Su’r: Categories, Purity, and Juristic Differences

1. What Is Su’r?

Su’r is the water left in a vessel after a person or animal drinks from it. The legal question is how contact with the mouth and saliva affects the remaining water's purity and use for ablution.

The status cannot be decided simply because an animal touched the water. Its kind, the cleanliness of its mouth, and any actual contamination must be distinguished.

2. Juristic Categories of Su’r

Five analytical labels are used for su’r: agreed pure, agreed impure, disputed, disliked, and doubtful. These distinguish both the animals' legal status and the extent of juristic disagreement.

Disliked does not mean established impurity. Doubtful can refer specifically to uncertainty over whether the water retains its ability to purify.

3. Human and Edible-Animal Su’r

وَسُؤْرُ الْآدَمِيِّ وَمَا يُؤْكَلُ لَحْمُهُ طَاهِرٌ
Translation: The leftover water of a human being and of an animal whose meat is lawful is pure.

Water left after a human drinks is originally pure, as is the leftover of cattle, goats and other edible animals. Their saliva is not intrinsically impure.

Actual contamination transferred from the mouth is a separate case.

4. Why Human Su’r Remains Pure

Human saliva is pure in itself. A Muslim and non-Muslim, a person with or without wudu, a junub person and a menstruating woman do not have impure saliva merely because of their legal state.

If blood or another actual impurity in the mouth transfers immediately into the water, the ruling concerns that contamination—not the act of drinking.

5. Edible Animals and Mouth Contamination

Saliva from edible animals such as cows, goats and camels is regarded as pure, so their leftover water is ordinarily suitable for purification.

If external filth is present on the mouth, actual contamination is assessed separately. An animal's normal legal status does not erase the effect of real impurity.

6. Three Groups with Impure Su’r

وَسُؤْرُ الْكَلْبِ وَالْخِنْزِيرِ وَسِبَاعِ الْبَهَائِمِ نَجِسٌ
Translation: The leftover water of a dog, pig, and predatory beasts is impure.

This includes dogs, pigs and predatory land animals. In Hanafi law their saliva renders the remaining water impure.

The proof relating to dogs, and Malik's differing view, clarify how jurists reason about the ruling.

7. Evidence on Dog Saliva

Reports instruct the washing of a vessel after a dog laps from it. Wulūgh means a dog lapping from a vessel.

إِذَا وَلَغَ الْكَلْبُ فِي إِنَاءِ أَحَدِكُمْ
Translation: When a dog laps from the vessel of one of you.

Hanafi reasoning takes the washing command as evidence of contamination from saliva. The dog's leftover water is consequently not used for ordinary wudu.

8. How Many Washings for Dog-Contaminated Vessels?

Reports concerning vessels lapped by dogs differ in wording and in the number of washings discussed by jurists. The legal disagreement concerns both the count and the underlying rationale.

Hanafi reasoning discusses three washings and the removal of impurity, whereas al-Shafi‘i requires seven. These positions must not be collapsed into one.

9. Malik’s Position on Dog Su’r

Malik considers the dog's leftover water pure, while still following the instruction to wash the vessel seven times. He treats this washing as a devotional prescription, not necessarily proof that saliva is impure.

Hanafi reasoning instead connects the washing instruction to saliva's impurity. The dispute therefore concerns the legal rationale for the instruction.

10. The Su’r of a Pig

Pig su’r is impure. Its underlying rationale is not identical in every detail to the dog case: for dogs the vessel-washing report is central, while impurity inherent to the pig is part of the reasoning for its saliva.

Both are classed impure in the Hanafi result, but the proofs are not simply identical.

11. Predatory Beasts

Predatory land beasts include animals such as lions, wolves and leopards, which tear and feed on prey. Their leftover water is impure in Hanafi law.

The legal description is tied to the animal’s predatory nature and the effect of its saliva. Wildness alone is not sufficient to assign every species to this group.

