Chanzo cha kutambua vitendo vya wudhuu ni maelezo yaliyowekwa katika maneno ya Mwenyezi Mungu Mtukufu, “Enyi mlioamini, mnapoinuka kwenda kuswali, osheni nyuso zenu na mikono yenu hadi viwiko, na pangusani vichwa vyenu, na miguu yenu hadi kwenye vifundo vya miguu”,31 pamoja na namna ya kutawadha iliyonukuliwa kutoka kwa Mtume (rehema na amani za Mwenyezi Mungu ziwe juu yake) katika riwaya zilizothibiti (dhahar). Kwa hili zinahusishwa masuala kumi na mawili maarufu yanayofanana na kanuni za msingi. Yanahusu kutambua masharti yanayohitajika, vipengele, maelezo ya vitendo, idadi yake, ubainishaji wake, na kutambua vitu vinavyolengwa na hukumu zote hizi.

The source for the identification of the acts of ablution is the description laid down in the words of the Exalted, “O ye who believe, when ye rise up for prayer, wash your faces and your hands up to the elbows, and lightly rub your heads and (wash) your feet up to the ankles”,31 and the method of performing ablution traced to the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings'be upon him) in the established narrations (dlhar). To this are related twelve well-known issues that resemble fundamental principles. They are related to the identification of the requisite conditions, the elements, the description of the acts, their number, their specification, and the identification of the objects of the ahkam of all these.

Wanazuoni wa fiqhi walitofautiana kuhusu iwapo niyya ni sharti ya kusihi kwa wudhuu, ingawa walikubaliana juu ya kuwekwa kwa niyya kuwa sharti ya ibada ya ta'abbudi, kwa sababu ya maneno ya Mwenyezi Mungu Mtukufu, "Na hawakuamrishwa lolote isipokuwa wamwabudu Allah, huku wakimtakasia dini," na kwa sababu ya kauli ya Mtume ﷺ, "Vitendo vinategemea niyya", ambayo ni hadithi inayojulikana. Kundi la wanazuoni, akiwemo al-Shafi'i, Malik, Hammad, Abu Thawr na Dawud, walikuwa na maoni kwamba niyya ni sharti. Kundi jingine lilisema kwamba si sharti, na hili ndilo lilikuwa maoni ya Abu Hanifa na al-Thawri. Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao ni kwamba neno wudhuu linayumbayumba kati ya kuwa ibada safi ya ta'abbudi, yaani, isiyohitaji sababu za kimantiki na inayokusudiwa kwa ajili ya radhi za Allah peke yake, kama swala na aina nyinginezo za ibada tupu, na kati ya kuwa ibada yenye mantiki pia, kama kuosha uchafu. Hawakutofautiana kuhusu ibada tupu kuhitaji niyya, wala ibada yenye mantiki kutohitaji niyya. Wudhuu unafanana na aina zote mbili za ibada, na hivyo ikazuka tofauti ya maoni. Sababu ni kwamba unachanganya ibada na utakaso, na lengo la fiqhi ni kuchunguza ni lipi kati ya hayo unalofanana nalo zaidi, ili ufungamanishwe nalo.

The jurists disagreed whether intention is a condition for the validity of ablution, although they had agreed on the stipulation of intention as a condition for worship i^ibdddt\ because of the words of the Exalted, “And they are ordered naught else than to serve Allah, keeping religion pure for Him”,32 and because of the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “The value of acts depends upon accompanying intentions”, which is a well-known tradition. A group of jurists, including al-ShafiT, Malik, Hammad, Abu Thawr, and Dawud, was of the opinion that it (intention) is a condition. Another group said it is not a condition, and this was the opinion of Abu Hanifa and al-ThawrT. The reason for their disagreement is the vacillation of the term wudtf between being a pure ritual dbdda—I mean, not subject to rationalization and intended only for the pleasure of Allah, like saldh and similar forms of mere ritual worship—and between an Hbdda that can also be rational, like washing of dirt. They did not differ about pure 'tbada being in need of intention, and rational ^ibdda not being in need of it Ablution has a resemblance to both kinds of worship and a disagreement has, therefore, resulted. The reason is that it combines ritual worship and purification, and the aim of fiqh is to examine which one it resembles more strongly so that it may be linked to it.

Wanazuoni walitofautiana kuhusu kuosha mikono kabla ya kuitumbukiza mkono ndani ya chombo cha maji cha wudhuu. Baadhi yao wameshikilia kuwa ni miongoni mwa sunna za wudhuu ambazo zinapendekezwa kila wakati, hata pale mikono iko safi bila shaka yoyote. Huu ndio mtazamo unaojulikana zaidi wa Malik na al-Shafi'i. Pia inasemekana kuwa inapendekezwa kwa mtu anayetilia shaka usafi wa mikono yake. Huu nao ulikuwa mtazamo uliopokewa kutoka kwa Malik. Pia inasemekana kuwa kuosha mikono (kabla ya kuitumbukiza ndani ya maji yaliyo kwenye chombo) ni wajibu kwa mtu anayeamka kutoka usingizini. Huu ulikuwa mtazamo wa Dawud na wanafunzi wake. Baadhi wametofautisha kati ya usingizi wa usiku na ule wa mchana, wakafanya kuwa wajibu kwa usingizi wa usiku, lakini si kwa ule wa mchana. Huu ni mtazamo wa Ahmad. Hivyo, kupitia mjadala huu, yanapatikana mitazamo minne. Kwanza, kwamba ni sunna kwa ujumla (yaani hufanywa daima). Pili, kwamba inapendekezwa kwa mtu mwenye shaka. Tatu, kwamba ni wajibu kwa anayeamka usingizini. Nne, kwamba ni wajibu kwa anayeamka kutoka usingizi wa usiku na si ule wa mchana.

