អ៊ុមដាតុល រីអាយ៉ះ (ការពន្យល់ក្បួនច្បាប់វីកាយ៉ះ ហាណាហ្វី)

(And right) until (and) the judgments are reversed: i.e. if the affirmation from his side does not validate his return before the acceptance of the woman, and the condition of the option does not apply to him, and is not limited to the council, that is, valid if the woman accepted after the Council, but the dismissal was so; because in it, the meaning of compensation, the woman makes money to surrender herself to her, and in it the sense of the oath, [the oath] (1) besides Allah mentioned the condition and the punishment, [and] (2) dismissing the suspension of divorce by accepting the wife, and this by the husband, makes the principle of acceptance from our side, and from the woman's side, is a principle of opposition.

(If he says: I divorced you yesterday for a thousand dirhams, you did not accept, and she said: I accepted, so say to him, and if the seller says: So say to the buyer, I sold this slave to you for one thousand dirhems yesterday.

The difference is that the seller's statement is: (1) sold; confirmation of the buyer's acceptance; because the sale is only valid with positive and acceptance, say: you did not accept (2) be a return of its confirmation other than the discharge (3); it is an oath in its own right, so it can be discharged from the paycheck, not be a confirmation by the woman, say it; because it is a denial of the release, and the woman is calling it.

(And falling out of wedlock is like dowry, and past maintenance, and the expenses of the couple, do not fall apart except by mentioning, as in the (minority), and the dowry falls apart from mentioning it. (And if the father had left his childhood with her money, it was not due to her, and her dowry remained, and she divorced in the wilderness.)

If he takes it as collateral, and he has the money, and the condition of the money is that it is released without anything if he accepts it.

The door of appearance is the likeness of his wife, or what he has said about her, or a common part of her, which forbids him to look at her. He forbids his eyes from his relatives, or as you are on my mother's back, or your head, or his side, or half of your back, as her stomach, or her thighs, or like her cheek, or my sister's or my aunt's, and becomes a manifestation, and forbids her weight, and her prayers, until he disbelieves, and not before him: before disbelief, forgiveness, and disobedience. This is nothing but disobedient, and nothing except disbelieve, disobediency, disregard, disrespect, disdain, and even disrespection.

(And: you are on my side like my mother, or like my mom if I intend to []]) dignity, or the appearance of truth): i.e. his intention, (and if the intention of divorce is bent, if he does not mean anything illegal).

You are as forbidden to me as my mother’s back, zihar and nothing else [(1)], even if he intends divorce or marriage (2). Al-Zihar singled out his wife, but it was not valid among his female slave[(3)], nor among those[(4)] who married her without her command, then it was apparent from her, then she permitted it(5).

And [(1)] Ali stinks like a mother’s back to his wives, each expiation must be done [separately](2).

[Chapter on expiation] which is: freeing a slave[(1)], and it is permissible[(2)] for both the Muslim and the infidel, and in it there is disagreement with al-Shafi’i(3)[(4)] - may God be pleased with him -, and its verification in the principles of jurisprudence regarding the burden of the absolute[(5)] on the restricted(1), (and the male, and the female, and the young, and the old, and the deaf[(2)]): that is, the one who has deafness in his ears(3), but as for the one who does not hear at all, it should not be permissible; Because he missed out on the kind of benefit[(4)], (and the one-eyed man with one of his hands and one of his legs cut off on the opposite side[(5)], and the offices who did not pay anything, and the purchase[(6)] of his relative with the intention of expiating him, and the emancipation of half of his slave, then the rest of him(7).

No (1) who misses the kind of benefit: like a blind man, or an insane person who does not understand), as a precaution[(2)] from one who goes mad and wakes up, (and one who has his hands cut off, or his thumbs(3)[(4)], or his legs, or a hand and a foot on one side, and one who manages[(5)], or a mukatib who has paid part of his allowance, and emancipated[(6)] half of a shared slave, then the rest of it after guaranteeing it); Because [(7) ] the owner’s share in his property is diminished (1), then it is transferred to the property of the emancipated person by guarantee, and in both cases it is permissible (2) if the emancipated person is affluent; Because he owns his owner’s share by guarantee, it is as if he has emancipated all of it for expiation, unlike [(3)] if he is insolvent, in which case it is obligatory to strive for the partner’s share, so it is emancipation with compensation. (And half[(4)] of his slave for his expiation, then the rest of it after intercourse with an apparent part of it). Because emancipation must occur before politicization, and in both cases it is permissible. Because the emancipation of some means the emancipation of all for them.

(And if he is incapable[(1)] of emancipation, he shall fast for two months of loyalty[(2)] not including the month of Ramadan, nor for the five days for which he is forbidden to fast[(3)](4). And if he breaks the fast with an excuse[(5)], or another[(6)], or he has intercourse with her[(7)] in the two months(1) at night intentionally, or one day by mistake(2), he shall resume fasting, not feeding[(3)] if he has intercourse with her during it.) [This is according to Abu Hanifa and Muhammad - may God be pleased with them -] (4), and according to Abu Yusuf [(5)] - may God be pleased with him - fasting is not resumed; Because it must[(6) ] be consecutive and prior to the polis, the succession is achieved. However, it remains that precedence over the polis is not achieved, but if it resumes, then all of it is later than the polis, and if it does not resume, then some of it is prior to the polis, this is better, and according to Abu Hanifa[(1)] and Muhammad - may God be pleased with them - it must be prior to the polis and free from it, so precedence over the polis has passed, but its absence from the polis is possible, so it must be taken care of.

