Cikakken bayani game da ka'idoji da hukunce-hukuncen wannan nau'in tsarkakewa an raba shi zuwa babi shida. Babi na farko yana magana ne akan tantance hukunci, wato ko wajibi ne ko mustahabbi daga fuskar kasancewa ba tare da wani sharadi ba, ko kuma an sanya shi kawai a matsayin sharadi ga sallah. Babi na biyu yana da alaka da tantance nau'ikan najasa. Babi na uku yana magana ne akan abubuwan da wajibi ne a cire irin wadannan najasa daga gare su. Babi na hudu yana magana ne akan abin da za a cire najasar da shi. Babi na biyar yana magana akan hanyar cire su daga kowane abu. Babi na shida yana da alaka da ladabin bandaki.

The comprehensive discussion of the principles and rules of this form of purification is covered in six chapters. The first chapter is about the identification of the hukm, that is, whether it is obligatory or recommended from the aspect of being absolute, or is stipulated only as a condition for salahi The second chapter relates to the identification of the kinds of impurities. The third chapter is about the objects from which the removal of such impurities is obligatory. The fourth chapter is about the thing with which they are to be removed. The fifth chapter deals with the manner of their removal from each object. The sixth chapter relates to the etiquettes of the privy.

Tushen wannan babi daga Littafi shi ne maganar Maɗaukaki, "Ka tsarkake Ubangijinka"78, kuma daga Sunna shi ne maganar Annabi ﷺ, "Wanda ya yi alwala ya shaƙi ruwa ya fitar da shi, kuma wanda ya yi amfani da duwatsu [wajen tsarkake kansa bayan bahaya] ya yi amfani da adadi mara ma'ana [kamar uku, biyar, da sauransu]." Haka kuma akwai umarnin Annabi ﷺ na wanke jinin al'ada daga tufafi, da zuba tulun ruwa a kan fitsari, kamar yadda ya faru a lamarin Balarabe. Haka nan akwai maganarsa game da wucewa ta kabari da aka binne mutum biyu a cikinsa, cewa "ana azabtar da su, amma ba saboda babban zunubi ba; ɗayansu bai tsarkake kansa daga fitsari ba." Malamai sun yarda, saboda kasancewar waɗannan nassosi da aka ruwaito, cewa shari'a ta umarci cire najasa, amma sun sabawa a kan ko hakan wajibi ne ko mustahabbi ne, watau sunna, kamar yadda aka nuna a baya. Wata ƙungiyar malamai sun ce cire najasa wajibi ne, wannan ita ce ra'ayin Abu Hanifa da al-Shafi'i. Wata ƙungiyar kuma sun ce sunna mu'akkada ce, amma ba wajibi ba ce (fard). Wata ƙungiya ta ce wajibi ne idan an tuna, amma ana yafe shi idan an manta. Ra'ayoyin biyu duka an ruwaito su daga Malik da almajiransa.

The source of this chapter from the Book are the words of the Exalted, “Thy Diment purify”,78 and from the sunna the words of the Prophet (God’s peace a nd blessings be upon him), “One who performs ablution should snuff up water and reject it, and one who uses stones [in purifying himself after excretion] should use the odd number [like three, five, etc.]”. There is also the command of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) for cleaning ^enstrual blood from clothes, and for pouring a pitcher of water over urine, as ! n the case of the bedouin. In addition, there is his saying about passing a grave ln which two persons were buried that “they are being given some torment, but not for a major sin; one of them did not cleanse himself after urinating The jurists agreed, because of the existence of these transmitted texts, that removal of impurities has been commanded by the law, but they differed over whether this was by way of obligation or recommendation, that is, as a sunna, as indicated earlier. One group of jurists usaid that the removal of impurities is obligatory, which was the opinion of Abu Hanlfa and al-ShaficI. Another group of jurists said that it was sunna mtfakkada (emphatic), but is not an obligation (fard). One group said that it is an obligation when remembered, but is waived in the case of forgetfulness. Both opinions are related from Malik and his disciples.

