Ushbu bobda ikkita bo‘lim bor. Birinchi bo‘lim namozni qisqartirish haqida, ikkinchisi esa namozlarni birlashtirish haqida.

In this chapter there are two sections. The first section is about curtailing the prayer and the second is about combining prayers.

Safar qilish namozlarni qisqartirishda (to'rt rakatlik namozlarni ikki rakat qilib o'qish) samarali bo'lib, bu borada ittifoq bor, namozlarni jamlab o'qishda esa ihtilof bor, lekin u ham samaralidir.

Travelling is effective in curtailing (quadruple)141 prayers, by agreement, and is effective in combining prayers, with disagreement.

Faqihlar namozni qisqartirish masalasida ittifoq qilganlar, faqat bir noto‘g‘ri fikr bundan mustasno: bu Oisha (r.a.) ning fikri bo‘lib, u qo‘rquv holatidan boshqa paytda namozni qisqartirish joiz emas, deb hisoblagan. U Yuce Alloh (SWT) ning quyidagi so‘zlarini dalil qilib keltirgan: {Agar yerda sayr qilsangiz va kofirlar sizga hujum qilishidan qo‘rqsangiz, namozni qisqartirishingizda gunoh yo‘qdir. Albatta, kofirlar sizning ochiq dushmanlaringizdir}. Ular aytdilarki, Payg‘ambar ﷺ qo‘rquv holatida bo‘lganlari uchun namozlarini qisqartirganlar.

The jurists agreed about the curtailment of prayers, except for a deviant opinion, which is the opinion of cA5isha, who maintained that curtailing prayers is not permitted, except for one in a state of fear, because of the words of the Exalted, “And when ye go forth in the land, it is no sin for you to curtail [your] worship if ye fear that those who disbelieve may attack you. In truth the disbelievers are an open enemy to you”.142 They isaid that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) shortened his prayers for he was in a state of fear.

Ular (ko'pchilik) bu masalada besh nuqtada ixtilof qilganlar. Birinchidan, namozni qisqartirish hukmi haqida. Ikkinchidan, qisqartirish tatbiq etiladigan safarning masofasi haqida. Uchinchidan, qisqartirishni oqlaydigan safar turi haqida. To'rtinchidan, musofir qisqartirilgan namozni qaysi nuqtadan boshlashi mumkinligi haqida. Beshinchidan, agar musofir bir joyda to'xtab qolgan bo'lsa, qisqartirilgan namozni qancha vaqt davom ettirishi joiz ekanligi haqida.

They (the majority) differed over this on five points. First, about the hukm of curtailing prayers. Second, about the length of the journey to which curtailment applies. Third, the kind of journey that justifies curtailment. Fourth, the point from which the traveller may commence shortened prayers. Fifth, the duration in time for which it is permissible for the traveller to continue curtailing prayers, if he has stayed on at one place.

Qisqartirib namoz o'qish hukmi borasida ular to'rt xil qarashda bo'lganlar. Ba'zilari qisqartirib namoz o'qish safarchi uchun vojib bo'lib, unga belgilab qo'yilgan deb hisoblaganlar. Ba'zilari esa qisqartirish ham, to'liq o'qish ham unga kaffara holatidagi kabi tanlov yo'li bilan vojib, deb hisoblaganlar. Ba'zilari qisqartirib namoz o'qish sunnat, boshqalari esa bu ruxsat bo'lib, to'liq namoz o'qish afzalroq, deb qaraganlar. Birinchi qarashni Abu Hanifa, uning shogirdlari va Kufaliklarning barchasi tutganlar, ya'ni bu qat'iy vojibdir. Ikkinchi qarashni al-Shofiiy shogirdlarining ba'zilari tutganlar. Uchinchi, ya'ni sunnat degan qarashni Molik o'zidan qolgan eng mashhur rivoyatda tutgan. To'rtinchi, ya'ni ruxsat degan qarashni al-Shofiiy o'zidan qolgan eng mashhur rivoyatda tutgan va uning shogirdlari bu qarashni qo'llab-quvvatlaganlar.

With respect to the hukm of curtailing prayers, they held four different opinions. Some of them held that curtailing prayers is an obligation for the traveller and is determined for him. Some held that curtailing and completion are both obligatory for him by way of an option, like the option in case of expiation (kaffara). Some held that curtailing of prayers is a sunnay while others were of the view that it is an exemption and offering complete prayers has greater merit. The first opinion was held by Abu Harnfa, his disciples, and the Kaffs as a whole, that is, it is a fixed obligation. The second opinion was held by some of the disciples of al-ShaficT. The third, that it is sunna, was held by Malik in the best known narration from him. The fourth, that it is an exemption, was held by al-Shaf?! in the best known narration from him and it is supported by his disciples.

