An-Nisa: (43) "O you who have believed, do not approach prayer while you are intoxicated until you know what you are saying."

This is guidance to purge prayer—which is the pinnacle of worship—from the impurities of turbidity, so that they may combine the sincerity of worshipping the Truth (Allah) with the noble character traits between them and their fellow creatures, which were elucidated previously. Thus, the connection is achieved.

It is permissible to say that since they were previously forbidden from associating partners with Him, they are here forbidden from what leads to that inadvertently. Abu Dawud, At-Tirmidhi (who classified it as hasan), An-Nasa'i, and Al-Hakim (who classified it as sahih) narrated from Ali—may Allah ennoble his countenance—that he said: "Abdur-Rahman bin Awf invited us and gave us wine to drink. The wine affected us, and the time for prayer arrived. They put me forward, and I recited: 'Say, O disbelievers, I do not worship what you worship, and we are worshipping what you worship.' So this verse was revealed." In a narration by Ibn Jarir and Ibn al-Mundhir from Ali—may Allah ennoble his countenance—it states: "The leader of the people at that time was Abdur-Rahman, and the prayer was the Maghrib prayer. That was when wine was still permissible."

The address is directed at the Companions. Initiating the speech with the vocative particle (O...) and the warning [in the call] signifies the importance of the ruling. By "prayer," many mean the specific form of worship, and by "approaching it," they mean standing for it and engaging in it; however, the prohibition of "approaching" it is for emphasis. By "intoxicated," it means the established state that occurs to a drinker of wine. Its root indicates blockage; from this is the phrase "their eyes were sukirat (blocked/veiled)." The meaning is: do not perform prayer while in a state of intoxication until you know—before commencing—what you are saying in it, for this demonstrates that you will know what you are reciting during it.

Ibn Abi Hatim narrated from Ibn Jubayr that the meaning is: "Do not approach prayer while you are in a state of 'nasha'wa' (slight intoxication) from drink until you know what you are reciting in your prayer." Perhaps his intent is "until you are in a state where you know what you are reciting," otherwise it would imply that the commencement of the prayer is a condition for the limit of the prohibition—if that is intended, it returns to what was previously mentioned, but that involves prolixity without benefit. Furthermore, preferring "what you say" over "what you recite" would then be devoid of any justification.

It is narrated from Ibn al-Musayyib, Ad-Dahhak, Ikrimah, and Al-Hasan that the meaning of "prayer" here is the places of prayer (mosques). This is a metonymy where the condition (the act of prayer) is mentioned but the location is intended, based on the evidence of His saying later: "except those who are wayfarers," as it apparently points to that. Thus, the verse is driven by the prohibition of an intoxicated person approaching the mosque to venerate it. In the tradition it says: "Keep your mosques away from your children and your madmen." Yet, the manifest meaning of His saying "until you know what you are saying" rejects this. It is narrated from Ash-Shafi'i—may Allah be pleased with him—that he interpreted "prayer" as both the specific form of worship and its locations to reconcile the two opinions. In such a case, the statement would combine literal and figurative meanings, and we do not subscribe to that.

It is narrated from Ja'far—may Allah be pleased with him—and Ad-Dahhak (and this is one of two narrations from Ibn Abbas—may Allah be pleased with both of them) that the "intoxication" meant here is the intoxication of drowsiness and the overpowering of sleep. This is supported by what Al-Bukhari narrated from Anas: "The Prophet (ﷺ) said: 'If one of you becomes drowsy while praying, let him depart and sleep until he knows what he is saying.'" A similar report is narrated from Aishah—may Allah be pleased with her. However, there is remoteness in this, and even more remote is to carry it [the verse] as meaning both the intoxication of wine and the intoxication of sleep, for that involves combining literal and figurative meanings, or a generalization of the figurative without clear evidence for it.

Regardless, the subject of the prohibition is not the "restricted" while the restriction remains permissible in its state; rather, it is the restriction while the "restricted" remains in its state, because the restriction is the focal point of the negation and prohibition in their language. Moreover, he is obligated to pray and commanded to do so, and the prohibition contradicts that. Yes, there is no impediment to forbidding the intoxicated person from it while the command remains absolute, except that it boils down to this.

