关于这种净化方式的原则和规定的全面论述分为六章。第一章是关于判定其裁决（hukm），即从绝对意义上说它是义务还是推荐，或者仅作为礼拜的条件而规定。第二章涉及不洁物种类的判定。第三章是关于必须从哪些物体上清除此类不洁物。第四章是关于用来清除它们的物品。第五章论述从每种物体上清除的方法。第六章涉及如厕的礼仪。

The comprehensive discussion of the principles and rules of this form of purification is covered in six chapters. The first chapter is about the identification of the hukm, that is, whether it is obligatory or recommended from the aspect of being absolute, or is stipulated only as a condition for salahi The second chapter relates to the identification of the kinds of impurities. The third chapter is about the objects from which the removal of such impurities is obligatory. The fourth chapter is about the thing with which they are to be removed. The fifth chapter deals with the manner of their removal from each object. The sixth chapter relates to the etiquettes of the privy.

本章的依据来自经文中至高者的话语:“你的主要清洁。”[78]在圣训方面,则是先知(愿真主的赞颂与安宁降临于他)的话:“做小净的人应当吸水入鼻再擤出,用石头清洁的人应当使用奇数次数〔如三次、五次等〕。”此外还有先知ﷺ关于洗净衣物上月经血的命令,以及关于泼水冲洗尿渍的命令,正如贝都因人的事例一样。另外,还有他ﷺ经过埋有两人的坟墓时所说的话:“他们正在受刑,但并非因为大罪;其中一人在小便后没有清洁自己。” 由于存在这些传述的经文,学者们一致认为,法律规定了要清除不洁之物,但他们在这一命令是属于义务还是推荐性质,即作为逊奈(圣行)上存在分歧,正如前文所述。一派学者认为清除不洁是必须履行的义务,这是艾卜·哈尼法和沙斐仪的观点。另一派学者认为这是应当坚持履行的逊奈(圣行),但并非义务(白德尔)。还有一派认为,若记得则是义务,遗忘时则可免除。这两种观点都传自马立克及其弟子。

The source of this chapter from the Book are the words of the Exalted, “Thy Diment purify”,78 and from the sunna the words of the Prophet (God’s peace a nd blessings be upon him), “One who performs ablution should snuff up water and reject it, and one who uses stones [in purifying himself after excretion] should use the odd number [like three, five, etc.]”. There is also the command of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) for cleaning ^enstrual blood from clothes, and for pouring a pitcher of water over urine, as ! n the case of the bedouin. In addition, there is his saying about passing a grave ln which two persons were buried that “they are being given some torment, but not for a major sin; one of them did not cleanse himself after urinating The jurists agreed, because of the existence of these transmitted texts, that removal of impurities has been commanded by the law, but they differed over whether this was by way of obligation or recommendation, that is, as a sunna, as indicated earlier. One group of jurists usaid that the removal of impurities is obligatory, which was the opinion of Abu Hanlfa and al-ShaficI. Another group of jurists said that it was sunna mtfakkada (emphatic), but is not an obligation (fard). One group said that it is an obligation when remembered, but is waived in the case of forgetfulness. Both opinions are related from Malik and his disciples.

他们在这一问题上产生分歧的原因有三个。第一，关于至高至大者的话语“你的衣服要洁净”，学者们对其应当按字面理解还是按比喻理解存在分歧。第二，关于此项义务的圣训，其表面意义之间存在冲突。第三，学者们对于规定的命令与禁令所关联的理性依据存在分歧：从这些命令与禁令中所理解出的理性依据，是否是使命令由义务转为推荐、使禁令由禁止转为厌恶的佐证性事实，还是并非佐证性事实，因而理性功修与非理性功修之间并无区别。作出这种区分的人，是因为律法中大多数具有理性依据的训令都与伦理规范或法学上的利益相关，而这些大多属于推荐性质。那些将至高至大者的话语“你的衣服要洁净”理解为实际衣物的人认为，去除不洁是必须的；而那些将其视为象征心灵（qalb）纯净的人，则未能从中找到任何法律依据。

The reason for their disagreement over this issue stems from three factors. First, there is disagreement about the words of the Exalted, the Glorious, “Thy raiment purify”; whether these are to be taken literally or figuratively. The second reason is the conflict between the apparent meanings of the traditions with respect to this obligation. The third reason is their disagreement about the prescribed commands and proscriptions as related to a rational underlying cause; whether the underlying cause understood from these commands and proscriptions is a corroborative fact that moves the command from an obligation to a recommendation, and ,the proscription from a prohibition to disapproval, or whether it is not a corroborative fact, and that there is no difference here between rational and non-rational worship. Those who.made such a distinction did so because most of the rational ahkam in the law relate to ethical norms or to juristic interests, which are mostly recommended. Those who interpreted the w ords of the Exalted, “Thy raiment purify”, to mean physical raiment said’ that purification from impurities is obligatory, while those who considered it as symbolic of purity of the qalb (heart) did not find any legal evidence in them.

