As for the hadith of Amr ibn Hazm, its chain is weak, as they have said (1). Yet the people’s acceptance of it, their reliance upon it regarding the rulings on zakah, blood-money payments, and other matters that it contains, and their receiving it with acceptance all indicate that it has an origin. Very often, the people’s acceptance of a hadith—whether in matters of knowledge or practice—takes the place of its chain of transmission, or is even stronger. This hadith has been cited as evidence from the time of the Successors until our own day, so how can we say that it has no basis? That is very far-fetched.

In this matter, I had been inclined toward the view of the Zahirites. But when I reflected on the Prophet’s ﷺ statement, “None may touch the Quran except one who is pure,” and on the fact that “pure” may refer to one free of both minor and major ritual impurity, as Allah Most High says: “Allah does not intend to make difficulty for you, but He intends to purify you.” [al-Ma’idah: 6]—and since it was not the Prophet’s ﷺ practice to describe a believer as “pure,” for describing him as a believer is more emphatic—it became clear to me that one in a state of either minor or major ritual impurity may not touch the Quran. The evidence upon which I rely is the hadith of Amr ibn Hazm. As for the analogy cited in support of the majority’s view, it is weak and is not strong enough to be used as evidence; rather, the main basis is the hadith of Amr ibn Hazm.

Someone might say: The letter of Amr ibn Hazm was written to the people of Yemen, who were not Muslims at that time; thus, its being addressed to non-Muslims may indicate that what is meant by “the pure one” is the believer.

The response is that it was a common feature of the Prophet’s ﷺ speech to make a matter conditional