ec的依据是：至高无上的主所说的经文——“信道的人们啊！当你们起来礼拜的时候，你们应当洗脸，洗手至肘，应当摩头，并洗脚至踝”——以及见于公认圣训（dhāhir）中归于先知（愿主赐他的慈惠与平安）的小净方法。与此相关的，还有十二个类似基本原则的著名问题，它们涉及小净必备条件的界定、构成要素、行为的描述、次数、具体规定，以及上述一切规定（aḥkām）所针对对象的确定。

The source for the identification of the acts of ablution is the description laid down in the words of the Exalted, “O ye who believe, when ye rise up for prayer, wash your faces and your hands up to the elbows, and lightly rub your heads and (wash) your feet up to the ankles”,31 and the method of performing ablution traced to the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings'be upon him) in the established narrations (dlhar). To this are related twelve well-known issues that resemble fundamental principles. They are related to the identification of the requisite conditions, the elements, the description of the acts, their number, their specification, and the identification of the objects of the ahkam of all these.

学者们对于意图是否为小净（wudū'）有效的条件存在分歧，尽管他们一致认为意图是各类纯粹崇拜活动（ʿibādāt）的前提条件，这是因为至高者的话："他们只被命令崇拜真主，并以纯正的心向真主崇拜宗教"，以及先知（愿真主的赐福与平安降临于他）所说的："行为的价值取决于其意图"，这是一段广为人知的圣训。一群学者，包括沙斐仪、马立克、哈马德、阿布·陶尔和达伍德，认为意图是条件。另一群学者则认为它不是条件，这是艾卜·哈尼法和萨瓦里的观点。他们产生分歧的原因在于"wudū'"一词在两种性质之间摇摆：一种是纯粹的崇拜（ʿibāda），即不可以理性解释、仅为求取真主喜悦而行的礼仪，如拜功（ṣalāh）及类似的纯粹礼仪崇拜；另一种是可以兼具理性的崇拜，如洗去污垢。双方并不在纯粹崇拜需要意图、理性崇拜不需要意图这一点上有分歧。小净与两种崇拜都有相似之处，因此产生了分歧。原因在于小净既包含礼仪崇拜，又包含洁净，而教法学（fiqh）的目的，就是考察它更接近哪一类，从而将其归入相应的类别。

The jurists disagreed whether intention is a condition for the validity of ablution, although they had agreed on the stipulation of intention as a condition for worship i^ibdddt\ because of the words of the Exalted, “And they are ordered naught else than to serve Allah, keeping religion pure for Him”,32 and because of the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “The value of acts depends upon accompanying intentions”, which is a well-known tradition. A group of jurists, including al-ShafiT, Malik, Hammad, Abu Thawr, and Dawud, was of the opinion that it (intention) is a condition. Another group said it is not a condition, and this was the opinion of Abu Hanifa and al-ThawrT. The reason for their disagreement is the vacillation of the term wudtf between being a pure ritual dbdda—I mean, not subject to rationalization and intended only for the pleasure of Allah, like saldh and similar forms of mere ritual worship—and between an Hbdda that can also be rational, like washing of dirt. They did not differ about pure 'tbada being in need of intention, and rational ^ibdda not being in need of it Ablution has a resemblance to both kinds of worship and a disagreement has, therefore, resulted. The reason is that it combines ritual worship and purification, and the aim of fiqh is to examine which one it resembles more strongly so that it may be linked to it.

关于在将手伸入盛水器皿（用于小净的水器）之前是否洗手，法学家们存在分歧。有人认为，这是小净的一项常规圣行（sunan），即使双手确定是干净的也应当这样做。这是马立克和沙斐仪较为人所熟知的观点。也有人说，在怀疑自己手不洁净的情况下，洗手是recommended的。这也是传自马立克的一种观点。还有人说，醒来时（从睡眠中醒来后）洗手（在将手伸入器皿中的水之前）是必须的（wajib）。这是达乌德及其弟子的观点。也有人区分夜间睡眠与白天睡眠，认为夜间睡眠后洗手是必须的，而白天睡眠后则不必。这是艾哈迈德的观点。由此讨论得出四种观点：第一，无论何种情况都属于圣行（sunna，即总是应当履行）；第二，对怀疑者而言是推荐的；第三，从睡眠中醒来者必须洗手；第四，从夜间睡眠中醒来者必须洗手，白天睡眠醒来则不必。

The jurists differed about washing of hands before immersing a hand inside the water-utensil of ablution. Some have held that it is one of the practices (sunan) of ablution that is always recommended, even when the hands are clean without a doubt. This is the better known opinion of Malik and al- Shafi T. It c is also said that it is recommended in the case of a person doubting the purity of his hands. This too was an opinion narrated from Malik. It is also said that washing of hands (before immersing them in the water inside a utensil) is obligatory on one waking up from sleep. This was Dawud’s view and that of his disciples. Some have distinguished between nocturnal sleep and that of the day, and made it obligatory for nocturnal sleep, but not for that during the day. This is Ahmad’s opinion. Thus, four opinions are arrived at through this (discussion). First, that it is sunna in absolute terms (i.e. always undertaken). Second, that it is recommended for the person in doubt. Third, that it is obligatory on one awaking from sleep. Fourth, that it is obligatory on one waking up from nocturnal sleep and not that of the day.

