Ushbu qism vaqtida ado etilmagan deb hisoblanadigan namoz amallari haqida bo'lib, ular takror qilish (i'adah), kechiktirib ado etish (qada) va sajda (sahv sajdalari) orqali ortiqcha yoki kamchilikni tuzatish (jabr)dir. Shu sababli bu qismda uchta bob bor. Birinchi bob fidda (takror yoki qayta ado etish) haqida. Ikkinchi bob qado (kechiktirib ado etish) haqida. Uchinchi bob sajdalar bilan amalga oshiriladigan tuzatish haqida.

This part covers the acts of prayer that are not considered performed on time and these are repetition (iSdda), delayed performance (qadd?), and rectification (jabr) of excesses or shortfalls by means of prostrations (for forgetfulness). In this part there are thus three chapters. The first chapter is about fidda (repetition or re-performance). The second chapter is about qadd> (delayed performance). The third chapter covers rectification that is accomplished with prostrations.

Ushbu bobdagi muhokama namozni qayta o‘qishni talab qiladigan sabablar, ya’ni namozni buzuvchi omillar haqida. Ular kelishib oldilar: kim taharatsiz namoz o‘qisa, u niyat bilan bo‘lsin yoki unutish tufayli bo‘lsin, namozini (taharat olgandan so‘ng) qayta o‘qishga majburdir. Xuddi shunday, kim qiblaga emas, boshqa tomonga qarab namoz o‘qisa, niyat bilan yoki adashib bo‘lsin, u ham qayta o‘qishi kerak. Umuman olganda, namoz shartlaridan birini buzgan kishi namozni (to‘g‘ri tarzda) qayta o‘qishga majburdir. (Bularning barchasi fuqaholarning kelishuvi bilan belgilangan.) Fuqaholar esa namozning to‘g‘ri bo‘lishi uchun zarur shartlar borasidagi nizolari tufayli ixtilofga bordilar.

The discussion in this chapter relates to the causes that require repetition of a prayer, and these are factors vitiating prayer. They agreed that a person who prays without purification, whether intentional or due to forgetfulness, is obliged to repeat his prayer (after purification). Similarly, one who prays in a direction other than the qibla, whether by intention or by mistake. On the whole, then, a person who violates one of the conditions of prayer is under an obligation of a repeat performance (in the correct way). (All this is by agreement of the jurists.) The jurists disagreed because of their dispute over the validating conditions.

Prayer's basic elements aside, there are disputed questions on this subject. One of them concerns the agreement that the occurrence of a cause of hadath (loss of the state of purity) invalidates the prayer. The scholars disagreed about whether this requires repeating the prayer from the beginning, including the one or two rak'ahs completed before the hadath occurred, or whether the prayer may be continued on the basis of what has already been performed. The majority held that one may not build on what was done, neither in the case of hadath nor for any other invalidating cause, such as making unauthorized movements, except in the case of a nosebleed alone. Some of them held that one does not build on it at all, neither for hadath nor for a nosebleed. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i. The Kufans held that one builds on what was performed in every kind of hadath.

There are disputed issues related to this topic that are beyond the basic elements of prayer. One of these is their agreement that the occurrence of a cause of hadath (losing the state of purification) terminates (invalidates) prayer. They disagreed, in this case, on wherher it requires the repetition of prayer from the beginning, including a rakfa or two completed prior to the occurrence of hadath, or to continue the prayer based on that already performed. The majority maintained that he is not to base it on continuation neither in the case of hadath nor for another terminating cause (like making unauthorized movements), except in the case of a nosebleed alone. Some of them were of the view that he does not base it on continuation at all, either for hadath or for a nosebleed. This is al-ShafiTs opinion. The Kufts maintained that he is to base the prayer on continuation in all kinds of hadath.

Ularning ixtilofining sababi shundaki, bunday holatda (ya'ni davom ettirishda) Payg'ambardan (Allohning salavoti va salomi unga bo'lsin) ruxsat berilgani haqida rivoyat yo'q, lekin Ibn Umarning burnidan qon ketgani va u qonni yuvib tashlagach, vuzu' qilmasdan namozni davom ettirgani (yoki namozni takrorlash o'rniga davom ettirgani) ma'lum va sobit. Sahobiyning bu ishi shariatda dalil (sunnat) hisoblanadi, chunki u bunday ishni qiyos asosida qila olmagan, deb hisoblaganlar bunga ruxsat berganlar. Burun qoni hadas hisoblanmaydi, deb bilganlar faqat burun qonida davom ettirishga ruxsat berganlar, bu Molikning fikridir. Burun qoni hadas sababi, deb bilganlar qiyos asosida barcha hadas holatlarida davom ettirishga ruxsat berganlar. Sahobiyning ishi Payg'ambardan kelgan dalil bo'lmasa, unga tayanib bo'lmaydi, deganlar esa na hadasda, na burun qonida davom ettirishga ruxsat bermaganlar, chunki qibladan boshqa tarafga yuzlanib namoz o'qigan kishi namozini buzgan bo'ladi, shuningdek, ortiqcha harakat qilganda ham namoz buziladi, degan kelishuv mavjud.

The reason for their disagreement is that there is no recorded, tradition of permissibility from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) in such a case (i.e. continuation), but it is established that Ibn TJmar had a nosebleed and based the (repetition of the) prayer on continuation (after washing away his blood and) without performing ablution. Those who maintained that this act on the part of a Companion amounts to a precedent, for he could not have based such an act upon analogy, permitted such an act. Those for whom a nosebleed does not amount to hadath permitted continuation in the case of a nosebleed only, and this is Malik’s opinion. Those for whom a nosebleed is a cause of hadath permitted continuation in all cases of hadath on the basis of analogy. And those who maintained that an act of a Companion is not to be relied upon unless it is a precedent from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), did not permit continuation either in the case of hadath or a nosebleed, for there is consensus on the point that a worshipper praying in a direction other than the qibla has breached his prayer and also when he is making excessive movements.

Fuqaholar namozga kiruvchi kishi sutra (to'siq) bo'lmagan holda namoz o'qiyotganda, yoki to'siq bilan namozxon o'rtasidan biror narsa o'tganda, bu narsa namozni buzadimi yoki yo'qmi, degan masalada ixtilof qilganlar. Ko'pchilik bu narsalarning hech biri namozni buzmaydi, namozxon zimmasiga qayta o'qish majburiyati ham yuklanmaydi, deb hisoblaydi. Bir guruh fuqaholar esa ayolning, eshakning yoki qora itning o'tishi bilan namoz kesiladi, deb aytganlar.

The jurists disagreed on whether the passing of something in front of the worshipper terminates his prayer when he is praying without a curtain (sutra), or when the thing passes between him and the curtain. The majority maintain that none of these terminates the prayer, and there is no obligation for repetition on the worshipper. A group of jurists maintained that prayer is cut off by (the passing of) a woman, a donkey, or a black dog.

Ixtilofning sababi shundaki, bu yerda amal bilan hadis o'rtasida ziddiyat bor. Muslim Abu Zarrdan rivoyat qilgan: Payg'ambar (Allohning rahmati va salomi unga bo'lsin) dedilar: "Ayol, eshak va qora it [namoz o'qiyotgan kishining oldidan o'tsa], namozni buzadi". Muslim va al-Bukhoriy esa Oisha (roziyallohu anho)dan rivoyat qilganlar: u aytdi: "Men Allohning Elchisi ﷺ namoz o'qiyotganlarida, janoza qo'yilgandek, ularning oldida yotganimni topardim". Ali va Ubayydan ham ko'pchilik fikriga o'xshash fikrlar rivoyat qilingan. Olimlar yakka holda namoz o'qiyotgan kishining yoki sutrasiz namoz o'qiyotgan imomning oldidan yoki sutra bilan uning orasidan biror narsa o'tishining makruh ekaniga ixtilof qilmaganlar. Ammo parda ortidan o'tishda ular zarar ko'rmaganlar. Shuningdek, Ibn Abbos va boshqalardan sahih rivoyat bo'lgani uchun, ular imomga ergashuvchilar safi oldidan o'tishda ham zarar yo'q deb bilganlar. Ibn Abbos aytdi: "Men balog'atga yaqinlashgan paytimda eshak ustida keldim, Allohning Elchisi ﷺ odamlarga imomlik qilayotgan edilar. Men ba'zi saflarning oldidan o'tdim. Eshakdan tushib, uni o'tlatib qo'ydim-da, saflardan biriga qo'shildim. Hech kim buni ma'qul ko'rmadi". Ularning nazarida bu rivoyat musnad (ya'ni Payg'ambar ﷺ ga nisbat berilgan hadis) ko'rinishiga ega, lekin uning sanadi tekshirishga muhtoj.

The reason for this disagreement is the conflict of a pronouncement with an act, as Muslim has recorded from Abu Dharr that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “A woman, a donkey, and a black dog [passing before a worshipper in prayer] cut off prayer”. Muslim and al- BukharT, (on the other hand), have recorded from cAJisha that she said, “I found myself lying in front of the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), when he was praying, in the same way as the body in a funeral is placed”. Opinions similar to that of the majority have been related from AII and from Ubayy. There is no dispute among the jurists about the abomination of something passing in front of a single worshipper (praying alone) or in front of the imam when praying without a sutra, or of passing between him and the sutra. They saW no harm, however, in passing anything behind the curtain. Likewise, they saw no harm in passing in front of the followers, because of the authenticated tradition of Ibn cAbbas, and of others. Ibn cAbbas said, “I came on the back o f a donkey, when I was approaching puberty, and the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) was leading the people in prayer. I passed in front of some of the rows. I dismounted, leaving the ass to graze, and joined one of the rows. No one objected to my act”. This, in their view’, resembles a musnad (i.e. a tradition attributed to the Prophet), but this is subject to scrutiny.