The jurists differed about washing of hands before immersing a hand inside the water-utensil of ablution. Some have held that it is one of the practices (sunan) of ablution that is always recommended, even when the hands are clean without a doubt. This is the better known opinion of Malik and al- Shafi T. It c is also said that it is recommended in the case of a person doubting the purity of his hands. This too was an opinion narrated from Malik. It is also said that washing of hands (before immersing them in the water inside a utensil) is obligatory on one waking up from sleep. This was Dawud’s view and that of his disciples. Some have distinguished between nocturnal sleep and that of the day, and made it obligatory for nocturnal sleep, but not for that during the day. This is Ahmad’s opinion. Thus, four opinions are arrived at through this (discussion). First, that it is sunna in absolute terms (i.e. always undertaken). Second, that it is recommended for the person in doubt. Third, that it is obligatory on one awaking from sleep. Fourth, that it is obligatory on one waking up from nocturnal sleep and not that of the day.

Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao katika jambo hili ni mzozo wao kuhusu maana ya hadithi sahihi ya Abu Hurayra kwamba Nabii (amani na baraka za Mungu ziwe juu yake) alisema: "Mmoja wenu akiamka kutoka usingizini, na aoshe mkono (mikono) yake kabla ya kuutumbukiza ndani ya chombo cha maji, kwa kuwa hajui mkono wake umelala wapi usiku." Katika baadhi ya toleo imesemwa: "na aioshe mara tatu." Wale ambao hawakuona mgongano kati ya nyongeza iliyomo katika hadithi hii na yale yaliyomo katika aya ya udhu, walifasiri neno la amri hapa kwa maana yake ya dhahiri ya wajibu (wujub), na hivyo wakaifanya kuosha mikono kuwa miongoni mwa wajibu wa udhu. Miongoni mwao, wale waliodhani kwamba neno "usiku" (bayat) linamaanisha usingizi wa usiku, waliifanya kuwa wajibu kwa usingizi wa usiku peke yake. Wale ambao hawakuwa na ufahamu kama huo, bali walielewa kutoka humo usingizi tu, waliifanya kuwa wajibu kwa kila aina ya kuamka kutoka usingizini, iwe ni wa mchana au wa usiku. Wale ambao waliona mgongano kati ya nyongeza iliyomo katika hadithi hii na aya ya udhu, kwa kuwa maana ya dhahiri ya aya ya udhu ni kuorodhesha wajibu (furud) wa udhu, waliyapatanisha mambo haya mawili kwa kuhamisha maana ya dhahiri, yaani wajibu, kuwa ni mapendekezo (nadb). Wale ambao kwao pendekezo hili ni la msisitizo (mu'akkada) kutokana na Nabii kuendelea kulifanya tendo hili, waliliona kuwa ni sehemu ya sunna. Wale ambao kwao pendekezo hili halikuwa la msisitizo walisema ni la kiwango cha mandub (mapendekezo) tu. Kwao, kuosha mikono kwa namna hii kunahitajika hata pale ambapo mikono ni safi bila shaka, yaani, kwa wale waliolichukulia kuwa ni sunna iliyosisitizwa na pia wale waliosema ni pendekezo. Miongoni mwao, wale ambao hawakuelewa kutokana na Hadithi hii sababu ya lazima iliyo nyuma yake, hivyo kwamba waichukulie kuwa ni aina ya neno maalum linalomaanisha ujumla, walipendekeza kwa yule aliyeamka kutoka usingizini tu. Wale waliopata kutoka humo sababu ya shaka waliichukulia kuwa ni aina ya neno maalum linalomaanisha ujumla, na wakaona kwamba inamhusu kila mtu aliye katika shaka, kwa kuwa inakaribiana na hali ya kuamka kutoka usingizini.

Wanazuoni walitofautiana kuhusu suala la kusukutua mdomo (madmada) na kupandisha maji puani (istinshaq). Kuna maoni matatu. La kwanza, kwamba vitendo hivi ni sunna (mapendekezo yenye msisitizo) katika wudhuu. Hii ndiyo ilikuwa kauli ya Malik, al-Shafi'i, na Abu Hanifa. La pili, kwamba ni wajibu (fard) katika wudhuu. Hii ndiyo ilikuwa kauli ya Ibn Abi Layla na baadhi ya wanafunzi wa Abu Dawud. La tatu, kwamba istinshaq ni wajibu, ilhali madmada ni sunna. Hii ndiyo ilikuwa kauli ya Abu Thawr, Abu Ubayd, na kundi la Adh-Dhahiriyya.

The jurists differed about rinsing of the mouth (madmada) and snuffing (istinshaq). There are three opinions. First, that these practices are a sunna (emphatic recommendation) in ablution. This was the opinion of Malik, al- Shafi i, and Abu Hanifa. Second, that they are obligatory (fard) in ablution. This was the view of Ibn AbT Layla and some disciples of Abu Dawud. Third, that istinshdq is obligatory, while madmada is recommended (sunna). This was Ae opinion of Abu Thawr, Abu QJbayda, and of a group of Zahirites.

Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao, kama ni wajibu au ni sunna, ni mgongano wao kuhusu hadithi zilizopokewa kuhusu jambo hili, na kama hizo ni nyongeza juu ya aya ya wudhu, jambo linalozua mgongano. Wale waliona kwamba nyongeza hii, ikiwa itachukuliwa kuwa wajibu, inapingana na aya – kwa kuwa lengo la aya ni kutoa msingi wa kanuni hii pamoja na ufafanuzi wake – walihamisha maana ya hadithi hizo kutoka kundi la wajibu hadi kundi la sunna. Wale ambao hawakuona kupingana huku waliipa maana yake ya wazi ya wajibu. Wale ambao kauli na vitendo vya Mtume (rehema na baraka za Mungu ziwe juu yake) vina nguvu sawa, kwa madhumuni ya kuthibitisha wajibu, hawakutofautisha kati ya madmada na istinshaq. Wale ambao kauli huchukuliwa kuwa wajibu na tendo huchukuliwa kuwa sunna walitofautisha kati ya madmada na istinshaq, kwa kuwa madmada imepokewa kupitia vitendo vya Mtume ﷺ wala si amri yake, wakati istinshaq imepokewa kupitia amri zake na vitendo vyake. Mtume (rehema na baraka za Mungu ziwe juu yake) alisema: "Mmoja wenu anapotawadha, na ajipandishie maji puani kisha ayatoe, na yule anayetumia istinjaa (kwa mawe) afanye hivyo kwa idadi isiyo ya kawaida." Imepokewa na Malik katika al-Muwatta na al-Bukhari katika Sahih yake kutoka kwa hadithi ya Abu Hurayra.

