According to the school's position, if the impurity is removed by the first washing, is the second washing pure?

The Shaykh : ...a washing by which the impurity was removed "or it was the last washing by which the impurity was removed, then it is pure" or the pronoun refers to the small amount of water, the last washing by which the impurity was removed, the last washing by which the impurity was removed. It 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 a place of impurity. Everything that separates before the seventh is all impure. The reason is that it separated from a place of impurity, because it does not become pure except with seven washings. For example, a person washing his garment from impurity: what flows from the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth washings is impure. Why? Because it separated from a place of impurity, and it is a small amount. And what touches impurity while it is a small amount becomes impure merely by contact. Now, if it separates in the seventh washing, and the substance of the impurity has been removed, it is not present. The seventh is said to be pure but not purifying, because it is the last washing by which the impurity was removed, so it is pure but not purifying. The eighth is purifying because it did not affect anything; it did not affect anything. But the seventh was pure but not purifying. They say this because it affected something and separated from a pure place. What did it affect? It affected the purity of the place, because the place does not become pure except with the seventh. It affected a ruling, which is the purity of the place, and it separated from a pure place. Therefore, according to this, it is not purifying because it caused the removal of impurity, and it is not impure because it separated from a pure place. The reasoning is clear. So, what separates from the purification or from the place of purification: if it is before the seventh, it is impure. 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 what separates before the removal of the substance of the impurity is impure because it touched the impurity while it was a small amount. For this reason, it is said: "or it was the last washing by which the impurity was removed". If it was not removed, it is impure. "by which the impurity was removed, then it is pure". The statement "then it is pure" is the answer to the statement: "and if its taste, color, or smell has changed", and so on. So we know that the pure water now has types. First, what has not had its taste, color, or smell changed by a pure substance. Or do we say this is from the first? From the first. Okay. Second, what was used to cook something pure. Or do we say this is from the first? From the first. Okay. Third, what was used to remove a state of ritual impurity, and it is a small amount. Fourth, what was used to wash the hand of a person who stood up from night sleep, which breaks the ablution under the conditions. Fifth, what was used to remove impurity and separated from a place of purity, by the statement: "or it was the last washing by which the impurity was removed, then it is pure". This is the pure water according to the one who says that water is divided into three categories. This is the well-known position of the Hanbali school (may Allah have mercy on them). And the correct view is that this category itself does not exist and has no basis in the Shari'ah. Water is either purifying or impure. This is the choice of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah. And this is the direction of the evidence. The evidence for this is the absence of evidence. How is the evidence the absence of evidence? We say: if this, meaning the pure category, were established in the Shari'ah, it would be a known and understood matter, and the hadiths would come with a clear and distinct explanation, because it is not a trivial matter. It entails that a person prays either with dry ablution 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 dry ablution or not? According to the school, I perform dry ablution 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 dry ablution. This is a matter that people need as much as they need to know that urine breaks the ablution, or that passing wind breaks the ablution, or the like. It is one of the matters that the circles of scholars would be unanimous in transmitting if it were established. And so, the stronger position is that we have only two categories: purifying and impure. What has changed due to impurity is impure, and what has not changed due to impurity is purifying. Nevertheless, the jurists (may Allah have mercy on them), when they knew that there is some doubt in these issues, ruled that a person should use some of it and perform dry ablution. Use it and perform dry ablution. We passed by the case where a woman has not had her period. They said that if a man finds nothing else, he should use it and perform dry ablution. This is one case. They also said regarding what was used to wash the hand of a person who stood up from night sleep: if he finds nothing else, he should use it and perform dry ablution. They also said regarding what was used to wash the private parts due to the discharge of pre-seminal fluid, washing the private parts due to the discharge of pre-seminal fluid, not due to impurity: it is pure but not purifying. But if he finds nothing else, he should use it and perform dry ablution. They also said if a purifying water is mixed with a pure water and he needs one of them for drinking, he should investigate and perform ablution with what he is most likely to believe is purifying, then perform dry ablution. These are four issues in which the jurists stated that a person must use the water and perform dry ablution. This is also a weak position, because Allah the Exalted does not obligate a person with two purifications. It is either purification with water or purification with dry ablution. There are not two purifications in the Shari'ah.

The questioner : Shaykh, according to the school's position, if the impurity is removed by the first washing, is the second washing pure?

The Shaykh : It is impure.

The questioner : They require that there be seven washings.

The Shaykh : There must be seven washings.

The questioner : Shaykh, what is the discharge of pre-seminal fluid?

The Shaykh : In what is it correct that when the impurity is removed, it becomes pure?

The questioner : But there is no opinion. You are talking about the opinion of the Shafi'i jurists. Is there no opinion of the three other jurists?

The Shaykh : There is a specification by the three, and there is a specification that when it is removed, it becomes pure. The correct view is that when it is removed, it becomes pure. But this is not the subject of our discussion, because the chapter on removing impurity has a separate chapter. Yes.