本主题中有一个议题与隔着靴子擦拭（mash over khuffayn，即擦拭皮靴）有关，它属于洗涤双脚这一小净行为的一部分。关于其原则的讨论涵盖七个问题：其合法性；擦拭对象的界定；对象的类别；其描述，即对其对象的描述；其时限；其条件；以及使其失效的因素。

One of the topics on this subject relates to mash over boots (khuffayn)y as it is related to one of the acts of ablution (namely, washing of the feet). The discussion covering its principles relates to the study of seven issues: its permissibility; delineation of the object of mash; category of the object; its description, that is, the description of its object; its time; conditions; and factors nullifying it.

有三种观点。广为人知的观点，也是各地大多数法学家所坚持的，认为此事绝对允许。第二种观点认为，在旅途中允许，而在定居之地则不允许。第三种观点坚持绝对禁止，是最为严格的看法。这三种观点都有从第一代（伊斯兰早期）传述下来的依据，马立克（Malik）也有相关记载。

There are three opinions about this. The widely known opinion, which was upheld by the majority of the jurists of the provinces, is that it is permitted absolutely. The second opinion permits it during a journey and not within settlements. The third opinion maintains its absolute prohibition, and is the most strict. All three opinions have been related from the first generation (of Islam) and also from Malik.

他们之间分歧的原因，被认为在于洗脚的经文（洗礼经文）与允许擦拭的圣训之间存在的冲突，同时应注意到该经文本身是后来降示的。这一分歧在伊斯兰教第一代的圣门弟子中已经存在。其中一些人认为，洗礼经文废除了这些圣训，这是伊本·阿拔斯的观点。主张允许擦拭的人，依据穆斯林所辑录的报道，以贾里尔的圣训为论据，因为据传他曾亲眼见到先知ﷺ擦拭他的靴子。有人对他说，这发生在《筵席章》降示之前，但他说：“我是在《筵席章》降示之后才皈依伊斯兰的。”后来主张允许擦拭的法学家认为，经文与圣训之间并无冲突，因为洗脚的命令针对的是没有穿靴子的人，而穿靴子的人则被免除了这一义务。也有人说，依据“khafd”一说对经文的解释，所指的正是擦拭靴子。那些区分旅行与定居的人这样做，是因为大多数真实可靠的圣训（记载先知ﷺ擦拭靴子的）都与旅行有关。此外，旅行本身就体现了免除与宽容，而擦拭属于宽容的范畴，因为脱下靴子对旅行者来说是一种困难。

The reason for their disagreement is the conflict thought to exist between the verse of ablution, commanding the washing of feet, with the traditions that permitted wiping, bearing in mind the fact that the verse itself was revealed later. This disagreement is to be found among the Companions in the first generation of Islam. Some of them maintained that the verse of ablution had abrogated these traditions, which is Ibn cAbbas’s opinion. Those who upheld its permissibility argued on the basis of the report by Muslim that the tradition of Jarir appealed to them, as it is related from him that he had seen the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) wiping his boots. It was said to him that this was prior to the revelation of surat al-M&ida> but he said, “I- converted to Islam after the revelation of al-M&ida”. The later jurists, who upheld its permissibility, said that there is no conflict between the verse and the traditions, as the command for washing feet is directed toward those who do not have boots, and the exemption has been granted to one wearing them. It is said that the interpretation of the verse based on the khafd version relates to wiping over boots. Those who made a distinction between travelling and being in a settlement, did so because most of the authentic traditions, conveying mash by the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) over his boots, relate to travel. Further, journey in itself depicts exemption and leniency. And, mash belongs to the category of leniency, as taking them off presents a hardship for the traveller.