Dalilin da ya sa suka sabawa juna a kan wannan batu ya samo asali ne daga abubuwa uku. Na farko, akwai sabani game da maganar Mai girma, Maɗaukakin Sarki, "Tufafinka ka tsarkake"; shin a ɗauke su a zahirinsu ne ko kuma a ɗauke su a matsayin misali. Dalili na biyu shi ne karo tsakanin ma'anonin zahiri na hadisai dangane da wannan wajibi. Dalili na uku shi ne sabanin da suke yi game da umarni da hani da aka shar'anta dangane da dalili mai ma'ana a bayansu; shin dalilin da ake fahimta daga waɗannan umarni da hani hujja ce mai ƙarfafawa da ke mayar da umarnin daga wajibi zuwa mustahabbi, da hani daga haramci zuwa kyamar aikata shi, ko kuwa ba hujja ce mai ƙarfafawa ba, kuma babu bambanci a nan tsakanin ibada mai ma'ana da wacce ba ta da ma'ana. Waɗanda suka yi wannan bambanci sun yi hakan ne saboda yawancin hukunce-hukuncen shari'a masu ma'ana suna da alaƙa da ƙa'idodin ɗabi'a ko maslahohin shari'a, waɗanda galibinsu mustahabbi ne. Waɗanda suka fassara maganar Mai girma, "Tufafinka ka tsarkake", da ma'anar tufafin zahiri, sun ce tsarkake su daga najasa wajibi ne, yayin da waɗanda suka ɗauke ta a matsayin alama ta tsarkin zuciya ba su samu wata hujja ta shari'a a cikinta ba.

Malamai sun yarda cewa nau'ikan najasa a ainihi sun kai huɗu. Na farko, mushen dabbobi masu jini mai ɗumi waɗanda ba sa rayuwa a cikin ruwa. Na biyu, naman alade, ko menene ya haddasa mutuwarsa. Na uku, jinin dabbar da ba ta rayuwa a cikin ruwa, wanda ake fitarwa daga dabba mai rai ko matacciya idan ya zubo, watau idan ya yi yawa. Na huɗu, fitsari da bayan gida na mutane. Yawancin malamai sun yarda game da najasar khamr, amma akwai saɓani a kan haka tsakanin wasu masana hadisi. Malamai sun yi saɓani game da abubuwa banda waɗannan. Ƙa'idodin wannan babi an tattara su cikin batutuwa bakwai.

The jurists agreed that the kinds of impurities are essentially four. First, carrion of warm-blooded animals not living in water. Second, flesh of swine, whatever the cause of its death. Third, blood of an animal that does not live in Water, and is extracted from a living or dead animal when it flows out, that is, when' it is excessive. Fourth, the urine and excrement of human beings. Most the jurists agreed about the impurity of khami\ but there is disagreement about this among some of the traditionists. The jurists disagreed about things besides these. The principles of this chapter are covered in seven issues.

Sun sabawa game da matattu wanda babu jini a cikinsa, da kuma matattun halittun teku. Wasu malaman shari'a sun ce gawar halittar da babu jini a cikinta tsarkakakkiya ce; haka ma matattun halittun teku. Wannan ra'ayin Malik ne da almajiransa. Wasu malaman shari'a kuwa sun riƙe cewa matattu masu jini da matattu marasa jini suna daidai wajen najasa, sai dai abin da aka yarda cewa ba mushe ba ne, kamar tsutsotsi da abin da ake samarwa a cikin abinci; amma sun keɓe matattun dabbobin ruwa daga wannan hukunci, wannan shi ne ra'ayin al-Shafi'i. Wata ƙungiya kuma ta ɗauki mushe da matattun dabbobin teku a matsayin abu ɗaya, suka keɓe matattun marasa jini, wannan kuwa shi ne ra'ayin Abu Hanifa.

They disagreed about carrion that has no blood in it, and about dead sea j Rimals. A group of jurists said that a carcass of a bloodless creature is clean; ► milarly, the dead sea creatures. This is Malik’s opinion and that of his disciples. A group of jurists maintained equivalence, with respect to impurity, between carrion of a warm-blooded and bloodless creatures, unless it was something over which there is agreement that it is not carrion like worms and what is produced in eatables, but they exempted dead marine animals from this, which is al-ShafiTs opinion. Another group considered carrion and dead sea animals to be the same, exempting bloodless carrion, which is Abu HanTfa’s opinion.

