from sleep, and he did not command anything else, which indicates that it is not obligatory. Furthermore, obligation is established by the Shari'ah, and no textual evidence (nass) has arrived regarding istinja' in this instance, nor is it analogous to what has been textually established; for istinja' was only prescribed for the removal of impurity (najasah), and there is no impurity here.

36 - Issue; he said: (And istinja' is for what emerges from the two passages.)

There is an ellipsis (idmar) in this, and its intended meaning is: "And istinja' is obligatory." He omitted the predicate of the subject for the sake of brevity. He intended anything that emerges other than wind, because he had already clarified its ruling. It makes no difference whether what emerges is habitual, such as urine and feces, or rare, such as a pebble, worms, or hair, whether wet or dry. If one receives an enema and parts of it return and emerge from the private part, or if a man has intercourse with his wife without penetration and his fluid drips into her private part and then emerges from it, both are required to perform istinja' according to the manifest view of al-Khiraqi, and al-Qadi and others have explicitly stated this. If one inserts an instrument (mil) into his penis and then removes it, istinja' becomes incumbent upon him because it is something emerging from the passage, thus resembling feces that have become hard. The analogy (qiyas) suggests that it is not obligatory for something dry that does not render the area impure, based on the principle we mentioned regarding wind, which is the view of al-Shafi'i. The same ruling applies to pure substances, such as semen, if we rule that it is pure. The view that istinja' is generally obligatory is the view of the majority of scholars. It has been narrated from Ibn Sirin, regarding someone who led people in prayer without performing istinja', that he said: "I see no harm in it." This may potentially apply to someone upon whom istinja' is not incumbent, such as one upon whom wudu' became incumbent due to sleep or the passing of wind, or someone who neglected istinja' out of forgetfulness, in which case he would be in agreement with the consensus of the group. It is also possible that he did not view istinja' as obligatory at all. This is the view of Abu Hanifah, based on the statement of the Prophet -may Allah bless him and grant him peace-: "Whoever performs istijmar, let him do so in odd numbers; whoever does so has done well, and whoever does not, there is no harm in it." Narrated by Abu Dawud (2); and because it is an impurity for which wiping is sufficient, thus its removal is not obligatory.