Review under the chapter on removing and explaining ritual impurity
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Let us return to clarifying and detailing this: First: Removing ritual impurity, according to the stronger opinion, is achieved by any remover and in any number. It is not required that a specific type of remover be used, nor is it required that a specific number be used. It may be removed on the first attempt, the second, or it may not be removed until after twenty attempts. The important thing is that the substance of the impurity is filthy, and the place does not become pure until it is removed.
Second: Does the removal of ritual impurity occur with something other than water, or is water necessary? There is scholarly disagreement on this, and the majority of scholars hold that the removal of ritual impurity is not achieved except with water, except for what is excluded, such as cleaning with stones (istijmar), where the impurity is removed by the cleaning. Some scholars say that the impurity is not removed by cleaning with stones, but rather its ruling is removed, and that cleaning with stones is a permit and not a purifier. This is the well-known view among the Hanbali jurists (may Allah have mercy on them). Based on this, if one cleans with stones and then touches his wet garment at the place of cleaning, the garment becomes impure because the impurity was not removed by the cleaning. They also say that if a man has a wet dream while he has cleaned with stones, the fluid that emerges meets an impure place and becomes impure, so the water that came out from the wet dream is contaminated and not impure. However, the stronger opinion is that cleaning with stones is a purifier, based on the hadith of Ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him) that they, meaning dung and bone, do not purify. This indicates that cleaning with stones is a purifier, and it is so.
Likewise, the Sunnah came that the shoe is purified by rubbing with earth, and that the bottom of a woman's garment, if it passes over impurity, is purified by what passes over it after the impurity, which is pure. These proofs indicate that the removal of ritual impurity is achieved by any remover, and this is the truth.
How do we classify what removes ritual impurity, or how do we classify what achieves purification? The scholars classified it into three categories: severe impurity, light impurity, and moderate impurity.
Severe impurity is the impurity of a dog if it licks a vessel; it is necessary to wash it seven times, one of which with earth. Is the pig analogous to the dog because it is more filthy? Some scholars said that it is analogous, but the correct view is that it is not analogous. Is what comes out of it as waste, such as dung, urine, and blood, analogous to licking or not? There is disagreement on this as well. Some scholars included it with licking, and some said its ruling is like other impurities. However, the most cautious view, without doubt, is that it is included with licking, and that it is not ruled pure except with seven washes, one of which with earth.
Light impurity is the impurity of the urine of a boy who has not eaten food, meaning he has not been weaned yet. This is light, and sprinkling is sufficient for it, which is pouring water over it, even if it does not drip from it, even if it is not rubbed, and even if it is not washed. Likewise, according to the stronger opinion, pre-seminal fluid is sufficient with sprinkling, like the urine of a small child, because the state or nature of pre-seminal fluid is between semen and urine, so it was given a ruling between two rulings.
As for the moderate, it is everything else, between severe and light. If you know the severe and the light, and you say what is between them, that is the moderate. This includes all impurities. How is it purified? The prescribed method according to the Hanbali school (may Allah have mercy on them) is that seven washes are necessary, but without earth. The correct view is that seven washes are not required, and that whenever the substance of the impurity is removed, it becomes pure, whether with three, five, seven, nine, ten, or similar. The important thing is that the objective is to remove the substance of the impurity. This is the stronger opinion. What indicates this is what the author mentioned regarding menstrual blood: the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not specify a certain number, but rather mentioned a specific characteristic by which the blood is removed. As for impurities, what are impurities? Some scholars defined it and said: every substance whose consumption is forbidden, not because of its sacredness, not because of its filthiness, and not because of harm from it to the body or mind. As you know, this definition is very long and may not be exclusive or comprehensive, but we have presented it according to what some jurists mentioned. Every substance whose consumption is forbidden, what?
The student: Consuming it.
The Shaykh : Consuming it, not because of its sacredness, not because of its filthiness, and not because of harm from it to the body or mind. But it is said that it is better not to define it, because things may come to us that invalidate this definition. Rather, we enumerate them, and the original state of what is not included is purity. So we begin first with what the author indicated, which is intoxicants. Intoxicants, according to the majority of scholars, are impure, whether little or much, and nothing of it is excused. The discussion of it and its evidence has preceded, and there is no need to repeat it. We clarified that the stronger view is that it is not impure with a sensory impurity, but it is impure with a conceptual impurity. We mentioned that the evidence for this is of two types: negative and positive. The negative is the absence of evidence; there is no evidence indicating impurity. The positive is that there are evidences indicating its purity in reality, such as the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) not ordering the washing of vessels when intoxicants were forbidden, even though he ordered their washing when what was forbidden was? Domestic donkeys. Also, the Companions poured it out in the markets; if it had been impure, they would not have poured it out in the markets. Also, the owner of the water skin, the water skin of intoxicants, which he gifted to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and he did not order him to wash it. This is one.