Dalilin sabanin da ke tsakaninsu ya samo asali ne daga takaddamar da suka yi kan ma'anar kalmomin Mai Girma da Daukaka: "An haramta muku mushe..."79 Ina ganin dalilin shi ne sun yarda cewa wannan ayar tana cikin rukunin kalma ta gama-gari da aka nufi takamaiman abu da ita, bayan haka sai suka sabawa juna game da wane takamaiman abu ne ake nufi a nan. Wasu daga cikinsu sun keɓe daga cikin haramcin dabbobin teku da suka mutu da mushen halittun da ba su da jini, wasu sun keɓe dabbobin teku da suka mutu kawai, yayin da wasu kuma suka yi keɓewa ga mushen halittun da ba su da jini kawai. Dalilin sabani game da waɗannan keɓewa kuwa ya samo asali ne daga sabanin da suka yi kan hujjar takaitawa. Hujjar zahiri ta waɗanda suka keɓe mushen halittun da ba su da jini ta dogara ne da ingantaccen hadisi daga Manzon Allah ﷺ game da kudaje idan sun fāɗa cikin abinci. Sun ce wannan yana nuna tsarkin kudaje, kuma babu wani dalili a bayansa face kasancewarsu ba su da jini.

The reason for their disagreement is based on their dispute over the meaning of the words of the Exalted, “Forbidden unto you are carrion .. .”79 The reason, I think, is that they agreed that it belongs to a category of a general word intended for the particular, after which they differed as to which particular is meant here. Some of them exempt from this dead sea- animals and carrion of bloodless creatures, some exempted dead sea animals only, while others made an exemption in the case of carrion of bloodless creatures alone. The reason for a disagreement over these exemptions is based upon their disagreement over the restricting evidence. The apparent argument of those who exempted bloodless carrion is based upon the established tradition from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) relating to flies when they fall into food. They said that this indicates the cleanliness of flies, and there is no underlying reason for this except the fact that they are bloodless.

Kamar yadda malamai suka sami sabani game da hukuncin nau'o'in mushe, haka kuma suka sami sabani game da hukuncin sassan dabbobin da suka mutu, waɗanda suka yarda cewa mushe ne. Don haka suka kammala cewa naman sassan mayta ma mayta ne, amma suka sami sabani game da ƙashi da gashi. Al-Shafi'i ya ce ƙashi da gashi ma mayta ne, yayin da Abu Hanifa ya ce ba su ba ne. Malik ya bambanta tsakanin gashi da ƙashi, yana cewa ƙashi mayta ne, amma gashi ba mayta ba ne.

Just as the jurists differed about the (hukm of the) kinds of carrion they disagreed about (the hukrn of) the parts of dead animals, which they had deemed as carrion by agreement. Thus, they concluded that flesh of the parts of mayta was also mayta, but they disagreed about bones and hair. Al-Shafi T c held that bones and hair were also mayta, while Abu HanTfa held that they are not. Malik made a distinction between hair and bones saying that bones are mayta, but not hair.

Sababin sabanin su ya danganta ne ga takaddamarsu kan wane aiki a cikin gaɓoɓin jiki ne za a iya kiransa "rai". Waɗanda suka tabbatar da cewa aikin girma da cin abinci alama ce ta rai, sun ce idan aikin girma da cin abinci ya ɓace daga gashi da ƙasusuwa, sai su zama mayta. Waɗanda suka tabbatar da cewa ana amfani da kalmar "rai" ne kawai ga gabobin ji, kuma gashi da ƙasusuwa ba su da ikon ji, sai suka ce ba su zama maiƙ/ta ba. Waɗanda suka bambanta tsakanin su biyu, sun danganta wa ƙasusuwa ikon ji, amma ba ga gashi ba. Akwai saɓani game da ikon ƙasusuwa na ji, kuma likitoci sun yi saɓani a kan wannan batu. Shaidar da ke tabbatar da cewa cin abinci da girma ba irin wannan rai ba ne da idan ya ɓace za a iya kiran abu mayta, ita ce yarjejeniyar dukkan malaman fiqhu cewa ɓangaren dabba da aka yanke daga gare ta alhali tana raye mayta ne. Wannan kuma yana kan hadisin Manzon Allah (ﷺ), wanda ya ce: "Duk abin da aka yanke daga dabba alhali tana raye, mayta ne." Sai dai sun yarda cewa gashin da aka aske daga dabba tsarkakakke ne. Haka kuma, idan kalmar mayta za a yi amfani da ita ga abubuwan da girma da cin abincinsu suka tsaya, to tsiron da aka tumɓuke shi ma za a kira shi mayta, domin tsire-tsire ma suna nuna girma da cin abinci. Ga wannan, al-Shafi'i zai iya amsawa da cewa cin abinci, wanda idan ya ɓace ake kiran abu mutuwa, an takaita shi ga halittun da Allah ya ba su ikon ji.

The reason for their disagreement relates to their dispute as to what activity in the limbs can be assigned the term “life”. Those who maintained that the activity of growth and food intake depicts life said that when the activity of growth and food intake is absent from hair and bones they become mayta. Those who maintained that the term “life” is only applied to the senses, and as hair and bones do not possess the capacity to sense, they are not.maj/ta. Those who distinguished between the two, assigned to bones the capacity to sense, but not to hair. There is a disagreement about the capacity of the bones to sense, and the matter is disputed among the physicians. The evidence proving that food intake and growth are not that kind of life to the absence of which the term may la can be applied is the agreement of all jurists that a, part of an animal cut off when it is alive is mayta. This is based on a tradition, which is the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “Whatever is cut off from an animal, when it is alive, is mayta”. They agreed, however, that hair sheared from an animal is clean. Further, if the term mayta were to be applied to things whose growth and food intake has stopped, the uprooted vegetation would also be termed as mayta, as vegetation also shows growth and food intake. To this al-ShafiT may reply that food intake, to the absence of which the term death is applied, is limited to beings endowed with the capacity to sense.

Sun sabawa kan amfani da fatun dabbobin da suka mutu. Wata ƙungiya ta malamai ta tabbatar da halascin amfani da fatun gaba ɗaya, ko an yi musu tanning ko ba a yi ba, yayin da wata ƙungiya ta ɗauki akasin haka, wato ba a amfani da su kwata-kwata, koda an yi musu tanning. Wata ƙungiya ta uku ta malamai ta bambanta tsakanin fatun da aka yi wa tanning da waɗanda ba a yi musu ba, tana mai cewa tanning na tsarkake su, wannan ita ce ra'ayin al-Shafi'i da Abu Hanifa. Akwai riwayoyi biyu daga Malik a kan haka. Ta farko ta yi daidai da ta al-Shafi'i, yayin da ta biyu ita ce tanning ba ta tsarkake su ba, amma ana iya amfani da su matuƙar babu danshi a cikinsu. Waɗanda suka ce tanning abu ne mai tsarkakewa sun yarda cewa yana tsarkake fatun dabbobin da ake iya yanka su bisa ƙa'ida, watau dabbobin da halal ne a ci naman su, amma sun saɓa game da dabbobin da yanka bisa ƙa'ida ba ta shafe su ba. Al-Shafi'i ya ce yana tsarkake fatun dabbobin da aka yanka bisa ƙa'ida kawai, domin yanka tana maye gurbin tsarkakewa. Abu Hanifa ya ɗauki tanning a matsayin mai tsarkake fatun dukkan dabbobi banda alade. Dawud kuwa ya ce yana tsarkake su duka, har da fatun alade.

They disagreed about the utilization of skins of dead animals. A group of jurists upheld the unconditional permissibility of the utilization of skins, whether tanned or not, while another group held the opposite view, that is, they are not to be utilized at all, even when tanned. A third group of jurists made a distinction between tanned an untanned skins, maintaining that tanning purifies them, which is al-ShafiTs and Abu HanTfa’s opinion. There are two narrations from Malik about this. The first is the same as that of al- Shafi I, while c the second is that tanning does not purify them, but they can be used if no moisture is involved. Those who maintained that tanning is a purifying factor, agreed that it purifies the skins of the animals that can be ritually slaughtered, that is, those permissible for consumption, but they disagreed about those to which ritual slaughter does not apply. Al-ShaficT held that it purifies the skins of ritually slaughtered animals only, as slaughter is a substitute for the purpose of purification. Abu HanTfa maintained the effectiveness of tanning in purifying the skins of all animals with the exception of swine. Dawud said that it purifies all, even the skins of swine.

Dalilin sabanin da ke tsakanin malamai a kan wannan batu shi ne karo tsakanin hadisai a kan lamarin. Halaccin amfani da shi gaba daya yana cikin hadisin Maimuna, lokacin da Annabi ﷺ ya wuce ta wata gawa sai ya ce: "Da ma ka yi amfani da fatarta." Haramcinsa gaba daya kuwa an samo shi daga hadisin Ibn Akim, wanda ya ce: "Manzon Allah ﷺ ya rubuta cewa ba a amfani da fatarta ko jijiyarta." Wannan ya kasance shekara guda kafin rasuwarsa. A wasu hadisai umarnin yana nuna (halaccin) amfani da su bayan an yi musu tanning, amma ba kafin haka ba. Hadisin da aka tabbatar a wannan fanni yana a cikin BABIN TSARKAKEWA (TA HARA), wato hadisin Ibn Abbas cewa Annabi ﷺ ya ce: "Idan aka yi wa fatu tanning sai su zama tsarkakakku."

Malamai sun yarda cewa jinin dabbobin ƙasa najasa ne, amma sun sabawa juna game da jinin kifi. Haka kuma, sun sabawa juna game da ƙaramin jinin dabbobin da ba na teku ba.

The jurists agreed that blood of land animals is unclean, but they differed about the blood of fish. Similarly, they disagreed about small quantities of blood of animals other than those of the sea.

Wasu malamai sun ce jinin kifi tsarkakke ne, wannan kuwa shi ne ɗaya daga cikin ra'ayoyi biyu daga Malik, kuma shi ne ra'ayin al-Shafi‘T. Wasu malamai kuma sun ce jinin kifi najasa ne bisa ƙa'idar jinin gabaɗaya. Wannan shi ne ra'ayin Malik a cikin al-Mudawwana. Haka kuma, wasu malamai sun ce ƙananan jini ana yafewa, yayin da wasu suka ce hukuncin babba da ƙarami ɗaya ne. Ra'ayin farko shi ne wanda mafi yawan malamai suke riƙewa.

A group of jurists said that the blood of fish is clean, and this is one of two opinions from Malik and is also the opinion of al-Shafi‘T. Another group of jurists said that it is unclean on the basis of the rule for blood. This is Malik’s opinion in al-Mudawwana. Similarly, a group of jurists said that small quantities of blood are overlooked, while others said that the hukm of large and small quantities is the same. The former view is held by the majority.

Dalilin sabanin da ke tsakaninsu game da jinin kifi yana da alaka da sabanin da suke yi kan ko kifin da ya mutu yana cikin mayta. Wadanda suka dauki kifin da ya mutu a matsayin wanda yake cikin haramcin mayta gaba daya, sun ce jininsa daya ne da na sauran mayta, yayin da wadanda suka cire shi daga cikin haramcin gaba daya, sun cire jininsa ta hanyar kwatanci iri daya. Akwai wani hadisi mai rauni game da wannan, wanda shi ne fadin Annabi ﷺ: "An halatta mana nau'o'in mayta guda biyu da jini guda biyu: fara da kifin tekun, da kuma hanta da bargo."

The reason for their disagreement over the blood of fish relates to their disagreement whether dead fish is mayta. Those who considered dead fish to be included in the general prohibition for mayta, deemed its blood to be the same, while those who exempted it from the general prohibition, exempted its blood on the same analogy. There exists a weak tradition related to this, and this is the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), 1 wo kinds of mayta and two kinds of blood have been permitted to us, locust a nd whale, and liver and spleen”.

