Bunday poklanishning asosi Ulug‘ Zot ning so‘zlaridir: “Agar junub bo‘lsangiz, o‘zingizni poklang”.58 Uning qoidalarini bayon qilish — uning farz ekanini, kimga farz ekanini va ishlatiladigan narsani, ya’ni aralashmagan suvni aniqlab olgandan so‘ng — uch bobda amalga oshiriladi. Birinchi bob ushbu poklanishda qatnashadigan amallarni aniqlashga oid. Ikkinchi bob uni to‘g‘ri (sahih) qiladigan omillarga oid. Uchinchi bob esa ushbu poklanishni buzadigan hukmlarni o‘z ichiga oladi. Kimga farz ekani haqida: namoz o‘qishga mukallaf bo‘lgan har bir shaxsga bu farzdir, bunda hech qanday ixtilof yo‘q. Shuningdek, uning farz ekaniga ham hech qanday ixtilof yo‘q, uning dalillari esa biz zikr qilgan taharat (wudu) ning dalillari bilan bir xildir. Xuddi shuningdek, suvning turlariga oid hukmlar ham — ularning bayoni avval o‘tgan.

The basis for this kind of purification are the words of the Exalted, “And if ye are involved in a major hadath, purify yourself’.58 The discussion covering its rules—after having learned its obligation, on whom it is obligatory, and the ^entification of the thing to be used, which is unadulterated water—is undertaken in three chapters. The first chapter relates to the identification of acts involved in this purification. The second relates to the factors ^validating it. The third chapter covers the ahkdm of the invalidation of this Purification. 4’ About the person on whom it is obligatory, it is incumbent upon each Person who is under an obligation to pray, and there is no dispute about this. Similarly, there is no dispute about its obligation, and its evidences are the same as those for ablution, which we have mentioned. Likewise, the ahkam relating to the categories of water, whose discussion has preceded.

Hanafiy va Shofe'iy mazhabi faqihlari o'rtasida ushbu poklanish uchun badanni qo'l bilan ishqalash (ya'ni suv oqayotganda terini ovqalash) shartmi, xuddi vuzu paytida a'zolarni poklashdagidek, yoki badan ustidan qo'l yurgizmasdan, faqat suvni butun badan bo'ylab oqizish kifoyami, degan masalada ixtilof bor edi. Ko'pchilik faqihlar suvni badan ustidan oqizish kifoya deb hisobladilar. Molik, uning shogirdlarining ko'pchiligi va Shofe'iy shogirdlaridan al-Muzanniy esa, poklanuvchi badanining biror joyini ham qo'li bilan o'tkazmasa, uning poklanishi to'liq bo'lmaydi, deb ta'kidladilar.

The jurists disagreed over whether running the hand over the entire body (i.e. massaging the skin while water is running over it) is a condition for this purification, as is the case in the purification of limbs while performing ablution, or whether it is sufficient to let water flow over the entire body without running the hand over the body. The majority of the jurists maintained that letting water flow over the body is enough. Malik, most of his disciples, and al-MuzanT from among the disciples of al-ShafiT held that if the person undertaking purification misses a single spot of his body over which he does not pass his hand, his purification remains incomplete.

Ixtilofning sababi "ghu$T" atamasining ko'p ma'noliligi va Payg'ambarning g'uslini tasvirlashga oid rivoyatlarning zohiriy ma'nolari o'rtasidagi ziddiyatdir, bunda g'usl vuzu asosida qilinadigan g'uslga o'xshatiladi. Payg'ambarning g'uslini bayon qiluvchi, Oisha va Maymuna orqali rivoyat qilingan sahih hadislarda tanga massaj qilish haqida hech narsa zikr qilinmagan; ularda faqat tanaga suv oqizilishi aytilgan. Oisha rivoyatida u shunday deydi: "Allohning Elchisi ﷺ jinsiy aloqadan keyin g'usl qilganlarida, avval ikki qo'llarini yuvardilar. So'ng o'ng qo'llaridan chap qo'llariga suv quyib, u bilan jinsiy a'zolarini yuvardilar. Keyin kundalik namozlari uchun qilinadigan kabi kichik vuzu qilardilar. Shundan so'ng suv olib, barmoqlarini sochlarining ildizlarigacha kiritardilar va boshlariga uch marta ikki qo'llab suv quyardilar. Nihoyat, butun tanalariga suv oqizardilar".

The reason for disagreement is the equivocality of the term *ghu$T\ and the conflict of the apparent meanings of the traditions related about the description of bathing with the analogy of bathing based upon ablution. In the established traditions relevant to the subject of the Prophet’s bath, and which are related through ‘A’isha and Maymuna, there is no mention of massaging the body; they only mention the flowing of water over it. In the tradition of ^isha, she says, “When the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) took a bath after sexual engagement, he would first wash his hands. He then poured water from his right hand over to the left hand with which he washed his genitals. Then he performed a minor ablution, like he did for his regular daily prayers. Thereafter, taking up water he would insert his fingers down to the roots of his hair and pour three handfuls of water over his head. Finally, he would let water flow over his entire body”.

Ular bu poklanish (g'usl) shartlari orasida niyat kiradimi-yo'qmi, degan masalada ham ixtilof qilishgan, xuddi kichik poklanish (vudu') masalasidagi ixtilofdek. Molik, ash-Shofi'iy, Ahmad, Abu Savr, Dovud va ularning shogirdlari niyatni uning shartlaridan biri deb hisoblashgan. Abu Hanifa, uning shogirdlari va as-Savriy esa, kichik poklanishdagidek, niyat talab qilinmaydi, deb hisoblashgan.