Ular namozda o‘kirishning hukmi haqida ixtilof qilishgan; bu borada uch xil qarash mavjud. Fuqaholarning bir guruhi o‘kirishni makruh deb hisoblagan, ammo o‘kirgan kishiga namozni qayta o‘qishni majburiy qilmagan. Ikkinchi guruh o‘kirgan kishiga namozni qayta o‘qishni vojib qilgan. Uchinchi guruh esa eshitilgan va eshitilmagan o‘kirish o‘rtasida farq qilgan. Ularning ixtilofining sababi o‘kirishning ta’rifi gap bo‘lish yoki gap bo‘lmaslik o‘rtasida tebranib turishidadir.

They disagreed about belching during prayer; there are three opinions. One group of jurists regarded it as an abomination, but did not impose repetition of prayer on the person who belched. Another group made repetition obligatory on a person belching. A third group made a distinction between that which was heard and that which was not. The reason for their disagreement stems from the vacillation of (the definition of) belching between being Speech and non-speech.

Ular kulgi namozni buzishi haqida kelishib olishgan. Tabassum qilish borasida esa ixtilof qilishgan. Tabassum qilish haqidagi ixtiloflari kulgining hukmini olishi mumkinmi, degan savolga asoslangan.

They agreed that laughter cuts off prayer. They disagreed about smiling. Their disagreement about smiling is based on the question of whether it can take the ruling of laughter.

Ular hdqin (tabiiy ehtiyojni tiyib turish) holatida namoz o'qish masalasida ixtilof qilishdi. Ko'pchilik fuqaholar tabiiy ehtiyojni tiyib turgan holda namoz o'qishni makruh deb hisoblaydi, chunki Zayd ibn Arqamning rivoyati bor: u aytadi: "Men Allah Elchisi ﷺ ning: «Sizlardan birortangiz hojatxonaga bormoqchi bo'lsa, namozni boshlashdan oldin borsin», deganlarini eshitdim". Shuningdek, Oisha roziyallohu anhodan Payg'ambar ﷺ dan rivoyat qilinishicha, u zot: «Ovqat oldida turib namoz o'qilmasin, ikki najosatni — ya'ni siydik va najasni — tiyib turganda ham o'qilmasin», degan. Bundan tashqari, Umar roziyallohu anhuning bu ishni man etgani haqidagi xabar ham dalil bo'ladi.

They disagreed about the prayer of the person suppressing the call of nature (hdqin). The majority of the jurists consider abominable that a person should pray while he is suppressing the call of nature, because of the tradition of Zayd ibn Arqam, who said, “I heard the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) saying, ‘If one of you desires to go to the privy, he should do so before commencing prayer’ ”, and because of what is related from <A>isha from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) that he said, “No one should pray in the presence of food, nor when he is suppressing the two dirts”, that is, urination and defecation, and also because of the report of the proscription from TJmar.

Bir guruh faqihlar bunday shaxsning namozi sahih emas va u namozni qayta o‘qishi kerak, deb hisoblaganlar. Ibn al-Qosimning Molikdan rivoyatiga ko‘ra, tabiiy ehtiyojni tutib turgan shaxsning namozi botil. Sababi shuki, u Malikdan rivoyat qilib, bunday shaxs vaqt tugashidan oldin namozni qayta o‘qishi kerak, aks holda uni qazo sifatida ado etishi lozim, deganini naql qilgan.

A group of jurists maintained that prayer of such a person is not valid, and he has to repeat it. Ibn al-Qasim’s report from Malik indicates that the prayer of a person suppressing the call of nature is invalid. The reason^is that he reported from him that such a person must repeat the prayer before the expiry of the time, otherwise he has to do so as qadd>.

Ularning ixtilofining sababi taqiqlangan ishning haromligi (ijro etilishi) uning batilligini bildiradimi yoki faqat o‘sha holatda bajarilgan ishning gunoh ekanligini bildiradimi, degan masalada bahslashishlaridan kelib chiqadi; bunda taqiqlangan ish asli farz yoki mubah bo‘lsa, shunday bo‘ladi. Bunday namozning batilligini ta’kidlaganlar Shomliklar rivoyat qilgan hadisga tayanadilar; uni ba’zilar Savbondan, boshqalar esa Abu Hurayradan Nabiy ﷺ dan rivoyat qilganlar: “Mo‘min kishi tabiiy ehtiyojni zo‘rg‘a tutib turgan holda namoz o‘qishi joiz emas”. Abu Umar esa bu hadisning isnodi zaif ekanini aytgan va shu sababli uning hukmi yo‘qligini bildirgan.

The reason for their disagreement arises from their dispute over the proscription whether it indicates the invalidity of the (performance of the) thing prohibited, or it merely indicates the sinfulness of the act in that condition, when the act so proscribed is originally obligatory or permissible. Those who upheld the invalidity of such a prayer relied on the tradition reported by the Syrians, with some reporting it from Thawban, while others from Abu Hurayra from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), who said, “It is not permitted for a believer to pray when he is forcibly suppressing the call of nature”. Abu TJmar said that it is a tradition with a weak transmission, and it therefore has no legal force.

Ular namozxon kishining salomiga javob berish masalasida ixtilof qilishgan. Sa'id ibn al-Musayyab, al-Hasan ibn al-Hasan al-Basriy va Qatoda kabi faqihlardan iborat bir guruh buni ruxsat etgan. Boshqa bir guruh so'z bilan javob berishni man qilgan, ammo ishora bilan javob berishga ruxsat bergan; bu Molik va ash-Shofe'iyning fikridir. Boshqalar esa na so'z bilan, na ishora bilan javob berishni taqiqlagan; bu Nu'mon (Abu Hanifa) ning fikridir. Bir guruh ichki (ovozsiz) javob berishga ruxsat bergan, boshqalar esa namozni tugatgandan keyin javob berish kerak, deyishgan.

They disagreed about responding to the salutation by the praying worshipper. A group of jurists, among whom are Sa Td ibn al-Musayyab, al-Hasan ibn al- c Hasan al-BasrT, and Qatada, permitted it. Another group disallowed responding in words, but permitted it with a gesture, and this is the opinion of Malik and aI-Shafi T. Others c prohibited responding by words or by gesture, and this is the opinion of Nu(mam. One group permitted an inward (silent) response, while others said that he should respond when he has finished praying.

Ularning ixtilofining sababi salomga javob berish namozda man etilgan gap turiga kiradimi-yo'qmi, shunga bog'liq. Namozda gapirish taqiqlangan, deb hisoblaganlar va "Agar sizga salom berilsa, undan yaxshiroq bilan javob bering yoki xuddi shunday javob qaytaring"148 oyatini namozda gapirishni man etuvchi hadislar bilan cheklaganlar, namozda javob berish joiz emas, dedilar. Salomga javob berish man etilgan gapga kirmaydi, deb hisoblaganlar esa, taqiqlovchi hadislarni salomga javob berish buyrug'i bilan cheklab, javob berishga ruxsat berdilar.

The reason for their disagreement stems from whether the response to a salutation is a kind of speech during prayer, which is proscribed. Those who maintained that it is a kind of speech prohibited in prayers, and restricted the verse, “When ye are greeted with a greeting, greet ye with a better than it or return it”148 with traditions proscribing speech during .prayer, said that it is not permitted to respond during prayer. Those who maintained that it is not included in the prohibited speech, and those who restricted the proscribing traditions with the command for responding to a greeting, permitted a

Ular namozxon kishining salomiga javob berish masalasida ixtilof qilishgan. Sa'id ibn al-Musayyab, al-Hasan ibn al-Hasan al-Basriy va Qatoda kabi faqihlardan iborat bir guruh buni ruxsat etgan. Boshqa bir guruh so'z bilan javob berishni man qilgan, ammo ishora bilan javob berishga ruxsat bergan; bu Molik va ash-Shofe'iyning fikridir. Boshqalar esa na so'z bilan, na ishora bilan javob berishni taqiqlagan; bu Nu'mon (Abu Hanifa) ning fikridir. Bir guruh ichki (ovozsiz) javob berishga ruxsat bergan, boshqalar esa namozni tugatgandan keyin javob berish kerak, deyishgan.

They disagreed about responding to the salutation by the praying worshipper. A group of jurists, among whom are Sa Td ibn al-Musayyab, al-Hasan ibn al- c Hasan al-BasrT, and Qatada, permitted it. Another group disallowed responding in words, but permitted it with a gesture, and this is the opinion of Malik and aI-Shafi T. Others c prohibited responding by words or by gesture, and this is the opinion of Nu(mam. One group permitted an inward (silent) response, while others said that he should respond when he has finished praying.

