Tafsir of Al-Ma'idah 5:6

(O you who believe) This marks the beginning of the explanation of the religious laws (Sharia) pertaining to their religion, following the explanation of matters pertaining to their worldly life. The logic behind this order of presentation is evident.

(When you rise for prayer) That is, when you intend to rise for it and occupy yourselves with it. The act of intending the deed is expressed through the name of the result of that intention, in a metaphorical sense. The benefit of this is conciseness and an alert that one who desires worship should hasten toward it, such that the deed is never severed from the intention. It is also said: It may mean "when you intend prayer," using one of the two necessary implications of a thing to represent the other. The outward appearance of the verse mandates wudu (ablution) for every person rising for prayer, even if they are not in a state of ritual impurity (hadath), given the generality of "O you who believe," without restriction to those who are impure. Even though there is no explicit textual evidence for the repetition of the act—and indeed such a requirement would be outside the correct interpretation—the consensus is to the contrary. Muslim and others have reported that the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) prayed the five prayers with a single wudu on the day of the conquest of Mecca. When Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "You did something you did not used to do," he (peace and blessings be upon him) replied: "I did it deliberately, O Umar," meaning to demonstrate its permissibility. Thus, the majority have favored the view that the verse is restricted, meaning: "When you rise for prayer while in a state of impurity," by virtue of the situational context (hal) and because ritual impurity is a condition for the substitute, which is tayammum. If it had no role in wudu, yet has a role in tayammum, the substitute would not be a substitute at all. The phrase "and you do not find water" is explicit regarding the status of substitution. Some later scholars state that there is a conditional clause in the speech, i.e., "When you rise for prayer, wash... if you are in a state of impurity," because the conjunction "and if you are in a state of janaba (major ritual impurity), then purify yourselves" corresponds to it completely. It is also said: The command is for recommendation (nadb), and the obligation for the one in a state of impurity is known from the Sunnah. This is considered far-fetched, due to their consensus that the obligation of wudu is derived from this verse, which would require specifying that it applies to others than those in a state of impurity without any evidence. Even more far-fetched is the view that it is recommended for some and obligatory for others. It is also said: It is for obligation, and wudu was obligatory for everyone rising for prayer at the beginning of Islam, then it was abrogated. Ahmad, Abu Dawud, Ibn Jabir, Ibn Khuzaymah, Ibn Hibban, Al-Hakim, and Al-Bayhaqi reported from Abdullah bin Hanzalah "al-Ghaseel" that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) was ordered to perform wudu for every prayer, whether pure or not. When this became difficult for him, he was ordered to use the siwak (toothstick) at every prayer, and the wudu was removed from him except for those in a state of impurity. This is not contradicted by the report that Al-Ma'idah was the last chapter of the Quran to be revealed, because that report lacks the strength of this one—so much so that Al-Iraqi said: "I did not find it attributed to the Prophet (marfu')." Yes, the inference of an initial obligation on the entire community, followed by its later abrogation, is something that leaves room for discussion, as is not hidden.

Malik, Al-Shafi'i, and others reported from Zayd bin Aslam that the interpretation of "when you rise" means "when you rise from your beds," i.e., from sleep, to prayer, and the command in this regard is clear. It is narrated from Dawud that he made wudu obligatory for every prayer because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and the Caliphs after him used to perform it that way, and Ali (may Allah honor his face) used to do so while reciting this verse. The response to this is that the hadith of Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) rejects the notion that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) consistently did what was mentioned, and the report regarding Ali (may Allah honor his face) is not established. The act of the Caliphs does not indicate anything more than recommendation and preference. It has been reported: "Whoever performs wudu while in a state of purity, Allah will record ten good deeds for him."

(Then wash your faces) That is, cause the water to flow over them. The limit of causing it to flow is for the water to drip, even if only a drop, according to the two (Abu Hanifa and Muhammad). According to Abu Yusuf (may Allah have mercy on him), dripping is not a condition. As for scrubbing (dalk), it is not part of the essence of washing—contrary to Malik—so its essence does not depend on it. It is said: Their basis for this is the saying of the Arabs: "The rain washed the earth," which implies only the flow of water. This is countered by the fact that its falling from above, especially with force and repetition, constitutes scrubbing (dalk), which the Arabs would only say if the earth were cleaned, and that is only achieved through scrubbing. It is also countered by the fact that it is not appropriate for the rational meaning of the lawfulness of washing, which is to improve the appearance of the visible limbs to stand before the Lord (Exalted be He), which is not complete for the rest of the people performing wudu except through scrubbing.

It is narrated from him (Abu Hanifa) that scrubbing is not obligatory for its own sake, but is obligatory to ensure the arrival of water; if that is achieved, it is not obligatory, as Ibn al-Hajj stated in his commentary on al-Munyah. Curiously, he stated the requirement of scrubbing for ghusl (full bath), yet did not require the flow of water when a person wipes an organ with snow, saying that this is sufficient even if the snow does not melt and flow. Al-Awza'i agreed with him, even though this cannot be called washing at all, and it is far-fetched for it to take the place of washing. The limit of the face in our view is, vertically, from the beginning of the forehead surface to the bottom of the chin, and horizontally, between the lobes of the ears, because "facing" (muwajahah) occurs in this state, and it is derived from it. (The derivation of the triliteral verb from the quadriliteral when the latter is more famous for the shared meaning is common). Imam Akmal al-Din said that what they mentioned about forbidding the derivation of the triliteral from the quadriliteral applies only to "small derivation," whereas in "large derivation"—where two words correspond in sound and meaning—it is permissible. The apparent boundary also gives the obligation to include the whiteness between the sideburns ('idhar) and the ear after it has grown, which is the opinion of the two (Abu Hanifa and Muhammad), contrary to Abu Yusuf. It also implies the obligation of making the water flow over the hair of the beard. There are differing narrations from the Greatest Imam (may Allah be pleased with him) and others; it is said that wiping a quarter of it is obligatory, and it is said to wipe what meets the skin. It is also said that nothing is required (a narration from Abu Yusuf). According to Abu Yusuf, it is obligatory to encompass it, and according to Muhammad, it is obligatory to wash it all. In al-Fatawa al-Zahiriyyah it is said that this is the fatwa, because it has taken the place of the skin, so the obligation has shifted to it, just like the eyebrow.

