Mada hii imeelezwa kwa kina katika sura saba. Sura ya kwanza inahusu kubainisha utakaso ambao utakaso huu unakuwa badala yake. Sura ya pili inahusu mtu ambaye aina hii ya utakaso inaruhusiwa kwake. Sura ya tatu inahusu masharti ya kuruhusiwa kwa utakaso huu. Sura ya nne inahusu maelezo ya utakaso huu. Sura ya tano inahusu kitu ambacho kwacho utakaso huu hufanywa. Sura ya sita inahusu mambo yanayobatilisha utakaso huu. Sura ya saba inahusu vitendo ambavyo kwa usahihi na kuruhusiwa kwake utakaso huu ni sharti.

A comprehensive discussion of the principles of this subject is covered in seven chapters. The first chapter relates to the identification of the purification for which this purification forms a substitute. The second chapter is about the person to whom this form of purification is permitted. The third chapter is about the conditions for the permissibility of this purification. Chapter four is about the description of this purification. Chapter five relates to the thing with which this purification is performed. The sixth chapter is about factors nullifying it. Chapter seven is about acts for the validity and permissibility of which this purification is a condition.

Wanafikihi walikubaliana kuwa utakaso huu ni mbadala wa utakaso mdogo (sughra), yaani wudhuu, lakini walitofautiana kuhusu utakaso mkubwa (kubra). Imepokewa kutoka kwa Umar na Ibn Mas'ud kwamba hawakuuona kuwa ni mbadala wa utakaso mkubwa. Ali na Maswahaba wengine walishikilia kuwa tayammum ni mbadala wa utakaso mkubwa, ambao ndio msimamo uliokubaliwa na wanafikihi kwa ujumla.

The jurists agreed that this purification is a substitute for minor (sughra) Purification (i.e. wudi?), but they differed about major purification (kubra). It is related from TJmar and Ibn Mas ud that c they did not view it as a substitute for major purification. A1T and other Companions maintained that tayammum is a C substitute for major purification, which was the view adopted by jurists generally.

Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao ni uwezekano wa tafsiri tofauti za aya hiyo, na ukweli kwamba hadithi kuhusu tayammum kwa mtu aliye na janaba (hadath kubwa) hazikuthibitika kuwa sahihi kwa mtazamo wao. Kuhusu tafsiri tofauti za aya ya tayammum, inawezekana kwamba anayeelekezwa kwa maneno ya Mwenyezi Mungu Mtukufu, "Wala hamkupata maji, basi tayammamuni udongo safi mkapake nyuso zenu na mikono yenu (kwa udongo huo)",70 ni yule tu aliye na hadath ndogo, na pia inawezekana kwamba inamwelekea wote wawili. Kwa wale ambao neno "kugusa", katika maneno ya Mwenyezi Mungu Mtukufu, "Au mmewagusa wanawake", linamaanisha tendo la ndoa, kiwakilishi kinarejelea wote wawili. Kwa wale ambao linamaanisha kugusa kwa mkono, ni uwezekano zaidi kwamba anayeelekezwa ni mtu aliye na hadath ndogo. Hii ni kwa sababu viwakilishi kwa kawaida hurejelea kitu kilichotajwa mwisho. (Aya haiwezi kuwa na uwezekano mmoja) isipokuwa ikiwa imechukuliwa kwamba kuna usomaji wenye mpangilio uliobadilishwa katika aya, ili isomeke: "Enyi mlioamini! Mnapoinuka kwenda kwenye swala, au mmoja wenu ametoka chooni, au mmewagusa wanawake, osheni nyuso zenu, na mikono yenu hadi viwiko, na mpake vichwa vyenu kidogo na [oshweni] miguu yenu hadi vifundo. Na mkiwa junub, jitakaseni [oga], na mkiwa wagonjwa au safarini, au mmoja wenu amekuja kutoka chooni, au mmewagusa wanawake, msipate maji, basi tayammamuni udongo safi, mkapake nyuso zenu na mikono yenu kwa sehemu yake". Usomaji wa namna hii unaodhaniwa hauruhusiwi, isipokuwa kwa msingi wa dalili, kwa kuwa usomaji unaodhaniwa ni wa kimajazi, na ni bora kusoma matini kwa maana yake halisi badala ya kuifasiri kimajazi. Inaweza kusemwa kwamba kuna sababu inayolazimu kudhani mpangilio uliobadilishwa; yaani kwamba mpangilio wake wa sasa unaashiria kwamba ugonjwa na safari ni sababu za hadath. Lakini hili si kweli, ikiwa kiunganishi "au" (aw) kitazingatiwa hapa kwa maana ya "na", kama kinavyotumika katika lugha ya Waarabu. Hii ni moja ya sababu zilizopelekea kutokea kwa mzozo kuhusu suala hilo.

