Musulmon faqihlari uchta narsadan (ya'ni, ushbu uch narsadan) najosatni toza va pok suv yo'qotishiga kelishib olishgan. Ular, shuningdek, ikki chiqish yo'lidan najosatni toshlar bilan tozalash mumkinligiga ham kelishganlar. Bu ikkisidan tashqari suyuq va qattiq moddalar orasida najosatni yo'qotish masalasida ular ixtilof qilishgan. Bir guruh faqihlar har qanday toza narsa, suyuq bo'ladimi yoki qattiq bo'ladimi, va najosat tegkan narsa qanday bo'lishidan qat'i nazar, najosatni yo'qota oladi, deb hisoblashgan. Bu fikrni Abu Hanifa va uning shogirdlari qo'llab-quvvatlashgan. Boshqa bir guruh faqihlar esa suvdan boshqa narsalar bilan najosatni yo'qotib bo'lmaydi, faqat toshlar bundan mustasno, deb aytishgan. Toshlar bo'yicha kelishuv mavjud. Bu fikrni Molik va al-Shofiʻiy qo'llab-quvvatlashgan.

The Muslim jurists agreed that clean purifying water removes impurities from those three objects. They also agreed that stones can remove impurities from the two outlets. They disagreed about removal (of impurities) with what is besides these from among fluids and solid substances. A group of jurists held that anything clean can remove impurities whether it is a fluid or a solid, and whatever the affected object. This was upheld by Abu HanTfa and his disciples. Another group of jurists said that impurities cannot be removed by things other than water, except for stones, which are agreed upon. This was upheld by Malik and al-Shafi T.

Ular, shuningdek, istinjо̄ (najosatni tozalash) holatida suyak va go'ngdan najosatni yo'qotish masalasida ham ixtilof qilganlar. Bir guruh faqihlar bunga yo'l qo'ymagan, ammo boshqa narsalar bilan, ular tozalay oladigan narsalar bilan foydalanishga ruxsat bergan; Molik esa non kabi hurmatli, qimmatli narsalarni bu hukmdan istisno qilgan. Xuddi shunday, oltin va qimmatbaho toshlar kabi, ulardan foydalanish haddan oshish bo'ladigan narsalar haqida ham shunday deyiladi. Bir guruh tozalashni faqat toshlar bilan cheklagan — bu zohiriylarning fikri — boshqa guruh esa suyak bilan ruxsat bergan, ammo go'ng bilan emas, garchi ular buni ham makruh deb hisoblagan. Al-Jobariy bularning hammasidan chetga chiqib, istinjо̄da toza va najas bo'lgan barcha narsalar bilan artinishga ruxsat bergan. Suvdan boshqa narsalar bilan najosatni yo'qotish va chiqish yo'llaridan boshqa joylar uchun ularning ixtilofi sababi shundaki, ular suv bilan najosatni yo'qotishning maqsadi faqat najosat moddasini yo'qotishmi yoki suvda boshqa narsalarda bo'lmagan qo'shimcha xususiyat bormi, degan masalada bahslashganlar. Agar najosat moddasini yo'qotuvchi narsalar suvga teng hisoblansa, bu bir xil ma'noni beradi. Suvda qo'shimcha xususiyat ko'rinmagan kishilar har qanday toza suyuqlik va qattiq narsalar bilan tozalashning to'g'riligini tasdiqlaganlar. Bu ma'noni chiqish yo'llaridan najosatni suvdan boshqa narsalar bilan tozalash bo'yicha ittifoq ham qo'llab-quvvatlaydi. Shuningdek, Ummu Salama rivoyat qilgan hadis ham bunga dalil bo'ladi: u Payg'ambarga ﷺ dedi: «Men uzun, sudralib yuruvchi libos kiyaman va iflos joylar ustidan yuraman». Allah elchisi ﷺ unga dedi: «Uni (najosatni) ortidan keladigan narsa tozalaydi». Bundan tashqari, Abu Dovud rivoyat qilgan shunga o'xshash holatlar haqidagi hadislar ham bor, masalan, Payg'ambarning ﷺ so'zlari: «Agar biringiz poyafzalida najosat ustidan yursa, tuproq uning tozalovchisidir», shuningdek, boshqa shunga o'xshash xabarlar.

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.