Ularning ixtilofining sababi salomga javob berish namozda man etilgan gap turiga kiradimi yoki yo'qmi, degan masalada yotadi. Namozda gapirish man etilgan deb hisoblaganlar va: «Sizlarga salom berilganda, unga undan yaxshiroq javob bering yoki xuddi shunday qaytaring»¹⁴⁸ degan oyatni namozda gapirishni man qiluvchi hadislar bilan cheklaganlar, namozda javob berish joiz emas, dedilar. Bu gap man etilgan gap turiga kirmaydi, deb hisoblaganlar va man qiluvchi hadislarni salomga javob berish buyrug'i bilan cheklaganlar esa namozda javob berishni joiz deb bildilar. Abu Bakr ibn al-Mundhir aytadiki, salomga umuman javob berilmaydi, deganlar sunnatga zid ish qilganlar, chunki Habib rivoyat qilishicha, Payg'ambar ﷺ namoz o'qayotganlarida o'ziga salom berganlarga ishora bilan javob qaytargan.

The reason for their disagreement stems from whether the response to a salutation is a kind of speech during prayer, which is proscribed. Those who maintained that it is a kind of speech prohibited in prayers, and restricted the verse, “When ye are greeted with a greeting, greet ye with a better than it or return it”148 with traditions proscribing speech during .prayer, said that it is not permitted to respond during prayer. Those who maintained that it is not included in the prohibited speech, and those who restricted the proscribing traditions with the command for responding to a greeting, permitted a response during prayer. Abu Bakr ibn al-Mundhir has said that those who say that the greeting is not to be responded to at all have opposed the sunna, for Habib has reported that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) returned the greeting, with a gesture, of those who greeted him while he was praying.

Ushbu bobda qazo (qadd) vojib bo‘lgan shaxsni aniqlash, qaddning turlarini bayon qilish hamda uning shartlari muhokama qilinadi.

The discussion in this chapter covers the identification of the person for whom qaddW is obligatory, the description of the types of qadd, and its conditions.

Muslim fuqaha bir fikrga kelganlar: qazo o'qish vojib bo'lgan shaxs — namozni unutib qoluvchi yoki uxlab qoluvchi, vaqt chiqquncha. Ular esa vaqtni ataylab kechiktirgan shaxs hamda hushidan ketgan shaxs haqida ixtilof qilganlar. Muslim fuqahalari unutish yoki uyqu tufayli namozni o'tkazib yuborgan kishi uchun qazo vojib ekanligi borasida ittifoq qilganlar, chunki Payg'ambar ﷺ ning so'zlari va amallari haqidagi sahih rivoyatlar shunga dalolat qiladi. Ularning so'zlaridan maqsad shu hadis: "Uch holatda qalam ko'tarilgan", — bu yerda u uxlayotgan kishini zikr qilgan — hamda uning bu so'zi: "Agar sizlardan biri namoz vaqtida uxlab qolsa yoki uni unutsa, esiga tushganda uni qazo qilsin". Shuningdek, rivoyat qilinadiki, Payg'ambar ﷺ o'zlari bir marta quyosh chiqquncha uxlab qolganlar va keyin uni qazo sifatida o'qiganlar. Namozni ataylab vaqti chiqquncha e'tiborsiz qoldirgan kishiga kelsak, ko'pchilik uni gunohkor deb hisoblaydi va unga qazo vojib bo'ladi. Zohiriylardan ba'zilari uni gunohkor deydilar, ammo unga qazo o'qish shart emas, deydilar. Shu fikrda bo'lgan zohiriylardan biri Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm edi.

The Muslim jurists agreed that the person for whom qadd is obligatory is one who forgets (to pray) or is asleep (till the expiry of the time). They disagreed about the case of one who delays praying intentionally and about one who faints. The Muslim jurists agreed about the obligation of qadd for a person who misses prayer due to forgetfulness or sleep, because of the authentic reports about the words and acts of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him). By his words I mean the saying, “The Pen has been lifted on three counts”, and here he mentioned one sleeping, and also his saying, “If one of you slept through [the time of] prayer or forgot it, then let him make up for it when he remembers”. It is also reported that he himself overslept once till sunrise and then offered it as qadd' About the person who intentionally neglects prayer till its time is over, the majority hold that he is a sinner and qadd is obligatory on him. Some of the Zahirites have held that he is a sinner, but he is not to observe qadd. One of the Zahirites who held this was Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm.

Ularning ixtilofining sababi ikki masala ustidagi nizolaridir. Birinchisi, shariatda qiyos (analogiya) qo‘llash joizligi. Ikkinchisi, qiyosning haqiqiyligi tan olingandan so‘ng, ataylab namozni tark etgan kishi uchun unutgan kishiga qiyos qurilishi. Qazoni unutgan kishi zimmasiga vojib qilganlar shunday dedilar: agar qazo unutgan kishi zimmasiga yuklatilgan bo‘lsa, shariat u haqda ko‘p hollarda engillik bergan bo‘lsa ham, uzrsiz ataylab tark etgan kishi zimmasiga ham vojib bo‘lishi to‘g‘ri keladi. Unutgan kishining hukmini ataylab tark etuvchiga qiyos qilishni joiz demaganlar esa shunday dedilar: unutgan kishi va ataylab tark etuvchi bir-biriga zid, zidlar uchun esa qiyos qurilmaydi, chunki zidlarning hukmlari turlicha, qiyos esa o‘xshash holatlar uchun qilinadi. Haqiqat shuki, agar qazoning vojibligi jazo sifatida og‘irlashtirilgan javobgarlik deb qaralsa, qiyos to‘g‘ri bo‘ladi. Agar u unutgan kishiga rahm-shafqat sifatida qaralsa, chunki uning uzri bor va bu imtiyozdan uni mahrum qilmaslik kerak, u holda ataylab tark etuvchi unutgan kishiga zid bo‘ladi va qiyos qurilmaydi, chunki unutgan kishining uzri bor, ataylab tark etuvchining esa uzri yo‘q. Qoida shuki, qazo amrning vaqtida ado etilishi sababli emas, balki yangi amr orqali vojib bo‘ladi, mutakallimlar aytganidek. Chunki unutgan kishida amalni to‘g‘ri bajarish imkonini beruvchi shartlardan biri yo‘q, bu shart esa vaqtdir, vaqt esa sahih bo‘lish shartlaridan biridir va vaqtning kechikishi qiyos bo‘yicha unga berilgan imtiyoz hisoblanadi. Biroq uxlab qolgan va unutgan kishilar holatini hal qiladigan rivoyat bor. Ataylab tark etuvchining holati esa ularning holatiga o‘xshash bo‘lish va o‘xshamaslik o‘rtasida tebranadi. Haqiqatni Alloh taolo yo‘lga boshlaydi.

Ular namoz tartibi (ketma-ketligi) masalasida ixtilof qilishdi, ya'ni unutilgan namozlar orasida va ularning hozirgi namoz bilan o'rtasida tartibga rioya qilish vojibmi yoki yo'qmi, shu haqda ixtilof qilishdi. Molik besh vaqt namoz yoki undan kamroq sonli namozlarda tartibga rioya qilish vojib, deb hisoblagan. Unga ko'ra, kishi hozirgi namozning vaqti o'tib ketsa ham, avval unutilgan namozni o'qishi kerak. Hatto u, agar kishi hozirgi namoz bilan band bo'lib, unutilgan namozni eslasa, hozirgi namozi uning uchun batil bo'ladi, deb ham aytgan. Abu Hanifa va al-Savriy ham shunga o'xshash fikrlarni bildirishgan, faqat ular tartibga rioya qilishni faqat hozirgi namoz vaqti yetarlicha uzun bo'lgandagina (qazo va ado namozlari uchun) vojib deb hisoblashgan. Bu faqihlar unutish holatida tartib vojibligi soqit bo'lishiga ittifoq qilishgan. Al-Shofi'iy esa tartibga rioya qilish vojib emas, deb aytgan. Ammo kishi shunday qilsa va vaqt hozirgi namozni sig'diradigan darajada uzun bo'lsa, bu mustahabdir, degan.

They differed over the order (of offering prayers), that is, they disagreed about the obligation of observing an order among the forgotten prayers, and between them and the add prayer. Malik maintained that observing a sequential order is obligatory for five prayers or whatever is less, and that the person is to begin with a forgotten prayer even if the time of the current prayer is to be missed. He went as far as saying that if he is occupied with the current prayer and remembers a forgotten prayer, the current prayer is invalidated for him. Similar views were expressed by Abu HanTfa and al-ThawrT, except that they upheld the obligation of a sequential order only when the period for the current prayer is long enough (for the qadd and the add prayers). These jurists agreed about the dropping of the obligation of order in the case of forgetfulness. Al-Shafi T said c that there is no obligation of maintaining an order, but if he does this and the time is long enough to accommodate the current prayer, it is commendable.

Ikki tomonning ixtilofi bu masaladagi rivoyatlarning ziddiyatidan, shuningdek qado bilan ado o'rtasida o'xshashlik bor-yo'qligi haqidagi ularning farqidan kelib chiqadi. Bu masalada ikkita ziddiyatli rivoyat bor. Birinchisi Nabiy ﷺ dan rivoyat qilinganidir: u ﷺ dedi: "Kimki namozni unutib qo'ysa-yu, boshqa namozni imom bilan o'qiyotganida eslasa, imom bilan davom etsin. Bu namozni o'qib bo'lgach, unutgan namozini qayta o'qisin, so'ng imom bilan o'qigan namozini qayta o'qisin". Imom ash-Shofi'iyning shogirdlari bu rivoyatni zaif deb hisoblaydilar, ular esa Nabiy ﷺ ning: "Agar sizlardan biri namozni unutib qo'ysa va boshqa farz namozni o'qiyotganida uni eslasa, o'qiyotgan namozini tugatsin, uni tugatgach, unutgan namozini qazo sifatida o'qisin", degan so'zlarini rivoyat qilgan Ibn Abbos rivoyatini sahih deb tasdiqlaydilar. Ammo bu mavzudagi sahih rivoyat avvalroq o'tgan bo'lib, unda Nabiy ﷺ ning so'zlari: "Agar sizlardan biri namoz vaqtida uxlab qolsa yoki uni unutsa, eslagan vaqtida namozni o'qisin", degandir.

