Washing feet in wuduu

Asalamu alaykum,
I come seeking guidance about the the 6th ayah of surat almaida.
I read in tafsir altabari, that al-Hajjaj was giving a sermon when he mentioned this ayah and said that we should wash our feet during wuduu as feet are filthy. There is also a reference entry number 9056-9057 about Anas ibn maliks reaction, he accused alhajjaj of lying and said we are supposed to wipe.
this, on its own, is not exactly evidence that wiping should be the case, however I came across something that further expanded my ambiguity on the matter.
I read in both sunni and twelver sources of Nah’w that the preferred linguistic explanation of the ayah is to wipe, and its not usual for the Quran to link “feet” to “washing” in such style, I asked the linguists I know among me, even Sunnis, and the explanation seems to be that wiping is more likely, however they take what agrees with their reports and ahaadith which emphasize washing. I come here to ask you, how do your linguists explain the ayah? Do they make note of the wiping the feet tfseer? 

I am quite confused on the matter because I’m leaning towards believing that wiping is what’s right linguistically, however it’s very obvious that the people of madina at the time of the salaf used to wash their feet and not wipe. It’s also obvious that the zaydis emphasize washing and not wiping, do you mind linking some of the ahaadith and tfaseer that emphasize washing?

fi amaanillah

wa alaikum as-salam wa rahmatullah,

I read in both sunni and twelver sources of Nah’w that the preferred linguistic explanation of the ayah is to wipe, and its not usual for the Quran to link “feet” to “washing” in such style, I asked the linguists I know among me, even Sunnis, and the explanation seems to be that wiping is more likely, however they take what agrees with their reports and ahaadith which emphasize washing. I come here to ask you, how do your linguists explain the ayah? Do they make note of the wiping the feet tfseer?

Could you please provide the relevant naḥwī explanations from Sunni sources? As for Imami sources, it is expected that they would support their own interpretation by offering a different grammatical analysis.

wa salam

Asalamu alykum, the most direct linguistic proof I could find is from alrazi in his مفاتيح الغيب, for the same aya mentioned above he says:
إذا ثبت هذا فنقول : ظهر أنه يجوز أن يكون عامل النصب في قوله { وأرجلكم } هو قوله { وامسحوا } ويجوز أن يكون هو قوله { فاغسلوا } لكن العاملان إذا اجتمعا على معمول واحد كان إعمال الأقرب أولى ، فوجب أن يكون عامل النصب في قوله { وأرجلكم } هو قوله { وامسحوا } فثبت أن قراءة { وأرجلكم } بنصب اللام توجب المسح أيضا ، فهذا وجه الاستدلال بهذه الآية على وجوب المسح ، ثم قالوا : ولا يجوز دفع ذلك بالأخبار لأنها بأسرها من باب الآحاد ، ونسخ القرآن بخير الواحد لا يجوز .

From what I understand, it seems he mentions that both are plausible however linking it to wiping is preferable since it comes closer to “your feet”.

It is however important to note that he places a condition that one must first interpret برؤوسكم as genitive in wording and accusative in syntactic position. He also mentions how this is a “popular” position among grammarians.

I also found in the tafasir some that say washing covers wiping, hence by washing the feet you are also technically wiping them, however I would have to search over again to find them.

wa alaikum as-salam,

Akhī al-karīm, first of all, thank you for providing the source.

I would like to ask whether you personally extracted this passage from al-Rāzī’s Tafsīr, or whether it was conveyed to you by someone else. If you located it yourself, then I kindly advise either refraining from consulting works that require a level of technical familiarity beyond one’s current preparation, or, if the passage was cited knowingly out of context, to be fearful of Allah, exalted and glorified.

The excerpt you presented is not al-Rāzī’s own position, but rather a quotation of the opposing argument advocating wiping. Immediately after the passage you cited, al-Rāzī proceeds to respond to it as follows:

"Know that this cannot be answered except in two ways.

The first: numerous reports have come establishing the obligation of washing, and washing includes wiping, whereas the converse does not hold. Washing is therefore closer to precaution, and it is obligatory to adopt it. On this basis, it must be decisively affirmed that washing the feet suffices in place of wiping them.

