អ៊ុមដាតុល រីអាយ៉ះ (ការពន្យល់ក្បួនច្បាប់វីកាយ៉ះ ហាណាហ្វី)

(Except standing teeth and nails [(1)]), but if they are obligatory, the sacrifice is permissible according to us, but it is disliked, and according to Al-Shafi’i (3) - may God be pleased with him - the sacrifice is dead; Because of his saying - may God bless him and grant him peace -: ((Except (4) the nail and the tooth, for they are the extent of the Abyssinians))(5), and we take it to mean something that is not removed, because the Abyssinians used to do that.

(He recommended[(1)] sharpening his blade before cutting, and disliked it after it[(2)]). In conjunction with the slaughtered, (and drag[(1)] with her foot to the slaughterhouses), his saying: and the genitive: with the nominative conjunction of the pronoun in makrah, and it is permissible because of the separation, (and slaughtering it from the back of it(2)[(3)], and marrowing): that is, severe slaughtering until it reaches the marrow(4)[(5)], which in Persian is forbidden, and (and skinning before it cools[(6)](1)): that is, it calms (2) the disturbance.

(The condition is that the slaughterer be a Muslim, or of the Book: a non-Muslim or a warrior): God Almighty said: {And the food of those who were given the Book is lawful for you}(3); This is because they mention the name of God Almighty on it, (So their sacrifice is permissible even if it is an insane person(4) or a woman or a child who is of sound mind(5) and can control(1)), even if the insane person or boy is such that he does not understand and cannot control the name, then it is not permissible for their sacrifice, (or an uncircumcised[(2)], or a mute person who cannot be sacrificed. A pagan, a Magian, an apostate, and one who intentionally abandons the name(3)[(4)]), this is with us; According to the Almighty’s saying: {And do not eat of that upon which the name of God has not been mentioned}(5) contrary to Al-Shafi’i(6) - may God be pleased with him -, and the strongest evidence is His Almighty’s saying: {Say, “I do not find in what has been revealed to me anything forbidden} to His Almighty’s saying: {Or immorality, on which the name of God has not been mentioned}(7), so the Almighty’s saying: {And do not eat of that on which the name of God has not been mentioned, and indeed it is immorality}(8) is based on what has been enjoined upon other than God, with the evidence of His Almighty’s saying: {And it is immorality}, and also if [(9)] this is not found in what is forbidden, it is permissible. We said: There is no necessity for pregnancy, so if it is not carried (1), then {Say, I do not find} comes down before [his saying][(2)](3): {And do not eat} lest (4) it entails lying.

(If he leaves it out of forgetfulness, it is permissible for the excuse (1) of forgetfulness). God Almighty said: {Our Lord, do not hold us accountable if we forget or make a mistake}(2), so his statement - may God’s prayers and peace be upon him -: ((naming God Almighty in the heart of every Muslim)) (3) refers to the case of forgetfulness, and according to Malik (4) - may God be pleased with him - [(5)]: it is not permissible in forgetfulness either.

(And he disliked mentioning [(6)] with the name of God Almighty other than it and not as a conjunction, such as saying: In the name of God, O God, accept it from so-and-so (1)[(2)], and it is forbidden to sacrifice it if it is connected [such as] (3): In the name of God, and the name of so-and-so, or (4) So-and-so): that is, in the name of God and so-and-so, (so separating a form and a meaning such as supplication before lying down, and before saying something, is okay.

He liked to slaughter camels [(5) ] and disliked slaughtering them, and the opposite applies to cows and sheep. This is according to us, and according to Malik (1) - may God be pleased with him - that slaughtering camels or slaughtering cows and sheep is not permissible. (It is necessary to slaughter a game that has been domesticated[(2)], and it is sufficient that it was wounded, yes, wild, or fell into a well and could not be slaughtered(3))(4). This is according to us[(5)], and according to Malik(6) - may God be pleased with him - it is not permissible except through voluntary slaughter.

