Ushbu bobdagi qoidalarning muhokamasi yetti bo'limda qamrab olingan. Birinchisi jamoat namozlarining hukmlarini aniqlashga oid. Ikkinchisi imomlik shartlarini va imomlikka eng haqli shaxs hamda unga xos shartlarni aniqlashga oid. Uchinchisi iqtidochilarning imomga nisbatan holati va iqtidochilarga xos narsalarga oid. To'rtinchisi shaxs imomga ergashadigan va ergashmaydigan narsalar haqida. Beshinchisi (imomga) ergashish usuli haqida. Oltinchisi imom iqtidochilar nomidan o'z zimmasiga oladigan amallar haqida. Yettinchisi esa imomning namozi batil bo'lishi hukmini iqtidochilarga qay darajada yoyish mumkinligi masalasiga oid.

The discussion of the rules in this chapter is covered in seven sections. The i*grSt is about the identification of the ahkam of congregational prayers. The ‘second is about the identification of the conditions of imama and about the person who has precedence for imama and the conditions specific to him. The third is about the position of the followers with respect to the imam and the specific to the followers. The fourth is about the things in which a person follows the imam and those in which he does not follow him. The fifth j s about the manner of following (the imam). The sixth is about the acts that the imam bears on behalf of the followers. The seventh is about the question of how far can the invalidation of the imam's prayer be extended to the followers.

Bu bo'limda ikkita masala bor. Birinchisi, azon eshitgan kishiga jamoat bilan namoz o'qish farzmi-yo'qmi. Ikkinchisi quyidagi savolga tegishli: agar kishi masjidga kirib, jamoat namozi o'qilmasdan oldin alohida namoz o'qisa, unga jamoat bilan o'sha namozlarni qayta o'qish vojibmi?

In this section there are two issues. The first is whether prayer with the congregation is obligatory on the person who hears the call. The second issue relates to the following question: if a person enters the mosque and prays (separately before the congregational prayer is held), is it obligatory upon him to repeat the same prayers with the congregation?

Faqihlar bu masalada (ushbu masala) bo‘yicha ixtilof qilganlar: ko‘pchilik esa bu narsa yo sunnat yoki jamoaviy farz (fardi kifoya) ekanini ta’kidlaganlar. Zohiriylar esa jamoat bilan namoz o‘qish har bir mukallaf (huquqiy layoqatga ega shaxs) uchun vojib ekanini aytganlar.

The jurist disagreed about (the issue), with the majority maintaining that it is either a sunna or a communal obligation (fard kifaya). The Zahirites maintained that prayer with the congregation is obligatory for each mukallaf (individual with legal capacity).

Ularning ixtilofining sababi bu masalada hadislarni talqin qilishdagi ziddiyatdan kelib chiqadi. Shunday qilib, Payg'ambar (Allohning rahmati va salomi unga bo'lsin) ning so'zlari: "Jamoat bilan o'qilgan namoz yakka o'qilgan namozdan yigirma besh daraja yoki yigirma yetti daraja afzaldir", zohiran jamoat namozlari mustahab hukmlar toifasiga kirishini bildiradi. Bu esa farz namozdan tashqari qo'shimcha kamolot ekanini anglatadi, go'yo Payg'ambar ﷺ jamoat bilan o'qilgan namoz yakka kishining namozidan komilroq ekanini aytgandek bo'ladi. Kamolot esa, kifoyalikdan tashqari qo'shimcha narsadir. Ma'lum bo'lgan hadis ham bor: ko'zi ojiz kishi jamoat namozidan qolishga ruxsat so'radi, chunki uni masjidga yetaklaydigan hech kim yo'q edi. Payg'ambar ﷺ avvaliga unga ruxsat berdi, so'ngra unga dedi: "Azonni eshitasanmi?" U dedi: "Ha". Shunda Payg'ambar ﷺ dedi: "Unda sen uchun hech qanday ruxsat topmayman". Bu, to'g'ri uzrsiz jamoat namozining farzligini ochiq bayon qiladi. Buni Muslim rivoyat qilgan. Bu hadisni kuchaytirganlar orasida Abu Hurayra rivoyat qilgan, sahihligi ittifoq bilan tan olingan hadis ham bor, unda Allohning Elchisi ﷺ shunday degan: "Jonim qo'lida bo'lgan Zot haqqi, men o'tin bog'lamlarini yig'ishga buyurishga, so'ngra azon aytishga buyurishga, keyin esa odamlarga (mening o'rnimga) namozni o'qitish uchun bir kishiga buyurishga, so'ngra namozga kelishni istamaydigan kishilarning (uylariga) borib, ularning uylarini ular ichida turganlari bilan birga yoqib yuborishga qaror qilganimdek bo'ldim". Men qasamki, hayotim Uning qo'lida, ulardan birortasi go'shtli suyak yoki ikki go'shtli oyoq topishini bilganida edi, u ishshoga hozir bo'lardi. Ibn Mas'udning rivoyatida ham shunday deyilgan: "Allahning Elchisi ﷺ bizga to'g'ri hidoyat yo'llarini o'rgatdilar, va bu hidoyat yo'llari orasida azon aytilgan masjidda namoz o'qish ham bor." Ba'zi riwoyatlarida esa shunday deyilgan: "Agar sizlar Payg'ambaringizning sunnatini tark etsangiz, adashib qolasizlar."

The reason for their disagreement arises from the conflict of the interpretations of the traditions on this issue. Thus, the apparent meaning of the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “Prayer with the congregation is superior to praying alone by twenty-five degrees or by twenty-seven degrees” conveys that congregational prayers belong to the category of recommended ahkam. This means that it is a perfection over and above the obligatory prayer, as if the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) had said that prayer with the congregation is more perfect than the prayer of the (solitary) individual. Perfection is something additional to sufficiency. There is the well-known tradition about the blind man, who sought permission to stay away from congregational prayers as there was noone to lead him to it (the congregation). The Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) granted him the exemption (at first), but then said to him, “Can you hear the call?” He said, “Yes”. He said, “In that case I do not find any exemption for you”. This is explicit about its obligation in the absence of a valid excuse. This is recorded by Muslim. Among those that strengthen this tradition is that related by Abu Hurayra, the authenticity of which is agreed upon and it states that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “By Him in whose hands is my life, I had almost resolved to order the collection of firewood in bundles, order the call for prayer, then order a person to lead the people in prayers (on my behalf), and then chase reluctant men (in their houses) and to burn down their houses over them. By Him in whose hands is my life, if any of them had known that he would find a meaty bone or two good meat legs, he would be present at ish&'\ There is also the tradition of Ibn Mascud, in which he said, “The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) taught us the paths of right guidance, and among these guided paths is prayer in a mosque where the call has been issued”. In some of its versions it is said, “If you were to give up the practice of your Prophet you would be led astray”.

Masjidga kirib namoz o‘qigan kishi uni ikki yo‘ldan biri bilan ado etgan bo‘lishi mumkin: yolg‘iz o‘qigan bo‘lishi yoki jamoat bilan o‘qigan bo‘lishi mumkin. Agar u yolg‘iz namoz o‘qigan bo‘lsa, fuqaholarning bir guruhi uning jamoat bilan namozni qayta o‘qishi kerakligini ta’kidlaydi, faqat shom namozi (mag‘rib) bundan mustasno. Bu fikrni qo‘llab-quvvatlaganlar Molik va uning shogirdlaridir. Abu Hanifa esa shom va peshin (asr) namozlaridan tashqari namozni qayta o‘qish kerakligini aytgan. Al-Avzo‘iy shom va bomdod namozlarini istisno qilgan, Abu Savr esa peshin (asr) va bomdod namozlarini istisno qilgan. Al-Shofe‘iy esa barcha namozlarni qayta o‘qish kerakligini aytgan.

The person who entered the mosque and prayed may have done it in one of two ways: he may have prayed alone, or he may have prayed with the congregation. If he has prayed alone, a group of jurists maintain that he is to repeat the prayer with the congregation, except in the case of the sunset prayer (maghrib) only. Those who upheld this opinion are Malik and his disciples. Abu Harnfa said that he is to repeat the prayer, except the sunset and the middle prayer (casr), while al-AwzacT exempted the sunset and the morning prayers, and Abu Thawr exempted the middle and the morning prayers. Al- ShafiT said that he is to repeat all the prayers.

Ular jamoat bilan namozlarni qayta o‘qish haqida umuman kelishgan, chunki Bishr ibn Muhammadning otasidan rivoyat qilgan hadisiga ko‘ra: Allohning Elchisi ﷺ masjidga kirib, u bilan birga namoz o‘qimagan kishiga shunday degan: “Nega odamlar bilan birga namoz o‘qimading, sen musulmon emasmisan?” U aytdi: “Albatta musulmonman, ey Allohning Elchisi, lekin men oilam bilan birga namoz o‘qib bo‘lgan edim.” Payg‘ambar ﷺ unga dedi: “Kelganingda odamlar bilan birga namoz o‘qishing kerak, garchi avval o‘qib bo‘lgan bo‘lsang ham.” Faqihlar bu hadisning umumiy ma’nosi qiyos yoki dalil orqali cheklanishi mumkinligi sababli ixtilof qilganlar. Uni umumiy ma’nosida tushunganlar barcha namozlarni qayta o‘qish vojib, deb hisoblaganlar; bu al-Shofe’iyning fikridir. Undan faqat shom namozini istisno qilganlar umumiy ma’noni qiyos ash-shabah orqali cheklaganlar. Bunday qilgan Molik (Alloh unga rahm qilsin) bo‘lgan. U shunday dalil keltirgan: shom namozi toq sonli rak’atdan iborat bo‘lib, uni qayta o‘qish juft songa aylantiradi, chunki jami olti rak’at bo‘ladi, shu sababli u toqligini yo‘qotadi va o‘z turkumidan boshqa namoz turkumiga o‘tib qoladi, bu esa uni bekor qiladi. Ammo bu qiyosda zaiflik bor, chunki salom ikki toq namoz o‘rtasida ajratuvchi bo‘lgan, umumiy ma’noni qabul qilish esa bunday qiyos bilan cheklashdan afzaldir. Bu dalildan kuchliroq narsa Kufa faqihlari aytgan fikrdir: agar kishi shom namozini qayta o‘qisa, u bir kechada ikki toq namoz o‘qigan bo‘ladi, va rivoyat bor: “Bir kechada ikki toq namoz o‘qilmaydi.” Abu Hanifa esa, ikkinchi namoz nafl namozlarga o‘xshaydi, dedi. Demak, agar kishi o‘rta namozni (vitr) qayta o‘qisa, u as-asr namozidan keyin nafl namoz o‘qigan bo‘ladi, bu esa man etilgan. U bu qiyosga asoslanib, o'rta namozni va asr namozini, chunki ular toq sonli, istisno qildi, toq sonli namozlarni esa takrorlash mumkin emas. Agar al-Shofe'iy ularga takrorlangan namoz nafl ekanini tan olsa, bu qiyos to'g'ri bo'ladi. Bomdod namozi bilan o'rta namozni bunday farqlaganlar, buning sababi shuki, bomdoddan keyin namoz o'qishni man etish haqidagi rivoyatlar o'zaro ziddiyatga kelmaydi, o'rta namozdan keyingi namoz haqidagi rivoyatlar esa ziddiyatga keladi, bu haqda avval aytib o'tilgan. Bu al-Avzoiyning fikridir.

Ushbu bo'lim imomatning shartlarini aniqlash, afzallik huquqiga ega bo'lgan shaxsni aniqlash va imomga xos hukmlar haqida. Ushbu bo'limda to'rtta masala bor.

This section is about the identification of the conditions for imama, identification of the person who has precedence, and about the ahkam specific to the imam. In this section there are four issues.

Ular imomlikka kimning haqli ekani haqida ixtilof qilishgan. Molik aytdiki, u eng ko'p biladigan kishidir (namozning ahkomlari haqida) va eng yaxshi Qur'on o'qiydigan kishi emas. Bu ash-Shofiiy fikri ham edi. Abu Hanifa, ath-Thavriy va Ahmad aytdiki, ularga imomlik qiladigan kishi eng yaxshi Qur'on o'qiydigan kishidir.

They disagreed about the person who has precedence for imama. Malik said that he is the one most learned (about the rules of prayer), and not one who is the best reciter (of the Qur’an). This was also al-ShaficFs opinion. Abu Hanifa, al-Thawff, and Ahmad said that the best reciter is to lead them.

Ushbu ixtilofning sababi Payg'ambar (Allohning rahmati va salomi unga bo'lsin) so'zlarining ma'nosi borasidagi bahsdan kelib chiqadi: "Eng yaxshi Allohning Kitobini tilovat qiladigan kishi o'z qavmiga imom bo'lsin; agar tilovatda teng bo'lsalar, sunnatni eng yaxshi biladigan kishi bo'lsin; agar sunnatda ham teng bo'lsalar, (Madinaga) birinchi bo'lib hijrat qilgan kishi bo'lsin; agar hijratda ham teng bo'lsalar, birinchi bo'lib Islomni qabul qilgan kishi bo'lsin. Kishi o'z hukmi ostidagi odamga imomlik qilmasin, uning uyida uning ruxsatisiz o'tirib, mehmon ko'rinishida obro'sidan foydalanmasin". Bu rivoyatning sahihligi borasida ittifoq bor, lekin fuqaholar uning ma'nosi haqida ixtilof qilganlar. Uni zohiriy ma'nosi bo'yicha talqin qilganlar orasida Abu Hanifa ham bor. Ba'zilar "eng yaxshi qori" iborasini qonunshunoslikda eng bilimdon kishi, deb tushunganlar, chunki ularning fikricha, imomatda fiqhga bo'lgan ehtiyoj tilovatga bo'lgan ehtiyojdan kattaroqdir. Bundan tashqari, sahobalar orasida eng yaxshi qori, zarur ravishda, huquqiy bilim jihatidan ham eng yaxshi bo'lgan; bu bugungi kundagi vaziyatga zid.

The reason for their disagreement comes from the dispute over the meaning of the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “The person who recites the Book of Allah best is to lead his people, and if two are equal in recitation then one who has greater knowledge of the sunna. If they are equal with respect to the sunna then the one who emigrated [to Medina] first. If they are equal with respect to emigration then the one who embraced Islam first. A man is not to lead another person who is under his authority, nor is he to take advantage of another person’s hospitality without his permission”. This is a tradition that is agreed upon for its authenticity, but the jurists differed about its meaning.' Among those who interpreted- it through its apparent meaning is Abu HanTfa. Some of them understood the words “best reciter” to mean the most learned in the law, as they believed that the need for fiqh in imama is greater than that for recitation. Further, the best reciter among the Companions was necessarily the best in legal knowledge contrary to the situation that prevails today.

Fiqh olimlari balog'at yoshiga yetmagan, lekin Qur'onni o'qiy oladigan bola imomligi masalasida ixtilof qilganlar. Bir guruh olimlar bu tarzdagi imomlikka ruxsat berganlar, chunki bu hadisning umumiyligiga va 'Amr ibn Salama rivoyatiga asoslanadi: u bola ekanligida o'z qavmiga namoz o'qib bergan edi. Boshqa bir guruh olimlar bunga mutlaqo man qilganlar. Yana bir guruh esa nafl namozlarda ruxsat berib, farz namozlarda ruxsat bermaganlar; bu Molik rivoyat qilgan fikrdir.

The jurists disagreed about the imama of a minor who had not attained puberty but he could recite. A group of jurists permitted this due to the generality of this tradition and due to the tradition of <Amr ibn Salama that he used to lead his people in prayer when he was a minor. A group of jurists prohibited this absolutely, while another permitted it f or supererogatory prayers, but not for obligatory prayers, which is a narration from Malik.

Ixtilofning sababi shundan iboratki, bir kishi o'zi uchun farz bo'lmagan namozda boshqa kishiga imom bo'la oladimi, lekin o'sha iqtido qilayotgan kishi uchun bu namoz farz bo'lgan holatda. Bu imom va iqtido qiluvchining niyati turlicha bo'lishidan kelib chiqadi.

The reason for the disagreement stems from the question of whether a person can lead another in prayer when such prayer is not obligatory for him, but is obligatory for the person being led. This is due to the difference in the niyya of the person leading and that of the follower.

Ular fosiq (itoatsiz) kishining imomligi haqida ixtilof qilishdi. Bir guruh faqihlar uni umuman rad etdi, boshqa guruh esa uni hech qanday shartsiz ruxsat etdi. Uchinchi guruh esa uning itoatsizligining aniqlik darajasiga qarab farq qildi va agar imomning itoatsizligi aniq bo'lsa, namoz o'quvchi namozini doim qayta o'qishi (majburiy) bo'lishini, agar u ehtimolli bo'lsa, namoz o'quvchi namozini qayta o'qishi mustahab ekanligini aytdi. Bu fikr mazhab doirasidagi fikrlar orasidan al-Abhon tomonidan afzal ko'rildi. Yana shunday kishilar bor edi, ular uning itoatsizligi asosli yoki asossiz ekanligiga qarab farq qildilar, masalan, nabiz (ba'zilar tomonidan harom deb hisoblangan xurmodan tayyorlangan ichimlik) ichib, buni qilishda Iroq faqihlarining fikriga tayanadigan kishi: shunday qilib ular biror asosga tayanadigan kishining (imomning) orqasida namoz o'qishga ruxsat berdilar, ammo bunday asosga ega bo'lmagan kishining orqasida emas. Ularning ixtilofining sababi shundaki, bu masala shariatda aniq bayon qilinmagan va qiyoslar o'zaro ziddir.

They disagreed about the imama of the disobedient (fasiq). A group of jurists rejected it outright, while another permitted it without qualification. A third group made a distinction on the basis of the degree of certainty of his disobedience, and said that if his (the imam's) disobedience is certain the worshipper is (obliged) to repeat his prayer always, but if it is probable, it is recommended that the worshipper repeat the prayer. This opinion was preferred by al-Abhan from among the opinions in the school. There were those who made a distinction according to whether there was a basis for his disobedience, like one who drinks nabidh (a beverage of dates considered prohibited by some) and relies on the opinion of the jurists of Iraq for doing so; thus they permitted prayer behind a person (leader) who relies on some basis, but not behind one who does not have such a basis. The reason for their disagreement stems from the fact that it is something that is not expressly stated by the law, and the analogies are in conflict.

Those who maintained that fisq (disobedience) does not invalidate prayer, and that the follower does not need more than the validity of the imam's prayer—that is, according to the opinion of those who hold that the imam performs the prayer on behalf of the follower—permitted the imama of the fasiq. Those who compared imama to the rendering of testimony and suspected the fasiq of performing an invalid prayer, just as the (fasiq) witness is suspected of rendering false testimony, did not permit his imama. It is for this reason that some of the jurists made a distinction on the basis of whether his fisq is based on some legal justification. The distinction based on whether his disobedience is definitive or probable is almost similar to this, for when his fisq is certain it is as if he does not have a legal justification for it.

Those who maintained that as fisq (disobedience) does not invalidate prayer, and that the follower does not need more than the validity of the imam's prayer—that is, according to the opinion of those who hold that the imam performs the prayer on behalf of the follower—permitted the iniama of the fasiq. Those who compared imama to the rendering of testimony and suspected the fasiq of performing an invalid prayer, just as the (fasiq) witness is suspected of rendering false testimony, did not permit his imama. It is for this reason that some of the jurists made a distinction on the basis of whether his fisq is based on some legal justification. The distinction based on whether his disobedience is definitive or probable is almost similar to this, for when his fisq is certain it is as if he does not have a legal justification for it.

Ular ayolning imomligi (namozda imomlik qilishi) masalasida ixtilof qilishdi. Ko'pchilik uning erkaklarga imomlik qila olmasligini ta'kidladi, ammo ayollarga imomlik qilishi haqida ular ixtilof qilishdi. Imom ash-Shofi'iy buni ruxsat etdi, Molik esa man qildi. Abu Savr va at-Tabariy ko'pchilik fikridan chetga chiqib, uning imomligini mutlaq ravishda ruxsat etdilar.

They disagreed about the imdma of a woman. The majority maintained that s he cannot lead men, but they disagreed about her leading women (in prayer). Al-Shafi i c permitted this while Malik prohibited it. Abu Thawr and al-Tabari deviated (from the majority opinion) and permitted her imdma in absolute terms.

Ko‘pchilik ayolning erkaklarga imomlik qilishini taqiqlashga kelishdi, chunki agar bunga ruxsat berilganida, bunday ruxsat birinchi avlod (Islom) davridan naql qilingan bo‘lardi. Bundan tashqari, namozda ayollar erkaklar orqasida turishi ma’lum amaliyotdir; shuning uchun ularning oldinda turishi joiz emasligi ravshan. Payg‘ambar ﷺ shunday dedilar: “Ularni Alloh ortda qoldirgan joyda ortda qoldiringlar”. Shu sababli ba’zi faqihlar ayollarga ayollarga imomlik qilishga ruxsat berdilar, chunki namoz uchun ular teng darajaga ega. Bu ham birinchi avlod vakillaridan ba’zilaridan rivoyat qilingan.

The majority agreed to prohibit her from leading men, because had this been permitted such permission would have been transmitted from the first generation (of Islam). Further, a known practice in prayer is that women should stand behind men; therefore it is obvious that their being at the front is not permitted. The Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Keep them behind insofar as Allah has kept them behind”. It is for this reason that some jurists permitted them to lead women, as they have equal precedence for purposes of prayer. This has also been narrated from some members of the first generation.

Imom qilish uchun ruxsat berganlar Umm Waraqa rivoyatiga tayanib dalil keltirdilar, uni Abu Dovud rivoyat qilgan: "Allohning Elchisi ﷺ uning uyiga tashrif buyurar edi va uning uchun muazzin tayinladi, u unga azon aytar edi. U unga o'z xonadonidagilarga namoz o'qitishni buyurdi".

Those who permitted her imdma argued on the basis of the tradition of Umm Waraqa recorded by Abu Dawud “that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) used to visit her at her house and appointed a mttadhdhin for her to recite the adhan for her. He ordered her to lead the members of her household in prayer”.

Imomlik (imama) mavzusi ostida ko'plab masalalar bor, jumladan imom uchun belgilangan shartlar borasidagi ularning ixtilofi. Biz bu bahsni tark etdik, chunki ular qonunda aniq zikr etilmagan.

There are many issues under this topic of imdma, including their disagreement about the qualifications stipulated for the imam. We have left out their discussion as they are not expressly mentioned in the law.

Quyidagi to‘rt masala naql qilingan rivoyatlar bilan bog‘liq. Birinchisi: Ummul Qur’on tilovatini tugatgandan keyin “omin” deb aytadigan imammi yoki ma’mummi. Ikkinchisi: iftitoh takbirini qachon aytadi. Uchinchisi: tilovatda adashsa, unga yordam berib to‘g‘rilash kerakmi. To‘rtinchisi: uning namoz o‘qish joyi ma’mumlarnikidan balandroq bo‘lishi kerakmi.

There are four issues in this that are related to those expressly transmitted. The first is whether it is the imam who pronounces amin (amen) after he has completed the recitation of the umm al-Qur*dn, or is it the follower who does that. The second is when does he pronounce the takbir of commencement. The third is whether he is to be led on if he waivers in the recitation. The fourth is whether his place of prayer is to be higher than that of the followers.

Imom Umm al-Kitob qiroatini tugatgach, omin deyishi kerakmi degan masalada: Molik Ibn al-Qosim va Misrliklarning uning orqali rivoyat qilgan riwoyatlarida imom omin demasligi kerak, deb hukm qilgan. Ko'pchilik olimlar esa, xuddi muqtadiy kabi, imom ham omin deyishi kerak, deb aytgan. Bu Molikdan Madinaliklar orqali rivoyat qilingan bir riwoyat ham hisoblanadi.

About the issue whether the imam is to pronounce dmin (amen) once he has completed the recitation of the umm al-Kitdb, Malik held, in the narrations of Ibn al-Qasim and the Egyptians from him, that he is not to pronounce dmin. The majority maintained that he is to say dmin just like the follower. This is also one narration from .Malik through the Medinites.

Ixtilofning sababi ko'rinishda ziddiyatli bo'lgan ikki rivoyatdir. Birinchisi Abu Hurayra rivoyati bo'lib, uning sahihligi ittifoq qilingan. U aytdi: "Allohning Elchisi (ﷺ) dedilar: "Imom "omin" degan vaqtda, siz ham "omin" deng"". Ikkinchi rivoyat Molik tomonidan, ham Abu Hurayradan keltirilgan bo'lib, Nabiy (ﷺ) dedilar: "Imom "g'ayril-mag'dubi 'alayhim va lad-dolliyn" degan vaqtda, siz "omin" deng". Birinchi rivoyat imomning "omin" deyishi haqida aniq bayon qiladi. Ikkinchi rivoyat esa imomning "omin" demasligini ko'rsatadi, chunki agar imomga "omin" aytish vojib bo'lganida, ummul-Kitob tilovatidan so'ng va imom "omin" deyishidan oldin muqtadiydan "omin" aytish talab qilinmas edi. Nabiy (ﷺ) aytganlaridek: "Imom faqat ergashilishi uchun tayinlangan". Bu hukm, agar imomning so'zlaridan bu amal istisno qilinmagan bo'lsa, to'g'ridir; ya'ni muqtadiy "omin"ni imom bilan birga yoki undan oldin aytishi mumkin. Shunday ekan, bu rivoyatda imomning "omin" aytishi haqida dalil yo'q, u faqat muqtadiyning hukmini o'z ichiga oladi. Ko'rinishicha, Molik o'zi rivoyat qilgan hadisni afzal ko'rish usulini tutgan, chunki "omin" deydigan tinglovchi bo'ladi, tilovat qiluvchi emas. Ko'pchilik esa birinchi rivoyatni afzal ko'rgan, chunki u aniq bayon qiladi va unda imomning "omin"i haqida hukm yo'q. Bu rivoyat bilan boshqa rivoyat o'rtasidagi farq muqtadiyning "omin" aytishi masalasidadir, imomning "omin" aytishi masalasida emas. Shunga e'tibor bering.

Bu bo'limda quyidagi beshta masala bor:

In this section there are five issues as follows:

Ko'pchilik faqihlar bir kishi (erkak) uchun amaliyot imomning o'ng tomonida turish ekanligiga kelishdilar, chunki bu Ibn Abbos va boshqalarning rivoyatlari orqali sobit bo'lgan. Imomdan tashqari uch kishi bo'lsa, ular imomning orqasida turadilar. Imomdan tashqari ikki kishi bo'lganda ihtilof qildilar. Molik va ash-Shofi'iy ular imomning orqasida turishlarini aytdilar, Abu Hanifa, uning shogirdlari va Kufaliklar esa imom ularning o'rtasida turishini aytdilar.

The majority of the jurists agreed that the practice for one person (male) is to stand on the right side of the imam, because of its being established through the traditions of Ibn cAbbas and others. If there are three persons besides the imam they are to stand behind the imam. They differed when there are two persons besides the imam. Malik and al-ShafiT said that they are to stand behind the imam, while Abu HanTfa, his disciples, and the KufTs said that the imam is to stand between them.

Ularning ixtilofi ushbu masalada bir-biriga zid bo'lgan ikki rivoyatga asoslangan. Birinchisi Jobir ibn Abdulloh rivoyati bo'lib, u shunday degan: "Men Allohning Rasulining chap tarafida turdim, shunda u mening qo'limdan ushlab, meni o'ngiga keltirdi, hatto men uning o'ng tarafida turdim. Keyin Jobir ibn Sakr kelib, vuzu' qildi va Allohning Rasulining chap tarafida turdi (ﷺ). U bizning ikkovimizning qo'limizdan bir vaqtning o'zida ushlab, bizni orqasiga o'tkazguncha itardi". Ikkinchi rivoyat Ibn Mas'udniki bo'lib, u Alqama va al-Asvad bilan ular o'rtasida turgan holda namoz o'qigani haqida. U buni Payg'ambardan (ﷺ) rivoyat qilgan. Abu Umar aytdi: bu rivoyatning rivoyat qiluvchilari o'rtasida ixtilof bor. Ba'zilari uni Ibn Mas'udda to'xtatgan, boshqalari esa uni Payg'ambarga (ﷺ) bog'lagan. To'g'ri qarash shuki, u mavqufdir (sahobada to'xtaydi).

Their disagreement is due to two conflicting traditions on this. The first is the tradition of Jabir ibn cAbd Allah, who said, “1 stood on the left of the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), so he took hold of my hand and brought me around till I stood on his right side. Jabir ibn Sakhr then came, performed the ^ablution, and stood to the left of the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him). He took hold of our hands at the same time and pushed us till we stood behind him”. The second tradition is Ibn Mascud’s, that he prayed with cAlqama and al-Aswad while standing between them. He related this from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him). Abu TJmar said that the narrators of this tradition differed. Some of them stopped at Ibn Mascud, while others linked it up to the Prophet. The correct view is that it is mawquf (stops at the Companion).

Ayolning sunnat bo'lgan amali shu: agar imomdan tashqari bitta erkak ergashuvchi bo'lsa, ayol shu erkakning orqasida turadi; agar u yolg'iz bo'lsa, imomning orqasida turadi. Bu masalada ixtilof borligini bilmayman, chunki u Imom al-Buxoriy rivoyat qilgan Anas hadisiga asoslangan: "Nabiy ﷺ u (Anas) va uning onasi yoki xolasi bilan namoz o'qidi. U (Anas) aytadi: «U meni o'ng tomoniga turg'azdi va ayolni bizning orqamizda turg'azdi»". Molik ham uning rivoyatida shunday deydi: "Biz, yetim va men, Nabiy ﷺ orqasida saf tuzdik, kampir esa bizning orqamizda turdi". Yolg'iz erkak ergashuvchining amali imomning o'ng tomonida turishidir. Buni Ibn Abbosning Maymuna uyida tunagani haqidagi rivoyati dalil qiladi. Bir guruh faqihlar esa uning chap tomonida turishi kerak, deganlar. Yolg'iz ayol imomning orqasida turishi borasida ixtilof yo'q. Agar ayol boshqa erkak bilan birga namoz o'qisa, erkak yonida, ayol esa uning orqasida turadi.

Olimlar birinchi saf afzal ekanligi, shuningdek, saflarda yaqin turish va safni to‘g‘rilash lozimligi borasida ittifoq qilganlar, chunki Allah Elchisining (ﷺ) bu haqdagi amri tasdiqlangan. Yakka holda saf orqasida turgan kishining namozi haqida esa ixtilof qilganlar. Ko‘pchilik faqihlar uning namozi to‘g‘ri ekanini aytadilar, Ahmad, Abu Savr va bir guruh faqihlar esa uning namozi sahih emasligini aytganlar.

The jurists agreed that the first row is to be desired; similarly standing close together and the straightening the rows, because of the confirmation of the command from the Messenger of Allah’ (God’s peace and blessings be upon him). They disagreed in ths case of a person standing alone behind a row. The majority of the jurists say that his prayer is valid, while Ahmad, Abu Thawr, and a group of jurists said that his prayer is invalid.

Ularning ixtilofining sababi Vobisa rivoyatining sahihligi va uning amaliyot bilan ziddiyatiga oid bahsdan kelib chiqadi. Vobisa rivoyati shundan iboratki, Payg'ambar ﷺ shunday degan: "Safda yakka holda turgan kishining namozi (hisobga) olinmaydi". Imom Shofe'iy ﷺ esa bu Anas rivoyatidagi safning orqasida turgan kampir holatiga zid ekanini aytgan. Imom Ahmad esa bu dalilning hujjat kuchi yo'qligini aytgan, chunki ayollarning erkaklar orqasida turishi odatiy holdir. Imom Ahmad, biz aytganimizdek, Vobisa rivoyatini sahih deb hisoblagan. Boshqalar esa uning isnodi tebranuvchi ekanini aytib, bunday rivoyatning shariy dalil bo'la olmasligini ta'kidlagan. Ko'pchilik esa Abu Bakra rivoyatiga tayanib, uning safdan ajralib, yakka holda namoz o'qiganini va Allohning Elchisi ﷺ uni namozni qayta o'qishga buyurmaganini dalil qilgan. Payg'ambar ﷺ unga: "Alloh sizning ishtiyoqingizni ziyoda qilsin, lekin buni qaytarmang", deganlar. Agar bu so'z safda boshqalar bilan birga turishga targ'ib sifatida tushunilsa, Vobisa va Abu Bakra rivoyatlari o'rtasida hech qanday ziddiyat qolmaydi.

The reason for their disagreement arises from the dispute over the authenticity of the tradition of Wabisa and its conflict with practice. The tradition of Wabisa is that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “No prayer (is counted) for the person standing alone behind a row”. Al-Shafi T said c that this is contrary to the case of the old woman standing behind a row in the tradition of Anas. Ahmad said that there is no legal force in this (argument) as it is the practice for women to stand behind men, and Ahmad, as we have said, considered the tradition of Wabisa authentic. Others have said that it has wavering isnad and such a tradition cannot serve as a legal evidence. The majority argued on the basis of the tradition of Abu Bakra that he prayed alone, separately from the row, and the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) did not order him to repeat the prayer. He said to him, “May Allah increase your eagerness, but do not repeat that”. If this (remark) is interpreted as recommendation (for praying alongside others in a line), there is no conflict between the traditions of Wabisa and Abu Bakra.

Ilk faqihlar orasida kishi iqomani eshitganda, jamoat namozidan biror qismini o'tkazib yubormaslik uchun masjidga tezroq yurishi kerakmi, yo'qmi, degan masalada ixtilof bo'lgan. Umar va Ibn Mas'uddan rivoyat qilinadiki, ular iqomani eshitganda tez yurishgan. Zayd ibn Sobit, Abu Zarr va boshqa sahobalardan rivoyat qilinadiki, ular masjidga shoshilib borishni to'g'ri deb hisoblamaganlar, balki vazmin va xotirjam holda borish kerak deb bilganlar. Viloyatlardagi faqihlar ham shu fikrni qo'llab-quvvatlaganlar, chunki Abu Hurayra rivoyat qilgan, sahih hadis mavjud: "Iqomat aytilgan bo'lsa, unga shoshilib kelmanglar, balki xotirjam holda keling". Ixtilofning sababi, ehtimol, bu hadis ularga yetib bormagani yoki Qur'on oyatlari bu hadisga zid kelgani bo'lsa kerak. Allohning Oliy Zoti shunday deydi: "Yaxshi ishlarda bir-biringizdan o'zib ketishga shoshilinglar", "Eng oldinda yurganlar, eng oldinda yurganlar, ana ular Allohga yaqinlashtirilganlardir", "Rabbingizning mag'firati uchun bir-biringiz bilan poyga qilinglar". Umuman olganda, shariat qoidalari yaxshi ishlarda raqobatlashishni tasdiqlaydi. Ammo agar hadis sahih bo'lsa, boshqa yaxshi ishlar orasidan namozni bu hukmdan istisno qilish zarur.

There was a dispute among the early jurists as to whether a person who hears the iqama should increase his pace to reach the mosque for fear of missing part of the prayer. It is related from TJmar and Ibn Mascud that they used to walk rapidly upon hearing the iqama. It is related from Zayd ibn Thabit, Abu Dharr, and other Companions that they did not deem it proper to rush to the mosque, rather they held that one should approach it with composure and tranquility. This is the opinion upheld by the jurists of the provinces, because of the confirmed tradition of Abu Hurayra, “If the iqama has been pronounced do not approach it in a rush, but come to it in a tranquil state”. It appears that the reason for disagreement over this arose either because this tradition had not reached them or because the Book contradicts it in the words of the Exalted, “So \\e(fa'stabiqu\ compete) with one another in good works”,123 “And the foremost in the race, the foremost in the race: Those are they who will be brought nigh”,124 “And vie ($dri<u: rush forward) with one another for forgiveness from your Lord”. On the whole, the principles of the law bear testimony of competition in good works, but if the tradition is authentic it is necessary to make an exception for prayer from among other good works.

Namozga turish uchun qaysi vaqt mustahab hisoblanadi? Ba'zilar, shoshqaloqlik yaxshi ekanligi asosida, iqomaning boshida turishni afzal ko'radilar. Ba'zilar esa "qad qomatis-salah" so'zlari aytilayotganda turishni afzal ko'radilar, boshqalari esa "hayya 'alal-falah" so'zlari aytilganda turishni ma'qul ko'radilar. Ba'zilar imomni ko'rganda turish vaqti keladi deydilar, Molik (Allohu taolo undan rozi bo'lsin) esa aniq bir vaqt belgilamagan, chunki bu kishining imkoniyatiga bog'liq, bu borada naql qilingan dalil ham yo'q, faqat Abu Qatoda rivoyati bundan mustasno: Payg'ambar ﷺ dedilar: "Namoz boshlanish oldida bo'lganda, meni ko'rmaguncha turmanglar". Agar bu hadis sahih deb isbotlansa, unga amal qilish zarur, ammo masala aniqlanmagan qoladi, ya'ni bu borada aniq hukm yo'q va kim qachon tursa, o'sha to'g'ri hisoblanadi. Molik va fuqahoning ko'pchiligi shunday deydilar: imom ruku' holatida bo'lganda kelgan va agar ikkilansa yoki birinchi safga yetishga harakat qilsa, bir rakatni yo'qotib qo'yishdan qo'rqqan kishi birinchi safning orqasida rukuga egilib, so'ngra rukuda turgan holatida oldinga siljishi mumkin. Imom Shofe'iy buni makruh deb hisoblagan, Abu Hanifa esa guruh va yakka shaxs o'rtasida farq qilib, yakka shaxs uchun makruh, guruh uchun esa ruxsat deb bilgan. Molikning mazhabi Zayd ibn Sobit va Ibn Mas'uddan naql qilingan. Ularning ixtilofi Abu Bakr rivoyatining sahihligi borasidagi bahsdan kelib chiqadi: u masjidga kirganda Allohning Elchisi ﷺ odamlarga imomlik qilayotgan va ular ruku'da bo'lgan edilar. U ham ruku'ga egildi, so'ngra safga tomon yurdi. Allohning Elchisi ﷺ namozni tugatgach dedilar: "Kim harakat qildi?" Abu Bakr: "Men", dedi. U zot ﷺ dedilar: "Allох sening shoshqaloqligingni ziyoda qilsin, lekin buni takrorlama".

When is it considered recommended to stand up for prayer? Some prefer the time at the beginning of the iqama on the principle that eagerness is desirable. Some prefer it when the words “qad qdmati's-salah” are being pronounced, while others prefer it on the pronouncement of the words “hayya '■ala'l- falah”. Some say that when people see the imam (it is time togetup)rwhile others, like Malik (God be pleased with him), have not fixed any (specific) time, for this depends on the capacity of the individual, and there is no transmitted evidence for it, except the tradition of Abu Qatada that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “When the prayer is about to commence, do not get up till you see me”. If this is proved authentic, it is necessary to act in accordance with it, but the issue remains indeterminate, I mean, there is no law for it, and whenever someone gets up then it is proper. Malik and the majority of the jurists maintain that a person who arrives when the imam is in the ruku< position, and fears that he will lose a rakca}26 if he hesitates or tries to reach the first row, he may bow behind the first row and then move forward while bowing. ALShafiT considered this abominable, while Abu Hamfa made a distinction between a group and an individual, considering it abominable for an individual, but permissible for a group. The position taken by Malik is related from Zayd ibn Thabit and Ibn Mascud. The reason for their disagreement stems from their dispute over the authenticity of the tradition of Au Bakr, which says that “he entered the mosque when the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) was leading the people in prayer and they were bowing. He bowed too and then moved towards the row. When the Messenger of Allah had finished praying, he said, “Who moved?” Abu Bakr said, “It was I”. He said, “May Allah advance your eagerness, but do not repeat it”.

Molik va ko'pchilik fiqh olimlari shunday deydilar: imom ruku' holatida bo'lganida kelgan va agar ikkilansa yoki birinchi safga yetishga harakat qilsa, bir rakatni yo'qotib qo'yishdan qo'rqqan kishi birinchi safning orqasida ruku' qilishi, so'ngra ruku' holatida ilgari yurishi mumkin. Ash-Shofi'iy buni makruh deb hisoblagan, Abu Hanifa esa farq qilgan: yakka kishi uchun makruh, jamoa uchun esa joiz deb hisoblagan. Molikning bu qarashi Zayd ibn Sobit va Ibn Mas'uddan rivoyat qilinadi. Ularning ixtilofi Abu Bakrga oid rivoyatning sahihligi borasidagi tortishuvdan kelib chiqadi. Bu rivoyatda aytilishicha, Abu Bakr masjidga kirganda Allohning Rasuli ﷺ odamlarga namoz o'qitayotgan va ular ruku' qilayotgan edi. U ham ruku' qildi, so'ngra safga qarab yurdi. Allohning Rasuli ﷺ namozni tugatganda: "Kim harakat qildi?" dedi. Abu Bakr: "Men", dedi. U: "Alloh sening ishtiyoqingni ziyoda qilsin, lekin buni takrorlama", dedi.

Malik and the majority of the jurists maintain that a person who arrives when the imam is in the ruku< position, and fears that he will lose a rakca}26 if he hesitates or tries to reach the first row, he may bow behind the first row and then move forward while bowing. ALShafiT considered this abominable, while Abu Hamfa made a distinction between a group and an individual, considering it abominable for an individual, but permissible for a group. The position taken by Malik is related from Zayd ibn Thabit and Ibn Mascud. The reason for their disagreement stems from their dispute over the authenticity of the tradition of Au Bakr, which says that “he entered the mosque when the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) was leading the people in prayer and they were bowing. He bowed too and then moved towards the row. When the Messenger of Allah had finished praying, he said, “Who moved?” Abu Bakr said, “It was I”. He said, “May Allah advance your eagerness, but do not repeat it”.

Fuqaholar, muqtadiy imomga barcha so'zlari va harakatlarida ergashishi vojib ekaniga kelishganlar, faqat "sami'a Allohu liman hamidah" degan so'zlarni aytishda va imom kasallik sababli o'tirgan bo'lsa (imomni o'tirgan holda iqtido qilishga ruxsat beruvchilar qoidasiga ko'ra) bundan mustasno.

The jurists agreed that it is obligatory on the follower to follow the imam in all his utterances and acts, except in reciting the words “samfa Allahu liman hamidah^ and when the imam is seated because of illness, according to those who permit imdma while sitting.

Ularning "samiya Allohu liman hamidah" so'zlarini aytishdagi istisno borasidagi ixtiloflari haqida: bir guruh faqihlar aytdiki, imom rukudan boshini ko'targanda faqat shu so'zlarni aytadi, ergashuvchi esa faqat "rabbana va laka al-hamd" so'zlarini aytadi. Bu fikrda bo'lganlar orasida Molik, Abu Hanifa va boshqalar bor. Boshqa bir guruh faqihlar esa imom ham, ergashuvchi ham "samiya Allohu liman hamidah, rabbana va laka al-hamd" deydi, ergashuvchi esa takbirdagidek imomga ergashib, u bilan birga takrorlaydi, deb ta'kidladi. Abu Hanifadan rivoyat qilinadiki, bir kishi imom bilan namoz o'qiganda ikkalasi ham uni birga aytishi kerak. Bir kishi yakka o'qiganda va imom butun (ikki qismli) jumlani birga o'qiganda bu borada hech qanday ixtilof yo'q.

About their disagreement over the exception in reciting the words “samfia Allahu liman hamidah”, a group of jurists said that the imam pronounces only these words when he raises his head after bowing, and the follower, then, pronounces only the words “rabband wa lafcal-hamd”. Among in those who held this opinion are Malik, Abu HanTfa, and others. Another group of jurists maintained that the imam and the follower both say “samta Allahu liman hamidah rabband wa lak>al-hamcT\ and that the follower follows the imam repeating with him as in the case of takbir. It is related from Abu Hanifa that when one person is praying with an imam, both should pronounce it together. There is no dispute about one single person and the imam reciting the whole (both parts of the statement) together.

Ushbu masala (oldingi holat) bo'yicha ixtilof ikki o'zaro zid rivoyatga asoslangan. Birinchisi Anas rivoyati bo'lib, Payg'ambar (Allohning rahmati va salomi uning ustida bo'lsin) shunday degan: "Imom faqat unga ergashilishi uchun tayinlangan. U rukuga egilganda, siz ham egilinglar, u boshini ko'targanda, siz ham boshingizni ko'taringlar. U "sami'a Allohu liman hamidah" degan paytda, siz "robbana va laka-l-hamd" deb ayting." Ikkinchisi Ibn Umarning rivoyati bo'lib, Payg'ambar (Allohning rahmati va salomi uning ustida bo'lsin) namozni boshlaganda qo'llarini elka balandligigacha ko'tarar edi, rukudan turganida esa "sami'a Allohu liman hamidah, robbana va laka-l-hamd" derdi. Anas rivoyatining ma'nosini afzal ko'rganlar, ergashuvchi "sami'a Allohu liman hamidah" demasligi, imom esa "robbana va laka-l-hamd" demasligi kerak, deb hisoblaganlar. Bu dalil al-xitob (matnning ma'noviy dalolati) turiga kiradi, chunki u ifodalanmagan holatga ifodalangan holatning aksi bo'lgan hukmni beradi. Ibn Umar rivoyatini afzal ko'rganlar esa imom "robbana va laka-l-hamd" deydi, ergashuvchi esa Payg'ambarning "Imom faqat unga ergashilishi uchun tayinlangan" degan so'zlarining umumiy ma'nosiga ko'ra imomga ergashib "sami'a Allohu liman hamidah" deyishi vojib, deb hisoblaganlar. Ikki rivoyatni muvofiqlashtirganlar imom va ergashuvchi o'rtasida farq qilganlar. Bu masalada to'g'ri xulosa shuki, Anas rivoyati matnning ma'noviy dalolati orqali imomning "robbana va laka-l-hamd" demasligini, ergashuvchining esa "sami'a Allohu liman hamidah" demasligini talab qiladi, Ibn Umar rivoyati esa imomning "robbana va laka-l-hamd" deyishini aniq ifodalaydi. Aniq matnni matnning ma'noviy dalolati tufayli tark etish to'g'ri emas, chunki aniq matn ma'noviy dalolatdan kuchliroqdir. Anas rivoyatining umumiy qo‘llanilishi shuni talab qiladiki, ma’mum «sami‘a Allohu liman hamidah» deb aytsin, chunki «Imom faqat ergashilishi uchun tayinlangan», degan so‘zlarning umumiy ma’nosiga ko‘ra; ammo matnning ishorasi esa u bu so‘zlarni aytmasligi kerakligini bildiradi. Shunday ekan, matnning umumiy ma’nosi bilan uning ishorasi o‘rtasida tanlov qilish zarur bo‘ladi. Umumiy ma’no matn ishorasidan kuchliroq ekani borasida hech qanday ixtilof yo‘q, garchi umumiy ma’noning o‘zi ham kuchi va zaifligi jihatidan turlicha bo‘lishi mumkin va ba’zi ishoralarning umumiy ma’nolardan kuchliroq bo‘lishi ham ehtimoldan xoli emas. Demak, mening jonim bilan qasamki, masala ijtihodga yo‘l qo‘yiladigan masaladir, ya’ni ma’mumga nisbatan.

Bu namozni o‘tirgan holatda o‘qiyotgan kishining orqasida turib iqtido qilish haqidagi masala. Fikrlarning mazmuni shundaki, sog‘lom kishi yakka holda yoki imom sifatida farz namozni o‘tirib o‘qimasligi kerak, chunki Oliy Zot aytgan: «Allohga itoat bilan qiyomda turinglar». Sog‘lom, lekin kasal holda o‘tirib namoz o‘qiydigan imomning orqasida iqtido qilgan muqtadiy haqida uchta fikr bor. Birinchi fikr: muqtadiy imomning orqasida o‘tirgan holda namoz o‘qishi kerak. Bu fikrni Ahmad va Ishoq ham qo‘llab-quvvatlaganlar. Ikkinchi fikr: u (imomning) orqasida turib namoz o‘qishi kerak. Abu ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-Barr aytganidek, bu fikr viloyat faqihlarining ko‘pchiligining fikri: ash-Shofi’iy, uning shogirdlari, Abu Hanifa, uning shogirdlari, zohiriylar, Abu Savr va boshqalar. Bu faqihlar qo‘shimcha qilib aytganlar: agar imom ruku‘ va sajda qila olmasa va faqat (bosh bilan) ishora qilsa ham, muqtadiylar qiyomda turgan holda unga iqtido qilishlari kerak. Ibn al-Qosim rivoyat qilishicha, o‘tirgan kishiga iqtido qilish joiz emas va agar ular uning orqasida o‘tirgan yoki turgan holda namoz o‘qisa, ularning namozi botil bo‘ladi. Molikdan rivoyat qilinishicha, ular vaqt chiqmasdan oldin namozlarini qayta o‘qishlari kerak, lekin bu ravish (qaytarish) qaytarishni taqiqlash emas, balki noma’qul deb hisoblashga asoslangan; biroq birinchi fikr undan mashhurdir.

This relates to the prayer of one standing behind one who is seated. The gist of the opinions is that the healthy person is not to pray an obligatory prayer while seated when praying alone or as an imam, because of the words of the Exalted, “And stand up with devotion to Allah”. There were three opinions about the case of the follower who was in sound health and prayed behind an imam who was not well and prayed while seated. The first opinion is that the follower is to pray behind him in the sitting posture. Included among those who upheld this opinion are Ahmad and Ishaq. The second opinion is that he should pray standing behind (the imam). Abu ‘Umar ibn cAbd al-Barr has said that this is the opinion of most of a body of jurists of the provinces: al- Shafi T, his c disciples, Abu HanTfa, his disciples, the Zahirites, Abu Thawr, and others. These jurists made an addition saying that the followers are to pray behind him while standing even if he is unable to bow and prostrate and merely makes a gesture (with his head). Ibn al-Qasim has related that the imima of a person seated is not permitted, and that if they pray behind him seated or standing, their prayer is void. It is related from Malik that they are to repeat their prayers before the expiry of the time, but this has been based on the idea of disapproval not prohibition, though the first opinion is well-known from him.

Ularning bu masalada ixtilof qilishlarining sababi bir tomondan shu masala bo'yicha rivoyatlarning o'zaro ziddiyati, boshqa tomondan esa rivoyatlar bilan amal o'rtasidagi ziddiyatdir, ya'ni Molik mazhabiga ko'ra Madina ahlining amali bilan. Bu borada ikkita ziddiyatli rivoyat bor. Birinchisi Anas rivoyati bo'lib, Payg'ambar ﷺ dedilar: "Agar imom o'tirib namoz o'qisa, siz ham o'tirib namoz o'qinglar". Oisha rivoyati ham shu ma'noni bildiradi. Uning rivoyatida aytilishicha, Payg'ambar ﷺ kasallanib, o'tirgan holda namoz o'qidilar. Odamlar ortlarida turib ergashmoqchi bo'lishdi, lekin u zot ularga o'tirishlarini ishora qildilar. Namozni tugatgach, dedilar: "Imom ergashilishi uchun tayinlangan. U rukuga egilsa, siz ham egilinglar, u boshini ko'tarsa, siz ham ko'tarilinglar. U o'tirib namoz o'qisa, siz ham o'tirib namoz o'qinglar". Ikkinchi rivoyat Oisha rivoyatidir: Allohning Elchisi ﷺ kasal bo'lgan paytlarida, o'sha kasallikdan keyinchalik vafot etdilar, odamlarning oldiga chiqdilar. Masjidga yetib kelganlarida, Abu Bakrni odamlarga imomlik qilayotganini ko'rdilar. Abu Bakr orqaga chekinmoqchi bo'ldi, lekin Allohning Elchisi ﷺ unga joyida qolishni ishora qildilar. Allohning Elchisi ﷺ Abu Bakrning yoniga o'tirdilar, Abu Bakr esa Allohning Elchisiga ﷺ ergashib namoz o'qidi, odamlar esa Abu Bakrga ergashib namoz o'qidilar.

Bu ikki masalani o‘z ichiga oladi. Birinchisi — birinchi takbirning vaqti, ikkinchisi esa imomdan oldin boshini ko‘taradigan kishining hukmi.

This comprises two issues. First is the time of the initial takbir, while the second is the hukm of the person who raises his head before the imam does so.

Malik ibn Anas va ihtilof qilganlar ichida, iftitoh takbiri (birinchi takbir) haqida, Malik ergashuvchi (muqtadiy) imom takbirni tugatganidan keyin aytishni afzal ko'rgan; agar u imom bilan birga aytsa, Malik buni hali ham joiz deb hisoblagan, lekin ba'zilar bunday emas, deganlar. Ammo agar u takbirni imomdan oldin aytsa, bu maqbul emas. Abu Hanifa va boshqalar esa, muqtadiy takbirni imom bilan birga aytishi mumkin, lekin agar uning takbirni aytishi imomdan oldin tugasa, u botil bo'ladi, deganlar. Shofi'iydan ikki rivoyat bor. Birinchisi Molikning qarashiga o'xshaydi va bu mashhurroq qarash; ikkinchisi esa, agar muqtadiy takbirni imomdan oldin aytsa, u botil bo'ladi, degan qarashdir.

In their dispute over the initial takbir, Malik preferred that the follower should pronounce it after the imam has finished pronouncing it; if he pronounces it with the imam he (Malik) still holds it to be valid, while some said that it is not so. But if he pronounces it before the imam it is not acceptable. Abu HanTfa and others have said that he may pronounce the takbir with the imam, but if he finishes the pronouncement before the imam it becomes invalid. There are two narrations from al-ShaficT on this. First is like the opinion of Malik and this is the better known opinion, and the second is that if the follower pronounces takbir before the imam it becomes invalid.

Ihtilofning sababi shundaki, bu masalada ikki xil rivoyat bor. Birinchisi Payg'ambarning (Allohning salavoti va salomi unga bo'lsin) so'zlari: "Agar u takbir aytsa, siz ham takbir aytinglar". Ikkinchisi esa, Payg'ambarning ﷺ namozlarining birida birinchi takbirni aytgani, so'ngra odamlarga ishora qilib kutib turishlarini aytgani, ketib, boshi namlik qoldiqlari bilan qaytib kelgani haqidagi rivoyatdir. Bunning zohiriy ma'nosi shuki, ulardan keyin takbir yana (qayta) aytildi, chunki ungacha aytgan takbiri taharat yo'qligi sababli hisobga olinmadi. Bu ham uning (al-Shofe'iyning) "ergashuvchining namozi imomning namoziga bog'liq emas" degan qoidasiga asoslangan. Rivoyatda ular takbirlarini qayta aytganmi yoki yo'qmi, degan dalil yo'q. Shunday ekan, dalilsiz ularning birortasini tanlash to'g'ri emas. Qoida esa imomga ergashishdir, bu esa faqat imom takbir aytganidan keyin bo'lishi mumkin.

The reason for disagreement is that there are two conflicting traditions on 1 this issue. The first includes the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “If he pronounces takbir, you should pronounce it too”. The second is the narration “that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) pronounced the initial takbir in one of his prayers and then gestured to the people that they should wait. He went away and then returned’ w ith remnants of moisture on his head”. The apparent meaning of this is that takbir was pronounced (again) after theirs, for his takbir before this was not counted because of the absence of purification. This too is based upon his (al- ShafiTs) principle that the prayer of the follower is not dependent upon the prayer of the imam. There is no indication in the tradition whether they renewed their takbir. Thus, it is not proper to interpret it either way without evidence. The principle, however, is to follow (the imam), which can only be after the imam's pronouncement of takbir.