Rak‘atning qachon yo‘qolgan hisoblanishi masalasi ikki holatni o‘z ichiga oladi. Birinchisi, ibodat qiluvchi imom ruku‘ga egilgan vaqtda jamoatga qo‘shilganda. Ikkinchisi, u imom bilan birga namoz o‘qiyotganda rukuga imomga ergashishni unutib qo‘ysa yoki uni bajarishga to‘sqinlik qiladigan itarilish kabi biror narsa yuz bersa.

The question as to when a rak^a is deemed to be lost entails two issues. First, when the worshipper joins in when the imam has bent for the ruku\ and second, when he is praying with the imam and forgets to follow him in the ruk# or something in the nature of jostling occurs that prevents him from- doing so.

Bu masalada uchta fikr bor. Birinchisi, ko'pchilik ulamolar tomonidan qabul qilingan: agar kishi imomga ruku'dan bosh ko'tarmasdan oldin yetishib, u bilan birga ruku'ga egilishga ulgursa, u rak'atni topgan bo'ladi va unga qazo lozim emas. Bu faqihlar shu kishi qo'shilishi uchun ikki takbir aytishi shart bo'lishi haqida ixtilof qilganlar: ya'ni ihrom takbiri va ruku' takbiri ikkisini aytishi kerakmi yoki faqat ruku' takbiri uning uchun kifoya qiladimi? Agar u (ihrom takbiri o'rniga) hisobga olinsa, unga shart bo'ladimi, u shu takbir orqali ihrom takbirini ham niyat qilsinmi? Ba'zilari bitta takbir kifoya qiladi, agar unga ihrom takbirining niyatini qo'shsa, deganlar. Bu Molik va ash-Shofe'iyning fikri, lekin ularning nazarida afzal bo'lgani ikki takbirdir. Bir guruh faqihlar ikki takbir aytish zarur, deganlar. Yana bir guruh esa bitta takbir kifoya qiladi, hatto u orqali ihrom takbirini niyat qilmasa ham, deganlar.

There are three opinions on this issue. The first, which is held by the majority, is that if he can catch up with the imam before he raises his head from the ruk# and is able to bow with him, then, he has caught the rakfa and there is no qadd* for him. These jurists differed on whether it is a condition for This person joining in that he pronounce two takbirs., the initial takbir and one for the or is the takbir of the ruk& to be sufficient for him, and if it is deemed compensated, is it a condition for it that he intends through it the initial takbir also? Some of them said that a single takbir would be sufficient if he includes in it the intention of the initial takbir. This is the opinion of Malik and al-ShafiT but, the preference in their view is for two takbirs. A. group of jurists said that (pronouncing) two takbirs is necessary. Another group said that one is sufficient even if he does not intend the initial takbir through it.

Ikkinchi fikr shundan iboratki, agar imom rukuʻga engan bo‘lsa va shaxs imom bilan birga qiyomda turgandan keyin (rukuʻga) qo‘shilgan bo‘lsa, u bu rakʻatni yo‘qotgan bo‘ladi, aks holda uni idrok eta olmaydi. Bu fikr Abu Hurayraga nisbat beriladi. Uchinchi fikr shuki, agar kishi imom rukuʻdan boshini ko‘targan paytda oxirgi safga yetib kelsa, lekin safdagilarning ba’zilari hali rukuʻdan ko‘tarilmagan bo‘lsa va u ular bilan rukuʻga qo‘shilsa, u rakʻatni idrok etgan hisoblanadi, chunki ba’zilar boshqalarga imomlik qilmoqda. Bu fikrni al-Shofiʼiy qo‘llab-quvvatlagan. Bu ixtilofning sababi rakʻa atamasining ma’nosidagi noaniqlikdan kelib chiqadi: u faqat rukuʻ ma’nosida, yoki rukuʻ va qiyomning birgalikdagi ma’nosida qo‘llanilishi mumkin. Payg‘ambar ﷺ shunday degan: “Kim namozning bir rakʻatiga yetishsa, u namozga yetishgan bo‘ladi”. Ibn al-Mundhir bu hadisning Allohning Elchisi ﷺ dan sahih rivoyat qilinganini ta’kidlaydi. Rakʻa atamasi rukuʻ va qiyomni birga anglatadi deb hisoblaganlar, agar shaxs imom bilan qiyomni o‘tkazib yuborsa, u rakʻatni yo‘qotgan bo‘ladi, deydilar. Rakʻa atamasi rukuʻning o‘zini anglatadi deb hisoblaganlar esa rukuʻga yetishishni rakʻatga erishish deb bilganlar. Bu atamadagi ishtirok (ishtirokiylik, ya’ni noaniqlik) uning lug‘aviy va istilohiy ma’nolari orasida tebranishidadir: lug‘aviy ma’nosida u faqat rukuʻga nisbatan qo‘llaniladi, istilohiy ma’nosida esa qiyom, rukuʻ va sajdani o‘z ichiga oladi. Payg‘ambar ﷺ ning “Kim rakʻatga yetishsa” degan so‘zlaridagi rakʻa atamasini istilohiy ma’noda qo‘llaydiganlar va ism ko‘rsatgan narsalarning bir qismini qabul qilish fikriga amal qilmaganlar, shaxs imom bilan birga uchala amalni, ya’ni qiyom, rukuʻ va sajdani bajarishi shart, deb aytganlar. Ehtimol, ruku' bilan bog'liq fikrga moyil bo'lganlar bu atamaning asosiy ma'nosini hisobga olgandirlar: ruku'da ishtirok etgan kishi ikki qismni qo'lga kiritgan, ruku'ni o'tkazib yuborgan kishi esa faqat bir qismni ta'minlagan bo'ladi. Shu asosda ularning ixtilofi atama bilan ifodalangan ma'noning bir qismini qabul qilish yoki butun ma'noni qabul qilish masalasiga taalluqlidir. Ikkala qarashga nisbatan ham ixtilofni topish mumkin.

Imom rukuʼda unga ergashishni unutgan kishi haqida bir guruh faqihlar aytdiki: agar u imom bilan birga rukuʼni idrok etmagan bo'lsa, rakʼatni yo'qotgan bo'ladi va uni o'z salomidan oldin qazo sifatida ado etishi vojib bo'ladi. Boshqa bir guruh faqihlar aytdiki: agar imom keyingi rakʼatni boshlashidan oldin sajdalarni tugatishi mumkin bo'lsa, u rakʼatni ado etilgan deb hisoblashi mumkin. Uchinchi guruh faqihlar aytdiki: u imomga ergashishi kerak va imom ikkinchi rakʼatda rukudan keyin boshini ko'tarmagunicha, rakʼatni ado etilgan deb sanaydi. Bu ixtilof Molik izdoshlari orasida ham mavjud. Tafsilotlarda ham jiddiy bahs bor, shuningdek, o'tkazib yuborilgan narsa unutuvchanlik tufayli yuz berganmi yoki turtki (izdihom) tufayli yuz berganmi, bu jumʼa namozida yuz berganmi yoki boshqa namozda yuz berganmi, va bu holat ergashuvchiga birinchi rakʼatda yuz berganmi yoki boshqa rakʼatda yuz berganmi, degan masalalarda ham ular orasida ixtilof bor.

About the person forgetting to follow the imam in rukuc till the imam prostrates, a group of jurists said that if he has failed to observe the rukuz with him, he has lost the rak'a and it is obligatory for him to offer it as qada? (before his own salam). Another group of jurists said that he can count the rakfa (as performed) if it is possible for him to complete the fukuS before the imam has commenced the next rak'a. A third group of jurists said that he is to follow him and count the rakfa as performed as long as the imam has not raised his head after bowing in the second rak^a. This disagreement exists among the disciples of Malik, and there is considerable dispute over details, along with disagreements among them relating to whether what was missed occurred due to forgetfulness or due to jostling, and whether it happened in a jumu^a prayer or another, and whether this situation was faced by the follower in the first rakfa or in another rak'a.

