Suvdan foydalanib poklanishning vojibligining asosi Ulug' Allohning so'zlaridir: "Va U osmondan sizning ustingizga suv tushiradi, uning orqali sizni poklash uchun",44 hamda Uning so'zlari: "…Agar suv topmasangiz, u holda pok tuproqqa yuzlaringiz va qo'llaringizni surtib tayammum qiling".45

The basis for the obligation of purification with water are the words of the Exalted, “And (He) sends down water from the sky upon you, that thereby He might purify you”,44 and His words, “.. . and then ye find not water, then go to high clean soil and rub your faces and your hands (therewith)”.45

Fuqarolar suvning barcha turlari o‘z-o‘zidan pok, boshqa narsalarni poklovchi ekaniga ittifoq qilganlar, faqat dengiz suvi bundan mustasno, unga nisbatan birinchi davrda ba'zi ixtiloflar bo‘lgan. Ular (ixtilofga qarshi chiqqanlar) "suv" atamasining qayd-shartsiz qo‘llanilishi dengiz suvini ham o‘z ichiga olishi bilan, shuningdek Molik rivoyat qilgan hadis bilan mag‘lub etiladi. Bu hadis Payg‘ambarimiz ﷺ ning so‘zi bo‘lib: "Uning suvi pok, o‘lik jonivorlari esa halaldir". Garchi bu hadisning sahihligi bahsli bo‘lsa-da, shariat unga yaqqol tayanadi.

The jurists agreed that all kinds of water are pure in themselves, purifying other things, except for the water of the sea, about which there was some disagreement in the first period. They (the dissenters) are defeated by the fact that sea-water is included within the unqualified use of the term “water” and also by the tradition recorded by Malik, which is the saying of the Prophet, “Its water is pure, and its dead creatures are lawful”. Although, this is a tradition whose authenticity is disputed, the law apparently supports it.

Fuqaholar ham shunga o'xshash tarzda suvni o'zgartiradigan va odatda unda bo'ladigan (yoki odatda undan ajralmaydigan, masalan, yashil yosin kabi) narsalar haqida kelishib olganlar: bunday narsalar suvning poklovchilik xususiyatini va poklash sifatini yo'qqa chiqarmaydi. Faqat turgun suv haqida Ibn Sirin rivoyat qilgan ozgina ixtilof bor, uning fikri ham bu yerda rad etiladi, chunki "suv" so'zining mutlaq qo'llanilishi turgun suvga ham tegishlidir. Ular ta'm, rang yoki hid jihatidan najosat bilan o'zgargan suv, yoki bu sifatlarning bir nechtasi jihatidan o'zgargan suv bilan taharat yoki poklanish uchun foydalanish joiz emasligi haqida kelishib olganlar. Ular, shuningdek, katta miqdordagi suv, zikr etilgan sifatlarning birortasini o'zgartirmaydigan najosatlar bilan ifloslanmaydi va pok bo'lib qoladi, degan fikrga ham kelishganlar.

The jurists, similarly, agreed about things that alter the water and that are normally found in it (or that are not normally separated from it, like green moss), do not usurp its purification and the quality of purifying, except for slight disagreement recounted about stagnant water by Ibn Sirin, whose opinion here is also rejected on the ground that the absolute use of the term “water” applies to stagnant water as well. They agreed about water that has been altered by impurity with respect to taste, colour, or smell, or with respect to more than one of these qualities, that it is not permitted for purposes of ablution or purification. They agreed that water in large quantities is not defiled by impurities that do not alter one of its (mentioned) qualities, and that it remains pure.

Bu mavzuda ular bir fikrga kelishgan, ammo mavzuning qoidalari va asoslari sifatida qaraladigan oltita masalada ixtilof qilishgan.

This is what they agreed upon in this topic, but they disagreed about six issues that are like rules and principles of the topic.

