Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

WIPING THE FEET OR WASHING THEM IN WUDU’

The Muslim scholars disagreed upon the kind of ablution of the feet from among the parts included in wudu’. The Sunni jurisprudents, including the four imams,[153]determined that washing the feet in wudu’ was obligatory. Dawood bin Ali and an-Nassir lil-Haqq, who were from among the imams of the Zaydites, said it was obligatory to perform both of washing and wiping the feet.[154]Some of them might say that it was optional to choose between washing and wiping.[155]The Shia, according to their pure imams, thought that wiping the feet was prescribed by the holy Quran.[156]

The evidence of the Shia

The evidence of the Shia for this matter was the Quranic verse(O you who believe! when you rise up to prayer, wash your faces and your hands as far as the elbows and wipe your heads and your feet to the (two) ankles. 5:6)

Imam ar-Razi sufficed us in showing the point of the argument in this verse when he declared: “The evidence of those, who thought that wiping the feet was obligatory, was based upon the two kinds of reciting the phrase(and your feet) mentioned in the verse of wudu’. Ibn Katheer, Hamza, Abu Amr an Aasim recited the phrase in genitive and Nafi’, ibn Aamir and Aasim recited it in accusative. Reciting it in genitive determined that(your feet) was coupled to(your heads) and then as it was obligatory to wipe the head it would be obligatory to wipe the feet. As for reciting it in accusative, it also determined that it was obligatory to wipe the feet because the saying(and wipe your heads) made(your heads) as object and(your feet) was coupled to(your heads) so both of them were objects of the verb(wipe) ”

This was his very saying.[157]But he said: “Many traditions were narrated about the obligation of washing the feet (in wudu’). Washing included wiping but wiping didn’t. So washing was nearer in taking precaution and hence it had to be performed in wudu’ as wajib.[158]Therefore it had to be determined that washing the feet would replace wiping them…”

You will see the thought of the infallible imams of the Prophet’s progeny and their followers about the traditions talking about washing the feet soon inshallah.

As for his saying that washing included wiping, it was a clear fallacy because washing and wiping were two different acts literally, traditionally and legally.[159]It had to be determined then that washing wouldn’t replace wiping but ar-Razi stopped between two precautions; either to contradict the Quranic verse or to contradict the traditions as he thought and so he contradicted himself when saying that washing included wiping and that it was nearer in taking precaution. He thought by saying so that he would reconcile the verse with the traditions. Whoever pondered at the justification of ar-Razi would find that he was confused. Since the verse was clear in determining the obligation of wiping so he didn’t need to put washing instead of wiping.

Some of the great jurisprudents and linguists declared that the verse had showed the obligation of wiping the feet and not washing them. Among them was the jurisprudent Sheikh Ibraheem al-Halabi in his book Ghunyatul Mutamalli feeSharh Munyatul Musalli according to the Hanafite school. He said: “The verse was recited (according to the rules of Arabic) by putting “your feet ” either in accusative form or genitive form. The most famous reciting was to put “Your feet” in accusative form by coupling it to “your faces ” or in genitive form according to (neighboring). But the most correct form was to couple “your feet ” to “your heads ” because “your feet ” wouldn’t be coupled to “your faces ” that the two phrases were separated by a different sentence (and wipe your heads ). The rule in linguistics was not to separate between the two with a word so how about a full sentence.”[160]

Among those, who followed this clear way in dealing with this verse, was Imam Abul Hasan Muhammad bin Abdul Hadi as-Sindi. He said: “Wiping the feet was declared by the verse because reciting the phrase in genitive form was clear according to the wording of the verse and reciting the phrase in accusative form would be not acceptable according to the linguists because the two coupled phrases were separated by a full sentence and so the apparent meaning of the verse showed wiping the feet.”[161]He also, like the others, tried to subject the Quran to the traditions that determined washing the feet.

