Islamic Fiqh > Purification (Tahara) > Impurities (najasat) and vessels > Impurities and their purification
Contents
Updated on 24 September 2026 at 1:14 PM
The following leaves are translated from the juridical encyclopedia al-Mawsua al-fiqhiyya and deal with impurities (najasat), their removal, and vessels. The positions of the four schools are reported exactly as the source attributes them, together with their Quranic and prophetic proofs, the hadith gradings given by the critics, and the references of the classical works. All figures (dirham, quarter of the garment, number of washings) are reproduced identically.
The leaf opens with the end of the discussion on the urine of the baby boy: the permission of nadh (sprinkling with water) does not in the least mean that this urine is pure; it belongs to a lightening of its removal, and that is the correct view. The report transmitted by Abu al-Hasan Ibn Battal and then Qadi Iyad, according to which al-Shafi'i and others said that the urine of the baby boy is pure and may simply be sprinkled, is a report with no foundation whatsoever.
The definition of nadh divides the Shafi'is. For Shaykh Abu Muhammad al-Juwayni, Qadi Husayn and al-Baghawi, it consists in immersing in water the thing touched by the urine, as with other impurities, except that wringing, required elsewhere according to one of two views, is not required here by agreement. For Imam al-Haramayn and the verified scholars, and this is the correct and chosen view, nadh consists in flooding the spot and multiplying the water without reaching flow or dripping, unlike the washing of other impurities, where part of the water must run and drip from the spot, even if wringing is not required. The proof is her words: "she sprinkled it and did not wash it", and the Prophet's: "he sprinkled it", meaning he watered it (Sharh Sahih Muslim, 3/195).
Nadh suffices only as long as the child is limited to suckling; once he eats food for nourishment, washing is required without disagreement. Madhy is a thin, viscous white fluid that exits at the moment of desire without thrust or spurting, causes no subsequent lassitude, and sometimes goes unnoticed; it occurs in men and women alike and is more frequent among women (Sharh Sahih Muslim, 3/180; al-Majmu, 2/161). Wady is a thick, cloudy white fluid resembling mani in thickness but differing from it, with no odor; it exits after urination when the temperament is bound, and when carrying a heavy load, a drop or two at a time and the like (Sharh Sahih Muslim, 3/180; al-Majmu, 2/161).
Madhy and wady are impure by agreement of the scholars. Al-Nawawi says: "The community is unanimous on the impurity of madhy and wady" (al-Majmu, 2/510; Sharh Sahih Muslim, 3/180; Sharh al-Sunna, 2/90; al-Bahr al-Raiq, 1/65; al-Mabsut, 1/69).
Among the Hanbalis, however, there is a minority position holding madhy pure: Ibn Aqil authenticated it, Abu al-Khattab chose it in his Khilaf, and Ibn Razin preferred it in his Sharh and asserted it in his Nihaya and its Nazm. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya writes in Sharh al-Umda (p. 104) that madhy is excused according to the stronger of the two narrations from Ahmad, since affliction with it is general and guarding against it is hard, like blood and even more so given the disagreement over its impurity; wady, by contrast, is not excused according to the well-known position, like urine; as for blood, its small amount is excused according to one narration.
Ibn Qudama transmits in al-Mughni (1/413), through Muhammad ibn al-Hakam, that the latter asked Imam Ahmad which was stronger, madhy or mani: "They are alike: neither comes from the urinary passage, both come from the loins and the chest; in my view it is like spittle and mucus", in line with the word of Ibn Abbas. Ibn Hajar notes in Fath al-Bari (1/381) that Ibn Aqil deduced from the view of those who make madhy part of mani a narration of its purity; the reply is that if it were mani, the full bath would be required.
Malik relates in al-Muwatta (1/41), in the chapter of the dispensation for not renewing ablutions for madhy, that Said ibn al-Musayyab, asked by a man who felt moisture while praying, replied: "If it flowed on my thigh, I would not leave my prayer before completing it", a sign that he did not consider madhy impure. Abd al-Razzaq transmits in his Musannaf (613), from Ibn Uyayna, that Said said he felt madhy running down his thigh while praying without caring, and that Umar ibn al-Khattab said the same while he was on the minbar.
The scholars agree that the emission of madhy and wady does not require the full bath (al-Majmu, 2/161), and Ibn Qudama says that madhy, wady and wind nullify ablutions by consensus. The proof is the hadith of Ali:
"I was a man prone to madhy and I was too shy to ask the Prophet because of his daughter; so I asked al-Miqdad ibn al-Aswad to question him, and he said: let him wash his private part and perform ablution."Reported by al-Bukhari (269) and Muslim (303)
Ibn al-Mundhir first transmits the agreement of the scholars that the passage of feces, of urine from man or woman, of madhy and of wind are events breaking purity and requiring ablution (al-Ijma, p. 19; al-Mughni, 1/214). Mani is the thick, spurting fluid that exits at the height of desire (al-Mughni, 1/260; Kashshaf al-Qina, 1/139; Sharh Sahih Muslim of Imam al-Nawawi, 3/189).
