Islamic Fiqh > Purification (Tahara) > Tayammum: purification with dust > Tayammum: cases, conditions and manner
Contents
Updated on 24 September 2026 at 1:14 PM
Tayammum is the purification with pure earth, prescribed in place of water when water is missing or cannot be used. Drawing on the sheets of the Mawsu'a al-fiqhiyya devoted to tayammum, this first part covers the legitimacy of the rite, its pillars, the intention it requires, the way it is performed and the excuses that permit it, from the absence of water to illness. Each divergence is attributed to the school concerned, with the references of the classical works cited in the Arabic text.
Is tayammum a substitute for the minor purification and the major purification, or for the minor only? Imam Ibn Rushd (may Allah have mercy on him) reports that the scholars agree that this purification substitutes for the minor purification, and that they differed over the major one: it is reported from Umar and Abdullah ibn Mas'ud that they did not consider it a substitute for the major purification.
Ali and other Companions, on the other hand, held that tayammum can substitute for the major purification, and this is the view of most jurists. The cause of their disagreement lies in the possible meaning of the verse of tayammum, and in the fact that the reports transmitted about tayammum for the major impurity did not seem authentic to them.
As for the verse, its words allow more than one reading:
“If you find no water, then resort to pure earth”
Surah An-Nisa, 43
The pronoun may refer only to the one in a state of minor impurity, or to both states together. Whoever understands the “touching of women” in the verse as referring to intercourse holds that it refers to both; whoever understands it as a mere touch of the hand holds that it refers only to the minor impurity, pronouns referring in principle to the nearest antecedent unless a rearrangement of the text is assumed.
That assumption would mean reading the verse as rearranged: (O you who believe, when you rise for prayer, if one of you comes from the place of relieving himself or if you have touched women, wash your faces and your hands up to the elbows, wipe your heads and your feet up to the ankles; and if you are in a state of major impurity, purify yourselves; and if you are sick or on a journey, if one of you comes from the place of relieving himself or if you have touched women, and you find no water, then resort to pure earth). Such a reconstruction can only be accepted on the basis of evidence, for rearrangement is figurative, and the literal meaning takes precedence over the figurative.
One might think that something in the verse requires this rearrangement, since following the order of the text would imply that sickness and travel are impurities. But this is not needed if the “or” here is given the meaning of “and”, a usage attested in the Arabic language, as in the poet's verse: “It is all the same to them whether they release the mount without its load or with it, when the dust of al-Suwwukh rises”. Indeed, “siyyan” is only said for: “siyyan Zayd and 'Amr”, that is, for both alike. This is one of the causes of the disagreement on this issue.
Their doubt about the reports transmitted in this sense appears in what al-Bukhari and Muslim narrated: a man came to Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) and said: “I am in a state of major impurity and I find no water.” He replied: “Do not pray.” Ammar said: “O Commander of the Believers, do you not remember when you and I were on an expedition? We became impure and found no water: you did not pray, while I rubbed myself with dust and prayed.” The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) had said:
“It would have sufficed you to strike the ground with your hands, then blow on them, then wipe your face and your palms with them.”Narrated by al-Bukhari and Muslim
Umar replied: “Fear Allah, O Ammar.” And Ammar said: “If you wish, I will not tell you about it.” In some versions, Umar said to him: “We will restore you to what you had abandoned.”
Muslim narrated from Shaqiq, who said: “I was sitting with Abdullah ibn Mas'ud and Abu Musa. Abu Musa said: O Abu Abd al-Rahman, what do you say about a man in a state of major impurity who finds no water for a month, what should he do about prayer? Abdullah answered Abu Musa: He should not perform tayammum, even if he finds no water for a month. Abu Musa said: What about this verse of Surah al-Ma'ida: ‘if you find no water, then resort to pure earth’? Abdullah replied: If they had been granted this concession, then as soon as the water cooled they would not hesitate to perform tayammum with the earth. Abu Musa said to Abdullah: Have you not heard Ammar's words? and narrated to him the earlier hadith. Abdullah said to him: Have you not seen that Umar himself was not satisfied with Ammar's word?”
The majority of scholars, however, hold that tayammum for the major impurity is well established, by the hadith of Ammar and that of Imran ibn Husayn, both narrated by al-Bukhari, and that Umar's forgetfulness does not affect the obligation to act upon the hadith of Ammar. They further invoke the permissibility of tayammum for the junub and the menstruating woman, drawn from the general scope of this saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him):
“The earth has been made for me a place of prayer and a purifier.”
As for the hadith of Imran ibn Husayn, it reports that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) saw a man standing apart who was not praying with the people and said to him: “O so-and-so, what prevented you from praying with the people?” He replied: “O Messenger of Allah, I am in a state of major impurity and there is no water.” The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said:
“Have recourse to pure earth: it will suffice you.”Narrated by al-Bukhari
Because of this disagreement over the scope of tayammum, the scholars debated the following question: may the one who has no water have relations with his wife or must he abstain? In other words, the one who deems tayammum lawful for the major impurity (source: “Bidayat al-Mujtahid”, 1/46, 47).
