Wanachuoni wamekubaliana kuhusu namna ya kuondoa najisi, nayo ni ya aina tatu: kuosha, kufuta, na kunyunyizia, kwa kuwa hizi zimetajwa katika sharia na kuthibitishwa kupitia hadithi. Wamekubaliana kwamba kuosha kunatumika kwa aina zote za najisi na kwa sehemu zote zilizo najisi, na kwamba kufuta kunaruhusiwa kwa mawe kwa njia za haja, na kwa majani makavu kwa viatu vya ngozi na sandali. Vile vile, wamekubaliana kwamba sehemu ndefu inayoburuza ya vazi la mwanamke inatakaswa kwa majani makavu kulingana na maana ya wazi ya hadithi ya Umm Salama.

The jurists agreed about the manner with which impurities are removed, and it is of three types, washing, wiping, and sprinkling, because these have been mentioned in the law and established through the traditions. They agreed that washing applies to all kinds.of impurities and for all locations of uncleanliness, and that wiping is permitted with stones for the outlets and with dry herbage for boots and sandals. They agreed, likewise, that the long trailing part of the female dress is purified by the dry herbage in accordance with the apparent meaning of the tradition of Umm Salama.

Walitofautiana katika mambo matatu yanayohusiana na haya, na ambayo ndiyo misingi ya sura hii. La kwanza ni kuhusu kunyunyiza: ni aina gani ya najisi inayoweza kutakaswa kwa kunyunyiza. La pili ni kuhusu kupangusa: ni nini kinachopanguswa na ni aina gani ya najisi inayoweza kuondolewa kwa kupangusa, baada ya kukubaliana juu ya yale tuliyoyataja. La tatu ni kuhusu kuwekwa kwa idadi (ya marudio) kwa ajili ya kuosha na kupangusa.

They disagreed on three points related to these things and which form the principles of this chapter. The first is about sprinkling, as to what kind of impurity that can be purified with it. The second, is about wiping, as to what is lts object and the kind of impurity it can remove, after agreeing about what we have mentioned. The third point is about the stipulation of number (of repetitions) for washing and wiping.

Kikundi cha wanazuoni wa fiqhi kilisema kwamba kunyunyiza ni mahsusi kwa mkojo wa mtoto ambaye bado hajaachishwa kunyonya. Kikundi kingine cha wanazuoni wa fiqhi kilitofautisha katika hili kati ya mkojo wa mwanamume na ule wa mwanamke, kikisema kwamba mkojo wa mwanamume unanyunyiziwa maji, ilhali wa mwanamke unaoshwa. Kikundi cha tatu kilisema kwamba kuosha ndiko utakaso uliowekwa kwa kitu ambacho unajisi wake umethibitika, ilhali kunyunyiza ni kwa kitu ambacho unajisi wake una shaka. Hii ndiyo maoni ya Malik ibn Anas, Allah amridhie. Chanzo cha kutofautiana kwao ni mgongano wa maana za wazi za hadithi zinazohusu suala hili, yaani kutofautiana kwao juu ya maana. Hii ni kwa sababu zipo hadithi mbili zilizothibitika kuhusu kunyunyiza. Ya kwanza ni hadithi ya ^Aisha kwamba "watoto walikuwa wakiletwa kwa Mtume (rehema na amani za Allah ziwe juu yake) naye alikuwa akiwaombea dua na kusugua juu ya midomo yao tende iliyolowanishwa kwa mate yake mwenyewe, pia alikuwa akiwabembeleza. Mtoto mmoja aliletwa kwake naye akamkojolea. Aliomba maji, akamwagia mahali palipoathirika lakini hakuosha." Katika baadhi ya riwaya imesemwa, "alinyunyizia juu yake lakini hakuosha." Hadithi hii amepokea al-Bukhari. Ya pili ni hadithi maarufu ya Anas ambamo alielezea sala ya Mjumbe wa Allah (rehema na amani za Allah ziwe juu yake) nyumbani kwake akisema, "Nilichukua mkeka ambao ulikuwa umekuwa mweusi kwa sababu ya uzee, nikanyunyizia maji juu yake." Baadhi ya wanazuoni walitenda kwa mujibu wa maana iliyomo katika hadithi ya ^Aisha, wakisema kwamba hili ni mahsusi kwa mkojo wa mtoto, na wakauondoa kutoka aina nyingine za mkojo. Wengine walipendelea hadithi za kuosha kuliko hadithi hii. Hii ndiyo maoni ya Malik, ambaye aliufunga utumiaji wa kunyunyiza katika kile kilichomo katika hadithi ya Anas, na ambayo inahusu nguo ambayo unajisi wake una shaka, kwa mujibu wa maana yake ya wazi.

