អ៊ុមដាតុល រីអាយ៉ះ (ការពន្យល់ក្បួនច្បាប់វីកាយ៉ះ ហាណាហ្វី)

(And whoever acknowledges [(1)] and reaches it, God willing, his acknowledgment is invalidated (2) [(3)].

Even if he excludes [(1)] the building of a house, he acknowledges it, as if it were the property of the acknowledgment); Because the exception is not valid; Because the building is included only by dependency, and what is like that is not valid to exclude it, (And if he says: Its construction is for me, and its palm(2) is yours[(3)], then as he said[(4)], and the ring of a ring, and the palm tree of the garden is like its construction[(1)]), if he says: This ring belongs to so-and-so except his leaf, or this garden is his except a palm tree, the exception is not valid, and if he said: [The](2) ring is his, and the leaf is mine, or the land is his, And my palm trees are healthy.

(If he says to him [(3)]: On a thousand of the price of a slave, I have not captured it[(1)], and appointed it, and if the one who acknowledges it delivers it to him(2), then he is obligated to pay the thousand, otherwise he is obligated to pay the thousand, otherwise not.

(And if he does not specify [(1)] then he is bound to it, and his possession is not vain): [i.e.] (2) His saying: And his possession is not vain according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - whether it is connected or separated; Because denying the arrest [(3)] in something that is not specified contradicts the obligation (4) [(5)]; Because the ignorance of the thing sold is tantamount to its loss, so the price is not due, so this is a return, and according to them [(6) ]: If it arrives, it is true; Because it is a statement of change (1) according to them, (such as his saying: from the price of [(2) ] wine[(1)])(2): That is, it is negligible according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - whether it is connected or separated, and according to them: if it is connected, it is valid, and if it is separated, it is not.

(And from the price of goods[(1)], or loans, which are fake, or flashy, or rustic, or lead, it is necessary(2) good), [this](3) according to Abu Hanifa[(4)] - may God be pleased with him - whether it has arrived or has arrived, and according to them: if it arrives, it is truthful; Because it is a return in his view (5)[(6)], and a statement of (1) is a change in their view[(2)]. (And among [of] (1) usurpation, or a deposit, if one of these claims is truthful, except for a separation in the last two): that is, if he says to him: I have a thousand from usurpation, or a deposit, except that they are false, or gaudy (2) he is truthful and has arrived or separated [(3)], and if he says: a stucco, or bullets, then if he arrives then he is truthful, and if he separates he is not [(4)]. The difference between a sale and a loan and between usurpation and a deposit: the first two are imposed on the horses, so if he exchanges the dirhams otherwise than Horses are a return, and usurpation and deposit fall on all of that, and wastiqa and lead are not of the same type as dirhams, but rather they are called dirhams metaphorically, so the statement of change if it arrives is true, and if it is separated it is not.

(And he was truthful [(1)] in the fact that I seized a garment, and brought a defective one, and Ali [(2)] owed him a thousand [dirhams] (3) except that such-and-such is missing connected, and if it is separated, it is not (4): Because the exception is valid connected, not disconnected.

(And if he said: I took [(1)] a thousand deposits from you, and I perished (2), and the other said: Rather, by force (3), he guaranteed (4), and in you gave me [(5)] (1) a deposit, and the other said: You usurped him (2) no): The difference [(3)] is that in the first he acknowledged the obligation of (4) the guarantee, which is the taking (5), and in the second: he did not acknowledge that, but the other claims usurpation, and he denies it (6), so the word is his. (And in this [(7)] it was a deposit of mine with you, so I took it, and he said: It is mine to take): meaning, it is acknowledged for him; Because [(8)] he acknowledged his hand, then he claimed that it was mine, so I took it, so he would hand it over to the headquarters and establish proof.

(And whoever said [(1)] was truthful: I rented my horse, or this dress of mine, and he rode it, or he put it on and returned it [to me](2), or he sewed this dress of mine to such-and-such and I held it(3)), this is according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -, and according to them [(4)]: it must be delivered to the one who granted it, and then he claims it as in the issue of (5) the deposit, which is analogy[(6)], and the reason for approval[(7)]: In the lease it was not approved. In the other’s hand (1) absolutely, rather his hand is necessary for the sake of benefit, so beyond necessity it remains in the same position as the lessor’s hand, unlike the deposit. [And God knows best] (2). Chapter on patient acknowledgment (3)[(4)](5)

(A debt of his health absolutely): that is, whether he knew the cause of it or knew of the acknowledgment, (and the debt of his illness), what is meant by his death illness[(6)], (because of a [known][(1)](2) cause of it and knowledge without acknowledgment: such as in exchange for what he owned[(3)], or destroyed, or his wedding dowry[(4)] whether[(5)], and taking precedence over what he acknowledged in his illness[(6)] his death(7))(8), this is with us, and when Al-Shafi’i (9) - may God be pleased with him - this is equal to [(10)] the first two; To make the reason equal, which is acknowledgment. And for us [(1)]: The patient’s acknowledgment (1) occurred due to the rights of others attached to him. (And everything is due on the inheritance, even if it includes his money): [i.e.] (2) the three debts, which are: the debt of health, the debt of illness due to a known cause, and the debt of the illness that was known by mere acknowledgment takes precedence over the inheritance[(3)], even if it includes all of the money.

