Kitab al-Tahara - Sharh Maani al-Athar (al-Tahawi)

الطهارة

Kitab al-Tahara - Sharh Maani al-Athar, al-Tahawi

ed. Alam al-Kutub / tahqiq al-Najjar - turath book 21108 - vol 1, print pp.11-129

27 contested masail - learn the A→B→C→D shape, redraw from memory

A - position argued against B - al-Tahawi's position C - the move (his own words) D - ruling editor layer (not his words)

The 27 masail

Najāsa falling into water: does only sensory change spoil it, or contact too - and does the amount decide?
The cat's leftover water: any harm in it, or disliked?
The dog's leftover: seven washings, or washed like any other najāsa?
A human's leftover: may a man use a woman's leftover water, and a woman a man's?
The tasmiya at wuḍūʾ: a condition of validity, or only a fault to omit?
Wuḍūʾ once-each vs three-times-each: which is the farḍ?
Wiping the head: is the farḍ the whole head or only part?
The two ears in wuḍūʾ: is the FRONT of the ear washed (with the face) or wiped (with the head)?
The two feet in wuḍūʾ: washing (ghasl) or wiping (masḥ)?
Wuḍūʾ: obligatory for every prayer, or not?
Madhy (prostatic fluid): is washing the member a separate obligation?
Semen: pure (ṭāhir) or impure (najis)?
Intercourse without ejaculation: is ghusl obligatory?
Eating what fire has altered: does it obligate wuḍūʾ?
Touching the privates: does it break wuḍūʾ?
Wiping over the khuffayn: how long is its term - limited or not?
May the junub / the menstruant / the one without wuḍūʾ recite Qurʾān?
Urine of the boy vs the girl before they eat solid food: pure or impure?
Finds only date-nabīdh: wuḍūʾ with it, or tayammum?
Wiping over sandals - permitted like the khuffayn?
The mustaḥāḍa: how she purifies for prayer (and: wuḍūʾ per prayer or per waqt?)
Urine of meat-animals: pure (like its flesh) or impure (like its blood)?
The manner of tayammum: which limbs, how many strikes? (three camps)
The Friday ghusl: obligatory or recommended?
Cleaning with stones: is the count fixed (≥3, odd)?
Cleaning with bones: does a bone fail to purify, or is the ban extrinsic?
The junub who wants to sleep: must he do wuḍūʾ first? (sleep strand)

بَابُ الْمَاءِ يَقَعُ فِيهِ النَّجَاسَةُ

Najāsa falling into water: does only sensory change spoil it, or contact too - and does the amount decide?

āthār 1-44
print p11-18 · vol 1

Hook: the "water is not made najis" reports describe the well after the filth was taken out - standing water touched by najāsa IS defiled; amount is not the criterion.

A · Position argued against

Camp A - sensory-only: nothing spoils water unless it changes its colour, taste, or smell.

فَذَهَبَ قَوْمٌ إِلَى هَذِهِ الْآثَارِ، فَقَالُوا: لَا يُنَجِّسُ الْمَاءَ شَيْءٌ وَقَعَ فِيهِ، إِلَّا أَنْ يُغَيِّرَ لَوْنَهُ، أَوْ طَعْمَهُ، أَوْ رِيحَهُ

al-Ṭaḥāwī reporting Camp A · athar 5 · p11

Their proof: the Biʾr Buḍāʿa report - "the water is pure, nothing makes it najis."

إِنَّ الْمَاءَ طَهُورٌ لَا يُنَجِّسُهُ شَيْءٌ

narration, Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī · athar 2 · p11 · [narration]

Camp C - two qullas: a quantity rule - once water reaches two qullas it does not carry impurity.

إِذَا بَلَغَ الْمَاءُ قُلَّتَيْنِ؛ فَلَيْسَ يَحْمِلُ الْخَبَثَ

narration, Ibn ʿUmar · athar 24 · p15 · [narration]

Editor layer: al-Ṭaḥāwī names the opposing camps only as قَوْمٌ / آخَرُونَ / هَؤُلَاءِ الْقَوْمُ. The Mālikī/Ẓāhirī (A) and Shāfiʿī/Ḥanbalī two-qulla (C) names are the muḥaqqiq's, not his matn.

B · al-Ṭaḥāwī's position

With his companions (أَصْحَابُنَا standing water IS defiled by contact even with no sensory change; running and large flowing water is not. Well water is najis on contact regardless of amount, and is purified by baling out (nazḥ).

وَخَالَفَهُمْ فِي ذَلِكَ آخَرُونَ، فَقَالُوا: أَمَّا مَا ذَكَرْتُمُوهُ مِنْ بِئْرِ بُضَاعَةَ فَلَا حُجَّةَ لَكُمْ فِيهِ

al-Ṭaḥāwī reporting his camp · athar 5 · p11

Proof: the Prophet ﷺ forbade urinating in STANDING (non-running) water - singling it out is meaningful; najāsa penetrates standing water but not running.

لَا يَبُولَنَّ أَحَدُكُمْ فِي الْمَاءِ الدَّائِمِ الَّذِي لَا يَجْرِي، ثُمَّ يَغْتَسِلُ فِيهِ

narration, Abū Hurayra · athar 15 · p14 · [narration]

↓ THE MOVE

C · The move حَالِ كَوْنِ النَّجَاسَةِ فِيهَا

He reads the "not made najis" reports by their state: they mean water does not remain najis once the filth is removed - not that it stays pure while najāsa is mixing in it. He keeps every report sound and steers each to its own state, "so the meanings agree and do not contradict."

فَكَانَ مَعْنَى قَوْلِهِ «إِنَّ الْأَرْضَ لَا تَنْجُسُ» أَيْ أَنَّهَا لَا تَبْقَى نَجِسَةً إِذَا زَالَتِ النَّجَاسَةُ مِنْهَا، لَا أَنَّهُ يُرِيدُ أَنَّهَا غَيْرُ نَجِسَةٍ فِي حَالِ كَوْنِ النَّجَاسَةِ فِيهَا

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 13 · p14

لِتَتَّفِقَ مَعَانِي ذَلِكَ، وَمَعَانِي هَذِهِ الْآثَارِ، وَلَا تَتَضَادَّ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 23 · p15

Move-label: his own state-restriction phrase «حَالِ كَوْنِ النَّجَاسَةِ فِيهَا» + his reconciling purpose «لِتَتَّفِقَ … وَلَا تَتَضَادَّ». For Camp C he answers «لَمْ يُبَيَّنْ لَنَا فِي هَذِهِ الْآثَارِ مَا مِقْدَارُهُمَا» - an evidentiary-scope filter, not naskh, not jamʿ/tawfīq (those words are not in his matn).

↓ therefore

D · Ruling

ثَبَتَ بِذَلِكَ أَنَّ مَا فِي حَدِيثِ الْقُلَّتَيْنِ هُوَ عَلَى الْمَاءِ الَّذِي يَجْرِي وَلَا يُنْظَرُ فِي ذَلِكَ إِلَى مِقْدَارِ الْمَاءِ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · after athar 30 · p16

Standing water touched by najāsa is defiled; running water is the exception; the two-qulla quantity rule is not established - amount is not the criterion.

Madhhab (his words): وَهَذَا كُلُّهُ قَوْلُ أَبِي حَنِيفَةَ، وَأَبِي يُوسُفَ، وَمُحَمَّدٍ.

Zoom-in · the evidence behind the move

1 · Biʾr Buḍāʿa - what "not made najis" covers

Hinge: so much filth could not fall in without changing the smell or taste, yet the report mentions no change - so the question was asked AFTER the filth was removed.

يُرِيدُ بِذَلِكَ الْمَاءَ الَّذِي طَرَأَ عَلَيْهَا بَعْدَ إِخْرَاجِ النَّجَاسَةِ مِنْهَا لَا أَنَّ الْمَاءَ لَا يَنْجُسُ إِذَا خَالَطَتْهُ النَّجَاسَةُ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 6 · p13

Ruling: the report describes water after removal; contact-defilement of standing water stands.

2 · standing vs running - why the Prophet ﷺ singled out still water

Evidence under the move: he singled out the standing water and left running water out - najāsa penetrates the one and not the other.

فَلَمَّا خَصَّ رَسُولُ اللهِ ﷺ الْمَاءَ الرَّاكِدَ الَّذِي لَا يَجْرِي دُونَ الْمَاءِ الْجَارِي، عَلِمْنَا بِذَلِكَ أَنَّهُ إِنَّمَا فَصَّلَ ذَلِكَ، لِأَنَّ النَّجَاسَةَ تُدَاخِلُ الْمَاءَ الَّذِي لَا يَجْرِي، وَلَا تُدَاخِلُ الْمَاءِ الْجَارِيَ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 23 · p15

Ruling: the standing/running distinction governs; this is the rule for non-running water touched by najāsa.

3 · the two qullas - report kept sound, quantity rule rejected

Evidence under the move: he does not attack the qulla report's authenticity - he attacks what it fixes: "two qullas" is left undefined, so no rule can be built on it.

فَكَانَ مِنَ الْحُجَّةِ عَلَيْهِمْ لِأَهْلِ الْمَقَالَةِ الَّتِي صَحَّحْنَاهَا أَنَّ هَاتَيْنِ الْقُلَّتَيْنِ لَمْ يُبَيَّنْ لَنَا فِي هَذِهِ الْآثَارِ مَا مِقْدَارُهُمَا

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 29 · p16

Ruling: the qulla report is steered to flowing water; amount is not the criterion. (The supporting Rāshid b. Saʿd report he DOES filter on isnād: مُنْقَطِعٌ - an evidentiary filter, not reconciliation.)

4 · wells & baling-out - uncontested transmitted practice

Evidence under the move: the Companions and Tābiʿūn made well water najis on contact regardless of amount and purified it by baling out (nazḥ); they did not seal or wash the walls - and no contrary report exists.

قَدْ جَعَلُوا مِيَاهَ الْآبَارِ نَجِسَةً بِوُقُوعِ النَّجَاسَاتِ فِيهَا، وَلَمْ يُرَاعُوا كَثْرَتَهَا وَلَا قِلَّتَهَا، وَرَاعَوْا دَوَامَهَا وَرُكُودَهَا، وَفَرَّقُوا بَيْنَهَا وَبَيْنَ مَا يَجْرِي مِمَّا سِوَاهَا

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 44 · p18

Ruling: a well is baled, not sealed - as the dog-licked vessel was washed, not broken.

Cross-bāb reliance (flagged): al-Ṭaḥāwī twice leans on the dog-licked-vessel (wulūgh al-kalb) ruling argued in a DIFFERENT bāb («فَكَمَا لَمْ يُؤْمَرْ بِكَسْرِ ذَلِكَ الْإِنَاءِ، فَكَذَلِكَ لَا يُؤْمَرُ بِطَمِّ تِلْكَ الْبِئْرِ, al-Ṭaḥāwī, athar 44, p18). Only his USE of it is shown here, not that separate proof. The vessel/well comparison is his own plain analogy - he does NOT say قِيَاسً, so it is left unlabelled.

بَابُ سُؤْرِ الْهِرِّ

The cat's leftover water: any harm in it, or disliked?

āthār 45-62
print p18-21 · vol 1

Hook (intra-Ḥanafī): Abū Yūsuf & Muḥammad see no harm; al-Ṭaḥāwī adopts Abū Ḥanīfa's karāha - grounded by naẓar on the flesh the cat's mouth touches.

A · Position argued against

Camp A - no harm: they saw no harm in the cat's leftover; among them Abū Yūsuf and Muḥammad.

فَذَهَبَ قَوْمٌ إِلَى هَذِهِ الْآثَارِ فَلَمْ يَرَوْا بِسُؤْرِ الْهِرِّ بَأْسًا. وَمِمَّنْ ذَهَبَ إِلَى ذَلِكَ أَبُو يُوسُفَ وَمُحَمَّدٌ. وَخَالَفَهُمْ فِي ذَلِكَ آخَرُونَ، فَكَرِهُوهُ

al-Ṭaḥāwī naming the two camps · athar 50 · p19

Their proof: the Prophet ﷺ said the cat is "not impure - it is one of those that go about among you."

إِنَّهَا لَيْسَتْ بِنَجَسٍ، إِنَّهَا مِنَ الطَّوَّافِينَ عَلَيْكُمْ أَوِ الطَّوَّافَاتِ

narration, Abū Qatāda → Kabsha · athar 45 · p19 · [narration]

Editor layer: the dispute here is within the madhhab - Abū Yūsuf + Muḥammad (no harm) vs Abū Ḥanīfa (karāha), all named in his matn.

B · al-Ṭaḥāwī's position

With the second camp: the cat's leftover is disliked (karāha) - Abū Ḥanīfa's view. His positive ground is al-naẓar: the leftover takes the ruling of the flesh the mouth touches, and cat-flesh is forbidden to eat.

وَقَدْ شَدَّ هَذَا الْقَوْلُ النَّظَرَ الصَّحِيحَ، وَذَلِكَ أَنَّا رَأَيْنَا اللُّحْمَانَ عَلَى أَرْبَعَةِ أَوْجُهٍ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 62 · p21

Supporting marfūʿ report: wash the vessel a cat laps in once or twice.

طَهُورُ الْإِنَاءِ إِذَا وَلَغَ فِيهِ الْهِرُّ أَنْ يُغْسَلَ مَرَّةً أَوْ مَرَّتَيْنِ

narration, Abū Hurayra · athar 51 · p19 · [narration]

↓ THE MOVE

C · The move النَّظَرِ

He does two things, not one device: (1) an evidentiary filter - the "ṭawwāfīn" report only denies najāsa and may concern the cat being in homes / touching clothes, so it yields no proof either way; (2) affirmative naẓar grounding karāha from the flesh the cat's mouth touches.

وَقَدْ شَدَّ هَذَا الْقَوْلُ النَّظَرَ الصَّحِيحَ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 62 · p21

فَلَا يَنْبَغِي أَنْ يُحْتَجَّ مِنْ قَوْلِ رَسُولِ اللهِ ﷺ بِمَا قَدْ يَحْتَمِلُ الْمَعْنَى الَّذِي يُحْتَجُّ بِهِ فِيهِ وَيُحْتَمَلُ خِلَافُهُ

al-Ṭaḥāwī (the iḥtimāl filter on Camp A's proof) · athar 50 · p19

Move-label: النَّظَرِ (his word) - affirmative reasoning by the flesh-categories - plus an iḥtimāl-based evidentiary filter (يُحْتَمَلُ / لَا حُجَّةَ) dissolving the opponent's proof. NOT naskh / jamʿ / tarjīḥ - none in his matn.

↓ therefore

D · Ruling

فَثَبَتَ بِذَلِكَ كَرَاهَةُ سُؤْرِ السِّنَّوْرِ، فَبِهَذَا نَأْخُذُ، وَهُوَ قَوْلُ أَبِي حَنِيفَةَ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 62 · p21

The cat's leftover is disliked (karāha) - not full najāsa and not ḥarām. al-Ṭaḥāwī adopts it and names it Abū Ḥanīfa's view.

بَابُ سُؤْرِ الْكَلْبِ

The dog's leftover: seven washings, or washed like any other najāsa?

āthār 63-77
print p21-24 · vol 1

Hook: Abū Hurayra narrated "seven" yet later gave fatwa for "three" - so the seven is abrogated (نَسْخُ, his own word); the dog's lapping makes the water najis.

A · Position argued against

A1 - seven washings: the vessel is not pure until washed seven times, the first with dust.

فَذَهَبَ قَوْمٌ إِلَى هَذَا الْأَثَرِ، فَقَالُوا: لَا يَطْهُرُ الْإِنَاءُ إِذَا وَلَغَ فِيهِ الْكَلْبُ حَتَّى يُغْسَلَ سَبْعَ مَرَّاتٍ

al-Ṭaḥāwī reporting Camp A1 · athar 67 · p21 · [narration]

A2 - taʿabbud: the water stays pure; the seven washings are a pure devotional act, confined to vessels.

إِنَّمَا ذَلِكَ تَعَبُّدٌ، تُعُبِّدْنَا بِهِ فِي الْآنِيَةِ خَاصَّةً

al-Ṭaḥāwī reporting Camp A2 · athar 77 · p23

Editor layer: his words for the camps are قَوْمٌ / آخَرُونَ / الْمُخَالِفِ لَنَا; no school names in this matn.

B · al-Ṭaḥāwī's position

With the "others": the vessel is washed from the dog's lapping as from any other najāsa (the dog's residue is a lighter najāsa than urine/dung, which are purified by less). His proof is Abū Hurayra's own later fatwa: wash it three times.

وَخَالَفَهُمْ فِي ذَلِكَ آخَرُونَ، فَقَالُوا: يُغْسَلُ الْإِنَاءُ مِنْ ذَلِكَ، كَمَا يُغْسَلُ مِنْ سَائِرِ النَّجَاسَاتِ

al-Ṭaḥāwī framing his camp · athar 67 · p21 · [narration]

فِي الْإِنَاءِ يَلِغُ فِيهِ الْكَلْبُ أَوِ الْهِرُّ، قَالَ: «يُغْسَلُ ثَلَاثَ مَرَّاتٍ

narration, Abū Hurayra's fatwa · athar 74 · p23 · [narration]

↓ THE MOVE

C · The move نَسْخُ السَّبْعِ

Abū Hurayra narrated the seven yet later gave fatwa for three. Presuming his integrity, he would not abandon what he heard from the Prophet ﷺ except for its like - so the three-washings report abrogates the seven (his own word نَسْخُ

ثَبَتَ بِذَلِكَ نَسْخُ السَّبْعِ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 74 · p23

Move-label: نَسْخُ - literally in his matn. Secondary reductio (not the hinge): if the seven must still be acted on, Ibn al-Mughaffal's "seven + eighth with dust" is stronger, so the opponent should require eight - وَالزَّائِدُ أَوْلَى مِنَ النَّاقِصِ. The lighter-vs-heavier-najāsa argument is qiyās-shaped but the word قِيَاسً is not in the matn, so it is described, not labelled.

