អ៊ុមដាតុល រីអាយ៉ះ (ការពន្យល់ក្បួនច្បាប់វីកាយ៉ះ ហាណាហ្វី)

((1) The evidence [against him] (2) is not heard until the buyer is present and it is annulled in his presence.) Rather, the presence of [the seller and] (3) the buyer (4) [(5)] is required; Because the ownership belongs to him, and the hand belongs to the seller, so if it is delivered to the buyer, the presence of the seller is not required; Because he has become a foreigner, (the [pre-emptor](6) shall be granted pre-emption, and the custody shall be on the seller(7)[(8) ]), until the house must be delivered to the seller, and upon maturity, the custody of the price shall be on the seller, so he shall be asked to do so. (The pre-emptor[(1)] has the option of inspecting the defect, even if the buyer stipulates that he is innocent of it, and if the pre-emptor and the buyer disagree about the price, the buyer will be honest[(2)]): That is...(3) with (4) the oath, because the pre-emptor claims that he is entitled to the house when the (5) less is paid, and the buyer denies it.

(And if we prove it, the pre-emptor has more right). This is according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - and Muhammad - may God be pleased with him -, and their evidence is what we mentioned, and also [(1)]: The two pieces of evidence can be confirmed by running the contract twice, so the pre-emptor takes the lesser (2), and according to Abu Yusuf - may God be pleased with him - [the buyer’s evidence] (3) is more right because it is more proven.

(And if the buyer claims a price, and his seller is less than it without taking possession of it, then the saying is for him): that is, without taking possession of the price, then the saying is for the seller [(1)], (and with the buyer taking possession of it): that is, with taking possession of the price, so the saying (2) is for the buyer (3), (and he took to deducting the whole for the whole (4)). The issue of deducting some was discussed in ((Chapter on Murabahah)) (5) by his saying: And the intercessor takes the lesser in the two chapters (6).

(And in purchasing at a price equal to the same, and in another for the value, and in a property for a property, each is taken at the value of the other (1), and in a deferred price under one condition or demanded immediately and taken after the deadline) (2), this is ours, [and] (3) [as for] (4) according to [Zafar - may God be pleased with him - and] (5) Al-Shafi’i (6) - may God be pleased with him - in his old saying, he has the right to take it immediately for the deferred price, (and if he is silent about it, it is invalid): that is, if he is silent about it, it is invalid. From the request, and he was patient until he asked, and at the time of the deadline his pre-emption became invalid [(7)].

(In the case of a non-Muslim buying wine or a pig, the non-Muslim pre-emptor is the same as the value of the wine and the value of the pig, and the Muslim pre-emptor is the value of each [(2)].

And in the buyer’s building and planting for the price [and the value of the building and planting] (1) uprooted, as in usurpation, [and if he wishes] (2) the buyer is responsible for uprooting them: that is, he takes the pre-emptor if the buyer builds or plants for the price and their value is uprooted, or the buyer is responsible for uprooting the building or (3) the planting, and what is meant by their value is uprooted, their value is for those deserving of uprooting, as was mentioned in ((usurpation)) (4), and on the authority of Abu Yusuf - may God be pleased with him. -: He is not responsible for uprooting, rather he has the choice between taking the price and the value of the building and planting, or leaving it. This is the saying of Al-Shafi’i (5) - may God be pleased with him -; Because the obligation [(6)] to uproot is one of the rulings on aggression, and the buyer here (7) is right (8) in the construction, we said: He built it in a place to which a certain right is attached, without dominance (9) [(10)]. ([And the pre-emptor[(1)]](2) returns for the price only if he built(3) or planted, then it becomes due): That is, if the pre-emptor takes pre-emption and builds or plants, then [the land] becomes due(4) he returns for the price only, and does not return for the value of the building or planting from anyone other than the buyer[(5)], for he returns for the value of the building or planting from the seller; Because he is an authority (6) on his part, unlike the intercessor, for he took force.

(And for all the price[(1)] if it is ruined, or the trees dry up): [i.e.](2) He bought a house and it became ruined, or a garden and the trees dried up. If the pre-emptor wants to take pre-emption, he takes the full price. (And he took the plot [(3)] and not annulled it for its share if the buyer demolished the building), but rather he took the share (4); Because the buyer intended to destroy, and in the first place he was damaged by a heavenly scourge, and he does not take revocation; Because it is not a property, and it does not remain a dependency.