Biz bu yerda fikrlarning tafsilotlarini bayon etish yoki ulardan hukm chiqarish maqsadida emas, balki faqat asosiy masalalarni va ularning (asosidagi) tamoyillarini ko'rsatish uchun shuni aytamiz:

Since our purpose is not to record the details of the opinions or to derive them, but only to indicate the fundamental issues and their (underlying) principles, we say the following:

Ихтилофнинг сабаби шундаки, иқтido қилувчининг ҳаракатлари имомнинг ҳаракатлари билан ҳамроҳ бўлиши (ёки унинг дарҳол ортидан келиши) шартми ва бу шарт рукъанинг уч таркибий қисми — қиёмда туриш, руку қилиш ва сажда қилишнинг барчасига тааллуқлими ёки уларнинг баъзисигагина тегишлими? Яна, агар унинг ҳаракати имомнинг ҳаракатидан дарҳол кейин келмаса, яъни у бир ҳаракатни бажараётган бўлса, имом эса кейинги ҳаракатни бажараётган бўлса, унинг ҳаракати қачон унга зид бўлади? Бир рукънинг ҳар бир таркибий ҳаракати учун шарт, яъни иқтido қилувчининг ҳаракати имомнинг худди шу ҳаракати билан бир вақтда бўлиши керак деганлар, акс ҳолда бу имомдан ажралиш бўлади, Пайғамбар ﷺ эса: «Имом фақат унга эргашилиши учун тайинланган, шунинг учун унга хилоф қилманглар», деганлар, дедилар. Улар айтдиларки, агар у имомга руку қилишда, гарчи бу рукунинг кичик бир қисмида бўлса ҳам, ҳамроҳ бўлмаса, бу ракъатни ўтказиб юборган бўлади. Рукунинг фақат бир қисмини эътиборга олганлар эса, агар имом кейинги ракъат учун қўзғалишидан олдин ракъатнинг бир қисмини бажарган бўлса, у ракъатни ушлаб олган бўлади ва бу унга хилоф қилиш ҳисобланмайди, дедилар. Агар имом иккинчи ракъатга кўтарилган бўлсаю, иқтido қилувчи унга (birinchi ракъат ҳаракатларида) эргашаётган бўлса, бу биринчи ракъат учун унга хилоф қилиш ҳисобланади. Имом кейинги ракъатда руку қилмагунича ҳаракатларни давом эттириш мумкин, дегənлар эса, иқтido қилувчи ҳаракатининг ҳар бир қисми ҳам, бутуни ҳам имомнинг ҳаракатининг ҳар бир қисми билан мос тушиши шарт эмас, балки шарт фақат унинг ундан кейин бажарилишидир, деган фикрда бўлганлар. Ular kelishib oldilar: agar imom ikkinchi rakatda rukudan turgan bo'lsa, u holda ergashuvchi o'sha rakatni bajarilgan deb hisoblamasligi kerak, agar u unda o'z amallarini davom ettirgan bo'lsa, chunki bunday amallarga birinchi rakatning hukmi beriladi, imom esa ikkinchi rakatning hukmiga bo'ysunadi va bu aniq ravishda unga xilof qilish hisoblanadi.

Namozning uch asosiy masalasidan ikkinchisi, ya'ni mazkur mavzuning asosi bo'lgan masala: iqtido qiluvchining imom namozidan o'tkazib yuborgan qismini ado etishi "ilhoq" (qo'shimcha qilish) hisoblanadimi yoki "qadd" (qazo, ya'ni avvalgi o'rnini to'ldirish) hisoblanadimi, degan masaladir. Bu masalada uch xil qarash mavjud.

The second of the three fundamental issues that act as principles of the topic is whether the performance by the follower of the part of the prayer he has missed, from the imam's prayer, amounts to add or qadd. There are three opinions on this issue.

Bir guruh faqihlar aytdiki, imomning salomidan keyin amal qiladigan qismi qazo (qadd) hisoblanadi, u imom bilan birga ado etgan qismi esa uning namozining birinchi qismi emas. Boshqa bir guruh aytdiki, imomning salomidan keyin amal qiladigan qismi ado (add) hisoblanadi, u imom bilan birga ado etgan qismi esa uning namozining birinchi qismidir. Uchinchi guruh esa so'z va amal o'rtasida farq qildi va aytdiki, u so'zlarni qazo sifatida ado etadi, ya'ni qiroatni, amallarni esa davom ettiradi, ya'ni ado sifatida. Shunday qilib, birinchi fikrga ko'ra, ya'ni kuchukni qazo deb hisoblaydigan fikrga ko'ra, shom namozining bir rak'atini topgan kishi imom salom bilan namozini tugatganda o'rnidan turadi va har ikki rak'atda Ummul Qur'on va yana bir sura o'qib, ikki rak'at namoz o'qiydi, ular orasida o'tirmaydi. Ikkinchi fikrga ko'ra, ya'ni davomiylikka asoslangan fikrga ko'ra, u bir rak'at uchun turadi, unda Ummul Qur'on va yana bir sura o'qiydi, so'ngra o'tiradi, keyin yana bir rak'at uchun turadi va unda faqat Ummul Qur'on o'qiydi. Uchinchi fikrga ko'ra, u bir rak'at uchun turadi, unda Ummul Qur'on va yana bir sura o'qiydi, so'ngra o'tiradi, keyin ikkinchi rak'at uchun turadi va unda ham Ummul Qur'on va yana bir sura o'qiydi.

A group of jurists said that the part he observes after the imam's salutation is qadd and what he has observed with the imam is not the first part of his prayer. Another group said that what he observes after the salutation of the imam is add and what he observed with the imam is the first part of his prayer. A third group made a distinction between words and acts and said that he performs the words as qaddy that is, the recitation, and continues on with the acts, meaning add thereby. Thus, according to the first opinion, the opinion which regards the missed part that the follower performs as qadd, the person who is able to catch one rak^a of the maghrib prayer will stand up when the imam ends his prayer with the salutation and offer two rak'as reciting the umm al-Qur'an and another sura in each one of them, without adopting the sitting posture in between the two. In accordance with the second opinion, that is based on continuation, he will stand up for one rak^a reciting in it the umm al-Qir'dn and another sura and then adopt the sitting posture, after which he will rise for another rak^a and recite in it only the umm al- QuPan. In accordance with the third opinion, he will stand up for a rak'a reciting in it the umm al-Qur'dn and another sura and then take the sitting posture, after which he will rise for the second rak*u also reciting in it the umm al-Qur>dn and another sura.

Бир гуруҳ фақиҳлар айтдиларки, агар у жумъа намозининг бир ракъатига улгурса, жумъа намозини ўқиган бўлади ва имом саломидан кейин иккинчи ракъатни ўқийди. Аммо агар бир ракъатдан кам улгурса, у тўрт ракъат зуҳр намози сифатида ўқийди. Бу Молик ва Шофиъийнинг фикридир. Бошқа бир гуруҳ фақиҳлар эса айтдиларки, у имом билан намознинг қанчасига улгурганидан қатъи назар, икки ракъатни тўлдириши керак. Бу Абу Ҳанифанинг фикридир. Бу масалада ихтилофнинг сабаби Пайғамбар ﷺнинг "Имом билан нима улгурсангиз, шуни ўқинглар, нима ўтказиб юборсангиз, уни тўлдиринглар" деган сўзларининг умумий маъносию, "Ким намоз ракъатига улгурса, у намозга улгурибди" деган сўзларининг маъноси ўртасидаги зиддият, яъни ихтилофдир. "Тўлдиринглар" сўзига таяниб иш тутганлар, эргашувчи икки ракъатга улгурмаган бўлса ҳам, икки ракъатни ўқишни вожиб қилдилар. "Ким ракъатга улгурса, у намозга улгурибди" деган сўзда яширин сўз бор, яъни у намознинг ҳукмига улгурибди, деган маънони англатадиган дейишганлар эса, бир ракъатдан кам улгурган киши намознинг ҳукмига улгурмаган, деган маънони матннинг ишораси (далолат ал-ҳитоб) билдиради, дедилар. Аммо бу матндаги яширин сўз бир неча эҳтимолга эга: у намознинг фазилатини, намознинг вақтини ёки намознинг ҳукмини англатиши мумкин. Бу маънолардан бири бошқасидан кўра аниқроқ эмаслиги ҳам мумкин. Агар шундай бўлса, у мужмал (маъноси очиқ бўлмаган) тоифасига киради, у ҳукм келтириб чиқармайди ва бошқа, умумий маънодаги матн афзал бўлади. Agar biz bu ma'nolardan birida, masalan, namozning hukmi haqida, buni shunday deb hisoblovchilarning fikriga ko'ra, aniq bo'lishini tan olsak, u holda bu aniq ma'no umumiy ma'noga (boshqa matndagi) zid kelmaydi, faqat u matnning ishorasi (dalolat al-xitob) toifasi sifatida qaralsa-chi; lekin umumiy ma'no matnning ishorasidan, ayniqsa bir necha ehtimollarga yoki aniq ma'noga asoslangan ishoradan kuchliroqdir, bu bir ovozdan tan olingan. Boshqa tomondan, "u namozni tutib oldi", degan Payg'ambar ﷺ so'zlari barcha yashirin ma'nolarni o'z ichiga oladi, deb da'vo qiluvchilarning fikri esa zaif bo'lib, arab tilidagi qo'llanishda ma'lum emas, faqat shunday urf yoki atamaviy ma'no mavjud deb hisoblanmasa.