(It is not permissible for a dead fetus[(1)] to be born and found in its mother’s womb). This is according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - and according to them and according to Al-Shafi’i (1) - may God be pleased with him - if its creation is complete, it will be eaten, and the slaughter of the mother is a slaughter for itself. And the turtle, and the speckled one that eats carrion, and the jackdaw (5), and the elephant, and the jerboa (6), and the weasel (7), and no aquatic animal except fish (1) that did not float, and the hag[(2)], and the marmahi). - And in horses, there is a disagreement between them, and in the disagreement of Al-Shafi’i (5) - may God be pleased with him -, and in ours (6): His Almighty saying: {And horses, mules, and donkeys for you to ride} (7) the verse, and in the hyena, there is a disagreement with Al-Shafi’i - may God be pleased with him -, and in Persian it is: Kaftar, and turtles: Sunak Bisht, and Al-Aqbaa[(1)](2): Kalagh Bishah, and Al-Ghadaf(3) Kalagh Siyah Buzurk, The jerboa (4): mosh-dashti, and it is permissible according to Al-Shafi’i (5) - may God be pleased with him -, and the weasel (6): rooted. His saying: It did not float from floating, that is, it did not rise to the water dead, even if it floated[(7)] [the water](8) dead is forbidden, and the hag[(9)]: a type of fish, and it is not marmahi. Likewise in ((Morocco)) (10).

(And locusts and types of fish are permissible without zakat, and the crow, and the rabbit[(1)], and the magpie(2) are with them): that is, with zakat.

The Book of Sacrifice[(3)] (It is a sheep from one individual [(1)], and (2) a cow or camel from one to seven if (3) one individual does not have less than seven), even if one of the seven has less than one seventh, it is not permissible for anyone; Because the description of closeness is not sufficient [(4)], and according to Malik (5) - may God be pleased with him - it applies to the people of one household even if they are more than seven, and it is not permissible to apply to the people of two households even if they are less than seven. (The meat is divided by weight, not arbitrarily unless it includes legs or skin with it): That is, with the meat there are legs or skin(6), so on each side there is a bit of meat and a bit of the legs, or on each side there is a bit of meat and some [of](7) skin, or on one side there is meat and knees, and at the end there is meat and skin, but it is permissible to vary the gender to the opposite of the gender.

(It is valid for six people to share in a bought cow for a sacrifice out of approval.) In analogy, it is not permissible, and it is the statement of Zafar - may God be pleased with him -; Because he prepared it for sacrifice, it is not permissible to sell it. The reason for approval: He may find a fat cow, but he does not find partners at the time of selling, so the need for this is urgent, (and that before the purchase (1) I love), with reference to the subscription (2), and on the authority of Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - he dislikes the subscription (3) after the purchase.

(It is not obligatory[(1)](2) except for those who are fitrah), and he mentioned the fitrah, but it is obligatory(3) because of his saying - may God’s prayers and peace be upon him -: ((Whoever finds [capacity](4) and does not offer a sacrifice, let him not approach a place of prayer)))(5), and according to Al-Shafi’i (6)[(7)] - may God be pleased with him - it is a Sunnah (for himself and not for his child according to the apparent meaning of the narration), and in the narration of Al-Hasan - may God be pleased with him - on the authority of Abu Hanifa - May God be pleased with him - it is obligatory for his child as in the case of fitrah. We said: The reason for fitrah is the head of his right hand[(8)](1) and he will be upon him(2)[(3)], (Rather, his father[(4)] or his guardian must sacrifice on his behalf from his wealth), [This is according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - and Abu Yusuf - may God be pleased with him -, and Muhammad - may God be pleased with him - and Al-Shafi’i(1) - may God be pleased with him - said: His father must sacrifice on his behalf from his own wealth, no. From his money] (2). (And [the child] ate [of it](3), and what was left should be replaced with something that is useful in its essence: such as a garment and slippers, not with something that can be used by consumption, such as bread and the like. Rather, it is permissible[(4)] to be replaced with this, not with this, by analogy with the skin. For the skin is permissible to benefit from it by using (5) a sock. [For if it is replaced](6) [with something that is useful in its essence, then the exchange has the same ruling as the exchanger, so it is like benefiting itself; But the exchange](7) is financed with dirhams, and what is used for consumption comes under the ruling of dirhams, so if the ruling applies to skin, then they apply meat to it if it is necessary for the boy.

(And the beginning of its time[(1)] is after the prayer if he slaughters it in Egypt): that is, after the Eid prayer on the Day of Sacrifice, (and after the rising of [the dawn of the Day of Sacrifice](2) if he slaughters it on another time, and the end of it is before sunset on the third day[(3)]), so what is considered in this place is the action and there is no place for it, but the sacrifice is not obligatory for the traveler, as in ((Al-Hidaya)) (4), and according to Malik (5) - may God be pleased with him - and Al-Shafi’i (1) - May God be pleased with him - It is not permissible after prayer before the imam sacrifices his sacrifice, and it is permissible (2) according to Al-Shafi’i (3) [(4)] - may God be pleased with him - within four days. (The other is considered for the poor (5) and its opposite, and birth and death): That is, if he is rich in the first days and poor in the last days, then it is not obligatory for him, [and on the contrary, it is obligatory] (6), and if he is born on the last day, then it is obligatory for him, and if he dies on it, then it is not obligatory for him.

