អ៊ុមដាតុល រីអាយ៉ះ (ការពន្យល់ក្បួនច្បាប់វីកាយ៉ះ ហាណាហ្វី)

(A Christian [(4)] died, and she said: His bride converted to Islam after his death, and he said (1) His heirs: No, but before him, they were truthful as in the case of a Muslim who died, and she said: His bride converted to Islam before his death, and they said (2): Rather, after (3) [his death] (4)), this is according to us, and according to Zafar - may God be pleased with him - regarding the first issue, the statement is her statement; Because Islam [(5)] is a recent event, it is added to the closest times, and for us: the reason for deprivation is established in the situation, so it is proven in the past by arbitrating the situation [(6)], and it is suitable as an argument for defense (7) [(8)].

(And whoever says[(1)]: This is the dead son of the depositor, and he has no heir other than him, he shall pay it(2) to him): that is, pay the deposit to him. (And if [(3)] acknowledges [(3)] another son of the depositor, and denies the first, then it is his): that is, to the first one to whom the deposit was acknowledged; Because the first statement did not have a valid liar, so (4) the second statement is not valid. Because the first is a lie to him.

((1) A debtor or heir in an estate that has been divided among the creditors or heirs is not guarantored by witnesses who did not say: We do not know of [another debtor](2), or (3) No other heir, which is an unjust precaution[(4) ](1) (2): That is, if the witnesses testify for the creditors or heirs, and they do not say: We do not know of the dead person as a debtor or another heir, the estate is divided among them, and a guarantor is not taken from them, and he was on the safe side. Some judges took (3) guarantors from them, and this precaution is unfair. Because their right has been established, and the right of others is not known; And because [(4)] the guarantor was not found, and this...(5) according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -, and according to them: the judge [(6)] takes a guarantor from them (1).

(And the property [(2)] Zaid established an argument (3) that he and his brother had an inheritance from their father, half of which was paid for him, and he left the rest of it with the person in possession without sponsoring him (4) whether he denied his claim or not), this is according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -; Because (5) the one with the hand [(6)] was chosen by the dead, so he does not limit his hand to what the claimant is not present, and according to them, if the one with the hand denies it, he does not leave the rest in his hand; Because the ungrateful person is a traitor, then it will be taken from him[(1)], and placed in the hands of a trustee, and if he does not deny it, [the judge] leaves it(2) in his hand for the absent son, and if it is left in his hand, a guarantor is not taken from him[(3)](4). (And what is transmitted is similar to it[(5)], and it was said[(6)]: It is taken from it by agreement): That is, if the issue is in the transmitted:

It was said: He is in this disagreement, for [(1)] if he leaves the rest in his hand if he does not disbelieve, then in the case of disbelief it is better; Because it is guaranteed in his hand, and if it was placed in the hand of another, it would be a trust, so the first (2) is better. It was said: [(3)] is taken from him when he is ungrateful, by agreement.

(And his will [(4)] is a third of his wealth on everything, and my money or what I own is charity[(1)] on zakat money. This is according to us, and when Zafar[(2)] - may God be pleased with him - it falls on everything [as in the will](3) [case](4) to use the word, and we considered [(5) ] the servant’s obligation as the obligation of God Almighty. (If he finds [(1)] only that (2) then he withholds his sustenance from it, and when he possesses it, he gives in charity what he took, [and he cannot afford anything due to the differences in people’s circumstances] (3)). It was said [(4)]: The professional keeps for himself and his dependents food for a day (5), and the owner of the exploiter (6) [(7)] what he needs until his produce reaches (8), and at most that is a month, and the owner of an estate until he reaches his height, and at most that is a year, and the owner of a trade until the money of his trade reaches.

(It is valid to make a will without the knowledge of the trustee [of it](1) not the power of attorney): That is, if he appoints a person as a trustee after his death[(2)], and the trustee(3) does not know about it, and he sells something from his estate, it is permissible to sell it, unlike [(4)] if he appointed a man to sell, and (5) the agent did not know about it, so he sold [something](6) [from the estate](7) that is not permissible to sell(8), and according to Abu Yusuf - may God be pleased with him - it is not permissible to sell the trustee Also [(9)].

(And the condition of informing a just[(1)], or hidden(2)[(3)]; for the removal of the agent, for the master’s knowledge of his slave’s crime, for the intercessor(4) for the sale, the virgin for marriage, and a Muslim who did not immigrate(5)[(6)] according to the laws, not for the validity of the power of attorney: that is, if the principal removes the agent, and informs him of that justly or hidden, his action is not valid after that. Likewise [(1)] if a slave commits a mistake and the master learns of his crime through informing a just or hidden person, so the master sells his slave, he will be willing to redeem it. Likewise, if the intercessor knows that the house is being sold and remains silent if a just or hidden person informs him, his silence is considered submission. Likewise, if a virgin knows about her marriage if she remains silent, and the Muslim who did not emigrate if a just one or hidden person informed him, he must (2) be subject to the laws.