In al-Bada'i, he says on behalf of Ibn Shuja': They retracted everything except this, and all of this pertains to a thick beard. As for a thin one through which the skin is visible, it is obligatory to cause the water to reach what is beneath it. If he directs water over the beard hair and then shaves it, it is not obligatory to wash the chin. In al-Baqqal: If he trims his mustache, it is not obligatory to penetrate it; if it is long, it becomes obligatory to penetrate it and cause the water to reach the lips. The reason seems to be that trimming it is a Sunnah, so its standing in place is not considered for the dropping of what is beneath it, unlike the beard, where leaving it to grow is the Sunnah. Shaykh al-Islam al-Marghinani counted in at-Tajnis the arrival of water to the roots of the eyebrows and mustache as part of the manners, without detail. As for the lip, it is said to follow the mouth. Abu Ja'far said: That which is concealed when it is closed follows the mouth, and what is exposed follows the face. This boundary is narrated from Ibn Abbas, Ibn Umar, Al-Hasan, Qatadah, and Al-Zuhri (may Allah be pleased with them all) and others. It is also said: The face is everything below the hair growth on the head to the end of the chin vertically, and from ear to ear horizontally, including what is manifest to the eye of the observer, and what is internal—like the inside of the nose and mouth, as well as the front part of the ears. This is narrated from Anas bin Malik, Umm Salamah, Ammar, Mujahid, Ibn Jabir, and a group, and they obligated washing all of that. I have not seen any text from them regarding the inside of the eye, and the manifest view is the absence of the obligation to wash it due to the extreme difficulty and the expectation of harm. For this reason, some have explicitly stated that it is not even Sunnah, but rather some have said it is disliked. Yes, a narration from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) comes to mind, stating that he used to obligate washing the inside of the eye during ghusl and used to do it, and that it was a cause for the loss of his eyesight (may Allah be pleased with him).

(And your hands up to the elbows) Marafiq (elbows) is the plural of mirfaq—with a kasra or fatha, the former being more eloquent—which is the joint connecting the forearm to the upper arm. Perhaps the reason for naming it so is that one leans (yartafiq) on it. The majority of jurists agree on their inclusion. It is narrated from Al-Shafi'i (may Allah be pleased with him) that he said: "I know of no disagreement that the elbows must be washed," and for this reason, it is said that "up to" (ila) means "with" (ma'a), as in the saying of the Exalted: "And add to your strength, strength," and "Who are my helpers toward (with) Allah?" It is also said that it only indicates the meaning of a limit. One of the established principles is that what follows a limit is included in the name if it were included without the limit, otherwise not. There is no doubt that the elbows are included in the name (of the hand), so they are included. The objection raised against this principle—that if someone swears not to speak to so-and-so "until" tomorrow, the tomorrow is not included, even though it would be if the limit were omitted—is not valid, because the discussion here is about linguistic requirements, while oaths are based on custom, and custom may differ from language. Some researchers mentioned that "ila" (up to) comes with what follows it included in the ruling of what precedes it, and sometimes with what follows it not included. Some ruled that it is ambiguous, some that inclusion is apparent, and some that exclusion is apparent, which is the opinion of the grammarians. The inclusion of the elbows is proven by the Sunnah, as it is authentic from him (peace and blessings be upon him) that he rotated the water over them.

Our colleagues narrated the story of their non-inclusion from Zufar, arguing from the conflict of similarities and that inclusion in the name is also ambiguous, so they are not included based on doubt. The hadith of rotation does not necessitate obligation, as it could be by way of Sunnah, like the extra wiping of the head until it is covered. The response to this is that there is no conflict given the dominance of usage in the established principle. Furthermore, based on what he said, ambiguity is established regarding their inclusion, so his (peace and blessings be upon him) limiting it to the elbow occurred as an explanation of what is meant by the "hand." Thus, the inclusion of what he included is determined, and "Wash your hand for food" is an example of applying the name of the whole to a part, relying on context. Scholar Ibn Hajar said: The following and consensus indicated their inclusion, and indeed the verse as well, by making "up to" a limit for the implied act of leaving, based on the fact that the hand linguistically is, in reality, up to the shoulder, as is most famous. It seems he meant by "consensus" the consensus of the early generations; otherwise, there is no doubt about the existence of dissenters afterwards. They counted Dawud and also Imam Malik (may Allah be pleased with him) among them. I have hesitation in counting the latter; Ibn Hubayrah has reported the consensus of the four Imams on the obligatoriness of washing the hands with the elbows. It is said that the consequence of this disagreement is that someone who lacks a hand from the elbow must pass the water over the tip of the bone according to the one who says it is included, and it is not obligatory for the dissenter because the place of the task no longer exists, just as if he lacked the hand and everything above the elbow. Yes, it is recommended for him to wash what remains of the upper arm to preserve the appearance of light (tahjil). Furthermore, encompassing the washing of the limbs commanded is obligatory, as is apparent from the verse. If dried mud or the like sticks to the base of his nail, or the area of the tip of a needle remains of the place of washing, it is not valid. It is not obligatory to remove or move the ring if it is loose; the preferred view for a tight ring is that it is obligatory (to move it). In al-Jami' al-Saghir, if the nails are long and there is dirt, mud, or dough in them, it is permissible for the villager and the city dweller, according to the correct view issued as a fatwa, as Al-Dabbusi said. Others say it is obligatory to cause the water to reach what is beneath it, except for dirt, as it originates from it.

Al-Saffar said: It is obligatory to cause it to reach in all cases if the nail is long, and Ibn al-Humam favored this, because even if washing is restricted to the exterior, when the nail becomes long, it becomes like the emergence of a barrier, such as a drop of wax. In an-Nawazil, it is obligatory for the city dweller but not the villager, because the greasiness of the nails of the city dweller prevents the arrival of water, unlike the villager. If his nails grow long until they extend beyond the tips of the fingers, it is obligatory to wash them by unanimous agreement. If he was created with two hands on the shoulder, the complete one is the original, and it must be washed; what is not, is not. It is strange that some people obligated starting the washing of the hands from the elbows, so if he washed from the fingertips, his wudu would not be valid.