Ular ichida najasat aralashgan, ammo uning birorta xususiyati o‘zgarmagan suv haqida ixtilof qilishgan. Fuqaholarning bir guruhi bunday suv miqdori ko‘p yoki oz bo‘lishidan qat’i nazar, u pok ekanligini aytgan. Bu Molik rivoyatlaridan biri bo‘lib, zohiriylar ham shunga amal qilgan. Boshqa guruh suvning miqdori ko‘p yoki oz bo‘lishiga qarab farq qilgan: agar suv oz bo‘lsa, u najis bo‘ladi, agar ko‘p bo‘lsa, najis bo‘lmaydi. Shundan so‘ng ular oz va ko‘p suv o‘rtasidagi chegara haqida ixtilof qilishgan. Abu Hanifaning fikricha, ko‘p suv — bir chetida odam harakat qilganda hosil bo‘lgan to‘lqin ikkinchi chetiga yetmaydigan suvdir. Shofe’iyning fikriga ko‘ra, chegara ikki qulla (idish) suv bo‘lib, uning og‘irligi besh yuz rotl (funt) chamasidadir. Ba’zi fuqaholar hech qanday chegara qo‘ymagan, ammo oz suvni, uning xususiyatlari o‘zgarmagan taqdirda ham, najasat najslantiradi, deb hisoblagan. Bu Molikdan rivoyat qilinadi. Shuningdek, bunday suv najslanmaydi, faqat undan foydalanish makruh bo‘ladi, degan rivoyat ham bor. Shunday qilib, Molikdan oz miqdordagi, ichiga kichik najis narsalar tushgan suvdan foydalanish haqida uchta fikr naql qilinadi. Birinchisi: suv shu tarzda najslangan yoki foydalanishga yaroqsiz bo‘lgan. Ikkinchisi: xususiyatlari o‘zgarmagan ekan, suv najslanmagan. Uchinchisi: undan foydalanish makruhdir.

They disagreed about water that contains impurities, but where none of its attributes is altered. One group of jurists said that it is pure irrespective of large or small quantities. This is one of the narrations from Malik and is also upheld by the Zahirites. Another group made a distinction between water in large and small quantities, saying that if there is little of it, it is impure and if there is much of it, it is not. They disagreed then about the demarcation separating small from large quantities (of water). Abu HanTfa’s opinion is that a large quantity of water is that in which a ripple caused by a person at one end does not reach the other side. According to al-ShafiT the limit is the fill of two qullas (containers), which weigh about five hundred rati (pounds). Some jurists did not impose any limit, though they held that impurities defile water in small quantities, even if its attributes are not changed. This is related from Malik. It is also related that such water is riot defiled, but that its use is undesirable. Thus, there are three opinions from Malik about the use of small Quantities of water in which small impure objects have been dropped. First, that it has thus been defiled, or it has been rendered unusable. Second, that it has not been defiled, so long as its attributes have not changed. Third, that its use is reprehensible.

Ixtilofning sababi shundaki, bu masalada naql qilingan rivoyatlarning zohiriy ma'nolari o'rtasida ziddiyat bor. Abu Hurayra rivoyatida, avvalgi hadisda aytilgan "Sizlardan biringiz uyqudan uyg'onganda..." so'zlari bor, uning zohiriy ma'nosi shuki, oz miqdordagi najosat oz miqdordagi suvni nopok qiladi. Xuddi shunday, Abu Hurayra orqali Nabiy (ﷺ) dan rivoyat qilingan hadisda u zot: "Sizlardan hech kim turgan suvga siydik qilib, keyin undan yuvinmasin", dedilar. Bu hadisning zohiriy ma'nosidan ham oz miqdordagi najosat oz miqdordagi suvni ifloslantiradi, degan xulosa chiqadi. Shuningdek, junub bo'lgan kishining turgan suvda yuvinishi man qilinishi ham shu fikrni ko'rsatadi. Bu esa Anas rivoyatiga zid keladi: "Bir a'robiy masjidning bir chetiga kelib siydik qildi, odamlar unga baqirdilar. Allohning Elchisi (ﷺ) esa: "Uni qo'yinglar", dedilar. A'robiy siydigini tugatgach, Allohning Elchisi (ﷺ) bir chelak suv quyishni buyurdilar". Bu rivoyatning zohiriy ma'nosi shuni ko'rsatadiki, kichik najosat oz miqdordagi suvni nopok qilmaydi, chunki bu joy bir chelak suv bilan poklandi. Yana Abu Sa'id al-Xudriy rivoyati bor, uni Abu Dovud naql qilgan. U aytadi: "Men Allohning Elchisi (ﷺ) dan Buzo'a quduqining suvidan foydalanish mumkinmi, deb so'ralganini eshitdim. Bu quduqqa it go'shti, hayz bo'lgan ayollarning latta-puttalari va axlat tashlanardi. Nabiy (ﷺ): "Suvni hech narsa nopok qilmaydi", dedilar".

