A comprehensive discussion of the principles of this subject is covered in seven chapters. The first chapter relates to the identification of the purification for which this purification forms a substitute. The second chapter is about the person to whom this form of purification is permitted. The third chapter is about the conditions for the permissibility of this purification. Chapter four is about the description of this purification. Chapter five relates to the thing with which this purification is performed. The sixth chapter is about factors nullifying it. Chapter seven is about acts for the validity and permissibility of which this purification is a condition.

The jurists agreed that this purification is a substitute for minor (sughra) Purification (i.e. wudi?), but they differed about major purification (kubra). It is related from TJmar and Ibn Mas ud that c they did not view it as a substitute for major purification. A1T and other Companions maintained that tayammum is a C substitute for major purification, which was the view adopted by jurists generally.

The reason for their disagreement kis the likelihood of different uiterpretations of the verse for and that the traditions about tayawmam for a person involved in jandba (the major hadath) did not prove to ke authentic in their view. With respect to the different interpretations of the v erse of tayammum, it is possible that the addressee in the words of the Exalted, “And ye find not water, then go to high clean soil and rub your faces and your hands (therewith)”,70 is just the person who has acquired a minor hadath y and it is also possible that it is addressed to both. Those for whom the term “touching”, in the words of the Exalted, “Or ye have touched women”, means copulation, the pronoun refers to both. Those for whom it means touching with the hand, it is more likely that the addressee is the person with a minor hadath. This is because the pronouns usually refer to the last mentioned thing. (The verse cannot have one possibility) unless a reading with a rearranged order in the verse is assumed, so that it is read as: “O ye who believe! When ye rise up for prayer, or one of you has come from the closet, or you have touched women, wash your faces, and your hands up to the elbows, and lightly rub your heads and [wash] your feet up to the ankles. And if ye are junub purify [bathe] yourself, and if ye are sick or on a journey, and ye find not water, then go to clean, high ground and rub your faces and your hands with some of it”. Such an assumed reading is not allowed, except on the basis of an evidence, because an assumed reading is figurative, and it is better to read the text in its actual connotation instead of interpreting it figuratively. It may be said that there is a reason that necessitates the assumption of rearrangement; namely that its present order implies that illness and journey are causes of hadath. Yet this is not the case, if the conjunction “or” (aw), is considered here in the meaning of “and” which is found in the usage of the Arabs. This is one of the reasons that led to a disagreement over the issue.

Their disagreement over traditions relevant to this issue is obvious from what has been recorded by al-Bukhari and Muslim “that a man came to TJmar, may Allah be pleased with him, and said, ‘I have been involved in jandba and cannot find water (to bathe)? He [TJmar] said, ‘Do not pray? c Ammar said, ‘Do you not remember, O Amir al-Mu’minih [Commander of the believers], when you and I were tending the camels and became junub, but did not find water. As for you, you did not pray, but I rolled in the earth and prayed? The Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) [on hearing our story] said, ‘It would have been enough for you to stroke the earth with your hands, then to shake (the dust off) them, and then rub your face and hands’. c Umar said, ‘Fear Allah, O Ammar? He (cAmmar) said, ‘If you like, I will c not relate it’”. In some versions it is stated that TJmar said to him, “Let it be at that”. Muslim relates from ShaqTq that he said, “I was sitting with <Abd Allah ibn Mas ud and Abu Musa, when Abu Musa c said, ‘O Abu cAbd al- Rahman, what do you think about the person who becomes junub and does not find water for a month? How would he pray?’ cAbd Allah replied to Abu Musa saying, ‘He is not to perform tayammum even if he does not find water for a month’. Abu Musa said, ‘Then what about this verse in surat al-M&ida, “And ye find not water, then go to high clean soil and rub your faces and your hands (therewith)?” ‘Abd Allah said, ‘If this concession were made for them, they would be ready to perform tayammum with earth when water appears cold to them’. Abu Musa said to ‘Abd Allah, ‘Did you not hear what (Ammar said to ‘Umar?’” He then proceeded to relate the preceding tradition. “‘Abd Allah replied, ‘Did you not see that ‘Umar was not convinced by ‘Ammar’s statement’ ”.

