អ៊ុមដាតុល រីអាយ៉ះ (ការពន្យល់ក្បួនច្បាប់វីកាយ៉ះ ហាណាហ្វី)

(And he sells from his master for the same value, not for less [(6)], and his master from him for the same value or for less): That is, it is permissible for the authorized person whose debt includes his money and neck to be sold from his master, but it is permissible; Because his master is a stranger to his money if he has a surrounding debt[(1)], and according to them: if he sells for less than its value, the sale is permissible and the master gives the choice between removing the favoritism and canceling the sale; Because the harm from the creditors is prevented by this, but Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - did not allow the accusation as against the heir, nor the accusation if he favored the foreigner. (If he sold for more (2), the credit would be reduced, or the sale would be annulled (3)): That is, the master would be ordered [(4)] to remove favoritism, or to annull the sale.

(And its price is void if the sold item is delivered before receiving it, and he has the right to withhold the sold item for its price): That is, the master has the authority to withhold the sold item in order to collect the price. If the sold item is delivered before the price is received, his right [(1)] to the property is voided, so he has no right left except in the debt, and the master does not charge his servant a debt, so the price is invalidated.

(It is valid to emancipate him as a debtor[(1)]): meaning [it is valid](2) the master’s emancipation of the authorized slave in the event that he is in debt whether the debt is due or not, because his ownership of it remains[(3)], (and the master guarantees the less than his debt and its value): that is, if the debt is less than the value(4) he guarantees the debt, as the creditors have no right except in the debt, and if the value is less than the debt he guarantees the value[(5)]; Because their right is attached to the slave, and he destroyed it, (and he (6) freed (7) the surplus of his debt): that is, the authorized person [who] (8) freed the surplus of his debt over the value is guaranteed.

(If a slave is sold with debt(1)[(2)] around his neck, and he is absent(3)[(4)] the buyer permits the debtor to sell him(5)[(6)] and gets its price, or (1) the buyer[(2)] or the seller guarantees its value, then he guarantees it): i.e. the seller, (and he responds[(3)] to him with a defect, the [seller](6) returns to the creditor [for its value](7), and his right to the debt is returned. The slave: that is, the seller reclaimed the debtor, and the creditor’s right to the slave was restored.

(If his master sold it, noting his debt[(1)], then the creditor has the right to return the sale if the price did not reach him, and if it did, and there is no favoritism in the sale), but he said: noting his religion; Because if the seller informs the buyer that the slave owes the debt, and the buyer is satisfied with that (2), he imagines (3) that the sale will be carried out with the consent of the seller and the buyer, so we say (4): With this, the creditors have the authority to return the sale [(5)] if the price does not reach them, and if it does, and if there is no favoritism in the sale, then no [(6)], and if it is, then either the favoritism will be removed, or the sale will be annulled.

(A buyer who denies his debt does not dispute if his seller is absent(2): That is, if the seller is absent and the buyer denies the debt, then the creditor does not dispute with him(4) according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - and Muhammad - may God be pleased with him -; Because he is not his opponent, and according to Abu Yusuf - may God be pleased with him - he is his opponent, and he settles the debt for the debtor (5) because he claims ownership for himself, so he is an opponent to everyone who disputes with him, and for them: the claim includes annulment of the contract, and in annulment it is an action against the absent person [(7)].

(And if a slave (1) buys and sells (2) and is silent about his permission and stone, then he is authorized[(3)]). A slave comes forward and insists, and says: I am a slave of so-and-so authorized in trade, and he buys and sells, then he is authorized. Likewise, if he is silent about permission and stone, then his behavior is evidence [of](1) his permission[(2)], (and he is not sold for his debt unless his master acknowledges[(3)] his permission); Because if the master does not acknowledge the permission, the debt does not appear against him, and the transactors are only harmed because they relied on the apparent situation, and the master did not tempt them[(4)].

[Chapter on the ruling on a boy’s behavior] (And a boy’s behavior [(1)] if it is beneficial, such as Islam or Islam, is valid without permission, and if it is harmful, such as divorce and emancipation, it is not, even if he permits it. And whatever is beneficial and harmful[(2)] such as buying and selling (3) is subject to the permission of his guardian); Being satisfied with limited capacity for what is beneficial, stipulating full capacity for what is harmful, and avoiding harm by including the opinion of the guardian regarding what is hesitant between them. According to Al-Shafi’i (4) - may God be pleased with him - it is not valid for him to act [(5) ] with the permission of the guardian, and likewise his conversion to Islam is not valid. (His condition[(1)](2): That the sale be considered to take away the property and the purchase to bring it(3) to it.

