Islamic Fiqh > Purification (Tahara) > Water: categories and rulings > Categories of water
Contents
Updated on 24 September 2026 at 1:14 PM
The chapter on the rulings of water (ahkam al-miyah) traditionally opens the books of purification in Islamic law. The encyclopedia of jurisprudence divides water into four categories: mutlaq water (water in its original state, without any qualifying addition), used water (musta'mal), heated water (muskhan) and mixed water (mukhtalit). For each category, the positions of the four Sunni schools are set out with their Quranic and prophetic evidence, and the references to the classical works are kept in parentheses.
Water is defined as a subtle, fluid body by which every growing being lives (al-Durr al-Mukhtar, 1/179). Water can be divided, according to its description, into four categories: mutlaq water, used water, heated water and mixed water, the mixed being either mixed with something pure or mixed with something impure.
In the terminology of the jurists, mutlaq water is whatever the name of water applies to without any necessary qualification: one says “this is water”, “I drank water”, “Allah created water as a mercy for the worlds”. This includes water remaining in its original creation, as well as water changed by what is inseparable from it, such as water flowing over sulphur in its bed; and additions like “sea water” or “well water”, though qualifications, are not needed ones (al-Furuq, 2/216; al-Sharh al-Kabir of al-Dardir, 1/56; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 1/74).
It is also said: mutlaq water is that which remains in its original creation (Kifayat al-Akhyar, 53), which no impurity has touched and over which no pure substance prevails (al-Tarifat of al-Jurjani, 1/250). The jurists agree that mutlaq water is pure in itself and purifying for other things (al-Ijma of Ibn al-Mundhir, 20; Fath al-Qadir, 1/21; al-Sharh al-Kabir, 1/56; Mawahib al-Jalil, 1/56; al-Majmu, 25/39; Kifayat al-Akhyar, p. 53; al-Iqna of al-Shirbini, 1/21; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 1/74; al-Mughni ma'a al-Sharh, 1/30; Kashshaf al-Qina, 1/26).
The jurists call this type of water tahur, while differing over what tahur means. The majority of jurists, the Malikis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis, hold that it is the water that is pure and purifying. Ibn Hubayrah said: the linguists said: tahur is what brings about purification in something else, as one says qatul for what kills; and Tha'lab said: tahur is that which is pure in itself and purifying for other things; none disagreed on this except some companions of Abu Hanifa, who said: tahur is the pure, by way of intensification (al-Ifsah, 1/35 and 36; al-Bahr al-Ra'iq, 1/70).
Al-Nawawi said: tahur, according to us, is the purifying, and this was the view of Ahmad ibn Hanbal; some of our companions related it from Malik; and it is related from some companions of Abu Hanifa and some linguists that tahur is simply the pure (al-Majmu, 2/21 and 22; Nayl al-Awtar, 1/565; al-Tahqiq of Ibn al-Jawzi, 1/19).
The majority support their position with three proofs. First, the word tahur came, in the language of the Sharia, to mean the purifying, as in the word of Allah:
“And We sent down from the sky purifying water”
Surah Al-Furqan, 48
Al-Qurtubi said: His word “purifying water” means: water with which one purifies oneself, as one says “wudu water” for the water with which wudu is made; every tahur is pure, but not every pure thing is tahur. Tahur, with fatha on the ta, is the noun, like wudu and wuqud, and with damma it is the verbal noun; this is the recognized usage, as Ibn al-Anbari said. It shows that the water sent down from the sky is pure in itself and purifying for other things: tahur is a pattern of intensification in “pure”, and this intensification requires that it be both pure and purifying, and this is the view of the majority. It is also said: “purifying” here means “pure”: this is the view of Abu Hanifa, who relied on the word of Allah: “And their Lord will give them a purifying drink” (Surah Al-Insan, 21), meaning pure. Al-Qurtubi also said: the community agrees, in language and in law, that the description “purifying” is specific to water and does not extend to the other liquids, even though they are pure; their restricting it to water is therefore the clearest proof that tahur is the purifying (Tafsir al-Qurtubi, 7/39 and 40).
