អ៊ុមដាតុល រីអាយ៉ះ (ការពន្យល់ក្បួនច្បាប់វីកាយ៉ះ ហាណាហ្វី)

(And it excludes [(1)] [from the seller’s ownership](2) with the buyer’s option, and he destroyed it(3) in his hand with the price[(4)] like his defect[(5)])(6): That is, if the option was for the buyer and the buyer took possession(7)(8) and it perished, or was defective in his hand, then the price must be paid, (and the buyer does not own it[(9)]): That is, if the option was for the buyer, the buyer does not own it according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - contrary to them (1), and the fruit of The disagreement [(2)] appears (3) in these issues, which is his statement:

(The purchase of [(1)] his wedding (2) with the option does not invalidate his marriage: according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - due to lack of ownership and in the two of them it spoils it, (and if (3) he has intercourse with her [(4)] he returns it, because it is by marriage except with a virgin): that is, if the buyer has intercourse with her during the days of the option he has the right to return it according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -; Because intercourse through marriage is not permissible unless you are [(5)] a virgin; Because he diminished it (6) through intercourse, he does not have the right to return it, and in both cases he does not have the right to return it, even if it was clothed; Because the buyer took possession of it and thus invalidated the marriage(7)(8), so intercourse is under the ownership of the right hand, so it is permissible [continued](9). (He does not emancipate his relative(10) upon him during the period of his option): That is, if he buys his relative with the option, he is not emancipated according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - during the days of the option, unlike them[(11)].

(Nor whoever bought him, saying (1): If I own [(2)] a slave, he is free): That is, [if] (3) said: If I own a slave, he is free, so he bought him with option, he will not be freed in the days of option according to Abu Hanifa [(4)] - may God be pleased with him - due to lack of ownership.

(The menstruation of a female Mishriyya (1) in the period is not considered part of her istibra’ (2)[(3)])(4): That is, if he buys a female slave with the option and she menstruates during the days of the option, this menstruation is not considered part of the istibra’ according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -; Because [(5)] Istibra is only obligatory after the ownership is established, (and there is no Istibra on the seller if you return [(1)] to him with the option (2)): That is, if (3) the purchasing nation responds with the option, then Istibra is not obligatory on the seller according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -; Because [(4)] Istibra’ is only (5) required by transfer from one king to another, and it did not exist with Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - as the buyer does not own it.

(And whoever [(1)] gave birth during the marriage period will not become the mother of his child): that is, if he buys his wife with the option, and she gives birth during the days of the option in the hands of the seller, she will not become the mother of the child of the buyer, so he has the right to return it with Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -, and then she becomes the mother of his child (2); Because she was born in the possession of the buyer, he does not have the right to return it. Rather, we said [(3)]: In the hands of the seller, even if the buyer takes possession and she gives birth in his possession, she becomes the mother of his child by agreement; Because she was defective[(4)] in giving birth, so he does not have the right to return it, so she became the property of the buyer, so the birth occurred in [the buyer’s] ownership, not in his ownership](1), so she becomes the mother of his child.

(And its destruction [(2)] is in the hands of the seller if the buyer takes possession of it with his permission and deposits it with him, because the receipt is not accepted by returning it due to lack of ownership): That is, the buyer with the option (3) [(4)] if his purchaser takes possession of what he purchased, then deposits it with the seller, and it perishes in the hands of the seller, then his destruction [in his hand] (5) is the responsibility of the seller; Because the arrest has increased due to the response; Because the buyer did not own it, the deposit was not valid, but rather returning it to the seller would be a lifting of the receipt, so the loss would occur before the receipt, so it would be on the seller, and according to them [(1)] since the buyer owned it, it would be valid to deposit it, so (2) the receipt would be lifted, as it is as if it perished in the hands of the buyer, so the loss would be from his money.

(And the option of an authorized person [(3)] remained. He bought [something] (4) with the option (5) and his seller released him[(6)] for its price within the period, because the authorized person is entitled to not own property): That is, if a slave(7)[(8)] with an authorized person bought something with the option, and his seller released him for its price within the period of the option, his option remains with Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -, and in both of them [(1)] the option does not remain for him; Because if it remains, he has the authority to return it, so his return is ownership without compensation, and the authorized person does not have that power, and according to Abu Hanifa [(2)] - may God be pleased with him - when he did not own it, his return is an abstention from ownership, and the authorized person has the authority to do so; If something is given to him, he has the authority not to accept it.

(It is invalid for a non-Muslim to buy wine from a non-Muslim from a non-Muslim with an option if he converts to Islam, so that a Muslim does not take possession of it by waiving his option): That is, if a non-Muslim buys wine with the condition of his option [(1)] from a non-Muslim, and then the buyer converts to Islam (2), his purchase is invalid; Because if it remains, then when the option is dropped, the buyer owns it, so the Muslim must own the wine, and then the purchase is executed and the option is invalidated. Because if he remains in possession of its return, and the return is ownership, and the Muslim (3) does not have ownership (4) of the wine, then these [(5)] issues are the fruits of disagreement (1).

