This distinction between what emerges from the upper and lower parts of the body has been reported from Saʿīd ibn al-Musayyib and others like him. It is a sound observation concerning this difficult issue, which has not been fully understood—so much so that some have claimed that it is purely a devotional requirement and a test distinguishing those who obey from those who disobey. In our view, this statement has no substance on its own unless other considerations are added to it. Some have distinguished between what undergoes transformation within an animal’s stomach, such as dung and vomit, and what is transformed from the contents of its stomach, such as milk.

Once this is established, these kinds of urine and dung belong to the matter transformed within an animal’s body: its wholesome portion is refined, while its foul portion emerges through its rear and lower parts and is impure.

If a distinction is drawn on the grounds that the flesh of animals lawful to eat is wholesome, whereas the flesh of forbidden animals is foul, the response is:

An animal’s wholesomeness, nobility, and dignity do not entail the purity of its dung. Human flesh is forbidden only out of respect for human dignity and nobility; nevertheless, human urine is the foulest of all urine.

Do you not yourselves say that death does not render a human being impure, and that whatever is severed from a person while alive is likewise pure, as stated in the transmitted report, even though human flesh may not be eaten? If the honour accorded to a creature entailed the purity of its dung, human beings would have the highest standing in this regard. This is the crux and essence of the issue.

Third: It occupies the lowest degree of foulness and the level