1.1.4.1. 问题一：身体排出的不洁之物

1.1.4.1. Issue 1: Unclean excretions from the body

1.1.4.2. 问题二：睡眠

1.1.4.2. Issue 2: Sleep

关于睡眠，学者们意见不一，共有三种观点。 一派学者认为睡眠是使小净失效的因素，因此无论睡得时间长短，睡后都必须重新小净。 另一派学者则认为睡眠本身并不使小净失效，因此睡后不必小净，除非此人确信自己已经发生了小净失效的情况（依照不承认疑虑的学者的观点），或者他处于怀疑自己已经失去小净的状态（依照以疑虑为有效因素的学者的观点）。早期的一些学者曾派人在他们睡眠时留意他们的状况，即是否已发生小净失效。 还有一派学者区分了浅睡与深睡：浅而短暂的睡眠不需要小净，而深沉而长久的睡眠则需要小净。这一观点为各地的法学家以及大多数学者所持守。 由于某些身体姿势比其他姿势更容易导致深睡，同时也更容易使小净失效的因素排出，学者们对这些姿势的裁定也有分歧。马立克说：侧身或俯卧而睡的人必须小净，无论睡得长短；而坐着睡的人则无需小净，除非这种睡眠变得很长。关于鞠躬时睡着的人，他的看法也有不同：一次他说其裁定与站立者相同，另一次他说其裁定与叩头者相同。 沙斐仪说：无论人以何种姿势入睡，都必须小净，唯独打盹时坐着的人例外。 艾布·哈尼法及其弟子则说：睡觉的人不需要小净，唯独侧身而睡的人例外。 分歧的根源在于相关圣训之间的冲突。有一些圣训从字面看，似乎表明入睡的人根本不需要小净，例如伊本·阿拔斯的传述：“安拉的使者ﷺ曾去看望麦蒙娜，并在她那里睡下，直到人们能听到他的呼吸声。然后他起身礼拜，没有重新小净。”又有先知ﷺ的话：“你们中若有人在礼拜时打盹，就应当躺下，直到睡意消失（然后再继续礼拜）。因为他可能是想向他的主求饶，却可能会误说出自责的话。”另有传述称，先知ﷺ的同伴们曾在清真寺里打盹，头都垂了下去，之后他们便礼拜，没有重新小净。这些都是确立的圣训。 也有另一些圣训，其字面含义表明睡眠属于小失洁（哈达斯）。其中最明确的是萨凡·本·阿萨勒的传述，他说：“我们与先知ﷺ同行旅途，他命令我们在去厕所、小便或睡眠时不要脱靴，只有在大污（janabah）时才脱。”这样，他把小便、去厕所和睡眠视为同类。提尔米兹已将此段传述判定为沙希赫（sahih，可靠）。此外，还有前述艾布·胡莱赖的传述，即先知ﷺ说：“你们中若有人从睡梦中醒来，就应在把手伸进器皿之前先洗手。”其字面含义是：无论睡眠短长，睡眠都使小净成为必要。 依据那些从真主至高的经文“信道的人们啊!你们准备礼拜的时候,你们应当洗脸,洗手至肘,摸头,并洗脚至踝”中推导出此种含义者的看法,此节经文的表面含义是指:你们从睡眠中起身时(须洗小净),这与宰德·本·艾slam等早期学者所传的说法相符。由于所有这些圣训的表面含义相互冲突,法学家们依据两种方法之一来判定此问题:取舍法,或调和法。采用取舍法者,要么依据主张免除睡后小净的圣训之表面含义,完全免除睡后小净的义务;要么依据主张睡后小净的圣训,无论睡眠长短,一律要求小净,即依照他们所取舍的规定性圣训,或依照免除小净的圣训。采用调和法者,将规定小净的圣训解释为适用于长时间的睡眠,将免除小净的圣训解释为适用于短暂的睡眠。正如我们前面所说,这是多数学者的观点,而据法理学(usul al-fiqh)专家所言,在可能的情况下,调和优于取舍。 沙斐仪对圣训作了这样的解释:在睡眠者的各种姿势中,只豁免坐姿这一种情况。因为有可靠的记载表明,圣门弟子们曾坐着睡觉,然后不经小净便去礼拜。 阿布·哈尼法认为，只有在侧卧睡眠之后才需要重新净身，因为有一段马尔福（marfū'）圣训记载，先知（愿真主赐福并平安归于他）说："侧卧而睡的人，必须重新净身。"此段叙述已由欧麦尔（Umar）证实。马立克说：睡眠之所以能成为破坏小净的原因，只是因为它使小净的原因（即小净破坏之因）容易出现。在形成其观点时，马立克考虑了三件事：睡姿的稳固程度、时间长短，以及姿势。对于通常容易导致小净破坏的姿势，他没有对时间或稳固程度作出规定；但对于通常不会导致小净破坏的姿势（如站立或坐着），他则作了这样的规定。

