អ៊ុមដាតុល រីអាយ៉ះ (ការពន្យល់ក្បួនច្បាប់វីកាយ៉ះ ហាណាហ្វី)

(And if the mortgagee released his mortgaged debt, or gave it to him, then the mortgage would be destroyed): That is, in the hands of the mortgagee, (it would perish for nothing[(1)]), and this is desirability (2), and in analogy it would perish with the debt, which is an exaggerated statement - may God be pleased with him -[(3)]. (And if the mortgagee receives his debt or part of it from his mortgager or someone else, or buys (4) the debt in kind, or makes a settlement on its behalf on something, or the mortgager transfers his mortgage with his debt to another, and then his mortgage is destroyed along with him, he also perished with the debt[(5)], and what was received is returned to the one who paid, and the transfer is invalid.

Likewise, if they agreed that there was no debt and then he perished [perished](1) with the debt), the ruling on these issues is based on the fact that the mortgagee is in charge of collection, this is determined by the loss. If (2) he perishes, it becomes clear that the collection occurred repeatedly, and what was received is returned (3) to the one who paid. Tasdak [(7)] The existence of the debt is possible (8) [(1)]. If you know (2) this; So Safar - may God be pleased with him - measured the controversial issue in this way, and the aspect (3) of approval is the difference between them, which is that destruction by debt requires the existence of the debt, and by release (4) and gift, the debt does not remain at all, unlike settlement, for by settlement the debt does not disappear, but rather a debt is established for each of them against the other, so the request is dropped due to lack of benefit. [And God knows best what is right] (5).

Criminal book[(1)

](1) Know that there are five types of murder[(2)]: intentional, semi-intentional, accidental, accidental murder, and murder due to a cause. He explained these types with their rulings and said:

(Intentional murder: hitting him[(1)](2) intentionally with something that divides the parts, such as a weapon and a marker[(3)] of wood, (4) stone, (5) a bat, (6)[(7)], and (8) fire[(9)]). This is according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -[(10)], and according to them and according to Al-Shafi’i (1) - may God be pleased with him -: he hit him (2) intentionally with something that the structure cannot bear (3), even if Hitting him with a large stone or a large wood, then he intentionally committed it, (and by it he commits a sin[(4)] and must be sacrificed in kind[(6)]). This is in our opinion, contrary to Al-Shafi’i (7) - may God be pleased with him - for sacrifice is not necessary[(8)] according to him. Rather, the guardian has the choice between sacrifice and taking the blood money.

For us: Money[(1)] is only obligatory in a mistake by the necessity of preserving blood from wastage, since there is no similarity between it and the soul, so in intentionality it is not obligatory with the possibility of the proverb [form and meaning](2), (no expiation), contrary to al-Shafi’i(3) - may God be pleased with him -, who says: Since it is obligatory in a mistake, it is more appropriate that it be obligatory[(4)] in an intentional case, and we say: It is not necessary for the expiation to cover the mistake because it covers intentionality, and it is major. Pure (5). (And the similarity of intentionality[(1)]: hitting him(2) intentionally(3) with something other than what was mentioned: such as a stick, a whip, or a small stone. As for striking with a large stone or a large piece of wood, it is also similar to intentionality according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -, unlike others[(4)], (and it includes the sin and expiation, and a heavy blood money for the sane person). The explanation of the heavy blood money(5) and the explanation of the sane one(6) will come, God willing. Almighty, (without fuel.

It is intentionally hitting him (1) with something other than what was mentioned in what is less than the soul, intentionally requiring retaliation, for what is less than the soul is not quasi-intentional. (And in error, even if it is due to a slave), he only said this to ward off (2) the illusion that the slave is money, and the guarantee for the money is not the responsibility of the `aqilah. However, if he killed him by mistake, the blood money is due on the `aqilah, (intentionally: he threw him at a Muslim thinking he was hunting or fighting, or (3) actually: he threw him at an object (4) and he hit a human being). The error is of two types[(5)]: a mistake in intent, and a mistake in action. An error in an action is when he intends an action and another action occurs from it (6), such as if he throws an object [7] and misses and hits (8) something else.