As for the validity of the power of attorney, there is no (1) condition for it, even if a sinner informs him that so-and-so has appointed him to sell, and he sold, it is permissible to sell him; This is because [(2)] number and (3) fairness are required in the testimony; Because it is a pure obligation, it must be confirmed (4). As for the mandate, it does not have the meaning of obligation at all, as it does not require any of the two descriptions of testimony: that is, number and justice. As for the dismissal of the agent and the like, it is an obligation in one sense rather than another, since he does not have the authority to act, it is an obligation of harm, and from (5) since the principal acts (6) against himself by dismissing him, it is not an obligation, so the condition (7) has one of the two descriptions of the certificate.

(A judge or his trustee [(2)] does not guarantee [(2)] if he sells a slave to the creditors): that is, he sells a slave to the debtor for the sake of the creditors, (and he takes his price and it is lost, and the slave is entitled to it [or he dies before taking possession] (3), so the buyer (4) returns to the creditors); Because [(5)] it is impossible to go back to the judge and guarantee the fines; Because the judge has worked for them, and the judge is as faithful as the judge. (And if the guardian sells to them by order of a judge (1)[(2)], and he becomes entitled to (3) the slave or he dies before receiving it, and its price is lost, the buyer returns to the guardian, and he is on them. Because the contracting party[(4)] is the trustee, so he must return, and the guardian has the right to return [to them](5); Because [(6)] he worked for them.

(And if a just judge [(1)] ordered you to do (2) a decree for this, such as stoning, cutting, or beating, then you are free to do it, and the justice of an ignorant person who was asked [(3)] spoke the truth and interpreted it well[(4)], and did not accept (5) the words of others (6): The judge: Either a fair world. Or just ignorant. Or an unjust world. Or ignorant and unjust (7). First, if he says to you: I have ordered that Zaid’s hand be cut off, so cut off his hand, it is permissible for you to cut off his hand. The second judge: If he says this, you must ask him about his reason. If he explains it well, you must believe him, and it is permissible for you to cut off his hand.

As for the last two, their statement is not accepted.

(And [(1)] an unarmed judge spoke the truth, [and said] (2) to Zaid: I took from you a thousand that I judged for Amr, and I gave it to him, or he said to him: I decided to cut off your hand [in a right], and Zaid claimed that he took it and cut it off unjustly, and acknowledged that they were in his judgment: because when Zaid approved [(3) ] the taking and judgment by cutting off the hand would take place during the time of his judgment, so it is clear that the judge is not unjust, so the decision is for the judge, but if he does not acknowledge that they were in the time of his judgment, Rather, he said: I only did this before imitation, or after isolation, so if he establishes evidence for this, then the judge is invalid in this act, and if he does not have evidence, then the judge has to say, [And God knows best] (1).

Letter of testimony and revocation [(1)

] (It is (1) informing [(2)] of another’s right over another (3)). The reports are three: Either a right of another over another, which is testimony. Or the informant has a right against another, which is a lawsuit. Or vice versa, which is acknowledgment.

(It is obligatory (1) [(2) ] upon the request of the plaintiff (1) [(2)], and concealing it within the boundaries is more preferable [(3) ](1)): that is, better. (And he says regarding theft: he took, not stole): he only says: he took; So that the owner’s right is not lost (2)[(3)], and he does not say: it was stolen; So that it is not necessary to limit it [(4)]. (And its quorum is:

For adultery: four men[(1)]. For driving [(1)] and the rest of the limits: two men.

And for virginity[(1)], childbirth, and the defects of women in what is not revealed [to] (1) men: woman[(2)]), but he said this; Because if women’s faults are something that men see: like an extra finger, for example, a woman’s testimony is not sufficient.

(And for others: money or other than money: such as marriage, breastfeeding, divorce, power of attorney, and a will, two men or one man and two women): He only said: money or other than money; Because there is disagreement with Al-Shafi’i (3) - may God be pleased with him -, for anything other than money is not accepted (4) in it [(5)] the testimony of a man and two women with him, rather this is specific to money.

(A condition for all[(1)] is justice(1), and the word testimony[(2)]). Know(3) [(1)] that justice is a condition for us for the necessity of acceptance, not for the validity of acceptance. Other than justice, the judge is not obligated to accept his testimony(2), but if he accepts it and rules accordingly, his ruling is valid(3).