In summary, as Al-Shihab said: He is obligated to perform it in every state, and the loss of his intellect by his own act does not prevent his obligation. That is why his divorce and similar actions take effect. If he were not commanded, he would not be required to make it up if the intoxication consumed the entire time for it; Al-Jassas has stated this in Al-Ahkam and elaborated upon it. Some claimed the prohibition is against the prayer itself, but the intent is the congregational prayer behind the Prophet (ﷺ) out of veneration and respect for him—peace be upon him. It is not hidden that this is something for which neither tradition nor reason provides evidence, and the manifest meaning and the reason for revelation reject it. It has been narrated that after the verse was revealed, they would not drink wine during prayer times; when they performed the Isha prayer, they would drink it, so they would not wake up until the intoxication had left them and they knew what they were saying.

"Sukara" (intoxicated) is read with a fatha on the sin, as a plural of sakran (intoxicated), like nadman (regretful) and nadama. Al-A'mash read it sukra with a damma on the sin as an adjective like hubla (pregnant), functioning as an adjective for a group, meaning "and you are a group of intoxicated people." An-Nakha'i read it sukra with a fatha, which is either a singular adjective used for a group (as in the damma reading) or a broken plural according to Sibawayh, or a collective noun according to others, because it is not one of the morphological patterns of the plural. The first is considered more probable.

"And not in a state of janabah (major impurity)"—this is a conjunction to His saying "while you are intoxicated," for it is in the place of an accusative state (hal), as if it were said: "Do not approach prayer while intoxicated, nor while in a state of janabah." This was stated by more than one. Al-Shihab said, quoting Al-Bahr: This is the rule of syntax, but regarding the meaning, there is a difference between saying "The people came intoxicated" (sukara) and "They came while they were intoxicated" (wa-hum sukara). The first means they came in that state, and the second means they came while they were in that state, with a resumption of the affirmation. Abd al-Qahir mentioned this and meant by "resumption" that the state is established in itself, disregarding the one who is in that state. With its concomitance to the subject, it indicates that it is established in itself, and it is permissible for it to precede it or continue. This is why As-Subki said in Al-Ashbah: If he says, "It is incumbent upon me to Allah to observe i'tikaf while fasting," he must perform a fast for that vow that is distinct from any other cause; therefore, fasting Ramadan for that i'tikaf does not suffice him. But if he says "while I am fasting," it suffices him. The reason for the difference might be that when the state is a nominal sentence, it denotes concomitance, whereas one's description by its content may or may not be true (e.g., "Zayd came while the sun had risen"). The singular state functions as a description of a meaning. So if he says "I vowed i'tikaf while I am fasting," he vowed its concomitance with fasting and did not vow a specific fast, so it is valid during Ramadan. If he said "fasting," he vowed the fast itself, so it does not count in Ramadan. This issue was mentioned by Al-Isnawi in At-Tamhid without explaining its reason, and we have not seen any discussion by our leading scholars regarding it.

He (may Allah have mercy on him) did not explain the secret behind the contradiction between these two states in a way that clarifies what he mentioned regarding the issue. Allamah At-Tibi explained its benefit but did not address this difference. He said: Its benefit—and Allah knows best—is the indication that approaching prayer while intoxicated is incompatible with the state of the Muslims and the one who communes with the Divine Presence, indicated by the address "you." This is why He linked it with His saying, "until you know..." etc. Those in a state of janabah are not devoid of presence of heart, and hence they were granted a concession due to the excuse. So, reflect deeply.

"Al-junub" (the one in a state of major ritual impurity) is one who has been struck by janabah. In eloquent language, it is the same for masculine, feminine, singular, dual, and plural, because it follows the pattern of an infinitive, even if it is not one, as some researchers have said. Some Arabs dualize and pluralize it, saying januban, ajnab, and junub. Its derivation, as Abu al-Baqa' said, is from al-mujanabah, which is distancing.

