As for living creatures in and of themselves, no animal is intrinsically impure except the pig. Some have argued that even the pig is not impure while alive, but the first opinion is the sounder one. Should any of its saliva, hair, or other part cling to a person’s body or clothing, that item becomes impure—except when the contact is with water, for water is not like other substances and remains subject to the rule already mentioned: its purity is judged only by whether its qualities are altered.

According to Mālik, the leftover after any animal other than the pig has drunk—whether in water or anything else—is pure. The governing principle for water, however, is to look for a change caused by impurity; therefore a pig’s lapping does not render the water impure so long as it does not alter the water, despite the disagreement among some of our colleagues over the pig’s leftover. The position I have set out is the correct one. A group of scholars from Medina maintain that the dog, like the pig, is wholly impure, both its body and its saliva-tainted leftovers, but Mālik’s view is that the dog is pure, as I explained earlier in the chapter on water.

Whatever impurity touches a garment or the body must be washed until its very substance disappears. If the color can also be removed, it should be; otherwise, the remaining tint of blood does not harm once the substance itself has gone. A small amount of blood is pardoned when it is of the sort that comes from fleas and the like.

Mālik expressed two opinions regarding menstrual blood: at one time he classified it with urine, pre-seminal fluid, and feces, and at another he treated it like ordinary blood.

A menstruating woman is not required to wash her garment unless she sees blood on it. If the garment is dyed and she is unsure, washing it is recommended; if she is certain of impurity, washing is obligatory—and the same applies when the garment is white