

(Ibn Taymiyyah rahimahullah) The dog’s saliva is impure due to the text, and all its other parts are impure by analogy, except for its hair, which is pure. [مجموع الفتاوي 216/21 -220]

(Shawkani rahimahullah) Only the dog’s saliva is impure due to the hadith. Besides this, the rest of its entire being (i.e., flesh, bones, blood, hair, and sweat, etc.) is pure because the default is purity, and there is no evidence for the impurity of its being. [السيل الحرار 37/1] 6

(Preferred opinion) The position of Imam Shawkani rahimahullah appears to be the preferred one. (And Allah knows best)

Washing the vessel into which a dog puts its mouth seven times

It is obligatory to wash the vessel into which a dog puts its mouth seven times, as this command of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam is present in the aforementioned hadith. [بخاري 172]

(Ahmad rahimahullah, Shafi‘i rahimahullah, Malik rahimahullah) are of this view. Ibn ‘Abbas radi Allahu anhuma, ‘Urwah radi Allahu anhu, Imam Ibn Sirin, Imam Tawus, Imam ‘Amr ibn Dinar, Imam Awza‘i, Imam Ishaq, Imam Abu Thawr, Imam Abu ‘Ubayd, Imam Dawud, and others rahimahumullah ajma‘in all incline towards and prefer this view.

(Hanafis) Washing seven times is recommended, and if it is washed three times, that is sufficient. [الدر المختار 303/1] 7

SA ➊ Their evidence is the statement of Abu Hurairah radi Allahu anhu:
«ثم اغسله ثلاث مرات»
“Then wash the vessel three times.” [دارقطني 83/1، كتاب الطهارة : بأب و لوغ الكلب فى الإناء]

That is, the action of the narrator of the hadith is contrary to the marfu‘ hadith he himself narrated, so acting upon it is not obligatory. EA
The answer to this is that no one’s statement will be accepted in opposition to the command of the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, and a fatwa of Abu Hurairah radi Allahu anhu regarding washing seven times is also transmitted. [نيل الأوطار 76/1] 8

SA ➋ Another argument of the Hanafis is that feces are more impure than the leftovers of a dog, but when the condition of washing seven times is not stipulated for it, then it is, a fortiori, not necessary here. EA
The answer is that this analogy is in opposition to a clear text, so it is invalid. [تحفة الأحوذي 317/1] 9

(‘Allamah ‘Ayni rahimahullah) He has also declared this analogy to be invalid. [عمدة القاري 340/2] 9

In summary, it is obligatory to wash the vessel seven times, as has been stated in the hadith at the beginning.

------------------

1 [بخاري 172، كتاب الوضوء : باب الماء الذى يغسل به شعر الإنسان . . .، مسلم 279، نسائي 63، شرح السنة 378/1، أحمد 427/2، أبو داود 71، ترمذي 91، شرح معاني الآثار 21/1، دارقطني 64/1، بيهقي 240/1، عبدالرزاق 330، ابن أبى شيبة 173/1، ابن خزيمة 90، ابن حبان 1297، مؤطا 34/1]

2 [المغني 52/1، مغني المحتاج 78/1، كشاف القناع 208/1]

3 [المنتقى للباحي 73/1، الشرح الصغير 43/1، الترح الكبير 83/1]

4 [فتح القدير 64/1، رد المحتار لابن عابدين 192/1، بدائع الصنائع 63/1]

5 [المحموع للنووي 567/2، الروض النضير 244/1]

6 [المنتقى للباجي 73/1، السيل الحرار 37/1]

7 [المغني 52/1، كشاف القناع 208/1، المجموع 188/1، بداية المجتهد 83/1، بدائع الصنائع 87/1، الدر المختار 303/1]

8 [نيل الأوطار 76/1، سبل السلام 28/1]

9 [فتح الباري 371/1، تحفة الأحوذي 317/1]

