Chapter on istinjāʾ (cleansing after answering the call of nature) — Tuḥfat al-Mulūk

Ruling125

1 note

It is sunna after urine and stool and the like, with any purifying remover, to wipe the place until it is clean; a fixed number is not sunna.

From the editors

Footnotes

Such as stones, clay, sand, or toilet paper. See: al-Mishkāt, p. 17.

The consideration in fulfilling the Sunnah is cleanliness, not the number of stones. If one achieves cleanliness with a single stone, it is sufficient. However, if cleanliness is not achieved with three stones, one should continue until it is accomplished.

This is because water removes the actual impurity, unlike others, which only reduce the impurity.

This is because the body has a natural heat that draws impurities, and stones or similar objects cannot completely remove it, according to consensus, as mentioned in al-Hadiyah (p. 33). The permissibility of using stones or similar items for cleansing (istinjāʾ) without water applies when the impurity present at the exit point is the size of a dirham or less, not more. This is the sound opinion because the Legislator permitted the use of stones for cleansing absolutely without clarification. However, if the impurity spreads beyond the exit point, the ruling differs: if the spread exceeds the size of a dirham, it must be washed with water; if it is less than the size of a dirham, washing with water is not obligatory according to Imām Abū Ḥanīfah and Abū Yūsuf, while according to Muḥammad, it must be washed. See: Badāʾiʿ aṣ-Ṣanāʾiʿ 1:19.

Ruling126

Water is best.

Saved on this device only — not synced to your account.

Sign in to tag and sync notes across devices.

Ruling127

1 note

If the effluent passes the outlet, water is required.

From the editors

Footnotes

The water that accumulates beneath the feet during ghusl is considered “used” (mustaʿmal) and, thus, cannot be used for the final part of the ghusl. Therefore, according to some scholars, the feet should be washed last to avoid using the used water for ritual purification. This applies especially when performing ablution on surfaces like slabs or bathroom floors without drainage systems. If the water does not gather, then it is recommended to wash the feet in the sequence of the wuḍūʾ during the ghusl. This is the view supported in Sharḥ al-Wiqāyah (p. 93), Tabyīn (1:14), al-Maraqī (p. 141), Tuḥfat al-Fuqahāʾ (1:29), al-Baḥr (p. 52), al-Badāʾiʿ (1:34), al-Hidāyah (1:16), and al-Ikhtiyār (1:19). Ibn ʿĀbidīn, in ar-Radd al-Muḥtār (1:106), clarified that the difference of opinion is one of preferability rather than permissibility.The second view is that one should always wash their feet in the sequence of wuḍūʾ in the ghusl, as supported by al-Durr al-Mukhtār (1:106) and al-Nasafī in al-Kanz (p. 4).The third view, held by scholars such as al-Qudūrī in Mukhtaṣar al-Qudūrī (p. 3) and al-Ḥalabī in al-Multaqā (p. 4), recommends consistently delaying the washing of the feet, even when using drainage systems.

Ruling128

1 note

It is disliked to use bone, manure, food … and the right hand—and God knows best.

From the editors

Footnotes

Whether the vomit is bile, acid, food, water, or phlegm, a mouthful of vomit is defined as the amount that cannot be held back without difficulty. This is considered the most correct (aṣaḥḥ) view, as supported by al-Hidāyah, al-Ikhtiyār, al-Kāfi, and al-Khulāṣah, and affirmed by scholars such as Fakhr al-Islam, Qāḍī Khan, and al-Zaylaʿī in al-Tabyīn (1:8).The other view is that a mouthful is simply that which cannot be held back, as mentioned in al-Badāʾiʿ. This view is considered reliable by Sheikh Abu Manṣūr and regarded as correct. In al-Ḥilyah, the first opinion is seen as the most probable. See: Radd al-Muḥtār (1:137).

In other words, if the person sleeping is leaning on something in a way that they would fall if it were removed, their wuḍūʾ is invalid. However, if they are sleeping while standing, sitting, bowing, or prostrating in prayer, their wuḍūʾ remains valid. This is the apparent view of the school according to al-Khulāṣah, and it has been deemed correct (taṣḥīḥ) by the author of Tuḥfat al-Fuqahāʾ (1:22) and al-Hidāyah (p.15).

