Islamic Fiqh > Purification (Tahara) > Ablution (wudu): complete guide > The body parts to wash
Contents
Updated on 24 September 2026 at 1:14 PM
This second part of the encyclopedic study of wudu (ablution) first examines the washing of the feet, the fourth obligation on which the four 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 two 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.
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 two feet. The fuqaha of the four 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 two 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 two meanings, while all agree that one of the two 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 two readings, one gives washing and the other wiping. If two 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 two 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 two ankles are the two protruding bones at the lower end of the leg (al-Hawi al-Kabir 1/148).
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 two 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 two: 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).
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 two 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).
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 two 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, three 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).
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 three 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).
Next come the sunan of wudu. First: the basmala (mentioning Allah's name) at the beginning of wudu. The fuqaha differed over its ruling: is it obligatory with presence of mind and capacity, absolutely sunna, or disliked?
The imam Ahmad, in one narration, holds the basmala to be obligatory in wudu with presence of mind, lapsing in forgetfulness; likewise for the complete washing and tayammum, according to the words of the Prophet:
No prayer for the one who has no wudu, and no wudu for the one who does not mention Allah's name upon it.Good hadith (hasan): reported by al-Tirmidhi (25) and Ibn Majah (398), from the hadith of Sa'id ibn Zayd (may Allah be pleased with him)
If he remembers it during the wudu, he says it at the point where he remembered it (al-Mughni 1/127; ar-Rawd al-Murbi' 1/43; al-Tahqiq 1/100; Manar al-Sabil 1/33).
The majority of the fuqaha, the Hanafis, the Shafi'is and the imam Ahmad in the second narration from him, hold that the basmala in wudu is a sunna, not an obligation. The proof that it is sunna: what al-Nasa'i reported, with a good chain, from Anas ibn Malik (may Allah be pleased with him): some Companions of the Prophet sought water; the Messenger of Allah said: "does any of you have water?" He dipped his hand in the water saying: "perform wudu in the name of Allah", that is, saying: in the name of Allah; and Anas saw the water pouring out from between his fingers until they all performed wudu, down to the last of them. Thabit said: I asked Anas: how many were they? He said: about seventy (sound chain: al-Nasa'i 78).
The proof that it is not obligatory: no sound, explicit proof is established for the obligation of the basmala, and the hadith reported on the subject is weak, not established from the Prophet. Ibn al-Mundhir (may Allah have mercy on him) said: there is in this chapter no established report that would invalidate the wudu of whoever did not mention Allah's name upon it; the precaution is that whoever intends wudu or the complete washing pronounce Allah's name, and nothing is held against whoever leaves it.
They also said: wudu is a purification that has no need of the basmala, like purification from impurity; what is asked of the one performing wudu is purity, and leaving the basmala does not impair it. It is an act of worship in which the basmala is not required, like the other acts of worship; and the default is the absence of obligation (al-Awsat 1/367, 368; Radd al-Muhtar 1/251; Bada'i' al-Sana'i' 1/85; adh-Dhakhira 1/284; Kifayat at-Talib 1/229; Hashiya of al-Dasuqi 1/166; al-Majmu' 1/407; Mughni al-Muhtaj 1/168; Nil al-Awtar 1/167; al-Mughni 1/127; al-Tahqiq 1/100; Manar al-Sabil 1/33; 'Awn al-Ma'bud 1/121).
As for the Malikis, the author of al-Taraz said: Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) approved of it once and disapproved of it another time, saying: is he slaughtering? I know of no one who does that. Ibn Shas transmitted from him the choice between the two, and dislike was reported from Ibn Ziyad.
Before these acts, the encyclopedia closed the debate on washing the hands at the start of wudu: it is also reported that this is recommended, not obligatory; 'Ata', Malik, al-Awza'i, al-Shafi'i, Ishaq, the partisans of personal opinion and Ibn al-Mundhir said so, for Allah said: "when you rise for prayer, wash your faces" (Surat al-Ma'ida, 6) with the rest of the verse. Zayd ibn Aslam interpreted it: when you wake up; now rising from sleep falls under the generality of the verse, in which wudu is commanded without washing the hands at its start, and the command entails sufficiency. The one who rises from night sleep is like the one who rises from daytime sleep, and the hadith is understood as recommendation in view of its rationale: "for he does not know where his hand spent the night"; now doubt arising over certain purity has no effect upon it, as with one certain of purity and doubting impurity: this indicates that the Prophet meant recommendation (al-Mughni with the Sharh 1/122, 123; Kashshaf al-Qina' 1/106; ar-Rawd al-Murbi' 1/46; Ahkam al-Qur'an of Ibn al-'Arabi 2/58; al-Taj wa-l-Iklil 1/242; Hashiya of al-Dasuqi 1/156; al-Khulasa al-Fiqhiyya 1/10; Bada'i' al-Sana'i' 1/86; al-Majmu' 1/410; Mughni al-Muhtaj 1/169; Tafsir Ibn Kathir 2/24).
