The Distinguished Jurists Primer by Ibn Rushd

The basis for the obligation of purification with water are the words of the Exalted, “And (He) sends down water from the sky upon you, that thereby He might purify you”,44 and His words, “.. . and then ye find not water, then go to high clean soil and rub your faces and your hands (therewith)”.45

The jurists agreed that all kinds of water are pure in themselves, purifying other things, except for the water of the sea, about which there was some disagreement in the first period. They (the dissenters) are defeated by the fact that sea-water is included within the unqualified use of the term “water” and also by the tradition recorded by Malik, which is the saying of the Prophet, “Its water is pure, and its dead creatures are lawful”. Although, this is a tradition whose authenticity is disputed, the law apparently supports it.

The jurists, similarly, agreed about things that alter the water and that are normally found in it (or that are not normally separated from it, like green moss), do not usurp its purification and the quality of purifying, except for slight disagreement recounted about stagnant water by Ibn Sirin, whose opinion here is also rejected on the ground that the absolute use of the term “water” applies to stagnant water as well. They agreed about water that has been altered by impurity with respect to taste, colour, or smell, or with respect to more than one of these qualities, that it is not permitted for purposes of ablution or purification. They agreed that water in large quantities is not defiled by impurities that do not alter one of its (mentioned) qualities, and that it remains pure.

This is what they agreed upon in this topic, but they disagreed about six issues that are like rules and principles of the topic.

They disagreed about water that contains impurities, but where none of its attributes is altered. One group of jurists said that it is pure irrespective of large or small quantities. This is one of the narrations from Malik and is also upheld by the Zahirites. Another group made a distinction between water in large and small quantities, saying that if there is little of it, it is impure and if there is much of it, it is not. They disagreed then about the demarcation separating small from large quantities (of water). Abu HanTfa’s opinion is that a large quantity of water is that in which a ripple caused by a person at one end does not reach the other side. According to al-ShafiT the limit is the fill of two qullas (containers), which weigh about five hundred rati (pounds). Some jurists did not impose any limit, though they held that impurities defile water in small quantities, even if its attributes are not changed. This is related from Malik. It is also related that such water is riot defiled, but that its use is undesirable. Thus, there are three opinions from Malik about the use of small Quantities of water in which small impure objects have been dropped. First, that it has thus been defiled, or it has been rendered unusable. Second, that it has not been defiled, so long as its attributes have not changed. Third, that its use is reprehensible.

The reason for disagreement here is based upon the conflict of the apparent meanings of traditions recounted on this matter. In the preceding tradition of Abu Hurayra—“When one of you wakes up from sleep”—the apparent meaning is that a small amount of impurity defiles a small amount of water. Similarly, in the tradition of Abu Hurayra established form the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) where he said, “No one should urinate in standing water and then use it for washing”, from the apparent meaning of w hich it is understood that a small amount of impurity soils a small quantity of water. So also the proscription of washing in still water by the person who has acquired a major impurity. This is opposed to the implications of the tradition Anas, which reports: “A bedouin went to the side of the mosque to relieve l mself, and the people shouted at him. The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace an d blessings be upon him) said, ‘Leave him alone’. After the man had relieved himself the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) ordered a pitcher of water to be poured over his urine”. This tradition indicates through its apparent meaning that a minor impurity does not defile a small quantity of water, as it is obvious that this spot became clean with a pitcher of water. There is also the tradition of Abu SaTd al-Khudri, recorded by Abu Dawud. He said, “I heard the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) being asked whether the water of the well of Buda<a could be used, and it was a well in which dog flesh, menstrual clothes, and dirt were cast. The Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Nothing defiles water’”.

The jurists attempted to reconcile all these traditions, but they differed in their methods of reconciliation and, therefore, their opinions differed. Those who decided to uphold the apparent meaning of the traditions of Anas about the bedouin and of Abu SaTd maintained that the two traditions of Abu Hurayra should not be subjected to rationalization;46 and compliance with what they maintain is a mode of worship, and the fact that the water had become unusable does not mean that it had become impure. The Zahirites exaggerated and went so far as to say that if a person were to pour urine into the water from a bowl, washing and ablution with it would not be considered reprehensible. Thus, those who held this opinion reconciled the traditions in this way. Those who considered the use of a small amount of water, which had some impurities dropped in it, as undesirable, also reconciled the traditions by construing the traditions of Abu Hurayra to imply mere undesirability, and interpreted the tradition of the bedouin (incident) and the tradition of Abu SaTd in their literal meaning, that is, validity (in the use of the water).

