Types of Impurity and Methods of Purification

1. Purity of Body, Clothes and Prayer Place

تَطْهِيرُ النَّجَاسَةِ وَاجِبٌ مِنْ بَدَنِ الْمُصَلِّي وَثَوْبِهِ وَالْمَكَانِ الَّذِي يُصَلِّي عَلَيْهِ.
Translation: Removing impurity from the worshipper’s body, garment and place of prayer is obligatory.

Purity from physical filth applies to three things: body, garment and the prayer location. Removing actual impurity is a separate question from whether wudu or ghusl is valid.

2. Removal of Filth versus Ritual Purification

Purity from filth means removing material impurity from body, clothes or place. Purity from hadath is acquired by wudu, ghusl or valid tayammum.

Someone may have valid wudu but still have a garment bearing disqualifying impurity. Conversely, washing a garment does not remove ritual hadath.

3. Liquids Permitted for Removing Filth

وَيَجُوزُ تَطْهِيرُ النَّجَاسَةِ بِالْمَاءِ، وَبِكُلِّ مَائِعٍ طَاهِرٍ يُمْكِنُ إِزَالَتُهَا بِهِ، كَالْخَلِّ وَمَاءِ الْوَرْدِ.
Translation: Impurity may be removed with water and any pure liquid capable of removing it, such as vinegar and rosewater.

The ruling concerns physical removal of filth, not permission to perform wudu with every pure liquid. Removal of najasah and removal of hadath are separate legal acts.

4. Pure Liquids Other Than Water: Juristic Disagreement

Abu Hanifah and Abu Yusuf permit a pure liquid that actually removes filth, such as vinegar or rosewater.

Muhammad, Zufar and al-Shafi‘i restrict this legal purification to water: prescribed purification is linked to water in the textual proofs, so a cleansing liquid is not automatically its substitute.

The broader view reasons that the material cause of impurity is removed by a suitable pure liquid, so the impurity ruling ceases when its substance is eliminated.

5. Vinegar, Rosewater and Wudu: Different Rules

If vinegar completely removes filth from a garment, Abu Hanifah and Abu Yusuf consider the garment purifiable by it. Yet vinegar is not valid for wudu because it is not unrestricted water.

The distinction lies in removing actual filth versus meeting the prescribed medium for ritual purification.

6. Dry Impurity on Leather Footwear

وَإِذَا أَصَابَتِ الْخُفَّ نَجَاسَةٌ لَهَا جِرْمٌ، فَجَفَّتْ، فَدَلَكَهُ بِالْأَرْضِ: جَازَتِ الصَّلَاةُ فِيهِ.
Translation: If impurity having a material body adheres to a leather khuff, then dries and is rubbed off against the earth, prayer in it is permissible.

Laha jirm means impurity with a discernible material mass. The conditions here are a solid residue, its drying, and rubbing that removes the mass.

This concise rule is not applied indiscriminately to wet impurity or material that has permeated the leather.

7. Why Leather Footwear Differs from Cloth

A dry adherent mass can separate from the surface of leather through rubbing, whereas filth penetrating textile fibres generally cannot be presumed removed by rubbing alone.

The khuff ruling thus relies on removal of the actual impurity and is not a general permission to avoid washing soiled fabrics.

8. Wet and Dry Semen on Clothing

وَالْمَنِيُّ نَجِسٌ، يَجِبُ غَسْلُ رَطْبِهِ، فَإِذَا جَفَّ عَلَى الثَّوْبِ أَجْزَأَ فِيهِ الْفَرْكُ.
Translation: Semen is considered impure; when wet it must be washed, but when it dries on a garment rubbing or scraping it off suffices.

Al-fark refers to rubbing or scraping away the dried substance. This applies when the dry material is actually removed; wet semen is washed.

9. Disagreement over the Status of Semen

Hanafi jurists classify semen as impure, distinguishing washing when wet from scraping when dry. Reports from Aishah about washing and rubbing dried traces support discussion of the two cases.

Al-Shafi‘i considers semen inherently pure and reads the cleaning reports as removal of an unwanted trace rather than proof of ritual impurity. The difference concerns the underlying classification, not only the method of cleaning.

10. Applying Washing and Dry Scraping

Case 1: when still wet, Hanafi law requires washing.

