A Desert Dweller Arrived

05/12/2013 03:15

Published on IslamToday - English (http://en.islamtoday.net)

Home > A Desert Dweller Arrived

A Desert Dweller Arrived

Purification [1]
Date:
Wed, 01/01/2003
Author:
ISLAMTODAY.NET [2]
Body:
Ab Qatdah relates that a desert dweller arrived and urinated in one corner of the mosque.
People wanted to forcibly stop him but the Prophet (peace be upon) bade them hold back.
When the desert dweller had finished, the Prophet (peace be upon him) ordered that a pitcher
of water be brought and poured over the area.
This authentic hadth is related in Sahh al-Bukhri and Sahh Muslim among other sources.
The meaning of the hadth:
First of all, it is important to know that the mosque back then had a bare dirt floor and a
considerable portion of it had no roof and was open to the sky.
We are not sure who this desert dweller was. It has been said that he was Dh alKhuwaysirah or al-Aqra` b. Hbis al-Tamm or possibly `Uyaynah b. Hisn. However, there is
no real importance attached to knowing the identity of this person. Knowing it does not
provide us with any insights into Islamic Law. Moreover, what happened is most certainly not
something that this person would have wanted to be remembered for in history.
After the Prophet (peace be upon him) ordered that water be poured over the spot, the
prophet (peace be upon him) said to the man: These mosques are not places for urine and
filth. They are for the remembrance of Allah and for reading the Qurn. [Sahh Muslim]
Its legal implications:
This hadth touches upon the following questions in Islamic Law:
The first question:
How is the ground to be purified after it has been contaminated by impurities? The hadth
gives the impression that it is sufficient to pour water over the affected area. Scholars have
two different opinions on this matter.
The opinion of the majority of scholars, including Mlik, al-Shfi`, and Ahmad, is that pouring
http://en.islamtoday.net/print/3276

Page 1 of 6

A Desert Dweller Arrived

05/12/2013 03:15

water over the affected area is enough. They support their opinion with the hadth under
discussion.
The opinion followed by Hanaf scholars is far more complex. They say that if the ground is
loose like sand or gravel, then it is sufficient to pour water over it until the water is soaked up
into the ground, taking the impurities with it. It is a different matter if the ground is hard. If it is
sloping, the lower area of ground must be dug out. Then water must be poured over the
affected area until it flows into the excavated portion. If the hard soil is on level ground, then
there is no alternative to digging up the contaminated soil and removing it, since water cannot
inundate such soil. Hanaf scholars provide the following as evidence for their opinion:
1. There is a version of the hadth about the desert dweller where the Prophet (peace be upon
him) is reported as saying: Dig up the area then pour over it a pitcher of water. This hadth is
mentioned by Ibn al-Jawz in al-`Ilal al-Mutanhiyah (1/334)
The problem with this hadth is as follows. `Abd al-Jabbr relates this hadth from Yahy b.
Sa`d. However, there were many other reliable narrators who related this same hadth from
Ab Sa`d without mentioning anything about digging up the area. `Abd al-Jabbr was the
only person who ever mentioned digging up the area.
Al-Draqutn said that`Abd al-Jabbr made a mistake with respect to Ibn `Uyaynah, because
all the trustworthy narrators among Ibn `Uyaynahs students related this hadth from Yahy b.
Sa`d without any one of them mentioning anything about digging. Ibn `Uyaynah, however,
related the hadth about digging up the ground with a totally different, broken chain of
transmission. `Abd al-Jabbr got the two chains of transmission mixed up. [As mentioned by
Ibn al-Jawz, al-`Ilal (1/334)]
Ibn Hajar al-`Asqaln thoroughly agreed with al-Draqutns assessment, saying: This is an
excellent assessment of the matter. [al-Talkhs (1/211)]
2. There is a version of the hadth about the desert dweller where the Prophet (peace be upon
him) is reported as saying: Take the dirt upon which he urinated and discard it then pour
water over the area. [Sunan `Ab Dwd, Sunan al-Daraqutn, and Sunan al-Bayhaq]
Ahmad b. Hanbal declared this hadth to be false. Ab Dwd, after relating this hadth in his
book, writes: It is related from the Prophet (peace be upon him) by Ibn Ma`qal who never met
the Prophet (peace be upon him). Al-Draqutn said the same thing after mentioning this
hadth in his book.
In his book entitled al-Marsl, Ab Dwd writes: It is related with an unbroken chain of
transmission that is not authentic.
3. It is related on the authority of Ibn Mas`d that when the desert dweller finished urinating in
the mosque, the Prophet (peace be upon him) ordered the area to be excavated and then
have water poured over it. Then the desert dweller asked: O Messenger of Allah, a man
loves a people but does not do what they do. To this the Prophet (peace be upon him)
replied: A man will be with those he loves. [Sunan al-Draqutn and Sharh Ma`n al-Athr].
The chain of transmission for this hadth contains the narrator Ab Hishm al-Rif. This
narrator was declared weak by Ibn `Abd al-Hd as well as al-Bukhr who went as far as to
say: There is unanimous agreement that he is weak.
http://en.islamtoday.net/print/3276

