Ushbu bob ro'zani buzish (ro'za tutmaslik) va uning ahkomlari haqida bahs yuritadi. Shariat nuqtai nazaridan ro'zani buzishi yoki ro'za tutmasligi mumkin bo'lganlar uch turga bo'linadi: ro'za tutish yoki tutmaslik ijmo bilan ruxsat etilgan toifa; ro'za tutmaslik vojib bo'lgan toifa, unga bog'liq musulmon faqihlari o'rtasidagi ixtilof bilan birga; va ro'za tutmaslik harom bo'lgan toifa. Ularning har biri uchun tegishli ahkomlar mavjud.

This chapter discusses breaking the fast (and not fasting) and its ahkam. Those who may break the fast (or not fast) are, in the law, of three kinds: a category in which it is permitted, by consensus, to fast or not to fast; a category in which it is obligatory not to fast, along with the accompanying disagreement among Muslim jurists; and a category in which it is forbidden not to fast. For each of these there are related ahkam.

Ikkala narsa ham ruxsat etilgan kishilar: kasal odam — ittifoq bilan, musofir — ixtilof bilan, homilador ayol, emizuvchi ayol va keksa odam. Bu taqsimot to‘liq holda kelishilgan, faqat musofir bundan mustasno, chunki uning masalasi turli jihatlardan tekshiriladi. Bularga quyidagilar kiradi: agar u ro‘za tutsa, uning ro‘zasi sahih hisoblanadimi? Agar sahih bo‘lsa, musofir uchun ro‘za tutish yaxshiroqmi yoki ro‘za tutmaslik, yoki u ikkisi o‘rtasida tanlash huquqiga egami? Musofirga ro‘zani buzish cheklangan turdagi safar uchun ruxsat etilganmi yoki urf-odatda “safar” deb ataladigan har qanday safar uchunmi? Musofir qachon ro‘zani tark etishi mumkin? U qachon (qayta) ro‘za tutishni boshlaydi? Agar u Ramazonda safarga chiqsa, oyning bir qismi o‘tgach ro‘zani buzish huquqiga egami? Nihoyat, agar u ro‘za tutmasa, uning hukmi qanday? Kasal odam masalasida esa, uni ro‘za tutmaslikka haqli qiladigan kasallikni aniqlash, shuningdek ro‘za tutmagan holatidagi hukm muhokama qilinadi:

Those to whom both things are permitted are the the sick person, by agreement, the traveller, with disagreement, the pregnant woman, the wet- nurse, and the old person. This division is agreed upon in its entirety, except the traveller whose problem is examined from various aspects. These include the point: that if he fasts, whether his fast is considered to be valid. If it is valid, whether it is better for the traveller to fast or not to fast, or whether he has a choice between the two. Whether breaking the fast is permitted to him for a limited type of journey or for any journey to which the term “journey” is applied in usage. When may the traveller stop fasting? When does he begin fasting (again)? If he initiates a journey during Ramadan, does he have the right to break the fast after the passage of a portion of the month? Finally, if he does not fast, what is the hukm for him? The case of the sick person involves the discussion of the identification of the sickness which entitles him not to fast, and also the hukm while not fasting:

Bu kasal va musofir kishining ro'za tutsa, uning ro'zasi farz ro'za sifatida to'g'ri va joiz bo'ladimi, degan masala bilan bog'liq. Fuqaholar bu borada ixtilof qilganlar. Ko'pchilik fuqaholar, agar ular ro'za tutsalar, ularning ro'zasi to'g'ri va sahih bo'ladi, deb hisoblaydilar. Zohiriylar esa ularning ro'zalari sahih emas, deydilar va ularning burchi Ramazondan boshqa kunlarda qazo qilishdir, deb aytadilar.

This relates to the question of the sick person and the traveller if they fast, whether their fast is considered valid as an obligatory fast. The jurists disagreed over this. The majority maintain that if they fast their fast is in order and valid. The Zahirites maintain that their fasts are not valid and their obligation is to perform qada> on other days (not in Ramadan).

Ixtilofning sababi Yuce Allohning so'zlari ustidagi talqinga bog'liq: "Sizlardan kim kasal yoki safarda bo'lsa, (o'sha holda) boshqa kunlar sonicha (ro'za tutsin)". Ushbu so'zlar o'zicha, hech qanday yashirin so'z nazarda tutilmasdan o'qilsinmi, yoki majoziy ma'noda qabul qilinib, ularga yashirin so'z qo'shilib o'qilsinmi, ya'ni: "va u ro'za tutmasa, (o'sha holda) boshqa kunlar sonicha (ro'za tutsin)" deb o'qilsinmi, shunga oid ixtilof. Nutqda bunday so'z tushib qolishi tilshunoslar orasida "lahn al-xitob" (arab nutqi uslubi) nomi bilan ma'lum. Oyatni o'zicha, majoziy ma'noga o'tkazmasdan o'qiganlar, yo'lovchining zimmasidagi vazifa "boshqa kunlar soni" ekanini aytdilar, chunki Yuce Allohning "boshqa kunlar soni" degan so'zlari shunga dalolat qiladi. Yashirin "va u ro'za tutmasa" so'zlarini nazarda tutganlar esa, agar ro'za tutmasa, uning zimmasidagi vazifa boshqa kunlar soni ekanini aytdilar. Ikkala guruh ham o'z tushunchalarining to'g'riligini tasdiqlovchi rivoyatlarga tayanadi. Biroq qoida shuki, matn o'zicha o'qiladi, to'g'risi majoziy ma'noda o'qilishini ko'rsatuvchi boshqa dalil bo'lmasa.

The reason for the disagreement is based on the interpretation of the words of the Exalted, “And whosoever of you is sick or on a journey, (let him fast the same) number of ’Other days”, whether they are to be read as they are so that no implied word is assumed, or whether they are to be construed metaphorically and an implied word is to be read into them so as to read, “and he does not fast then (let him fast the same) number of other days”. This kind of absence of words in speech is known to the experts of the language as lahn al-khitab (style of Arabic). Those who read the verse as it is and not metaphorically said that the obligation for the traveller is to fast the same number of other days, because of the words of the Exalted, “number of other days”. Those who assumed the implied words “and he does not fast” said that his obligation is a number of other days if he does not fast. Both groups support their interpretation on the basis of traditions that testify to the correctness of their understanding, though the principle is to read a text as it is, unless another evidence indicates that it be read in its metaphorical meaning.

Agar biz ko'pchilik fikriga ko'ra, safarda yurgan kishining ro'za tutmasligiga haqli ekanini aytsak, u holda shuni ham qo'shishimiz kerak: bu umumiy kelishuv doirasida fuqahолар uch xil fikrda bo'lganlar. Ulardan ba'zilari ro'za tutishning fazilati ko'proq ekanini aytganlar. Bu fikrda bo'lganlar qatoriga Molik va Abu Hanifa kiradi. Ba'zilari esa ro'za tutmaslikning afzalroq ekanini ta'kidlaganlar. Bu fikrda bo'lganlar qatoriga Ahmad va fuqahолардан bir guruh kiradi. Ba'zilari esa bu masala ixtiyoriy ekanini, hech biri afzal emasligini aytganlar.

This relates to the question whether fasting is better than not fasting (during travel). If we say, according to the opinion of the majority, that the traveller is entitled not to fast, then we must add that the jurists had three different opinions (within this general agreement). Some of them held that fasting has greater merit. Those who held this opinion include Malik and Abu HanTfa. Some maintained that not fasting is better. Those who held this opinion include Ahmad and a group of jurists. Some maintained that this was a matter of choice, none is better.

Ixtilofning sababi ba'zi rivoyat qilingan matnlarning zohiriy ma'nosi bilan ta'vilning to'qnashuvi hamda ba'zi rivoyat qilingan matnlarning boshqa rivoyat qilingan matnlar bilan to'qnashuvidan kelib chiqadi. Chunki shaxsning roza tutmasligiga ruxsat berilishining tushunarli ma'nosi uning uchun mashaqqatni yo'qotishga qaratilgan imtiyozdir va imtiyoz berilganda, undan voz kechish savoblidir. Buni Muslim rivoyat qilgan Hamza ibn Amr al-Aslamiyning hadisi tasdiqlaydi: u dedi: "Ey Allohning Rasuli, men o'zimda safarda roza tutishga quvvat topaman, shunda gunoh qilgan bo'laymanmi?" Allohning Rasuli ﷺ dedilar: "Bu Allohdan berilgan imtiyozdir, kim undan foydalansa, yaxshilik qilgan bo'ladi, ammo roza tutishni istagan kishiga gunoh yo'q". Lekin Allohning Rasuli ﷺning "Safarda roza tutish taqvodorlik emas", degan so'zlari hamda vafotidan oldingi so'nggi amallaridan biri roza tutmaslik bo'lgani, roza tutmaslikning afzalroq ekanligi taassurotini beradi. Biroq roza tutmaslik hukm emas, balki ruxsat etilgan ish bo'lib, ko'pchilik uchun ruxsat etilgan ishni farz qilingan ishdan afzal deb hisoblash qiyin edi. Bu masalada muxayyar qilganlar esa Oisha roziyallohu anhoning rivoyatiga tayanganlar. U aytdi: "Hamza ibn Amr al-Aslamiy Allohning Rasuli ﷺdan safarda roza tutish haqida so'radi, u zot dedilar: 'Xohlasang roza tut, xohlasang tutma'". Buni Muslim rivoyat qilgan.

The reason for their disagreement arises from the conflict of an interpretation with the apparent meaning of some transmitted texts, and the conflict of some transmitted texts with other transmitted texts. This is so as the understandable meaning of the permission of not fasting for a person is an exemption intended to remove hardship for him, and when an exemption is provided it is meritorious to relinquish the exemption. This is testified to by the tradition of Hamza ibn Amr c al-AslamT, recorded by Muslim, that he said, “O Messenger of Allah, I find in myself the strength to fast during a journey, would I then be sinning?” The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “It is an exemption from Allah, so he who acts upon it does good, but there is no sin on the person who wishes to fast”. The saying of the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), however, that “It is not an act of piety to fast during a journey”, along with the fact that one of his last acts was not to fast, gives the impression that it is better not to fast. Not fasting, though, is not the hukm, but a permissible act, and it was difficult for the majority to deem the permissible act as being better than the prescribed. Those who gave a choice in the matter did so because of the tradition of cA’isha, who said, “Hamza ibn cAmr al-AslamT asked the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) about fasting during a journey and he said, ‘Fast if you like, and if you like do not”’. It is recorded by Muslim.

Yo‘lovchi uchun ro‘zani tark etish ruxsati belgilangan masofadagi safarlar bilan chegaralanadimi, degan masala bo‘yicha fuqahолар ixtilof qilganlar. Ko‘pchilik fuqahо yo‘lovchi qasr qilinadigan safarda ro‘zani tark etishi mumkin emas, deganlar, va bu masala qasr masalasidagi ixtilofga ko‘ra turlicha bo‘ladi. Fuqahоларning bir guruhi esa "safar" atamasi qo‘llaniladigan har qanday safarda ro‘zani tark etish mumkin, deb hisoblaganlar. Bular zohiriylardir.

Whether the permissibility of not fasting for the traveller is limited to journeys of a minimum determined distance. The jurists disagreed about it. The majority said that he may not fast in a journey for which prayer is to be curtailed, and that varies in accordance with their disagreement on that issue. A group of jurists maintained that he may cease fasting in every journey to which the term “journey” is applied. These are the Zahirites.

Sabab ularning ixtilofi ayrim matnning zohiriy ma'nosi bilan uning talqini o'rtasidagi ziddiyatdan kelib chiqadi. Zohiriy ma'no shuki, safar ushbu atama qo'llaniladigan har qanday yo'lda inson roza tutmasligi mumkin, chunki Yuce Alloh shunday deydi: "Sizlardan kim kasal yoki safarda bo'lsa, (o'sha kunlar) boshqa kunlar sonicha (qazo qilsin)". Biroq safarda roza tutmaslik ruxsatining anglashiladigan ma'nosi (yengillik berish) mashaqqatdir. Mashaqqat har bir safarda mavjud bo'lmagani sababli, mashaqqatli bo'lgan safarda roza tutmaslikka ruxsat berilishi zarur bo'ladi. Sahobalar esa bunga chegara qo'yishda o'zaro kelishgan ekanlar, shuning uchun namozni qisqartirish chegarasiga qiyos qilib xulosa chiqarish lozim bo'ladi.

The reason for their disagreement stems from the conflict of the apparent meaning of the text with an interpretation. The apparent meaning is that the person may not fast in any journey to which the term is applicable, because of the words of the Exalted, “And whosoever of you is sick or on a journey, (let him fast the same) number of other days”.222 Yet, the understandable meaning of the permission of not fasting during a journey is (relief from) hardship. As hardship is not to be found in every journey it becomes necessary that not fasting be permitted in that journey that entails hardship, and because the Companions were apparently agreed upon a limit for this, it follows that an analogy be drawn upon the limit for the curtailment of prayer.

Ular kasallik haqida ham ixtilof qilishgan, ya'ni qanday kasallikda ro'zani tark etish ruxsat etiladi. Bir guruh faqihlar bu shunday kasallik ekanligini aytdi, unda ro'za tutish mashaqqat va qiyinchilikka aylanadi. Bu Molik ning fikri edi. Boshqa bir guruh faqihlar esa bu og'ir, bardosh bermaydigan kasallik ekanligini aytdi. Bu Ahmad ning fikri edi. Uchinchi guruh faqihlar esa, agar bunday kishiga "kasal" degan atama qo'llanilsa, u ro'za tutmasligi kerakligini aytdi. Ularning ixtilofining sababi, safarning chegarasi uchun ko'rsatilgan sabab bilan bir xildir.

They also disagreed about the sickness during which not fasting is permitted. A group of jurists said that it is a sickness in which hardship and duress become associated with the fast. This was Malik’s opinion. Another group of jurists said that it is an overwhelming sickness. This was Ahmad’s opinion. A third group of jurists said that if the term “sick” could be applied to such a person he is not to fast. The reason for their disagreement is the very reason that is assigned for the limit of the journey.

Musofirning qachon ro'zani tark etishi va qachon ro'za tutishi kerak? Bir guruh faqihlar musofir safarni boshlagan kunning o'zidayoq ro'zani tark etishi kerak, dedilar. Bu fikr al-Sha'biy, al-Hasan va Ahmadniki edi. Boshqa bir guruh esa, musofir safarni boshlagan kuni ro'zani tark etmasligi kerak, dedi. Bu fikrni viloyatlardagi faqihlar qo'llab-quvvatladilar. Bir guruh faqihlar safarning birinchi kunida shaharga yetib borishini bilgan kishi ro'za holida shaharga kirishi mustahab deb hisobladilar. Ulardan ba'zilari bu borada boshqalarga nisbatan qat'iyroq edi, lekin hech biri ro'za tutmagan holda shaharga kirgan kishiga kafforat yuklamadi. Kun qismi o'tganidan keyin shaharga kirgan kishi haqida ihtilof qildilar. Molik va ash-Shofi'iy u yeyish va ichishni davom ettirishi kerak, dedilar. Abu Hanifa va uning shogirdlari esa u yeyishdan tiyilishi kerak, xuddi ularning fikricha, hayz ko'rgan ayol pokizalik davriga kirganda yeyishdan tiyiladi, dedilar.

When does the traveller stop fasting and when does he fast? A group of jurists said that he is to cease fasting the very day that he begins his journey. This was the opinion of al-Sha^T, al-Hasan, and Ahmad. Another group said that he is not to cease fasting the day he commences his journey. This was upheld by the jurists of the provinces. A group of jurists considered it desirable for the person who 'knows that he will reach a city on the first day of his journey should enter it while fasting. Some of them were more strict in this than others, but all of them did not impose expiation on a person who entered when he was not fasting. They disagreed about the person who entered a city when only part of the day had past. Malik and al-ShaficT said that he is to continue eating and drinking. Abu HanTfa and his disciples said that he is to abstain from eating, just as the menstruating woman, in their view, refrains from eating when she enters the period of purity.

Ularning yo‘lovchi qachon ro‘zani og‘izga olishi kerakligi haqidagi ixtilofining sababi rivoyatlar bilan aql-mulohaza o‘rtasidagi ziddiyatdan kelib chiqadi. Ibn Abbos rivoyati orqali sobit bo‘lganki, “Allohning Elchisi ﷺ al-Qadid degan joygacha ro‘za tutdilar, so‘ng ro‘zani ochdilar va ular bilan birga odamlar ham ochdilar”. Bu rivoyatning zohiriy ma’nosi shuki, u zot ro‘za niyati qilganlaridan keyin ro‘zani ochganlar. Odamlarga kelsak, ular oldingi kechasi niyat qilganlaridan keyin ro‘zani ochganliklarida shubha yo‘q. Bunga o‘xshash ma’noni Jobir ibn Abdulloh rivoyati ham ifodalaydi: “Allohning Elchisi ﷺ Makka fath qilingan yili yo‘lga chiqdilar. Karo‘ al-G‘amim degan joygacha yurdilar, odamlar ro‘za tutgan holda u zot ichimlik idishini so‘radilar va odamlar ko‘rishi uchun uni ko‘tardilar. So‘ng undan ichdilar. Keyinroq u zotga, ba’zi odamlar ro‘zalarini davom ettirayotganlari aytildi. U zot: «Ular osiylardir, ular osiylardir», dedilar”. Abu Dovud Abu Busra al-G‘ifaroniydan rivoyat qilgan: u uylardan zo‘rg‘a o‘tib, dasturxon so‘raganmish. Rivoyat qiluvchi Ja‘far aytadi: “Men unga dedim: ‘Uylarni ko‘rmayapsizmi?’ U javob berdi: ‘Allohning Elchisi ﷺ sunnatidan yuz o‘giryapsizmi?’” Ja‘far aytadi: “So‘ng u yedi”. Bu yerdagi aql-mulohaza shundan iboratki, yo‘lovchiga ro‘za uchun niyatni faqat oldingi kechada qilishga ruxsat berilgani sababli, u o‘z ro‘zasini bekor qilishi joiz emas, chunki u niyatni Allohning: “Ey iymon keltirganlar! Allohga itoat qilinglar va Rasulga itoat qilinglar, amallaringizni behuda qilmanglar”, degan so‘ziga asoslanib qilgan.

Bu Ramazon oyida ro‘zador kishi safarga chiqib, safar davomida ro‘zani tark etishi joizmi, degan masalaga taalluqlidir. Ko‘pchilik ulamolar uning buni qilishi joiz, deb hisoblaydilar. Ba’zilardan, jumladan, Ubayda as-Salmoniy, Suvayd ibn G‘afla va Ibn Majoz'dan rivoyat qilinishicha, agar kishi Ramazonda ro‘za tutgan holda shu oyning ichida safarga chiqsa, unga ro‘zani tark etish joiz emas.

This relates to the question of whether it is permitted for a person fasting during Ramadan to begin a journey and then stop fasting while travelling. The majority maintain that he is permitted to do so. It is related from some, and these are TJbayda al-SalmanT, Suwayd ibn Ghafla, and Ibn Majaz, that if he has been fasting during Ramadan and begins a journey in it he is not permitted to cease fasting.

Ularning ixtilofining sababi, Ulug‘ Zotning quyidagi so‘zlarining ma’nosi borasidagi tortishuvlaridan kelib chiqadi: “Kimki (o‘sha oyga) guvoh bo‘lsa, o‘sha oyni ro‘za tutsin”. Bu so‘zni shunday tushunish mumkinki, oyning bir qismida muqim (mahalliy yashovchi) bo‘lgan kishi butun oyni ro‘za tutishga majburdir. Shuningdek, undan shunday tushunish ham mumkinki, oyning bir qismiga (muqim bo‘lgan holda) guvoh bo‘lgan kishi o‘sha qismni ro‘za tutishi kerak, chunki ittifoq bilan ma’lum bo‘lgan ma’no shuki, butun oyga guvoh bo‘lgan kishi butun oyni ro‘za tutadi; demak, oyning bir qismiga (muqim bo‘lgan holda) guvoh bo‘lgan kishi o‘sha qismni ro‘za tutishi ham lozim bo‘ladi. Ko‘pchilikning fikrini quyidagi holat qo‘llab-quvvatlaydi: Nabiy ﷺ Ramazon oyida safarga chiqqanlar.

The reason for their disagreement arises from their dispute over the meaning of the words of the Exalted, “And whosoever is present let him fast the month”. This can be interpreted to mean that one who is present (resident) for part of the month is under an obligation to fast for the whole month. It is also possible to understand from it that the person who has witnessed part of the month (as a resident) should fast for that part, as the meaning by agreement is that the person who has witnessed the whole month should fast for the whole month, it should also mean that one who has witnessed part of the month (as a resident) should fast for that part. The opinion of the majority is supported by the fact that the Prophet began his journey during Ramadan.

