and distinct in nature. For purification necessitated by it removes ritual impurity, whereas cleansing the substance itself removes physical impurity. These are two categories that differ in their essential nature, causes, and rulings in many respects.

The former requires an intention, whereas the latter does not. The former involves performing what is commanded; the latter involves avoiding what is prohibited. The former is restricted to water or earth, whereas the latter may be accomplished without water in certain circumstances by agreement, and in others according to one scholarly view. The ruling of the former extends beyond the site of its cause to the entire body, whereas that of the latter is confined to its location. The former is required on parts other than the site of its cause, or on both that site and other parts; the latter is required only at the site of its cause. The former is apprehended through the senses, whereas the latter is apprehended through reason. The former generally follows the patterns of analogical reasoning employed by investigators, whereas the latter resists examination by analogy. The former is obligatory by agreement, whereas the obligation of the other is subject to a well-known disagreement. The former has a substitute, whereas there is a clear disagreement concerning a substitute for the latter specifically when it concerns the body.

In short, drawing an analogy between these two forms of purification is like drawing an analogy between prayer and Hajj merely because both are acts of worship, despite their different essential natures.

As for the third argument—drawing an analogy between semen and pre-ejaculatory fluid—the ruling concerning the original case has been disputed on the view that pre-ejaculatory fluid is pure. Most scholars, however, accept that ruling but distinguish between the two because their natures differ: the child, the beginning of a human being, is created from the former, but not the latter. Do you not