↓ therefore

D · Ruling

أَنَّ وُلُوغَ الْكَلْبِ فِي الْمَاءِ يُنَجِّسُ الْمَاءَ

al-Ṭaḥāwī (water IS made najis, via the qullatayn report) · athar 77 · p24

The dog's lapping makes the water najis; the seven are abrogated. The "three washings" for the vessel is inferred from Abū Hurayra's cited fatwa + the lighter-najāsa reasoning - not stated as a clean closing formula in this bāb. (The full naẓar on why the residue is lighter sits in bāb suʾr al-hirr.)

Madhhab (his words): وَجَمِيعُ مَا بَيَّنَّا فِي هَذَا الْبَابِ هُوَ قَوْلُ أَبِي حَنِيفَةَ، وَأَبِي يُوسُفَ، وَمُحَمَّدٍ. Cross-bāb tension: the qullatayn report he leans on here is the very report whose quantity-rule he rejected in bāb al-māʾ.

بَابُ سُؤْرِ بَنِي آدَمَ

A human's leftover: may a man use a woman's leftover water, and a woman a man's?

āthār 78-106
print p24-26 · vol 1

Hook: the prohibition-reports clash with the single-vessel reports - so examination becomes obligatory; the agreed-upon aṣl (joint use does not defile the water) settles it.

A · Position argued against

Camp A - disliked: they disliked that a man perform wuḍūʾ with a woman's leftover, or a woman with a man's.

فَذَهَبَ قَوْمٌ إِلَى هَذِهِ الْآثَارِ، فَكَرِهُوا أَنْ يَتَوَضَّأَ الرَّجُلُ بِفَضْلِ الْمَرْأَةِ، أَوْ تَتَوَضَّأَ الْمَرْأَةُ بِفَضْلِ الرَّجُلِ

al-Ṭaḥāwī framing Camp A · athar 81 · p24

Their proof: the prohibition reports.

نَهَى رَسُولُ اللهِ ﷺ عَنْ سُؤْرِ الْمَرْأَةِ

narration, al-Ḥakam al-Ghifārī · athar 81 · p24 · [narration]

Editor layer: A = قَوْمٌ; B = آخَرُونَ / الْفَرِيقُ الْآخَرُ. Both are in the matn; exactly two camps.

B · al-Ṭaḥāwī's position

With the others: no harm in any of it. Each may purify with the other's leftover - proven by the reports of the Prophet ﷺ and his wife washing from one vessel, including after one another and from janāba.

وَخَالَفَهُمْ فِي ذَلِكَ آخَرُونَ، فَقَالُوا: لَا بَأْسَ بِهَذَا كُلِّهِ

al-Ṭaḥāwī framing Camp B · athar 81أ · p24

كُنْتُ أَغْتَسِلُ أَنَا وَرَسُولُ اللهِ ﷺ مِنْ إِنَاءٍ وَاحِدٍ تَخْتَلِفُ فِيهِ أَيْدِينَا مِنَ الْجَنَابَةِ

narration, ʿĀʾisha · athar 98 · p26 · [narration]

↓ THE MOVE

C · The move الْأَصْلَ الْمُتَّفَقَ عَلَيْهِ

The two report-sets contradict, so examination becomes obligatory to extract a sound meaning from the two contradictory meanings. He resolves it by the agreed-upon aṣl: when a man and woman take water together from one vessel it does not defile the water - so one taking after the other (from the leftover) is, by naẓar, likewise.

فَضَادَّ ذَلِكَ مَا رَوَيْنَا فِي أَوَّلِ هَذَا الْبَابِ، فَوَجَبَ النَّظَرُ هَاهُنَا لِنَسْتَخْرِجَ بِهِ مِنَ الْمَعْنَيَيْنِ الْمُتَضَادَّيْنِ مَعْنًى صَحِيحًا. فَوَجَدْنَا الْأَصْلَ الْمُتَّفَقَ عَلَيْهِ أَنَّ الرَّجُلَ وَالْمَرْأَةَ إِذَا أَخَذَا بِأَيْدِيهِمَا الْمَاءَ مَعًا مِنْ إِنَاءٍ وَاحِدٍ أَنَّ ذَلِكَ لَا يُنَجِّسُ الْمَاءَ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 106 · p26

Move-label: his own words - فَضَادَّ (they contradict), وَجَبَ النَّظَرُ (examination becomes obligatory), resolved by الْأَصْلَ الْمُتَّفَقَ عَلَيْهِ (the agreed-upon aṣl). NOT qiyās / naskh / takhṣīṣ (none present). The agreed aṣl is leaned on, not re-proven here (flagged).

↓ therefore

D · Ruling

فَثَبَتَ بِهَذَا مَا ذَهَبَ إِلَيْهِ الْفَرِيقُ الْآخَرُ، وَهُوَ قَوْلُ أَبِي حَنِيفَةَ، وَأَبِي يُوسُفَ، وَمُحَمَّدِ بْنِ الْحَسَنِ رَحِمَهُمُ اللهُ تَعَالَى

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 106 · p26

It is permitted - no harm - for each to purify with the other's leftover, including after one another and from janāba. (The source treats junub explicitly; it does NOT raise the menstruant sub-case here.)

بَابُ التَّسْمِيَةِ عَلَى الْوُضُوءِ

The tasmiya at wuḍūʾ: a condition of validity, or only a fault to omit?

āthār 107-116
print p26-29 · vol 1

Hook: "no wuḍūʾ for one who does not name Allah" bears two readings (يُحْتَمَلُ, his word) - read it to agree with the clearer Muhājir ḥadīth, so the two do not contradict.

A · Position argued against

Camp A: whoever does not say the tasmiya over his wuḍūʾ, his wuḍūʾ does not suffice him.

فَذَهَبَ قَوْمٌ إِلَى أَنَّ مَنْ لَمْ يُسَمِّ عَلَى وُضُوءِ الصَّلَاةِ فَلَا يُجْزِيهِ وُضُوءُهُ

al-Ṭaḥāwī framing Camp A · athar 109 · p26

Their proof: the ḥadīth "no wuḍūʾ for one who does not mention Allah's name over it."

لَا صَلَاةَ لِمَنْ لَا وُضُوءَ لَهُ، وَلَا وُضُوءَ لِمَنْ لَمْ يَذْكُرِ اسْمَ اللهِ عَلَيْهِ

narration, Abū Hurayra · athar 107 · p27 · [narration]

Editor layer: Camp A is only قَوْمٌ in his matn - no named school. No isnād grading in his voice.

B · al-Ṭaḥāwī's position

With the others: one who omits the tasmiya has done wrong, yet has become pure by that wuḍūʾ - it is a fault, not an invalidator. Proof: the Prophet ﷺ delayed returning the salām until he had finished wuḍūʾ, disliking to mention Allah except in purity - so he did wuḍūʾ before naming Allah.

وَخَالَفَهُمْ فِي ذَلِكَ آخَرُونَ، فَقَالُوا: مَنْ لَمْ يُسَمِّ عَلَى وُضُوئِهِ فَقَدْ أَسَاءَ، وَقَدْ طَهُرَ بِوُضُوئِهِ ذَلِكَ

al-Ṭaḥāwī framing Camp B · athar 109 · p27

إِنَّهُ لَمْ يَمْنَعْنِي أَنْ أَرُدَّ عَلَيْكَ إِلَّا أَنِّي كَرِهْتُ أَنْ أَذْكُرَ اللهَ إِلَّا عَلَى طَهَارَةٍ

narration, al-Muhājir b. Qunfudh · athar 110 · p27 · [narration]

↓ THE MOVE

C · The move يُحْتَمَلُ

The tasmiya ḥadīth bears more than one meaning, and no indicator settles one construal decisively over the other - so its meaning must be made to agree with the Muhājir ḥadīth, so the two do not contradict. (The negation negates perfection, not essence - like "no faith for one who is not trustworthy.")

فَلَمَّا احْتَمَلَ هَذَا الْحَدِيثُ مِنَ الْمَعَانِي مَا وَصَفْنَا، وَلَمْ يَكُنْ هُنَاكَ دَلَالَةٌ يُقْطَعُ بِهَا لِأَحَدِ التَّأْوِيلَيْنِ عَلَى الْآخَرِ؛ وَجَبَ أَنْ يُجْعَلَ مَعْنَاهُ مُوَافِقًا لِمَعَانِي حَدِيثِ الْمُهَاجِرِ، حَتَّى لَا يَتَضَادَّا

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 116 · p28

Move-label: his own verb احْتَمَلَ / التَّأْوِيلَيْنِ - the text bears two construals, resolved by making its meaning agree (يُجْعَلَ مَعْنَاهُ مُوَافِقًا). NOT naskh / takhṣīṣ / tarjīḥ. He engages the matn, not the chain. A separate naẓar argument follows (tasmiya is not a rukn like takbīr in ṣalāt).

↓ therefore

D · Ruling

فَثَبَتَ بِذَلِكَ أَنَّ الْوُضُوءَ بِلَا تَسْمِيَةٍ يَخْرُجُ بِهِ الْمُتَوَضِّئُ مِنَ الْحَدَثِ إِلَى الطَّهَارَةِ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 116 · p28

Wuḍūʾ without the tasmiya takes the doer out of ḥadath into purity - tasmiya is not a condition of validity; omitting it is a fault, not an invalidator.

Madhhab (his words): وَهَذَا قَوْلُ أَبِي حَنِيفَةَ، وَأَبِي يُوسُفَ، وَمُحَمَّدِ بْنِ الْحَسَنِ رَحِمَهُمُ اللهُ تَعَالَى.

بَابُ الْوُضُوءِ لِلصَّلَاةِ مَرَّةً مَرَّةً وَثَلَاثًا ثَلَاثًا

Wuḍūʾ once-each vs three-times-each: which is the farḍ?

āthār 117-127
print p29-30 · vol 1

Hook (harmonization, not a named-opponent dispute): both once-each and thrice-each are authentically reported - so the once-each fixes the farḍ, and the surplus is re-filed as faḍl, not obligation. This is a farḍ-vs-faḍl harmonization card, with no named opponent.

A · The apparent pull of the thrice-each reports

Not a named opponent - the harmonization pole. The body of three-times-each reports, which al-Ṭaḥāwī narrates (not as an adversary's claim), seems to pull toward thrice being the obligatory measure; he then re-files it as faḍl.

فَفِي هَذِهِ الْآثَارِ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللهِ ﷺ تَوَضَّأَ ثَلَاثًا ثَلَاثًا، وَقَدْ رُوِيَ عَنْهُ أَنَّهُ تَوَضَّأَ مَرَّةً مَرَّةً

al-Ṭaḥāwī's transition · after athar 122 · p29

Editor layer: no opponent, no school name, no gradings in his matn - this bāb is a collection of āthār he himself harmonizes.

B · al-Ṭaḥāwī's position

The farḍ (obligatory floor) is washing each limb once; three-times-each is supererogatory (faḍl). Proof: the once-each reports of the Prophet ﷺ.

رَأَيْتُ رَسُولَ اللهِ ﷺ تَوَضَّأَ مَرَّةً مَرَّةً

narration, ʿUmar, cited as his proof · athar 123 · p29 · [narration]

رَأَيْتُ رَسُولَ اللهِ ﷺ تَوَضَّأَ ثَلَاثًا ثَلَاثًا، وَرَأَيْتُهُ غَسَلَ مَرَّةً مَرَّةً

narration, both in one act · athar 127 · p30 · [narration]

↓ THE MOVE

C · The move إِنَّمَا هُوَ لِإِصَابَةِ الْفَضْلِ لَا الْفَرْضِ

Because once-each is also authentically reported, it proves the obligation is discharged by a single washing; the three-times reports are then re-classified as merit (faḍl) over the obligation, not the obligatory measure.

فَثَبَتَ بِمَا ذَكَرْنَا عَنْ رَسُولِ اللهِ ﷺ أَنَّهُ تَوَضَّأَ مَرَّةً مَرَّةً، فَثَبَتَ بِذَلِكَ أَنَّ مَا كَانَ مِنْهُ مِنْ وُضُوئِهِ ثَلَاثًا ثَلَاثًا إِنَّمَا هُوَ لِإِصَابَةِ الْفَضْلِ لَا الْفَرْضِ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · after athar 127 · p30

Move-label: his own contrast «إِنَّمَا هُوَ لِإِصَابَةِ الْفَضْلِ لَا الْفَرْضِ» - re-filing the larger number as merit, fixing the obligation at the smaller. No single uṣūl label-word (no naskh / tarjīḥ / qiyās) is in this matn.

↓ therefore

D · Ruling

إِنَّمَا هُوَ لِإِصَابَةِ الْفَضْلِ لَا الْفَرْضِ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · after athar 127 · p30

Farḍ of wuḍūʾ = washing each limb once; three-times-each is faḍl (recommended merit), not obligatory.

بَابُ فَرْضِ مَسْحِ الرَّأْسِ فِي الْوُضُوءِ

Wiping the head: is the farḍ the whole head or only part?

āthār 128-134
print p30-32 · vol 1

Hook: he wiped only the forelock (nāṣiya) and it sufficed → the farḍ is the measure of the forelock, the rest is faḍl.

A · Position argued against

The whole head must be wiped; leaving any of it is invalid.

فَذَهَبَ ذَاهِبُونَ إِلَى أَنَّ مَسْحَ الرَّأْسِ كُلِّهِ وَاجِبٌ فِي وُضُوءِ الصَّلَاةِ، لَا يُجْزِئُ تَرْكُ شَيْءٍ مِنْهُ

al-Ṭaḥāwī reporting the opponents · after athar 131 · p30

Their proof: reports of the Prophet ﷺ wiping his entire head (an act, not a stated obligation).

Editor layer: al-Ṭaḥāwī names no madhhab here - only his own neutral “a group” (ذَاهِبُونَ). No isnād grades in the read text.

B · al-Ṭaḥāwī’s position

The farḍ is to wipe part of the head (the measure of the forelock); wiping the whole is recommended excess (faḍl), not obligation. An act is not proof of obligation - like washing three times.

وَلَكِنْ مِنْهُ فَرْضٌ وَمِنْهُ فَضْلٌ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · p30

Proof: al-Mughīra’s report - the Prophet ﷺ wiped over his turban and wiped his forelock.

تَوَضَّأَ وَعَلَيْهِ عِمَامَةٌ فَمَسَحَ عَلَى عِمَامَتِهِ وَمَسَحَ بِنَاصِيَتِهِ

narration, athar 132 · p30

His own analogy (in-source word): قِيَاسًا وَنَظَرًا - washed limbs are washed whole, but wiped things (the khuff) are wiped in part; so is the wiped head. Attributed by him to Abū Ḥanīfa, Abū Yūsuf, Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan.

↓ THE MOVE

C · The move حَتَّى تَسْتَوِيَ هَذِهِ الْآثَارُ وَلَا تَتَضَادَّ

Since wiping the forelock sufficed for the rest, the farḍ = the measure of the forelock; the surplus in the other reports is faḍl, not wujūb - so that all the reports agree and do not contradict. He keeps every athar valid and assigns each a function (farḍ vs faḍl); this is not naskh and not an isnād-attack.

دَلَّ ذَلِكَ أَنَّ الْفَرْضَ فِي مَسْحِ الرَّأْسِ هُوَ مِقْدَارُ النَّاصِيَةِ وَأَنَّ مَا فَعَلَهُ فِيمَا جَاوَزَ بِهِ النَّاصِيَةَ فِيمَا سِوَى ذَلِكَ مِنَ الْآثَارِ كَانَ دَلِيلًا عَلَى الْفَضْلِ لَا عَلَى الْوُجُوبِ حَتَّى تَسْتَوِيَ هَذِهِ الْآثَارُ وَلَا تَتَضَادَّ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · p31

Move-label: his own purpose-clause «حَتَّى تَسْتَوِيَ هَذِهِ الْآثَارُ وَلَا تَتَضَادَّ» + qiyās/naẓar (قِيَاسًا وَنَظَرًا). No “jamʿ/tawfīq” - those words are not in his matn.

↓ therefore

D · Ruling

الْفَرْضَ فِي مَسْحِ الرَّأْسِ هُوَ مِقْدَارُ النَّاصِيَةِ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · p31

The obligatory portion is the measure of the forelock (nāṣiya). NB: the later-manual “quarter of the head” (rubʿ) is not in this matn.

Madhhab (his words): وَهَذَا قَوْلُ أَبِي حَنِيفَةَ، وَأَبِي يُوسُفَ، وَمُحَمَّدِ بْنِ الْحَسَنِ.

بَابُ حُكْمِ الْأُذُنَيْنِ فِي وُضُوءِ الصَّلَاةِ

The two ears in wuḍūʾ: is the FRONT of the ear washed (with the face) or wiped (with the head)?

āthār 135-155
print p32-34 · vol 1

Hook: the reports that the ears are wiped - front and back - came mass-transmitted (تَوَاتَرَتِ, his word) where the contrary did not; reinforced by naẓar.

A · Position argued against

Camp A - split the ear: the front of the ear is washed with the face; the back is wiped with the head. (Both camps agree the BACK is wiped - they divide only on the front.)

فَذَهَبَ قَوْمٌ إِلَى هَذَا الْأَثَرِ، فَقَالُوا: مَا أَقْبَلَ مِنَ الْأُذُنَيْنِ فَحُكْمُهُ حُكْمُ الْوَجْهِ، يُغْسَلُ مَعَ الْوَجْهِ، وَمَا أَدْبَرَ مِنْهُمَا فَحُكْمُهُ حُكْمُ الرَّأْسِ، يُمْسَحُ مَعَ الرَّأْسِ

al-Ṭaḥāwī reporting Camp A · athar 135 · p32

Their proof: ʿAlī's report, which mentions only wiping "the backs of his ears."

ثُمَّ مَسَحَ رَأْسَهُ وَظُهُورَ أُذُنَيْهِ

narration, ʿAlī via Ibn ʿAbbās · athar 135 · p32 · [narration]

Editor layer: source = 2 camps (not the prompt's 3); "own category" is not entertained. Camps named only قَوْمٌ / آخَرُونَ; no gradings in this excerpt.

B · al-Ṭaḥāwī's position

With the others (his view): the two ears are from the head - front and back both wiped with the head. Proof: the mass of reports describing wiping the ear's outer and inner surface, plus naẓar.

وَخَالَفَهُمْ فِي ذَلِكَ آخَرُونَ، فَقَالُوا: الْأُذُنَانِ مِنَ الرَّأْسِ، يُمْسَحُ مُقَدَّمُهُمَا وَمُؤَخَّرُهُمَا مَعَ الرَّأْسِ. وَاحْتَجُّوا فِي ذَلِكَ

al-Ṭaḥāwī framing his camp · athar 135 · p32

أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللهِ ﷺ تَوَضَّأَ فَمَسَحَ أُذُنَيْهِ مَعَ الرَّأْسِ، وَقَالَ: «الْأُذُنَانِ مِنَ الرَّأْسِ

narration, Abū Umāma · athar 143 · p33 · [narration]

↓ THE MOVE

C · The move تَوَاتَرَتِ الْآثَارُ

The reports that the whole ear (front and back) belongs to the head came mass-transmitted where the contrary did not - so this is the chapter's verdict from the path of the āthār; reinforced by naẓar (each wuḍūʾ-organ's ruling is one and the same throughout).

فَفِي هَذِهِ الْآثَارِ أَنَّ حُكْمَ الْأُذُنَيْنِ مَا أَقْبَلَ مِنْهُمَا وَمَا أَدْبَرَ مِنَ الرَّأْسِ، وَقَدْ تَوَاتَرَتِ الْآثَارُ بِذَلِكَ مَا لَمْ تَتَوَاتَرْ بِمَا خَالَفَهُ. فَهَذَا وَجْهُ هَذَا الْبَابِ مِنْ طَرِيقِ الْآثَارِ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 149 · p33

Move-label: تَوَاتَرَ-weighting of the āthār (his word, literally present) + نْظَرُ («فَهَذَا وَجْهُ النَّظَرِ فِي هَذَا الْبَابِ»). NOT qiyās / takhṣīṣ / tarjīḥ. The word نَسْخُ appears only in a SEPARATE Ibn-ʿAbbās sub-argument (his ʿamal overriding ʿAlī's report), not in this main hinge.

↓ therefore

D · Ruling

فَالنَّظَرُ عَلَى ذَلِكَ أَنْ يَكُونَ مَا أَقْبَلَ مِنْهُمَا كَذَلِكَ، وَأَنْ يَكُونَ حُكْمُ الْأُذُنَيْنِ كُلُّهُ حُكْمًا وَاحِدًا

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 149 · p33

The whole of each ear - front and back, outer and inner - is wiped with the head; the front is not washed with the face.

Madhhab (his words): وَهُوَ قَوْلُ أَبِي حَنِيفَةَ، وَأَبِي يُوسُفَ، وَمُحَمَّدِ.

بَابُ فَرْضِ الرِّجْلَيْنِ فِي وُضُوءِ الصَّلَاةِ

The two feet in wuḍūʾ: washing (ghasl) or wiping (masḥ)?

āthār 156-220
print p34-41 · vol 1

Hook: not one device - a multi-step case; the hinge is explicit naskh (نَسَخَهُ, his word) of the earlier wiping practice. Grammar only corroborates.

A · Position argued against

Camp A - masḥ: the feet are wiped, like the head.

فَذَهَبَ قَوْمٌ إِلَى هَذَا وَقَالُوا: هَكَذَا حُكْمُ الرِّجْلَيْنِ يُمْسَحَانِ، كَمَا يُمْسَحُ الرَّأْسُ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 162 · p35

Opposed by Camp B - ghasl: rather, they are washed.

وَخَالَفَهُمْ فِي ذَلِكَ آخَرُونَ، فَقَالُوا: بَلْ يُغْسَلَانِ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 162 · p35

B · al-Ṭaḥāwī's position

With Camp B: the farḍ of the feet is ghasl. His proof is the mass of washing-reports - they came mass-transmitted (his word تَوَاتَرَتِ) that the Prophet ﷺ washed his feet in wuḍūʾ.

فَهَذِهِ الْآثَارُ قَدْ تَوَاتَرَتْ عَنْ رَسُولِ اللهِ ﷺ أَنَّهُ غَسَلَ قَدَمَيْهِ فِي وُضُوئِهِ لِلصَّلَاةِ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · tail of athar 179 · p36

↓ THE MOVE

C · The move قَدْ نَسَخَهُ

The decisive hinge: the Companions used to wipe, until the Prophet ﷺ ordered them to complete the wuḍūʾ and warned of the heels - so the earlier wiping practice was abrogated (his own verb). He then declares this the chapter’s ruling “from the path of the āthār”.

فَدَلَّ ذَلِكَ أَنَّ حُكْمَ الْمَسْحِ الَّذِي كَانُوا يَفْعَلُونَهُ قَدْ نَسَخَهُ مَا تَأَخَّرَ عَنْهُ مِمَّا ذَكَرْنَا، فَهَذَا حُكْمُ هَذَا الْبَابِ مِنْ طَرِيقِ الْآثَارِ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · tail of athar 201 · p39

Move-label: naskh - his own verb قَدْ نَسَخَهُ مَا تَأَخَّرَ عَنْهُ. Narrowed to the wiping they were doing, exactly his wording (not “all Companion-era wiping” in the abstract).

↓ therefore

D · Ruling

al-Ṭaḥāwī sides with ghasl and names it the position of the three Imams.

وَهَذَا الَّذِي ثَبَتَ بِهَذِهِ الْآثَارِ قَوْلُ أَبِي حَنِيفَةَ، وَأَبِي يُوسُفَ، وَمُحَمَّدٍ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · after athar 201 · p39

Zoom-in · the evidence behind the move

1 · iḥtimāl - the masḥ-reports neutralised

Hinge: the same reports say he “wiped” his face, yet the face is washed - so “masaḥa” can mean ghasl (his word: yuḥtamal).

فَكَانَ ذَلِكَ الْمَسْحُ هُوَ غَسْلٌ، فَقَدْ يُحْتَمَلُ أَنْ يَكُونَ مَسْحُهُ بِرِجْلِهِ أَيْضًا كَذَلِكَ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · tail of athar 156 · p34

Ruling: the masḥ-reports are compatible with ghasl; they prove nothing for masḥ.

2 · tawātur al-ghasl - mass of washing-reports

Evidence under the move: the mass of washing-reports sits in the parent’s B-box. Unique here: rubbing between the toes (athar 171) only happens in washing, not surface-wiping.

وَهَذَا لَا يَكُونُ إِلَّا فِي الْغُسْلِ، لِأَنَّ الْمَسْحَ لَا يَبْلُغُ فِيهِ ذَلِكَ، إِنَّمَا هُوَ عَلَى ظُهُورِ الْقَدَمَيْنِ خَاصَّةً

al-Ţaḥāwī · tail of athar 171 · p36

Ruling: the toe-rubbing confirms washing, not surface-wiping.

3 · naskh - the heel-threat that grounds the abrogation

Evidence under the move: they used to wipe; the Prophet ﷺ warned of the heels and ordered them to complete the wuḍūʾ - this threat is the evidence that grounds the abrogation carried in the parent’s C-box.

وَيْلٌ لِلْأَعْقَابِ مِنَ النَّارِ

narration, Jābir · athar 186 · p38

Ruling: the heel-threat abrogates the earlier wiping; the settled farḍ is ghasl.

4 · qirāʾa - the naṣb / khafḍ reading: a transmitted survey, NOT his own grammar ruling

Evidence under the move: he only reports the two readings (naṣb → ghasl, khafḍ → maṣḥ) and lets the salaf return it to washing. The sharpest line is al-Shaʿbī’s, not his:

نَزَلَ الْقُرْآنُ بِالْمَسْحِ، وَالسُّنَّةُ بِالْغَسْلِ

al-Shaʿbī (narrated), NOT al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 210 · p40

Ruling: both readings attested; the qirāʾa only corroborates the naskh, it does not overturn ghasl.

Merged (the two narrowest sub-threads): thawāb - washing the feet earns reward, a wiped limb (the head) earns none, so the feet’s farḍ is ghasl («فَلَمَّا كَانَ فِي غَسْلِ الْقَدَمَيْنِ ثَوَابٌ، دَلَّ ذَلِكَ أَنَّ فَرْضَهُمَا هُوَ الْغُسْلُ, al-Ṭaḥāwī, athar 185, p37-38). naẓar appendix - he breaks the opponent’s qiyās “feet ~ head” with the junub counter-example and closes «فَبَطَلَتْ بِذَلِكَ عِلَّةُ الْمُخَالِفِal-Ṭaḥāwī, athar 220, p41). Both only reinforce the ghasl ruling already secured by the naskh.

بَابُ الْوُضُوءِ هَلْ يَجِبُ لِكُلِّ صَلَاةٍ أَمْ لَا

Wuḍūʾ: obligatory for every prayer, or not?

āthār 221-245
print p41-44 · vol 1

Hook: the command to renew for every prayer was abrogated (نَسْخُ, his own word) - one wuḍūʾ holds until a ḥadath.

A · Position argued against

Residents must renew wuḍūʾ for every prayer (from “he used to make wuḍūʾ for every prayer”).

فَذَهَبَ قَوْمٌ إِلَى أَنَّ الْحَاضِرِينَ يَجِبُ عَلَيْهِمْ أَنْ يَتَوَضَّئُوا لِكُلِّ صَلَاةٍ

al-Ṭaḥāwī reporting the opponents · athar 223 · p41

Their proof-text (a narration):

أَنَّهُ كَانَ يَتَوَضَّأُ لِكُلِّ صَلَاةٍ

narration · athar 223 · p41

Editor layer: “a group” (قَوْمٌ) is his own word, not an editor camp-name; no muḥaqqiq grades imported.

B · al-Ṭaḥāwī’s position

With the majority: wuḍūʾ is obligatory only from a ḥadath; passing time does not nullify it. One wuḍūʾ suffices for several prayers.

وَخَالَفَهُمْ فِي ذَلِكَ أَكْثَرُ الْعُلَمَاءِ، فَقَالُوا: لَا يَجِبُ الْوُضُوءُ إِلَّا مِنْ حَدَثٍ

al-Ṭaḥāwī reporting the majority (athar 223 · p41)

Proofs: the Prophet ﷺ prayed two prayers on one wuḍūʾ (Jābir); Ibn ʿUmar said the repeat is not even sunna; and a rational track (qiyās/naẓar) on ghusl-purity + the traveller by ijmāʿ.

↓ THE MOVE

C · The move ثُمَّ نُسِخَ ذَلِكَ

The Prophet ﷺ had commanded wuḍūʾ for every prayer, then that was abrogated (نَسْخُ- his own word) - so wuḍūʾ suffices until a ḥadath. Naskh is not the sole leg: he also argues the command bound the Prophet specifically, not the umma.

كَانَ أَمَرَ بِالْوُضُوءِ لِكُلِّ صَلَاةٍ، ثُمَّ نُسِخَ ذَلِكَ، فَثَبَتَ بِمَا ذَكَرْنَا أَنَّ الْوُضُوءَ يُجْزِئُ مَا لَمْ يَكُنِ الْحَدَثُ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 227 · p43

وَأَنَّ الْمَأْمُورَ بِهِ النَّبِيُّ

al-Ṭaḥāwī (command bound the Prophet, not them) · athar 238 · p44

Move-label: naskh - shown by his own verb ثُمَّ نُسِخَ ذَلِكَ; supported by qiyās/naẓar and the Prophet-specific reading. Not naskh alone.

↓ therefore

D · Ruling

وَقَدْ ثَبَتَ بِذَلِكَ ارْتِفَاعُ وُجُوبِ الْوُضُوءِ لِكُلِّ صَلَاةٍ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 238 · p44

The obligation of wuḍūʾ for every prayer has lapsed; one wuḍūʾ holds while no ḥadath occurs.

Madhhab (his words): وَهَذَا قَوْلُ أَبِي حَنِيفَةَ، وَأَبِي يُوسُفَ، وَمُحَمَّدِ.

بَابُ الرَّجُلِ يَخْرُجُ مِنْ ذَكَرِهِ الْمَذْيُ كَيْفَ يَفْعَلُ

Madhy (prostatic fluid): is washing the member a separate obligation?

āthār 246-262
print p45-48 · vol 1

Hook: not wuḍūʾ-vs-ghusl (that is agreed: madhy → wuḍūʾ). The live dispute is whether washing the member is wājib - he re-reads the command's function (مَعْنَى/ صَرَفْنَا

A · Position argued against

Washing the member (ghasl al-madhākīr) is wājib on a man when he emits madhy and when he urinates.

قَالَ أَبُو جَعْفَرٍ: فَذَهَبَ قَوْمٌ إِلَى أَنَّ غَسْلَ الْمَذَاكِيرِ وَاجِبٌ عَلَى الرَّجُلِ إِذَا أَمَذَى وَإِذَا بَالَ. وَاحْتَجُّوا فِي ذَلِكَ بِهَذَا الْأَثَرِ

al-Ṭaḥāwī reporting the opponents · athar 246 · p46

Their proof - the Rāfiʿ b. Khadīj report (prophetic words):

يَغْسِلُ مَذَاكِيرَهُ وَيَتَوَضَّأُ

narration, Rāfiʿ b. Khadīj · athar 246 · p45-46

Editor layer: al-Ṭaḥāwī names no madhhab for camp A - only his own قَوْمٌ / آخَرُونَ. No isnād grades imported.

B · al-Ṭaḥāwī’s position

The command to wash was not to obligate the washing; it was so the madhy would contract and stop coming out. The only thing obligated is the wuḍūʾ of ṣalāh.

وَخَالَفَهُمْ فِي ذَلِكَ آخَرُونَ فَقَالُوا: لَمْ يَكُنْ ذَلِكَ مِنْ رَسُولِ اللهِ ﷺ عَلَى إِيجَابِ غَسْلِ الْمَذَاكِيرِ، وَلَكِنَّهُ لِيَتَقَلَّصَ الْمَذْيُ فَلَا يَخْرُجُ

al-Ṭaḥāwī reporting the ākhirūn he carries · athar 246 · p46

Proof: the Sahl b. Ḥunayf report names wuḍūʾ only; he glosses that this negates any added obligation.

فِيهِ الْوُضُوءُ فَأَخْبَرَ أَنَّ مَا يَجِبُ فِيهِ، هُوَ الْوُضُوءُ، وَذَلِكَ يَنْفِي أَنْ يَكُونَ عَلَيْهِ مَعَ الْوُضُوءِ غَيْرُهُ

al-Ṭaḥāwī's gloss on the narrated answer · athar 256 · p47

↓ THE MOVE

C · The move لِغَيْرِ الْمَعْنَى

The reports that obligate name only wuḍūʾ al-ṣalāh; so whatever else was commanded (washing the member) was commanded for a different maʿnā, not as obligation. He then turns (صَرَفْنَاʿUmar's washing-command to the same non-obligatory sense. Not an isnād-attack - a single matn move re-reading the command's function.

قَالَ أَبُو جَعْفَرٍ: أَفَلَا تَرَى أَنَّ عَلِيًّا لَمَّا ذَكَرَ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ ﷺ مَا أَوْجَبَهُ عَلَيْهِ فِي ذَلِكَ، ذَكَرَ وُضُوءَ الصَّلَاةِ. فَثَبَتَ بِذَلِكَ أَنَّ مَا كَانَ سِوَى وُضُوءِ الصِّلَاءِ مِمَّا أَمَرَ بِهِ، فَإِنَّمَا كَانَ ذَلِكَ لِغَيْرِ الْمَعْنَى الَّذِي وَجَبَ لَهُ وُضُوءُ الصَّلَاةِ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 255 · p47

قِيلَ لَهُ: يُحْتَمَلُ أَنْ يَكُونَ وَجْهُ ذَلِكَ أَيْضًا مَا صَرَفْنَا إِلَيْهِ وَجْهَ حَدِيثِ رَافِعِ بْنِ خَدِيجٍ

al-Ṭaḥāwī, turning ʿUmar's report · athar 257 · p47

Move-label: his own words الْمَعْنَى/ لِغَيْرِ الْمَعْنَى (athar 255) + صَرَفْنَا (athar 257). No naskh / takhṣīṣ / jamʿ / qiyās in this bāb.

↓ therefore

D · Ruling

فَالنَّظَرُ عَلَى ذَلِكَ أَنْ يَكُونَ كَذَلِكَ، خُرُوجُ الْمَذْيِ الَّذِي هُوَ حَدَثٌ، لَا يَجِبُ فِيهِ غُسْلٌ، غَيْرَ الْمَوْضِعِ الَّذِي أَصَابَهُ مِنَ الْبَدَنِ غَيْرَ التَّطَهُّرِ لِلصَّلَاةِ

al-Ṭaḥāwī (the naẓar confirmation) · athar 262 · p48

Madhy is a ḥadath. Washing the whole member as an independent obligation is not wājib; only the place it touched is washed, plus the wuḍūʾ of ṣalāh. Confirmed twice - by تَصْحِيحُal-āthār, then by naẓar.

Madhhab (his words): وَهَذَا قَوْلُ أَبِي حَنِيفَةَ، وَأَبِي يُوسُفَ، وَمُحَمَّدِ بْنِ الْحَسَنِ.

بَابُ حُكْمِ الْمَنِيِّ هَلْ هُوَ طَاهِرٌ أَمْ نَجَسٌ

Semen: pure (ṭāhir) or impure (najis)?

āthār 263-302
print p48-53 · vol 1

Hook (baseline inverted): al-Ṭaḥāwī rules semen najis; rubbing (fark) only cleans the dry cloth, it does not make the substance pure.

A · Position argued against

Semen is pure (ṭāhir); it does not spoil water; its ruling is like nasal mucus.

فَذَهَبَ ذَاهِبُونَ إِلَى أَنَّ الْمَنِيَّ طَاهِرٌ، وَأَنَّهُ لَا يُفْسِدُ الْمَاءَ وَإِنْ وَقَعَ فِيهِ، وَأَنَّ حُكْمَهُ فِي ذَلِكَ حُكْمُ النُّخَامَةِ

al-Ṭaḥāwī reporting the opponents · p49

Their proof: ʿĀʾisha would merely rub (fark) semen off the Prophet’s garment.

كُنْتُ أَفْرُكُهُ مِنْ ثَوْبِ رَسُولِ اللهِ

narration, ʿĀʾisha · athar 272 · p49

Editor layer: al-Ṭaḥāwī gives no madhhab name to camp A (no “Shāfiʿī”); his own words are only ذَاهِبُونَ (“a group”) and آخَرُونَ (“others”).

B · al-Ṭaḥāwī’s position

Semen is najis in itself. The fark reports only show the cloth is cleaned by removing the dry substance - like dry filth scraped off a sandal: the sandal is cleaned, the filth is still impure.

فَيَطْهُرُ بِذَلِكَ الثَّوْبُ وَالْمَنِيُّ فِي نَفْسِهِ نَجَسٌ كَمَا قَدْ رُوِيَ فِيمَا أَصَابَ النَّعْلَ مِنَ الْأَذَى

al-Ṭaḥāwī · p51

His decisive proof is naẓar: whatever exits as a ḥadath is najis in itself; semen exits as a ḥadath; therefore it is najis.

↓ THE MOVE

C · The move النَّظَرِ

The fark reports do not establish purity - they only license cleaning-by-rubbing when dry. The substance’s ruling is settled separately by naẓar = najis. He absorbs the practice under the prophetic license while denying it any bearing on purity.

فَلَمَّا ثَبَتَ بِمَا ذَكَرْنَا أَنَّ كُلَّ مَا كَانَ خُرُوجُهُ حَدَثًا، فَهُوَ نَجَسٌ فِي نَفْسِهِ، وَقَدْ ثَبَتَ أَنَّ خُرُوجَ الْمَنِيِّ حَدَثٌ، ثَبَتَ أَيْضًا أَنَّهُ فِي نَفْسِهِ نَجَسٌ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · p53

اعْتَبَرْنَا ذَلِكَ مِنْ طَرِيقِ النَّظَرِ

al-Ṭaḥāwī (the naẓar track) · p53

Move-label: naẓar only - النَّظَرِ is literally in the matn. “Qiyās” is NOT used here (it does not appear in this bāb).

↓ therefore

D · Ruling

أَنَّ الثَّوْبَ يَطْهُرُ مِمَّا أَصَابَهُ مِنْ ذَلِكَ بِالْفَرْكِ إِذَا كَانَ يَابِسًا وَيُجْزِئُ ذَلِكَ مِنَ الْغُسْلِ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · p53

Twofold: (1) the garment is purified of dry semen by rubbing, and this suffices for washing; (2) the semen itself is najis (by naẓar).

Madhhab (his words): وَهَذَا قَوْلُ أَبِي حَنِيفَةَ، وَأَبِي يُوسُفَ، وَمُحَمَّدِ.

بَابُ الَّذِي يُجَامِعُ وَلَا يُنْزِلُ

Intercourse without ejaculation: is ghusl obligatory?

āthār 303-348
print p53-62 · vol 1

Hook: two-track bāb. On the transmitted side the «māʾ min al-māʾ» reports are abrogated (نَّاسِخِ, his word, in the abrogation sub-thread); on the reasoning side iltiqāʾ al-khitānayn is aghlaẓ al-aḥdāth (النَّظَرِGhusl wins.

A · Position argued against

Camp A: no ghusl without ejaculation - anchored on «water is only from water» and «in iksāl there is only ṭuhūr».

قَالَ أَبُو جَعْفَرٍ: فَذَهَبَ قَوْمٌ إِلَى أَنَّ مَنْ وَطِئَ فِي الْفَرْجِ، فَلَمْ يُنْزِلْ، فَلَيْسَ عَلَيْهِ غُسْلٌ، وَاحْتَجُّوا فِي ذَلِكَ بِهَذِهِ الْآثَارِ وَخَالَفَهُمْ فِي ذَلِكَ آخَرُونَ، فَقَالُوا: عَلَيْهِ الْغُسْلُ، وَإِنْ لَمْ يُنْزِلْ وَاحْتَجُّوا فِي ذَلِكَ بِمَا

al-Ṭaḥāwī framing both camps · athar 314 · p54

الْمَاءُ مِنَ الْمَاءِ، وَالْغُسْلُ عَلَى مَنْ أَنْزَلَ

narration, Abū Hurayra · athar 314 · p54-55

B · al-Ṭaḥāwī’s position

Camp B (his side): ghusl is obligatory upon mere meeting of the two circumcised parts (iltiqāʾ al-khitānayn), with or without ejaculation.

إِذَا جَاوَزَ الْخِتَانُ الْخِتَانَ، فَقَدْ وَجَبَ الْغُسْلُ

narration, via ʿĀʾisha · athar 326 · p56

إِذَا قَعَدَ بَيْنَ شُعَبِهَا الْأَرْبَعِ، ثُمَّ اجْتَهَدَ، وَجَبَ الْغُسْلُ

narration, Abū Hurayra · athar 322 · p56

↓ THE MOVE

C · The move مِنْ طَرِيقِ النَّظَرِ

He settles it on two named tracks: «from the path of the āthār» (the «māʾ min al-māʾ» reports are abrogated - handled in the abrogation sub-thread below, not here) and «from the path of naẓar»: iltiqāʾ al-khitānayn already triggers the heaviest consequences (ḥadd, mahr, fasād of ṣawm/ḥajj) without inzāl, so it is aghlaẓ al-aḥdāth and demands the heaviest purification - ghusl.

فَهَذَا وَجْهُ هَذَا الْبَابِ مِنْ طَرِيقِ الْآثَارِ. وَأَمَّا وَجْهُهُ مِنْ طَرِيقِ النَّظَرِ، فَإِنَّا

al-Ṭaḥāwī naming the two tracks · athar 347 · p61

فَالنَّظَرُ عَلَى ذَلِكَ، أَنْ يَكُونَ كَذَلِكَ، هُوَ فِي حُكْمِ الْأَحْدَاثِ، أَغْلَظُ الْأَحْدَاثِ، وَيَجِبُ فِيهِ أَغْلَظُ مَا يَجِبُ فِي الْأَحْدَاثِ، وَهُوَ الْغُسْلُ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 347 · p61

Move-label: parent hinge = his own مِنْ طَرِيقِ النَّظَرِ + أَغْلَظَ الْأَحْدَاثِ (athar 347). The naskh leg (النَّاسِخِ) is performed only in the abrogation sub-card below, not in this spine.

↓ therefore

D · Ruling

فَثَبَتَ بِذَلِكَ قَوْلُ الَّذِينَ قَالُوا: إِنَّ الْجِمَاعَ يُوجِبُ الْغُسْلَ، كَانَ مَعَهُ إِنْزَالٌ، أَوْ لَمْ يَكُنْ وَهَذَا قَوْلُ أَبِي حَنِيفَةَ، وَأَبِي يُوسُفَ، وَمُحَمَّدٍ، وَعَامَّةِ الْعُلَمَاءِ رَحِمَهُمُ اللهُ تَعَالَى

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 347 · p61

Ghusl is obligatory by iltiqāʾ al-khitānayn, with or without ejaculation - the view of Abū Ḥanīfa, Abū Yūsuf, Muḥammad, and the generality of the scholars.

Zoom-in · the evidence behind the move

1 · taḍādd - the two report-sets collide; the abrogator is not yet named

Hinge: he establishes only that the two sets contradict (تَضَادَّand that the reports by themselves do not say which is the abrogator - he opens the naskh question without yet answering it.

قَالَ أَبُو جَعْفَرٍ: فَهَذِهِ الْآثَارُ تُضَادُّ الْآثَارَ الْأُوَلَ، وَلَيْسَ فِي شَيْءٍ مِنْ ذَلِكَ دَلِيلٌ عَلَى النَّاسِخِ مِنْ ذَلِكَ مَا هُوَ

فَنَظَرْنَا فِي ذَلِكَ، فَإِذَا

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 326 · p56-57 (split at the print-p57 page-break)

Ruling: conflict stated, investigation announced; no abrogation performed yet.

2 · waǧh / ḥamala - Ibn ʿAbbās narrows the slogan to iḥtilām (meaning-defusing, NOT naskh)

Evidence under the move: «water from water» never meant no-ghusl-for-intercourse; Ibn ʿAbbās glosses it as about iḥtilām (wet dreams). Its wajh is other than camp A's reading - so it contradicts (ضَادَّthem and the proof is pulled out.

فَهَذَا ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ قَدْ أَخْبَرَ أَنَّ وَجْهَهُ، غَيْرُ الْوَجْهِ الَّذِي حَمَلَهُ عَلَيْهِ أَهْلُ الْمَقَالَةِ الْأُولَى، فَضَادَّ قَوْلُهُ قَوْلَهُمْ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 321 · p56

Ruling: the bare-slogan proof is neutralized as meaning iḥtilām, not penetrative intercourse. (Words وَجْهُ/ حَمَلَهُ/ ضَادَّonly - not takhṣīṣ, not naskh.)

3 · al-nāsikh - the naskh proper: Ubayy names the abrogator and retracts

Evidence under the move - the abrogation this cluster performs: a Companion who transmitted «water from water» later affirms the contrary; that volte-face is licit only if abrogation was established for him - so the no-ghusl ruling was abrogated.

قَالَ أَبُو جَعْفَرٍ: فَهَذَا أُبَيٌّ. يُخْبِرُ أَنَّ هَذَا، هُوَ النَّاسِخُ لِقَوْلِهِ «الْمَاءُ مِنَ الْمَاءِ» وَقَدْ رُوِيَ عَنْهُ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ مِنْ قَوْلِهِ مَا يَدُلُّ عَلَى هَذَا أَيْضًا

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 329 · p57

قَالَ أَبُو جَعْفَرٍ: فَهَذَا أُبَيٌّ قَدْ قَالَ: هَذَا، وَقَدْ رُوِيَ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ ﷺ خِلَافُ ذَلِكَ، فَلَا يَجُوزُ هَذَا عِنْدَنَا إِلَّا وَقَدْ ثَبَتَ نَسْخُ ذَلِكَ عِنْدَهُ مِنْ رَسُولِ اللهِ ﷺ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 331 · p57

Ruling: «water from water» (no-ghusl sense) is abrogated; the standing ruling is obligatory ghusl. (نَّاسِخِ/ نَسْخُliterally in his matn.)

4 · naẓar - women’s parity - the closing supplementary ḥujja

Evidence under the move: the man/woman asymmetry the Anṣār women gave as fatwā is untenable - inzāl is conceded to obligate ghusl on both sexes, so the no-inzāl case must be equal too.

فَالنَّظَرُ عَلَى ذَلِكَ أَنْ يَكُونَ حُكْمُ الْمُخَالَطَةِ الَّتِي لَا إِنْزَالَ مَعَهَا، يَسْتَوِي فِيهَا حُكْمُ الرِّجَالِ وَالنِّسَاءِ، فِي وُجُوبِ الْغُسْلِ عَلَيْهِمْ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 348 · p62

Ruling: the no-inzāl case obligates ghusl on both sexes alike; the asymmetric fatwā is rejected.

One continuous āthār-side argument (sub-cards 1→3): conflict stated (taḍādd) → the slogan split into two types and the bare type defused as iḥtilām (waǧh/ḥamala) → the explicit no-ghusl type abrogated (nāsikh). The naskh is performed in sub-card 3 only; sub-cards 1-2 are conflict-framing and meaning-defusing, not abrogation. Sub-card 4 is a separate naẓar appendix riding on the agreed inzāl-parity.

بَابُ أَكْلِ مَا غَيَّرَتِ النَّارُ، هَلْ يُوجِبُ الْوُضُوءَ أَمْ لَا

Eating what fire has altered: does it obligate wuḍūʾ?

āthār 349-427
print p62-71 · vol 1

Hook: the command-reports «do wuḍūʾ from what fire touched» are abrogated (نَسْخُ, his own word) by the Prophet's later practice; reinforced by naẓar (fire alters no ruling - heated-but-pure water proves it).

A · Position argued against

Camp A: eating fire-touched food obligates wuḍūʾ, on the Prophetic command.

فَذَهَبَ قَوْمٌ إِلَى الْوُضُوءِ مِمَّا غَيَّرَتِ النَّارُ، وَاحْتَجُّوا فِي ذَلِكَ بِهَذِهِ الْآثَارِ

al-Ṭaḥāwī framing camp A · athar 366 · p64

تَوَضَّئُوا مِمَّا غَيَّرَتِ النَّارُ

narration, Zayd b. Thābit · athar 351 · p62

B · al-Ṭaḥāwī’s position

Camp B (his side): no wuḍūʾ. Proof: the Prophet ﷺ ate fire-touched food and prayed without renewing wuḍūʾ.

أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللهِ ﷺ أَكَلَ كَتِفَ شَاةٍ ثُمَّ صَلَّى وَلَمْ يَتَوَضَّأْ

narration, Ibn ʿAbbās via Mālik · athar 368 · p64

↓ THE MOVE

C · The move نُسِخَ بِالْفِعْلِ الثَّانِي

The later of the two acts of the Prophet ﷺ was leaving the wuḍūʾ; so whatever opposed that was abrogated by the second act (نَسْخُ- his own word). The dated «last of the two matters» report is the narration he builds on; the naskh ruling is his.

كَانَ آخِرُ الْأَمْرَيْنِ مِنْ رَسُولِ اللهِ ﷺ، تَرْكُ الْوُضُوءِ مِمَّا مَسَّتِ النَّارُ

[narration] Jābir b. ʿAbdillāh · athar 395 · p66-67

فَثَبَتَ بِمَا ذَكَرْنَا أَنَّ آخِرَ الْأَمْرَيْنِ مِنْ رَسُولِ اللهِ ﷺ، هُوَ تَرْكُ الْوُضُوءِ مِمَّا غَيَّرَتِ النَّارُ، وَأَنَّ مَا خَالَفَ ذَلِكَ، فَقَدْ نُسِخَ بِالْفِعْلِ الثَّانِي

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 398 · p67

Move-label: his own نُسِخَ بِالْفِعْلِ الثَّانِي (athar 398). The آخِرُ الْأَمْرَيْنِ phrase is the narrated ḥadīth's wording [narration], split from his naskh ruling.

↓ therefore

D · Ruling

فَثَبَتَ بِمَا ذَكَرْنَا بِتَصْحِيحِ هَذِهِ الْآثَارِ، أَنَّ أَكْلَ مَا مَسَّتِ النَّارُ، لَيْسَ بِحَدَثٍ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · p67

Eating fire-touched food is not a ḥadath - no wuḍūʾ. The position of Abū Ḥanīfa, Abū Yūsuf, and Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan.

Zoom-in · the evidence behind the move

1 · ghasl al-yad - even granting the command, “wuḍūʾ” may mean washing the hand

Hinge (no single label-word): even if one resists the abrogation, the command's word «wuḍūʾ» may mean washing the hand, not prayer-ablution - so it never established a ḥadath in the first place. Companion conduct (rinse + wash the fingers, then pray) supports the reading.

وَقَدْ يَجُوزُ أَنْ يَكُونَ مَا أَمَرَ بِهِ مِنَ الْوُضُوءِ فِي الْآثَارِ الْأُوَلِ، هُوَ وُضُوءُ الصَّلَاةِ، وَيَجُوزُ أَنْ يَكُونَ هُوَ غَسْلُ الْيَدِ، لَا وُضُوءُ الصَّلَاةِ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 394 · p66

Ruling: either way (abrogated, or never prayer-wuḍūʾ) the obligation falls.

2 · nasḫ - Companions who narrated the command yet acted against it

Evidence under the move: Abū Ṭalḥa and Abū Ayyūb prayed after eating fire-touched food without wuḍūʾ, though they themselves narrated the command - which, for him, can only mean its abrogation was established for them.

فَهَذَا أَبُو طَلْحَةَ وَأَبُو أَيُّوبَ، قَدْ صَلَّيَا بَعْدَ أَكْلِهِمَا مِمَّا غَيَّرَتِ النَّارُ، وَلَمْ يَتَوَضَّآ، وَقَدْ رَوَيَا عَنْ رَسُولِ اللهِ ﷺ أَنَّهُ أَمَرَ بِالْوُضُوءِ مِنْ ذَلِكَ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 423 · p69-70

Ruling: «فَهَذَا وَجْهُ هَذَا الْبَابِ مِنْ طَرِيقِ الْآثَارِ- the bāb's resolution from the path of the reports; no wuḍūʾ. (نَسْخُliterally in his matn.)

3 · al-naẓar - fire alters no ruling (heated pure water stays pure)

Evidence under the move: pure water heated by fire stays pure and valid; fire introduced no new ruling - by parity, fire-touched food keeps its prior ruling.

