អ៊ុមដាតុល រីអាយ៉ះ (ការពន្យល់ក្បួនច្បាប់វីកាយ៉ះ ហាណាហ្វី)

(And whoever brushes [(1)](2) a stone and another person places it, and a man is damaged by it, he is liable (3)); Because the action of the first is annulled (4) by the action of the second, so the liability is on the second, (such as if someone carried something on the road and it fell on another[(5)], or entered with a mat[(6)], or a lamp, or a pebble in someone else’s mosque, or sat in it[(1)](2) without praying, and someone was damaged by it), such as if the mat or lamp fell on someone, or the envelope in which the pebble[(3)] was fell on someone, or he was sitting without praying and it fell. He is blind [(4)] included.

(No one who wears a robe [(1)] loses it, or brings these things[(2) into a mosque in his neighborhood or sits in it](3) praying. This is according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -, and according to them: He is not liable for bringing these things into the mosque, whether it is a mosque in his neighborhood or a mosque in his neighborhood](4); Because the proximity does not adhere to the condition of safety. To him: The management of the mosque belongs to its people and no one else, so the action of others is permissible and is restricted by the condition of safety. According to them: The person sitting in the mosque is not liable, whether he sits to pray or not to pray. The bottom line is that the one who sits to pray in the mosque is not liable according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - whether in a mosque in his neighborhood or elsewhere, and the one who sits for prayer other than in the mosque of his neighborhood or elsewhere is liable, and [5] the falling of the robe is only (6) he is not liable according to Muhammad - may God be pleased with him - if he wears what he usually wears, but if he wears something that he does not normally wear, such as the Qalandrin earrings, and it falls on a person and he dies, he is liable, so this clothing is in the same position as pregnancy, and in pregnancy he is liable.

Chapter on the Slanted Wall] (And the owner of a wall tends to the common people, and a Muslim or a non-Muslim asks to revoke it[(1)] from someone who has the power to revoke it, such as a mortgager (2) by redeeming his mortgage), then he has the power[(3)] to revoke it by redeeming his mortgage, (and the father(4) of the child, the guardian[(5)], the office[(6)], and the merchant slave, and he does not revoke it within a period of time that can(7) revoke it[(1)] within the money that he lost, and his family. Self [(2) ](1) ), and the form of the request is to say: This wall of yours is tilted, so demolish it, and the form of testimony is to say: Bear witness that I approached this man to demolish his wall, and know that he mentioned in the books (2) the request and testimony, but testimony is not a condition, but rather he mentioned it so that he can prove it when he denies, so it was a matter of precaution. (No one who bears witness[(3)] to it. Then he sold it and the buyer took possession of it and it was forfeited, or he asked someone who did not have the right to revoke it, such as the mortgagee, the tenant, the depositor, or the resident of the house[(4)].

If [(1)] goes to a man’s house, he has the right to request it, then it is valid to postpone it and release him from it (2), not [(3)] if he goes to the road and the judge or whoever requests it postpones it. Because it is the right of the public, they cannot revoke it.

(If he builds an incline from the beginning, he is included without request [(1)] as in sailing a wing and the like), sailing a wing: taking out the logs (2) from the wall to the road and building on them, and as for the like: then the canopy and the gutter.

(A wall of five was requested from one of them to be annulled, and a man was liable to Aqilah for one-fifth of the blood money[(1)], just as they guaranteed two-thirds of it if someone dug a well, or built a wall, in their house, and killed a man](3)): That is, Aqilah guaranteed the one-fifth of the blood money from him who was asked to renounce it; Because the request is valid for one-fifth, and Aqilah, the well-digger, and the wall-builder are responsible for two-thirds of the blood money. Because the digger and the builder in the two-thirds are transitive, and this is according to Abu Hanifa [(4)] - may God be pleased with him -, and they said: Include half in the wall, and the digger(5) and the builder, as for the wall; Because the damage to the share of the one who requested it is taken into account, and to the share of others, it is not, so it was divided into two parts, as in the lion’s throat, the bite (6) of the snake, and the wound of a human being. In the issue of digging and building, the damage to the owner’s share does not require a guarantee, and to the usurper’s share, it is required, so it is divided into two parts. God knows best](7).

