អ៊ុមដាតុល រីអាយ៉ះ (ការពន្យល់ក្បួនច្បាប់វីកាយ៉ះ ហាណាហ្វី)

(If the thing sold is one-eyed, or [(1)] stepped on a profitable garment[(2)] without explanation): That is, he is not obliged[(3)] to say: I bought it intact and it had one-eyed defect in my hand, and with Abu Yusuf[(4)] - may God be pleased with him - and Al-Shafi’i (1)[(2)] - may God be pleased with him - he is obliged to explain this; Because there is no doubt that (3) the price is reduced by being one-eyed, and what was said[(4)]: The descriptions are not equivalent to any of the price, so what it means is that the descriptions do not have a known share of the price, not that (5) the price does not increase because of the description and does not decrease by its loss (6), provided that this sale is based on trust, so the previous precautions (7) are not appropriate for this.

But we answer that there was no delusion on the part of the seller, for he was truthful when he said, “It was given to me with such-and-such” (1), but the buyer was deceived [in it] (2) by his foolishness, so he (3) should ask him: Did you (4) buy such-and-such intact or (5) defective? So that (6) the situation becomes clear to him, if he fails to do so, the seller is not obligated to reveal a situation that he did not ask (7) about.

(And if you miscarry[(1)], or have intercourse with a virgin, he is obliged to explain it, and cut[(2)] a mouse, and burn the purchased garment with fire like the first(3)[(4)], and break it(5) by spreading it and folding it like the second(6)[(7)].

And whoever buys [(1)] a coin and wins it without specifying, the best is the buyer, and if he destroys it[(1)] and then finds out, he is obligated to pay all its price, and the same applies to the guardianship(2)[(3)].

If he pays [(1)] what he was charged for, and the buyer does not know its value, then the sale is invalidated (2), and if he finds out in the council, it is better (3).

[Chapter explaining the disposition of the item sold and the price before taking possession of it] It is not permissible[(1)] to sell a purchaser before taking possession of it except in the case of real estate[(2)]): The difference[(3)] between them is ((that the Prophet[(1)] - may God bless him and grant him peace - forbade the sale of what has not been received))(2) explaining that there is deception in (3) cancellation of (4) the contract based on the estimate of destruction, and destruction in real estate is rare, and according to Muhammad[(5)] - may God be pleased with him - It is also not permissible to use real estate in accordance with the general prohibition.

(And whoever buys a measure by measure[(1)]): that is, on the condition of measure, (he does not sell it[(2)](3) and does not eat it until he measures it)(4), for he - may God’s prayers and peace be upon him - [(5)] ((He forbade selling food until two sa’s are spent on it, the seller’s Sa’(6) [(1)], [and the buyer’s Sa’))(2).

(And the condition of the seller’s agent after selling it in the presence of the buyer) even if (1) the seller appointed him before the sale] (2) then (3) is not taken into account[(4)] and if (5) [the seller] appointed (6) in the presence of the buyer, and likewise [(7)] if his agent after the sale was in the absence of (8) the buyer, (it is sufficient (9) in the Sahih[(10)])(11): That is, if the seller’s agent after the sale in the presence of the buyer is (12) sufficient[(13)], and it is not It is required that the buyer be appointed agent after that, and the meaning of the aforementioned hadith is that if the two deals come together with the condition of measure, as will be mentioned in ((Chapter of Salam)), which is if he converts to Islam in a kar [barr](1) and when the deadline comes, the deliverer to him buys a karra from a man, or he commands the owner of the peace to take possession of it for him, then collect it for himself, so he assigns it to [him] (2), [and then assigns it] (3) to himself, it is permissible[(4)]. (The same goes for what is weighed or (5) counted[(6)]): That is, he does not sell it or eat it until he weighs it or counts it a second time. It is sufficient [weighing](7) if he weighs it or counts it after the sale in the presence of the buyer. (Not what is used as a pretext): that is, it is not required [(8)] what was mentioned in the second pretext (9).

(It is correct to dispose[(1)] of the price(2)[(3)] before receiving it, such as when the seller takes a dress from the buyer in exchange for the price, (and to deduct from it[(4)] and more on it when the sold item is established, not after it is destroyed): His saying: When the sold item is established; Related (1) to the additional amount in it, the increase over the price is not valid (2) after the destruction of the sold item, but the reduction [of it] (3) is valid.

(And in the item sold [(4) ]): That is, the increase in the item sold is valid, (and (1) its entitlement relates to all of it)(2): It can be meant that the seller[(3)] is entitled to all of the price of the excess and the excess, and the buyer is entitled to all of the sold item of the excess and the additional amount, and it can be (4)[(5)] to mean that if the person entitled to [the item sold] is entitled to (1) or the price, then the entitlement relates to all of the corresponding excess (2) and the additional amount, so the excess is not relevant. It is initiated, as is the doctrine of Zafar - may God be pleased with him - and Al-Shafi’i[(3) ] - may God be pleased with him -, (So he wins[(1)] and he takes over the whole thing if it increases, and over what remains if it decreases): the increase and the decrease are joined to the origin of the contract. (The intercessor takes the lesser in the two terms [(2)]): that is, the increase over the price and the decrease from it. As for degradation; Because he joined the original contract. As for the increase; Because his right is linked to the first price, others do not have the right to revoke his established right. (If he said: Sell your servant from Zaid for a thousand on the condition that I guarantee such and such part of the price except the thousand, he would take the thousand from Zaid and the extra from him, even if he did not say about the price, then the thousand is on Zaid and nothing is due on him (3)[(4)].

