Moja ya mada katika somo hili inahusu kupangusa juu ya viatu vya ngozi (khuffayn) kwani inahusiana na moja ya vitendo vya wudhuu (yaani, kuosha miguu). Mjadala unaoeleza kanuni zake unahusu uchambuzi wa masuala saba: uhalali wake; kubainisha kitu kinachopanguswa; aina ya kitu hicho; maelezo yake, yaani, maelezo ya kitu kinachopanguswa; muda wake; masharti; na mambo yanayobatilisha.

One of the topics on this subject relates to mash over boots (khuffayn)y as it is related to one of the acts of ablution (namely, washing of the feet). The discussion covering its principles relates to the study of seven issues: its permissibility; delineation of the object of mash; category of the object; its description, that is, the description of its object; its time; conditions; and factors nullifying it.

Kuna maoni matatu kuhusu jambo hili. Maoni yanayojulikana zaidi, ambayo yalishikiliwa na wengi wa wanachuoni wa fiqhi wa mikoani, ni kwamba jambo hilo ni halali kwa ujumla. Maoni ya pili yanaruhusu wakati wa safari, lakini si ndani ya makazi ya watu. Maoni ya tatu yanashikilia kwamba jambo hilo ni haramu kwa ujumla, nao ndio maoni makali zaidi. Maoni yote matatu yamesimuliwa kutoka kizazi cha kwanza (cha Waislamu), na pia kutoka kwa Malik.

There are three opinions about this. The widely known opinion, which was upheld by the majority of the jurists of the provinces, is that it is permitted absolutely. The second opinion permits it during a journey and not within settlements. The third opinion maintains its absolute prohibition, and is the most strict. All three opinions have been related from the first generation (of Islam) and also from Malik.

Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao ni mgongano unaodhaniwa kuwepo kati ya aya ya wudhuu, inayoamuru kuosha miguu, na riwaya zilizoruhusu kupangusa, huku ikizingatiwa kwamba aya yenyewe iliteremshwa baadaye. Kutofautiana huku kunapatikana miongoni mwa Maswahaba wa kizazi cha kwanza cha Uislamu. Baadhi yao walishikilia kwamba aya ya wudhuu ilikwisha kufuta riwaya hizi, na hii ndiyo maoni ya Ibn cAbbas. Walioshikilia ruhusa yake walitoa hoja kwa msingi wa taarifa ya Muslim kwamba riwaya ya Jarir iliwavutia, kwani inasimuliwa kutoka kwake kwamba aliwahi kumwona Mtume (rehema na amani za Mungu ziwe juu yake) akipangusa viatu vyake. Aliambiwa kwamba hilo lilikuwa kabla ya kuteremshwa Suratu al-Maida, lakini akasema, "Mimi nilisilimu baada ya kuteremshwa Al-Maida." Wanazuoni wa baadaye, walioshikilia ruhusa yake, walisema kwamba hakuna mgongano kati ya aya na riwaya, kwani amri ya kuosha miguu inawalenga wale wasiovaa viatu, na ruhusa imetolewa kwa mwenye kuvaa. Inasemwa pia kwamba tafsiri ya aya kwa kutegemea toleo la khafd inahusu kupangusa juu ya viatu. Wale waliotofautisha kati ya safari na kuwa katika makazi, walifanya hivyo kwa sababu riwaya nyingi sahihi zinazoeleza kupangusa kwa Mtume (rehema na amani za Mungu ziwe juu yake) juu ya viatu vyake zinahusu safari. Zaidi ya hayo, safari yenyewe inaashiria wepesi na ruhusa. Na kupangusa ni sehemu ya wepesi, kwa kuwa kuvua viatu kunamletea msafiri ugumu.

