អ៊ុមដាតុល រីអាយ៉ះ (ការពន្យល់ក្បួនច្បាប់វីកាយ៉ះ ហាណាហ្វី)

(If a chick[(1)] or a bird lays in the land, or a fawn(2) is broken in it, it is for the taker): that is, it is not for the owner(3) of the land; Because [(4)] the hunt is for the one who took it (5), and what is meant by the fawn’s breaking is that its leg is broken, but he only said: it is broken (6); Because if someone breaks it, it belongs to him, not to the one who took it, and in some narrations it is swept(7): that is, he entered into the sweeper(8): and it is his shelter, unlike if the landowner prepared his land for that, and unlike if the bees(9) honeyed on his land[(10)]. (Like a catch (1) that got caught in a net set up for drought, or (2) dirhams (3) [or dinars] (4) or sugar that was scattered and it fell on a garment that was no longer his, and he did not stop) even if the garment was prepared for that, then it belongs to the owner of the garment. Likewise, if (5) it was no longer his, but when (6) his palm fell on him, it became his by this action.

[Book of disbursement, guarantee and transfer] Book (1) Exchange (It is the sale of price for price, in kind or without kind), such as selling gold for gold, selling silver for silver, and selling gold for silver. (And the condition (2) includes contracting before parting (3), and it is valid to sell gold for silver with credit and splits, not (4) selling the kind for the kind unless it is equal (5), even if they differ in quality and wording (6)), but (7) mentions the credit and the split and does not mention equality; Because there is no doubt about the permissibility of equality, but rather the doubt about virtue and (8) unfairness, so mention them. (It is not [permissible] (9) to dispose of the exchange price before receiving it, for if (10) [he bought a garment] (11) with it, the purchase (12) of the garment is invalidated. That is, if he bought (13) the exchange price before receiving a garment, the purchase of the garment is invalidated.

(And whoever sells a female slave equivalent to a thousand dirhams with (1) a collar of a thousand (2) for two thousand, and exchanges a thousand of the price, or sells her for two thousand, one thousand in cash and a thousand in cash, or sells a sword with fifty ornaments on it, and gets rid (3) without harm for a hundred, and exchanges fifty, then the price of the silver is not exchanged) [which is a thousand (4) in the sale of the nation, and fifty in the sale of the sword] (5), (he remained silent, or said: Take this from its price), but if He was silent and it became apparent; Because when he sold, he intended it to be valid, and there is no validity except by making the money received in exchange for the silver. But if he said: Take this (6) as its price (7), it does not mean take this as the price of their sum; Because the price of the total is two thousand for a slave girl, and a hundred for a sword, so what it means is to take this as part of the price of their total, and the price of silver is part of the price of the total, so it is charged against it to ensure permissibility. (If they separate without taking possession of the jewelry, then it is invalid only, and if he does not get rid of it without harm, it is invalid at all): That is, if he does not get rid of the jewelry from the sword without harm, and they part without taking possession, it is invalid in both cases. I found in (8) ((footnote to the compiler’s copy)) - may God be pleased with him - with a check mark, but not in the author’s handwriting - may God be pleased with him - this appendix, which is this detail: If the price is more than the jewelry, and if (9) it is not, it is not valid.

So he said: Even if it is not; It includes whether the price is equal to the jewellery, or less than it, or it is not known, then it is not permissible to sell it, either due to the realization of usury or suspicion of it (10). (And whoever sells a silver vessel and receives some of its price, then separates, it is valid for what was received only, and they shared the vessel): That is, the sale is valid for what was received for its price, and spoiled for what was not received, and (1) corruption is not widespread as we mentioned (2) in ((Chapter of Salam)) (3); Because (4) corruption is an emergency (5). (If some of it is due, the buyer will take the rest of it with his share or return it): That is, if some of the vessel is due, the buyer has the option; Because the partnership is a defect in the vessel, and in the event of receiving some of the price, the partnership is established, but the buyer does not have the right to respond with this defect; Because it is proven (6) with the consent (7) of the buyer; Because the company is only proven (8) on his part; Because he paid some of the price and not the other, he accepted this defect, unlike the entitlement, since the buyer was not satisfied with it, so he has the authority to return it. (If he is entitled to part of a Naqra piece (9) sold, he takes what remains as his share without any option); Because the company is not flawed in the click piece; Because ovulation does not harm him. (It is valid to sell two dirhams and a dinar for a dirham and two dinars, and to sell a grain of wheat and a grain of barley for a grain of wheat and a grain of barley): This is according to us, but according to Zufar - may God be pleased with him - and Al-Shafi’i (10) - may God be pleased with him - it is not permissible; Because it corresponds to the sentence with the sentence, and it is necessary to divide into commonness, and in changing the genus to the opposite of the genus, it changes (11) its behavior.

