Kuna sehemu mbili katika sura hii. Sehemu ya kwanza inahusu maneno ya sala, wakati ya pili inahusu vitendo vyake.

There are two sections in this chapter. The first section is about the words of prayer, while the second is about its acts.

Masuala ya msingi katika sura hii ni tisa.

The fundamental issues in this chapter are nine.

Wanafiqhi walitofautiana kuhusu takbira (kutamka maneno: "Allahu Akbar", yaani Mwenyezi Mungu ni Mkuu) katika maoni matatu. Kundi moja la wanafiqhi lilisema kwamba takbira zote katika sala ni wajibu, wakati kundi jingine lilisema kwamba takbira zote si wajibu, ambalo ni maoni yaliyopotoka. Wengi wao wanashikilia kwamba takbira ya mwanzo peke yake ndiyo wajibu.

The jurists disagreed about takbir (pronouncing the words: “Alldhu Akbar”—Allah is Supreme) into three opinions. A group of jurists said that all pronouncements of takbir in prayer are obligatory, while another group said hat all pronouncements are not obligatory, which is a deviant opinion. The majority hold that the initial takbir alone is obligatory.

Sababu ya kutokubaliana kati ya wale waliofanya takbiri zake zote kuwa wajibu na wale waliofanya takbiri ya kuhirimia pekee kuwa wajibu inatokana na mgongano wa maneno yaliyopokewa ya Mtume (rehema na amani za Mwenyezi Mungu ziwe juu yake) na vitendo vyake vilivyopokewa. Kauli iliyopokewa ya Mtume (rehema na amani za Mwenyezi Mungu ziwe juu yake) ni ile hadithi maarufu ya Abu Hurayra kwamba Mtume (rehema na amani za Mwenyezi Mungu ziwe juu yake) alimwambia mtu mmoja, ambaye alikuwa akimfundisha jinsi ya kuswali, “Utakapokusudia kuswali, kamilisha udhu, uelekee kibla, kisha sema takbiri kisha usome”. Maana yake hapa ni kwamba takbiri ya kwanza pekee ndiyo wajibu, na lau takbiri nyingine ingekuwa wajibu, angemtajia, kama alivyotaja wajibu nyingine za swala. Vitendo vilivyopokewa vya Mtume (rehema na amani za Mwenyezi Mungu ziwe juu yake) ni pamoja na hadithi ya Abu Hurayra “kwamba alikuwa akiswali akisema takbiri kila alipoinama au kuinuka, kisha akasema, ‘Nakupeni swala yenye mfano wa swala ya Mjumbe wa Mwenyezi Mungu (rehema na amani za Mwenyezi Mungu ziwe juu yake)’”. Pia ndani ya vitendo vilivyopokewa ni hadithi ya Mutarrif bin Abdullah bin al-Shikhkhir, aliyesema: “Imran bin al-Husayn na mimi tulimfuata Ali bin Abi Talib, Mwenyezi Mungu amridhie, katika swala, akasema takbiri alipofanya sujuda na alipoinua kichwa chake baada ya kuinama. Alipomaliza swala, tuliondoka, Imran akanishika mkono na kusema, ‘Hili linanikumbusha swala ya Muhammad’”.

The reason for disagreement among those who made all its instances obligatory and those who made only the takbir of ihram obligatory stems from the conflict of the transmitted words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) with his transmitted acts. The transmitted saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) is in the widely known tradition of Abu Hurayra that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said to a man, whom he was teaching how to pray, “When you resolve to pray, complete the ablution and face the qibla, then, pronounce the takbir followed by recitation”. The meaning here is that it is only the first takbir that is obligatory, and had another takbir been obligatory, he would have mentioned it to him, just as he mentioned the other obligations of prayer. The transmitted acts of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) include Abu Hurayra’s tradition “that he prayed pronouncing the takbir each time he bowed or straightened up, and then said, T give you in my prayer a semblance of the prayer of the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him)’”. Included (in the transmitted acts) is also the tradition of Mutarrif ibn Abd Allah ibn al-Shikhkhir, who said, Hmran ibn al-Husayn and c I followed CA!T ibn AbT Talib, may Allah be pleased with him, in prayer, and he pronounced takbir when he prostrated, and when he raised his head after bowing. When he had completed the prayer, we went away and Imran took hold of my hand and said, ‘This reminds me of Muhammad’s prayer’ ”.

Malik alisema kuwa hairuhusiwi kutamka takbiri isipokuwa kwa maneno "Allahu Akbar", ilhali al-Shafi'i alisema kuwa maumbo "Allahu Akbar" na "Allahu al-Akbar" yote mawili yanaruhusiwa. Abu Hanifa alisema kuwa takbiri inaruhusiwa kwa maneno yote yenye maana sawa, kama vile "Allah ni Mkuu Zaidi" (al-A'zam) na "Allah ni Mkubwa Zaidi" (al-Ajall).

Malik said that it is not allowed to pronounce takbir, except with the words Alldhu Akbar, while al-Shafi T said that c the forms Alldhu Akbar and Alldhu al- Akbar are both permitted. Abu HanTfa said that takbir is permitted with all those words that convey the same meaning, like Allah is the Greatest (al- A zam) and Allah is Greater {al-A jail).

c Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao ni kama ni maneno yaliyowekwa kwa ajili ya kuanzia swala au ni maana yake. Malik na Shafi'i walitoa hoja kwa msingi wa maneno ya Mtume (rehma na amani za Mwenyezi Mungu ziwe juu yake ﷺ): "Ufunguo wa swala ni utakaso, uharamu wake (kuanza kwake) ni takbira, na kuitoa kwake ni salamu." Walisema kwamba kitambulishi "al" katika "at" (takbira) ni cha kuhusisha yote, na kinaashiria kwamba hukmu imefungamana na kitu kilichotajwa, na kwamba haiwezekani bila kitu kingine. Abu Hanifa hakubaliani nao juu ya kanuni hii, kwani maana kama hiyo, kwa mtazamo wake, hutokana na maana ya dhahiri ya mfumo wa maneno ya kiishara (dalala al-khitab), ambayo inahitaji kutoa kwa vitu visivyotajwa maana iliyo kinyume na ile ya kitu kilichotajwa. Dalil al-khitab ni mbinu ambayo Abu Hanifa haitumii.

c The reason for their disagreement is whether it is the words or their meaning that are prescribed for the opening. The Malikites and the Shafifites argued on the basis of the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “The key to prayer is purification, its sanctity starts with al-takbir, and it. is discharged with the salutation”. They said that the definite article “at” is exhaustive and indicates that the hukm is confined to the thing expressed, and that it is not permissible without anything else. Abu HanTfa does not agree with them about this principle, for such a meaning, in his view, arises from the literal category of zto/iZ al-khitdb (the indirect implication of the text), which requires the assigning of a meaning opposite that of the expressed subject to the unexpressed categories. The dalil al-khitdb is a method not used by Abu HanTfa.

Kundi la wanazuoni wa sheria lilisema kwamba tawjih ni wajibu katika swala. Ni ile kauli baada ya takbira, "Nimeelekeza uso wangu kwa Yule aliyeziumba mbingu na ardhi", ambayo ni maoni ya al-Shafi'i, au ni kumtukuza Allah, ambayo ni maoni ya Abu Hanifa, au ni mchanganyiko wa zote mbili, ambao ni maoni ya Abu Yusufu, aliyekuwa mwanafunzi wa Abu Hanifa. Malik alisema kwamba tawjih si wajibu katika swala, wala si sunna.

A group of jurists said that tawjih is obligatory in prayer. It is either the statement after takbir, “I (have) tum(ed) (my face) to One Who created the heavens and the earth”, which is al-ShafiTs opinion, or it is the glorification of Allah, which is Abu HanTfa’s opinion, or it is a combination of both, which is Abu Yusufs opinion, who was the disciple of Abu HanTfa. Malik said that tawjih is not obligatory in prayer, nor is it a sunn a.