Second: The flesh of domestic donkeys is impure. Based on this, we say that every animal whose eating is forbidden is impure in its urine, dung, sweat, semen, saliva, and everything that separates from it. Every animal whose eating is forbidden, is there an exception to this? Can we say that the human being is an exception to this?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Yes? According to the opinion of the logicians, we exclude the human being because they say the human being is a rational animal, so it is excluded, because the human being is forbidden to eat, but we exclude the human being, and we also exclude what it is difficult to guard against, according to the stronger opinion, such as the cat. Some scholars say: we exclude the cat and what is smaller than it in creation. The correct view is that we exclude what is difficult to guard against, such as the cat, and also, according to the correct view, the mule and the donkey, because people need to ride them and use them, and it is difficult to guard against them. Good, also excluded from this is everything that does not have flowing blood, which is pure, such as the scorpion, the beetle, the cockroach, and similar things. So we take from the hadith of Anas regarding donkeys that every animal whose eating is forbidden is impure, with the exception of the human being.
Second: What is difficult to guard against, such as the cat and similar things.
Third: What does not have flowing blood, meaning what does not have flowing blood. These are two categories. The third category: carrion. Every carrion is impure. Every carrion is impure except what will be excluded. Excluded from this is the carrion of the sea, because it is lawful, and the lawfulness necessitates that it be pure. Excluded from this is the carrion of the human being, because it is pure, because the believer does not become impure, whether alive or dead. Excluded from this is the carrion of what does not have flowing blood, such as the fly, the mosquito, the scorpion, the beetle, and similar things. This is also pure in its carrion, and its evidence is the hadith of the fly, where the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered that if it falls into a drink, it should be submerged. This necessitates its death if the drink is hot, or oil, or similar. How many are these? These are three types of impurities.
Fourth: The urine and dung of animals whose meat is not eaten, such as the urine and dung of a donkey, the dung of a mule, and the dung of wild beasts. All of this is ritually impure, and nothing is excluded from this except what is difficult to guard against. Accordingly, the urine and dung of mice are ritually impure. Some scholars excluded what is impossible to guard against and what is slight, such as the vomit of a fly and what comes out of it, because it is difficult to guard against it. Who is safe from a fly landing on their garment and then vomiting, or on a book or the like? Some scholars also included the dandruff and urine of a mouse, because it is difficult to guard against it. However, what appears to be the case is that it is ritually impure, and it can be analogized to the fly and the like due to its frequent occurrence on people and its repeated presence. It is excused regarding what comes out of it, on the condition that the fly itself, if its carcass is pure and it does not have flowing blood, is also something that supports the view that what comes out of it is pure. What about the sweat of an animal? The sweat of an animal whose meat is forbidden to eat is ritually impure, and what comes out of its nose or mouth is ritually impure, except for what is difficult to guard against, such as a cat. And according to the correct view, a donkey and a mule, and what is difficult to guard against, these excretions—meaning wind, sweat, and mucus—are pure. What comes out of a human being falls under which of the rules we mentioned?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : That which is not eaten. Its urine is ritually impure and its dung is ritually impure. Its semen is pure according to the stronger view, even though some scholars said it is ritually impure because it is an excretion. But the correct view is that it is pure. Some scholars (may Allah have mercy on them) excluded from this what comes out of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), such as urine or dung, and said that the urine and dung of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) are not ritually impure. But this is very weak, because these are human natural functions. And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said:Sahih Muslim 572j. Furthermore, the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) would clean himself after relieving himself and use pebbles for cleaning. And when Ibn Mas'ud brought him a bone and dung, he said that they do not purify. This indicates that his urine and dung (peace and blessings be upon him) are like those of other people, and this is the correct view. As for his sweat, it is pure. What about the sweat of other human beings?
The student: Pure.
The Shaykh : It is also pure, but his sweat is specifically distinguished by the fact that it is permissible to seek blessing from it. Likewise, it is permissible to seek blessing from his saliva (peace and blessings be upon him). As for the sweat and saliva of other human beings, it is not permissible to seek blessing from them, because that has not been transmitted, and seeking blessing from a thing and affirming that it contains blessing requires evidence.
