and one’s hand had to be washed if urine or moisture from their droppings touched it, along with the other rulings concerning impurity—then the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, would have been obliged to explain this clearly enough for the ruling to be known. Had he explained it, all or some of that explanation would have been transmitted, for both the requirements of the Sharia and the people’s customary practice would have ensured this. Since no such explanation has been transmitted, we know that he did not tell them these substances were impure.

His not mentioning their impurity is evidence of their purity in several respects. First, he tacitly approved their direct contact with these substances and did not prohibit it; tacit approval establishes permissibility. Second, a matter like this must be explained explicitly, and the Muslim community cannot be left to determine it by opinion, because it concerns foundational matters, not subsidiary questions. Third, whatever Allah has left unmentioned is among the things He has pardoned, especially when coupled with this consideration.

The ninth argument, which is the twelfth:

In the times of the Companions, the Successors, and the early generations generally, people encountered these matters many times more frequently than they had in the Prophet’s time, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. No reasonable person doubts how frequently situations relating to this question arose.

Yet what is transmitted from them is one of two things: either an affirmation of purity or the absence of a ruling of impurity. Examples include what we have cited from Abū Mūsā and Anas, and the report that ʿAbd Allāh ibn Mughaffal used to pray with traces of dung on his feet. He had personally seen the leading Companions in Iraq.

It is also reported that ʿUbayd ibn ʿUmayr said: “I have sheep that leave droppings in my place of prayer.” He had personally seen the leading Companions in the Hijaz. And it is reported from Ibrāhīm