Sababu ya kutofautiana ni mgongano wa riwaya kuhusu desturi ya tawjih (ya watu wa Madina), kwa mtazamo wa Malik, au imetokana na mabishano kuhusu usahihi wa riwaya husika. Al-Qadi (Ibn Rushd) alisema kuwa imethibitika katika Sahihayn kutoka kwa Abu Hurayra kwamba "Mtume wa Allah (ﷺ) alikuwa akinyamaza kati ya takbir na kisomo (cha baadaye). Basi nikasema: 'Ee Mtume wa Allah, nikufidie baba yangu na mama yangu. Katika kimya chako hiki kati ya takbir na kisomo, unasema nini?' Akasema, nanukuu: 'Ee Allah, niweke mbali na makosa yangu, kama Ulivyoweka mbali mashariki na magharibi. Ee Allah, nisafishe na makosa yangu kama nguo nyeupe inavyosafishwa na uchafu. Ee Allah, yaoshe makosa yangu kwa maji, theluji na umande wa asubuhi.'"

The reason for disagreement is the conflict of traditions about tawjih practice (of the people of Medina), in Malik’s view, or is based upon the dispute over the authenticity of the relevant traditions. The QadT (Ibn Rushd) said that it is established in the Sahihayn from Abu Hurayra “that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) used to remain silent between takbir and (later) recitation. So I said, 4O Messenger of Allah for you I would offer as ransom my father and mother. In this silence of yours between takbir and recitation, what do you say?’ He said, and I quote, ‘0 Allah, distance me from my errors, as You have distanced the east from the west, O Allah, cleanse me of errors like a white dress cleansed of filth, O Allah, wash away my errors with water, snow, and the morning dew’”.

Kundi la wanachuoni lilipendelea kuwepo kwa vipindi vya kimya wakati wa sala, ikiwemo wakati unaofuata takbira ya mwanzo, baada ya kusomwa Ummul-Qur'an, na baada ya kumaliza kusoma kabla ya kuinama kwa rukuu. Miongoni mwa waliolishikilia hili ni al-Shafi'i, Abu Thawr, na al-Awza'i. Mtazamo huu ulikataliwa na Malik na wanafunzi wake, pamoja na Abu Hanifa na wanafunzi wake.

A group of jurists preferred some occasions for silence during prayer including the moment following the initial takbir, after the recitation of the umm a I-Qur^an, and after the completion of recitation just before bowing. Some of those who upheld this are al-ShaficT, Abu Thawr, and al-AwzaT. These were denied by Malik, his disciples, and by Abu HanTfa, and his disciples.

Wanafiqihi walitofautiana kuhusu kusoma basmala, yaani maneno yenye maana, "Kwa jina la Allah, Mwingi wa rehema, Mwenye kurehemu," kabla ya kuanza kusoma katika swala. Malik alikataza hili katika swala ya faradhi, iwe kwa sauti ya juu au kwa sauti ya chini, mwanzoni mwa Umm al-Qur'an au sura nyingine yoyote, lakini aliruhusu katika swala za sunna. Abu Hanifa, al-Thawri, na Ahmad walisema kwamba inapaswa kusomwa kwa sauti ya chini katika kila raka'a pamoja na Umm al-Qur'an. Al-Shafi'i alisema kwamba inasomwa kwa sauti ya juu pale kisomo kinapokuwa cha sauti ya juu, na kwa sauti ya chini pale kisomo kinapokuwa cha sauti ya chini. Kwa mtazamo wake ni aya katika Al-Fatiha, jambo ambalo pia lilikuwa maoni ya Ahmad, Abu Thawr, na Abu Ubayd. Al-Shafi'i hata hivyo alitofautiana kuhusu kama ni aya ya kila sura au ni aya ya Surat al-Naml na Al-Fatiha peke yake. Maoni yote mawili yanasimuliwa kutoka kwake.

The jurists disagreed about reciting the basmala, the words meaning, “In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the* Merciful”, before beginning recitation in prayer. Malik prohibited this in the prescribed prayer, whether loudly or inaudibly, at the beginning of the umm al-Qur>dn or any other sura, but he permitted it with supererogatory prayers. Abu HanTfa, al-ThawrT, and Ahmad said that it is to be pronounced inaudibly in each rakfa with the umm al- Qu^dn. Al-Shafi T said that c it is to be pronounced aloud in case of audible recitation and in a whisper in case of the inaudible. In his view it is a verse of the fatihat al-Kitab, which was also the opinion of Ahmad, Abu Thawr, and Abu TTbayd. Al-Shafi T, however, c differed about whether it was a verse of every sura or a verse of surat al-Naml and fatihat al-Kt tab alone? Both opinions are related from him.

Sababu ya kutofautiana katika suala hili inarejea mambo mawili. La kwanza ni mgongano wa hadithi kuhusu jambo hili, wakati la pili linahusu mzozo kama basmala ni aya ya Fatihat al-Kitab. Hadithi zinazotegemewa na wale wanaoiacha ni pamoja na ile ya Ibn Mughaffal, aliyesema: "Baba yangu alinisikia nikisoma basmala, akasema: 'Ee mwanangu, jihadhari na bid'a. Mtume wa Allah ﷺ aliswali nyuma ya Abu Bakr, na Umar, na Uthman, na sikuwahi kumsikia yeyote kati yao akisoma basmala.'" Abu Umar ibn al-Barr alisema kwamba Ibn Mughaffal ni msimulizi wa hadithi hii kama ilivyopokelewa na Malik kutoka kwa hadithi ya Anas, aliyesema: "Niliswali nyuma ya Abu Bakr, Umar, na Uthman (Allah awaridhie), na hakuna hata mmoja wao aliyesoma tasmiya mwanzoni mwa swala." Abu Umar alisema kwamba wanazuoni wa hadithi wanaona kwamba mapokezi ya hadithi hii yamechanganyikiwa, kwa hiyo haiwezi kukubaliwa kama ushahidi wenye nguvu. Kuna tukio moja ambalo limepokewa kwa mnyororo wa wapokezi kwamba yeye alisoma (marifa), na katika tukio jingine mnyororo haufikii kwake, huku baadhi ya matoleo yakitaja Uthman na mengine hayataji. Baadhi ya matoleo yake yanasema kwamba hawakusoma basmala kwa sauti ya juu.

Wanafikihi walikubaliana kwamba sala isiyo na kisomo si sahihi, iwe kuacha huko ni kwa makusudi au kwa kusahau, isipokuwa kile kilichopokewa kutoka kwa Umar (Mungu amridhie) kwamba alisali na kusahau kusoma. Aliambiwa kuhusu hilo, naye akauliza: rukuu na sijda zinaendaje? Alipoambiwa kwamba zilikuwa za kawaida, akasema: "Basi hakuna ubaya." Lakini hili, kwa mtazamo wao, ni hadithi ya pekee (gharib), ingawa Malik ameijumuisha katika al-Muwatta' yake, katika baadhi ya toleo zake. Zaidi ya hayo, kuna simulizi kutoka kwa Ibn 'Abbas kwamba hakusoma katika sala ambazo hazihitaji kusomwa kwa sauti, akasema: "Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ alisoma katika baadhi ya sala, lakini alinyamaza katika nyingine, kwa hiyo sisi tunasoma pale alipokuwa akisoma na tunanyamaza pale alipokuwa amenyamaza." Aliulizwa kama kulikuwa na kisomo katika sala za Adhuhuri na 'Asiri, naye akajibu: "Hapana!" Wengi walifuata hadithi ya Khabbab "kwamba Mtume ﷺ alikuwa akisoma katika sala za Adhuhuri na 'Asiri. Aliulizwa: 'Umelijuaje hili?' Akajibu: 'Kwa mwendo wa ndevu zake.'" Wakufi walitegemea hadithi ya Ibn 'Abbas kuondoa wajibu wa kisomo katika rakaa mbili za mwisho za sala, kwa sababu ya kulingana kwa sala ya kusomwa kwa sauti na ile isiyosomwa kwa sauti kuhusiana na ukimya wa Mtume ﷺ katika rakaa hizi mbili.

