and refuting it. Two approaches have been used to argue for this: one based on transmitted texts and the other on rational reasoning.

As for the approach based on transmitted texts, it relies on the hadith of Ibn ‘Abbās recorded in the two Sahīh collections:

“Allah’s Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, passed by two graves and said: ‘They are indeed being punished, yet they are not being punished for anything great. As for one of them, he did not shield himself from urine.’”

Another version reads: “did not keep himself free of it.”

The word al-bawl (urine) is a generic noun bearing the definite article, and therefore conveys generality. It is like al-insān (mankind) in Allah’s words:

“Indeed, mankind is in loss, except those who believe.”

The preferred position is that generic nouns convey generality just as plural nouns do. I do not mean collective nouns whose individual unit is distinguished from the collective by the ending -ah, such as tamr (dates), burr (wheat), and shajar (trees), for these undoubtedly have the same status as plurals. Rather, I mean a singular generic noun denoting a thing and others like it, such as insān (human being), rajul (man), faras (horse), thawb (garment), and similar words.

Since the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, spoke of punishment on account of urine as a general category, one must guard against and keep oneself free of urine as a general category. This therefore encompasses the urine of all creatures, both humans and beasts, whether lawful to eat or not. The urine of livestock thus falls within this generality, which is the point intended.

This argument has been relied upon by some who claim to reason from revelation and a measure of independent opinion. It has also been endorsed by some who affect cleverness, making it their refuge and recourse.