Faqihlar azon haqida ihtilof qilganlar va bu borada to‘rtta keng tarqalgan tavsif mavjud. Birinchisi takbirni ikki marta aytishni, shahodatni to‘rt marta takrorlashni va qolgan (so‘zlarni) ikki marta aytishni belgilaydi. Bu Madina faqihlari, Molik va boshqalarning fikridir. Molik izdoshlarining keyingilari tarjiʼni afzal ko‘rganlar; u shahodatni pastroq ohangda ikki marta, so‘ngra baland ovozda ikki marta aytishni talab qiladi.
Ikkinchisi azonning Makka tavsifi bo‘lib, uni ash-Shofiʼiy qo‘llab-quvvatlagan. Unga ko‘ra birinchi takbir va ikki sahvaʼni to‘rt marta aytish, qolgan azonni esa ikki marta aytish lozim.
Uchinchi tavsif Kufa faqihlariniki. Unda birinchi takbirni to‘rt marta aytish va azonning qolgan qismlarini ikki marta aytish nazarda tutiladi. Bu Abu Hanifaning fikri edi.
To‘rtinchi tavsif Basra azonining tavsifidir. Unda birinchi takbirni to‘rt marta, shahodatni uch marta, “hayya ʼalas-salah” va “hayya ʼalal-falah” ni esa aytish talab qilinadi. MuaZzin “Ashhadu allaa ilaha illallah” dan boshlab “hayya ʼalal-falah” ga yetguncha aytadi, so‘ngra bu to‘rt jumlani ikkinchi marta, ya’ni birin-ketin takrorlaydi va uchinchi marta yana takrorlaydi. Bu al-Hasan al-Basriy va Ibn Sirinning fikri edi.98
The jurists disagreed about adhan giving four widely known descriptions. The first prescribes the dual pronouncement of takbir, four repetitions of the shahdda, and the dual pronouncement of the remaining (words). This is the opinion of the jurists of Medina, Malik and the others. The later followers of Malik preferred tarjF, which requires the dual pronouncement of the shahdda in a lower tone followed by its dual pronouncement in a louder voice. The second is the Meccan version of the adhan, which was upheld by al-Shafi T. It c requires four pronouncements of the first takbir and the two sAaAarfas, and the dual pronouncement of the remaining adhan. The third description is that of the Knfis. It involves four pronouncements of the first takbir and the dual pronouncement of the remaining parts of the adhan. This was Abu HanTfa’s opinion. The fourth description is that of the adhan of the Basrans. It requires four pronouncements of the first takbir, three pronouncements of shahdda., of Aflyja 'ala's-salah, and of hayya (-ald>l-faldh. The mifadhdhin begins with tstehadu an Id ilaha illdWdhu till he reaches hayya 'ala'l-faldh, he then repeats them a second time, I mean, the four sentences, one after the other and then repeats them a third time. This was the opinion of al-Hasan al-Basrl and of Ibn Sinn.98
Farqning sababi bu to‘rt tavsif o‘rtasida rivoyatlarning ziddiyati va farqli amaliyotning fiqh olimlariga yetib borishidir. Madinalik fiqh olimlari o‘z fikrlarini Madinada davom etib kelayotgan doimiy amaliyotga tayangan holda asoslaydilar. Makkaliklar ham xuddi shunday, ular o‘z fikrlarini o‘zlariga yetib kelgan amaliyotga tayangan holda dalillaydilar; Kufaliklar va Basraliklar ham shunday. Har bir guruhda o‘z qarashini qo‘llab-quvvatlaydigan rivoyatlar mavjud.
The reason,for the difference between these four descriptions is the conflict of the traditions and the communication of a differing practice to the jurists The jurists of Medina argue for their opinion on the basis of the continuous practice prevailing in Medina. The same is the case with the Meccans, who argue on the basis of the practice reaching them, so also the KufTs and the Basrans. Each group has traditions that support their opinion.