The reason for their disagreement kis the likelihood of different uiterpretations of the verse for and that the traditions about tayawmam for a person involved in jandba (the major hadath) did not prove to ke authentic in their view. With respect to the different interpretations of the v erse of tayammum, it is possible that the addressee in the words of the Exalted, “And ye find not water, then go to high clean soil and rub your faces and your hands (therewith)”,70 is just the person who has acquired a minor hadath y and it is also possible that it is addressed to both. Those for whom the term “touching”, in the words of the Exalted, “Or ye have touched women”, means copulation, the pronoun refers to both. Those for whom it means touching with the hand, it is more likely that the addressee is the person with a minor hadath. This is because the pronouns usually refer to the last mentioned thing. (The verse cannot have one possibility) unless a reading with a rearranged order in the verse is assumed, so that it is read as: “O ye who believe! When ye rise up for prayer, or one of you has come from the closet, or you have touched women, wash your faces, and your hands up to the elbows, and lightly rub your heads and [wash] your feet up to the ankles. And if ye are junub purify [bathe] yourself, and if ye are sick or on a journey, and ye find not water, then go to clean, high ground and rub your faces and your hands with some of it”. Such an assumed reading is not allowed, except on the basis of an evidence, because an assumed reading is figurative, and it is better to read the text in its actual connotation instead of interpreting it figuratively. It may be said that there is a reason that necessitates the assumption of rearrangement; namely that its present order implies that illness and journey are causes of hadath. Yet this is not the case, if the conjunction “or” (aw), is considered here in the meaning of “and” which is found in the usage of the Arabs. This is one of the reasons that led to a disagreement over the issue.

Wanafikihi walikubaliana kwa kauli moja kwamba watu wanaoruhusiwa kufanya utakaso huu ni wa aina mbili: mgonjwa na msafiri, pale maji yanapokosekana. Walitofautiana kuhusu aina nyingine nne: mgonjwa anayeweza kupata maji lakini anaogopa kuyatumia; mkazi asiye na maji; msafiri mwenye afya anayeweza kupata maji lakini hofu inamzuia kuyafikia; na mtu anayeogopa kutumia maji kwa sababu ya baridi kali. Kuhusu mgonjwa (marid) anayeweza kupata maji lakini anaogopa kuyatumia, wengi walisema kwamba tayammum inaruhusiwa kwake. Vivyo hivyo, kwa mtu mwenye afya anayehofia kifo au ugonjwa mkali kutokana na ubaridi mkali wa maji, na kwa mtu anayeogopa kutoka nje na kufikia maji. Hata hivyo, wanazuoni wengi wanaona kuwa ni wajibu kwake kurudia sala pindi atakapopata maji. Al-Awzai alishikilia kwamba mgonjwa pamoja na mtu mwenye afya ambaye anapata maji hawaruhusiwi kufanya tayammum. Malik na al-Shafi'i walithibitisha kuruhusiwa kwa tayammum kwa mkazi mwenye afya asiye na maji. Abu Hanifa alisema kwamba tayammum hairuhusiwi kwa mkazi mwenye afya, hata kama maji hayapatikani.

The jurists agreed unanimously that the persons permitted to undertake this purification are of two types: the sick and the traveller, when there is a lack of water. They disagreed about four other types: the sick person who can find water, but is afraid to use it; the resident who has no water; the healthy traveller who can find water, but fear prevents him from reaching it; and the Person who is afraid to use water due to extreme cold. About the marid (sick person) who can find water, but is afraid to use it, the majority said that tayammum is permitted to him; similarly, in the case of the healthy person who fears death or severe illness because of the extreme coldness of water, and the person who is afraid to go out and reach the water, except that most of the jurists consider it obligatory for him to repeat prayers when he finds water. CA^ maintained that sick as well as the healthy persons who find water are not permitted to perform tayammum. Malik and al-ShafiT upheld the permissibility of tayammum for the healthy resident who lacks water. Abu Hanifa said that tayammum is not permitted for the healthy resident, even if there is a lack of water.

Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao kuhusu masuala haya manne ndiyo msingi wa sura hii. Kuhusu mgonjwa ambaye anaogopa kutumia maji, kutofautiana kwao kunahusu kama kuna neno lililodokezwa la ziada katika aya, yaani katika maneno ya Aliyetukuka: "Na mkiwa wagonjwa au safarini". Wale waliosema kwamba kuna nyongeza kama hiyo iliyodokezwa, na kwamba maana ya maandishi ni: "Na mkiwa wagonjwa, msiweze kutumia maji", na kwamba kiwakilishi "mkiwa" katika maneno ya Aliyetukuka: "wala hamkuona maji", kinamrejelea msafiri peke yake, waliruhusu tayammum kwa mgonjwa anayeogopa kutumia maji. Wale waliosema kwamba kiwakilishi katika "wala hamkuona maji" kinamrejelea mgonjwa pamoja na msafiri, na kwamba hakuna nyongeza iliyodokezwa katika aya, hawakumruhusu mgonjwa kufanya tayammum ikiwa anaweza kupata maji.

Uamuzi wa masharti ya aina hii ya utakaso unahusu mambo matatu, ambayo ni kama misingi. Kwanza, je, niya ni sharti la utakaso huu? Pili, je, kutafuta maji, pale yanapokosekana, ni sharti la kuruhusiwa kwa utakaso huu? Tatu, je, kuwadia kwa wakati (wa sala) ni sharti la kusihi kwa tayammum?

