either because, in his judgment, its chain is not sound; or because he regards it as conflicting with the plain import of the Qurʾān—the command therein to wipe the head; or because the actual practice based on it never became widespread among those who require such public acceptance for solitary reports—especially in Madinah, in accordance with the well-known position of Mālik, for whom the diffusion of practice is a condition. The ḥadīth in question is recorded by Muslim.

Abū ʿUmar Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr nonetheless declared it defective, adding that one of its transmissions states that the Prophet wiped over the turban without mentioning the forelock. On that basis, some scholars who allow wiping over a turban do not insist that the forelock also be wiped, arguing that the original act and its substitute cannot be joined in a single action.

Ninth Issue among the Essential Elements
The jurists disagreed about wiping the ears—whether it is Sunnah or obligatory, and whether fresh water must be taken for them. Some held that it is obligatory and that new water must be taken; among these were a number of Mālik’s companions, who further construed this view to be Mālik’s own, citing his statement that “they are part of the head.”

Abū Ḥanīfah and his school likewise considered wiping them obligatory, but maintained that it is done with the same water used for the head.

Al-Shāfiʿī, by contrast, regarded wiping the ears as Sunnah and required fresh water for it. A group of Mālik’s companions adopted the same view, interpreting it as Mālik’s position on the strength of the report that he said: “The ruling for wiping them is the same as for rinsing the mouth.”

The root of their disagreement over whether it is Sunnah or obligatory lies in their assessment of the relevant reports—namely, the Prophet’s (peace and blessings be upon him) wiping of his ears. Are these reports an addition to the Qurʾānic mention of wiping the head—so that the ears would be deemed recommended because of the perceived conflict with the verse were they taken as obligatory? Or are they a clarification of what is implicit in the Qurʾān—so that the ears would share the head’s ruling of obligation? Those who made it obligatory treated the reports as clarifying the concise wording of the Qurʾān; those who did not made them an additional act like rinsing the mouth. Numerous reports attest to the practice; though not authenticated in the two Ṣaḥīḥs, actual implementation of them is well known.

As for their dispute about taking fresh water, it stems from uncertainty as to whether the ears constitute an independent limb of ablution or form part of the head. A minority maintained that they are washed with the face; others held that their inner surfaces are wiped with the head while their outer surfaces are washed with the face—owing to the ambiguity over whether this organ belongs to the face or to the head. Such views, however, have little weight in light of the clear and widely practiced reports prescribing wiping. Al-Shāfiʿī recommends repeating the action for the ears just as he does for wiping the head.

Tenth Issue concerning the Modes
The scholars agree that the feet are among the limbs of ablution, but they differed over the type of purification required for them. One group—the majority—held that they must be washed; another held that wiping them is obligatory, and yet another