អ៊ុមដាតុល រីអាយ៉ះ (ការពន្យល់ក្បួនច្បាប់វីកាយ៉ះ ហាណាហ្វី)

(If the one who seeks retaliation dies by cutting him off, the one who retaliates for him is killed) [(1)]: That is, whoever cuts off his hand and retaliates for him by the hand and then dies, then the one who retaliates against him shall be killed, and according to Abu Yusuf - may God be pleased with him -: he is not killed; Because when he initiated the amputation, it was a retaliation that absolved him of what happened behind it. We said: Completing the amputation does not necessitate the forfeiture of the amputation, like the one who has the amputation if he cuts off the hand of the one who owes the amputation (2)[(3)].

(And the blood money for the soul [(1)] is guaranteed by the one who cuts a piece of fire and is captured): That is, he who has retaliation in the limb and fulfills it and is captured to the soul is guaranteed the blood money for the soul according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -; Because he has the right to be cut off, and he was killed [(2)], and according to them (3) he does not guarantee anything; Because he fulfilled his right, which is amputation, and he cannot be limited to the description of safety, because it closes the door to retaliation, and it is not within his power to guard against transmission[(4)].

(And the most innocent of the hand [(1)] is the one who cuts off the hand of someone who owes him a ransom and pardons him): That is, the guardian of the murdered person cuts off the hand of the murderer, then pardons the killing, as part of the blood money for the hand, according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -; Because he received something other than what he was entitled to [(2)] but retaliation is not required due to suspicion, and according to both of them: he is not liable for anything; Because he deserved to destroy the soul with all its parts [(3) ], so he destroyed some, and if he pardons, then he pardons what is behind this part, so he is not liable for anything. Chapter on testimony regarding murder and consideration of its condition [(1)]

(The retaliation is established initially for the heirs [(2) ], not inheritance). Know that retaliation is established for the heirs initially according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -; Because it is established after death, and the dead are not eligible to own anything except what he has a need for, such as money, for example, so the way to establish it (1) is succession, and according to them: the way to prove it is inheritance, and the difference between them [(2)] is that inheritance requires prior ownership of the deceased (3), then transferring from him to the heir, and succession does not require (4) that. What is meant by succession here (5) is for a person to take another person’s place in carrying out his act. In murder, if the killer assaults the killed, the right is to The murdered person commits aggression in the same way as he assaulted him, but he is unable to revive it, so the heirs took his place (6) without the fact that the murdered person owned it, and then it passed from him to the heirs.

Then, if this principle is proven, it is based on his saying: (Let none of them become a litigant on behalf of the rest[(1)]). Know that everything that the heirs own [through inheritance](2), then one of them is a litigant on behalf of the rest: that is, standing in the place of the rest in the dispute, even if one of the heirs claims something from the estate against someone, and establishes (3) evidence that proves (4) the right of all, so the remainder do not need to renew the claim. Likewise, if someone claims something from the estate against one of the heirs, and establishes The evidence against him proves (5) [against] (6) everyone, so that the plaintiff does not need to claim against everyone, and what is owned by the heirs, not through inheritance, does not make one of them a litigant on behalf of the rest. He branched out from this saying: (If he establishes evidence that his father was killed in the absence of his brother[(7)](8) and he is present, he will repeat it): That is, if (9) one of the heirs establishes evidence while his brother is absent that so-and-so killed his father intentionally, wanting retaliation, and then his brother is present, he needs to re-establish the evidence with Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - contrary to them.

(And in error [(1)] and religion, no): That is, if the killing was a mistake, it does not require [(2)] the restoration of evidence; Because what is required is money, and the way to prove it is inheritance, and in religion, if one of the heirs establishes evidence that his father owes such-and-such, and his brother is present, he does not need to establish evidence. (If the killer proves the pardon of the absent person, then the present person is an adversary[(3)], and (4) the covenant is waived[(5)]): That is, if some of the heirs are absent, and some are present, and the killer establishes evidence against the present person that the absent person has pardoned, then the present person is an adversary; Because he claims against the present person that his right to retaliation has been forfeited, and that it has been transferred to money, so he is an adversary. (The same applies if a slave was killed between two men, one of whom was absent): that is, a slave shared between two men, one of whom was absent, was killed intentionally, and the killer claimed against the present person that the absent person had pardoned him, so the present person is an adversary and [the penalty] for what we mentioned is waived (6).