由于他们在此问题上产生分歧，原因在于对阿布·胡莱赖（Abu Hurayra）所传的可靠圣训的理解有所不同。该圣训记载，先知（愿主赐福于他，并使他平安）说："你们中任何人从睡眠中醒来时，在把手伸进水器之前，应当先洗手，因为他不知道他的手在夜里曾停留在何处。"在另一些传本中是说："应当洗三次。" 那些认为这一附加要求与洗小净经文并不矛盾的人，把其中的命令式词语按其表面含义理解为义务（wujub），于是将洗手列为小净的义务之一。其中，那些认为"夜间"（bayat）一词指夜间睡眠的人，便只将夜间睡醒后洗手视为义务。那些对此没有这种理解、只从中理解为睡眠的人，则将其视为所有醒来情况下的义务，无论是白天还是夜间醒来。 那些认为该圣训的附加内容与洗小净经文相冲突的人（因为洗小净经文的表面含义是列举小净的义务），则通过将表面含义由义务转为推荐（nadb）来调和二者。其中，那些认为这一推荐因先知持续践行此事而得到加强（mu'akkada）的人，将其归入逊奈（sunan）的范畴；而那些认为这一推荐并不具有加强性的人，则认为它仅属于推荐性（mandub）的行为。对他们而言，即使手无疑是干净的，也需要以这种方式洗手，我的意思是：无论是那些认为它是加强性逊奈的人，还是那些认为它是推荐的人，都是如此。 在这些学者中，那些没有从这段圣训中理解出一个具有约束力的根本原因、因而不将其视为具有普遍含义的特定词语之类的人，只主张此举仅适用于从睡眠中醒来的人。而那些从中推导出怀疑之因的人，则认为它属于具有普遍含义的特定词语之类，并认为它适用于每一个心存怀疑的人，因为这与从睡眠中醒来的状态相近。

The reason for their disagreement in this is their dispute over the meaning of Abu Hurayra’s authentic tradition that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “When one of you wakes up from his sleep, let him wash his hand(s) before putting it into the water-can, for he does not know where his hand has spent the night”. In some versions it is said, “let him wash it thrice”. Those who did not see a contradiction between the additional requirement in this tradition and what is contained in the verse of ablution, interpreted the imperative word here in its apparent meaning of obligation (wujub) and (thus) rendered the washing of hands from among the obligations of ablution. Those, among them, who considered the word “during the night” (bayat) to imply nocturnal sleep, rendered it an obligation in the case of nocturnal sleep alone. Those who did not have a similar understanding of this, but understood from it sleep only, made it obligatory for all kinds of awakening from sleep, whether that of the day or night. Those who saw a conflict between the addition in this tradition and the verse of ablution—the apparent meaning in the verse of ablution being the enumeration of the obligations (furud) of ablution—reconcile the two by -shifting the apparent meaning, that is, obligation to mean recommendation (nadb). Those for whom this recommendation is emphatic (mdakkada) due to the Prophet’s persistent performance of this act, considered it a category of the sunan. Those for whom this recommendation was not emphatic, said it is from the category of mandub (recommended) only. For them the washing of hands in this manner is required even when they are undoubtedly clean, I mean, those who considered it emphatic sunna and also those who said it is recommended. Those, among them, who did not comprehend from this tradition an obligatory underlying cause, so as to deem it a category of the particular word implying generality, recommended it only for one waking up from sleep. Those who deduced from it the cause of doubt deemed it to be of the category of the particular word implying generality and considered it to apply to every person in doubt, for it is close to the state of arising from sleep.

关于漱口（madmada）和吸水入鼻（istinshaq），法学家们意见不一，共有三种观点。第一种认为，这两种做法在小净中属于逊乃（sunna，强烈推荐的行为）。这是马立克、沙斐仪和艾卜·哈尼法的观点。第二种认为，这两种做法在小净中属于天课（fard，义务）。这是伊本·艾比·莱莱及艾卜·达乌德的一些弟子的观点。第三种认为，吸水入鼻是义务，而漱口是逊乃（sunna）。这是艾卜·萨卜尔、艾卜·欧拜达以及一群宗教表面主义者（Zahirites）的观点。

The jurists differed about rinsing of the mouth (madmada) and snuffing (istinshaq). There are three opinions. First, that these practices are a sunna (emphatic recommendation) in ablution. This was the opinion of Malik, al- Shafi i, and Abu Hanifa. Second, that they are obligatory (fard) in ablution. This was the view of Ibn AbT Layla and some disciples of Abu Dawud. Third, that istinshdq is obligatory, while madmada is recommended (sunna). This was Ae opinion of Abu Thawr, Abu QJbayda, and of a group of Zahirites.

分歧的原因在于他们对于漱口和吸水入鼻（即“漱口”与“吸水洗鼻”）是否属于义务还是推荐的问题存在争议，而这一争议又源于关于此问题所传圣训的分歧：这些圣训是否在经文中的洗小净（wudu）经文之上增加了内容，从而产生了冲突。认为这一增加内容若被视为义务便与经文相抵触的人，因为经文的目的在于为此项律例奠定依据并加以说明，于是将圣训的含义从义务转为推荐。认为二者并不冲突的人，则依其表面含义将其视为义务。 对于那些认为圣训中的言语与行为在确定义务上力量相同的人而言，他们不区分漱口（madmada）与吸水洗鼻（istinshaq）。而那些认为言语表示义务、行为表示推荐的人，则区分了漱口与吸水洗鼻：漱口是通过先知ﷺ的行为传述的，而非他的命令；吸水洗鼻则既通过他的命令也通过他的行为传述。 先知ﷺ说：“你们中若有人行小净（wudu），就让他吸水入鼻，再将其擤出；若有人以石头清洁（istinjā'），则让他做奇数次。”此圣训由马立克在其《穆宛塔》中辑录，并由布哈里在其《萨希赫》中从艾布·胡莱赖（Abu Hurayra）的传述中辑录。

