Sura hii pia imegawanywa katika sehemu mbili. Ya kwanza inahusu adhana (wito wa kuswali). Ya pili inahusu iqāma (wito wa kuanza swala, au wito wa pili wa kuswali).

This chapter is also divided into two sections. The first is about adhan (the call for prayer). The second is about iqdma (the call for the commencement of prayer, or the second call for prayer).

Sehemu hii imegawanywa katika migawanyo mitano. La kwanza ni kuhusu maelezo ya adhana. La pili ni kuhusu hukmu yake. La tatu ni kuhusu wakati wake. La nne ni kuhusu masharti yake (yaliyowekwa). La tano ni kuhusu jibu la msikilizaji.

This section is subdivided into five divisions. First about the description of the adhan. Second, about its hukm. Third, about its timing. Fourth, about its (prescribed) conditions. Fifth, about the response of the listener.

Wanafaqihi walitofautiana kuhusu adhana, na kuna maelezo manne yanayojulikana sana. La kwanza linaagiza kutamka takbira mara mbili, kutamka shahada nne, na kutamka mara mbili sehemu iliyobaki (ya maneno). Huu ndio msimamo wa wanazuoni wa Madina, Malik na wengineo. Wafuasi wa baadaye wa Malik walipendelea tarjī', ambayo inahitaji kutamka shahada mara mbili kwa sauti ya chini, kisha kuitamka tena mara mbili kwa sauti ya juu. La pili ni adhana ya Makka, iliyoungwa mkono na al-Shafi'i. Inahitaji kutamka takbira ya kwanza mara nne na "ḥayya 'alā's-ṣalāh" mbili, na kutamka mara mbili sehemu iliyobaki ya adhana. Maelezo ya tatu ni ya wanazuoni wa Kufa. Yanahusisha kutamka takbira ya kwanza mara nne na kutamka mara mbili sehemu zilizobaki za adhana. Huu ulikuwa msimamo wa Abu Ḥanīfa. Maelezo ya nne ni ya adhana ya wanazuoni wa Basra. Inahitaji kutamka takbira ya kwanza mara nne, shahada mara tatu, "ḥayya 'alā's-ṣalāh" mara tatu, na "ḥayya 'alā'l-falāḥ" mara tatu. Mwadhini huanza kwa kusema "ashhadu an lā ilāha illā Allāh" hadi anapofika "ḥayya 'alā'l-falāḥ", kisha anazirudia mara ya pili, yaani sentensi nne, moja baada ya nyingine, kisha anazirudia mara ya tatu. Huu ulikuwa msimamo wa al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī na Ibn Sīrīn.98

The jurists disagreed about adhan giving four widely known descriptions. The first prescribes the dual pronouncement of takbir, four repetitions of the shahdda, and the dual pronouncement of the remaining (words). This is the opinion of the jurists of Medina, Malik and the others. The later followers of Malik preferred tarjF, which requires the dual pronouncement of the shahdda in a lower tone followed by its dual pronouncement in a louder voice. The second is the Meccan version of the adhan, which was upheld by al-Shafi T. It c requires four pronouncements of the first takbir and the two sAaAarfas, and the dual pronouncement of the remaining adhan. The third description is that of the Knfis. It involves four pronouncements of the first takbir and the dual pronouncement of the remaining parts of the adhan. This was Abu HanTfa’s opinion. The fourth description is that of the adhan of the Basrans. It requires four pronouncements of the first takbir, three pronouncements of shahdda., of Aflyja 'ala's-salah, and of hayya (-ald>l-faldh. The mifadhdhin begins with tstehadu an Id ilaha illdWdhu till he reaches hayya 'ala'l-faldh, he then repeats them a second time, I mean, the four sentences, one after the other and then repeats them a third time. This was the opinion of al-Hasan al-Basrl and of Ibn Sinn.98

Sababu ya tofauti kati ya maelezo haya manne ni mgongano wa Hadith na kufikia kwa wanazuoni mapokeo tofauti ya mwenendo. Wanazuoni wa Madina wanatoa hoja kwa msingi wa mwenendo endelevu uliokuwepo Madina. Vivyo hivyo kwa wa Makka, ambao wanatoa hoja kwa msingi wa mwenendo uliowafikia, pia wa Kufa na wa Basra. Kila kundi lina Hadith zinazounga mkono maoni yake.

