អ៊ុមដាតុល រីអាយ៉ះ (ការពន្យល់ក្បួនច្បាប់វីកាយ៉ះ ហាណាហ្វី)

I say [(5)]: There is consideration; Because if he claims that the defect (6) is in the hands of the first seller, establishes evidence against him, and judges the first buyer, then this ruling is not a judgment against the first seller, and this evidence was not established against the first seller [nor his representative] (7); Because what is claimed[(8)] about the absent is not a reason for what is called about the present(1).

(If [(1)] his buyer (1) arrests and claims a defect, he is not forced[(2)] to pay its price until his seller(1) swears an oath(1), or establishes evidence(2), so his saying: or establishes. ...(3) In conjunction with his saying: He was not forced. It is not a reference to his saying: his seller swears (4); Because then establishing evidence is the goal of non-redress. If (5) evidence is established, non-redress ends, so reparation is required to pay the price when establishing proof of the defect, [which is incorrect] (6). The bottom line is that if the buyer claims a defect, he provides proof of his claim and returns it, and if he does not have proof, his seller swears that there is no defect, and in that case he is forced to pay the price without swearing, for one of the two matters is established: Either establishing evidence of the necessity of the defect. Or not being forced to pay the price until [the seller] swears an oath (7).

If he puts his statement in the accusative case: or evaluates, then it has a reason [(1)], which is that [it should be] (2) What is meant by not being forced to pay the price is not being forced to pay it on the condition that it is obligatory by virtue of (3) the sale, and it is concerned with one of the two matters: Either he swears that it is [no] (4) defective, then he is forced to pay the price[(5)]. Or establishing evidence of the existence of the defect, in which case the sale is annulled, and the price is no longer obligatory, so the lack of reparation ends on the condition that it is obligatory.

(And in the absence of his witnesses, he pays [the price] (1) if (2) his seller swears (3), and he is liable for his defect if he fails [(4)]): [that is] (5) if the buyer says: My witnesses are absent. He paid the price if the seller swore (6) that there was no defect, and if the seller was obligated (7) the defect was proven.

(If he claims[(1)] that he left it[(2)] he establishes proof first that he kept it with him, then his seller swears(3)[(4)]: By God he sold it and delivered it and [he never left it, or by God he has [(1)] no right to respond to this claim of his, or by God] (2) he never left it with you, not by God he sold it and it has this defect, not by God he sold it. And peace be upon him, and he does not have this defect.) But he should not swear in these two ways: In the first case [(3)] the defect may not have occurred at the time of sale, but it may occur after the sale before delivery, and based on this assessment, the buyer has the right of return as well.

As for the second [(1)](2); Because the seller can interpret his words to mean that the defect was not present at the time of sale and delivery, meaning that the presence of the defect in each of them is incomplete, so it is possible that it was present at the time of delivery and not the sale. If you say: This possibility is proven in his saying: He sold it and delivered it and never kept it: that is, he found each one of them, and he did not keep it when each one was present (3), then it is possible that he kept it when there was delivery and not the sale. I said: The word “cat” contradicts this meaning. Because it is placed for general plunder [(4)] in the past, and that meaning is general plunder.

(And when [(1)] the buyer does not prove that the defect is with him, the seller (2) swears to them that he did not know that he kept it with him, and they disagreed on the words of Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -), it was mentioned that the buyer established evidence first that he kept it with him, and if he does not have proof, his seller swears to them that you did not know that he kept it with the buyer; Because of his saying - may God’s prayers and peace be upon him -: ((Evidence[(3)] is upon the plaintiff, and the oath is upon the one who denies))(4), everything is proven by evidence, so when it is incapable, the oath is directed against the denier.)

The sheikhs disagreed [(1)] - may God be pleased with them - according to the words of Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -, and the reason for not swearing an oath is that the oath [(2)] is directed only to the opponent, and he does not become [(3)] an opponent except after the defect has been established on his part, so this cannot be proven by swearing; Because it is the turn of (4) [(5)], as for evidence, it may be established [(1)] so that he becomes an adversary, [but] (2) he does not swear to become an adversary. The difference is that the obligation to swear is harmful, so if he is not an adversary, there is no reason to compel harm to him other than establishing evidence, since the plaintiff has a choice (3) in [establishing evidence] (4), so it is easier [than] (5) forcing harm to him, so establishing evidence is a way to prove that he is an adversary, not swearing.

