Ana tattauna ka’idojin wannan maudu’i sosai a cikin babi bakwai. Babi na farko yana bayani ne akan gano tsarkin da wannan tsarkin ke maye gurbinsa. Babi na biyu yana magana ne akan mutumin da aka halatta masa wannan irin tsarki. Babi na uku yana magana ne akan sharuddan halascin wannan tsarkin. Babi na hudu yana bayani ne akan siffar wannan tsarkin. Babi na biyar yana magana ne akan abin da ake yin wannan tsarkin da shi. Babi na shida yana magana ne akan abubuwan da ke warware shi. Babi na bakwai yana magana ne akan ayyukan da wannan tsarkin sharadi ne ga ingancinsu da halascinsu.

A comprehensive discussion of the principles of this subject is covered in seven chapters. The first chapter relates to the identification of the purification for which this purification forms a substitute. The second chapter is about the person to whom this form of purification is permitted. The third chapter is about the conditions for the permissibility of this purification. Chapter four is about the description of this purification. Chapter five relates to the thing with which this purification is performed. The sixth chapter is about factors nullifying it. Chapter seven is about acts for the validity and permissibility of which this purification is a condition.

Malaman shari'a sun yarda cewa wannan tsarkakewa madadi ce ga tsarkakewar ƙarama (sughra), wato alwala, amma sun sha bamban game da tsarkakewar babba (kubra). An ruwaito daga Umar da Ibn Mas'ud cewa ba su ɗauka a matsayin madadin tsarkakewar babba ba. Ali da sauran sahabbai sun tabbatar da cewa tayammum madadi ne ga tsarkakewar babba, kuma wannan ra'ayi ne da malaman shari'a gaba ɗaya suka karɓa.

The jurists agreed that this purification is a substitute for minor (sughra) Purification (i.e. wudi?), but they differed about major purification (kubra). It is related from TJmar and Ibn Mas ud that c they did not view it as a substitute for major purification. A1T and other Companions maintained that tayammum is a C substitute for major purification, which was the view adopted by jurists generally.

Dalilin sabanin da ke tsakaninsu shi ne yiwuwar bambancin fassarar ayar, da kuma cewa hadisan game da tayammum ga mutumin da ke cikin janaba (hadathi babba) ba su tabbata ba a ra'ayinsu. Dangane da bambancin fassarar ayar tayammum, yana yiwuwa wanda ake magana da shi a cikin kalmomin Maɗaukaki, "Idan ba ku sami ruwa ba, to ku nemi ƙasa mai tsarki mai tsafta, ku shafa fuskokinku da hannuwanku (da ita)",70 shi ne mutumin da ya samu hadathi karami kawai, kuma yana yiwuwa ana magana da su duka biyu. Waɗanda suke ganin kalmar "taɓawa", a cikin kalmomin Maɗaukaki, "Ko kuma kun taɓa mata", tana nufin saduwa, to, maganar tana komawa ga su duka biyun. Waɗanda suke ganin tana nufin taɓawa da hannu, to, ya fi yiwuwa wanda ake magana da shi shi ne mai hadathi karami. Wannan saboda fassarar kalmomin nuni yakan koma ga abin da aka ambata a ƙarshe. (Ayar ba za ta iya samun fassara guda ɗaya ba) sai dai idan an ɗauka cewa akwai canza tsarin kalmomin a ayar, ta yadda za a karanta ta kamar haka: "Ya ku waɗanda suka yi imani! Idan kun tashi zuwa salla, ko ɗayanku ya fito daga bayan gida, ko kuma kun taɓa mata, ku wanke fuskokinku, da hannuwanku har zuwa gwiwar hannu, ku shafa kawunanku kaɗan, ku wanke ƙafafunku har zuwa ƙwanƙwasa. Idan kuma kuna cikin janaba, to ku tsarkake kanku da wanka, idan kuma kuna marasa lafiya ko a kan tafiya, kuma ba ku sami ruwa ba, to ku nemi ƙasa mai tsarki mai tsafta, ku shafa fuskokinku da hannuwanku da wani abu daga cikinta". Irin wannan karatun da aka ɗauka ba a yarda da shi ba, sai da hujja, domin karatun da aka ɗauka alama ce ta kalmomi, kuma yafi kyau a karanta nassi bisa ma'anarsa ta zahiri maimakon fassara shi ta hanyar alama. Ana iya cewa akwai dalili da ya tilasta ɗaukar canjin tsari, wato tsarinsa na yanzu yana nuna cewa rashin lafiya da tafiya su ne sanadin hadathi. Amma wannan ba haka yake ba, idan an yi la'akari da haɗin "ko" (aw) a nan ma'anar "da" wadda ake amfani da ita a yaren Larabawa. Wannan yana ɗaya daga cikin dalilan da suka haifar da saɓani a kan wannan batu.

