អ៊ុមដាតុល រីអាយ៉ះ (ការពន្យល់ក្បួនច្បាប់វីកាយ៉ះ ហាណាហ្វី)

(Even if he planned it, then gave it away.) Because the lamb remained in his possession, it was not an exception [(1)], and the gift was not executed in the lamb, so it remained a gift of something occupied by the donor’s property, or a gift of the common property [(2)].

(And whoever says[(1)] to his adversary: ​​If tomorrow comes, it is yours, or you are innocent of it, then it is false.) When it was stated that an explicit comment on disavowal is not valid (2)[(3)].

(It is permissible for Al-Omari[(1)] to the long-lived person for him during his lifetime, and for his heirs after him, which is to make his house [his] period (2) ](3) his life, and if he dies, it will be returned to him): meaning Al-Omri: making the house his for the duration of his life, with the condition that if the long-lived person dies, it will be returned to the donor. This condition [(4) ](1) is invalid as stated in the hadith.

(And Al-Raqbi is invalid [(2)], which is that if I die before you, it is yours); Al-Raqbi is a name from Al-Raqub[(3)], which means waiting, as if he is waiting for the owner to die, and it is invalid[(4)] according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - and Muhammad - may God be pleased with him -; Because it is a suspension [(5)] of ownership with danger, and according to Abu Yusuf - may God be pleased with him - it is valid, because his saying: My house is yours, [meaning] (6) [Indeed] (7) my house is yours, and I am waiting for your death to come back to me and it will be valid and the condition will be invalidated like Al-Omari, so the difference (8) [(1)] is based on its interpretation.

(And charity (2) as a gift (3) is not valid unless it is received[(4)](5), nor in a common apportionment): that is, if half the house is given in charity, it is not valid, unlike if he gave something in charity to poor people as mentioned above, (and there is no return to it[(6) ]), and the difference between them is that taking back is not valid in charity; Because he received the compensation, which is the reward.

Lease book[(1) ][(1)]

Some [(2)] people of Arabic said: Ijarah is effective from Mufa’alah, and a reward according to the weight of Fā’l is not effective; Because the rent did not come, the present tense is rented, and the active participle is al-mu’ajir, and in ((Ain al-Khalil (1))): I rented to Zayd a Mamluk, he rented him rent (2), and in ((Al-Asas))(3): rented: and he is rented, and he did not say rented, for it is a mistake, and used (1) in an ugly place (2), and it is a name for rent: like a reward [a name for making] (3), and his rent is rented out of a request: That is, he gave him the rent, so he is a renter (4), so he explained (5) the difference between the lessor and the renter, and the rent is effective from a renter who rents in the sense of rent (6), but in Sharia it was transferred to the contract, so he said:

(It is the sale of a known benefit[(1)] in exchange for (1) debt or property.

It is known[(2)] the benefit: by mentioning the period such as living in the house and cultivating the land for a period, whether long or short, but [(1)] in the endowment(2) it is not valid for more than three years in the Mukhtar. So that the tenant does not claim that it is his property, it is not permissible if this meaning is not valid for a long lease with different contracts, as it is permissible(3) [(1)] Some people have bypassed God for them[(2)], (and by mentioning work[(3)] such as dyeing a garment[(4)] and sewing it, and carrying a known amount on an animal for a known distance, and by pointing[(1)] as transporting this to there. [Chapter: When is the reward due]

The rent is not obligatory according to the contract [(2)]), unlike Al-Shafi’i (3) [(4)] - may God be pleased with him -, for him the rent [(5)] is obligatory by the contract itself, (but rather by accelerating it [(1)]), so if the tenant accelerates the rent, then the accelerated rent is the due rent, meaning that he does not have the right to recover, (or on his condition), for if he stipulates that the rent should be accelerated, then it must be accelerated, (or (2)) By fulfilling [(3)] the benefit or being able to do it[(4)], it becomes obligatory [(5)] for a house that was seized but not lived in, and it is waived [(1)] by usurpation to the extent that he lost possession of it (2)[(3)].

The lessor [(1)] has the right to demand rent for the house and land for each day (2), and for the animal [(3)] for each stage, and for the plastering [(4) ] and the sewing (1) if it is done, even if he works in the tenant’s house). He only said [(2)] this; Because if the tailor works in the tenant’s house and sews some of the garment and then (3) steals the garment, he is entitled to a wage in proportion to what he sewed, this is evidence that the wage is due in proportion to the work, but we say: by the act of stealing, his work ended on some and it is known to all, so he must be rewarded for what he worked, unlike if the work did not end on some, as it is not possible for him to ask for a wage for every little work, and there is no estimate for the parts, so the demand depends on all the work.

