sea water for purification and in Islamic fiqh

Abû Hurayrah relates that Allah’s Messenger said about the sea: "Its water purifies and its dead are lawful."

This hadîth is related in al-Muwatta’, Sunan al-Tirmidhî, Sunan al-Nasâ’î, Sunan Abî Dawûd, Sunan Ibn Mâjah, Musnad Ahmad, and Sunan al-Daraqutnî, among others.

It is an authentic hadîth. Al-Bukhârî was among the many scholars who declared it so. Al-Tirmidhî asked al-Bukhârî about this hadîth, mentioning its chain of transmission. Al-Bukhârî replied that it was authentic. [al-Tirmidhî, al-`Ilal al-Kabîr (1/136) and al-Zayla`î, Nasb al-Râyah (1/96)]

Al-Tirmidhî declared it “a good and authentic hadîth”. [Sûnan al-Tirmidhî (1/100-101)] Other scholars who authenticated it were Ibn Khuzaymah, Ibn Hibbân, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Hazm, al-Bayhaqî, and al-Daraqutnî.

 The meaning of the hadîth:

Al-Shâfi`î said: “This hadîth contains half the knowledge of purification.” [Talkhîs al-Habîr (1.24)] He may have said this because purification is of two kinds – purification with water and purification with soil – and this hadîth deals with the first. Another possibility is that he meant that purification takes place either on land or at sea, and this hadîth deals with purification at sea. And Allah knows best. In any case, there can be no doubt about the importance of this hadîth for matters pertaining to purification.

This hadîth has a story behind it. A man came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and said: “O Messenger of Allah, we go out to sea and carry with us little water. If we were to use it for our ablutions, we would go thirsty. May we perform our ablutions with sea water?”

The Prophet (peace be upon him) replied: “Its water purifies and its dead are lawful.”

When the Prophet (peace be upon him) said “Its water purifies…”, he was indicating that sea water is not only pure in and of itself, but that it is suitable for the purification of other things.

When he said: “…and its dead are lawful”, he meant that the animals of the sea are permissible to eat without having to be slaughtered. The fact that all seafood is lawful is established by this hadîth as well as by others.

Its legal implications:

This hadîth indicates the ruling that seawater can be used just like fresh water for all types of purification. There have been two opinions on this matter.

The first opinion that has been held by the vast majority of people of knowledge from the time of the Companions onwards, is that seawater has the power to purify and may be used for all types of purification, even when fresh water is abundantly available. This was the opinion of the Companions Abû Bakr, Ibn `Abbâs, and `Umar and has also been attributed to `Uqbah b. `?mir and `Abd Allah b. `Amr. Among the Successors and early jurists who expressed this view were `Atâ’, Ibn Sîrîn, al-Hasan al-Basrî. `Ikrimah, Tâ’ûs, Ibrahîm al-Nakha`î, Sufyân al-Thawrî, and al-Awzâ’î. It was the opinion of the four imams, Abû Hanifah, Mâlik, al-Shâfî`î, and Ahmad, as well as that of Ibn Hazm.

There are many pieces of evidence that support this opinion:

1. At the forefront of this evidence is the hadîth under discussion. It is a clear, unambiguous statement to this effect and as such, a decisive and indisputable piece of evidence.

2. Another piece of evidence comes in Allah’s statement: “…if any of you comes from reliving himself or having had intimate contact with women and does not find water, then perform tayammum…” [Sûrah al-Mâ’idah: 6] In this verse, the word water is mentioned in an absolute sense without any qualification. It therefore must be assumed to mean all types of water in the absence of evidence indicating otherwise.

3. Another argument that can be advanced is that since the food and game of the sea is lawful to eat, its water must be pure and have the ability to purify.

Some scholars have claimed that there is consensus on this issue. The Mâlikî jurist Ibn Juzayy writes: “Untainted water is water that remains on its original nature. There is consensus on the fact that it is pure and has the power to purify, regardless of whether it is sweet or salty and regardless whether its source is the sea, the rain, or the Earth.” [al-Qawânîn al-Fiqhiyyah (p. 44)]

However, this claim of unanimity is incorrect. Ibn al-Mundhir writes: “I know of no disagreement from the people of knowledge whom I have met or even heard of, that what is used for purification fulfills the requirements for purification – except when it comes to seawater. There is some indication of disagreement on this matter from some of the earliest Muslims.” [al-Awsat (6/246)]

Ibn `Abd al-Barr writes: “The vast majority of scholars and jurists from all lands are agreed that seawater has the ability to purify and may be used for the purpose of ritual ablutions, except for what is attributed to `Abd Allah b. `Umar b. al-Khattâb and `Abd Allah b. `Amr b. al-`?s that they disliked performing ablutions with seawater. However, none of the great jurists followed them in this opinion or even paid attention to it.” [al-Tamhîd (16/221)]

It is related that `Amr b. al-`?s said: “Sea water is not sufficient for either the ritual ablutions or the ritual bath. Under the sea is fire, then water, then more fire.” This statement is related in Sunan al-Bayhaqî (4/334) and the Musannaf of Ibn Abî Shaybah (1/122) with an authentic chain of transmission.

Ibn Abî Shaybah also relates with an authentic chain of transmission that Ibn `Umar said: “I prefer to perform tayammum than to perform ablutions with seawater.”

There are a few narrations attributing this opinion to others, but those narrations are weak.

As for the evidence for this opinion, there is a hadîth that quotes the Prophet (peace be upon him) as saying: “No one should go to sea except someone setting out for the greater or lesser pilgrimage or setting out to fight for the sake of Allah, because under the sea is fire and under the fire there is a sea.” [Sunan Abî Dâwûd (2489), Sunan al-Bayhaqî (4/334), al-Daylamî’s Firdaws (5/149), and Sunan Sa`îd b. Mansûr (2/186)]

Abû Dâwûd says: “This hadîth is extremely weak. Abû `Abd Allah and Bashîr (two people in its chain of transmission) are both unknown.”

The argument that is advanced on the basis of this weak hadîth is as follows: The sea is a covering over Hell and that which is a covering of something despicable cannot be a means for purification and mercy. This can be compared to the water covering the land of the people of Thamûd whom Allah destroyed with His punishment, since the Prophet (peace be upon him) forbade us from performing ablutions with the water of Thamûd.

This argument, of course, fails, simply because it is built upon a very weak hadîth. Even if the hadîth had been valid, the argument would still not hold up. As Ibn Qudâmah says: “If they understood that the ocean is full of fire right now, then this goes against what we see with our own eyes. If they meant that the ocean will become fire in the future, this is in no way prevents us from performing ablutions in it while it is still water.” [al-Mughnî (1/23)]

Some benefits of this hadîth:

1. It shows the intelligence and legal sense of the questioner and gives us a good example of how a question should be asked. The questioner began by explaining his situation. He described how he goes to sea and has little fresh water available to him. This shows that his question was not merely hypothetical. He needed a practical answer to address a situation that he actually had to confront in his life. He mentioned what he felt could possibly have an effect on the legal ruling and then asked if he could perform ablutions with seawater.

It is important for a questioner to phrase his question well, mentioning all the details, and present it in a way that shows his need for an answer.

2. The Prophet (peace be upon him) replied with “Its water purifies”. This statement is rich in meaning. He had been asked: “May we perform our ablutions with sea water?” He could have simply answered with: “Yes”.

However the Prophet (peace be upon him) answered the way he did for a number of reasons.

- It is clear from his answer that the reason it is permissible to perform ablutions with seawater is that seawater is pure. It is not just a concession for seamen born of necessity.

- His answer also shows that seawater is not only good for ablutions, but for all types of purification.

- His answer clearly states the reason why ablutions are permissible with seawater. This reason is its ability to purify. This shows us that all water that can purify is acceptable in Islamic Law, regardless of its source, including river water, lake water, and well water.

3. The Prophet (peace be upon him) also mentioned that it is permissible to eat aquatic animals that die without being slaughtered. This ruling does not apply to land animals that die in the water. Now, the questioner asked only about performing ablutions with seawater, but the Prophet (peace be upon him) volunteered this additional information. There were good reasons for him to do so. Since the questioner was a seaman, he was in need of this information. Also, it was quite likely that the questioner did not know the ruling on the matter, since he did not even know the ruling on seawater, even though water is generally known to have the ability to purify.
People of knowledge have determined from this incident and others like it that it is permissible for a scholar to volunteer information that was not asked if he feels that the questioner is in need of that information.

For this reason, al-Bukhârî entitled a chapter of his Sahîh: “Whoever Answers a Questioner with More than He was Asked About”. In that chapter, al-Bukhârî cites the hadîth where a man came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and asked him: “What does a pilgrim wear?” To this question, the Prophet (peace be upon him) replied: “A pilgrim may not wear a shirt, a turban, a pair of pants, or a cloak. He may not wear a garment died with wars or saffron. If he cannot find sandals to wear, then he may wear leather socks, but he must cut them so they will be below the ankles.” [Sahîh al-Bukhârî (1/42)]

Al-Bukhârî realized that the man did not ask about what he should do if he could not find sandals, but the prophet (peace be upon him) volunteered to the man this additional information because he saw that the man needed it. Also, the Prophet (peace be upon him) was subtly indicating to the questioner what his question should have been. Instead of asking about what he should wear, he should have asked about what he should not wear, since that is a question that can be answered in brief.

Ibn al-Qayyim writes: “It is permissible for a mufti (a person who issues legal rulings) to answer a questioner with more than what that questioner asked about. This is the best way to advise him, teach him, and provide him with guidance. Whoever criticizes such an approach is weak in knowledge, narrow-minded, and a poor advisor.” [I`lâm al-Muwaqqi`în (4/158-159)]
 

Scholars of jurisprudence concur that the answer to a legal question should always be according to the question asked. This is, no doubt, correct. Nevertheless, this does not mean that the mufti cannot offer additional information. It merely means that the answer must at least address the specific matter that was asked about.