The reason for their disagreement is the conflict thought to exist between the verse of ablution, commanding the washing of feet, with the traditions that permitted wiping, bearing in mind the fact that the verse itself was revealed later. This disagreement is to be found among the Companions in the first generation of Islam. Some of them maintained that the verse of ablution had abrogated these traditions, which is Ibn cAbbas’s opinion. Those who upheld its permissibility argued on the basis of the report by Muslim that the tradition of Jarir appealed to them, as it is related from him that he had seen the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) wiping his boots. It was said to him that this was prior to the revelation of surat al-M&ida> but he said, “I- converted to Islam after the revelation of al-M&ida”. The later jurists, who upheld its permissibility, said that there is no conflict between the verse and the traditions, as the command for washing feet is directed toward those who do not have boots, and the exemption has been granted to one wearing them. It is said that the interpretation of the verse based on the khafd version relates to wiping over boots. Those who made a distinction between travelling and being in a settlement, did so because most of the authentic traditions, conveying mash by the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) over his boots, relate to travel. Further, journey in itself depicts exemption and leniency. And, mash belongs to the category of leniency, as taking them off presents a hardship for the traveller.

Wanafaqihi wa mikoa mbalimbali walitofautiana kuhusu mipaka ya eneo (la kupanguswa). Kundi moja la wanafaqihi lilisema kwamba wajibu ni kupangusa sehemu ya juu ya viatu, na kwamba kupangusa sehemu ya chini, yaani nyayo, ni jambo lililopendekezwa. Malik ni miongoni mwa wale waliosimamia msimamo huu, kama ilivyo kwa al-Shafi'i. Baadhi yao waliona kuwa ni wajibu kupangusa sehemu ya nje na sehemu ya ndani ya viatu, ambayo ni maoni ya Ibn Nafi', miongoni mwa wanafunzi wa Malik, wakati wengine waliona kuwa wajibu ni kupangusa sehemu ya nje peke yake, wala hawakuona kuwa ni jambo lililopendekezwa kupangusa sehemu ya ndani, ambalo ni maoni ya Abu Hanifa, Dawud, Sufyan (al-Thawri), na kundi la wanafaqihi. Ashhab alitofautiana na haya na akasema kwamba wajibu ni kupangusa sehemu ya ndani au ya nje, lolote atakalochagua (kupangusa).40

The jurists of the regions disagreed about the delineation of the area (to be Wiped). One group of jurists said that the obligation is for wiping the upper P rt a of the boots, and that wiping the lower part, that is, the sole, is commendable. Malik is one of those who upheld this, as is al-Shafi I. Some of c them deemed obligatory the wiping of the external and the internal parts of the hoots, which is Ibn Nafic’s opinion, from among the disciples of Malik, while others deemed obligatory the wiping of the external part alone, and did not consider commendable the wiping of the inner part, which is the opinion of Abu Hamfa, Dawud, Sufyan (al-Thawri), and a group of jurists. Ashhab deviated from this and said that the obligation is for wiping the inner part or the external, whichever he (chooses) to wipe.40

Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao inatokana na mgongano wa hadithi zinazohusu mada hii, na kufanana kwa kufuta (mash) na kuosha. Kuna hadithi mbili zinazopingana. Ya kwanza ni hadithi ya al-Mughira ibn Shu'ba, inayosema: "Alifuta juu ya khofu zake na ndani yake (ﷺ)". Nyingine ni hadithi ya 'Ali, inayosema: "Lau dini ingejengwa juu ya maoni, kufuta sehemu ya chini ya khofu kungekuwa bora kuliko kufuta sehemu ya juu, lakini nimemwona Mjumbe wa Allah (ﷺ) akifuta sehemu ya nje ya khofu zake." Wale waliochukua msimamo unaotokana na kupatanisha hadithi walitafsiri hadithi ya al-Mughira kuwa inaonyesha kupendeza (mustahabb), na wakatafsiri hadithi ya 'Ali kuwa inaonyesha wajibu. Hii ndiyo njia inayopendelewa. Wale waliochagua kutumia uzito (tarjih) waliegemea ama hadithi ya 'Ali au ya al-Mughira. Wale waliotoa nguvu kwa hadithi ya al-Mughira juu ya ya 'Ali walifanya hivyo kwa msingi wa kulinganisha (qiyas), yaani kulinganisha kufuta na kuosha. Wale waliotoa nguvu kwa hadithi ya 'Ali walifanya hivyo kwa sababu inapingana na qiyas, au kwa sababu ya mnyororo wa wapokezi wenye kuaminika zaidi. Katika suala hili, ukuu unaelekea kwa Malik. Sina ujuzi wa msingi wa wale waliohalalisha kufuta sehemu ya ndani peke yake, kwa kuwa hawakufuata hadithi hizi wala hawakutumia qiyas hii, yaani kulinganisha kufuta na kuosha.

