Malamai sun yi ittifaqi game da hanyar da ake cire najasa, kuma akwai nau'i uku: wanke-wanke, shafa, da yayyafawa, saboda waɗannan an ambata su a cikin shari'a kuma an tabbatar da su ta hanyar hadisai. Sun yi ittifaqi cewa wanke-wanke ya shafi dukkan nau'in najasa da dukkan wuraren da ba su da tsafta, cewa shafa yana halatta da duwatsu ga mafitsara da kuma da busasshiyar ciyawa ga takalma da safa. Haka kuma, sun yi ittifaqi cewa dogon ɓangaren tufafin mace da ke jan ƙasa ana tsarkake shi da busasshiyar ciyawa bisa ga ma'anar bayyanannen hadisin Ummu Salama.

The jurists agreed about the manner with which impurities are removed, and it is of three types, washing, wiping, and sprinkling, because these have been mentioned in the law and established through the traditions. They agreed that washing applies to all kinds.of impurities and for all locations of uncleanliness, and that wiping is permitted with stones for the outlets and with dry herbage for boots and sandals. They agreed, likewise, that the long trailing part of the female dress is purified by the dry herbage in accordance with the apparent meaning of the tradition of Umm Salama.

Sun sabāni a kan uku-uku game da waɗannan abubuwa, waɗanda su ne ginshiƙan wannan babin. Na farko shi ne game da yayyafawa, wane irin najasa ake iya tsarkake shi da shi. Na biyu shi ne game da shafawa, menene abin da ake shafawa a kansa da irin najasar da za ta iya cire, bayan sun yarda a kan abin da muka ambata. Na uku shi ne game da sharaɗin adadi (na maimaitawa) a wanke da shafawa.

They disagreed on three points related to these things and which form the principles of this chapter. The first is about sprinkling, as to what kind of impurity that can be purified with it. The second, is about wiping, as to what is lts object and the kind of impurity it can remove, after agreeing about what we have mentioned. The third point is about the stipulation of number (of repetitions) for washing and wiping.

Wasu malamai sun ce yayyafawa ta keɓanta ga fitsarin jaririn da bai yaye ba. Wasu malamai kuma sun bambanta a wannan batu tsakanin fitsarin namiji da na mace, suna cewa fitsarin namiji ana yayyafa shi, yayin da na mace ana wanke shi. Rukuni na uku kuwa sun ce wanke-wanke shi ne tsarkakewar da aka wajabta ga abin da najasarsa ta tabbata, yayin da yayyafawa ita ce ga abin da ake shakka a kansa. Wannan ra'ayin Malik ibn Anas ne, Allah ya yarda da shi. Dalilin sabanin su ya samo asali ne daga karon ma'anonin zahiri na hadisan da suka shafi wannan batu, wato sabanin su a kan ma'anoni. Hakan ya faru ne saboda akwai hadisai guda biyu da aka tabbatar game da yayyafawa. Na farko shi ne hadisin Aisha, cewa "ana kawo yara wurin Annabi (ﷺ), sai ya yi musu addu'a, ya shafa bakunansu da dabino da aka jika a bakinsa, kuma ya yi musu shafa. Aka kawo masa wani yaro, sai ya yi fitsari a kansa. Ya nemi ruwa, ya zuba a wurin da fitsarin ya taba, amma bai wanke shi ba." A wasu riwayoyin ya zo cewa "ya yayyafa a kai amma bai wanke shi ba." Al-Bukhari ne ya rubuta wannan. Na biyu kuma shi ne sanannen hadisin Anas, inda ya bayyana sallar Manzon Allah (ﷺ) a gidansa, yana cewa: "Na kama tabarmar da ta yi duhu saboda tsufa, na yayyafa mata ruwa." Wasu malamai sun yi aiki da zahirin hadisin Aisha, suna cewa wannan keɓantacce ne ga fitsarin yaro, sun cire shi daga sauran nau'o'in fitsari. Wasu kuwa sun fifita hadisan da ke magana akan wanke-wanke a kan wannan hadisi. Wannan ita ce ra'ayin Malik, wanda ya takaita amfani da yayyafawa ga abin da ke cikin hadisin Anas, wato tufafin da ake shakkar najasarsa, bisa ga zahirin ma'anarsa.