Third: rinsing the mouth (madmada); fourth: drawing water into the nose (istinshaq); fifth: expelling it (istinthar). The fuqaha differed over their ruling in four views.
First view: the Malikis, the Shafi'is and Ahmad in one narration hold that rinsing the mouth and the nose is a sunna in wudu and in the complete washing, 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" (Surat al-Ma'ida, 6). The face, among the Arabs, is that by which one faces: the inside of the mouth and nose is not part of it, and their mention among the acts of the fitra (natural disposition) indicates their difference from the rest of wudu. And according to his words to the bedouin:
Perform your wudu as Allah has commanded you.Authentic hadith: reported by Abu Dawud (861), al-Tirmidhi (303) and al-Nasa'i in al-Kubra (1631)
The imam al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: this hadith is among the best of proofs, for this bedouin prayed three times without performing it well; the Prophet then knew that he did not know the prayer performed before people, whose acts are witnessed; so he taught him its obligations and those of wudu, saying: "perform your wudu as Allah has commanded you", without mentioning to him the sunan of prayer and wudu, lest he overburden him so that he would not retain them. If rinsing the mouth were obligatory, he would have taught it to him: it belongs to the hidden matters, especially for this man for whom the visible prayer was still hidden; what then of wudu, more hidden still? (al-Majmu' 2/381, 386; Sharh Sahih Muslim 3/87; Hashiya of al-Dasuqi 1/97; Jawahir al-Iklil 1/23; al-Mughni 1/143; al-Insaf 1/153; Tafsir Ibn Kathir 3/36; al-Ifsah 1/64; Fath al-Bari 1/315).
Second view: the Hanafis and the imam Ahmad in one narration hold that both are obligatory in the major purification, the complete washing, and are sunna in the minor one, wudu. What is required in wudu is washing the three limbs and wiping the head: the inside of the nose and mouth is not part of them; what lies beyond the face is apparent, and the face likewise, for it is the name of that with which a person customarily faces, and the mouth is not used for facing in every state: its washing is therefore not required. As for the major purification, everything possible of the body is washed in it, like the inner reaches of thick hair, and no barrier is wiped over in it: they are therefore required there, unlike in the minor one. And Allah said: "if you are in a state of major impurity, purify yourselves" (Surat al-Ma'ida, 6), that is, purify your bodies: whatever can be washed without undue hardship, apparent or hidden, must therefore be washed (Ahkam al-Qur'an of al-Jassas 3/340; Bada'i' al-Sana'i' 1/89; Maraqi al-Falah 32; 'Umdat al-Qari 3/18; al-Mughni 1/143; al-Insaf 1/152; al-Ifsah 1/64; al-Bahr al-Ra'iq 1/48).
Third view: the Hanbalis in the mashhur hold that rinsing the mouth and drawing water into the nose are obligatory in both purifications, minor and major, according to what 'A'isha (may Allah be pleased with her) reported from the Messenger of Allah:
Rinsing the mouth and drawing water into the nose are of the wudu without which there is no doing.Reported by al-Daraqutni (1/84), who judged its interrupted form (mursal) to be correct; by al-Bayhaqi in al-Sunan al-Kubra (1/52); and by Ibn al-Jawzi in al-Tahqiq (1/144) and al-'Ilal al-Mutanahiya (1/337, 338). Al-Daraqutni said: 'Asim, that is Ibn Yusuf al-Mubarak, alone transmitted it and erred therein; the correct is: from Ibn Jurayj, from Sulayman ibn Musa, in interrupted form; I think 'Asim transmitted it from memory and became confused; then he transmitted it in interrupted form saying: the interrupted is sounder, and thus the two Sufyans and others transmitted it (Nasb ar-Raya 1/47)
And because everyone who described the Prophet's wudu in full detail mentioned that he rinsed his mouth and drew water into his nose: his constancy upon these two acts indicates their obligation, for his deed serves as explanation and detail of the wudu commanded in Allah's Book. And their belonging to the fitra does not negate obligation, for the fitra comprises both the obligatory and the recommended (al-Mughni 1/144; al-Insaf 1/153; al-Ifsah 1/65).