The error in intent: [that] (1) the error is not in the act, but rather the error is in his intention, that (2) he intended this act to be warlike, but he made a mistake in that intention since what (3) he intended was not warlike, and the error [(4)] is not the sin of killing, but rather the sin of neglecting precaution, for the law of expiation is evidence of sin. (And what happened is like a sleeper who fell on another and killed him): That is, like a sleeper killing[(5)] who fell on another and that person was destroyed [because](6) of it falling on him, (a friendly expiation for his kin(7).

And in killing because of his harm (1): that is, like destroying it (by placing a stone, and (2) digging a well in someone other than his possession, blood money is due on the sane person without expiation and no inheritance except here[(3)]), this is according to us, and according to Al-Shafi’i (4) - may God be pleased with him -: expiation is required, and the deprivation of inheritance is proven by it as a result of the mistake[(5)]. We said: killing is non-existent in reality, and the mistake is attached to the right of guarantee, so in other cases it remains the same. Its origin [(6)].

Chapter on what necessitates punishment [(7)] and what does not necessitate (it is obligatory to kill someone whose blood has never been intentionally injected[(2)]): that is, someone whose blood has never been preserved, namely a Muslim and a non-Muslim, and never: as a precaution on behalf of a person who is trusting[(3)], for his blood injection is temporary until he returns.

(So ​​the free person is killed for the free person and for the slave), this is according to us, and according to Al-Shafi’i (1) - may God be pleased with him - the free person is not killed for the slave; According to the Almighty’s saying: {The free for the free and the slave for the slave}(2)[(3)], and for us[(4)]: [Indeed](1) a soul for a soul, and His saying: the free for the free; The denial of anything other than this does not indicate our origin, that if it indicates that the slave should not be killed for the free; According to the Almighty’s saying: {And the slave for the slave}, (and the Muslim for the dhimmi): This[(2)] according to us, in contrast to al-Shafi’i(3) - may God be pleased with him -, (they do not concern a person who is safe[(4)] but rather it is his clause[(1)](2).): That is, the person who is safe is killed with the same, and he is the one who is safe, (and the sane person[(3)] is for the insane, the adult is for the child, and the healthy is for the blind and the old one[(4))] And the missing limbs, the man with the woman, and the branch with the root and not the opposite [(5) ](1). There is no master with his slave, his manager, and his offices, [and the slave of his son](2), and the slave of part of him, nor with the slave of the mortgage[(3)] until his contracting parties meet. Because the mortgagee does not have property, he does not have ownership over it, and if the mortgager were to assume it, the mortgagee’s right to the debt would be void, so it is required that they agree; The right of the mortgagee shall be forfeited with his consent.

(And (4) with offices[(5) ](1) Intentional killing out of loyalty, an heir, and a master, even if they come together)(2); Because there was a difference between the Companions - may God be pleased with them - regarding his death as a free man or a slave. If he died as a free man, then the guardian is the heir, and if he died as a slave, then the guardian is the master, so he is suspicious of who has the right, so he should not punish his murderer, and if the heir and the master meet, (and if he does not leave an heir other than his master or leaves him (1) and does not pay off his master), [this] (2) according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - [(3)] and Abu Yusuf - [(3)] and Abu Yusuf - May God be pleased with him - unlike Muhammad - may God be pleased with him -, and if he did not abandon loyalty, he would also lead the master; Because it is necessary. (And the money he inherited falls on his father): That is, if the father kills a person (4)[(5)], and the guardian of retaliation is the son of the killer, the retaliation falls due to the sanctity of paternity.

(And he shall not be led except by the sword), this is ours, and according to al-Shafi’i (1) - may God be pleased with him -: He should be done with him as he did, and if he dies in it[(2)], otherwise his neck will be cut off (3) in order to achieve a settlement, [and] (4) for us: his saying - may God’s prayers and peace be upon him -: ((There is no driving except by the sword))(5), and also it is possible that he will not die and thus need to have his neck cut(6), so there is no settlement.