Suv, unga za'faron yoki suv ko'pincha bepul bo'ladigan boshqa narsalar aralashib, suvning bir sifatini o'zgartirsa, barcha faqihlarning fikriga ko'ra u pok bo'ladi, lekin Molik va ash-Shofi'iy fikriga ko'ra u boshqalarni poklash qobiliyatini yo'qotadi. Abu Hanifa fikriga ko'ra, agar o'zgarish isitish orqali yuz bermagan bo'lsa, u poklaydi. Ixtilofning sababi aralashgan suvga nisbatan qo'llanadigan mutlaq "suv" atamasini tushunishdan kelib chiqadi. Aralashgan suv mutlaq "suv" atamasi bilan qamrab olinmaydi, balki qo'shilgan narsalar bilan, masalan, "falon narsaning suvi" deb ta'riflanadi, deb hisoblaganlar bunday suv bilan wudu' qilishni ruxsat etmadilar, chunki wudu' faqat aralashmagan suv bilan qilinishi kerak. Suv atamasi aralashgan suvga hamon qo'llanadi, deb aytganlar esa unga wudu' qilishni ruxsat berdilar. Ularning isitilgan, lekin najas bo'lmagan narsa bilan isitilgan suvga bu atamaning qo'llanmasligi ravshan bo'lgani uchun, bunday suv bilan wudu' qilishni ruxsat etmadilar. Xuddi shunday, o'simliklardan olingan suvni ham ruxsat etmadilar, faqat Ibn Shahonning kitobida qayd etilgan, juma g'usli uchun atirgul suvidan foydalanish mumkinligi bundan mustasno. Haqiqat shundaki, hukm qo'shimchalarning miqdoriga bog'liq. Haddan tashqari aralashganda suv shunday holatga yetishi mumkinki, unga suv uchun mutlaq atama qo'llanmaydi va "hammom suvi" kabi cheklovchi atama oladi; yoki bunday holatga yetmasligi mumkin, ayniqsa faqat hidi o'zgargan bo'lsa. Shu sababli ba'zi faqihlar aralashgan suvni man qilishda hidni e'tiborga olmadilar. Payg'ambar ﷺ Ummu 'Atiyyaga, u uning (vafot etgan) qizini yuvmoqchi bo'lganida, shunday degan deb rivoyat qilinadi: "Uni suv va sidr (jiyda) bilan yuving, oxirgi yuvishda esa ozgina kofur qo'shing". Bu aralashgan suv, lekin aralashma mutlaq suv atamasini inkor etadigan holatga yetmagan edi. Molik, aralashmaning kuchiga qarab hukm chiqarib, suyultirilgan (kuchsiz) aralashmalar bilan kuchli aralashmalarni farqladi. U kuchsiz aralashmalarga, hatto suvning sifatlari o'zgargan bo'lsa ham, ruxsat berdi, lekin kuchli aralashmalarga ruxsat bermadi.

