Taharah in Tabyin al-Haqaiq: Hanafi Purification with Hadith Grounding

Az-Zayla'i's taharah commentary in Tabyin al-Haqaiq demonstrates his distinctive combination of Hanafi legal formulation and hadith scholarship. Where other Hanafi commentators might state the school's position and then offer logical arguments, az-Zayla'i goes further — examining the hadiths cited by Hanafi scholars and evaluating their authenticity before building the legal argument.

The Hanafi classification of water presents two primary categories for purification purposes: tahir wa mutahhir (pure and purifying — water that retains its original description) and tahir ghayr mutahhir (pure but not purifying — specifically water used in an obligatory purification or water mixed with a pure substance that has altered its description). A third category — najis (impure) — applies to water that has changed due to contact with impurity. Az-Zayla'i explains this classification with reference to the Quranic command (al-Ma'idah 5:6) to purify with 'water' (ma'), which implies water that retains the description of water.

The Hanafi position that any amount of water is pure unless it has actually changed in one of its characteristics (regardless of volume) is defended by az-Zayla'i against the Shafi'i two-qullah threshold. He evaluates the two-qullah hadith's chain of transmission and notes the debate among hadith scholars about its reliability. The Hanafi view, in az-Zayla'i's analysis, is that the general hadith 'Water is pure and nothing makes it impure' (Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi) is more reliably established and takes precedence when the two-qullah hadith's authentication is uncertain.

For wudu, az-Zayla'i's commentary on Kanz ad-Daqa'iq explains the four Hanafi obligatory acts (fard) with their hadith basis. Washing the face is established by the Quranic text; washing the arms to the elbows likewise; wiping at least a quarter of the head (the Hanafi minimum — derived from the particle 'bi' in the Quranic phrase 'wamsahu bi-ru'usikum' being interpreted as indicating partial wiping); and washing the feet to the ankles. Az-Zayla'i examines the linguistic argument for the quarter-head ruling — specifically the debate about whether 'bi' in Arabic implies partial contact or complete contact — acknowledging the Shafi'i and Hanbali counter-arguments while defending the Hanafi position.

The Hanafi school's treatment of the intention (niyyah) as a sunnah (recommended but not obligatory) element of wudu is explained by az-Zayla'i with reference to the hadith 'Actions are by intentions' (al-Bukhari, Muslim). He explains the Hanafi reasoning: this hadith speaks to the completeness and reward of actions, not to their validity. Wudu performed without intention is physically valid (the limbs are washed, the prayer condition is met) but spiritually incomplete (the intention's absence means the full spiritual reward is not gained). The Shafi'i counter-argument — that the hadith establishes intention as a condition of validity — is acknowledged and addressed.

Az-Zayla'i's analysis of the musta'mal water question (water used for an obligatory purification) presents the Hanafi position that such water is pure but not purifying. He examines the hadiths on this question and notes that none of them explicitly state that used water is incapable of purification — the Hanafi ruling is derived by reasoning from the principle that once water has fulfilled its purifying function it has been 'used up' in a legal sense, not from a specific prohibitory text. This honest acknowledgment of the reasoning's basis in juridical principle (rather than explicit text) characterizes az-Zayla'i's scholarly approach.