Whoever extends the analogy from livestock to other animals concludes that all excreta, apart from those of human beings, are neither impure nor forbidden. The question is open to more than one possibility; and were it not impermissible to introduce an opinion that none of the earlier authorities expressly advanced, one might have said—since the issue itself is disputed—that excretions which become putrid and repulsive differ from those that do not, especially where the odor is pleasant. After all, the jurists unanimously permit ambergris, which most people regard as a by-product of a marine creature, and likewise musk, which is said to be the residue of the blood of the animal from which it is obtained.

The Sixth Issue

The scholars differed about small amounts of impurity and adopted three views:

1. One group held that a little and a lot are the same; among those who said this was al-Shāfiʿī.

2. A second group maintained that slight impurity is excused, defining “slight” as the area of a Baghlī dirham coin; Abū Ḥanīfah was among those who held this view. Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan diverged and said: if the impurity covers a quarter of the garment or less, prayer performed in it is valid.

3. A third group held that small and large amounts are equal—except for blood, as mentioned earlier. This is Mālik’s position, and two reports are related from him regarding menstrual blood; the more prevalent equates it with all other kinds of blood.

Their disagreement goes back to whether a small amount of impurity may be analogized to the concession concerning cleansing with stones (istijmār), even though some impurity clearly remains in that case. Whoever allows analogy on that basis excuses a small quantity of impurity, hence their limit of a dirham, comparing it to the area of the anal orifice. Those who regard that concession as unique—and hold that concessions are not subject to analogy—prohibit it.

As for Mālik’s exclusion of blood, that has already been discussed. Abū Ḥanīfah further divides impurities into severe and light. For severe impurities an amount up to a dirham is excused; for light impurities the exemption extends to one quarter of the garment. Light impurities, in their view, include animal droppings and the filth that normally clings to roads. Their division of impurities into severe and light is, indeed, very sound.

The Seventh Issue

The jurists also differed concerning semen: is it impure or not? One group—among them Mālik and Abū Ḥanīfah—held that it is impure, while another—among them al-Shāfiʿī, Aḥmad, and Dāwūd—held that it is pure.

Two matters underlie their disagreement. The first is the inconsistency in the narrations of ʿĀ’ishah’s ḥadīth, for in some versions she says:

“I used to wash the Messenger of Allah’s garment of semen, and he would then go out to the prayer while damp patches of water were still visible on it.”