Explanation of the author's statement: "Or it was the last washing in which the impurity was removed, in which case it is pure"

The Shaykh : ...a washing in which the impurity was removed "Or it was the last washing in which the impurity was removed, in which case it is pure" Or the pronoun refers to the small amount of water; the last washing in which the impurity was removed. The last washing in which the impurity was removed is known among the jurists (may Allah have mercy on them) that for the purification of a contaminated place, it must be washed seven times. The first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth washings: everything that separates from these washings is impure because it separated from the place of impurity. Everything that separates before the seventh washing is all impure. The reason is that it separated from the place of impurity, because it does not become pure except with seven washings. For example, a person washing his clothes from impurity: what flows from the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth washings is impure. Why? Because it separated from the place of impurity while it was still flowing, so it came into contact with impurity while flowing. And what comes into contact with impurity while flowing becomes impure merely by contact. Now, if it separates in the seventh washing, and the substance of the impurity has been removed—it is no longer present—the seventh washing is considered pure but not purifying, because it is the last washing in which the impurity was removed. Thus, it is pure but not purifying. The eighth washing is purifying because it had no effect; it did not affect anything. But the seventh was pure but not purifying because it had an effect and separated from a pure place. What effect did it have? It had the effect of purifying the place, because the place does not become pure except with the seventh washing. It had a legal effect, which is the purification of the place, and it separated from a pure place. Therefore, according to this, it is not purifying because it resulted in the removal of impurity, and it is not impure because it separated from a pure place. Is the reasoning clear? Now, the water that separates from the purification process, or from the place of purification: if it is before the seventh, it is pure. If it is the seventh, it is pure but not purifying. If it is the eighth, it is purifying. This is if the substance of the impurity has been removed. But if it is assumed that the impurity is dry and has not been removed in the seven washings, then whatever separates before the substance of the impurity is removed is impure, because it came into contact with impurity while flowing. For this reason, he says "Or it was the last washing in which the impurity was removed". If it was not removed, then it is impure. "In which the impurity was removed, in which case it is pure". His statement "in which case it is pure" is the answer to his statement "And if its taste, color, or smell has changed" and so on. So we know that "pure" (tahir) now has types. First, that which has not had its taste, color, or smell changed by a pure substance. Or do we say this is from the first category? From the first, yes. The second is that in which a pure substance was cooked. Or do we say this is from the first? From the first, yes. The third is that in which the hand of a person who stood up from night sleep, which breaks wudu under the conditions, was dipped. The fourth is that by which impurity was removed and it separated from a place that became pure, by his statement "Or it was the last washing in which the impurity was removed, in which case it is pure". This is the "pure" (tahir) according to those who say that water is divided into three categories. This is the well-known view of the Hanbali school (may Allah have mercy on them). However, the correct view is that this category itself does not exist and has no basis in the Shari'ah. Water is either purifying (tahur) or impure (najis). This is the choice of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah. The indication of this is the lack of evidence. How is the lack of evidence the indication? We say: if this, meaning the "pure" (tahir) category, were established in the Shari'ah, it would be a known and understood matter, and the hadiths would bring it with clear and distinct proof. Because it is not a trivial matter, as it entails that a person prays either with tayammum or with water. For example, suppose I have something that changed because water fell into it and changed, but it still retains the name of water. According to this school, do I perform tayammum or not? According to the school, I perform tayammum and do not use this water. I do not use this water! And according to the opinion of Shaykh al-Islam, I must use it and it is not permissible for me to perform tayammum. This is a matter that people need as much as they need to know that urine breaks wudu, or that passing wind breaks wudu, or similar matters. It is one of the matters that scholars would unanimously transmit if it were established. Therefore, the stronger view is that we have only two categories: purifying (tahur) and impure (najis). What is changed by impurity is impure, and what is not changed by impurity is purifying. Nevertheless, the jurists (may Allah have mercy on them), knowing that there is some doubt in these issues, ruled that in some cases a person should use the water and perform tayammum. We have passed through the case of water used by a woman; they said that if a man finds nothing else, he should use it and perform tayammum. This is one case. They also said regarding water in which the hand of a person who stood up from night sleep was dipped: if he finds nothing else, he should use it and perform tayammum. They also said regarding water used to wash the private parts due to the discharge of pre-seminal fluid (madhi), not due to impurity: it is pure but not purifying. But if he finds nothing else, he should use it and perform tayammum. They also said if purifying water is mixed with pure water and one needs one of them for drinking, he should investigate and perform wudu with what he is most likely to believe is purifying, then perform tayammum. These are four issues in which the jurists stated that a person must use the water and perform tayammum. This is also a weak view, for Allah the Exalted does not obligate a person with two purifications. It is either purification with water or purification with tayammum. There is no such thing as two purifications in the Shari'ah.