Ushbu bobda ikkita bo‘lim bor. Birinchi bo‘lim namozning so‘zlari haqida, ikkinchisi esa uning amallari haqida.

There are two sections in this chapter. The first section is about the words of prayer, while the second is about its acts.

Ushbu bobdagi asosiy masalalar to'qqizta.

The fundamental issues in this chapter are nine.

Fuqaholar takbir (“Allohu akbar” so‘zlarini aytish — Alloh eng ulug‘dir) haqida uch xil fikrga ajralib ketishgan. Bir guruh fuqaholar namozdagi barcha takbirlarni aytish vojib, deb aytgan, boshqa bir guruh esa barcha takbirlar vojib emas, deb aytgan, va bu g‘ayriodatiy (chetga chiqqan) fikrdir. Ko‘pchilik esa faqat birinchi takbirning vojib ekanligini ta’kidlaydi.

The jurists disagreed about takbir (pronouncing the words: “Alldhu Akbar”—Allah is Supreme) into three opinions. A group of jurists said that all pronouncements of takbir in prayer are obligatory, while another group said hat all pronouncements are not obligatory, which is a deviant opinion. The majority hold that the initial takbir alone is obligatory.

Ulamolarning barcha takbirlarni vojib deb hisoblaganlari va faqat takbiri tahrimani vojib deb hisoblaganlari o'rtasidagi ixtilofning sababi Payg'ambar ﷺning rivoyat qilingan so'zlari bilan rivoyat qilingan amallari o'rtasidagi ziddiyatdan kelib chiqadi. Payg'ambar ﷺning rivoyat qilingan so'zi Abu Hurayra rivoyatidagi mashhur hadisda keladi: Payg'ambar ﷺ namozni o'rgatayotgan bir kishiga shunday degan: "Namozga niyat qilganingda, vuzuni to'liq qil, qiblaga yuz tuzat, so'ngra takbir ayt, keyin esa Qur'on o'qi". Bu so'zning ma'nosi shuki, vojib bo'lgan faqat birinchi takbirdir; agar boshqa takbir ham vojib bo'lganida, namozning boshqa farzlarini aytgani kabi, buni ham aytgan bo'lardi. Payg'ambar ﷺning rivoyat qilingan amallariga Abu Hurayra rivoyati kiradi: u rukudan turganda va rukuga borganda takbir aytib namoz o'qigan va so'ng: "Men sizlarga Allah elchisi ﷺning namozi kabi namozni ko'rsataman", degan. Shuningdek, Mutarrif ibn Abdullah ibn ash-Shixxir rivoyati ham bunga kiradi. U shunday degan: "Imron ibn Husayn va men Ali ibn Abu Tolib, Allah undan rozi bo'lsin, ortidan namoz o'qidik. U sajda qilganda va sajdadan boshini ko'targanda takbir aytdi. Namoz tugagach, biz ketayotganimizda Imron mening qo'limni ushlab dedi: 'Bu menga Muhammad ﷺning namozini eslatdi'".

The reason for disagreement among those who made all its instances obligatory and those who made only the takbir of ihram obligatory stems from the conflict of the transmitted words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) with his transmitted acts. The transmitted saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) is in the widely known tradition of Abu Hurayra that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said to a man, whom he was teaching how to pray, “When you resolve to pray, complete the ablution and face the qibla, then, pronounce the takbir followed by recitation”. The meaning here is that it is only the first takbir that is obligatory, and had another takbir been obligatory, he would have mentioned it to him, just as he mentioned the other obligations of prayer. The transmitted acts of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) include Abu Hurayra’s tradition “that he prayed pronouncing the takbir each time he bowed or straightened up, and then said, T give you in my prayer a semblance of the prayer of the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him)’”. Included (in the transmitted acts) is also the tradition of Mutarrif ibn Abd Allah ibn al-Shikhkhir, who said, Hmran ibn al-Husayn and c I followed CA!T ibn AbT Talib, may Allah be pleased with him, in prayer, and he pronounced takbir when he prostrated, and when he raised his head after bowing. When he had completed the prayer, we went away and Imran took hold of my hand and said, ‘This reminds me of Muhammad’s prayer’ ”.

Molik aytdiki, takbirni "Allohu akbar" so'zlaridan boshqa so'zlar bilan aytish joiz emas. Shofe'iy esa "Allohu akbar" va "Allohul-akbar" shakllarining ikkalasi ham ruxsat etilgan, deb aytdi. Abu Hanifa esa, takbir ma'nosini bildiruvchi barcha so'zlar bilan aytilishi mumkin, masalan, "Alloh eng buyukdir" (al-A'zam) va "Alloh ulug'roqdir" (al-Ajall), deb aytdi.

Malik said that it is not allowed to pronounce takbir, except with the words Alldhu Akbar, while al-Shafi T said that c the forms Alldhu Akbar and Alldhu al- Akbar are both permitted. Abu HanTfa said that takbir is permitted with all those words that convey the same meaning, like Allah is the Greatest (al- A zam) and Allah is Greater {al-A jail).

Ularning ixtilofining sababi, ibtidoning farz qilingan narsasi so'zlarmi yoki ularning ma'nosimi, degan masaladir. Molikiylar va shofe'iylar Payg'ambar (Allohning rahmati va barakalari unga bo'lsin) ﷺ so'zlariga tayanib dedilar: "Namozning kaliti poklikdir, uning muqaddasligi takbir bilan boshlanadi va u salom bilan tugallanadi". Ular dedilarki, "al" aniq artikli cheklovchidir va hukmning faqat ifodalangan narsa bilan chegaralanishini bildiradi, uning boshqasisiz ruxsat etilmasligini bildiradi. Abu Hanifa bu borada ularning ushbu qoidasiga qo'shilmaydi, chunki uning nazarida bunday ma'no matnning lafziy mazmuni bo'lgan "mafhum al-xitob" (matnning bilvosita ma'nosi)dan kelib chiqadi, bu esa ifodalanmagan toifalarga ifodalangan mavzuning ma'nosiga qarama-qarshi ma'no berishni talab qiladi. "Dalil al-xitob" Abu Hanifa foydalanmagan usuldir.

c The reason for their disagreement is whether it is the words or their meaning that are prescribed for the opening. The Malikites and the Shafifites argued on the basis of the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “The key to prayer is purification, its sanctity starts with al-takbir, and it. is discharged with the salutation”. They said that the definite article “at” is exhaustive and indicates that the hukm is confined to the thing expressed, and that it is not permissible without anything else. Abu HanTfa does not agree with them about this principle, for such a meaning, in his view, arises from the literal category of zto/iZ al-khitdb (the indirect implication of the text), which requires the assigning of a meaning opposite that of the expressed subject to the unexpressed categories. The dalil al-khitdb is a method not used by Abu HanTfa.

Bir guruh faqihlar namozda tavjih vojib ekanligini aytdilar. U takbirdan keyingi "Men yuzimni samovot va yerni yaratgan Zotga qaratdim" degan so‘zdir, bu Shofi‘iy rahimahulloh rayi, yoki Allohni poklash (tasbih) bu Abu Hanifa rayi, yoki ikkalasining birikmasi bu Abu Hanifaning shogirdi Abu Yusufning rayi. Molik esa namozda tavjihning na vojib, na sunnat ekanligini aytdi.

A group of jurists said that tawjih is obligatory in prayer. It is either the statement after takbir, “I (have) tum(ed) (my face) to One Who created the heavens and the earth”, which is al-ShafiTs opinion, or it is the glorification of Allah, which is Abu HanTfa’s opinion, or it is a combination of both, which is Abu Yusufs opinion, who was the disciple of Abu HanTfa. Malik said that tawjih is not obligatory in prayer, nor is it a sunn a.