We said: The absolute correspondence is subject to the aforementioned morphology, and there is no change in (1) its morphology (2); Because what it means is establishing ownership over everything in exchange for everything, so the two dirhams are in opposition to the two dinars, and the dinar is in opposition to the dirham, and the grain of wheat is in opposition to the grain of barley, and the grain of barley is in opposition to the grain of wheat. (And selling eleven dirhams for ten dirhams and a dinar) so that ten dirhams for ten dirhams remains a dirham in exchange for a dinar. (And selling one true dirham and two grainy dirhams (3) for two true dirhams and one grainy dirham). The yield is what the treasury returns (4) and is taken by merchants. This is only permissible to achieve equality in weight and forfeit the consideration of quality.

(And he sold to someone who owed ten dirhams to him who had a dinar for it in absolute terms if (1) he paid the dinar and netted the ten for ten): that is, he added ten dirhams to Amr, so Amr sold a dinar from Zaid for ten in absolute terms: that is, he did not add to the contract the ten that Amr owed. The sale was valid if (2) Amr paid the dinar, so each of them became ten dirhams from the other, so they netted ten for ten, so this offset would be an annulment of the first sale, which is a sale. The dinar is for the absolute ten, and a sale for the dinar for the ten that Amr owes, since [if] (3) had not been based on this, it would have been an exchange instead of (4) the exchange (5), and this is (6) if he sold the dinar for the absolute ten, but (7) if he sold it for the ten that he owed Amr, it is valid, and the clearing takes place in the same contract. (For (8) the dirhams (9) are dominated by silver and the dinars are gold, then they are (10) silver and gold in legal terms, so it is not permissible to sell them pure (11) with it. He does not know, it is not valid, and if it is more, it is valid if they do not separate (14) without contracting.

(And with its gender (1) differentially, it is valid provided that it is caught in the gatherings (2)), but [it is valid] (3) by changing the gender to something other than the gender; Because it is in the ruling of two things, silver and zero (4), so if the condition of arrest in silver is a condition (5) in zero (6); For non-discrimination (7). (And if he bought [a commodity](8) with fraudulent dirhams or with spent money, it is valid. If (9) was stagnated(10) invalid): that is, [the money](11) stagnated before he received it(12) it is invalid according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - and according to them it is not invalidated. According to (13) Abu Yusuf - may God be pleased with him - its value must be paid on the day of sale, and according to Muhammad - may God be pleased with him - it is the last thing that people deal with.

(And if he borrowed money and it became stagnant, a similar amount must be paid) (1). This is according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - and according to Abu Yusuf - may God be pleased with him - its value is obligatory (2) on the day of receipt, and according to Muhammad - may God be pleased with him - on the day of staking (3) [as mentioned] (4).

(And whoever buys [something] for half a dirham, a dirham, or a dirham, or a dirham, or a dirham, or a qirat, (3) [money] (4), it is valid, and he owes what was sold for half a dirham, or a dirham, or a qirat of it: that is, he bought (5) for half a dirham, or a dirham, or a qirat, provided that he is given money in return for that price. It is valid, and the buyer is responsible for the money that is given in exchange for that price, and the qirat when calculating is half a tenth. Al-Mithqal (6), and upon exhalation - may God be pleased with him - this sale is not permissible; Because the money is numerical, and estimating it in danq and the like indicates the weight, and for us: the price is the money, and it is known (7). (And if he said to the one who gave him a dirham: Give me half of it a money and half of it except a grain, then the sale is invalid [originally] (8)): That is, he said: Give me half of it a money and half of it. He did not mint silver for the weight of half a dirham except a grain, so he would be liable for usury. (Other than give me half a dirham as money and half as much as a grain) that is, [if] (9) he gave him the dirham, and mentioned the price and did not divide it into parts of the dirham, (then the half except a grain is for the same, and what remains is the money.

