If one of the two sisters dies, it becomes lawful for him to marry the other, just as he may marry her once he has divorced the first. Even so, the matter is still open to discussion, for the reason that bars combining the two is absent when the issue lies between a living woman and a deceased one; hence the second sister becomes lawful—unless one maintains that the rationale behind the prohibition is unintelligible, that the ban on marrying two sisters simultaneously is a purely devotional ruling whose meaning is beyond human reason. If that is accepted, Abū Ḥanīfah’s position gains strength.

Similarly, the jurists unanimously agree that a woman who has been irrevocably divorced may not wash the body of her former husband. They disagreed, however, about a revocably divorced wife. Mālik transmitted that she may wash him, and this was also the view of Abū Ḥanīfah and his followers. Ibn al-Qāsim, on the other hand, said that she may not wash him even when the divorce is revocable, and this is the logical inference from Mālik’s own principles, for in Mālik’s view the husband may not look at her. Al-Shāfiʿī held the same opinion.

The root of their disagreement is whether the husband may lawfully look at a wife who is revocably divorced.

As for the person who performs the washing, the scholars differed over what is required of him. Some said, “Whoever washes a corpse must himself perform a full ritual bath (ghusl).” Others said, “No bath is required.”

Their divergence turns on the apparent conflict between the ḥadīth of Abū Hurayrah and the ḥadīth of Asmāʾ. Abū Hurayrah reported that the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—said:

“Whoever washes a dead person should perform ghusl, and whoever carries him should perform wuduʾ.”

Abū Dāwūd related this report. As for the ḥadīth of Asmāʾ, after she had washed Abū Bakr—may Allah be pleased with him—she emerged and asked the Emigrants and Helpers who were present, “I am fasting, and this is a bitterly cold day; is ghusl obligatory upon me?” They replied, “No.” The report of Asmāʾ is sound. As for the report of Abū Hurayrah, most scholars, according to what Abū ʿUmar has recorded, do not consider it authentic. Yet in truth the narration of Asmāʾ does not directly contradict it, for someone’s denial of a ruling may merely indicate that the pertinent Sunnah had not reached him. Indeed, Asmāʾ’s very question—Allah knows best—shows that the matter was contested in the earliest generation.

For all these reasons al-Shāfiʿī—may Allah be pleased with him—following his customary prudence and deference to transmitted evidence, declared: “No ghusl is required of the one who washes the dead unless the report of Abū Hurayrah is proven authentic.”