4. This answer shows that the Prophet (peace be upon him) was as generous with his knowledge as he was with his wealth and his person. This was one of his many good qualities.

5. This hadîth also shows us that it is permissible to go to sea for worldly matters like commerce, not just for pilgrimage or for battle, as long as the way is safe. Allah says: “He is the one who facilitates your movement on land and at sea.” [Sûrah Yûnus: 22]

Abû Sa`îd al-Khudrî relates that Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him)said: "Water possesses the power to purify; nothing can contaminate it."

This hadîth is related in Musnad Ahmad, Sunan Abî Dâwûd, Sunan al-Tirmidhî, Sunan al-Nasâ'î, Sunan al-Dâraqutnî, Sunan al-Bayhaqî, and others.

It is an authentic hadîth. It was declared authentic by Ahmad b. Hanbal, Yahyâ b. Ma`în, Ibn al-Mulaqqin, al-Baghawî, and others. Al-Tirmidhî said: "It is a good (hasan) hadîth."

The meaning of the hadîth:

This hadîth was related as a response to a question: "Should we perform our ablutions in the well of Budâ`ah, since it is a well wherein menstrual cotton, filth, and the meat of dogs is dropped." The Prophet (peace be upon him) replied: "Water possesses the power to purify; nothing can contaminate it."

The well was most likely called the well of Budâ`ah because it had been owned by a person named Budâ`ah. Some scholars have opined that it was the name of the locality in which the well was situated. In either case, the well was located in the area of Madînah inhabited by the clan of Banû Sa`âdah. In fact, one of the narrators of the hadîth was Sahl b. Sa`d, a member of that clan and a resident of that area. Therefore, he was relating something that concerned his people and his place of residence.

It is significant to note that the well of Budâ`ah was truly a well. It was not a spring of any sort, as falsely assumed by some.

Some people might fairly ask the question: "If these were the people chosen by Allah to be the Companions of His Messenger (peace be upon him), and they were the ones who benefited from his tutelage, then how is it conceivable that they would drop such filth in a well? Surely they knew that the Prophet (peace be upon him) prohibited people from urinating in still water and in public thoroughfares. Considering how valuable water is to people, how could they purposely discard menstrual cotton and other filth in a public well?

Al-Khattâbî, in his commentary on Sunan Abî Dâwûd, provides a good answer to this question. He writes:

We cannot imagine an unbeliever, even a pagan, doing such a thing, never mind a Muslim. It has been the custom of people throughout time, regardless of their religion, to respect water and protect it from filth. How could we think otherwise of the people of that generation, who were the best of Muslims to ever live? This is not in conforming to what we know of their character. The truth is that the well was situated in sloping ground. When the rains came, these impure substances would be carried from the roadways and the yards of people's houses and dropped into the well. However, due to the considerable amount of the water in the well, the quality of the water was never affected or altered. [Ma`âlim al-Sunan (1/37)]

There is also the distinct possibility offered by al-Nawawî that some people did toss such things in the well. There were Jews as well as hypocrites living in Madinah who harbored enmity for the Muslims and who may have had no scruples against doing such things deliberately just to harm them. [al-Majmû` (1/83)] However, Ibn Mulaqqin does not consider this possibility very likely, since even the hypocrites would have had more respect than that for their city's water supply. [al-Badr al-Munîr (1/63)]

Its legal implications:

When the Prophet (peace be upon him) was asked about the water in the well of Budâ`ah, he replied: "Water possesses the power to purify; nothing can contaminate it." This statement presents an important general principle for matters of purification in Islamic Law: that water should be assumed to have the power to purify and that the impurities it comes in contact with do not make it impure.

However, this general principle does have some qualifications to it, the most important of which is that if the water's taste, scent, or color is altered by the impurity, then the water becomes impure. This is a matter of consensus among the jurists. Many scholars have asserted this consensus, including Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Shâfi`î, al-Nawawî, Ibn Rushd, Ibn Hajar, Ibn Taymiyah, and al-Shawkânî.

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "Nothing can make water impure unless it alters the water's smell, taste, or color." This hadîth has a weak chain of transmission. However, its ruling is asserted by way of consensus.

Some scholars also consider that if the water is less than two qullahs (191.24 liters), it will be contaminated by impurities even if its attributes are not altered. This, however, is a matter of disagreement among the scholars. It is the opinion of Abû Hanîfah and al-Shâfî`î. It has also been attributed to Mâlik and Ahmad, though its attribution to Mâlik is weak.

They present the following evidence to support their opinion:

1. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "If water reaches two qullahs, it will not become impure due to impurities." [Related by al-Tirmdhî, Abû Dâwûd, al-Nasâ'î, and Ibn Mâjah and declared authentic by Ibn Khuzaymah, al-Hâkim, and Ibn Hibbân]

From this hadîth, it can be understood that water that if the water is less than two qullahs, it will be affected by impurities. Ibn Qudâmah observes: "If the same ruling applied to water that was under two qullahs in volume, then the mention of two qullahs in the hadîth would have no meaning." [al-Mughnî (1/27)]

2. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "If one of you wakes up from his sleep, he should not place his hands in a basin of water until he washes them three times, since he does not know where his hand had been during the night." [Related by al-Bukhârî and Muslim] If the possible filth on the hand did not pose a danger of contaminating the water, then the Prophet (peace be upon him) would have had no reason to prohibit placing it in the basin.

3. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "If a dog laps from one of your vessels, you must purify it by cleaning it seven times, one of them with soil." [Related by Muslim] In one narration of this hadîth, it is mentioned that the Prophet ordered the contents of the vessel to be poured out. The fact that the Prophet did not distinguish between water that had been altered and water that remained the same, shows that impurities affect small quantities of water even when the water's properties are unaffected.

Other scholars disagree with this opinion. They do not distinguish between large and small quantities of water. If the water's qualities are changed by the impurity, then the water becomes impure. Otherwise it remains pure. This view was held by many of the Companions and Successors. It was also reliably attributed to Mâlik. It was one of the opinions that Ahmad entertained on the issue. It is also the opinion of many later scholars, like Ibn Daqîq al-`Id, Ibn Taymiyah, Ibn al-Qayyim, al-San`ânî, al-Shawkânî, and Muhammad b, `Abd al-Wahhâb. Many contemporary jurists share their view, like Ibn Sa`dî, Ibn Bâz, and al-Albânî.

Al-Qurtubî states in his commentary on the Qur'ân: "It is correct in concept and well supported by the textual evidence." [Jâmi` Ahkâm al-Qur'ân (13/42)]

The people who hold this view offer the following evidence to support it:

1. Allah says: "And We sent down from the sky purifying water." [Sûrah al-Furqân: 48] Allah also says: "And He sent down upon you from the heavens water to purify you." [Sûrah al-Anfâl: 11]

2. They also use the hadîth under discussion as evidence: Water possesses the power to purify; nothing can contaminate it." They argue that the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not give them a specific answer about the well of Budâ`ah, but opted for a general answer about water. Therefore, his statement should be understood in its generality.

This hadîth is really what they rely upon for their opinion that the quantity of water does not matter. They point out that there is no contradiction between the generality of this hadîth and the fact that water becomes impure when its qualities are altered by an impurity. When the taste, smell, or color of the water changes, then it really can no longer be considered pure water anymore. It has become something else. Therefore, it does not come under the ruling of this hadîth.

3. They argue that it makes sense to look at what predominates. If water that has been exposed to impurities overpowers the impurities so that nothing of its qualities can be detected, then the purity of the water is the predominant factor. On the other hand, if the water takes on the color, scent, or taste of the impurity, then the impurity is predominant and the water should be considered impure.

4. Ibn al-Mundhir observes that there is no argument that a small quantity of water is pure when it is not in contact with an impurity. There is no agreement that water becomes impure after coming in contact with an impure substance that does not alter its color, scent, or taste.. Therefore, we must assume that the water remains pure unless we have textual evidence or juristic consensus to the contrary. [Al-Awsat (1/269)]

5. Finally, questions concerning water are among the questions that concern people's lives the most. This is why the Companions were very concerned about such questions and probed them in great detail. If there really was a distinction in Islamic Law between large and small quantities of water, the Companions would have been well aware of it and would have transmitted this knowledge to those who came after them.

Of the two opinions, the strongest view is that that there is no difference between large and small quantities of water. This opinion is supported by the strongest evidence. It is also more in keeping with the ease and utility that is characteristic of Islamic Law. This is why al-Ghazâlî stated:

I used to wish that al-Shafi`î's school of thought was like that of Mâlik in that a small quantity of water does not become impure unless its qualities are altered. This opinion is really needed. The condition that two qullahs of water are required to assure its purity leads to doubts and misgivings that cause people a lot of difficulty. If we think about it, it really is a cause of hardship. There can be no doubt that if this quantity really was a condition, it would have made purification quite difficult in Mecca ad Madinah due to the scarcity of flowing water - or even still water - in those locations. From the beginning of the Prophet's mission to the end of the era of the Companions, we never hear about an incident concerning purification or a question of how to safeguard water from contamination, even though their water vessels were frequented by small children who did not worry about keeping themselves clean. [Ihyâ' `Ulûm al-Dîn: 1/129)]

As for the hadîth about the two qullahs, I will discuss it in a later article, Allah willing.

It should be noted that those jurists who distinguish between large and small quantities of water never could agree on a specific definition of a "large quantity". Some of them said that a large quantity of water is that amount where upsetting the water on one end of its container will not cause movement at the other end. Others said that it must be such an amount whereby a person using the water can presume he is not using any of the impurities that fell into it. Others defined the quantity as two qullahs. However, even those who agreed on two qullahs could not agree on the exact measure of a qullah.

