Taharah: Points of Agreement and Difference

Ibn Rushd opens Bidayat al-Mujtahid with the topic of taharah (ritual purification), as all classical legal manuals do. His treatment here sets the pattern for the rest of the book: he identifies what scholars agree on, what they differ on, and why the differences arose — tracing each dispute back to its source in the texts or in interpretive principles.

All four Sunni schools agree on the basic nature of purification: it is a precondition for prayer, and it consists of removing ritual impurity (hadath) either through wudu (minor purification) or ghusl (major purification). They agree that water is the primary agent of purification, that the face, hands, head, and feet are the areas specified in the Quran for wudu, and that the entire body must be washed in ghusl.

The disagreements begin at the level of detail. On the wiping of the head in wudu, the Quran says (5:6) to 'wipe your heads' without specifying how much. The Maliki school requires wiping the entire head, arguing that the Arabic particle 'ba' (in wamsahu bi-ru'usikum) does not indicate partiality. The Shafi'i and Hanbali schools hold that wiping any part of the head suffices, since the 'ba' indicates a partitive sense in Arabic. The Hanafi school holds that wiping a quarter of the head suffices, based on a specific narration. Ibn Rushd identifies the root of the disagreement as a difference in Arabic grammatical analysis of the particle 'ba' — a linguistic dispute with legal consequences.

On touching women as a nullifier of wudu, the Quran mentions 'touching women' among the conditions requiring purification (4:43, 5:6). The Shafi'i school takes this literally: any skin-to-skin contact between a marriageable man and woman nullifies wudu. The Maliki school requires that the contact be accompanied by pleasure or its intent. The Hanafi school interprets 'touching' as a euphemism for sexual intercourse, so skin contact alone does not nullify wudu in their view. The root of this disagreement is whether the Quranic term lams (touching) is to be understood literally or metaphorically — a classic example of the schools differing over the interpretation of an ambiguous Quranic expression.

For ghusl, the schools agree on its obligation after sexual intercourse, ejaculation, menstruation, and post-natal bleeding. They disagree on whether rinsing the mouth and nostrils is obligatory within ghusl (Shafi'i and Hanbali hold it obligatory; Maliki and Hanafi hold it recommended). They also disagree on whether a single immersion of the body in water with intention constitutes a valid ghusl, or whether deliberate washing of each part is required.

Tayammum — dry purification with clean earth — is agreed upon as permissible when water is absent or harmful. The schools differ on how many strikes of the earth are required (one or two) and whether tayammum is tied to a single prayer time or remains valid until a nullifier occurs. Ibn Rushd traces each difference to the varying interpretations of the Quranic verse on tayammum (5:6) and the relevant hadiths.

This comparative analysis of taharah demonstrates the book's central thesis: scholarly disagreement in fiqh is neither arbitrary nor irreconcilable — it is the product of consistent application of different but legitimate interpretive principles to shared sources.