Mjadala wa kina kuhusu kanuni na sheria za aina hii ya utakaso umegawanywa katika sura sita. Sura ya kwanza inahusu kubainisha hukm, yaani kama ni wajibu au ni mustahabb kwa upande wa kuwa ni la jumla, au limewekwa tu kama sharti la Salah. Sura ya pili inahusu kubainisha aina za najisi. Sura ya tatu inahusu vitu ambavyo ni wajibu kuondoa najisi hizo kutoka kwavyo. Sura ya nne inahusu kitu ambacho kwacho najisi hizo zinapaswa kuondolewa. Sura ya tano inahusu namna ya kuziondoa kutoka kila kitu. Sura ya sita inahusu adabu za choo.

The comprehensive discussion of the principles and rules of this form of purification is covered in six chapters. The first chapter is about the identification of the hukm, that is, whether it is obligatory or recommended from the aspect of being absolute, or is stipulated only as a condition for salahi The second chapter relates to the identification of the kinds of impurities. The third chapter is about the objects from which the removal of such impurities is obligatory. The fourth chapter is about the thing with which they are to be removed. The fifth chapter deals with the manner of their removal from each object. The sixth chapter relates to the etiquettes of the privy.

Chanzo cha sura hii ya Kitabu ni maneno ya Mwenyezi, Aliye Juu: "Na itakase nguo zako",78 na kutoka katika Sunna ni maneno ya Mtume ﷺ: "Anayetawadha na apandishe maji puani kisha ayatoe, na anayetumia mawe [katika kujitakasa baada ya kutoa haja] atumie idadi isiyo ya kawaida [kama tatu, tano, n.k.]". Pia kuna amri ya Mtume ﷺ ya kuosha damu ya hedhi kutoka kwenye nguo, na ya kumwagia mkojo maji ya ndoo, kama ilivyokuwa katika kisa cha Mbedui. Zaidi ya hayo, kuna kauli yake ﷺ kuhusu kupita kaburi mbili zilizozikwa ndani yake kwamba "wanaadhibiwa, lakini si kwa dhambi kubwa; mmoja wao hakujitakasa baada ya kukojoa". Wanazuoni wa fiqhi wamekubaliana, kwa sababu ya kuwepo kwa matini hizi zilizopokewa, kwamba kuondoa najisi kumeamrishwa na sharia, lakini wametofautiana kama hilo ni wajibu au ni mapendekezo, yaani Sunna, kama ilivyoonyeshwa hapo awali. Kundi moja la wanazuoni wa fiqhi limesema kwamba kuondoa najisi ni wajibu, ambayo ni maoni ya Abu Hanifa na al-Shafi'i. Kundi jingine la wanazuoni wa fiqhi limesema kwamba ni Sunna mu'akkada (iliyosisitizwa), lakini si wajibu (fardh). Kundi moja limesema kwamba ni wajibu kikikumbukwa, lakini husamehewa pale mtu anaposahau. Maoni yote mawili yamepokewa kutoka kwa Malik na wanafunzi wake.

The source of this chapter from the Book are the words of the Exalted, “Thy Diment purify”,78 and from the sunna the words of the Prophet (God’s peace a nd blessings be upon him), “One who performs ablution should snuff up water and reject it, and one who uses stones [in purifying himself after excretion] should use the odd number [like three, five, etc.]”. There is also the command of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) for cleaning ^enstrual blood from clothes, and for pouring a pitcher of water over urine, as ! n the case of the bedouin. In addition, there is his saying about passing a grave ln which two persons were buried that “they are being given some torment, but not for a major sin; one of them did not cleanse himself after urinating The jurists agreed, because of the existence of these transmitted texts, that removal of impurities has been commanded by the law, but they differed over whether this was by way of obligation or recommendation, that is, as a sunna, as indicated earlier. One group of jurists usaid that the removal of impurities is obligatory, which was the opinion of Abu Hanlfa and al-ShaficI. Another group of jurists said that it was sunna mtfakkada (emphatic), but is not an obligation (fard). One group said that it is an obligation when remembered, but is waived in the case of forgetfulness. Both opinions are related from Malik and his disciples.

Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao kuhusu suala hili inatokana na mambo matatu. Kwanza, kuna kutofautiana kuhusu maneno ya Mwenyezi Mungu Mtukufu, Mwenye utukufu, “Na nguo zako zitakase”; je, yachukuliwe kwa maana halisi au kwa maana ya kiishara. Sababu ya pili ni mgongano kati ya maana za wazi za hadithi kuhusiana na wajibu huu. Sababu ya tatu ni kutofautiana kwao kuhusu amri na makatazo yaliyowekwa kama yanavyohusiana na sababu ya kiakili iliyo nyuma yake; je, sababu iliyo nyuma ya amri na makatazo haya inayofahamika ni jambo la kuthibitisha linaloigeuza amri kutoka wajibu kuwa mapendekezo, na katazo kutoka kukatazwa kuwa kutopendezwa, au si jambo la kuthibitisha, na kwamba hakuna tofauti hapa kati ya ibada ya kiakili na isiyo ya kiakili. Wale waliofanya tofauti hiyo walifanya hivyo kwa sababu hukumu nyingi za kiakili katika sheria zinahusiana na kanuni za kimaadili au maslahi ya kisheria, ambazo nyingi zake ni mapendekezo. Wale waliofasiri maneno ya Mwenyezi Mungu, “Na nguo zako zitakase”, kumaanisha nguo za kimwili, walisema kwamba kutakasa uchafu ni wajibu, ilhali wale waliozichukulia kama ishara ya usafi wa qalb (moyo) hawakupata ushahidi wowote wa kisheria ndani yake.

Wanazuoni wamekubaliana kwamba aina za najisi kimsingi ni nne. Ya kwanza, mizoga ya wanyama wenye damu joto wasioishi majini. Ya pili, nyama ya nguruwe, kwa sababu yoyote iliyosababisha kifo chake. Ya tatu, damu ya mnyama asiyeishi majini, inayotoka kwa mnyama aliye hai au aliyekufa pale inapotiririka, yaani pale inapokuwa nyingi. Ya nne, mkojo na kinyesi cha binadamu. Wanazuoni wengi wamekubaliana kuhusu unajisi wa khamr, lakini kuna khilafu kuhusu hili baina ya baadhi ya wanahadith. Wanazuoni wametofautiana kuhusu mambo mengine zaidi ya haya. Kanuni za sura hii zimeshughulikiwa katika masuala saba.

The jurists agreed that the kinds of impurities are essentially four. First, carrion of warm-blooded animals not living in water. Second, flesh of swine, whatever the cause of its death. Third, blood of an animal that does not live in Water, and is extracted from a living or dead animal when it flows out, that is, when' it is excessive. Fourth, the urine and excrement of human beings. Most the jurists agreed about the impurity of khami\ but there is disagreement about this among some of the traditionists. The jurists disagreed about things besides these. The principles of this chapter are covered in seven issues.

Walikuwa na tofauti kuhusu mizoga isiyo na damu, na kuhusu viumbe wa baharini waliokufa. Kundi moja la wanazuoni wa fiqhi lilisema kwamba mzoga wa kiumbe kisicho na damu ni safi; vivyo hivyo viumbe wa baharini waliokufa. Hii ni maoni ya Malik na wanafunzi wake. Kundi jingine la wanazuoni lilishikilia kwamba mizoga ya viumbe wenye damu joto na ya viumbe visivyo na damu ina hukumu sawa kuhusu unajisi, isipokuwa vitu ambavyo kuna makubaliano kwamba si mizoga, kama minyoo na kile kinachozalishwa ndani ya vyakula; lakini walitoa viumbe wa baharini waliokufa kutoka hukumu hii, ambayo ni maoni ya al-Shafi'i. Kundi jingine lilichukulia mizoga na viumbe wa baharini waliokufa kuwa sawa, wakiwatoa mizoga isiyo na damu, ambayo ni maoni ya Abu Hanifa.

They disagreed about carrion that has no blood in it, and about dead sea j Rimals. A group of jurists said that a carcass of a bloodless creature is clean; ► milarly, the dead sea creatures. This is Malik’s opinion and that of his disciples. A group of jurists maintained equivalence, with respect to impurity, between carrion of a warm-blooded and bloodless creatures, unless it was something over which there is agreement that it is not carrion like worms and what is produced in eatables, but they exempted dead marine animals from this, which is al-ShafiTs opinion. Another group considered carrion and dead sea animals to be the same, exempting bloodless carrion, which is Abu HanTfa’s opinion.

Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao inatokana na mzozo wao juu ya maana ya maneno ya Mwenyezi Mungu Mtukufu, "Mmeharamishiwa mizoga..."79 Sababu, kwa maoni yangu, ni kwamba walikubaliana kwamba aya hii ni ya kundi la neno la jumla lililokusudiwa kwa jambo mahsusi, kisha wakatofautiana juu ya ni jambo gani mahsusi linalokusudiwa hapa. Baadhi yao wanaondoa katika hukumu hii wanyama wa baharini waliokufa na mizoga ya viumbe visivyo na damu, wengine wameondoa wanyama wa baharini waliokufa peke yao, huku wengine wakitoa msamaha kwa mzoga wa viumbe visivyo na damu peke yake. Sababu ya kutofautiana juu ya misamaha hii inatokana na kutofautiana kwao juu ya dalili inayopunguza hukumu ya jumla. Hoja ya wazi ya wale waliotoa msamaha kwa mzoga wa viumbe visivyo na damu inatokana na hadithi iliyothibitika kutoka kwa Nabii ﷺ kuhusu nzi wanapoanguka katika chakula. Wamesema kwamba hii inaonyesha usafi wa nzi, na hakuna sababu ya msingi ya hili isipokuwa kwamba hawana damu.

The reason for their disagreement is based on their dispute over the meaning of the words of the Exalted, “Forbidden unto you are carrion .. .”79 The reason, I think, is that they agreed that it belongs to a category of a general word intended for the particular, after which they differed as to which particular is meant here. Some of them exempt from this dead sea- animals and carrion of bloodless creatures, some exempted dead sea animals only, while others made an exemption in the case of carrion of bloodless creatures alone. The reason for a disagreement over these exemptions is based upon their disagreement over the restricting evidence. The apparent argument of those who exempted bloodless carrion is based upon the established tradition from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) relating to flies when they fall into food. They said that this indicates the cleanliness of flies, and there is no underlying reason for this except the fact that they are bloodless.

Kama wanazuoni walivyotofautiana kuhusu hukumu ya aina za mizoga, ndivyo walivyotofautiana kuhusu hukumu ya sehemu za wanyama waliokufa, ambazo walikubaliana kuzichukulia kuwa mizoga. Hivyo, walihitimisha kwamba nyama ya sehemu za mayta nayo ni mayta, lakini walitofautiana kuhusu mifupa na nywele. Al-Shafi'i alishikilia kwamba mifupa na nywele nazo ni mayta, ilhali Abu Hanifa alishikilia kwamba si mayta. Malik alifanya tofauti kati ya nywele na mifupa, akisema kwamba mifupa ni mayta, lakini nywele si mayta.

Just as the jurists differed about the (hukm of the) kinds of carrion they disagreed about (the hukrn of) the parts of dead animals, which they had deemed as carrion by agreement. Thus, they concluded that flesh of the parts of mayta was also mayta, but they disagreed about bones and hair. Al-Shafi T c held that bones and hair were also mayta, while Abu HanTfa held that they are not. Malik made a distinction between hair and bones saying that bones are mayta, but not hair.

Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao inahusiana na mzozo wao kuhusu ni shughuli gani katika viungo inayoweza kuitwa "uhai". Wale waliodai kwamba shughuli ya ukuaji na ulaji wa chakula ndiyo inayoonyesha uhai walisema kwamba shughuli ya ukuaji na ulaji wa chakula inapokosekana katika nywele na mifupa, huwa ni mayta. Wale waliodai kwamba neno "uhai" hutumika kwa hisia pekee, na kwa kuwa nywele na mifupa havina uwezo wa kuhisi, havi mayta. Wale waliotofautisha kati ya hayo mawili waliipa mifupa uwezo wa kuhisi, lakini si nywele. Kuna mjadala kuhusu uwezo wa mifupa kuhisi, na jambo hilo limejadiliwa miongoni mwa wataalamu wa tiba. Ushahidi unaothibitisha kwamba ulaji wa chakula na ukuaji si aina ya uhai ambayo kukosekana kwake ndiko kunakoruhusu neno mayta kutumika ni makubaliano ya wanazuoni wote wa fiqhi kwamba sehemu ya mnyama iliyokatwa akiwa hai ni mayta. Hili limejengwa juu ya hadithi, ambayo ni kauli ya Mtume (rehema na amani za Mungu ziwe juu yake): "Kitu chochote kinachokatwa kutoka kwa mnyama, akiwa hai, ni mayta." Hata hivyo, walikubaliana kwamba nywele zinazonyolewa kutoka kwa mnyama ni safi. Zaidi ya hayo, kama neno mayta lingetumika kwa vitu ambavyo ukuaji na ulaji wa chakula vimekoma, mimea iliyong'olewa nayo ingeitwa mayta, kwa kuwa mimea nayo huonyesha ukuaji na ulaji wa chakula. Kwa hoja hii al-Shafi'i anaweza kujibu kwamba ulaji wa chakula, ambao kukosekana kwake ndiko kunakoitwa kifo, umewekewa mipaka kwa viumbe vyenye uwezo wa kuhisi.

