អ៊ុមដាតុល រីអាយ៉ះ (ការពន្យល់ក្បួនច្បាប់វីកាយ៉ះ ហាណាហ្វី)

(If they clarified it[(1)]: And they said[(2)]: We saw him having intercourse with her private part, like running a kohl pot, and they acted [(3)] secretly(4) and openly(5), it will be ruled upon[(6)]).

Then he added to his saying: With the testimony of four; His saying: (And by his acknowledgment four times[(1)]): that is, four times, (in four sittings(2)[(3)] He rejected him each time, then asked him (1) as mentioned above)(2). Know that in his saying: He rejected him every time; tolerance; Because it indicates that the imam rejects it four times, and it is not so[(3)]. Rather, the imam returns it three times, so if he acknowledges it a fourth time, he does not reject it, but rather accepts it, so he asks him (4) as mentioned [(5)] [of] (6) before (7), except [(8)] in the question about when; Because he is only asked about it as a precaution (9) against the statute of limitations, and it prevents testimony, not acknowledgment, and it was said: He is asked about when as well; Because of its tolerance during the time of childhood.

If it is clear [(1)] that you would like [(2)] to instruct him about his return (3): Perhaps you touched, or kissed, or had sexual intercourse under suspicion, then if he returns [(4)] before the punishment, or in the middle of it, leave [(5)] otherwise the punishment. [Chapter on how to limit and establish it]

It is for the married man[(1)]: meaning for a free man[(2)] who is a Muslim and (1) has intercourse[(2)] with a valid marriage[(3)], and they are[(4)] with the quality of marriage (5)): meaning intercourse while they are (6) with the quality of marriage: that is, the matters[(7)] by which immunity is proven, except for intercourse, occurred prior to this intercourse, so if intercourse occurs, (8) all that proves immunity is complete. So his statement: “And he is for the muhsan” means a beginner[(9)], and his statement: (stoning him(10) in a space[(1)] until he dies[(2)] begins with him[(3)] his witnesses, and if they refuse, or are absent, or die, then he falls[(1)], then the imam, then the people[(2)].

At the headquarters, the imam begins[(1)], then the people, and he is washed[(2)] and shrouded and prayed over.

And for the unmarried man, he can be flogged a hundred times with a whip that has no fruit.

In ((Morocco)): the fruit: the fresh one, which is his tail(1), and it was said: the knot[(2)], he said: The first is more correct(3). And in ((Al-Sihah)): The fruit of the whips: the knotting of its ends (4).

(And he removes (1) his clothes except the garment [(2)], and separates [(3)] (4) all over his body except his head and face, and his private part is upright[(5)] in every limit without extending[(6)]): that is, without being thrown on the ground and extending his legs. It was said: The striker extends his hand above his head. It was said: to extend the whip over the member after striking (7).

(And the slave [(1)] gets half of it, and his master does not limit it without the permission of the Imam): This, according to us, is contrary to Al-Shafi’i (2) [(3)] - may God be pleased with him -. (And [(1)] does not remove her clothes except fur and stuffing, and she is sitting. It is permissible to dig for her(2)[(3)] but not for him[(4)].

There is no combination of flogging and stoning[(1)](2), nor [between](3) flogging and exile[(4)] except policy[(5)]: This is according to us, and according to al-Shafi’i(1)[(2)] - may God be pleased with him - he combines flogging and exile in al-Bakr, and it is general exile[(3)]. (A patient[(1)] who has committed adultery shall be stoned, and he shall not be flogged until he recovers.

A pregnant woman who committed adultery will be stoned when she gives birth(2)[(3)], and flogged after postpartum[(1)]). Chapter [Intercourse that requires] (2) whether to limit it or not (Suspicion [(3)] remains [(4)] to the point).

Know that there are two kinds of suspicion [(1)]: In action. And in the store [(2)].

So he began the first type by saying: (It is in action: it is proven (1) by a thought other than evidence[(2)] as evidence (3), so the offender is not punished if he thinks[(4)] that it is permissible for him to have intercourse with the slave woman of one of his parents[(5)], his bride[(6)], his master, and the mortgagee[(7)] which is more correctly mortgaged, and the waiting period for three, and by divorce for money, and by emancipating the mother of his child. Know that the connection of property[(1)] between ascendants and descendants may create the illusion[(2)] that the son has the authority to have intercourse with the father’s slave girl[(3)], as in the opposite.

[(1)] The husband became rich with the wife’s money, which is derived from the Almighty’s saying: {And He found you to be a supporter and became rich}(2): that is, with Khadija’s money - may God be pleased with him -, which may create suspicion that the wife’s money belongs to the husband. The slaves needed[(3)] the money of the master(4) since they had no money, which they could benefit from(5) with the complete separation between the masters of one master, even though they were excused for ignorance due to their belief that it was permissible to have intercourse with the slaves(6) of the master(7).

Maliki [(1)] The mortgagee of the mortgaged property is in possession of a hand, and he has imagined that he will have intercourse with the mortgaged property[(2)].

The persistence of the effect of the marriage [(1)], which is the waiting period, is not unlikely to become a reason; Because it is suspected that it is permissible for him to have intercourse with the woman in waiting period (2) with three things [(3)], the woman in waiting waiting period (4) with a divorce over money [(5)], and the woman in waiting waiting period (1) with emancipation (2) if she is the mother (3) of his child.

Then he proceeded with the second type of (4) suspicion by saying: (And in the case: the presence of [(5)] evidence (6) that negates the prohibition in and of itself, so he did not restrict, even if he acknowledged (1) that it was forbidden to him, in: intercourse with his son’s slave woman[(2)], and the waiting period(3) of the metaphors[(4)], the seller[(5)] of the sold item, the husband[(6)] of the contract before delivering it(7), and the joint one[(1)]).

The evidence that negates the prohibition is his saying - may God bless him and grant him peace -[(1)]: ((You and your property belong to your father))(2)[(3) ] And the saying of some of the Companions(1)[(2)] - may God be pleased with them -: that metaphors are refutations. The fact that the sold item[(3)] is in the hands of the seller such that if it were destroyed(4) the sale would be invalidated as evidence of ownership.

The fact that the dowry [(1)] is a connection (2): that is, not in exchange for money, is evidence of the non-lapse of ownership, like a gift. The possession [(3)] of a shared slave girl is evidence of the permissibility of intercourse. So the meaning of his saying: is completely inviolable. If we look [(4)] at the impediment, it would be contrary to the prohibition (5).

(If he claims lineage[(1)] it is proven in this[(2)] and not in the first one): that is, in the suspicion of the place, not in the suspicion of the act.