Ramazon oyida safardagi kishi roza tutishni to'xtatsa, uning hukmi bo'yicha ittifoqan qazo lozim bo'ladi; kasal kishi uchun ham xuddi shunday, chunki Oliy Zot aytgan so'zlar sababli: "(Shuncha) boshqa kunlar sonicha (tutsin)".223 224 Istisno qilinadigan kishilar — ehtiyojdan yoki aqldan ozish sababli holsizlanib qolgan kishilardir, ammo faqihlar bu ikki holat haqida ixtilof qilganlar. Viloyatlar faqihlari holsizlanib qolgan kishi uchun qazo majburiyatini saqlab qoladilar, lekin aqldan ozgan kishi haqida ixtilof qiladilar. Molik qarashicha, u qazo uchun majburdir, ammo bu fikr zaif, chunki Payg'ambar (Allohning salavoti va barakasi unga bo'lsin) shunday degan: "Uch kishidan qalam (mas'uliyat) olingan: ... va aqli ozgan kishidan, to u tuzalguncha". Ikkala holatda ham majburiyatni yuklaganlar roza uchun holsizlanish va aqldan ozishning rozani buzish-buzmasligi haqida ixtilof qilganlar. Bir guruh ular roza buzadi, deydi, boshqa guruh esa buzmaydi, deydi. Uchinchi guruh faqihlar esa holsizlanishni tong otishidan oldin yoki keyin yuz berishiga qarab farqlaganlar. Bir guruh aytadiki, agar u kunning katta qismi o'tganidan keyin yuz bersa, kishining roza­si to'g'ri bo'ladi, lekin agar kunning boshida yuz bersa, u qazo sifatida roza tutadi; bu Molikning qarashidir.

Musofir va kasal kishining qazosi bilan bog'liq ayrim qo'shimcha masalalar, jumladan: ular qazoni ketma-ket ado etadimi? Ulardan qazo sifatida nima talab qilinadi? Uzrsiz ravishda qazoni ado etishni kechiktirsa, keyingi Ramazonga qadar, ularning zimmasidagi vazifa nima? Agar vojib bo'lgan qazoni ado etmasdan vafot etsa, uning valiysi (vali) uning nomidan ro'za tutadimi? Ba'zi faqihlar qazoni ruknda bo'lgani kabi ketma-ket ado etishni vojib qilganlar, boshqalari esa bunday qilmaganlar. Ulardan ba'zilari kishiga ixtiyor berganlar, ayrimlari esa ketma-ket ado etishni mustahab deb hisoblaganlar, lekin ko'pchilik ketma-ketlik majburiyatidan voz kechish tarafdori.

There are certain sub-issues related to the qadd* of the traveller and the sick person including the questions: do they perform consecutively? What is required from them as qad&i What is their duty if they delay, without excuse, the performance of qada? until the next Ramadan? If they die without performing the required qadd>, does the guardian {wall) fast on their behalf?Some of the jurists made it obligatory that qad# be performed consecutively like add, while others did not. Some of these jurists gave the person a choice, with some considering consecutive performance to be desirable, but the greater majority stands for the relinquishment of the obligation of consecutive performance.

Ularning ixtilofining sababi matnning zohiriy ma'nosi bilan qiyos o'rtasidagi ziddiyatdan kelib chiqadi. Bunday holatda qiyos qazo ado etilishi ado etish bilan bir xil bo'lishini talab qiladi, bunga asos esa namoz va hajdir. Yuce Allohning so'zlaridagi zohiriy ma'no, "(Shuncha) boshqa kunlar sonicha", ya'ni obligatsiya faqat shuncha sonni nazarda tutadi, ketma-ket ado etishni emas, degan ma'noni anglatadi.225 Oisha (r.a.) dan rivoyat qilinadi, u shunday degan: "Oyat 'ketma-ket kunlar soni' tarzida nozil bo'lgan, ammo 'ketma-ket' so'zi tushirib qoldirilgan".

The reason for their disagreement arises from the conflict of the apparent meaning of the text with analogy. Analogy, in this case, requires that qada? performance be the same as ad&\ the basis for this being prayer and hajj. The apparent meaning of the words of the Exalted, “(Let him fast the same), number of other days”,225 implies that the obligation exists for the same number alone and not for consecutive performance. It is related from cA5isha that she said, “The verse was revealed as ‘consecutive number of days’, but the word ‘consecutive’ was dropped”.

Ramazon oyi boshlanganidan keyin qazoni kechiktirish masalasiga kelsak, bir guruh faqihlar bunday shaxsning zimmasida yangi Ramazondan keyin qazo qilish, shuningdek, kaffara berish majburiyati borligini aytdilar. Bu Molik, ash-Shofi'iy va Ahmadning fikri edi. Boshqa bir guruh faqihlar esa unda kaffara berish majburiyati yo'qligini aytdilar. Bu al-Hasan al-Basriy va Ibrohim an-Nakha'iyning fikri edi.

Ushbu bobning qolgan qismi emizuvchi ayol, homilador ayol va keksa odamni muhokama qilishga bag'ishlangan. Bu borada ikkita mashhur masala bor. Birinchisi: agar homilador ayol va emizuvchi ayol ro'za tutmasa, ularning vazifasi nima? Fuqahalarning bu masaladagi to'rt xil qarashi bor. Birinchi qarash: ikkalasi ham muhtojni ovqatlantiradi va ularga qazo yo'q. Bu Ibn Umar va Ibn Abbosdan rivoyat qilingan. Ikkinchi qarash, ya'ni birinchisining aksi: ular faqat qazo qiladi va muhtojni ovqatlantirish ularning zimmasida emas. Bu Abu Hanifaning, uning shogirdlarining, Abu Ubayd va Abu Savrning qarashidir. Uchinchi qarash: ular qazo qiladi va shu bilan birga muhtojni ovqatlantiradi. Bu al-Shofiiyning qarashi edi. To'rtinchi qarash: homilador ayol qazo qiladi, ammo muhtojni ovqatlantirmaydi, emizuvchi ayol esa qazo qiladi va muhtojni ovqatlantiradi.

The remainder of this chapter is devoted to the discussion of the wet-nurse, the pregnant woman, and the old person. There are two well known issues related to this. The first is if the pregnant woman and wet-nurse do not fast, what is their duty? The jurists have four opinions on this issue. The first is that both feed the needy and there is no qada> for them. This is related from Ibn <Umar and ibn cAbbas. The second opinion, which is the counterpart of the first, is that they only perform qada? and they are not obliged for feeding the needy, and this is the opinion of Abu HanTfa, his disciples, Abu TJbayd, and Abu Thawr. The third opinion is that they perform qada* as well as feed the needy. This was al-Shafi^s opinion. The fourth opinion is that the pregnant woman performs qada* but does not feed the needy, while the wet- nurse performs qada> as well as feeds the needy.

