Bu toifa ikki narsani o‘z ichiga oladi: vojib bo‘lgan narsalarni va shartlarni aniqlash hamda kimga va qachon vojib bo‘lishini belgilash.

This category comprises two things: the identification of the obligations and the conditions, and the person for whom it is obligatory and when.

Hajning farziyligi borasida hech qanday ixtilof yo‘q, chunki Oliy Zot shunday deydi: {Odamlarga Allohning huzuridagi haj ziyorati farzdir — unga yo‘l topa oladigan kishi uchun}.236 Hajning shartlari ikki turga bo‘linadi: sahih bo‘lish shartlari va farz bo‘lish shartlari. Faqihlar orasida sahih bo‘lish shartlariga Islom dinini qabul qilish kirishi borasida hech qanday ixtilof yo‘q, chunki musulmon bo‘lmagan kishining haji sahih emas. Ular voyaga yetmagan bola (sabiy) tomonidan qilingan hajning sahihligi borasida ixtilof qilishgan. Molik va ash-Shofi'iy bunga ruxsat berilishi (va sahih bo‘lishi) tarafdori bo‘lgan, Abu Hanifa esa uni man qilgan.

There is no dispute about its obligation, because of the words of the Exalted, “And pilgrimage to the House is a duty unto Allah for mankind, for him who can find a way thither”.236 The conditions of the obligation are of two kinds: conditions of validity and the conditions of obligation. There is no dispute among the jurists that the conditions of validity include (professing the faith of) Islam, as pilgrimage by a person who is not a Muslim is not valid. They disagreed about its validity when performed by a minor (sabt). Malik and al-ShafiT maintained that it is permissible (and valid), while Abu HanTfa prohibited it.

Ixtilofning sababi bir rivoyatning asosiy qoidalar bilan ziddiyatidan kelib chiqadi. Ruxsat berganlar Ibn Abbos rivoyatiga tayandilar, uni al-Buxoriy va Muslim rivoyat qilgan, unda shunday so'zlar bor: "Bir ayol kichik bolani Payg'ambar ﷺ oldiga ko'tarib keldi va dedi: «Ey Allohning Elchisi, bunga haj bormi?» U zot dedilar: «Ha, sizga ham savob bor»". Bunga qarshi chiqqanlar esa, aql-idroki bo'lmagan kishi tomonidan qilingan ibodat sahih emas, degan qoidaga suyandilar.

The reason for the disagreement stems from the conflict of a tradition with the principles. Those who permitted it acted on the basis of the well known tradition of Ibn <Abbas, which is recorded by al-Bukhan and Muslim, and it contains the words, “A woman raised a young boy toward the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) and said, ‘Is there hajj for him, O Messenger of Allah?’ He said, ‘Yes, and there is reward for you’”. Those who disallowed this relied on the principle that worship is not valid if performed by one lacking discretion.

Molik shogirdlari ham chaqaloq nomidan uni ado etishning joizligi haqida ixtilof qilganlar. Namozi to‘g‘ri bo‘lgan kishi tomonidan uni ado etishning joizligida hech qanday ixtilof yo‘q, bu esa Payg‘ambar ﷺ aytgan: "Yetti yoshdan o‘n yoshgacha" degan so‘zga muvofiqdir.

Malik’s disciples also differed about the validity of its performance on behalf of an infant. There is no dispute about the validity of its performance by one whose performance of prayer is valid, which corresponds to what the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “From seven to ten”.

Hajga majburiyat shartlari orasida musulmon bo'lish ham kiradi, bu kofirlarga ham Islom qonunlari xitob qilinadi degan qarashga ko'ra.237 Hajning vojib bo'lishi uchun jismoniy va moliyaviy imkoniyatga ega bo'lish sharti borligida hech qanday ixtilof yo'q, chunki Oliy Zot aytgan: "Unga u yerga yetishga yo'l topa oladigan kishi uchun".238 Bu imkoniyatning tafsilotlarida ixtilof bo'lsa-da, umuman olganda u ikki turga bo'linadi: bevosita imkoniyat va vakil orqali imkoniyat. Bevosita imkoniyatda shartlar jismoniy imkoniyat, moliyaviy imkoniyat va xavfsizlik ekanida fuqahoning ixtilofi yo'q. Jismoniy va moliyaviy imkoniyatning tafsilotlari haqida ular ixtilof qilganlar. Imom Shofe'iy, Abu Hanifa va Ahmad, shuningdek Ibn Abbos (roziyallohu anhu) va Umar ibn al-Xattob (roziyallohu anhu) ning qarashi shunday bo'lib, bu shartlar uchun oziq-ovqat zaxirasi va transport vositasining mavjudligi zarur, deb hisoblaganlar. Molik esa, yo'lda piyoda yura oladigan kishi uchun minadigan hayvon (transport vositasi) bo'lishi majburiyat sharti emas, unga hajga borish vojib, degan. Shuningdek, uning fikricha, yo'lda kun kechirishi mumkin bo'lsa, hatto tilanchilik bilan bo'lsa ham, ortiqcha mol-mulk imkoniyat sharti emas.