The reason for their disagreement, whether it is an obligation or a recommendation, is their dispute about the traditions reported on this issue, whether they amount to an addition over the verse of ablution, entailing a conflict. Those who considered that this addition, if deemed an obligation, conflicts with the verse—as the aim of the verse is to provide a foundation for this rule along with its explanation—shifted the implication of the traditions from the category of obligation to that of recommendation. Those who did not consider it as conflicting, assigned it its apparent meaning of obligation. Those for whom the authority of the Prophet’s sayings and acts is equal (in. strength), for purposes of assigning obligation, did not make a distinction between madmada and istinshaq. Those for whom a saying is interpreted as an obligation and an act as recommendation distinguished between madmada and istinshaq, as madmada has been reported through the acts of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) and not his command, while istinshaq is reported both from his commands and acts. The Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “When one of you performs wudu*, let him snuff up water into his nose and then let it out, while he who performs istinjd? (with stones) let him do it an odd number of times”. It is narrated by Malik in his al-Muwatta and by al-Bukhari in his Sahih from the tradition of Abu Hurayra.

Wanazuoni wamekubaliana kwamba kuosha uso wote ni miongoni mwa faradhi za wudhuu, kwa sababu ya maneno ya Mwenyezi Mungu Mtukufu: “Enyi mlioamini, mnaposimama kwenda kwenye Sala, osheni nyuso zenu”. Walitofautiana kuhusu jambo hili katika mambo matatu; nayo ni kuosha sehemu isiyo na nywele ya uso iliyo kati ya ndevu na masikio, kuosha urefu wote wa ndevu, na takhlili ya ndevu (kuichana kwa vidole vyenye maji).

The jurists agreed that washing of the whole face is one of the obligations of ablution, because of the words of the Exalted: “O ye who believe, when ye rise up for prayer, wash your faces”. They differed about this on three points; namely, washing of the hairless part of the face between the beard and the ears, washing of the whole length of the beard, and the takhlil of the beard (combing it with wet fingers).

Maoni maarufu katika madhehebu ya Malik ni kwamba sehemu iliyo kati ya ndevu na masikio si sehemu ya uso, ingawa baadhi ya wafuasi wa Malik wanashikilia kwamba ni sehemu ya uso. Baadhi ya wanazuoni wa fiqhi wanatofautisha kati ya mtu ambaye bado hana ndevu na mtu mwenye ndevu. Hivyo, katika madhehebu (ya Malik) kuna maoni matatu. Abu Hanifa na al-Shafi'i walisema kwamba sehemu hiyo ni sehemu ya uso. Kuhusu urefu wa ndevu, Malik alikuwa na maoni kwamba ni wajibu maji yapite juu yake, lakini si wajibu kwa Abu Hanifa, na pia kwa al-Shafi'i katika mojawapo ya maoni yake mawili. Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao katika masuala haya mawili ni utata wa neno "uso". Kuhusu takhlil ya ndevu, maoni ya Malik yalikuwa kwamba si wajibu. Abu Hanifa na al-Shafi'i walikuwa na mtazamo unaofanana. Ibn 'Abd al-Hakam, mmoja wa wanafunzi wa Malik, aliifanya kuwa wajibu.

The well-known opinion in Malik’s school is that the portion between the beard and the ears is not part of the face, though some Malikites maintain that it is. Some jurists make a distinction between a person who is still beardless and a person with a beard. Thus, in the school (Malik’s) there are three opinions. Abu HanTfa and al-Shafi T said that it is a part of the face. With respect to the length of the beard, Malik was of the opinion that it is obligatory that water flow on it, but it is not obligatory according to Abu HanTfa and also al-Shafi T in one of his two opinions. The reason for their disagreement over these two issues is the ambiguity of the term “face”. With respect to the takhlil of the beard, the opinion of Malik was that it is not obligatory. Abu HanTfa and al-Shafi T had a similar view. Ibn cAbd al-Hakam, one of Malik’s disciples, made it obligatory.

Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao ni mabishano kuhusu usahihi wa hadithi zilizopokewa zenye amri ya kuchana ndevu kwa vidole (takhlil). Wengi wao wana maoni kwamba hadithi hizo si sahihi, na kwamba riwaya inayoeleza matendo ya Mtume ﷺ katika wudhuu haina chochote kuhusu kuchana ndevu kwa vidole.

Wafaqihi walikubaliana kwamba kuosha mikono na viganja vya mikono (mikono ya chini) ni katika mambo ya wajibu wa wudhuu kwa sababu ya kauli ya Mwenyezi Mungu Mtukufu: “Enyi mlioamini, mnapoinuka kwenda kusali, osheni nyuso zenu”. Walikhitilafiana kuhusu kuingizwa viwiko (katika viganja). Wengi, Malik, al-Shafi‘i na Abu Hanifa, walizingatia kuingizwa kwake kuwa ni wajibu. Baadhi ya Dhahiriyya, Malikiyya wa baadaye, na al-Tabari walikuwa na maoni kwamba kuingizwa kwake katika kuosha si wajibu. Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao katika hili ni ushirika wa maana (ishtiraak) katika kihusishi "ila" (hadi, mpaka) na neno "yad" (mkono) katika lugha ya Waarabu. Kihusishi "ila" wakati mwingine hudhihirisha, katika matumizi ya Waarabu, kikomo (hadi) na wakati mwingine hutoa maana ya "pamoja na". Neno "yad" (mkono), katika matumizi ya Waarabu, hutumika kwa maana tatu: mkono wenyewe; mkono na viganja; mkono, kiganja na sehemu ya juu ya mkono. Wale waliotafsiri "ila" kuwa "pamoja na", au waliodhania "yad" ni sehemu zote tatu za kiungo, waliona kuingiza viwiko katika kuosha ni wajibu. Wale waliofahamu kutoka "ila" kikomo, na kutoka neno "yad" kile kilicho chini ya viwiko, wasiokubali kwamba kikomo kimo ndani ya kilichobainishwa, hawakuingiza viwiko katika kuosha. Muslim ameripoti katika Sahih yake kwamba Abu Hurayra alikuwa akianza kuosha mkono wake wa kulia hadi mwanzo wa sehemu ya juu ya mkono, kisha wa kushoto kwa namna hiyo hiyo, kufuatiwa na kuosha mguu wa kulia hadi mwanzo wa ndama kisha wa kushoto kwa namna hiyo hiyo. Kisha akasema: “Hivyo ndivyo nilivyomwona Mtume wa Mwenyezi Mungu ﷺ akitawadha”. Hii ndiyo hoja ya wale waliofanya kuingizwa kwa viwiko katika kuosha kuwa ni wajibu.

