អ៊ុមដាតុល រីអាយ៉ះ (ការពន្យល់ក្បួនច្បាប់វីកាយ៉ះ ហាណាហ្វី)

(And oil is to be weighed according to its circumstance, and such-and-such a pound is subtracted from it for each circumstance (5)): It only spoils; Because it is a condition that is not required by the contract, but rather what is required by the contract is that the amount and its weight be subtracted in exchange for the circumstance, as in the second issue (6), which is what he said: (In contrast to the condition (7), the weight of the circumstance is subtracted from it, and if (8) they differed regarding the same circumstance and its value, then the saying to the buyer: That is, he bought fat in a skin (9) [(10)] and returned the envelope, which is ten pounds, and the seller said: The skin is different from this, and it is five (11) pounds. So the buyer says (12) [(13)].

(And the sale and gift of the stream was invalidated, and it was clear on the road): That is, the sale and gift on the road was valid. It was said[(1)]: If I want the neck of the stream and the road, then the amount (1) of what is flowing by (2) the water is unknown, so it is not permissible to sell or give it. As for the road, it is known, and if it is not made clear, it is estimated by the width of (3) the door of the house such and such in ((Chapter of Division)) (4), then the sale and gift is permissible in it, even if the right of the stream (5) is wanted, if it is on the land. It is unknown (6) as to what passed, and if it was on the surface, it is the right to ascend, as it is a right attached to an eye that does not remain, and the right to pass through it (7) has two narrations: The reason for invalidation is not money (8). The reason for health is the need for it, and it is a known right related to the essence of Baqi (9).

(And the Muslim [(10)] ordered to sell (1) wine or pig, or to buy them as a non-Muslim, and the Muhrim ordered (2) others to sell his catch): So his saying: And he commanded; Conjunction with the nominative pronoun connected in his saying: And he was healthy, so this (3) conjunction is permissible [(4)]; Because of the separation, which is his saying: on the way; This is according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -, and according to them: it is not permissible; [(5) ] Because the client does not appoint him himself, so no one else appoints him as appointee. And for him: The contracting party [(1)], who is the agent, acts according to his capacity (2).

(And [true] (3) is the sale [(4) ] under a condition required by the contract: such as the condition of ownership for the buyer, or it is not required and there is no benefit from it for anyone: such as the condition that he does not sell the animal being sold, other than a condition that is not required by [the contract][(1)] (2), and it has a benefit for one of the contracting parties, or for the seller who is entitled to it (3)): That is, the sold item is eligible to benefit [(4)] by being a human, so it appears (5) that his statement: There is no benefit in it for anyone who intends it for any of the contracting parties and the seller who is entitled to benefit, even if the benefit is for the seller who is not entitled to benefit: as a condition that he does not sell the animal being sold, this condition is not invalid.

(As a condition [(1)] that the seller (2) cut it and sew it into an cloak (3), or fit it with [(4)] (5) a sandal, or attach it to it: that is, he makes a shoe for the sandal [(6)]. This is equivalent to a condition that is not required by the contract and in which it benefits the buyer (7).

(Or (2) he uses it for a month[(3)]): That is, the seller uses it for a month, and this[(4) ](1) is in exchange for a condition not required by the contract and which benefits the seller(2). [(Or he emancipates him, or manages him, or writes for him): This (3) is in exchange for a condition that is not stipulated in the contract and in which there is a benefit to the seller] (4), and he is eligible to be entitled to the benefit. (And the sale of [a female slave] (5) except carrying it): a conjunction of a condition not required by [the contract, and the principle [(6)] [in that] (7) is that everything that is not valid to be singled out [by the contract is not valid to exclude from the contract] (8), for everything that is not valid to be singled out by the contract] (9) is an accessory to the thing, so it is included in the sold (10) as a consequence of it, so excluding it from the contract [condition] (11) is not The contract requires it, so it is invalid.

(And to [(1) ] Nowruz (1), and the festival (2), and the Christian fast and (3) the Jewish fast if they do not know that (4), and the arrival of the pilgrim, and the harvest, and the diyas (5), and the harvesting, and the shearing (6): The harvesting: reaping (7) the fruit from the trees, and the shearing (8): cutting the wool from (9) the backs of the sheep.

(And sponsorship (1) for her [is permissible] (2)): That is, sponsorship is permissible until these times; Because ignorance [(3)] is easy to bear in the guarantee [(4)] [without selling] (5).

(It is valid[(1)](2) if the deadline is dropped before it comes): That is, if these unknown deadlines(3) are dropped before they come, the sale becomes valid(4).