Ixtilofning sababi Molik nazarida Madina aholisining tavjih amaliyoti haqidagi rivoyatlarning ziddiyati bo‘lishi yoki shu rivoyatlarning sahihligi haqidagi bahsga asoslanishi mumkin. Qodiy (Ibn Rushd) aytadiki, Sahihayn kitoblarida Abu Hurayradan rivoyat qilinganidek, "Allohning Elchisi ﷺ takbir bilan qiroat orasida sukut qilar edilar. Shunda men dedim: "Ey Allohning Elchisi, otam-onam sizga fido bo‘lsin! Takbir bilan qiroat orasidagi bu sukutingizda nima deysiz?" U zot ﷺ aytdilar: "Ey Alloh, meni xatolarimdan shunday uzoqlashtirgin, xuddi sharqni g‘arbdan uzoqlashtirganingdek. Ey Alloh, meni xatolarimdan xuddi oq kiyim kirdan poklangandek poklagin. Ey Alloh, xatolarimni suv, qor va shabnam bilan yuvgin."

The reason for disagreement is the conflict of traditions about tawjih practice (of the people of Medina), in Malik’s view, or is based upon the dispute over the authenticity of the relevant traditions. The QadT (Ibn Rushd) said that it is established in the Sahihayn from Abu Hurayra “that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) used to remain silent between takbir and (later) recitation. So I said, 4O Messenger of Allah for you I would offer as ransom my father and mother. In this silence of yours between takbir and recitation, what do you say?’ He said, and I quote, ‘0 Allah, distance me from my errors, as You have distanced the east from the west, O Allah, cleanse me of errors like a white dress cleansed of filth, O Allah, wash away my errors with water, snow, and the morning dew’”.

Bir guruh faqihlar namoz davomida sukut qilish uchun ba'zi vaqtlarni ma'qul ko'rdilar, jumladan, birinchi takbirdan keyingi lahzani, Ummul-Qur'on suras o'qilganidan keyin va rukuga egilishdan oldin qiroat tugagandan so'ng. Bunga amal qilganlardan ba'zilari ash-Shofi'iy, Abu Savr va al-Avzoiydir. Bularni Molik, uning shogirdlari hamda Abu Hanifa va uning shogirdlari rad etdilar.

A group of jurists preferred some occasions for silence during prayer including the moment following the initial takbir, after the recitation of the umm a I-Qur^an, and after the completion of recitation just before bowing. Some of those who upheld this are al-ShaficT, Abu Thawr, and al-AwzaT. These were denied by Malik, his disciples, and by Abu HanTfa, and his disciples.

Faqihlar namozda Qur'on tilovatini boshlashdan oldin "Bismillahir-rohmanir-rohiym", ya'ni "Allohning nomi bilan, Rahmoni va Rahiym bo'lgan Zot nomi bilan" degan so'zlarni o'qish masalasida ixtilof qilganlar. Molik farz namozda, ovoz chiqarib yoki ichda o'qilishidan qat'iy nazar, Qur'onning "Umm al-Qur'on" (Fotiha) surasi boshida yoki boshqa har qanday surada bu so'zlarni o'qishni man etgan, ammo nafl namozlarda ularni o'qishga ruxsat bergan. Abu Hanifa, as-Savriy va Ahmad esa har bir rakatda Umm al-Qur'on bilan birga bu so'zlarni ichda o'qish kerak, deganlar. Ash-Shofi'iy esa, agar namozda ovoz chiqarib qiroat qilinsa, bu so'zlarni ham ovoz chiqarib, ichida qiroat qilinsa, ichida o'qish kerak, degan. Uning fikricha, bu "Fotiha" surasining bir oyati bo'lib, Ahmad, Abu Savr va Abu Ubayd ham shunday deganlar. Ammo ash-Shofi'iyning o'zi bu so'zlar har bir surada oyat hisoblanadimi yoki faqat an-Naml surasi hamda Fotiha surasining oyati hisoblanadimi, degan masalada ikki xil qarashga ega bo'lgan; uning ikkala fikri ham unga nisbat berilgan.

The jurists disagreed about reciting the basmala, the words meaning, “In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the* Merciful”, before beginning recitation in prayer. Malik prohibited this in the prescribed prayer, whether loudly or inaudibly, at the beginning of the umm al-Qur>dn or any other sura, but he permitted it with supererogatory prayers. Abu HanTfa, al-ThawrT, and Ahmad said that it is to be pronounced inaudibly in each rakfa with the umm al- Qu^dn. Al-Shafi T said that c it is to be pronounced aloud in case of audible recitation and in a whisper in case of the inaudible. In his view it is a verse of the fatihat al-Kitab, which was also the opinion of Ahmad, Abu Thawr, and Abu TTbayd. Al-Shafi T, however, c differed about whether it was a verse of every sura or a verse of surat al-Naml and fatihat al-Kt tab alone? Both opinions are related from him.

Ushbu masaladagi ixtilofning sababi ikki omilga bog'liq. Birinchisi — mavzudagi rivoyatlarning ziddiyati, ikkinchisi esa basmala Fotiha surasining oyatimi yoki yo'qmi, degan bahsga taalluqlidir. Basmalani tashlab o'qiydiganlar tayanadigan rivoyatlardan biri Ibn Mug'affalning rivoyatidir. U aytadi: "Men basmalani o'qiyotganimda otam meni eshitib qoldi va dedi: 'Ey o'g'lim, bid'atdan ehtiyot bo'l. Allohning Elchisi ﷺ Abu Bakr, Umar va Usmon ortida namoz o'qigan, ularning hech biri basmalani o'qimagan'". Abu Umar ibn al-Barr aytadiki, Ibn Mug'affal Molik tomonidan Anas rivoyatida nақл qilingan hadisning rivoyachisidir. Anas aytadi: "Men Abu Bakr, Umar va Usmon (Alloh ulardan rozi bo'lsin) ortida namoz o'qidim, ularning hech biri namozning boshida tasmiyani (basmalani) o'qimagan". Abu Umar aytadiki, bu rivoyatlar yuzasidan qarashlar shuni ko'rsatadiki, ushbu hadisning rivoyatlari chalkash bo'lib, uni ishonarli dalil sifatida qabul qilib bo'lmaydi. Bir o'rinda bu rivoyat silsila orqali uning ham basmalani o'qiganini nақл qiladi (marfu'), boshqa safar esa silsila unga yetib bormaydi. Ba'zi nusxalarda Usmon zikr qilinadi, boshqalarida esa zikr qilinmaydi. Ayrim nusxalarda esa basmalani baland ovozda aytmaganlari zikr qilingan.

Fuqaho ittifoq qilganki, qiroat qilinmasa namoz sahih bo‘lmaydi, qiroat tark etilishi ataylab bo‘lsinmi yoki unutish tufayli bo‘lsinmi, farqi yo‘q. Faqat Umar (Alloh u zotdan rozi bo‘lsin) haqida rivoyat qilinganki, u namoz o‘qidi va qiroatni unutib qo‘ydi. Unga buni aytishdi va u rukular va sajdalar qanday o‘tganini so‘radi. Unga ular odatdagidek bo‘lganini aytishganda, u: “Unda zarar yo‘q”, dedi. Ammo bu ularning nazarida yolg‘iz (g‘arib) rivoyatdir, garchi Molik uni o‘zining “al-Muvatta” kitobining ba’zi nusxalarida keltirgan bo‘lsa ham. Bundan tashqari, Ibn Abbosdan rivoyat bor: u ovoz chiqarib o‘qilishi shart bo‘lmagan namozda qiroat qilmagan va: “Allah Elchisi ﷺ ba’zi namozlarda qiroat qildilar, ba’zilarida jim turdilar. Shuning uchun biz ular qiroat qilgan joyda qiroat qilamiz, jim turgan joyda jim turamiz”, degan. Undan zuhr va asr namozlarida qiroat bormi, deb so‘rashganda, u: “Yo‘q!” deb javob bergan. Ko‘pchilik Xabbobning rivoyatiga ergashdi: “Payg‘ambar ﷺ zuhr va asr namozlarida qiroat qilar edilar”. Undan so‘rashdi: “Buni qayerdan bilding?” U javob berdi: “Uning soqolining harakatidan”. Kufaliklar esa Ibn Abbosning rivoyatiga tayanib, namozning oxirgi ikki rak‘atida qiroat qilish majburiyatini tark etishdi, chunki bu ikki rak‘atda Allah Elchisi ﷺ jim turganlari sababli ovoz chiqarib va ovozsiz o‘qiladigan namozlar bu jihatdan tengdir, deb hisobladilar.