(And in the purchase of land with (1) date palm fruit in it, or no fruit on it and it bears fruit with him, he takes it[(2)] with its fruit and its share of the price if the buyer takes it[(3)](4) in the first, and with the whole in the second), he buys land and mentions the fruit(5) of palm trees in the sale, since it is not included without mentioning, or he bought it and there was no fruit on the trees and it bears fruit in the hands of the buyer, then the intercessor takes [the land](6) with the fruit in the two chapters[(7)], and if Judah(8) is the buyer, so the intercessor takes the land without the palm fruits, but in the first chapter he takes the land’s share[(9)] of the price, and in the second chapter he takes [all](1) the price; Because the fruit was not available at the time of the contract, there is no compensation for the price. Chapter [(2)] What is it in it...(3) or not[(4)], and what invalidates it That is, the chapter on what has pre-emption or not, and what invalidates pre-emption. [Separation of what pre-emption is required and what is not]

(It is only obligatory[(5)](1) intentionally(2) in real estate(3) property of compensation which is property, even if it is not divided like a millstone(4) and pigeons[(5)](6) and well): that is, pre-emption(7) intentional is specific to the property, unlike non-intentional it is proven(8) in other than property, trees and fruits are taken by pre-emption depending on the property, then the property must be property of compensation even if it is owned by a gift that is not proven(9) Pre-emption, then the compensation must be money, even if it is transferred over a house, pre-emption is not proven (10). Rather, he said: Even if it is not divided; Because pre-emption is not established (11) according to Al-Shafi’i (12) - may God be pleased with him - in what is not divided, because pre-emption is to pay the expenses of the division according to him, and according to us: to pay the damage to the neighbourhood.

(Not in the case of (1)[(2)], an ark[(3)] and a building, and it is permissible to sell it intentionally) even if the sale of (1) a building[(2)] and palm trees(3) in connection with the land is subject to pre-emption, (and an inheritance, charity, and a gift except (4) compensation(5)[(6)], and a house that is divided); Because in the division there is a meaning of separation (7), (or I made a wage or an allowance for a divorce (8) or a emancipation (9) or a reconciliation (10) for intentional bloodshed, or a dowry and (11) if some of it was paid in exchange for money), and from his saying (12): Or I made a wage contrary to Al-Shafi’i (13) - may God be pleased with him - [(14) ]; These compensations are valid for him. And for us: If the benefits are established, it is necessary, so they do not appear (1) in the right of pre-emption, nor do blood and emancipation, and if some of them are exchanged for money, as if he marries her for a house on the condition that she returns a thousand to him, then there is no pre-emption in the entire house according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - [(2)], and they said: (3) is obligatory in the share of a thousand, since it involves a financial exchange, and he says: The meaning of the sale is dependent on it; That is why it is concluded by the wording of the marriage, and it is not invalidated by the condition of the marriage...(4), and there is no pre-emption in the original, and the same applies to the sale.

(Or it was sold at the option of the seller [(1)] and (2) his option was voided), so that if the option was voided (3) pre-emption is established[(4)], (or it was a corrupt sale [(5)] and the [right] (6) of its annulment was not voided), for if it was sold in a corrupt sale and the right of annulment was lost because the buyer built it in it, pre-emption is established [(7)], (or it was returned with the option of a vision or a condition or a defect by a judgment after it had been delivered): that is, it was sold and pre-emption was given, then it was returned. Selling with the option of sighting and with the judge’s ruling, there is no pre-emption; Because it is canceled [(1)] there is no sale. (It is obligatory to return it without judgment, and with dismissal [(2)]): That is, pre-emption is established in the return of the defect without the judge’s judgment; Because when the return was not required and he took it with consent [it became] (3) as if he had bought it, and likewise (4) pre-emption by dismissal is required; Because the dismissal is a sale against the third party, and the pre-emptor is the third party.

(The authorized slave has a debt in his master’s sale, and his master has a debt in his sale): That is, [pre-emption](1) is obligatory for the authorized slave in the event that he owes a debt surrounding his neck and his earnings. [He](2) has pre-emption in what his master sold, and likewise the master has the right of pre-emption in what the aforementioned authorized slave sold based on the fact that what is in his hand belongs to him.

(And to the one who bought or bought for him, not to the one who sold or sold to him, or guaranteed the price(3)[(4)]): That is, pre-emption is obligatory for the buyer[(6)] whether he bought on his own or as an agency. Likewise, pre-emption is obligatory for the one who bought for him: that is, for the one who appointed another to buy and bought for the sake of the principal, and the principal is a pre-emptor, he has pre-emption, and his benefit is that if the buyer or the client to purchase were a partner, and the house (7) had another partner, They have pre-emption even if he is a partner, and the house(8) has a neighbor, so there is no pre-emption for the neighbor if he is present, and the seller has no pre-emption[(1)] whether he is a principal or an agent, and likewise there is no pre-emption for the one to whom it is sold: that is, [if](2) he is appointed to sell, and the principal is a pre-emptor, then he has no pre-emption, and likewise if he guarantees the property and it is sold, and he is a pre-emptor [for him](3), he has no pre-emption; Because the conclusion is based on it (4).

