អ៊ុមដាតុល រីអាយ៉ះ (ការពន្យល់ក្បួនច្បាប់វីកាយ៉ះ ហាណាហ្វី)

(And the purchase[(4)] is more worthy than a gift and charity with a receipt): That is, one of them said: I bought it from Zaid, and the other said: Zaid gave it to me and I took it, or Zaid gave it to me in charity, and I took it. So we proved (5), so the claimant of the purchase[(6)] is more deserving.

(Purchase and dowry are the same[(1)], and a mortgage[(1)](2) with receipt is more deserving of a gift than a gift with it.

If two mortgages are made on a dated property (1) [(2)], or a dated purchase [(3)] from one (4) [(5)], or a mortgage on a dated property, and one who has control over an older property, then the former has more right [(6)].

And if they prove[(1)] the purchase of [a thing](1) whose date agrees(2) from another): that is, one of them says: I bought it from Zaid, and the other says: I bought it from Amr, and they mention a date, (or the time of only one of them is equal), then the bottom line is: If only one of them timed it, and they received from one, then the one with the time has more right, and if they received from two, then they are equal.

(If (3) a mortgage[(4)] is not imposed on the property, and the owner has the right to buy from him, or a proof[(1)] of a reason for ownership that cannot be repeated[(2)] such as produce[(1)], milking milk[(2)][(3)], and taking cheese, or (4) laban(5)[(6)] or (7) shearing wool[(8)], then the one with the hand has more right(1)[(2)].

And if each pledged to buy from the other without time, they would be void, and leave the money in the hands of the one with it): That is, each of the people with the hand and the outsider pledged to buy from the other, and they did not mention a date, the two contracts would be void (1) [(2)](3), and the money was left in the hands of the owner of the hand, and according to Muhammad - may God be pleased with him - it is settled for the outsider, the one with the hand bought it first, then sold it from the outside, and it does not reverse; Because the sale before receipt is not permissible, even if it is in the possession of the property with Muhammad [(4)] - may God be pleased with him -, but he only said: without time, even if he delayed it. There is detail about it mentioned in ((Al-Hidaya))(1)[(2)], so read it if you wish.

And know that the author of ((Al-Hidaya)) (3) mentioned these issues without any specification, and I collected them from ((Al-Dhakhira)) accurately and concisely [(4)], so I say: If the two plaintiffs prove it, then if the date of one of them was prior, then he is more entitled, and if not, then if each of them had a hand, then they are equal (1), and the same applies if each of them was outside of the absolute ownership, and this is if neither of them dated, or dated one of them, or dated and neither of them was prior even if it was, then it has been stated that the former has more right, and the same applies to ownership by reason unless they received it from one and only one of them dated, then he is more entitled.

And if one of them has a hand and the other is outside, then the outsider has more right to absolute ownership, including the mentioned forms(2)[(3)], unless they claim with [absolute] ownership(4) an act, as if he said: He is my slave, I freed him, or I managed him, then the one with the hand has more right, unlike if he said: Each one is my slave, his scribe(5), then they are equal because they are outside, since there is no hand(6) over (7) the offices[(8)], even if one of them said: He is my slave. I wrote it, and the other said: I managed it, or I freed it, which is better. The rule (1) is that every piece of evidence is (2) more proven, so it is more deserving. This is the outsider and the one with the hand in absolute ownership, and as for ownership because of a reason, then (3) mentioned one reason, and if it was received from one, then the one with the hand has more right, and if it was received from two, then the outsider is more entitled, including the mentioned forms, and if they mentioned two reasons such as purchase, gift, and other things, it looks at the strength of the reason [(4)] as in ((the text)) (5).

(It is not preferred by the abundance of (1) witnesses[(2)]): For us, the weight of evidence is based on the strength of the evidence, not its abundance.

(And if [(3)] one of two outsiders claims half of a house, and the other the whole, then the fourth goes to the first, and they say: The third, and the rest goes to the second), know (1) that Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - considered [(2)] in this matter the method of dispute, which is that the half is safe for the claimant of the whole without dispute, and (1) the other half remains, and they both dispute it, so it is fair, so the owner of the whole gets three quarters, and the owner of (2) the half gets a quarter.

