A. Abu Hanifa va uning shogirdlari Xudo elchisining (ﷺ) hadisini keltiradilar
A. Abu Hanifah and his disciples present the saying of the Messenger of God (p)
"Rikazga beshdan bir (xums) farz qilinadi."26 Ular yana qo'shadilarki, yerdan ikki narsa chiqarilishi mumkin:
"One-fifth is obligated on rikaz."26 They add that two things can be extracted from earth:
Birinchisi — odamlar tomonidan ko'milgan xazinalar, ikkinchisi esa Alloh yaratgan ma'danlar.
the first is treasures buried by human beings and the second is minerals created by God.
Rikaz so'zi ham ikkalasini o'z ichiga oladi: uning lug'aviy ma'nosi – ma'danlar, allegorik ma'nosi esa – xazinalar.27
The word rikaz includes both; its literal meaning is minerals and its allegorical meaning is treasures.27
Boshqa tomondan, Molik, al-Shofi'iy va Hijoz faqihlarining ko'pchiligi ma'danlar rikaz emas, rikaz faqat odamlar tomonidan yer ostiga ko'milgan xazinalarni anglatadi, deb hisoblaydi. Ular Abu Hurayra rivoyat qilgan, jamoa tomonidan naql qilingan hadisni dalil qilib keltiradilar: Nabiy ﷺ shunday degan: "Hayvonlar yetkazgan zarar talab qilinmaydi, quduqda (ishlaganda) yetkazilgan zarar talab qilinmaydi, ma'dan (qazib olishda) yetkazilgan zarar talab qilinmaydi va rikazda beshdan bir (xums) vojib bo'ladi." Ular aytadilarki, Nabiy ﷺ ma'dan bilan rikaz o'rtasida "va" bog'lovchisi orqali farq qilganligi uchun, ular ikki xil narsa bo'lishi kerak.
On the other hand, Malik, al Shafi'i, and most Hijazi jurists argue that minerals are not rikaz and that rikaz only means treasures buried by people in the earth. They cite the saying, reported by the group, from Abu Hurairah that the Prophet (p) said, "Harm inflicted by animals is unclaimable, and harm inflicted while (working inside) a well is unclaimable, and harm inflicted while (extracting) minerals is unclaimable, and one-fifth is obligated on rikaz." They argue that since the Prophet makes a distinction between minerals and rikaz, using the article "and" between them, they must be two different things.
Shunga ko'ra, ziddiyatdagi hanafiylar bu so'zni rikaz deb atashni ta'kidlaydilar: "Payg'ambar ﷺ ma'danlar haqida gapirganda, ularni qazib olishda yetkaziladigan zararni nazarda tutgan edi. Agar u: "va ularga beshdan bir majburiy" desa edi, yashirin xazinalar zakotsiz qolishi mumkin edi. Bunday noaniqlik ehtimoli tufayli Payg'ambar ﷺ ancha umumiy so'z, ya'ni ham ma'danlarni, ham yashirin xazinalarni o'z ichiga oluvchi rikaz so'zini ishlatdi". Bu bahsga hech bir tilshunos chek qo'ya olmadi, chunki ham Iroq, ham Hijoz faqihlari orasida Muhammad ibn al-Hasan va ash-Shofe'iy kabi arab tilini yaxshi biladigan olimlar bor edi.
The opposing Hanafites then argue that minerals must be included in the Prophet's word rikaz, because when he mentioned minerals he was talking about the harm inflicted in their extraction. If he had then said, "and one-fifth is obligated on them," buried treasures may have remained uncharged. Because of that possibility of ambiguity, the Prophet used a more general word, rikaz, which includes both minerals and buried treasures.28 No language specialist could put an end to this dispute, because both the Iraqi and the Hijazi jurists include people who are well versed in Arabic, such as Muhammad bin al Hasan and al Shafi'i.
