អ៊ុមដាតុល រីអាយ៉ះ (ការពន្យល់ក្បួនច្បាប់វីកាយ៉ះ ហាណាហ្វី)

(And the condition of seeing[(3)] inside the house today): He only said today; Because the narration (1) is that if he saw the walls of the house or the trees (2) of the garden from outside, that would be sufficient; This is because their homes and orchards were not unequal. Seeing the outside was a substitute for seeing the inside, but now the disparity is extreme, so it is necessary to see the inside.

(And the selling and buying of the blind person is valid[(3)], and he has the choice as a buyer[(4)], and he lapses by his palpation[(5)] of the sold item(6), his smell, and his taste: that is, by his palpation in what [(1)] is perceived by palpation, by his smell in what is perceived by smell, and by taste in what is perceived by taste, (and by describing the property[(2)]): There is no consideration for his standing in a place that if he had had sight he would have seen it, as it is[(3)] the statement of Abu Yusuf - may God be pleased with him. God bless him.

(And whoever sees one of the two garments and then buys them, then sees the other, he has the right to return them(1)[(2)] and not the other one alone): lest it be necessary[(3)] to break up the deal before completion.

(And whoever sees something [(1)] and then buys it, it is better if he finds it changed, otherwise [(2)] no (3), and the word is for the seller that it has not changed, and for the buyer that he has not seen it: that is, if he buys something that he has seen (4), and the seller says: It has not changed so that it is not [(5)] you have the choice, then the statement [(6) ] (1) is for the seller with his oath (2), and if the buyer says I did not see it, and I have (3) the choice, then the word is for the buyer [(4)] with the oath.

(And whoever (1) bought (2) a zatti and took possession of it[(3)] and sold a garment(4), or gave [a garment](5) and handed it over[(6)] he did not return it with the option of seeing it or with a condition[(7)], but rather with a defect: the zat(8)[(9)]: a generation[(10)] of people in the middle of Iraq, and the zatti garment is attributed to them, and the basic principle is that the return of some necessitates the severing of the deal[(1)], and he accepted it. Completeness is not permissible[(2)], and after completion is permissible.

Then the option of condition and vision prevent[(1)] the completion of the transaction, and the option of defect prevents it before receipt[(2)] and not after it[(3)]; This is [(4)] because if the option was stipulated for one of them, [full] satisfaction would not be achieved[(5)](6), and likewise [(7)] if the buyer did not see what he purchased. However, if the option was not stipulated, or if he stipulated and the one who had the option permitted it, or (8) the buyer saw the sold item and was satisfied with it, then after that, if he took delivery, the deal was completed with full satisfaction.

However, the sold item may be defective, and the buyer is not satisfied with it, so he cancels (1) the contract. This is an imaginary matter, so it does not prevent the completion of the deal. If the sold item is not taken, then the sale is subject to cancellation. If (2) perishes in the hands of the seller, then the contract is lifted. If the two matters come together, i.e. the absence of receipt and the presence of a defect, then one is strengthened by the other, then the transaction is not completed. This appears in the issue that follows, which is his saying: If two slaves bought a transaction and one of them took possession and found a defect in him or the other. Chapter on [the defect option] (3)[(4)]

(And for the buyer (5) who finds[(6)] with his purchase[(7) ](1) a defect(2)[(3)] whose price is reduced by the merchants(4)[(5) ] he returns it or takes it for all its price[(1)], not withholding it and taking its decrease[(2) ]): returning it is a matter of principle, and for the buyer(1) he experiences it, and decreases (2) its price: the quality of the defect.

(And staying [(3)] even for a short period of travel[(4)](5), and urinating in bed, and stealing a minor(6)[(7)][(8)] is considered [(1)] shameful[(2)]): He only said[(3)]: it is reasonable; Because the theft of a small, unreasonable person is not a defect, (and an adult defect is another defect [(4)]), a conjunction of two different agents, and the predicate (5) is preceded [(6)], (if it was stolen in their presence): that is, in the presence of the seller and the buyer, (when he was young): that is, in his youth with reason (returning it), even if it happened with him when he was young, and with the buyer when he was old, no.

(The insanity of a child [(2)] is a defect that will never be remitted [(3)] from someone who has committed insanity when he was young, then when he bought it, or in his old age. And incest (1) and sexual intercourse [(2)] (3) and adultery and procreation from it are a defect in it[: that is, in the nation] (4) but not in it (5)[(6)].

Infidelity is a defect in both of them, and istihaadah and the occurrence of menstruation in a girl of seven (1) ten years is not (2) the least defect (3)[(4)].

