អ៊ុមដាតុល រីអាយ៉ះ (ការពន្យល់ក្បួនច្បាប់វីកាយ៉ះ ហាណាហ្វី)

(And swearing by God, not by divorce and emancipation[(3)](4), and if the opponent(5) insists[(6)], it is said: Both are valid in our time(1): That is, it is permissible for the judge to swear by him(2) by divorce and emancipation, (and to be harsh with His attributes[(3)]), such as: By God, the seeker and the conqueror[(4)], the One who comprehends the destroyer, the living who never dies [1], and so on, (not by time and place), this In our view, and in the view of Al-Shafi’i (2) [(3)] - may God be pleased with him - it becomes thicker in time, such as after the afternoon prayer on Friday, and in location (4), such as in the mosque (5), the mosque near the pulpit.

(And the Jew[(1)] swore[(1)] by God who revealed the Torah to Moses - may God bless him and grant him peace -, and the Christian[(2)] swore by God who revealed the Gospel to Jesus - may God bless him and grant him peace -, and the Magi[(3)] by God who created the fire, and the pagan(1)[(2)] by God Almighty, and they do not swear in their temples(3)[(4)].

He swears[(1)] on the outcome(2)[(3)] in the sale and marriage: By God, there is no existing sale or marriage between you immediately[(4)], and in divorce: it is not clear from you[(5)] now, and in usurpation[(1)]: what you must return, not on the reason[(2)] by God I did not sell him, and the like), such as: by God I did not marry her, and by God I did not divorce her(3), and by God You have not been usurped; Because [(4)] these reasons are removed by selling something, then exchanging it (5), and if he swears on the reason, the defendant will be harmed. This is according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - [and Muhammad - may God be pleased with him -] (6).

According to Abu Yusuf - may God be pleased with him -: He swears on the reason in all of this[(1)] except when exposing the defendant by saying: O judge, do not swear to me on the reason, for a person may sell, then be fired(2), or divorced and then remarry. It was said(3)[(4)]: The defendant’s denial is considered. If he denies the reason, he swears to it, and if he denies [the ruling](5) he swears to what happened [like a claim of pre-emption](6), this is what they said.

Someone might say (1) [(2)]: He should always swear on the reason, and if the defendant presents it, then that oath is not considered; Because the purpose of the chapter is that the sale took place, then the dismissal occurred. In the dismissal lawsuit, the defendant becomes a plaintiff, so he must prove the dismissal, and if he is unable, the plaintiff must take an oath.

(Unless [it is necessary][(1)](2) to abandon consideration to the plaintiff(3), then he swears on the cause, such as a claim for pre-emption by neighbourhood, or the maintenance of the divorced person(4), and the opponent does not see them): that is, he swears on the outcome[(5)] [Unless it is necessary for the one to swear on the outcome to abandon consideration of the plaintiff, in which case he swears on the reason](1) such as a claim of pre-emption by neighbourhood, for he can swear on the recipient that pre-emption is not required based on the doctrine Al-Shafi’i (2) - may God be pleased with him - because pre-emption is not established by neighborliness according to him, so the buyer swears: By God I did not buy this house. Likewise, if [the woman] (3) claims maintenance through an irrevocable divorce, such as divorce, for example, then maintenance is not obligatory according to Al-Shafi’i (4) - may God be pleased with him - and it is obligatory according to us. If he swears by God that you are not obligated to spend, then he may swear according to the doctrine of Al-Shafi’i - may God be pleased with him - and he swears for the reason. By God, I did not divorce her irrevocably.

(The same applies to the reason [(1)] that does not raise the status of a Muslim slave claiming to be emancipated. The master swears by God what he has emancipated, for there is no need to swear on what is happening; Because the reason cannot be removed, for if a Muslim slave is freed, he will not become a slave, (and in the nation[(2)] the infidel slave is on the same page); Because the cause may arise in both of them, but in the case of the female slave, it is purdah and joining the land of war, then captivity, and as for the infidel slave, it is breaking (3) the covenant and joining, then captivity.

(And he swears on knowledge [(1)] who inherits something and another claims it [and on absolutes if he gives it to him or buys it)(1), bits] (2): Absolutely, so the gifted person and the buyer swear by God that this is not your property, as non-ownership is definite by it, unlike the heir, for he swears by God that I do not know that it belongs to you, for he denies knowledge[(3)] of ownership, and non-ownership is not definite by it in his words.

(The redemption of the oath and the reconciliation from it are valid[(1)], and he does not swear after it[(2)]): That is, if the oath was directed, and he said: I gave these ten as redemption for the oath [on such-and-such](3), and before the other, or the plaintiff said: I made a settlement on the claim of swearing on such-and-such, and before the other, it is valid, and (4) the right to swear is forfeited.