Water in which saffron or other things of which water is often free, are mixed, altering one of its attributes, is pure according to all the jurists, but loses its power to purify according to Malik and al-ShafiT It purifies according to Abu HanTfa as long as the change (in attributes) is not achieved through heating. The reason for disagreement stems from the understanding of the absolute term “water” as applied to such mixed water. Those who held that water so mixed is not covered by the unqualified term water, but is described by the things added, such as “the water of such and such thing”, did not allow ablution with it, as ablution is to be performed with unadulterated water. Those who said that the term water still applies to water so mixed, allowed ablution with it. For the obvious inapplicability of the term to water heated with a non-polluted thing, they did not permit ablution with it; similarly, they did not permit it in the case of water extracted from vegetation, except for what is recorded in the book of Ibn Shahan about the permissibility of using rose-water in the jumu'a washing. The truth is that the verdict depends upon the quantities of the additives. With excessive mixing, the water may reach a state where the absolute term for water will not apply t0 it and will acquire a qualifying term, like the term bath water; or it may not reach such a state, especially when it is only the smell that has been altered. It is for this reason that some jurists did not take smell into account when prohibiting mixed water. The Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) is reported to have said to Umm cAtiyya, when she was about to bathe his (dead) daughter, “Bathe her with water and sidr (lotus), and in the last course of washing add some camphor”. This is mixed water, but the mixture did not reach a state where it would negate the absolute term for water. Malik, basing his judgment on the intensity of the mixture, made a distinction between weak and strong mixtures. He permitted weak mixtures, even when the attributes of the water were altered, but did not permit it in strong ones.

Faqihlar tahorat uchun allaqachon ishlatilgan suv haqida ixtilof qilganlar va uch xil fikrda bo'lganlar. Bir guruh faqihlar bunday suvni hech qanday holatda tahoratda ishlatishga ruxsat bermagan; bu al-Shafi'iy va Abu Hanifaning fikri. Boshqa bir guruh uni makruh deb hisoblagan, lekin suv mavjud bo'lganda tayammumga ruxsat bermagan; bu Molik va uning shogirdlarining qarashi. Yana bir guruh faqihlar bu suv bilan mutlaq ma'nodagi suv o'rtasida hech qanday farq topmagan; bu Abu Savr, Dovud va uning shogirdlarining fikri edi. Abu Yusuf bularning barchasidan chetga chiqib, bunday suvning najis ekanligini aytgan.

The jurists disagreed about water (already) used for purification and held three opinions. A group of jurists did not permit its use in purification under any circumstances, which is the opinion of al-ShaficT and Abu HanTfa. Another group considered it undesirable, but did not permit tayammum when it existed, which is the view of Malik and his disciples. A group of jurists did not find any difference between this water and water in its absolute meaning, which was the opinion of Abu Thawr, Dawud, and his disciples. Abu Yusuf deviated from all this and said that it is impure.

Ixtilofning sababi ham bu suv bo'lishi-bo'lmasligi, ya'ni uning mutlaq "suv" atamasi ostiga kiradimi yoki yo'qligi masalasidan kelib chiqadi; ba'zilar uni "suv" atamasidan ko'ra "hammom suvi" atamasiga ko'proq mos keladi, deb hatto shunga qadar bordilar. Payg'ambar ﷺ ning sahobalari Payg'ambar ﷺ ning vuzusidan ortib qolgan suv uchun musobaqalashar edilar va ishlatilgan suvdan bir necha tomchisi ortiqcha suv turgan idishga tushishi ravshan.

The reason for disagreement here also arises from the question of whether it is included in the unqualified term for water; some went as far as saying that the term bath-water is more appropriate for it than the term water. The Companions of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) used to compete for the excess left over from the ablution of the Prophet, and it is obvious that some drops of the water used would fall into the utensil that contained the surplus.

Umuman olganda, u mutlaq suvdir va u bilan yuvilayotgan a'zolarning kirligi tufayli o'z sifatlari o'zgarib qolmaydi. Ammo agar u iflosланса, uning hukmi xuddi shunday — sifatlaridan biri pok narsa bilan o'zgargan suvning hukmi bilan bir xil bo'ladi, garchi u tabiatan yoqimsiz narsadir. Bu narsani makruh deb hisoblaganlar nazarda tutgan. Nopok deb hisoblagan kishining esa unga dalil yo'q.

On the whole, it is absolute water and does not end up with changed attributes through the dirt of the limbs that are washed with it, but if it is sullied, then its hukm is the same as that of water one of whose attributes has changed with something pure, though it is something repelling by nature; this is what was taken into account by those who considered it abominable. As for one who considered it filthy, there is no evidence to support him.