A group of jurists said that sprinkling is specific to the urine of a child, who has not weaned. Another group of jurists made a distinction in this about the Urine of a male and that of a female, saying that the urine of the male is to be s Pnnkled over, while that of the female is to be washed. A third group said that washing is the prescribed purification for a thing the uncleanliness of w hich is confirmed, while sprinkling is for that which is doubted. This is the °Pinion of Malik ibn Anas, may Allah be pleased with him.The reason for their disagreement stems from the conflict of the apparent meanings of the traditions related to the issue, that is, their disagreement over the meanings. This is so as there are two established traditions about sprinkling. First is the tradition of ^isha “that children used to be brought to the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) and he used to pray for them and rub the top of their mouths with dates moistened in his own mouth as well as pet them. A child was brought to him and he urinated on him. He called for water and poured it over the affected spot but did not wash it.” In some versions it says, “he sprinkled over it but did not wash it”. This has been recorded by al-Bukhari. The other is the widely known tradition of Anas in which he described the prayer of the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) in his house saying, “I took hold of the mat that had become dark because of old age and sprinkled water over it”. Some of the jurists acted in accordance with the implication of Aisha’s tradition saying that this is specific to the urine of the child, and they exempted it from other categories of urine. Others preferred the traditions about washing to this tradition. This is Malik’s opinion, who confined the use of sprinkling to what is in the tradition by Anas and which relates to a garment the impurity of which is doubted, according to the apparent meaning.

Wale waliotofautisha kati ya mkojo wa mtoto wa kiume na ule wa mtoto wa kike walitegemea kile kilichopokewa na Abu Dawud kutoka kwa Abu al-Samh kuhusu kauli ya Mtume ﷺ: "Mkojo wa mtoto wa kike unapaswa kuoshwa, na ule wa mtoto wa kiume unanyunyiziwa." Wale ambao hawakufanya tofauti hii walitegemea kulinganisha mtoto wa kike na wa kiume, ambapo kwa wa kiume kuna hadithi iliyothibitishwa.

Those who distinguished between the urine of a male child from that of a female relied on what has been related by Abu Dawud from Abu al-Samh about the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “The urine of the female (child) is to be washed, and .that of the male is to be sprinkled over”. Those who did not make this distinction relied upon the analogy of the female child over the male in whose case an established tradition is laid down.

Kikundi cha wanazuoni wa fiqhi kiliruhusu kufuta kitu chochote kilichochafuliwa, kwa mujibu wa maoni ya Abu Hanifa, ikiwa dutu ya najisi imeondolewa kwa namna hiyo; vilevile katika matumizi ya kusugua kwa kutumia qiyas (kulinganisha), kwa kuzingatia maoni ya wale wanaoshikilia kwamba kila kitu kinachoondoa najisi kinaweza kutakasa. Kundi jingine la wanazuoni wa fiqhi halikuruhusu hili, isipokuwa katika mambo yaliyokubaliwa, yaani njia ya haja (tupu), pindo la nguo ndefu ya mwanamke, na viatu vya ngozi (khofu), ambavyo vinapaswa kufutwa kwa majani makavu na si kwa kitu chenye najisi au kisichokauka. Hii ni maoni ya Malik. Wanazuoni hawa hawakupanua ufutaji kwenye vitu vingine visivyotajwa katika sheria, ilhali kundi jingine lilipanua ufutaji kwenye vitu vingine.

A group of jurists permitted wiping of any smeared object, in accordance with Abu HanTfa’s opinion, if the substance of the impurity was so removed; similarly, in the use of rubbing on the basis of analogy drawn from the views of those who maintain that each thing that removes the impurity can purify- Another group of jurists did not permit this, except in the cases agreed upon, that is, the outlet, the trailing dress of a woman, and boots, which are to be wiped with dry herbage and not with an unclean or undried object. This is Malik’s opinion. These jurists did not extend wiping to objects other than those mentioned in the law, while another group extended it to other objects.

Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao kuhusu hili ni kama kupangusa (al-mash) kumewekwa katika hizo hukumu kama ruhusa ya pekee (rukhsa) au kama hukmu ya msingi (hukm asli). Wale waliosema kwamba ni ruhusa ya pekee hawakuipanua kwa mambo mengine, yaani, hawakujenga kipimo (qiyas) juu yake. Wale waliosema kwamba ni hukmu ya msingi miongoni mwa hukumu za najisi, kama hukmu ya kuosha, waliipanua.

The reason for their disagreement over this is whether wiping has been laid down in those as an exemption or as a primary hukm. Those who said that it is an exemption did not extend it to other things, that this, they did not construct an analogy upon it, while those who said that it is a primary huhm among the ahkdm of impurities, like the hukm of washing, did extend it.