Tayammum has pillars, or obligations. The pillar (rukn) designates that upon which the existence of the act depends and which is part of its essence, such as wiping the face and the hands. The first pillar is the intention (niyya).
The jurists of the four schools, namely the Hanafis with the exception of Zufar, the Malikis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis, agree that tayammum is not valid without an intention. They rely on the word of Allah: “then resort to pure earth” (Surah An-Nisa, 43), tayammum meaning “intent”, which requires an intention. They also invoke this saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him):
“Deeds are but by intentions...”Narrated by al-Bukhari (1)
Ibn Rushd (may Allah have mercy on him) writes: the majority hold the intention to be a condition that makes the rite a worship free of absurdity. Zufar disagreed: in his view, the intention is not a condition in it. This is also reported from al-Awza'i and al-Hasan ibn Hayy, but the report is weak (source: “Bidayat al-Mujtahid”, 1/48).
Does tayammum remove the state of impurity or does it merely permit the prayer? Most jurists, that is the Malikis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis, hold that tayammum does not remove the state of impurity but merely permits the prayer: one therefore intends the permission of the prayer, or of what requires purification, such as touching the mushaf. If one intends the removal of the impurity, the tayammum is not valid, since it does not remove it. The Hanafis and the Zahiris hold, on the contrary, that it removes the state of impurity.
Ibn Abd al-Barr (may Allah have mercy on him) reports: the scholars agree that the purification of tayammum does not remove the state of impurity when water is available; as soon as he finds it, he must resume the purification, whether he is junub, in a state of minor impurity, or a menstruating woman. This is the madhhab of Malik and al-Shafi'i. It is reported from Abu Hanifa that it removes the impurity, for it is a purification from an impurity that permits the prayer: it therefore removes the impurity as purification with water does (source: “at-Tamhid”, 19/291).
The argument of Malik, al-Shafi'i, Ahmad and those who agree with them is this: if he found water, he would be obliged to use it to remove the state of impurity that preceded the tayammum, whether he is junub, in minor impurity, or a menstruating woman. If tayammum removed the impurity, all would be equal, since they share the same observation. Moreover, it is a purification of necessity, which does not remove the impurity, like the purification of the woman with ongoing bleeding (istihada): in this, tayammum differs from water.
Imam al-Mawardi says: tayammum, even though they all agree on the obligation of intention in it, does not remove the state of impurity; it only permits the performance of the prayer. It thus agrees with wudu in permitting the prayer, but differs from it in removing the impurity.
Abu Hanifa replies that tayammum removes the impurity as wudu does. He relies on the chain of Ayyub, from Abu Qilaba, from a man of Banu Amir, from Abu Dharr: the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “The pure earth is a purifier”: he thus made it a purifier. And since it is a purification from an impurity, once it permits the performance of the prayer, the removal of the impurity must be deduced from it by analogy with wudu; likewise, it is one of the two means of purification, so it must remove the impurity as water does; finally, if tayammum did not remove the impurity, the occurrence of a new impurity would not nullify its effect: since it is nullified by the impurity that occurs, this proves that it had removed the first one.
The answer is that tayammum is a purification of necessity, which does not remove the impurity, like that of the woman with ongoing bleeding. The one who performs tayammum remains obliged to use water as soon as he sees it, and therefore remains in a state of impurity, like the one who prays while neither water nor earth is available. It is a purification posterior to the impurity: the obligation to use water does not lapse when he has the means, so that his impurity is not removed, like the one who performs wudu with impure water. If the impurity of the one performing tayammum were removed like that of the one performing wudu, wudu would not be required for a later prayer, contrary to the rule. Finally, what does not remove the impurity in residence does not do so in travel, by analogy with water that does not suffice for the whole body.
As for the hadith invoked, it is discontinuous (munqati'): its chain contains an unknown man of Banu Amir, so it is not probative; and even if it were authentic, the word “purifier” would be understood as the removal of the obligation. The analogy with wudu is broken by the purification of the woman with ongoing bleeding: in wudu, the obligation to use water as soon as it appears indicates the removal of the impurity; yet the one performing tayammum must likewise return to water as soon as he sees it, which indicates that his impurity is not removed. As for the analogy with water, water is used beyond need: purification with it aims in general at the removal of the obligation, not at the removal of the impurity.
To the argument that the nullification of tayammum by a new impurity proves that it had removed the first one, the reply is that it rather yields a proof against its proponents: if a man in a state of major impurity performs tayammum, then contracts a new impurity and finds water, he must perform ghusl. If the tayammum had removed his first impurity, the status of major impurity would have lapsed and wudu would have sufficed for the new one: this is the strongest proof that the first impurity subsists after tayammum. His tayammum is nullified by the new impurity, even though he was in minor impurity, for tayammum permits the prayer with the first impurity, not with the new one (source: “al-Hawi al-Kabir”, 1/242, 244).