(And if the seller says [(1)] after the exchange [(2)]: I sold you this defective (3) with another, and the buyer says: Rather, this alone, then the statement is his (4): That is, [if] (5) a defect appears in the sold item after the exchange, and the buyer (6) returns it and asks (7) for the price, then the seller says: This price is in exchange for this thing with another thing, and the buyer says: Rather, it is in exchange for this thing alone, then the statement is for him with the oath; Because the difference occurred in the amount of what was received, so the word is for the one who seized, as in usurpation (8)[(9)].

(The same applies if they agree on the value of the thing sold, and disagree on the value of what is received): That is, they agree that the thing sold is two things, but they disagree on what is received, so the buyer said: I took only one of them, and the seller said: Rather, I took them both, so the decision is up to the buyer as stated above (1) [(2)].

(And if he bought (3) two slaves [(4)] in a transaction, and took possession of one of them and found a defect in him or the other[(5)] he would take them or return them, and if he took possession of them[(6)] he would return the defective one in particular: because the transaction[(1)] is only completed by taking possession, so before taking possession it is not permissible[(2)] to separate the deal, and after taking possession it is permissible[(3)].

(My representative[(1)] or my weight shall be seized(2)[(3)] if some of it is found to be defective. Return it all or take it): Because if it is of one kind, it is like one thing[(1)], and it was said: This[(2)] if it is in one container, even if it is in two containers, then it is in the status of two slaves, so the container in which the defective item is returned(3)(4).

(And if some of it was due, the rest of it would not be returned other than the garment[(1)]): Because it does not harm him in exchange[(2)], and the entitlement[(3)] does not prevent the completion of the transaction; Because its completion is with the consent of the contracting parties, and this is after receipt [(4)], but if some of it is due before receipt, the buyer has the right to cancel the remainder; To separate (1) the deal before completion[(2)]. As for the garment, separation (3) harms it[(4)]. He has the choice regarding the rest.

(And treating a defective one [(1)] and riding him in his need (2) is satisfaction, and if he rode him [(3)] to return it or to water it (4) or to buy (5) his fodder and it is necessary for him (6) [(7)] then it is not [(8)].

And if [(1)] [his hand](2) was cut off after his arrest, or he was killed for a reason that was with his seller, he would return it, and take its price[(3)])(4), the return[(5)] would be in the form of amputation, but in the case of murder, there is no return, but rather he would take the price from Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -; Because [(1)] this is in the status of entitlement according to (2), but as for (3) according to them, it returns a decrease; Because this [(4)] is in the status of a defect, so it is without this defect, then with this defect, so the seller is liable for the disparity between them, just as if he bought a [female] (5) who was pregnant, and she died in his hand by giving birth, then he returns thanks to what (6) between its value when she was pregnant and not pregnant, and according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - that the cause of the loss was in the hands of the seller, so if it perished in the hands of the buyer, it is in addition to that cause [(7)] unlike pregnancy, for it (8) is not a cause. To destruction[(9)].

(And if he sells and clears himself of any defect, it is valid even if he does not return it): According to Al-Shafi’i (1) - may God be pleased with him - it is not valid[(2)] based on his principle that acquittal of unknown rights is not valid according to him[(3)], and with us it is valid[(4)] since omitting the unknown does not harm him(5); [Because] (6) it does not lead (7) to a dispute, then this acquittal [(8)] includes the existing defect, and also the defect (9) that occurred before the arrest according to Abu Yusuf (10) [(1)] - may God be pleased with him -, and according to Muhammad - may God be pleased with him - it does not include the defect that occurred [(2)].

Chapter on corrupt sales [(3) ]

(It is invalidated(1)[(2)] to sell what is not money: such as blood[(3)], a dead animal[(4)](5), and a free animal[(6)], and selling with it[(7)], as well as[(8)] selling the mother of a child[(1)], the owner, and offices, and selling property that is not valued(2)[(3)]: such as wine and pigs for the price).

Know that money is a source in which competition and vulgarity take place(1), and from it comes out dust(2) and the like[(3)], and blood and the dead body that died before his nose(4)[(5)]. As for [the dead animal](6) that was strangled[(7)], or wounded in a place other than the place of slaughter, as is the custom of some infidels and the sacrifices of the Magians, then it is invalid[(8)], [except](9) that it is not cured, like wine and pork. And the heat comes out of him; Because it is not vulgar, rather it is vulgar (10). Undeveloped money is money that we are commanded to disdain, but in a religion other than that, it is devoid of money.

For everything that is not money, the sale of it is invalid[(1)] whether it is made for sale or price. Everything that is not worth its value, then if it is sold for the price, i.e. in dirhams or dinars, then the sale is invalid[(2)], and if it is sold by offer or the offer is sold for it, then the sale [on offer](3) is invalid(4)[(5)]. Falsehood is that which is not true in its origin and description. What is corrupt is correct in its origin, not in its description (6).