在这一问题的相互冲突的圣训中，有一则广为人知的圣训，内容是关于两个被埋葬的人，以及先知（愿主的赞颂与安拉的祝福降临于他）的话："他们将受到一些惩罚，但并非因为大罪；其中一人在小便后没有清洁自己。"这段圣训的表面意思暗示了一项义务，因为惩罚只与义务相关。与之相反的圣训则是传自先知（愿主的赞颂与安拉的祝福降临于他）的：当他在礼拜时遭受袭击，身上被泼上了宰杀的骆驼的血和内脏，他并没有中止礼拜。其表面意思是：如果除去秽物（najs）像除去大小净（hadath）的义务一样是必须的，他就会中止自己的礼拜。另有一则相关的圣训如下："先知（愿主的赞颂与安拉的祝福降临于他）有一次穿着凉鞋礼拜时，脱下了凉鞋；众人（与他一同礼拜的人）也跟着脱下了凉鞋，但他否认有此必要，并说：'我脱下凉鞋，是因为吉卜利勒告诉我鞋上有秽物。'"其表面意思是：如果这是义务，他为何还要继续礼拜呢？

Included in the conflicting traditions in this issue is the widely known tradition about two buried persons and the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) that “they would be given some torment, but not for major sins; one of them did not cleanse himself after urinating”. The apparent meaning of this tradition implies an obligation as torment relates only to an obligation. The tradition opposing this is that established from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), that when he was assaulted while praying with the blood and viscera of a slaughtered camel placed upon him, he did not terminate his prayers. The apparent meaning of this is that had the removal of impurities (jm/aw) been obligatory like the obligation o purification from ritual impurity (hadath\ he would have terminated hi» prayers. Another related tradition is as follows: “While the Prophet (Gods peace and blessings be upon him) was praying once in his sandals he cast them off; the people (praying with him) followed suit but he denied the need for and said, ‘I cast them off as Jibril informed me that there was filth on them The apparent meaning is that had it been obligatory why would he have continued the prayer?

那些采用优先取这些圣训表面含义之方法的人，当要求必须履行的圣训被优先采纳时，便主张其为义务；当两段要求为推荐之圣训被优先采纳时，便主张其为推荐。我的意思是，这两段圣训表明脱鞋属于强调性的推荐（Sunnah Mu'akkadah）。采用调和之方法的人分为两派。第一派认为，若记得且能够做到，则为义务；若是忘记或无能力做到，则义务便被免除。另一派则认为，它始终是义务，但并非礼拜有效（正确履行）的条件。这是关于此问题的第四种观点，而其中后一部分是薄弱的，因为在礼拜期间应当脱去拖鞋（wayira）。

Those who adopted the method of preferring the apparent meaning of these traditions upheld obligation when the tradition requiring obligation was :preferred, and upheld recommendation when the two traditions requiring a ‘recommendation were preferred; I mean, that the two traditions imply that the removal of the sandals is in the category of an emphatic recommendation. Those who adopted the method of reconciliation include two groups. The first said that it is obligatory when remembering and when able to perform, and that the obligation is dropped in the case of forgetfulness and the incapacity to perform. The other group said that it is always an obligation, but is not a condition for the validity (proper performance) of prayer. This is the fourth opinion on the issue, and (the second part of it) is weak, because wayira is to be removed during prayer.

同样地，一些学者区分了理性的和非理性的崇拜形式，即认为非理性的（崇拜）在义务上具有强调作用的那些人，他们又区分了为净化法律上的不洁（hadath）所规定的命令与针对实际不洁（najasa）的命令。因为众所周知，从najasa中净化的目的是洁净，而洁净是一种伦理准则；而从hadath中净化则属于非理性的。他们还援引了穿鞋礼拜的旁证作为依据，并援引了关于在某些情况下可以忽略轻微污秽的共识，因为人们穿着鞋子时通常会踩到污秽之物，这一点是显而易见的。

In the same way, some of the jurists who distinguished between rational and non-rational forms of worship, that is, who deemed the non-rational as emphatic for purposes of obligation, made a distinction between a command prescribed for purification from legal impurity (hadath) and the command for actual impurity (najdsa), as it is known that the purpose of purification from najasa is cleanliness, which is an ethical norm. Purification from hadath, on the other hand, is non-rational. They also sought support from the corroborating evidence of praying in sandals, as they did from the consensus about ignoring slight filth in some cases, when it is evident that one usually treads on filth with them.

