អ៊ុមដាតុល រីអាយ៉ះ (ការពន្យល់ក្បួនច្បាប់វីកាយ៉ះ ហាណាហ្វី)

(It is valid to sell the mother of his child [(1)] if he bought her without him, but if he bought it with him, then it is not valid (2)). This is according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -, and according to them it is not valid to sell her, even if he bought her without the child (3); Because she is the mother of his child, it is not permissible to sell her, and he has: By analogy, it is permissible to sell her, even if she has a child with her; Because the earning of the offices is suspended, then nothing is related to it that is not subject to annulment. However, if she has a child, the abstention from the sale is proven by the dependency of the child[(4)]. He - may God’s prayers and peace be upon him - said: ((Her son emancipated her))(1), and it does not prove authenticity, and analogy denies it[(2)](3), (like a child[(4)] born to him from his female slave), related to his saying: and he is written for [purchase](5): That is, if a male child is born from his female slave and he claims him, he enters into Writing it[(6)], (and earning it for him): that is, the earnings of the mukatab’s son are for the mukatab; Because the boy earned his earnings, and (1) the boy earned his earnings[(2)]. (For the scribe of Qanin has two husbands, and she gave birth, and [the child] (3) entered her record, and his earnings went to her): That is, he married his female slave to (4) his slave, so he wrote them down, and she gave birth to a son, and the son entered into the mother’s record [(5)], and his earnings went to the mother; Because the child follows the mother[(6)] in slavery, emancipation and its branches(7)[(8)].

(If she was born free [(9)] allegedly by a mukatib or a slave, he married her with permission and she became entitled, and her child (1) was a slave: that is, the mukatab married a woman with the permission of his master, and she said: I am free and was born by him, so she was entitled, so her son was a [slave] (2) with Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - and Abu Yusuf - may God be pleased with him -, and [with] (3) Muhammad - may God be pleased with him - free in value; Because he was born arrogant, for them: The analogy is that he is a slave because he was born between two slaves[(4)], and in the free world we differed from the analogy[(5)] with the consensus of the Companions, and this[(6)] is not in its meaning; Because the master’s right is obligated by the value (7) to be paid by the free man [immediately] (8), and here the slave has no ability to pay it immediately, but rather it is delayed (9) until emancipation (10) [(11)].

(If [(1)] intercourses with a female slave (2) with his ownership (3) and she deserves it, or through a corrupt purchase, then he takes her sterility [(4)] (5) immediately (6) [(7)], like a person authorized to trade: that is, he intercourses with the offices, or the authorized person (8), with a female slave without the master’s permission based on the fact that it is his property by purchasing it, or gifting it to him, and then the female slave becomes entitled to it, or he buys a female slave for a corrupt purchase (9) So he had intercourse with her, then she responded and she must be barren immediately [(10)]. (And if he had intercourse (1) and had intercourse, then he would have had intercourse when he was emancipated): That is, he had intercourse with [the mukatib or authorized female slave](2) without the master’s permission and had intercourse, then [she was entitled to] (3) sterilization is required after emancipation. The difference is that had it not been for the purchase, the punishment would not have been annulled, and unless the punishment had been annulled, sterilization is not obligatory. It is one of the consequences of trade, so it is established in the master’s right. Here, marriage is not a matter of gain, so it is not regulated. Writing[(4)], and someone might say[(5)]: Infertility is proven by intercourse, not by purchase, and permission to purchase is not permission(6) to have intercourse, and intercourse is not part of trading in anything, so it is not established against the master(7). (And it is valid to manage his duties, and he became incapacitated himself and was managing, or he proceeded with it and worked for two-thirds of its value, or two-thirds of the allowance if his master died poor): That is, he has the choice: [either] (8) if he became incapacitated himself and was managing, or he proceeded to (9) write.