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Hadith Commentary:
1.
Imam Bukhari rahimahullah, in the previous chapter, discussed the issue of the purity of human hair. In that, besides the narration from ‘Ata, he also presented two marfu‘ (prophetic) narrations. The Hanafis also hold this view, but they consider its use contrary to human dignity. There, the second issue mentioned was about the leftover water of a dog. For this, Imam Bukhari rahimahullah, in the previous chapter, presented the statements of Imam Zuhri rahimahullah and Sufyan Thawri rahimahullah, but due to the importance of the issue of the dog’s leftover water (su’r al-kalb), he has, as a sub-chapter, given it a separate heading here; thus, the mentioned heading is not an independent chapter.
What is Imam Bukhari rahimahullah’s inclination in this matter? There are various opinions among the commentators regarding this. The commentator of Bukhari, Ibn Battal, has written that Imam Bukhari rahimahullah has mentioned four ahadith regarding the dog and its leftover water, and from these ahadith, his intent is to establish the purity of the dog and its leftover water. (Sharh Ibn Battal: 1/266)
The commentator of Bukhari, Hafiz Ibn Hajar rahimahullah, has written that from Imam Bukhari rahimahullah’s arrangement, it appears that he holds the view of the purity of the dog’s leftover water. (Fath al-Bari: 1/357)
However, considering Imam Bukhari rahimahullah’s precision and meticulousness, it seems very unlikely that he would hold the view of the purity of the dog’s leftover water, because its impurity is established by definitive proofs. At most, it can be said that Imam Bukhari rahimahullah, as per his habit, has mentioned the ahadith of both sides so that the readers may decide for themselves. Imam Bukhari rahimahullah’s objective in this regard is to present the various schools of thought. If he wanted to state his preferred opinion, he would have said “the purity of the dog’s leftover water” instead of just “su’r al-kalb.”
In our view, Imam Bukhari rahimahullah is in agreement with the majority of scholars regarding the dog’s leftover water, and at this point, the aim is to present the evidences for both impurity and purity regarding the dog’s leftover water. Accordingly, after this heading, the first hadith is intended to establish its impurity, and further on, the hadith about giving water to a thirsty dog is presented as an argument for purity.
Despite the eminence of Imam Ibn Battal and Hafiz Ibn Hajar, we do not agree with their opinions. The commentator of Bukhari, ‘Allamah ‘Ayni, writes that the first hadith of the chapter (in which washing is mentioned) establishes the impurity of the dog, because the command to purify (wash) is given, and the command to wash is due to the occurrence of hadath or the presence of impurity. In this context, there is no hadath, which means that the command to wash is due to impurity.
Those who think that Imam Bukhari rahimahullah considers the dog’s leftover water to be pure and interprets the command to wash seven times as a devotional command (amr ta‘abbudi), their view is incorrect, because to understand a devotional command from the apparent meaning of the hadith is extremely far-fetched.
Then, in a narration of Sahih Muslim, the words are:
“(The purification of one of your vessels...)”
And in another narration:
“(The purification of one of your vessels when a dog licks it is to wash it...)”
In light of these words, if the dog’s leftover water were pure, the word “purification” (tahur) would not have been used for it, nor would there have been a command to pour out the water according to the other narration. (Umdat al-Qari: 2/486)
In our view, the opinion of ‘Allamah ‘Ayni rahimahullah is weighty, for the following reasons:
(a)
Imam Bukhari rahimahullah has not used any word in the heading from which the purity of the dog’s leftover water can be inferred. When there is no such explicitness in the heading, it is not appropriate in any way to attribute it to Imam Bukhari rahimahullah.
(b)
The narration from Imam Zuhri rahimahullah also cannot be used as evidence for the purity of the dog’s leftover water, because in Musannaf ‘Abd al-Razzaq, there is a narration from him in which washing the vessel licked by a dog three times is mentioned. (al-Musannaf li-‘Abd al-Razzaq 1/97)
This issue is like that of a person who has impure clothes and, instead of praying naked, prays in those clothes; just as praying in those clothes cannot be proof of their purity, similarly, performing ablution (wudu) with impure water out of necessity and praying with it cannot be proof of its purity. The narration from Sufyan Thawri also cannot be used as evidence for the purity of the dog’s leftover water, because its parallel is that some of the Imams rahimahullah held both ablution and dry ablution (tayammum) to be valid in the presence of nabidh (date-wine). Furthermore, their hesitation also strengthens the position against purity.
As for the remaining ahadith, our comments will be presented in their respective benefits.
2.