学者们一致认为，不洁之物的种类基本上有四种。第一，非水生的温血动物的尸体。第二，猪肉，无论其死因为何。第三，非水生动物的血液，无论是从活体还是死体中流出，即其流出的量较多时。第四，人的尿液和粪便。大多数学者一致认为酒（khamr）是不洁的，但在部分圣训学者之间对此存在分歧。学者们在除此之外的其他事物上存在分歧。本章的原则涵盖在七个问题之中。

The jurists agreed that the kinds of impurities are essentially four. First, carrion of warm-blooded animals not living in water. Second, flesh of swine, whatever the cause of its death. Third, blood of an animal that does not live in Water, and is extracted from a living or dead animal when it flows out, that is, when' it is excessive. Fourth, the urine and excrement of human beings. Most the jurists agreed about the impurity of khami\ but there is disagreement about this among some of the traditionists. The jurists disagreed about things besides these. The principles of this chapter are covered in seven issues.

他们对没有血液的腐肉以及死去的海洋生物是否洁净存在分歧。一部分法学家认为，无血动物的尸体是洁净的；海中死物同理。这是马立克及其门徒的观点。另一部分法学家主张，就不洁而言，有血动物的腐肉与无血动物的腐肉等同，但对于那些人们一致认为不属于腐肉的东西，如蛆虫以及食物中滋生的生物，则除外；而他们将死去的海洋动物排除在这一规定之外，这是沙斐仪的观点。还有一部分法学家认为，腐肉与死去的海洋动物是同类，只是将无血的腐肉除外，这是艾卜·哈尼法的观点。

They disagreed about carrion that has no blood in it, and about dead sea j Rimals. A group of jurists said that a carcass of a bloodless creature is clean; ► milarly, the dead sea creatures. This is Malik’s opinion and that of his disciples. A group of jurists maintained equivalence, with respect to impurity, between carrion of a warm-blooded and bloodless creatures, unless it was something over which there is agreement that it is not carrion like worms and what is produced in eatables, but they exempted dead marine animals from this, which is al-ShafiTs opinion. Another group considered carrion and dead sea animals to be the same, exempting bloodless carrion, which is Abu HanTfa’s opinion.

他们之间分歧的原因，在于对经文“你们所受禁的有：死物……”79 中的含义存在争论。我认为，原因在于他们都同意这段经文属于以通用之词表示特定之义的一类，但对于这里所指的特定对象，他们的看法不同。其中一些人将死海动物和无血生物的尸体排除在外；另一些人只排除死海动物；还有人只对无血生物的尸体作出例外。对这些例外的分歧，又源于他们对限定性证据的不同理解。主张无血尸体可以例外的人，其明显的论据是先知（愿主赐他平安与祝福）所传的既定圣训，即关于苍蝇掉入食物中的规定。他们说，这表明苍蝇是洁净的，而其洁净的唯一依据，就是它们是无血的生物。

The reason for their disagreement is based on their dispute over the meaning of the words of the Exalted, “Forbidden unto you are carrion .. .”79 The reason, I think, is that they agreed that it belongs to a category of a general word intended for the particular, after which they differed as to which particular is meant here. Some of them exempt from this dead sea- animals and carrion of bloodless creatures, some exempted dead sea animals only, while others made an exemption in the case of carrion of bloodless creatures alone. The reason for a disagreement over these exemptions is based upon their disagreement over the restricting evidence. The apparent argument of those who exempted bloodless carrion is based upon the established tradition from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) relating to flies when they fall into food. They said that this indicates the cleanliness of flies, and there is no underlying reason for this except the fact that they are bloodless.

阿尔·沙斐仪的观点是，这一规定仅限于苍蝇，依据是先知（愿真主的赞颂与祝福降临于他）所说：“它的一只翅膀上有疾病，另一只翅膀上有良药。”阿尔·沙斐仪认为，从经文表面含义推导出禁止的两种不洁之物——腐肉和血液——这一说法是薄弱的。第一种通过宰杀可以净化，因此经宰杀的动物依一致意见是可以食用的；而血液不能通过宰杀净化，有着另外的律例。那么，如何将二者合并，并坚持认为血液是禁食腐肉的原因呢？这一论证是有力的，正如你所看到的：如果血液是禁食腐肉的原因，那么宰杀就不会解除对动物尸体的禁令。血液仍残留在其中、尚未被清除，禁令就会持续存在，只有在血液从动物体内完全排尽之后才会允许食用；原因被消除，结果必然随之消失。如果原因存在而结果不存在，那么这就不是真正的原因。葡萄汁就是一个例子：如果葡萄汁的禁令被解除，那么必然意味着其中不存在醉性，前提是我们认为醉性是禁令的原因。至于那些允许食用海中动物尸体的人，他们采纳了贾比尔所传的既定圣训，其中说：“他们曾连续数日食用一条被海浪抛上岸的鲸鱼，并以此为食粮。当他们将此事告知真主的使者（愿真主的赞颂与祝福降临于他）时，他认可了他们的做法，说：‘还剩下一些吗？’”这证明，他并非因为匮乏或缺粮的迫不得已而允许此事。 他们还以先知（愿真主的赞颂与安拉的祝福降临于他）的话作为依据："其水是洁净的，其中的死物是可以食用的。"

