Continuation of the review and discussion under the hadith (If water is two qullahs, it does not carry impurity) and (None of you should bathe in the water...)

The Shaykh : Yahya?
The student: There is no harm in it, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh : The apparent meaning of the hadith is that there is no harm in it, but is this absolute?
The student: No.

The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: If, for example, there is impurity on his body, if his body is contaminated with impurity, it is not permissible for him to bathe.

The Shaykh : Give us a rule, O Shaykh.
The student: I mean, it is permissible to bathe in it for cleanliness, except if his body is contaminated with impurity.

The Shaykh : With impurity or dirt.
The student: Yes, indeed.

The Shaykh : Then he?
The student: He does not bathe.

The Shaykh : He does not bathe. Now, is there any standing or flowing water that is known among people as small gardens where the water is retained?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Why? It is now...
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Now, so we say this is from the flowing water because... but if we assume that the water remains in it for a period, then there is no difference between it and standing water.
We are taking a new lesson now. He said: " And al-Bukhari has:

You should not pass urine in stagnant water which is not flowing then (you may need to) wash in it.

لا يبولنّ أحدكم في الماء الدّائم الذي لا يجري ثمّ يغتسل فيه

Sahih al-Bukhari 239

".
This "la" is a prohibitive particle, and "yabul" is a present tense verb in the accusative case due to the prohibitive "la". If I made a mistake, correct me.
The student: No...

The Shaykh : No? Why?
The student: The prohibitive "la" puts the verb in the jussive case.

The Shaykh : Jussive?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Why is it in the nominative case?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Yes?
The student: Because it is connected to the emphatic nun.

The Shaykh : Because it is connected to the emphatic nun. Now, if it is connected to the emphatic nun both in form and in meaning, it becomes built on the fathah (open vowel). But if it is connected to it in form only and not in meaning, then it is in the nominative case, meaning it is not built. For example: and he did not say "liyaqulanna" because the nun was separated from the verb by separators, but it was deleted for morphological reasons. Now and he explained it by saying: The hadith scholars mentioned that this last phrase was narrated in three ways: in the nominative, accusative, and jussive cases. So, according to the jussive narration, we read it like this: and it is conjoined to "yabulanna", but it is in the jussive case because the emphatic nun was not connected to it. The meaning of the hadith would be: None of you should urinate in standing water that does not flow, and none of you should bathe in it. So this hadith contains two issues, each independent of the other. The first is the prohibition of urinating, and the second is the prohibition of bathing in standing water that does not flow. Did you understand? According to the accusative narration, "thumma" here is treated like the "waw" of accompaniment. The "waw" of accompaniment after a prohibition results in the verb being in the accusative case. You say: "Do not eat fish and drink milk," meaning: with drinking milk. They treated "thumma" here as functioning like the "waw" and said: "None of you should urinate and then bathe." And on this basis, the meaning is: Do not combine urinating and bathing. Do not combine urinating and bathing.
Now, according to the nominative narration, the prohibition is of one issue, which is urinating, and "yaghtasil" is a new sentence, not conjoined to "yabulanna" and not in the accusative case by being treated like "thumma" with the "waw" of accompaniment, but it is a new sentence. That is: then he bathes in it. The meaning is that it is one of the ugliest things for a person to urinate in water and then go and bathe from it. This is contrary to fitrah (innate nature), because the assumption is that the water is either made impure by the urine or the soul is disgusted by it. So how can you urinate in something and then go and purify yourself with it? This is contrary to fitrah. Its parallel is that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited a man from beating his wife like a slave and then lying with her, like this: The meaning is: then he lies with her. What is this? It is contrary to fitrah and human nature. How can you beat her like a slave in the morning and come at night to lie with her to have intercourse with her? In reality, human nature rejects this. And on this basis, it is as if he is saying: None of you should urinate in standing water and then need to bathe in it. This is something that human nature rejects and is disgusted by.
In any case, let us take it according to the first meaning. So this hadith contains the prohibition of two issues. The first is urinating in standing water that does not flow, because if he urinates in it, human nature will be disgusted by it, and perhaps with much urination and little water, what happens? The water changes due to impurity and becomes corrupt. The second issue is: do not bathe in standing water. Its apparent meaning is that one should not bathe, neither from major ritual impurity nor for cleanliness, but the prohibition is general. The prohibition is general. However, in some wordings of the hadith, it will be restricted to major ritual impurity to match the hadith of Abu Hurayrah that Muslim narrated. Now, so in this hadith there is a prohibition of two issues: urinating in standing water and bathing in it. Is it restricted to major ritual impurity or taken in its general sense? It is taken in its general sense, because if we take it in its general sense, it includes bathing from major ritual impurity, bathing for cooling, and the like. This is an interjected phrase.
Then he said in Muslim's narration: " And Muslim has:

from it

منه

" The difference between "minhu" (from it) and "fiihi" (in it) is that "fiihi" indicates immersion in the water, while "minhu" indicates scooping, and there is a difference between them.
He said: " And Abu Dawud has:

then wash in it after sexual defilement

ولا يغتسل فيه من الجنابة

Sunan Abi Dawud 70Hasan Sahih (Al-Albani)

" So it matches Muslim's narration in the preposition "min" (from), is that right in your books?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : No, "fiihi" (in it). Now, "wa laa yaghtasilu fiihi" (and none of you should bathe in it) matches al-Bukhari's narration, except that it is restricted to mean that the intended bathing is from major ritual impurity. And with this restriction, it matches the wording of Muslim, which the author made the basis, which is his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): .