អ៊ុមដាតុល រីអាយ៉ះ (ការពន្យល់ក្បួនច្បាប់វីកាយ៉ះ ហាណាហ្វី)

(It is valid for pregnancy [(1)] and also (2) [(3)] if she gave birth for less than its period of time): That is, the will is only valid if she gave birth for less than six months from the time of the will, and the difference between the shortest period of pregnancy and less than a period of pregnancy is precise, and the first is six months from the time of the will, and the second is less than six months. (It is and the exception [(4)]): That is, only the will and the exception are valid, (in (5) a bequest to a female slave except for her pregnancy (6)). Everything that is valid to be singled out (7) in the contract is valid (8) to be excluded from the contract. If the will is valid for pregnancy, it is valid to exclude pregnancy from the will.

(And from a Muslim to a non-Muslim and vice versa[(1)](2)), restricted to a non-Muslim; Because a will for a soldier[(3)] is not permissible.

(And a third for a foreigner[(1)] not more than him(2), nor for his heir(3)[(4)] and his killer[(5)] directly, except with the approval of his heirs), his saying: directly; Precaution against killing for a reason: such as digging a well. According to Al-Shafi’i (6) - may God be pleased with him - it is permissible to make a will to the murderer, and based on this disagreement, if he made a will to a man and then he killed the testator (1). (Not from a boy [(2)]), this is according to us, and according to Al-Shafi’i (3) - may God be pleased with him - it is permissible, (and offices (4) [(5)] even if he neglects to pay off the debt and pays the debt to her [(6)].

It is accepted(1)[(2)] after his death, and its acceptance[(3)] and return during his life is invalidated, and with it): that is, by acceptance[(4)] [after death](5), (it is owned[(6)](7) unless[(8)] his testator(1) dies, then he is): i.e. the legatee, (without acceptance it is for his heirs): i.e. for the heirs(2) of the legatee.

(And he has the right [(3)] to withdraw from it by express word, or by action that cuts off the right of the owner over what he usurped, as mentioned above. It was mentioned in ((The Book of Usurpation))(4) His saying: If he usurps and alters, then his name and greatest benefits are removed from him and his possession. This change(5) is a retraction of the will, (or he adds to the bequest something that prevents its delivery except by it: I cut the stalks with fat, [and building in a house that he bequeathed](6), and a disposition that removes his ownership: like a sale or a gift, no By washing a garment[(7)] he recommended, nor by denying it[(8)]), contrary to Abu Yusuf - may God be pleased with him -, for in his opinion, ungratefulness is reversible(9) [(1)]. (2) The sick person’s gift and will to whomever he marries after her is invalidated: That is, the sick person gave something to a woman, or bequeathed something to her, then married her and then died, the gift and will are invalidated; Because a will is an obligation after death, and upon death it is his heir. As for a gift, even if it is completed, it is like an addition to death. Because her ruling is determined upon death. Don’t you see that it is invalidated by the debt incurred, and when there is no debt, it is considered one-third, unlike the acknowledgment. If he acknowledges her and then marries her, then this is valid (3); Because upon approval, she is a foreigner. (Like his acknowledgment, will, and gift to his son who is an infidel or a slave if he converts to Islam or is emancipated after that): That is, if the sick person acknowledges, makes a will, or gifts to his infidel son and then the son converts to Islam before the father’s death, [all of that] is invalid (4). As for the acknowledgment; Because filiation existed at the time of confirmation, the charge of altruism was considered in inheritance (5), and as for the gift and will, when it passed, the same applies if the son was a slave or a mukatib and was emancipated as we have explained.

(And [authentic] (6) a gift [(7)] to a cripple (1), a paralyzed person, a paralyzed person (2) from all his wealth (3) if his life is prolonged and his death is not (4) feared, otherwise from a third of it. If the commandments are combined, then the obligatory [(5)] is given, and if it is delayed, and if the [strength] (6) is equal, then what is presented is given: That is, if the wills are combined, and a third of the money is limited to it, then if some of them are obligatory and some of them are voluntary, then the obligatory is given, and if they are all obligatory, or all of them are voluntary(7)[(8)], then give what the testator gave.

