The Distinguished Jurists Primer by Ibn Rushd

The source for the identification of the acts of ablution is the description laid down in the words of the Exalted, “O ye who believe, when ye rise up for prayer, wash your faces and your hands up to the elbows, and lightly rub your heads and (wash) your feet up to the ankles”,31 and the method of performing ablution traced to the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings'be upon him) in the established narrations (dlhar). To this are related twelve well-known issues that resemble fundamental principles. They are related to the identification of the requisite conditions, the elements, the description of the acts, their number, their specification, and the identification of the objects of the ahkam of all these.

The jurists disagreed whether intention is a condition for the validity of ablution, although they had agreed on the stipulation of intention as a condition for worship i^ibdddt\ because of the words of the Exalted, “And they are ordered naught else than to serve Allah, keeping religion pure for Him”,32 and because of the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “The value of acts depends upon accompanying intentions”, which is a well-known tradition. A group of jurists, including al-ShafiT, Malik, Hammad, Abu Thawr, and Dawud, was of the opinion that it (intention) is a condition. Another group said it is not a condition, and this was the opinion of Abu Hanifa and al-ThawrT. The reason for their disagreement is the vacillation of the term wudtf between being a pure ritual dbdda—I mean, not subject to rationalization and intended only for the pleasure of Allah, like saldh and similar forms of mere ritual worship—and between an Hbdda that can also be rational, like washing of dirt. They did not differ about pure 'tbada being in need of intention, and rational ^ibdda not being in need of it Ablution has a resemblance to both kinds of worship and a disagreement has, therefore, resulted. The reason is that it combines ritual worship and purification, and the aim of fiqh is to examine which one it resembles more strongly so that it may be linked to it.

The jurists differed about washing of hands before immersing a hand inside the water-utensil of ablution. Some have held that it is one of the practices (sunan) of ablution that is always recommended, even when the hands are clean without a doubt. This is the better known opinion of Malik and al- Shafi T. It c is also said that it is recommended in the case of a person doubting the purity of his hands. This too was an opinion narrated from Malik. It is also said that washing of hands (before immersing them in the water inside a utensil) is obligatory on one waking up from sleep. This was Dawud’s view and that of his disciples. Some have distinguished between nocturnal sleep and that of the day, and made it obligatory for nocturnal sleep, but not for that during the day. This is Ahmad’s opinion. Thus, four opinions are arrived at through this (discussion). First, that it is sunna in absolute terms (i.e. always undertaken). Second, that it is recommended for the person in doubt. Third, that it is obligatory on one awaking from sleep. Fourth, that it is obligatory on one waking up from nocturnal sleep and not that of the day.

The reason for their disagreement in this is their dispute over the meaning of Abu Hurayra’s authentic tradition that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “When one of you wakes up from his sleep, let him wash his hand(s) before putting it into the water-can, for he does not know where his hand has spent the night”. In some versions it is said, “let him wash it thrice”. Those who did not see a contradiction between the additional requirement in this tradition and what is contained in the verse of ablution, interpreted the imperative word here in its apparent meaning of obligation (wujub) and (thus) rendered the washing of hands from among the obligations of ablution. Those, among them, who considered the word “during the night” (bayat) to imply nocturnal sleep, rendered it an obligation in the case of nocturnal sleep alone. Those who did not have a similar understanding of this, but understood from it sleep only, made it obligatory for all kinds of awakening from sleep, whether that of the day or night. Those who saw a conflict between the addition in this tradition and the verse of ablution—the apparent meaning in the verse of ablution being the enumeration of the obligations (furud) of ablution—reconcile the two by -shifting the apparent meaning, that is, obligation to mean recommendation (nadb). Those for whom this recommendation is emphatic (mdakkada) due to the Prophet’s persistent performance of this act, considered it a category of the sunan. Those for whom this recommendation was not emphatic, said it is from the category of mandub (recommended) only. For them the washing of hands in this manner is required even when they are undoubtedly clean, I mean, those who considered it emphatic sunna and also those who said it is recommended. Those, among them, who did not comprehend from this tradition an obligatory underlying cause, so as to deem it a category of the particular word implying generality, recommended it only for one waking up from sleep. Those who deduced from it the cause of doubt deemed it to be of the category of the particular word implying generality and considered it to apply to every person in doubt, for it is close to the state of arising from sleep.