The majority, however, maintained that this had been established by the traditions of ‘Ammar and Hmran ibn al-Husayn, both recorded by al- Bukhari, and that the forgetfulness of ‘Umar is not effective in the obligation to act upon the tradition of ‘Ammar. Further, they argued for the permissibility of tayammum for the junub and the menstruating woman on the basis of the general implication of the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “The earth has been deemed a mosque for me, and a means of purity”. The tradition of ‘Imran ibn al-Husayn states “that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) saw a person who had isolated himself and was not praying with the group. He said, ‘Is it not good enough for you to pray with the group?’ He said, ‘O Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), I am junub and there is no water.’ The Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, ‘You have the earth, that is good enough for you’”.

They differed, because of the likelihood of such interpretations, about the person who does not have water whether he can cohabit with his wife? I mean, those who permit the junub to perform tayammum.^

The jurists agreed unanimously that the persons permitted to undertake this purification are of two types: the sick and the traveller, when there is a lack of water. They disagreed about four other types: the sick person who can find water, but is afraid to use it; the resident who has no water; the healthy traveller who can find water, but fear prevents him from reaching it; and the Person who is afraid to use water due to extreme cold. About the marid (sick person) who can find water, but is afraid to use it, the majority said that tayammum is permitted to him; similarly, in the case of the healthy person who fears death or severe illness because of the extreme coldness of water, and the person who is afraid to go out and reach the water, except that most of the jurists consider it obligatory for him to repeat prayers when he finds water. CA^ maintained that sick as well as the healthy persons who find water are not permitted to perform tayammum. Malik and al-ShafiT upheld the permissibility of tayammum for the healthy resident who lacks water. Abu Hanifa said that tayammum is not permitted for the healthy resident, even if there is a lack of water.

The reason for their disagreement over these four issues are the fundamentals of this chapter. About the marid, who is afraid to use water their disagreement centres on whether there is an implied additional word in the verse, that is in the words of the Exalted, “And if ye are sick or on a journey”. Those who held that there is such an implied addition and the text means, “And if ye are sick, not able to use water”, and that the pronoun “ye” in the words of the Exalted, “And ye find not water”, refers to the traveller alone, (they) permitted tayammum for the sick person who is afraid to use water. Those who said that the pronoun in “And ye find not water”, refers both to the marid as well t as the traveller, and that there is no implied addition in the verse, did not permit the marid to perform tayammum if he can find water.

Their disagreement about the resident who lacks water relates to the dispute whether the pronoun in the words of the Exalted, “And ye find not water”, refers to all kinds of persons in the state of hadath, that is, residents and travellers, or to travellers alone. Those who maintained that it refers to all types of persons in a state of hadath, permitted tayammum to residents, while those who maintained that it refers to the travellers alone, or to the sick and the travellers, did not pennit tayammum to the resident who lacks water.

Their disagreement about the person who is afraid to go out and reach the water, was caused by their dispute over its analogy drawn from the person who cannot find water. Likewise, their disagreement over the case of the person who is afraid of using extremely cold water is caused by their differences over its analogy drawn from the case of the sick person who is afraid to use water.

Those who upheld the permissibility of tayammum for the marid, supported their opinion on the basis of the tradition of Jabir about the wounded person, who bathed and died, and the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) permitted mash for such a person, saying: “They killed him, woe them”. In the same way they compared the healthy person, who is afraid to use water, to the case of the sick person on the basis of what is related about it from Amr c ibn aI-cAs, when he became junub on a cold night. He performed tayammum and recited the words of the Exalted, “Kill not yourself. Lo! Allah Wis ever Merciful unto you”.72 He mentioned this to the Prophet (God’s peace blessings be upon him) who did not reprimand him.