Az-Zamakhshari philosophized in his Kashshaf when talking about this verse. He said: “The feet were among the (three) organs that were to be washed (in wudu’) by pouring water over them. Perhaps it was considered as bad wasting, which was prohibited, so “the feet” were coupled to “the heads”, which were to be wiped, not in order to be wiped but just to draw the attention to the necessity of economizing in pouring water over them. It was said “to the ankles ” as an end of washing in order to clear the meaning for those, who thought that the feet were to be wiped, because no end was determined for wiping in the Sharia.”

This philosophy of coupling “the feet” to “the heads” and in mentioning the end (limit) of washing the feet had nothing to do with deducing the legal verdicts out of the verse at all. The verse had nothing of that at all but it was his way in submitting the verse to his doctrine instead of deducing the legal verdicts out of the evidences the verse had. He was so odd in his affectation, which no one would listen to except who thought that washing the feet was irrefutable according to one’s belief but as for it was the point of the dispute then no one would listen to because many of the Sunni had confessed that the verse declared the obligation of wiping the feet. The rules of Arabic determined that “your feet ” was coupled to “your heads ” which must be wiped according to the consensus, and this sufficed as clear evidence.

A look at the traditions of washing

The traditions talking about washing the feet were two kinds:

1. The traditions that didn’t evidence washing like the tradition narrated by Abdullah bin Amr bin al-Aass and mentioned in al-Bukhari and Muslim’sSahih s. He said: “In one of our travels with the Prophet (s), the Prophet (s) retarded a little. Then he joined us when it was the time of Assr prayer. We began to wipe our feet (in wudu’). He said: Woe be to the heels from Hell!”[162]

If this tradition was true, then wiping the feet would be the correct act of wudu’ because the Prophet (s) didn’t deny it but he confirmed it. He only denied the filthiness of the heels. Among the Muslims were ignorant bare-footed nomads, who often made water over their heels especially in travel, so he threatened them of Hell lest they offered prayer with those impure heels.

2. The traditions that referred to washing the feet in wudu’ like the tradition narrated by Hamran the freed slave of Othman bin Affan. He said: “I saw Othman pouring water from his vessel over his hands and washed them three times and then he rinsed his mouth and his nose… then he washed each foot three times… then he said: I have seen the Prophet (s) doing wudu’ like mine.”[163]

Another tradition of Abdullah bin Zayd bin Aasim al-Ansari when he was asked: “Would you do wudu’ before us like the wudu’ of the Prophet (s)?” He asked for a vessel of water. He poured some water over his hands…then he washed his feet to the ankles. Then he said: “The Prophet (s) did wudu’ like this.”[164]There were other traditions having the same meaning.

We had some notes about these traditions as the following:

First: these traditions contradicted the holy Quran and the traditions of the infallible imams of the Prophet’s progeny, who agreed upon the obligation of wiping the feet in wudu’. The Quran and the Prophet’s progeny were the two weighty things the Prophet (s) had left for the umma. If the umma kept to them, it would never go astray. Hence every thing contradicted these two things would be brushed aside.

It sufficed as evidence for denying washing the feet in wudu’ and refuting the traditions talking about it that the scholar of the umma and the vessel of the Quran and the Sunna, Abdullah bin Abbas often said: “Allah determined two washes and two wipes (in wudu’). Didn’t you see that when He mentioned tayammum, He determined two wipes in stead of the two washes (of wudu’) and cancelled the two wipes (of wudu’).”[165]

Abdullah bin Abbas often said: “Wudu’ is two washes and two wipes.”[166]

When he was informed that ar-Rabee’ bint Afra’ al-Ansariyya pretended that the Prophet (s) performed wudu’ at her house and washed his feet, he came to her asking her about that. When she told him of that he said denyingly: “The people insisted on washing (the feet in wudu’) whereas I didn’t find in the Book of Allah save wiping.”[167]

Second: if these traditions were true, they would be recurrent and would be narrated by the all because knowing about the purity of the feet in wudu’ was a necessary need of the Muslims; men and women, frees and slaves, and it was a necessity needed every day and night. If it was else than the wiping mentioned in the Quranic verse, then it would be known by the Muslims, who lived at the time of the Prophet (s) and after that. It would be a certain thing among all the Muslim and it would spread in every country and at every age and there would be no way to deny it or to doubt about it. But since it was not so, the traditions appeared to be so weak and then to be brushed aside.