The jurists agreed that prayer without recitation is not valid, whether the omission is intentional or out of forgetfulness, except what is related from TJmar (God be pleased with him) that he prayed and forgot to recite. He was told about this, and he asked how the bowing and prostrations go? When he was told that they were normal, he said, “Then there is no harm”. But this is a solitary (gharib) tradition in their view, although it is included by Malik in his al-Muwatta*, in some versions of it. Further, there is the report from Ibn ‘Abbas that he did not recite in prayer not requiring audible recitation, and said, “The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) recited in some prayers, but kept silent in others, so we recite where he recited and maintain silence where he kept silent”. He was asked whether there was recitation in zuhr and 'asr prayers, and he replied, “No!” The majority followed the tradition of Khabbab “that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) used to recite in the zuhr and 'asr prayers. He was asked: ‘How did you come to know this?’ He replied, ‘By the movement of his beard’”. The KufTs relied on Ibn ‘Abbas’s tradition for relinquishing the obligation of recitation in the last two rak^as of prayer, because of the equivalence of audible and inaudible prayer with respect to the silence of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) in these two rakfas.

Wale waliosema kwamba kusoma ni wajibu katika sala walitofautiana kuhusu kile kinachopaswa kusomwa. Baadhi yao walishikilia kwamba wajibu hapa ni kusoma Umm al-Qur'an (Al-Fatiha) kwa yule aliyeihifadhi, na kwamba hakuna kikomo kuhusu kusoma zaidi. Wengine waliufanya kuwa wajibu katika kila rakaa, kwa sehemu kubwa ya sala; wengine kwa nusu ya sala, na wengine kwa rakaa moja katika kila sala. Maoni ya kwanza yalishikiliwa na al-Shafi'i, na pia ndilo maoni yanayojulikana sana ya Malik; lakini pia imepokewa kutoka kwake kwamba ikiwa mtu atasoma katika rakaa mbili za sala ya rakaa nne, basi ni sahihi. Al-Hasan al-Basri na wanachuoni wengi wa fiqh wa Basra walishikilia kwamba kusoma katika rakaa moja kunatosha. Kwa mujibu wa Abu Hanifa, wajibu ni kusoma aya yoyote mtu anayoichagua, ilhali wanafunzi wake walishikilia kwamba kiwango cha chini ni aya tatu fupi au aya moja ndefu, kama ile ya deni (dayn). Hii ilikuwa hukumu kwa rakaa mbili za kwanza, na kwa rakaa mbili zilizobaki aliona kuwa ni sunna (mustahabb) kusema tasbihi, yaani maneno ya kutukuza jina la Allah, badala ya kusoma. Hili lilikubaliwa na wanachuoni wa Kufa. Wengi wanaona kwamba kusoma ni sunna (mustahabb) katika rakaa zote.

Wengi walikubaliana kuhusu katazo la kusoma Qur'ani wakati wa kurukuu na kusujudu, kwa sababu ya hadithi ya ʿAlī kuhusu jambo hilo. Kwa mujibu wa hadithi hiyo, alisema (Mtume) ﷺ: "Jibril amenikataza kusoma Qur'ani wakati wa kurukuu na kusujudu." Al-Ṭabarī alisema kuwa hadithi hiyo ni sahihi, na ilifuatwa na wanazuoni wa fiqhi wa maeneo mbalimbali. Baadhi ya Tabi'un waliamua kuruhusu jambo hili, na ndiyo pia maoni ya al-Bukhārī, kwa sababu hadithi hiyo haikuthibitika kuwa sahihi kwake. Allah ndiye Mjuzi zaidi.

The majority agreed about the prohibition of the recitation of the Qurian while bowing and prostrating, because of the tradition of cAli about it. According to this tradition, he (the Prophet) said, “Jibril prohibited me from reciting the Qurian while bowing and prostrating”. Al-Tabari said that it is an authentic tradition, and it was followed by the jurists of the various regions. Some of the Tabi un decided to allow c this, and it is also the opinion of al- Bukhari, because the tradition did not prove to be authentic for him, Allah knows best.

Walikhitilafiana kuhusu kama kuinama (rukuu) na kusujudu kunahitaji maneno maalum kutoka kwa mwabudu. Malik alisema kwamba hakuna neno lililoamuliwa kwa ajili yake. Al-Shafi'i, Abu Hanifa, Ahmad, na kundi la wanazuoni wa fiqhi walisema kwamba mwabudu hurudia maneno, "Mtukuze Jina la Mola wako Mkuu",113 mara tatu wakati wa kuinama, na maneno "Mtukuze Jina la Mola wako Aliye Juu",114 mara tatu wakati wa kusujudu, kwa mujibu wa hadithi ya 'Uqba ibn 'Amir. Al-Thawri alishikilia kwamba ni bora kwa imamu kurudia maneno haya mara tano, ili mfuasi awe na wakati wa kuyarudia mara tatu.

They disagreed on whether bowing and prostrating require determined words from the worshipper. Malik said that there is nothing determined for them. Al-ShafiT, Abu HanTfa, Ahmad, and a group of jurists said that the worshipper repeats the words, “Praise the name of thy Lord, the Tremendous”,113 three times while bowing, and the words “Praise the name of thy Lord, the Most High”,114 three times while prostrating, in accordance with the tradition of TJqba ibn cAmir. Al-Thawri maintained that it was preferable if the imam were to repeat these words five times, so that the follower would have time to repeat them thrice.

Sababu ya kutokubaliana hapa inatokana na mgongano wa hadithi ya Ibn Abbas na hadithi ya Uqba ibn Amir. Katika hadithi ya Ibn Abbas, Mtume (rehema na amani za Mwenyezi Mungu ziwe juu yake ﷺ) ameripotiwa kusema: "Nimekatazwa kusoma Qur'ani nikiwa katika rukuu na sujudu. Mtukuzeni Bwana wenu katika rukuu, na jitahidini kuomba dua katika sujudu, kwani hiyo ni hali inayostahili dua zenu kujibiwa." Katika hadithi ya Uqba ibn Amir, imetajwa kwamba aya "Lisifu jina la Mola wako Mkuu" {Mtukufu} ilipoteremshwa, Mtume ﷺ ameripotiwa kusema: "Isomeni hii mkiwa katika rukuu." Na aya "Lisifu jina la Mola wako Aliye juu" {Aliye juu} ilipoteremshwa, alisema: "Isomeni hii mkiwa katika sujudu."

Walitofautiana kuhusu tashahhud na matamshi yake yanayopendelewa. Malik, Abu Hanifa, na kundi la wanazuoni wa fiqhi walishikilia kwamba tashahhud si wajibu, huku kundi jingine likishikilia wajibu wake, msimamo uliochukuliwa na al-Shafi'i, Ahmad, na Dawud. Sababu ya tofauti yao inatokana na mgongano kati ya qiyas (kulinganisha kwa mfano) na maana ya wazi ya hadithi. Qiyas inahitaji kulinganishwa kwake na nguzo nyingine zote za sala ambazo si wajibu, kwa sababu wanakubaliana juu ya wajibu wa kusoma Qur'an (peke yake) katika sala, na kwamba tashahhud si sehemu ya Qur'an hata iwe wajibu. Katika hadithi kutoka kwa Ibn 'Abbas, anasema: "Mtume wa Allah (rehema na amani za Mwenyezi Mungu ziwe juu yake) alikuwa anatufundisha tashahhud kama alivyokuwa akitufundisha sura ya Qur'an." Hii inadokeza wajibu, pamoja na kanuni kwamba maneno na vitendo vya Mtume ﷺ vinapaswa kufasiriwa kama vinavyodokeza wajibu mpaka ushahidi wa kinyume utakapothibitishwa. Kanuni inayofuatwa na wengine ni kinyume cha hili, ikisema kwamba si sahihi kulinganisha mambo ambayo wajibu wake umethibitishwa kwa makubaliano au pale ambapo wajibu umetajwa wazi. Isipokuwa wajibu wake umeelezwa na kubainishwa, upendeleo hupewa maneno ya tashahhud kama yalivyotajwa wazi na Mtume ﷺ.

They disagreed about tashahhud and its preferred text. Malik, Abu HanTfa, and a group of jurists held that tashahhud is not obligatory, while another group upheld its obligation, which was adopted by al-ShafiH, Ahmad, and Dawud. The reason for their disagreement arises from the conflict of analogy with the apparent meaning of traditions. Analogy requires its association with all other arkdn (elements) that are not obligatory in prayer, because of their agreement over the obligation of (reciting) the Qur’an (alone) in prayer, and that tashahhud is not a part of the Qur’an so that it may be obligatory. In a tradition from Ibn cAbbas, he -says, “The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) used to teach us the tashahhud as he would teach us a sura of the Qur’an”. This implies an obligation, along with the principle that the words and the acts of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) must be construed to imply obligation till an evidence to the contrary is It is noted. The principle followed by others is contrary to this, which states that it is not applicable to associate with matters whose obligation has been established by agreement or where obligation has been expressly mentioned. Unless their obligation has been expressed and specified, the preference given to the words of tashahhud, as explicitly mentioned by the Prophet.

Malik anatanguliza maneno ya tashahhud, akisema kwamba sifa njema, ibada na dua ni za Allah. Watu wa jamii wanashuhudia: "Salamu zote ni za Allah, na rehema na baraka ziwe juu yako." Maneno hayo ni: "Nashuhudia kwamba hakuna mungu isipokuwa Allah, na Muhammad ni mja Wake na Mtume Wake" ﷺ. Mafaqihi wa Kufa, Abu Hanifa na wengine, walipendelea tashahhud kutokana na Abd al-Rahman ibn Mas'ud. Ibn Umar alisema kwamba usomaji wa hadithi hii unathibitika kupitia usahihi wa hadithi kutokana na upokezi wake kutoka kwa maneno ya Abd al-Rahman (rehema ya Allah iwe juu yake), pamoja na dua na mambo mema. Maneno hayo ni: "Ee Allah, wema kwa amani, na baraka ziwe juu ya Muhammad ﷺ, na rehema ya Allah na Mtume Wake." Al-Shafi'i na wengine wanashuhudia kwamba Muhammad ﷺ ni mja Wake na Mtume Wake. Alipokea kutoka kwao kwamba alisema: "Salamu ziwe juu yako, Ee Nabii ﷺ, na baraka ziwe juu yako." Anasema: "Salamu ziwe juu ya waja wengine wa Allah. Nashuhudia kwamba hakuna mungu isipokuwa Allah, na Muhammad ﷺ ni Mtume Wake." Chanzo cha kutofautiana kinatokana na imani yao kuhusu maneno yaliyo bora. Wale waliokuwa na uhakika wa ubora wa mojawapo kati ya mapokezi hayo matatu walilifuata. Wanazuoni wengi walisema kwamba haya yote ni suala la hiari, kama maneno ya adhana na takbira katika mazishi, rakaa mbili za Eid, na mambo mengine kadhaa yaliyonasibishwa kwa Nabii ﷺ kupitia tawatur. Hili ndilo linaloonekana kuwa sahihi, na Allah ndiye Mjuzi zaidi.

Walikhitilafiana kuhusu salamu baada ya sala. Wengi wao walishikilia kuwa ni wajibu, wakati Abu Hanifa na wanafunzi wake walisema kuwa si wajibu. Baadhi ya wale walioshikilia kuwa ni wajibu walisema kuwa ni wajibu kwa mtu binafsi, na kwa imamu, kutoa salamu moja, wakati wengine walisema kuwa hutoa mbili (moja upande wa kulia na moja upande wa kushoto).

They disagreed about salutation after prayer. The majority upheld its obligation, while Abu Hanifa and his disciples said that it is not obligatory. Some of those who maintained that it is obligatory said that it is obligatory upon the individual, and the imam, to make a single salutation, when others said that they make two (one to the right and one to the left).

Wengi (waliosema kuwa ni wajibu) walifuata maana dhahiri ya Hadith ya 'Aaishah, ambayo Mtume (rehema na amani za Mwenyezi Mungu ziwe juu yake ﷺ) alisema: "Kuhitimisha kwake ni salamu." Miongoni mwao, wale waliosema kuwa wajibu ni kutoa salamu mbili walifuata Sunnah iliyothibitika kwamba "Mtume ﷺ alitoa salamu mbili", na hili ni kweli kwa wale wanaofasiri matendo yake ﷺ kuwa yanaashiria wajibu. Malik alipendelea salamu mbili kwa aliyefuata imamu na salamu moja kwa imamu, ingawa imepokewa kutoka kwake kwamba aliyefuata imamu hutoa salamu tatu: ya kwanza ya kuhitimisha, ya pili (ya kumsalimia) «imamu, na ya tatu (ya kumsalimia) aliye upande wake wa kushoto. Abu Hanifa alifuata kile kilichopokewa na 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Ziyad al-Ifriqi, ambacho 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Rafi' na Bakr ibn Sawadah walikipokea kutoka kwa 'Abd Allah ibn 'Amr ibn al-'As, aliyesema: "Mtu akiketi katika mkao wa mwisho wa sala yake kisha akatoa upepo kabla ya kutoa salamu, sala yake ni kamili." Abu 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-Barr alisema kuwa Hadith ya 'Ali iliyotangulia ni sahihi zaidi kwa mujibu wa wanahadith, kwa kuwa Hadith ya 'Abd Allah ibn 'Amr ibn al-'As imesimuliwa na al-Ifriqi peke yake, jambo ambalo wanahadith wanalichukulia kuwa dhaifu.

The majority (who held that it is obligatory) followed the apparent meaning of ‘AIFs tradition, in which the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Its termination is the salutation”. Those among them who said that the obligation is for making two salutations followed the established tradition that “the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) offered two salutations”, and this is the case for those who construe his (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) acts to imply obligation. Malik preferred two salutations for the follower and a single salutation for the imam, though it is related from him that the follower offers three salutations, the first for termination, the second for (to greet) «the imam, and the third for (to greet) the person on his left. Abu Hanifa followed what was related by ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Ziyad al-Ifnql that both ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Rafi‘ and Bakr ibn Sawadah related from ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Amr ibn al-‘As who said, “If a man has taken the sitting posture at the end of his prayer and he passes wind before offering the salutation his prayer is complete”. Abu ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said that the preceding tradition of ‘Al? is more authentic according to the traditionists, as the tradition of ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Amr ibn al-‘As has been narrated only by al-IfriqT, a case that is considered weak by the traditionists.

Walitofautiana kuhusu usomaji wa qunut (dua ya kunuti). Wakati wa kuinua mikono katika rakaa ya mwisho, Malik alishikilia kwamba qunut inapendekezwa katika sala ya alfajiri, huku al-Shafi'i akisema kwamba ni sunna. Abu Hanifa alishikilia kwamba kusoma qunut hakuruhusiwi katika sala ya alfajiri, na mahali pake ni katika sala ya witr. Kundi la wanazuoni wa sheria lilisema kwamba, kwa kweli, qunut inapaswa kusomwa katika kila sala. Wengine walisema kwamba husomwa tu katika mwezi wa Ramadhani, wengine walisema kwamba husomwa katika nusu yake ya pili, na wengine walisema kwamba husomwa katika nusu yake ya kwanza.

They disagreed about the recitation of Jim#.119 During the iridal in the last rak^a Malik maintained that qunut is recommended for the dawn prayer, while al-Shafi T said that c it is a sunna, Abu HanTfa held that reciting qunut is not permitted in the dawn prayer, and its place is in the witr prayer. A group of jurists said that, in fact, qunut is to be recited in every prayer. Some said that is recited only in the month of Ramadan, some said that it is recited in its second half, and others said that it is recited in the first half.