If an old defect appears after another [defect] (1) occurred to him, he has the right to reduce it[(2)] and cannot return it except with the consent (1) of its seller[(2)], such as a garment that he bought and then cut it and a defect appeared, and his seller took it[(3)] likewise, and the buyer does not return it[(4)] if he sells it): [that is, the buyer does not return for the decrease if he sells it] (5); Because the seller had the right to say: I take it defective, so the buyer of the sale would be in possession of the sold item and would not return for the deficiency.

(If he sewed it, or dyed it red(1)[(2)], or twisted[(3)] the stem with fat, and then its defect appears, the seller shall not take it[(4)] and return[(5)] with its deficiency): That is, the buyer returns with the defect reduced, and the seller does not have the right to say: I take it defective; Because the buyer’s property is mixed with the sold item, which is the thread, dye, and ghee.

(As if he sold it after seeing its defect): That is, just as the buyer returns with the decrease of the defect if he sells the [stitched](1) or (2) dyed or (3) woven garment after seeing its defect; Because by selling he did not become [(4)] a holder of the thing sold, since before the sale the seller had no right to take it defective; Because the buyer's property was mixed with it, the right of return [to him] (5) was not invalidated by the decrease, (or he emancipated him[(6)] before her for free, or he managed him, or he produced her(1), or he died with him before her): that is, before seeing the defect, the picture of the issues: that the buyer freed the slave for free, or he managed him, or he gave birth to the purchased item, or the purchased person died in the hands of the buyer, and then he became aware of a defect, so he returned with the decrease[(2)].

(And if he emancipates him for money, or kills him, or eats all or some of the food[(3)], or wears a garment and it is torn, he will not return it[(4)]): The upshot[(1)] is that death does not invalidate the return by reducing the defect; Because the buyer has nothing to do with it [(2)], and free emancipation does not invalidate it [also] (3) by approval, and by analogy [(4)] it invalidates it; Because emancipation was done by him, and it became like killing, the reason for desirability [(5)] is that emancipation has two similarities (1): (2) is similar to murder in that it was committed by the buyer. It is similar to death in that the origin of a human being is freedom, so kingship is temporary until the time of emancipation, so it is a return to the original state, and if it is after seeing the defect, that similarity is considered, then there is no return to it, unlike death after seeing the defect, for the right to return to it is established, even if it was before seeing the defect, this similarity is considered so that he has [in it] (3) the right of return. As for the other issues, there is no return due to a decrease in them.

(And if (4) he buys (5) [(6) ] eggs, or watermelon, or cucumbers, or cucumbers, or walnuts, and breaks them (1), and finds them (2) spoiled, then he has the loss of it to the beneficiary (3), and all of its price goes to someone else.

And whoever sells to his buyer(4) and responds to him[(5)] with a defect with a ruling by acknowledgment, evidence, or by acknowledgment, he will return to his seller, even if he returns with his consent, not: [that is,](1) he bought something, then sold it, and the second buyer claimed a defect on the first buyer, and proved that by evidence, or by evidence, or by acknowledgment, then the judge ruled and returned his seller. He had the right to dispute the first seller. He said in ((Al-Hidaya)): Meaning Judgment[(2)] by confession: He denied the confession, so he proved it with evidence(3).

If it is said (1) [(2)]: If the first buyer denies his acknowledgment of the defect, and proves this with evidence, it becomes as if he acknowledged it before the judge, because what is proven by evidence is like what is confirmed in person, so he should not have the jurisdiction to respond to the first seller, whether he acknowledged it before the judge, or denied his acknowledgment, so it is proven by evidence; Because acknowledgment is a weak argument, so what benefit is there in his saying: The meaning of the judiciary by acknowledgment is that he denied the acknowledgment?

We said: We did not make [(1)] the acknowledgment a transitive argument, and we did not say [(2)]: The response to the first buyer is a response to his seller. Rather, he has the right to dispute with his seller. If the second buyer (1) proves that the defect was in the hands of the first buyer and responds to him, then the first buyer if he proves that the defect was in the hands of his seller must return it (3) to him, otherwise not [(4)]. The difference [(5)] between his acknowledgment before the judge and proving his acknowledgment with evidence is that if he acknowledges it with the judge, he is obedient in taking the sold item, so it becomes as if (6) he bought from the second buyer, then he does not have jurisdiction to respond to the first seller. However, if he denies his acknowledgment of the defect, and it is proven (7) with evidence, he was not obedient in taking it, so taking it will be deemed void as if he had not sold it, so he has the right to dispute with his seller.

It has been said [(1)]: This issue is [if] (2) the second buyer claims against the first buyer that the defect was in the hands of the first (3) seller, then the first buyer has the right to dispute [the first seller] (4), but if he claims that the defect is in the hands of the first buyer, he does not have the right to dispute his seller.