អ៊ុមដាតុល រីអាយ៉ះ (ការពន្យល់ក្បួនច្បាប់វីកាយ៉ះ ហាណាហ្វី)

Nor is there a guarantee for what it is impossible to collect from the guarantor, such as punishments, retaliation, or for the sold item (1) other than the price). Know that a guarantee for the delivery of the sold item is valid, but if it is destroyed, the guarantor is not obligated to do anything. What is meant by ((the text)) is a guarantee for the money of the sold item. This is because his property (2) is not guaranteed by the principal, because if he were to die, the sale would be annulled, and the price must be returned [other than the price] (3).

(And by the mortgaged): that is, by its property (1), but it is valid (2) to deliver the mortgaged item, so if it perishes, nothing is obligatory on it. The bottom line is that the guarantee for the property of the assets (3) guaranteed by someone else is not valid. As for the assets guaranteed by themselves, it is valid in our view, contrary to Al-Shafi’i (4) - may God be pleased with him -, such as: a spoiled sale, a usurped property, and one seized for the purchase price, it is guaranteed. By value. (And with honesty: such as the deposit, the borrowed(5), the tenant, the speculation money, and the company)...(6) They said that the guarantee with the money of the deposit and the loan is not valid, but by enabling the owner to take the deposit it is valid, and likewise(7) by handing over the loan. (And the burden on a specific rented animal) (8), since he does not have the ability to deliver the animal for which he is sponsored (9), (other than the non-specific): The person entitled here is the burden on any animal it is, so the ability is fixed here (10). (And with the service of a hired slave for her): When (11) was mentioned in the animal.

(And on the authority of a dead person who is bankrupt (1))(2), this is according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - based on the fact that the dead person’s obligation (3) has weakened, so it is not obligatory for her unless he strengthens himself by one of two things: Either there is money left. Or there remains a guarantor who guarantyed for him during his lifetime, in which case the debt (4) is a valid debt, and the guaranty is valid. According to them, if the debt is proven and there is no waiver, it is a valid debt and the guarantee is valid.

(And without accepting the student in the council), and according to Abu Yusuf (1) - may God be pleased with him - if the news reaches him, and he approves, then it is permissible (2), and this disagreement is regarding the guarantee in person and money [together] (3), (unless he guarantees for his heir in his illness and in the absence of his creditors), its form: for the sick person to say to his heir in the absence of the creditors, “You will guarantee for me what I owe of the debt, so he guarantees [it is permissible](4), but it is valid (5); Because that is in fact a commandment; Therefore, it is not required to name the person being sponsored.

(And with the money of writing [a free] (1) is responsible for it (2) or a slave); Because it is a debt that is established (3) with the exile, but he only said: A free man takes care of it (4) or a slave; To remove the illusion that the slave’s sponsorship through him should be valid (5); Because [it is not] (6) permissible to prove such a debt against him; Because the slave is the subject of writing, so he singled him out to ward off this illusion.

(A principal does not return the thousand he paid to his guarantor, even if the requester does not give it to him): That is, if the principal is in a hurry and gives the money(1) to the guarantor who guaranteed his order, he does not have the right to take it back even though the guarantor did not give it to the requester, just as if he hastened paying zakat [to the courier](2); Because the guarantee was concluded by order of the person for whom the person is guaranteed, it was concluded as a reason for the two debts (3): the debt of the applicant to the guarantor, and the debt of the guarantor to the person guaranteed for, postponed until the time of its performance. If the reason exists and is expedited, the performance is valid, and the guarantor owns it, and the person for whom he is guaranteed does not recover it. This is in contrast to if he paid it in the face of the letter; Because then it will be completely trustworthy in his hand. (And whatever the guarantor wins from it, it is his, and (4) he does not give it in charity (5): That is, if he deals with the guarantor in the thousand that the principal paid to him and wins from it, then the profit is his and is lawful and good, and he does not have to give it in charity since it is his property.

(And he won a reward, he took care of it, took possession of it for him, and returned it to his judge if he liked it (1)). His saying: He won as a beginner. And he has (2): experience. That is, if the guarantee was for him a virgin wheat, and the principal gave it to the guarantor, [then the guarantor sold it] (3), and he made a profit from it, then the profit is his, but he returned it to his judge, and he the principal loved it, but there was malice in it because the principal has the right to recover it based on the estimation that the principal pays the debt himself, so the principal’s right is related to him, then this (4) malice works in what is specified by designation: such as kurr, as opposed to what is not specified by designation: such as dirhams and dinars, as in the previous issue, This is according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -, and [as for] (5) according to them, returning to his judge is not preferable since there is no malice in it at all.

(A guarantor ordered his principal to give him a dress, and he did so, so it is his): That is, the principal ordered the guarantor to buy a dress by means of the sample (1), and to sell the sample (2): that a man borrows something from a merchant, and does not (3) lend him a good loan, but rather gives him an item, and sells it from the borrower for more than the value (4), so the sample is derived from the item by which it is named; Because it is a turning away from the debt to the eye, so the principal ordered his guarantor to buy a dress for more than the value in order to pay off his debt with it, so he did, so the dress is for the guarantor; Because this is a corrupt agency (5) because the garment and the price are not specified.

(And whatever the seller’s profit is, he is responsible for it): That is, if he bought the garment for fifteen, and it is worth ten, then he sold it for ten, then the profit that was earned by the seller, which is the five that became a loss to the guarantor, is due to the guarantor; Because when the agency was not valid, it was as if he had said to him: If I buy a dress for something, then sell it for less than that, I am guaranteed that loss, for this guarantee is nothing. (And if he guarantees what was granted to him, or what was determined for him, and his principal is absent, and his plaintiff establishes evidence against his surety that he has such and such compensation from his principal, it will be rejected.) Because if he establishes evidence that he has the right to his principal (1), and does not submit to a judgment (2) that is judged by him, it is not obligatory for the guarantor; Because he guaranteed what the judge decided, and this was not found in the guarantee according to what he decided for him, and also what he agreed to; Because its meaning is decided, and it is by decree.

(And if he establishes proof that he has such-and-such money from Zaid, and this is his guarantor by his order, he will judge it for them.) This is the beginning of an issue that is not related to what came before, which is the guarantee for what he gave him, or for what he decided for him. The picture of the issue is that a man established proof that he has a thousand from Zaid, and this is his guarantor of this money by his order, he ruled for them both. In this case (3) he has guaranteed this money without being subject to the judgment (1) of the judge, unlike the previous issue, so if he judges them, the guarantor has the right of recourse against the principal. This is what we have, and when he exhales - may God be pleased with him - it is not returned to him. Because when he denied it, his claim was that this right is not established, but rather the claimant wronged him (2), so he does not have the right to wrong others. We said: The Sharia is a lie (3), so his denial was lifted. (In a guarantee without his order [he ruled] (4) against the guarantor only): that is, he established evidence that he is his guarantor without his order, the judge awards the money to the guarantor only. (Even if the police officer guarantees, his claim after that is invalidated)(5): Because it encourages the buyer to buy, so it is equivalent to acknowledging the seller’s ownership, so his ownership claim is not valid. (And if he testified and sealed, no): But (6) he said: And he sealed because what was usual in the previous time was to seal testimonies to protect against change [and substitution] (7).

(They said: If (1) he wrote in the instrument that he sold his property or a final and enforceable sale (2), and he wrote that he testified to that, it was invalidated): That is, his claim was invalidated after this testimony; Because his testimony is an acknowledgment that the seller has sold his property, or sold a final and enforceable sale (3), so if he claims ownership for himself, he is contradictory (4) (Even if he wrote his testimony to the agreement of the contracting parties, no) (5): That is, his claim is not invalidated after this writing; For lack of contradiction. [Warranty section] (Even if he guarantees the covenant): That is, a man buys a garment, and another guarantees it (6) by covenant, so the guarantee is invalid. Because the covenant has come to light (7): For the old instrument. And the contract and its rights. And to realize. No one proves the meanings with doubt.

(Or redemption): [that is, if] (1) he guarantees redemption, then it is not valid according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -, which is to stipulate that if the thing sold is due, he will redeem it and hand over the item to him in any way possible. This is invalid if he has no ability to do this (2), and in both of them it is valid, and it is understood as a guarantee of security (3). (Or the Mudarib sold the price to the owner of the money): That is, the Mudarib sold the price and guaranteed the price to the owner of the money. (Or the agent selling to his principal): that is, the agent sold and guaranteed the price for the principal, but it is not permissible: Because the price is a trust for the speculator and the agent, the guarantee is to change (4) the ruling (5) of Sharia. Because the right to claim belongs to the speculator and the agent, they become guarantors of themselves (6).

(Or one of the sellers of his owner’s share of the price of a slave whom he sold in a transaction (1) is invalid, and in two transactions it is valid): That is, they sold a slave in one transaction, and one of them guaranteed his owner his share of the price is not valid; Because if the guarantee is valid with the company, he becomes a guarantor for himself, and if it is valid in the share of its owner, it leads to dividing the debt before receiving it, and if not (2) it is not permissible (3), unlike if he sold it in two transactions, then the guarantee is valid; Because there is no company. (Such as guaranteeing tax (4), deductibles (5), and division): That is, it is valid to guarantee these things. As for the abscess, it has passed (6).

As for the deputies: they are either by right, such as the river carriage, the wages of the guard (7), and what is employed to equip the army, and other things, or without right: like the levies in our time, and the guarantee in the first is valid according to agreement, and in the second there is disagreement (8), and the fatwa on the validity (1), they have become like valid debts, even if they are taken from the properties (2) then he has the right to return to the owner of the land. As for the division, it was said: It is the representative deputies themselves, or the share of them, and it was said: It is the representative deputies for the salaried employee, and the deputies are for the non-employees, and whatever it is, the guarantee for it is valid. (And if he said: I guaranteed it for a month, then he is right, even if the student claims that it is due): That is, the guarantor said: I guaranteed this money, but the demand is after a month, and the student said: No, but on the condition of being due, so the statement is the statement of the guarantor with the oath (3), and this is in contrast to if he acknowledges a deferred debt, and the one who acknowledges it says: No, but it is due, then the statement is for the one who acknowledged it.

The difference is that [if] (1) he acknowledges the debt (2), and then claims a right for him, which is delaying the claim, and the one who acknowledges it is a denier, then the statement is his statement (3) in contrast to the guarantee, for there is no debt in it, so the applicant claims that he (4) is immediately demanded, and the guarantor denies it (5). (The guarantor of the property shall not be taken into account if the item sold is due unless (6) its price is paid to its seller), since upon (7) maturity the sale is not invalidated (8) in the apparent meaning of the narration unless the price is paid to the seller. Therefore, the principal is not obligated to return the price, so it is not obligatory [on] (9) the guarantor.

[Chapter on the two men’s sponsorship] (A debt owed by two (1) each of whom sponsored the other. He did not claim back from his partner except (2) what he paid in excess of half. They bought a slave for a thousand and each of them sponsored his owner at his command to the seller, so everything that (3) one of them paid would not (4) be returned to his owner unless it was in excess of the half; Because the fact that the person performing the obligation owes something is better than the fact that he performs what he owes as a guarantee. (And [if] (5) he guarantees something on behalf of a man, and [he guarantees] (6) each of it (7) on behalf of his owner, he returns to him half of what he paid, even if it is little), against a man a thousand, then each of two other people guarantees this thousand on behalf of the principal, and then each of the two guarantors guarantees on behalf of his owner with his order for this thousand, then everything that one of them gave, even if it is less, he returns to the other half of it, contrary to the first case, then the originality prevails over the guarantee, but here the whole is a guarantee, so there is no Preponderance.

He said (1) in ((Al-Hidaya))(2): The correct view is that the form of the issue in this way is a precaution (3) regarding if they were responsible for a thousand so that the thousand was divided between them in two halves, then [each] (4) of them was responsible for the other according to his command, so in this form [he does not have recourse to his partner except for what exceeds the half. I say: In this case](5) everything he paid should return half of it to his partner; Because since one of the two guarantees does not have a preference over the other, then everything he paid is one of them, so he must return half of what he paid, so there is no difference between this case and the case that he designated as valid (6).

(And if the student acquits one of them, he takes the other in full). Because the situation of the issue is that if each of them guarantees a thousand on behalf of the principal, then each of them [guarantees] (1) a thousand on behalf of the other, then if one of them is acquitted, the other’s guarantee remains (2) for all the thousand, and in the case for which he was careful to be valid, if one of them is acquitted, the guarantee remains for the other (3) at five hundred. (And if the negotiation is terminated, the Lord of the debt will take from the two partners he wishes(4) for all of his debt); When he knew that the negotiation company included (5) the guarantee, (and neither of them returned to its owner except for what he paid in excess of half); When I knew that the authenticity side prevails over the warranty side.

I say (6): There is a problem in this issue, which is that if one of the negotiators bought something, then they broke off the negotiation, then if the seller asked for the price from his buyer, then this issue is not related to the issue of the guarantee. Rather, the buyer in the half is a principal, and in the half (1) there is an agent (2), so for all (3) what he paid, he should return half of it to the partner; Because he bought the slave in one transaction, the price became a debt on him, and it cannot be divided. Everything that the [principal](4) pays, he pays from him and his partner, so he returns(5) to him in half. If the seller asks for the price from his partner, this is because the negotiation included a guarantee, so he is a guarantor for the whole, except that his guarantee (6) in the half that is the property of the contracting party constitutes a guarantee, and in the half that is his property [principal in one sense and a guarantor in another] (7), so given that the rights of the contract are due to the agent, the partner is a guarantor of the price, so the demand for the price is directed (8) to him by virtue of the guarantee, and given that the ownership in this half falls to him, so it is (9) In paying half the price in principal, what he paid is due back to this half and is not returned to the contracting party, and whatever exceeds the half is due back.

(Two servants paid a contract under [one] contract (1), and each guarantored for (2) his companion (3), and [each] (4) returned to the other (5) for half of what he paid (6)): [i.e.] (7) two servants (8) The Lord said to them: I wrote to you for a thousand to a year, and they accepted, and each sponsored (9) his owner, so for everything that one of them paid, he returned to the other for half of what he paid. Rather, it is restricted by one contract; Even if he wrote them for two contracts, the guarantee is not valid at all, but if it was for one contract, it is not valid by analogy; Because it is a guarantee in exchange for writing(10), and it is desirable that each of them be made a principal in [the right](11) of the obligation of the thousand upon him, and their emancipation is conditional upon his payment, and he is made a guarantor of the thousand(12) against its owner, so what one of them has paid shall be returned(13) half of it to the other due to their equality. [Chapter on sponsoring a slave and on his behalf] (If the master emancipates one of them before payment is valid, and he has the right to take the share of the one who did not emancipate him from him as an original and from the other as a guarantee (14), and the emancipated person has a claim against his owner for what he paid on his behalf, not his owner against him for what he paid for himself) (15); Because the money is in fact in exchange for her necks, but each of them is required to correct the guarantee.