Islamic Fiqh > Purification (Tahara) > Istinja and natural hygiene
Cleansing after relieving oneself (istinja): material, hand, number of wipes, prohibitions and hygiene rules in the four schools.
Contents
Updated on 24 September 2026 at 1:14 PM
These pages from the fiqh encyclopedia cover the ruling on istinja, that is, purifying the private parts after relieving oneself, together with the rules of natural cleanliness connected to it. They deal with the status of istinja after passing wind, the use of the right hand, orientation toward the qibla, urinating standing or sitting, keeping silent while relieving oneself, and the prescribed supplications upon entering and leaving the toilet. Each question is presented according to the positions of the four schools, with their evidence from the Quran and the Sunnah and the references of the classical works.
The Malikis in the relied-upon position, along with the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis, hold that istinja is obligatory when its cause is present. They cite the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him):
When one of you goes to defecate, let him take with him three stones with which to purify himself, for they will suffice him.Narrated by Abu Dawud (35), an-Nasa'i (44), Ibn Majah (337), Ahmad in al-Musnad (6/108, 133), ad-Darimi (670), al-Bayhaqi in as-Sunan al-Kubra (1/103); authenticated by al-Albani in al-Irwa (44)
Let none of you perform istinja with fewer than three stones. In one wording: “He forbade us to perform istinja with fewer than three stones.”Narrated by Muslim (262)
They argue: the first hadith is an imperative, and the imperative entails obligation; the Prophet said “for they will suffice him”, and the term of sufficing is used only for the obligatory. He also forbade limiting oneself to fewer than three stones, and the prohibition entails forbiddenness. If leaving part of the impurity is forbidden, removing all of it is more fitting (al-Mughni 1/190, 192; al-Majmu 2/114; Nihayat al-Muhtaj with its gloss 1/128, 129; Hashiyat ad-Dasuqi 1/178; al-Ifsah 1/71; Kifayat al-Akhyar, p. 71).
The jurists of the four schools, on the other hand, agree that there is no istinja to be performed for passing wind. The Hanafis say: istinja after passing wind is not a Sunnah, because the wind itself is pure; it only leaves its place because it is expelled from the site of impurity. Moreover, when the wind passes, nothing remains in the passage, so the act is not recommended but is an innovation (bid'a) (al-Bahr ar-Ra'iq 1/252; Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 1/335; Bada'i' as-Sana'i' 1/81). This implies that, in their view, the act is forbidden.
The Malikis deem it disliked (makruh) to perform istinja upon passing wind. Ad-Dardir said: “One does not perform istinja upon the exit of wind”, that is, it is disliked, just as a garment is not washed for it. Ad-Dasuqi clarified: “The prohibition is for dislike, not for forbiddenness” (Hashiyat ad-Dasuqi with ash-Sharh al-Kabir 1/182; al-Mudawwana 1/28; al-Fawakih ad-Dawani 1/132; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil 1/149).
Al-Khattab (may Allah have mercy on him) reported that al-Baji said: whatever comes out of the two passages and is pure, like wind, entails no istinja. The passing of a pebble or a worm, if it can be avoided by moving away, likewise does not require istinja in his view, since it is a pure emission, like wind (Mawahib al-Jalil 1/286).
Al-Qalyubi of the Shafi'is said: istinja is not obligatory for wind; rather it is disliked, even if the place is wet, because the wind is pure according to the preferred view; indeed it is forbidden, since it would be a corrupt act of worship (Hashiyat al-Qalyubi 1/48; Hawashi ash-Shirwani 1/185; Nihayat al-Muhtaj 1/152). In Kifayat al-Akhyar it is said that istinja for wind is not obligatory; the companions of the school add that it is not even recommended; al-Jurjani deems it disliked; and shaykh Nasr said of it…
The majority of jurists, namely the Malikis, the Shafi'is, the Hanbalis and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan among the Hanafis, hold that istinja with a liquid other than water does not suffice. The Malikis add that it is rather forbidden to perform istinja with a liquid other than water, because it spreads the impurity (al-Majmu 2/134; al-Hawi 1/45, 46; Hashiyat ad-Dasuqi 1/183; Hashiyat al-Adawi 1/222; al-Qawanin al-fiqhiyya 1/28; al-Insaf 1/111; Kashshaf al-Inqana' 1/69; Matalib Uli an-Nuha 1/76; Sharh az-Zarkashi 1/55; Tanqih at-Tahqiq 1/35).
Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf, however, allow istinja with every pure liquid that removes the impurity, such as vinegar or rose water, excluding what removes nothing, such as oil, grease, melted butter and milk, since the purpose is achieved, namely the removal of impurity. Ibn Abidin said: istinja with a liquid other than water is disliked, on account of squandering wealth without necessity (al-Bahr ar-Ra'iq 1/254; Tab'in al-Haqa'iq 1/69; Mukhtasar al-Quduri 21).
Istinja with the right hand: the scholars agree that it is prohibited, according to the hadith of Abu Qatada (may Allah be pleased with him):
None of you should hold his member with his right hand while urinating, nor wipe himself in the toilet with his right hand.Narrated by al-Bukhari (153) and Muslim (267)
“He forbade us”, concerning the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), “to perform istinja with the right hand”, in the wording narrated from Salman (may Allah be pleased with him).Narrated by Muslim (262)
They differed over the meaning of this prohibition: is it a forbiddenness or a mere dislike? The majority, among the Hanafis, the Malikis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis, hold it to be a dislike, since it is a prohibition of courtesy and etiquette. Ibn Nujaym among the Hanafis, and some Shafi'is such as ash-Shirazi, Sulaym ar-Razi, al-Mutawalli and shaykh Nasr al-Maqdisi, however, deem it forbidden.
Imam an-Nawawi said, however: whoever among them said “istinja with the right hand is not permitted” meant that it is not an indifferent matter where acting and refraining are equal, but a disliked act whose abandonment is preferable (al-Bahr ar-Ra'iq 1/255; Umdat al-Qari 2/296; Hashiyat at-Tahtawi 1/33; adh-Dhakhira 1/210; al-Mughni 1/198; Nayl al-Awtar 1/115; Sharh Sahih Muslim 3/128; al-Majmu 2/129; Kashshaf al-Inqana' 1/61). According to the view of forbiddenness, whoever does it errs, but his istinja is still valid. Some Hanbalis and a group of Shafi'is say: it does not suffice.
Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) comments on the title of al-Bukhari's chapter, “chapter on the prohibition of istinja with the right hand”, that is, with the right hand: al-Bukhari expressed it as a prohibition to indicate that it was not clear to him whether it aims at forbiddenness or mere disapproval, or that the contextual indicator turning the prohibition away from forbiddenness was not clear to him, which is that it is one of the etiquettes; the majority held that, while the Literalists (zahirites) held it forbidden (Fath al-Bari 1/305). He adds that in the words of some Shafi'is there is what suggests forbiddenness, but an-Nawawi explained it as we have mentioned: with the view of forbiddenness, whoever does it has done wrong but it suffices, and the Literalists and some Hanbalis say it does not suffice.
Al-Manawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the prohibition of istinja with the right hand is of mere disapproval, but the Literalists held to its literal sense and deemed it forbidden. In the words of some Shafi'is there is what suggests it, but it is weak; and according to the view of forbiddenness the act is still valid, while the Literalists and some Hanbalis say: no. The disagreement concerns only the case where the hand performs the removal directly, without an intermediary; otherwise the act is forbidden and invalid by consensus, the left hand being like the right in this respect (Fayd al-Qadir 1/275).
Al-Manawi also said, concerning the words “nor wipe himself with his right hand”: this means he should not perform istinja with it; it is disliked according to the majority, as mentioned. As for wiping with it by putting it in the place of the stone to remove the impurity, it is forbidden (Fayd al-Qadir 1/386).
The jurists of the four schools agree, according to what is authentic in their respective schools, that facing the qibla or turning one's back to it when relieving oneself is forbidden when one is in the open desert or open ground, based on the authentic hadiths reported on this. They differed over the case of a building: is it forbidden there as well, or permitted?
