Abū Ḥanīfah. By the same reasoning, some jurists also allow scrubbing (fark) on the basis of the analogical principle that whatever removes the very substance of the impurity renders the object pure. Another group, however, permits wiping only in the cases on which there is unanimous agreement—namely the excretory orifice, the trailing hem of a woman’s garment, and the leather sock—and then only with dry grass, not with any moist or sticky filth. This is the position of Mālik. These scholars do not extend the ruling of wiping beyond the specific locations named in the revealed texts, whereas the opposing camp does extend it.

The root of their disagreement is whether the relevant reports were intended as a concession (rukhsah) or as a binding ruling (ḥukm). Whoever judged them to be a mere concession refused to draw analogies from them, while whoever regarded them as a legal ruling governing the removal of impurity—parallel to the ruling of washing—did make analogical extensions.

As for their divergence over a fixed number of washings or wipings:
• One group requires nothing beyond full cleansing, whether by washing or wiping.
• A second group insists on a specific number both in cleansing with stones (istijmār) and in washing. Among these, some restrict the numerical requirement in washing to the single case explicitly mentioned by transmitted proof, while others generalise it to every form of impurity.
• Those who impose no numerical requirement whatsoever in either washing or wiping include Mālik and Abū Ḥanīfah.

Those who stipulate a number in istijmār—namely three stones, no fewer—include al-Shāfiʿī and the Ẓāhirīs. Those who require a set number in washing but confine it to its specific text—washing a vessel seven times after a dog has lapped from it—are al-Shāfiʿī and those who follow his view. As for those who broaden the rule and insist on seven washings for every impurity, to the best of my knowledge Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal is among them.

Abū Ḥanīfah, for his part, demands three washings when removing impurities whose substance is imperceptible—that is, purely judgement-based (ḥukmiyyah) impurities.

The reason behind their disagreement lies in the tension between the conceptual understanding of this act of worship and the literal wording of the ḥadīths that mention specific numbers. Whoever understands the command to remove impurity as nothing more than removing its very substance does not impose any numerical requirement at all. He deems the number cited for istijmār in the sound ḥadīth of Salmān—“Do not cleanse yourselves with fewer than three stones”—to be a recommended practice, thereby harmonising the conceptual meaning derived from the Sharīʿah with the auditory evidence of the reports. He likewise views the requirement of seven washings for a vessel licked by a dog as an act of pure devotion, unrelated to the nature of the impurity itself, as has already been mentioned in Mālik’s school.

Those who cling to the apparent meanings of these traditions and exclude them from that conceptual understanding limit the numerical requirement to the very cases in which it is stated. But those who give precedence to the literal wording over the conceptual meaning extend the rule to all impurities.

Abū Ḥanīfah’s evidence for insisting on three washings is the Prophet’s statement—peace and blessings be upon him: “When one of you awakens from sleep, let him wash his hands three times before putting them into his vessel.”