Ba'zi faqihlarning fikriga ko'ra, namoz o'qish joiz bo'lgan joylar — bu najosatdan xoli bo'lgan barcha joylardir. Bu joylardan ba'zi faqihlar yettita joyni istisno qildilar: chiqindixona (axlat maydoni), so'yish joyi (qassobxona), qabriston, yo'l, jamoat hammomi, tuyalarning cho'kib dam oladigan joyi va Allohning uyi (Ka'ba)ning tomi. Boshqalar faqat qabristonni istisno qildilar, yana bir qismi esa qabriston va jamoat hammomini istisno qildi. Ularning ba'zilari bu noqulay joylarda namoz o'qishni faqat makruh deb hisobladilar, ammo namozni bekor qilmadilar; bu Molikdan rivoyat qilingan bir qarashdir. Undan shunday namozning joiz ekanligi ham rivoyat qilinadi, bu Ibn al-Qosimning rivoyatidir.

The places in which prayer is permissible, in the opinion of some jurists, are all those that are free from .uncleanliness. Some jurists exempted seven places out of these: the dunghill (garbage area), the slaughterhouse, the graveyard, the roadway, the public bath, the kneelingplace of camels, and the roof of the House of Allah (Ka<ba). Others made an exemption for the graveyard alone, while some others exempted the graveyard and the public-bath. Some of them deemed praying in these undesirable places as merely abominable, but did not invalidate the prayer; this is one narration from Malik. The permissibility of such prayer is also related from him, which is Ibn al-Qasim’s narration.

Ixtilofning sababi shu masala bo‘yicha rivoyatlarning zohiriy ma’nolari o‘rtasidagi ziddiyatdan kelib chiqadi. Bu masalada ikki rivoyat ittifoq bilan qabul qilingan, ikkitasi esa ixtilofli. Ittifoq bilan qabul qilingan rivoyatlar Payg‘ambar ﷺning so‘zlaridir: “Menga boshqa hech kimga berilmagan yettita narsa berildi… [U shu jumlada aytdi]: Yer menga masjid va poklanish vositasi qilib berildi, shuning uchun namoz vaqti qayerda menga yetib kelsa, o‘sha yerda namoz o‘qiyman”. Boshqa rivoyat esa shunday deydi: “Uylaringizni vaqti-vaqti bilan namoz bilan obod qiling va ularni qabristonga aylantirmang”. Ixtilofli rivoyatlarga kelsak, bir rivoyatda Payg‘ambar ﷺ yettita joyda namoz o‘qishni man qilgani aytiladi: axlat uyumi, hayvonlarni so‘yish joyi, qabriston, yo‘l, hammom, tuyalarning cho‘kkalab yotadigan joylari va Allohning uyining tomi. Bu rivoyatni at-Termiziy rivoyat qilgan. Ikkinchi rivoyatda esa Payg‘ambar ﷺ shunday degan: “Chorva mollarining yotadigan joylarida namoz o‘qinglar, lekin tuyalarning cho‘kkalab yotadigan joylarida namoz o‘qimanglar”.

The reason for disagreement arises from the conflict of the apparent meanings of traditions on the issue. There are two traditions on the issue that are agreed upon, while two are disputed. The traditions agreed upon are the sayings of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “I have been granted seven things that were not granted to anyone before me .. . [He mentioned within this]: The earth has been made a mosque for me and a means of purification, so wherever the time of prayer overtakes me, I pray”. The other tradition says, “Enliven your homes with your prayers in them occasionally, and do not convert them into graveyards”. As to the disputed traditions, one report is “that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) proscribed prayers in seven places: the dunghill, the place for slaughtering animals, .the graveyard, the roadway, the public bath, the kneeling places of camels, and the roof of the House of Allah”. It has been recorded by al-TirmidhT. The second is the report that Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Pray in the resting places of cattle, but do not pray in the kneeling places of camels”.

