will adhere to him; yet he is not required to wash his penis. This has been virtually a matter of consensus among people from the time of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, until our own day. Nor can it be said that it is impure but excused, for if we were to say that, we would need evidence for such an exemption.

If it is argued: The evidence is the hardship involved; perhaps it is indeed impure, but due to the difficulty of avoiding it, a small amount of it is excused, just as blood and similar substances that are difficult to avoid are excused.

However, the first view is correct: it is pure. To clarify this, we say that the vulva has two passages:

The first is the vaginal passage. This is connected to the womb and has no connection to the urinary passages or the bladder; it emerges below the urinary passage.

The second is the urinary passage. This is connected to the bladder and emerges above the vulva.

Thus, if this moisture results from weakness of the bladder and exits through the urinary passage, it is impure, and its ruling is that of urinary incontinence.

But if it comes from the vaginal passage, it is pure, because it is not among the excretions of food and drink and is therefore not urine. The basic presumption is the absence of impurity unless evidence establishes otherwise. Moreover, when a man has intercourse with his wife, he is not required to wash his penis, nor his clothes if they are soiled by it. Were it impure, it would follow that semen is rendered impure, since it becomes soiled by it.

Does this moisture invalidate ablution?