Islamic Fiqh > Purification (Tahara) > Tayammum: purification with dust > What nullifies tayammum and special cases
Contents
Updated on 24 September 2026 at 1:14 PM
Tayammum, the dry purification permitted when water is absent or cannot be used, still raises precise questions: does it substitute for washing an impurity present on the body? Which elements of the earth make it valid? When is it nullified? These sheets from the fiqh encyclopedia, the second and final part of the chapter, set out the positions of the four schools with their evidence: tayammum for impurity (najasa), what may be used to perform it, its recommended acts, its nullifiers, the case of the one who finds insufficient water or whose time is short, and finally the one deprived of both purifiers, water and earth.
A number of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) used to perform tayammum and withhold water, keeping it only for their lips, because the sanctity of the human being takes precedence over the prayer: the proof is that whoever sees, during the prayer and at the tightest moment of its time, a fire or a person drowning must leave the prayer and go out to save him; it is therefore more fitting not to give the prayer precedence over purification with water.
Boukhari and Mouslim narrated:
"A prostitute was stricken with thirst; she came upon a well and drank from it. When she climbed out, she saw a dog licking the moist earth out of thirst. She said: this one is stricken with thirst as I was. She went back down and watered it with her shoe (maw'), and Allah forgave her."Narrated by Boukhari (347) and Mouslim (1761)
If such is the reward of the one who gave water to a dog, other creatures are more deserving still (al-Mughni, 1/341-342; al-Ishraf, 1/35; Matalib Uli al-Nuha, 1/195; al-Ifsah, 1/93; Hashiyat al-Tahtawi, 1/62-63; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 1/106; Kifayat al-Akhyar, p. 17).
Tayammum for impurity: the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis stated explicitly that whoever has an impurity on his body and is unable to wash it, for lack of water or for fear of harm from using water, performs tayammum for it and prays, based on the general import of the saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him):
"The pure surface of the earth is a purifier for the Muslim, even if he finds no water for ten years."Authentic hadith (sahih), its references were cited earlier
"The earth has been made for me a place of purification and a place of prayer."Authentic hadith (sahih), its references were cited earlier
For it is a purification of the body sought for the prayer: tayammum is therefore permitted for it when water is absent and when harm is feared from its use, as in illness.
Imam Ahmad said: he is in the position of the junub (in a state of major ritual impurity) who performs tayammum. Al-Qadi said: Ahmad's statement may mean that he prays according to his state, as the junub who performs tayammum prays. Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) said: this is the view of the majority of jurists, because the Law instituted tayammum only for hadath (ritual impurity), and washing the najasa does not fall within its meaning: it is applied only where the najasa is, and nowhere else; moreover, the purpose of washing is to remove the najasa, which tayammum does not achieve (al-Mughni, 1/352-353).
If this is established, then whoever performs tayammum for the najasa and prays must repeat the prayer according to the Shafi'is and according to one narration (riwaya) of the Hanbalis.
The soundest view among the Hanbalis is that repetition is not required, because of the saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him):
"The pure surface of the earth is a purifier as long as water is not found, even for ten pilgrimage seasons."Authentic hadith (sahih), references cited earlier
For it is a purification that tayammum has replaced, as with the purification of hadath; likewise if he performed tayammum for a najasa located on a wound whose removal would harm him; and because had he prayed without tayammum, repetition would not have been required of him: with tayammum it is a fortiori more fitting.
As for an impurity on his garment or other than his body, he does not perform tayammum for it, because tayammum is a purification of the body and does not substitute for what is other than the body, such as washing; and because for what is other than the body, a solid does not substitute for water in case of inability, unlike the body (al-Mughni, 1/352-353; al-Kafi, 1/64; al-Mubdi', 1/217-218; al-Insaf, 1/279-280; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 1/106; Sharh Sahih Mouslim, 4/52).
Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) said: if an impurity and a hadath combine upon him and he has water sufficient for one of them, he washes the impurity and performs tayammum for the hadath. Ahmad stated this explicitly, and al-Khallal said: Abu Abdillah (Ahmad) and Sufyan agreed on this, and we know of no disagreement over it. This is because tayammum for hadath is established by text and consensus, whereas it is disputed for najasa.
If the impurity is on his garment, he gives precedence to washing it and performs tayammum for the hadath. It is narrated from Ahmad that he performs wudu and leaves the garment, because he has water, and wudu requires more than washing the garment; Abu Hanifa narrated this view from Hammad regarding blood, but the first view is preferable, for what we have mentioned, and because if he gives precedence to washing the impurity of the body although tayammum has a place there, giving precedence to the purification of the garment is even more so.
If an impurity on the garment and an impurity on the body combine, and he has only what suffices for one of them, he washes the garment and performs tayammum for the impurity of the body, because tayammum has a place there (al-Mughni, 1/353).
The jurists agreed on the permissibility of tayammum with a pure surface of the earth (sa'id), by Allah's saying:
"Perform then tayammum with a pure surface of the earth"
Surah An-Nisa, 43
However, the jurists differed over what is meant by sa'id: is it everything on the face of the earth, or only loose soil (turab)?
Abu Hanifa, Muhammad and the Malikis held that sa'id is the face of the earth: tayammum is therefore permitted in their view with everything of the nature of the earth, foremost loose soil, which is best, then sand, pebbles and gypsum (jass) not calcined by fire; if it has been calcined or cooked with, tayammum is not valid with it.
Tayammum with minerals is permitted so long as they remain in their places and have not been moved from their location, provided they are not one of the two coined metals, gold and silver, nor gems such as the pearl. Tayammum is thus not performed on minerals such as alum, salt, iron or lead if they have been moved from their place; the schools detail these cases.
Imam Abu Hanifa nonetheless said: tayammum is permitted with everything of the nature of the earth, whether something clings to the hand or not; for what is commanded is tayammum with the sa'id in absolute terms, without the condition of adhesion, and the unrestricted is not restricted without evidence.
Muhammad said: it is permitted only if something of its parts clings to the hand. On Abu Hanifa's view, tayammum is thus permitted with pebbles, quicklime (nura), orpiment (zarnikh), red, black and white clay, kohl, smooth stone, the wall coated with mud or plastered with gypsum, mountain salt (not water salt), brick, ceramic made of pure clay, dew-covered earth and wet clay.
It is also permitted in their view (and this is likewise the view of Imam Ahmad, as will come) to perform tayammum with dust: if one strikes his hand on a garment, a felt (lubd) or a saddle cover and dust rises, or if there is dust on iron, on wheat or barley or the like, tayammum with it suffices in the view of both; for dust, though fine, is one of the parts of the earth.
Whatever is not of the nature of the earth does not permit tayammum, by consensus among the Hanafis: what has been burned by fire until it becomes ash, such as firewood and grass; or what is molded and softens, such as iron, brass, copper and glass, for it is not of the nature of the earth. Tayammum with ash is likewise not permitted, for it is one of the parts of firewood, not one of the parts of the earth (Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 1/196-197; Radd al-Muhtar, 1/405-407; Hashiyat al-Tahtawi, p. 64; al-Istidhkar, 1/308; Mawahib al-Jalil, 1/350; al-Dasuqi on al-Sharh al-Kabir, 1/155).
The Shafi'is, the Hanbalis and Abu Yusuf among the Hanafis held that tayammum is permitted only with pure soil containing dust that clings to the hand, not calcined, by Allah's saying:
"Perform then tayammum with a pure surface of the earth, and wipe your faces and your hands with a part of it"
Surah An-Nisa, 43
The verse implies that one wipes with something of it. Then come the words of the Prophet (peace be upon him):
"Soil has been made for me a purifier."
and his words:
"The earth has been made for me a mosque and its soil a purifier."
The soil of the earth was specified as purifier; and just as purification was tied to the most widespread of liquids in existence, namely water, it is tied to the most widespread of solids in existence, namely soil.
