Istinja* va hojatxonaga kirish odob-qoidalarining aksariyati fuqarolar (fuqahо) tomonidan mustahab (tavsiya etiladigan) deb izohlanadi. Ular Sunnat orqali ma'lum bo'lib, jumladan: tabiiy ehtiyojni bajarayotganda maxfiy, uzoqroq joyni tanlash (mazhabdagi qarashga ko'ra), gapirishdan tiyilish, istinja*ni o'ng qo'l bilan qilishning man etilishi, jinsiy a'zoga o'ng qo'l bilan tegmaslik va hadislarda bayon etilgan boshqa qoidalar.

The majority of the ahkdm of istinja* and of visiting the privy are interpreted Y the jurists as a recommendation (nadb). These are known through the SUnna, and include seeking a remote place when answering the call of nature—according to the opinion in the school—refraining from speech, the prohibition of performing istinjd* with the right hand, not touching the genitals with the right hand, and others besides these that have been laid down in the traditions.

Ulamolar bir mashhur masalada ixtilof qilganlar, ya'ni tahorat qilish (ayniqsa, tahorat qilish uchun hojat joyida) yoki siydik chiqarish vaqtida qiblaga yuzlanish yoki unga orqa qilish masalasida. Faqihlarning bu borada uchta fikri bor. Birinchisi: hojat chiqarish vaqtida, xoh hojatxonada bo'lsin, xoh boshqa joyda bo'lsin, qiblaga yuzlanish umuman joiz emas. Ikkinchisi: bu mutlaqo joiz. Uchinchisi: bu shaharlar va qishloqlarda joiz, ammo cho'lda yoki shahar va qishloqlardan boshqa joylarda joiz emas.

They disagreed about one widely known issue and that is the facing of the qibla or turning the back to it while relieving oneself or urinating. The jurists have three opinions about it. First, that it is not permitted at all to face the qibla while relieving oneself, whether in the privy or at any other location. Second, that this is permitted absolutely. Third, that it is permitted within settlements and townships, but not in the desert or places other than settlements and towns.

Ularning ixtilofining sababi ikkita sobit, lekin bir-biriga zid rivoyat. Birinchisi Abu Ayyub al-Ansariy rivoyati bo'lib, unda Payg'ambar ﷺ shunday degan deb naql qilinadi: "Hojatxonaga kirganingizda qiblaga yuzlanmang va qiblaga orqangizni qilmang, balki sharqqa yoki g'arbga yuzlaning".83 Ikkinchi rivoyat Abdulloh ibn Umar'dan naql qilinadi, u shunday degan: "Singlim Hafsaning uyining tomiga chiqdim va Allohning Elchisi ﷺ ikki g'isht ustida hojat ado etayotganini ko'rdim, yuzlari Shom tomonga, orqalari qiblaga qaratilgan edi".

The reason for their disagreement are two established but conflicting traditions. First is the tradition of Abu Ayyub al-Ansan in which the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) is reported to have said, “When you visit the privy, do not face the qibla or turn your back toward it, but turn toward the east or the west”.83 The second tradition is related from cAbd Allah ibn TJmar, who said, “I ascended the roof of my sister Hafsa’s house and saw the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) on top of two bricks, answering the call of nature, with his face toward Syria and his back toward the qibla”.

Fuqaholar bu ikki rivoyat borasida uch xil fikrga bo‘linib ketganlar. Birinchi fikr jam‘ qilish usuliga, ikkinchisi tarjih usuliga asoslangan, uchinchisi esa ziddiyat bo‘lganda asliy ruxsatga murojaat qilish usulidir. Asliy ruxsatdan (al-bara’a al-asliyya) men hukmning yo‘qligini nazarda tutyapman.

The jurists are divided over these two traditions into three opinions. The first opinion is based upon the method of reconciliation, the second on the method of preference, and the third is the method of resorting to the original permission when there is a conflict. I mean by original permission (bar£a asliya), the absence of a hukm.

Rekonsilyatsiya usulini qabul qilganlar Abu Ayyub al-Ansariy rivoyatini cho‘l (ochiq joylar) haqida deb talqin qildilar, u yerda to‘siq bo‘lmaydi, Ibn Umar rivoyatini esa to‘siqning mavjudligi haqida deb talqin qildilar. Bu Molikning fikri.

Those who adopted the method of reconciliation construed the tradition of Abu Ayyub al-AnsarT to relate to the desert (open spaces), when there is no cover, and construed the tradition of Ibn TJmar to relate to the existence of a cover. This is Malik’s opinion.