Page 2 of 6

A Desert Dweller Arrived

05/12/2013 03:15

Another of the narrators in this hadths chain of transmission is Sam`n b. Mlik. AlDraqutn declares him to be unknown.
Ab Zur`ah al-Rz agrees with him, saying: This hadth is false and Sam`n is not a strong
narrator. [al-Jarh wa al-Ta`dl (4/316)]
Both Ab Htim and al-Bayhaq declare this hadth to be inauthentic.
Ibn Hajar summarizes the Hanaf evidence as follows:
They provide three versions of this hadth as evidence. The first comes with a complete chain of transmission on the authority of
Ibn Mas`d, and is recorded by al-Tahw. However, its chain of transmission is weak, as stated by Ahmad and others.

The other two versions have broken chains of transmission. One of these is recorded by Ab Dwd and contains `Abd Allah b.
Ma`qal in its chain of transmission. The other comes by way of Sa`d b. Mansr and T`s. The narrators in their chains of
transmission are reliable and they would be binding evidence for those who freely accept hadth with incomplete chains of
transmission (wherein no mention is made of the Companion who actually heard the hadth from the Prophet, but where a
Successor relates the Prophets words directly) and those who accept such hadth when supported by one another.

Al-Shfi` only accepts such hadth if they are supported by being from senior Successors who are known only to attribute to the
Prophet (peace be upon him) what they heard from reliable people. This is not the case with these two narrations, as can be
seen by their chains of transmission. [Fath al-Br (1/388)]

From this we can see that the narrations that the Hanaf scholars rely upon are unusual since they are at
variance with the considerable number of authentic narrations of this hadth that can be found in Sahh alBukhr, Sahh Muslim, and other sources. None of these reliable narrations say anything about digging up the
ground, but simply mention pouring water over the area. If the ground had been dug up, then these narrators
would have certainly made mention of it due to its importance.
Therefore, the evidence points strongly to the ruling that pouring water over the ground is sufficient for its
purification. What matters is that the impurity is removed, whether it is on the body, a piece of cloth, or on the
ground.
Still, some people might have trouble with ground that is very hard, like tiled or cement floors. In these cases,
some means of water runoff would be a solution. If the impurity becomes dry and then the area is washed so
that the impurity leaves no trace, then this poses no problem. Likewise, if a considerable amount of water is used
so that its color, taste and scent are not affected by the impurities on the ground, this will also be sufficient for
deeming the ground pure.
The second question:
The hadth about the desert dweller sheds some light on the Muslims duty of enjoining what is right and
forbidding what is wrong. The Prophet (peace be upon him) did not object to the Companions rebuking the
desert dweller, though he stayed their hands. Moreover, he went further and made it clear to the desert dweller
that what he had done was wrong when he said: These mosques are not places for urine and filth. They are for
the remembrance of Allah and for reading the Qurn. [Sahh Muslim] The Prophet (peace be upon him) merely
objected to the severity of his Companions reaction, since their reaction could have brought about undesirable
consequences.
This hadth shows the Prophets acceptance of the Companions condemnation along with a rejection of their
http://en.islamtoday.net/print/3276

