Bulugh al-Maram
Bulugh al-Maram 111
] وَعَنْ أُمِّ سَلَمَةَ; أَنَّ أُمَّ سُلَيْمٍ -وَهِيَ اِمْرَأَةُ أَبِي طَلْحَةَ- قَالَتْ: { يَا رَسُولَ اَللَّهِ! إِنَّ اَللَّهَ لَا يَسْتَحِي مِنْ اَلْحَقِّ, فَهَلْ عَلَى اَلْمَرْأَةِ اَلْغُسْلُ إِذَا اِحْتَلَمَتْ? قَالَ: "نَعَمْ. إِذَا رَأَتِ الْمَاءَ" } اَلْحَدِيثَ. مُتَّفَقٌ عَلَيْه ِ 1 [ .1 - صحيح. رواه البخاري (282)، ومسلم (313)، وزاد مسلم: "فقالت أم سلمة: يا رسول الله! وتحتلم المرأة؟ فقال: تربت يداك! فبم يشبهها ولدها". وزاد في رواية أخرى: "قالت: قلت: فضحت النساء". ملاحظة: هذا الحديث لا يوجد في الأصل وأشار ناسخ "أ" إلى أنه من نسخة، مع العلم بأن الحديث ذكر في متن "أ"، وليس بالهامش.
Unreviewed translation. All hadiths in this collection are available in five languages. Titles and introductions may remain in Arabic.
Umm Salama (may Allah be pleased with her) reported that Umm Sulaym—and she was the wife of Abu Talha—said: ‘Messenger of Allah, Allah is not shy of the truth. Is ghusl required of a woman if she has a wet dream?’ He said: ‘Yes, if she sees water.’—the hadith. It is agreed upon.
1 — Sahih. Al-Bukhari (282) and Muslim (313) reported it. Muslim added: Umm Salama said, ‘Messenger of Allah, does a woman have a wet dream?’ He said, ‘May your hands be rubbed with dust! How else would her child resemble her?’ Another narration adds: ‘She said: I said, “You have exposed the women.”’
Note: This hadith is not in the original. The copyist of ‘A’ indicated that it came from a copy, although it appears in the body of ‘A’, not in the margin.
Notes and open questions — unreviewed
هذا الحديث لا يوجد في الأصل
The source note describes a textual-provenance issue: the report is absent from ‘the original’, marked by the copyist as coming from a copy, yet appears in the body rather than the margin of recension A. The referenced original and copy are not identified here.
Can the referenced original and the copyist's note be checked against the edition before approving this report's textual provenance?
تربت يداك
This phrase is translated close to its literal wording; its force as an idiomatic response may not be captured by the literal English alone.
Should a reviewed idiomatic equivalent replace or accompany the literal rendering?
وزاد مسلم:
The English witness omits Muslim's additional exchange, the second wording, and the manuscript-provenance note present in the Arabic block.
Should the English witness's scope be marked as shorter than this Arabic block?