The reason for their disagreement kis the likelihood of different uiterpretations of the verse for and that the traditions about tayawmam for a person involved in jandba (the major hadath) did not prove to ke authentic in their view. With respect to the different interpretations of the v erse of tayammum, it is possible that the addressee in the words of the Exalted, “And ye find not water, then go to high clean soil and rub your faces and your hands (therewith)”,70 is just the person who has acquired a minor hadath y and it is also possible that it is addressed to both. Those for whom the term “touching”, in the words of the Exalted, “Or ye have touched women”, means copulation, the pronoun refers to both. Those for whom it means touching with the hand, it is more likely that the addressee is the person with a minor hadath. This is because the pronouns usually refer to the last mentioned thing. (The verse cannot have one possibility) unless a reading with a rearranged order in the verse is assumed, so that it is read as: “O ye who believe! When ye rise up for prayer, or one of you has come from the closet, or you have touched women, wash your faces, and your hands up to the elbows, and lightly rub your heads and [wash] your feet up to the ankles. And if ye are junub purify [bathe] yourself, and if ye are sick or on a journey, and ye find not water, then go to clean, high ground and rub your faces and your hands with some of it”. Such an assumed reading is not allowed, except on the basis of an evidence, because an assumed reading is figurative, and it is better to read the text in its actual connotation instead of interpreting it figuratively. It may be said that there is a reason that necessitates the assumption of rearrangement; namely that its present order implies that illness and journey are causes of hadath. Yet this is not the case, if the conjunction “or” (aw), is considered here in the meaning of “and” which is found in the usage of the Arabs. This is one of the reasons that led to a disagreement over the issue.

Masana sun amince baki ɗaya cewa mutanen da aka yarda su yi wannan tsarkakewa nau'i biyu ne: mara lafiya da matafiyi, idan babu ruwa. Sun sabawa juna game da wasu nau'ukan guda huɗu: mara lafiya wanda zai iya samun ruwa, amma yana tsoron yin amfani da shi; mazaunin da ba shi da ruwa; matafiyi lafiyayye wanda zai iya samun ruwa, amma tsoro yana hana shi kaiwa gare shi; da kuma mutumin da yake tsoron yin amfani da ruwa saboda tsananin sanyi. Game da marar lafiya (marid) wanda zai iya samun ruwa, amma yana tsoron yin amfani da shi, mafi yawa sun ce tayammum na halatta masa; haka ma a game da mutum lafiyayye wanda ke tsoron mutuwa ko tsananin rashin lafiya saboda tsananin sanyin ruwa, da kuma mutumin da yake tsoron fita ya kai ga ruwan. Sai dai yawancin masana suna ganin wajibi ne ya maimaita sallah idan ya samu ruwa daga baya. Ibn Abbas ya riƙe cewa duka marar lafiya da lafiyayye waɗanda suka sami ruwa ba su halatta musu yin tayammum ba. Malik da al-Shafi'i sun tabbatar da halascin tayammum ga mazaunin lafiyayye wanda ba shi da ruwa. Abu Hanifa ya ce tayammum ba ya halatta ga mazaunin lafiyayye, ko da babu ruwa.

The jurists agreed unanimously that the persons permitted to undertake this purification are of two types: the sick and the traveller, when there is a lack of water. They disagreed about four other types: the sick person who can find water, but is afraid to use it; the resident who has no water; the healthy traveller who can find water, but fear prevents him from reaching it; and the Person who is afraid to use water due to extreme cold. About the marid (sick person) who can find water, but is afraid to use it, the majority said that tayammum is permitted to him; similarly, in the case of the healthy person who fears death or severe illness because of the extreme coldness of water, and the person who is afraid to go out and reach the water, except that most of the jurists consider it obligatory for him to repeat prayers when he finds water. CA^ maintained that sick as well as the healthy persons who find water are not permitted to perform tayammum. Malik and al-ShafiT upheld the permissibility of tayammum for the healthy resident who lacks water. Abu Hanifa said that tayammum is not permitted for the healthy resident, even if there is a lack of water.

Dalilin sabanin da ke tsakaninsu game da wadannan abubuwa hudu shi ne ainihin tushen wannan babi. Game da mara lafiya wanda yake tsoron amfani da ruwa, sabaninsu ya ta'allaka ne kan ko akwai wata kalma da aka boye a cikin ayar, wato a cikin kalmomin Mai girma da daukaka, "Idan kuma kun kasance marasa lafiya ko kuna kan tafiya". Wadanda suka tafi kan cewa akwai wannan kalma da aka boye, kuma ma'anar nassin ita ce, "Idan kuma kun kasance marasa lafiya, ba ku iya amfani da ruwa", kuma cewa dammar "ku" a cikin kalmomin Mai girma da daukaka, "Kuma ba ku samun ruwa", tana komawa ga matafiyi kadai, sun halatta tayammum ga mara lafiya mai tsoron amfani da ruwa. Wadanda suka ce dammar da ke cikin "Kuma ba ku samun ruwa" tana komawa ga duka mara lafiya da matafiyi, kuma cewa babu wata kalma da aka boye a cikin ayar, ba su halatta wa mara lafiya yin tayammum ba idan zai iya samun ruwa.

Ana tantance sharuɗɗan wannan nau'in tsarkakewa ta hanyar batutuwa uku, waɗanda suke kamar ginshiƙai. Na farko, shin niyya sharaɗi ne ga wannan tsarkakewa? Na biyu, shin neman ruwa, idan babu shi, sharaɗi ne ga halascin wannan tsarkakewa? Na uku, shin shigar lokacin (sallah) sharaɗi ne ga ingancin tayammum?