The reason,for the difference between these four descriptions is the conflict of the traditions and the communication of a differing practice to the jurists The jurists of Medina argue for their opinion on the basis of the continuous practice prevailing in Medina. The same is the case with the Meccans, who argue on the basis of the practice reaching them, so also the KufTs and the Basrans. Each group has traditions that support their opinion.

Wanafikihi walitofautiana kuhusu hukmu ya adhana: je, ni wajibu au sunna iliyokokotezwa, na ikiwa ni wajibu, je, ni wajibu wa kila mtu au wa kikundi? Imepokewa kutoka kwa Malik kwamba adhana ni wajibu kwa misikiti ya Ijumaa, na imepokewa kwamba ni sunna iliyokokotezwa (kwao). Yeye hakuiona kuwa wajibu kwa mtu binafsi, wala hata sunna. Baadhi ya Dhahiriyya walisema kwamba ni wajibu wa kila mtu, huku wengine wakisema kwamba ni wajibu kwa makundi, iwe safarini au mjini. Baadhi ya Dhahiriyya wengine walishikilia kwamba ni wajibu kwa kundi wakati wa safari. Al-Shafi'i na Abu Hanifa walikubaliana kwamba ni sunna kwa mtu binafsi na kwa kundi, isipokuwa kwamba ni sunna iliyokokotezwa katika kesi ya kundi. Abu 'Umar alisema kwamba kuna makubaliano kamili kwamba ni sunna iliyokokotezwa au wajibu kwa watu wa mjini, kwa sababu ya hadithi "kwamba Mtume wa Allah ﷺ hakuwa akisoma adhana alipoisikia ikitolewa, lakini alifanya hivyo alipokuwa hajaisikia".

The jurists disagreed about the hukm of adhan. whether it is obligatory or an emphatic sunna, and if it is obligatory whether it is a universal obligation or a communal one. It is related from Malik that adhan is an obligation for congregational mosques, and it is related that it is an emphatic sunna (for them). He did not consider it an obligation for the individual, or even a sunna. Some of the Zahirites said that it is a universal obligation, while others said that it is an obligation upon groups, whether on a journey or in a settlement. Some other Zahirites maintained that it is obligatory for a group during travel. Al-Shafi T and Abu HanTfa agreed that c it is a sunna for the individual and the group, except that it is emphatic in the case of the group. Abu TJmar said that there is complete agreement that it is an emphatic sunna or an obligation for persons in a settlement, because of the tradition “that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) did not recite ths.adhan when he heard the call, but he did so when he did not hear it”.

Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao ni mgongano katika kuelewa maana za dhahiri za Hadithi. Imethibitika kwamba Mjumbe wa Mwenyezi Mungu ﷺ alimwambia Malik bin al-Huwayrith na mwenzake: "Mnapokuwa safarini, toeni adhana na iqama, na aliye mkubwa zaidi miongoni mwenu awaongoze katika swala." Vilevile, imepokewa kwamba hii ilikuwa desturi endelevu ya Mjumbe wa Mwenyezi Mungu ﷺ (alipokuwa) katika jamaa. Wale waliofahamu kutokana na hili wajibu wa kutokuwa na masharti walisema kwamba ni wajibu (ingawa walitofautiana kama ni wajibu kwa makundi tu au pia kwa mtu mmoja mmoja). Maoni ya kwanza yamepokewa na Ibn al-Mughallis kutoka kwa Dawud. Wale waliofahamu kwamba ni mwaliko wa kundi kwa ajili ya swala walisema kwamba ni sunna kwa misikiti, au wajibu kwa maeneo ambayo jamaa hukusanyika. Sababu ya kutofautiana ni kwamba adhana hiyo inayumba kati ya kuwa mojawapo ya matamko ya swala kama sehemu yake muhimu, au kuwa njia ya kukusanyika.

Wanachuoni wote walikubaliana kwamba adhana haitolewi kabla ya kuingia kwa wakati uliowekwa wa sala, isipokuwa kwa sala ya alfajiri, ambayo kuhusu hilo walitofautiana. Malik na al-Shafi'i walisema kwamba inaruhusiwa kutoa adhana kabla ya alfajiri, lakini Abu Hanifa alikataza hilo. Kundi la wanachuoni lilishikilia kwamba ikiwa adhana itatolewa kabla ya alfajiri, basi adhana nyingine itolewe baada ya alfajiri, kwa sababu wajibu kwa mtazamo wao ni adhana baada ya kuingia kwa wakati. Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm alisema kwamba adhana lazima itolewe baada ya kuingia kwa wakati uliowekwa (wa sala), lakini ikitolewa muda mfupi kabla ya wakati huo inaruhusiwa pale muda unapokuwa mfupi, wa kiasi tu cha muadhini wa kwanza kushuka na wa pili kupanda.