Ular ergashuvchi uchun namozning majburiyatlaridan faqat qiroatdan boshqa hech narsada ruxsat berilmasligiga kelishdilar. Bu masalada (ergashuvchining qiroati haqida) ular uch xil fikrda ixtilof qildilar. Birinchisi: ba'zilari ergashuvchi imom ortida sirlik o'qiladigan namozlarda qiroat qilishi kerak, lekin imom jahriy (ovoz chiqarib) o'qiganda uning ortida qiroat qilmasligi kerak, deb hisobladilar. Ikkinchisi: u imom ortida umuman qiroat qilmasligi kerak, deydi. Uchinchisi: sirlik namozlarda Ummul Kitobni va undan keyingisini, jahriy namozlarda esa faqat Ummul Kitobni o'qishi kerak, deydi. Ba'zilar jahriy namozlarda ergashuvchi imom qiroatini eshita oladigan va eshita olmaydigan holatlar o'rtasida farq qildilar. Shunga ko'ra, imomni eshita olmaganda uning uchun qiroatni vojib qildilar, eshitganda esa qilishni man etdilar. Birinchi fikr Molikka tegishli, faqat u sirlik o'qilganda qiroatni afzal ko'rgan. Ikkinchi fikr Abu Hanifaga, uchinchi fikr esa ash-Shofe'iyga tegishli. Ahmad ibn Hanbal esa ergashuvchi imom qiroatini eshita oladigan va eshita olmaydigan holatlar o'rtasida farq qildi.

They agreed that that no exemption is granted to the follower from the obligations of prayer, except for the recitation. They disagreed about this (the recitation by the follower) holding three opinions. First, some held that the follower should undertake his recitation behind the imam in prayers with inaudible recitation, but he should not recite behind him when the recitation is audible to him. Second, that he should not recite behind the imam at all. Third, that he should recite the umm al-Kitab and the rest in the case of prayers with inaudible recitation, and only the umm al-Kitdb in the case of prayers with audible recitation. Some made a distinction between the case of prayers with audible recitation when the follower can hear the imam's recitation and when he cannot hear him. Thus, they made recitation obligatory for him when he cannot hear the imam, but they prohibited him from doing so when he can hear him. The first view was held by Malik, except that he preferred recitation in the case of inaudible recitation. The second opinion was held by Abu Hanifa and the third by al-ShaficT. Ahmad ibn Hanbal made the distinction between the situation where the follower is able to hear the imam's recitation and the situation where he is not.

Ularning bu masalada ixtilof qilishlarining sababi shu masala bo‘yicha rivoyatlarning ziddiyati va ba’zilarining bir rivoyatni boshqasiga asoslanib talqin qilishidadir. Bu mavzu bo‘yicha to‘rtta rivoyat bor. Birinchisi Payg‘ambar ﷺ ning: “Kitob fotihasini o‘qimagan kishining namozi yo‘qdir”, degan so‘zidir. Bu ma’noni anglatuvchi boshqa rivoyatlar ham bor, ular qiroat vojibligi masalasi ostida muhokama qilingan. Ikkinchisi Molik tomonidan Abu Hurayradan rivoyat qilingan hadis bo‘lib, Allohning Elchisi ﷺ namozni tugatgach, ovoz chiqarib qiroat qilgan holda: “Hozir mening bilan birga kimdir qiroat qildimi?”, deb so‘ragan. Bir kishi: “Ha, men qildim, ey Allohning Elchisi”, degan. Shunda u: “Men nima deyman: Qur’on qiroatida menga qanday qarshi chiqiladi?”, degan. Allohning Elchisi ﷺ ovoz chiqarib qiroat qilganda, odamlar u zot ortida namoz o‘qiyotganda qiroatni to‘xtatganlar. Uchinchisi Uboda ibn as-Somitning rivoyatidir: u aytadi: “Allohning Elchisi ﷺ bizga tong namozini o‘qitdi, u zotga qiroat og‘ir keldi. Tugatgach, u zot: “Men sizlarning imom ortida qiroat qilayotganingizni ko‘raman”, dedi. Biz: “Ha”, dedik. U zot: “Buni qilmanglar, faqat Kitob fotihasidan boshqasini”, dedi. Abu Umar aytadiki, bu yerdagi Ubodaning rivoyati Makhuldan naql qilingan, boshqa rivoyatlarning esa sanadlari uzluksiz va sahihdir. To‘rtinchisi Jobirning Payg‘ambar ﷺ dan rivoyatidir, u zot aytdilar: “Imomi bor kishining qiroati imom tomonidan amalga oshiriladi”. Ahmad ibn Hanbal sahih deb topgan beshinchi rivoyat ham bor. Bu rivoyatda Payg‘ambar ﷺ: “Imom qiroat qilganda, jim turib tinglanglar”, degan deb xabar beriladi.

Ular kelishdilar, agar imom namoz davomida to'satdan hadas (masalan, shamol chiqarish) bilan ovora bo'lib, to'xtasa, muqtadiylarning namozi buzilmaydi (ular yakka holda davom etadilar yoki ulardan biri oldinga o'tib, ularga imomlik qiladi). Imom najosat holatida (janobat holatida) ularga namoz o'qib bergan va namozdan keyin buni bilib qolgan holatda ixtilof qildilar. Bir guruh faqihlar ularning namozi to'g'ri ekanini aytdi, boshqa guruh esa ularning namozi bekor ekanini aytdi. Uchinchi guruh imomning jinsiy najosatdan xabardor yoki bexabar bo'lganiga qarab farq qildi. Ular, agar u buni bilgan bo'lsa, ularning namozi bekor bo'ladi, agar bilmagan bo'lsa, namozlari bekor bo'lmaydi, dedilar. Birinchi fikrni al-Shofe'iy, ikkinchisini Abu Hanifa, uchinchisini esa Molik tutgan.

They agreed that if he (the imam) is suddenly overcome by hadath (like releasing wind) during prayer and stops, the prayer of the followers is not invalidated (they continue individually or one of them steps forward and leads them). They disagreed over the case where the imam leads them in prayer in a state of ritual impurity, and they come to know of this after the prayer. A group of jurists said that their prayer is valid, while another group said that their prayer is invalid. A third group made a distinction on the basis of whether the imam was aware of his sexual defilement or was ignorant of it. They said that if he was aware of it their prayer is invalidated, but if he was unaware of it their prayer is not invalidated. The first opinion was held by al- Shafi T and the second by Abu HanTfa, while the third was held by Malik.

c Ularning ixtilofining sababi ergashuvchining namozi sahihligi imomning namozi sahihligiga bog'liqmi yoki yo'qmi degan masaladagi tortishuvlaridan kelib chiqadi. Bog'liq emas deb hisoblaganlar namoz sahih bo'ladi, deyishgan, bog'liq deb hisoblaganlar esa ularning namozi botil bo'ladi, deyishgan.

c The reason for their disagreement derives from their dispute over whether the validity of the follower’s prayer is dependent upon the validity of the imam's prayer. Those who did not consider it to be dependent said that the prayer is valid, while those who considered it to be dependent said that their prayer is invalidated.

Forgetfulness va ataylab sukut o'rtasida farq qilganlar, oldingi rivoyatning zohiriy ma'nosini hisobga olganlar. Bu rivoyatda aytilishicha, Payg'ambar ﷺ namozlarining birida takbir aytdi, so'ngra (namozni to'xtatib) odamlarga kutib turishga ishora qildi. U ketdi va qaytib kelganida tanasida namlik izlari bor edi. Bunning zohiriy ma'nosi shuki, ular namozlarini davom ettirdilar (Payg'ambar ﷺ namozni to'xtatishdan oldin o'qigan qismiga tayanib). Al-Shofi'iy (bu hukmni qo'llab-quvvatlab) shunday dedi: agar ularning namozi Payg'ambar ﷺ namoziga bog'liq bo'lganida, albatta, ular namozni qaytadan (yangi takbir bilan) boshlagan bo'lardilar.