Chapter on Purifying Water From Impurities

If a person dies in a well or a pond whose water is less than a kurr and the water does not change as a result, seventy buckets should be drawn from it, and it becomes pure afterward. When mentioning a pond alongside a well, it refers to a pond that has a source of water flowing from the ground. Such a pond has the same ruling as wells. However, if the pond does not have a source of water and something that renders it impure falls into it, it is not permissible to use it if the water is less than a kurr. Evidence supports this ruling.

The Shaykh (Al-Mufid), said: “If a donkey, cow, horse, or similar animal dies in the well and its death does not alter the water, a kurr of water must be drawn from the well. If the water in the well is less than a kurr, all of it must be drawn out.”

Then he, (Shaykh (Al-Mufid), may Allah سبحانه وتعالى support him) said: “If a sheep, dog, pig, cat, deer, fox, or something of similar size dies in the well, forty buckets of water should be drawn. If a pigeon, chicken, or something similar in size dies in it, seven buckets of water should be drawn.” This is supported by related narrations.

His عليه السلام statement, "a dog and its likes," refers to those with a similar body size. This includes a sheep, deer, fox, pig, and everything else mentioned. This is also supported by related narrations.

It is not permissible for someone to say: Why did you determine forty buckets for a cat, dog, and similar creatures, while for a chicken and bird, you specified seven buckets? In these two narrations, there is no explicit statement about exactly forty buckets; rather, it is implied as an option. Why did you not act upon other narrations that mention fewer amounts than what you have mentioned? The reason is that when we act upon what we have mentioned, removing forty buckets for what fell in involving a dog or similar creatures, and seven buckets for what fell in involving a chicken or similar creatures, there is no disagreement among our scholars about the permissibility of using the remaining water. Additionally, the narrations that mention less than this amount would be included within this framework. However, if we were to act otherwise, we would be disregarding these two narrations entirely and siding with the disputed ones. For this reason, we acted upon the maximum amount reported in the narrations. Among the narrations that mention lesser amounts for removal is the following report (following hadith).

The Shaykh (Al-Mufid), may Allah سبحانه وتعالى support him, then said: "If a mouse dies in the well, three buckets should be drawn from it. If it decays or swells in the water but does not alter the water itself, seven buckets should be drawn from it."

This applies when the mouse has not decomposed. If it has decomposed, then seven buckets must be drawn from the water, as evidenced by the two preceding narrations. The first of these narrations was transmitted by al-Husayn ibn Sa‘id, from al-Qasim, from Ali, who said: I asked Abu Abdullah عليه السلام about a mouse that falls into a well. Imam عليه السلام replied: “Seven buckets.” The second narration was also reported by al-Husayn ibn Sa‘id, from Uthman ibn Isa, from Sama‘ah, who said: I asked Abu Abdullah عليه السلام about a mouse or a bird that falls into a well. Imam عليه السلام replied: “If it is removed before it rots, draw seven buckets from it.” We interpret these two narrations as referring to the case where the mouse has decomposed to reconcile the apparent conflict in the narrations and avoid rejecting the previously mentioned ruling of three buckets. There is also another narration that supports our interpretation.

This narration serves as an explanation of the two preceding narrations.

His statement regarding drawing forty buckets if it does not rot is interpreted as a recommendation, based on the evidence presented in the previous narrations.

The first point about this narration is that Ali ibn Hadid narrated it from one of our companions without specifying the chain of transmission, which weakens the narration. Even if it is accepted, it may imply that the well referred to was a cistern with water exceeding the amount of a kurr, so it would not require any water to be drawn out. Furthermore, it does not state that he performed ablution with it, but only that he ordered it to be poured into the container. His statement to pour it into the container does not indicate that it was permissible for ablution, but it may have been poured into the container because they needed it for drinking, which is allowed in cases of necessity. Then the Shaykh (Al-Mufid), may Allah سبحانه وتعالى support him, said: “If a camel dies in it, all of its water should be drawn out. If this is difficult due to the abundance and volume of water, four men should take turns drawing water from it continuously from the beginning of the day until the end, and it will be purified by this. If wine falls into it, whether it is from any type of intoxicating drink, all of its water must be drawn out if it is a small amount. If it is a large amount, four men should take turns drawing water from it from the beginning of the day until the end, as mentioned.” The evidence for this is that if a camel or wine falls into the water, it renders the water impure without any dispute. Therefore, it should not be deemed pure except with definitive evidence. Since there is no definitive evidence in the Shari’ah specifying a set amount, all of it must be drawn out. This is further supported by the previous narrations.