^The identification of the conditions of this type of purification relates to three issues, which are like principles. First, whether intention is a condition for this purification? Second, whether searching for water, when it is lacking, is a condition for the permissibility of this purification? Third, whether the advent of the time (of prayer) is a condition for the validity of tayammum.

Yawancin malamai sun ce niyya sharaɗi ne na tayammum, domin ibada ce ta ta'abbudi, ba ta hankali ba. Zufar ya sava wa wannan ra'ayi, inda ya ce niyya ba ɗaya daga cikin sharaɗan tayammum ba ce, kuma babu buƙatar niyya. An kuma ruwaito wannan ra'ayi daga al-Awza'i da al-Hasan ibn Hayy, amma da'awar tana da rauni.

The majority maintain that intention is a condition for tayammum, because it is a ritual non-rational worship. Zufar deviated saying that intention is not one of its conditions, and there is no need for intention. This is also related from al- AwzaT and al-Hasan ibn Hayy, but the claim is weak.

Malik, Allah ya yarda da shi, ya sanya sharadin neman ruwa (domin tabbatar da rashinsa kafin a koma zuwa tayammum), haka kuma al-Shafi'i ya yi. Abu Hanifa kuwa bai sanya wannan sharadi ba. Dalilin sabanin su a kan wannan shi ne: shin mutumin da bai samu ruwa ba tare da neman sa ana iya kiran sa da mai rashin ruwa, ko kuwa mai rashin ruwa shi ne wanda ya nemi ruwan amma bai samu ba? Gaskiya ita ce: mutumin da ya tabbata cewa babu ruwa, ko dai saboda bincike da ya yi a baya (bai samu ba), ko ba tare da bincike ba, to shi mai rashin ruwa ne. Amma mutumin da yake aiki kawai bisa son zuciyarsa, ba zai zama mai rashin ruwa ba. Saboda wannan dalili ne aka ɗauki ra'ayin makarantar da ke bukatar maimaita neman ruwa a wuri guda a matsayin mai rauni, yayin da ra'ayin da ke sharadin neman ruwa da farko, idan babu wata hujja mai gamsarwa game da rashin ruwa, aka ɗauke shi a matsayin mai ƙarfi.

Malik, may Allah be pleased with him, stipulated the seeking of water (to ascertain non-availability prior to shifting to tayammum), as did al~Shafi(i. Abu HanTfa did not lay down this condition. The reason for their disagreement over this is whether the person who does not find water without seeking it can be termed as one who lacks water, or whether the person lacking water is one who has sought it but could not find it? The truth is that the person convinced about a lack of water, either due to a prior (unsuccessful) search or without it, 1S one who lacks water. The person acting merely on his whim, however, carmot be one who lacks water. It is for this reason that the opinion in the school requiring repeated search in the same location is deemed weak, whereas the opinion stipulating initial search, when there is no convincing information about lack of water is deemed strong.

Wasu daga cikin malamai sun sanya wannan sharadi, wanda shi ne ra'ayin Al-Shafi'i da Malik, yayin da wasu ba su sanya shi ba, wanda shi ne ra'ayin Abu Hanifa, da Zahiriyyah, da Ibn Shahan daga cikin almajiran Malik.

Some of the jurists stipulated this, which is the opinion of ai-Shaf?T and Malik, while others did not, which is the opinion of Abu HanTfa, the Zahirites, an d Ibn Shahan from among the disciples of Malik.

Sababin khilafin da ke tsakaninsu shi ne ko ma'anar zahirin ayar alwala tana nuna cewa tayammumi da alwala ba su halatta ba sai lokacin sallah, kamar yadda Maɗaukaki ya ce: "Ya ku waɗanda suka yi imani! Idan kun tashi zuwa salla ..."73 Don haka sun wajabta alwala da tayammumi a lokacin tashi zuwa salla, wanda shi ne lokacin sallah. Daga nan ne hukuncin alwala da tayammumi a nan ya zama daidai da hukuncin sallah, wato kamar yadda lokaci sharaɗi ne ga ingancin sallah, haka ma lokaci sharaɗi ne ga ingancin alwala da tayammumi. Shari'a kuwa ta keɓe alwala da wata banbarakwai. Shin tayammumi yana riƙe da hukuncin asali ne, ko kuwa wannan ba ma'ana ce ta zahirin ayar ba, da kalmomin Maɗaukaki: "Ya ku waɗanda suka yi imani! Idan kun tashi zuwa salla ..."? Ma'anar ita ce: "Idan kun yi niyyar aikata salla"? Ƙari ga haka, koda ba a ɗauka cewa akwai ma'ana ɓoyayya a cikin ayar ba, to abin da ayar ta nuna shi ne cewa wajibcin alwala da tayammumi yana farawa a lokacin wajibcin salla, ba cewa yin alwala kafin lokacin salla bai inganta ba, sai dai idan hukuncin an gina shi ne a kan qiyasin yin salla kafin lokacinta. A irin wannan hali, zai fi kyau a ce dalilin saɓanin a nan shi ne qiyasin tayammumi a kan salla, amma wannan qiyasi raunana ne, domin qiyasinsa a kan alwala ya fi dacewa. Wannan magana ce mai rauni, don haka ku yi tunani a kanta, wato waɗanda suka sanya isowar lokacin salla sharaɗi ga ingancinta, suka mayar da ita ibada mai ɗaurewa da lokaci.

