Problem # 9A defiling object is defiling when there are a few intermediaries like one or two, while if the intermediaries are more, according to the cautious opinion, it shall still be a defiling object, though, according to the opinion closer to traditional authority, in case of their being numerous, it shall not be so. It is more cautious to apply the rule relating to unclean object to one defiled by such object, so that a thing which has touched a thing defiled by urine shall be washed twice. So also a utensil which touches a utensil licked by a dog shall be treated like the latter, as regards the act of cleanness, particularly when the saliva of the dog has fallen into it, so that it is obligatory to rub it with earth.

Problem # 10 If a thing touches some unclean thing within the body, it is not rendered unclean. So if phlegm touches blood within the body and comes out without being stained by blood, it is clean.

Of course, if something enters from outside and touches an unclean object within the body, then it is more cautious to abstain from it, though, according to the stronger opinion, there is no necessity to do so.

Chapter Concerning the Unclean Things which are Excused in Prayers

Problem # 1 Following unclean things are excused in prayers.

First. The blood of wounds and abscesses on the body or garments until their recovery. It is more cautious to remove the uncleanness or change the garments in case there is no trouble generally for the people in it, except when it is troublesome. So it is not obligatory to the extent that he may be free from the trouble.

The criterion in the excuse are two things:

Either there is trouble generally for the people in cleaning or changing the garments, then it shall not be obligatory absolutely.

Or it is troublesome particularly for the person, though it may not be so generally for the people, in which case it is not obligatory on him to the extent that he may be free from the trouble.

Similar is the case with the blood of piles, though there may not be an abscess outside.

Similarly, all internal abscesses and wounds whose blood comes out are not devoid of force.

Second. The blood on the body or garments, if, widthwise, it is smaller than the Baghaly Dirham, but not menstrual, puerperal or Istihãdah blood, or the blood of the unclean things which cannot be cleaned (Najis al-’ain) or of a carcass.

The blood of Istihâdah and the subsequent two bloods are included by way of being more cautious, though the excuse for blood of the two things subsequent to Istihãdah is quite reasonable; rather it is better to abstain if the carcass belongs to an animal whose meat is not allowed for eating.

Whenever the width of Baghaly Dirham is not known, it is better to confine it to the certain extent, and that is the width of the joint of the index finger.

Problem # 2 If the blood is scattered on the garments and body, its amount shall be estimated together, and that shall be the basis for its excuse, but, according to the stronger

opinion, it is to be excused even if it is sprinkled generally.

If the blood has spread from one side of the garment to the other, it shall be treated a single blood, though caution should not be given up in a thick cloth.

As regards the upper and lining and the thing which is wrapped in many folds, or the like, they shall be counted separately.

Problem # 3 If a person doubts whether a blood which is less than a Dirham (in width) is among the exceptions like the three categories of blood (menstrual, puerperal and istihãdah blood) or not, it shall be declared to be excused as long as it is not known whether it is of the same category.

If, subsequently, it transpires that it was included in the exceptions, the person shall be considered to be ignorant of the unclean objects, though there is difficulty in accepting it, even if it is not devoid of significance.

If, however, it transpires that it was otherwise, and he doubts whether it is less than a Dirham or not, then, according to the stronger opinion, it shall be excused, except that it was formerly more than the excusable amount, and the person doubts whether it has reached that amount.

Problem # 4 An object which is turned unclean by blood is not identical with blood as regards its being excusable, in case it is less than a Dirham, but if the blood is removed, its place shall be governed by the rule of excusability.

Third. Everything without which prayer cannot be offered like waistband, or socks or the like is excused even if it is unclean, though it is defiled by some unclean object belonging to an animal other than one whose meat is allowed for eating.

Of course, it shall nor be excused if it is made of an unclean object like a piece of a carcass, hair of a dog, pig or an infidel.

