Explanation of the author's statement: "And taking fresh water for the ears and the second and third washings"

The Shaykh : He said "And taking fresh water for the ears", meaning it is recommended (sunnah) for a person, when he wipes his head, to take fresh water for his ears. The evidence here is a proof and a reasoning. The proof is the hadith of Abdullah ibn Zayd, in which he saw the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) performing wudu, and he took water for his ears that was not the water he had used to wipe his head. This is the meaning of the hadith. However, this hadith is anomalous (shadhdh) because it contradicts what Muslim narrated, that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) took fresh water for his head, other than the leftover water from his hands. The wording of the hadith is , narrated by Muslim from the hadith of Abdullah ibn Zayd from this route. Therefore, the correct view is that one does not take fresh water for the ears. Also, all those who described the wudu of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not mention that he took fresh water for his ears, except for this anomalous hadith. Thus, the evidence is weak. What is the reasoning for taking fresh water for the ears? They say the reasoning is that they are like independent limbs. We say that they are not independent limbs, as evidenced by the fact that they are wiped along with the head in one motion. As for the second and third washings, these are also among the recommended practices (sunnah). The first washing is obligatory, based on the saying of the Exalted: . Therefore, the first is obligatory, the second is more complete, and the third is more complete because it is more thorough in cleaning. It is established that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) performed wudu once, twice, and three times. He also performed it in a mixed manner, washing his face three times, his hands twice, and his feet once. Some scholars disliked mixing the number of washings for the limbs, saying: if you wash your face once, do not wash your hands twice; and if you wash your hands twice, do not wash your feet three times. But the correct view is the opposite, because it is established that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) mixed them, washing the face three times, the hands twice, and the feet once. But is it better to always stick to three, or is it better to do this once and that once? The latter is closer to the truth. It may be said that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) performed wudu once to indicate permissibility, not as a form of worship involving variation in acts of worship. He performed it twice also to indicate permissibility, and mixed them to indicate permissibility. But we say that the original basis is worship and what is prescribed. It appears that the best is for a person to vary, meaning he performs wudu twice, three times, etc. According to the author's opinion, three is better than two, and two is better than one. Some scholars posed a riddle in this matter, saying to us: "A sunnah is better than an obligation." But what the text indicates is that the obligation is better than the sunnah, as Allah the Exalted said in the Qudsi Hadith: . Yes, and this third washing is a sunnah, and it is better than the obligation. And initiating the greeting is a sunnah, and it is better than returning it. So what is the answer to this riddle? The answer to this riddle is that it is an incorrect riddle and not correct, because when a person washes his wudu limbs three times, the obligation is included in it. So he has performed the obligation and more. How can it be correct to say that the sunnah here is better than the obligation? As for the greeting, they said that initiating the greeting is better than returning it. We discuss this statement from two angles. The first angle: someone might say that returning it is better because returning it is obligatory and initiating it is a sunnah, and the hadith is general: . Do you understand? And in that case, the riddle is invalidated from the start. And we may say that initiating the greeting is better than returning it because returning it is based on it. So the one who initiates the greeting has two merits: that he initiated the greeting, and that his initiation was the cause of an obligation. For that reason, it is better. The conclusion is that it is not possible for a voluntary act (nafl) to be better than an obligatory act (fard), based on the hadith we mentioned and correct reasoning, because if Allah did not love this act of worship, He would not have made it obligatory; He would have left it to human choice as a recommended practice.