A group of jurists said that sprinkling is specific to the urine of a child, who has not weaned. Another group of jurists made a distinction in this about the Urine of a male and that of a female, saying that the urine of the male is to be s Pnnkled over, while that of the female is to be washed. A third group said that washing is the prescribed purification for a thing the uncleanliness of w hich is confirmed, while sprinkling is for that which is doubted. This is the °Pinion of Malik ibn Anas, may Allah be pleased with him.The reason for their disagreement stems from the conflict of the apparent meanings of the traditions related to the issue, that is, their disagreement over the meanings. This is so as there are two established traditions about sprinkling. First is the tradition of ^isha “that children used to be brought to the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) and he used to pray for them and rub the top of their mouths with dates moistened in his own mouth as well as pet them. A child was brought to him and he urinated on him. He called for water and poured it over the affected spot but did not wash it.” In some versions it says, “he sprinkled over it but did not wash it”. This has been recorded by al-Bukhari. The other is the widely known tradition of Anas in which he described the prayer of the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) in his house saying, “I took hold of the mat that had become dark because of old age and sprinkled water over it”. Some of the jurists acted in accordance with the implication of Aisha’s tradition saying that this is specific to the urine of the child, and they exempted it from other categories of urine. Others preferred the traditions about washing to this tradition. This is Malik’s opinion, who confined the use of sprinkling to what is in the tradition by Anas and which relates to a garment the impurity of which is doubted, according to the apparent meaning.

Waɗanda suka bambanta tsakanin fitsarin ɗan namiji da na ɗiyar mace sun dogara ne kan abin da Abu Dawud ya ruwaito daga Abu al-Samh game da maganar Annabi ﷺ, "Fitsarin mace (jaririya) sai a wanke shi, na namiji kuwa sai a yayyafa shi." Waɗanda ba su yi wannan bambanci ba kuwa sun dogara ne da kiyasi na ɗiyar mace a kan ɗan namiji, wanda aka kafa hadisi a kansa.

Those who distinguished between the urine of a male child from that of a female relied on what has been related by Abu Dawud from Abu al-Samh about the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “The urine of the female (child) is to be washed, and .that of the male is to be sprinkled over”. Those who did not make this distinction relied upon the analogy of the female child over the male in whose case an established tradition is laid down.

Wasu malamai sun halatta shafa duk wani abu da ya lalace da najasa, bisa ga ra'ayin Abu Hanifa, idan an cire zahirin najasar; haka kuma a amfani da shafa bisa ga kiyasi da aka dogara da ra'ayin waɗanda suke ganin duk abin da ke cire najasa yana iya tsarkake ta. Wata ƙungiyar malamai kuwa ba su halatta hakan ba, sai dai a abubuwan da aka yarda a kansu, watau mafitsara (hanyar fitar da najasa), gefen tufafin mace mai jan wando, da takalma, waɗanda ake shafawa da ciyayi busassu ba da wani abu mai najasa ko wanda bai bushe ba. Wannan shi ne ra'ayin Malik. Waɗannan malamai ba su faɗaɗa shafa zuwa abubuwan da ba a ambata su a shari'a ba, yayin da wata ƙungiyar kuma ta faɗaɗa shi zuwa wasu abubuwa.

A group of jurists permitted wiping of any smeared object, in accordance with Abu HanTfa’s opinion, if the substance of the impurity was so removed; similarly, in the use of rubbing on the basis of analogy drawn from the views of those who maintain that each thing that removes the impurity can purify- Another group of jurists did not permit this, except in the cases agreed upon, that is, the outlet, the trailing dress of a woman, and boots, which are to be wiped with dry herbage and not with an unclean or undried object. This is Malik’s opinion. These jurists did not extend wiping to objects other than those mentioned in the law, while another group extended it to other objects.

Dalilin rashin jituwarsu a kan wannan shi ne ko shafa an shar'anta shi ne a matsayin keɓewa ko kuma a matsayin hukunci na asali. Waɗanda suka ce keɓewa ne ba su faɗaɗa shi zuwa wasu abubuwa ba, wato ba su gina qiyas a kansa ba, yayin da waɗanda suka ce hukunci ne na asali daga cikin hukunce-hukuncen najasa, kamar hukuncin wanke-wanke, sun faɗaɗa shi.

The reason for their disagreement over this is whether wiping has been laid down in those as an exemption or as a primary hukm. Those who said that it is an exemption did not extend it to other things, that this, they did not construct an analogy upon it, while those who said that it is a primary huhm among the ahkdm of impurities, like the hukm of washing, did extend it.