(And for the bread[(1)] after taking it[(2)](3) out of the oven[(4)], and if it burns[(5)] after he took it out, he gets the reward(6)[(7)](8) and before it, no[(9)], and there is no fine for them[(10)]), this is according to[(1)] Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -, because it is a trust with him, and according to them[(2)] he guarantees the equivalent of a minute and no reward, and if he wishes He guaranteed the bread and gave him the wages (3).

(And for cooking[(1)] after scooping[(2)] and for beating the milk[(3)] after it has risen), this is according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -, and they said (1)[(2)]: It is not worthy until he expels it(3); Because dissection is part of the completion of the work, and according to Abu Hanifa [(4)] - may God be pleased with him - it is additional, like transfer.

(And whose work[(1)] has an effect on the eye): Any thing of his wealth[(2)] that is in possession of that eye, such as dye [for example](1), (such as a dyer(2) and a hairdresser who shortens[(3)] with starch(4)[(5)] and eggs(6)[(7)] for him to keep [(8)] for the reward[(1)]. If he withholds it, then there is no fine or reward[(2)](3)). This is according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him. God bless him -, and according to them: the property was guaranteed before the imprisonment, and so it is after it, then he has the option according to them, if he wishes, he guarantees its value (4) without being used, and there is no reward [for him] (5), and if he wishes, he guarantees it for what is done and has the reward.

(And he who has no trace[(1)] of his work): that is, none of his wealth remains in that possession, (such as the porter[(2)] and the boatman(3)[(4)] and the washer of clothes(5)[(6)] is not imprisoned, unlike the one who left behind [(7)]). Effect on the eye or not. (And whoever releases [(1)] the work has the right to employ someone else, and if it is tied in his hand then not), just as if he commanded him to sew it with his own hand.

(And for the reward of coming[(2)] with his dependents if some of them die, and bringing those who remain a wage according to his account(1), and carrying[(2)] a cat or adding a wage to Zayd if he returns it upon his death[(3)] he has nothing. This is according to[(4)] Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - and Abu Yusuf - may God be pleased with him -, and according to Muhammad[(5)] he has the reward of going in the cat: i.e. the book[(1)], and in the provision(2) he has nothing. In agreement [(3)] his action was annulled by a response.

[Chapter: What is permissible in terms of renting and what is not permissible] (It is valid to rent [(1)] a house or (2) a shop without mentioning what is done in it. The usual work in it is residential, so it is devoted to it.

If he rents land for building or planting, it is valid [(1)], and if the period has elapsed[(2)] he hands it over empty[(3)], unless the lessor is fined[(4)] the value of an uprooted property, and he takes possession of it without the tenant’s consent[(5)] if the uprooting decreases the land, otherwise, then with his consent[(1)](2), or he is satisfied[(3)] to leave it, so the building and planting are for this, and the land is for this(4), his saying: and he owns it with the accusative conjunction. On condition that he be fined [(5)]. Otherwise: that is, even if the extraction does not diminish the land. His saying: Or he is satisfied is a sympathy for him to be fined. The bottom line is that the tenant must deliver it empty unless one of two things exists:

The first: The lessor gives the value of the uprooted building or planting and takes possession of it. This giving and ownership is forced upon the estimation that the uprooting does not diminish the land, and it is with the consent of the lessee upon the estimation that the uprooting does not diminish the land. The second matter: The lessor must agree to leave the building or planting on his land. This is what he mentioned (1) regarding the obligation and non-obligation of qulqah, and he understood from it the guardianship of qulqah for the lessee and its lack thereof; For it has been mentioned that [if] (2) the lack of extraction of land is owned by him without the consent of the tenant, then the lessee does not have the right to extract, and in any other case it is. (And the wet tree (3) [(4)] is like a tree... (5)), for it has the ability to remain in the land unlike the crops, [for] (6) if the period has elapsed, he is not forced to uproot it before the time of harvesting [(7)].

(And he guarantees with the back [(1)] a man who is with him and he mentioned his riding): that is, the rented ride without mentioning the back, (half of its value without taking into account the weight[(1)]). A light person who is ignorant of horsemanship[(2)] may be more harmful than a heavy person who knows it(3).