The jurists agreed that prayer without recitation is not valid, whether the omission is intentional or out of forgetfulness, except what is related from TJmar (God be pleased with him) that he prayed and forgot to recite. He was told about this, and he asked how the bowing and prostrations go? When he was told that they were normal, he said, “Then there is no harm”. But this is a solitary (gharib) tradition in their view, although it is included by Malik in his al-Muwatta*, in some versions of it. Further, there is the report from Ibn ‘Abbas that he did not recite in prayer not requiring audible recitation, and said, “The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) recited in some prayers, but kept silent in others, so we recite where he recited and maintain silence where he kept silent”. He was asked whether there was recitation in zuhr and 'asr prayers, and he replied, “No!” The majority followed the tradition of Khabbab “that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) used to recite in the zuhr and 'asr prayers. He was asked: ‘How did you come to know this?’ He replied, ‘By the movement of his beard’”. The KufTs relied on Ibn ‘Abbas’s tradition for relinquishing the obligation of recitation in the last two rak^as of prayer, because of the equivalence of audible and inaudible prayer with respect to the silence of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) in these two rakfas.

Namozda qiroatning farz ekanligini ta'kidlaganlar, nima o'qilishi kerakligi haqida ixtilof qilishgan. Ulardan ba'zilari, yodlab olgan kishi uchun Qur'onning ummul-Qur'oni (Fotiha) o'qish farz ekanligini va qo'shimcha qiroat uchun hech qanday chegara yo'qligini aytganlar. Ba'zilari esa, namozning katta qismida, ba'zilari namozning yarmida, boshqalari esa har bir namozning bir rak'atida qiroat qilish farz deb hisoblaganlar. Birinchi fikr Shofi'iy ning, shuningdek, Molik ning mashhur qarashi bo'lgan, lekin undan rivoyat qilinishicha, agar to'rt rak'atli namozning ikki rak'atida qiroat qilinsa, bu ham joiz bo'ladi. Al-Hasan al-Basriy va Basra fuqaholarining ko'pchiligi har bir rak'atda qiroat qilish kifoya deb hisoblaganlar. Abu Hanifa ga ko'ra, farz — kishi xohlagan istalgan oyatni o'qishdir, uning shogirdlari esa eng kamida uchta qisqa oyat yoki "dayn" (qarz) haqidagi oyat kabi uzun bir oyat deb bilganlar. Bu hukm birinchi ikki rak'at uchun, qolgan ikki rak'at uchun esa u tasbih, ya'ni Allohning nomini ulug'lovchi so'zlarni o'qishni mustahab deb bilgan, qiroatni emas. Bu fikrni Kufaliklar ham qo'llab-quvvatlaganlar. Ko'pchilik olimlar esa barcha rak'atlarda qiroatni mustahab deb hisoblaydilar.

Ko'pchilik ulamolar ruku' va sajda holatida Qur'on tilovat qilishning man etilishi to'g'risida kelishdi, chunki Ali (r.a.) rivoyat qilgan hadis shunday deydi. Bu rivoyatga ko'ra, u (Payg'ambar ﷺ) aytdilar: "Jibril menga ruku' va sajda holatida Qur'on tilovat qilishni man qildi". At-Tabariy bu rivoyatni sahih deb aytgan va uni turli mintaqalardagi faqihlar ham qabul qilganlar. Ba'zi tobe'inlar bunga ruxsat berishga qaror qildilar, bu fikr al-Buxoriyga ham tegishli, chunki u uchun bu rivoyat sahih bo'lib tuyulmagan. Allohning o'zi eng yaxshi biladi.

The majority agreed about the prohibition of the recitation of the Qurian while bowing and prostrating, because of the tradition of cAli about it. According to this tradition, he (the Prophet) said, “Jibril prohibited me from reciting the Qurian while bowing and prostrating”. Al-Tabari said that it is an authentic tradition, and it was followed by the jurists of the various regions. Some of the Tabi un decided to allow c this, and it is also the opinion of al- Bukhari, because the tradition did not prove to be authentic for him, Allah knows best.

Ular rukuʼ va sajda qilishda bandaning aniq belgilangan so‘zlar aytishi shart-shart emasligi haqida ixtilof qilishdi. Molik, hech narsa ular uchun belgilanmaganini aytdi. Ash-Shofiʼiy, Abu Hanifa, Ahmad va bir guruh faqihlar esa, ʼUqba ibn ʼĀmir rivoyatiga ko‘ra, banda rukuʼda uch marta “Ulug‘ Rabbim pokdir”,113 degan so‘zlarni, sajdada esa uch marta “Eng oliy Rabbim pokdir”,114 degan so‘zlarni takrorlaydi, deb aytdilar. As-Savriy esa, imom bu so‘zlarni besh marta takrorlashi afzalroq bo‘lardi, shunda ergashuvchi uch martani takrorlashga vaqt topadi, deb hisobladi.

They disagreed on whether bowing and prostrating require determined words from the worshipper. Malik said that there is nothing determined for them. Al-ShafiT, Abu HanTfa, Ahmad, and a group of jurists said that the worshipper repeats the words, “Praise the name of thy Lord, the Tremendous”,113 three times while bowing, and the words “Praise the name of thy Lord, the Most High”,114 three times while prostrating, in accordance with the tradition of TJqba ibn cAmir. Al-Thawri maintained that it was preferable if the imam were to repeat these words five times, so that the follower would have time to repeat them thrice.

Ibn Abbas rivoyatida va Uqba ibn Omir rivoyatining bir-biriga zid kelishi bu masaladagi ixtilofning sababidir. Ibn Abbas rivoyatida Payg'ambar ﷺ shunday degan deb naql qilinadi: "Men ruku' va sajda holatida Qur'on tilovat qilishdan qaytarildim. Ruku'da Rabbingizni ulug'lang, sajdada esa duo qilishga intiling, chunki bu holatda duolaringiz ijobat bo'lishi uchun munosibdir". Uqba ibn Omir rivoyatida esa aytilishicha, {Rabbingning ulug' ismini poklagin} oyati nozil bo'lganda Payg'ambar ﷺ: "Buni ruku'da o'qinglar", deganlar, {Eng oliy Rabbingning ismini poklagin} oyati nozil bo'lganda esa: "Buni sajdada o'qinglar", deganlar.

Ular tashahhud va uning afzal matni haqida ixtilof qilishdi. Molik, Abu Hanifa va fuqahoning bir guruhi tashahhudning vojib emasligini aytdilar, boshqa bir guruh esa uning vojibligini qo‘llab-quvvatladi; bu fikrni ash-Shofi‘iy, Ahmad va Dovud qabul qilishdi. Ularning ixtilofining sababi qiyosning hadislarning zohiriy ma’nosi bilan to‘qnashishidan kelib chiqadi. Qiyos uni namozdagi vojib bo‘lmagan boshqa barcha arkonlar (ruknlar) bilan bir xil deb hisoblashni talab qiladi, chunki namozda Qur’on o‘qishning vojibligi borasida ittifoq bor, tashahhud esa Qur’onning bir qismi emas, shuning uchun u vojib bo‘lishi kerak emas. Ibn Abbosdan rivoyat qilingan hadisda u shunday deydi: “Allohning Elchisi ﷺ bizga tashahhudni Qur’ondagi bir sura o‘rgatganidek o‘rgatardilar”. Bu vojiblikni anglatadi, shuningdek, Payg‘ambar ﷺ ning so‘zlari va amallari teskari dalil topilmaguncha vojib deb tushunilishi kerak, degan qoidaga ham mos keladi. Boshqalar tomonidan qabul qilingan qoida esa bunga zid bo‘lib, ittifoq bilan vojibligi isbotlangan yoki vojibligi aniq zikr qilingan masalalarga qiyos qo‘llanilmasligini bildiradi. Agar uning vojibligi aniq ifodalanmagan va belgilanmagan bo‘lsa, Payg‘ambar ﷺ tomonidan aniq zikr qilingan tashahhud so‘zlariga afzallik beriladi.

