contact with it, lest it be treated lightly, or for some other reason best known to Allah. Moreover, human feces and urine possess a foulness, stench, and filth not generally found in other urine and dung. In short, making the purity or impurity of urine follow that of the flesh yields a more consistent rule than the alternatives. And Allah knows best.

As for the second argument, we say: That principle is conceded in the case of human beings. What has been transmitted from the early generations concerns only human beings: the transformation of substances within their bodies and their discharge from the upper or lower part. On what grounds, then, can the same be asserted of all other animals? The distinction has already been indicated. Furthermore, their opponents dispute most of the rulings they apply to animals, saying:

“It is established that an animal whose flesh is foul also has foul milk and semen, unlike the human being. Thus, this rule concerning transformation is invalid.”

Indeed, they may say that all moist bodily products of animals share the same ruling: an animal whose flesh is wholesome also has wholesome milk, urine, dung, semen, sweat, saliva, and tears. An animal whose flesh is foul also has foul milk, saliva, urine, dung, semen, sweat, and tears. This is Ahmad’s position according to the well-known report from him, and others have also held it.

In short, milk and semen provide conclusive evidence supporting their distinction between human beings and other animals, as well as some evidence that the bodily products of animals share the same ruling. On this basis, it may be said that, in the case of human beings, a distinction is drawn between what emerges from the upper and lower parts for reasons best known to Allah. For a human being stands upright, and all his impurities are in his upper parts. And his stomach, which is the site of the transformation of