This hadith indicates not only the impurity of the dog’s leftover water but also that it is of the most severe type of impurity (aghlaz al-najasat), because the vessel is commanded to be washed seven times. Some narrations have the words:
“When a dog puts its mouth in a vessel, its purification is that it should be washed seven times.” (Sahih Muslim, al-Taharah, Hadith: 651(279))
Some narrations also indicate that whatever is in the vessel should be thrown away, then it should be washed seven times. (Sahih Muslim, al-Taharah, Hadith: 648(279))
Furthermore, the command to wash seven times is not a devotional command (amr ta‘abbudi) for which no apparent reason is known; rather, modern medicine has proven its rationality. According to contemporary medical research, the saliva of a dog contains such poisonous germs that dissolve in water and cling to the vessel, and they can only be removed with soil. Moreover, their poisonous effects are not eliminated by washing once or twice, but only by washing seven times.
The reality that modern medicine has reached today, the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam informed us of it fourteen hundred years ago.
3.
In our books of jurisprudence, there are some principles under the names of “reasoning” or “extreme caution,” by which authentic ahadith can be easily rejected. One of these is that a hadith should not be accepted if the action of its narrator is contrary to it. Based on this principle, the aforementioned hadith has been rejected, because, according to these scholars, the narrator of this hadith, Abu Hurayrah radi Allahu anhu, gave a fatwa contrary to it, from which it is understood that the hadith in question was abrogated according to Abu Hurayrah radi Allahu anhu.
Firstly, we do not accept this principle that if the narrator of a hadith, a Companion, gives a fatwa or acts contrary to the narrated hadith, then necessarily he must have known of its abrogation by some means, because there can be other reasons for not acting upon a hadith. For example:
Marthad ibn ‘Abdullah Yazani came to ‘Uqbah ibn ‘Amir radi Allahu anhu and said, “Abu Tamim prays two rak‘ahs before Maghrib; does this not surprise you?” ‘Uqbah radi Allahu anhu replied, “We used to pray this during the time of the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam.” I said, “Why do you not pray it now?” He replied, “Because of preoccupations, I am unable to pray it.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, al-Tahajjud, Hadith: 1184)
You see here that the reason for not acting upon the hadith is not its abrogation, but his personal preoccupations.
Secondly, Hafiz Ibn Hajar rahimahullah has written that a fatwa in accordance with this hadith is also narrated from Abu Hurayrah radi Allahu anhu, and the narration from the one who transmitted the fatwa in accordance with his narration is more weighty than the one who transmitted a fatwa contrary to his narration. This is apparent from a theoretical perspective, and from a chain of transmission perspective, it is reasonable because the narration of agreement is from Hammad ibn Zayd, whose chain is flawless, while the narration of disagreement is from ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Sulayman, who is much weaker in strength compared to the first narration. (Fath al-Bari: 1/363)
4.
In this narration, washing the vessel seven times is mentioned. In one narration, it is stated that the first time, the vessel should be cleaned with soil. (Sahih Muslim, al-Taharah, Hadith: 651(279))
Also, it is narrated from ‘Abdullah ibn Mughaffal radi Allahu anhu that the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said:
“When a dog puts its mouth in a vessel, wash it seven times and the eighth time clean it with soil.” (Sahih Muslim, al-Taharah, Hadith: 653(280))
In light of these narrations, the first time it should be cleaned with soil, then washed seven times with water, because if the last time it is cleaned with soil, then water will have to be used again to remove the soil, thus making the total number of washings nine, for which there is no allowance in the hadith. Therefore, the first time with soil, then seven times with water.
The Hanafis, in violation of this hadith, have declared it necessary to wash such a vessel three times. (Fath al-Bari: 1/363)
5.
In the matters of purity and impurity, some jurists have fallen into excess and negligence. Regarding the Hanafis, you have observed that they, disregarding the words of the Lawgiver alayhis salam, have entangled this issue in juristic subtleties. On the other hand, observe the literalism of the Zahiri scholars:
Ibn Hazm writes that if a dog puts its mouth in a vessel and drinks water, then it is necessary to purify the vessel and pour out the water. In contrast, if the dog eats something instead of drinking, or puts its paw or tail in the vessel instead of its mouth, or falls in itself, or if, instead of a vessel, it puts its mouth in a pit in the ground, or drinks water from a person’s hands, then in all these cases, neither is it necessary to pour out the water nor to wash the vessel. (al-Muhalla Ibn Hazm: 2/109)

