Niyat masalasi turli jihatlardan muhokama qilinadi. Bularga quyidagilar kiradi: u ushbu ibodatning to‘g‘riligi uchun shartmi, agar shart bo‘lsa, qanday niyat to‘g‘ri hisoblanadi? Yana, Ramazonning har kuni niyatni yangilash vojibmi yoki birinchi kuni bildirilgan niyat yetarlimi? Agar inson niyat qilsa, ro‘zani to‘g‘ri qiladigan niyat vaqti qaysi, shunday qilib, agar u shu vaqtda bildirilmasa, ro‘za buziladimi? Niyat qilinmasligi ro‘zani buzishni taqozo qiladimi, va agar inson ro‘zani buzmasa-chi? Fuqaholar bu savollarning har biri bo‘yicha turlicha fikr bildirganlar.
Ko‘pchilik fuqaholarning fikricha, niyat ro‘zaning to‘g‘riligi uchun shartdir. Ammo Zufar bu fikrdan chetga chiqib, Ramazon oyida niyat talab qilinmaydi, deb aytgan. Faqat shaxs safar kabi ro‘zadan ozod bo‘lish sababiga ega bo‘lib, shunga qaramay ro‘za tutishni xohlasa, bundan mustasno.
Ularning ixtilofining sababi ro‘zaning tabiati haqidagi qarashlarida: u ma’noli ibodatmi yoki undan boshqacha ma’no bormi? Ro‘za aqliy ma’noga ega bo‘lmagan ibodat, deb hisoblaganlar niyatni vojib qilganlar, ro‘za aqliy maqsadga ega ibodat, deb hisoblaganlar esa, shaxs niyat qilmasa ham, maqsad hosil bo‘ladi, deganlar. Zufarning bu fikrini faqat ba’zi turdagi ro‘zalar bilan cheklashi ba’zi zaif tomonlarga ega. Ko‘rinadiki, u o‘z fikrini Ramazon kunlarida ro‘zani tark etish joiz emasligi va bu kunlarda tutilgan har qanday ro‘za shu farz ro‘zaning o‘rnini bosishi, bu esa aynan shu kunlarga xos narsa, degan asosga tayangan.
The discussion of intention is undertaken from different aspects. These include whether it is a condition for the validity of this worship, and if it is a condition, then, what kind of determination is considered valid? Further, whether its renewal every day of Ramadan is obligatory or is the intention expressed on the first day sufficient? If the subject makes the resolve, what is the time of this resolve that makes the fast valid, so that if it is not expressed at such time it is nullified? Does failure to form the intention necessitate breaking the fast, and what if the person does not break the fast? The jurists differed on each of these questions.The opinion of the majority of the jurists is that intention is a condition for the validity of the fast, but Zufar deviated and said that the month of Ramadan does not require intention, unless .the person happens to have reason to be relieved from the obligation of fasting, such as being on a journey, but wishes to fast. The reason for their disagreement stems from their notion about the nature of fasting whether it is a worship having a rational meaning or it has no such meaning. Those who maintained that it is a worship having no rational purpose made intention obligatory, while those who maintained that it is a worship with rational purpose said that the purpose is attained even if the person does not form an intention. The confining of this reasoning by Zufar to only some kinds of fasting presents some weakness. It appears that he formed his opinion on the grounds that it is not permitted to cease fasting during the days of Ramadan and that any fast kept during these days of the month fulfils this form of prescribed fasting, and this is something specific to these days.
Ularning ro‘zaning turini niyatda aniqlash to‘g‘risidagi ixtilofi bo‘yicha Molik aytdi: Ramazon ro‘zasini niyatda aniq belgilash zarur, Ramazonda faqat umumiy ro‘za tutish niyati ham, boshqa ro‘za turini niyat qilish ham yetarli emas. Abu Hanifa esa unga teskari fikrda bo‘lib, agar kishi mutlaq (cheklanmagan) niyat qilsa yoki Ramazon ro‘zasidan boshqa ro‘zani niyat qilsa, bu niyat to‘g‘ri bo‘ladi va ro‘za Ramazon ro‘zasiga aylanadi. Faqat musofir bundan mustasno, chunki uning fikricha, safarda bo‘lgan kishi Ramazonda Ramazon ro‘zasidan boshqa ro‘zalarni niyat qilsa, uning niyati niyat qilingan ro‘zaga tegishli bo‘ladi. Sababi shundaki, safarda bo‘lgan kishi Ramazon ro‘zasini tutishga majbur emas. Uning ikki mashhur shogirdi esa safarda bo‘lgan va muqim kishi o‘rtasida farq qilmagan. Ular aytdilar: Ramazonda niyat qilingan har bir ro‘za Ramazon ro‘zasiga aylanadi.