Case 2: when fully dry and adherent, scraping away the substance is sufficient.

Case 3: where the substance is still wet or its mass remains, merely touching or rubbing is not complete purification.

11. Cleaning Smooth Surfaces by Wiping

وَالنَّجَاسَةُ إِذَا أَصَابَتِ الْمِرْآةَ أَوِ السَّيْفَ: اكْتُفِيَ بِمَسْحِهِمَا.
Translation: If impurity reaches a mirror or a sword, wiping them clean suffices.

Mirrors and polished swords illustrate smooth non-absorbent surfaces. Wiping can remove the actual filth completely.

If a surface is porous, cracked or retains impurity beyond the reach of wiping, the same result cannot be assumed.

12. The Juristic Basis for Wiping Smooth Objects

The Hanafi argument is that wiping a smooth, non-absorbent object can remove the entire substance of filth and achieve the intended removal.

For al-Shafi‘i, ritual cleansing of najasah is tied to washing with water, so wiping alone is not treated as equivalent. The disagreement concerns the accepted means of removal.

13. Sun-Dried Earth and Prayer

وَإِنْ أَصَابَتِ الْأَرْضَ نَجَاسَةٌ فَجَفَّتْ بِالشَّمْسِ وَذَهَبَ أَثَرُهَا: جَازَتِ الصَّلَاةُ عَلَى مَكَانِهَا، وَلَا يَجُوزُ التَّيَمُّمُ مِنْهَا.
Translation: If filth reaches the earth, then dries by the sun and its trace disappears, prayer there is permissible, but tayammum from that earth is not permissible.

Two separate rulings appear here: fitness of the prayer location and fitness of the soil for tayammum. Removal of the visible trace allows prayer at the spot under this ruling, but tayammum requires the separate condition of purified earth.

14. Prayer on Earth versus Tayammum from It

Under the stated Hanafi ruling, disappearance of the impurity’s trace permits prayer on the ground. Tayammum separately requires clean earth as the medium of ritual purification, and mere drying does not qualify this soil for that use.

Zufar and al-Shafi‘i do not regard sun-drying alone as sufficient purification, emphasizing prescribed removal of filth instead of mere disappearance of surface evidence.

15. Severe Impurity and the Dirham Threshold

وَمَنْ أَصَابَهُ مِنَ النَّجَاسَةِ الْمُغَلَّظَةِ، كَالدَّمِ وَالْبَوْلِ وَالْغَائِطِ وَالْخَمْرِ، مِقْدَارَ الدِّرْهَمِ وَمَا دُونَهُ: جَازَتِ الصَّلَاةُ مَعَهُ، وَإِنْ زَادَ: لَمْ تَجُزْ.
Translation: If a person is affected by severe impurity such as blood, urine, feces or wine in an amount no greater than a dirham, prayer is permissible; more than that invalidates prayer.

Excused quantity does not mean that the filth has turned pure. The substance remains impure, while prayer validity is considered with a defined tolerance. The legal measure of a dirham is not simply the weight of a modern coin.

16. Examples and Legal Reasoning for Severe Impurity

Blood, urine, feces and wine are given as examples of severe impurity.

Their classification as impure and the tolerance for prayer are two distinct rulings. A threshold excused in prayer does not alter every legal rule involving that substance.

17. Exactly One Dirham versus More Than One

If severe impurity equals a dirham, prayer is permitted under this rule; if it exceeds that limit, prayer is not valid.

Jurists distinguish spreading liquid impurity from impurity having material mass when defining the measure, so a single modern gram value should not be presented as universally authoritative. Removing filth remains the primary obligation.

18. Juristic Differences Concerning Excused Impurity

Hanafi doctrine excuses a defined small amount of severe impurity in prayer, linked to juristic considerations of hardship and limited quantity.

Al-Shafi‘i does not adopt this general dirham threshold, emphasizing removal of filth as the governing principle. Accordingly, small amounts are assessed differently in the two schools.

19. Light Impurity and One Quarter of the Garment

وَإِنْ أَصَابَتْهُ نَجَاسَةٌ مُخَفَّفَةٌ، كَبَوْلِ مَا يُؤْكَلُ لَحْمُهُ: جَازَتِ الصَّلَاةُ مَعَهُ مَا لَمْ تَبْلُغْ رُبُعَ الثَّوْبِ.
Translation: If light impurity, such as the urine of an edible animal, reaches a garment, prayer is permissible so long as it does not reach one quarter of the garment.