A group of jurists said that if he is able to catch a rak'a of jumu^a then he has observed the jumu^a prayer, and he is to perform the second rak'a after the salutation of the imam, but. if he catches less than a rak^a he is to pray the four rak'as as zuhr. This is the opinion of Malik and al-ShafiT. Another group of jurists said that he is to complete two rakfas irrespective of what he has been able to catch of the prayer with the imam. This is Abu HanTfa’s opinion. The reason for disagreement in this matter stems from what is supposed to be a conflict between the general implication of the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “Pray what you are able to catch (behind the imam), and complete what you have missed”, and the meaning of his words, “He who has caught a raV-a of a prayer (behind the imam) has caught the prayer”. Those who decided on the basis of the words, “complete what you have missed”, made it obligatory that the follower pray two vak'as even if he has been able to catch (a little) less than two rak^as. Those for whom there is an implied word in the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “he has caught the prayer”, that is, he has caught the hukm of the prayer, said that the (indirect) indication of the text (dalil al- khiidb) implies that one who has caught less than one rak^a has not caught the hukm of the prayer. The implied word, however, in this text has multiple possibilities, for it is possible that it means the merit of the prayer, it is possible that it means the time of the prayer, and it is also possible that it means the hukm of the prayer. Perhaps the possible meaning in one of these is not more obvious than the other. If this is the case, then it belongs to the category of mujmal (unelaborated implication), which does not imply a hukm, and the other (text with a) general meaning becomes preferable. If, however, we concede that it is obvious in one of these implied meanings, for example, the hukm of the prayer in accordance with the opinion1 of those who hold this, then, this obvious meaning is not in conflict with the general meaning (in the other text), unless it is treated as a category of the indication of the text (rfa/f/ al-khitab), but the general meaning is stronger, unanimously, than the indication of the text, especially an indication based on several probabilities or on the obvious meaning. On the other hand, the opinion of those who maintain that the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “he has caught the prayer”, include all the implied meanings, is weak and unknown in Arab usage, unless it is maintained that there is such a customary or technical meaning.

Masbuq uchun imom bilan sajdalarda, ya'ni sahv sajdalarida ergashish masalasida bir guruh faqihlar asos qilib bir rak'atni belgiladilar, ya'ni u imom bilan kamida bir rak'atni topishi kerak. Boshqa bir guruh faqihlar esa buni e'tiborga olmadilar. Buni e'tiborga olmaganlar, Payg'ambar ﷺning "Imom ergashilishi uchun tayinlangan", degan so'zlarining umumiy ma'nosiga tayanib hukm chiqardilar. Rak'atni e'tiborga olganlar esa Payg'ambar ﷺning "U namozni topdi", degan so'zlarining ma'nosiga ko'ra hukm chiqardilar. Aynan shu sababli ular uchinchi kichik masalada ham ixtilof qildilar.

On the issue of the follower following the imam in prostrations, that is, the prostrations of forgetfulness, a group of jurists fixed one rak'a as the basis, that is, that he should catch at least a rak'a with the imam', another group of jurists did not take this into account. Those who did not take this into account decided on the basis of the general implication of the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “The imam has been appointed so that he be followed”. Those who took the rak'a into account decided according to the meaning of the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “He has caught the prayer”. It is for this reason that they also differed on the third sub-issue.

Bir guruh faqihlar shunday deganlar: agar musofir qishloqda (shaharda) turgan imomning namozidan bir rakatdan kam qismini ulgursa, qolgan namozni muqim kishining holatida turib ado etmaydi, lekin agar bir rakatni ulgursa, uni to'liq o'qish unga vojib bo'ladi.

A group of jurists said that if the traveller catches less than one rak'a of the prayer of the imam (who is) in a settlement he is not to complete the rest of the prayer as one having the status of the resident, but if he catches one rakfa completion is binding upon him.

Demak, imom namozni muqtadiydan oldin boshlagan bo'lsa, namozning bir qismi uchun qazo (qaddu) hukmi shunday bo'ladi.

This, then, is the hukm of qadd* for part of the prayer when the imam had started prayer before the follower.

Jurists agreed regarding the ruling on making up (qadā’) for a part of the prayer that is missed due to forgetfulness, whether of the imam or of the individual praying alone: whatever is an essential element (rukn) of the prayer, that is, an obligation, must be made up, and the prayer is not valid unless he performs it. However, there are issues on which they disagreed: some made making up obligatory in them, while others required repetition of the prayer. For example, a person who forgets to perform four prostrations in four rak‘ahs, omitting one prostration in each rak‘ah. One group of jurists said that he corrects the fourth by prostrating, considers the earlier rak‘ahs void, and then repeats them. This is Malik’s opinion. Another group said that the prayer as a whole is invalidated and repetition becomes binding upon him. This is one of the narrations from Ahmad. A third group said that he performs four consecutive prostrations and his prayer is complete. This was held by Abu Hanifa, al-Thawri, and al-Awza‘i. A fourth group said that the fourth is corrected with two prostrations. This is al-Shafi‘i’s opinion.

The jurists agreed with respect to the hukm of qadffi for part of the prayer that occurs because of the forgetfulness of the imam or of the individual (praying independently), that he is to observe as qadd> whatever is an essential element (rukn) of the prayer, that is, an obligation, and it is not valid for him unless he performs this (part). There are, however, issues in it over which they disagreed, with some making qada> (making up the missing parts) obligatory in them and the others imposing repetition, as in the case of the person who forgets to make four prostrations in four rakfasy missing one prostration in each rak'a. K group of jurists, thus, said that he rectifies the fourth by the prostrating and deems the earlier rak'as as nullified and then repeats them. This is Malik’s opinion. Another group of jurists said that the prayer is nullified as a whole and repetition becomes binding upon him. This is one of the narrations from Ahmad. A third group said that he performs four consecutive prostrations and his prayer stands completed. This was held by Abu HanTfa, al-Thawri, and al-Awza T. A fourth group said that c the fourth is rectified with two prostrations. This is al-ShafiTs opinion.

Shariat tomonidan belgilangan sajdalar ikki holatda qo'llaniladi: birinchidan, amallar yoki so'zlarda beixtiyor ortiqcha yoki kamchilik bo'lganda; ikkinchidan, namozning amallarida shubha bo'lganda. Shubha emas, balki unutuvchanlik natijasida bo'ladigan sajdalar haqidagi bahs oltita bo'limda yoritiladi. Birinchi bo'lim sajdalarning hukmini aniqlashga oid. Ikkinchisi ularning namozdagi o'rinlariga oid. Uchinchisi sajdalar qilinishiga sabab bo'lgan amallar va ularning turlarini aniqlashga oid. To'rtinchisi unutuvchanlik sajdalarining tavsifiga oid. Beshinchisi sajdalar vojib bo'ladigan shaxsni aniqlashga oid. Oltinchisi esa muqtadiy imomni o'z unutuvchanligidan xabardor qilish vositalariga oid.

The prostrations transmitted in the law apply in one of two cases: first, in unintended excess or deficiency of acts or words; and second, in the case of doubt in the acts of the prayer. In the case of the prostrations resulting from forgetfulness, and not from doubt, the discussion is covered in six sections. The first section is about the identification of the hukm of the prostrations. The second is about their occasions in the prayer. The third relates to the identification of the species of the acts and the acts themselves because of which the prostrations are made. The fourth is about the description of the prostrations of forgetfulness. The fifth is about the identification of the person for whom the prostrations are obligatory. The sixth is about the means with which the follower alerts the imam about his forgetfulness.

Ular sajdai sahv haqida ixtilof qilishdi: u vojibmi yoki sunnatmi? Imom ash-Shofi'iy uni sunnat deb hisobladi, Abu Hanifa esa uni vojib deb, lekin namozning sahih bo'lishi shartlaridan biri sifatida hisobladi. Imom Molik sajdai sahvni ikki turga ajratdi: so'zlarni unutish yoki ba'zi amallarni unutish natijasida qilinadigan sajdalar hamda ortiqcha yoki kamchilik tufayli qilinadigan sajdalar. U aytdiki, amallarning kamchiligi tufayli qilinadigan sajdai sahv vojib bo'lib, uning nazarida namozning sahih bo'lish shartlaridan biridir. Bu mashhur rivoyat. Undan yana rivoyat qilinadiki, kamchilik sababli qilinadigan sajdalar vojib, ortiqcha sababli qilinadigan sajdalar esa mustahabdir.

They disagreed about the prostrations of forgetfulness, whether they are an obligation or a sunna. Al-Shafi T held that c they are a sunna^ while Abu Harnfa held them to be an obligation, but as one of the conditions of the validity of prayer. Malik made a distinction between the prostrations of forgetfulness caused by forgetting words or forgetting some acts, and also those caused by an excess or a deficiency. He said that the prostrations of forgetfulness that are performed because of deficient acts are obligatory, and are, according to him, one of the conditions of the validity of prayer. This is the well-known report. It is also reported from him that prostrations on account of deficiency are obligatory and prostrations on account of excess are recommended.