Al-ShafiT and Abu Harnfa reconciled the traditions of Abu Hurayra and Abu SaTd, applying the two traditions of Abu Hurayra to small quantities of water and the tradition of Abu SaTd to huge amounts. Al-ShafiT maintained that the solution for this that reconciles all the traditions is related in the tradition of cAbd Allah ibn ‘Umar from his father, recorded by Abu Dawud and al-TirmidhT and declared as authentic by Abu Muhammad ibn Haznx <Umar said: “The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) was asked about water and about the leftovers of beasts of prey and other animals. He [the Prophet] said, “If the water is more than two qullahs it does not retain impurity’ ”. Abu HanTfa maintained that the solution can be arrived at through analogy (reasoning). He connected the spreading of impurities in the water with the movement of water. If the quantity of water is so much that impurity cannot be conceived to move throughout it by a stir caused in the water then the water is pure. Yet, the implication of the well-known tradition of the bedouin story appears to oppose those who hold these two opinions (i.e. the opinions of al-ShaficT and Abu HanTfa). For this reason the Shaficites were constrained to distinguish between pouring water over impurities and dropping impurities in the water itself. They said that if it is poured over an impurity, as in the tradition about the bedouin, it does not remain impure, but if impurities are cast into the water, as in Abu Hurayra’s tradition, it does. The majority of the jurists said that this is an arbitrary opinion. Yet, it does have a basis if pondered over carefully, because the jurists unanimously agree that a small amount of impurity does not affect a large amount of water, when the quantity of water is such that the impurity is not likely to spread through all its parts, and its essence would stand dissolved in such large amounts of water. In that case, it is not unlikely that if a small amount of impurity is dropped in a certain quantity of water it can get dissolved and spread throughout it, making it impure. If the same water were, instead, to be slowly poured over impurities, the essence of such impurity would gradually go and completely disappear before the disappearance of the water. In this way the last part of the water would have purified the defiled spot, as its ratio to what is left of the filth over which it is poured is the same as that of a large amount of water to a small amount of impurity. It is in this manner that certainty is attained about the disappearance of impurity, that is, by the falling of the last part of pure water on what remains of the essence of the impurity. For this reason they agreed that the amount of water with which ablution can be performed can purify a drop of urine falling on clothes of the body, but they disagreed when a drop falls into the same (little) amount of water.

The best view, in my opinion, is that of reconciliation, which interprets the traditions of Abu Hurayra, and those having the same implication, to mean abomination, and the traditions of Abu SaTd and Anas to imply Permissibility. Such an interpretation retains the obvious meaning of the Editions, I mean, the traditions of Abu Hurayra, with their aim of indicating the effect of impurity on water. The definition of abomination, in my view, is what a person would naturally shy away from, and would consider to be filthy. hus > whatever a person refrains from drinking, he must avoid using in attaining nearness to Allah Almighty, and he should refrain from spilling over ls outer body what he refrains from pouring within.

The argument of those who maintain that if the principle that a small amount of impurity defiles a small amount of water is upheld, water would theCr a^e t0 purify anyone (or anythin5)j claim that the object outside Water that is intended to be purified would always make the water filthy, is opinion that has no validity, though many later jurists have found it (this P nion) to be appealing. This is because of the explanation we have given about the ratio of the last part of water poured over the last part of impurity remaining at a spot as being the same as a large amount of water to a small quantity of impurity. We know certainly that large amounts of water dissolve the impurity and convert its essence to purity. The jurists, therefore, agreed that a small amount of impurity does not defile a large amount of water. If the person washing continuously pours water on the impure spot or on an impure limb, the water will necessarily remove the impurity because of its excess, whether the large amount of water is poured over impurity all at once or slowly in parts. These jurists, thus, argued on the basis of a unanimously agreed point for a matter that is disputed without realizing it. The two points are wide apart.

This is what seems appropriate to us in this issue based on the differences of the jurists in this, and through the preference of their opinions. If we were to follow this method in each issue, our opinion, we feel, would become lengthy and would tax time. As a precaution, we should stay with our original purpose, which we determined for ourselves, and if Allah Almighty were to make things easy and we have ample life, this aim will be met too.