The intoxication intended is defined as a state where one’s gait is affected. This was favoured by al-Ḥalwāni. Sadr al-Shariʿah affirmed this in Sharḥ al-Wiqāyah (p. 89), stating it to be correct (ṣaḥīḥ), while al-Zāhidi deemed it the most correct (aṣaḥḥ). However, al-Ṣadr al-Shahīd and Qāḍī Khan, in his Fatāwa (1:42), held that intoxication is when a person can no longer distinguish between a man and a woman. See: Tabyīn al-Haqāʾiq and its commentary 1:10, and others.

Loud laughter (qahqaha) occurs when the sound is audible to both the worshiper and those next to him, regardless of whether the teeth are visible. This invalidates prayer and wuḍūʾ. Laughing (ḍahik), on the other hand, is audible only to the worshiper but not to those around him. This invalidates the prayer but not one’s wuḍūʾ. Smiling (tabassum) produces no sound. It does not invalidate the prayer or the wuḍūʾ. Refer to al-Ḥissāha p.95, Sharḥ al-Wiqāyah p.90, Tabyīn al-Ḥaqāʾiq 1:11, Fatḥ Bāb al-ʿInāyah 1:68, and al-Ikhtiyār 1:18 and others.

To be more precise: the loud laughter of a conscious, adult worshipper in a prayer with rukūʾ and sujūd. There is no difference between doing so deliberately or forgetfully – both nullify prayer and wuḍūʾ. This is because of the narration of Abul-ʿĀliyah and others that, “A blind man fell into a well while the Prophet ﷺ was praying with his companions, and those who were praying with him laughed. So, he commanded those who laughed to repeat their wuḍūʾ and their prayer.” This is mentioned in Sunan al-Dāraquṭnī 1:167, al-Kāmil 3:167, Tārīkh Jurjān 1:405, Sunan al-Bayḥaqi al-Kabīr 2:252, Muṣannaf Abd al-Razzaq 2:376, Muṣannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah 1:341, Marāsīl Abi Dawud p.75. al-Laknawī, after citing the ḥadīths regarding laughter that nullifies ablution, stated in al-Ḥisāsah bi-Naqḍ il-Wuḍūʾ bil-Qahqahah: “These musnad and mursal reports clearly indicate the nullification of ablution by laughter.”

Significant foreplay (al-mubāsharah al-fāḥishah) refers to when a husband is intimate with his wife and their private areas are in direct contact without clothes or other barriers. Arousal occurs which leads to the likely release of pre-ejaculate fluid. This is considered highly likely due to the nature of the situation, and it may be release in small amounts such that one is unaware. As such, it is treated as having occurred and so one’s wuḍūʾ is nullified – even if one thinks no fluid was released. See: Qunyā al-Maniyah vol. 3 part A, and Tabyīn al-Ḥaqāʾiq 1:12.

Meaning on both the doer and the done to – even if one does not ejaculate.

In the case of semen, it is clear, because its discharge necessitates a ghusl. As for the pre-ejaculatory fluid, this due to the possibility that it could be semen that has thinned due to the body’s heat and so ghusl is obligatory precautionarily.

Before impurity occurs, there is no reason to wipe over the sock. Thus, the time period for wiping starts from the moment ritual impurity (ḥadath) occurs. As after this the reason to wipe begins which is ritual impurity. This is also when the sock prevents ritual impurity from spreading to the feet. Further, from this moment the concession comes into effect. This is why it is a more appropriate start time than the moment of wearing the sock or the time one performs wuḍūʾ and wipes.Top of FormBottom of Form See: ʿUmdat al-Riʿāyah 1:114, Sharḥ al-Wiqāyah p.116, and al-Marāqi p.131.

One must be in a state of complete ritual purity when the ritual impurity occurs after putting on the socks. See: Badāʾiʿ aṣ-Ṣanāʾiʿ 1: 9.

Jarmūq: a type of footwear worn over the sock, with a shaft shorter than that of the sock. See: al-ʿInayah 1: 155, and Nihayat al-Murad p. 386. It is what is now called a shoe. The jarmuq is most similar to modern winter boots.

It is required that no minor impurity (hadath) occurs before and after wearing the sock and before wearing the Jarmuq. As such, if one wears the sock in a state of purity and then nullifies their ritual purity before putting on the Jarmuq, it is not permissible to wipe over the Jarmuq, whether it is worn before wiping over the sock or after. This is because the state of impurity is considered established once the Jarmuq is worn. If one removes the Jarmuq after wiping over the socks, one must wipe over the socks again because wiping over the Jarmuq does not count as wiping over the socks. See: al-Tabyīn 1: 52, Niḥāyat al-Murād p. 187, Sharḥ al-Wiqāyah p. 114, among others.