This tradition apparently is not intended for the hukm of (washing of) hands in ablution, but is intended for the hukm of the water with which ablution is to be performed, as purity is a stipulated condition for such water. The report about the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) washing his hands most of the time before handling the utensil is probably applicable to the hukm that washing hands in the beginning is one of the acts of ablution. It is also likely that it is related to the hukm for water, as it should not be polluted or become doubtful (as to purity), that is, if we say that doubt is an effective factor.

The jurists differed about rinsing of the mouth (madmada) and snuffing (istinshaq). There are three opinions. First, that these practices are a sunna (emphatic recommendation) in ablution. This was the opinion of Malik, al- Shafi i, and Abu Hanifa. Second, that they are obligatory (fard) in ablution. This was the view of Ibn AbT Layla and some disciples of Abu Dawud. Third, that istinshdq is obligatory, while madmada is recommended (sunna). This was Ae opinion of Abu Thawr, Abu QJbayda, and of a group of Zahirites.

The reason for their disagreement, whether it is an obligation or a recommendation, is their dispute about the traditions reported on this issue, whether they amount to an addition over the verse of ablution, entailing a conflict. Those who considered that this addition, if deemed an obligation, conflicts with the verse—as the aim of the verse is to provide a foundation for this rule along with its explanation—shifted the implication of the traditions from the category of obligation to that of recommendation. Those who did not consider it as conflicting, assigned it its apparent meaning of obligation. Those for whom the authority of the Prophet’s sayings and acts is equal (in. strength), for purposes of assigning obligation, did not make a distinction between madmada and istinshaq. Those for whom a saying is interpreted as an obligation and an act as recommendation distinguished between madmada and istinshaq, as madmada has been reported through the acts of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) and not his command, while istinshaq is reported both from his commands and acts. The Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “When one of you performs wudu*, let him snuff up water into his nose and then let it out, while he who performs istinjd? (with stones) let him do it an odd number of times”. It is narrated by Malik in his al-Muwatta and by al-Bukhari in his Sahih from the tradition of Abu Hurayra.

The jurists agreed that washing of the whole face is one of the obligations of ablution, because of the words of the Exalted: “O ye who believe, when ye rise up for prayer, wash your faces”. They differed about this on three points; namely, washing of the hairless part of the face between the beard and the ears, washing of the whole length of the beard, and the takhlil of the beard (combing it with wet fingers).

The well-known opinion in Malik’s school is that the portion between the beard and the ears is not part of the face, though some Malikites maintain that it is. Some jurists make a distinction between a person who is still beardless and a person with a beard. Thus, in the school (Malik’s) there are three opinions. Abu HanTfa and al-Shafi T said that it is a part of the face. With respect to the length of the beard, Malik was of the opinion that it is obligatory that water flow on it, but it is not obligatory according to Abu HanTfa and also al-Shafi T in one of his two opinions. The reason for their disagreement over these two issues is the ambiguity of the term “face”. With respect to the takhlil of the beard, the opinion of Malik was that it is not obligatory. Abu HanTfa and al-Shafi T had a similar view. Ibn cAbd al-Hakam, one of Malik’s disciples, made it obligatory.

The reason for their disagreement is the controversy about the authenticity of narrated traditions containing the command for takhlil of the beard. The majority are of the view that they are not authentic and the narration in which the acts of the Prophet’s ablution are reported do not contain anything about takhlil of the beard.

