was camel meat, or unaware that it invalidates ablution; or if he knew this but forgot to perform ablution, or forgot that he had eaten it, and then rose to pray without ablution, only realizing afterward, then he must repeat the prayer. This is because it falls under the category of omitting what has been commanded, unlike impurity, which falls under the category of committing what is prohibited. This is the sound view in this issue. It was preferred by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (1), and it is also one narration from Imam Ahmad (2).

Whoever has a bone set with something impure is not required to remove it if doing so would cause harm …

His statement: “Whoever has a bone set with something impure is not required to remove it if doing so would cause harm.”

An example of this is a man whose bone was fractured and from whom portions of the bone were lost. They could not find those portions, but they had a dog, so they broke one of the dog’s bones and used it to set the man’s bone. His bone has now been set with an impure bone. Thus, when he prays, he will be carrying impurity. We would say to him: “Remove this impure bone, for it is not permissible for you to pray while carrying impurity.” But if the doctors say, “If it is removed, he will be harmed, the fracture will recur, and perhaps it will not heal,” then we say: he is not required to remove it in that case. For Allah has permitted one to forgo ablution when harm is feared; thus, forgoing the avoidance of impurity is even more warranted when harm is feared.

But must he perform dry ablution because he is carrying this impurity? The answer is that the sound view is that dry ablution is not required; rather, it is not even prescribed for this impurity. According to the madhhab, if flesh has covered it, dry ablution is not required because it is not exposed; but if it has not been covered, dry ablution is required because the impurity is exposed (3). However, the sound view is as