The reason for their disagreement, whether it is an obligation or a recommendation, is their dispute about the traditions reported on this issue, whether they amount to an addition over the verse of ablution, entailing a conflict. Those who considered that this addition, if deemed an obligation, conflicts with the verse—as the aim of the verse is to provide a foundation for this rule along with its explanation—shifted the implication of the traditions from the category of obligation to that of recommendation. Those who did not consider it as conflicting, assigned it its apparent meaning of obligation. Those for whom the authority of the Prophet’s sayings and acts is equal (in. strength), for purposes of assigning obligation, did not make a distinction between madmada and istinshaq. Those for whom a saying is interpreted as an obligation and an act as recommendation distinguished between madmada and istinshaq, as madmada has been reported through the acts of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) and not his command, while istinshaq is reported both from his commands and acts. The Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “When one of you performs wudu*, let him snuff up water into his nose and then let it out, while he who performs istinjd? (with stones) let him do it an odd number of times”. It is narrated by Malik in his al-Muwatta and by al-Bukhari in his Sahih from the tradition of Abu Hurayra.

学者们一致认为，洗脸是小净的义务之一，依据是至高者的话："信士们啊！当你们起身礼拜的时候，你们应当洗脸。" 他们在三个问题上存在分歧：洗涤脸上无须毛发的部分，即胡须与耳朵之间的部分；洗涤整根胡须的长度；以及胡须的梳理（以湿手指梳理胡须）。

The jurists agreed that washing of the whole face is one of the obligations of ablution, because of the words of the Exalted: “O ye who believe, when ye rise up for prayer, wash your faces”. They differed about this on three points; namely, washing of the hairless part of the face between the beard and the ears, washing of the whole length of the beard, and the takhlil of the beard (combing it with wet fingers).

在马立克学派中，众所周知的观点是，胡须与耳朵之间的部分不属于脸部，不过也有一些马立克学派的学者认为它属于脸部。有些法学家区分无须者与有须者。因此，在马立克学派内部有三种观点。艾卜·哈尼法和沙斐仪说，它属于脸部的一部分。关于胡须的长度，马立克认为必须让水流过胡须，但按照艾卜·哈尼法以及沙斐仪两种观点中的一种，这并非必须。他们之间分歧的原因在于"脸"一词的含义不明确。关于胡须的揩梳（takhlil），马立克的观点是不必须，艾卜·哈尼法和沙斐仪的看法与此相似。而马立克的弟子伊本·阿卜杜·哈凯姆则主张必须揩梳。

The well-known opinion in Malik’s school is that the portion between the beard and the ears is not part of the face, though some Malikites maintain that it is. Some jurists make a distinction between a person who is still beardless and a person with a beard. Thus, in the school (Malik’s) there are three opinions. Abu HanTfa and al-Shafi T said that it is a part of the face. With respect to the length of the beard, Malik was of the opinion that it is obligatory that water flow on it, but it is not obligatory according to Abu HanTfa and also al-Shafi T in one of his two opinions. The reason for their disagreement over these two issues is the ambiguity of the term “face”. With respect to the takhlil of the beard, the opinion of Malik was that it is not obligatory. Abu HanTfa and al-Shafi T had a similar view. Ibn cAbd al-Hakam, one of Malik’s disciples, made it obligatory.

他们之间分歧的原因，在于关于包含须髯须根梳理（takhlil）命令的传述是否可靠的争议。多数学者认为这些传述不可靠，而记载先知ﷺ 洗小净之行为的传述中，也并未提及须根梳理。

The reason for their disagreement is the controversy about the authenticity of narrated traditions containing the command for takhlil of the beard. The majority are of the view that they are not authentic and the narration in which the acts of the Prophet’s ablution are reported do not contain anything about takhlil of the beard.

法学家们一致认为,洗手和前臂属于小净的义务部分,其依据是至尊者的话:“信士们啊!当你们准备礼拜的时候,你们应当洗脸。”他们对于是否将手肘包括在前臂之内存在分歧。多数学者,即马立克、沙斐仪和艾卜·哈尼法,认为将手肘包括在内是必须的。部分则希尔派学者、后来的马立克学派学者以及泰伯里则认为,洗涤时将手肘包括在内并非必须。他们产生分歧的原因,在于阿拉伯语中介词“إلى”(到,直至)和“يد”(手)一词的多义性(ishtirāk)。介词“إلى”在阿拉伯人的用法中,有时表示界限(直至),有时则表示“与”的意思。“يد”(手)一词在阿拉伯人的用法中有三种含义:手掌;手和前臂;手、前臂和上臂。那些将“إلى”理解为“与”,或认为“يد”包括肢体的全部三个部分的人,认为洗涤时包括手肘是必须的。那些从“إلى”理解出界限,从“يد”理解出手肘以下部分,并且不认为界限属于所界定范畴之内的人,则不将手肘纳入洗涤之中。穆斯林在其《沙希赫》中记载,艾布·胡莱赖先洗右手直至上臂的起点,然后以同样方式洗左手,接着洗右脚直至小腿的起点,再以同样方式洗左脚。他随后说:“我就是这样看到安拉的使者(愿安拉的恩赐和平安降临于他)进行小净的。”这便是主张将手肘包括在洗涤之内为必须者所提出的证据。

