The Hanafi School’s approach to Wudhu with Nabidh al-Tamr in the Absence of Water

The Aṣl of Ṭahārah is as narrated by Imam al-Ṭaḥāwī (d.321 AH) that Imam Abū Ḥanīfah (d.150 AH) stated that for a healthy person, the only means of attaining purity is through water¹. Imam al-Atqānī (d.758 AH) clarifies that this refers specifically to plain, natural water, known as Māʾ al-Muṭlaq in the Fiqh texts. Any plain and natural water, however and wherever it is sourced from, can be used for Ṭahārah purposes.

Given that the Aṣl of Ṭahārah is the use of plain water and that is the principle of cleansing oneself, anything other than what is known to be plain, and natural water would not be acceptable. Hence, Wuḍūʾ would not be valid with Nabīdh al-Tamr or any other Nabīdh, since these are not known to be water and Māʾin contemporary parlance.

However, a question is raised on why there is a departure from the above principle in a narration from Imam Abū Ḥanīfah (d.150 AH) that in the scenario where one finds nothing but Nabīdh al-Tamr, it is permissible to perform Wuḍūʾ with it, without resorting to Tayammum.

Imam al-Marghīnānī (d.593 AH) explains that this is due to a Ḥadīth in which the Prophet ﷺ performed Wuḍūʾ with Nabīdh al-Tamr in the absence of plain and natural water. Yet, two further opinions are also narrated from Imam Abū Ḥanīfah (d.150 AH). One aligns with what is narrated from Imam Abū Yūsuf (d.182 AH) that Tayammum must be performed in this instance, not Wuḍūʾ. Another aligns with what is narrated by Imam Muḥammad (d.189 AH): that both Tayammum and Wuḍūʾ must be performed. Imam al-Atqānī (d.758 AH) mentions his correct and final opinion is the one in line with Imam Abū Yūsuf (d.182 AH).

Imam al-ʿAynī (d.855 AH) narrates from Abū Ṭāhir al-Dabbās (d.493 AH) that the differing answers of Imam Abū Ḥanīfah were due to the differing questions posed to him. When asked about a case where the Ḥalāwah(sweetness) was predominant, he said one should perform Tayammum and not Wuḍūʾ. When asked about a case where Māʾ and Ḥalāwah were equal, he said one should combine between Tayammum and Wuḍūʾ. And when asked about a case where Māʾ was predominant, he said Wuḍūʾ should be performed without Tayammum. Al-Sughnāqī (d.714 AH) added that according to this method, there is no difference in ruling between Nabīdh al-Tamr and other types of Anbidhah (fermented juices).

Al-Sighnāqī (d.711 AH) narrates how the Ḥanafī tradition preserves three reports from Imam Abū Ḥanīfah (d.150 AH) on purification with a sweetened infusion with dates (Nabīdh) in place of plain water. Al-Jāmiʿ al-Ṣaghīr and al-Ziyādāt record that one may perform Wuḍūʾ with such a liquid and that Tayammum is not required. By contrast, Kitāb al-Ṣalāh in al-Aṣl states that performing Wuḍūʾ with it together with tayammum is more preferable. Al-Bazdawī (d.493 AH) clarifies that this latter wording implies validity if one were to do Wuḍūʾ alone and invalidity if one were to do Tayammum alone without attempting Wuḍūʾ; the recommended course, however, is to combine both as a precaution.

A third report—transmitted by Nūḥ b. Abī Maryam (d.173 AH) and al-Ḥasan b. Ziyād (d.204 AH) from Imam Abū Ḥanīfah and cited by Imām al-Maḥbūbī (d.630 AH) that one should perform tayammum and not use the date-infused water for Wuḍūʾ. Abū Ṭāhir al-Dabbās (d.493 AH) reconciles the apparent divergence by tying each response to a different factual matrix: when sweetness predominates so that the mixture is no longer properly “water,” the ruling is Tayammum only; when water and sweetness are roughly equal, the recommended course is to combine Wuḍūʾ and tayammum as this liquid is not certainly water, and nor is it certainly sweetened date-infused water; and when water predominates, Wuḍūʾ with the mixture suffices and Tayammum is unnecessary, as this is just plain water with dates in it. That does not dispel it from being water and the dates being capable of being removed. On this reading, the answers vary not in principle but with the underlying ratios. Imām al-Tumarṭāshī (d.1004 AH) adds that, on this approach, the ruling does not differ between date-based nabīdh and other analogous infusions: the operative factor is predominance, not the specific fruit or substance infused.