They disagreed about tashahhud and its preferred text. Malik, Abu HanTfa, and a group of jurists held that tashahhud is not obligatory, while another group upheld its obligation, which was adopted by al-ShafiH, Ahmad, and Dawud. The reason for their disagreement arises from the conflict of analogy with the apparent meaning of traditions. Analogy requires its association with all other arkdn (elements) that are not obligatory in prayer, because of their agreement over the obligation of (reciting) the Qur’an (alone) in prayer, and that tashahhud is not a part of the Qur’an so that it may be obligatory. In a tradition from Ibn cAbbas, he -says, “The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) used to teach us the tashahhud as he would teach us a sura of the Qur’an”. This implies an obligation, along with the principle that the words and the acts of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) must be construed to imply obligation till an evidence to the contrary is It is noted. The principle followed by others is contrary to this, which states that it is not applicable to associate with matters whose obligation has been established by agreement or where obligation has been expressly mentioned. Unless their obligation has been expressed and specified, the preference given to the words of tashahhud, as explicitly mentioned by the Prophet.

Malik, tashahhud so'zlarini afzal ko'rishda, Allohdan oldinroq ketadi; ibodatlar va yaxshi amallar Allohnikidir. Jamoatdagi kishilar guvohlik beradilar: "Barcha salomlar Allohga, rahmatlar sizning ustingizda bo'lsin." So'zlar quyidagicha: "Guvohlik beraman, Allohdan boshqa iloh yo'q va Muhammad Uning bandasi hamda Elchisidir" ﷺ. Kufa faqihlari, Abu Hanifa va boshqalar, Abdurrahmon ibn Mas'udga tayanib tashahhudni afzal ko'rdilar. Ibn Umar aytdiki, bu rivoyatning tilovati rivoyatning sahihligi orqali amalga oshadi, chunki u Abdurrahmonning (Allohning rahmati uning ustida bo'lsin) so'zlaridan naql qilingan, shuningdek ibodatlar va yaxshi amallar ham. So'zlar quyidagicha: "Ey Alloh, tinchlik uchun yaxshilik ber, Muhammadning ustiga rahmatlar bo'lsin, Allohning rahmati va Uning Elchisining rahmati ham." ﷺ Ash-Shofiʼiy va boshqalar guvohlik beradilar, Muhammad Uning bandasi va Elchisidir. U ulardan rivoyat qiladi, u aytdi: "Salomlar sizga, ey Nabiy, va rahmatlar sizning ustingizda bo'lsin." U aytadi: "Salomlar Allohning boshqa bandalariga." Men guvohlik beraman, Allohdan boshqa iloh yo'q va Muhammad Uning Elchisidir ﷺ. Ixtilofning sababi ularning afzal so'zlar haqidagi e'tiqodidan kelib chiqadi. Uchta rivoyatdan birining afzalligiga ishongan kishilar o'shani tutdilar. Ko'plab faqihlar bularning hammasi ixtiyoriy ekanligini, xuddi janoza uchun adhon va takbir so'zlari, ikki ʼīd namozi va mutavotir yo'l bilan Nabiyga ﷺ nisbat berilgan boshqa ba'zi masalalar kabi ekanligini ta'kidladilar. Bu haqiqatga o'xshaydi, Alloh eng yaxshi biladi.

Ular namoz tugagandan keyin salomga qaytish haqida ixtilof qilishgan. Ko'pchilik uning vojib ekanligini ta'kidlagan, Abu Hanifa va uning shogirdlari esa u vojib emas, deyishgan. Salom vojib, deb hisoblaganlarning ba'zilari uni yakka kishi va imom uchun bitta salom berish vojib, deyishgan, boshqalari esa ikkita salom beriladi, deyishgan (biri o'ngga, biri chapga).

They disagreed about salutation after prayer. The majority upheld its obligation, while Abu Hanifa and his disciples said that it is not obligatory. Some of those who maintained that it is obligatory said that it is obligatory upon the individual, and the imam, to make a single salutation, when others said that they make two (one to the right and one to the left).

Ko‘pchilik (uni vojib deb hisoblaganlar) ‘Oisha hadisining zohiriy ma’nosiga amal qildi, unda Payg‘ambar ﷺ shunday degan: “Namozning tugashi — salomdir”. Ulardan salomni ikki marta berish vojib deganlar esa “Payg‘ambar ﷺ ikki marta salom bergan” degan sobit an’anaga amal qildilar. Bu holat Payg‘ambarning ﷺ amallarini vojiblikni bildiradi deb izohlaganlar uchun to‘g‘ridir. Molik ma’mum uchun ikki salomni, imom uchun esa bitta salomni afzal ko‘rgan, garchi undan ma’mum uch marta salom berishi rivoyat qilingan bo‘lsa-da: birinchisi namozni tugatish uchun, ikkinchisi imomga, uchinchisi esa chap tomonidagi kishiga salom berish uchun. Abu Hanifa ‘Abd ar-Rahmon ibn Ziyod al-Ifriqiy orqali rivoyat qilingan xabarga amal qildi. Bu xabarni ‘Abd ar-Rahmon ibn Rofi‘ va Bakr ibn Savoda ‘Abdulloh ibn ‘Amr ibn al-‘Os’dan rivoyat qilganlar. U shunday degan: “Agar kishi namozining oxirida o‘tirgan bo‘lsa-yu, salom berishdan oldin shamollasa, uning namozi to‘g‘ri bo‘ladi”. Abu ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-Barr aytadiki, muhaddislarning fikricha, ‘Ali ﷺ dan kelgan yuqoridagi rivoyat ishonchliroqdir, chunki ‘Abdulloh ibn ‘Amr ibn al-‘Os rivoyatini faqat al-Ifriqiy naql qilgan, muhaddislar esa bu holatni zaif deb hisoblaydilar.

The majority (who held that it is obligatory) followed the apparent meaning of ‘AIFs tradition, in which the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Its termination is the salutation”. Those among them who said that the obligation is for making two salutations followed the established tradition that “the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) offered two salutations”, and this is the case for those who construe his (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) acts to imply obligation. Malik preferred two salutations for the follower and a single salutation for the imam, though it is related from him that the follower offers three salutations, the first for termination, the second for (to greet) «the imam, and the third for (to greet) the person on his left. Abu Hanifa followed what was related by ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Ziyad al-Ifnql that both ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Rafi‘ and Bakr ibn Sawadah related from ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Amr ibn al-‘As who said, “If a man has taken the sitting posture at the end of his prayer and he passes wind before offering the salutation his prayer is complete”. Abu ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said that the preceding tradition of ‘Al? is more authentic according to the traditionists, as the tradition of ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Amr ibn al-‘As has been narrated only by al-IfriqT, a case that is considered weak by the traditionists.

Ular Jim#.119 (ruku) dan keyin qunut o‘qish masalasida ixtilof qilishgan. Ruku va sajda o‘rtasidagi iʼtidal paytida, oxirgi rakatda, Molik qunutni subh namozida mustahab deb hisoblagan. Imom ash-Shofiʼiy esa uni sunnat deb aytgan. Abu Hanifa subh namozida qunut o‘qish joiz emas, uning o‘rni vitr namozida, deb hisoblagan. Bir guruh faqihlar esa, aslida, qunutni har bir namozda o‘qish kerak, deyishgan. Ba’zilar uni faqat Ramazon oyida o‘qish kerak, deyishgan, ba’zilar esa uni oyning ikkinchi yarmida, boshqalar esa birinchi yarmida o‘qish kerak, deyishgan.

They disagreed about the recitation of Jim#.119 During the iridal in the last rak^a Malik maintained that qunut is recommended for the dawn prayer, while al-Shafi T said that c it is a sunna, Abu HanTfa held that reciting qunut is not permitted in the dawn prayer, and its place is in the witr prayer. A group of jurists said that, in fact, qunut is to be recited in every prayer. Some said that is recited only in the month of Ramadan, some said that it is recited in its second half, and others said that it is recited in the first half.