The jurists agreed that the washing of the. hands and the forearms are from among the obligations of ablution because of the words of the Exalted, “O ye who believe, when ye rise up for prayer, wash your faces”. They disagreed about the inclusion of the elbows (in the forearms). The majority, Malik, al- Shafi T, and Abu HanTfa, considered their c inclusion as obligatory. Some of the Zahirites, later Malikites,' and al-TabarT were of the opinion that their inclusion in washing is not obligatory. The reason for their disagreement in this is the equivocality {ishtirdk) in the preposition ild (to, up to) and the term yadd (hand), in the language of the Arabs. The preposition ild sometimes denotes, in the usage of the Arabs, the limit (up to) and at other times gives the meaning of “with”. The word yadd (hand), in the usage of the Arabs, is applied to three meanings: the hand; hand and forearms; hand, forearm, and upper arm. Those who rendered ild as “with” or considered yadd as all three parts of the limb, deemed the inclusion, of elbows for washing as obligatory. Those who understood from ild the limit and from the term yadd whatever is lower than the elbows, and did not consider the limit as included in the defined category, did not include the elbows in washing. Muslim has reported in his Sahih that Abu Hurayra used to first wash his right hand till the beginning of the upper arm, then the left in the same manner, followed by the washing of the right foot till the beginning of the calf and then the washing of the left in the same manner. He (Abu Hurayra) then said: “That is how I saw the Prophet of Allah (God's peace and blessings be upon him) performing ablution”. This is the proof given by those who made obligatory the inclusion of the elbows in washing.

当一个词在两种含义之间游移不定时，必须不得仅凭其中一种含义来确定它，除非有其他证据。尽管就阿拉伯人的用法而言，"ila"（至）作"限度"解释比作"与"解释更为显而易见，尽管"yadd"（手）一词更常用来指包括前臂以下的部分，而非前臂以上的部分。因此，从字面指示的角度看，不将其包括在内的意见更为可取；而从所传圣训的角度看，包括在内的意见则更为明确，除非该圣训仅被解释为劝勉之意（nadb）。如显而易见，此问题两种解释皆有可能。有人说：若"限度"与该词属于同一类，则包括在内；若不属于同一类，则不包括在内。

When a word vacillates between two meanings it is necessary that it should not be assigned either meaning except through another evidence, even though in the case of ild the meaning in the usage of the Arabs as being “limit” is more readily apparent than the meaning “with”, and even though the term yadd is used more often to include whatever is below the forearm rather than what is above it. Thus, the opinion of those who did not include it is preferable from the aspect of the literal indication, and the opinion of those who did include it is clearer from the aspect of the narrated tradition, unless the tradition is interpreted only as a recommendation {nadb), The issue is probable either way, as is obvious. Some say that if “limit” is from the same genus as the term, it is included in it, but if it is not from the same genus it is not included.

学者们一致认为，摩头（مسح）是小净的义务之一。他们在所需摩擦的范围上存在分歧。马利克说，应当摩擦整个头部。沙斐仪、马利克的一些门徒以及艾卜·哈尼法说，只需摩擦头部的一部分即可。马利克的一些门徒将最低限度定为三分之一，另一些人则定为三分之二。另一方面，艾卜·哈尼法将其限定为四分之一，并且他还规定用来摩擦的手的部分为四分之一。他说：“用少于三根手指摩擦是不够的。”沙斐仪对这两者都没有规定限度。

The jurists agreed that wiping {mash) of the head is one of the obligations of ablution. They differed about the extent (of wiping) required. Malik said that it is obligatory to wipe the whole of it (the head). Al-Shafi(T, some followers of Malik, and Abu HanTfa said that it is obligatory to wipe a part of it. Some followers of Malik defined the minimum part to be a third, while others defined it as two-thirds. Abu HanTfa, on the other hand, limited it to a fourth, and he also defined the part of the hand with which it is to be wiped as a fourth. He said, “Its wiping with less than three fingers is insufficient”. Al- Shafi'T did not fix a limit for either.

分歧的根源在于阿拉伯人用法中助词“bā”（ب）存在一词多义（ishtirāk）。有时它仅作为增强语气的附加成分，如至高者的话语“tanbutu bi-l-duhn”（{تَنْبُتُ بِالدُّهْنِ}），这是依据读作“tunbitu”（主格符号为damma，“z”即“ب”之前的字母，kasra用于“bā”）、词根为anbata的读法。另一些时候，助词“bā”表示部分的意思，如“akhadhtu bi thawbihi wa bi ʿaḍudihi”（我抓住他的衣服和他的前臂）。否认“bā”可以表示“部分”之义是毫无意义的。这是库法学派语法（nahw）的观点。认为该助词是多余的人，便认为擦拭整个头部是必需的。这里的“多余”是指它仅为增强语气而加入。认为“bā”表示部分的人，则认为只需擦拭头部的一部分即可。那些主张此义的人以穆吉拉的传述为据，即“先知（愿真主赐予他平安与祝福）洁净时擦拭了他的前额和头巾”，此段由穆斯林（圣训学家）所载。如果我们承认“bā”是多余的，仍然存在另一种可能性，即义务是针对头部的前部，还是后部。

The basis of this disagreement is due to the equivocality {ishtirdk) that is in (the particle) bd, in the usage of the Arabs. It is sometimes used as a mere addition for emphasis - as in the words of the Exalted, “tanbut bPdduhn?'?* according to one who read “tunbitu” with a damrna for “z” and kasra for bd from the root anbata. At other times, the particle bd indicates the idea of a portion, as in the sentence “akhadhtu bi tha'wbihi wa bi ^adudih (I held him [grabbed him] bi [by] his garment and his forearm)”. There is no purpose in denying this, that is, the fact that bd may convey the idea of “a portion of’. This is the opinion of the KufT school of grammar {nahw). Those who considered it superfluous have deemed obligatory the wiping of the entire head. Superfluous here means that it is added only for emphasis. Those who considered bd as indicating apportionment have deemed obligatory the wiping of only a part of the head. Those who preferred this meaning have argued on the basis of the tradition of al-Mughira that “the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) performed ablution wiping his forehead and turban”. It is reported by Muslim. If we accept that bd is superfluous, there still remains another probability, whether the obligation relates to the front part of names (like head) or to the back part.

