អ៊ុមដាតុល រីអាយ៉ះ (ការពន្យល់ក្បួនច្បាប់វីកាយ៉ះ ហាណាហ្វី)

(And the money (1) is not obligatory on a slave until he is emancipated (2) is an obligation on the one who guarantees it by an absolute woman (3)). A slave under interdiction acknowledged the money, so the money is not obligatory on him until after emancipation, and if a free man guarantees it as an absolute guarantee: that is, he has not been subjected to subrogation or postponement, then it is obligatory upon him immediately; Because what prevents the servant from being entitled to a solution is that he is insolvent. Because everything in his hand belongs to his master (4), and there is no objection to the guarantor, (and if he pays, it will be returned to him after his emancipation): That is, if the guarantor pays, and (5) the guarantee was at the command of the slave, it will be returned to him after his emancipation.

(And if a slave whose neck is guaranteed dies, and proof is established that he is his claimant, his guarantor guarantees its value), a man claims the neck of a slave, so another guarantees his neck, and the slave dies, and the plaintiff establishes evidence that he is his, and the guarantor guarantees its value; Because it is the duty of [the one with the hand(1)](2) to return its value in the event of his failure(3), so if the guarantor guarantees, then he is obliged to do so, unlike if he claimed money from the slave, then another guarantored the slave’s neck, and the slave died, so the guarantor does not owe anything(4).

(If a master guarantees for his slave, or if he is not indebted to his master, then he is freed, and whatever he has paid (1) shall not be returned to its owner.) Because the guarantee was signed and does not require return (2); Because one of them does not require a debt from the other, and when Zafar - may God be pleased with him - if the guarantee was by order, it proves the return; Because the impediment has been removed, which is slavery, and he only said he is not in debt: so that his guarantee is valid, because if the master orders the slave indebted to be paid for on his behalf, the guarantee is not valid. Hawala book (It is valid for the debt with the consent of the assignor, [the fraudster](3), and the person being defrauded). Hawala: transferring the debt from one liability [to another](4). His statement about the debt: that is, the debt (5) of the deceiver (6) of the assignor. This is what was mentioned in (7) the narration of ((Al-Qadouri)) (8), and [in] (9) the narration of ((Al-Ziyadat)): it is valid without the consent of the assignor (10). Its form is that a man says to the student that you have money from such-and-such person, so Ali takes possession of him, and the student agrees to that, the transfer is valid, and the principal is acquitted. In another form: a man guarantees for another (11) without his order, on the condition that the principal is acquitted, or the guaranteed person accepts that, the guarantee is valid, and this guarantee is a transfer, just as the transfer is on the condition that the principal is not released as a guarantee.

(And if the assignor is acquitted of the debt by acceptance, and the fraudster does not return to him): That is, the fraudster does not return his debt to the assignor, (unless (1) his right is violated by the death of the defrauded bankrupt, or he swears an oath denying an assignment for which there is no evidence, and they say: or (2) that the judge has bankrupted him) (3), then the judge’s bankruptcy is considered according to them and according to Al-Shafi’i (1) - may God be pleased with him - and according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - No, because no one can confirm that [except by testimony](2), so testimony that he has no money(3) is testimony to the denial(4). (It is correct: With the deposited dirhams (5), and he is exonerated by their destruction: that is, the performer (6), who is the defrauded person, is exonerated from (7) the transfer by the destruction of the deposit in his hand. (And by the usurped property [and he is not acquitted by its destruction)(8): that is, the usurper is not acquitted by the destruction of the usurped dirhams](9); Because the value is left behind. (And by debt): that is, the debt of the transferor to the defrauded person.

(The assignor shall not demand the defrauded person) (1); Because the right of the fraudster is attached to him (even though the fraudster is an example to the creditors of the creditor after his death), he only said this; To avoid the illusion that since the fraudster was like the creditors of the assignor after his death, the assignor’s right would be related to that debt, so the assignor should have the right to demand from the defrauder. The bottom line is that the transfer of debt, even if it entails attaching the fraudster’s right to that debt, is of a lower rank than a mortgage, so that the fraudster is not more entitled to it after the death of the transferor. (And in the absolute (2) he has the right to demand... (3) from the defrauded person): That is, if (4) the transfer is absolute and not restricted to the deposit, the usurped property (5), or the debt, then the transferor has the right to demand the deposit, the usurped property, and the debt from the deceived person.

