and water then becomes available before he actually begins the prayer, his tayammum (dry ablution) is nullified. If, however, he has already entered the prayer and water is discovered while he is praying, he does not break off the prayer; he simply carries on until he completes it, and nothing is required of him except that he perform a fresh wuḍūʾ (ablution) for any prayers that lie ahead.

Another view states that he must stop the prayer he is in, make wuḍūʾ with the water, and then start the prayer over; for it is impermissible that part of the prayer be offered with tayammum while water is available, just as it is forbidden to commence the prayer with tayammum when water is at hand. The case resembles that of a divorcee whose waiting-period (‘idda) is being counted by months: if her menses reappear, she may not rely on the months that have passed but must begin a new ‘idda based on menstrual cycles. Sahnūn inclined toward this position.

That opinion is sound in terms of logical analysis and greater caution, yet the first view is the position of Mālik and of the majority of the scholars of the Hijaz.

Should a traveler find himself with a person in a state of janāba (major ritual impurity), a menstruating woman, and a dead body, and they possess only enough water for one of them, then whoever cedes the water to another incurs no blame, provided they are joint owners of it; the others must perform tayammum. Some maintain that, by way of preference, the deceased has the stronger claim to the water, because the living can still obtain water later and purify himself, whereas once the dead is buried that is no longer possible. Others, however, hold that the living person has the greater right, for purifying him is more emphatically required.