Fourth. Everything that has become a part of the internal limbs and their accessories (after having been digested) like the meat of a dead body which a person has eaten, the wine he has drunk, the unclean blood which has reached under his skin, or the unclean thread with which he has stitched his skin is excused in offering prayers. But, according to the more cautious opinion, he should abstain from keeping an unclean thing, particularly a carcass with himself.

The same rule shall apply to the unclean substance with which prayer can be offered.

As regards the objects with which prayer cannot be offered like a knife and Dirhams, according to the stronger opinion, it is permissible to offer prayer with these articles.

Fifth. The clothes of the governess of a child, regardless whether she is the child's mother or some one else, are excused in offering prayer, even if it is defiled by the child's urine. It is more cautious, however, for her to wash them every day for the first prayer during whose time her clothes have been defiled (by the child's urine), and so offer it with the clean clothes. Then she may offer prayers with the same clothes without there being any necessity for cleaning them; rather it is not devoid of significance.

This rule, however, does not extend to case of other than (the child's) urine, nor from the clothes to the body, or from the governess to the male caretaker (of the child), or from one having a single garment to one having several garments without needing to wear all of them; otherwise, they shall fall under the category of one having a single garment.

Chapter Concerning Things that Clean Other Things (Mutahhirat)

There are eleven things that clean other unclean things.

First: Water. It cleans every unclean thing, even water itself, as mentioned under the Chapter on Water. Its procedure has already been mentioned.

As regards the process of cleaning other things, in case of rain water it is sufficient to let it reach all the parts of the unclean object after removing the unclean substance itself and after rubbing with earth, if the object has been licked by a dog.

The same rule applies in case of water upto the quantity of Kur as well as running water. Otherwise, according to the more cautious opinion, in case of objects which can be squeezed, it is a condition to squeeze it, or do something which may take its place like rubbing, and dipping or the like, even shake it so hardly that the water inside it may come out.

There is no difference in the kinds of uncleanness and the unclean objects except the utensils which have been licked by a dog or a pig or in which a large size rat has died in it, in which case, according to the more cautious opinion, cleaning it in a water upto the quantity of Kur or running water is similar to cleaning it in a little water, rather, it is more cautious to clean every unclean utensil like cleaning with little water, though it is preferable to dip the utensil in it once.

In case of other unclean objects, however, in which the water and uncleanness cannot penetrate, it is sufficient only to dip the objects into the water upto the quantity of Kur or running water after removing the uncleanness itself or the obstacle, if any.

In case of the unclean objects, which cannot be squeezed, like small jug of clay or Wood, soap cake, or the like, their apparent part is cleaned by only dipping them in a Kur or running water, but their interior can only be cleaned by pure water reaching inside them in a way that it may be considered to have cleaned their interior, But cleaning interior of such objects is extremely difficult, rather apparently it takes place, but rarely, In case there is doubt about the penetration (of the un-cleanness or water) or the cleaning having taken place, verdict shall be given in favour of continuance of uncleanness. In case of achievement of certainty (about the penetration of water and ultimate cleanness), but there being doubt about the water remaining pure, verdict shall be given in favour of cleanness of the objects. These are some issues relating to Kur and running water, and some more of them shall be mentioned under the following problems.

As regards cleaning with a small quantity of water, in case an article other than a utensil has been defiled by urine, it is a condition that it should be washed twice, but according to the more cautious opinion, this should be done after removing the urine.

In case an article has been defiled by something other than urine, provided that it is not a utensil, it is sufficient to wash it only once after removing the unclean substance. But it is not sufficient to wash with what the uncleanness has been removed. Of Course, after removing the unclean substance, it is sufficient to wash the article with the little water only once. In cleanness, it is a condition that the cleaning agent (Ghassalah) should be separated (from the cleaned object). In case of objects like clothes in which water penetrates and they can also be squeezed, separation of the ghassalah should take place by squeezing or the like.

In case of objects in which water does not penetrate, though moisture does, like soap cakes and grains, which cannot be squeezed, their exterior is cleaned by pouring water on them, while it is not harmful if their interior remains unclean, as it cannot be cleaned like their exterior.

