Ablutionning (wudu) acts ni aniqlashning asosi Oliy Zotning quyidagi so'zlarida bayon etilgan tavsif hamda mutavotir rivoyatlarda Payg'ambar (ﷺ) dan naql qilingan wudu qilish usuli: "Ey iymon keltirganlar! Namozga turganingizda, yuzlaringizni va qo'llaringizni tirsaklargacha yuvinglar, boshlaringizni masx qilinglar va oyoqlaringizni to'piqlargacha yuvinglar" {Ey iymon keltirganlar! Namozga turganingizda, yuzlaringizni va qo'llaringizni tirsaklargacha yuvinglar, boshlaringizni masx qilinglar va oyoqlaringizni to'piqlargacha yuvinglar}. Bunga asosiy qoidalarga o'xshash o'n ikkita mashhur masala bog'liqdir. Ular zaruriy shartlarni, rukunlarni, amallarning tavsifini, ularning sonini, xususiyatlarini hamda bularning barchasiga oid hukmlarning obyektlarini aniqlashga taalluqlidir.

The source for the identification of the acts of ablution is the description laid down in the words of the Exalted, “O ye who believe, when ye rise up for prayer, wash your faces and your hands up to the elbows, and lightly rub your heads and (wash) your feet up to the ankles”,31 and the method of performing ablution traced to the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings'be upon him) in the established narrations (dlhar). To this are related twelve well-known issues that resemble fundamental principles. They are related to the identification of the requisite conditions, the elements, the description of the acts, their number, their specification, and the identification of the objects of the ahkam of all these.

Jurists differed on whether intention is a condition for the validity of ablution (wudu), although they agreed that intention is a condition for acts of worship (ibada), on the basis of the words of the Exalted: "And they are commanded only to worship Allah, being sincere to Him in religion" (98:5), and on the basis of the saying of the Prophet ﷺ: "Actions are judged only by intentions," which is a well-known tradition. A group of jurists, including al-Shafi'i, Malik, Hammad, Abu Thawr, and Dawud, held that intention is a condition. Another group said it is not a condition, and this was the opinion of Abu Hanifa and al-Thawri. The reason for their disagreement is that the term wudu wavers between being a pure ritual worship (ibada mahda), that is, not subject to rational explanation and intended solely for the pleasure of Allah, like prayer (salah) and similar forms of mere ritual worship, and being a worship that can also be rational, like washing away dirt. They did not differ that pure ibada requires intention, nor that rational ibada does not require it. Ablution has a resemblance to both kinds of worship, and so a disagreement has arisen. The reason is that it combines ritual worship and purification, and the aim of fiqh is to examine which of the two it more strongly resembles, so that it may be linked to that one.

The jurists disagreed whether intention is a condition for the validity of ablution, although they had agreed on the stipulation of intention as a condition for worship i^ibdddt\ because of the words of the Exalted, “And they are ordered naught else than to serve Allah, keeping religion pure for Him”,32 and because of the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “The value of acts depends upon accompanying intentions”, which is a well-known tradition. A group of jurists, including al-ShafiT, Malik, Hammad, Abu Thawr, and Dawud, was of the opinion that it (intention) is a condition. Another group said it is not a condition, and this was the opinion of Abu Hanifa and al-ThawrT. The reason for their disagreement is the vacillation of the term wudtf between being a pure ritual dbdda—I mean, not subject to rationalization and intended only for the pleasure of Allah, like saldh and similar forms of mere ritual worship—and between an Hbdda that can also be rational, like washing of dirt. They did not differ about pure 'tbada being in need of intention, and rational ^ibdda not being in need of it Ablution has a resemblance to both kinds of worship and a disagreement has, therefore, resulted. The reason is that it combines ritual worship and purification, and the aim of fiqh is to examine which one it resembles more strongly so that it may be linked to it.

Fiqh olimlari vuzu suvli idishga qo‘lni botirishdan oldin qo‘lni yuvish masalasida ixtilof qilganlar. Ba’zilari buni vuzuning doimo mustahab bo‘lgan sunnatlaridan biri deb hisoblaganlar, hatto qo‘llar shubhasiz toza bo‘lsa ham. Bu Molik va ash-Shofi‘iyning mashhur qarashidir. Shuningdek, aytilishicha, qo‘lining pokligiga shubha qilgan kishi uchun bu mustahabdir. Bu qarash ham Molikdan rivoyat qilingan. Yana aytilishicha, uyqudan uyg‘ongan kishiga qo‘lni (suvli idishdagi suvga botirishdan oldin) yuvish vojibdir. Bu Dovudning va uning shogirdlarining qarashi edi. Ba’zilar kechasi uxlash bilan kunduzi uxlashni farqlaganlar va kechasi uxlashdan keyin yuvishni vojib, kunduzgi uyqudan keyin esa vojib emas, deb hisoblaganlar. Bu Ahmadning qarashidir. Shunday qilib, bu muhokama natijasida to‘rtta qarash kelib chiqadi. Birinchi: mutlaq ma’noda sunnat (ya’ni doimo qilinadi). Ikkinchi: shubhalangan kishi uchun mustahab. Uchinchi: uyqudan uyg‘onganga vojib. To‘rtinchi: faqat kechasi uyqudan uyg‘onganga vojib, kunduzgi uyquga esa emas.

The jurists differed about washing of hands before immersing a hand inside the water-utensil of ablution. Some have held that it is one of the practices (sunan) of ablution that is always recommended, even when the hands are clean without a doubt. This is the better known opinion of Malik and al- Shafi T. It c is also said that it is recommended in the case of a person doubting the purity of his hands. This too was an opinion narrated from Malik. It is also said that washing of hands (before immersing them in the water inside a utensil) is obligatory on one waking up from sleep. This was Dawud’s view and that of his disciples. Some have distinguished between nocturnal sleep and that of the day, and made it obligatory for nocturnal sleep, but not for that during the day. This is Ahmad’s opinion. Thus, four opinions are arrived at through this (discussion). First, that it is sunna in absolute terms (i.e. always undertaken). Second, that it is recommended for the person in doubt. Third, that it is obligatory on one awaking from sleep. Fourth, that it is obligatory on one waking up from nocturnal sleep and not that of the day.

