អ៊ុមដាតុល រីអាយ៉ះ (ការពន្យល់ក្បួនច្បាប់វីកាយ៉ះ ហាណាហ្វី)

As for the sale, it is by arrangement that the sale is void, and the freed manager does not guarantee [(1)] the third that the silent person guaranteed, even though that third became the property of the manager due to the guarantee; Because his ownership by paying the guarantee is a documented property(2)[(3)], and it is established in one way or another, so it does not appear in the right of inclusion. As for loyalty to the manager[(1)], two-thirds of it is for the manager and one-third for the freedman. (And they said[(2)]: He guaranteed what he managed for his two partners(3) [he](4) was solvent or insolvent); Because it is a guarantee of ownership [(5)] there is no difference between left and insolvency, unlike the guarantee of emancipation, which is a guarantee of a crime.

(And if he said: She is the mother of my partner’s child, and he denied [(1)] that she serves him for a day, and stopped [(2)] for a day), this is according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -; This is because the one who acknowledges acknowledges that he has no right over it, so (3) his admission is taken into account, and then the one who denies it[(4)] claims that it is as it was, so he has no right over it except to half of it.

As for them, the evil one [(1)] may ask the slave girl for half her value, then she will be free; Because when his owner did not believe him, his statement turned against him, as if he had produced her, so she was freed by seeking.

(There is no value for the mother of a child, so a rich man who emancipates her jointly does not guarantee it)(1). Know[(2)] that the mother of the child is not regulated according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - and according to them she is regulated. Even if the mother of a child was shared between two partners[(3)] and one of them emancipated her[(4)], and he is affluent[(5)] he is not guaranteed according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - and according to them he is guaranteed. [Chapter on ambiguous emancipation]

(And if he said[(1)] to two of his three servants of his own: One of you is free, then one left and another entered, and he returned and died without explanation. He freed three-quarters of his emancipation from those who were proven, and half of it from each of others, and with Muhammad - may God be pleased with him - a quarter of those who entered, and from others[(1)] as they said); Because the first positive [(2)] revolves between the outside and the fixed, so it is divided (1) between them, then the second positive is divided between the fixed and the inside, so it is divided (2) between them, so the half that happened to the fixed is common to it, so whatever happened to the half that was freed by the first positive is cancelled, and what happened to the empty half, which is a quarter, remained, so three-quarters of it was freed from the fixed, and as for (3) from the inside, a quarter of it was freed according to Muhammad - may God be pleased with him -; Because this obligation (4) required the emancipation of a quarter of the fixed, the same applies from within; Because it is equitable between them, and they say: The impediment [(5)] to emancipating half is specific to the fixed one, and there is no internal impediment, so half of it is emancipated.

(And if he [(1)] said it was sick and it was not permissible[(2)] an heir(3) then he made each slave[(4)] seven like arrows, he was freed according to them, and he was freed from those who had a third proven, and two shares from everyone else, and according to Muhammad - may God be pleased with him - every six was like arrows, he was freed with him[(1)], and he was freed from those who left two shares, and from those who had a third proven, and from those who entered a share and each saa’i in the rest of it according to the two opinions, It is valid[(3)] one-third and two-thirds: And if he said that during his death illness[(1)] and it is not permissible(2) to be an heir(3), and he has no money except the three slaves, and their value is equal[(4)](5) he makes each slave seven as arrows of emancipation; Because the output of the fractions is four [(6)]; Because he frees from the fixed three-quarters, which is three out of four, and from the outside half, which is two out of four, and from the inside as well, so the total becomes seven by counting[(7) ](1) from four to seven(2). According to Muhammad - may God be pleased with him - a quarter (3) is freed from within, which is one of four, so it counts (4) to six (5).

According to them, he makes the shares of emancipation, which are seven, a third of the money[(6)], and makes each slave seven; Because the value of each slave is equal to [(7)](8) a third of the money, so he frees[(9)] two of it from the outside, which is the seventy[(10)], and he works for five-sevenths of its value, and the same goes for the inside, and as for the fixed one, he frees three of it, which are [three](11) sevenths of it[(12)](13), and he works for four-sevenths of its value. According to Muhammad - may God be pleased with him - he makes emancipation arrows, which are six [shares](1) a third of the money[(2)], and each slave makes six, so he frees from the outside two[(3)], which is (4) a third of the six, and he works in two-thirds of its value, and from the fixed three, which is half of the six[(5)], and he works in half, and from the inside one, which is a sixth, and he works in five-sixths of his value.

If [(1)] the value of each slave was forty-two dirhams, which is one-third, then all the money[(2)] was one hundred and twenty-six, then the seventy parts of the outside are emancipated: i.e. twelve, and he is sa’i in five-sevenths of it, which is thirty, and likewise the inside [(3)][(4)] is emancipated from the fixed three-sevenths [(5)], which is eighteen, and he is sa’i in four-sevenths of it, which is twenty-four.

According to Muhammad - may God be pleased with him - a third of it is freed from the outside of forty-two [(1)], which is fourteen, and from the fixed part is half[(2)], which is twenty-one(3), and from the inside is one-sixth of it[(4)], which is seven, so the total of the arrows of emancipation according to the two opinions is forty-two, which is a third of the money, and the arrows of (5) Al-Sa’ayah[(6)] are eighty-four, which is two-thirds of the money.

(And if (1) he divorced likewise[(2)] before having intercourse with (3), a quarter of the dowry for the one who went out, three-eighths for the one who stayed, and one-eighth[(4)] for the one who entered): That is, if he had three wives whose dowry was equal[(1)], and he divorced them before having intercourse in the aforementioned capacity[(2)], then in the affirmative (3) the first half of the dowry for the one was forfeited, splitting[(4) ](1) between the outgoing and the fixed ones, so a quarter of each dowry was forfeited. One, then with the second affirmative the quarter[(2)] was dropped, split (3) between the fixed and the entering one, so each one hit an eighth, so three-eighths of the fixed dowry was dropped with the two affirmatives, and one eighth of the entering dowry was dropped. Rather, the issue was imposed regarding divorce before intercourse; So that the first affirmation would lead to separation [(4)]. What happened to the first affirmation does not remain a subject (5) for the second affirmation, so in this sense it becomes like emancipation [(6)]. Some sheikhs - may God be pleased with them - said: This [(7)] is the saying of Muhammad - may God be pleased with him - specifically [(8)]. It was said: It is their saying as well.

According to this narration, they must have a difference [(1)] between emancipation and divorce, which is that the first obligation [(2)] in emancipation and divorce required [(3)] a division between the external and the established, so when he died before the clarification, it became clear that in the form of emancipation as he spoke, he became equal (4) between them; Because the principle in constructions is that their ruling is established by comparison in order to speak about them unless an obstacle prevents (1)[(2)]. In emancipation, the will of the outsider opposes it[(3)] the will of the established one (4), so the first obligation is distributed[(5)] between them, until each one emancipates some, and this[(6)] according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -, or he becomes hesitant between freedom and promotion like offices, and this is according to Abu Yusuf[(7)] - may God be pleased with him. About him -.

The second affirmation cannot be intended to inform[(1)] of a lie(2)[(3)], so it would be a construction, so there must be a place, for the entirety of what is included is a place, so half of it is freed [from](4), and what is established is that if all of it were a place...(5) with this offer, half of it is freed, and if half of it is a place, a quarter of it is freed.

As for divorce [(1) ], it is not possible for each of them to be divorced from the other; Because the divorced woman for some is divorced for all of her, so the first proposal was not done justice to, so the divorced woman is either the one who is divorced or the fixed one (1), and if the fixed divorced woman was divorced with the first, then there is no ruling for the second offer; Because it can be intended to inform[(2)], and if it is the external one, then the second affirmative is between the constant and the internal one in the same manner[(3)], so a quarter of it is confirmed; Because the second offer is invalid [(4)] according to one of the two estimates, which is [(5)] the will of (1) established by the first offer, and it is valid according to the other estimate, which is half of the two estimates (2), so it is half, and half of the half is a quarter, so the price of the dowry is dropped.

(And intercourse[(3)] and death are a clarification in a divorce[(4)] that is ambiguous: like a sale, death, arrangement, reproduction, gift and charity that are accepted[(5)] in a vague emancipation without intercourse[(1)] in it): that is, he said to his two wives: One of you is divorced[(2)] and he had intercourse with one of them or one of them died[(3)](4), so each of them explains that what is meant is the other. As for intercourse, this is because [(5)] marriage is a contract created to dissolve intercourse, and divorce is created to remove the property of marriage: that is, to remove the permission to have intercourse, either immediately, or after the end of the waiting period, so intercourse is evidence that the intercourse was not intended as a divorce.

As for death[(1)], since it is known that the statement is an establishment in one sense, then it must have a place, [and the dead is not suitable as a place for establishment](2).

And if he said: One of you is free, then he sold one of them, or [(1)] one of them (2) died, or one of them gave away [(3)], or [(4)] gave birth to one of them (5), or gave away [(6)] one of them (7) or gave it in charity and handed it over, then all of that is an indication[(8)] that what is meant is the other.

However, if he had intercourse with either of them, it would not be a statement; Because emancipation is the removal of ownership, so selling and the like indicates that ownership remains in the thing sold[(1)], so it is not meant by emancipation.

As for intercourse, this is because emancipation was not established to eliminate the permissibility of intercourse. Rather, the permissibility of intercourse disappears as a result of the disappearance of slavery[(1)], or the disappearance of possession of the neck[(2)], and neither of them has disappeared[(3)], and this is the saying of (4) Abu Hanifa(5)[(6)] - may God be pleased with him -, and as for them, intercourse in ambiguous emancipation is also clarified, because intercourse[(1)] is not permissible except in possession, so it indicates However, the intercourse was his property, so it was not intended for emancipation.

(And with the first child[(1)][(2)] you give birth to (3) a son, then you are free, if you give birth to a son and a daughter, and the first [(4)] does not know how to emancipate half of the mother and the daughter[(5)], and the son is a slave[(6)]); Because the first [(7)] if it is the son, then the mother and the daughter are free, and if it is the daughter, no one is emancipated, then half of the mother and the daughter are emancipated, and as for the son, he is a slave in both cases.

(Even if they testified (1) that he freed one of his slaves, it is invalid [(2)] except in a will (3)): That is, they testified that he freed one of his slaves, then the testimony is invalid according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -; Because there is no claimant(4)[(5)] unless this is in the will, such that they testified that he freed one of them during his death illness[(6)], or they testified to his management in health or illness[(7)], and the performance of testimony[(1)] during his death illness(1) or after death is acceptable[(2)]; Because the arrangement [(3)] and the aforementioned emancipation is a will, and the opponent: that is, the plaintiff in proving the will, is the testator; Because its benefit accrues to him, and it is known, and he has a successor [(4)], who is the guardian or heir; Because [(5)] emancipation is common with death, each of the two slaves becomes an appointed opponent (1).