They have also differed over the status of the intention: pillar or condition? The Hanafis and the Hanbalis make it a condition; the Malikis and the Shafi'is a pillar of the performance of the obligation (source: “Bada'i' as-Sana'i'”, 1/192; “Radd al-Muhtar”, 1/393; “Bidayat al-Mujtahid”, 1/102; “al-Sharh al-Saghir”, 1/132; “Kifayat al-Akhyar”, p. 99; “al-Ifsah”, 1/89; “al-Mughni”, 1/326; “Manar al-Sabil”, 1/58).
The Hanafis say: for the intention of tayammum to make the prayer valid, one must intend one of three things: purification from the impurity; the permission of the prayer; or the performance of a worship intended for itself which is not valid without purification, such as the prayer, the prostration of recitation (sajdat al-tilawa) or the funeral prayer when water is absent. As for the case where water is available while he fears missing the funeral prayer, it is permitted with this tayammum over another body, if there is no interval between the two.
If one intends tayammum as such, without having in view the permission of the prayer or the removal of the impurity affecting him, the prayer is not valid with this tayammum. The same applies if one intends what is not a worship at all, such as entering the mosque or touching the mushaf; or a worship not intended for itself, such as the call to prayer (adhan) or the iqama; or a worship intended for itself but valid without purification, such as tayammum for reading the Quran, for the salam, or for ridding oneself of a minor impurity. However, if the junub performs tayammum for reading the Quran, all the prayers are permitted to him with this tayammum.
Specifying the impurity, minor or major, is not required: tayammum is valid with an unrestricted intention. If one intends purification in general or the permission of the prayer, it is permitted to do everything that is not permitted without purification: the funeral prayer, the prostration of recitation, touching the mushaf and the like. Indeed, once the prayer is permitted, what lies below it is so a fortiori. What is required, on the other hand, for the validity of the intention is Islam, discernment and knowledge of what one intends, so as to know the reality of the intended object (source: “Bada'i' as-Sana'i'”, 1/193, 194; “al-'Inaya”, 1/199; “al-Lubab”, 1/37).
Among the Malikis, one intends by tayammum one of two things: the permission of the prayer, or the permission of what the impurity prevents, or of what makes tayammum obligatory. One must have in view, in the intention, the major impurity if it is present: one intends the permission of the prayer from the major impurity. If he omits it by forgetfulness, or does not believe he is affected by it, it does not suffice and he must repeat the tayammum in all cases, when he intended the permission of the prayer or of what the impurity prevents.
But if he intended the obligation of tayammum, that suffices for the minor and the major impurity, if he did not distinguish them. Intending the major along with the minor is recommended; if he confines himself to intending the major, it suffices for the minor; and if he believed he was affected by it, intended it, then discovered the contrary, it also suffices. He must not intend the removal of the impurity, for tayammum does not remove it.
It is not permitted to pray an obligatory prayer with a tayammum intended for something else; specifying the prayer, obligatory or supererogatory, or both, is only recommended (source: “Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil”, 1/190; “al-Sharh al-Kabir” with “Hashiyat al-Dasuqi”, 1/154; “Hashiyat al-Sawi” on “al-Sharh al-Saghir”, 1/132, 133).
The Shafi'is hold that one intends the permission of the prayer and of its like among what requires purification to be permitted: tawaf, carrying the mushaf, the prostration of recitation. If one performs tayammum intending the permission of the prayer while believing one's impurity minor when it is major, or the reverse, the tayammum is valid definitively, for the cause is one. If one does so deliberately, it is not valid in the sounder view, for having made sport of the rite.
If a man contracts a major impurity while travelling and forgets, at times performing tayammum and at times wudu, he repeats only the prayers performed with wudu.
Intending the removal of the minor or the major impurity, or purification from either, does not suffice, for tayammum does not remove the impurity: it lapses as soon as its cause disappears. This follows from the word of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to Amr ibn al-As, when the latter contracted a major impurity, performed tayammum and prayed with his companions:
“You prayed with your companions while you were junub?”Authentic hadith, narrated by Abu Dawud (334), Ahmad (17845), al-Hakim in “al-Mustadrak” (269) and al-Bayhaqi in “as-Sunan al-Kubra” (1011)
If one intends the obligation of tayammum, the obligation of purity, the obligatory tayammum, or purification from the impurity, two views clash: according to one, that suffices, as with wudu; the sounder view is that it does not suffice. The difference is that wudu is a worship intended for itself, whose renewal is recommended, unlike tayammum, whose renewal is not: confining oneself to intending tayammum therefore does not suffice, says al-Mawardi (source: “Rawdat at-Talibin”, 1/11, 111; “Mughni al-Muhtaj”, 1/97, 98, 278; “Kifayat al-Akhyar”, p. 99).
The Hanbalis say: one intends the permission of what is permitted only through it, and the intention must be specified according to what one performs tayammum for: a prayer, tawaf, touching a mushaf, from a minor impurity, a major impurity, or impurity on the body. Since tayammum does not remove the impurity but merely permits the prayer, one must specify the state for which one performs tayammum, the state requiring ghusl or wudu, or the impurity, so as to strengthen this weak act. Specification consists in intending, for example, the permission of the dhuhr prayer from the janaba if one is junub, or from the impurity if one is in minor impurity, or from both if one is both.