Fuqaho muslimlar va chorvalarning qoldig'i poklиги to'g'risida kelishib olishgan, ammo boshqa toifalar haqida ko'p ixtilof qilishgan. Ba'zilar har bir hayvonning qoldig'i pok, deb hisoblashgan, boshqalari esa faqat cho'chqa holatida istisno qilishgan. Bu ikki qarash Molikdan rivoyat qilinadi. Ba'zi fuqaho cho'chqa va itlar holatida istisno qilgan, bu al-Shofi'iyning fikri. Ba'zilar yirtqich hayvonlarni umuman istisno qilgan, bu Ibn al-Qosimning fikri. Boshqalar hayvonlarning qoldig'i ularning go'shti hukmiga tobe, deb da'vo qilgan: agar go'shti haram qilingan bo'lsa, qoldig'i ham makruh; agar go'shti halol bo'lsa, qoldig'i pok, deganlar. Mushrikning qoldig'iga kelsak, aytilishicha, u najis; yana aytilishicha, faqat u xamr (may) ichsa makruh, bu Ibn al-Qosimning fikri. Xuddi shunday, odatda axlat yemaydigan barcha hayvonlar uchun ham shunday, masalan, axlat yeydigan yovvoyi tovuqlar, tuyalar va itlar.

The jurists agreed about the purity of the leftovers of Muslims and cattle, but J he? disagreed extensively about other categories. Some believed that the e ^°ver of every animal is pure, while others made an exception in the case of SWlne alone. These two views are related from Malik. Some jurists made an excePtion in the case of swine and dogs, which is al-Shafi Fs opinion. Some c ai deluded the beasts of prey generally, which is Ibn al-Qasim’s opinion. Others Jp ntained that leftovers of animals are subservient to the hukm of (their) flesh; I hc A sh is prohibited the leftover is impure, if the flesh is abominable the e over is abominable too, but if the flesh is permissible the leftover is pure. t0 the leftover of an idolater, it is said that it is impure, while it is said that it is abominable only if he drinks khamr (wine), which is Ibn al-Qasinf. opinion. The same is the case for him of all animals that do not normally avok filth, like filth-consuming wild hens, camels, and dogs.

Ularning ixtilofi uch nuqtaga asoslangan. Birinchisi — qiyosning (analog) Kitobning ochiq ma'nosiga zid kelishi. Ikkinchisi — uning rivoyatlarning zohiriy ma'nosiga zid kelishi. Uchinchisi — rivoyatlarning o'zaro ziddiyati.

Their disagreement is based on three points. First is the conflict of analog) with the obvious meaning of the Book. Second is its conflict with the literal meaning of the traditions. The third is the conflict of the traditions among themselves.

Ushbu fikr, ya'ni o'ldirilmasdan o'lim hukmiy ravishda hayvon tanasining najasatiga sabab bo'lishi, hayvon tanasining poklik asosi hayot bo'lishi kerakligi haqidagi qiyos uchun asos bo'lib xizmat qiladi. Agar shunday bo'lsa, har bir jonli narsa pok bo'ladi va qaysi narsa pok bo'lsa, uning qoldig'i ham pok bo'lishi kerak. Kitobning zohiriy ma'nosi esa cho'chqa va mushriklar borasida bu qiyosga zid keladi, chunki Allah taolo cho'chqa haqida shunday degan: "Cho'chqa go'shti – albatta u iflosdir"<cite>47</cite>, va mohiyatan iflos bo'lgan narsa najis ham hisoblanadi. Shunga ko'ra, bir guruh faqihlar barcha jonli hayvonlardan faqat cho'chqani istisno qilganlar, cho'chqani istisno qilmaganlar esa bu oyatni unga nisbatan hukmning bekor qilinishi (naskh) deb tushunganlar. Mushriklarga kelsak, Allah taolo aytadi: "Ey iymon keltirganlar! Mushriklar najasdir. Shu sababli ular Masjidi Haromga yaqinlashmasinlar"<cite>48</cite>. Bu oyatni ham zohiriy ma'noda tushungan kishilar mushriklarni qiyos ma'nosidan chiqarib tashlaganlar, uni faqat ularga nisbatan hukm deb bilganlar esa qiyosning hukmini qayta joriy etganlar.

Fuqaholar taharatdan qolgan suvlar (qoldiq suv) haqida besh xil fikrda bo‘lishgan. Bir guruh taharatdan qolgan suvning mutlaqo pok va poklovchi ekanini aytgan. Bu Molik, ash-Shofi'iy va Abu Hanifaning fikri. Yana bir guruh erkakning ayol qoldig‘i bilan taharat qilishi joiz emas, ammo ayolning erkak qoldig‘i bilan taharat qilishi joiz, degan. Uchinchi guruh erkakning ayol qoldig‘i bilan taharat qilishi joiz, agar ayol junub yoki hayzli bo‘lmasa, deb aytgan. To‘rtinchi guruh esa ularning ikkalasi ham bir-birining ortiqcha suvi bilan taharat qilishi joiz emas, faqat ikkalasi bir vaqtda foydalanishni boshlagan bo‘lsa, bundan mustasno, deb hisoblagan. Yana bir guruh, hatto ikkalasi bir vaqtda boshlagan bo‘lsa ham, joiz emas, deb aytgan. Bu Ahmad ibn Hanbalning fikri.

The jurists disagreed about the leftovers from purification expressing five °Pmions. One group held that the leftovers of purification are clean absolutely (and purifying). This is the opinion of Malik, al-Shafi T, and Abu HanTfa. c Another group said that it is not permitted for a man to purify himself with leftover of a woman, but it is permitted for a woman to purify herself with the leftover of a man. A third group said that it is permitted for a man to Purify himself with the leftover of a woman as long as she is not sexually ^efiled or menstruating. The fourth group maintained that it is not permitted Or either one of them to undertake purification with the surplus water of the ot her, unless they started using it at the same time. Another group said that it not permitted even if they commenced at the same time, which is Ahmad 1 n Hanbal’s opinion.

Ixtilofning sababi bu masala bo'yicha tegishli rivoyatlardagi farqlarga asoslangan. Bu borada to'rtta tegishli rivoyat bor. Birinchisi, Payg'ambar (ﷺ) xotinlari bilan bir idishdan foydalanib, katta jununlikdan (janoba) poklanganlari haqidagi rivoyat. Ikkinchisi, Maymunaning rivoyati: u (ﷺ) xotinining qoldirgan suvi bilan yuvinganlari haqida. Uchinchisi, al-Hakam al-G'ifariyning rivoyati: Payg'ambar (ﷺ) erkakning ayol qoldirgan suv bilan vuzu' qilishini man qilganlar; bu rivoyatni Abu Dovud va at-Tirmiziy keltirgan. To'rtinchisi, Abdulloh ibn Sarjas rivoyati, u shunday degan: "Allohning Elchisi (ﷺ) erkakning ayol qoldirgan suv bilan, yoki ayolning erkak qoldirgan suv bilan yuvinishini man qildilar, agar ular bir vaqtda boshlamagan bo'lsalar". Fuqahолар bu rivoyatlarni sharhlashda ikki usuldan foydalanganlar: birinchisi, birini ustun qo'yish usuli, ikkinchisi, ba'zilarini muvofiqlashtirib, boshqalarini afzal ko'rish usuli.

The reason for disagreement is based upon the differences in the relevant traditions. There are four related traditions about this. First, the tradition that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) used to wash away major ritual impurities along with his wives using the same utensil. Second, the tradition of Maymuna that he washed with the surplus left by his wife. Third, the tradition of al-Hakam al-Ghifari that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited the ablution by a man with the surplus left by a woman; this is recorded by Abu Dawud and al-TirmidhT. Fourth is the tradition of cAbd Allah ibn Sarjas, who said, “The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited that a man may wash with the surplus left by a woman, or that a woman may wash with the surplus left by a man, unless they commence at the same time”. The jurists adopted two kinds of methods for the interpretation of these traditions: a method of preference, and a method of reconciling some and' preferring others.

