This article responds to the objection raised against the hadith which states that the Prophet ﷺ had a vessel in which he would urinate and place it under his bed. Critics try to connect this with the narration that angels do not enter a house in which urine is left to soak. The objection collapses once the wording, context, and scholarly explanations are understood properly.

Narrator: Umaimah bint Ruqayqah
Narrator of grading: Al-Nawawi
Source: Al-Khulasah
Page or number: 1/156
Summary of the narrator’s ruling: Hasan

The hadith mentions a cup/vessel. This detail is important. The objection only works if the critic imagines urine spread around the house, left exposed, and remaining for a long time. But the narration itself says it was kept in a vessel, which prevents impurity from spreading to other places.

The critic further argues that the smell would be offensive and that the urine must have remained there for a long time.

“First of all… enough of the smell… I think the smell of urine would kill a camel, not prevent an angel.

Secondly, the hadith is very clear. The Prophet ﷺ had a cup made of sticks in which he would urinate and put it under the bed.

That is, Muhammad would urinate in a cup under his bed and sleep for a period of time.

And because angels do not enter a house in which there is urine, according to the authentic hadith that says: urine should not be soaked in a basin in the house, then angels do not enter a house in which there is soaked urine.

This gives us an idea of the impossibility of angels entering Muhammad’s house.”

The objection depends on ignoring the key wording: soaked urine. The hadith does not say angels do not enter any house where a small amount of urine briefly exists in a contained vessel. It refers to urine that is left to remain and stagnate.

Therefore, the critic must prove that the urine in the Prophet’s ﷺ vessel remained long enough to become soaked and stagnant. Without that proof, the objection fails.

The burden of proof is on the objector. The narration about the vessel does not say that the urine remained for a long period. It only says that the Prophet ﷺ used a vessel. The other narration speaks specifically about urine being left to soak. These are not the same thing.

This directly answers the claim that the house itself became impure or that angels were prevented from entering due to impurity spread throughout the place.

Unlike urine left exposed in a basin until it stagnates, urine placed temporarily in a vessel does not necessarily spread impurity elsewhere and does not automatically fall under the warning about soaked urine.

“And the reconciliation is that the hadith of the translation is interpreted to mean that what is meant by its benefit is the length of its stay, so it does not contradict the hadith of Umaimah, because what is put in a vessel does not usually stay for long. And Allah knows best.”

Al-Albani’s explanation is clear: the warning concerns urine that stays for a long time. The hadith of Umaimah does not contradict this because urine placed in a vessel is not normally left for long.

“The problem was resolved in both aspects. Then it was said that it does not contradict what was reported that the angels do not enter a house in which there is urine, either because what is meant is that if it remains for a long time, and what is placed in the vessel does not usually remain for a long time, or because what is meant there is an abundance of impurity in the house, unlike what is in a cup, as impurity does not occur in another place.”

The first is that the warning applies when urine remains for a long time.

The second is that the warning concerns abundant impurity in the house, not a small amount contained in a vessel.

Both explanations destroy the objection. The hadith about angels does not apply to the Prophet’s ﷺ situation unless the critic proves prolonged stagnation or widespread impurity.

The hadith is reported by Al-Nasa’i and was narrated by Hakimah from Umaimah bint Ruqayqah. Hakimah is unknown according to Shaykh Al-Huwaini.

“It was mentioned in some narrations that this was during his illness ﷺ, and that he was forced and in need of that.”

“However, there are authentic hadiths that indicate this, but they are restricted to his illness ﷺ.”

So the use of a vessel in such a context is not something shameful. It is a practical necessity during illness.

This is weak argumentation because smell becomes offensive when urine stagnates and remains for a long time. The objection still depends on proving that the urine stayed long enough to become soaked.

Therefore, the existence of a vessel used at night during need or illness does not diminish his status at all.

The likely scenario is simple: he would relieve himself during the night due to need, then the vessel would be removed and cleaned. The critic has no proof that the urine remained until it became stagnant.

The smell objection fails because it assumes prolonged stagnation without evidence. The hadith about angels concerns soaked urine, not a temporarily used vessel.

This is pure speculation and has no evidentiary value. The objector is inventing a medical claim without proof.

If someone urinates frequently and needs to use the vessel again, then the previous urine would have to be removed quickly. That means the urine would not remain long enough to become soaked.

So even the critic’s speculation backfires. If there was frequent urination, the vessel would have needed to be emptied frequently. Therefore, the urine would not have remained stagnant, and the hadith about angels would not apply.

The hadith mentions a vessel, not urine spread throughout the house.

The warning about angels concerns urine that is soaked and left for a long time.

Al-Albani explained that what is placed in a vessel does not usually remain for long.

Al-Sindi explained that the issue may refer either to urine remaining for a long time or to abundant impurity in the house, unlike a contained amount in a cup.

Some scholars also mention that this occurred during the Prophet’s ﷺ illness and due to need.

The critic has no proof that the urine remained long enough to become soaked. Without that proof, the objection collapses.

That is not evidence. That is just noise.