A purification drink that was not prescribed for ablution with it, and it must be used to purify a garment from impurity, for God has not prescribed for us the purity of prayer when there is no water, except for dry ablution with dirt in particular.

As for the internal ruling on that, the one who bases his knowledge of God on the legitimate evidence, which is a branch in evidence from the rational evidence that is the origin, and the author of the legitimate evidence does not have knowledge of what has been proven that the Sharia is evidence in knowledge of God, so it is weak in evidence, even if He called it pure water and a good date. This is due to the mixing of the two evidences, and the imitator is not able to separate the two evidences. Insofar as that mixing includes rational evidence, it is permissible to take it into account, so ablution with date wine is permissible. And in terms of ignorance of what is included in it, it is not permissible to take it as he is without insight into proof. This branch did not permit ablution with date wine, as he called it a drink and removed the name water from it, so understand, and God speaks the truth and He guides the path.

The ruling on this in the internal sense, I mean that invalidates ablution, is that it is everything that discredits the rational evidence and the legal evidence regarding the knowledge of God. As for the rationality, it is from the incoming suspicions, and as for the legality, it is from the weakness of the path that leads to it, which is the lack of trust in the narrators or the strangeness of the texts, for that is what weakens the report. What takes you away from knowledge of God, His Oneness, and His Most Beautiful Names, what God is obligated to have, what is permissible, and what is logically impossible for Him, unless it is mentioned in frequent reports in a book or a Sunnah, for all of that contradicts the purity of the heart with knowledge of God, His Oneness, and His Names. Let us mention them in detail as they are mentioned in apparent ablution, God willing.

Sharia scholars differed regarding the invalidation of ablution by what comes out of the body of impurity according to three schools of thought. Some people considered that only what came out from what place it came out and in what way it came out. Among these people there was a difference in matters, and some people considered the exits from the front and back from what thing it came out and in what way. A face that emerges from health and illness, and others consider the outside and the exit a recipe for exit, and I say that

As for the ruling of these schools of thought regarding the internal meanings, whoever considers the external alone, and he is the one who looks at the word emerging from a person, is the one who affects the purity of his faith, such as saying in his oath, “I am free from Islam if such and such is the case,” or “it is only such and such,” for this and that even if He was truthful in his oath and was righteous and did not break his oath, for he will not return to Islam unscathed. This is what he, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, said. And the example of someone who speaks a word out of God’s displeasure in order to make people laugh with it is the one who thinks that it will reach what it has reached, so he will fall with it into Hell for seventy years, and no consideration will be given to whoever comes out of it, whether a believer or an unbeliever . p>

Whoever considers the two exits is the hypocrite and the doubter, for whatever comes out of them will not benefit them in the afterlife, for the outside may be impure, such as disbelief from uttering it, or it may be impure, like faith, and there is no such thing as the hypocrite and the suspicious of the two exits, because the two exits are evil. What is not impure, such as the appearance of faith, etc. is of no use. There is something in the heart of it, and it is what God Almighty said about them, where they said, “We believe in part,” and it is like the emergence of the pure, I mean that which is not impure, and we disbelieve in part, which is like the emergence of what is impure. Then God Almighty said, “Among them, those are the disbelievers in truth,” so he affected purity.

As for the one who considers the outside and the two exits and the recipe for exit, I have known the outside and the two exits and what remains is the recipe for exit, so the attribute of exit is in purity, just like the departure from the quality of sickness, like the imitator in disbelief or health, and he knows the correct truth and denies it, so he does not believe. God Almighty said in the likes of those who knew the truth and denied what it showed them. And they denied it, and their souls were certain of it. Then he mentioned the reason, and he said, “Unjust and arrogant.” So see what was the outcome of the mischief-makers. End of Part Thirty-Two .

The scholars differed regarding sleep in three schools of thought. Some say that it happened, so they obligated ablution for small or large amounts of sleep. And those who say that it is not a sleep, so ablution is not required of him unless he is certain of the event, then what invalidates ablution is the event, not sleep, and if he doubts the event, then the doubt has no effect. < /p >