The Imam of a Mosque . . . Was asked about a man who urinated on his clothes at night and prayed the Fajr and Zuhr prayers in these clothes while they were impure, and he said, “There is nothing on you.”

The questioner : The Imam of a Mosque ... was asked about a man who urinated on his clothes at night and prayed the Fajr and Zuhr prayers in these clothes while they were impure, and he said, “There is nothing on you.” We want the answer to this? Is it true that every dry impurity is pure and the prayer is accepted because there was forgetfulness on the part of this man?

The Shaykh : Did he explain the reasoning for his answer, or did he not explain it?

The questioner : No, he did not explain it. We benefit from you.

The Shaykh : No, “dry on dry is pure without dispute” is a general statement, meaning it is not a statement made by scholars, because the intended meaning of “drying” is: if the intention is that the impurity dried in the sense that it evaporated and its substance disappeared, then there is no benefit in such a philosophy of “dry on dry,” because it would become dry and pure on dry and pure. Meanwhile, they intend an impurity that has dried. If the meaning is that it dried, i.e., its substance disappeared but its trace remained, then this garment is impure, and it must be washed and purified. This is regarding the first explanation, which is his statement that “dry on dry is pure without dispute.” As for forgetfulness, here the issue, if we refer it to the rule, is his statement, peace and blessings be upon him: . At that time, it can be said that the prayer of this person is valid. However, two things are raised against this. One relates to the hadith itself, which is that although the hadith is a rule, every rule has exceptions.
Is this issue still included in the rule, or is it an exception? I say that the issue requires some independent legal reasoning, in that it is said: since the rule is no accountability, then there is no accountability in this specific detail. But if we look at what is similar to it, then there must be some detail. What is similar to it is praying without ritual purity, i.e., being in a state of major ritual impurity or without ablution. We know of two incidents that appear at first glance to be contradictory. One relates to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family), and the other relates to the individual among the Rightly Guided Caliphs, which is 'Umar ibn al-Khattab. As for what relates to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) of these two hadiths, it is that he prayed Fajr with his companions one day, then gestured to them to sit—excuse me—he gestured to them to stay in their place. Then he entered the chamber, performed the full ritual bath, and returned to pray with them. The meaning of this hadith is that he, peace and blessings be upon him, remembered that he was in a state of impurity while praying. When he went and performed the full ritual bath and completed the prayer, the meaning of this completion is that he considered what he had prayed to be a valid prayer. That is, he, peace and blessings be upon him, did not restart the prayer but built upon what had passed, despite the absence of the condition of purity. What was the excuse? Forgetfulness. So here, in this half of the prayer, the rule was applied.
We find the other incident, which relates to 'Umar ibn al-Khattab, where he prayed the Fajr prayer one day during his caliphate, then found a trace of semen in his garment. That is, he had wet-dreamed at night and was not aware of it. When he found this trace of semen, he returned, performed the full ritual bath, and repeated the prayer. Here he repeated the prayer. The Prophet did not repeat the prayer; he only built upon it. So, by reconciling the hadith and the report, I went to the view that whoever remembers the lack of purity during the prayer and is able to renew the purity, he purifies himself and builds upon it. But if he remembers it after the prayer, he must restart it. I see this issue to be like that, and specifically regarding one of the two halves. That is, if we distinguish between the one who remembers the impurity while he is praying, for example, he could remove the garment in which the impurity is, then this is his case, like the case of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) when he prayed without purity; he builds upon what has passed of his prayer and continues. As for the one who remembers after he has completed the prayer, or for example, he is not able to remove the impure garment, then he must repeat his prayer. In the first half, or in the first scenario, regarding the impurity of the body, the impurity of the garment—excuse me, we presented earlier two scenarios regarding the impurity of the body: one story relates to the Prophet, and one story relates to 'Umar. We derived from them two rulings: if he remembers during the prayer, he purifies himself and builds upon it; if he remembers after the prayer, he purifies himself and restarts the prayer. Similarly, here we now have two scenarios. The first scenario is remembering the impurity on his garment while he is praying. Here, he must remove the garment. The other scenario is that he remembers; he must remove the garment and build, as the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) built in the case of, meaning, the impurity of the body. The second scenario, the second issue, is seeing the impurity of the garment after he had prayed. Then he must purify his garment and restart his prayer. In the first case, regarding the impurity of the garment, we have a valid hadith in *Sunan Abu Dawud* and *Musnad Imam Ahmad*, from the hadith of Abu Sa'id al-Khudri, that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) prayed with them one day, so he removed his sandals or his sandal, and the Companions removed their sandals. When he had prayed, he, peace and blessings be upon him, said: . They said, “O Messenger of Allah, we saw you remove them, so we removed them.” He said: . And so he removed them. Then he taught the Companions proper conduct and said: . So this story from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) resembles the first story, which relates to the purity of the body from major ritual impurity. But the second scenario, remembering the purity or impurity of the garment after the prayer, can be attached to the second scenario regarding the impurity of the body. Clear.

The questioner : Clear. This is if the traces of the impurity are not apparent, no color, no effect, and nothing.

The Shaykh : What happened? As long as the impurity occurred, it is finished.

The questioner : It is established, meaning, as long as the impurity occurred.

The Shaykh : It is known, because the impurity must leave traces in it. But there is a detail: if it is a type of impurity that dyes, it is washed. In the past, with what is called that? With suds. They used suds, a type of paper whose effect is like the effect of soap today. So in the matter of some impurities, it is washed three times with suds. If the impurity does not go and its color remains, it is excused, because this is what the person is burdened with today. If the washer washes his garment from the impurity three times with soap or with Tide or something similar to that of the removers, Allah does not burden a soul except within its capacity.

The questioner : With water, not soap.

The Shaykh : If the substance is gone and no trace remains, it is permissible. But we say if there is a trace, yes.

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.