Water in which saffron or other things of which water is often free, are mixed, altering one of its attributes, is pure according to all the jurists, but loses its power to purify according to Malik and al-ShafiT It purifies according to Abu HanTfa as long as the change (in attributes) is not achieved through heating. The reason for disagreement stems from the understanding of the absolute term “water” as applied to such mixed water. Those who held that water so mixed is not covered by the unqualified term water, but is described by the things added, such as “the water of such and such thing”, did not allow ablution with it, as ablution is to be performed with unadulterated water. Those who said that the term water still applies to water so mixed, allowed ablution with it. For the obvious inapplicability of the term to water heated with a non-polluted thing, they did not permit ablution with it; similarly, they did not permit it in the case of water extracted from vegetation, except for what is recorded in the book of Ibn Shahan about the permissibility of using rose-water in the jumu'a washing. The truth is that the verdict depends upon the quantities of the additives. With excessive mixing, the water may reach a state where the absolute term for water will not apply t0 it and will acquire a qualifying term, like the term bath water; or it may not reach such a state, especially when it is only the smell that has been altered. It is for this reason that some jurists did not take smell into account when prohibiting mixed water. The Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) is reported to have said to Umm cAtiyya, when she was about to bathe his (dead) daughter, “Bathe her with water and sidr (lotus), and in the last course of washing add some camphor”. This is mixed water, but the mixture did not reach a state where it would negate the absolute term for water. Malik, basing his judgment on the intensity of the mixture, made a distinction between weak and strong mixtures. He permitted weak mixtures, even when the attributes of the water were altered, but did not permit it in strong ones.

The jurists disagreed about water (already) used for purification and held three opinions. A group of jurists did not permit its use in purification under any circumstances, which is the opinion of al-ShaficT and Abu HanTfa. Another group considered it undesirable, but did not permit tayammum when it existed, which is the view of Malik and his disciples. A group of jurists did not find any difference between this water and water in its absolute meaning, which was the opinion of Abu Thawr, Dawud, and his disciples. Abu Yusuf deviated from all this and said that it is impure.

The reason for disagreement here also arises from the question of whether it is included in the unqualified term for water; some went as far as saying that the term bath-water is more appropriate for it than the term water. The Companions of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) used to compete for the excess left over from the ablution of the Prophet, and it is obvious that some drops of the water used would fall into the utensil that contained the surplus.

On the whole, it is absolute water and does not end up with changed attributes through the dirt of the limbs that are washed with it, but if it is sullied, then its hukm is the same as that of water one of whose attributes has changed with something pure, though it is something repelling by nature; this is what was taken into account by those who considered it abominable. As for one who considered it filthy, there is no evidence to support him.

The jurists agreed about the purity of the leftovers of Muslims and cattle, but J he? disagreed extensively about other categories. Some believed that the e ^°ver of every animal is pure, while others made an exception in the case of SWlne alone. These two views are related from Malik. Some jurists made an excePtion in the case of swine and dogs, which is al-Shafi Fs opinion. Some c ai deluded the beasts of prey generally, which is Ibn al-Qasim’s opinion. Others Jp ntained that leftovers of animals are subservient to the hukm of (their) flesh; I hc A sh is prohibited the leftover is impure, if the flesh is abominable the e over is abominable too, but if the flesh is permissible the leftover is pure. t0 the leftover of an idolater, it is said that it is impure, while it is said that it is abominable only if he drinks khamr (wine), which is Ibn al-Qasinf. opinion. The same is the case for him of all animals that do not normally avok filth, like filth-consuming wild hens, camels, and dogs.

Their disagreement is based on three points. First is the conflict of analog) with the obvious meaning of the Book. Second is its conflict with the literal meaning of the traditions. The third is the conflict of the traditions among themselves.