Ularning bu masaladagi ixtilofining sababi Abu Hurayra rivoyat qilgan sahih hadisni tushunishdagi farqdadir. Bu hadisda Payg‘ambar (Alloh taolo unga rahmat va salom yo‘llasin) shunday degan: "Sizlardan biringiz uyqudan uyg‘onsa, qo‘lini idishga solishdan oldin yuvsin, chunki u qo‘li tunda qayerda bo‘lganini bilmaydi". Ba’zi rivoyatlarda esa: "uch marta yuvsin", deyilgan. Vuzu oyati bilan bu qo‘shimcha talab o‘rtasida ziddiyat ko‘rmagan olimlar hadisdagi buyruq so‘zini uning zohiriy ma’nosi, ya’ni vojib ma’nosida tushunganlar va qo‘l yuvishni vuzuning farzlari qatoriga kiritganlar. Ulardan ba’zilari hadisdagi "bayat" (tunash) so‘zini tungi uyqu deb tushunib, bu hukmni faqat tungi uyqudan keyingina vojib deb bilganlar. Bu so‘zni faqat uyqu ma’nosida tushungan boshqalari esa kunduzgi va tungi barcha uyqudan uyg‘onishda vojib deb hisoblaganlar. Vuzu oyatidagi zohiriy ma’no, ya’ni vuzuning farzlarini sanab o‘tish, bilan bu qo‘shimcha o‘rtasida ziddiyat ko‘rgan olimlar esa buyruqning zohiriy ma’nosini o‘zgartirib, vojibni mustahab ma’nosiga keltirish orqali ikkisini muvofiqlashtirganlar. Payg‘ambarning bu amalni doimiy ravishda bajarganini inobatga olib, bu mustahabni muakkada deb hisoblaganlar va uni sunnatlar turkumiga kiritganlar. Bu mustahabni muakkada deb bilmagan olimlar esa uni faqat mandub (mustahab) amal deb hisoblaganlar. Ularning ikkala guruhiga ko‘ra ham, hatto qo‘llar shubhasiz toza bo‘lsa ham, qo‘lni shu tarzda yuvish talab qilinadi — ya’ni muakkada sunnat deb bilganlar ham, mustahab deb bilganlar ham shunday deydilar. Ulardan bir qismi, bu hadisdan majburiy illatni (sababni) anglab yetmadi, shuning uchun uni umumiylikni ifodalovchi xos so'z turkumiga kiritib bo'lmaydi deb hisobladi va uni faqat uyqudan uyg'ongan kishi uchun tavsiya qildi. Bu hadisdan shubha sababini chiqarganlar esa uni umumiylikni ifodalovchi xos so'z turkumiga kiritdilar va uni shubhadagi har bir kishiga tegishli deb hisobladilar, chunki bu holat uyqudan turishga yaqindir.

Faqihlar og'iz chayish (madmada) va burun chayish (istinshaq) masalasida ixtilof qilganlar. Bu borada uchta fikr bor. Birinchisi, bu amallar wudu'da sunnat (muakkad mustahab) ekanligi. Bu fikr Molik, ash-Shofi'iy va Abu Hanifaning qarashi edi. Ikkinchisi, ular wudu'da farz ekanligi. Bu fikr Ibn Abu Layla va Abu Dovudning ba'zi shogirdlarining qarashi edi. Uchinchisi, istinshaq farz, madmada esa sunnat ekanligi. Bu fikr Abu Savr, Abu Ubayd va zohiriylar guruhining qarashi edi.

The jurists differed about rinsing of the mouth (madmada) and snuffing (istinshaq). There are three opinions. First, that these practices are a sunna (emphatic recommendation) in ablution. This was the opinion of Malik, al- Shafi i, and Abu Hanifa. Second, that they are obligatory (fard) in ablution. This was the view of Ibn AbT Layla and some disciples of Abu Dawud. Third, that istinshdq is obligatory, while madmada is recommended (sunna). This was Ae opinion of Abu Thawr, Abu QJbayda, and of a group of Zahirites.

Ularning ixtilofining sababi — bu vojib yoki mustahab ekani — bu masala bo‘yicha rivoyat qilingan hadislar haqidagi ixtiloflaridir: ular vuzu oyati ustiga ziyoda bo‘lib, ziddiyat keltiradimi yo‘qmi. Bu qo‘shimchani vojib deb hisoblaganlar, agar u vojib bo‘lsa, oyatga zid keladi deb topdilar — chunki oyatning maqsadi bu hukmga asos berish va uning izohini bayon qilishdir. Shuning uchun ular hadislarning ma’nosini vojiblikdan mustahablikka o‘tkazdilar. Zid emas deb hisoblaganlar esa hadislarga uning zohiriy ma’nosi — vojiblikni berdilar. PayG‘ambarning (Alloh uni salavot va barakalariga musharraf etsin) so‘zi va fe’li kuchda teng deb hisoblaganlar, vojiblikni belgilashda, madmada va istinshoq o‘rtasida farq qilmadilar. Gap bilan vojib, fe’l bilan mustahab deb hisoblaganlar esa madmada va istinshoq o‘rtasida farq qildilar: madmada Payg‘ambarning (Alloh uni salavot va barakalariga musharraf etsin) fe’li orqali rivoyat qilingan, amri orqali emas, istinshoq esa ham uning amridan, ham fe’lidan rivoyat qilingan. Payg‘ambar (Alloh uni salavot va barakalariga musharraf etsin) ﷺ shunday dedilar: “Qaysi biringiz vuzu* qilsa, suvni burniga olib, so‘ng uni chiqarsin; istinjo‘ qilgan kishi esa (toshlar bilan) toq sonda qilsin”. Buni Molik “al-Muvatta”da va al-Buxoriy “Sahih”ida Abu Hurayra rivoyatidan keltirganlar.

The reason for their disagreement, whether it is an obligation or a recommendation, is their dispute about the traditions reported on this issue, whether they amount to an addition over the verse of ablution, entailing a conflict. Those who considered that this addition, if deemed an obligation, conflicts with the verse—as the aim of the verse is to provide a foundation for this rule along with its explanation—shifted the implication of the traditions from the category of obligation to that of recommendation. Those who did not consider it as conflicting, assigned it its apparent meaning of obligation. Those for whom the authority of the Prophet’s sayings and acts is equal (in. strength), for purposes of assigning obligation, did not make a distinction between madmada and istinshaq. Those for whom a saying is interpreted as an obligation and an act as recommendation distinguished between madmada and istinshaq, as madmada has been reported through the acts of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) and not his command, while istinshaq is reported both from his commands and acts. The Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “When one of you performs wudu*, let him snuff up water into his nose and then let it out, while he who performs istinjd? (with stones) let him do it an odd number of times”. It is narrated by Malik in his al-Muwatta and by al-Bukhari in his Sahih from the tradition of Abu Hurayra.

Fuqaholar yuzni to‘liq yuvish wudu farzlaridan biri ekaniga ittifoq qilishgan, chunki Ulug‘ Zot aytgan so‘zlar ularga asos bo‘lgan: “Ey iymon keltirganlar, namozga turganingizda, yuzlaringizni yuvinglar”. Ular bu masalada uch nuqtada ixtilof qilganlar: soqol bilan quloqlar orasidagi soqolsiz qismni yuvish, soqolning butun uzunligini yuvish va soqolni taxlil qilish (ho‘l barmoqlar bilan tarash).

The jurists agreed that washing of the whole face is one of the obligations of ablution, because of the words of the Exalted: “O ye who believe, when ye rise up for prayer, wash your faces”. They differed about this on three points; namely, washing of the hairless part of the face between the beard and the ears, washing of the whole length of the beard, and the takhlil of the beard (combing it with wet fingers).

Malik maktabidagi mashhur fikrga ko'ra, soqol bilan quloq orasidagi qism yuzning bir qismi hisoblanmaydi, garchi ba'zi molikiylar bu qism yuzga kiradi deb hisoblasalar ham. Ba'zi faqihlar soqoli yo'q (soqolsiz) shaxs bilan soqolli shaxs o'rtasida farq qiladi. Shunday qilib, maktabda (Molikning maktabida) uchta fikr mavjud. Abu Hanifa va al-Shofe'iy esa bu qism yuzning bir qismi ekanligini aytdilar. Soqolning uzunligiga kelsak, Molik suvning soqol ustidan oqizilishi vojib deb hisoblagan, ammo Abu Hanifa va al-Shofe'iyning ikki fikridan birida bu vojib emas. Ushbu ikki masalada ularning ixtilofining sababi "yuz" atamasining noaniqligidir. Soqolni tarash (takhlil) masalasiga kelsak, Molikning fikri bo'yicha bu vojib emas. Abu Hanifa va al-Shofe'iy ham shunga o'xshash qarashda bo'lganlar. Molikning shogirdlaridan biri bo'lgan Ibn Abd al-Hakam esa buni vojib qilgan.

The well-known opinion in Malik’s school is that the portion between the beard and the ears is not part of the face, though some Malikites maintain that it is. Some jurists make a distinction between a person who is still beardless and a person with a beard. Thus, in the school (Malik’s) there are three opinions. Abu HanTfa and al-Shafi T said that it is a part of the face. With respect to the length of the beard, Malik was of the opinion that it is obligatory that water flow on it, but it is not obligatory according to Abu HanTfa and also al-Shafi T in one of his two opinions. The reason for their disagreement over these two issues is the ambiguity of the term “face”. With respect to the takhlil of the beard, the opinion of Malik was that it is not obligatory. Abu HanTfa and al-Shafi T had a similar view. Ibn cAbd al-Hakam, one of Malik’s disciples, made it obligatory.

Ularning ixtilofining sababi — soqolni taxlil qilish (ya'ni barmoqlar bilan soqol tolalarini orasiga kirib yuvish) buyrug'ini o'z ichiga olgan rivoyatlarning sahih yoki sahih emasligi haqidagi munozaradir. Ko'pchilik bu rivoyatlarni sahih emas deb hisoblaydi va Payg'ambar ﷺning vudu qilishlari haqida xabar beradigan rivoyatlarda soqolni taxlil qilish haqida hech narsa yo'qligini aytadi.

Huquqshunoslar qo'l va bilaklarni yuvish vudu'ning farzlaridan ekanligiga ittifoq qilganlar, chunki Oliy Zot shunday deydi: "Ey iymon keltirganlar! Namozga turganingizda, yuzlaringizni va qo'llaringizni tirsaklargacha yuvinglar". Ular tirsaklarni (bilaklarga) qo'shish masalasida ixtilof qilganlar. Ko'pchilik — Molik, ash-Shofi'iy va Abu Hanifa — tirsaklarni yuvishga qo'shishni vojib deb hisoblaganlar. Zohiriylarning ba'zilari, keyingi malikiylar va at-Tabariy esa tirsaklarni yuvishga kiritish vojib emas, deb hisoblaganlar. Ularning bu masalada ixtilof qilishlariga sabab arab tilidagi "ila" (gacha, ...ga qadar) predlogi va "yad" (qo'l) so'zining ko'p ma'noliligi (ishtirok)dir. "Ila" predlogi arablar nutqida ba'zan chegarani (gacha) bildiradi, boshqa vaqtda esa "bilan" ma'nosini beradi. "Yad" (qo'l) so'zi arablar nutqida uch xil ma'noda qo'llanadi: faqat kaft; kaft va bilaklar; kaft, bilak va yelka. "Ila"ni "bilan" deb tushunganlar yoki "yad"ni a'zoning uchala qismi deb hisoblaganlar, tirsaklarni yuvishni vojib deb bilganlar. "Ila"dan chegarani, "yad"dan esa tirsakdan pastda qolgan qismni tushunib, chegarani belgilangan doiraga kiritmaganlar, tirsaklarni yuvishga qo'shmaganlar. Muslim o'zining "Sahih" kitobida Abu Hurayra o'ng qo'lini yelkaning boshigacha yuvgani, so'ngra chap qo'lini xuddi shunday yuvgani, keyin o'ng oyog'ini boldir boshigacha, so'ngra chap oyog'ini xuddi shunday yuvgani haqida rivoyat qilgan. Keyin u shunday degan: "Men Allohning Elchisi ﷺ vudu' qilayotganlarini shunday ko'rganman". Tirsaklarni yuvishga kiritishni vojib deb bilganlarning dalili shudir.