Some benefits of this hadîth:

1. We can understand from it that menstrual blood is impure, since menstrual cotton is mentioned as one the things being dropped in the well. If menstrual blood were not impure, then it would not have been a matter of concern to the questioner. Moreover, if the questioner had been mistaken about the impurity of menstrual blood, then the Prophet (peace be upon him) would have had to correct him. His silence on the matter can be construed as tacit agreement on the impurity of menstrual blood.

2. We also learn from this hadîth that the flesh of dead land animals is impure, since the flesh of dogs is mentioned. The impurity of carrion is, in fact, a matter of consensus among jurists.

3. Water is by nature pure.

4. We can see in this hadîth something of the humility of the Prophet (peace be upon him). He was willing to perform ablutions in the same water as everyone else. He did not set any special provisions for himself.

Abû Umâmah al-Bâhilî relates that Allah's Messenger said: "Nothing can make water impure unless it alters the water's smell, taste, or color." In another version, it reads: "Water has the power to purify unless its smell, taste, or color is altered by an impure substance that contaminates it."

This hadîth is related in Sunan Ibn Mâjah, Sunan al-Bayhaqî, and Mu`jam al-Tabarânî al-Kabîr.

The chain of transmission of this hadîth contains the narrator Rashdayn b. Sa`d. The scholars of hadîth criticism had many things to say about him.

Ahmad b. Hanbal declared him to be a weak narrator. Yahyâ b. Ma`în said: "The hadîth of Rashdayn b. Sa`d should not even be written down.
Abû Hâtim al-Razî said: "The hadîth of Rashdayn b, Sa`d are false. He is negligent and he attributes false statements to reliable narrators."
Abû Zur`ah al-Râzî said: "His hadîth are weak."
Qutaybah said: "He was careless. He would narrate anything that was presented to him."
Al-Nasâ`î said: "His hadîth are to be rejected."

The chain of transmission also includes Marwân b. Muhammad. The scholars of hadîth criticism are in disagreement about him.

Consequently, the scholars of hadîth declare this hadîth to be weak. Al-Shâfî`î said: "What I said that water becomes impure if its taste, color, or scent is altered by impurities is attributed to the Prophet (peace be upon him), but its chain of transmission is not acceptable to hadîth critics. However, its meaning is agreed upon by everyone and I know of no one who disagrees on this matter." [Sunan al-Bayhaqî]

Al-Daraqutnî, al-Bayhaqî, al-Nawawî, and Ibn Mulaqqin also declared this hadîth to be weak.

Its legal implications:

Thought the hadîth is undoubtedly weak in the way it has been transmitted, there is unanimous agreement that the meaning of the hadîth is correct. There is no disagreement that if the properties of water are altered by an impure substance, the water becomes impure. We have already mentioned what al-Shâfî`î had to say about this matter.

The scholars only argue about whether it is better to present this hadîth as evidence or to suffice with mentioning the concensus of the muslims (ijmâ`). The majority of scholars, including al-Shâfî`î, Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Nawawî, Ibn Hajar, Ibn Taymiyah, and Shawkânî consider consensus to be the decisive proof.

Ibn al-Mulaqqin said: "Considering the weakness of the hadîth, consensus (ijma`) is the only evidence for the question, as we can see from the behavior of al-Shâfi`î, al-Bayhaqî, and other prominent jurists."

In his book cataloguing matters of juristic consensus, Ibn al-Mundhir writes: "The scholars have unanimously agreed that water becomes impure - regardless of the quantity - if it is exposed to an impurity that changes its taste, color, or scent."

Other scholars have taken a different approach, maintaining that though the hadîth is weak, the fact that its meaning enjoys such widespread acceptance makes it acceptable to use as evidence. This is the approach of those very few scholars who do not recognize consensus as a valid form of evidence in its own right.

This meaning of this hadîth - and the consensus that agrees with it - brings us to another important issue in Islamic Law, and that is the question of how water should be categorized. Scholars have two opinions on this matter.

Some divide water into three categories: purifying water, pure water, and impure water. This is the approach of the majority of scholars.

According to this classification, purifying water is water that is in a completely unaltered state. This includes well water, river water, and sea water. It also includes water that has become slightly altered because of age or other reasons. This water is not only pure in and of itself, but it has the power to purify.

The second category is water that is pure on its own but does not have the power to purify. It is suitable for drinking and cooking, but it is not suitable for purification purposes. This includes all water that has had its attributes altered by pure substances, like rose water for instance.

The third category is impure water.

They offer the following evidence to support this classification:

For purifying water, they cite: "And We sent down from the sky purifying water." [Sûrah al-Furqân: 48] and: "And He sent down upon you from the heavens water to purify you." [Sûrah al-Anfâl: 11]

They also cite the hadîth about the sea: "Its water purifies and its dead are lawful." This is strong piece of evidence since the purity of seawater is taken for granted. It is only its power to purify that is being discussed.

For the second category - pure water that cannot be used for purification - they cite the hadîth prohibiting a person to perform ablutions with the water left over from another's ablutions and the prohibition of placing one's hand in water after waking from sleep. Though such water is not deemed impure, it is not to be used for purification.

The third category - impure water - is established by the consensus that water becomes impure when any of its attributes are altered by an impure substance.

This three-part classification of water is recognized by most jurists. However, al-Hasan al-Basrî and Sufyân al-Thawrî only recognized two categories: water that purifies and impure water. This is also one of the opinions of Ahmad b. Hanbal and the opinion of a great number of Hanafî jurists. It is the preferred opinion of many later scholars, like Ibn Taymiyah, Ibn al-Qayyim, and al-Shawkâni.

They offer the following evidence to support their opinion:

1. Allah says: "If you are sick or on a journey or one of you has returned from relieving himself or has touched women and cannot find water, then take clean sand or earth and rub with it your faces and hands." [Sûrah al-Nisâ': 43]

The word "water" is mentioned in a negative context without being qualified in any way. In Arabic, this indicates that the meaning is general. Therefore, whatever can rightly be called water can be used to remove impurities. It can be used for purification as long as it can be still called water and has not been altered by something impure.

2. They also use a version of the hadîth we are discussing which reads: "Water has the power to purify. Nothing can make it impure unless it alters the water's smell, taste, or color."
They argue that in this hadîth water is described as having the power to purify unless it is altered by contamination with something impure. Therefore, only two categories of water exist. It is either impure or it has the power to purify.

3. They also advance their argument with the hadîth about the sea: "Its water purifies and its dead are lawful."

They argue that seawater is not in an unaltered state. It in fact has a very high salinity. This is what made the questioner who asked about seawater doubt its ability to purify in the first place. In spite of this salinity, the Prophet (peace be upon him) ruled that the water was suitable for purification purposes. This shows us that all water has the power to purify.

One might argue that seawater is a different case because it is naturally salty and is not the same as water which had other substances added to it. The counter argument would be that there is no evidence for making such a distinction.

Of course, if another pure substance is mixed with water in such abundance that it overpowers the water and turns it into something else, it will no longer be considered water and will be unsuitable for purification. Therefore, everyone is in agreement that we may not bathe in tea or wash our clothes in orange juice.

4. Another argument they bring is that the Prophet (peace be upon him) had commanded us on occasion to use water mixed with other pure substances for washing. For instance, he commanded us to wash the deceased with water mixed with the leaves of the lotus tree [Sahîh al-Bukhârî and Sahih Muslim]. He also commanded us to do so with water mixed with camphor [Sahîh al-Bukhârî and Sahih Muslim]. This is clearly not unaltered water.

This is not just for washing the dead. The Prophet (peace be upon him) ordered a man who had just accepted Islam to bathe in water mixed the leaves of the lotus tree. [Related with a good chain of transmission in Musannaf `Abd al-Razzâq, Musnad Ahmad, Sunan al-Tirmidhî, Sunan Abî Dâwûd, Sunan al-Nasâ'î, and other compilations]

5. On the day of the conquest of Mecca, Umm Hâni' bathed from a basin of water that contained within it the remnants of bread dough. [Realted by Ahmad with an authentic chain of transmission] Dough has a tendency to dissolve in water and alter its appearance.

6. When the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his Companions traveled, they used to carry their water in waterskins made of animal hides. Water is invariable altered in its taste, smell, and color, when carried in such receptacles.

7. People need water. Questions relating to water are of the utmost importance. It is hard to conceive of there being a three-part categorization of water without those categories being mentioned by any of the Companions.

The people who reject the idea of three categories also have answers to the proofs given by those who advocate it.

To begin with, the fact that the Qur'ân describes water as "purifying" does not show that there are three categories. The Qur'ân describes the water of Paradise as "purifying" water, even though there is no need for purification in Paradise. This is merely a description of the water itself, emphasizing how good it is.

Ibn Taymiyah goes so far as to say: "That categorization of water runs contrary to the Qur'ân and Sunnah. Allah simply speaks about water, like when he says: '…and you cannot find water, then take clean sand'."

As for the hadîth that forbids a person to perform ablutions with the water left over from another's ablutions, there are other hadîth that indicate it is permissible to do so. For instance, Ibn `Abbâs relates that the Prophet (peace be upon him) used to bathe with the water left over after Maymûnah took her bath. This tells us that the prohibition is just advisory and is not absolute.

Therefore, we conclude that water is of only two types: purifying water and impure water. Those scholars who hold another opinion do so on the basis of their juristic discretion and they will be rewarded for it, Allah willing. However, we are not obliged to follow their opinion once we know all of the evidence to the contrary.

Abû Hurayrah relates that Allah’s Messenger said: “None of you should bathe in standing water when he is in a state of major ritual impurity”

This hadîth is related in Sahîh Muslim, Sunan al-Nasâ’î, Sunan Ibn Mâjah, Sunan al-Dâraqutnî, Sunan al-Bayhaqî, and others. In all of the narrations except that of al-Nasâ’î, the hadîth continues with the narrator Abû al-Sâ`ib asking Abû Hurayrah: “So what do we do then?” to which Abû Hurayrah responded: “Water should be taken out as needed.”

It is an authentic hadîth. It was declared authentic by al-Dâraqutnî.