Sababu ya tofauti hii ni mgongano wa hadithi zilizopokewa kutoka kwa Mtume (rehema na amani za Mwenyezi Mungu ziwe juu yake) na qiyasi lililojengwa juu ya sala nyingine, yaani qiyasi linalotokana na sala ambazo qunut husomwa kwa zile ambazo haisomwi. Abu cUmar ibn cAbd al-Barr alisema kuwa kusoma qunut kulikuwa desturi iliyoenea miongoni mwa kizazi cha kwanza wakati wa mwezi wa Ramadhani, ambamo makafiri walilaaniwa kufuatia sunna ya Mjumbe wa Mwenyezi Mungu ﷺ, aliyefanya dua ya kuwalaani Ri^l na Dhakwan, na kundi lililowaua wakazi wa Bir Ma^una. Al-Layth ibn Sa^d alisema kuwa kwa muda wa miaka arobaini na tano hakuwahi kusoma qunut, isipokuwa nyuma ya imamu anayefanya dua hiyo. Alisema kuwa kwa hili alifuata hadithi iliyopokewa kutoka kwa Mtume ﷺ kwamba "alifanya dua kwa mwezi mmoja au siku arobaini akiwaombea kundi fulani na kuwalaani wengine, hadi Mwenyezi Mungu, Mtukufu na Mwenye enzi, akamkemea kwa aya: {Si jambo lako (Muhammad) kuwa Yeye awasamehe au awaadhibu; kwani wao ni wadhalimu}".120 Mjumbe wa Mwenyezi Mungu ﷺ aliacha dua hiyo wala hakuirudia hadi alipokutana na Mwenyezi Mungu. Al-Layth alisema kuwa tangu alipoibeba hadithi hii, hakuwahi kufanya dua hiyo. Hii pia ndiyo ilikuwa rai ya Yahya ibn Yahya. Qadhi (Ibn Rushd) alisema: "Wanazuoni wazee waliniambia kuwa desturi hii pia ilienea kwetu katika msikiti wake huko Cordoba, na iliendelea hadi wakati wetu au karibu na wakati wetu".

The reason for this disagreement is the conflict of traditions transmitted from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) with analogy constructed upon other prayers, that is, analogy based upon those prayers in which qunut is recited for those in which it is not. Abu TJmar ibn cAbd al- Barr said that recitation of qunut was a prevailing practice among the first generation during the month of Ramadan, in which the disbelievers were cursed following the sunna of the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), who made a supplication for cursing WaH and Dhakwan, and the group who killed the residents of BPr Macuna. Al-Layth ibn Sa^ said that for a period of forty-five years he had not offered qunut, except behind an imam making such a supplication. He said that for this he had followed the tradition that was related from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) that “he made supplications for a month or forty (days) pleading on behalf of one group and cursing others till Allah, the Glorious and Exalted, censured him in the verse: ‘It is no concern at all of thee (Muhammad) whether He relent toward them or punish them; for they are transgressors’”.120 The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) gave up the supplication and did not repeat it till he met Allah. Al-Layth said that since the time he bore this tradition with him, he did not make a supplication. This was also the opinion of Yahya5 ibn Yahya5. The Qadl (Ibn Rushd) said: “The elderly scholars mentioned -to me that this practice also prevailed among us at his mosque in Cordova, and it continued^ till our time or close to our time”.

Katika sehemu hii kuna masuala manane ya msingi:

In this section there are eight fundamental issues:

Wanafiqhi walitofautiana kuhusu kunyanyua mikono katika swala juu ya mambo matatu: kwanza, kuhusu hukmu yake; pili, kuhusu nyakati ambazo mikono hunyanyuliwa; na tatu, kuhusu kiwango ambacho mikono inapaswa kunyanyuliwa.

The jurists disagreed about raising of the hands in prayer on three points: first, about its hukm; second, about the occasions when the hands are raised; and third, about the extent to which they are to be raised.

Kuhusu hukmu, wengi walishikilia kwamba kuinua mikono ni sunnah katika sala, huku Dawud pamoja na kundi la wanafunzi wake wakishikilia kwamba ni wajibu. Wanazuoni hawa pia wamegawanyika katika makundi madogo. Baadhi yao wameifanya kuwa wajibu katika takbira ya ihram peke yake, wengine wameifanya kuwa wajibu mwanzoni mwa sala, wakati wa kutamka maneno ya kwanza ya takbira, na wakati wa kuinama, yaani wakati wa kushusha mwili kwenda ruku', na wakati wa kuinuka kutoka humo. Wengine wameifanya kuwa wajibu katika nyakati hizi mbili na pia wakati wa sujudu, na haya yanatokana na tofauti yao kuhusu nyakati ambazo mikono inapaswa kuinuliwa.

Regarding the hukm, the majority maintained that raising of the hands is a sunnah of prayer, while Dawud and a group of his disciples maintained that it is an obligation. These jurists are further divided into sub-groups. Some of them made it obligatory in the takbir of ihrdm alone, some made it obligatory at the beginning of the prayer, while reciting the first words of takbir, and at the time o f bowing, that is, while lowering the body for ruk& and while raising it, some made it obligatory on these two occasions and at the time of prostration, an d this in accordance with their disagreement about the occasions on which they are to be raised.

Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao ni mgongano wa maana ya wazi ya hadithi ya Abu Hurayra, ambayo ina maagizo kuhusu wajibu wa sala, na matendo (yaliyopokewa) ya Mtume ﷺ. Hadithi ya Abu Hurayra ina kauli kwamba Mtume ﷺ alimwelekeza kuhusu takbira, lakini hakumwamuru kuinua mikono, ilhali imethibitika kutoka kwa Mtume ﷺ kupitia hadithi zilizopokewa na Ibn Umar na wengine kwamba "alikuwa akiinua mikono yake mwanzoni mwa sala".

The reason for their disagreement is the conflict of the apparent meaning of Abu Hurayra’s tradition, which contains instructions about the obligations of prayer, with the (reported) acts of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be U pon him). Abu Hurayra’s contains the statement that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) instructed him about takbir, but he did not order him to raise his hands, while it is established from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) through traditions reported by Ibn TJmar and others that “he used to raise his hands at the beginning of prayer”.

Abu Hanifa alisema kwamba kuinua mikono (raf') wakati wa kuinuka kutoka rukuu na wakati wa kuwa katika hali hiyo si wajibu. Al-Shafi'i alisema kuwa ni wajibu. Wanafunzi wa Malik walitofautiana kuhusu iwapo msimamo mkuu katika madhehebu yao unaashiria kuwa ni sunna au wajibu, kwa kuwa hakuna msimamo wa wazi unaopokewa kutoka kwake kuhusu jambo hili.

Abu HanTfa maintained that ftiddl on rising from the rukuc and during it is not an obligation. Al-ShaficT said it is obligatory. Malik’s disciples differed about whether the foremost opinion in the school implies that it is a recommendation or an obligation, as no explicit opinion is narrated from him on this.

Sababu ya kutokubaliana hapa ni kama wajibu unatimizwa kwa kufuata sehemu moja ya kile neno hilo linachohusu, au kwa kutekeleza kitu kizima kilichokusudiwa. Wale ambao wajibu unatimizwa kwa kutekeleza neno linalotumika kwa jambo hilo hawakuweka sharti la kudumisha utulivu wakati wa kuinama. Wale ambao wajibu unatimizwa kwa kutekeleza kila kilichoagizwa, yaani kuinuka katika sala, wanaliegemeza hilo juu ya hadithi iliyotangulia iliyothibitishwa kutoka kwa Mtume ﷺ: "Inama ukiwa umetulia kwenye viungo vyako, kisha inuka ukisimama kwa muda kidogo"; hivyo, ni lazima kulifasiri hilo kuwa wajibu.