Al-Tabarsi narrated this in Majma' al-Bayan, and it is apparent that this "some" are the Shi'a, and I find no basis for them in that. (And wipe your heads) It is said: The letter 'ba' is redundant, as the verb is transitive in itself. It is also said it is for partiality (tab'id). Ibn Malik narrated from Abu Ali in at-Tadhkirah that it comes for that, and recited: "They drank with (from) the sea water, then rose up / to green depths that have a roar." It is also said that custom transferred it to partiality in transitive verbs. The amount required for wiping in our view is the amount of the forehead, which is a quarter of the head from any side above the ears, based on what Muslim narrated from Al-Mughirah that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) performed wudu and wiped his forehead, and the Book is general regarding the quantity, so it was joined with an explanation. Al-Shafi'i (may Allah be pleased with him) prevents this and says: It is absolute, not general, for he did not intend a specific quantity to be generalized, but rather absolute, so it falls away in his view with the minimum of what is called wiping the head. Furthermore, in the hadith of Al-Mughirah there are two narrations: "on his forehead" and "with his forehead." The former does not necessitate encompassing the forehead, as its mention might be to dispel the illusion that he wiped the temples or the back of the head, so it does not indicate your objective. If such a thing indicated encompassing, wiping over the socks would also indicate it, and no one says that here with us or with you. If we return to the second, the place of dispute is in the 'ba' as in the verse, and partiality returns. Hence, some said: It is better to rely on the narration of Abu Dawud from Anas (may Allah be pleased with him): "I saw the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) perform wudu while wearing a qatri turban, so he put his hand under the turban and wiped the front of his head." Abu Dawud remained silent about it, so it is an argument, and its apparent meaning is encompassing the entire front. The entire front of the head is the quarter named the "forehead." Similar to this is what Al-Bayhaqi narrated from Ata' that he (peace and blessings be upon him) performed wudu, removed the turban, and wiped the front of his head, or said his forehead, which is an argument even if it is mursal in our view. How could it not be, when it is supported by the connected (report)? One thing remains, which is that the proof of the act in that way does not necessitate the negation of the permissibility of less. So it is necessary to add the implication that "if less were permissible, he would have done it once to teach the permissibility." It may be countered that if permissibility is derived from other than the act, it is not needed therein, and it is likewise here, considering the verse, for the 'ba' in it is for partiality, which indicates the permissibility of less. Thus, the debate returns to the indication of the verse, and it is said then: The 'ba' is for attachment (ilsaq), which is the meaning agreed upon for it, unlike partiality, for many verifying Imams of Arabic deny it being a separate meaning for the 'ba', unlike when it is within attachment, as in what we have here—attaching the instrument to the head, which is the objective, does not encompass the head. Thus, if he attached it and did not encompass it, he has fulfilled the obligation with that part. At that point, the quarter is determined because the hand usually only encompasses that amount, so it is necessary. In some narrations, the requirement is the amount of three fingers, and some scholars verified this, considering that the obligation is to attach the hand, and the fingers are its origin, which is why the full blood money of the hand is required upon its amputation, and three are the majority of it, and the majority has the ruling of the whole. This is not hidden for what is in it, even if it is said that it is the apparent meaning of the narration. Imam Malik (may Allah be pleased with him) and Imam Ahmad, in the most apparent of his narrations, went to the view that it is obligatory to encompass the head with wiping, and the Imamis (Shi'a) went to what Al-Shafi'i (may Allah be pleased with him) went to. If rain hits the amount of the obligation, it falls away in our view, and it is not a condition that it hits it with the hand, because the instrument is not intended except for conveying to the place, so wherever it reaches, the use of the instrument is dispensed with. If he wiped with wetness on his hand that he did not take from another limb, it is permissible; if he took it, it is not. If he wiped with one finger extended for the amount of the obligation—and likewise with two fingers, according to what is said—it is not permissible, contrary to Zufar. They argued that the wetness has become "used," and this is subject to his problem that water does not become "used" before separation, so that it would necessitate the non-permissibility of extending the three fingers, according to the saying that less than a quarter is not sufficient. The famous view in that is permissibility. Shams al-A'immah chose that the prohibition in extending one finger and two is not based on the use of the wetness, evidenced by the fact that if he wiped with two fingers in tayammum it is not permissible, even with the absence of anything that becomes used, especially if he performs tayammum on a hard rock. Rather, the aspect in his view is that we are commanded to wipe with the hand, and two fingers of it are not called a hand, unlike the three, because they are the majority of what the origin is, and that is sound, as Ibn al-Humam said. However, it necessitates that the objective is the hit with the hand, which is refuted by the issue of rain. It may be pushed back that the intent is its determination or what takes its place of instruments when intending to drop the act voluntarily, but that its necessary consequence is that that instrument which is not the hand must be, for example, the amount of three fingers of the hand, so that if it were a stick, for example, that did not reach that amount, we would say the non-permissibility of extending it. It may be said: The non-permissibility with one finger is based on the wetness dissipating and running out before reaching the amount of the obligation, unlike two fingers, for water bears (itself) between two joined fingers, a remainder of increase that bears the extension to the amount of the obligation, and this is witnessed or assumed, so it is necessary to establish the ruling by its consideration. So, on the consideration of the validity of suffice with the amount of three fingers, it is permissible to extend the two fingers because the water between them extends the amount of a third finger. And on the consideration of the sufficiency depending on the quarter, it is not permissible because what is between them is not predominantly assumed to encompass the quarter. Unless this is undermined by the non-permissibility of tayammum with two fingers. If he put his head into a vessel of water intending to wipe, it is permissible, and the water is purifying according to Abu Yusuf, because it does not have the ruling of use in his view until after separation, and what met the head from its parts adhered to it and purified it, while the rest did not meet it, so it is not used.