If the soil is crumbly or dew-covered so that no dust rises from it, it does not suffice, for the pure sa'id is soil that produces vegetation. The Shafi'is added sand containing dust. For Abu Yusuf and Ahmad there are two narrations each, one permitting and one denying.
In their view, tayammum is not permitted with soil mixed with flour or the like, such as saffron or gypsum, which prevents the soil from reaching the limb: this concerns what clings to the hand. As for what does not cling to the hand, it does not prevent according to the Hanbalis: Imam Ahmad stated explicitly that tayammum is permitted from barley, because nothing settles on the hand that would stand between the dust and it. Tayammum with wet clay is likewise not permitted according to the Shafi'is, the Hanbalis and Abu Yusuf, for wet clay is neither soil, nor impure soil on the pattern of wudu (which requires pure water); the scholars are unanimous on this by Allah's saying: "Perform then tayammum with a pure surface of the earth" (Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 1/196-197; Radd al-Muhtar, 1/405-407; Hashiyat al-Tahtawi, p. 64; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 1/96; al-Bajayrami on al-Khatib, 1/252; al-Jamal, 1/202-204; Kifayat al-Akhyar, p. 97-98; al-Mughni, 1/318, 323; Kashshaf al-Qina', 1/165; Sharh Sahih Mouslim, 4/53; al-Ifsah, 1/88-89).
Imam Ibn Rushd (may Allah have mercy on him) said: they agreed on the permissibility of tayammum with the good soil of a plowed field, and differed over its permissibility with what, of the parts of the earth, is generated from it, such as stones.
Al-Shafi'i held that tayammum is permitted only with pure soil. Malik and his companions held that it is permitted, in the most famous narration of their madhhab, with everything that rises on the face of the earth among its parts: pebbles, sand and soil. Abu Hanifa added that it is permitted with whatever the earth generates among the stones, such as quicklime, orpiment, gypsum, clay and marble.
Others required that the soil actually be on the face of the earth: these are the majority of jurists (jumhur). Ahmad ibn Hanbal said: one performs tayammum with the dust of the garment and the felt.
Two causes explain their disagreement. The first: the name sa'id is polysemous in the language of the Arabs, sometimes used for pure soil, sometimes for all the exposed parts of the earth, to the point that Malik and his companions were led, by the derivation of this name (sa'id), to permit in one of the narrations reported from them tayammum on grass and on snow; they said: it is called sa'id in the origin of the denomination, on account of its rising above the earth; this reasoning is weak.
The second cause: the use of the name "earth" in the permission of tayammum with it in some famous narrations of the hadith, and its restriction to soil in others, as in the saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him):
"The earth has been made for me a mosque and a purifier."
for one narration of this hadith reads:
"The earth has been made for me a mosque, and its soil has been made for me a purifier."
The jurist-theologians differed over whether judgment is passed by the unrestricted upon the restricted or by the restricted upon the unrestricted; the most famous view among them is that judgment is passed by the restricted upon the unrestricted.
Several acts are recommended in tayammum:
Other recommended acts: the Hanafis consider it recommended to strike with the inner palms, to turn the palms upward after placing them in the soil, to turn them back while taking abundantly, then to shake them so as not to soil the face, and to spread the fingers so that the soil reaches between them (Radd al-Muhtar, 1/393; Maraqi al-Falah, p. 20).
The Malikis, as indicated earlier, hold it recommended to strike the palms against the earth before wiping the face and the hands; if he does not do so, the act is disapproved but suffices, and this does not prevent shaking them lightly. Counted among the meritorious qualities in their view are facing the qibla, beginning with the right, and interlacing the fingers.
Among the Shafi'is, the fingers are interlaced at the top of the face, one begins with the right hand, the fingers are spread in the first strike, the fingers are interlaced after wiping the hands as a precaution, and the dust is shaken off lightly so that it does not disfigure the worshipper's appearance.
