Fuqarolar najosatlarni tozalash usuli haqida kelishib olganlar. Bu usul uch turli bo'lib, ular yuvish, artish va sepish bo'lib, chunki bular shariatda zikr qilingan va hadislar orqali sobit bo'lgan. Ular kelishdilar, yuvish barcha turdagi najosatlarga va najosat bo'lgan barcha joylarga qo'llanilishiga, artish esa chiqish joylari uchun toshlar bilan, etik va poyabzallar uchun esa quruq o't-o'lan bilan ruxsat etilishiga. Shuningdek, ular kelishdilar, ayollar libosining uzun sudralib yuradigan qismi Umm Salama rivoyatining zohiriy ma'nosiga muvofiq quruq o't-o'lan bilan pok bo'ladi.

The jurists agreed about the manner with which impurities are removed, and it is of three types, washing, wiping, and sprinkling, because these have been mentioned in the law and established through the traditions. They agreed that washing applies to all kinds.of impurities and for all locations of uncleanliness, and that wiping is permitted with stones for the outlets and with dry herbage for boots and sandals. They agreed, likewise, that the long trailing part of the female dress is purified by the dry herbage in accordance with the apparent meaning of the tradition of Umm Salama.

Ular ushbu narsalarga bog‘liq va ushbu bobning asosini tashkil etuvchi uch masalada ixtilof qilganlar. Birinchisi purkash haqida: qanday turdagi najosatni u bilan poklash mumkin. Ikkinchisi mash (sidirish) haqida: uning obyekti nima va u qanday turdagi najosatni ketkaza oladi, bu yuqorida zikr qilganimiz narsalarda kelishib olinganidan keyin. Uchinchisi yuvish va mash uchun takrorlar sonini belgilash sharti haqida.

They disagreed on three points related to these things and which form the principles of this chapter. The first is about sprinkling, as to what kind of impurity that can be purified with it. The second, is about wiping, as to what is lts object and the kind of impurity it can remove, after agreeing about what we have mentioned. The third point is about the stipulation of number (of repetitions) for washing and wiping.

Bir guruh faqihlar sepish (purkash) faqat emizikli bo‘lmagan go‘daklarning siydigiga xos, deb aytdilar. Boshqa bir guruh faqihlar bu masalada erkak go‘dak va qiz go‘dak siydigini farqladilar: erkak go‘dakning siydigi sepib tozalanadi, qiz go‘dakning siydigi esa yuviladi, dedilar. Uchinchi guruh esa: najosati aniq bo‘lgan narsani yuvish, najosati shubhali bo‘lgan narsani esa sepish bilan tozalash lozim, dedi. Bu Molik ibn Anas raziyallohu anhuning fikridir. Ularning ixtilofi hadislarning zohiriy ma’nolari o‘rtasidagi ziddiyatdan kelib chiqadi, ya’ni hadislarning ma’nosini tushunishdagi ixtilofdir. Chunki sepish haqida ikki sahih hadis bor. Birinchisi Oisha roziyallohu anhoning hadisi bo‘lib, u shunday deydi: “Bolalarni Nabiy ﷺ huzuriga olib kelishardi, u ular uchun duo qilar, ularning og‘izlarining yuqori qismini o‘z og‘izlarida ho‘llangan xurmo bilan ishqalar va ularni silardi. Bir bola uning huzuriga olib kelindi va u unga siydik qildi. U suv chaqirdi va siydik tegan joyga suv quydi, lekin uni yuvmadi.” Ba’zi rivoyatlarda: “Unga suv sepdi, lekin yuvmadi”, deyilgan. Buni al-Buxoriy rivoyat qilgan. Ikkinchisi Anas roziyallohu anhuning mashhur hadisi bo‘lib, u Allohning Elchisi ﷺ ning uyidagi namozini tasvirlab shunday degan: “Men eskirganidan qorayib ketgan hasirni olib, unga suv sepdim.” Ba’zi faqihlar Oisha hadisining zohiriy ma’nosiga amal qilib, bu hukm faqat go‘dak siydigiga xos, deb, uni boshqa turdagi siydiklardan ajratdilar. Boshqalar esa yuvish haqidagi hadislarni bu hadisdan ustun qo‘ydilar. Bu Molikning fikri bo‘lib, u sepishni faqat Anas hadisida kelgan va najosati shubhali bo‘lgan kiyimga cheklab qo‘ydi, zohiriy ma’noga ko‘ra.

A group of jurists said that sprinkling is specific to the urine of a child, who has not weaned. Another group of jurists made a distinction in this about the Urine of a male and that of a female, saying that the urine of the male is to be s Pnnkled over, while that of the female is to be washed. A third group said that washing is the prescribed purification for a thing the uncleanliness of w hich is confirmed, while sprinkling is for that which is doubted. This is the °Pinion of Malik ibn Anas, may Allah be pleased with him.The reason for their disagreement stems from the conflict of the apparent meanings of the traditions related to the issue, that is, their disagreement over the meanings. This is so as there are two established traditions about sprinkling. First is the tradition of ^isha “that children used to be brought to the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) and he used to pray for them and rub the top of their mouths with dates moistened in his own mouth as well as pet them. A child was brought to him and he urinated on him. He called for water and poured it over the affected spot but did not wash it.” In some versions it says, “he sprinkled over it but did not wash it”. This has been recorded by al-Bukhari. The other is the widely known tradition of Anas in which he described the prayer of the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) in his house saying, “I took hold of the mat that had become dark because of old age and sprinkled water over it”. Some of the jurists acted in accordance with the implication of Aisha’s tradition saying that this is specific to the urine of the child, and they exempted it from other categories of urine. Others preferred the traditions about washing to this tradition. This is Malik’s opinion, who confined the use of sprinkling to what is in the tradition by Anas and which relates to a garment the impurity of which is doubted, according to the apparent meaning.

Shu sababli, bolaning siydigini erkak va ayol bolaga qarab farqlaganlar Abu Dovud Abu as-Samhdan rivoyat qilgan hadisga tayanganlar: Payg'ambar ﷺ aytganlar: "Qiz bolaning siydigi yuviladi, o'g'il bolaning siydigi esa ustiga sepiladi". Bu farqni qilmaganlar esa, sobit hadis bilan qonunlashtirilgan o'g'il bola hukmini qiz bolaga qiyos qilishga tayanganlar.

Those who distinguished between the urine of a male child from that of a female relied on what has been related by Abu Dawud from Abu al-Samh about the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “The urine of the female (child) is to be washed, and .that of the male is to be sprinkled over”. Those who did not make this distinction relied upon the analogy of the female child over the male in whose case an established tradition is laid down.

Bir guruh faqihlar Abu Hanifa qarashiga ko'ra, agar najosatning asosiy qismi shu bilan ketgan bo'lsa, har qanday iflos bo'lgan narsani artishga ruxsat berdilar. Xuddi shunday, najosatni yo'qotadigan har bir narsa poklaydi, deganlarning qarashidan kelib chiqqan qiyos asosida artishni qo'llashga ham ruxsat berdilar. Boshqa bir guruh faqihlar esa, kelishilgan holatlardan tashqari bunga ruxsat bermadilar. Bu holatlar: chiqish joyi, ayolning etagiga tegib turgan libosi va etiklar bo'lib, ularni quruq o'simlik bilan artish kerak, najas bilan iflos yoki quritilmagan narsa bilan emas. Bu Molikning qarashidir. Bu faqihlar artishni shariatda zikr etilgan narsalardan boshqasiga kengaytirmadilar, boshqa bir guruh esa uni boshqa narsalarga ham kengaytirdi.

A group of jurists permitted wiping of any smeared object, in accordance with Abu HanTfa’s opinion, if the substance of the impurity was so removed; similarly, in the use of rubbing on the basis of analogy drawn from the views of those who maintain that each thing that removes the impurity can purify- Another group of jurists did not permit this, except in the cases agreed upon, that is, the outlet, the trailing dress of a woman, and boots, which are to be wiped with dry herbage and not with an unclean or undried object. This is Malik’s opinion. These jurists did not extend wiping to objects other than those mentioned in the law, while another group extended it to other objects.

Ularning bu masalada ixtilof qilishlarining sababi shuki, mash (sochiq bilan artish) hukmi u narsalarda rukhsat (istisno) sifatida vorid bo'lganmi yoki asl hukm sifatidami. Mash rukhsat deganlar uni boshqa narsalarga kengaytirmadilar, ya'ni unga qiyos qurmadilar. Mash najosat ahkomlaridan asl hukm, xuddi yuvish hukmi kabi, deganlar esa uni kengaytirdilar.

The reason for their disagreement over this is whether wiping has been laid down in those as an exemption or as a primary hukm. Those who said that it is an exemption did not extend it to other things, that this, they did not construct an analogy upon it, while those who said that it is a primary huhm among the ahkdm of impurities, like the hukm of washing, did extend it.