^The identification of the conditions of this type of purification relates to three issues, which are like principles. First, whether intention is a condition for this purification? Second, whether searching for water, when it is lacking, is a condition for the permissibility of this purification? Third, whether the advent of the time (of prayer) is a condition for the validity of tayammum.

Wengi wanashikilia kuwa niya ni sharti la tayammum, kwa sababu ni ibada ya kiibada isiyo ya kiakili. Zufar alipingana, akisema kuwa niya si moja ya masharti yake, na hakuna haja ya niya. Hili pia limepokewa kutoka kwa al-Awzaa'i na al-Hasan ibn Hayy, lakini dai hilo ni dhaifu.

The majority maintain that intention is a condition for tayammum, because it is a ritual non-rational worship. Zufar deviated saying that intention is not one of its conditions, and there is no need for intention. This is also related from al- AwzaT and al-Hasan ibn Hayy, but the claim is weak.

Malik, Allah awe radhiya, aliweka sharti la kutafuta maji (ili kuthibitisha kutokuwepo kwake kabla ya kuhamia tayammum), kama alivyofanya al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifa hakuweka sharti hili. Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao katika jambo hili ni kama mtu asiyetafuta maji kabla ya kutumia tayammum anaweza kuitwa mtu asiye na maji, au kama mtu asiye na maji ni yule aliyetafuta lakini hakuyapata? Ukweli ni kwamba mtu aliyehakikishiwa kutokuwepo kwa maji, iwe kwa kutafuta kabla (bila mafanikio) au bila kutafuta, ni mtu asiye na maji. Lakini mtu anayetenda kwa matakwa yake tu hawezi kuitwa mtu asiye na maji. Kwa sababu hii, msimamo wa madhehebu unaotaka kutafuta tena mahali pale pale unachukuliwa kuwa dhaifu, wakati msimamo unaoweka sharti la kutafuta mwanzoni, pale ambapo hakuna taarifa za kuaminika kuhusu kukosekana kwa maji, unachukuliwa kuwa imara.

Malik, may Allah be pleased with him, stipulated the seeking of water (to ascertain non-availability prior to shifting to tayammum), as did al~Shafi(i. Abu HanTfa did not lay down this condition. The reason for their disagreement over this is whether the person who does not find water without seeking it can be termed as one who lacks water, or whether the person lacking water is one who has sought it but could not find it? The truth is that the person convinced about a lack of water, either due to a prior (unsuccessful) search or without it, 1S one who lacks water. The person acting merely on his whim, however, carmot be one who lacks water. It is for this reason that the opinion in the school requiring repeated search in the same location is deemed weak, whereas the opinion stipulating initial search, when there is no convincing information about lack of water is deemed strong.

Baadhi ya wanazuoni wa fiqhi walishurutisha hili, ambalo ndilo maoni ya Al-Shaf'i na Malik, huku wengine wasilishurutisha, ambalo ndilo maoni ya Abu Hanifa, Al-Dhahiriyya, na Ibn Shahan miongoni mwa wanafunzi wa Malik.

Some of the jurists stipulated this, which is the opinion of ai-Shaf?T and Malik, while others did not, which is the opinion of Abu HanTfa, the Zahirites, an d Ibn Shahan from among the disciples of Malik.

Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao ni kama maana ya wazi ya Aya ya wudhuu inamaanisha kuwa tayammum na wudhuu hazijuzu, isipokuwa wakati wa sala umefika, kama kauli ya Mwenye Enzi: "Enyi mlioamini! Mnapoinuka kwenda kusali..."73 Hivyo, wao wameifanya wudhuu na tayammum kuwa wajibu wakati wa kuinuka kwa sala, ambao hutokea wakati wa sala umefika. Kwa hivyo, hukmu ya wudhuu na tayammum hapa ni sawa na hukmu ya sala, yaani kama vile wakati ulivyo sharti la kusihi kwa sala, vivyo hivyo wakati ni sharti la kusihi kwa wudhuu na tayammum. Hata hivyo, Shari'a imeweka msamaha katika suala la wudhuu. Je, basi tayammum inabaki na hukmu ya awali, au hili si maana ya wazi inayotokana na Aya na kauli ya Mwenye Enzi, "Enyi mlioamini! Mnapoinuka kwenda kusali..."? Yaani, je, ni "Mnapokusudia kufanya sala"? Zaidi ya hayo, hata kama hakuna dhana ya maana iliyofichika katika Aya, maana pekee itakayopatikana ni kwamba wajibu wa wudhuu na tayammum unakuwa wa lazima wakati wa wajibu wa sala, si kwamba kutekeleza wudhuu kabla ya wakati wa sala ni batili, isipokuwa hukmu hiyo imejengwa juu ya kulinganisha na kufanya sala kabla ya wakati wake. Katika hali kama hiyo, itakuwa bora kusema kwamba sababu ya kutofautiana katika hili ni kulinganisha tayammum na sala, lakini hoja hiyo ni dhaifu kwa sababu kulinganisha kwake na wudhuu kungekuwa bora zaidi. Hili ni suala dhaifu, kwa hiyo fikiria kwa makini, yaani wale wanaoweka sharti la kuwasili kwa wakati wa sala ili sala isihi, na wanaoifanya kuwa ibada iliyofungwa na wakati.