With respect to their dispute over the specification of the kind of fasts through the formulation of a valid intention, Malik said that it is necessary to identify the fast of Ramadan in the intention, and it is not sufficient in Ramadan to have a general intention to fast, nor an intention specifying another fast. Abu HanTfa (held the opposite view, and) said that if the person forms an absolute (unqualified) intention, or an intention specifying another fast other than the fast of Ramadan it is valid and the fast turns into a fast of Ramadan. This is so, unless the person is on a Journey for, in his view, if the traveller during Ramadan makes an intention for fasts other than the fast of Ramadan his intention will apply to the intended fast. The reason is that while travelling he is not under an obligation to observe the fast of Ramadan. His two (renowned) disciples did not distinguish between one travelling and the resident. They said that each fast intended during Ramadan is converted into a fast of Ramadan.
Ularning ixtilofining sababi shundaki, Ramazon ro'zalari uchun ro'za turini umumiy ravishda belgilash kifoyami yoki uni aniq ko'rsatish shartmi, degan masalaga bog'liqdir. Shariatda niyatning ikki shakli ham mavjud. Umumiy niyatga misol qilib tahorat niyatini keltirish mumkin: unda nopoklikdan poklanishni niyat qilish kifoya qiladi. Shunda bandа tahorat bilan bog'liq bo'lgan har qanday ibodatni (namoz, tavof, Qur'on nusxasini ko'tarish va boshqalar) ado etishi mumkin. Demak, tahorat bitta turdagi ibodatga xos emas. Bu namoz niyatidan farq qiladi, chunki unda qilinadigan aniq namozni ko'rsatish shart: agar bu vitr bo'lsa, vitrni, agar peshin bo'lsa, peshinni niyat qilish zarur. Bularning barchasi fiqh olimlariga yaxshi ma'lum.
Shu jihatdan olimlarning nazarida ro'za ushbu ikki umumiy qoida o'rtasida tebranadi. Ro'zani birinchi turkumga bog'laganlar, faqat ro'za qilishni niyat qilish kifoya, deydilar. Ikkinchi turkumga bog'laganlar esa ro'zani aniq belgilashni shart qilib qo'yadilar.
The reason for their disagreement stems from the dispute as to whether it is sufficient for the fasts of Ramadan that the category of fasting be identified generally or that it has to be specified. Both forms (of intention) exist in the law. An example of the general intention is the intention of ablution in which it is sufficient to intend the removal of impurities. The worshipper may then perform any kind of worship whose validity depends on ablution (prayers, tawdfy carrying a copy of the QuPan, etc.). Thus, ablution is not specific to one kind of worship. This is different from the intention for prayer, in which it is necessary to specify the particular prayer that is about to be performed. It is, therefore, necessary to specify the prayer as W, if it is W, and zuhr if it is zuhr. All this is well-known to the jurists. Fasting, therefore, vacillates between these two general rules in the view of these jurists. Those who associated it to one genus said that it is sufficient to make a resolve for fasting alone. Those who associated it with the second genus stipulated the specification of the fast.
Ular yana bir masalada ham ixtilof qilishgan: agar kishi Ramazon kunlarida boshqa turdagi ro'za uchun niyat qilsa, bu Ramazon ro'zasiga aylanadimi yoki yo'qmi. Buning sababi shuki, ba'zi ibodat turlari o'zlari sodir bo'ladigan vaqt aynan ularga aylantirilayotgan ibodat uchun belgilangan bo'lgani sababli aylantiriladi. Ba'zi ibodat turlari esa aylantirilmaydi, bu hukm ibodatlarning aksariyatiga taalluqlidir. Lekin aylantiriladigan ibodatlarga hajj kiradi, bu borasida ittifoq bor. Ular aytdilarki, hajj farz bo'lgan kishi hajj mavsumida uni nafl ibodat sifatida boshlasa, nafl ibodat farzga aylanadi. Ular bunday hukmni namoz yoki boshqa ibodatlar uchun aytmaganlar. Ro'zani hajjga o'xshatganlar uni aylanadi deyishgan, boshqa turlarga o'xshatganlar esa aylanmaydi deyishgan.