Ularning ixtilofining sababi, aqliy dalil bilan naql qilingan dalildagi buyruq shakli o'rtasidagi ziddiyatdan, shuningdek, amallardan kelgan dalil bilan aqliy dalil va naql qilingan dalilda ishlatilgan so'zlar shakli o'rtasidagi ziddiyatdan kelib chiqadi. Safarda namozni qisqartirishdan kelib chiqadigan (aqliy) ma'no mashaqqat mavjudligi sababli berilgan ruxsatdir, xuddi u ro'zada va boshqa narsalarda ruxsat etilgani kabi. Buni Ya'la ibn Umayyaning rivoyati ham qo'llab-quvvatlaydi. U aytdi: "Men Umarga dedim: Alloh taolo «Agar kofirlar sizlarga hujum qilishidan qo'rqsangiz» deganini, ya'ni safarda namozni qisqartirishni nazarda tutgan holda aytdim. U dedi: «Menga ham sen hayron bo'lgan narsa tegdi, shuning uchun Allohning Elchisi (Allohning salavoti va salomi unga bo'lsin)dan so'radim, u esa: "Bu Alloh sizga bergan sadaqadir, shuning uchun sadaqasini qabul qilinglar", deb javob berdi»". Bu ruxsatni bildiradi. Yana, Abu Qilaba rivoyat qilgan, Bani Omir qabilasidan bir kishidan naql qilinadi: u Payg'ambar (Allohning salavoti va salomi unga bo'lsin)ning huzuriga keldi va Payg'ambar (Allohning salavoti va salomi unga bo'lsin) unga dedi: "Alloh musofirdan ro'zani va namozning bir qismini ado etish majburiyatini olib tashlagan". Bu ikki rivoyat Sahih to'plamlarida keltirilgan. Bularning barchasi yengillik, ruxsat va mashaqqatni ko'tarishni bildiradi, namozni qisqartirish vojib yoki sunnat ekanini emas.

The reason for their disagreement derives from the conflict between rational argument and the form of the command in the transmitted evidence, and also the conflict of the evidence from the acts with the rational argument and the form of the words used in the transmitted evidence. The (rational) meaning arising from the curtailing of prayers for a traveller is an exemption because of the existence of hardship, just as he has been exempted in the case of fasting and other things. This also is supported by the tradition of Yafla ibn Umayya, who said, “I said to TJmar that Allah has said ‘if ye fear that those who disbelieve may attack you’, intending thereby the curtailing of prayers during a He said, ‘I was also struck by what has struck you, so I asked the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), and he replied, qt is a charity that Allah has granted to you, so accept the charity’”. This indicates an exemption. Further, there is the tradition of Abu Qalaba from a man from Banu Amir, who came c to the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) and the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said to him, “Allah has lifted from the traveller the obligation for fasting and a part of prayer”. These two traditions are found in the Sahih compilations. All this indicates leniency, exemption, and the removal of hardship, and not that curtailing of prayer is obligatory or a sunna.

Ziddiyatga keladigan rivoyat, so'zlarining shakli bilan ma'noga va yuqoridagi rivoyatlarga zid bo'lgan rivoyat — bu Oisha (roziyallohu anho) rivoyat qilgan, ittifoq bilan sahih deb tan olingan hadisdir. Unda u shunday degan: “Namoz dastlab ikki rakat qilib farz qilingan edi. Safarda o'qiladigan namoz shu asosdagicha qoldi, muqimlikdagi namoz esa ko'paytirildi”. Ma'noga, va yuqorida keltirilgan rivoyatlarning mazmuniga zid bo'lgan Payg'ambar ﷺning amallaridan kelib chiqqan dalil shuki, Payg'ambar ﷺ barcha safarlarida namozni qisqartirgan deb rivoyat qilingan, Payg'ambar ﷺ safarda to'liq namoz o'qiganligi esa sahih tarzda hech qachon isbotlanmagan. Namozni sunnat yoki tanlov imkoniyatli vojib deb hisoblaganlar, buni shunday talqin qilganlar, chunki ular uchun “Payg'ambar ﷺ namozni to'liq o'qiganlari yoki shunga o'xshash ish qilganlari” sahih bo'lib isbotlanmagan edi. Demak, bu bir necha turdan biri bo'ladi: yo tanlov imkoniyatli vojib, yo sunnat, yo safarchi uchun belgilangan qat'iy vojib. Uning qat'iy vojib bo'lishi esa ma'noga zid keladi, uning rukhsat bo'lishi esa so'zlangan matnga zid keladi. Shuning uchun uning tanlov imkoniyatli vojib yoki sunnat bo'lishi zarur. Bu dalillarni muvofiqlashtirishning bir ko'rinishidir. Ular Oisha rivoyatiga e'tiroz bildirdilar, chunki u kishining to'liq namoz o'qiganlari ma'lum va mashhurdir. U (Oisha) rivoyat qilgan: u aytdi: "Payg'ambar ﷺ safarda namozni to'liq o'qir va uni qisqartirar edi, ro'za tutar va ro'zani tashlar edi, peshin namozini kechiktirib, asr namozini shoshilib o'qir edi, shom namozini kechiktirar va xufton namozini shoshilib o'qir edi..." Bunga Anas va Abu Najlh al-Makkiy rivoyati ham zid keladi. Ular aytadilar: "Muhammad ﷺ sahobalari birga safar qilar edilar. Ulardan ba'zilari namozni to'liq o'qir, boshqalari esa qisqartirar edi; ba'zilari ro'za tutar, boshqalari tutmas edi. Ular bir-birini ayblamas va Usmon hamda Oisha namozni to'liq o'qiganligi haqida ixtilof qilmas edilar". Demak, bu birinchi masalada ularning ixtilofidir. Ikkinchi masalada, ya'ni namozni qisqartirishga ruxsat beradigan safar masofasi uzunligi borasida, fuqaholar keng ixtilof qildilar. Molik, ash-Shofi'iy, Ahmad va fuqaholarning katta guruhi namozni to'rt barid masofasida (o'rtacha yurish bilan bir kunda bosib o'tiladigan masofa) qisqartirish kerak, deb hisobladilar. Abu Hanifa, uning shogirdlari va kufaliklar namozni qisqartirish uchun eng kam masofa uch kunlik yo'l ekanini va qisqartirish bir viloyatdan boshqasiga boradigan kishiga tegishli ekanini aytdilar. Zohiriylar esa yaqin yoki uzoq joyga bo'lgan har qanday safarda namozni qisqartirish ruxsat etilganini aytdilar. Ularning ixtilofining sababi ma'noning so'zlarga zid kelishidan kelib chiqadi. Aqlan qaraganda, safarda namozni qisqartirish sababi mavjud bo'lgan mashaqqatga asoslanadi, xuddi safarda ro'za tutishdagidek. Agar gap shunda bo'lsa, mashaqqat topilgan har qanday holda qisqartirish ruxsat etiladi. Faqat shariat matniga qarab ish tutuvchilar esa Payg'ambar ﷺ shunday degan deb hisoblaydilar: "Alloh yo'lovchidan ro'zani va namozning bir qismini (mas'uliyatini) olib tashladi". Shunga ko'ra, safarchi deb atalishi mumkin bo'lgan har bir kishi ro'zani qisqartirishi yoki kechiktirishi (keyinga qoldirishi) mumkin. Ular buni Muslim rivoyat qilgan hadis bilan dalillaydilar: Umar ibn al-Xattob (roziyallohu anhu) aytadilar: "Payg'ambar ﷺ taxminan o'n yetti milya safarda namozni qisqartirar edilar".