The reason for their disagreement is whether the apparent meaning of the Verse of ablution implies that tayammum and wudu> are not permitted, except when it is time for prayer, as in the words of the Exalted, “O ye who believe! When ye rise up for prayer .. .”73 Thus, they made wudu> and tayammum obligatory at the time of rising up for prayer, which occurs when it is time for prayer. It follows from this that the hukm of wudt? and tayammum here is the same as the hukm for salah, that is just as time is. a condition for the validity of prayer so, similarly, time is a condition for the validity of wudi? and tayammum. The shar* however has made an exemption in the case of ablution. Does tayammum then retain the original rule, or is this not an apparent implication of the verse and the words of the Exalted, “O ye who believe! When ye rise up for prayer ... mean, “When ye resolve to undertake prayers?” Further, even if there is no assumption of an implied meaning in the verse, the only implication would be that the obligation of ablution and tayammum becomes due at the time of obligation of prayer, not that performance of wudfi and before the time of prayer is invalid, unless the rule is based upon the analogy of observing prayer before its time. In such a case, it would be preferable to say that the reason for disagreement in this is the analogy of tayammum upon prayer, but it is weak because its analogy upon wudi? would be better. This is a weak issue, so think over it, that is those who stipulate the advent of the time of prayer for its validity and render it a form of worship bound by time.

Kwa maelezo ya aina hii ya utakaso, inahusiana na mambo matatu, {ambayo ndiyo misingi ya sura hii.

to the description of this form of purification, it relates to three issues, {which are the principles of this chapter.

Wanazuoni walikuwa na maoni manne tofauti kuhusu kiwango cha mikono ambayo Allah {ameamuru watu wapake katika kauli yake, "Na msipopata maji, basi nendeni kwenye ardhi safi na paketeni nyuso zenu na mikono yenu kwa sehemu yake"}.75 Kwanza, kwamba kikomo kilichowekwa kwa hili ni sawa na kikomo cha wudhuu yenyewe, ambacho ni hadi kwenye viwiko. Hili ndilo maoni yanayojulikana sana katika madhehebu, na linashikiliwa na wanazuoni wa mikoani. Pili, wajibu ni kupaka kiganja cha mkono tu, na hili linashikiliwa na Ahl al-Zahir na wanahadith. Tatu, kwamba ni sunna kupaka hadi kwenye viwiko, lakini wajibu ni kupaka viganja vya mikono. Hili limepokewa kutoka kwa Malik. Maoni ya nne ni kwamba wajibu unafika hadi kwenye bega. Hili ni maoni potofu na limepokewa kutoka kwa al-Zuhri na Muhammad ibn Maslama.

The jurists had four different opinions about the extent of the hands that Allah {has commanded people to rub in His words, “And ye find not water, then go clean, high ground and rub your faces and your hands with some of it”.75 First, that the prescribed limit for this is the same as the limit in wudu> itself, which is up to the elbows. This is the widely known opinion in the school, and is upheld by the jurists of the provinces. Second, the obligation is to rub the palm of the hand only and this is maintained by the Ahl abZahir and the fraditionists. Third, that it is recommended up to the elbows, but the obligation is (to rub) the palms of the hands. This is related from Malik. The fourth opinion is that the obligation extends up to the shoulder. This is a deviant opinion and has been related from al-ZuhrT and Muhammad ibn Masalma.

Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao inatokana na utata wa neno "yadd" katika lugha ya Waarabu. Hii ni kwa sababu neno "yadd" katika lugha ya Waarabu hutumika kwa maana tatu: mkono peke yake, ambayo ndiyo matumizi ya msingi; mkono na kiganja cha mkono (kiwiko cha chini); na mkono, kiganja cha mkono na sehemu ya juu ya mkono. Sababu ya pili inatokana na kugongana kwa hadithi husika. Hadithi maarufu ya Ammar, katika njia zake mbalimbali zilizothibitishwa, inasema: "Ingekutosha kupiga kwa mkono wako, kisha kuyapepesa, kisha kupangusa uso wako (kwayo) na mikono yako." Katika baadhi ya toleo imeelezwa kwamba Mtume ﷺ alisema: "Kisha kupangusa mikono yako hadi viwiko." Pia imepokewa kutoka kwa Ibn Umar kwamba Mtume ﷺ alisema: "(Tayammum) inajumuisha mapigo mawili: pigo moja kwa uso, na pigo jingine kwa mikono hadi viwiko." Hii pia imepokewa kupitia Ibn Abbas na wapokezi wengine.