Tarjih usulini qabul qilganlar Abu Ayyub rivoyatini afzal ko'rdilar, chunki ikki rivoyat ziddiyatga kelganda, ulardan biri hukm belgilasa, ikkinchisi umumiy qoidaga, ya'ni bu holda hukmning yo'qligiga muvofiq kelsa, va qaysi biri boshqasidan keyin yoki oldin kelganligi ma'lum bo'lmasa, hukm belgilovchi rivoyatni olish zarur. Ishonchli rivoyatchilar tomonidan naql qilingan bir rivoyat bo'yicha amal qilish va ikkinchisini tark etish majburiyati, u ham ishonchli rivoyatchilar tomonidan naql qilingan bo'lsa-da, ulardan biri ikkinchisidan keyin yoki undan oldin belgilangan bo'lishi mumkinligiga qaramay, sababi shundaki, amal qilishi farz bo'lgan hukmni, nasx (bekor qilish) ni taqozo qiladigan, bizda vakolat bo'lmagan taxmin asosida tark etishga ruxsat yo'q, agar bu rivoyatning keyinroq ekanligi naql qilinmagan bo'lsa. Ahkom uchun tayaniladigan ehtimollar, ya'ni hukm yuklovchi yoki uni bekor qiluvchi ehtimollar, shariat bilan chegaralangandir. Bundan tashqari, har qanday kelishilishi mumkin bo'lgan ehtimol qabul qilinmaydi. Shuning uchun ular aytadilarki, amal qilish majburiyati ehtimoliy e'tiqod bilan emas, balki qat'iy qoida bilan yuklanadi; ular bununla ehtimol bo'yicha amal qilishni majburiy qiladigan qat'iy qoidaning mavjudligini nazarda tutadilar.

Those who adopted the method of preference, preferred the tradition of Abu Ayyub, for in case of conflict of two traditions, one prescribing a law and the other conforming to the general principle, which in this case is the absence of a hukm, and it is not known which one precedes the other in time, it is necessary to adopt the tradition that lays down a law. The reason for being obliged to act according to one tradition that has been transmitted by reliable narrators and to relinquish the other, although it has also been reported by reliable narrators, and despite the possibility that one of them was later than the other or it was laid down before it, is that we are not permitted to relinquish a law that must be acted upon as an obligation in the face of a conjecture imposing an abrogation for which we have no authority, unless it has been related that this tradition was later. The probabilities that are relied upon for the ahkam, that is, those that impose the ahkam or withdraw them, are limited by the law. Moreover, not every probability that may be agreed upon is accepted. Thus, they say that the liability to act is not imposed by probable conviction, but is imposed by a definitive rule, they mean by it the existence of a definitive rule that makes it obligatory to act according to a probability.

Bu biz bayon etgan uslub Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm al-Andalusiyning uslubidir. Bu fiqhiy mulohaza asoslariga tayangan ajoyib uslub bo'lib, u "shubha dalil bilan sobit bo'lgan narsani ketkaza olmaydi" degan qoidaga suyanadi. Ziddiyat yuzaga kelganda asliy asosga murojaat qilish uslubini qabul qilganlar esa, shubha hukmni tugatadi va uni olib tashlaydi, go'yo hech qanday hukm yo'qdek bo'ladi, degan qoidaga asoslanganlar. Bu Dovud az-Zohiriyning uslubidir, ammo Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm, garchi u uning shogirdlaridan biri bo'lsa ham, shu masalada unga qarshi chiqqan.

This method that we have described is the method of Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm al-AndalusL This is an excellent method based on the principles of juristic reasoning, and it relies on the rule that doubt cannot remove what has been established by an evidence from the law. Those who adopted the method of recourse to the underlying principle in case of conflict have erected it on the rule that doubt terminates the hukm and withdraws it, and it is as if there is no rule. This is the method of Dawud al-Zahiri, but Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm opposed him on this issue, even though he is one of his followers.

Qozi (Ibn Rushd) dedi: «Bu kitobda biz qoidalar yo'lidan borayotgan deb hisoblagan masalalardan aynan shularni isbotlashni maqsad qildik. Bular shariatda ko'proq ifodalangan masalalar bo'lib, ularning aksariyati bevosita yoki zimnan shariatda aniq bayon etilgan masalalarga tegishlidir. Bu turdagi biror narsani eslaganimizda, uni ushbu kitobda tekshirib chiqamiz. Har bir fikrni uning muallifiga nisbat berishda tayanganlarimning ko'pi «Kitob al-Istidkar»dan olingan. Kimki mendan xatolik topsa, uni tuzatishini so'rayman. Yordam va muvaffaqiyat beruvchi Allohdir».

The QadT (Ibn Rushd) said, “This is what we sought to establish in this book from the issues we thought take the course of principles, and these are what have been expressed more often in the law, that is, most of them relate to issues expressly stated in the law, either directly or inherently. When we remember anything of this nature, we verify it in this book. Most of what I have relied upon, with respect to attributing opinions to their authors, is from Kitab al-Istidhkar^ and I permit (request) whosoever finds errors on my part to correct them. It is Allah Who grants help and success.”