Bir guruh faqihlar, yuqorida aytib o'tganimizdek, qasr qilish faqat qo'rquv holatida bo'lgan kishiga ruxsat etilgan, boshqa holatlarda esa ruxsat etilmagan, degan beshinchi fikrni qabul qildilar. Ular Yuce Allohning quyidagi so'zlariga tayandilar: "Yerda safarga chiqqaningizda, agar kofirlar sizga hujum qilishidan qo'rqsangiz, namozni qisqartirishingizda gunoh yo'q. Darhaqiqat, kofirlar sizning ochiq dushmanlaringizdir". Bu fikr Oisha roziyallohu anhoning fikri bo'lgan, deyiladi. Ular yana shuni aytdilar: Payg'ambar ﷺ ham qo'rquv holatida bo'lganlarida namozlarini qisqartirar edilar.

A group of jurists, as we have said, adopted the fifth opinion maintaining that curtailing of prayers is not permitted, except to the person in a state of fear, because of the words of the Exalted, “And when ye go forth in the land, it is no sin for you to curtail (your) worship if ye fear that those who disbelieve may attack you. In truth the disbelievers are an open enemy to you”.143 It is said that this was cAHsha’s opinion* They also maintained that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) used to curtail his prayers as he was in a state of fear.

Hardshipni e'tiborga olgan olimlarning ixtilofi sahobalarning bu masaladagi ixtilofidan kelib chiqadi. Shunday qilib, to'rt barid haqidagi qavl Ibn Umar va Ibn Abbosdan rivoyat qilingan va Molik tomonidan naql qilingan. Uch kun haqidagi qavl esa Ibn Mas'ud, Usmon va boshqalardan rivoyat qilingan.

The basis for the disagreement of those who took into consideration the element of hardship stems from the disagreement of the Companions over this. Thus, the opinion about four barids is related from Ibn TJmar and Ibn c Abbas, and has been reported by Malik. The opinion about three days is related from Ibn Mas ud, TJthman, and others.

Qisqartirish mumkin bo'lgan safar turiga oid uchinchi masalaga kelsak, ba'zi faqihlar aytdilar: qisqartirish Allohga yaqinlashish niyatida qilingan safarda, masalan, hajj, umra va jihodda ruxsat etiladi.

c With respect to the third point that relates to the kind of journey for which curtailment is permissible, some of the jurists said that it is permitted in a journey undertaken to seek nearness to Allah, like hajj, ^umra, and jihad.

• Bu fikrni qo‘llab-quvvatlaganlar orasida Ahmad ham bor. Ulardan ba’zilari bunga ruxsat berganlar, ammo bu faqat ruxsat etilgan (mubah) safarlarda, ya’ni yomon niyat bilan qilingan safarlar bundan mustasno, deganlar. Bu Molik va ash-Shofe’iy fikri edi. Ba’zilari ...