If he repeats “give me [give me](1) it is valid with regard to money only): that is, he repeats the word ‘give me’ in the first form, which is dividing the dirham, it is valid with respect to money, and it is not valid with regard to [half](2) the dirham except a grain; Because when he repeated “Give me,” it became “two terms” (3). Guarantee letter ((4) Adding a liability to a liability in a claim, not in the debt, is more correct (5)), and according to some (6) adding a liability to a liability in the debt; Because if the debt is not proven, the claim is not proven, and what is more correct is the first; Because the debt cannot be repeated, if one of them repays it, nothing remains due to the other. (It is two times: With the soul. And money. The first (7) is held: with “I guarantee” by himself, or something similar to what expresses his body, or “half of it,” or “one-third of it,” and (8) “with his guarantee” (9), or “Ali,” or “to me,” or “I am a leader with him,” or “before” (10). He is obliged to bring the person for whom he is guaranteed if the person for whom he is guaranteed requests. If he does not bring him, the ruler will imprison him(11), and if he specifies a time for delivery(12) [he is obligated](13) to do so. And He is healed (14):

By the death of the one who is responsible for him, even if he is a slave (1)); He only said this to refute the illusion that the slave is money, so if it is not possible to hand it over, he is obligated to pay its value.

(And by handing it (2) to the one who guaranteed him, where he can dispute him (3), and if he does not say, “If I pay it to you, then I am innocent,” then the condition of handing him over to the judge’s council, and handing him over (4) in the market, or in Egypt is another acquittal (5), and if he is handed over in the wilderness, or in the dark, or in prison, and someone else has imprisoned him (6): It was said: In our time, he is not absolved by handing him over in the market; Because no one helps him(7) to bring it to the judicial council(8), so if another delivers it in Egypt, he will be cured if he delivers it to a place that is able to bring it [in](9) the judge’s council, even if he delivers it in another Egyptian market, he will not be cured in our time; Because the intended purpose was not achieved. And his statement (1): And (2) others imprisoned him; That is, other than this student. It was said: He will not be acquitted here if the prison was the imprisonment of (3) another judge. However, if the prison was the imprisonment of this judge, he will be acquitted, even if his imprisonment was other than this student. Because the judge is able to bring him from prison. (And by handing over the person to whom he has guaranteed himself from his guarantee (4)): That is, by handing over the person to whom he has guaranteed himself from the guarantee of the sponsor. (And by delivering the agent of the guarantor and his messenger to him), to him: related to delivery, and the pronoun refers (5) to the one to whom he is guaranteed (6). ([And if the person guaranteed dies, the guardian and heir (7) have the right to claim it): that is, the guarantor’s claim to the guaranteed property] (8).

(If he guarantees himself that if he does not pay it tomorrow): That is, (1) he brings it tomorrow, (he is a guarantee for what (2) he owes, [and he does not deliver it] (3) tomorrow, he is obligated to pay what he owes.): Contrary to Al-Shafi’i - may God be pleased with him -, for him (4) he offered money by condition, so it is not permissible like a sale. We said: It is similar to a sale and similar to a vow, so if it is conditional upon an inappropriate condition, it is not valid, and with an appropriate condition, it is valid in accordance with the two similarities (5), (and he is not released from his personal guarantee (6)) due to the reason for the release, but rather he is released if he pays the money; Because there is nothing left for the student to be sponsored by, there is no benefit in self-guarantee. (And if the person on whose behalf he is guaranteed dies (7), he is liable for the money): due to the existence of the condition, which is non-payment (8). (And whoever (1) claims against a man (2) money that is clear to him or not, then another man guarantees himself on the condition that if he does not pay it tomorrow, he must pay (3) the money is valid, and it is obligatory according to the condition: Picture of the issue: A man claims on the last hundred dinars, and a man guarantees himself on the condition that [if] (4) he does not pay it tomorrow, then he owes (5) the hundred. His saying: money means money that is destined. His saying: He explained it or not: that is, he explained his description in a way that makes the claim valid (6), or (7) he did not explain. On the issue there is disagreement with Muhammad - may God be pleased with him - and it was said: The impermissibility according to him is based on the fact that he said: He owes the hundred, and he did not say: The hundred that the defendant owes, so based on this, if the plaintiff stated the hundred, then his bail (8) would not be valid either, just as if he did not clarify, unless he said, “He owes the hundred that he claims.”