Ixtilofning sababi Payg'ambar (Allohning rahmati va salomi uning ustiga bo'lsin) dan naql qilingan rivoyatlarning, qunut o'qilgan namozlarni qunut o'qilmagan namozlarga qiyos qilib tuzilgan qiyosga, ya'ni qunut o'qiladigan namozlarga asoslangan qiyosga zid kelishidir. Abu Umar ibn Abd al-Barr aytdiki, Ramazon oyida qunut o'qish birinchi avlod orasida keng tarqalgan amal bo'lgan, bunda Allohning Elchisi (Allohning rahmati va salomi uning ustiga bo'lsin) sunnatiga ergashib kofirlar la'natlangan, u Vaʼil va Zakvonni hamda Bi'r Ma'una aholisini o'ldirgan guruhni la'natlash uchun duo qilgan. Al-Layth ibn Sa'd aytdiki, qirq besh yil davomida u faqat qunut duosini qilgan imom orqasida bo'lgandagina qunut o'qigan. U buning sababi sifatida Payg'ambar (Allohning rahmati va salomi uning ustiga bo'lsin) dan rivoyat qilingan hadisga amal qilganini aytdi: u bir oy yoki qirq kun davomida bir guruh uchun duo qilib, boshqalarni la'natlagan, to Alloh, Ulug' va Oliy, uni quyidagi oyat bilan tanbeh bermaguncha: "Ular (kofirlar)ga (ularni tavba qildirish yoki azoblash) ishda sening (Muhammad) hech qanday ishing yo'q; chunki ular zolimlardir". Allohning Elchisi (Allohning rahmati va salomi uning ustiga bo'lsin) duodan voz kechdi va Allohga yetguniga qadar uni takrorlamadi. Al-Layth aytdiki, bu rivoyatni bilgan vaqtidan beri u duo qilmagan. Bu fikr Yahyo ibn Yahyoning ham fikri edi. Qodi (Ibn Rushd) aytdi: "Keksa olimlar menga aytdilarki, bu amal bizning orasimizda ham, Kordovadagi masjidlarida ham keng tarqalgan bo'lgan va u bizning davrimizgacha yoki unga yaqin davrgacha davom etgan".

The reason for this disagreement is the conflict of traditions transmitted from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) with analogy constructed upon other prayers, that is, analogy based upon those prayers in which qunut is recited for those in which it is not. Abu TJmar ibn cAbd al- Barr said that recitation of qunut was a prevailing practice among the first generation during the month of Ramadan, in which the disbelievers were cursed following the sunna of the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), who made a supplication for cursing WaH and Dhakwan, and the group who killed the residents of BPr Macuna. Al-Layth ibn Sa^ said that for a period of forty-five years he had not offered qunut, except behind an imam making such a supplication. He said that for this he had followed the tradition that was related from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) that “he made supplications for a month or forty (days) pleading on behalf of one group and cursing others till Allah, the Glorious and Exalted, censured him in the verse: ‘It is no concern at all of thee (Muhammad) whether He relent toward them or punish them; for they are transgressors’”.120 The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) gave up the supplication and did not repeat it till he met Allah. Al-Layth said that since the time he bore this tradition with him, he did not make a supplication. This was also the opinion of Yahya5 ibn Yahya5. The Qadl (Ibn Rushd) said: “The elderly scholars mentioned -to me that this practice also prevailed among us at his mosque in Cordova, and it continued^ till our time or close to our time”.

Ushbu bo'limda sakkizta asosiy masala bor:

In this section there are eight fundamental issues:

Fuqahолар namoz paytida qo'llarni ko'tarish masalasida uch jihatdan ixtilof qilganlar: birinchidan, uning hukmi haqida; ikkinchidan, qo'llar qaysi vaqtlarda ko'tarilishi haqida; uchinchidan, ularni qay darajada ko'tarish kerakligi haqida.

The jurists disagreed about raising of the hands in prayer on three points: first, about its hukm; second, about the occasions when the hands are raised; and third, about the extent to which they are to be raised.

Hukm borasida, ko'pchilik qo'llarni ko'tarish namozning sunnatidir, deb hisoblagan, Dovud va uning shogirdlarining bir guruhi esa bu vojib, deb hisoblagan. Bu faqihlar yana kichik guruhlarga bo'linadi. Ulardan ba'zilari faqat takbiri ihromda vojib qilgan, ba'zilari namozning boshida, iftitoh takbirining birinchi so'zlarini aytayotganda va rukuʼ uchun tanani egayotganda hamda undan ko'tarilayotganda vojib qilgan, ba'zilari esa bu ikki holatda va sajda vaqtida ham vojib qilgan. Bu ularning qo'llar qaysi paytlarda ko'tarilishi kerakligi haqidagi ixtilofiga muvofiqdir.

Regarding the hukm, the majority maintained that raising of the hands is a sunnah of prayer, while Dawud and a group of his disciples maintained that it is an obligation. These jurists are further divided into sub-groups. Some of them made it obligatory in the takbir of ihrdm alone, some made it obligatory at the beginning of the prayer, while reciting the first words of takbir, and at the time o f bowing, that is, while lowering the body for ruk& and while raising it, some made it obligatory on these two occasions and at the time of prostration, an d this in accordance with their disagreement about the occasions on which they are to be raised.

Ularning ixtilofining sababi Abu Hurayra rivoyatining, ya'ni namoz farzlari haqidagi ko'rinib turgan ma'noning, Payg'ambar (Allohning rahmati va salomi unga bo'lsin) qilgan ishlari (rivoyat qilingan) bilan to'qnashuvidir. Abu Hurayra rivoyatida Payg'ambar ﷺ unga takbir haqida ko'rsatma bergani, ammo qo'llarini ko'tarishni buyurmagani aytilgan. Holbuki, Ibn Umar va boshqalar rivoyat qilgan hadislar orqali Payg'ambar ﷺ dan sobit bo'lganki, u namozni boshlashda qo'llarini ko'tarar edi.

The reason for their disagreement is the conflict of the apparent meaning of Abu Hurayra’s tradition, which contains instructions about the obligations of prayer, with the (reported) acts of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be U pon him). Abu Hurayra’s contains the statement that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) instructed him about takbir, but he did not order him to raise his hands, while it is established from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) through traditions reported by Ibn TJmar and others that “he used to raise his hands at the beginning of prayer”.

Abu Hanifa ushbu fikrda edi: ruku'dan turishda va turish paytida raf'ul-yadaynlik (qo'llarni ko'tarish) vojib emas. Imom Shofe'iy esa uni vojib deb hisobladi. Molik mazhabining shogirdlari esa mazhabning mashhur qarashi bu amal mustahab yoki vojib ekanini anglatadimi, degan masalada ixtilof qilishgan, chunki bu borada u kishidan aniq fikr rivoyat qilinmagan.

Abu HanTfa maintained that ftiddl on rising from the rukuc and during it is not an obligation. Al-ShaficT said it is obligatory. Malik’s disciples differed about whether the foremost opinion in the school implies that it is a recommendation or an obligation, as no explicit opinion is narrated from him on this.

Ikki tomon o'rtasidagi ixtilof shundaki, farzning ado bo'lishi bu atamaga mos keladigan biror qismga amal qilish bilan bo'ladimi yoki uning butun shartlariga rioya qilish bilan bo'ladimi. Farz atamaga qo'llanadigan narsaga amal qilish bilan ado bo'ladi, deganlar rukuda tinchlikni (ma'nosi: harakatsiz turishni) shart qilmaganlar. Farz butun shartlar bilan ado bo'ladi, deganlar esa namozda rukudan turishda tinchlikni shart qilganlar. Bu, Payg'ambar ﷺ dan oldingi rivoyatda kelgan hadis bilan sobit bo'lgan: "Rukuga egil, bir a'zoga suyanib, so'ng bir oz turib qomatingni tiklа", shuning uchun buni farz deb tushunish zarur.