Kuhusu aina za vitu vinavyopaswa kupanguswa, wanazuoni wanaokubali kupangusa juu ya viatu (mash) walikubaliana juu ya kupangusa juu ya buti, lakini walitofautiana kuhusu soksi (jawrabayn). Kundi moja la wanazuoni liliruhusu hilo, huku jingine likikataza. Miongoni mwa waliokataza hilo ni Malik, Al-Shafi'i, na Abu Hanifa. Waliopaswa kuruhusu hilo ni pamoja na Abu Yusuf na Muhammad, wanafunzi wa Abu Hanifa, na Sufyan al-Thawri.

About the kinds of objects that are to be wiped, the jurists upholding mash agreed upon wiping over boots, but they disagreed about socks (jawrabayri). One group of jurists permitted this, while another prohibited it. Among those who prohibited this are Malik, Al-Shafi T, c and Abu HanTfa. Those who permitted it include Abu Yusuf and Muhammad, the disciples of Abu HanTfa, and Sufyan al-Thawri.

Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao inatokana na mzozo wao kuhusu uhakika wa hadithi moja kutoka kwa Mtume (rehema na amani za Mungu ziwe juu yake) kuhusu suala hili, ambayo inaeleza kwamba alipangusa soksi zake pamoja na viatu vyake (na^layn). Pia walitofautiana kuhusu kama inawezekana kujenga kipimo cha kulinganisha (qiyas) kwa vitu vingine juu ya kupangusa juu ya buti, au kama ni ibada iliyowekwa na tafsiri isiyo ya kiakili ambayo haiwezi kujengwa juu yake kipimo cha kulinganisha wala kupanuliwa kwa vitu vingine. Wale ambao hadithi hiyo haikuthibitika kwao kuwa sahihi, au habari zake hazikuwafikia, na wasiotumia kipimo cha kulinganisha juu ya buti, walizuia mash kwa buti peke yake, ilhali wale waliofikiri hadithi hiyo ni sahihi, au waliotumia kipimo cha kulinganisha juu ya buti, waliruhusu kupangusa juu ya soksi. Hadithi hii haijapokewa na Masheikh wawili, yaani al-Bukhari na Muslim, lakini imehukumiwa kuwa sahihi na al-Tirmidhi. Kwa sababu ya kutokuwa na uhakika wa soksi za ngozi, kama ziko kati ya buti na soksi zisizo za ngozi, kuna riwaya mbili kutoka kwa Malik kuhusu kuzipangusa: moja inakataza, ilhali nyingine inaruhusu.

The reason for their disagreement arises from their dispute over the authenticity of a tradition from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) on this issue, which conveys that he wiped his socks as well as his sandals (na^layn). They also disputed as to whether analogy for other things can be constructed upon the wiping over boots, or whether it is a fixed ritual or non-rational interpretation upon which no analogy can be based nor can it be extended to other things. Those for whom the tradition did not prove authentic, or (information about) it did not reach them, and they did. not employ analogy upon boots, restricted mash to the boots, while those who considered the tradition to be authentic, or upheld analogy upon boots, permitted mash over socks. This tradition has not been recorded by the two Shaykhs, that is, al-Bukhari and Muslim, but has been deemed authentic by al- TirmidhT. Because of the vacillation of leather socks between boots and non­ leather socks, there are two narrations from Malik about wiping them: one prohibits it, while the other permits it.