The reason for their disagreement is whether the apparent meaning of the Verse of ablution implies that tayammum and wudu> are not permitted, except when it is time for prayer, as in the words of the Exalted, “O ye who believe! When ye rise up for prayer .. .”73 Thus, they made wudu> and tayammum obligatory at the time of rising up for prayer, which occurs when it is time for prayer. It follows from this that the hukm of wudt? and tayammum here is the same as the hukm for salah, that is just as time is. a condition for the validity of prayer so, similarly, time is a condition for the validity of wudi? and tayammum. The shar* however has made an exemption in the case of ablution. Does tayammum then retain the original rule, or is this not an apparent implication of the verse and the words of the Exalted, “O ye who believe! When ye rise up for prayer ... mean, “When ye resolve to undertake prayers?” Further, even if there is no assumption of an implied meaning in the verse, the only implication would be that the obligation of ablution and tayammum becomes due at the time of obligation of prayer, not that performance of wudfi and before the time of prayer is invalid, unless the rule is based upon the analogy of observing prayer before its time. In such a case, it would be preferable to say that the reason for disagreement in this is the analogy of tayammum upon prayer, but it is weak because its analogy upon wudi? would be better. This is a weak issue, so think over it, that is those who stipulate the advent of the time of prayer for its validity and render it a form of worship bound by time.

Zuwa ga bayanin wannan nau'in tsarkakewa, yana da alaƙa da abubuwa uku, {waɗanda su ne ginshiƙan wannan babin.

to the description of this form of purification, it relates to three issues, {which are the principles of this chapter.

Malamai sun sami ra'ayoyi guda huɗu daban-daban game da iyakar hannayen da Allah {ya umarci mutane su shafa a cikin maganarSa, "Idan ba ku sami ruwa ba, to ku nemi tsaftataccen ƙasa mai tsabta, ku shafa fuskokinku da hannuwanku da wani abu daga gare ta"}.75 Na farko, cewa iyakar da aka ƙayyade a wannan ita ce ɗaya da iyakar a cikin alwala kanta, wato har zuwa gwiwar hannu. Wannan ra'ayi ne sananne a cikin mazhabar, kuma malaman yankunan waje ne ke tabbatar da shi. Na biyu, cewa wajibi ne a shafa tafin hannu kawai, kuma wannan ra'ayin ahlul-Zahir da masu ruwayar hadisi ne ke riƙe da shi. Na uku, cewa mustahabbi ne a shafa har zuwa gwiwar hannu, amma wajibi ne a shafa tafukan hannu. Wannan an ruwaito shi daga Malik. Na huɗu, ra'ayin cewa wajibi ne ya kai har zuwa kafaɗa. Wannan ra'ayi ne na ɓatacce, kuma an ruwaito shi daga Al-Zuhri da Muhammad ɗan Maslama.

The jurists had four different opinions about the extent of the hands that Allah {has commanded people to rub in His words, “And ye find not water, then go clean, high ground and rub your faces and your hands with some of it”.75 First, that the prescribed limit for this is the same as the limit in wudu> itself, which is up to the elbows. This is the widely known opinion in the school, and is upheld by the jurists of the provinces. Second, the obligation is to rub the palm of the hand only and this is maintained by the Ahl abZahir and the fraditionists. Third, that it is recommended up to the elbows, but the obligation is (to rub) the palms of the hands. This is related from Malik. The fourth opinion is that the obligation extends up to the shoulder. This is a deviant opinion and has been related from al-ZuhrT and Muhammad ibn Masalma.

Dalilin sabanin su ya samo asali ne daga kalmar nan "yadd" a cikin harshen Larabawa, wadda ake amfani da ita ta ma'anoni uku: hannu kawai, wanda shi ne amfani na farko; hannu da gwiwar hannu; hannu, gwiwar hannu da kuma kafadar hannu. Dalili na biyu kuma shi ne sabanin hadisai masu alaka da wannan batu. Sanannen hadisin Ammar, ta hanyoyinsa daban-daban da aka tabbatar, yana cewa: "Zai isa ka shafa da hannunka, sannan ka busa su, ka shafa fuskarka da hannayenka." A wasu riwayoyin an ce Annabi ﷺ ya ce: "Sai ka shafa hannayenka har zuwa gwiwar hannu." An kuma ruwaito daga Ibn Umar cewa Annabi ﷺ ya ce: "Tayammum yana kunshe da bugu biyu: bugu daya don fuska, dayan kuma don hannaye har zuwa gwiwar hannu." Haka kuma an ruwaito shi ta hanyar Ibn Abbas da sauran masu ruwaya.