The jurists disagreed about sleep, expressing three opinions. One group of jurists held the view that it is a factor of annulment, and made ablution obligatory after it whether it was for a short or for a long duration. Another group held that it is not so, and they did not make ablution obligatory after it, unless the person was convinced, in accordance with the opinion of those who do not acknowledge doubt, that he had acquired hadath*2 or when he was in a doubt that he had, in accordance with the opinion of those who consider doubt (as an effective factor). Some in the early generation used to depute a person to keep track of their state during sleep, that is, whether they had acquired hadath. Another group made a distinction between a light short sleep and a long deep sleep. They made ablution obligatory after a deep sleep, but not after light sleep. This is upheld by the fuqaha? of the regions, and by the majority. As some (bodily) positions facilitate deep sleep as well as discharge of annulling elements more than other positions, the jurists differed about them. Malik said that the person who sleeps reclining on his side or prostrate must perform ablution, whether the sleep was long or short, but one who sleeps in a sitting posture is under no obligation for ablution, unless such sleep becomes very long. His opinion about one (who sleeps while) bowing differed. He said once that his hukm is the same as that of the person standing, while he said another time that his hukm is that of the person prostrating. Al-ShafiT said that whenever a person sleeps, whatever his posture, he is obliged to perform ablution, except for the person dozing off while sitting. Abu Hanifa and his disciples said that there is no ablution for a person who sleeps, except for one sleeping on his side. The basis for disagreement among them on this issue is the conflict of the relevant traditions. There are traditions whose apparent meaning implies that there is no ablution at all for a person who goes to sleep, like the tradition of Ibn Abbas, “that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) visited Maymuna and went to sleep at her place till they could hear him breathing. He then arose and prayed without performing ablution”. There is the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) which is as follows: “If one of you dozes off during prayer, he should lie down till he is no longer sleepy (and then resume prayer). For it is possible that he intends to seek forgiveness of his Lord, but may err and slander himself’. It is also related that the Companions of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) used to doze off in the mosque till their heads would sink low. They prayed after this without performing ablution. All these are established traditions. There are also others whose obvious meaning indicates that sleep is a form of hadath. The clearest of these is the tradition of Safwan ibn (Assal in which he said, “We were on a journey with the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) when he ordered us not to take off our boots because of a visit to the privy, urination, or sleep, and that we should take them off only in case of sexual defilement”. He thus held urination, visit to the privy, and sleep to be similar. It has been declared sahih by al-TirmidhT. Among these is also the preceding tradition of Abu Hurayra, which is the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “When one of you wakes up from sleep, he should wash his hand before putting it into the water (utensil)”. Its apparent meaning is that sleep necessitates ablution, whether it is short or long. Similarly, the apparent meaning of the verse of according to those who derive such a meaning from 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”,53 that is, when you arise from sleep, in accordance with what is related from Zayd ibn Aslam and other early authorities. As the apparent meanings of all these traditions were in conflict, the jurists decided the issue on the basis of one of two methods: the method of preference Or the method of reconciliation. Those who applied the method of preference, either dropped the obligation of ablution after sleep completely on the basis of the apparent meaning of the traditions that drop it, or imposed it always after sleep, whether short or prolonged, on the basis of traditions that impose it, that is, in accordance with the prescribing tradition that was preferred by them Or in accordance with the tradition that dropped it. Those who adopted the Method of reconciliation interpreted the traditions prescribing ablution to a Pply to extended sleep, and interpreted the traditions waiving ablution to a PpIy to a short sleep. This, as we have saidj is the opinion of the majority, and ^conciliation is better than preference, as far as it is possible, according to ° experts on usul al-fiqh. Al-ShafiT interpreted the traditions so as to exempt, from among the positions of the person sleeping, the sitting posture alone, as this was established to be an authentic report about the Companions, that is, they used to sleep while sitting and then prayed without performing ablution. Abu HanTfa made it obligatory only after sleep while reclining on the side, as this has been stated in a marfiF tradition, and in a saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him): “Ablution is obligatory on one who sleeps reclining on one side”. The narration has been established from TJmar. Malik said: Since sleeping can be a cause of annulment of ablution only on account of the fact that it makes easy the release of the cause of hadath. In forming his views, Malik took into account three things: soundness, duration, and posture. He did not stipulate either duration or soundness for a posture that usually facilitates the occurrence of hadath^ but he did do so for postures that normally do not do so (like standing or sitting).

