The basis for the obligation of purification with water are the words of the Exalted, “And (He) sends down water from the sky upon you, that thereby He might purify you”,44 and His words, “.. . and then ye find not water, then go to high clean soil and rub your faces and your hands (therewith)”.45

The jurists agreed that all kinds of water are pure in themselves, purifying other things, except for the water of the sea, about which there was some disagreement in the first period. They (the dissenters) are defeated by the fact that sea-water is included within the unqualified use of the term “water” and also by the tradition recorded by Malik, which is the saying of the Prophet, “Its water is pure, and its dead creatures are lawful”. Although, this is a tradition whose authenticity is disputed, the law apparently supports it.

The jurists, similarly, agreed about things that alter the water and that are normally found in it (or that are not normally separated from it, like green moss), do not usurp its purification and the quality of purifying, except for slight disagreement recounted about stagnant water by Ibn Sirin, whose opinion here is also rejected on the ground that the absolute use of the term “water” applies to stagnant water as well. They agreed about water that has been altered by impurity with respect to taste, colour, or smell, or with respect to more than one of these qualities, that it is not permitted for purposes of ablution or purification. They agreed that water in large quantities is not defiled by impurities that do not alter one of its (mentioned) qualities, and that it remains pure.

This is what they agreed upon in this topic, but they disagreed about six issues that are like rules and principles of the topic.

They disagreed about water that contains impurities, but where none of its attributes is altered. One group of jurists said that it is pure irrespective of large or small quantities. This is one of the narrations from Malik and is also upheld by the Zahirites. Another group made a distinction between water in large and small quantities, saying that if there is little of it, it is impure and if there is much of it, it is not. They disagreed then about the demarcation separating small from large quantities (of water). Abu HanTfa’s opinion is that a large quantity of water is that in which a ripple caused by a person at one end does not reach the other side. According to al-ShafiT the limit is the fill of two qullas (containers), which weigh about five hundred rati (pounds). Some jurists did not impose any limit, though they held that impurities defile water in small quantities, even if its attributes are not changed. This is related from Malik. It is also related that such water is riot defiled, but that its use is undesirable. Thus, there are three opinions from Malik about the use of small Quantities of water in which small impure objects have been dropped. First, that it has thus been defiled, or it has been rendered unusable. Second, that it has not been defiled, so long as its attributes have not changed. Third, that its use is reprehensible.

The reason for disagreement here is based upon the conflict of the apparent meanings of traditions recounted on this matter. In the preceding tradition of Abu Hurayra—“When one of you wakes up from sleep”—the apparent meaning is that a small amount of impurity defiles a small amount of water. Similarly, in the tradition of Abu Hurayra established form the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) where he said, “No one should urinate in standing water and then use it for washing”, from the apparent meaning of w hich it is understood that a small amount of impurity soils a small quantity of water. So also the proscription of washing in still water by the person who has acquired a major impurity. This is opposed to the implications of the tradition Anas, which reports: “A bedouin went to the side of the mosque to relieve l mself, and the people shouted at him. The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace an d blessings be upon him) said, ‘Leave him alone’. After the man had relieved himself the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) ordered a pitcher of water to be poured over his urine”. This tradition indicates through its apparent meaning that a minor impurity does not defile a small quantity of water, as it is obvious that this spot became clean with a pitcher of water. There is also the tradition of Abu SaTd al-Khudri, recorded by Abu Dawud. He said, “I heard the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) being asked whether the water of the well of Buda<a could be used, and it was a well in which dog flesh, menstrual clothes, and dirt were cast. The Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Nothing defiles water’”.

The jurists attempted to reconcile all these traditions, but they differed in their methods of reconciliation and, therefore, their opinions differed. Those who decided to uphold the apparent meaning of the traditions of Anas about the bedouin and of Abu SaTd maintained that the two traditions of Abu Hurayra should not be subjected to rationalization;46 and compliance with what they maintain is a mode of worship, and the fact that the water had become unusable does not mean that it had become impure. The Zahirites exaggerated and went so far as to say that if a person were to pour urine into the water from a bowl, washing and ablution with it would not be considered reprehensible. Thus, those who held this opinion reconciled the traditions in this way. Those who considered the use of a small amount of water, which had some impurities dropped in it, as undesirable, also reconciled the traditions by construing the traditions of Abu Hurayra to imply mere undesirability, and interpreted the tradition of the bedouin (incident) and the tradition of Abu SaTd in their literal meaning, that is, validity (in the use of the water).

