The Book of Purification

‏1 ‏- صحيح.‏ ولفظه: شكي إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم: الرجل يخيل إليه أن يجد الشيء في الصلاة؟ قال: "لا ينصرف حتى سمع صوتا، أو يجد ريحا".‏ البخاري (137)‏، ومسلم (361)‏.

The historical English witness contains the opening attribution to the two Sahihs and 'Abdullah ibn Zayd, but omits the numbered editorial note and its quoted wording, grading, and references present in the Arabic block.

Should the English witness's scope be explicitly marked as shorter than this Arabic block?

إِنَّكَ أَحْدَثْتَ

The historical English witness adds ‘by releasing air’, which has no counterpart in the Arabic wording and narrows the accusation to one specific cause of ritual impurity.

Should the added parenthetical be removed or documented as an editorial gloss in the witness?

‏1 ‏- ضعيف.‏ رواه الحاكم (134)‏، وابن حبان (2666)‏، وتمامه عندهما: "حتى يسمع صوتا بأذنه، أو يجد ريحا بأنفه".‏

The historical English witness includes Ibn Hibban's variant ‘Let him say in his heart’ but omits the Arabic block's weak grading, the references to al-Hakim and Ibn Hibban, and the full wording specifying hearing with the ear or detecting an odor with the nose.

Should the English witness's scope be marked as partial for this Arabic block?

‏1 ‏- منكر .‏ رواه أبو داود (19)‏، والترمذي (1746)‏، والنسائي (1/178)‏، وابن ماجه (303)‏.‏

The historical English witness omits the numbered ‘Munkar’ grading and the specific reference numbers listed in the Arabic annotation.

Should the witness be explicitly marked as omitting this grading and these references?

منكر

This is rendered with the transliterated hadith-critical grading term to distinguish it from the preceding ‘defective’ description (معلول); no approved project glossary entry was provided for this term.

Should the term remain transliterated as ‘Munkar’ or use a reviewed English equivalent?

اَلْخُبُثِ وَالْخَبَائِثِ

The Arabic supplication uses terms whose interpretation is rendered in the English witness as ‘devils – males and females’ and alternatively as ‘all offensive and wicked things, evil deeds and evil spirits, etc.’ The source text itself does not include those expansions, and no approved glossary entry was supplied.

Should these terms remain transliterated pending a reviewed glossary decision, or use a specific sourced English rendering?

اَللَّهُمَّ إِنِّي أَعُوذُ بِكَ مِنْ اَلْخُبُثِ وَالْخَبَائِثِ

The witness adds interpretive alternatives in parentheses that do not appear in the Arabic block.

Should those alternatives be kept only as an attributed gloss rather than included in the translation?

(70)‏ واللفظ لمسلم.

The parenthetical ‘(70)’ follows Muslim (271) without an explicit label; this translation preserves its position as a Muslim reference, but its precise function is unclear from the supplied text.

What does the separate reference ‘(70)’ identify in this annotation?

فَأَحْمِلُ أَنَا وَغُلَامٌ نَحْوِي إِدَاوَةً مِنْ مَاءٍ وَعَنَزَةً

The Arabic describes a boy ‘about my age’ (غلام نحوي), whereas the witness calls him a servant. The Arabic annotation also includes an explanation of the 'anazah that is absent from the witness.

Should ‘a boy about my age’ be confirmed, and should the source's explanation of the 'anazah be retained in this block?

(77)‏.

The annotation gives ‘(77)’ after Muslim (274) without identifying what it refers to.

What does the separate parenthetical ‘(77)’ identify?

اِتَّقُوا اَللَّاعِنِينَ: اَلَّذِي يَتَخَلَّى فِي طَرِيقِ اَلنَّاسِ, أَوْ فِي ظِلِّهِمْ

The expression ‘the two that bring curses’ is compact and can be read as two curse-inviting acts or as referring to those who cause people to curse them. The translation renders it as the acts described in the following clause.

Should this compact expression be rendered with a different formulation to preserve the ambiguity?

‏1 ‏- صحيح.‏ رواه مسلم (269)‏.‏

The historical English witness identifies Muslim but omits the Arabic block's numbered Sahih grading and specific reference number (269).

Should the witness's scope be marked as omitting the grading and number?

‏1 ‏- ضعيف.‏ أي بلفظ: "والموارد" وباقيه صحيح.‏ رواه أبو داود (26)‏ ولفظه: "اتقوا الملاعن الثلاث: البراز في الموارد، وقارعة الطريق، والظل".‏

The historical English witness gives a compressed rendering of the base report but omits this Arabic annotation's weak grading, the distinction that only the added wording is weak while the rest is sound, the named added wording, and the full Abu Dawud wording.

Should the English witness be marked as substantially shorter than this Arabic block?

اتقوا الملاعن الثلاث

The expression literally invokes three ‘curse-inviting’ items or places, which the following enumeration identifies; English rendering can keep the figurative wording or state the locations directly.

Should ‘the three places that bring curses’ be preferred to ‘the three curse-inviting places’?