• Those who upheld this opinion include Ahmad. Some of them permitted it in all permissible (mubdh) journeys, thus, excluding journeys undertaken for ev design. This was the opinion of Malik and al-Shafi T. Some of c 189

Ular bunga har qanday sayohatda ruxsat berdilar, u Allohga yaqinlashish uchun bo'lsin, mubоh ish uchun bo'lsin yoki yomon niyat uchun bo'lsin. Bu fikr Abu Hanifa, uning shogirdlari, al-Savriy va Abu Savr ga tegishli edi.

them allowed it in any kind of journey whether for seeking nearness, permissible, or for evil design. This was the opinion of Abu HanTfa, his disciples, al-ThawrT, and Abu Thawr.

Ixtilof sabablari shundan iboratki, aql ma'nosi yoki zohiriy ma'no bilan amaliy dalillar (Payg'ambarning ﷺ amallari) o'rtasida ziddiyat bor. Mashaqqat tushunchasini yoki "safar" so'zining zohiriy ma'nosini hisobga olganlar safarning turlari o'rtasida farq qilmadilar. Amaliy dalillarni hisobga olganlar esa, Payg'ambar ﷺ faqat Allohga yaqinlashish niyatida qilingan safarda namozni qisqartirganlari uchun, bunday safardan boshqa holda ruxsat berilmaydi, deb aytdilar. Ruxsat berilgan safar bilan gunohkor niyat bilan qilingan safarni ajratganlar esa qoidani chuqurroq tatbiq etish orqali shunday qildilar. Bu qoida gunohga oid ishlarda ruxsatlardan foydalanish mumkin yoki yo'qligi haqida. Mazkur masalada aql ma'nosi zohiriy ma'no bilan to'qnashadi, shu sababli fuqaholar uning hukmida ixtilof qildilar.

The reason for their disagreement springs from the conflict of the rational meaning, or the apparent meaning, with the evidence arising from the acts (of the Prophet). Those who took into account the element of hardship or the apparent meaning of the term “journey” did not differentiate between one kind o f journey or another. Those who took into account the evidence arising from the acts said that it is not permitted, except in a journey undertaken to seek nearness to Allah, as the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) did not ever curtail prayers, except during a journey undertaken to seek nearness to Allah. Those who distinguished between a permissible journey and one undertaken with unlawful design in mind did so through an enhanced application of the rule. The rule pertains to whether exemptions are permitted in the pursuit of unlawful things. In this issue the rational meaning is in conflict with the apparent meaning, therefore the jurists differed over it.

To'rtinchi masalaga kelsak, ya'ni musofir qaysi joydan boshlab namozni qisqartirishi mumkinligi masalasiga, Molik al-Muvatta'da shunday degan: namoz qisqartirilmaydi, to shaxs qishloqning chekkasidagi turar joylar hududidan chiqmaguncha, va u to'liq namozni o'sha turar joylarning birinchisiga yetguncha boshlamaydi. Undan yana rivoyat qilinadiki, gavjum qishloq bo'lsa, shaxs undan uch milya uzoqlikka yetguncha namozni qisqartirmaydi, va bu, uning bir rivoyatiga ko'ra, shahar markazidan tashqarida yashovchi kishilarga juma namozi farz bo'ladigan hudud chegarasidir. Birinchi fikrni ko'pchilik qabul qilgan.

On the fourth point that relates to the question of from which spot may the traveller commence to curtail prayers, Malik stated in al-Muwatta* that prayers are not to be curtailed until the person has left the dwellings area on the outskirts of the village and he does not begin to offer full prayers till he reaches the first of such dwellings. It is also related from him that the person is not to curtail prayers in case of the well-populated village until he is at a distance of three miles from it and this, according to him in one narration, is the boundary for the area in which Friday prayers are obligatory on the persons living outside the centre of the town. The first opinion was adopted by the majority.

Bu ixtilofning sababi atamaning ma'nosi bilan amallardan kelib chiqadigan dalil o'rtasidagi ziddiyatdadir. Chunki "musofir" so'zi kishiga safarga chiqqan paytidanoq qo'llaniladi. Atamaning ma'nosini e'tiborga olganlar aytdilarki, kishi qishloq uylaridan chiqib ketgan zahoti namozni qisqartirishi kerak. Amallarning dalilini, ya'ni Payg'ambar ﷺ ning amallarini e'tiborga olganlar esa aytdilarki, u qishloq uylaridan uch milya masofaga yetmaguncha namozni qisqartirishni boshlamaydi. Buni Anas rivoyat qilgan hadis tasdiqlaydi. U aytdi: "Allohning Elchisi ﷺ uch milya yoki uch farsax masofa yurganda ikki rak'at namoz o'qir edi" — Shu'ba bu so'zda shubhalangan.

The reason for this disagreement stems from the conflict between the meaning of the term and the evidence arising from the acts. This is so as the word “traveller” is applied to a person the moment he commences his journey. Those who took into account the connotation of the term said that as soon as he goes beyond the houses of the village he is to curtail prayers. Those who took into account the evidence of acts, that is, the acts of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), said that he is not to begin curtailing prayers, until he is at a distance of three miles from the houses of the village as this is established from the tradition of Anas, who said, “The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) used to pray two rak^as when he had travelled a distance of three miles or three farasikh—Shu'ba doubted (which)”.