They should be thick enough to cover the skin underneath. This is evidenced by the socks being water resistant and the skin not being visible to an observer. See: al-Hadiyyah al-ʿAlāʾiya page 39, Hadiyat al-Saʿalūk page 20, al-Badaʾiʿ volume 1: 101, among others.

al-Mujallad refers to footwear that has leather on both its top and bottom surfaces. See: Radd al-Muḥtār volume 1, page 179.

al-Munaʿal refers to footwear that has leather only on its sole, similar to a sandal for the foot. This is the ẓahirur-riwāyah, and according to the narration of al-Ḥasan, the leather extends to the heel. For more details, see Al-Iyḍāḥ, part 7, section B, al-Tabāyyun volume 1, page 52, Niḥāyat ul-Murād page 389, among others.

If a traveller settles after the duration for a resident has elapsed, he must remove his socks. If 24 hours have not passed, he can complete up to 24 hours because he has become a resident. See: Radd al-Muḥtār 1: 185, and al-Hadiyah al-ʿAlāʾiyyah, p. 40.

If one sock is removed, washing that foot becomes obligatory, thus washing the other is also obligatory, as one cannot combine washing and wiping. The invalidation occurs due to the spread of ritual impurity to the foot when the barrier (i.e., the sock) is removed. See: Sharḥ al-Wiqāyah, p. 116, and Radd al-Muḥtār 1: 183.

According to the most reliable opinion. If a small amount of the sock is taken off, this is overlooked due to difficulty. However, if the majority of the foot is uncovered then the majority is given the ruling of the whole. This is what is reported from Abū Yūsuf and deemed correct (taṣḥīḥ) by the author of al-Hidāyah 1: 29, ad-Durr al-Mukhtār 1: 184, and firmly established in al-Kanz, p. 6, and al-Multaqā, p. 7.

Wiping over a splint or bandage is equivalent to washing what is beneath it. This is not a substitute, unlike wiping over socks. Therefore, the ruling on wiping over a splint differs from that on socks in this respect and others. The complete discussion can be found in al-Mishkāt, p. 75-76, Hashiyah al-Tahṭāwi ʿalā al-Marāqi, p. 136-137, and ʿUmdat al-Riʿayah, vol. 1, p. 199.

Thus, he must rewash the limb.

A “mile” is one-third of a farsakh, equivalent to four thousand steps. A step measures one and a half thirā’ by the common measure. Thus, considering the thiraa’ to be 48 cm, a “mile” measures 0.72 m per step, totalling 2880 m. If the cubit is considered to be 60 cm, then a mile measures 3600 m.

Illness that permits tayammum, as explained by the author, is that one is unable to use the water, or if water is used, it exacerbates the illness or delays recovery. It is not required for one to fear loss of life or limb. See: al-Mishkāt, p. 51, and al-Minḥah, vol. 1, p. 112.

It is permissible for a resident or traveller to perform tayammum if using water poses a risk of death, loss of limb, or illness; because although the absence of water and warmth is rare, it does not negate the permissibility of tayammum.

Ṣadr al-Sharīʿah in his commentary Sharḥ al-Wiqāyah, p. 113, stated: It should be known that if the obstacle to performing wudu is due to others, such as a captive prevented by non-believers from performing wudu, or someone imprisoned, and it is said to him: “If you perform wudu, I will kill you,” then it is permissible for him to perform tayammum. However, if the obstruction is removed, it is advisable that he repeats the prayer.

Exorbitant loss occurs when goods are sold for far more than their assessed value. Or when the item is sold for double its value, such as selling something worth one dinar for two dinars. In such cases, one does not need to buy the water, but rather perform tayammum; because bearing harm is not obligatory for purification, just like cutting off a dirty part of one’s clothes is not obligatory when water is unavailable to pray. See: al-Minḥah, vol. 1, p. 112, and al-Ḥadiyyah, p. 25.

Ibn ʿAbbās narrated that the Messenger said, “If you fear missing the funeral prayer and you are not in a state of wuḍūʾ (ablution), then perform tayammum and pray.” This is reported in Muṣannaf ibn Abī Shaybah 2:497, and its narrators are the narrators of Muslim except for al-Mughīrah, who is relied upon. See: Iʿlāʾ as-Sunan 1:300, Naṣb ar-Rāyah 1:157.