It was said: [It] (9) is based on the fact that if he did not clarify, the case was not valid, so he did not have to be brought before the judge’s council, so it is not valid to guarantee in person, and (10) it is not permissible to guarantee it with money, so if he explains (11) then the guarantee is valid (12). And for them: He said: He owes the hundred, or he owes the money, so what is meant by it is the usual, so if the plaintiff clarifies, then it is apparent (1), and if he does not clarify, then after that, if he clarifies the joining (2) of the statement to the origin of the case, then the validity of the guarantee in person becomes clear, and it results in (3) the guarantee with money. (There is no compulsion to give the guarantor (4) in terms of punishment or retaliation), this is according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -, and according to them he is forced (5) in the case of slander; Because it contains the slave’s right, and in retaliation; Because it is the pure right of the servant, and according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - that their basis is on prevention, it is not necessary to confirm them, (And if his soul permits(6) it is valid): that is, [If](7) permits(8) the soul of the one who is subject to punishment or retaliation and he gives a guarantor for the soul, it is valid.

(And there is no imprisonment in them until two concealed persons or a just person testify): When it was mentioned that there is no obligation to provide bail with Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - he mentioned (1) what the person with the right will do, then he will stay with him until the time the judge stands for the council, if (2) he brings (3) the evidence in it, and if he presents two concealed persons or a just witness, he will not be given bail with Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -, rather he will imprison him on the charge until (4) the truth becomes clear, and if he does not bring anything, let him go. His way. (The mortgage and suretyship are valid through tax) (5); Because it is a required debt other than zakat; Because it is just an action, but this issue was mentioned [here](6), even if [it is true](7) that it be mentioned in the money guarantee; Because in the mention of self-guarantee in the punishments and retaliation, and the tax is appropriate to the punishments, as is known in the principles of jurisprudence: it has the meaning of punishment (8); For this occasion, he mentioned it(9) here so that it is known that its ruling is the ruling on money, so that he is forced [in it](10) to guarantee it in person based on the validity of the guarantee in it. (The guarantor(11) took the soul, then another, and they were both guarantors): That is, taking the second guarantor is not abandoning the first. (Bail money is valid:

And if the person guaranteed is ignorant of whether his debt is valid: A valid debt is a debt that is not extinguished except by performance or release, and [it] (1) is a precaution against writing, for it is [a debt] (2) that is not valid, since the master does not require a debt from his servant, and it is extinguished by inability, (such as: I pledged what you owed). This guarantee is valid, even if the money guaranteed is unknown. (or whatever comes to you in this sale), this guarantee is called the real estate guarantee, and it is a guarantee of maturity, that is, it guarantees the buyer (4) the return (5) of the price if the item sold becomes due. (Or conditional the guarantee on a suitable condition, such as: I have not pledged allegiance to so-and-so(6), or what I have lent to you, or what has been plundered by me): what has been plundered: that is, what is obligatory, so in this form (7): what; Conditional meaning: If you pledge allegiance to so-and-so, then [in] (8) is the meaning of comment, and what is meant by appropriate (9): appropriate, for these things are reasons for the obligation of money, so it is appropriate to add the liability to the liability. So his saying: [I did not pledge allegiance to so-and-so: that is] (10) whatever I sold from him, I am a guarantor for its price (11) not what I bought from him, for I am a guarantor for the sold item, as a guarantee for the sold item is not permissible as follows (12).