If he performs tayammum for the impurity forgetting the janaba, or for the janaba forgetting the impurity, it does not suffice, according to the word of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): “Deeds are but by intentions”; all the more so as this does not suffice with water, which is the origin: a fortiori in the substitute (source: “al-Mughni”, 1/326; “al-Kafi”, 1/64; “Kashshaf al-Qina'”, 1/174).
The Shafi'is and the Hanbalis hold that whoever intends by his tayammum an obligatory prayer and a supererogatory one prays both with it; the supererogatory is permitted before as after the obligatory, within the time as outside it. If he intends an obligatory prayer without specifying it, he may perform any of them. If he specifies it, another obligatory prayer than the one intended is permitted to him, even if he had intended a specific one. Whether it is one of the five prayers or a vowed prayer, he is allowed to perform its like and what lies below, that is the supererogatory prayers, for the supererogatory is lighter and the intention of the obligatory encompasses it.
But if he intends a supererogatory only, or an unrestricted intention, such as intending the permission of the prayer without specifying obligatory or supererogatory, he prays only a supererogatory, for the obligatory is the origin and the supererogatory follows it: the followed is not made a follower. The same applies to one who enters ihram for “the prayer” without specifying: his prayer becomes supererogatory.
If he intends touching the mushaf, or if the junub intends i'tikaf, it is like the intention of the supererogatory: he does not obtain the permission of the obligatory, but that of what he intended. Tayammum for the funeral prayer is like tayammum for the supererogatory in the correct view: this prayer, though specified for him, resembles the supererogatory in that it is not specifically due to him, since it lapses if another performs it (source: “Mughni al-Muhtaj”, 1/98; “Sharh al-Minhaj” with al-Qalyubi's gloss, 1/90; “Kifayat al-Akhyar”, p. 99, 100; “al-Mughni”, 1/328; “Kashshaf al-Qina'”, 1/173, 174).
The Maliki madhhab is like that of the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis, but its scholars state explicitly: if one is in a state of major impurity, one must intend the permission of the prayer from this major impurity. If one has not taken it into account, deliberately or through forgetfulness, and prays with this tayammum, one repeats the prayer in all cases. If one intended the major believing oneself affected by it, then discovered the contrary, it suffices for the minor; on the other hand, if one believed oneself unaffected and intended by one's intention the major only as the minor, it does not suffice.
Intending the obligation of tayammum suffices, even without taking into account a present major impurity. It is not permitted to pray the obligatory with a tayammum intended for something else, and specifying the prayer, obligatory or supererogatory, or both, is only recommended (source: “al-Sharh al-Kabir”, 1/154; “al-Thamar al-Dani”, 1/76; “al-Khulasah al-fiqhiyya”, 1/38).
The Hanafis, for their part, permit the obligatory as well as the supererogatory prayer, whether one intended the one or the other, for tayammum is an absolute substitute for water and it removes the state of impurity. Imam al-Kasani writes: if one intends purification in general or the permission of the prayer, it is permitted to do everything that is not permitted without purification, such as the funeral prayer, the prostration of recitation and touching the mushaf. And if one performs tayammum for the funeral prayer, the prostration of recitation or the reading of the Quran, even while junub, all the prayers are permitted with this tayammum, for each of these worships is intended for itself and belongs to the kind of the parts of the prayer: intending it in tayammum is like intending the prayer.
On the other hand, if one performs tayammum for entering the mosque or for touching the mushaf, the prayer is not permitted with it: entering the mosque and touching the mushaf are neither worships intended for themselves, nor of the kind of the parts of the prayer; the tayammum then purifies only that for which it was performed (source: “Bada'i' as-Sana'i'”, 1/52; “Radd al-Muhtar”, 1/416; “al-Ifsah”, 1/92).
Ibn Rushd (may Allah have mercy on him) writes: the majority agree that the acts for which this purification is a condition are those for which wudu is a condition: the prayer, touching the mushaf and the like. They differed over this question: does a single tayammum permit more than one prayer? According to Malik's well-known position, it never permits two obligatory prayers. His statement differs for prayers to be made up (qada'): the best-known position from him is that if one of the two prayers is obligatory and the other supererogatory, the one who performs the obligatory first combines the two, while the one who begins with the supererogatory does not combine them. Abu Hanifa permits combining several obligatory prayers with a single tayammum.
The origin of this disagreement: is tayammum for each prayer or not, either according to the apparent meaning of the verse, or according to the obligation to repeat the seeking, or according to both (source: “Bidayat al-Mujtahid”, 1/35). The second pillar is wiping the face and the hands: the jurists agree that it is one of the pillars of wudu and one of the obligations of tayammum, by the word of Allah:
“Wipe your faces and your hands with it”
Surah Al-Ma'ida, 6
They differed over the obligatory portion concerning the hands. The Hanafis, the Shafi'is and the Malikis, according to one view, hold that the obligation is to wipe the hands up to the elbows, completely, as in wudu, since tayammum takes the place of wudu. Allah indeed commanded, in wudu, washing the hands up to the elbows, then said at the end of the verse: “if you find no water, resort to pure earth and wipe your faces and your hands with it” (Surah Al-Ma'ida, 6), whose apparent meaning aims at the member described first, the elbow. The unrestricted statement is therefore referred back to this restricted one, all the more so as it is one and the same verse.