The second: the obligation concerning the feet is delimited up to the ankles, and delimitation is mentioned only with washing, not with wiping. They responded to this in two ways......."

and it goes on and on with argument against argument.

Secondly:
As for Tafsīr al-Ṭabarī, it is not, in and of itself, a decisive proof, nor is the report concerning al-Ḥajjāj and Anas b. Mālik a binding proof. Even if the report were assumed to be authentic, Anas is not an independent proof on his own, particularly when there exist numerous other evidences that directly contradict this interpretation.

Regarding the grammatical (naḥwī) explanation you claim to have found in both Sunnī and Imāmī sources, an explanation which attempts to support the obligation of wiping only, this is not an established linguistic conclusion but rather a polemical line of argumentation. It does not rise to the level of proof, nor is the matter one of what is “more likely” or “supposedly” intended.

Anyone familiar with the respective positions of the Zaydiyyah, the Sunnīs, and the Imāmiyyah will inevitably recognize that the Imāmī position on this issue is exceptionally weak.

For this reason, I find your confusion difficult to understand, unless you are a layperson attempting to make sense of these differing views. If that is the case, then it should be noted that laypeople are discouraged from delving into such subtle and technical juristic debates in the first place, for the religion of Allah is not something to be approached lightly or treated as an intellectual game.

I will nonetheless provide clarification from multiple sources, not primarily for your sake, but because others may read this discussion, and I do not wish them to be misled or confused by erroneous Imāmī claims.

First: from al-ʿAllāmah al-Zamakhsharī raḥimahu Allāh, one of the foremost authorities in Arabic language and rhetoric among our Brothers of the Adliyya, the Muʿtazilah.

He states:

A group recited {and your feet} in the accusative case, which indicates that the feet are to be washed. If you say: then what do you do with the genitive recitation and its inclusion under the ruling of wiping? I say: the feet, among the three limbs that are washed, are washed by pouring water over them, and thus they are especially prone to the blameworthy excess that is forbidden. They were therefore conjoined to the third limb that is wiped, not in order that they themselves be wiped, but in order to draw attention to the obligation of moderation in pouring water over them.

And it is said {up to the ankles}; the limit was mentioned to remove the assumption of someone who might think that they are wiped, because wiping has not been assigned a fixed limit in the Law.

It is narrated from ʿAlī alayhi as-salam that he came upon some youths of Quraysh and saw negligence in their ablution, so he said: “Woe to the heels from the Fire.” When they heard this, they began washing them thoroughly and scrubbing them vigorously.

And from Ibn ʿAmr: We were with the Messenger of God ﷺ when some people performed ablution, and their heels were white and gleaming, so he said: “Woe to the heels from the Fire.” In the narration of Jābir: “Woe to the ankles.”

And from ʿUmar: he saw a man performing ablution who left the bottoms of his feet unwashed, so he ordered him to repeat the ablution, this being by way of severity toward him.

And from ʿĀʾisha (may God be pleased with her): “That they be cut off is dearer to me than that I wipe over the feet without leather socks.”

And from ʿAṭāʾ: “By God, I do not know of a single one of the Companions of the Messenger of God ﷺ who wiped over the feet.”

Some people, however, went by the outward form of the conjunction and held wiping to be obligatory. And from al-Ḥasan, that he combined the two matters. And from al-Shaʿbī: “The Qur’an was revealed with wiping, and washing is the Sunnah.”

Al-Ḥasan also recited {and your feet} in the nominative case, meaning: “and your feet are washed or wiped up to the ankles.”

With respect to Zaydī exegetical works, among the most distinguished contemporary tafāsīr is that of Imām Badr al-Dīn b. Amīr al-Dīn al-Ḥūthī ʿalayhi al-salām, he said:

{And your feet up to the ankles} — that is, “and wash your feet up to the ankles.” The entire foot is washed except what is above the ankles of the leg. The two ankles are two bones at the bottom of the shin, and these are intended here, as indicated by the dual form. Since “feet” is plural, either the plural is considered and one would say “up to the ankles” just as “up to the elbows,” or the individual is considered. If what were intended for each foot were a single ankle—namely, the strap-ankle—then it would have been said “up to the ankle.” Even if it were said “the two feet” in the dual, it could then be said “up to the two ankles” while intending the strap-ankle, if that were literal—though this is debatable.

