Chapter on the Description of Ablution (Wudu)

As for what the Shaykh (Al-Mufid), may Allah سبحانه وتعالى support him, mentioned regarding the boundary of the face in ablution, which is defined as extending from the hairline to the bottom of the chin and between where the thumb and middle finger encircle, the reasoning behind this definition is as follows: What we have considered as part of the face is unanimously agreed upon to be so, while what exceeds this boundary is a matter of disagreement. Therefore, we adhered to what the ummah unanimously agreed upon and refrained from including what was disputed. No one has the right to claim that the face includes everything that faces forward because this would require including the ears, chest, and any other part of the body that faces forward, which is invalid without dispute. This reasoning is further supported by evidence.

As for what was mentioned regarding taking water with the right hand to wash the right hand and then transferring it to the left hand before washing the right hand, this is supported by the previously mentioned narration describing the ablution of Commander of the Faithful عليه السلام and is further confirmed by it.

As for the statement, "he does not face the hair of his forearms (when washing them)," its indication is (following hadith):

If it is said: "How can you claim this while the apparent meaning of the verse of ablution contradicts it? Allah سبحانه وتعالى, the Exalted, says in the verse of ablution: 'Wash your faces and your hands up to the elbows' (Surah Al-Ma'idah 5:6), and the term 'to' implies an endpoint or a limit. Do you not see how they say, 'I traveled from Kufa to Basra,' meaning until I reached Basra? This would indicate that the elbow is the endpoint in ablution, not the starting point." It is said to them: There is nothing in the verse that contradicts what we have mentioned because the term 'to' can also mean 'with' and has a variety of meanings in linguistic usage. Its usage in this sense is well known among people of the language. For example, Allah سبحانه وتعالى, the Exalted, says: 'Do not consume their wealth with your wealth' (Surah An-Nisa 4:2), and He سبحانه وتعالى says, quoting Isa عليه السلام: 'Who are my helpers with Allah سبحانه وتعالى?' (Surah As-Saff 61:14), meaning 'with Allah سبحانه وتعالى,' not as a boundary. Similarly, in Arabic usage, it is said: "So-and-so governs Kufa to Basra," and it does not mean as a boundary but 'with Basra.' Likewise, it is said: "So-and-so did such-and-such, adding to what he had done before," meaning 'along with what he had done.' The poet Imru' Al-Qais said: He has hips like a sand dune made firm by rain, With shoulders like a bolted door. Here, he means 'with shoulders'. And Al-Nabighah Al-Ja‘di said: And his forearms extended from the shoulders, With a broad chest sagging at the shoulders. Here too, 'with the broad chest'. Examples of this usage are so numerous that there is no need for lengthy elaboration. Once it is established that 'to' can mean 'with', it indicates that washing the elbows is also obligatory as indicated in the verse. This further supports the argument that 'to' in the verse does not necessarily signify a limit or endpoint.

Based on this reading, the question is invalidated entirely from its origin.

This narration is specific to the wiping of the feet and does not extend to the head or hands. This is further supported by additional evidence.

As for the statement: "He wipes his head and feet with the moisture on his hands without taking new water," the previously mentioned narrations support this ruling. For instance, the narration of Zurarah from Abu Ja‘far عليه السلام explicitly states at the end: "Then he wiped his head and feet with the remainder of the water in his hands without returning them to the vessel." Similarly, the other narration by Zurarah and his brother Bukayr from Abu Ja‘far عليه السلام also concludes: "Then he wiped his head and feet up to the ankles with the moisture left on his hands without taking new water." This clearly establishes that it is not obligatory to take new water for wiping, as seen in the texts. Further evidence supports this understanding as well.

(Taken from Hadith.164); These narrations were reported as a matter of precaution (taqiyyah) to align with the views of those who held differing opinions. This is evident from the previously mentioned narrations, which negate the necessity of taking new water for wiping. There can be no contradiction in their sayings and actions عليه السلام.

These narrations were reported as a matter of precaution (taqiyyah) to align with the views of those who held differing opinions. This is evident from the previously mentioned narrations, which negate the necessity of taking new water for wiping. There can be no contradiction in their sayings and actions عليه السلام. It is also possible that the instruction refers to cases where the moisture on the face or other areas of purification has dried up, necessitating the renewal of washing and taking fresh water for wiping, as indicated in the narration. Alternatively, it could mean placing the hand in water remaining in the beard or eyebrows rather than in the container or elsewhere. If this interpretation is considered, the apparent contradiction is resolved. This understanding is supported by further evidence and reasoning provided in related narrations.

The interpretation of this narration also aligns with what we have previously explained regarding taqiyyah (precautionary dissimulation), as its narrators are from the mainstream (non-Imami) and Zaydi schools. As for the statement of (Shaykh (Al-Mufid), may Allah سبحانه وتعالى support him): "He wipes over his head with an amount equal to three joined fingers, from the front of the head to the hairline, once," its proof is as follows:

