Likewise, the position of Mālik and the scholars of Medina concerning physical impurities in acts of worship accords most closely with authentic hadiths and the practice of the Companions. Moreover, they do not regard the urine and dung of animals whose meat is lawful to eat as impure. This is supported by over a dozen arguments drawn from revealed texts, early consensus, and reasoned inference, which we have discussed elsewhere. Those who regard them as impure have nothing but wording presumed to be general when it is not, or an analogy in which the case under consideration is presumed to be equivalent to the original case when it is not.

Since impurities are among the foul things prohibited in themselves, and their position on this matter was taken from that of the scholars of Kufa, as in the case of foods, the range of things the latter declared impure was broader. If it is objected that Mālik contravened the hadith concerning a dog lapping from a vessel and similar reports concerning impurities, this is like saying that he contravened the hadith concerning birds of prey and similar reports. Undoubtedly, this involves less contradiction of the revealed texts than the position of those who regard the dung and urine of animals whose meat is lawful to eat—or either of these—as impure, or consider it disliked to use water from which a cat has drunk.

Some have held that all animal dung and urine are pure, except human urine and excrement. In terms of supporting evidence, this view is no less tenable than the position of those scholars of Kufa and their followers who declare impure what the scholars of Medina regard as pure. Anyone who reflects on the position of the scholars of Medina and is knowledgeable about the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah