Ushbu bobning asosi Ulug‘ Zot so‘zlari: «Ey iymon keltirganlar! Namozga turganingizda, yuzlaringizni va tirsaklargacha qo‘llaringizni yuvinglar, boshlaringizni mash qilinglar va oyoqlaringizni to‘piqlargacha yuvinglar»,56 hamda Payg‘ambar ﷺ ning so‘zlari: «Alloh taolo poksizlik (taharat)siz namozni va o‘g‘irlangan mol-mulkdan qilingan sadaqani qabul qilmaydi».

The basis of this chapter are the words of the Exalted, UO 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”,56 and the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “Allah does not accept prayer without purification nor charity from misappropriated proceeds”.

Shunday qilib, faqihlar bu dalillarga ko'ra tahoratni namozning shartlaridan biri deb kelishdilar, garchi uning haqiqiy shart (sahih bo'lishi sharti) yoki farz bo'lish sharti ekanligi haqida ixtilof qilgan bo'lsalar ham. Janoza namozi va sajda, ya'ni tilovat sajdasidan boshqa barcha namoz turlari uchun bu shart ekanligida ular ixtilof qilmadilar, chunki bu borada bid'atga yaqin bo'lgan ba'zi noto'g'ri ixtilof mavjud. Buning sababi "salat" (namoz) atamasi ma'nosidagi turli ehtimollardir. Ular bu atama janoza namoziga va Qur'onning ayrim oyatlarini tilovat qilgandan keyingi sajdaga qo'llanadimi yoki yo'qmi, deb ixtilof qildilar. "Salat" atamasi janoza namoziga va sajdaning o'ziga (tilovat sajdasiga) qo'llanadi, deb hisoblaganlar — ular ko'pchilikdir — bunga shu turdagi tahoratni shart qildilar. Atama ularga qo'llanmaydi, deb hisoblaganlar esa — janoza namozida ruku' va sajda yo'q, tilovat sajdasida ham qiyom va ruku' yo'q, deb — bunga bu turdagi tahoratni shart qilmadilar. Ushbu bob doirasida bu asosiy masala ostida to'rtta bog'liq masala mavjud.

The jurists, therefore, agreed that purification is one of the conditions of prayer, because of these evidences, though they differed on whether it is 3 condition of validity or a condition of obligation. They did not disagree that it is a condition for all forms of prayer, except the funeral prayer and prostration, that is, the prostration of recitation, for there is some deviant disagreement about that. The reason for this are the different possibilities in the meaning of the term “salah” (prayer). They differed as to whether the term applies to the funeral prayer and prostration on reciting certain QuPanic verses. Those who maintained that the term “salah” applies to the funeral prayer and to prostration (of recitation) itself, and these are the majority, stipulated this form of purification for it, while those who held that the term does not apply to them, as the funeral does not involve bowing or prostrations, and there is no standing or bowing in prostrations (of recitation) either, they did not stipulate this form of purification for it. There are four issues related to this chapter under this main issue.

Molik, Abu Hanifa va ash-Shofi'iy mushafga (Qur'on nusxasiga) tegish uchun taharat shart, deb hisoblashgan, zohiriylar esa unday emas, deb hisoblashgan. Ixtilofning sababi Olloh Taolоning "Uni faqat poklanganlargina tegadi"[57] degan so'zlaridagi "poklanganlar" iborasi odamlarga ishora qiladimi yoki farishtalarga, hamda bu ibora taqiqni bildiradimi yoki shunchaki xabar beradimi, degan masaladadir. "Poklanganlar" so'zini odamlarga qaratgan va oyatni taqiq sifatida tushungan olimlar, mushafga faqat poklanganlargina tegishi mumkin, boshqa hech kimga ruxsat yo'q, deyishgan. Oyatni xabar sifatida tushungan va "poklanganlar" so'zini farishtalarga ishora deb bilganlar esa, oyatda mushafga tegish uchun taharatning shart qilinganligi haqida hech qanday dalil yo'q, deyishgan. Kitobda ham, sunnatda ham bunga dalil bo'lmagani uchun, masala asl hukmga, ya'ni javobgarlik yo'qligi asliga, ya'ni ruxsatga qoldiriladi.

Malik, Abu HanTfa, and al-ShafiT held that it is a condition for touching the mushaf (copy of the Qur’an), while the Zahirites held that it is not. The reason for disagreement is whether the meaning of the words of the Exalted, “Which none toucheth save the purified”,57 refers to humans or angels, or whether this statement implies a prohibition or is just a report. Those who deemed the word “purified” to mean humans, and interpreted the statement as a prohibition, said that it is not permitted for anyone, but the purified to touch the mushaf. Those who interpreted it as a report and interpreted the word “purified” as an allusion to angels said that there is no indication in the verse about the stipulation of purification as a condition for touching the mushaf And as there is no evidence in the Book or in the sunna, the matter is to be left to the original rule of non-liability, which is permissibility.