Yo'lovchi (safar paytida) biror shaharda to'xtab qolganda, qancha muddat turgandan keyin namozini qisqartirmay, to'liq o'qishi kerakligi haqida ulamolar o'rtasida ko'p ixtilof bor. Abu Umar bu masalada taxminan o'n bitta fikrni rivoyat qilgan, lekin mashhur bo'lganlari viloyatlardagi fuqaholarning qarashlaridir, ular esa uchta turli fikrga ega. Birinchisi, Molik va ash-Shofi'iyning fikri: agar yo'lovchi to'rt kun turishga niyat qilsa, u to'liq namoz o'qishi kerak. Ikkinchisi, Abu Hanifa va Sufyon as-Savriyning fikri: agar u o'n besh kunlik muddatga turishga niyat qilsa, to'liq namoz o'qishi kerak. Uchinchisi, Ahmad va Dovud ko'rsatgan fikr: agar u to'rt kundan ko'proq turishga niyat qilsa, to'liq namoz o'qishi kerak.

In their disagreement over the time period for which a traveller may stop in a town (during his journey) and yet curtail his prayers there are many disputes; Abu <Umar has related about eleven opinions, but the well-known ones are those that are held by the jurists of the provinces, and they have three different opinions. First is the opinion of Malik and al-ShaficT that if the traveller decides to stay for four days he is to offer complete prayers. The second is the opinion of Abu Hanifa and Sufyan al-Thawri that if he decides to stay for a period of fifteen days he is to offer complete prayers. The third is the opini0n of Ahmad and Dawud that if he decides to stay for more than four days he is to offer complete prayers.

Ixtilofning sababi shundan iboratki, bu masala shariatda aniq bayon etilmagan va bunday hukm uchun qiyosdan foydalanish barcha tomonidan zaif deb hisoblanadi. Shu sababli ularning barchasi o‘z fikrini Payg‘ambar ﷺ yo‘lda to‘xtab turganda namozni qisqartirishda davom etgani yoki namozlarga musofirning hukmini qo‘llab kelgani haqidagi rivoyat qilingan holatlarga tayangan holda isbotlashga harakat qilganlar.

The reason for disagreement arises from the fact that the matter is not expressly stated in the law, and using analogy for such prescription is deemed weak by all. All of them therefore strived to argue for their opinion on the basis of the reported circumstances in which the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) continued to curtail prayers while he stopped on the way or he continued to treat prayers with the hukm of a traveller.

Birinchi guruh o‘z fikrini “Payg‘ambar (Allohning rahmati va salomi unga bo‘lsin) Makkada uch kun turgan va hajj vaqtida namozni qisqartirgan” degan rivoyatga tayanib bildirdi. Bu rivoyatda namozni qisqartirish chegarasi shu ekanligiga hech qanday dalil yo‘q; aksincha, u safarchi uch kun yoki undan kam turganda namozni qisqartirishi kerakligiga dalil bo‘ladi. Ikkinchi guruh o‘z fikrini Payg‘ambarning ﷺ Makkada turib, namozni qisqartirgani haqidagi rivoyatga tayandi. Ba’zi riwoyatlarda bu taxminan o‘n besh kun, boshqalarida esa (turlicha) o‘n yetti, o‘n sakkiz yoki o‘n to‘qqiz kun deb nақl qilinadi. Bu al-Bukhoriy tomonidan qayd etilgan. Har bir riwoyatni ayrim guruhlar qabul qilgan. Uchinchi guruh o‘z fikrini Payg‘ambarning ﷺ hajj uchun Makkada to‘rt kun turib, shu muddatda namozni qisqartirib o‘qiganiga tayanib bildirdi. Molikiylar o‘z fikrini “Allohning Elchisi ﷺ (Allohning rahmati va salomi unga bo‘lsin) manosik amallarini tugatgach, safarchi uchun Makkada uch kun belgilagan” degan rivoyat bilan asosladilar. Ularning fikricha, uch kunlik turish yashovchini “safarchi” atamasidan chiqarmaydi. Bu fikr hammaning e’tiboriga tushdi. Ular Payg‘ambarning ﷺ amallaridan, ya’ni qachon kishiga nisbatan “safarchi” atamasi qo‘llanmay qolishi haqidagi savolga javob izlashga harakat qildilar. Shu sababli ular kelishib oldilar: agar bir kishi ma’lum muddatgacha safarchilik holatidan chiqmasa, ulardan birining fikriga ko‘ra, u to‘siq bo‘lgan holda (safarni davom ettirolmasa), turish muddati cheksiz cho‘zilsa ham, namozni qisqartirishda davom etadi, inshaAllah. Minimal muddat turishini hisobga olganlar, raqibi tomonidan keltirilgan maksimal muddat turishini ana shu asosga tayanib talqin qilganlar. Masalan, Molikiylar aytganlarki, Makka fath etilgandan keyin Payg'ambar ﷺ o'n besh kun turgan, lekin u buni doimo to'rt kundan ortiq turmaslikni niyat qilgan holda qilgan. Xuddi shu dalil ular belgilagan muddatga nisbatan ham to'g'ri bo'lishi mumkin.