The reason for disagreement here is whether the obligation is met by conforming with a part of that to which the term applies or by complying with the whole of it. Those for whom the obligation is met by complying with a term to which the term is applied, did not stipulate the maintenance of riddle while bowing. Those for whom the obligation is met by the whole stipulated raising in prayer, as this is established from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) in a preceding tradition: 'Bow, resting on a limb, and raise yourself resting a while'; therefore, it is necessary to construe this as an obligation.

Saqlanishi kerak bo‘lgan narsa shuki, namozdagi Payg‘ambar ﷺ ning amallarini, dalil ko‘rsatmasa, vojib deb tushunmaslik qoidasi shu hadisga tayangan holda qabul qilingan; shu sababli ular qo‘l ko‘tarishni ham vojib deb hisoblamaganlar, hatto birinchi takbir va qiroatdan boshqa amallar va so‘zlarni ham vojib deb bilmaganlar. Buni o‘ylab ko‘ring, chunki bu qoida amallarni vojib deb izohlash birinchi qoidasiga zid bo‘lib, ko‘pchilik shu masalalardagi ixtilofning sababidir.

What must be maintained, the principle is not to construe the acts of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) relating to his acts in prayer as obligatory unless evidence indicates this, had recourse to this tradition; for this reason also they did not consider raising of the hands as obligatory nor even the other acts and pronouncements besides the first takbir and recitation. Think over it for it is a principle that opposes the first principle (of interpreting the acts as obligatory), and is the cause of disagreement in most of these issues.

Fiqh olimlari namozda o'tirish holati haqida ixtilof qilishgan. Molik va uning shogirdlari shunday deganlar: kishi o'zini dumbasi bilan yerga tushiradi, o'ng oyog'ini barmoqlarining ichki tomoni bilan yerga tayanib ko'taradi, chap oyog'ini esa ostiga bukadi va chap oyog'ining barmoqlarini bukadi. Uning fikricha, ayolning o'tirish holati erkaknikiga o'xshaydi. Abu Hanifa va uning shogirdlari esa erkak kishi o'ng oyog'ini yerga qo'yishi va chap oyog'iga o'tirishi kerak, deganlar. Imom Shofe'iy o'rtadagi o'tirish holati bilan oxirgi o'tirish holatini farqlagan. O'rtadagi holat uchun u Abu Hanifaning fikriga, oxirgi holat uchun esa Molikning fikriga amal qilgan.

The jurists disagreed about the sitting posture (in prayer). Malik and his disciples said that the person is to lower himself on his buttocks toward the ground, with his right foot raised resting on the inside of its toes and his left leg bent under him and bend the left foot. In his view, the sitting posture for a woman is the same as that of a man. Abu HanTfa and his disciples said that a man is to plant his right foot on the ground and seat himself on his left foot. Al-Shafi T distinguished between the posture c in the middle of the prayer and the posture at the end; for the posture during the middle he followed the same opinion as that of Abu HanTfa, and for the last posture the same opinion as Malik’s.

Ikki tomonning ixtilofi sababi hadislarning ziddiyatidadir. Bu masala bo‘yicha uchta rivoyat mavjud. Birinchisi — hammaning kelishuvi bilan sobit bo‘lgan rivoyat — Abu Humayd as-Saidiyning Payg‘ambar ﷺ namozini ta’riflagan hadisidir. Unda shunday so‘zlar bor: “Ikki rakatdan keyin o‘tirganda, chap oyog‘i ustida o‘tirdi va o‘ng oyog‘ini ko‘tardi, lekin oxirgi o‘tirishda chap oyog‘ini bukib, o‘ng oyog‘ini ko‘tardi va chap tomonga o‘tirdi”. Ikkinchisi — Vоил ibn Hujrning rivoyatidir, unda aytiladi: “U namozda o‘tirganda, o‘ng oyog‘ini ko‘tardi va chap oyog‘i ustida o‘tirdi”. Uchinchi rivoyat Molik tomonidan Abdulloh ibn Umardan naql qilingan bo‘lib, u shunday degan: “Namozdagi sunnat shuki, o‘ng oyog‘ingni ko‘tarasan va chap oyog‘ingni bukasan”. Bu rivoyat birlamchi dalil hisoblanadi, chunki unda “namozdagi sunnat” deyilgan. Al-Qosim ibn Muhammaddan kelgan rivoyatda esa u ularga tashahhud vaqtidagi o‘tirish holatini ko‘rsatdi: o‘ng oyog‘ini ko‘tardi va chapni ichkariga burdi, lekin oyog‘i ustida emas, chap sonida o‘tirdi va dedi: “Buni menga Abdulloh ibn Abdulloh ibn Umar ko‘rsatdi va aytdi, uning otasi ham shu holatda o‘tirar edi”.

The reason for their disagreement is the conflict of traditions. There are three traditions on the issue. The first, which is established by the agreement of all, is the tradition of Abu Humayd al-SacidT describing the prayer of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him). It contains the words, “When he sat down after two rak*as> he did so on his left leg and raised his right foot, but when he sat down at the end he bent his left leg and raised the right one sitting on his hips [on the left side]”. The second is the tradition of Wa’il ibn Hujr, which says, “When he sat down in prayer, he raised his right foot and sat on the left”. The “third tradition is related by Malik from cAbd’ Allah ibn TJmar, who said, “The sunna in prayer is that you raise your right foot and bend your left leg”. It is a primary authority, because of his saying, “The sunna in prayer”. In a report from al-Qasim ibn Muhammad he showed- them the sitting posture during tashahhud, and raised his right foot and turned in the left, but he sat on his left hip not on his foot, saying “This is what c Abd Allah ibn <Abd Allah ibn ‘Umar showed me, and said that his father used to adopt this posture”.

Fuqahо orasida namozning o'rtasidagi o'tirish holati (ya'ni ikkinchi rak'atning ikkinchi sajdasidan turilayotganda va uchinchi rak'atga turishdan oldin) hamda oxiridagi o'tirish holati haqida ixtilof bo'lgan. Ko'pchilik fuqaho namozning o'rtasidagi o'tirish holati sunnat bo'lib, farz emas, deb hisoblagan. Bir guruh bu fikrdan chetga chiqib, uni farz deb aytgan. Xuddi shunday, ko'pchilik namozning oxiridagi o'tirish holati vojib (farz) ekanini bildirgan, ammo ba'zilari bundan chetga chiqib, uni sunnat deb hisoblagan. Ularning ixtilofining sababi matnning zohiriy ma'nosi bilan bir o'tirish holatini boshqasiga qiyos qilib chiqarilgan qiyos o'rtasidagi ziddiyatdir. Masalan, yuqorida keltirilgan Abu Hurayra rivoyatida shunday so'zlar bor: "Keyin o'tiring va o'tirgan holda biroz dam oling". Ushbu rivoyatning zohiriy ma'nosiga ko'ra, o'tirish holati butun namozda farzdir. Shu fikrni qabul qilganlar barcha o'tirish holatlari farz, deb aytganlar. Biroq Ibn Buhayna'ning sahih rivoyatida shunday deyilgan: "Allohning elchisi (Allohning salavoti va barakasi unga bo'lsin) o'rtadagi o'tirishni tashlab yubordi, uni takrorlamadi va shu sababli sajda qildi". Undan yana shu ham sobit bo'lganki, u ikki rak'atni tashlab yuborgan, ammo ularni qayta o'qigan, xuddi bir rak'at uchun qilgani kabi. Shundan fuqahо o'rtadagi o'tirish hukmi bilan rak'at hukmi o'rtasidagi farqni tushungan. Rak'at ijmo bilan ularga farz bo'lgani uchun, o'rtadagi o'tirish farz emasligi kelib chiqqan. Shu asosda fuqahо ikki o'tirish holati o'rtasida farq qilgan va sahv sajdalarini sunnatlar uchun qilinadi, farzlar uchun emas, deb hisoblagan. Uni farz deb hisoblaganlar esa, sahv sajdalari o'rtadagi o'tirishga xosdir (tashlab qoldirilganda), boshqa farzlardan farqli ravishda, va bu uning farz emasligiga dalil bo'la olmaydi, deb ta'kidlaganlar.