The jurists agreed that the washing of the. hands and the forearms are from among the obligations of ablution because of the words of the Exalted, “O ye who believe, when ye rise up for prayer, wash your faces”. They disagreed about the inclusion of the elbows (in the forearms). The majority, Malik, al- Shafi T, and Abu HanTfa, considered their c inclusion as obligatory. Some of the Zahirites, later Malikites,' and al-TabarT were of the opinion that their inclusion in washing is not obligatory. The reason for their disagreement in this is the equivocality {ishtirdk) in the preposition ild (to, up to) and the term yadd (hand), in the language of the Arabs. The preposition ild sometimes denotes, in the usage of the Arabs, the limit (up to) and at other times gives the meaning of “with”. The word yadd (hand), in the usage of the Arabs, is applied to three meanings: the hand; hand and forearms; hand, forearm, and upper arm. Those who rendered ild as “with” or considered yadd as all three parts of the limb, deemed the inclusion, of elbows for washing as obligatory. Those who understood from ild the limit and from the term yadd whatever is lower than the elbows, and did not consider the limit as included in the defined category, did not include the elbows in washing. Muslim has reported in his Sahih that Abu Hurayra used to first wash his right hand till the beginning of the upper arm, then the left in the same manner, followed by the washing of the right foot till the beginning of the calf and then the washing of the left in the same manner. He (Abu Hurayra) then said: “That is how I saw the Prophet of Allah (God's peace and blessings be upon him) performing ablution”. This is the proof given by those who made obligatory the inclusion of the elbows in washing.

Wanachuoni wamekubaliana kwamba kupangusa {mash} kichwa ni miongoni mwa wajibu wa wudhuu. Wamekhitilafiana kuhusu kiasi kinachohitajika cha kupangusa. Malik amesema kwamba ni wajibu kupangusa kichwa chote. Al-Shafi'i, baadhi ya wafuasi wa Malik, na Abu Hanifa wamesema kwamba ni wajibu kupangusa sehemu yake. Baadhi ya wafuasi wa Malik walibainisha kiwango cha chini cha sehemu hiyo kuwa theluthi moja, huku wengine wakikibainisha kuwa theluthi mbili. Abu Hanifa, kwa upande mwingine, alikiweka kwa robo moja, na pia alibainisha sehemu ya mkono ambayo kwayo kinapanguswa kuwa ni robo moja. Alisema, "Kukipangusa kwa chini ya vidole vitatu hakutoshi." Al-Shafi'i hakuweka kikomo kwa yoyote kati ya hivyo viwili.

The jurists agreed that wiping {mash) of the head is one of the obligations of ablution. They differed about the extent (of wiping) required. Malik said that it is obligatory to wipe the whole of it (the head). Al-Shafi(T, some followers of Malik, and Abu HanTfa said that it is obligatory to wipe a part of it. Some followers of Malik defined the minimum part to be a third, while others defined it as two-thirds. Abu HanTfa, on the other hand, limited it to a fourth, and he also defined the part of the hand with which it is to be wiped as a fourth. He said, “Its wiping with less than three fingers is insufficient”. Al- Shafi'T did not fix a limit for either.

Kiini cha mgogoro huu ni utata (ishtirāk) uliopo katika kiambishi-shirikishi bi (بِ) katika matumizi ya Waarabu. Wakati mwingine hutumiwa kama nyongeza tu kwa ajili ya msisitizo, kama katika maneno ya Mwenyezi Mungu: “tanbutu bi-d-duhni”, kwa kuzingatia kwamba aliyesoma “tunbitu” kwa dhamma juu ya “ta” na kasra juu ya “ba” kutoka mzizi anbata. Nyakati nyingine, kiambishi bi (بِ) huashiria maana ya sehemu, kama katika sentensi “akhadhtu bi thawbihi wa bi ṣudūdihi (nilimshika [nilimkamata] kwa [kwa kushika] nguo yake na mkono wake wa mbele)”. Haina maana kukataa hili, yaani ukweli kwamba bi (بِ) inaweza kubeba maana ya “sehemu ya”. Huu ndio msimamo wa shule ya nahw ya Kūfa. Wale waliouona kuwa ni wa ziada wameona kuwa ni wajibu kupaka kichwa chote. Kuwa wa ziada hapa kunamaanisha kwamba umeongezwa kwa msisitizo tu. Wale waliouona bi (بِ) kama inayoashiria sehemu wameona kuwa ni wajibu kupaka sehemu tu ya kichwa. Wale waliopendelea maana hii wametoa hoja kwa msingi wa hadithi ya al-Mughīra kwamba “Nabii (rehema na baraka za Mungu ziwe juu yake) alitawadha akipaka paji lake la uso na kilemba”. Imepokewa na Muslim. Ikiwa tutakubali kwamba bi (بِ) ni ya ziada, bado kuna uwezekano mwingine: je, wajibu huo unahusu sehemu ya mbele ya kichwa au sehemu ya nyuma yake?

