អ៊ុមដាតុល រីអាយ៉ះ (ការពន្យល់ក្បួនច្បាប់វីកាយ៉ះ ហាណាហ្វី)

(And the branch’s statement [(1)]: An original lie (2) or (3) there is nothing wrong with it (4); Because the original lie is not proven by the statement of the branch, and the branch did not retract his testimony, so no attention should be paid to his statement. (And he included al-Muzaki[(5)] by reference): [On the authority of recommendation](6) This is according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - contrary to them; Because acclamation [(7)] made testimony testimony.

(No horse witness): That is, if they testify to adultery, and the witnesses testify to the adulterer’s immunity, and he is stoned, then the witnesses of the horse are returned, they are not liable; Because chastity is a pure condition[(1)] and no ruling is added to it other than recommendation[(1)], and they are both harsh[(2)] The one who recommends the chastity witness.

(As he guaranteed [(3)] the witness of the oath, not the condition [(4) ] if they returned [(1)]): That is, if (2) two witnesses testified that he conditional on the emancipation of his slave, and two others testified to the existence of the condition, and he ruled for emancipation, then all of them returned, he guaranteed (3) witnesses the oath; Because they are the ones with the reason. [And God knows best what is right] (4).

[Power of attorney letter] Agency book(1)[(2)]

(Power of attorney[(3)] is permissible: which is the authorization of action[(1)] to someone else, and its condition[(2)] is that the principal owns it(3). The accusative pronoun refers to the action, and it appears that what is meant is absolute action, so the phrase ((guidance)) [like this](4): It is a condition of the power of attorney that the client be someone who has the power to act by being free and of age, or (1) authorized(2). And if by disposal what is meant is the disposition for which he was appointed, not the absolute disposition, then their saying is not the saying of Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -, for if a Muslim appoints a non-Muslim to sell wine, it is permissible with him [but not with them](3), (and the agent makes sense of it and intends it): that is, he makes sense[(4)] that the sale takes away the property, and the purchase brings it, and he recognizes slight injustice from immorality, and intends(5) the contract even if he acts in jest, he does not fall out of the matter.

(It is correct [(1)] to appoint an adult free man or (2) an authorized person like them. And if he had said [(3)] both of them, then (4) would have been more comprehensive in covering the appointment of an adult free man like him and an authorized person...(5), and to delegate an authorized person like him and an adult free man. What is meant by [(6)] by an authorized person is a sane boy whom the guardian has authorized, and a slave whom the master has authorized, (and a sensible boy[(7)], and a quarantined slave). [In disposal](1), the [rights[(2)] of the contract](3) are returned to their principal and not to them): that is, if (4) the entire adult free man, or the authorized person, is a quarantined boy, or (5) a quarantined slave, the rights of the contract are returned to their client, and not (6) returned to them(7).

(With everything that he concludes (8) himself[(9)]), it relates to his saying that it is valid to assign a free agent to the end, (and to a dispute (1)[(2)] in every right, and he is not bound without the consent of his opponent): Some [(1)] sheikhs - may God be pleased with him - said: Power of attorney in a dispute without the consent of the opponent is invalid according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -, it is valid according to them, and some said: The difference is in binding, not in validity, and in ((Al-Hidaya))(1) chose this, (except for a client[(2)] who is sick and unable to attend the ruler’s council, or who is absent on a journey[(3)], or who wants(4) to travel), which is to be[(5)] occupied with preparing the kit(1) for travel(2)[(3)], (or drugged(4)[(5)] who is not accustomed to going out.

And by fulfilling it, and fulfilling it, except in fulfilling a fuel limit in the absence of its client[(1)]): That is, it is valid to delegate to give every right, as well as to take (1) every right, except that it is not valid to fulfill a fuel limit in the absence of the client due to the suspicion of pardoning(2) in retaliation, the suspicion that the slanderer is truthful in the punishment of slander, and the suspicion that he claims money and does not claim theft.

(And rights (3) are a contract that [(4)] the agent adds to himself): that is, in it he does not need[(5)] to mention the principal. In buying and selling on behalf of the principal, it is sufficient for the agent to say: I sold, or I bought, (such as a sale, or a rental (6), and he reconciles with an acknowledgment related to it[(7)] and he delivers the sold item): that is, in the agency to sell, (and he receives it): that is, in the agency to purchase, (and the price[(1)] of his sold. And he demands the price of what he bought (2). He disputes[(3)](4) regarding its defect, and the pre-emption of what he sold while it was in his possession[(5)]. If he delivers it to his commander, he shall not return it(6) with the defect, except with his permission, and he shall return the price he bought as a due): This is all according to us, and according to al-Shafi’i(7) - may God be pleased with him -[(8)] he returns the rights to the principal, but he must know that the rights are of two types: The agent has the right. The agent has a right. The first: such as taking possession of the sold item, demanding the purchaser’s price, disputing over the defect, and returning the price for what is due. In this type, the agent has jurisdiction over these matters, but he is not obligated to do so. If he abstains, the principal does not force him to do these actions. Because he is a benefactor (1) in the work, rather he entrusts the principal to these (2) actions, and some of this will be mentioned in ((The Book of Mudaraba)) (3), which is his saying: And so are the other agents. If the agent dies, then the guardianship of these actions goes to his heirs. If they abstain, they entrust (4) the client of their inheritor, and according to Al-Shafi’i - may God be pleased with him - the principal has the guardianship of these actions without authorization from the agent, or his heir (5).