وَيَكُونُ حُكْمُهُ بَعْدَ مَسِيسِ النَّارِ إِيَّاهُ، كَحُكْمِهِ قَبْلَ ذَلِكَ قِيَاسًا وَنَظَرًا، عَلَى مَا بَيَّنَّا. وَهُوَ قَوْلُ أَبِي حَنِيفَةَ، وَأَبِي يُوسُفَ، وَمُحَمَّدِ بْنِ الْحَسَنِ، رَحِمَهُمُ اللهُ تَعَالَى

al-Ṭaḥāwī · p70

Ruling: fire-touched food keeps its prior status; eating it is no ḥadath. (النَّظَرِ/ قِيَاسًا وَنَظَرًاliterally in his matn.)

4 · camel vs sheep meat - the splitting camp, answered by back-reference + naẓar

Sub-masʾala: a camp split camel meat (wuḍūʾ) from sheep (none). He answers (i) by back-reference to this bāb's «last of the two matters» abrogation, and (ii) by naẓar - camel and sheep are on a par.

وَقَدْ فَرَّقَ قَوْمٌ بَيْنَ لُحُومِ الْغَنَمِ وَلُحُومِ الْإِبِلِ. فَأَوْجَبُوا فِي أَكْلِ لُحُومِ الْإِبِلِ الْوُضُوءَ، وَلَمْ يُوجِبُوا ذَلِكَ فِي أَكْلِ لُحُومِ الْغَنَمِ. وَاحْتَجُّوا فِي ذَلِكَ

al-Ṭaḥāwī framing the splitting camp · p70

فَكَمَا كَانَ لَا وُضُوءَ فِي أَكْلِ لُحُومِ الْغَنَمِ، فَكَذَلِكَ لَا وُضُوءَ فِي أَكْلِ لُحُومِ الْإِبِلِ

al-Ṭaḥāwī (the naẓar prong) · p71

Ruling: no wuḍūʾ from camel meat any more than from sheep - the position of the three named imams.

Note: the naskh here is genuinely al-Ṭaḥāwī's own word - نَسْخُathar 398) and نَسْخُathar 423) are in his matn voice. The «آخِرُ الْأَمْرَيْنِphrase is the narrated ḥadīth of Jābir [narration], on top of which he builds the naskh ruling; the two layers are kept split. Sub-card 1 has no single Arabic label-word (the hand-washing reading), so it is described in plain English only.

بَابُ مَسِّ الْفَرْجِ هَلْ يَجِبُ فِيهِ الْوُضُوءُ أَمْ لَا

Touching the privates: does it break wuḍūʾ?

āthār 428-493
print p71-79 · vol 1

Hook: not one device - an isnād campaign. Sub-cards 1-3 are one continuous isnād/ilzām attack on the Busra corpus (tadlīs, «ظُلْمِ الْخَصْمِ, then a rival ḥadīth + النَّظَرِ, then the weight of the salaf. No matn is harmonized.

A · Position argued against

Camp requiring wuḍūʾ: touching the genitals obligates wuḍūʾ, on Busra's «مَنْ مَسَّ فَرْجَهُ فَلْيَتَوَضَّأْ

فَذَهَبَ قَوْمٌ إِلَى هَذَا الْأَثَرِ، وَأَوْجَبُوا الْوُضُوءَ مِنْ مَسِّ الْفَرْجِ

al-Ṭaḥāwī framing camp A · athar 428 · p71

أَنَّهَا سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللهِ ﷺ يَأْمُرُ بِالْوُضُوءِ مِنْ مَسِّ الْفَرْجِ

narration, Marwān relaying Busra · athar 428 · p71

B · al-Ṭaḥāwī’s position

His side: no wuḍūʾ. The Busra corpus is impeachable; the rival report (Mulāzim «is it anything but a piece of you?») is sounder.

وَخَالَفَهُمْ فِي ذَلِكَ آخَرُونَ، فَقَالُوا: لَا وُضُوءَ فِيهِ

al-Ṭaḥāwī framing his camp · athar 428 · p71

هَلْ هُوَ إِلَّا بَضْعَةٌ مِنْكَ؟ أَوْ مُضْغَةٌ مِنْكَ

narration, Prophet ﷺ via Mulāzim · athar 461 · p76

↓ THE MOVE

C · The move بَيَانَ ظُلْمِ الْخَصْمِ

The load-bearing hinge is an ilzām: every chain the opponents cite turns on a transmitter they themselves grade weak or cut off - so using them is self-contradiction. His stated purpose is not personal ṭaʿn but exposing the opponent's inconsistency. An evidentiary filter, not reconciliation.

وَلَمْ أُرِدْ بِشَيْءٍ مِنْ ذَلِكَ الطَّعْنِ عَلَى عَبْدِ اللهِ بْنِ أَبِي بَكْرٍ، وَلَا عَلَى ابْنِ لَهِيعَةَ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 439 · p73

وَلَكِنِّي أَرَدْتُ بَيَانَ ظُلْمِ الْخَصْمِ

al-Ṭaḥāwī (the load-bearing hinge) · athar 439 · p73

Move-label: his own phrase ظُلْمِ الْخَصْمِ (athar 439). The distinct isnād / ilzām / naẓar moves get their own sub-cards.

↓ therefore

D · Ruling

فَبِهَذَا نَأْخُذُ، وَهُوَ قَوْلُ أَبِي حَنِيفَةَ، وَأَبِي يُوسُفَ، وَمُحَمَّدِ بْنِ الْحَسَنِ، رَحِمَهُمُ اللهُ تَعَالَى

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 493 · p79

No wuḍūʾ from touching the genitals - the position of Abū Ḥanīfa, Abū Yūsuf, and Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan.

Zoom-in · the distinct matn-moves

1 · lam yarfaʿ … raʾsan - the Busra report devalued by ʿUrwa's own non-acceptance

Isnād move (1 of 3, one continuous attack): the opponents' own report admits ʿUrwa gave Busra's ḥadīth no weight - and dropping a report needs less than ʿUrwa's standing.

فِي حَدِيثِكُمْ هَذَا أَنَّ عُرْوَةَ لَمْ يَرْفَعْ بِحَدِيثِ بُسْرَةَ رَأْسًا

al-Ṭaḥāwī (the ākhirūn voice he adopts) · athar 428 · p71

Ruling: the Busra report is not binding; no wuḍūʾ established by it. (لَمْ يَرْفَعْ … رَّأْسَ ا + تَضْعِيفِ.)

2 · dallasa bihi - the “clean” chains are tadlīs over a weak link

Isnād move (2 of 3): the apparently-clean Zuhrī←ʿUrwa and Hishām←father chains concealed a weak intermediary (ʿAbdullāh b. Abī Bakr) - so the report «dropped a degree».

وَهَذَا الْحَدِيثُ أَيْضًا لَمْ يَسْمَعْهُ الزُّهْرِيُّ مِنْ عُرْوَةَ، إِنَّمَا دَلَّسَ بِهِ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 429 · p72

فَصَارَ هَذَا الْأَثَرُ إِنَّمَا هُوَ عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللهِ بْنِ أَبِي بَكْرٍ عَنْ عُرْوَةَ. فَقَدْ حَطَّ بِذَلِكَ دَرَجَةً

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 430 · p72

Ruling: the "clean" chains collapse to the same impugned link. (دَلَّسَ بِهِ + حَطَّ بِذَلِكَ دَرَجَةً.)

3 · al-naẓar - the rival Mulāzim ḥadīth + analogy from thigh / back-of-hand

Matn-side move: the rival report is graded sounder, then an explicit naẓar: touching the member with the back of the hand or forearm is agreed not to break wuḍūʾ; the thigh is ʿawra yet touching it does not either - so touching the member is even more entitled not to.

فَهَذَا حَدِيثُ مُلَازِمٍ، صَحِيحٌ مُسْتَقِيمُ الْإِسْنَادِ، غَيْرُ مُضْطَرِبٍ فِي إِسْنَادِهِ، وَلَا فِي مَتْنِهِ، فَهُوَ أَوْلَى عِنْدَنَا مِمَّا رَوَيْنَاهُ، أَوَّلًا مِنَ الْآثَارِ الْمُضْطَرِبَةِ فِي أَسَانِيدِهَا

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 461 · p76

وَإِنْ كَانَ يُؤْخَذُ مِنْ طَرِيقِ النَّظَرِ، فَإِنَّا رَأَيْنَاهُمْ لَا يَخْتَلِفُونَ، أَنَّ مَنْ مَسَّ ذَكَرَهُ بِظَهْرِ كَفِّهِ، أَوْ بِذِرَاعَيْهِ، لَمْ يَجِبْ فِي ذَلِكَ وُضُوءٌ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 462 · p76

Ruling: the denial-report is sounder, and naẓar independently yields no wuḍūʾ. (النَّظَرِ literal.)

4 · weight of the salaf - same ṣaḥāba narrate the opposite; Ibn ʿUmar stands alone (no single label-word)

No single Arabic label-word: he (i) reads the one apparently-pro report as merely washing the hand «so the two reports do not clash», then (ii) shows the obligation rests on Ibn ʿUmar alone against most of the Companions.

فَقَدْ يَجُوزُ أَنْ يَكُونَ الْوُضُوءُ الَّذِي رَوَاهُ الْحَاكِمُ فِي حَدِيثِهِ، عَنْ مُصْعَبٍ، هُوَ غَسْلُ الْيَدِ … حَتَّى لَا يَتَضَادَّ الرِّوَايَتَانِ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 469 · p77

فَلَمْ نَعْلَمْ أَحَدًا مِنْ أَصْحَابِ رَسُولِ اللهِ ﷺ أَفْتَى بِالْوُضُوءِ مِنْهُ، غَيْرَ ابْنِ عُمَرَ. وَقَدْ خَالَفَهُ فِي ذَلِكَ أَكْثَرُ أَصْحَابِ رَسُولِ اللهِ ﷺ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 474 · p78

Ruling: the weight of the salaf is against the obligation; the taqlīd of the many is worthier than that of Ibn ʿUmar alone. (No imported label - tarjīḥ / naskh / jamʿ are not in this matn.)

Recast: 5 source subthreads compressed to 4 distinct matn-moves; sub-cards 1-3 are one continuous isnād/ilzām attack on the Busra corpus (devalue → tadlīs → ilzām by the opponents' own gradings), then the rival ḥadīth + naẓar, then the weight of the salaf. The SB1 «مَنْ مَسَّ فَرْجَهُframing «قَالُواis reported and adopted by al-Ṭaḥāwī, not free direct speech. Source artifacts: athar ٤٩٠appears twice; «الْحَاكِمُin athar 469 is likely a typo for «الْحَكَمِ- both quoted as printed.

بَابُ الْمَسْحِ عَلَى الْخُفَّيْنِ كَمْ وَقْتُهُ لِلْمُقِيمِ وَالْمُسَافِرِ

Wiping over the khuffayn: how long is its term - limited or not?

āthār 494-541
print p79-85 · vol 1

Hook: two matn moves, not one - the mass-transmitted (مُتَوَاتِرَةًtawqīt reports are not abandoned for the lone Ubayy report; and the ʿUqba report «may be carried» (يُحْتَمَلُas a no-water case so ʿUmar agrees with himself.

A · Position argued against

A group held there is no time-limit for wiping over the khuffayn, in travel or at home (lead proof: «wipe as long as you like»; reinforced by ʿUmar's «you have hit the sunna» to ʿUqba).

فَذَهَبَ قَوْمٌ إِلَى هَذَا فَقَالُوا: لَا وَقْتَ لِلْمَسْحِ عَلَى الْخُفَّيْنِ، فِي السَّفَرِ وَلَا فِي الْحَضَرِ

al-Ṭaḥāwī framing the opponents · athar 496 · p79-80

قَالُوا: فَفِي قَوْلِ عُمَرَ هَذَا، لِعُقْبَةَ «أَصَبْتَ السُّنَّةَ» يَدُلُّ أَنَّ ذَلِكَ عِنْدَهُ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ ﷺ، لِأَنَّ السُّنَّةَ لَا تَكُونُ إِلَّا عَنْهُ

opponents' inference («قَالُوا· athar 499 · p80

B · al-Ṭaḥāwī’s position

Others (his side) held the time-limit: the resident wipes a day and night, the traveller three days and their nights. They answer the "sunna" inference - "sunna" need not be Prophetic; it can be from the Caliphs.

وَخَالَفَهُمْ فِي ذَلِكَ آخَرُونَ فَقَالُوا: بَلْ يَمْسَحُ الْمُقِيمُ عَلَى خُفَّيْهِ، يَوْمًا وَلَيْلَةً، وَالْمُسَافِرُ ثَلَاثَةَ أَيَّامٍ وَلَيَالِيهِنَّ

al-Ṭaḥāwī framing the camp he adopts · athar 499 · p80

وَقَالُوا: أَمَّا مَا رَوَيْتُمُوهُ عَنْ عُمَرَ مِنْ قَوْلِهِ: أَصَبْتَ السُّنَّةَ فَلَيْسَ فِي ذَلِكَ دَلِيلٌ عَلَى أَنَّهُ عِنْدَهُ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ ﷺ لِأَنَّ السُّنَّةَ قَدْ تَكُونُ مِنْهُ وَقَدْ تَكُونُ مِنْ خُلَفَائِهِ

the B-camp's answer («وَقَالُوا, NOT al-Ṭaḥāwī's analytic voice · athar 499 · p80

↓ THE MOVE

C · The move قَدْ تَوَاتَرَتِ

Two matn moves: (1) the tawqīt reports are mass-transmitted (تَوَاتَرَتِ/ الْمُتَوَاتِرَةُ, and one ought not abandon (يَتْرُكُsuch reports for (إِلَىthe lone Ubayy report - an evidentiary weight filter; (2) the ʿUqba report may be carried (يُحْتَمَلُas a no-water occasion where the ruling was tayammum, the «أُولَىreading that reconciles ʿUmar with himself. He keeps this modal - "it may be carried this way."

فَهَذِهِ الْآثَارُ قَدْ تَوَاتَرَتْ عَنْ رَسُولِ اللهِ ﷺ بِالتَّوْقِيتِ فِي الْمَسْحِ عَلَى الْخُفَّيْنِ … فَلَيْسَ يَنْبَغِي لِأَحَدٍ أَنْ يَتْرُكَ مِثْلَ هَذِهِ الْآثَارِ الْمُتَوَاتِرَةِ إِلَى مِثْلِ حَدِيثِ أُبَيِّ بْنِ عِمَارَةَ

al-Ṭaḥāwī (first hinge) · athar 523 · p83

وَقَدْ يَحْتَمِلُ حَدِيثُ عُقْبَةَ أَيْضًا أَنْ يَكُونَ ذَلِكَ الْكَلَامُ، كَانَ مِنْ عُمَرَ، لِأَنَّهُ عَلِمَ أَنَّ طَرِيقَ عُقْبَةَ، الَّذِي جَاءَ مِنْهُ طَرِيقٌ لَا مَاءَ فِيهِ. فَكَانَ حُكْمُهُ أَنْ يَتَيَمَّمَ … وَهَذَا الْوَجْهُ أَوْلَى مَا حُمِلَ عَلَيْهِ هَذَا الْحَدِيثُ لِيُوَافِقَ مَا رُوِيَ عَنْ عُمَرَ ﵁ سِوَاهُ وَلَا يُضَادُّهُ

al-Ṭaḥāwī (second hinge, modal) · athar 532 · p84

Move-label: his own تَوَاتَرَتِ / الْمُتَوَاتِرَةُ + يُحْتَمَلُ + يَتَيَمَّمَ + أُولَى. No naskh / takhṣīṣ / tarjīḥ - those words are absent from this matn.

↓ therefore

D · Ruling

فَهَذِهِ أَقْوَالُ أَصْحَابِ رَسُولِ اللهِ ﷺ، قَدِ اتَّفَقَتْ عَلَى مَا ذَكَرْنَا مِنَ التَّوْقِيتِ فِي الْمَسْحِ عَلَى الْخُفَّيْنِ لِلْمُسَافِرِ وَالْمُقِيمِ. فَلَا يَنْبَغِي لِأَحَدٍ أَنْ يُخَالِفَ ذَلِكَ. وَهَذَا الَّذِي ذَكَرْنَاهُ أَيْضًا، قَوْلُ أَبِي حَنِيفَةَ، وَأَبِي يُوسُفَ، وَمُحَمَّدِ بْنِ الْحَسَنِ، رَحِمَهُمُ اللهُ تَعَالَى

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 541 · p85

The Companions' positions agree on the tawqīt for resident and traveller; none should depart from it - the view of Abū Ḥanīfa, Abū Yūsuf, and Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan.

بَابُ ذِكْرِ الْجُنُبِ الْحَائِضِ وَالَّذِي لَيْسَ عَلَى وُضُوءٍ، وَقِرَاءَتِهِمُ الْقُرْآنَ

May the junub / the menstruant / the one without wuḍūʾ recite Qurʾān?

āthār 542-589
print p85-91 · vol 1

Hook (two-stage): first the broad “no recitation/dhikr in any ḥadath” corpus is held abrogated; then only the narrow junub/ḥāʾiḍ bar on reciting a complete āya survives.

A · Position argued against

No one recites Qurʾān or makes dhikr except in ritual purity; outside fear-of-loss cases (returning salām), one must not recite/dhikr in ḥadath.

وَأَمَّا مَا سِوَى ذَلِكَ، مِمَّا لَا يُخَافُ فَوْتُهُ، مِنَ الذِّكْرِ وَقِرَاءَةِ الْقُرْآنِ، فَلَا يَنْبَغِي أَنْ يَفْعَلَ ذَلِكَ أَحَدٌ إِلَّا عَلَى طَهَارَةٍ

al-Ṭaḥāwī reporting camp A · athar 557 tail · p86-87

Their proof: the reports that the Prophet ﷺ would not return the salām until he had purified.

[editor] camp A is named only as “the people of the first statement”; no madhhab attached.