Ularning ixtilofining sababi shu mavzuga oid Payg'ambar (Allohning salavoti va salomi unga bo'lsin) xatti-harakatlarini talqin qilishdagi tortishuvlaridan kelib chiqadi: ular farz yuklaydimi yoki mustahablik. Abu Hanifa Payg'ambarning (Allohning salavoti va salomi unga bo'lsin) xatti-harakatlarini farz deb talqin qildi, chunki uning nazarida asl qoida shunday, ular farz amalning batafsil bayoni sifatida yuz beradi. Payg'ambar (Allohning salavoti va salomi unga bo'lsin) shunday degan: "Meni namoz o'qiganimni ko'rganingizdek, siz ham namoz o'qing". Al-Shofe'iy esa uning xatti-harakatlarini mustahablik ma'nosida talqin qildi va qiyos asosida asl qoidaning ma'nosidan chetga chiqdi. U, ko'pchilik fikriga ko'ra, sajdalar farzning o'rnini bosmaydi, balki mustahab amalning o'rnini bosadi, deb hisobladi; shuning uchun farz bo'lmagan narsaning o'rnini bosuvchi narsa ham farz bo'la olmaydi. Molik uchun xatti-harakatlarga so'zlarga qaraganda ko'proq urg'u berilgan edi, chunki ular namozning tuzilmasini so'zlardan ko'ra ko'proq shakllantiradi; ya'ni amallarga bog'liq farzlar so'zlarga bog'liq farzlardan ko'pdir. Shunday qilib, go'yo u amallarga so'zlarga nisbatan kattaroq ahamiyat berar edi, garchi unutish sajdalari faqat farz bo'lmagan amallarning o'rnini bosadi. Uning kamchilik sababli qilinadigan sajdalar bilan ortiqchalik sababli qilinadigan sajdalar o'rtasidagi farqi ikkinchi rivoyatga ko'ra quyidagiga asoslanadi: kamchilik sababli sajdalar namoz amallaridan tushib qolganining o'rnini to'ldirish uchun belgilangan, ortiqchalik sababli sajdalar esa o'rnini bosuvchi emas, balki tavbaga o'xshaydi.

Ular sajdai sahvning (vaqti) haqida ixtilof qilishdi; bu borada besh xil fikr bor edi. Shofi'iylar sajdai sahv sababi har doim salomdan oldin bo'lishini aytdilar. Hanafiylar esa sajdai sahv sababi har doim salomdan keyin bo'lishini ta'kidladilar. Molikiylar farq qildilar: agar sajdalar kamchilik sababli bo'lsa, ularning sababi salomdan oldin bo'ladi, ammo agar ortiqcha qilingan narsa sababli bo'lsa, ularning sababi salomdan keyin bo'ladi. Ahmad ibn Hanbal dedi: Allohning Elchisi (ﷺ) salomdan oldin sajda qilgan hollarda sajdalar salomdan oldin qilinadi, Allohning Elchisi (ﷺ) salomdan keyin sajda qilgan hollarda esa sajdalar salomdan keyin qilinadi. Bu hollardan tashqari boshqa hollarda sajdalar har doim salomdan oldin bo'ladi. Zohiriylar esa dedilar: sajdalar faqat Allohning Elchisi (ﷺ) ularni qilgan besh holatdagina qilinadi. Bu holatlardan boshqa hollarda, agar tark etilgan narsa vojib bo'lsa, u kishi sajdalarni qilishi shart; agar u narsa mustahab bo'lsa, odam hech narsaga majbur emas.

They disagreed about (the time) when the prostration of forgetfulness is to be made; there were five opinions. The ShafFites held that the occasion for the prostrations of forgetfulness is always immediately before the salutation. The Hanafites maintained that the occasion for them is always after the salutation. The.Malikites made a distinction saying that if the prostrations are on account of a deficiency their occasion is before the salutation, but if they are on account of excess their occasion is after the salutation. Ahmad ibn Hanbal said that the prostrations are made before the salutation for the occasions on which the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) prostrated before the salutation and they are made after the salutation for occasions on which the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) prostrated after the salutation. Those that are besides these occasions for them the prostrations are always before the salutation. The Zahirites said that the prostrations are to be made only for the five occasions on which the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) made them. Besides these cases, if the omission was for something obligatory he has to make them, but if they are recommended the person is under no obligation.

Ularning ixtilofining sababi shundan iboratki, Payg‘ambar (ﷺ) ba’zan salomdan oldin, ba’zan esa salomdan keyin sajda qilganlari sobit bo‘lgan. Shunday qilib, Buhayna rivoyatidan sobit bo‘ladiki, u aytadi: “Allohning Elchisi (ﷺ) bizni ikki rakat namoz o‘qitdilar, so‘ng o‘rnidan turdilar, o‘tirish holatida qolmadilar, odamlar ham u zot bilan birga turdilar. Namozni tugatgach, o‘tirgan holda ikki sajda qildilar”. Zul-Yadayn rivoyatidan ham sobit bo‘ladiki, u oldin ikki rakatdan salom bergan edi, bu avval o‘tgan. Sahv sajdalarida qiyos qilishga ruxsat bergan kishilar, ya’ni Payg‘ambar (ﷺ) sajda qilgan holatlarga shunga o‘xshash holatlarda ham hukmni qo‘llash mumkin deb hisoblaganlar, bu sahih rivoyatlar asosida uch xil fikrda bo‘lganlar. Birinchisi tarjih usuliga, ikkinchisi jam’ (muvofiqlashtirish) usuliga, uchinchisi esa tarjih va asliy jam’ o‘rtasini muvofiqlashtirish usuliga asoslangan.

Sajda al-sahw ustalarining barchasi — prayda unutish tufayli yuz beradigan ortiqcha yoki kamchilik uchun bo'ladigan sajdalar — sajdalar namozning sunnatlari tufayli bo'lishiga, farzlar yoki mustahab amallar (raghib) tufayli emasligiga kelishdilar. Ularning fikricha, bu toifadagi (mustahab amallardan kam bo'lgan sunnatlar) amallarni tark etish uchun javobgarlik yo'q, ya'ni agar kishi namozda ulardan birini unutsa, bundan ortiq bo'lmasa. Masalan, Molik bitta takbirni unutish uchun sajda lozim emas, deydi, lekin bu toifadagi bir nechta amalni tark etish uchun sajda bor. Farzlarni tark etish bilan namoz sahih bo'lishi mumkin emas. Ular bajarilishi va amalga oshirilishi shart. Ularni unutishning oqibati — namozni butunlay qayta o'qish bo'lib, bu qayta o'qishga olib keladigan va qazoga olib keladigan narsalar haqidagi muhokamada oldin aytilgan, ya'ni kishi namozning tarkibiy qismlaridan birini tark etishi mumkin bo'lganidek.

The upholders of the prostrations of forgetfulness, whether for excess or deficiency that may occur in the prayer by way of forgetfulness, agreed that the prostrations are on account of (omission of) the sunan of the prayer and not the obligations nor on account of the desirable acts (ragh&ib) (lesser than sunan). There is no liability in their view for omission of this category, that is, if the person forgets one of them in prayer, unless they happen more than once. For example, Malik is of the view that there is no obligation for prostrations on account of forgetting a single takbir, but there is a prostration for leaving out more than one act of this category. There can be no validity with the omission of obligations. They are to be performed and undertaken. The consequence of forgetting them is the repetition of the prayer as a whole, as has preceded in the discussion of what leads to repetition and what leads to qadd>, I mean, like a person who may relinquish one of the constituent elements of prayer.

Ortiqcha qilingan amallar sababli unutish sajdalari esa farz va sunnatlardagi ortiqchalik tufayli vujudga keladi. Bu fikrda ulamolar o'rtasida ixtilof yo'q; ular faqat qaysi amallar farz, qaysilari emas, qaysilari sunnat, qaysilari emas, hamda qaysi amal sunnat va qaysi amal mustahab (raG'ibah) ekani borasidagi nizolariga asoslanib ixtilof qilishadi. Bunga qunut misol bo'la oladi. Molik nazdida qunutni tark qilgan kishi uchun sajda qilinmaydi, chunki uning nazarida qunut shunchaki mustahabdir (sunnatdan past darajada). Ash-Shofi'iy nazdida esa qunut sunnat bo'lgani uchun, o'sha kishi sajda qilishi kerak.

The prostrations of forgetfulness on account of an excess, on the other hand, occur due to an excess in the obligations as well as the sunan. In this statement, there is no dispute among them; they disagree only on the basis of their dispute as to what acts are obligations and what are not, what are sunan and what are not, and what is a sunna and what is a desirable act ( raghiba). An example of which is qunut. According to Malik the person is not to make prostrations for relinquishing qunut for it is merely desirable (miwtaW) (lesser than a sunna) in his view, but he is to make prostrations according to al- Shafi T as it is a sunna in his view.

Ular (fiqh olimlari) sajdai sahv tavsifi borasida ixtilof qilishgan. Molik nazarida, salomdan keyin bo‘ladigan ikki sajdai sahvning hukmi shuki, kishi tashahhudni o‘qib, salom beradi. Abu Hanifaning fikri ham shu edi, chunki uning nazarida sajdalar har bir holatda salomdan keyin bo‘ladi. Agar sajdalar salomdan oldin bo‘lsa, u faqat tashahhud o‘qiydi, namozning salomi esa sajdalar uchun ham salom hisoblanadi. Bu al-Shofe’iyning fikri edi, chunki uning nazarida bunday sajdalar doim salomdan oldin bo‘ladi. Molikdan rivoyat qilinishicha, salomdan oldingi sajdalarda tashahhud o‘qilmaydi. Bu fikr fiqh olimlarining bir guruhiga ham xos edi. Abu Umar aytadi: salomdan keyin bo‘ladigan sajdalardan so‘ng salom Payg‘ambardan (ﷺ) sobit bo‘lgan. Tashahhudga kelsak, men uni ishonchli rivoyatda topa olmadim.

They (the jurists) disagreed about the description of the prostrations of forgetfulness. Malik was of the view that the hukm of the two prostrations of forgetfulness when they are after the salutation is that the person should recite the tashahhud and offer the salutation. This was Abu HanTfa’s opinion also as the prostrations in his view are after the salutation in each case. If the prostrations are before the salutation then he should recite the tashahhud alone, and the salutation of the prayer is the salutation for the prostrations. This was al-ShafiTs opinion as such prostrations are always before the salutation in his view. It is also related from Malik that he is not to recite tashahhud in the. case of those that are before the salutation. This was also the opinion of a group of jurists. Abu TJmar has said that the salutation after those that follow (come after) the salutation (of the prayer) is established from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), as for the tashahhud, 1 cannot trace it in an authentic narration.

