Secondly: Urine of the young boy and girl
The urine of the young boy – regardless whether or not he has eaten solid food yet – and the urine of the young girl are both najis, and this is by agreement of the four schools of jurisprudence. 

- Method of purifying a boy’s urine who is yet to eat solid food:
Spraying or sprinkling with water suffices to purify the young boy’s urine. This is the position of the Shafi`is, Hanbalis, a group of the Salaf, and it is the choice of Ibn Daqiq al-`Id, al-Shawkani, Ibn Baz, and Ibn `Uthaymin.

Thirdly: Animal dung and urine dung and urine of non-consumable animals
The dung and urine of non-consumable animals are najis, and this is by agreement of the four schools of jurisprudence. 

- Dung and urine of consumable animals:
The dung and urine of consumable animals are pure. This is the position of Malikis, Hanbalis, the choice of al-Shawkani, Ibn Baz, and Ibn `Uthaymin.

Fourthly: Semen
Semen is pure. This is the position of Shafi`is, Hanbalis, Zahiris, a group from the Salaf, the choice of Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Hazm, Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Baz, and Ibn `Uthaymin.

Fifthly: Pre-Seminal fluid
Pre-seminal fluid is najis, and this is by agreement of the four schools of jurisprudence.

Sixthly: Wady [77] A viscous fluid that exits from the urethra post-urination for some men, and it does so without sexual arousal.
Wady is najis, and this is by agreement of the four schools of jurisprudence.

Seventhly: Moisture of the vagina
The moisture of a woman’s private part [78] The moisture of a woman’s private part is a white, mucusy fluid that is between pre-seminal fluid and sweat. is pure, and this is the position of the majority: Hanafis, [79] The moisture of a woman’s private part for Hanafis is of two types: internal and external. If the moisture is visible externally, it is pure by their agreement, and internal moisture is pure according to Abu Hanifah, and najis according to Abu Yusuf and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan. Ibn `Abidin said: “This is if there is no blood mixed in with the moisture, nor pre-seminal fluid nor any ejaculate from the man or the woman.” Hashiyat Ibn `Abidin (349/1) the correct opinion among Shafi`is, and Hanbalis.

Eighthly: Human vomit
Human vomit [80] Vomit is what exits from the stomach of food and drink after settling there. is pure, and this is the position of some Malikis, [81] Like Ibn Rushd, Qadi `Iyad, and other, but with the condition that it does not resemble any of the properties of excrement. the choice of al-Shawkani, al-Albani, and Ibn `Uthaymin.

Ninthly: Ruling of human and animal blood
Blood flowing from a human being or an animal is najis. Consensus has been quoted on the matter by Ibn `Abd al-Barr, Ibn al-`Arabi, Ibn Rushd, al-Qurtubi, al-Nawawi, and Ibn Hajar. Imam Ahmad and Ibn Hazm quote consensus over this matter if the blood poured forth is plenty. 

- Ruling of the martyr’s blood:
The martyr’s blood is pure as long as it is on him. This is the position of the Hanafis, Hanbalis, and the choice of Ibn `Uthaymin. 

- Najasah of menstrual blood:
Menstrual blood is najis. Consensus has been quoted over this by al-Qarafi, al-`Ayni, and al-Shawkani.

Tenthly: Najasah of pigs
Pigs are intrinsically impure, even in parts that are separate but originate from it, like sweat and spit. This is the position of the majority: Hanafis, Shafi`is, Hanbalis, and an opinion among the Malikis. 

- Purifying oneself from a pig’s najasah:
The najasah of pigs is washed and cleaned off in the same way as other najis substances. This is the position of the Hanafis, Malikis, al-Shafi`is old position, a narration from Ahmad, the choice of al-Nawawi, Ibn Hazm, Ibn Baz, and Ibn `Uthaymin.

- Using swine pars for medicinal purposes:
Using swine or its parts for medicinal purposes is haram [82] Ibn Taymiyyah said: “As for using swine fat for medicinal purposes then it is not permissible. As for medicinally using it by covering oneself with it then washing it off, then this is built upon the permissibility of coming in contact with najasah outside prayer, and there’s a known difference of opinions about this. The most correct opinion is that it is permissible for need, just as it is permissible for a man to perform istinja’ with his hand, and removing najasah with his hand. What is permissible due to need allows for its use medicinally.” Majmu` al-Fatawa (271, 270/24) , and this is the position of the majority: Hanafis, Malikis, Hanbalis, and a position among the Shafi`is.

