Wanachuoni walikubaliana juu ya usafi wa mabaki ya kinywaji (au chakula) cha Waislamu na wanyama wa mifugo, lakini walitofautiana sana kuhusu makundi mengine. Baadhi walisema kwamba mabaki ya kila mnyama ni safi, wakati wengine walitoa ubaguzi kwa nguruwe peke yake. Maoni haya mawili yamepokelewa kutoka kwa Malik. Baadhi ya wanazuoni walitoa ubaguzi kwa nguruwe na mbwa, ambao ni msimamo wa al-Shafi'i. Wengine waliwaondoa wanyama wa kula nyama kwa ujumla, ambao ni msimamo wa Ibn al-Qasim. Wengine walishikilia kwamba mabaki ya wanyama yanategemea hukumu ya nyama yao: ikiwa nyama ni haramu, mabaki yake ni najisi; ikiwa nyama ni chukizo, mabaki yake ni chukizo pia; lakini ikiwa nyama ni halali, mabaki yake ni safi. Kuhusu mabaki ya mshirikina, inasemekana kwamba ni najisi, wakati inasemekana kwamba ni chukizo tu ikiwa anakunywa khamr (pombe), ambao ni msimamo wa Ibn al-Qasim. Hukumu hiyo hiyo inatumika kwa wanyama wote ambao kwa kawaida hawali uchafu, kama kuku-mwitu wanaokula uchafu, ngamia, na mbwa.
The jurists agreed about the purity of the leftovers of Muslims and cattle, but J he? disagreed extensively about other categories. Some believed that the e ^°ver of every animal is pure, while others made an exception in the case of SWlne alone. These two views are related from Malik. Some jurists made an excePtion in the case of swine and dogs, which is al-Shafi Fs opinion. Some c ai deluded the beasts of prey generally, which is Ibn al-Qasim’s opinion. Others Jp ntained that leftovers of animals are subservient to the hukm of (their) flesh; I hc A sh is prohibited the leftover is impure, if the flesh is abominable the e over is abominable too, but if the flesh is permissible the leftover is pure. t0 the leftover of an idolater, it is said that it is impure, while it is said that it is abominable only if he drinks khamr (wine), which is Ibn al-Qasinf. opinion. The same is the case for him of all animals that do not normally avok filth, like filth-consuming wild hens, camels, and dogs.
Mzozo wao unatokana na mambo matatu. La kwanza ni mgongano wa qiyas (kulinganisha) na maana dhahiri ya Kitabu. La pili ni mgongano wake na maana ya kiuandishi ya hadithi. La tatu ni mgongano wa hadithi zenyewe kwa zenyewe.
Their disagreement is based on three points. First is the conflict of analog) with the obvious meaning of the Book. Second is its conflict with the literal meaning of the traditions. The third is the conflict of the traditions among themselves.
Hoja ya kwamba kifo kinachotokea bila kuchinjwa ndicho kisheria chanzo cha unajisi wa mzoga wa mnyama inatoa msingi wa kulinganisha kwamba uhai lazima uwe msingi wa usafi wa mwili wa mnyama. Ikiwa hivyo ndivyo, basi kila kiumbe hai ni safi, na kila kitu kilicho safi, mabaki yake pia lazima yawe safi. Maana dhahiri ya Kitabu inapingana na mlinganisho huu kwa upande wa nguruwe na washirikina, kwani Allah, Mtukufu, amesema kuhusu nguruwe, “nyama ya nguruwe, kwani hakika hiyo ni najisi”,47 na kile kilicho najisi kwa asili yake pia ni kichafu. Hivyo, kundi moja la wanazuoni wa sheria wamemtenga nguruwe peke yake miongoni mwa wanyama wote walio hai, wakati wale ambao hawamtengi wanatafsiri aya hiyo kuwa inamaanisha kuondolewa kwa hukumu hiyo kwake. Kuhusu washirikina, maneno ya Mtukufu ni, “Enyi mlioamini! Hakika washirikina ni najisi. Basi wasikaribie Msikiti Mtukufu”.48 Wale waliotafsiri hili pia kwa maana yake ya moja kwa moja wamewatoa washirikina katika maana ya mlinganisho huu, huku wale waliolichukulia kuwa ni kuondoa hukumu kwao tu wamerejesha wajibu wa kutumia mlinganisho.