The imams of the four schools differed over its purity. The Hanafis, the Malikis, an anomalous view among the Shafi'is, and one narration from Imam Ahmad declare it impure (Bada'i al-Sana'i, 1/217-218; Hashiyat Ibn Abidin, 1/514; al-Bahr al-Raiq, 1/236; Hashiyat al-Tahtawi, 1/110; Tabyin al-Haqa'iq, 1/71; al-Istidhkar, 1/286; Mawahib al-Jalil, 1/165; Bidayat al-Mujtahid, 1/122; Hashiyat al-Dusuqi, 1/92; al-Sharh al-Saghir, 1/38; al-Hawi al-Kabir, 2/251 and 253; Sharh Sahih Muslim, 2/287; al-Kafi, 1/87).
The Hanafis rely on the hadith of Aisha:
"I used to wash the mani (the defilement) from the garment of the Messenger of Allah, then he would go out to prayer while the traces of water were still on his garment."Reported by al-Bukhari (229) and Muslim (289)
Their deduction: Aisha washed the mani from the Prophet's garment, and washing is the affair of impurities; the Prophet knew of it, approved it, and did not tell her it was pure; had it been pure, he would have prevented her from wasting water without need, which would have been squandering and needless fatigue; it also exits from one of the two passages, hence it is impure like other impurities (Sharh Fath al-Qadir, 1/196-197; al-Banya, 1/722). The Malikis explain its impurity by its being a blood transformed into putrefaction, and by its exiting from the urinary opening: it is joined to urine in purity and impurity alike (Hashiyat al-Dusuqi, 1/92; al-Sharh al-Saghir, 1/38; Mawahib al-Jalil, 1/104; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 1/92). In practice, the Hanafis and the Hanbalis, on the view of its impurity, hold that rubbing it once dry suffices; Malik requires washing in every case, moist or dry.
The Shafi'is, according to the textual position of their school, and the Hanbalis according to the well-known view, hold mani to be pure (al-Majmu, 2/511; al-Hawi al-Kabir, 1/251 and 253; al-Awsat, 2/159; al-Mughni, 2/187; al-Kafi, 1/87; al-Rawd al-Murbi, 1/103; Majmu al-Fatawa of the Shaykh al-Islam, 21/604). Al-Nawawi specifies that it is also the view of Said ibn al-Musayyab, Ata, Ishaq ibn Rahawayh, Abu Thawr, Dawud and Ibn al-Mundhir, and that al-Abdari and others attributed it to Sad ibn Abi Waqqas, Ibn Umar and Aisha.
Their proof is the hadith of Aisha:
"I used to rub the mani from the garment of the Messenger of Allah, then he would pray in it."Reported by Muslim (288)
There is no contradiction between the hadith of washing and that of rubbing: washing is understood as recommended, for cleanliness, not obligatory (Fath al-Bari, 1/397). Al-Mawardi further invokes the word of Allah:
"And it is He who created from water a human being, then made him kinship by blood and kinship by marriage."
Surat al-Furqan, 54
Mani is called water, so it takes water's ruling of purity; it is the origin of the creation of man, like clay; it proceeds from a pure living being, like the egg (al-Hawi al-Kabir, 2/251 and 253). The hadith scholar Ibn Hajar replies to those who declare it impure that the hadith does not prove it, for Aisha's washing is an action, and an isolated action does not indicate obligation (Fath al-Bari, 1/398).
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya adds that the Companions had ejaculatory dreams in the Prophet's time and that mani touched their bodies and garments, a matter of universal affliction: had it been impure, the Prophet would have ordered them to remove it, just as he ordered istinja and just as he ordered the menstruating woman to wash the blood from her garment; yet no one transmitted that he ordered anyone to wash mani from body or garment (Majmu al-Fatawa, 21/604-605). That Aisha sometimes washed it and sometimes rubbed it implies no impurity: garments are also washed from mucus, spittle and grime; several Companions, such as Sad ibn Abi Waqqas and Ibn Abbas, said: "it is like mucus and spittle: remove it, even with a blade of idhkhir grass". It remains recommended to wash it when moist and to rub it when dry, per the report; the mani of man and of woman are alike (al-Hawi al-Kabir, 2/253).
The jurists agree on the impurity of blood. They prove it by the word of Allah: "Forbidden to you are carrion and blood" and "unless it be carrion or blood poured forth", and by the hadith of Asma:
"A woman came to the Prophet and said: one of us finds her garment stained with menstrual blood, what should she do? He said: let her scrape it, then knead it with water, then sprinkle it, then pray in it."Reported by al-Bukhari (307) and Muslim (291)
Imam al-Nawawi says: "This hadith establishes that blood is impure by consensus of the Muslims" (Sharh Sahih Muslim, 3/168), and elsewhere: "The proofs of the impurity of blood are manifest; I know of no disagreement on it, apart from what the author of al-Hawi reports from some theologians who said it is pure; but theologians do not count in consensus" (al-Majmu, 2/514). Ibn Hajar derives from it that menstrual blood follows the other bloods as to the obligation of washing it (Fath al-Bari, 1/489).
Abu Umar Ibn Abd al-Barr explains that the meaning intended by Asma's hadith in the Law is washing menstrual blood from the stained garment, and that every blood follows that ruling, except a small amount, excused because Allah conditioned the impurity of blood on its being poured forth (masfuh): there is consensus of the Muslims that poured-forth blood is an impurity (rijis), "poured forth" meaning in law the abundant, so that a drop fallen from flowing blood upon a garment or body follows the ruling of the small, without regard to its linguistic origin (al-Tamhid, 22/230; al-Istidhkar, 1/331).
