1.4.4. Sura ya 4: Njia za Kuondoa - Kitabu cha Msingi cha Wanazuoni Mashuhuri | Quran Course

1.4.4. Sura ya 4: Njia za Kuondoa - Kitabu cha Msingi cha Wanazuoni Mashuhuri | Quran Course

c Pia walikhitilafiana kuhusu kuondoa najisi kwa mifupa na kinyesi katika kesi ya istinja. Kundi moja la wanazuoni wa fiqhi walikataza hilo, lakini waliruhusu kutumia vitu vingine vinavyoweza kusafisha, ingawa Malik aliviondoa katika hivi vitu vilivyo imara na vinavyoheshimika, kama mkate. Hali kadhalika inasemwa kuhusu vitu ambavyo matumizi yake yangekuwa ni ufujaji, kama dhahabu na vito. Kundi moja lilizuia usafishaji kwa mawe pekee, ambao ni msimamo wa Dhahiriyya, wakati kundi jingine liliruhusu kwa mifupa, lakini si kwa kinyesi, ingawa hili lilionekana kuwa chukizo kwao. Al-Jabarī alitofautiana na haya yote na aliruhusu katika istinja kufuta kwa kila kitu, kiwe safi au najisi. Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao kuhusu kuondoa najisi kwa vitu visivyokuwa maji, na kwa vitu vingine isipokuwa njia za kutolea uchafu, ni mzozo wao kuhusu kama lengo la kuondoa najisi kwa maji ni kuharibu dhati ya najisi pekee, ambapo katika hali hiyo vitu vingine vinavyoharibu dhati hiyo vitazingatiwa kuwa sawa na maji, au kama maji yana sifa ya ziada isiyopatikana katika vitu vingine. Wale ambao hawakuona sifa ya ziada ndani ya maji, waliithibitisha uhalali wa kusafisha kwa kila kimiminika safi na kila kitu kigumu kilicho safi. Maana hii iliungwa mkono na makubaliano kuhusu kuondoa najisi kutoka kwenye njia za kutolea uchafu kwa vitu visivyokuwa maji. Pia inaungwa mkono na yale yaliyoelezwa katika Hadith kutoka kwa Umm Salama, aliyesema kumwambia Nabii (ﷺ): "Mimi ni mwanamke mwenye nguo ndefu inayoburuzika, na hupita katika maeneo machafu." Mjumbe wa Allah (ﷺ) akamwambia (Umm Salama): "Hiyo (najisi) husafishwa na kile kinachofuata." Mbali na hilo, zipo Hadith kuhusu kesi kama hizi zilizopokewa na Abu Dawud, kama kauli ya Nabii (ﷺ): "Mmoja wenu akipita kwenye uchafu akiwa amevaa viatu vyake, mavumbi ndiyo yanayoyatakasa." Pamoja na riwaya nyingine zinazofanana nayo.

c They also disagreed about the removal of impurities with bones and dung in the case of istinja\ A group of jurists prohibited this, but permitted their use Wlt h other things that can clean, though Malik exempted from these esteemed stable things like bread. The same is said about things the use of which would immoderate like gold and gems. One group restricted cleaning to stones ° % which is the opinion of the Zahirites, while another group permitted it n ^th bones, but not dung, though this was considered abominable by them. Al- jg . barT deviated from all this and permitted in istinja* wiping with all things a H c|ean and unclean The reason for their disagreement about the removal of impurities with things other than water and for objects other than the outlets is their dispute as to whether the purpose of removing impurities with water is only the destruction of the essence of the impurity, in which case other things destroying the essence would be deemed equivalent to water, or whether water has an additional attribute not found in other things. Those to whom no additional attribute was visible in water, upheld the validity of cleaning with all clean fluids and solids. This meaning was supported by the agreement over the removal of impurities from the outlets with things other than water. It is also supported by what is laid down in a tradition from Umm Salama who said to the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “I am a woman having a long trailing dress and I walk over filthy spots”. The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said to her (Umm Salama), “It (the impurity) is cleansed by what follows”. In addition to this, there are traditions about similar cases recorded by Abu Dawud, like the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “If one of you walks over filth in his sandals, the dust is their purifier”, as well as other similar reports.

Lengo (la washafi'i zilizoongezwa) ni kutimiza mahitaji ya hukmu inayomtenga maji kuwa yenye ufanisi katika kuondoa dutu ya najisi, kwa kuwa wakati mwingine najisi tayari imeondoka, lakini hukmu inaendelea kubaki. Basi wamelitoa lengo kwenye daraja ya chini, ingawa awali walikubaliana na Wahanafi kwamba utakaso wa najisi si utakaso wa kisheria, yaani shaft, na hivyo haukuhitaji niyya. Lau wangejaribu kujitofautisha nao (Wahanafi) kwa kusema kwamba waliona katika maji sifa ya kuyeyusha najisi na uchafu na kuyatoa katika nguo na miili, sifa isiyopatikana katika vitu vingine, ndiyo sababu watu hutegemea maji kwa kusafisha miili yao na nguo zao, ingekuwa kauli bora zaidi, ilhali zingine ziko mbali sana kushawishi. Huenda ikawa ni lazima kuamini kwamba sheria (jfezr4) imetegemea maji kwa kuosha katika kila tukio kwa sababu ya sifa hii ya asili. Lau wangesema hivyo, wangeingiza katika fiqh iliyopo kitu kinachoendana na maana yake. Mwanazuoni hukimbilia kusema kwamba jambo fulani ni ibada pale mbinu yake inapomlazimisha katika kujadiliana na mpinzani. Tafakari hili, kwani ni dhahiri kutokana na jinsi walivyoshughulikia masuala mengi.

The purpose (the ShafWtes added) is to meet the (requirements of the) hukm that singles out water as effective in the removal of the substance of impurities, as sometimes the impurity is already removed, but the hukm subsists. They thus relegated the purpose, although they had previously agreed with the Hanafites that purification from uncleanliness is not a legal purification, that is shaft and did not therefore require intention (niyya). If they had tried to distinguish themselves from them (the Hanafites) by saying that they did perceive in water a quality of dissolving impurity and contamination and of extracting them from clothes and bodies, a quality not found in other things—for which reason people rely on water for cleansing their bodies and clothes—it would have been a better statement, while others are far from convincing. Perhaps it would be necessary to believe that the jfezr4 (law) has relied on water for washing in each instance because of this inherent quality. If they had said so, they would have introduced into the prevailing fiqh something consistent with its meaning. The jurist resorts to saying that it (a certain thing) is an act of worship when his method imposes constraints upon him in arguing with the contender. Ponder over this, for it is evident from their treatment (of issues) on most occasions.