1.1.4.3. 第三个问题：触碰女性

.1.1.4.3. Issue 3: Touching women

法学家们对于以手或其他有触感的肢体触碰女性是否需要进行小净，存在分歧。一派认为，触碰女性者，若在触碰时肌肤之间没有任何遮隔或覆盖，则须进行小净。同样，亲吻女性者，在他们看来亲吻也属于一种触碰，无论是否因此获得快感，都须小净。这一观点为沙斐仪及其门徒所坚持，不过沙斐仪曾有一次区分了触碰者与被触碰者，只要求触碰者小净而不要求被触碰者小净；另一次则认为双方都需小净。第三次，他又区分了与之有不可结婚关系的女性和妻子，认为触碰妻子需小净，触碰有不可结婚关系的女性则不需要；另一次他又认为二者相同。另有一些人认为，只有在产生淫欲快感或怀有此意图时才需小净。持此观点者又作了细致的区分，区别是否有遮隔，以及触碰的是某些可能造成伤害的特定部位。至于亲吻，他们不以快感为条件。这是马立克及其大多数门徒的观点。还有一些人否定触碰女性者需要小净，这是艾卜·哈尼法的观点。这些学派的每一种观点，在圣门弟子中都有先例，唯独以快感为条件这一点除外，因为我不记得有任何圣门弟子以此为条件。分歧的原因在于阿拉伯人使用“触碰”（lams）一词时的多义性：阿拉伯人有时用它指以手进行的触碰，有时又用它作为性交的委婉语。 一些法学家因此认为，依据至尊真主的话“或你们与妇女交接”⁵⁴，所指的触摸导致小净（即同房，它会导致大净，也就是沐浴）。另一些人则认为，此处所指是用手触摸，其中有人将其视为用于特定含义的泛称，因而规定必须伴有快感（才会使小净失效）。也有人将其视为用于一般含义的泛称，因此不规定快感条件（即不论是否有快感都使小净失效）。主张必须有快感的人，是受到限定该经文普遍性的圣训所引导，即圣训称先知（愿安拉的福安与慈恩降临他）礼拜叩头时会触摸阿伊莎，或许她也曾如此。圣训学家记载了哈比布·伊本·艾卜·萨比特从欧尔沃那从阿伊莎传来的圣训：“先知（愿安拉的福安与慈恩降临他）曾亲吻他的某些妻子，然后出去礼拜，却没有重新小净。我说：‘除了你，还能是谁呢？’她笑了。”艾卜·欧麦尔说，该圣训被希贾兹的学者视为孱弱，却被库法的学者视为沙希德（可信）。但他本人认为它是可靠的，并说此圣训也经由马尔巴德·伊本·努巴塔传述。沙斐仪说：“如果马尔阿德·伊本·努巴塔传述的亲吻圣训得以确立，我不认为亲吻或触摸须要小净。” 那些主张触摸须以手接触才需洗小净的人认为，"触摸"一词的本义是以手触碰，而引申用于性交。若一个词在本义与引申义之间摇摆，最好将其限定于本义，除非有证据指明引申义。另一些人则可以反驳说：当某个引申用法变得普遍之后，它在引申义上的表达往往比在本义上更为贴切，例如 gh&it 一词，它指代上厕所的意思远比指代其本义"凹陷之地"更为常见、更为明确。我的看法是：虽然"触摸"一词同样或几乎同样能表达两种含义，但在我看来，它指代性交时（尽管是引申义）更为生动，因为安拉，至尊至高，在指称性交时使用了 mubashara（"接触"）和 mass（"触摸"）这两个词，而它们本义都表示触碰。正是基于对这节经文的这种理解，才得出了大净者可以行干净土代净（tayammum）的结论，而无需假定相关经文中词序有前后颠倒或延迟的情况（这一点将在后文提及），经文与圣训之间的冲突也因此得以消除。 至于那些从经文中同时理解出"触摸"两种含义（以手触碰或指性交）的人，其观点是薄弱的，因为阿拉伯人在使用一个多义词时，所指的只是该词所能表示的含义之一，而非所有可能的含义。这一点在阿拉伯语中本身就是显而易见的。

