The evidence that a testamentary appointment gives a person priority in washing the deceased is that “Abu Bakr instructed that his wife should wash him” (1), and “Anas ibn Malik instructed that Muhammad ibn Sirin should wash him” (2).

Then his father, then his grandfather, then the nearest of his agnatic relatives, then his relatives through the maternal line, ..........

His statement, “Then his father, then his grandfather, then the nearest of his agnatic relatives,” means that here they give precedence to the authority of the ascendants over that of the descendants. In the chapter of inheritance, however, descendants are given precedence over ascendants; while in guardianship for marriage, ascendants are given precedence over descendants. Thus, if a deceased person has both a father and a son, and did not appoint anyone to wash him, then the father has the greater right, for the following reasons:

First: a father has greater compassion and tenderness toward his son than a son has toward his father.

Second: a father will generally be more knowledgeable about these matters than a son, due to the son’s youth—though the reverse may sometimes be the case: the deceased’s son may be a student of knowledge while his father is ignorant.

His statement, “Then his grandfather,” means his paternal grandfather.

His statement, “Then the nearest of his agnatic relatives,” means that after the father and paternal grandfather come the sons, however far removed, then the brothers and their descendants, then the paternal uncles and their descendants, then those entitled through manumission, in this order. It is known that such an ordering is only needed when there is a dispute. When there is no dispute—as is the case in our time—the one who washes him is whoever normally washes people in general. This is the practice followed today: a person dies, and there are people prepared to wash him, so he is taken to them and they wash him.