学者们一致认为清除污秽的方式有三种:洗涤、擦拭和洒水,因为这些方式在律法中有所提及,并通过圣训得以确立。他们一致认为,洗涤适用于所有种类的污秽以及所有沾染不洁的部位;擦拭则允许用石头用于两个出口处,用干草用于靴子和凉鞋。同样,他们也一致认为,女性衣裙拖在地上的长摆部分可以通过干草净化,这符合乌姆·萨拉玛圣训的表面含义。

The jurists agreed about the manner with which impurities are removed, and it is of three types, washing, wiping, and sprinkling, because these have been mentioned in the law and established through the traditions. They agreed that washing applies to all kinds.of impurities and for all locations of uncleanliness, and that wiping is permitted with stones for the outlets and with dry herbage for boots and sandals. They agreed, likewise, that the long trailing part of the female dress is purified by the dry herbage in accordance with the apparent meaning of the tradition of Umm Salama.

他们在与这些事项相关的三个问题上存在分歧,这些问题构成了本章的基本原则。第一个问题是关于洒水,即洒水可以净化哪种污秽。第二个问题是关于擦拭,即擦拭的对象是什么,以及它能去除哪种污秽,这是在双方就我们已提及的内容达成一致之后的问题。第三个问题是关于洗涤和擦拭次数的规定。

They disagreed on three points related to these things and which form the principles of this chapter. The first is about sprinkling, as to what kind of impurity that can be purified with it. The second, is about wiping, as to what is lts object and the kind of impurity it can remove, after agreeing about what we have mentioned. The third point is about the stipulation of number (of repetitions) for washing and wiping.

一群法学家认为,洒水只适用于未断奶婴儿的尿液。另一群法学家则对此作出区分:男婴的尿液应当洒水,女婴的尿液则需要冲洗。第三群法学家认为,对于已确知不洁的物品,应以冲洗净化;而对于存疑的物品,则以洒水净化。这是马立克·伊本·艾奈斯的观点,愿安拉喜悦他。 他们之间分歧的原因,在于与此问题相关的圣训表面含义之间的冲突,也就是他们在含义理解上的分歧。原因在于关于洒水的圣训有两段确立的记载。第一段是阿伊莎的圣训:“人们常把孩子带到先知ﷺ那里,他便为他们祈祷,用自己口中湿润的枣子擦拭孩子的上颚,并抚摸他们。有一次,一个孩子被带到他面前,他便在孩子身上撒了尿。先知ﷺ要了水,浇在被弄脏的地方,但没有清洗。”在某些版本中为:“他洒了水在上面,但没有清洗。”此段由布哈里收录。另一段是广为人知的安斯圣训,其中描述了安拉的使者ﷺ在家中的礼拜:“我拿起那张因年久而变黑的席子,在上面洒了水。” 一些法学家依照阿伊莎圣训的字面含义行事,认为这仅适用于婴儿的尿液,并将其与其他类别的尿液区分开来。另一些人则优先采用关于冲洗的圣训而非这段圣训。马立克的观点即属此类,他依表面含义将洒水的使用限定于安斯圣训所涉及的、不洁与否存疑的衣物。

A group of jurists said that sprinkling is specific to the urine of a child, who has not weaned. Another group of jurists made a distinction in this about the Urine of a male and that of a female, saying that the urine of the male is to be s Pnnkled over, while that of the female is to be washed. A third group said that washing is the prescribed purification for a thing the uncleanliness of w hich is confirmed, while sprinkling is for that which is doubted. This is the °Pinion of Malik ibn Anas, may Allah be pleased with him.The reason for their disagreement stems from the conflict of the apparent meanings of the traditions related to the issue, that is, their disagreement over the meanings. This is so as there are two established traditions about sprinkling. First is the tradition of ^isha “that children used to be brought to the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) and he used to pray for them and rub the top of their mouths with dates moistened in his own mouth as well as pet them. A child was brought to him and he urinated on him. He called for water and poured it over the affected spot but did not wash it.” In some versions it says, “he sprinkled over it but did not wash it”. This has been recorded by al-Bukhari. The other is the widely known tradition of Anas in which he described the prayer of the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) in his house saying, “I took hold of the mat that had become dark because of old age and sprinkled water over it”. Some of the jurists acted in accordance with the implication of Aisha’s tradition saying that this is specific to the urine of the child, and they exempted it from other categories of urine. Others preferred the traditions about washing to this tradition. This is Malik’s opinion, who confined the use of sprinkling to what is in the tradition by Anas and which relates to a garment the impurity of which is doubted, according to the apparent meaning.

那些区分男婴与女婴尿液的人，依据的是艾布·达乌德所传、出自阿布·阿尔-萨姆哈的圣训，即先知（愿真主赐予他平安与慰笃）所说："女婴的尿要冲洗，男婴的尿则洒上水即可。"而那些不作此区分的人，则依据以男婴类推女婴的类比推理，因为男婴的情况已有确定的圣训为据。

Those who distinguished between the urine of a male child from that of a female relied on what has been related by Abu Dawud from Abu al-Samh about the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “The urine of the female (child) is to be washed, and .that of the male is to be sprinkled over”. Those who did not make this distinction relied upon the analogy of the female child over the male in whose case an established tradition is laid down.