Ko‘pchilik o‘z fikrini Amr ibn Hazmning rivoyatiga tayanib dalillagan: “Payg‘ambar (Allohning rahmati va salomi unga bo‘lsin) yozdi: ‘Qur’onga faqat poklanganlargina tegsin.’” Amr ibn Hazm rivoyatlariga kelsak, olimlar ularga amal qilish majburiyligi borasida ixtilof qilganlar, chunki ularda yozuv xatosi (tashif) yuz bergan. Shunga qaramay, men Ibn Abu Mufavvazni ishonchli rivoyat qiluvchilar orqali kelganida ularni sahih deb e’lon qilganini ko‘rganman, chunki bular Payg‘ambar ﷺning maktublaridir. Amr ibn Shu‘ayb otasi orqali, u esa bobosi orqali rivoyat qilgan hadislar haqida ham xuddi shunday deyiladi, garchi zohiriylar ularni rad etsalar-da. Imom Molik esa poklanmagan bolalarning mushafga tegishi holatini istisno qilgan, chunki ular mukallaflik yoshiga yetmaganlar.

The majority argued for their opinion on the basis of the tradition of cAmr ihn Hazm “that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) wrote: ‘None but the purified touch the Qur’an.’”. The traditions of cAmr ibn Hazm are disputed among the scholars with respect to the obligation of acting upon them, as a writing error (tashif) occurred in them, though I have seen Ibn abMufawwaz declaring them as sahih when reported by reliable narrators, for they are letters of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him). The Sarne is said about the traditions of cAmr ibn Shu^yb from his father from his grandfather, though the Zahirites reject them. Malik made an exemption in the case of minors touching the mushaf when they are not purified, as they have not reached the age of liability.

Huquqshunoslar ma'lum hollarda, junub bo'lgan shaxs uchun (kichik) wudu' yoki jinsiy nopok holatdagi shaxsning wudu' qilishining vojibligi haqida ixtilof qilganlar. Birinchisi: katta hadas holatida bo'lgan shaxs uxlashni davom ettirmoqchi bo'lganida. Jumhur ulamo bunday holatda wudu' qilishning mustahab ekanini, lekin vojib emasligini ta'kidlaganlar. Zohiriylar esa wudu' qilish vojib, deb hisoblaganlar, chunki bu Payg'ambar ﷺdan Umar roziyallohu anhuning rivoyati orqali sobit bo'lgan: u Allohning Elchisi ﷺdan kechasi katta hadas (jinsiy aloqa yoki maniy chiqishi kabi) holatida bo'lganda nima qilishi kerakligini so'ragan. Allohning Elchisi ﷺ unga shunday degan: "Wudu' qil va jinsiy a'zoingni yuvib, so'ng uxlab qol". Bu rivoyat Oisha roziyallohu anhodan ham naql qilingan. Jumhur esa mana shu fikrni tanlagan.

The jurists disagreed about the obligation of (performing the minor) ablution or a person who was sexually defiled, in certain cases. The first is when, a ving committed a major hadath, he wishes to continue sleeping. The Majority upheld the recommendation of ablution, but not its obligation. The Zahirites maintain that it is obligatory, because it is established from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) through the tradition of (Umar that he asked the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) what he had to do when he is involved in a major hadath (like intercourse or seminal discharge) during the night. The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said to him, “Perform ablution and wash your penis, and then go to sleep”. This is also related from him through <A isha. The majority chose 5

buyruqni tavsiya sifatida talqin qilish va uning lug'aviy ma'nosini, uyquga yotish niyatida poklanish majburiyatiga mos kelmagani sababli, ikkinchi o'ringa surish — ya'ni huquqiy moslik.

to construe the command as a recommendation and to relegate the literal meaning due to its incompatibility with the obligation of purification when the intention is to go to sleep, that is, legal compatibility.

Ko'pchilik bu fikrni yana boshqa rivoyatlarga tayanib ham ilgari surdi. Ulardan eng sahihi Ibn Abbos rivoyatidir: Allohning Elchisi ﷺ hojatxonadan chiqib kelganlarida, ularga ovqat keltirildi. Shunda ulardan so'rashdi: "Sizga taharat uchun suv keltirmaymizmi?" U zot: "Men namoz o'qimoqchimanki, wudu qilishim kerak bo'lsa?" dedilar. Ba'zi rivoyatlarda esa ularga: "Siz wudu qilasizmi?" deyilgan, u zot esa: "Men hali namozga niyat qilmadimki, wudu qilay", deb javob bergan. Bu rivoyatga tayanish zaif, chunki bu matnning eng zaif dalillash turlaridan biridir. Ular yana Oisha roziyallohu anhoning rivoyatiga tayanib: "Allohning Elchisi ﷺ katta hadas holatida suvga tegmasdan uxlab qolardilar", deganlar. Ammo bu rivoyat zaifdir.