H The reason for their disagreement stems from the equivocality of the term yadd’’' in the language of the Arabs. This is so as the term “yadd’, in the language of the Arabs is used in three meanings: the hand only, which Provides the primary use; the hand and the forearm; the hand, forearm, and upper arm. The second reason arises from the conflict of relevant traditions, be widely known tradition of Ammar, in its various established channels, c f ■ Sa ys, “It would have been enough for you to stroke with your hand, then shake !* off them, and rub your face (with them) and your hands”. In some versions Is stated that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, nd that you rub your hands up to the elbows”. It is also related from Ibn u 0131 ^t the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, consists of two strokes: a stroke for the face, and another for the n us, up to the elbows”. This is also related through Ibn Abbas and other c barrators.

Fuqahā' sun yi saɓani game da adadin lokutan da ya kamata a bugi ƙasa domin tayammum. Wasu daga cikinsu sun ce sau ɗaya ne, yayin da wasu kuma suka ce sau biyu ne. Waɗanda suka ce sau biyu sun haɗa da wasu da suka ce bugu ɗaya na fuska ne, ɗaya kuma na hannaye. Waɗannan su ne mafi yawa. Idan na ce "mafi yawa", to ana ƙidaya malamai uku mafiya shahara a cikinsu, watau Malik, al-Shāfi‘ī, da Abū Ḥanīfa. Wasu daga cikinsu kuma sun ce akwai bugu biyu ga kowane ɗaya daga cikinsu, watau bugu biyu na hannaye da bugu biyu na fuska.

The jurists disagreed about the number of times the earth is to be struck for the purpose of tayammum. Some of them said it is once, while others said that it is twice. Those who said that it is twice include some who said that one stroke is for. the face and one for the hands. These are the majority. When I say “majority”, then the three (leading) jurists are counted among them, that is, Malik, al-Shafi T, and Abu HanTfa. Some c of them said that there are two strokes for each of them, that is two strokes for the hands and two strokes for the face.

Dalilin rashin jituwarsu shi ne cewa ayar ba ta yi bayani dalla-dalla a kan wannan ba, hadisai kuma sun saba da juna, yayin da qiyas na wudu’i zuwa tayammum a dukkan al’amuransa ba a amince da shi ba. Abin da hadisin ‘Ammar da aka tabbatar ya ce a kan haka shi ne bugu daya ga fuska da hannuwa, amma akwai hadisai da ke nuna cewa ana bukatar bugu biyu. Mafi yawan malamai sun fifita wadannan hadisai bisa qiyas na wudu’i zuwa tayammum.

The reason for their disagreement is that the verse gives no details about this, and the traditions are in conflict, while the analogy of wudi? tayammum in all its instances is not agreed upon. What is stated by the established tradition of ‘Ammar about this is one stroke both for the face and the hands, but there are traditions in which it is required twice. The majority preferred these traditions on the basis of analogy of ablution for tayammum.

Al-Shafi'i ya saba wa Malik, Abu Hanifa, da wasu kuma game da wajibcin cewa turɓayar ta isa gaɓoɓin da ake shafawa a cikin tayammum. Abu Hanifa bai ɗauki wannan a matsayin wajibi ba, haka ma Malik, amma al-Shafi'i ya tabbatar da cewa wajibi ne.

Al-Shafi T* disagreed with Malik, Abu HanTfa, and others about <- the obligation of the earth reaching the limbs that are the object of tayammum. Abu HanTfa did not' consider this as obligatory, nor did Malik, but al-Shafi T upheld it as c obligatory.

Dalilin sabanin shi ne kasancewar akwai ma'anoni biyu ga kalmar "min" a cikin maganar Mai girma da daukaka, "Kuma ku shafa fuskokinku da hannayenku da wani abu daga gare shi (wwta)".76 Wannan ya faru ne domin kalmar "min" wani lokaci ana amfani da ita wajen nuna wani bangare, wani lokaci kuma ana amfani da ita wajen bambance-bambance tsakanin rukunai. Wadanda suka ce an yi amfani da ita a nan wajen nuna wani bangare, sun wajabta canja turbaya zuwa gabobin tayammumi. Wadanda suka tabbatar da cewa tana nuna bambanci tsakanin rukunai kuwa, sun ce canja ta ba wajibi ba ne. Al-Shafi'i ya fi son fassarar da ke nuna bangare, bisa tsarin kwatanta tayammumi da alwala, amma wannan ya saba wa hadisin Ammar da aka riga aka ambata, domin yana dauke da kalmomin, "sannan ka girgiza shi," da kuma yadda Annabi ﷺ ya yi tayammumi a jikin bango.

The reason for their disagreement is the equivocality found in the word W in the words of the Exalted, “And rub your faces and your hands with some of it (wwta)”.76 This is so as the word min is sometimes used to indicate a part, while at other times it is used to make a distinction between the categories. Those who held that it has been used here to indicate a part, made the transfer of the earth to the limbs of tayammum obligatory. Those who maintained that it indicates a distinction among categories said that transferring it is not obligatory. Al-ShafiT preferred the interpretation implying a part on the basis of the analogy of ablution for tayammum, but this is opposed by the tradition of cAmmar that has preceded, for it contains the words, “then shake it off’, and also the Prophet’s performing tayammum at the wall.

