អ៊ុមដាតុល រីអាយ៉ះ (ការពន្យល់ក្បួនច្បាប់វីកាយ៉ះ ហាណាហ្វី)

(Like someone who [(1)] divorced three times at her command during his illness, and then he agreed or made a will); She has [(2)] less than that, and of inheritance according to what they all say [(3)]. (And if the three conditions were conditional, and he found that he was ill:

If it is linked to the coming of a time such as Rajab[(1)], or a foreign action[(2)], you inherit, unless[(3)] if (4) is conditional on its validity. If [(5)] he is suspended by his own action, she inherits, whether the suspension was due to his illness or not, and the action of which (6) is necessary for him, such as talking to a foreigner, or it is necessary for him [(7)], such as eating food, the noon prayer, and talking to one’s parents. If he is stuck with her action:

If they are [(1) ]: that is, the condition and condition (regarding his illness, and the action is that she has an alternative from him, she does not inherit, and if she does not have an alternative from him, she inherits. b. And if it is): That is, the comment (in its authenticity (1) she does not inherit except what is necessary for her according to Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf - may God be pleased with them -, in contrast to Muhammad and Zufar - may God be pleased with them -): then she does not inherit according to them; Because there was no action on the part of the husband after her right to his money was attached, this is the phrase ((guidance))(2), and its meaning[(3)]: The wife of the deserter only inherits if there is an action on the part of the husband during his illness and his death in nullifying her right after attaching[(4)] her right to his money because of the illness, and that action was not found; Because the comment was valid, rather the woman annulled her right by committing that act.

Her answer[(1)](2): The act is necessary for her, so she is forced to perform it, so her act became associated with the husband, as in coercion[(3)]. (And in a revocable case, she inherits in all cases[(4)](5).

Her inheritance was limited to his death during her waiting period: But if her waiting period expires, and then he dies, she does not inherit, according to consensus [(1)].

The phrase ((the summary)) is like this: And if [(1)] her ownership is conditional [(2)] on a condition, and he is found to be ill, she will inherit if it is suspended by his action, or by her action and she is bound by it, or by something else (3) and he is stuck in the illness (4).

The bottom line is that if the suspension was due to his action, then she inherits absolutely, and if it was due to her action and she had to do it, then so is the case. However, if the suspension was in health, then it is contrary to Muhammad and Zufar - may God be pleased with them -, and if she had an obligation to do so, she does not inherit, and if it was due to something other than their actions, then if the suspension was during illness, she inherits, otherwise not (1).

Chapter on taking back [(2)] (it is during the waiting period[(1)] and not after it for the one she divorced(2) without three[(3)]): That is, for the free woman. As for the female slave, there is no taking it back except for the one[(4)], (and if she refuses[(5)] in a way[(6)]: taking her back to you, having sexual intercourse with her, touching her with desire, and looking(1) at her private part with desire[(2)])[(3)]: This is with us, As for Al-Shafi’i (4) - may God be pleased with him - it is not valid except by saying [(5)].

(And it is recommended that he bear witness[(1)] to the return and inform her[(2)] of it): that is, the husband informing her of the return, (and that he does not enter upon her until he asks her permission[(3)](4) if he does not intend to take her back.

If after the waiting period he claimed to take her back and she believed him, then it is a return, but if she lied to him then no[(1)](2), and there is no oath on her according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -); Returning is one of the things[(3)] in which there is no oath according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -.

(And if he said: I took you back [(4)], and she said[(5)]: My waiting period has passed, there is no going back): That is, if [(1)] the period is a period that can bear the end of the waiting period, then the woman is truthful[(2)] in informing her of the end of the waiting period, and this is according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -, and as for them, it is valid to take it back; Because she was not informed before returning that the waiting period had expired, it appears that it remains [(3)].

(As in the case of the husband[(1)] of a female slave who was informed after the waiting period(2) of her return(2) to her master, but he believed him[(3)](4) and he lied(5)); The saying is her saying according to Abu Hanifa, and as for them, the saying is the saying of the master(6), (or he said: I went back to you, and she said[(7)]: My waiting period has passed and they denied it): meaning the husband and the master have passed the waiting period.