Second, al-Nawawi said: the Messenger of Allah said in the authentic hadith, about sea water:
Its water is purifying.Authentic hadith (al-Majmu, 2/21 and 22)
It is known that they asked about purifying themselves with sea water, not about its purity; had they not understood tahur to mean purifying, the answer would not have fitted the question (al-Majmu, 2/22 and 23; Nayl al-Awtar, 1/55). Third, the saying of the Prophet:
The earth has been made for me a mosque and a purification.Reported by al-Bukhari (335) and Muslim (522)
Al-Nawawi said: what is meant is “purifying”: it is by its being purifying that this community is distinguished, not by its being pure (al-Majmu, 2/22 and 23; Nayl al-Awtar, 1/55). Ibn Hajar said: “and a purification” is used as proof that tahur is what purifies other things; for if tahur meant pure, the distinctiveness would not be established, whereas the hadith was uttered precisely to establish it. Ibn al-Mundhir and Ibn al-Jarud related, through an authentic chain from Anas, raised to the Prophet: “Every wholesome land has been made for me a mosque and a purification”; “wholesome” means pure, so if “purification” meant “pure” the phrase would amount to obtaining what is already obtained (Fath al-Bari, 1/522); and such redundancy is impossible in his speech, so the meaning must be: purifying for other things.
The Hanafis, for their part, argue that tahur is the pure. First, Allah said:
“And their Lord will give them a purifying drink”
Surah Al-Insan, 21
Now the people of Paradise have no need of purification from hadath or impurity, so what is meant by tahur is the pure (al-Bahr al-Ra'iq, 1/70; al-Dhakhira, 1/169; al-Majmu, 2/22; al-Hawi al-Kabir, 1/38). Second, the saying of the poet Jarir describing women: “Delightful of front teeth, their saliva is a purifier”; now one does not purify oneself with saliva, so he meant pure (same sources). Al-Nawawi replied: our companions answered regarding the verse of the purifying drink that Allah described it with the highest of descriptions, namely purification; and Jarir's verse is rather a proof for us: he intended to prefer those women over all other women, so he described their saliva as purifying, because of their perfection, the excellence of their saliva and its distinctiveness; the literal meaning does not hold, for there is no merit in that: the saliva of all women is pure, rather that of cattle, sheep and every animal other than the dog and the pig (al-Majmu, 2/25).
The fourth kind is well water. Its basis is what is reported from Abu Sa'id al-Khudri: it was said: O Messenger of Allah, should we perform wudu from the well of Buda'a, a well into which menstrual cloths, the flesh of dogs and filth are thrown, meaning a well that the torrents would sweep with debris from the paths and courtyards, nothing being thrown into it deliberately or on purpose (see al-Fath, 11/34). The Messenger of Allah replied:
Water is tahur; nothing makes it impure.Reported by Abu Dawud (66), al-Tirmidhi (66), who graded it hasan, al-Shafi'i in his Musnad (1/165), Ahmad in his Musnad (3/31 and 86), Ibn al-Jarud (47) and al-Bayhaqi in al-Sunan al-Kubra (1/4), among others; authenticated by Imam Ahmad, Ibn Ma'in, Ibn Hazm and Ibn al-Jawzi (see Talkhis al-Habir, 1/12; Tanqih al-Tahqiq, 1/29)
The fifth kind is spring water: what gushes out of the earth. The sixth kind is snow water: what fell from the sky in liquid form then froze, or what is frozen by modern industrial means. The seventh kind is hail water: what fell from the sky solid then melted on the ground; it is also called the grain of the clouds (Mukhtasar al-Sihah, al-Qamus, al-Muhit and al-Mujam al-Wajiz; al-Sharh al-Kabir, 1/57).
The basis regarding snow and hail water is the hadith of Abu Hurayrah: the Messenger of Allah used to pause in silence between the takbir and the recitation; “I think, said the narrator, that he said: a moment”. I said: may my father and mother be ransomed for you, O Messenger of Allah, this silence of yours between the takbir and the recitation, what do you say in it? He said:
I say: O Allah, distance me from my sins as You have distanced the east from the west; O Allah, cleanse me of my sins as the white garment is cleansed of filth; O Allah, wash away my sins with water, snow and hail.Reported by al-Bukhari (711) and Muslim (598)
The jurists differed over the use of some kinds of mutlaq water: some held it disliked, others not; some held it valid, others invalid. Three kinds are discussed below: snow water, Zamzam water and putrid water.