The jurists agreed that the washing of the. hands and the forearms are from among the obligations of ablution because of the words of the Exalted, “O ye who believe, when ye rise up for prayer, wash your faces”. They disagreed about the inclusion of the elbows (in the forearms). The majority, Malik, al- Shafi T, and Abu HanTfa, considered their c inclusion as obligatory. Some of the Zahirites, later Malikites,' and al-TabarT were of the opinion that their inclusion in washing is not obligatory. The reason for their disagreement in this is the equivocality {ishtirdk) in the preposition ild (to, up to) and the term yadd (hand), in the language of the Arabs. The preposition ild sometimes denotes, in the usage of the Arabs, the limit (up to) and at other times gives the meaning of “with”. The word yadd (hand), in the usage of the Arabs, is applied to three meanings: the hand; hand and forearms; hand, forearm, and upper arm. Those who rendered ild as “with” or considered yadd as all three parts of the limb, deemed the inclusion, of elbows for washing as obligatory. Those who understood from ild the limit and from the term yadd whatever is lower than the elbows, and did not consider the limit as included in the defined category, did not include the elbows in washing. Muslim has reported in his Sahih that Abu Hurayra used to first wash his right hand till the beginning of the upper arm, then the left in the same manner, followed by the washing of the right foot till the beginning of the calf and then the washing of the left in the same manner. He (Abu Hurayra) then said: “That is how I saw the Prophet of Allah (God's peace and blessings be upon him) performing ablution”. This is the proof given by those who made obligatory the inclusion of the elbows in washing.

Fuqaholar boshni {mash} qilish (mash) wudu farzlaridan biri ekaniga ittifoq qilganlar. Ular mash qilishning talab qilinadigan miqdori haqida ixtilof qilganlar. Molik butun boshni mash qilish vojib, deb aytgan. Ash-Shofi'iy, Molikning ayrim shogirdlari va Abu Hanifa esa boshning bir qismini mash qilish vojib, deb aytganlar. Molikning ayrim shogirdlari eng kam miqdorni uchdan bir, boshqalari esa uchdan ikki qism deb belgilaganlar. Abu Hanifa esa uni to'rtdan bir bilan chegaralagan va mash qilinadigan qo'lning qismini ham to'rtdan bir deb belgilagan. U: "Uch barmoqdan kamroq bilan mash qilish yetarli emas", degan. Ash-Shofi'iy esa ikkalasi uchun ham chegara belgilamagan.

The jurists agreed that wiping {mash) of the head is one of the obligations of ablution. They differed about the extent (of wiping) required. Malik said that it is obligatory to wipe the whole of it (the head). Al-Shafi(T, some followers of Malik, and Abu HanTfa said that it is obligatory to wipe a part of it. Some followers of Malik defined the minimum part to be a third, while others defined it as two-thirds. Abu HanTfa, on the other hand, limited it to a fourth, and he also defined the part of the hand with which it is to be wiped as a fourth. He said, “Its wiping with less than three fingers is insufficient”. Al- Shafi'T did not fix a limit for either.

Ushbu ixtilofning asosi arab tilidagi "بِ" (bi) yuklamasining ko'p ma'noliligidadir (ishtirok). Ba'zan u shunchaki ta'kid uchun qo'shiladi, masalan, Oliy Zotning so'zida: "tanbut bi-d-duhn", ya'ni "anbata" fe'lidan "tunbitu" (z harfi dammali, bi harfi kasrali) deb o'qigan kishiga ko'ra. Boshqa hollarda "bi" qisman ma'nosini ifodalaydi, masalan: "akhadhtu bi thawbihi wa bi adudih" (men uning kiyimidan va qo'lining bilagidan ushladim). "Bi" ning "bir qismi" ma'nosini bildirishi mumkinligini inkor etishning hech qanday ma'nosi yo'q. Bu Kufa nahv maktabining qarashidir. Uni ortiqcha deb hisoblaganlar butun boshni mash qilishni vojib deb topdilar. Bu yerda "ortiqcha" deganda u faqat ta'kid uchun qo'shilgan, degan ma'no nazarda tutiladi. "Bi" ni bo'lak ma'nosini bildiruvchi deb hisoblaganlar esa boshning faqat bir qismini mash qilish vojib, deb hukm chiqardilar. Ushbu ma'noni afzal ko'rganlar al-Mug'iraning rivoyatiga tayandilar: "Payg'ambar ﷺ peshonasini va salla ustini mash qilib, vuduni qildilar". Bu hadisni Muslim rivoyat qilgan. Agar "bi" ortiqcha deb qabul qilinsa ham, yana bir ehtimol qoladi: vojiblik boshning oldingi qismiga (ya'ni, yuzga yaqin qism) taalluqlimi yoki orqa qismigami, degan savol.

The basis of this disagreement is due to the equivocality {ishtirdk) that is in (the particle) bd, in the usage of the Arabs. It is sometimes used as a mere addition for emphasis - as in the words of the Exalted, “tanbut bPdduhn?'?* according to one who read “tunbitu” with a damrna for “z” and kasra for bd from the root anbata. At other times, the particle bd indicates the idea of a portion, as in the sentence “akhadhtu bi tha'wbihi wa bi ^adudih (I held him [grabbed him] bi [by] his garment and his forearm)”. There is no purpose in denying this, that is, the fact that bd may convey the idea of “a portion of’. This is the opinion of the KufT school of grammar {nahw). Those who considered it superfluous have deemed obligatory the wiping of the entire head. Superfluous here means that it is added only for emphasis. Those who considered bd as indicating apportionment have deemed obligatory the wiping of only a part of the head. Those who preferred this meaning have argued on the basis of the tradition of al-Mughira that “the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) performed ablution wiping his forehead and turban”. It is reported by Muslim. If we accept that bd is superfluous, there still remains another probability, whether the obligation relates to the front part of names (like head) or to the back part.