Ra'ayinsu game da yawan jini mai yawa da kuma ƙarami yana da alaƙa da ko ma'anar da aka takaita (al-muqayyad) ta fi ma'anar da ba a takaita ba (al-mutlaq), ko kuma ma'anar da ba a takaita ba ta fi wacce aka takaita. An haramta jini a cikin kalmomi marasa iyaka a cikin maganar Maɗaukaki: "An haramta muku mushe da jini da naman alade", amma an same shi a cikin kalmomin takaitacce a cikin maganarsa: "Ka ce: Ban sami cikin abin da aka saukar mini wani abu da aka haramta ga mai ci ya ci ba, sai dai idan mushe ne, ko jini da aka zubar, ko naman alade — domin wannan tabbas ƙazanta ne". Waɗanda suka sanya ma'anar takaitacciyar ta fi ma'anar marar takaitawa, kuma waɗannan su ne mafi yawa, sun ce jinin da "aka zubar" ne kawai aka haramta kuma yake da ƙazanta. Waɗanda suka yanke hukunci bisa ma'anar marar takaitawa fiye da takaitacciyar, sun ce jinin "da aka zubar" shi ne jini mai yawa, yayin da wanda ba a zubar ba shi ne jini ƙarami, dukkansu kuwa an haramta su. Haka nan sun goyi bayan ra'ayinsu da cewa abin da yake ƙazanta a asali ba zai iya zama tsarkakakke a cikin sassansa ba.

Jurists sun yarda a kan rashin tsarkin fitsari da najasar mutum, sai dai fitsarin jariri namiji. Sun sabawa juna game da abin da ya wuce haka dangane da dukkan dabbobi. Al-Shafi'i da Abu Hanifa sun ce fitsari da najasar dukkan dabbobi najasa ce, yayin da wata ƙungiyar malamai ta tabbatar da tsarkinsu gaba ɗaya, wato dukkan dabbobi, fitsarinsu da najasarsu tsarkakakkiya ce. Wata ƙungiyar malamai kuma ta ce hukuncin fitsarinsu da najasarsu yana dogara ne da hukuncin namansu. Dabbobin da naman su haramun ne, fitsarinsu da najasarsu haramun ne kuma najasa ne, yayin da dabbobin da ake iya ci halal ne, fitsarinsu da najasarsu tsarkakakku ne, sai dai dabbobin da ke cin najasa. Dabbobin da ake ɗaukar su abin ƙyama (wajen ci), fitsarinsu da najasarsu ma abin ƙyama ne. Wannan ita ce ra'ayin Malik, da kuma na Abu Hanifa dangane da dabbobin farauta.

The jurists agreed about the uncleanliness of human urine and excrement, except for the urine of a male infant. They disagreed about what is besides this with respect to all animals. Al-ShaficT and Abu Hamfa held that urine and excrement of all animals are unclean, while a group of jurists upheld their absolute cleanliness, that is, offal of all animals from urine and excrement. A group of jurists said that the hukm of their urine and dung is dependent upon the hukm of their flesh. The animals whose flesh is prohibited, their urine and dung are prohibited and unclean, while the animals that are fit for consumption their urine and dung are clean, except for those animals that consume filth. The animals that are considered abominable (for food), their urine and dung are also abominable. This was Malik’s opinion, as well as that of Abu Hamfa with respect to beasts of prey.

Akwai dalilai biyu na saɓanin ra'ayinsu. Na farko shi ne jayayyarsu game da ma'anar halascin yin salla a wurin kwanciyar dabbobi, izinin da Annabi (tsira da amincin Allah su tabbata a gare shi ﷺ) ya bai wa mutanen Ukl su sha fitsari da madarar raƙuma, da kuma ma'anar haramcin yin salla a wurin kwanciyar raƙuma. Dalili na biyu shi ne kwatanta dukkan sauran dabbobi da mutum a wannan batu. Waɗanda suka kafa kwatancen dukkan sauran dabbobi a kan mutum, suna mai cewa wannan yana cikin rukunin ƙiyasi mafi girma, ba su ɗauki halascin yin salla a wurin kwanciyar dabbobi a matsayin alamar tsarkin fitsarinsu da najasarsu ba, sai dai sun ɗauke shi hukunci da ya dogara ga tushen wahayi, ba na hankali ba. Waɗanda suka fassara haramcin yin salla a wurin kwanciyar raƙuma da cewa yana nuna ƙazanta, kuma suka ɗauki izinin shan fitsarin raƙuma ga mutanen Ukl a matsayin magani, wanda aka halatta a ƙa'ida, sun ce dukkan fitsari da najasa najasa ne. Waɗanda suka fassara hadisin da ke halasta salla a wurin kwanciyar dabbobi da cewa yana nuna tsarkin najasarsu da fitsarinsu, kamar yadda yake a game da mutanen Ukl, kuma suka ɗauki haramcin yin salla a wurin kwanciyar raƙuma a matsayin ibada, mai ma'ana banda ƙazanta, bambancin mutum da dabbobi a cewarsu shi ne najasar mutum mai kyama ce ta halitta, alhali ta dabbobi ba haka ba ce, sun ɗauki najasa a matsayin abin dogara ga (halascin) naman dabbobi. Allah ya fi sani. Waɗanda suka kafa kwatancen dukkan sauran dabbobi a kan dabbobin gida, sun ɗauki dukkan najasa a matsayin tsarkakakkiya, ba a haramta ta ba, sai dai najasar mutum kaɗai.