Imam Abu Hanifa, as well as Ahmad in one narration reported from him, on which Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn al-Qayyim, Ibn al-Arabi of the Malikis and Abu Thawr of the Shafi'is also relied, hold that facing the qibla or turning away from it when relieving oneself is not permitted, whether in the desert or in a building. They cite what Abu Ayyub al-Ansari (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated:
The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “When you go to defecate, do not face the qibla nor turn your backs to it; rather face east or west.” Abu Ayyub added: “We came to Syria and found latrines built facing the qibla, so we turned away from them and sought Allah's forgiveness.”Narrated by al-Bukhari (386) and Muslim (264)
“He forbade us”, said Salman al-Farisi (may Allah be pleased with him) of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), “to face the qibla when defecating or urinating”.Narrated by Muslim (262)
Abu Hurayra (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “When one of you sits to relieve himself, let him not face the qibla nor turn his back to it.”Narrated by Muslim (265)
The explanation given is that the prohibition aims at venerating the qibla, a reason present in the desert as in the building. As for permission in a building, if it rests on the existence of a screen, that screen exists likewise in the desert of distant lands: between the place and the Ka'ba lie mountains and valleys, and this holds even more for whoever affirms the roundness of the earth, in which case being truly faced toward it does not exist at all.
The Malikis in the relied-upon position, along with the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis in the school, hold that facing the qibla or turning away from it when relieving oneself is not permitted in the open desert, while it is permitted in a building. They cite what al-Bukhari and Muslim narrated from Abdallah ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both):
“I climbed one day onto the roof of my sister Hafsa's house and saw the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) sitting to relieve himself, facing Syria with his back to the qibla.”Narrated by al-Bukhari (148) and Muslim (226)
Abu Dawud narrated from Marwan al-Asfar: “I saw Ibn Umar kneel his camel facing the qibla, then sit and urinate toward it. I said: O Abu Abd ar-Rahman, were you not forbidden this? He replied: Indeed, but the prohibition concerns open ground; if there is between you and the qibla something that conceals you, there is no harm.”Hasan (good) hadith: narrated by Abu Dawud (11)
An-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: these are authentic hadiths explicitly indicating permission in a building; the hadiths of Abu Ayyub, Salman and Abu Hurayra came with the prohibition, so they are interpreted as referring to the desert, in order to reconcile all the texts. The scholars do not disagree that when reconciliation is possible, part of the hadiths is not abandoned; rather the two must be reconciled and all acted upon, and since reconciliation is possible as we have shown, it becomes required. The distinction between desert and building is understood in meaning: hardship would attach in a building to requiring the abandonment of the qibla, unlike the desert (Sharh Sahih Muslim by an-Nawawi 3/127; al-Majmu 2/96).
Other narrations are reported from Imam Ahmad and mentioned in al-Insaf:
The Hanafis further state that it is disliked, to the point of being forbidden, for a woman to hold a small child passing urine or feces toward the qibla, since the act was actually observed from a woman (ad-Dur al-Mukhtar 1/342).
The jurists differed over the ruling on urinating while standing: is it permitted or not? The majority of jurists, among the Hanafis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis, deem it disliked without an excuse, based on the statement of Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her):
Whoever told you that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) urinated standing, do not believe him: he only used to urinate sitting.Authentic hadith: narrated by an-Nasa'i (29) and Ibn Majah (307)
Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated: “The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) forbade a man to urinate standing.”Very weak hadith: narrated by al-Bayhaqi in as-Sunan al-Kubra (1/102)
A narration from Imam Ahmad indicates that he did not deem it disliked to urinate standing, even without an excuse, if one is safe from exposing one's private parts or being struck by urine. If there is an excuse, the act is disliked according to no one; ash-Shafi'i said it is not contrary to what is preferable, based on what is reported from Hudhayfa (may Allah be pleased with him):
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) came to a refuse heap of a people and urinated standing.Narrated by al-Bukhari (224, 225, 226) and Muslim (273)
Two explanations are given for this hadith. According to what is reported from ash-Shafi'i and Ahmad, the Arabs used to treat lumbago in this way, and the Prophet may have done it for that reason. According to another explanation, he had a wound inside his knee (the term mabdah designates the inside of the knee) that prevented him from sitting; al-Hakim and al-Bayhaqi narrated from Abu Hurayra (may Allah be pleased with him): “The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) only urinated standing because of a wound inside his knee” (weak hadith: al-Hakim in al-Mustadrak 1/290; al-Bayhaqi in as-Sunan al-Kubra 1/101).
Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) replied: were the hadith authentic, it would suffice as an explanation; but ad-Daraqutni and al-Bayhaqi weakened it. What appears most correct is that the Prophet did so to demonstrate permissibility, and that he mostly urinated sitting; Allah knows best (Fath al-Bari 1/394). Among the Hanafis there is an opinion that urinating standing is disliked with the force of forbiddenness, not mere disapproval.
The Malikis, for their part, detail the cases. If the place is soft and pure, like sand, urinating standing is permitted, but sitting is preferable as it conceals better. If it is soft and impure, one urinates standing for fear of soiling one's clothes. If it is hard and impure, one moves to another spot and does not urinate there at all, neither standing nor sitting; if it is hard and pure, sitting is required so that no urine splashes onto the body.
Al-Wansharisi versified this rule: “On hard, pure ground: sit; on soft, impure ground: stand. Avoid the hard and impure; sit, and stand if you stoop.” (See: Hashiyat at-Tahtawi on Maraqi al-Falah 1/35; Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 1/344; al-Bahr ar-Ra'iq 1/256; al-Istidhkar 1/360; al-Awsat 1/336; al-Majmu 2/104; Sharh Sahih Muslim 3/138; Hashiyat ad-Dasuqi 1/169; Balghat as-Salik 1/62; Mawahib al-Jalil 1/267; Nayl al-Awtar 1/107, 109; al-Mughni 1/209; al-Insaf 1/99; al-Furu' 1/87; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat 1/36; Kashshaf al-Inqana' 1/65; Manar as-Sabil 1/27.)
Reciting the Quran in this situation is subject to two opinions among the jurists. The first holds it forbidden: this is the madhhab of the Hanbalis, as well as an opinion of the Malikis and of some Shafi'is. The second holds it disliked: this is the madhhab of the Shafi'is and an opinion of the Hanbalis, defended by al-Majd and others. Al-Jamal said in his gloss: speech is disliked, even if it is the Quran, contrary to al-Adhra'i who deemed it forbidden (Hashiyat al-Jamal 1/87; see: Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil 1/144; Hashiyat ad-Dasuqi 1/171, 172; Balghat as-Salik 1/63, 64; Hashiyat al-Bajirmi 1/56; Kashshaf al-Qina' 1/63; al-Insaf 1/95).
As for speech other than the Quran, the jurists of the four schools explicitly state the dislike of speaking, whether remembrance or anything else, while relieving oneself. Al-Kharshi explained: silence is required in this state because that place is among what is meant to be covered and concealed, and conversation goes against that (Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil 1/144). The evidence is the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him):
Let not two men go out to defecate with their private parts exposed and talking to each other, for Allah detests that.Narrated by Abu Dawud (15), Ahmad in al-Musnad (3/36), Ibn Khuzayma in his Sahih (1/39), al-Hakim in al-Mustadrak (1/260) who authenticated it, approved by adh-Dhahabi and by al-Bayhaqi in as-Sunan al-Kubra (1/99), graded good by an-Nawawi in al-Majmu (2/106), and weakened by al-Albani in Da'if Sunan Abi Dawud (14)
Al-Muhajir ibn Qunfudh (may Allah be pleased with him) related that he greeted the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) while he was urinating; he only answered him after performing ablution, then apologized to him: “I disliked to mention Allah except in a state of purity”, or he said: “in a state of ritual purity”.Authentic hadith: narrated by Abu Dawud (17), Ahmad in al-Musnad (4/345), Ibn Khuzayma in his Sahih (1/103), Ibn Hibban in his Sahih (3/82), al-Hakim in al-Mustadrak (1/272; 3/545); authentic by the criterion of the two shaykhs, agreed by adh-Dhahabi and authenticated by an-Nawawi in al-Majmu (2/107)
In the Sahih of Muslim, from Abdallah ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both): a man passed by while the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was urinating and greeted him, but he did not answer him.Narrated by Muslim (370)
Among the matters of remembrance they address: one does not praise Allah when sneezing, does not respond to the sneezer, does not answer the muezzin, does not return the greeting of peace and does not perform tasbih (glorification). Al-Baghawi of the Shafi'is, citing ash-Sha'bi, al-Hasan, an-Nakha'i and Ibn al-Mubarak, adds: if one sneezes, one praises Allah in one's heart. Al-Bujayrimi adds: the one who sneezes praises Allah in his heart and is rewarded for it, and we know of no rewarded remembrance without verbal utterance other than this one.