It is likewise recommended in their view to join tayammum and prayer closely, departing from the disagreement with those who oblige it, namely the Malikis as indicated; it is also recommended to pass the hand over the limb as with the massage (dalk) in wudu, not to repeat the wiping, to face the qibla, and to pronounce the two testimonies of faith after tayammum, as after wudu.
It is recommended to remove the ring at the first strike, the hand being in it a tool of the wiping; at the second strike it is the place of purification, which is a pillar (rukn) that is obligatory. Also recommended are the siwak before tayammum and bringing the soil to the limbs of tayammum.
Among the Hanbalis, it is recommended to interlace the fingers (Hashiyat al-Dasuqi on al-Sharh al-Kabir, 1/157; al-Qawanin al-Fiqhiyya, p. 38; al-Sharh al-Saghir, 1/136-137; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 1/99-100; Kifayat al-Akhyar, p. 102; al-Kafi, 1/12; Kashshaf al-Qina', 1/178).
Tayammum is nullified by the following:
Imam Ibn al-Mundhir (may Allah have mercy on him) said: they agreed that whoever performs tayammum as he was commanded, then finds water before entering the prayer, has his purification annulled and must repeat the purification and then pray (al-Ijma', 21).
Likewise, whoever performed tayammum for an illness or the like: his tayammum is not nullified by the presence of water, since he remains unable to use it.
If, however, he sees the water while already engaged in the prayer: his prayer and his tayammum are annulled according to the Hanafis and the Hanbalis in the most famous view, because the purification is annulled by the disappearance of its cause; and because the origin is to perform the prayer in a state of wudu, by the saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him):
"The pure surface of the earth is the wudu of the Muslim, even for ten years; when you find water, let it touch your skin."
Its implied meaning indicates that one is not pure while water is present, and its explicit meaning establishes the obligation to let it touch one's skin as soon as it exists; since he is able to use the water, his tayammum is annulled as if he had left the prayer; and because tayammum is a purification of necessity, annulled by the disappearance of the necessity, like the purification of the woman with istihada when her blood ceases.
The Malikis, the Shafi'is and Ahmad in one narration, which he is said to have later retracted, hold that if the water is found while he is engaged in the prayer, he continues his prayer and it is valid, without interrupting it. Al-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) nonetheless made the validity of the prayer with this tayammum conditional on being a traveler; as for the resident, his prayer is annulled if he sees water during the prayer and he must repeat it, because of the presence of water. But this is not absolute: the Shafi'is made it conditional on being in a place where the presence of water predominates; if the resident is in a place where the presence of water does not predominate, no repetition is required of him, and he then has the status of the traveler (al-Ikhtiyar, 1/21; Radd al-Muhtar, 1/427; Maraqi al-Falah, p. 21; al-Lubab, 1/37; al-Ishraf, 1/32; al-Ijma', p. 20; Tafsir al-Qurtubi, 5/234; Bidayat al-Mujtahid, 1/52-53; Hashiyat al-Dasuqi, 1/156-158; al-Sharh al-Saghir, 1/137; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 1/101; al-Muhadhdhab, 1/3, 102-103; al-Mughni, 1/314, 351; Kashshaf al-Qina', 1/177-178; al-Ifsah, 1/95-96).
The Shafi'is, in the soundest view held by them, hold that the resident of a place where the presence of water predominates, if he performed tayammum for lack of water, repeats his prayer, for shortage of water is rare in residence and does not last. According to a view chosen by al-Nawawi, no making-up (qada) is required of him, for he did what was within his power. According to another view, the prayer does not fall due upon him at once: he waits until he finds water within the (prayer) time, unlike the traveler, who repeats only if he is in a place where the presence of water predominates (al-Najm al-Wahhaj, 1/481; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 1/101; Radd al-Muhtar, 1/427; Maraqi al-Falah, p. 21; al-Lubab, 1/37; al-Ikhtiyar, 1/21; al-Ishraf, 1/32; al-Ijma', p. 20; Tafsir al-Qurtubi, 5/234; Hashiyat al-Dasuqi, 1/156-158; al-Sharh al-Saghir, 1/137; al-Ifsah, 1/95-96; al-Mughni, 1/314, 351; Kashshaf al-Qina', 1/177-178).
