washing, for the feet are seldom cleansed of their usual grime except by washing, whereas the head is ordinarily purified by wiping—and that, too, is generally the case.
Rationally discernible benefits are not prevented from serving as causes for the prescribed acts of worship; thus the Law may have taken into account two considerations at once: a utilitarian aspect and a devotional aspect. By utilitarian I mean what pertains to tangible matters, and by devotional what pertains to the refinement and purification of the soul.
The jurists also disagreed, among those who permit wiping, whether the two ankles fall under wiping or under washing. The root of their disagreement lies in the ambiguity of the preposition ilā in the Almighty’s words, “and your feet up to the ankles” (Q 5:6). We have already discussed this same ambiguity with respect to His words, “up to the elbows” (Q 5:6). In that instance the ambiguity arose from two directions, the polysemy of the word “hand” and of the particle ilā, whereas here it arises only from the particle ilā itself.
They further differed over the precise meaning of kaʿb (ankle), because the term is shared between two lexically attested senses. Some said it is the pair of bones located where the sandal strap is tied, while others said it is the two protruding bones at the end of the leg. As far as I can tell, there is no dispute that these bones must be washed, according to those who locate them at the sandal strap, provided they are deemed part of the foot.
On that basis some scholars stated: when the stated limit is of the same genus as the delimited thing, the endpoint—that is, the entity indicated by the word ilā—is included; but when it is not of the same genus it is excluded, as in His saying, “Then complete the fast until the night” (Q 2:187).
Eleventh issue among the conditions
The scholars disagreed over whether arranging the acts of ablution in the sequence given in the verse is obligatory.
One group held that it is a Sunnah. This is the position reported by the later Mālikīs as the view of the school; it is also the opinion of Abū Ḥanīfah, al-Thawrī, and Dāwūd.
Another group maintained that it is obligatory; this is the view of al-Shāfiʿī, Aḥmad, and Abū ʿUbayd.
All of this concerns the ordering of obligatory acts among themselves. As for the ordering of obligatory acts vis-à-vis recommended acts, Mālik considered it desirable, whereas Abū Ḥanīfah regarded it as Sunnah.
Their disagreement rests on two grounds.
The first is the ambiguity contained in the coordinating wāw. In Arabic it may conjoin elements that follow one another sequentially or elements that do not, as is plain from examining Arabic usage. Hence the grammarians divided into two camps: the Basrans say that wāw in itself implies neither succession nor order, but only combination; the Kufans say rather that it implies succession and order. Accordingly, whoever deemed that the wāw in the verse of ablution implies order held ordering to be obligatory, and whoever denied that implication did not.
The second ground is their differing over the Prophet’s actions—peace and blessings be upon him—whether such actions are to be presumed obligatory or merely recommended. Whoever presumed them obligatory ruled that ordering is obligatory, for it has never been transmitted that he performed ablution except in the prescribed order.