Suv ustida qo‘shimcha bir sifat bor deb hisoblaganlar, chiqish yo‘llarini (toshlar bilan) tozalash istisno holi bundan mustasno, bunday tozalashni man etdilar. Hanafiylar Shofe’iylardan suvda bunday qo‘shimcha sifat borligining izohini talab qilganda, ular buni ibodat ekanligi bilan asosladilar, chunki aqliy sabab keltirishga qodir bo‘lmadilar. Ular hatto suvning najosatni aqlga muvofiq qoniqarli darajada yo‘qotmasligini tan oldilar, va bu yo‘qotish shar’iy e’tirof bilan belgilanadi. Suv bilan najosatni yo‘qotish ibodatmi yoki avvalgi misol sifatida keladigan aqliy sababga egami, degan masala ustida ular o‘rtasida uzoq munozaralar va bahslar bo‘lib o‘tdi. Shofe’iylar esa suvga, boshqa narsalarda bo‘lmagan, najosat hukmlarini bartaraf etishda (xususiy) shar’iy fazilat berishga majbur bo‘ldilar, garchi moddiy ifloslikni (haqiqatda) yo‘qotishda u boshqa narsalarga o‘xshasa ham.

Those who perceived an additional attribute in water, prohibited such cleaning except for the exempted case, which is that of the outlets (with stones). When the Hanafites demanded from the Shaficites an explanation of such an additional attribute for water, the latter resorted to the argument that it is an act of worship, for they were not able to provide a rational reason for it. They even conceded that water does not do away with impurity in a rationally satisfying way, and the removal is assigned a legal recognition. There were extended discourses and polemics between them over the question of whether the removal of impurity with water is an act of worship or has a rational cause coming down as a precedent. The Shaficites were' constrained to establish a (special) legal virtue for water, which is not found in other things, in meeting the ahkdm of uncleanliness, though it is similar to other things in the (actual) removal of the substance (of pollutions).

Maqsad (ash-Shafi'iy qo'shimchasi) hukmni bajarishdir, ya'ni suvning najosat moddasini yo'qotishdagi ta'sirini belgilovchi hukmga rioya qilishdir, chunki ba'zan najosat allaqachon yo'qolgan bo'ladi, ammo hukm baribir qoladi. Shunday qilib ular maqsadni ikkinchi o'ringa qo'yib qo'yishdi, garchi ilgari hanafiylar bilan najosatdan poklanish shar'iy poklanish emasligi, ya'ni shaft emasligi va shuning uchun niyatni talab qilmasligi haqida kelishib olgan bo'lsalar ham. Agar ular o'zlarini hanafiylardan ajratmoqchi bo'lib, suvda najosat va iflosliklarni eritish hamda ularni kiyim va badanlardan ajratib olish sifatini ko'rganliklarini aytganlarida, bu boshqa narsalarda topilmagan sifat bo'lib, shu sababli odamlar badan va kiyimlarini yuvishda suvga tayanadilar, bu yaxshiroq gap bo'lar edi, boshqa fikrlar esa unchalik ishonarli emas. Balki shunday deb ishonish kerakki, shar'iy hukm (qonun) har bir holatda yuvish uchun suvga aynan shu ichki sifat tufayli tayanadi. Agar ular shunday deganlarida, hozirgi fiqhga uning ma'nosiga mos keladigan narsani kiritgan bo'lar edilar. Faqih biror narsani ibodat deb aytishga, bahsda raqib bilan munozara qilganda o'z uslubi uni cheklab qo'yganda, murojaat qiladi. Buni o'ylab ko'ring, chunki ularning masalalarga yondashuvi ko'p hollarda shuni ochiq ko'rsatadi.

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.

Ularning hayvon najasidan (tozalashda) foydalanish masalasidagi ixtiloflarining sababi, Payg‘ambardan (ﷺ) bu haqda rivoyat qilingan taqiq ma’nosidagi tortishuvlariga asoslangan, ya’ni Payg‘ambarning (ﷺ) suyak yoki najas bilan istinjo* qilish mumkin emasligi haqidagi taqig‘idir. Taqiq o‘zining mohiyati bo‘yicha istinjoning o‘zini yaroqsiz qiladi, deb tushunganlar bunga ruxsat bermaganlar. Taqiqni shunday tushunmaganlar esa, najosat aqliy ma’noga ega bo‘lgani uchun, bunda faqat jirkanchlikni nazarda tutilgan deb izohlaganlar, lekin bu istinjoning o‘zini yaroqsiz qiladi, deb hisoblamaganlar. Suyak va najasni farqlaganlar esa, najasni najis deb hisoblaganlari uchun shunday qilganlar.

The reason for their disagreement about (the use of) animal droppings (in cleaning) is based on their dispute about the meaning of the proscription reported from the Prophet about it, that is, the prohibition by the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) that istinja* is not to be performed with bones or dung. Those for whom the proscription indicated the invalidity of the thing itself did not permit it while those who did not view it as such, as uncleanliness has a rational meaning, interpreted this to mean abomination, but did not consider it as invalidating istinj# itself. Those who made a distinction between bones and dung, did so because they considered dung as unclean.