Third: the traditions talking about the kind of the purity of the feet contradicted each other. Some of them showed that it was to wash the feet in wudu’ like the traditions narrated by Hamran and ibn Aasim and some showed that it was to wipe the feet like the tradition mentioned by al-Bukhari in hisSahih and narrated by Ahmad, ibn Abu Shayba, ibn Abu Omar, al-Baghawi, at-Tabarani and al-Mawardi. All of them narrated the tradition from a trusted and reliable series of narrators.[168]The tradition reached Abul Aswad from Abbad bin Tameem from his father, who said: “I saw the Prophet (s) performing wudu’ and wiping his feet.”

Also there was the tradition narrated by Zurara bin A’yun and Bukayr bin A’yun that Imam Baqir had imitated the Prophet’s wudu’ by wiping his head and his feet with the leftover water of his hands.

It was mentioned in Majma’ul Bayan that ibn Abbas had imitated the Prophet’s wudu’ and wiped his feet.

Since there was a contradiction between the traditions, so we had to depend upon the Book of Allah as our reference.

A look at their excuse of approval

The Sunni might justify washing the feet that they found it more suitable for the feet than wiping as that wiping the head was more suitable than washing it because the filthy feet often wouldn’t be purified unless they were washed unlike the head, which would often be purified by wiping.

They said that the reasonable interests could be reasons for performing the religious obligations until the Sharia noticed two meanings; one referred to interest and the other referred to worship. They meant by interest what referred to the perceptible things and by worship what referred to the purification of the soul.

We believe that Allah the Almighty has noticed His people in all what He has charged them with of the legal obligations. He hasn’t ordered them to do anything unless it is for their benefit and He hasn’t forbidden them from doing anything unless it causes corruption to them. In spite of that He hasn’t let the divine verdicts be decided according to the people’s thoughts whether they cause benefit or corruption. He has ordered them to worship Him according to irrefutable evidences and He hasn’t left to them any outlet to slip to other than His verdicts. The first of these evidences is the holy Quran. The Quran has determined wiping the heads and the feet in wudu’ and it must be obeyed. As for the cleanness of the feet, it must be done before performing wudu’ according to special conditions saying that the purity of the organs, which were to be washed or wiped in wudu’, must be confirmed before performing wudu’.[169]Washing the feet done by the Prophet (s) as it was mentioned in those traditions might be of this kind or it might be for cooling or it might be to exaggerate in cleanness after performing wudu’.

Note

Ibn Maja mentioned in hisSunan a tradition narrated by Abu Iss~haq that Abu Hayya had said: “I saw Ali perform wudu’ and then he washed his feet to the ankles. He said: I wanted to show you how the Prophet (s) performed wudu’.”

As-Sindi said: “This was a serious refutation against the Shia, who believed in wiping the feet, where Ali believed in washing the feet. Therefore the author mentioned it and began his chapter with it. He did well in mentioning this tradition in this concern. May Allah reward him good. The apparent meaning of the Quranic verse required to wipe the feet as it was narrated by ibn Abbas and so it must be interpreted to mean washing the feet.”[170]

May Allah forgive him, ibn Maja and all the Sunni scholars. They knew well that this tradition was null in many ways:

First: Abu Hayya, the narrator of this tradition, was nobody and was one of the most obscure narrators. Ath-Thahabi mentioned him in his Mizan and said: “No one knew who he was.” Then he mentioned that ibn al-Madeeni and Abul Waleed al-Fardhi had said: “He was unknown.” He also said: “Abu Zar’a said: His name was never mentioned.”[171]Then ath-Thahabi said: “I researched more and more on Abu Hayya but I got nothing about him save ignorance and obscurity. This name might be fabricated by the one, who had fabricated the tradition. Allah is the most Aware!”

