អ៊ុមដាតុល រីអាយ៉ះ (ការពន្យល់ក្បួនច្បាប់វីកាយ៉ះ ហាណាហ្វី)

(The expenses for the wedding of the absent person, his child, and his parents are imposed on money (1) that is his of the same type as their right only.) Such as dirhams, dinars, food, or clothing that she wears, other than if it is not of the same type as their right, such as goods that need (2) to be sold; To spend [to] (3) her maintenance, (at (4) a depositor, debtor, or speculator (5) if he acknowledges it (6), [and] (7) the marriage, or the judge knows that (8) [and they deny it] (9).

And he guarantees her (1): that is, he takes a guarantor from them, (and he swears to her that he did not give her the maintenance), the pronoun in that he is the third person pronoun, (not by establishing evidence (2) of the marriage) (3): that is, the judge does not impose maintenance by establishing evidence of the marriage, (nor if he does not leave money and she establishes evidence [of him] (4)): that is, of the marriage, (so that [the judge] (5) imposes it on him, and orders it By borrowing [on him] (6), and it is not ruled by it: that is, by marriage; Because it is a judgment on the absent person, (Zafar said - may God be pleased with him - he makes a judgment on alimony, not on marriage), and judges today act on this out of necessity (7).

(And for a divorced woman (1) revocable, irrevocable, and separation without sin: such as the option of emancipation, puberty, and separation, due to inability to provide maintenance and housing): that is, as long as she is in the waiting period, and in the waiting period, the irrevocable is contrary to Al-Shafi’i (2) - may God be pleased with him -, he has the hadith of Fatima bint Qais (3), and for us: Omar’s response (4) - may God be pleased with him -.

(No to the woman observing the waiting period of death, and the one separated by sin: such as apostasy, kissing the husband’s son. The three waiting periods of waiting for the wife are forfeited, but her son’s empowerment does not apply to her.) Because there is no trace of apostasy and empowerment in division; Because it has been proven (1) before them, they do not waive (2) the alimony, except that the apostate is imprisoned until she repents, and there is no alimony for the imprisoned woman, other than the possible one, the husband’s son. [Chapter on alimony for relatives] (And the maintenance of a poor child is on his father): He only said: A poor person, even if he is rich, it is in his money, (and no one should share with him such as the maintenance of his parents and his wedding): That is, no one should share with him in the maintenance of his child, just as no one should share with him [in] (3) the maintenance of his parents and his wedding. (His mother does not have to breastfeed him unless she is specified) (4): that there is (5) someone to breastfeed him or does not drink milk other than her, (and the father hires someone to breastfeed him on her behalf): that is, if the mother is not specified. (And if he hired her as a married woman(6), or in waiting period(7) from a recidivist woman, to breastfeed him, it would not be permissible, and there are two narrations regarding the married woman(8).

Know that the Almighty’s saying: {And mothers shall breastfeed their children}(1) made it obligatory for mothers to breastfeed, and then His Almighty’s saying: {No soul is burdened beyond what it can bear. A mother shall not be harmed by her child nor a newborn born to him by his child}(2) He has made it obligatory to protect the harm from mothers and fathers. If she refuses and the father is not harmed by hiring a wet nurse, the mother is not forced; لأن الظاهر أن امتناعها للعجز؛ Because maternal compassion (3) indicates (4) that she only abstains due to inability, so if she does it and asks for a wage, it will not be given; Because it is apparent that she is capable, performing the obligation does not obligate wages, given that the Sharia did not oblige the breastfeeding woman except maintenance. God Almighty said: {And the one who is born to him shall provide for them and clothe them with reasonableness}(5), so every(6) who receives(7) the maintenance, which is the married woman and the woman who is in the state of waiting for the return of the wife, is not given anything else for breastfeeding, and as for the divorced woman, the same is true according to one narration, and according to the other narration, the husband has made her feel cruel to her, so there is no hope(8) of it. Forgiveness and leniency, so it became like... (9) After the waiting period, but it is permissible to rent after the waiting period; لأن النفقة غير واجبة لها، فتجب الأجرة؛ لقوله تعالى: {وعلى المولود له رزقهن} الآية.