The basis of this disagreement is due to the equivocality {ishtirdk) that is in (the particle) bd, in the usage of the Arabs. It is sometimes used as a mere addition for emphasis - as in the words of the Exalted, “tanbut bPdduhn?'?* according to one who read “tunbitu” with a damrna for “z” and kasra for bd from the root anbata. At other times, the particle bd indicates the idea of a portion, as in the sentence “akhadhtu bi tha'wbihi wa bi ^adudih (I held him [grabbed him] bi [by] his garment and his forearm)”. There is no purpose in denying this, that is, the fact that bd may convey the idea of “a portion of’. This is the opinion of the KufT school of grammar {nahw). Those who considered it superfluous have deemed obligatory the wiping of the entire head. Superfluous here means that it is added only for emphasis. Those who considered bd as indicating apportionment have deemed obligatory the wiping of only a part of the head. Those who preferred this meaning have argued on the basis of the tradition of al-Mughira that “the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) performed ablution wiping his forehead and turban”. It is reported by Muslim. If we accept that bd is superfluous, there still remains another probability, whether the obligation relates to the front part of names (like head) or to the back part.

Wanazuoni wamekubaliana kwamba wajibu katika wudhuu ni kuosha kila kiungo kinachotakiwa kuoshwa mara moja, kimoja baada ya kingine, kwa kulowanisha sehemu hizo kwa maji. Kuosha kila kiungo mara mbili au tatu ni jambo linalopendekezwa (mandub), kwa sababu imepokewa kwa usahihi kwamba Mtume ﷺ alitawadha akiosha kila kiungo mara moja. Wakati mwingine aliosha mara mbili, na wakati mwingine alionekana akiosha mara tatu. Amri hiyo, hata hivyo, haihitaji kuosha kila kiungo zaidi ya mara moja, yaani amri iliyowekwa katika aya ya wudhuu.

The jurists agreed that the obligation in ablution is to wash each washable limb once, one after the other, soaking these parts with water. Washing each (limb) twice or thrice is recommended {mandub) for it is authentically reported that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) performed ablution washing each (limb) once. On another occasion he washed twice, and on yet another occasion he was seen washing them thrice. The command, however, does not require washing each limb more than once, that is, the command laid down in the verse of wudu>.

Walitofautiana kuhusu ubora wa kurudia kupangusa kichwa. Al-Shafi'i alikuwa na maoni kwamba mtu anayeosha viungo vyake vingine mara tatu ni vyema kupangusa kichwa mara tatu. Wengi wa wanazuoni wa fiqhi hawakuona ubora wowote katika kurudia kupangusa. Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao iko katika mzozo wao kuhusu kukubalika kwa ziada iliyomo katika hadithi moja inayopokewa kupitia mnyororo mmoja wa wapokezi. Wengi wa wanazuoni wa fiqhi hawatumii hadithi ya namna hiyo. Hadithi nyingi nyingine zinazoeleza kwamba Mtume ﷺ aliosha mara tatu, zikiwemo zile zilizopokewa kupitia Uthman na wengine, zinasema kwamba alipangusa mara moja tu. Hata hivyo, katika baadhi ya simulizi kutoka kwa Uthman, zinazoeleza wudhu wa Mtume ﷺ, imeelezwa kwamba Mtume ﷺ alipangusa kichwa mara tatu. Al-Shafi'i aliunga mkono kwa nguvu kukubali ziada hii kwa msingi wa ujumla unaoonekana wa simulizi zinazosema kwamba Mtume ﷺ alifanya wudhu akirudia vitendo vyake mara mbili na mara tatu. Ujumla huu, ingawa unatokana na kauli ya Sahaba, unahusishwa na viungo vyote vya wudhu. Hata hivyo, ziada hii haimo katika Sahihi mbili. Ikithibitika kuwa ni sahihi, simulizi hiyo lazima ifuatwe, kwa kuwa kisichotaja jambo hakiwezi kuwa ushahidi dhidi ya kinachotaja jambo hilo. Wengi wa wanazuoni wa fiqhi waliwajibisha kuchukua maji mapya kwa ajili ya kupangusa, kwa kulinganisha na viungo vingine. Imepokewa kutoka kwa Ibn Majishun kwamba alisema: "Ikiwa maji yameisha, anaweza kupangusa kwa unyevu uliopo kwenye ndevu zake." Hii ndiyo rai aliyoipendelea Ibn Habib, Malik na al-Shafi'i.

They differed about the merit in repeating the wiping of the head. Al- Shafi(T was of the opinion that the person who washes his other limbs three times should preferably wipe his head thrice. The majority of the jurists saw no merit in repeating the mash. The reason for their disagreement (here) lies in their dispute over the acceptance of the addition contained in one tradition coming down through a single chain. The majority of the jurists do not use such a tradition. Most of the other traditions relating that he (the Prophet) washed thrice, including that related through Uthman and others, state that he wiped only once. In some narrations from Uthman, however, that describe the wudu* of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) it is stated that he (the Prophet) wiped his head thrice. Al-Shafici emphatically supported accepting this excess on the basis of the apparent generality of the narrations that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) performed wudt? repeating his acts twice and thrice. The generality, here, even though it arises from the word of a Companion is assigned to all the limbs in ablution. This addition, though, is not in the two Sahihs. If proved authentic it (the narration) must be followed, as that which fails to mention a thing cannot be a proof against that which does mention it. The majority of the jurists made obligatory the renewal of water for wiping on the analogy of the other limbs. It is narrated from Ibn Majishun that he said, “If the water is exhausted he may wipe with the moisture on his beard”. This is the preference of Ibn Habib, Malik and al-ShafiT.

