Specific cases of water

Beyond the general categories, the chapter on water deals with particular cases: water heated by the sun or by fire, flowing water facing impurity, confusion between vessels, well water, snow, hail, Zamzam, stale water, and the sharing of one vessel between man and woman. This page gathers these cases with the full range of opinions attributed to the schools and their references.

Each case follows the same method: the question, the opinions, the evidence, and the internal verdict of each madhhab where one exists.

Water heated by the sun: 2 opinions and the examination of the evidence

Water heated by the sun, called "mushammis", raises a question: is its use permitted without dislike, or disliked? Two opinions:

• First opinion: its use is permitted without dislike, for the body as for the garment. This is the view of the greater number of Hanafis and Hanbalis, of some Malikis, Ibn Sha'ban, Ibn al-Hajib and Ibn 'Abd al-Hakam, and of some Shafi'is, an-Nawawi and al-Ruyani (Hashiyat Ibn Abidin, 1/324; Mawahib al-Jalil, 1/78; Hashiyat al-Dasuqi, 1/73; al-Sharh al-Saghir with Bughyat al-Salik, 1/28; al-Majmu, 2/30; al-Mughni, 1/41).
• Second opinion: its use is disliked. This is the madhhab of the Malikis according to the soundest view, that of the Shafi'is within the madhhab, and that of some Hanafis.

Al-Shirbini sets out the second opinion: sun-heated water is disliked as an excess of scruple, for the body, in purification and elsewhere, eating and drinking included. Ash-Shafi'i reports from 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) that he disliked ghusl with sun-heated water, saying: it causes baras, a depigmentation of the skin. The dislike assumes 3 conditions: a hot land where the sun alters the state of the water; a vessel that imparts its taste, other than gold and silver, such as hammered copper; and use while still hot: the sun draws from the water a grease that floats on top, and at the contact of a warm body, a contraction is feared that retains the blood and produces baras (Mughni al-Muhtaj, 1/79-80; Kifayat al-Akhyar, p. 53). Al-Dardir restricts the hot land to the Hijaz, not Egypt or the land of the Romans; some add the vessel that imparts taste; others say: no dislike, without condition (al-Sharh al-Saghir with Bughyat al-Salik, 1/28). Al-Dasuqi rules: the soundest view is the dislike, reported from Ibn al-Furat by Malik and held by a group of the madhhab; but this dislike is medical, not legal: the heat of the sun does not prevent performing ablution, unlike a dislike for excessive heat, which is legal; the difference: one is rewarded for leaving a legal dislike, not a medical one (Hashiyat al-Dasuqi, 1/73-74).

Ibn Abidin notes in his Hashiya: among the recommendations of wudu is not to use sun-heated water; al-Hilya states it explicitly on the strength of the report of 'Umar, and Fath al-Qadir with al-Bahr state it as a dislike. In Ma'arij al-Daraya and al-Quniya: purification with sun-heated water is disliked because of the hadith addressed to 'Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her):

Do not do so, O Humayra: it causes baras.

reported in Ma'arij al-Daraya and al-Quniya; graded weak by the scholars of hadith (see an-Nawawi's assessment below)

Al-Ghaya adds: sun-heated water is disliked in a hot land, in a vessel that imparts taste. An-Nawawi examines the 2 hadiths: that of Aisha is weak by the consensus of the scholars; al-Bayhaqi reported it through several chains whose weakness he demonstrated, and some declare it fabricated; and that of 'Umar, reported by ash-Shafi'i in al-Umm with his own chain, is likewise weak by consensus. Conclusion: nothing establishes a dislike of sun-heated water; the physicians said nothing; the correct view is categorical: no dislike, which agrees with the evidence and with the text of ash-Shafi'i himself: in al-Umm he says: I do not dislike sun-heated water except for a medical reason; al-Bayhaqi also reports it with his chain in Marifat al-Sunan wal-Athar (al-Umm, 1/3; al-Majmu, 2/27-29; Rawdat al-Talibin, 1/142).

