Malaman shari'a sun yi ittifaqi cewa ruwa mai tsafta mai tsarkakewa yana cire najasa daga waɗannan abubuwa uku. Haka kuma sun yi ittifaqi cewa duwatsu suna iya cire najasa daga mashigai biyu. Sun sami sabani game da cire najasa da abin da ke bayan waɗannan daga cikin ruwaye da abubuwa masu ƙarfi. Wata ƙungiya ta malamai ta ce duk abin da yake tsafta yana iya cire najasa, ko ruwa ne ko ƙarfi, kuma duk abin da najasar ta shafa. Wannan ra'ayi Abu Hanifa da almajiransa suka tabbatar. Wata ƙungiya ta malamai kuma ta ce ba a iya cire najasa da abubuwa banda ruwa, sai dai duwatsu, wanda aka yi ittifaqi a kansa. Wannan ra'ayi Malik da al-Shafi'i suka tabbatar.

The Muslim jurists agreed that clean purifying water removes impurities from those three objects. They also agreed that stones can remove impurities from the two outlets. They disagreed about removal (of impurities) with what is besides these from among fluids and solid substances. A group of jurists held that anything clean can remove impurities whether it is a fluid or a solid, and whatever the affected object. This was upheld by Abu HanTfa and his disciples. Another group of jurists said that impurities cannot be removed by things other than water, except for stones, which are agreed upon. This was upheld by Malik and al-Shafi T.

Sun kuma sun yi sabani game da kawar da najasa da ƙasusuwa da taki a fannin istinja'. Wani rukuni na malamai shari'a sun hana wannan, amma sun halatta amfani da abubuwa wasu masu tsarkakewa, sai dai Malik ya keɓe daga cikin waɗannan abubuwa masu daraja kamar burodi. Haka ake faɗa game da abubuwan da amfani da su zai zama almubazzaranci, kamar zinariya da duwatsu masu daraja. Wani rukuni ya takaita tsarkakewa ga duwatsu kawai, wanda ita ce ra'ayin mabiya Zahiri, yayin da wani rukuni kuma ya halatta amfani da ƙasusuwa, amma ba taki ba, ko da yake sun ɗauki wannan a matsayin abin ƙyama. Al-Jabarī ya bambanta da duk wannan, ya halatta a yi istinja' da shafa da duk abu mai tsabta da marar tsabta. Dalilin sabanin nasu game da kawar da najasa da abubuwa banda ruwa, da kuma ga wasu wuraren da ba mafitsara da dubura ba, shi ne jayayyarsu ko manufar kawar da najasa da ruwa kawai ita ce lalata zatin najasar. Idan haka ne, sauran abubuwan da ke lalata zatin za a ɗauke su daidai da ruwa. Ko kuwa ruwa yana da wata sifa ta musamman da ba a samu a sauran abubuwa ba? Waɗanda ba su ga wata ƙarin sifa a cikin ruwa ba, sun tabbatar da ingancin tsarkakewa da duk ruwa da kuma abubuwa masu tsabta. Wannan ma'ana ta samu goyon baya daga yarjejeniyar malamai game da kawar da najasa daga mafitsara da dubura da abubuwa banda ruwa. Haka kuma hadisin da aka ruwaito daga Umm Salama, wadda ta ce wa Annabi (ﷺ): "Ni mace ce mai doguwar riga da ke jan ƙasa, kuma ina tafiya a kan wurare masu datti." Sai Manzon Allah (ﷺ) ya ce mata: "Abin da ke biye da shi ne yake tsarkake shi." Baya ga wannan, akwai hadisai masu kama da haka da Abu Dawud ya ruwaito, kamar faɗin Annabi (ﷺ): "Idan ɗayanku ya taka najasa da takalminsa, to turɓaya ce mai tsarkake shi," da sauran irin waɗannan rahotanni.

c They also disagreed about the removal of impurities with bones and dung in the case of istinja\ A group of jurists prohibited this, but permitted their use Wlt h other things that can clean, though Malik exempted from these esteemed stable things like bread. The same is said about things the use of which would immoderate like gold and gems. One group restricted cleaning to stones ° % which is the opinion of the Zahirites, while another group permitted it n ^th bones, but not dung, though this was considered abominable by them. Al- jg . barT deviated from all this and permitted in istinja* wiping with all things a H c|ean and unclean The reason for their disagreement about the removal of impurities with things other than water and for objects other than the outlets is their dispute as to whether the purpose of removing impurities with water is only the destruction of the essence of the impurity, in which case other things destroying the essence would be deemed equivalent to water, or whether water has an additional attribute not found in other things. Those to whom no additional attribute was visible in water, upheld the validity of cleaning with all clean fluids and solids. This meaning was supported by the agreement over the removal of impurities from the outlets with things other than water. It is also supported by what is laid down in a tradition from Umm Salama who said to the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “I am a woman having a long trailing dress and I walk over filthy spots”. The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said to her (Umm Salama), “It (the impurity) is cleansed by what follows”. In addition to this, there are traditions about similar cases recorded by Abu Dawud, like the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “If one of you walks over filth in his sandals, the dust is their purifier”, as well as other similar reports.