The point that death resulting without slaughter is legally the cause oi impurity of the animal’s carcass provides the basis for the analogy that life must be the basis for the purity of the body of the animal. If this is the case, then each living thing is pure, and whatever is pure its leftover must also be pure. The apparent meaning of the Book opposes this analogy in the case of swine and polytheists, as Allah, the Exalted, has said about swine, “swine­ flesh—for that verily is foul”,47 and that which is filthy in its essence is also impure. Thus, one group of jurists have excluded only swine from all living animals, while those who do not exclude it interpret the verse to imply derogation for it. As to the polytheists, the words of the Exalted are, “0 ye who believe! The idolaters are unclean. So let them not come near the Inviolable Place of Worship”.48 Those who interpreted this too in its literal sense excluded the idolaters from the implication of the analogy, while those who considered this to be merely derogatory for them reimposed the requirement of analogy.

The traditions conflicted with the analogy about dogs, cats, and beasts of prey. The tradition about the dog is Abu Hurayra’s, which is agreed upon for its authenticity, and it is the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “If a dog licks a utensil belonging to one of you, he should purify it by washing it seven times”. In some of its versions it says, “The first time with dust”, and in others, “Cover it the eighth time with dust”. With respect to the cat it is the tradition related by Qurra from Ibn Sirin from Abu Hurayra, who said, “The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, ‘The purification of a utensil, when a cat has licked it, is to wash it once or twice’”. Qurra is a trustworthy narrator according to the traditionists. About the beasts of prey is the preceding tradition of Ibn ^mar from his father, who said, “that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) was asked about water and about the leftover of beasts of prey and other animals. He said, ‘If the water is more than two qullahs rt does not retain impurity’”.

A conflicting tradition in this topic is the report from the Prophet (Gods peace and blessings be upon him) “that he was asked about the ponds between Mecca and Medina frequented by dogs and beasts of prey. He said, ‘To them belongs what they carry in their bellies, and for you is what is left, a drink that is pure’ ”. Similar to this is TJmar’s tradition that was related by Malik in his which is the saying, “O owner of the pond, let’s know not, for we follow up the beasts of prey arid they follow us”. Further, there is the tradition of Qatada, also related by Malik, “that Kabsha poured out water for his ablution and a cat came to drink from it. He tilted the utensil for it until it drank from it. He then said, ‘The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said that it is not unclean. It is one of those (creatures) that move among you’”. The jurists differed about the interpretation of these traditions and about their reconciliation with the stated analogy.

Malik held the view that the leftover of a dog is to be spilled and the utensil is to be washed, as it is a ritual act of non-rational worship, for the water it has lapped up is not unclean. He did not require, according to the widely known opinion from him, the spilling of things other than water, which a dog had licked. The reason, as we have said, is the conflict with analogy according to him. He also believed that if it is to be understood from the tradition that a dog is unclean, it opposes the apparent meaning of the Book, that is, the words of the Exalted, “So eat of what they catch for you”,49 meaning thereby that if it had been unclean the prey would have become unclean by its touch. He supported this interpretation by the required number of washings, as number ,s not a condition in the washing of unclean things. He held that this washing is merely an act of worship. He did not rely on the remaining traditions as they were weak in his view.

Al~Shafi T excluded the dog alone from all living animals maintaining that c the literal meaning of the tradition implies the impurity of its leftover. He e d, I think, that the uhcleanliness lies in its saliva and not in the dog itself, u HanTfa believed that the meaning of all these traditions laid down about e Uncleanliness of the leftover of beasts of prey, cats, and dogs relates to the Prohibition of their flesh (for eating). This pertains to the rule of a particular yeaning intended generally. He said that the leftovers are dependent upon the . ukm of the) flesh of the animal.

0T ne jurists excluded from this a dog, cat, and beast of prey in conformity left ^tera^ mean* S of the related traditions, while some deemed the n over of the dog and cat as pure, excluding only the beast of prey. (They are d clean) the leftover of the dog (considered unclean) because of the number of washings, as that is opposed by the obvious meaning of the Book, and also because of its conflict with Qatadah’s tradition; if the underlying reason for the cleanliness of the cat is its moving around among people, then the dog does so too. With respect to the cat, (they declared it clean) by deciding to prefer Abu Qatada’s tradition over the tradition of Qurra from Ibn Sirin, and by preferring Ibn ‘Umar’s tradition over that of ‘Umar and of others that convey the same meaning, because of its conflict with Abu Qatada’s tradition through the (indirect) indication of the text, that is, when the underlying reason for the cleanliness of the cat is its moving among people; it is to be understood from that that the leftovers of those (beasts) that do not move among people, namely the beasts of prey, is prohibited. Among those who held this opinion is Ibn al-Qasim.