(And for breastfeeding him after the waiting period, or (1) for his son from another woman, it is valid): That is, hiring him to breastfeed his son from her after he divorced her, and her waiting period ended, and hiring him to breastfeed his son from another woman is valid, whether the hired woman was during his marriage, during the waiting period, or after the waiting period (2). (She is): [i.e.](3) the mother(4), (has more right than a foreigner [unless](5) she requests an increase in her wages(6). The maintenance of the daughter of adulthood and the son’s maintenance for a period of time (7) is exclusively for the father, and he issues a fatwa on it (8). He only said this; Because according to the narration of Al-Khasaf and Al-Hasan - may God be pleased with them - it is obligatory in thirds, two-thirds of which is on the father and a third of it on the mother, and this is if they do not have money, and even if they do have money, the maintenance is on their money.

(The well-to-do person has the right of nature [not the insolvent] (1) to provide for his poor assets equally (2) between the son and the daughter, and in it (3) closeness and partiality (4) are considered, not inheritance. In a person who has a daughter and a son’s son, it is all on the daughter, and in a daughter’s son and a brother is on her son), even though the inheritance is divided into two halves between the daughter and the son’s son, and the entire inheritance goes to the brother, and nothing goes to the daughter’s son; Because he is a uterus.

(And the maintenance of every relative of a mahram (5) a child, or a poor adult female, or a male of a certain age, or a blind person is according to the amount of the inheritance, and he is forced to do so, and the eligibility for the inheritance is considered, not its reality (6) (7): But he said this; Because the expense of these people is obligatory; According to God Almighty’s saying: {And the heir is like that}(1), so it should only be obligatory on the heir. He said: What is considered is the eligibility of the inheritance, not its reality. This is because the truth of the inheritance is not known except after death. If someone has a maternal uncle and a cousin, the cousin may die [first](2), and the inheritance goes to the maternal uncle, so kinship is considered with eligibility for inheritance. (So ​​the maintenance of someone who has separate sisters is divided into fifths, like his inheritance): [So the maintenance of someone who has sisters...etc., its form: one of them died and left behind three sisters, one of them from a father and a mother, the second from a father, and the third from a mother. The estate between them is divided into five shares, three shares for a sister from a father and a mother, one share from a sister from a father, and one share from a sister from a mother. So is the maintenance] (3). (And the maintenance of someone who has a maternal uncle and a cousin is paid by the maternal uncle. There is no maintenance with the difference of debt except for the wife, the ascendants, and the descendants): Then after this, it is better (4) to add this phrase: There is no obligation on the poor except for her and the descendants, and there is no obligation for the rich (5) except for her. The phrase “the summary” was changed to this phrase (6). The bottom line: Spending is not obligatory (7) for the poor except the wife and descendants, and it is not obligatory (8) for the rich except for the wife. As for someone other than the wife, if he is rich, it is not obligatory (9) for him to spend on anyone.

(And the father sold (1) his son’s property (2) and not his property for his maintenance and no other debt he owed him): That is, the father does not sell the son’s property for a debt other than his maintenance on the son. They said: The father has the authority to preserve the son’s property, and to sell movables for the sake of preservation, not to sell the property; Because he is protected by himself, so if he sells the movable property, the price is of the same kind as his right, which is the maintenance, so he spends it on it. I said: The discussion is whether it is permissible to sell offers; لأجل النفقة، لا في البيع؛ In order to preserve, then spend from the price, provided that if the reason were this; It is permissible to sell for a debt other than maintenance, given this evidence. Rather, the reason is that the father has the authority to own the son’s money when needed, as in the case of giving birth to the son’s slave girl (3), so he has the authority to sell the son’s goods; For his own survival, but not following the sale of the property; Because it is prepared for use while it remains, which is agriculture, and the father’s guardianship is theoretical, and there is no consideration in selling the property, rather selling it is unfair, so it is in the son’s interest to keep it and benefit from it.

(The mother does not have the right to sell (1) his money to support her). Because ownership of the son’s money is reserved for the father; Because of his saying - may God bless him and grant him peace -: ((You and your property belong to your father)) (2), and because the mother does not have the authority to dispose of the son’s property. (The depositor of the [absent] son ​​is liable (3) if he spends it on his parents without a judge’s order (4) but not the parents if he spends his money with them.