(And if the bleeding stops at the end of the waiting period [(1)] for ten (2) days, it is done (3) and for less than that, it is not, until she bathes, or the time for an obligatory prayer (4) passes, or she performs tayammum [(5)] and she prays (6), and if she forgets to wash a part of her body, she should return it [(7)], and less than that, she does not): that is, she forgot to wash what was below the part, then the return is not valid; Because there is no consideration for what is less than the member, as if she had done ablution and completed her waiting period. (And if he divorces a pregnant woman, or one who has given birth[(1)] denying that he has intercourse with her[(2)] then he has the right to take it back. That is, he divorces his wife while she is pregnant and denies having intercourse with her, then he has the right to take it back(3).

I say [(1)]: In his saying: He has the right to take it back; indulgence; Because the presence of pregnancy at the time of divorce is only known [(2) ] if she gave birth less than [(1)] six months from the time of divorce, and if she gives birth, the waiting period has expired [(2)], and he does not have the right to take it back, so [(3)] what is meant by taking it back is to take it back before giving birth to the pregnancy, so what is meant is that if he took it back before giving birth to the pregnancy, and she gave birth less than six months ago, the previous take-back is ruled valid, and it is not meant that it is permissible for him to take it back before giving birth to the pregnancy; Because when he denied [(4)] intercourse, and the Sharia does not rule that there was a pregnancy at the time of divorce, but rather it rules if she gave birth less than six months from the time of the divorce, so there was no denial of the Sharia before the pregnancy was given, so what is correct[(5) ](1) is to say: And whoever divorces a pregnant woman who denies intercourse with her, then takes her back and she gives birth to a child for less than six months, the return is valid. As for the issue of childbirth, its form is: He divorced [(2)] his wife who gave birth (3) before the divorce, denying having intercourse with her, so he has the right to take it back, but taking it back is valid in the issues of pregnancy and childbirth while denying (4) having intercourse; Because the Sharia denied him a lie in denying (5) intercourse; Because the boy is for bed[(6)](7).

(WAN KHAL) with her and deny her (FLA): no, she didn't (TSA) return her; because he denied the outrage, and there was no lying of the law to deny her, and her denial would be an argument against her (FA), but the dowry is confirmed by the hollowness; because she handed over (FA) to him who contracted her; not because the contractor caught him with her.

(If he divorces her, then she comes back to him for at least two years, this matter is related to the issue of celibacy, the picture of which is: he left his wife, and denied her, and then divorced her. If she was born less than two years from the time of the divorce, it proves that this child is his, since she did not acknowledge the termination of the union, and the child remains in the womb in this period, she must make the husband low before the divorce; if he did not step down, then the king must go away with the same divorce.

(If he says: if you are born then you are divorced, you were born[(1)], then another with two stomachs[(2)], it is a return[(3)]): the desired[(4)] with two tummies to be between the first birth, and the second six months or more ((5)[(6)], but if it is less be with one stomach, but the return is proven[(7)]; because she divorced with the first childbirth, then the second birth showed that he had seen her after the first; to be the mother is Halala[(1), but if the two births with a single stomach do not prove the return; because the second child was born before the first. (And whenever she is born, she gives birth to three tummies, the second baby as her third return[3], and so on and so forth) i.e. the third period is related to the third birth.

(And the divorce of the reverse is decorated); let the husband wish to return it. (And he does not travel with it until he bears witness to it.) (And his is its stamp): this is with us, and the one with the shafi'i (may Allah be pleased with him) does not have a stamp until he reverses the saying, and at us the stamp becomes a return.

[Separate in what resolves the divorced] (and the marriage) [((1)] An apparition without a threesome in its number [(2)] and then [(3)], and does not resolve free after three, nor a nation after two [(4)] until he tramples it [(5) ] another [(6) ] with a proper marriage [(7) ], and spends the number of his divorce, or his death: this is [ ((1) ] in the public, and when Saeed bin al-Museeb (2) - may Allah be pleased with him - does not require the trample of the second husband, but just the marriage is enough.

And for us: the story of the fairy tale, which is a popular story, can be added to the book, so that the analysis without the stumbling block is contrary to the famous story, even if the judge decides not to carry it out. The teenager is a boy approaching puberty, and he is having sex like him, and his machine must move, he is craving.