Issue Three: Divergence over fixing the number of washings

The jurists differed on whether a specific count must be observed when performing the ghusl for the deceased. Some declared it obligatory, while others merely deemed it commendable. Among those who made it compulsory were: (a) scholars who required an odd number of washings—whatever that odd number might be—a view attributed to Ibn Sīrīn; and (b) those who restricted it to precisely three washings, the position of Abū Ḥanīfah.

A number of scholars set only a minimum: al-Shāfiʿī ruled that the washings may not be fewer than three yet placed no ceiling on how many may be performed. Others fixed the maximum: Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal maintained that the washings must not exceed seven. Mālik ibn Anas and his companions, for their part, recommended an odd number but imposed no particular limit.

The disagreement between those who stipulated a set number and those who did not—but still preferred it—arises from the interplay of transmitted evidence and analogy. The apparent sense of the ḥadīth of Umm ʿAṭiyyah points to a specific count, for it states: “Wash her three times, or five, or more than that if you deem it necessary,” and one version adds, “or seven.”

By contrast, drawing an analogy between the purification of the dead and that of the living suggests no fixed number, just as the living person’s ritual washing is not restricted to any tally. Consequently, whoever gave precedence to the ḥadīth over analogy required a set number, whereas those who sought to reconcile text and reasoning understood the prescription to be a recommendation rather than an obligation.

As for the scholars who accepted a set count, their own divergence stems from the variant wordings of Umm ʿAṭiyyah’s report. Al-Shāfiʿī held that the washings must not fall below three, since three is the smallest odd number expressly mentioned, and he deemed any number beyond that permissible on the strength of the Prophet’s words: “or more than that if you see fit.”

Aḥmad adopted the largest odd number cited in certain narrations—“or seven”—and set that as the upper limit. Abū Ḥanīfah confined the odd number to three, basing himself on a tradition in which Muḥammad ibn Sīrīn related from Umm ʿAṭiyyah: “Three washings: twice with water and lote-tree leaves (sidr), and the third with water and camphor.” In addition, he held that the legal term witr (odd number) applies, in the present context, only to three.

Mālik recommended that the first washing be with plain water, the second with sidr, and the third with water mixed with camphor.

The jurists also disagreed on whether the ghusl must be repeated if something issues from the deceased’s abdomen after the washing is complete. One view—advocated by Mālik—says it need not be repeated; another insists that it must. Those who required repetition then differed over how many times it becomes obligatory should the discharge recur: one opinion, attributed to al-Shāfiʿī, is that a single additional washing suffices; another says three; yet another says seven. All, however, agree that nothing beyond seven is required.

They likewise disputed whether the deceased’s nails should be clipped and his hair trimmed. Some held that both should be done; others said neither should be, asserting that no transmitted evidence supports it.

As for the underlying reason for this latter disagreement, it traces back to a difference that arose among the earliest generations