The jurists disagreed about the obligation of ablution for a person who touches a woman with his hand or with other sensuous limbs. One group held that one who touches a woman reaching out for her when there is no barrier or covering between the touching skins, is obliged to perform ablution. Similarly, one who kisses her, as a kiss, according to them, is a kind of touching, whether or not he derives pleasure from it. This opinion was upheld by al-ShafiT and his disciples, except that he once made a distinction between the person touching and the person being touched, making ablution obligatory for the person touching to the exclusion of the person touched; another time he held that it was obligatory on both. A third time he made a distinction between women in the prohibited degree and a wife, making ablution obligatory in the case of (touching) the wife, but not in the case of women in the prohibited degree, while another time he held them to be similar. Others made ablution obligatory only when lustful pleasure is felt or it was intended. Upholders of this view go into details making a distinction in the case of the existence of a covering or otherwise, and in the case of particular limbs whose touching is harmful. In the case of kissing, they did not stipulate pleasure. This is the opinion of Malik and the majority of his disciples. Some negated the obligation of ablution for the person touching women, which is the opinion of Abu HanTfa. Each of these schools has predecessors from among Companions (holding these views), except the stipulation of pleasure, for I do not remember that any Companion stipulated this. The reason for disagreement is the equivocality of the term “touching” in the usage of the Arabs. The Arabs apply it sometimes for touching that is by hand, and sometimes use it as an allusion to intercourse. A group of jurists, therefore, held that touching causing ablution according to the words of the Exalted, “or ye have touched women ., .”,54 means intercourse (which leads to major ablution, that is, bathing). Others maintained that the meaning here is that of touching by hand, and among them are those who considered it to be a general term intended for the particular, and, therefore, stipulated pleasure in it. There were those among them who deemed it a general term intended for the general, because of which they did not stipulate pleasure (for annulment). Those who stipulated pleasure were drawn to this by what restricts the generality of the verse, namely, the tradition that says that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) used to touch cAhsha while prostrating, and perhaps she did too. The traditionists recorded the tradition of Habib ibn Ab? Thabit from TJrwah from ^A’isha: “He the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) used to kiss some of his wives and then go out to pray, but did not perform ablution. I said, ‘Who could that be, but you, and she smiled’”. Abu TJmar said that this tradition was deemed feeble by the scholars of Hijaz, but was considered' sahih by those of Kufa. Yet, he held it to be authentic, saying that this tradition was also related through Ma<bad ibn Nubata. Al-Shafi T c said that if the tradition of Ma^ad ibn Nubata about kissing is established, I do not maintain the obligation of ablution for it, or for touching. Those who made ablution obligatory upon touching by hand, argued that the term “touching” is used in its primary application to touching by hand and is applied metaphorically to intercourse, and if the word vacillates between the primary and metaphorical uses, it is better to confine it to the primary meaning, unless an evidence indicates the metaphorical meaning. The others could have said that when the use of a metaphorical term becomes frequent it is more expressive in its metaphorical sense than in its actual meaning, like the term gh&it, which is more expressive in denoting a visit to the privy than it is in denoting depressed ground, which is its actual meaning. What I believe is that the word “touching”, though it is equally expressive of both meanings, or almost equal, is more vivid, in my view, for denoting intercourse though it is a metaphor, as Allah, the Glorious and Exalted, has used the terms mubashara, contact”, and mass, “touching”, for copulation and they denote the meaning of touching. It is on the basis of this interpretation of the verse that the argument is made for the permissibility of tayammum in the case of one with a m ajor impurity, without requiring the assumption of advancing or delaying in the order of the words in the relevant texts, as will be coming up in what follows, and the conflict between the verse-and the traditions is also removed the basis of the other interpretation. The opinion of those who understood from the verse both meanings of touching (by hand or by way of intercourse) is weak, as the Arabs, when they use an equivocal term, intend thereby one of the meanings that can be indicated by the term and not all the meanings that may be indicated. This itself is obvious in their language.