Hadith Commentary:
Vocabulary of the Hadith:

(1)
وَلَغَ الْكَلْبُ فِي الإِنَاءِ:
The dog put its mouth into the vessel and lapped up the water noisily.

(2)
فَلْيُرِقْهُ:
He should pour it out,
he should discard it.
أهْرَاقَ الماء:
He poured out the water.

1:
This hadith indicates that if a dog puts its mouth into a vessel, it is obligatory to wash it seven times and once with earth. This is the position of the majority (jumhur).
The Hanafis are of the opinion that the vessel becomes pure by washing it three times.
Their evidence is the fatwa of Abu Hurairah radi Allahu anhu, transmitted in Dar Qutni and Tahawi, that if a dog puts its mouth into a vessel, it should be washed three times.
However, a fatwa from Abu Hurairah radi Allahu anhu regarding washing it seven times is also transmitted, and in terms of its chain of transmission, it is more authentic than the first fatwa.
Moreover, this fatwa is also in accordance with the narration.
Therefore, it is not correct to give preference to their less authentic fatwa and opinion over the authentic hadith.
As for the objections raised by the Hanafis regarding the hadith of this chapter, all of them have already been satisfactorily answered.
For details, see (Tuhfat al-Ahwadhi,
vol. 1, p. 93).

340. Urdu Hashiya: Fawaid wa Masail

➊ اس حدیث سے معلوم ہوا کہ اللہ تعالیٰ کے لیے ہنسی اور خوشی کا وصف ثابت ہے، جیسا کہ اس کی شان کے لائق ہے، بغیر کسی کیفیت کے (bi-la kayf)۔ اس بارے میں اہل سنت والجماعت کا یہی عقیدہ ہے کہ اللہ تعالیٰ کی صفات کو بغیر کسی تشبیہ، تمثیل، تعطیل اور تاویل کے ثابت مانا جائے، جیسا کہ قرآن و سنت میں وارد ہوا ہے۔

➋ اس حدیث سے یہ بھی معلوم ہوا کہ اللہ تعالیٰ اپنے بندوں کے اعمال اور ان کی حالتوں سے باخبر ہے اور ان پر خوش بھی ہوتا ہے۔

➌ اس حدیث میں اس بات کی بھی ترغیب ہے کہ انسان کو اللہ تعالیٰ کی رحمت سے کبھی مایوس نہیں ہونا چاہیے، چاہے اس کے گناہ کتنے ہی زیادہ ہوں، کیونکہ اللہ تعالیٰ کی رحمت اس کے غضب پر غالب ہے۔

➍ اس حدیث سے یہ بھی معلوم ہوا کہ اللہ تعالیٰ اپنے بندے کی توبہ اور اس کے رجوع پر خوش ہوتا ہے، اور اس کی مغفرت کے دروازے ہمیشہ کھلے ہیں۔

