The Well of Budha'ah Hadith — Does Islam Permit Ablution with Filthy Water?
The Well of Budha’ah Hadith — Does Islam Permit Ablution with Filthy Water?
`
بئر بُضاعة — Bir Buda’ah
Short Answer Bir_Buda’ah (with a damma on the ba’)
- Ubayd Allah ibn Abdullah ibn Rafi’ (and it was said that his name is Abd al-Rahman ibn Rafi’) is a man of unknown status. This was stated by Ibn al-Qattan, Ibn Hajar, and Ibn Madh’ah. However, the narration was authenticated by Ahmad, Ibn Ma’in, and Ibn Hazm, and according to al-Tirmidhi it is hasan, so the hadith has some issues and questions, and Allah knows best.
- Assuming it is authentic, there is nothing wrong with it. According to scholars, a large amount of water that has changed does not become impure, but rather a small amount of stagnant water is what becomes impure due to one of the impurities. Bir Buda’ah has a large amount of water, sometimes multiples of two qullas.
The Camel Urine Hadith Explained: Context, Science, and Refutation
The Doubt
Content of the Doubt The enemies of Islam claim that the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ permits us to perform ablution with foul water contaminated with carrion, dog meat, and menstrual blood. They cite the following hadith as evidence:
On the authority of Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri, it was said: “O Messenger of Allah, can we perform ablution from the well of Budha’ah?” He said: “It is a well into which menstrual fluid, dog meat, and filthy things are thrown.” The Messenger of Allah said: “Water is pure and nothing makes it impure.”
Part One — Chain of Transmission Analysis
The Hadith Has a Confused Chain of Transmission This hadith is very weak and confused, and its attribution to the Prophet ﷺ has not been authenticated. The confusion centres on the identity of one narrator whose name varies across every chain.
The Six Variant Names of the Same Narrator
Iḍṭirāb (Confusion) in the Narrator’s Name Across all the chains of transmission, the narrator appears under six different names:
- Abd al-Rahman ibn Rafi’
- Abd al-Rahman ibn Abd al-Rahman ibn Rafi’
- Ubayd Allah ibn Abd al-Rahman ibn Rafi’
- Abdullah ibn Abd al-Rahman ibn Rafi’
- Ubayd Allah ibn Abdullah ibn Rafi’
- Abdullah ibn Abdullah ibn Rafi’
The chain is confused regarding the narrator’s name — yet across all variants, the narrator remains unknown (majhūl).
Chain-by-Chain Breakdown
Chain 1 — via Abu Usamah → al-Walid → Muhammad ibn Ka’b → Ubayd Allah ibn Abd al-Rahman ibn Rafi’ ibn Khadij Narrator: Ubayd Allah ibn Abd al-Rahman ibn Rafi’ ibn Khadij — unknown (majhūl) Confirmed by: Ibn al-Qattan al-Fasi, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Abd al-Rahman ibn Muhammad ibn Mandah al-Isfahani, Zayn al-Din al-Iraqi, and others. → Hadith: WEAK
Chain 2 — via Ibn Ishaq → Salit ibn Ayyub → Abd al-Rahman ibn Rafi’ al-Ansari
- Abd al-Rahman ibn Rafi’ al-Ansari — trustworthiness not proven in the books of rijāl
- Salit ibn Ayyub — trustworthiness not proven in the books of rijāl → Hadith: WEAK
Chain 3 — via Abu Usamah → al-Walid → Muhammad ibn Ka’b → Ubayd Allah ibn Abdullah ibn Rafi’ ibn Khadij Narrator: Ubayd Allah ibn Abdullah ibn Rafi’ ibn Khadij — unknown (majhūl) → Hadith: WEAK
Chain 4 — via Muhammad ibn Ishaq → Salit ibn Ayyub ibn al-Hakam → Abdullah ibn Abd al-Rahman ibn Rafi’ al-Ansari
- Abdullah ibn Abd al-Rahman ibn Rafi’ — unknown status
- Salit ibn Ayyub — not authenticated in the books of jarh wa ta’dil → Hadith: WEAK
Chain 5 — via Yazid → Muhammad → an unnamed Ansari man → Ubayd Allah ibn Abd al-Rahman al-Adawi
- Ubayd Allah ibn Abd al-Rahman al-Adawi — unknown
- The unnamed Ansari Tabi’i is also unknown according to this chain → Hadith: WEAK
Chain 6 — via Abu Usamah → al-Walid → Muhammad ibn Ka’b → Abd al-Rahman ibn Abd al-Rahman ibn Rafi’ ibn Khadij Narrator: unknown → Hadith: WEAK and not authentic
Chain 7 — via Abd al-Aziz ibn Muslim → Khalid ibn Abi Nawf → Salit ibn Ayyub → Ibn Abi Sa’id
- Khalid ibn Abi Nawf — not documented in the books of rijāl
- Salit ibn Ayyub — not documented in the books of rijāl → Hadith: WEAK
Chain 8 — via Abd al-Aziz ibn Abi Hazim → his father → Sahl ibn Sa’d al-Sa’idi (via Abu Ali Abd al-Samad ibn Abi Sakina al-Halabi) Narrator: Abu Ali Abd al-Samad ibn Abi Sakina al-Halabi — unknown
Ibn Hajar in Al-Talkhis al-Habeer (1/13) “Ibn Abi Sakina, whom Ibn Hazm claimed was famous — Ibn Abd al-Barr and others said: He is unknown.”