Water heated by other than the sun: fire and impurity

The Malikis, Shafi'is, Hanbalis and Abu Hanifa hold that water heated by fire is not disliked: no prohibition is reported, and the heat eliminates the greasy matter through the power of fire. The Shafi'is and Abu Hanifa extend this to water heated with an impurity; the Malikis dislike heating with an impurity (al-Sharh al-Kabir, 1/74; Mawahib al-Jalil, 1/80; al-Hawi al-Kabir, 1/41; Nihayat al-Muhtaj, 1/71; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 1/81; Rawdat al-Talibin, 1/142; Hashiyat al-Jamal, 1/36; Kifayat al-Akhyar, p. 54; al-Mughni, 1/41; Majmu al-Fatawa, 21/612).

The Hanbalis divide water heated with an impurity into 3 cases. Ibn Qudama enumerates them:

• Something of the impurity has reached the water: the water is impure if it is of little quantity.
• Nothing of the impurity has reached it, and the barrier is not tight: the water remains upon its original purity, but its use is disliked.
• The barrier is tight: al-Qadi judges it disliked; al-Sharif Abu Ja'far and Ibn 'Aqil say: no dislike, no ambiguity about its purity, unlike the previous case (al-Mughni, 1/42).

Abu al-Khattab reports 2 narrations on the dislike of this water, in absolute terms (al-Mughni, 1/42). Ibn Taymiyya writes: water heated with an impurity is pure; its dislike gives 2 narrations from Ahmad: not disliked, the view of Abu Hanifa and ash-Shafi'i; disliked, the madhhab of Malik. He explains the 2 roots of the dislike: the fear that something of the impurity has reached the water, a dislike out of ambiguity, lifted by a tight barrier, the way of al-Sharif Abu Ja'far and Ibn 'Aqil; or the fact that using impurity is disliked and the heat resulted from a disliked act, the way of al-Qadi Abu Ya'la; likewise cooking with impure fuel: the ripening of the food resembles the heating of the water (Majmu al-Fatawa, 21/612-613).

Flowing and stagnant water facing impurity: the schools in detail

The schools set out in detail the fate of water into which an impurity has fallen, according to whether it flows or stagnates, whether the impurity is visible or not, and according to change.

The Hanafis read the hadith of the measure first: "if the water reaches 2 qullas, it does not become impure" means that it does not accept impurity, but repels it from itself; had the meaning been weakness to carry it, the restriction to the 2 qullas would be empty, what is below being more apt to that meaning; it is said: it does not accept the ruling of impurity, like the donkey carrying books in the verse: "those who were entrusted with the Torah and then did not carry it": they did not accept its ruling (Talkhis al-Habir, 1/140).

The Hanafis then separate the 2 situations. Flowing water into which an invisible impurity falls, urine or wine: as long as no attribute changes, it remains pure, and wudu is valid from any spot, including the side of the impurity. Al-Kasani sets it out: if the impurity falls into flowing water and remains invisible, the water is not impure without a change of colour, taste or smell. Muhammad illustrates in Kitab al-Ashriba: if a man pours a khabiya, a large jar of wine, into the Euphrates, and another man downstream performs wudu: if the colour, taste or smell changes, wudu is not valid; otherwise it is. Abu Hanifa adds, on the ignorant man who urinates in flowing water while a man downstream performs wudu: no harm, for the parts of flowing water do not transmit their state to one another: the water of wudu may be impure or pure, water being pure in origin. If the impurity is visible, like a carcass: if the whole of the water flows over it, wudu downstream is not valid, the water there being certainly impure, and flow does not purify impurity; if the greater flow passes over it, the same verdict, the dominant setting the rule; if it is the lesser flow, the greater flowing over pure water, wudu is valid downstream, the dominated being attached to nothing in the legal rulings; if half or less flows over it, analogy gives valid wudu, the water being certainly pure and not judged impure on a doubt; in istihsan, wudu is not valid, as a precaution. The masters moreover debated the definition of flowing: some grant it to water that carries straw and leaves.