As for snow water, there is no disagreement among the jurists on the validity of purifying oneself with it once it has melted. They differed over its use before melting, in three views.
The first view: the Hanafis in the relied-upon position, the Malikis and the Hanbalis held that it is not permitted to purify oneself with snow before it melts, unless it drips and flows over the limb. The author of al-Durr al-Mukhtar said: “Hadath is lifted, in every case, by mutlaq water: what comes to mind when the word is used unrestrictedly, like rain water, valley water, springs, wells, seas, and melted snow such that it drips” (al-Durr al-Mukhtar with the hashiya of Ibn Abidin, 1/324; see al-Binaya sharh al-Hidaya, 1/336; al-Bahr al-Ra'iq, 1/71; hashiyat al-Tahtawi, 1/15).
Al-Dardir said in al-Sharh al-Kabir: “It is what the name of water applies to without qualification, even if gathered from dew or melted, that is, become liquid again after freezing, like snow, which falls liquid then freezes on the ground” (al-Sharh al-Kabir, 1/56 and 57; Mukhtasar Khalil, 1/8; Mawahib al-Jalil, 1/51).
Ibn Qudamah said: melted snow and hail are tahur, because it is water that came down from the sky, and in the supplication of the Prophet, agreed upon: “O Allah, purify me with water, snow and hail”. If one takes the snow and passes it over his limbs, purification is not achieved, even if the limb becomes moistened, because what is obligatory is washing, the least of which is that water flow over the limb; unless it is light enough to melt and its water flows over the limbs, achieving the washing: that suffices him (al-Mughni ma'a al-Sharh, 1/43).
The second view: Imam Abu Yusuf, among the Hanafis, held that it is permitted to purify oneself with it in every case, even if it does not drip (al-Binaya, 1/336; al-Bahr al-Ra'iq, 1/71; hashiya of Ibn Abidin, 1/324; hashiya of al-Tahtawi, 1/15).
The third view: the Shafi'is distinguish between snow flowing over the limb, because of intense heat, the heat of the body or the softness of the snow, and its not flowing. If it flows over the limb, the wudu is valid according to the correct view, because the flowing of water over the limb is achieved; it was said: it is not valid, because that is not called washing: related by a group among them al-Mawardi, author of al-Hawi, and al-Darimi. Al-Nawawi said: both of them are among the great Iraqi imams of ours; al-Darimi attributed it to Abu Sa'id al-Istakhri. If it does not flow, the wudu is invalid without disagreement for the washed limbs; but wiping the wiped parts, which are the head, the khuffs and the splint, is valid: that is the madhhab (al-Majmu, 2/16).
As for Zamzam water, the jurists differed over its use for hadath or for removing impurity, in three views.
The first view: the Hanafis, the Shafi'is, Ahmad in one narration and Ibn Shabun among the Malikis held it permitted to use Zamzam water without dislike for removing hadath; as for removing impurities, it is disliked out of honour and veneration for it; in one Shafi'i view it is merely departing from what is preferable (hashiya of Ibn Abidin, 1/324; hashiya of al-Adawi, 1/159; al-Majmu, 2/34; Manar al-Sabil, 1/16; al-Mughni, 1/43).
The second view: the Malikis held it permitted to use Zamzam water without any dislike, whether the use be for purification from hadath or for removing impurity. Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani said: “Zamzam water, and sea water, fresh or salty, are good in themselves for every use, pure as long as no impurity mixes with them, purifying for other things, for impurities and what resembles them among hadaths, as long as they remain in their original creation, unchanged by anything from which they usually part”; he only singled out these waters by name, though included in what precedes, to alert to the disagreement concerning some of them (Kifayat al-Talib al-Rabbani, 1/159).