(If he recommends that Hajj be performed, he may perform Hajj on his behalf, riding from his country[(1)] if (2) his expenses reach that, otherwise [(3)] from where it reaches, and if he dies[(4)] he performs Hajj on his way, and he recommends that Hajj be performed on his behalf, he should perform Hajj [on his behalf](5) from his country): [that is, he performs Hajj from his country](6) according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -[(7)] if his expenses reach that, otherwise from where it reaches, and in both of them he performs Hajj from where He died, and if the alimony did not amount to that, then from where it did. Chapter on the will for a third

([In](1) his will of a third of his wealth[(2)] to Zaid and the same to another, and they did not permit, half (3) a third between them, and a third to him and a sixth to another, a third, and a third to Bakr and all to another to be divided in half(4), and they said: a quarter), Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - said: A bequest of more than a third if the heirs are not permitted(5) [6] is invalid, as if he had made a will. A third for each one, and the third is divided between them [(1)]. They said (2): The excess over the third is invalidated, meaning that the legatee does not deserve it (3) as a right for the heirs, but it is considered that the legatee takes from the third the share of that excess, since there is no reason to invalidate this meaning, so (4) the third came out as three (5), so the third is one, and all three become four, so the third is divided by these arrows. This is based on a different principle between them, which is his saying:

(The bequest for him [(6)] should not be multiplied by more than one-third according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -), what is meant by multiplication is the term multiplication between the calculation, because if he bequeathed a third and the whole, then according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - the shares of the will are two, for each one a half, multiplying [the half] (1) by a third of the money, so the half in the third is half of the third, which is a sixth, so for every sixth of the money, and according to them: the shares of the will are four [(2)]: [to the owner One-third is one](3), and one of the four is a quarter, so the quarter is multiplied by a third of the money, so the quarter multiplied by the third is a quarter of the third, then the owner of the whole has three of the four, which are three-quarters, so he multiplies three-quarters by the third: meaning three-quarters of a third, [and the owner of the third has one of the four, so the one is multiplied by a third](4), which is a quarter, [meaning a quarter of a third](5). This is the meaning of the multiplication, and many scholars have been confused about it.

(Except in favouritism [(1)] and sa'yah and sent dirhams), the form of favouritism: that a man has two slaves, one of them worth thirty, and the other sixty, so he bequeathed that the first be sold to Zaid for ten, and the other to Amr for twenty, and he has no money other than them. So the will against Zaid is for twenty, and against Amr for forty, the third is divided between them in thirds, so the first is sold to Zaid for twenty, and the ten is sold as a bequest to him, and the second is sold to him as a bequest. Amr received forty, and twenty were his wills, so Amr took from a third the amount of his will[(2)](3), even if it was[(4)] in excess of a third.

The form of saa’iyya is: He emancipated two slaves [(1)] whose value is what was mentioned, and he has no money other than them. The will (2) is for the first for a third of the money, and for the second for two-thirds of the money, so the shares of the will between them are in thirds, one for the first, and two for the second, and the third is divided between them as well, so he frees three of the first, which is ten, and saa’i in twenty, and he frees a third of the second (3), which is twenty, and saa’i in forty, so he multiplies each [(4)]. As much as his will (5), even if it is more than a third. And the picture of the sent dirhams: He bequeathed thirty dirhams to Zaid, sixty dirhams to the other (6), and ninety dirhams to his money, so he multiplies (7) each by the amount of his bequest[(8)], so the first multiplies one-third by one-third of the money, and the second multiplies two-thirds by one-third of the money.

What is meant by the absolute Mursalah is: that is, not restricted (1) to be a third, a half, or the like. But Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - distinguished between these three images and others. Because if the will is estimated to be more than a third explicitly: such as half, two-thirds, and other things, and the law invalidates the will in excess of (3), its mention is nonsense, so it is not considered in the right to multiply, other than if it was not estimated to be anything of money as in the three cases, for there is nothing in the phrase that would invalidate the will, as if he bequeathed fifty dirhams, and it was agreed that (4) his money was one hundred dirhams, then the will is not invalid. Totally; Because it is possible for him to have more than a hundred dollars of money, and if (5) is not completely invalid, it will be considered in the right to multiply, and this is a subtle and honorable difference.