A wani rikici da suka yi game da adadi (na maimaitawa), wata ƙungiya ta malaman fiqhu ta sharadanta cire najasa kawai a wanke-wanke da shafawa, yayin da wata ƙungiya ta sharadanta adadi a shafawa da duwatsu da kuma a wanke-wanke. Wasu daga cikin waɗanda suka sharadanta adadi a wanke-wanke sun takaita shi ga abubuwan da aka ambaci adadi a kansu musamman a cikin nassoshin da aka rawaito, yayin da wasu suka faɗaɗa hakan zuwa sauran najasassu ma. Malaman fiqhu waɗanda ba su sharadanta adadi ba, a wanke-wanke ko a shafawa, su ne Malik da Abu Hanifa. Waɗanda suka sharadanta adadi a shafawa da duwatsu, wato duwatsu uku ba ƙasa da haka ba, sun haɗa da al-Shafi'i da mabiya Zahiriyya. Daga cikin waɗanda suka sharadanta adadi a wanke-wanke akwai wasu da suka takaita shi ga abin da aka ambata a cikin nassoshi, wato wanke kwano sau bakwai bayan kare ya lashe shi, su ne al-Shafi'i da waɗanda suka bi ra'ayinsa. Waɗanda suka faɗaɗa wannan sharaɗin wanke najasassu sau bakwai sun haɗa da, a cewar iliminmu, Ahmad ibn Hanbal. Abu Hanifa ya sharadanta wanke sau uku a game da najasassu da ba a iya gani ba, wato najasassu na shari'a.

In their dispute about number (of repetitions), a group of jurists stipulated only the removal of impurity in washing and wiping, while another group stipulated number (of repetitions) in wiping with stones as well as in washing. Some of those who stipulated number in washing restricted it to those objects about which number has been specifically mentioned in the transmitted texts, while others extended this to the remaining impurities also. Jurists who did not stipulate number, neither for washing nor for wiping, are Malik and Abu Ham fa. Those who stipulated number in wiping with stones, that is, three stones and nothing less, include al-ShafiT and the Zahirites. Among those who stipulated number in washing, are some who restricted it to the object that has been mentioned in the texts, that is, washing a utensil seven times after it has been licked by a dog, are al-ShaficT and those who adopted his opinion. Those who extended this stipulating washing of impurities seven times include, to the best of my knowledge, Ahmad ibn Hanbal. Abu Hanifa stipulates washing thrice in the case of impurities that cannot be perceived, that is, which are legal impurities.

Sababin sabani a kan haka shi ne karo tsakanin ma'anar da aka fahimta ta wannan nau'in ibada da zahirin abin da hadisi ya nuna game da adadi da aka sanya. Waɗanda suka ga cewa ma'anar umarnin ita ce cire ainihin najasar kanta, ba su sanya wani adadi ba kwata-kwata. Sun ɗauki sanya adadi a goge da duwatsu, wanda aka kafa a cikin hadisin Salman wanda ya ƙunshi umarnin cewa ba a yi istinja'i da ƙasa da duwatsu uku ba, a matsayin abin ƙarfafawa, don su daidaita ma'anar shari'ar da aka fahimta da zahirin wannan hadisi. Sun kuma ɗauki adadin da aka sanya game da wanke kwano bayan kare ya lashe shi a matsayin aikin ibada da ba ya dogara ga najasa, kamar yadda aka riga aka yi bayani game da ra'ayin Malik. Waɗanda suka yanke hukunci bisa ma'anar zahirin waɗannan hadisai, suka keɓe su daga ƙa'idar shari'a da aka fahimta, sun iyakance adadin da aka ƙayyade ga abubuwan da aka ambata. Waɗanda suka fifita ma'anar zahiri a kan ƙa'idar da aka fahimta suka faɗaɗa sharadin adadi zuwa dukkan sauran najasoshi.

The reason for their disagreement about this is the conflict of the interpreted meaning of this form of worship with the apparent implication of the tradition in which number has been laid down. Those for whom the meaning of the command conveyed the removal of the substance of the impurity itself, did not stipulate number at all. They deemed the stipulation of number in wiping with stones, laid down in the established tradition of Salman that contains the command about not performing istinja? with less than three stones, as a recommendation, so as to reconcile the interpreted meaning of the law with the implication of this tradition. They also deemed the number stipulated about washing of the utensil following licking by a dog as an act of worship not based upon impurity, as has preceded concerning Malik’s opinion. Those who decided according to the literal meaning of these traditions, exempting them from the interpreted principle of the law, restricted the prescribed number to stated objects. Those who preferred the literal meaning Over the interpreted principle extended the condition of number to all the remaining impurities.

Hujjar Abu Hanifa game da wanke hannu sau uku itace fadin Annabi (ﷺ), "Idan wani daga cikinku ya tashi daga barci, to ya wanke hannunsa sau uku kafin ya sanya shi a cikin kwanonsa."

The evidence of Abu Hanifa about washing thrice is the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “When any of you wakes up from sleep let him wash his hand thrice before putting it into his utensil”.