Muslim, in his Sahih, has narrated through his channels from Ata bin Yasar
that: Zaid bin Khalid Jehni informed Ata that he asked Uthman bin Affan: “Tell
me, if a man has relations with his wife, but does not ejaculate [what is the
rule?].”
Uthman replied: He is to make ablution as he performs ablution for his ritual
prayer and wash his organ. Uthman said: I heard this from the Messenger of
Allah (s.a.w.a.).3 and Ahmad in his Musnad,4 has narrated the same report and it
is mentioned therein: I asked Ali Ibne Abi Talib (a.s.), Zubair bin Awwam, Talha
bin Ubaidullah, Ubayy bin Kaab regarding this and they also instructed the
reporter in the same manner.
Allamah Amini says: This is the level of the knowledge of the Caliph
during his Caliphate, whereas the following verse was present before him:
ۚءَامَنُوا۟ لَا تَقْرَبُوا۟ ٱلصَّلَوٰةَ وَأَنتُمْ سُكَـٰرَىٰ حَتَّىٰ تَعْلَمُوا۟ مَا تَقُولُونَ وَلَا جُنُبًا إِلَّا عَابِرِى سَبِيلٍ حَتَّىٰ تَغْتَسِلُوا۟
“Do not go near prayer when you are intoxicated until you know
(well) what you say, nor when you are under an obligation to
perform a bath.”1
Shafei has written in Kitabul Umm that:2
Allah, the Mighty and Sublime made ritual bath (Ghusl) obligatory for
sexual pollution (Janabat), and it was famous in the language of Arabs that
Janabat implied intimacy, even if semen is not ejaculated, and in evidence of
punishment of adultery, dower becoming obligatory and other rules, the meaning
as such only…
Sunnah proves that sexual pollution (Janabat) also occurs when man
commits fornication with a female and he penetrates till the point of circumcision
or that semen is ejaculated, although he might not have penetrated.
It is mentioned in Tafseer Qurtubi that:3
Janabat implies coming together of male with female. And the whole
Ummah believes that ritually impure (Junub) person who has expelled semen or
penetrated till extent of circumcision, is not ritually pure.
Moreover, how the rule of this issue remained concealed on the Caliph?
Whereas questions and replies of Prophet and discussions of companions were
taught to him, regarding what they had inquired from Messenger of Allah
(s.a.w.a.), in such a way that he had heard it; some of those instances were as
follows:
1. It is narrated from Abu Huraira through incomplete chains of narrators
that when man sits between her legs and joins his genitals to hers, ritual bath
(Ghusl) becomes obligatory.4
And it is mentioned in a report that when the male genital joins the female
genitals, ritual bath (Ghusl) becomes obligatory, whether semen is ejaculated or
not.
And it is mentioned in the report of Ahmad that: When man sits between the
spread limbs of woman then completes his efforts, ritual bath (Ghusl) becomes
obligatory.
2. It is narrated from Ayesha that when two genitals join each other, ritual
bath (Ghusl) becomes obligatory. She says: I and Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.)
performed this act and then took ritual bath (Ghusl).
And it is mentioned in a report that when one sits between the legs and joins
the genitals, ritual bath (Ghusl) becomes obligatory.5
As if the Caliph was very far away from this tradition and had not heard and
memorized it, or heard it, but expressed a view opposed to the proven Sunnah.
As for the approval of Maula Ameerul Momineen (a.s.), Ubayy bin Kaab
and others, for Uthman in the verdict mentioned at the beginning of discussion; it
is a falsehood attributed to them so that a veil may be cast against disgrace and ignorance of Caliph regarding this easy matter. That they may also be pulled into
this false issue. And Imam (a.s.) in this same issue, had condemned the second
Caliph and said:
“When one genital is placed on the other, ritual bath (Ghusl) becomes
obligatory.”6
At that time every ignorant person understood the rule of the matter and
controversy was removed from it.
In his Tafseer, Qurtubi writes:7
“All scholars from companions and companions of companions and jurists
in all places, believe that ritual bath (Ghusl) becomes obligatory upon the coming
together of both genitals, and there was controversy in this matter among
companions. After that they referred to the report of Ayesha from the Messenger
of Allah (s.a.w.a.).”
As for Ubayy bin Kaab, indeed it is narrated from him through authentic
chains of narrators that: verdicts, which they have mentioned: ritual bath (Ghusl)
becomes obligatory when ejaculation takes place, was a concession, the
Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) fixed at beginning of Islam, after that later he
commanded the performance of ritual bath (Ghusl).8
As for other than these two: In Fathul Bari, it is narrated from Ahmad that:9
From these five individuals verdict is proved, which is opposed to what is
mentioned in this tradition.
Thus, attributing this statement to these five individuals that ritual bath
(Ghusl) is not obligatory due to joining of two genitals, is an allegation and a lie,
and opposed to this statement. The Ahle Sunnat in order to reducing the reprisal
of Caliph, have attributed this false statement to those persons and with this same
objective they have also fabricated traditions.10
If why want to be amazed you should be amazed at the statement of
Bukhari:11
“Performing ritual bath (Ghusl) is preferable, and we have mentioned this
last view due to controversy regarding that.”
We mentioned this statement after quoting report of Abu Huraira, as it made
ritual bath (Ghusl) obligatory, and verdict of Uthman, which was mentioned, and
the tradition of Ubayy, which was in agreement with Uthman, is that he is
inclined to the view of Uthman, and from what is narrated from Prophet of Islam (s.a.w.a.) and on what companions and companions of companions and scholars
have consensus – as you heard from Qurtubi that – he has become confused.
Nawawi in Sharh Muslim, in the margins of Irshadus Sari has written that:12
At present Islamic Ummah has consensus that ritual bath (Ghusl) becomes
obligatory in two ways: sexual intimacy even if semen is not ejaculated, and
emission of semen.
From this aspect, do not be amazed at Bukhari that while delivering verdict
of someone like Uthman, he should accord preference upon what Messenger of
Allah (s.a.w.a.) brought and on what Ummah has consensus, and prefers the
reports of persons like Imran bin Hattan, who was from Khawarij, to those of
Ja’far bin Muhammad (a.s.).
وَلَئِنْ أَتَيْتَ ٱلَّذِينَ أُوتُوا۟ ٱلْكِتَـٰبَ بِكُلِّ ءَايَةٍۢ مَّا تَبِعُوا۟ قِبْلَتَكَ ۚ وَمَآ أَنتَ بِتَابِعٍۢ قِبْلَتَهُمْ ۚ وَمَا بَعْضُهُم بِتَابِعٍۢ قِبْلَةَ بَعْضٍۢ ۚ وَلَئِنِ ٱتَّبَعْتَ أَهْوَآءَهُم مِّنۢ بَعْدِ مَا جَآءَكَ مِنَ ٱلْعِلْمِ ۙ إِنَّكَ إِذًۭا لَّمِنَ ٱلظَّـٰلِمِينَ (١٤٥)
“And even if you bring to those who have been given the Book
every sign they would not follow your Qibla, nor can you be a
follower of their Qibla, neither are they the followers of each
other’s Qibla, and if you follow their desires after the knowledge
that has come to you, then you shall most surely be among the
unjust.”13