Al-Rāghib said: “The ankle of the leg is the bone at the junction of the foot and the shin,” and he mentioned no other. And it is said in al-Ṣiḥāḥ: “The ankle is the protruding bone at the junction of the shin and the foot,” and al-Aṣmaʿī rejected the common people’s claim that it is on the top of the foot. End quote.

The reason for washing the ankles is that when a limit may either include what comes after it or exclude it, then here—and likewise with the elbows—it is taken as inclusive, because the command encompasses the feet and the hands. In cases of ambiguity, the default is washing when exclusion from the ruling is not established, especially since this is more precautionary.

The apparent meaning of the verse is the obligation of ablution every time one rises to prayer. If one rises separately for each obligatory prayer, one performs ablution for each; if one rises once for two prayers, one performs a single ablution for both. The ruling thus follows the act of rising.

In Amālī Aḥmad b. ʿĪsā: “Muḥammad narrated to us, Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad narrated to us. He said: I asked Qāsim b. Ibrāhīm about a man praying multiple prayers with a single ablution. He said: Allah has commanded ablution when one rises to prayer, and this is the decisive ruling with us…” and so on.

Yes, our statement that the feet are washed is acting upon the accusative recitation, which is the well-known recitation throughout the Muslim world, upon which the recitations of Ḥafṣ and Nāfiʿ agree. Interpreting the conjunction as connected to what is accusative both in form and ruling is stronger than claiming that it is accusative by conjunction to the syntactic position of {your heads}, because conjunction to what is accusative both in wording and meaning is clear and unproblematic.

If some of the Imāmī Shīʿa claim that this is invalid due to the separation caused by His saying {and wipe your heads},
we say: separation does not prevent conjunction, and it occurs in many places in the Qurʾān, such as the verse preceding the verse of ablution: {And chaste women from among the believers}, which is conjoined to {and the food of those who were given the Book is lawful for you}, even though {and your food is lawful for them} intervenes.

Conjunction with separation also occurs in Sūrat al-Anʿām in several places, including His saying: {And Noah We guided before, and from his descendants: David, Solomon, Job, Joseph, Moses, and Aaron—and thus do We reward the doers of good. And Zachariah, John, Jesus, and Elijah—all were among the righteous. And Ishmael, Elisha, Jonah, and Lot; and all of them We favored over the worlds. And from their fathers, their descendants, and their brothers; We chose them and guided them to a straight path} [6:84–87].

Consider how {and thus do We reward the doers of good} is conjoined to {And Noah We guided before}, then {Zachariah} is conjoined to {Noah} despite the separation by {and thus do We reward the doers of good}; then Ishmael is conjoined despite the separation by {all were among the righteous}; then {and all of them We favored over the worlds} is conjoined to {And Noah We guided}; then {and from their fathers} is conjoined to {Ishmael}, meaning “and We guided from their fathers,” despite the separation by {and all of them We favored over the worlds}; then {and We chose them} is conjoined to {And Noah We guided} and what follows it, despite the multiple intervening clauses. Thus, conjunction with separation has no basis for being rejected or deemed unlikely.

It is stated in Mughnī al-Labīb under the types of conjunction: “The first is conjunction to the wording, and this is the default.” End quote. They did not stipulate the absence of separation.

As for the claim that conjunction to the nearest expressed term is the default, we do not concede that this is the default unless the nearer and farther possible antecedents are equal and no preference exists except proximity. But when conjunction to both wording and meaning is possible, it is preferable to conjunction to syntactic position, because the latter requires interpretation contrary to the apparent meaning. The default is conjunction to wording. Moreover, conjunction to syntactic position is only permitted under conditions that are not met here—among them, the possibility of making the case ending explicit in eloquent speech, such as: “Zayd is not standing nor sitting,” and the poet’s line:

We are not mountains, nor iron.

Thus one may say “Zayd is not standing,” and “we are not mountains” with overt accusative marking. In the verse, however, it is not valid to remove the bāʾ of adhesion and allow the verb to govern directly; therefore, the condition for conjunction to syntactic position fails.