Water in which saffron or other things of which water is often free, are mixed, altering one of its attributes, is pure according to all the jurists, but loses its power to purify according to Malik and al-ShafiT It purifies according to Abu HanTfa as long as the change (in attributes) is not achieved through heating. The reason for disagreement stems from the understanding of the absolute term “water” as applied to such mixed water. Those who held that water so mixed is not covered by the unqualified term water, but is described by the things added, such as “the water of such and such thing”, did not allow ablution with it, as ablution is to be performed with unadulterated water. Those who said that the term water still applies to water so mixed, allowed ablution with it. For the obvious inapplicability of the term to water heated with a non-polluted thing, they did not permit ablution with it; similarly, they did not permit it in the case of water extracted from vegetation, except for what is recorded in the book of Ibn Shahan about the permissibility of using rose-water in the jumu'a washing. The truth is that the verdict depends upon the quantities of the additives. With excessive mixing, the water may reach a state where the absolute term for water will not apply t0 it and will acquire a qualifying term, like the term bath water; or it may not reach such a state, especially when it is only the smell that has been altered. It is for this reason that some jurists did not take smell into account when prohibiting mixed water. The Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) is reported to have said to Umm cAtiyya, when she was about to bathe his (dead) daughter, “Bathe her with water and sidr (lotus), and in the last course of washing add some camphor”. This is mixed water, but the mixture did not reach a state where it would negate the absolute term for water. Malik, basing his judgment on the intensity of the mixture, made a distinction between weak and strong mixtures. He permitted weak mixtures, even when the attributes of the water were altered, but did not permit it in strong ones.

The jurists disagreed about water (already) used for purification and held three opinions. A group of jurists did not permit its use in purification under any circumstances, which is the opinion of al-ShaficT and Abu HanTfa. Another group considered it undesirable, but did not permit tayammum when it existed, which is the view of Malik and his disciples. A group of jurists did not find any difference between this water and water in its absolute meaning, which was the opinion of Abu Thawr, Dawud, and his disciples. Abu Yusuf deviated from all this and said that it is impure.

The reason for disagreement here also arises from the question of whether it is included in the unqualified term for water; some went as far as saying that the term bath-water is more appropriate for it than the term water. The Companions of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) used to compete for the excess left over from the ablution of the Prophet, and it is obvious that some drops of the water used would fall into the utensil that contained the surplus.

On the whole, it is absolute water and does not end up with changed attributes through the dirt of the limbs that are washed with it, but if it is sullied, then its hukm is the same as that of water one of whose attributes has changed with something pure, though it is something repelling by nature; this is what was taken into account by those who considered it abominable. As for one who considered it filthy, there is no evidence to support him.

The jurists agreed about the purity of the leftovers of Muslims and cattle, but J he? disagreed extensively about other categories. Some believed that the e ^°ver of every animal is pure, while others made an exception in the case of SWlne alone. These two views are related from Malik. Some jurists made an excePtion in the case of swine and dogs, which is al-Shafi Fs opinion. Some c ai deluded the beasts of prey generally, which is Ibn al-Qasim’s opinion. Others Jp ntained that leftovers of animals are subservient to the hukm of (their) flesh; I hc A sh is prohibited the leftover is impure, if the flesh is abominable the e over is abominable too, but if the flesh is permissible the leftover is pure. t0 the leftover of an idolater, it is said that it is impure, while it is said that it is abominable only if he drinks khamr (wine), which is Ibn al-Qasinf. opinion. The same is the case for him of all animals that do not normally avok filth, like filth-consuming wild hens, camels, and dogs.

Their disagreement is based on three points. First is the conflict of analog) with the obvious meaning of the Book. Second is its conflict with the literal meaning of the traditions. The third is the conflict of the traditions among themselves.

The point that death resulting without slaughter is legally the cause oi impurity of the animal’s carcass provides the basis for the analogy that life must be the basis for the purity of the body of the animal. If this is the case, then each living thing is pure, and whatever is pure its leftover must also be pure. The apparent meaning of the Book opposes this analogy in the case of swine and polytheists, as Allah, the Exalted, has said about swine, “swine­ flesh—for that verily is foul”,47 and that which is filthy in its essence is also impure. Thus, one group of jurists have excluded only swine from all living animals, while those who do not exclude it interpret the verse to imply derogation for it. As to the polytheists, the words of the Exalted are, “0 ye who believe! The idolaters are unclean. So let them not come near the Inviolable Place of Worship”.48 Those who interpreted this too in its literal sense excluded the idolaters from the implication of the analogy, while those who considered this to be merely derogatory for them reimposed the requirement of analogy.