(It is not valid[(1)] to assign: that is, the sick person in illness(2) death, (a debtor for paying off his debt or acknowledging it[(3)] to his heir(1) unless the rest confirms it: that is, the rest of the creditors in the debt[(2)], and the rest of the heirs in acknowledging the heir(3).

(And if he acknowledges[(1)]): meaning the patient, (with something for a man, then his lineage is proven, and what he acknowledges(1) is invalid, and what he acknowledges for a foreign woman is valid, then he marries her(2); Because in the first [(3)] the patient confesses to his son, and in the second to a foreign woman.

(And if he acknowledge[(4)] the sonship of a boy, his lineage is unknown[(5)], and a like him is born for a like him(1)[(2)]): That is, they are of age such that a like him is born like him, (and the boy believes him[(3)] his lineage is proven[(4)] even if he is sick[(5)], and he shares(6) the heirs[(7)]). The boy’s belief[(8)] is only required if he is one of those who cross, and if he does not cross, and the acknowledgment dies, it is proven. His lineage, and the heirs shared without belief.

(It is valid[(1)] that the man and woman acknowledge the parents, the child, the husband[(2)], and the guardian[(3)], and the condition of (1) ratifying these(2)[(3)] is just as [(4)] the ratification of the husband, or the testimony of the midwife in her acknowledgment of the child), is sufficient for the testimony of one woman, and mentioning the midwife[(5)] in her acknowledgment is out of the ordinary.

(It is valid to ratify[(1)] after the death of the person confirming it, except from the husband after her death, confirming it)(2). This[(3)] is according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -; Because the ruling on marriage[(4)] is terminated by death, it is not valid to believe the wife(5) after its cessation, unlike the wife’s belief; Because the ruling on marriage remains after death due to the obligation of the waiting period, and according to them: it is valid considering [(1)] that the ruling on marriage, which is inheritance, remains after death. According to him (2): Ratification [(3)] is based on acknowledgment (4), and the inheritance is then non-existent.

(If he acknowledges lineage without children (1), such as a brother or uncle, it is not valid.) Because lineage is attributed to others[(2)], (and he inherits only with another heir, even after(3)[(4)], and whoever acknowledges a brother and whose father is dead shares(1) in the inheritance without lineage); Because inheritance [(2)] is his right and his approval is accepted, and as for lineage, it is a burden on others.

(And if one of the two sons of a dead person acknowledges that he owes the last debt that his father receives half of it, then he has nothing, and the other half goes to him). If Zaid owes Amr one hundred dirhams, and one of Zaid’s sons acknowledges that Zaid received fifty[(1)], then nothing goes to the declarant, and the rest goes to his brother; Because the approval of the headquarters [(2)] goes to his share.

Book of reconciliation [(1)]

(It is a contract that resolves a dispute. It is valid with acknowledgment[(2)], silence, and denial): that is, with the defendant’s acknowledgment, silence, or denial. According to al-Shafi’i(1) - may God be pleased with him - it is only valid in the form of acknowledgment[(2)]. (The first is like a sale[(1)] if it takes place for money for money, in which there is pre-emption[(2)], return with a defect[(3)], an option to see[(4)](5), and a condition[(6)]), whether it is reconciled for a house, or for a house, then the pre-emptor has pre-emption, and (7) the response is established with the three options for each of the plaintiff and the defendant in exchange for reconciliation and settlement on his behalf.

(It is corrupted by the ignorance of the consideration[(1)], and what is due[(1)] from the plaintiff, the plaintiff(2) returns his share(3) of the compensation, and what is due from the compensation is returned with his share from the plaintiff(4), and as a lease[(5)] if it is made for money with a benefit, then the timing condition is in it[(1)]): That is, if the consideration is a benefit known(2) by the timing, such as service, and the inhabitation of the house, unlike if the settlement was made for money based on Transferring this thing from here (3) to there (4), (and it is invalidated by the death of one of them (5)[(6)] within the period.

And the other two): that is, reconciliation with silence, or denial, (compensation against the plaintiff[(1)], redemption of an oath and severing a dispute against the other[(2)], so there is no pre-emption[(3)] in reconciliation(4) for (5) a house with one of them(6): that is, with silence, or denial, (and it is obligatory[(1)] in [reconciliation](2) over a house)(3): because[(1)] if a reconciliation is made on behalf of(2) a house, then according to the claim of the plaintiff He must [that] (3) his property has not been renewed, and the plaintiff’s claim is not evidence against the defendant, so pre-emption is not required. If a settlement is made over a house, then if the plaintiff claims that he took it from his right, then he will be held accountable for his claim, so pre-emption is required.