As regards a utensil, if it is defiled as a result of licking by a dog, when containing water or anything else which can be licked, it shall be washed thrice, first by rubbing earth. According to the more cautious opinion, it is a condition that the earth must be clean. Nothing takes the place of earth, even in case of emergency.

While washing a utensil with earth, it is more cautious first to rub the utensil with pure earth, and then it should be washed by pouring water on it in way that it Should not cease to be called earth. Caution Should not be given up by affiliating the dog's touching the utensil with his mouth in any way with the rule relating to licking like licking with the tongue or the like, drinking without licking and throwing saliva without licking, but, according to the stronger opinion, if the dog touches the utensil with any other part of its body, it would not be affiliated with the act of licking. Anyhow, caution is more advisable.

Problem # 1 If a utensil has been defiled as a result of the licking by a dog, but it is not possible to rub it with earth in the usual manner due to the utensil's mouth being too narrow, etc., even then rubbing by earth in any way shall not be dropped, whether it is through wrapping a piece of cloth on the top of a stick and entering it into the utensil and shaking it hardly, So that washing it with the earth and water may be materialized. But if earth is put into the utensil and it is shaken heavily, there would be difficulty (in accepting it as sufficient) If there is doubt in obtaining the desired result, verdict shall be given in favour of its being unclean, in the same way as had it not been possible to clean the utensil in any way, it would have remained unclean.

The condition of rubbing with earth is not dropped even by washing the utensil with water in a large quantity or running or rain water.

Caution must also not be given up by washing the utensil several times if it is washed with water other than rain water. Therefore, if it is washed in rain, there shall be no need to wash it several times.

Problem # 2 It is obligatory to wash the utensil seven times if a large rat dies in it or a pig drinks something kept in it, but it is not obligatory to rub it with earth. Of course, it is more cautious to do so in the latter case before the utensil is washed seven times.

A utensil must also be washed in case a mouse dies in it or wine or any kind of intoxicant is drunk in it, or a dog touches it, though it is not obligatory. But it is obligatory to wash the, utensil thrice, as in all other cases of uncleanness.

Problem # 3 Cleaning of the big or small utensils with narrow or wide mouth with water in large quantity or running water is quite clear, so that the utensil is placed in the water till water reaches it in its entirety, and caution must not be given up by doing so thrice.

As regards washing the utensils with water in a small quantity, water is poured into it and it is shaken until water reaches it in its entirety in a way it may be called an act of washing. Then it is poured out. This act is repeated thrice. It is more cautious to shake the utensil immediately after pouring water into it, and as soon as the water reaches the utensil in its entirety, it may be poured out. This applies to all big and small utensils which can be shaken and from which water may subsequently be poured out.

As regards the big containers which are fixed, pools, or the like, their cleaning is carried out by pouring water in their entirety, and then the water for washing which has gathered in their middle is pulled out by scoops, etc., without there being any condition of immediacy as mentioned in the previous case. It is more cautious to wash the scoop every times it is thrown again to pour out the water, but there is no harm in the drops of water which fall during the process of pouring out the water, though the contrary would be more cautious.

Problem # 4 If the oven becomes unclean, it is cleaned through throwing down water on the unclean portion from above, but it is not necessary to repeat this act thrice. The water is thrown on it twice in case it is rendered unclean by urine, while it is sufficient to throw water into it only once in other cases.

Problem # 5 If the exterior of rice, lentils or the like is soiled, it is placed in some thing and dipped in Kur or running water and is thus cleaned. Likewise, it is cleaned by pouring water in a small quantity on it. If, however, the uncleanness has penetrated into it, then cleaning it with water in small quantity is not possible, and so is the case with Kur or running water.

It is not far from being likely to clean a jug made of unclean clay by placing it in a Kur or running water until water penetrates into all its pores, while it is not necessary to dry it up. If there is doubt about the penetration of water into it pores in a way that even its s may be considered to have been washed, verdict shall be given in favour of its being still unclean.