In the other type[(6)]: The agent is a defendant, so the plaintiff may force the agent to deliver the sold item, the price and their equivalents.

(The ownership [(1)] is established for the principal initially, and the relative of an agent who bought him is not freed): That is, if the agent buys, then it is more correct (2) [(3)] that ownership be established for the principal initially, and according to some sheikhs - may God be pleased with him - ownership is established first for the agent, then it is transferred from him to his principal due to a contract concluded between them, even if it is not verbal, but rather a requirement of the previous authorization (1), then according to the first conclusion [(2)]: If he appoints someone (3) to buy It is close to its owner, so he bought it and is not freed by the agent. Because he does not own it, and according to the second interpretation: he is not emancipated either; Because it proves to the agent (4) an undetermined ownership, so he is not emancipated.

(And the rights of a contract that he adds [(1)] to his client (1): such as marriage, divorce, reconciliation without denial, or intentional bloodshed, emancipation on the basis of money, writing, gift, charity, loan, deposit, mortgage, and lending that relate (2) to the principal and not to him (3) [(4) ], so neither the representative of a husband (1) demands the dowry, nor the wedding agent to deliver her, nor in exchange for (2) divorce.

The buyer has the right to withhold[(3)] the price from his seller’s client(4), so if (5) it is paid to him, it is valid[(6)], and his seller does not demand it again[(7)]. Know [(1)] that in some of these examples, it is added to the agent or the principal. As for selling and leasing, there is no doubt that they do not need to mention the client, so they are from the first category, and marriage and divorce do not do without it...(2) They are from the second category.

As for reconciliation, there is no difference between it being based on acknowledgment or denial in the addition. If Zaid claimed a house from Amr, then Amr appointed an agent to reconcile the percent (1), so Zaid says: I made a reconciliation regarding the claim of the house against Amr the percent, and the agent accepts this reconciliation. The reconciliation is completed whether it is based on acknowledgment or (2) [from] (3) denial, [except] (4) that if it is based on acknowledgment, it is like a sale, and the rights are returned to the agent as in a sale, so it is handed over (5) Instead of reconciliation, the agent must pay the agent, and if it is based on denial, then it is the redemption of an oath against the defendant, as the agent is a pure ambassador and the rights are not returned to him.

Chapter on agency in buying and selling [(6) ] [Separation of purchase]

(The command to buy food[(1)] on wheat in their homes is in abundance, on bread in a small amount, on flour in an average amount, and in the case of a person who takes a feast on bread in any case), this agency must be invalid; Because food applies to everything that is eaten, so the ignorance of its gender is obscene, but what is common in saying: “Buy me food” is that it means wheat, or flour, or (1) bread (2).

(It is not valid [(3)] to buy something obscene out of ignorance (4) of its gender, such as a slave, a garment, or an animal, even if its price is explained. Know that every two things are united in their reality and purposes, so they are of one kind, and if the reality or (1) purposes differ, then they are of two kinds. If the obscenity of ignorance of the kind is that he mentioned a kind with genders under it, such as the slave, then it is divided into male and female, and they are two genders among the sons of Adam; Because of the different purposes, then each of them may be intended for beauty, as in the Turkish, or may be intended for service, as in the Indian, and likewise for the garment and the animal, so it is not valid to be an agent to buy these things, even if the price is stated.

(Unless he mentions [(2)] the type of animal such as a donkey): What is meant by [(3)](4) is the type here. (5) The lower type in the jurists’ terminology: call it the type; Because it is a type in relation to the highest, and in logic it is called an additional type, (or the price of the house and the place[(6)))(1). The house is among the things[(2)] whose type is obscene and whose type is unknown, so its price and place must be made clear.

(It is valid (1) to buy knowing its type, not its description, such as a sheep and a cow), because they are one type due to the union of purpose and benefit, so there is no need to explain the description, such as fat and lean, (and [it is valid][(2)](3) to purchase[(4)] something whose type is unknown from a standpoint, such as a slave, and whose type is mentioned, such as a Turk, or the price of an eye of a kind). Different. If he specifies its type, like the Turkish (7), the agency is valid (8), and the same applies if he specifies a price, and the price is such that the type is known from it.

(And by purchasing an item[(1)] with a debt owed to him by his agent)(2), what is meant[(3)] by an item is the designated thing, (and in a property other than an item[(4)] if it perishes in the hands of the agent, it is destroyed for it, and if the one in charge takes it, it is his.): That is, he commanded him to buy for the thousand that he owed the person in charge, and he did not designate the slave, so he bought it and it died in the hands of the person in charge, so its destruction is upon him, and the one in charge has no choice but to take possession of it[(1)], and this is according to Abu Hanifa - May God be pleased with him - based on the fact that [(2)] the agency was not (1) valid; Because dirhams and dinars are specified in agencies, so the purchase is restricted to that [debt](2), so the ownership of the debt becomes from someone other than the person who owes the debt without authorizing that other person, and this is not valid(3) unlike if the slave is appointed, in which case the seller [becomes](4) then an agent to collect the debt, so ownership of the debt is valid. According to them [(5)]: If the commander takes possession of it, it becomes the property of the commander; Because the dirhams and dinars were not specified (6), the authorization (7) was not limited to the debt, so (8) the agency was valid, [so it] (9) belongs to the one who ordered it.