The meaning of the hadîth:

In this hadîth, the Prophet (peace be upon him) prohibits bathing in still water, meaning water that does not flow. This would include ponds, water reservoirs, pools, and sources from which people take their drinking water. Instead, the person must draw water from the source and pour it over his body.

This prohibition is directed towards people who are in a state of major ritual impurity known as “janâbah” in Arabic. This is the state that a person enters into after having sexual intercourse, even if he does not ejaculate. It is also the state a person enters into after ejaculation without having sexual intercourse. A person in this state must take a full bath to return him to ritual purity before he can pray. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “If he sits between her foreparts and has intercourse, then a bath is incumbent upon him, even if he does not ejaculate.” [Sahîh Muslim]

Its legal implications:

This hadîth relates to a number of questions in Islamic Law.

The first question:

The general rule in jurisprudence is that a statement of prohibition necessitates that something is completely prohibited unless there is some contextual indication to the contrary. Since the Prophet (peace be upon him) prohibited a person in a state of major ritual impurity from bathing in still water, we can understand from the apparent meaning of the hadîth that such an action is prohibited in Islamic Law.

Conversely, we can understand from the apparent meaning of the hadîth that a person who is not in such a state can bathe in still water and that anyone can bathe in a flowing body of water.

However, scholars have differed as to the permissibility of bathing in still water for a person in a state of major ritual impurity.

Scholars of the Hanafî and Zâhirî schools of thought take the hadîth on its apparent meaning and deem such bathing to be forbidden in Islamic Law. They argue quite reasonably that there is no valid contextual evidence that can make us assume otherwise.

Scholars of the Mâlikî and Shâfî`î schools of thought consider such bathing practices to be merely frowned upon.

This is also the view of the Hanbalî school of thought. When Ahmad was asked about the matter, he merely said: “I do not prefer it” or “It is inappropriate.” [al-Insâf (1/44) and Kashf al-Qanâ` (1/35)] Ahmad very much disliked declaring something forbidden or obligatory unless he found the most convincing of proof.

It is not all that clear why they considered the statement of prohibition not to be on its face value. The only argument that can really be advanced for their position is that the water does not become impure on account of someone bathing in it. A person in a state of major ritual impurity is not impure. This is established by the following hadîth:

Abû Hurayrah was once in a state of major ritual impurity when he met the Prophet (peace be upon him) on a street in Madinah. He withdrew from him, and went away to bathe. When Abû Hurayrah went back to him, the Prophet (peace be upon him) asked about his whereabouts. Abû Hurayrah replied that he was in a state of major ritual impurity and disliked to sit with the prophet (peace be upon him) while in such a state. To this the Prophet (peace be upon him said: “Glory be to Allah. A believer is never impure.” [Sâhih al-Bukhârî (1/74-75) and Sahîh Muslim (1/282)]

The body of the bathing person is pure in itself. The worst that his bathing can do is to make the water unsuitable or undesirable for another person who needs to use it. Therefore, the prohibition is merely one of dislike and not of legal prohibition. If people had the habit of bathing in still water, they would make it unpleasant and cause other people to not be able to use it.

The opinion that we prefer is that bathing in such water is forbidden by Islamic Law if doing so will make the water unusable by others. Otherwise, it is merely disliked.

The second question:

Scholars disagree as to whether bathing by immersion in still water actually removes from the bather from a state of major ritual impurity.

Many scholars who divide water into three categories – purifying water, pure water, and impure water – are of the opinion that such bathing cannot remove the state of major ritual impurity from the bather, especially if the quantity of water is small. They argue that as soon as the person dips a part of his body into the water, the water becomes used and ceases to have the ability to purify. Therefore, it only brings that portion of the body to a state of ritual purity. It is startling that some of these scholars have gone so far as to say that if a person in a state of major ritual impurity goes into the water with the intention just to cool off and then gets out of it again, the water retains its power to purify. They argue that his immersion would have no effect because no state of impurity would have been lifted!

The Zâhirî jurist Ibn Hazm agrees with these people that such a bath does not lift from the bather his state of major ritual impurity, but he disagrees with their reasoning. To him, it is not a question of whether the water is used or not, since he considers the purity of the water to remain unchanged. It is simply a matter that such a bath cannot benefit the bather because what he is doing is prohibited by Islamic Law. [al-Muhallâ (2/40)]

The other opinion on the matter is that bathing in still water does indeed remove from the bather his state of major ritual impurity, regardless of the quantity of that water. This was one of the opinions expressed by Ahmad. This was also the preference of some later scholars, like Ibn Taymiyah, Ibn `Abd al-Hâdî, and Shawkânî, among others. In fact, this is the opinion preferred by most scholars who recognize only two categories of water: purifying water and impure water.

The third question:

Scholars differ regarding the state of the water after such an immersion takes place. Abû Yûsuf, one of the major colleagues of Abû Hanîfah believed that this water was impure. This opinion has been attributed to Abû Hanîfah as well. He based his opinion on the hadîth where the prophet (peace be upon him) said: “Neither urinate in standing water that does not flow, nor bathe in it while in a state of major ritual impurity.” This hadîth implies that bathing to lift the state of major ritual impurity is no different than urinating in the water, since he two are mentioned together. This is known in Islamic jurisprudence as the proof of conjunction. Therefore, such a bath will contaminate a small quantity of water just as urinating in it would.

However, the proof of conjunction is a very weak argument. Mentioning two things together in a sentence does not necessarily mean they take the same ruling. For instance, Allah says: “Eat of its fruits when it brings forth fruits, and pay its due on the harvest day.” In this verse, Allah mentions eating the fruits of the harvest and paying the Zakâh on them. We cannot assume that both activities take the same ruling. Most certainly, eating of the fruits is merely permissible while paying the Zakâh is obligatory.

Due to the weakness of this type of argument, this opinion of Abû Yûsuf is easily dismissed. Moreover, it is known by clear textual evidence that the human body is pure, even when the person is in a state of major ritual impurity. This is a matter of consensus among the scholars. Therefore, there is no reason why immersion in water should make the water impure.

Moreover, if we take this opinion to its natural conclusion, it would mean that a person would never be able to purify himself. As soon as a bather uses some water on part of his body to remove his major ritual impurity, that water would become impure. Since this water is impure it would mean that the bather’s body would be covered with impurity. This is just one of the many problems associated with this opinion. Ibn Hazm lists a number of other problems in his work al-Muhallâ (1/245-254).

Ibn Taymiyah said: “Even though this is one of the opinions of Abû Hanîfah on this matter, it is contrary to the opinion of earliest Muslims and the prominent jurists. It is also contrary to the authentic texts and clear evidence. This is not a matter of opinion. It is clearly and indisputably wrong.” [Majmû` al-Fatâwâ (21/66)]

Ibn Rushd said: “Abû Yûsuf took a strange position when he said this water was impure. It has no evidence to support it.” [Bidâyah al-Mujtahid (1/274)]

The second opinion on this matter is that the water is pure but is bereft of the power to purify. This is the well-known opinion of Abû Hanîfah and the opinion of the Shâfî`î and Hanbalî scholars. Their opinion is based on their dividing water into three categories, and they support their argument further with the hadîth under discussion.

The third opinion is that the water is pure and has the power to purify. This was the opinion of some of the Companions, including `Alî, Ibn `Umar, and Abû Umâmah. It was the opinion of some of the Successors like `Atâ’, al-hasan al-Basrî, Makhûl, and Ibrâhîm al-Nakha`î.

It was also the strongest opinion related from the jurist Mâlik and al-Awzâ`î It was the opinion of Ibn al-Mundhir and Ibn Hazm and was also an opinion of al-Shâfi`î.

They argued that the water merely becomes unpleasant and disliked when someone bathes in it. This is why Abû Hurayrah suggested that the bather should take out the water as needed.

This final opinion is the strongest and the best supported by the evidence. The other opinions have only the weakest evidence to support them. Water retains the power to purify even after it has been used.

Some benefits of this hadîth:

This hadîth provides the following benefits:

1. The prohibition of a person who is not in a state or major ritual impurity from bathing in standing water.
2. The permissibility of bathing in standing water as long as no one is inconvenienced by it.
3. The permissibility of a person in a state of major ritual impurity to place his hands in the water to pour it over himself.

Abû Hurayrah relates that Allah’s Messenger said: “None of you should urinate in standing water that does not flow and then bathe in it.”

It is an authentic hadîth related by al-Bukhârî and Muslim, among others. The version found in Muslim mentions that the bath intended is one to remove the state of major ritual impurity.

The meaning of the hadîth:

There are three possible meanings that can be understood from the wording of this hadîth, depending on how one approaches the hadîth grammatically.

The first is: It is prohibited to urinate in still water that does not flow, because you may need that water to bathe in it.

The second is: Neither urinate in still water that does not flow nor bathe in it.

The third is: What is prohibited is to first urinate in still water that does not flow and then to bathe in it.

The most likely of these interpretations is the first. This means that the hadîth is simply prohibiting the practice of urinating in still water and then giving a reason why it is prohibited.

There is another hadîth found in Sunan Abî Dâwûd that specifically prohibits bathing in still water that we have already discussed in a previous article.
 

Its legal implications:

This hadîth relates to a number of questions in Islamic Law.

The first question:

The hadîth orders us not to urinate in standing water. There is no difference of opinion among scholars that urinating in still water is prohibited if doing so causes the water to change in properties, since this water then becomes impure and unusable. Many scholars have asserted the existence of this consensus, including al-`Irâqî, Ibn Daqîq, al-`Iraqî, and Ibn Taymiyah.

The second question:

Scholars differ regarding the permissibility of urinating in still water when there is no danger of making the water impure.

Some scholars declare that urinating in still water is categorically prohibited. This is the opinion of the scholars of the Zâhirî and Hanafî schools of though as well as a number of Shâfi`î scholars. These are incidentally the same scholars who categorically prohibit bathing in still water. This is understandable since no doubt urinating in water is a far more serious matter than bathing in it.

