Explanation of the author's statement: "It is recommended to make the number of stones odd, and istinja' (cleaning oneself after relieving oneself) is obligatory for everything that exits, except wind."

The Shaykh :"It is recommended to make it odd" means making the number of stones used for cleaning odd. "On an odd number" If one cleans with four, one adds a fifth; if one cleans with six, one adds a seventh; if one cleans with two, one adds a third. Is this correct? This is what is correct, because cleaning with three stones is obligatory, not merely recommended. It has been mentioned previously that some scholars said that three stones are not required if cleanliness is achieved without them, citing the hadith of Ibn Mas'ud. The answer to that has been given, and we clarified that in the hadith of Ibn Mas'ud, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered him to bring a stone. Therefore, it does not serve as evidence for this point. As for his statement "It is recommended to make it odd", what is the evidence? The evidence is the saying of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) in what is established in the two Sahihs: The letter "lam" indicates a command. If you say that the original ruling for a command is obligation, and this implies that making the number odd is obligatory, we say: Yes, the original ruling for a command is obligation. If "making it odd" refers to the three stones, then the command remains as an obligation, because one must clean with three stones. If it refers to what exceeds three, then it is for recommendation. This is indicated by the saying of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him): The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) clarified that this is on the basis of recommendation, except for the three stones, which are on the basis of obligation, as previously mentioned from the hadith of Salman al-Farisi: "We were ordered not to clean ourselves with less than three stones." Then he said: "And istinja' is obligatory for everything that exits" This explains the ruling of istinja' and what makes it obligatory. He said: Istinja' is obligatory. Is the intended meaning of istinja' here purifying the place with water, or is it broader than that? The answer is that it is broader than that, meaning purifying it with water or with stones is obligatory. What is the evidence for the obligation of istinja'? The evidence is the command of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to 'Ali ibn Abi Talib to wash his private part due to the exit of pre-seminal fluid, and pre-seminal fluid is ritually impure. It can also be said that his statement indicates obligation. This might be countered, but the hadith of Salman is clear regarding obligation: "We were ordered not to clean ourselves with less than three stones." However, the author says "for everything that exits." From where? From the two passages. As for what exits from the rest of the body, it is washed, except for three things. First, wind: it is not obligatory to perform istinja' for wind, because wind does not leave a trace; it is only air, so it does not leave a trace on the place. If it does not leave a trace on the place, then it is not obligatory to wash it, because washing it in that case would be a type of futility. Wind is pure, whether it has a sound or not. Wind is pure, even if its smell is foul. Some scholars said it is impure. What is the consequence of this? The consequence is: if it exits you and your clothes are wet, it will encounter moisture. If we say it is impure, it must be washed. If we say it is pure, it does not have to be washed. We do not say that what some jurists mentioned follows from this, namely: if a person praying carries a water skin containing excrement, is his prayer valid or not? Because this is a matter that is impossible. But some scholars are obsessed with inventing rare scenarios. A matter like this is best left alone, because jurists may be criticized for depicting such rare, possibly impossible scenarios. But what we mentioned first is clear: if it is impure and touches something wet, it is known that if an impure thing touches something wet, the wet thing becomes impure. This is what follows from that. The correct view is that it is pure, because it has no substance; it is only air with a foul smell. Second, the pure substance: it is not obligatory to perform istinja' for it, such as semen. Semen exits from the passage, so it falls under the generality of his statement "for everything that exits", but it is not obligatory to perform istinja' for a pure substance, and the example is clear in the case of semen. Third, the non-contaminating substance: if something exits that does not contaminate, meaning it is dry and does not contaminate, and Allah knows best about its possibility, but if it is possible, then istinja' is not obligatory for it, because we know that the purpose of istinja' is cleanliness and purity, and this does not need that. So istinja' is obligatory for everything that exits from the two passages, except for three things: wind, the pure substance, and the non-contaminating substance. Now, if this exiting thing is rare, meaning its exit is rare, but it exits, such as a stone exiting from it, is istinja' obligatory for it? If it contaminates, then istinja' is obligatory because it falls under the generality of the author's statement. If it does not contaminate, then istinja' is not obligatory because there is no need for it.

The questioner : ... it exits without contaminating it.

The Shaykh : We say this if it is possible.