H The reason for their disagreement stems from the equivocality of the term yadd’’' in the language of the Arabs. This is so as the term “yadd’, in the language of the Arabs is used in three meanings: the hand only, which Provides the primary use; the hand and the forearm; the hand, forearm, and upper arm. The second reason arises from the conflict of relevant traditions, be widely known tradition of Ammar, in its various established channels, c f ■ Sa ys, “It would have been enough for you to stroke with your hand, then shake !* off them, and rub your face (with them) and your hands”. In some versions Is stated that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, nd that you rub your hands up to the elbows”. It is also related from Ibn u 0131 ^t the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, consists of two strokes: a stroke for the face, and another for the n us, up to the elbows”. This is also related through Ibn Abbas and other c barrators.

Wanazuoni wa fiqhi walitofautiana kuhusu idadi ya mara ardhi inapaswa kupigwa kwa ajili ya tayammum. Baadhi yao walisema ni mara moja, wengine wakasema ni mara mbili. Wale waliosema ni mara mbili ni pamoja na baadhi waliosema kwamba pigo moja ni kwa ajili ya uso na pigo moja kwa ajili ya mikono. Hawa ndio wengi. Ninaposema "wengi", basi wanazuoni watatu wakuu wamo miongoni mwao, yaani Malik, al-Shafi'i, na Abu Hanifa. Baadhi yao walisema kwamba kuna mapigo mawili kwa kila kimoja, yaani mapigo mawili kwa mikono na mapigo mawili kwa uso.

The jurists disagreed about the number of times the earth is to be struck for the purpose of tayammum. Some of them said it is once, while others said that it is twice. Those who said that it is twice include some who said that one stroke is for. the face and one for the hands. These are the majority. When I say “majority”, then the three (leading) jurists are counted among them, that is, Malik, al-Shafi T, and Abu HanTfa. Some c of them said that there are two strokes for each of them, that is two strokes for the hands and two strokes for the face.

Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao ni kwamba aya haitoi maelezo kuhusu jambo hili, na hadithi zinakinzana, huku kulinganisha tayammum na wudhuu katika matukio yake yote hakukubaliwi. Kilichosemwa na hadithi iliyothibiti kutoka kwa ‘Ammar kuhusu jambo hili ni pigo moja kwa uso na mikono, lakini kuna hadithi ambazo zinaeleza kuwa inatakiwa kufanywa mara mbili. Wengi wamezipendelea hadithi hizi kwa msingi wa kulinganisha tayammum na wudhuu.

The reason for their disagreement is that the verse gives no details about this, and the traditions are in conflict, while the analogy of wudi? tayammum in all its instances is not agreed upon. What is stated by the established tradition of ‘Ammar about this is one stroke both for the face and the hands, but there are traditions in which it is required twice. The majority preferred these traditions on the basis of analogy of ablution for tayammum.

Al-Shafi'i alitofautiana na Malik, Abu Hanifa, na wengine kuhusu wajibu wa udongo kufika kwenye viungo vinavyokusudiwa katika tayammum. Abu Hanifa hakuliona hili kuwa la wajib, wala Malik, lakini al-Shafi'i alilishikilia kuwa ni wajib.

Al-Shafi T* disagreed with Malik, Abu HanTfa, and others about <- the obligation of the earth reaching the limbs that are the object of tayammum. Abu HanTfa did not' consider this as obligatory, nor did Malik, but al-Shafi T upheld it as c obligatory.

Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao ni utata uliopo katika neno "min" katika maneno ya Mwenye Enzi, "Na pakeni nyuso zenu na mikono yenu kwa baadhi yake (wwta)".76 Hii ni kwa sababu neno "min" wakati mwingine hutumika kuonyesha sehemu, na wakati mwingine hutumika kutofautisha makundi. Wale waliosema kuwa limetumika hapa kuonyesha sehemu, walifanya uhamishaji wa udongo kwenda kwenye viungo vya tayammum kuwa wajibu. Wale waliodai kuwa linaonyesha utofauti wa makundi walisema kuwa kuhamisha udongo hakuna wajibu. Al-Shafi'i alipendelea tafsiri inayomaanisha sehemu kwa msingi wa kulinganisha tayammum na wudhuu', lakini hili linapingwa na hadithi ya 'Ammar iliyotangulia, kwani ina maneno, "kisha yapulize", pamoja na Mtume ﷺ kufanya tayammum ukutani.

The reason for their disagreement is the equivocality found in the word W in the words of the Exalted, “And rub your faces and your hands with some of it (wwta)”.76 This is so as the word min is sometimes used to indicate a part, while at other times it is used to make a distinction between the categories. Those who held that it has been used here to indicate a part, made the transfer of the earth to the limbs of tayammum obligatory. Those who maintained that it indicates a distinction among categories said that transferring it is not obligatory. Al-ShafiT preferred the interpretation implying a part on the basis of the analogy of ablution for tayammum, but this is opposed by the tradition of cAmmar that has preceded, for it contains the words, “then shake it off’, and also the Prophet’s performing tayammum at the wall.