The conditions of obligation include being a Muslim, in accordance with the opinion that the disbelievers are addressed by the laws of Islam.237 There is no dispute about the stipulation of ability (both physical and financial) for this, because of the words of the Exalted, “For him who can find a way thither”.238 Though there is a disagreement over the details of this (ability) it is generally considered to be of two kinds: direct and by delegation. In direct ability there is no disagreement among the jurists that its conditions are bodily ability, financial ability, and security. They disagreed about the details of bodily and financial ability. Al-Shafi T, Abu Hamfa, and Ahmad, and this was c the view of Ibn Abbas c and ^mar ibn al-Khattab, held that the conditions for these are food provisions and the availability of transportation. Malik said that for the person who is able to walk the availability of a riding animal (a means of transportation) is not a condition of obligation and pilgrimage is obligatory for him. Likewise, surplus is not a condition for ability, in his view, if the person is able to earn a living on the way even if he has to beg.

Bu ixtilofning sababi shundaki, qobiliyatni (haj qilish uchun) izohlash uchun keltirilgan rivoyat bilan uning so'zlarining umumiy ma'nosi o'rtasida ziddiyat paydo bo'ladi. Chunki Payg'ambar ({Allohning salomi va barakasi uning ustiga bo'lsin}) dan shunday rivoyat qilinadi: u "Qobiliyat nima?" deb so'ralganda, "Yo'l xarajati va minadigan hayvon" deb javob bergan. Abu Hanifa va ash-Shofe'iy buni barchaga taalluqli deb tushunganlar, Molik esa buni yurolmaydigan va yo'lda rizq topishga kuchi yetmaydigan kishiga taalluqli deb izohlagan. Ash-Shofe'iy bu fikrga shu sababli kelgan, chunki uning usuliga ko'ra, Qur'onda izohlanmagan matn kelib, keyin shu izohlanmagan so'zning tafsiri sifatida sunnat bayon qilinsa, izohni rad etish mumkin emas.

The reason for this disagreement arises from the conflict between the tradition (which is) laid down for the elaboration of ability and the general implication of its words. This is so as a tradition from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) is laid down that “he was asked, ‘What is the ability (to perform the pilgrimage)?’ He said, ‘Food provisions and a riding animal’”. Abu HanTfa and al-ShaficT interpreted this to apply to everybody, while Malik interpreted it to apply to a person who was not able to walk and also did not have the strength to eke out a living on the way. Al-Shafi<T formed this opinion as it is his method that if an unelaborated text occurs in the Qurian and then a sunna is laid as an elaboration of this unelaborated word it is not possible to avert the elaboration.

Haj ibodatini ijro etish qobiliyati orqali vakil qilish (niyobat) bo'yicha majburiyatga kelsak, Molik va Abu Hanifa vakil qilish, qobiliyat mavjud bo'lsa ham, to'g'ridan-to'g'ri bajarishga to'sqinlik bo'lsa, majburiy emas deb hisoblaydilar. Ash-Shofi'iy esa u majburiy deb hisoblaydi. Shunday ekan, yetarli mol-mulkka ega bo'lib, lekin o'zi jismonan haj qila olmaydigan kishi, boshqa birov u kishi uchun o'z mablag'i hisobiga haj qila oladigan bo'lsa, o'sha kishi uning nomidan hajni ado etishi shart. Ammo o'z mablag'i va jismoniy qobiliyati bilan uning nomidan haj qila oladigan kishi, masalan, aka-uka yoki yaqin qarindosh topilsa, uning zimmasidagi majburiyat soqit bo'ladi. Bu masala ular tomonidan ma'dub (nogiron) deb nomlangan masaladir, ya'ni ulov ustiga o'tirib bo'lmaydigan kishi. Uning qarashicha, agar kishi hajni ado etmasdan vafot etsa, uning merosxo'rlari merosidan uning nomidan biror kishi haj qila oladigan miqdorda ajratib berishlari majburiydir.