A great number of scholars have transmitted this consensus, first among them Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya relates: "Ahmad said: pus, sanies and purulent matter are, in my view, easier than blood, whose impurity admits no doubt"; asked whether pus and blood were equal for him, he replied: "Blood is not disagreed upon among people; pus is" (Sharh al-Umda, 1/105; Ighathat al-Lahfan, 1/151). Ibn Hazm transmits the agreement that the abundance of any blood, save fish blood and what has no flowing blood, is impure (Maratib al-Ijma, p. 19; al-Muhalla, 1/102).
Ibn al-Arabi the Maliki: "The scholars agree that blood is forbidden and impure, neither eaten nor used" (Ahkam al-Quran, 1/79); Imam al-Qurtubi: "agreed: forbidden and impure" (al-Jami li Ahkam al-Quran, 1/615); Ibn Hajar: "Blood is impure by agreement" (Fath al-Bari, 1/420); Ibn Qudama: "impure, no known disagreement" (al-Mughni, 1/285); Badr al-Din al-Ayni: the hadith implies the permissibility of removing impurity with something other than water, the number of washings not being required, the aim being elimination (Umdat al-Qari, 3/281); Ibn Abidin, citing al-Siraj al-Hindi: blood sometimes emitted when brushing the teeth for prayer is impure by consensus, though it does not break ablution according to al-Shafi'i (Radd al-Muhtar, 1/21).
They also prove impurity by the hadith of the two Shaykhs: Fatima bint Abi Hubaysh came to the Prophet and said: "O Messenger of Allah, I am a woman in continuous metrorrhagia and I do not become pure; should I abandon prayer?" He replied: "No: that is a vein and not menstruation; when menstruation comes, leave prayer; when it departs, wash the blood from you and pray" (al-Bukhari, 306; Muslim, 333). Al-Nawawi: "This hadith commands the removal of impurity and establishes that blood is impure" (Sharh Sahih Muslim, 4/20). Ibn Arafa in his Tafsir (2/506) and al-Shinqiti in Adwa al-Bayan (2/399) likewise transmitted the consensus.
The encyclopedia's notes preserve a long statement by Shaykh Atiyya Salim. Addressing students who declare poured-forth blood pure and deny any proof, while the community has been unanimous for fourteen centuries on its impurity, he objects that, if they reject consensus, nothing further can be discussed with them. To those who read the verse "Forbidden to you are carrion and blood" as a mere prohibition of consumption, he answers with the indication of pairing: blood is paired with carrion, hence impure like it; and the impurity of carrion is established by the hadith of the sheep being dragged, where the Companions deduced from its death its impurity, and the Prophet corrected them only as to consumption, showing them what purifies the hide.
He further notes that al-Bukhari and Muslim classify the hadith of Fatima bint Hubaysh under the chapter of impurities precisely to deduce the impurity of blood: the command "wash the blood from you", addressed to a woman in metrorrhagia, in fact concerns a blood other than menstrual blood, hence blood in general. He also cites Ibn Hazm's rule in al-Muhalla: asked about a specific blood, that of menses, the Prophet answered with the generic term "the blood", so that all bloods are impure; Ibn Hazm even included fish blood, an excessive extension peculiar to him, though some Malikis said something similar; and Ibn Taymiyya mentions the impurity of blood in seven places of Majmu al-Fatawa: no recognized mujtahid of the four schools has ever said that poured-forth blood is pure (quoted from Bulugh al-Maram, 8/4 and 12/6).
To those who object the case of Umar praying while his wound bled, the story of the night guard pierced by three arrows while reciting Surat al-Kahf without interrupting his prayer, and the word said to the woman in metrorrhagia: "pray even if the blood drips on the mat", he answers that necessity is not measured against ease: Umar abandoned prayer because of his wound while saying: "no share in Islam for whoever abandons prayer"; fighters are wounded, their swords covered in blood, and they pray the fear prayer bearing arms; the discussion concerns only cases free of necessity.
As for the martyr being buried without washing, al-Shafi'i suggests that omitting the washing and the funeral prayer over one killed by the polytheists aims at their meeting Allah with their wounds, in keeping with the hadith: "the odor of wounds is the odor of musk and their color the color of blood", Allah's favor standing in lieu of prayer for them and lightenning those who remain (Marifat al-Sunan wal-Athar, 3/143; al-Majmu, 5/219). Al-Kasani writes in Bada'i al-Sana'i (1/324) that the Prophet did not order washing and gave the reason: they will be resurrected on the Day of Resurrection with veins gushing blood, which is not to be removed by washing so that it may bear witness for them; not washing the martyr's blood is thus a divine favor, martyrdom preventing the impurity of death, as with the martyrs of Uhud.
Al-Bukhari titled a chapter of his Sahih: "what falls of impurities into ghee and water", then cited the raised hadith of Abu Hurayra:
"Every wound suffered by a Muslim in the way of Allah will come on the Day of Resurrection as it was inflicted: gushing forth blood, its color the color of blood and its fragrance the fragrance of musk."Reported by al-Bukhari in his Sahih
Ibn al-Munir explains in al-Mutawari (1/72) that, the description of blood having changed into that of a pure thing, musk, the ruling of impurity lapsed; al-Ayni (Umdat al-Qari, 3/164) and Ibn Hajar (Fath al-Bari, 1/411) develop the same meaning: absolute blood is impure, but martyrdom transformed it, and it is so that his honor may appear on the Day of Resurrection that it is not washed off. Al-Zarkashi gives three explanations for not washing the martyr: repelling hardship given their number; because no prayer is said over him; and the correct explanation: lest the trace of worship be removed, which must remain, as shown by the hadith of Abdullah ibn Thalaba (Sharh al-Zarkashi, 1/335). The compiler concludes that saying blood pure would amount to permitting the writing of the Quran with blood, whereas sorcerers draw near to demons with blood and the like.