If it is said: "How can this narration be relied upon when the apparent meaning of the Quran contradicts it? For Allah سبحانه وتعالى, the Exalted, said: 'And wipe over your heads' (Surah Al-Ma'idah 5:6), and the letter 'ba' here indicates attachment and adherence, entering the phrase to indicate that wiping is connected to the head. It does not imply partiality (tab‘id), because using 'ba' to signify partiality is not found in the speech of the Arabs. If this is the case, the apparent meaning requires wiping the entire head." The response is as follows: It is said to them: Our scholars have used this verse to argue that wiping the head and feet can be done over a part of them because they state that the letter "ba" has varying functions in language. At times, it is used for emphasis and attachment (ilsaq), and at other times, it is used for partiality (tab‘id). It is not permissible to interpret it as emphasizing attachment unless absolutely necessary because the natural purpose of speech is to convey meaning, especially when it originates from a wise and knowledgeable speaker. This distinguishes meaningful speech from the words of someone inattentive, dreaming, or rambling. Moreover, "ba" is only used to indicate attachment when the verb does not directly relate to the object by itself, such as in the phrases "I passed by Zaid" (marartu bi-Zaid) or "I went with Amr" (dhahabtu bi-Amr). Here, the actions of passing and going do not inherently extend to the object, so "ba" is introduced to connect the verb to its object. However, if the verb inherently extends to the object, and yet "ba" is added, it indicates an additional meaning - specifically, partiality (tab‘id). For example, in the verse "And wipe over your heads" (Surah Al-Ma'idah 5:6), the verb "wipe" inherently applies to the object without needing "ba". If the verse had said, "And wipe your heads", the meaning would have been complete and self-sufficient. Thus, the addition of "ba" in this context introduces a new meaning, which is partiality, as explained. If we interpret "ba" as mere attachment or emphasis, as some opponents claim, then its inclusion or omission would have no difference, rendering its usage meaningless -and such redundancy cannot be attributed to Allah سبحانه وتعالى, the Exalted. If it is argued: "But Allah سبحانه وتعالى, the Exalted, also said in the verse of tayammum: 'And wipe over your faces and hands' (Surah An-Nisa 4:43), which would imply wiping only part of the face." We respond: This is indeed our position, as we hold that wiping in tayammum is required only on part of the face, specifically the forehead and the eyebrows. Further evidence that "ba" implies partiality is found in narrations.

This narration is interpreted as being under the principle of taqiyyah (precautionary dissimulation), as it contradicts the Quran, as we have explained, and conflicts with the other narrations that we have established. Contradictions cannot exist in the words of Imams عليه السلام, nor can they عليه السلام say anything that opposes the Quran. This further affirms what we have mentioned.

If someone says: "You have previously stated that wiping over the feet is obligatory, yet your opponents reject this and claim that it is an innovation, asserting that washing, not wiping, is the obligation. What is your evidence against them?" It is said to him: Our evidence is the statement of Allah سبحانه وتعالى, the Exalted: "O you who believe, when you rise to perform prayer, wash your faces and your hands up to the elbows, and wipe your heads and your feet up to the ankles" (Surah Al-Ma'idah 5:6). The verse explicitly establishes two distinct rulings for two distinct parts of the body. Then, the hands are connected to the faces through conjunction (‘ataf), obligating the same ruling of washing for the hands as for the faces. Similarly, the feet are connected to the heads, obligating the same ruling of wiping for the feet as for the heads due to the conjunction. If it were permissible to differentiate between the rulings of the feet and the heads despite the conjunction, it would also be permissible to differentiate between the rulings of the hands and the faces. This interpretation is further supported by additional evidence.

All these narrations have been reported by our opponents, while the narrations exclusive to our companions are too numerous to count. I will mention a portion of them, if Allah سبحانه وتعالى wills. Among them is (following hadith):

This means washing is acceptable if done with the intention of cleaning. This is supported by further evidence.

This applies when the sandals are of a type (Arab-style) that does not prevent water from reaching the feet in the amount required for wiping.

The explanation of this narration has already been provided.