Sabani tsakanin malaman fiqhu game da wajibcin tsari (na ayyuka) a cikin tayammum, da kuma game da wajibcin yin sauri (watau kada a sami tazara tsakanin shafa fuska da shafa hannaye), yana nan daidai da sabanin da suka yi a kansa a cikin alwala, kuma dalilan sabanin can su ne dalilan nan; don haka babu amfani a sake maimaita su.

The disagreement of the jurists about the obligation of a sequential order (of acts) in tayammum, as well as over the obligation of immediate performance (i.e. there should be no interval separating the rubbing of the face and the rubbing of the hands), is exactly the same as their disagreement about it in ablution, and the causes for disagreement there are the causes here; thus there is no point in reiterating them.

Wannan al'amari guda ɗaya ne. Sun yarda game da ingancinsa da ƙasa mai tsafta wadda za a iya noma, amma sun sabawa juna game da aikinsa da abin da ke banda ƙasa daga cikin sassan da ake samu a ƙasa, kamar duwatsu. Al-Shafi'i ya riƙe cewa tayammum ba a halatta shi sai da ƙasa tsantsa. Malik da almajiransa sun ce tayammum yana halatta, bisa ga ra'ayin da aka fi sani, da duk abin da ake samu a saman ƙasa da dukan sassanta, kamar tsakuwa, yashi da ƙasa. Abu Hanifa ya ƙara a kan haka yana cewa (yana halatta) da dukan nau'ikan abubuwa masu ƙarfi da ƙasa ke fitarwa, kamar farar ƙasa, arsenic, gypsum, yumbu da marmara. Wasu daga cikinsu, kuma waɗannan su ne mafi yawa, sun sharadanta cewa dole ne ƙasar ta kasance a saman ƙasa. Ahmad ibn Hanbal ya ce ana iya yin tayammum da ƙura daga tufa ko daga ulu.

This involves a single issue. They agreed about its validity with clean cultivable soil, but disagreed about its performance with what is besides soil from among the constituent parts found on land, like stones. Al-ShaficT held l hat tayammum is not permitted except with pure earth. Malik and his disciples tald that tayammum is permitted, according to the widely known opinion, with whatever is found upon the surface of land with all its constituents, like Pebbles, sand, and earth. Abu HanTfa added to this saying (that it is permitted) w, *h ail kinds of solid matter produced by the earth, like lime, arsenic, Eypsum, clay, and marble. Some of them, and these are the majority, stipulated that the soil must be on the surface of the earth. Ahmad ibn Hanbal said that tayammum may be performed with dust from a garment or from wool.

Dalilin sabanin su ya dogara ne da abubuwa biyu. Na farko, ma'anoni daban-daban na kalmar sa'id a harshen Larabawa, domin wani lokaci ana amfani da ita ga ƙasa mai tsafta, wani lokacin kuma ga duk abubuwan da ke saman ƙasa, har ta kai ga fassarar siffofin da suka samo asali daga wannan kalma, sah'd, ya sa Malik da almajiransa suka halatta yin tayammum da ciyawa da dusar ƙanƙara, a wata riwaya; sun ce waɗannan ma ana kiransu sa'id a ainihin ma'anar kalmar, wato abin da ke saman ƙasa, sai dai wannan hujja tana da rauni.

The reason for their disagreement is based upon two factors. First, the equivocality of the term sa<id in the language of the Arabs, as it is sometimes applied to clean earth, and at other times to all the constituents on the surface of land, so much so that the interpretation of the derivatives of this term sah'd led Malik and his disciples to permit it, in one of the narrations, with grass and snow; they said that these are also called saVd in the primary use of the term, that is being upon the surface of the earth, but this argument is weak.

Dalili na biyu shi ne amfani da kalmar "ard" ba tare da iyakancewa ba dangane da halaccin amfani da ita a wasu nau'ikan wannan hadisi sananne, da kuma takaita ta a wasu. Hadisin shi ne maganar Annabi (tsira da aminci su tabbata a gare shi), "An sanya mini ƙasa masallaci, kuma abin tsarkake kai." A wasu riwayoyi an rubuta kalmomin, "An sanya mini ƙasa masallaci, kuma abin tsarkake kai," yayin da wata riwayar ke cewa: "An sanya mini ƙasa masallaci, kuma turbayarta abin tsarkake kai." Masana ilimin fiqhu sun sabawa a kan ko za a fassara kalmar da aka takaita ta zama mai gaba ɗaya, ko kuma akasin haka. Mafi shahara a wajensu shi ne cewa ana fassara kalmar da ba ta da iyaka ta hanyar wadda aka takaita, amma wannan ba a yarda da shi ba. Ra'ayin Ibn Hazm shi ne cewa ana fassara kalmar da aka takaita ta hanyar wadda ba ta da iyaka, saboda kalmar da ba ta da iyaka tana da ma'ana ta ƙari. Waɗanda suka fassara kalmar da ba ta da iyaka ta hanyar wadda aka takaita, kuma suka ba ta ma'anar ƙasa kawai a matsayin abu mai tsafta a saman ƙasa, ba su halatta tayammum sai da ƙasa ba. Waɗanda suka fassara kalmar da aka takaita ta hanyar wadda ba ta da iyaka, kuma suka fassara kalmar "ṣaʿīd" da duk abin da ke saman ƙasa, har da abubuwan da ke cikinta, sun halatta tayammum da yashi da duwatsu.

Game da abubuwan da ke ɓata wannan nau'in tsarkakewa, malamai sun amince cewa tayammum yana ɓacewa ta hanyar abubuwan da ke ɓata tsarkakewar asali, wato alwala ko wanka. Sun sabawa juna a kan batutuwa biyu. Na farko, shin niyyar yin wata sallah ta farilla banda sallar farilla da aka yi niyyar ta da tayammum ɗin yana ɓata shi? Na biyu, shin samun ruwa yana ɓata shi?

About the factors nullifying this form of purification, the jurists agreed that tayammum is invalidated by things that invalidate the original purification, which is ablution or bathing. They disagreed in this over two issues. First, does the intention of offering an obligatory prayer other than the obligatory saldh that was intended with the tayammum invalidate it? Second, whether the existence of water invalidates it?

Malik ya tabbatar da cewa niyyar sallah ta biyu tana ɓata tsarkin da aka yi domin sallah ta farko. Ra'ayoyin wasu malamai kuwa sun saɓa da wannan. Tushen wannan saɓani ya ta'allaƙa ne da abubuwa biyu. Na farko, shin a cikin maganar Mai girma da ɗaukaka, "Ya ku waɗanda suka yi imani! Idan kun tashi zuwa sallah..", akwai wata magana da aka ɓoye, wato, idan kun tashi daga barci, ko idan kun tashi a cikin yanayin janaba? Waɗanda suka tabbatar da cewa babu wata magana da aka ɓoye sun ce ma'anar ayar a bayyane tana nuna wudu'i ko tayammum ga kowace sallah, amma sunna ta takaita ma'anar zuwa wudu'i, don haka tayammum ya riƙe hukuncin asali. Duk da haka, ba za a iya kafa hujja ga Malik a kan wannan ba, domin Malik yana ganin cewa ayar tana ƙunshe da magana da aka ɓoye, bisa abin da ya ruwaito daga Zaid ɗan Aslam a cikin al-Muwaɗɗa'insa.

Malik maintained that the intention of a second prayer invalidates purification for the first prayer. The views of others are opposed to this. The basis for this disagreement revolves around two things. First, whether in the words of the Exalted, “O ye who believe! When ye rise up for prayer .. ”, there is an implied text, that is, when ye arise from sleep, or when ye arise in an unclean state? Those who maintained that there is no implied text said that the apparent meaning of the verse indicates wudi? or tayammum for each prayer, but the sunna has restricted the meaning for wudu>, so tayammum retains the original rule. It cannot, however, be argued for Malik on the basis of this (argument), because Malik maintains that the verse contains an implied text, according to what he has related from Zayd ibn Aslam in his al-Muwattd*.

Dalili ta biyu ta dogara ne akan maimaituwar umarni tare da shigar lokacin kowace salla. Wannan shi ne abin da ke biyo bayan ka'idojin Malik, wato wannan hujja za a iya kawo ta a madadinsa, kuma tattaunawar wannan mas'ala ta riga ta gabata. Waɗanda ba su ga umarnin yana maimaituwa ba, suka ɗauka cewa akwai nassi da aka ɓoye a cikin ayar, ba su tabbatar da cewa niyyar yin salla ta biyu tana ɓata tayammum ba.

The second reason is based on the recurrence of the command with the advent of time for each prayer. This is what follows from Malik’s principles, that is, this argument may be adduced on his behalf, and the discussion of this issue has preceded. Those for whom the command does not recur, and they assumed an implied text in the verse, did not uphold that the intention to perform a second salah invalidates tayammum.

Yawancin malamai sun tabbatar da cewa kasancewar ruwa yana ɓata wannan tsarkakewa. Amma wata ƙungiya ta malaman shari'a ta riƙe cewa ɓacewarta tana faruwa ne kawai idan an samu hadath. Tushen wannan saɓani shi ne: shin kasancewar ruwa yana cire tsarkin da ake ci gaba da kasancewa da shi wanda aka samu ta hanyar ƙasa, ko kuwa yana hana fara tsarkakewa da ita (ƙasa)? Waɗanda suka riƙe cewa yana hana farkon tsarkakewa da ƙasa ne kawai (alhali ruwa yana nan) sun ce ba a ɓata ta sai da faruwar hadath. Waɗanda suka riƙe cewa (samuwar ruwa) yana ɓata tsarkin da ake ci gaba da kasancewa da shi sun ce an ɓata ta. Ma'anar abin da ke ɓata (ruwa) shi ne abin da ke kawar da tsarkin da ake ci gaba da kasancewa da shi.

The majority held that the existence of water invalidates this purification. A Stoup of jurists, however, maintained that its invalidation results only from the occurrence of a hadath. The basis of this disagreement is whether the existence of water removes the prevailing purification that was achieved with earth or whether it negates the initiation of purification with it (earth)? Those who Maintained that it negates only the commencement of purification with earth (water being available) said that it is invalidated only by the occurrence of a hadath. Those who maintained that it (availability of water) invalidates the Prevailing purity said that it is invalidated. The definition of the invalidating factor (water) is the eliminator of the prevailing purity.