1.1.4.4. 第4个问题:触摸阴茎

1.1.4.4. Issue 4: Touching the penis

关于此事，法学家们存在分歧，主要有三种观点。有人因此认为无论接触的性质如何，都必须重新做小净。这是沙斐仪（al-ShaficT）及其门徒、艾哈迈德和达乌德的观点。也有人认为在这种情况下根本不必做小净，这是艾卜·哈尼法（Abu HanTfa）及其门徒的观点。两派都在圣门弟子和再传弟子中有其前辈。 还有一群法学家区分了在某种状态下接触与在另一种状态下接触。这些法学家又分为若干小派。有人以是否从中获得快感来区分：有快感则须做小净，无快感则不必。也有人以接触时使用手掌内侧还是外侧来区分：用手掌接触则须做小净，用外侧接触则不必。这两种区分都转述自马立克的门徒。用手掌内侧的考虑，似乎与获得快感的考虑相关。 有的法学家以是否出于故意或因遗忘来区分：故意接触须做小净，遗忘时则不必。这一观点转述自马立克，也是达乌德及其门徒的观点。 另有人认为，接触之后做小净是推荐的，而非必须的。艾卜·欧麦尔（Abu ʿUmar）说，这是马立克门徒中马格里布（al-Maghrib）居民所转述的定论，但传述有所不同。 产生分歧的原因在于，关于此事有两段相互冲突的圣训。 据巴斯拉（萨夫旺之女）传述，她听安拉的使者（愿安拉的赞颂与平安降临于他）说："你们中有人触摸自己的阴茎时，应当重新净身（小净）。"这是关于触摸阴茎后须小净的义务最为人所熟知的圣训，马立克在《穆宦塔》中收录了此训，雅哈亚·本·玛因和艾哈迈德·本·哈奈白认定其为可靠，但库法的法学家则认为其不可靠。另有内容部分相似的圣训通过艾布·胡莱赖传述，伊本·萨坎认为其可靠，尽管布哈里和穆斯林并未收录。与此相反的第二段圣训，由塔尔格·本·阿里传述，他说："我们来到安拉的使者（愿安拉的赞颂与平安降临于他）身边，他身旁有一个看似乡下人的男子，问道：'安拉的使者啊！对于一个已经完成小净的人，他触摸了自己的阴茎，您怎么说？'他说：'那不过是你身上的一部分吗？'"这段圣训也由艾布·达吾德和提尔米兹希收录，许多库法及其他地区的学者认定其为可靠。法学家对这两段圣训的解释有两种方式：一种是通过优先或废止的方法，接受其中一段而舍弃另一段；另一种是调和的方法。那些偏重巴斯拉圣训，或认为它废止了塔尔格·本·阿里圣训的人，坚持触摸阴茎后须重新小净；而那些偏重塔尔格·本·阿里圣训的人，则取消了因触摸而产生的小净义务。 那些想要调和两则圣训的人，有的规定某一种情况下必须做小净，另一种情况下则不必，有的则把布斯拉的圣训理解为表示推荐，而把塔勒格·伊本·阿里的圣训理解为否定其为义务。各方为支持自己所选圣训而提出的论据（数量）很多，讨论也颇为冗长。这些内容在他们的著作中均有记载，而我们所指出的，正是双方分歧所在。