(And if he or his representative is unable to fast, he or his representative [(1)] should feed sixty poor people, each [(2)] according to his common sense, or its value[(3)]), this is according to us, but according to al-Shafi’i (4) - may God be pleased with him - it is not permissible to pay the value, ([even if he had lunch[(5)] and evening and satisfied them in both](6)): that is, for lunch and dinner(7), (and if[(8)] say what they ate, or It is permissible to give [(1)] of (2) wheat, and (3) a mani of dates, or barley, or one [(4)] for two months, and on one day the equivalent of two months is not [(5)] permissible (6) except for his day): that is, he gave to one person[(7)] in one day the equivalent of two months is not permissible except for this day. This is [(1)] our doctrine, but according to al-Shafi’i (2) - may God be pleased with him - it is necessary to own property[(3)]. As in clothing, the basis for our statement is: what was mentioned in the principles (4) of jurisprudence in the meaning of the text: feeding makes others feed[(5)], and it is permissible...etc.[(6)].

(And if he feeds [(1)] sixty poor people, each with a saa’ (2) [of righteousness] (3) on the authority of two zihars (4), it is not valid [except on the authority of [zihar](5) one](6), and on the authority of iftar (7) and zihar is valid). This is according to Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf - may God be pleased with them -, but according to Muhammad - may God be pleased with him - it is permissible on the authority of the two zihars. They say that the intention works when the genders are different, like breaking the fast and zihar, not when they are united, so if The intention is negligible [(8) ] and a saa’ is valid as one expiation; Because half a saa’ is one of the lowest amounts, so what is paid, which is a saa’, is valid as one expiation, which was made for the two zihars, so it is not valid (1). (Like fasting[(2)] for four months, or feeding one hundred and twenty needy persons, or freeing two slaves for two dhahirs, even if one is not appointed for one); Because the gender in the two appearances is the same [(3)] it is not necessary to specify. (And in emancipating a slave from them, or fasting for two months, he may [(4)] designate for whatever he desires (5).

If he is freed for killing and zihar, it is not permissible for one person. When he exhales - may God be pleased with him - it is not sufficient for one of them in the two chapters (1), and according to Al-Shafi’i (2) - may God be pleased with him - it is made for one of them in the two chapters[(3)](4).

([(1)] Zahir’s slave disbelieved only by fasting[(2)] and not his master[(3)] by taking money on his behalf.) Because atonement is an act of worship, the action of the other is not (4) his action.

Chapter on cursing [(1)] (Whoever accuses [(1)] of his [(2)] chaste wife [(3)] of adultery: that is, of [(4)] the act of adultery, she is not accused of it, like someone who has a child with her, and does not (5) have a known father. Rather, he limited himself to the fact that the wife is chaste, and did not say: The woman is one of those who slander her, as he said[(6)] in ((Al-Hidaya))(7), and there is no doubt that chastity is more general[(8)] than Being one of those who limit her thrower; Because [(1)] the requirement that they be among the people of martyrdom indicates freedom, obligation, and Islam, so there is no need[(2)] to say: She is one of those who challenge her slanderer, rather it is sufficient to mention chastity, (and every[(3)] reconciled with a witness, or denied her child[(4)] and she demanded it[(5)]): that is, according to slander, (he curses, if he refuses): that is, he abstains from cursing, (imprison him until he curses, or (6) he lies). Himself[(7)] so he is punished): [that is, after denying](8), (if he curses, she curses[(9)], otherwise she will be imprisoned until she curses or believes him): so he denies[(1)](2) the lineage of her son from him, but she is not obligated to curse[(3)] with this confirmation.

(If he is a slave, or an infidel[(1)], or limited[(2)] in slandering a punishment[(3)])(4); Because he is not one of the people of curse; Ineligibility of the certificate.

(And if he is righteous[(1)](2) and he is a witness, and she is a slave woman, or an infidel, or one committed to slander, or a young woman, or an insane person, or an adulteress(3) then there is no punishment for him, nor any cursing(4); Because [(5)] if she is characterized by adultery, she is not chaste, and if she is characterized by something else [(6)] of what was mentioned (7) then she is not worthy of testimony, so there is no punishment imposed on the husband; Because of her lack of chastity and curse [(8)]; Because of her lack of chastity and her eligibility for martyrdom.

(And its form[(1)](2): He says first four times: I bear witness by God that I am true in what he accused her of of adultery[(3)], and in the fifth: May the curse of God be upon him if he was lying in what he accused her of of adultery, pointing to her in all of it. Then she says[(4)] four times: I bear witness by God that he is lying in what he accused me of of adultery, and in the fifth: The wrath of God is upon her(5), if he is truthful in what he accused me of. Of adultery, then [(1)] the judge separates between them, and if he slanders by denying the child, or by him, and by adultery, he mentions it): that is, in cursing, (what he slandered): [that is, of adultery and negation of the child](2).