Sixth: This is what a listener understands when his mind is free of obsessive misgivings and tamrīh. From the statement, “For he did not keep himself free of urine,” he understands only the man’s own urine. Indeed, it would be true to say that all kinds of urine—from camels, sheep, and bulls—never even occur to most people.

Seventh: It suffices to say that if the wording could mean either his own urine, as this is what is ordinarily understood, or urine of every kind, neither interpretation may be adopted without evidence. The argument would therefore be inconclusive. By my life, however, this is merely a concession for argument’s sake. What we have already explained is an established principle: the wording must be understood as referring to the familiar kind of urine—one particular kind—namely, a person’s own urine, which commonly soils him and splashes onto his thighs and lower legs. He may take its removal lightly and fail to cleanse himself thoroughly after urinating. As for another person’s urine, although it carries the same ruling as his own, this does not follow from the wording itself. Rather, it follows from their being identical in nature, and identity in nature entails identity in ruling.

Do you not see that a person is hardly ever soiled by someone else’s urine, and that if he were, he would find it distressing? In this hadith, the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, was speaking only of something that actually and commonly occurs, saying:

“Guard yourselves against urine, for most of the punishment of the grave is due to it.”

How, then, could most of the punishment of the grave be due to something that hardly ever soils anyone? This is perfectly clear.