Washing the feet: the fourth obligation of wudu

This part belongs to the full section: All sections of this part.

This second part of the encyclopedic study of wudu (ablution) first examines the washing of the feet, the fourth obligation on which the 4 Sunni schools agree, then the duties whose status is disputed: the intention (niyya), continuity between the acts (muwalat), the order of the limbs (tartib), and rubbing (dalk). It then details the recommended acts (sunan) of wudu, from the opening basmala to rinsing the mouth and nose, wiping the ears and the whole head, passing the fingers between the fingers and toes, the question of extending the ghurra and the tahjil, and finally the closing supplication and the prayer of 2 rak'as. Each position is reported exactly as the encyclopedia attributes it to its school, together with its Quranic and prophetic proofs and its references to the classical works.

Washing the feet: the fourth obligation of wudu

Before turning to this fourth duty, the encyclopedia closes the question of the head covering: the Malikis said that if one fears harm from removing the turban and it cannot be untied, it is permissible to wipe over it; and if one is able to wipe part of the head directly, he wipes it and then completes over the turban, this being obligatory according to the relied-upon view (al-Mughni 1/385, 387; al-Insaf 1/185; al-Tahqiq of Ibn al-Jawzi 1/121; al-Fatawa al-Kubra 1/54).

The Hanafis, as Ibn Nujaym states in al-Bahr al-Ra'iq (1/193), said: if a woman wipes over her veil (khimar) and the moisture reaches her head until a quarter of it is wet, this is permissible when the veil is new, for the pores of new fabric are not clogged by use and the moisture passes through; if it is not new, this is not permissible, because its pores are clogged.

The fourth duty is the washing of the 2 feet. The fuqaha of the 4 schools, Hanafis, Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis, agree that washing both feet, when they are bare, sound and not covered by leather socks (khuff) or a splint, up to the ankles, once, is among the pillars of wudu, according to the word of Allah:

"O you who believe, when you rise for prayer, wash your faces and your hands up to the elbows, wipe your heads, and your feet up to the ankles"

Surat al-Ma'ida, 6

following the Quranic reading with the accusative (nasb), in the sense: wash your faces, your hands and your feet, and wipe your heads, without the reading in the genitive (khafd). The Quran came down with both readings together, and the umma transmitted them directly from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). The linguists do not dispute that each of the 2 readings can carry either wiping, when it is joined to the head, or washing, when it is joined to the washed limbs.

The words "and your feet", in the accusative, can mean "wash your feet", just as they can be conjoined to the head and then mean wiping. Since the wording stood at this point of indecision between the 2 meanings, while all agree that one of the 2 is intended, it became like an indeterminate text (mujmal) requiring explanation: whatever explanation came from the Messenger of Allah, in word or deed, lets us know that this is what Allah intended. Now the explanation came from the Messenger of Allah in favor of washing, in word and in deed.

On the side of deed: what is established by the widely and continuously transmitted reports (mutawatir) is that the Prophet washed his feet in wudu, with no divergence existing in the umma on this point. His deed, occurring in this case in the rank of explanation, amounts to obligation, so it is established that this is what Allah intended by the verse.

On the side of word: Jabir, Abu Hurayra, 'A'isha, 'Abd Allah ibn 'Umar and others (may Allah be pleased with them) reported that the Prophet saw people whose heels were showing, untouched by the water, and he said:

Woe to the heels from the Fire! Complete the wudu.Reported by al-Bukhari (60, 69, 161, 163) and Muslim (240, 241, 242)

The Prophet also performed wudu washing each limb once, then washed his feet and said:

This is the wudu of one whose prayer Allah will not accept except with it.Reported by Ibn Majah (420); weakened by al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar in Fath al-Bari (1/233) and al-Diraya (1/25), and by al-Albani in al-Irwa' (85)

His words "woe to the heels from the Fire" are a threat that can only be deserved by neglecting a duty. It therefore requires the foot to be entirely covered by purification, and invalidates the view of whoever allows settling for part of the foot. His words "complete the wudu", and his words after washing the feet, "this is the wudu of one whose prayer Allah will not accept except with it", require both feet to be fully covered by washing: wudu is indeed a name for washing, which presupposes the running of water over the place, which wiping does not presuppose. In the other report, Allah does not accept the prayer without their being washed.

