The jurist disagreed about the observance of a sequence in the acts of ablution as arranged in the verse [5:6].
There are two reasons for their disagreement. First is the equivocality that arises from the conjunction waw, (and), as the conjunction is sometimes achieved through it in a sequential order, while at other times it is without such order. This is indicated through induction in the usage of the Arabs. On this point the grammarians are divided into two groups. The grammarians of Basra said that the waw, does not indicate an order or a sequence, it merely implies a connection of the words joined by it. The Kufis said that it does indicate an order as well as a sequence. Those who maintained that the waw, in the verse implies order, upheld the obligation of a sequence, while those who maintained that it does not imply a sequence, did not uphold its obligation. The second reason is based upon their difference related to the acts of the Prophet (God's peace and blessings be upon him), whether they are to be construed as an obligation or a recommendation. Those who interpreted them as obligatory, upheld the obligation of a sequence, as it is not related from him that he ever performed ablution without a definite sequence. Those who interpreted them to imply a recommendation said that sequential performance is a sunna. Those who made a distinction between acts prescribed as a sunna and as an obligation said that obligatory sequential ordering has to be in acts that are obligatory, but those who did not make such a distinction said that obligatory conditions may apply even to acts that are not obligatory.