Ushbu mavzuning asosiy qoidalari yetti bobda keng yoritilgan. Birinchi bob ushbu taharat o'rnini bosadigan taharatni aniqlashga oid. Ikkinchi bob — bu turdagi taharat kimga ruxsat etilishi haqida. Uchinchi bob — ushbu taharatning joiz bo'lish shartlari haqida. To'rtinchi bob — ushbu taharatning ta'rifi (tavsifi) haqida. Beshinchi bob ushbu taharat bilan amalga oshiriladigan narsaga oid. Oltinchi bob — uni bekor qiluvchi omillar haqida. Yettinchi bob — shu taharat sahih va joiz bo'lishi uchun shart qilinadigan amallar haqida.

A comprehensive discussion of the principles of this subject is covered in seven chapters. The first chapter relates to the identification of the purification for which this purification forms a substitute. The second chapter is about the person to whom this form of purification is permitted. The third chapter is about the conditions for the permissibility of this purification. Chapter four is about the description of this purification. Chapter five relates to the thing with which this purification is performed. The sixth chapter is about factors nullifying it. Chapter seven is about acts for the validity and permissibility of which this purification is a condition.

Faqihlar bu poklanishning kichik (sug'ro) taharat, ya'ni vudu'ning o'rnini bosishiga kelishdilar, ammo katta (kubro) taharat haqida ixtilof qildilar. Umar va Ibn Mas'uddan rivoyat qilinadiki, ular bu poklanishni katta taharatning o'rnini bosuvchi deb hisoblamadilar. Ali va boshqa sahobalar esa tayammum katta taharatning o'rnini bosadi, deb ta'kidladilar va bu fikr umuman faqihlar tomonidan qabul qilingan.

The jurists agreed that this purification is a substitute for minor (sughra) Purification (i.e. wudi?), but they differed about major purification (kubra). It is related from TJmar and Ibn Mas ud that c they did not view it as a substitute for major purification. A1T and other Companions maintained that tayammum is a C substitute for major purification, which was the view adopted by jurists generally.

Ularning ixtilofining sababi oyatning turli talqinlarga ega bo'lishi ehtimoli va tayammum haqidagi rivoyatlarning ular nazarida jununlik (katta hadas) holatidagi shaxs uchun sahih ekanligi isbotlanmagani edi. Tayammum oyati borasidagi turli talqinlarga ko'ra, Yuce Allohning "Agar suv topmasangiz, u holda pok tuproqqa boringlar va u bilan yuzlaringizni va qo'llaringizni silang"[70] so'zlaridagi muxotab kichik hadas holatiga ega bo'lgan shaxsning o'zi bo'lishi mumkin, shuningdek, u ikkalasiga ham qaratilgan bo'lishi mumkin. Yuce Allohning "yoki ayollarga tegsangiz" so'zlaridagi "tegish" ma'nosini jinsiy aloqa deb tushunadiganlar uchun olmosh ikkalasiga ham tegishlidir. "Tegish" ma'nosini qo'l bilan tegish deb tushunadiganlar uchun esa muxotab kichik hadas holatidagi shaxs bo'lishi ehtimoli kuchliroqdir, chunki olmoshlar odatda oxirgi zikr qilingan narsaga qaytadi. (Oyat bitta ehtimolga ega bo'la olmaydi), agar oyat tartibi o'zgartirilgan deb faraz qilinmasa, ya'ni u quyidagicha o'qilsa: "Ey iymon keltirganlar! Namozga turganingizda, yoki biringiz hojatxonadan kelganda, yoki ayollarga tegsangiz, yuzlaringizni va qo'llaringizni tirsaklargacha yuvinglar, boshlaringizni engil masxlang va oyoqlaringizni to'piqlargacha [yuving]. Agar junub bo'lsangiz, o'zingizni poklang [g'usl qiling], agar kasal yoki safarda bo'lsangiz va suv topmasangiz, pok, baland yerga boring va undan olib yuzlaringizni va qo'llaringizni silang". Bunday tahminiy o'qish dalil asosida bo'lmasa, joiz emas, chunki tahminiy o'qish majoziydir va matnni majoziy talqin qilmasdan, uning haqiqiy ma'nosida o'qish afzaldir. Aytish mumkinki, tartibning o'zgartirilishini zarur qiladigan sabab bor: uning hozirgi tartibi kasallik va safar hadasning sababi ekanligini anglatadi. Biroq, agar bu yerda "yoki" (aw) bogʻlovchisi arablar nutqida uchraydigan "va" ma'nosida olinsa, bunday holat yuz bermaydi. Bu masala bo‘yicha ixtilofga olib kelgan sabablardan biri shu edi.

