Janobatlik deb ataladigan katta najosat shaklига oid hukmlar uchta masalada qamrab olinadi.

The ahkam about the form of major ritual pollution designated as janaba are covered in three issues.

Fiqhchilar junub kishining masjidga kirishi haqida ixtilof qilganlar va uch xil fikr bildirganlar. Fiqhchilarning bir guruhi buni mutlaqo man qilgan, bu Molik va uning shogirdlarining fikridir. Ash-Shofi'iy ham kiradigan yana bir guruh masjidda turishni man qilgan, lekin uning orqali o'tayotgan kishiga ruxsat bergan. Dovud va uning shogirdlaridan iborat uchinchi guruh esa buni hammaga ruxsat etgan.

The jurists disagreed about the entry of the junub into the mosque, expressing three opinions. One group of jurists prohibited this absolutely, which is the opinion of Malik and his disciples. Another group, including al-ShaficT, prohibited staying in the mosque and permitted one who is passing through it. ^he third’group, including Dawud and his disciples, permitted this for all.

Shofiiy va Zohiriylar o‘rtasidagi ixtilofning sababi Allohning, "Ey iymon keltirganlar! Bilmaguningizcha, aytayotgan so‘zingizni anglamaguningizcha mast holingizda namozga yaqinlashmang, shuningdek, yo‘lda bo‘lgan holingizdan tashqari, to‘liq g‘usl qilmaguningizcha junub holingizda ham (namozga yaqinlashmang)", degan so‘zlarining ikki xil talqin o‘rtasida tebranishidadir.[63] Bu oyatdagi so‘zlar majoziy ma’noda bo‘lib, unga "joy" degan yashirin so‘z qo‘shilganmi, ya’ni "namoz joyiga (masjidga) yaqinlashmang" deb o‘qilishi kerakmi, va yo‘lovchi uchun berilgan istisno aynan namoz joyida turishni man qilishga taalluqlimi? Yoki oyatdagi so‘zlar qanday bo‘lsa, shundayligicha o‘qilib, yashirin so‘z qo‘shilmasligi kerakmi, ya’ni yo‘lovchi junub holatida, suvi yo‘q bo‘lsa (shu sababli tayammum qilib namoz o‘qishi mumkin bo‘lgan holatda)mi? Oyatda yashirin so‘z bor deb hisoblaganlar junubning masjid orqali o‘tishiga ruxsat berganlar, yashirin so‘z yo‘q deb hisoblaganlar esa junubning masjidda turishini man qilish uchun oyatdan hech qanday dalil topmaganlar. Junubning masjidga kirishini man qilganlar uchun esa, Payg‘ambar ﷺdan rivoyat qilingan: "Junubga ham, hayz ko‘ruvchiga ham masjidga kirish ruxsat etilmaydi", degan so‘zidan boshqa dalil bilmayman. Bu hadis muhaddislar huzurida sahih sanalmaydi. Mazkur mavzu yuzasidan hayz ko‘ruvchi ayol haqidagi fuqahoning ixtilofi junub haqidagi ixtilof bilan bir xildir.

The reason for disagreement between al-ShafVi and the Zahirites is based on the vacillation of words of the Exalted, “O ye who believe! Draw not near onto prayer when ye are drunken, till ye know that which ye utter, nor when ye are [ritually] polluted, save when journeying upon the road, till ye have bathed”,63 between two interpretations. Is the use of words metaphorical, so that an implied word “place” is to be assumed inserted, that is, to read “Draw not near unto the place of prayer (the mosque)”, and that the exemption for traveller relates to the prohibition of staying in the place of prayer, or, whether no word is to be assumed implied "and the verse is to be read as it is, where the traveller is in a state of janaba (sexual defilement), who lacks water (and can therefore perform tayammum and pray)? Those who held that a word is implied in the verse, permitted the junub to pass through the mosque, but those who did not take this to be the case did not have any evidence from the verse for prohibiting the junub from staying in . the mosque. I do not know of any evidence for those who prohibited the junub to pass through the mosque, except the literal meaning of what is related from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) that he said, “(Entry into) the mosque is not permitted to a junub nor to one menstruating.” It is a tradition that is not established according to the traditionists. The disagreement of the jurists related to one menstruating, for purposes of this topic, is the same as that for the junub.

Bir guruh faqihlar bunga ruxsat berishga qaror qilishdi, lekin ko'pchilik buni man etdi,64 va ular junubni ham vuduusiz tegishni man qilganlardir. Junub holatidagi kishi haqidagi ixtilofning sababi kichik vuduu qilmagan kishi haqidagi ixtilof sababi bilan bir xil bo'lib, u Ulug' Allohning: «Uni faqat poklanganlargina tegadi»,65 degan so'zlariga asoslangan. Oyat ma'nosidagi ixtilofni biz avval muhokama qilganmiz. Bu hayz ko'rayotgan ayolning tegishi haqidagi ixtilof bilan aynan bir xildir.

A group of jurists decided to permit this, but the majority prohibited it,64 and they are those who prohibited touching it without ablution. The reason for their disagreement (over the case of the junub) is the same as that relating to the person who has not performed the minor ablution, that is, it is based on the words of the Exalted, “Which none toucheth save the purified”.65 We have already discussed the disagreement over the meaning of the verse. It is exactly the same disagreement as that relating to touching by the menstruating woman.

Jurists differed on this question. The majority prohibited it, while a group of jurists permitted it. The reason for their disagreement lies in the possibility of different interpretations of the tradition attributed to <AIf, in which he states: “Nothing prevented the Prophet ﷺ from the recitation of the Qur’an, except janaba.” One group of jurists said that the tradition does not give rise to a hukm, since it is only the impression of the narrator. Otherwise, how could one know that the Qur’an was not to be recited because of janaba, unless he had been informed of this by the Prophet ﷺ? The majority maintain that CAIT (God be pleased with him) would not say such a thing out of his own impression or conviction, and that he said it after attaining sound knowledge.

The jurists differed about this, with the majority prohibiting it, and a group of jurists permitting it. The reason for their differences is the possibility of different interpretations of the tradition attributed to <AIf in which he states: “Nothing prevented the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) from the recitation of the Qur’an, except janaba”. One group of jurists said that the tradition does not give rise to a hukm, as it is only the impression of the narrator. Otherwise, how could one know that Qur’an was not to be recited because of janaba, unless he informed him of this? The majority maintain that CAIT (God be pleased with him) would not say such a thing out of his own impression or conviction, and he said it after attaining sound knowledge.

Bir guruh faqihlar hayz ko‘rgan ayolni junub bilan bir xil holatda deb hisobladilar, boshqa bir guruh esa ular o‘rtasida farq qilib, hayz muddatining uzunligi sababli istihsan yo‘li bilan hayz ko‘rgan ayolga ba’zi Qur’on tilovatiga ruxsat berdi. Bu Molik fikridir.

A group of jurists considered the menstruating woman in the same position as the junub, while another group made a distinction between them, permitting the menstruating woman some recitation through istihsan, because of the length of the period of her menstruation. It is Malik’s opinion.

