and water into which impurity is introduced, or between flowing and standing water.

Even if it were said that this runs contrary to analogical reasoning, the correct view is that a case contrary to analogy may itself serve as the basis for an analogy when its underlying cause is known. What matters in analogical reasoning is the shared basis and the relevant distinctions.

Drawing an analogy between removing physical impurity and purification from ritual impurity is unsound. Purification from ritual impurity belongs to the category of commanded acts; hence its obligation is not waived through forgetfulness or ignorance, and the majority of scholars stipulate intention for it. Removing physical impurity, however, belongs to the category of abstaining from prohibited things: its purpose is to avoid impurity. It therefore requires neither a person’s action nor their intention. Indeed, if the impurity is removed by rain falling from the sky, the intended purpose is achieved, as maintained by the imams of the four schools and others.

The view of those followers of al-Shāfi‘ī and Ahmad who stipulate intention for removing physical impurity is anomalous and contradicts the preceding consensus, besides contradicting the imams of the schools. Such a view was advanced only because they found themselves cornered in debate: their opponent on the question of intention drew an analogy between purification from ritual impurity and removing physical impurity, so they disputed the ruling in the case used as the basis of the analogy. This is groundless.

Accordingly, the sounder of the two scholarly views is that someone who prays with impurity present, unaware of it or having forgotten it, need not repeat the prayer. This is the position of Mālik and of Ahmad according to the stronger of the two reports from him. For the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—removed his sandals during prayer because of the impurity that was