Kutofautiana kwa wanazuoni wa fiqhi kuhusu wajibu wa mpangilio maalum (wa vitendo) katika tayammum, pamoja na kuhusu wajibu wa kufanya mfululizo bila kuchelewa (yaani, kusiwe na muda unaotenganisha kupangusa uso na kupangusa mikono), ni sawa kabisa na kutofautiana kwao kuhusu hayo katika udhu, na sababu za kutofautiana huko ni zile zile hapa; kwa hiyo hakuna haja ya kuzirudia.

The disagreement of the jurists about the obligation of a sequential order (of acts) in tayammum, as well as over the obligation of immediate performance (i.e. there should be no interval separating the rubbing of the face and the rubbing of the hands), is exactly the same as their disagreement about it in ablution, and the causes for disagreement there are the causes here; thus there is no point in reiterating them.

Ikiwa hakuna tofauti kuhusu uhalali wake kwa udongo safi unaoweza kulimwa, bali walitofautiana kuhusu uhalali wake kwa kile kilicho zaidi ya udongo miongoni mwa vipengele vilivyomo ardhini, kama mawe. Al-Shafi'i alishikilia kwamba tayammum haifai isipokuwa kwa udongo safi tu. Malik na wanafunzi wake walisema kwamba tayammum inafaa, kulingana na maoni yanayojulikana sana, kwa chochote kinachopatikana juu ya uso wa ardhi pamoja na vipengele vyake vyote, kama vile kokoto, mchanga na udongo. Abu Hanifa aliongeza katika hili, akisema (kwamba inafaa) kwa aina zote za vitu vigumu vinavyotolewa na ardhi, kama chokaa, arseniki, jasi, udongo wa mfinyanzi na marmar. Baadhi yao, nao ndio wengi, walishurutisha kwamba udongo lazima uwe juu ya uso wa ardhi. Ahmad ibn Hanbal alisema kwamba tayammum inaweza kufanywa kwa vumbi la nguo au la sufu.

This involves a single issue. They agreed about its validity with clean cultivable soil, but disagreed about its performance with what is besides soil from among the constituent parts found on land, like stones. Al-ShaficT held l hat tayammum is not permitted except with pure earth. Malik and his disciples tald that tayammum is permitted, according to the widely known opinion, with whatever is found upon the surface of land with all its constituents, like Pebbles, sand, and earth. Abu HanTfa added to this saying (that it is permitted) w, *h ail kinds of solid matter produced by the earth, like lime, arsenic, Eypsum, clay, and marble. Some of them, and these are the majority, stipulated that the soil must be on the surface of the earth. Ahmad ibn Hanbal said that tayammum may be performed with dust from a garment or from wool.

Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao inatokana na mambo mawili. Kwanza, ni utata wa neno sa'id katika lugha ya Waarabu, kwani wakati mwingine hutumika kwa udongo safi, na wakati mwingine kwa vitu vyote vilivyo juu ya uso wa ardhi. Hata tafsiri ya maneno yanayotokana na neno hili, sa'id, ilimfanya Malik na wanafunzi wake kuruhusu, katika moja ya riwaya, tayammum kwa nyasi na theluji; walisema kwamba hivi nazo huitwa sa'id katika matumizi ya msingi ya neno hilo, yaani kuwa juu ya uso wa ardhi, lakini hoja hii ni dhaifu.

The reason for their disagreement is based upon two factors. First, the equivocality of the term sa<id in the language of the Arabs, as it is sometimes applied to clean earth, and at other times to all the constituents on the surface of land, so much so that the interpretation of the derivatives of this term sah'd led Malik and his disciples to permit it, in one of the narrations, with grass and snow; they said that these are also called saVd in the primary use of the term, that is being upon the surface of the earth, but this argument is weak.

Sababu ya pili ni matumizi ya neno *ard* bila kuwekewa masharti kuhusu ruhusa ya kulitumia katika baadhi ya toleo za Hadith maarufu, na kuwekewa masharti katika nyingine. Ni kauli ya Mtume ﷺ: "Ardhi imefanywa kuwa msikiti kwangu, na chombo cha kutakasa." Katika baadhi ya toleo maneno "Ardhi imefanywa kuwa msikiti kwangu, na chombo cha kutakasa" yamepokewa, wakati toleo nyingine inasema: "Ardhi imefanywa kuwa msikiti kwangu, na udongo wake ni chombo cha kutakasa." Wataalamu wa elimu ya fikihi wametofautiana kuhusu kama neno lenye masharti lifasiriwe kuwa ni neno lisilo na masharti, au kinyume chake. Maoni yanayojulikana zaidi kwao ni kwamba neno lisilo na masharti lifasiriwe kwa kuzingatia lile lenye masharti, lakini jambo hili limepingwa. Maoni ya Ibn Hazm ni kwamba neno lenye masharti lifasiriwe kwa kuzingatia lisilo na masharti, kwa kuwa neno lisilo na masharti lina maana ya ziada. Wale waliofasiri neno lisilo na masharti kwa kuzingatia lile lenye masharti, na kulipa maana ya ardhi yenye udongo, hawakuruhusu tayammum isipokuwa kwa udongo. Wale waliofasiri neno lenye masharti kwa kuzingatia lisilo na masharti, na kutafsiri neno *ṣaʿīd* kuwa ni kila kilichopo juu ya uso wa ardhi, pamoja na vipengele vyake, waliruhusu tayammum kwa mchanga na mawe madogo.