Mafi yawan malamai sun ba da hujjar ra'ayinsu bisa ga wata hadisi sananne, wato maganar Annabi (tsira da aminci su tabbata a gare shi), "An sanya mini ƙasa ta zama masallaci, kuma abin tsarkakewa, muddin ba a sami ruwa ba" ﷺ. Ana iya fahimtar daga wannan cewa da zarar an sami ruwa, wannan tsarkakewa tana ƙarewa kuma tana kawar da ita, sannan kuma ana iya fahimtarta da cewa yana nuna cewa idan an sami ruwa, ba ya halatta a yi wannan nau'in tsarkakewa. Mafi ƙarfin goyon bayan ra'ayin mafi yawan malamai yana fitowa daga hadisin Abu Sa'id al-Khudri, wanda ya ce Annabi (tsira da aminci su tabbata a gare shi) ya ce: "Idan kun sami ruwa, to ku sa shi ya taɓa fatarku" ﷺ. Mafi yawan malamai suna fassara umarnin nan da cewa yana nuna biyayya nan take, kodayake yana kuma kai ga yiwuwar da ta gabata, don haka ku yi tunani a kai. Karɓar al-Shafi'i cewa kasancewar ruwa tana kawar da wannan tsarkakewa, ya sa ya ce tayammum ba ya cire hadath, wato ba ya haifar da tsarkakewar da ke cire ƙazanta; sai dai yana da tasirin halatta sallah tare da kasancewar ƙazantar. Wannan ba shi da tushe, domin Allah ya kira shi tsarkakewa. Wasu daga cikin almajiran Malik sun riƙe wannan ra'ayi suna cewa tayammum ba ya cire hadath, domin da ya cire shi, to da hadath kawai zai ɓata shi. Amsar ita ce, a game da wannan tsarkakewa, kasancewar ruwa da kanta wani nau'in hadath ne na musamman gare ta, bisa ga ra'ayin cewa kasancewar ruwa tana kawar da ita.

The majority argued for their opinion on the basis of an established tradition, which is the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be u P°n him), “The earth has been made a mosque for me, and a means of Purity, aS long as water is not found”. It is possible to understand from this that as soon as water is found this purification is terminated and removed, while it is also possible to understand it as implying that when water is found n is not valid to undertake this form of purification. The strongest support for the majority comes from the tradition of Abu SaTd al-Khudri, which states that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “When you have found water let it touch your skin”. The command here is interpreted by the majority to indicate immediate compliance, though it also leads to the preceding possibility, so think over it. Al-ShafiTs acceptance, that the existence of water eliminates this purification, led him to say that tajamrcam does not, in fact, remove the hadath, that is, it does not generate purification removing the impurity, it merely has the effect of permitting prayer with the existence of the impurity. This is without foundation, as Allah has called it purification. Some of the disciples of Malik upheld this opinion saying that tayammum does not remove hadath, for had it done so, only a hadath would have invalidated it. The answer is that in the case of this purification the existence of water itself is a sort of hadath specific to it, according to the opinion that the existence of water eliminates it.

Mafi yawan malamai sun amince cewa ayyukan da ingancinsu ko halaccinsu ya dogara da wannan irin tsarkakewa su ne wadanda alwala (wudu'i) ke zama sharadi a gare su, kamar sallah, taba mushaf, da sauransu. Sun yi sabani kan ko ana halatta fiye da sallah daya (ta farilla) da wannan tayammum guda daya. An sani sosai a mazhabar Malik cewa ba a taba halatta sallolin farilla guda biyu da shi ba. Ra'ayinsa ya bambanta game da sallolin da aka rasa (na kaza) guda biyu. An sani sosai cewa tayammum daya ya isa idan daya daga cikin sallolin biyu farilla ce dayar kuma nafila ce, idan ya yi sallar farilla da farko, amma idan ya fara da nafila, ba zai iya yin su da tayammum daya ba. Abu Hanifa ya ce ana halatta yin sallolin farilla guda biyu da tayammum daya.

The majority agreed that acts whose validity or permissibility depends upon this form of purification are those for which ablution (wudi?) is a condition, like prayer, Touching the mushaf, and so on. They disagreed on whether more than one (obligatory) prayer is permissible with it (i.e. with one tayammum)? It is widely known in the Malik’s school that two mandatory prayers are never permitted with it. His opinion differed about two lapsed prayers. It is well- known that one tayammum is enough if one of the two prayers is mandatory and the other is supererogatory, if he prays the mandatory first, but if commences with the supererogatory, he cannot observe them with one tayammum. Abu Hamfa held that it is permitted to observe two mandatory prayers with a single tayammum.

Tushen wannan sabani shi ne ko ana bukatar tayammum ga kowace sallah, ko dai saboda zahirin ayar, ko saboda wajabcin maimaita umarni, ko kuma saboda duka biyun.

The basis for this disagreement is whether tayammum is required for each prayer, either due to the apparent meaning of the verse, or due to the obligation of the recurrence of the command, or due to both.