C. The removal of the excuse that made tayammum lawful: such as the departure of the enemy, recovery from illness, or the end of the cold; for what is permitted by virtue of an excuse is annulled by its removal.
D. The expiry of the prayer time, according to the Hanbalis: if the time of the prayer expires while he is within it, that is, in the midst of the prayer, his tayammum is not annulled, but his prayer is annulled on account of his being in its midst; for his purification ended with the end of its time, and his prayer is annulled just as it is annulled when the period of wiping over the khuff (leather footwear) expires during the prayer (al-Mughni, 1/350).
E. Apostasy (ridda), may Allah preserve us from it: it nullifies tayammum according to the Malikis, the Shafi'is in the madhhab and the Hanbalis (Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 1/196; Hashiyat al-Dasuqi on al-Sharh al-Kabir, 1/158; al-Sharh al-Saghir, 1/137; al-Najm al-Wahhaj, 1/314; Kifayat al-Akhyar, p. 103; al-Mughni, 1/226).
If the junub finds water sufficient for part of his limbs, is he required to use it and perform tayammum for the rest, or not?
He is required to use it and perform tayammum for the rest according to Imam Ahmad, and this is one of al-Shafi'i's two views, by Allah's saying:
"If you find no water, then perform tayammum"
Surah An-Nisa, 43
and the saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him):
"When I command you with a matter, do of it what you can."Narrated by Boukhari (6858) and Mouslim (1337)
For he has found water he can use on part of his body, which is therefore obligatory upon him. Abu Hanifa, Malik and al-Shafi'i in the madhhab hold that he performs tayammum and leaves the water, for one cannot combine purification with water and purification with tayammum: it is one or the other; they cite Allah's saying:
"And if you are in a state of major impurity, then purify yourselves"
Surah Al-Ma'idah, 6
Ibn al-Mundhir said: He made obligatory upon the junub washing with water; if he does not find (water), tayammum; and upon the muzahir (one who pronounced the formula of zihar), a slave; if he does not find one, the fast of two months. The one who possesses part of the slave stands in the position of the one who does not find, and fasting was imposed on him; likewise, the one who possesses water sufficient to wash part of his body stands in the position of the one who does not find, and tayammum was imposed on him. The answer is the same for the pilgrim in the state of enjoyment (mutamatti') who possesses only part of the price of the sacrificial offering, and for the oath-breaker who possesses, for his oath, only what would feed fewer than ten poor persons: their ruling is that of the one we mentioned; imposing two obligations at once upon such a person is not permitted (al-Awsat, 2/32-34; al-Bahr al-Ra'iq, 1/10; Hashiyat Ibn Abidin, 1/194; Mawahib al-Jalil, 1/182; Hashiyat al-Dasuqi, 1/137; al-Khulasa al-Fiqhiyya, 1/15; al-Najm al-Wahhaj, 1/443; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 1/146; al-Mughni, 1/308; al-Kafi, 1/68; Kashshaf al-Qina', 1/85; al-Insaf, 1/144; Majmu' al-Fatawa, 21/453).
The jurists held that no act of worship built upon purification is valid with tayammum while water is present, except for a sick person, or a traveler who found water but needs it, or in case of fear of cold.
Ibn Abidin (may Allah have mercy on him) said: since purification is not laid down as a condition for it, tayammum is not considered at all while water is present, unless it concerns something one fears to lose with no substitute. If the muhdith (one who has lost his purity) performs tayammum for sleep or for entering the mosque while able to use water, it is a futile act; unlike his tayammum for returning the salam, for example, for he fears to miss it given its immediacy; and the Prophet (peace be upon him) did so: this is what should be relied upon (Radd al-Muhtar, 1/411).