In al-Insaf: as for the praise of the sneezer and the answering of the muezzin, one praises and answers with the heart, while it is disliked to do so with the tongue according to the sound position of the school, on which its companions stand, and it is disliked according to him; shaykh Taqi ad-Din said: one answers the muezzin even in the latrine. As for returning the greeting of peace, it is disliked without disagreement in the school, the Imam having stated it explicitly (al-Insaf 1/95). The Hanafis explicitly state that the dislike applies while relieving oneself, whether urine or stool, and that speech is likewise disliked in the toilet place even apart from relieving oneself (Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 1/344; al-Muhadhdhab 1/50).
Kannun reported in his gloss that Iyad transmitted the permissibility of remembering Allah in the latrine; the Qadi stated that this is the view of Malik, of an-Nakha'i and of Abdallah ibn Amr ibn al-As; Ibn al-Qasim said: if one sneezes while urinating, let him praise Allah. Ibn Rushd explained that Ibn al-Qasim's proof is, on one hand, the athar that “the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) used to remember Allah in all his circumstances” (Muslim 373) and, on the other, the following reasoning: the remembrance of Allah ascends to heaven and nothing of the baseness of the place attaches to it, so one should not refrain from remembering Allah in any circumstance without a categorical text admitting no interpretation (Hashiyat al-Kannun in the margin of ar-Ruhuni 1/153; full text in at-Taj wa-l-Iklil 1/270).
The Malikis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis explicitly state the dislike of speech, except in case of necessity. An-Nawawi said: if one sees a blind man about to fall into a well, or a snake or other creature heading toward a person, or any other forbidden thing, there is no dislike of speech in such situations; indeed it is obligatory in most of them. Al-Qalyubi said: obligatory in case of necessity, recommended in case of need (al-Majmu 2/106, 107; Sharh Sahih Muslim 3/58; al-Muhadhdhab 1/344; Kifayat al-Akhyar, p. 74, 75; Hashiyat al-Qalyubi 1/41; I'anat at-Talibin 1/109; Hashiyat ad-Dasuqi 1/171, 172; Balghat as-Salik 1/63, 64; Kashshaf al-Qina' 2/137; al-Adab ash-Shariyya 1/378; al-Mughni 1/212).
Does clearing one's throat at the door count as speech? Ash-Shabramullisi of the Shafi'is raised the question: is the clearing of the throat done by someone in the toilet when another knocks at the door, to let him know whether the place is occupied, to be counted as speech? It is debated; the nearest view is that this is not called speech, and even if it were, it would be for a need, namely preventing the entry of one who knocks believing the place empty. Ibn Abidin of the Hanafis said: one does not clear one's throat in the toilet place except with an excuse, such as fearing that someone might enter (Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 1/344; Hashiyat ash-Shabramullisi on an-Nihaya 1/126; Hashiyat al-Jamal 1/87; I'anat at-Talibin 1/109).
Ibn Abidin (may Allah have mercy on him) raised the question: if one performs ablution in the toilet out of necessity, should one say the basmala and the other invocations of ablution, observing the Sunnah of ablution, or omit them out of regard for the place? He answered: what appears is the second option, namely omission, given that they explicitly gave precedence to the prohibition over the command (Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 1/344). Among the Malikis, this is disliked in the latrine (ash-Sharh as-Saghir 1/63, 65; Hashiyat ad-Dasuqi 1/173, 174).
Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) said: if one sneezes while relieving oneself, one praises Allah in one's heart without speaking. Ibn Aqil related in another narration: one praises Allah with one's tongue (al-Mughni 1/212). According to this latter narration, remembering Allah in the latrine would therefore be permitted, all the more since, for the Hanafis, the basmala in ablution is obligatory; Allah knows best.
