អ៊ុមដាតុល រីអាយ៉ះ (ការពន្យល់ក្បួនច្បាប់វីកាយ៉ះ ហាណាហ្វី)

(Land that a man claimed was in his hand, and another (1) did so, and he proved it, and decided with their hand[(2)], so if [(3)] one of them proved it (4) or there was brick on it, or built, or dug, then he decided with his hand[(5)]): The use is evidence of the hand.

Chapter on the claim of lineage (6) [(1)]

(A sold item[(2)] was born less than half a year ago[(1)] since it was sold, so the seller[(2)] claimed[(1)] the child, proving (2) his lineage from him and her illiteracy, and annulling the sale[(3)], and returning the price[(4)], even if the buyer claimed it with his claim, or after it[(5)]), this[(6)] according to us, and according to Zafar - may God be pleased with him - and Al-Shafi’i - may God be pleased with him - his claim is invalid; Because the sale (1) is an acknowledgment on his part that she is a nation, so by inviting him, he becomes a contradiction. And for us: The clog is a hidden matter, so the contradiction is excused, and the fact that the clog is in the seller’s hand is evidence that it is from him. Rather, he said: And if the buyer claims it with his invitation, or after it, even if the buyer claims before the seller’s invitation, it is proven from the buyer, and it is assumed (2) that the buyer married her, produced her (3), and then bought her. (And also if he claims it after the death of the mother other than the death of the child): This means that if the female slave (4) dies and the child is alive and the seller claims him, and she brought him for less than six months, the lineage [from him] is proven (5), and if the child dies, no; Because the child is the basis[(7)] in establishing lineage. He - may God’s prayers and peace be upon him - said: ((Her son emancipated her))(8).

If the invitation is valid after the death of the mother, then according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - all the price is returned[(1)], and in their case the child’s share is returned, not the mother’s share[(2)].

(And if he claimed it after her emancipation[(3)] then (1) his lineage is proven and his share of the price is returned)(2): That is, if the seller claims the child as his child after the buyer emancipated the mother, and she brought him for less than half a year, the lineage of the child is proven (3) and the seller returns the child’s share of the price[(4)], by dividing the price by the value of the mother and the value of the child. What happened to the child is returned by (5) the seller to the buyer, and what happened to the mother is not returned.

(And after his emancipation, his claim is rejected): That is, if the seller claims the child after the buyer has emancipated him, the seller’s claim[(1)] will be rejected (as she gave birth[(2)] more than half a year ago, and less than two years, or she gave birth for more than two years): that is, the seller’s claim will be rejected if the period from the time of sale to the time of birth is more than half a year, (unless the buyer believes him, and if he believes, then the second section is governed as the first, and in the third, his sale is not invalidated). The first section: If she gave birth for less than half a year from the time of sale. The second: whether she gave birth more than half a year ago and less than two years old.

Third: If she gave birth more than two years ago (1). In the second section: his lineage and her illiteracy are proven, the sale is annulled, and the price is returned as in the first section, (and she is the mother of his child[(2)] by marriage): [i.e.](3) The mother of the child by marriage: she is a female slave who gave birth to her husband and the husband owned her, or a female slave whose husband owned her(4) so ​​she gave birth and he claimed the child, and here (5) this is taken into account.

(And if [(1)] sold one of his children, then claimed him after (2) selling his buyer, his lineage is valid, and his sale is returned[(3)]. Likewise, if he wrote down the son or the mother, or mortgaged, or rented, or her husband, and then claimed him [the claim is valid against both the mother and the child, and these transactions are invalidated[(4)](5), and the slave girl is returned to the seller(6).

Know [(1)] that the phrase ((guidance)) is like this: And whoever sells a slave, (2) is born to him[(3)], and the buyer sells him to another, and then the first seller claims him, then he is his son, and the sale is invalid; Because the sale is liable to be annulled, and his money from the right to claim cannot be annulled, so the sale is annulled for his sake. Likewise, if the son wrote, mortgaged it, or rented it, or the mother wrote, mortgaged it, or her husband, then (4) the call was; Because these symptoms can (5) be annulled...(6), so all of that is annulled and the call is valid other than emancipation and management, as mentioned above (7).