The jurists agreed unanimously that adhan is not to be proclaimed before the (commencement of the) prescribed period of the prayer, except in the case of the morning prayer, over which they disagreed. Malik and akShafiT held that it is permitted to make the call before fajr, but Abu Hanifa prohibited this. A group of jurists maintained that if the call is made before fajr another call is to be made after fajr, because the obligation in their view is for adhan after Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm said that the call must be made after the commencement of the prescribed timing (for prayer), but if the call is made a short while before the timing it is permitted when the interval is short, just sufficient for the first mu'adhdhin to descend and the second to ascend.

Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao ni kwamba kuna hadithi mbili zinazopingana kuhusu suala hili. Ya kwanza ni hadithi sahihi na inayojulikana sana, ambayo ni kauli ya Mtume ﷺ: "Bilal hutoa adhana wakati bado ni usiku, basi kuleni na kunywa mpaka Ibn Umm Maktum atoe adhana." Ibn Umm Maktum alikuwa kipofu, na hakutoa adhana mpaka aambiwe kwamba asubuhi imefika. Hadithi ya pili ni ile iliyopokewa kutoka kwa Ibn Umar kwamba: "Bilal alitoa adhana kabla ya alfajiri, basi Mtume ﷺ akamwamuru arudi na kutangaza: 'Mtumishi [wa Allah] [yaani Bilal] amelala.'" Hadithi ya wanazuoni wa Hijaz ina nguvu zaidi ya usahihi, ilhali hadithi ya Kufa imepokewa na Abu Dawud na kutangazwa kuwa sahihi na wanahadithi wengi. Wanazuoni walipokabiliana na hadithi hizi mbili, walichagua mojawapo ya njia mbili: kuoanisha (kupatanisha) au kupendelea (kuchagua iliyo bora zaidi). Waliofuata njia ya kupendelea ni wanazuoni wa Hijaz. Walishikilia kwamba hadithi kuhusu Bilal ina usahihi zaidi, na kuitegemea ni jambo linaloaminika zaidi. Wanazuoni wa Kufa walifuata njia ya kuoanisha. Walishikilia kwamba inawezekana Bilal alitoa adhana kwa wakati ambao ulikosewa kuwa wakati wa alfajiri, kwa sababu macho yake yalikuwa dhaifu, na adhana ya Ibn Umm Maktum ilitolewa wakati alfajiri ilipokuwa hakika imefika. Hili linaungwa mkono na yale yaliyopokewa kutoka

The reason for their disagreement is that there are two conflicting traditions on this issue. The first is an authentic and widely known tradition, which is the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “Bilal mates the call when it is still night, so eat and drink till Ibn Umm Maktum makes the call”. Ibn Umm Maktum was a blind man, who did not make the call till he was told that it is morning. The second tradition is related from Ibn TJmar “that Bilal made the call before the break of dawn, so the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) ordered him to return and proclaim: ‘The servant [of Allah] [that is, Bilal] had slept’”. The tradition of the jurists of Hijaz is more authentic, while the tradition of the KufTs has 1 been related by Abu Dawud and declared authentic by many traditionists. The jurists decided with respect to these two traditions to adopt either the method of reconciliation or the method of preference. Those who adopted the method of preference were the jurists of Hijaz. They maintained that the tradition about Bilal is more authentic and relying on it is more plausible. The Kufi jurists adopted the method of reconciliation. They maintained that it is possible the call was made by Bilal at a time that was mistakenly taken to be the time of fajr, as his eyesight was weak, while the call was made by Ibn Umm Maktum when the time of dawn was certainly due. This is supported by what is related from 5

Sehemu hii inajumuisha masuala manane. La kwanza ni kama ni sharti kwamba mtu anayetoa adhana awe ndiye yule anayetamka iqama. La pili, kama ni sharti la adhana kwamba isikatizwe na mazungumzo yoyote. La tatu, kama ni sharti kwamba mwadhini awe katika hali ya utwaharaa. La nne, kama ni sharti kwamba mwadhini aelekee qibla. La tano, kama ni sharti kwamba adhana itolewe akiwa amesimama. La sita, kama adhana inayotolewa mwadhini akiwa amepanda mnyama inahesabiwa kuwa makruhu. La saba, kama ubalehe ni sharti kwa mtu anayetoa adhana. La nane, kama ni sharti kwambaisichukuliwe ujira wowote kwa kutoa adhana.