Fourth view: the imam Ahmad in one narration holds that drawing water into the nose is obligatory in wudu and complete washing, unlike rinsing the mouth, according to the words of the Prophet: "whoever performs wudu, let him sniff water into his nose" (al-Bukhari 161; Muslim 1/212, 518), and in a version: "when one of you performs wudu, let him put water in his nose and then expel it" (al-Bukhari 162; Muslim 1/212). From Abu Hurayra (may Allah be pleased with him), attributed to the Prophet: "whoever performs wudu, let him inhale water into his nose" (Muslim 1/212). From Ibn 'Abbas, attributed to the Prophet: "expel the water twice thoroughly, or three times" (authentic hadith: Abu Dawud 141; Ibn Majah 408; Ahmad 2011). This is a command entailing obligation; and the nose always remains open, with no covering shielding it, unlike the mouth (al-Mughni 1/143; al-Insaf 1/152; al-Majmu' 2/382).
Sixth: wiping the two ears. The fuqaha differed over its ruling in wudu: sunna or obligation? The Hanafis, the Malikis in the mashhur and the Shafi'is hold that wiping the ears is a sunna among the sunan of wudu: if the one performing wudu leaves it out, his wudu is valid. This is based on what is reported of the Prophet's words to the bedouin: "perform your wudu as Allah has commanded you" (reference given above): wiping the ears is not among what Allah commanded. It is recommended to wipe their outer face, turned toward the head, and their inner face, turned toward the face, according to what al-Miqdam ibn Ma'dikarib (may Allah be pleased with him) reported:
The Prophet wiped his head and his two ears, their outer and inner faces, and he inserted his two index fingers into the openings of his ears.Authentic hadith: reported by Abu Dawud (121) and Ibn al-Jarud in al-Muntaqa (74)
The Hanbalis, as well as Ibn Maslama and al-Abhari among the Malikis, hold it obligatory to wipe the two ears, their outer and inner faces, because they are part of the head, according to the words of the Prophet:
The two ears are part of the head.Authentic hadith: reported by Abu Dawud (134) and Ibn Majah (443, 444, 445)
The Malikis, the Shafi'is, the Hanbalis and Abu Hanifa in one narration from him said: it is recommended to take for the two ears new water, different from that with which he wiped his head, according to the hadith of 'Abd Allah ibn Zayd (may Allah be pleased with him): he saw the Prophet "performing wudu and taking for his ears water different from that which he had taken for his head" (reported by al-Hakim 1/252, 253 and al-Bayhaqi (313), who said its chain is sound, and graded it good (hasan) by al-Nawawi in al-Majmu' 1/368; but Shaykh al-Albani criticized this wording as anomalous (shadhdh), the correct version being: "and he wiped his head with water other than the remainder of his hands", as in ad-Da'ifa 2/494 and 3/45). And because the ear is a limb distinct from the head in name and form: it therefore does not follow it in purification, like the other limbs.
The Hanafis hold that the sunna, according to them, is to wipe the two ears with the water of the head, according to what is reported from the Prophet: "the two ears are part of the head". It is clear that he did not intend to describe physical creation but the legal ruling: it follows that they must be wiped together with it, with a single water, as the other parts of the head are wiped; only, wiping them does not stand in place of wiping the head, for the proof of wiping the head is established by decisive proof.
Ibn 'Abidin (may Allah have mercy on him), citing al-Khulasa, said: if he takes new water for his ears, it is good, and this was reported from Abu Hanifa. The author of al-Bahr said: we learn from this that the difference between us and al-Shafi'i is this: if he does not take new water and wipes with the remaining moisture, is he establishing the sunna? For us, yes; for him, no. As for taking new water while moisture remains, that establishes the sunna by consensus (Hashiya of Ibn 'Abidin 1/243; Ahkam al-Qur'an of al-Jassas 3/361; Bada'i' al-Sana'i' 1/97; al-Bahr al-Ra'iq 1/28; Bidayat al-Mujtahid 1/35; Hashiya of al-Dasuqi 1/159; al-Awsat 1/405; Mawahib al-Jalil 1/248; al-Majmu' 1/468, 470; Kifayat al-Akhyar p. 68; al-Mughni 1/130; Kashshaf al-Qina' 1/100; Manar al-Sabil 1/33).