[Chapter on its rulings] Then (1) know that the ruling in a void sale is that if the sold item perishes in the hands of the buyer, then according to some (2)[(3)]: a trust, and according to some (4)[(5)]: guaranteed by the value like the one received on the purchase price. As for the ruling on corrupt sales, in the text he stated its rulings, saying (6):

(If the buyer receives the sold item in an invalid sale with the express consent of its seller[(1)], or by implication, such as receiving it(2) in the (3) contract session, and everyone who compensates him is money that he owns[(4)](1)) If it is said[(2)]: Our talk is in the invalid sale, then each of the two compensations would be money at all, since if [the sale(3) had not been money](4) then the sale would have been invalid.

We said [(5)]: The corrupt may be mentioned, and what is meant by it is false, just as in the beginning of ((Book (1) Al-Quduri)) (2) he made the sale of dead animals corrupt, and it is invalid; That is why he said: And whoever compensates him with money; As a precaution, even if it includes (3) the corrupt and invalid, this restriction will be a way out of this ruling, which is that [the sold item] (4) becomes property, although the sale may be corrupt, even though not everyone who compensated him will be money, as if he sells and remains silent about the price, then the sale is invalid in both of them until he takes ownership by taking possession [(5)] and the price is required, which is (6) the value.

(He is obligated [(1)] to have something like it in fact or in meaning: that is, if it perishes in the hands of the buyer, he is obligated to [(2)] have something similar in fact[(3)] with the same meaning, and the like has a meaning: which is the value [at the time of receipt](4) with the same value.

(And each of them[(5)] has the right to cancel it before receipt, and also after it as long as it is in the possession of the buyer, if the corruption (1) is at the heart of the contract, such as selling a dirham for two dirhams (2). Each of them has the right to cancel. Because annulment is a right (3) of Sharia law, not a right (4) of [one] (5) of the two parties to the contract, so they are satisfied with the contract.

(If the buyer sells it [(1)], or gifts it and hands it over, or emancipates it, it is valid, and he must pay its value, and the right to cancel it is forfeited.) Because [(2)] the right of the servant (3) is attached to it, but (4) is annulled [a right] (5) of God Almighty, and when the right of God Almighty and the right of the servant come together, the right of the servant outweighs the right of the servant due to his need.

(The seller (2) does not take it until he returns its price (3): That is, the seller, if he cancels the [incorrigible] sale (4), he does not take the sold product until he returns the price; Because the sold item is locked at the price[(5)] after cancellation. (If he dies, then the buyer has more right to it until he takes its price): that is, he sold something [sale]((6)) that was corrupt and the exchange took place, then the sale was annulled, then the seller died, so the buyer[(7)] has the right to withhold the sold item until he takes the price and is not an example[(8)] to the seller’s creditors.

(It is good for the seller to profit from his price after exchanging [(1)] but not for the buyer (2) to profit from what he sold and give it in charity (3). The example of the issue: He sold a slave girl in an invalid sale for dirhams or dinars and exchanged money, so the buyer sold the slave girl and made a profit. He does not like the profit, but if the seller makes a profit in the price, it is good for him to make the profit.

The difference [(4)] is that the thing sold is specified [(1)] in the contract, so there is malice in it; Because of the corruption of the king, and in the corruption of the king there is a suspicion of lack of kingship, so the suspicion is attached to the truth in sanctity; The Prophet - may God bless him and grant him peace -: ((He forbade [(2)] usury and suspicion))(3). As for dirhams and dinars, they are not specified[(1)] in the contract, and if they were [in it] (2) specified, there would be suspicion of malice due to corruption, then when they are not specified (3) there is a suspicion in the attachment of the contract to them, so there is (4) suspicion of suspicion[(5)], and it has no consideration[(6)], this[(7)] in malice due to [corruption of the king.

As for malice due to] (1) lack of ownership, this includes both types according to Abu Hanifa [(2)] - may God be pleased with him -, meaning: if he makes a profit from the usurped item, it is not good, whether the usurped item is from what is available, such as a female slave, for example, or from what is not available, such as dirhams and dinars, even if he sells the usurped dirhams [or dinars] (3) and makes a profit from it, it is not good; Because in the first is the reality of malice, and in the second [(4)] is suspicion, and the suspicion is attached to the truth.

(As it was good [(1)] he won what he claimed and the money was paid, then it became apparent that he did not have it by making an honesty): That is, he claimed money from a man and paid it off, and the plaintiff won from it, then they agreed that this money was not owed by the defendant, so the profit is good; Because [(2)] the money awarded [for] (3) is in exchange for the debt, which is the right of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff sold his debt for what he took, so if they agreed that there was no debt, it becomes as if he was entitled to the property of the seller, and the substitute for what is due is owned by corrupt property, so the sale in the right of the substitute is a corrupt sale, and the malice does not affect what is not determined by the specification (4).