Wanazuoni walitofautiana kuhusu (kutosha kwa) kupangusa juu ya kilemba peke yake (mash). Hili liliruhusiwa na Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Abu Thawr, al-Qasim, Ibn Sallam na baadhi ya wengine. Lilikatazwa na kundi jingine, pamoja na Malik, al-Shafi'i, na Abu Hanifa. Mgongano wao unatokana na mzozo wao kuhusu uhalali wa kutenda kwa kufuata Hadithi iliyopokewa na al-Mughira na wengine kwamba: "Yeye [Mtume] (rehema na baraka za Mwenyezi Mungu ziwe juu yake ﷺ) alipangusa juu ya paji lake la uso na juu ya kilemba chake, na pia kwa kulinganisha na [kupangusa] viatu vya ngozi." Kwa sababu hiyo, wengi wao wameweka sharti kwamba kilemba kivaliwe kikiwa safi. Hadithi hii ilikataliwa na baadhi, ama kwa sababu waliona si sahihi, au kwa sababu maana dhahiri ya Qur'ani, yaani amri iliyomo kuhusu kupangusa kichwa, iliipinga kwa mtazamo wao, au kwa sababu haikukubalika sana kiutendaji. Hii ni kulingana na wale wanaoshurutisha kuenea kwa utendaji kwa mambo yaliyopokewa kwa hadithi za mtu mmoja mmoja, hasa huko Madina, kama inavyojulikana katika madhehebu ya Malik, aliyeweka kuenea kwa utendaji kuwa sharti. Hadithi hii imepokewa na Muslim. Abu Umar Ibn Abd al-Barr alisema kwamba ni hadithi yenye kasoro. Katika baadhi ya matoleo yake, kupangusa kilemba peke yake kumetajwa, ilhali cha paji la uso hakijatajwa. Kwa sababu hiyo, baadhi ya wanazuoni hawakuweka sharti kwamba pamoja na kupangusa kilemba, paji la uso nalo lipanguswe, kwa kuwa kitendo cha msingi na mbadala wake haviwezi kuunganishwa pamoja.

The jurists disagreed about (the sufficiency of) mash over the turban (alone). This was permitted by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Abu Thawr, al-Qasim, Ibn Sallam and some others. It was prohibited by another group and by Malik, al-ShafiT, and Abu Harnfa. Their disagreement arises from their dispute about the validity of acting upon the tradition related by al-MughTra and others “that he [the Prophet] (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) performed mash on his forehead and on his turban, and also upon the analogy of [the mash of] boots. It is for this reason that most of them stipulated that it be worn in a clean condition.35 This tradition was rejected by some, either because it was deemed onauthentic by them or because the apparent meaning in the Qurian contradicted it, in their opinion, that is, the command in it about the mash of the head, or because it was not widely accepted in practice. This is according to those who require widespread practice for matters reported through individual traditions, particularly in Medina, as is known about the school of Malik, who stipulated widespread practice as a condition. The hadith is reported by Muslim. Abu TJmar Ibn Abd al-Barr said that it is a defective tradition. In some of its versions the wiping of the turban alone is mentioned, while that of the forehead is not. It is for this reason that some jurists did not stipulate with the wiping* of the turban the wiping of the forehead as well, as the original requirement and its substitute cannot be combined together.

Walikubaliana kuhusu kupangusa masikio, je, ni sunna au ni wajibu, na je, maji yanapaswa kubadilishwa. Baadhi walisema ni wajibu, na kwamba maji yanapaswa kubadilishwa kwa ajili ya kuyapangusa. Wanaotoa maoni haya ni kundi katika wafuasi wa Malik, kwa kuwa yeye aliyachukulia masikio kuwa sehemu ya kichwa. Abu Hanifa na wafuasi wake waliona kupangusa masikio ni wajibu, na wakasema kwamba yanapanguswa pamoja na kichwa kwa maji yaleyale. Al-Shafi'i aliona kupangusa masikio ni sunna na akaweka sharti la kubadilisha maji kwa ajili yake. Maoni haya yalishikiliwa pia na kundi jingine la wafuasi wa Malik, nao wakasema ndiyo maoni ya Malik, kwa kuwa imepokewa kwamba alisema "hukmu yake ni sawa na hukmu ya madmada". Kutofautiana, yaani kama kupangusa masikio ni sunna au wajibu, kunatokana na mgongano wa riwaya zilizopokewa kuhusu jambo hili, yaani kupangusa masikio kwa Mtume (rehema na amani za Mwenyezi Mungu zimshukie) kama ni nyongeza juu ya kilichomo katika Qur'ani kuhusu kupangusa kichwa. Hukmu yake basi ni sunna kutokana na mgongano wake na aya, ikiwa itafasiriwa kuwa ni wajibu. Lakini ikiwa itachukuliwa kuwa ni ufafanuzi wa neno lisilobainishwa katika Qur'ani, hukmu yake inakuwa ni hukmu iliyopo tayari kwa kichwa, yaani wajibu. Kwa hiyo wale waliosema ni wajibu wanaliona kuwa ni ufafanuzi wa neno gumu (mujmal) katika Qur'ani, ilhali wale wasiosema ni wajibu wanaliona kuwa ni nyongeza, kama ilivyo katika kesi ya madmada. Kuna riwaya nyingi zilizopokewa kuhusu jambo hili. Ingawa hazimo katika Sahihi mbili, desturi imeenea kufuata riwaya hizi. Kuhusu kutofautiana juu ya kubadilisha maji kwa ajili ya masikio, sababu yake ni kutokuwa na uhakika kwa neno "masikio", je, yanachukuliwa kuwa viungo huru kwa madhumuni ya wudhu, au yanaunda sehemu ya kichwa. Kundi moja lilitoa maoni tofauti kwamba masikio yanapaswa kuoshwa pamoja na uso, wakati jingine lilisema kwamba ndani ya masikio kunapaswa kufutwa kwa kichwa, na sehemu za nje zioshwe pamoja na uso. Sababu yake ni kwamba masikio yako katika hali ya usawa kati ya kuwa sehemu ya uso au sehemu ya kichwa. Yote haya hayana umuhimu wa kweli kutokana na hadithi zilizoenea kuhusu kupanguswa kwake na kutekelezwa kwake kwa kiasi kikubwa. Al-Shafi'i anaona kwamba kurudia kupangusa masikio ni jambo la kupendeza, kama anavyofanya katika kesi ya kupangusa kichwa.