(And it is disliked to slaughter at night(1)[(2)], if it is neglected): i.e. the sacrifice, (its days have passed in charity to the vower[(3)], and a poor person bought it to sacrifice it [alive](4), and a rich person in terms of its value bought it or not)(5). What is meant is that he vowed to sacrifice[(6)] this sheep, then it depends on the place, and the poor person is only obligated to buy it with the intention of the sacrifice. As for (1) the rich person, the obligation is related to his obligation to buy it. sheep or not.

(The trunk is valid [(2)] from the sheep), the trunk is a sheep that has six months of age[(3)], and the sheep is what has a buttocks, (and the two or more of the three): that is, from the sheep more general than being a sheep or a goat, and from the cows and from the camels, (which is fifty years old from camels[(4)] and two years old from a sheep), it was said: the two years old [(5)] a yearling son, a weak son, and a five-year-old son with hoofs and slippers(1).

(Like the one who is blind, the eunuch, and the one-eyed, but not the blind[(2)], the one-eyed, the lame, and the lame who does not walk to the rituals(1)).

(And her hand or leg was cut off, and what was gone...(1) more than a third of her ear, or her tail[(2)] or her eye, or her buttocks), this is the narration of ((Al-Jami’ Al-Saghir)) (3), and it was said: a third, and it was said: a quarter, and according to them, if more than half remains, that is sufficient, then the way to know that a third of the eye is gone, is to pull the stinging eye (4), and bring food to it if (5) it is hungry (6), and it can be seen that it was from wherever it saw it (7) The fodder, then she draws (8) the right eye, and brings [the] (9) fodder closer to her, and it is seen that it is from wherever she saw the fodder, and then he looks at the disparity between the two places, and if it was a third, then the third is gone, and so on.

(If (1) one of seven [(2)] died, and he said: His heirs [(3)] slaughter it on his behalf and on your behalf, it is valid), and on the authority of Abu Yusuf - may God be pleased with him - that it is not valid, and it is an analogy; Because it is a donation for destruction (4), it is not permissible on behalf of others, such as emancipation (5) on behalf of the dead. The reason for approval is that the sacrifice may occur on behalf of the dead [such as charity, unlike emancipation, which involves the obligation of loyalty to the dead] (6), (such as a cow for a sacrifice, pleasure, and Qur’an (7), even if one of them is an infidel [(8)], or (1) one who wants meat (2) no); Because some are not related and they are indivisible (3).

(And he eats[(4)] from it and eats it and gives it(5)[(6)] to whomever he pleases(7), and recommends giving in charity a third of it[(8)] and leaving it[(9)] to one who has children(10); to be generous to them, and slaughtering with his own hand[(11)] [Indeed](1) is better, and [unless he commands](2) something else, and he dislikes it if he slaughters it in my book[(3)], and he gives its skin in charity[(4)], or He makes it into a machine, such as a sock, (5) slipper, or (6) fur, (7) or he exchanges it for something that will be used permanently, not for something that will be used as a consumable item, such as vinegar (1) and the like (2)[(3)]. For [the sale of meat or skin is a charity for its price][(4)]. If two people made a mistake, and each of his companion’s sheep was slaughtered [(1) then it is valid without penalty. And [in] (2) the analogy is that it is not valid, and he is liable[(3)] because he slaughtered someone else’s sheep without his command. The reason for approval is that it was designated for the sacrifice[(4)], and the indication of permission is valid, as the custom has been of seeking help from others in the matter of slaughtering. (It is valid to sacrifice a usurped sheep, not a sheep entrusted to it, including it (5)). Because in the case of usurpation, ownership is established from the time of usurpation, and in the case of a deposit, it becomes usurped by slaughtering in a place other than ownership.

I say: Rather, he becomes a usurper by prior to the slaughter, such as lying down (1), and pulling the leg, so he becomes a usurper [(2)] before the slaughter (3).

The Book of Hate[(1)](2) (Whatever is disliked is forbidden according to Muhammad - may God be pleased with him -[(1)] and he did not pronounce it (2) due to the lack of a conclusive [text](3)[(4)])(5), so the ratio of the disliked to the forbidden is like the ratio of the obligatory to the obligatory, (and in them [(6)] to the forbidden is closer). What is disliked according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - and Abu Yusuf - may God be pleased with him - is not forbidden, but it is closer to the forbidden (1). This is what is disliked and is forbidden, and as for what is disliked [(2)] is disliked in exaltation, it is closer to the solution[(3)].