Chapter on the Description of Ablution (Wudu)

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.