The one whose time is so tight that using the water would cause the prayer time to lapse: the Hanafis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis hold that if the water exists, but engaging in obtaining and using it would cause the time to lapse, tayammum is not permitted to him, whether resident or traveler, by Allah's saying:
"Wash yourselves"
Surah Al-Ma'idah, 6
and the saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him):
"Soil is the purifier of the Muslim as long as he does not find water."
As soon as he finds water, soil is no longer a purifier for him, and his prayer does not suffice. Upon reflection, the obligation of purification is more emphatic than the obligation of the time: prayer without purification is not permitted, whereas it remains permitted despite the time having lapsed.
Imam Malik and Zufar among the Hanafis (a view also narrated from Abu Hanifa, Abu Yusuf and Muhammad, as mentioned in "al-Bahr"; Ibn Najim said: yet I succeeded in establishing that tayammum for fear of the time lapsing is a narration from our shaykhs, mentioned in "al-Quniya") held that whoever fears the time lapsing may perform tayammum. This is the choice of the shaykh of Islam Ibn Taymiya (may Allah have mercy on him), who said: the soundest of the scholars' views is that one performs tayammum for everything one fears to miss, such as the funeral prayer, the Eid prayer and other similar things; for prayer with tayammum is better than missing the prayer, just as the voluntary prayer with tayammum is better than missing it; hence the one who has a portion of night prayer to perform, is in a state of major impurity, and for whom the water is cold and harmful, performs tayammum; if he prays the voluntary prayer and recites the Quran with tayammum, that is better than missing all of it (Majmu' al-Fatawa, 21/439).
It is said in "al-Durr al-Mukhtar": the safest is that he perform tayammum, pray, then repeat the prayer.
Ibn Abidin said: this is Zufar's view. Ibrahim al-Halabi said... it may be that among these shaykhs the choice is Zufar's view, because of the strength of its argument: tayammum was only legislated to enable the prayer to be performed within its time, so he performs tayammum fearing to miss it. Our shaykh Ibn al-Humam said: the jurists refuted Zufar, and the only refutation open to them is to say: whoever delays the prayer to the end of the time is negligent, and his negligence comes from him, so he does not deserve the license permitting tayammum. But this refutation only stands if he delayed with an excuse, in which case they must grant him the license of tayammum if he delayed for an excuse; and if he delayed without an excuse, Zufar's view does not hold in that case either: at most he is a sinner by his delay, and the sinner, in our view, is like the obedient one as far as the establishment of the license is concerned. I say: if he delays without an excuse, he is a sinner. Our madhhab is that he is like the obedient one regarding licenses; nevertheless, his delay to this extent constitutes an excuse coming from other than the holder of the right, so it should be said: he performs tayammum, prays, then repeats wudu, like the one rendered incapable by an excuse coming from the servants (of Allah). Al-Zahidi transmitted this ruling in his commentary from al-Layth ibn Sa'd, and Ibn Khallikan mentioned that he followed the Hanafi madhhab, as he is likewise mentioned in "al-Jawahir al-Mudi'a" among the generations of the Hanafis.
Ibn Abidin said: this is an intermediate view between the two, which exits the obligation with certainty; hence the commentator approved it. I then saw it transmitted in "al-TatarKhaniya" from Abu Nasr ibn Salam, who is unquestionably one of the great imams of the Hanafis: it should therefore be acted upon as a precaution, especially since Ibn al-Humam's words lean toward preferring Zufar's view, as I have established, and I learned from "al-Quniya" that it is a narration from our three shaykhs. A similar case is that of the guest who feared some harm (riyba); they said: he prays then repeats. And Allah, Most High, knows best (Hashiyat Ibn Abidin, 1/413-414; al-Bahr al-Ra'iq, 1/147; Ahkam al-Quran by al-Jassas, 4/17-18; al-Awsat, 2/30-31; Tafsir al-Qurtubi, 3/469; al-Mughni, 1/343; Kifayat al-Akhyar, p. 94).