"Except those who are wayfarers"—that is, passersby—meaning travelers. This is an exception from the most general states; its place is the accusative as an adjective of the pronoun in "do not approach," considering it is restricted by the second state, not the first. The acting agent upon it is the meaning of the prohibition: "Do not approach prayer while in a state of janabah in any state, except while you are travelers." This is on the meaning that in the state of travel, the ruling of the prohibition ends, but not by way of the negation encompassing all its forms; rather, by way of negating the totality of the rule without indicating the negation of a specific part, nor the remaining of another, nor the proof of its opposite—neither in total nor in part. For the exception does not indicate that in the form of an expression. Yes, it points to the difference between the ruling after it and before it, a general indication sufficient for rhetorical contexts, but not for proving legal rulings. For the foundation of that matter is the evidence, and it arrived thereafter by way of explanation. This was stated by Mawla Shaykh al-Islam.

It is said: It is a description of junub on the basis that "except" means "other than." It was objected that such a thing is only valid when the exception is impossible, and there is no impossibility here because of the general nature of the indefinite [noun] under a negation. It was answered that this condition for description was mentioned by Ibn al-Hajib, but the grammarians disagreed with him. Some preferred the descriptive view here, based on the fact that the speech, on the assumption of an exception, implies limitation, yet there is no limitation because a sick person would invalidate such a limitation, whereas on the assumption of description, it is not invalidated. Others claimed the speech indicates it absolutely, and that the sick person invalidates it, unless it is interpreted as you will know.

Whoever interpreted "prayer" as its locations explained "wayfarers" as passing through them, and permitted the one in a state of janabah to pass through the mosque. Ash-Shafi'i—may Allah have mercy on him—held this view. Among us, the well-known view is the prohibition for the one in a state of janabah from the mosque absolutely. Ali—may Allah ennoble his countenance—granted a concession, as in the report of At-Tirmidhi from Abu Sa'id, based on what Dirar bin Surad explained when Ali bin al-Mundhir asked him about its meaning. His—may Allah ennoble his countenance—having granted a concession and then prohibited it is not established to me, even if some have reported it. Al-Jassas reported in Al-Ahkam that entering is not permitted unless the water or the path is inside it. From Al-Layth, it is reported that the one in a state of janabah should not pass through unless his door is in the mosque, for it has been reported that men from the Ansar had their doors opening into the mosque, and they would be struck by janabah and find no way through except it, so they were granted a concession for that.

"Until you have performed ghusl (full body wash)"—this is the limit for the prohibition of approaching prayer while in a state of janabah. Perhaps the placing of the exception before it, as Shaykh al-Islam said, is to signal from the very beginning that the ruling of the prohibition in this chapter is not absolute, as it is in the case of intoxication, stirring interest in the explanation and seeking to increase its proximity in the minds. It is said: Since the saying of the Almighty "until you have performed ghusl" has no entry into the intended goal—as the goal is the validity of prayer while in a state of janabah—it was delayed and the exception was brought forward. It would be apparent not to mention it for that reason, but it was mentioned to alert that janabah is only lifted by ghusl.

In the noble verse, there is a symbol that it is appropriate for the one praying to guard against what distracts him and occupies his heart, and to purify himself from what defiles him. Because if it is obligatory to purify the body, then purifying the heart is more appropriate. Or, because if the place of prayer is shielded from those who are in a state of ritual impurity, then the heart, which is the throne of the Most Merciful, is more worthy of being shielded from any impure thought. The priority is manifest.

"And if you are ill"—this is an elaboration of what was summarized in the exception and a clarification of what is under the ruling of the exception regarding excuses. Restricting the previous part to the exception of travel, while the others share in the ruling of the concession, is to signal that it is the common excuse based on necessity, upon which the matter of the concession revolves. For this reason, it is said: The meaning of "other than wayfarers" is "those not excused by a legal excuse," either by way of metonymy or by the allusion of the text and its implication.