Bu ixtilofning sababi ular o'rtasidagi ikki masalaga oid kelishmovchilikdir: Ibn Mas'udning rivoyatida Payg'ambar (ﷺ) "Tashahhudni o'qib, so'ng salom bering", deganligi haqidagi xabarning sahihligi, hamda unutish sajdalari bilan namozning oxirgi ikki sajdasi o'rtasidagi o'xshashlik. Ikkalasini o'zaro qiyoslaganlar, ayniqsa ikkalasi ham bir namozning ichida bo'lganda, tashahhudni vojib qilmaganlar. Abu Bakr ibn al-Mundhir aytadi: fiqhshunoslar bu masalada ixtilof qilganlar va ularning olti xil qarashi bo'lgan. Birinchi guruh, ularda na tashahhud bor, na salom, deydi. Bu Anas ibn Molik, al-Hasan va Ato'ning qarashidir. Ikkinchi guruh buning aksini aytadi: ularda ham tashahhud, ham salom bor. Uchinchi guruh, tashahhud bor, lekin salom yo'q, deydi. Bu al-Hakam, Hammod va an-Nakha'iyning qarashidir. To'rtinchi guruh buning aksini aytadi: ularda salom bor, lekin tashahhud yo'q. Bu Ibn Sirinning qarashidir. Beshinchi qarash shundaki, bu namozxonning ixtiyorida: xohlasa tashahhud o'qib, salom beradi, lekin buni qilishga majbur emas. Bu Ato'dan rivoyat qilinadi. Oltinchi qarash Ahmad ibn Hanbalning qarashidir: agar kishi salomdan keyin sajda qilayotgan bo'lsa, tashahhud o'qiydi, agar salomdan oldin sajda qilayotgan bo'lsa, tashahhud o'qimaydi. Bu biz Molikdan rivoyat qilgan qarashdir. Abu Bakr aytadiki, Payg'ambardan (ﷺ) to'rt marta takbir aytib, so'ng salom berganlari sobit bo'lgan, ammo tashahhud o'qiganlari haqidagi isbot tekshirishni talab qiladi.

Ular yakka namoz o'qiydigan kishi uchun ham, imom uchun ham unutish sajdalarini qilish sunnat ekaniga kelishib olganlar. Imom ortida namoz o'qiyotgan mo'min unutib qo'ysa, unga ham sajda qilish vojibmi yoki yo'qmi, bu masalada ixtilof qilganlar. Ko'pchilik imom ergashuvchi uchun unutgan narsasining javobgarligini o'z zimmasiga olishini aytgan. Makhul esa, o'zining unutishi uchun sajdalarni vojib deb, bu borada bid'atli fikr bildirgan.

They agreed that performing the prostrations of forgetfulness is a sunna for the single worshipper as well as the imam. They disagreed about the follower who forgets while praying behind the imam whether he is he under an obligation to make the prostrations. The majority maintained that the imam bears the responsibility for forgetfulness on behalf of the follower, but Makhul made a deviant statement making the prostrations binding for his own forgetfulness.

Ularning ixtilofining sababi imom ergashuvchi uchun namozning qaysi tarkibiy qismlarini o'z zimmasiga olishi masalasidagi tortishuvdan kelib chiqadi. Ular kelishib olgan narsa shuki, agar imom biror narsani unutsa, ergashuvchi uning unutish sajdalarida unga ergashadi, hatto u unutilgan narsadan keyin imomga qo'shilgan bo'lsa ham. Ergashuvchi imom bilan namozning bir qismini o'tkazib yuborgan bo'lsa, sajdani qachon qilishi va sajdani kim qilishi kerakligi haqida ular ixtilof qilishgan. Bir guruh fuqaholar aytdi: u imom bilan birga sajda qiladi, so'ngra o'tkazib yuborgan qismini ado etish uchun turadi, imom salomdan oldin yoki keyin sajda qilganidan qat'i nazar. Bu fikrni Ata, al-Hasan, an-Nakha'iy, ash-Sha'bi, Ahmad, Abu Savr va ra'y (mulohaza) tarafdorlari qo'llab-quvvatlagan. Yana bir guruh fuqaholar aytdi: u o'z namozini tugatadi va so'ngra sajda qiladi. Bu fikrni Ibn Sirin va Ishoq tutgan. Uchinchi guruh fuqaholar aytdi: agar imom salomdan oldin sajda qilsa, u imom bilan birga sajda qiladi, ammo agar imom salomdan keyin sajda qilsa, u o'z namozini tugatadi va so'ngra sajda qiladi. Bu fikrni Molik, al-Layth va ash-Shofi'iy qo'llab-quvvatlagan. To'rtinchi guruh fuqaholar aytdi: u avval imom bilan birga sajda qiladi, so'ngra namozini tugatgach, ularni ikkinchi marta qiladi. Bu fikrni ash-Shofi'iy tutgan.

The reason for their disagreement arises from their dispute over wha constituent elements of prayer the imam bears on behalf of the follower. The; agreed that if the imam forgets something the follower follows him in hi prostrations of forgetfulness, even if he joined him after his forgetfulnes’ They disagreed as to when the follower is to prostrate if he has missed part of the prayer with the imam, who has to make the prostrations. A group of jurists said that he makes the prostrations with the imam and then stands up to perform the part he had missed, whether the imam performed his prostrations before or after the salutation. This was upheld by cAt5\ al-Hasan, al-. Nakha T, c al-ShaHn, Ahmad, Abu Thawr, and the upholders of ra*y (opinion). Another group of jurists said that he is to complete his prayer and then prostrate. This was held by Ibn Sirin and Ishaq. A third group of jurists said that if the imam makes the prostrations before the salutation, he should prostrate with him, but if the imam makes the prostrations after salutation he is to complete his own prayer and then make the prostrations. This was upheld by Malik, al-Layth, and al-Shafi T. The c fourth group of jurists said that he is first to make the prostrations with the imam and then to make them a second time after completing his prayer. This was held by al-Shafi€i.

Ular namozda unutgan kishini ogohlantirish yo‘li tasbih aytish, ya’ni "Subhanallah" deyish ekanligiga kelishib olishgan. Biroq bu erkaklar uchun, chunki Payg‘ambar ﷺ dan rivoyat qilingan: "Nega men sizlarni tez-tez qo‘l chapak chalayotganingizni ko‘raman? Kimning namozida biror narsa uni band qilsa, u Allohni poklash (tasbih) bilan shug‘ullansin, chunki u tasbih aytganda e’tiborni o‘ziga jalb qiladi. Qo‘l chapak chalish esa ayollar uchundir".

They agreed that the way to alert a person who forgets in his prayer is to pronounce tasbih (saying subhdna Allah). This, however, is for men because of what is established from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) that he said, “Why is it that I see you clapping hands (tasjiq) frequently. One , who is afflicted by something in his prayer should engage in the glorification of Allah (tasbih), for when he utters the tasbih, he will attract attention. And lapping hands is for women”.

Ular ayollar masalasida ixtilof qilishgan. Molik va bir guruh faqihlar tasbih erkaklar uchun ham, ayollar uchun ham deyishgan. Ash-Shofi'iy va bir guruh faqihlar esa tasbih erkaklar uchun, tasfiq (o'ng qo'lning kaftini chap qo'lning orqa tomoniga urish) ayollar uchun deyishgan.

! They disagreed in the case of women. Malik and a group of jurists said that tasbih is both for meh and women. Al-Shafi T and a group of jurists c said that tasbih is for men, while tasfiq (striking the back of the left hand with the palm of the right) is for women.

Ularning ixtilofining sababi Payg‘ambar (Allohning rahmati va salomi unga bo‘lsin) ning “tasfiq ayollar uchundir” degan so‘zlarining ma’nosi ustidagi bahslaridan kelib chiqadi. Bu so‘zlarning ma’nosi tasfiq ayollar uchun unutish holatidagi hukm, ya’ni zohiriy ma’no bo‘lsin, deb hisoblaganlar: ayollar tasbih emas, balki tasfiq qilishlari kerak, dedilar. Bundan tasfiqning darajasi pastligini tushungan kishilar esa erkaklar va ayollar tasbihda teng, dedilar. Ammo bu qarashda biroz zaiflik bor, chunki bu dalilsiz zohiriy ma’nodan chetga chiqishdir, agar ayollarni erkaklar bilan qiyoslash qilinmasa. Ayollar uchun hukm namozda ko‘pincha erkaklarnikidan farq qiladi, bu esa qiyoslashni zaiflashtiradi.

The reason for their disagreement arises from their dispute over the implication of the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “tasfiq is for women”. Those who held that the meaning of these words is that tasfiq is the hukm for women in case of forgetfulness, which is the apparent meaning, said that the women are to engage in tasfiq and not in tasbih. Those who comprehended a derogation of tasfiq from this said that men and women are equal in terms of tasbih, but there is some weakness in this view because it amounts to a departure from the apparent meaning without an evidence, unless an analogy with the case of men is drawn for women. The hukm for women is often different from that of men in the case of prayer, a fact which weakens the analogy.