The Ruling on the Urine of Animals Whose Meat Is Eaten
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
Some schools of jurisprudence hold: The urine of animals whose meat is eaten is ritually impure.
Do they have valid evidence for this?
We say: Yes, they have evidence, but it does not indicate what they claim.
Their evidence: The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said regarding the man who is being punished in his grave: that he did not clean himself from urine.And they said: Urination is a general term that includes all urine, but they have no evidence for that; because the urine referred to here is his own urine, as stated in Sahih al-Bukhari: (One of them did not purify himself—or did not ensure cleanliness—from his urine) so the (al-) in "urine" is for mental reference, and because his urine is what usually contaminates him, whereas the urine of animals whose meat is eaten is rare and only occurs for camel, sheep, or cattle herders, so they have no evidence for this.
And we also say: Evidence indicates that the urine of animals whose meat is eaten is pure; the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered the 'Uraynah to catch up with the zakat camels and drink from their urine and milk, and he did not order them to wash what affected them from that. Also, if their urine were ritually impure, it would be forbidden and not permissible to use it for healing.
Then we also say: The original state of things is purity, so we cannot rule that something is ritually impure except with clear and distinct evidence.
So the stronger and correct position is: The urine and dung of animals whose meat is eaten are pure, whether from camels, cattle, sheep, chickens, rabbits, pigeons, or others.
Do they have valid evidence for this?
We say: Yes, they have evidence, but it does not indicate what they claim.
Their evidence: The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said regarding the man who is being punished in his grave: that he did not clean himself from urine.And they said: Urination is a general term that includes all urine, but they have no evidence for that; because the urine referred to here is his own urine, as stated in Sahih al-Bukhari: (One of them did not purify himself—or did not ensure cleanliness—from his urine) so the (al-) in "urine" is for mental reference, and because his urine is what usually contaminates him, whereas the urine of animals whose meat is eaten is rare and only occurs for camel, sheep, or cattle herders, so they have no evidence for this.
And we also say: Evidence indicates that the urine of animals whose meat is eaten is pure; the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered the 'Uraynah to catch up with the zakat camels and drink from their urine and milk, and he did not order them to wash what affected them from that. Also, if their urine were ritually impure, it would be forbidden and not permissible to use it for healing.
Then we also say: The original state of things is purity, so we cannot rule that something is ritually impure except with clear and distinct evidence.
So the stronger and correct position is: The urine and dung of animals whose meat is eaten are pure, whether from camels, cattle, sheep, chickens, rabbits, pigeons, or others.