Abu Hanifa, zid bo'lgan holda uning shogirdlari va barcha hududlardagi faqihlarning fikriga qarshi, safarda xurmo nabizi bilan vuzu qilishni ruxsat berdi. U Ibn Abbosning quyidagi rivoyatiga tayandi: "Ibn Mas'ud jinlar kechasi Allohning Elchisi bilan birga chiqdi. Allohning Elchisi ﷺ undan so'radi: «Suving bormi?» U dedi: «Idishimda nabiz bor». Allohning Elchisi ﷺ dedi: «Ozroq to'kib yubor». U (Payg'ambar ﷺ) shu bilan vuzu qildi va dedi: «U ichimlik va poklovchi narsadir»". U yana Ibn Umarning mavlosi Abu Rofe'ning Ibn Mas'uddan rivoyat qilgan, deyarli shunga o'xshash hadisini keltirdi: Allohning Elchisi ﷺ dedi: «Yaxshi; meva va pokловчи suv». Ular, shuningdek, bu fikr Ali va Ibn Abbos kabi sahobalarga nisbat berilganini va ularga qarshi boshqa sahobaning bo'lmagani sababli bu ijmo hisoblanishini da'vo qildilar. Muhaddislar esa, sanad zaif bo'lgani uchun bu hadisni rad etdilar. Bundan tashqari, ishonchliroq yo'llar orqali Ibn Mas'ud jinlar kechasi Allohning Elchisi ﷺ bilan birga bo'lmaganligi rivoyat qilingan. Ko'pchilik esa, Allohning: "Suv topa olmasangiz, pok tuproqqa boringlar va u bilan yuzlaringizni va qo'llaringizni mash qilinglar", degan so'ziga tayanib, bu hadisni rad etdi. Ular dedilar: Alloh suv va pok tuproqdan boshqa narsadan foydalanishni joiz qilmagan. Shuningdek, ular Payg'ambarning ﷺ quyidagi so'zlariga ham tayandilar: "Pok tuproq musulmonning vuzusi hisoblanadi, hatto suv o'n yil topilmasa ham. Suvni topganda esa, uni yuziga tegizsin". Ular (hanafiylar) shunday deyishlari mumkin edi: hadisda "suv" atamasi mutlaq ma'noda ishlatilgan (shu jumladan nabiz ham), bu esa Kitobga zid keladigan, shuning uchun uni nasx qiladigan bo'lmagan qo'shimcha hukmdir. Ammo bu ularning asosiy qoidasiga zid keladi, chunki ular qo'shimchaning nasx bo'lishini tan olishadi.

Abu HanTfa, in an opinion opposed by his disciples and all the jurists of the regions, permitted ablution with the nabidh of dates during a journey on the basis of the tradition of Ibn cAbbas, which says: “Ibn Mascud went out with the Messenger of Allah on the night of the jinn and the Messenger of Allah asked him, ‘Do you have any water?’ He said, ‘I have nabidh in my container’. The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, ‘Pour out some’. He (the Prophet) performed ablution with it saying, Tt is a beverage and a purifying element’”. He also quoted the tradition of Abu Rafic, the client of Ibn TJmar, derived from Ibn Macud—which is almost the same—as follows: The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “It is good; fruit and purifying water”. They also claimed that this opinion is attributed to Companions like cAIi and Ibn cAbbas, and as there was no other Companion opposing them it amounted to a consensus. The traditionists, however, rejected this tradition because of the weak line of narrators (in its isndd). Furthermore, more reliable channels have related that Ibn Mas ud was not with the Messenger c of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) on the night of the jinn. The majority rejected this tradition on the basis of the words of the Exalted, “And ye find not water, then go to high clean soil and rub your faces and your hands (therewith)”.50 They said that He not permit the use of anything beside water and clean soil. They also ar gued on the basis of the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be u P°n him), “Clean soil constitutes the ablution of a Muslim, even if water is ° ot t0 ke found for ten seasons, and as soon as he finds water let him touch his , ce with it”. They (the Hanafites) could have said that the term water is used 10 the absolute sense in the tradition (thus, including nabidh), and it is an ltl °n that does not constitute abrogation so that the Book should conflict it, but then it is against their principle that an addition constitutes * br°gation.