^The identification of the conditions of this type of purification relates to three issues, which are like principles. First, whether intention is a condition for this purification? Second, whether searching for water, when it is lacking, is a condition for the permissibility of this purification? Third, whether the advent of the time (of prayer) is a condition for the validity of tayammum.

The majority maintain that intention is a condition for tayammum, because it is a ritual non-rational worship. Zufar deviated saying that intention is not one of its conditions, and there is no need for intention. This is also related from al- AwzaT and al-Hasan ibn Hayy, but the claim is weak.

Malik, may Allah be pleased with him, stipulated the seeking of water (to ascertain non-availability prior to shifting to tayammum), as did al~Shafi(i. Abu HanTfa did not lay down this condition. The reason for their disagreement over this is whether the person who does not find water without seeking it can be termed as one who lacks water, or whether the person lacking water is one who has sought it but could not find it? The truth is that the person convinced about a lack of water, either due to a prior (unsuccessful) search or without it, 1S one who lacks water. The person acting merely on his whim, however, carmot be one who lacks water. It is for this reason that the opinion in the school requiring repeated search in the same location is deemed weak, whereas the opinion stipulating initial search, when there is no convincing information about lack of water is deemed strong.

Some of the jurists stipulated this, which is the opinion of ai-Shaf?T and Malik, while others did not, which is the opinion of Abu HanTfa, the Zahirites, an d Ibn Shahan from among the disciples of Malik.

The reason for their disagreement is whether the apparent meaning of the Verse of ablution implies that tayammum and wudu> are not permitted, except when it is time for prayer, as in the words of the Exalted, “O ye who believe! When ye rise up for prayer .. .”73 Thus, they made wudu> and tayammum obligatory at the time of rising up for prayer, which occurs when it is time for prayer. It follows from this that the hukm of wudt? and tayammum here is the same as the hukm for salah, that is just as time is. a condition for the validity of prayer so, similarly, time is a condition for the validity of wudi? and tayammum. The shar* however has made an exemption in the case of ablution. Does tayammum then retain the original rule, or is this not an apparent implication of the verse and the words of the Exalted, “O ye who believe! When ye rise up for prayer ... mean, “When ye resolve to undertake prayers?” Further, even if there is no assumption of an implied meaning in the verse, the only implication would be that the obligation of ablution and tayammum becomes due at the time of obligation of prayer, not that performance of wudfi and before the time of prayer is invalid, unless the rule is based upon the analogy of observing prayer before its time. In such a case, it would be preferable to say that the reason for disagreement in this is the analogy of tayammum upon prayer, but it is weak because its analogy upon wudi? would be better. This is a weak issue, so think over it, that is those who stipulate the advent of the time of prayer for its validity and render it a form of worship bound by time.

Limitations of time for the different kinds of worship are not imposed, except through a transmitted evidence. Imposition of a timing for tayammum would be justified if the finding of water were postponed till just before the advent of time, in which case this would not be a time-bound worship, but the issue would fall under the principle that the time arises when the lack of water is the moment of the beginning of the period of prayer. This is so as it is only at the beginning of the period of prayer that he can be sure of the availability or non-availability of water. It is for this: reason that the school differed over the question: when should he perform tayammum? Is it to be at the beginning of the prescribed time (for prayer), in the middle, or at the end? Yet, there are certain situations in which it is known with certainty that he would not come across water, except at the time of prayer. Further, if water becomes available (after the performance of tayammum) he will only be obliged to terminate his tayammum (that is perform wudu*)., not that it is invalid. The possibility of coming across water just before the beginning of the time of prayer and after its commencement is equal. Why, then, has the hukm of tayammum before the time of prayer been considered different from its hukm at its commencement, that is the undertaking of tayammum is prohibited before time, but it is not rohibited at the advent of such time. Such views are not to be formulated, except on the basis of a transmitted evidence.

to the description of this form of purification, it relates to three issues, {which are the principles of this chapter.