Fuqahaa sun sabawa game da ƙananan najasa zuwa ra'ayoyi uku. Wani rukuni na fuqahaa sun ce ƙanana da manyan adadin najasa daidai suke. Daga cikin waɗanda suka yi wannan ra'ayi akwai al-Shafi'i. Wani rukuni na fuqahaa sun ce ana yafe ƙananan adadin najasa, kuma sun ƙayyade shi da adadin da yake daidai da girman dirhami mai gauraye (wanda aka haɗa da wani abu). Daga cikin waɗanda suka yi wannan ra'ayi akwai Abu Hanifa. Muhammad ibn al-Hasan ya karkata daga wannan magana, yana cewa idan najasar ta rufe kashi ɗaya cikin huɗu ko ƙasa da haka na tufafin, to ana halatta sallah a cikinta. Rukuni na uku na fuqahaa sun ce ƙanana da manyan adadin najasa daidai suke, sai dai a game da jini kamar yadda aka ambata. Wannan shi ne ra'ayin Malik. Akwai riwayoyi guda biyu daga gare shi game da jinin haila, wanda sananne shi ne cewa yana kama da sauran nau'o'in jini.

The jurists disagreed about small amounts of filth into three opinions. A group of jurists held that small and large quantities are the same. Among those who held this opinion is al-ShaficT. Another group of jurists held that small amounts of filth are overlooked, and they fixed this to be an amount equal to the size of an impure (alloyed) dirham. Among those who held this opinion is Abu HanTfa. Muhammad ibn al-Hasan deviated from this saying that if the filth covers one-fourth or less of the dress, prayer is permitted in it. A third group of jurists held that small and large quantities of filth are the same, e *cept in the case of blood as has been mentioned. This is Malik’s opinion. There are two narrations from him about menstrual blood, the one widely known being that it is similar to all other kinds of blood.

Sababin rashin jituwarsu yana da alaƙa da takaddamarsu game da kwatanta ƙazanta ƙarama da keɓewa wadda ke barin ragowar datti a yanayin tsaftacewa da duwatsu. Waɗanda suka halatta irin wannan kwatance sun tabbatar da halaccin ƙazanta ƙarama, kuma saboda haka suka iyakance ta zuwa girman dirhami, wanda girmansa ɗaya ne da girman mafita. Waɗanda suka riƙe cewa waɗannan da sauran keɓewa ba za su iya zama tushen kwatance ba, ba su halatta shi ba.

The reason for their disagreement is related to their dispute over the analogy of minor uncleanliness upon the exemption disregarding the remaining trace of filth in the case of cleaning with stones. Those who permitted such an analogy u pheld the permissibility of minor uncleanliness, and for this reason they limited it to the size of a dirham, the size of which is the same as the size of the outlet. Those who held that these and other exemptions cannot serve as a basis lor analogy, did not allow it.

Dalilin keɓancewar da Malik ya yi a game da jini ya riga ya gabata, yayin da bayanin ra'ayin Abu Hanifa shi ne cewa najasa, a cewarsa, tana rabuwa zuwa mai nauyi da mai sauƙi. A game da najasa mai nauyi, adadin keɓancewar yana iyakance ne zuwa girman dirhami, yayin da najasa mai sauƙi kuwa ana yafe ta har zuwa kashi ɗaya cikin huɗu na tufa. Najasa mai sauƙi a ra'ayinsa tana kama da najasar dabbobin ɗaukar kaya da waɗanda hanyoyi sukan kasa tsira daga gare su. Wannan rabe-raben da ya yi zuwa mai nauyi da mai sauƙi abu ne mai kyau.