Abu HanTfa upheld, as we have said, the uncleanliness of the leftover of a dog, and did not deem the number to be a condition for the purification of the utensil licked by the dog, as this is opposed, in his view, by analogy arising from the washing of unclean things, that is the point considered here is the removal of the filth alone. This conforms with his practice of rejecting individual narrations when they are opposed to the principles.

The QadT (Ibn Rushd) said, “He thus used a part of the traditions and did not employ others; I mean, he used those that did not conflict with the principles, and did not use those that clashed with the principles. He supported this with the assertion that this was the opinion of Abu Hurayra, who had narrated the tradition. These, then, are the factors that moved the fuqaha* to have such extensive disagreements on this issue and led them to dispute their implications. The issue is ratiocinative (ijtihddiya) and it is difficult to prefer some opinions over others. Perhaps, it is preferable to exclude from the purity of the leftovers those of the dog, swine, and the polytheist, because of the authenticity of the traditions about the dog, and also because it is better to adopt the obvious meaning of the Book, as against analogy, in maintaining the uncleanliness (of the leftovers) of swine and polytheists; similarly, the obvious meaning of the tradition. This is the opinion of the majority of the fuqahd\ that is, maintaining the uncleanliness of the leftover of the dog. The directive of spilling of what has been licked by the dog is based on ikhdla (reasoned conviction: mukhil) and is compatible (mundsib) with the law, because of the uncleanliness of the water that has been touched, I mean, that the usual implication of the law in requiring the spilling of a thing and of washing the utensil is usually on account of the uncleanliness of the thing. About the objection raised by them that had this been due to the uncleanliness of the thing the number of washings would not have been stipulated, it cannot be denied that the law may single out some form of pollution from others assigning it a different hukm, because of the intensity of the contamination • The Qadi (Ibn Rushd) said: “My grandfather, may Allah have mercy on him, ruled in the book al-Muqaddimdt that this tradition has a rational underlying cause, which is not related to uncleanliness, but is based on the likelihood that the dog licking the utensil is rabid, and the [viral] infection is to be feared. He said that it is for this reason that this number of seven has been laid down for its washing. This number has been used on many occasions in the law in relation to the treatment and medication for illnesses. What he expressed, may Allah have mercy on him, is an outstanding view conforming with the method of the Malikites. If we say that this water is not unclean, it is better to provide a rational underlying reason rather than saying that it is non- rational when water in itself is clean. Some people raised an* objection to this, according to what has reached me, saying that a rabid dog does not go near water when it has hydrophobia. What they said is true when this canine illness has reached serious proportions, but it is not so when it is in its early stages. Their objection, therefore, has no foundation. Further, the tradition does not talk about water, and only the utensil has been mentioned. Perhaps, there is in its leftover some characteristic of a harmful nature, I mean, before rabies has reached more serious proportions. Such prescriptions in the law cannot be denied. Of a similar nature is the tradition about a fly falling on food, that it is to be immersed completely (and then thrown out). The underlying reason is that there is a disease in one of its wings, while in the other there is its antidote:

The opinion in Malik’s school that the reference in the tradition concerning the dog’s licking relates only to a dog whose taking as a pet is forbidden, or that it is a street dog, is weak and remote from this cause, unless the claimant w ere to say that by this is meant a proscription of its restraining [as a pet]”.

The jurists disagreed about the leftovers from purification expressing five °Pmions. One group held that the leftovers of purification are clean absolutely (and purifying). This is the opinion of Malik, al-Shafi T, and Abu HanTfa. c Another group said that it is not permitted for a man to purify himself with leftover of a woman, but it is permitted for a woman to purify herself with the leftover of a man. A third group said that it is permitted for a man to Purify himself with the leftover of a woman as long as she is not sexually ^efiled or menstruating. The fourth group maintained that it is not permitted Or either one of them to undertake purification with the surplus water of the ot her, unless they started using it at the same time. Another group said that it not permitted even if they commenced at the same time, which is Ahmad 1 n Hanbal’s opinion.