As for what this report includes regarding the mention of a child's urine or the pouring of urine into it, it is understood to apply when it changes the taste or smell of the water. However, if the water does not change, then a specified amount must be drawn from it, which we will mention later, if Allah سبحانه وتعالى, the Exalted, wills.

Both reports are essentially one and cannot be used to reject all the other narrations. If we act according to the previous narrations, we would still be acting in accordance with these two reports as well. This is because when all the water is drawn out or a volume equivalent to a kurr is removed, it already includes the requirement of thirty buckets. However, if we act solely based on these two reports, we would be rejecting the other narrations entirely and ignoring their rulings. As for the consideration of four men alternating to draw water when it becomes difficult to empty it completely, this is supported by the narration we previously mentioned from Amr ibn Sa'id, from Ibn Hilal. He said: I asked Abu Ja'far عليه السلام about things that fall into a well, listing them until I mentioned a donkey or a camel. Imam عليه السلام said: "A kurr of water." When the quantity is large, four men should alternate to draw water for a day, which amounts to more than a kurr and does not fall short. This should suffice. Alternating the men is applicable in cases where something falls into the water and alters its color or taste, making it difficult to remove all of it.

Then the Shaykh (Al-Mufid), may Allah سبحانه وتعالى support him, said: "If a man urinates in it, forty buckets must be drawn from it." This supports the ruling.

Then he, (Shaykh (Al-Mufid)), said: "If a child urinates in it, seven buckets must be drawn." This supports the ruling.

This is supported by the earlier report from Ali ibn Abi Hamzah, in which he said: I asked him about the urine of a weaned child, and Imam عليه السلام said: "One bucket." Then the Shaykh (Al-Mufid), may Allah سبحانه وتعالى support him, said: "If dry feces fall into it, which do not dissolve or break apart, ten buckets must be drawn. But if it is moist, dissolves, or breaks apart in it, fifty buckets must be drawn. If a person in a state of major ritual impurity (junub) immerses himself in it, it must be purified by drawing seven buckets." This supports the ruling.

Then the Shaykh (Al-Mufid), may Allah سبحانه وتعالى support him, said: "If blood falls into the well and it is a large amount, ten buckets should be drawn from it; and if it is a small amount, five buckets should be drawn." This ruling is derived from the aforementioned narration.

The basis for inference from this narration is that it says: 'draw some buckets,' and the highest number commonly associated with this term is ten. Therefore, we must follow and adopt this interpretation, as there is no evidence for a smaller number. Then the Shaykh (Al-Mufid), may Allah سبحانه وتعالى support him, added: "If a snake falls into it and dies, three buckets should be drawn from it. Similarly, if a lizard falls into it, the same applies."

Muhammad ibn Al-Hasan commented: “The meaning here applies if it has not decomposed, because if it has decomposed, seven buckets must be drawn from it, as explained in the earlier report.” Then the Shaykh (Al-Mufid), may Allah سبحانه وتعالى support him, said: "If a sparrow or something similar falls into it, one bucket must be drawn." This is supported by what was mentioned earlier in the narration of Amr ibn Sa'id Al-Mada'ini, from Musaddiq ibn Sadaqah, from Ammar Al-Sabati, from Abu Abdullah عليه السلام. He said: Abu Abdullah عليه السلام was asked, and after narrating the hadith, he said: "The smallest thing that may fall into the well, like a sparrow, requires one bucket to be drawn." Then the Shaykh (Al-Mufid), may Allah سبحانه وتعالى support him, said: "If droppings of sheep, camels, gazelles, or their urine fall into it, it does not cause impurity. The same ruling applies to the droppings and urine of animals whose meat is permissible to eat. It does not spoil the water, nor does it make clothes or the body impure by contact with it, except for the droppings of domesticated chickens (dajjaj jalalah). If their droppings fall into a small amount of water, five buckets must be drawn from it. And if it touches the clothes or body, washing with water is required." It is thus established, based on the verse and the narrations previously mentioned, that whatever retains the name of "water" remains pure unless it is definitively contaminated by impurity. In such a case, it must be avoided. As for these cases mentioned, there is no evidence in the Shariah prohibiting the use of water affected by them. Therefore, the ruling of purity remains intact. Similarly, declaring clothes impure by contact with these substances requires a legal proof. Since no such proof exists in the Shariah, the ruling of purity must remain. This is further supported by traditions narrated