The encyclopedia then develops several further arguments. If wiping were permissible, the Prophet would not have left it unexplained: what Allah intended by wiping would have carried the same weight as what He intended by washing, and his wiping would have had to carry the same weight as his washing; since wiping did not come as washing came, it is established that wiping is not intended.

Next, of the 2 readings, one gives washing and the other wiping. If 2 verses had come, one obligating washing and the other wiping, it would not be permissible to abandon washing for wiping, since washing is an increase of action demanded by the command to wash. Both would then have to be applied according to the broader in ruling and the more beneficial, namely washing: it stands in place of wiping, while wiping does not stand in place of washing.

Next, when Allah delimited the feet by His words "and your feet up to the ankles", in the image of His words "and your hands up to the elbows", this indicates covering the whole, just as the mention of the hands up to the elbows indicates their complete washing. Finally, since the verse admitted both washing and wiping, it is applied with obligation in both situations: washing when the feet are bare, and wiping when they are covered with leather socks (khuffayn).

The imam al-Bayhaqi (may Allah have mercy on him), after the Prophet's words "then he washed his feet up to the ankles, as Allah had commanded him" (reported by Muslim (832) from the hadith of 'Amr ibn 'Utba without the mention "as Allah had commanded him"; reported with that mention by Ibn Khuzayma in his Sahih (1/85) and by al-Bayhaqi in al-Sunan al-Kubra (1/71)), said: this is a proof that Allah commanded washing them.

The imam al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the hadiths on this question are very numerous. Our companions (the Shafi'is) say: they are 2 defined limbs, so their duty is washing, like the hands. Al-Nawawi also said: the Muslims are in consensus on the obligation of washing the feet, and none of those whose opinion counts has contradicted it; thus stated al-Shaykh Abu Hamid and others (al-Majmu' 1/476, 480; Sharh Sahih Muslim 3/104).

Ibn al-Mundhir (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the generality of the people of knowledge agree that whoever wears no leather socks must wash the feet up to the ankles (al-Awsat 1/411, 415; see also Ahkam al-Qur'an of al-Jassas 3/349, 352; Radd al-Muhtar 1/212; al-Istidhkar 1/138, 140; Bada'i' al-Sana'i' 1/29, 31; al-Taj wa-l-Iklil 1/211; Hashiya of al-Dasuqi 1/145; al-Umm 1/27; al-Majmu' 1/476, 480; Sharh Sahih Muslim 3/104; Fath al-Bari 1/320; Ahkam al-Qur'an of Ibn al-'Arabi 2/701, 171; al-Hawi 1/148; Nil al-Awtar 1/168; al-Mughni 1/168, 171; Bidayat al-Mujtahid 1/36; al-Tahqiq 1/123).

The imam al-Kasani (may Allah have mercy on him) said: it is established in a mutawatir manner that the Prophet washed his feet in wudu, and no Muslim denies it; his word and his deed explain what the verse intends. It is therefore established, by the connected and the detached proofs, that the feet, in the verse, are conjoined to the washed limbs and not to the wiped one: their function is washing, not wiping (Bada'i' al-Sana'i' 1/29, 31).

'Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Layla said: the Companions of the Prophet were in consensus on washing the feet. The imam al-Mawardi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: washing the feet in wudu is agreed upon by the text of the Book and the Sunna, and their duty according to all the fuqaha is washing, not wiping (al-Hawi al-Kabir 1/148).

According to the majority of the fuqaha, including the ankles in the washing of the feet is obligatory, and only Zufar contradicted them on this point. The debate over the ankles is similar to the debate over the elbows; the 2 ankles are the 2 protruding bones at the lower end of the leg (al-Hawi al-Kabir 1/148).