(It is not invalidated by taking what is owed or (1) with him): That is, the transfer is not invalidated by the transferor taking what the defrauded person owes or has, which is the debt, the usurped property, and the deposit, whether the transfer is absolute or restricted, as in the absolute it is apparent, but as for the restricted; Because the assignor does not have the right to take from the defrauded person, if (2) the defrauded person pays to him, then (3) what the defrauder’s right relates to has occurred, and the defrauded person is liable. (The transferor’s statement to the defrauded person upon his request is not accepted, such as what he transferred: I transferred a debt [that was] (4) mine against you): that is, a man referred another man for a hundred, and the one who was being defrauded paid it to the fraudster, then the one who was being defrauded asked for that hundred from the assignor, and the assignor said: I transferred it for a hundred mines against you, and the one against whom he was deceived denies that he owes anything, so the statement is his saying (5) “no” to the transferor, and the acceptance of the transfer is not an acknowledgment from the one who was defrauded for a hundred(6); Because the transfer is valid without the transferor having anything against the defrauded person. (Nor does the fraudster say to the transferor when he requests that: You assigned me a debt that I owe you): That is, he transferred, so (7) the fraudster took the money from the defrauder, so the transferor asked for that money from (8) the fraudster, and he said: The fraudster told the transferor, you have assigned me the debt that I owe you, and the transferor denies that he has anything on him, so say to him, “No” to the fraudster... (9), and the transfer is not an acknowledgment by the transferor of the debt (10) to the defrauder against the transferor, for the transfer is used in Agency.

(It is disliked to make a safta: which is a loan in order to eliminate (1) the danger of the road)(2): In ((Morocco))(3): The saftajah: with the addition of the sīn, and the opening of the ta’: to pay money to a merchant by way of a loan in order to pay it to his friend in another country, but he lends it to eliminate the danger of the road, and it is the Arabization of safta. The aforementioned lending was given this name by analogy (4) to the position of dirhams and dinars in bills of exchange: that is, in hollow objects, just as a stick is made hollow and money is hidden in it, but rather it is likened to it; Because both of them are frauds to eliminate the danger of the road, or because their origin is that if a person wants to travel and has cash, or (5) he wants to send it to his friend and puts it (6) on a bill of exchange, then despite that he fears the road and lends what is on the bill of exchange to another person, so he used the bill of exchange to mean lending what is on the bill of exchange, then he became widespread in lending to eliminate the danger of the road.

Book of judiciary [(1)

]

(Those who are qualified to bear witness are qualified to judge[(1)], and the condition of its eligibility[(2)] is a condition of his eligibility, and the immoral person[(1)] is qualified for it. It is valid(2) to imitate him[(3)], but not to imitate)(4): That is, he must not imitate even if he imitates he is sinning, (just as it is valid that his testimony be accepted, but not accepted), in the aforementioned sense.

(If justice is corrupted [(1)] he deserves to be removed according to the apparent doctrine, and our sheikhs - may God be pleased with him - are based on this (1), and according to some sheikhs - may God be pleased with him - he should be removed (2).

(And diligence (3)[(4)] is a [condition](1) for priority[(2)], so if an ignorant person imitates (3)[(4)] it is valid[(5)], and he chooses[(6)] the more capable and the first. According to Al-Shafi’i (1) - may God be pleased with him - it is not valid to imitate the immoral and ignorant person[(2)]. And know that caution was taken as what Al-Shafi’i - may God be pleased with him - said, but according to time, if knowledge and justice had been stipulated, the matter of the judiciary would have been completely removed, and evil and corruption would have occurred greater than what one was careful about.

(The judiciary is not sought(1)[(2)], and it is valid to enter into it[(1)] for the one who trusts his justice, and it is disliked[(2)] for the one who fears his inability and injustice.

