អ៊ុមដាតុល រីអាយ៉ះ (ការពន្យល់ក្បួនច្បាប់វីកាយ៉ះ ហាណាហ្វី)

(And he lends[(7)] the orphan’s money, and writes down the mention of the right). The judge may lend the orphan’s money(1); Because it is a province[(2)], and the judge is able[(3)] to take it whenever he wants, and it is not permissible[(4)] for the guardian; Because of his inability [(5)] to take, and the same applies to the father (6) in what is more correct (7) [(1)], so if (2) he does guarantee, and if the judge lends, he writes a document in that regard.

[Arbitration Section][(3) ](1)

(It is valid[(2)] for the two adversaries to arbitrate whoever reconciled as a judge[(3)] and they are bound by his ruling[(4)] with evidence, evidence, acknowledgment, and informing him(5)[(6)] of the acknowledgment of one of the adversaries and the justice of two witnesses(1) during his term of office: that is, it is valid to inform him of the acknowledgment of one of the adversaries and the justice of the two witnesses(2) during his term of office; Because informing him [confirming] (3) the time of his guardianship takes the place of the testimony of two men, unlike if he was informed after the guardianship; Because he joined one of the subjects, there must be another witness, and other than (4) if he reported that he had ruled; Because if he rules [(5)] in isolation, it is not acceptable to inform him.

(Each of them has the right to return before its ruling[(6)], and the ruling of the arbitrator and the guardian regarding his parents, his child, and his bride is not valid), just as testimony for these people is not valid[(1)](2), (nor is arbitration in the case of fuel); Because they [(3)] do not own their blood; That is why they cannot permit it (4).

(They said: It is valid in all the jurisprudence[(1)] and it is not issued in a fatwa to avoid the audacity of the common people.) Our sheikhs - may God be pleased with him - said: The specification[(2)] of this narration, which is his saying: It is not permissible to arbitrate in matters of punishment and retaliation, indicates the permissibility of arbitration in all (3) the jurisprudence, such as euphemisms, rescission of oaths, and the like. The specification of the jurisprudence by mentioning is not to negate the ruling on what is other than it, for what is not justified by ijtihad: such as the constant. According to the Book, or the well-known Sunnah, or consensus, there is no doubt about the validity of arbitration in this matter, and its benefit[(4)](5) obliging the opponent, as the parties to the transaction, if there is a ruling, the arbitrator forces the buyer to deliver the price, and the seller to deliver the sold item, and whoever refuses, he imprisons him, so he mentioned the jurisprudence to indicate another way with the first method. If [(1)] arbitration is valid in all cases, (2) there is no fatwa to do so; Because the common people dare to do that, the need for a judge decreases, and the rulers of Sharia law no longer have elegance, and the court has no beauty and adornment.

(The arbitrator’s ruling regarding blood money for a wrongful death due to a sane person [(1)] shall not be enforced.) Because the `Aqilah did not judge him, ([And similarly, if a blood money ruling is imposed on the murderer, it will not be implemented either, so the judge overturns it and judges the `Aqilah] (2)); Because the arbitrator’s ruling is contrary to the judge’s doctrine, and contrary to the text, which is his saying - may God’s prayers and peace be upon him -: ((Arise and ransom him (3)))(4), and the meaning of its not being enforceable against the rational person is that the arbitrator does not have the authority to demand blood money from the rational person, or to imprison them if they refuse, (If it is submitted to another judge if he agrees with his doctrine, he will fulfill it[(5)], otherwise he will invalidate it (1)): That is, the arbitrator’s ruling is not like the ruling of the master in that (2) What is disputed becomes unanimously agreed upon (3). Various issues [(4)]

(It is not permissible for the owner of a lower [(5)] who is higher than another to stake (6) [(7)] in its lower part, or dig [in it] (8) a hatch (9) without the consent of the other [(10)].