And every debt (1) deferred for a specified period (2)[(3)] is valid [(4)] except the loan[(5)]: for it becomes [on term](6) Selling dirhams for bad dirhams, so it is not permissible[(7)]; Because it becomes usury; Because criticism is better than credit (1).

Chapter on usury[(2)] (It is a preference[(1)] free of compensation as a condition for one of the contracting parties[(2)] in exchange[(3)]): That is, the preference of one of the homogeneous people over the other according to the legal standard: i.e. the measure, or the weight. The preference (4) of a barley qafiz (5) over a qafiz of wheat does not fall under the heading of usury[(6)], and similarly the preference of ten (7) cubits of a Harawite garment over five cubits of it is not of this nature. The door.

And [but] (1) he said: free of compensation; As a precaution against selling a kg of wheat and a kg of barley for a kg of wheat [and] (2) a kg of barley, the second has an advantage over the first, but is not free of compensation for converting (3) the type to a different type. He said: A condition for one of the contracting parties. Even if he stipulated for something other than them, it would not be [under the heading of usury] (4), and he said in exchange: Until the credit [(5)] that is devoid of (6) the compensation that is in the gift is not usury (7).

(And its reason [(8)] is the quantity with the gender): what is meant by the quantity is the measure in measures, and the weight in the weighted ones.

According to Al-Shafi’i (1) - may God be pleased with him -: taste[(2)] in foodstuffs, price in prices, nationality[(1)] is a condition, equality is sincere, and the principle is inviolability. According to Malik (2) - may God be pleased with him -: Its reason is taste and saving [(3)].

(So ​​it was forbidden[(1)] to sell weighted and weighted ones of different kinds[(2)] even if they were not grafted: such as plaster and iron. Plaster is one of the measures, and iron is one of the weighted ones. There is a disagreement between Al-Shafi’i (3) - may God be pleased with him - and Malik (4) - may God be pleased with him - based on what we mentioned [(5)] of the reason. (And it is solved identically): that is, the sale of the mentioned things.

(And without a standard): that is, it is permissible to sell differentially (6) in what is not included in the standard (7), (such as a handful [(8) ] for two handfuls (1), an egg for two eggs, and a date for two dates): And according to Al-Shafi’i (2) - may God be pleased with him - it is not permissible to sell food that is eaten a handful for two handfuls (3) based on what we mentioned of the reason and based on the principle that we have it is permissible, and with it it is forbidden, so with us what is included in the measure is prohibited, and what is not included in it remains according to the law. Its origin is the solution, and according to Al-Shafi’i - may God be pleased with him - the origin is prohibition, and equality is sincere in what is not included in the legal level, and it is the measure that remains on the origin, which is prohibition, but [(4)](5) he made prohibition a principle (6); According to his saying - may God bless him and grant him peace -: ((Do not sell food for food unless it is equal))(7) What is not equal is forbidden.

We said [(1)]: The meaning is: Do not sell food that falls within the Sharia level (2) except in equal measure, just as if it is said: Do not kill animals except with a knife, what is meant is the animal that can be killed with a knife, not lice (3) or fleas.

(If both descriptions exist, then virtue and women are forbidden, and if they are not, it is permissible, and if one of them exists, not the other (4) it is permissible for differentiation (5) not for women... (6) like a clog of wheat in a clog and wheat in barley): That is, if there is[(7)] quantity and gender, then it is forbidden to virtue, like a clog of wheat with two cloves of it, and women, even if they are equal, like a clog of wheat with a clog of [br] (1) one or both of them is a nisa. The absence of both of them disqualifies everyone from virtue and women. If one of them is found but not the other, then the credit is permissible, not the women. Just as if he sold (2) a qafiz of wheat for two qafis of barley, hand to hand, it is permissible. One of the two parts of the problem, which is the measure, is present here, not the other part, which is the nationality. If five cubits of raw clothing are sold for six cubits of it, hand to hand, it is also permissible. Because nationality exists without destiny, and it is not permissible to be a relative in both forms, provided that the first is equal to him; This is because the part of the reason, although it does not necessitate the ruling, but it creates suspicion, and the suspicion in the matter of usury is attached to the truth, but it is smaller than the truth, so both sides must be taken into account.

In the Nasi'ah, one of the two exchanges is non-existent, and the sale of the non-existent item is not permissible, so this meaning becomes more likely for that suspicion and it is not permissible, and in [other than] (1) the an-Nasi'ah, the suspicion was not considered when we said that the suspicion is worse than the truth, even though the well-known report [(2)], which is his saying - may God bless him and grant him peace -: ((If the two types differ, then sell as you wish after it is hand to hand))(3) supports what we said.