Katika mzozo wao kuhusu idadi (ya kurudia), kikundi kimoja cha wanazuoni wa fiqhi kiliweka sharti la kuondoa najisi wakati wa kuosha na kufuta tu, huku kikundi kingine kikiweka sharti la idadi katika kufuta kwa mawe pamoja na kuosha. Miongoni mwa waliweka sharti la idadi katika kuosha, baadhi yao waliliweka kwa vitu tu ambavyo idadi yake imetajwa waziwazi katika matini zilizopokewa, ilhali wengine wakalipanua hilo hadi kwa najisi nyingine zilizobaki pia. Wanazuoni wa fiqhi ambao hawakuweka sharti la idadi, wala katika kuosha wala katika kufuta, ni Malik na Abu Hanifa. Wale walioweka sharti la idadi katika kufuta kwa mawe, yaani mawe matatu na si pungufu ya hapo, ni pamoja na al-Shafi'i na Wazahiri. Miongoni mwa waliweka sharti la idadi katika kuosha, wako baadhi waliolizuia kwa kitu kilichotajwa katika matini, yaani kuosha chombo mara saba baada ya mbwa kukilamba; hawa ni al-Shafi'i na wale waliofuata maoni yake. Wale waliopanua sharti hili la kuosha najisi mara saba ni pamoja na, kwa kadiri ya ujuzi wangu, Ahmad ibn Hanbal. Abu Hanifa anaweka sharti la kuosha mara tatu kwa najisi zisizoweza kuonekana, yaani najisi za kisheria.

In their dispute about number (of repetitions), a group of jurists stipulated only the removal of impurity in washing and wiping, while another group stipulated number (of repetitions) in wiping with stones as well as in washing. Some of those who stipulated number in washing restricted it to those objects about which number has been specifically mentioned in the transmitted texts, while others extended this to the remaining impurities also. Jurists who did not stipulate number, neither for washing nor for wiping, are Malik and Abu Ham fa. Those who stipulated number in wiping with stones, that is, three stones and nothing less, include al-ShafiT and the Zahirites. Among those who stipulated number in washing, are some who restricted it to the object that has been mentioned in the texts, that is, washing a utensil seven times after it has been licked by a dog, are al-ShaficT and those who adopted his opinion. Those who extended this stipulating washing of impurities seven times include, to the best of my knowledge, Ahmad ibn Hanbal. Abu Hanifa stipulates washing thrice in the case of impurities that cannot be perceived, that is, which are legal impurities.

Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao kuhusu jambo hili ni mgongano kati ya maana iliyofasiriwa ya ibada hii na dalili ya wazi ya hadithi inayoweka idadi. Wale ambao waliona kwamba maana ya amri ilikuwa kuondoa dutu ya najisi yenyewe, hawakuweka idadi hata kidogo. Waliona kwamba kuweka idadi katika kufuta kwa mawe, iliyowekwa katika hadithi maarufu ya Salman inayokataza kufanya istinja? kwa chini ya mawe matatu, ni kama kusisitiza tu, ili kupatanisha maana iliyofasiriwa ya sheria na dalili ya hadithi hii. Pia waliona kwamba idadi iliyowekwa kuhusu kuosha chombo baada ya mbwa kukilamba ni tendo la ibada lisilotegemea najisi, kama ilivyotangulia kuhusu maoni ya Malik. Wale waliofuata maana halisi ya hadithi hizi, wakizitoa kwenye kanuni iliyofasiriwa ya sheria, walizuia idadi iliyowekwa kwa vitu vilivyotajwa. Wale waliopendelea maana halisi kuliko kanuni iliyofasiriwa waliipanua sharti la idadi kwa najisi zote nyingine zilizobaki.

The reason for their disagreement about this is the conflict of the interpreted meaning of this form of worship with the apparent implication of the tradition in which number has been laid down. Those for whom the meaning of the command conveyed the removal of the substance of the impurity itself, did not stipulate number at all. They deemed the stipulation of number in wiping with stones, laid down in the established tradition of Salman that contains the command about not performing istinja? with less than three stones, as a recommendation, so as to reconcile the interpreted meaning of the law with the implication of this tradition. They also deemed the number stipulated about washing of the utensil following licking by a dog as an act of worship not based upon impurity, as has preceded concerning Malik’s opinion. Those who decided according to the literal meaning of these traditions, exempting them from the interpreted principle of the law, restricted the prescribed number to stated objects. Those who preferred the literal meaning Over the interpreted principle extended the condition of number to all the remaining impurities.

Ushahidi wa Abu Hanifa kuhusu kunawa mara tatu ni kauli ya Mtume (rehema na baraka za Mwenyezi Mungu zimshukie) ﷺ: "Mmoja wenu atakapoamka kutoka usingizini, na anawe mkono wake mara tatu kabla ya kuuweka ndani ya chombo chake cha maji."

The evidence of Abu Hanifa about washing thrice is the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “When any of you wakes up from sleep let him wash his hand thrice before putting it into his utensil”.