Görinishicha, "rikaz" so'zi aslida ikki ma'noga ega. "Al-Qomus" va boshqa arab lug'atlari "rikaz" ni Alloh yerga yashirgan ma'danlar va qadimgilar ko'mib qo'ygan oltin va kumush tangalar deb izohlaydi.29 Ibn al-Asir "an-Nihoya" kitobida aytishicha, hijoziylarga ko'ra "rikaz" yerga ko'milgan qadimiy xazinalarni bildiradi, iroqliklarga ko'ra esa "rikaz" ma'danlarni bildiradi. Tilshunoslik nuqtayi nazaridan, ikkala ma'no ham mumkin, chunki ularning har biri yerga qo'yilgan va unda mustahkam o'rnashgan narsadir.30
It seems that the word rikaz has in fact two meanings. Al Qamus and other Arabic dictionaries define rikaz as minerals God put in the ground and what the ancients buried of metalic pieces of gold and silver.29 Ibn al Athir in al Nihayah says that according to the Hijazis, rikaz means ancient treasures buried in the ground, and according to the 'Iraqis, rikaz means minerals. Linguistically, both meanings are possible because each of them is something put in the ground and made steady in it.30
Abu Hanifah keltiradi yana bir rivoyatni Amr ibn Shu'aib orqali, uning otasidan, uning bobosidan: "Bir kishi Xudo Elchisidan (s.a.v.) eski binolarda topilgan, buzilayotgan binolardagi narsalar haqida so'radi. Payg'ambar ﷺ dedi: «Bunda ham, rikazda ham beshdan bir farz qilinadi»."31 Abu Hanifah qo'shimcha qiladi: bog'lovchi "va" qo'shimchasining ishlatilishi ikki narsaning turli ekanligini anglatishi kerak, shuning uchun rikaz yashirin xazinalarni anglata olmaydi va demak, u ma'danlarni anglatishi kerak. Abu Hanifahning ayrim shogirdlari esa qo'shimcha qiladiki, ma'danlar dastlab rikaz deb atalmasa ham, odamlar orasida bu so'zning odatiy ishlatilishi aynan shu ma'noda bo'lgan.
Abu Hanifah presents another saying from Amr bin Shu'aib, from his father from his grandfather, that "A man asked the Messenger of God (p) about things found in old buildings that are being demolished. The Prophet said, One-fifth is obligated on this and on rikaz.'"31 Abu Hanifah adds that the use of the additive article "and" must mean that the two things are different, so rikaz cannot mean buried treasures, and consequently must mean minerals. Some of Abu Hanifah's disciples add that even if minerals are not initially called rikaz, the common use of the word by people was in that meaning.
Muhammad bin al Hasan, arab tilining taniqli olimi, shunday deydi: "Arablar tarkibida oltin va kumush miqdori yuqori bo'lgan ma'dan rudasini rakaza deb atashadi."32 "Al-Bada'i" muallifi yozadi: "Rikaz rakaza fe'lidan olingan bo'lib, u 'biror narsani qimirlamay turg'izmoq' degan ma'noni anglatadi."33
Muhammad bin al Hasan, a reknowned scholar of the Arabic language, says, "Arabs say rakaza for mineral ore when it has a high ratio of gold and silver in it."32 The author of al Bada'i writes "Rikaz is derived from the verb rakaza, which means to make stand still."33
B. Hanafiylarning ikkinchi dalili – ma'danlar bilan o'ljа moli o'rtasidagi qiyoslash. Ular aytadilarki, ma'danlar yer ostida, yer kofirlar qo'lida bo'lganida ham bor edi, va musulmonlar yerni egallaganlarida bu ma'danlarga yetish uchun yer ostiga qazish qilmadilar, ularni tegilmagan holda qoldirdilar. Keyinchalik ularni qazib olish xuddi shu qoidaga bo'ysunishi kerak, ya'ni kofirlarning yer usti mulkiga qo'llanilganidek, beshdan bir qismi undirilishi lozim.33
B. The second argument given by Hanafites is the analogy between minerals and war booty. They say the minerals were inside the earth when it was in the hands of unbelievers, and when Muslims took over they did not a dig underground to reach these minerals, leaving them untouched. Their extraction later must be subject to the same principle applied to the unbelievers property above the ground, i.e. one-fifth must be charged.33
Bu dalilni qabul qilish qiyin, chunki u yer ostidagi boyliklar qazib olinmaguncha kofirlar mulkida qoladi, degan taxminga asoslangan. Musulmonlar va Islom yurtlari haqida qanday qilib bunday taxmin qilish mumkin? Va bu ma'danlar yerga Islomdan oldin yoki keyin joylashtirilgan, buni bizga kim aytib beradi?
The argument is difficult to accept, because it is founded on assuming that underground wealth remains in the ownership of unbelievers until it is extracted. How could one make such an assumption about the lands of Islam and Muslims? And who is to tell us that these minerals were installed inside the land before or after Islam?