The traditions conflicted with the analogy about dogs, cats, and beasts of prey. The tradition about the dog is Abu Hurayra’s, which is agreed upon for its authenticity, and it is the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “If a dog licks a utensil belonging to one of you, he should purify it by washing it seven times”. In some of its versions it says, “The first time with dust”, and in others, “Cover it the eighth time with dust”. With respect to the cat it is the tradition related by Qurra from Ibn Sirin from Abu Hurayra, who said, “The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, ‘The purification of a utensil, when a cat has licked it, is to wash it once or twice’”. Qurra is a trustworthy narrator according to the traditionists. About the beasts of prey is the preceding tradition of Ibn ^mar from his father, who said, “that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) was asked about water and about the leftover of beasts of prey and other animals. He said, ‘If the water is more than two qullahs rt does not retain impurity’”.

The jurists disagreed about the leftovers from purification expressing five °Pmions. One group held that the leftovers of purification are clean absolutely (and purifying). This is the opinion of Malik, al-Shafi T, and Abu HanTfa. c Another group said that it is not permitted for a man to purify himself with leftover of a woman, but it is permitted for a woman to purify herself with the leftover of a man. A third group said that it is permitted for a man to Purify himself with the leftover of a woman as long as she is not sexually ^efiled or menstruating. The fourth group maintained that it is not permitted Or either one of them to undertake purification with the surplus water of the ot her, unless they started using it at the same time. Another group said that it not permitted even if they commenced at the same time, which is Ahmad 1 n Hanbal’s opinion.

The reason for disagreement is based upon the differences in the relevant traditions. There are four related traditions about this. First, the tradition that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) used to wash away major ritual impurities along with his wives using the same utensil. Second, the tradition of Maymuna that he washed with the surplus left by his wife. Third, the tradition of al-Hakam al-Ghifari that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited the ablution by a man with the surplus left by a woman; this is recorded by Abu Dawud and al-TirmidhT. Fourth is the tradition of cAbd Allah ibn Sarjas, who said, “The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited that a man may wash with the surplus left by a woman, or that a woman may wash with the surplus left by a man, unless they commence at the same time”. The jurists adopted two kinds of methods for the interpretation of these traditions: a method of preference, and a method of reconciling some and' preferring others.

Some jurists preferred the tradition about the Prophet’s bathing along with his wives, drawing from the same vessel, over the rest of the traditions, for it was a tradition agreed upon by the compilers of the sahth traditions, and because there was no distinction in their view between bathing at the same time or bathing with the surplus left by others. This is because bathing at the same time means that each is bathing with the surplus left by the other person, and further, because the tradition of Maymuna proved authentic along with this tradition, and was preferred over .the tradition of al-Ghifari. They, therefore, maintained the absolute purity of the leftovers of purification. Those who preferred the tradition of al-Ghifari over the tradition of Maymuna, which is the opinion of Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm, reconciled the tradition of al-Ghifari with the tradition about the Prophet’s bathing along with his wives, drawing from the same vessel. They also made a distinction between bathing together while drawing from the same vessel and bathing with a surplus left by the other. Thus, acting upon these two traditions alone, they permitted a man to undertake purification along with a woman drawing from the same vessel, and permitted her to purify herself with a surplus left by him; however, they did not permit him to do so with a surplus left over from her purification.

Abu HanTfa, in an opinion opposed by his disciples and all the jurists of the regions, permitted ablution with the nabidh of dates during a journey on the basis of the tradition of Ibn cAbbas, which says: “Ibn Mascud went out with the Messenger of Allah on the night of the jinn and the Messenger of Allah asked him, ‘Do you have any water?’ He said, ‘I have nabidh in my container’. The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, ‘Pour out some’. He (the Prophet) performed ablution with it saying, Tt is a beverage and a purifying element’”. He also quoted the tradition of Abu Rafic, the client of Ibn TJmar, derived from Ibn Macud—which is almost the same—as follows: The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “It is good; fruit and purifying water”. They also claimed that this opinion is attributed to Companions like cAIi and Ibn cAbbas, and as there was no other Companion opposing them it amounted to a consensus. The traditionists, however, rejected this tradition because of the weak line of narrators (in its isndd). Furthermore, more reliable channels have related that Ibn Mas ud was not with the Messenger c of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) on the night of the jinn. The majority rejected this tradition on the basis of the words of the Exalted, “And ye find not water, then go to high clean soil and rub your faces and your hands (therewith)”.50 They said that He not permit the use of anything beside water and clean soil. They also ar gued on the basis of the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be u P°n him), “Clean soil constitutes the ablution of a Muslim, even if water is ° ot t0 ke found for ten seasons, and as soon as he finds water let him touch his , ce with it”. They (the Hanafites) could have said that the term water is used 10 the absolute sense in the tradition (thus, including nabidh), and it is an ltl °n that does not constitute abrogation so that the Book should conflict it, but then it is against their principle that an addition constitutes * br°gation.