Tayammum is allowed in this case due to the fear of missing the prayer, as these prayers have no valid substitutes. However, for the leader (waliyy), the congregation would wait for him, so there is no concern of missing the prayer. See: Minḥat as-Sulūk 1:113.

This is because there is a substitute for both, which is ẓuhr for Jumuʾah and making up the prayer (qaḍā’) for the daily farḍ prayers, as such there is no fear that they will be missed. See: al-Hidāyah al-‘Alā’iyyah, p. 34.

This is because most will not withhold water. However, the normative principle (qiyās) is that one is not required to request water, as it may be a form of humiliation. As such, if one performs tayammum without asking for the water, it is sufficient according to Abu Ḥanīfa, for one is not obliged to ask for water that belongs to someone else. However, the Ṣaḥibayn say it is not sufficient because water is customarily (ʿādatan) shared upon request. See: Minḥat as-Sulūk 1: 113.

One is obligated to search for water to the extent of a “ghalwah” – which is a distance of 150m2 to 200m2 – if one believes the water may be nearby. Otherwise, one is not required to search for it. Searching means looking to one’s right, left, in front, and behind to a distance of a ghalwah. One is not obliged to walk this amount; rather, it is sufficient to look in these directions from one’s place if the surroundings do not obstruct the view. If there is a small mountain or similar nearby, one should climb it and look around unless there is fear of harm. See: Sharḥ al-Wiqāyah p. 112, Al-Baḥr al-Rāʿiq 1: 168.

This is because complete coverage of the two limbs is obligatory according to the ruled-by view (fatwā). Such that if a small portion is left untouched, one’s tayammum is not valid. Therefore, one must remove or move their ring or bracelet to ensure that the skin is wiped. See: Sharḥ al-Wiqāyah, p. 106; al-Durr al-Mukhtār, 1:158; Minḥat al-Sulūk, 1:115.

By intending a specific act of worship that is not valid without ritual purity, or by intending to permit the performance of prayer, or by intending purification from minor or major ritual impurity. See: Sharḥ al-Wiqāyah p. 107-108, and al-Hadiyyah al-ʿAlāʾiyyah p. 33.

Due to the saying of Allah, the Exalted: {Then intend (tayamamū) with pure earth (ṣaʿīḍ ṭayyib)} [an-Nisā’: 43], ṣaʿīd refers to that which appears on the surface of the earth from its genus.

This is according to Abu Hanifa and Muhammad, and it was deemed correct in al-Muḥīṭ (p. 269). According to Abu Yusuf, however, it is only permissible to perform tayammum with soil or sand. The distinguishing criterion between what is considered of the earth and what is not is that anything that burns in fire and turns into ashes, such as trees and grass, or that can be moulded and softened, such as iron, brass, gold, glass, and similar materials, and anything consumed by the earth that is not of its genus, such as wheat, barley, and other grains, is not considered of the earth’s genus. Therefore, tayammum cannot be performed with these unless there is dust (meaning particles that can come off). As for what is of the earth’s genus, tayammum is permissible without dust.Tayammum can also be performed with dust, even if there is access to the ground. For instance, if one were to use the dust on their clothes, sweep a room, sift through wheat, demolish a house, or if the wind stirs up dust and it touches their face and arms, and they wipe with the intention of tayammum, it is valid because dust is part of the soil. See: al-Tabyīn 1:39, Tuḥfat al-Fuqahāʾ 1:41, Fatḥ Bāb al-ʿInāyah 1:115-116, and Sharḥ al-Wiqāyah (p. 107).

Allah says: {…or you have touched women and cannot find water, then perform Tayammum with clean earth and wipe your faces and hands. Indeed, Allah is ever Pardoning and Forgiving} [5: 6]. This verse mentions both types of impurity when water is available, and then mentions both types of impurity when it is not available, commanding Tayammum for both with the same description. The same ruling applies to women in menstruation (ḥayḍ) and postnatal bleeding (nifās). See: Minḥat al-Sulūk, 1:116.

If a person sees water while in prayer, their prayer is invalidated, whether they are a traveller or not. Likewise, if someone who prayed with wuḍūʾ sees water while following an Imām who performed tayammum, their prayer is invalidated. However, the prayer of the Imām who performed tayammum remains valid because he did not see the water. See: Hadiyyat al-Ṣāʿalūk, p. 26.