Demak, janobat hukmlari mana shulardir.

These, then, are the ahkam of janaba.

Rahm (bachadondan) oqib chiqadigan qon turlariga oid asosiy qoidalar muhokamasi uch bo‘limda yoritiladi. Birinchisi bachadondan oqadigan qon turlari haqida. Ikkinchisi tozalik holatidan hayz holatiga o‘tishning belgilari, hayzdan tozalik davriga yoki uzoq davom etadigan hayzga o‘tishning alomatlari, shuningdek, uzoq davom etadigan hayz (sog‘lom bo‘lmagan qon ketish) dan tozalik davriga o‘tishning alomatlari haqida. Uchinchisi hayz va uzoq davom etadigan hayzning hukmlarini, ya’ni shu davrda man etilgan va majburiy bo‘lgan amallarni aniqlash haqida.

The discussion of the principles related to the types of blood flowing from the uterus is covered in three subsections. The first is about the types of blood flowing from the uterus. The second' is about the identification of indications of change from purity to menstruation, the signs denoting the transfer from menstruation to the period of purity or into extended menstruation, and of extended menstruation (unhealthy bleeding) into the period of purity. The third relates to the identification of the ahkam of menses and extended menstruation, that is, acts prohibited and acts obligatory during it.

Ushbu har bir bo'limda, ushbu bobda qamrab olingan barcha masalalar uchun qoida va tamoyillarga o'xshash masalalarni zikr qilamiz, shu bilan birga ittifoq qilingan masalalarni ham, ixtilofli masalalarni ham muhokama qilish maqsadimizga muvofiq ravishda.

In each of these subsections, we shall mention issues that are like rules and principles for all that is covered in this chapter, in accordance with our aim of discussing issues agreed upon as well as those disputed.

Faqihlar bachadondan oqadigan qon turlari uchtadir, deb ittifoq qilishgan: birinchisi — hayz qoni, u sog'lom holatda (har oyda) oqadi; ikkinchisi — hayzning muntazam oylik davridan tashqarida oqadigan qon, u kasallik holatida oqadi va Payg'ambar ﷺ ning "Bu tomirlar (kasalligidan) chiqqan qon, hayz emas" degan hadislariga ko'ra hayz qoni hisoblanmaydi; uchinchisi — tug'ishdan keyin, tug'ilgandan so'ng yuzaga keladigan nifos qoni.

The jurists agreed that the types of blood flowing from the uterus are three: menstrual blood, which flows (monthly) in a state of health; bleeding outside the regular monthly cycle of menstruation, which flows in a state of illness and is not menstrual blood according to the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “It is blood from the (ailment of the) veins and not menstruation”; and (thirdly) postnatal bleeding, which occurs after childbirth.

Ushbu qon turlarini boshqalaridan ajratib turuvchi belgilarni aniqlash hamda tozalik davrining hayz davriga aylanishi va aksincha, o'zgarishini bilish asosan odatdagi hayz muddatlari va tozalik muddatlarini bilishga tayanadi. Biz asos tarzida bo'lgan narsalarni zikr qilamiz, bu esa yetti masaladir.

The identification of the indications distinguishing some of these types of blood from the others, and of the changing of the period of purity into menstruation and vice versa is based mostly on the knowledge of the usual dates of menstruation and those of purity. We will mention those that are like principles, and these are seven issues.

Fıqh olimlari hayz (haydan) ning eng ko‘p va eng kam kunlari hamda tuhr (pokizlik) davrining eng kam kunlari haqida ixtilof qilganlar. Molikdan rivoyat qilinishicha, hayzning eng ko‘p kunlari o‘n besh kun bo‘lib, bu ash-Shofeiyning ham fikridir. Abu Hanifa esa eng ko‘p kunlar o‘n kun, deb aytgan. Molikning fikricha, hayz davrining eng kam muddati cheklanmagan: u bir marta qon oqishi bo‘lishi ham mumkin, lekin u bu kam miqdordagi oqimni taloqdagi davrlarni hisoblashda e’tiborga olmaydi. Ash-Shofeiy hayzning eng kam muddati bir kun va bir kecha, deb aytgan. Abu Hanifa esa eng kam muddat uch kun, deb aytgan.

The jurists disagreed about the maximum and minimum number of days of menstruation and the minimum number of days of the period of purity. It is related’ from Malik that the maximum number of days for menstruation is fifteen, which is also al-ShaficFs opinion. Abu HanTfa said that the maximum number of days is ten. There is no minimum limit for the period of menstruation according to Malik, who said that it could be a single flow of blood, though he does not take this minor discharge into account in calculating the periods in divorce. Al-ShafiT said that the minimum period of menstruation is one day and a night. Abu HanTfa said that the minimum is three days.

Rivoyatlarda Molik (Malik) haqida minimal tozalik davri borasida turlicha ma'lumotlar bor. Uning ta'biricha, bu davr o'n kun, boshqa rivoyatga ko'ra sakkiz kun, yana boshqasiga ko'ra o'n besh kun bo'lib, bu fikrga uning Bag'dodlik shogirdlari moyil edi. Bu fikr al-Shofi'iy (al-Shafi'i) va Abu Hanifa tomonidan ham bildirilgan. Ba'zi faqihlar bu davrni o'n yetti kun deb aytganlar, bu, menimcha, ijmo'ga ko'ra eng ko'p muddatdir. Ularning nazarida tozalik davrining maksimal chegarasi belgilanmagan. Mazkur masala bo'yicha faqihlarning qarashlari shulardir. Hayz uchun minimal chegara belgilaganlar, bu muddatdan kam qon oqishini istihoza (noxush qon ketish) toifasiga kiritganlar. Hayz uchun minimal chegara belgilamaganlar esa, hatto bir martalik oqish ham hayz hisoblanishi kerak, deb hisoblaganlar. Hayz uchun maksimal chegara belgilaganlarga kelsak, bu chegaradan oshgan qon oqishi istihozadir.

Narrations from Malik differed about the minimum period of purity. It is related from him that it is ten days, it is related that it is eight days, and it is related that it is fifteen days, which was the inclination of his Baghdadi disciples. This is also the opinion of al-Shafi T and Abu Harnfa. Some jurists c said that this period is seventeen days, which is the maximum according to consensus, as far as I think. There is no limit set for the maximum period of purity in their view. These are the views of the jurists regarding this subject. Those who have a minimum limit for menstruation regarded discharge for less than this minimum to be of the category of istihada (unhealthy bleeding). Those who do not have a minimum fixed for menstruation, held that even a single flow must amount to menstruation. For those who have a maximum limit for menstruation, bleeding in excess of this limit is istihada.

Malik and his companions held that a woman whose bleeding is irregular, bleeding for a day or two and then becoming pure for the next day or two, should add up the number of days on which she had a flow of blood, disregarding the days of purity. She should perform ghusl on each day she finds herself pure and pray, because even though she is not certain, it may be a period of purity. If the days of bleeding have added up to fifteen, she is a mustahada from then on. This opinion was also upheld by al-Shafi'i. It is also related from Malik that she should add up her days of bleeding and measure them against her usual menstrual period. When these are equal, she should add another three days for the flow to cease; otherwise, she is a mustahada.

