The proponent of this view said: “Thus, using some of the water is beneficial for ritual bathing, but not for tayammum.”

They deemed this argument weak on the grounds that a person must do whatever he can. This shows that, in their view, such washing is a beneficial act of purification when one’s ability is limited, whether in ablution or ritual bathing. Accordingly, once water becomes available, he need not wash again the parts he has already washed in ablution, just as he need not repeat prayers performed with tayammum or repeat what he has already washed in ritual bathing. This accords with the well-known distinction drawn by Ahmad’s followers between ablution and ritual bathing, as we shall explain, Allah willing. For he has done what he was commanded to do, in the manner commanded; whoever complies with the command has fulfilled his obligation and need not repeat the act.

This becomes clearer when we consider that, while unable, he was not commanded to wash the second body part. Rather, he was only commanded to obtain purifying water with which he could wash it, or to defer washing it until he became able. Meanwhile, he can wash the first body part, and this is the portion of the command he can fulfill, so he must do so. Likewise, if he can wash only some body parts, or only part of a single body part, he must wash whatever he can—as in the case of someone whose hand has been severed together with part of the forearm.

The same reasoning applies to the case we mentioned: if a wound, illness, or some other condition exempts one of his body parts from the obligation of washing, and he washes the healthy part, then suppose the pain subsides after the part already washed has dried. If he then washes the remainder, he has done what he is able to do.