They also disagree over the issue that if he makes an intention, during the days of Ramadan, for another kind of fast whether this is converted (to the fast of Ramadan). The reason for this is that some kinds of worship are converted due to the fact that the time in which it occurs is specific for the worship to which they are converted. There are some kinds of worship that are not converted, and this applies to most forms of worship. Those, however, that are converted include hajj, by agreement. They said that if a person on whom hajj is obligatory commences it as a voluntary form of worship during the hajj season, the voluntary form is converted to the obligatory form. They did not say this for prayer or other forms of worship. Those who held fasting to be similar to hajj said that it is converted, while those who held it to be similar to other forms said that it is not.
Ixtilof qilinganda niyat qilish vaqtiga kelsak, Molik aytdiki, ro'za faqat tong otishidan oldin qilingan niyat bilan to'g'ri bo'ladi, va bu barcha turdagi ro'zalarga taalluqlidir. Ash-Shofi'iy aytdiki, tong otganidan keyin qilingan niyat nafl ro'zada to'g'ri bo'ladi, lekin farz ro'zalarda to'g'ri bo'lmaydi. Abu Hanifa esa aytdiki, tong otganidan keyin qilingan niyat vaqti aniq belgilangan barcha turdagi ro'zalar uchun yetarlidir, masalan Ramazon ro'zalari, nazrdan keyin ma'lum kunlar yoki sanalarga bog'langan ro'zalar, shuningdek nafl ro'zalar. Ammo zimmada turgan qazo ro'zalar uchun bu yetarli emas.
In their disagreement over the time of forming the intention, Malik said that fasting is not valid except by an intention formed before the break of the dawn, and this applies to all kinds of fasting. Al-ShaficT said that intention formed after dawn is valid in supererogatory fasting, but it is not in obligatory fasts. Abu Hamfa held that intention formed after dawn is sufficient for all kinds of fasting whose obligation is linked to a particular time, like those of Ramadan, those linked to specific days or dates after a vow, and also those that are supererogatory, but it is not for the fasts that exist as a liability.
Ularning ixtilofining sababi bu masalada rivoyatlarning o‘zaro ziddiyatidan kelib chiqadi. Ulardan birinchisi al-Buxoriy Hafsadan rivoyat qilgan hadis bo‘lib, unda Payg‘ambar ﷺ shunday degan: "Kechasi ro‘za niyatini qilmagan kishining ro‘zasi yo‘q". Bu rivoyat Molik tomonidan mavquf shaklda ham naql qilingan. Abu Umar esa Hafsa rivoyatining isnodida ba’zi nomuvofiqliklar borligini aytgan.
Ikkinchisi Muslim Oisha roziyallohu anhodan rivoyat qilgan hadis bo‘lib, u shunday deydi: "Allohning Elchisi ﷺ bir kuni menga dedilar: «Oisha, yeyishga biror narsang bormi?» Men: «Ey Allohning Elchisi, bizda hech narsa yo‘q», dedim. Shunda u zot: «Unda men ro‘zadorman», dedilar".
Muoviya rivoyatida esa u minbarda turib shunday degan: "Ey Madina ahli, olimlaringiz qayerda? Men Allohning Elchisi ﷺ ning: «Bugun Oshuro kuni, uning ro‘zasi bizga farz qilinmagan. Men ro‘zadorman, xohlagan kishi ro‘za tutsin, xohlagan kishi yeyishda davom etsin», deganlarini eshitganman".
