Explanation of the author's statement: "And if it reaches two qullahs, which is the large amount, and they are approximately five hundred Iraqi ratls, and an impurity other than human urine or its liquid excrement mixed with it"

The Shaykh : Then the author said, "And if it reaches two qullahs, which is the large amount". The pronoun "it" refers to what? It refers to pure water. "Qullahs" is the dual of "qullah," and a qullah is what we call a "zeer" (a water jar); do you know the zeer that we put water in? It is just larger than that. This qullah is well-known among the Arabs; the qullahs of Hajar are famous and well-known. If it reaches two qullahs, that is the large amount. "Large" is a technical term. So, if you hear the jurists say "large water," they mean what has reached two qullahs; it is not what is above two qullahs. And if you hear them say "small amount," they mean what is less than two qullahs. "If it reaches two qullahs, which is the large amount"—this clause is an interjection between the condition and its response. It is large. "And they are approximately five hundred Iraqi ratls". Five hundred Iraqi ratls: one hundred Iraqi ratls is the weight of a water skin, approximately. And on this basis, how many water skins is that? Approximately five water skins. If the water reaches that amount, the author indicated by his word "approximately" that the issue is not one of precise determination, so a slight decrease does not harm. A slight decrease does not harm. "And an impurity mixed with it". "Mixed with it" means an impurity blended with it. We have previously discussed what impurity is: everything whose consumption is forbidden, not because of its sacredness, nor because of its filthiness, nor because of harm to the body or mind. This is the definition of some jurists. In reality, it is limited and countable, as will come to us in the chapter on impurity, if Allah wills. "Other than urine". An impurity other than urine; it is permissible for "other" to be an attribute of the impurity. "Human urine or its liquid excrement, but did not alter it". Omit "other than human urine or its liquid excrement" for now, so that we can speak about it in a new, independent discussion. "And an impurity mixed with it... but did not alter it, so it is pure". If the water reaches two qullahs and an impurity mixes with it but does not alter it, it is pure. And his statement "but did not alter it"—what is meant by alteration? Its taste, color, or smell. An example of this: a person has a water skin containing water that reaches two qullahs, and donkey dung falls into it, but the water did not change in taste, color, or smell. What is the ruling on this water? It is pure. It is pure. The evidence is the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) along with his saying . So on this basis, we say that the water is pure and nothing makes it impure if it reaches two qullahs. If the impurity does not alter it, it remains pure. Even if you see the impurity in it, as long as it has not been altered, it is pure. It is permissible to perform ablution with it, to take a full ritual bath with it, to wash your clothes with it to remove impurity, and to drink from it. All of this is permissible because it is pure. So we remain with his statement "Human urine and its liquid excrement". For human urine and its liquid excrement, the two qullahs are not considered; rather, the difficulty of drawing the water out is considered. If it is difficult to draw it out and the urine and excrement have not altered it, it is pure. And if it is not difficult to draw out, even if it exceeds two qullahs, it is impure. For all impurities, even the impurity of a dog, the two qullahs are taken into account. But for human urine and its liquid excrement, the difficulty of drawing the water out is the criterion. So consider the difficulty of drawing the water out for urine and excrement to be in the position of the two qullahs. For example, we have a pond where a person urinated a drop the size of a locust's eye. Do you know a locust's eye? It is small; it is used as a metaphor for smallness. And this water is four qullahs, and the water did not change at all. What is this water? It is not difficult to draw it out. If a man came and drew it out without it being difficult for him, it would be impure. Yes, it did not change. Even if the criterion is the difficulty of drawing it out, if it is difficult to draw out, we return to... yes, we said it is pure. But if it is difficult to draw out, it is pure. What is the evidence for the difference between human urine and other impurities? Even though you say: if a dog urinated in this water that reaches two qullahs and it did not change, if a dog urinated, it would be pure. If a dog urinated in this water that reaches four qullahs and it is not difficult to draw out, and a dog urinated in it and it did not change, it is pure. But if a drop of human urine the size of a locust's eye got into it and it did not change, it is impure. So we consider human urine to be more severe than dog urine. What is the evidence? This requires evidence. They say the evidence is that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said or . He forbade urinating and then bathing. This is general, but an exception is made for what is difficult to draw out because of the difficulty. This is their evidence for this issue.