This narration is interpreted as pertaining to the context of taqiyyah (precautionary dissimulation). However, in a state of choice (when no dissimulation is required), it is not permissible except to wipe over the feet, as we have explained. If someone says: "What prevents you from considering that your reliance on the recitation with the genitive case (jar) in the verse [of ablution] does not necessarily mandate wiping but rather indicates a grammatical connection between the feet and the head without implying a shared ruling? This could be an example of adjacency (mujawarah), as found in many examples of Arabic speech. For instance, they say, 'Juhru dhabbin kharib' ('The burrow of a lizard, ruined'), where 'ruined' is a descriptor for the burrow, not the lizard, but it takes the genitive case due to adjacency. Similarly, the poet said: 'It is as if Buthayra on the tips of his rainclouds Is a great man wrapped in a garment.' Here, 'wrapped in a garment' describes the man, not the garment. And as Al-A‘sha said: 'Indeed, in the year of residence I stayed, Many desires were fulfilled, and others wearied.' In this example, 'wearied' is related to the fulfillment of desires, not the residence. According to this reasoning, it is not farfetched to suggest that the feet are to be washed, even though they are in the genitive case." We say to these argument; "This is invalid from several aspects. The first is that there is no disagreement among the experts of Arabic grammar that the rule of adjacency in declension (I'rab) does not extend beyond its immediate context. Something of this degree of irregularity and departure from established linguistic principles cannot be applied to the speech of Allah سبحانه وتعالى, the Exalted. The second is that every instance of declension by adjacency mentioned by the questioner, and even those not mentioned, lacks the conjunctive particle (Harf al-'Atf) that is present in the verse. It is on this basis that we maintain the equal ruling of the legs (Arjul) and the heads (Ru’us). If the ruling of adjacency cited were valid for analogical reasoning, the verse would not conform to it, as it contains the evidence of conjunction, which is absent in cases of declension by adjacency. There is no doubt for anyone who understands Arabic that adjacency has no effect when conjunction is present. The third is that declension by adjacency is only deemed appropriate where no ambiguity arises in meaning. Do you not see that there is no ambiguity in ‘Kharab’ being an attribute of the lizard, and it is clearly understood as one of the characteristics of its burrow? Similarly, the statement ‘Muzzammil’ is evidently an attribute of the elder, not of the coarse garment (Bijaad). This is not the case with the verse, as the ruling regarding the legs could reasonably imply wiping, just as it could imply washing. The matter is therefore ambiguous and not free from doubt, so adjacency cannot be applied due to the resulting confusion and ambiguity. Moreover, it falls outside the domain of instances where adjacency has been customarily employed by the speakers of Arabic. As for the verse recited from Al-A’sha’s poem, those who claimed adjacency here are mistaken in their assumption. Instead, 'Thawa’ was declined in the genitive case (Jar) as a substitute (Badal) for ‘Hawl.’ The meaning is, ‘There was in the duration of your stay fulfillment of desires.’ This category of substitution is called 'substitution of inclusion' (Badal Ishtimal), as in the verse of Allah سبحانه وتعالى: (Cursed were the companions of the trench - the fire full of fuel) and His saying: (They ask you concerning the sacred month - fighting therein). If it is said, 'How do you claim that adjacency has no effect when conjunction is present, given the verse of Allah سبحانه وتعالى: (There will circulate among them immortal boys with goblets, jugs, and a cup of flowing wine, and wide-eyed maidens), where the latter is in the genitive case due to adjacency, as they serve the drink rather than being served?' Similarly, the poet says: Nothing remains but a captive, unrestrained, And one bound in the fetters of captivity, shackled. Here, 'bound' is in the genitive case due to adjacency with ‘unrestrained,’ while it should have been in the nominative case, as the meaning implies, ‘Nothing remains but a captive and one bound.’ To this, we respond that the assumption regarding adjacency in these instances is incorrect. Instead, each case can be explained by other valid grammatical principles that do not contradict established linguistic norms." We said: The first thing that invalidates this statement is that not all the Qur'an reciters agree on the genitive case (Jar) for "Hur ʿIn" (wide-eyed maidens). In fact, the majority of the Seven Reciters opt for the nominative case (Rafʿ), including Nafiʿ, Ibn Kathir, Asim (in one narration), Abu Amr, and Ibn Amir. Those who recite it in the genitive case include Hamzah and al-Kisaʾi, along with a narration from al-Mufaddal on the authority of Asim. It has also been reported that some recited it in the accusative case (Nasb) as "Wa Huran ʿInan." As for the genitive reading, it has an interpretation other than adjacency. This is because the preceding verse states: (Those are the ones brought near, in Gardens of Bliss), and "Hur ʿIn" is connected to "Gardens of Bliss" by conjunction (Atf). It is as though the verse means: "They are in Gardens of Bliss and in the company of, or in the companionship of, wide-eyed maidens." The omitted construct (Mudaf) makes this interpretation plausible. This explanation is a sound interpretation mentioned by Abu Ali al-Farisi in his book "Al-Hujjah fi al-Qiraʾat." As for the verse from poetry cited by the questioner, it is contrary to what he assumes. The meaning of the verse, "Nothing remains but a captive", implies, "Nothing remains other than a captive and nothing remains unrestrained." Then "and one bound" is declined in the genitive case (Jar) by conjunction to the meaning and position of "a captive". It is as though the poet said: "Nothing remains other than a captive, nor anything unrestrained, nor anything other than one bound." As for the poet’s verse: "So, will you, if your she-donkey dies, set out to the family of Bastam ibn Qays, the orator?" The nominative case (Rafʿ) for "the orator" can be valid, and the genitive case reported by the narrator is due to an error. If in the nominative case, it would be conjuncted to "set out". Alternatively, "the orator" could be an imperative verb (Fiʿl Amr) in the meaning of an address, and the genitive case could have been applied loosely due to poetic license. If it is said: How do you refute the interpretation that the verse obligates wiping (Mash) of the feet, and that this wiping could imply a light washing (Ghusl)? This is because among the Arabs, "Mash" sometimes refers to a light washing. This has been reported from Abu Zayd al-Ansari, who cited as evidence the expression, "I wiped for prayer", meaning they used washing lightly and called it wiping. On this basis, the commentators have interpreted Allah’s سبحانه وتعالى statement: (And he began wiping their legs and necks) to mean that he washed their legs and necks. We said: This claim is invalid for several reasons: Among them is that the linguistic possibility of a word’s meaning is irrelevant when, in the terminology of Islamic law (Shariah), the term is specifically associated with a single, distinct implication. Thus, even if we concede that "washing" (Ghusl) is referred to as "wiping" (Mash) in the language, it would not undermine our interpretation of the verse. This is because, in the Shariah, the term "wiping" conveys a meaning distinct from "washing." Accordingly, the scholars of Shariah have designated certain body parts in purification to be wiped and others to be washed, differentiating between the two rulings. They distinguish, for example, between someone who says, "So-and-so believes the obligation for the feet is wiping," and someone who says, "So-and-so believes it is washing." Another reason is that if the heads are wiped with the type of wiping that is not considered washing - and there is no disagreement on this - and the feet are conjoined with the heads (in the verse), then it is obligatory for the ruling of the feet to be like that of the heads in terms of wiping and its manner. Differentiating between them in the manner of wiping while they are conjoined is akin to differentiating between them regarding wiping itself. Another reason is that if wiping were considered washing and washing were considered wiping, then the basis of what our opponents rely upon would collapse. This is because they often cite their narration that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وعلى آله وسلم performed ablution and washed his feet. If it were not objectionable for the washing mentioned in the narration to be understood as wiping, then their interpretation of the verse would invalidate the very foundation of their opinion regarding the washing of the feet. Another reason is that the argument of those linguists who equate wiping with washing is based on the inclusion of wiping within the act of washing. However, not everything that includes another thing can be named after that thing. For example, we know that washing includes acts such as applying pressure and movement, but it cannot be called by the names of those individual actions it includes. As for Abu Zayd’s evidence in the statement, "I wiped for prayer", the meaning here is that they wanted to describe the purification (Taharah) with concise wording. They could not say, "I washed for prayer," because purification includes actions that are not washing. Nor could they say, "I washed and wiped for prayer," as that would be overly lengthy. So they instead said, "I wiped," because the washed parts of the body are also wiped. This was a figurative expression for conciseness or relying on the understood meaning. This does not imply that they considered wiping to be one of the names for washing. As for the verse, the majority of exegetes have not interpreted it as suggested in the question. Abu ʿUbaydah, al-Farraʾ, and others said that the meaning of "He began wiping" is "striking." Others said it refers to actual wiping, meaning he wiped the manes and legs of the animals. A minority said it refers to washing. Those who said so do not deny that interpreting wiping as washing is figurative and metaphorical. However, it is impermissible for us to deviate in the speech of Allah سبحانه وتعالى, the Exalted, from the literal meaning to the metaphorical meaning except when there is necessity. If it is said: What prevents you from accepting that the recitation in the genitive case (Jar) implies wiping, but that it refers to wiping over the footwear (Khuffayn), not the bare feet (Rijlayn)? Whereas the recitation in the accusative case (Nasb) necessitates washing, which applies specifically to the bare feet, thereby allowing the verse in both recitations to accommodate both rulings? We say: Footwear (Khuff) is neither called "feet" (Arjul) in language nor in Islamic law (Shariah), just as a turban is not called "head" (Raʾs), nor is a veil (Burquʿ) called "face" (Wajh). If it were permissible to interpret the term "feet" in the verse to mean "footwear," it would likewise be permissible to interpret all the other terms we mentioned in the same manner. If it is said: What about the recitation in the accusative case (Nasb), which is the majority reading among the reciters? It necessitates washing and does not imply anything else. We say: The first point to address here is that the recitation in the genitive case (Jar) is agreed upon, whereas the recitation in the accusative case (Nasb) is disputed. We argue that the recitation in the accusative case is not valid, and the divinely revealed recitation is the one in the genitive case. This is supported by the following evidence:

This invalidates the basis of the question. Furthermore, even if we were to concede that the recitation in the genitive case (Jar) is equivalent to the recitation in the accusative case (Nasb), given that among the Seven Reciters, those who recited in the genitive case include Ibn Kathir, Abu Amr, Hamzah, and, in one narration, Abu Bakr from Asim, while those who recited in the accusative case include Nafiʿ, Ibn Amir, al-Kisaʾi, and, in one narration, Hafs from Asim - it would still necessitate wiping (Mash). This is because the mention of the heads (Ruʾus) occurs in a position requiring the accusative case (Nasb) due to the action of "wiping" being applied to them. However, the heads were rendered in the genitive case (Jar) due to the particle "Bi" (with). Based on this, it is not unreasonable to conjoin the feet (Arjul) to the position of the heads (Ruʾus), rather than their grammatical form, and thereby render the feet in the accusative case (Nasb), even if the obligation concerning them is wiping, as is the case with the heads. Conjunction (Atf) to the syntactical position is a well-known and permissible practice in the Arabic language. For example, they say: "I am not standing, nor sitting", rendering "sitting" in the accusative case based on the position of "standing" rather than its grammatical form. Similarly, they say: "I scratched his chest and the chest of Zayd", and "Indeed Zayd is in the house, and Amr too", where "Amr" is rendered in the nominative case based on the position of "Zayd", as the word "Indeed" governs both. Another example is their statement: "If you come to me, you will receive a dirham, and I will honor you", where "I will honor you" is rendered in the jussive case based on the position of "you will receive a dirham", even though it is not governed by the same grammatical rule. Similarly, in the Qur'an: "Whomever Allah سبحانه وتعالى sends astray - no guide is there for him; and He leaves them", "leaves" is rendered in the jussive case based on the position of "guide", which is itself in the jussive case. A poet also said: "Muawiyah, we are human, so be lenient; For we are neither mountains nor iron." Here, "iron" is rendered in the accusative case based on the position of "mountains". Another poet said: "Are you sending Dinar to fulfill our need, Or a servant of Rabb, brother of ʾAkhaʿun ibn Mukhraq?" The accusative case (Nasb) of "Abd Rabb" occurs because the appropriate form of the sentence is "You are sending Dinar, so send the servant of Rabb." Hence, the word was governed by the position rather than the literal grammatical structure. They have permitted cases even more distant than this, such as conjoining based on meaning even when the literal structure does not necessitate it. For instance, the poet said: "Bring me the likes of Banu Badr for their people, Or the likes of the household of Manzur ibn Sayyar." Since the meaning of "Bring me" is "Give me" or "Provide me with," the poet said "or the likes" in the accusative case (Nasb), conjoining it to the intended meaning. If it is said: What prevents you from admitting that the recitation in the accusative case (Nasb) necessitates washing (Ghusl) alone and does not allow for wiping (Mash), since conjoining the feet to the position of the heads for the ruling is an expansive and figurative interpretation, whereas the apparent and literal meanings require conjoining them to the grammatical structure, not the position? We say: The matter is not as you have assumed. Conjoining based on the position (Mahall) is well-regarded in the Arabic language and permissible, not merely as a form of expansion or departure from the literal. The speaker has the choice to base declension (Iʿrab) on the grammatical structure at times and on the positional meaning at others. This is evident and widely recognized in Arabic and has numerous examples in the Qur’an and poetry. Even if we were to concede that conjoining to the grammatical structure is stronger, conjoining the feet to the position of the heads is still preferable when the recitation uses the accusative case (Nasb). This is because the accusative case for the feet can only occur in one of two ways: either by conjoining them to the hands and faces for washing, or by conjoining them to the position of the heads, resulting in wiping. Conjoining them to the position of the heads is preferable. This is because when a sentence contains two governing elements, one of which is nearer and the other farther, it is preferable to apply the nearer. Arabic linguists have established this rule, saying that if someone says: "Honor me and I honored Abdullah, and I honored and Abdullah honored me," then applying the second verb to what follows it is more appropriate than applying the first because the second is closer. This principle is evident in the Qur’an and much of Arabic poetry. For instance, Allah سبحانه وتعالى says: "And indeed they thought, just as you thought, that Allah سبحانه وتعالى would not resurrect anyone" (Surah Al-Jinn 72:7) If the first governing verb had been applied, it would have been expressed as "as you thought Him". Allah سبحانه وتعالى also says: "Bring me molten copper to pour over it" If the first verb had been applied, it would have been expressed as "to pour it over it" And He سبحانه وتعالى says: "Here, read my book" If the first verb had been applied, it would have been expressed as "Read it, my book" Likewise, the poet said: "Each debtor fulfilled their debt to their creditor, And Azzah, delayed in payment, fulfilled her creditor’s obligation." Here, the second governing verb was applied, not the first. If the first had been applied, it would have read: "Each debtor fulfilled their debt to their creditor, and Azzah fulfilled it as well." Another example where the second verb governs is the poet’s statement: "Two reddish-grey horses, their bodies bloodied, As though their backs had been overlaid with golden color." If the first governing verb had been applied, "golden color" would have been in the nominative case, but it is recited in the accusative case. Similarly, al-Farazdaq said: "But if I insult and am insulted in return, By the sons of Abd Shams of Manaf and Hashim." He used the nominative case for "the sons" because the second governing verb was applied, not the first. As for Imruʾ al-Qays’s statement, which applies the first governing verb: "If what I sought were merely the lowest livelihood, It would suffice me, and I would not seek even a little wealth." The first issue with this example is that it is anomalous (Shadh), deviating from its standard grammatical pattern, and no ruling is based on an anomaly. Secondly, the nominative case was used because he did not consider "a little" to be the object of pursuit. Rather, he considered it sufficient, and his pursuit was for kingship. If he had not intended this and had used the accusative case, the meaning would have been corrupted. The Shaykh (Al-Mufid), may Allah سبحانه وتعالى support him, said: "The two ankles (Kaʿiban) are the protruding bones at the tops of the feet in front of the shins," up to his statement: "and they are what rises in the middle, as we have mentioned." This is supported by Allah’s سبحانه وتعالى statement: "Up to the ankles" (Surah Al-Ma'idah 5:6) This clarifies that the extent of wiping is up to the ankles. If Allah سبحانه وتعالى intended what our opponents claim, He سبحانه وتعالى would have said "to the Kaʿib", because there are two in each foot. This is further supported by the consensus (Ijmaʿ) of the Ummah, which is divided into two groups. One group asserts the obligation of wiping exclusively, without permitting any other option, and definitively states that "the two ankles" refers to what we have mentioned. The other group asserts the obligation of washing or the obligation of either washing or wiping, and they interpret "the two ankles" as the bones protruding behind the shins. There is no third opinion. Thus, if it is established by the evidence we have presented that wiping the feet is obligatory and no other interpretation is permissible, then it follows that our explanation of the "two ankles" is correct. This is further supported by additional evidence.

