his fingers into the roots of his hair; he would then pour three handfuls of water over his head and finally let the water run over his entire body.”

The description given in the ḥadith of Maymūnah is almost identical, except that it postpones washing the feet—one of the limbs of wuḍū’—until the very end of the bath. In the ḥadith of Umm Salamah as well, she asked him—peace and blessings be upon him: “Must a woman undo her braids for the ghusl of major ritual impurity?” He replied, “It is enough for you to scoop water over your head three times, then pour water over yourself, and you will be purified.”

This report provides stronger grounds for dropping the requirement of rubbing than the other narrations, for in those earlier reports it is impossible that the one describing his purification would have omitted mention of rubbing had he actually done it, whereas here he simply enumerated for her the requisites of purification. Hence the scholars concur that the description of ghusl transmitted by Maymūnah and ʿĀ’ishah is the most complete form, while what is reported in Umm Salamah’s narration constitutes its obligatory pillars. They also agree that performing wuḍū’ at the beginning of the bath is not a condition for its validity—save for an isolated view attributed to al-Shāfiʿī, which draws some strength from the outward wording of the ḥadiths, whereas the majority position is reinforced by reasoning: it is evident that ghusl is a prerequisite for the validity of wuḍū’, not that wuḍū’ is a prerequisite for the validity of ghusl. This is therefore a case in which analogy confronts the apparent meaning of the texts, and the Shāfiʿī methodology gives precedence to the manifest wording of the reports over analogy.

Consequently, some scholars, as noted, adhered to the literal purport of the ḥadiths and preferred it to analogy with wuḍū’, thereby not making rubbing obligatory. Others prioritized the analogy that likens this purification to wuḍū’ over the explicit wording of the reports, and so required rubbing just as it is required in wuḍū’.

Whoever favored analogy deemed rubbing obligatory, whereas whoever favored the plain sense of the ḥadiths dispensed with it.

By analogy I mean drawing a parallel between ghusl and wuḍū’. As for arguing from the linguistic usage of the terms, that is weak, since in Arabic both ṭahārah and ghusl are employed equally for the two senses.

Issue Two
The scholars also disagreed over whether intention (niyyah) is among the conditions of this purification, just as they differed regarding wuḍū’.

Mālik, al-Shāfiʿī, Aḥmad, Abū Thawr, Dāwūd, and their followers held that intention is required. Abū Ḥanīfah, his companions, and al-Thawrī held that the bath is valid without an explicit intention, just as they rule concerning wuḍū’.

The reason for their disagreement over ghusl is precisely the same as the reason for their disagreement over wuḍū’, as explained earlier.

Issue Three
They likewise differed about rinsing the mouth (madmaḍah) and sniffing water into the nose (istinshāq) during this purification—namely, whether the two acts are obligatory in it—just as they differed about them in wuḍū’.