Problem # 6 Meat cooked with unclean water may be cleaned in water in a large or small quantity if water is poured on it, and it penetrates into it in the same quantity as the unclean water had penetrated into it, provided that the water remains pure, and the cleaning water is also poured out. If it is doubted that the unclean water has penetrated into its interior, it is sufficient to clean its exterior.

Problem # 7 If a person washes his unclean garment, and then watches on it some thing like saltwort or the like, then if he knows that it is not an obstacle in the water reaching the garment, there shall be no harm, but there is difficulty in accepting likelihood as sufficient; rather the verdict in favour of cleanness of the saltwort can be given indispensably if there is knowledge of its having been washed, and, according to the more cautious opinion, mere likelihood shall not be sufficient.

Problem # 8 If a man eats an unclean food, whatever remains in his teeth shall be unclean, and it can be cleaned by rinsing by means of observing the conditions of cleanness.

If the food was clean, but blood has come out from between his teeth, and it has not reached the food, though after touching the blood the saliva has reached the food, the food shall still be clean. If, however, the blood has touched the food, it would be more cautious to declare the food unclean.

Second: The Land. It cleans that part of foot which touches it while walking on it, or by rubbing with it in a way that the actual uncleanness, if any, is removed.

The same rule applies to what protects the feet like shoes.

If suppose the uncleanness is removed before (touching or rubbing against the land), there is difficulty in accepting the uncleanness merely through touching the land. It is more cautious that the minimum what may be called rubbing or walking should take place, in the same way as, according to the more cautious opinion, at the time of cleaning the land, the rule is confined to that part of land which has been rendered unclean as a result of walking on unclean piece of land.

There is no difference whether the land is originally soil, sand or stone, or it is carpeted.

According to the stronger opinion, with this is affiliated a land paved with bricks and gypsum, contrary to the land coated with tar or covered with wood.

According to the stronger opinion, it is also a condition that the land must be dry and clean.

Third: The Sun. It cleans the land and every thing immobile, like buildings and things attached to them like wood, doors, lintels and pegs required in buildings and are fixed to them but, according to the more cautious opinion, not every thing which is there in a wall.

The sun also cleans the trees and other vegetation and fruits, vegetables and herbs, even if their reaping time has reached, as well as other things, including even fixed containers, and so also ships and boats. But as regards trees and other things mentioned after them, there is difficulty (in including them in the list of things cleaned by the sun), though the rule is not devoid of force, but caution should not be given up in case of means of transport and also vehicles, or the like.

According to the stronger opinion, the sun cleans the mats and gunny bags.

It is a condition for the cleanness by the sun of the things mentioned as well as other things after the removal of the actual uncleanness from them that they should contain so much moisture as can be felt by the hand, and then the sun should dry them up in a way that its rays should fall on them without any intermediary; rather it is not far from being a condition that they shou1d be dried up in the same manner (i.e. by the sun rays falling directly on them).

According to the more cautious opinion, the interior of a thing is also cleaned when the sun rays fall on its exterior, and the interior is also dried up by sun rays falling on its interior, while its unclean interior is connected with its unclean exterior.

If only the interior of a thing is unclean, or there is some distance between its interior and exterior through a part of the exterior, the interior shall remain unclean. Rather this rule is not devoid of force.

If, however, there are several things stuck together, they shall not be cleaned by the sun in case its rays fall on some of them, and, as a result of it, the rest are also dried up, because only those things are cleaned by the sun on whom its rays fall without any intermediary.

Problem # 9 If a piece of land or the like is dry and it is intended to be cleaned by the sun, clean or unclean water should be spilled on it which may make it wet, so that the sun may dry it up and, as a result, it may be rendered clean.

Problem # 10Pebbles, earth, clay or stones, as along as they are lying on the land and are usually considered part of the land, shall be governed by the rules relating to the land.