Seventh: wiping the whole head. It has already been set out that wiping the entire head is a duty according to the imam Malik and Ahmad in the mashhur. The Hanafis and the Shafi'is hold that wiping the whole head is among the sunan of wudu. The Hanafis rely on what 'Abd Allah ibn Zayd (may Allah be pleased with him) reported: the Prophet "wiped his head with both his hands, moving them forward and back" (reported by Muslim (274), from the hadith of al-Mughira ibn Shu'ba), and on what is reported that the Prophet "performed wudu and wiped his entire head" (reported by Ibn Khuzayma in his Sahih (157)). They also say: "he wiped his forelock" (reported by al-Bukhari (185) and Muslim (235)): the wiping of a quarter of the head would thus be the duty, and the wiping of the whole a sunna.
They nevertheless stipulated that whoever performs wudu and persists in leaving the whole head uncovered by the wiping, without excuse, becomes blameworthy: it is as if his disdain for the sunna had become manifest. The Shafi'is say: it is recommended for the one performing wudu to wipe the entire head, in following of the practice and to exit the disagreement of those who made it obligatory. Al-Qurtubi said: the scholars agree that whoever wipes his entire head has done well and has done what was required of him (Tafsir al-Qurtubi 3/459; see al-Ikhtiyar 1/8; Bada'i' al-Sana'i' 1/95; Radd al-Muhtar 1/243; al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya 1/7; Sharh az-Zarqani 1/69; al-Taj wa-l-Iklil 1/202; Mughni al-Muhtaj 1/174; al-Majmu' 1/458; Tuhfat al-Ahwadhi 1/122).
Eighth: passing the fingers through the beard, already covered in the first part. Ninth: passing the fingers between the fingers of the hands and feet. The fuqaha hold that making the water reach between the fingers of hands and feet, by passing the fingers (khilal) or by other completions of wudu, is a duty in wudu and complete washing according to the majority of the fuqaha, according to the word of Allah: "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).
As for passing the fingers as such, once the water has entered between them: the Malikis in the mashhur hold khilal to be obligatory between the fingers of the hands, and recommended between the toes; they said: it is obligatory only for the hands because their fingers are not tightly joined, unlike the toes, whose inner faces cling closely together. In their other statement, khilal is obligatory between the fingers of the hands and the feet. They ground the obligation in what is reported of the Prophet's words to Laqit ibn Sabira (may Allah be pleased with him):
Complete the wudu, and pass between the fingers.Authentic hadith: reported by Abu Dawud (142), al-Tirmidhi (781) and Ibn Majah (448)
And in what Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) reported: the Prophet said:
When you perform wudu, pass between the fingers of your hands and feet.Good and authentic hadith: reported by al-Tirmidhi (39) and Ibn Majah (447)
The majority of the fuqaha, the Hanafis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis, hold that passing the fingers in wudu is a sunna; the Hanafis deem it a strongly emphasized sunna, and the Hanbalis consider that khilal of the toes is more strongly emphasized than that of the hands. They explain its recommendation by its greater effectiveness in removing grime between the fingers, according to what al-Mustawrid ibn Shaddad (may Allah be pleased with him) reported:
I saw the Prophet, when he performed wudu, rub his toes with his little finger.Authentic hadith: reported by Abu Dawud (148), al-Tirmidhi (40) and Ibn Majah (446)
As for its not being obligatory, this is due to the diverting factor: the teaching of the bedouin. It is not established that the Prophet taught him khilal, for he said to him: "perform your wudu as Allah has commanded you", and khilal is not in what Allah commanded, the verse having come absolute, without mention of khilal; likewise, in the reports describing the Prophet's wudu, khilal is not mentioned (Bada'i' al-Sana'i' 1/94; al-Mabsut 1/80; Tabyin al-Haqa'iq 1/4; al-Bahr al-Ra'iq 1/23; Radd al-Muhtar 1/238, 239; al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya 1/7; al-Tamhid 24/257, 259; Mawahib al-Jalil 1/195; adh-Dhakhira 1/269; Hashiya of al-Dasuqi 1/142, 145; al-Majmu' 1/487; I'anat at-Talibin 1/49; Kifayat al-Akhyar p. 69; al-Mughni 1/132; Kashshaf al-Qina' 1/102, 106; al-Insaf 1/134; Nil al-Awtar 1/191; Tuhfat al-Ahwadhi 1/123; 'Awn al-Ma'bud 1/165).
