washing the hand, just as he (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) used to command performing wudu' before and after eating, and this was specified to camel meat because it contains heat and odor (zuhuma) that is not found in other meats. We say: As for the first point, it contradicts the apparent meaning in three ways: First, the requirement of the command is obligation (wujub). Second, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was asked about the ruling of this meat and he answered with a command to perform wudu' from it; therefore, it is not permissible to interpret it as anything other than obligation, because that would be obfuscation for the questioner rather than an answer. Third, he (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) linked it with the prohibition of performing wudu' from sheep meat, and the intent of the prohibition here is to negate obligation, not to prohibit, so it becomes necessary to interpret the command in it as obligation to establish the distinction. As for the second point, it is not correct for four reasons: First, it requires interpreting the command as recommendation (istihbab), for washing the hand alone is not mandatory, and we have already demonstrated the corruption of that interpretation. Second, when the term 'wudu'' occurs on the tongue of the Lawgiver, it must be interpreted according to its Shari'ah definition rather than its linguistic definition, because the apparent implication is that he speaks according to its defined meanings. Third, it was issued as an answer to the questioner's inquiry about the ruling of wudu' from eating it and praying in their resting places, so nothing is understood from that except the wudu' intended for prayer. Fourth, if he intended the washing of the hand, he would not have differentiated between it and sheep meat, for washing the hand from both is recommended, and this is why he said: "Whoever sleeps while there is the odor of fat (ghamr) on his hand and something befalls him, let him blame no one but himself." What they mentioned regarding the excess odor is a minor matter that does not necessitate a distinction. And Allah knows best. Furthermore, there must be evidence to divert the wording from its apparent meaning, and the evidence must be of a strength equal to the strength of the apparent meanings being abandoned, or stronger; yet they have no evidence, and their analogy (qiyas) is invalid, as it is purely formal (tardi) and contains no substance, and the negation of the ruling in all other foods is due to the lack of a prerequisite, not because it is food; thus, its being food has no effect, and its presence is as its absence. It is surprising that those who oppose us on this issue made wudu' obligatory based on weak hadiths that contradict established principles; Abu Hanifah made it obligatory due to laughing aloud in prayer—but not outside of it—based on a hadith from the Mursal reports of Abu al-'Aliyah; and Malik and al-Shafi'i made it obligatory due to touching the private parts, based on a hadith which is contested and opposed by its likes, while not requiring it for touching other parts of the body. They abandoned this authentic hadith which has no contradiction, despite its distance from interpretive distortion and the strength of its indication, because it conflicts with a formal analogy.