អ៊ុមដាតុល រីអាយ៉ះ (ការពន្យល់ក្បួនច្បាប់វីកាយ៉ះ ហាណាហ្វី)

(It is completed by complete receipt(1)[(2)]): That is, the gift is completed by the complete[(1)] capture[(2)] possible in the gifted [to the donee](1) for him, so the complete receipt in the movable property is what is appropriate for it, and in the property what is appropriate for it, so the possession[(2)] of the key to the house is a receipt for it, and the complete capture in what is possible to divide by division until the donee is captured by way of originality without the capture being a consequence of the receipt of the whole(3), and in what is not possible to divide by a consequence. All.

(It is valid [(4)] if he is arrested in the sitting session without permission, or after that with permission)(1): [i.e.] (2) If he is arrested in the donation session without permission, it is a seizure; Because the gift is evidence of permission, and after the [permission council](3) has passed, the giver must give explicit permission, (as a common property is not divided)(4): related to his statement, so it is valid, and what is meant by it is [that](5) if it is divided, no benefit remains[(6)], such as the millstone(1), the pigeon(2), and the small house, (not in what is divided): that is, the gift is not valid in a common property, if it is divided, its benefit remains(3) with us, unlike By Al-Shafi’i (4) - may God be pleased with him - [(5)].

This disagreement is based on the requirement of capture. He says (1) the common property is subject to seizure, as in sales and the like, and we say [(2)]: seizure is stipulated here, so it must be perfected.

There is no difference to us [(1)] between it being given by a partner or a foreigner, and what is spoiled is the comparative sharing, not the contingent sharing, such as if he gives a gift, then takes back the common part or is entitled to [(2)] the common part (3), unlike a mortgage, then the temporary sharing is corrupting[(1)].

(If he divides and delivers [(1)] it is valid): That is, if he gifts half (2) of the common property, then divides and delivers, it is valid; Because its completion is by receipt with us, and upon receipt there is no common [(3)], (if he gives flour in wheat, or fat in sesame, no, even if it is ground, or taken out and handed over, and likewise ghee in milk), but it is not permissible because the gifted is non-existent [(4)] at the time of the gift, unlike the common [(5)], (a gift of milk(6) in an udder, and wool on [the back](7) of a sheep, and crops and palm trees in a land, and dates(8) in Palm trees are like common areas): that is, these gifts are not permissible[(9)], but if these things are separated from the donor’s property, and they are seized, then they are valid.

(And [(1) ](1) is the gift of what is with the donee without new receipt, and what is given [(2) ] to his child by contract, and what is given [(1) ] to a foreigner by taking it of his mind, or by his father, or his grandfather, or the guardian of one of them, or a mother who is with her [(1)], or a foreigner raising him while he is with him, or her husband to her[(2)] after the wedding): i.e. the husband of the child[(3) ](1) who was gifted to her for her sake but after Wedding(2).

(It is valid to give two people the house of one.) Because the whole [(1)] falls into his hands without commonness, (and vice versa not): that is, one person’s gift to two (2) houses is not valid according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -, and in their case it is valid; Because ownership [(3)] is one, there is no jointness, as if it was mortgaged by two men, and he has [(4)]: This (5) is a gift of half from each one...(6), so jointness (7) is established, unlike mortgage[(8) ]; Because he is bound by the religion of each one (1) in its perfection.

(Like giving ten [(2)] (1) in charity to two rich people, but it is valid to give to two poor people): That is, if you give ten in charity to two rich people, it is not valid according to Abu Hanifa (2) - may God be pleased with him -, [and likewise if it is given to them to the common people] (3), and according to them: the gift is valid; Because there is no commonality between them, as in the gift of one house from two people, and likewise charity is valid; Because giving charity to the rich means a gift figuratively, and the gift is permissible, and if you give ten in charity to two poor people (4) or give ten to them, it is permissible by agreement. Because charity is intended for the face of God Almighty, he said - may God bless him and grant him peace -: ((Charity falls into the hand of the Most Merciful before it falls into the hand of the poor))(5), so it is not common, and as for a gift to the poor, it is charity, and charity is permissible, so is a gift.

Chapter on retracting it [(1)](2)

(And whoever gives and returns [(3)] is valid) (4), this is what we have; Because of his saying - may God’s prayers and peace be upon him -: ((The donor [(5)] has more right to his gift (1) unless proven (2)))(3): That is, unless he compensates [(4)], and according to Al-Shafi’i (5) - may God be pleased with him - it is only valid [(6)] in a father’s gift to his child; Because of his statement - may God’s prayers and peace be upon him - [(7)]: ((The donor of a gift shall not have the right to return it except the father in what he gives to his child))(8), and we say [(1)] by it: That is, no one should return [in a gift](2) except the father, for he owns (3) for the need(4)[(5)].

