Chapter Five: Substances with Which This Purification Is Performed
This chapter contains a single issue. The scholars concur that tayammum is permissible with wholesome arable soil. They differed, however, over whether it may be performed with other earthly materials that originate from the ground, such as stones.
• al-Shāfiʿī maintained that tayammum is permissible only with unmixed soil.
• Mālik and his companions, in the view most commonly reported from him, held that it is permissible with anything that lies on the earth’s surface among its components—gravel, sand, and soil.
• Abū Ḥanīfah added to that, saying it is also permissible with everything produced from the earth among stones, such as calcite (nawrah), arsenic ore (zarnīkh), gypsum, clay, and marble.
Some—namely the majority—stipulated that the soil must actually be on the ground’s surface. Ahmad ibn Ḥanbal said that one may perform tayammum with the dust found on a garment or a saddle blanket.
Their disagreement rests on two considerations:
-
The polysemy of the word saʿīd in Arabic. At times it denotes pure soil; at other times it refers to everything that lies exposed on the earth’s surface. Because of this etymology, Mālik and his associates—according to one report—went so far as to permit tayammum on vegetation and snow, arguing that these are called saʿīd in the original sense of “that which has risen upon the earth.” This, however, is weak.
-
The variation in the wording of the well-known ḥadīth concerning tayammum. In one rendition the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—said, “The earth has been made for me a place of prayer and a means of purification.” In another he said, “The earth has been made for me a place of prayer, and its soil has been made a means of purification for me.” Jurists of legal theory disagree: should an unqualified (mutlaq) text be interpreted in light of a qualified (muqayyad) one, or vice versa? The prevailing view is to restrict the unqualified by the qualified, though this is open to critique. Abū Muḥammad Ibn Ḥazm held the opposite—that the unqualified prevails over the qualified—because it contains an added scope of meaning.
Thus, whoever believes the qualified limits the unqualified and interprets “wholesome saʿīd” as “soil” allows tayammum only with soil. Whoever allows the unqualified to govern the qualified and understands saʿīd to embrace everything on the earth’s surface permits tayammum with sand and gravel.
Permitting tayammum with substances merely derived from the earth is a weak position, for the term saʿīd does not cover them. The broadest sense of saʿīd reaches only what the name “earth” itself reaches; it does not extend to arsenic, calcite, snow, or vegetation. Allah alone grants success in attaining the truth. The ambiguity in the word ṭayyib (“wholesome”) is likewise among the factors that have fueled this disagreement.