It is [also] contrary to what is proven from the Prophet of...

It is [also] contrary to what is proven from the Prophet of God's (S) wiping his blessed forelock rather than washing it. Therefore, legislating [something] in worship is invalid in itself and makes other [things] invalid. From what has been previously stated, you know that the washing and wiping are two separate performances, one cannot substitute the other.

The sequence (‘tartib’) in ‘wudhu’ The Imamis (Shi’i) have agreed in following the Imams of the pure family, the sequence of acts in the ‘wudhu’ in the manner which has been described in the noble verse [of Holy Quran]. The Malikis, Hanafis, Sufyan al-Thawri and Dawud have ruled that it is not a condition, nor, is it obligatory as they have considered it to be recommended. If it is opposed, the ablution is not invalidated.

They say that if the one performing ‘wudhu’ was to begin by washing his left foot and to end by washing his face, contrary to the verse in all his acts, then his ‘wudhu’ is [still] correct. Our proofs are the book and the ‘sunnah’. As for the book, the sequence is obvious from it even though the conjunction [of the acts] as described in the verse is by [the Arabic letter] ‘waw’ not by then (‘thumma’), or, by ‘fa’.

This is because ‘waw’ is used frequently as a conjunction of sequential things, it is not used in a metaphorical sense. This is proven by a study of the speech of Arabs, there is no doubt in it for anyone. Therefore the ‘Kufi’ grammarians have stated that it (‘waw’) is proper especially for [describing acts of] sequence and succession even though [the conjunctions] ‘thumma’ and ‘fa’ are clearer than it.

As for the ‘sunnah’, it is [according] to his saying in a famous authentic tradition: "The form of the ablution is the same whether it is for one of the five obligatory prayers, or, other obligatory, or, recommended acts." During his lifetime, the Prophet (S) would be in a pure state by performing the ritual ablution properly. Anytime it broke, he would renew the ‘wudhu’ properly.

Sometimes he would say: "It is light upon light." The ‘ummah’ has agreed that he (S) never did ‘wudhu’ except that it was in sequence. If the sequence was not a condition, and an obligation in ‘wudhu’, he would have opposed it at least once, or, would have proclaimed that its opposite was [also] allowed; thus, explaining the ruling as was his practise. Since he did not oppose the sequence and did not announce that its opposite is allowed, we know that it is not permissible.