Al-ShafiTs view is that this is particular to flies, because of the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “In one of its wings is disease and in the other its cure”. Al-Shafici deemed weak the derivation from the tradition that the apparent meaning of the verse implies two separate prohibited impurities: carrion and blood. The first is acted upon by ritual slaughter for purification, because of which a slaughtered animal is permitted for consumption by agreement, while blood is not purified by slaughter and has a separate hukm. Thus, how is it possible to combine the two and maintain that blood is the cause of the prohibition of carrion? This is (a) strong (argument) as you can see, for if blood had been the cause of prohibition of carrion, the prohibition of eating (dead) animals would not have been lifted by slaughter. The prohibition of the blood still remaining in it and which has not been eliminated yet would have subsisted, and permissibility would only apply after the complete exhaustion of the blood from the animal; the cause having been removed, the effect would necessarily follow. If the cause is found, but the effect is absent, then, this is not the real cause. An example of this is the case of grape juice. If the prohibition is lifted from grape juice, it necessarily follows that intoxication be absent, that is if we believe intoxication to be the cause of prohibition. Those who exempted dead sea animals, adopted the established tradition of Jabir, which states “that they ate for several days of the whale that had been thrown out of the sea and that they derived their supplies from it. When they informed, the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) about this, he approved their act saying, ‘Is something left of it?’ ” This is an evidence indicating that he did not permit this out of necessity arising from exhaustion or lack of food. They also argued on the basis of the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “Its water is pure and its dead creatures are permitted (for consumption)”.

正如法学家们在腐肉的各类裁决上存在分歧一样,他们对于死亡动物的各部分的裁决也存在分歧,而这些部分原本都被一致认定为腐肉。因此,他们得出结论:死亡动物身上的肉也是死物,但对骨头和毛发的看法则有分歧。沙斐仪认为骨头和毛发也属于死物,而艾卜·哈尼法则认为它们不属于。马立克则区分了毛发与骨头,认为骨头属于死物,而毛发不属于。

Just as the jurists differed about the (hukm of the) kinds of carrion they disagreed about (the hukrn of) the parts of dead animals, which they had deemed as carrion by agreement. Thus, they concluded that flesh of the parts of mayta was also mayta, but they disagreed about bones and hair. Al-Shafi T c held that bones and hair were also mayta, while Abu HanTfa held that they are not. Malik made a distinction between hair and bones saying that bones are mayta, but not hair.

他们之间分歧的原因，与对肢体中哪种活动可以称为“生命”的争论有关。主张生长和摄取食物的活动表明生命的人认为，当头发和骨头中没有生长和摄取食物的活动时，它们就是死的（mayta）。主张“生命”一词仅适用于感觉的人认为，头发和骨头没有感觉能力，因此它们不是死的（mayta）。区分两者的人则认为骨头具有感觉能力，而头发没有。关于骨头是否具有感觉能力存在分歧，这一问题在医学家之间也有争议。 证明摄取食物和生长并非那种一旦缺失就可以称为死的（mayta）生命的证据是，所有法学家一致认为，动物活着时被割下的部分是死的（mayta）。这基于一段传述，即先知（愿真主的赞颂与安宁降临于他）所说：“从动物身上割下的任何部分，若其活着时被割下，便是死的（mayta）。”然而，他们一致认为，从动物身上剪下的毛是洁净的。 此外，如果“死的（mayta）”一词适用于生长和摄取食物已经停止的事物，那么被拔起的植物也应被称为死的（mayta），因为植物也表现出生长和摄取食物。对此，沙斐仪可以回应说，摄取食物（缺失时即称为死亡的那种食物摄取）仅限于具有感觉能力的生物。

The reason for their disagreement relates to their dispute as to what activity in the limbs can be assigned the term “life”. Those who maintained that the activity of growth and food intake depicts life said that when the activity of growth and food intake is absent from hair and bones they become mayta. Those who maintained that the term “life” is only applied to the senses, and as hair and bones do not possess the capacity to sense, they are not.maj/ta. Those who distinguished between the two, assigned to bones the capacity to sense, but not to hair. There is a disagreement about the capacity of the bones to sense, and the matter is disputed among the physicians. The evidence proving that food intake and growth are not that kind of life to the absence of which the term may la can be applied is the agreement of all jurists that a, part of an animal cut off when it is alive is mayta. This is based on a tradition, which is the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “Whatever is cut off from an animal, when it is alive, is mayta”. They agreed, however, that hair sheared from an animal is clean. Further, if the term mayta were to be applied to things whose growth and food intake has stopped, the uprooted vegetation would also be termed as mayta, as vegetation also shows growth and food intake. To this al-ShafiT may reply that food intake, to the absence of which the term death is applied, is limited to beings endowed with the capacity to sense.