Second: this tradition was narrated from Abu Hayya by Abu Iss~haq only.[172]Abu Iss~haq became too old, dotard and often forgot; therefore the people brushed his traditions aside[173]and no one narrated from him save Abul Ahwass and Zuhayr bin Mo’awiya al-Ju’fi,[174]who were criticized by people for that.[175]

There was no doubt that if a narrator became dotard, then all of his traditions narrated after his dotage would be null whether it was known that the traditions were narrated after the dotage like this tradition or it was unknown when they were narrated.

Third: this tradition contradicted the holy Quran and it contradicted the certain traditions of Imam Ali and his infallible sons (s) and then it must be brushed aside.

To the ankles

The ankle mentioned in the Quranic verse was the joint between the foot and the leg. Zurara bin A'yun and Bukayr bin A’yun asked Imam Baqir (s) about the ankles and he answered them so.[176]So was mentioned by Sheikh as-Sadooq.[177]The linguists said that every joint of bones was called “ka’b” ankle.

The Sunni scholars said that the two “ka’bs” ankles were the two protruding bones on the two sides of the leg. They justified that by saying that if the “ka’b” was the joint between the foot and the leg, then each leg would have one “ka’b” and so it should be said (and your legs to the “ka’bs” ankles)[178]as each hand had one elbow so it was said (and your hands to the elbows).

I said: if it was mentioned in the verse (the two elbows), it would be right too without any confusion. Then the meaning would be (wash your faces and hands to the two elbows of each of you and wipe your heads and feet to the two ankles of each of you). The duality or plurality of the two words in the verse didn’t affect the meaning and also the duality of one of them and the plurality of the other wouldn’t affect the right meaning. Perhaps diversity in expression required that.

This would be if each leg had one ankle but if each leg had two ankles then there would be no way for their justification.

The anatomists confirmed that there was a round bone like the ankle of a cow or a sheep beneath the bone of the leg forming a joint between the leg and the foot. It was called ankle (ka’b) too.[179]Hence wiping each foot ended to “ka’bayn” two ankles, which were the very joint and the round bone under it. In dualing the word “ankle” only without the word “elbow” in the verse there was a wonderful point referring to something that was not known except by the anatomists. Glory be to Allah, the Creator, the Aware, the Wise!

WIPING OVER SLIPPERS AND SOCKS

The Muslim jurisprudents disagreed upon wiping over slippers and socks so widely that we couldn’t discuss all the details in this short chapter. Generally the research concerned its permissibility or impermissibility, specifying its position, time, conditions and contradictions.

As for its permissibility, there were three sayings:

First: it was permissible at all whether in travel or residence.

Second: it was permissible only in travel and not in residence.

Third: it was impermissible at all because it had not been confirmed by the laws of the religion.

These three sayings were narrated from the first age (of Islam) and from Malik.[180]

As for specifying its position (on the feet), it was disagreed upon it. Some said that what was obligatory was wiping the upper side of the slipper and that wiping its lower side was mustahab.[181]Some said it was obligatory to wipe the upper side and the lower side of the slipper.[182]Some said it was obligatory to wipe the upper side only and wiping the lower side was neither obligatory nor mustahab.[183]Some might say that it was optional to choose between wiping the upper side and the lower side. Which of them was wiped would be obligatory.[184]

As for the position of wiping, those who believed in wiping over the slippers disagreed upon wiping over the socks; some permitted it and others prohibited it.[185]

As for the kind of the slipper, they disagreed upon wiping over the torn slipper; some said it was permissible as long as it was called a slipper even if it was so badly torn;[186]some prohibited it if there was a tear in the front of the slipper that something of the foot might appear even if it was so little[187]and some permitted it if the tear was small.[188]

As for the time of wiping, they disagreed upon it too. Some said it was not timed and that the wearer of the slippers could wipe over them as long as he didn’t take them off or he didn’t become impure.[189]Some said it was timed with a certain time for the resident and another time for the traveler.[190]They disagreed upon the kind of travel and its distance.