Eleventhly: Najasah of dogs
Dogs are intrinsically impure with all its parts, and this is the position of Shafi`is, Hanbalis, Abu Yusuf and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan from the Hanafis, the choice of al-San`ani and Ibn `Uthaymin. 

- Purifying a vessel from a dog’s najasah:
A vessel wherein a dog has lapped [83] Walagh contextually refers to when a dog inserts its tongue in a vessel then moves it, or to simply drink with the tip of its tongue from it. In English, a dog laps its water. food or drink must be washed seven times, the first of which with soil. [84] Ibn Taymiyyah said: “If that place [where lapping took place] would be harmed through the use of soil, then it is no longer a must to use it according to the sounder of the two views offered, and instead soap or its like may be used. This is the strongest opinion.” Sharh al-`Umdah (87/1) Ibn `Uthaymin was asked regarding stop and search spots in major institutions wherein trained dogs are used for security. It would enter the car and then smell and lick parts of it, so does this cause the seats and other parts of the car that have been sniffed and licked to become najis? He replied: “Sniffing does not harm since there is no spit involved, whereas with licking there is. So, one must then wash those places where the dog licked seven times. We don’t say one of them with soil since there may be harm in that, but we say that soap or some detergent should be used, and it suffices along with the seven washes.” Liqa' al-Bab al-Maftuh (184/49) This is the position of the Hanbalis, [85] The first one to be with soil – as opposed to any one of the seven – is the preferred method of purification among them. the choice of Ibn Hazm, Ibn Hajar, and Ibn `Uthaymin.

Twelve: Beasts and birds of prey
Carnivorous land animals – other than dogs – and birds of prey are intrinsically pure. This is the position of the majority: Hanafis, Malikis, Shafi`is, and a narration from Ahmad chosen by al-Ajurri.

Thirteen: Cats
Cats are pure, and this is by agreement of the four schools of jurisprudence.

Fourteen: Donkeys and mules
Donkeys and mules are pure, and this is the position of Malikis, Shafi`is, a narration from Ahmad chosen by Ibn Qudamah. It is also the position of Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Baz, and Ibn `Uthaymin.

Fifteen: Defining the jallalah
Linguistically: It is an animal that consumes excrement and droppings. Comes from jillah which is ba`ar – manure.
Technically: It is that animal that has as the majority of its diet as najasah. It is also said that it is the animal that has visible traces of najasah. Other definitions were also given, one more of which was that it is what consumes excrement among animals that walk on all fours. [86] Al-Nawawi said: “The correct opinion upon which is the majority is that there is no consideration to the plentifulness [of najasah consumes], but rather of its rotting filthy smell. If its sweat or other than it has a smell of najasah, then it is a jallalah, and if not, then it isn’t.” al-Majmu` (28/9) 

- Ruling of consuming a jallalah:
It is haram to consume the flesh of a jallalah or drink its milk. This is the position of the Hanbalis, [87] They added to the list of impermissibility the consumption of its eggs (if it lays them). chosen by al-San`ani and al-Shawkani, and it is the verdict of the Permanent Committee. 

- Purifying a jallalah:
The impermissibility of consuming a jallalah disappears if it is kept solely to consuming pure feed and kept away from najasah. Consensus has been quoted on the matter by Ibn Qudamah and Ibn Taymiyyah. 

- Time necessary to Isolate a jallalah for its purification:
There is no specific time for which a jallalah must be kept trapped with pure feed for, rather it depends on whenever the signs of najasah disappear from it and its stench goes away. Whenever this takes place, it has become pure. This is the position of the Hanafis, [88] Some Hanafis have estimated this period of time as: three days for chickens, four for sheep, and ten for cows and camels. Shafi`is, [89] The habit among them is that the najasah disappears after forty days for the camel, thirty for the cow, seven for a sheep, and three for a chicken. More often than not the najasah would disappear with these estimated periods. If it is removed before then the disliking of the animal also disappears, and if it still hasn’t then the disliking remains until it is removed with whatever necessary extra days. and the choice of Ibn Hazm.