Pus (qayh) is the pure purulent matter unmixed with blood; the discharge (sayd) is the thin fluid of a wound mixed with blood before the matter thickens. No disagreement among the four schools: both are impure like blood. Al-Nawawi: "Pus is impure without disagreement, and likewise the changed water of sores is impure by agreement" (al-Majmu, 2/515). Al-Shirazi: "Pus is impure because it is a blood transformed into putrefaction; if blood is impure, pus is a fortiori" (al-Muhadhdhab, 1/47). Ibn Qudama: "Pus, discharge and what derives from blood have its ruling" (al-Mughni, 1/275); al-Mawwaq: "with Malik, like blood" (al-Taj wal-Iklil, 1/147); al-Kharshi: "impure" (Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 1/92; al-Istidhkar of Ibn Abd al-Barr, 1/158).
The schools then differ over the excuses. The Hanafis excuse human blood that does not flow over the head of the wound, and the blood of bugs and fleas, since it cannot be avoided without hardship (Bada'i al-Sana'i, 1/219; al-Hidaya, 1/30; al-Ikhtiyar, 1/8 and 30-31; Maraqi al-Falah, p. 17 and 30; Radd al-Muhtar, 4338).
The Malikis excuse less than a dirham of poured-forth blood once it has separated from the animal (Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 1/87; Hashiyat al-Dusuqi, 1/74; al-Sharh al-Saghir, 1/118; al-Fawakih al-Dawani, 1/248).
The Shafi'is excuse the customary small amount of blood and of pus, whether from oneself or from another, once separated then returned, except the blood of the dog, the pig and their crossbreed, of which nothing is excused so grave is their impurity. A person's own blood not separated from him, such as that of boils, sores and the spot of cupping or venesection, is excused whether little or much, spread or not. The blood of fleas, lice and the like, of universal affliction, is excused; all on condition that the impurity has not mixed with something foreign, otherwise nothing is excused, even one's own blood or a bleeding gum. What the eye cannot perceive is excused, even for grave impurity, because guarding against it is hard.
For them, the small amount is what people customarily pardon, for man is never free of a pimple or an itch emitting that quantity; the much is what dominates and covers the garment; it has also been said: the size of a dinar; and: less than the palm (al-Majmu, 3/140-141; al-Najm al-Wahhaj, 1/213; al-Iqna, 1/90).
The Hanbalis excuse the small amount of blood and of what derives from it, pus and discharge, outside liquids and foods, that is, for prayer, for man is seldom safe from it and guarding is hard. The measure of what is excused is what does not revolt the mind; more is excused of pus and the like than of blood, Imam Ahmad saying: "it is easier than blood". Only what comes from a human or a pure animal outside the passages is excused: what exits from the passages is not; the blood of an impure animal, dog or pig, is not excused; there is no difference between gathered and scattered blood: once excessive, it is not excused; the blood of bugs, lice and whatever has no flowing soul is excused (al-Mughni, 2/275-276; Kashshaf al-Qina, 1/74; al-Mubdi, 1/247).
Vomit is what exits of food after its settling in the stomach (al-Mabsut, 1/74; Bada'i al-Sana'i, 1/58; al-Hidaya, 1/30; Radd al-Muhtar, 4338; al-Sharh al-Saghir, 1/139-140; Kifayat al-Akhyar, p. 103; al-Awsat, 2/23-25; al-Majmu, 2/342; al-Mughni, 1/355; al-Kafi, 1/40). The Hanafis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis declare it impure, with nuances.
Among the Hanafis: what fills the mouth is impure; below that it is pure according to the chosen view of Abu Yusuf. In the fatwas of Najm al-Din al-Nasafi: an infant suckled then vomited on the mother's clothes: if it fills the mouth, it is impure; if it exceeds a dirham, it prevents praying in that garment; al-Hasan transmits from Abu Hanifa that it does not prevent unless excessive, for it is not changed in every respect: that is the correct view (Sharh Fath al-Qadir, 1/204; Hashiyat Ibn Abidin, 1/309; Bada'i al-Sana'i, 1/219).
Among the Shafi'is, vomit is impure whether it exits changed or not, for it is a food transformed in the belly into putrefaction, like feces; they rely on the Prophet's word to Ammar:
"O Ammar, the garment is washed only from five things: feces, urine, vomit, blood and mani."Reported by al-Daraqutni (458), who judged it very weak; al-Nawawi declares it spurious and unfit as proof (al-Majmu, 2/509)
They add that one afflicted by vomiting is excused as to garment and body, even in large quantity, like flea blood; affliction meaning that vomiting becomes so frequent one is seldom free of it (al-Majmu, 2/509; Hashiyat al-Habl, 1/174; Hashiyat al-Bajirmi, 1/100; al-Muhadhdhab, 1/47; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 1/214). Among the Hanbalis it is impure as a food transformed into corruption, resembling feces (al-Kafi, 1/87; Manar al-Sabil, 1/66); two narrations from Ahmad on excusing a little vomit: one treats it like blood, the other excuses no impurity at all (al-Mughni, 2/277-278; al-Insaf, 1/331; Sharh al-Umda, 1/107).