The Imams agreed that wiping over the turban is not sufficient, except for Ahmad, who permitted it on the condition that some of the turban be under the chin, in one narration. Is it a condition that he put it on while in a state of purity? There are two narrations. There is also a disagreement in his narration regarding a woman wiping over her veil that is round beneath her throat; it is narrated from him that wiping is permissible like a man's turban that has a strap, and it is narrated from him that it is prohibited. It is narrated from Al-Awza'i and Al-Thawri that wiping over the turban is permissible, and I have not seen the story of the condition or the lack thereof from them. We have already mentioned the evidence for permissibility in our book Al-Ajwibah al-'Iraqiyyah 'an al-As'ilah al-Iraniyyah. (And your feet up to the ankles) They are the two protruding bones on the two sides at the joint of the leg and the foot, from which comes al-ka'ib, which is the young girl whose breasts are beginning to swell (nuhud). Hisham narrated from Muhammad that the ka'b is the joint in the middle of the foot at the meeting of the sandal strap, because ka'b is a name for a joint, from which come the joints of a spear. The one in the middle of the foot is a joint below what is on the leg. This is correct for the pilgrim (muhrim) if he does not find sandals, as he cuts his boots below the ankles, and perhaps that is what Muhammad intended. As for in purification, there is no doubt that it is what we mentioned. There are three readings for the feet: one is anomalous and two are recurrent. As for the anomalous, it is the nominative, which is the reading of Al-Hasan. As for the two recurrent, they are the accusative, which is the reading of Nafi', Ibn Amir, Hafs, Al-Kisa'i, Ya'qub, and the genitive, which is the reading of Ibn Kathir, Hamzah, Abu Amr, and Asim, and in a narration of Abu Bakr from him. Hence, people disagreed on washing the feet and wiping them. Imam Al-Razi said: Al-Qaffal narrated in his interpretation from Ibn Abbas, Anas bin Malik, Ikrimah, Al-Sha'bi, and Abu Ja'far Muhammad bin Ali al-Baqir (may Allah be pleased with them all) that what is obligatory in them is wiping, and this is the sect of the Imamis (Shi'a). The majority of jurists and exegetes said: The obligation for them is washing. Dawud said: It is obligatory to combine them both, and this is the statement of An-Nasir lil-Haqq from the Zaydis. Al-Hasan al-Basri and Muhammad bin Jarir al-Tabari said: The obligated person has the choice between wiping and washing. The argument of those who say "wiping" is the genitive reading, as it requires the feet to be conjoined to the heads; just as wiping was obligatory for them, it is obligatory for them. The saying that it is genitive by proximity, as in their saying: "This is the burrow of a lizard, ruined," and his saying: "Thabir was in the nostrils of his moisture, a great people in a wrapped cloak," is false from several aspects: first, the breaking by proximity is counted as a grammatical error that might be tolerated for necessity in poetry, and the word of Allah Almighty must be kept far from that. Second, one only turns to the break where there is security from confusion, as in what they cited, and in the verse, the confusion is not present. Third, the genitive by proximity only occurs without a conjunction, but with a conjunction, the Arabs did not speak. They returned the accusative reading to the genitive reading and said: It also necessitates wiping because the conjunction then is to the place of the heads due to their proximity, so they share the ruling. This is a famous school for the grammarians. Then they said first: It is permissible to lift that with the report, because they are entirely from the category of single reports (ahad), and the abrogation of the Quran by a single report is not permissible. Then the Imam said: Know that it is impossible to answer this except from two aspects: First, that many reports have arrived obligating washing, and washing contains wiping, and the opposite is not true, so washing was closer to precaution, so it was obligatory to resort to it. On this aspect, it must be decided that washing the feet takes the place of wiping them. Second, that the obligation of the feet is limited up to the ankles, and the limitation only came in washing, not in wiping. The people answered this from two aspects: First, that the ankle is an expression for the bone under the joint of the foot, and on this estimation, it is obligatory to wipe on the backs of the feet. Second, they accepted that the ankles are an expression for the two protruding bones on the two sides of the leg, except that they committed that it is obligatory to wipe the backs of the feet up to these two places, and at that point, this question does not remain. End quote.

It is not hidden that the debate of washing and wiping is one in which contention has increased, and many feet have slipped in it. What the Imam (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned indicates that he is a pedestrian in this field and has a weakness that does not allow him to climb to the level of a strong master who investigates with what delights the minds and intellects. So, let us spread the speech in investigating this, despite the noses of the Shi'a who follow every dark path from the paths. We say, and with Allah Almighty is success and in His hand are the reins of investigation: Both readings are recurrent by the consensus of the two parties, indeed by the agreement of all the people of Islam. Among the principles of the two parties is that if two recurrent readings conflict in a single verse, they have the ruling of two verses. So we must strive and struggle to apply them both first as much as possible, because the origin in evidence is action, not negligence, as established by the masters of principles. Then we seek after that the preponderance between them, then if preponderance between them does not become easy for us, we leave them both and turn to other evidence from the Sunnah. The masters of principles have mentioned that if the verses conflict such that reconciliation and then preponderance between them is impossible, one returns to the Sunnah, for when it does not permit us to act upon it, it becomes non-existent for us in terms of action. And if the Sunnah conflicts likewise, we return to the sayings of the Companions and the Household of the Prophet or we return to analogy for those who say that the analogy of the mujtahid is acted upon in case of conflict. When we contemplated these two readings in the verse, we found the application between them according to our rules from two aspects: First, that wiping is carried over to washing, as Abu Zayd al-Ansari and others from the scholars of language stated explicitly. A man is said to "wipe" when he performs wudu, and it is said: "May Allah wipe away what is in you," meaning remove the illness. The rain is said to "wipe" the earth when it washes it. So, when the feet are conjoined to the heads in the genitive reading, it is not determined that they are to be wiped in the meaning claimed by the Shi'a. This was objected to from several aspects: First, that the benefit of the two expressions in language and Sharia is different, and Allah Almighty has differentiated between the limbs that are washed and those that are wiped, so how can the meaning of washing and wiping be one? Second, that if the feet were conjoined to the heads and the obligation in the heads was wiping which is not washing without fear, the ruling of the feet would have to be likewise; otherwise, it would necessitate combining the literal and the metaphorical. Third, that if wiping meant washing, the inference for washing from the report that he (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) washed his feet would fall, because on this, it is possible that he wiped them, so wiping was named washing. Fourth, that the citation of Abu Zayd of their saying "I wiped myself for prayer" does not benefit, for the possibility that when they wanted to report about purification in a concise expression and they were not permitted to say "I washed myself for prayer" because that would suggest the washing (as an act), they said in its stead: "I wiped myself," because the washed limbs are also wiped, so they used that metaphorically, relying on the understanding of the intended meaning, and that does not necessitate that they made wiping one of the names of washing.