Relieving oneself in water: the Hanafis and the Malikis deem it disliked, this dislike having the force of forbiddenness even if the water is stagnant, based on the hadith of Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him):
The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) forbade urinating in stagnant water.Narrated by Muslim (281)
Abu Hurayra (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “Do not urinate in still water that does not flow, and then bathe from it.”Narrated by al-Bukhari (239) and Muslim (282)
The dislike is of mere courtesy (tanzih) if the water is flowing. Ibn Abidin explained the meaning: the urine fouls it, and this may even render it impure (Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 1/555; Hashiyat at-Tahtawi on Maraqi al-Falah 1/35). As for a small quantity of stagnant water, urinating in it is forbidden, because it fouls it, destroys its value and tempts others to use it; defecating in water is even worse than urinating. The same applies if one urinates in a vessel and then pours it into the water, or urinates beside the river so that the urine flows into it: all of that is blameworthy, ugly and prohibited (Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 1/555).
Al-Khattab (may Allah have mercy on him) reported from the Qadi Iyad, of the Malikis: the prohibition in the hadith is a prohibition of dislike and guidance, stronger still for the small quantity, because it spoils it. Others say: the prohibition is for forbiddenness, because the water may spoil through repeated urination, and the passerby may think it is in its normal state; defecation and the pouring of impurity carry the same ruling. Ibn Naji said in Sharh al-Mudawwana: the predominant view on the basis of the school is that the dislike has the force of forbiddenness for the small quantity, since the water may change without being noticed (Mawahib al-Jalil 1/276).
The Shafi'is and the Hanbalis say: urinating in stagnant water is disliked, whether the quantity is small or large, based on the hadith. Al-Buhuti (may Allah have mercy on him) specified: urinating in stagnant water is disliked according to the report, as in a small flowing quantity, because it spoils and fouls it; perhaps they did not make it forbidden because water is not usually abundant, or because it can be purified by the addition of water (Kashshaf al-Qina' 1/62).
As for flowing water, an-Nawawi said: if the water is abundant and flowing, urinating in it is not forbidden by the implication of the hadith, but avoidance is preferable. If it is scanty and flowing, a group of our companions said it is disliked, and the chosen view is that it is forbidden, because it fouls it according to the best-known view of the Shafi'i school, and deceives another into using it while it is impure.
If the water is abundant and stagnant, our companions said: it is disliked, not forbidden; yet to judge it forbidden would not be far-fetched, for the prohibition of the hadith entails forbiddenness according to the chosen view of the verifying scholars and the majority of usulis, and the act fouls the water and may render it impure by consensus because of its alteration. As for scanty stagnant water, a group of our companions deemed it merely disliked, but the correct and chosen view is that urinating in it is forbidden, because it fouls it, destroys its value and deceives others into using it.
An-Nawawi added: our companions and other scholars state that defecating in water is like urinating in it and even worse; likewise if one urinates in a vessel and then pours it into the water, or beside the river so that the urine flows into it: all of that is blameworthy, ugly and prohibited according to the detail given. No scholar has differed on this except what is reported from Dawud ibn Ali az-Zahiri: in his view, the prohibition would concern only one who urinates with his own person, defecation not being comparable to urination, and likewise urinating in a vessel and pouring it into the water, or urinating near the water. This view goes against the consensus of the scholars and is the worst form of obstinacy against the apparent meaning that has been reported; Allah knows best.
The scholars add that urinating and defecating near water is disliked, even if it does not reach it, due to the Prophet's general prohibition (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) concerning excrement at water sources, the harm caused to passersby, and the fear of it reaching the water; Allah knows best (Sharh Sahih Muslim 3/156, 157; al-Majmu 2/112; Kashshaf al-Qina' 1/62; al-Mughni 1/210).
Urinating in the place of ablution or bathing: the Hanafis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis deem it disliked for a person to urinate in a spot where he or someone else performs ablution or bathes, based on what Abu Dawud narrated from Humayd ibn Abd ar-Rahman al-Himyari:
I met a man who had accompanied the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) as Abu Hurayra had. He said: “The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) forbade us to comb our hair every day and to urinate in the place where we bathe.”Authentic hadith: narrated by Abu Dawud (28), an-Nasa'i (238), Ahmad (5/369), al-Hakim in al-Mustadrak (1/273) and al-Bayhaqi in as-Sunan al-Kubra (1/98)
The dislike applies, according to them, when the spot has no outlet through which the urine and the water drain. Ibn Abidin (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the prohibition applies only when there is no channel for the urine, or when the ground is so hard that the bather imagines something has reached him, giving rise to obsessive doubt (waswasa), as reported in an-Nihaya of Ibn al-Athir (Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 1/558; Hashiyat at-Tahtawi on Maraqi al-Falah 1/35).