Imam al-Shafi'i says: Allah prescribed, at the beginning of the verse, the purification of the four members in wudu, then omitted two of them in tayammum at the end of the verse. The two remaining members of tayammum are therefore as mentioned in wudu, for had they differed, Allah would have clarified them. The Muslims agree that the face is entirely included in wudu, and likewise the two hands. And analogy requires that the substitute be of the kind of the substituted.
They rely on what Jabir and Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them) narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him):
“Tayammum: one strike for the face and one strike for the hands up to the elbows.”Very weak, narrated by al-Daraqutni (685) and al-Hakim in “al-Mustadrak” (633)
And from Abu Juhaym al-Ansari:
“The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was coming from the direction of the well of Jamal; a man met him and greeted him, but the Prophet did not answer him before turning to a wall, wiping his face and his hands, and then returning his greeting.”Narrated by al-Bukhari (330) and Muslim (369)
The scholars say that this hadith is unspecific (mujmal): Ibn Umar explained it in his version. He said: “A man passed by the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) on a road, having just relieved himself or urinated; he greeted him, but he did not answer him. Then, as the man was about to disappear in the distance, he struck his hands against the wall, wiped his face with them, struck a second time, wiped his forearms, then returned the man's greeting.”
This report, narrated by Abu Dawud (330) and weakened by al-Albani in “Da'if Abi Dawud” (279), comes from the transmission of Muhammad ibn Thabit al-Abdi. Al-Bayhaqi says: Ibn Umar's word and deed have well established tayammum as two strikes, one for the face and one for the hands up to the elbows. His word and deed therefore testify to the soundness of al-Abdi's transmission, for he would not contradict the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in what he narrates from him.
Al-Shafi'i and al-Bayhaqi say: “We have adopted the hadith of wiping the two forearms, for it agrees with the apparent meaning of the Quran and with analogy, and it is the most comprehensive.” Al-Khattabi says: “Confining oneself to the two palms is sounder in transmission; the obligation of the forearms is closer to the principles (usul) and sounder in analogy. And Allah knows best.” (source: “al-Majmu'”, 3/206, 209; “Kifayat al-Akhyar”, p. 100; “Bada'i' as-Sana'i'”, 1/174; “Radd al-Muhtar”, 1/392; “Bidayat al-Mujtahid”, 1/104).
The Malikis in the madhhab and the Hanbalis, as well as an early statement of al-Shafi'i, hold that the obligation is to wipe the hands up to the base of the elbows (ku'ayn), and that the sunna is to go from this base to the elbow. They rely on the hadith of Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Abza: a man came to Umar and said: “I am in a state of major impurity and I found no water.” He said: “Do not pray.” Ammar said: “O Commander of the Believers, do you not remember when you and I were on an expedition? We became impure and found no water: you did not pray, while I rubbed myself with dust (in a version: rolled in it) and prayed.” The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) then said:
“It would have sufficed you to strike the ground with your hands, then blow on them, then wipe your face and your palms with them.”Narrated by al-Bukhari (331) and Muslim (368)
Al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) reports: Abu Thawr and others transmitted a statement of al-Shafi'i in his old book, according to which it suffices to wipe the face and the two palms. Abu Hamid, al-Mawardi and others denied this attribution, saying that al-Shafi'i had not mentioned it in the old book. This denial is corrupt: Abu Thawr is among the intimates of al-Shafi'i's companions, their trusted men and their imams, so his transmission from him is acceptable. If this statement is not found in the old book, it is understood that he heard it orally; and although early and set aside by his companions, it is the strongest in evidence and the closest to the apparent meaning of the authentic sunna (source: “al-Majmu'”, 3/306; “Fath al-Bari”, 1/531; “al-Kafi” of Ibn Abd al-Barr, 1/29; “al-Dhakhirah”, 1/353; “Tafsir al-Qurtubi”, 5/239; “al-Mughni”, 1/239; “al-Kafi”, 1/62; “al-Insaf”, 1/301; “al-Sharh al-Kabir”, 1/158; “Manar al-Sabil”, 1/62).
Ibn Rushd (may Allah have mercy on him) reports four views on the limit of the hands that Allah commanded to wipe in tayammum. First view: the obligatory limit is that of wudu, up to the elbows; this is the well-known position, that of the jurists of the great cities. Second view: the obligation is confined to the palms; this is the view of the Zahiris and of the people of hadith (ahl al-hadith). Third view: going up to the elbows is recommended and the obligation falls on the palms; this is reported from Malik. Fourth view: the obligation extends to the shoulders; an aberrant view, reported from al-Zuhri and Muhammad ibn Maslama.