The Malikis confine impurity to vomit changed from the state of food, even without resembling any attribute of feces: it must be washed from garment, body and place. Al-Dardir: "if it is changed by bile or phlegm without changing from the state of food, it is pure"; al-Dusuqi: "if changed by acidity or the like, it is impure, even without resembling the attributes of feces, as is apparent in al-Mudawwana", the view chosen by Sanad, al-Baji, Ibn Bishr, Ibn Shas and Ibn al-Hajib, against al-Tanusi, Ibn Rushd and Qadi Iyad, for whom vomit is impure only if it resembles one of the attributes of feces (Hashiyat al-Dusuqi with al-Sharh al-Kabir, 1/84; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 1/85; al-Taj wal-Iklil, 1/94; Mawahib al-Jalil, 1/94).
Qals is a gush of water cast up by the stomach, or by a wind of the stomach, sometimes carrying food (Mawahib al-Jalil, 1/94-95; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 1/86; Hashiyat al-Dusuqi, 1/84); it is also said: what rises from the belly, a mouthful or less, without being vomit; if it returns, it is vomit (al-Mubdi, 1/158). Among the Hanafis and the Hanbalis it is impure like vomit (Fath al-Qadir, 1/40; Tabyin al-Haqa'iq, 1/9; Hashiyat al-Tahtawi, 1/58; Matalib Uli al-Nuha, 1/141; Kashshaf al-Qina, 1/125).
Among the Malikis it follows the ruling of vomit per the preceding detail. Al-Hattab gives the definition then distinguishes two kinds: what is changed according to what it becomes and the humors mixing with it, impure; and what does not change, or takes only the taste of water, pure, as set out for vomit. He cites Malik's word in al-Muwatta: "I saw Rabia, after sunset, repeatedly bringing up qals in the mosque without leaving before praying", to be understood of the unchanged. Ibn Bishr writes in the book of purity: qals exits at fullness or coldness of temperament, and may contain unchanged food: it is not impure.
Al-Baji, in his Sharh of al-Muwatta: qals is water, or a little food rising to the mouth in one motion; rinsing is not obligatory but recommended, to clean the mouth and remove what may remain of the odor of food. Al-Shibibi, in his Sharh of the Risala, holds that if it is changed it is impure and invalidates prayer, little or much. A practical detail: if vomit or qals is changed, washing the mouth is obligatory; otherwise rinsing is recommended, unless it leaves with the spittle, per al-Baji. If vomit resembles the attributes of feces, the disagreement over its breaking ablution comes later. The word qalas, with vowel, is a noun; with sukun, it is the verbal noun. The Shafi'is have no dedicated treatment of qals, except in the chapter of the nullifiers of ablution, where they establish that it does not break them (Mawahib al-Jalil, 1/94-95).
The jurists of the four schools agree that khamr is impure, relying on the word of Allah:
"Intoxicants, games of chance, idols and divining arrows are but an abomination (rijis) of Satan's work: shun it, that you may prosper."
Surat al-Ma'ida, 90
Rijis is, in language, the filthy and stinking thing (al-Misbah al-Munir). Al-Nawawi: "Khamr is impure according to us, to Malik, Abu Hanifa, Ahmad and the rest of the scholars" (al-Majmu, 1/520; with Mukhtasar al-Quduri, p. 21; al-Mabsut, 24/23; Bada'i al-Sana'i, 5/115; al-Taj wal-Iklil, 1/97; al-Fawakih al-Dawani, 2/288; al-Sharh al-Kabir, 1/81; Bidayat al-Mujtahid, 1/115; al-Hawi al-Kabir, 2/260; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 1/211; Hashiyat Umaira, 1/80; Matalib Uli al-Nuha, 1/43).
Al-Qurtubi expounds the majority's reasoning: the prohibition of khamr, the Law's disgust for it, its being called rijis and the command to shun it convey its impurity. If it be objected that declaring impure is a legal ruling without text, and that many forbidden things are not impure, the reply: "rijis" denotes impurity in the language; and if one judged only by explicit text, the Law would be sterile: texts are few; what explicit text is there on the impurity of urine, feces or carrion? Apparent meanings, generalities and analogies ground the ruling (Tafsir al-Qurtubi, 3/625-626).
Al-Muzani, a companion of al-Shafi'i, nonetheless held khamr pure, followed by Rabia, Malik's shaykh, al-Layth ibn Sad, Dawud al-Zahiri, al-San'ani, al-Shawkani, Shaykh al-Albani and Ibn Uthaymin. Their proofs: Anas's hadith in the story of the prohibition: "the Messenger of Allah ordered a crier to announce that khamr was forbidden; I went out and poured it away, and it ran in the lanes of Medina" (al-Bukhari, 2332; Muslim, 1980), and the hadith of the man with two waterskins of khamr: "when Allah forbids a thing, He forbids its price"; the man opened them until nothing remained (Muslim, 1206).