The point that death resulting without slaughter is legally the cause oi impurity of the animal’s carcass provides the basis for the analogy that life must be the basis for the purity of the body of the animal. If this is the case, then each living thing is pure, and whatever is pure its leftover must also be pure. The apparent meaning of the Book opposes this analogy in the case of swine and polytheists, as Allah, the Exalted, has said about swine, “swine flesh—for that verily is foul”,47 and that which is filthy in its essence is also impure. Thus, one group of jurists have excluded only swine from all living animals, while those who do not exclude it interpret the verse to imply derogation for it. As to the polytheists, the words of the Exalted are, “0 ye who believe! The idolaters are unclean. So let them not come near the Inviolable Place of Worship”.48 Those who interpreted this too in its literal sense excluded the idolaters from the implication of the analogy, while those who considered this to be merely derogatory for them reimposed the requirement of analogy.
Hadith zilipingana na kiasi kuhusu mbwa, paka na wanyama wa kuwinda. Hadith kuhusu mbwa ni ya Abu Hurayra, ambayo imekubaliwa kuwa ni sahihi, na ni kauli ya Mtume ﷺ: "Mbwa akiilamba chombo cha mmoja wenu, na atakisafisha kwa kukiosha mara saba." Katika baadhi ya riwaya zake inasema, "Mara ya kwanza kwa mchanga," na katika nyingine, "Kifunike mara ya nane kwa mchanga."
Kuhusu paka, ni hadith iliyopokelewa na Qurra kutoka kwa Ibn Sirin kutoka kwa Abu Hurayra, aliyesema: "Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ alisema: 'Utakaso wa chombo, paka akiwa ameshakilamba, ni kukiosha mara moja au mbili.'" Qurra ni mpokezi mwaminifu kwa mujibu wa wanazuoni wa hadith.
Kuhusu wanyama wa kuwinda, ni hadith iliyotangulia ya Ibn ʿUmar kutoka kwa baba yake, aliyesema: "Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ aliulizwa kuhusu maji na kuhusu mabaki ya wanyama wa kuwinda na wanyama wengine. Akasema: 'Maji yakifikia qullah mbili, hayabebi najisi.'"
The traditions conflicted with the analogy about dogs, cats, and beasts of prey. The tradition about the dog is Abu Hurayra’s, which is agreed upon for its authenticity, and it is the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “If a dog licks a utensil belonging to one of you, he should purify it by washing it seven times”. In some of its versions it says, “The first time with dust”, and in others, “Cover it the eighth time with dust”. With respect to the cat it is the tradition related by Qurra from Ibn Sirin from Abu Hurayra, who said, “The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, ‘The purification of a utensil, when a cat has licked it, is to wash it once or twice’”. Qurra is a trustworthy narrator according to the traditionists. About the beasts of prey is the preceding tradition of Ibn ^mar from his father, who said, “that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) was asked about water and about the leftover of beasts of prey and other animals. He said, ‘If the water is more than two qullahs rt does not retain impurity’”.
