Explanation of the author's statement: "And it is a condition for cleaning oneself with stones or the like that it be pure, cleansing, and not bone or dung."

The Shaykh :"And it is a condition" Note this condition. It is permissible to clean oneself with stones subject to certain conditions. The first condition is that it does not go beyond the usual place. The second condition is "and it is a condition for cleaning oneself with stones or the like that it be pure". The word "stones" is the plural of "stone," and "the like" refers to things such as *mudr* (dried mud), which is hardened dry clay, dirt, rags, and paper, or anything similar. So the phrase "the like" means things similar to stones in their ability to remove impurity. Wood is sufficient; wood is acceptable. Yes. And paper as well. He says "that it be pure", meaning it must not be *najis* (ritually impure) in itself, nor *mutanajjis* (contaminated by impurity). The difference between *najis* and *mutanajjis* is that *najis* is impure in its essence, while *mutanajjis* is impure due to something else, meaning impurity has come upon it. So it is a condition that it be pure, meaning neither *najis* nor *mutanajjis*. What is the evidence for the condition that it must be pure? We have evidence and we have a rationale. As for the evidence, it is the hadith of Ibn Mas'ud that we referred to a moment ago, where he threw away the dung and said and with the *kaf*, and *ruks* is impure. This is one point. Second, his statement in the hadith of Abu Hurayrah that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade cleaning oneself with bone or dung, and he said that they do not purify. This indicates that the material used for cleaning must be pure, because the impure is foul, so how can it purify? So we have evidence and a rationale. The rationale, as I said last, is that the impure is foul, and the foul does not make the foul pure. The second condition is "cleansing", meaning it must achieve cleansing. If it does not cleanse, it is not sufficient. What is the evidence or rationale? The rationale is that the purpose of cleaning with stones is cleansing, as indicated by the fact that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade cleaning with fewer than three stones, all of this in pursuit of cleansing. And because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said regarding the one who is punished in his grave or or , there are three narrations. Do you understand? So it must be cleansing. If it is not cleansing, it is not suitable. And what does not cleanse is either because it is smooth; if it is very smooth, it does not cleanse, but rather it only adds to the mess, because if you wipe with it and it slides to what is behind the ring, for example, or the foreskin, it contaminates it. Yes, it contaminates it. And likewise, what does not cleanse due to its moisture. This is not sufficient if it is wet. If a person brings wet *mudr* or a wet stone, it does not cleanse, like clay. And likewise, if the place has dried out. Can we include this under this condition or not? It is not possible, because the stone here is itself suitable for cleansing, but the place is not suitable for cleansing. So if it is after it has dried, what is the benefit of the stone? It is not cleansing. So we can interpret the phrase "cleansing" to include three things: what does not cleanse due to its smoothness, what does not cleanse due to its moisture, and what does not cleanse due to the dryness of the place, because if the stone is applied to a dry place, cleansing is not achieved, is it not? "that it be pure, cleansing, and not bone or dung". I think this condition... I don't know how many there are. That it does not go beyond the usual place, that it be pure, and that it be cleansing. The fourth condition is "that it not be bone or dung". And this condition is negative, not positive. It is negative because the word "not" indicates negation, meaning no bone and no dung. What is the evidence and what is the rationale? The evidence is not just one; the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade cleaning with bone or dung, as in the hadith of Salman, Ibn Mas'ud, Abu Hurayrah, Ruwayf, and others. There are many hadiths from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) indicating that it is not permissible to clean with bone. As for the rationale, we say that if the bone is the bone of a ritually slaughtered animal, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) explained the cause for that. This bone becomes food for the jinn, because the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said to them Glory be to Allah the Great. We have eaten it and the meat in it is gone, but the One who created it the first time is able to cover it again for His servants among the jinn. And so He said, "the most abundant meat you will find." Yes, every bone on which the name of Allah has been mentioned.

The questioner : What if the name of Allah was not mentioned on it?

The Shaykh : It is known that just as it is not permissible for us to feed it to them, it is also not permissible for us to eat what the name of Allah has not been mentioned on. So it is the same for them.

The questioner : I say, regarding the naming, for every bone, is the name of Allah mentioned on it when it falls, or as food when it is thrown away?

The Shaykh : How? What food?

The questioner : The food...

The Shaykh : Yes, perhaps they eat it. Perhaps they eat other foods. Perhaps they eat other foods.

The questioner : They give it to the shayatin (devils).

The Shaykh : The important point is that we explain the bone as being food for our brothers among the jinn, just as the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) explained it. This is if it is pure. If it is impure, the cause is apparent, because if it is filth, how can it purify? It is clear. As for dung, we say about it what we said about bone, because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) paired them together. So the evidence for bone, Ya Haidar, is the same as the evidence for bone. The *waw* (and) is the evidence for bone; it is the evidence for bone. And on this basis, we say that the evidence is one and the rationale is also one. So if the dung is from a pure source, the cause is that it is food for the beasts of the jinn. And if it is from an impure source, what did I say? It is filth, impure, and does not purify.