C. Imomiya faqihlari minerallar bilan urush o‘ljasi o‘rtasida, oyatda zikr etilgan "ghanimah" (urush o‘ljasi) so‘zining ma’nosiga asoslanib, qiyos qiladilar: "Bilingki, qo‘lga kiritgan har qanday o‘ljaning beshdan bir qismi Allohga, Rasulga, qarindoshlarga, yetimlarga, miskinlarga va yo‘lovchiga tegishlidir." Imomiyaga ko‘ra, faqat urush o‘ljasi emas, balki yer yoki dengizdan olingan narsalar ham shu hukmga kiradi.
"Al-Rawd al-Nadir" asari muallifi (Zaydiya fiqhida) bunday keng umumlashtirishni shubhali deb hisoblaydi, chunki, birinchidan, oyatda zikr etilgan so‘z o‘z kontekstiga ko‘ra faqat urush o‘ljasini anglatadi; ikkinchidan, Qur’on va hadislarda, masalan, "Menga ghanimalar halol qilindi", deyilgan kabi qo‘llanilgan "ghanimah" so‘zi shariat ma’nosidagi diniy tushuncha bo‘lib, shunchaki arabcha so‘z emas. Bu dalil usul ulamolari orasida mashhur bo‘lgan qoidaga asoslanadi: umumiy so‘z shariatdagi qo‘shimcha dalillar bilan aniq bir ma’noga xoslanishi mumkin. Bunday holatda so‘z faqat shu ma’noga cheklanadi.
Qozi ‘Abd al-Vahhob al-Molikiy umumiy so‘zlarni muayyan maqsadlangan ma’nolarga cheklash haqida alohida bob yozgan bo‘lib, shariatda so‘zning ma’nosi faqat shu muayyan ma’no bo‘lib qoladi, uning lug‘aviy ma’nosiga faqat qo‘shimcha dalil bilan qaytiladi, garchi so‘zning mutlaq qo‘llanilishi umumiy ma’noni anglatishi mumkin bo‘lsa-da. Imom al-Shofe‘iy shogirdlarining ayrimlari, jumladan Abu Bakr, al-Qaffol va boshqalar shu fikrga qo‘shiladilar. Ibn Daqiq al-‘Iyd esa "al-‘Umdah" asariga yozgan sharhida, kontekstning ba’zan umumiy so‘zning muayyan ma’nosini ko‘rsatishi yoki unga kiruvchi ma’nolardan bir yoki bir nechtasiga ko‘proq vazn berishi haqidagi qoidaga murojaat qiladi.36
C. Imami jurists make the analogy between minerals and war booty on the basis of the meaning of the word ghanimah (war booty) mentioned in the verse, "And know that out of all the booty that ye may acquire, (in war), a fifth share is assigned to God, and to the Apostle, and to near relatives, orphans, the needy, and the wayfarer."34 According to Imamis, not only war booty but also things extracted from land or sea.35 The author of al Rawd al Nadir (in Zaidi Jurisprudence) says that such generalization of the word ghanimah is questionable, because first, the word mentioned in the verse applies only to war booty on the basis of its context, and second, the word ghanimah as used in the Qur'an and the sayings, like ''Ghanimahs are made lawful for me," is a religious concept and not only an Arabic word. This argument is based on the principle known among the scholars of usul that a general word may be used for a specific meaning by additional indications in Shari'ah. When a word is used like this, it becomes restricted to that meaning alone. The judge 'Abd al Wahhab al Maliki wrote a chapter on restricting general words to specific intended meanings, in such a way that meaning of the word in Shari'ah becomes only that specific one, and the word may not be taken to mean its original linguistic meaning except by additional evidence, even though the absolute use of the word may imply that general meaning. Some disciples of al Shafi'i agree with that, including Abu Bakr, al Qaffal, and others. Ibn Daqiq al 'Id refers in his commentary on al 'Umdah to the principle that the context sometimes indicates the specific meaning of a general word or gives more weight to one or more of the meanings included.36
Xulosa qilib aytganda, ma'danlarga yigirma foiz miqdorini belgilash uchun yagona kuchli dalil shu ekanki, ma'danlar rikaz hisoblanadi va rikazdan beshdan bir qismi olinadi. Bu qarashni ulug' olim Abu 'Ubayd tanlagan va u Ali ibn Abu Solib'dan ham shu fikrni qo'llab-quvvatlovchi bir so'zni rivoyat qilgan.37
Summing up, it appears that the only strong argument for the rate of twenty percent on minerals is that minerals are rikaz and rikaz is charged one-fifth. This is the view selected by the great scholar Abu 'Ubaid, who also reports from 'Ali bin Abi Talib a statement in its support.37