The first group argued for their opinion on the. basis of the report “that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) stayed at Makka for three days and curtailed his prayer during his himra”. There is no evidence in this that this is the limit for curtailing prayers, in fact, it does furnish an evidence that the traveller is to curtail prayers when the stay is for three days or less. The second group argued for their opinion on the basis of the report that he (the Prophet) stayed at Makka and curtailed his prayers. This he did for about fifteen days in some versions, while it is also narrated (variously) as seventeen days, eighteen days, or nineteen days. This is recorded by al-BukharT. Each version was adopted by some group. The third group argued on the basis of the stay of the Prophet (God’s peace and,blessings be upon him) at Makka for his hajj during which he offered curtailed prayers for four days. The Malikites supported their opinion with the report “that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) determined three days for the traveller at Makka after he had completed the rituals”. This indicates in their view that a stay of three days does not stop the term “traveller” from being applicable to the person staying, and this is the point that was made by all. They strove to derive this from the acts of the Prophet'(God’s peace and blessings be upon him), that is, (the answer to the question of) when the term “traveller” is not applicable to the person who intends to stay. For this reason they agreed that if the term “traveller” is not lifted from him up to a certain period, on the basis of the opinion of one of them, the person will continue to curtail prayers if some impediment is preventing him (from resuming his journey) even if the 'stay is prolonged indefinitely (with the will of Allah). Those who took into account the minimum period of his stay interpreted the maximum period of his stay, invoked by the rival, on the basis of this reasoning. Thus, the Malikites, for example, said that the fifteen days for which the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) stayed after the conquest of Makka, he did s0 while constantly intending that he would not stay more than four days. The i ame argument can be valid against the time that they determined.

Mujtahid uchun bunday hollarda ikki yo'lning biridan foydalanish afzalroqdir. U hukmni xabar qilingan eng uzoq qolish muddatiga bog'lashi kerak, ya'ni Payg'ambar ﷺ namozlarini qisqartirgan eng uzoq muddatga. Buni chegara sifatida belgilashi lozim, chunki qisqartirmaslik asl qoidadir, shuning uchun bu muddatni faqat dalil asosida oshirish zarur. Boshqa yo'l shuki, asl qoida kelishuv bilan belgilangan eng kam muddatga asoslanadi deb hisoblanadi. Payg'ambar ﷺ bu eng kam muddatdan ortiq qolgan va shu vaqt ichida namozlarini qisqartirgan degan rivoyatlar esa, bunga musofirga ruxsat berilgani sababli bo'lishi mumkin. Bundan tashqari, u eng kam ruxsat etilgan muddat davomida qolishni niyat qilgan, lekin keyin yanada uzoqroq qolish fikri unga kelgan bo'lishi ham mumkin. Noaniqlik bo'lganda asl qoidani saqlash zarur. Bu masalada aytilgan eng kam muddat bir kun va bir kechadir, va bu Robi' ibn Abu Abdurrahmonning fikridir. Hasan al-Basriydan rivoyat qilinishicha, musofir shaharlardan biriga yetguncha doimo namozni qisqartiradi, ya'ni shaharga yetguncha "safar" tushunchasi unga nisbatan qo'llanilib turadi, deb hisoblanadi. Demak, namozlarni qisqartirishga oid asosiy masalalar shulardir.

’ It is better for the mujtahid in such cases to follow one of two methods. He t should assign the hukm to the maximum period of stay that has been reported I during which the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) curtailed I his prayers. He should fix this as the limit since not curtailing is the original | principle and it is therefore necessary that this period not be increased except ! on the basis of an evidence. The alternative is to uphold that the original J principle is based on the minimum period on which a consensus has taken ■ place and the reports about the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) that he stayed for periods in excess of this minimum during which his prayers were curtailed; this is because it is likely that it is permitted to the traveller. Further, it is also likely that he stayed with the intention of staying for the (minimum) period permitted to the traveller, but that it occurred to him that''he should stay longer. When there is an ambiguity, it is necessary to uphold the principle. The minimum that has been asserted on the issue is one day and night, and this is the opinion of RabTa ibn AbT *Abd al-Rahman. It is related from al-Hasan al-BasrT that the traveller is always to curtail prayers, except when he stays at one of the cities. This is based on* the assumption that the term “travelling” is applicable to him till he approaches one of the cities. These, then, are the governing issues related to curtailment of prayers.

Uch masala namoz o'qishni birlashtirish (jam') mavzusiga tegishli. Birinchisi — uning ruxsat etilganligi. Ikkinchisi — namozlarni birlashtirish usuli. Uchinchisi — birlashtirishda ruxsat etilgan narsalar.

Three issues are related to the topic of combining prayers. First is its permissibility. Second, the manner of combining prayers. Third, things permissible in combining.

Namozlarni birlashtirish (jam') ruxsati haqida faqihlar ittifoq qilganlar: hojining Arafotda zuhr vaqtida zuhr va asrni birlashtirishi sunnat, Muzdalifada esa xufton vaqtida shom va xuftonni birlashtirishi ham sunnatdir. Bulardan boshqa hollarda namozlarni birlashtirish masalasida esa ular ixtilof qilganlar. Ko'pchilik bunga ruxsat bergan, ammo qaysi hollarda ruxsat berilishi va qaysilarida berilmasligi haqida ixtilof qilganlar. Abu Hanifa va uning shogirdlari buni mutlaqo man etganlar.