Al-Buhuti (may Allah have mercy on him) of the Hanbalis said: the locus of the dislike is a place that is neither excavated (provided with a pit) nor tiled; if one urinates in a tiled, paved or plastered bath place and then pours water over it before washing in it, Imam Ahmad said: if he pours the water into the drain, there is no harm, as a precaution against contamination; the same applies to ablution (Kashshaf al-Qina' 1/62, 63; Matalib Uli an-Nuha 1/68; al-Mughni 1/211).
Al-Khatib ash-Shirbini (may Allah have mercy on him) said: urinating in the bath place is disliked when that spot has no outlet for the urine and the water (Mughni al-Muhtaj 1/42). Al-Hafiz Wali ad-Din al-Iraqi said: a group of scholars interpreted the preceding hadith as applying when the bath place is soft and has no outlet, so that the urine soaks in and settles; if the ground is hard, tiled or the like, the urine flows without settling, and if there is an outlet such as a drain, there is no prohibition.
An-Nawawi said in his commentary: the prohibition of washing there applies only when the ground is hard and splashing is feared; if that is not feared, thanks to an outlet or otherwise, there is no dislike. Shaykh Wali ad-Din noted that this is the reverse of what the group mentioned: they attached the prohibition to soft ground, while he attached it to hard ground; in hard ground the return of the splash is feared, unlike soft ground where the urine settles in place, so that pouring water over it erases its trace entirely (Awn al-Ma'bud 1/37; Tuhfat al-Ahwadhi 1/82).
The jurists of the four schools, except for one narration among the Hanbalis, deem it disliked to enter the toilet carrying something that bears the remembrance of Allah. Their proof is what is reported from Anas ibn Malik (may Allah be pleased with him):
When the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) entered the toilet, he would remove his ring.Weak hadith: narrated by Abu Dawud (19), at-Tirmidhi (1746) and Ibn Majah (303); an-Nasa'i said this hadith is not preserved, Abu Dawud called it rejected (munkar), ad-Daraqutni noted the disagreement about it and alluded to its solitary character, at-Tirmidhi authenticated it, and an-Nawawi said it is to be rejected (see Talkhis al-Habir 1/108)
Imam ash-Shirazi specified that the ring bore the inscription “Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah”. The schools detailed the question, notably entering the toilet with the mushaf, the copy of the Quran. The Malikis, the Hanbalis and al-Adhra'i among the Shafi'is deem it forbidden to enter the toilet with the mushaf except in case of necessity, unlike other objects containing Quran or remembrance.
Al-Adawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: a mushaf must be set aside even if covered; it is disliked to enter with an object containing Quran or remembrance if it is not covered. Entering with part of the Quran is not like entering with all of it: this applies to a leaf containing verses, not to a whole juz', which takes the ruling of the whole (Hashiyat al-Adawi on al-Kharshi 1/145). In ash-Sharh as-Saghir: among the firmly established rules of etiquette, one does not enter the latrine or relieve oneself carrying a written item containing the remembrance of Allah, a dirham or a ring bearing that inscription, or the name of a prophet; one should set it aside before entering, a firmly recommended practice; all the more the Quran, whose recitation is forbidden.
The same text adds: entering with a mushaf or part of it, even a single verse, is forbidden, unless it is a hirz (protective amulet) covered by something concealing it; the pocket counts among concealers, and placing it in one's pocket, for instance, removes the forbiddenness in the case of the mushaf and the dislike for other objects. This holds as long as its loss is not feared; otherwise entering with it becomes permitted out of necessity (ash-Sharh as-Saghir 1/65). Al-Mardawi said in al-Insaf: as for entering the toilet with a mushaf without need, there is no doubt that it is forbidden categorically, and no person of sound reason hesitates about it (al-Insaf 1/94).
