Sura hii imegawanywa katika sehemu mbili. Ya kwanza inahusu kufunika sehemu za siri (satr al-'awrah), na ya pili inahusu aina za mavazi yanayoruhusiwa kwa ajili ya swala.

This chapter is divided into two sections. The first is about covering of the private parts (satr al^awrdjy while the second is about the kinds of dress permitted for prayer.

Wanazuoni wa fiqh walikubaliana kwamba kusitiri sehemu za siri ni wajibu wa lazima kabisa, lakini walitofautiana kuhusu kama ni sharti la kusihi kwa sala. Vilevile, walitofautiana kuhusu sehemu ya mwili ya mwanamke na ya mwanaume inayobainishwa kwa neno 'awra'.

The jurists agreed that covering the private parts is an absolute obligation, but they disagreed on whether it is a condition for the validity of prayer? Similarly, they differed about the area of the body, for a woman and a man, that is delineated by the term awra.

Madhhab ya Malik inayoonekana kuwa bora zaidi ni kwamba (kufunika eneo hilo) ni miongoni mwa sunan za sala. Abu Hanifa na al-Shafi'i walisema kuwa ni miongoni mwa masharti ya kusihi kwa sala. Sababu ya kutofautiana juu ya jambo hili inatokana na kupingana kwa hadithi na tofauti miongoni mwa wanazuoni wa fiqhi katika kuelewa maana ya maneno ya Mwenyezi Mungu Mtukufu, "Enyi wana wa Adam! Jipambeni [kwa mavazi yenu] katika kila mahali pa ibada",103 kama amri hiyo inapaswa kufasiriwa kuwa ni wajibu au ni mapendekezo.

The preferred opinion in Malik’s school is that it (covering of the this area) is one of the sunan of prayer. Abu Hanlfa and al-Shafi T said that c it is one of the prerequisites of the validity of prayer. The reason for disagreement over this stems from the conflict of traditions and the differences among the jurists in their understanding of the meaning of the words of the Exalted, “O Children of Adam! Look to [take] your adornment at every place of worship”,103 whether the prescription is to be construed as an obligation or a recommendation.

Wale waliofasiri kwamba ni wajibu walisema kwamba maana iliyokusudiwa ni kufunika ʿawra. Walitoa hoja hii kwa kutegemea muktadha wa kushuka kwa aya, kwamba mwanamke mmoja alikuwa akizunguka Kaaba akiwa uchi, hivyo aya ikateremshwa, na "Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ alitoa amri kwamba tangu wakati huo hakuna mshirikina atakayeruhusiwa kufanya hijja, wala mtu yeyote kuzunguka akiwa uchi". Wale waliofasiri kwamba ni pendekezo walisema kwamba pambo lililotajwa ni umbo la nje la vazi au nguo nyingine zinazounda pambo. Walitoa hoja hii kwa kutegemea yale yaliyoandikwa katika hadithi kwamba baadhi ya wanaume walikuwa wakimswalia Mtume ﷺ wakiwa wamefunga vitambaa vyao shingoni, kama wanavyofanya watoto, na hivyo wanawake waliagizwa wasiinue vichwa vyao kutoka kwenye sujuda mpaka wanaume wanyooke katika hali ya kukaa. Waliongeza kwamba ndiyo sababu hakuna kutofautiana kuhusu mtu asiyepata chochote cha kujifunika kuswali, lakini kuna kutofautiana kuhusu mtu ambaye hawezi kujitwaharisha kama anaweza kuswali.

Those who interpreted it as an obligation said that the implied meaning is the covering of the <awra. They argued for this on the basis of the context of the revelation of the verse that a woman used to circumambulate the Ka<ba naked, so the verse was revealed and “the Messenger of Allah issued the command that from then on no polytheist be allowed to perform the pilgrimage, nor was anyone to make the circumambulation naked”. Those who interpreted it to convey a recommendation said that the adornment mentioned is the external form of the dress or other clothes that constitute adornment. They argued for this on the basis of what is laid down in a tradition that some men used to join the Prophet in prayer with their wrappers tied to their necks, as is done for children, and the women were, therefore, advised not to raise their heads (from the sujud) till the men straightened up into the sitting posture. They added that it was for this reason that there was no disagreement about whether a person who could not find anything to cover himself should pray, but there was a disagreement about one who could not purify himself whether he could pray.