各地的法学家在擦拭的范围界定上存在分歧。一派法学家认为，义务是擦拭鞋的上部，而擦拭下部，即鞋底，是值得推崇的。马利克和沙斐仪都是持此观点的人。另有一些人认为，擦拭鞋的外侧和内侧都是义务，这是马利克门徒中伊本·纳菲尔的观点；还有一些人认为只有擦拭外侧是义务，而擦拭内侧不被视为值得推崇，这是艾卜·哈尼法、达伍德、苏富扬（塞written）·thawri，以及一群法学家的观点。阿什哈卜则与此不同，他认为义务是擦拭内侧或外侧，由他自己选择擦拭哪一侧。40

The jurists of the regions disagreed about the delineation of the area (to be Wiped). One group of jurists said that the obligation is for wiping the upper P rt a of the boots, and that wiping the lower part, that is, the sole, is commendable. Malik is one of those who upheld this, as is al-Shafi I. Some of c them deemed obligatory the wiping of the external and the internal parts of the hoots, which is Ibn Nafic’s opinion, from among the disciples of Malik, while others deemed obligatory the wiping of the external part alone, and did not consider commendable the wiping of the inner part, which is the opinion of Abu Hamfa, Dawud, Sufyan (al-Thawri), and a group of jurists. Ashhab deviated from this and said that the obligation is for wiping the inner part or the external, whichever he (chooses) to wipe.40

其分歧的原因源于与该主题相关的圣训之间的冲突，以及擦拭与洗涤之间的相似性。存在两段相互对立的圣训。第一段是穆吉拉·本·舒尔巴的圣训，其中说：“先知（愿真主的赞颂与祝福临于他）ﷺ擦拭了他的靴子，也擦拭了靴子内侧。”另一段是阿伊莎的圣训，说：“如果宗教是建立在个人意见之上的，那么擦拭靴子的下部会比擦拭上部更好，但我看见真主的使者ﷺ擦拭的是靴子的外部。”那些依据调和圣训的方法持有意见的人，把穆吉拉的圣训解释为表示推荐，把阿伊莎的圣训解释为表示义务。这是更为可取的方法。那些采取取舍的人，要么采纳了阿里的圣训，要么采纳了穆吉拉的圣训。那些以穆吉拉的圣训优先于阿里的圣训的人，是基于类比，即擦拭与洗涤之间的类比；而那些以阿里的圣训优先的人，则是因为它与类比相悖，或是基于其传述链更为可靠。在这一问题上，马立克的观点最为突出。至于那些允许仅擦拭靴子内侧的人，我不了解其依据，因为他们既没有遵循这些圣训，也没有运用这一类比，即擦拭与洗涤之间的类比。

The reason for their disagreement stems from the conflict of the traditions relevant to the subject, and the resemblance of wiping with washing. There exist two opposing traditions. The first is the tradition of al-Mughlra ibn ShuQ^a, which says, “He (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) wiped over his boots and inside them”. The other is the tradition of CA1T, saying, “Had the din been structured upon opinions, the wiping of the lower part of the boots would have been better than wiping the upper part, but I have seen the Messenger of Allah wiping the external part of his boots”. Those who adopted an opinion based on the reconciliation of traditions interpreted the tradition of al-MughTra to imply recommendation, and interpreted the tradition of CA1T to imply obligation. This is the preferable method. Those who adopted preference, either adopted cAlFs tradition or that of al-MughTra. Those who gave predominance to al-MughTra’s tradition over cAlFs did so on the basis of analogy, that is, the analogy of mash upon washing, while those who gave predominance to AIFs c tradition did so because of its opposition to analogy or on the basis of a*more reliable chain of transmission. Prominence in this issue goes to Malik. I have no knowledge of the basis for those who permitted mash of the inner part alone, for they neither followed these traditions nor employed this analogy, that is, the analogy of wiping upon washing.

关于可以擦拭的物品种类，主张擦拭（mash）的法学家一致同意可以擦拭皮靴，但对于袜子（jawrabayri）则有分歧。一派法学家允许擦拭袜子，另一派则禁止。禁止者包括马立克、沙斐仪、以及艾卜·哈尼法。允许者包括艾卜·优素福和穆罕默德（艾卜·哈尼法的两位弟子），以及苏富扬·萨瑞。

About the kinds of objects that are to be wiped, the jurists upholding mash agreed upon wiping over boots, but they disagreed about socks (jawrabayri). One group of jurists permitted this, while another prohibited it. Among those who prohibited this are Malik, Al-Shafi T, c and Abu HanTfa. Those who permitted it include Abu Yusuf and Muhammad, the disciples of Abu HanTfa, and Sufyan al-Thawri.