The third view: Imam Ahmad, in one narration, held its use disliked in every case, for removing hadath and impurity alike; Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah restricted the dislike to the ghusl of janabah (Manar al-Sabil, 1/16; al-Mughni, 1/43; Masail al-Imam Ahmad, narration of his son Salih, 3/81). He said in al-Ikhtiyarat: “The ghusl, not the wudu, with Zamzam water is disliked; so said a group of scholars” (al-Ikhtiyarat al-Ilmiyya, 9).
As for putrid water, it is water changed by its long stay in a place, without anything mixing with it; stagnant water is close to it (al-Mughni, 1/38). There is no disagreement among the four schools on the permission of using putrid water without dislike. Ibn al-Mundhir said: they agreed that wudu with putrid water into which no impurity has fallen is valid; Ibn Sirin alone said: it is not (al-Ijma, 21; see Bada'i al-Sana'i, 1/66; Majma al-Anhar, 1/27; Bidayat al-Mujtahid, 1/46; Aqrab al-Masalik, 1/23; al-Majmu, 2/56; hashiya of al-Ramli, 1/8).
The four imams differed over what is meant by used water and over its ruling. According to Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf, it is the water removed after a hadath, or after use on the body in the manner of drawing near to Allah, like wudu performed over wudu with the intention of devotion or of fulfilling an obligation. According to Muhammad ibn al-Hasan, it is water used to perform an act of devotion. According to Zufar, it is water used to remove hadath. The Hanafi position is that water becomes used merely by its separation from the body (Fath al-Qadir, 1/86 and 90; Tabyin al-Haqa'iq, 1/24; al-Hidaya, 1/20; Mukhtasar al-Quduri, 13; al-Bahr al-Ra'iq, 1/103; see Fath al-Bari, 1/355 and 414; Ahkam al-Quran of al-Jassas, 5/210).
The effect of this disagreement appears in four situations. First, one who performs wudu with the intention of performing an act of worship, such as the habitual prayer, the funeral prayer, entering the mosque or reciting the Quran: if he was in a state of hadath, the water becomes used without disagreement, the two causes being combined, the removal of hadath and the performance of worship; if he was not in hadath, the water becomes used according to Abu Hanifa, Abu Yusuf and Muhammad, because wudu over wudu is light upon light, while according to Zufar it does not, since no hadath was removed.
Second, one who performs wudu or ghusl to cool off: if he was in hadath, the water becomes used according to Abu Hanifa, Abu Yusuf and Zufar, because of the removal of hadath; according to Muhammad it does not, since no act of worship was performed; if he was not in hadath, it does not become used, by agreement. Third, one who performs wudu with restricted water, such as rose water and the like: it does not become used by agreement, since wudu with it is not valid, no hadath being removed and no worship performed. Fourth, one who washes pure things, plants, fruits, vessels, stones and the like, or washes his hands of mud and dirt, or the woman who washes her hands of dough or henna and the like: the water does not become used.
According to the preferred and relied-upon Hanafi view, used water is not tahur for hadath but is so for khabath, impurity: it is permitted to remove real impurity with it (Bada'i al-Sana'i, 1/244 and 24; hashiya of Ibn Abidin, 1/348 and 353; Mukhtasar al-Quduri, 13, with the rest of the sources above). Ibn Hajar related in al-Fath (1/355): the one who said that used water is impure is Abu Yusuf; al-Shafi'i related in al-Umm from Muhammad ibn al-Hasan that Abu Yusuf retracted it, then returned to it two months later. From Abu Hanifa come three narrations: the first, pure but not purifying, the narration of Muhammad from him, which is his own view and al-Shafi'i's later view, and it is the fatwa position among the Hanafis; the second, impure with a light impurity, the narration of Abu Yusuf from him; the third, impure with a grave impurity.