Walikubaliana juu ya kupangusa juu ya soksi za ngozi (khuffu) zilizo katika hali nzuri, na walitofautiana kuhusu zile zilizochanika. Malik na wanafunzi wake walisema kwamba inaruhusiwa kupangusa juu yake ikiwa mpasuko ni mdogo. Abu Hanifa alipunguza kiwango cha mpasuko hadi kipimo cha vidole vitatu. Kundi la wanazuoni wa fiqhi walisema kwamba inaruhusiwa kupangusa juu yake mradi bado inaweza kuitwa khuffu, hata pale mpasuko ulipo mkubwa. Mmoja wa wanazuoni hao ambaye msimamo huu unahusishwa naye ni al-Thawri. Al-Shafi'i, katika mojawapo ya maoni yake mawili, alishikilia kwamba khuffu isipasuke upande wa mbele na kuonyesha mguu, hata kama mpasuko ni mdogo.

They agreed about wiping over boots that are in good condition, and disagreed about those that are torn. Malik and his disciples said that one may wipe over them if the tear is minor. Abu Harnfa limited the extent of the tear to the measure of three fingers. A group of jurists said that it is permitted to wipe over them as long as they can be described as boots, even when the tear is extensive. One such jurist from whom this is related is al-Thawri. Al-ShafiT, in one of his two opinions, held that the boot should not be torn from the front exposing the foot, even if the tear is small.

Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao inatokana na swali la kama mpito wa wajibu, kutoka kuosha (miguu) kwenda kupangusa, unatokana na kufunikwa kwake, yaani miguu kufunikwa na viatu vya ngozi (khuffu), au unatokana na uzito unaotokana na kuvua viatu hivyo kisha kuvivaa tena baada ya kuosha.41 Wale waliosema kwamba ni kwa sababu ya kufunikwa hawakuruhusu kupangusa juu ya viatu vilivyochanika, kwa kuwa kufunuliwa kwa miguu kunahamisha wajibu kutoka kupangusa kwenda kuosha. Wale waliozingatia sababu ya msingi (illa) kuwa ni uzito hawakuzingatia kuchanika, pale ambapo bado vingeweza kuitwa viatu. Tofauti kati ya kuchanika kwa kiasi kikubwa na kidogo42 imejengwa juu ya istihsan na kuondoa uzito. Al-Thawri alisema kwamba viatu vya Muhajirun na Ansar havikuwa bila kuchanika, kama viatu vya watu wengine, na lau kungekuwa na katazo katika jambo hili, lingewekwa wazi na kupokewa kutoka kwao. Mimi nasema kwamba suala hili halijaelezwa waziwazi (katika matini), na lau kungekuwa na hukm kwake, pamoja na ukweli kwamba kuchanika kwa viatu kulikuwa jambo la kawaida, Mtume (rehema na amani za Mwenyezi Mungu zimshukie) angelieleza. Allah Mtukufu amesema: "Nasi tumekuteremshia ukumbusho ili uwabainishie watu yale yaliyoteremshwa kwao."

The reason for their disagreement derives from the question of whether the transference of the obligation, from washing (the feet) to wiping, is due to their being covered, that is, the feet being covered by the boots, or whether it is due to the hardship arising from taking off the boots and then wearing them after washing.41 Those who said that it is due to covering did not allow wiping over torn boots, as the uncovering of the feet transfers the obligation from wiping to washing. Those who considered the underlying cause i^lla) to be hardship did not take into consideration the tear, when they could (still) he called boots. The distinction between a major and a minor tear42 is based on istihsan and the removal of hardship. Al-Thawri said that the boots of the Muhajirun and the Ansar were not devoid of tears, like the boots of other people, and had there been a prohibition in this regard it would have been laid down and related from them. I would say that this issue is one that is not expressed (in the texts), and had a hukm existed for it, along with the fact that tears in boots were common, the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) would have explained it. Allah, the Exalted, has said, “We have revealed unto thee the Remembrance that thou mayst explain to mankind that which hath been ^vealed for them”

Wanazuoni pia walitofautiana kuhusu (upeo wa) muda wake. Malik alishikilia kwamba hakuna kikomo cha muda, na mtu aliyevaa buti anaweza kupangusa juu yake, mradi asiziondoe au asiathiriwe na najisi kubwa (janaba). Abu Hanifa na al-Shafi'i walishikilia kwamba ina kikomo cha muda.

