Ushbu poklanish shaklining tamoyillari va qoidalarining batafsil bayoni olti bobda qamrab olingan. Birinchi bob hukmni aniqlash haqida bo'lib, u mutlaq ma'noda vojib yoki mustahabligini yoki faqat namoz uchun shart qilib qo'yilganligini bildiradi. Ikkinchi bob najosat turlarini aniqlashga taalluqlidir. Uchinchi bob shunday najosatlardan tozalash vojib bo'lgan narsalar haqida. To'rtinchi bob ularni tozalash uchun ishlatiladigan vosita haqida. Beshinchi bob har bir narsadan ularni tozalash usuli bilan shug'ullanadi. Oltinchi bob esa hojatxona odoblariga taalluqlidir.

The comprehensive discussion of the principles and rules of this form of purification is covered in six chapters. The first chapter is about the identification of the hukm, that is, whether it is obligatory or recommended from the aspect of being absolute, or is stipulated only as a condition for salahi The second chapter relates to the identification of the kinds of impurities. The third chapter is about the objects from which the removal of such impurities is obligatory. The fourth chapter is about the thing with which they are to be removed. The fifth chapter deals with the manner of their removal from each object. The sixth chapter relates to the etiquettes of the privy.

Ushbu bobning manbai Yuce Allohning so‘zlari: “Rabbingning libosingni pok tut”,78 va sunnatdan Payg‘ambarimizning (Xudoning salovati va barakotlari unga bo‘lsin) so‘zlari: “Vuzu qiladigan kishi suvni burniga tortib, uni qaytarib otsin, toshdan foydalanuvchi esa toq sonda foydalansin [masalan, uch, besh va hokazo]”. Shuningdek, Payg‘ambarimizning (Xudoning salovati va barakotlari unga bo‘lsin) kiyimdagi hayz qonini tozalash va badaviy holatidagi kabi siydik ustiga bir kosa suv quyish haqidagi buyruqlari ham bor. Bundan tashqari, u zotning ikki kishi dafn etilgan qabr yonidan o‘tganlarida aytgan so‘zlari ham bor: “Ularga azob berilmoqda, lekin katta gunoh uchun emas: ulardan biri siydikdan keyin o‘zini tozalamagan edi”. Bu naqllangan matnlar mavjudligi sababli, huquqshunoslar najosatlarni tozalash shariat tomonidan buyurilganiga kelishdilar, ammo bu farz yo‘li bilanmi yoki tavsiya, ya’ni yuqorida aytilganidek sunnat yo‘li bilanmi, shu haqda ixtilof qildilar. Huquqshunoslarning bir guruhi najosatlarni tozalash farz ekanini aytdi, bu Abu Hanifa va ash-Shofi‘iyning fikri edi. Yana bir guruh huquqshunoslar bu sunnati muakkada, ammo farz emas, deydi. Yana bir guruh esa, eslab turganda farz, unutganda esa bu farzdan ozod deydi. Ikkala fikr ham Molik va uning shogirdlaridan rivoyat qilingan.

The source of this chapter from the Book are the words of the Exalted, “Thy Diment purify”,78 and from the sunna the words of the Prophet (God’s peace a nd blessings be upon him), “One who performs ablution should snuff up water and reject it, and one who uses stones [in purifying himself after excretion] should use the odd number [like three, five, etc.]”. There is also the command of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) for cleaning ^enstrual blood from clothes, and for pouring a pitcher of water over urine, as ! n the case of the bedouin. In addition, there is his saying about passing a grave ln which two persons were buried that “they are being given some torment, but not for a major sin; one of them did not cleanse himself after urinating The jurists agreed, because of the existence of these transmitted texts, that removal of impurities has been commanded by the law, but they differed over whether this was by way of obligation or recommendation, that is, as a sunna, as indicated earlier. One group of jurists usaid that the removal of impurities is obligatory, which was the opinion of Abu Hanlfa and al-ShaficI. Another group of jurists said that it was sunna mtfakkada (emphatic), but is not an obligation (fard). One group said that it is an obligation when remembered, but is waived in the case of forgetfulness. Both opinions are related from Malik and his disciples.

Ularning bu masala bo'yicha ixtilofi uch sababga tayanadi. Birinchidan, Oliy va Ulug' Zotning "Kiyimingni pok tut" degan so'zlari haqida ixtilof bor: ular haqiqiy ma'noda olinadimi yoki majoziy ma'noda. Ikkinchi sabab, ushbu vojib haqidagi hadislarning zohiriy ma'nolari o'rtasidagi ziddiyatdir. Uchinchi sabab, shariat amrlari va qaytariqlari ortida turgan aqliy illat haqidagi ixtilofdir: bu amr va qaytariqlardan anglashiladigan illat amrni vojibdan mustahabga, qaytariqni taqiqdan makruhga o'tkazuvchi tasdiqlovchi omilmi yoki unday emasmi, ya'ni aqliy va g'ayriaqliy ibodat o'rtasida farq yo'qmi. Bunday farq qilganlar, shariatdagi aqliy ahkamlarning ko'pchiligi axloqiy me'yorlar yoki huquqiy manfaatlarga taalluqli bo'lib, ular asosan mustahab ekanligi sababli shunday qilishgan. "Kiyimingni pok tut" so'zlarini jismoniy kiyim ma'nosida tushunganlar najosatdan poklanishning vojib ekanini aytdilar, qalb pokligining ramzi deb tushunganlar esa ular ichida huquqiy dalil topmadilar.

Faqihlar najosatning turlari asosan to‘rt ekanligiga kelishganlar. Birinchisi, suvda yashamaydigan iliq qonli hayvonlarning o‘lik go‘shti. Ikkinchisi, cho‘chqaning go‘shti, o‘lganining sababi qanday bo‘lishidan qat’i nazar. Uchinchisi, suvda yashamaydigan hayvonning qoni; u tirik yoki o‘lik hayvondan oqib chiqqanda, ya’ni u ko‘p bo‘lganda olinadi. To‘rtinchisi, insonning siydigi va najasi. Faqihlar xamrning (mast qiluvchi ichimlikning) najosatliligi haqida ko‘pchilik bo‘lib kelishganlar, ammo ba’zi hadis olimlari orasida bu borada ixtilof bor. Faqihlar bulardan tashqari narsalar haqida ixtilof qilganlar. Ushbu bobning asosiy qoidalari yetti masalada qamrab olingan.

The jurists agreed that the kinds of impurities are essentially four. First, carrion of warm-blooded animals not living in water. Second, flesh of swine, whatever the cause of its death. Third, blood of an animal that does not live in Water, and is extracted from a living or dead animal when it flows out, that is, when' it is excessive. Fourth, the urine and excrement of human beings. Most the jurists agreed about the impurity of khami\ but there is disagreement about this among some of the traditionists. The jurists disagreed about things besides these. The principles of this chapter are covered in seven issues.

Ular qoni bo'lmagan murdalar va o'lik dengiz jonivorlari haqida ixtilof qilishgan. Bir guruh faqihlar qonsiz jonzotning murdasi poklangan deydi; dengizdagi o'lik jonivorlar ham xuddi shunday. Bu Molik va uning shogirdlarining fikri. Yana bir guruh faqihlar issiqqonli va qonsiz jonzotlarning murdalari o'rtasida najosat jihatidan tenglik bor deb hisobladi, faqat bundan murda emasligi ittifoq qilingan narsalar — masalan, qurtlar va yeyiladigan narsalarda paydo bo'ladigan jonzotlar — mustasno; ammo ular o'lik dengiz jonivorlarini bundan chiqarib tashladilar. Bu al-Shofe'iyning fikri. Yana bir guruh murda va o'lik dengiz jonivorlarini bir xil deb hisobladi, faqat qonsiz murdani istisno qildi. Bu Abu Hanifaning fikri.

They disagreed about carrion that has no blood in it, and about dead sea j Rimals. A group of jurists said that a carcass of a bloodless creature is clean; ► milarly, the dead sea creatures. This is Malik’s opinion and that of his disciples. A group of jurists maintained equivalence, with respect to impurity, between carrion of a warm-blooded and bloodless creatures, unless it was something over which there is agreement that it is not carrion like worms and what is produced in eatables, but they exempted dead marine animals from this, which is al-ShafiTs opinion. Another group considered carrion and dead sea animals to be the same, exempting bloodless carrion, which is Abu HanTfa’s opinion.

Ularning ixtilofining sababi Oliy Zotning so‘zlari ustidagi tortishuvlariga asoslangan: “Sizlarga o‘lik hayvon go‘shti haram qilindi...”79 Menimcha, sabab shundaki, ular bu oyat umumiy ma’noli so‘z bo‘lib, xos ma’noga qaratilgan, degan fikrga kelishgan, shundan keyin esa bu yerda qaysi xos ma’no nazarda tutilganida ixtilofga borishgan. Ulardan ba’zilari o‘lik dengiz hayvonlarini va qonsiz jonzotlarning o‘lik go‘shtini istisno qilgan, ba’zilari faqat o‘lik dengiz hayvonlarini istisno qilgan, boshqalari esa faqat qonsiz jonzotlarning o‘lik go‘shtini istisno qilgan. Bu istisnolar yuzasidan ixtilof, ularning cheklovchi dalillar yuzasidan ixtilofiga asoslangan. Qonsiz o‘lik jonzotlarni istisno qilganlarning zohiriy dalili Payg‘ambar ﷺdan rivoyat qilingan, pashshalar ovqatga tushganda bilan bog‘liq hadisga asoslangan. Ular bu hadis pashshalarning pokligini ko‘rsatadi, deyishdi, pashshalar qonsiz bo‘lgani sababli bundan boshqa asos yo‘q, deyishdi.

The reason for their disagreement is based on their dispute over the meaning of the words of the Exalted, “Forbidden unto you are carrion .. .”79 The reason, I think, is that they agreed that it belongs to a category of a general word intended for the particular, after which they differed as to which particular is meant here. Some of them exempt from this dead sea- animals and carrion of bloodless creatures, some exempted dead sea animals only, while others made an exemption in the case of carrion of bloodless creatures alone. The reason for a disagreement over these exemptions is based upon their disagreement over the restricting evidence. The apparent argument of those who exempted bloodless carrion is based upon the established tradition from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) relating to flies when they fall into food. They said that this indicates the cleanliness of flies, and there is no underlying reason for this except the fact that they are bloodless.

Xuddi huquqshunoslar o'lik hayvonlarning turlari hukmi haqida ixtilof qilganlari kabi, ular shartli ravishda o'lik hayvon deb kelishib olingan o'lik hayvonlarning qismlari hukmi haqida ham ixtilof qildilar. Shunday qilib, ular o'lik hayvonning go'shti ham o'lik hisoblanishiga xulosa qildilar, ammo suyak va jun haqida ixtilof qildilar. Al-Shofe'iy suyak va junning ham o'lik ekanligini aytdi, Abu Hanifa esa ular o'lik emasligini aytdi. Molik suyak va jun o'rtasida farq qilib, suyak o'lik, jun esa o'lik emas, dedi.

Just as the jurists differed about the (hukm of the) kinds of carrion they disagreed about (the hukrn of) the parts of dead animals, which they had deemed as carrion by agreement. Thus, they concluded that flesh of the parts of mayta was also mayta, but they disagreed about bones and hair. Al-Shafi T c held that bones and hair were also mayta, while Abu HanTfa held that they are not. Malik made a distinction between hair and bones saying that bones are mayta, but not hair.

Ularning ixtilofining sababi harakatdagi qaysi faoliyatni "hayot" atamasi bilan atash mumkinligi haqidagi tortishuvlariga bog'liq. Kimlar o'sish va oziqlanish faoliyatini hayot deb hisoblagan bo'lsa, ular, sochlar va suyaklarda o'sish va oziqlanish faoliyati bo'lmasa, ular mayta bo'ladi, deganlar. Kimlar "hayot" atamasi faqat sezgiga nisbatan qo'llanadi, sochlar va suyaklarda esa sezish qobiliyati yo'q, shuning uchun ular mayta emas, deganlar. Ikkalasini farqlaganlar esa suyaklarga sezish qobiliyatini berib, sochlarga bermaganlar. Suyaklarning sezish qobiliyati borligi haqida ixtilof bor va bu masala tabiblar o'rtasida ham bahsli. Oziqlanish va o'sish hayotning o'sha turi emasligini, ya'ni ularning yo'qligi bilan "mayta" atamasini qo'llash mumkin emasligini isbotlovchi dalil shuki, barcha faqihlar hayvondan tirikligida kesib olingan qismning mayta ekaniga ittifoq qilganlar. Bu Payg'ambar (Allohning salavoti va salomi unga bo'lsin) ning: "Hayvondan tirikligida kesib olingan narsa mayta" degan so'ziga asoslangan. Shu bilan birga, ular hayvondan qirqib olingan junning pok ekaniga ham kelishganlar. Yana, agar "mayta" atamasini o'sish va oziqlanishi to'xtagan narsalarga qo'llash kerak bo'lganida, ildizi bilan sug'urib olingan o'simliklar ham mayta deb atalishi kerak edi, chunki o'simliklarda ham o'sish va oziqlanish bor. Unga al-Shofi'iy shunday javob berishi mumkin: o'lim atamasi qo'llanadigan oziqlanish faqat sezish qobiliyatiga ega jonzotlar bilan cheklangan.

The reason for their disagreement relates to their dispute as to what activity in the limbs can be assigned the term “life”. Those who maintained that the activity of growth and food intake depicts life said that when the activity of growth and food intake is absent from hair and bones they become mayta. Those who maintained that the term “life” is only applied to the senses, and as hair and bones do not possess the capacity to sense, they are not.maj/ta. Those who distinguished between the two, assigned to bones the capacity to sense, but not to hair. There is a disagreement about the capacity of the bones to sense, and the matter is disputed among the physicians. The evidence proving that food intake and growth are not that kind of life to the absence of which the term may la can be applied is the agreement of all jurists that a, part of an animal cut off when it is alive is mayta. This is based on a tradition, which is the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “Whatever is cut off from an animal, when it is alive, is mayta”. They agreed, however, that hair sheared from an animal is clean. Further, if the term mayta were to be applied to things whose growth and food intake has stopped, the uprooted vegetation would also be termed as mayta, as vegetation also shows growth and food intake. To this al-ShafiT may reply that food intake, to the absence of which the term death is applied, is limited to beings endowed with the capacity to sense.

Ular o'lik hayvonlarning terisidan foydalanish masalasida ixtilof qilishdi. Bir guruh faqihlar terining, ishlangan yoki ishlanmagan bo'lishidan qat'i nazar, undan foydalanish shartsiz ravishda joiz ekanligini ma'qullashdi. Boshqa guruh esa aksincha fikrda bo'lib, ular hatto ishlangan bo'lsa ham, teridan umuman foydalanib bo'lmaydi, deb hisobladilar. Uchinchi guruh faqihlar ishlangan va ishlanmagan terilar o'rtasida farq qildilar, ishlov berish terini pok qilishini aytdilar; bu al-Shofiiy va Abu Hanifaning fikridir. Bu masalada Molikdan ikki rivoyat bor. Birinchisi al-Shofiiynikiga o'xshaydi, ikkinchisiga ko'ra esa ishlov berish terini pok qilmaydi, ammo unda nam bo'lmasa, undan foydalanish mumkin. Ishlov berishni poklovchi omil deb hisoblaganlar, uni halol so'yiladigan, ya'ni iste'mol qilish joiz bo'lgan hayvonlarning terisini pok qilishiga kelishdilar, ammo shariat bo'yicha so'yish qo'llanmaydigan hayvonlar masalasida ixtilof qilishdi. Al-Shofiiy ishlov berish faqat shariat bo'yicha so'yilgan hayvonlarning terisini pok qiladi, deb hisobladi, chunki so'yish poklash maqsadida o'rnini bosuvchi vosita hisoblanadi. Abu Hanifa esa cho'chqadan tashqari barcha hayvonlarning terisini pok qilishda ishlov berishning ta'sirchanligini tasdiqladi. Dovud esa ishlov berish hammasini, hatto cho'chqa terisini ham pok qiladi, dedi.

They disagreed about the utilization of skins of dead animals. A group of jurists upheld the unconditional permissibility of the utilization of skins, whether tanned or not, while another group held the opposite view, that is, they are not to be utilized at all, even when tanned. A third group of jurists made a distinction between tanned an untanned skins, maintaining that tanning purifies them, which is al-ShafiTs and Abu HanTfa’s opinion. There are two narrations from Malik about this. The first is the same as that of al- Shafi I, while c the second is that tanning does not purify them, but they can be used if no moisture is involved. Those who maintained that tanning is a purifying factor, agreed that it purifies the skins of the animals that can be ritually slaughtered, that is, those permissible for consumption, but they disagreed about those to which ritual slaughter does not apply. Al-ShaficT held that it purifies the skins of ritually slaughtered animals only, as slaughter is a substitute for the purpose of purification. Abu HanTfa maintained the effectiveness of tanning in purifying the skins of all animals with the exception of swine. Dawud said that it purifies all, even the skins of swine.

Ularning ixtilofining sababi bu masalada rivoyatlarning ziddiyatidadir. Maymuna rivoyatida hech qanday cheklovsiz uni foydalanish mubohligi bayon etilgan: Nabiy ﷺ o‘lik hayvon yonidan o‘tayotib, dedilar: "Keyin uning terisidan foydalanganingizda yaxshi bo‘lardi". Uni mutlaq man qilish esa Ibn Akim rivoyatidan olingan bo‘lib, unda shunday deyilgan: "Allohning Elchisi ﷺ na uning terisidan, na paylaridan foydalanish mumkin emasligini yozib qoldirdilar". Bu ﷺ vafotlaridan bir yil oldin bo‘lgan. Ba'zi rivoyatlarda esa buyruq ularni oshlangandan keyingina (foydalanish mumkinligini), oshlanishdan oldin emasligini bildiradi. Bu borada qabul qilingan rivoyat "KITOB: TAHORAT (TA'HOR)" bobidagi Ibn Abbosning rivoyati bo‘lib, unda Nabiy ﷺ shunday degan: "Terilar oshlanganda, ular pok bo‘ladi".

Huquqshunoslar quruqlikdagi hayvonlarning qoni najis ekaniga ittifoq qilganlar, ammo baliq qoni haqida ixtilof qilganlar. Xuddi shunday, dengiz hayvonlaridan boshqa hayvonlarning oz miqdordagi qoni haqida ham ixtilof qilganlar.

The jurists agreed that blood of land animals is unclean, but they differed about the blood of fish. Similarly, they disagreed about small quantities of blood of animals other than those of the sea.

Bir guruh faqihlar baliq qoni pok, deb aytdilar. Bu Molikdan rivoyat qilingan ikki qarashdan biri bo‘lib, Shofe’iy ham shunday fikrda. Boshqa bir guruh faqihlar esa qon hukmiga asoslanib, u najis, deb aytdilar. Bu al-Mudavvanadagi Molikning qarashidir. Shuningdek, bir guruh faqihlar oz miqdordagi qonni e’tiborga olinmaydi, deb aytdilar, boshqalar esa qon ko‘p yoki oz bo‘lishidan qat’i nazar, uning hukmi bir xil, deb aytdilar. Birinchi qarash ko‘pchilikning qarashidir.

A group of jurists said that the blood of fish is clean, and this is one of two opinions from Malik and is also the opinion of al-Shafi‘T. Another group of jurists said that it is unclean on the basis of the rule for blood. This is Malik’s opinion in al-Mudawwana. Similarly, a group of jurists said that small quantities of blood are overlooked, while others said that the hukm of large and small quantities is the same. The former view is held by the majority.

Baliq qoni haqidagi ixtilofning sababi shundaki, ular o'lik baliqning maytaga kirishi yoki kirmasligi masalasida ixtilof qilganlar. Umumiy taqiqqa kiradi, deb hisoblaganlar baliqning qonini ham xuddi shunday (harom) deb bilganlar, o'lik baliqni umumiy taqiqdan istisno qilganlar esa, xuddi shu qiyos asosida uning qonini ham istisno qilganlar. Bu borada zaif rivoyat bor, unda Payg'ambar ﷺ shunday degan: "Bizga ikki xil mayta va ikki xil qon halol qilib berilgan: chigirtka va kit, hamda jigar va taloq."

The reason for their disagreement over the blood of fish relates to their disagreement whether dead fish is mayta. Those who considered dead fish to be included in the general prohibition for mayta, deemed its blood to be the same, while those who exempted it from the general prohibition, exempted its blood on the same analogy. There exists a weak tradition related to this, and this is the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), 1 wo kinds of mayta and two kinds of blood have been permitted to us, locust a nd whale, and liver and spleen”.

Ularning katta va kichik miqdordagi qonga oid ixtilofi aniq (mutlaq) ma'noni cheklangan (muqayyad) ma'noga ustun qo'yish yoki cheklangan ma'noni mutlaq ma'noga ustun qo'yish masalasiga bog'liqdir. Qonning harom qilinishi Allohning Ulug' so'zlarida mutlaq shaklda bayon etilgan: "Sizlarga harom qilindi: o'lik hayvon, qon va cho'chqa go'shti", [81] lekin U zotning: "Ayting: Menga vahiy qilingan narsada, yeyuvchiga harom bo'lgan biron narsani topmayman, faqat o'lik hayvon, to'kilgan qon yoki cho'chqa go'shti – albatta, bu nopokdir", [82] degan so'zlarida esa cheklangan shaklda keladi. Muqayyad ma'noni mutlaq ma'noga ustun qo'ygan kishilar, ular ko'pchilikdir, faqat "to'kilgan" qonning harom va nopok ekanini aytdilar. Mutlaq ma'noga muqayyad ma'nodan ustun qo'ygan kishilar esa "to'kilgan" qon katta miqdordagi qon, "to'kilmagan" qon esa kichik miqdordagi qon ekanini, ikkalasi ham harom ekanini aytdilar. Ular o'z qarashlarini yana shu bilan asoslaganlar: mohiyatan nopok bo'lgan narsaning tarkibiy qismlari pok bo'la olmaydi.

Faqihlar insonning siydigi va najasining najisligi haqida ittifoq qilganlar, faqat erkak chaqaloqning siydigi bundan mustasno. Bundan tashqari, barcha hayvonlarga nisbatan ularning hukmi haqida ixtilof qilganlar. Al-Shofi'iy va Abu Hanifa barcha hayvonlarning siydigi va najasi najis, deb hisoblaganlar. Boshqa bir guruh faqihlar esa barcha hayvonlarning siydigi va najasining mutlaqo pokligini, ya'ni barcha hayvonlarning qoldiqlari siydik va najasdan tashqari, pok ekanligini ta'kidlaganlar. Yana bir guruh faqihlar esa ularning siydigi va najasining hukmi ularning go'shtining hukmiga bog'liq, deganlar. Go'shti harom bo'lgan hayvonlarning siydigi va najasi harom va najis; iste'mol qilishga yaroqli hayvonlarning siydigi va najasi esa pok, faqat iflos narsalar bilan oziqlanadigan hayvonlar bundan mustasno. Makruh (ovqat sifatida) hisoblangan hayvonlarning siydigi va najasi ham makruhdir. Bu Molikning fikri bo'lib, Abu Hanifaning yirtqich hayvonlarga nisbatan fikri ham shunday edi.

The jurists agreed about the uncleanliness of human urine and excrement, except for the urine of a male infant. They disagreed about what is besides this with respect to all animals. Al-ShaficT and Abu Hamfa held that urine and excrement of all animals are unclean, while a group of jurists upheld their absolute cleanliness, that is, offal of all animals from urine and excrement. A group of jurists said that the hukm of their urine and dung is dependent upon the hukm of their flesh. The animals whose flesh is prohibited, their urine and dung are prohibited and unclean, while the animals that are fit for consumption their urine and dung are clean, except for those animals that consume filth. The animals that are considered abominable (for food), their urine and dung are also abominable. This was Malik’s opinion, as well as that of Abu Hamfa with respect to beasts of prey.

Ularning ixtilofi ikki sababga ko‘ra yuzaga kelgan. Birinchisi — hayvonlarning yotgan joylarida namoz o‘qish ruxsat etilganining, Payg‘ambar ﷺ ning TJmiyin qabilasiga tuya siydigi va sutini ichishga bergan ruxsatining, shuningdek tuyalarning yotgan joyida namoz o‘qishning man etilishi ma’nosining talqinidagi ixtilofdir. Ikkinchisi — shu maqsadda boshqa barcha hayvonlarni insonga qiyos qilishdir. Barcha boshqa hayvonlarni insonga qiyos qilib, bu oliy qiyos toifasiga kiradi, deb hisoblaganlar, hayvonlarning yotgan joylarida namoz o‘qish ruxsatini ularning siydigi va najasining pokligini bildirmaydi, deb hisoblaganlar va buni vahiyga asoslangan, aql bilan anglab bo‘lmaydigan hukm deb bilganlar. Tuyalarning yotgan joyida namoz o‘qishning man etilishini najosatga ishora deb tushunib, TJmiyin uchun tuya siydigini ichishni esa davo sifatida, asl e’tibori bilan ruxsat etilgan deb hisoblaganlar, barcha siydik va najosat nopok, degan fikrni aytganlar. Hayvonlarning yotgan joyida namoz o‘qish haqidagi rivoyatni ularning najosati va siydigi pok ekaniga, TJmiyin haqidagi hadis kabi, dalolat qiladi deb tushunib, tuyalarning yotgan joyida namoz o‘qishning man etilishini ibodat amali va najosatdan boshqa ma’noni anglatadi deb hisoblaganlar — ularning fikricha, inson va hayvonlar o‘rtasidagi farq shundaki, insonning najosati tabiatan jirkanchdir, hayvonlarniki esa unday emas — najosatni hayvonlar go‘shtining halolligiga bog‘liq deb hisoblaganlar. Alloh eng yaxshi biladi. Barcha boshqa hayvonlarni uy hayvonlariga qiyos qilganlar esa, inson najosatidan tashqari, barcha najosat pok va man etilmagan, deb hisoblaganlar.

Faqihlar kichik miqdordagi najosat haqida uch xil fikrda ixtilof qilganlar. Bir guruh faqihlar kichik va katta miqdorlar bir xil, deb hisoblagan. Shu fikrda bo‘lganlar orasida ash-Shofi‘iy ham bor. Yana bir guruh faqihlar kichik miqdordagi najosatni e’tiborga olinmaydi, deb hisoblagan va buni aralash (qotishma) dirhamning hajmiga teng miqdor bilan belgilagan. Shu fikrda bo‘lganlar orasida Abu Hanifa ham bor. Muhammad ibn al-Hasan bundan chetga chiqib, agar najosat kiyimning to‘rtdan bir qismini yoki undan kamini egallasa, unda namoz o‘qish joizligini aytgan. Uchinchi guruh faqihlar kichik va katta miqdordagi najosat bir xil, deb hisoblagan, faqat yuqorida zikr qilinganidek qon bundan mustasno. Bu Molikning fikridir. Undan hayz qoni haqida ikki xil rivoyat bor, ulardan keng tarqalgani shuki, u boshqa barcha turdagi qonlarga o‘xshaydi.

The jurists disagreed about small amounts of filth into three opinions. A group of jurists held that small and large quantities are the same. Among those who held this opinion is al-ShaficT. Another group of jurists held that small amounts of filth are overlooked, and they fixed this to be an amount equal to the size of an impure (alloyed) dirham. Among those who held this opinion is Abu HanTfa. Muhammad ibn al-Hasan deviated from this saying that if the filth covers one-fourth or less of the dress, prayer is permitted in it. A third group of jurists held that small and large quantities of filth are the same, e *cept in the case of blood as has been mentioned. This is Malik’s opinion. There are two narrations from him about menstrual blood, the one widely known being that it is similar to all other kinds of blood.

Ularning ixtilofining sababi tosh bilan tozalashdagi qolgan najosat izini e'tiborsiz qoldirish istisnosiga asoslangan holda kichik nopoklikni qiyos qilish masalasidagi tortishuvlariga bog'liqdir. Bunday qiyosni ruxsat berganlar kichik nopoklikning kechirilishini tasdiqladilar va shu sababli uni chiqish teshigining hajmiga teng bo'lgan dirham hajmi bilan chegaraladilar. Bu va boshqa istisnolarni qiyos uchun asos bo'la olmaydi, deb hisoblaganlar esa bunga yo'l qo'ymadilar.

The reason for their disagreement is related to their dispute over the analogy of minor uncleanliness upon the exemption disregarding the remaining trace of filth in the case of cleaning with stones. Those who permitted such an analogy u pheld the permissibility of minor uncleanliness, and for this reason they limited it to the size of a dirham, the size of which is the same as the size of the outlet. Those who held that these and other exemptions cannot serve as a basis lor analogy, did not allow it.

Malik ning qon borasidagi istisno qilinishining sababi avval aytib o'tilgan. Abu Hanifaning fikrini izohlasak, u najosatni uning fikricha og'ir va yengil turlarga bo'ladi. Og'ir najosatda kechiriladigan miqdor bir dirham hajmi bilan chegaralanadi, yengil najosatda esa kiyimning to'rtdan bir qismigacha kechirim beriladi. Yengil najosat uning nazarida ulov hayvonlarining najosati va ko'chalar ko'pincha xoli bo'lmaydigan narsalar kabidir. Uning najosatni og'ir va yengil deb bo'lishi juda ajoyib.

Ular meniy haqida ixtilof qilishdi, u najosatlimi yoki yo'q. Ulardan bir guruh, Molik va Abu Hanifa, uni najis deb hisobladi, boshqa bir guruh esa uni pok deb bildi, bu fikr ash-Shofi'iy, Ahmad va Dovud fikri edi.

They disagreed about semen, whether it is unclean. A group, from among them, Malik and Abu HanTfa, held that it is unclean, while another group maintained that it is clean, which was the opinion of al-ShaficT, Ahmad, and Dawud.

Ikki sabab ularning ixtilofining sababidir. Birinchisi — Oisha (roziyallohu anho) rivoyatining turli nusxalaridagi farqdir. Ba'zi nusxalarda shunday deyilgan: "Men Allohning Elchisi ﷺ kiyimlaridagi maniyni yuvar edim, u esa o'sha kiyimlarda suv izlari bilan namoz o'qish uchun chiqar edi." Boshqalarida esa: "Men Allohning Elchisi ﷺ kiyimlaridagi maniyni qirib tashlar edim" va "u o'sha kiyimlarda namoz o'qir edi". Bu qo'shimcha Muslim tomonidan rivoyat qilingan. Ikkinchisi — maniyning bir tomondan badandan chiqadigan najosatli chiqindilarga, boshqa tomondan esa sut va boshqa pok ajralmalarga o'xshashligi o'rtasida tebranishidir.

There are two reasons for their disagreement. First is the variation in c A’isha’s tradition. In some versions it says, “I used to wash off semen from the clothes of the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), and he would go out to pray in them with water-marks on them.” In others it says, “I used to scrape off semen from the clothes of the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him)”, and that “he used to pray in them”. The addition is recorded by Muslim. The second reason is the vacillation of semen between resemblance with the unclean excrements of the body and between resemblance with other clean secretions, like milk etc.

Barcha hadislarni uyg'unlashtirib, yuvishni tozalik uchun deb izohlagan, artib tozalashdan esa uning pokligiga dalil chiqargan hamda maniyni boshqa pok ajralmalarga qiyos qilgan kishilar uni najis deb hisoblamadilar. Yuvish hadislarini artish hadislaridan ustun qo'yib, maniyni najis deb bilganlar — ularning nazarida u najis chiqindilarga pok ajralmalardan ko'ra ko'proq o'xshaydi — uni najis deb hisobladilar. Xuddi shuningdek, najislikning artish bilan yo'qolishiga ishonganlar ham shunday deydilar. Ular artishning o'zi ham yuvish kabi najislikni ko'rsatadi, deydilar. Abu Hanifaning fikri ham shudir. Shunga ko'ra, maniy pok deb hisoblovchilarning "Ul zot (ﷺ) o'sha kiyimlarda namoz o'qir edilar" degan so'zlari bilan dalil keltirishi asossizdir. Boshqa tomondan, bu so'zda Abu Hanifa uchun dalil bor: najislikni suvsiz ham yo'qotish mumkin, bu esa molikiylarning fikriga zid.

Those who reconciled all the traditions, interpreting washing to be for the purpose of cleanliness, and derived from scraping that does not purify an evidence of its purity, and made an analogy for semen upon other pure secretions, did not deem it unclean. Those who preferred the traditions of washing over those of scraping, and considered semen to be unclean, as it resembled, in their view, to unclean excrements more than clean secretions, maintained that it is unclean. So also those who believe that uncleanliness is removed by scraping. They said that scraping itself indicates its uncleanliness, as does washing. This is Abu HanTfa’s opinion. On this basis there is no proof with those who maintain their opinion (that semen is clean) on the words that “he used to pray in them”, on the other hand, there is evidence in it for Abu HanTfa that uncleanliness can be removed without water, which is contrary to the opinion of the Malikites.