អ៊ុមដាតុល រីអាយ៉ះ (ការពន្យល់ក្បួនច្បាប់វីកាយ៉ះ ហាណាហ្វី)

(And if she gave birth to complete them[(1)] not (2)[(3)] except by invitation[(1)], and intercourse with her is suspected[(3)] in the waiting period): That is, if she came to complete two years from the time of separation[(1)] it is not proven; Because the pregnancy happened after the divorce, it is not part of it. Because intercourse with her is forbidden, and his saying: except by invitation; Because [(2)] he committed to it, and he has the reason (3) that he had intercourse with her on suspicion of the waiting period. (And a teenage girl [(4)] who gave birth to him for less than nine months, and for nine months, not) (5): And a teenage girl: with the genitive case, a conjunction for a divorced woman: that is, he proves the lineage of a child of a divorced teenage woman who gave birth to a child for less than nine months from the time of the divorce.

What is meant by adolescence: a girl who has intercourse with someone like her, and she is at an age where she can be an adult: that is, nine years and above[(1)], and no signs of (2) puberty appear in her; Because three months is the duration of her waiting period, and six months is less[(3)] the duration of pregnancy. Rather, [(1)] was considered the minimum duration of pregnancy here, and the longest duration of pregnancy in adulthood; Because lineage is proven by suspicion, not by suspicion (2) suspicion. In the adulthood [(3)] the suspicion of intercourse at the time of marriage or the waiting period is established (4), and the fact of intercourse at one of these two times necessitates (5) proof of paternity, and so it is suspected (6).

As for adolescence, the suspicion of intercourse during marriage, or during the waiting period: which is three months is fixed, then the fact of intercourse during one of these two times does not necessitate proof of paternity; Because puberty has not been achieved, [puberty](1) which is a matter of occurrence is added[(2)] to the closest time, which is six months to the time of birth. This is the doctrine of Abu Hanifa and Muhammad - may God be pleased with them -.

According to Abu Yusuf - may God be pleased with him - if the divorce is revocable, then it lasts for seven[(1)] and twenty months; Because three months is the period of her waiting period and two years is the maximum period of pregnancy, and if the divorce is irrevocable[(2)], then up to two years; Because she is observing the waiting period and it is possible that she may be pregnant, and she did not acknowledge[(3)](4) that the waiting period had ended, so she became like an adult woman.

(A woman in waiting period [(1)] acknowledged that the waiting period had passed, and she gave birth less than half a year ago, but for half of it [(2)] no); Because when she gave birth less than half a year from the time of the acknowledgment (3), her lie was revealed with certainty, so her acknowledgment was invalidated (4). However, if she gave birth half a year, or more from the time of the divorce (5) [(6) ], the paternity is not proven; Because we do not know that the acknowledgment is invalid, then the word “iddat” includes (1) every “iddat” [(2)].

(And a woman in waiting period[(3)] whose pregnancy is apparent, or (4) the husband acknowledges it, or (5) her birth is proven with complete evidence): that is, the lineage of a child is proven in waiting waiting period (6) whom she claimed to have given birth, but the husband denied it, and before the birth there was a clear pregnancy[(7)], or the husband acknowledged the pregnancy, or two men witnessed the birth, or a man and two women witnessed the birth[(8)] of the woman entering a house, and no one was with her, and nothing was in the house (1), and the two men were at the door until She gave birth, so they knew about the birth by seeing (2) the boy[(3)], or hearing his voice, but the argument was restricted to being complete so that it would not be proven[(4)] by the testimony of one woman to the birth, contrary to them.

The bottom line [(1)] is that according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - if the woman in waiting period has a visible pregnancy, or the husband acknowledges it, the birth is proven[(2)] with the testimony of one woman(3), and if there is no visible pregnancy, or the husband acknowledges it, there must be complete proof, and in both of them it is proven[(4)] with the testimony of one woman. (Or she gave birth for less than [(1)] two years, and the heirs acknowledged it)(2): That is, if the waiting period was a death waiting period, and the period between death and birth was less than two years. Know that the word “prevention” falls under the letter “waw” in his saying: and the heirs acknowledge it. What is mentioned in ((Al-Hidaya)) requires the word: or, because the phrase ((Al-Hidaya)) is like this: [(3)] The lineage of the child of the deceased to her husband is proven between death and two years (4)[(5)].

So he said: Between death; An adverb for the child (1), so the child [(2)] means the newborn: that is, the lineage is proven by someone who was born at a time [(3)] between death and two years, then he mentioned [(4)] this issue: If she was waiting for a death and the heirs (5) believed her in her birth, and no one witnessed the birth, then he is his son (6) [(7)].

It is known from these two issues that one of them [(1)] is sufficient, which is the fact that the period is less than two years, or the approval of the heirs. If it is said [(2)]: If the heirs acknowledge, and the period between death and birth is two years or more, their acknowledgment is not taken into account, but rather their acknowledgment is considered if the period is less than two years, [then the word waw is required.