Page 3 of 6

A Desert Dweller Arrived

05/12/2013 03:15

severity to someone who had recently accepted Islam. It also shows the Prophet (peace be upon him) objecting
to the wrongful action. All of this shows that it is a duty upon the Muslims to enjoin what is right and forbid what
is wrong. Scholars of Islam unanimously agree that this is a religious duty.
Al-Ghazl writes: Enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong is the greatest firmament of the faith. It is
the duty for which Allah sent all of the Prophets. If this duty had been put aside and neglected, prophethood
would have come to no effect. Religion would have vanished, and ignorance, indifference, and sin would have
become widespread. Strife and ruination would have spread through the land and the people would have met
with destruction, though they would not even realize it until the Day of Resurrection. [Ihy `Ulm al-Dn (2/302)]
It should be sufficient proof for us that carrying out this duty is one of the characteristics that separate the
believers from the hypocrites. Allah says: The believing men and women are protecting friends of one another.
They enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong. [Srah al-Tawbah: 71] He then follows this by saying: The
hypocritical men and women are from one another. They enjoin what is wrong and forbid what is right and
withhold their hands. [Srah al-Tawbah: 67]
The scholars agree that enjoining what is right and rejecting what is wrong in ones own heart is the duty of
every single Muslim. No one is allowed to neglect this duty under any circumstances, since a person is never
threatened with any harm by carrying it out. Al-Ghazal [Ihy `Ulm al-Dn (2/306)] and al-Nawaw [Sharh Sahh
Muslim (2/22)] have declared this a matter of unanimous agreement among scholars of Islam.
Scholars disagree when it comes to speaking out with ones voice and preventing wrong with ones hands.
Though they agree that it is a duty upon the Muslims, they differ as to whether this duty must be carried out by
each and every one of us on an individual basis or a collective duty that only some members of society must
actually engage in.
Ibn Hazm was among those who considered it to be the duty of each and every Muslim to do what he can in
enjoining what is right and to forbidding what is wrong. He writes: Enjoining what is right and forbidding what is
wrong is the duty of each individual to the extent of his abilities. He must do so with his hands if he can. If he
cannot, then he should do so verbally. If he cannot, then he must do so in his heart and that is the weakest of
faith. There is no faith in anything less than that. [al-Muhall (1/26-27)]
Those who hold this opinion provide the following evidence:
1. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: Whoever among you sees some wrongdoing, he should prevent it
with his hands. If he is unable to do so, then he should object to it with his voice. If he is unable to do so, then
he must hate it in his heart and this is the weakest of faith. [Sahh Muslim]
This hadth begins with the word whoever. Therefore, its ruling applies to every Muslim. Each and every person
must carry out this duty to the extent of his abilities.
2. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: Never has there been a Prophet sent to the nations before my time
except that he had as disciples some people from his nation who followed him in his practices, obeyed his
commands. Then after them would come people who professed what they did not put into practice. Whoever
resisted them with his hands was a believer. Whoever resisted them with his voice was a believer. Whoever
resisted them in his heart was a believer. There is not even faith worth the weight of mustard in anything less
than that. [Sahh Muslim]
The vast majority of scholars hold the opinion that enjoining the right and forbidding the wrong is a collective duty
upon society. If enough people engage in it to satisfy the needs of society, then the duty is fulfilled for everyone.
If society neglects this duty, however, everyone without a valid excuse will be sinful. This is the opinion preferred
http://en.islamtoday.net/print/3276

Page 4 of 6

A Desert Dweller Arrived

05/12/2013 03:15

by Ibn Taymiyah. [Majm` al-Fatw (28/65, 126)]