They offer the hadîth under discussion as evidence to support their opinion. They argue that the Prophet (peace be upon him) prohibited it and there is no contextual reason to understand from his words anything other than absolute prohibition.

Some of these scholars further argue that even if a single person urinating in the water will not cause it to turn filthy, by allowing people to do so, a lot of water will be spoiled. Maybe one person urinating in the water once will not spoil it, but if people continue to urinate in it, the water will ultimately become unusable. Al-Qurtubî was one of the scholars who made this point.

Al-Nawawî writes in his commentary on Sahîh Muslim: “If we were to say that it is categorically forbidden to urinate in still water, this would not all be far-fetched, since a statement of prohibition indicates absolute prohibition in Islamic Law according to the most reliable opinion.”

Other scholars prefer to make a distinction between large and small quantities of water. They say that urinating in very large bodies of standing water is disliked but not prohibited. As for small bodies of water, urinating in them is absolutely not allowed. This is the position of the Shâfi`î school of thought.

However, the first opinion is the most correct. The hadîth is clear and straightforward, and even a large body of standing water can become contaminated if enough people urinate in it.

A point of interest:

This hadîth is clear in its prohibition against urinating in standing water. The wisdom behind this may be because it contaminates the water, leads to contaminating even large bodies of water, or simply because using such water is disgusting even if we do not declare such water legally impure.

The Zâhirî school of thought is a school of Islamic Law that considers only the obvious and apparent meaning of textual evidence and rejects applying any form of of interpretation or analogous reasoning to the texts. Some scholars of the Zâhirî have taken this approach to an extreme, like those who made the strange claim that defecating in standing water is not prohibited, since the Prophet (peace be upon him) only mentioned that urinating in it is prohibited.

Many scholars have ridiculed the Zâhirî school for opinions such as this. Ibn Battâl writes in his commentary on Sahîh al-Bukhârî: “This is the epitome of failure and an absolute denial or reason.” (1/352)

Another Mâlikî scholar writes: “Whoever adheres to such falsehoods and behaves with such unyielding rigidity does not deserve to be called a scholar. The justice Abû Bakr Ibn al-`Arabî was correct when he said that the Zâhirîs are not to be counted among the scholars and jurists. Their disagreements are not to be entertained. They are no different than the general public. This is why most jurists and jurisprudents agree that juristic consensus can exist on a matter despite the disagreement of the Zâhirîs.” [al-Mufhim (2/639)]

Al-Nawawî comments on this strange opinion in al-Majmû` (1/119): “This opinion is strange and about as false as an opinion can get. It is the worst thing that has been reported about them, if it is even true that anyone really said it. It is so patently false that there is no need to even argue against it. This is why many of our colleagues never bothered to refute it when they made mention of it.

This opinion is related to us from Dâwûd, the founder of the Zâhirî School. It also appears to be the view of the Zâhirî scholar Ibn Hazm who writes: “If the Prophet (peace be upon him) had wanted to prohibit anything besides urinating, he would not have remained silent on the matter, not forgetfully, nor our of incapacity, nor out of obstinacy, expecting us to know something about the Unseen without him making it clear to us.” [al-Muhallâ (1/180-181)]

A similarly rigid interpretation of the Zâhirîs is the claim that a person who urinates beside a body of standing water so that the urine flows into it – and likewise a person who urinates in a cup and then pours it into the water – is doing nothing wrong, arguing that the Prophet (peace be upon him) only prohibited urinating directly into the water. Ibn Daqîq al-`Id comments on this opinion by saying: “We can say with absolute certainty that their opinion is false. There is no difference between the two scenarios since the urine ends up in the water in any event. The reason for the prohibition is simply to avoid the contamination of water by impurities. This is not a matter of speculation. This is plainly evident.” [al-Ihkâm (1/24)]

We can learn something from these strange opinions. First and foremost, they show us that everybody can fall into error and only the words of the Prophet (peace be upon him) can be accepted unquestionably. The great jurist Mâlik b. Anas declared, while teaching in the Prophet’s Mosque: “There is no one among us who is above criticism except the one in this grave” and he pointed at the grave of the Prophet (peace be upon him).

A student of knowledge should take care to avoid following strange opinions and defending them. `Abd al-Rahmân b. Mahdî said: “A person cannot attain a high level of knowledge if he accepts the strangest of scholarly opinions.”

It is related from one of the Companions that Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) prohibited that a woman should bathe in a man’s leftover bathwater or a man from a woman’s leftover bathwater, but permitted them to draw water out from the basin at the same time.

It is an authentic hadîth related by Abû Dâwûd, al-Nasâ’î, al-Tahâwî, al-Bayhaqî, and others. Though the Companion’s name is not stated, the hadîth is still acceptable, because the assertion that the person was a Companion is sufficient.

The meaning of the hadîth:

The hadîth is discussing bathing to remove oneself from a state of major ritual impurity (janâbah). The hadîth makes it clear that a woman may not bathe herself for this purpose using the water that a man has already used and that a man may not bathe himself with the water that a woman has previously used.

Its legal implications:

This hadîth raises a number of questions in Islamic Law. We shall discuss two.

The first question:

The hadîth orders us not to perform a bath to remove ourselves from the state of major ritual impurity if a member of the opposite sex had already used the water for the same reason. This makes us ask the question: What about our ablutions (wudû’) that we make to remove ourselves from the state of minor ritual impurity? Can we perform our ablutions in the water that a member of the opposite sex has already used for the same reason? Scholars are divided on this issue.

Some of them say that it is not permissible to do so. This opinion was held by a number of Companions,including Umm Salamah. It was also the view of Sa`îd b. al-Musayyib and al-Hasan al-Basrî among the Successors. Among the jurists, Ibn Hazm was of this view and Ahmad at one time expressed this opinion.

They relied on the hadîth under discussion and other similarly worded hadîth to support this view, though these hadîth explicitly speak about bathing and not ablutions. They also relied on statements of some Companions prohibiting performing ablutions in the water leftover when members of the opposite sex make ablutions. However, these statements cannot authentically be attributed to the Prophet (peace be upon him).

By contrast, the majority of jurists see no problem with people performing ablutions in water used for ablutions by members of the opposite sex. This is the position of the Hanafî, Malikî, and Shâfî`î schools of thought, as well as the preferred position of the Hanbalî school. This was the view of Ibn `Abbâs from among the Companions.

They support their opinion with the hadîth in Sahîh Muslim wherein it mentions that the Prophet (peace be upon him) used to wash with the water left over by his wife Maymûnah.

They also use the hadîth which states: Some of the Prophet’s wives bathed themselves from water in a bowl. When the Prophet (peace be upon him) approached the bowl to perform ablutions from it, his wife told him: “O Messenger of Allah, I was in a state of major ritual impurity.” He said: “Water does not become ritually impure.” [Sunan al-Tirmidhî and Sahîh Ibn Khuzaymah]

Some scholars have provided different explanations to reconcile these different hadîth. The best explanation is that the prohibition mentioned in the hadîth under discussion is one of dislike and not of legal prohibition. This explanation allows us to act upon all the hadîth related on the matter. We understand from the hadîth which indicate permissibility that using the water which members of the opposite sex have bathed in is not unlawful. At the same time, we can understand from the hadîth that prohibits such bathing that doing so is discouraged.

The second question:

The hadîth under discussion indicates to us that it is permissible for a man and his wife to bathe at the same time from the same container of water to remove themselves from the state of major ritual impurity. There are many other hadîth that support this opinion.

For instance `Abd Allah b. `Umar stated: “During the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him), men and women would all perform ablutions from the same source of water.” [Sahîh al-Bukhârî] This, of course, took place before the verse of covering was revealed, since after that verse was revealed, women were commanded to cover their arms and hair in front of men. However, the ruling still holds for members of the same household.

The Prophet’s wife, Umm Salamah said: “I used to bathe to lift the state of major ritual impurity along with the Prophet (peace be upon him) from the same basin of water.” [Sahîh al-Bukhârî]

The Prophet’s wife, `A’ishah said: “I used to bathe along with the Prophet (peace be upon him) from the same basin of water. Each of us would take turns drawing out water with our hands.” [Sahîh al-Bukhârî]

These and many other hadîth make it clear that a husband and wife can bathe together from the same basin of water, each of them drawing the water out of the basin. Many scholars have gone so far as to declare this a matter of juristic consensus, including al-Tahâwî, al-Qurtubî, al-Nawawî, and Ibn Taymiyah. However, this is not the case, since there have been a few people who have disagreed.

Some benefits of this hadîth:

1. It is disliked for a man to bathe from the water left over by a woman who has bathed from it to lift the state of major ritual impurity.
2. It is disliked for a woman to bathe from the water left over by a man who has bathed from it to lift the state of major ritual impurity.
3. It is perfectly alright for a husband and wife to bathe together, drawing from the same source of water.

Abû Qatâdah relates that Allah’s Messenger said regarding the cat: “It is not impure. It is one of those creatures that live in our attendance.”

This hadîth is related in al-Muwatta’, Sunan al-Tirmidhî, Sunan al-Nasâ’î, Sunan Abî Dawûd, Sunan Ibn Mâjah, and Sahîh Ibn Khuzaymah among other books.

It is an authentic hadîth. Al-Bukhârî was among the many scholars who declared it so. Al-Tirmidhî declared it “a good and authentic hadîth”. [Sûnan al-Tirmidhî (1/153)] Other scholars who authenticated it were al-`Uqayli, Ibn Khuzaymah, al-Hâkim, al-Bayhaqî, al-Daraqutnî, and al-Nawawî.

