Ushbu bob ikki bo'limga bo'lingan. Birinchisi avrat joylarni yopish (satr al-avrat) haqida, ikkinchisi esa namoz uchun ruxsat etilgan kiyim turlari haqida.

This chapter is divided into two sections. The first is about covering of the private parts (satr al^awrdjy while the second is about the kinds of dress permitted for prayer.

Fakihlar avrat (shaxsiy a'zolar)ni yopish mutlaq majburiyat ekanligida ittifoq qilganlar, lekin bu namozning sahihligi uchun shart ekanligi haqida ixtilof qilganlar. Shuningdek, "avrat" atamasi bilan belgilanadigan tananing hududi erkak va ayol uchun qanday ekanligi borasida ham ular turlicha fikr bildirganlar.

The jurists agreed that covering the private parts is an absolute obligation, but they disagreed on whether it is a condition for the validity of prayer? Similarly, they differed about the area of the body, for a woman and a man, that is delineated by the term awra.

Maliki mazhabida ustun bo'lgan qarash shuki, (bu hududni yopish) namozning sunnatlaridan biridir. Abu Hanifa va al-Shofi'iy esa, bu namozning sahih bo'lishi shartlaridan biri ekanini aytdilar. Bu masalada ixtilof paydo bo'lishining sababi rivoyatlarning o'zaro ziddiyati hamda faqihlarning Allohning: «Ey Odam farzandlari! Har bir masjidga borganingizda ziynatingizni oling» degan so'zlarining ma'nosini tushunishda turlicha bo'lganidadir: bu buyruq vojib ma'noda ekanmi yoki mustahab ma'noda?

The preferred opinion in Malik’s school is that it (covering of the this area) is one of the sunan of prayer. Abu Hanlfa and al-Shafi T said that c it is one of the prerequisites of the validity of prayer. The reason for disagreement over this stems from the conflict of traditions and the differences among the jurists in their understanding of the meaning of the words of the Exalted, “O Children of Adam! Look to [take] your adornment at every place of worship”,103 whether the prescription is to be construed as an obligation or a recommendation.

Ularning bu oyatni majburiyat sifatida talqin qilganlar, unda nazarda tutilgan ma'no avrani yopish ekanligini aytdilar. Ular buni oyat nozil bo'lish sababi asosida dalilladilar: bir ayol Ka'bani yalang'och holda tavof qilar edi, shunda oyat nozil bo'ldi va "Allah Elchisi ﷺ shundan keyin hech bir mushrikning haj qilishiga ruxsat berilmasligi, hech kim yalang'och holda tavof qilmasligi haqida buyruq berdi", deydilar. Bu oyatni tavsiya ma'nosini bildiradi deb talqin qilganlar esa, zikr etilgan ziynat libosning tashqi ko'rinishi yoki ziynat hisoblanadigan boshqa kiyimlar ekanligini aytdilar. Ular buni bir rivoyatda bayon etilgan narsa asosida dalillidilar: ba'zi erkaklar Payg'ambar ﷺ bilan birga namozni o'rovlarini bolalarnikidek bo'yinlariga bog'lab o'qir edilar, shuning uchun ayollarga erkaklar o'tirgan holatga to'g'rilanmaguncha sajdadan boshlarini ko'tarmaslik buyurilgan. Ular qo'shimcha qilib aytdilar: aynan shu sababli, avratini yopishga hech narsa topa olmagan kishi namoz o'qishi kerakmi, degan masalada ixtilof yo'q, lekin o'zini poklay olmagan kishi namoz o'qiy oladimi, degan masalada ixtilof bor.

Those who interpreted it as an obligation said that the implied meaning is the covering of the <awra. They argued for this on the basis of the context of the revelation of the verse that a woman used to circumambulate the Ka<ba naked, so the verse was revealed and “the Messenger of Allah issued the command that from then on no polytheist be allowed to perform the pilgrimage, nor was anyone to make the circumambulation naked”. Those who interpreted it to convey a recommendation said that the adornment mentioned is the external form of the dress or other clothes that constitute adornment. They argued for this on the basis of what is laid down in a tradition that some men used to join the Prophet in prayer with their wrappers tied to their necks, as is done for children, and the women were, therefore, advised not to raise their heads (from the sujud) till the men straightened up into the sitting posture. They added that it was for this reason that there was no disagreement about whether a person who could not find anything to cover himself should pray, but there was a disagreement about one who could not purify himself whether he could pray.

