Among these scholars, whoever did not discern in the ḥadīth a rationale that would make it a specific ruling intended for universal application concluded that the act is merely recommended for the one who has just awakened from sleep. Yet whoever recognized in it the underlying cause of uncertainty, and therefore treated it as a particular case meant to address a broader situation, applied the ruling to anyone who is in doubt, for the doubter stands in the same position as the sleeper.
The apparent purport of the ḥadīth is that it does not legislate about the hand itself in wuḍūʾ; rather, it concerns the state of the water used for ablution, because purity is a condition for the water. As for the reports that the Messenger of Allah—peace and blessings be upon him—would frequently wash his hands before placing them in the vessel, they admit of two interpretations: the practice may relate to the ruling on the hand, treating that initial wash as part of the acts of wuḍūʾ; or it may relate to the ruling on the water, namely, to protect it from impurity or from any doubt about its purity, assuming that doubt is judged consequential.
Third Issue under the Essential Pillars
The jurists differed over mouth-rinsing (maḍmaḍah) and nasal instillation (istinshāq) in wuḍūʾ, adopting three positions:
- Both acts are Sunnah in ablution; this is the view of Mālik, al-Shāfiʿī, and Abū Ḥanīfah.
- Both are obligatory; this is the view of Ibn Abī Laylā and a group of Dāwud’s followers.
- Istinshāq is obligatory while maḍmaḍah is Sunnah; this is the view of Abū Thawr, Abū ʿUbaydah, and several literalists.
The root of their disagreement over obligation versus recommendation lies in their evaluation of the Prophetic reports: do these reports add something that would conflict with the Qur’ānic verse on ablution, or not? Whoever believed that treating the reports as obligatory would clash with the verse—whose aim is to lay down and clarify this ruling—shifted the acts from the realm of obligation to that of recommendation. Whoever saw no conflict retained their apparent sense of obligation. One who considered the verbal and practical reports equally indicative of obligation drew no distinction between mouth-rinsing and nasal instillation. By contrast, anyone who deemed the verbal command binding but the mere action recommended distinguished between them.
This distinction rests on the fact that mouth-rinsing is conveyed only through the Prophet’s practice, not through his command, whereas nasal instillation comes through both his command and his practice, as in his statement: “When one of you performs ablution, let him draw water into his nose and then blow it out; and whoever cleans himself with stones should use an odd number.” Mālik recorded this in his Muwaṭṭaʾ and al-Bukhārī in his Ṣaḥīḥ on the authority of Abū Hurayrah.
Fourth Issue concerning the Definition of the Bodily Parts
The scholars are unanimous that washing the entire face is among the obligatory acts