(And not in what was sold except an cubit[(5)] of the length of the pre-emptor’s limit.) This is a trick to drop the pre-emption of neighbourhood, which is that (1) the house is sold except the amount of its width of an arm, an inch, or a finger, [and] (2) its length is the entire length of the sold house adjacent to the pre-emptor’s house; If he does not sell property that is adjacent to the pre-emption house, pre-emption is not established [(3)]. (Or he bought a share of them for a price and then the rest of it except for the first share [(4)]). This is [another] trick (5) to eliminate the pre-emption of the neighbour, which is that if he wants to buy the house for a thousand, he buys a small amount of it, like one share out of a thousand shares for example, for a thousand minus a dirham, then he buys the rest for a dirham. The pre-emptor only takes pre-emption in the first share with his price, not in the remainder because the buyer has become a partner and is more worthy than the neighbour.

(Or he bought it for a price and then paid a garment for it [he does not take](1) except for the price). This is another trick that applies to neighbors and elsewhere[(2)], which is if the house is to be sold for a hundred, so he buys the house for a thousand and then pays a garment equal to a hundred in return for the thousand, so the intercessor does not take it except for a thousand[(3)].

(The trick of dropping [(1)] pre-emption and zakat is not disliked according to Abu Yusuf - may God be pleased with him -, and he issues a fatwa regarding pre-emption[(2)] and its opposite regarding zakat. Know that the trick of dropping them is not disliked according to Abu Yusuf - may God be pleased with him -, and it is disliked according to Muhammad - may God be pleased with him - and he issues a fatwa regarding pre-emption according to the words of Abu Yusuf - may God be pleased with him -; Because it prevents[(3)] the obligation of the right, not eliminating the established right, and this is what he says about zakat[(1)], but this is extremely heinous; Because it is a preference for miserliness, cutting off the livelihood of the poor that God Almighty has destined for the wealth of the rich, and joining[(2)] the path of those who hoard gold and silver but do not spend it for the sake of God, and seeking glad tidings(3)[(4)] of what God Almighty has given them. I say: Pre-emption is only prescribed to prevent harm from the neighbourhood. If the buyer is one of those who are harmed by the neighbors, it is not permissible to waive it, and if he is a righteous man from whom the neighbors benefit (5), and the pre-emptor is stubborn and does not like (6) his neighbourhood, then he is deceptive in waiving it (7).

[Chapter on what invalidates pre-emption] (It is invalidated by abandoning (1) the request for pledge[(2)] or testimony, and handing it over only after the sale): that is, delivery before the sale does not invalidate it (3), (even from the father, guardian, or agent[(4)]): that is, the agent requesting pre-emption; Surrendering these people invalidates pre-emption [according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - and Abu Yusuf - may God be pleased with him -] (5) contrary to Muhammad - may God be pleased with him - and Zafar - may God be pleased with him -, this is invalidating an established right of the minor, and it was legislated to prevent harm, and for them (6): it is in the sense of abandoning purchase.

(And reconcile it [(1)] of it on the basis of compensation and return its compensation): that is, reconciliation on compensation invalidates pre-emption [(2)]; Because it is a surrender, but reconciliation is not permissible. Because it is merely the right of ownership, the compensation must be returned.

(And the death of the pre-emptor, not the buyer[(1)]). If the pre-emptor dies, (2) the pre-emption is invalidated, and no inheritance (3) is passed on his behalf, unlike Al-Shafi’i (4) - may God be pleased with him - [(5)][(6) ]; Because it is not money, and this is if he dies after the sale before the judge,...(1) But if he dies after the judge decides before or after paying (2) the price, it becomes the heirs. (And selling (3) what intercedes [(4)] with (5) before it is settled); Because the reason for entitlement disappears before ownership, unlike if the sale is conditional upon option.

(If he heard of your purchase and greeted(1)[(2) ] and it appeared that (1) someone else had bought it, or sold it for a thousand and he greeted[(2) ] and it was less or by a kilogram or by weight or by a close number whose value was a thousand or more[(1)] then it is his, and (2) by an offer as well not[(3)]): That is, he heard the sale for a thousand(4) and he greeted(5) and it was less or by a kilometer or by weight or by a close number of its value of a thousand or more, so pre-emption is established for him; Because these things are of proverbs, the pre-emptor takes them and it may be easier for him to take these things, and if their value is more than a thousand (6) then he has the right of pre-emption, unlike if it appears that the sale was for an offer of a value of a thousand or more, [then] (7) he does not have the right of pre-emption; Because the pre-emptor here takes the value, so if its value is a thousand, then the sale is delivered with it, and if its value is more, then the (8) [sale] (1) is delivered for a thousand, and the sold item (2) is delivered for more in the first way. (And he pre-empted (3) the share of one of the buyers, not one of the sellers (4)): That is, he bought a group from one person, so the pre-emptor has the right to take the share of one of them, and if he sells a group of people from one person, he does not take the share of one of the sellers, [and leaves the share of the rest, but rather, if he wishes, he takes it all] (5); Because here the deal is divided between the buyer, and there it is not, and also in the first case the harm to the neighbor is paid, not in the second. (And the half is divided, he sold a common from a house and divided it (6)): That is, he bought half a common from a house, and he divided (7) the seller and the buyer, so the intercessor takes the half separated; Because the division is part of the complete capture.