The intention (niyya) in wudu

Second section: the disputed duties of wudu. First point: the intention. The fuqaha differed over the intention in wudu: is it a duty (fard) and a condition for the validity of wudu, or a recommended sunna, such that whoever performs wudu without intention would have a valid wudu?

The majority of the fuqaha, the Malikis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis, hold that the intention is a duty among the duties of wudu and a condition among its conditions, according to the word of Allah:

"They were commanded only to worship Allah, sincere to Him in religion"

Surat al-Bayyina, 5

Sincerity is an act of the heart, and it is the intention; the command entails obligation. And according to the words of the Prophet:

Deeds are only by intentions.Reported by al-Bukhari (1)

for the particle of restriction means restriction: what is intended is not the physical form of the deed, which exists without intention; what is intended is that the ruling of the deed is not established except by intention. Another proof is the words of the Prophet:

And each man has only what he intended.Reported by al-Bukhari (1)

Now whoever did not intend wudu does not obtain it. They said: the hadith means that the deed is not legally valid, with reward or sanction, except with intention. Wudu is a purification from ritual impurity (hadath) through which prayer becomes lawful: it is therefore not valid without intention, like tayammum. It is also an act of worship comprising pillars: intention is required in it, as in prayer. Whoever performs wudu intends either to lift the ritual impurity, or to make lawful something requiring purity, such as prayer, the circumambulation (tawaf) or touching the mushaf, or to fulfill the duty of wudu (Hashiya of al-Dasuqi 1/151; Tafsir al-Qurtubi 3/357; Ahkam al-Qur'an of Ibn al-'Arabi 2/57; al-Majmu' 1/375; Mughni al-Muhtaj 1/147; Kifayat al-Akhyar p. 65; al-Mughni 1/135; Kashshaf al-Qina' 1/85; Manar al-Sabil 1/34; Tafsir Ibn Kathir 2/24).

The Hanafis hold that the intention in wudu is a sunna. They rely on the word of Allah: "O you who believe, when you rise for prayer, wash your faces and your hands up to the elbows, wipe your heads, and your feet up to the ankles" (Surat al-Ma'ida, 6). The command to wash and to wipe is absolute, without any condition of intention, and it is not permissible to restrict the absolute without proof. The verse entails the lawfulness of prayer once the washing exists, whether or not intention accompanies it: washing is a legally established term whose linguistic meaning, well known, is running water over the limb, and it is not an expression denoting intention; whoever conditions intention in it therefore adds to the text.

And Allah says:

"O you who believe, do not approach prayer while you are intoxicated until you know what you are saying, nor in a state of major impurity, unless you are passing through, until you wash"

Surat an-Nisa, 43

The imam al-Kasani (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the person in a state of major impurity was forbidden to approach prayer, if not a traveler, up to the limit of the complete washing, an expression that is absolute without any condition of intention; this entails that the prohibition ceases with absolute washing; otherwise it would not cease except with washing accompanied by intention, which contradicts the Book. And because the command of wudu aims at obtaining purity, according to His words at the end of the verse:

"but He wills to purify you"

Surat an-Nisa, 6 (per the encyclopedia's citation)

now the obtaining of purity does not depend on intention, but on using the purifier upon a place receptive to purification, and water is purifying, according to what is reported from the Prophet: "Water is pure, nothing makes it impure", and according to His words:

"And We sent down from the sky purifying water"

Surat al-Furqan, 48

Purifying water (tahur) designates what is pure in itself and purifies other things, and the place is receptive, as is known. It thus appears that purification is water's natural effect, and that the tongue's utterance is a supererogatory addition in this chapter: even if rain flowed over someone, it would stand in place of his wudu and complete washing. Intention is therefore not required for them, since requiring it amounts to taking account of the voluntary act. It also appears that what wudu requires is the meaning of purification, the meaning of worship being an addition: if intention joins it, it becomes worship; if not, it is not worship, but a means of establishing prayer through the purity obtained, like walking to the Friday prayer (Bada'i' al-Sana'i' 1/82, 84; Ahkam al-Qur'an of al-Jassas 3/335, 337; Radd al-Muhtar 1/322).