The reason for their disagreement relates to their dispute as to what activity in the limbs can be assigned the term “life”. Those who maintained that the activity of growth and food intake depicts life said that when the activity of growth and food intake is absent from hair and bones they become mayta. Those who maintained that the term “life” is only applied to the senses, and as hair and bones do not possess the capacity to sense, they are not.maj/ta. Those who distinguished between the two, assigned to bones the capacity to sense, but not to hair. There is a disagreement about the capacity of the bones to sense, and the matter is disputed among the physicians. The evidence proving that food intake and growth are not that kind of life to the absence of which the term may la can be applied is the agreement of all jurists that a, part of an animal cut off when it is alive is mayta. This is based on a tradition, which is the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “Whatever is cut off from an animal, when it is alive, is mayta”. They agreed, however, that hair sheared from an animal is clean. Further, if the term mayta were to be applied to things whose growth and food intake has stopped, the uprooted vegetation would also be termed as mayta, as vegetation also shows growth and food intake. To this al-ShafiT may reply that food intake, to the absence of which the term death is applied, is limited to beings endowed with the capacity to sense.

Walitofautiana kuhusu matumizi ya ngozi za wanyama waliokufa. Kundi moja la wanazuoni wa sheria walithibitisha kuwa matumizi ya ngozi ni halali bila masharti, iwe zimetiwa dabaghah (kutiwa chumvi/kusindikwa) au hazijatiwa. Kundi jingine lilishikilia kinyume chake, yaani kwamba ngozi hizo haziruhusiwi kutumiwa kabisa, hata zikiwa zimetiwa dabaghah. Kundi la tatu la wanazuoni walifanya tofauti kati ya ngozi zilizotiwa dabaghah na zisizotiwa, wakishikilia kwamba dabaghah huzitakasa, ambayo ndiyo maoni ya al-Shafi'i na Abu Hanifa. Kuna simulizi mbili kutoka kwa Malik kuhusu jambo hili. Ya kwanza inafanana na ya al-Shafi'i, na ya pili ni kwamba dabaghah haziitakasi, lakini zinaweza kutumiwa ikiwa hakuna unyevu. Wale waliosema dabaghah ni kitakasaji walikubaliana kwamba inatakasa ngozi za wanyama ambao wanaweza kuchinjwa kwa njia ya sharia, yaani wale ambao nyama yao ni halali kuliwa, lakini walitofautiana kuhusu wanyama ambao uchinjaji wa sharia hauwahusu. Al-Shafi'i alishikilia kwamba inatakasa ngozi za wanyama waliochinjwa kwa sharia pekee, kwa kuwa uchinjaji ni badala ya dabaghah katika kutakasa. Abu Hanifa alishikilia kwamba dabaghah ina nguvu ya kutakasa ngozi za wanyama wote isipokuwa nguruwe. Dawud alisema kwamba inatakasa zote, hata ngozi za nguruwe.

They disagreed about the utilization of skins of dead animals. A group of jurists upheld the unconditional permissibility of the utilization of skins, whether tanned or not, while another group held the opposite view, that is, they are not to be utilized at all, even when tanned. A third group of jurists made a distinction between tanned an untanned skins, maintaining that tanning purifies them, which is al-ShafiTs and Abu HanTfa’s opinion. There are two narrations from Malik about this. The first is the same as that of al- Shafi I, while c the second is that tanning does not purify them, but they can be used if no moisture is involved. Those who maintained that tanning is a purifying factor, agreed that it purifies the skins of the animals that can be ritually slaughtered, that is, those permissible for consumption, but they disagreed about those to which ritual slaughter does not apply. Al-ShaficT held that it purifies the skins of ritually slaughtered animals only, as slaughter is a substitute for the purpose of purification. Abu HanTfa maintained the effectiveness of tanning in purifying the skins of all animals with the exception of swine. Dawud said that it purifies all, even the skins of swine.

Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao ni mgongano wa hadithi kuhusu suala hili. Ruhusa ya jumla ya kutumia ngozi hiyo imetajwa katika hadithi ya Maymuna, ambapo Mtume ﷺ alipopita karibu na mzoga alisema: "Laiti mngalitumia ngozi yake." Katazo la jumla linatokana na hadithi ya Ibn ʿAkīm, inayosema kwamba "Mtume ﷺ wa Allah aliandika kwamba ngozi yake wala neva zake zisitumiwe." Hii ilikuwa mwaka mmoja kabla ya kifo chake ﷺ. Katika hadithi nyingine, amri hiyo inaonyesha (ruhusa ya) kuzitumia baada ya kutiwa tanuru (kuchakatwa), lakini si kabla ya hapo. Hadithi iliyothibitika kuhusu hili ni ile ya KITABU CHA TAHARA (UTAKASO) ya Ibn ʿAbbas, kwamba Mtume ﷺ alisema: "Ngozi zikishatiwa tanuru huwa safi."

Wanazuoni wa fiqhi wamekubaliana kwamba damu ya wanyama wa nchi kavu ni najisi, lakini walitofautiana kuhusu damu ya samaki. Vilevile, walitofautiana kuhusu kiasi kidogo cha damu ya wanyama wasio wa baharini.

The jurists agreed that blood of land animals is unclean, but they differed about the blood of fish. Similarly, they disagreed about small quantities of blood of animals other than those of the sea.

Kundi moja la wanazuoni lilisema kuwa damu ya samaki ni safi, na hii ni mojawapo ya kauli mbili za Malik, pia ndiyo kauli ya al-Shafi‘Ī. Kundi jingine la wanazuoni lilisema kuwa ni najisi kwa kutegemea kanuni ya damu. Hii ndiyo kauli ya Malik katika al-Mudawwana. Vilevile, kundi moja la wanazuoni lilisema kuwa kiasi kidogo cha damu husamehewa, huku wengine wakisema kuwa hukm ya kiasi kikubwa na kidogo ni ile ile. Kauli ya kwanza ndiyo inayoshikiliwa na wengi.

A group of jurists said that the blood of fish is clean, and this is one of two opinions from Malik and is also the opinion of al-Shafi‘T. Another group of jurists said that it is unclean on the basis of the rule for blood. This is Malik’s opinion in al-Mudawwana. Similarly, a group of jurists said that small quantities of blood are overlooked, while others said that the hukm of large and small quantities is the same. The former view is held by the majority.

Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao kuhusu damu ya samaki inahusiana na kutofautiana kwao kuhusu kama samaki aliyekufa ni mayta. Wale waliodhani kwamba samaki aliyekufa amo ndani ya katazo la jumla la mayta, waliona damu yake kuwa sawa na hiyo, ilhali wale waliomtoa samaki huyo katika katazo la jumla, walimtoa pia damu yake kwa kutumia mlinganisho uleule. Kuna hadithi dhaifu inayohusiana na hili, nayo ni kauli ya Mtume (rehema na amani za Mwenyezi Mungu ziwe juu yake) ﷺ: "Aina mbili za mayta na aina mbili za damu zimehalalishwa kwetu: nzige na nyangumi, pamoja na ini na wengu."

The reason for their disagreement over the blood of fish relates to their disagreement whether dead fish is mayta. Those who considered dead fish to be included in the general prohibition for mayta, deemed its blood to be the same, while those who exempted it from the general prohibition, exempted its blood on the same analogy. There exists a weak tradition related to this, and this is the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), 1 wo kinds of mayta and two kinds of blood have been permitted to us, locust a nd whale, and liver and spleen”.

Tofauti yao kuhusu kiasi kikubwa na kidogo cha damu inahusiana na swali la kama maana yenye masharti (muqayyad) inatangulia juu ya maana isiyo na masharti (mutlaq), au kama maana isiyo na masharti inalazimishwa juu ya ile yenye masharti. Katika maneno ya Mwenyezi Mungu Mtukufu, “Mmeharamishiwa mzoga, na damu, na nyama ya nguruwe”,81 katazo la damu limetolewa kwa maneno yasiyo na masharti, wakati katika maneno Yake: “Sema: Sioni katika yale niliyofunuliwa kitu kilichoharamishwa kwa mlaji kukila, isipokuwa ni mzoga, au damu iliyomwagika, au nyama ya nguruwe, kwani hiyo ni uchafu”,82 katazo hilo limetolewa kwa masharti. Wale waliolazimisha maana yenye masharti juu ya maana isiyo na masharti, nao ndio wengi, walisema kwamba ni damu tu “iliyomwagika” ndiyo iliyoharamishwa na najisi. Wale walioamua kwa kufuata maana isiyo na masharti kwa kupendelea kuliko yenye masharti, walisema kwamba damu “iliyomwagika” ni damu ya kiasi kikubwa, ilhali isiyomwagika ni damu ya kiasi kidogo, na zote mbili ni haramu. Pia walithibitisha msimamo wao kwa kusema kwamba kitu kilicho najisi kwa asili yake hakiwezi kuwa safi katika sehemu zake zinazokiunda.

Wafaqihi walikubaliana juu ya unajisi wa mkojo na kinyesi cha binadamu, isipokuwa mkojo wa mtoto mchanga wa kiume. Walitofautiana kuhusu yaliyo zaidi ya hayo kwa upande wa wanyama wote. Al-Shafi'i na Abu Hanifa walishikilia kuwa mkojo na kinyesi cha wanyama wote ni najisi, ilhali kundi la wanazuoni lilishikilia usafi wao kamili, yaani, kwamba mabaki ya wanyama wote, kutoka mkojo na kinyesi, ni safi. Kundi la wanazuoni lilisema kuwa hukmu ya mkojo wao na kinyesi chao inategemea hukmu ya nyama yao. Wanyama ambao nyama yao ni haramu, mkojo wao na kinyesi chao ni haramu na najisi, ilhali wanyama wanaofaa kuliwa, mkojo wao na kinyesi chao ni safi, isipokuwa wale wanyama wanaokula uchafu. Wanyama wanaochukuliwa kuwa wachukizaji (kwa chakula), mkojo wao na kinyesi chao pia ni wachukizaji. Hii ilikuwa maoni ya Malik, pamoja na ya Abu Hanifa kuhusu wanyama wa kuwinda.

The jurists agreed about the uncleanliness of human urine and excrement, except for the urine of a male infant. They disagreed about what is besides this with respect to all animals. Al-ShaficT and Abu Hamfa held that urine and excrement of all animals are unclean, while a group of jurists upheld their absolute cleanliness, that is, offal of all animals from urine and excrement. A group of jurists said that the hukm of their urine and dung is dependent upon the hukm of their flesh. The animals whose flesh is prohibited, their urine and dung are prohibited and unclean, while the animals that are fit for consumption their urine and dung are clean, except for those animals that consume filth. The animals that are considered abominable (for food), their urine and dung are also abominable. This was Malik’s opinion, as well as that of Abu Hamfa with respect to beasts of prey.