Al-Qurtubi further reports that Said ibn Haddad al-Qurashi deduced the purity of khamr from its being poured into Medina's streets: had it been impure, the Companions would not have done so, and the Messenger of Allah would have forbidden it, as he forbade relieving oneself on the ways. Reply: the Companions did so for lack of sewers or wells to pour it into, for most had no privies in their houses, Aisha having said they found them repugnant; carrying it outside Medina would have entailed cost and hardship and delayed an immediate obligation; Medina's streets were wide and the khamr was not so abundant as to form a river covering the whole way: it ran only in limited spots one could guard against; added to this was the benefit of publicizing the prohibition, so that none would profit from it (Tafsir al-Qurtubi, 3/625).
It is a whitish fluid intermediate between madhy and sweat (al-Majmu, 2/526). The jurists differed over its ruling. Imam Abu Hanifa, the correct view among the Shafi'is, and the Hanbalis declare it pure (al-Majmu, 2/256; Asna al-Matalib, 1/13; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 1/220; Sharh Sahih Muslim of Imam al-Nawawi, 3/167; Hashiyat Ibn Abidin, 1/166 and 349; Hashiyat al-Tahtawi, 1/64; al-Kafi, 1/87; al-Insaf, 1/341; Kashshaf al-Qina, 1/195; al-Mubdi, 2/255). Al-Nawawi: "There is no difference between the moisture of the woman's vulva and that of the rest of the pure animals" (al-Majmu, 2/526).
Ibn Qudama reasons thus: Aisha rubbed the mani from the garment of the Messenger of Allah, and that mani came from intercourse, since no prophet ever has an ejaculatory dream; it therefore met the moisture of the vulva. And were we to rule the vulva impure, we would rule the woman's mani impure, since it exits through it and would be defiled by its moisture. The qadi among the Hanbalis objects that what touches during intercourse is impure, being never safe from madhy, itself impure; but the reasoning is invalid: when desire intensifies, mani exits without madhy, as in the dream.
The Malikis, as well as Abu Yusuf and Muhammad among the Hanafis, the less correct view among both the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis, hold the internal moisture of the vulva impure: no child is created from it, like madhy, and it is a moisture engendered in the seat of impurity. As for the outer moisture of the vulva, it is pure by agreement (Hashiyat Ibn Abidin, 1/564; Hashiyat al-Tahtawi, 1/64; Hashiyat al-Dusuqi, 1/93; Mawahib al-Jalil, 1/105; al-Muhadhdhab, 1/48; al-Majmu, 2/246; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 1/219; Hashiyat al-Qalyubi, 1/82; al-Mughni, 2/283; al-Insaf, 1/341; al-Mubdi, 1/255).
Their proof is the hadith of Zayd ibn Khalid, who asked Uthman: "What do you say when a man unites with his wife without emitting? Uthman said: he performs ablution as for prayer and washes his private part, and I heard this from the Messenger of Allah", reported by the two Shaykhs; al-Bukhari adds that he asked Ali ibn Abi Talib, al-Zubayr ibn al-Awwam, Talha ibn Ubaydillah and Ubayy ibn Ka'b, who ordered him likewise (al-Bukhari, 292, under the title: chapter of what befalls a man from the woman's vulva; Muslim, 346). And the hadith of Ubayy ibn Ka'b:
"O Messenger of Allah, when a man unites with the woman without ejaculating? He said: let him wash what touched him of the woman, then perform ablution and pray."Reported by al-Bukhari (289)
Al-Nawawi comments: these two hadiths, as to the permissibility of praying with ablution alone without the full bath, are abrogated; but the command to wash the private part and what was touched remains, apparent in the impurity of the vulva's moisture; the other party carries it on recommendation; yet an unqualified command means obligation according to the majority of jurists (al-Majmu, 2/526). In his Sharh of Muslim he says: "a group of scholars deduced from this hadith the purity of the vulva's moisture; the disagreement over it is famous among us and others, and the more apparent is its purity".
Ibn Abidin deems the thesis of the dog's purity "the most correct and nearest to sound" (Hashiyat Ibn Abidin on al-Durr al-Mukhtar, 1/362), which al-Kasani confirms in al-Bada'i (1/228). The Malikis indeed hold the dog pure: the principle of things is purity, it is alive, and life precludes impurity like any animal; its sweat, tears, mucus and saliva are pure, the saliva provided it does not come from the stomach, for what exits from the stomach is impure, its sign: being yellow and fetid; washing the vessel after its licking belongs to pure devotional obedience (ta'abbudi) (al-Kafi of Ibn Abd al-Barr, 1/18; al-Sharh al-Saghir with Bulugh al-Salik, 1/31; al-Majmu, 2/523).
The majority of jurists, Hanafis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis, declare the dog's leftover drink (su'r) impure: if it licks a vessel, it must be washed seven times, one of them with earth, according to the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis, and three times according to the Hanafis, by virtue of the prophetic words:
"If a dog licks one of your vessels, let him pour it away, then wash it seven times." And in a version of Muslim: "The purification of one of your vessels, if a dog has licked in it, is to wash it seven times, the first with earth."Reported by Muslim (279)
Al-Nawawi draws the proof: were it not impure, the command to pour it out would be unintelligible, for that would be destroying property, and squandering wealth is forbidden; and the second version speaks of purification, which is only from impurity or ritual break, the latter being excluded here: the former stands (al-Majmu, 2/523; Sharh Sahih Muslim, 3/153; al-Hawi al-Kabir, 1/304-305). He specifies: "the obligation of washing the impurity of licking seven times is our school, that of Malik, Ahmad and the majority; Abu Hanifa says: three times suffice".
