"None touches it except the purified" (1). And in the letter of the Prophet -may Allah bless him and grant him peace- to ‘Amr ibn Hazm (2): "That none shall touch the Qur’an except the pure (3)." This is a well-known book, narrated by Abu ‘Ubayd in "Fada’il al-Qur’an" and others, and it was narrated by al-Athram. As for the verse with which the Prophet -may Allah bless him and grant him peace- wrote, he only intended it for correspondence, and a verse in a letter, a book of jurisprudence, or the like does not prevent touching it, nor does the book become a Mushaf [copy of the Qur'an] through it, nor does its sanctity attach to it. When this is established, it is not permissible for him to touch it with any part of his body, because it is part of his body, so it is like his hand. Their statement that touching is exclusive to the inner part of the hand is not correct; for anything that meets something has touched it.

Section: It is permissible to carry it by its strap. This is the view of Abu Hanifah, and it is narrated from al-Hasan, ‘Ata’, Tawus, al-Sha‘bi, al-Qasim, Abu Wa’il (4), al-Hakam, and Hammad. Al-Awza‘i, Malik, and al-Shafi‘i prohibited it. Malik said: The best I have heard is that one should not carry the Mushaf by its strap or in its cover unless he is pure; this is not because it defiles it, but out of veneration for the Qur’an. They argued that he is a legally responsible person in a state of impurity intending to carry the Mushaf, so it is not permitted, just as if he were to carry it while touching it. Our argument is that he is not touching it, so he is not prohibited from it, just as if he were to carry it in his baggage. Also, the prohibition only covers touching, and carrying is not touching, so the prohibition does not cover it. Their analogy is invalid, for the cause [‘illah] in the original case is touching it, and this is not present in the derivative case [fur’], and carrying has no effect, so deducing based on it is not valid. Based on this, if he were to carry it by a strap or with a barrier between him and it that does not follow it in a sale, it would be permissible, for the reasons we have mentioned. According to them, it is not permissible. The rationale for both schools of thought is as previously stated.