The reason for disagreement is based upon the differences in the relevant traditions. There are four related traditions about this. First, the tradition that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) used to wash away major ritual impurities along with his wives using the same utensil. Second, the tradition of Maymuna that he washed with the surplus left by his wife. Third, the tradition of al-Hakam al-Ghifari that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited the ablution by a man with the surplus left by a woman; this is recorded by Abu Dawud and al-TirmidhT. Fourth is the tradition of cAbd Allah ibn Sarjas, who said, “The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited that a man may wash with the surplus left by a woman, or that a woman may wash with the surplus left by a man, unless they commence at the same time”. The jurists adopted two kinds of methods for the interpretation of these traditions: a method of preference, and a method of reconciling some and' preferring others.

Some jurists preferred the tradition about the Prophet’s bathing along with his wives, drawing from the same vessel, over the rest of the traditions, for it was a tradition agreed upon by the compilers of the sahth traditions, and because there was no distinction in their view between bathing at the same time or bathing with the surplus left by others. This is because bathing at the same time means that each is bathing with the surplus left by the other person, and further, because the tradition of Maymuna proved authentic along with this tradition, and was preferred over .the tradition of al-Ghifari. They, therefore, maintained the absolute purity of the leftovers of purification. Those who preferred the tradition of al-Ghifari over the tradition of Maymuna, which is the opinion of Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm, reconciled the tradition of al-Ghifari with the tradition about the Prophet’s bathing along with his wives, drawing from the same vessel. They also made a distinction between bathing together while drawing from the same vessel and bathing with a surplus left by the other. Thus, acting upon these two traditions alone, they permitted a man to undertake purification along with a woman drawing from the same vessel, and permitted her to purify herself with a surplus left by him; however, they did not permit him to do so with a surplus left over from her purification.

Those who used the method of reconciliation of all the traditions, except for the tradition of Maymuna, adopted the tradition of cAbd Allah ibn Sarjas, f°r it is possible to accommodate the tradition of al-Ghifari within it. So also the tradition of the Prophet bathing along with his wives, drawing from the same vessel. There is, however, an addition to it, which is that a woman also should not undertake purification with the surplus left over by a man. Further, it lS opposed by Maymuna’s tradition, which is recorded by Muslim. Yet some jurists have found a defect in it as some of its narrators used (doubting) statements like “I think” or “to the best of my knowledge, Abu al-Shactha related to me (such and such)”. Those who did not permit either one of them to undertake purification with the leftover of the other nor allowed them to commence at the same time did so, perhaps, because the only tradition reaching them was that of al-Hakam al-Ghifari. They, therefore, drew an analogy for a man from the case of the woman. I have no knowledge of the argument of those who prohibited only the left over of a woman who is sexually defiled or is menstruating, except that it is related from someone in the early generation, I believe from Ibn TJmar.

Abu HanTfa, in an opinion opposed by his disciples and all the jurists of the regions, permitted ablution with the nabidh of dates during a journey on the basis of the tradition of Ibn cAbbas, which says: “Ibn Mascud went out with the Messenger of Allah on the night of the jinn and the Messenger of Allah asked him, ‘Do you have any water?’ He said, ‘I have nabidh in my container’. The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, ‘Pour out some’. He (the Prophet) performed ablution with it saying, Tt is a beverage and a purifying element’”. He also quoted the tradition of Abu Rafic, the client of Ibn TJmar, derived from Ibn Macud—which is almost the same—as follows: The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “It is good; fruit and purifying water”. They also claimed that this opinion is attributed to Companions like cAIi and Ibn cAbbas, and as there was no other Companion opposing them it amounted to a consensus. The traditionists, however, rejected this tradition because of the weak line of narrators (in its isndd). Furthermore, more reliable channels have related that Ibn Mas ud was not with the Messenger c of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) on the night of the jinn. The majority rejected this tradition on the basis of the words of the Exalted, “And ye find not water, then go to high clean soil and rub your faces and your hands (therewith)”.50 They said that He not permit the use of anything beside water and clean soil. They also ar gued on the basis of the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be u P°n him), “Clean soil constitutes the ablution of a Muslim, even if water is ° ot t0 ke found for ten seasons, and as soon as he finds water let him touch his , ce with it”. They (the Hanafites) could have said that the term water is used 10 the absolute sense in the tradition (thus, including nabidh), and it is an ltl °n that does not constitute abrogation so that the Book should conflict it, but then it is against their principle that an addition constitutes * br°gation.