The one deprived of both purifiers is he who found neither water nor a surface of the earth with which to perform tayammum, due to an impediment: such as one held captive in a place containing neither, or in an impure place where there is nothing with which to perform tayammum, while he needs the water he holds to quench his thirst, like the crucified man or the passenger of a ship who cannot reach the water; or like the one who can neither perform wudu nor tayammum because of an illness or the like.
The jurists differed over his ruling in many views. Abu Hanifa, and Malik in one narration which is one of the narrations reported from Imam al-Shafi'i, held that he delays the prayer until he finds water or a surface of the earth.
The argument of this view, namely not praying at once, is the saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him):
"Allah does not accept a prayer without purification."
What is not accepted is not permitted to be done; and because Oumar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) entered a state of major impurity without knowing that the junub performs tayammum, so he did not pray, as reported in the two Sahihs (Boukhari and Mouslim).
The Shafi'is, in the soundest view of the madhhab, Malik in one narration and Ahmad in one narration, hold that he prays according to his state and that repetition is required of him. The prayer, by the saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him):
"When I command you with a matter, do of it what you can."Narrated by Boukhari (6858) and Mouslim (1337)
And the repetition, because this is a rare excuse, so that he is like the one who forgot a limb of his purification and prayed: repetition is required of him.
Ahmad, in the soundest view of his madhhab, which is one of the narrations reported from Malik and al-Shafi'i and the choice of the shaykh of Islam Ibn Taymiya, holds that he prays according to his state and does not repeat. Al-Nawawi said: it is the madhhab of al-Muzani, and the strongest view by evidence. It is supported by this hadith:
"The Prophet (peace be upon him) sent men to search for a necklace that Aisha had lost; the prayer overtook them and they prayed without wudu. When they came to the Prophet (peace be upon him), they complained to him, and the verse of tayammum was revealed."Narrated by Boukhari (3562, 4869) and Mouslim (367)
The Prophet (peace be upon him) did not disapprove of it and did not command them to repeat, which indicates that repetition is not obligatory; making-up is only required by a new command, which is not established, so it is not required; because he did what he was commanded and thus exited its obligation; because purification is one of the conditions of the prayer, which falls away upon incapacity, like its other conditions and pillars; and because he performed his obligation according to his capacity, repetition is not required of him, like the one unable to stand who prays seated.
Al-Shafi'i, in one view, holds that the prayer does not fall due upon him but is recommended, and that making-up is required whether he prayed or not. The Malikis, in the madhhab, hold that the one deprived of both purifiers is he who found neither water nor a surface of the earth with which to perform tayammum due to an impediment, such as one held in a place containing neither, or in an impure place where there is nothing with which to perform tayammum, while he needs the water he holds for his thirst, like the crucified man or the passenger of a ship who cannot reach the water, or the one who can neither perform wudu nor tayammum because of an illness or the like: his ruling is that the prayer falls away from him, both in performance and in making-up, like the menstruating woman.
Ibn Khuyayzamadad narrated this view from Malik and said: it is the soundest view of Malik's madhhab. Ibn Abd al-Barr (may Allah have mercy on him) however objected and said: I do not know how he dared to establish that this is the soundest view of the madhhab, when it contradicts the majority of the Salaf, most of the jurists and the community of the Malikis. Then he said: it is a weak, abandoned, anomalous and rejected view (al-Tamhid, 19/275; al-Istidhkar, 1/305; al-Sharh al-Saghir, 1/138-139; al-Dhakhira, 1/300; Radd al-Muhtar, 1/423; al-Awsat, 2/45-46; al-Majmu', 2/306; Sharh Sahih Mouslim, 4/54; Tarh al-Tathrib, 1/444; Kifayat al-Akhyar, p. 129; al-Mughni, 1/324-325; Kashshaf al-Qina', 1/171; Hashiyat Ibn al-Qayyim on Sunan Abi Dawud, 1/61; Majmu' al-Fatawa, 21/467; al-Ifsah, 1/94; Tafsir al-Qurtubi, 6/105).