The jurists agreed that the washing of the. hands and the forearms are from among the obligations of ablution because of the words of the Exalted, “O ye who believe, when ye rise up for prayer, wash your faces”. They disagreed about the inclusion of the elbows (in the forearms). The majority, Malik, al- Shafi T, and Abu HanTfa, considered their c inclusion as obligatory. Some of the Zahirites, later Malikites,' and al-TabarT were of the opinion that their inclusion in washing is not obligatory. The reason for their disagreement in this is the equivocality {ishtirdk) in the preposition ild (to, up to) and the term yadd (hand), in the language of the Arabs. The preposition ild sometimes denotes, in the usage of the Arabs, the limit (up to) and at other times gives the meaning of “with”. The word yadd (hand), in the usage of the Arabs, is applied to three meanings: the hand; hand and forearms; hand, forearm, and upper arm. Those who rendered ild as “with” or considered yadd as all three parts of the limb, deemed the inclusion, of elbows for washing as obligatory. Those who understood from ild the limit and from the term yadd whatever is lower than the elbows, and did not consider the limit as included in the defined category, did not include the elbows in washing. Muslim has reported in his Sahih that Abu Hurayra used to first wash his right hand till the beginning of the upper arm, then the left in the same manner, followed by the washing of the right foot till the beginning of the calf and then the washing of the left in the same manner. He (Abu Hurayra) then said: “That is how I saw the Prophet of Allah (God's peace and blessings be upon him) performing ablution”. This is the proof given by those who made obligatory the inclusion of the elbows in washing.

When a word vacillates between two meanings it is necessary that it should not be assigned either meaning except through another evidence, even though in the case of ild the meaning in the usage of the Arabs as being “limit” is more readily apparent than the meaning “with”, and even though the term yadd is used more often to include whatever is below the forearm rather than what is above it. Thus, the opinion of those who did not include it is preferable from the aspect of the literal indication, and the opinion of those who did include it is clearer from the aspect of the narrated tradition, unless the tradition is interpreted only as a recommendation {nadb), The issue is probable either way, as is obvious. Some say that if “limit” is from the same genus as the term, it is included in it, but if it is not from the same genus it is not included.

The jurists agreed that wiping {mash) of the head is one of the obligations of ablution. They differed about the extent (of wiping) required. Malik said that it is obligatory to wipe the whole of it (the head). Al-Shafi(T, some followers of Malik, and Abu HanTfa said that it is obligatory to wipe a part of it. Some followers of Malik defined the minimum part to be a third, while others defined it as two-thirds. Abu HanTfa, on the other hand, limited it to a fourth, and he also defined the part of the hand with which it is to be wiped as a fourth. He said, “Its wiping with less than three fingers is insufficient”. Al- Shafi'T did not fix a limit for either.

The basis of this disagreement is due to the equivocality {ishtirdk) that is in (the particle) bd, in the usage of the Arabs. It is sometimes used as a mere addition for emphasis - as in the words of the Exalted, “tanbut bPdduhn?'?* according to one who read “tunbitu” with a damrna for “z” and kasra for bd from the root anbata. At other times, the particle bd indicates the idea of a portion, as in the sentence “akhadhtu bi tha'wbihi wa bi ^adudih (I held him [grabbed him] bi [by] his garment and his forearm)”. There is no purpose in denying this, that is, the fact that bd may convey the idea of “a portion of’. This is the opinion of the KufT school of grammar {nahw). Those who considered it superfluous have deemed obligatory the wiping of the entire head. Superfluous here means that it is added only for emphasis. Those who considered bd as indicating apportionment have deemed obligatory the wiping of only a part of the head. Those who preferred this meaning have argued on the basis of the tradition of al-Mughira that “the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) performed ablution wiping his forehead and turban”. It is reported by Muslim. If we accept that bd is superfluous, there still remains another probability, whether the obligation relates to the front part of names (like head) or to the back part.

The jurists agreed that the obligation in ablution is to wash each washable limb once, one after the other, soaking these parts with water. Washing each (limb) twice or thrice is recommended {mandub) for it is authentically reported that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) performed ablution washing each (limb) once. On another occasion he washed twice, and on yet another occasion he was seen washing them thrice. The command, however, does not require washing each limb more than once, that is, the command laid down in the verse of wudu>.