His guardian: his father[(4)], then his guardian, then his grandfather, then his guardian, then the judge or his guardian[(1)]): He only said: then his guardian in the first two, and he said: or his guardian in the last; Because the father’s guardian is the one whom he appoints after his death to dispose of his son’s property, and as for the one whom he authorized to dispose of his son’s property during his lifetime, he is an agent, not a guardian, and the same applies to the grandfather. As for the judge’s guardian, he is the one who ordered him to dispose of the orphan’s property. He disposes [in] (2) during the judge’s lifetime, but he is called a guardian even though the will is the appointment of successor after death; Because here he becomes a successor to the father, as if the father made him a guardian, so the judge’s action becomes like his action, so the meaning of the speech is that his guardian is his father, then his guardian after his death, then the grandfather if he is not the father, and there is no guardian(3) then his guardian(4) after his death, then the judge or his guardian, whichever is the correct disposition(5).

(And if he acknowledges what he has of his earnings or inheritance, it is valid)[(1)]. If the master gives the boy permission to trade, his acknowledgment of his earnings is valid. Because it is part of the completion of trade, since if its approval is not valid, people will not deal with it even though the guardian’s approval is not valid[(2)]; Because it is an acknowledgment of others, and the boy’s acknowledgment is an acknowledgment of himself, and the stone was lifted with permission and became like an adult (1) so his acknowledgment of inheritance is also valid in the apparent meaning of the narration [(2)], and on the authority of Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -: It is not valid in inheritance; Because it is only valid for earning; Because it was mentioned that it is a consequence of trade, and it does not apply to inheritance. [And God knows best] (3)).

The book of usurpation[(4)][(5)] (it is taking the property of a respected, respected person(1) without the permission of its owner, removing his hand[(2)][(3)]), so usurpation does not occur in death(4); Because it is not money, nor is it in the heat, nor in the Muslim’s wine; Because it is not worth it, nor is it in the money of the war; Because it is not respectable. And his saying: Without the permission of its owner (5); To avoid the deposit, he only said: He removes his hand; Because according to our companions, it means removing the right hand by proving the invalid hand, and according to Al-Shafi’i (6) - may God be pleased with him - it is proving the invalid hand, and it is not required to remove the hand. We said: Our talk is in the act that is a reason for guarantee (7), which is removing the hand.

Many issues arise from this, including: The appendages of the usurped item [(1)] are not (2) guaranteed by us, unlike (3) it; Because proof of the hand[(4)] is achieved without removing the hand[(5)]. Among them: the difference in the usurpation of property (6), and will follow [(7)] (8).

Among them: What he said in the text: (So using (1) a slave[(2)] and carrying an animal (3)[(4)] is usurpation, not his sitting on the rug[(5)]); In the first two, he moved them from one place to another, and in the second: the rug remained as it was, and he did not do anything to it (6), it would be the removal of [the hand] (7). This difference has been branched out by: keeping the owner away from the livestock until they die, and keeping others until the other has his tooth extracted, and this branching is not straightforward; Because proof of hand was not found in these two issues, then this definition must be added, not by way of a secret, to exclude theft.

(And its ruling: the sin [(1)] is for whoever knows, the return of the eye is upright, and the debt [(2)] is ruined, and the proverb must be used in the proverbial [(3)]: such as the measured, the weighted, and the close numerical [(1)]). Know that he made these three categories probabilistic despite the fact that many of the weighted ones are not probabilistic, but are of equal values such as the bottle and the amount and the like, so I say: (2) is not what is meant by weighted example: what is weighed when The sale, rather, that which is met with a price that is clearly stated in the measure (3) or the weight or the number and does not differ by workmanship, so if it is said that this thing is qafiz for a dirham, or from one dirham, or ten dirhams, it is only said (4): If there is no discrepancy in it, and if there is no discrepancy in it, then it is similar. But we said: It does not differ by workmanship; Even if it differs, such as the bottle and the pot, it is not the same, then what is not different is due to workmanship: Either not made. Or it is made and does not differ, like dirhams, dinars, and money, all of which are ideal (5). And if you know this, you will know the ruling on predicates. Everything that is said: A cubit of this garment is sold for such and such, then this is only said in what does not have a discrepancy, and it is what is permissible in it, as it is permissible for it to be salaam, as it is known by stating its length, width, and patch (6)[(7)], and the jurists have separated the likes and the ones with values, and there is (8) no need for that, so what is found in the markets for something similar (9) without a significant discrepancy is like me, and what is not like that is (10) with values, and what was mentioned from (10). Al-Kili and his sisters are based on this.

