អ៊ុមដាតុល រីអាយ៉ះ (ការពន្យល់ក្បួនច្បាប់វីកាយ៉ះ ហាណាហ្វី)

He mentioned the duration[(1)][(2)]. And the Lord of the seed [(3)]. And his gender. And the other installment (4)[(5)]. And the separation between the land and the worker (6).

If the company is abroad[(1)][(2)], it is invalidated if there is a condition[(3)]; One of them has two named leaps(4), or what comes out of a certain place, [and for the other what comes out of another place](5), or raising(6) the owner of the seed with his seed[(7)], or raising the tax[(8)] and halving the rest); This is if the tax is an established tax (9), but if the tax is a divided tax (10) such as a quarter or a fifth, it does not invalidate the contract, as is the condition of removing the tenth; Because this does not lead to severing the company. (Or hay[(1)] for one and love for the other); To sever the partnership in what is intended, (or divide the grain and hay (2) to someone other than (3) the owner of the seed); Because it is contrary to what is required by the contract, (or dividing the hay and love for one of them); To sever the partnership in [what] (4) is intended, (the condition of halving the grain and hay for the owner of the seed, or not being exposed to the hay is valid); Because in the first, the condition is required by the contract, as it is (5) the growth of (6) his property, and in the second, the partnership in what is intended, his harvest and then the hay goes to the owner of the seed, and according to some (7) it is shared [(8)] according to the love. (And likewise if (9) the land and the seed belong to Zaid and the cows and the work belong to another (10), or the land or the work belongs to him, and the rest (11) belongs to another (12).

It is invalid if the land and the cows are Zayd’s, or the seed and the cows are his, and the other two are for the other(1), or the seed is his and the rest is for another(2), know that it is by rational division into seven aspects; Because either one is from one of them, and the three are from another (3), and this has four aspects, and it is [either] (4) that the land, work, seed, or cows are from one of them, and the rest from the other, and the first two are permissible, and the third is not; Because of the possibility of usury, and the fourth is not mentioned in ((Al-Hidaya)), and it [also] (5) is not permissible; Because (6) renting cows (7) for an unknown fee. Or there may be two of one of them, and two of the other, and it has three aspects, and that is [either](8) that the land be with the seed, or with the cows, or with the work from one of them, and the remaining two from the other, and the first is permissible without the others(9), as there is no correspondence between the land and the work(10)[(11)], and likewise between the land and the cows, and on the authority of Abu Yusuf - may God be pleased with him - the permissibility of this.

(And if (1) is correct, then the one who left (2) is subject to the condition, and the worker does not receive anything if he does not leave, and he is forced to refuse [(3)] from proceeding except the Lord of the seed. Because proceeding with it is not without harm, which is the destruction of the seeds, (and when they spoil, then the money that comes out goes to the owner of the seed, and to the other [reward](4) [such as his land](5), or his work, and no more than what is stipulated), and according to Muhammad - may God be pleased with him - he reached what he reached. (And if the Lord of the seed and the land refuses, and He has distressed[(6)](7) the worker, then there is nothing for him as a matter of right, and he will be satisfied with a religion.

It is invalidated by the death of one of them, and is annulled by a debt that makes it necessary to sell it[(1)]). This is before the crop grows, but it must be done religiously to be appeased if the worker works. However, if the crop grows and does not harvest (2), the land is not sold because the farmer’s right is suspended.

(If the period has passed and the crops have not been harvested, then the worker must pay a wage equal to his share of the land until he reaches it): that is, a wage equivalent to what is in his share (1), (and the expenses of planting are borne by them in shares), such as the wage for watering and other work, will be borne by them [(2)] in proportion to the share, (such as the wages of harvesting [(1)], plowing (2), trampling (3), and winnowing (4)), for it [will be] (5) borne by them in proportion to the share of each one of them.

(The condition [(6)] imposed on the worker is invalidated); Because it is a condition that contradicts the requirement of the contract, when the planting is realized, the contract is ended, (on the authority of Abu Yusuf - may God be pleased with him - it is valid [(7) ]): that is, the condition is valid, (and it is necessary (1) for dealing (2). Imam Al-Sarkhasi (3) - may God be pleased with him - said: It is the most correct in our lands (4); For the transaction to take place, the bottom line[(5)] is that every action before realization is the responsibility of the worker, and whatever comes after it is the responsibility of both of them(6) in shares. [And God knows best] (7).

[The Book of Equality, Sacrifice, Sacrifice, and Hatred] Book of Musaqat [(1)]

(It is the giving of trees[(2)] to someone who cultivates it for a portion of its fruit, and it is like a farm in terms, in disagreement, and in terms of conditions). The ruling on Musaqah is the ruling on sharecropping in that the fatwa is valid, and that it is invalid according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - contrary to them, and in that its conditions are like those in every condition that can be found in Musaqah, such as the eligibility of the contracting parties, the statement of the worker’s share, the separation between the trees and the worker, and the partnership in Outside, as for explaining the seeds and the like, it is not possible in Musaqat, and according to Al-Shafi’i (3) - may God be pleased with him - Musaqat is permissible, and cultivation is only permissible within the Musaqat [(4)]; [Because the origin is Mudaraba, and Musaqat] (5) I liken it to it; Because the partnership is for profit only [(6)], and in farming it is not permissible (1) for the partnership for profit alone, which is more than the seed.