They differed about the merit in repeating the wiping of the head. Al- Shafi(T was of the opinion that the person who washes his other limbs three times should preferably wipe his head thrice. The majority of the jurists saw no merit in repeating the mash. The reason for their disagreement (here) lies in their dispute over the acceptance of the addition contained in one tradition coming down through a single chain. The majority of the jurists do not use such a tradition. Most of the other traditions relating that he (the Prophet) washed thrice, including that related through Uthman and others, state that he wiped only once. In some narrations from Uthman, however, that describe the wudu* of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) it is stated that he (the Prophet) wiped his head thrice. Al-Shafici emphatically supported accepting this excess on the basis of the apparent generality of the narrations that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) performed wudt? repeating his acts twice and thrice. The generality, here, even though it arises from the word of a Companion is assigned to all the limbs in ablution. This addition, though, is not in the two Sahihs. If proved authentic it (the narration) must be followed, as that which fails to mention a thing cannot be a proof against that which does mention it. The majority of the jurists made obligatory the renewal of water for wiping on the analogy of the other limbs. It is narrated from Ibn Majishun that he said, “If the water is exhausted he may wipe with the moisture on his beard”. This is the preference of Ibn Habib, Malik and al-ShafiT.

It is recommended in the performance of mash that one begin with the forehead, passing the hands over the top up to the nape of the neck, and then bringing them (to the point) where he started. This is stated in the reliable tradition of cAbd Allah Ibn Zayd al-Thabit. Some of the jurists preferred that one begin with the back of the head. This too is narrated from the description of the ablution of the Prophet from the tradition of al-Rubayyic bint Mu'awwidh, except that it is not found in the Sahihayn.

The jurists disagreed about (the sufficiency of) mash over the turban (alone). This was permitted by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Abu Thawr, al-Qasim, Ibn Sallam and some others. It was prohibited by another group and by Malik, al-ShafiT, and Abu Harnfa. Their disagreement arises from their dispute about the validity of acting upon the tradition related by al-MughTra and others “that he [the Prophet] (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) performed mash on his forehead and on his turban, and also upon the analogy of [the mash of] boots. It is for this reason that most of them stipulated that it be worn in a clean condition.35 This tradition was rejected by some, either because it was deemed onauthentic by them or because the apparent meaning in the Qurian contradicted it, in their opinion, that is, the command in it about the mash of the head, or because it was not widely accepted in practice. This is according to those who require widespread practice for matters reported through individual traditions, particularly in Medina, as is known about the school of Malik, who stipulated widespread practice as a condition. The hadith is reported by Muslim. Abu TJmar Ibn Abd al-Barr said that it is a defective tradition. In some of its versions the wiping of the turban alone is mentioned, while that of the forehead is not. It is for this reason that some jurists did not stipulate with the wiping* of the turban the wiping of the forehead as well, as the original requirement and its substitute cannot be combined together.

They (the jurists) disagreed about the wiping of the ears whether it is recommended (sunna) or an obligation (farida), and whether the water is to be renewed. Some said it is obligatory and that water is to be renewed for (wiping) them. Those who expressed this opinion are a group from among Malik’s followers, as he considered the ears a part of the head. Abu HanTfa and his followers considered their wiping as obligatory, and said that they are to be wiped along with the head with the same water. Al-ShafiT considered their wiping as a sunna and stipulated the renewal of water for them. This opinion was held by another group of Malik’s followers and they maintained that it is Malik’s opinion, because it is narrated that he said “their hukm is the same as the hukm of madmada”. The disagreement—whether wiping of the ears is recommended or an obligation—stems from the controversy about the traditions transmitted on this issue, that is, the wiping of the ears by the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) whether it is an addition over what exists in the Qur’an about the wiping of the head. Its hukm then is that it is a recommendation due to the conflict between it and the verse, if it is interpreted as an obligation. If, however, it is considered an explanation of an unelaborated word in the Qur’an, its hukm becomes the hukm already existing for the head, that is, obligatory. Thus those who considered it obligatory deem it an explanation of the difficult (mujmal) word in the Qur’an, while those who did not consider it obligatory deem it an addition, as in the case of madmada. There are many traditions transmitted on this issue. Though they are not included in the two Sahihs, practice has become common according to these traditions. With respect to the disagreement about the renewal of water for the ears, the cause is the vacillation of The term “ears”, whether they are considered independent limbs for purposes of ablution or whether .they form part of the head. One group gave a distinct opinion that they are to be washed with the face while another considered that the inside of the ears is to be wiped with the head and the outer parts to be washed with the face. The reason is their being equipoised between being part of the face or head. All this has no real significance in view of the common traditions about their mash and its widespread practice. Al-Shafi T considers the repeated wiping of the ears as being recommended/ as he does in the case of wiping of the head.