Suala la pili linahusu kubainisha 'awra kwa wanaume. Malik na al-Shafi'i walisema kuwa 'awra yake kwa upande wa mwanaume inaenea kuanzia kitovu hadi magotini. Huu pia ulikuwa msimamo wa Abu Hanifa. Kundi la wanachuoni wa fiqhi lilishikilia kuwa 'awra inajumuisha sehemu za siri peke yake (uume na tundu la nyuma). Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao inatokana na kugongana kwa hadithi mbili, na zote ni sahihi. Ya kwanza ni hadithi ya Jarhad kwamba Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ alisema: "Mapaja ni sehemu ya 'awra." Ya pili ni hadithi ya Anas "kwamba Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ (mara moja) alifunua mapaja yake alipokuwa ameketi pamoja na Maswahaba wake." Imepokewa na al-Bukhari. Mlolongo wa wapokezi wa hadithi ya Anas una nguvu zaidi, ilhali hadithi ya Jarhad iko upande wa tahadhari zaidi. Baadhi ya wanachuoni wa fiqhi wamesema kuwa 'awra inajumuisha makalio, sehemu za siri, na mapaja.

The second issue is about the delineation of the <-awra in the case of men. Malik and al-Shafi T said that c the 'awra in his case extends from the navel to the knees. This was also Abu HanTfa’s opinion. A group of jurists maintained that the 'awra comprises the private parts alone (the male sex organ and the rear exit). The reason for their disagreement stems from the conflict of two traditions, and both are authentic. The first is the tradition of Jarhad that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “The thighs are part of the ^awray\ The second is Anas’s tradition “that the Messenger of Allah (once) uncovered his thighs while he was sitting with his Companions”. It is recorded by al-Bukhari. Anas’s tradition has a stronger chain, while the Jarhad’s tradition is on the safer side. Some of the jurists have said that the awra comprises the buttocks, genitals, and the thighs.

Suala la tatu linahusu mipaka ya 'awra kwa mwanamke. Wanazuoni wengi walishikilia kwamba mwili wake wote ni 'awra, isipokuwa uso na mikono. Abu Hanifa alishikilia kwamba miguu yake si sehemu ya 'awra. Abu Bakr ibn 'Abd al-Rahman na Ahmad walisema kwamba mwili wake wote ni 'awra.

The third issue relates to the limits of the 'awra in the case of a woman. Most of the jurists maintained that her entire body constitutes can?r^, except for the face and the hands. Abu HanTfa maintained that her feet are not a part of the <awra. Abu Bakr ibn <Abd al-Rahman and Ahmad said that her entire body is c awra.

Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao inatokana na maana zinazowezekana za maneno ya Aliyetukuka, "Na wasidhihirishe pambo lao isipokuwa lile linalodhihirika," yaani je, ruhusa hiyo inahusu sehemu maalum au zile sehemu ambazo mwanamke hawezi kuzuia kuzidhihirisha? Wale waliosema kwamba ruhusa iliyokusudiwa ni kwa sehemu zile tu ambazo mwanamke hawezi kuzuia kuzidhihirisha anapotembea, walisema kwamba mwili wake wote ni 'awra, hata mgongo wake. Walitoa hoja hii kwa kutegemea maana ya jumla ya maneno ya Aliyetukuka, "Ee Nabii! Waambie wake zako na binti zako na wanawake wa Waumini wajivute juu yao nguo zao. Hilo ni bora zaidi ili watambulikane wala wasidhurike."105 Na wale waliodai kwamba ruhusa iliyokusudiwa ni kwa kile ambacho kwa desturi hakifunikwi, yaani uso na mikono, walisema kwamba hivi havimo katika 'awra. Walitoa hoja hii pia kwa msingi kwamba mwanamke hafuniki uso wake wakati wa Hija.

The reason for their disagreement is based on the possible interpretations of the words of the Exalted, “And to display of their adornment only that which is apparent”, that is whether the exemption relates to defined parts or to those parts that she cannot (help but) display? Those who maintained that the intended exemption is only for those parts that she cannot help but display while moving, said that her entire body is <an>ra, even her back. They argued for this on the basis of the general implication of the words of the Exalted, “O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them. That will make them recognizable and they will not be exposed to harm”.105 Those who held that the intended exemption is for what is customarily not covered, that is, the face and the hands, said that these are not included in the 'awra. They (further) argued for i this on the grounds that a woman does not cover her face during hajj.