Mapokezi yanayokinzana kuhusu mada hii ni hadithi ya Mtume (rehema na amani za Mwenyezi Mungu ziwe juu yake) "kwamba aliulizwa kuhusu madimbwi yaliyo kati ya Makka na Madina ambayo hutembelewa na mbwa na wanyama wa porini. Alisema: 'Kwao ni kile wanachokibeba tumboni mwao, na kwenu ni kile kilichobaki, kinywaji kilicho safi.'" Sawa na hii ni hadithi ya Tjmar, iliyosimuliwa na Malik katika kitabu chake, ambayo ni kauli: "Ee mmiliki wa dimbwi, usitujulishe, kwani sisi tunawafuatilia wanyama wa porini nao hutufuatilia." Zaidi ya hapo, kuna hadithi ya Qatada, pia iliyosimuliwa na Malik, "kwamba Kabsha alimimina maji kwa ajili ya udhu wake, paka akaja kunywa kutoka humo. Alikiinamisha chombo kwa ajili yake mpaka akanywa. Kisha akasema: 'Mtume wa Mwenyezi Mungu (rehema na amani za Mwenyezi Mungu ziwe juu yake) alisema kwamba hana najisi. Ni miongoni mwa viumbe vinavyotembea kati yenu.'" Wanazuoni walitofautiana kuhusu tafsiri ya hadithi hizi na kuhusu namna ya kuzipatanisha na kipimo cha kulinganisha kilichotajwa.
A conflicting tradition in this topic is the report from the Prophet (Gods peace and blessings be upon him) “that he was asked about the ponds between Mecca and Medina frequented by dogs and beasts of prey. He said, ‘To them belongs what they carry in their bellies, and for you is what is left, a drink that is pure’ ”. Similar to this is TJmar’s tradition that was related by Malik in his which is the saying, “O owner of the pond, let’s know not, for we follow up the beasts of prey arid they follow us”. Further, there is the tradition of Qatada, also related by Malik, “that Kabsha poured out water for his ablution and a cat came to drink from it. He tilted the utensil for it until it drank from it. He then said, ‘The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said that it is not unclean. It is one of those (creatures) that move among you’”. The jurists differed about the interpretation of these traditions and about their reconciliation with the stated analogy.
Malik alisema kwamba mabaki ya mbwa yanamwagwa na chombo kinaoshwa, kwa kuwa hilo ni tendo la ibada ya kutaabbudu lisilotegemea akili, kwani maji aliyoyalamba mbwa si najisi. Kwa mujibu wa msimamo unaojulikana sana kutoka kwake, hakuhitaji kumwagwa kwa vitu vingine isipokuwa maji ambayo mbwa ameyalamba. Sababu, kama tulivyosema, ni kwamba jambo hili linapingana na qiyas kwa mujibu wake. Pia aliamini kwamba iwapo ingeeleweka kutoka katika hadithi kwamba mbwa ni najisi, basi hilo lingepingana na maana ya dhahiri ya Kitabu, yaani kauli ya Aliyetukuka: "Basi kuleni katika vile wanavyowakamatia",49 maana yake ni kwamba iwapo mbwa angekuwa najisi, mawindo yangekuwa najisi kwa kugusa kwake. Alithibitisha tafsiri hii kwa idadi ya kuosha inayohitajika, kwa kuwa idadi haina sharti katika kuosha vitu najisi. Alishikilia kwamba kuosha huku ni tendo la ibada tu. Hakutegemea hadithi nyingine zilizobaki kwa kuwa, kwa mtazamo wake, zilikuwa dhaifu.
Malik held the view that the leftover of a dog is to be spilled and the utensil is to be washed, as it is a ritual act of non-rational worship, for the water it has lapped up is not unclean. He did not require, according to the widely known opinion from him, the spilling of things other than water, which a dog had licked. The reason, as we have said, is the conflict with analogy according to him. He also believed that if it is to be understood from the tradition that a dog is unclean, it opposes the apparent meaning of the Book, that is, the words of the Exalted, “So eat of what they catch for you”,49 meaning thereby that if it had been unclean the prey would have become unclean by its touch. He supported this interpretation by the required number of washings, as number ,s not a condition in the washing of unclean things. He held that this washing is merely an act of worship. He did not rely on the remaining traditions as they were weak in his view.
Al-Shafi'i alitenga mbwa peke yake na kuwatoa katika wanyama wote walio hai, akishikilia kwamba maana ya wazi ya hadithi inaonyesha unajisi wa mabaki yake. Yeye pia alidhani, kwa maoni yangu, kwamba unajisi uko katika mate yake na si katika mbwa mwenyewe. Abu Hanifa aliamini kwamba maana ya hadithi zote hizi zilizowekwa kuhusu unajisi wa mabaki ya wanyama wawindaji, paka, na mbwa inahusiana na katazo la nyama yao (kwa ajili ya kula). Hii inahusu kanuni ya maana maalum iliyokusudiwa kwa ujumla. Alisema kwamba mabaki hutegemea hukmu ya nyama ya mnyama huyo.