分歧的原因在于他们对一段关于此问题的圣训真伪的争论，该圣训记载先知（愿真主的赞颂与平安降临于他）擦拭过他的袜子以及凉鞋（na^layn）。他们还争论，是否可以在擦拭皮靴的基础上对其他事物进行类比推理，还是说这是一种固定的仪式或非理性的解释，既不能据此类比，也不能推广到其他事物上。那些认为该圣训不可靠，或者未曾听闻此圣训，且不以皮靴进行类比推理的人，将摩擦（mash）限制在皮靴上；而那些认为该圣训可靠，或主张以皮靴进行类比推理的人，则允许在袜子上摩擦。此圣训并未被两位圣训学家布哈里和穆斯林所记载，但被提尔米兹认为是可靠的。由于皮袜在皮靴与非皮袜之间存在争议，马立克关于擦拭皮袜有两种传述：一种禁止，另一种允许。

The reason for their disagreement arises from their dispute over the authenticity of a tradition from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) on this issue, which conveys that he wiped his socks as well as his sandals (na^layn). They also disputed as to whether analogy for other things can be constructed upon the wiping over boots, or whether it is a fixed ritual or non-rational interpretation upon which no analogy can be based nor can it be extended to other things. Those for whom the tradition did not prove authentic, or (information about) it did not reach them, and they did. not employ analogy upon boots, restricted mash to the boots, while those who considered the tradition to be authentic, or upheld analogy upon boots, permitted mash over socks. This tradition has not been recorded by the two Shaykhs, that is, al-Bukhari and Muslim, but has been deemed authentic by al- TirmidhT. Because of the vacillation of leather socks between boots and non­ leather socks, there are two narrations from Malik about wiping them: one prohibits it, while the other permits it.

他们一致认为可以在完好的靴子上擦拭，而对于破损的靴子则存在分歧。马利克及其门徒认为，如果破损较小，则可以在其上擦拭。艾布·哈尼法将破损的范围限定在三指宽的程度之内。一群法学家认为，只要这双靴子仍可称为靴子，即便破损严重，也允许在其上擦拭。据传持此观点的法学家之一是赛understand·塞understanding—— （修正）据传持此观点的法学家之一是赛understanding—— 据传持此观点的法学家之一是安萨里·萨乌里（al-Thawri）。沙斐仪在他的两种意见中的一种里认为，靴子不应在前部破裂而露出脚，即便破口很小。

They agreed about wiping over boots that are in good condition, and disagreed about those that are torn. Malik and his disciples said that one may wipe over them if the tear is minor. Abu Harnfa limited the extent of the tear to the measure of three fingers. A group of jurists said that it is permitted to wipe over them as long as they can be described as boots, even when the tear is extensive. One such jurist from whom this is related is al-Thawri. Al-ShafiT, in one of his two opinions, held that the boot should not be torn from the front exposing the foot, even if the tear is small.

关于两方分歧的原因，在于这样一个问题：由洗脚改为抹拭的义务之转换，是因为脚被覆盖（即脚被靴子遮盖），还是因为脱下靴子再在洗脚后穿上所带来的困难。41 主张是因覆盖而转换者，不允许在破损的靴子上抹拭，因为脚的暴露会使义务由抹拭转为洗涤。以困难为效因者，则不考虑破损，只要仍可称为靴子。大破损与小破损的区分，是基于istihsan（优选）和免除困难的原则。 赛吴利说：穆哈吉尔和安随的靴子也并非没有破损，与其他人的靴子一样；如果在这方面有禁令，必定会有明文记载并从他们那里流传下来。我认为，这个问题在经文中没有明确表述；如果对此有判决，再加上靴子破损是常见之事，先知ﷺ必定会加以说明。至高的真主说：“我把《教诲》降示你，以便你向世人阐明降示他们的启示。”