If he pays expenses other than the wedding, and (1) the period has passed, it will be forfeited. Because the maintenance of these people is obligatory only if it suffices for the need, and if the period has passed, sufficiency is achieved. It was reported from ((Al-Jami’ Al-Kabir)) by Al-Bazdawi (2) - may God be pleased with him - that this is if the period is long after the obligation, but if it is short, it does not fall, and they estimated the short period as (3) less than the month (4), (unless the judge authorizes the borrowing [and they did] (5)): that is, the judge authorizes the borrowing, [so they borrowed] (6) then it becomes a debt. On the absent.

(And the maintenance of the owned is on his master. If he refuses to earn and spend, and if he is unable (1) he orders (2) to sell it.) [And God knows best what is right] (3).

Book of Emancipation (1)[(2)]

(It is (1) valid[(2)] from a free person assigned[(3)]: [explicitly in the word[(4)] without intention[(1)]: as if you were free, or freed, or freed[(2)], or I freed you[(3) ](1),](2) or liberated, or I freed you, or (3) This is my master, or O my master[(4)](5)): The word master[(6)] is common, one Its meanings are: the freed person, and in the case of a slave, only this meaning is appropriate, so he is freed without intention, (or your head is free[(1)] and similar things used to express the body(2).

And with his metaphor [(1)] if he intended [(2)]: I have no ownership over you, and there is no way out, and there is no slavery), but it was: I have no ownership over you; euphemism; Because it is possible [(3)] that there is no ownership through sale or the like, or through emancipation. Likewise: I have no way to you: that is, to dispose of you[(4)], or to benefit from you. Likewise, I have no right over you: that is, I have no ownership over you, for ownership is (5) the path that leads to disposal[(6)] and benefit.

As for: I have no pity on you; Know [(1)] that slavery: it is a legal inability[(2)][(3)] that establishes a trace of disbelief in a person(4), and it is the right of God Almighty[(5)]. As for ownership: it is a legal connection between a person and a thing[(6)] that is absolute[(7)] for his disposal of it, and incapable[(8)] for others to dispose of it. The thing[(1)] is owned, and is not enslaved unless it is owned. Slavery in The beginning is a reason for kingship, so his saying: I do not have slavery over you, he divorced [(2)] slavery, and he meant kingship. (And I departed[(3)] from my kingdom, and released you, and to his nation: I have released you[(4)](5).

And with this, I build[(1)] for the youngest[(2)] and the eldest); Rather, he used the word “ba” in his saying: “And with this (3) my son.” So that it is known that he was a conjunction of his saying: and with his euphemism, even if he did not mention the letter b, it would be misleading[(4)] that he was a conjunction of examples of a metonymy such as: I have no ownership over you... etc., so it would then be necessary that it is a euphemism, but it is not.

For the one who acknowledges it is [(1)] if he is born like him to someone like him[(2)], and he is [(3)] of unknown parentage, his lineage is proven[(4)] from him, and he is free, even if he did not intend, and if he did not intend to be like that[(5)] then this word is a metaphor[(1)] for freedom and he is freed, even if he did not intend; Because the metaphor is specific, even if it is a metaphor, it requires intention, and in the older ones there is disagreement with Abu Yusuf and Muhammad - may God be pleased with them -.

I have exaggerated the investigation of this issue in (the metaphor chapter) of the book ((Revision)) (2), and the bottom line [(3)] is: The possibility of the real meaning is not a condition for the validity of the metaphor, like the lion shooting a brave man, so the possibility of sonship is not a condition for the validity of the metaphor, which is freedom. (No, neither my son nor my brother) (1); Because what is intended [(2)] by the call is to bring the caller to mind in the form of the name without intending to convey the meaning, and if the meaning is not intended then its metaphor is not proven [(3)], which is freedom, unlike Ya Hurr, because it is explicit, so it does not require the intention of the meaning.

(And I have no authority[(4)] over you)(1): That is, I have no hand over you, so he can be a slave, and [he](2) does not have a hand over him like an office[(3)](4).