This division includes eight issues. The first is whether it is a condition that the person who makes the call be the same person who pronounces the iqarna? Second, whether it is a condition of adhan that it should not be interrupted by any conversation? Third, whether it is a condition that the mifadhdhin be in a state of ritual purification? Fourth, is it a condition that the mtfadhdhtn face the qibla’i Fifth, whether it is a condition that the call be made while standing? Sixth, whether a call made while the mitadhdhin is riding is deemed reprehensible (makruh). Seventh, whether puberty is a condition for the person making the call? Eighth, whether it is a condition that no wages be taken for making the call?

Kuhusu suala la wanaume wawili, mmoja akitoa adhana na mwingine akisema iqama, wanazuoni wengi wa mikoa wanashikilia kwamba hili linaruhusiwa, huku baadhi yao wakishikilia kwamba hili halikuruhusiwa. Sababu ya kutokubaliana huku ni kuwepo kwa hadithi mbili zinazopingana. Ya kwanza ni hadithi ya al-Sudai, aliyesema: "Nilimwendea Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ, na ilipokaribia alfajiri aliniamuru kutoa adhana. Kisha akasimama kwa ajili ya sala, na Bilal akaja kusema iqama. Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ akasema: 'Ndugu kutoka Sudai ametoa adhana, na yule aliyetoa adhana ndiye anayepaswa kusema iqama.'" Ya pili ni taarifa kwamba Abdullah ibn Zayd alipoona adhana katika ndoto, Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ alimwamuru Bilal kutoa adhana. Kisha akamwamuru Abdullah kusema iqama.

About the issue of two men, one making the call and the other pronouncing the iqarna, the majority of the jurists of the regions maintain that this is permitted, while some maintained that this is not permitted. The reason for this disagreement is the existence of two conflicting traditions. First is al- SudaTs tradition, who said, “I went up to the Messenger of Allah, and when it was close to the dawn he ordered me to make the call. He then stood up for prayer and Bilal came to pronounce the iqama. The Messenger of Allah said, ‘The brother from Suda5 made the call, and he who makes the call is to pronounce the The second is the report that when cAbd Allah ibn Zayd saw the adhan in a dream, the Messenger of Allah ordered Bilal to make the call. He then ordered <Abd Allah, to pronounce the iqama.

Wanazuoni wa fiqhi wametofautiana kuhusu jibu la msikilizaji kwa mwadhini. Kundi moja la wanazuoni wa fiqhi limesema kwamba yeye hurudia, neno kwa neno, anachosema mwadhini hadi mwisho wa adhana, wakati wengine wamesema kwamba hurudia anachosema mwadhini, isipokuwa anaposema, "Njooni kwenye Sala, njooni kwenye wokovu", msikilizaji anapaswa kusema, "Hakuna nguvu wala uwezo isipokuwa kwa Allah".

The jurists disagreed* about the response of the listener to the m&adhdhin. K group of jurists said that he repeats, word for word, what the mifadhdhin says till the end of the call, while others said that he repeats what the mtfadhdhin says, except that when the mtfadhdhin says, “Come for prayer, come fOr salvation”, the listener is to say, “There is no might and no power, but that with Allah”.

Sababu ya kutokubaliana katika jambo hili ni mgongano wa hadithi. Imepokewa katika hadithi kutoka kwa Abu Sa'id al-Khudri kwamba Mtume wa Allah (rehema na amani za Allah ziwe juu yake ﷺ) alisema: "Mnaposikia mwadhini, rudieni anayosema." Imepokewa kupitia Umar ibn al-Khattab, na katika hadithi kutoka kwa Mu'awiya, kwamba msikilizaji, akijibu "Njooni kwenye sala, njooni kwenye wokovu," anapaswa kusema: "Hakuna nguvu wala uwezo isipokuwa kwa Allah." Wale waliochagua mbinu ya upendeleo walifuata maana ya jumla ya hadithi ya Abu Sa'id al-Khudri, huku wale waliofafanua maana hii ya jumla kwa maudhui maalum ya hadithi nyingine wakaipatanisha hadithi hizo mbili, na huu ndio msimamo wa Malik ibn Anas.