They (the jurists) disagreed about the wiping of the ears whether it is recommended (sunna) or an obligation (farida), and whether the water is to be renewed. Some said it is obligatory and that water is to be renewed for (wiping) them. Those who expressed this opinion are a group from among Malik’s followers, as he considered the ears a part of the head. Abu HanTfa and his followers considered their wiping as obligatory, and said that they are to be wiped along with the head with the same water. Al-ShafiT considered their wiping as a sunna and stipulated the renewal of water for them. This opinion was held by another group of Malik’s followers and they maintained that it is Malik’s opinion, because it is narrated that he said “their hukm is the same as the hukm of madmada”. The disagreement—whether wiping of the ears is recommended or an obligation—stems from the controversy about the traditions transmitted on this issue, that is, the wiping of the ears by the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) whether it is an addition over what exists in the Qur’an about the wiping of the head. Its hukm then is that it is a recommendation due to the conflict between it and the verse, if it is interpreted as an obligation. If, however, it is considered an explanation of an unelaborated word in the Qur’an, its hukm becomes the hukm already existing for the head, that is, obligatory. Thus those who considered it obligatory deem it an explanation of the difficult (mujmal) word in the Qur’an, while those who did not consider it obligatory deem it an addition, as in the case of madmada. There are many traditions transmitted on this issue. Though they are not included in the two Sahihs, practice has become common according to these traditions. With respect to the disagreement about the renewal of water for the ears, the cause is the vacillation of The term “ears”, whether they are considered independent limbs for purposes of ablution or whether .they form part of the head. One group gave a distinct opinion that they are to be washed with the face while another considered that the inside of the ears is to be wiped with the head and the outer parts to be washed with the face. The reason is their being equipoised between being part of the face or head. All this has no real significance in view of the common traditions about their mash and its widespread practice. Al-Shafi T considers the repeated wiping of the ears as being recommended/ as he does in the case of wiping of the head.

Wanafiqhi walikubaliana kwamba miguu ni viungo vinavyohusika na udhu, lakini walitofautiana kuhusu namna ya kutakasa kunakohitajika kwayo. Kundi moja la wanafiqhi, nao ndio wengi, walisema kwamba usafi wake hupatikana kwa kuosha. Kundi jingine lilisema kwamba wajibu kwake ni kupangusa. Na kundi jingine bado lilisema kwamba usafi wake hupatikana kwa mojawapo ya njia hizo mbili; hutegemea uchaguzi wa mwabudu.

The jurists agreed that the feet are limbs that are the object of ablution, but they differed about the method of purification required for them. A group of jurists, and these are the majority, said that their purity is attained by washing. Another group said that the obligation in their case is wiping. And yet another group said that their purity is achieved through either way; it depends upon the choice of the worshipper.

Sababu ya kutofautiana kunatokana na visomo viwili maarufu vya aya ya wudhuu, yaani, usomo wa wale wanaosoma neno "miguu" kama kitu cha kuoshwa kwa nasb (kiishio cha kunasibisha; kifupi cha mwisho ni fat-ha) kwa kuunganishwa na viungo vinavyooshwa, na usomo wa wale wanaosoma kwa khafd (kiishio cha kujaa; kifupi cha mwisho ni kasra) kwa kuunganishwa na sehemu zinazopanguswa. Usomo wenye nasb unaonyesha wazi kuosha, ilhali usomo wenye khafd unaonyesha wazi kupangusa. Wale waliodai kuwa wajibu ni wa aina moja kati ya aina hizi mbili za utakaso, yaani kuosha au kupangusa, walipendelea usomo mmoja kuliko mwingine, wakiyaondoa kwa tafsiri maana ya usomo mwingine kwa kupendelea usomo waliouona kuwa bora kwao. Wale waliodhani kuwa dalili dhahiri za visomo vyote viwili ni sawa, na kwamba mojawapo halina dalili yenye nguvu zaidi kuliko nyingine, waliufasiri kama wajibu wa hiari (wajib mukhayyar), kama kafara ya kuvunja kiapo. Huo ndio ulikuwa msimamo wa al-Tabari na Dawud. Lakini wengi wao wana njia nyingi za kuutafsiri usomo wa khafd kwa namna nyingine, na bora kati ya hizo ni kwamba kuunganishwa hapa kunahusu umbo la neno linalotamkwa, ambalo linapatikana katika matumizi ya Kiarabu.

The reason for disagreement is based upon two well-known readings of the verse of wudu>, that is, the reading of those who read the word “feet” as the object of washing with a nasb (accusative; final vowel d) in conjunction with limbs washed, and those who read it with a khafd (final vowel i) in conjunction with parts wiped. The reading with a nasb clearly indicates washing, while reading it with a khafd evidently indicates wiping. Those who held that the obligation is specifically for one of these two types of purity, determined as washing or wiping, preferred one reading over the other, disposing of, by interpretation, the meaning of the other reading in favour of the reading that was preferable for them. Those who believed that the obvious implications of both readings were equal, and that one of these did not have a stronger indication than the other, rendered it as a wajib mukhayyar (obligation with a choice), like expiation for breaking an oath. This was the opinion of al-Tabari and Dawud. The majority, however, have numerous ways of interpreting away the reading with a khafd, and the best of these is that the conjunction here elates to the pronounced form of the word, which is found in Arab usage.

Walitofautiana kuhusu kuzingatia mpangilio katika vitendo vya wudhuu kama ulivyopangwa katika aya. Kundi moja la wanachuoni wa fiqh lilisema kwamba (kufuata mpangilio huo) ni sunna (inayopendekezwa). Hii ndiyo iliyopokewa na wanafunzi wa baadaye wa Malik miongoni mwa maoni ya madhehebu. Pia iliungwa mkono na Abu Hanifa, al-Thawri, na Dawud. Kundi jingine la wanachuoni wa fiqh lilisema kwamba ni wajibu, ambao ulikuwa ndio maoni ya Al-Shafi'i, Ahmad, na Abu 'Ubayd. Haya yote yanahusu mpangilio wa vitendo vya wajibu (vya wudhuu) kuhusiana na vingine. Kwa upande wa mpangilio wa vitendo vya wajibu pamoja na vitendo vya sunna, Malik aliliona kuwa ni jambo jema linalopendekezwa (mustahabb), ilhali Abu Hanifa aliliona kuwa ni sunna (yaani linapaswa kutendwa kama sunna).