The jurists differed about it expressing three opinions. There are those who made ablution obligatory because of it, whatever the nature of the touch. This is the opinion of al-ShaficT, his disciples, Ahmad, and Dawud. Some of them did not make ablution obligatory at all in this case. These are Abu HanTfa and ’ his disciples. Both parties have predecessors among the Companions and the Tabi un. A c group of jurists made a distinction between touching it in a certain state and touching it in a different state. These jurists are further divided into sub-groups. Some made a distinction based on whether the person derives pleasure from it. Others made a distinction on the basis of whether he touches it with the inner part of the hand (palm) or with the outer part. They made ablution obligatory in the case of pleasure, but not in its absence; similarly, they (the other group) made it obligatory in the case of touching with the palm, but not in the case of touching with the outer part. These two considerations are related from the disciples of Malik. It was as if the consideration of the inner part of the hand refers to the derivation of pleasure. Some jurists made a distinction on the basis of intention and forgetfulness, making ablution obligatory in the case of intention, but not in case of forgetfulness. This is related from Malik, and is the opinion of Dawud and his disciples. Still others held that ablution following touching is recommended and not obligatory. Abu TJmar said that this is the settled view related from Malik by his disciples from among the residents of al-Maghrib, but the narration varies. The reason for disagreement is that there are two conflicting traditions in this. First is the tradition related from Busrah (daughter of Safwan) that she heard the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) saying, “When one of you touches his penis he should perform ablution”. This is the best known tradition laid down about the obligation of ablution from touching the penis, is recorded by Malik in his al-Muwatt&, and has been authenticated by Yahya ibn MaTn and Ahmad ibn Hanbal, but has been declared weak by the jurists of Kufa. It is also related in the same meaning from Umm Habiba, and Ahmad ibn Hanbal declared it .to be authentic. A version similar in part is related through Abu Hurayra. Ibn al-Sakan held it to be authentic, though it has not been recorded by al-Bukhari or Muslim. The second tradition, which opposes this, is related from Talq ibn A1T, who said, “We came up to the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) and there was a man with him, who appeared to be a bedouin. He said, 4 0 Messenger of Allah! What do you say about a man who touches his penis after performing ablution?’ He said, ‘Is it not but a part of you?”’ This has also been**recorded by Abu Dawud and al-TirmidhT, and has been declared authentic by many scholars among the KufTs and others. The jurists chose to interpret these traditions in one of two ways: acceptance of one and rejection of the other by the method of preference or abrogation, or the method of reconciliation. Those who preferred the tradition of Busra or considered it to have abrogated the tradition of Talq ibn CA1I upheld the obligation of ablution after touching of the penis, while those who preferred the tradition of Talq ibn CA1T dropped the obligation of ablution resulting from the touch. Those who desired to reconcile the two traditions made ablution obligatory in one case, but not in the other, or they interpreted the tradition of Busra to indicate recommendation and the tradition of Talq ibn C A1T to indicate the negation of obligation. The arguments adduced by each party for preferring the tradition of its choice are (too) many and their discussion is lengthy. They are available in their books, but the points of disagreement are those that we have indicated.