The Shaykh (Al-Mufid), may Allah سبحانه وتعالى support him, then added: "When the one performing ablution has completed his Wuduʾ, he should say this supplication: 'All praise is due to Allah سبحانه وتعالى, the Lord of the worlds. O Allah سبحانه وتعالى, make me among those who repent and among those who purify themselves.' "

The Shaykh (Al-Mufid), may Allah سبحانه وتعالى support him, then added: "It is permissible for a woman, when wiping her head, to wipe with just one finger over the portion of her head that is connected to her, inserting her finger under her head covering to wipe her hair, even if it is as little as the tip of a finger, during the Zuhr, Asr, and ʿIshaʾ prayers. However, during the Fajr and Maghrib prayers, she should remove her head covering and wipe with three fingers."

The Shaykh (Al-Mufid), may Allah سبحانه وتعالى support him, said: "Whoever omits rinsing the mouth (Madmada) and sniffing water into the nose (Istinshaq) during ablution (Wuduʾ) does not invalidate their purification, but they would be neglecting a recommended act of virtue."

This means that they are not obligatory acts of ablution. This is evidenced by:

The interpretation of his statement, "nor recommended," is that it is not from the type of recommended acts that must not be omitted. However, performing it is not considered an innovation (Bidah). Evidence for this is as follows:

The Shaykh (Al-Mufid), may Allah سبحانه وتعالى support him, then said: "Whoever washes his face and arms once during ablution (Wuduʾ) has fulfilled the obligation. If he washes these parts twice, he attains a reward, performs a meritorious act, and perfects his ablution." This is supported by Allah’s سبحانه وتعالى statement: "When you stand up for prayer, wash your faces and your hands." (Surat al-Maʾidah, 5:6). Thus, whoever washes his face and arms once has complied with what the apparent meaning of the verse requires. Any additional washing requires specific evidence, and there is no evidence here to suggest that washing more than once is obligatory. This is further supported by the following evidence.