The first cause of the disagreement is that the word “hand” is shared in the Arabic language among three meanings: the palm alone, the most common usage; the palm and the forearm; the palm, the forearm and the upper arm. The second cause lies in the divergence of the reports. The well-known hadith of Ammar, in its established chains, says: “It suffices you to strike with your hand, blow into it, then wipe with it your face and your palms.” In some chains it is said: “and to wipe your hands up to the elbows.” It is also reported from Ibn Umar that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “Tayammum, two strikes: one for the face, one for the hands up to the elbows”, through the chain of Ibn Abbas and others.
The majority therefore prefer these hadiths over the established hadith of Ammar, on the strength of the support of analogy, that is the comparison of tayammum with wudu. They understand that the narrators moved from the word “hand” designating what is most apparent, the palm, to the palm and the forearm. Whoever claims that both usages are equivalent and that neither is more apparent than the other is mistaken: the “hand” designates the palm literally, and what is above the palm figuratively. Not every shared name is unspecific (mujmal): only unspecific is the name that is shared from the outset.
The jurists reply that this argument is not probative: the word “hand” either designates the palm more apparently than the other members, or designates all the members equally. If it is more apparent, one must hold to it, as one holds to the apparent; if not, one must follow the established report. Preferring analogy to the report here has no meaning, and hadiths not yet established cannot ground a preference. The question is clear from the Book and the Sunna: consider it.
As for those who go up to the shoulders, they rely on some chains of the hadith of Ammar: “We performed tayammum with the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) and wiped our faces and our hands up to the shoulders.” This hadith is weak, narrated by al-Nasa'i (315). Whoever takes these hadiths as recommendation and the hadith of Ammar as obligation follows a fine path, for combination is preferable to preference among the jurists; but one should only resort to it if those hadiths are authentic (source: “Bidayat al-Mujtahid”, 1/49, 50).
The excuses that permit tayammum come down to the inability to use water, either because it is missing, or because it cannot be used although present. The first excuse is the absence of water.
First case: the traveller's lack of water. If he finds no water at all, or finds a quantity that plainly does not suffice for purification, tayammum is permitted to him. According to the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis, he must nevertheless use what he has on some members, then perform tayammum for the rest; according to the Hanbalis, this applies to the junub, by the word of Allah: “if you find no water” (Surah An-Nisa, 43): yet this one does find water. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said:
“When I command you to do something, do of it what you can.”Narrated by al-Bukhari (6858) and Muslim (1337)
If it is a matter of minor impurity, two versions clash: he is obliged to use the available water, or he is not.
The absence of water is also legal for the traveller when he fears the way leading to the water, or when the latter is far away: he is then not asked to seek it. The Shafi'is require that, if the water is supposed to be present, he seek it among what is near him, not among what is far. The Hanafis and the Malikis, for their part, do not require him to use the water he carries: the water must indeed suffice for all the members; if it does not suffice, it is as if absent, and one turns to tayammum (source: “Bada'i' as-Sana'i'”, 1/177; “Radd al-Muhtar”, 1/395; “al-Thamar al-Dani”, 1/68; “Hashiyat al-Dasuqi”, 1/149; “Mughni al-Muhtaj”, 1/87, 95; “Kifayat al-Akhyar”, p. 94, 95; “al-Kafi”, 1/68; “al-Mughni”, 1/37; “Kashshaf al-Qina'”, 1/162; “Manar al-Sabil”, 1/58).
The jurists differed over the distance beyond which water need no longer be sought and tayammum becomes permitted. The Hanafis retain, as their chosen view, one mil, that is four thousand cubits (the mil equals 1680 metres by modern measures): beyond that, the search is not required. They add: if no one is near him to inform him that water is close, and if he himself does not presume that water is near, the search is not required, even at less than a mil (source: “al-Maqadir al-shar'iyya”, al-Kurdi, p. 300; “Bada'i' as-Sana'i'”, 1/177; “Radd al-Muhtar”, 1/396).
The Malikis set the limit at two mils, but they distinguish three situations for the search for water in general. First situation: the water sought for wudu is certainly absent or presumed absent from the place where it is sought: the search is then never required, whether the water is two mils away or not, whether there is hardship or not.
Second situation: the water is certainly present, presumed so or doubtful: the search is required under two conditions, that the distance be less than two mils, and that the search involve no hardship.
Third situation: the water is certainly present, presumed so or doubtful, but the distance is two mils or more, or the search involves hardship or the loss of the caravan: the search is then not required, even if the water lies less than two mils away (source: “Hashiyat al-Dasuqi” on “al-Sharh al-Kabir”, 1/153; “Bulghat al-Salik”, 1/129, 131; “al-Fawakih al-Dawani”, 1/154; “al-Khulasah al-fiqhiyya”, 1/36).
The Shafi'is set the limit at four hundred cubits: this is the limit of the call for rescue, the range of an arrow shot. This applies when the water is supposed, presumed or doubtful; if he is certain of the absence of water around him, he performs tayammum without searching. If he is certain of the presence of water around him, he seeks it within the proximity limit, namely six thousand paces. Water is sought, within the proximity limit as within that of rescue, only if he is safe for his person and his property, and from being cut off from his caravan (source: “Mughni al-Muhtaj”, 1/88; “Kifayat al-Akhyar”, p. 94, 95; “al-Awsat”, 2/35).
