អ៊ុមដាតុល រីអាយ៉ះ (ការពន្យល់ក្បួនច្បាប់វីកាយ៉ះ ហាណាហ្វី)

(And at a time and time[(1)] without the intention of half a year he denounced[(2)], or custom(3): according to the Almighty’s saying: {It yields its fruit at all times by the permission of its Lord}(4), (and with it[(5)] what he intended.

And eternity[(1)] knows no evil(2) Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - said: I do not know what eternity is[(3)], and they have:

Half a year, like: I don't speak to him for a while, (and forever we will know each other.) And the days of denial are three[(1)], and many days, and the days, and the months, and [and the years](2) are ten(3)[(4)]. [Chapter on the oath regarding emancipation and divorce] The first slave you bought is free, if he buys a slave, he is freed: that is, he does not need his priority to buy another slave.

(And if he buys two slaves, then another, then there is no basis.) Because the first is individual[(1)] and no other of its kind is prior[(2)] to it, nor comparable to it[(3)], and it did not exist.

(If he joins: alone; [(1)] he emancipated the third): That is, he said: The first slave I bought alone was free, so he bought two slaves, then the last one emancipated the third; Because he was the first slave he bought alone.

(And in: The last slave[(1)] if he bought a slave and he died, he was not emancipated): He said: The last slave I bought was free(2) and he bought(3) a slave and the buyer died. This person is not emancipated, nor is he under the illusion[(4)] that if he dies, that slave will be another, because the last must have a first, and it did not exist.

(If he buys a slave, then another, and then dies[(1)] he frees the other on the day he bought[(2)] from all his wealth, and they have the day when he dies from [a third of his wealth](3)); Because the otherness [(4)] was achieved by death, so he is freed upon death from a third of his wealth, and for him: By death it becomes clear that he was another when buying, so he is freed at that time, (and the husband does not become a fugitive [(1)] if the three were attached to him in contrast to them) and the pronoun in: by him; Returns to the other. The picture of the issue is: A man said: The last woman I married was divorced three times, so he married one woman, then another, then he died. I was divorced with Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - upon marriage, so he does not become a deserter, so she does not inherit with him. According to them: she is divorced upon death, so he becomes a deserter, so she inherits.

(And every slave who gave me such and such good news is free. The first [(1)] three gave him good news separately, and all [(2)] if they gave him good news together (3) [(4)].

It was waived[(1)](2) by his father’s purchase(3) of his expiation[(4)](5) is): meaning expiation, this is in our view, but according to Zufar and al-Shafi’i(6) - may God be pleased with them - it is not waived(7), the bottom line is that the intention must be compared to the reason for emancipation[(8)]. They made kinship the reason for emancipation, and ownership[(9)] a condition, and we made the opposite[(1)]; Because Sharia law makes buying a relative a emancipation; If his father buys with the intention of expiation, the intention is in comparison with the reason for emancipation, and in their case it is not, as they make kinship a reason (2)[(3)]. (Not by purchasing [(4)] a slave whom he swore to emancipate): That is, he said: If you buy this slave, he is free, so if he buys him with the intention of expiation, the expiation will not be forfeited; Because the reason for emancipation is the oath, and purchase is a condition [for it] (5), so (6) the intention is not a comparison to the reason.

He responds to him [(1)]: It was mentioned in the principles of jurisprudence that the suspension in our view prevents causality, so if the condition is met, the suspension (2) becomes a defect in that case, so the intention is comparable to the reason for emancipation (3).

(And she was born [(1)] through a marriage whose emancipation was conditional on his expiation by purchasing her): His saying: And she was born [with the genitive case] (2) is a conjunction of a slave: that is, nor (3) by buying a woman who is born. Its form is that he says to a female slave whom he has given birth to through marriage, “If I buy you, then you are free from atonement for my oath.” So he bought her and she will be freed due to the condition (4), and the atonement is not sufficient for him. Because her freedom is due by birth, [and it is not added to the oath in every way] (5).

(And she shall be freed if a female slave is freed[(1)] then she is free from the one who keeps her captive[(2)] and she is his property on the day he swears an oath, not from the one who buys her[(3)] so she is kept captive); Because this nation was not in his possession at the time of the alliance, and her emancipation was not added to the ownership or its reason, and there is a dispute over it by Zufar [(4)] - may God be pleased with him -.

(And with every free slave of mine, the mothers of his children[(1)], his managers, and his slaves(2) no one can handle him except with their own intention.) Because he doesn't have a hand on them.

(And here is a free man or this and that for his slaves, [emancipating](3) the third of them and a better option in the first two such as divorce), as if he said[(4)]: One of them is free and this. If you say: Rather, it is like saying: This is free or these are two. I said: I answered it in “Sharh al-Tanqih” with two answers (1), so if you want, read it.

(And he did not enter[(1)] into an action that occurs from someone else[(2)]: such as selling, buying, permitting, sewing, dyeing[(3)], and building. He required (4) his command[(5)] to single it out (6) for it(7)[(8)], so he did not break in: If I sold you a garment, if he sold it without his command[(9)] own it or not[(10)]): He intended by entering it on An act[(1)] is attached to it. In his saying: If I sell you a garment, then his slave(2) is free. The L is related to the sale, so it requires the specification of the sale to the addressee, and the verb is not specific to someone other than the agent except by the command[(3)](4): that is, the authorization, and that is why the command is required.

(And if he enters upon an eye [(1)] or does an action that does not occur on the authority of anyone else: such as eating, drinking, entering, or hitting a child[(2)], then his ownership is required[(3)], then he breaks his oath in: If I sell a garment of yours, if he sells his garment without his command): This is similar to [the entry[(4)] of the blame upon the eye](5), which is the garment[(6)]. As for its entry: on an act that does not occur on behalf of anything else, then his saying: If I ate food for you [(1)], or drank a drink for you, necessitates that the food or drink be the property of the addressee, as in his saying: If I ate food for you, even if it is related to eating in an image, then in meaning[(2)] it is related to food. As for hitting the child, something like: If I hit the child for you, then his slave is free, so requiring ownership in it is not possible [unless] (3) by ownership, what is meant is jurisdiction.

(And in: Every wedding [(1)] is for me, so after his wedding saying: I married Ali, I divorced her, and it is valid to intend another religion) (2) He said (3) these words to please her, so what is meant is other than her, not her, but this is contrary to what is apparent; Because both are general words [(4)], a judgment is not valid.

Book of Borders [(1)] (Punishment: a punishment[(2)] decreed[(3)] that is due[(4)] as a right[(5)] to God Almighty, so there is no punishment, nor retaliation for punishment.) As for discretionary punishment; Because of lack of appreciation. As for retaliation; Because it is the right of the guardian of retaliation.

(And adultery[(1)]: intercourse[(2)] before[(3)] free[(4)] of property and his suspicions); Such as the waiting period of one or three cases. (It is proven by the testimony of four [(5)] that adultery is not intercourse or intercourse, so the imam asks them about it: What is it? How is it? Where did he commit adultery? When did he commit adultery? And with whom did he commit adultery?).

As for the question about the essence (1); This is because some people [(2)] use it to refer to every forbidden intercourse, and also [(3)]: The legislator has used it to refer to something other than this action, such as: ((The eyes are beautified))(4)[(5)]. As for how [(1)]; This is because intercourse may occur without [(2)] the circumcision meeting. As for where?; Because adultery in the land of war does not require punishment[(3)]. As for Matthew; Because the statute of limitations [(4)] does not require a limit. As for Al-Muzniyah; Because there might be suspicion of intercourse with her?