If he passes it and the master dies and has no other money, then he has the choice: either he should strive for two-thirds of its value, or two-thirds of the writing allowance, and in both cases: he should strive for the lesser of the two, since emancipation was divided (1) according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - two-thirds remained a slave, so if he pays for the arrangement two-thirds of the value immediately, he frees all of it immediately, and if he pays for writing (2) two-thirds of the allowance deferred, he is emancipated deferred, so the choice is useful, and he received (3) The two aspects of freedom (4) are for two exchanges, immediate by arrangement and deferred by writing, so he chooses between them, and in them: since it was not divided, he became freed of the whole by the death of the master, and a third of the money was forfeited from him, and two-thirds remained, and everything (5) that is [less](6) than two-thirds of the exchange, or two-thirds of the value, is sought, and there is no benefit in choosing between the less and the more(7).

(And the birth of his mukatabah[(8)], and she passed on it, or she became incapacitated and was the mother of his child): that is, she gave birth to the mukatabah and the master claimed the child so she would become the mother of his child, so she has the choice (1) between proceeding (2) with the writing and paying the exchange, so she is freed before the death of the master (3) or being incapacitated herself, so she is freed (4) after the death of the master[(5)]. If she proceeds with the writing, she has the right to take the dowry [(6)] from her master.

(And the writing of the mother of his son[(1)] and she was freed by his death free of charge[(2)] and his master): That is, the writing of his master is correct, ((and he strives(4) for two-thirds of its value[(5)] or all the compensation in the event of his master’s death insolvent). This is according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - and according to Abu Yusuf - may God be pleased with him - he strives for the least[(6)] of them, and according to Muhammad - may God be pleased with him - he strives for at least two-thirds of the value or Two-thirds of the allowance. As for the option or its absence, it is a branch of the division or its absence, as mentioned above. As for the amount (1), Muhammad - may God be pleased with him - says: The allowance is when it is in exchange for the whole, then with death (2) a third of the allowance is given to him.

(And he reconciled it with his offices on a half-term basis of deferred compensation): That is, his reconciliation is valid, and the analogy is that it is not valid [(1)]; Because it is a substitute for the term with money, and the reason for approval is that the term in relation to the offices is money in the sense that he cannot pay without it, and the writing allowance is not money (2) in the sense[(3)] so that (4) the guarantee with it is not valid (5)[(6)], so they should be moderate (7)[(8)].

(If a sick person dies[(1)] his slave writes for double its value with a deferred payment, and his heirs return, he pays two-thirds of the allowance[(2)] immediately, and the rest is deferred, or enslaved): That is, the slave has the choice between paying two-thirds of the allowance immediately and the rest[(3)](4) deferred, or refraining and enslaving. This is according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - and Abu Yusuf - may God be pleased with him -, and according to Muhammad - may God be pleased with him - the servant’s choice is between That he pays two-thirds of the value immediately, and the remainder until the full replacement is deferred, and that he refrains and steals; Because the sick person does not have the right to postpone two-thirds of the value, but for what is beyond it[(5)] it is permissible for him to leave it[(6)] and it is permissible for [him](7) to delay it, [for them: All of what is named is an allowance for the neck[(8)] and the right of the heirs is related to the exchanger, and so is the allowance, so it is not permissible for [him](1) to delay except](2) in one-third of it (3). (And in half its value here): That is, whether the compensation is half the value here: That is, in the aforementioned issue, which is the death of the sick person whose slave wrote him a deferred allowance, (he paid two-thirds of it immediately or enslaved): That is, the slave gave the choice between paying two-thirds of the value immediately, or refraining and thus enslaving (4); Because favoritism occurred in the amount[(5)] and in the delay, so it is implemented by a third[(6)] rather than two-thirds [agreed upon](7).

(If [(1)] a free man says to a master(2) [slave](3): Your slave’s scribe is on such and such, and the condition of emancipation is that he pays it first): That is, whether he says: [Ali](4) If you pay, he is free or he does not say, (So he did and the free person performed the emancipation, and did not return): That is, the performer does not return to the slave; Because he is voluntary in performing it, and he is only emancipated by performing the free labor. As for the condition of emancipation being his performance, it is clear, but if he does not stipulate, the analogy is that he is not emancipated, and in the case of approval, he is emancipated. Because it depends on the acceptance of the absent slave in what harms him[(5)], which is the obligation of a substitute upon him, and not in what benefits him, which is the validity of the performance(6) of the acceptor(7) of the substitute, (and if the slave accepts, then he is a mukatib[(1)]): [That is, the free man writes to the slave, and the servant informs him and he accepts, then he is a mukatib; Because writing is subject to its approval] (2).