As for the Hanbalis, Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) writes: the manner of seeking is to inspect one's baggage; if he sees greenery or an indication of water, he heads for it and examines it; if there is near him a hill or a standing feature, he goes to it and examines it; otherwise he looks before him, behind him, to his right and to his left. If he has companions, their search is an indication for him; whoever finds someone knowledgeable about the place asks him about its waters. If he finds none, he is without water; if he is guided to water, he must head for it if it is near, so long as he does not fear for his person or his property, does not dread losing his caravan, and the time has not passed. This is the madhhab of al-Shafi'i (source: “al-Mughni”, 1/307; “al-Awsat”, 2/35).
Ibn Rushd (may Allah have mercy on him) raises the question: is the search a condition for the lawfulness of tayammum in the absence of water? Malik makes it a condition, as does al-Shafi'i; Abu Hanifa does not. The disagreement stems from this: is the one who has not found water without searching called “one who finds no water”? The sound view is that whoever is certain of the absence of water, whether through a prior search or otherwise, is without water, while the one who merely presumes it is not. That is why the view prescribing the repetition of the search in the very same place is weak, while requiring it at the outset is sound so long as there is no certain knowledge of the absence of water (source: “Bidayat al-Mujtahid”, 1/48, 49).
Second excuse: the inability to use water. Whoever finds water must use it for any worship required of him that is not valid without purification, such as the prayer and the like. He may not turn to tayammum unless he is unable to use the water, whether through illness, fear of illness from cold or the like, or inability to use it.
The jurists agree on the lawfulness of tayammum for the sick person certain of suffering harm, by the word of Allah: “And do not kill yourselves” (Surah An-Nisa, 29), and by the hadith of Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him): “We were on a journey when a man among us was struck by a stone that wounded his head; he then had a seminal emission and asked his companions: Do you find for me a dispensation for tayammum? They said: We find none for you, you can use the water. He washed and died. When we came back to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), he was informed of it and said:”
“They killed him, may Allah kill them! Why did they not ask when they did not know? The cure of the helpless is the question.”Good hadith, narrated by Abu Dawud (336, 337) and Ibn Majah (572)
If he fears, in using water for wudu or ghusl, harm to his person, the worsening of his illness, the delay of his recovery, or unbearable pain, tayammum is permitted to him according to the Hanafis, Malik and al-Shafi'i according to a view that is the apparent one of the madhhab, and according to the apparent position of the Hanbalis, by the general scope of the word of Allah: “if you are sick or on a journey” (Surah An-Nisa, 43).
All the more so as tayammum is permitted to him if he fears the loss of part of his property or harm from a brigand or a beast, or if he finds water only at a price far above that of similar water: a fortiori here. Indeed, sitting in the prayer and delaying the prayer are not confined to fear of destruction; the same applies here. This is known by habit or by the report of a skilful, Muslim and upright physician; some Hanafis are content that he not be openly impious.
But the sick or wounded person who fears no harm from the use of water, such as the one suffering from headache or burning fever, or who can use hot water, or whose illness entails no feared consequence from the use of water, even if he suffers at the moment from a wound, from cold or from heat: tayammum is not permitted to him for any of this, for its permission presupposes the absence of harm, and there is no harm here (source: “Hashiyat Ibn Abidin”, 1/397; “Hashiyat al-Tahtawi”, 1/62; “Tafsir al-Qurtubi”, 5/216; “Hashiyat al-Dasuqi” on “al-Sharh al-Kabir”, 1/149; “Mughni al-Muhtaj”, 1/92, 106; “al-Jam'”, 1/206, 207; “Kifayat al-Akhyar”, p. 95; “al-Mughni”, 1/334; “Kashshaf al-Qina'”, 1/162, 165; “al-Ifsah”, 1/92).
Al-Shafi'i and Ahmad hold that the wounded or sick person who can wash one part of his body and not another must wash what he can and perform tayammum for the rest (source: “al-Majmu'”, 3/313; “al-Mughni”, 1/308, 335; “al-Ishraf”, 1/39; “al-Ifsah”, 1/96).
Abu Hanifa says: if the greater part of the body is sound, he washes it, and the wounded limb loses its ruling, though wiping it is recommended; if the greater part is wounded, he performs tayammum and does not wash, for combining the substitute and the substituted is not obligatory, as with fasting and feeding (source: “al-Ikhtiyar”, 1/23; “Bada'i' as-Sana'i'”, 1/190; “al-Ishraf”, 1/39; “al-Ifsah”, 1/96; “Hashiyat Ibn Abidin”, 1/433). Malik says: the sound one washes, the wounded one wipes and does not perform tayammum (source: “al-Ishraf”, 1/39; “al-Ifsah”, 1/96).