They disagreed on whether intention is included in the conditions of this purification (gAus/), just like their disagreement in the case of the minor ablution. Malik, al-Shafi T, Ahmad, Abu Thawr, Dawud, and his c disciples held that intention is one of its conditions. Abu HanTfa, his disciples, and al- Thawri held that intention is not required, as in the case of minor ablution.

Niyat masalasidagi ixtilofning sababi xuddi oldin o'tgan kichik taharat masalasidagidek.

The reason for disagreement on the question of intention is the same as that ln the case of the minor ablution, which has preceded.

Taharat turidagi bu bobda ular madmada va istinshoq haqida ham ixtilof qilganlar, xuddi kichik taharatdagi ixtiloflari kabi, ya'ni ular vojibmi yoki yo'qmi. Fuqaholarning bir guruhi g'uslda bularning vojib emasligini aytgan, boshqa guruh esa ularni vojib deb hisoblagan. Vojib emasligini ta'kidlaganlar qatoriga Molik va ash-Shofi'iy kiradi, vojib deganlar qatoriga esa Abu Hanifa va uning shogirdlari kiradi.

They disagreed about madmada and istinshaq in this category of purification like their disagreement in the case of the minor ablution, that is whether they are obligatory. A group of jurists held that these are not obligatory in bathing, while another group considered them obligatory. Those who maintained a negation of obligation include Malik and al-ShaficT, while those who made it obligatory include Abu HanTfa and his disciples.

Ixtilof sababi shundaki, Umm Salama rivoyatining zohiriy ma'nosi Payg'ambarimiz ﷺning janobatdan (g'usldan) oldingi kichik hojat (vudu') tavsifi haqidagi rivoyatlar bilan ziddiyatga kelmoqda. Chunki Payg'ambar ﷺning g'usldan oldingi kichik vudusi tavsifi haqida naql qilingan rivoyatlarda madmada va istinshoq zikr etiladi, Umm Salama rivoyatida esa na madmada, na istinshoq zikr etilgan. Oisha va Maymuna rivoyatlarini Umm Salama rivoyatidagi tushunarsiz qismlarning sharhi hamda {Agar janobat holatida bo'lsangiz, o'zingizni poklang} oyatining tafsiri deb bilganlar og'iz chayish va burunga suv tortishni vojib deb hisoblaganlar. Ularni ziddiyat deb bilganlar esa, Oisha va Maymuna rivoyatlarining ma'nosini mustahablikka, Umm Salama rivoyatining ma'nosini esa vojiblikka yo'naltirib, ularni o'zaro muvofiqlashtirganlar.

The reason for disagreement is the conflict of the apparent meaning of the tradition of Umm Salama with the traditions that were transmitted about the description of the Prophet’s performance of minor ablution prior to his purification (bathing), because the traditions transmitted about the description of his minor ablution prior to his purification mention madmada and istinshaq, while the tradition of Umm Salama mentions neither madmada nor istinshdq. Those who considered the traditions of cA*isha and Maymuna as elaborations of the unexplained parts of the tradition of Umm Salama, and also as an explanation of the words of the Exalted, “And if ye are involved in a major hadath, purify yourselves”,59 made rinsing of the mouth, and snuffing of water into the nostrils obligatory, while those who considered ‘ them as conflicting reconciled them so as to construe the implication of the traditions of cA*isha and Maymuna for a recommendation, and the implication of the tradition of Umm Salama as an obligation.

Shu sababli, ular sochni yoyib qo'yish hukmida, ya'ni suv boshdagi ildizlariga yetishi uchun sochni bo'shatish (takhlil) ghusl turi uchun vojibmi yoki yo'qmi, degan masalada ixtilof qilishdi. Molik uni mustahab deb hisoblaydi, boshqalar esa vojib deb qarashadi. Takhlilni vojib deganlar o'z fikrini Payg'ambar ﷺ dan kelgan rivoyat bilan dalillashdi: "Har bir tuk ostida janobat (katta hadas) bor, shuning uchun terini yaxshilab tozalang va sochni ho'l qiling".

Ular bu taharat turining shartlaridan biri uzluksiz va ketma-ket bajarilishi shart yoki yo‘qligi haqida ixtilof qilishdi, kichik taharatdagi ixtilofda bo‘lganidek. Ixtilofning sababi Payg‘ambarning ﷺ amallarini farz deb tushunish kerakmi yoki mustahab deb tushunish kerakmi, degan masaladir. Payg‘ambardan ﷺ biror marta tartib va ketma-ketlik bilan bo‘lmagan holda vudu’ qilgani rivoyat qilinmagan. Bir guruh faqihlar, Payg‘ambarning ﷺ Umm Salama rivoyatidagi so‘zlari, "Boshingga uch marta suv quyishing kifoya, so‘ngra butun badaningga suv oqizasan", sababli bu taharat turi (g‘usl)da ketma-ketlik kichik taharatdagi boshga va badanning qolgan qismiga nisbatan ko‘proq ahamiyatga ega, deb hisobladilar. Leksikograflarning fikricha, "so‘ngra" ma’nosini beruvchi "summa" bog‘lovchisi ketma-ketlikni anglatadi, bu borasida ixtilof yo‘q.

They disagreed on whether a condition for this category of purification is continuous and sequential performance, as was their disagreement in the case of the minor ablution. The reason for disagreement is whether the acts of the Prophet are to be construed as obligatory or recommended. It has not been transmitted from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) that he ever performed ablution, except in an ordered and sequential manner. A group of jurists held that sequence in this category of purification (ghusl) is more pertinent than it is in the minor ablution with respect to the head and the rest of the body, because of the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) in the tradition of Umm Salama, “It is enough for you to splash over your head three handfuls of water, and then let water flow over your body”. The conjunction particle “thumma” (then) implies sequence, without dispute, according to lexicologists.