Fuqaholar namozda tark etilishi shart bo'lgan narsalarga so'zlar ham, amallar ham kirishi borasida ittifoqqa kelganlar. Amallarga namozdan tashqarida ruxsat etilgan, lekin namozning bir qismi bo'lmagan barcha amallar kiradi, faqat namoz vaqtida chayonni yoki ilonni o'ldirish mustasno. Bu masalada ular ixtilof qilganlar, chunki mazkur masala bo'yicha rivoyat bilan qiyos o'rtasida ziddiyat mavjud. Menimcha, ular kichik harakatlarning ruxsat etilganligi haqida ittifoq qilganlar.

The jurists agreed that things stipulated to be relinquished in prayer include words as well as acts. The acts include all acts permissible outside prayer that are not part of prayer, except the killing of a scorpion or a snake during prayer, about which they disagreed due to the existence of a conflict between a tradition on the issue and analogy. They agreed, I think, about the permissibility of minor movements.

Namozga kirmaydigan so‘zlar ham shu jumlaga kiradi. Bu borada ham ulamolar ittifoq qilganki, ataylab aytilgan bo‘lsa, ular namozni batil qiladi. Buning dalili Allohning Ta’olo quyidagi so‘zi: “Va Alloh huzurida itoat bilan turinglar”,109 hamda Payg‘ambar ﷺ dan rivoyat qilingan hadis: “Alloh Taolo xohlagan hukmini belgilaydi va namozda gaplashmaslikni sizlarga farz qilgan”.

The words include all those that are not part of prayer. In this too, they agreed that they invalidate prayer, if uttered intentionally, because of the j words of the Exalted, “And stand up with devotion to Allah”,109 and also because of the report from the Prophet, “Allah stipulates any command of His that He likes, and He stipulates that you should not speak during prayers”.

Ibn Mas'udning rivoyati. Zayd ibn Arqamning rivoyatida shunday deyilgan: “Biz namozda gaplashardik, to “Allohga itoat etgan holda tik turinglar” degan oyat nozil bo‘lguncha, shundan so‘ng bizga sukut saqlash buyurildi va gapirish man qilindi”. Yana Mu'oviya ibn al-Hakam as-Sulamiyning rivoyati bor, u shunday degan: “Men Allohning Elchisi ﷺ shunday deganlarini eshitdim: “Odamlarning gapi bizning namozimizga yarashmaydi, chunki namoz – (Allohni) ulug‘lash, tavhid kalimasini takrorlash, shukr qilish va Qur'on tilovatidir”. Ammo ulamolar bu masalada ikki nuqtada ixtilof qilganlar: birinchi, odam unutish tufayli gapirib yuborsa; ikkinchi, namozdagi xatoni tuzatish uchun ataylab gapirsa. Avzoiy bundan chetga chiqib, namozda biror kishining hayotini saqlash yoki boshqa jiddiy ish uchun gapirgan kishi, shundan keyin namozini davom ettirishi mumkin, deb aytgan. Molikning mashhur fikri shuki, tuzatish niyatida ataylab gapirish namozni buzmaydi. Shofi'iy esa har qanday gap namozni buzadi, deydi, faqat unutish holati bundan mustasno. Abu Hanifa esa namozni istisnosiz har qanday gap buzadi, degan.

This is the tradition of Ibn Mas'ud. The tradition of Zayd ibn Arqam reads, “We used to speak during prayer, till the words, “And stand up with devotion to Allah”, were revealed and we were commanded to maintain silence and prohibited from speaking”. Further, there is the tradition of Mu<awiya ibn al- Hakam al-SulamT, who said, “I heard the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) saying, ‘The speech of people is not suitable for our prayer, for prayer is praise (of Allah), the repetition of the word of taw hid, thanksgiving, and the recitation of the Qur’an’”. They disagreed, however, about this on two points. First, when a person speaks out due to forgetfulness, and second when he speaks out intentionally for correcting an error in prayer. AFAwzaT deviated from this saying that a person who speaks out in prayer for saving a life or for another serious matter may continue his prayer after that. Malik’s widely known opinion is that intentional speech with a view to rectification does not invalidate prayer. Al-ShafiT said that speech invalidates it, whatever its nature, except in the case of forgetfulness. Abu HanTfa said that prayer is invalidated by speech without exception.