The section devoted to the sunan closes with the question of beginning with the right: when this proves impossible, as for one whose hand is amputated or a similar case, one begins with the right, and Allah knows best (Sharh Sahih Muslim 3/132; al-Majmu' 1/446). Ibn al-Humam (may Allah have mercy on him) said: beginning with the right is a sunna, due to the establishment of his constant practice: more than one of those who narrated his wudu explicitly stated that he began with the right before the left, for hands and feet alike; now this indicates constancy, for they were narrating his habitual wudu, that of his daily practice: it is therefore a sunna (Fath al-Qadir 1/23; see Radd al-Muhtar 1/247; Bada'i' al-Sana'i' 1/94; al-Bahr al-Ra'iq 1/28; Hashiya of al-Dasuqi 1/163; al-Mughni 1/133; Fath al-Bari 1/325; Nil al-Awtar 1/212).
Thirteenth: extending the ghurra (the bright mark on the forehead) and the tahjil (the white marks on hands and feet). The fuqaha differed over their ruling in wudu: recommended or disliked? The Shafi'is and the Hanbalis, according to the correct view of the school, hold that it is recommended, in wudu, to extend the ghurra and the tahjil, by going beyond the obligatory place in the washing of the face, hands and feet. The Hanafis classed the extending of the ghurra and the tahjil among the etiquettes (adab) of wudu.
The foundation for this is the words of the Prophet:
My umma will be called on the Day of Resurrection ghurran (bright on their foreheads) muhajjalin (with white marks on their limbs) from the traces of wudu; whoever among you is able to extend his ghurra, let him do so.Reported by al-Bukhari (136) and Muslim (246)
The meaning of ghurran muhajjalin: with white faces, hands and feet, like the horse with a white blaze, which has white on its face; and the muhajjal is the one whose legs are white.
The imam al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: know that these hadiths explicitly declare the recommendation of extending the ghurra and the tahjil. As for extending the ghurra, our companions say: it is washing part of the forepart of the head and what goes beyond the face, in excess of the part whose washing is required, to be certain that the whole face is covered. As for extending the tahjil: it is washing above the elbows and the ankles; this is recommended without disagreement among our companions. They differed over the extent of what is recommended, on three views: the first, it is recommended to go beyond the elbows and ankles without limit; the second, up to half the upper arm and the shin; the third, up to the shoulders and the knees; and the hadiths of the chapter encompass all of this (al-Majmu' 1/488, 490; Sharh Sahih Muslim 3/110; Radd al-Muhtar 1/256; Fath al-Qadir 1/36; Mughni al-Muhtaj 1/177; al-Insaf 1/168; al-Ikhtiyarat p. 22; Kashshaf al-Qina' 1/106, 109; Fath al-Bari 1/285).
The Malikis, as well as the imam Ahmad in one narration chosen by the shaykh of Islam Ibn Taymiyya and by Ibn al-Qayyim, hold that it is not recommended to extend the ghurra, that is, to go beyond, in the washing of wudu's limbs, the place of the duty. The Malikis say: it is rather disliked, for it belongs to excess (ghuluww) in religion; what is recommended is constancy in purity and its renewal.
Al-Dasuqi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: this is called extending the ghurra, as his words "whoever among you is able to extend his ghurra, let him do so" were understood: they understood the extending as constancy, and the ghurra as wudu. In sum, extending the ghurra designates both going beyond the washed area and perseverance in wudu; in the first sense it is disliked according to Malik; in the second it is sought according to him; the hadith cited therefore does not contradict the dislike he mentioned (Hashiya of al-Dasuqi 1/167; al-Taj wa-l-Iklil 1/266).