B · al-Ṭaḥāwī’s position

No harm in dhikr in all states and reciting in ḥadath generally - the only carve-out is janāba + ḥayḍ.

وَخَالَفَهُمْ فِي ذَلِكَ آخَرُونَ فَقَالُوا: لَا بَأْسَ أَنْ يَذْكُرَ اللهَ تَعَالَى فِي الْأَحْوَالِ كُلِّهَا، مِنَ الْجَنَابَةِ وَغَيْرِهَا، وَيَقْرَأُ الْقُرْآنَ فِي ذَلِكَ، خِلَافُ الْجَنَابَةِ وَالْحَيْضِ، فَإِنَّهُ لَا يَنْبَغِي لِصَاحِبِهِمَا أَنْ يَقْرَأَ الْقُرْآنَ

al-Ṭaḥāwī reporting his own camp · athar 557 tail · p87

Proof: ʿAlī - the Prophet ﷺ recited “in every state except janāba”; Ibn ʿUmar - “the junub and menstruant do not recite”; Mālik b. ʿUbāda - the junub does not recite until ghusl.

«لَا يَقْرَأُ الْجُنُبُ وَلَا الْحَائِضُ الْقُرْآنَ

[narration] Prophet ﷺ via Ibn ʿUmar · athar 568 · p88

↓ THE MOVE

C · The move نَاسِخًا

He asks which of the conflicting reports came later and makes it nāsikh of what preceded. The salām-not-returned-till-purified corpus is held abrogated by the wuḍūʾ verse [al-Māʾida 6]; ʿAlī’s “except janāba” stands as the later rule, then janāba+ḥayḍ is kept as the lone residual bar.

فَأَرَدْنَا أَنْ نَنْظُرَ أَيُّ هَذِهِ الْآثَارِ تَأَخَّرَ؟ فَنَجْعَلَهُ نَاسِخًا لِمَا تَقَدَّمَ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 570 tail · p88

فَقَدْ ثَبَتَ بِتَصْحِيحِ مَا رَوَيْنَا، نَسْخُ حَدِيثِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ ﵁ وَمَنْ تَابَعَهُ، وَثُبُوتُ حَدِيثِ عَلِيٍّ ﵁ عَلَى مَا قَدْ شَدَّهُ مِنْ أَقْوَالِ الصَّحَابَةِ

al-Ṭaḥāwī, closing the move · athar 582 tail · p90

Move-label: his own words نَاسِخًا/ نَسْخُ/ مَنْسُوخَةٌBuilt on the narrated ʿAlqama / al-Māʾida-verse report (athar 571) [narration], but the verdict «مَنْسُوخَةٌ كُلُّهَاis his.

↓ therefore

D · Ruling

فَبِذَلِكَ نَأْخُذُ فَنَكْرَهُ لِلْجُنُبِ وَالْحَائِضِ قِرَاءَةَ الْآيَةِ تَامَّةً، وَلَا نَرَى بِذَلِكَ بَأْسًا لِلَّذِي عَلَى غَيْرِ وُضُوءٍ، وَلَا نَرَى لَهُمْ جَمِيعًا بَأْسًا بِذِكْرِ اللهِ تَعَالَى

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 582 tail · p90

Disliked (makrūh) for the junub/menstruant to recite a complete āya; no harm for the one merely without wuḍūʾ; no harm for any in plain dhikr.

Madhhab (his words): وَهُوَ قَوْلُ أَبِي حَنِيفَةَ، وَأَبِي يُوسُفَ، وَمُحَمَّدِ بْنِ الْحَسَنِ رَحِمَهُمُ اللهُ تَعَالَى · athar 584 tail.

بَابُ حُكْمِ بَوْلِ الْغُلَامِ وَالْجَارِيَةِ قَبْلَ أَنْ يَأْكُلَا الطَّعَامَ

Urine of the boy vs the girl before they eat solid food: pure or impure?

āthār 590-605
print p92-94 · vol 1

Hook: both urines najis. The sprinkle-report (naḍḥ) and the pour-report (ṣabb) name the same act, so the two āthār do not contradict.

A · Position argued against

Differentiate: the boy’s urine is pure, the girl’s is impure.

فَذَهَبَ قَوْمٌ إِلَى التَّفْرِيقِ بَيْنَ حُكْمِ بَوْلِ الْغُلَامِ، وَبَوْلِ الْجَارِيَةِ قَبْلَ أَنْ يَأْكُلَا الطَّعَامَ. فَقَالُوا: بَوْلُ الْغُلَامِ طَاهِرٌ، وَبَوْلُ الْجَارِيَةِ نَجِسٌ

al-Ṭaḥāwī reporting قَوْمٌ· after athar 595 · p92

Their proof: the marfūʿ report that the girl’s urine is washed and the boy’s is sprinkled.

«يُغْسَلُ بَوْلُ الْجَارِيَةِ، وَيُنْضَحُ بَوْلُ الْغُلَامِ

[narration] Prophet ﷺ via ʿAlī · athar 590 · p92

B · al-Ṭaḥāwī’s position

Equalize the two urines, both impure; the boy’s ruling is washing - except that pouring (ṣabb) suffices - and the girl’s is washing too.

وَخَالَفَهُمْ فِي ذَلِكَ آخَرُونَ، فَسَوَّوْا بَيْنَ بَوْلَيْهِمَا جَمِيعًا، وَجَعَلُوهُمَا نَجِسَيْنِ

al-Ṭaḥāwī reporting آخَرُونَcamp he adopts) · after athar 595 · p92

فَثَبَتَ بِهَذِهِ الْآثَارِ أَنَّ حُكْمَ بَوْلِ الْغُلَامِ هُوَ الْغَسْلُ، إِلَّا أَنَّ ذَلِكَ الْغَسْلَ، يُجْزِئُ مِنْهُ الصَّبُّ، وَأَنَّ حُكْمَ بَوْلِ الْجَارِيَةِ هُوَ الْغَسْلُ أَيْضًا

al-Ṭaḥāwī · after athar 605 · p94

↓ THE MOVE

C · The move حَتَّى لَا يَتَضَادَّ الْأَثَرَانِ

He sets Umm al-Faḍl’s two transmissions side by side - one yunḍaḥ (sprinkle), one yuṣabb ʿalayhi (pour) - and holds the naḍḥ of the first IS the ṣabb of the second, so the two āthār do not contradict. The boy/girl wording-gap is then routed to the physical ʿilla (narrow vs wide exit), not to purity.

ثَبَتَ أَنَّ النَّضْحَ الَّذِي أَرَادَ بِهِ فِي الْحَدِيثِ الْأَوَّلِ، هُوَ الصَّبُّ الْمَذْكُورُ هَاهُنَا

al-Ṭaḥāwī · p94

وَفَرَّقَ فِي اللَّفْظِ بَيْنَهُمَا وَإِنْ كَانَا مُسْتَوِيَيْنِ فِي الْمَعْنَى، لِلْعِلَّةِ الَّتِي ذَكَرْنَا، مِنْ ضِيقِ الْمَخْرَجِ وَسَعَتِهِ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · p94

Move-label: his negated-contradiction clause «حَتَّى لَا يَتَضَادَّ الْأَثَرَانِNo جْمَعُ/نَسْخُ/tarjīḥ word in his matn; he aligns the wording, not an isnād-attack.

↓ therefore

D · Ruling

فَإِذَا كَانَ بَوْلُ الْجَارِيَةِ نَجِسًا فَبَوْلُ الْغُلَامِ أَيْضًا نَجِسٌ. وَهَذَا قَوْلُ أَبِي حَنِيفَةَ، وَأَبِي يُوسُفَ، وَمُحَمَّدٍ، رَحِمَهُمُ اللهُ تَعَالَى

al-Ṭaḥāwī · final line · p94

Both urines impure; both require washing (pouring suffices for the boy’s). Position of the three named imams.

بَابُ الرَّجُلِ لَا يَجِدُ إِلَّا نَبِيذَ التَّمْرِ، هَلْ يَتَوَضَّأُ بِهِ، أَوْ يَتَيَمَّمُ

Finds only date-nabīdh: wuḍūʾ with it, or tayammum?

āthār 606-611
print p94-96 · vol 1

Intra-Ḥanafī: Abū Ḥanīfa permits, Abū Yūsuf forbids, and al-Ṭaḥāwī adopts Abū Yūsuf. Two tracks: if by isnād the denial-report wins; if by naẓar the agreed aṣl decides.

A · Position argued against

A traveller who finds only date-nabīdh may do wuḍūʾ with it - among them Abū Ḥanīfa.

قَالَ أَبُو جَعْفَرٍ: فَذَهَبَ قَوْمٌ إِلَى أَنَّ مَنْ لَمْ يَجِدْ إِلَّا نَبِيذَ التَّمْرِ فِي سَفَرِهِ تَوَضَّأَ بِهِ، وَاحْتَجُّوا فِي ذَلِكَ بِهَذِهِ الْآثَارِ. وَمِمَّنْ ذَهَبَ إِلَى ذَلِكَ أَبُو حَنِيفَةَ ﵁

al-Ṭaḥāwī · after athar 607 · p95

Their proof: the laylat al-jinn reports - “a drink and a purifier.”

فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللهِ ﷺ: «أَصْبِبْ عَلَيَّ» فَتَوَضَّأَ بِهِ، وَقَالَ: «شَرَابٌ وَطَهُورٌ

[narration] Ibn Masʿūd · athar 606 · p94

B · al-Ṭaḥāwī’s position

Date-nabīdh may not be used for wuḍūʾ; one who finds nothing else does tayammum - among them Abū Yūsuf.

وَخَالَفَهُمْ فِي ذَلِكَ آخَرُونَ، فَقَالُوا: لَا يُتَوَضَّأُ بِنَبِيذِ التَّمْرِ، وَمَنْ لَمْ يَجِدْ غَيْرَهُ، تَيَمَّمَ، وَلَا يَتَوَضَّأُ بِهِ. وَمِمَّنْ ذَهَبَ إِلَى هَذَا الْقَوْلِ أَبُو يُوسُفَ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · p95

فَإِنَّا قَدْ رَأَيْنَا الْأَصْلَ الْمُتَّفَقَ عَلَيْهِ، أَنَّهُ لَا يُتَوَضَّأُ بِنَبِيذِ الزَّبِيبِ، وَلَا بِالْخَلِّ، فَكَانَ النَّظَرُ عَلَى ذَلِكَ أَنْ يَكُونَ نَبِيذُ التَّمْرِ أَيْضًا كَذَلِكَ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · p96

↓ THE MOVE

C · The move مِنْ طَرِيقِ صِحَّةِ الْإِسْنَادِ … مِنْ طَرِيقِ النَّظَرِ

He splits the case onto two tracks. If by soundness of isnād: the denial-report is sounder, so the wuḍūʾ story collapses (an evidentiary filter, not reconciliation). If by naẓar: the agreed aṣl (no wuḍūʾ with raisin-nabīdh or vinegar; nabīdh is not water) decides against it. The forbid-camp first voices this; al-Ṭaḥāwī ratifies it in the first person («عِنْدَنَا/ «النَّظَرِ

فَهَذَا الْبَابُ إِنْ كَانَ يُؤْخَذُ مِنْ طَرِيقِ صِحَّةِ الْإِسْنَادِ، فَهَذَا الْحَدِيثُ، الَّذِي فِيهِ الْإِنْكَارُ أَوْلَى، لِاسْتِقَامَةِ طَرِيقِهِ وَمَتْنِهِ، وَثَبْتِ رُوَاتِهِ. وَإِنْ كَانَ مِنْ طَرِيقِ النَّظَرِ، فَإِنَّا قَدْ رَأَيْنَا الْأَصْلَ الْمُتَّفَقَ عَلَيْهِ …

al-Ṭaḥāwī · p96

[610] قَالَ: «لَمْ أَكُنْ مَعَ النَّبِيِّ ﷺ لَيْلَةَ الْجِنِّ، وَلَوَدِدْتُ أَنِّي كُنْتُ مَعَهُ

[narration] Ibn Masʿūd denies his own presence · athar 610 · p95

Move-label: his two-track disjunction «صِحَّةِ الْإِسْنَادِ … النَّظَرِNo نَسْخُ/takhṣīṣ/جْمَعُ/tarjīḥ imported.

↓ therefore

D · Ruling

فَثَبَتَ بِذَلِكَ أَنَّهُ لَا يَجُوزُ التَّوَضُّؤُ بِهِ فِي حَالٍ مِنَ الْأَحْوَالِ، وَهُوَ قَوْلُ أَبِي يُوسُفَ، وَهُوَ النَّظَرُ عِنْدَنَا، وَاللهُ أَعْلَمُ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · p96

No wuḍūʾ with date-nabīdh in any state. Abū Yūsuf’s view, and the naẓar in al-Ṭaḥāwī’s judgement.

بَابُ الْمَسْحِ عَلَى النَّعْلَيْنِ

Wiping over sandals - permitted like the khuffayn?

āthār 612-618
print p96-98 · vol 1

Hook: the pro-sandal ḥadīth admits innocent readings, so it proves nothing → then naẓar: sandals are like torn khuffayn that don’t conceal the feet.

A · Position argued against

Wipe over sandals, just as one wipes over the khuffayn.

فَذَهَبَ قَوْمٌ إِلَى الْمَسْحِ عَلَى النَّعْلَيْنِ، كَمَا يُمْسَحُ عَلَى الْخُفَّيْنِ

al-Ṭaḥāwī reporting قَوْمٌ· athar 614 tail · p97

Proof: “I saw the Prophet ﷺ wipe over the sandals.”

رَأَيْتُ رَسُولَ اللهِ ﷺ يَمْسَحُ عَلَى النَّعْلَيْنِ

[narration] Aws b. Abī Aws · athar 613 · p96

B · al-Ṭaḥāwī’s position

No wiping over sandals. Their ḥujja: he may have been wiping socks worn under the sandals.

وَخَالَفَهُمْ فِي ذَلِكَ آخَرُونَ، فَقَالُوا: لَا نَرَى الْمَسْحَ عَلَى النَّعْلَيْنِ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 615 tail · p97

أَنَّهُ قَدْ يَجُوزُ أَنْ يَكُونَ رَسُولُ اللهِ ﷺ مَسَحَ عَلَى نَعْلَيْنِ تَحْتَهُمَا جَوْرَبَانِ

al-Ṭaḥāwī relaying camp B · after athar 615 · p97

↓ THE MOVE

C · The move يُحْتَمَلُ

The Aws ḥadīth admits two innocent readings (socks-and-sandals, or wiping the bare feet), so it gives the opponent no proof. Having neutralized the text, he turns to naẓar and likens sandals to torn khuffayn.

فَحَدِيثُ أَبِي أَوْسٍ، يَحْتَمِلُ عِنْدَنَا مَا ذَكَرَ فِيهِ عَنْ رَسُولِ اللهِ ﷺ مِنْ مَسْحِهِ عَلَى نَعْلَيْهِ، أَنْ يَكُونَ كَمَا قَالَ أَبُو مُوسَى، وَالْمُغِيرَةُ، أَوْ كَمَا قَالَ ابْنُ عُمَرَ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 618 commentary · p97-98

فَلَيْسَ فِي ذَلِكَ مَا يَدُلُّ عَلَى جَوَازِ الْمَسْحِ عَلَى النَّعْلَيْنِ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · p98

Move-label: his word يُحْتَمَلُequivocation), then النَّظَر here is only a cross-ref to bāb farḍ al-qadamayn - not the move.

↓ therefore

D · Ruling

وَكَانَتِ النَّعْلَانِ غَيْرَ مُغَيَّبَيْنِ لِلْقَدَمَيْنِ، ثَبَتَ أَنَّهُمَا كَالْخُفَّيْنِ اللَّذَيْنِ لَا يُغَيِّبَانِ الْقَدَمَيْنِ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · end of bāb · p98

No wiping over bare sandals; permissibility attaches to thick/leather socks under them, not the sandals.

[editor] source gives no three-imams capstone here; only a split on thick socks (Abū Yūsuf/Muḥammad vs Abū Ḥanīfa) - not the sandal verdict.

بَابُ الْمُسْتَحَاضَةِ كَيْفَ تَتَطَهَّرُ لِلصَّلَاةِ

The mustaḥāḍa: how she purifies for prayer (and: wuḍūʾ per prayer or per waqt?)

āthār 619-646
print p98-107 · vol 1

Hook: three camps (ghusl-per-prayer / one-ghusl-per-two / one-ghusl-then-wuḍūʾ-per-prayer). The load-bearing hinge is ʿĀʾisha’s own chosen fatwā = nāsikh of the other two; then wuḍūʾ is owed per waqt, referred to an agreed aṣl.

A · The two camps he argues against

Camp A - ghusl for every prayer: she leaves prayer her ḥayḍ-days, then a fresh ghusl at each prayer.

قَالَ أَبُو جَعْفَرٍ: فَذَهَبَ قَوْمٌ إِلَى أَنَّ الْمُسْتَحَاضَةَ تَدَعُ الصَّلَاةَ أَيَّامَ أَقْرَائِهَا، ثُمَّ تَغْتَسِلُ لِكُلِّ صَلَاةٍ

al-Ṭaḥāwī reporting قَوْمٌ· athar 620 · p98-99

Camp B - one ghusl per two prayers: join Ẓuhr+ʿAṣr, Maghrib+ʿIshāʾ, Ṣubḥ alone - and they claim this is the “preferable” later ruling, abrogating Camp A.

قَالُوا: فَهَذِهِ الْآثَارُ قَدْ رُوِيَتْ عَنْ رَسُولِ اللهِ ﷺ كَمَا ذَكَرْنَا، فِي جَمْعِ الظُّهْرِ وَالْعَصْرِ بِغُسْلٍ وَاحِدٍ، وَفِي جَمْعِ الْمَغْرِبِ وَالْعِشَاءِ، بِغُسْلٍ وَاحِدٍ، وَإِفْرَادِ الصُّبْحِ بِغُسْلٍ وَاحِدٍ. فَبِهَذَا نَأْخُذُ، وَهُوَ أَوْلَى مِنَ الْآثَارِ الْأُوَلِ

al-Ṭaḥāwī reporting Camp B (قَالُوا· athar 632 · p100

Camp B’s abrogation ground: the joining order was given afterward because the per-prayer ghusl had exhausted Sahla bint Suhayl. [Both A and B are positions al-Ṭaḥāwī answers; Camp B’s nāsikh is its own claim - al-Ṭaḥāwī’s OWN naskh route (grounded on ʿĀʾisha’s fatwā) is the C-box / SB4.]

B · al-Ṭaḥāwī’s adopted position

One ghusl, then wuḍūʾ per prayer-TIME (waqt) - the Ḥanafī position he lands on: she leaves prayer her ḥayḍ-days, makes a single ghusl, then renews wuḍūʾ for the time of each prayer.

فَقَالَ بَعْضُهُمْ: تَتَوَضَّأُ لِوَقْتِ كُلِّ صَلَاةٍ وَهُوَ قَوْلُ أَبِي حَنِيفَةَ ﵀ وَزُفَرَ، وَأَبِي يُوسُفَ، وَمُحَمَّدِ بْنِ الْحَسَنِ رَحِمَهُمُ اللهُ تَعَالَى

al-Ṭaḥāwī adopting the per-waqt view · athar 646 · p106

This is the substance of Camp C (one ghusl once, then wuḍūʾ), resolved into wuḍūʾ per waqt in the nested sub-dispute (SB4).

↓ THE MOVE

C · The move هُوَ النَّاسِخُ لِلْحُكْمَيْنِ الْآخَرَيْنِ

al-Ṭaḥāwī’s own hinge is not chronology of the marfūʿ texts but ʿĀʾisha’s choice of fatwā: she gives fatwā by ghusl-once-then-wuḍūʾ-per-prayer, so that ruling is the nāsikh of the other two - a narrator does not abandon the abrogating to give fatwā by the abrogated.

ثَبَتَ بِجَوَابِهَا ذَلِكَ، أَنَّ ذَلِكَ الْحُكْمَ هُوَ النَّاسِخُ لِلْحُكْمَيْنِ الْآخَرَيْنِ لِأَنَّهُ لَا يَجُوزُ عِنْدَنَا عَلَيْهَا أَنْ تَدَعَ النَّاسِخَ، وَتُفْتِيَ بِالْمَنْسُوخِ، وَلَوْلَا ذَلِكَ، لَسَقَطَتْ رِوَايَتُهَا

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 646 · p105

Move-label: his own word النَّاسِخِ, grounded on «ثَبَتَ بِجَوَابِهَاThe alternate “other route” (reports don’t conflict - each for a different mustaḥāḍa) is detailed in the zoom-ins.

↓ therefore

D · Ruling

For the mustaḥāḍa who does not know her days: leave prayer her ḥayḍ-days, one ghusl, then wuḍūʾ at each prayer-TIME (waqt).

فَثَبَتَ بِذَلِكَ قَوْلُ مَنْ ذَهَبَ إِلَى أَنَّهَا تَتَوَضَّأُ لِكُلِّ وَقْتِ صَلَاةٍ، وَهُوَ قَوْلُ أَبِي حَنِيفَةَ، وَأَبِي يُوسُفَ، وَمُحَمَّدِ بْنِ الْحَسَنِ، رَحِمَهُمُ اللهُ تَعَالَى

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 646 · p107

Zoom-in · the evidence behind the move

1 · taṣḥīḥ riwāyat Abī Ḥanīfa - the wuḍūʾ-clause rehabilitated

Hinge: an objector charged Abū Ḥanīfa’s “then do wuḍūʾ at each prayer” wording as error against the ḥuffāẓ. al-Ṭaḥāwī answers with a corroborating ḥāfiẓ, Ḥammād b. Salama, “not below” Mālik, al-Layth, ʿAmr b. al-Ḥārith - an evidentiary filter, not reconciliation.

فَفِي هَذَا الْحَدِيثِ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللهِ ﷺ أَمَرَهَا بِالْوُضُوءِ مَعَ أَمْرِهِ إِيَّاهَا بِالْغُسْلِ، فَذَلِكَ الْوُضُوءُ، هُوَ الْوُضُوءُ لِكُلِّ صَلَاةٍ، فَهَذَا مَعْنَى حَدِيثِ أَبِي حَنِيفَةَ رَحِمَهُ اللهُ تَعَالَى وَلَيْسَ حَمَّادُ بْنُ سَلَمَةَ عِنْدَكُمْ، فِي هِشَامِ بْنِ عُرْوَةَ، بِدُونِ مَالِكٍ وَاللَّيْثِ وَعَمْرِو بْنِ الْحَارِثِ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 644 · p103

Ruling: the wuḍūʾ-per-prayer wording stands as sound.

2 · munqaṭiʿ + types of mustaḥāḍa - the aqrāʾ-clause dropped

Hinge: the “leave prayer her aqrāʾ-days” clause is traced to Zaynab’s line alone, which is munqaṭiʿ - so it drops; and the silent “mustaḥāḍa” report cannot be forced onto one of the differing types without an indicator.

فَكَانَ حَدِيثُ زَيْنَبَ الَّذِي فِيهِ ذِكْرُ الْأَقْرَاءِ، حَدِيثًا مُنْقَطِعًا لَا يُثْبِتُهُ أَهْلُ الْخَبَرِ لِأَنَّهُمْ لَا يَحْتَجُّونَ بِالْمُنْقَطِعِ وَإِنَّمَا جَاءَ انْقِطَاعُهُ، لِأَنَّ زَيْنَبَ لَمْ يُدْرِكْهَا الْقَاسِمُ وَلَمْ يُولَدْ فِي زَمَنِهَا

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 644 · p104

Ruling: the munqaṭiʿ aqrāʾ-clause carries no proof; the report is distributed across distinct factual cases.

3 · the “other route” - the reports do not contradict

Hinge: besides the naskh route, al-Ṭaḥāwī offers a route where the marfūʿ reports do not conflict - Fāṭima bint Abī Ḥubaysh had known days, Sahla had unknown days - so each report governs a different mustaḥāḍa.

وَقَدْ يَجُوزُ فِي هَذَا وَجْهٌ آخَرُ، يَجُوزُ أَنْ يَكُونَ مَا رُوِيَ عَنْ رَسُولِ اللهِ ﷺ فِي فَاطِمَةَ ابْنَةِ أَبِي حُبَيْشٍ لَا يُخَالِفُ مَا رُوِيَ عَنْهُ، فِي أَمْرِ سَهْلَةَ ابْنَةِ سُهَيْلٍ لِأَنَّ فَاطِمَةَ ابْنَةَ أَبِي حُبَيْشٍ، كَانَتْ أَيَّامُهَا مَعْرُوفَةً، وَسَهْلَةَ كَانَتْ أَيَّامُهَا مَجْهُولَةً

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 646 · p105

Ruling: on this route too the conflict dissolves; Umm Ḥabība’s ghusl-per-prayer is read as treatment («تَتَعَالَجُ بِهِ

4 · al-aṣl: per-waqt, not per-prayer - the nested sub-dispute

Hinge: the disputed non-ḥadath nullifier is referred to the agreed nullifier that has a known aṣl - the masḥ-on-khuffayn ṭahāra, which is nullified by exit of the waqt - so her wuḍūʾ is owed per prayer-TIME.

فَأَوْلَى الْأَشْيَاءِ أَنْ نَرْجِعَ فِي هَذَا الْحَدَثِ الْمُخْتَلَفِ فِيهِ، فَنَجْعَلَهُ كَالْحَدَثِ الَّذِي قَدْ أُجْمِعَ عَلَيْهِ وَوُجِدَ لَهُ أَصْلٌ وَلَا نَجْعَلَهُ كَمَا لَمْ يُجْمَعْ عَلَيْهِ، وَلَمْ نَجِدْ لَهُ أَصْلًا

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 646 · p107

وَطِهَارَاتٍ تَنْتَقِضُ بِخُرُوجِ أَوْقَاتٍ، وَهِيَ الطَّهَارَةُ بِالْمَسْحِ عَلَى الْخُفَّيْنِ، يَنْقُضُهَا خُرُوجُ وَقْتِ الْمُسَافِرِ وَخُرُوجُ وَقْتِ الْمُقِيمِ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 646 · p107

Ruling: wuḍūʾ for the time of each prayer - Abū Ḥanīfa, Abū Yūsuf, Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan (Zufar named in the first listing, p106).

Note on the naskh attribution: the word نَّاسِخِ appears in two mouths - first Camp B’s proponents (SB1 parent: “qālū … nāsikh”, athar 632-633), then al-Ṭaḥāwī’s own voice grounded on ʿĀʾisha’s fatwā (parent C-box / SB “other route”, athar 646). The parent B-box reports Camp B’s claim; the load-bearing hinge in the C-box is al-Ṭaḥāwī’s own. [editor] athar numbers near 623-625 are internally inconsistent in the source; page markers are reliable.

بَابُ حُكْمِ بَوْلِ مَا يُؤْكَلُ لَحْمُهُ

Urine of meat-animals: pure (like its flesh) or impure (like its blood)?

āthār 647-660
print p107-110 · vol 1

Hook: the ʿUraniyyīn reports admit several meanings and prove no purity → so he goes to naẓar: urine follows the ruling of blood, not flesh → najis.

A · Position argued against

The urine of a meat-animal is pure, its ruling following its flesh - among them Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan.

فَذَهَبَ قَوْمٌ إِلَى أَنَّ بَوْلَ مَا يُؤْكَلُ لَحْمُهُ طَاهِرٌ، وَأَنَّ حُكْمَ ذَلِكَ، كَحُكْمِ لَحْمِهِ. وَمِمَّنْ ذَهَبَ إِلَى ذَلِكَ، مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ الْحَسَنِ

al-Ṭaḥāwī reporting قَوْمٌ· athar 648 · p107-108

لَمَّا جَعَلَ ذَلِكَ رَسُولُ اللهِ ﷺ دَوَاءً لِمَا بِهِمْ، ثَبَتَ أَنَّهُ حَلَالٌ، لِأَنَّهُ لَوْ كَانَ حَرَامًا، لَمْ يُدَاوِهِمْ بِهِ

opponents’ proof, reported by al-Ṭaḥāwī (وَقَالُوا· athar 648 · p107-108

B · al-Ṭaḥāwī’s position

The urine of camels is najis; its ruling is the ruling of their blood, not of their milk and flesh. The ʿUraniyyīn case was for necessity (ḍarūra).

وَخَالَفَهُمْ فِي ذَلِكَ آخَرُونَ فَقَالُوا: أَبْوَالُ الْإِبِلِ نَجِسَةٌ، وَحُكْمُهَا حُكْمُ دِمَائِهَا لَا حُكْمُ أَلْبَانِهَا وَلُحُومِهَا

al-Ṭaḥāwī reporting آخَرُونَcamp he adopts) · athar 654 · p108

أَمَّا مَا رَوَيْتُمُوهُ فِي حَدِيثِ الْعُرَنِيِّينَ، فَذَلِكَ إِنَّمَا كَانَ لِلضَّرُورَةِ

same camp (وَقَالُوا· athar 654 · p108-109

↓ THE MOVE

C · The move النَّظَرِ

The reports admit the meanings he listed and carry no proof of purity, so he returns to naẓar: human flesh is pure by consensus yet human urine is najis by their own agreement - so urine is ruled by the ruling of blood, not flesh. Camel urine likewise.

فَلَمَّا احْتَمَلَتْ مَا ذَكَرْنَا، وَلَمْ يَكُنْ فِيهَا دَلِيلٌ عَلَى طَهَارَةِ الْأَبْوَالِ، احْتَجْنَا أَنْ نَرْجِعَ فَنَلْتَمِسَ ذَلِكَ مِنْ طَرِيقِ النَّظَرِ فَنَعْلَمَ كَيْفَ حُكْمُهُ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · within athar 656 · p109

فَإِذَا لُحُومُ بَنِي آدَمَ، كُلٌّ قَدْ أَجْمَعَ أَنَّهَا لُحُومٌ طَاهِرَةٌ وَأَنَّ أَبْوَالَهُمْ حَرَامٌ نَجِسَةٌ، فَكَانَتْ أَبْوَالُهُمْ بِاتِّفَاقِهِمْ مَحْكُومًا لَهَا بِحُكْمِ دِمَائِهِمْ، لَا بِحُكْمِ لُحُومِهِمْ

al-Ṭaḥāwī, the naẓar · athar 656 · p109-110

Move-label: his repeated word النَّظَرِ, reached via «احْتَمَلَتْthe reports are muḥtamil → no dalīl). Not نَسْخُ/takhṣīṣ/جْمَعُ/tarjīḥ.

↓ therefore

D · Ruling

فَالنَّظَرُ عَلَى ذَلِكَ أَنْ تَكُونَ كَذَلِكَ أَبْوَالُ الْإِبِلِ، يَحْكُمُ لَهَا بِحُكْمِ دِمَائِهَا، لَا بِحُكْمِ لُحُومِهَا، فَثَبَتَ بِمَا ذَكَرْنَا أَنَّ أَبْوَالَ الْإِبِلِ نَجِسَةٌ. فَهَذَا هُوَ النَّظَرُ، وَهُوَ قَوْلُ أَبِي حَنِيفَةَ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 656 · p110

Generalized: the urine of meat-animals (camel and the like) is najis, ruled by the ruling of its blood. This is the naẓar, and it is the saying of Abū Ḥanīfa.

بَابُ صِفَةِ التَّيَمُّمِ كَيْفَ هِيَ

The manner of tayammum: which limbs, how many strikes? (three camps)

āthār 661-684
print p110-114 · vol 1

Hook: two moves - (1) the shoulders-report is ʿAmmār’s own act, not a command, and his ḥadīth conflicts with itself; (2) elbows-over-palms by qiyās/naẓar (tayammum is a badal of wuḍūʾ).

A · Position argued against

Camp 1: tayammum reaches to the shoulders and armpits, two strikes. (Camp 2 = face + hands to the elbows; Camp 3 = face + palms.)

فَذَهَبَ قَوْمٌ إِلَى هَذَا، فَقَالُوا: هَكَذَا التَّيَمُّمُ، ضَرْبَةٌ لِلْوَجْهِ، وَضَرْبَةٌ لِلذِّرَاعَيْنِ إِلَى الْمَنَاكِبِ وَالْآبَاطِ. وَخَالَفَهُمْ فِي ذَلِكَ آخَرُونَ، فَافْتَرَقُوا فِرْقَتَيْنِ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · after athar 667 · p111

Their proof: the ʿAmmār reports of wiping to the shoulders/armpits (āthār 661-666).

B · al-Ṭaḥāwī’s position

Camp 2 - face + hands to the elbows. He voids the shoulders-view, then prefers elbows over palms. Tayammum is a badal of wuḍūʾ on the limbs wuḍūʾ washes.

فَلَمَّا ثَبَتَ أَنَّ بَعْضَ مَا يُغْسَلُ مِنَ الْيَدَيْنِ فِي حَالِ وُجُودِ الْمَاءِ يُيَمَّمُ فِي حَالِ عَدَمِ الْمَاءِ، ثَبَتَ بِذَلِكَ أَنَّ التَّيَمُّمَ فِي الْيَدَيْنِ إِلَى الْمِرْفَقَيْنِ قِيَاسًا وَنَظَرًا عَلَى مَا بَيَّنَّا مِنْ ذَلِكَ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · after athar 677 · p113

Madhhab (his words): وَهَذَا قَوْلُ أَبِي حَنِيفَةَ، وَأَبِي يُوسُفَ، وَمُحَمَّدٍ رَحِمَهُمُ اللهُ تَعَالَى. وَقَدْ رُوِيَ ذَلِكَ عَنِ ابْنِ عُمَرَ ﵄، وَجَابِرٍ ﵁ · p113.

↓ THE MOVE

C · The move إِنَّمَا أَخْبَرَهُمْ عَنْ فِعْلِهِمْ · قِيَاسًا وَنَظَرًا

Move 1 (vs shoulders): ʿAmmār did not report a Prophetic command to do it that way - only their own act (fiʿl); and his ḥadīth conflicts with itself, so the shoulders-reading is set aside (an evidentiary filter, not reconciliation). Move 2 (elbows over palms): by qiyās/naẓar, tayammum as badal of wuḍūʾ.

أَنَّ عَمَّارَ بْنَ يَاسِرٍ لَمْ يَذْكُرْ أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ ﷺ أَمَرَهُمْ أَنْ يَتَيَمَّمُوا كَذَلِكَ، وَإِنَّمَا أَخْبَرَهُمْ عَنْ فِعْلِهِمْ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 667 · p111

فَقَدِ اضْطَرَبَ عَلَيْنَا حَدِيثُ عَمَّارٍ هَذَا، غَيْرَ أَنَّهُمْ جَمِيعًا، قَدْ نَفَوْا أَنْ يَكُونَ قَدْ بَلَغَ الْمَنْكِبَيْنِ وَالْإِبْطَيْنِ … وَثَبَتَ أَحَدُ الْقَوْلَيْنِ الْآخَرَيْنِ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · after athar 676 · p113

Move-label: Move 1 = his فْعَلُ/ اضْطَرَبَ/ نَفَوْاno category-noun). Move 2 = قِيَاسًا وَنَظَرًاliterally in matn). Camp 3 (palms) is a defeated-but-respected co-claimant, overridden by naẓar.