The reason for disagreement here is whether the obligation is met by conforming with a part of that to which the term applies or by complying with the whole of it. Those for whom the obligation is met by complying with a term to which the term is applied, did not stipulate the maintenance of riddle while bowing. Those for whom the obligation is met by the whole stipulated raising in prayer, as this is established from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) in a preceding tradition: 'Bow, resting on a limb, and raise yourself resting a while'; therefore, it is necessary to construe this as an obligation.

Kinachopaswa kudumishwa ni kanuni hii: vitendo vya Mtume (rehema na amani za Mwenyezi Mungu ziwe juu yake ﷺ) katika sala visifasiriwe kuwa ni wajibu isipokuwa pale ushahidi unapoonyesha hivyo. Walirejea hadithi hii; kwa sababu hiyo pia hawakuona kwamba kuinua mikono ni wajibu, wala vitendo na maneno mengine isipokuwa takbira ya kwanza na usomaji. Fikirieni juu yake, kwa kuwa ni kanuni inayopingana na kanuni ya kwanza (ya kufasiri vitendo kuwa ni wajibu), na ndiyo chanzo cha khilafu katika masuala mengi haya.

What must be maintained, the principle is not to construe the acts of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) relating to his acts in prayer as obligatory unless evidence indicates this, had recourse to this tradition; for this reason also they did not consider raising of the hands as obligatory nor even the other acts and pronouncements besides the first takbir and recitation. Think over it for it is a principle that opposes the first principle (of interpreting the acts as obligatory), and is the cause of disagreement in most of these issues.

Wanachuoni walitofautiana kuhusu mkao wa kukaa (katika swala). Malik na wafuasi wake walisema kwamba mtu anapaswa kujishusha chini juu ya makalio yake, huku mguu wake wa kulia ukiwa umeinuliwa na kukalia kwa vidole vyake vya ndani, na mguu wake wa kushoto ukiwa umekunjwa chini yake na kuinamisha mguu wa kushoto. Kwa maoni yake, mkao wa kukaa kwa mwanamke ni sawa na ule wa mwanamume. Abu Hanifa na wafuasi wake walisema kwamba mwanamume anapaswa kuweka mguu wake wa kulia chini na kujikalia juu ya mguu wake wa kushoto. Al-Shafi'i alitofautisha kati ya mkao wa katikati ya swala na mkao wa mwisho; kwa mkao wa katikati alifuata maoni yaleyale ya Abu Hanifa, na kwa mkao wa mwisho alifuata maoni yaleyale ya Malik.

The jurists disagreed about the sitting posture (in prayer). Malik and his disciples said that the person is to lower himself on his buttocks toward the ground, with his right foot raised resting on the inside of its toes and his left leg bent under him and bend the left foot. In his view, the sitting posture for a woman is the same as that of a man. Abu HanTfa and his disciples said that a man is to plant his right foot on the ground and seat himself on his left foot. Al-Shafi T distinguished between the posture c in the middle of the prayer and the posture at the end; for the posture during the middle he followed the same opinion as that of Abu HanTfa, and for the last posture the same opinion as Malik’s.

Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao ni mgongano wa riwaya (hadithi). Kuna riwaya tatu kuhusu suala hili. Ya kwanza, ambayo imethibitishwa kwa makubaliano ya wote, ni riwaya ya Abu Humayd al-Sa'idi inayoelezea swala ya Mtume ﷺ. Ina maneno: "Alipoketi baada ya rak'a mbili, alikaa juu ya mguu wake wa kushoto na kuinua mguu wake wa kulia; lakini alipoketi mwishoni alikunja mguu wake wa kushoto na kuinua wa kulia, akiketi juu ya makalio yake [upande wa kushoto]". Ya pili ni riwaya ya Wa'il ibn Hujr, inayosema: "Alipoketi katika swala, aliinua mguu wake wa kulia na kukaa juu ya wa kushoto". Riwaya ya tatu imepokewa na Malik kutoka kwa 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar, aliyesema: "Sunna katika swala ni kwamba uinue mguu wako wa kulia na kukunja mguu wako wa kushoto". Ni hoja ya msingi, kwa sababu ya kauli yake, "Sunna katika swala". Katika riwaya kutoka kwa al-Qasim ibn Muhammad, alionyesha watu mkao wa kukaa wakati wa tashahhud, akainua mguu wake wa kulia na kugeuza wa kushoto, lakini alikaa juu ya kiuno chake cha kushoto si juu ya mguu wake, akisema: "Hivi ndivyo 'Abdullah ibn 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar alivyonionyesha, na alisema kuwa baba yake alikuwa akifuata mkao huu".

The reason for their disagreement is the conflict of traditions. There are three traditions on the issue. The first, which is established by the agreement of all, is the tradition of Abu Humayd al-SacidT describing the prayer of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him). It contains the words, “When he sat down after two rak*as> he did so on his left leg and raised his right foot, but when he sat down at the end he bent his left leg and raised the right one sitting on his hips [on the left side]”. The second is the tradition of Wa’il ibn Hujr, which says, “When he sat down in prayer, he raised his right foot and sat on the left”. The “third tradition is related by Malik from cAbd’ Allah ibn TJmar, who said, “The sunna in prayer is that you raise your right foot and bend your left leg”. It is a primary authority, because of his saying, “The sunna in prayer”. In a report from al-Qasim ibn Muhammad he showed- them the sitting posture during tashahhud, and raised his right foot and turned in the left, but he sat on his left hip not on his foot, saying “This is what c Abd Allah ibn <Abd Allah ibn ‘Umar showed me, and said that his father used to adopt this posture”.

Wanafikihi walitofautiana kuhusu mikao ya kukaa katikati ya sala (yaani, wakati wa kuinuka kutoka sujuda ya pili ya rakaa ya pili na kabla ya kusimama kwa ajili ya rakaa ya tatu) na mwishoni. Wanafikihi wengi walishikilia kuwa mkao wa katikati ya sala ni sunna na si wajibu. Kundi moja lilipingana na hilo na kusema kuwa ni wajibu (fardhi). Vivyo hivyo, wengi walishikilia kuwa mkao wa kukaa mwishoni mwa sala ni wajibu, lakini baadhi walipingana na kushikilia kuwa ni sunna. Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao ni mgongano kati ya maana iliyo wazi ya maandiko na qiyas (kulinganisha) iliyojengwa juu ya mkao mmoja wa kukaa kuliko mwingine. Hili linaonekana katika hadith iliyotangulia ya Abu Hurayra; maneno yake ni: “Kisha keti wima na pumzika kidogo, huku umekaa”. Kwa mujibu wa maana iliyo wazi ya hadith hii, mkao wa kukaa ni wajibu katika sala yote. Wale waliolichukua hili walisema kuwa mikao yote ya kukaa ni wajibu. Hata hivyo, katika hadith sahihi ya Ibn Buhayna imethibitishwa kuwa “Mtume wa Allah (ﷺ) aliacha mkao wa kukaa katikati wala hakuurudia, kisha akasujudu kwa sababu yake”. Pia imethibitika kutoka kwake kwamba aliacha rakaa mbili lakini akazirudia, kama alivyofanya kwa rakaa moja. Kutokana na hili, wanafikihi walifahamu tofauti kati ya hukmu ya mkao wa kukaa katikati na hukmu ya rakaa. Kwa kuwa rakaa ilikuwa ni wajibu kwao kwa makubaliano ya wote, ikafuata kwamba mkao wa kukaa katikati haukuwa wajibu. Kwa msingi huu wanafikihi walitofautisha kati ya mikao miwili ya kukaa, wakashikilia kwamba sujuda za kusahau hufanywa kwa ajili ya sunna na si kwa ajili ya wajibu (fardhi). Wale walioona kuwa ni wajibu walishikilia kwamba sujuda za kusahau zinahusu mkao wa katikati (ukiachwa) kwa kutofautishwa na wajibu mwingine, na hilo haliwezi kuhesabiwa kuwa ushahidi kwamba (mkao wa katikati) si wajibu.