With respect to its obligation through ability by delegation, Malik and Abu Hanifa maintain that delegation is not binding, even when that ability is there, if the inability for direct performance exists. Al-ShafiT maintains that it is binding, thus, for a person who possesses sufficient wealth with which someone other than he can perform the pilgrimage, if he himself cannot perform it physically, then that person must perform it on his behalf. But if someone is found who can perform it on his behalf with his own wealth and physical ability, like a brother or next of kin, his liability is dropped. This is an issue that they termed ma^dub (incapacitated person), who is a person who cannot be seated on the riding animal. In his view, if a person dies without performing the pilgrimage, it is binding upon his heirs to set something from his estate with which some person can perform the pilgrimage on his behalf.

Ikkilanishning sababi analogiya bilan hadis o'rtasidagi ziddiyatdan kelib chiqadi. Analogiya shuni taqozo qiladiki, ibodatni bir kishi boshqasi o'rniga vakil bo'lib ado eta olmaydi; shu sababli hech kim boshqasi uchun namoz o'qimaydi va boshqasi o'rniga zakot bermaydi. Bunga qarshi bo'lgan hadis esa Ibn Abbos rivoyati bo'lib, uni ikki shayx (al-Buxoriy va Muslim) rivoyat qilgan. Unda aytiladi: "Xas'am qabilasidan bir ayol Allah Elchisi ﷺ ga kelib dedi: «Ey Allahning Elchisi! Haj Allah bandalariga farz qilgan farzdir, lekin mening otam qari kishi bo'lib, ulov ustida mustahkam o'tira olmaydi. Men uning o'rniga haj qilsam bo'ladimi?» U zot dedilar: «Ha».". Bu tirik kishi haqidagi holat edi. Vafot etgan kishi haqida esa al-Buxoriy rivoyat qilgan hadis bor, u ham Ibn Abbosdan: "Juhayna qabilasidan bir ayol Nabiy ﷺ oldiga kelib dedi: «Ey Allahning Elchisi! Onam haj qilishni nazr qilgan edi, lekin vafot etdi. Men uning o'rniga haj qilsam bo'ladimi?» U zot dedilar: «Uning o'rniga haj qil. Agar onangda qarz bo'lganida, uni to'lamaysanmi? Allahning qarzi to'lanishga yanada haqlidir»". Musulmon faqihlari orasida, boshqasi uchun qilingan hajning nafl ekanligida ihtilof yo'q; ikkilanish esa uni farz sifatida ado etish masalasidadir.

The reason for disagreement over this arises from the conflict of analogy with a tradition. Analogy dictates that acts of worship cannot be performed by one person on behalf of another by delegation, thus, no one prays on behalf of another nor does one pay zakat in another’s place. The tradition opposing this is the well-known tradition of Ibn ‘Abbas recorded by the two shaykhs (al- BukharT and Muslim), and it reads “that a woman from Khath^m said to the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), CO Messenger of Allah, hajj is an obligation prescribed for His servants, but I find my father an old man who cannot sit firmly on a riding animal. Should I then perform the hajj for him?’ He said, ‘Yes’”. This was the case of a living person. In the case of a dead person there is a tradition that was recorded by al-BukharT, which is also from Ibn ‘Abbas, who said, “A woman from Juhayna came up to the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) and said, ‘O Messenger of Allah, my mother made a vow to perform hajj. but she died, so should I perform it on her behalf?’ He said, ‘Perform the pilgrimage for her. Do you think that if she had a debt would you not pay it off? The debt of Allah has a prior claim for satisfaction’”. There is no dispute among the Muslim jurists that it is voluntary when performed for another, the disagreement is about its performance as an obligation.