Malik and his disciples held that a woman whose bleeding is sporadic, bleeding for a day or two and becoming pure for the next day or two, is to add up the number of days for which she had a flow of blood, ignoring the days of purity. She is to bathe each day that she finds herself to be pure and pray, because even though she is not sure, it may be a period of purity. If the days of deeding have added up to fifteen, she is a mustahada from then on. This °Pmion was also upheld by al-Shafi i. It is also related from Malik that she is c to add up her days of bleeding and measure them against her usual menstrual P^nod. When these are equal she is to add another three days for the flow to Cease, otherwise she is a mustahada.

Hayz kunlarini qon oqmaydigan kunlardan iborat deb hisoblab, ularni cто'mtdan chiqarib tashlash tushunarsiz, chunki ular yo pokizalik kunlari, yo hayz kunlaridir. Agar ular hayz kunlari bo'lsa, ularni qon ko'rish kunlariga qo'shish zarur bo'ladi; agar ular pokizalik kunlari bo'lsa, unda qolgan qon ko'rish kunlarini qo'shishning hojati yo'q, chunki ular pokizalik kunlari bilan ajratilgan bo'ladi. Malikning (rahmatullohi alayhning) qoidalariga muvofiq keladigani shudir: bu kunlar hayz kunlari bo'lib, pokizalik kunlari emas, chunki uning nazarida pokizalikning eng kam muddati chegaralangan va u bir-ikki kundan ortiqdir. Buni o'ylab ko'ring, Alloh xohlasa, aniq bo'ladi.

Considering the days in which there is no flow of blood as excluded from the c °tmt is incomprehensible, for they are either days of purity or of menstruation. If they are days of menstruation, it is necessary that they be added to the days of bleeding, but if they are the days of purity, then, there is no need to add up the (remaining) days of bleeding, since they are separated by the days of purity. What conforms with his (Malik’s) principles is that these are days of menses and not of purity, as the minimum period for purity is limited in his view, and it is more than a day or two. Think over this, and it will be evident, God willing.

Haqiqatda, hayz va nifos qoni oqadi, so'ng bir yoki ikki kun to'xtaydi, hayz yoki nifos muddati tugaguncha yana oqadi, xuddi u kunda bir yoki ikki soat oqib, keyin to'xtashi mumkin bo'lganidek.

Ular tug'ruqdan keyingi qon ketishning eng ko'p va eng kam muddati haqida ixtilof qilishdi. Molik uning eng kam chegarasi yo'q, deb hisobladi; bu fikrni ash-Shofi'iy ham qo'llab-quvvatladi. Abu Hanifa va bir guruh faqihlar esa uni chegaralangan deb hisobladilar. U o'n besh kun, deb aytdi, shogirdi Abu Yusuf esa o'n bir kun, deb aytdi. Al-Hasan al-Basriy uni yigirma kun etib belgiladi. Eng ko'p muddatga kelsak, Molik bir paytlar u oltmish kun, deb aytgan, keyinchalik bu fikridan qaytib, ayollardan so'ralishi kerak, degan. Lekin uning shogirdlari birinchi fikrda qat'iy turdilar. Bu ash-Shofi'iyning ham fikri edi. Sahobalar orasidagi ko'pchilik faqihlar uning qirq kun ekanini aytdilar, bu fikrni Abu Hanifa ham qo'llab-quvvatladi. Ammo aytilishicha, xuddi shunday ahvoldagi ayollarning muddatlari hisobga olinishi kerak, agar u shu muddatdan oshsa, u mustahoda hisoblanadi. Ba'zi faqihlar o'g'il yoki qiz farzand tug'ilishi o'rtasida farq qildilar: ular o'g'il bola uchun o'ttiz kun, qiz bola uchun esa qirq kun, dedilar.

They disagreed about the .maximum and minimum periods of postnatal bleeding. Malik held that there is no minimum limit for it, which was also upheld by al-Shafi i, Abu Hanlfa c and a group of jurists maintained that it is limited. He said that it is fifteen days, while Abu Yusuf, his disciple, said that it is eleven days. Al-Hasan al-Basri fixed it at twenty days. As to the maximum period, Malik once said that it is sixty days, retracting from it later and saying that women should be asked about it, but his disciples stood firm on the first opinion. This was also al-ShaficFs opinion. The majority of the jurists from among the Companions maintained that it is forty days, which was upheld by Abu Hanlfa. It is said, however, that the periods of women in the same condition should be taken into account, and if she goes beyond that she is a mustahada. Some jurists made a distinction between the birth of a male or female child, saying that for the male there are thirty days, for the female forty.

Ixtilofning sababi tajribaga tayanishning qiyinligi bo'lib, bu ayollar o'rtasidagi farqlar tufayli yuzaga keladi, hamda amal qilish mumkin bo'lgan ishonchli dalil yo'qligi sababli, xuddi hayz va tuhurlik kunlari haqidagi ixtiloflarida bo'lganidek.

The reason for disagreement is the difficulty in relying upon experience, due to differences in women, and because there is no authoritative source that can be acted upon, as is the case in their disagreement about the days of menses and purity.

Fuqaho, ham avvalgi, ham keyingi, homiladagi ayolning ko'rgan qoni hayz yoki istihoza hisoblanadimi, degan masalada ixtilof qilganlar. Molik, ash-Shofi'iy o'zining ishonchliroq qarashida va boshqa fuqaho homilador ayolning hayz ko'rishi mumkin, deb aytdilar. Abu Hanifa, Ahmad, ath-Thavriy va boshqalar esa homilador ayol hayz ko'rmaydi, undan chiqqan qon kasallik qonidir, deydilar; ammo u tug'ish og'rig'ini tortayotgan bo'lsa, bunda ular kelishdilarki, bu nifos qoni hisoblanadi va uning hukmi namoz va boshqa tegishli ahkomlarni man etish jihatidan hayz ko'ruvchi ayolning hukmidir. Molik va uning shogirdlaridan hayz ko'ruvchi homilador ayol, qoni uzoq davom etgan holatda, odatdagi hayz hukmining istihoza hukmiga o'tishi haqida ziddiyatli rivoyatlar keltirilgan. Bir qarash bo'yicha uning hukmi hayz ko'ruvchi ayolniki bo'ladi, ya'ni u hayz uchun belgilangan eng ko'p kunlar davomida qon ko'radi, so'ngra mustahoza bo'ladi yoki odatdagi hayz muddatiga uch kun qo'shadi, agar jami o'n besh kundan oshmasa. Yana aytilishicha, u hayz uchun eng ko'p muddatning ikki barobari davomida odatdagi hayz ko'ruvchi ayol bo'lib qoladi. Shuningdek, aytilishicha, u homiladorlik davrida o'tgan oylar soniga ko'paytma sifatida hayzning eng ko'p muddatini ikki baravar qiladi; shunday qilib, ikkinchi oyda hayzning eng ko'p kunlarini ikki marta, uchinchi oyda uch marta, to'rtinchi oyda to'rt marta ikki baravar qiladi va oylar ortgani sari shu tartibda davom etadi.

The jurists, both early and later, disagreed whether the blood seen by a pregnant woman is to be deemed as hayd or istihada. Malik, al-Shafi T, in his c more reliable opinion, and other jurists held that a pregnant woman can menstruate. Abu HanTfa, Ahmad, al-Thawri, and others said that the pregnant woman does not menstruate, and the blood discharged from her is that of illness, unless she is having labour pains, in which case they agreed that it is t0 be deemed as postnatal bleeding and her hukm is the hukm of a menstruating woman with respect to the prohibition of prayers and other related ahkdm- From Malik and his disciples there are conflicting narrations about a menstruating pregnant woman with extended bleeding as to the shifting of the hukm of normal menstruation to that of istihada. One opinion is that her hukm is that of a menstruating woman, that is, she either bleeds for the maximum number of days for menstruation and then becomes a mustahada, or she adds three days to her usual menstrual course, as long as the total does not exceed fifteen days. It is further said that she remains a normally menstruating woman for a period double that of the maximum for menstruation. It is also said that she doubles the maximum period of menstruation as a multiple of the month past in the gestation period; thus, in the second month she doubles the maximum number of days of menstruation twice, thrice in the third month, four times in the fourth, and so on as the months increase.

Ularning bu masalada ixtilof qilishlarining sababi tajribaga tayanishning qiyinligi va masalaning noaniqligidadir. Ba'zan homilador ayol ko'rgan qon hayz qonidir — bu juda kuchli ayol holatida va homila kichik bo'lgan hollarda yuz beradi, shuningdek, bu egizak homiladorlik bo'lishi mumkin, xuddi Hippokrat va Galen hamda boshqa tabiblardan rivoyat qilinganidek. Ba'zan u ko'rgan qon homilaning zaifligi tufayli bo'lishi mumkin; uning kasalligi esa, odatda, ayolning nozikligi va kasalligiga bog'liq bo'ladi. Bunday holatda bu nuqson va kasallik qonidir, odatda esa nuqsondan kelgan qon bo'ladi.

Fuqaho ornek sariq va jigarrang oqindi (leykoreya) haqida, u hayz hisoblanadimi yoki yo'qmi, ixtilof qilishgan. Bir guruh fuqaho hayz kunlarida bu hayz hisoblanadi, deb ko'rsatgan; bu ash-Shofi'iy va Abu Hanifaning fikri bo'lib, Molikdan ham shunday rivoyat qilinadi. "al-Mudavvana" kitobida undan rivoyat qilinishicha, sariq va jigarrang oqindilar hayz kunlarida ham, boshqa kunlarda ham, ular bilan birga qon oqishidan qat'i nazar, hayz deb hisoblanadi. Dovud va Abu Yusuf esa, sariq va jigarrang oqindilar qon bilan birga kelmasa, hayz emas, deyishgan.

The jurists disagreed about the yellow and brownish discharge (leucorrhoea) whether it amounts to menstruation. A group of jurists held that it is menstruation during the days of menstruation, which was the opinion of al- Shafi<l and Abu HanTfa, and the same is related from Malik. In al- Mudawwana it is related from him that the yellow and brown discharges are to be considered as menstruation during the menstrual days as well as in others, irrespective of the flow of blood with it. Dawud and Abu Yusuf said that the yellow and brown discharges are not menstruation, unless accompanied by blood.

Ularning ixtilofining sababi Umm Atiyya rivoyatining zohiriy ma'nosi bilanOisha rivoyatining zohiriy ma'nosi o'rtasidagi ziddiyatdir. Umm Atiyyadan rivoyat qilinadi, u shunday degan: "G'usldan keyingi sariq va qo'ng'ir oqmalarga biz ahamiyat bermas edik". Oishadan rivoyat qilinadi, ayollar unga ichiga paxta solingan burklangan qog'oz yuborib, undagi hayz qonidan qolgan sariq va qo'ng'ir oqma haqida, namoz borasida so'raganlar. U shunday javob bergan: "Oq shilimshiq [hayzning tugashi va poklikning boshlanishini bildiruvchi] oq ko'rinmaguncha shoshilmanglar". Oishaning rivoyatini afzal ko'rganlar sariq va qo'ng'ir oqmalarni hayz deb hisoblaganlar, ular hayz kunlarida topilganmi yoki boshqa vaqtdami, qon bilan birgami yoki qonsiz bo'lganmi, chunki bir narsaning hukmi o'z tarkibiy qismlariga nisbatan ichida farq qila olmaydi. Ikki rivoyatni moslashtirishni istaganlar esa, Umm Atiyya rivoyati qon ketish to'xtagandan keyingi holatga, Oisha rivoyati esa undan darhol keyingi vaqtga taalluqli, deganlar. Yoki Oisha rivoyati hayz davriga, Umm Atiyya rivoyati esa hayzdan xoli kunlarga taalluqli, deganlar.

The reason for their disagreement is the conflict of the apparent meaning of Ae tradition of Umm Atiyya with that c of cA5isha. It is related from Umm ( Atiyya that she said, “We did not attach significance to the yellow and brown discharge after bathing”. It is related from cA5isha “that the women used to Se nd her a folded scroll containing cotton on which there was the yellow and brown discharge from menstrual blood, asking her about prayers”. She said, l ^o not hasten things till you see that the white mucus [which denotes the en d of menstruation and the beginning of purity] is white”. Those who Preferred ‘A’isha’s tradition deemed the yellow and brown discharges as menstruation, whether it was found in the days of menstruation or otherwise, with blood or without it, because the hukm of a single thing cannot differ within itself (from its constituents). Those who desired to reconcile the two traditions said that the tradition of Umm cAtiyya relates to the case after the cessation of bleeding, while ‘Aisha’s tradition relates to the time immediately following it, or that the tradition of ‘A^sha relates to the period of menstruation, and that of Umm cAtiyya relates to days free from menstruation.

Faqihlar tozalanishning belgilari haqida ixtilof qilganlar. Bir guruh faqihlar tozalanishning belgisi shilliq suyuqlikning quruqlashganini ko'rish, deganlar. Bu Molikning shogirdlari orasidagi Ibn Habibning fikri edi. Bu hukm ayolning odati oq shilliqni ko'rish bo'lsinmi yoki quruqlashib tozalanishga erishish bo'lsinmi, farqi yo'q. Ushbu ikkisidan qaysi birini ko'rsa, o'sha paytda u pok bo'ladi. Boshqa bir guruh faqihlar farq qilib, agar ayol oq suyuqlikni ko'rishga odatlangan bo'lsa, uni haqiqatan ko'rmaguncha pok bo'lmaydi, lekin agar odatda bunday suyuqlik chiqmasa, u quruqlashganda tozalanishga erishadi, deganlar. Bu fikr al-Mudawwanada Molikdan rivoyat qilinadi. Ularning ixtilofining sababi shundaki, ba'zilari odatdagi holatni hisobga olgan, boshqalari esa faqat qon to'xtashini nazarda tutgan. Yana shunday ham deyiladi: quruqlashib tozalanishga odatlangan ayol oq moddani ko'rish orqali ham pok bo'lishi mumkin, lekin oq moddani ko'rishga odatlangan ayol faqat quruqlashish bilan pok bo'lmaydi. Buning aksi ham aytiladi. Bularning barchasi Molikning shogirdlaridan naql qilinadi.

The jurists disagreed about the indications of purity. One group of jurists said that the indication of purity is when seeing the mucus becoming dry, which was the opinion of Ibn Habib from among the disciples of Malik; this is so whether it is the practice of the woman to see the white mucus or reach purity by becoming dry. She becomes pure whichever one of these she sees. Another group of jurists made the distinction that if a woman is accustomed to seeing the white liquid, she does not become pure unless she actually sees it, but if she does not habitually get it, then her purity is attainedwhen she becomes dry. This is related in al-Mudawwana from Malik. The reason for their disagreement is that some of them took into account the regular habit, while others considered the cessation of blood alone. It is also said that the one who is accustomed to reaching purity by becoming dry may reach purity by seeing the white matter, but the woman accustomed to seeing the white matter does not become pure by merely becoming dry. The opposite is also maintained, and all this is from Malik’s disciples.

Fakihlar mustahada ayolning, ya'ni qoni doimiy ravishda davom etadigan ayolning holati haqida ixtilof qilganlar: uning hayz ko'rish holatiga qachon o'tishi haqida, xuddi hayzi odatdagidek bo'lgan ayolning qoni cho'zilib ketganda qachon mustahadaga aylanishi haqida ixtilof qilganlari kabi. Bu masala avval bayon etilgan. Molik aytdiki, qoni doimiy oqayotgan ayolning hukmi toza (poklik) holatidagi ayolning hukmi bilan bir xil bo'ladi, to qonning tavsifi hayz qoniniki bo'lib o'zgarguncha. Bu, noxush qon tozalik davrining eng kam muddatidan oshib ketganda sodir bo'ladi. Shunda uni odatdagidek hayz ko'radigan deb hisoblash kerak bo'ladi, ya'ni ushbu ikki narsa birgalikda ro'y berganda: qonning o'zgarishi va cho'zilgan qon oqishida tozalik davri bo'lishi mumkin bo'lgan kunlarning o'tishi. Aks holda u mustahada hisoblanadi.

The jurists disagreed about a mustahada—if her bleeding continues indefinitely—as to when she will be considered as menstruating normally, just as they disagreed about a woman with normal menstruation when her bleeding is extended, as to when she becomes a mustahdda, the discussion of which has preceded. Malik said that the hukm of the continuously bleeding woman is the same as the woman in purity, till the description of the blood changes to .that of menstruation. This happens when the unhealthy bleeding continues beyond the minimum period of purity, and it is then that she is to be considered as menstruating normally, that is, when these two things come to pass together, the change in the blood and the passage of days in extended bleeding that can possibly be a period of purity, otherwise she is a mustahada.

Abu Hanifa aytadiki, agar ayol ilgari hayz ko'rgan bo'lsa, u o'zining odatdagi hayz kunlarini hisobga oladi; agar u endigina hayz ko'ra boshlagan bo'lsa, u hayzning eng ko'p muddati bo'lgan o'n kunni o'tkazadi. Ash-Shofi'iy esa aytadiki, u hayzning farqlovchi alomatlarini ajratishga harakat qilishi kerak, lekin agar ilgari hayz tajribasi bo'lgan bo'lsa, shu tajribaga amal qilishi kerak. Agar ikkala omil ham unga tegishli bo'lsa, u holda Ash-Shofi'iydan ikki xil qarash bor: birinchisi, farqlovchi alomatlarga amal qilish kerak; ikkinchisi, odatdagi hayz tartibiga amal qilish kerak.

Abu HanTfa said that she takes into account her normal days of menstruation, if she has experienced menstruation before, but if she has just begun menstruating, she passes the maximum period of menstruation, which is ten in his view. Al-ShafiT said that she should try to distinguish between the distinctive signs, but if she has had menstrual experience earlier, she should follow that experience. If both factors are relevant to her, then there are two opinions from him. First, that she should follow the distinguishing signs, and second that she should follow her regular course.

Ularning ixtilofining sababi shundaki, bu masalada ikkita bir-biriga zid rivoyat mavjud. Birinchisi, Fotima bint Abu Hubayshning ‘Oisha (r.a.) dan rivoyat qilingan hadisi: «Payg‘ambar ﷺ uni davomli qon ketishi bo‘lganida, bu kasallikdan oldin hayz ko‘rgan kunlari miqdorida namozni tark etishga, so‘ngra g‘usl qilib namoz o‘qishga buyurdilar». Imom Molik tomonidan rivoyat qilingan, yuqorida o‘tgan Ummu Salama rivoyati ham xuddi shu ma’noni bildiradi. Ikkinchi rivoyat esa Abu Dovud tomonidan Fotima bint Abu Hubayshdan naql qilingan: u doimiy istihoza qoni bilan kasallangan edi, Allohning Elchisi ﷺ unga shunday dedilar: «Hayz qoni qora bo‘ladi va uni tanish mumkin. Agar qon shunday bo‘lsa, namozni tark et, agar boshqacha bo‘lsa, vuzu qilib namoz o‘qi, chunki bu tomirdan chiqqan qon». Bu rivoyatni Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm sahih deb hukm qilgan.

Bu bo'limning asosi Ulug' Allohning so'zlaridir: "Ular sendan hayz haqida so'raydilar. Ayt: U bir kasallikdir, shuning uchun hayz paytida ayollardan chetda bo'linglar va ular poklanmaguncha ularga yaqinlashmanglar. Ular o'zlarini poklagach, Alloh sizlarga buyurgan tarzda ularga yaqinlashinglar"[66] va shu bilan bog'liq, biz keltiradigan hadislar ham.

The basis for this section are the words of the Exalted, “They question thee (0 Muhammad) concerning menstruation. Say: It is an illness, so let women alone at such times and go not in unto them till they are cleansed. And when they have purified themselves, then go in unto them as Allah has enjoined upon you”,66 and also the traditions pertaining to this, which we will be quoting.

Musulmon fuqahолари hayz (hayz ko'rish) to'rt narsani man qilishida ittifoq qilganlar. Birinchidan, kundalik namozni ado etish va uning farzligi: hayz ko'ruvchi ayol namozni qazo sifatida ado etishi vojib emas, ro'zadan farqli o'laroq, u qazo qilinishi kerak. Ikkinchidan, ro'zani tutishni man qiladi, lekin uning keyinroq qazo qilinishini man qilmaydi (qazo). Bu sobit hadisga asoslanadi, unda Oisha aytgan: "Bizga hayz sababli tutilmagan ro'zalarni qazo qilish buyurilgan edi, lekin bizga namozni qazo qilish buyurilmagan edi". Xavorijlarning bir guruhi esa namozni qazo qilish vojib deb hisoblagan. Uchinchidan, menimcha, tavof: Oisha rivoyat qilgan hadisga ko'ra, hayz ko'rgan vaqtida Allohning Elchisi unga Baytni tavof qilishdan tashqari, hojilar qiladigan barcha amallarni qilishni buyurgan. To'rtinchidan, jinsiy aloqa, chunki Ulug' Alloh aytgan: "Shuning uchun hayz vaqtida ayollardan chetda bo'linglar va to'g'ri poklanmagunlaricha ularga yaqinlashmanglar".67

The Muslim jurists agreed that menstruation prohibits four things. First, the act of the daily prayer and its obligation, that is, it is not obligatory for the menstruating woman to perform the prayer as qadd* (compensatory’ performance), unlike fasting (which has to be made up). Second, it prohibits the act of fasting, but not its delayed performance (qad&). This is based on an established tradition from ^’isha, who said, “We were ordered to make up the days of fasting (which we missed on account of menstruation), but we were not ordered to perform compensatory prayers”. A group of the Kharijites maintained that compensatory performance of prayer is obligatory. The third, in my reckoning, is circumambulation (tawdj) due to cA>isha’s tradition when the Messenger of Allah ordered her to do all that the pilgrims do except circumambulation of the House (as she was menstruating then). The fourth is coition due to the words of the Exalted, “So let women alone at such times and go not in unto them till they are cleansed”.67

Ular bir qancha masalalarda hukmlar (ahkom) haqida ixtilof qilganlar, biz ularning eng keng tarqalganlarini zikr qilamiz./Bular beshta.

Fikh olimlari hayz ko'rayotgan ayol bilan birga bo'lish va ruxsat etilgan ishlar haqida ixtilof qilganlar. Molik, ash-Shofi'iy va Abu Hanifa erkakning ayolning bel qismidan yuqorisi (izor ustidan) bilan muomala qilishi mumkinligini aytganlar. Sufyon as-Savriy va Dovud az-Zohiriy esa erkakka faqat qon chiqadigan joydan saqlanishi vojib ekanligini aytganlar.

The jurists disagreed about cohabitation with the menstruating woman and about the acts that are permissible. Malik, al-ShaficI, and Abu HanTfa said that he can access the area above the waist (wrapper). Sufyan al-ThawrT and Dawud al-ZahirT said that it is obligatory upon him to avoid only the outlet of blood.

Ularning ixtilof qilishlarining sababi shu masala bo'yicha rivoyat qilingan hadislarning zohiriy ma'nosi bilan hayz oyati (hayd)ning ehtimolli ta'willari o'rtasidagi ziddiyatdir. Oisha, Maymuna va Ummu Salamadan ishonchli hadislarda aytilishicha, Payg'ambar ﷺ ulardan biri hayzli bo'lganida, unga bel o'rovchi matoni bog'lashni buyurar, so'ng u bilan birga yotar edi. Shuningdek, Sobit ibn Qays rivoyatida Payg'ambar ﷺ shunday degan: "Hayzli ayol bilan hamma narsani qiling, faqat jinsiy aloqadan tashqari." Abu Dovud Oishadan rivoyat qiladi: Allohning Elchisi ﷺ hayzli bo'lgan vaqtida unga: "Sonlaringizni oching", dedi. U shunday qildi, Payg'ambar ﷺ yuzini va ko'kragini uning sonlariga qo'ydi. Sovuq uni og'ritgani uchun u (Payg'ambar ﷺ) isinguncha men unga suyanib turdim.

The reason for their disagreement is the conflict of the apparent meaning of the traditions laid down on this issue with the likely interpretations of the verse of menstruation (hayd). It is stated in authentic traditions from <A isha, > Maymuna, and Umm Salama that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), when one of them was menstruating, would order her to tie a waist-wrapper around her and then he would lie down with her. It is also related in the tradition of Thabit ibn Qays from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) that he said, “Do everything with the menstruating woman, except coition”. Abu Dawud has related from cAJisha that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said to her, when s he was menstruating, “Uncover your thighs.” She said: “I did so, and he placed his cheek and his chest on my thighs. I leaned upon him till he was Wa nn, for the cold had given him pains”.

Hayz oyatidagi Allohning, "Shas, hayz vaqtida ayollardan chetda bo'linglar va ular poklanmagunlaricha ularga yaqinlashmanglar", degan so'zlari, umumiy ma'nosiga ko'ra tafsir qilinishi va dalil bilan cheklangan narsalar bundan mustasno, hamda "Ayting: U ozor (kasallik)dir", degan so'zlariga asoslanib, xususiy maqsadga yo'naltirilgan umumiy ma'no qilishi o'rtasida tebranadi, chunki ozor faqat qon chiqadigan joy bilan cheklanadi. Oyatni umumiy ma'nosida talqin qilganlar, ya'ni dalil bilan cheklangan holda tushungan kishilar, Sunnatdagi dalilga ko'ra bel o'ramidan yuqoridagi narsalar bilan aloqani ruxsat etdilar, chunki Kitobning Sunnat bilan cheklanishi usul ulamolariga yaxshi ma'lum. Ma'nosi xususiy maqsadga yo'naltirilgan umumiy bo'lganlar esa bu oyatni bel o'ramidan pastdagi narsalarni taqiqlovchi rivoyatlardan ustun qo'ydilar, bel o'ramidan pastdagi narsalarni taqiqlovchi rivoyatlarga zid keluvchi rivoyatlarga tayanib.

Ular ayol (xotin yoki cho'ri) bilan, qonning to'xtagan paytidan to u g'usl qilguniga qadar bo'lgan oraliqda, birga bo'lish masalasida ixtilof qilishgan. Molik, ash-Shofi'iy va ko'pchilik ulamo buni g'usl qilguncha joiz emas, deb hisoblashgan. Abu Hanifa va uning shogirdlari esa, agar ayol hayzning eng uzun muddati, ya'ni ularning fikricha o'n kundan ko'proq vaqt pok bo'lsa, bunga ruxsat beriladi, deb hisoblashgan. al-Avzo'iy esa, agar ayol shar'mgohini suv bilan yuvgan bo'lsa, u bilan birga bo'lish joiz bo'ladi, ya'ni har bir hayz ko'radigan ayol o'zini poklagach (qon to'xtagandan keyin) hadasdan xalos bo'ladi, deb hisoblagan. Bu fikr Abu Muhammad ibn Hazmning ham qarashi bo'lgan.

They disagreed about cohabiting with a woman (wife or slave girl) during the interval between the moment of cessation of blood and the time when she takes a bath. Malik, al-ShafiT, and the majority held that this is not permitted till she has a bath. Abu HanTfa and his disciples held that this is permitted if she has been pure beyond the maximum period of menstruation, which according to him is ten days. Al-AwzacT held that if she has washed her private parts with water, cohabiting with her is permitted, that is, each menstruating woman becomes free from hadath once she purifies herself (after the cessation of bleeding). This was also Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm’s opinion.

Ixtilof ularning sababi Allohning Ulug‘ va Oliy so‘zlaridagi quyidagi oyatning mumkin bo‘lgan ma’nolariga asoslangan: «Ular poklanganlarida, Alloh sizlarga buyurgan tarzda ularning oldiga boringlar»,68 ya’ni bu poklanish hayz qonining to‘xtashi bilan bo‘ladimi yoki suv bilan poklanishmi. Agar poklanish suv bilan bo‘lsa, bu butun tanani poklashni nazarda tutadimi yoki faqat sharmgoh a’zolarini poklashnimi? «Poklanish» so‘zi arablarning tilida va fiqhiy-texnik ma’noda ushbu uch ma’noni bildiradigan ko‘p ma’noli so‘z sifatida qo‘llanadi.

The reason for their disagreement is based upon the possible interpretations of the words of the Exalted, “And when they have purified themselves, then go in unto them as Allah has enjoined upon you”,68 whether the implication is purification by the termination of menstruation or purification with water. Further, if the purification is with water, does it imply purification of the entire body or purification of the private parts? “Purification” in the usage of the Arabs and in the technical legal meaning is an equivocal word used f°r these three meanings.

Ko'pchilik o'z qarashini shu asosda afzal ko'rdi: "tafa'ala" vazni mukallafning o'z harakatiga nisbatan qo'llanadi, boshqalarning harakatiga emas. Shunga ko'ra, Allohning "fa'idhti tatahharna" (ya'ni "poklanganda") so'zi suv bilan yuvinish ma'nosini, hayz to'xtashidan kelib chiqadigan poklik ma'nosidan ko'ra, aniqroq bildiradi. Zohiriy ma'noga amal qilish vojib, faqat dalil unga zid bo'lsa, bundan chiqiladi. Abu Hanifa esa bu qarashni rad etib, Allohning "hatta yathurna" oyatidagi "yafulna" vaznidagi so'z hayz to'xtashidan kelib chiqadigan poklik ma'nosida suv bilan poklanishdan kuchliroq ekanini aytdi. Ko'rib turganingizdek, masala ehtimollik masalasidir. Allohning "hatta yathurna" (ya'ni "poklanmaguncha") so'zidan bu uch ma'nodan birini tushungan kishilar, Allohning "fa'idha tatahharna fa'tuhunna" (ya'ni "poklanganlarida, Alloh sizga buyurganidek ularga yaqinlashinglar") oyatidagi shu ildizdan yasalgan boshqa so'zdan ham shu ma'noni chiqarishlari kerak. Chunki bir oyatda ikki xil ma'noni, ya'ni "yathurna" so'zidan qon to'xtashini va "tatahharna" so'zidan suv bilan to'liq yuvinishni, Molikiylar Molik tarafida bahslashganda izohlaganidek, joylashtirish mumkin emas yoki juda qiyin. Arablarning odati shunday emas: "U uyga kirmaguncha unga bir dirham bermang, u masjidga kirganda unga bir dirham bering" demaydilar, balki "U uyga kirmaguncha unga bir dirham bermang, u uyga kirganda unga bir dirham bering" deydilar, chunki ikkinchi jumla birinchi jumlada mavjud ma'noni ta'kidlaydi. Ayatning ma'nosini tushuntirishda shunday deganlar: Yuce Zot "7:7/ ular poklanadilar" degan so'zlarni hayz qonining to'xtashi ma'nosida, "Va ular o'zlarini poklaganlarida" degan so'zni esa suv bilan poklanish ma'nosida tushungan kishilar xuddi: "Falonchiga, u uyga kirmaguncha bir dirham bermang, u masjidga kirganda esa unga bir dirham bering", deyayotgan kishining holatidadir. Arablar tilida bu ma'no tushunilmaydi, faqat so'z yashirin holda bo'lib, o'qilishi shunday bo'lsa: "Qachonki ular (qon to'xtashi bilan) poklansalar va (to'liq yuvinish bilan) o'zlarini poklasalar, Alloh sizga buyurganidek ularning oldiga boringlar". Ammo bu uzoqdan olingan taxmin bo'lib, buni da'vo qilgan kishi uchun hech qanday dalil yo'q, faqat u "yuvinish" so'zidagi aniq ma'no dalil bo'ladi, desa boshqa gap. Lekin bu ohangda yashirin so'z bor degan taxminga nisbatan ancha kuchli va aniqroq ehtimol bilan qarshi turiladi, chunki yashirin so'z taxmin qilish majoziy ma'noga olib boradi, matnni o'z haqiqiy ma'nosida tushunish esa uni majoziy talqin qilishdan afzalroqdir.

Faqihlar hayz ko‘rayotgan ayoli bilan jinsiy aloqada bo‘lgan erkak haqida ixtilof qilganlar. Molik, ash-Shofi‘iy va Abu Hanifa, u Allohdan mag‘firat so‘rashi kerak va hech narsa uchun javobgar emas, dedilar. Ahmad ibn Hanbal esa, u (qo‘shimcha ravishda) bir dinor yoki yarim dinor sadaqa (kafforat) berishi kerak, dedi. Hadisshunoslarning bir guruhi esa, agar u ayolning qon ketayotgan paytida jinsiy aloqa qilsa, bir dinor to‘lashi kerak, ammo qon to‘xtagandan keyin unga yaqinlashsa, yarim dinor to‘lashi kerak, dedi.

The jurist disagreed about the man who has intercourse with his wife when she is menstruating. Malik, al-ShaficT, and Abu HanTfa said that he should seek Allah’s forgiveness and is not liable for anything. Ahmad ibn Hanbal said that he should (in addition) give one or one-half dinar as charity (atonement). A group of the traditionists said that if he has intercourse while she was bleeding, he would owe one dinar,, but if he cohabits with her after the bleeding has ceased he would owe one-half dinar.

Ularning bu masalada ixtilof qilishlarining sababi, tegishli rivoyatlarning sahihligi yoki zaifligi haqidagi tortishuvlariga asoslangan. Ibn Abbosdan rivoyat qilinadi: Payg'ambar ﷺ dan, hayz ko'rgan xotini bilan qovushgan kishi bir dinor sadaqa berishi kerak, deyilgan. Shuningdek, undan rivoyat qilinadiki, u yarim dinor berishi kerak. Ibn Abbosning boshqa bir rivoyatida aytilishicha, agar u xotini qon ko'rayotgan paytda qovushsa, bir dinor javobgar bo'ladi, lekin qon to'xtagandan keyin qovushsa, yarim dinor javobgar bo'ladi. Shu rivoyatning o'zida, sadaqa sifatida dinorning ikki beshdan bir qismini berishi kerak, degan gap ham bor, bu al-Avzoiyning fikri edi.

