impure, and they render whatever they lap from impure. Such water may not be used for ablution unless it is plentiful, nor may such food be eaten. This is based on the statement of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattāb: “Do not tell us, owner of the basin, for we come to water where beasts of prey do, and they come where we do.” Ibn al-Qāsim nevertheless said that food should not be discarded unless its impurity is certain, out of respect for its value. This is an instance of juristic preference departing from analogy. For when the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, declared that a cat’s leftovers are pure and explained that the reason was its frequent presence and mingling among us, this rationale required that other beasts of prey, which do not mingle with us in our homes, be presumed impure. Thus, neither may the water remaining after they drink be used for ablution, nor may their leftover food be eaten, even without certainty that their mouths were impure when they lapped from it.

‘Alī ibn Ziyād said: “Food and water are alike: if filth is seen on their beaks, it is discarded; otherwise, it is not.” This is also the position of Ibn Wahb and Ashhab: these animals are presumed pure with regard to both water and food, so nothing from which they have lapped is discarded unless their mouths are known with certainty to be impure. They relied on the apparent meaning of the report that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said: “What they take into their bellies is theirs, and what remains is ours, for drinking and purification.” They also relied on the apparent meaning of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattāb’s statement—may Allah be pleased with him—to the owner of the basin: “Do not tell us, for we come to water where beasts of prey do, and they come where we do.” He said this when ‘Amr ibn al-‘Ās asked the owner, “Do beasts of prey come to your basin?” This, however, provides no proof, because such basins contain plentiful water and can therefore accommodate this amount of impurity.

As for the dog, there has been considerable disagreement concerning it because of the hadith requiring a vessel to be washed seven times after a dog has lapped from it. Ibn Wahb narrated from Mālik that the vessel is to be washed seven times after a dog has lapped from it, whether it contained food or water. The apparent meaning of this report is that the food is discarded; thus, he presumed the dog impure and applied a stricter ruling to it than to beasts of prey. Ibn al-Qāsim, however, applied a lighter ruling to it than to beasts of prey, presuming it pure in the case of both water and milk. He therefore said that the food may be eaten, but the water may not be used for ablution except out of necessity, and that washing the vessel seven times is a purely devotional requirement applying only when it contained water. Ibn al-Mājishūn reported from