Ushbu masalada olimlar boshqa birov uchun hajga boradigan kishi, u tirik yoki vafot etgan bo'lishidan qat'i nazar, o'zi hajni ado etgan bo'lishi shart bo'lishi-bo'lmasligi haqida ixtilof qilganlar. Ba'zi faqihlar bu shart emas, lekin agar u o'zi uchun farzni ado etgan bo'lsa, bu afzal, deb bildilar. Bu Molikning, vafot etgan kishi nomidan hajga borgan kishi haqidagi fikri edi, chunki uning nazarida tirik kishi uchun qilingan haj to'g'ri emas. Boshqa faqihlar esa, farzni o'zi uchun ado etgan bo'lishi shart, deb bildilar. Bu Shofe'iy va undan boshqa olimlarning fikri edi. Agar o'zi hajga bormagan kishi boshqa birov uchun hajga borsa, uning haji o'ziniki uchun bo'lgan hajga aylanadi. Bu faqihlarning tayanchi Ibn Abbosning rivoyatidir: "Payg'ambar ﷺ Shubrama nomidan talbiya aytayotgan bir kishini eshitdilar. U: «Bu Shubrama kim?» dedilar. Kishi uning akasi yoki (dedi) yaqin qarindoshi ekanini aytdi. U: «Sen o'zing uchun haj qildingmi?» dedi. Kishi: «Yo'q», dedi. U: «Avval o'zing uchun haj qil, keyin Shubrama uchun», dedi". Birinchi guruh faqihlar bu rivoyatga e'tiroz bildirdilar, chunki u Ibn Abbosgacha mavquf sifatida rivoyat qilingan, ya'ni isnod (rivoyat zanjiri) sahobiyning shogirdi nomini o'z ichiga olmagan.

In this topic, they disagreed about the person who performs hajj for someone else, who may be living or dead, as to whether it is a condition for him that he should have performed hajj himself. Some of the jurists held that this is not a condition, but if he has performed the obligation for himself that would be better. This was Malik’s opinion for the person who performed hajj on behalf of a dead person, for in his view hajj for a person who is living is not valid. The other jurists held that it is a condition that he should have performed the obligation for himself. This was the opinion of al-Shafi‘T and others besides him, and if a person, who had not performed hajj for himself, did perform hajj for another it would be converted to a personal performance. The reliance of these jurists is upon the tradition of Ibn ‘Abbas “that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) heard a manJ pronouncing the talbiya on behalf of someone called Shubrama. He said, ‘And who is this Shubrama?’ The man replied that he was his brother or (he said) his close relative. He said, ‘Have you performed hajj for yourself?’ The man said, ‘No’. He said, ‘Perform hajj for yourself first and then for Shubrama’”. The first group of jurists objected to this tradition as it was narrated as mawquf up to Ibn cAbbas (i.e. the isnad (chain) did not contain1 the name of the Companion’s disciple).

Ular bu masalada yana boshqa bir kishi haqida ham ixtilof qilishdi: o'zganing nomidan haj qilish uchun ijara (ish haqi) evaziga o'zini taklif qiladigan kishi haqida. Molik va ash-Shofi‘iy bunga norozilik bildirishdi, lekin agar shunday bo'lib qolsa, bu joiz deyishdi. Abu Hanifa esa bunga ruxsat bermadi. U, haj qilishdan maqsad Allohga yaqinlashish bo'lgani uchun va bunday maqsad uchun ish haqi olish joiz emasligiga dalil keltirdi. Birinchi guruhning dalili esa Qur'on nusxasini ko'chirish va masjidlar qurish uchun ish haqi olish joizligi bo'yicha ijmo'ga tayangan edi, chunki bular ham Allohga yaqinlashish yo'llaridan biridir. Molik qarashicha, haj uchun ijaraga olish ikki turli bo'ladi. Birinchisi, uning shogirdlari "balog'" deb atagan turi bo'lib, bunda kishi shunday ish haqi evaziga xizmat qiladiki, bu ish haqi (kerakli) yo'l xarajati va minadigan hayvon uchun yetarli bo'ladi. Agar o'sha ish haqi balog'dan kam bo'lsa, unga yetarli miqdor to'lanadi, agar ortiqcha qolsa, uni qaytarishi kerak. Ikkinchisi, odatdagi ijara bo'lib, bunda kamchilikni o'zi to'ldiradi, ortiqcha qolsa esa, u o'ziniki bo'ladi. Ko'pchilik olimlar qulga ozod qilinmaguncha haj farz bo'lmaydi, deb hisoblaydi. Ammo ba'zi zohiriylar uni qul uchun ham farz qilishadi.