As for the conditions of wiping over the slippers; the feet must be pure (by wudu’) when wearing the slippers. Most of them decided this condition but it was mentioned that Malik had considered it as not necessary.[191]They disagreed in this concern about one, who washed his feet and put on his slippers and then completed his wudu’ that if he would be satisfied with washing his feet or he had to wipe over the slippers. There were two different sayings.[192]

Among the contradictions of wiping over the slippers was taking off the slippers. Some said that one would remain pure if he took his slippers off until he committed something invalidating his wudu’ and he didn’t have to wash his feet.[193]Some said that one’s purity would be invalidated as soon as he took his slippers off.[194]Others said that one would remain pure if he washed his feet after taking off the slippers but if he offered the prayer without washing his feet he would have to offer the prayer again after washing his feet[195]besides other different sayings and beliefs concerning wiping over the slipper, which we didn’t want to detail them in this chapter.

The Shia believed, according to their infallible imams (s), that wiping over the slippers was impermissible whether in travel or in residence. Our evidence for that was the saying of Allah the Almighty:(…and wipe your heads and your feet to the (two) ankles). Allah had ordered to wipe the feet themselves so who had decided to wipe over the slippers? Was this Quranic verse annulled? Was it allegorical? Certainly not! It was one of the decisive verses of the Quran according to the consensus of the umma. The interpreters agreed upon that no verse of sura of al-Ma’ida, which included this verse of wudu’, was annulled except one verse(O you who believe! do not violate the signs appointed by Allah…) [196]5:2.

The traditions talking about wiping over the slippers were not evidenced by the Shia according to the conditions determining the rightfulness of traditions besides other things that showed the weakness of those traditions:

First: those traditions contradicted the Quran and the true traditions of the Prophet (s). The Prophet (s) said: “If someone narrates a tradition to you pretending that I have said it, you are to compare it to the Quran. If it complies with the Quran, then you are to accept it but if not then you are to deny it.”[197]

Second: those traditions contradicted themselves and contradicted each other; therefore much disagreement happened between those, who acted according to them and tried to justify them in a way or another. Their sayings were contradictory because the traditions themselves were contradictory.[198]

Third: the infallible imams (Ali and his progeny) agreed upon the impermissibility of wiping over any obstacle (other than the bare foot) whether it was slippers, socks, shoes or anything else.[199]The traditions narrated by them contradicted clearly that ones narrated by the Sunni that permitted wiping over slippers.

The basic rule in dealing with the contradictory traditions was to depend upon what complied with the holy Quran. This would be if the traditions were equal in the reliability of the series of the narrators and the subject of the traditions. But would anyone be equal to the Prophet’s progeny; the infallible imams, who were as equal as the Quran?

Fourth: if those traditions were true, they were recurrent in every age and in every country because knowing the purity of the feet in wudu’-as we said before-was necessary for all the men and the women of the umma. It was necessary in every day and every night whether in residence or travel. If it was other than the wiping mentioned in the Quranic verse, it would be known by the Muslims at the age of the Prophet (s) and after that and it would be famous among all the Muslims throughout the ages especially when it was abnormal and odd! But as it was not so, the weakness of those traditions appeared clearly and made them be brushed aside.

Fifth: if it was supposed that those traditions were true, then they would be annulled by the sura of al-Ma’ida because it was the last sura of the Quran that nothing was revealed after it, with which Allah (had perfected the religion, completed the favor and chosen Islam as a religion) so its obligations were obligatory until the Day of Resurrection and its haram was haram until the Day of Resurrection as Aa’isha had said to Jubayr bin Nufayr, who had visited her after performing hajj: “O Jubayr, did you recite al-Ma’ida?” He said: “Yes, I did.” She said: “It was the last sura of the Quran that was revealed. Whatever permissible thing it has (it orders to be followed), you are to do it and whatever impermissible thing it has (it forbids from) you are to avoid it.”[200]

In spite of that the Sunni clung to the act of wiping over the slippers even after the revelation of al-Ma’ida. They depended upon a tradition narrated by Jareer. Once he made water and then he performed wudu’ and wiped over his slippers. He was asked: “Why did you do so?” he said: “I saw the Prophet (s) do so. He made water and then he performed wudu’ and wiped over his slippers.”