➎ اس حدیث میں اللہ تعالیٰ کی عظمت اور اس کے حلم و کرم کا بیان ہے کہ وہ اپنے بندے کی خطاؤں کے باوجود اس پر مہربان ہے اور اس کی توبہ کو قبول کرتا ہے۔

➏ اس حدیث سے یہ بھی معلوم ہوا کہ اللہ تعالیٰ کی صفات کو ثابت ماننا ایمان کا حصہ ہے، اور ان میں تاویل یا انکار کرنا اہل سنت والجماعت کے منہج کے خلاف ہے۔

➐ اس حدیث میں اللہ تعالیٰ کی صفتِ ہنسی (ضحک) کو بغیر کسی کیفیت کے (bi-la kayf) ثابت مانا گیا ہے، جیسا کہ سلف صالحین (rahimahumullah) کا طریقہ ہے۔

336. Commentary: See Sunan an-Nasa'i, Hadith: 63, 66 and their benefits and issues. For further details, refer to the introduction of this very book.

63. Commentary: The hadith indicates that if a dog puts its mouth into a vessel, both the vessel and the drink become impure. The drink should be thrown away and the vessel washed seven times. When the vessel becomes impure, then the drink is even more so, because the dog’s tongue touches the drink. In any case, this is also explicitly stated in the hadith; the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said: «فلیرقه» “He should pour it out.” [صحيح مسلم ، الطهارة ۔ حديث : 279]

Furthermore, this hadith will appear later as well. The Hanafis consider it necessary to wash three times instead of seven, but this is contrary to the explicit text. Just as the Shari‘ah has allowed leniency in the purification of some things, it has also prescribed strictness in the purification of others; therefore, it is equally necessary to accept both.

66. Commentary: Thus, in this hadith, Imam al-Nasa'i rahimahullah has considered the words "to spill the drink" as shaadh (anomalous), meaning that these words are mentioned by only one narrator. His other companions do not mention them, which raises the suspicion that perhaps this narrator made a mistake. The more correct view appears to be that these words are not shaadh, because an addition by a narrator is only rejected when he is contradicting others, and here there is no reason for contradiction. And Allah knows best.

Commentary:
(1)
From this it is established that the mouth of the dog and its saliva are impure, due to which both the water and the vessel become impure. Therefore, the command is that the water in which a dog puts its mouth should be thrown away. See: (Sahih Muslim, Book of Purification, Chapter: Ruling on a Dog Lapping, Hadith: 279)

(2)
It is obligatory to wash the vessel in which a dog puts its mouth seven times.

(3)
In addition, it is also necessary to scrub the vessel once with earth (soil). As is explicitly mentioned in the ahadith in the aforementioned chapter of the authentic hadith. The use of earth can be at the beginning or at the end, because in one narration it is stated: (Ulaahunna bit-turab) — "Wash it the first time with earth." And in another narration: (Affiroohu ath-thaminata bit-turab) — "Rub it with earth the eighth time." When earth is used once along with washing seven times with water, this use of earth is as if it is the eighth washing.

(4)
There are rabies germs in the saliva of the dog which are not eliminated by washing once. In addition, earth possesses germicidal properties, which is why the Shari‘ah has given this specific ruling regarding the leftovers of a dog, and not regarding other animals.

(5)
Abu Hurairah’s act of striking his forehead with his hand was out of regret and astonishment, as if to say: Why do you people not believe what I say? It appears that from the beginning, the people of Iraq had less respect for honorable personalities, which is why they would also unjustly criticize governors appointed from Madinah. And when Ali radi Allahu anhu made Kufa the capital, they continued to trouble him as well. The fitnah of the Khawarij also began from Iraq, and it was here that the Mu‘tazilah sect originated.

(6)
According to our researcher, this narration is weak in its chain of transmission, whereas according to many other researchers, it is authentic.