The jurists also disagreed about (the extent of) its time. Malik held that it is n °t limited by time, and one wearing boots may wipe over them, as long as he does not take them off or is not affected by a* major impurity fjanaba). Abu Harnfa and al-Shafiri held that it is limited by time.

Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao inatokana na mgongano wa hadithi kuhusu jambo hili. Hadithi tatu (zinazohusika) zimepokewa. ya kwanza ni hadithi ya ‘Ali (SWT) kutoka kwa Mtume ﷺ kwamba alisema: "Mtume ﷺ aliweka siku tatu na usiku wake kwa msafiri, na usiku mmoja na mchana mmoja kwa mkazi." Imeandikwa na Muslim. Ya pili ni hadithi ya Ubayy ibn 'Umara, aliyesema: "Ee Mjumbe wa Allah, je, nipanguse juu ya viatu vyangu?" Akasema: "Ndiyo." Akasema: "Kwa siku moja?" Akasema: "Ndiyo." Akauliza tena: "Siku mbili?" Akasema: "Ndiyo." Akasema: "Na ya tatu?" Akasema: "Ndiyo, mpaka ufike ya saba." Kisha [Mtume ﷺ] akaongeza: "Panguba kwa muda unaotaka." Hii imeandikwa na Abu Dawud na al-Tahawi. Ya tatu ni hadithi ya Safwan ibn 'Assal, aliyesema: "Tulikuwa safarini na tuliamrishwa tusivue viatu vyetu kwa siku tatu na usiku wake, isipokuwa kwa janaba, lakini si kwa kukojoa, kulala, au tunapojisaidia haja."

The reason for their disagreement is based upon the conflict of traditions about this. Three (relevant) traditions have been related. The first is a tradition of ‘AIT from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) that he said, “The Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) determined three days and accompanying nights for a traveller and a night and a day for the resident.” It is recorded by Muslim. The second is the tradition of Ubayy ibn TJmara that he said, “O Messenger of Allah, do I wipe over my boots?” He said, “Yes”. He said, “For a day?” He said, “Yes”. He asked (again): “Two days?” He said, “Yes”. He said, “And a third?” He said, “Yes, till you reach the seventh”. He [the Prophet] then added, “Wipe for as long as you wish”. This is recorded by Abu Dawud and al-TahawT. The third is the tradition of Safwan ibn ‘Assal, who said, “We were on a journey and were ordered not to take off our boots for three days and accompanying nights, except in the case of a major impurity, but not for urinating, sleep, or when answering the call of nature”.

Naamini kwamba hadithi ya CAIT ni sahihi, kwani imepokelewa na Muslim. Kuhusu hadithi ya Ubayy ibn HLTmara, Abu ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd ai- Barr amesema kwamba si thabiti, na haina mnyororo wa usimulizi uliothibitishwa, kwa hiyo haiwezi kutumika kupinga hadithi ya CA1T. Ingawa hadithi ya Safwan ibn cAssal haikupokelewa na al-Bukhari wala na Muslim, bado imechukuliwa kuwa sahihi na wataalamu wa hadithi, kama al-TirmidhT na Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm. Kama hadithi ya ‘Alt, inapingana kwa maana yake ya dhahiri na hadithi ya Ubayy. Inawezekana kuzipatanisha kwa kusema kwamba hadithi za ‘Ali na Safwan zinaweka kikomo cha muda kwa kujibu swali, ilhali hadithi ya Ubayy ibn ‘Umara inakanusha wazi kuwepo kwa kikomo hicho, lakini hadithi ya Ubayy haijathibitishwa. Kwa hiyo, ni lazima kutenda kwa mujibu wa hadithi za ‘Ali na Safwan, na hilo ni bora, ingawa maana yake inapingana na qiyas: kikomo cha muda hakina nguvu ya kubatilisha utakaso, kwani mambo yanayobatilisha utakaso ni najisi.