Light impurity is measured against one quarter of the garment. The phrase “so long as it does not reach” means the concession is limited to amounts below that threshold.

20. Why the Two Thresholds Differ

Severe impurity is assessed by a dirham measure, whereas light impurity is assessed as less than a quarter of a garment. The two thresholds cannot be interchanged.

Thus the specific discussion of an edible animal’s urine should not simply be assessed as though it had the same dirham limit as human urine or blood. These measures concern prayer validity, not the intrinsic nature of filth.

21. Disagreement over Urine of Edible Animals

Hanafi classification treats the urine of an edible animal here as a type of light impurity. Its impurity and its tolerated extent are separate issues.

Maliki law considers urine of some edible animals pure, drawing on the legal treatment of those animals and transmitted evidence. The disagreement therefore can concern the underlying impurity itself, not merely its tolerated amount.

22. Visible Impurity: Removal of the Substance

وَتَطْهُرُ النَّجَاسَةُ الَّتِي يَجِبُ غَسْلُهَا عَلَى وَجْهَيْنِ: فَمَا كَانَ لَهُ عَيْنٌ مَرْئِيَّةٌ فَطَهَارَتُهَا زَوَالُ عَيْنِهَا، إِلَّا أَنْ يَبْقَى مِنْ أَثَرِهَا مَا يَشُقُّ إِزَالَتُهَا.
Translation: Impurity that requires washing is purified in two ways. Where it has a visible substance, purification is by removal of that substance, except an effect that is difficult to remove.

A visible substance is impurity whose material mass can be seen, such as adhering filth on cloth. The main objective is to eliminate the mass.

A stubborn residual colour or trace that cannot be removed without serious difficulty is distinguished from the continued presence of the actual filth.

23. Residual Colour versus Remaining Filth

If blood’s material substance has been washed away but a difficult-to-remove pale stain remains, this residual effect is not treated identically to an existing mass of impurity.

If impure particles remain, simply reducing the colour does not establish removal.

فَطَهَارَتُهَا زَوَالُ عَيْنِهَا
Translation: Its purification is the removal of its substance.

24. Invisible Impurity and Predominant Conviction

وَمَا لَيْسَ لَهُ عَيْنٌ مَرْئِيَّةٌ فَطَهَارَتُهَا أَنْ يُغْسَلَ حَتَّى يَغْلِبَ عَلَى ظَنِّ الْغَاسِلِ أَنَّهُ قَدْ طَهُرَ.
Translation: If impurity has no visible substance, its purification is washing until the person washing has a predominant conviction that it has become pure.

Predominant conviction is a grounded judgement after adequate washing, not a baseless guess. With invisible filth, the stated criterion is enough washing to become reasonably convinced the impurity is gone.

This passage does not stipulate one fixed count for every such case; it ties the result to well-founded conviction.

25. Applying the Visible–Invisible Distinction

Visible filth: wash until the material substance is removed. Any extremely difficult residual stain is assessed separately.

Invisible filth: wash until purification is reasonably certain.

The two methods differ because visible filth can be checked for removal directly while invisible filth requires a supported judgment.

26. Excused Amount Is Not Equivalent to Purification

A garment bearing severe impurity below the tolerated amount may still be impure even when prayer is allowed. Conversely, effective cleaning removes the impurity irrespective of its previous extent.

The concepts of tolerance, removal of visible substance and predominant conviction are distinct legal ideas.

27. Four Cases for Garment and Prayer Place

1. When the visible substance is completely washed away, the garment becomes clean.

2. When dried impurity adhering to a khuff is completely rubbed away, prayer is permitted if the stated conditions are satisfied.

3. If impurity on earth dries and its trace vanishes, the stated Hanafi rule permits prayer there but not tayammum from it.

4. For invisible impurity, adequate washing continues until there is a well-founded conviction of purity.

28. Synthesis of the Chapter of Impurities

Four questions organize this chapter: where the filth lies (body, cloth, footwear, smooth object or ground); what kind of filth it is (wet, dry, visible, invisible, severe or light); how it is removed; and whether prayer is valid due to true cleaning or an excused quantity.

These distinctions should not be collapsed into a single rule.