Nor do the people of a rectangular area (1)[(2)] with a rectangular, impermeable bifurcation open a door[(1)] in the extreme[(2)], and in a round one whose two ends are stuck [to the rectangle](3) they have that [(4)] [in the extreme] (5) (6): that is, in the bifurcation of the first. And his saying: Its two ends are attached to it: that is, its two ends are connected to the rectangle, and what is meant by its two ends is the end of its width, and this is if it is like a semicircle or less, even if it is more than that and the door is not opened in it. Let us depict two pictures: in the first he has the door opened but not the second, and the difference is that the first becomes a common area unlike the second, for if its interior is wider than its entrance it becomes another place not affiliated with the first.

(And whoever claims[(1)] a gift at a certain time, then he is asked for proof(2), and he says: He denied it, so I bought it from him, or he did not say that[(3)], so he established proof of the purchase after the time of the gift, it is accepted, and before it, it is not.) His saying: He established evidence that the purchase was accepted after the time of the gift, and before that (1) it was not; He refers to the two cases (2): that is, if he said: I denied it, and if (3) he did not say that, then the gift claim is an acknowledgment that the gifted property belonged to the donor before the gift, so (4) the purchase claim before the time of the gift is not accepted. As for the claim of purchase after the time of the gift, there is no contradiction (6) in it; Because it decides his ownership after the donation. (And whoever claims that Zaid bought his slave girl, but he denies it, and the accuser abandons his dispute, it is permissible for him to have intercourse with her.) Because if the seller is unable to obtain the price from the buyer, then the seller’s consent is lost, so he has the right to cancel it, especially if the buyer denies it, since his denial is void on his part.

(And the acknowledgment believed[(7)] that he had received ten): That is, if he said: I received ten dirhams from so-and-so, (if he claimed that they were false or flashy(1), neither the one who claimed that they were expensive, nor the one who acknowledged the receipt of the horses, or his right, or the price, or the payment(2)) (3): That is, if he said, I received ten dirhams from him; Because completion indicates perfection. (Fake[(4)] is a response(5) to the treasury, like flashiness(6) to merchants, and counterfeiting is that which [has] been overtaken by (7) fraud: Fake and flashiness are of the same type as dirhams, in which silver is more prevalent than fraud, except that relative to the good, their silver(8) is less, except that the badness of the fake is less than the badness(9) of the brightness. The counterfeit is not rejected by the merchants, and the transaction is carried out except that the treasury does not accept it, for the treasury only accepts what It is very good quality.

And the nabharaj is rejected by merchants, and the nabharaj (1) is false and bad from a thing, and the dirham (2) is the nabharaj: [it was said] (3): what invalidated its mintage, and it was said: the one whose silver is bad, and it was said: the one whose silver is bad, and it was said: the majority is silver, and it is an inflection that we dazzle, and in ((Maghrib))[(4)]: I did not find it in the nun (5). The word “stowaqa” is the Arabic word for “stoya” (6): that is, inside it is copper plated (7) with silver.

...(1)(And his saying: I do not owe you anything for acknowledging a thousand invalidates his acknowledgment(2)[(3)], but rather I owe you a thousand after it without any idle argument.

If (1) the defendant says after a money claim: You never had anything, then the plaintiff establishes evidence of a thousand, which is (2) [(3)] on judgment, or acquittal, this is accepted), contrary to Zafar - may God be pleased with him -; Because the judiciary requires precedence of a right, and so does (4) acquittal. He said: If you have nothing to do with it, then it is not valid in the lawsuit of the judiciary and the acquittal. We said: Judgment may be without right, and so can acquittal. The plaintiff may be acquitted for a right that is proven in his claim, even if it is not proven in fact.