And whoever imitates the question of the office of a judge before him[(1)]: These are the maps that contain the deeds and records(1)[(2)], (and bind[(3)] a prisoner who acknowledges a right, not one who denies[(1)] except with evidence, even if the detainee informs him of it(2); Because through isolation, he joined (3) one of the subjects, and the testimony of one is not accepted, (otherwise (4) he calls [(5) ] against him, then releases him): That is, [if] (1) he does not establish proof against the detainee who denounces it, he calls: Whoever has a right over so-and-so [the son of so-and-so](2) who is detained, let him attend the (3) judge’s (4) council, and if no one attends, he releases him, [and he takes a guarantor from him himself, so perhaps he is detained by right. Absent](5).

(And in the case of deposits and the yield of the endowment[(6)] with evidence[(7)], or with the acknowledgment of the person in possession[(8)] and not with the statement of the person in possession of it: that is, he does not accept[(9)] the statement of the person in possession of the person in question if he says: This is the deposit of so-and-so that I paid to this man, and he denies it, (unless the person in possession acknowledges[(10)] that it was delivered by him)(1): that is, from the judge in possession of the case in question.

(And he sits[(2)](1) for judgment openly in the mosque and the mosque is better[(2)]): that is, sitting openly[(3)], which is the well-known sitting in which people come to settle disputes without some people having jurisdiction over that sitting, and according to al-Shafi’i(4) - may God be pleased with him - it is disliked to sit [with](5) in the mosque; Because a polytheist and a menstruating woman may attend, and we have: the sitting of the Prophet - may God bless him and grant him peace - [(6)] [in the mosque] (7), and also making up for it is the worship and impurity of the polytheist in terms of belief, and the menstruating woman does not enter, but rather (8) prefers to dispute with her at the door of the mosque (1), (and if he sat in his house and gave permission to enter, it is permissible [(2)).

He does not accept a gift(1)[(2)] except from a relative[(1)] to whom he is forbidden, or from one who is accustomed to giving him compliments[(2)] according to a certain amount of time[(3)](4) if they are not [(5)] in dispute, and no one attends an invitation[(1)] except a general person[(2)]): The general person[(1)]: is the one that [the people](2) take even if the judge is not present, and according to Muhammad - may God be pleased with him - the specific person if it is from his relative will answer him. Like a gift.

(He witnesses the funeral, and the sick person returns[(3)], and makes [(4)] equal between the two opponents(1) sitting and facing out(2), and neither of them turns left[(3)], nor adds him[(4)], nor laughs[(5)], nor jokes[(6)](7) with him, nor points(8) to him, nor teaches him an argument[(9)], and he dislikes(10) instructing the witness by saying, “Do you bear witness(11) of such-and-such, and he approves of it?” Abu Yusuf - may God be pleased with him - in what there is no accusation[(1)] [in which](1))(2); This [(3)] does not benefit from increased knowledge by indoctrination. [Separation in detention]

(And he imprison[(4)] the opponent(1)[(2)] for a period he deems beneficial according to the correct view(3). He only said this because of the difference in narrations(4)[(5)] in determining the period of imprisonment. It is more correct that the estimation is delegated to the opinion of the judge; Due to the varying circumstances of people[(1)] in this matter, (at the request of the person with the right [that][(2)](3) if the judge ordered the acknowledgment to fulfill the right and he refused or the right was proven with evidence(4)): That is, if the right was established[(5)] with evidence, and (1) the person with the right requested imprisonment, the judge detains him without the need for him to order(2) the judge to fulfill the right and he refuses(3), and if it is established by acknowledgment that he must order him to refrain, since in In the form of evidence, he appears to be defiant by denying it, and in acknowledgment, he only appears to be defiant by refraining from fulfilling the order after the order, for imprisonment is the penalty for procrastination.

(With regard to what is obligatory for him [(4)] in a contract such as a dowry, and a guarantee[(1)]): what is meant is the immediate dowry[(2)], (and (3) in lieu of (4) money that he obtained as the price of a sale and in expenses for his wedding[(5)] and his child, not for his debt[(1)]): that is, he is not imprisoned for the child’s debt(1), (and in other cases not[(2)])(3), such as: blood money and bribes for crimes(4)[(5)]. (If he claims poverty[(6)] unless there is evidence to the contrary)(1). [Chapter in the judge’s letter to the judge]