The jurists disagreed about the sitting postures in the middle of the prayer (that is, on rising from the second prostration of the second rak^a and before standing up for the third) and at the end. Most of the jurists held that the posture in the middle of the prayer is sunna and is not an obligation. One group deviated from this and said that it is an obligation (fard). Likewise, the majority held that the sitting posture at the end of the prayer is obligatory, but some deviated and held that it is a sunna. The reason for their disagreement is the conflict of the implication of the text with analogy constructed upon one sitting posture over the other. This is so as in the preceding tradition of Abu Hurayra; the words are: “Then sit up and rest a little, while seated”. According to the apparent meaning of this tradition the sitting posture is obligatory in the entire prayer. Those who adopted it said that all sitting postures are obligatory. It is howevSa laid down in the confirmed tradition of Ibn Buhayna that “the messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) dropped the middle sitting posture and did not repeat it, and then prostrated on account of it”. It is also established from him that he dropped two rak'as but performed them again, as he did for one rakfa. From this the jurists understood the difference between the hukm of the middle sitting posture and the hukm of a rak'a. As a rakfa was obligatory for them by consensus, it followed that the middle sitting posture was not obligatory. It is on this basis that the jurists differentiated between the two sitting postures and maintained the prostrations of forgetfulness are performed for sunan and not for obligations (furud). Those who considered it to be an obligation maintained ‘that the prostrations of forgetfulness are specific to the middle posture, (if left out) as distinguished from the other obligations, and that cannot be counted as evidence that it (the middle posture) is not obligatory.

Wanazuoni wametofautiana kuhusu kuweka mkono mmoja juu ya mwingine katika sala. Malik aliikataza katika sala za faradhi, lakini aliiruhusu katika sala za sunna. Kundi la wanazuoni, nao ndio wengi, walishikilia kwamba kitendo hiki ni miongoni mwa sunna za sala. Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao ni kwamba zimepokewa hadithi sahihi zinazoeleza jinsi sala ya Mtume ﷺ ilivyokuwa, lakini haikupokewa kwamba alikuwa akiweka mkono wake wa kulia juu ya wa kushoto wakati wa sala, ingawa pia imepokewa kwamba watu waliamrishwa kufanya hivyo. Hili limepokewa katika maelezo ya sala ya Mtume ﷺ (amani na baraka za Mungu ziwe juu yake) katika hadithi ya Abu Humayd. Kwa hiyo kundi moja la wanazuoni likasema kwamba hadithi zinazothibitisha jambo hili zinaleta nyongeza juu ya zile ambazo nyongeza hii haikupokewa, na nyongeza inapaswa kukubaliwa. Kundi jingine likasema kwamba ni wajibu kufuata hadithi ambazo nyongeza hii haikupokewa, kwa kuwa ni nyingi zaidi, na pia kwa sababu kitendo hiki hakiendani na vitendo vya sala, kwa kuwa ni cha aina ya kujiegemeza; ndiyo maana Malik aliiruhusu katika sala za sunna na si katika sala za faradhi. Inaonekana kwamba kitendo hiki kinaonyesha hali ya unyenyekevu, ambayo inafaa kwa sala.

The jurists differed about placing one hand over the other in prayer. Malik disapproved this in obligatory prayers, but permitted it in supererogatory prayers. A group of jurists, and these are the majority, maintained that this act is among the sunan of prayer. The reason for their disagreement is that confirmed traditions have been reported in which the description of the Prophet’s prayer have been transmitted, but it has not been transmitted that he used to place his right hand over his left during prayer, while it has also been related that the people were commanded to do this. This has been related in the description of the prayer of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) in the tradition of Abu Humayd. A group of jurists, therefore, held that the traditions in which this is established imply an addition over those in which this addition has not been transmitted, and an addition has to be accepted. Another group said that it is necessary to adopt the traditions in which this addition has not been transmitted as these are more in number, and also because it (this practice) is not compatible with the acts of prayer for it belongs to the category of seeking support; therefore, Malik permitted it in supererogatory and not in obligatory prayers. It appears that it depicts a posture of humility, which is appropriate for it.

Kundi moja la wanazuoni wa fiqhi walipendelea kwamba mtu anapokuwa katika rak'a ya witiri ya swala yake, asisimame (baada ya sujudu ya pili) mpaka awe ameketi kwanza katika hali ya kupumzika, huku kundi jingine likipendelea kwamba ainuke moja kwa moja kutoka katika sujudu. Msimamo wa kwanza ulikuwa ni wa al-Shafi'i na kundi la wanazuoni wa fiqhi, na msimamo wa pili ulikuwa ni wa Malik na kundi la wanazuoni wa fiqhi.

A group of jurists preferred that when a person is in the odd rakfa of his prayer he should not stand up (after the second prostration) till he has straightened up in the sitting posture (for resting), while another group preferred that he rise up straight from the prostrations. The first was the opinion of al-Shafi(T and a group of jurists and the second was the opinion of Malik and a group of jurists.

Sababu ya kutofautiana ni kwamba kuna hadithi mbili zinazopingana katika jambo hili. Ya kwanza ni hadithi sahihi ya Malik ibn al-Huwayrith "kwamba alimwona Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ akiswali, na alipokuwa katika rakaa ya witiri ya swalā yake hakusimama baada ya sujūd mpaka alipokuwa ameinuka na kukaa kitako". Katika hadithi ya Abu Humayd kuhusu maelezo ya swalā ya Nabii ﷺ imesemwa "kwamba alipoinua kichwa chake baada ya sujūd ya pili katika rakaa ya kwanza alisimama wala hakuketi". Al-Shafi'i alipitisha hadithi ya kwanza, huku Malik akipitisha ya pili.

The reason for the disagreement is that there are two conflicting traditions in this. The first is the confirmed tradition of Malik ibn al-Huwayrith “that he saw the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) pray, and when he was in the odd rakfa of his prayer he did not stand up after the prostration till he had straightened up in the sitting posture”. In the tradition of Abu Humayd about the description of the prayer of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) it is said “that when he raised up his head after the second prostration in the first rak% he stood up and did not seat himself”. Al-Shafici adopted the first tradition, while Malik adopted the second.

Pia walitofautiana kuhusu iwapo mtu anayesujudu aweke mikono yake chini kabla ya kupiga magoti, au apige magoti kabla ya kuweka mikono. Maoni ya Malik yanaunga mkono kupiga magoti kabla ya kuweka mikono. Sababu ya tofauti yao ni kwamba katika hadithi ya Ibn Hujr, alisema: "Nilimwona Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ akipiga magoti wakati wa kusujudu kabla ya kufikia ardhi kwa mikono yake, na alikuwa akiondoa mikono yake kabla ya magoti yake wakati wa kuinuka." Imepokewa kutoka kwa Abu Hurayra kwamba "Mtume ﷺ alisema: 'Mmoja wenu anapotaka kusujudu, asipige magoti kama ngamia, bali aweke mikono kabla ya kupiga magoti'." Abd Allah ibn Umar alikuwa akiweka mikono yake kabla ya magoti yake. Baadhi ya wanahadithi wamesema kwamba hadithi ya Wa'il ibn Hujr ni sahihi zaidi kuliko ile ya Abu Hurayra.

Wanazuoni wamekubaliana kwamba sujud inafanyika kwenye viungo saba: paji la uso, (mikono miwili), (magoti mawili), na ndani ya vidole vya miguu, kwa sababu ya maneno ya Mtume ﷺ, "Nimeamrishwa kusujudu kwa viungo saba." Wametofautiana kuhusu mtu anayesujudu na asitumie mmoja wa viungo hivi: je, sala yake inabatilika? Kundi moja la wanazuoni lilisema kwamba sala yake haibatiliki kwa kuwa neno "sujud" linatumika tu kwa uso. Kundi jingine lilisema kwamba inabatilika ikiwa hatasujudu kwenye viungo saba vilivyotajwa katika hadithi.