Faqihlar bu rivoyatlar borasida uch usulni qo‘llaganliklari sababli ixtilofga tushganlar. Birinchisi — tarjih va nasx usuli. Ikkinchisi — xoss ni umumga bino qilish, ya’ni xosni ‘omga bino qilish usuli. Uchinchisi — jam’ usuli. Tarjih va nasx usulini qabul qilganlar keng ma’lum bo‘lgan rivoyatga amal qildilar — Payg‘ambar (ﷺ) so‘zi: “Yer menga masjid va poklanish vositasi qilib berildi”. Ular bu rivoyat o‘ziga zid bo‘lgan rivoyatlarni nasx qiladi, deb hisobladilar, chunki u Payg‘ambarga (ﷺ) berilgan fazilatlarni sanaydi, fazilatni esa nasx qilib bo‘lmaydi, nasx esa hukmlar (ahkom) qatoriga kiradi. Xosni ‘omga bino qilish usulini qabul qilganlar esa, ruxsat berувchi rivoyat umumiy, taqiqlovchi rivoyat esa xos ekanini aytdilar; shu sababli xosni ‘omga bino qilish lozim, dedilar. Bu usulni qo‘llovchi ba’zi faqihlar yetti joyni istisno qildilar, ba’zilari esa faqat hammom va qabristonni istisno qildilar, chunki Payg‘ambardan (ﷺ) shu narsa sobit bo‘lgan, deb aytdilar: rivoyat qilinishicha, u zot (ﷺ) bularni alohida ham man qilganlar. Ba’zilar esa oldingi rivoyat sababli faqat qabristonni istisno qildilar. Jam’ usulini qabul qilganlar, xosni ‘omdan istisno qilmasdan, taqiqlovchi rivoyatlarni makruhlik ma’nosida, boshqalarini esa ruxsat ma’nosida tushunish kerak, dedilar.

The jurists were divided over these traditions because of the employment of three methods. The first is the method of preference and abrogation. The second is the method of structuring, that is, structuring the particular upon the general. The third is the method of reconciliation. Those who adopted the method of preference and abrogation followed the widely known tradition, the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “The earth has been made a mosque for me and a means of purification”. They maintained that this tradition abrogates those that conflict with it, as it counts the merits granted to the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), and this cannot be abrogated, as abrogation belongs to the category of rules (ahkdm). Those who adopted the method of structuring the particular upon the general said that the tradition about permissibility is general whereas the proscribing tradition is particular; therefore it is necessary that the particular be structured upon the general. Some of these jurists (who apply this method) excluded the seven places, while some of them excluded only the public bath and the graveyard, saying that this is what is established from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), as it is related that he also proscribed them independently. Some excluded only the graveyard due to the preceding tradition. Those who adopted the method of reconciliation, not excluding the particular from the general, said that the proscribing traditions are to be construed for abomination, and the others for permissibility.

Ular yahudiylar ibodatxonalari (sinagogalar) va nasroniylar cherkovlarida namoz o‘qish haqida ixtilof qilishdi. Bir guruh buni makruh deb hisobladi, boshqa guruh esa ruxsat berdi. Uchinchi guruh esa suratlar mavjudligiga qarab farq qildi. Bu Ibn ‘Abbosning qarashi bo‘lib, u Umarning “Biz ularning cherkovlariga suratlar sababli kirmaymiz”, degan so‘zini dalil qilgan. Biroq makruh deb hisoblaganlarning qarashining asosiy sababi suratlar emas, balki najosat (nopoklik) bo‘lishi ehtimolidir.

They disagreed about praying in synagogues and churches. One group considered it as reprehensible, while another permitted it. A third group made a distinction on the basis of the existence of figures, which is Ibn ‘Abbas’s opinion because of TJmar’s statement, “We do not enter their churches because of the images”. The underlying cause, however, for the opinion of those who considered it abominable is not the images, but the probability of the existence of uncleanliness (najdsa).

Ular yalang' (ochiq) yer ustida va gilam hamda yerda o'tirish uchun ishlatiladigan boshqa narsalar ustida namoz o'qish masalasida ixtilof qilganlar. Ko'pchilik yer mahsulotidan tayyorlangan hasir va shunga o'xshash boshqa narsalar ustiga sajda qilishning joiz ekanini tasdiqlaydi, qolganlarini esa makruh deb hisoblaydi. Bu Molik ibn Anas'ning qarashidir.

They disagreed about prayer on the (bare) ground and on carpets and other things used for sitting on the ground. The majority maintain the permissibility of prostrating on mats and other similar things made of material produced by the land, and deem the rest as abominable, which is Malik ibn Anas’s opinion.