Kuhusu mambo yanayobatilisha aina hii ya utakaso, wanazuoni wa fiqhi wamekubaliana kwamba tayammum hubatilishwa na mambo yanayobatilisha utakaso wa asili, ambao ni wudhuu au kuoga. Wametofautiana katika mambo mawili. Kwanza, je, nia ya kuswali sala ya faradhi nyingine isiyokuwa ile sala ya faradhi iliyokusudiwa wakati wa tayammum inaibatilisha? Pili, je, kuwepo kwa maji kunaibatilisha?

About the factors nullifying this form of purification, the jurists agreed that tayammum is invalidated by things that invalidate the original purification, which is ablution or bathing. They disagreed in this over two issues. First, does the intention of offering an obligatory prayer other than the obligatory saldh that was intended with the tayammum invalidate it? Second, whether the existence of water invalidates it?

Malik alishikilia kwamba nia ya sala ya pili hubatilisha utakaso wa sala ya kwanza. Maoni ya wengine yanapingana na hili. Msingi wa mtafaruku huu unahusu mambo mawili. Kwanza, je, katika maneno ya Mwenye Enzi, "Enyi mlioamini! Mnapoinuka kwenda kusali..", kuna maneno yaliyofichika, yaani, "mnapoamka kutoka usingizini", au "mnapoinuka mkiwa hamko katika hali ya usafi"? Wale waliosema kwamba hakuna maneno yaliyofichika walisema kwamba maana ya wazi ya aya inaonyesha wudhuu au tayammum kwa kila sala, lakini Sunnah imepunguza maana hiyo kwa upande wa wudhuu, hivyo tayammum inabaki kwa hukumu yake ya awali. Hata hivyo, hoja hii haiwezi kutumika kumtetea Malik, kwa sababu Malik anashikilia kwamba aya hiyo ina maneno yaliyofichika, kulingana na alivyopokea kutoka kwa Zayd ibn Aslam katika kitabu chake al-Muwatta.

Malik maintained that the intention of a second prayer invalidates purification for the first prayer. The views of others are opposed to this. The basis for this disagreement revolves around two things. First, whether in the words of the Exalted, “O ye who believe! When ye rise up for prayer .. ”, there is an implied text, that is, when ye arise from sleep, or when ye arise in an unclean state? Those who maintained that there is no implied text said that the apparent meaning of the verse indicates wudi? or tayammum for each prayer, but the sunna has restricted the meaning for wudu>, so tayammum retains the original rule. It cannot, however, be argued for Malik on the basis of this (argument), because Malik maintains that the verse contains an implied text, according to what he has related from Zayd ibn Aslam in his al-Muwattd*.

Sababu ya pili inatokana na kujirudia kwa amri hiyo kadiri wakati wa kila sala unavyowadia. Hili ndilo linalofuata kutokana na kanuni za Malik; kwa hiyo hoja hii inaweza kutolewa kwa niaba yake, na mjadala wa suala hili umeshatangulia. Wale ambao amri haijirudii kwao, na wakadhani kuwa kuna maandishi yaliyodokezwa katika aya, hawakushikilia kwamba nia ya kuswali sala ya pili inabatilisha tayammum.

The second reason is based on the recurrence of the command with the advent of time for each prayer. This is what follows from Malik’s principles, that is, this argument may be adduced on his behalf, and the discussion of this issue has preceded. Those for whom the command does not recur, and they assumed an implied text in the verse, did not uphold that the intention to perform a second salah invalidates tayammum.

Wengi wa wanachuoni walishikilia kwamba kuwepo kwa maji kunabatilisha utakaso huu. Kundi la wanazuoni wa fiqhi, hata hivyo, walishikilia kwamba kubatilika kwake kunatokana tu na kutokea kwa hadath. Msingi wa tofauti hii ni swali hili: je, kuwepo kwa maji huondoa utakaso uliokuwepo ambao ulipatikana kwa mchanga, au unazuia kuanza kwa utakaso kwa mchanga huo? Wale waliosema kwamba (kuwepo kwa maji) huzuia tu kuanza kwa utakaso kwa mchanga walisema kwamba unabatilika tu kwa kutokea kwa hadath. Na wale waliosema kwamba (kuwepo kwa maji) hubatilisha utakaso uliokuwepo walisema kwamba unabatilika. Kitu kinachobatilisha (maji) ni kile kinachoondoa utakaso uliokuwepo.

The majority held that the existence of water invalidates this purification. A Stoup of jurists, however, maintained that its invalidation results only from the occurrence of a hadath. The basis of this disagreement is whether the existence of water removes the prevailing purification that was achieved with earth or whether it negates the initiation of purification with it (earth)? Those who Maintained that it negates only the commencement of purification with earth (water being available) said that it is invalidated only by the occurrence of a hadath. Those who maintained that it (availability of water) invalidates the Prevailing purity said that it is invalidated. The definition of the invalidating factor (water) is the eliminator of the prevailing purity.

