អ៊ុមដាតុល រីអាយ៉ះ (ការពន្យល់ក្បួនច្បាប់វីកាយ៉ះ ហាណាហ្វី)

And know that he said in ((Al-Hidaya)): He has no sheep (1). He said in ((Al-Matn)): He does not have a sheep. There is a difference between them; Because a sheep is an individual sheep, so if it does not have a sheep, it does not have a sheep, but if it does not have a sheep, it is not necessary that it does not have a sheep. Because of the possibility that [his] (2) is one and not many, the phrase ((guidance)) covers two forms if he does not have a sheep at all, and he does not have a sheep, but he does not have sheep. In both cases the will is invalidated, and the phrase ((text)) only covers (3) the first (4) form, and the ruling is not known from it in the second form, so the phrase ((guidance)) is more comprehensive, but this (5) is more prudent.

(And a third of his wealth goes to the mothers of his children, and they are (6) three, and to the poor and needy, they are [(7)] three-fifths. 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 - [(8) ] the third is divided into seven shares, and the mothers of the children have three of them; Because what is mentioned in the poor and needy is the plural, and the minimum in inheritance is two, and the will is sister (1) to inheritance, for them: the plural [local] (2) with the letter L means gender, and (3) the plural is invalidated: as God Almighty says: {It is not permissible for you to have women}(4), so it means one, so it is divided by five, and they have three of them. (And a third for him, and for the poor [half, [for him](5) ](6) and a half for them)(7). This is according to them, and according to Muhammad - may God be pleased with him - he divides the third into thirds.

(And a hundred for Zaid, and a hundred for Amr, or with it for Zaid and fifty for Amr, if he partners another with them[(1)], then he gets a third of what each has in the first, and half of it in the second). Because in the first case, the shares of Zaid and Amr are equal, and another (2) partnered with them, so he is a partner for both, so he has [a third] (3) of what each (4) of them has, and such is not possible in the second case; Due to the difference in the share of Zaid and Amr, he is a partner with each one, so he has half for each one [of them] (5).

(Ali owed him a debt, so they believed him (1) He believed it up to a third): That is, [he ordered that] (2) they believe the creditor in the amount of the debt, they must believe him up to a third, because the origin of the right is a debt, and its amount is proven by means of a will, and this (3) is desirable, and in analogy it is not believed [(4)]; [Because the plaintiff] (5) is not believed (6) except with evidence.

(If, in addition to that, he bequeaths that a third be set aside for her[(1)], and two-thirds of it is for the heirs, and it is said: To each one of them, believe him in whatever you wish, and the one-third is to be taken for a third of what they acknowledged, and whatever remains is theirs[(2)], and the heirs for two-thirds of what they acknowledged [with][(1)](2), and each of them swears to know of the claim of the increase): That is, he bequeaths with that debt, the amount of which he ordered to be certified, a third of his money to a people, he will set aside a third of the money for the will, and two-thirds. To the heirs, and it was said: To the legatee, believe him in whatever you wish. If they acknowledge an amount, then a third (3) of that amount is their right, which is a third of the money, and what remains of the third is to the legatee[(4)], and it is said to the heirs: Believe him in whatever you wish, and if they acknowledge something, then a third (5) of that amount is in their right, which is two-thirds of the money, and the rest is for the heirs[(6)], and each one of the legatee and the heirs swore to Knowledge(7)[(8)] under the pretext of increase[(9)]. (And appointed for an heir[(1)](2) and a foreigner, who gets half, but the heir fails)(3), but the foreigner gets half; Because the heir is entitled to the will, unlike if he bequeathed it to the living or the dead, then the dead person is not entitled to it.