Sharti ya kupangusa juu ya viatu vya ngozi ni kwamba miguu, wakati wa kuvaa kiatu, iwe imetakaswa kwa udhu. Hili ni jambo lililokubaliwa, isipokuwa tofauti kidogo, ambayo Ibn al-Qasim anamhusisha na Malik, kama alivyopokea Ibn Lubaba katika al-Muntakhab. Msingi wa maoni ya wengi unatokana na hadithi zilizopokewa na al-Mughira na wengine, zinazosema kwamba Mtume ﷺ alipotaka kuvua viatu vyake alisema: "Viache, kwani (miguu) ilikuwa safi nilipoviweka." Wale waliotofautiana na maoni ya wengi walifasiri kauli hii kulingana na maana halisi ya usafi.

The condition for the wiping over boots is that the feet, at the time of wearing the boot, should be clean through the purification of ablution. This is something agreed upon, except for a slight disagreement, which is attributed by Ibn al-Qasim to Malik, as reported by Ibn Lubaba in al-Muntakhab. The basis for the majority view rests on the traditions related by al-Mughira and others, which state that when the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) wanted to take off his boots he said, “Let them be, for they (the feet) were clean when I put them on”. Those deviating from the majority view interpreted this remark according to the literal meaning of cleanliness.

اختلف الفقهاء في هذه المسألة حول الشخص الذي (أثناء الوضوء) يغسل قدميه ثم يلبس خفيه، ثم يُكمل وضوءه، هل يحق له أن يمسح على خفيه (في المرة التالية التي يتوضأ فيها). فأولئك الذين لم يعتبروا الترتيب في الوضوء واجبًا، وذهبوا إلى أن طهارة كل عضو صحيحة قبل إكمال طهارة سائر الأعضاء الأخرى، قالوا بجواز ذلك. أما الذين رأوا أن الترتيب واجب، وأن تطهير العضو لا يصح قبل تطهير جميع الأعضاء التي تسبقه، فلم يجيزوا ذلك. وقد قال بالرأي الأول أبو حنيفة، بينما قال بالرأي الثاني مالك والشافعي، إلا أن مالكًا لم يمنع ذلك بسبب الترتيب، بل منعه لأن طهارة هذا العضو لا تتحقق إلا بغسل بقية الأعضاء. (ويستدلون على ذلك) بقول النبي ﷺ: «أدخلتهما وهما طاهرتان»، أي طهارة شرعية. وفي بعض الروايات عن المغيرة بلفظ: «إذا أدخلت رجليك الخفين وهما طاهرتان فامسح عليهما». وبناءً على هذه القواعد، فإن الجواب عن مسألة الشخص الذي يلبس أحد خفيه بعد غسل رجله قبل غسل الأخرى، هو ما قاله مالك، فقال: لا يمسح على خفيه لأنه لبسهما قبل إكمال الطهارة. وهذا أيضًا قول الشافعي وأحمد وإسحاق. وقال أبو حنيفة والثوري والمزني والطبري وداود: يجوز المسح. وهو أيضًا رأي جماعة من أصحاب مالك، منهم مطرف وغيره. وأجمع الجميع على أنه إذا خلع الشخص أحد خفيه بعد غسل الرجل الأخرى ثم لبسه، فإن المسح جائز له.

The jurists differed in this topic about the person who (while performing ablution) washes his feet, puts on his boots, and then completes the ablution, whether he is entitled to wipe over his boots (next time he performs ablution). Those who did not consider an ordered sequence to be obligatory (in ablution) and held that purity of each limb is valid before the purity of all the other limbs is completed, maintained that it is permissible. Those who held that a sequence is obligatory, and that purification of a limb is not valid before purification of all the limbs (preceding it), did not permit it. The first opinion was held by Abu Harnfa, while the second was held by Malik and al-ShafiT, except that Malik did not disallow this because of the sequence; he did so as the purity of this limb cannot be achieved except by washing the remaining limbs. (This is on account of) the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “I put them on when they were clean”, meaning legal ceremonial purity. In some narrations from al-Mughira the words are: “When you slip your feet into your boots, and they were then pure, wipe over them”. On the basis of these rules the answer to the question about a person, who puts on one boot after washing his foot prior to washing the other, is provided by Malik, who said that he is not to wipe over his boots for he wore them before the completion of (ritual) purification. This is also the opinion of al-ShaficT, Ahmad, and Ishaq. Abu Harnfa, al-Thawri, al-MuzanT, al-Tabari, and Dawud said that wiping is permitted. It was also the opinion of a group of Malik’s disciples, among whom are Mutarrif and others. All of them agreed that if a person takes off one boot after washing the other foot and then puts it on, wiping is permitted to him.