学者们一致认为，小净（wudu'）中的义务是：将每一处应洗的肢体洗一次，且依次进行，使这些部位被水浸湿。将每一处洗两次或三次是可取的（mandub），因为有确凿的传述说，先知ﷺ进行小净时将每一处洗一次。另一次他洗了两次，还有一次人们看见他洗了三次。然而，命令并不要求将每一处肢体洗超过一次，也就是《古兰经》中关于小净那节经文所规定的命令。

The jurists agreed that the obligation in ablution is to wash each washable limb once, one after the other, soaking these parts with water. Washing each (limb) twice or thrice is recommended {mandub) for it is authentically reported that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) performed ablution washing each (limb) once. On another occasion he washed twice, and on yet another occasion he was seen washing them thrice. The command, however, does not require washing each limb more than once, that is, the command laid down in the verse of wudu>.

他们对重复擦头的功德存在分歧。沙斐仪(愿主喜悦他)认为,洗其他肢体三次的人,最好擦头三次。大多数法学家认为重复擦头并无功德。他们分歧的原因在于:对于一段仅通过单一传述链传来的圣训中所含的附加内容,是否应当采纳。大多数法学家不采用这类圣训。其他大多数记载先知(愿主的赞颂与祝福降临于他ﷺ)洗三次的圣训,包括经乌斯曼等人传述的,都只提到他擦了一次头。然而,在一些描述先知(愿主的赞颂与祝福降临于他ﷺ)小净的乌斯曼传述中,提到先知擦了三次头。沙斐仪坚决主张采纳这一附加内容,依据是那些表明先知(愿主的赞颂与祝福降临于他ﷺ)把小净行为重复两次、三次的圣训所表现出的表面普遍性。这里的普遍性,虽然源自某位圣门弟子的话语,却适用于小净中的所有肢体。不过,这一附加内容并未见于两部《沙希黑》。如果证明其可靠,就必须遵从,因为未提及某事的记载,不能用来反驳提及该事的记载。大多数法学家根据类推其他肢体的原则,规定擦头必须另取清水。据伊本·马吉舒恩传述,他说:“若水已用尽,可以用胡须上的湿气擦拭。”这是伊本·哈比卜、马立克和沙斐仪所持的主张。

They differed about the merit in repeating the wiping of the head. Al- Shafi(T was of the opinion that the person who washes his other limbs three times should preferably wipe his head thrice. The majority of the jurists saw no merit in repeating the mash. The reason for their disagreement (here) lies in their dispute over the acceptance of the addition contained in one tradition coming down through a single chain. The majority of the jurists do not use such a tradition. Most of the other traditions relating that he (the Prophet) washed thrice, including that related through Uthman and others, state that he wiped only once. In some narrations from Uthman, however, that describe the wudu* of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) it is stated that he (the Prophet) wiped his head thrice. Al-Shafici emphatically supported accepting this excess on the basis of the apparent generality of the narrations that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) performed wudt? repeating his acts twice and thrice. The generality, here, even though it arises from the word of a Companion is assigned to all the limbs in ablution. This addition, though, is not in the two Sahihs. If proved authentic it (the narration) must be followed, as that which fails to mention a thing cannot be a proof against that which does mention it. The majority of the jurists made obligatory the renewal of water for wiping on the analogy of the other limbs. It is narrated from Ibn Majishun that he said, “If the water is exhausted he may wipe with the moisture on his beard”. This is the preference of Ibn Habib, Malik and al-ShafiT.

在擦拭头部（掸，mash）时，推荐的做法是从前额开始，双手掠过头顶直至后颈，然后再将双手带回到起始的地方。这一点载于可靠的圣训，即阿卜杜拉·伊本·宰德·本·阿绥木（cAbd Allah Ibn Zayd al-Thabit）的传述。也有一些教法学家主张从后脑开始。这同样见于先知ﷺ的沐浴方式的描述，出自拉比尔·宾特·穆阿维兹（al-Rubayyic bint Mu'awwidh）的圣训，只是此说未见于《两部圣训真本》（Sahihayn）之中。

法学家们对仅以摩擦（mash）头巾是否足够存在分歧。艾哈迈德·伊本·罕百勒、艾布·萨尔（Abu Thawr）、卡西姆（al-Qasim）、伊本·萨拉姆（Ibn Sallam）以及其他一些人允许这样做。另一派法学家以及马立克、沙斐仪和艾布·哈尼法则禁止这样做。他们的分歧源于对以穆吉拉（al-MughTra）等人所传述的圣训是否可以作为依据的争论。该圣训称：“先知（愿主赐他平安与福佑）ﷺ曾摩擦自己的额头和头巾，并以摩擦皮靴作类比。”正因如此，大多数人规定，头巾须是在洁净状态下戴上的。35 也有人拒绝接受这段圣训，或是因为他们认为它不真实，或是因为他们认为《古兰经》中明确的经文含义与之相悖，即经文中关于摩擦头部的命令；或是因为它在实践中未被广泛接受。这是那些要求个别圣训所载的事项必须有广泛实践作为依据的人的观点，尤其是在麦地那，这在马立克学派中是众所周知的，他们将广泛实践作为一个条件。该圣训由穆斯林（Muslim）辑录。艾布·欧麦尔·伊本·阿卜杜勒·巴尔（Abu Umar Ibn Abd al-Barr）说，这段圣训是有缺陷的。在其某些版本中，只提到了摩擦头巾，而未提及摩擦额头。正因如此，有些法学家没有规定在摩擦头巾的同时还必须摩擦额头，因为原有的要求与其替代之物不能合并在一起。