The reason for their disagreement arises from the conflict of traditions on the issue. The first of these traditions is the one recorded by al-Bukhari from Hafsa that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “One who does not form the intention to fast during the night has no fast”. It has also been related as mawqufby Malik. Abu TJmar said that there is some discrepancy in the isndd of Hafsa’s tradition. The second is recorded by Muslim from cA>isha, who said, “The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said to me one day, ^A’isha, do you have something (to eat)?’ I said, ‘O Messenger ; of Allah, we have nothing’. He said, ‘Then I am fasting’ ”, In the tradition of Mu<awiya, he said on the pulpit, “O people of Medina, where are your learned men? I heard the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) saying, ‘Today it is the day of cAshura’ and its fast has not been prescribed for us. I am fasting, so those of you who wish to fast may do so and those who like may continue to eat’”.
Tarjih usulini qabul qilganlar Hafsa rivoyatiga tayandilar, tavfiq usulini qabul qilganlar esa nafl ro‘za bilan farz ro‘zani farqladilar, ya’ni Hafsa rivoyatini farz ro‘zalarga, Oisha va Muoviya rivoyatlarini nafl ro‘zalarga oid deb tushundilar. Abu Hanifa umumiy majburiyat bilan zimmadagi majburiyatni farqladi: umumiy majburiyat uchun belgilangan vaqt bor bo‘lib, u niyat o‘rnini bosadi va ro‘zani aniqlaydi, zimmadagi majburiyat esa belgilangan vaqtga ega emas. Shuning uchun u niyat bilan aniqlanishini vojib qildi.
Those who adopted the method of preference relied on Hafsa’s tradition, while those who adopted the method of reconciliation distinguished between supererogatory and obligatory fasting, that is, they construed the tradition1 of Hafsa as implying obligatory fasts and the traditions of cA*isha and MuSawiya as implying supererogatory fasts. Abu HanTfa made a distinction between universal obligation and an obligation that is a liability, as the universal obligation has a determined time that takes the place of intention for specification, while the fast that is a liability has no fixed time;, th us, he made it obligatory that it be specified with an intention.
Jumhur fuqaha shunga ko‘ra, roza to‘g‘ri bo‘lishi uchun junubdan xoli bo‘lish shart emas. Buning dalili Payg‘ambarimizning (ﷺ) ikki xotini — Oisha va Ummu Salama (roziyallohu anhuma) — rivoyat qilgan hadisdir: “Allohning Elchisi (ﷺ) Ramazon oyida tong vaqtida, jinsiy aloqadan kelib chiqqan katta hadas holatida, ihtilom bo‘lmagan holda uyg‘onar edi, so‘ngra roza tutardi”. Buning yana bir dalili shuki, kunduz vaqti ihtilom bo‘lish roza buzilishiga sabab bo‘lmaydi. Ibrohim an-Nakha‘iy, Urva ibn Zubayr va Tovus esa, agar kishi ataylab (maniy chiqarish uchun) shunday qilsa, rozasi buziladi, deb rivoyat qilingan.
The majority of the jurists maintain that freedom from janaba is not a condition for the validity of the fast, because of what is established from the traditions of cA’isha and Umm Salama, the two. wives of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), who said, “The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) used to arise in the morning during Ramadan in a state of major impurity from sexual intercourse, not a wet dream, and then kept the fast”. An evidence for this is that a wet dream during the day does not invalidate the fast. It is, however, related from Ibrahim al- NakhaT, TJrwa ibn Zubayr, and Tawus that if the person does this intentionally (induces ejaculation) the fast is invalidated.
Ixtilofning sababi Abu Hurayra rivoyat qilgan hadisdan kelib chiqadi; u shunday derdi: "Ramazon kunlarida junub holatda tong otgan kishi ro'zasini buzgan bo'ladi". Molik rivoyat qilishicha, hayzli ayol tong otishidan oldin pok bo'lib, lekin g'uslni kechiktirsa, o'sha kuni ro'za tutmasligi kerak. Bu faqihlarning fikrlari g'ayrioddiy bo'lib, mashhur va sobit sunnatlar tomonidan rad etilgan.
The reason for their disagreement comes from what is related from Abu Hurayra, who used to say, “One who arises in the morning during Ramadan in a state of major impurity has broken his fast”. Malik has related that a menstruating woman who reaches the period of purity before dawn, but delays bathing is not to fast on that day. The opinions of these jurists are deviant and rejected by the well-known and-established sunan.