The jurists agreed that the feet are limbs that are the object of ablution, but they differed about the method of purification required for them. A group of jurists, and these are the majority, said that their purity is attained by washing. Another group said that the obligation in their case is wiping. And yet another group said that their purity is achieved through either way; it depends upon the choice of the worshipper.

The reason for disagreement is based upon two well-known readings of the verse of wudu>, that is, the reading of those who read the word “feet” as the object of washing with a nasb (accusative; final vowel d) in conjunction with limbs washed, and those who read it with a khafd (final vowel i) in conjunction with parts wiped. The reading with a nasb clearly indicates washing, while reading it with a khafd evidently indicates wiping. Those who held that the obligation is specifically for one of these two types of purity, determined as washing or wiping, preferred one reading over the other, disposing of, by interpretation, the meaning of the other reading in favour of the reading that was preferable for them. Those who believed that the obvious implications of both readings were equal, and that one of these did not have a stronger indication than the other, rendered it as a wajib mukhayyar (obligation with a choice), like expiation for breaking an oath. This was the opinion of al-Tabari and Dawud. The majority, however, have numerous ways of interpreting away the reading with a khafd, and the best of these is that the conjunction here elates to the pronounced form of the word, which is found in Arab usage.

The other party, and they are those who made wiping obligatory, interpreted the nasb reading as being a conjunction related to the position of the immediately preceding word introduced by the genitive particle, which is Kke the direct object of the verb. The majority preferred this reading of theirs (*n the accusative case) on the basis of reports established from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) when he said about people who did not wash their feet, “Woe to the heels in the fire”? They said that this indicates that washing of the feet is an obligation, as an obligation is that to which punishment is linked for non-observance. There is, however, no legal force in this; the warning was issued here about the people who chose to wash their feet but not their heels.38 There is no doubt that those who made washing obligatory, made it so for the feet in their entirety, while those who made wiping obligatory, did so for the feet in their entirety, as did those who granted a choice in the two obligations. This may also be supported by what is related in a tradition, also recorded by Muslim, where it is said that “We began wiping our feet, when he [the Prophet] proclaimed, ‘Woe to the heels in the fire’ ”, This tradition, though it has been the practice to argue through it for the denial of wiping, is stronger in the indication of its permissibility rather than its prohibition, as the warning was issued for the neglect of completion and not for the type of tahara\ in fact, it is silent as to the type, which indicates their permissibility. The permissibility of wiping is also related from some of the Companions and the Tabi un, but by way of implication.

c Washing is more suitable for the feet than is wiping, just as wiping is more suitable for the head than is washing, as the dirt on the feet is usually not eliminated except by washing, while the dirt on the head is usually removed by wiping. Rational interests (masdlih) are probably not applicable as causes for obligatory acts of worship, and the law has, therefore, recognized both meanings in them: a meaning securing an interest and an ^ibddi (ritual) meaning requiring obedience. 1 mean by maslahi that which relates to the senses, and I mean by ^ibddi that which pertains to the purification of the self (nafs).

Likewise, those jurists, who permitted wiping, differed about whether ankles are to be included in wiping or washing. The disagreement stems from the equivocality of the preposition Hid (up to), that is, in the words of the Exalted, “up to the ankles”. The discussion of the equivocality found in -this word has preceded in the discussion of the words of the Exalted, “up to the elbows”. The equivocality there was from two aspects, because of the word yadd and the word 47a while here it is due to the equivocality of the word Hid alone.