The jurists disagreed about (the sufficiency of) mash over the turban (alone). This was permitted by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Abu Thawr, al-Qasim, Ibn Sallam and some others. It was prohibited by another group and by Malik, al-ShafiT, and Abu Harnfa. Their disagreement arises from their dispute about the validity of acting upon the tradition related by al-MughTra and others “that he [the Prophet] (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) performed mash on his forehead and on his turban, and also upon the analogy of [the mash of] boots. It is for this reason that most of them stipulated that it be worn in a clean condition.35 This tradition was rejected by some, either because it was deemed onauthentic by them or because the apparent meaning in the Qurian contradicted it, in their opinion, that is, the command in it about the mash of the head, or because it was not widely accepted in practice. This is according to those who require widespread practice for matters reported through individual traditions, particularly in Medina, as is known about the school of Malik, who stipulated widespread practice as a condition. The hadith is reported by Muslim. Abu TJmar Ibn Abd al-Barr said that it is a defective tradition. In some of its versions the wiping of the turban alone is mentioned, while that of the forehead is not. It is for this reason that some jurists did not stipulate with the wiping* of the turban the wiping of the forehead as well, as the original requirement and its substitute cannot be combined together.

他们(法学家)对擦拭耳朵的问题存在分歧:是属于圣行(sunna)还是义务(farida),以及是否需要为耳朵更换清水。有人认为擦拭耳朵是义务的,并且需要为擦拭耳朵更换清水。持此观点的是马立克(Malik)的一派追随者,因为他认为耳朵是头的一部分。艾布·哈尼法(Abu HanTfa)及其追随者认为擦拭耳朵是义务的,并称应与头一起用同一次的水擦拭。沙斐仪(Al-ShafiT)认为擦拭耳朵是圣行,并规定需要为耳朵更换清水。这一观点也为马立克的另一派追随者所持,他们坚称这才是马立克的观点,因为有传述说他曾言:"耳朵的律例与楔子(madmada)的律例相同。"关于擦拭耳朵是圣行还是义务的分歧,源于有关此问题的圣训传述之争议,即先知(愿主的赞颂与祝福降于他)擦拭耳朵,是否是在《古兰经》关于擦拭头部的经文之外的增加。若将其视为增加,其律例便是圣行,因为它与经文相抵触(若将其解释为义务的话)。然而,若将其视为对《古兰经》中未详述之词的解释,其律例便与头部已有的律例相同,即为义务。因此,认为其为义务者,将其视为对《古兰经》中含混之词的解释;而不认为其为义务者,则将其视为增加,如同楔子的情况。关于此问题有许多圣训传述。虽然它们未被收入两部《圣训真本》(Sahihs)中,但依据这些圣训的做法已经普遍流行。至于为耳朵更换清水的分歧,其原因在于"耳朵"一词的含混不定:耳朵是否应被视为小净中独立的肢体,还是构成头部的一部分。 有一派学者明确认为，耳朵应与脸一同洗涤；另一派则认为，耳朵内侧应用湿手擦拭，与头部一同擦拭，而耳朵外侧则应与脸一同洗涤。他们这样主张的理由是，耳朵处于脸部与头部之间，难以确定其归属。然而，鉴于关于擦拭耳朵的普遍圣训以及这一做法的广泛流行，上述分歧并无实质意义。沙斐仪（Al-Shafi'i）认为，像擦拭头部那样，反复擦拭耳朵是可嘉的（Mustahabb）。

They (the jurists) disagreed about the wiping of the ears whether it is recommended (sunna) or an obligation (farida), and whether the water is to be renewed. Some said it is obligatory and that water is to be renewed for (wiping) them. Those who expressed this opinion are a group from among Malik’s followers, as he considered the ears a part of the head. Abu HanTfa and his followers considered their wiping as obligatory, and said that they are to be wiped along with the head with the same water. Al-ShafiT considered their wiping as a sunna and stipulated the renewal of water for them. This opinion was held by another group of Malik’s followers and they maintained that it is Malik’s opinion, because it is narrated that he said “their hukm is the same as the hukm of madmada”. The disagreement—whether wiping of the ears is recommended or an obligation—stems from the controversy about the traditions transmitted on this issue, that is, the wiping of the ears by the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) whether it is an addition over what exists in the Qur’an about the wiping of the head. Its hukm then is that it is a recommendation due to the conflict between it and the verse, if it is interpreted as an obligation. If, however, it is considered an explanation of an unelaborated word in the Qur’an, its hukm becomes the hukm already existing for the head, that is, obligatory. Thus those who considered it obligatory deem it an explanation of the difficult (mujmal) word in the Qur’an, while those who did not consider it obligatory deem it an addition, as in the case of madmada. There are many traditions transmitted on this issue. Though they are not included in the two Sahihs, practice has become common according to these traditions. With respect to the disagreement about the renewal of water for the ears, the cause is the vacillation of The term “ears”, whether they are considered independent limbs for purposes of ablution or whether .they form part of the head. One group gave a distinct opinion that they are to be washed with the face while another considered that the inside of the ears is to be wiped with the head and the outer parts to be washed with the face. The reason is their being equipoised between being part of the face or head. All this has no real significance in view of the common traditions about their mash and its widespread practice. Al-Shafi T considers the repeated wiping of the ears as being recommended/ as he does in the case of wiping of the head.

学者们一致认为，双脚属于洗小净时需要清洗的肢体，但他们对于双脚所需的净化方式存在分歧。一部分学者（他们是多数）认为，双脚的洁净须通过洗涤来达成。另一部分学者认为，双脚的义务是擦拭。还有另一部分学者认为，双脚的洁净可以通过任何一种方式达成，取决于做礼拜者的选择。

The jurists agreed that the feet are limbs that are the object of ablution, but they differed about the method of purification required for them. A group of jurists, and these are the majority, said that their purity is attained by washing. Another group said that the obligation in their case is wiping. And yet another group said that their purity is achieved through either way; it depends upon the choice of the worshipper.