(Except for the period; it is valid (2) without mentioning it), with approval [(3)]; For the ripening of the fruit has a known time [(4)] (and it falls on the first fruit[(1)] that emerges, and the ripening of the seed of the fresh fruit (2) [(3)] is like the ripening of the fruit), the fresh fruit [in Persian: [سات](4) Tar](5), so if (6) the fresh fruit is given a distance, it is not necessary to state the period, so it extends to the ripening of the fresh fruit; It is like realizing the fruit on the tree.

I say: Mostly, the seed is not intended. Rather, it is harvested in [each] (1) year six times or more. If the seed is intended, it is harvested (2) times, and left (3) the second time until the seed is ripe. So while (4) the seed is not taken, it should fall on the first (5) year: that is, on (6) the year (7) in which the wet (8) period ends after the contract. (And mentioning a period during which it does not produce fruit [(9)] spoils it, and a period during which it may or may not reach fruition is valid)(10): Any mention of such-and-such period is valid(11).

(If it comes out at a specified time, then (1) the condition must be met, otherwise [(2)] the worker will have a similar reward: that is, to work (3) until the fruit is achieved [(4)].

(It is valid (1) in vineyards, trees, and palm trees (2) [(3)], and the roots of eggplants and palm trees (4) even if it has fruit or it is ripe, like farming. This is according to us, and according to Al-Shafi’i (5) - may God be pleased with him - it is not valid except in vineyards and palm trees (6), but it is valid in them according to the hadith of (7) Khaybar (8), and in other cases it remains according to the analogy, and in our view it is valid in all that was mentioned due to the need of the people, then if It is valid, even if (9) the fruit is on the tree, unless the fruit is ripe; Because it requires work before realization, not after, like farming, it is valid if it is grains, and it is not valid if it is harvested, but leasing the land is not valid unless it is (10) free from the owner’s crops.

(If one of them dies, or its term expires and the fruit is gone[(1)](2) the worker or his heir will take charge of it, and if the payer or his heirs hate it): That is, the worker dies and the fruit is dead, the heirs of the worker will take care of it, even if the payer dislikes it, and if the payer dies, the worker will stand as it was[(3)], and if the payer’s heirs hate it, it is desirable(4)[(5)] to ward off harm.

(It is not annulled except with an excuse, such as the fact that (1) the worker is sick and unable to work, or a thief fears for his palms (2)[(3)], or his fruit is an excuse (4).

Pay (1) space (2) for a known period; To plant, and the land and the trees are not right between them). Because of the condition of partnership in what happened before the partnership, (and the fruit and planting [(3)] belong to the owner of the land, and to the other the value of his planting and the reward for his work); Because it is in the meaning of the miller’s qafiz; Because it is a rental for some of what comes out of his work, which is half the orchard, but the planting does not belong to its owner; Because he planted with his consent[(4)] and the consent of the landowner, so he became a dependent on the land, and the trick to the permissibility is that he sells half the plants for half the land, and the landowner hires the worker for three years [for example](5) for a small amount; To do his share. [And God knows best] (6).

Book of Sacrifices[(1)][(2)]

(He forbade a sacrifice that was not slaughtered [(3) ][(1) ](1)), by the sacrifice he meant an animal that would be slaughtered until it came out (2) fish and locusts; Because it is not their business to slaughter, but rather we interpreted it as that, not the true meaning, since if (3) was interpreted [as the true meaning](4) then the meaning would be forbidden, slaughtered without being slaughtered (5): that is, the name of God Almighty was not mentioned over it, so it does not address the prohibition of what is not slaughtered: such as a mutayrah [(6)], butting [(7)], and the like [(8)], nor if a limb is cut off from a living animal, and if it is interpreted according to the metaphorical meaning, which is [what](9) would be To slaughter the images mentioned above.

Then he explained the slaughtering by saying: (And the slaughtering (1) of necessity is a wound wherever it is on the body, and the choice is slaughtering [between the throat and the pulp[(2)]](3)), the pulp: the throat (4) of the chest, (and its veins: the throat, the esophagus (5), and the jugular (6)[(7)]), the throat: the passage of the breath, and the esophagus: the passage of food and drink, and in ((Al-Hidaya))(8) the opposite of this, which is An oversight on the part of the writer or someone else[(9)], (it was not permissible above the knot[(10)])(11), and some (1) issued a fatwa declaring it permissible; Because of his saying - may God bless him and grant him peace -: ((Zakat is between the two men and the two men)) (2).

(It is permissible to cut off (1), i.e., three of them [(2)]), establishing for the most the place of all, (and with everything that spills (3) [(4)] the jugulars, and streams of blood, even if it is a pulp and a marwa), the lita: the peel of a reed, and the marwah[(5)]: the stone [which] (6) has sharpness in it.