Ularning ixtilofining sababi hadislarning zohiriy ma'nosidagi ziddiyatdan kelib chiqadi. Oldingi hadislar namoz vaqtida gapirishning umumiy taqiqini nazarda tutadi va Abu Hurayra rivoyat qilgan hadis bilan ziddiyatga o'xshaydi. Bu hadisda aytiladi: "Allohning Elchisi (Allohning salavoti va barakasi unga bo'lsin) ikki rak'atdan keyin namozni tugatdilar. Zu-l-Yadayn [shunday nomlangan bir kishi] unga dedi: 'Namoz qisqartirildimi yoki siz unutdingizmi, ey Allohning Elchisi?' Allohning Elchisi ﷺ dedilar: 'Zu-l-Yadayn rostni aytdimi?' Ular dedilar: 'Ha'. Allohning Elchisi ﷺ turib qolgan ikki rak'atni o'qidilar va so'ngra salom bilan namozni tugatdilar". Bu hadisning zohiriy ma'nosi shuki, Allohning Elchisi ﷺ gapirdilar, ular bilan birga bo'lganlar ham gapirdilar va bu gapdan keyin namozni davom ettirdilar, bu gap ularning namozini uzmadi. Bu zohiriy ma'noga amal qilganlar, bu gapning faqat namozni tuzatish uchun ekanligini aytib, uni umumiy (taqiq) ma'nodan istisno qildilar. Malik ibn Anas ning fikri ham shunday. Boshqalar esa, hadisda namoz vaqtida ular ataylab gapirganliklariga dalil yo'q, deb aytdilar. Ularning fikricha, namoz qisqartirilgan deb o'ylab gapirganga o'xshaydilar, Payg'ambar ﷺ esa namoz tugallangan deb o'ylab gapirganlar. Yana ular qo'shimcha qildilar: Payg'ambar ﷺ ning "Namoz qisqartirilmadi va men unutmadim" degan so'zlaridan keyin odamlar gapirgani haqidagi rivoyat ularning nazarida sahih isbotlanmagan. Shuning uchun bu hadis ataylab gapirmayotgan kishi uchun gapirishning ruxsat etilganini bildiradi. Shunday qilib, Molik bilan ash-Shofi'iy o'rtasida umumiy hukmdan istisno qilish masalasidagi ixtilofning sababi bu hadisning ma'nosi ustidagi tortishuvdir. Ammo ash-Shofi'iy bu borada yana bir umumiy qoidaga ham tayangan, ya'ni Payg'ambar (ﷺ) ning: "Mening ummatimdan xato va unutishdagi javobgarlik olib tashlangan", degan so'zlariga. Abu Hanifa esa man etuvchi hadislarni ularning umumiy ma'nosida tushungan va ular Zul-Yadayn hadisini bekor qilgan, deb hisoblagan hamda undan ustun qo'ygan.

The reason for their disagreement stems from the conflict of the apparent meaning of the traditions. The preceding traditions imply the general prohibition of speech, and appear to conflict with Abu Hurayra’s tradition, which says, “The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) once concluded his prayer after two ra&as, Dhu al-Yadayn [a man so called] asked him, ‘Has the prayer been shortened, or did you forget, O Messenger of Allah?’ The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, ‘Did Dhu al-Yadayn speak the truth?’ They said, ‘Yes’. The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) stood up and prayed the remaining two rak'as and then concluded with the salutation’”. The apparent meaning here is that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) spoke'and so did the people with him, and they continued the prayer after this speech, which did not cut off their prayer. Those who followed this apparent meaning, and maintained that this speech was specific to the rectification of prayer, exempted it from the general implication (of prohibition); This is Malik ibn Anas’s opinion. Some maintained that there is no evidence in the tradition to indicate that they spoke intentionally during prayer, and said that it appears they spoke thinking that the prayer had been shortened, while the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) spoke thinking that the prayer had been completed. Further, they added that the report that the people spoke after the statement of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “The prayer has not been shortened nor did I forget”, was not proved authentic in their view; therefore the tradition implies the permissibility of speech for a person who is not speaking intentionally. Thus, the reason for the disagreement between Malik and al-ShaficT about the exemption from the general implication is their dispute over the meaning of this tradition, though al-ShaficT also relied for this upon a general principle, which is the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “Liability for mistake and forgetfulness has been removed from my umma”. Abu HanTfa, on the other hand, interpreted the proscribing traditions in their general meaning and held them to have abrogated the tradition of Dhu al- Yadayn, and as being preferred over it.