This is an exposition of their position. If a legally accountable person immerses his hand under the conditions mentioned by the author, the water becomes pure but not purifying.

However, when you examine the issue, you find this view to be very weak, because the hadith does not indicate it. Rather, it prohibits immersing the hand, while the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said nothing regarding the water.

His statement, “For one of you does not know where his hand spent the night,” indicates that the ruling concerning the water does not change. This reasoning shows that the matter is one of precaution, not one of certainty by which an established certainty may be removed.

At present, we have certainty: namely, that this water is purifying. Such certainty can only be removed by certainty; it cannot be removed by doubt.

If the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, prohibited a Muslim from immersing his hand before washing it three times, then this applies all the more to a disbeliever. For the underlying reason in the case of a sleeping Muslim is likewise present in the case of a sleeping disbeliever. As for the objection that the address was not directed to disbelievers, the answer is that the sound view is that disbelievers are addressed by the subsidiary rulings of the Sacred Law. Moreover, this is not a prescriptive ruling, but a declaratory one.

Then, regarding the condition of legal accountability, it may be said: a discerning child is addressed by such a command, even though he is not punished. His hand may be contaminated with impurity; he may fail to cleanse himself after relieving himself and touch his private part while asleep. So how can the immersion of the hand of a legally accountable person who guards himself be harmful, while the immersion of the hand of a discerning child is not harmful?!

Thus, this view is weak both textually and rationally. Textually, the hadith does not indicate it in any way; and rationally, the conditions they mentioned