(If he writes a present and an absent person and accepts the present, then any (1) performs before coercion or emancipation.) The form of the issue is: to say: He wrote me with a thousand against myself and so-and-so[(2)] [the absent](3) so he did and accepted the present, so the analogy is that it is valid in the share of (4) the present[(5)] and in the share of (6) the absent depends on his acceptance. The reason for approval: The present added the contract to itself, making itself an origin, and the absent is an extension, so it is valid as it is valid for Children[(7)](8) by extension, whichever of them performed before Jabra(9)[(10)], as for the present; Because all the substitutes are on him, and as for the absent [(1)]; Because he gets the honor of freedom, even if he does not have to pay compensation. (So he became like a mortgage lender), its form: A man borrowed an item from someone else to mortgage it for a debt he owed to another, so he mortgaged it, then the lender needed to recover the item, so [if] (2) the debt is paid to the mortgager, the mortgager is forced to accept, even if the lender of the mortgage is not [a debt][(3)](4), but it is on the borrower, and if (5) he pays the debt, he returns it to the borrower, even if he pays it without his order, because he is forced to redeem his item and does not He can only pay the debt.

(He did not return to the other [(1)]); Because it is a donor in the right of the other, but the mortgage lender returns [(2)]; Because he is forced to perform; Because (3) he fears that his money will be destroyed in the hands of the mortgagee, (and the absentee’s acceptance of it is void[(4)]...(5)); Because (6) the contract was implemented on the present.

(So ​​if a female slave [(1)] and two children of hers [(2)] are repented and she accepts (3), then whoever performs it (4) [(5)] will not be returned and they will be freed [(6)]), as in the case of the first [(7)], [and God knows best] (1). Chapter on writing the joint slave [(2)]

(One of my partners, a slave [(3)] gave permission to the other [(4)] to write down his share of a thousand and take it, so he did (5) and took part of it [(6)], so that is his if he is unable.) The pronoun in his share refers to the other, this is according to Abu Hanifa, and its origin is: The writing is divided, so it is limited to his share, and the benefit of (7) permission[(8)]: that if he does not give permission[(9)] then he has the right to annul. So, by permission, that does not remain, and his permission to his partner to take possession is permission for the servant to pay to him [(10)], so he is a donor in his share [(1)] to the recipient, so he has (2), and according to them: the writing is indivisible (3), so the permission to write his share is permission to write the whole, so the recipient is a principal in some, and an agent in some, and the received is shared between them, so (4) remains like this after the inability.

(A correspondence between two men brought a child and one of them claimed him, then she brought another and the other claimed him, but she was unable, so she is the mother of a child of the first[(1)], and he guaranteed half of her value[(2)], and half of her sterility, and his partner[(3)] enslaved her, and the value of the child, which is his son), this is according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -, and his explanation: The creation of joint correspondence is split (4) according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -, so it is limited to His share [(5)]; Because the offices (6) are not transferred from one king to another, as was mentioned (7) in Al-Mudabbar, and the birth of a qanna is not divisible. If one of the two partners gives birth to a shared qanna, the whole of it becomes the mother of his children, and half of its value is guaranteed to the partner.

If you know this; So the second’s birth before the inability occurred in his possession apparently[(1)] and the lineage of his child is established, but if it was not possible it becomes as if the writing had not occurred, and it appears that he had in fact intercourse with the mother of the other’s child[(2)], so the first’s production occurred indivisibly, so all of it is the mother of his child, and he guarantees half of its value to his partner[(3)], and it is not (4) the mother of the partner’s child, but the partner’s child is an arrogant child, since he had intercourse relying on ownership, so he is free for the value, and fully guaranteed. Her sterilization.