These narrations are understood to refer to the recommended practice (Sunnah). This is supported by the reports we previously mentioned, which state that the obligation (Faridah) is to wash each part once. There can be no contradiction in the narrations of Imams عليه السلام, as the explanation harmonizes them.

The description of the Prophet’s ablution (peace and blessings be upon him and his family), where he performed each action once, indicates that when Abu Abdullah said "twice for each part," he was referring to the recommended (Sunnah) practice. It is not permissible for the obligation (Faridah) to be twice when the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) performed it once. This understanding is further supported by the following evidence.

The statement, "twice earns no reward," refers to a situation where one believes that performing it twice is obligatory; in this case, there is no reward. However, if one performs it twice with the belief that it is recommended (Sunnah), then it is rewarded. This is supported by the evidence we have previously mentioned.

The Shaykh (Al-Mufid), may Allah سبحانه وتعالى support him, commented: "There is no Sunnah for wiping the head and feet more than once, as the single wiping is the obligation (Faridah)." This is supported by Allah’s سبحانه وتعالى statement: "And wipe your heads." (Surat al-Maʾidah, 5:6). Thus, whoever wipes once has fulfilled the apparent obligation. Any additional wiping beyond once requires specific legal evidence, and there is no such evidence here indicating that wiping the head should be more than once. Moreover, most of the narrations previously mentioned describing the ablution indicate this as well. After describing the washing of the limbs, the Imams عليه السلام said: "He wiped his head and his feet," without specifying whether it was once or twice. If it were more than once, they would have clarified it. This is further confirmed by the evidence that follows.

His statement, "and wiping the feet includes their upper and lower surfaces," means wiping both forward and backward, from the toes to the ankles and from the ankles to the toes, as we have previously explained. This explanation is further clarified by the evidence that follows.

The Shaykh (Al-Mufid), may Allah سبحانه وتعالى support him, then said: "Ablution (Wuduʾ) is an act of devotion (Qurbah) to Allah سبحانه وتعالى, so it is necessary for the servant to purify their intention (Niyyah) and perform it solely for the sake of Allah سبحانه وتعالى, the Exalted." This is supported by the verse of Allah سبحانه وتعالى, the Exalted: "O you who have believed, when you rise to [perform] prayer, wash your faces." (Surat al-Maʾidah, 5:6). The phrase "wash" implies washing for the purpose of prayer, even though the explicit mention of prayer is omitted for brevity. This is a clear practice in Arabic, where they say, "When you want to meet the king, dress in your clothes," or, "When you intend to confront the enemy, take your weapons," meaning "dress in your clothes to meet the king" and "take your weapons to confront the enemy." Thus, when we are commanded to wash for prayer, it necessitates intention (Niyyah), as intention directs the action toward prayer and distinguishes it from other purposes. This is further supported by the requirement for intention in acts of worship.

When we observe that actions can occur in their general forms without intention, we understand from the narration that actions do not become acts of devotion (Qurbah), legitimate, or valid without intentions. His صلى الله عليه وعلى آله وسلم statement, "and for every person is that which they intended," indicates that a person does not attain what they did not intend. This is the linguistic implication of the word "Innama" (Indeed only). For example, when someone says, "Indeed, you only have a dirham with me," or, "Indeed, I only ate one loaf of bread," it signifies the negation of having more than one dirham or eating more than one loaf of bread. The indication that the word "Innama" is used in this restrictive sense is further supported by the incident where Ibn Abbas (may Allah سبحانه وتعالى have mercy on him) held the view that it was permissible to sell a dirham for two dirhams in cash. Other prominent companions debated with him on this matter and cited as evidence the Prophet’s prohibition of selling gold for gold and silver for silver. He countered their argument.

Ibn Abbas regarded this narration as evidence that usury is limited to deferred payment and does not apply to immediate exchanges. This also indicates that the word "Innama" (Indeed only) conveys restriction and exclusivity in its meaning. This is further evidenced by the dispute among the companions regarding the meeting of the two circumcised parts (sexual intercourse). Those who argued that it does not necessitate a full ritual bath (Ghusl) used this term as their proof.

Some of the companions argued that this narration was abrogated. If it were not for the fact that both groups understood this phrase to restrict the obligation of a full ritual bath (Ghusl) to ejaculation, those who denied the obligation of Ghusl would not have used the narration as proof, nor would the others have claimed its abrogation. The Shaykh (Al-Mufid), may Allah سبحانه وتعالى support him, then said: "Whoever performs ablution (Wuduʾ) while wearing a ring should turn or move it while washing their hand so that the water reaches underneath it. Similarly, a woman should do so if she is wearing a bracelet." Up to his statement: "Any water that falls from the ablution does not harm the one performing Wuduʾ." This is supported by the following evidence.

The Shaykh (Al-Mufid), may Allah سبحانه وتعالى support him, then added: "Water falling onto the ground, clothes, or body during ablution does not harm the one performing Wuduʾ, as it remains pure. Similarly, water falling on a clean surface after being used for Istinjaʾ (cleansing after using the restroom) and then splashing back does not make the clothes or body impure unless it falls onto visible impurity and carries it back. In such a case, one must wash whatever was touched by the contaminated water."

