first, for we know with certainty that he prayed with impurity. If he washes off the trace of the first, there is hardship in it and an invalidation of his Ijtihad by another Ijtihad. We know that one of the two prayers is invalid, though we do not know which one specifically, so he is required to repeat both of them. If he performs Wudu from the first [again], he has performed Wudu with what he believes to be impure.
What Ibn al-Majishun said is invalid; for it leads to making himself impure with certainty, and the invalidity of his prayer by consensus.
What Ibn Maslama said [involves hardship], and it is invalidated by the case of the Qibla, for it is not incumbent upon him to pray towards all four directions.
Section: Is it permissible for him to perform Tayammum (dry ablution) before pouring them both out?
There are two narrations:
The first is that it is not permissible; because he possesses water that is pure with certainty, so it is not permissible for him to perform Tayammum while it is present. If he mixes them or pours them out, it becomes permissible for him to perform Tayammum, because he no longer possesses pure water.
The second is that it is permissible to perform Tayammum before that. Abu Bakr chose this, and it is the correct view; because he is unable to use the pure water, similar to one who is in a well and cannot extract it. If he needs them for drinking, it is not mandatory to pour them out, without disagreement; for it is permissible for him to perform Tayammum if they were both pure, so it is more appropriate in the case of doubt. If he intends to drink, he practices Ijtihad and drinks from the one he deems pure; for it is a necessity that permits drinking from the impure if he finds no other, so [drinking] from the one he assumes to be pure is more appropriate.
If his strongest assumption does not favor the purity of one over the other, he drinks from either one of them. This becomes like the case where a dead animal is indistinguishable from a ritually slaughtered one in a state of dire necessity, and he finds no other; for if the use of the impure is permitted, then using what he assumes to be pure is more appropriate.
If he drinks from one of them, or eats from the ambiguous items, and then finds pure water, is he required to wash his mouth?
(7) In the original: "fa-haraj" (there is hardship). (8) In [A]: "bi-mudhakkat" (with ritually slaughtered animals).
الأوَّل، فقد عَلِمْنا أنه صلَّى بالنجاسةِ يَقِينًا، وإن غَسَلَ أثرَ الأوَّل ففيه حَرَجٌ ونَقْضٌ لاجْتهادِه باجْتهادِه، ونَعْلمُ أن إحْدَى الصلاتَيْن باطِلةٌ، لا بعَينها، فيلزَمُه إعادتُهما، فإن تَوَضَّأ مِن الأوَّلِ فقد توَضَّأ بما يعْتَقِدُه نَجِسًا.
وما قالَهُ ابنُ الماجِشُون فباطِلٌ؛ فإنه يُفْضِى إلى تَنْجِيسِ نفسِه يَقِينًا، وبُطْلانِ صَلاتِه إجْماعًا.
وما قالَهُ ابنُ مَسْلَمَة [ففيه حَرَجُ] (٧)، ويبْطُل بالقِبْلةِ؛ فإنَّه لا يلزمُه أن يُصَلِّىَ إلى أرْبَعِ جِهَاتٍ.
فصل: وهل يجوز له التَّيَمَّمُ قبلَ إراقَتِهما؟
علَى روايتَين:
إحداهما، لا يجوزُ؛ لأنَّ معه ماءٌ طاهِرًا بيَقِينٍ، فلم يَجُزْ له التَّيَمُّمُ مع وجودِه. فإن خلَطهما، أو أراقَهما، جاز له التَّيَمُّمُ؛ لأنه لم يَبْقَ معه ماءٌ طاهِرُ.
والثانية، يجوزُ التَّيَمُّمُ قبلَ ذلك. اخْتارَه أبو بكر. وهو الصحيحُ؛ لأنه غيرُ قادرٍ علَى اسْتعمالِ الطاهِرِ، أشْبَهَ ما لو كان في بئرٍ في لا يُمْكِنُه اسْتِقاؤُه، وإن احْتاجَ إليهما للشُّرْبِ لم تجبْ إراقتُهما، بغيرِ خِلافٍ؛ فإنه يجوزُ له التَّيَمُّم لو كانا طاهِرَيْن، فمع الاشْتباهِ أوْلَى. وإذا أراد الشُّرْبَ تحرَّى وشَرِبَ من الطاهِر عنده؛ لأنها ضرورةٌ تُبيحُ الشُّرْبَ من النَّجِس إذا لم يجدْ غيرَه، فَمِنَ الذي يظُنُّ طَهارتَه أوْلَى.
وإن لم يَغْلِبْ علَى ظنِّه طهارةُ أَحدِهما شَرِبَ مِن أحدِهما، وصار هذا كما لو اشْتَبهتْ مَيْتَةٌ بِمُذَكَّاة (٨) في حالِ الاضْطِرار، ولم يجدْ غيرَها، فإنه إذا جاز اسْتعمالُ النَّجِسِ، فاسْتعمالُ ما يظُنُّ طهارتَه أوْلَى.
وإذا شَرِبَ مِن أحدِهما، أو أكل مِن المُشْتَبِهات، ثم وجَد ماءً طهورًا، فهل يلزمُه غَسْلُ فِيه؟
(٧) في الأصل: "فحرج".(٨) في أ: "بمذكيات".