Benefit:
In the narration of Sahih Muslim, three things are mentioned:
➊ «إِذَا وَلَغَ الْكَلْبُ» That is, if the dog merely puts its mouth into the vessel, then washing the vessel becomes obligatory,
➋ «فليرقه» That is, whatever is in the vessel should be thrown away, and
➌ «أولا هُنَّ بِالتُّرَابِ» That is, the first washing should be done by mixing with soil.
In [صحيح مسلم: 279] and [سنن ترمذي كي روايت 91], there is also permission that the washing with soil may be done either the first time or the last time.

Lexical Explanation:
«طَهُورُ» “ṭā” with a ḍammah. This is a verbal noun and, in the construction, is functioning as the subject and is annexed to the word «إِنَاءِ» (vessel).
«وَلَغَ» «ولوغ الکلب» means: the dog drinking with the edge of its tongue (lapping).
«وَلَغَ» comes from the forms «فَتَحَ يَفْتَحُ», «حَسِبَ يَحْسِبُ», and «سَمِعَ يَسْمَعُ».
«أَنْيَّغْسِلْهُ» is serving as the predicate, which indicates the consequence of the conditional clause.
«أُولَاهُنَّ» means: in the case of washing seven times, the very first time.
«فَليُرِقهُ» is derived from «اِرَاقةٌ», which means: to pour out whatever is in the vessel for eating or drinking by turning it over and emptying it. In this, the referent of the pronoun for the object is understood from the context, i.e., «ما وقع فيه الكتب».

Benefits and Issues:
➊ Regarding the wording «أُخْرَاهُنَّأَ وْأُولَاهُنَّ» in Tirmidhi, the predominant assumption is that this is the narrator’s doubt, not that it is for giving a choice («أَوْ») to the one washing. And because the wording «أُولَاهُنَّ» appears abundantly in narrations, and especially because it is narrated by Bukhari and Muslim, it is the preferred view, i.e., preference is given to cleaning with earth (soil) the first time.
➋ This hadith indicates that the dog’s mouth, its saliva, and what it leaves behind after eating or drinking are impure and filthy. And this also indicates that its entire body is impure and filthy, and it makes obligatory the washing of the vessel seven times. Cleaning with earth (soil) is also obligatory. This is the opinion of the researchers. Some have said that washing seven times and cleaning once with earth is recommended, not obligatory. And some have also said that it should be washed three times. But in reality, the evidence does not support these two opinions. And it should be known that when, for the removal of mere impurity—whatever its type—washing seven times is not a condition, then it is necessary that there is some other wisdom behind the command to wash seven times.
➌ Some contemporary physicians have clarified that in the intestines of most dogs, there are very small germs. These are four millimeters long. When a dog excretes, many eggs are released from this excrement and they stick in abundance to the hair around the place of excretion (anus). Then, when the dog cleans its body with its tongue, these eggs stick to its tongue and mouth. Then, when the dog puts its mouth in a vessel, or drinks water, or a human kisses its mouth (as non-Muslims and those imitating them do), these eggs stick to those things and, at the time of eating or drinking, easily reach the human mouth. After reaching the mouth, they enter the stomach. Then, by piercing the walls of the stomach, they enter the blood vessels, and in this way, cause countless diseases of the heart, brain, and lungs. All the above-mentioned things have been observed by European physicians in their cities. Since identifying and distinguishing these germ-carrying dogs is a very difficult task, it requires a lot of time, and such a detailed investigation requires instruments that very few people know how to use, the Shariah, instead of putting the public into such complications, declared it impure and commanded that the vessel be washed seven times so that the vessels may be clean and pure, and none of the above-mentioned things remain attached to the vessel. This is pure wisdom and is most appropriate. The reality of the matter is known to Allah. [حاشية إحكام الأحكام شرح عمدة الأحكام لابن دقيق العبد : 1؍27]
➍ Any food or drink into which a dog puts its mouth should not be used; rather, it should be discarded, and according to the hadith, the vessel should be washed seven times. From this, it is understood that the dog itself is impure, and whatever it puts its mouth to also becomes impure. If it is a vessel, it should be washed seven times. In one narration of Sahih Muslim, instead of the seventh time, it is mentioned to clean with earth the eighth time. [صحيح مسلم، الطهارة، باب حكم ولوغ الكلب، حديث : 280] That is, clean with earth the first time, then wash with water seven times. By doing so, even more cleanliness and purity is achieved.
➎ The Hanafis hold the view that washing three times is sufficient for the vessel to become pure. Their evidence is the fatwa of Sayyiduna Abu Hurayrah radi Allahu anhu, transmitted in Daraqutni and Tahawi, that if a dog puts its mouth in a vessel, it should be washed three times, even though his fatwa to wash such a vessel seven times is also transmitted with an authentic chain. [سنن الدارقطني، الطهارة، باب ولوغ الكلب فى الإناء، حديث : 180] Therefore, the fatwa that is in accordance with the narration is the preferred one, and it is also more authentic in terms of chains than the fatwa of washing three times. [فتح الباري : 277/1] It is astonishing that generally, the Hanafi jurists call Sayyiduna Abu Hurayrah radi Allahu anhu non-jurist—Allah forbid!—but here, in opposition to the marfu‘ hadith and the authentic fatwa, they give preference to his less preferred fatwa and opinion. Mawlana Abdul Hayy Lucknawi has given a sufficient and remarkable answer to the objections of Allamah ‘Ayni and Allamah Ibn Humam rahimahum Allah in this regard. [السعاية : 1؍449۔ 454]

