Wengi wanashikilia kuwa rak'a mbili (zinazosaliwa) anapoingia msikitini ni sunna na si wajibu. Wazahiri walisema kuwa ni wajibu. Sababu ya kutofautiana juu ya hili ni kama amri katika maneno ya Mtume (rehema na amani za Mwenyezi Mungu ziwe juu yake) ﷺ, "Mmoja wenu akiingia msikitini na aswali rak'a mbili", inapaswa kufasiriwa kuashiria kupendekezwa au kuwa wajibu. Hadithi hii imekubaliwa (na al-Bukhari na Muslim) kuwa ni sahihi. Wale waliokubaliana na wengi kwamba kanuni ni kufasiri amri zisizo na masharti kama zinazoashiria wajibu, isipokuwa dalili ionyeshe kupendekezwa, na kwamba hakuna pingamizi dhidi ya dalili inayobadilisha hukumu kutoka wajibu kwenda kupendekezwa, walisema kuwa rak'a hizi mbili ni wajibu. Wale waliopinga dalili inayogeuza amri kuwa kupendekezwa, au ambao kanuni yao ni kwamba amri zifasiriwe kuashiria kupendekezwa, isipokuwa dalili ionyeshe wajibu, kanuni inayoshikiliwa na kundi moja, walisema kuwa rak'a hizi mbili si wajibu.

The majority maintain that the two rak^as (to be offered) upon entry into a mosque are recommended and are not obligatory. The Zahirites said that they are obligatory. The reason for the disagreement over this is whether the command, in the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “If one of you enters the mosque he should kneel for two ra£W’, is to be interpreted to imply a recommendation or an obligation. The tradition is agreed upon (by al-BukharT and Muslim) for its authenticity. Those who maintained with the majority that the rule is. to construe absolute commands as implying obligation, unless an evidence indicates a recommendation and there is no objection against the evidence that transfers the hukm from being an obligation to that conveying a recommendation, said that these two raktas are obligatory. Those who raised an objection to the evidence converting the commands to recommendation, or for whom the rule is that the commands are to be construed to imply a recommendation, unless there is an evidence indicating an obligation, a rule which is held by one group, said that the two rak^as are not obligatory.

Hata hivyo, wengi wao walifasiri amri katika kesi hii kuwa ni pendekezo (istihbaab), kutokana na kuwepo kwa mgongano kati ya hadithi hii na hadithi tulizozitaja mwanzoni mwa kitabu hiki, kama hadithi ya Mbedui (mkaaji wa jangwani), zile zinazodokeza kwa maana yake ya dhahiri, au wazi, kwamba Sala za faradhi za kila siku ni tano tu. Sababu ni kwamba, ikiwa amri hapa itafasiriwa kuwa ina maana ya wajibu, basi ni lazima Sala za faradhi ziwe zaidi ya tano. Wale waliozifanya kuwa wajibu wanashikilia kwamba wajibu hapa unahusiana na kuingia msikitini, na si amri ya jumla kama ile ya Sala tano za faradhi. Wanazuoni (wengi wao) wanashikilia kwamba kuweka sharti la mahali ni sawa na kuweka sharti la wakati. Ama Dhahiriyya, wao wanashikilia kwamba mahali maalumu si miongoni mwa masharti ya kusihi kwa Sala, ilhali wakati ni sharti la kusihi kwa Sala za faradhi.157

The majority, however, construed“ the command in this case to indicate a recommendation owing to the existence of a conflict between this tradition and the traditions which we have mentioned at the beginning of this book, like the tradition of the desert dweller, (the traditions) that imply through their apparent, or explicit, meaning that the obligatory (daily) prayers are only five. The reason is that if the command here is construed to imply obligation it necessarily follows that the obligatory prayers become more than five. Those who made them obligatory maintain that the obligation here is related to the entry into a mosque and is not an absolute command like that for the five obligatory prayers. The (majority of the) jurists maintain that qualifying the command with respect to place is similar to qualifying it with respect to time.156 The Zahirites, however, hold that a specific place is not one of the conditions of the validity of prayer, while time is a condition for the validity of the obligatory prayers.157

Majaji walitofautiana, chini ya kichwa hiki cha mada, kuhusu hali ya mtu anayeingia msikitini na tayari ameshaswali rakaa mbili za alfajiri nyumbani kwake, je, aswali rakaa mbili za kuingia msikitini. Al-Shafi'i alisema kwamba aswali, na hii pia ni riwaya ya Ashhab kutoka kwa Malik. Abu Hanifa alisema kwamba asiswali, na hii pia ni riwaya ya Ibn al-Qasim kutoka kwa Malik. Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao inatokana na mgongano kati ya maana ya jumla ya kauli ya Mtume (rehema na amani za Mwenyezi Mungu zimshukie), "Mmoja wenu anapoingia msikitini, na aswali rakaa mbili", pamoja na maana ya wazi ya kauli yake, "Hakuna swala baada ya kuchomoza kwa alfajiri, isipokuwa rakaa mbili za alfajiri". Hapa kuna maana mbili za jumla na maana mbili maalum. La kwanza ni kuhusu wakati, na la pili ni kuhusu swala. Sababu ni kwamba hadithi inayoamrisha swala ya kuingia msikitini ni ya jumla kuhusu wakati, lakini ni maalum kuhusu swala, ilhali hadithi inayokataza swala baada ya kuchomoza kwa alfajiri, isipokuwa rakaa mbili za alfajiri, ni maalum kuhusu wakati na ya jumla kuhusu swala. Wale waliotoa kisa maalum cha swala kutoka katika jumla walishikilia kwamba kusujudu (kuswali) baada ya rakaa mbili za alfajiri ni jambo lenye kuruhusiwa, ilhali wale waliotoa kisa maalum cha wakati kutoka katika jumla hawakulifanya kuwa la wajibu.

The jurists disagreed, under this subject heading, about the case of a person who enters a mosque and has already prayed the two rak'as of the morning prayer in his house, whether he should offer the rakfas on entering the mosque. Al-Shafi T said that c he should, and this is also a narration of Ashhab from Malik. Abu HanTfa said that he is not to offer them, and this is also a narration of Ibn al-Qasim from Malik. The reason for their disagreement stems from the conflict of the general implication of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “When one of you enters a mosque he is to offer two miW’, with the apparent meaning of his words, “There is no prayer after daybreak, except the two rak*as> of the morning”. Here there are two general implications and two particular implications. The first is about time and the second about prayer. The reason is that the tradition prescribing prayer upon entry into a mosque is general with respect to time, but is particular with respect to prayer, while the tradition proscribing prayer after daybreak, except the two morning rak^as, is particular with respect to time and general with respect to prayer. Those who exempted the particular case of prayer from the general upheld bowing (prayer) after the two morning rak*as, while those who exempted the particular case of time from the general did ..not make this obligatory.

Tumeshasema kwamba ikitokea mgongano wa namna hiyo, si lazima kuamua kwa msingi wa maana yoyote kati ya hizo mbili mahsusi isipokuwa kwa msingi wa ushahidi (zaidi). Vilevile, hadithi inayokataza haipingwi na hadithi inayothibitisha amri, na Allah ndiye Mjuzi zaidi. Ikiwa hadithi hiyo imethibitishwa kuwa sahihi, basi ushahidi unapaswa kutafutwa kutoka chanzo kingine.

We have already said that if such a conflict arises, it is not binding to decide on the basis of either particular implication except on the basis of (further) evidence. Further, the proscribing tradition is not opposed by the tradition establishing the command, Allah knows best. If the tradition is proved authentic then the evidence is to be sought from another quarter.