12. Where the Disagreement Lies

Hanafi and Shafi‘i law treat dog su’r as impure, while Malik regards it as pure. The dispute turns on whether the instruction to wash the vessel is due to impurity or is a distinct devotional obligation.

Jurists can accept a transmitted instruction yet differ over its operative cause and resulting rule for the water.

13. The Complete Passage on Disliked Su’r

وَسُؤْرُ الْهِرَّةِ وَالدَّجَاجَةِ الْمُخَلَّاةِ وَسِبَاعِ الطُّيُورِ وَمَا يَسْكُنُ فِي الْبُيُوتِ مِثْلَ الْحَيَّةِ وَالْفَأْرَةِ: مَكْرُوهٌ
Translation: The leftover water of a cat, an unconfined hen, birds of prey, and house-dwelling creatures such as a snake or mouse is disliked.

This disliked category does not automatically mean impure water. Contact, habitual feeding behavior, and the possibility of contamination are weighed separately from definite impurity.

Using such leftover water for wudu must be distinguished from a case where actual filth is known to have entered it.

14. The Legal Status of Cat Su’r

Cat su’r is disliked in Hanafi law, but not treated as the same category as dog su’r. Cats frequently circulate among households and utensils, and avoiding them altogether may be burdensome.

Dislike and impurity are distinct. If actual filth on the mouth is established, that creates a separate reason for contamination.

15. The Report Concerning Cats

A report about cats treats their leftover water as pure, citing their constant movement around people:
إِنَّهَا مِنَ الطَّوَّافِينَ عَلَيْكُمْ وَالطَّوَّافَاتِ
Translation: They are among those that move about among you frequently.

The report explains why cats’ frequent household contact is not treated as ordinary definite impurity. Dislike remains a separate question.

16. The Dislike of Cat Su’r

The discussion distinguishes a lesser dislike (tanzihi) from a prohibitive dislike (tahrimi); the preferred explanation cited here treats cat su’r as tanzihi. This does not mean the water is established impure or that ablution is categorically invalid.

Another suitable water source is preferable when available. The cat’s mere drinking does not independently prove impurity.

17. Actual Filth Versus a Su’r Classification

If a cat has visible blood or filth on its mouth and transfers it to the water, the case concerns actual contamination rather than the ordinary disliked status of cat su’r.

The general ruling must not be applied without distinguishing definite contamination from a mere possibility.

18. An Unconfined Hen

An unconfined hen is one permitted to roam and peck at food wherever it finds it. Because it may peck at filth, its leftover water is disliked.

This is not an identical ruling for every chicken in every setting; actual feeding conditions and the possibility of filth on the beak are relevant.

19. Why Birds of Prey Are Disliked

Birds of prey include hawks, falcons and eagles. Though they eat flesh, they drink with a hard beak rather than a saliva-bearing mammalian mouth.

Their su’r is therefore not treated like the intrinsically impure leftover of predatory land beasts; it is disliked because traces of impure food may remain on the beak.

20. Predatory Birds Versus Land Predators

A land predator laps with saliva contacting water, while a predatory bird drinks through its beak. Jurists consider this anatomical difference relevant.

Thus, describing both as predators does not make their su’r legally identical: the former is impure and the latter disliked.

21. House-Dwelling Animals

House-dwelling animals mentioned here include snakes and mice. Their ordinary leftover water is classed disliked.

An animal dying in water and a living animal drinking from a vessel are different fact patterns. The earlier discussion of a dead mouse contaminating water does not override this distinct su’r ruling.

22. Wudu with Disliked Leftover Water

When discussing disliked su’r, distinguish the water's purity from the undesirability of using it. If impurity is not established, the ruling is different from ablution using impure water.

Choosing another available source of water avoids the dislike; it does not imply proof that the first water was impure.