他们对死去动物皮革的利用存在分歧。一部分法学家无条件地允许利用皮革,无论是否经过硝制;另一部分则持相反观点,认为皮革根本不可利用,即使经过硝制也不行。第三部分法学家则区分硝制与未硝制的皮革,认为硝制能使其洁净,这是沙斐仪和艾卜·哈尼法的观点。关于此问题,马立克有两种传述:第一种与沙斐仪的观点相同,第二种则认为硝制并不能使其洁净,但若皮革上没有湿气,仍可使用。 主张硝制是净化因素的学者一致认为,它能净化可以宰杀的动物的皮革,即那些可以食用的动物的皮革,但他们对于不适用宰杀的动物的皮革存在分歧。沙斐仪认为,硝制只能净化经过合乎教法宰杀的动物的皮革,因为宰杀可以代替净化的作用。艾卜·哈尼法则认为,硝制能够净化除猪以外所有动物的皮革。达乌德则说,硝制能净化一切皮革,包括猪皮。

They disagreed about the utilization of skins of dead animals. A group of jurists upheld the unconditional permissibility of the utilization of skins, whether tanned or not, while another group held the opposite view, that is, they are not to be utilized at all, even when tanned. A third group of jurists made a distinction between tanned an untanned skins, maintaining that tanning purifies them, which is al-ShafiTs and Abu HanTfa’s opinion. There are two narrations from Malik about this. The first is the same as that of al- Shafi I, while c the second is that tanning does not purify them, but they can be used if no moisture is involved. Those who maintained that tanning is a purifying factor, agreed that it purifies the skins of the animals that can be ritually slaughtered, that is, those permissible for consumption, but they disagreed about those to which ritual slaughter does not apply. Al-ShaficT held that it purifies the skins of ritually slaughtered animals only, as slaughter is a substitute for the purpose of purification. Abu HanTfa maintained the effectiveness of tanning in purifying the skins of all animals with the exception of swine. Dawud said that it purifies all, even the skins of swine.

他们分歧的原因在于这一问题上的圣训相互冲突。允许完全利用死畜皮革的依据是迈蒙纳的圣训：先知ﷺ经过一具死畜时说："你们本该利用它的皮啊。"而完全禁止的依据是伊本·叶凯西姆的圣训，其中说："安拉的使者ﷺ写道，死畜的皮和筋都不得利用。"这发生在先知去世前一年。另有一些圣训表明，这一命令所指的是（允许）皮革经过硝制后再利用，硝制之前则不可。对此，公认的圣训见于《洁净篇》（TA HARA），即伊本·阿拔斯的圣训：先知ﷺ说："皮革经过硝制后便得以洁净。"

The reason for their disagreement is the conflict of traditions on this issue. The absolute permissibility of its utilization is laid down in Maymunas tradition, when the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) was passing by a carcass he said, “Would that you had made use of its skin”. Its absolute prohibition is derived from the tradition of Ibn cAkTm, which states that “the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) wrote that neither its hide nor its sinew are to be utilized”. This was a year before his death. In some traditions the command conveys (the permissibility of) their utilization after tanning, but not before. The established tradition for this isTHE BOOK OF (RITUAL) PURIFICATION (TA HARA) that of Ibn ‘Abbas that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “When the hides are tanned they become purified”.

这些圣训之间的矛盾使教法学家们在理解上产生了分歧。一派采用调和的方法，依据伊本·阿拔斯的圣训，区分已硝制的皮革与未硝制的皮革。另一派采用废止（取代）的方法，依据伊本·凯布（Ibn cAkTm）的圣训，因为他们将该圣训的时间定为先知去世前一年，是较晚的时间。第三派则倾向于迈慕那的圣训，认为它比伊本·阿拔斯的圣训多出了一层内容，因为禁止在硝制之前使用皮革，并不能从伊本·阿拔斯的圣训中推出，该圣训讲的是洁净问题，而使用与洁净是两回事。每一样洁净之物都可以使用，但可以使用之物未必都是洁净的。

学者们一致认为陆生动物的血是不洁的，但他们对鱼血的看法存在分歧。同样，对于除海洋动物之外的动物所流出的少量血液，他们也存在分歧。

The jurists agreed that blood of land animals is unclean, but they differed about the blood of fish. Similarly, they disagreed about small quantities of blood of animals other than those of the sea.