The jurists had four different opinions about the extent of the hands that Allah {has commanded people to rub in His words, “And ye find not water, then go clean, high ground and rub your faces and your hands with some of it”.75 First, that the prescribed limit for this is the same as the limit in wudu> itself, which is up to the elbows. This is the widely known opinion in the school, and is upheld by the jurists of the provinces. Second, the obligation is to rub the palm of the hand only and this is maintained by the Ahl abZahir and the fraditionists. Third, that it is recommended up to the elbows, but the obligation is (to rub) the palms of the hands. This is related from Malik. The fourth opinion is that the obligation extends up to the shoulder. This is a deviant opinion and has been related from al-ZuhrT and Muhammad ibn Masalma.

H The reason for their disagreement stems from the equivocality of the term yadd’’' in the language of the Arabs. This is so as the term “yadd’, in the language of the Arabs is used in three meanings: the hand only, which Provides the primary use; the hand and the forearm; the hand, forearm, and upper arm. The second reason arises from the conflict of relevant traditions, be widely known tradition of Ammar, in its various established channels, c f ■ Sa ys, “It would have been enough for you to stroke with your hand, then shake !* off them, and rub your face (with them) and your hands”. In some versions Is stated that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, nd that you rub your hands up to the elbows”. It is also related from Ibn u 0131 ^t the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, consists of two strokes: a stroke for the face, and another for the n us, up to the elbows”. This is also related through Ibn Abbas and other c barrators.

^he majority preferred these traditions over the tradition of Ammar relying on the supporting analogy for it, that is the analogy of tayamrcam upon wudi?, the same factor which impelled them to prefer interpreting the term yadd in the sense which includes the palm and the forearm as against the hand alone, which is the apparent meaning. Those who claimed that it applies to both equally, and is not primarily applied to one of them as compared to the other, has erred, for “yadtF, even if it is an equivocal term, primarily denotes hand, and is metaphorical for the part in excess of the hand. Every equivocal term is not obscure {mujmalj. A term that is both obscure and equivocal is one that has been applied initially as an equivocal term. The jurists have held that it is not proper to argue on the basis of such a term. It is for this reason we say that the correct view is to believe that the obligation relates to the hands alone. This is so as the term yadd either applies primarily to hands as compared to all other limbs or its indication of the rest of the limbs, forearm and upper arm, is equal. It is necessary to decide on the basis of the established tradition when the meaning is more obvious. Giving predominance to analogy here over the tradition is incomprehensible. It is also incomprehensible to prefer on the basis of analogy traditions that have not been established. The hukm on the basis of the Book and the sunna is evident here, so ponder over it.

The jurists disagreed about the number of times the earth is to be struck for the purpose of tayammum. Some of them said it is once, while others said that it is twice. Those who said that it is twice include some who said that one stroke is for. the face and one for the hands. These are the majority. When I say “majority”, then the three (leading) jurists are counted among them, that is, Malik, al-Shafi T, and Abu HanTfa. Some c of them said that there are two strokes for each of them, that is two strokes for the hands and two strokes for the face.

The reason for their disagreement is that the verse gives no details about this, and the traditions are in conflict, while the analogy of wudi? tayammum in all its instances is not agreed upon. What is stated by the established tradition of ‘Ammar about this is one stroke both for the face and the hands, but there are traditions in which it is required twice. The majority preferred these traditions on the basis of analogy of ablution for tayammum.

Al-Shafi T* disagreed with Malik, Abu HanTfa, and others about <- the obligation of the earth reaching the limbs that are the object of tayammum. Abu HanTfa did not' consider this as obligatory, nor did Malik, but al-Shafi T upheld it as c obligatory.