With this, the previous objection to the limitation is repelled. He did not say "except wayfarers or the ill who lack water, physically or legally," because what is in the noble composition is more eloquent and emphatic, due to it containing summary and detail, and the knowledge of the varying levels of intellects and understandings. The meaning of "illness" is what prevents the use of water absolutely, whether it is by the impossibility of reaching it or the impossibility of using it. Ibn Jurayj narrated from Ibn Mas'ud that he said: "The patient for whom tayammum (dry ablution) has been permitted is the one with a fracture or a wound. If he is struck by janabah, he should not wash his wound, unless it is a wound that is not feared for." Al-Bayhaqi narrated in Al-Ma'rifa from Ibn Abbas, attributing it to the Prophet (ﷺ): "If a man has a wound in the way of Allah, or sores, or smallpox, and becomes junub and fears that if he bathes he will die, he should perform tayammum." What is established in the branches of jurisprudence is: the patient who fears that if he uses water his illness will intensify should perform tayammum. There is no difference between his illness intensifying by movement, such as one with stomach trouble, or by use, such as one with measles or smallpox. Our scholars did not stipulate the fear of death, due to the manifest meaning of the text; and by its generality, it permits tayammum for every patient, except that in some verses there is what excludes those whose illness does not intensify. The details of that are in books of jurisprudence.

"Or on a journey"—this is a conjunction to "ill," meaning: or you are on a journey, whether long or short. Perhaps choosing this over "travelers" is because it is clearer in the intent. In Al-Hidaya: "Whoever does not find water while he is a traveler or outside the city, and there is a mile or more between him and the city, he should perform tayammum." The manifest implication is that the ruling for one who is outside the city but not a traveler—as the conjunction implies—is known by analogy, not by text. Mentioning the traveler explicitly, despite its previous mention by way of exception, is for the foundation of the legal ruling upon it and the clarification of its methodology. For the exception, as Shaykh al-Islam pointed out, is far from indicating its confirmation, let alone indicating its methodology. It is said: The mention of the journey here is to attach the illness to it and to establish equality between it and the illness by equating the finder [of water] with the one who lacks it, based on the common factor of inability to use it. This conditional [structure] is manifest according to the opinion of those who interpreted "prayer" as its locations and interpreted "crossing" as passing through them; for there is no room for the suspicion of repetition, but rather it is an explanation of another ruling not mentioned before. This is supported by the fact that all reciters preferred pausing at His saying "until you have performed ghusl" and beginning with His saying "and if you are..." etc. Indeed, expressing [it] with "approaching" points to interpreting prayer as that, for the reality of "nearness" and "distance" is in location. Similarly, the expression with "wayfarers" there and "on a journey" here has an allusion to the difference between what is here and what is there, although many are of the contrary opinion. The illness was placed before the journey to signal its originality and independence with rulings not found in others. It is said: Because it is the reason for the revelation, as Ibn Jurayj narrated from Ibrahim an-Nakha'i, who said: "The Companions of the Prophet (ﷺ) suffered wounds, and it spread among them, then they were afflicted with janabah, so they complained of that to the Prophet (ﷺ), and 'And if you are ill'—the whole verse—was revealed." This contradicts what the majority hold, as they reported that its revelation was during the Ghazwa of Al-Muraysi, when the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) camped one night, and a necklace belonging to Asma fell from Aishah—may Allah be pleased with her. When they departed, she mentioned it to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), so he sent two men to look for it. They camped waiting for them, and they woke up without water. Abu Bakr was harsh with Aishah and said: "You detained the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and the Muslims while they had no water." So [the verse] was revealed. When they prayed with tayammum, Usayd bin al-Hudayr came to Aishah's tent and kept saying: "How great is your blessing, O family of Abu Bakr!" In another narration: "May Allah have mercy on you, O Aishah, no matter has befallen you that you disliked, but Allah has provided a way out for the Muslims in it." This indicates that the cause of revelation was the lack of water during the journey, and that is manifest.