If some of them are taken away or cease to be part of the land, they shall be affiliated with the mobile articles (shall not be dried up by the sun).

The same rule applies to the articles which form part of a building like wooden planks and pegs which are governed by the rules relating to the building, but as soon as they are separated from the building they cease to be governed by its rules. If they are subsequently replaced in the building, they shall again be governed by the rules relating to the building. The same rule shall apply to every thing which is identical with them.

Fourth Transformation. This is the change of a thing into another form. It is called Istihalalah. So if the fire changes some unclean or uncleaning substance into ashes, smoke or steam, the transformed thing shall become clean.

Likewise, the same rule shall apply if any thing other than fire changes it into steam, smoke or ashes. But if fire changes any thing into coal, porcelain, brick, gypsum or lime, it shall continue to be unclean.

Every animal becomes clean, regardless whether it is clean or uncleaning, like the insect produced in a carcass or feces.

So also wine (become clean), if it changes into vinegar by itself or by putting something into it, no matter whether the thing put into it disappears or not.

Of course, if wine connects with some external uncleanness, and then changes into vinegar, according to the more cautious opinion, it shall not become clean.

Fifth: 2/3 Evaporation. If 2/3 of grape juice evaporates by fire or sun when it is fermented by fire or sun, the remaining one-third becomes clean, if it is supposed that grape juice becomes unclean by fermentation, as reference to its cleanness, according to the stronger opinion, has been made earlier. The evaporation of two-third is effective merely in its lawfulness, but if it starts boiling by itself and it transpires that it has consequently turned intoxicant, it shall be unclean and shall not become clean by the evaporation of its 2/3 portion ; rather, it is an indispensable condition that it must become vinegar. If there is doubt about its being an intoxicant, it shall be declared clean.

Sixth: Transfer. It is a cause of cleanness of an unclean substance when transferred and added to another thing and is considered a part of it, as the blood of blood spurting animal is transferred to an animal not having a spurting blood, (when the blood of a human being is transferred into a mosquito).

The same rule shall apply if what is transferred is some thing other than blood and the object to which it is transferred is other than an animal, like a plant, etc.

If it is known that there has been no addition of the transferred thing being added, or there is doubt about it as it has not taken place in the stomach of the animal (whom it has been transferred), for example, in a way that it could be attributed to that animal, in such case the blood sucked by a leech shall continue to be unclean.

Seventh: Islam. It is a cause of cleaning all categories of infidels, including even a man who is a born Muslim apostatizes and then repents, not to speak of a (Muslim) woman (who apostatizes and then repents). All the things connected with the infidel also become clean along with the infidel like his hair, nails, saliva, and phlegm, mucus of the nose or pus, or the like.

Eighth: Dependency. If an infidel embraces Islam, his child also follows him in cleanness, whether the infidel is the child’s father, grandfather or mother. There is, however, difficulty in a child following a Muslim who has made him his prisoner, if the child is not accompanied by his father or grandfather. Rather, its being otherwise is not devoid of force.

After a dead body has become clean (a result of ritual bath), all the things used in washing it like the piece of cloth put on it and his clothes in which he has been washed as also the hands of the washing person as well as the cloth wrapped around his hands during washing it also become clean, but there is difficulty in consequent cleanness of the rest of body and clothes of the washing person. According to the more cautious opinion, they are not clean. Rather it is preferable to observe caution in what concerns other than the hands of the washing person.

Ninth: Removal of the Actual Unclean Substance. Removal of the Actual Unclean Substance from the Dumb Animals and Interior of Human Beings. So as soon as the actual unclean substance is removed from the beak of a fowl and its moisture is dried up, the beak becomes clean.

The same rule applies to the body of a wounded animal, a cat’s mouth soiled by blood etc, or the young of an animal sullied with blood at the time of its birth, so that as soon as the blood is removed, they become clean.

Similarly the mouth of a human being also becomes clean if he has eaten or drunk some unclean or uncleaning substance as soon as he swallows it.