The reason for their disagreement over this is based on their dispute about the authenticity of the relevant traditions, or their weakness. It is related from Ibn Abbas c from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) about the person who cohabits with his wife when she is menstruating that he should give one dinar as charity. It is also related from him that he should give one- half dinar. Another version of this tradition of Ibn cAbbas states that if he cohabits while she is bleeding he would be liable for one dinar, but if he cohabits after the flow has ceased he is liable for one-half dmdr. In the same tradition it is related that he should give two-fifths of a dinar as charity, which was al-AwzaTs opinion.

Ushbu rivoyatlar sahih bo'lgan kishilar ularga amal qilganlar, bu rivoyatlarning birortasi ham sahih bo'lmagan kishilar esa — ular ko'pchilikdir — hukmni dalil bilan isbotlanmaguncha tark etish qoidasiga amal qilganlar.

Those for whom these traditions were authentic acted according to them, while those for whom not a single one of these was authentic, and they are the majority, acted1 upon the principle of dropping the hukrn till it is established through an evidence.

Fuqaholar uzoq davom etadigan qon ketishi bo'lgan ayol haqida ixtilof qilganlar. Bir guruh faqihlar uning uchun yagona (to'liq) poklanish (g'usl) vojib qilganlar, bu hayz muddati tugaganini ko'rganida, uning belgilaridan biri bo'yicha amalga oshiriladi, bu belgilar haqidagi bahs ushbu faqihlarning fikriga ko'ra oldin o'tgan. Uning uchun yagona poklanishni vojib qilgan bu faqihlar ikki guruhga bo'linadi. Bir guruh uning uchun har bir namozga (kichik) vuzu qilishni vojib qilgan, boshqa guruh esa buni tavsiya qilgan, lekin vojib qilmagan. Uning uchun yagona poklanishni vojib qilganlar orasida Molik, ash-Shofi'iy, Abu Hanifa, ularning shogirdlari va hududlarning ko'pchilik faqihlari bor, ularning aksariyati uning uchun har bir namozga vuzu qilishni vojib qilganlar. Ulardan ba'zilari buni vojib qilmagan, balki tavsiya qilgan, bu Molikning fikri:

The jurists disagreed about the woman with extended bleeding. A group of jurists made a single (full) purification (bathing) obligatory for her, which was to take place when she saw that her menstruation period was over in accordance with one of its indications, the discussion of which has preceded according to the opinions of these jurists. These jurists, who made a single purification obligatory for her, are divided into two groups. One group made it obligatory for her to perform (the minor) ablution for each prayer, while the other group recommended'this, but did not make it obligatory. Those who made a single purification obligatory for her include Malik, al-ShafiT, Abu HanTfa, their disciples, and the majority of the jurists of the regions with most of them making it obligatory for her to perform ablution for each prayer. Some of them did not make it obligatory, .but recommended it, which is Malik’s opinion:

Другая группа, помимо этих групп, полагала, что женщина с продолжительным кровотечением обязана совершать очищение (омовение) для каждого намаза, тогда как вторая группа полагала, что обязанность состоит в том, чтобы отложить полуденный намаз до времени послеполуденного намаза, после чего ей следует совершить очищение и соединить намазы. Аналогично, ей следует отложить намаз заката до конца его времени и начала времени, когда ей следует совершить очищение во второй раз и соединить два намаза, а наконец, ей следует совершить очищение в третий раз для утреннего намаза. Таким образом, они сделали для неё обязательными три очищения в течение одного дня и одной ночи. Одна группа правоведов полагала, что она обязана совершать очищение только один раз за каждый период в один день и одну ночь. Некоторые из них не установили для этого времени, что передаётся от Саля. Некоторые утверждали, что ей следует совершать очищение от одного периода до следующего.

Another group, besides these groups, held that a woman with extended bleeding must purify (bathe) herself for each prayer, while a second group held that the obligation is to delay the noon prayer till the time of the middle prayer, and she should then purify herself and combine the prayers. Similarly she should delay the sunset prayer till the end of its time and the beginning of the time of when she should purify herself a second time and combine the two prayers, and finally, she should purify herself a third time for the morning prayer. Thus, they made three purifications obligatory for her in one d *y and a night. One group of jurists held that she is obliged to purify herself °nly once for each period of one day and one night. Some of them did not fix a time for this, which is related; from SAIL Some maintained that she should Purify herself from one period to the next.

Fuqaha bu xususda uch xil fikrga bo‘lingan: uzoq davom etadigan qon oqishi bo‘lgan ayol bilan jinsiy munosabatda bo‘lish. Bir guruh uning bilan jinsiy munosabatda bo‘lish joiz, deydi, bu viloyatlar fuqahosining qarashi bo‘lib, Ibn ‘Abbosdan, Sa‘id ibn al-Musayyabdan va tobi‘inning bir guruhidan rivoyat qilingan. Boshqa guruh esa uning bilan jinsiy munosabatda bo‘lish joiz emas, deydi; bu ‘Oisha’dan rivoyat qilingan bo‘lib, an-Nakha‘iy va al-Hakamning qarashidir. Uchinchi guruh esa eri uning bilan jinsiy munosabatda bo‘lmasligi kerak, faqat (qon oqishi) uzoq davom etsa bundan mustasno, deydi; bu Ahmad ibn Hanbalning qarashidir. Ixtilofning sababi shundan iboratki, ayolning bunday holatda namoz o‘qishi ruxsat etilganligi namoz farz qilinganidan so‘ng vujudga kelgan istisnomi yoki ayolga namoz o‘qish ruxsat etilgani uning hukmi tahoratli ayolning hukmi kabi bo‘lganligidanmi? Bu istisno deb hisoblaganlar erga uning bilan jinsiy munosabatda bo‘lishni ruxsat bermadilar, uning hukmi tahoratli kishining hukmi kabi deb hisoblaganlar esa uning uchun bunga ruxsat berdilar. Umuman olganda, bu masala nassda aniq bayon qilinmagan masaladir. Uzoq davom etgan va qisqa muddatli holat o‘rtasidagi farq esa istihsonga asoslangandir.

The jurists disagreed about cohabitation with a woman with extended bleeding, into three opinions. One group said that it is permitted to cohabit with her, and this is the opinion of the jurists of the provinces, and has been related from Ibn ‘Abbas, SaTd ibn al-Musayyab, and a group of the Tabi un. Another c group said that it is not permitted to cohabit with her, which is related from cA5isha, and is the opinion of al-NakhT and al-Hakam- A third group said that her husband is not to cohabit with her, unless it becomes prolonged, which is Ahmad ibn Hanbal’s opinion. The reason for disagreement stems from the dispute about whether permissibility of prayer in her case is an exemption resulting from the prescription of the obligation of prayer, or whether prayer has been permitted to her because her hukm is the same as that of a woman in a state of ritual purity? Those who maintained that this is an exemption did not permit the husband to cohabit with her, while those who maintained that her hukm is the same as that of a ritually pure person permitted it for her. On the whole, it is an issue that is not expressly stated in the texts. The distinction between a prolonged and-a short period, on the other hand, is based upon istihsan.