The jurists disagreed about the sitting postures in the middle of the prayer (that is, on rising from the second prostration of the second rak^a and before standing up for the third) and at the end. Most of the jurists held that the posture in the middle of the prayer is sunna and is not an obligation. One group deviated from this and said that it is an obligation (fard). Likewise, the majority held that the sitting posture at the end of the prayer is obligatory, but some deviated and held that it is a sunna. The reason for their disagreement is the conflict of the implication of the text with analogy constructed upon one sitting posture over the other. This is so as in the preceding tradition of Abu Hurayra; the words are: “Then sit up and rest a little, while seated”. According to the apparent meaning of this tradition the sitting posture is obligatory in the entire prayer. Those who adopted it said that all sitting postures are obligatory. It is howevSa laid down in the confirmed tradition of Ibn Buhayna that “the messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) dropped the middle sitting posture and did not repeat it, and then prostrated on account of it”. It is also established from him that he dropped two rak'as but performed them again, as he did for one rakfa. From this the jurists understood the difference between the hukm of the middle sitting posture and the hukm of a rak'a. As a rakfa was obligatory for them by consensus, it followed that the middle sitting posture was not obligatory. It is on this basis that the jurists differentiated between the two sitting postures and maintained the prostrations of forgetfulness are performed for sunan and not for obligations (furud). Those who considered it to be an obligation maintained ‘that the prostrations of forgetfulness are specific to the middle posture, (if left out) as distinguished from the other obligations, and that cannot be counted as evidence that it (the middle posture) is not obligatory.

Fiqh olimlari namozda bir qo‘lni ikkinchisi ustiga qo‘yish masalasida ixtilof qilganlar. Molik bunga farz namozlarda ruxsat bermagan, ammo nafl namozlarda ruxsat bergan. Olimlarning bir guruhi, ular ko‘pchilikni tashkil etadi, bu amal namoz sunnatlaridan biri ekanligini ta’kidlagan. Ularning ixtilofining sababi shundaki, Payg‘ambarning ﷺ namozini tavsiflovchi sahih rivoyatlar naql qilingan, ammo u zot namozda o‘ng qo‘lini chap qo‘li ustiga qo‘yganlari haqida rivoyat qilinmagan, shu bilan birga odamlarga bunday qilish buyurilgani ham rivoyat qilingan. Bu Abu Humayd rivoyatidagi Payg‘ambar ﷺ namozining tavsifida keltirilgan. Shuning uchun olimlarning bir guruhi, bu amal sobit bo‘lgan rivoyatlar, bu amal naql qilinmagan rivoyatlarga nisbatan qo‘shimcha ma’noni anglatadi, qo‘shimchani esa qabul qilish kerak, deb hisoblagan. Boshqa guruh esa, bu amal naql qilinmagan rivoyatlarni qabul qilish kerak, chunki ular soni jihatidan ko‘proq, shuningdek, bu amal namozning harakatlariga mos kelmaydi, chunki u tayanish qilish turiga kiradi, deb aytgan. Shu sababli Molik uni nafl namozlarda ruxsat etgan, farzlarda esa ruxsat bermagan. Ko‘rinishidan, bu amal kamtarlik holatini ifodalaydi, bu esa namozga mosdir.

The jurists differed about placing one hand over the other in prayer. Malik disapproved this in obligatory prayers, but permitted it in supererogatory prayers. A group of jurists, and these are the majority, maintained that this act is among the sunan of prayer. The reason for their disagreement is that confirmed traditions have been reported in which the description of the Prophet’s prayer have been transmitted, but it has not been transmitted that he used to place his right hand over his left during prayer, while it has also been related that the people were commanded to do this. This has been related in the description of the prayer of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) in the tradition of Abu Humayd. A group of jurists, therefore, held that the traditions in which this is established imply an addition over those in which this addition has not been transmitted, and an addition has to be accepted. Another group said that it is necessary to adopt the traditions in which this addition has not been transmitted as these are more in number, and also because it (this practice) is not compatible with the acts of prayer for it belongs to the category of seeking support; therefore, Malik permitted it in supererogatory and not in obligatory prayers. It appears that it depicts a posture of humility, which is appropriate for it.

Bir guruh faqihlar namozning toq rakatida kishi ikkinchi sajdadan keyin, to dam olish uchun o'tirgan holatda rostlanmaguncha o'rnidan turmasligini ma'qul ko'rganlar. Boshqa bir guruh esa sajdalardan to'g'ri holda turishni ma'qul ko'rgan. Birinchi qarash Ash-Shofi'iy (r.a.) va bir guruh faqihlarning fikri edi, ikkinchisi esa Molik va bir guruh faqihlarning fikri edi.

A group of jurists preferred that when a person is in the odd rakfa of his prayer he should not stand up (after the second prostration) till he has straightened up in the sitting posture (for resting), while another group preferred that he rise up straight from the prostrations. The first was the opinion of al-Shafi(T and a group of jurists and the second was the opinion of Malik and a group of jurists.

Ixtilofning sababi shundaki, bu masalada ikkita ziddiyatli rivoyat bor. Birinchisi, Molik ibn al-Huvayrisning ishonchli rivoyati: "u Allohning Elchisi (ﷺ) namoz o‘qiganlarini ko‘rdi va u namozining toq rakatida sajdadan so‘ng, to o‘tirgan holda to‘g‘rilanmaguncha turmadi". Abu Humayd rivoyatida esa Payg‘ambarning (ﷺ) namozining tavsifi haqida aytilgan: "u birinchi rakatda ikkinchi sajdadan boshini ko‘targanda turdi va o‘tirmadi". Imom ash-Shofi‘iy birinchi rivoyatni qabul qildi, Molik esa ikkinchisini qabul qildi.

The reason for the disagreement is that there are two conflicting traditions in this. The first is the confirmed tradition of Malik ibn al-Huwayrith “that he saw the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) pray, and when he was in the odd rakfa of his prayer he did not stand up after the prostration till he had straightened up in the sitting posture”. In the tradition of Abu Humayd about the description of the prayer of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) it is said “that when he raised up his head after the second prostration in the first rak% he stood up and did not seat himself”. Al-Shafici adopted the first tradition, while Malik adopted the second.

Ular, shuningdek, sajda qilayotgan kishi tizzasini yerga qo'yishdan oldin qo'llarini yerga qo'yishi kerakmi yoki qo'llarini qo'yishdan oldin tiz cho'kishi kerakmi, degan masalada ham ixtilof qilganlar. Molik qarashi tizzani qo'llardan oldin qo'yishni ma'qullaydi. Ularning ixtilofi sababi shuki, Ibn Hujr rivoyatida u shunday degan: "Men Allohning Elchisi (Allohning salavoti va barakasi unga bo'lsin) sajda qilayotganda, qo'llarini yerga tekkizishdan oldin tizzasini yerga qo'yib cho'kkanini ko'rdim, va o'rnidan turayotganda qo'llarini tizzasidan oldin olib turardi". Abu Hurayradan rivoyat qilinadi: "Nabiy (Allohning salavoti va barakasi unga bo'lsin) aytdilar: "Sizlardan biringiz sajdaga bormoqchi bo'lsa, tuyaday cho'kmasin, balki tizzasidan oldin qo'llarini qo'ysin"". Abdulloh ibn Umar tizzasidan oldin qo'llarini qo'yardi. Ba'zi hadis olimlari Vo'il ibn Hujr rivoyatini Abu Hurayra rivoyatidan ishonchliroq deb aytganlar.

Olimlar sajdaning yetti a'zo ustida bo'lishiga ittifoq qilganlar: peshona, ikki qo'l, ikki tizza va oyoq barmoqlarining ichki tomoni. Buning dalili Payg'ambar ﷺ ning: "Menga yetti a'zo ustida sajda qilish buyurilgan", degan so'zlaridir. Ular sajda qiladigan, lekin bu a'zolardan birini ishlatmaydigan kishi haqida ixtilof qilganlar: uning namozi bekor bo'ladimi? Olimlarning bir guruhi aytdi: uning namozi bekor bo'lmaydi, chunki "sajda" atamasi faqat yuzga nisbatan qo'llaniladi. Boshqa bir guruh esa aytdi: agar u rivoyatda zikr qilingan yetti a'zo ustida sajda qilmasa, namozi bekor bo'ladi.