Walikubaliana kwamba mambo yanayobatilisha aina hii ya utakaso ni yale yale yanayobatilisha wudhuu wenyewe. Walitofautiana kuhusu kama kuvua viatu kunabatilisha aina hii ya utakaso. Kundi moja la wanazuoni wa fiqhi lilisema kwamba mtu akivua viatu vyake na kuosha miguu yake, utakaso unabaki; lakini asipoosha na akaswali, swala yake haihesabiwi, na inampasa kuswali tena baada ya kuosha miguu yake. Waliosema hivi ni pamoja na Malik na wanafunzi wake, al-Shafi'i, na Abu Hanifa. Malik, hata hivyo, alisema kwamba akichelewesha hilo, inampasa kurudia wudhuu, kulingana na sharti la kuendelea kutekeleza vitendo vya wudhuu, ambalo limetangulia. Kundi jingine la wanazuoni wa fiqhi lilishikilia kwamba utakaso unabaki na haimlazimu kuosha miguu yake, isipokuwa mtu apatwe na aina fulani ya hadathi (najisi ya kisheria) inayobatilisha wudhuu wake. Miongoni mwa waliosema hivi ni Dawud na Ibn Abi Layla. Al-Hasan ibn Hayy alisema kwamba akivua viatu vyake, utakaso unabatilika. Kila moja ya maoni haya matatu lilishikiliwa na kundi la Tabi'un. Suala hili halijatajwa waziwazi (katika matini).

They agreed that the factors nullifying this form of purification are the same factors nullifying ablution itself. They disagreed on whether taking off the boots nullifies this kind of purification. A group of jurists said that if a person off his boots and washes his feet, purification is maintained, but if he does not wash them and prays, his prayer is not counted, and he has to pray again after washing his feet. Those who maintained this include Malik and his disciples, al-Shafi T, and Abu HanTfa. Malik, however, maintained that c if he delays this he has to renew ablution, conforming with the condition of continuous performance of the acts of ablution, which has preceded. Another group of jurists held that purity-is maintained and he is not obliged to wash his feet, unless the person acquires some form of hadath (legal impurity) that nullifies his ablution. Among those who maintained this are Dawud and Ibn AbT Layla. Al-Hasan ibn Hayy said that if he takes off his shoes, purity is annulled. Each of these three opinions was held by a group of the Tabi'-un. This issue has not been explicitly mentioned (in the texts).

Sababu ya kutofautiana ni kama kupangusa juu ya khofu (soksi za ngozi au viatu) ni tendo huru lenyewe, au ni badala ya kuosha miguu pale inapokuwa ndani ya khofu hizo. Ikiwa tutashikilia kwamba ni tendo huru, basi twahara lazima ibaki, hata kama mtu ameondoa khofu zake, kama ilivyo kwa mtu ambaye miguu yake imekatwa baada ya wudhuu. Ikiwa tutashikilia kwamba ni badala, basi inawezekana kusema kwamba akiondoa khofu zake twahara inabatilika hata kama tutaweka sharti la kuosha mara moja; na pia inawezekana kusema kwamba kuosha miguu kunatosha kupata twahara, ikiwa hatutaweka sharti la kuosha mara moja. Kuhusu sharti la kuosha mara moja wakati wa kuondoa khofu, ni dhaifu, kwa sababu ni jambo la dhana tu.

The reason for disagreement is whether wiping over boots is an independent act in itself or is a'substitute for washing the feet once they are inside the boots. If we maintain that it is an independent act, purity must remain, even if he removes his boots, as in the case of a person whose feet are cut off after ablution. If we maintain that it is a substitute, it is possible to say that if he takes off his boots purification is annulled even if we stipulate immediate washing; and it is also possible to say that washing of the feet is enough to achieve purification, if we do not stipulate immediate washing. As to the stipulation of immediate washing at the time of removal of boots, it is weak, for it is something conjectural.