I say: the subject pronoun in: writer; If it is due to the buyer, [and likewise in his saying: or the mother’s scribe, the meaning of the words becomes: and whoever sells a slave, a child will be born with him, or (1) the mother’s scribe of the buyer, and this is incorrect; Because the subject of the transaction is the sale of the child, not the sale of the mother, so how can his statement be correct, or (2) the buyer’s clerk is the mother, even if he refers] (3) to the one in his saying: and who (4) sold a slave; The issue is that a man wrote (5) whoever was born with him, or mortgaged it, or rented it, and then (6) the invitation was made, and then (7) his statement other than emancipation is not appropriate; Because the issue of emancipation that was raised was whether the buyer emancipated the child; Because the correct difference is between the buyer’s emancipation and his writing, not between the buyer’s emancipation and the seller’s writing (8). If you know this, then the pronoun reference in the writer of (9) is the boy who is the buyer, and in the writer of the mother [from] (10) in [his saying] (11): who sold (12).

(And if someone sells twins (1) born (2) with him[(3)], and the buyer emancipates them, and then the other seller claims their lineage from him, their lineage from him is proven, and the buyer’s emancipation is invalidated. Because it is necessary to prove [(1)] the lineage of one of them to prove the lineage of the other, and twins [(2)]: two children whose births are less than six months apart.

(And if he said to a boy with him (1)[(2)]: He is the son of Zaid, and then said: He is my son, he was not his son[(3)], even if Zaid denied his sonship[(4)]): This is according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -, and according to them: If Zaid denies his sonship, he becomes the son of the one in whose hand the boy is; Because acknowledgment of lineage [(5)] is rejected by refutation (1), and for him: lineage [(2) ] is something that cannot be refuted, and acknowledgment of something like it is not rejected by refutation (1).

(And if he was with a Muslim and an infidel, and he said: The Muslim is my slave, and the infidel said: He is my son, then he is a free son of the infidel); Because he obtains [(2)] freedom immediately, and Islam in the future, since the evidence of oneness is apparent (1), and in its opposite, Islam is confirmed (2) by its subordination (3), and it is deprived of (4) freedom, and it is not in his power to acquire it (5).

(And if a woman’s husband says to a boy[(6)] with them[(7)]: He is my son from another woman, and she says: He is my son from someone else, then he is their son(1)[(2)].

And if [(1)] a Mishreen slave woman gave birth (2), [and the buyer claimed the child] (3), and the father’s fine was due the value of the child [(4)] on the day he disputes (5), and he is free: that is, a Mishreen slave woman gave birth (6), and the buyer claimed the child, then the mother claimed the child, then the child is free, and the father, who is the buyer, guarantees the value of the child to the person entitled to it; Because the child of an arrogant person [(7)] is free in value, and what is meant by arrogant is a man who has intercourse with a woman relying on right-handed property, or marriage, and she gave birth, then she deserved it. Rather, he is called arrogant; Because the seller deceived him and sold a slave girl who did not belong to him, and (1) the value of the child on the day of the dispute is considered (2)[(3)].

(If the child dies, his father does not owe anything.) For not preventing [(1)] from him, (and I left it to him)(2); Because he is free in origin [(3)], (if his father or someone else kills him, the father will fine its value, and return it as its price to the seller, not with barrenness (4)). If the father kills him, he guarantees its value to the person entitled to it, and likewise if someone else kills him, then the father takes (5) his blood money [(6)], then the blood money is in exchange for him, so the safety of the exchange for the father is like the safety of the child, then withholding the exchange from the person entitled to it is like denying the child, and it includes the value, and he returns [(7)] its value [(7)] The seller also returns the price, and does not return the property from which he took what is due. Because instead of achieving the benefit of a few. [And God knows best what is right] (1).

[Book of Acknowledgment and Reconciliation]

Acknowledgment letter[(1)]

(It is informing[(1)] of the right[(2)] of another over him[(3)], and its ruling[(4)] is the appearance of the person confessing to it(1) not its creation(2), so it is valid [(3)] to acknowledge the alcohol for a Muslim(4), not by divorce, or (5) to emancipate(6) forced), since the ruling of the acknowledgment is the appearance and not the establishment, it is valid to acknowledge the wine to the Muslim, and it is not valid for the wine to be owned by him, and it is not valid to acknowledge the divorce and emancipation under duress[(7)], even if it was create true(8); Because the divorce (9) of a forced person and his emancipation are a reality with us (1).

(If a free person [(2)] in charge [(3)] acknowledges a right known or unknown[(4)] then it is valid[(5)], and he is obliged[(1)] to explain what he did not know about what has value(2). The validity of acknowledging the unknown is based on it being information, not establishing (3) ownership.