一群法学家依照艾布·哈尼法的观点，允许擦拭任何沾有污物的物体，只要污秽的实体已被除去；同样，在运用擦拭时，他们也依据那些认为凡能除去污秽之物即可使其洁净的人的观点进行类推。另一群法学家则不允许这样做，除了双方同意的情形，即排泄处、女性拖地的裙裾，以及靴子，这些应当用干燥的草本植物擦拭，而不能用不洁或未干的物体。这是马立克的观点。这些法学家不把擦拭扩展到律法所提及之外的物体，而另一群人则将其扩展到其他物体。

A group of jurists permitted wiping of any smeared object, in accordance with Abu HanTfa’s opinion, if the substance of the impurity was so removed; similarly, in the use of rubbing on the basis of analogy drawn from the views of those who maintain that each thing that removes the impurity can purify- Another group of jurists did not permit this, except in the cases agreed upon, that is, the outlet, the trailing dress of a woman, and boots, which are to be wiped with dry herbage and not with an unclean or undried object. This is Malik’s opinion. These jurists did not extend wiping to objects other than those mentioned in the law, while another group extended it to other objects.

他们在此问题上分歧的原因，在于擦拭（masḥ）这一规定是作为一种例外（rukhṣa）而设定的，还是作为一项基本的律例（ḥukm aṣlī）而设定的。主张它是例外的人，没有将其推及其他事物，也就是说，他们没有以此为基础进行类比推理；而主张它是污秽（najāsa）诸律例中一项基本律例的人，则如同洗涤的律例一样，将其推广适用。

The reason for their disagreement over this is whether wiping has been laid down in those as an exemption or as a primary hukm. Those who said that it is an exemption did not extend it to other things, that this, they did not construct an analogy upon it, while those who said that it is a primary huhm among the ahkdm of impurities, like the hukm of washing, did extend it.

在关于次数的争议中,一些法学家只规定在洗涤和擦拭时要去除污秽,另一些法学家则既规定洗涤时的次数,也规定用石头擦拭时的次数。在洗涤中规定次数的人中,有些人将其限定于传述文本中明确提到次数的那些物品,另一些人则将其推广到其余的污秽上。不规定次数、无论洗涤还是擦拭都不规定的法学家是马立克和艾卜·哈尼法。规定用石头擦拭时次数的人,即三块石头且不得少于三块,包括沙斐仪和达乌德派。在洗涤中规定次数的人中,有些人将其限定于文本中提到的物品,即狗舔过的器皿要洗七次,沙斐仪及采纳其观点的人属于此类。据我所知,将洗涤污秽七次的规定加以推广的人包括艾哈迈德·本·罕百勒。至于艾卜·哈尼法,他对于不可察觉的污秽,即法律上的不净,规定洗三次。

In their dispute about number (of repetitions), a group of jurists stipulated only the removal of impurity in washing and wiping, while another group stipulated number (of repetitions) in wiping with stones as well as in washing. Some of those who stipulated number in washing restricted it to those objects about which number has been specifically mentioned in the transmitted texts, while others extended this to the remaining impurities also. Jurists who did not stipulate number, neither for washing nor for wiping, are Malik and Abu Ham fa. Those who stipulated number in wiping with stones, that is, three stones and nothing less, include al-ShafiT and the Zahirites. Among those who stipulated number in washing, are some who restricted it to the object that has been mentioned in the texts, that is, washing a utensil seven times after it has been licked by a dog, are al-ShaficT and those who adopted his opinion. Those who extended this stipulating washing of impurities seven times include, to the best of my knowledge, Ahmad ibn Hanbal. Abu Hanifa stipulates washing thrice in the case of impurities that cannot be perceived, that is, which are legal impurities.

他们在此问题上产生分歧的原因，在于对这一敬拜形式所作的义理性理解，与规定了数目的传述的表面含义之间存在冲突。那些认为命令的旨意在于彻底去除秽物本身的人，根本没有规定数目。他们认为，在萨勒曼的传述中（其中有不得以少于三块石头进行istinja?的命令），用石头擦拭时所规定的数目，只是一种推荐，以便使法律的义理与该传述的含义相协调。他们还认为，关于狗舔舐后洗涤器皿所规定的次数，是一种并非基于秽物的敬拜行为，正如前面关于马利克的观点所述。那些依据这些传述的字面含义作判断、使其免于义理原则约束的人，将规定的次数限定于所述的特定事物。那些将字面含义置于义理原则之上的人，则把数目的条件扩展到其余所有的秽物。

The reason for their disagreement about this is the conflict of the interpreted meaning of this form of worship with the apparent implication of the tradition in which number has been laid down. Those for whom the meaning of the command conveyed the removal of the substance of the impurity itself, did not stipulate number at all. They deemed the stipulation of number in wiping with stones, laid down in the established tradition of Salman that contains the command about not performing istinja? with less than three stones, as a recommendation, so as to reconcile the interpreted meaning of the law with the implication of this tradition. They also deemed the number stipulated about washing of the utensil following licking by a dog as an act of worship not based upon impurity, as has preceded concerning Malik’s opinion. Those who decided according to the literal meaning of these traditions, exempting them from the interpreted principle of the law, restricted the prescribed number to stated objects. Those who preferred the literal meaning Over the interpreted principle extended the condition of number to all the remaining impurities.

关于阿布·哈尼法主张三次洗手的证据，是先知（愿安拉的平安与祝福降临于他）所说的："你们中任何人从睡眠中醒来时，在把手伸进器皿之前，应当先将手洗三次。"

The evidence of Abu Hanifa about washing thrice is the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “When any of you wakes up from sleep let him wash his hand thrice before putting it into his utensil”.