分歧的原因在于关于wudu>（小净）经文的两种著名读法：一种是将“脚”（arjul）读作宾格（nasb，末尾元音为a），与被洗的肢体并列，即视为洗涤的对象；另一种是将其读作属格（khafd，末尾元音为i），与被擦拭的部位并列。宾格读法明显表示洗涤，而属格读法明显表示擦拭。 主张义务必须专指两种洁净方式之一（即洗涤或擦拭）的学者，便在两种读法之间有所取舍，依据自己所偏好的读法，通过解释来消解另一种读法的含义。而认为两种读法的明显含义相当、其中一种并不比另一种更有力地表明其义的学者，则将其视为“有选择的义务”（wajib mukhayyar），类似于违背誓言时的赎罪可任选一种的情形。这是al-Tabari和Dawud的观点。然而，多数学者有许多方法来解释属格读法的含义，其中最好的一种是：此处的连词所连接的是词的发音形式，这在阿拉伯语的用法中可以见到。

The reason for disagreement is based upon two well-known readings of the verse of wudu>, that is, the reading of those who read the word “feet” as the object of washing with a nasb (accusative; final vowel d) in conjunction with limbs washed, and those who read it with a khafd (final vowel i) in conjunction with parts wiped. The reading with a nasb clearly indicates washing, while reading it with a khafd evidently indicates wiping. Those who held that the obligation is specifically for one of these two types of purity, determined as washing or wiping, preferred one reading over the other, disposing of, by interpretation, the meaning of the other reading in favour of the reading that was preferable for them. Those who believed that the obvious implications of both readings were equal, and that one of these did not have a stronger indication than the other, rendered it as a wajib mukhayyar (obligation with a choice), like expiation for breaking an oath. This was the opinion of al-Tabari and Dawud. The majority, however, have numerous ways of interpreting away the reading with a khafd, and the best of these is that the conjunction here elates to the pronounced form of the word, which is found in Arab usage.

另一方主张擦拭为义务的人，他们把"ارجلكم"中的读作宾格（nasb）的理解，视为与紧邻其前、由介词引导的名词（即动词的直接宾语）相关的连接成分。多数学者采纳了他们这种读法（即读作宾格），其依据是先知ﷺ所传的圣训：他看到有人未洗脚跟，便说："脚跟将遭火烧！"他们据此认为洗脚是义务，因为凡不遵行即受惩罚者，便是义务。然而，这一论据并无法律效力；此警告针对的是那些选择洗脚却遗漏脚跟的人。①毫无疑问，主张洗涤为义务的人，是指整个脚都须洗；而主张擦拭为义务的人，指的也是整个脚都须擦；至于认为两者可任选其一者，同样是指整个脚。另有一段同样由穆斯林辑录的圣训也可作为佐证，其中说："我们开始擦脚，直到他宣布：'脚跟将遭火烧！'"这段圣训虽然惯常被用来论证否定擦拭，但它在说明擦拭之许可方面，比说明其禁止更为有力，因为该警告针对的是未完成清洁，而非清洁的方式；实际上，它对方式只字未提，这表明擦拭是被允许的。此外，也有一些圣门弟子和再传弟子的言论流传下来，认可擦拭的许可性，但这些言论是通过推论得出的。

The other party, and they are those who made wiping obligatory, interpreted the nasb reading as being a conjunction related to the position of the immediately preceding word introduced by the genitive particle, which is Kke the direct object of the verb. The majority preferred this reading of theirs (*n the accusative case) on the basis of reports established from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) when he said about people who did not wash their feet, “Woe to the heels in the fire”? They said that this indicates that washing of the feet is an obligation, as an obligation is that to which punishment is linked for non-observance. There is, however, no legal force in this; the warning was issued here about the people who chose to wash their feet but not their heels.38 There is no doubt that those who made washing obligatory, made it so for the feet in their entirety, while those who made wiping obligatory, did so for the feet in their entirety, as did those who granted a choice in the two obligations. This may also be supported by what is related in a tradition, also recorded by Muslim, where it is said that “We began wiping our feet, when he [the Prophet] proclaimed, ‘Woe to the heels in the fire’ ”, This tradition, though it has been the practice to argue through it for the denial of wiping, is stronger in the indication of its permissibility rather than its prohibition, as the warning was issued for the neglect of completion and not for the type of tahara\ in fact, it is silent as to the type, which indicates their permissibility. The permissibility of wiping is also related from some of the Companions and the Tabi un, but by way of implication.

他们对经文中所述洗小净（wudu'）各个步骤的先后顺序是否必须遵守，存在分歧。一派法学家认为，遵循这一顺序是逊奈（sunna，即推荐之行为）。这是马立克的后期门生所转述的该学派中的观点，阿布·哈尼法、ath-Thawri和达乌德也持此见解。另一派法学家认为，这一顺序是义务（wajib），这是沙斐仪、艾哈迈德和阿布·欧拜德的观点。以上讨论的都是洗小净中各项义务性行为之间的先后顺序。至于义务性行为与推荐性行为之间的先后排列，马立克认为这是可嘉的（mustahabb），而阿布·哈尼法则认为这属于逊奈（即应当作为逊奈来遵行）。

They disagreed about the observance of a sequence in the acts of ablution as arranged in the verse. One group of jurists said that it (following the sequence) is a sunna (recommended). This is what is related by the later disciples of Malik from the opinions in the school. It was also upheld by Abu Hanifa, al- ThawrT, and Dawud. Another group of jurists said that it is an obligation, which was the opinion of Al-ShafiT, Ahmad, and Abu TJbayd. All this is about the sequence of the obligatory acts (of ablution) in relation to each other. As to the sequential ordering of the obligatory acts with recommended acts, it is regarded by Malik as commendable (mustahabb), while Abu Hanifa considered it to be a sunna (i.e. it should be acted upon as a sunna).