The reason for their disagreement derives from the question of whether the transference of the obligation, from washing (the feet) to wiping, is due to their being covered, that is, the feet being covered by the boots, or whether it is due to the hardship arising from taking off the boots and then wearing them after washing.41 Those who said that it is due to covering did not allow wiping over torn boots, as the uncovering of the feet transfers the obligation from wiping to washing. Those who considered the underlying cause i^lla) to be hardship did not take into consideration the tear, when they could (still) he called boots. The distinction between a major and a minor tear42 is based on istihsan and the removal of hardship. Al-Thawri said that the boots of the Muhajirun and the Ansar were not devoid of tears, like the boots of other people, and had there been a prohibition in this regard it would have been laid down and related from them. I would say that this issue is one that is not expressed (in the texts), and had a hukm existed for it, along with the fact that tears in boots were common, the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) would have explained it. Allah, the Exalted, has said, “We have revealed unto thee the Remembrance that thou mayst explain to mankind that which hath been ^vealed for them”

学者们在其时限的范围上也存在分歧。马利克认为，擦拭期不受时间限制，只要穿着靴子的人没有脱下靴子，也没有遭遇大净（janaba）所要求的大污，他便可以擦拭靴子。艾布·哈尼法和沙斐仪则认为，擦拭期受时间限制。

The jurists also disagreed about (the extent of) its time. Malik held that it is n °t limited by time, and one wearing boots may wipe over them, as long as he does not take them off or is not affected by a* major impurity fjanaba). Abu Harnfa and al-Shafiri held that it is limited by time.

他们之间存在分歧的原因，在于关于此事的圣训互相抵触。相关的圣训共有三则。第一则是来自阿伊莎的圣训，她说：“先知（愿主的平安与祝福降于他）为旅行者规定了三天三夜，为定居者规定了一天一夜。”此训由穆斯林辑录。第二则是乌拜伊·伊本·欧马拉的圣训，他说：“安拉的使者啊，我可以在靴子上擦拭吗？”他说：“可以。”他问：“一天呢？”他说：“可以。”他又问：“两天呢？”他说：“可以。”他问：“那第三天呢？”他说：“可以，直到第七天。”然后他［先知］补充说：“你愿意擦多久就擦多久。”此训由艾布·达乌德和塔哈维辑录。第三则是萨夫旺·伊本·阿萨尔的圣训，他说：“我们在旅途中，被命令在三天三夜内不脱靴子，除非是大污染（需要沐浴的情况）；但小便、睡眠或大小便之后不必脱靴。”

The reason for their disagreement is based upon the conflict of traditions about this. Three (relevant) traditions have been related. The first is a tradition of ‘AIT from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) that he said, “The Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) determined three days and accompanying nights for a traveller and a night and a day for the resident.” It is recorded by Muslim. The second is the tradition of Ubayy ibn TJmara that he said, “O Messenger of Allah, do I wipe over my boots?” He said, “Yes”. He said, “For a day?” He said, “Yes”. He asked (again): “Two days?” He said, “Yes”. He said, “And a third?” He said, “Yes, till you reach the seventh”. He [the Prophet] then added, “Wipe for as long as you wish”. This is recorded by Abu Dawud and al-TahawT. The third is the tradition of Safwan ibn ‘Assal, who said, “We were on a journey and were ordered not to take off our boots for three days and accompanying nights, except in the case of a major impurity, but not for urinating, sleep, or when answering the call of nature”.

我认为，关于'A'ishah（愿安拉喜悦她）的圣训是可靠的，因为它被穆斯林（Muslim）记录在其《圣训集》中。至于Ubayy ibn Ḥ-L-Ṭ-Mara的圣训，Abu 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-Barr曾说它没有确立，也没有经过验证的传述链，因此不能用来反驳'A'ishah的圣训。 Safwan ibn 'Assal的圣训虽未被al-Bukhari或Muslim记录，但它被圣训学家视为健全（sound），如al-Tirmidhi和Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm。与'Ali的圣训一样，它的表面含义与Ubayy的圣训相冲突。两者可以这样调和：'Ali和Safwan的圣训在回答问题时规定了一个时限，而Ubayy ibn 'Umara的圣训明确否定了这种时限，但Ubayy的圣训未被认证。因此，必须依照'Ali和Safwan的圣训行事，这样更好，尽管其含义与类比（qiyas）相冲突：时限不能有效地消除洁净状态，因为使其失效的是污秽。