Sixteen: Defining the dead animal (maytah)
Linguistically: It is what has died without slaughtering.
Technically: It is what has died without being ritually sacrificed. 

- The flesh of the maytah: [91] Maytah here is any wild animal that has flowing blood that dies a natural death without slaughtering, or that is slaughtered but in an illegal manner. is najis overall. [92] The maytah of humans, fish, and locusts are exceptions. Consensus has been quoted on the matter by Ibn Hazm, Ibn Rushd, Ibn Qudamah, and al-Nawawi. 

- Skin of a maytah before tanning:
The skin of a maytah is najis before tanning it, and this is by agreement of the four schools of jurisprudence. 

- Skin of a maytah if tanned:
Scholars have differed over the skin of a maytah after it has been tanned according to many views, the strongest of which are two:
First: the skins of all maytah animals [93] Except lions due to the Prophet ﷺ prohibiting it become pure after tanning except that of the dog and the pig. This is the position of Shafi`is, and Hanafis agreed with them in other than the dog, and this is the position of a group from the Salaf.
Second: dead animal skins that have been tanned do not become pure unless the animal was consumable. This is a narration from Malik, a narration from Ahmad, the opinion of some Hanbalis, and some of the Salaf followed this view. A group from the scholars of Hadith opined this, and it is the choice of Ibn al-`Arabi, Ibn Qudamah, Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Baz, and Ibn `Uthaymin. 

- Bones, horns, and hooves of the maytah:
The bones, horns, and hooves of a maytah are najis. This is the position of the majority: Malikis, Shafi`is, and Hanbalis.

- Hair, wool, and fur of a maytah that was pure when living:
Whatever has been clipped [94] It has been said that if the hair is pulled, then its root has a part from the dead animal on it, since the roots are typically deep within the skin, and so have a part which has directly been within the najasah. Allah knows best. from the hair, wool, or fur of a maytah that was pure when it was living is pure, [95] Out of higher logical priority would the hair, wool, and fur trimmed from a living animal be pure. even if it was non-consumable. 

- Whatever is severed from a living creature:
Whatever has been severed from a living creature with blood in it – like a limb, ear, nose, and the like – is najis. Consensus has been quoted on the matter by Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Kasani, Ibn Rushd, al-Nawawi, and Ibn Taymiyyah. 

Whatever is detached from a living consumable animal and has no blood in it, like hair, wool, fur, and feathers, is pure. Consensus has been quoted on the matter by: Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Rushd, al-Nawawi, Ibn Taymiyyah, and Ibn Hajar al-Haytami. 

- Human corpse:
The human corpse is pure, regardless if it belongs to a Muslim or a disbeliever. This is the position of the majority: the more apparent opinion among Malikis, Shafi`is, and Hanbalis. 

- Maytah of fish:
The maytah of fish is pure. Consensus has been quoted on the matter by: Ibn `Abd al-Barr, al-Nawawi, Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Hajar, al-Shirbini, and al-Shawkani. 

- Maytah of the sea:
The maytah of the sea is pure, regardless if it is due to human intervention, or if it simply floated on the surface of the water. This is the position of the majority: Malikis, Shafi`is, Hanbalis, and Zahiris. 

- Maytah of locusts:
It is pure by agreement of the four schools of jurisprudence. 

- Maytah of what has no blood:
The maytah of what has no flowing blood, like flies, scorpions, and beetles, are pure. This is the position of the majority: Hanafis, Malikis, Hanbalis, an opinion among the Shafi`is, a group from the Salaf, and the majority of scholars.

Scholars have differed over the physical purity of alcohol according to two views:
First: It is that alcohol is intrinsically najis, and this is by agreement of the four schools of jurisprudence, as well as the choice of Ibn Hazm the Zahiri.
Second: It is that it is intrinsically pure. This is the position of Dawud al-Zahiri, the verdict of Rabi`at al-Ra'y, al-Layth ibn Sa`d, al-Muzani, the choice of al-Shawkani, al-Albani, and Ibn `Uthaymin.