(If two loyal guardians testify [(1)] that their brother has been pardoned, it is invalid, and it is): that is, the testimony, (a pardon from both of them[(1)]. If the killer alone believes them[(2)], each of them gets a third of the blood money, and if they lie, then nothing is due to them, and the other gets a third of the blood money, and if the brother only believes them, then he gets a third[(3)]), as mentioned in ((Al-Hidaya))(4) and there is a kind of consideration; Because if what is meant by testimony (5) is their truth (6), it (7) does not exist without the claim, and the plaintiff is the killer, so how can the killer’s denial be one of the sections of this issue, and if what is meant by testimony is mere information (8) then the ruling of invalidity is not valid at all, as it is specific to what if they lied to, and one of the sections is if the brother believed them, and in that case the information is not invalidated. Also, the sections are four, and only three were mentioned, so it is true to say: If a guardian informs Qud of their brother’s pardon, then it is a pardon for the retaliation from them: If the killer and the brother believe them, then he gets nothing, and they get two-thirds of the blood money. If they lie, the informants are not entitled to anything, and their brother is entitled to a third of the blood money. If the killer alone believes them, each of them is entitled to a third of the blood money. If only the brother believes them, he is entitled to a third of the blood money. As for the first; It is apparent that they believe them. As for the second: it is their denial; Because informing them of the brother’s pardon is an acknowledgment that they have no right to retaliation, they have no retaliation[(1)], and no money to deny (2) the murderer and the brother. Then the brother gets a third of the blood money; Because when the right of the informants was lost in retaliation, the right of the brother fell because it was not sufficient, and was transferred to money, since his pardon was not proven; Because informing (3) of his pardon was not valid; Because they benefit from it [(4)], which is the transfer of their right to money.

As for the third; It is only believing the killer, as the brother is entitled to a third of the blood money, as we mentioned (1) [(2)], and likewise for each of the informants, by believing the killer; Because their right transferred to money. As for the fourth; The brother’s belief only constitutes approval, and the analogy is that the killer does not owe anything; Because what the two informants claimed about the killer was not proven due to his denial, and what (3) the killer confessed to the brother is invalidated by his denial. The reason for approval: The killer, by denying the informants, admitted that their brother had a third of the blood money due to his claim that retaliation was waived by their claim of pardoning the brother, and the brother’s share turned into money, and when the brother believed the informants about the pardon, he claimed that their share was turned into money, so it became their abode, according to what the killer admitted,...(4) Their faces (5) are mentioned in ((Al-Hidaya)) (6).

(And if the two witnesses to the killing disagreed about the time, place, or method of killing, or if one witness said: He killed him with a stick, and the other said: I did not know the method of killing him, it is invalid[(1)], and if they testified to his killing, and said: We did not know his method, then (2) the blood money is obligatory), the analogy is that nothing is obligatory; Because the ruling on killing varies depending on the instrument[(3)], and the reason for approval is: they testified to the absolute killing, and the absolute is not in general (4)[(5) ](1) so it is proven less...(2) its obligation(3) which is the blood money, and it is obligatory for his money; Because the basic principle is premeditated murder, so rational people cannot bear it.

(And if two men each admit to killing Zaid, and the guardian says: You killed him[(4)], then he has the right to kill them, even if there is evidence that Zaid killed Amr, and another proof that he killed his firstborn, and the guardian claims(5) that he killed them both unintentionally. Because in the second [(6)] the witnessed person denies some of what he testified to, and this invalidates his testimony; Because denial is immorality, and in the first place, the accuser’s denial is based on some of what he confessed to, which is that he was alone in the killing, and this does not invalidate the confession (7).

(The lesson is for the case of throwing, not for reaching, so (1) the blood money is obligatory for the one who throws a Muslim and then rebounds and reaches (2)). This is according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -, and according to them: nothing is obligatory because by recoil, his stamina is lost (3), so he absolves the thrower (4) of his obligation, just as if he healed him after the wound before death, for him: the one who threw (5) to him [(6)] is in the state of throwing, and the value goes to the master of the slave to whom it was thrown. So he freed him and he reached. 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 - said: The surplus of what was between its value was thrown [(7) ] to not thrown away, (and the penalty is for a Muhrim [(1)] who shot game and it was permissible and it arrived, not for what is permissible for he who shot it and it was forbidden and then it reached (2), and he is not liable for the one who throws a throw that is condemned to stoning and returns it and reaches it, and the punishment for a game that he throws is permissible. Muslim[(3)] so he embodied himself [we seek refuge in God](4) and reached what the Magians had thrown at him, so he converted to Islam and arrived); Because what is considered is the case of stoning.

Book of Blood Money [(1)]

(The blood money of gold is one thousand dinars, and of paper[(2)] ten thousand dirhams, and of camels one hundred, and these are in the semi-premium: quarters: from Bint Makhad, Bint Labun, Haqqah, and Jad`ah, which is the thick one[(3)], and in error, fifths of them, and from Ibn Makhad). According to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - the blood money can only be from these three properties, and they said: from it, and from cows two hundred cows[(1)], and from The sheep are a thousand sheep, and the clothing is two hundred suits, each suit is two garments. Because Omar - may God be pleased with him - made it obligatory for the owners of all wealth [(2)] to do so. And according to him: These things are unknown [(3)], so it is not correct to estimate them, and no known trace has been reported about them other than camels, and according to Al-Shafi’i (4) [(1)] - may God be pleased with him -: a piece of paper is twelve thousand dirhams.