They also differed, in this topic, about a person who offers himself for a wage to perform hajj on behalf of someone else. Malik and <al-Shafic7 disapproved of this, but said that if it happens it is permissible. Abu HanTfa did not permit it. He relied on the argument that the purpose was to seek nearness to Allah and wages are not allowed for that. The argument of the first group was the consensus about the permissibility of earning wages for writing the mushaf and for the construction of mosques, which are also one way of seeking nearness to Allah. Hiring during hajj, in Malik’s view, is of two kinds. The first is what his disciples called the balagh, whereby a person offers his services for a wage that would be enough to provide the (required) provision and a riding animal. If that wage falls short of the balagh he is to be paid what would be enough, and if an excess is left over he is to return it. The second is the customary hiring whereby something falling short is to be made up by him and if there is an excess it belongs to him. The majority maintain that hajj is not binding upon a slave until he is manumitted, but some of the Zahirites make it obligatory for him.

Bu ibodat kimga farz bo‘lishi va kimning ado etishi to‘g‘ri bo‘lishi haqida.

This is all about the person on whom this worship is obligatory and about the person whose performance is valid.

Vaqti kelganda buyruq zimmaga darhol bajarilishini talab qiladimi yoki kechiktirib bajarilishini talab qiladimi, degan masalada ulamolar ixtilof qilganlar. Ikkala fikr ham Molik va uning shogirdlariga nisbat beriladi. Molik mazhabining keyingi faqihlari orasida ko‘rinib turgan fikr kechiktirib bajarish, lekin uning Bag‘dodlik shogirdlari esa darhol bajarish kerak, deganlar. Abu Hanifa va uning shogirdlaridan naqllar turlicha, ammo ular afzal ko‘rgan fikr darhol bajarishdir. Ash-Shofi‘iy esa, u vaqt davomida yoyilgan, dedi. Vaqt davomida yoyilgan (darhol emas) deyuvchilarning dalili shuki, hajj Payg‘ambar ﷺ hajj qilmasdan bir necha yil oldin farz bo‘lgan. Agar darhol bajarilishi lozim bo‘lganida, Payg‘ambar ﷺ hajjni kechiktirmagan bo‘lardilar. Agar kechiktirgan bo‘lsalar, biror uzr sababli kechiktirgan bo‘lardilar va buni bayon qilgan bo‘lardilar. Boshqa guruhning dalili shuki, agar hajj ma’lum bir vaqtga xos bo‘lsa, unda vaqt o‘tguncha uni tark etgan kishiga gunoh yozilishi asl hisoblanadi, bunda asos namoz vaqti bo‘ladi. Ikkinchi guruh nazarida bu bilan namoz buyrug‘i o‘rtasidagi farq shundaki, uning farzligi har lahzada yangilanmaydi, namozda esa har lahzada yangilanadi. Umuman olganda, hajjda boshlang‘ich vaqtni, ya’ni qodir bo‘lgan shaxs uchun, namozning boshlang‘ich vaqtiga o‘xshash deb bilganlar bajarishni kechiktirish mumkin, deganlar. Oxirgi vaqtga o‘xshash deb bilganlar esa darhol bajarish kerak, deganlar. Oxirgi vaqtga o‘xshash deyishning sababi shuki, u shu vaqtda tugaydiki, ushbu amal bajarilgan taqdirda ham o‘z kuchini yo‘qotadi, xuddi namoz vaqti shunday vaqt kelganda tugaydiki, bu vaqtda namozxon namozni ado etgan hisoblanmaydi, deb Alloh biladi. Bu faqihlar yana shunga asoslanib bahslashadilar: hajni keyingi yilga qoldirish bilan bog‘liq xavf, ya’ni uzoqroq muddat ichida vafot etish ehtimoli ko‘proq bo‘lishi sababli. Ular bunday holatni namozni o‘z vaqtining boshidan oxirigacha kechiktirish holatidan farqli deb hisoblaydilar, chunki bu qisqa vaqt ichida insonning vafot etish ehtimoli bir yil ichidagiga qaraganda ancha kam. Ehtimol, ular yana shuni qo‘shishlari mumkinki, namozni belgilangan vaqt ichida kechiktirish ibodatchini namozni ado etish imkoniyatidan mahrum qilmaydi, ammo bu holatda hajni kechiktirish uning muddatini o‘tkazib yuborishga va ushbu ibodat amalga oshirilishi joiz bo‘lmagan, ancha uzoq muddatning boshlanishiga olib keladi. Bu buyruqsiz amrga o‘xshamaydi, chunki buyruqsiz amrda, uni bajarishni kechiktirish erkinligini nazarda tutadiganlarning qarashiga ko‘ra, bajarishni kechiktirish qoidaga ko‘ra talab qilinadigan ibodatning joiz bo‘lmagan vaqtiga olib kelmaydi, hajda esa, uning vaqti kelganda, shaxs uni kelajakka qoldirganidek. Shunday ekan, bu masaladagi ixtilof, go‘yo taxmin qilinganidek, buyruqsiz amr darhol yoki kechiktirib bajarilishini talab qiladimi, degan bahslarining turkumiga tegishli emas.

