← Previous Page 601 of 6550 Next →
"the scholars agreed that the blood of wild animals is impure" and they differed regarding the blood of fish..." the second [reason]: it has been established from some of the predecessors what contradicts the aforementioned generalization, and some of it is considered as being elevated to the Messenger (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam). 1 - The story of that Anṣārī Companion who was struck by a polytheist with three arrows while he was standing in prayer, and he continued his prayer while blood was flowing from him. This occurred during the Battle of Dhāt al-Riqāʿ, as narrated by Abū Dāwūd and others from the ḥadīth of Jābir with a good chain of transmission, as I have clarified in "Ṣaḥīḥ Abī Dāwūd" (192), and it is apparent that the Prophet (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) was aware of it, because it is unlikely that the Prophet (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) would not be informed of such a significant incident. It was not reported that he informed him that his prayer was invalid, as stated by al-Shawkānī (1/165). 2 - From Muḥammad ibn Sīrīn, from Yaḥyā al-Jazzār, who said: Ibn Masʿūd prayed while there was dung and blood from a camel he had slaughtered on his stomach, and he did not perform ablution. It was recorded by ʿAbd al-Razzāq in "al-Amālī" (2/51/1), Ibn Abī Shaybah in "al-Muṣannaf" (1/151/1), and al-Ṭabarānī in "al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr" (3/28/2), and its chain is authentic. They narrated it through various routes from Ibn Sīrīn and Yaḥyā al-Jazzār. Ibn Abī Ḥātim said (4/2/133): "My father and Abū Zurʿah said: Trustworthy." 3 - Ibn Rushd mentioned the scholars' disagreement regarding the blood of fish, and he stated that the reason for their disagreement is their differing views on its carcass. Those who considered its carcass under the general prohibition also considered its blood likewise, and those who excluded its carcass excluded its blood by analogy to the carcass." This indicates two things: one of them is that the generalization of agreement on the impurity of blood is not correct because there are some..
"اتفق العلماء على أن دم الحيوان البري نجس" واختلفوا في دم السمك.. ". والثاني: أنه قد ثبت عن بعض السلف ما ينافي الإطلاق المذكور، بل إن بعض ذلك في حكم المرفوع إلى الرسول ﷺ. ١ - قصة ذلك الصحابي الأنصاري الذي رماه المشرك بثلاثة أسهم وهو قائم يصلى فاستمر في صلاته والدماء تسيل منه. وذلك في غزوة ذات الرقاع، كما أخرجه أبو داود وغيره من حديث جابر بسند حسن كما بينته في "صحيح أبي داود" (١٩٢) ومن الظاهر أن النبي ﷺ علم بها، لأنه يبعد أن لا يطلع النبي ﷺ على مثل هذه الواقعة العظيمة. ولم ينقل أنه أخبره بأن صلاته بطلت كما قال الشوكاني (١ / ١٦٥). ٢ - عن محمد بن سيرين عن يحيى الجزار قال: صلى ابن مسعود وعلى بطنه فرث ودم من جزور نحرها، ولم يتوضأ. أخرجه عبد الرزاق في "الأمالي" (٢ / ٥١ / ١) وابن أبي شيبة في "المصنف" (١ / ١٥١ / ١) والطبراني في "المعجم الكبير" (٣ / ٢٨ / ٢) وإسناده صحيح أخرجوه من طرق عن ابن سيرين ويحيى ابن الجزار قال ابن أبي حاتم (٤ / ٢ / ١٣٣): "وقال أبي وأبو زرعة: ثقة". ٣ - ذكر ابن رشد اختلاف العلماء في دم السمك، وذكر أن السبب في اختلافهم هو إختلافهم في ميتته، فمن جعل ميتتة داخلة تحت عموم التحرير جعل دمه كذلك، ومن أخرج ميتتة أخرج دمه قياسا على الميتة ". فهذا يشعر بأمرين: أحدهما: أن إطلاق الاتفاق على نجاسة الدم ليس بصواب لأن هناك بعض
← Previous Page 601 of 6550 Next →