Ibn Rushd (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the cause of the disagreement of the Hanafis with the majority is that wudu wavers between being pure worship, whose meaning is not intelligible and which is intended only as nearness to Allah, like prayer, and intelligible worship, like washing away impurity. No one disagrees that pure worship requires intention and that intelligible worship does not; wudu partakes of both, hence the disagreement, for it combines worship and cleanliness. Jurisprudential finesse consists in examining which of the 2 it resembles more strongly, in order to attach it to that one (Bidayat al-Mujtahid 1/27).

The imam al-Juwayni (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the verse of wudu contains a consummate exposition; let the people of this age make it their reference for the foundation of this chapter, for the Quran will be recited until the dawn of Resurrection. Then, what an era devoid of fuqaha and transmitters of the schools dictates (meaning an era without scholars, when the details and proofs have faded), is that intention is not required of the one who performs wudu: it has no mention in the Book, and wudu was not transmitted as acts of devotion legislated for their own sake; it was transmitted as means and preliminaries intended for something other than themselves. Its absolute transmission, widely diffused and mutawatir, contains no indication of intention, and nothing in Allah's Book incorporates it; the same holds for tayammum. If one objects: tayammum literally means "aiming", does not its very wording indicate intention? We answer: it does mean aiming, but it is bound to the soil, so what its meaning requires is aiming at the dust. Such is the ruling of intention in an era bare of any mention of proofs for requiring it (Ghayath al-Umam p. 512).

The imam Ibn al-Mundhir (may Allah have mercy on him) reports the disagreement of the people of knowledge over one who performs wudu without intending purification by it. One group said: it does not suffice him; so said al-Shafi'i, Rabi'a ibn Abi 'Abd al-Rahman, Malik, Ahmad, Ishaq, Abu 'Ubayd and Abu Thawr, with no difference, for them, between wudu and tayammum. Another group differentiated between the 2: wudu without intention suffices, and tayammum only with intention; this is the view of Sufyan al-Thawri and the partisans of personal opinion (ahl al-ra'y). Al-Thawri said: if you teach a man tayammum, it does not suffice you to pray with that tayammum unless you intended to perform it for yourself; but if you teach him wudu, it suffices you.

A third view is reported from al-Awza'i, concerning the man who teaches tayammum to another without intending it for himself, and then prayer time arrives: he prays with that tayammum, just as if he had performed wudu without intention he would be pure; such is Abu al-Mughira's report from him, and al-Hasan ibn Salih said the same. Al-Walid ibn Muslim reported from al-Awza'i that he said: it does not suffice him for tayammum, and suffices him for wudu. Al-Walid reported the like from Malik and al-Thawri. Abu Bakr [Ibn al-Mundhir] said: as for his report from al-Thawri, it is as he reported it, for it agrees with the reports of al-Ashja'i, al-'Adani, 'Abd al-Razzaq and al-Faryabi from him; as for what he reported from Malik, what Malik's companions reported from Ibn Wahb and Ibn al-Qasim is sounder, and Allah knows best.

Abu Bakr [Ibn al-Mundhir] said: the words of the Messenger of Allah, "deeds are only by intentions", which encompass all deeds without excepting any, indicate that this holds for obligations and supererogatory works alike. He then set out the dispositions of wills: "whoever's emigration was for Allah and His Messenger, his emigration is for Allah and His Messenger; and whoever's emigration was for worldly gain he acquires, or for a woman he marries, his emigration is for that to which he emigrated". It is therefore not valid for someone to be deemed as rendering to Allah what He obligated upon him who enters the water to teach another swimming for a dirham he takes, or seeking coolness or pleasure without intending to fulfill a duty: for he never intended Allah by his deed. Allah said:

"Whoever desires the harvest of this world, We give him of it"

Surat ash-Shura, 20

Someone said: whoever aims at a dirham or a dinar to teach another swimming intends nothing else, while claiming to fulfill a duty owed to Allah regarding purification: he contradicts Allah's Book and His Messenger's Sunna, even though the contradiction never leaves him, since he requires intention in tayammum and voids it in wudu. Now the report by which he requires intention in tayammum is the very one that requires intention in wudu, prayer, zakat, hajj, fasting and all deeds; I have mentioned the remaining proofs of this chapter in another book (al-Awsat 1/369, 371).