Ikki tomonning ixtilofi ularning ahvoli ro'za tutish qiyin bo'lganlar bilan va kasallar o'rtasida ikkilanib turishidan kelib chiqadi. Ularni kasalga o'xshatganlar, ular faqat qazo qilishlari kerak, dedilar. Ularni ro'za tutish mashaqqatli bo'lganlarga o'xshatganlar esa, ular faqat miskinlarni ovqat bilan ta'minlashga majburdirlar, dedilar; bu qarash ba'zilar tomonidan o'qilgan oyatga asoslanadi: "Va u (ro'za tutish) ularga og'ir bo'lganlar uchun fidya bor: miskinlarni ovqatlantirish" (masakin). Ikkala omilni ham e'tiborga olganlar esa, ko'rinishicha, ikki o'xshashlikka asoslanib fikr bildirganlar. Shunday qilib, ular kasalga o'xshagani uchun qazo qilishga, ro'za tutish qiyin bo'lganlarga o'xshagani uchun esa fidya berishga majbur deyishgan. Ammo ularni sog'lom, ro'za tutmaydigan kishiga o'xshatish zaif qarashdir, chunki sog'lom kishiga ro'za tutmaslikka ruxsat yo'q. Homilador ayol va emizuvchi ayol o'rtasida farq qilganlar, homilador ayolni kasalga bog'lab, emizuvchi ayolning hukmini kasal va ro'za tutish qiyin bo'lgan kishi hukmlarining birlashmasi deb hisobladilar yoki uni sog'lom kishiga o'xshatdilar. Ularga bitta hukmni belgilaganlar, ikkalasini birlashtirganlarga nisbatan yaxshiroq qarashga ega, Alloh eng yaxshi biladi. Xuddi shunday, ularga qazo hukmini belgilaganlarning qarashi, ularga fidya hukmini belgilaganlarnikidan yaxshiroqdir, chunki ular asos qilgan oyatning qiroati mutavotir emas (va u ixtilofli). Shuning uchun bu masalani chuqur o'ylab ko'ring, chunki u ravshandir.

Ro‘za tutgan kishining ro‘zani buzgan taqdirda uni davom ettirishi shart bo‘lmagan shaxslar toifasini tekshirish ikki holat bilan bog‘liq holda ko‘rib chiqiladi: jinsiy aloqa orqali yoki boshqa yo‘l bilan ro‘zani buzish va ittifoq qilingan yoki ixtilofli, ya’ni shubhaga asoslangan va shubhasiz bo‘lgan amal. Bu ikki holatning har biri yo unutuvchanlik tufayli, yo niyat tufayli, yo ixtiyoriy tanlov tufayli, yo majburlash tufayli yuz beradi.

The examination of the category of persons to whom it is permitted not to continue the fast if they have broken their fast is taken up with reference to breaking, the fast through sexual intercourse or through some other way, and with reference to an act that is agreed upon or that which is disputed, that is, an act based on doubt and one that is not. Each of these two cases occurs either due to forgetfulness or due to intention or due to choice or due to duress.

Jumhur faqihlar, Abu Hurayra rivoyat qilgan hadisga asoslanib, ro'za paytida ataylab jinsiy aloqa qilgan kishi zimmasida ham qazo, ham kaffara vojib bo'ladi, deb ta'kidlaganlar. Hadis shunday: Abu Hurayra aytadi: "Bir kishi Allohning Elchisi ﷺ huzuriga kelib dedi: "Ey Allohning Elchisi, men halok bo'ldim!" U zot ﷺ so'radilar: "Seni nima halok qildi?" U dedi: "Ramazonda xotinim bilan jinsiy aloqada bo'ldim." U zot ﷺ so'radilar: "Ozod qila oladigan qulingiz bormi?" U javob berdi: "Yo'q." U zot ﷺ so'radilar: "Ketma-ket ikki oy ro'za tuta olasizmi?" U javob berdi: "Yo'q." U zot ﷺ so'radilar: "Oltmish miskinni to'ydira oladigan ovqatingiz bormi?" U javob berdi: "Yo'q." Shunda u kishi bir oz kutib turdi. Keyin Nabiy ﷺ ga bir farq [o'n besh sa' yoki oltmish mudd] xurmo keltirildi va u zot ﷺ dedilar: "Buni sadaqa qilib ber." U kishi dedi: "Mendan ham muhtojroqqa beraymi? Shahar chegarasida bizning oilamizdan ko'ra ko'proq muhtoj oila yo'q!" Shunda Nabiy ﷺ shunday kuldilarki, oziq tishlari ko'rinib ketdi va dedilar: "Borib, uni oilangga yedir." Ulamo quyidagi masalalarda ixtilof qilganlar: ataylab yeb-ichib ro'zani buzish ham jinsiy aloqa bilan buzishdek hukmga egami, ya'ni qazo va kaffara lozimmi? Agar kishi unutib jinsiy aloqada bo'lsa, uning zimmasidagi majburiyat nima? Ayol majbur qilinmagan bo'lsa, uning zimmasidagi hukm qanday? Kaffara zikr qilingan tartib bilan vojibmi yoki ixtiyoriymi? Miskinlarni taom bilan kaffara qilganda, har bir miskinga berilishi kerak bo'lgan miqdor qancha? Jinsiy aloqa takrorlanganda kaffara ham takrorlanadimi? Agar kishi og'ir ahvolda bo'lib, kaffarani ado etishni kechiktirsa, uning ahvoli yaxshilanganda kaffara zimmasiga vojib bo'ladimi?

The majority of the jurists maintained that a person who breaks his fast through intentional sexual intercourse is under an obligation of qada? as well as expiation, because of what is established through the tradition of Abu Hurayra, who said, “A man came up to the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace, and blessings be upon him) and said, T am ruined, O Messenger of Allah’. He said, ‘And what has ruined you?’ He said, ‘I had sexual intercourse with my wife during Ramadan.’ He said, ‘Do you have a slave that you can set free?’ He replied, ‘No’. He said, ‘Are you able to fast for two months consecutively?’ He replied, ‘No’. He said, ‘Do you have food with which you can feed sixty needy persons?’ He replied, ‘No’. He then waited. The Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) received as a gift a faraq [fifteen sd\ sixty midrib], of dates and said to him, ‘Give these as alms’. The man said, ‘To someone w'ho is poorer than I? There is no household between the boundaries of the town more in need of it than ours’. The Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) smiled so that his canine teeth were noticeable, and said, ‘Go, feed it to your family’”. They differed over this on several points including: whether breaking a fast intentionally by eating or drinking carries the same hukm as that, for breaking the fast through sexual intercourse involving qada> and expiation? If the person has sexual intercourse out of forgetfulness, w hat is his obligation? What is the obligation for the w^oman if she was not forced into it? Is expiation obligatory in the listed order or is it a matter of choice? What is the amount that is to be given to each needy person, if he makes expiation by feeding the needy? Does expiation recur with the recurrence of sexual intercourse? If feeding is deferred when he is in difficult straits, does it become binding when his situation improves?

Ro'zani ataylab yeyish yoki ichish orqali buzgan kishiga kafforat vojibmi? Molik, uning shogirdlari, Abu Hanifa, uning shogirdlari, as-Savriy va fuqahoning bir guruhi aytdilar: ataylab yeyish yoki ichish orqali ro'zasini buzgan kishi qazo va ushbu rivoyatda zikr etilgan kafforat bilan mas'uldir. Ash-Shofi'iy, Ahmad va zohiriylar esa, kafforat faqat jinsiy aloqa orqali ro'zani buzishda vojib bo'lishi haqida fikr bildirdilar.