The reason for their disagreement is the equivocality found in the word W in the words of the Exalted, “And rub your faces and your hands with some of it (wwta)”.76 This is so as the word min is sometimes used to indicate a part, while at other times it is used to make a distinction between the categories. Those who held that it has been used here to indicate a part, made the transfer of the earth to the limbs of tayammum obligatory. Those who maintained that it indicates a distinction among categories said that transferring it is not obligatory. Al-ShafiT preferred the interpretation implying a part on the basis of the analogy of ablution for tayammum, but this is opposed by the tradition of cAmmar that has preceded, for it contains the words, “then shake it off’, and also the Prophet’s performing tayammum at the wall.

The disagreement of the jurists about the obligation of a sequential order (of acts) in tayammum, as well as over the obligation of immediate performance (i.e. there should be no interval separating the rubbing of the face and the rubbing of the hands), is exactly the same as their disagreement about it in ablution, and the causes for disagreement there are the causes here; thus there is no point in reiterating them.

This involves a single issue. They agreed about its validity with clean cultivable soil, but disagreed about its performance with what is besides soil from among the constituent parts found on land, like stones. Al-ShaficT held l hat tayammum is not permitted except with pure earth. Malik and his disciples tald that tayammum is permitted, according to the widely known opinion, with whatever is found upon the surface of land with all its constituents, like Pebbles, sand, and earth. Abu HanTfa added to this saying (that it is permitted) w, *h ail kinds of solid matter produced by the earth, like lime, arsenic, Eypsum, clay, and marble. Some of them, and these are the majority, stipulated that the soil must be on the surface of the earth. Ahmad ibn Hanbal said that tayammum may be performed with dust from a garment or from wool.

The reason for their disagreement is based upon two factors. First, the equivocality of the term sa<id in the language of the Arabs, as it is sometimes applied to clean earth, and at other times to all the constituents on the surface of land, so much so that the interpretation of the derivatives of this term sah'd led Malik and his disciples to permit it, in one of the narrations, with grass and snow; they said that these are also called saVd in the primary use of the term, that is being upon the surface of the earth, but this argument is weak.

The second reason is the unqualified use of the term ard with respect to the permissibility of its use in some versions of the widely known tradition, and its restriction in others. It is the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “The earth has been made a mosque for me, and a means of purity”. In some versions the words, “The earth has been made a mosque for me, and a means of purity”, have been recorded, while another version reads: “The earth has been made a mosque for me, and its soil a means of purity”. Experts in juristic discourse have differed on whether the qualified term is to be construed as indeterminate or vice versa. The better known opinion in their view is that the indeterminate term is to be construed in terms of the qualified, but this is disputed. The opinion of Ibn Hazm is that the qualified term is to be construed in terms of the indeterminate, as the unqualified term has an additional meaning. Those who construed the unqualified term through the qualified term, and assigned the meaning of earth to clean surface material did not permit tayammum except with earth. Those who construed the qualified term through the unqualified term, and interpreted the term saHd as all that is found on the surface of the earth, including its constituents, permitted tayammum with sand and pebbles.

That tayammum permits the use of all that is produced by the earth, however, is a weak claim since the term sa<id does not encompass all that is produced by the earth. The widest possible connotation of the term points to all that is included in the soil, but not including lime and arsenic nor snow and grass. Allah knows best.

The equivocality found in the word tayyib is also one of the causes of disagreement.

About the factors nullifying this form of purification, the jurists agreed that tayammum is invalidated by things that invalidate the original purification, which is ablution or bathing. They disagreed in this over two issues. First, does the intention of offering an obligatory prayer other than the obligatory saldh that was intended with the tayammum invalidate it? Second, whether the existence of water invalidates it?

Malik maintained that the intention of a second prayer invalidates purification for the first prayer. The views of others are opposed to this. The basis for this disagreement revolves around two things. First, whether in the words of the Exalted, “O ye who believe! When ye rise up for prayer .. ”, there is an implied text, that is, when ye arise from sleep, or when ye arise in an unclean state? Those who maintained that there is no implied text said that the apparent meaning of the verse indicates wudi? or tayammum for each prayer, but the sunna has restricted the meaning for wudu>, so tayammum retains the original rule. It cannot, however, be argued for Malik on the basis of this (argument), because Malik maintains that the verse contains an implied text, according to what he has related from Zayd ibn Aslam in his al-Muwattd*.