They are: They considered the method of dependence (3) [(4)] and speculation (5) [(6)], but it was called this; Because in the issue, both and a half, the issue is from two, and it is counted (1) to three, so the owner of the whole has two shares, and the owner of the half has a share, this is the count, and as for speculation, each one multiplies (2)[(3)] according to his right, so the owner of (4) the whole has two-thirds of the three, so he multiplies the two-thirds by the house, [so two-thirds of the house is obtained for him](5), and the owner of the half has a third of the three, so he multiplies a third by the house, so he obtains [his](6). A third of the house; Because multiplying fractions by addition, if one-third is multiplied by six, it means one-third of six, which is two.

(And if [(7)] is with them, it belongs to the second half with a decree, and half without it). If the house is in their hand, the half is in the hand of each of them. The half that is [in the hand of] (1) the claimant of the whole is not claimed by anyone (2), so it is left in his hand[(3)], and the half that is in the hand of the claimant of the half is claimed by each of [one] (4) of them, so the claimant of the whole is outside, and the evidence of the outside (5) is better.

(And if [(1)] two outside proofs on the production of an animal, and he dated it, (2) it shall be decided for the one whose date and time coincided with its age (3), and if there was a problem [(4)] then for them), but if its age differed from the two dates, the two proofs [(1)] would be invalid, and he would leave (2) the animal with the one in possession.

(If [(1)] one of the outlaws proves that he usurped something, and the other proves that they are equal to his deposit), one of the outlaws claims that you usurped this thing from me, and the other claims [that](2) I deposited this thing with you, and he proves that he (3) does justice between them because they are equal[(4)], for if the depositor denies the deposit, he becomes a usurper. [Chapter on hand-to-hand combat]

(The wearer [(5)] is more deserving of the one who takes the sleeve, and the rider than the one who takes the reins, and the one in the saddle than his buttocks, and the one who carries it [(1)] is the one who hangs his cup from it)(2): That is, the one with the hand in these pictures is the first.

(The one sitting on the rug[(1)] and the one clinging to it are the same as one who has one garment and its edge is with another(2).

And the saying to a boy [(3)] expresses in “I am free,” and if (1) says: [I am] (2) a slave (3) so-and-so, it is judged for those who are with him as one who does not express it), what is meant by the expression is that he speaks, and makes sense of what he says, so if (4) was expressive and says: I am free, then the saying is his saying; Because he is in the hand of himself, [even if (5) he said: I am the servant of Zaid, and he was in the hand of Amr (6) he was a slave of Amr; Because when he acknowledged that he is a slave, he acknowledged that he is not in the hand of himself](7), so he is a slave to the owner of the hand, [and if he does not express, [and says: I am free](8), he is not in the hand of himself, so he is a slave to the owner of the hand](9).

[I say: The hand](1) on a person is not clear evidence of ownership, for whoever sees a human being in the hand of another, behaving like an angel, is not permitted to bear witness(2)[(3)] that it is his ownership, for the origin of a person is freedom(4), so the fact that(5) a boy who does not express himself as a slave to the owner of the hand is problematic.

(And a wall [(6)] is one whose trunks (1) are on it, or are connected to its building by a square connection [(2) ]), a square connection (1): a connection of one wall to a wall such that the blocks of (2) of this wall overlap in the blocks of that, but it is called a square connection; Because they are built to enclose with two other walls a square place, (not for the one who has a saw on it), [what is meant by](3) the sawtooth(4): the beams(5) that are placed on the logs[(6)], (rather [it](7) is between the two neighbors(8) if they quarrel): that is, if one of them has a sawtooth over it, and the other has nothing on it, then it is between them[(9)].

(And the owner of a house [(1)] is from a house like that of the houses in the right of its yard) (2), based on the fact that it is not more likely to be due to the large number of cause.