Is expiation obligatory for intentionally breaking the fast by eating or drinking? Malik, his disciples, Abu Hanifa, his disciples, al-ThawrT, and a group of jurists maintained that the person who intentionally breaks his fast by eating or drinking is liable to qadd> and expiation mentioned in this tradition. Al- ShafiT, Ahmad, and the Zahirites held that liability for expiation arises in the case of breaking the fast through sexual intercourse alone.

Ularning ixtilofining sababi shundaki, ular jinsiy aloqa orqali ro‘zani buzgan shaxs bilan ovqatlanish va ichish orqali ro‘zani buzgan shaxs o‘rtasida qiyos qilish masalasida tortishadilar. Ikkalasining umumiy asosi bor, ya’ni ro‘zaning hurmatini buzish, deb hisoblaganlar, ularning ikkalasi uchun hukm bir xil bo‘lishi kerak, deb qaror qilganlar. Kafforat hurmatni buzganlik uchun jazo ekanini, lekin u intensivligi jihatidan boshqalarga nisbatan jinsiy aloqa orqali ro‘zani buzgan shaxsga ko‘proq mos kelishini aytganlar, va (shu sababli shunday deganlar) jazoning maqsadi qaytarish bo‘lganligi uchun, kuchliroq istak mavjud bo‘lgan harakat uchun kattaroq jazo belgilangan. Ular aytdilarki, bu harakat boshqa gunohlardan kuchliroqdir, garchi gunohlarning darajalari bir-biriga yaqin bo‘lsa-da, va kafforatni joriy etishning maqsadi odamlarni qonunlarga rioya qilishga, taqvodor va to‘g‘ri bo‘lishga undashdir, Allohning Ulug‘ kalomida aytilganidek: “Ey iymon keltirganlar! Sizlardan oldingilarga farz qilingani kabi, sizlarga ham ro‘za farz qilindi, toki taqvo qilasizlar”. Ular aytdilarki, kafforatning bu kuchaytirilgan shakli shuning uchun jinsiy aloqaga xosdir. Bu qarashlarni bu masalada qiyosni qo‘llaydiganlar bildiradilar. Qiyosni bu yerda qo‘llamaydiganlarning fikri esa ravshandir: ular jinsiy aloqa uchun belgilangan hukmni ovqatlanish va ichishga kengaytirmaydilar.

The reason for their disagreement arises from their dispute over drawing an analogy between the person breaking the fast through sexual intercourse and one breaking it by eating and drinking. Those who maintained that they have a common basis, which is the violation of the sanctity of the fast, determined that the hukm should be the same for them both. Those who maintained that though expiation is a punishment for the violation of sanctity, it is more suitable by its intensity for the person breaking the fast through sexual intercourse as compared to others, and (thus, they said that) because the purpose of punishment is deterrence a greater punishment is laid down for the act for which there is a more powerful desire. This act, they said, is more powerful than other offences, though the degrees of the offences are close and the aim of the imposition of expiation is to make people abide by the laws and be pious and upright, as in the words of the Exalted, “O ye who believe! Fasting is prescribed for you, even as it was prescribed for those before you, that ye may ward off (evil)”. This enhanced form of expiation, they said, is therefore specific to sexual intercourse. These views are expressed by those who uphold analogy in this case. The opinion of those who do not uphold analogy here is obvious, they do not extend the hukm for (violation through) sexual intercourse to eating and drinking.

Agar ro'zador unutganlikdan jinsiy aloqada bo'lsa, ash-Shofi'iy va Abu Hanifa, u kishi uchun qazo ham, kafforat ham yo'q deb hisoblaydilar. Molik esa u qazo qilishi lozim, ammo kafforat yo'q, deb aytdi. Ahmad va zohiriylar esa u qazo ham, kafforat ham lozim bo'ladi, deb hisoblaydilar.

When the person fasting has sexual intercourse out of forgetfulness, al-ShafiT and Abu HanTfa maintain that there is no qadd for the person nor is there any expiation. Malik said that he is liable for qaddy but there is no expiation. Ahmad and the Zahirites maintained that he is liable for both qadd and expiation.

Ularning unutib harakat qilgan kishi uchun qazo masalasidagi ixtilofi sababi hadisning zohiriy ma'nosi bilan qiyos o'rtasidagi ziddiyatdan kelib chiqadi. Qiyos bo'yicha namozni unutgan kishi ro'zasini unutgan kishiga o'xshaydi. Namozni unutgan kishini qazoga mas'ul deb bilganlar, ro'zani unutgan kishini ham nass bilan namozni unutgan kishi kabi qazoga mas'ul deb hisoblaganlar. Bu qiyosning zohiriy ma'nosiga zid kelgan hadis al-Buxoriy va Muslim Abu Hurayradan rivoyat qilgan hadisdir: "Allohning Rasuli ﷺ dedilar: "Kim ro'za tutganida unutib yeb yoki ichib qo'ysa, ro'zasini tamomlasin, chunki uni yedirgan va ichirgan aslida Allohdir"". Bu hadisni umumiy ma'nosi ham qo'llab-quvvatlaydi. Nabiy ﷺ dedilar: "Mening ummatimdan xato, unutish va majburlik ostida qilingan ishlar uchun javobgarlik olib tashlangan". Shu mavzu doirasida, quyosh botdi deb o'ylab ro'zasini ochgan, lekin keyin quyosh chiqqan kishi uchun qazo bor yoki yo'qligi haqida ham ixtilof bor. Sababi shuki, bunday kishi xatoga yo'l qo'ygan, xato qilgan kishining hukmi esa unutgan kishining hukmi bilan bir xil. Qanday ifodalanmasin, unutishning qazoni soqit qilishdagi ta'siri ayondir, Alloh eng yaxshi biluvchidir. Dalil shuki, agar biz qoidani saqlab qolsak, ya'ni unutgan kishiga qazo majburiy emas, to uni ko'rsatuvchi dalil bo'lmaguncha, unda ro'zadagi unutishni qazoga mas'ul emas deb hisoblashga to'g'ri keladi, chunki bunga dalil yo'q, namozdagi holatdan farqli o'laroq. Agar biz, aksincha, qoida shunday deb hisoblasak, ya'ni qazo qilish vojib bo'ladi, to unutgan shaxsning zimmasidan uni olib tashlashni dalil ko'rsatmaguncha, u holda Abu Hurayra rivoyatidagi dalil unutgan shaxsning zimmasidan uni olib tashlaganini aytishimiz mumkin. Agar kimdir unutgan holda ro'zani buzgan shaxs uchun unutuvchanlik qoidasidan chetga chiqarib qo'ygan dalil, boshqa ibodatlar holatida esa, uni tark etgan shaxsdan matn orqali barcha mas'uliyat olib tashlanadigan bo'lsa, bunday dalil ro'za holatini namoz holatiga qiyos qilish asosida qurilgan qiyos ekanligini aytmasa bo'lardi. Qiyos orqali qazo qilishni vojib qilish esa zaif hisoblanadi. Ko'pchilik fikricha, qazo esa yangidan kelgan buyruq orqali vojib bo'ladi.