Hanafiy va boshqa faqihlar vuzuda vojib bo‘lgan narsa yuvilishi mumkin bo‘lgan har bir a’zoni bir marta, ketma-ket, shu a’zolarni suv bilan ho‘llagan holda yuvish ekaniga kelishib olganlar. Har bir a’zoni ikki yoki uch marta yuvish esa mandubdir, chunki Payg‘ambar ﷺ vuzu qilganda har bir a’zoni bir marta yuvgani, boshqa safar ikki marta yuvgani va yana boshqa safar uch marta yuvganini ko‘rganlari sahih rivoyat qilingan. Ammo buyruq har bir a’zoni bir martadan ortiq yuvishni talab qilmaydi, ya’ni vuzu oyatida keltirilgan buyruq shunday.

The jurists agreed that the obligation in ablution is to wash each washable limb once, one after the other, soaking these parts with water. Washing each (limb) twice or thrice is recommended {mandub) for it is authentically reported that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) performed ablution washing each (limb) once. On another occasion he washed twice, and on yet another occasion he was seen washing them thrice. The command, however, does not require washing each limb more than once, that is, the command laid down in the verse of wudu>.

Ular bosh masahini takrorlashning fazilati haqida ixtilof qilishdi. Imom ash-Shofiʼiy bir fikrda edi: boshqa a'zolarini uch marta yuvgan kishi boshini uch marta mash qilishi afzal. Ko'pchilik faqihlar boshni takror mash qilishda hech qanday fazilat ko'rmadilar. Ularning ixtilofining sababi bir silsila orqali kelgan bitta rivoyatdagi qo'shimchani qabul qilish masalasidadir. Ko'pchilik faqihlar bunday rivoyatni dalil sifatida ishlatmaydilar. Payg'ambar (ﷺ) uch marta yuvganini bayon qiluvchi boshqa rivoyatlarning aksariyati, jumladan Usmon va boshqalar orqali kelganlari, uning bir marta mash qilganini aytadi. Biroq Usmondan kelgan ayrim rivoyatlarda, Payg'ambarning (ﷺ) vuzusini ta'riflovchi xabarlarda, u boshini uch marta mash qilgani zikr qilinadi. Imom ash-Shofiʼiy ana shu qo'shimchani qabul qilishni qat'iy qo'llab-quvvatladi, chunki Payg'ambarning (ﷺ) vuzuni ikki va uch marta takrorlab bajarganini bildiruvchi rivoyatlarning umumiy mazmuni shunga dalolat qiladi. Bu umumiylik sahoba so'zidan kelgan bo'lsa-da, vuzudagi barcha a'zolarga tegishli deb hisoblanadi. Biroq bu qo'shimcha ikki Sahihda yo'q. Agar u sahih deb isbotlansa, unga amal qilinishi lozim, chunki bir narsani zikr qilmagan rivoyat, uni zikr qilgan rivoyatga qarshi dalil bo'la olmaydi. Ko'pchilik faqihlar mash uchun suvni yangilashni boshqa a'zolarga qiyos qilib vojib deb hisobladilar. Ibn Majishundan rivoyat qilinadiki, u dedi: "Agar suv tugab qolsa, soqolidagi namlik bilan mash qilishi mumkin." Bu fikr Ibn Habib, Molik va Imom ash-Shofiʼiyning afzal ko'rgan qarashidir.

They differed about the merit in repeating the wiping of the head. Al- Shafi(T was of the opinion that the person who washes his other limbs three times should preferably wipe his head thrice. The majority of the jurists saw no merit in repeating the mash. The reason for their disagreement (here) lies in their dispute over the acceptance of the addition contained in one tradition coming down through a single chain. The majority of the jurists do not use such a tradition. Most of the other traditions relating that he (the Prophet) washed thrice, including that related through Uthman and others, state that he wiped only once. In some narrations from Uthman, however, that describe the wudu* of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) it is stated that he (the Prophet) wiped his head thrice. Al-Shafici emphatically supported accepting this excess on the basis of the apparent generality of the narrations that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) performed wudt? repeating his acts twice and thrice. The generality, here, even though it arises from the word of a Companion is assigned to all the limbs in ablution. This addition, though, is not in the two Sahihs. If proved authentic it (the narration) must be followed, as that which fails to mention a thing cannot be a proof against that which does mention it. The majority of the jurists made obligatory the renewal of water for wiping on the analogy of the other limbs. It is narrated from Ibn Majishun that he said, “If the water is exhausted he may wipe with the moisture on his beard”. This is the preference of Ibn Habib, Malik and al-ShafiT.

Faqihlar salla ustiga mash tortishning (o‘zi yetarlimi yo‘qmi) masalasida ixtilof qilganlar. Bunga Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Abu Savr, al-Qosim, Ibn Sallom va boshqa ba’zilari ruxsat bergan. Boshqa bir guruh, shuningdek Molik, ash-Shofiʼiy va Abu Hanifa esa buni man etganlar. Ularning ixtilofi al-Mug‘ira va boshqalar rivoyat qilgan hadisga amal qilish masalasidagi tortishuvdan kelib chiqadi: “U zot [Payg‘ambar] (Allohning salovati va barakotlari unga bo‘lsin) peshonasi va sallasi ustiga mash tortganlar”, shuningdek etik (chorig‘)ning mashiga qiyos qilingan. Shu sababli ko‘pchilik faqihlar salla kiyilganda uning pokiza holatda bo‘lishini shart qilganlar.35 Bu hadisni ba’zilar rad etganlar: ya’ni, ularning nazarida u sahih bo‘lmagani uchun yoki ularning fikricha Qur’ondagi zohiriy ma’no, ya’ni boshga mash tortish haqidagi buyruq bunga zid kelgani uchun yoki bu amal keng tarqalmagani uchun. Bu fikr yakka rivoyatlar bo‘yicha amaliyotning keng tarqalishini talab qilganlarning, xususan Madinada, Molik mazhabida ma’lum bo‘lgani kabi, qarashidir. Molik buni shart qilib qo‘ygan. Hadisni Muslim rivoyat qilgan. Abu ʻUmar ibn Abdulbarr uni nuqsonli hadis deb aytgan. Uning ba’zi riwoyatlarida faqat sallaga mash tortish zikr qilingan, peshonaga mash tortish esa zikr qilinmagan. Shu sababli ba’zi faqihlar sallaga mash tortish bilan birga peshonaga mash tortishni ham shart qilmaganlar, chunki asosiy farz va uning o‘rnini bosuvchi amalni birga jamlab bo‘lmaydi.