The response to the first is that we do not deny the difference in the benefit of the two expressions linguistically and religiously, nor that Allah Almighty differentiated between the washed and the wiped limbs. However, we claim that carrying wiping over to washing in some places is permissible, and there is nothing in language and Sharia that prevents it, especially since it has occurred in their speech. The response to the second is that we estimate the word "wipe" before your feet also, and if the expression is multiplied, there is no harm if the meaning is multiplied, and there is no danger in it. The commentator of Zubdat al-Usul from the Imamis narrated that this type of combining the literal and metaphorical is permissible, such that the expression is in the conjoined-to in the literal meaning, and in the conjoined in the metaphorical meaning. They said in the verse "Do not approach prayer while you are intoxicated until you know what you say, nor while in a state of major ritual impurity, except as passersby": that "prayer" in the conjoined-to is in the literal religious meaning, which is the specific pillars, and in the conjoined it is in the metaphorical meaning, which is the mosque, for it is the place of prayer. The commentator claimed that this is a type of istikhdam (use), and by that, a group of Imami exegetes and jurists interpreted the verse, and upon them it is, so this conjunction is from the conjunction of sentences in investigation, and the wiping relating to the heads is in the literal meaning, and the wiping relating to the feet is in the metaphorical meaning. Given that one of the principles of the Imamis, like the Shafi'is, is the permissibility of combining the literal and metaphorical, and likewise the use of the shared (word) in its two meanings. It is possible here to imply the preposition following the verb, so ponder that. It is not difficult that the verse at that point would be vague, and it is far-fetched that such would occur in the revelation, because we say: The verse was revealed after wudu had been obligated, and the Holy Spirit had taught it to him (peace and blessings be upon him) at the beginning of the mission by years, so there is no harm if this type of vagueness is used in it, for those addressed were knowing of the method of wudu, and their knowledge of it did not depend on the derivation from the verse, and the verse was not revealed to teach them, but its thrust was to substitute tayammum for wudu and washing in appearance, and the mention of wudu above tayammum was for preparation, and what is mentioned for that is usually not an exhaustive explanation. The response to the third is that carrying wiping over to washing for a cause does not necessitate carrying washing over to wiping without a cause, so how does the inference fall? Subhan Allah Almighty, this is the most amazing of wonders!

The response to the fourth is that we do not concede that the departure from "I washed myself" was because it suggests the washing (as an act), for "I wiped myself" suggests that as well, based on what he said that the washed limbs are also wiped. If we conceded that, we would not restrict ourselves in the citation to that, and the earth wiping the rain in the obligation is sufficient.

The second aspect is that wiping remains on the literal, and the feet on that reading are made conjoined to the washed limbs, as in the accusative reading, and the genitive is for proximity. This was also objected to from several aspects: The first, second, and third are what the Imam mentioned of counting the genitive by proximity as a grammatical error, and that one only turns to it when there is security in what we are in, and its occurrence is only without the conjunction. The fourth is that in the conjunction to the washed limbs, whether the conjoined expression is in the accusative or the genitive, there is a separation between the conjoined and the conjoined-to by an alien sentence that is not a parenthetical sentence, and that is not permissible according to the grammarians, given that the speech then is of the category of "I hit Zayd and I honored Khalid and Bakr," by making Bakr a conjunction to Zayd or intending that he is hit, not honored. It is extremely derogatory, the natures recoil from it, and the ears do not accept it, so how would one incline to it or carry the speech of Allah Almighty upon it? The response to the first is that the Imam of the grammarians, Al-Akhfash, Abu al-Baqa', and the rest of the skilled in Arabic and its Imams permitted the genitive by proximity and said it occurs in eloquent speech as you will hear if Allah wills, and no one denied it except Al-Zajjaj, and his denial, with its firmness in their speech, indicates the shortness of his pursuit. Hence, they said: The one who affirms is preferred over the one who denies. The response to the second is that we do not concede that it is only turned to when there is security from confusion, and there is no narration regarding that from the grammarians in the relied-upon books. Yes, some said: The condition for its goodness is the lack of confusion with the inclusion of a subtlety, and it is here likewise, because the limit indicated that this genitive is not to be wiped, as wiping was not found limited in their speech, and for this reason, it was not limited in the verse of tayammum, while washing is limited, and for this reason, it was limited in the verse when it was needed. Thus, it is not a rebuttal that washing of the face was not limited, because the command is apparent in it, nor the saying of Al-Murtada: that there is no prevention from limiting it, and the subtlety in it is the indication of lightening the washing until it is as if it were wiping. The response to the third is that they explicitly stated its occurrence in the adjective, as previously in the examples, and His saying: "A torment of a day then surrounding," with the genitive of "surrounding" despite it being an adjective for the torment, and in emphasis as his saying: "Do not inform the possessors of wives all of them that there is no union if the knots of the tail are loosened," with the genitive of "all of them," according to what Al-Farra' narrated. And in conjunction, as His saying: "And hour-eyed ones like the hidden pearls," in the reading of Hamzah and Al-Kisa'i, and in a narration of Al-Mufaddal from Asim, for it is genitive by the proximity of "cups and pitchers" and conjoined to "eternal youths." And the saying of Al-Nabigha: "There remained nothing except a captive not escaped, and a bound one in the ropes of the fortress, dragged," with the genitive of "bound one" despite the conjunction being to "captive." The grammarians have dedicated a separate chapter to this, because of it and what is in it of similarity, and it has abounded in eloquent speech until they passed beyond considering it in inflection to duality, femininity, and others. The speech of Ibn al-Hajib in this place is not valued. The response to the fourth is that the necessity of separation by the sentence only disrupts if the sentence "and wipe your heads" is not related to the sentence of the washed limbs. If its meaning is "And wipe the hands after the washing with your heads," there is no disruption, as is the sect of many of the people of the Sunnah regarding the permissibility of wiping with the remainder of the washing water and the wet hand from the washed limbs. Despite that, no one of the Imams of Arabic went to the impossibility of separation between the two conjoined sentences or the conjoined and the conjoined-to, but the Imams explicitly stated the permissibility, and indeed Abu al-Baqa' narrated the consensus of the grammarians on that. Yes, the mediation of an alien in the speech of the eloquent ones is for a subtlety, which is here what we pointed to, or the gesturing to the order, and the verse being of the category of what was mentioned of the example is in the realm of prevention, and perhaps it would be so if the syntax were "And wipe your heads and your feet up to the ankles," and what occurred is not so. Some of the people of the Sunnah also mentioned another aspect in application, which is that the genitive reading is carried on the state of lightening, and the accusative reading on a state less than it. This was objected to that the one wiping on the sock is not wiping on the foot literally nor effectively, because the sock is considered a preventer of the spread of the impurity to the foot, so it is pure, and what befell the sock was removed by wiping, so he is on the sock literally and effectively. Also, wiping on the sock is not obligatory up to the ankles by consensus. The response is that it is permissible that it is for the explanation of the place upon which wiping is sufficient, because it is not sufficient on his leg. Yes, this aspect is not without distance, and the heart does not incline to it, even if Al-Jalal al-Suyuti claimed that it is the best of what was said in the verse. For the Imamis in applying the two readings, there are also two aspects, but the difference between them and what preceded from the two aspects which the people of the Sunnah have is that the accusative reading, which is apparent in washing according to the people of the Sunnah, and the genitive reading are returned to it, and according to the Imamis it is the opposite. The first aspect: That the feet in the accusative reading are conjoined to the place of "your heads," so the ruling of the heads and feet is both wiping. The second aspect: That the 'waw' (and) in it is in the meaning of 'with' (ma'a), from the category of "The water and the thorny shrub have reached the same level." In both aspects, there is what the people of the Sunnah have from aspects: First, that the conjunction to the place is contrary to the apparent, by the consensus of the two parties, and the apparent is the conjunction to the washed limbs, and departing from the apparent to its opposite without evidence is not permissible. And if they argued with the genitive reading, we say: It is not suitable as evidence for what you know. Second, that it is a conjunction of "and your feet" to the place of "your heads," and it is permissible that we understand from it the meaning of washing, for one of the rules established in the Arabic sciences is that if two verbs that differ in meaning gather and each of them has a related-to, it is permissible to drop one of them and conjoin to the related-to of the mentioned, as if it were its related-to. From that is his saying: "I wish your husband had left, girding a sword and a spear," for the intent is "carrying a spear." From it is his saying: "When the ladies appear one day and decorate the eyebrows and the eyes," for he intended "and applied kohl to the eyes." And his saying: "You see it as if its master cuts its nose and eyes, for its master was... for it was wealth," meaning "gouging its eyes" to the point of what cannot be counted in abundance. Third, that making the 'waw' in the meaning of 'with' without a context is something that is hardly permissible, and there is no context here, in addition to the fact that it necessitates, as it is said: the act of the two wipings together in time, and there is no sayer of that by consensus. It remains if a sayer said: I am not satisfied with this amount in the inference for washing the feet from this verse unless there is joined to it from outside what strengthens the application of the people of the Sunnah, for their speech and the speech of the Imamis in that might be a racehorse. It is said to him: The Sunnah of the best of mankind (peace and blessings be upon him) and the traces of the Imams (may Allah be pleased with them) are witnesses to what the people of the Sunnah claim, and they are from their path more than can be counted. As for from the path of the people (the Shi'a), Al-Ayyashi narrated from Ali Abi Hamza, who said: I asked Abu Hurayrah about the feet, and he said: "They are washed, a washing."