With respect to the time when it becomes obligatory, they disagreed whether the,command necessitates immediate or delayed compliance?239 Both opinions are attributed to Malik and his disciples. The apparent opinion of the later jurists of his school is that it is delayed, butrhis disciples from Baghdad said that it is immediate. Reports from Abu HanTfa and his disciples differ, but their preferred opinion is that it is immediate. Al-ShaficT said that it is spread out over a period of time. The reliance of those who say that it spreads over a span of time (is not immediate) is that hajj became obligatory years before the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) performed the hajj. If it required immediate compliance the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) would not have delayed the performance of his hajj. If he had done so because of an excuse he would have explained it. The argument of the other group is that if it is specific to a particular time, the principle would be to attribute sin to the person who relinquishes it till the time passes, the basis (for the analogy) being the time of prayer. The distinction between this and the command for prayer, in the view of the second group, is that its obligation is not renewed from moment to moment and in prayer it is renewed every moment. On the whole, those who held the initial time of obligation in hajj, as applicable to an individual who has the ability (for performance), to be similar to the initial time of prayer said that compliance is delayed, while those who held it to be similar to the last time of prayer said that compliance is immediate. The reason for holding it to be similar to the last portion of the time of prayer is that it is terminated with the advent of the time in which his act is not valid, just as the time of prayer is terminated with the advent of time in which the worshipper is not considered to be offering his prayer as W#. These jurists also argue on the basis of the risk that becomes associated with the postponement to another year because of the greater possibility of death occuring during a longer period. They maintain that this is different from the case of delay in prayer from its first time to its last, as the likelihood of the person’s death within that short time is far less than it is within a year. Perhaps they may add that delaying prayer within its fixed period does not separate the worshipper from the chance to perform the prayer as 'add*, but delay in this case of hajj leads to the expiry of its period and the start of a much longer period in which the performance of this worship is not valid. This is not similar to the case of the unqualified command, because in the unqualified command, in the view of those who maintain that it implies liberty of delayed compliance, a delay in performance does not lead to the advent of a time in which the required worship is not valid, as it does in the case of hajj when it is time for it and the subject postpones it to the future. The disagreement, then, on this issue does not belong, as has been assumed, to the category of their dispute whether an unqualified command necessitates immediate or delayed compliance.

Ular bu mavzu doirasida ayol kishiga hajni farz qilish uchun shart bo'ladimi yoki yo'qmi, degan masalada ixtilof qilishgan: ayolning eri yoki safarda uni hamrohlik qilishga rozi bo'lgan dhu mahram (nikoh uchun taqiqlangan qarindoshi) bo'lishi shartmi? Molik va ash-Shofi'iy bu farzlik uchun ikki muqobil shartdan biri shunday deyishdi. Ikkinchi muqobil shart esa ayol ishonchli ayol hamrohi bilan haj qilishidir. Abu Hanifa, Ahmad va bir guruh faqihlar esa erning yoki mahramning rozi bo'lib mavjud bo'lishi farzlik uchun shart deb aytishdi.

They disagreed, within the topic, whether it is a condition for the obligation of hajj on a woman that she must have a husband or a dhu mahram (a relative of the prohibited degree for marriage) who is willing to accompany her on the journey for hajj. Malik and al-Shaf?T said that this is one alternative condition for the obligation. The other alternative is for a woman to go for hajj with a trustworthy female companion. Abu HanTfa, Ahmad, and a group of jurists said that the availability of a willing husband or a mahram is a condition for the obligation.

Ixtilofning sababi hajj uchun farz qilish va bu maqsadda safarga chiqish buyrug'ining, ayolning eri yoki mahramisiz yolg'iz safar qilishining man etilishi bilan to'qnashuvidan kelib chiqadi. Chunki Abu Sa'id al-Xudriy, Abu Hurayra, Ibn Abbos va Umar orqali Payg'ambar ﷺ dan rivoyat qilinganidek, u zot shunday degan: "Allohga va Oxirat kuniga iymon keltirgan ayolga mahram bo'lmagan holda safar qilish halol emas." Hajj buyrug'ining umumiy ma'nosini ustun qo'yganlar, ayol mahramsiz (balki ishonchli ayollar guruhi bilan) hajjga safar qilishi mumkin, deyishgan. Bu hadis bilan umumiy ma'noni cheklaganlar yoki uni "imkoniyat" ma'nosining izohi deb hisoblaganlar esa, ayol mahram hamrohligisiz hajjga safar qilmasligi kerak, deyishgan.