Waɗanda suka ga wata sifa ta ƙari a cikin ruwa, sun hana irin wannan tsaftacewa sai dai a cikin keɓaɓɓen hali, wato na mafitsara da hanji (ta hanyar amfani da duwatsu). Sa'ad da Hanafiyawa suka nemi daga Shafi'iyawa bayani game da wannan sifa ta ƙari a cikin ruwa, sai su (Shafi'iyawa) suka koma ga hujja cewa ibada ce, domin ba su iya kawo wani dalili mai ma'ana a kanta ba. Har ma sun yarda cewa ruwa ba ya kawar da najasa ta hanyar gamsarwa ta hankali, kuma an danganta kawarwar da wata shari'a ta amince da ita. An yi doguwar muhawara da jayayya tsakaninsu a kan batun ko kawar da najasa da ruwa ibada ce, ko kuma tana da dalili na hankali da ya gangaro daga magabata. Shafi'iyawa sun tilasta kansu su kafa wata falala ta shari'a ta musamman ga ruwa, wadda ba a samunta a wasu abubuwa ba, wajen cika hukunce-hukuncen ƙazanta, duk da cewa yana kama da sauran abubuwa a wajen kawar da zahirin ƙazantar.

Those who perceived an additional attribute in water, prohibited such cleaning except for the exempted case, which is that of the outlets (with stones). When the Hanafites demanded from the Shaficites an explanation of such an additional attribute for water, the latter resorted to the argument that it is an act of worship, for they were not able to provide a rational reason for it. They even conceded that water does not do away with impurity in a rationally satisfying way, and the removal is assigned a legal recognition. There were extended discourses and polemics between them over the question of whether the removal of impurity with water is an act of worship or has a rational cause coming down as a precedent. The Shaficites were' constrained to establish a (special) legal virtue for water, which is not found in other things, in meeting the ahkdm of uncleanliness, though it is similar to other things in the (actual) removal of the substance (of pollutions).

Maksudin (ShafWtes ya ƙara) shi ne cika buƙatun hukuncin da ya keɓance ruwa a matsayin mai iya kawar da zatin najasa, domin wani lokacin najasar ta riga ta tafi, amma hukuncin yana nan. Don haka sun mayar da maƙasudin baya, duk da cewa a baya sun amince da Hanafiyya cewa tsarkake daga najasa ba tsarkakewar shari'a ba ce, wato shar'i, saboda haka ba ta buƙatar niyya. Da a ce sun yi ƙoƙarin bambanta kansu da su (Hanafiyya) ta hanyar cewa sun lura cewa ruwa yana da wata sifa ta narkar da najasa da gurɓata da cire su daga tufafi da jikkuna, wata sifa da ba a samu a wasu abubuwa ba, shi ya sa mutane ke dogara da ruwa wajen tsaftace jikkunansu da tufafinsu, da hakan ya fi kyau, amma sauran bayanan ba su da gamsarwa sosai. Wataƙila ya zama wajibi a yi imani da cewa Mai shari'a (Ubangiji) ya dogara da ruwa wajen wankewa a kowane hali saboda wannan sifa ta asali. Da sun faɗi haka, da sun shigar cikin fiqhun da ake da shi wani abu mai dacewa da ma'anarsa. Malamin fiqhu kan koma ga cewa wani abu ibada ne idan hanyarsa ta sa shi cikin matsi yayin muhawara da abokin hamayya. Ka yi tunani a kan wannan, domin a bayyane yake daga yadda suke magance al'amura a mafi yawan lokuta.

The purpose (the ShafWtes added) is to meet the (requirements of the) hukm that singles out water as effective in the removal of the substance of impurities, as sometimes the impurity is already removed, but the hukm subsists. They thus relegated the purpose, although they had previously agreed with the Hanafites that purification from uncleanliness is not a legal purification, that is shaft and did not therefore require intention (niyya). If they had tried to distinguish themselves from them (the Hanafites) by saying that they did perceive in water a quality of dissolving impurity and contamination and of extracting them from clothes and bodies, a quality not found in other things—for which reason people rely on water for cleansing their bodies and clothes—it would have been a better statement, while others are far from convincing. Perhaps it would be necessary to believe that the jfezr4 (law) has relied on water for washing in each instance because of this inherent quality. If they had said so, they would have introduced into the prevailing fiqh something consistent with its meaning. The jurist resorts to saying that it (a certain thing) is an act of worship when his method imposes constraints upon him in arguing with the contender. Ponder over this, for it is evident from their treatment (of issues) on most occasions.

Sababin sabani tsakanin malamai game da amfani da najasar dabbobi (wajen tsarkake jiki) yana samuwa ne daga sabanin su kan ma'anar hani da aka ruwaito daga Annabi ﷺ game da hakan, watau hani da Annabi ﷺ ya yi cewa ba a yin istinja'i da kashi ko najasa. Wadanda hanin ya nuna musu cewa abin da kansa bai inganta ba, ba su halatta shi ba. Wadanda kuma ba su ga hanin haka ba, saboda rashin tsarki yana da ma'ana ta hankali, sun fassara shi da cewa abin ƙyama ne, amma ba su dauka cewa hakan yana ɓata istinja'i da kansa ba. Wadanda suka bambanta tsakanin kashi da najasa sun yi haka ne saboda sun dauki najasa a matsayin marar tsarki.

The reason for their disagreement about (the use of) animal droppings (in cleaning) is based on their dispute about the meaning of the proscription reported from the Prophet about it, that is, the prohibition by the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) that istinja* is not to be performed with bones or dung. Those for whom the proscription indicated the invalidity of the thing itself did not permit it while those who did not view it as such, as uncleanliness has a rational meaning, interpreted this to mean abomination, but did not consider it as invalidating istinj# itself. Those who made a distinction between bones and dung, did so because they considered dung as unclean.