The versions are reconciled, he adds: "seven times"; "the first with earth"; "the last or the first"; "the seventh with earth"; "seven times and rub it the eighth with earth", all these versions transmitted by al-Bayhaqi and others: the qualification is not a condition, any one of the washings suffices; and as for the eighth version, the meaning retained by the school and the majority is: wash seven times, one of them with earth mixed with water, earth standing in place of a washing, whence its name of eighth. There is moreover no difference, among the Shafi'is, between licking and the dog's other parts: urine, droppings, blood, sweat, hair, saliva or a limb touching something pure while one of the two is moist: seven washings, one with earth (Sharh Sahih Muslim, 3/153).
Al-Zayla'i argues: the command to pour out proves defilement; stronger still the words "the purification of the vessel", for purification presupposes prior defilement; and the principle of texts is to be intelligible: when one hesitates between intelligible meaning and pure devotion, the former prevails, devotion being rare and the intelligible abundant (Tabyin al-Haqa'iq, 1/32; al-Banya, 1/184; Umdat al-Qari, 3/18). Ibn Qudama: "there is no disagreement in our school: the dog, the pig and what is born of them, touching other than the ground, require seven washings, one with earth, licking or otherwise", per the agreed-upon hadith and Muslim's version: "the first with earth" (al-Kafi, 1/89; al-Mughni, 1/46).
The Hanafis require three obligatory washings, on the hadith al-Tahawi transmits from Abu Hurayra: "one washes from a dog's licking three times" (Sharh Maani al-Athar, 1/23). Now Abu Hurayra is precisely the narrator of the seven-fold condition: when a narrator acts or gives fatwa against his own narration, it ceases to be a proof, for he may not act against the Prophet: this indicates abrogation; it was at the beginning, when severity was applied to dogs and their killing ordered to break the habit, then this ceased, as breaking the vessels was ordered in the severity against khamr and then forbidden; or else the seven are recommended, as supported by al-Daraqutni's hadith: "three, five or seven times", where the Prophet leaves the choice: were the seven obligatory there would be no choice, as with other impurities.
And like the hadith of the night riser, ordering water to be poured on the hands twice or thrice, they who did not cleanse with water and whose hands touched the impure spot: if purification from urine and feces, the gravest impurities, is obtained with that number, it is obtained a fortiori for lesser impurities (Mukhtasar Ikhtilaf al-Ulama, 1/117-118; Sharh Maani al-Athar, 1/23; Bada'i al-Sana'i, 1/87; Tabyin al-Haqa'iq, 1/32; al-Banya, 1/184; Umdat al-Qari, 3/18; al-Inaya, 1/160). The three-five-seven hadith is weak: al-Daraqutni (193) and al-Bayhaqi (1141) weakened it, because of Abd al-Wahhab ibn al-Dahhak, abandoned, and Ismail ibn Ayyash, whom one does not use, especially for the Hijazis; Ibn Adi transmits it in al-Kamil through al-Karabisi, alone in raising it, and Ibn al-Jawzi rejects it in al-Ilal al-Mutanahiya; al-Bayhaqi, in al-Marifa, objects that Abd al-Malik ibn Abi Sulayman alone, among Ata's companions, transmits the three, the reliable transmitting the seven: Shuba abandoned him and al-Bukhari did not use him. Al-Tahawi relied on the stopped version to establish abrogation, adding that the opponent should rather follow the hadith of Abdullah ibn al-Mughaffal in Muslim: seven washings and rubbing the eighth with earth, for taking the addition honors both hadiths.
The Malikis, holding the dog's saliva pure together with its sweat, tears, mucus and su'r, prove the su'r's purity by the word of Allah: "So eat of what they have held for you" (Surat al-Ma'ida, 4), with no command to wash the place touched: were it impure, it would spoil the game seized in its mouth; by the hadith of Adi ibn Hatim:
"I asked the Prophet, and he said: when you send your trained dog and it kills, eat."Reported by al-Bukhari (173) and Muslim (1929)
And because it is the leftover drink of an animal, like the ewe. The seven-fold washing is ta'abbudi: a washing commanded with a number belongs to devotion, not impurity, like ablution; earth has a part in it, and whatever is commanded with water wherein earth enters belongs to devotion, like the purification from ritual break; the Prophet commanded seven: were there impurity, a single washing would suffice, impurity being removed without number; one may indeed wash a pure thing several times, like the limbs of ablution washed twice and thrice though once suffices.
Malik said: if it licks food, the food is eaten and the vessel washed seven times, following the hadith; the seven were commanded only by way of severity, for dogs had been forbidden them because of the fright they cause the guest and the passer-by. Is washing the vessel obligatory or recommended? Two views in the school: obligation rests on the command "wash it seven times", and command means obligation; recommendation rests on the dog's being pure, the command aiming only to deter keeping it. The order of the washings is not required: seven washings without earth suffice, because of the divergent versions. As for a vessel licked containing other than water, drinks or foods, two narrations: wash it, by the generality of the report and by analogy with water; or do not wash it, for the report concerns water, and unintelligible devotion is not extended by analogy, and because milk is not safe from impurity by its licking; water was singled out for its lightness and the absence of waste (al-Ishraf ala Naka'it Masa'il al-Khilaf, 1/160-165; Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari of Ibn Battal, 1/267; al-Kafi of Ibn Abd al-Barr, 1/18; al-Sharh al-Saghir, 1/31; Bidayat al-Mujtahid, 1/21; Tafsir al-Qurtubi, 13/45).