一群法学家认为鱼的血是洁净的，这是马立克的两种观点之一，也是沙斐仪的观点。另一群法学家则根据血液的通则，认为鱼血是不洁的，这是马立克在《穆达瓦奈》中的观点。同样，一群法学家认为少量的血可以忽略不计，而另一些人则认为少量与大量血液的判决是相同的。前一种观点为大多数学者所持。

A group of jurists said that the blood of fish is clean, and this is one of two opinions from Malik and is also the opinion of al-Shafi‘T. Another group of jurists said that it is unclean on the basis of the rule for blood. This is Malik’s opinion in al-Mudawwana. Similarly, a group of jurists said that small quantities of blood are overlooked, while others said that the hukm of large and small quantities is the same. The former view is held by the majority.

他们对鱼血的分歧，与他们对死鱼是否属于“死物（ميتة）”的分歧相关。那些认为死鱼包含在死物的一般禁令之内的人，便认为其血与其他死物之血相同；而那些将死鱼排除在一般禁令之外的人，也依同样的类比，免除了其血的禁令。关于此事有一则较弱的圣训，即先知（愿真主的赞颂与祝福降临于他ﷺ）说：“我们被允许食用两种死物和两种血：蝗虫与鲸鱼，肝与脾。”

The reason for their disagreement over the blood of fish relates to their disagreement whether dead fish is mayta. Those who considered dead fish to be included in the general prohibition for mayta, deemed its blood to be the same, while those who exempted it from the general prohibition, exempted its blood on the same analogy. There exists a weak tradition related to this, and this is the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), 1 wo kinds of mayta and two kinds of blood have been permitted to us, locust a nd whale, and liver and spleen”.

他们对于大量血与少量血的分歧，关系到以限定义（muqayyad）统摄绝对义（mutlaq），还是以绝对义统摄限定义的问题。关于血的禁令，经文以绝对的措辞写道：至尊者说：“你们被禁食的有：死物、血液、猪肉”，而在另一处又以限定的措辞说：“你说：我在所启示我的经典中，不见有人所嗜食之物被禁，除非是死物，或流出的血，或猪肉——因为那确是不洁的”。主张以限定义统摄绝对义的人（这是多数学者），认为只有“流出的血”才是被禁且不洁的。而主张依据绝对义而非限定义来裁定的人则认为，“流出的血”指大量的血，而未“流出”的则是少量的血，两者都是被禁的。他们还以此为证：本质不洁的东西，其组成部分不可能是洁净的。

Their disagreement over large and small quantities of blood relates to the ^position of the qualified meaning over the absolute or the imposition of the absolute meaning over the qualified. The prohibition of blood has been laid down in absolute terms in the words of the Exalted, “Forbidden unto you are Car rion and blood and swine-flesh”,81 while it is found in qualified terms in His words: “Say: I find not in that which is revealed to me aught prohibited to an eater that he eat thereof, except it be carrion, or blood poured forth, or swine-flesh—for that verily is foul”.82 Those who imposed the qualified meaning over the absolute meaning, and these are the majority, said that it is only blood that is “poured forth” that is prohibited and unclean. Those who decided according to the absolute meaning in preference to the qualified, said that blood “poured forth” is blood in large quantities, while that which is not “poured forth” is blood in small quantities, and both are prohibited. They also supported their view by saying that a thing which is unclean in essence cannot be clean in its constituent parts.

jurists 学者们 — "The jurists agreed" → 学者们一致认为…… 学者们一致认为，人的尿液和粪便是不洁的，但男婴的尿液除外。关于其他动物的情况，他们存在分歧。阿勒-沙菲仪（Al-Shafi'i）和艾布·哈尼法（Abu Hanifa）认为，所有动物的尿液和粪便都是不洁的；而另一些学者则主张它们绝对洁净，即所有动物的排泄物（尿液和粪便）都不属于不洁之物。另有一些学者认为，其尿液和粪便的判断取决于其肉的判断：肉被禁食的动物，其尿液和粪便也是被禁止且不洁的；可以食用的动物，其尿液和粪便是洁净的，但以污秽为食的动物除外。被视为令人厌恶（不宜食用）的动物，其尿液和粪便同样是令人厌恶的。这是马立克（Malik）的观点，艾布·哈尼法也在猛兽方面持相同看法。

The jurists agreed about the uncleanliness of human urine and excrement, except for the urine of a male infant. They disagreed about what is besides this with respect to all animals. Al-ShaficT and Abu Hamfa held that urine and excrement of all animals are unclean, while a group of jurists upheld their absolute cleanliness, that is, offal of all animals from urine and excrement. A group of jurists said that the hukm of their urine and dung is dependent upon the hukm of their flesh. The animals whose flesh is prohibited, their urine and dung are prohibited and unclean, while the animals that are fit for consumption their urine and dung are clean, except for those animals that consume filth. The animals that are considered abominable (for food), their urine and dung are also abominable. This was Malik’s opinion, as well as that of Abu Hamfa with respect to beasts of prey.