↓ therefore

D · Ruling

فَبَطَلَ بِذَلِكَ قَوْلُ مَنْ قَالَ: إِنَّهُ إِلَى الْمَنَاكِبِ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · after athar 677 · p113

Tayammum = face + hands to the elbows, two strikes; the shoulders-view is voided. Position of Abū Ḥanīfa, Abū Yūsuf, Muḥammad.

بَابُ غُسْلِ يَوْمِ الْجُمُعَةِ

The Friday ghusl: obligatory or recommended?

āthār 685-727
print p115-120 · vol 1

Hook: he answers the “wājib” command-reports by matn construal - the order had a transient ʿilla that lapsed, and the «فَبِهَا وَنِعْمَتْreport makes the farḍ the wuḍūʾ - not by an isnād-attack.

A · Position argued against

The Friday ghusl is obligatory (his word: ījāb), arguing from the “wājib/command” āthār.

فَذَهَبَ قَوْمٌ إِلَى إِيجَابِ الْغُسْلِ يَوْمَ الْجُمُعَةِ، وَاحْتَجُّوا فِي ذَلِكَ بِهَذِهِ الْآثَارِ

al-Ṭaḥāwī framing camp A · athar 705 · p116

«الْغُسْلُ يَوْمَ الْجُمُعَةِ وَاجِبٌ عَلَى كُلِّ مُحْتَلِمٍ

[narration] Prophet ﷺ via Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī · athar 703 · p116

B · al-Ṭaḥāwī’s position

Not obligatory; it was commanded for reasons that obtained at the time. The farḍ is the wuḍūʾ; the ghusl is afḍal.

وَخَالَفَهُمْ فِي ذَلِكَ آخَرُونَ فَقَالُوا: لَيْسَ الْغُسْلُ يَوْمَ الْجُمُعَةِ بِوَاجِبٍ، وَلَكِنَّهُ مِمَّا قَدْ أَمَرَ بِهِ رَسُولُ اللهِ ﷺ، لِمَعَانٍ قَدْ كَانَتْ

al-Ṭaḥāwī framing his camp · athar 705 · p116

«مَنْ تَوَضَّأَ يَوْمَ الْجُمُعَةِ فَبِهَا وَنِعْمَتْ، وَقَدْ أَدَّى الْفَرْضَ، وَمَنِ اغْتَسَلَ فَالْغُسْلُ أَفْضَلُ

[narration] Prophet ﷺ via Anas · athar 722 · p119

↓ THE MOVE

C · The move لِعِلَّةٍ، ثُمَّ ذَهَبَتْ تِلْكَ الْعِلَّةِ فَذَهَبَ الْغُسْلُ

He answers the command-reports by matn construal, not by isnād-attack: he reads the order as motivated by a transient ʿilla (heat, wool clothing, cramped masjid) that has lapsed, and reads the «فَبِهَا وَنِعْمَتْreport as expressly assigning the farḍ to the wuḍūʾ.

وَإِنَّمَا كَانَ لِعِلَّةٍ، ثُمَّ ذَهَبَتْ تِلْكَ الْعِلَّةِ فَذَهَبَ الْغُسْلُ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · after athar 707 · p117

فَبَيَّنَ رَسُولُ اللهِ ﷺ فِي هَذَا الْحَدِيثِ أَنَّ الْفَرْضَ هُوَ الْوُضُوءُ، وَأَنَّ الْغُسْلَ أَفْضَلُ لِمَا يَنَالُ بِهِ مِنَ الْفَضْلِ لَا عَلَى أَنَّهُ فَرْضٌ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · after athar 722 · p119

Move-label: his own word عِلَّةُadmissible - literally in his matn). The “cause lapsed → ruling lapsed” logic is naskh-adjacent, but he does NOT call it naskh, so it is not labelled so.

↓ therefore

D · Ruling

وَجَمِيعُ مَا بَيَّنَّاهُ فِي هَذَا الْبَابِ، هُوَ قَوْلُ أَبِي حَنِيفَةَ، وَأَبِي يُوسُفَ، وَمُحَمَّدٍ. رَحِمَهُمُ اللهُ تَعَالَى

al-Ṭaḥāwī · after athar 727 · p120

The Friday ghusl is not obligatory but recommended (afḍal); the farḍ on Friday is the wuḍūʾ. Position of the three named imams.

بَابُ الِاسْتِجْمَارِ

Cleaning with stones: is the count fixed (≥3, odd)?

āthār 728-745
print p120-123 · vol 1

Hook: the «فَلْيُوتِرْcommand bears two meanings - recommendation or binding minimum - and a clearer narration («فَلَا حَرَجَsettles it as recommendation; then naẓar: whatever removes the filth purifies.

A · Position argued against

Istijmār does not suffice with fewer than three stones (a fixed minimum of three).

فَذَهَبَ قَوْمٌ إِلَيَّ أَنَّ الِاسْتِجْمَارَ لَا يُجْزِئُ بِأَقَلَّ مِنْ ثَلَاثَةِ أَحْجَارٍ، وَاحْتَجُّوا فِي ذَلِكَ بِمَا ذَكَرْنَا مِنْ هَذِهِ الْآثَارِ

al-Ṭaḥāwī reporting قَوْمٌ· athar 741 tail · p121

«مَنِ اسْتَجْمَرَ فَلْيُوتِرْ

[narration] Prophet ﷺ via Abū Hurayra · athar 729 · p120

B · al-Ṭaḥāwī’s position

Whatever removes the filth purifies - three, more, or fewer; odd or even. No fixed count.

وَخَالَفَهُمْ فِي ذَلِكَ آخَرُونَ فَقَالُوا: مَا اسْتَجْمَرَ بِهِ مِنْهَا فَأَنْقَى بِهِ الْأَذَى، ثَلَاثَةً كَانَتْ أَوْ أَكْثَرَ مِنْهَا أَوْ أَقَلَّ، وِتْرًا كَانَتْ أَوْ غَيْرَ وِتْرٍ، كَانَ ذَلِكَ طُهْرَهُ

al-Ṭaḥāwī reporting آخَرُونَcamp he adopts) · athar 741 tail · p121

«مَنِ اسْتَجْمَرَ فَلْيُوتِرْ، مَنْ فَعَلَ فَقَدْ أَحْسَنَ، وَمَنْ لَا، فَلَا حَرَجَ

[narration] Prophet ﷺ via Abū Hurayra · athar 742/743 · p121-122

↓ THE MOVE

C · The move يُحْتَمَلُ … وَيُحْتَمَلُ

He keeps every “three/odd” narration. The «فَلْيُوتِرْcommand bears two readings (istiḥbāb vs a binding tawqīt); he disambiguates by the clearer «فَلَا حَرَجَwording (→ recommendation) and the Prophet’s own use of two stones (→ fewer than three purifies). Then he confirms it independently min ṭarīq al-naẓar.

فَدَلَّ ذَلِكَ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللهِ ﷺ إِنَّمَا أَمَرَ بِالْوِتْرِ فِي الْآثَارِ الْأُوَلِ، اسْتِحْبَابًا مِنْهُ لِلْوِتْرِ، لَا أَنَّ ذَلِكَ مِنْ طَرِيقِ الْفَرْضِ الَّذِي لَا يُجْزِئُ إِلَّا هُوَ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 743 tail · p122

فَهَذَا وَجْهُ هَذَا الْبَابِ مِنْ طَرِيقِ تَصْحِيحِ مَعَانِي الْآثَارِ. وَأَمَّا مِنْ طَرِيقِ النَّظَرِ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 745 tail · p123

Move-label: his «يُحْتَمَلُ … وَيُحْتَمَلُ→ «فَدَلَّ ذَلِكَvs the «التَّوْقِيتِhe denies). Not نَسْخُ/takhṣīṣ/جْمَعُ/tarjīḥ.

↓ therefore

D · Ruling

وَلَكِنْ يُجْزِئُ مِنْ ذَلِكَ مَا أَذْهَبَ بِالنَّجَاسَةِ، مِمَّا قَلَّ أَوْ كَثُرَ. وَهَذَا هُوَ النَّظَرُ، وَهُوَ قَوْلُ أَبِي حَنِيفَةَ، وَأَبِي يُوسُفَ، وَمُحَمَّدِ بْنِ الْحَسَنِ رَحِمَهُمُ اللهُ تَعَالَى

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 745 tail · p123

What suffices is whatever removes the impurity, little or much; no fixed quantity. This is the naẓar, and the saying of the three named imams.

بَابُ الِاسْتِجْمَارِ بِالْعِظَامِ

Cleaning with bones: does a bone fail to purify, or is the ban extrinsic?

āthār 746-756
print p123-124 · vol 1

Hook: both agree the Prophet ﷺ forbade bones. He re-reads the cause: the ban is for the jinn’s sake, not because a bone fails to purify - so the bone still purifies like a stone.

A · Position argued against

One does not clean with bones; whoever does is as one who has not cleaned (the bone does not purify).

قَالَ أَبُو جَعْفَرٍ: فَذَهَبَ قَوْمٌ إِلَى أَنَّهُ لَا يُسْتَنْجَى بِالْعِظَامِ، وَجَعَلُوا الْمُسْتَنْجِيَ بِهَا فِي حُكْمِ مَنْ لَمْ يَسْتَنْجِ. وَاحْتَجُّوا فِي ذَلِكَ بِهَذِهِ الْآثَارِ

al-Ṭaḥāwī reporting قَوْمٌ· athar 752 tail · p123-124

أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللهِ ﷺ نَهَى أَنْ يَسْتَطِيبَ أَحَدٌ بِعَظْمٍ أَوْ بِرَوْثَةٍ

[narration] Ibn Masʿūd · athar 746 · p123

B · al-Ṭaḥāwī’s position

He forbade it not because a bone is unlike a stone, but because it was made provision for the jinn; the bone does purify.

وَخَالَفَهُمْ فِي ذَلِكَ آخَرُونَ فَقَالُوا: لَمْ يَنْهَ عَنِ الِاسْتِنْجَاءِ بِالْعَظْمِ لِأَنَّ الِاسْتِنْجَاءَ بِهِ لَيْسَ كَالِاسْتِنْجَاءِ بِالْحَجَرِ وَغَيْرِهِ، وَلَكِنَّهُ نَهَى عَنْ ذَلِكَ لِأَنَّهُ جُعِلَ زَادًا لِلْجِنِّ فَأَمَرَ بَنُو آدَمَ أَنْ لَا يَقْذُرُوهُ عَلَيْهِمْ

al-Ṭaḥāwī reporting آخَرُونَcamp he adopts) · athar 752 tail · p124

↓ THE MOVE

C · The move لِمَكَانِ الْجِنِّ لَا لِأَنَّهَا لَا تُطَهِّرُ

He accepts every prohibition-text and re-identifies its cause: the explanatory narrations (the jinn’s provision) show the ban is li-makān al-jinn, an extrinsic cause - not that bones fail to purify. The prohibition stands but yields no inference about purifying-power.

فَثَبَتَ بِهَذِهِ الْآثَارِ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللهِ ﷺ إِنَّمَا نَهَى عَنِ الِاسْتِنْجَاءِ بِالْعِظَامِ لِمَكَانِ الْجِنِّ لَا لِأَنَّهَا لَا تُطَهِّرُ كَمَا يُطَهِّرُ الْحَجَرُ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 756 tail · p124

[narration] لَا تَسْتَنْجُوا بِعَظْمٍ وَلَا رَوْثٍ فَإِنَّهَا أَزْوِدَةُ إِخْوَانِكُمُ الْجِنِّ

Prophet ﷺ via Ibn Masʿūd · athar 753 · p124

Move-label: his in-source phrase «لِمَكَانِ الْجِنِّcause-reidentification). Not نَسْخُ/takhṣīṣ/جْمَعُ/عِلَّةُ; لَمُ، كَانَis his word for the reason, not the technical ʿilla.

↓ therefore

D · Ruling

وَجَمِيعُ مَا ذَهَبْنَا إِلَيْهِ مِنَ الِاسْتِنْجَاءِ بِالْعِظَامِ أَنَّهُ يُطَهِّرُ. قَوْلُ أَبِي حَنِيفَةَ، وَأَبِي يُوسُفَ، وَمُحَمَّدِ بْنِ الْحَسَنِ، رَحِمَهُمُ اللهُ تَعَالَى

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 756 tail · p124

Cleaning with bones does purify (the ban being extrinsic, for the jinn). NB: the act remains prohibited by the texts; the ruling is about ṭahāra-efficacy. Position of the three named imams.

بَابُ الْجُنُبِ يُرِيدُ النَّوْمَ أَوِ الْأَكْلَ أَوِ الشُّرْبَ أَوِ الْجِمَاعَ

The junub who wants to sleep: must he do wuḍūʾ first? (sleep strand)

āthār 757-799
print p124-129 · vol 1

Hook: framed as a concession («رُخْصَ, not a wājib/mustaḥabb verdict. The “did not touch water” report is a faulty abridgement (or means ghusl-water); the sound report is “he did his wuḍūʾ for prayer.”

A · Position argued against

No harm in the junub sleeping without wuḍūʾ - among them Abū Yūsuf - since wuḍūʾ does not move him out of janāba.

فَذَهَبَ قَوْمٌ إِلَى هَذَا، وَمِمَّنْ ذَهَبَ إِلَيْهِ، أَبُو يُوسُفَ، فَقَالُوا: لَا نَرَى بَأْسًا أَنْ يَنَامَ الْجُنُبُ مِنْ غَيْرِ أَنْ يَتَوَضَّأَ، لِأَنَّ التَّوَضُّؤَ لَا يُخْرِجُهُ مِنْ حَالِ الْجَنَابَةِ إِلَى حَالِ الطَّهَارَةِ

al-Ṭaḥāwī reporting camp A · athar 762 tail · p125

«أَنَّهُ كَانَ يَنَامُ وَهُوَ جُنُبٌ وَلَا يَمَسُّ الْمَاءَ

[narration] Prophet ﷺ via ʿĀʾisha · athar 757 · p124

B · al-Ṭaḥāwī’s position

He should do wuḍūʾ for prayer before sleeping; the “did not touch water” report is an error - a botched abridgement by Abū Isḥāq.

وَخَالَفَهُمْ فِي ذَلِكَ آخَرُونَ، فَقَالُوا: يَنْبَغِي لَهُ أَنْ يَتَوَضَّأَ لِلصَّلَاةِ قَبْلَ أَنْ يَنَامَ، وَقَالُوا: هَذَا الْحَدِيثُ غَلَطٌ لِأَنَّهُ حَدِيثٌ مُخْتَصَرٌ، اخْتَصَرَهُ أَبُو إِسْحَاقَ، مِنْ حَدِيثٍ طَوِيلٍ فَأَخْطَأَ فِي اخْتِصَارِهِ إِيَّاهُ

al-Ṭaḥāwī reporting his own camp · athar 762 tail · p125

«رَخَّصَ رَسُولُ اللهِ ﷺ، لِلْجُنُبِ، إِذَا أَرَادَ أَنْ يَنَامَ، أَوْ يَشْرَبَ، أَوْ يَأْكُلَ، أَنْ يَتَوَضَّأَ وُضُوءَهُ لِلصَّلَاةِ

[narration] Prophet ﷺ via ʿAmmār - note رُخْصَ· athar 783 · p127

↓ THE MOVE

C · The move فَسَادِ مَا رَوَيْ · يَعْنِي الْغُسْلَ

Two prongs: (1) a report-defect filter - the “did not touch water” line is a faulty abridgement («غَلَطً/ «مُخْتَصَرٌ, and al-Aswad’s own ruling «fal-yatawaḍḍaʾ» makes ʿĀʾisha’s narrating «lā yamass māʾ» impossible («اسْتَحَالَ; (2) a matn re-reading - “water” here means the ghusl-water, so it never negated wuḍūʾ. Not naskh (naskh-language in this bāb belongs to the eat/muʿāwada strands).

فَثَبَتَ بِمَا ذَكَرْنَا، فَسَادُ مَا رُوِيَ، عَنْ أَبِي إِسْحَاقَ، عَنِ الْأَسْوَدِ، مِمَّا ذَكَرْنَا، وَثَبَتَ مَا رَوَى إِبْرَاهِيمُ، عَنِ الْأَسْوَدِ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 773 tail · p126-127

وَقَدْ يَحْتَمِلُ أَيْضًا أَنْ يَكُونَ مَا أَرَادَ أَبُو إِسْحَاقَ فِي قَوْلِهِ «وَلَا يَمَسُّ مَاءً» يَعْنِي الْغُسْلَ

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 773 tail · p127

Move-label: his words غَلَطً/ فَسَادِ مَا رَوَيْ/ اسْتَحَالَreport-defect filter) + يُحْتَمَلُ/ يَعْنِي الْغُسْلَmatn re-reading). No imported نَسْخُfor the sleep strand.

↓ therefore

D · Ruling (as established within the slice)

The “did not touch water” report is defective (or means ghusl-water); the sound report is “he did his wuḍūʾ for prayer,” and the reports are mutawātir: the reports confirm the Prophet’s practice of wuḍūʾ before sleep; al-Ṭaḥāwī does not classify the act as wājib or mustaḥabb (the framing stays «رُخْصَ- a concession).

فَقَدْ تَوَاتَرَتِ الْآثَارُ عَنْ رَسُولِ اللهِ ﷺ فِي الْجُنُبِ إِذَا أَرَادَ النَّوْمَ، بِمَا ذَكَرْنَا

al-Ṭaḥāwī · athar 784 tail · p127

[editor] NO wājib/mustaḥabb verdict in the slice (framing = «رُخْصَ, concession). Abū Yūsuf is on the opposing side (A); Abū Ḥanīfa is cited only as an evidential prop. No three-imams capstone - the bāb’s formal close lies outside this slice.

Every Arabic string is copied verbatim from turath 21108 (machine-verified literal substring). Move-labels use only words in al-Tahawi's own matn. Camp names / gradings, where shown, are editor-layer.