If someone prays with tayammum at the beginning of the prayer time and then finds water while the prayer time is still valid, they do not need to repeat the prayer. If a person does not expect to find water, they should not delay their prayer from the beginning of the time. The purpose of waiting is the possibility of finding water and performing the prayer with the superior form of purification, this is not realised if one does not expect to find water by the end of the prayer time. See: al-Baḥr al-Rāʾiq 1:163-164 and Sharḥ al-Wiqāyah p.112.Abu Saʿīd narrated, two men went on a journey, and when the time for prayer came, they had no water. So, they performed tayammum with pure earth and prayed. Later, they found water while still within the prayer time. One of them repeated the prayer with wuḍūʾ, while the other did not. When they came to the Prophet (ﷺ) and mentioned it to him, he said to the one who did not repeat the prayer, “You have followed the sunnah, and your prayer is sufficient.” He said to the one who repeated the prayer and made wuḍūʾ, “You have the reward twice.” al-Mustadrak 1:286, authenticated, Sunan al-Dārimī 1:207, Sunan al-Bayhaqī al-Kubrā 1:231, Sunan Abū Dāwūd 1:93, al-Mujtabā 1:213, among others.

This is because there is no ability without knowledge. This is what is meant by “having water.” The water of the traveller’s provision is reserved for drinking, not for use in purification. According to Abū Yūsuf, one must repeat the prayer. See: al-Wiqāyah, p.112, al-Hidāyah 1:27, and other sources.

There is a difference of opinion regarding the definition of “a large amount” of impurity in water. Some say it is when it covers a quarter of the surface, others say a third, others say the majority, or even the entire surface. Another view states that it is when each bucket drawn from the water contains at least one or two droppings of impurity. The preferred view, as mentioned in al-Hidāyah and attributed to a narration from Abū Ḥanīfah, is that the large amount is what the observer considers large. This was also chosen by the author. Refer to Hadiyat aṣ-Ṣāʿalūk (p. 31), Minḥat as-Sulūk (1:123), al-Badāʾiʿ (1:77) where it is stated that this is the correct view, and in at-Tabyīn (1:27), which affirms reliance upon this view (muʿtamad).

It is important to note that the issue of purifying wells by specific amounts, as mentioned earlier, is based on authoritative traditions (tawqīfī), which have been transmitted from the Ṣaḥābah and Tābiʿīn. The juristic school of Kūfah adopted these practices as they were passed down generation to generation by their predecessors. Among these traditions is what has been narrated from ʿAṭāʾ: “A Habashi (Abyssinian) fell into the Zamzam well and died, so Ibn al-Zubayr ordered that the water of Zamzam be drained. The water kept flowing and didn’t cease, so they looked and found a spring gushing from near the Black Stone. Ibn al-Zubayr then said: ‘That is enough for you.’” This narration is mentioned in Sharḥ Maʿānī al-Āthār (1:17) and Muṣannaf Ibn Abī Shaybah (1:150), among other sources, and Ibn Daqīq stated in al-Imām that its chain of transmission is sound, as referenced in Iʿlāʾ as-Sunan (1:264). Another narration from Ibn ʿAbbās states: “A Zanjī (African) fell into the Zamzam well and died. A man was sent down to extract him, and then Ibn ʿAbbās ordered that the water be drained.” This is found in Muṣannaf Ibn Abī Shaybah (1:150). Furthermore, Ibrāhīm an-Nakhaʿī said regarding a mouse that fell into a well: “Forty buckets of water should be drawn from it.” This narration is found in Sharḥ Maʿānī al-Āthār (1:17), among other sources.

This is a narration from Abū Ḥanīfah. However, the correct view (ṣaḥīḥ) is to take the word of two experts with insight into water matters. This has been deemed correct in al-Durr, volume 1: 25, al-Tabyīn, volume 1: 30, Minḥat al-Sulūk, volume 1: 125, chosen in al-Hidāyah, volume 1: 22, endorsed by the author of al-Kifāyah, 1: 93, chosen by the author of at-Tanwīr, 1:143, Hadiyat aṣ-Ṣaʿālūk p. 32, and in al-Durr al-Mukhtār, volume 1: 143: by which the fatwā is given, and it is the safest opinion. In al-Maraqī page 37: it is the most correct, and Ibn ʿĀbidīn preferred it in his commentary, volume 1: 143.

