As for the hadith about the man who had an unwashed patch on the top of his foot, something like this would not be forgotten. This indicates that he left it unwashed through negligence.

Continuity is not obligatory when bathing to remove major ritual impurity, because of the hadith stating that he

“saw a spot on his body that water had not reached, so he squeezed water from his hair onto it.”

Our fellow jurists distinguish between this and ablution: since a prescribed order is not obligatory in ritual bathing, neither is continuity. Mālik, however, requires continuity in ablution even though he does not require a prescribed order.

In ritual bathing, the body is treated as a single part, and there is unanimous agreement that no prescribed order applies within a single body part. Deliberately interrupting ritual bathing is therefore like deliberately interrupting the washing of a single body part. Nevertheless, a distinction has been drawn between the two: bathing to remove major ritual impurity is like removing physical impurity, in that the purifying effect of the water does not extend beyond the area it touches. Ablution, by contrast, purifies the entire body, although only four body parts are washed. This, however, is open to question.

If someone in a state of major ritual impurity finds some, but not all, of the water he needs, he uses it. As for someone performing ablution, our fellow jurists hold two views. Those who permit this allow ablution to be performed in separate stages when there is a valid excuse, and hold that washing some parts achieves partial purification.

The same applies to someone who has wiped over his leather socks and then removes them: may he merely wipe his feet, or must he repeat his ablution? There are two views, transmitted in two reports.

It has been said that the basis for this disagreement is continuity. It has also been said that the basis is that