Impurity, specifically the impurity of human urine and animal urine, and what is the measure of each of the two impurities?

The Shaykh : First, impurity, meaning the impurity of urine, human urine and animal urine, and what is the measure of each of the two impurities? It seems the questioner means: Is human urine impure? And is animal urine impure as well?
The answer is that human urine is definitely impure, and there is no disagreement among the scholars of the Muslims regarding this. For this reason, istibra (waiting for the flow to stop) was prescribed, just as istinja' (cleaning oneself) is prescribed, to remove the traces of impurity from the front and the back. The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) emphasized this in many hadiths, including his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): meaning, purify yourselves and beware that any of you is struck by the spray of his urine, for much of the punishment of the grave is due to this impure urine. Accordingly, there is a hadith from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) in the Sahih of al-Bukhari and Muslim 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 green branch from a palm tree, split it into two, and placed each piece 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 impure and that one must purify oneself from it. As for animal urine, there is a detailed ruling according to 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 impure. But if it is one whose meat is eaten, which Allah (Mighty and Majestic) has made lawful for His servants, then its urine and dung are pure, not impure. The fact that the dung and urine of an animal whose meat is eaten are pure does not mean that they are pleasant. There is no connection or necessary link between the two. Many people imagine a necessary link between two matters, and they are mistaken. Peace be upon you, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings. It does not follow that because something is pure, it must 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 mention something closer to human life than the urine and dung of an animal whose meat is eaten, and that is human phlegm, or rather, this is the sputum of a human being. This is pure but it is disgusting. If a person, perhaps your friend or close relative, spits into a vessel containing water, this water does not become impure, but it becomes disgusting and the soul rejects it. However, if you wanted to perform wudu with it, especially if you did not find any other water, then it is not permissible for you to leave it and perform tayammum on the pretext that you did 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 wudu 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): There is no doubt that they urinate and defecate in them. So when we find the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) ordering prayer in these places, this is an explicit indication that these places are pure, and it means that the urine and dung of this animal whose meat is eaten are pure and not impure. As for the other hadith that comes to my mind on this occasion, it is the hadith of the 'Uraynites, the hadith narrated by the two Shaykhs in their Sahihs from the hadith of Anas ibn Malik (may Allah be pleased with him) that a group of the 'Uraynites came to the Messenger (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 realized their strength, they killed the shepherd and drove off the camels, meaning they stole them, and they wanted to flee with them. Soon the messenger came to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) informing him of what these 'Uraynites had done, namely that they killed the shepherd and drove off the camels. So the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) sent a pursuit after them, and they were brought to him, and he killed them a terrible death and threw them into the volcanic rock (al-Harra) until they died of hunger and thirst, as a recompense for their treachery against their Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family), 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 off the camels. The point of this story is that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered them to treat themselves with the urine of the camels, which indicates the purity of the urine of an animal whose meat is eaten. This also indicates this purity. Let no one say that perhaps the order of the Messenger (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 is due to the necessity of treating themselves with it. If this were true, it would not be valid to use the hadith as proof for the purity of the urine of camels. Let no one say this, because we say that it is established from the Messenger (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 would he order them to treat themselves with the foul, when he forbade treating oneself with the foul? Likewise, the argument with this hadith is sound and free from objection, especially when combined with the explicit wording of the first part of the first hadith and the implied meaning of its second part. Its explicit wording is: he said It does not mean, in the second part of the hadith, that they are impure, because the cause was not explicitly stated in some of the authentic hadiths, where he said This is the answer to the first part of the question, and its summary is that the urine of humans and of animals whose eating is forbidden, all of that is impure. As for the second part of this question, which is: what did he say? The measure of each of the impurities. We say: there is no text in the Sunnah, let alone in the Book, that specifies the forbidden impurity and thereby the excused impurity. Rather, there are absolute commands, such as His saying (Glorified and Exalted is He): So it is obligatory for everyone who is affected by any of these impurities whose impurity is established in the Shari'ah to purify themselves from it with an absolute purification, not saying "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 in 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 with 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... little, but because of the hardship. An example from the rulings known to the jurists is the menstruating woman, or rather the woman with irregular bleeding (istihadah), and the man afflicted with incontinence of urine. Both of them sometimes pray many times while carrying impurity from the blood of istihadah or from urine. Why? Because this blood of istihadah always affects her. 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, then he would fall into hardship. The summary is: 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.
Here is a question whose answer is well-known, and indeed printed in a treatise of ours, so I will answer briefly. The questioner should refer to the treatise, where it says: "The prohibition of gold for women. I found the hadith regarding the prohibition, so why did the scholars not act upon it?" I say: this question is more appropriate to be directed to someone other than me than to me, because I cannot answer on behalf of others. So I say: they did not act upon this hadith for such-and-such a reason. Rather, the questioner is asking the scholars who did not act upon this hadith. This answer is in the hadith of the question: "Why did the scholars not act upon it?" Ask the scholars.
But I, I imagine that the questioner was brief in his question regarding expressing what is in his heart. He means, what is the evidence of the scholars who did not act upon the hadith of prohibition? If this is what the questioner intends, I have already provided him with the answer previously. We tell him to refer to the message mentioned, which is titled "Etiquette of the Wedding in the Pure Sunnah", and he will find the answer if he means this meaning which is not understood from the question. If he means what their evidence is, he will find their evidence there and the response to it. And if he really means, "Do you know why the scholars did not act upon it?" I would say, ask them; they are better than me to ask, yes.

The questioner : Peace be upon you.
Another questioner : And upon you be peace

The questioner : Now we have placed the 'Isha'

The Shaykh : Al-'Isha' or al-'Isha'?

The questioner : No. Al-'Isha'

The Shaykh : Al-'Isha' is placed by someone else

The questioner : Yes, that is right.

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : ... meaning we ask their permission to go ... a break period ... .

The Shaykh : ... .

The questioner : This is evidence that it is ... .
Another questioner: Peace be upon you.

The questioner : And peace be upon you, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings.

The Shaykh : Here is the third question among the set of questions we discussed regarding the first and second questions