(And three different dresses for each (1) for a man (2) if a dress is lost and he does not know which one it is, and the heirs say: For every one who has lost his right, your right is invalidated[(3)], but if they hand over what is left[(4)] the one who is good takes two-thirds of the best, the one who is bad takes two-thirds of the worst, and the one who is average is one-third of each): That is, he recommended three different dresses: good, average, and bad, and he said: the good is for Zaid, the average is for Amr, and the bad is for Bakr. So one of them perished and it is not known which one it was, and the heirs say (5): For each one that perished you have a right, so the will is invalid, but if the heirs tolerated and handed over the remaining two garments to Zaid, Amr, and Bakr, Zaid took two-thirds of the best of the two garments, Bakr took two-thirds of the bad, and Amr a third of each one.

(And with a specific house (1) from a shared house, it is divided. If the testator agrees, it belongs to the legatee (2), otherwise he gets his share. Zaid bequeathed to Amr a specific house from a house shared between Zaid and Bakr. The house must be divided (3), and if [the house] (4) falls into the share of Zaid, then it belongs to the legatee, and if it falls into the share of a partner, then the legatee gets an arm of that house from the share of the testator, and 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 - [(5) ] [it] (1) is like the cubit of half of that house, (as in the acknowledgment): that is, if the place of the will [(2)] is an acknowledgment, then the ruling is likewise, it was said: unanimously [(3)], and it was said: there is disagreement with Muhammad - may God be pleased with him -. ([And with a thousand] (4) specific amounts of money other than (5), he (6) has permission after the death of the testator, and prohibition after that [(7)]): That is, after approval, for if he approves, then his approval is a donation, so he has the right to refuse delivery.

(If [(1)] one of the two sons acknowledges, after the division, his father’s will for a third, he pays a third of his share), this is what we have, and the analogy is that he gives him half of what is in his hand, which is the statement of Zafar - may God be pleased with him -; Because his acknowledgment [(2)] of a third necessitates his equality with it, the reason for approval [(3)]: he acknowledged a common third, so he is acknowledging a third (4) of what he has in hand.

(If the legatee gives birth after his death, then they are his [(1)]): meaning the female legatee and her child (2), (if they come out of the third, otherwise the third is taken from her, then from him). This is according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -; Because the dependents do not compete with the original[(3)], and according to them: He takes from each one a share, so if he[(4)] has six hundred dirhams, and a female slave is worth three hundred, and she gives birth to a son worth (1) three hundred dirhams after the death of the testator until his wealth becomes one thousand and two hundred, then a third (2) of the money is four hundred, then according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - the mother to whom the legatee is destined, and a third of the child[(3)], and they have two-thirds of each. Of them [(4)].

Chapter on Emancipation in Sickness[(5)] (The consideration for the condition of (1) the contract in the completed disposition[(2)], if it is in health, from all of his wealth, otherwise from a third of it[(3)], and the addition to his death[(4)] from the third, even if it is in health). The transaction, if it is valid [(7)] in that case, is taken into account from a third. What is meant is the transaction, which is an establishment and has the meaning of donation, such that acknowledging a debt during an illness is taken into account from all the money, and marriage during an illness with a dowry of the same value (8) is taken into account from all the money, and as for (9) added to death, it is considered from a third, whether in a time of health or a time of illness.

(And illness is as healthy as it is healthy [(1)].

And his emancipation[(1)] and his favoritism and his gift(2)[(3)] and his guarantee(4)[(5)] are a bequest. If he favors and emancipates, then she is more deserving, and they are the opposite of it.) The form of favoritism, then emancipation: he sold a slave whose value was two hundred for a hundred, then he emancipated a slave whose value was one hundred, and had no money other than them, spending a third on favoritism, and the freedman strives for all his value, and the opposite form, he emancipated The slave whose value is one hundred, then he sells [the slave](6) whose value is two hundred for a hundred, dividing the third, which is the hundred, between them in two halves. The emancipated slave emancipates(7) half of it for free, and seeks half of its value, and the one who favors takes the other slave for a hundred [and](1) fifty, (and they said: His emancipation is better[(2)] in both of them(3)); Because it is not subject to annulment [(4)]. To him: Favoritism is stronger; Because it is included in the compensation contract, but if (5) emancipation is found first, and it is not possible to pay, then it competes with (6) favoritism.

