Yawancin hukunce-hukuncen istinja da na shiga bayan gida malamai sun fassara su a matsayin mustahabbi (nadb). Ana sanin waɗannan ta cikin Sunna, kuma sun haɗa da neman wuri mai nisa lokacin biyan buƙatar yanayi—bisa ga ra'ayin da yake a cikin makaranta—kaucewa magana, hana yin istinja da hannun dama, kada a taɓa al'aura da hannun dama, da sauran abubuwan da aka tsara a cikin hadisai baya ga waɗannan.

The majority of the ahkdm of istinja* and of visiting the privy are interpreted Y the jurists as a recommendation (nadb). These are known through the SUnna, and include seeking a remote place when answering the call of nature—according to the opinion in the school—refraining from speech, the prohibition of performing istinjd* with the right hand, not touching the genitals with the right hand, and others besides these that have been laid down in the traditions.

Sun sabawa game da wata mas'ala sananniya, wato batun fuskantar alkibla ko juya baya gare ta yayin yin bayan gida ko fitsari. Malamai suna da ra'ayoyi uku a kan haka. Na farko, cewa ba a halatta a fuskanci alkibla yayin yin bayan gida kwata-kwata, ko a cikin bandaki ko a wani wuri. Na biyu, cewa hakan halal ne ba tare da wani sharadi ba. Na uku, cewa ana halatta shi a cikin garuruwa da birane, amma ba a cikin hamada ko wuraren da ba garuruwa ba ko birane ba.

They disagreed about one widely known issue and that is the facing of the qibla or turning the back to it while relieving oneself or urinating. The jurists have three opinions about it. First, that it is not permitted at all to face the qibla while relieving oneself, whether in the privy or at any other location. Second, that this is permitted absolutely. Third, that it is permitted within settlements and townships, but not in the desert or places other than settlements and towns.

Dalilin rashin jituwarsu shi ne hadisai biyu da aka kafa su amma suka saba wa juna. Na farko shi ne hadisin Abu Ayyub al-Ansari, wanda aka ruwaito cewa Annabi ﷺ ya ce: "Idan kun shiga bayan gida, kada ku fuskanci alkibla ko ku juya mata baya, amma ku juya zuwa gabas ko yamma."83 Hadisi na biyu an ruwaito shi daga Abdullahi ɗan Umar, wanda ya ce: "Na hau saman gidan 'yar uwata Hafsa, sai na ga Manzon Allah ﷺ a kan tubalan bulo guda biyu yana biyan bukatar jiki, fuskarsa tana fuskantar Sham, bayansa kuma yana fuskantar alkibla."

The reason for their disagreement are two established but conflicting traditions. First is the tradition of Abu Ayyub al-Ansan in which the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) is reported to have said, “When you visit the privy, do not face the qibla or turn your back toward it, but turn toward the east or the west”.83 The second tradition is related from cAbd Allah ibn TJmar, who said, “I ascended the roof of my sister Hafsa’s house and saw the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) on top of two bricks, answering the call of nature, with his face toward Syria and his back toward the qibla”.

Malamai sun rabu zuwa ra'ayoyi uku game da wadannan hadisai biyu. Ra'ayi na farko ya dogara ne kan hanyar sasantawa (al-jam'i), na biyu kan hanyar fifita (al-tarjih), na uku kuwa shi ne komawa ga izinin asali (al-bara'a al-asliyya) idan an samu sabani. Ina nufin da izinin asali (bara'a asliyya) rashin wani hukunci (hukm).

The jurists are divided over these two traditions into three opinions. The first opinion is based upon the method of reconciliation, the second on the method of preference, and the third is the method of resorting to the original permission when there is a conflict. I mean by original permission (bar£a asliya), the absence of a hukm.

Waɗanda suka bi hanyar sasantawa sun fassara hadîsin Abu Ayyub al-Ansari cewa yana nufin hamada (buɗaɗɗen fili), inda babu wani abin rufewa, sun kuma fassara hadîsin Ibn Umar cewa yana nufin lokacin da akwai abin rufewa. Wannan ita ce ra'ayin Malik.

Those who adopted the method of reconciliation construed the tradition of Abu Ayyub al-AnsarT to relate to the desert (open spaces), when there is no cover, and construed the tradition of Ibn TJmar to relate to the existence of a cover. This is Malik’s opinion.