(If the example ceases[(1)] then its value is on the day they dispute), according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -; Because the value is due on the day of the dispute, and according to Muhammad - may God be pleased with him - it is due on the day of cessation (1); Because then it is transferred to value, and according to Abu Yusuf - may God be pleased with him - the day the cause is fulfilled, which is usurpation, for if the like is cut off, it joins to what has no like, I say: [This][(2)](3) is more just(4) since nothing of its kind remains on the day of the dispute, and the value is considered by the abundance and lack of desires(5), and in the non-existent this is impossible or difficult, and on the day of cessation there is no control over it, and also it was not moved to the value on this day, as there was no request from the owner. Also, when the proverb exists, it does not transfer to value, and when it does not exist, it has no value.

(And in something other than the same [(1)] its value on the day of its usurpation is like the varying number[(2)]): that is, the thing that is counted, and its individuals are different, and what is meant here (1) is something that corresponds to the price based on the number: like an animal, for example, for it is counted when selling without saying: ten sheep are sold for such and such. (If he claims to have perished[(2)] he shall be imprisoned until he knows that if he had survived, he would have appeared(3), then he shall be judged in exchange for it(4)[(5)].

Its condition [(1)]: that the usurped item is a transfer [(2)], so if he usurped a property and it perished in his possession[(3)] he is not liable[(4)]). This is according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - [and Abu Yusuf - may God be pleased with him -](5), and according to Muhammad - may God be pleased with him - and Al-Shafi’i (6) - may God be pleased with him -: it is considered usurpation, but according to Al-Shafi’i - may God be pleased with him -; Because the punishment for usurpation, which is proving the invalid hand, is valid [(7)], and as for Muhammad - may God be pleased with him -; So because the usurpation, even if he has it, is what we mentioned, but the removal of the hand in the property is by what is possible in it, not by transfer, and they say: Usurpation is proof of the hand by removing the owner’s hand by an act on the property, and it is not conceivable in the property; Because the owner’s hand does not go away except by removing him from it, and he did it in it, not in the property, so it became as if the owner was removed from the livestock[(1)].

(He included [(1)] what was diminished (2) by his action[(3)], such as his dwelling and cultivation, or by hiring a usurped slave): that is, he guaranteed [in](4) the property[(5)] and other things. As for real estate, such as housing, cultivation, and other than real estate, such as if he usurped a slave and rented him out and he worked, and he became ill or thin[(6)] within the decrease[(7)].

(And he gives in charity his wage[(1)], the wage of his borrowed one, and the profit he obtained by disposing of what he had deposited, or what was usurped(2)[(3)] with the help of indicating, or by purchasing with the deposited or usurped dirhams, and cashing them. If (1) pointed to it and cashed another, or to another and was free, and he cashed it no, and he issued a fatwa on it): That is, he gives charity according to (2) Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - and Muhammad - may God be pleased with him - in disagreement. By Abu Yusuf - may God be pleased with him - [(3)] with the wages of a slave who was usurped, so he rented and took the rent, and likewise with the wages of a borrowed slave whom he rented and took his wage, and likewise he gives in charity a profit obtained by disposing of the deposited or usurped item if [of] (4) it is determined by the reference, and likewise he gives in charity a profit earned by purchasing with a deposit or a usurped property that is not determined by the reference if he refers to it and criticizes it, so his saying: or by purchase is a conjunction of the disposition, but if he refers to it, criticizes something else, or indicates To others and cash them, or in general and cash them: that is, he did not refer to anything, but rather said: I bought it for a thousand dirhams and cash from usurped and deposited dirhams. In all of these cases, he is pleased with the profit and is not obligated to give it in charity.

(If he usurped and changed[(1)] then his name[(2)] and his greatest benefits[(3)] are guaranteed and his ownership(4)[(5)] without permissibility[(6)] before paying his compensation: such as slaughtering a sheep and cooking or grilling it[(7)], or grinding wheat and planting it, and making iron(8) a sword, and making a sword[(1)](2) a vessel, and building on a sedge[(3)] and brick), the sage with the gym: Hewn wood prepared for a foundation on it, and this is what we have; Because he created perfect workmanship[(4)] the owner’s right became lost[(5)](6) from one perspective, and according to Al-Shafi’i(7)[(8)] - may God be pleased with him -: The owner’s right is not cut off from him; Because the eye remains and is not considered (1) the act of the usurper [(2)]; Because it is prohibited, it does not become a reason for the king. (If he strikes the two stones [(3)] a dirham and (4) a dinar or a vessel, he does not own it (5), and it belongs to its owner for nothing), this is according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -; Because the name remains, and its original meaning is: the price, and since it is balanced, it remains until usury is imposed on it, and in them: they become the usurper’s by analogy to others.