The shaykh of Islam Ibn Taymiyya (may Allah have mercy on him) reports that Abu Hurayra would wash his hands up to the upper arms in wudu, saying: "whoever among you is able to extend his ghurra, let him do so"; it is also reported from him that he would wipe his neck, saying: it is the place of the collar. A group of scholars recommended this in following of him; others contradicted them and said: the body of the Companions did not perform wudu in this way; and the wudu established from him in the two Sahihs and elsewhere through multiple chains contains no taking of new water for the ears, no washing beyond the elbows and ankles, and no wiping of the neck. Nor did the Prophet say: "whoever among you is able to extend his ghurra, let him do so": it is a saying of Abu Hurayra, interpolated (mudraj) into certain hadiths (Majmu' al-Fatawa 1/279, 280).
The Prophet said: "you will come on the Day of Resurrection ghurran muhajjalin from the traces of wudu"; and he himself would perform wudu until he engaged the upper arm and the shin; then Abu Hurayra said: "whoever among you is able to extend his ghurra, let him do so", and some thought that washing the upper arm belonged to the extending of the ghurra, which is meaningless: the ghurra is on the face, not on the hands and feet; on the hands and feet is the hajla (white mark). The ghurra cannot be extended, for the face is washed entirely, the head is not washed, and there is no ghurra on the head; as for the hajla, it is not recommended to extend it, and extending it is mutilation.
The imam Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) said: as for Abu Hurayra's deed (may Allah be pleased with him), it is something he interpreted, and which others contradicted, criticizing him for it. This question is nicknamed the question of extending the ghurra, though the ghurra concerns the face alone. The fuqaha differed over it, and two narrations are reported from Ahmad: the first, it is recommended to extend it; this is the view of Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi'i, chosen by Abu al-Barakat Ibn Taymiyya and others; the second, it is not recommended; this is the school of Malik and the choice of our shaykh Abu al-'Abbas.
The partisans of recommendation rely on the hadith of Abu Hurayra: the Messenger of Allah said: "you will be, on the Day of Resurrection, ghurran muhajjalin from the traces of wudu; whoever among you is able, let him extend his ghurra and his tahjil" (agreed upon), and on the fact that the believer's adornment reaches wherever the wudu reaches. The deniers of recommendation reply: the Messenger of Allah said: "Allah has set limits, so do not transgress them"; now Allah delimited the elbows and the ankles, so they should not be exceeded; nothing is reported by the transmitters of his wudu that he ever exceeded them; it is the root of obsessive doubt (waswas) and its substance; whoever does it does it only as devotion, and acts of worship are built upon following; and it is a path toward washing up to the thigh and up to the shoulder.
And it is something not known to have ever been done by the Prophet and his Companions [note of the encyclopedia: the correct view, and Allah knows best, is that this is not among what is known that the Prophet and his Companions did]; it is excess, and he said: "beware of excess in religion"; it is forbidden over-strictness; and it is a limb among the limbs of purification, whose transgression is disliked, like the face. As for the hadith, it is reported from Abu Hurayra by Nu'aym al-Mujammir, who said: "I do not know whether his words: whoever among you is able to extend his ghurra, let him do so, are the words of the Messenger of Allah or the words of Abu Hurayra"; the imam Ahmad transmitted it thus in his Musnad. As for the hadith of adornment, the adornment that beautifies is what is in its proper place; when it goes beyond its place, it is no longer adornment (Ighathat al-Lahfan 1/181, 182).