(The father of the insane person who broke his hand and killed his relative is restricted, and he reconciles and does not pardon (1), and the guardian has the right to reconcile only): that is, he does not have the right to pardon or kill, as he does not have guardianship over himself, but rather over his property, and killing is retaliation (2) in terms of guardianship over the soul, and he does not have guardianship of retaliation in the parties, (and the boy is like the insane person, and the judge is like the father, he is correct) (3), so that his father and guardian have what the father of the insane person and his guardian have, and the judge is in the same position as the father.

(And the elder must repay the retaliation before the younger grows up as compensation for them), this is according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - and they said (1) [(2)]: The elder does not have the authority to retaliate until the minor reaches puberty; Because it is a shared right, as if it were between the two elders and one of them was absent, it has: It is an indivisible right; Because it is proven by an indivisible reason, which is kinship, it is proven for each Kamal, as in the case of marriage guardianship, and the possibility of pardoning a minor is cut off (3), unlike the two elders.

(He retaliates for a wound confirmed by sight[(4)] or with a pretext, and he made the injured person bedded until he died, and for a murder with a bitter punishment(1)[(2)], not for a killing with his back or a stick(3), or a burden, or suffocation, or drowning[(4)], or a whip and someone who beat him(5) and he died). Al-Murr in Persian is like a clond, and if he hits him in the back, there is no retaliation according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - and from him (1) The obligation of retaliation in view of the instrument [(2)], and from him: It is obligatory if he is wounded[(3)], and according to them and according to Al-Shafi’i [(4)] - may God be pleased with him -: It is obligatory and [if] (5) he is struck by the stick of myrrh. If it is something that a person can tolerate, then there is no retaliation, according to consensus, and if it is something that he cannot tolerate, then there is disagreement, as mentioned above, and in strangulation (6) and drowning, there is no retaliation according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - in contrast to others, and in loyalty. The whip does not require retaliation, contrary to Al-Shafi’i (7) - may God be pleased with him -.

(Not in the killing of a Muslim by a Muslim he thought was a polytheist [(1)] when two lines meet; rather, he disbelieves and pays my blood money): that is, he gives the blood money.

(In case of death due to his own actions, Zaid, and seven lives, a third of the blood money is due from Zaid.) Because he died in three actions, so the actions of the seven and the serpent are of the same type, because it is an absolute waste, and the action of himself is of another type, which is that he was wasted in this world and not in the afterlife[(1)], and the action of Zayd is of another type, so a third of the blood money is required. I say: It is necessary [(2)] to look at what influences death, and look at (3) its unity and multiplicity, for the seven (4) and the snake are two, and there is no consideration in that because they (1) are a waste. (It is obligatory for Muslims to kill a month old by sword[(2)], and there is nothing to do with killing him[(3)]). If you say: When he said a month old must be killed, then what is the need(4) for his saying: There is nothing to do with killing him? I said: It is possible that he must be killed to ward off evil, and yet something is obligatory to kill him.

(Not among those who brandished a weapon [(1)] on a man day or night in Egypt or elsewhere, or brandished a stick at him night or day in Egypt or elsewhere and killed him, the famous thing is against him). Because he does not stay for a long time [(2)], and if the stick spreads on him at night in Egypt or during the day elsewhere, then there is nothing wrong with killing him either; Because even if he is hiding, then at night in Egypt, relief will not reach him[(3)], and likewise during the day in other than Egypt.

(And the one who follows his thief who is leaving is not obligated to steal him at night and kill him), if he cannot recover it except by killing; Because of his statement - may God’s prayers and peace be upon him -: ((He fought without his owner))(1), and likewise if he killed him before taking it[(2)], if he intended to take his money, and he could not repel it except by killing, and likewise if a man entered a man’s house with a weapon, and the owner of the house thought it most likely that he had come to kill him, it is permissible to kill him. (And he was killed by killing someone who brandished a disobedience during the day in Egypt), for the disobedience is long-lasting, and what appears to be the case is that relief will follow during the day in Egypt, so (3) it does not often lead to murder[(4)] contrary to them.