Ruling on the Excrement of Halal Animals

Question:

Assalamu alaykum

I wanted to know the ruling for the stool of Halal animals. Is it Najāsah Ghalīẓah (heavy impurity) or Najāsah Khafīfah (light impurity)? If there is Ikhtilāf then kindly explain what is the preferred view?

Jazakallah

Answer:

In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.

As-salāmu ‘alaykum wa-rahmatullāhi wa-barakātuh.

The ruling on the stool of Ḥalāl animals is a disputed matter in the Ḥanafī Madhhab. According to Imām Abū Ḥanīfah, the stool of Ḥalāl animals is considered Najāsah Ghalīẓah (heavy impurity), whereas his two eminent students, Imām Abū Yūsuf and Imām Muḥammad (together referred to as “Ṣāḥibayn”), opine that it is Najāsah Khafīfah (light impurity). [1]

The implication of this Ikhtilāf is that according to Imām Abū Ḥanīfah’s view, if one performs Ṣalāh with a minute amount of the above Najāsah on his body or clothes, his Ṣalāh will be valid. However, if the Najāsah exceeds the weight of a Dirham (approx. 4.86 grams), then Ṣalāh in such a condition will not be valid. However, as per the view of Imām Abū Yūsuf and Imām Muḥammad, Ṣalāh will be valid as long as the Najāsah is not excessive (i.e. spread over a quarter of the part of body or clothing).

A late scholar by the name of Burhān al-Dīn al-Ṭarāblusī (d. 922 H) mentioned that the view of Ṣāḥibayn is the “most apparent” (ahar), and he was then quoted by al-Shurunbulālī.[2] Burhān al-Dīn al-Ṭarāblusī was a Ḥanafī jurist as well as a scholar of Ḥadīth, having studied a number of texts under al-Sakhāwī and other students of Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalānī. He is the author of al-Is‘āf fī Akām al-Awqāf, Mawāhib al-Ramān and its commentary, al-Burhān. He would at times give Tarjīḥ (preference) to what is not the Rājiḥ (strong/correct) view of the Madhhab, particularly in his latter two works. With regard to a particular Mas’alah in which he departed from the transmitted position of the Madhhab, Ibn ‘Ābidīn said of him:

“No basis remains for it besides the statement of Burhān Shaykh Ibrāhīm al-Ṭarāblusī, author of al-Is‘āf. He is not from those capable of Tarjīḥ and Taṣḥīḥ, but is from the later scholars who [only] transmit, from the people of the tenth century. When his speech conflicts with the speech of the majority of the commentators from the early and late scholars, practice is on what the majority said. Thus, al-Burhān should be checked to find out whether he said this as juristic deduction from himself or transmitted it from one of the Mashāyikh of the Madhhab. If we find that he said it as a juristic deduction from himself, we know that it is against the transmitted position of the Madhhab, so it won’t be accepted. And if he transmitted it from someone, we will investigate…”[3]

Thus, his Tarjīḥ holds no value when it opposes the Tarjīḥ of the earlier Imāms.

Ibn ‘Ābidīn and ‘Ābid al-Sindī both transmit in their commentaries on al-Durr al-Mukhtār from ‘Allāmah Qāsim ibn Quṭlūbughā that the author of al-Mabsū and others gave Tarjīḥ on the view of Imām Abū Ḥanīfah.[4]  [Since we could not locate the Tarjīḥ in Imām al-Sarakhsi’s al-Mabsū, he may be referring to the Mabsū of Shaykh al-Islām Khāhar Zādah or the Mabsū of Shams al-A’immah al-Ḥalwānī.] The matns al-Mukhtār and Kanz al-Daqā’iq only mention Imām Abū Ḥanīfah’s view[5], while other texts (including al-Al and al-Jāmi’ al-aghīr) mention the Ikhtilāf. As a general rule, Fatwā is always given on Imām Abū Ḥanīfah’s view in Masā’il of ‘ibādāt unless there is a conflicting narration from him.[6] In this case, there is no conflicting narration from Imām Abū Ḥanīfah.

Therefore, it is clear that Imām Abū Ḥanīfah’s view on this Mas’alah is the dominant view of the Madhhab. Furthermore, since we do not live in a place where there is widespread need of handling the faeces of Ḥalāl animals, it will be incorrect to issue Fatwā on the weaker view of it being Najāsah Khafīfah. [7]

And Allah Taālā knows best      
(Mufti) Bilal Issak al-Mahmudi
Fatwa Dept.

