that thing. If it exists, then the negation is one of validity; and negating validity is to negate its legal existence. But if that is not possible—because the act of worship remains valid despite the absence of that thing—then the negation is one of completeness, not validity.

An example of negating existence is: “There is no creator of the universe except Allah.”

An example of negating validity is: “There is no prayer for one who does not recite the Opening of the Book.”

An example of negating completeness is: “None of you truly believes until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself.”

If we apply the hadith concerning saying Allah’s Name in wudu to this principle, it entails that saying Allah’s Name is a condition for the validity of wudu, not merely an obligation. For the negation of wudu due to the omission of Allah’s Name means the negation of its validity; and when the validity of an act of worship is negated by the absence of something, that thing is a condition of it. However, the position of the legal school is that it is obligatory only, and not a condition. It seems that they departed from considering it a condition for the validity of wudu because the hadith is subject to criticism. For this reason, al-Muwaffaq, may Allah have mercy on him, held that it is not obligatory but rather a sunnah (1), because Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, said: “Nothing is established in this chapter” (280). If nothing is established concerning it, then it cannot serve as proof.

Moreover, many of those who described the Prophet’s wudu, peace and blessings be upon him, did not mention saying Allah’s Name. Had this been among the obligatory matters without which wudu is invalid, it would have been mentioned.

If he is in the bathhouse, Ahmad said: “If a man sneezes…”