for it is not a prohibition against lying with her; rather, it prohibits combining the two, for that is contradictory.

The correct view is that held by Shaykh al-Islam, based on both rational and transmitted evidence.

“Or if it is mixed with urine or feces, and draining it would be difficult—as in the reservoirs along the road to Mecca—it remains purifying. A small amount of purifying water with which a woman has been alone for a complete purification from ritual impurity does not remove a man’s ritual impurity …”

His statement, “Or if it is mixed with urine or feces, and draining it would be difficult—as in the reservoirs along the road to Mecca—it remains purifying”: maṣāniʿ is the plural of maṣnaʿ, referring to water basins along the road from Iraq to Mecca. There were basins at the mouths of the mountain passes. These basins contained abundant water, so if human urine or liquid feces fell into them without changing the water, it remained purifying—even according to the author’s own view—because draining it would be difficult.

His words, “as in the reservoirs,” are given by way of example. That is, the same ruling applies to similar large pools: whenever we find a large body of water whose drainage would be difficult, it remains purifying so long as it has not been changed by impurity.

The well-known position of the later scholars of the school differs from the author’s statement: they do not distinguish between human urine and liquid feces on the one hand, and other impurities on the other. This has already been explained (1).

His statement, “A small amount of purifying water with which a woman has been alone for a complete purification from ritual impurity does not remove a man’s ritual impurity”: “ritual impurity” is one qualification; “a man” is another; “a small amount of purifying water” is a third; “with which she has been alone” is a fourth; and “a woman” is a fifth,