Concurred by,
Mufti Zameelur Rahman


[1]

قال أبو حنيفة: الروث كله سواء، وروث الحمار والفرس إذا أصاب الثوب منه أو النعل أكثر من قدر الدرهم لم يجز الصلاة فيه، وقال أبو يوسف ومحمد: تجزي الصلاة فيه إلا أن يكون كثيرا فاحشا- الأصل، دار ابن حزم، ج١ ص٢٩

وإن أصابه الروث وأخثاء البقر وخرء الدجاج أكثر من قدر الدرهم لم يجز الصلاة فيه، وكذلك الخف والنعل، وقال أبو يوسف ومحمد: يجزئ فى الروث وأخثاء البقر حتى يفحش – الجامع الصغير مع النافع الكبير، ص٧٩-٨٠

وأما الأرواث والأخثاء فكلها عند أبي حنيفة نجاسة غليظة وعندهما خفيفة؛ الأرواث جمع روث…وهو لكل حافر…والأخثا جمع خثي…قال فى المغرب: وهي للبقر كالروث للحافر – حلبة المجلي، ج١ ص٤١٧

 -وقال أبو حنيفة في الروث: إذا كان أكثر من قدر الدرهم: يعيد الصلاة، وقال أبو يوسف ومحمد: لا يعيد حتى يكون كثيرًا فاحشًا شرح مختصر الطحاوي، ج٢ ص٤١

وثمرة الاختلاف تظهر فى الأرواث، عند أبي حنيفة نجاستها غليظة لأنه ورد فيه النص – المحيط البرهاني، ج١ ص٣٧٣

[2]

وقالا: نجاستها خفيفة وهو الأظهر وطهرها محمد آخرا، كذا فى المواهب – حاشية الشرنبلالي على درر الحكام، ج١ ص٤٧

[3]

فلم يبق له مستند إلا عبارة البرهان الشيخ إبراهيم الطرابلسي صاحب الإسعاف، وليس هو من أهل الترجيح والتصحيح بل هو من المتأخرين الناقلين من أهل القرن العاشر، وإذا عارض كلامه كلام جمهور الشارحين من المتقدمين والمتأخرين فالعمل على ما قاله الجمهور، فليراجع البرهان حتى يعلم هل قال ذلك تفقها من عنده أو نقله عن واحد من مشايخ المذهب فإن وجدناه قال تفقها فقد علمنا مخالفته للمنقول فلا يقبل، وإن كان نقله عن أحد ننظر – مجموعة رسائل ابن عابدين، ج١ ص١٢٩

[4]

في النكت للعلامة قاسم أن قول الإمام بالتغليظ رجحه في المبسوط وغيره اهـ ولذا جرى عليه أصحاب المتون – رد المحتار

لكن فى النكت للعلامة قاسم أن قول الإمام بالتغليظ رجحه في المبسوط وغيره اهـ ولذا جرى عليه أصحاب المتون – طوالع الأنوار، ج١ ص٣٨٥

[5]

وعفي قدر الدرهم كعرض الكف من نجس مغلظ كالدم والبول والخمر وخرء الدجاج وبول ما لا يؤكل والروث والخثي – كنز الدقائق، ص١٥٢

وكل ما يخرج من بدن الانسان موجب للتطهير فهو نجاسة غليظة وكذلك الروث والأخثاء – المختار للموصلي مع الاختيار، ج١ ص١١١-٣

[6]

في شرح المنية للبرهان إبراهيم الحلبي…ولأمر ما جعل العلماء الفتوى على قوله فى العبادات مطلقا، وهو الواقع بالاستقراء ما لم َيكن عنه رواية كقول المخالف – شرح عقود رسم المفتي، ص٥٥-٦

 [7]  Muftī Rashīd Aḥmad Ludhyānwī and Maulānā Ashraf Alī Thānwī also state that the stronger view in the madhhab is of Najāsah Ghalīẓah. See: Asanul Fatāwā. Volume 6, Pg. 521 and Imdādul Fatāwā. Volume 1, Pg. 93


DISCLAIMER – efiqh.com questions
efiqh.com answers issues pertaining to Sharī’ah. Thereafter, these questions and answers are placed for public view on www.efiqh.com for educational purposes. However, many of these answers are unique to a particular scenario and cannot be taken as a basis to establish a ruling in another situation or another environment. efiqh.com bears no responsibility with regards to these questions being used out of their intended context.

  • The Sharī’ah ruling herein given is based specifically on the question posed and should be read in conjunction with the question.
  • com bears no responsibility to any party who may or may not act on this answer and is being hereby exempted from loss or damage howsoever caused.
  • This answer may not be used as evidence in any Court of Law without prior written consent of efiqh.com
  • Any or all links provided in our emails, answers and articles are restricted to the specific material being cited. Such referencing should not be taken as an endorsement of other contents of that website

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *