Ushbu qismda bu mavzuning asosiy masalalari sifatida to‘rtta masala olinadi. Birinchi masala uning farz ekanligini bayon qilishga oid. Ikkinchi masala uning (kunlik) farzlari soniga oid. Uchinchi masala u kimga farz bo‘lishiga oid. To‘rtinchi masala esa ataylab tark qilish sababli yuzaga keladigan oqibatdagi farzlikka oid.

In this part there are four issues that are taken to be the principles of this topic. The first issue is about the exposition of its obligation. The second issue is about the number of its (daily) obligations. The third issue is about the individual for whom it is obligatory. The fourth issue is about the consequential obligation because of intentional relinquishment.

Uning farzligi Kitob, sunnat va ijmo' bilan dalildir. U shunchalik keng tarqalgan bo'lgani uchun, uni muhokama qilish zarurati yo'q.

Its obligation is evident from the Book, the sunna, and consensus. The fact that it is so widely known makes its discussion unnecessary.

Kunlik farz namozlar soni haqida ikki xil fikr mavjud. Birinchisi — Molik, ash-Shofiiy va ko‘pchilikning fikri bo‘lib, ular faqat besh vaqt namoz farz deb hisoblaydilar. Ikkinchisi — Abu Hanifa va uning shogirdlarining fikri bo‘lib, ular besh vaqt namozdan tashqari vitr namozini ham vojib deb biladilar. Sunnatdan sobit bo‘lgan hukmning vojib yoki farz ekanligi haqidagi ularning ixtilofi esa hech qanday ahamiyatga ega emas.85

There are two opinions about the number of daily obligations. First is the opinion of Malik, al-Shafi T, and the majority, which maintains c that only five (daily) prayers are obligatory. The second is the opinion of Abu HanTfa and his disciples which maintains that the witr prayer is also obligatory along with the five (daily) prayers. Their disagreement about whether the obligation established from the sunna is wajib or fard is of no consequence.85

Ularning ixtilofining sababi o'zaro ziddiyatli rivoyatlarda yotadi. Namozning beshta vaqt bilan cheklanishini bildiruvchi rivoyatlar aniq, keng tarqalgan va mashhur. Ulardan eng ravshani wn? rivoyatidir: "Farz beshga yetganda, Muso (Moses) unga (Muhammadga ﷺ) dedi: "Rabbingizga qayting, chunki umматингиз buni ko'tara olmaydi". U dedi: "Shunday qildim". Yuce Zot dedi: "Ular beshtadir, lekin (savob jihatidan) ellikdir. Mening hukmim o'zgarmaydi"." Bundan tashqari, keng tarqalgan bedui rivoyati bor: u bu haqda Payg'ambardan ﷺ so'raganida, Payg'ambar ﷺ dedi: "Kecha-kunduzda besh vaqt namoz". U yana so'radi: "Bulardan tashqari menga yana biror narsa farzmi?" U javob berdi: "Yo'q, agar o'zing ixtiyoriy ravishda ado etsang, bundan mustasno".

The reason for their disagreement lies in conflicting traditions. The traditions that confine the obligation to five prayers are explicit, widely known> and well-established. The most vivid of these is the tradition of wn?, “When the obligation reached the number five, Musa (Moses) said to him (Muhammad), ‘Turn back to your Lord, for your umma cannot bear this’. He said, ‘So I did’. The Exalted said, ‘They are five but they are fifty (in reward value), My decree is not altered’”. Further, there is the widely known tradition of the bedouin, who asked the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) about it and the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Five prayers in a day and;night”. He asked (again), “Am I obliged for more besides these?” He replied, “No, unless you observe them voluntarily”.

Witr vojibligi haqidagi ma'noni ifodalovchi rivoyatlar orasida Amr ibn Shu'ayb o'z otasidan, u esa o'z bobosidan rivoyat qilgan hadis bor: "Alloh sizlar uchun bir namoz qo'shdi, bu vitr namozidir, shuning uchun uni davom ettiringlar". Shuningdek, Horis ibn Hudhayfa rivoyat qilgan hadis ham bor, u shunday degan: "Allohning Elchisi ﷺ bizning oldimizga chiqib dedilar: "Alloh sizlarga bir namozni ado etishni buyurdi, u sizlar uchun qizil tuyalardan ham yaxshiroqdir. Bu vitr namozidir. U uni xufton namozi bilan bomdod namozi orasidagi vaqtda ado etishingizni belgilab qo'ydi"". Bundan tashqari, Buraydah al-Aslamiy rivoyat qilgan hadis bor: "Allohning Elchisi ﷺ dedilar: "Vitr sobit (vojib) qilingan, kim uni ado etmasa, u bizdan emas"".