Muslim mentioned this tradition and said that it was admired by them and he justified that by saying that Jareer became a Muslim after the revelation of al-Ma’ida.[201]

Jareer became a Muslim before the revelation of al-Ma’ida because he was present with the Prophet (s) during the last (farewell) hajj of the Prophet (s). He was ordered, at that day, to ask the people to be silent-as it was mentioned inal-Issaba .

So definitely he became a Muslim before that hajj and definitely al-Ma’ida was not revealed before that hajj.[202]

At-Tabarani mentioned a tradition that Jareer had said: “The Prophet (s) said: Your brother an-Najashi died…” The death of an-Najashi was before the revelation of al-Mai’da. There was no doubt that he had died before the tenth year of hijra.

Al-Qastalani had another odd saying about wiping over the slippers. He said: “Wiping was not annulled because the tradition narrated by al-Mugheera showed clearly that the Prophet (s) had wiped over his slippers during the battle of Tabook, which was the last battle of the Prophet (s), and al-Ma’ida was revealed during the battle of al-Muraysee’…”

The battle of al-Muraysee’ was the battle of bani al-Mustalaq itself. It was in the fifth-and it was said in the fourth or in the sixth-[203]year of hijra. After this battle many suras were revealed besides al-Ma’ida. What was revealed during this battle was the verse of tayammum, which was a part of sura of an-Nissa’:(…and if you are sick, or on a journey, or one of you come from the privy or you have touched the women, and you cannot find water, betake yourselves to pure earth, then wipe your faces and your hands; surely Allah is Pardoning, Forgiving) 4:43.

The true saying about that was narrated by Aa’isha and mentioned by al-Wahidy in his bookAsbab an-Nuzool . Refer to it to be sure that al-Qastalani was confused between the verse of wudu’ and the verse of tayammum.

In fact al-Mugheera and Jareer were among those, whom we couldn’t trust or rely upon. Soon you shall see the history of al-Mugheera that makes us not trust in him.

Jareer had a situation towards Imam Ali that made us not trust in him too.

Sixth: Aa’isha, the Prophet’s wife, who was so clever and aware of the Sunna and who lived in the house, where the Quran was revealed, denied wiping over the slippers very strongly. Ibn Abbas, who was the scholar of the umma and the vessel of the Book and the Sunna, also denied wiping over the slippers so insistingly. They both denied this matter to a degree that Aa’isha said: “To cut my feet is much more desirable to me than to wipe over the slippers” and ibn Abbas said: “To wipe over a donkey’s skin is much more desirable to me than to wipe over the slippers.”[204]

Would this kind of denying comply with those traditions?

Certainly not! If these sayings were said by these persons, who lived with the revelation of the Quran and knew every corner of it, then would we brush them aside to rely upon sayings said by persons coming centuries after the revelation of the Quran?

Whoever pondered impartially on the denying of the Prophet’s wife, the Prophet’s cousin and the Prophet’s pure progeny, definitely would suspect those false traditions.

Then you would know well that saying that those traditions were recurrent was just a lie. Were they so recurrent whereas those close persons to the Prophet (s) ignored them or pretended to ignore them? Glory be to Allah! This was but a great fabrication!

In fact if those traditions were recurrent, they wouldn’t be denied by Abdullah bin Omar,[205]Imam Malik[206]and many other Muslims.

He, who said: “I am afraid that whoever doesn’t believe in wiping over the slippers will be unbeliever”[207]had done wrong so badly.

It was mentioned that wiping over the slipper was neither of the bases of the religion nor of the necessities of its branches nor was determined by the Quran or the Sunna nor was agreed upon by the consensus of the umma. It was just a concession among a group of the Muslims away from the others. Would it be a sin if a Muslim gave it up in order to de according to the clear Quranic verse of wudu’, which all the Muslims agreed unanimously upon the validity of acting according to the verdicts mentioned in? They agreed upon that unanimously unlike wiping over the slipper, which was a point of dispute and disagreement among the Muslims and which would never lead to remove any impurity from the feet and so the validity of the prayer would be uncertain.