Takhrij al-Hadith: [وأخرجه البخاري 172، ومسلم 279، من حديث مالك به]
Jurisprudential Explanation:
➊ It is narrated from Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Mughaffal al-Muzani radi Allahu anhu that the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said: «إِذَا وَلَغَ الْكَلْبُ فِي الإِنَاءِ، فَاغْسِلُوهُ سَبْعَ مَرَّاتٍ، وَعَفِّرُوهُ الثَّامِنَةَ فِي التُّرَابِ» When a dog puts its mouth into a vessel, wash it seven times and on the eighth time scrub it with earth (soil). [صحيح مسلم: 280، دارالسلام:653]
➋ Sayyiduna Abu Hurairah radi Allahu anhu said: When a dog puts its mouth into a vessel, pour out whatever is in the vessel and then wash it three times. [سنن الدارقطني 66/1 ح 193، وسنده صحيح، شرح معاني الآثار للطحاوي 23/1]
In another well-known narration from Sayyiduna Abu Hurairah radi Allahu anhu: Pour it out and wash that vessel seven times. [سنن الدارقطني 64/1 ح 180، وقال: ”صحیح موقوف“ وسنده صحيح]
◄ It is understood from this that the ruling of washing three times has been abrogated.
➌ Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Umar radi Allahu anhuma said that the vessel into which a dog puts its mouth should be washed seven times. [مصنف ابن ابي شيبه 173/1 ح 183، وسنده حسن لذاته، عبدالله العمري عن نافع: حسن الحديث]
➍ It has been proven by modern science that by washing the vessel seven times and scrubbing it with earth (soil), the germs of the dog are completely eliminated.

Benefits and Issues:
➊ "Putting the mouth in the vessel" means that the dog drinks or licks something with its tongue.
➋ There is consensus that the saliva of a dog is impure (najis), and from this, Imam Abu Dawud rahimahullah has deduced that ablution (wudu) cannot be performed with water left over by a dog.
➌ It is understood that a small amount of water «ماء قليل» becomes impure, whether or not any of its apparent characteristics have changed.
➍ The phrase "washing once due to a cat putting its mouth in" is interpolated in this narration, and the correct view is that the leftover water from a cat is pure, as will be mentioned in the next chapter.

Benefit:
It is established from this hadith that the leftover (saliva) of a dog is impure (najis). It is also established that any vessel into which a dog puts its mouth should be washed seven times with water, and the first time or the eighth time it should be washed with soil (earth). The mention of the eighth time is found in Sahih Muslim. Some people hold the view that it should be washed three times; their statement is rejected because it is contrary to the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam).