Tushen bayanin ayyukan alwala shi ne siffar da aka ambata a cikin maganar Maɗaukaki, "Ya ku waɗanda suka yi imani, idan kun tashi zuwa salla, ku wanke fuskokinku da hannayenku zuwa ga gwiwar hannu, kuma ku shafa kawunanku, ku wanke ƙafafunku zuwa ga idon sawu",31 da kuma hanyar yin alwala da aka danganta ga Annabi ﷺ a cikin riwayoyin da aka tabbatar (dlhar). Ga wannan kuma ana danganta batutuwa goma sha biyu sanannu waɗanda suke kama da ƙa'idodi na asali. Suna da alaƙa da bayyana sharuɗɗan da ake buƙata, abubuwan da ake yi, siffar ayyukan, adadinsu, takamaiman su, da kuma bayyana abubuwan da hukunce-hukuncen dukkan waɗannan suka shafa.

The source for the identification of the acts of ablution is the description laid down in the words of the Exalted, “O ye who believe, when ye rise up for prayer, wash your faces and your hands up to the elbows, and lightly rub your heads and (wash) your feet up to the ankles”,31 and the method of performing ablution traced to the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings'be upon him) in the established narrations (dlhar). To this are related twelve well-known issues that resemble fundamental principles. They are related to the identification of the requisite conditions, the elements, the description of the acts, their number, their specification, and the identification of the objects of the ahkam of all these.

Malaman shari'a sun sami sabani ko niyya sharadi ce ga ingancin alwala, kodayake sun amince cewa niyya sharadi ce ga ibada ta gaskiya ('ibadat), saboda maganar Maɗaukaki: "Ba a umurce su ba sai don su bauta wa Allah, suna tsarkake addini gare Shi", da kuma saboda maganar Annabi ﷺ: "Ayyuka suna da daraja ne bisa ga niyyoyi", wanda hadisi ne sananne. Wata ƙungiya ta malamai, ciki har da Al-Shafi'i, Malik, Hammad, Abu Thawr, da Dawud, ra'ayinsu shi ne cewa niyya sharadi ce. Wata ƙungiya kuwa ta ce ba sharadi ba ne, kuma wannan ra'ayin Abu Hanifa da Al-Thawri ne. Dalilin sabaninsu shi ne yadda kalmar wudu'i take tsakanin kasancewa ibada tsantsa ('ibada mahaɗa) — ma'ana, ba a iya fahimtar dalilinta ta hanyar hankali ba, kuma an yi ta ne kawai don neman yardar Allah, kamar sallah da irin wannan ibada tsantsa — da kuma tsakanin kasancewa ibada da ke iya samun dalili mai ma'ana, kamar wanke datti. Ba su yi sabani kan cewa ibada tsantsa tana bukatar niyya ba, da kuma cewa ibada mai ma'ana ba ta bukatarta. Alwala tana kama da nau'o'in ibada guda biyu, saboda haka sabani ya taso. Dalili kuwa shi ne cewa ta haɗa ibada da tsarkakewa, kuma manufar ilimin fiqh ita ce a bincika wane bangare ta fi kama da shi sosai, domin a danganta ta da shi.

The jurists disagreed whether intention is a condition for the validity of ablution, although they had agreed on the stipulation of intention as a condition for worship i^ibdddt\ because of the words of the Exalted, “And they are ordered naught else than to serve Allah, keeping religion pure for Him”,32 and because of the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “The value of acts depends upon accompanying intentions”, which is a well-known tradition. A group of jurists, including al-ShafiT, Malik, Hammad, Abu Thawr, and Dawud, was of the opinion that it (intention) is a condition. Another group said it is not a condition, and this was the opinion of Abu Hanifa and al-ThawrT. The reason for their disagreement is the vacillation of the term wudtf between being a pure ritual dbdda—I mean, not subject to rationalization and intended only for the pleasure of Allah, like saldh and similar forms of mere ritual worship—and between an Hbdda that can also be rational, like washing of dirt. They did not differ about pure 'tbada being in need of intention, and rational ^ibdda not being in need of it Ablution has a resemblance to both kinds of worship and a disagreement has, therefore, resulted. The reason is that it combines ritual worship and purification, and the aim of fiqh is to examine which one it resembles more strongly so that it may be linked to it.

Fuqahah sun sha bamban-bamban game da wanke hannaye kafin a saka hannu cikin kwandon ruwan alwala. Wasu sun ce yana cikin sunnonin alwala wadanda ake yi koyaushe, ko da hannaye sun tsarkaka babu shakka. Wannan ra'ayi ne da aka fi sani na Malik da al-Shafi'i. Haka kuma an ce ana so a yi shi ga mutumin da yake shakkar tsarkin hannayensa. Wannan ma ra'ayi ne da aka ruwaito daga Malik. An kuma ce wanke hannaye (kafin a saka su cikin ruwan da ke cikin kwano) wajibi ne ga wanda ya tashi daga barci. Wannan shi ne ra'ayin Dawud da almajiransa. Wasu sun bambanta tsakanin barcin dare da na rana, suka wajabta shi ga barcin dare, amma ba ga na rana ba. Wannan shi ne ra'ayin Ahmad. Don haka ana samun ra'ayoyi guda hudu daga wannan tattaunawa. Na farko, cewa sunna ce a dukkan hali (watau ana yinta koyaushe). Na biyu, cewa ana so ga mai shakka. Na uku, cewa wajibi ne ga wanda ya tashi daga barci. Na hudu, cewa wajibi ne ga wanda ya tashi daga barcin dare ba na rana ba.

The jurists differed about washing of hands before immersing a hand inside the water-utensil of ablution. Some have held that it is one of the practices (sunan) of ablution that is always recommended, even when the hands are clean without a doubt. This is the better known opinion of Malik and al- Shafi T. It c is also said that it is recommended in the case of a person doubting the purity of his hands. This too was an opinion narrated from Malik. It is also said that washing of hands (before immersing them in the water inside a utensil) is obligatory on one waking up from sleep. This was Dawud’s view and that of his disciples. Some have distinguished between nocturnal sleep and that of the day, and made it obligatory for nocturnal sleep, but not for that during the day. This is Ahmad’s opinion. Thus, four opinions are arrived at through this (discussion). First, that it is sunna in absolute terms (i.e. always undertaken). Second, that it is recommended for the person in doubt. Third, that it is obligatory on one awaking from sleep. Fourth, that it is obligatory on one waking up from nocturnal sleep and not that of the day.

Dalilin rashin jituwarsu a wannan batu shi ne sabanin da suka yi game da ma'anar hadisin Abu Hurairah, wanda yake ingantacce, cewa Annabi (tsira da aminci su tabbata a gare shi) ya ce: "Idan ɗayanku ya tashi daga barcinsa, to ya wanke hannunsa kafin ya sanya su a cikin tukunyar ruwa, domin shi ba ya sanin inda hannunsa ya kwana." Wasu ruwayoyin sun ce: "ya wanke shi sau uku." Waɗanda ba su ga wani sabani tsakanin ƙarin buƙatar da ke cikin wannan hadisi da abin da ke cikin ayar alwala ba, sun fassara kalmar umarni da ke nan bisa ma'anarta ta zahiri, wato wajibci, don haka suka sanya wanke hannu daga cikin farillan alwala. Daga cikinsu, waɗanda suka fahimci kalmar "dare" (bayat) da cewa tana nufin barcin dare kawai, suka sanya shi wajibi ga barcin dare kaɗai. Waɗanda ba su da irin wannan fahimta, sai suka fahimci barci kawai daga gare ta, suka sanya shi wajibi ga kowane irin tashi daga barci, ko na rana ko na dare. Waɗanda suka ga sabani tsakanin wannan ƙari da ayar alwala, ma'anar zahirin ayar alwala kasancewar ita ce lissafin farillan alwala, sun sasanta tsakanin su biyun ta hanyar canza ma'anar zahiri, wato wajibci, zuwa ma'anar shawara (nadb). Waɗanda ga wajen su wannan shawara take da ƙarfi (mu'akkada) saboda Annabi yana yin wannan aiki akai-akai, suka ɗauke shi a cikin rukunin sunnoni. Waɗanda ga wajen su wannan shawara ba ta da ƙarfi, suka ce daga rukunin mustahabbi kawai yake. Ga su duka, wanke hannu ta wannan hanya wajibi ne ko da an tabbata sun tsarkaka ne, ina nufin, waɗanda suka ɗauke shi sunna mu'akkada da kuma waɗanda suka ce mustahabbi ne. Waɗanda suka kasance a cikinsu, waɗanda ba su fahimci daga wannan hadisi wani dalili na wajibi ba, har su ɗauke shi a matsayin nau'in lafazi na takamaimai mai nuna gama-gari, sun ba da shawarar yin hakan ga wanda ya tashi daga barci kawai. Waɗanda suka fitar da dalilin shakka daga gare shi kuwa, sun ɗauke shi a matsayin nau'in lafazi na takamaimai mai nuna gama-gari, kuma sun ɗauka cewa ya shafi kowane mutum mai shakka, domin yana kusa da yanayin tashi daga barci.

Malamai sun sabawa game da kurkure baki (madmada) da shaka ruwa a hanci (istinshaq). Akwai ra'ayoyi uku. Na farko, cewa wadannan ayyuka sunna ce mai karfi a cikin alwala. Wannan shi ne ra'ayin Malik, al-Shafi'i, da Abu Hanifa. Na biyu, cewa wajibi ne (fard) a cikin alwala. Wannan shi ne ra'ayin Ibn Abi Layla da wasu almajiran Abu Dawud. Na uku, cewa istinshaq wajibi ne, yayin da madmada sunna ce. Wannan shi ne ra'ayin Abu Thawr, Abu Ubayd, da wata jama'a daga cikin Zahiriyyawa.

The jurists differed about rinsing of the mouth (madmada) and snuffing (istinshaq). There are three opinions. First, that these practices are a sunna (emphatic recommendation) in ablution. This was the opinion of Malik, al- Shafi i, and Abu Hanifa. Second, that they are obligatory (fard) in ablution. This was the view of Ibn AbT Layla and some disciples of Abu Dawud. Third, that istinshdq is obligatory, while madmada is recommended (sunna). This was Ae opinion of Abu Thawr, Abu QJbayda, and of a group of Zahirites.

Dalilin rashin jituwarsu, ko wajibi ne ko mustahabbi ne, shi ne sabanin da suka yi game da hadisan da aka ruwaito a kan wannan al'amari, ko sun zama kari a kan ayar wanka, har su haifar da rikici. Wadanda suka ga cewa wannan kari, idan an dauke shi wajibi, yana karo da ayar, domin manufar ayar ita ce ta kafa tushen wannan hukunci tare da bayaninsa, sun sauya ma'anar hadisan daga rukunin wajibi zuwa na mustahabbi. Wadanda ba su ga cewa yana karo da ayar ba, sun dauke shi a kan ma'anarsa ta zahiri, wato wajibi. Wadanda ga su maganar Annabi ﷺ da aikinsa karfinsu daya ne, wajen tabbatar da wajibi, ba su bambanta tsakanin madmada da istinshaq ba. Wadanda kuma suka dauki magana a matsayin wajibi, aiki kuwa a matsayin mustahabbi, sun bambanta tsakanin madmada da istinshaq, domin an ruwaito madmada ta hanyar aikin Annabi ﷺ ba ta umarninsa ba, yayin da aka ruwaito istinshaq daga umarninsa da aikinsa duka. Annabi ﷺ ya ce: "Idan daya daga cikinku ya yi wudu, to ya shaka ruwa a cikin hancinsa, sannan ya fitar da shi, kuma wanda ya yi istijmar (da duwatsu) to ya yi shi a adadi maras daidaito." Malik ya ruwaito shi a cikin al-Muwatta, al-Bukhari kuma a cikin Sahihinsa daga hadisin Abu Hurairah.

The reason for their disagreement, whether it is an obligation or a recommendation, is their dispute about the traditions reported on this issue, whether they amount to an addition over the verse of ablution, entailing a conflict. Those who considered that this addition, if deemed an obligation, conflicts with the verse—as the aim of the verse is to provide a foundation for this rule along with its explanation—shifted the implication of the traditions from the category of obligation to that of recommendation. Those who did not consider it as conflicting, assigned it its apparent meaning of obligation. Those for whom the authority of the Prophet’s sayings and acts is equal (in. strength), for purposes of assigning obligation, did not make a distinction between madmada and istinshaq. Those for whom a saying is interpreted as an obligation and an act as recommendation distinguished between madmada and istinshaq, as madmada has been reported through the acts of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) and not his command, while istinshaq is reported both from his commands and acts. The Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “When one of you performs wudu*, let him snuff up water into his nose and then let it out, while he who performs istinjd? (with stones) let him do it an odd number of times”. It is narrated by Malik in his al-Muwatta and by al-Bukhari in his Sahih from the tradition of Abu Hurayra.

Malaman fiqhu sun yarda cewa wanke dukkan fuska yana cikin farillan alwala, saboda fadin Madaukaki: "Ya ku wadanda suka yi imani, idan kun tashi zuwa salla, to ku wanke fuskokinku." Sun sabawa a kan wannan a wurare uku; wato, wanke wurin fuskar da babu gashi a tsakanin gemu da kunnuwa, wanke dukkan tsawon gemu, da takhlil na gemu (tsefe shi da yatsu masu jika).

The jurists agreed that washing of the whole face is one of the obligations of ablution, because of the words of the Exalted: “O ye who believe, when ye rise up for prayer, wash your faces”. They differed about this on three points; namely, washing of the hairless part of the face between the beard and the ears, washing of the whole length of the beard, and the takhlil of the beard (combing it with wet fingers).

Mashhurin ra'in a mazhabin Malik shi ne cewa yankin da ke tsakanin gemu da kunnuwa ba wani ɓangare ne na fuska ba, ko da yake wasu malamai na mazhabar Malik suna ganin cewa sashe ne na fuska. Wasu masana fiqhu suna banbanta tsakanin mutum mara gemu tukuna da mutum mai gemu. Don haka, a cikin mazhabar (ta Malik) akwai ra'ayoyi guda uku. Abu Hanifa da al-Shafi'i sun ce yankin wani ɓangare ne na fuska. Dangane da tsawon gemu, Malik ya ra'ayin cewa wajibi ne ruwa ya gudana a kansa, amma ba wajibi ba ne a cewar Abu Hanifa da kuma al-Shafi'i a ɗaya daga cikin ra'ayoyinsa biyu. Dalilin rashin jituwarsu a kan waɗannan batutuwa biyu shi ne rashin bayyanar ma'anar kalmar "fuska". Dangane da takhlil na gemu, ra'ayin Malik shi ne cewa ba wajibi ba ne. Abu Hanifa da al-Shafi'i suna da ra'ayi irin nasa. Ibn 'Abd al-Hakam, ɗaya daga cikin almajiran Malik, ya sa ya zama wajibi.

The well-known opinion in Malik’s school is that the portion between the beard and the ears is not part of the face, though some Malikites maintain that it is. Some jurists make a distinction between a person who is still beardless and a person with a beard. Thus, in the school (Malik’s) there are three opinions. Abu HanTfa and al-Shafi T said that it is a part of the face. With respect to the length of the beard, Malik was of the opinion that it is obligatory that water flow on it, but it is not obligatory according to Abu HanTfa and also al-Shafi T in one of his two opinions. The reason for their disagreement over these two issues is the ambiguity of the term “face”. With respect to the takhlil of the beard, the opinion of Malik was that it is not obligatory. Abu HanTfa and al-Shafi T had a similar view. Ibn cAbd al-Hakam, one of Malik’s disciples, made it obligatory.

Dalilin rashin jituwarsu shi ne takaddama game da ingancin hadisan da aka ruwaito waɗanda ke ɗauke da umarnin takhlil na gemu. Yawancin malamai suna ganin cewa ba su da inganci, kuma hadisin da aka ruwaito game da yadda Manzon Allah ﷺ ya yi alwala bai ƙunshi komai game da takhlil na gemu ba.

The reason for their disagreement is the controversy about the authenticity of narrated traditions containing the command for takhlil of the beard. The majority are of the view that they are not authentic and the narration in which the acts of the Prophet’s ablution are reported do not contain anything about takhlil of the beard.

Malaman shari'a sun yarda cewa wanke hannaye da gwiwar hannu na daga cikin wajibai na alwala, saboda faɗin Maɗaukaki: "Ya ku waɗanda suka yi imani, idan kun tashi zuwa salla, ku wanke fuskokinku". Sun sabawa juna game da shigar da gwiwar hannu (a cikin gwiwar hannu da hannu). Mafi yawa, Malik, al-Shafi'i, da Abu Hanifa, sun ɗauki shigar da su a matsayin wajibi. Wasu daga cikin Zahiriyya, Malikawa na baya, da al-Tabari sun yi ra'ayin cewa shigar da su cikin wankewa ba wajibi ba ne. Dalilin sabanin su a wannan shi ne kalmar ishtiraak (ma'ana biyu ko fiye) a cikin kalmar "ilā" (zuwa, har zuwa) da kalmar "yadd" (hannu), a harshen Larabawa. Harafin ilā wani lokaci, a amfanin Larabawa, yana nufin iyaka (har zuwa), wani lokaci kuma yana ba da ma'anar "tare da". Kalmar yadd (hannu), a amfanin Larabawa, ana amfani da ita ga ma'anoni uku: hannu; hannu da hannun gaba; hannu, hannun gaba, da hannun sama. Waɗanda suka fassara ilā da "tare da" ko suka ɗauki yadd a matsayin dukkan sassa uku na gaɓa, sun ɗauki shigar da gwiwar hannu cikin wankewa a matsayin wajibi. Waɗanda suka fahimci daga ilā iyaka, kuma daga kalmar yadd abin da ya fi ƙasa da gwiwar hannu, kuma ba su ɗauki iyaka a matsayin cikin abin da aka ayyana ba, ba su shigar da gwiwar hannu cikin wankewa ba. Muslim ya ruwaito a cikin Sahihinsa cewa Abu Hurairah yana wanke hannun damansa da farko har zuwa farkon hannun sama, sannan hannun hagu a irin wannan hanya, sannan a wanke ƙafar dama har zuwa farkon maraƙi, sannan a wanke ta hagu a irin wannan hanya. Sai ya ce: "Haka na ga Manzon Allah ﷺ yana yin alwala". Wannan ita ce hujjar da waɗanda suka wajabta shigar da gwiwar hannu cikin wankewa suka bayar.

The jurists agreed that the washing of the. hands and the forearms are from among the obligations of ablution because of the words of the Exalted, “O ye who believe, when ye rise up for prayer, wash your faces”. They disagreed about the inclusion of the elbows (in the forearms). The majority, Malik, al- Shafi T, and Abu HanTfa, considered their c inclusion as obligatory. Some of the Zahirites, later Malikites,' and al-TabarT were of the opinion that their inclusion in washing is not obligatory. The reason for their disagreement in this is the equivocality {ishtirdk) in the preposition ild (to, up to) and the term yadd (hand), in the language of the Arabs. The preposition ild sometimes denotes, in the usage of the Arabs, the limit (up to) and at other times gives the meaning of “with”. The word yadd (hand), in the usage of the Arabs, is applied to three meanings: the hand; hand and forearms; hand, forearm, and upper arm. Those who rendered ild as “with” or considered yadd as all three parts of the limb, deemed the inclusion, of elbows for washing as obligatory. Those who understood from ild the limit and from the term yadd whatever is lower than the elbows, and did not consider the limit as included in the defined category, did not include the elbows in washing. Muslim has reported in his Sahih that Abu Hurayra used to first wash his right hand till the beginning of the upper arm, then the left in the same manner, followed by the washing of the right foot till the beginning of the calf and then the washing of the left in the same manner. He (Abu Hurayra) then said: “That is how I saw the Prophet of Allah (God's peace and blessings be upon him) performing ablution”. This is the proof given by those who made obligatory the inclusion of the elbows in washing.

Malamai sun yarda cewa shafa {mash} a kai yana cikin farillan alwala. Sun sabawa game da yawan shafan da ake bukata. Malik ya ce wajibi ne a shafa dukkan kai. Al-Shafi'i, wasu mabiyan Malik, da Abu Hanifa sun ce wajibi ne a shafa wani bangare na shi. Wasu mabiyan Malik sun ayyana mafi karancin bangaren da cewa shi ne sulusi, yayin da wasu suka ayyana shi da sulusi biyu. Abu Hanifa kuwa ya iyakance shi zuwa rabi na hudu, kuma ya ayyana bangaren hannu da za a shafa da shi a matsayin rabi na hudu. Ya ce: "Shafansa da kasa da yatsu uku bai isa ba." Al-Shafi'i bai kayyade wani iyaka ga kowannensu ba.

The jurists agreed that wiping {mash) of the head is one of the obligations of ablution. They differed about the extent (of wiping) required. Malik said that it is obligatory to wipe the whole of it (the head). Al-Shafi(T, some followers of Malik, and Abu HanTfa said that it is obligatory to wipe a part of it. Some followers of Malik defined the minimum part to be a third, while others defined it as two-thirds. Abu HanTfa, on the other hand, limited it to a fourth, and he also defined the part of the hand with which it is to be wiped as a fourth. He said, “Its wiping with less than three fingers is insufficient”. Al- Shafi'T did not fix a limit for either.

Dalilin wannan sabani shi ne kasancewar ma'ana biyu (ishtirak) a cikin harafin "bi" (ba) a yarensu na Larabawa. Wani lokaci ana amfani da shi a matsayin kari kawai don jaddadawa - kamar a cikin maganar Maɗaukaki, "tanbutu bi-d-duhni", bisa ga wanda ya karanta "tunbitu" da ɗammah a kan "ta" da kasra a kan "bi" daga tushen "anbata". Wani lokaci kuma harafin "bi" yana nuna ma'anar wani sashi, kamar a jumlar "akhadhtu bi thawbihi wa bi sadudihi" (na kama shi bi da tufarsa da bi da gaɓar hannunsa). Babu wani amfani a musanta wannan, wato cewa "bi" na iya nuna ma'anar "wani sashi na". Wannan ra'ayin makarantar nahawun Kufa ne. Waɗanda suka ɗauki shi a matsayin kari sun wajabta shafa dukkan kai. Kari a nan yana nufin an ƙara shi ne kawai don jaddadawa. Waɗanda suka ɗauki "bi" a matsayin nuna rabo sun wajabta shafa sashin kai kawai. Waɗanda suka fi son wannan ma'ana sun yi hujja da hadisin al-Mughira cewa "Annabi (sallallahu alaihi wa sallama) ya yi alwala yana shafa goshinsa da rawaninsa." Muslim ne ya ruwaito shi. Idan muka karɓi cewa "bi" kari ne, har yanzu akwai wani yiwuwa, shi ne ko wajibcin ya shafi gaban kai (kamar yadda sunan kai yake) ko kuma bayan kai.

The basis of this disagreement is due to the equivocality {ishtirdk) that is in (the particle) bd, in the usage of the Arabs. It is sometimes used as a mere addition for emphasis - as in the words of the Exalted, “tanbut bPdduhn?'?* according to one who read “tunbitu” with a damrna for “z” and kasra for bd from the root anbata. At other times, the particle bd indicates the idea of a portion, as in the sentence “akhadhtu bi tha'wbihi wa bi ^adudih (I held him [grabbed him] bi [by] his garment and his forearm)”. There is no purpose in denying this, that is, the fact that bd may convey the idea of “a portion of’. This is the opinion of the KufT school of grammar {nahw). Those who considered it superfluous have deemed obligatory the wiping of the entire head. Superfluous here means that it is added only for emphasis. Those who considered bd as indicating apportionment have deemed obligatory the wiping of only a part of the head. Those who preferred this meaning have argued on the basis of the tradition of al-Mughira that “the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) performed ablution wiping his forehead and turban”. It is reported by Muslim. If we accept that bd is superfluous, there still remains another probability, whether the obligation relates to the front part of names (like head) or to the back part.

Malamai sun yarda cewa wajibi a cikin alwala shi ne a wanke kowace gaba da ake wankewa sau ɗaya, daya bayan daya, a jiƙa waɗannan sassa da ruwa. Wanke kowace gaba sau biyu ko sau uku abu ne mustahabbi, domin an ruwaito sahihin labari cewa Annabi ﷺ ya yi alwala yana wanke kowace gaba sau ɗaya. A wani lokaci kuma ya wanke sau biyu, a wani lokacin kuma an gan shi yana wankewa sau uku. Sai dai umarni ba ya buƙatar wanke kowace gaba fiye da sau ɗaya, wato umarnin da aka tanada a cikin ayar alwala.

The jurists agreed that the obligation in ablution is to wash each washable limb once, one after the other, soaking these parts with water. Washing each (limb) twice or thrice is recommended {mandub) for it is authentically reported that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) performed ablution washing each (limb) once. On another occasion he washed twice, and on yet another occasion he was seen washing them thrice. The command, however, does not require washing each limb more than once, that is, the command laid down in the verse of wudu>.

Sun sabawa game da fifikon maimaita shafa kai. Al-Shafi'i yana ganin cewa mutumin da ya wanke sauran gaɓoɓinsa sau uku, to ya fi dacewa ya shafa kansa sau uku. Yawancin malamai na fiqhu kuwa ba su ga wani fifiko a maimaita shafa ba. Dalilin sabanin nasu yana cikin rashin jituwarsu game da karɓar ƙarin da ke cikin wata hadisi wadda ta zo ta hanyar sarka guda ɗaya. Yawancin malamai ba sa amfani da irin wannan hadisi. Yawancin sauran hadisai waɗanda ke ruwaito cewa Manzon Allah ﷺ ya wanke sau uku, ciki har da wanda Uthman da wasu suka ruwaito, sun ce ya shafa sau ɗaya kawai. Sai dai a wasu ruwayoyi daga Uthman, waɗanda ke bayyana wudu'in Manzon Allah ﷺ, an ce Manzon Allah ﷺ ya shafa kansa sau uku. Al-Shafi'i ya goyi bayan karɓar wannan ƙari sosai, bisa ga faɗin gabaɗaya na ruwayoyin da ke nuna cewa Manzon Allah ﷺ ya yi wudu'i yana maimaita ayyukansa sau biyu da sau uku. Wannan faɗin gabaɗaya, duk da cewa ya fito daga maganar wani Sahabi, ana amfani da shi ga dukan gaɓoɓin wudu'i. Sai dai wannan ƙari ba ya cikin Sahihan biyu. Idan aka tabbatar da ingancinsa, to wajibi ne a bi shi, domin abin da bai ambata wani abu ba ba zai zama hujja a kan abin da ya ambata ba. Yawancin malamai sun wajabta sabunta ruwa domin shafa, bisa kwatanta da sauran gaɓoɓi. An ruwaito daga Ibn Majishun cewa ya ce: "Idan ruwa ya ƙare, zai iya shafa da ɗanshin da ke kan gemunsa." Wannan ra'ayi ne wanda Ibn Habib, Malik da al-Shafi'i suka fi so.

They differed about the merit in repeating the wiping of the head. Al- Shafi(T was of the opinion that the person who washes his other limbs three times should preferably wipe his head thrice. The majority of the jurists saw no merit in repeating the mash. The reason for their disagreement (here) lies in their dispute over the acceptance of the addition contained in one tradition coming down through a single chain. The majority of the jurists do not use such a tradition. Most of the other traditions relating that he (the Prophet) washed thrice, including that related through Uthman and others, state that he wiped only once. In some narrations from Uthman, however, that describe the wudu* of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) it is stated that he (the Prophet) wiped his head thrice. Al-Shafici emphatically supported accepting this excess on the basis of the apparent generality of the narrations that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) performed wudt? repeating his acts twice and thrice. The generality, here, even though it arises from the word of a Companion is assigned to all the limbs in ablution. This addition, though, is not in the two Sahihs. If proved authentic it (the narration) must be followed, as that which fails to mention a thing cannot be a proof against that which does mention it. The majority of the jurists made obligatory the renewal of water for wiping on the analogy of the other limbs. It is narrated from Ibn Majishun that he said, “If the water is exhausted he may wipe with the moisture on his beard”. This is the preference of Ibn Habib, Malik and al-ShafiT.

Fuqahah sun sabawa game da isa ga shafa a kan rawani kawai (a matsayin wanda ya wadatar). Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Abu Thawr, al-Qasim, Ibn Sallam da wasu ƙalilan sun halatta hakan. Wata ƙungiya da Malik, al-Shafi'i, da Abu Hanifa sun haramta shi. Sabanin su ya samo asali ne daga takaddama game da ko za a yi aiki da hadisin da al-Mughira da wasu suka ruwaito cewa: "shi [Annabi] (ﷺ) ya yi shafa a goshinsa da kan rawaninsa, kuma ya yi shi bisa qiyasi da shafa kan takalma." Saboda haka yawancin malamai sun sharadanta cewa a sanya rawanin a cikin yanayi mai tsafta. Wannan hadisi wasu sun ƙi shi, ko dai saboda sun ɗauka ba ingantacce ba ne, ko kuma saboda ma'anar zahiri a cikin Alƙur'ani, a ra'ayinsu, tana sabawa da shi, wato umarnin shafa kai da ke cikinsa, ko kuma saboda ba a yaɗa shi sosai a aikace ba. Wannan ra'ayi ne na waɗanda ke sharadanta yaɗuwar aiki a kan abin da aka ruwaito ta hanyar hadisi guda ɗaya, musamman a Madina, kamar yadda aka sani game da mazhabar Malik, wanda ya sanya yaɗuwar aiki a matsayin sharaɗi. Muslim ne ya ruwaito hadisin. Abu Umar Ibn Abd al-Barr ya ce hadisi ne mai lahani. A wasu ruwayoyinsa ana ambatar shafa rawani kawai, ba a ambaci shafa goshi ba. Saboda haka wasu malamai ba su sharadanta cewa tare da shafa rawani sai an shafa goshi ba, domin farilla ta asali da madadinta ba za a haɗa su tare ba.

The jurists disagreed about (the sufficiency of) mash over the turban (alone). This was permitted by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Abu Thawr, al-Qasim, Ibn Sallam and some others. It was prohibited by another group and by Malik, al-ShafiT, and Abu Harnfa. Their disagreement arises from their dispute about the validity of acting upon the tradition related by al-MughTra and others “that he [the Prophet] (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) performed mash on his forehead and on his turban, and also upon the analogy of [the mash of] boots. It is for this reason that most of them stipulated that it be worn in a clean condition.35 This tradition was rejected by some, either because it was deemed onauthentic by them or because the apparent meaning in the Qurian contradicted it, in their opinion, that is, the command in it about the mash of the head, or because it was not widely accepted in practice. This is according to those who require widespread practice for matters reported through individual traditions, particularly in Medina, as is known about the school of Malik, who stipulated widespread practice as a condition. The hadith is reported by Muslim. Abu TJmar Ibn Abd al-Barr said that it is a defective tradition. In some of its versions the wiping of the turban alone is mentioned, while that of the forehead is not. It is for this reason that some jurists did not stipulate with the wiping* of the turban the wiping of the forehead as well, as the original requirement and its substitute cannot be combined together.

Sun saba da juna game da shafa kunnuwa, ko sunna ne ko farilla ne, da kuma ko a sabunta ruwa domin su. Wasu sun ce farilla ce, kuma ana sabunta ruwa domin shafa su. Wadanda suka bayyana wannan ra'ayi wani rukuni ne daga cikin mabiyan Malik, domin ya dauki kunnuwa a matsayin wani bangare na kai. Abu Hanifa da mabiyansa sun dauki shafa su a matsayin farilla, kuma sun ce ana shafa su tare da kai da ruwa guda. Al-Shafi'i ya dauki shafa su a matsayin sunna, kuma ya sharadanta sabunta ruwa domin su. Wannan ra'ayi wani rukuni na mabiyan Malik ma sun rike shi, kuma suka ce shi ne ra'ayin Malik, saboda an rawaito cewa ya ce "hukuncinsu kamar hukuncin madmada yake". Sabanin ko shafa kunnuwa sunna ne ko farilla yana samuwa ne daga takaddama kan hadisan da aka rawaito game da wannan batu, watau shafa kunnuwa da Annabi (tsira da aminci su tabbata a gare shi) ya yi, shin karin abu ne a kan abin da ke cikin Alkur'ani game da shafa kai. Hukuncinsa to sunna ne saboda rikicinsa da ayar, idan an fassara shi a matsayin farilla. Amma idan an dauke shi bayani ne ga kalma mai mujmali a cikin Alkur'ani, to hukuncinsa zai zama hukuncin da kai ke da shi, watau farilla. Don haka wadanda suka dauke shi farilla sun dauke shi bayani ga kalma mai wahala (mujmal) a cikin Alkur'ani, yayin da wadanda ba su dauke shi farilla ba suka dauke shi karin abu, kamar yadda yake a batun madmada. Akwai hadisai da yawa da aka rawaito kan wannan batu. Ko da yake ba su cikin Sahihan biyu, al'amari ya yadu bisa ga wadannan hadisai. Dangane da sabani kan sabunta ruwa domin kunnuwa, dalilinsa shi ne shakkar da ke tattare da kalmar "kunnuwa", ko ana dauke su a matsayin gabobi masu zaman kansu domin alwala, ko kuma suna cikin kai. Wata ƙungiya ta bayar da wata ra'ayi daban cewa ana wanke su tare da fuska, yayin da wata ƙungiya kuma ta ɗauka cewa ana shafa cikin kunnuwa tare da kai, sannan a wanke sassan waje tare da fuska. Dalilinsu shi ne cewa kunnuwan suna cikin daidaituwa tsakanin kasancewa wani ɓangare na fuska ko kai. Duk wannan ba shi da wata ma'ana ta gaske idan aka duba hadisai na gama gari game da shafa su da kuma yaɗuwar aikin hakan. Al-Shafi'i yana ganin cewa maimaita shafa kunnuwa abu ne mai kyau (mustahabbi), kamar yadda yake yi a yanayin shafa kai.

They (the jurists) disagreed about the wiping of the ears whether it is recommended (sunna) or an obligation (farida), and whether the water is to be renewed. Some said it is obligatory and that water is to be renewed for (wiping) them. Those who expressed this opinion are a group from among Malik’s followers, as he considered the ears a part of the head. Abu HanTfa and his followers considered their wiping as obligatory, and said that they are to be wiped along with the head with the same water. Al-ShafiT considered their wiping as a sunna and stipulated the renewal of water for them. This opinion was held by another group of Malik’s followers and they maintained that it is Malik’s opinion, because it is narrated that he said “their hukm is the same as the hukm of madmada”. The disagreement—whether wiping of the ears is recommended or an obligation—stems from the controversy about the traditions transmitted on this issue, that is, the wiping of the ears by the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) whether it is an addition over what exists in the Qur’an about the wiping of the head. Its hukm then is that it is a recommendation due to the conflict between it and the verse, if it is interpreted as an obligation. If, however, it is considered an explanation of an unelaborated word in the Qur’an, its hukm becomes the hukm already existing for the head, that is, obligatory. Thus those who considered it obligatory deem it an explanation of the difficult (mujmal) word in the Qur’an, while those who did not consider it obligatory deem it an addition, as in the case of madmada. There are many traditions transmitted on this issue. Though they are not included in the two Sahihs, practice has become common according to these traditions. With respect to the disagreement about the renewal of water for the ears, the cause is the vacillation of The term “ears”, whether they are considered independent limbs for purposes of ablution or whether .they form part of the head. One group gave a distinct opinion that they are to be washed with the face while another considered that the inside of the ears is to be wiped with the head and the outer parts to be washed with the face. The reason is their being equipoised between being part of the face or head. All this has no real significance in view of the common traditions about their mash and its widespread practice. Al-Shafi T considers the repeated wiping of the ears as being recommended/ as he does in the case of wiping of the head.

Jurists sun yarda cewa ƙafafu gaɓoɓi ne da ake wanke su a cikin alwala, amma sun sha bamban game da hanyar tsarkakewar da ake buƙata a gare su. Wata ƙungiya ta malamai, kuma waɗannan su ne mafiya yawa, sun ce tsarkinsu yana samuwa ta hanyar wankewa. Wata ƙungiyar kuma ta ce wajibcin da ake yi a game da su shi ne shafa. Sannan wata ƙungiya ta ce tsarkinsu yana samuwa ta kowace hanya; ya dogara da zaɓin mai ibada.

The jurists agreed that the feet are limbs that are the object of ablution, but they differed about the method of purification required for them. A group of jurists, and these are the majority, said that their purity is attained by washing. Another group said that the obligation in their case is wiping. And yet another group said that their purity is achieved through either way; it depends upon the choice of the worshipper.

Sababin khilafin ya dogara ne ga karatu biyu sanannu na ayar wudu', wato karatun wadanda suka karanta kalmar "kafafu" a matsayin abin wankewa tare da nasb (fatha; harakar karshe d) a matsayin hada ta da gabobin da ake wankewa, da karatun wadanda suka karanta ta da khafd (kasra; harakar karshe i) a matsayin hada ta da sassan da ake shafawa. Karatun nasb a fili yake nuna wankewa, yayin da karatun khafd a fili yake nuna shafawa. Wadanda suka ce wajibi ne ga daya daga cikin nau'ikan tsarkakewa biyu, wato wankewa ko shafawa, sun fifita karatu daya a kan dayan, suna kawar da ma'anar karatun dayan ta hanyar fassara, domin goyon bayan karatun da suka ga ya fi dacewa. Amma wadanda suka yi imani cewa ma'anoni bayyanannu na karatun biyu daidai suke, kuma babu wanda ya fi wani karfin dalili, sun fassara shi a matsayin wajibi mai zabi (wajibi mukhayyar), kamar kaffarar rantsuwa idan an karya ta. Wannan ita ce ra'ayin al-Tabari da Dawud. Mafi yawan malamai kuwa suna da hanyoyi da dama na fassara karatun khafd, kuma mafi kyau daga cikinsu shi ne cewa hada-hadar da ke nan tana komawa ga lafazin kalmar da aka furta, wanda aka samu a yaren Larabci.

The reason for disagreement is based upon two well-known readings of the verse of wudu>, that is, the reading of those who read the word “feet” as the object of washing with a nasb (accusative; final vowel d) in conjunction with limbs washed, and those who read it with a khafd (final vowel i) in conjunction with parts wiped. The reading with a nasb clearly indicates washing, while reading it with a khafd evidently indicates wiping. Those who held that the obligation is specifically for one of these two types of purity, determined as washing or wiping, preferred one reading over the other, disposing of, by interpretation, the meaning of the other reading in favour of the reading that was preferable for them. Those who believed that the obvious implications of both readings were equal, and that one of these did not have a stronger indication than the other, rendered it as a wajib mukhayyar (obligation with a choice), like expiation for breaking an oath. This was the opinion of al-Tabari and Dawud. The majority, however, have numerous ways of interpreting away the reading with a khafd, and the best of these is that the conjunction here elates to the pronounced form of the word, which is found in Arab usage.

Sun yi sabani game da wajabcin bin tsarin jeri na ayyukan alwala kamar yadda aka tsara su a cikin ayar. Wata ƙungiyar malaman fiqhu sun ce bin wannan tsari sunna ne (abin da ake so a yi). Wannan shi ne abin da almajiran Malik na baya suka riƙa karɓa daga ra'ayoyin cikin makarantar. Abu Hanifa da al-Thawri da Dawud su ma sun goyi bayan wannan ra'ayi. Wata ƙungiyar kuma ta ce wajibi ne, kuma wannan shi ne ra'ayin Al-Shafi'i, Ahmad, da Abu Ubayd. Duk wannan yana kan tsarin jeri na ayyukan alwala waɗanda wajibi ne, dangane da juna. Game da tsarin jeri na ayyukan wajibi da na ayyukan sunna, Malik ya ɗauke shi a matsayin abin yabo (mustahabb), yayin da Abu Hanifa ya ɗauke shi a matsayin sunna (wato ya kamata a aikata shi a matsayin sunna).

They disagreed about the observance of a sequence in the acts of ablution as arranged in the verse. One group of jurists said that it (following the sequence) is a sunna (recommended). This is what is related by the later disciples of Malik from the opinions in the school. It was also upheld by Abu Hanifa, al- ThawrT, and Dawud. Another group of jurists said that it is an obligation, which was the opinion of Al-ShafiT, Ahmad, and Abu TJbayd. All this is about the sequence of the obligatory acts (of ablution) in relation to each other. As to the sequential ordering of the obligatory acts with recommended acts, it is regarded by Malik as commendable (mustahabb), while Abu Hanifa considered it to be a sunna (i.e. it should be acted upon as a sunna).

Akwai dalilai guda biyu na sabanin da ke tsakaninsu. Na farko shi ne rashin cikakkiyar fahimta da ke tasowa daga haɗin waw (da), domin haɗin wani lokaci yana nufin tsari na jeri, wani lokaci kuma babu wannan tsari. Ana nuna wannan ta hanyar bincike a yadda Larabawa ke amfani da shi. Game da wannan batu, masana nahawu sun rabu gida biyu. Masana nahawun Basra sun ce waw ba ta nuna tsari ko jeri, sai dai tana nuna haɗin kalmomin da take haɗawa. Kufawa kuwa sun ce tana nuna tsari da kuma jeri. Waɗanda suka ce waw da ke cikin ayar tana nuna tsari, sun tabbatar da wajabcin jeri, yayin da waɗanda suka ce ba ta nuna jeri ba, ba su tabbatar da wajabcinsa ba. Dalili na biyu ya dogara ne a kan sabanin da suke da shi game da ayyukan Annabi (ﷺ), ko a fassara su a matsayin wajibi ko kuma mustahabbi. Waɗanda suka fassara su a matsayin wajibi, sun tabbatar da wajabcin jeri, domin ba a ruwaito daga gare shi ba cewa ya taɓa yin alwala ba tare da takamaiman tsari ba. Waɗanda suka fassara su da ma'anar mustahabbi kuwa sun ce yin abu bisa tsari sunna ce. Waɗanda suka bambanta tsakanin ayyukan da aka shar'anta a matsayin sunna da waɗanda aka shar'anta a matsayin wajibi, sun ce tsarin jeri na wajibi dole ne ya kasance a cikin ayyukan wajibi, amma waɗanda ba su yi wannan bambanci ba, sun ce sharuɗɗan wajibi na iya shafar ayyukan da ba wajibi ba ne.

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 bmw 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 ls a sunna. Those who made a distinction between acts prescribed as a sunna a nd 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.

Sun yi sabani game da wajibcin ci gaba da yin ayyukan alwala ba tare da tsaiko maras dalili tsakanin su ba. Malik ya ce ci gaba da yin su wajibi ne idan ana tuna ayyukan tare da ikon yin su, kuma ana sassauta hakan ne kawai saboda mantuwa, ko kuma idan ana tuna su amma akwai uzuri mai karbuwa, kuma tsaikon bai wuce kima ba. Al-Shafi'i da Abu Hanifa kuwa sun ce ci gaba da yin ayyukan ba wajibi ba ne a cikin alwala. Dalilin sabanin shi ne kuma yadda kalmar "wawu" (wa) take da ma'ana biyu: wani lokacin tana nuna abubuwa da ke biye da juna kai tsaye, wani lokacin kuma tana nuna ayyuka da aka jinkirta dangane da wasu.

They disagreed about the (obligation of) continuous performance of the acts of ablution (without uncalled-for intervals between them). Malik held that continuous performance is an obligation, when the acts are remembered along with the ability to perform them, relaxed only because of forgetfulness, or when they are remembered but there is a valid excuse, and the interval is not excessive. Al-Shafi T and Abu HanTfa c said that continuous performance is not an obligation of ablution. The reason for disagreement is again the equivocality of the wdw y as the conjunction sometimes applies to adjacent things following each other, while at other times it applies to acts delayed with respect to others.

Wasu masana sharia sun yi kira da a dakatar da ci gaba da yin alwala a jere, bisa dogara ga abin da aka tabbatar daga Manzon Allah ﷺ cewa yana yin alwala lokaci-lokaci, kuma yana kan jinkirta wanke ƙafafunsa har wani lokaci daga baya. Haka kuma, sabani kan wannan batu yana tasowa ne daga yadda ake fassara bin waɗannan ayyuka (na Manzon Allah ﷺ) a matsayin wajibi ko kuma a matsayin mustahabbi.

A group of jurists argued for-the suspension of continuous performance on the basis of what is established from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) that he occasionally performed ablution, and used to delay the washing of his feet till sometime later. The disagreement over this issue also arises from the interpretation of (following) these acts (of the Prophet) as an obligation or a recommendation.

Malik ya yi bambanci bisa tushen niyya da mantuwa; ka'idar da ta shafi mutumin da ya manta ita ce ana yafe masa, sai dai idan an tabbatar da hujja akasin haka, saboda maganar Annabi (ﷺ), "An ɗauke hukuncin kuskure da mantuwa daga cikin al'ummata". Haka kuma, uzuri mai inganci, kamar yadda yake a fili daga umarnin shari'a, yana da tasiri wajen samun sassauci.

Malik made a distinction on the basis of intention and forgetfulness; the principle applying to the person who forgets is that he is excused, unless evidence to the contrary is established, because of the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “Liability for mistake and forgetfulness is removed from my umma”. Similarly, a valid excuse, as is obvious from the dictates of the law, is effective in obtaining a concession.