(What is prohibited (1) is the continuous addition[(2) ](1): such as building(2)[(3)], planting[(4)], and fattening, not separate[(5)](6)), which is like a child, (and the death of one of the contracting parties[(7) ](1), and compensation added to it(2)[(3)] even from a foreigner[(1)] like: Take it in exchange for your gift and take it, so if[(2)] he gives and does not add, all of it is returned. With his gift[(3)], and her being out of the possession of the donee, and marriage(1)[(2)] at the time of the gift, so if he gave her a gift and married her, he would take it back, and if he gave it then it was not clear, and the consanguinity of the mahram woman[(1)], and the destruction of the gifted person[(1)] and its rule is the letters of his tearing down[(2)]): It has been said(3) [(1)]: There is no objection to returning the gift Oh my friend, the letters are teary-eyed The dal means increase, the meem means death, the ain means compensation, the kha means exit, the za means marriage, the qāf means kinship, and the ha means destruction.

(And he returned [(1)] in entitlement to half of the gift with half of its compensation, not in [(2)] entitlement to half of the compensation until he returns what is left (3)). This is [with us] (4), and when Zafar [(5)] - may God be pleased with him - he returns with half in consideration of the other compensation, and to us [(6)]: It has become clear by entitlement that the compensation is the remainder only, so what he does not return (7) does not return with the gift, but rather has the right to return it; Because the right of recourse was not forfeited unless (8) delivered to him (1) all the compensation, and he did not deliver (2).

(And if he compensates [(1)] half of it, he will return for what was not compensated, and if he sells half of it [(2)] or does not sell anything, he will return for the half), [meaning (3) if the donee sells half of the gift, then the donor [can return] (4) the remaining half, and likewise if he does not sell anything, then the donor has the right of return (5);] (6) because he has the right to return in all, so in the half it is better.

(It is not valid [(1)] except by mutual consent or by the ruling of (2) a judge. If the donee emancipates after returning before the judgment is made, it is valid): that is, the donee emancipates the donee, (and if he prevents it, and it perishes, he is not liable): that is, the donee prevents the donee from the donor after he returns (3), but the judge does not rule, so the donee perishes in the hands of the donee, he is not liable, and likewise if he perishes in his hands after the judge’s ruling; Because his hand is not guaranteed; Unless he requests it, then he can prevent it with the ability to deliver it.

(And it is with one of them [(4) ]): [i.e.] (1) return with mutual consent, or the judge’s ruling, (annulling from the original [(2)] no gift to the donor, so he did not stipulate his taking it, and it is valid in the commons (3) [(4)).

If the gift is damaged (i.e. in the hands of the donee, then it is due, then the donee is guaranteed that he will not (5) return to his donor); Because a gift[(6)] is a donation contract, he does not deserve to be safe.

(It is on the condition of compensation as a gift initially (1), so the condition of receiving them (2) [in the two considerations] (3), and it is invalidated by commonness (4)): [i.e.] (5) it is permissible for (6) to be: receiving them; [Chapter](7) Adding the infinitive to the subject, and the object is omitted for the indication, and it may be the opposite, (a sale ending (8), so it is returned with a defect, the option of sighting, and pre-emption is established), this [(9)] is with us, and according to Zafar - may God be pleased with him - and Al-Shafi’i (10) - may God be pleased with him - [it is] (11) a sale beginning and ending; Because the consideration of meanings[(12)], we said[(1)]: includes (2) the two meanings, so it combines them as much as possible. If you say [(3)]: The gift is the ownership of the property without compensation, and the sale is the ownership of the property for compensation, then how can they be combined? Also, the ownership does not fulfill the condition, so his saying: I granted (4) this to you on the condition that you give that to me, comes into the meaning of this possession of you by that.

I said [(1)]: (2) has two meanings in two cases: such as the beginning and survival, and ownership does not include a condition in which it becomes gambling. As for the condition by which the money becomes valid compensation, ownership does not contradict it, so it is a starting condition in consideration of the phrase so that it does not become like a sale necessary before taking possession, but it is a condition in the sense of compensation in consideration of what (3) turns into (4) so ​​that it fulfills the provisions of sale in the case of survival and not in the beginning (5).

Chapter[(1)]

(And whoever gives [(2)] a female slave except that he carries her,[(1)] or on the condition that he returns her to him[(1)], or frees her(2), or breeds her, or gives a house, or gives it in charity on the condition that he returns some of it to him, or compensates him with [something](3) of it(4)[(5)], then his exception and condition are invalid. I saw in some footnotes that his saying: or compensate him for some of it; It goes back to charity. If he gives charity on the condition of compensation, the condition is invalid, and if he gives it on the condition of compensation, then the condition is valid. I say: If he gives a gift on the condition that he compensates for something, then the condition is invalid, and the condition of compensation is only valid if it is known, so it is known that his saying: or he compensates for it refers to the gift and charity. (If he frees the lamb, then gives it away, it is valid): meaning the gift; Because the pregnancy[(6)] does not remain property, so if he gifts the mother, it becomes as if he gave her away(7), and the pregnancy is excluded, so the gift is permissible.