As for them: the reproduction of the contract is indivisible. Before (1) the incapacity, she became the mother of a child of the first, and the share of the second was transferred to him by rescinding (2) the writing, for the writing is annulled (3) by the reproduction in that which does not harm [(4)] the offices, so the intercourse of the second would be in a place other than his property[(5)], and he must complete the sterilization, not the limit for suspicion, and his child will not be free in value, and the first guarantees to the partner half of its value in writing to Abu Yusuf - may God be pleased with him. -[(6)], and less than half of its value and half of what remains of the writing allowance according to Muhammad - may God be pleased with him -[(7)], and if the writing in the share (1) of their partner before the incapacity is annulled, then it is all written off to the first for half the allowance (2)[(3)] according to Sheikh Abu Mansour - may God be pleased with him -, and with all the allowance (4)[(5)] according to most of the sheikhs - may God be pleased with him -.

(And any payment of barrenness to her is valid): that is, before her incapacity[(1)] because she is entitled to her benefits and compensation(2), (and if the second does not have intercourse with her and has sexual intercourse with her and she becomes incapacitated, his arrangement is invalidated[(3)], and she[(4)] is the mother of a child of the first[(5)], and the child is his[(6)], and he guarantees to his partner half of her barrenness, and half of its value[(7)]); Because it became clear through incapacity that he owned (8) the partner’s share at the time of birth, the arrangement occurred in a way other than his ownership, contrary to lineage; Because it depends on vanity. (If he frees it [(1)]): [i.e.] (2) joint correspondence, (one of them is rich and unable[(3)] guarantees half of its value to his partner, and takes it back from her), this is according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -[(4)], and according to them: he does not take back, and this is based on the fact that if the silent person guarantees the freed person [he will take back [it] from her](5) according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - not according to them.

(A slave of two men[(1)] who was managed by one of them, then the other freed him, fully or vice versa): that is, one of them freed him, then the other managed him, (the one who managed it freed, and sought assistance in both of them): that is, in the two issues, (or he included his partner in the first only), know that in the first issue, if the first managed it (2), then the second has the right to emancipate, or include, or seek assistance according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -, so if he frees the second, he does not have any guardianship left. Al-Dhamtin[(3)] and istis`a, then by emancipating he spoils[(4)] the share of the manager, so he has the right to emancipate, or seek help, or guarantee its value as a manager. It was mentioned in ((Chapter on Emancipating Some)) of ((The Book of Emancipation))(5): The value of the manager(6) is two-thirds of the value of the slave[(7)], and if he guarantees it, he does not own it[(1)]; Because it does not pass from one king to another [(2)]. As for the second issue: If the first is emancipated, the latter has three options. If he frees him, he does not have (3) [(4)] the guardianship of inclusion, but rather (5) he has the guardianship of emancipation or istisa’. The guardianship of emancipation or istisna is fixed in the two issues, and the guardianship is specific to the first.

According to them: If one of them plots it, the emancipation of the other is invalid; Because the management is indivisible according to them, so he owns the owner’s share in the management, and guarantees half of its value whether he is affluent or insolvent. Because it is a guarantee of ownership, there is no difference between left and right [(1)], and if one of them emancipates him, then the other’s arrangement is invalid; Because emancipation is indivisible [with them][(2)](3), so half of its value is guaranteed if he is well-off, and (4) the slave is paid for if he is insolvent. Because this is a guarantee of emancipation, it differs between the left and the left.

Chapter on death and incapacity[(5)] (Deputies of inability of a star[(1)] if it has a face[(2)] will reach it and the ruler will not make it incapable for three days[(3)]): That is, if three days have passed, and he has not paid the share of that star, he is ruled incapable, (otherwise he is incapacitated): that is, if it has no face[(4)] his incapacity will reach it(5), and this is according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -[(6) ] and Muhammad - may God be pleased with him. On his authority - and according to Abu Yusuf - may God be pleased with him - he does not become incapable [(1)] until two stars succeed him.