The reason for their disagreement kis the likelihood of different uiterpretations of the verse for and that the traditions about tayawmam for a person involved in jandba (the major hadath) did not prove to ke authentic in their view. With respect to the different interpretations of the v erse of tayammum, it is possible that the addressee in the words of the Exalted, “And ye find not water, then go to high clean soil and rub your faces and your hands (therewith)”,70 is just the person who has acquired a minor hadath y and it is also possible that it is addressed to both. Those for whom the term “touching”, in the words of the Exalted, “Or ye have touched women”, means copulation, the pronoun refers to both. Those for whom it means touching with the hand, it is more likely that the addressee is the person with a minor hadath. This is because the pronouns usually refer to the last mentioned thing. (The verse cannot have one possibility) unless a reading with a rearranged order in the verse is assumed, so that it is read as: “O ye who believe! When ye rise up for prayer, or one of you has come from the closet, or you have touched women, wash your faces, and your hands up to the elbows, and lightly rub your heads and [wash] your feet up to the ankles. And if ye are junub purify [bathe] yourself, and if ye are sick or on a journey, and ye find not water, then go to clean, high ground and rub your faces and your hands with some of it”. Such an assumed reading is not allowed, except on the basis of an evidence, because an assumed reading is figurative, and it is better to read the text in its actual connotation instead of interpreting it figuratively. It may be said that there is a reason that necessitates the assumption of rearrangement; namely that its present order implies that illness and journey are causes of hadath. Yet this is not the case, if the conjunction “or” (aw), is considered here in the meaning of “and” which is found in the usage of the Arabs. This is one of the reasons that led to a disagreement over the issue.

Huquqshunoslar bu poklanishni amalga oshirishga ruxsat berilgan shaxslar ikki turga bo'linishiga bir ovozdan kelishdilar: kasal va safarda bo'lgan kishi, agar suv topilmasa. Ular yana to'rt tur haqida ixtilof qildilar: suv topa oladigan, ammo undan foydalanishdan qo'rqadigan kasal kishi; suvi bo'lmagan muqim kishi; suv topa oladigan, ammo unga yetishga to'sqinlik qiladigan qo'rquv sababli yetib bora olmaydigan sog'lom musofir; hamda shiddatli sovuq tufayli suvdan foydalanishdan qo'rqadigan kishi. Suv topa oladigan, ammo undan foydalanishdan qo'rqadigan kasal (marid) haqida ko'pchilik, unga tayammum qilish ruxsat etilgan, deydi. Xuddi shunday, suvning haddan tashqari sovuqligi tufayli o'lim yoki og'ir kasallikdan qo'rqadigan sog'lom kishi va suvga chiqib yetishdan qo'rqadigan kishi haqida ham shunday. Faqat ko'pchilik huquqshunoslar, suv topgan vaqtida, unga namozni qayta o'qishni vojib deb hisoblaydilar. Ibn Abbos (ra) va ahli-ilm kasal, shuningdek suv topgan sog'lom kishilar tayammum qilishlari joiz emas, deb ta'kidladilar. Molik va ash-Shofi'iy suvi bo'lmagan sog'lom muqim kishiga tayammum qilish joizligini ma'qulladilar. Abu Hanifa esa, suv yo'q bo'lsa ham, sog'lom muqim kishiga tayammum joiz emas, dedi.

The jurists agreed unanimously that the persons permitted to undertake this purification are of two types: the sick and the traveller, when there is a lack of water. They disagreed about four other types: the sick person who can find water, but is afraid to use it; the resident who has no water; the healthy traveller who can find water, but fear prevents him from reaching it; and the Person who is afraid to use water due to extreme cold. About the marid (sick person) who can find water, but is afraid to use it, the majority said that tayammum is permitted to him; similarly, in the case of the healthy person who fears death or severe illness because of the extreme coldness of water, and the person who is afraid to go out and reach the water, except that most of the jurists consider it obligatory for him to repeat prayers when he finds water. CA^ maintained that sick as well as the healthy persons who find water are not permitted to perform tayammum. Malik and al-ShafiT upheld the permissibility of tayammum for the healthy resident who lacks water. Abu Hanifa said that tayammum is not permitted for the healthy resident, even if there is a lack of water.

Ushbu bobdagi to‘rt masala bo‘yicha ularning ixtilofining asosi shundan iboratdir. Suv ishlatishdan qo‘rqadigan kasal kishi haqida ularning ixtilofi Yuce Allohning: «Agar kasal bo‘lsangiz yoki safarda bo‘lsangiz», degan so‘zlarida nazarda tutilgan qo‘shimcha so‘z bor-yo‘qligi masalasiga markazlashgan. Bu oyatda shunday qo‘shimcha bor, ya’ni matn «agar kasal bo‘lsangiz, suvdan foydalana olmasangiz» degani, deb hisoblaganlar hamda Yuce Allohning: «Va suv topa olmasangiz», degan so‘zlaridagi «sizlar» olmoshi faqat musofirga qaratilgan deb hisoblaganlar, suv ishlatishdan qo‘rqadigan kasal kishi uchun tayammum qilishga ruxsat berganlar. Oyatdagi olmosh ham kasal kishiga, ham musofirga taalluqli, oyatda hech qanday qo‘shimcha nazarda tutilmagan, deganlar esa, agar kasal kishi suv topsa, tayammum qilishiga ruxsat bermaganlar.

Ushbu turdagi tahoratning shartlarini aniqlash uchta masalaga bog'liq bo'lib, ular asos (qoida) kabidir. Birinchisi: niyat bu tahoratning shartimi? Ikkinchisi: suv topilmaganda uni izlash bu tahorat joizligining shartimi? Uchinchisi: vaqtning kirishi (namoz vaqtining kelishi) tayammumning to'g'ri bo'lishi uchun shartmi?

^The identification of the conditions of this type of purification relates to three issues, which are like principles. First, whether intention is a condition for this purification? Second, whether searching for water, when it is lacking, is a condition for the permissibility of this purification? Third, whether the advent of the time (of prayer) is a condition for the validity of tayammum.

Jumhur ulamo niyatning tayammum uchun shart ekanligini ta'kidlaydi, chunki u aqlga bog'liq bo'lmagan ta'abbudiy ibodatdir. Zufar esa niyat uning shartlaridan emasligini va niyatga hojat yo'qligini aytib, ulardan chetga chiqdi. Bu fikr al-Avzoiy va al-Hasan ibn Hayydan ham rivoyat qilinadi, ammo bu da'vo zaifdir.

The majority maintain that intention is a condition for tayammum, because it is a ritual non-rational worship. Zufar deviated saying that intention is not one of its conditions, and there is no need for intention. This is also related from al- AwzaT and al-Hasan ibn Hayy, but the claim is weak.

Molik, Alloh unDan rozi bo‘lsin, suvni izlashni (tayammumga o‘tishdan oldin suvning yo‘qligini aniqlash uchun) shart qilib qo‘ygan, xuddi Imom ash-Shofi'iy kabi. Abu Hanifa bu shartni qo‘ymagan. Ularning bu masalada ixtilof qilishining sababi shundaki: suvni izlamasdan turib suv topmagan kishini suvsiz deb atash mumkinmi yoki suvsiz kishi deb faqat izlab topa olmagan kishini nazarda tutiladimi? Haqiqat shuki, suvning yo‘qligiga ishonch hosil qilgan kishi — oldingi (natijasiz) izlanish natijasida yoki izlanishsiz bo‘lsin — suvsiz hisoblanadi. Biroq faqat o‘z xohishiga ko‘ra harakat qiladigan kishi suvsiz bo‘la olmaydi. Shu sababli, bir joyda takroran izlashni talab qiluvchi mazhab fikri zaif deb topiladi, suv yo‘qligi haqida ishonchli ma'lumot bo‘lmagan holda dastlabki izlanishni shart qiluvchi fikr esa kuchli deb hisoblanadi.

Malik, may Allah be pleased with him, stipulated the seeking of water (to ascertain non-availability prior to shifting to tayammum), as did al~Shafi(i. Abu HanTfa did not lay down this condition. The reason for their disagreement over this is whether the person who does not find water without seeking it can be termed as one who lacks water, or whether the person lacking water is one who has sought it but could not find it? The truth is that the person convinced about a lack of water, either due to a prior (unsuccessful) search or without it, 1S one who lacks water. The person acting merely on his whim, however, carmot be one who lacks water. It is for this reason that the opinion in the school requiring repeated search in the same location is deemed weak, whereas the opinion stipulating initial search, when there is no convincing information about lack of water is deemed strong.

Ba'zi faqihlar buni shart qilganlar, bu ash-Shofiʼiy va Molik fikri; boshqalari esa shart qilmaganlar, bu Abu Hanifa, zohiriylar hamda Molik shogirdlaridan Ibn Shahan fikri.

Some of the jurists stipulated this, which is the opinion of ai-Shaf?T and Malik, while others did not, which is the opinion of Abu HanTfa, the Zahirites, an d Ibn Shahan from among the disciples of Malik.

Ixtilofning sababi shuki, Oyatul-wudu'ning zohiriy ma'nosi, Ulug' Allohning "Ey iymon keltirganlar! Namozga turganingizda..." degan so'zlaridan{73} kelib chiqib, tayammum va wudu' faqat namoz vaqti kirganda ruxsat etilganmi, degan savoldir. Shu sababli ular namoz vaqti kirgan paytda, ya'ni namozga turish vaqtida wudu' va tayammumni vojib qilganlar. Bundan kelib chiqadiki, bu yerda wudu' va tayammumning hukmi namozning hukmi kabidir: vaqt namozning sihhati uchun shart bo'lganidek, wudu' va tayammum uchun ham vaqt shartdir. Shariat esa wudu' borasida istisno qilgan. Tayammum asl hukmini saqlab qoladimi yoki bu oyat va Ulug' Allohning "Ey iymon keltirganlar! Namozga turganingizda..." degan so'zlarining zohiriy ma'nosi emasmi? Ya'ni, "namoz qilishni niyat qilganingizda" degan ma'noni anglatadimi? Yana, agar oyatda biror yashirin ma'no nazarda tutilmagan bo'lsa ham, unda faqat shu ma'no chiqadi: wudu' va tayammumning vojibligi namozning vojib bo'lish vaqtida paydo bo'ladi, lekin namoz vaqtidan oldin wudu' qilish yoki uning sihhatsiz bo'lishi haqida bu ma'no bermaydi, agar hukm namozni vaqtidan oldin o'qishga qiyos qilingan bo'lmasa. Bunday holda ixtilofning sababi tayammumni namozga qiyoslash deyish afzalroq bo'lardi, lekin bu zaif, chunki uni wudu'ga qiyoslash yanada to'g'riroqdir. Bu zaif masala, shuning uchun o'ylab ko'ring, ya'ni namoz sihhati uchun vaqt kirishini shart qilib, uni vaqt bilan bog'liq ibodat deb hisoblaganlar haqida.

The reason for their disagreement is whether the apparent meaning of the Verse of ablution implies that tayammum and wudu> are not permitted, except when it is time for prayer, as in the words of the Exalted, “O ye who believe! When ye rise up for prayer .. .”73 Thus, they made wudu> and tayammum obligatory at the time of rising up for prayer, which occurs when it is time for prayer. It follows from this that the hukm of wudt? and tayammum here is the same as the hukm for salah, that is just as time is. a condition for the validity of prayer so, similarly, time is a condition for the validity of wudi? and tayammum. The shar* however has made an exemption in the case of ablution. Does tayammum then retain the original rule, or is this not an apparent implication of the verse and the words of the Exalted, “O ye who believe! When ye rise up for prayer ... mean, “When ye resolve to undertake prayers?” Further, even if there is no assumption of an implied meaning in the verse, the only implication would be that the obligation of ablution and tayammum becomes due at the time of obligation of prayer, not that performance of wudfi and before the time of prayer is invalid, unless the rule is based upon the analogy of observing prayer before its time. In such a case, it would be preferable to say that the reason for disagreement in this is the analogy of tayammum upon prayer, but it is weak because its analogy upon wudi? would be better. This is a weak issue, so think over it, that is those who stipulate the advent of the time of prayer for its validity and render it a form of worship bound by time.

Ushbu poklanish shaklining ta'rifiga kelsak, u uchta masalaga taalluqli bo'lib, {ular bu bobning asosiy qoidalaridir.

to the description of this form of purification, it relates to three issues, {which are the principles of this chapter.

Faqihlar qo‘llarni massh qilish chegarasi haqida to‘rt xil fikrga ega bo‘lganlar. Allohning {“Agar suv topmasangiz, pok yer bilan tayammum qilinglar, yuzlaringizni va qo‘llaringizni undan massh qilinglar”} degan so‘zlarida U buyurgan qo‘llarni massh qilish chegarasi haqida: Birinchi fikr: bunda belgilangan chegara wududagi chegaraning o‘zi bilan bir xil, ya’ni tirsaklargacha bo‘lishi kerak. Bu maktabda keng tarqalgan fikr bo‘lib, viloyatlardagi faqihlar tomonidan qo‘llab-quvvatlanadi. Ikkinchi fikr: majburiy bo‘lgan narsa faqat qo‘lning kaftini massh qilishdir. Bu fikrni Ahli Zohir va hadischilar qo‘llab-quvvatlaydi. Uchinchi fikr: tirsaklargacha massh qilish mustahab, majburiy esa qo‘l kaftlarini massh qilishdir. Bu fikr Molikdan rivoyat qilingan. To‘rtinchi fikr: majburiyat yelkagacha cho‘ziladi. Bu noto‘g‘ri fikr bo‘lib, az-Zuhriy va Muhammad ibn Maslama’dan rivoyat qilingan.

The jurists had four different opinions about the extent of the hands that Allah {has commanded people to rub in His words, “And ye find not water, then go clean, high ground and rub your faces and your hands with some of it”.75 First, that the prescribed limit for this is the same as the limit in wudu> itself, which is up to the elbows. This is the widely known opinion in the school, and is upheld by the jurists of the provinces. Second, the obligation is to rub the palm of the hand only and this is maintained by the Ahl abZahir and the fraditionists. Third, that it is recommended up to the elbows, but the obligation is (to rub) the palms of the hands. This is related from Malik. The fourth opinion is that the obligation extends up to the shoulder. This is a deviant opinion and has been related from al-ZuhrT and Muhammad ibn Masalma.

Sabablar ularning ixtilofining sababi arab tilidagi "yadd" so'zining ko'p ma'noliligidan kelib chiqadi. Bu so'z arab tilida uch ma'noda ishlatiladi: faqat qo'l (kaft), bu asosiy ma'no hisoblanadi; qo'l va bilak; qo'l, bilak va yelka. Ikkinchi sabab esa tegishli rivoyatlarning bir-biriga zid kelishidan kelib chiqadi. Ammorning mashhur rivoyati, uning turli sanadlarida, shunday deydi: "Sizga qo'lingiz bilan silash, so'ng ulardan (changni) qoqib tashlash, so'ng ular bilan yuzingizni va qo'llaringizni artish kifoya qilardi". Ba'zi riwoyatlarda esa Payg'ambar ﷺ shunday degani aytiladi: "Qo'llaringizni tirsaklargacha artganingiz kifoya". Ibn Umar orqali ham rivoyat qilinadi: Payg'ambar ﷺ dedilar: "(Tayammum) ikki urishdan iborat: bir urish yuz uchun, yana bir urish qo'llar uchun, tirsaklargacha". Bu rivoyat Ibn Abbos va boshqa rivoyat qiluvchilar orqali ham keltiriladi.

H The reason for their disagreement stems from the equivocality of the term yadd’’' in the language of the Arabs. This is so as the term “yadd’, in the language of the Arabs is used in three meanings: the hand only, which Provides the primary use; the hand and the forearm; the hand, forearm, and upper arm. The second reason arises from the conflict of relevant traditions, be widely known tradition of Ammar, in its various established channels, c f ■ Sa ys, “It would have been enough for you to stroke with your hand, then shake !* off them, and rub your face (with them) and your hands”. In some versions Is stated that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, nd that you rub your hands up to the elbows”. It is also related from Ibn u 0131 ^t the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, consists of two strokes: a stroke for the face, and another for the n us, up to the elbows”. This is also related through Ibn Abbas and other c barrators.

Fuqarolar tayammum uchun yerga necha marta urish kerakligi haqida ixtilof qilganlar. Ulardan ba'zilari bir marta, boshqalari esa ikki marta urish kerak, deganlar. Ikki marta urish kerak, deganlar orasida bir urish yuz uchun, bir urish esa qo'llar uchun, deganlar ham bor. Ular ko'pchilikni tashkil etadi. "Ko'pchilik" deganimizda, uchta yetakchi fuqaho ham ular qatorida sanaladi, ya'ni Molik, ash-Shofi'iy va Abu Hanifa. Ulardan ba'zilari esa har bir uzv uchun ikki urish, ya'ni qo'llar uchun ikki urish va yuz uchun ikki urish kerak, deganlar.

The jurists disagreed about the number of times the earth is to be struck for the purpose of tayammum. Some of them said it is once, while others said that it is twice. Those who said that it is twice include some who said that one stroke is for. the face and one for the hands. These are the majority. When I say “majority”, then the three (leading) jurists are counted among them, that is, Malik, al-Shafi T, and Abu HanTfa. Some c of them said that there are two strokes for each of them, that is two strokes for the hands and two strokes for the face.

Ulamolar bu masalada ixtilof qilishlarining sababi shuki, oyatda bu haqda batafsil ma’lumot berilmagan, rivoyatlar esa bir-biriga zid, va tayammumni wudu’ga qiyos qilish barcha hollarda ittifoq qilinmagan. Ammor rivoyat qilgan an’anaga ko‘ra, bu masalada yuz va qo‘llar uchun bir marta urish kerak, lekin ikki marta talab qilinadigan rivoyatlar ham bor. Ko‘pchilik tayammumni wudu’ga qiyos qilish asosida ushbu rivoyatlarni afzal ko‘rdi.

The reason for their disagreement is that the verse gives no details about this, and the traditions are in conflict, while the analogy of wudi? tayammum in all its instances is not agreed upon. What is stated by the established tradition of ‘Ammar about this is one stroke both for the face and the hands, but there are traditions in which it is required twice. The majority preferred these traditions on the basis of analogy of ablution for tayammum.

Imom ash-Shofiʼiy Molik, Abu Hanifa va boshqalar bilan tayammum qilinadigan a'zolarga tuproqning yetishi vojibligi masalasida ixtilof qilgan. Abu Hanifa ham, Molik ham buni vojib deb hisoblamagan, ash-Shofiʼiy esa uni vojib deb qabul qilgan.

Al-Shafi T* disagreed with Malik, Abu HanTfa, and others about <- the obligation of the earth reaching the limbs that are the object of tayammum. Abu HanTfa did not' consider this as obligatory, nor did Malik, but al-Shafi T upheld it as c obligatory.

Ularning ixtilofining sababi Oliy Zotning so'zlaridagi "W" so'zida mavjud bo'lgan ko'p ma'noliklikdir: "Va u (suv)dan yuzlaringizga va qo'llaringizga surtinglar (wwta)".76 Bunga sabab shuki, "min" harfi ba'zan qisмни bildirish uchun, ba'zan esa turlar orasidagi farqni ko'rsatish uchun ishlatiladi. Bu yerda u qism ma'nosida ishlatilgan, deb hisoblaganlar tayammumning a'zolariga tuproqni o'tkazishni vojib qilganlar. Bu yerda u turlar orasidagi farqni bildiradi, deb da'vo qilganlar esa tuproqni o'tkazish vojib emas, deganlar. Imom ash-Shofi'iy qism ma'nosini bildiruvchi tafsirni tayammumning vuzuga qiyos qilinishiga asoslanib afzal ko'rgan, lekin bu, yuqorida o'tgan Ammor rivoyati bilan zid keladi, chunki unda "so'ngra uni silkitib tashlaydi" degan so'zlar bor, shuningdek, Payg'ambar ﷺ devorga qarab tayammum qilganlari ham bor.

The reason for their disagreement is the equivocality found in the word W in the words of the Exalted, “And rub your faces and your hands with some of it (wwta)”.76 This is so as the word min is sometimes used to indicate a part, while at other times it is used to make a distinction between the categories. Those who held that it has been used here to indicate a part, made the transfer of the earth to the limbs of tayammum obligatory. Those who maintained that it indicates a distinction among categories said that transferring it is not obligatory. Al-ShafiT preferred the interpretation implying a part on the basis of the analogy of ablution for tayammum, but this is opposed by the tradition of cAmmar that has preceded, for it contains the words, “then shake it off’, and also the Prophet’s performing tayammum at the wall.

Tayammumda amallarning tartibli bajarilishi (ketma-ketligi) va darhol bajarilishi (yuz mash qilish bilan qo‘l mash qilish o‘rtasida hech qanday oraliq bo‘lmasligi) majburiy ekanligi haqidagi fuqahолар ixtilofi ham xuddi shu masalada vuzuda bo‘lgan ixtilofning o‘zidir va u yerdagi ixtilof sabablari bu yerda ham xuddi shunday; shuning uchun ularni qayta takrorlashning ma’nosi yo‘q.

The disagreement of the jurists about the obligation of a sequential order (of acts) in tayammum, as well as over the obligation of immediate performance (i.e. there should be no interval separating the rubbing of the face and the rubbing of the hands), is exactly the same as their disagreement about it in ablution, and the causes for disagreement there are the causes here; thus there is no point in reiterating them.

Ushbu masala bo'yicha ular toza, tuproq sifatidagi yerdan olinadigan narsa bilan tayammum qilish joizligi borasida kelishgan, ammo yerdagi tuproqdan boshqa, toshlar kabi yer tarkibiga kiruvchi narsalar bilan tayammumning ado etilishi borasida ixtilof qilishgan. Al-Shofe'iy tayammum faqat toza tuproq bilan joiz, deb hisoblagan. Molik va uning shogirdlari esa mashhur qavlga ko'ra, tayammum yer yuzasida topilgan, uning barcha tarkibiy qismlari bilan, masalan, shag'al, qum va tuproq bilan joiz, deyishgan. Abu Hanifa bunga qo'shib, yer tomonidan hosil qilingan barcha qattiq moddalar, masalan, ohak, margumush, gips, loy va marmar bilan ham joiz, deb aytgan. Ulardan ba'zilari, ular ko'pchilik bo'lib, tuproq yer yuzasida bo'lishi shart, deb belgilashgan. Ahmad ibn Hanbal esa tayammumni kiyim yoki junning changi bilan qilish mumkin, degan.

This involves a single issue. They agreed about its validity with clean cultivable soil, but disagreed about its performance with what is besides soil from among the constituent parts found on land, like stones. Al-ShaficT held l hat tayammum is not permitted except with pure earth. Malik and his disciples tald that tayammum is permitted, according to the widely known opinion, with whatever is found upon the surface of land with all its constituents, like Pebbles, sand, and earth. Abu HanTfa added to this saying (that it is permitted) w, *h ail kinds of solid matter produced by the earth, like lime, arsenic, Eypsum, clay, and marble. Some of them, and these are the majority, stipulated that the soil must be on the surface of the earth. Ahmad ibn Hanbal said that tayammum may be performed with dust from a garment or from wool.

Ularning ixtilofining sababi ikki omilga asoslangan. Birinchidan, arab tilida sa'id atamasining ko'p ma'noliligi: u ba'zan toza tuproqqa, ba'zan esa yer yuzasidagi barcha tarkibiy qismlarga nisbatan qo'llanadi. Shu sababli bu atamaning hosilalari (sa'h) ma'nosini talqin qilish Molik va uning shogirdlarini bir rivoyatda uni o't va qor bilan ham ruxsat berishga olib keldi. Ular aytdilar: bular ham atamaning asosiy ma'nosida, ya'ni yer yuzasida bo'lish ma'nosida sa'id deb ataladi. Ammo bu dalil zaif.

The reason for their disagreement is based upon two factors. First, the equivocality of the term sa<id in the language of the Arabs, as it is sometimes applied to clean earth, and at other times to all the constituents on the surface of land, so much so that the interpretation of the derivatives of this term sah'd led Malik and his disciples to permit it, in one of the narrations, with grass and snow; they said that these are also called saVd in the primary use of the term, that is being upon the surface of the earth, but this argument is weak.

Ikkinchi sabab — hadisning mashhur variantlarida "ard" so'zining qaydsiz (mutlaq) holda kelishi va boshqa variantlarida esa cheklangan holda kelishidir. Payg'ambar (Allohning rahmati va salomi unga bo'lsin) shunday degan: "Yer menga masjid va poklanish vositasi qilib berildi". Ba'zi rivoyatlarda "Yer menga masjid va poklanish vositasi qilib berildi" degan so'zlar qayd etilgan, boshqa bir rivoyatda esa: "Yer menga masjid qilib berildi, uning tuprog'i esa poklanish vositasidir" deyilgan. Fiqh ilmi mutaxassislari mutlaq ibora cheklangan ibora asosida tushunilishi kerakmi yoki aksincha, degan masalada ikkiga bo'lingan. Ularning ko'pchiligiga ma'lum bo'lgan fikr shuki, mutlaq ibora cheklangan iboraga qarab tushuniladi, lekin bu masala bahsli. Ibn Hazmning fikricha esa, cheklangan ibora mutlaq iboraga qarab tushuniladi, chunki mutlaq ibora qo'shimcha ma'noga ega. Mutlaq iborani cheklangan iboraga qarab tushunganlar va "saʼid" so'zini yer ma'nosida, ya'ni faqat tuproq ma'nosida izohlaganlar tayammumni faqat tuproq bilan joizlik deb bilganlar. Cheklangan iborani mutlaq iboraga qarab tushunganlar va "saʼid" so'zini yer yuzasida bo'lgan hamma narsa, shu jumladan uning tarkibiy qismlari ma'nosida izohlaganlar esa tayammumni qum va toshchalar bilan ham joiz deb topganlar.

Tayammumni bekor qiluvchi narsalar haqida: faqihlar tayammum asosiy tahoratni, ya'ni vuzu yoki g'uslni bekor qiladigan narsalar bilan bekor bo'lishiga kelishib olganlar. Ular bu borada ikki masalada ixtilof qilganlar. Birinchisi: tayammum bilan niyat qilingan farz namozdan boshqa farz namozni o'qish niyati tayammumni bekor qiladimi? Ikkinchisi: suvning mavjud bo'lishi uni bekor qiladimi?

About the factors nullifying this form of purification, the jurists agreed that tayammum is invalidated by things that invalidate the original purification, which is ablution or bathing. They disagreed in this over two issues. First, does the intention of offering an obligatory prayer other than the obligatory saldh that was intended with the tayammum invalidate it? Second, whether the existence of water invalidates it?

Malik ibn Anas yakinlashgan fikrga ko'ra, bir namoz uchun niyat qilingan ikkinchi namoz birinchi namoz uchun qilingan tahoratni bekor qiladi. Boshqa olimlarning qarashlari bunga qarama-qarshidir. Bu ixtilofning asosi ikki masalaga tayanadi. Birinchisi, Oliy Zotning "Ey iymon keltirganlar! Namozga turganingizda..." degan so'zlarida yashirin matn (mahzuf) bormi, ya'ni "uyqudan turganingizda" yoki "junub holatda turganingizda" degan ma'no nazarda tutilganmi? Yashirin matn yo'q deganlar, oyatning zohiriy ma'nosi har bir namoz uchun tahorat yoki tayammumni bildiradi, lekin sunnat tahorat hukmini cheklagan, shuning uchun tayammum asl hukmida qoladi, deb aytganlar. Biroq bu dalil bilan Molik mazhabini himoya qilib bo'lmaydi, chunki Molik oyatda yashirin matn bor deb hisoblaydi, buni u Zayd ibn Aslamdan rivoyat qilgan, o'zining "al-Muvatta" kitobida keltirgan narsasiga ko'ra.

Malik maintained that the intention of a second prayer invalidates purification for the first prayer. The views of others are opposed to this. The basis for this disagreement revolves around two things. First, whether in the words of the Exalted, “O ye who believe! When ye rise up for prayer .. ”, there is an implied text, that is, when ye arise from sleep, or when ye arise in an unclean state? Those who maintained that there is no implied text said that the apparent meaning of the verse indicates wudi? or tayammum for each prayer, but the sunna has restricted the meaning for wudu>, so tayammum retains the original rule. It cannot, however, be argued for Malik on the basis of this (argument), because Malik maintains that the verse contains an implied text, according to what he has related from Zayd ibn Aslam in his al-Muwattd*.

Ikkinchi sabab har bir namoz vaqti kirishi bilan buyruqning qayta takrorlanishiga asoslanadi. Malik tamoyillaridan shu narsa kelib chiqadi, ya'ni bu dalilni uning foydasiga keltirish mumkin, va bu masala haqidagi bahs avvalroq o'tgan. Buyruq takrorlanmaydi, deb hisoblaganlar va oyatda yashirin matnni nazarda tutganlar esa, ikkinchi namozni o'qish niyati tayammumni bekor qiladi, deb qaramaganlar.

The second reason is based on the recurrence of the command with the advent of time for each prayer. This is what follows from Malik’s principles, that is, this argument may be adduced on his behalf, and the discussion of this issue has preceded. Those for whom the command does not recur, and they assumed an implied text in the verse, did not uphold that the intention to perform a second salah invalidates tayammum.

Jumhur ulamo shunday deb hisoblagan: suv mavjud bo'lishi bu tayammumni bekor qiladi. Biroq fuqarolardan bir guruh faqihlar uning bekor bo'lishi faqat hadas yuz berishi bilan bo'ladi, deb hisoblagan. Bu ixtilofning asosi shundan iboratki: suvning mavjudligi tuproq bilan erishilgan mavjud poklikni yo'qotadimi, yoki tuproq bilan taharatni boshlashni inkor etadimi? Suv mavjud bo'lganda faqat tuproq bilan taharatni boshlashni inkor etadi, deb hisoblaganlar, uning bekor bo'lishi faqat hadas yuz berishi bilan bo'ladi, deb aytganlar. Suvning mavjudligi mavjud poklikni bekor qiladi, deb hisoblaganlar esa, u bekor bo'ladi, deb aytganlar. Bekor qiluvchi omil (suv) ta'rifi mavjud poklikni yo'q qiluvchidir.

The majority held that the existence of water invalidates this purification. A Stoup of jurists, however, maintained that its invalidation results only from the occurrence of a hadath. The basis of this disagreement is whether the existence of water removes the prevailing purification that was achieved with earth or whether it negates the initiation of purification with it (earth)? Those who Maintained that it negates only the commencement of purification with earth (water being available) said that it is invalidated only by the occurrence of a hadath. Those who maintained that it (availability of water) invalidates the Prevailing purity said that it is invalidated. The definition of the invalidating factor (water) is the eliminator of the prevailing purity.

Ko‘pchilik o‘z fikrini sobit bir hadisga tayanib dalil qildi. Bu hadis Payg‘ambarimiz ﷺ ning so‘zi bo‘lib: "Yer menga masjid va tahorat olish vositasi qilib berildi, suv topilmagunicha." Bundan shunday tushunish mumkinki, suv topilishi bilan bu tahorat tugaydi va bekor bo‘ladi; shuningdek, bundan suv topilgach bu turdagi tahoratni qilish joiz emasligini ham tushunish mumkin. Ko‘pchilik uchun eng kuchli dalil Abu Said al-Xudriy rivoyat qilgan hadisdir: Payg‘ambar ﷺ aytdilar: "Suvni topganingizda, uni terингizga tegizing." Bu yerdagi buyruqni ko‘pchilik darhol bajarilishini bildiradi deb tushunadi, lekin bu ham oldingi ehtimolga olib boradi, shuning uchun buni o‘ylab ko‘ring. Shofiiy suv borligi bu tahoratni bekor qiladi, degan fikrni qabul qilgani uchun, tayammum hadasni ketkazmaydi, ya’ni u pokligni hosil qilib, najosatni yo‘qotmaydi, faqat najosat bo‘lganda ham namoz o‘qishga ruxsat beradi, degan xulosaga keldi. Bu asossizdir, chunki Alloh uni tahorat deb atagan. Molikning ba’zi shogirdlari bu fikrni qo‘llab-quvvatlab, tayammum hadasni ketkazmaydi, deydilar, chunki agar u ketkazganda edi, uni faqat hadas bekor qilar edi. Javob shuki, bu tahorat turida suvning o‘zi, suv borligi unga xos bir hadasdir, deb suv borligi uni bekor qiladi, degan fikrga ko‘ra.

The majority argued for their opinion on the basis of an established tradition, which is the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be u P°n him), “The earth has been made a mosque for me, and a means of Purity, aS long as water is not found”. It is possible to understand from this that as soon as water is found this purification is terminated and removed, while it is also possible to understand it as implying that when water is found n is not valid to undertake this form of purification. The strongest support for the majority comes from the tradition of Abu SaTd al-Khudri, which states that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “When you have found water let it touch your skin”. The command here is interpreted by the majority to indicate immediate compliance, though it also leads to the preceding possibility, so think over it. Al-ShafiTs acceptance, that the existence of water eliminates this purification, led him to say that tajamrcam does not, in fact, remove the hadath, that is, it does not generate purification removing the impurity, it merely has the effect of permitting prayer with the existence of the impurity. This is without foundation, as Allah has called it purification. Some of the disciples of Malik upheld this opinion saying that tayammum does not remove hadath, for had it done so, only a hadath would have invalidated it. The answer is that in the case of this purification the existence of water itself is a sort of hadath specific to it, according to the opinion that the existence of water eliminates it.

Ko‘pchilik ulamolar shuni ma’qullashdi: bu turdagi taharat bilan joiz bo‘ladigan yoki ruxsat etiladigan amallar — masalan, namoz, mushafga tegish va boshqalar — uchun vuzu’ shart qilingan. Ular shu bilan birga bitta tayammum bilan bir nechta (farz) namozni o‘qish joizmi, degan masalada ixtilof qilishdi. Molik mazhabida ikkita farz namozni bitta tayammum bilan o‘qish hech qachon ruxsat etilmagani keng ma’lum. Uning fikri esa ikkita qazo namoz haqida boshqacha bo‘lgan. Agar ikki namozdan biri farz, ikkinchisi nafl bo‘lsa, bitta tayammum kifoya qilishi yaxshi ma’lum; ammo agar avval nafl bilan boshlasa, uni bitta tayammum bilan ado eta olmaydi. Abu Hanifa esa bitta tayammum bilan ikkita farz namozni o‘qish joiz, deb hisobladi.

The majority agreed that acts whose validity or permissibility depends upon this form of purification are those for which ablution (wudi?) is a condition, like prayer, Touching the mushaf, and so on. They disagreed on whether more than one (obligatory) prayer is permissible with it (i.e. with one tayammum)? It is widely known in the Malik’s school that two mandatory prayers are never permitted with it. His opinion differed about two lapsed prayers. It is well- known that one tayammum is enough if one of the two prayers is mandatory and the other is supererogatory, if he prays the mandatory first, but if commences with the supererogatory, he cannot observe them with one tayammum. Abu Hamfa held that it is permitted to observe two mandatory prayers with a single tayammum.

Ushbu ixtilofning asosi shundaki, har bir namoz uchun tayammum qilish shartmi yoki yo'qmi: bu oyatning zohiriy ma'nosiga ko'ra, yoki buyruqning takrorlanishi majburiyatiga ko'ra, yoki ikkalasiga ko'ra.

The basis for this disagreement is whether tayammum is required for each prayer, either due to the apparent meaning of the verse, or due to the obligation of the recurrence of the command, or due to both.