Section: However cleansing is achieved in istijmar, it is sufficient. Al-Qadi mentioned that it is recommended to pass the first stone from the front of its [the anus's] right flank (3) to the back of it, then rotate it to the left side until it returns with it to the place where he started; then he should pass the second from the front of its left flank in the same manner; then pass the third over the passage (masraba) (5) and both flanks, due to the statement of the Prophet -may Allah bless him and grant him peace-: "Cannot one of you find two stones for the two flanks and one stone for the passage?" Narrated by al-Daraqutni (6). He said: Its chain of narration (7) is hasan (sound). It is appropriate that he cover the entire area with each one of the stones; because if he does not cover it with it, that would be [considered] patching together, and thus it would be equivalent to a single wipe and would not count as repetition. This was mentioned by al-Sharif Abu Ja'far (8) and Ibn 'Aqil, and they both said: The meaning of the hadith is beginning with these specific areas. It is possible that one wipe for each side is sufficient, according to the apparent meaning of the report. And Allah knows best.

Section: Istijmar is sufficient in rare cases (9) just as it is sufficient in customary cases. There is an opinion among the companions of al-Shafi'i that it is not sufficient in rare cases. Ibn 'Abd al-Barr said: It is possible that this is the opinion of Malik; because the Prophet -may Allah bless him and grant him peace- commanded the washing of the penis [to remove] madhy (pre-seminal fluid), and a command implies obligation. Ibn 'Abd al-Barr said: They used as evidence that all the reports, despite the differences in their wordings and chains of narration, do not contain any mention of istinja' (cleansing with stones); it is only [mention of] washing. Furthermore, because rare occurrences do not repeat, it is not difficult (10) to mandate water for them, so it becomes obligatory, just like washing any other area. Our [counter] argument is that the report is general regarding all cases, and that istijmar in rare cases was only made obligatory because of what accompanies it of the wetness of the customary [discharge], and then if it does not cause difficulty, it is in...