“It is not established,” and Ibn Ḥazm went even further, declaring, “It is baseless.”¹

The report has two corroborating narrations, yet neither is strong enough to shore it up: one contains a narrator who has been abandoned, and the other includes an outright liar. I have traced both isnāds and discussed them in detail in Daʿīf Sunan Abī Dāwūd, no. 32.

From a juristic standpoint, our ruling on this issue is identical to our stance on a person in janābah touching the Qur’an: we revert to the presumption of permissibility, for nothing decisive establishes a prohibition. This was also the view of Imām Aḥmad and others.

Al-Baghawī states in Sharḥ al-Sunnah 2/46: “Aḥmad and al-Muzanī allowed one in janābah to remain in the mosque. Aḥmad judged the ḥadīth weak because its transmitter Aflat is unknown. He interpreted the verse ‘…and not while in a state of janābah—unless you are merely passing through’ (Q 4:43) as referring to travelers who become junub, perform tayammum, and then pray. This interpretation is also related from Ibn ʿAbbās.”

He further says: “Yazīd ibn Ḥabīb narrated that some men from the Anṣār had doorways opening into the mosque. They would sometimes become junub and could find no water, nor any path to it, except through the mosque. Allah, the Exalted, therefore revealed: ‘…and not while in a state of janābah—unless you are merely passing through’ (Q 4:43).’ Ibn Jarīr recorded it.”

I say: The manuscript reads “Ibn Ḥabīb,” but this is most likely a typographical error; the correct name is “Ibn Abī Ḥabīb,” as in Tafsīr Ibn Jarīr and the biographical works. He is Abū Rajāʾ al-Miṣrī, a jurist and a trustworthy Successor, although he was known for sending narrations (mursal).

Thus the report is defective on account of its being mursal and cannot be cited as supporting evidence.