He also said: whoever performs wudu as purification from ritual impurity, or as purity for an obligatory or supererogatory prayer, for recitation or for a funeral prayer, may pray the obligatory prayer with it, according to al-Shafi'i, Abu 'Ubayd, Ishaq, Abu Thawr and others of our companions, and that is what we say (al-Awsat 1/371).

Continuity between the acts (muwalat)

Second point: continuity. It consists of washing the limbs in succession, such that the first limb does not dry before one begins the second. The scholars differed over its ruling in wudu: absolutely obligatory, obligatory with presence of mind and capacity, or sunna? Three views divide the question.

First view: the Malikis in one statement, the imam al-Shafi'i in the earlier position, and the Hanbalis of the school hold continuity to be absolutely obligatory. They rely on the fact that the Prophet saw a man praying with, on the back of his foot, a dry spot the size of a dirham untouched by the water, and the Prophet ordered him to repeat the wudu and the prayer (authentic hadith: Abu Dawud 175). If continuity were not obligatory, washing that spot would have sufficed him. And because wudu is an act of worship invalidated by ritual impurity, continuity is required in it, as in prayer. The verse indicated the obligation of washing, and the Prophet set out its manner, explaining the indeterminate by his deed and his command: he never performed wudu without continuity, and he ordered whoever abandoned continuity to repeat the wudu.

Second view: the Hanafis, the Malikis in one statement, al-Shafi'i of the school, and Ahmad in one narration hold that continuity in wudu is a sunna, in keeping with the apparent sense of the verse: what is commanded is the washing of the limbs, and however he washes them, it is valid. It is also one of the 2 purifications in which continuity is not required, like the complete washing (ghusl). They also rely on what is established from him: he would perform wudu at the start of his purity and delay washing his feet until the end of it (al-Bukhari 257; Muslim 317).

Third view: continuity is obligatory with presence of mind and capacity; it lapses in forgetfulness, and remains required despite presence of mind in case of excuse, such as lack of water, so long as the gap is not excessive. This is the view of the Malikis in the mashhur and of the Hanbalis in one statement. The shaykh of Islam Ibn Taymiyya (may Allah have mercy on him) said: this view is the most apparent and the closest to the foundations of the Shari'a and to the foundations of Ahmad's school and others, for the proofs of obligation concern only the negligent, not the one incapable of continuity (Majmu' al-Fatawa 21/135, 136; see Bada'i' al-Sana'i' 1/92; Radd al-Muhtar 1/245; Hashiya of al-Dasuqi 1/147; Bidayat al-Mujtahid 1/38; Tafsir al-Qurtubi 3/468; Rawdat at-Talibin 1/214; Sharh Sahih Muslim 3/108; al-Mughni 1/175; Nil al-Awtar 1/217; Manar al-Sabil 1/34).

The Malikis define continuity as performing the acts of purification in connected time, without excessive separation. In other words, the one performing wudu must move on to washing the next limb before the previous one dries, whether a washed or a wiped limb, under moderate conditions of time (a season in which water does not dry unusually), of place (a place with no extreme heat or cold that would dry the water) and of temperament (the absence, in the person's constitution, of anything that would dry water quickly).

Two conditions govern the obligation of continuity. The first: presence of mind on the part of the one performing wudu. If he separated the limbs of wudu forgetfully, he builds upon his wudu and completes it, whether the gap is long or short. The same holds for one who forgot a limb of wudu or left a spot unwashed forgetfully: if the gap is long, he limits himself to doing the forgotten part, without repeating what comes after it; if the gap is short (the limb not yet dry), he does the forgotten part and repeats what comes after it, in following of the sunna of the order (tartib).