23. The Text on Donkey and Mule Su’r

وَسُؤْرُ الْحِمَارِ وَالْبَغْلِ مَشْكُوكٌ، فَإِنْ لَمْ يَجِدِ الْإِنْسَانُ غَيْرَهُ: تَوَضَّأَ بِهِ وَتَيَمَّمَ، وَبِأَيِّهِمَا بَدَأَ جَازَ
Translation: The leftover water of a donkey and mule is doubtful. If no other water is found, the person performs wudu with it and also tayammum; either may be done first.

The word “doubtful” does not simply classify the water as categorically impure. The uncertainty concerns whether it still has the legal capacity to purify.

When no other water is available, both ablution and tayammum address the two possibilities.

24. What Exactly Is Doubtful in Donkey Su’r?

In the donkey case, purity and purifying capacity are distinct concepts. The uncertainty is whether water mixed with its saliva remains legally effective for wudu.

If it were certainly impure, wudu would not be prescribed; if certainly purifying, tayammum would be unnecessary. Combining the two responds to the uncertainty.

25. Conflicting Reports About the Donkey

Reports ascribed to Ibn ‘Abbas point toward purity while others ascribed to Ibn ‘Umar point toward impurity. Their differing implications contribute to the doubtful status.

The argument balances the original presumption about water against uncertainty concerning the effect of saliva, leading to a combined precaution.

26. Why the Mule’s Mother Matters

In the discussion of mules, the mother's species can matter. A mule born of a female donkey is treated within the doubtful-donkey analysis.

Where the mother is a mare or cow, the cited elaboration treats its leftover water as pure. Thus the unqualified label “all mule su’r is always doubtful” overlooks an important qualification.

27. What If Donkey Su’r Is the Only Water?

If there is no other reliable water, and only doubtful donkey or qualifying mule leftover is available, both wudu and tayammum are performed.

Wudu addresses the possibility that the water purifies; tayammum addresses the possibility that it does not. The combination responds to both legal possibilities.

28. Order of Wudu and Tayammum

وَبِأَيِّهِمَا بَدَأَ جَازَ
Translation: Whichever of the two is performed first is valid.

One may perform wudu before tayammum or the reverse. The requirement in this exceptional case is to combine them, not to adhere to a prescribed order.

29. Availability of Other Suitable Water

The combined wudu-and-tayammum procedure is limited to cases where no other suitable water can be found. If ordinary pure, purifying water is available, that water is used for wudu.

The exceptional ruling must not be applied when its condition is absent.

30. The Su’r of a Horse

Horse su’r is treated as pure. The two companions connect this to the permissibility of eating horse meat; the sound view reported from Abu Hanifa also treats its su’r as pure, while discussing dislike of its meat on grounds other than intrinsic impurity.

Dislike relating to eating meat does not necessarily entail impure leftover water.

31. Elephant and Monkey Su’r

Elephant su’r is treated as impure in the cited discussion because the animal is classed there among tusked predatory beasts. Monkey su’r is likewise classed impure.

The legal classification follows the juristic category and its reasoning, not merely whether the animal is familiar.

32. Comparative Summary of Five Types

Agreed pure: ordinarily, the leftover of humans and edible animals.

Impure in Hanafi law: dog, pig and predatory land beasts.

Disputed: for example, dog su’r versus Malik's view.

Disliked: cat, roaming hen, birds of prey and the specified house-dwelling animals.

Doubtful: donkey and qualifying mule su’r, requiring both wudu and tayammum if no other water exists.

33. Applying the Classifications

Case 1: A cat drinks from a clean vessel, with no known filth on its mouth. The water is not treated like dog-contaminated water, though the dislike remains.

Case 2: A living mouse drinks and leaves; this differs from a mouse dying in a well.

Case 3: Only donkey su’r is available; both wudu and tayammum are needed in either order.

34. Three Foundational Distinctions

First: pure and purifying are not identical terms. Water may be pure while its purifying capacity remains in doubt.

Second: disliked does not entail impure; cat and bird-of-prey su’r illustrate this.

Third: juristic disagreements require attention to the rationale of the proof. The vessel-washing instruction for dogs leads to different conclusions for Malik and Hanafi jurists.

The next independent chapter is tayammum.