The second argument:

Even if the wording encompassed all urine, we shall present specific evidence establishing the ritual purity of this kind, which requires excluding it from that general designation. It is a well-established principle of legal theory that when specific and general evidence conflict, the specific evidence takes precedence. Disregarding it would nullify it and deprive it of effect, whereas acting upon it merely excludes some cases covered by the general wording. Using general wording while intending a narrower scope is by no means unusual in speech; rather, it is exceedingly common.

Even if we conceded that the conflicting evidence carried equal weight in this respect, our evidence has other grounds for precedence and preference, including its greater number, its being acted upon, and other considerations that we shall explain, if Allah Most High wills.

One of the surprising arguments on which some have relied is the Prophet’s saying, may Allah bless him and grant him peace:

“Most of the punishment of the grave is due to urine.”

The same response applies here as to the preceding evidence. Moreover, we know that a person is only rarely soiled by someone else’s urine; what commonly soils him is his own. Had the Prophet intended to include a person’s own urine within a broader category, one kind of which frequently occasions punishment, this would have been equivalent to saying, “Most of the punishment of the grave is due to impurities.”

This person also relied on the Prophet’s saying, may Allah bless him and grant him peace:

“None of you should pray when food is present, nor while holding back the two foul things.”

This means urine and feces. He claimed that this entails describing every kind of urine and feces as “foul”