The second opinion maintains that the only obligatory act is to wipe the palms, and this is the view of the Ẓāhirīs and the traditionists.
The third opinion holds that wiping up to the elbows is recommended while the obligation concerns the two palms alone; this is one of the reports transmitted from Mālik.
The fourth opinion states that the duty extends to the shoulders. It is an exceptional view related from al-Zuhrī and Muḥammad b. Maslamah.
The reason for these divergent views is the polysemy of the Arabic word yad (hand). In Arabic usage the word has three meanings: (1) the palm alone, which is its most common sense; (2) the palm together with the forearm; and (3) the palm, forearm, and upper arm combined.
A second cause is the variation found in the transmitted reports. In the well-known ḥadīth of ʿAmmār, preserved through sound chains, the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—said:
“It would have sufficed you to strike the earth with your hands, blow on them, and then wipe your face and your palms.”
One of its other routes, however, contains the additional wording: “…and to wipe with your hands up to the elbows.”
There is also a report from Ibn ʿUmar that the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—said:
“Tayammum consists of two strikes: one for the face and one for the hands up to the elbows,”
and similar narrations come from Ibn ʿAbbās and others.
The majority preferred these latter traditions over the established ḥadīth of ʿAmmār because they are strengthened by analogy—that is, by comparing tayammum to ablution. This very comparison led them to transfer the meaning of “hand” from its most obvious sense, the palm, to the palm together with the forearm.
Whoever claims that the word applies to both senses equally, with neither being more apparent than the other, is mistaken. Although “hand” is a homonym, it is literal when it denotes the palm, while its use for anything above the palm is figurative. Moreover, not every homonym is inherently ambiguous; only a word originally coined with two equal meanings is truly equivocal, and jurists hold that such a term cannot by itself serve as decisive proof.
Hence we state that the correct view is to believe that the obligation extends only to the two palms. Either the word “hand” is more clearly applicable to the palm than to the rest of the arm, or its indication of all the parts is equal. If it is indeed clearer with regard to the palm, we must follow the sound report; allowing analogy to override textual evidence here is baseless, and it is equally unsound to prefer unverified ḥadīths by means of it. The ruling on this question is unmistakably established by the Qur’an and the Sunnah—so reflect on it well.