"Or one of you comes from the gha'it"—which is the low-lying ground. "Ja'a al-ghayt" is read with a fatha on the ghayn and a sukun on the ya', and Ibn Mas'ud read it that way. It is, in the opinion of some, an infinitive of yaghutu (to defecate), and the standard form would have been ghawt, but the waw was changed to ya' and silenced, and the letter before it was opened for its lightness. Perhaps the first is better: that it is a lightening of ghayt like hayyin and hayin. Al-Ghayt is the gha'it, and coming from it is a metonymy for the [minor] ritual impurity, because the custom is that whoever intends it goes to it to hide his person from the eyes of people. In mentioning "one" instead of others, there is an allusion that a human is alone when relieving themselves, as is his custom and etiquette. It is said: It was mentioned and the act was attributed to it instead of the addressees to avoid explicitly attributing to them what one is ashamed of or what it is considered distasteful to express. The verb is a conjunction to "were." The first prepositional phrase is attached to an omitted [adjective] that functions as an adjective for the indefinite noun before it, and the second is attached to the verb; meaning: "And if one of you comes from the gha'it."

"Or you have touched women"—the Almighty means: or you have had intercourse with women, except that He used "touching" as a metonymy for intercourse, because it is something that it is considered distasteful to express or one is ashamed of. This is the view of Ali—may Allah ennoble his countenance—and Ibn Abbas—may Allah be pleased with both of them—and Al-Hasan. Thus, it is an indication of the major ritual impurity, just as the first is an indication of the minor ritual impurity.

From Ibn Mas'ud, An-Nakha'i, and Ash-Sha'bi, the meaning of touching is something less than intercourse, i.e., touching their skin with yours. Ash-Shafi'i—may Allah be pleased with him—used this as evidence that touching breaks the state of purity (wudu). Al-Zuhri and Al-Awza'i also held this view. Malik, Al-Layth bin Sa'd, and Ahmad, in one of two narrations from him, said: If the touch is with desire, it breaks it; otherwise, it does not. Abu Hanifah—may Allah be pleased with him—held that wudu is not broken by touching, even with desire. It is said: unless erection occurs. Ash-Shafi'i's opinion differed regarding touching those who are mahram (unmarriageable kin), like mothers, daughters, and sisters, and regarding touching a young foreign woman. The soundest of the two opinions is that it does not break it, like touching teeth, nails, or hair. According to him, the wudu of the one touched is also broken, like the one touching, in the more manifest opinion, because both share the suspicion of pleasure, like those sharing in intercourse. The wudu of the person whose private part is touched is not broken according to his school because no touch from him for the suspicion of pleasure was found at all, unlike here. The evidence for the opinion that the wudu of the one touched is not broken is the hadith of Aishah—may Allah be pleased with her—that she placed her hand on his feet (ﷺ) while he was prostrating.

The justification for his argument using what is in the verse is that interpretation according to the literal meaning is more probable, especially in the reading of Hamzah and Al-Kisa'i: "aw lamastum" (or you have touched), as "touching" is not famous for "intercourse" like "touching" (the previous word malamastum). Some preferred interpreting both readings as "intercourse," favoring the figurative and well-known meaning, and acting upon both, as there is no contradiction, and this is more consistent with our school. Some researchers said that the sound approach is that "touching" is literal for the contact of bodies with any of their parts without limitation to the hand; on this basis, intercourse is one of the members of the definition of the literal meaning, so the word covers it literally, and it only becomes figurative if one restricts its intent in the word. Al-Jalal al-Mahalli claimed that touching is literal for feeling with the hand, as an exemplification of touching with one of its types, not an interpretation of it by mentioning the perfection of its literal meaning, as Al-Kamal Ibn Abi Sharif clarified. So understand this.

Then, arranging these two matters in the string of the causes of the lapse of purity and turning to tayammum—while they are the causes of its obligation—is not in consideration of themselves, but in consideration of their restriction derived from His saying "then you do not find water." Rather, it is the cause in reality, and they were only mentioned as a preamble and an alert that it is a cause for the concession after the cause for purity, in its two divisions, has occurred. As if it were said: "Or you were not ill or traveling, but you were lacking water due to any of the causes, while the requirement for using it was realized due to the minor or major ritual impurity." It is said: Restricting the mention to this image, despite it being also considered in the case of illness and travel, is because its occurrence there is rare, and they are self-sufficient without mentioning it, for janabah is definitely considered in them, so the ruling of the minor ritual impurity is known from its ruling by the evidence of the text. Because the estimated composition is: "Do not approach prayer while in a state of janabah, except while you are travelers, and if you are so, or you are ill..." etc. It is said: This restriction returns to all, and the restriction of the obligation of purification—metonymically referred to by coming from the gha'it and touching—is also considered in it. It was objected that the noble composition does not support this.