Ibn Abd al-Barr sums up: Malik's doctrine among his companions today is that the dog is pure, that the vessel is washed seven times as devotion, that nothing of what it licked is poured out except water alone, given its little worth, that whoever finds only that water performs ablution with it without resorting to tayammum, and that Malik said he did not know the reality of this hadith. Ibn al-Qasim transmits from him: "its game is eaten, so why blame its saliva? And yet, nothing good in what a dog has licked, and abstaining from performing ablution with it is more beloved to me"; Ibn Wahb transmits from him that one does not perform ablution with water a dog has licked, hunting dog or not, and that the vessel is washed seven times. Early on, Malik distinguished the desert dog before reverting. In sum, the devotion concerns only the washing of the pure vessel licked by the dog, among all pure things, his companions likening it to the pure limbs of ablution washed in devotion (al-Istidhkar, 1/206; al-Tamhid, 18/265-271).
Ibn al-Mundhir finally reports the three tendencies on licked water. One group says: the water is pure, one purifies with it for prayer and the vessel is washed as the Prophet ordered; al-Zuhri said: finding nothing else, let him perform ablution with it; such is the view of Malik and al-Awza'i. A second view: perform ablution with that water, then tayammum afterwards, held by Abda ibn Abi Lubaba, Sufyan al-Thawri, Abd al-Malik al-Majishun and Muhammad ibn Maslama. Another group says: the water is impure, it is poured out and the vessel washed seven times, the first or the last with earth: the view of al-Shafi'i, Abu Ubayd, Abu Thawr and the partisans of legal opinion.
Abu Bakr Ibn al-Mundhir replies: the proof of that water's impurity does not exist; the command to wash the vessel does not establish it, for Allah may impose devotion: He commanded washing limbs bearing no impurity, and the full bath upon the defiled one, though the Prophet said to a man in a state of defilement: "the believer is not impure"; "the purification of the vessel" may be devotional purification; a thing bearing two senses is not settled without proof; the scholars agree that impurities are removed in three washings, some saying one, like blood, urine, feces and khamr: the dog's saliva cannot be graver; and were it graver, three washings or one would suffice and the four extra would be devotion, so that the three would be worth what the four are: devotion (al-Awsat, 1/306-308).
Asked about the dog, Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya answered that there are three known views:
Hence the moisture of its hair touching garment or body does not defile; if it licks water, it is poured out; if it licks milk or the like, some scholars permit eating the food, such as Malik, others have it poured out, like Abu Hanifa, al-Shafi'i and Ahmad; if the milk is abundant, the correct view is that it is not defiled.
On hair growing upon an impure seat, three narrations from Ahmad: all pure, down to dog and pig hair, the choice of Abu Bakr Abd al-Aziz; all impure, as al-Shafi'i says; or: the hair of a dead animal whose kind was pure in life, ewe or mouse, is pure, and that of the animal impure in life, dog or pig, is impure: the textual narration with most of his companions. The preponderant view is the purity of all hair, of dog, pig and others, unlike saliva.
So if the dog's hair is moist and touches the garment, nothing results, per the majority of jurists: Abu Hanifa, Malik and Ahmad according to one of the two narrations, for the principle of substances is purity: nothing is declared impure or forbidden without proof, per "Allah would not lead a people astray after having guided them, until He has made clear to them what they should fear" (Surat al-Tawba, 115) and the sound hadith:
"The greatest offender among the Muslims is he who asks about a thing not forbidden, and it is forbidden because of his question."Reported by al-Bukhari (7289) and Muslim (2358)
And in the Sunan works, from Salman the Persian, raised to the Prophet by some:
"The lawful is what Allah has permitted in His Book, the unlawful what He has forbidden in His Book, and what He passed over in silence is forgiven."A good hadith: reported by al-Tirmidhi (1726) and Ibn Maja (3367)
The prophetic reports mention only licking: defiling the other parts belongs to analogy. If one says urine is graver than saliva, the analogy holds; but extending to hair the ruling of saliva is impossible: saliva dissolves from within the dog, hair grows on its back. The jurists all distinguish: the majority say the hair of the dead animal is pure unlike its saliva, and al-Shafi'i with most say the crop growing on impure soil is pure: at most, dog hair grows on an impure soil, like the crop; if the crop is pure, hair is a fortiori, for the crop has moisture and softness in which the effect of impurity appears, unlike hair, dry and rigid.
Whoever says, among Ahmad's companions like Ibn Aqil, that the crop is pure, says hair is pure a fortiori; whoever says the crop is impure distinguishes as just stated. The crop resembles the jallala that eats impurity: the Prophet forbade its milk, and once it is confined until it becomes wholesome, it is lawful by consensus of the Muslims, for before that the effect of impurity appears in its milk, eggs and sweat; a ruling established for a cause lapses with it, and hair shows no trace of impurity at all: there is therefore no sense in declaring it impure. The same applies, for every animal declared impure, to the debate over its hair and feathers: if one declares impure every fanged beast and every taloned bird, except the cat and what is smaller, as many Iraqi scholars say and the more famous of the two narrations from Ahmad, the status of their feathers and hair admits two narrations: purity, the doctrine of the majority, Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi'i; impurity, the choice of many later Hanbalis; purity is the correct view.