Al-Adhra'i said: the tendency is to forbid bringing the mushaf and the like into the toilet without necessity, out of reverence and veneration for them. In I'anat at-Talibin (1/109) it is stated that al-Adhra'i's words apply when soiling the object is feared. The Hanafis hold that there is no harm if the object is wrapped in something: in Majma' al-Anhar, if what contains a passage of the Quran or one of the names of Allah is in one's pocket, there is no harm, and likewise if it is wrapped, but precaution is preferable (Majma' al-Anhar 1/43).
At-Tahtawi transmitted from Munyat al-Musalli: it is better not to enter the latrine with a mushaf in one's sleeve, unless compelled; we hope one incurs no sin without necessity (Hashiyat at-Tahtawi on Maraqi al-Falah 1/36). The upshot of the Shafi'is' discourse is that carrying the mushaf into the toilet is not forbidden but disliked (I'anat at-Talibin 1/109; Rawdat at-Talibin 1/217, 219). Accordingly, whoever is compelled to enter the toilet with something bearing the remembrance of Allah may bring it in: it is neither forbidden nor disliked for him. The Hanafis, the Malikis and the Shafi'is state this explicitly, and the Hanbalis suffice with the need being established (Hashiyat at-Tahtawi 1/36; Sharh Munyat al-Musalli 60; Majma' al-Anhar 1/43, 101; Mawahib al-Jalil 1/273, 275; Balghat as-Salik 1/65; I'anat at-Talibin 1/109; Mughni al-Muhtaj 1/40; al-Majmu 2/91; al-Muhadhdhab 1/25; Hashiyat ad-Dasuqi 1/174; al-Insaf 1/94; Kashshaf al-Qina' 1/59; al-Mughni 1/212; Kifayat al-Akhyar, p. 74, 75).
Specific supplications are reported for entering and leaving the toilet. Al-Bukhari and Muslim narrated from Anas ibn Malik (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) used to say upon entering the toilet:
O Allah, I seek refuge with You from the male devils and the female devils.Narrated by al-Bukhari (142) and Muslim (375)
The commentators (al-Khattabi, Ibn Hibban and others) explain that the expression designates the male devils and the female devils: the first term is the plural of the masculine word for a wicked one, the second the plural of the feminine one (Fath al-Bari 1/293). An-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: this etiquette is agreed upon as recommended, with no difference between building and desert; Allah knows best (Sharh Sahih Muslim 4/64). This place was specifically marked by seeking refuge because the devils hold over it a dominion and power over the son of Adam found nowhere else, due to the slackening of vigilance there (Balghat as-Salik 1/63).
At-Tirmidhi and others narrated from Ali ibn Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said:
The veil between the eyes of the jinn and the private parts of the sons of Adam, when one of them enters the toilet, is to say: “In the name of Allah”.Authentic hadith: narrated by at-Tirmidhi (426), Ibn Majah (297), at-Tabarani in al-Awsat (3/68) and al-Bazzar (484)
Upon leaving the toilet, one says: “I seek Your forgiveness” (ghufranak). Aisha, mother of the believers (may Allah be pleased with her), indeed narrated that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), upon leaving to relieve himself, would say: “I seek Your forgiveness” (authentic hadith: Abu Dawud 30; at-Tirmidhi 7; Ibn Majah 300; Ahmad 6/155; Ibn Khuzayma in his Sahih 1/48; Ibn Hibban in his Sahih 4/291). This means: I ask You for Your forgiveness, or forgive me with a forgiveness befitting Your majesty, or one arising from Your grace, without any deserving on my part.
Al-Ayni said: one seeks forgiveness for having neglected the remembrance of Allah during one's stay in the toilet. Close to this is what has been said: it is an act of thanksgiving for the blessing Allah bestowed by feeding His servant and enabling him to digest, so that what had to come out came out unharmed from what he had sought refuge against. It then befits him to render thanks for the blessing of health and the answer to his request, and to seek Allah's forgiveness out of fear of failing to give thanks for that blessing (Umdat al-Qari 2/272; Balghat as-Salik 1/65; al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya 1/50; Hashiyat at-Tahtawi 1/36; Rawdat at-Talibin 1/219; al-Mughni 1/213).