Ixtilof, tozalash va artish (surtish) vaqtida takrorlar soni haqida bir guruh faqihlar faqat nopoklikni yo‘qotishni shart qilib qo‘ydilar, boshqa bir guruh esa toshlar bilan artishda ham, yuvishda ham takrorlar sonini shart qilib qo‘ydi. Yuvishda takrorlar sonini shart qilganlardan ba’zilari uni rivoyat qilingan matnlarda aniq son zikr qilingan narsalar bilan cheklaydilar, boshqalari esa bu sonni qolgan nopokliklarga ham tatbiq etadilar. Yuvishda ham, artishda ham takrorlar sonini shart qilmagan faqihlar Molik va Abu Hanifadir. Toshlar bilan artishda takrorlar sonini shart qilganlar, ya’ni uchta toshdan kam bo‘lmasligini va undan ortiq bo‘lmasligini aytganlar, Shofe’iy va Zohiriylar jumlasidandir. Yuvishda takrorlar sonini shart qilganlardan, uni matnlarda zikr qilingan narsa bilan, ya’ni it idishni yalaganidan keyin idishni yetti marta yuvish bilan cheklaganlar Shofe’iy va uning fikriga amal qilgan kishilardir. Men biladigan darajada, nopokliklarni yetti marta yuvish shartini boshqa nopokliklarga ham kengaytirganlar qatorida Ahmad ibn Hanbal bor. Abu Hanifa esa sezilmaydigan, ya’ni shar’iy nopoklik bo‘lgan nopokliklarda uch marta yuvishni shart qilad.

In their dispute about number (of repetitions), a group of jurists stipulated only the removal of impurity in washing and wiping, while another group stipulated number (of repetitions) in wiping with stones as well as in washing. Some of those who stipulated number in washing restricted it to those objects about which number has been specifically mentioned in the transmitted texts, while others extended this to the remaining impurities also. Jurists who did not stipulate number, neither for washing nor for wiping, are Malik and Abu Ham fa. Those who stipulated number in wiping with stones, that is, three stones and nothing less, include al-ShafiT and the Zahirites. Among those who stipulated number in washing, are some who restricted it to the object that has been mentioned in the texts, that is, washing a utensil seven times after it has been licked by a dog, are al-ShaficT and those who adopted his opinion. Those who extended this stipulating washing of impurities seven times include, to the best of my knowledge, Ahmad ibn Hanbal. Abu Hanifa stipulates washing thrice in the case of impurities that cannot be perceived, that is, which are legal impurities.

Ularning bu masaladagi ixtilofining sababi shu ibodat turining anglashilgan ma'nosi bilan, hukm belgilangan rivoyatning zohiriy mazmuni o'rtasidagi ziddiyatdir. Hukmning ma'nosi najosatning o'zini yo'qotish ekanligini tushunganlar, son hech qanday shart qilmaganlar. Ular, Salmon rivoyatida tosh bilan tozalashda uch tosh bilan kam bo'lmasligi haqidagi amr bor, deb bilganlar, ammo bu sonni, hukmning anglashilgan ma'nosini shu rivoyatning mazmuni bilan uyg'unlashtirish maqsadida, tavsiya tarzida qabul qilganlar. Ular, it yalagandan keyin idishni yuvish haqida belgilangan sonni ham, Molik fikri haqida oldin aytilganidek, najosatga asoslanmagan ibodat amali deb hisoblaganlar. Bu rivoyatlarning zohiriy ma'nosiga amal qilib, ularni hukmning anglashilgan asosidan istisno qilganlar esa, belgilangan sonni faqat ko'rsatilgan narsalar bilan cheklaganlar. Anglashilgan asosdan ko'ra zohiriy ma'noni afzal ko'rganlar esa, son shartini qolgan barcha najosatlarga kengaytirganlar.

The reason for their disagreement about this is the conflict of the interpreted meaning of this form of worship with the apparent implication of the tradition in which number has been laid down. Those for whom the meaning of the command conveyed the removal of the substance of the impurity itself, did not stipulate number at all. They deemed the stipulation of number in wiping with stones, laid down in the established tradition of Salman that contains the command about not performing istinja? with less than three stones, as a recommendation, so as to reconcile the interpreted meaning of the law with the implication of this tradition. They also deemed the number stipulated about washing of the utensil following licking by a dog as an act of worship not based upon impurity, as has preceded concerning Malik’s opinion. Those who decided according to the literal meaning of these traditions, exempting them from the interpreted principle of the law, restricted the prescribed number to stated objects. Those who preferred the literal meaning Over the interpreted principle extended the condition of number to all the remaining impurities.

Abu Hanifa ning uch marta yuvish haqidagi dalili Payg‘ambarimizning (Allohning salovoti va salomi unga bo‘lsin) ushbu so‘zlari bo‘lib, ular quyidagicha: "Sizlardan biringiz uyqudan uyg‘onsa, qo‘lini idishga solishdan oldin uch marta yuvsin".

The evidence of Abu Hanifa about washing thrice is the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “When any of you wakes up from sleep let him wash his hand thrice before putting it into his utensil”.