他们之所以产生分歧，有两个原因。第一个原因在于：对于允许在动物栖息之处礼拜这一规定，以及先知（愿主的赞颂与祝福降临于他）允许乌克勒和欧勒人饮用骆驼尿和奶，还有禁止在骆驼栖息之处礼拜的含义，他们存在争议。第二个原因在于为此目的而进行的类比，即将其他一切动物类比于人。 那些将其他一切动物类比于人、并认为这属于更高层次类比的人，没有把允许在动物栖息之处礼拜视为意味着其尿液和粪便是洁净的，而是认为这是一种依据启示性而非理性来源的律例。那些将禁止在骆驼栖息之处礼拜解释为意味着不洁，并认为乌克勒和欧勒人饮用骆驼尿是作为药物，而药物原则上是被允许的，因此主张一切尿液和粪便都是不洁的人，也是如此。 那些将允许在动物栖息之处礼拜的圣训解释为意味着动物的粪便和尿液是洁净的，乌克勒和欧勒人的情况也是如此，并认为禁止在骆驼栖息之处礼拜是一种敬拜行为，传达的是不同于不洁的含义；按照他们的看法，人与动物的区别在于，人的粪便天生令人厌恶，而动物的粪便则不然。他们认为动物粪便的洁净与否取决于动物肉是否可食。真主至知。 那些将其他一切动物类比于家畜的人，认为一切粪便都是洁净的、不被禁止的，唯独人的粪便例外。

There are two reasons for their disagreement. The first is their dispute over the significance of the ordained permissibility of praying in the resting place of animals, the permission granted by the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) to the TJmiyln to drink the urine and milk of camels, as well as the meaning of the prohibition of praying in the resting place of camels. The second reason is the analogy, for this purpose, of all other animals upon man. Those who constructed the analogy of all other animals upon man, maintaining that this belongs to the category of higher qiyds, did not consider the permissibility of praying in the resting places of animals as implying the cleanliness of their urine and dung, but deemed it to be a hukm resting upon a revelatory non-rational source. Those who interpreted the prohibition of praying in the resting places of camels to imply uncleanliness, and deemed the permissibility of drinking the urine of camels in the case of the TJmiyin as medication, which is permitted on principle, said that all urine and dung lS unclean. Those who interpreted the tradition permitting prayer in the resting places of animals as implying the cleanliness of their excrement and urine, as also in the case of the TJrniyTn, and deemed the prohibition of praying in the resting places of camels an act of worship and as conveying a meaning other than uncleanliness, the difference, according to them, between man and animals being that the excrement of man is repulsive by nature, while that of animals is not, deemed the excrement as being dependent upon (the permissibility) of the flesh of animals. Allah knows best. Those who based the analogy of all other animals upon domesticated animals, deemed’ all excrement to be clean and not prohibited, except for the excrement of man.

学者们对少量秽物的看法分为三种意见。一派学者认为，少量与大量的秽物并无区别。持此观点者包括阿勒-沙菲仪（al-ShaficT）。另一派学者认为，少量秽物可以忽略不计，并将其界定为相当于一枚掺杂其他金属的迪拉姆（dirham）大小的量。持此观点者包括艾布·哈尼法（Abu HanTfa）。穆罕默德·本·哈桑（Muhammad ibn al-Hasan）与此有所不同，他认为如果秽物覆盖衣服的四分之一或更少，则可以穿着此衣服礼拜。第三派学者认为，少量与大量的秽物同样对待，但血液除外，正如前文所提及的那样。这是马立克的观点。关于经血，有两种来自他的传述，其中广为人知的一种认为经血与其他各种血液相似。

The jurists disagreed about small amounts of filth into three opinions. A group of jurists held that small and large quantities are the same. Among those who held this opinion is al-ShaficT. Another group of jurists held that small amounts of filth are overlooked, and they fixed this to be an amount equal to the size of an impure (alloyed) dirham. Among those who held this opinion is Abu HanTfa. Muhammad ibn al-Hasan deviated from this saying that if the filth covers one-fourth or less of the dress, prayer is permitted in it. A third group of jurists held that small and large quantities of filth are the same, e *cept in the case of blood as has been mentioned. This is Malik’s opinion. There are two narrations from him about menstrual blood, the one widely known being that it is similar to all other kinds of blood.