Hijoz faqihlarining fikriga muvofiq, iftitoh takbirining ikki marta aytilishi Abu Mahdhura va Abdulloh ibn Zayd al-Ansoriydan sahih isnodlar orqali rivoyat qilinadi. Ularning ikkalasidan turli isnodlar orqali takbirning to'rt marta aytilishi ham rivoyat qilinadi. Imom Shofe'iy aytdiki, bular qabul qilinishi shart bo'lgan qo'shimchalardir, chunki ular Makkadagi amaliyotning naqli bilan tasdiqlanadi. Malik mazhabining keyingi tarafdorlari ma'qul ko'rgan tarjiy haqida esa u Abu Qudama orqali rivoyat qilinadi, garchi Abu Umar, Abu Qudamani muhaddislar nazdida zaif roviy hisoblanishini aytgan bo'lsa-da. Kufaliklar esa Ibn Abu Layloning rivoyatiga tayanadilar: unda aytiladiki, "Abdulloh ibn Zayd tushida ikki yashil libos kiygan bir kishini devor tirqishida turganini ko'rdi; u ikki marta takrorlab azon aytdi, so'ngra ikki marta takrorlab iqomat aytdi. U Allohning Rasulini ﷺ bu haqda xabardor qildi."
The dual pronouncement of takblr in the beginning, in accordance with the view of the jurists of Hijaz, is related through authentic chains from Abu Mahdhura and cAbd Allah ibn Zayd al-Ansaff, as is its fourfold pronouncement related from both of them through different chains. Ah Shafi T said that c these are additions that it is obligatory to accept, as they are supported by the communication of the practice at Mecca. With respect to tarjfi that was preferred by the later followers of Malik, it is related through Abu Qudama, although Abu TJmar said that Abu Qudama is considered a weak narrator by them (the traditionists). As for the Kufis, they rely on the tradition of Ibn AbT Layla, which says “that cAbd Allah ibn Zayd saw a man in a dream who stood in the gap of a wall wearing two green garments; he made the call for prayer repeating twice, and then made the tqama, repeating twice. He informed the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him)
...bu haqda. Shundan so'ng Bilol o'rnidan turdi va azonni ikki marta takrorlab aytdi, so'ngra iqomani ikki marta takrorlab aytdi». Al-Buxoriy tomonidan rivoyat qilingan hadis faqat Anas orqali keladi va unda shunday deyiladi: «Bilolga azonni ikki marta takrorlab e'lon qilish, iqomani esa bir marta aytib, faqat "qad qomatis-salah" (namoz boshlanmoqda) jumlasini ikki marta takrorlash buyurildi». Muslim Abu Mahzura orqali rivoyat qilgan variant esa Hijoz azoniga mos keladi.
about it, after which Bilal stood up and made the call repeating twice, and then made the iqama repeating twice”. The tradition reported by al-BukharT is from the report by Anas only, which says, “Bilal was commanded to proclaim the adhan repeating tw ice r and to make i&aama in single pronouncements, except the sentence ‘prayer is about to comftience’, which is to be repeated twice”. The version recorded by Muslim through Abu Mahdhura is in accordance with the description of the adhan of Hijaz.
Adhon versiyalari o‘rtasidagi ana shu ixtilof tufayli Ahmad ibn Hanbal va Dovud shunday deb hisoblaganlar: bu turli tavsiflar tanlov yo‘li bilan belgilangan, ulardan birortasiga amal qilish majburiy emas, balki odamlar bu masalada ixtiyorga ega.
It was due to the existence of This conflict about the versions of the adhan that Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Dawud maintained that these differing descriptions have been prescribed by way of choice and not as an obligation to follow one of them, and that people have a choice in this matter.
Ular bomdod namozi uchun muazzin tomonidan aytiladigan "as-salatu xayrun minan-navm" ("namoz uyqudan yaxshiroqdir") jumlasi aytilishi kerakmi yoki yo'qmi, shu masalada ixtilof qilishdi. Ko'pchilik bu jumlaning aytilishi kerakligini ta'kidladi, boshqalar esa uni aytish shart emas, chunki u sunnat sifatida amal qilinadigan azonning bir qismi emas, deb hisoblashdi. Bu fikrni Shofi'iy ham ma'qullagan.
Ularning ixtilofining sababi shu ediki, bu jumla Payg'ambar ﷺ davrida aytilganmi yoki Umar davrida qo'shilganmi, degan masala ustida bahslashishgan.
They disagreed about the pronouncement by the mu*adhdhin for the morning prayer, “prayer is better than sleep”, whether it is to be pronounced or not. The majority maintained that it is to be pronounced, while others held that it is not to be pronounced as it is not a part of the adhan practiced as a sunna. This was upheld by al-ShaficT. The reason for their disagreement is their dispute whether it was pronounced in the days of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), or whether it was added during the reign of Umar.