The scholars of Sharia agreed on the purity of Muslims’ property and livestock, but they differed in anything other than that. Some said that every animal was pure, and some said that it was an exception, and those making the exception differed widely.

As for the internal ruling on that, the believer’s food and every animal is pure, for faith and life are the essence of purity in the living and the believer, since in life there is glorification from the living to God Almighty, and since with faith there is acceptance of what the Sharia says of what the mind suggests or does not suggest to the believer without a doubt, and he said. The Messenger of God, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, whoever knows himself knows his Lord.

Whatever knowledge remains for the servant after knowing himself, which is his secret and every animal, is a partner in the meaning of the believing human being, so his secret is like that, with that amount of what remains, he knows his Lord and

As for those who disagreed about the exception, they did not consider the believer or the animal, whether it is an animal or a believer, it is according to what this exception considered, and the ruling applies with it, and the details regarding it are long. Rather, we stipulated the believer rather than the human being alone, since faith gives knowledge of God what the animal and the human give it. And in addition to what a person does not comprehend in terms of his humanity or animality, but rather in terms of his being a believer, this is why we said the question of a believer, for he is more complete in knowledge.

The scholars differed in Sharia law regarding purity with a woman’s secret parts, with five opinions. Some say that they are pure in absolute terms, and we say that. And some say that it is not permissible for a man to purify himself with a woman’s secret parts. Some say that it is permissible for a man to purify himself with a woman’s secret parts unless she is in a state of impurity or menstruating. And some say that it is not permissible for a man to purify himself with a woman’s secret parts. It is not permissible for either of them to purify himself by virtue of the purification of the other, but they are both permissible. Who says that it is not permissible at all? And who says that it is permissible for a man to purify himself with a woman’s secret as long as she does not disturb him .

As for the internal ruling on that, know that a man increases a degree over a woman, so if they are taken as evidence of knowledge of God in terms of the fact that they are a man and a woman and nothing else, then whoever sees that an increase in degree has significance over someone who does not have that degree His lack of knowledge by that amount, so whoever does not permit purity in that way says that the fact that he is a man and a woman, that is, that they are active and passive, indicates a special knowledge of God, which is knowledge of what influences him, and this is found in every active and passive person, so it is not permissible for there to be anything like this in knowledge of God and the heart is not purified by it. From ignorance of God .

Whoever permits it says that God is the Glory of knowledge, that He is our Creator and the Creator of all possible things, and if it is proven that we lack Him and He is in need of us, then we do not care about what we have missed of knowledge of Him. These are two opinions regarding permissibility and impermissibility.

With this consideration, we take the rest of the sections, such as starting together, except that in starting together there is an increase in knowledge, which is not being restricted by time, which is the case of standing on the face of evidence, and it is also like looking at their significance in terms of what they share and nothing but humanity.

Like a woman’s purity thanks to a man, it gives in significance what a woman gives and more. And like a man’s purity thanks to a woman, unless she is junub by being absent from the place of femininity and he is passive, then he has partnered with the female who is moved by him, then he is passive by being active, and whoever is alienated from the place of femininity by likening her to a man. This slanders her femininity or menstruating, and it is an attribute that prevents her from communicating with the Truth in prayer. What is required of knowledge of God is closeness, and the condition in menstruation is distance from God in terms of communicating with Him, so knowledge of this attribute is veiled knowledge of the distant name.

As for the saying of the one who said, “Whatever you do not violate, if you do not violate it, purity is permissible, and if you do not violate it, it is not permissible.” Know that the one who knows God is just as he knows that his self is passive in the presence of his eye on God, and he does not know that he pleases God and angers Him with his actions, since the obligation has occurred, and he did not know Him with complete knowledge. He was devoid of knowledge, and this discredits the purity of that knowledge, and if it is found that it has an effect in that state, such as the Almighty’s saying: “I answer the call of the supplicant when he supplicates, ” then the supplication of the supplicant in the soul of the supplicant is given an answer, and there is no meaning for emotion except like this, then this is the truth of His saying, as long as it does not detract from it. p

Sharia scholars differed regarding ablution with date wine, some of them permitted ablution with it and most of the scholars prohibited ablution with it, and I say that it is forbidden due to the lack of authenticity of the prophetic report regarding it, which they took as evidence, and if the hadith was authentic, his statement would not be a text regarding ablution with it, for

p> He, peace and blessings of God be upon him, said, “There are good dates and pure water in it .

That is, wine is combined between dates and water, so it is called wine, so the water was pure before mixing, even if his statement about it is correct .