The point at which they diverged is this: does the outward sense of the verse on ablution require that neither tayammum nor wudū’ be performed until the prayer time actually begins? This is on account of the words of the Exalted:
“O you who believe, when you rise to perform the prayer …” (al-Māʾidah 5:6).
If so, both ablution and tayammum would become obligatory only when a person is required to rise for the prayer—that is, once its time has entered. Hence the ruling of wudū’ and tayammum would, in this respect, match the ruling of the prayer itself (meaning that just as the validity of the prayer depends on the presence of its time, so too the validity of wudū’ and tayammum would depend on it), save that the Law singled out wudū’ for exemption, leaving tayammum upon its original indication. Or does the verse’s plain wording not imply this, and the intended meaning of His statement
“O you who believe, when you rise to perform the prayer …” (al-Māʾidah 5:6)
is in fact “when you intend to rise for prayer”? Moreover, had the verse contained no implied ellipsis, nothing could be derived from it beyond the bare obligation of wudū’ and tayammum at the time the prayer itself becomes due; one would not conclude that they are invalid if performed beforehand—unless they were analogised to the prayer. For this reason it is preferable to say that the source of disagreement is whether tayammum should be compared to the prayer, yet even that is weak, for the closer comparison is to wudū’. Consider this issue well, for the opinion that conditions the validity of tayammum on the entry of the prayer time and makes it a time-bound act of devotion is weak.
Assigning a specific time to an act of worship must rest on explicit textual evidence. That view is tenable only when one still hopes to find water before the time for prayer arrives: in such a case the matter is not that the rite itself is time-bound, but simply that a person cannot be deemed “unable to find water” until the prayer time has begun, for until then he may still come upon it.
Accordingly, the jurists disputed the proper moment for tayammum: should it be at the beginning, the middle, or the end of the time? Yet there are circumstances in which it is absolutely certain that a person will not chance upon water before the time enters, nor water chance upon him. Even were we to suppose that water did appear, all that would be required is to revoke the tayammum; its prior validity would not be nullified. The possibility of water’s arrival exists both before and after the time, so why should its ruling differ?—before the time it would prevent the undertaking of tayammum, whereas after the time it would not. None of this ought to be adopted without clear textual proof; and by that logic tayammum would end up being permissible only at the very end of the time—so reflect on this.
[Chapter Four: The Procedure of This Purification]
As for the manner of this purification, three foundational issues pertain to it.
First Issue
The jurists disagreed over the extent of the hands that Allah commanded to be wiped in tayammum in His words:
“… and wipe your faces and your hands with it” (al-Māʾidah 5:6).
Their opinions are four:
- The obligatory limit is exactly the limit required in wudū’, namely up to the elbows. This is the well-known view of the school and the position adopted by the jurists of the major centres.