(So ​​in his emancipation [(1)] between the two parties, half is for the first and half for the other(2), and in the case of favoritism between two emancipators, she gets half [a third](3), and they have half, and emancipation is more preferable to them in both of them.

And his will[(1)](2) that he emancipate on his behalf with these hundred slaves, not to be emancipated(3) with what is left if a dirham is lost other than Hajj[(4)]), this is according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -, and according to them: Emancipation is to be carried out with what is left as in Hajj[(5)], to him: The sacrifice(1)[(2)] varies according to the value of the slave other than Hajj. (3) The will is invalidated [(4)] by freeing his slave if he committed a crime after his death and he paid (5), and if he ransomed it, not [(6)]). He commanded that the heirs free his slave after his death, and the slave committed a crime and paid, so the will is invalidated. Because the payment was valid, so it was out of (7) his possession, so the will was invalidated (8). However, if the heirs ransom, the ransom was in their money; Because they adhered to it, so (9) the commandment was permissible; Because he was purified (10) from the crime.

(If he bequeathed to Zaid a third of his wealth and left a slave, and Zaid claimed to emancipate him in his health, and the heir in his illness, the heir believed it, and forbade Zaid unless he preferred (1) something for a third of it, or he proved his claim), he bequeathed to Zaid a third of his wealth, and emancipated a slave, and Zaid claimed that the deceased had emancipated the slave in health; So that it is not a will, then his will is executed from a third of the money, and the heir said: I emancipate him during his illness, and emancipation during illness takes precedence over the will for a third of the money, so the word is for the heir; Because he denies Zaid’s entitlement, he deprives Zaid [(2)], except that (3) a third of the money is in excess of the value of the slave, so the will is executed to Zaid while the third exceeds the value, or [Zaid] proves (4) that the emancipation was in good health [(5)], so his evidence is accepted; Because he is an opponent [(6)] in proving this; To confirm his will with a third.

(If a man [(1)] claims a debt owed by a dead person, and his slave emancipates him while he is healthy, and his heir believes them, the slave will strive for its value.) This is according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -, and they said: He will be emancipated, and he will not strive for anything; Because the debt and emancipation in good health appeared together with the ratification of the heir in one statement, so it became as if they occurred together, and emancipation in good health does not require seeking, for him: acknowledging the debt is stronger; Because in illness, it is considered part of all wealth, and acknowledging emancipation in illness is considered part of a third, so emancipation must be invalidated, but it cannot be invalidated, so it invalidates the meaning of the obligation to seek.

Chapter on bequests to relatives and others[(1)] (neighbor[(1)]: one who is close to him), this is according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -[(2)], and according to them: the close relative and others[(3)] are the same.

(And his son-in-law[(1)]: every relative who is in ihram from his wedding(2). [And circumcision: every husband (3) with a uterus to whom he is mahram [(4)].

And his family: his wedding[(1)][(2)](3)), this is according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -, and according to them: everyone who supports them[(4)] and is entitled to his expenses; Because God Almighty says: {And bring me all of your family}(5), to him: It is true regarding the wife. God Almighty said: {And he went with his family}(6), and it is said: So-and-so married. (And his family: his household, and his father and grandfather are among them.

And his relatives, his relatives, his relatives, and his lineage: his mahrams and onwards from those of his closest relatives, then the closest relatives other than the parents and the child), but his mahrams said; Because the smallest plural here is two, so kinship is considered, as in inheritance, and this is according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - and they said: The will is for everyone who traces his lineage to his most distant father who has attained Islam, and according to some sheikhs - may God be pleased with him - [(1)] to his most distant father who converted to Islam, and the furthest is included with the presence of the closest relative, then it is not included by birth kinship[(2)], and it has been said: Whoever says the father is close is disobedient.