Then would he, who followed the orders of the Quran and performed his obligations with precaution, be considered as unbeliever? O you Muslims! What would you say about Aa’isha, Ali, ibn Abbas and the rest of the Prophet’s progeny, who denied wiping over the slippers?

Wiping over the turban

The Shia ulema thought that wiping over the turban was impermissible. This was the belief of ash-Shafi’iy, Abu Haneefa and Malik.

Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, Abu Thour, al-Qassim bin Salam, al-Awza’iy and ath-Thawri[208]contradicted that and said that it was permissible according to their analogy in applying wiping over the slippers to the turban and depending upon a tradition narrated by al-Mugheera bin Shu’ba that the Prophet (s) had wiped over his forelock and over his turban. In some ways of his tradition he said that the Prophet (s) had wiped over the turban and he didn’t mention the forelock.

The Quran sufficed us when saying:(… and wipe your heads…) and the Sunna proved that the Prophet (s) used to wipe his forelock and this was confirmed unanimously and didn’t need any explanation.

Their excuse by applying analogy to the divine verdicts was not acceptable because the religion of Allah was not to be taken by analogy.

Wiping over the slippers was denied as you already knew. The tradition of al-Mugheera was null even if it was mentioned by Muslim in hisSahih . Abu Omar bin Abdul Birr said about this tradition: “It is a suspicious tradition.”[209]Perhaps Abu Haneefa, ash-Shafi’iy and Malik didn’t care for this tradition because it was suspicious for them too.

Al-Mugheera had a biography full of cunning, deception, changeableness, trickery, immersing in sins, plunging into lusts and exceeding in perfidy. He exceeded all the limits in supporting the enemies of the Prophet’s progeny and in opposing the loyal believers.

He became a Muslim in order to spare his blood from bani[210]Malik. Once he went with some notable men of bani Malik to visit al-Muqawqas in Alexandria. The people of bani Malik won the prize of the king but al-Mugheera didn’t. Greediness led him to betray them. He invited them to drink while they entrusted in his companionship. He made them drink until they became drunken. Then he killed them one after the other and seized their monies. Since he couldn’t find any shelter to resort to in order to be safe from being revenged on except to join Islam, he went to the Prophet (s) in Medina and said the shahada. The Prophet (s) accepted his shahada as he used to do with everyone saying the shahada. When al-Mugheera offered to give the monies to the Prophet (s), the Prophet (s) with his holy soul disdained to accept them because they were seized by betraying.[211]In this way al-Mugheera became a Muslim.

Abu Bakra, who was one of the great prophet’s companions, and his companions witnessed that al-Mugheera had committed adultery, which would have led him to be punished by being stoned until death according to the Islamic laws. This was very famous case among the events of the year seventeen A.H.[212]O you people! How could we then deny the holy Quran and depend upon a tradition narrated by such a man?!!

Does wiping the head have a limit?

The Shia ulema thought that there was no limit in wiping the head whether for the wiping organ (the hand) or for the wiped organ (the head). It was enough for the Shia to wipe the least part of the head as possible.[213]This was the belief of ash-Shafi’iy too. Imam Malik, Imam Ahmad and others thought that it was obligatory to wipe all the head. Abu Haneefa thought that it was obligatory to wipe a quarter of the head with three fingers and less than that would not suffice.

Our evidence (the Shia’s evidence) was the Quranic verse(… and wipe your heads…). [214] The real meaning of the verse referred to the general wiping of the head. Since wiping the head was achieved by wiping all the head or a quarter of it, also it would be achieved by wiping less than that even by passing one finger or a part of a finger over a part of the head. There was no any evidence confirming what they said in this concern. If Allah wanted all the head to be wiped, he would say: (wipe your heads-without using the preposition) as He had said: (wash your faces) and if the required thing to be wiped was certain, Allah would specify it with some kind of definition as He had said when talking about washing the hands (… and wash… your hands to the elbows ) and when talking about the feet He said: (… to the ankles ).