Among the Malikis, the position is dislike, because what is established for the parts is established for the whole; Ibn Abd al-Salam inclined to its negation (hashiya of al-Dusuqi with al-Sharh al-Kabir, 1/68 and 69; al-Mudawwana, 1/21; Bidayat al-Mujtahid, 1/50; Mawahib al-Jalil, 1/66). Shaykh al-Dardir said: the small amount of water, the measure of the vessel of ghusl, the least of used water for a hadath, is disliked for use in a hadath under three conditions: that it be small, that it have been used to lift a hadath and not a ruling of impurity, and that the second use be for lifting a hadath (al-Sharh al-Saghir with Bughyat al-Salik, 1/27 and 28).
Shaykh Ahmad al-Sawi commented: on this basis, water used for a ruling of impurity is not disliked for reuse, and water used for a hadath is not disliked for a ruling of impurity (Bughyat al-Salik, 1/26).
According to the Shafi'is, used water is the small amount of water used in the obligatory purification from hadath, such as the first washing in it, or in removing impurity from the body or garment. As for supererogatory purification, like renewing wudu and the second and third washings, there are two views; the correct one, as al-Nawawi said, is that it is not used, and this is the apparent meaning of al-Shafi'i's text (al-Majmu, 2/139; al-Muhadhdhab, 1/8; Rawdat al-Talibin, 1/138). He added: they agreed that water from the fourth washing is not used, because it is not even supererogatory (al-Majmu, 2/139).
The Shafi'is distinguish the small amount of water, below two qullahs, from the large, which reaches two qullahs or more. The correct position of the madhhab: the small amount of used water is pure in itself, because the righteous forebears did not guard against it, nor against what dripped from it upon them. Hence the hadith of Jabir ibn Abdullah:
The Messenger of Allah came to visit me while I was ill and not fully conscious; he performed wudu and poured some of his wudu water over me, and I regained consciousness.Reported by al-Bukhari (194) and Muslim (161)
But it is not purifying: it lifts no hadath and removes no impurity, because the forebears, despite the scarcity of their water, did not collect used water a second time but moved to tayammum; and they did not set it aside for drinking either, because it is repulsive. If used water is collected and reaches two qullahs, it is purifying according to the more correct view (Mughni al-Muhtaj, 1/82 and 83; al-Majmu, 2/138 and 142).
Al-Shirbini related that they differed over the cause of the prohibition of using used water: it was said, and it is the more correct, that it is no longer mutlaq, as al-Nawawi and others authenticated (Mughni al-Muhtaj, 1/82 and 83; al-Majmu, 2/138 and 142). Al-Hisni noted in Kifayat al-Akhyar (54): the correct view is that an obligation was fulfilled with it, and it was said: an act of worship. The benefit of the disagreement appears in two cases.
If used water is collected, according to the later view, and reaches two qullahs, it is purifying according to the more correct view, for impurity is stronger than use: impure water, collected until it reaches two qullahs without any change, certainly becomes tahur, and used water is a fortiori the same. The view opposing the more correct: it does not become tahur again, for its strength was consumed by use, so it joins rose water and the like; this is the choice of Ibn Surayj (Mughni al-Muhtaj, 1/83; al-Majmu, 2/138).
Imam al-Shirazi set it out: used water is of two kinds, used for purification from hadath and used for purification from impurity. The first, used to lift a hadath, is pure, because it is pure water that met a pure place, like a pure garment washed with it. But may purification be performed with it? Our companions took two paths; according to some, two views apply.
As for water used for impurity, one looks: if it separated from the place and changed, it is impure, according to the saying of the Prophet:
Water is not made impure by anything except what changes its taste or its smell.Reported by Ibn Majah (521), al-Tabarani in al-Kabir (8/104) and al-Daraqutni in his Sunan (1/28); graded weak by al-Nawawi: it cannot be used as proof; Ibn Majah and al-Bayhaqi related it from Abu Umamah with the wording “its taste, its smell or its colour”, and they agreed on its weakness; al-Shafi'i transmitted its disparagement from the hadith scholars; al-Bayhaqi explained its weakness; once the weakness is known, reliance must be placed on consensus, as al-Bayhaqi and other imams said; al-Shafi'i said: “this hadith is not established by the hadith scholars, but it is the view of the generality, and I know of no disagreement among them concerning it” (al-Majmu, 2/69)
If it is unchanged, three views: the first, that it is pure, the view of Abu al-Abbas and Abu Ishaq, because it is water that cannot be guarded from impurity, so it is not defiled without change, like a large amount of water into which an impurity falls.