(And if it is linked to the mere condition, then it is not (1): such as if the wind blows, or rain comes. If he guarantees what you owe to the extent of what he has provided evidence (2), and without evidence, the guarantor is truthful in what he acknowledges with his oath, and the principal is truthful in what he acknowledges with more than it is on himself only): That is, if he does not provide evidence, the guarantor is truthful to the extent of what he acknowledges even though he swears to deny the addition, and he must swear to the knowledge that you do not know that more than this is obligatory for the principal, so if he guarantees (3) or acknowledges the excess, he is obligated to do so, but he swears to know; Because swearing on what is obligatory upon others is only based on knowledge. If the principal acknowledges more than what the guarantor acknowledged [4], then that is limited to him; Because acknowledgment is a weak argument. And the word: what; In his saying: In what (5) acknowledges; Connected, and the pronoun in it refers to: what. And in his saying: In what he acknowledges more than it is source: that is, (6) the principal is truthful in his acknowledgment of more than it: that is, of what the guarantor acknowledges, even if it is made connected, it spoils the meaning; Because then the assessment of the words becomes the honesty of the principal in the thing that he acknowledges more of: that is, of that thing. The thing that the principal acknowledges more of is what the guarantor acknowledged, and the purpose is that the principal is truthful in the greater part, not that he is truthful in what the guarantor acknowledged.

(The claimant has the right to demand from whomever he wishes from his principal and guarantor, and to demand from them. If one of them demands, he has the right to demand from the other). This is in contrast to the owner if he chooses one of the usurpers; Because (1) his choosing one of them includes ownership of it: that is, if (2) the judge decides that. This is also stated in ((Mabsoot Sheikh Al-Islam))(3), so if one of them owns it, he cannot [own](4) the other. ((5)...(6) is valid with the order of the principal or without his order, then his order (7) is returned to him after giving it to the person requesting it (8), and he does not demand it before him), unlike the agent in the purchase (9); If he buys, he has the right to claim the price from his client before paying it to the seller. [Because] (10) a legal exchange was concluded between the agent and the client, (and if he did not order him, (11) he would not return. If the guarantor is bound by the money, then he has a principal obligation, and if he is detained, then he is detained (12): because he suffered this harm by his order, so he treats him in the same way.

(If the principal is acquitted or pays the money, the guarantor is acquitted, and if he acquits himself, the principal is not acquitted.) Because the debt is on the principal, acquittal of it necessitates acquittal of the claim, contrary to the opposite, (and if it is delayed on behalf of the principal, it is delayed from it, contrary to the opposite), considering the temporary acquittal for life. (If the guarantor agrees with the student for one thousand out of a hundred, the guarantor and the principal are released, and he returns to the principal for it if he guarantees it according to his order.) Because he added the reconciliation to the alif, which is the debt, and it is on the original, so he is acquitted of nine hundred, and his acquittal necessitates the acquittal of the guarantor. If the guarantee was at his command, the guarantor returns what he paid, which is one hundred. (And if he makes an agreement with another gender, he will return with a thousand) (1); Because it is an exchange (2), the sponsor (3) owns it, and he returns with all the thousand. If you say: The debt is on the principal, then how does the guarantor own it? Because ownership of the debt by someone other than the person who owes the debt is not valid. I said: As for the one who made the guarantee, it is apparent that the obligation is joined to the obligation in the debt, and as for others, if the guaranteed person owns the debt from the guarantor, either by gift, or by compensation, then the debt is made fixed in the guarantor’s obligation by the necessity of the validity of the ownership. That's what they said. (And if he reconciles on behalf of the person who provided the guarantee, the principal will not be released.) Because this settlement absolves the guarantor of the claim, it does not (4) require the acquittal of the principal.

(And if the requester says to the guarantor (1): I am released from the money, it is returned to the principal): Because the release that begins with the guarantor and ends with the requester cannot be (2) [except] (3) by payment, as if he said: I am released by payment to me, so the money is returned to the principal if the guarantee was at his command. (And also in: I was acquitted with Abu Yusuf - may God be pleased with him - in contrast to Muhammad - may God be pleased with him -), for him: acquittal is (4) by performance, or acquittal, so it is proven by the lesser (5). According to Abu Yusuf - may God be pleased with him -: He [if] (6) acknowledged the acquittal that began with what was sought, and it is by performance, so he will return. (And in: I acquit you, it will not be returned), it was said: In all of this, if the student is present, the statement will be returned to him. (It is not valid (7) to suspend acquittal from the guarantee on a condition (8) like all other acquittals (9), [as if he said: If so-and-so comes from a journey, I will absolve you of the debt, it is not valid to acquit [from him] (10)] (11).