It is said that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not say that it becomes impure; rather, he prohibited urinating and then bathing, not because it is impure, but because it is not reasonable for a man to use this as his toilet and then return to bathe in it. This is like his saying (peace and blessings be upon him) at night. This is a contradiction. So this is the wisdom behind the prohibition of urinating and then bathing, and the meaning is not that it becomes impure. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not address impurity; impurity has its own chapter, and this has another chapter. Therefore, the correct view in this issue is what the later scholars among the followers of Imam Ahmad held, which is that there is no difference between human urine and liquid feces and anything else; they are all the same. If the water reaches two qullahs, it does not become impure except by change, and less than two qullahs becomes impure merely by contact. Do you understand? Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him) and a group of scholars chose that water does not become impure except by change, absolutely, whether it reaches two qullahs or not. However, if it is less than two qullahs, a person must be cautious if impurity falls into it, because it is the norm that what is less than that changes. So let him be cautious. But to say that it is impure even if it does not change, this is not correct. What the Shaykh said is the correct view based on the evidence and reasoning. As for the evidence, it is because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said , so it is the one that purifies things. If it is the one that purifies them, then things do not make it impure. However, an exception is made for what has changed due to impurity, for it is impure by consensus. The indications in the Book, meaning the Qur'an, and hadiths in the Sunnah point to this, even if they are weak. Do you understand? This is the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and it is an authentic hadith. This is authentic, but the apparent meaning of the hadith "water is pure, nothing makes it impure" is that it does not become impure even if it changes. However, this apparent meaning is not intended by the consensus of the scholars, for the scholars have agreed that water changed by impurity becomes impure. So this generality is specified by what? By consensus. Then there is an indication from the Qur'an pointing to that, and also from the Sunnah, hadiths, even if there is discussion about them. Allah the Exalted said and so on. And He said . So His saying "for it is an impurity" is a reason for the ruling, which is evidence that whenever the impurity is present, the ruling is established, and whenever it is absent, the ruling is absent. If this is the case with what is eaten, then it is the same with water. Whenever impurity is present, meaning let us suppose that water becomes impure by shed blood. If the shed blood affects it, it becomes impure, and if it does not affect it, it is not so. As for the hadiths, there are hadiths, but they are weak. In this, there is an exception. The conclusion is that what Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him) said is the correct view due to the consensus, the indication in the Qur'an, and the hadiths, even if they are weak. As for the reasoning, it is said that the Shari'ah is wise and gives reasons for rulings, or not? Yes, the rulings are reasoned. Some of them have a known reason for us, and some have an unknown reason. The reason for impurity is filth. So whenever filth is found in something, it is impure, and whenever it is not found, it is not impure. So the ruling revolves with its reason in existence and absence. And on this basis, we say that this view mentioned by Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him) is indicated by the evidence and indicated by the reasoning, meaning the evidential proof. And if you wish, say the auditory proof and the rational proof, for nothing contradicts it for two reasons. The first reason is that many scholars weakened it, and Ibn al-Qayyim weakened it in *Tahdhib al-Sunan* with about sixteen reasons. And if we say that it is good or authentic, then we say that the explicit text and the implied meaning contradict each other. And when the explicit text and the implied meaning contradict, the explicit text is given priority. How is that? What is the explicit text here? "If the water reaches two qullahs, it does not become impure." And it is known that this hadith means it does not become impure, meaning unless it changes, by consensus. Its explicit text is that , meaning except by change. And this is clear. Does this explicit text agree with the explicit text "water is pure, nothing makes it impure"? It agrees. Does this explicit text agree with that explicit text or not? If they agree in the explicit text, we remain with the implied meaning. The implied meaning of his saying "if it reaches two qullahs, it does not become impure" is that if it does not reach two qullahs, it becomes impure. We say that this implied meaning is restricted by the previous explicit text: "Water is pure, nothing makes it impure except what overpowers its taste, color, or smell."