Fourteenth: the supplication after wudu. The fuqaha affirm its legitimacy. The Shafi'is and the Hanbalis specified that it is recommended for the one who has finished his wudu, facing the qibla, raising his hands and his gaze to heaven, to say: "I bear witness that there is no deity except Allah alone, without partner, and I bear witness that Muhammad is His servant and His messenger; O Allah, make me among those who repent, and make me among those who purify themselves", according to his words:
There is none of you who performs wudu and excels in it (or completes it), then says: I bear witness that there is no deity except Allah and that Muhammad is the servant of Allah and His messenger, except that the eight gates of Paradise are opened for him: he enters by whichever of them he wills.Reported by Muslim (234)
Then the one who performed wudu says: "O Allah, make me among those who repent, and make me among those who purify themselves" (authentic hadith: an addition reported by al-Tirmidhi (55)). He also says: "Glory be to You, O Allah, and praise; I bear witness that there is no deity except You; I seek Your forgiveness and turn to You", according to the words of the Prophet:
Whoever performs wudu and says: Glory be to You, O Allah, and praise; I bear witness that there is no deity except You; I seek Your forgiveness and turn to You, it is written on a parchment, then sealed with a seal, and it will not be broken until the Day of Resurrection.Reported by al-Nasa'i (9909) and al-Hakim in al-Mustadrak (1/752), who declared it sound by Muslim's criterion, with which adh-Dhahabi agreed; by at-Tabarani in al-Awsat (2/123); al-Haythami said in al-Majma' (1/239): at-Tabarani reported it in al-Awsat with men of the Sahih. Al-Nasa'i however favored stopping it at Abu Sa'id al-Khudri; al-Albani said in as-Sahiha (5/332): there is no doubt the stopped form (mawquf) is sounder in chain, but Hafiz Ibn Hajar said: such a saying is not said from mere opinion, so it has the ruling of an elevated (marfu') report. Al-Albani concludes: the hadith is sound by the sum of its elevated paths, and the stopped form does not contradict it, for it is not said by mere opinion, as preceded from the Hafiz
That is, no invalidation ever touches it, and its author is thereby preserved from committing any invalidator. The Hanafis, the Malikis and the Shafi'is say: it is recommended to say after wudu: may Allah bless and grant peace to Muhammad and the family of Muhammad.
Al-Buhuti (may Allah have mercy on him) expounds the wisdom of concluding wudu, prayer and other acts with the seeking of forgiveness: as Ibn Rajab indicated in his commentary on Surat an-Nasr, servants fall short of fulfilling Allah's rights as is due, and of performing them in a manner befitting His majesty and greatness; they perform them only to the extent of their capacity; the one who knows realizes that the due of the right is higher and greater than that: he is then shy of his deed and seeks forgiveness for his falling short, as others seek forgiveness for their sins and lapses.
The seeking of forgiveness (istighfar) comes sometimes alone, sometimes paired with repentance. When it comes alone, it includes seeking protection from the evil of the past sin, through supplication and regret over it, and from the evil of the future sin through resolve to desist from it: this istighfar prevents persistence and punishment. When it comes paired with repentance, it is specific to the first type; if regret over the past sin does not accompany it and it is a bare request, it is pure supplication; if regret accompanies it, it is repentance, of which the resolve to desist is the completion (Kashshaf al-Qina' 1/108, 109; see Tabyin al-Haqa'iq 1/7; al-Bahr al-Ra'iq 1/30; Radd al-Muhtar 1/253; Hashiya of al-Bannani on az-Zarqani 1/73; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil 1/136; Hashiya of al-'Adawi 1/255; al-Majmu' 1/517; Sharh Sahih Muslim 3/98; Mughni al-Muhtaj 1/180; Hashiya of al-Jamal 1/441; al-Mughni 1/181; Majmu' al-Fatawa 14/419; Matalib Uli an-Nuha 1/120).
Fifteenth: praying two rak'as immediately after wudu. The scholars recommended that the one who has performed wudu pray two rak'as, according to the words of the Prophet:
There is no Muslim who performs wudu and does it well, then stands and prays two rak'as turning to them with heart and face, except that Paradise becomes due for him.Reported by Muslim (234)
And by the hadith of 'Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) describing his wudu: "I saw the Messenger of Allah perform wudu like this wudu of mine; then the Messenger of Allah said: whoever performs wudu like this wudu of mine, then stands and prays two rak'as without talking to himself in them, his past sin is forgiven him" (reported by al-Bukhari (159) and Muslim (226)).
Al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the hadith indicates the recommendation of praying two rak'as or more after every wudu: it is a strongly emphasized sunna (Sharh Sahih Muslim 3/88; Hashiya of al-Tahtawi 1/261; Fath al-Qadir 1/24; Mughni al-Muhtaj 1/180; Tarh at-Tathrib 2/55; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat 1/250, 258; Matalib Uli an-Nuha 1/579; Fath al-Bari 1/313; 'Awn al-Ma'bud 1/126).
And by the hadith of Abu Hurayra (may Allah be pleased with him): the Prophet said to Bilal at the dawn prayer:
O Bilal, tell me the most hopeful deed you have done in Islam, for I heard the patter of your sandals before me in Paradise. Bilal replied: I have done no deed more hopeful in my eyes than this: never have I purified myself, at any hour of night or day, without praying with that purity all that was written for me to pray.Reported by al-Bukhari (1098) and Muslim (2458)