They disagreed about the connotation of the term ka'b, because of the equivocality of the word ka<b and the disagreement of language experts about its connotation. It is said that they are the two bones at the knot of the straps of the sandals, while it is also said that they are the two protruding bones on the sides of the (lower) calf. There is no dispute, as far as I know, about then’ inclusion in washing, according to those who maintain that they are the bones at the knot of the straps, for they are indeed parts of the foot. It is for this reason that one group has said that if the defining limit is of the same category as the defined part, it is included in its ambit, that is, the thing introduced by the words “up to”. If, however, it does not fall under the same category as the defined term, it is not covered by it, as in the words of the Exalted, “Then strictly observe the fast till [up to] nightfall”.

They disagreed about the observance of a sequence in the acts of ablution as arranged in the verse. One group of jurists said that it (following the sequence) is a sunna (recommended). This is what is related by the later disciples of Malik from the opinions in the school. It was also upheld by Abu Hanifa, al- ThawrT, and Dawud. Another group of jurists said that it is an obligation, which was the opinion of Al-ShafiT, Ahmad, and Abu TJbayd. All this is about the sequence of the obligatory acts (of ablution) in relation to each other. As to the sequential ordering of the obligatory acts with recommended acts, it is regarded by Malik as commendable (mustahabb), while Abu Hanifa considered it to be a sunna (i.e. it should be acted upon as a sunna).

There are two reasons for their disagreement. First is the equivocality that arises from the conjunction waw (and), as the conjunction is sometimes achieved through it in a sequential order, while at other times it is without such order. This is indicated through induction in the usage of the Arabs. On this point the grammarians are divided into two groups. The grammarians of Basra said that the waw does not indicate an order or a sequence, it merely implies a connection of the words joined by it. The Kufis said that it does indicate an order as well as a sequence. Those who maintained that the bmw in the verse implies order, upheld the obligation of a sequence, while those who maintained that it does not imply a sequence, did not uphold its obligation. The second reason is based upon their difference related to the acts of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), whether they are to be construed as an obligation or a recommendation. Those who interpreted them as obligatory, upheld the obligation of a sequence, as it is not related from him that he ever performed ablution without a definite sequence. Those who interpreted them to imply a recommendation said that sequential performance ls a sunna. Those who made a distinction between acts prescribed as a sunna a nd as an obligation said that obligatory sequential ordering has to be in acts that are obligatory, but those who did not make such a distinction said that obligatory conditions may apply even to acts that are not obligatory.

They disagreed about the (obligation of) continuous performance of the acts of ablution (without uncalled-for intervals between them). Malik held that continuous performance is an obligation, when the acts are remembered along with the ability to perform them, relaxed only because of forgetfulness, or when they are remembered but there is a valid excuse, and the interval is not excessive. Al-Shafi T and Abu HanTfa c said that continuous performance is not an obligation of ablution. The reason for disagreement is again the equivocality of the wdw y as the conjunction sometimes applies to adjacent things following each other, while at other times it applies to acts delayed with respect to others.

A group of jurists argued for-the suspension of continuous performance on the basis of what is established from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) that he occasionally performed ablution, and used to delay the washing of his feet till sometime later. The disagreement over this issue also arises from the interpretation of (following) these acts (of the Prophet) as an obligation or a recommendation.

Malik made a distinction on the basis of intention and forgetfulness; the principle applying to the person who forgets is that he is excused, unless evidence to the contrary is established, because of the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “Liability for mistake and forgetfulness is removed from my umma”. Similarly, a valid excuse, as is obvious from the dictates of the law, is effective in obtaining a concession.

A group of jurists said that invoking the name of Allah at the beginning is an obligatory part of ablution. They argued for this on the basis of the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), through a marfiF tradition: “There is no wudi? for the person who has not proclaimed the name of Allah”. This tradition has not been proved authentic according to the traditionists. Others have interpreted it as implying niyya while some, as far as I know, have construed it as a recommendation.

These are the widely known principal issues in this topic (of ablution). They relate, as we have seen, either to the description of the acts of this ritual purification, or to the determination of their positions in relation to each other, or to the identification of the conditions and elements, and to all the rest that has been said.