Muhammad bin al-Nu'man narrated from Abu Basir from Abu Abdillah (may Allah be pleased with them) who said: "If you forgot to wipe your head until you washed your feet, wipe your head then wash your feet." This hadith was also narrated by Al-Kalbi and Abu Ja'far al-Tusi with authentic chains such that it is impossible to weaken them, nor carry them upon dissimulation (taqiyyah), because the one addressed with that is a private Shi'i. Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Saffar narrated from Zayd bin Ali from his father from his grandfather, the Commander of the Faithful (may Allah honor his face), that he said: "I sat to perform wudu, so the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) came, and when I washed my feet, he said: 'O Ali, penetrate between the fingers.'"

The Sharif al-Radi narrated from the Commander of the Faithful (may Allah honor his face) in Nahj al-Balagha the story of his (peace and blessings be upon him) wudu, and he mentioned in it the washing of the feet. This indicates that the concept of the verse is as the people of the Sunnah said, and none of them claimed abrogation so that one would burden himself with proving it as thought by those who have no standing. What the Imamis claim of attributing wiping to Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both), Anas bin Malik, and others is a lie fabricated against them, for none of them narrated from him by an authentic path that he permitted wiping, except Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both), for he said by way of astonishment: "We do not find in the Book of Allah except wiping, but they refused except washing." His intent is that the apparent of the Book necessitates wiping on the genitive reading which was his reading, but the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and his Companions did not do except washing. So in his speech, there is a gesture to the genitive reading, interpreted and abandoned in the apparent by the act of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them). Attributing the permissibility of wiping to Abu al-'Aliyah, Ikrimah, and Al-Sha'bi is also slander and falsehood. Likewise, the attribution of combining washing and wiping or choosing between them to Al-Hasan al-Basri (may Allah have mercy on him), and similar to that is the attribution of the choice to Muhammad bin Jarir al-Tabari, the author of the great history and the famous interpretation. The narrators of the Shi'a spread these various lies, and some of the people of the Sunnah who did not distinguish the authentic from the sickly among the reports narrated it without investigation or chain, and the gap widened for the mender. Perhaps the Muhammad bin Jarir who said to the choice is Muhammad bin Jarir bin Rustam al-Shi'i, the author of al-Idah lil-Mutarashid fi al-Imamah, not Abu Ja'far Muhammad bin Jarir bin Ghalib al-Tabari al-Shafi'i, who is one of the Imams of the people of the Sunnah, and what is mentioned in the interpretation of this is washing only, not wiping, nor the combination, nor the choice that the Shi'a attributed to him. They have no argument in the claim of wiping with what was narrated from the Commander of the Faithful Ali (may Allah honor his face) that he wiped his face and his hands, wiped his head and his feet, and drank the remainder of his purification standing and said: "People claim that drinking standing is not permissible, and I have seen the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) do like what I did." This is the wudu of one who did not have an impurity, for the speech is in the wudu of the one who had an impurity, not in mere cleaning by wiping the limbs, as is indicated by what is in the report of wiping the washed (parts) by consensus. As for what was narrated from 'Abbad bin Tamim from his uncle with weak narrations that he (peace and blessings be upon him) performed wudu and wiped on his feet, it is, as the preservers said: "Anomalous, rejected, not suitable for argumentation," with the possibility of carrying "feet" on the socks, even if metaphorically, and the possibility of confusion of the feet wearing socks without those wearing them from a distance. Similar to that, to those who know the states of the narrators, is what Al-Husayn bin Sa'id al-Ahwazi narrated from Fadalah from Hammad bin 'Uthman from Ghalib bin Hudhayl who said: "I asked Abu Ja'far (may Allah be pleased with him) about wiping on the feet, and he said: 'It is what Gabriel (peace be upon him) revealed.'" And what was narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad who said: "I asked Abu al-Hasan Musa bin Ja'far (may Allah be pleased with him) about wiping on the feet, how is it? He placed his palms on the fingers then wiped them to the ankles, so I said to him: 'If a man said: with two fingers of his fingers like this to the ankles, is it sufficient?' He said: 'No, except with his palm, all of it,'" to other things which the Imamis narrated in this chapter. Whoever stands upon the states of their narrators will not rely on a report from their reports.