(And with the share of his son [(1)] it is valid (2) and with the share of his son (3) it is not); Because a will that is the right of the son is not valid for anyone else, and there is a dispute over it - may God be pleased with him -, (And he has a third (4) [(5)] if he makes a will with two sons.

And with a portion (1) [(2)] of his money that is made clear by (3) the heirs: that is, it is said to the heirs, “Give him whatever you want.” Because it is unknown, and ignorance does not prevent (4) the validity of the will, so the statement is to the heirs.

(And their share[(5)](1) is a sixth according to their custom, and it is like a part in our custom), so the sixth is the saying of Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - based on... (2) some people’s custom, and they said: It is for him like the share of one of the heirs, and nothing is more than the third unless the heirs allow it.

(If he says: A sixth of my money is his, then he says: A third of it is his, and they allow, a third is his [(3)]): That is, the sixth is included in the third, so if you say: His saying: A third of my money is his; If it is information, then it is false, and if it is construction, then it must be given half when the heirs approve it, and if there is information in one-sixth (1), and in one-sixth it is construction, then this is also impossible. I said[(2)]: [There is no (3) answer to this question](4).

[Chapter](1) (And in one-sixth of my money repeated, he has one-sixth); Because if knowledge is returned to knowledge, the second (2) is the same as the first [(3)].

(And (1) with a third of his dirhams, or his sheep, or his various types of clothing, or his slaves. If two-thirds of them perish[(2)] then he gets what remains[(3)] in the first two, and a third of the remainder in the last). This is according to us and according to Zafar - may God be pleased with him - a third of the remainder in all forms; Because the legatee's right is common to everyone, so if one-third of the money is lost, two-thirds of the legatee's right is lost. For us: The right of the legatee takes precedence over the right of the heirs, so everything in which reparation (4) is made by division, and it is possible to add (5) the right of one of the beneficiaries (6) [(7)] into one: like dirhams and sheep, the legatee’s right in it is combined in advance (8), so it is combined in the remainder other than what is not the case: like uneven clothes (9) and slaves. (And with a thousand and for him [(1)] an eye and a debt, it is an eye if it comes out of a third of the eye, otherwise it is a third of the eye, and a third of what is taken from the debt. And a third goes to Zaid and Amr, and [Amr is dead] (2) all of it goes to Zaid. Because the dead do not crowd the living as... (3) If he said: by Zaid and Jadara, and on the authority of Abu Yusuf - may God be pleased with him - that if he did not know of his death, he gets half a third; Because his will [(4)] is valid for Amr, so he was not satisfied with anything except half a third for the living, unlike if he knew of his death; Because the will to the dead person is idle, so he is satisfied with the full third being for Zaid, (and if he says: Between them, then half of it (5) is his): That is, if he says: A third of my money is between Zaid and Omar, and he is dead, then Zaid gets half a third; Because it is clear that Zaid gets half a third (6).

(And a third, and he is poor, and he gets a third of his money when he dies [(1)]): That is, he said: a third of my money, and the testator has no money, so he earned money, so the legatee gets a third of the testator’s money when he dies. (And by a third (2) of his sheep, and he had no sheep, or he perished before his death, it was invalid): His saying: and he had no sheep, means: he had no sheep at the time of the will, and he did not benefit from sheep, even if he benefited from sheep (3), so what is correct is that the will is valid[(4)](5).

(And a sheep (1) from my property[(2)], or my sheep, and no sheep has its value in my property, and it is invalidated (3) in my sheep), for if he said to him: a sheep from my property, but there is no sheep for him, he knows that what is meant is the sheep’s money, and if he said to him: a sheep from my sheep, and no sheep for him(4), what is meant by [it](5) is the eye of the sheep, and it is not there, so he invalidates (6) the will.