Tenth: Disappearance. It cleans the body, clothes, carpets, containers, and other things connected with a man, so that along with him they are also treated as clean, except when there is knowledge of the subsistence of uncleanness. It is not far from being likely that there should be no other condition for their cleanness due to disappearance. This rule applies regardless of whether the person has knowledge about the uncleanness or not, believing in the uncleanness of the thing befallen or not, and whether he was slack in his religion or not. Anyhow, observance of caution is better.

Eleventh: Purification. (Istibrã’) of a filth-eating animal in a way that it ceases to be called filth-eating. This renders the animal’s urine and excrement clean. Caution must not be given up after the animal ceases to be called filth-eating in respect of the purification of a camel upto forty days, a cow upto twenty days, goats and sheep upto ten days, ducks upto five days and fowls upto three days. Rather, the rule is not devoid of force in respect of all of them, while in case of others, the removal of the name of filth-eater is enough for cleanness.

Chapter on Rules Concerning Containers

Problem # 1 The utensils of the infidels like those belonging to non-infidels are clean as long as there is no knowledge about their having touched pervading moisture.

The same rule applies to every thing in possession of the infidels, like garments, carpets and the like.

Of course, in case there are some skins which are declared unclean, if they are known to belong to an animal having spurting blood, and it is not known that they have been cleaned, and they are also not known to have been in the possession of a Muslim, (they will be treated as unclean}.

The same rule applies to the meat and fats in possession of the infidels. Rather, in their market, they are also declared unclean in the circumstances mentioned above.

Problem # 2 It is forbidden to use utensils made of gold and silver for eating and drinking and other purposes like cleaning of major or minor pollution, etc. What is forbidden is eating and drinking in such utensils, and not taking up anything for eating and drinking with them or some thing itself for eating or drinking, so that if a person eats some lawful food with them during Ramadan days it would not be treated as breaking the fast with a forbidden thing, though he shall be considered to have committed an unlawful act due to drinking (or eating) in forbidden utensils. These rules relate to eating and drinking.

As regards other purposes, what is forbidden is their use, so that if a person performs ablution with such utensils, the act itself shall be unlawful, but the ablution shall be valid.

Is taking up anything which serves as preliminary to eating and drinking also forbidden due to the absolute prohibition of their use, there is hesitation and difficulty in application of the rule in such case, though the absence of prohibition in the latter case is not devoid of force.

To be more cautious, the prohibition of the use of such things includes putting them on shelves for decoration purpose, though the absence of prohibition is not devoid of force according to the opinion close to the traditional authority.

According to the more cautious opinion, it is preferable to give up decoration of the mosques and holy shrines with the utensils made of gold or silver. According to the stronger opinion, keeping them with oneself without using them is not prohibited.

According to the more cautious opinion, it is forbidden to use anything covered with any of them if they are used in a way that if they are separated, they shall be called separate utensils, except when it is not so, also with the exception of things plated or coated with gold or silver.

As regards things mixed with gold or silver, they are governed by the rules governing gold or silver, even if they are not called with the name of gold or silver, except things mixed with gold or silver without such condition provided that they are not such as can be named gold or silver.

Problem # 3 Apparently utensils mean what are used for eating, drinking, cooking, washing or kneading, like a cup, a jug, large bowls, kettles, bowls, drinking cups, wash basins, samovars, tea pots and tea cups; rather even smoking jugs and saucers; rather, according to the more cautious opinion, even spoons and ladles, but the head of the hookah, hilt of the sword, cover of the sword, dagger, knife or box, an amulet cover, dial of a watch or a clock, a lamp, an anklet, even if it is hollow, are not included in utensils.

Likewise, there is hesitation and difficulty in including (in this category) a mortar, censers, fumigators, vessels for keeping precious articles, cream, opium and the like. So caution must not be given up.

To be more cautious, the prohibition of the use of such things includes putting them on shelves for decoration purpose, though the absence of prohibition is not devoid of force according to the opinion close to the traditional authority.