Ibn Daqiq al-‘Eid in Al-Imam (1/119) “This Abd al-Samad, whom Ibn Hazm mentioned as trustworthy and well-known — I looked up the biographies in the History of al-Hafiz al-Dimashqi and found no mention of him.”
Zayn al-Din al-Iraqi “Abu Bakr ibn Mufawwaz al-Ma’afiri said: He is unknown in name and identity. His hadith is rejected. He is neither just nor trustworthy.”
On Ibn Hazm’s Leniency Sheikh Adnan al-Arour in Diwan al-Sunnah (1/93): “Ibn Hazm’s being the only one to authenticate him cannot be relied upon, due to what is known about his leniency in authenticating unknown and weak narrators.”
Al-Hafiz in Lisan al-Mizan (4/198): Ibn Hazm’s broad approach in authentication and disparagement led him to “heinous delusions, many of which were traced by al-Hafiz Qutb al-Din al-Halabi.”
— Also: Ibn Wadah only said “I met Ibn Abi Sakina in Aleppo” — he did not authenticate him. Qasim ibn Asbagh only said “This hadith is one of the best things about Bir Bada’a” — also not an explicit authentication.
→ Hadith: WEAK
Chain 9 — al-Walid ibn Kathir al-Makhzumi directly from the Prophet ﷺ Al-Walid ibn Kathir al-Makhzumi did not meet the Prophet ﷺ → Hadith: WEAK and Mursal
Chain 10 — via Dawud ibn Abi Hind → Sa’id ibn al-Musayyib (about the pools on the road to Mecca) This narration is not from the Prophet ﷺ — it is the words of Sa’id ibn al-Musayyib himself. → Not a Prophetic hadith
Chain 11 — via Tarif ibn Sufyan → Abu Nadrah → Abu Sa’id (pond with a corpse)
- Tarif ibn Sufyan — weak narrator
- Qais — trustworthy, but his memory deteriorated in old age and his son introduced things into his hadith that were not from him
- Some chains also contain Sharik ibn Abdullah who has a poor memory → Hadith: WEAK
On the Weak Hadiths Mentioning the Prophet ﷺ Drinking from Bir Bada’ah
Several weak hadiths mention the Prophet ﷺ drinking from or spitting into the well — but crucially, none of these mention a corpse, stench, or contamination being present at the time.