有两个原因导致他们产生分歧。第一，是由连词"waw"（和）引起的歧义：这个连词有时表示先后顺序，有时则不表示顺序。这一点通过对阿拉伯人用法的归纳可以得知。在这一问题上，语法学家分为两派。巴士拉的语法学家认为，waw并不表示顺序或先后，它仅仅表示所连接的词语之间存在关联。库法的语法学家则认为，它既表示顺序，也表示先后。那些认为经文中的waw含有顺序之义的人，主张先后次序是必须遵守的；而那些认为它不含先后之义的人，则不认为次序是必须遵守的。 第二个原因，基于他们对先知（愿真主赐予他平安与祝福）的行为的不同理解，即这些行为应当被理解为义务还是推荐。那些将其解释为义务的人，主张次序是必须遵守的，因为没有传述说先知曾经不按确定的次序进行小净。那些将其解释为推荐的人则认为，按次序进行是逊奈（sunna）。那些区分了作为逊奈规定的行为与作为义务规定的行为的人说，有义务性的先后次序只适用于义务性的行为；而那些不作此区分的人则说，义务性的条件即使适用于非义务性的行为也可以成立。

There are two reasons for their disagreement. First is the equivocality that arises from the conjunction waw (and), as the conjunction is sometimes achieved through it in a sequential order, while at other times it is without such order. This is indicated through induction in the usage of the Arabs. On this point the grammarians are divided into two groups. The grammarians of Basra said that the waw does not indicate an order or a sequence, it merely implies a connection of the words joined by it. The Kufis said that it does indicate an order as well as a sequence. Those who maintained that the bmw in the verse implies order, upheld the obligation of a sequence, while those who maintained that it does not imply a sequence, did not uphold its obligation. The second reason is based upon their difference related to the acts of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), whether they are to be construed as an obligation or a recommendation. Those who interpreted them as obligatory, upheld the obligation of a sequence, as it is not related from him that he ever performed ablution without a definite sequence. Those who interpreted them to imply a recommendation said that sequential performance ls a sunna. Those who made a distinction between acts prescribed as a sunna a nd as an obligation said that obligatory sequential ordering has to be in acts that are obligatory, but those who did not make such a distinction said that obligatory conditions may apply even to acts that are not obligatory.

他们对洗小净的各个行为是否必须连续进行（即中间不得无故间隔）存在分歧。马立克认为，若行为仍记得且有能力进行，连续进行便是义务；只有因遗忘，或虽记得但有合理理由，且间隔不过长时，才可放宽。沙斐仪和艾卜·哈尼法则认为，洗小净中连续进行并非义务。分歧的原因同样在于经文中的“و”（wa）一词含义的多重性：这一连词有时表示所连接的事物紧接着先后发生，有时则表示某些行为相对于其他行为有所延后。

They disagreed about the (obligation of) continuous performance of the acts of ablution (without uncalled-for intervals between them). Malik held that continuous performance is an obligation, when the acts are remembered along with the ability to perform them, relaxed only because of forgetfulness, or when they are remembered but there is a valid excuse, and the interval is not excessive. Al-Shafi T and Abu HanTfa c said that continuous performance is not an obligation of ablution. The reason for disagreement is again the equivocality of the wdw y as the conjunction sometimes applies to adjacent things following each other, while at other times it applies to acts delayed with respect to others.

一群法学家主张不必连续地进行洗礼(wuḍūʾ,即小净)，其依据是有经文记载先知(愿主的赞颂与平安降临于他)偶尔会进行洗礼，并且曾经延后洗脚。对这一问题的分歧，也源于如何理解效法先知这些行为：是将其视为义务，还是视为推荐。

A group of jurists argued for-the suspension of continuous performance on the basis of what is established from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) that he occasionally performed ablution, and used to delay the washing of his feet till sometime later. The disagreement over this issue also arises from the interpretation of (following) these acts (of the Prophet) as an obligation or a recommendation.

马立克根据意图与遗忘作出了区分；对于遗忘者的原则是：他可被原谅，除非有相反的证据得以确立，这是因为先知（愿安拉的赞颂与祝福降临于他）所说的话："我的乌玛中，错误与遗忘的责任被免除。"同样，一个正当的借口，正如从法律的规定中显而易见的，能够产生减免的效力。

Malik made a distinction on the basis of intention and forgetfulness; the principle applying to the person who forgets is that he is excused, unless evidence to the contrary is established, because of the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “Liability for mistake and forgetfulness is removed from my umma”. Similarly, a valid excuse, as is obvious from the dictates of the law, is effective in obtaining a concession.

一些法学家认为,在开始净身时诵念真主之名是净身的必要组成部分。他们以先知(愿主的赞颂与安宁降临于他)的一段圣训为据,即一段马尔福("marfūʿ")传述:"没有诵念真主之名的人,其净身无效。"据圣训学家考证,这段传述尚未被证实为真实可靠。另有人将其解释为暗示意图(niyya)的必要性,也有人(据我所知)将其理解为一种推荐性的行为。

A group of jurists said that invoking the name of Allah at the beginning is an obligatory part of ablution. They argued for this on the basis of the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), through a marfiF tradition: “There is no wudi? for the person who has not proclaimed the name of Allah”. This tradition has not been proved authentic according to the traditionists. Others have interpreted it as implying niyya while some, as far as I know, have construed it as a recommendation.