其分歧的原因，在于他们对"以小秽作类比、免除清洗石头后残留污秽痕迹"这一问题的争论。允许这种类比的人主张小秽是可以宽免的，因此他们将其限定在一枚迪拉姆的大小之内，而这一大小与排泄口的大小相同。认为这些以及其他的宽免情形不能作为类比依据的人，则不允许这种做法。

The reason for their disagreement is related to their dispute over the analogy of minor uncleanliness upon the exemption disregarding the remaining trace of filth in the case of cleaning with stones. Those who permitted such an analogy u pheld the permissibility of minor uncleanliness, and for this reason they limited it to the size of a dirham, the size of which is the same as the size of the outlet. Those who held that these and other exemptions cannot serve as a basis lor analogy, did not allow it.

关于马利克在血液方面所给予的宽免理由，前面已经提到过。而阿布·哈尼法的观点的解释是：污秽在他看来分为重污秽和轻污秽。对于重污秽，宽免的数量限于一个迪尔汗的大小；而轻污秽则可宽容至衣服的四分之一。在他看来，轻污秽如驮畜的粪便，以及街道上几乎难以避免的那类污物。他这样将污秽分为重与轻的做法非常精妙。

The reason for the exemption granted by Malik in the case of blood has already preceded, while the explanation of Abu HanTfa’s opinion is that filth is divided, according to him, into gross and light. In the case of gross filth, the amount of exemption is limited to the size of a dirham, while light filth is tempted up to the extent of a fourth of the dress. Light filth in his view is like the excrement of beasts of burden and those from which the streets are seldom free. This division by him into gross and light is excellent.

他们对精液是否不洁存在分歧。其中一派认为精液不洁，包括马立克和艾卜·哈尼法；另一派则主张精液是洁净的，这是沙斐仪、艾哈迈德和达乌德的观点。

They disagreed about semen, whether it is unclean. A group, from among them, Malik and Abu HanTfa, held that it is unclean, while another group maintained that it is clean, which was the opinion of al-ShaficT, Ahmad, and Dawud.

两者分歧的原因有二。第一，是关于阿伊莎的圣训存在不同版本。在一些版本中说："我曾为真主的使者洗去衣服上的精液，他便穿着那些带有水渍的衣服出去礼拜。"在另一些版本中说："我曾为真主的使者刮去衣服上的精液"，并且说"他便穿着那些衣服礼拜"。这段补充的内容由穆斯林圣训实录所记载。第二，是精液在类似身体污秽排泄物与类似其他洁净分泌物（如乳汁等）之间的摇摆性质。

There are two reasons for their disagreement. First is the variation in c A’isha’s tradition. In some versions it says, “I used to wash off semen from the clothes of the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), and he would go out to pray in them with water-marks on them.” In others it says, “I used to scrape off semen from the clothes of the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him)”, and that “he used to pray in them”. The addition is recorded by Muslim. The second reason is the vacillation of semen between resemblance with the unclean excrements of the body and between resemblance with other clean secretions, like milk etc.

那些调和所有圣训的人，将洗涤理解为是为了洁净，并从刮除不能使其净化的事实中推出精液是洁净的证据，并以类比将精液归于其他纯净的分泌物，因此不认为它是不洁的。那些偏重洗涤类圣训而非刮除类圣训的人，并认为精液是不洁的，因为在他们看来，精液更像不洁的排泄物，而不像洁净的分泌物，于是主张它是不洁的。那些认为不洁可以通过刮除而去除的人也是如此。他们说，刮除本身表明了它的不洁，洗涤也是如此。这是艾卜·哈尼法的观点。基于此，那些主张精液洁净的人，并没有以“他曾在其中礼拜”这句话作为证据；反之，其中对艾卜·哈尼法有利的证据在于：不洁可以在不用水的情况下去除，这与马立克学派的观点相悖。

Those who reconciled all the traditions, interpreting washing to be for the purpose of cleanliness, and derived from scraping that does not purify an evidence of its purity, and made an analogy for semen upon other pure secretions, did not deem it unclean. Those who preferred the traditions of washing over those of scraping, and considered semen to be unclean, as it resembled, in their view, to unclean excrements more than clean secretions, maintained that it is unclean. So also those who believe that uncleanliness is removed by scraping. They said that scraping itself indicates its uncleanliness, as does washing. This is Abu HanTfa’s opinion. On this basis there is no proof with those who maintain their opinion (that semen is clean) on the words that “he used to pray in them”, on the other hand, there is evidence in it for Abu HanTfa that uncleanliness can be removed without water, which is contrary to the opinion of the Malikites.