Those who hold this opinion provide the following evidence to support it:
1. Allah says: Let there arise from among you a group of people who call to goodness, enjoin what is right, and
forbid what is wrong. These are the ones who are successful. [Srah Al `Imrn: 104]
This verse gives a clear command to the Muslims to carry out these duties. However, it directs this command to
a group from among you, indicating that this is a collective duty upon society that does not have to be carried
out by each and every member of society.
This becomes clearer if we think of a case where a group of people see someone doing something wrong. If one
person from that group goes forth and forbids this wrong, it is not necessary or even desirable for everyone
else to join in and voice his personal objection.
The opinion of the majority seems to be the most correct, since this duty can be fulfilled by some people without
others joining in. The question that should be asked is: how many people are enough to carry out this duty? We
see that wrongdoing is increasing in our societies on a daily basis. In circumstances like those in which we are
living, we cannot doubt that working to right the evils plaguing society has become the duty of each and every
one of us to the extent of his abilities.
Moreover, there are circumstances where enjoining the right and forbidding the wrong becomes an individual
obligation. Among the most important of these circumstances are:
1. When a person is the only one who knows about a certain misdeed, he should either put it right or notify those
who can.
2. When a person is the only one capable of removing a wrong, then he must do so. This includes a husband
who sees his wife doing wrong, a father who sees his child doing wrong, and a person in authority who sees
someone under his jurisdiction doing wrong.
3. When a person sees that everyone else is neglecting this duty, he must go forward and carry it out.
Some benefits of this hadth:
1. This hadth indicates that human urine is impure. This is a point of unanimous consensus among Muslims.
This ruling applies to all human urine except what Ab Dwd relates about the urine of an infant boy who has
not begun to eat solid food.
2. It is important for a person to be careful not to get urine on his clothing or skin when he relieves himself. This
may be one of the reasons why the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not allow the man to be interrupted while
he was relieving himself.
This meaning is emphasized by another hadth. Once, the Prophet (peace be upon him) passed by the graves of
two people and said: They are being punished, and it is not on account of something major. One of them did not
take care to shield himself from his urine and the other used to go around spreading rumors about people.
[Sahh al-Bukhr and Sahh Muslim]
3. The hadth informs us about the sanctity of the mosque. The Prophet (peace be upon him) told the man:
These mosques are not places for urine and filth. They are for the remembrance of Allah and for reading the
Qurn. Filth includes not only tangible grime, it also includes vile speech and conduct. We can see from how
http://en.islamtoday.net/print/3276

Page 5 of 6

A Desert Dweller Arrived

05/12/2013 03:15

strongly the Companions reacted that they fully appreciated the sanctity of the mosque.
Moreover, the Prophet (peace be upon him) made it clear that mosques are built for a very specific and noble
purpose, and that is to worship Allah and remember him.
4. The hadth is a good example of how gentle and well mannered the Prophet (peace be upon him) was. We
can see how gently and kindly he corrected the desert dweller and taught him what he needed to know.
5. The hadth indicates that even a small quantity of water does not become impure unless its characteristics are
altered by the impurities it comes in contact with. The Prophet (peace be upon him) only ordered that one pitcher
of water be poured over the spot.
6. The hadth presents to us a clear application of a major principle of Islamic jurisprudence. That principle is that
of choosing the lesser of two evils when it is impossible to avoid both. Urinating in the mosque was an evil thing.
However, trying to prevent it could have brought on far graver consequences. First of all, such harshness and
abruptness could have caused the desert dweller, who was a new convert, to develop an aversion to Islam.
Secondly, if the desert dweller had been stopped abruptly, it may have led to other places in the mosque being
accidentally sprayed with urine, leaving a more serious mess to clean. He may also have soiled his clothing.

Purification
Source URL: http://en.islamtoday.net/artshow-377-3276.htm
Links:
[1] http://en.islamtoday.net/artlist-12-377.htm
[2] http://en.islamtoday.net/author-213.htm

http://en.islamtoday.net/print/3276

Page 6 of 6