Is human urine and animal urine ritually impure? And what is the amount of each of the two impurities?

The Shaykh : There are several questions here. The first is: impurity—specifically, the impurity of urine, human urine and animal urine—and what is the amount of each of the two impurities?
It seems the questioner is asking: Is human urine ritually impure? And is animal urine ritually impure as well?
The answer: Human urine is definitely ritually impure, and there is no disagreement among the scholars of the Muslims on this. For this reason, purifying oneself, such as cleaning oneself after relieving oneself, was legislated to remove the traces of impurity from the front and back passages. The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) emphasized this in many hadiths; among them is his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): . Meaning: Cleanse yourselves and beware that any of you is struck by the spray of his urine; for most of the punishment of the grave is due to this impure urine. Accordingly, the hadith of Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) in "Sahih al-Bukhari and Muslim" states that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) passed by two graves and said (peace and blessings be upon him): . Then he (peace and blessings be upon him) took a branch from a palm tree, split it into two, and placed each part on a grave. They asked him about that, and he said (peace and blessings be upon him): . Therefore, the scholars of the Muslims agreed that human urine is ritually impure, and one must purify oneself from it.
As for animal urine, there is a detailed ruling based on the stronger of the two opinions of the scholars. The detail is: if the animal is not one whose meat is eaten, and eating it is forbidden, then its urine and blood are ritually impure. However, if it is an animal whose meat is eaten, which Allah (Mighty and Majestic) has made lawful for His servants, then its urine and dung are pure and not ritually impure. The fact that the dung and urine of an animal whose meat is eaten are pure does not mean they are pleasant; there is no connection or necessary link between the two. Many people mistakenly assume a necessary link between two matters, and they are mistaken. Peace be upon you, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings. It is not necessary that something which is pure be pleasant. For example, smoke is pure, but it is not pleasant. Likewise, dung and urine are pure, but they are not pleasant; rather, they are disgusting. We can remind you of something closer to human life than the urine and dung of an animal whose meat is eaten: this is the mucus of a human being—meaning phlegm. Indeed, this is human saliva. This is pure, but it is disgusting. For example, if a person spits, and it might be your friend or close relative, into a vessel containing water, this water does not become ritually impure, but it becomes disgusting and the soul rejects it. However, if you wanted to perform ablution with it, especially if you did not find any other water, then it is not permissible for you to leave it and perform dry ablution with the excuse that you do not find pure water. No; this water is pure and purifying. Your soul rejects it and you do not drink it, but you must perform ablution with it.
Likewise, the urine and dung of an animal whose meat is eaten are pure. We have many proofs for this. What comes to my mind now are two hadiths:
The first hadith is his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): . The grazing places of sheep and the resting places of camels are the places where these animals usually rest. There is no doubt that they urinate and defecate in them. So when we find the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) ordering prayer in these places, this explicitly means that these places are pure. And this means that the urine and dung of this animal whose meat is eaten are pure and not ritually impure.
As for the other hadith that comes to my mind on this occasion, it is the hadith of the 'Araniyyin. The hadith that the two Shaykhs (al-Bukhari and Muslim) narrated in their "Sahih" from the hadith of Anas ibn Malik (may Allah be pleased with him) that a group of the 'Araniyyin came to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) and... and he ordered them to go out... and to drink from their milk and to treat themselves with their urine. So they went out, and soon they recovered and became strong. When they felt their strength, they killed the shepherd and drove away the camels; meaning they stole them, and they wanted to flee with them. Soon the messenger came to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) informing him of what these 'Araniyyin had done; they had killed the shepherd and driven away the camels. So the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) sent a pursuit party after them. They were brought to him, and he killed them a terrible death, and threw them into the hot desert until they died of hunger and thirst, as a recompense for their treachery against their Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), who had been kind to them by giving them five camels and a servant shepherd to serve them and tend their camels. So they killed the shepherd and wanted to drive away the camels.
The point of this story is that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered them to treat themselves with the urine of the camels. This indicates the purity of the urine of an animal whose meat is eaten. This also indicates this purity. So let no one say: Perhaps the order of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) to these people to treat themselves with the urine of the camels does not mean its purity, but rather the existence of a dire necessity for treating themselves with it. In that case, if this statement were true, it would not be valid to use the hadith as evidence for the purity of the urine of camels. Let no one say this; because we say that it is established from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) that he forbade the use of foul medicine. If it is said that the urine of camels is forbidden, then it is foul; so how does he order them to treat themselves with the foul, while he forbade treating oneself with the foul?
Likewise, the argument with this hadith is sound and free from objection; especially when it is joined with the explicit wording of the first part of the first hadith, and the implied meaning of the second part of it. Its explicit wording says: . It does not mean in the second part of the hadith that they are ritually impure. No; because the operative cause was explicitly stated in some of the authentic hadiths where he said: . So the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) did not attribute the prohibition of praying in the resting places of camels to the operative cause of the impurity of their urine and dung, but to another hidden operative cause, which is that they were created from the jinn. This is the answer to the first part of the question, and its summary is that the urine of humans and animals whose eating is forbidden, all of that is ritually impure.
As for the second part of this question, which is: what did he say? The amount of each of the two impurities?
We say: There is no text in the Sunnah, let alone the Book, that specifies the forbidden impurity, and consequently the excused impurity. Rather, there are absolute commands, such as His saying (the Exalted): . So it is obligatory for every person who is struck by impurity from these impurities whose impurity is established in the Shari'ah to purify himself from it with an absolute purification. He does not say, "This is a little, and the little is excused"; because this excused amount has no basis in the Shari'ah at all, neither in the Book nor the Sunnah. Rather, as we mentioned, there are absolute and general texts. So a person must purify himself from every impurity, whether it is small or large. All that can be said in this regard is that it is possible that some impurity is excused if a person is frequently afflicted by it; such that if he were obligated to purify himself from it, he would fall into hardship. So to remove the hardship, it is excused at that time, not because it is little or not little; but because of the hardship. An example from the known rulings of the jurists is the menstruating woman, or rather the woman with irregular non-menstrual bleeding, and the man afflicted with incontinence of urine. Both of them sometimes pray many times while carrying impurity from the blood of irregular bleeding or from urine. Why? Because this blood of irregular bleeding always affects her. So if it were said to her: Purify yourself, purify yourself, purify yourself, she would fall into hardship. ; likewise, if it were said to the one afflicted with incontinence of urine, he would fall into hardship.
The summary: It is obligatory for people who are normal in their bodies and in their general conditions to purify themselves from impurity with a complete purification, with nothing excepted from it, except what leads to hardship.