អ៊ុមដាតុល រីអាយ៉ះ (ការពន្យល់ក្បួនច្បាប់វីកាយ៉ះ ហាណាហ្វី)

(And a slave [(1)], and he is limited in slander even if he repents [(2)]), but (3) he said this; Because (4) it is accepted according to Al-Shafi’i - may God be pleased with him - (5) if he repents [(6)], (except for someone who [(1)] is limited in his disbelief and then converts to Islam (2).

And an enemy because of the world[(3)], nor because of his origin, his branch[(4)], his wife, and his wedding(1): In the case of an enemy, his testimony(3) is not accepted[3] against the one who is hostile to him, but it is accepted for him, and in the origin and its end on the contrary, and in the case of the husband and the wedding, there is a disagreement between al-Shafi’i - may God be pleased with him-(4)[(5)]. (And (1) a master of his servant, and his office[(2)], and his partner[(3)] in what they share), but (4) he said this; Because it is accepted as a partner’s property other than the company’s property, and likewise the employee’s testimony is not accepted. It was said: What is meant by this is the private student for whom the harm of his teacher is considered harm to himself, and his benefit is the benefit to himself. It was said: What is meant by it [(5)] is the worker’s mutual agreement (1), or mutual consent [(2)].

(And an effeminate (1)[(2)] does a bad deed[(3)]): If (4) the bad thing is not done, his testimony will be accepted, then the inability to have intercourse, or soft speech, and (5) broken limbs are not an impediment to acceptance[(6)], (and a wailing woman (7), and Mughniyah[(8)).

And someone who is addicted to drinking[(1)] for entertainment[(1)])(2): that is, drinking forbidden drinks[(3)], for drinks that are not forbidden(1) addiction to them does not invalidate the certificate unless they become intoxicated(2). Rather, addiction to drunkenness voids the certificate. It has been mentioned that what is meant by [addiction](3) is addiction in the intention(4): which is to drink, and it is [in](5) his resolve(6) to drink whenever(7) he finds it. Imam al-Sarkhasi said(8) - May God be pleased with him: It is a condition, however, that he reveal this to the people, or he comes out drunk (9) and the boys (10) make fun of him, so that (11) ... (12) drinking alcohol in secret does not (13) invalidate his justice, and it was mentioned in ((Footnotes)) (14): This applies to other than alcohol, but (15) regarding alcohol it does not need (16) the restriction of amusement. I say: There must be [restriction] regarding alcohol (17) drinking (18) in the form of entertainment as well, so if he drank it for medical treatment if the doctors said to him: There is no cure for your illness except alcohol, then it was forbidden (19) there is disagreement over it, so it does not (20) invalidate (21) the testimony.

(And whoever plays[(1)] with birds, or hummingbirds(2)[(3)], or sings to the people[(4)]: He only said to the people: Because whoever sings to ward off loneliness from himself does not lose justice, (or commit[(1)] what is shameful to him, or enter the bathroom without a garment[(2)], or consume usury[(1)]): A condition in ((Al-Mabsoot)) is that he be known for consuming usury; Because a person rarely [(2)] escapes corrupt sales, and all of that is usury.

(Or he gambles with dice(1)[(2)], or chess, or misses prayer with them): He said(2) in ((Al-Hidaya)): Or he gambles with dice, or chess. Then he said: Merely playing chess is not immorality [an impediment to accepting testimony] (3); Because there is an excuse for ijtihad (4). It is understood from this that in dice there is no requirement for gambling or missing prayer, so gambling [and missing prayer] (5) is restricted in dice and an agreement is signed, and in ((Al-Dhakhira)): Whoever plays with dice will have his testimony rejected in any case.

(Or he urinates[(1)] on the road, or eats on it, or reviles the Salaf[(2)])(1): That is, the Companions and diligent scholars of the past, may God be pleased with them all.

(And if two sons testified[(2)](3) that the father made a will to Zaid, and he claims him, it is valid, but if he denies it, it is not[(4)]): That is, they testified [that](5) the father made Zaid a guardian of the estate, and he claims to be a guardian, their testimony is valid, but he only said: and he claims him(6); Because if he denies it, the testimony is not accepted, (such as the testimony of the creditors(7) of the deceased[(8)], his debtors, the legatee, and his guardian(1) upon the will)(2): That is, the testimony of these people is valid if Zaid claims to be a guardian.