The Shaykh (Al-Mufid), may Allah سبحانه وتعالى support him, then said: "It is not permissible to interrupt ablution (Wuduʾ)" until he (Shaykh Al-Mufid) said: "If someone is forced to interrupt their Wuduʾ, and the earlier parts dry, they must restart the Wuduʾ from the beginning. However, if the earlier parts have not dried, they may resume from where they left off." This is supported by Allah’s سبحانه وتعالى statement: "O you who have believed, when you rise to [perform] prayer, wash your faces and your hands up to the elbows and wipe over your heads and your feet up to the ankles." (Surat al-Maʾidah, 5:6). It is established that commands (Amr) in Islamic law necessitate immediacy and do not allow for delay. Therefore, if someone is commanded to pray, they are also commanded to perform Wuduʾ beforehand, and it must be performed immediately upon the obligation arising. Similarly, this applies to all four limbs. For instance, after washing the face, the individual is commanded to wash the hands, and delaying this is not permissible. This is also supported by the Sunnah.

The interpretation of this narration is that if the person performing Wuduʾ does not interrupt it, but the drying is caused by strong wind or extreme heat, then they are not required to restart the Wuduʾ. However, if they interrupt the Wuduʾ and the earlier parts dry, they must restart it entirely, as explained. The Shaykh (Al-Mufid), may Allah سبحانه وتعالى support him, then said: "Similarly, if someone forgets to wipe their head but remembers while there is still moisture from their Wuduʾ on their hand, they should wipe their head and feet with that moisture. If they forget to wipe their feet, they should do so when they remember, using the moisture remaining on their hand. If there is no moisture on their hand but some remains on their beard or eyebrows, they may take enough to moisten their fingertips and use it to wipe their head and the tops of their feet, even if it is a small amount. However, if they remember what they forgot only after their Wuduʾ has completely dried, they must restart the Wuduʾ from the beginning." This is supported by the following evidence.

The Shaykh (Al-Mufid), may Allah سبحانه وتعالى support him, said: "It suffices for a person, when wiping their head, to wipe the front portion with the width of a single finger placed across the hair up to the hairline. If they wipe with the width of three joined fingers, they have completed the act fully and performed the preferred method. Similarly, it suffices when wiping the feet to wipe each one using the tip of the index finger from the toes to the ankles. If they wipe them with the palms of their hands, it is better." This is supported by Allah’s سبحانه وتعالى statement: "And wipe your heads and your feet up to the ankles." (Surat al-Maʾidah, 5:6). Whoever wipes their head and feet with one finger falls under the definition of "wiping" and is thus considered to have fulfilled the requirement. However, anything less than a single finger is not permissible because, while the apparent meaning might suggest its validity, the Sunnah prohibits it. This also supports the permissibility of wiping in this manner, as further evidence demonstrates.

This narration indicates that wiping with just one finger suffices in cases of necessity, such as cold weather or similar situations. It has already been mentioned that wiping with three fingers is better, so there is no need to reiterate this point.

This does not contradict what we previously mentioned, that wiping should ideally be performed on the front of the head. This is because it is not impossible for a person to insert their finger from behind and still wipe the front of their head. It is also possible that this narration was conveyed in the context of Taqiyyah (dissimulation), as this is the opinion of some scholars among the general Muslim community. What further supports this interpretation is:

Muhammad ibn al-Hasan commented: "The interpretation of this narration is the same as that of the first narration we discussed."

The meaning is that such an act would not be considered complete in achieving the virtues (Khisal al-Fadl).

What is intended here is not the absolute invalidity of prayer elsewhere, but rather that such prayer lacks the greater virtue and abundant reward associated with praying in the mosque. It does not negate the validity of the prayer in other places in every sense.

This narration is interpreted as having been conveyed under Taqiyyah (dissimulation), as it aligns with the view of some of the general Muslim community who believe in wiping the entire foot, which contradicts the correct understanding as we have explained. The Shaykh (Al-Mufid), may Allah سبحانه وتعالى support him, said: "It is not permissible for anyone to replace wiping of the feet with washing, nor to substitute wiping of the head with washing, just as it is not permissible to replace the washing of the face and hands with wiping. Each part of Wuduʾ must be performed in its prescribed manner." This is supported by the Quranic verse: "O you who have believed, when you rise to [perform] prayer, wash your faces and your hands up to the elbows, and wipe over your heads and your feet up to the ankles." (Surat al-Maʾidah, 5:6). The verse clearly mandates washing for the face and hands and wiping for the head and feet. Whoever wipes where Allah سبحانه وتعالى has commanded washing or washes where Allah سبحانه وتعالى has commanded wiping has not complied with the divine command. Noncompliance with the command does not fulfill the obligation. This is further supported by additional evidence.

The additional statement: "If a person wishes to wash their feet to remove dirt, for cleanliness, or to cool them, they should do so before beginning Wuduʾ. Then, perform Wuduʾ afterward and conclude by wiping over the feet to comply with Allah’s سبحانه وتعالى command in maintaining the order of Wuduʾ," This is supported by the previous narration, which states: "Begin by wiping over the feet. If you decide to wash them afterward (for cleanliness), then wipe over them again so that the last action performed is the obligatory one."

This narration aligns with the views of the general Muslim community and was conveyed under the context of Taqiyyah (dissimulation). It is well-established in the teachings of the Imams عليه السلام that the feet are to be wiped in Wuduʾ, not washed. This is so widely known that there is no room for doubt. Given this, this narration cannot be used to contradict the previously mentioned narrations or the clear directive of the Quran. The Shaykh (Al-Mufid), may Allah سبحانه وتعالى support him, then said: "If someone forgets to clean their feet by washing them before Wuduʾ or delays it for some reason, they should place a gap of time between this cleaning and their Wuduʾ. The two acts should not follow each other immediately, so that the obligatory Wuduʾ remains distinct from other actions." This has already been explained and clarified. The Shaykh (Al-Mufid), may Allah سبحانه وتعالى support him, further said: "There is no Sunnah or virtue in wiping the ears. Whoever wipes the outer or inner parts of their ears has introduced an innovation." This is because washing or wiping parts of the body in purification (Wuduʾ) is a matter of Islamic law, and one must rely on clear legal evidence for such acts. There is no legal evidence in Islamic teachings that mandates the wiping of the ears during Wuduʾ. Whoever introduces a ruling into the religion without evidence is considered to have innovated, and this is agreed upon among Muslims. This interpretation is further supported by additional evidence.