They (the majority) also argued for this on the basis of other traditions, the most authentic of which is the tradition of Ibn cAbbas that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) once returned from the privy and was brought food. It was said to him, “Should we not bring you (water for) purification?” He replied, “Am I going to pray that I should perform ablution?” In some versions, it was said to him, “Would you perform ablution?” He replied, “I have not resolved to pray as yet, so that I may perform ablution”. Seeking support from this is weak, for it is one of the weakest kinds of implication of the text. They also argued on the basis of the tradition of <A>isha “that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) used to go to sleep after being involved in a major hadath without touching water”. This, however, is a weak tradition.

Molik va ash-Shofe'iy tavof uchun wudu'ni shart qilganlar, Abu Hanifa esa uni zarur emas deb hisoblagan. Ixtilofning sababi tavof hukmining namoz hukmi bilan bog'liq bo'lishi kerakmi yoki yo'qmi, degan masalada noaniqlikdir. Bir tomondan, sobit bo'lgan rivoyat mavjud: "Allohning Elchisi ﷺ hayz ko'rayotgan ayolni tavof qilishdan qaytargan, xuddi uni namoz o'qishdan qaytarganlari kabi". Shu jihatdan tavof namozga o'xshaydi. Ba'zi rivoyatlarda tavof namoz deb ataladi.

Malik and al-ShafiT stipulated ablution for circumambulation, while Abu Harnfa held it to be unnecessary. The reason for disagreement is the vacillation of the hukm of circumambulation whether it should be associated with the hukm of prayers. On the one hand, there is the established report “that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited circumambulation to the menstruating woman, just as he prohibited her to pray”. From this aspect tawaf resembles prayer. In some traditions circumambulation has been called prayer.

Abu Hanifa’nинг далили shundan iboratki, hayz paytida man etilgan ishlarning hammasi uchun ham poklanish shart emas, agar ular hayz tugagandan keyin amalga oshiriladigan bo‘lsa. Masalan, ko‘pchilik ulamolar fikricha, ro‘za tutish uchun (vuzu‘ qilish shart emas).

Abu Hanifa’s argument is that purification is not a condition for everything that is prohibited during menstruation, when it is to be performed after the cessation of menstruation. For example, fasting in the opinion of-the majority (does not need ablution).

Ko'pchilik olimlar, vuzu' qilmagan kishi uchun Qur'on tilovat qilish va Allohni zikr qilish joiz, deb hisoblaganlar. Bir guruh faqihlar esa, agar u vuzu' qilmasa, bunday qilish joiz emas, deganlar.

The majority maintained that it is permitted for a person who has not performed ablution to recite the Qur’an and engage in the remembrance of Allah. A group of jurist said that this is not permitted, unless he performs ablution.

Ikki tomonning ixtilofi sababi ikkita o‘zaro zid rivoyatdir. Birinchisi Abu Jahmning rivoyatidir: u aytdi: “Allohning Elchisi ﷺ Bi’r Jamal tomonidan kelayotgan edilar, shu payt bir kishi unga salom berdi. Payg‘ambar ﷺ devor tomoniga yetguncha salomga javob qaytarmadilar, so‘ng yuzlarini va qo‘llarini devorga surtib, keyin salomga javob berdilar”. Ikkinchi rivoyat Ammor (roziyallohu anhu)ning rivoyatidir: “Allohning Elchisi ﷺ Qur’on tilovat qilishdan faqat janobat holati to‘sqinlik qilgan”.

The reason for disagreement are two established conflicting traditions. The first is the tradition of Abu Jahm, who said, “The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) was coming from the side of BPr Jamal when he met a man who greeted him (with a salam). The Prophet did not return the greeting till he reached the side of the wall, where he rubbed his face and hands, and then returned the greeting”. The second tradition is that of CAIT, “that nothing prevented the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) from the recitation of the Qur’an, except janaba”.

Ko'pchilik ikkinchi rivoyat birinchisini bekor qilgan, deb hisoblagan, Allohni zikr qilish uchun vuzuni vojib deb bilganlar esa birinchi rivoyatni afzal ko'rganlar.

The majority maintained that the second tradition had abrogated the first, while those who made ablution obligatory for the remembrance of Allah preferred the first tradition.