Are the feet washed or wiped in ablution?

Among the points of law that Ibn al-Mutahhar al-Hilli offered in his treatise as proof that the majority had changed what is in the Qur'an was the washing of the feet in ablution. Ibn Taymiyya gave it a chapter of Minhaj al-Sunna, combining an argument from transmission, one from language and one from the readings of the verse. ¹

In Ibn Taymiyya's quotation, al-Hilli says that God stated in His Book that the feet are wiped, in the ablution verse of al-Ma'ida, and relates from Ibn Abbas the saying "two limbs are washed and two are wiped"; the majority, he says, changed this and made washing obligatory. ¹ Ibn Taymiyya relates that for the Imamiyya the obligation is to wipe the feet to the ka'bayn, which for them are the meeting of shin and foot where the sandal strap is tied. ²

Ibn Taymiyya begins by saying that those who transmitted the Prophet's ablution in word and deed – who learned it from him and performed it in his lifetime while he saw them – outnumber those who transmitted the wording of the verse, since all Muslims performed ablution in his time and it had not been a practice of theirs before Islam. ¹ He cites the hadith found in the Sahih collections, "Woe to the heels and the soles of the feet from the Fire", and argues that washing the feet is a burden that human nature does not seek as it seeks leadership and wealth; if its transmitters could be charged with lying or error, the charge would sit more easily on those who transmitted the verse's wording. ^{1 3} And if it is said that the wording of the verse is established by mass transmission, then, he says, the mass transmission of the ablution is even firmer and more complete. ³

For Ibn Taymiyya, "wiping" (mash) in Arabic is a genus with two kinds: wiping with flowing water, which is washing, and wiping without it. When one kind takes the special name "washing", the general word remains for the other, just as "relatives of the womb" (dhawu al-arham) came to mean in usage those who inherit neither by fixed share nor as agnates, and "animal" may be restricted to non-humans. ³ He reads "to the ka'bayn", in the dual rather than the plural – as with "to the elbows" – as showing that each foot has two ka'bs, the two protruding ankle bones, so that what is commanded is a full wiping that reaches them, which is washing. ^{3 4} He also sees in the word "wipe" a hint to pour little water on the feet, where excess is common, and illustrates the Arab habit of using one verb for two acts of related meaning with the verse "I fed her straw and cold water". ⁴

The verse, he says, has two well-known readings, genitive and accusative. Several of those who read the accusative said that it returns the command to washing; the two readings are like two verses, and the accusative, joined to "faces and hands", is explicit for washing. ^{4 5} He distinguishes "I wiped the foot" from "I wiped with the foot": the preposition bi- conveys contact. ² In a footnote the editor quotes from Ibn Kathir's commentary Ibn Abi Hatim's report that Ibn Abbas read "wa-arjulakum" in the accusative and said "it returns to washing", and that the like is related from Ibn Mas'ud, Urwa, Ata', Ikrima, al-Hasan, Mujahid and others. ⁵

Ibn Taymiyya concludes that the Qur'an contains no denial of the duty to wash, and that the mass-transmitted Sunna decides against what some people take from the Qur'an's apparent sense, because the Messenger made clear both its wording and its meaning; he cites Abu Abd al-Rahman al-Sulami's report that the Companions who taught the Qur'an would not go past ten verses until they had learned their meaning. ² He pairs wiping over leather socks with washing the feet as practices mass-transmitted from the Prophet, and likens rejecting them to the stance of the Khawarij on matters they imagined to contradict the Qur'an's apparent sense, such as those of them who said that only four units of prayer are prayed when travelling, or that no judgement is given on one witness and an oath. ^{4 5}

Ibn Hazm treats the question in the Book of Purity of al-Muhalla: the Qur'an came with wiping, and the word for the feet in al-Ma'ida 6 is joined to 'your heads' whether the word is read with the genitive or the accusative ending, either in form or in position; in his view a conjoined word cannot be separated from what it is joined to by a new clause. ⁶ He relates from Ibn 'Abbas that the Qur'an came down with wiping, and counts among the early authorities who held that the feet are wiped 'Ali ibn Abi Talib, Ibn 'Abbas, al-Hasan, 'Ikrima and al-Sha'bi, adding that it is the view of al-Tabari; he gives Rifa'a ibn Rafi''s report of the command to wipe the head and the feet to the ankles, and 'Ali's saying that he used to think the soles more deserving of wiping until he saw the Prophet wipe the upper side. ^{6 7} The editors note that washing was held by a number of the Successors and by Abu Hanifa, Malik, al-Thawri and Ahmad, and that al-Jawraqani judged the Prophetic report from 'Ali on wiping to be unacceptable (munkar). ⁶

He then explains that he holds washing only because of the report of 'Abd Allah ibn 'Amr ibn al-'As in al-Bukhari: the Prophet fell behind on a journey and caught up with them when the afternoon prayer was pressing; they were performing ablution and wiping their feet, and he called out at the top of his voice, 'Woe to the heels from the Fire', two or three times; and because of its version in Muslim, in which he saw their heels showing dry and said, 'Woe to the heels from the Fire; complete the ablution.' ^{7 8} He reads this report as an order to complete the ablution of the feet with a threat for leaving the heels, so that it adds to what is in the verse and in the other reports and abrogates them, and taking the addition is obligatory. ⁸

He also turns the question against his opponents: those who set reports aside for the apparent sense of the Qur'an ought to have set this one aside for the verse, and those who reason by analogy ought to require wiping, since the feet drop out in dry ablution as the head does, are mentioned with it in the verse, and may be wiped over leather socks in their own view, so that analogy of wiping with wiping is closer; he calls this 'the soundest analogy on earth, if analogy were valid', to show that analogy is void for him and that judgement belongs to the texts. ^{8 9 10} To those who argue from the mention of the ankles as a limit, like the elbows, he replies that a stated limit is no proof of washing, since the face is washed and no limit is given for it. ^{9 10}

The Imami position is given here only through its opponent's quotation and needs the texts of Imami jurists from their own books; the views of the other Sunni schools from their own works and academic studies of the history of the question have not yet been added.