The second of the three Shafi'i views: it becomes impure; it is the view of Abu al-Qasim al-Anmati, because it is a small amount of water that met an impurity: it resembles water into which an impurity has fallen. The third: if it separated while the place was pure, it is pure, and if it separated while the place was impure, it is impure: the view of Abu al-Abbas ibn al-Qass, for the separated part follows the whole remaining at the place in its ruling of purity and impurity (al-Muhadhdhab, 1/8; al-Majmu, 2/139 and 140; al-Nawawi's comments there are worth consulting).
According to the Hanbalis, the apparent position of the madhhab is that water used to lift hadath, none of whose attributes has changed, is pure but not purifying: it lifts no hadath and removes no impurity. Another narration from Imam Ahmad: it is pure and purifying, lifting hadath and removing impurity. With this view: al-Hasan, Ata, al-Nakhai, al-Zuhri, Makhlul and the Zahiris; it is the second narration from Malik, the second statement of al-Shafi'i, the choice of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (Majmu al-Fatawa, 20/519) and of Ibn al-Mundhir; it is also the statement of Ali ibn Abi Talib, Ibn Umar and Abu Umamah (al-Awsat, 1/285 and 288; al-Mughni, 1/46). For a pure place was washed with it: its purifying character was not removed, as when a garment is washed with it; and having met a pure place, it does not leave its ruling through the fulfilment of the obligation with it, like a garment prayed in repeatedly.
Water used in a recommended, non-obligatory purification, like renewing wudu, the second and third washings of wudu, and the ghusl of Friday and of the two Eids and the like: two narrations. The first: it is like water used to lift hadath, because it is a prescribed purification, like ghusl from janabah. The second: it does not prevent the purifying character, because it did not prevent prayer: it resembles water used for cooling. If the purification was not prescribed, its use has no effect on the water at all, like the fourth washing of wudu: it is as if used for cooling or for washing a garment. Ibn Qudamah said: no narration differs that what was used for cooling and cleaning remains unrestricted, and we know of no disagreement in this (al-Mughni, 1/46).
As for water used in an act of devotion without hadath, like washing the hands upon rising from the sleep of the night: Ibn Qudamah said: if we say it is not obligatory, its use does not affect the water; if we say it is obligatory, al-Qadi said: it is pure but not purifying, and Abu al-Khattab mentioned two narrations in it. The first: it leaves its unrestricted state, because it was used in a devotional purification, like water used to lift hadath, and because the Prophet forbade the one rising from the sleep of the night to dip his hand into the vessel before washing it: that indicates it produces a prevention. The second: it remains unrestricted, because it lifted no hadath: it resembles water used for cooling (al-Mughni, 1/43 and 46).
The sum of the foregoing is this: the Hanafis and the Shafi'is, and it is a narration from Imam Ahmad, hold that used water, with which wudu has been made once, is not used for wudu again, and whoever performs wudu with it repeats it forever, because it is not mutlaq water, and he performs tayammum, because he has not found water. Imam Malik held that wudu is not made with it if other water is found, and he said: there is no good in it; if he finds no other, he performs wudu with it and does not perform tayammum, because it is pure water that nothing has changed. Imam Ahmad, in the second narration, held it pure and purifying, and wudu with it is valid. As for water used for cooling and cleaning, it remains unrestricted and purification with it is valid, without disagreement among the jurists (al-Tamhid, 4/42 and 43; al-Awsat, 1/285; Nayl al-Awtar, 1/63; al-Mughni, 1/46).
Ibn Hajar said in al-Fath (1/414), commenting on the hadith of Abu Hurayrah: “Let none of you urinate in standing water, nor bathe in it from janabah; it was said: how then, Abu Hurayrah? He said: one draws it out”: this shows that the prohibition of immersing oneself in it is so that it does not become used and prevent others from benefiting from it; the Companion knows better than anyone the contexts of the address, and this is among the strongest proofs that used water is not tahur.