I would say that the tradition of CAIT is authentic, as it is recorded by Muslim. About the tradition of Ubayy ibn HLTmara, Abu ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd ai- Barr has said that it is not established, and does not have a verified chain of narration, therefore, it cannot be used to oppose the tradition from CA1T. Though the tradition of Safwan ibn cAssal has not been recorded by al- Bukhari or by Muslim, yet it has been considered sound by' experts in traditions, like al-TirmidhT and Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm. Like ‘Alt’s tradition, it conflicts in its apparent meaning with Ubayy’s tradition. It is possible to reconcile the two by saying that the traditions of ‘AIT and Safwan place a time limit in response to the question, while the tradition of Ubayy ibn ‘Umara is explicit about the negation of such a limit, but the tradition of Ubayy has not been authenticated. It is, therefore, necessary to act according to the traditions of ‘All and Safwan and that is better, although their implication conflicts with analogy: a time limit is not effective in annulling purity as factors that nullify it are impurities.

对靴子进行擦拭（摩靴）的条件是：穿靴时双脚须已通过小净（wudu'）而保持洁净。这一点已为学者们所公认，只有一处细微分歧，伊本·卡西姆将其归于马立克，此说由伊本·鲁巴巴在《al-Muntakhab》中转述。多数学者的观点依据是穆吉拉等人传述的圣训，其中称，先知ﷺ想要脱靴时说："让它们留着吧，因为我穿上它们时，双脚是洁净的。"那些偏离多数学者观点的人，则依字面意义理解"洁净"一词。

The condition for the wiping over boots is that the feet, at the time of wearing the boot, should be clean through the purification of ablution. This is something agreed upon, except for a slight disagreement, which is attributed by Ibn al-Qasim to Malik, as reported by Ibn Lubaba in al-Muntakhab. The basis for the majority view rests on the traditions related by al-Mughira and others, which state that when the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) wanted to take off his boots he said, “Let them be, for they (the feet) were clean when I put them on”. Those deviating from the majority view interpreted this remark according to the literal meaning of cleanliness.

关于这样一个人的问题，学者们存在分歧：他在进行小净时洗了脚，穿上了靴子，然后才完成小净，那么他（下次小净时）是否有权隔靴擦拭。那些不认为小净中的顺序是必须的、并认为每一肢体的洁净在其余所有肢体的洁净完成之前即为有效的人，主张这是允许的。那些认为顺序是必须的、认为某一肢体的洁净在其前面所有肢体的洁净完成之前不为有效的人，则不允许这样做。第一种观点为艾布·哈尼法所持，第二种观点为马立克和沙斐仪所持，只是马立克并非因为顺序而禁止此事，而是因为此肢体的洁净只能通过洗涤其余肢体才能达成。（这一观点的依据是）先知（愿真主的赞颂与祝福降临于他）的话："我穿上它们时，它们是洁净的"，意即合法的仪式性洁净。在穆吉赫的一些传述中，原文为："当你将双脚伸进靴子，而它们此时是洁净的，你便隔靴擦拭。"依据这些原则，对于那个在洗了一只脚之后、在洗另一只脚之前穿上一只靴子的人的问题，马立克的回答是：他不得隔靴擦拭，因为他是在完成小净之前穿上靴子的。沙斐仪、艾哈迈德和易司哈格也持此观点。艾布·哈尼法、赛吾里、穆宰尼、泰伯里和达伍德则认为可以擦拭。马立克的一些门徒，其中包括穆塔里夫等人，也持此观点。所有人一致认为：如果一个人在洗了一只脚之后脱下另一只靴子，然后再穿上，则允许他隔靴擦拭。