About the permissibility of combining prayers, the jurists agreed that combining zuhr and <asr at the time of zuhr at *Arafa (by a pilgrim) is a sunna, and combining maghrib and Hsh& at Muzdalifa at the time of %sha> is also a sunna. They disagreed^ about combining prayers on occasions other than these. The majority permitted it, but disagreed as to the occasions on which this is permitted and those on which it is not. Abu Harnfa and his disciples prohibited this absolutely.

Ixtilofning sababi shundaki, ular jam' (namozlarni birlashtirib o'qish) ning ruxsat etilganligi uchun dalil sifatida keltirilgan rivoyatlarni talqin qilishda, ularni huquqiy dalil sifatida qo'llashda ixtilof qilishadi. Ularning hammasi so'zlar emas, balki amallardan iborat bo'lib, amallar so'zlarga qaraganda kengroq talqin qilinishga moyildir. Ikkinchidan, rivoyatlarning sahihligi borasida ixtilof bor. Uchinchidan, bu masalada qiyosdan foydalanishning ruxsat etilishi haqida ixtilof bor. Demak, ko'rib turganingizdek, ixtilofning uchta sababi bor.

The reason for their disagreement arises from their dispute about the interpretation of the traditions that are cited in support of combining prayers and their employment as legal evidence for the permissibility of jam*. All of them comprise acts and not words, and acts are subject to wider interpretation more than are words. Second, there is a dispute about the authenticity of the traditions. Third, there is a disagreement about the permissibility of employing analogy in this. Thus, there are three reasons for disagreement, as you can see.

Bu rivoyatlar ularning tafsiri borasida ixtilof qilgan hadislar jumlasidandir. Ulardan biri Anas rivoyati bo‘lib, uning sahihligi ittifoqli, al-Buxoriy va Muslim tomonidan naql qilingan. U aytdi: “Allohning Elchisi ﷺ quyosh og‘ishidan oldin safarga chiqsalar, zuhrni asr vaqtigacha kechiktirardilar. So‘ngra tushib, ikkalasini birga o‘qirdilar. Agar quyosh safar boshlanishidan oldin og‘gan bo‘lsa, zuhrni o‘qib, so‘ngra minardilar”. Yana ikki Shayx (al-Buxoriy va Muslim) naql qilgan Ibn Umar rivoyati bor. U aytdi: “Men Allohning Elchisi ﷺ ni ko‘rdim: qachon safarni tezlatsalar (biror sabab bilan), shomni kechiktirib, uni xufton bilan birga o‘qirdilar”. Uchinchisi Ibn Abbos rivoyati bo‘lib, uni Molik va Muslim naql qilgan. U aytdi: “Allohning Elchisi ﷺ qo‘rquv yoki safar sababi bo‘lmaganda, zuhr va asrni birga, shom va xuftonni birga o‘qidilar”. Namozlarni birga o‘qish joiz deb bilganlar bu rivoyatni shunday tushuntirdilar: ya’ni ﷺ zuhrni asr vaqti kirguncha kechiktirib, so‘ngra ikkalasini birga o‘qidilar. Kufaliklar esa zuhrni o‘z vaqtining oxirida, Jibril imomligidagi rivoyatga ko‘ra esa awalgi vaqtida o‘qidi, deb aytdilar. Ular Ibn Abbos rivoyatini aynan shunday tushunish lozim, deyishdi, chunki uzrsiz ikki namozni bir namozning vaqtida o‘qish joiz emasligi borasida ittifoq bor. Ular o'z talqinlarini Ibn Mas'udning rivoyatiga asoslab ham dalil keltirdilar. U kishi aytdi: "O'zidan boshqa iloh yo'q Zot haqqi, Allahning Elchisi ﷺ hech qachon namozni belgilangan vaqtidan boshqa vaqtda o'qimagan, faqat 'Arafotda zuhr va asrni, Muzdalifada esa shom va xufton namozlarini birga qilgan holatlar bundan mustasno bo'lgan". Ular yana dedilar: "Bu rivoyatlarni bizning aytganimiz yoki sizning aytganingiz ma'nosida talqin qilish mumkin. Biroq namozlarning belgilangan vaqtlari va ularni o'z vaqtida ado etish sobit bo'lgan qoidadir, sobit qoidadan talqinga muhtoj bo'lgan masalaga o'tish esa joiz emas".

Those who upheld the combining of prayer during a journey differed about its manner. Some of them said that it is preferable to delay the first prayer and offer it with the second prayer, however, if they are combined within the timing of the first, this is also permitted. This is one narration from Malik. Some of them deemed the two equal, that is, the second may be advanced to the timing of the first or it may be the other way round. This is ash-Shafi'i's opinion and is a narration from Malik through the jurists of Medina, while the first has been related by Ibn al-Qasim from him. This kind of combination (delaying the first to the time of the second) is preferable according to Malik, as it has been established through the tradition of Anas. Those who considered the two methods as equal relied on the principle that preference is not undertaken on the basis of 'adala, that is, one 'adala is not to be preferred over another 'adala for determining the obligation of acting upon the tradition. This means that if the tradition of Mu'adh is proved authentic it is obligatory to act upon it, just as it is obligatory to act upon the tradition of Anas, if the 'adala of the transmitters of both traditions is established, and even if the 'adala of the transmitters of one tradition is stronger than that of the other.