وَفِيهِمَا ضَعْف ٌ

The Arabic says ‘both have weakness’ without naming the two referents in this unit. The English witness identifies them as the preceding and present hadiths, but that identification is not stated in the Arabic block itself.

Should the referents of ‘both’ be confirmed against adjacent source units before expanding the phrase?

منكر

This is retained as the transliterated technical grading term; no approved project glossary entry was supplied.

Should ‘Munkar’ remain transliterated or use a reviewed English equivalent?

رواه الطبراني بتمامه في "الأوسط" كما في مجمع البحرين (349)‏، وفي "الكبير" الشطر الأخير منه كما في "مجمع الزوائد" (104)‏.

The witness omits the numbered ‘Munkar’ label and the detailed source trail in the Arabic annotation, including where the full report and its latter half are recorded.

Should the English witness's scope be marked as shorter than this source block?

The main text attributes the report to Jabir, while the editorial note says this attribution was not found and identifies versions in Ahmad and Abu Dawud from Abu Sa‘id. Both statements are translated as written; the transmission source left unnamed in the main text remains unnamed.

The text also juxtaposes authentication by Ibn al-Sakan and Ibn al-Qattan with the annotation grading it weak and calling it defective.

وَعَنْ جَابِرٍ ‏- رضى الله عنه ‏- قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اَللَّهِ ‏- صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏-{ إِذَا تَغَوَّطَ اَلرَّجُلَانِ فَلْيَتَوَارَ كُلُّ وَاحِدٍ مِنْهُمَا عَنْ صَاحِبِهِ, وَلَا يَتَحَدَّثَا.

The report is presented from Jabir, but the annotation says the editor did not find it as a report from Jabir and points to versions from Abu Sa‘id in Ahmad and Abu Dawud.

How should the transmission route for this wording be identified in a reviewed edition, given the original leaves the transmitter after rawahu unnamed?

‏ 1‏ وَصَحَّحَهُ اِبْنُ اَلسَّكَنِ, وَابْنُ اَلْقَطَّانِ, وَهُوَ مَعْلُول ٌ 2‏ .

The main text attributes authentication to Ibn al-Sakan and Ibn al-Qattan while also calling the report defective; the annotation separately grades it weak.

Do the judgments concern different routes or defects?

لَا يُمْسِكَنَّ أَحَدُكُمْ ذَكَرَهُ بِيَمِينِهِ

The witness says ‘pennies’, which does not render the Arabic word ذَكَرَهُ (‘his penis’) in this context.

Should the witness wording be corrected to ‘his penis’ to preserve the explicit source wording?

وَلَا يَتَنَفَّسْ فِي اَلْإِنَاءِ

The Arabic says not to breathe into the vessel; the parenthetical ‘he is drinking from’ is an explanatory addition absent from the source.

Should the witness's parenthetical be marked as an addition rather than part of the Arabic wording?

قيل لسلمان: قد علمكم نبيكم صلى الله عليه وسلم كل شيء حتى الخراءة.

The Arabic block includes a numbered editorial note quoting the question put to Salman and his reply, but the English witness contains only the core prohibition report.

Should the witness's scope be marked as excluding this additional quoted material?

لَا تَسْتَقْبِلُوا اَلْقِبْلَةَ بِغَائِطٍ وَلَا بَوْلٍ, وَلَكِنْ شَرِّقُوا أَوْ غَرِّبُوا

The historical English witness adds an explicit prohibition on turning one's back to the Qiblah. The Arabic says not to face it, then to turn east or west; it does not separately mention one's back.

Should the additional ‘turn your back’ wording be treated as an interpretive expansion of the witness?

وَعَنْ عَائِشَةَ رَضِيَ اَللَّهُ عَنْهَا; أَنَّ اَلنَّبِيَّ

The block first attributes the report to Aisha, then its annotation says the Hafiz was mistaken and that it is actually the report of Abu Hurayrah in Abu Dawud (35). Both source statements are translated without choosing between them.

Should this unit remain on hold for an editorial decision about the attribution before any approval?

ووهم الحافظ في نسبته لعائشة رضي الله عنها، وإنما الحديث لأبي هريرة عند أبي داود (35)‏.

The historical English witness omits the Arabic annotation that corrects the attribution to Abu Hurayrah and gives a different Abu Dawud reference.

Should the witness be marked as omitting this source-attribution correction?

وَصَحَّحَهُ أَبُو حَاتِمٍ, وَالْحَاكِم ُ 1‏ .‏‏1 ‏- حسن.

The main text says Abu Hatim and al-Hakim judged the report sahih, while the numbered annotation labels it hasan. The source supplies both statements without reconciling them.

Are these grades intended to refer to different transmissions or judgments, or should the source's grading discrepancy remain open?

فَأَتَيْتُهُ بِرَوْثَةٍ

The historical English witness adds ‘dried’; the Arabic says only that Ibn Mas'ud brought a piece of dung.

Should the drying detail be removed or documented as an addition in the witness?

ائْتِنِي بِغَيْرِهَا

The witness supplies ‘other than dung’ in parentheses. The Arabic literally says ‘bring me something other than it’; the referent can be understood from the preceding report but is not repeated here.

Should the witness's parenthetical referent be treated as an explanatory gloss?