The Shaykh (Al-Mufid), may Allah سبحانه وتعالى support him, commented: "Washing the face and arms during Wuduʾ is to be done once." He, (Shaykh (Al-Mufid)), continued: "One should not take fresh water for wiping; instead, the moisture remaining from Wuduʾ should be used for wiping." This has already been explained in detail. He, (Shaykh (Al-Mufid)), then said: "If someone makes a mistake in Wuduʾ by washing their arms before washing their face, they must go back and wash their face and then wash their arms again. Similarly, if they wash their left arm before their right arm, they must return to washing their right arm and then rewash their left arm. Likewise, if they wipe their feet before wiping their head, they must return to wipe their head first and then wipe their feet again." This is supported by the verse in which Allah سبحانه وتعالى, the Exalted, says: "And when you rise to (perform) prayer, wash your faces and your hands up to the elbows, and wipe your heads and your feet up to the ankles." (Surat al-Maʾidah, 5:6) A group of grammarians, including al-Farraʾ and Abu ʿUbayd al-Qasim ibn Sallam, have stated that the waw implies order (tarattub). If the waw indeed necessitates order, it is not permissible to perform the washing or wiping of body parts in any sequence other than that prescribed. The verse also provides evidence from another perspective. Allah سبحانه وتعالى says: "When you rise to prayer, wash your faces and your hands up to the elbows." The use of faʾ in faʾghsilu indicates immediacy (taʿqib). There is no disagreement that the faʾ implies sequential immediacy. Therefore, washing the face must begin immediately after rising to perform prayer, as indicated by the faʾ. If the requirement to begin with the face is established as obligatory, this sequence applies to the other body parts in Wuduʾ as well. Among the Muslim scholars, there are two views: 1. One group does not consider the sequence obligatory and permits starting with the feet and ending with the face. 2. Another group considers starting with the face obligatory and extends this obligation to the other parts of Wuduʾ. If someone argues that the faʾ in this verse does not imply immediacy but rather conditionality (jazaʾ), as in the statement "If Zayd comes, then honor him" (fa-akrimhu), they may distinguish between the two types of faʾ: 1. The faʾ of sequential immediacy allows separation of the preceding and following clauses (e.g., “Strike Zayd, then strike Amr”). 2. The faʾ of conditionality does not permit such separation and is integral to the clause. We respond: There is no distinction between these two types of faʾ in the Arabic language. The faʾ always implies immediacy, provided it is not part of the same word. Whether the faʾ is used for conditionality or conjunction, it implies sequential immediacy. For example, in the phrase "If Zayd enters, then give him a dirham," the faʾ implies immediacy after Zayd’s entrance, even though it is part of a conditional statement. Similarly, in "Strike Zayd, then strike Amr," the act of striking Zayd necessitates immediately striking Amr. Thus, it is baseless to assume a difference between the two types of faʾ. Evidence for the obligation of sequence (tarattub) is also found in the Sunnah.

This statement uses the form of a command, which implies obligation, indicating that one must practically begin with what Allah سبحانه وتعالى has initiated. If it is argued that the command "Begin with what Allah سبحانه وتعالى began with" means starting verbally with what Allah سبحانه وتعالى mentioned first, while the disagreement concerns beginning with action: We respond: It is not permissible to limit the meaning to verbal initiation for two reasons: 1. When the Prophet عليه السلام said, "Begin with what Allah سبحانه وتعالى began with," this statement is general, encompassing both verbal and practical initiation. Without specific evidence, it cannot be restricted to verbal initiation alone. 2. The Prophet عليه السلام began his action at al-Ṣafa and said, "Begin with what Allah سبحانه وتعالى began with," thereby indicating that the instruction applies to practical initiation in accordance with Allah’s سبحانه وتعالى mention. If it is further argued, based on the first reasoning, that Prophet’s statement, "Begin with what Allah سبحانه وتعالى began with," prevents interpreting "begin" as general, consider this: If someone says, "Strike Zayd with what Amr struck him," and if Amr struck Zayd with a stick, then the instruction must be confined to striking with a stick specifically. It cannot be generalized to include other forms of striking. We respond: There is a difference between these two scenarios. In the case of striking, one cannot use different methods to strike and still fulfill the condition of striking with what Amr used. Hence, the instruction is confined to the specific object used by Amr. However, this is not the case with the Prophet’s instruction. It is possible to begin both verbally and practically with what Allah سبحانه وتعالى initiated verbally. By beginning practically, one is indeed starting with what Allah سبحانه وتعالى initiated in the Quranic mention. Thus, the two scenarios are fundamentally different. This supports the obligation of maintaining sequence (tarattub) in actions.

The Shaykh (Al-Mufid), may Allah سبحانه وتعالى support him, then said: "If he delays doing so until the moisture on the parts of his body washed in Wuduʾ dries, he must repeat the Wuduʾ anew, ensuring that the Wuduʾ is continuous and not interrupted."

If someone asks about the narration that was transmitted: (following hadith)