Al~Shafi T excluded the dog alone from all living animals maintaining that c the literal meaning of the tradition implies the impurity of its leftover. He e d, I think, that the uhcleanliness lies in its saliva and not in the dog itself, u HanTfa believed that the meaning of all these traditions laid down about e Uncleanliness of the leftover of beasts of prey, cats, and dogs relates to the Prohibition of their flesh (for eating). This pertains to the rule of a particular yeaning intended generally. He said that the leftovers are dependent upon the . ukm of the) flesh of the animal.
Baadhi ya wanazuoni wa fiqhi walitoa mbwa, paka, na wanyama wa kuwinda kutoka katika hukumu hii, kwa kuzingatia hadithi zilizohusiana na jambo hilo, ilhali wengine waliona kuwa mabaki ya mbwa na paka ni safi, wakitoa tu mnyama wa kuwinda. (Wao wanasema kwamba mabaki ya mbwa ni najisi) kwa sababu ya idadi ya kuoshwa, kwa kuwa hilo linapingana na maana dhahiri ya Kitabu, na pia kwa sababu linapingana na hadithi ya Qatadah. Ikiwa sababu ya msingi ya usafi wa paka ni kuzunguka kwake miongoni mwa watu, basi mbwa naye hufanya hivyo. Kuhusu paka, (wao walitangaza kuwa ni safi) kwa kuamua kupendelea hadithi ya Abu Qatada kuliko hadithi ya Qurra kutoka kwa Ibn Sirin, na kwa kupendelea hadithi ya Ibn ‘Umar kuliko ile ya ‘Umar na wengine wanaotoa maana hiyo hiyo, kwa sababu inapingana na hadithi ya Abu Qatada kupitia dalili ya kimaandishi isiyo ya moja kwa moja, yaani, pale sababu ya msingi ya usafi wa paka ni kuzunguka kwake miongoni mwa watu; kutokana na hilo inaeleweka kwamba mabaki ya wale (wanyama) ambao hawazunguki miongoni mwa watu, yaani wanyama wa kuwinda, ni marufuku. Miongoni mwa waliokuwa na maoni haya ni Ibn al-Qasim.
0T ne jurists excluded from this a dog, cat, and beast of prey in conformity left ^tera^ mean* S of the related traditions, while some deemed the n over of the dog and cat as pure, excluding only the beast of prey. (They are d clean) the leftover of the dog (considered unclean) because of the number of washings, as that is opposed by the obvious meaning of the Book, and also because of its conflict with Qatadah’s tradition; if the underlying reason for the cleanliness of the cat is its moving around among people, then the dog does so too. With respect to the cat, (they declared it clean) by deciding to prefer Abu Qatada’s tradition over the tradition of Qurra from Ibn Sirin, and by preferring Ibn ‘Umar’s tradition over that of ‘Umar and of others that convey the same meaning, because of its conflict with Abu Qatada’s tradition through the (indirect) indication of the text, that is, when the underlying reason for the cleanliness of the cat is its moving among people; it is to be understood from that that the leftovers of those (beasts) that do not move among people, namely the beasts of prey, is prohibited. Among those who held this opinion is Ibn al-Qasim.
Abu Hanifa alishikilia, kama tulivyosema, kwamba mabaki ya mbwa ni najisi, lakini hakuona idadi (ya kuosha) kuwa ni sharti la kutakasa chombo ambacho mbwa amekilamba, kwa sababu hilo linapingwa, kwa mtazamo wake, na kipimo cha qiyas kinachotokana na kuosha vitu najisi; yaani jambo linalozingatiwa hapa ni kuondoa uchafu peke yake. Hii inaendana na mazoea yake ya kukataa hadithi moja moja pale zinapopingana na kanuni za jumla.