In Al-Kashf, it is said that in the verse there is an inversion, and the arrangement is: "Do not approach prayer while you are intoxicated, nor while in a state of janabah, nor while one of you is coming from the gha'it, or is touching [women]," meaning: "nor while you are in a state of ritual impurity," then it is said: "And if you are ill or on a journey, then perform tayammum." There is a separation between the condition and the response, and the conjunction and the conjoined from without a point. Then he said, after citing what he objected to: "Perhaps the most sound approach in structuring the verse—and Allah knows best—is to make 'not finding' an expression of the inability to use water due to lack of water or an obstacle, so it can be a restriction for everything; or to interpret it by its literal meaning and not make it a restriction for the others, because the generality of need is usually for the traveler, and the prevention of the ability to use water—which takes its place—is for the patient, which suffices from restriction in wording; and that His saying 'ill or on a journey' remains absolute without restriction to them being in a state of ritual impurity, because the intent is to explain the cause for turning away from purification with water to tayammum. As for what is common between the two purities, it does not need to be mentioned intentionally. And to make the mention of those in a state of ritual impurity, who are not of the two categories, an explanation for the cause of turning away, which is the lack of ability without travel or illness, not because the ritual impurity itself is the cause, even if it implies that by inclusion. He did not say 'or you do not find' without mentioning the two causes, as an alert that the lack of finding is a concession after the cause of purification has been contracted. And it was implied that they are also considered in the patient and the traveler, for there is no difference between illness and travel and other excuses in that."

It is not hidden that interpretation according to the literal is more manifest, and what he mentioned upon the assumption of interpreting it according to it is not far from what we have presented. Yes, the verse is from the difficult parts of the Quran, and perhaps it still needs a precise look. The fa' in "falam" (then you do not) is conjunctive, while the fa' in His saying "fa-tayammamu" (then perform tayammum) is in the response to the condition. It is manifest that the pronoun refers to everything included in it, and there is a predominance of the address over the third person in it. Similar in that is "tahidu" (you find), so there is no need to assume "falyatayammam" (let him perform tayammum) as a response to His saying "comes one of you."

Tayammum in language is intending, as Al-A'sha said: "I intended Qays..." and how much of land is below him, of a desert with ruggedness. As-Sa'id is the surface of the earth, as was narrated from Al-Khalil and Tha'lab. Az-Zajjaj said: "I do not know of any disagreement among linguists that as-sa'id is the surface of the earth." It was named as such because it is the limit of what one ascends to from the depths of the earth, or because of its ascent and elevation above the earth. At-Tayyib is the pure. From Sufyan: the lawful. It is said: the vegetated [earth], not the salt-crust, as in His saying: "And the good land, its plants come forth by the permission of its Lord." Interpretation according to the first is more suitable to the context of purification. The meaning is: intend and aim for something of the surface of the earth [that is] pure. This is a clear evidence for the permissibility of tayammum with kohl, bricks, litharge, ruby, turquoise, coral, emerald, and the like, even if there is no dust upon it. The Greatest Imam—may Allah be pleased with him—and Muhammad in one of two narrations from him went to this view. In another narration from him, and it is the opinion of Abu Yusuf, Ash-Shafi'i, and Ahmad—may Allah be pleased with them all—it is not permitted to perform tayammum unless some earth sticks to the hand, due to the restriction of wiping with it in [the verse in] Al-Ma'idah, and the particle min (from) is for partition, which necessitates earth. The Hanafis interpret it as for initiation or that it was expressed in the most common form. It is said: The pronoun is for the ritual impurity understood from the context, and min is for causality. Imam Malik was strange and permitted tayammum with snow, and the Shia criticized him for that. We have defended him in our book Al-Ajwibah al-Iraqiyyah 'an al-As'ilah al-Iraniyyah.