The reason for their disagreement over qadd of the person acting out of forgetfulness stems from the conflict of the apparent meaning of the tradition with analogy. The analogy holds one forgetting prayer to be similar to the person forgetting his fast. Those who held him to be similar to one forgetting prayer held him liable for qadd as the person forgetting prayer has been held liable by the text. The tradition conflicting with the apparent implication of this analogy is what has been recorded by al-BukharT and Muslim from Abu Hurayra, who said, “The Messenger of. Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, ‘One who forgets while fasting and eats or drinks should complete his fast, for indeed it is Allah who has given him to eat and made him drink’”. This tradition is supported by the general implication of the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “Liability for mistake, forgetfulness, and what they did under duress has been lifted from my umma”.Within this topic their disagreement about whether there is qadd for the person who (mistakenly) believes that the sun has gone down and breaks his fast, but the sun appears thereafter. The reason is that such a person has made a mistake, and the hukm of one making a mistake is the same as that for one forgetting. In whatever way we express it, the effectiveness of forgetfulness in dropping (the obligation) of qadd is evident, Allah knows best. The argument is that if we were to maintain the principle that qadd is not binding on the person forgetting until an evidence indicates this, it becomes necessary to hold that forgetfulness in fasting is not liable to qadd as there is no evidence to indicate this, as against the situation in prayer. If, on the other hand, we were to hold that the principle is that qadd is obligatory until an evidence indicates its removal from the liability of the person forgetting, then, we can say that an evidence has indicated its removal from the liability of the person forgetting in the tradition of Abu Hurayra. Unless one were to maintain that the evidence which exempted the case of the person forgetting the fast from the rule of forgetfulness for the other forms of worship, where all liability is removed by the text from one relinquishing it, is analogy to the case of fasting constructed upon the case of prayer. The imposition of obligation of qadd by means of analogy, however, is weak. And qadd in the opinion of the majority is obligatory through a renewed command.

Ushbu masala ayolning, ro'zador holda, ko'ndirilib jinsiy aloqaga majbur qilinganida, unga kafforat (keffaret) vojib bo'lishi yuzasidagi ihtilofdir. Abu Hanifa va uning shogirdlari hamda Molik va uning shogirdlari unga kafforatni vojib qilganlar. Ash-Shofi'iy va Dovud esa unga kafforat yo'q, deganlar.

This issue is about their disagreement over the obligation of expiation upon the woman who has been coaxed into having sexual intercourse (while fasting). Abu HanTfa and his disciples, and Malik and his disciples made expiation obligatory for her. AI-ShaficT and Dawud said that there is no expiation for her.

Ixtilofning sababi shundaki, hadisning zohiriy ma'nosi bilan qiyos o'rtasida ziddiyat yuzaga keladi, chunki Payg'ambar (ﷺ) hadisdagi ayolga kafforat berishni buyurmagan. Qiyos esa shuni ko'rsatadiki, ayol ham erkak kabi mas'uliyat ostida bo'lgani uchun uning hukmi ham erkakning hukmi kabidir.

The reason for the disagreement stems from the conflict of the apparent meaning of the tradition with analogy, because the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) did not order the woman in the tradition to make expiation. The analogy is that she is like the man as both’ are under the liability.

Is there an order for making the expiation, as in the case of zihar (injurious assimilation), or is there a choice? By order I mean that the person is not to move from one obligation to the other unless he is unable to perform the previous one; and by choice I mean that he is permitted to choose one without being unable to perform the others. They disagreed about this. Al-Shafi'i, Abu Hanifa, al-Thawri, and all the Kufis said that there is an order. Thus, the person is to free a slave first, and if he is unable to do this he is to fast, and if he is unable to do that then he is to feed the needy. Malik said that it is based on choice. Ibn al-Qasim related from him that he considered feeding the needy more desirable than freeing a slave and fasting.

Is there an order for the making of the expiation, as in the case of zihdr (injurious assimilation), or is there a choice? By order I mean that the subject is not to move from one obligation to. the other unless he is unable to perform the previous one; and by choice I mean that he is permitted to make a choice of one without being unable to perform the other. They disagreed about this. Al-Shafi T, Abu Hanlfa, al-ThawrT, and all c the KufTs said that there is an order. Thus, the person is to manumit a slave first, and if he is unable to do this he is to fast, and if he is unable to do that then he is to feed the needy. Malik said that it is based on choice. Ibn al-Qasim has related from him that he considered feeding the needy more desirable than manumission and fasting.

Ikki tomonning bu masalada tartib yuklash-yuklamaslikda ixtilof qilishlarining sababi hadislarning zohiriy ma'nolari va turli qiyoslar o'rtasidagi ziddiyatdan kelib chiqadi. A'robiy haqidagi hadisning zohiriy ma'nosi tartibni nazarda tutadi, chunki Nabiy ﷺ undan amallarni ma'lum tartibda bajarish qobiliyati haqida so'ragan. Molik rivoyat qilgan, "Bir kishi Ramazonda ro'zasini buzdi va Allohning Elchisi ﷺ unga bir qulni ozod qilishni yoki ketma-ket ikki oy ro'za tutishni yoki oltmish miskinni ovqatlantirishni buyurdi", degan hadisning zohiriy ma'nosi esa tanlovni bildiradi, chunki arablar tilida "yoki" (أو) so'zi tanlovni anglatadi. Garchi bu so'zlar rivoyat qiluvchi sahobiylarning so'zlarida kelgan bo'lsa-da, ular kontekst va so'zlarning ma'nolarini eng yaxshi biladigan kishilar edi.

The reason for their disagreement in imposing an order derives from the conflict of the apparent meanings of the traditions and the various analogies. The apparent meaning of the tradition about the Bedouin implies an order, as the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) asked him about his ability to perform acts in a definite order. The apparent meaning of what is related by Malik that “A man broke his fast during Ramadan and the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) ordered him to set free a slave, or to fast for two consecutive months, or to feed sixty needy persons”, indicates a choice, as the word (or), in the usage of the Arabs implies a choice, even though this occurred in the words of the narrator, one of the Companions, who were best acquainted with the context and the implications of the words.

Ular muhtojlarga beriladigan ovqat miqdori borasida ixtilof qilganlar. Molik, ash-Shofi'iy va ularning shogirdlari har bir muhtojga Payg'ambar ﷺ ishlatgan mudd o'lchovi bo'yicha bir mudd ovqat berish kerak, deganlar. Abu Hanifa va uning shogirdlari esa Payg'ambar ﷺ ishlatgan mudd o'lchovi bo'yicha ikki muddden kam bo'lsa yetarli bo'lmaydi, bu esa har bir muhtoj uchun yarim sojga teng keladi, deganlar.

This relates to their disagreement over the quantity of food to be given to the needy. Malik, al-Shafi T, and their c disciples said that he is to give one mudd of food to each needy person in accordance with the mudd used by the Prophet (God’s peace and .blessings be upon him). Abu HanTfa and his disciples held that less than two mudds, in accordance with the mudd used by the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) would not be sufficient, and this comes to one-half sdS for each needy person.