The jurists agreed that prostration is on seven limbs, the forehead, the (two) hands, the (two) knees, and the inside of the toes, because of the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “I have been commanded to prostrate on seven limbs”. They differed about the person who prostrates and fails to employ one of these limbs: is his prayer invalidated? A group of jurists said that his prayer is not invalidated as the term “prostration” applies only to the face. Another group said that it is invalidated if he does not prostrate on the seven limbs stated in the tradition.

Hata hivyo, hawakutofautiana kuhusu jambo kwamba mtu anayesujudu kwa paji la uso wake na pua yake anachukuliwa kuwa amesujudu kwa uso wake. Lakini walikubaliana kuhusu kama kusujudu kwa mojawapo kati ya hivyo viwili kunaruhusiwa. Malik alisema kwamba akisujudu kwa paji la uso wake na si kwa pua, hilo linaruhusiwa, lakini akisujudu kwa pua yake na si kwa paji la uso wake, hilo haliruhusiwi. Abu Hanifa alisema kwamba hili linaruhusiwa. Al-Shafi'i alisema kwamba sujuda haisihi isipokuwa mtu asujudu kwa vyote viwili.

They did not differ, however, on the point that one who prostrates on his forehead and nose is considered to have prostrated on his face, but they ^agreed on whether prostration oh one or the other was permissible. Malik said that if he prostrates on his forehead and not the nose it is permitted, but if Ixe prostrates on his nose and not on his forehead it is not permitted. Abu Hanifa said that this is allowed. Al-ShafiT said that the prostration is not valid unless he prostrates on both.

Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao ilitokana na swali la kama wajibu ni kutekeleza sehemu ya kile ambacho neno hilo linamaanisha, au kutekeleza kwa jumla yake. Hii ni kwa sababu neno "uso" limetumika katika hadithi ya Ibn cAbbas inayosema, "Nimeamriwa kusujudu kwa viungo saba." Wale walioshikilia kwamba wajibu ni kutekeleza sehemu ya kile ambacho neno hilo linamaanisha walisema kwamba inatosha akisujudu ama kwenye paji la uso au kwenye pua. Wale walioshikilia kwamba neno sujuda linamhusu mtu anayesujudu kwa paji la uso peke yake, lakini halimhusu mtu anayesujudu kwa pua peke yake, waliruhusu kusujudu kwa paji la uso na sio kwa pua peke yake. Hii ni kubainisha sehemu inayotimiza wajibu pale sehemu hiyo inapomaanishwa na neno hilo, na inatokana na maoni ya wale wanaotofautisha kati ya sehemu za kitu. Wanashikilia kwamba kutekeleza sehemu (muhimu) yake kunatimiza wajibu, ilhali kutekeleza sehemu nyingine (isiyo muhimu) hakutimizi. Fikiria jambo hili kwa kuwa ni mojawapo ya misingi ya mada hii. (Lau kusujudu kwa pua peke yake kungeruhusiwa) ingewezekana kusema kwamba hata pua ikigusa ardhi kidogo tu, sujuda ni sahihi. Wale wanaoshikilia kwamba wajibu ni kutekeleza kila kilichomo katika neno hilo wanamfanya mtu awajibike kusujudu kwa paji la uso pamoja na pua. Al-Shafi'i anasema kwamba utata uliopo katika maneno umeondolewa na vitendo vya Mtume ﷺ, na umefafanuliwa, kwani alikuwa akisujudu kwa paji la uso wake na pua yake kama ilivyoelezwa katika hadithi kwamba alipomaliza mojawapo ya sala zake kulikuwa na alama za mchanga, na maji, kwenye paji lake la uso na pua yake. Hivyo, kitendo chake kimefafanua hadithi isiyofafanuliwa.

Wanachuoni walikubaliana juu ya kukatazwa kwa kuketi kwa namna ya mbwa wakati wa swala, kwa kuzingatia katazo lililotajwa katika hadithi (inayosema) "mtu aliyeketi wakati wa swala kwa mkao wa mbwa". Hata hivyo, walitofautiana kuhusu maana ya neno hilo. Baadhi yao walishikilia kuwa kilichokatazwa ni mkao wa mtu anapojiketisha juu ya matako yake na kukunja mapaja yake, kama mkao wa mbwa au simba. Hakuna mgongano kati yao kwamba huu si mojawapo ya mikao ya swala. Kundi jingine lilishikilia kuwa kitendo kilichochukiwa ni kukaa juu ya visigino (vifundo) vya miguu kati ya sujudu mbili huku vidole vya miguu vikiwa vimekaa chini. Huu ndio msimamo wa Malik, kwani imepokewa kwamba Ibn Umar alikuwa akifanya hivyo kwa sababu miguu yake ilikuwa ikiuma. Ibn Abbas alikuwa akisema: "Kukaa juu ya miguu kwa namna hii ni sunna ya Nabii wenu ﷺ." Hadithi hii imepokewa na Muslim.

The jurists agreed on the disapproval of during prayers on the basis of the prohibition (specified) in the tradition (which refers to) “a man sitting during prayer in the posture of a dog”. They differed, however, about the implications of the term. Some of them maintained that the prohibited is the sitting posture of a man when he seats himself on his buttocks and folds up his thighs like posture of a dog or a lion. There is no disagreement among them that this is not one of the postures of prayer. Another group maintained that the i/o5 that has been frowned upon is the resting of the buttocks on the ankles between the two prostrations while the feet are resting on the toes. This is Malik’s opinion as it is related that Ibn TJmar used to do this because his feet used to ache. Ibn <Abbas <ised to say that “sitting on the feet in this way is the sunna of your Prophet”. It is recorded by Muslim.

Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao ni kuyumbayumba kwa neno r/# (linalokatazwa katika sala) kati ya maana yake ya kawaida na maana yake ya kisheria, yaani maana ambayo neno hili limewekewa vikwazo na sheria. Wale waliosema kwamba linabeba maana ya kawaida walilihusisha na mkao wa mbwa. Wale waliosema kwamba linabeba maana ya kisheria walisema kwamba linaashiria mojawapo ya mikao iliyokatazwa wakati wa sala. Kwa kuwa imethibitishwa kutoka kwa Ibn Umar kwamba mkao wa mtu aliyeketi juu ya visigino vyake, akiacha miguu yake ipumzike juu ya vidole vyake, si sunna ya sala, walipelekwa kuamini kwamba ni mkao huu ambao umekatazwa. Lakini hoja hii ni dhaifu, kwa kuwa maneno ambayo hayajawekewa maana ya kisheria yanapaswa kueleweka kwa maana yake ya kawaida mpaka maana ya kisheria itakapothibitishwa kwayo. Hii ni tofauti na maneno ambayo maana zake za kisheria zimethibitishwa, kwani hayo yanapaswa kueleweka kwa maana yake ya kisheria mpaka dalili ionyeshe tafsiri yake ya kawaida. Zaidi ya hayo, hadithi ya Ibn Umar inapingwa na hadithi ya Ibn Abbas.

The reason for their disagreement is the vacillation of the term r/#, (frowned upon in prayers) between the literal meaning and the legal meaning, that is, the meaning to which this term has been restricted by the law. Those who said that it conveys a literal meaning identified it with the posture of a dog. Those who said that it conveys the legaL meaning said that it indicates one of the postures prohibited during prayer, and as it is established from Ibn TJmar that the posture of a person sitting on his ankles letting his feet rest on their toes is not a sunna of prayer they were led to believe that it is this posture that has been prohibited. But this is a weak (argument) as terms for which no legal meaning has been established must be understood in their literal sense till such time that a legal meaning is established for them. This is unlike those terms for which legal meanings have been established, that is, these must be understood in their legal meaning till an evidence indicates their interpretation of the sin.Further, the tradition of Ibn TJmar has been contradicted byy the tradition of Ibn Abbas