The reason for the disagreement arises from the conflict of the command for hajj and of taking up travel for it with the proscription about a woman’s travelling alone without her husband or a mahram. This is so as it is established from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) through Abu Sa Td al-Khudri, Abu Hurayra, Ibn <Abbas, and TJmar, that he said € “It is not permitted for a woman, who believes in Allah and the Last Day to travel without a dhu mahram”. Those who gave predominance to the generality of the command of hajj said that she may travel for hajj even when she is not accompanied by a dhu mahram (but with a trustworthy group of women). Those who restricted the general implication with this tradition, or held that it is an elaboration of “ability”, said that she is not to travel for hajjy unless she is accompanied by a dhu mahram.

Biz endi bu ibodat, ya'ni hajj, haqida gapirdik: u qaysi asosga ko'ra vojib bo'ladi, kimlar uchun va qachon. Ushbu bo'limda esa 'umra deb ataladigan ibodat haqidagi bahs qoldi. Bir guruh faqihlar uni vojib deb aytdilar. Bu ash-Shofi'iy, Ahmad, Abu Savr, Abu Ubayd, ath-Thavriy, al-Avzoiy fikri edi; Sahobalardan Ibn Abbos va Ibn Umar fikri ham shu edi, shuningdek, tobe'inlardan bir guruh ham shunday deganlar. Molik va bir guruh faqihlar esa uni sunnat deb aytdilar. Abu Hanifa uni ixtiyoriy deb aytdi, bu fikr Abu Savr va Dovud fikri ham edi. Uni vojib deganlar Alloh Taolo ning: "Alloh uchun hajni va 'umrani ado eting", degan so'zlariga tayanib dalil keltirdilar.241

We have now spoken about this rite, which is called hajj,, regarding the basis due to which it becomes obligatory, and for who and when. In this section there remains the discussion of the rite known as 'umra. A group of jurists said that it is obligatory. This was the opinion of al-ShaficT, Ahmad, Abu Thawr, Abu °Ubayd, al-Thawri, al-Awza T, and c it was the opinion of Ibn c Abbas and Ibn TJmar from among the Companions, and also of a group of the Tabi un. Malik and a group of jurists c said that it is a sunna. Abu HanTfa said that it is voluntary, which was also the opinion of Abu Thawr240 and Dawud. Those who maintained that it is obligatory argued on the basis of the words of the Exalted, “Perform the pilgrimage and the himra for Allah,”241

va shuningdek, rivoyat qilingan hadislarga asoslanib. Ulardan biri Ibn Umarning otasidan rivoyatidir, u aytadi: "Chiroyli yuzli va oq kiyimli bir badaviy Allohning Rasuli ﷺ huzuriga kelib dedi: "Ey Allohning Rasuli, Islom nima?" U zot javob berdilar: "Allohdan boshqa iloh yo'qligiga va Muhammad Uning elchisi ekaniga guvohlik berishing, namozni o'qishing, zakot berishing, Ramazon oyida ro'za tutishing, haj qilishing va umra qilishing hamda o'zingni nopoklikdan pok tutishingdir"". Abdurrazzoq shunday zikr qilgan: "Ma'mar bizga Qatoda orqali xabar berdi, u rivoyat qilardi: "Allohning uyini ziyorat qilish insonlarga, unga yo'l topa oladigan kishiga Allohning farzidir" degan oyat nozil bo'lganida, Allohning Rasuli ﷺ dedilar: "Ikkalasi, ya'ni haj va umra, ularni ado etgan kishi farzni bajargan bo'ladi"". Zayd ibn Sobitdan Payg'ambardan ﷺ rivoyat qilinadi, u aytdi: "Haj va umra ikki farzdir, qaysi biri bilan boshlasang ham sizga zarar yo'q". Ibn Abbosdan rivoyat qilinadiki, umra vojibdir, ba'zilar bu so'zni isnod orqali Payg'ambarga ﷺ nisbat berganlar.