Narration via Marwan ibn Abi Sa’id ibn al-Mu’alla — via Sa’id ibn Abi Zayd — via Muhammad ibn Umar
- Marwan ibn Abi Sa’id ibn al-Mu’alla — weak narrator
- Sa’id ibn Abi Zayd — unknown narrator
- Muhammad ibn Umar — weak narrator
- No mention of contamination at time of drinking → Hadith: WEAK and Mursal
Narration via Ibrahim ibn Muhammad — via his father — via Sahl ibn Sa’d
- Muhammad ibn Umar — weak
- Ibrahim ibn Muhammad — abandoned (matrūk) narrator → Hadith: WEAK
Narration via Ubayy ibn Abbas ibn Sahl ibn Sa’d
- Muhammad ibn Umar — weak
- Ubayy ibn Abbas ibn Sahl ibn Sa’d — weak → Hadith: WEAK
Narration via the mother of Muhammad ibn Abi Yahya
- The mother of Muhammad ibn Abi Yahya — unknown, not authenticated by any hadith scholar
- al-Fudayl ibn Sulayman — trustworthy but has many mistakes
- No mention of contamination → Hadith: WEAK
Narration via Ibrahim ibn Abi Yahya → his father → his mother → Sahl ibn Sa’d
- Ibrahim ibn Abi Yahya — abandoned (matrūk) narrator
- The woman — undocumented → Hadith: WEAK
Al-Daraqutni’s Assessment
Al-Daraqutni in Al-Ilal (8/156) On the chain: Sa’id al-Maqburi → Abu Hurairah — narrated by Ibn Abi Dhi’b with multiple disagreements in the chain (Abdullah ibn Maymun al-Qaddah vs. ‘Adi ibn al-Fadl vs. Waki’). Al-Daraqutni concluded: “There is much talk about it, and the hadith is not authentic.”
Note: Even this chain does not mention the Prophet drinking from or making ablution with contaminated water.
On the Phrase “Water is Pure and Nothing Makes it Impure”
The Authentic Context of This Phrase When tracing this phrase back to its authentic chain, it appears in a different context entirely:
“An-Nadr informed us, Shu’bah told us, Yazid al-Rishk told us: I heard Mu’adhah al-‘Adawiyyah narrating, on the authority of ‘Aishah, she said: ‘Water is not made impure by anything, but a man should begin by washing his hands three times. I saw myself and the Messenger of Allah ﷺ performing ablution from one vessel.’”
The context here is shared ablution water between spouses — not contaminated well water.
Part Two — Jurisprudential Response
Even If the Hadith Were Authentic — There Is No Problem Assuming authenticity, Islamic jurisprudence has a clear and consistent answer. The doubt rests on ignorance of the principles of purification (tahārah).
The Two Rulings on Water Mixed with Impurity
The Key Principle First: If the impurity changes the taste, smell, or colour of the water — it is impure by consensus. It is not permissible to use it for purification or any other purpose.
Second: If the impurity does not affect the water due to its abundance — it is not impure. The ruling turns on whether the water was changed, not merely whether something fell into it.
Hadith — Abu Sa’id al-Khudri (authenticated by al-Albani in Al-Irwa’ 1/45) “Water is pure and nothing makes it impure.”
Hadith — Ibn Umar (authenticated by al-Albani in Al-Irwa’ 1/45) “If the water reaches two qullas, it does not carry impurity.”
The Three Characteristics of Impure Water
If Any One of These Changes — Water Becomes Impure
| Characteristic | Changed by pure substance | Changed by impure substance |
|---|---|---|
| Colour | Water cannot be used for purification | Water is impure — cannot be used for anything |
| Taste | Water cannot be used for purification | Water is impure — cannot be used for anything |
| Smell | Water cannot be used for purification | Water is impure — cannot be used for anything |
In short: the ruling on changed water follows whatever changed it.
Fatwa — Islamic Network Fatwas, Vol. 11, p. 118, Q. 7148 (4 Dhu al-Hijjah 1421) “If one of its three descriptions changes clearly due to something pure… it does not remove ritual impurity or the ruling of impurity. However, if one of its three descriptions changes due to something impure, then it is not suitable for anything — neither for purification for worship, nor for other ordinary uses.” [^12]
The Well of Buda’ah Was Abundant Water
Bir Buda’ah Had More Than Two Qullas The well of Buda’ah was a large well with abundant water exceeding two qullas. Abundant water (two qullas or more) is not made impure by anything as long as it does not change.
What Is a Qullah? A qullah is a large jar. Two qullas ≈ 160.5 litres of water (≈ 93.075 Sa’ × 2).
Imam al-Khattabi — Awn al-Ma’bud fi Sharh Sunan Abi Dawud “Many people may imagine, when they hear this hadith, that this was a habit of theirs, and that they used to do this act intentionally and deliberately. This is something that should not be thought of a dhimmi, rather a pagan, let alone a Muslim.