The jurists disagreed about (the sufficiency of) mash over the turban (alone). This was permitted by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Abu Thawr, al-Qasim, Ibn Sallam and some others. It was prohibited by another group and by Malik, al-ShafiT, and Abu Harnfa. Their disagreement arises from their dispute about the validity of acting upon the tradition related by al-MughTra and others “that he [the Prophet] (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) performed mash on his forehead and on his turban, and also upon the analogy of [the mash of] boots. It is for this reason that most of them stipulated that it be worn in a clean condition.35 This tradition was rejected by some, either because it was deemed onauthentic by them or because the apparent meaning in the Qurian contradicted it, in their opinion, that is, the command in it about the mash of the head, or because it was not widely accepted in practice. This is according to those who require widespread practice for matters reported through individual traditions, particularly in Medina, as is known about the school of Malik, who stipulated widespread practice as a condition. The hadith is reported by Muslim. Abu TJmar Ibn Abd al-Barr said that it is a defective tradition. In some of its versions the wiping of the turban alone is mentioned, while that of the forehead is not. It is for this reason that some jurists did not stipulate with the wiping* of the turban the wiping of the forehead as well, as the original requirement and its substitute cannot be combined together.

Ular (faqihlar) boshni mash qilish paytida quloqlarni mash qilish mustahabmi yoki farzmi, shuningdek, quloqlar uchun suvni yangilash kerakmi yoki yo'qmi, degan masalada ixtilof qilishdi. Ba'zilar quloqlarni mash qilish farz ekanini va ular uchun suvni yangilash lozimligini aytdilar. Bu fikrni bildirganlar Molik izdoshlaridan bir guruhdir, chunki u quloqlarni boshning bir qismi deb hisoblagan. Abu Hanifa va uning izdoshlari quloqlarni mash qilishni farz deb hisoblab, ular boshi bilan birga o'sha suv bilan mash qilinishi kerak, dedilar. Imom ash-Shofi'iy quloqlarni mash qilishni sunnat deb hisoblab, ular uchun suvni yangilashni shart qildi. Bu fikrni Molik izdoshlarining yana bir guruhi ham qo'llab-quvvatladi va ular bu Molikning fikri ekanini ta'kidladilar, chunki rivoyat qilinishicha, u: "Ularning hukmi madmada hukmi kabidir", degan. Quloqlarni mash qilish mustahabmi yoki farzmi, degan ixtilof bu masala bo'yicha naql qilingan hadislarga bog'liq bo'lib, ya'ni Payg'ambar ﷺ quloqlarni mash qilganlari Qur'ondagi boshni mash qilish haqidagi hukmga qo'shimchami yoki yo'qmi. Agar uni Qur'on oyati bilan ziddiyat tufayli farz deb qaralsa, uning hukmi mustahab bo'ladi. Agar u Qur'ondagi mujmal (tushunarsiz) so'zning izohi deb qaralsa, uning hukmi boshning mavjud hukmi, ya'ni farz bo'ladi. Shunday qilib, uni farz deb hisoblaganlar buni Qur'ondagi mujmal so'zning izohi deb bilsalar, farz emas deb hisoblaganlar esa madmada misolidagi kabi qo'shimcha deb bilishadi. Bu masala bo'yicha ko'plab hadislar naql qilingan. Garchi ular ikki "Sahih" kitobiga kiritilmagan bo'lsa-da, amalda bu hadislarga ko'ra ish tutish keng tarqalgan. Quloqlar uchun suvni yangilash masalasidagi ixtilofning sababi esa "quloqlar" atamasining, ya'ni ularni taharat uchun mustaqil a'zolar deb hisoblash yoki ular boshning bir qismi deb hisoblashga kelganda noaniqlikdir. Bir guruh qulоqlarning yuz bilan yuvilishi kerakligi haqida alohida fikr bildirdi, boshqalari esa qulоqning ichki qismi bosh bilan mash qilinib, tashqi qismi yuz bilan yuvilishi kerak deb hisobladi. Sababi shundaki, qulоqlar yuzning yoki boshning qismi bo'lishi o'rtasida muvozanatda turadi. Lekin bularning barchasi qulоqlarni mash qilish haqidagi keng tarqalgan hadislar va bu amalning keng qo'llanilishi nuqtai nazaridan haqiqiy ahamiyatga ega emas. Al-Shofe'iy qulоqlarni takror mash qilishni, xuddi boshni mash qilishdagidek, mustahab deb hisoblaydi.