and also on the basis of the reported traditions. One of these is the report from Ibn TJmar from his father, who said, “A Bedouin, who had a fair countenance and was wearing white clothes came up to the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) and said, ‘What is Islam, O Messenger of Allah?’ He replied, ‘That you testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is His messenger, and you establish prayer, pay the zakat, fast the month of Ramadan, perform the pilgrimage and the ^umra, and wash yourself free of impurities’”. cAbd al-Razzaq has mentioned that “Ma'mar informed us on the authority of Qatada, who used to relate that when the verse ‘And pilgrimage to the House is a duty unto Allah for mankind, for him who can find a way thither’,242 was revealed the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, ‘The two, the hajj and the htmra, anyone who performs them has fulfilled the obligation’”. It is related from Zayd ibn Thabit from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) that he said, “The hajj and the ^umra are two obligations, and there is no harm for you with whichever you commence”. It is related from Ibn cAbbas that himra is obligatory, and some have attribute this statement through an isnad to the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him).

Boshqa guruh faqihlarining, ya'ni umra vojib emas deb hisoblaganlarning dalili, Islomdagi farzlar soni haqida naql qilingan va umraga zikr qilinmagan sahih va mashhur hadislarga asoslanadi. Masalan, Ibn Umarning hadisi: "Islom besh narsa ustiga qurilgan", bu hadisda u faqat hajni zikr qilgan. Shuningdek, Islom nima ekanligini so'ragan kishi haqidagi hadis bor, uning ba'zi rivoyatlarida "Baytni haj qilishing" degan so'zlar keladi. Ehtimol, bu faqihlar yuqorida keltirilgan 2:196-oyatdagi kabi, tugallanishni ifodalovchi buyruq vojiblikni keltirib chiqarmaydi, deb ham aytganlar, chunki bir farz yoki sunnat amal boshlangandan keyin uni tugallash kerak, uzib qo'yilmasligi kerak, degani. Umraning sunnat ekanligini aytgan faqihlar ham hadislarga asoslanganlar. Ular orasida Hajjoj ibn Arto'otning Muhammad ibn al-Munkadirdan, u Jobir ibn Abdullohdan rivoyat qilgan hadisi bor. Jobir aytdi: "Bir kishi Nabiy ﷺ dan umra vojib emasmi, deb so'radi. U: 'Yo'q, lekin agar umra qilsang, bu sen uchun yaxshiroqdir', dedi." Abu Umar ibn Abd al-Barr esa bu hadisni ishonarli emas deydi, chunki uni faqat bitta rivoyatchi naql qilgan.

The argument of the other group of jurists, who hold that it is not obligatory, is based on authentic and well-known traditions that have been laid down about the number of the obligations in Islam and that do not mention the <-umra, An example is the tradition of Ibn TJmar, “Islam is structured upon five things”, in which he mentioned the pilgrimage alone. There is also the tradition of the one asking what Islam is, and in some of its versions are the words, “that you perform the pilgrimage to the House”. Perhaps, these jurists also said that a command implying completion (as it appeared in the Quranic verse 2 : 196 quoted above) does not give rise to an obligation, as it means that once an obligation or a sunna act is started, it should be completed and not cut off. The jurists who maintained that it is a sunna, also argued on the basis of traditions. These include the tradition of al-Hajjaj ibn cArta from Muhammad ibn al-Munkadir from Jabir ibn <Abd Allah, who said, “A man asked the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) about the <umra, whether it was obligatory? He replied, ‘No, but if you perform the <umra it is better for you’ ”. Abu TJmar ibn Abd al-Barr c said that this is not persuasive insofar as he was the sole narrator.

Ehtimol, umra ixtiyoriy deb hisoblaganlar Abu Solih al-Hanafiydan rivoyat qilingan hadisga tayanganlar. U aytadi: "Allohning Elchisi ﷺ dedilar: "Haj farz, umra esa nofila."" Ammo bu munqati' hadisdir.

Perhaps, those who maintained that it was voluntary argued on the basis of what is related from Abu Salih al-HanafT, who said, “The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, '‘Hajj is obligatory and <umra is voluntary’”. This, however, is a munqatf tradition.

Ixtilofning sababi shu masala bo'yicha rivoyatlarning o'zaro ziddiyatidan va tugallashni talab qiluvchi amrning obligatsiya (majburiyat) keltirib-keltirmasligi haqida ikkilanishidan kelib chiqadi.

The reason for the disagreement stems thus from the conflict of traditions on the subject, and the vacillation of the command requiring completion between whether or not if gives rise to an obligation.