(And if they testify that their absent father has appointed him to collect his debt, and the agent claims, or denies, it will be rejected); Because the judge [(1)] does not have the right to act as an agent on behalf of an absent person, so if [the agency] (2) is proven, it is proven (3) by their testimony, so (4) it cannot be proven (5) by it due to the place of the accusation other than the will; Because if the guardian claims, he will be... (6) Accepting the certificate is the same as appointing the guardian, and the judge has the right to do so.

(Like testifying [(1)] to a mere wound, which is what makes the witness immoral and does not necessitate a right to the law or the servant (1), such as: he is an immoral person, or he consumed usury (2), or he hired them): The picture of the issue: [The plaintiff] (3) if he establishes evidence of justice, and the opponent establishes evidence of the wound, if the wound is an abstract wound, it is not considered evidence of the wound. Rather, I said [(4)]: The picture of the issue is this (5); Because if there is no evidence of justice, and two informants (6) tell that (7) the witnesses are immoral, or they consumed (8) usury, then the ruling is not permissible before justice is established, especially if two informants tell (9) that the witnesses are immoral.

((10) accepts the plaintiff’s admission of their immorality[(11)]); Because acknowledgment is what falls under the ruling, (or (1) that they are slaves (2), [or limited in slander, or drinkers of alcohol, or slander, or accomplices of the plaintiff, or that he hired them for such and such and gave them that from what he had] (3) or that I [(4)] reconciled with them on such and such, and gave it to them on the condition that they do not bear false witness against me and they testified): that is, on the condition that they do not bear false witness against me, and yet they bore false witness, so they must perform what I gave them, because in these cases (5) wounding necessitates a right of the Sharia or the slave over the witnesses, so it comes under the ruling of the judge and is accepted (6).

(And if he testified, he would be just[(1)] and would not leave [his place](2) until he said: I misled[(3)] some of my testimony[(4)] before[(5)](6)): That is, I made a mistake[(7)] by forgetting what should be mentioned, as if the plaintiff claimed ten dirhams, and he testified for the five, then said: I forgot some, but rather the obligatory ten, or said: I made a mistake with a false addition, as if the plaintiff claimed five dirhams, and testified for ten, then said: I made a mistake and said: Ten takes the place of five, so if it was in the council, the testimony would be accepted. Saying: I made a mistake; In the council [it is accepted](1) of justice, even if the matter is suspicious, because if the plaintiff claims five, testimony against the ten is not accepted, because the plaintiff becomes a liar to the witness, and in other councils if [the position](2) is a matter of suspicion, it is not accepted; Because it creates [(3)] the illusion of confusion [on the part of the plaintiff](4), even if [(5)] the situation is not subject to suspicion, as if he does not mention the word (6) testimony, and then (7) adds (7) in another council the word (8) testimony, it is accepted (9) of justice even though the council is different.

[Chapter: Disagreement in Testimony] (And the condition for the agreement of [(1)] the testimony to the case (1) is like the agreement of the two witnesses in word (1) [(2)] and meaning according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - [(3)]), for according to them [(4)] their agreement in word and meaning is not required, rather their agreement in meaning is sufficient, (so it is rejected [(1)] if one of them testifies to a thousand, and the other testifies to two thousand, or to a hundred and two hundred, or [A round] (2) and two or three rounds): that is, one of them testified for a hundred and the other for two hundred, or one of them testified for one round and the other for two or three rounds, then it (3) is rejected by Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -, and according to them it is accepted (4) at least if the plaintiff claims the most, even if he claims the less then the plaintiff is lying to the witness of the most, [so it is not accepted] (5). (And I accept one thousand [(6)] in one thousand, one thousand and one hundred): that is, in the testimony of one of them for one thousand and the other for one thousand and one hundred, (if the plaintiff claims more), even if he claims the lesser by saying that there was [nothing but] (7) the thousand (8), or he remains silent about the claim of the extra hundred, then the testimony of the extra person is not accepted (9). But if he says: The origin of my right was one thousand and one hundred, but I received the hundred or absolved him of it, his testimony is accepted for reconciliation.

(Like a talaq[(1)] and a talaqat and a half, and a hundred and a hundred and ten): that is, like the testimony of one of them for a talaqat and the other for a talaqah and a half, and the testimony of one of them for a hundred and the other for a hundred and ten, so the testimony is acceptable based on agreement on a thousand, and on a talaqa and on a hundred, and there is no doubt[(2)] that their statement (3) showed (4), and Abu Hanifa’s difference - may God be pleased with him - is weak, which is that they agreed on a thousand in the testimony of one of them as a thousand (5) and the other as a thousand and a hundred, not They agreed (1) [(2)] that one of them testified for a thousand and the other for two thousand.

(And if they testified[(3)] that a thousand, or a loan of a thousand, and one of them added that he spent such-and-such, I would accept a thousand, and a loan of a thousand, and his statement “he spent such-and-such” is reported. Because the testimony of an individual is not acceptable, (unless another person testifies with him, and no one he knows testifies until the plaintiff acknowledges [to the people](1) what he received): That is, the one who knows the judgment of some people must not testify until the plaintiff acknowledges to the people what he received; So that the defendant does not suffer harm. Al-Tahawi (2) mentioned on the authority of our companions - may God be pleased with him -: His testimony is not accepted, and it is a false statement - may God be pleased with him -; Because (3) the plaintiff is lying to the witness of some people [(4)]. We said[(5)]: Lying about something that is not attested does not prevent acceptance(6). (And [if](1) they testified to the killing of Zayd on such and such day in Mecca, and two others testified to his killing(2) therein in Kufa, they were rejected): That is, [they testified](3) to the killing of Zayd on that day in Kufa, and the evidence was rejected; Because one of them is definitely false [(4)], and one is not better than the other, (if one of them is ruled, and then the other stands, she will be rejected); Because the first one prevailed [(5)] due to the judiciary’s connection with it, so it is not invalidated by the second one.

(And if they witnessed[(1)] the theft of a cow, and they differed in its color, it would be cut off, and if they differed in its maleness, it would not be cut off. According to them[(2)]: It is not cut in both cases[(3)], and it was said: The difference is in two similar colors(4) such as black and red, not in black and white. It was said: In all colors (5), to him: Theft [may] (1) occur (2) at night, and the person seeing it sees it from afar, so the two colors (3) are similar, and the most apparent is their statement (4).

(And if [(5)] testified that a slave was purchased, or one wrote for one thousand, and the other for one thousand and one hundred, then [their testimony](1))(2) will be rejected, whether the seller or the buyer claims; Because the contract differs according to the price, so each one has an individual certificate, which is not accepted, (and also [(3)]...(4) emancipation with money, and reconciliation for money, and mortgage(5), and divorce, if the slave, the killer, the mortgager, and the bride claim), there is a twist and spread, so the slave’s claim is due to emancipation with money, and so on, in order, because what is meant here is this contract and it is different.

(And if the other claims): that is, the guardian in emancipation on the basis of money, the guardian of the murdered (1) in reconciliation on the issue of marriage, the mortgagee in the mortgage, and the husband in the divorce, (it is like a debt claim in its aspects): that is, if the two witnesses differ in wording, it is not accepted according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - even if they agree in meaning, then if the plaintiff claims the lesser, the testimony of the witness for the more is not accepted (2), and if he claims the more, the less is accepted.

Someone might say [(3)]: This is not the same as the claim of religion; Because the debt is proven (1) by the acknowledgment of the debtor (2), it can be acknowledged by one of the two witnesses for a thousand, and by the other for more, and it is also possible that the original right is the most, but he spent the excess of the thousand, or was absolved of it by one of the two witnesses and not (3) the other, so reconciliation between them is possible. But here, the money is proven by the dependency of the contract, and the contract (4) for a thousand is different from the contract for the more, so each one remains the testimony of an individual, so it is not accepted (5) as in the other party (6).

(A lease is like a sale at the beginning of the period [(1)], and like a debt after it), since at the beginning of the period what is intended is the contract, so testimony is not accepted, and after the period the claim is from the employee, and he claims the rent, so it is like a claim for a debt, so it is accepted (2) just as it is accepted in a claim for a debt (3).