The Shafi'is: al-Shirazi sets out in al-Muhadhdhab. Accordingly, if the water is flowing and an impurity has fallen into it without changing it, its use is not disliked (Hashiyat al-Dasuqi, 1/70-71). Stagnant water into which falls an impurity the eye can grasp, wine, urine, or a carcass with liquid blood: if one attribute changes, taste, colour or smell, the water is impure, according to the hadith:

Water is purifying: nothing makes it impure, except what changes its taste or smell.

reported by Ibn Majah (521), at-Tabarani in al-Kabir (8/104) and al-Daraqutni in his Sunan (1/28); an-Nawawi grades it weak (al-Majmu, 2/69)

The text mentions taste and smell, colour following them by analogy. If a part changes without the other, all the water is impure: it is one water, and one does not impugn a part without the other. If nothing changes: below 2 qullas, the water is impure; at 2 qullas or more, it is pure, according to "if the water is 2 qullas, it does not carry impurity", and because the 2 qullas can be protected from impurity in vessels, abundant water cannot: the boundary is therefore fixed there. An impurity the eye cannot grasp, like the dust of a cesspit, gives 3 views: no ruling, for it cannot be avoided, like the dust of the sirjin; or the ruling of other impurities, a certain impurity being like one the eye grasps; or two views. Flowing water in which an impurity moves, like a carcass carried by the current: the water upstream is pure, it has not reached the impurity; the water downstream is pure too, the impurity has not reached it; the water surrounding the impurity, above, below, right and left: if it reaches 2 qullas without changing, it is pure; below that, it is impure, like stagnant water. An-Nawawi explains: "jirya" designates, among our companions, the channel of water running between the 2 banks of a river, across its width (al-Majmu, 2/121). Abu al-'Abbas Ibn al-Qass reports another view, that of the old book of ash-Shafi'i: flowing water is impure only by change, the water having flowed over the impurity without being impure, like the water poured to remove an impurity.

Among the Hanbalis: al-Insaf reports: the divergence concerns stagnant water; flowing water comes from Ahmad as stagnant water: if the whole reaches 2 qullas, it removes the impurity even without change, otherwise not: that is the madhhab. Al-Hawi al-Saghir reports: little flowing water is not impure before change, according to the more authentic narration; and from Ahmad, the flow counts by itself, the choice of al-Qadi and his companions: that is the madhhab. Al-Zarkashi says: it is the choice of the majority (al-Insaf, 1/56-57; al-Kafi, 1/9; al-Mubdi, 1/53; al-Mughni, 1/58).

Confusion between vessels of pure water and impure water

Neighbouring vessels contain, some of them purifying water, others impure water; confusion sets in, and no other purifying water can be found. The jurists gave 5 opinions, of which 4 are detailed in the sheet:

• First opinion: effort and scrutiny are required to identify the purifying one; if, after effort, the presumption of purity of one vessel prevails by means of an apparent sign, purification with it is permitted; otherwise not. This is the madhhab of the greater number of Shafi'is, and the view of Ibn al-Mawwaz, Sahnun and Ibn al-'Arabi among the Malikis. An-Nawawi says: if 2 waters, one pure and one impure, are confused, the correct stated view, on which the greater number decided and to which the texts of ash-Shafi'i converge, is that purification is not permitted with either, unless effort makes its purity prevail by means of an apparent sign; without an apparent sign, purification is not valid; the number of pure vessels, greater or smaller, is irrelevant: a pure vessel confused with 100 impure ones is scrutinized in the same way; likewise for food and garments (al-Majmu, 2/164-165; al-Umm, 1/11; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 1/59; Mawahib al-Jalil, 1/171; Tahdhib al-Furuq, 1/228). Their evidence: the verse quoted already: this person has found water, tayammum is not valid and effort is required; purification is a condition of the validity of prayer, reachable by effort: it is therefore required, by analogy with the qibla, with effort in the rulings and with restoring lost limbs, even if error can occur (al-Majmu, 2/167).
• Second opinion: effort is required if the vessels of purifying water outnumber those of impure water; if equal or fewer, no effort: tayammum. This is the view of the Hanafis and of Abu 'Ali an-Najjad among the Hanbalis (Hashiyat al-Tahawi 'ala Maraqi al-Falah, 1/23; al-Mughni, 1/84).
• Third opinion: no scrutiny in case of confusion: leave everything, and perform tayammum. This is one of the 2 views of Sahnun, that of Abu Thawr and al-Muzani among the Shafi'is, and that of Ahmad and the greater number of his companions (Mawahib al-Jalil, 1/171; al-Qawanin al-Fiqhiyya, 38; al-Majmu, 2/165; al-Mughni, 1/85). Their evidence: effort may land on the impure, the confusion of a pure with an impure forbidding effort, as with water confused with urine (al-Majmu, 2/165). They then diverge: Ahmad, in one narration, allows tayammum only after the water is poured out, to establish the absence of water; in the second, tayammum is allowed before, the choice of Abu Bakr; Ibn Qudama declares this second one correct: the person is not able to use the pure (al-Majmu, 2/165; al-Mughni, 1/86; Mawahib al-Jalil, 1/171). Sahnun, Abu Thawr and al-Muzani: tayammum and prayer, without repetition, even without pouring out the water: the water is as if non-existent.
• Fourth opinion: wudu is performed successively, the number of impure vessels plus 1: one performs wudu with one, prays, then with another, prays, up to the number of impure plus one: 5 vessels of which 2 are impure give wudu with 3 and one prayer per wudu; 3 impure give wudu with 4.