Then the heavy blood money according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - and Abu Yusuf - may God be pleased with him -: twenty-five bint Makhad, which is the one who has completed one year, twenty-five bint Labun, which is the one who has completed two years, twenty-five hqqa, which is the one who has completed three years, and twenty-five Jadha’ah, which is the one who has completed four years, and according to Muhammad - may God be pleased with him - and Al-Shafi’i (1) - may God be pleased with him: thirty hqqa, Thirty Jad`ah, and forty Thaniyah, all of them are successors whose children are in their bellies. The Thaniyah is the one who has completed five years of age, and the Caliphate is the one in whose womb (2) there is a child who has been born six months ago. The severity differed among the Companions[(3)] - may God be pleased with them -, and we took the words of Ibn Masoud - may God be pleased with him -. According to us, the diyya for error is twenty Ibn Makhad: it is a male who has been around for a year, and of the four types mentioned there are twenty, and according to Al-Shafi’i (4) - may God be pleased with him -: twenty Ibn Labun in place of Ibn Makhad.

(And their atonement is freeing a believer[(1)]. If he is unable to do that, he must fast for two months as a pledge of loyalty[(2)], and there is no feeding[(3)] therein.) Because it is not mentioned in the text, (and it is valid for an infant whose parents are Muslim); Because he is a believer by consequence, (not the fetus[(4)].

A woman gets half of what a man gets in terms of blood money and less. This is according to us [(1)], and according to Al-Shafi’i (2) - may God be pleased with him -: Without a third, there is no (3) justice.

(And for the dhimmi what is for the Muslim), this is according to us [(1)], and according to Al-Shafi’i (2) - may God be pleased with him -] (3): The blood money for a Jew and a Christian is four thousand dirhams, and the blood money for a Magi is eight hundred dirhams, and according to Malik (4) - may God be pleased with him -: The blood money for a Jew and a Christian is half the blood money for a Muslim, and the blood money for a Muslim is twelve thousand dirhams.

(And in the soul, and the nose[(1)], the penis, the glans[(2)], the mind, the smell, the taste[(1)], the hearing, the sight, and the tongue[(2)] if it is prevented from speaking or performing most of the letters, and a beard that was shaved but did not grow, and the hair on the head[(3)] the blood money: that is, the full blood money. According to Malik(1) - may God be pleased with him - and Al-Shafi’i(2) - may God be pleased with him -: the beard and the hair of the head must be governed by justice.

(As in two[(3)] of what is in the body there are two, and in one of them is half of it, and as in the eyelids(4) of the eyes[(5)], and in one of them is a quarter, and in each finger of a hand or foot is a tenth of it, and in every joint of a finger that has joints a third of it, and in which there are two joints is half of a tenth of it, as in every tooth), for in it there is half a tenth since the number of teeth is thirty-two, so it is necessary[(6)] that a quarter of the price of the blood money should be required for each tooth. What is the wisdom in the obligation of half a tenth? In my mind: Even if the number of teeth is thirty-two, the last four, which are the mite teeth, may not grow (1) for some people, and they may grow (2) for some people, some of them, and for some all of them, so the average number of teeth is thirty, then teeth have two benefits (3) adornment and chewing, so if a tooth falls out, its benefit is completely nullified, and half the benefit of the tooth that corresponds to it, which is the benefit of chewing, even if the other half, which is adornment, remains, and if the average number is thirty, then the benefit of one tooth is a third. A tenth, half the benefit is one-sixth of a tenth, and their sum [(4)] is half a tenth, and God knows the truth. (And every limb whose benefit was lost by beating is subject to its blood money. (5) A sin that has been paralyzed, and an eye that has been blinded. [Chapter on the provisions of Al-Shajaj]

There is no retaliation for quarreling [(6)] except in the case of intentionally clarification. Because it is not possible to preserve the similarity in something other than the clarified one, and in it it is possible, and this is according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -, and Muhammad - may God be pleased with him - said: Retaliation is required for what comes before the clarified one, by probing[(2)](3) its depth with a probe, then taking an iron to the extent of (4) that, and cutting with it the extent of what was cut, and it is what exposes the bone: that is, it exposes it (5), (and it is a mistake of half a tenth of the blood money[(6)). And in Al-Hashimah: one-tenth of it: which is the one that breaks the bone. (And (7) the protractor: one tenth of it, one tenth of it] (8)): It is the one that turns the bone after it is broken. (And the ummah [(9)] and the jaifah is a third of it): the ummah: which reaches the mother of the brain, which is the skin in which the brain is located, and the jifaa: the surgery that reaches the stomach.