Imam عليه السلام statement, "there is no harm in the urine of any animal whose meat is permissible to eat", is general and not restricted to clothes only. It applies universally in all cases. Then the Shaykh (Al-Mufid), may Allah سبحانه وتعالى support him, said: "If a container is contaminated by impurity or comes into contact with it, the water in it must be poured out, and the container must be washed." The reason for this is that if water is in a container and impurity affects it, it becomes impure because it is less than a kurr. We have already clarified that any amount less than a kurr becomes impure upon contact with impurity. Then the Shaykh mentioned the ruling on a dog lapping water from a container, and this has already been explained in detail earlier. The Shaykh (Al-Mufid), may Allah سبحانه وتعالى support him, further said: "Whoever intends to purify himself using any of the substances we have mentioned should neither purify himself with it nor approach it. Instead, he should perform tayammum for his prayer. When he finds pure water, he should purify himself from the impurity for which he performed tayammum and then resume the obligatory prayers. He is not required to repeat any of the prayers he previously performed with tayammum, as we have already stated." This explanation has already been covered in the section on Tayammum, and it is sufficient, if Allah سبحانه وتعالى wills. The Shaykh (Al-Mufid), may Allah سبحانه وتعالى support him, said: "There is no harm for a person in dire necessity to drink water that has become impure due to contact with a dead animal, blood, or similar impurities. However, it is not permissible to drink it when there is no necessity. Drinking it under necessity is not the same as using it for purification, because purification is an act of seeking closeness to Allah سبحانه وتعالى, and one cannot seek closeness to Him through impurities. Moreover, the one performing ablution (wudu) or ritual bathing (ghusl) does so with the intention of purifying himself from impurity, and purification cannot be achieved with impure substances. Furthermore, someone who lacks water is permitted to pray using Tayammum as a substitute, but someone facing extreme thirst has no substitute for water to preserve his life. If such an alternative existed, it would not be permissible for him to drink impure water." The justification for permitting drinking these impure waters in cases of necessity is based on Allah’s سبحانه وتعالى allowance of forbidden items in cases of necessity. Do you not see that Allah سبحانه وتعالى has permitted eating dead animals in such situations? As Allah سبحانه وتعالى, the Exalted, says: "Forbidden to you is dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah سبحانه وتعالى. But whoever is forced by necessity, without willful disobedience nor transgressing limits, there is no sin upon him." (Surah Al-Baqarah 2:173) This verse clarifies that there is no sin in consuming these prohibited items in cases of necessity. However, this does not apply to wudu (ablution), because if pure water is unavailable, the obligation shifts to Tayammum using soil. Therefore, using impure water is not permissible for purification when there is an alternative for fulfilling the obligation. The Shaykh (Al-Mufid), may Allah سبحانه وتعالى support him, further said: "If a person has two containers, and impurity falls into one of them, but he does not know which one is impure, he is prohibited from using either for purification. He must pour out both and seek other water for wudu. If no other water is available, he should perform Tayammum and pray. It is not permissible for him to use the water from these containers. This ruling also applies if there are more than two containers, and he is certain that one of them is impure but cannot determine which one. The ruling for multiple containers is the same as for the two containers." The justification for this ruling has already been mentioned earlier, based on reasoning and narrations. This ruling is further supported by related evidence.