It has always been the custom of people, both past and present, Muslims and disbelievers alike, to purify water and protect it from impurities. So how can one think of the people of that time — the highest class in religion and the best group of Muslims — that this is what they do with water? And the Messenger of Allah ﷺ cursed the one who defecates in water sources.
Rather, this well was located in a slope of the ground, and the floods would sweep away filth from the roads and courtyards and throw it in. Because of the well’s abundance, these things would not affect or change it. So they asked the Prophet ﷺ about its ruling. Such a suspicion [of deliberate contamination] is not permissible and is not appropriate for them.”
Al-Khattabi — Tuhfat al-Ahwadhi fi Sharh Jami’ al-Tirmidhi [^4] “This hadith of the well of Budha’ah does not contradict the hadith of the two qullas, since it is known that the water in the well of Budha’ah reaches the two qullas. One of the two hadiths agrees with the other and does not contradict it — the specific ruling clarifies the general and does not abrogate it.”
Statements of the Scholars
Ibn al-Qayyim — Commentary on Sunan (1/83) [^9] “His ablution from the well of Bada’ah, and its condition as they mentioned, is evidence that water does not become impure if impurity falls into it, as long as it does not change.”
Sheikh Ibn Uthaymeen — Sharh al-Kafi (5/23) [^10] “The correct view is that water does not become impure except by changing, because the ruling revolves around its cause — its presence or absence. So if impurity is found [and the water changes], the water becomes impure.”
Sheikh Ibn Uthaymeen — Open Door Meeting (102/5) [^11] When asked about a water tank in which a child urinated and a mouse was found: “If water is [mixed with] impurity — such as urine, excrement, a mouse, or anything else — and its taste, colour, or smell do not change due to the impurity, then it is pure. However, the impurity that has a substance must be removed, such as a mouse, which must be removed.”
Imam Malik — via Ibn Rushd, Al-Bayan wa al-Tahsil (1/36) [^8] Malik said: A man who descends into a specific well and performs ghusl in it while in a state of ritual impurity — “that does not spoil it for his family, and I do not see anything wrong with its water.”
Ibn Rushd commented: “This is correct. There is no difference of opinion in the school of thought that abundant water is not rendered impure by impurity that has settled in it, unless one of its characteristics changes.”
Al-Zuhri — via Abd al-Razzaq in Al-Musannaf (269) On a chicken that fell into a well and died: “There is nothing wrong with performing ablution from it and drinking from it — unless it stinks to the point that its stench is found in the water, in which case it should be removed.”
Al-Shafi’i — Ikhtilaf al-Hadith (71–72) “The well of Bada’ah had a large, abundant supply of water, and impurities were thrown into it that did not change its colour or taste, and no smell was apparent from it. So it was said to the Prophet ﷺ: We perform ablution from the well of Bada’ah, which is a well into which such-and-such is thrown. So the Prophet said: ‘Nothing makes water impure.’”
Al-Bayhaqi — Al-Sunan al-Kubra “Sheikh Ahmad, may God have mercy on him, said: The hadith is about its purity if no impurity is thrown into the well. But if impurity is thrown into it, then the meaning of the hadith is about what reaches two qullahs and does not change.”
The Companions Are Absolved
The Companions Did Not Deliberately Contaminate the Well The impurities that reached Bir Buda’ah were carried there by floodwater from the surrounding slopes — not thrown in deliberately by the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them). The Messenger of Allah ﷺ himself cursed the one who defecates in water sources. The Companions are the most elevated in religion and the furthest from such conduct.
Summary
The Doubt is Over
- On the chain: The hadith has iḍṭirāb (confusion) with an unknown narrator — multiple scholars of jarh wa ta’dil confirmed the narrator’s anonymity (jahālah). The hadith is at best questionable.
- On the content: Even if authentic, Islamic jurisprudence is clear — abundant water that does not change in taste, smell, or colour is pure. Bir Buda’ah was a large well with water exceeding two qullas. It did not change.
- On the Prophet ﷺ: He was the first to forbid urinating in water. He cursed those who contaminate water sources. The claim that he would command ablution with visibly filthy water contradicts everything established about him ﷺ.