If it is said: had it been phrased “and wipe your heads”, it would be valid—
we reply: this would not be by deleting the bāʾ of adhesion and making the verb transitive by itself, but rather would be a different usage in which “your heads” is the direct object, meaning that the head itself is what is wiped. The relevant hypothetical would be “wipe your heads water,” meaning “with your heads,” and this is invalid. Hence, deleting the bāʾ is not valid, and the condition for conjunction to syntactic position fails. By contrast, “Zayd is not standing” is a single usage in which the bāʾ may be omitted or added.

If it is said: we choose that the bāʾ is extra, and the original wording is “and wipe your heads”—
we reply: it is not permissible to interpret the Qurʾān by abandoning correct, eloquent usage for something whose permissibility has not been established. This compromises eloquence and contradicts the apparent meaning. The readily understood meaning of the bāʾ—adhesion—is firmly established and well known among the Arabs, with nothing strange or anomalous about it. Departing from it without proof is subordinating the Qurʾān to opinion and arbitrary interpretation.

That the bāʾ signifies adhesion is explicitly stated by the grammarians. The author of Mughnī al-Labīb says regarding the meanings of the singular bāʾ: “The first of them is adhesion; it is said that this meaning never leaves it, and for this reason Sibawayh restricted it to this.” End quote.

In al-Mufaṣṣal, it is said: “The meaning of the bāʾ is adhesion, as in your saying ‘He has an illness,’ meaning it has attached itself to him and mingled with him,” then he mentions assistance and other meanings, making adhesion the primary one.

Ibn Yaʿīsh said in his Commentary on al-Mufaṣṣal: “Its necessary meaning is adhesion.” End quote. Ibn al-Ḥājib likewise placed adhesion first among the meanings of the bāʾ. We have found no one who reported a disagreement among grammarians regarding this. The apparent conclusion is their consensus. As for the claim that the bāʾ denotes partiality, there is no proof for it.

As for their claim that it must have a benefit and that this benefit can only be partiality—
we reply: we do not concede that the benefit is limited to partiality. We have explained the benefit: the head in the verse is not the direct object; rather, the direct object is omitted—namely, “water”—and the head is that to which the water is attached. This is a clear benefit grounded in established linguistic usage. As for the use of the bāʾ to indicate partiality, it has not been established, and interpreting the Qurʾān by it depends on its being established analogically, which is insufficient. Its occurrence in a specific expression is not enough, just as we said regarding its being extra.

As for the statement of some of the Imāmī Shīʿa that {your feet} is conjoined to {your heads} because it is nearer, and that in cases of competing governors the nearer is given precedence—
we reply: analogy with the chapter of grammatical competition (tanāzuʿ) is invalid, because that is a special construction involving two different governors directed at a single governed term. It is not applicable here, nor is conjunction analogized to it, for language is not established by analogy. Moreover, the grammarians themselves differ in tanāzuʿ as to whether the first governor is preferred due to precedence or the second due to proximity. In any case, this applies only where conjunction itself is valid, and we have shown that the default apparent reading is conjunction to wording, and that conjunction to syntactic position is invalid here due to the failure of its condition.

If it is said: reports from some Imams indicate that the bāʾ is for partiality, because they argued for partiality based on the presence of the bāʾ—
we reply: these reports are not authentic according to us. Even if they were authentic, it is possible that they intended adhesion, and that adhesion is achieved by attaching water to part of the head, just as one says: “I attached myself to the wall of the Kaʿbah,” meaning part of it. This is interpretation and reasoning, not a transmission of Arab linguistic usage establishing that the bāʾ denotes partiality. Al-Ṭūsī himself acknowledged that the bāʾ can denote adhesion, though he denied that it does so in this verse. We have already demonstrated sufficiently that it does.

If it were said that the bāʾ in {and wipe your heads} is for adverbial inclusion (ẓarfiyyah), meaning “wipe water within them,” and likewise in {then wipe your faces and your hands from it}, meaning “wipe within your faces from the clean earth,” so that the head is the locus of the water and the face the locus of some of the earth—this would be possible, since the bāʾ is unquestionably used for adverbial inclusion. The meaning would be the same, and the impossibility of conjunction to syntactic position would remain the same in both this and the bāʾ of adhesion, due to the failure of its condition.

I have lengthened this discussion because of the abundance of debate that has occurred on this issue with some of the Imāmī Shīʿa.

wa salam