The second reason is based on the recurrence of the command with the advent of time for each prayer. This is what follows from Malik’s principles, that is, this argument may be adduced on his behalf, and the discussion of this issue has preceded. Those for whom the command does not recur, and they assumed an implied text in the verse, did not uphold that the intention to perform a second salah invalidates tayammum.

The majority held that the existence of water invalidates this purification. A Stoup of jurists, however, maintained that its invalidation results only from the occurrence of a hadath. The basis of this disagreement is whether the existence of water removes the prevailing purification that was achieved with earth or whether it negates the initiation of purification with it (earth)? Those who Maintained that it negates only the commencement of purification with earth (water being available) said that it is invalidated only by the occurrence of a hadath. Those who maintained that it (availability of water) invalidates the Prevailing purity said that it is invalidated. The definition of the invalidating factor (water) is the eliminator of the prevailing purity.

The majority argued for their opinion on the basis of an established tradition, which is the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be u P°n him), “The earth has been made a mosque for me, and a means of Purity, aS long as water is not found”. It is possible to understand from this that as soon as water is found this purification is terminated and removed, while it is also possible to understand it as implying that when water is found n is not valid to undertake this form of purification. The strongest support for the majority comes from the tradition of Abu SaTd al-Khudri, which states that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “When you have found water let it touch your skin”. The command here is interpreted by the majority to indicate immediate compliance, though it also leads to the preceding possibility, so think over it. Al-ShafiTs acceptance, that the existence of water eliminates this purification, led him to say that tajamrcam does not, in fact, remove the hadath, that is, it does not generate purification removing the impurity, it merely has the effect of permitting prayer with the existence of the impurity. This is without foundation, as Allah has called it purification. Some of the disciples of Malik upheld this opinion saying that tayammum does not remove hadath, for had it done so, only a hadath would have invalidated it. The answer is that in the case of this purification the existence of water itself is a sort of hadath specific to it, according to the opinion that the existence of water eliminates it.

Those who upheld that the existence of water invalidates purification agreed that it does so before the commencement of prayer and after it, but they disagreed on whether it' invalidates it during prayer. Malik, al-ShaficT, and Dawud held that the availability of water does not invalidate purification during prayer. Abu HanTfa, Ahmad, and others besides them maintained that it does invalidate it if water becomes available during prayer, and they are closer to preserving the original principle, for it is incompatible with the law to say that the availability of something does not invalidate purification during prayer, but invalidates it at other times. (Paradoxically) Abu HanTfa’s opinion had been denounced for a similar contradiction, that is, for holding that laughter during prayer invalidates wudu> (but not outside of prayer), Though he was relying on a supporting tradition. Think over this issue, for the answer is evident. There is no evidence in what they (the critics of Abu Hanlfah) desired to use in support of their opinion; namely, the apparent meaning of the words of the Exalted, “And render not your actions vain”,77 as such a person is not annulling his prayer of his own volition; the prayer is annulled by the availability of water, as if he had acquired a hadath (such as passing wind).

The majority agreed that acts whose validity or permissibility depends upon this form of purification are those for which ablution (wudi?) is a condition, like prayer, Touching the mushaf, and so on. They disagreed on whether more than one (obligatory) prayer is permissible with it (i.e. with one tayammum)? It is widely known in the Malik’s school that two mandatory prayers are never permitted with it. His opinion differed about two lapsed prayers. It is well- known that one tayammum is enough if one of the two prayers is mandatory and the other is supererogatory, if he prays the mandatory first, but if commences with the supererogatory, he cannot observe them with one tayammum. Abu Hamfa held that it is permitted to observe two mandatory prayers with a single tayammum.

The basis for this disagreement is whether tayammum is required for each prayer, either due to the apparent meaning of the verse, or due to the obligation of the recurrence of the command, or due to both.