Sun yi sabani game da maniyyi, ko yana da najasa. Wata ƙungiya daga cikinsu, waɗanda suka haɗa da Malik da Abu Hanifa, sun ce najasa ne, yayin da wata ƙungiya kuma ta tabbatar da cewa tsarki ne, wanda shi ne ra'ayin al-Shafi'i, Ahmad, da Dawud.

They disagreed about semen, whether it is unclean. A group, from among them, Malik and Abu HanTfa, held that it is unclean, while another group maintained that it is clean, which was the opinion of al-ShaficT, Ahmad, and Dawud.

Akwai dalilai guda biyu na sabanin su. Na farko shi ne bambancin da ke cikin hadisin A’isha. A wasu riwayoyi ana cewa: "Ina wanke maniyyi daga tufafin Manzon Allah ﷺ, sai ya fita yana sallah da su, akwai alamun ruwa a kansu." A wasu kuma ana cewa: "Ina goge maniyyi daga tufafin Manzon Allah ﷺ", kuma "yana sallah da su". Wannan karin Muslim ne ya rubuta shi. Dalili na biyu shi ne yadda maniyyi ke tsakanin kamanceceniya da najasar jiki da kuma kamanceceniya da sauran ruwayen jiki masu tsarki, kamar madara da sauransu.

There are two reasons for their disagreement. First is the variation in c A’isha’s tradition. In some versions it says, “I used to wash off semen from the clothes of the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), and he would go out to pray in them with water-marks on them.” In others it says, “I used to scrape off semen from the clothes of the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him)”, and that “he used to pray in them”. The addition is recorded by Muslim. The second reason is the vacillation of semen between resemblance with the unclean excrements of the body and between resemblance with other clean secretions, like milk etc.

Waɗanda suka haɗa dukkan hadisai, suka fassara wankewa da cewa domin tsafta ce, suka kuma ɗauki goge-goge wanda ba ya tsarkakewa a matsayin shaida a kan tsarkinsa, suka kuma yi qiyasin maniyyi a kan sauran ɓoyayyun ruwa masu tsarki, ba su ɗauke shi a matsayin najasa ba. Waɗanda suka fifita hadisan wankewa a kan na goge-goge, suka kuma ɗauki maniyyi a matsayin najasa, saboda a ganinsu yana kama da najasai fiye da ɓoyayyun ruwa masu tsarki, sun tabbatar da cewa najasa ne. Haka ma waɗanda suke ganin cewa ana cire najasa ta hanyar goge-goge. Sun ce goge-goge da kansa yana nuna najasarsa, kamar yadda wankewa ke nunawa. Wannan ita ce ra'ayin Abu Hanifa. A bisa wannan, babu hujja ga waɗanda suke riƙe da ra'ayinsu (cewa maniyyi tsarkakakke ne) a kan maganar "yana sallah a cikinsu", a gefe guda kuma akwai shaida a cikinta ga Abu Hanifa cewa ana iya cire najasa ba tare da ruwa ba, wanda ya saɓa wa ra'ayin mazhabar Malikawa.

Those who reconciled all the traditions, interpreting washing to be for the purpose of cleanliness, and derived from scraping that does not purify an evidence of its purity, and made an analogy for semen upon other pure secretions, did not deem it unclean. Those who preferred the traditions of washing over those of scraping, and considered semen to be unclean, as it resembled, in their view, to unclean excrements more than clean secretions, maintained that it is unclean. So also those who believe that uncleanliness is removed by scraping. They said that scraping itself indicates its uncleanliness, as does washing. This is Abu HanTfa’s opinion. On this basis there is no proof with those who maintain their opinion (that semen is clean) on the words that “he used to pray in them”, on the other hand, there is evidence in it for Abu HanTfa that uncleanliness can be removed without water, which is contrary to the opinion of the Malikites.