Abu HanTfa upheld, as we have said, the uncleanliness of the leftover of a dog, and did not deem the number to be a condition for the purification of the utensil licked by the dog, as this is opposed, in his view, by analogy arising from the washing of unclean things, that is the point considered here is the removal of the filth alone. This conforms with his practice of rejecting individual narrations when they are opposed to the principles.
Qadhi (Ibn Rushd) alisema, "Basi alitumia baadhi ya Hadithi na hakutumia nyingine; yaani, alitumia zile ambazo hazikupingana na kanuni, na hakutumia zile zilizogongana na kanuni. Aliunga mkono hili kwa dai kwamba huu ndio mtazamo wa Abu Hurayra, ambaye ndiye aliyesimulia Hadithi hiyo. Hizi, basi, ndizo sababu zilizowafanya fuqaha* watofautiane sana katika suala hili na kuvutana juu ya maana zake. Suala hili ni la ijtihadi, na ni vigumu kupendelea baadhi ya maoni kuliko mengine. Pengine, ni bora kutenga na usafi wa mabaki ya chakula yale ya mbwa, nguruwe, na mshirikina, kwa sababu ya usahihi wa Hadithi kuhusu mbwa, na pia kwa sababu ni bora kufuata maana dhahiri ya Kitabu, badala ya kiyas, katika kudumisha unajisi wa mabaki ya nguruwe na washirikina; vivyo hivyo, maana dhahiri ya Hadithi. Hii ndiyo rai ya wengi wa fuqaha*, yaani, kudumisha unajisi wa mabaki ya mbwa. Amri ya kumwaga kile kilicholambwa na mbwa imejengwa juu ya ikhala (kuridhika kwa hoja: mukhil) na inaendana (munasib) na sheria, kwa sababu ya unajisi wa maji yaliyoguswa; yaani, kwamba mwelekeo wa kawaida wa sheria katika kuamuru kumwaga kitu na kuosha chombo kwa kawaida ni kwa sababu ya unajisi wa kitu hicho." Kuhusu pingamizi walilotoa kwamba, lau hili lingekuwa kwa sababu ya unajisi wa kitu chenyewe, idadi ya kuosha isingewekwa, haiwezekani kukanusha kwamba sheria inaweza kuteua aina fulani ya uchafu kutoka nyingine na kuipa hukmu tofauti, kwa sababu ya ukali wa uchafuzi.
Qadhi (Ibn Rushd) alisema: "Babu yangu, Allah amrehemu, alihukumu katika kitabu al-Muqaddimat kwamba hadithi hii ina sababu ya kiakili iliyo msingi, ambayo haihusiani na unajisi, bali inategemea uwezekano kwamba mbwa anayelamba chombo ana kichaa cha mbwa, na maambukizi ya virusi yanapaswa kuogopwa. Alisema kwamba ndiyo sababu idadi hii ya saba imewekwa kwa ajili ya kuosha chombo hicho. Idadi hii imetumika mara nyingi katika sheria kuhusiana na matibabu na dawa za magonjwa." Alichokieleza, Allah amrehemu, ni mtazamo bora unaoendana na mbinu ya Malikiyya. Ikiwa tutasema kwamba maji haya si najisi, ni bora kutoa sababu ya kiakili iliyo msingi kuliko kusema kwamba ni jambo lisilo la kiakili wakati maji yenyewe ni safi.