We said: One of them is sufficient: that is, the period or acknowledgment: that is, if the period is less than two years](1) the lineage is proven[(2)] and if it is not known[(3)](4) the period between death and birth, then if the heirs confirm it is considered, then it is necessary[(5)] [to change](1) the phrase ((prevention)) to this type[(2)](3): or prove(4) her birth with complete proof, or it is known that she was born less than two years after his death, or he did not know And (5) the heirs acknowledged it (6).

His statement: Or he did not know... etc., includes[(1)] if he did not know that he was born before or after death, and based on the knowledge that his birth was after the death of the husband, he does not know that he was born for less than two years, or for two years, or more, but the heirs acknowledged that this child[(2)] was born to their legatee, and if they acknowledge that, then the one who acknowledged[(3)] if he is not among those whose testimony is valid(4); For lack of a quorum of testimony, or lack of justice (5), his acknowledgment of the inheritance is considered to be his right only, and if his testimony is valid, his lineage is proven absolutely: that is, in the right of the testator, and in the right of others.

(And a married woman [(1)] brought him for six months[(2)]): that is, from the time of marriage, (the husband acknowledged it, or remained silent); Proving the lineage of the child of the married woman does not require confirmation (3)[(4)]. (If he denies [(1)] her birth, it is proven by the testimony of a woman, so he curses (2) if he denies it: that is, after (3) her birth was proven by the testimony of a woman, he denied the child: that is, he said: It is not from me[(4)]. (And for less than it [(5)] is not proven (6)), referring to his saying: for six months, because if there is less than six months between marriage and childbirth, it does not count as part of it.

(If she gave birth [(1)] and claimed her marriage six months ago, and the husband is at least, then she has given birth without swearing an oath according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -); Because what appears to be evidence for her is that the child is from marriage and not from incest[(2)]. (And if [(3)] her divorce was conditional on her birth and a woman testified about it, it would not have occurred.) (4) This is according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -, and according to them it does occur; Because birth [(5)] is proven by the testimony of a woman, then divorce is proven by consequence.

According to him [(1)]: Birth is proven (2) [by a woman’s testimony] (3) as a necessity, so it is estimated according to her value, so it does not go beyond divorce, and it is not [(4)] dependent on it; Because each exists without the other.

(And if he acknowledges the pregnancy, then it is conditional): That is, her divorce[(1)] is conditional on her birth, and she said: She has given birth, and the husband lied to her[(2)], (it takes place without testimony[(3)]): This is according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -, and in both of them the testimony of the midwife is required; Because [(4)] she claims that he broke his oaths (5), there must be evidence. And for him[(6)]: His acknowledgment of the pregnancy is an acknowledgment of what it will lead to, which is childbirth.

(The maximum duration of pregnancy is two years[(1)], and the minimum is six months[(2)].

Whoever marries a female slave and divorces her (1) then buys her, if she gave birth less than six months ago (2) he bought her, he is obligated to do so, otherwise he is not. Because if there was less than six months between the purchase and the birth, the marriage occurred prior to the purchase, so it is a child born to him by his marriage [(3)], then he is obligated without any claim.

But if the period is six months, or more, then the child is a child [(1)] owned by him; Because the delay is something that happens, so it is added to the nearest times [(2)], so it is not necessary (3) without an invitation (4) [(5)].

(And whoever says: To his nation, if there is[(1)] a child in your womb, then he is from me, and a woman witnessed the birth, so she is the mother of his child(2)[(3)], or to a child[(4)](5)): He used his saying to his nation: (He is my son and he died, and the mother of the child[(6)] said: He is his son[(1)] and I am his wife, and they inherit from him[(2)]): That is, the child and his mother inherit from the headquarters; Because the issue is whether the woman is known to be free, and to be the mother of the child, then there is no way for him to have the child as his own except by marrying his mother [marriage] (3) in a valid manner; Because it is the subject for solution (4)[(5)]. (And if his heir says[(6)]: You are the mother of his child and you are ignorant of her freedom, you do not inherit): that is, the mother of the child, and the child inherits(7).

[Chapter on Custody] (Custody is for the mother(1)[(2)] without compensation[(3)] whether she is divorced or not[(4)], then[(5)] her mother[(6)] even if she is older[(7)], then his father’s mother[(1)], then his sister by father[(2)] and mother, then by mother, then by father, then by his maternal aunt[(3)] likewise(4)): that is, to father and mother, then to mother, then to father, The aunt is the mother’s sister, so her paternal sister and mother are first, then her maternal sister, then paternal, and that is because the principle in this section is the mother, so kinship on her part[(5)] takes precedence over kinship(6) on the part of the father, (and then his paternal aunt as well): that is, by father and mother, then by mother, then by father. The aunt is the father’s sister, so his sister comes before father and mother, then mother, then father.