The reason for disagreement over this is the conflict of traditions. It js reported in a tradition from Abu Sa(Td al-Khudri that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “When you hear the mtfadhdhin, repeat what he says”. It is reported by way of TJmar ibn al- Khattab and in a tradition from Mu'awiya that the listener in response to “Come for prayer, come for salvation”, should say: “There is no might and no power, but that with Allah”. Those who adopted the method of preference followed the general implication of Abu SaTd al-KhudrFs tradition, while those who qualified this general implication with the specific content (of the other tradition), reconciled the two traditions, and this is Malik ibn Anas’s opinion.

Walitofautiana kuhusu iqama katika mambo mawili: hukumu yake na maelezo yake. Kwa mujibu wa wanazuoni wa kanda mbalimbali, hukumu yake ni ya sunna iliyosisitizwa zaidi, yenye nguvu kuliko ile ya adhana, kwa mtu binafsi na kwa kundi. Kwa mtazamo wa Dhahiriyya, ni wajibu, lakini sijui kama ni wajibu wa pekee au ni mojawapo ya sehemu za lazima za swala. Tofauti yake ni kwamba kwa maoni ya kwanza swala haibatiliki iwapo itaachwa, lakini kwa msingi wa mtazamo wa pili inabatilika. Ibn Kinana, mmoja wa wanafunzi wa Malik, alisema kwamba ikiachwa kwa makusudi swala inabatilika.

They disagreed over iqama on two points: its hukm and description. According to the jurists of the regions, its hukm is that of an emphatic sunna that is greater in strength than that for adhan, for individuals as well as for groups. In the Zahirite view, it is an obligation, but I am not aware of whether it is an independent obligation or as one of the obligatory parts of prayer. The distinction is that according to the former opinion prayer does not become invalid if it is relinquished, but on the basis of the latter view it does. Ibn Kinana, one of the disciples of Malik, said that if it is relinquished intentionally prayer is invalidated.

Sababu ya kutofautiana ni mzozo wao kuhusu kama kitendo hicho ni sehemu ya vitendo vilivyokusudiwa kufafanua amri isiyofafanuliwa ya kusali, na hivyo kinapaswa kufasiriwa kuwa wajibu, kutokana na maneno ya Mtume ﷺ, "Salini kama mnavyoniona ninavyosali", au kama ni vitendo vinavyopaswa kufasiriwa kuwa ni mapendekezo. Maana ya wazi ya hadithi ya Malik ibn al-Huwayrith inaonyesha kwamba ni wajibu, ama kwa kundi au kwa mtu binafsi.

The reason for disagreement is their dispute about whether it comprises a part of the acts that were meant to be an unfolding of the unexplained command of performing prayer, and, therefore, it has to be construed as an obligation, because of the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “Pray as you see me praying”, or whether it comprises acts that have to be construed as a recommendation. The apparent meaning of Malik ibn al-Huwayrith’s tradition implies that it constitutes an obligation, either for the group or for the individual.

Maelezo yake, kwa mujibu wa Malik na al-Shafi'i (Mwenyezi Mungu awarehemu), ni kwamba takbiri ya mwanzo inasemwa mara mbili, na zilizobaki zinasemwa mara moja. Isipokuwa maneno "Sala inakaribia kuanza" (Qad qamati as-salah), ambayo kwa mujibu wa Malik yanasemwa mara moja, na kwa mujibu wa al-Shafi'i yanasemwa mara mbili. Kwa Mahanafi, iqama inasemwa kwa jozi, ilhali Ahmad ibn Hanbal aliunga mkono uchaguzi kati ya kusema mara moja na kusema mara mbili, kulingana na maoni yake kwamba kuna uhuru wa kuchagua katika kutoa wito.

Its description, according to Malik and al-Shafi T, constitutes c a takbir in the beginning, which is twice, and the remaining is once, except the words, “Prayer is about to commence”, which are pronounced once in Malik’s view and twice in al-ShaficFs. According to the Hanafites, the iqama is pronounced in pairs, while Ahmad ibn Hanbal favoured an option between single and double pronouncement, in accordance with his opinion that there is a choice in making calls.