Waɗanda suka ɗauki hanyar fifiko sun fifita hadisin Abu Ayyub, domin idan hadisai biyu suka yi karo da juna, ɗaya yana kafa hukunci ɗaya kuma yana dacewa da ƙa'ida ta gaba ɗaya, wadda a wannan yanayi ita ce rashin hukunci, kuma ba a san wanne daga cikinsu ya zo kafin ɗayan ba a lokaci, to wajibi ne a ɗauki hadisin da ya kafa hukunci. Dalilin da ya sa aka wajabta yin aiki da hadisi ɗaya wanda masu ruwaito amintattu suka ruwaito, a bar ɗayan, duk da cewa shi ma masu ruwaito amintattu sun ruwaito shi, kuma duk da yiwuwar cewa ɗayansu ya zo daga baya ko kuma an kafa shi kafin ɗayan, shi ne cewa ba a halatta mana mu bar wani hukunci da wajibi ne a aiki da shi saboda hasashe da ke ɗaukar nauyin soke shi, wanda ba mu da izini a kansa, sai dai idan an ruwaito cewa wannan hadisin ya zo daga baya. Yiwuwar da ake dogara da ita ga ahkam, wato waɗanda ke ɗaukar nauyin hukunce-hukunce ko kuma su janye su, an iyakance su da doka. Haka kuma, ba kowace yiwuwar da za a iya amincewa da ita ce ake karɓa ba. Saboda haka, suna cewa wajibcin yin aiki ba a ɗaukar sa ta hanyar yarda mai yiwuwa ba, sai dai ana ɗaukar sa ta hanyar ƙa'ida tabbatacciya; ma'anarsu da hakan ita ce kasancewar ƙa'ida tabbatacciya wadda ta sa wajibi a yi aiki bisa yiwuwa.

Those who adopted the method of preference, preferred the tradition of Abu Ayyub, for in case of conflict of two traditions, one prescribing a law and the other conforming to the general principle, which in this case is the absence of a hukm, and it is not known which one precedes the other in time, it is necessary to adopt the tradition that lays down a law. The reason for being obliged to act according to one tradition that has been transmitted by reliable narrators and to relinquish the other, although it has also been reported by reliable narrators, and despite the possibility that one of them was later than the other or it was laid down before it, is that we are not permitted to relinquish a law that must be acted upon as an obligation in the face of a conjecture imposing an abrogation for which we have no authority, unless it has been related that this tradition was later. The probabilities that are relied upon for the ahkam, that is, those that impose the ahkam or withdraw them, are limited by the law. Moreover, not every probability that may be agreed upon is accepted. Thus, they say that the liability to act is not imposed by probable conviction, but is imposed by a definitive rule, they mean by it the existence of a definitive rule that makes it obligatory to act according to a probability.

Wannan hanyar da muka bayyana ita ce hanyar Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm al-Andalusi. Hanya ce mai kyau wadda ta dogara da ka'idojin ijtihadin fiqhu, kuma tana bisa ka'ida cewa shakka ba ta iya kawar da abin da dalili daga shari'a ya tabbatar. Wadanda suka karɓi hanyar komawa ga ka'idar asali idan an sami sabani, sun gina ta bisa ka'idar cewa shakka tana kawo ƙarshen hukunci tare da janye shi, har ta zama kamar babu hukunci kwata-kwata. Wannan ita ce hanyar Dawud al-Zahiri. Sai dai Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm ya saba masa a kan wannan batu, duk da cewa shi ɗaya ne daga cikin almajiransa.

This method that we have described is the method of Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm al-AndalusL This is an excellent method based on the principles of juristic reasoning, and it relies on the rule that doubt cannot remove what has been established by an evidence from the law. Those who adopted the method of recourse to the underlying principle in case of conflict have erected it on the rule that doubt terminates the hukm and withdraws it, and it is as if there is no rule. This is the method of Dawud al-Zahiri, but Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm opposed him on this issue, even though he is one of his followers.

Alƙali (Ibn Rushd) ya ce, "Wannan shi ne abin da muka nufa mu tabbatar a cikin wannan littafi daga cikin al'amuran da muka ga suna bin hanyar ka'idoji, kuma waɗannan su ne abubuwan da aka fi maimaitawa a cikin shari'a, wato yawancinsu suna da alaƙa da al'amuran da shari'a ta bayyana su a sarari, ko dai kai tsaye ko a cikin ma'anarsu. Duk lokacin da muka tuna wani abu irin wannan, sai mu tabbatar da shi a cikin wannan littafi. Yawancin abin da na dogara a kai, dangane da danganta ra'ayoyi ga masu su, yana daga Kitab al-Istidhkar, kuma ina ba wanda ya ga kuskure daga gare ni izini (ina roƙonsa) ya gyara su. Allah ne Yake bayar da taimako da nasara."

The QadT (Ibn Rushd) said, “This is what we sought to establish in this book from the issues we thought take the course of principles, and these are what have been expressed more often in the law, that is, most of them relate to issues expressly stated in the law, either directly or inherently. When we remember anything of this nature, we verify it in this book. Most of what I have relied upon, with respect to attributing opinions to their authors, is from Kitab al-Istidhkar^ and I permit (request) whosoever finds errors on my part to correct them. It is Allah Who grants help and success.”