Majburiyat yuklangan shaxs — balog'atga yetgan har bir musulmon, bu borada hech qanday ixtilof yo'q.

The person for whom it is obligatory is every pubescent Muslim, and there is no dispute about this.

Namozni ado etishni buyurilganida, uni ixtiyoran tark etgan va namoz o‘qishdan bosh tortgan, ammo uning farzligini inkor etmagan kishi haqida hukm: bir guruh fuqaholar uni o‘ldirilishi kerak, deb aytdi, boshqa bir guruh esa uni jazolash va qamash kerak, deb aytdi. Uni o‘ldirilishi kerak, deganlar orasida: ba’zilari uning o‘ldirilishini kufr sababli vojib qildi. Bu Ahmad, Ishoq va Ibn al-Muborakning fikridir. Boshqalar esa, namozni qayta o‘qimaguncha uni qamash va jazolashni to‘g‘ri deb bilib, buni hadd jazosi sifatida belgiladilar. Bu Molik, al-Shofi‘iy, Abu Hanifa va ularning shogirdlari hamda zohiriylarning fikridir.

With respect to the obligation in the case of the person who relinquishes it intentionally, and when he is ordered to pray refuses to do so, but does not deny its obligation, a group of jurists said that he should be executed, while another group said that he is to-be punished and confined. Among those who maintained that he is to be executed; some made his execution obligatory as a result of his disbelief (kufr). This is the opinion of Ahmad, Ishaq, and Ibn al- Mubarak. Others, who upheld his confinement and punishment till he resumes praying, determined it as a hadd penalty, which is the opinion of Malik, al- Shafi i, Abu Harnfa, his disciples, and of the Zahirites.

Ushbu ixtilofning sababi rivoyatlar ziddiyatidadir. Payg‘ambardan (Alloh unga salavot va barakot yo‘llasin) sahih qilib naql qilinganki, u zot shunday degan: “Musulmonning qonini to‘kish faqat uch holda halol bo‘ladi: iymondan keyin kufr, nikohdan keyin zino va boshqa bir jonni o‘ldirish qisosi uchun bo‘lmagan holda inson o‘ldirish”. Shuningdek, Buraydah rivoyatida Payg‘ambardan (Alloh unga salavot va barakot yo‘llasin) naql qilinganki, u zot dedi: “Bizni va ularni ajratib turadigan narsa namozdir. Kim uni tark etsa, kufr qilgan bo‘ladi”. Jobir rivoyatida esa Payg‘ambar (Alloh unga salavot va barakot yo‘llasin) shunday degan: “Bu itoat bilan kufr o‘rtasidagi farqdir”, yoki u zot: “Shirk faqat namozni tark etishdir”, degan. Bu yerda “kufr” so‘zini haqiqiy inkor ma’nosida tushungan olimlar, bu rivoyatni yuqorida keltirilgan “iymondan keyin kufr” so‘zlarining sharhi deb bilganlar. “Kufr” so‘zini faqat malomat va tanbeh ma’nosida tushunganlar esa, bu uning ishlari kofirlarning ishlariga o‘xshaydi va u kofirlarga o‘xshab qolgan, degani, deganlar. Xuddi “zinokor zino qilib turib mo‘min bo‘lib qolmaydi” yoki “o‘g‘ri o‘g‘irlik qilib turib mo‘min bo‘lib qolmaydi”, deyilganidek. Shunga ko‘ra ular bunday holatda hadd jazosini qo‘llab bo‘lmaydi, degan xulosaga kelganlar.

c The reason for this disagreement stems from the conflict of traditions. It is established from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) who said, “Shedding the blood of a Muslim does not become lawful, except in three cases: disbelief after faith, fornication after marriage, and killing a human being when it is not in retaliation for another life”. It is also related from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) in the tradition of Burayda that he said, “The distinguishing factor between them and us is prayer, so he who relinquishes it has committed disbelief’. In the tradition of Jabir, the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “It is the (basis for) distinction between obedience and disbelief’, or he said, “Polytheism is nothing but the relinquishment of prayer”. Those who understood from the term disbelief here to be actual rejection deemed this tradition to be a commentary on the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) “disbelief after faith [occurring in the tradition quoted above]”. Those who deemed it (the use of the term disbelief here) merely as censure and reproach said that it means that his acts are like those of the disbelievers and that he resembles the disbelievers. It is just like saying, “a fornicator does not commit fornication and remain a believer” or “a thief does not commit theft and remain a believer”. Thus, they held that hadd penalty is not to be imposed in this case.