Kuna sababu mbili za kutofautiana kwao. Ya kwanza ni mzozo wao kuhusu maana ya kuruhusiwa kwa sala mahali wanapopumzikia wanyama, ruhusa aliyotoa Nabii ﷺ kwa watu wa TJmiyln kunywa mkojo na maziwa ya ngamia, pamoja na maana ya katazo la kusali mahali wanapopumzikia ngamia. Sababu ya pili ni kulinganisha, kwa kusudi hili, wanyama wengine wote na binadamu. Wale waliofanya ulinganisho wa wanyama wengine wote juu ya binadamu, wakishikilia kwamba hili ni katika aina ya qiyas ya juu, hawakuzingatia kuruhusiwa kwa sala mahali wanapopumzikia wanyama kuwa ni dalili ya usafi wa mkojo wao na kinyesi chao, bali waliona kuwa ni hukm inayotegemea chanzo cha wahyi, si cha akili. Wale waliofasiri katazo la kusali mahali wanapopumzikia ngamia kuwa ni dalili ya unajisi, na wakaona ruhusa ya kunywa mkojo wa ngamia kwa watu wa TJmiyin kuwa ni dawa, ambayo inaruhusiwa kimsingi, walisema kwamba mkojo na kinyesi chote ni najisi. Wale waliofasiri hadithi inayoruhusu kusali mahali wanapopumzikia wanyama kuwa ni dalili ya usafi wa kinyesi chao na mkojo wao, kama ilivyo pia kwa watu wa TJrniyTn, na wakaona katazo la kusali mahali wanapopumzikia ngamia kuwa ni ibada na lenye maana nyingine isiyo unajisi, tofauti yao, kwa mujibu wao, kati ya binadamu na wanyama ikiwa ni kwamba kinyesi cha binadamu ni chenye kuchukiza kwa asili, na cha wanyama si hivyo, walikifanya kinyesi kuwa kinategemea (uhalali wa) nyama ya wanyama. Allah ndiye Mjuzi zaidi. Wale waliotegemeza ulinganisho wa wanyama wengine wote juu ya wanyama wa kufugwa, walifanya kinyesi chote kuwa safi na hakikatazwi, isipokuwa kinyesi cha binadamu.

Wanafiqhi walitofautiana kuhusu kiasi kidogo cha najisi katika mitazamo mitatu. Kundi moja la wanafiqhi lilishikilia kwamba kiasi kidogo na kikubwa ni sawa. Miongoni mwa wanaoshikilia mtazamo huu ni al-Shafi'i. Kundi jingine la wanafiqhi lilishikilia kwamba kiasi kidogo cha najisi husamehewa, nao wakaweka kiasi hicho kuwa sawa na ukubwa wa dirhamu iliyochanganyika (ya fedha isiyo safi). Miongoni mwa wanaoshikilia mtazamo huu ni Abu Hanifa. Muhammad ibn al-Hasan alitofautiana na haya akisema kwamba ikiwa najisi inafunika robo ya nguo au chini yake, sala inaruhusiwa ndani yake. Kundi la tatu la wanafiqhi lilishikilia kwamba kiasi kidogo na kikubwa cha najisi ni sawa, isipokuwa katika kesi ya damu kama ilivyotajwa. Hii ndiyo maoni ya Malik. Kuna simulizi mbili kutoka kwake kuhusu damu ya hedhi, ile inayojulikana zaidi ikiwa kwamba ni sawa na aina nyingine zote za damu.

The jurists disagreed about small amounts of filth into three opinions. A group of jurists held that small and large quantities are the same. Among those who held this opinion is al-ShaficT. Another group of jurists held that small amounts of filth are overlooked, and they fixed this to be an amount equal to the size of an impure (alloyed) dirham. Among those who held this opinion is Abu HanTfa. Muhammad ibn al-Hasan deviated from this saying that if the filth covers one-fourth or less of the dress, prayer is permitted in it. A third group of jurists held that small and large quantities of filth are the same, e *cept in the case of blood as has been mentioned. This is Malik’s opinion. There are two narrations from him about menstrual blood, the one widely known being that it is similar to all other kinds of blood.

Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao inahusiana na mzozo wao kuhusu kufananisha najisi ndogo na msamaha unaopuuza athari iliyobaki ya uchafu katika kesi ya kujisafisha kwa mawe. Wale waliokubali kufananisha vile walishikilia kuruhusiwa kwa najisi ndogo, na kwa sababu hiyo wakaiweka kikomo kwa ukubwa wa dirham, ambao ni sawa na ukubwa wa tundu la kutolea haja. Wale waliosema kwamba misamaha hii na nyingine haiwezi kutumika kama msingi wa kufananisha, hawakukubali jambo hilo.

The reason for their disagreement is related to their dispute over the analogy of minor uncleanliness upon the exemption disregarding the remaining trace of filth in the case of cleaning with stones. Those who permitted such an analogy u pheld the permissibility of minor uncleanliness, and for this reason they limited it to the size of a dirham, the size of which is the same as the size of the outlet. Those who held that these and other exemptions cannot serve as a basis lor analogy, did not allow it.