The second condition: capacity. If he separated the washing of the limbs due to incapacity, without negligence on his part, immediacy lapses, and his ruling is that of the forgetful. Example: someone brings water he believes sufficient for wudu, then it proves insufficient, or is spilled, or is taken from him by force, and he must wait for other water to complete, so that the washed limbs dry: when the water arrives, he builds upon what he did and completes his wudu, even after a long gap. But if he is incapable through his own negligence, like one who brought only water insufficient for his wudu, he builds upon what he did so long as the gap is not long; otherwise his ruling becomes that of one who separated the limbs deliberately: his wudu is void and he must redo it entirely (Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil 1/127; al-Sharh al-Kabir with the Hashiya of al-Dasuqi 1/147; Bidayat al-Mujtahid 1/38; Tafsir al-Qurtubi 3/468; Tahbir al-Mukhtasar 1/143, 144).

The order of the limbs (tartib)

Third point: the order. The fuqaha differed over the ruling of the order among the limbs of wudu: obligation or sunna? Two views.

First view: the Hanafis, the Malikis in the mashhur, al-Muzani, Ibn al-Mundhir, Abu Nasr al-Bandaniji among the Shafi'is, and the imam Ahmad in one narration hold that the order is a strongly emphasized sunna among the sunan of wudu, not an obligation. If he washes his forearms or feet before his face, washes his feet before his hands, or wipes his head before washing his face, deliberately or not, it suffices him for prayer. Their proof: the conjunction in the verse does not entail order; however the one performing wudu washes his limbs, he complies with the command.

And because Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) reported that the Prophet "performed wudu: he washed his face, then his hands, then his feet, then he wiped his head" (mentioned by Ibn al-Jawzi in al-Tahqiq (1/127), who said it is not sound; weakened by al-Nawawi in al-Majmu' (1/508); al-San'ani said in Subul as-Salam (1/77): no sound path is known for it upon which argument can rest). And because it is a purification in which order is not required, like the major-impurity washing, and like the precedence of the right over the left, or of the elbow over the ankle; and because if the person in a state of impurity washed entirely in one single act, his impurity would be lifted: this shows that order is not required.

The imam Malik said: it is recommended for whoever inverted his wudu and has not yet prayed to restart the wudu in the sequence of the verse, then pray; if he prayed and then remembered, we do not order him to repeat the prayer, but it is recommended for him to resume wudu in the sequence for the future, and this is not an obligation upon him (al-Istidhkar 1/143, 147).

Second view: the Malikis in one statement, the Shafi'is of the school and the Hanbalis of the school hold that the order among the limbs of wudu is a duty. If he inverts his wudu, deliberately or forgetfully, it does not suffice him, nor does his prayer suffice him, until his wudu follows the sequence of the verse. They rely on the verse, from which they draw 2 indications.

The first: Allah mentioned a wiped limb amid washed ones. Now the custom of the Arabs, when they list things homogeneous and non-homogeneous, is to group the homogeneous ones in sequence and then conjoin the others: they depart from this only for a benefit. If order were not obligatory, He would not have broken away from its like. If it is said: its benefit is the recommendation of order, the answer is twofold: the divine command entails obligation according to the view chosen by the majority of the fuqaha; and the verse is the exposition of the obligatory wudu, not of the recommended one: it contains none of the sunan of wudu.

The second indication: the custom of the Arabs, when they list things and conjoin some of them to others, is to begin with the nearest. Since He began with the face, then the hands, then the head, then the feet, this indicates the command of order; otherwise He would have said: wash your faces and wipe your heads and wash your hands and feet.