Purification with liquids other than water is valid according to Abū Ḥanīfah and Abū Yūsuf. However, according to Muḥammad, Zufar, al-Shāfi‘ī, Mālik, and Aḥmad, garments can only be purified with water. See: Imām Zufar and His Jurisprudential Opinions, vol. 1, p. 104; al-Majmū‘, vol. 1, p. 138; Hashiyah al-Bayjurmī, vol. 1, p. 18; Mawāhib al-Jalīl, vol. 1, p. 162; Hashiyah al-Dasūqī, vol. 1, p. 46; al-Mughnī, vol. 1, p. 78; al-Mubdi‘, vol. 1, p. 42, among others.

“Difficult to remove” means that the traces of impurity— its smell, colour, or taste — cannot be removed with ordinary water, but require something else, like soap or similar agents. See: Hadiyah al-Ṣāʿalūk.

Meaning, according to the opinion of the one washing, because when something is difficult to ascertain, it is left to the judgement of the one affected, like the case of qiblah through investigation. The view in al-Aṣl, is that it is purified by washing it three times and wringing each time for items that can be wrung, provided that the wringing is thorough on the third occasion according to one’s strength. Or, by washing and leaving it until dripping stops, then repeating. See: Hadiyah al-Sa‘ālūk, p. 28, and Al-Mishkāt, p. 119.

This ruling applies equally to the semen of both men and women, as mentioned in Fatāwā Qāḍī Khān (1:25), al-Mabsūṭ (1:81-82), and Rasāʾil al-Arkān (p. 47). It was narrated from ʿĀʾishah regarding semen, “I used to scrape it off the garment of the Messenger of Allah.” This is found in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim (1:238).

Any impurity that is solid, such as dung or filth, whether dry or wet, becomes pure through thorough rubbing, provided no smell or colour remains, according to the relied-upon view due to the widespread nature of such issues. This is the opinion of Abū Yūsuf. However, Muḥammad held that washing the footwear is obligatory whether the impurity is wet or dry, just like with clothes or the body. He then retracted this view after witnessing the abundance of dung in the paths of Rayy. Hence, in al-Wiqāyah (p. 130), it states that this is ruled-by position (fatwā), and similarly in an-Nihāyah and as-Sirājiyyah 1:20 and Hadiyah aṣ-Ṣāʿalūk (p. 30), as well as Fatḥ Bāb al-ʿInāyah 1:244: “This is the position of the majority.”

Meaning liquid impurities on the sock must be washed, whether the impurity is visible, such as blood, or invisible, like urine. Abū Yūsuf stated that it can be purified by thorough rubbing just like solid impurities. Clothes must be washed if soiled by impurities, by agreement. See: Hadiyah aṣ-Ṣa‘ālūk, p. 30.

Such as stones, clay, sand, or toilet paper. See: al-Mishkāt, p. 17.

The consideration in fulfilling the Sunnah is cleanliness, not the number of stones. If one achieves cleanliness with a single stone, it is sufficient. However, if cleanliness is not achieved with three stones, one should continue until it is accomplished.

This is because water removes the actual impurity, unlike others, which only reduce the impurity.

This is because the body has a natural heat that draws impurities, and stones or similar objects cannot completely remove it, according to consensus, as mentioned in al-Hadiyah (p. 33). The permissibility of using stones or similar items for cleansing (istinjāʾ) without water applies when the impurity present at the exit point is the size of a dirham or less, not more. This is the sound opinion because the Legislator permitted the use of stones for cleansing absolutely without clarification. However, if the impurity spreads beyond the exit point, the ruling differs: if the spread exceeds the size of a dirham, it must be washed with water; if it is less than the size of a dirham, washing with water is not obligatory according to Imām Abū Ḥanīfah and Abū Yūsuf, while according to Muḥammad, it must be washed. See: Badāʾiʿ aṣ-Ṣanāʾiʿ 1:19.

It is detested (makrūh) to use any valuable property, such as silk or human food like wheat or barley, due to this being a waste of wealth without necessity. Similarly, using animal feed, such as grass, is disliked because it contaminates something pure without need. See: Badāʿiʾ al-Ṣanāʿiʾ, vol. 1, p. 18.

It is narrated from Salmān (may Allah be pleased with him) who said: The polytheists said to us, “Indeed, I see that your companion (the Prophet ﷺ) teaches you everything, even how to relieve yourselves.” Salmān replied: “Yes, indeed, he has forbidden us from cleaning ourselves with our right hand, facing the Qiblah, and using dung or bones.” This is recorded in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 1:223.

فصل في الاستنجاء