Ikkinchi masala erkaklarning avrasini belgilash haqida. Molik va al-Shofe'iy aytdilar: ularning fikricha erkakning avrasi kindikdan tizzagacha bo'lgan qismdir. Abu Hanifaning ham fikri shunday edi. Bir guruh faqihlar esa avra faqat shahvoniy a'zolardan (erkak jinsiy a'zosi va orqa chiqish yo'lidan) iborat deb hisobladilar. Ularning ixtilofi ikki rivoyatning ziddiyatidan kelib chiqadi, ikkalasi ham sahih. Birinchisi Jarhadning rivoyatidir: Allah elchisi ﷺ dedilar: "Sonlar avradir". Ikkinchisi Anas rivoyatidir: "Allah elchisi ﷺ (bir paytda) sahobalari bilan o'tirganlarida sonlarini ochdilar". Bu rivoyatni al-Buxoriy keltirgan. Anas rivoyatining isnodi kuchliroq, Jarhad rivoyati esa ehtiyotkorlik tomoniga yaqinroqdir. Ba'zi faqihlar avra sifatida ikki yonbosh, shahvoniy a'zolar va sonlarni aytdilar.

The second issue is about the delineation of the <-awra in the case of men. Malik and al-Shafi T said that c the 'awra in his case extends from the navel to the knees. This was also Abu HanTfa’s opinion. A group of jurists maintained that the 'awra comprises the private parts alone (the male sex organ and the rear exit). The reason for their disagreement stems from the conflict of two traditions, and both are authentic. The first is the tradition of Jarhad that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “The thighs are part of the ^awray\ The second is Anas’s tradition “that the Messenger of Allah (once) uncovered his thighs while he was sitting with his Companions”. It is recorded by al-Bukhari. Anas’s tradition has a stronger chain, while the Jarhad’s tradition is on the safer side. Some of the jurists have said that the awra comprises the buttocks, genitals, and the thighs.

Uchinchi masala ayolning avrat chegaralari haqida. Ko'pchilik faqihlar ayolning yuz va qo'llaridan tashqari butun badanini avrat deb hisoblaganlar. Abu Hanifa esa uning oyoqlarini avratga kirmaydi, deb hisoblagan. Abu Bakr ibn Abd ar-Rahmon va Ahmad esa uning butun badani avrat, degan.

The third issue relates to the limits of the 'awra in the case of a woman. Most of the jurists maintained that her entire body constitutes can?r^, except for the face and the hands. Abu HanTfa maintained that her feet are not a part of the <awra. Abu Bakr ibn <Abd al-Rahman and Ahmad said that her entire body is c awra.

Ularning ixtilofining sababi Oliy Zotning so‘zlaridagi mumkin bo‘lgan talqinlarga asoslangan: "Va ko‘rinib turgan narsalardan boshqa zeb-ziynatlarini namoyon qilmasinlar" — ya’ni istisno aniq belgilangan a’zolarga taalluqlimi yoki ayol o‘zini namoyon qilishdan qochib bo‘lmaydigan qismlargami? Harakatlanayotganda ayol o‘zini namoyon qilishdan qochib bo‘lmaydigan qismlarga istisno qilinadi, deb hisoblaganlar, ayolning butun badani, hatto orqasi ham avrat hisoblanadi, deganlar. Ular buni Oliy Zotning quyidagi so‘zlarining umumiy ma’nosiga tayanib dalil keltirganlar: "Ey Payg‘ambar! Xotinlaringga, qizlaringga va mo‘minlarning ayollariga ayt: (tashqariga chiqqanlarida) o‘zlarining ust-boshlarini o‘zlariga yaqinroq tortib olsinlar. Bu ularning tanilishlari uchun yaqinroq bo‘lib, ularga ozor berilmasligi uchun shunday qilishdir". Istisno odatda yopilmaydigan narsalarga, ya’ni yuz va qo‘llarga taalluqli, deganlar esa, bular avratga kirmaydi, deganlar. Ular buni, ayol haj paytida yuzini yopmaydi, degan dalil bilan isbotlaganlar.

The reason for their disagreement is based on the possible interpretations of the words of the Exalted, “And to display of their adornment only that which is apparent”, that is whether the exemption relates to defined parts or to those parts that she cannot (help but) display? Those who maintained that the intended exemption is only for those parts that she cannot help but display while moving, said that her entire body is <an>ra, even her back. They argued for this on the basis of the general implication of the words of the Exalted, “O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them. That will make them recognizable and they will not be exposed to harm”.105 Those who held that the intended exemption is for what is customarily not covered, that is, the face and the hands, said that these are not included in the 'awra. They (further) argued for i this on the grounds that a woman does not cover her face during hajj.