We have mentioned a portion of that in our book Al-Nafahat al-Qudsiyyah fi Radd al-Imamiyyah. Furthermore, we can say: If it were assumed that the ruling of Allah Almighty is wiping upon what the Imamis claim from the verse, then washing is sufficient for it, and if it were washing, it is not sufficient for it. So with washing, it is necessary to exit the liability with certainty, not with wiping. That is because washing is an achiever of the objective of wiping from the arrival of wetness and more, and this is the intent of one who expressed that it is "wiping and more." So, the rebuttal to what was said that washing and wiping are opposites that do not gather in one place, like blackness and whiteness, is not valid. Also, it would be necessary for the Shi'a to wash, because it is the most appropriate to the rational face of wudu, which is cleaning for standing before the Lord of Lords (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala), because it is the most precautionary also due to its chain being agreed upon for the two parties, as you heard, not wiping due to the disagreement in its chain. Some researchers said: It may be necessary for them, based on their rules, that they permit washing and wiping only. Al-Jalal al-Suyuti claimed that there is no problem in the verse according to the two readings among those who choose, except that it can be claimed for others that this was lawful at the beginning, then abrogated by determining washing, and the two readings remained established in the writing, just as the choice between fasting and ransom was abrogated by determining fasting, and the writing of that remained established. It is not hidden that it is weaker than the house of the spider, and it is the weakest of houses.

This is as for the nominative reading, it is not suitable in the inference for the two parties, for each has the right to estimate what he wishes. Hence, Al-Zamakhshari said therein: "It is in the meaning of 'and your feet are washed or wiped'." But Al-Tibi mentioned that there is no doubt that changing the sentence from verbal to nominal and dropping its predicate indicates the intent of its firmness and manifestation, and that its content is an accepted, established ruling that is not confused. And it is only so when the context is made what is known from the wording of the two readings and their concepts and what was witnessed and known from the act of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and his Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) and was heard from them and became famous among them. Ata' said: "By Allah, I did not know that anyone of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) wiped on the feet." All of that is a repellant to interpreting this reading by his saying: "and your feet are washed or wiped" in the alternation, especially the departure from the creative to the informative, which suggests that the people, as if they hastened in it, and he reports about it. End quote. So it is better to estimate what is of the gender of washing in a way that the creativity remains with it.

By the total of what we mentioned, it is known what is in the speech of Imam al-Razi (may Allah sanctify his secret) and his narration from what we have preceded. So know the men by the truth, not the truth by the men, and Allah Almighty is the guide to the straight path. So the text is not thereby necessitating the intention that is considered. Hence, it is known what is in the inference of some of the Shafi'is with the verse of wudu on the obligation of intention in it, mentioned previously, and that is because what is conveyed by the estimated structure is only the obligation of washing for the sake of the intention of prayer with impurity, not the obliging that he wash for the sake of prayer. For the contractor of the result that occurred as a request by the condition benefits the request of the content of the result if the content of the condition is achieved, and that its obligation was considered as a result of that, so where is the request for it on a specific face, which is its act on the intention of its being for the content of the condition? So ponder, for this was hidden from some of the prominent ones until he did not equalize it with the answer. The second aspect is that if by the "specific state" the state of prayer is intended, it is based on that the intention is intended in the sentence conjoined upon it, the sentence of tayammum. You have known now that there is no indication in it on the condition of intention. If the state of lack of ability to use water is intended, it is apparent that that does not necessitate the obliging of intention, nor its negation. The derivation of the water being pure in itself from what was mentioned is that the intent of its sending down being purification by it and naming it "pure" does not benefit its being considered purifying in itself, i.e., removing the religious matter without intention, and that is the objective, contrary to its removal of impurity, because that is felt to be the requirement of its nature, and there is no necessity between its removal sensually (of) a felt quality and its being (that) upon its use a religious consideration is removed. And what is conveyed from "so that He may purify you" is that the intent of its sending down is purification by it, and this is true with the condition of intention, as Al-Shafi'i (may Allah be pleased with him) said, and its lack, as we said, and there is no indication of the general for the specific in its specificity as established. So ponder.

They also disagreed on whether it necessitates the obligation of order or not. The Hanafis went to the second, because what is mentioned in it is the 'waw', which is for absolute combination according to the correct relied-upon view among them. The Shafi'is went to the first, because the 'fa' in "wash" is for consequence, so it benefits the consequence of rising to prayer with washing the face, so the order between the face and others is necessary, so it is necessary in the whole due to the lack of a sayer of separation. This was answered that we do not concede its benefiting the consequence of rising to it, but the whole of the limbs, and its investigation is that the consequent is the request of washing and it has related-tos, it reached the first of them by mention itself and to the rest by way of the shared letter. So all of them shared in it without benefiting the request of the priority of its connection to some of them over others in existence. So the result of the structure became the request of the consequence of washing the whole of the limbs. This is like your saying: "Enter the market and buy for us bread and meat," where the result was the consequence of entering by buying what was mentioned, however it occurred.