Third category: heated water, either through the effect of the sun upon it or through the effect of something else. As for water heated by the sun (mushammis), the jurists differed over its use: is it permitted outright without dislike, or is its use disliked? Two views.
The first view: it is permitted outright, without dislike, whether the use be on the body or the garment; so held the majority of Hanafis, the Hanbalis, some Maliki jurists like Ibn Shabun, Ibn al-Hajib and Ibn Abd al-Hakam, and some Shafi'is like al-Nawawi and al-Ruyani (hashiya of Ibn Abidin, 1/324; Mawahib al-Jalil, 1/78; hashiya of al-Dusuqi, 1/73; al-Sharh al-Saghir with Bughyat al-Salik, 1/28; al-Majmu, 2/30; al-Mughni, 1/41).
The second view: the dislike of sun-heated water: it is the relied-upon Maliki position, the Shafi'i madhhab and the view of some Hanafis. Al-Khatib al-Shirbini said: religiously disliked, as a matter of discouragement, is sun-heated water, meaning water the sun has heated: its use on the body, in purification and otherwise, in eating and drinking, is disliked, because al-Shafi'i related from Umar that he disliked bathing with sun-heated water and said: “it causes baras (loss of skin pigmentation)”. That, on condition that it be in hot lands, that the sun have changed it from one state to another (as transmitted in al-Bahr from the companions), in hammered vessels other than the two coin metals, that is, everything hammered like copper, and that it be used while hot; for the sun, through its intensity, separates from it a fume that rises over the water, and when it meets the body with its heat there is fear of contraction upon it, so the blood is retained and baras results (Mughni al-Muhtaj, 1/79 and 80; Kifayat al-Akhyar, p. 53).
Al-Dardir said: sun-heated water is disliked when heated by the sun in the hot regions, like the land of the Hijaz, not in lands like Egypt and Rum; some further restricted the dislike to water heated in vessels of copper and the like, not pottery; and it was said: not disliked at all (al-Sharh al-Saghir with Bughyat al-Salik, 1/28). Imam al-Dusuqi commented on al-Dardir's words in al-Sharh al-Kabir: the relied-upon view is dislike, what Ibn al-Furat transmitted from Malik and on which a group of the school settled; but this dislike is medical, not religious, for the heat of the sun does not prevent completing wudu or ghusl, unlike dislike due to its excessive heat, which is religious; the difference between the two dislikes is that the one who abandons the religious kind is rewarded, unlike the one who abandons the medical (hashiya of al-Dusuqi, 1/73 and 74).
Ibn Abidin said in his hashiya: we presented, in the chapter of the recommended acts of wudu, among them that one not use sun-heated water, and he declared it explicitly in al-Hilya, relying on what is authentic from Umar prohibiting it; hence he declared its dislike explicitly in al-Fath, and likewise in al-Bahr. He said in Maraj al-Daraya and in al-Qunya: purification with sun-heated water is disliked, because of what is reported that the Prophet said to A'ishah when she heated water in the sun:
Do not do this, O Humayra: it causes baras.Hadith graded weak (see al-Nawawi's assessment below)
And in al-Ghaya: sun-heated water is disliked in a hot region, in hammered vessels (hashiya of Ibn Abidin, 1/324). Imam al-Nawawi, commenting on these two hadiths, said: the hadith of A'ishah is weak by the agreement of the hadith scholars; al-Bayhaqi related it through several chains and showed the weakness of all of them, and some consider it forged; and the hadith of Umar, which al-Shafi'i related in al-Umm with his chain, is likewise weak by their agreement. What follows from this is that the dislike of sun-heated water has no basis, and nothing is established from the physicians concerning it; the correct position is to affirm that there is no dislike in it, and this is the correct view in accord with the proof and with al-Shafi'i's text, for he said in al-Umm: “I do not dislike sun-heated water, except from the standpoint of medicine” (al-Umm, 1/3); al-Bayhaqi likewise related it with his chain in his book Marifat al-Sunan wal-Athar (al-Majmu, 2/27 and 29; Rawdat al-Talibin, 1/142).