They (the jurists) disagreed about the wiping of the ears whether it is recommended (sunna) or an obligation (farida), and whether the water is to be renewed. Some said it is obligatory and that water is to be renewed for (wiping) them. Those who expressed this opinion are a group from among Malik’s followers, as he considered the ears a part of the head. Abu HanTfa and his followers considered their wiping as obligatory, and said that they are to be wiped along with the head with the same water. Al-ShafiT considered their wiping as a sunna and stipulated the renewal of water for them. This opinion was held by another group of Malik’s followers and they maintained that it is Malik’s opinion, because it is narrated that he said “their hukm is the same as the hukm of madmada”. The disagreement—whether wiping of the ears is recommended or an obligation—stems from the controversy about the traditions transmitted on this issue, that is, the wiping of the ears by the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) whether it is an addition over what exists in the Qur’an about the wiping of the head. Its hukm then is that it is a recommendation due to the conflict between it and the verse, if it is interpreted as an obligation. If, however, it is considered an explanation of an unelaborated word in the Qur’an, its hukm becomes the hukm already existing for the head, that is, obligatory. Thus those who considered it obligatory deem it an explanation of the difficult (mujmal) word in the Qur’an, while those who did not consider it obligatory deem it an addition, as in the case of madmada. There are many traditions transmitted on this issue. Though they are not included in the two Sahihs, practice has become common according to these traditions. With respect to the disagreement about the renewal of water for the ears, the cause is the vacillation of The term “ears”, whether they are considered independent limbs for purposes of ablution or whether .they form part of the head. One group gave a distinct opinion that they are to be washed with the face while another considered that the inside of the ears is to be wiped with the head and the outer parts to be washed with the face. The reason is their being equipoised between being part of the face or head. All this has no real significance in view of the common traditions about their mash and its widespread practice. Al-Shafi T considers the repeated wiping of the ears as being recommended/ as he does in the case of wiping of the head.

Faqihlar oyoqlar wudu qilinadigan a'zolar ekanligiga ittifoq qilganlar, lekin ularni poklash uchun talab qilinadigan usul haqida ixtilof qilganlar. Faqihlardan bir guruh, ular ko'pchilik, oyoqlarning poklanishi yuvish orqali amalga oshishini aytdi. Yana bir guruh esa, ularning holatida majburiy bo'lgan narsa mash qilish ekanligini aytdi. Yana bir guruh esa, ularning poklanishi ikki yo'ldan biri bilan amalga oshishini aytdi; bu ibodat qiluvchining tanloviga bog'liq.

The jurists agreed that the feet are limbs that are the object of ablution, but they differed about the method of purification required for them. A group of jurists, and these are the majority, said that their purity is attained by washing. Another group said that the obligation in their case is wiping. And yet another group said that their purity is achieved through either way; it depends upon the choice of the worshipper.

Ikki xil qiroat asosida ixtilof yuzaga kelgan, ya'ni wudu oyati bo'yicha ikkita mashhur qiroatga tayangan. Birinchisi, "oyoqlar" so'zini nasb (oxirgi unli d) bilan o'qiydiganlar, bunda so'z yuvilishi lozim bo'lgan a'zolar bilan bog'lanadi. Ikkinchisi, uni khafd (oxirgi unli i) bilan o'qiydiganlar, bunda so'z mash qilinishi lozim bo'lgan qismlar bilan bog'lanadi. Nasb bilan o'qilgan qiroat yuvishni aniq ko'rsatadi, khafd bilan o'qilgan qiroat esa, shubhasiz, mash qilishni bildiradi. Faqat yuvish yoki faqat mash qilish, ya'ni ikkala poklikdan biri farz ekanini aytganlar, ulardan birini afzal ko'rib, ikkinchi qiroatning ma'nosini o'zlari tanlagan qiroatga moslab, ta'wil yo'li bilan chetga surganlar. Ikki qiroatning zohiriy ma'nosi teng deb hisoblab, ulardan birining dalili boshqasidan kuchliroq emas deb bilganlar esa, buni kafforat-i yamin (qasamni buzish kafforati) kabi, "vojib muxayyar" deb qabul qilganlar. Bu al-Tabariy va Dovud rahimahumullohning qarashi edi. Ko'pchilik esa khafd bilan o'qilgan qiroatni ta'wil qilishning ko'plab yo'llarini topgan, ulardan eng yaxshisi shuki, bu yerdagi bog'lanish so'zning talaffuz shakliga oid bo'lib, u arab tilidagi qo'llanishda uchraydi.

The reason for disagreement is based upon two well-known readings of the verse of wudu>, that is, the reading of those who read the word “feet” as the object of washing with a nasb (accusative; final vowel d) in conjunction with limbs washed, and those who read it with a khafd (final vowel i) in conjunction with parts wiped. The reading with a nasb clearly indicates washing, while reading it with a khafd evidently indicates wiping. Those who held that the obligation is specifically for one of these two types of purity, determined as washing or wiping, preferred one reading over the other, disposing of, by interpretation, the meaning of the other reading in favour of the reading that was preferable for them. Those who believed that the obvious implications of both readings were equal, and that one of these did not have a stronger indication than the other, rendered it as a wajib mukhayyar (obligation with a choice), like expiation for breaking an oath. This was the opinion of al-Tabari and Dawud. The majority, however, have numerous ways of interpreting away the reading with a khafd, and the best of these is that the conjunction here elates to the pronounced form of the word, which is found in Arab usage.

Ular vuzu amallarining oyatda keltirilgan tartibiga rioya qilish masalasida ixtilof qilishdi. Bir guruh faqihlar tartibga rioya qilish (ya'ni ketma-ketlik) sunnat ekanligini aytdilar. Bu Molik mazhabidagi keyingi shogirdlari tomonidan keltirilgan, mazhab ichidagi fikrlardan biridir. Uni Abu Hanifa, al-Savriy va Dovud ham qo'llab-quvvatladilar. Boshqa bir guruh faqihlar esa bu farz ekanligini aytdilar; bu Al-Shofe'iy, Ahmad va Abu Ubayd fikri edi. Bularning hammasi vuzuning farz amallari o'zaro tartibi haqidadir. Farz amallarning mustahab amallar bilan tartibiga kelsak, Molik buni makruh emas, balki mustahab deb hisoblagan, Abu Hanifa esa buni sunnat deb hisoblagan, ya'ni unga sunnat sifatida amal qilinishi kerak.

They disagreed about the observance of a sequence in the acts of ablution as arranged in the verse. One group of jurists said that it (following the sequence) is a sunna (recommended). This is what is related by the later disciples of Malik from the opinions in the school. It was also upheld by Abu Hanifa, al- ThawrT, and Dawud. Another group of jurists said that it is an obligation, which was the opinion of Al-ShafiT, Ahmad, and Abu TJbayd. All this is about the sequence of the obligatory acts (of ablution) in relation to each other. As to the sequential ordering of the obligatory acts with recommended acts, it is regarded by Malik as commendable (mustahabb), while Abu Hanifa considered it to be a sunna (i.e. it should be acted upon as a sunna).