Причина их разногласия возникает из-за противоречия между аналогией и одним хадисом. Аналогия основана на сходстве этого выкупа с выкупом в случае, когда при завершении паломничества из-за болезни не бреют голову, что прямо указано в тексте. Хадис же — это то, что передаётся в различных вариантах хадисов о искуплении, согласно которым фарак (большая мера) составляет пятнадцать са'. Однако то, что он составляет пятнадцать са', не указывает на его обязательность для каждого нуждающегося в данном случае, кроме как через очень слабое указание, но оно действительно указывает на то, что заменой поста при этом искуплении служит именно такое количество.

The reason for their* disagreement arises from the conflict of analogy with a tradition. The .analogy is based upon the similarity of this ransom with that in the case of not shaving the head (at the close of the pilgrimage) due to an ailment, which is expressly stated. The tradition is what is related in different versions of the traditions about expiation that a faraq (a large measure) comprised of fifteen sd^s. Its comprising fifteen however, does not indicate its obligation for each needy person in this case, except through a very weak indication, but it does indicate that the substitute: for fasting in this expiation is this amount.

Bu ro'za buzilishining takrorlanishi bilan kafforatning takrorlanishi haqida. Ular kelishib oldilar: Ramazonda jinsiy aloqada bo'lgan va kaffora bergan shaxs, so'ngra boshqa kunda yana jinsiy aloqada bo'lsa, u yana bir kaffora berishi kerak. Ular kelishib oldilar: bir kunning o'zida bir necha marta jinsiy aloqada bo'lgan shaxs faqat bitta kaffora berishi kerak. Ular ramazonning bir kunida jinsiy aloqada bo'lib, bu kaffora bermay turib boshqa kunda yana jinsiy aloqada bo'lgan shaxs holati borasida ixtilof qildilar. Molik, ash-Shofi'iy va bir guruh faqihlar aytdilar: u har bir kun uchun kaffora berishi kerak. Abu Hanifa va uning shogirdlari aytdilar: birinchi jinsiy aloqa uchun kaffora bermagan ekan, u bitta kaffora berishi kerak.

This is about the recurrence of expiation with a recurrence of the violation of the fast. They agreed that a person who has sexual intercourse during Ramadan and makes an expiation, and then has sexual intercourse on another day has to make another expiation. They agreed that the person who commits sexual intercourse a number of times on the same day is only obliged to make a single expiation. They disagreed about the case of a person who has intercourse on one day during Ramadan and does not make the expiation until he has intercourse on another day. Malik, al-ShaficT, and a group of jurists said that he is to make an expiation for each of these day. Abu HanTfa and his disciples said that he is to make a single expiation as long as he has not made an expiation for the first intercourse.

Ixtilofning sababi shundaki, bu kafforatlar hudud jazolariga o‘xshashdir. Hudud bilan o‘xshash deb hisoblaganlar aytdiki, bunday hollarda bir nechta harakat uchun bitta kaffora kifoyadir, xuddi zinokor shaxs ming marta zino qilgan bo‘lsa-da, u bu holatlarning birortasi uchun hadd qo‘llanmagan bo‘lsa, bitta qamchi jazosiga tortiladigan kabi. Ularni hudud bilan o‘xshash deb hisoblamaganlar esa ro‘zasi buzilgan har bir kun uchun alohida hukm belgilab, shu sababli har bir kun uchun bittadan kaffora lozim deb hisobladilar. Ular farqning asosi shundaki, kaffora Allohga yaqinlashish vositasidir, hudud esa sof bir jazolash (bartaraf etish) shaklidir, deb ta’kidladilar.

The reason for the disagreement stems from the similarity of these expiations with those in the hudud. Those who held them to be similar to the hudud said that one expiation is sufficient in this on account of a number of acts, just as the person committing unlawful sexual intercourse is subjected to one penalty of stripes even if he has committed the act a thousand times (before that) when he has not been subjected to hadd for any of those occasions. Those who did not consider them to be similar to the hudud determined a separate hukm for each of the days in which the fast has been violated, and therefore imposed one expiation for each day. They maintained that the distinction is based upon expiation being a way of attaining nearness to Allah, while the hudud are a form of pure deterrence.

Ramazon ro'zasida jinsiy aloqada bo'lgan, o'sha paytda kafforatni to'lashga moddiy imkoni bo'lmagan kishi, keyinchalik ahvoli yaxshilanganda uni ado etishi kerakmi? Al-Avzoiy aytgan: agar gunoh sodir etilgan paytda u qashshoq bo'lgan bo'lsa, unga hech narsa lozim emas. Ash-Shofi'iy esa bu masalada tereddutda qolgan.

Does a person, who committed the offence of copulation during the fast of Ramadan and could not afford the cost of expiation at the time, have to offer it when his financial condition improves? Al-Awzaci said that he owes nothing if he was hard up at the time of the offence. Al-ShafiT hesitated over this question.

Ularning ixtilofining sababi shundaki, bu masala shariat tomonidan aniq bayon etilgan hukm emas. Shuning uchun u qarzlarga o‘xshash bo‘lishi mumkin, bu holda, agar uning moliyaviy ahvoli yaxshilansa, majburiyat yana unga qaytadi. Shuningdek, agar bu vojib bo‘lganida, Payg‘ambar ﷺ buni albatta bayon qilgan bo‘lardilar, degan fikr ham to‘g‘ri bo‘lishi mumkin.

The reason for their disagreement is that it is a hukm.nut expressly stated in the law, and it is, therefore, likely to be similar to debts, in which case the obligation reverts if his financial position improves, and it is equally likely to say that if this had been obligatory the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) would have explained it.

Shunday qilib, bular — olimlar ro‘zani ataylab qilingan harakat bilan buzilgan deb ittifoq qilgan hollarning hukmlaridir. Ixtilofli masalalarda, ro‘za buzilgan deb hisoblaganlar orasida faqat qazo lozim bo‘ladimi yoki qazo bilan birga kaffara ham lozim bo‘ladimi, degan masalada ular turlicha fikr bildirganlar. Bunga misollar: hijomat qilish, qusish, toshni yutish va safarga chiqqan kishi birinchi kuni, ya’ni safarga chiqqan kuni, ro‘zani buzishi — buni qilmasligi kerak deb hisoblaganlarning fikriga ko‘ra.

These, then, are the ahkam of the cases in which the jurists agreed that the fast was broken by deliberate action. In disputed cases those who held that the fast had been broken differed as to whether qadff alone should be imposed, or qada> as well as expiation. Examples for these are: cupping, vomiting, swallowing a stone, and the traveller breaking his fast on departing the first day, in the opinion of those who maintain that he should not do so.

Molik bunday musofirga qazo va kaffara vojib qilgan, ammo buni boshqa viloyat faqihlari va uning shogirdlarining ko'pchiligi rad etgan. Qasddan qusishda qazo va kaffarani vojib deb hisoblaganlar orasida Abu Savr va al-Avzoiy bor, qusish ro'zani buzadi deb hisoblagan qolgan faqihlar esa uchun faqat qazoni vojib qilgan. Hijomat (qon olish) ro'zani buzadi deb hisoblaganlar orasidan hijomatda qazo va kaffarani vojib qilgan faqih faqat Ato'dir.