Wengi walitoa hoja kwa maoni yao kwa kutegemea hadithi iliyothibitika, ambayo ni kauli ya Mtume ﷺ: "Ardhi imefanywa kuwa msikiti kwangu, na njia ya utakaso, mradi maji hayajapatikana." Kutokana na hili inawezekana kufahamu kwamba mara maji yanapopatikana utakaso huu unakoma na kuondolewa, lakini pia inawezekana kuifahamu kama kuashiria kwamba pindi maji yanapopatikana si sahihi kufanya utakaso huu. Hoja yenye nguvu zaidi kwa wengi inatokana na hadithi ya Abu Sa'id al-Khudri, inayosema kwamba Mtume ﷺ alisema: "Mtakapopata maji, yaguse ngozi yenu." Amri hii inafasiriwa na wengi kuashiria utekelezaji wa papo hapo, ingawa pia inaelekea kwenye uwezekano uliotangulia, kwa hivyo fikiria juu yake. Kukubali kwa al-Shafi'i kwamba kuwepo kwa maji huondoa utakaso huu kulimfanya aseme kwamba tayammum haiondoi hadath, yaani, haizalishi utakaso unaoondoa najisi; inaruhusu tu kuswali pamoja na kuwepo kwa hadath. Hili halina msingi, kwa kuwa Mwenyezi Mungu ameliita utakaso. Baadhi ya wanafunzi wa Malik waliunga mkono maoni haya wakisema kwamba tayammum haiondoi hadath, kwani kama ingeiondoa, basi hadath ingeibatilisha tu. Jibu ni kwamba katika kesi ya utakaso huu, kuwepo kwa maji chenyewe ni aina ya hadath mahsusi kwake, kulingana na maoni kwamba kuwepo kwa maji huiondoa.

The majority argued for their opinion on the basis of an established tradition, which is the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be u P°n him), “The earth has been made a mosque for me, and a means of Purity, aS long as water is not found”. It is possible to understand from this that as soon as water is found this purification is terminated and removed, while it is also possible to understand it as implying that when water is found n is not valid to undertake this form of purification. The strongest support for the majority comes from the tradition of Abu SaTd al-Khudri, which states that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “When you have found water let it touch your skin”. The command here is interpreted by the majority to indicate immediate compliance, though it also leads to the preceding possibility, so think over it. Al-ShafiTs acceptance, that the existence of water eliminates this purification, led him to say that tajamrcam does not, in fact, remove the hadath, that is, it does not generate purification removing the impurity, it merely has the effect of permitting prayer with the existence of the impurity. This is without foundation, as Allah has called it purification. Some of the disciples of Malik upheld this opinion saying that tayammum does not remove hadath, for had it done so, only a hadath would have invalidated it. The answer is that in the case of this purification the existence of water itself is a sort of hadath specific to it, according to the opinion that the existence of water eliminates it.

Wengi walikubaliana kwamba vitendo ambavyo uhalali au ruhusa yake inategemea aina hii ya utakaso ni vile ambavyo wudhuu' ni sharti lake, kama swala, kugusa mushaf, na kadhalika. Walitofautiana kuhusu kama inaruhusiwa kuswali zaidi ya swala moja (ya lazima) kwa tayammum hiyo moja. Inajulikana sana katika madhehebu ya Malik kwamba swala mbili za lazima hazijuzu kamwe kwa tayammum moja. Maoni yake yalitofautiana kuhusu swala mbili zilizopitwa na wakati. Inajulikana vizuri kwamba tayammum moja inatosha ikiwa mojawapo ya swala hizo mbili ni ya lazima na nyingine ni ya sunna, ikiwa atasali ya lazima kwanza; lakini akianza kwa ile ya sunna, hawezi kuzitekeleza kwa tayammum moja. Abu Hanifa alishikilia kwamba inaruhusiwa kutekeleza swala mbili za lazima kwa tayammum moja.

The majority agreed that acts whose validity or permissibility depends upon this form of purification are those for which ablution (wudi?) is a condition, like prayer, Touching the mushaf, and so on. They disagreed on whether more than one (obligatory) prayer is permissible with it (i.e. with one tayammum)? It is widely known in the Malik’s school that two mandatory prayers are never permitted with it. His opinion differed about two lapsed prayers. It is well- known that one tayammum is enough if one of the two prayers is mandatory and the other is supererogatory, if he prays the mandatory first, but if commences with the supererogatory, he cannot observe them with one tayammum. Abu Hamfa held that it is permitted to observe two mandatory prayers with a single tayammum.

Msingi wa kutofautiana huku ni kama tayammum inahitajika kwa kila sala, ama kwa sababu ya maana ya wazi ya aya, au kwa sababu ya wajibu wa kurudiwa kwa amri, au kwa zote mbili.

The basis for this disagreement is whether tayammum is required for each prayer, either due to the apparent meaning of the verse, or due to the obligation of the recurrence of the command, or due to both.