"Bu Yuksak (Alloh) ning so'zlari: «Ey Odam farzandlari! Har bir ibodatxona oldida ziynatingizni oling», shuningdek, namozda ayrim kiyim shakllarini man qilish haqidagi so'zlar, ya'ni kiyimni boshga tayanch qilib ishlatish, yoki bir parcha matoga o'ralib (uchlari chalishtirilgan holda), yelkalarni hech narsa yopmagan holda o'ralish, yoki bitta kiyimga o'ralib, shermagan (avratni yopuvchi narsa bo'lmagan) holda namoz o'qish. Bu kiyimlar haqida belgilangan barcha qoidalar ularning maqsadi, avratni ochilishiga olib keladigan sabablarning oldini olishdir, va men hech kimni bilmaymanki, u bu kiyimlarning birortasida, agar ochiq bo'lsa, namoz joiz emas deb aytgan bo'lsa. Ammo Zohiriylar usuliga ko'ra bu majburiy bo'lar edi." Ular bir kishining bitta kiyimda namoz o'qishi joiz ekaniga kelishdilar, Payg'ambar ﷺ dan rivoyat qilingan so'zga ko'ra, u zotdan: "Odam bitta kiyimda namoz o'qishi mumkinmi?" deb so'ralganda, u zot: "Hammangizning ikkita kiyimingiz bormi?" dedilar. Kishining orqa va old tomoni, kindikdan yuqori qismi ochiq holda namoz o'qishi masalasida ular ixtilof qildilar. Ko'pchilik bunday namozning joiz ekanini ta'kidlaydi, chunki erkak uchun orqa va ko'krak avrat hisoblanmaydi. Bir guruh faqihlar bu fikrdan chetga chiqib, bunday namozning joiz emasligini aytdilar, chunki Payg'ambar ﷺ kishining yelkasida hech qanday kiyimi bo'lmagan holda namoz o'qishini man qilganlar. Ular shuningdek, Yuksak (Alloh) ning: «Ey Odam farzandlari! Har bir ibodatxona oldida ziynatingizni oling» degan so'zlariga ham tayandilar.107

"These are the words of the Exalted, 'O Children of Adam! Take your adornment at every place of worship,' along with the prohibition of certain forms of dress in prayer, that is, to use a garment as a support for the head, or to wrap oneself in a single piece of cloth (with the ends crossed) without there being anything covering the shoulders, or to wrap himself in a single garment without anything covering the private parts. All prescriptions laid down about them are as their aim the prevention of the means that lead to the uncovering of the private parts, and I do not know of anyone who said that prayer is not permitted in any of these forms of dress so long as it is uncovered. This, however, would be obligatory according to the principles of the Zahrites." They agreed that a man is permitted to pray in a single dress, because of the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) when he was asked: “Can a man pray in a single garment?” He said, “Do all of you have two garments?” They disagreed about the case of a man praying with his back and the front part above the navel uncovered. The majority uphold the permission of such prayer, as the back and the chest are not part of the ^awra for a man. A group of jurists deviated and said that his prayer is not permitted, because of the proscription from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) about the prayer of a man with nothing of his dress on his shoulders. They also relied upon the words of the Exalted, “O Children of Adam! Take your adornment at every place of worship”.107

Ko‘pchilik ulamolar cho‘ri-kanizning namozni boshi va oyoqlari ochiq holda o‘qishi mumkin, deb hisoblagan. Al-Hasan al-Basriy esa unga hijob (yopinish) bilan o‘qishni vojib deb bilgan, Ato esa mustahab deb hisoblagan. Ixtilofning sababi shundaki, ma’lum bir jins (jinsiy toifa)ga qaratilgan huquqiy xitob ozod kishilarni ham, qullarni ham o‘z ichiga oladimi yoki faqat ozodlarni, qullarni chiqarib tashlagan holda, shunday qaratilganmi?

The majority maintained that a slave-girl may pray with her head and fee uncovered, but al-Hasan al-Basri deemed it obligatory for her to use the veil while cAta5 deemed it recommended. The reason for disagreement lies in the question of whether a (legal) communication addressed to either category o persons (sex) includes those who are free as well as those in bondage, oi whether it includes only the free to the exclusion of slaves?

Ular ipak kiyimda namoz o'qiydigan erkak kishi haqida ixtilof qilishdi. Bir guruh faqihlar uning bunday kiyimda o'qigan namozi sahih, ammo harom, deyishdi. Boshqa guruh esa namozi sahih emas, dedi. Uchinchi guruh esa namozni belgilangan vaqtida (ipak kiyimsiz) qayta o'qishni tavsiya qildi. Ixtilofning sababi shu masalada: taqiqlangan narsadan mutlaqo saqlanish namoz sahih bo'lishining shartimi? Buni shart deb bilganlar, bunday namoz joiz emas (ya'ni sahih emas), deyishdi. Kiyimi tufayli gunoh qilsa-da, namozi joiz, deganlar esa, bu taharatdan farqli o'laroq, namoz sahih bo'lishining sharti emas, deyishdi; taharat esa shartdir. Bu masala g'asb qilingan mol bilan o'qilgan namoz masalasiga o'xshaydi, u haqidagi ixtilof esa keng ma'lum.

They disagreed about the case of a man praying while dressed in a silker garment. A group of jurists said that his prayer in it is valid (thougl prohibited), while another group said it is not. A third group recommendec repeating the prayer in its prescribed time (without the silk dress). The reasoi for disagreement is over the question of whether avoidance of a thin^ prohibited absolutely is a condition for the validity of prayer? Those whe maintained that it is a condition said that prayer in it is not permitted (no: valid), while those who maintained that he commits a sin because of his dress but his prayer is permissible said that it is not a condition for the validity o prayer unlike purification, which is a condition. This issue is of the sam< nature as that of prayer in usurped property, dispute over which is wideh known.