Well water, spring water, snow, hail, Zamzam and stale water

Mutlaq water is also counted by its provenance: well water, whose basis is the hadith of the well of Buda'a quoted already; spring water, what gushes from the earth; snow water, descended liquid then frozen, or frozen by modern industrial means; hail water, descended frozen then melted on the earth, called grain of cloud and grain of rain (Mukhtasar al-Sihah, al-Qamus, al-Muhit and al-Mu'jam al-Wajiz; al-Sharh al-Kabir, 1/57). The basis for snow and hail is the hadith of Abu Hurayra: the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) would stay silent between the takbir and the recitation, then said:

I say: O Allah, distance my faults from me as You have distanced the east from the west; O Allah, purify me from my faults as a white garment is purified from filth; O Allah, wash my faults with water, snow and hail.

reported by al-Bukhari (711) and Muslim (598)

Snow: no disagreement on purification with it once melted. Before melting, 3 opinions:

• First opinion: the Hanafis according to the soundest view, the Malikis and the Hanbalis: purification is not valid before melting, so long as the snow does not drip and does not flow over the limb. The author of al-Durr al-Mukhtar writes: ritual impurity is removed, without restriction, with mutlaq water, the water that comes to mind without qualification: rain water, valley water, spring water, well water, sea water, and snow melted to the point of dripping (al-Durr al-Mukhtar with Hashiyat Ibn Abidin, 1/324; see al-Bunaya Sharh al-Hidaya, 1/336; al-Bahr al-Ra'iq, 1/71; Hashiyat at-Tahtawi, 1/15). Al-Dardir writes: mutlaq water is that upon which the name of water falls without restriction, even collected from dew or melted, liquefied after freezing, like snow descended liquid then frozen on the ground (al-Sharh al-Kabir, 1/56-57; Mukhtasar Khalil, 1/8; Mawahib al-Jalil, 1/51). Ibn Qudama adds: melted snow and hail are purifying, the water having descended from the sky, according to the supplication of the Prophet: O Allah, purify me with water, snow and hail, reported by the 2 shaykhs; passing a piece of snow over the limbs does not count as wudu, even if the limb becomes moist, the obligation being washing, at minimum the flow of water over the limb; except if the snow, light, melts and its water flows over the limbs: the washing is accomplished and suffices (al-Mughni ma'a al-Sharh, 1/43).
• Second opinion: Abu Yusuf: purification with snow is valid without restriction, even without dripping (al-Bunaya Sharh al-Hidaya, 1/336; al-Bahr al-Ra'iq, 1/71; Hashiyat Ibn Abidin, 1/324; Hashiyat at-Tahtawi, 1/15).
• Third opinion: the Shafi'is distinguish snow that melts on the limb through the heat of the body or through its own softness, and flows: wudu is correct according to the more correct view, the water having flowed over the limb; some say: it is not, this is not called washing, a view reported by al-Mawardi, author of al-Hawi, and al-Darimi; an-Nawawi notes that the 2 are great Iraqi imams, and al-Darimi attributes it to Abu Sa'id al-Istakhri. If the snow does not flow: wudu is not valid for the washed limbs, without divergence; the wiping counts for the wiped limbs, head, khuff and bandage: that is their madhhab (al-Majmu Sharh al-Muhadhdhab, 2/16).