The accusative of sa'idan is as an object of the verb. It is said: it is accusative by the removal of the preposition, meaning: fatayammamu bi-sa'idin (perform tayammum with sa'id).

"Then wipe your faces and your hands"—meaning: your faces and your hands, on the basis that the ba' (in bi-wujuhikum) is a connection, and the intent is the covering of these two members with wiping, so if he leaves something of them it is not valid, as in wudu, and this is the manifest of the narration. In a narration of Al-Hasan from the Imam—may Allah be pleased with him—the majority stands in place of the totality, because covering in the wiped-over areas is not a condition, as in the wiping of the leather socks and the head. The argument for the manifest view is that tayammum stands in place of wudu. That is why they said: he should interlace the fingers and remove the ring so that the wiping and covering is completed. Covering in wudu is a condition, so it is the same in what stands in its place. Aydi (hands) is the plural of yad, and it is shared among meanings, from the tips of the fingers to the wrist, to the elbow, to the armpit. Is it literal in one of them and figurative in others, or literal in all of them? Some preferred the second, and that is why some of the predecessors followed each of them. Ibn Jarir narrated from Al-Zuhri that tayammum is up to the armpits. He narrated from Makhul that he said: Tayammum is one strike for the face and the palms up to the wrist. Al-Hakim narrated from Ibn Umar regarding the methodology of their tayammum with the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) that they wiped from the elbows to the palms, on the places where hair grows, from the outside and the inside. And from the hadith of Abu Dawud that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) performed tayammum and wiped his hands to his elbows. This is our school, the school of Ash-Shafi'i, and the majority. The analogy to wudu, which is its origin, witnesses for them, even if the ritual impurity and janabah in it are of the same methodology, and so it is permissible, according to the correct report narrated from the majority.

There are people who said: The one in a state of janabah, the menstruating woman, and the woman in post-natal bleeding do not perform tayammum. This is what is narrated from Umar, his son, and Ibn Mas'ud—may Allah be pleased with them. It is said: The source of the disagreement among them is interpreting "touching" mentioned earlier as intercourse or as touching with the hand. The former went to the first, and the latter to the last, and they said: The analogy is that tayammum should not be a purifier; Allah only permitted it for the one in a state of [minor] ritual impurity, so it is not permitted for the one in a state of janabah because its meaning is not rationalized so that the analogy can be correct, and janabah is not in the meaning of the [minor] ritual impurity to be attached to it; rather, it is above it.

You know that the verse is like an explicit text on the permissibility of tayammum for the one in a state of janabah, even if "touching" is not interpreted as intercourse, as its previous interpretation alludes to. Furthermore, the hadiths are vocal about that. Al-Bukhari narrated from Imran bin Husayn that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) saw a man staying away, not praying with the people. He said: "O so-and-so, what prevented you from praying?" He said: "O Messenger of Allah, I was struck by janabah and there is no water." He said: "You should use the sa'id (earth), for it suffices you." It is narrated that a group came to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and said: "We are a people who live in these sands and we do not find water for a month or two, and among us are those in a state of janabah, menstruating, and in post-natal bleeding." He (ﷺ) said: "You should use your land," and so on. Does tayammum lift the ritual impurity or not? There is a disagreement, and there is no indication in the verse for either of the two matters according to those who examined the view.

"Indeed, Allah is ever Pardoning, Forgiving" — this is an explanation for what the speech understands of the concession and facilitation, and a confirmation of them both. For it is of His continuous habit to pardon those who err and forgive the sinners, so He must be one who facilitates, not one who burdens. It is permitted that it be a metonymy for that, for it is one of the concomitants of pardoning and the consequences of forgiveness. It is incorporated into it that the origin is full purification, and that other than it, from the concessions, is of the pardoning and forgiveness. It is said: "Pardoning" here means facilitation, as in [the concept of] facilitation. This was used as evidence by His saying (ﷺ): "I have pardoned for you the charity of horses and slaves." The mention of forgiveness is to indicate that He forgave the sin of the worshippers who were intoxicated, and what proceeded from them in the recitation. You know that interpreting pardoning as facilitation in the hadith is not certain, and that the mention of forgiveness for what was mentioned is remote.