They also rely, from the Sunna, on the sound and widely transmitted hadiths reported by groups of Companions describing the wudu of the Prophet: all of them described it as ordered, given their number, the many occasions on which they saw him, and their very differences over its modes (once, twice, 3 times); no unordered description is established, and they weakened the hadith reported to that effect. His deed is the explanation of the commanded wudu: if leaving the order were permitted, he would have left it on some occasions to establish its permissiveness, just as he left out repetition at times. And because wudu is an act of worship comprising diverse interlinked acts, order is required in it, as in prayer and hajj (al-Istidhkar 1/143, 147; Bidayat al-Mujtahid 1/38; Hashiya of al-Dasuqi 1/160; Mawahib al-Jalil 1/250; Tafsir al-Qurtubi 3/368, 469; Radd al-Muhtar 1/244; Bada'i' al-Sana'i' 1/91; al-Bahr al-Ra'iq 1/28; Ahkam al-Qur'an of al-Jassas 3/370; al-Majmu' 1/504, 508; Kifayat al-Akhyar p. 66; Mughni al-Muhtaj 1/161; al-Mughni 1/172; al-Insaf 1/138; Majmu' al-Fatawa 21/407; Tafsir Ibn Kathir 2/26; al-Tahqiq 1/124).

Rubbing (dalk)

Fourth point: rubbing. Linguistically, it is the verbal noun of "to rub": one says he rubbed the thing when he passed it between his hands; and "he rubbed the sandal on the ground" means he wiped it on it. As a technical term, the Malikis define it as passing the hand over the limb with moderate pressure, even if grime is not removed, and even after the water has been poured, before it dries.

The fuqaha differed over its ruling: duty or sunna? The majority of the fuqaha, the Hanafis, the Shafi'is, the Hanbalis and the Malikis in one statement, hold that rubbing is a sunna among the sunan of wudu: only passing the water over the limb is required of him, for the name of washing applies to the running of water over the place without rubbing. The proof: if an impurity were on his body and he kept pouring water over it until he removed it, that would be called washing even without rubbing it with his hand; since the name applies in the absence of rubbing thanks to the running of water, and Allah said "wash", whoever runs the water over the place has done what the verse requires and entails (Ahkam al-Qur'an of al-Jassas 3/334; al-Bahr al-Ra'iq 1/30; Radd al-Muhtar 1/249; Hashiya of al-Tahtawi 1/47; Mawahib al-Jalil 1/218; Sharh Sahih Muslim by al-Nawawi 3/88; Mughni al-Muhtaj 1/180; Kashshaf al-Qina' 1/153).

The Malikis in the mashhur of the school, as well as al-Muzani among the Shafi'is, hold that rubbing is a duty among the duties of wudu. Al-Hattab (may Allah have mercy on him) reports that scholars differed over its being obligatory, on 3 views. The mashhur: obligation, which is the statement of Malik in al-Mudawwana, on the basis that rubbing is a condition for the name of washing to be realized.

Ibn Yunus relies on his words (peace and prayer of Allah upon him) to 'A'isha (may Allah be pleased with her): "and rub your body with your hand" (mentioned by al-Hattab in Mawahib al-Jalil 1/218, by al-Nafrawi in al-Fawakih ad-Dawani 1/137, and by the qadi 'Abd al-Wahhab in al-Mu'awwana 1/27, 28, without source attribution; the encyclopedia's author states he could not locate it). The command entails obligation, for its rationale is delivering the water to the body in a manner called washing: the linguists distinguish washing from mere immersion. The second view: negating its obligation, from Ibn 'Abd al-Hakam, since the name of washing applies without it. The third: it is required not for itself but to ensure the delivery of water; if the delivery of water is ensured through a sufficient duration of contact, it suffices: al-Lakhmi attributed it to Abu al-Faraj; Ibn Naji mentioned that Ibn Rushd attributed it to Abu al-Faraj, and Ibn 'Arafa attributed the second view to Abu al-Faraj and Ibn 'Abd al-Hakam (Mawahib al-Jalil 1/218; adh-Dhakhira 1/309; Bulghat as-Salik 1/78; al-Fawakih ad-Dawani 1/137; Hashiya of al-Dasuqi 1/146).