Those who .upheld the combining of prayer during a journey differed about its manner. Some of them said that it is preferable to delay the first prayer and offer it with the second prayer, however, if they are combined within the timing of the, first this is also permitted. This is one narration from Malik. Some of them deemed the two equal, that is, the second may be advanced to the timing of the first or it may be the other way round. This is akShafWs opinion and is a narration from Malik through the jurists of Medina, while the first has been related by Ibn akQasim from him. This kind of combination (delaying the first to the time of the second) is preferable according to Malik, as it has been established through the tradition of Anas. Those who considered the two methods as equal relied on the principle that preference is not undertaken on the basis of ^adala, that is, one <adala is not be preferred over another <adala for determining the obligation of acting upon the tradition. This means that if the tradition of Mu<adh is proved authentic it is obligatory to act upon it, just as it is obligatory to act upon the tradition of Anas, if the 'addla of the transmitters of both traditions is established, and even if the ^addla of the transmitters of one tradition is stronger than that of the other.

Namozlarni jamʼ qilish joizligini ma’qul ko‘rganlar, safarning namozlarni jamʼ qilish sabablaridan biri ekanligida ittifoq qilganlar. Ular shahar ichida namozlarni jamʼ qilish masalasida hamda namozlarni jamʼ qilishga ruxsat beradigan safarning shartlari haqida ixtilof qilganlar: ba’zilari safarning qanday bo‘lishidan qat’i nazar, har qanday sayohatni namozlarni jamʼ qilish uchun asosli sabab deb hisoblagan, boshqalari esa muayyan shakl va muayyan turdagi namozni shart qilib qo‘ygan. Malik Ibn Qosim rivoyatiga ko‘ra, safarning muayyan shaklini shart qilganlardan biridir. U, musofir uchun safar og‘ir bo‘lmasa, namozlarni jamʼ qilmasligini aytgan. Ash-Shofiʼiy esa buni shart qilmaganlar orasidadir, bu ham Malikdan bir rivoyatdir. Bu fikrni (Malikning fikrini) qabul qilganlar Ibn Umarning “Men Allohning Elchisi (Allohning salavoti va barakasi unga bo‘lsin)ni safarini (biror sababga ko‘ra) shoshilib davom ettirayotganda, shomni kechiktirib, xufton bilan jamʼ qilganini ko‘rdim”, degan so‘ziga tayanganlar. Bu fikrda bo‘lmaganlar esa Anas va boshqalarning hadislaridagi zohiriy ma’noga amal qilganlar.

Those who upheld the permissibility of combining prayers agreed that travel is one of the causes permitting the combining of prayers. They disagreed about combining prayers within a settlement and also about the conditions of travel that permits it, as some of them considered any kind of journey, whatever its nature, to be a valid cause for combining prayers, while others stipulated a particular form and a particular kind of prayer. Malik is one of those who stipulate a particular form of journey, according to the narration of Ibn ak Qasim from him. He said that the traveller is not to combine prayers unless the journey becomes cumbersome for him. Al-ShafiT is among those who did not stipulate this, and this is also one narration from Malik. Those who adopted this opinion (Malik’s) relied on the saying of Ibn TJmar “I have seen the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), when he was hastening his journey (for some reason), delaying maghrib so that he would combine it with Sshff”. Those who did not hold this opinion adopted the apparent meaning of the traditions of Anas and others.

Xuddi shunday, ular, yuqorida aytganimizdek, namozlarni jamʼ qilish ruxsat etilgan safar turi haqida ham ixtilof qilganlar. Ba’zilari bu taqvo yuzasidan qilinadigan safar, masalan, hajj yoki jihod kabi safar ekanini aytdilar, va bu Ibn al-Qosimning rivoyatining zohiriy ma’nosidir. Ba’zilari esa bu ruxsat etilgan safar, ya’ni taqvo yoki boshqa joiz maqsad bilan qilinadigan safar ekanini, nojoiz maqsadlar bilan qilinadigan safarga qarama-qarshi ekanini aytdilar. Bu al-Shofiʼiyning fikri va Molikdan Madina ahlining rivoyatining zohiriy ma’nosidir. Ularning bu masalada ixtilof qilishlarining sababi, namozni qisqartirish mumkin bo‘lgan safar haqidagi ixtiloflari sababi bilan bir xil. Garchi u holda ma’no umumiyroq bo‘lsa-da, chunki namozni qisqartirish ham so‘z, ham amal orqali (Payg‘ambar ﷺ dan) rivoyat qilingan, jamʼ qilish esa faqat amal orqali rivoyat qilingan. Jamʼ qilishni Allohning Elchisi ﷺ namozlarni jamʼ qilgan safar turlari bilan cheklaganlar, boshqa safar turlarida uni ruxsat etmaganlar. Uni safarchi uchun bir turdagi yengillik (rukhsa) deb hisoblaganlar esa boshqa safarlarda ham uni to‘g‘ri deb bilganlar.