1.1.4.5. 第5个问题：经火烹制的食物

1.1.4.5. Issue 5: Eatables prepared on fire

第一时期的法学家们对于食用火煮过的食物后是否需要重新小净，存在分歧，原因在于关于此事传自使者（愿安拉赐予他平安与祝福ﷺ）的圣训相互矛盾。第一时期之后各地的大多数法学家一致认为不需要小净，因为对他们而言，四位哈里发的做法已被确立如此；此外，还因为扎比尔所传的圣训：他说，“使者（愿安拉赐予他平安与祝福ﷺ）最后的命令之一，就是食用火煮过的食物后不必小净。”此段圣训由艾布·达乌德记录。但圣训学者中的一派，包括艾哈迈德、伊斯哈格以及与他们同持此见的其他人，则认为只有食用骆驼肉后才需要小净，因为在这一点上有来自先知ﷺ的确凿圣训。

The jurists in the first period disagreed about the obligation of ablution after eating what was cooked on fire, because of the conflict of the traditions related about it from the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him). The majority of the jurists of the regions after the first period agreed about dropping the obligation, for it was established for them that such was the practice of the four Caliphs, and also because of the tradition related from Jabir, who said, “One of the last commands of the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) was to relinquish ablution after consuming what was cooked on fire”. It is recorded by Abu Dawud. But a group of scholars from the traditionists, Ahmad, Ishaq, and a group besides them held that ablution is obligatory only after eating camel meat, because of an established tradition on this point from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him).

1.1.4.6. 第6个问题:礼拜中的笑

1.1.4.6. Issue 6: Laughter during prayer

Abu Hanifa expressed a deviant opinion when he made ablution obligatory for one who laughs during prayer, because of a mursal tradition of Abu al-'Aliyah, which states that a group of people laughed during prayer and the Prophet ﷺ ordered them to repeat ablution and prayer. The majority rejected this tradition for being a mursal and opposed to the principles, as it makes something a cause of invalidating ablution during prayer, but not when one is not praying. It is, however, a mursal that is sound. Translated into Chinese (Simplified): 阿布·哈尼法提出了一种偏离主流的观点，他认为在礼拜中笑的人必须重新做小净。他的依据是阿布·阿里耶的一则圣训（mursal）：有一群人在礼拜中笑了，先知ﷺ命令他们重新小净并重新礼拜。大多数学者拒绝了这则圣训，理由是它是圣训（mursal），并且与原则相悖，因为它使一件事只在礼拜中而非在不礼拜时成为使小净无效的原因。不过，这则mursal圣训是可靠的（sound）。

Abu HanTfa expressed a deviant opinion as he made ablution obligatory for one who laughs during prayer, because of a tnursal tradition55 of Abu al-cAliyah, which states that a group of people laughed during prayer and the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) ordered them to repeat ablution and prayer. The majority rejected this tradition for its being a mursal and opposed to the principles, as it makes something a cause of invalidating ablution during prayer, but not when one is not praying. It is, however, a mursal that is sound.

1.1.4.7. 第7个问题：搬运死者之后的小净

1.1.4.7. Issue 7: Ablution after carrying the dead

一群法学家因为抬送死者而主张需要进行小净，这是一种偏离。他们引用的一段传述是弱的："为死者沐浴的人应当洗浴，抬送死者的人应当小净。"需要知道的是，大多数法学家之所以主张小净是因为感官丧失，无论其原因为何，如昏厥、癫狂或醉酒。他们都将此类情况类比于睡眠，即认为：如果睡眠在通常会导致哈达斯（小污）的状态下（即沉睡）会使小净成为必要，那么理智的丧失同样应当导致这一结果，这是恰当的。 以上是本章中已达成共识或广为人知存在分歧的问题。现在我们进入第五章。

One group of jurists deviated by making ablution obligatory because of carrying the dead. There is a tradition for it that is weak, “One who bathes the dead let him take a bath, and one who carries them let him perform ablution”. It is necessary to know that the majority of the jurists made ablution obligatory due to the loss of senses, whatever its cause, like fainting, insanity, or intoxication. All of them held it to be analogous to sleep, that is, they maintained that if sleep makes ablution obligatory in a state that normally leads to hadath, namely, sound sleep, it is appropriate that the loss of reason should cause this too. These are the issues of this chapter that are agreed upon or are widely known to be disputed. We must now move to the fifth chapter.