The jurists differed in this topic about the person who (while performing ablution) washes his feet, puts on his boots, and then completes the ablution, whether he is entitled to wipe over his boots (next time he performs ablution). Those who did not consider an ordered sequence to be obligatory (in ablution) and held that purity of each limb is valid before the purity of all the other limbs is completed, maintained that it is permissible. Those who held that a sequence is obligatory, and that purification of a limb is not valid before purification of all the limbs (preceding it), did not permit it. The first opinion was held by Abu Harnfa, while the second was held by Malik and al-ShafiT, except that Malik did not disallow this because of the sequence; he did so as the purity of this limb cannot be achieved except by washing the remaining limbs. (This is on account of) the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “I put them on when they were clean”, meaning legal ceremonial purity. In some narrations from al-Mughira the words are: “When you slip your feet into your boots, and they were then pure, wipe over them”. On the basis of these rules the answer to the question about a person, who puts on one boot after washing his foot prior to washing the other, is provided by Malik, who said that he is not to wipe over his boots for he wore them before the completion of (ritual) purification. This is also the opinion of al-ShaficT, Ahmad, and Ishaq. Abu Harnfa, al-Thawri, al-MuzanT, al-Tabari, and Dawud said that wiping is permitted. It was also the opinion of a group of Malik’s disciples, among whom are Mutarrif and others. All of them agreed that if a person takes off one boot after washing the other foot and then puts it on, wiping is permitted to him.

他们一致认为，使这种净身失效的因素，与使小净失效的因素相同。他们对于脱下靴子是否会使这种净身失效存在分歧。一部分法学家认为：若人脱下靴子并洗了脚，净身仍然有效；但若他没有洗脚就去礼拜，其礼拜不被承认，他必须在洗脚之后重新礼拜。持此观点的有马立克及其门徒、沙斐仪，以及艾布·哈尼法。不过，马立克认为，如果他推迟洗脚，就必须重新小净，以符合此前已提及的小净各项行为须连续进行的条件。另一部分法学家认为：净身仍然有效，他无须洗脚，除非他出现了使小净失效的某种污染（hadath）。持此观点的有达乌德和伊本·艾布·莱莱。哈桑·伊本·哈伊说：若他脱下鞋子，净身即告失效。这三种观点各自都有一批再传弟子持有。此问题在经文中没有明确提及。

They agreed that the factors nullifying this form of purification are the same factors nullifying ablution itself. They disagreed on whether taking off the boots nullifies this kind of purification. A group of jurists said that if a person off his boots and washes his feet, purification is maintained, but if he does not wash them and prays, his prayer is not counted, and he has to pray again after washing his feet. Those who maintained this include Malik and his disciples, al-Shafi T, and Abu HanTfa. Malik, however, maintained that c if he delays this he has to renew ablution, conforming with the condition of continuous performance of the acts of ablution, which has preceded. Another group of jurists held that purity-is maintained and he is not obliged to wash his feet, unless the person acquires some form of hadath (legal impurity) that nullifies his ablution. Among those who maintained this are Dawud and Ibn AbT Layla. Al-Hasan ibn Hayy said that if he takes off his shoes, purity is annulled. Each of these three opinions was held by a group of the Tabi'-un. This issue has not been explicitly mentioned (in the texts).

引起分歧的原因在于：擦拭鞋袜是一种独立的行为本身，还是洗脚的替代，即在脚穿入鞋袜之后所代替的洗脚。如果我们认为它是一种独立的行为，那么即使他脱掉了鞋袜，净身状态仍应保持，就像洗完小净后双脚被截断的人一样。如果我们认为它是替代，那么可以说，若他脱掉鞋袜，即便我们规定必须立即洗脚，净身也会失效；也可以说，若我们不规定必须立即洗脚，那么洗脚便足以达到净身的效果。至于在脱去鞋袜时规定必须立即洗脚，这一说法较为薄弱，因为它只是一种推测性的判断。

The reason for disagreement is whether wiping over boots is an independent act in itself or is a'substitute for washing the feet once they are inside the boots. If we maintain that it is an independent act, purity must remain, even if he removes his boots, as in the case of a person whose feet are cut off after ablution. If we maintain that it is a substitute, it is possible to say that if he takes off his boots purification is annulled even if we stipulate immediate washing; and it is also possible to say that washing of the feet is enough to achieve purification, if we do not stipulate immediate washing. As to the stipulation of immediate washing at the time of removal of boots, it is weak, for it is something conjectural.

本章旨在阐明我们所要确立的内容。

This is what we intended to establish in this chapter.