Ikki sabab ularning ixtilofining sababidir. Birinchisi, "va" (و) bog'lovchisidan kelib chiqadigan noaniqlikdir, chunki bu bog'lovchi ba'zan tartib bilan, ba'zan esa tartibsiz ma'noni bildiradi. Bu arablarning so'z qo'llashidan istiqro yo'li bilan aniqlanadi. Shu masalada nahvshunoslar ikki guruhga bo'lingan. Basra nahvshunoslari "va" bog'lovchisi tartib yoki ketma-ketlikni ko'rsatmaydi, u faqat o'zi bog'lagan so'zlarning birikishini bildiradi, deganlar. Kufa nahvshunoslari esa u ham tartibni, ham ketma-ketlikni ko'rsatadi, deganlar. Oyatdagi "va" tartibni bildiradi, deganlar ketma-ketlikning vojibligini tasdiqlaganlar, ketma-ketlikni bildirmaydi, deganlar esa uning vojibligini tasdiqlamaganlar. İkkinchi sabab Payg'ambar (alayhissalom)ning amallari vojib yoki mustahab ekanligi borasidagi ixtiloflariga asoslangan. Ularni vojib deb bilganlar tartibning vojibligini tasdiqlaganlar, chunki Payg'ambar ﷺ hech qachon tartibsiz vuzu' qilganligi rivoyat qilinmagan. Ularni mustahablikka yo'yganlar esa tartib bilan bajarish sunnat, deganlar. Sunnat qilib belgilangan amallar bilan vojib qilib belgilangan amallar o'rtasida farq qilganlar, vojib tartib vojib bo'lgan amallarda bo'lishi kerak, deganlar, bunday farqni qilmaganlar esa vojib shartlar vojib bo'lmagan amallarga ham tatbiq etilishi mumkin, deganlar.

There are two reasons for their disagreement. First is the equivocality that arises from the conjunction waw (and), as the conjunction is sometimes achieved through it in a sequential order, while at other times it is without such order. This is indicated through induction in the usage of the Arabs. On this point the grammarians are divided into two groups. The grammarians of Basra said that the waw does not indicate an order or a sequence, it merely implies a connection of the words joined by it. The Kufis said that it does indicate an order as well as a sequence. Those who maintained that the bmw in the verse implies order, upheld the obligation of a sequence, while those who maintained that it does not imply a sequence, did not uphold its obligation. The second reason is based upon their difference related to the acts of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), whether they are to be construed as an obligation or a recommendation. Those who interpreted them as obligatory, upheld the obligation of a sequence, as it is not related from him that he ever performed ablution without a definite sequence. Those who interpreted them to imply a recommendation said that sequential performance ls a sunna. Those who made a distinction between acts prescribed as a sunna a nd as an obligation said that obligatory sequential ordering has to be in acts that are obligatory, but those who did not make such a distinction said that obligatory conditions may apply even to acts that are not obligatory.

Ular vuduning a'zolarini uzluksiz ketma-ket bajarish (ya'ni ular orasida asossiz fasl bermaslik) majburiyligi borasida ixtilof qilishdi. Molik uzluksiz bajarishning farz ekanini aytdi: a'zolar esda bo'lib, ularni bajarishga qodir bo'lgan holda, faqat unutish sababli kechirilsa, yoki esda bo'lib, lekin to'g'ri uzr mavjud bo'lsa va orada ortiqcha vaqt o'tmasa. Ash-Shofi'iy va Abu Hanifa esa uzluksiz bajarish vuduning farzi emas, deyishdi. Ixtilofning sababi yana shuki, "vov" (va) bog'lovchisi ba'zan bir-birining ketidan kelgan narsalarga, ba'zan esa boshqalaridan kechiktirilgan amallarga nisbatan qo'llanadi, ya'ni u ikki ma'noda ishlatiladi.

They disagreed about the (obligation of) continuous performance of the acts of ablution (without uncalled-for intervals between them). Malik held that continuous performance is an obligation, when the acts are remembered along with the ability to perform them, relaxed only because of forgetfulness, or when they are remembered but there is a valid excuse, and the interval is not excessive. Al-Shafi T and Abu HanTfa c said that continuous performance is not an obligation of ablution. The reason for disagreement is again the equivocality of the wdw y as the conjunction sometimes applies to adjacent things following each other, while at other times it applies to acts delayed with respect to others.

Bir guruh faqihlar, Payg'ambar (alayhissalom) dan sobit bo'lganiga ko'ra, vuzuni uzluksiz bajarishni to'xtatish zarurligini ta'kidlaganlar: ular Payg'ambar ba'zan vuzu qilgani va oyoqlarini yuvishni biroz vaqt o'tgach kechiktirgani asosida shunday deyishgan. Bu masaladagi ixtilof yana shu amallarga (Payg'ambarning amallariga) amal qilishni majburiy yoki mustahab deb tushunishdan kelib chiqadi.

A group of jurists argued for-the suspension of continuous performance on the basis of what is established from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) that he occasionally performed ablution, and used to delay the washing of his feet till sometime later. The disagreement over this issue also arises from the interpretation of (following) these acts (of the Prophet) as an obligation or a recommendation.

Malik farqni niyat va unutuvchanlik asosida qildi; unutgan kishiga nisbatan qo‘llaniladigan qoida shundan iboratki, unga qarshi dalil isbotlanmagan bo‘lsa, u uzrli hisoblanadi, chunki Payg‘ambar ﷺ shunday degan: “Xato va unutishdagi javobgarlik mening ummatimdan olib tashlangan”. Shuningdek, shariat hukmlaridan ayon bo‘lganidek, to‘g‘ri uzr yengillik olishda ta’sirga ega.

Malik made a distinction on the basis of intention and forgetfulness; the principle applying to the person who forgets is that he is excused, unless evidence to the contrary is established, because of the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “Liability for mistake and forgetfulness is removed from my umma”. Similarly, a valid excuse, as is obvious from the dictates of the law, is effective in obtaining a concession.