Sababu ya msamaha aliouruhusu Malik kwa damu imeshatangulia kutajwa, na maelezo ya maoni ya Abu Hanifa ni kwamba najisi, kwa mtazamo wake, imegawanyika katika nzito na nyepesi. Kwa najisi nzito, kiasi cha msamaha kimewekwa kwa ukubwa wa dirhamu, ilhali najisi nyepesi inavumiliwa hadi kiasi cha robo ya nguo. Najisi nyepesi kwa mtazamo wake ni kama kinyesi cha wanyama wa kubeba mizigo na vile ambavyo barabara mara chache huwa havina. Mgawanyo huu wake wa najisi katika nzito na nyepesi ni mzuri sana.

Walitofautiana kuhusu manii, je, ni najisi. Kundi moja miongoni mwao, Malik na Abu Hanifa, walishikilia kuwa ni najisi, wakati kundi jingine lilishikilia kuwa ni safi, ambayo ndiyo ilikuwa kauli ya al-Shafi'i, Ahmad, na Dawud.

They disagreed about semen, whether it is unclean. A group, from among them, Malik and Abu HanTfa, held that it is unclean, while another group maintained that it is clean, which was the opinion of al-ShaficT, Ahmad, and Dawud.

Sababu mbili zinazosababisha kutofautiana kwao ni hizi. Ya kwanza ni tofauti katika riwaya ya Aisha. Katika baadhi ya toleo inasema: "Nilikuwa nikiosha shahawa kutoka kwenye nguo za Mtume wa Mwenyezi Mungu ﷺ, naye alikuwa akitoka kwenda kuswali akiwa amevaa nguo hizo zikiwa na madoa ya maji." Katika nyingine inasema: "Nilikuwa nikikwangua shahawa kutoka kwenye nguo za Mtume wa Mwenyezi Mungu ﷺ", na kwamba "alikuwa akiswali ndani yake." Nyongeza hii imepokewa na Muslim. Sababu ya pili ni kutetereka kwa shahawa kati ya kufanana na najisi za kinyesi cha mwili, na kufanana na utoaji mwingine safi, kama maziwa n.k.

There are two reasons for their disagreement. First is the variation in c A’isha’s tradition. In some versions it says, “I used to wash off semen from the clothes of the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), and he would go out to pray in them with water-marks on them.” In others it says, “I used to scrape off semen from the clothes of the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him)”, and that “he used to pray in them”. The addition is recorded by Muslim. The second reason is the vacillation of semen between resemblance with the unclean excrements of the body and between resemblance with other clean secretions, like milk etc.

Wale waliopatanisha Hadithi zote, wakitafsiri kuosha kuwa ni kwa ajili ya usafi, na wakatoa hoja kutokana na kukwangua, ambako hakutakasi, kuwa ni ushahidi wa usafi wake, na wakalinganisha manii na siri nyingine safi, hawakuiona kuwa najisi. Wale waliopendelea Hadithi za kuosha kuliko zile za kukwangua, na wakaona manii kuwa najisi, kwa sababu inafanana, kwa mtazamo wao, na kinyesi najisi zaidi kuliko siri safi, walishikilia kuwa ni najisi. Vivyo hivyo wale wanaoamini kwamba najisi huondolewa kwa kukwangua. Walisema kwamba kukwangua chenyewe kunaonyesha unajisi wake, kama ilivyo kuosha. Huu ndio msimamo wa Abu Hanifa. Kwa msingi huu, hakuna ushahidi kwa wale wanaoshikilia msimamo wao (kwamba manii ni safi) katika maneno ya "alikuwa akiswali ndani yake". Kwa upande mwingine, ndani yake kuna ushahidi kwa Abu Hanifa kwamba najisi inaweza kuondolewa bila maji, jambo ambalo linapingana na msimamo wa Malikiyya.

Those who reconciled all the traditions, interpreting washing to be for the purpose of cleanliness, and derived from scraping that does not purify an evidence of its purity, and made an analogy for semen upon other pure secretions, did not deem it unclean. Those who preferred the traditions of washing over those of scraping, and considered semen to be unclean, as it resembled, in their view, to unclean excrements more than clean secretions, maintained that it is unclean. So also those who believe that uncleanliness is removed by scraping. They said that scraping itself indicates its uncleanliness, as does washing. This is Abu HanTfa’s opinion. On this basis there is no proof with those who maintain their opinion (that semen is clean) on the words that “he used to pray in them”, on the other hand, there is evidence in it for Abu HanTfa that uncleanliness can be removed without water, which is contrary to the opinion of the Malikites.