They disagreed about the observance of a sequence in the acts of ablution as arranged in the verse. One group of jurists said that it (following the sequence) is a sunna (recommended). This is what is related by the later disciples of Malik from the opinions in the school. It was also upheld by Abu Hanifa, al- ThawrT, and Dawud. Another group of jurists said that it is an obligation, which was the opinion of Al-ShafiT, Ahmad, and Abu TJbayd. All this is about the sequence of the obligatory acts (of ablution) in relation to each other. As to the sequential ordering of the obligatory acts with recommended acts, it is regarded by Malik as commendable (mustahabb), while Abu Hanifa considered it to be a sunna (i.e. it should be acted upon as a sunna).

Sababu mbili zinasababisha kutofautiana kwao. Ya kwanza ni utata unaotokana na kiunganishi "wāw" (na), kwani muunganiko wakati mwingine hupatikana kupitia kiunganishi hicho kwa mpangilio wa mfuatano, na wakati mwingine bila mpangilio huo. Hili linaonyeshwa kupitia uchunguzi wa matumizi ya Waarabu. Kuhusu jambo hili, wanaisimu wa lugha ya Kiarabu wamegawanyika katika makundi mawili. Wanaisimu wa Basra walisema kuwa "wāw" haionyeshi mpangilio wala mfuatano, bali inaashiria tu muunganiko wa maneno yanayounganishwa nayo. Wa Kufa walisema kuwa inaonyesha mpangilio pamoja na mfuatano. Wale walioshikilia kwamba "wāw" katika aya hiyo inaashiria mpangilio, walitetea wajibu wa mfuatano, ilhali wale waliodai kwamba haiashirii mfuatano, hawakutetea wajibu wake. Sababu ya pili inatokana na tofauti yao kuhusu vitendo vya Mtume ﷺ, je, vinapaswa kufasiriwa kuwa ni wajibu au ni mapendekezo. Wale waliofasiri vitendo hivyo kuwa ni vya lazima, walitetea wajibu wa mfuatano, kwa kuwa haijapokewa kutoka kwake kwamba aliwahi kufanya udhu bila mpangilio maalum. Wale waliofasiri vitendo hivyo kuashiria mapendekezo walisema kuwa utekelezaji wa mfuatano ni sunna. Wale waliofanya tofauti kati ya vitendo vilivyowekwa kuwa sunna na vile vilivyowekwa kuwa wajibu walisema kuwa mpangilio wa mfuatano wa lazima unapaswa kuwa katika vitendo vya wajibu, lakini wale ambao hawakufanya tofauti hiyo walisema kuwa sharti za wajibu zinaweza kutumika hata kwa vitendo ambavyo si vya wajibu.

Walitofautiana kuhusu (wajibu wa) kufanya vitendo vya wudhuu mfululizo (bila mapumziko yasiyo ya lazima baina yake). Malik alisema kwamba kufanya mfululizo ni wajibu, pale vitendo vinapokumbukwa pamoja na uwezo wa kuvitekeleza, na kinaondolewa tu kwa sababu ya kusahau, au pale vinapokumbukwa lakini kuna udhuru halali, na muda wa mapumziko si mrefu kupita kiasi. Al-Shafi'i na Abu Hanifa walisema kwamba kufanya mfululizo si wajibu wa wudhuu. Sababu ya kutofautiana ni tena utata wa herufi ya "wa" (و), kwa kuwa kiunganishi hiki wakati mwingine hutumika kwa mambo yaliyo karibu yanayofuatana, na wakati mwingine hutumika kwa vitendo vilivyochelewa kuhusiana na vingine.

They disagreed about the (obligation of) continuous performance of the acts of ablution (without uncalled-for intervals between them). Malik held that continuous performance is an obligation, when the acts are remembered along with the ability to perform them, relaxed only because of forgetfulness, or when they are remembered but there is a valid excuse, and the interval is not excessive. Al-Shafi T and Abu HanTfa c said that continuous performance is not an obligation of ablution. The reason for disagreement is again the equivocality of the wdw y as the conjunction sometimes applies to adjacent things following each other, while at other times it applies to acts delayed with respect to others.

Kundi la wanazuoni wa fiqhi lilitoa hoja ya kusitishwa kwa uendelevu wa tendo (la wudhuu) kwa msingi wa yale yaliyothibitishwa kutoka kwa Mtume ﷺ kwamba alikuwa wakati mwingine akitawadha, na alikuwa akichelewesha kuosha miguu yake hadi baadaye. Mvutano kuhusu suala hili pia unatokana na tafsiri ya (kufuata) vitendo hivyo (vya Mtume ﷺ) kuwa ni wajibu au ni sunna inayopendekezwa.

A group of jurists argued for-the suspension of continuous performance on the basis of what is established from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) that he occasionally performed ablution, and used to delay the washing of his feet till sometime later. The disagreement over this issue also arises from the interpretation of (following) these acts (of the Prophet) as an obligation or a recommendation.

Malik alifanya tofauti kwa msingi wa nia na usahaulifu; kanuni inayomhusu mtu aliyesahau ni kwamba anasamehewa, isipokuwa ushahidi wa kinyume ukithibitishwa, kwa sababu ya maneno ya Mtume ﷺ, "Dhima ya kosa na usahaulifu imeondolewa kutoka kwa umma wangu". Vilevile, udhuru halali, kama inavyodhihirika kutokana na amri za sheria, una nguvu ya kupata wepesi.

Malik made a distinction on the basis of intention and forgetfulness; the principle applying to the person who forgets is that he is excused, unless evidence to the contrary is established, because of the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “Liability for mistake and forgetfulness is removed from my umma”. Similarly, a valid excuse, as is obvious from the dictates of the law, is effective in obtaining a concession.