Hizi ni kauli za Mwenye Enzi: "Enyi wana wa Adamu! Jipambeni kwa mapambo yenu kila mnapoenda msikitini," pamoja na katazo la baadhi ya aina za mavazi katika swala, yaani, kutumia nguo kama kitegemezo cha kichwa, au kujifunga kwa kipande kimoja cha kitambaa (kwa ncha kuvukana) bila kitu chochote kufunika mabega, au kujifunga kwa vazi moja bila kitu chochote kufunika sehemu za siri. Maagizo yote yaliyowekwa kuhusu mavazi hayo lengo lake ni kuzuia njia zinazopelekea kufichuka kwa sehemu za siri, na sijui mtu yeyote aliyesema kwamba swala haijuzu katika mojawapo ya aina hizi za mavazi mradi tu sehemu za siri zimefunikwa. Hata hivyo, hili lingekuwa la lazima kwa mujibu wa misingi ya Dhahiriyya. Wamekubaliana kwamba mtu anaruhusiwa kuswali kwa vazi moja, kwa sababu ya kauli ya Mtume ﷺ alipoulizwa: "Je, mtu anaweza kuswali kwa vazi moja?" Akasema, "Je, nyote mnamiliki nguo mbili?" Wametofautiana kuhusu hali ya mtu anayeswali akiwa wazi mgongo na sehemu ya mbele juu ya kitovu. Wengi wanaunga mkono kuruhusiwa kwa swala ya namna hiyo, kwa kuwa mgongo na kifua si sehemu ya ^awra kwa mwanaume. Kundi la wanazuoni wa fiqhi lilipotoka na kusema kwamba swala yake haijuzu, kwa sababu ya katazo kutoka kwa Mtume ﷺ kuhusu swala ya mtu asiye na chochote cha mavazi yake juu ya mabega. Pia walitegemea maneno ya Mwenye Enzi: "Enyi wana wa Adamu! Jipambeni kwa mapambo yenu kila mnapoenda msikitini."107

"These are the words of the Exalted, 'O Children of Adam! Take your adornment at every place of worship,' along with the prohibition of certain forms of dress in prayer, that is, to use a garment as a support for the head, or to wrap oneself in a single piece of cloth (with the ends crossed) without there being anything covering the shoulders, or to wrap himself in a single garment without anything covering the private parts. All prescriptions laid down about them are as their aim the prevention of the means that lead to the uncovering of the private parts, and I do not know of anyone who said that prayer is not permitted in any of these forms of dress so long as it is uncovered. This, however, would be obligatory according to the principles of the Zahrites." They agreed that a man is permitted to pray in a single dress, because of the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) when he was asked: “Can a man pray in a single garment?” He said, “Do all of you have two garments?” They disagreed about the case of a man praying with his back and the front part above the navel uncovered. The majority uphold the permission of such prayer, as the back and the chest are not part of the ^awra for a man. A group of jurists deviated and said that his prayer is not permitted, because of the proscription from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) about the prayer of a man with nothing of his dress on his shoulders. They also relied upon the words of the Exalted, “O Children of Adam! Take your adornment at every place of worship”.107

Wengi wa wanazuoni walishikilia kuwa mjakazi anaweza kuswali akiwa na kichwa chake na miguu yake wazi, lakini al-Hasan al-Basri aliona kuwa ni wajibu kwake kutumia hijabu, na ʿAṭāʾ aliona kuwa ni jambo linalopendekezwa. Chanzo cha tofauti hii kiko katika swali la kama khitabu cha kisheria kinachoelekezwa kwa jinsia fulani kinajumuisha pia walio huru pamoja na watumwa, au kinawahusu walio huru peke yao bila watumwa?

The majority maintained that a slave-girl may pray with her head and fee uncovered, but al-Hasan al-Basri deemed it obligatory for her to use the veil while cAta5 deemed it recommended. The reason for disagreement lies in the question of whether a (legal) communication addressed to either category o persons (sex) includes those who are free as well as those in bondage, oi whether it includes only the free to the exclusion of slaves?

Walikuwa na tofauti za maoni kuhusu hukumu ya mtu anayeswali akiwa amevaa nguo ya hariri. Kundi moja la wanazuoni walisema kwamba swala lake ndani yake ni sahihi (ingawa ni haramu), huku kundi jingine likisema si sahihi. Kundi la tatu lilipendekeza kwamba airudie swala ndani ya wakati wake uliowekwa (bila nguo ya hariri). Sababu ya kutofautiana huku ni swali kama kujiepusha na jambo lililoharamishwa kabisa ni sharti la usahihi wa swala. Wale waliosema kwamba ni sharti walisema kwamba swala ndani yake haijuzu (si sahihi). Na wale waliosema kwamba anatenda dhambi kwa sababu ya mavazi yake, lakini swala yake ni halali, walisema kwamba si sharti la usahihi wa swala, tofauti na twahara, ambayo ni sharti. Suala hili ni la aina moja na lile la kuswali katika mali iliyoporwa, ambalo mjadala wake unajulikana sana.

They disagreed about the case of a man praying while dressed in a silker garment. A group of jurists said that his prayer in it is valid (thougl prohibited), while another group said it is not. A third group recommendec repeating the prayer in its prescribed time (without the silk dress). The reasoi for disagreement is over the question of whether avoidance of a thin^ prohibited absolutely is a condition for the validity of prayer? Those whe maintained that it is a condition said that prayer in it is not permitted (no: valid), while those who maintained that he commits a sin because of his dress but his prayer is permissible said that it is not a condition for the validity o prayer unlike purification, which is a condition. This issue is of the sam< nature as that of prayer in usurped property, dispute over which is wideh known.