As for the sick person's fear of cold: the majority of jurists permit tayammum, in residence as in travel (Abu Yusuf and Muhammad differ for residence), to the one who fears, in using water, death, the onset of illness, its worsening, or the delay of recovery, whether he is in minor or major impurity. They invoke the word of Allah: “And do not kill yourselves” (Surah An-Nisa, 29), His word: “And do not throw yourselves into destruction with your own hands” (Surah Al-Baqara, 195), and the account of Amr ibn al-As (may Allah be pleased with him):
“I had a seminal emission on a cold night, during the expedition of Dhat al-Salasil. I feared perishing if I washed; I performed tayammum, then prayed the dawn with my companions. This was mentioned to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), who said: O Amr, you prayed with your companions while you were junub? I told him what had prevented me from washing and said: I heard Allah say: ‘And do not kill yourselves, Allah is Most Merciful to you’ (Surah An-Nisa, 29). The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) smiled and said nothing.”Authentic hadith, narrated by Abu Dawud (334), Ahmad (17845), al-Hakim in “al-Mustadrak” (269) and al-Bayhaqi in “as-Sunan al-Kubra” (1011)
The Prophet's silence (peace and blessings be upon him) indicates the permission, for he does not approve of error; and this man feared for his person: tayammum was therefore permitted to him, as to the wounded and the sick.
The Hanafis, in the madhhab, restrict the permission of tayammum for cold to the junub: the man in minor impurity may not perform tayammum for cold, unless the harm of wudu is established; it is then permitted to him.
The jurists then differed: does the one who performs tayammum out of fear of cold and prays have to repeat? Abu Hanifa, Malik and Ahmad according to one version hold that repetition is not required of him, on the basis of the earlier hadith of Amr ibn al-As: the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not order him to repeat, and would have done so had it been required. Moreover, fearing for his person, he resembles the sick man; he did what he was commanded and thus resembles any other who prays with tayammum (source: “Radd al-Muhtar”, 1/398; “Tafsir al-Qurtubi”, 5/216, 217; al-Zarqani's gloss, 1/115; “Hashiyat al-Dasuqi”, 1/149; “al-Mughni”, 1/339; “al-Ifsah”, 1/92, 93).
Imam Ahmad, according to the second version, which is the view of Abu Yusuf and Muhammad among the Hanafis, holds that the prayer must be repeated, for it is a rare excuse. Abu al-Khattab says: no prayer is to be repeated if he is a traveller; if he is a resident, two versions clash, for residence presumes the ability to heat water and enter the bath, unlike travel (source: “Radd al-Muhtar”, 1/398; “al-Mughni”, 1/339; “al-Ifsah”, 1/92, 93; “Kashshaf al-Qina'”, 1/163).
The Shafi'is say: if the sick person performs tayammum while he finds water, out of fear of death, and prays, then recovers, no prayer is to be repeated, by consensus. If he fears only the worsening of the illness or the delay of recovery through the use of water, two views clash: either this is permitted only with fear of death, or it is permitted. If the sound person performs tayammum for intense cold and prays while resident, the prayer must be repeated by consensus; for the traveller, two views on the obligation to repeat (source: “al-Majmu'”, 3/305, 312; “Mughni al-Muhtaj”, 1/93, 107).
Most jurists hold that the one who has no possibility of using water (the coerced man, the prisoner, the one chained near water, the one who fears a beast or a person, in travel as in residence) performs tayammum and does not repeat the prayer, for he is legally without water. The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said:
“Pure earth is a purifier for the Muslim, even if he finds no water for ten years; if he finds water, let him touch it with his skin: that is better.”Authentic hadith, narrated by Abu Dawud (332, 333), al-Tirmidhi (124) and al-Nasa'i (322)
The Hanafis except from this rule the man coerced to abandon wudu: he performs tayammum, but repeats his prayer.
The same applies to the woman: if the water lies in a place where wicked men gather and she fears for herself, she performs tayammum; in the sounder of the two views among the Hanbalis, no prayer is to be repeated. She is not even permitted to go to the water, given the exposure to fornication, the assault on her person and her honour, the humiliation of her family, and sometimes her killing. Tayammum was permitted to her to preserve a small amount of lawful property that she is permitted to spend; all the more so to preserve her person from illness or delayed recovery.
Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) writes: whoever is in a place, at the time of breaking camp, and fears that in going to the water he will lose part of his baggage, or that his mount will stray or be stolen, or fears for his family a brigand or a beast, with intense fear, is like the one who has no water.
As for the one whose fear is mere cowardice, without a cause that others would fear, his prayer is not valid with tayammum: Ahmad stated this concerning a man who fears at night when there is nothing to fear, saying that he must perform wudu. It is nonetheless conceivable that tayammum be permitted to him and that he repeat if he is among those whose fear is intense, for he resembles the one who fears for a cause. As for the one whose fear rests on a presumed cause whose absence is later revealed, like the one who sees a black shape at night, takes it for an enemy then discovers that it is not, or who sees a dog and takes it for a lion or a leopard: he performs tayammum and prays, then discovers the contrary; must he repeat the prayer?