Alliance chapter [(1)]

(And if they differ[(2)] regarding the amount of the price(3)[(4)], or the sold item, a ruling[(1)] shall be given to the one who proves[(2)], and if we prove it, a ruling shall be given to the one who proves the increase[(3)]), and he is (4) the seller if the difference is in the amount of the price, and the buyer if the difference is in the amount of the thing sold.

(Even if they differ about them), as if the seller said: I sold [this](1) slave(2) for two thousand, and the buyer said: No; Rather, I sold the two slaves for a thousand, (then the seller’s argument for the price is better, and the buyer’s argument for the thing sold is better, and if (3) there is a deficiency [(4)] (5) each is satisfied with an increase claimed by the other, otherwise they are in alliance (6)).

So his saying: Even if they are unable; It refers to the three forms: that is, whether the difference is in the price, the thing sold, or both. If the difference is in the price, then it is said[(1)] to the buyer: Either you are satisfied with the price that the seller claimed, otherwise we will cancel the sale. It is apparent, otherwise they are an alliance.

(And [(1)] the buyer swore first): In the three forms; Because [(2)] he first demands the price, so denying it takes precedence. Also: he hastens the benefit of the exchange, which is the obligation of the price, and in selling the commodity for the commodity, and in the exchange, the judge begins with whichever one he wants, and each swears to deny what the other claims (1) [(2)], and there is no need to prove what he claims, it is correct (1).

(And the judge annulled the sale[(2)]): That is, after the alliance, (and whoever renounces[(3)] is bound to the other’s lawsuit): [i.e.] (1) If the oath is first presented (2) to the buyer, then (3) he renounces it is binding on him to sue the seller, then (4) he swears to offer the oath to the seller, so if he swears, the sale is annulled, and if he renounces, he is bound to sue the buyer.

Then know that if the difference is in the price, then the alliance before receiving the item is in agreement with the measurement; Because the seller claims the increase in price and the buyer denies it, and the buyer claims that the sold item must be delivered at the lower of the two prices, and the seller denies it, so each of them is a claimant and a denier, so they join forces, but after taking possession of the sold item, it is contrary to analogy (5), so the buyer does not claim anything; Because the item sold has been delivered to him, and the seller claims an increase in the price and the buyer denies it, but the alliance here is proven (6) by his saying - may God’s prayers and peace be upon him - [(7)]: ((If the two sellers disagree [(1)] and the commodity exists as an alliance and mutual agreement (2))) (3).

(And there is no alliance[(1)] in the term[(1)], the condition of the option, receiving some of the price[(2)], and the denier’s oath), whether they differed as to the origin of the term, [or its amount](3), and the buyer (4) said: The price is deferred, and the seller denied it, or the buyer said: The price is deferred for a year, and the seller said: Rather half a year, and the denier swore an oath for the increase[(5)], or one of them said: The sale is on the condition (6) of the option, and the other denied it, and one of them said: I have (7) the option of three. Days, and the other said: Rather [up to] (8) two days, or the buyer said: I paid some of the price, and the seller denied it.

(Nor after the destruction of the sold item(1)[(2)], and the buyer swears an oath[(1)]): That is, [if](2) the sold item is destroyed, then they disagree about the amount of the price, so there is no alliance according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - and Abu Yusuf[(3)] - may God be pleased with him -, and the word is for the buyer, and according to Muhammad[(4)] - may God be pleased with him - they form an alliance, and the sale is annulled based on the value of the lost item; Because each of them[(5)] claims a contract and [the other](1) denies it, so they enter into an alliance, and for them: The alliance[(2)] is after the sale is taken, contrary to analogy; It does not exceed (1) the loss of the commodity.

(And not after the loss of some of it [(2)] unless the seller agrees to leave the share of the lost one): that is, he does not take [(1)] anything from the price of the lost one at all, and he makes the lost one as if it had not happened and as if the contract was only with the one in charge, so they form an alliance. This is the interpretation of [(2)] some of the sheikhs - may God be pleased with them -, and the exception according to them goes to the alliance, and they said (1): What is meant by his statement in ((Al-Jami’ Al-Saghir)): He takes (2) the living and has nothing (3): that is, no. He takes nothing from the price of the perished.

Some of the sheikhs - may God be pleased with them - said: He takes from the price of the perished [(1)] as much as what the buyer acknowledged, and does not take the extra. The exception [(2)] goes to the buyer’s oath and not to the alliance, meaning that they do not ally, and the word is the buyer’s word with his oath unless the seller agrees to take the living, and does not dispute with him regarding the perished, in which case the buyer does not swear; Because he only swears if he denies what the seller claims. If the living seller makes a settlement for all of his claims against the buyer, there is no need for the buyer to swear.