Zamzam: 3 opinions on its use for ritual impurity or for removing filth:

• First opinion: the Hanafis, Shafi'is, Ahmad in one narration and Ibn Sha'ban among the Malikis: Zamzam water is used without dislike for removing ritual impurity; for removing impurities, its use is disliked out of veneration and honour; among the Shafi'is, a view holds the opposite of the preferable (Hashiyat Ibn Abidin, 1/324; Hashiyat al-'Adawi, 1/159; al-Majmu, 2/34; Minar al-Sabil, 1/16; al-Mughni, 1/43).
• Second opinion: the Malikis: its use is permitted without dislike, absolutely, for purification from ritual impurity as for the removal of filth. Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani writes: Zamzam water, fresh sea water and salt water are good in themselves for every use; pure in themselves as long as no impurity mixes with them; purifying against impurity and ritual impurities of the same kind, so long as they remain upon their original creation without being changed by what usually separates from them; and these specifications come although they fall under what precedes, to signal the divergence over some of them (Kifayat al-Talib al-Rabbani, 1/159).
• Third opinion: Ahmad, in one narration: dislike in absolute terms, for ritual impurity as for impurity; and Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya restricts the dislike to the ghusl of major impurity. In al-Ikhtiyarat al-Ilmiyya (9): ghusl, not wudu, with Zamzam water is disliked: a group of scholars said it (Minar al-Sabil, 1/16; al-Mughni, 1/43; Masa'il al-Imam Ahmad, reported by his son Salih, 3/81).

Stale (aajin) water: water changed by its long stay in the same place without the mixing of any substance, approaching putrid water. No divergence among the 4 schools: its use without dislike is permitted. Ibn al-Mundhir says: they agree on the validity of wudu with stale water into which no impurity has fallen; Ibn Sirin alone opposed it: he does not judge it valid (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; Hashiyat al-Ramli, 1/8).

A man's wudu with the leftover of a woman's water

The jurists debated: may a man perform wudu with the leftover of the water with which a woman purified herself? The greater number, Hanafis, Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis in one narration, allows it, even if the woman used it alone. Their evidence: Muslim reports that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) washed himself with the leftover of the water of Maymuna, and the statement of Maymuna (may Allah be pleased with her):

I washed myself in a large bowl and a remainder was left; the Prophet came to wash himself; I said: I have already washed with it; he replied: water has no state of impurity.

authentic hadith: reported by at-Tirmidhi (65), Ibn Majah (370), al-Darimi (734), Ahmad (6/330) and Ibn Hibban in his Sahih (4/73-74)

And the hadith of Ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him): men and women performed wudu together, all of them, from a single vessel at the time of the Messenger of Allah (reported by al-Bukhari, 190; Abu Dawud, 79, the wording is his). Ibn Abd al-Barr says in al-Istidhkar (1/169): this hadith is a clear proof against whoever forbids wudu with the leftover of a woman: when all wash from one vessel, each performs wudu with the leftover of the other.

The Hanbali madhhab: a man does not perform wudu with the leftover of the water of a woman if she used it alone; if they use it together, no harm. Their evidence: al-Hakam ibn Amr reports that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) forbade a man to perform wudu with the leftover of the purification of a woman (authentic hadith: Abu Dawud, 82; at-Tirmidhi, 64; Ibn Majah, 373). Ibn Hajar writes in Fath al-Bari (1/360): the hadiths of prohibition concern what drips from the limbs, and the permission concerns the water that remains, al-Khattabi reconciling them thus; or the prohibition is understood as scrupulousness, reconciling all the evidence. As for the wudu of a woman with the leftover of the water of a man: permitted by consensus; an-Nawawi says: the purification of a woman with the leftover of the water of a man is permitted by consensus (Sharh Sahih Muslim, 4/3; see Fath al-Bari, 1/359).

Practical note

These cases obey a simple compass: water remains purifying so long as no established impediment removes it from its status, and the burden of proof weighs on the one who forbids it. For the well, snow, Zamzam or the sharing of a vessel, the 4 schools almost always offer a common path; where they diverge, this page gives the opinions and their sources so that a scholar can be consulted in full knowledge of the case.