The jurists agreed that prostration is on seven limbs, the forehead, the (two) hands, the (two) knees, and the inside of the toes, because of the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “I have been commanded to prostrate on seven limbs”. They differed about the person who prostrates and fails to employ one of these limbs: is his prayer invalidated? A group of jurists said that his prayer is not invalidated as the term “prostration” applies only to the face. Another group said that it is invalidated if he does not prostrate on the seven limbs stated in the tradition.

Shunga qaramay, ular peshona va burun bilan sajda qilgan kishi yuzi bilan sajda qilgan hisoblanishi masalasida ixtilof qilmaganlar, lekin ulardan biri yoki ikkinchisi bilan sajda qilish joizmi-yo'qmi, bu masalada ittifoq qilmaganlar. Molik aytdiki, agar kishi peshona bilan sajda qilib, burun bilan qilmasa, bu joiz; lekin agar burun bilan sajda qilib, peshona bilan qilmasa, bu joiz emas. Abu Hanifa aytdiki, bu joiz. Ash-Shofi'iy aytdiki, agar ikkalasi bilan sajda qilinmasa, sajda sahih bo'lmaydi.

They did not differ, however, on the point that one who prostrates on his forehead and nose is considered to have prostrated on his face, but they ^agreed on whether prostration oh one or the other was permissible. Malik said that if he prostrates on his forehead and not the nose it is permitted, but if Ixe prostrates on his nose and not on his forehead it is not permitted. Abu Hanifa said that this is allowed. Al-ShafiT said that the prostration is not valid unless he prostrates on both.

Ularning ixtilofi sajda haqidagi hukm, ya'ni buyurilgan narsa atamaga muvofiq keladigan qismini bajarishmi yoki butun qismini bajarishmi degan savoldan kelib chiqdi. Buning sababi, "yuz" atamasi Ibn Abbos rivoyatida ishlatilgan bo'lib, unda aytiladi: "Men yetti a'zo bilan sajda qilishga buyurilganman". Atamaga muvofiq keladigan qismlardan birini bajarish kifoya, deganlar, peshona yoki burun bilan sajda qilsa yetarli, deb aytdilar. Sajda atamasi faqat peshonasi bilan sajda qilgan kishiga nisbatan qo'llanadi, burni bilan sajda qilganga nisbatan qo'llanmaydi, deganlar esa peshona bilan sajda qilishga ruxsat berdilar, burun bilan yakka sajda qilishga esa ruxsat bermadilar. Bu, atama nazarda tutgan qismlardan qaysi biri hukmni bajarishga yetarli bo'lishini ajratib ko'rsatish bo'lib, narsaning qismlari orasida farq bor deydiganlarning qarashiga asoslangan. Ularning fikricha, muhim qismni bajarish hukmni ado etadi, muhim bo'lmagan boshqa qismni bajarish esa ado etmaydi. Bu masalaning qoidalaridan biri bo'lgani uchun uni diqqat bilan o'ylab ko'ring. (Agar faqat burun bilan sajda qilishga ruxsat berilganida) kishi burun yerga zo'rg'a tekkan bo'lsa ham sajda to'g'ri bo'ladi, deyish mumkin bo'lardi. Hukmni bajarish atama o'z ichiga olgan hamma narsani bajarishni talab qiladi, deganlar esa kishiga peshona bilan birga burun bilan ham sajda qilishni vojib qilib qo'yadilar. Imom Shofe'iy aytadiki, so'zlardagi noaniqlik Payg'ambar ﷺning amallari bilan bartaraf etilgan va tushuntirilgan, chunki u ﷺ peshonasi va burni bilan sajda qilar edi. Rivoyat qilinganidek, u ﷺ namozlaridan birini tugatganda peshonasi va burnida tuproq va suv izlari bo'lar edi. Shunday qilib, uning ﷺ amali aniq bo'lmagan rivoyatni izohlab berdi.

Faqihlar namozda it o‘tirishi (ya’ni "it kabi o‘tirish") haqidagi rivoyatga asoslanib, bunday o‘tirishning makruh ekanligiga ittifoq qilganlar. Biroq ular bu ibora ma’nosi haqida ixtilof qilganlar. Ulardan ba’zilari man etilgan o‘tirish holati deb, kishining dumbasiga o‘tirib, sonlarini it yoki sher o‘tirishi kabi qinib olishini tushunganlar. Ular orasida bunday o‘tirishning namoz holatlaridan biri emasligi borasida hech qanday ixtilof yo‘q. Boshqa bir guruh esa makruh qilingan o‘tirish, ikki sajda orasida dumbani to‘piqlar ustiga qo‘yib, barmoqlarni yerga tirab o‘tirish ekanligini aytganlar. Bu Molikning fikri bo‘lib, rivoyat qilinishicha, Ibn Umar oyoqlari og‘riganligi sababli shunday o‘tirgan. Ibn Abbos esa: "Shunday oyoqlar ustiga o‘tirish sizning Payg‘ambaringiz ﷺ sunnatidir", deb aytgan. Buni Muslim rivoyat qilgan.

The jurists agreed on the disapproval of during prayers on the basis of the prohibition (specified) in the tradition (which refers to) “a man sitting during prayer in the posture of a dog”. They differed, however, about the implications of the term. Some of them maintained that the prohibited is the sitting posture of a man when he seats himself on his buttocks and folds up his thighs like posture of a dog or a lion. There is no disagreement among them that this is not one of the postures of prayer. Another group maintained that the i/o5 that has been frowned upon is the resting of the buttocks on the ankles between the two prostrations while the feet are resting on the toes. This is Malik’s opinion as it is related that Ibn TJmar used to do this because his feet used to ache. Ibn <Abbas <ised to say that “sitting on the feet in this way is the sunna of your Prophet”. It is recorded by Muslim.

Ixtilofning sababi shundaki, r/# (namozda makruh) atamasi lug'aviy ma'no bilan shariat ma'nosi o'rtasida tebranadi, ya'ni shariat tomonidan bu atama cheklangan ma'noga, ya'ni shu atama qaysi ma'noga xoslangan bo'lsa o'sha ma'noga. Bu atama lug'aviy ma'noni anglatadi, deganlar uni it o'tirishi holatiga bog'ladilar. Bu atama shariat ma'nosini anglatadi, deganlar esa, u namozda man etilgan o'tirish holatlaridan birini bildiradi, deb aytdilar. Ibn Umardan rivoyat qilingan narsa — kishining oyoq barmoqlari uchida turgan holda tovonlariga o'tirishi namozning sunnati emas — ularni aynan shu holat man etilgan, degan fikrga olib keldi. Ammo bu fikr zaif, chunki shariat ma'nosi o'rnatilmagan atamalar, to ularga shariat ma'nosi o'rnatilguncha, lug'aviy ma'nosida tushuniladi. Bu, shariat ma'nosi o'rnatilgan atamalardan farq qiladi: ularni, biror dalil ularning boshqacha ma'noda kelganini ko'rsatmaguncha, shariat ma'nosida tushunish kerak. Bundan tashqari, Ibn Umar rivoyatiga Ibn Abbos rivoyati ziddir.

The reason for their disagreement is the vacillation of the term r/#, (frowned upon in prayers) between the literal meaning and the legal meaning, that is, the meaning to which this term has been restricted by the law. Those who said that it conveys a literal meaning identified it with the posture of a dog. Those who said that it conveys the legaL meaning said that it indicates one of the postures prohibited during prayer, and as it is established from Ibn TJmar that the posture of a person sitting on his ankles letting his feet rest on their toes is not a sunna of prayer they were led to believe that it is this posture that has been prohibited. But this is a weak (argument) as terms for which no legal meaning has been established must be understood in their literal sense till such time that a legal meaning is established for them. This is unlike those terms for which legal meanings have been established, that is, these must be understood in their legal meaning till an evidence indicates their interpretation of the sin.Further, the tradition of Ibn TJmar has been contradicted byy the tradition of Ibn Abbas