(And if (1) he added to his denial, and I do not know you, you replied): That is, he said: You never had anything against me, and I do not know you, and then he established evidence of the judiciary or (2) the acquittal, which is not accepted due to the impossibility of reconciliation; Because there is no taking and giving between two people, dealing and releasing, without knowledge, and Al-Qadouri (3) mentioned - may God be pleased with him -: that it is also accepted; Because the hidden person [(4)], or the drugged one, may order some of his agents to please him, and he does not know him, [then he knows him](5) after that, so reconciliation is possible[(6)]. Know that the possibility of reconciliation is sufficient to repel the contradiction, or must [7] declare reconciliation. The sheikhs - may God be pleased with him - differed regarding it: The first aspect: With the possibility of reconciliation, the contradiction is not achieved, so he is charged with defending his claim of invalidity. The second aspect: The claim must be valid with certainty, as the possibility of validity does not invalidate the defendant’s right.

If you know this, then I say [(1)] (2): In every case there is doubt about the validity of the claim: We do not say that the possibility of validity is sufficient, as if he claimed a gift and was asked for evidence (3), but he was not able, so he claimed the purchase, and established evidence of the purchase without showing that the purchase before the time of the gift, [or after it is not accepted (4); Because it is possible that the purchase took place before the time of the gift, and according to this assessment the claim of purchase is not valid[(5)](6) as previously mentioned, and it is possible that the purchase took place after the time of the gift](7), and according to this assessment the claim of purchase is valid[(8)] as mentioned above.

If there is doubt about the validity of the claim, we do not correct it with doubt. Because the purpose of the chapter is that his purchase (1) [if] (2) was fulfilled before the time of the gift, so the meaning of the gift claim is: I had bought it from him, but that contract was transferred, then it became his property, then he gave it away from me, then proof must be established of the gift, so if (3) he did not have (4) proof [of the gift] (5), his claim is not valid, and the defendant’s right to doubt is not invalidated. In every case, there is no doubt about the validity of his claim, so that the defendant's right to doubt must be revoked. So we say: The possibility of reconciliation is sufficient, such as if he establishes evidence of judgment or acquittal after [the defendant denies it, and the plaintiff establishes evidence against him, or if he [the plaintiff](6) establishes evidence of the purchase](7) after the time of the gift is accepted[(8)], then keep this rule(9), for it is of great benefit.

Then know that [this] (1) contradiction only prevents the validity of the claim if the first statement proved (2) a certain person has a right, even if that is not the case, it does not prevent the validity of the claim, as if he said I have no right over any of the people of Samarkand, then he claimed something against one of the people of Samarkand, his claim is valid.

(And whoever establishes evidence (3) of a purchase, and wants to return it with a defect, the evidence of his seller will be rejected that he is innocent of every defect after denying the sale), one man claims against another (4): I bought this slave from you for a thousand, and I delivered the thousand to you, and a defect appeared in it, so return it with the defect, and you must return the price to me. The opponent denies the sale, so the plaintiff establishes evidence of the sale, so the opponent claims the plaintiff’s innocence of every defect, and establishes evidence for that, you will not hear[(5)) Because of the contradiction (6), and according to Abu Yusuf - may God be pleased with him -: You hear an analogy regarding the aforementioned issue: which is that you never had anything on you, and the difference is according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - and Muhammad - may God be pleased with him -: [that] (7) in the issue of debt: The debt may be settled even if it is invalid, and here the claim of acquittal of the defect requires the sale to be established, and he denied it.

(And it was mentioned, God willing, at the end of the instrument [(1)] that it invalidates (1) all of it (2), and they have the end of it, which is approval (3): [i.e.] (4) If he writes an instrument of acknowledgment, and then writes at the end of it everyone who produces[(5)] this instrument and asks for [what is in it](6) of the right, it will be paid to him, God Almighty willing.

So his saying: God Almighty willing, he will turn to everything according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - until he invalidates all the instrument, which is the analogy, as in his saying[(1)]: His servant is free and his wife is divorced, God Almighty willing, and with both of them he turns to the other, [which is approval](2); Because the instrument [(3)] is for authentication, the exception applies to what follows. [Chapter on the judiciary regarding inheritance]