The meaning of the hadîth:

This hadîth has a story behind it. A woman named Kabshah bint Ka`b once poured out some water for her father-in-law Abû Qatâdah to use for his ablutions. A cat came along wanting to drink, so Abû Qatâdah turned the bowl so the cat to do so. He noticed Kabshah looking at him strangely and said: “Does this surprise you, my niece? Indeed Allah’s Messenger said regarding the cat: “It is not impure. It is one of those creatures that live in our attendance.”

Its legal implications:

We will discuss two questions that this hadîth brings up:

The first question:

Does water remain pure after a cat drinks from it? Scholars have two opinions on this matter.

The first opinion is that the water is pure. This was the opinion of many Companions and Successors like `Alî, al-`Abbâs, Ibn `Abbâs, Ibn `Umar, `A’ishah, Abû Qatâdah, al-Hasan, al-Husayn, `Alqamah, Ibrâhim al-Nakha’î, `Atâ’b. Yasâr, and Ishâq b. Râhawayh. It is also the opinion of the Mâlikî, Shâfi`î, and Hanbalî schools of thought. Among the founders of the Hanafî school, it was the opinion of Abû Yûsuf and Muhammad b. Hasan al-Shaybânî.

These who hold this opinion rely on the hadîth under discussion as their most obvious piece of evidence, since in it the Prophet (peace be upon him) clearly states that the cat is not impure. They also cite two hadîth where the Prophet’s wife `A’ishah allowed a cat to drink water from a bowl and then used the leftover water to perform her ablutions. There are similar hadîth about the Companions Anas and Jâbir doing the same. Indeed, Jâbir made it quite clear that the cat does not contaminate anything or make it impure.

By contrast, the official opinion of the Hanafî school of law is that water becomes impure after a cat drinks from it, but that the impurity is of a minor degree. Hanafî scholars rule that using such water is disliked but not prohibited. This is in consideration of general convenience, since cats abound in areas of human habitation and are kept as pets.

They cite the following hadîth as evidence: “If a cat drinks from a dish, it is purified by washing it once or twice.” [Sharh Ma`ânî al-Athâr (1/19) and Sunan al-Dâraqutnî (1/64)]

The problem with this hadîth is that it cannot be reliably attributed to the Prophet (peace be upon him). Most narrations of this hadîth are linked to the hadîth about cleaning the dish from which a dog drank. In many cases, the part about the dog is attributed to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the part about the cat is attributed only to the Companion named Qurrah. This was explained by al-Bayhaqî [al-Sunan al-Kubrâ (1/247)], and al-Nawawî [al-Majmû` (1/175)].

They also cite the hadîth: “The housecat is a beast of prey.” This hadîth implies that the housecat takes the same legal rulings as any other beast of prey. That being the case, the water that it drinks must become contaminated.

The problem with this hadîth is that it contains `Isâ b. al-Musayyib in its chain of transmission. Both Abû Dâwûd and Abû Hâtim declared him a weak narrator. Ibn Hibbân went so far as to say: “His narrations are beneath the strength required to be useful as evidence.”

Therefore, the strongest ruling with respect to the water left over by a cat after it drinks is that such water is pure. The authentic hadîth are clear on this point. Moreover, even if we were to assume that the Prophet (peace be upon him) actually said the statement about washing the dish from which a cat drank, we would have to consider such washing to be a preferred but not obligatory act in order to reconcile it with the authentic hadîth wherein the Prophet (peace be upon him) declared the cat to be pure.

The second question:

Does this hadîth about the cat indirectly imply that other carnivores contaminate the water they drink from? Scholars have offered four opinions on this matter.

One opinion is that carnivores are impure, but that birds of prey are not. If a bird of prey drinks from some water, it does not contaminate it, but using that water is disliked. What makes a bird of prey different than a carnivore in this matter is that a bird drinks with its beak which is a dry, bony appendage, whereas a carnivore laps up the water and mixes it with the contents of its mouth. This is the opinion advocated by Hanafî scholars.

The second opinion is that all beasts of prey are impure with the exception of the housecat cat and other similar small animals. This is the opinion of Hanbalî scholars.

Both groups of scholars are in agreement that carnivores are impure. They only disagree about birds of prey for the reason mentioned above. They offer the hadîth under discussion as proof for the impurity of carnivores. They argue that the hadîth, by singling out the housecat for purity on the grounds of its domestic presence, is stating by implication that all other carnivores are impure.

They also cite the hadîth wherein the Prophet (peace be upon him) was asked about water found in open country, since this water is frequented by beasts of prey and other animals To this question the Prophet (peace be upon him) replied: “If water reaches two qullahs in volume, it will not become impure due to impurities.” The way the Prophet (peace be upon him) answered this questions shows that he conceded the impurity of beasts of prey. He answered that bodies of water in open country are too large to be contaminated. If beasts of prey were not impure in the first place, he would have had to make that clear to the questioner. He would not have remained silent on the matter.

The third opinion is that all living animals are pure save the pig and the dog. This is the view of Shâfi`î scholars. Al-Nawawî writes: “We maintain the purity of the water left over after a cat, mule, donkey, large carnivore, mouse, or any other animal drinks from it, with the exception of the dog and the pig. Using such water is not at all discouraged.” [al-Majmû`: 2/607]

The fourth opinion is that of the Mâlikî scholars. It is like the Shâfi`î position with the added condition that the carnivorous animal must be deemed unlikely to bring with it contaminants. However, Mâlikî scholars nevertheless discourage the use of such water.

The following evidence is given to support the purity of these animals:

1. It is narrated that the Prophet (peace be upon him) was asked about using for purification the water found in the wilderness between Mecca and Madinah, since this water was frequented by dogs, beasts of prey, and donkeys. He replied: “What they have already taken into their stomachs is theirs and whatever is left over is pure.” [Sunan Ibn Mâjah (1/519) and Sunan al-Bayhaqî (1/258)]

This hadîth is not authentic since it contains `Abd al-Rahmân b. Zayb b. Aslam in its chain of transmission. Al-Bayhaqî says: “The narrations of people like `Abd al-Rahmân b. Zayb cannot be used as evidence.”

Ibn Jarîr writes: “Hadîth like this cannot be used as evidence. This hadîth only comes to us by way of `Abd al-Rahmân b. Zayb b. Aslam, and according to hadîth specialists, his hadîth are about as weak as hadîth get.” [Tahdhîb al-Athâr (1559)]

2. It is related that the Prophet (peace be upon him) was asked whether it was permissible to perform ablutions with water from which a donkey had taken a drink. Prophet (peace be upon him) replied: “Yes, and you may also do so with water from which beasts of prey have taken a drink.” [al-Shâfi`î (40), Sunan al-Dâraqutnî (1/62), Sunan al-Bayhaqî (1/249-250), and Musannaf `Abd al-Razzâq (1/77)]

This hadîth has two chains of transmission. One of these is by way of Ibrâhîm b. Abî Habîbah. The other is by way of Ibrâhîm b. Muhammad. Both of these chains of transmission are weak. Al-Nawawî says: “This hadîth is weak in both of its transmissions, since Ibrâhîm b. Abî Habîbah and Ibrâhîm b. Muhammad are both deemed by the hadîth specialists to be very weak narrators whose narrations cannot be used as evidence.” [al-Majmû` (1/173)] This hadîth was also declared weak by al-Daraqutnî, Ibn al-Mulaqqin, and Ibn Hajar.

3. Then there is the hadîth that `Umar while traveling with `Amr b. al-`As and others, reached a spring. `Amr b. al-`As inquired from the owner of the spring if beasts of prey frequented it. `Umar immediately said to the owner of the spring: “Do not inform us. We visit their water sources as they visit ours.” [al-Muwatta’ (1/23-24)]

Though its narrators are all reliable, this hadîth has a broken chain of transmission, since Yahyâ b. `Abd al-Rahman who narrates this hadîth from `Umar never met `Umar.

These are the evidences provided by those who deem all of these animals to be pure. However, they also argue that the hadîth about the cat is evidence enough that the water frequented by carnivores is pure, since the cat is indeed a carnivore.
 

Some benefits of this hadîth:

1. The hadîth shows us that it is permissible to keep cats as pets. This also implies that cats may be bought and sold. Ibn `Abd al-Barr writes: “Generally, whatever is permissible to keep and benefit from is also permissible to sell for a price unless there is specific evidence to the contrary.” [al-Tamhîd (1/319)] Indeed, the scholars of the four schools of though agree on this point, especially since cats are beneficial in controlling mice and other pests as well as in guarding their owners at night.

However, there have been those who declared the selling of cats unlawful, including Ibn al-Qayyim [Zâd al-Ma`âd (5/773-774)] and Ibn Hazm [al-Muhallâ (9/9-13)]. They cite the hadîth where Abû Zubayr asked Jâbir about selling dogs and cats and Jâbir said: “The Prophet (peace be upon him) spoke against it.” [Sahîh Muslim (3/1199)]

The majority of scholars responded with the possibility that this hadîth refers to cats that are not beneficial, like those that have not been domesticated or that the sale of cats is merely discouraged, since such animals should preferably be given freely as gifts. They argue that the wording of the hadîth supports this understanding, since the Prophet (peace be upon him) only “spoke against” it and did not prohibit it outright.

2. The hadîth indicates that cats are not impure animals and that the water from which they drink remains pure after they drink from it.

3. The hadîth gives us a general principle that animals that we are allowed to keep as pets are pure and that the water from which they drink remains pure after they drink from it.

Abû Qatâdah relates that a desert dweller arrived and urinated in one corner of the mosque. People wanted to forcibly stop him but the Prophet (peace be upon) bade them hold back. When the desert dweller had finished, the Prophet (peace be upon him) ordered that a pitcher of water be brought and poured over the area.

This authentic hadîth is related in Sahîh al-Bukhâri and Sahîh Muslim among other sources.

The meaning of the hadîth:

First of all, it is important to know that the mosque back then had a bare dirt floor and a considerable portion of it had no roof and was open to the sky.

We are not sure who this desert dweller was. It has been said that he was Dhû al-Khuwaysirah or al-Aqra` b. Hâbis al-Tamîmî or possibly `Uyaynah b. Hisn. However, there is no real importance attached to knowing the identity of this person. Knowing it does not provide us with any insights into Islamic Law. Moreover, what happened is most certainly not something that this person would have wanted to be remembered for in history.

After the Prophet (peace be upon him) ordered that water be poured over the spot, the prophet (peace be upon him) said to the man: “These mosques are not places for urine and filth. They are for the remembrance of Allah and for reading the Qur’ân.” [Sahîh Muslim]

Its legal implications:

This hadîth touches upon the following questions in Islamic Law:

The first question:

How is the ground to be purified after it has been contaminated by impurities? The hadîth gives the impression that it is sufficient to pour water over the affected area. Scholars have two different opinions on this matter.

The opinion of the majority of scholars, including Mâlik, al-Shâfi`î, and Ahmad, is that pouring water over the affected area is enough. They support their opinion with the hadîth under discussion.

The opinion followed by Hanafî scholars is far more complex. They say that if the ground is loose like sand or gravel, then it is sufficient to pour water over it until the water is soaked up into the ground, taking the impurities with it. It is a different matter if the ground is hard. If it is sloping, the lower area of ground must be dug out. Then water must be poured over the affected area until it flows into the excavated portion. If the hard soil is on level ground, then there is no alternative to digging up the contaminated soil and removing it, since water cannot inundate such soil. Hanafî scholars provide the following as evidence for their opinion:

1. There is a version of the hadîth about the desert dweller where the Prophet (peace be upon him) is reported as saying: “Dig up the area then pour over it a pitcher of water.” This hadîth is mentioned by Ibn al-Jawzî in al-`Ilal al-Mutanâhiyah (1/334)

The problem with this hadîth is as follows. `Abd al-Jabbâr relates this hadîth from Yahyâ b. Sa`îd. However, there were many other reliable narrators who related this same hadîth from Abû Sa`îd without mentioning anything about digging up the area. `Abd al-Jabbâr was the only person who ever mentioned digging up the area.

Al-Dâraqutnî said that`Abd al-Jabbâr made a mistake with respect to Ibn `Uyaynah, because all the trustworthy narrators among Ibn `Uyaynah’s students related this hadîth from Yahyâ b. Sa`îd without any one of them mentioning anything about digging. Ibn `Uyaynah, however, related the hadîth about digging up the ground with a totally different, broken chain of transmission. `Abd al-Jabbâr got the two chains of transmission mixed up. [As mentioned by Ibn al-Jawzî, al-`Ilal (1/334)]

Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalânî thoroughly agreed with al-Dâraqutnî’s assessment, saying: “This is an excellent assessment of the matter.” [al-Talkhîs (1/211)]

2. There is a version of the hadîth about the desert dweller where the Prophet (peace be upon him) is reported as saying: “Take the dirt upon which he urinated and discard it then pour water over the area.” [Sunan `Abî Dâwûd, Sunan al-Daraqutnî, and Sunan al-Bayhaqî]

Ahmad b. Hanbal declared this hadîth to be false. Abû Dâwûd, after relating this hadîth in his book, writes: “It is related from the Prophet (peace be upon him) by Ibn Ma`qal who never met the Prophet (peace be upon him).” Al-Dâraqutnî said the same thing after mentioning this hadîth in his book.

In his book entitled al-Marâsîl, Abû Dâwûd writes: “It is related with an unbroken chain of transmission that is not authentic.”

3. It is related on the authority of Ibn Mas`ûd that when the desert dweller finished urinating in the mosque, the Prophet (peace be upon him) ordered the area to be excavated and then have water poured over it. Then the desert dweller asked: “O Messenger of Allah, a man loves a people but does not do what they do.” To this the Prophet (peace be upon him) replied: “A man will be with those he loves.” [Sunan al-Dâraqutnî and Sharh Ma`ânî al-Athâr].

The chain of transmission for this hadîth contains the narrator Abû Hishâm al-Rifâ’î. This narrator was declared weak by Ibn `Abd al-Hâdî as well as al-Bukhârî who went as far as to say: “There is unanimous agreement that he is weak.”

Another of the narrators in this hadîth’s chain of transmission is Sam`ân b. Mâlik. Al-Dâraqutnî declares him to be unknown.

Abû Zur`ah al-Râzî agrees with him, saying: “This hadîth is false and Sam`ân is not a strong narrator.” [al-Jarh wa al-Ta`dîl (4/316)]

Both Abû Hâtim and al-Bayhaqî declare this hadîth to be inauthentic.

Ibn Hajar summarizes the Hanafî evidence as follows:

They provide three versions of this hadîth as evidence. The first comes with a complete chain of transmission on the authority of Ibn Mas`ûd, and is recorded by al-Tahâwî. However, its chain of transmission is weak, as stated by Ahmad and others.

The other two versions have broken chains of transmission. One of these is recorded by Abû Dâwûd and contains `Abd Allah b. Ma`qal in its chain of transmission. The other comes by way of Sa`îd b. Mansûr and Tâ`ûs. The narrators in their chains of transmission are reliable and they would be binding evidence for those who freely accept hadîth with incomplete chains of transmission (wherein no mention is made of the Companion who actually heard the hadîth from the Prophet, but where a Successor relates the Prophet’s words directly) and those who accept such hadîth when supported by one another.

Al-Shâfi`î only accepts such hadîth if they are supported by being from senior Successors who are known only to attribute to the Prophet (peace be upon him) what they heard from reliable people. This is not the case with these two narrations, as can be seen by their chains of transmission. [Fath al-Bârî (1/388)]

From this we can see that the narrations that the Hanafî scholars rely upon are unusual since they are at variance with the considerable number of authentic narrations of this hadîth that can be found in Sahîh al-Bukhârî, Sahîh Muslim, and other sources. None of these reliable narrations say anything about digging up the ground, but simply mention pouring water over the area. If the ground had been dug up, then these narrators would have certainly made mention of it due to its importance.

Therefore, the evidence points strongly to the ruling that pouring water over the ground is sufficient for its purification. What matters is that the impurity is removed, whether it is on the body, a piece of cloth, or on the ground.

Still, some people might have trouble with ground that is very hard, like tiled or cement floors. In these cases, some means of water runoff would be a solution. If the impurity becomes dry and then the area is washed so that the impurity leaves no trace, then this poses no problem. Likewise, if a considerable amount of water is used so that its color, taste and scent are not affected by the impurities on the ground, this will also be sufficient for deeming the ground pure.

The second question:

The hadîth about the desert dweller sheds some light on the Muslim’s duty of enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong. The Prophet (peace be upon him) did not object to the Companions rebuking the desert dweller, though he stayed their hands. Moreover, he went further and made it clear to the desert dweller that what he had done was wrong when he said: “These mosques are not places for urine and filth. They are for the remembrance of Allah and for reading the Qur’ân.” [Sahîh Muslim] The Prophet (peace be upon him) merely objected to the severity of his Companions’ reaction, since their reaction could have brought about undesirable consequences.

This hadîth shows the Prophet’s acceptance of the Companions condemnation along with a rejection of their severity to someone who had recently accepted Islam. It also shows the Prophet (peace be upon him) objecting to the wrongful action. All of this shows that it is a duty upon the Muslims to enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong. Scholars of Islam unanimously agree that this is a religious duty.

Al-Ghazâlî writes: “Enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong is the greatest firmament of the faith. It is the duty for which Allah sent all of the Prophets. If this duty had been put aside and neglected, prophethood would have come to no effect. Religion would have vanished, and ignorance, indifference, and sin would have become widespread. Strife and ruination would have spread through the land and the people would have met with destruction, though they would not even realize it until the Day of Resurrection.” [Ihyâ’ `Ulûm al-Dîn (2/302)]

It should be sufficient proof for us that carrying out this duty is one of the characteristics that separate the believers from the hypocrites. Allah says: “The believing men and women are protecting friends of one another. They enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong.” [Sûrah al-Tawbah: 71] He then follows this by saying: “The hypocritical men and women are from one another. They enjoin what is wrong and forbid what is right and withhold their hands.” [Sûrah al-Tawbah: 67]

The scholars agree that enjoining what is right and rejecting what is wrong in one’s own heart is the duty of every single Muslim. No one is allowed to neglect this duty under any circumstances, since a person is never threatened with any harm by carrying it out. Al-Ghazalî [Ihyâ’ `Ulûm al-Dîn (2/306)] and al-Nawawî [Sharh Sahîh Muslim (2/22)] have declared this a matter of unanimous agreement among scholars of Islam.

Scholars disagree when it comes to speaking out with one’s voice and preventing wrong with one’s hands. Though they agree that it is a duty upon the Muslims, they differ as to whether this duty must be carried out by each and every one of us on an individual basis or a collective duty that only some members of society must actually engage in.

Ibn Hazm was among those who considered it to be the duty of each and every Muslim to do what he can in enjoining what is right and to forbidding what is wrong. He writes: “Enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong is the duty of each individual to the extent of his abilities. He must do so with his hands if he can. If he cannot, then he should do so verbally. If he cannot, then he must do so in his heart and that is the weakest of faith. There is no faith in anything less than that.” [al-Muhallâ (1/26-27)]

Those who hold this opinion provide the following evidence:

1. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “Whoever among you sees some wrongdoing, he should prevent it with his hands. If he is unable to do so, then he should object to it with his voice. If he is unable to do so, then he must hate it in his heart and this is the weakest of faith.” [Sahîh Muslim]

This hadîth begins with the word “whoever”. Therefore, its ruling applies to every Muslim. Each and every person must carry out this duty to the extent of his abilities.

2. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “Never has there been a Prophet sent to the nations before my time except that he had as disciples some people from his nation who followed him in his practices, obeyed his commands. Then after them would come people who professed what they did not put into practice. Whoever resisted them with his hands was a believer. Whoever resisted them with his voice was a believer. Whoever resisted them in his heart was a believer. There is not even faith worth the weight of mustard in anything less than that.” [Sahîh Muslim]

The vast majority of scholars hold the opinion that enjoining the right and forbidding the wrong is a collective duty upon society. If enough people engage in it to satisfy the needs of society, then the duty is fulfilled for everyone. If society neglects this duty, however, everyone without a valid excuse will be sinful. This is the opinion preferred by Ibn Taymiyah. [Majmû` al-Fatâwâ (28/65, 126)]

Those who hold this opinion provide the following evidence to support it:

1. Allah says: “Let there arise from among you a group of people who call to goodness, enjoin what is right, and forbid what is wrong. These are the ones who are successful.” [Sûrah Al `Imrân: 104]

This verse gives a clear command to the Muslims to carry out these duties. However, it directs this command to a group “from among you”, indicating that this is a collective duty upon society that does not have to be carried out by each and every member of society.

This becomes clearer if we think of a case where a group of people see someone doing something wrong. If one person from that group goes forth and forbids this wrong, it is not necessary – or even desirable – for everyone else to join in and voice his personal objection.

The opinion of the majority seems to be the most correct, since this duty can be fulfilled by some people without others joining in. The question that should be asked is: how many people are enough to carry out this duty? We see that wrongdoing is increasing in our societies on a daily basis. In circumstances like those in which we are living, we cannot doubt that working to right the evils plaguing society has become the duty of each and every one of us to the extent of his abilities.

Moreover, there are circumstances where enjoining the right and forbidding the wrong becomes an individual obligation. Among the most important of these circumstances are:

1. When a person is the only one who knows about a certain misdeed, he should either put it right or notify those who can.

2. When a person is the only one capable of removing a wrong, then he must do so. This includes a husband who sees his wife doing wrong, a father who sees his child doing wrong, and a person in authority who sees someone under his jurisdiction doing wrong.

3. When a person sees that everyone else is neglecting this duty, he must go forward and carry it out.

Some benefits of this hadîth:

1. This hadîth indicates that human urine is impure. This is a point of unanimous consensus among Muslims. This ruling applies to all human urine except what Abû Dâwûd relates about the urine of an infant boy who has not begun to eat solid food.

2. It is important for a person to be careful not to get urine on his clothing or skin when he relieves himself. This may be one of the reasons why the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not allow the man to be interrupted while he was relieving himself.

This meaning is emphasized by another hadîth. Once, the Prophet (peace be upon him) passed by the graves of two people and said: “They are being punished, and it is not on account of something major. One of them did not take care to shield himself from his urine and the other used to go around spreading rumors about people.” [Sahîh al-Bukhârî and Sahîh Muslim]

3. The hadîth informs us about the sanctity of the mosque. The Prophet (peace be upon him) told the man: “These mosques are not places for urine and filth. They are for the remembrance of Allah and for reading the Qur’ân.” Filth includes not only tangible grime, it also includes vile speech and conduct. We can see from how strongly the Companions reacted that they fully appreciated the sanctity of the mosque.
Moreover, the Prophet (peace be upon him) made it clear that mosques are built for a very specific and noble purpose, and that is to worship Allah and remember him.

4. The hadîth is a good example of how gentle and well mannered the Prophet (peace be upon him) was. We can see how gently and kindly he corrected the desert dweller and taught him what he needed to know.

5. The hadîth indicates that even a small quantity of water does not become impure unless its characteristics are altered by the impurities it comes in contact with. The Prophet (peace be upon him) only ordered that one pitcher of water be poured over the spot.

6. The hadîth presents to us a clear application of a major principle of Islamic jurisprudence. That principle is that of choosing the lesser of two evils when it is impossible to avoid both. Urinating in the mosque was an evil thing. However, trying to prevent it could have brought on far graver consequences. First of all, such harshness and abruptness could have caused the desert dweller, who was a new convert, to develop an aversion to Islam. Secondly, if the desert dweller had been stopped abruptly, it may have led to other places in the mosque being accidentally sprayed with urine, leaving a more serious mess to clean. He may also have soiled his clothing.

Abû Wâfid al-Laythî relates that Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said: “Whatever is cut from a living animal is dead.”

This hadîth is related in Sunan al-Tirmidhî, Sunan Abî Dâwûd, Sunan al-Dâraqutnî, Musnad Ahmad, and Sunan al-Bayhaqî, among other sources.

Though the various chains of transmission for this hadîth are weak, its meaning is a point of consensus among Islamic scholars. Ibn al-Mundhir writes: “The people of knowledge are unanimously agreed that if a limb of a sheep, camel, or cow is cut off from the rest of its living body, the dismembered limb will be impure.” [al-Awsat (2/273) and al-Ijmâ` (156)]

The meaning of the hadîth:

This hadîth has a story behind it. When the prophet (peace be upon him) arrived in Madinah, he found that its inhabitants were in the practice of cutting off the humps of camels and the buttocks of sheep. This prompted him to say: “Whatever is cut from a living animal is dead.”

Its legal implications:

This hadîth, along with the verses and other evidence that prohibit eating carrion, is commonly cited as evidence that the animal carcasses are impure if they are not from animals that are properly slaughtered. However, none of this evidence makes a direct statement that animal carcasses are impure.

There is no doubt that if something is impure, it is unlawful for consumption unless there is an overriding necessity like the threat of starvation. However, the converse is not always true. The fact that something is unlawful to eat does not necessitate that it is impure. Impurity is only one reason why something might be unlawful for us to eat. It is unlawful for a Muslim to eat with gold and silver utensils and drink from gold and silver vessels. However, gold and silver are definitely not impure. Alcoholic beverages are prohibited, but scholars disagree as to its purity.

Since the prohibition of something is not indicative of its impurity, this hadîth cannot be considered strong evidence that animal carcasses are impure. The evidence that we have for it is the consensus of the scholars that, even with animals that are lawful for us to eat, the flesh, fat, and blood of their carcasses are impure if they are not properly slaughtered. It follows that the carcasses of animals that are unlawful to eat are also impure. There is no dispute about this matter whatsoever.

Scholars, however, disagree about the purity of the hard and dry parts of these carcasses, such as the bones, teeth, horns, and hair. There are, in fact, three different opinions on this matter.

The first opinion is that all parts of an animal carcass are impure. The only exception to this is human hair. This is the well-known position of the Shâfi`î school of law and one opinion of Ahmad.

They cite the verse: “Forbidden to you are carrion, blood, the flesh of swine, and that upon which has been invoked other than Allah’s name…” [Sûrah al-Mâ’idah: 3] They argue that since dismembered limbs from a living animal take the same ruling as a carcass, they are also impure.

Al-Shâfi`î mentions that Ibn `Umar disliked using ointment from a vessel made of elephant bone because that bone was the same as carrion. [al-Umm (1/23)]

They also offer the argument that since the bones of living animals are imbued with life, they become impure upon death just as the flesh does. As proof of the living nature of bones, they cite the verse: “He says: ‘Who can give life to bones when they are decomposed?’ Say: ‘He will give them life who created them the first time!’” [Sûrah Yâsîn: 78-79]

Another proof that they cited for the living nature of bones and teeth is that they experience sensations such as heat and cold and they experience pain to an even greater extent than flesh does. If bones and teeth were nonliving, they would have no sensation at all.

The second opinion regarding the purity of the hard and dry parts of animal carcasses is that they are pure without exception. This is the view of the Hanafî and Zâhirî schools as well as one of the opinions expressed by Mâlik and Ahmad. Ibn Taymiyah preferred this opinion, claiming that it was the view held by most of the pious predecessors.

They offer the following evidence to support this opinion:

1. The basic assumption for any substance in Islamic Law is that it is pure unless there is specific evidence to indicate otherwise. This evidence is nonexistent.

2. Allah says: “…and out of their wool, fur, and hair, household goods and a provision for a time.” [Sûrah al-Nahl: 80] This verse is general in wording, encompassing all circumstances, including that of animals which have died.

3. The Prophet (peace be upon him) once came upon a dead sheep and said: “Why do you not benefit from its hide?” When they objected that it was a carcass, he said: “It is only forbidden to eat it.” [Sahîh al-Bukhârî and Sahîh Muslim]

This is a clear statement that the prohibition refers to eating the flesh of dead animals and not to anything else. The Sunnah clarifies and explains the Qur’ân. Therefore, from this hadîth we can understand that the verse forbidding carrion refers only to the prohibition of eating it.

4. They argue that since the hair and wool sheared off of living animals is pure, then by analogy, these things should be pure if they are removed after the animal’s death. Ibn Taymiyah says: “Scholars agree that the hair and wool sheared from a living animal is pure. If hair was considered to be part of the animal’s body, then cutting it off a live animal would not have been permitted.”

5. Al-Bukhârî asserts that al-Zuhrî said regarding the bones of dead animals: “I have met people from the earliest generation of scholars who used to use them as combs for their hair and for their ointments and did not see any problem with it.” [Fath al-Bârî (1/408)]

The third opinion on this matter is that the hair of a carcass is pure but the bones, horns, hooves, and nails are not. This is the well-known position of the Mâlikî school of law as well as one of the opinions attributed to Ahmad. This opinion has also been attributed to `Umar b. `Abd al-`Azîz, al-Hasan al-Basrî, Ishâq, al-Muzanî, and Ibn al-Mundhir.

The Hanbalî school of law builds on this opinion further, stating that if the animal is pure when it is alive – even if it is not permitted to eat its meat – then its hair will be pure after it has died. However, if the living animal is impure, then its hair is impure under all circumstances.

Some benefits of this hadîth:

1. This hadîth indicates to us that it is forbidden to cut of portions of a living animal. This prohibition protects the animal from abuse. Also, it is forbidden because it constitutes destruction of property, since the part that is removed is unusable carrion.

2. The hadîth makes it clear that we cannot eat the flesh taken from living animals, since that flesh is carrion.