Chapter: Does a person in a state of major ritual impurity put his hand in the vessel before washing it, if there is no filth on his hand other than the major ritual impurity? And Ibn 'Umar and al-Bara' ibn 'Azib put their hands in the pure water without washing them, then performed the ablution.

The reader: Chapter: Does a person in a state of major ritual impurity put his hand in the vessel before washing it, if there is no filth on his hand other than the major ritual impurity?
.
.

The Shaykh : This issue was indicated by al-Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) with a chapter heading based on a question, namely: Does a person in a state of major ritual impurity put his hand in the vessel before washing it? This is because some scholars say that a person in a state of major ritual impurity should not put his hand in the vessel until he washes it, because the major ritual impurity has settled on the entire body. So if he puts his hand in the vessel, he puts it in a state of major ritual impurity, and at that point the water becomes pure but not purifying. However, the correct view is that there is no category in the Shari'ah called "pure but not purifying," and that water has only two categories: either it is purifying or it is impure. If it is changed by impurity, it is impure; and if it is not changed by impurity, it is purifying. This is the correct view. As for dipping the hand in the vessel while in a state of major ritual impurity, we say that there is no doubt that the best course is not to do it. But if one does it, the water remains purifying and does not become impure, nor does it become pure but not purifying. He said: meaning, if a person performs the full ritual bath, is there any harm in the water that falls from his washing? We say there is disagreement among scholars. Some scholars said there is harm in it, and that it does not remove the state of ritual impurity, nor does it remove impurity, because it is pure but not purifying, since it was used for an obligatory act of purification. But the correct view is that there is no harm in removing impurity with it, and no harm in removing the state of ritual impurity with it, because it is purifying and does not become pure but not purifying. Do you understand now? I do not know about you, do you understand? A man performed the full ritual bath for major ritual impurity, and the water began to splash off from his body. Some scholars say this splashing water is pure but not purifying because it was used for an obligatory act of purification. Do you understand? Good. And some of them say it is purifying and there is no harm in it, because even if it was used for an obligatory act of purification, it is water that remains water. This is the correct view. And as al-Bukhari mentioned, he reported it with certainty from Ibn 'Umar and Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them). And let it be known that used water is either used for an obligatory act of purification, or a recommended act of purification, or for cooling off. That is, a person who performs the full ritual bath may be doing so for major ritual impurity. So the water splashing off from him is pure but not purifying according to the weaker view, if the water was used for a recommended washing, such as the Friday washing, according to the view that it is recommended. In that case, this water is purifying. Even those who said that in the first case it becomes pure but not purifying, here it is purifying. Why? Because it did not remove a state of ritual impurity. But some of them disliked it, saying it is purifying but disliked. The reasoning is that scholars disagreed on whether it becomes pure but not purifying if used for a recommended act of purification, or whether it remains purifying. So, out of consideration for this disagreement, we say it is purifying but disliked. The third case is if it is used for something other than purification, for cooling off or cleaning the body. What is its status? It is purifying, and there is no dislike in it. The correct view is that in all these categories, it is purifying and there is no dislike in it. This is the correct view. If someone asks, why do you not dislike it out of consideration for the disagreement? The answer is: disagreement is not one of the evidences by which rulings are established, and reasoning by consideration of disagreement is defective. But it is said that if there is a doubt in the evidence, we may take the path of caution and say it is disliked, not because of the disagreement, but because of the evidence, the evidence that led to the disagreement. And if the disagreement is merely a matter of opinion without evidence from the Book and the Sunnah, or from scholarly consensus, it is not considered, and there is no consideration for it, and it is not said that this is disliked out of consideration for the disagreement. This is an issue that a student of knowledge must pay attention to. Reasoning by disagreement is defective. But if the disagreement has a perspective from the evidences, and the evidence allows for it, then we do not dislike it because of the disagreement, but because of the evidence that it is possible. So we say caution is to leave it, or to do it, according to what the evidence requires. And when we examine the matter, we find no evidence for those who say that one who uses water for an obligatory act of purification makes it pure but not purifying, or that one who uses it for a recommended act of purification makes it purifying but disliked. We find no evidence for this. And on this basis, we say it is purifying and not disliked.