The jurists agreed about the manner with which impurities are removed, and it is of three types, washing, wiping, and sprinkling, because these have been mentioned in the law and established through the traditions. They agreed that washing applies to all kinds.of impurities and for all locations of uncleanliness, and that wiping is permitted with stones for the outlets and with dry herbage for boots and sandals. They agreed, likewise, that the long trailing part of the female dress is purified by the dry herbage in accordance with the apparent meaning of the tradition of Umm Salama.

They disagreed on three points related to these things and which form the principles of this chapter. The first is about sprinkling, as to what kind of impurity that can be purified with it. The second, is about wiping, as to what is lts object and the kind of impurity it can remove, after agreeing about what we have mentioned. The third point is about the stipulation of number (of repetitions) for washing and wiping.

A group of jurists said that sprinkling is specific to the urine of a child, who has not weaned. Another group of jurists made a distinction in this about the Urine of a male and that of a female, saying that the urine of the male is to be s Pnnkled over, while that of the female is to be washed. A third group said that washing is the prescribed purification for a thing the uncleanliness of w hich is confirmed, while sprinkling is for that which is doubted. This is the °Pinion of Malik ibn Anas, may Allah be pleased with him.The reason for their disagreement stems from the conflict of the apparent meanings of the traditions related to the issue, that is, their disagreement over the meanings. This is so as there are two established traditions about sprinkling. First is the tradition of ^isha “that children used to be brought to the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) and he used to pray for them and rub the top of their mouths with dates moistened in his own mouth as well as pet them. A child was brought to him and he urinated on him. He called for water and poured it over the affected spot but did not wash it.” In some versions it says, “he sprinkled over it but did not wash it”. This has been recorded by al-Bukhari. The other is the widely known tradition of Anas in which he described the prayer of the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) in his house saying, “I took hold of the mat that had become dark because of old age and sprinkled water over it”. Some of the jurists acted in accordance with the implication of Aisha’s tradition saying that this is specific to the urine of the child, and they exempted it from other categories of urine. Others preferred the traditions about washing to this tradition. This is Malik’s opinion, who confined the use of sprinkling to what is in the tradition by Anas and which relates to a garment the impurity of which is doubted, according to the apparent meaning.

Those who distinguished between the urine of a male child from that of a female relied on what has been related by Abu Dawud from Abu al-Samh about the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “The urine of the female (child) is to be washed, and .that of the male is to be sprinkled over”. Those who did not make this distinction relied upon the analogy of the female child over the male in whose case an established tradition is laid down.

A group of jurists permitted wiping of any smeared object, in accordance with Abu HanTfa’s opinion, if the substance of the impurity was so removed; similarly, in the use of rubbing on the basis of analogy drawn from the views of those who maintain that each thing that removes the impurity can purify- Another group of jurists did not permit this, except in the cases agreed upon, that is, the outlet, the trailing dress of a woman, and boots, which are to be wiped with dry herbage and not with an unclean or undried object. This is Malik’s opinion. These jurists did not extend wiping to objects other than those mentioned in the law, while another group extended it to other objects.

The reason for their disagreement over this is whether wiping has been laid down in those as an exemption or as a primary hukm. Those who said that it is an exemption did not extend it to other things, that this, they did not construct an analogy upon it, while those who said that it is a primary huhm among the ahkdm of impurities, like the hukm of washing, did extend it.

In their dispute about number (of repetitions), a group of jurists stipulated only the removal of impurity in washing and wiping, while another group stipulated number (of repetitions) in wiping with stones as well as in washing. Some of those who stipulated number in washing restricted it to those objects about which number has been specifically mentioned in the transmitted texts, while others extended this to the remaining impurities also. Jurists who did not stipulate number, neither for washing nor for wiping, are Malik and Abu Ham fa. Those who stipulated number in wiping with stones, that is, three stones and nothing less, include al-ShafiT and the Zahirites. Among those who stipulated number in washing, are some who restricted it to the object that has been mentioned in the texts, that is, washing a utensil seven times after it has been licked by a dog, are al-ShaficT and those who adopted his opinion. Those who extended this stipulating washing of impurities seven times include, to the best of my knowledge, Ahmad ibn Hanbal. Abu Hanifa stipulates washing thrice in the case of impurities that cannot be perceived, that is, which are legal impurities.

The reason for their disagreement about this is the conflict of the interpreted meaning of this form of worship with the apparent implication of the tradition in which number has been laid down. Those for whom the meaning of the command conveyed the removal of the substance of the impurity itself, did not stipulate number at all. They deemed the stipulation of number in wiping with stones, laid down in the established tradition of Salman that contains the command about not performing istinja? with less than three stones, as a recommendation, so as to reconcile the interpreted meaning of the law with the implication of this tradition. They also deemed the number stipulated about washing of the utensil following licking by a dog as an act of worship not based upon impurity, as has preceded concerning Malik’s opinion. Those who decided according to the literal meaning of these traditions, exempting them from the interpreted principle of the law, restricted the prescribed number to stated objects. Those who preferred the literal meaning Over the interpreted principle extended the condition of number to all the remaining impurities.

The evidence of Abu Hanifa about washing thrice is the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “When any of you wakes up from sleep let him wash his hand thrice before putting it into his utensil”.