Second: Does the removal of ritual impurity occur with something other than water, or is water necessary? There is scholarly disagreement on this, and the majority of scholars hold that the removal of ritual impurity is not achieved except with water, except for what is excluded, such as cleaning with stones (istijmar), where the impurity is removed by the cleaning. Some scholars say that the impurity is not removed by cleaning with stones, but rather its ruling is removed, and that cleaning with stones is a permit and not a purifier. This is the well-known view among the Hanbali jurists (may Allah have mercy on them). Based on this, if one cleans with stones and then touches his wet garment at the place of cleaning, the garment becomes impure because the impurity was not removed by the cleaning. They also say that if a man has a wet dream while he has cleaned with stones, the fluid that emerges meets an impure place and becomes impure, so the water that came out from the wet dream is contaminated and not impure. However, the stronger opinion is that cleaning with stones is a purifier, based on the hadith of Ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him) that they, meaning dung and bone, do not purify. This indicates that cleaning with stones is a purifier, and it is so.
Likewise, the Sunnah came that the shoe is purified by rubbing with earth, and that the bottom of a woman's garment, if it passes over impurity, is purified by what passes over it after the impurity, which is pure. These proofs indicate that the removal of ritual impurity is achieved by any remover, and this is the truth.
How do we classify what removes ritual impurity, or how do we classify what achieves purification? The scholars classified it into three categories: severe impurity, light impurity, and moderate impurity.
Severe impurity is the impurity of a dog if it licks a vessel; it is necessary to wash it seven times, one of which with earth. Is the pig analogous to the dog because it is more filthy? Some scholars said that it is analogous, but the correct view is that it is not analogous. Is what comes out of it as waste, such as dung, urine, and blood, analogous to licking or not? There is disagreement on this as well. Some scholars included it with licking, and some said its ruling is like other impurities. However, the most cautious view, without doubt, is that it is included with licking, and that it is not ruled pure except with seven washes, one of which with earth.
Light impurity is the impurity of the urine of a boy who has not eaten food, meaning he has not been weaned yet. This is light, and sprinkling is sufficient for it, which is pouring water over it, even if it does not drip from it, even if it is not rubbed, and even if it is not washed. Likewise, according to the stronger opinion, pre-seminal fluid is sufficient with sprinkling, like the urine of a small child, because the state or nature of pre-seminal fluid is between semen and urine, so it was given a ruling between two rulings.
As for the moderate, it is everything else, between severe and light. If you know the severe and the light, and you say what is between them, that is the moderate. This includes all impurities. How is it purified? The prescribed method according to the Hanbali school (may Allah have mercy on them) is that seven washes are necessary, but without earth. The correct view is that seven washes are not required, and that whenever the substance of the impurity is removed, it becomes pure, whether with three, five, seven, nine, ten, or similar. The important thing is that the objective is to remove the substance of the impurity. This is the stronger opinion. What indicates this is what the author mentioned regarding menstrual blood: the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not specify a certain number, but rather mentioned a specific characteristic by which the blood is removed. As for impurities, what are impurities? Some scholars defined it and said: every substance whose consumption is forbidden, not because of its sacredness, not because of its filthiness, and not because of harm from it to the body or mind. As you know, this definition is very long and may not be exclusive or comprehensive, but we have presented it according to what some jurists mentioned. Every substance whose consumption is forbidden, what?
The student: Consuming it.
The Shaykh : Consuming it, not because of its sacredness, not because of its filthiness, and not because of harm from it to the body or mind. But it is said that it is better not to define it, because things may come to us that invalidate this definition. Rather, we enumerate them, and the original state of what is not included is purity. So we begin first with what the author indicated, which is intoxicants. Intoxicants, according to the majority of scholars, are impure, whether little or much, and nothing of it is excused. The discussion of it and its evidence has preceded, and there is no need to repeat it. We clarified that the stronger view is that it is not impure with a sensory impurity, but it is impure with a conceptual impurity. We mentioned that the evidence for this is of two types: negative and positive. The negative is the absence of evidence; there is no evidence indicating impurity. The positive is that there are evidences indicating its purity in reality, such as the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) not ordering the washing of vessels when intoxicants were forbidden, even though he ordered their washing when what was forbidden was? Domestic donkeys. Also, the Companions poured it out in the markets; if it had been impure, they would not have poured it out in the markets. Also, the owner of the water skin, the water skin of intoxicants, which he gifted to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and he did not order him to wash it. This is one.