(And whoever has the option [(1)] permits it, even if its owner is ignorant, and it will not be annulled without his knowledge): That is, if it is annulled [(2)] by the person who has the option, it will not be annulled without the knowledge of its owner [(3)] Contrary to Abu Yusuf - may God be pleased with him - and Al-Shafi’i (1) - may God be pleased with him -, for them: that [(2)] the condition of the owner’s knowledge does not leave any benefit in the condition of the option; Because if its owner disappears during the period of the option, and the news does not reach him, then the contract is concluded and the one who has the option is harmed (3), (and if it is annulled and he knows it within the period, it is annulled[(4)] otherwise the contract is concluded (5). The option of defect and designation is inherited, not the condition and sighting: The option of designation: buying one of the two garments for ten on the condition that he designate whoever he wants, and the option of condition is inherited according to Al-Shafi’i (1) [(2)] - may God be pleased with him - also, and the option of sighting does not occur according to his doctrine (3); Because buying something that he has not seen is not permissible according to him [according to the more apparent of the two opinions] (4).

(And if he buys[(5)] and stipulates that the option is for someone else, then whichever he permits or revokes, that is valid. If one of them permits and the other is revoked, then the former is preferable, and if (1) they are found together, then annulment is preferable): They said [that](2); Because the condition of the option of someone other than the contracting party is established by acting on behalf of the contracting party, so it is established that it is required [(3)].

I say (1) [(2)]: If he buys with the option of a third party, the option is only established with the consent of the contracting parties, so he is a representative of the contracting parties. Then the seller’s consent to the third party’s choice does not necessitate his consent to the buyer’s choice.

(And the sale of two slaves (1) [(2)] with an option in one of them is valid if the price of each is specified, and the place of the option is specified, and it is invalid in the remaining aspects): These are: Unless (1) the price is specified, and the location of the option is not specified. Or dismissed and not appointed. Or appointed but not detailed; Due to the unknown of the price and the seller, or the ignorance of either of them. It remains (2)(3) that in the case of permissibility, even if there is no ignorance, but accepting what is not [(4)] a sold item is made a condition for accepting what is sold, then it should be invalidated by the invalid condition in his view.

The answer [(1)]: The thing sold with the condition of option is included in the offer, not [in] (2) the ruling, so it is not certified that it is something that is not a sale in every respect, but rather it is a sale in one respect, so we considered both aspects (3). In the case of ignorance, we considered what is not a sale [so as to invalidate the contract] (4), and in the event that each of them is known, we considered it to be a sale so as not to invalidate the contract [(5)].

(Buying one[(1)] of two garments, or (2) one of three[(3)] on the condition that he appoints whomever he wishes in three days[(4)] is valid[(5)], not if he does not stipulate that he be appointed, nor in one of four): because[(6)] the analogy is not permissible, but it is recommended in the three in the place of need; Because (1) the three include good, bad, and average, and in addition to the three [we kept the ruling] (2) on the original, which is impermissibility. (And he (3) took by pre-emption a house that was sold in addition to what was stipulated in the option by consent[(4)]): That is, he bought a house on the condition that it was by option, and a house was sold in addition to that house, so the buyer (5) took it by pre-emption, so this taking [is evidence of his satisfaction](6) with the purchase of that house; Because [(7)] taking pre-emption requires permitting [in] (8) pre-emptive purchase.

(The option [(1)] condition of the two buyers is waived with the consent of one of them[(2)], as well as the option of defect and sighting: because if the other [(3)] returns it, it will be defective due to the company’s defect (1), and the other has the authority to return it; Because option [(2)] is fixed for every one (3).

(And a slave was purchased [(1)] on the condition of his bread or books, and it was found otherwise, he took its price or left it (2) (3): Because the descriptions [(4)] are not equivalent to any of the price.

Chapter [On the Vision Option] (1)[(2)]

(It is valid to buy[(3) ] what he did not see[(1)]): Contrary to Al-Shafi’i(2)[(3)] - may God be pleased with him -, (and the buyer has the option[(4)] then[(5)]): that is, upon sighting, (until[(6)] there is an invalidation of it, even if he is satisfied before that[(1)]): That is, if he is satisfied before seeing it, he has the right to [rescind] (2)[(3) ] when he sees it[(1)] but if Annulment before seeing the annulment is implemented; Because it is [(2)] a non-binding contract so that it is not permissible to approve it upon sight, (not to its seller): that is, if he sells something that he has not seen, he does not have [(3)] the option if he sees it (1).

(And the conditional option invalidates it. [(2)] (3) And an action that does not invalidate it, such as emancipation and planning, or creates a right for someone else, such as an absolute sale): that is, without the condition of the option[(4)], (and mortgage and leasing before or after sighting): that is, these actions invalidate the option of sighting[(5)] whether it is before or after sighting. (And what does not necessitate a right for someone else, such as a sale by option [(1)], bargaining (2) [(3)], and a gift without delivery, is invalidated after it, not before it): Because [(4)] these actions do not indicate clear consent, and it only invalidates it after seeing it. As for the first actions (5), they are (6) stronger; Because some of them cannot be annulled, and some of them require the right of others, so they are not invalidated.

(And looking at the face of the female slave[(1)], and patience, and the face of the animal and its back[(2)](3), and the back of a folded garment that is not marked(4)[(5)], and at the place of his knowledge(6) marked(7) [(1)], and the look of his agent[(2)] regarding the purchase or the receipt is sufficient[(3)] not the look of his messenger)(1): The agent to take possession: He is the one who has the authority to take possession, unlike the messenger, for he is the one who ordered him to deliver the message, so if the seller does not deliver Unlike the agent, he does not have the right to dispute, and in both cases the agent’s consideration of the arrest is not sufficient. Because [(1)] he made it all by taking possession of it, not by looking at it, and according to Abu Hanifa[(2)] - may God be pleased with him - that complete taking is done by looking at it; To know that this is the one who ordered his arrest.