Watu fulani walitoa pingamizi kwa hili, kwa mujibu wa yale yaliyonifikia, wakisema kwamba mbwa mwenye kichaa cha mbwa haendi karibu na maji anapokuwa na ugonjwa wa kuogopa maji. Walichosema ni kweli wakati ugonjwa huu wa mbwa umefikia hatua kali, lakini si hivyo wakati uko katika hatua zake za mwanzo. Pingamizi lao, basi, halina msingi. Zaidi ya hayo, hadithi hii haisemi juu ya maji, bali chombo tu ndicho kilichotajwa. Huenda kuna katika mabaki yake sifa fulani ya kudhuru, namaanisha, kabla kichaa cha mbwa hakijafikia hatua kali zaidi. Maagizo ya aina hii katika sheria hayawezi kukanushwa. Ya namna hiyo ni hadithi kuhusu nzi kuanguka kwenye chakula, kwamba inapaswa kuzamishwa kabisa (kisha kutupwa). Sababu ya msingi ni kwamba kuna ugonjwa katika moja ya mabawa yake, wakati katika jingine kuna dawa yake ya kupinga:
The QadT (Ibn Rushd) said, “He thus used a part of the traditions and did not employ others; I mean, he used those that did not conflict with the principles, and did not use those that clashed with the principles. He supported this with the assertion that this was the opinion of Abu Hurayra, who had narrated the tradition. These, then, are the factors that moved the fuqaha* to have such extensive disagreements on this issue and led them to dispute their implications. The issue is ratiocinative (ijtihddiya) and it is difficult to prefer some opinions over others. Perhaps, it is preferable to exclude from the purity of the leftovers those of the dog, swine, and the polytheist, because of the authenticity of the traditions about the dog, and also because it is better to adopt the obvious meaning of the Book, as against analogy, in maintaining the uncleanliness (of the leftovers) of swine and polytheists; similarly, the obvious meaning of the tradition. This is the opinion of the majority of the fuqahd\ that is, maintaining the uncleanliness of the leftover of the dog. The directive of spilling of what has been licked by the dog is based on ikhdla (reasoned conviction: mukhil) and is compatible (mundsib) with the law, because of the uncleanliness of the water that has been touched, I mean, that the usual implication of the law in requiring the spilling of a thing and of washing the utensil is usually on account of the uncleanliness of the thing. About the objection raised by them that had this been due to the uncleanliness of the thing the number of washings would not have been stipulated, it cannot be denied that the law may single out some form of pollution from others assigning it a different hukm, because of the intensity of the contamination • The Qadi (Ibn Rushd) said: “My grandfather, may Allah have mercy on him, ruled in the book al-Muqaddimdt that this tradition has a rational underlying cause, which is not related to uncleanliness, but is based on the likelihood that the dog licking the utensil is rabid, and the [viral] infection is to be feared. He said that it is for this reason that this number of seven has been laid down for its washing. This number has been used on many occasions in the law in relation to the treatment and medication for illnesses. What he expressed, may Allah have mercy on him, is an outstanding view conforming with the method of the Malikites. If we say that this water is not unclean, it is better to provide a rational underlying reason rather than saying that it is non- rational when water in itself is clean. Some people raised an* objection to this, according to what has reached me, saying that a rabid dog does not go near water when it has hydrophobia. What they said is true when this canine illness has reached serious proportions, but it is not so when it is in its early stages. Their objection, therefore, has no foundation. Further, the tradition does not talk about water, and only the utensil has been mentioned. Perhaps, there is in its leftover some characteristic of a harmful nature, I mean, before rabies has reached more serious proportions. Such prescriptions in the law cannot be denied. Of a similar nature is the tradition about a fly falling on food, that it is to be immersed completely (and then thrown out). The underlying reason is that there is a disease in one of its wings, while in the other there is its antidote:
Maoni ya madhehebu ya Malik kwamba rejeo lililo katika hadithi kuhusu kulamba kwa mbwa linahusu tu mbwa ambaye kumfuga kama kipenzi ni haramu, au kwamba ni mbwa wa mitaani, ni dhaifu na liko mbali na sababu hii, isipokuwa mdai angesema kwamba kwa hili kinachokusudiwa ni katazo la kumzuia [kama kipenzi].
The opinion in Malik’s school that the reference in the tradition concerning the dog’s licking relates only to a dog whose taking as a pet is forbidden, or that it is a street dog, is weak and remote from this cause, unless the claimant w ere to say that by this is meant a proscription of its restraining [as a pet]”.