Second: The flesh of domestic donkeys is impure. Based on this, we say that every animal whose eating is forbidden is impure in its urine, dung, sweat, semen, saliva, and everything that separates from it. Every animal whose eating is forbidden, is there an exception to this? Can we say that the human being is an exception to this?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Yes? According to the opinion of the logicians, we exclude the human being because they say the human being is a rational animal, so it is excluded, because the human being is forbidden to eat, but we exclude the human being, and we also exclude what it is difficult to guard against, according to the stronger opinion, such as the cat. Some scholars say: we exclude the cat and what is smaller than it in creation. The correct view is that we exclude what is difficult to guard against, such as the cat, and also, according to the correct view, the mule and the donkey, because people need to ride them and use them, and it is difficult to guard against them. Good, also excluded from this is everything that does not have flowing blood, which is pure, such as the scorpion, the beetle, the cockroach, and similar things. So we take from the hadith of Anas regarding donkeys that every animal whose eating is forbidden is impure, with the exception of the human being.
Second: What is difficult to guard against, such as the cat and similar things.
Third: What does not have flowing blood, meaning what does not have flowing blood. These are two categories. The third category: carrion. Every carrion is impure. Every carrion is impure except what will be excluded. Excluded from this is the carrion of the sea, because it is lawful, and the lawfulness necessitates that it be pure. Excluded from this is the carrion of the human being, because it is pure, because the believer does not become impure, whether alive or dead. Excluded from this is the carrion of what does not have flowing blood, such as the fly, the mosquito, the scorpion, the beetle, and similar things. This is also pure in its carrion, and its evidence is the hadith of the fly, where the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered that if it falls into a drink, it should be submerged. This necessitates its death if the drink is hot, or oil, or similar. How many are these? These are three types of impurities.
Fourth: The urine and dung of animals whose meat is not eaten, such as the urine and dung of a donkey, the dung of a mule, and the dung of wild beasts. All of this is ritually impure, and nothing is excluded from this except what is difficult to guard against. Accordingly, the urine and dung of mice are ritually impure. Some scholars excluded what is impossible to guard against and what is slight, such as the vomit of a fly and what comes out of it, because it is difficult to guard against it. Who is safe from a fly landing on their garment and then vomiting, or on a book or the like? Some scholars also included the dandruff and urine of a mouse, because it is difficult to guard against it. However, what appears to be the case is that it is ritually impure, and it can be analogized to the fly and the like due to its frequent occurrence on people and its repeated presence. It is excused regarding what comes out of it, on the condition that the fly itself, if its carcass is pure and it does not have flowing blood, is also something that supports the view that what comes out of it is pure. What about the sweat of an animal? The sweat of an animal whose meat is forbidden to eat is ritually impure, and what comes out of its nose or mouth is ritually impure, except for what is difficult to guard against, such as a cat. And according to the correct view, a donkey and a mule, and what is difficult to guard against, these excretions—meaning wind, sweat, and mucus—are pure. What comes out of a human being falls under which of the rules we mentioned?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : That which is not eaten. Its urine is ritually impure and its dung is ritually impure. Its semen is pure according to the stronger view, even though some scholars said it is ritually impure because it is an excretion. But the correct view is that it is pure. Some scholars (may Allah have mercy on them) excluded from this what comes out of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), such as urine or dung, and said that the urine and dung of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) are not ritually impure. But this is very weak, because these are human natural functions. And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said:
Ibrahim b. Suwaid-reported: 'Alqama led us in the noon prayer and be offered five rak'ahs; when the prayer was complete, the people said to him: Abu Shibl, you have offered five rak'ahs. He said: No, I have not done that. They said: Yes (you said five rak'ahs). He (the narrator) said: And I was sitting in a corner among people and I was just a boy. I (also) said: Yes, you have offered five (rak'ahs). He said to me: O, one-eyed, do you say the same thing? I said: Yes. Upon this he turned (his face) and performed two prostrations and then gave salutations, and then reported 'Abdullah as saying: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) led us in prayer and offered five rak'ahs. And as he turned away the people began to whisper amongst themselves. He (the Holy Prophet) said: What is the matter with you? They said: Has the prayer been extended? He said: No. They said: You have in fact said five rak'ahs. He (the Holy Prophet) then turned his back (and faced the Qibla) and performed two prostrations and then gave salutations and further said: Verily I am a human being like you, I forget just as you forget. Ibn Numair made this addition:" When any one of you forgets, he must perform two prostrations."
إنّما أنا بشر مثلكمThe student: Pure.
The Shaykh : It is also pure, but his sweat is specifically distinguished by the fact that it is permissible to seek blessing from it. Likewise, it is permissible to seek blessing from his saliva (peace and blessings be upon him). As for the sweat and saliva of other human beings, it is not permissible to seek blessing from them, because that has not been transmitted, and seeking blessing from a thing and affirming that it contains blessing requires evidence.