Some of them claimed that the benefit of the syntax is for the order, because if that were not intended, it would obligate bringing forward the wiped (part) or delaying it from the washed, and because they bring forward the most important then the important, and in that is a consideration, because the extent of what the syntax indicates is the priority of the order, and we do not deny that. Others said: The evidence for the order is his act (peace and blessings be upon him), for he (peace and blessings be upon him) performed wudu in order, then said: "This is a wudu that Allah Almighty does not accept prayer except by it." In that is that the gesture was to a wudu ordered, continuous in it, so if it indicated the obligatoriness of order, it would indicate the obligatoriness of continuity, and there is no sayer of that among the two parties. Yes, the strongest evidence for them is his saying (peace and blessings be upon him) in the Farewell Pilgrimage: "Start with what Allah started with," based on that the command is for obligation and the consideration is by the generality of the expression, not the specificity of the cause. It was answered about that with what was answered, except that the precaution is not hidden, and this amount is sufficient in the speech on this verse, and the excess over that by the explanation of the Sunnahs of wudu and its nullifiers and what pertains to it from what the verse does not understand, as some exegetes did, is excess not merit, and a display of knowledge from which appears ignorance. (And if you are in a state of major ritual impurity) And that is when rising for prayer (then purify yourselves) That is, bathe in the most complete way. It is read "fa-tahharu," that is, purify your bodies. Rinsing the mouth and nose here is obligatory like washing the rest of the body, because He (Subhanahu) added purification to the name of the 'waw' (the people), which is the whole body of every obligated person, so everything that is possible to convey to enters, except what is in it of difficulty like the inside of the eyes, so it drops due to difficulty, and there is no difficulty in the inside of the mouth and nose, so the text of the Book includes them without a contradictor, just as they were included by his saying (peace and blessings be upon him) in what Abu Dawud narrated: "Under every hair is a state of major impurity, so wet the hair and purify the skin." And their being from the nature as it came in the report does not negate the obligation, because it is the religion, and it is more general than it. The verse suggests that it is not obligatory on the one in a state of major ritual impurity to bathe immediately unless he intends to do what is not permissible without it. This is supported by what is authentic that he (peace and blessings be upon him) went out for the dawn prayer, forgetting that he was in a state of major ritual impurity, until when he stood, he remembered, so he turned back, bathed, and went out, and his noble head was dripping water. (And if you are sick) an illness you fear with it destruction or its increase by using water (or on a journey) that is, remaining upon it (or one of you came from the privy, or you have had contact with women, and you do not find water, then perform tayammum with clean earth, then wipe with your faces and hands) "min" (from) is for the beginning of the limit, and it is said: for partiality, and it is related to "wipe." Abdullah read "so intend clean earth," and the interpretation of the verse has preceded in Surat al-Nisa', so it should be consulted. Perhaps the repetition is so that the speech in the explanation of the types of purification is connected, and so that abrogation is not assumed, according to what is said, based on that this chapter is one of the last that were revealed. (Allah does not wish) by what He obligated upon you of wudu when you rise for prayer and bathing from major ritual impurity, or by the command of tayammum (to make upon you from difficulty) that is, tightness in compliance. "Al-ja'l" (to make) is possible to be in the meaning of creation and bringing into existence, so it is transitive to one, which is "from difficulty," and "min" is redundant, and "upon you" then is related to "al-ja'l," and it is allowed that it relates to "difficulty" even if it is a delayed verbal noun. It is possible that it is in the meaning of "to render," so "upon you" is the second object. (But He wishes) that is, by that (to purify you) that is, to clean you, so purification is linguistic, or to remove from you the filth of sins, for wudu, Allah Almighty expiates sins by it. Malik, Muslim, and Ibn Jarir reported from Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "When the Muslim servant performs wudu, and washes from his face, every sin he looked at with his eyes goes out with the water or with the last drop of the water. When he washes his hands, every sin his hands grasped goes out from his hands with the water or the last drop of the water. When he washes his feet, every sin his feet walked to goes out with the water or the last drop of the water, until he goes out clean from sins." So purification is spiritual, in the meaning of expiating sins, not in the meaning of removing impurity, for the state of ritual impurity is not an impurity by consensus, and applying that to it is in consideration that it is a legal impurity in the meaning of its being a preventer of prayer, not in the meaning of its being such that food or moist drink becomes impure by his meeting the one in a state of ritual impurity, or prayer becomes corrupt by carrying it. As for the impurity of water in what became common from the Greatest Imam (may Allah be pleased with him) and it was narrated his retraction from it, it is for the transfer of the prevention and the sins to it effectively. It is also said: The intent is to purify the heart from the filth of stubbornness against the obedience of Allah Almighty.

It is allowed that the intent is "to purify you" with dust if purification with water is unavailable to you. The intent of purification is removing the state of ritual impurity and the legal preventer. As for what was narrated from some of the Shafi'is like the Imam of the Two Holy Places that the saying "that dust is a purifier is a weak saying," his intent by it is to prevent sensual purification, so it is not a rebuttal to him that it is contrary to the authentic hadith: "The earth was made for me a place of prayer and a purifier." The will is an attribute of the essence, and its interpretation and its object in the two places have become common, and it is dropped as was gestured to it. The 'lam' is for cause. To that, some researchers went, and it is said: It is redundant, and the meaning is: Allah does not wish to make upon you from difficulty until He does not permit you in tayammum, but He wishes to purify you. This was weakened because "la" (not) is not estimated after the redundant, and it was followed that this is contrary to the speech of the grammarians, for Al-Radi said: The apparent is that after the 'lam' which is redundant which is after the command verb and the will, and likewise in al-Mughni and others, and the occurrence of this 'lam' after the command and the will in the Quran and the speech of the Arabs is common and measured, and it is one of the issues of the Book. He said in it: I asked him, i.e., Al-Khalil, about the meaning of "I wish for him to do," so he said: You only want to say: I wish for this, as He, the Exalted, said: "And I was commanded for that I be the first of the Muslims." End. The grammarians disagreed in it, so Al-Sirafi said: In it are two aspects: one of them is what the Basrans chose, that its object is estimated, i.e., I wish for what I wish for that you do, so the 'lam' is causal, not redundant. The second: That it is redundant for emphasizing the object. Abu Ali said in the commentary from Al-Mubarrad: That the verb is indicating the verbal noun, so it is estimated, i.e., I wished and my wish for this, so he dropped "my wish" and the 'lam' is redundant, and it is a far-fetched burden. There are three sects: the closest of them is the first and the easiest of them is the second, and it is from the eloquent old speech, as his saying: "I wish to forget her memory, as if Laila appeared to me in every way." The eloquence in it is from what the sound taste knows, Al-Shihab said. (And to complete) by His law what is a purification for your bodies (His favor upon you) in the religion, or to complete by His permission His bestowing upon you with the determined matters (that you might be grateful).

(His favor) by your obedience to Him in what He commanded you and forbade you. Among the subtleties of the generous verse, as some researchers said, is that it is comprised of seven matters, all in pairs: two purifications, an original and a substitute. The original is two: encompassing and non-encompassing. The non-encompassing, considering the act, is washing and wiping, and considering the place, is limited and unlimited. And that their instrument is liquid and solid, and their cause is impurity, minor and major. And that what allows turning to the substitute is illness or journey. And that what is promised upon them is purification and the completion of the favor. Some added other pairs, for the unlimited is the face and the head, and the limited is the hand and the foot, and the end is the ankle and the elbow, and the gratitude is verbal and active.