Chapter on animal crime [(1)] and against it

(The rider [(2)][(3)] is included in what his animal stepped on and what it hit with its hand, foot, or head, or bruised, or hit, or bumped, not what it blew (1) with its foot or tail), for guarding against intercourse and the like is possible other than blowing on the foot or tail. This is according to us, and according to Al-Shafi’i (2) - may God be pleased with him -: it is guaranteed by the blow as well; Because her action is added to the rider, (or someone spoiled what she pooped or urinated on the road while walking, or stopped her for that, and if he stopped her for someone else, he is liable), so if she pooped or urinated on the road while driving, he is not liable, but if he stopped her to poop or urinate, he is not liable either; Because some animals do that only after stopping, and if they stop for other than that, it is guaranteed because it is transitive (3) by stopping. (If she hits a pebble or stone with her hand or foot[(4)], or raises dust or a small stone, and it punctures an eye or spoils a garment, he is not liable, but he is liable for the large one). Because avoiding the first is impossible, unlike the second.

(The driver and the captain guarantee what the passenger guaranteed, and he must pay expiation, not them): That is, if the passenger’s place is a driver or a captain, each of them guarantees [(1)] what the passenger guaranteed, and the passenger must atone, not the driver and the captain, and the passenger is deprived of the inheritance, not the captain and the driver.

(The `Aqilah of each knight [(1)] guaranteed the other’s blood money if they collided and died): This is according to us, and according to al-Shafi’i, may God have mercy on him: Each person guarantees half of the other’s blood money; Because his destruction is done by two actions: his own action, and the action of his companion, so half of it is wasted and is considered to be the fault of its owner](2), we said: The action of each of them is permissible, and what is permissible in relation to itself does not include destruction[(3)], and in the case of someone else it is added.

(And the driver of an animal [(1)] whose tool fell [(2)] on a man and he died, and the conductor of a train whose camel trampled [(3)] a man, from] (4) the blood money, even if he had with him [(5)] a driver implicitly. If a camel was killed, a man was tied to a train without the knowledge of its conductor, and the man’s `aqlah was responsible for the blood money[(6)], and they returned it to the `aqilah of the connector); Because the link led them into this covenant[(1)]. I say: It should be in the money (2) link; Because the connection caused them to lose money, and this (3) is something that a rational person cannot bear (4). They said: This is if it is tied, and the train is moving; Because it is an order to drive indicatively, but if it is tied in conditions other than traffic, then the responsibility is on the commander’s mind; Because he drove someone else's camel without his command, neither explicitly nor implicitly, he does not have the right to claim any compensation.

(And whoever sends a dog or a bird or drives it (1) and it hits [(2)] immediately [(3)] is liable for the dog, not for the bird, nor for a dog that he did not water. The bottom line is that he is not liable for whether he drove the bird or did not water it, and he is liable for the dog if it was driven, even if it was not watered, not. In the case of the dog, the act is transferred to him because of the drive, and if he does not water it, it is not transferred to him; Because he is a chosen actor, and he is not responsible for the bird if it is not watered, and likewise if it is watered; Because his body cannot bear the market[(4)], so his existence is like his non-existence[(5)].

I say: Yes; He cannot tolerate being beaten, but his attack is by rebuking and shouting, unlike hunting[(1)]. Hunting is permissible once dispatched out of necessity. On the authority of Abu Yusuf - may God be pleased with him -: He required security in all of this out of caution, and the sheikhs - may God be pleased with them - took his statement. (Not in a wild animal[(2)][(3)] that harms a soul or property, day or night.

And whoever hits an animal with a rider on it, or pricks it and it blows, or strikes another with its hand, or runs away and hits him and kills him, he is liable not](4) The rider[(5) ](1)), this is according to us[(2)], and according to Abu Yusuf - may God be pleased with him -: The liability is on the rider and the one who pierces it in two halves[(3)], and this is if he pricks it without the rider’s permission, but if he pricks it with his permission, he is not liable; Because he commanded him to do what he owns, if the prick is in the meaning of the market, then it goes to the rider, then he is not liable for the blow (4) just as if the rider pricks the animal and it blows (5).

(And for the eye of the butcher’s sheep, what is missing[(1)][(2)](3), and for the eye of the butcher’s cow[(4)](5), and his camels, and the donkey, and the mule, and the horse, is a quarter of the value. Because it is possible to perform work on it with four eyes: its eyes (6) and the eyes (7) of the user, and according to Al-Shafi’i [(8)] - may God be pleased with him - the decrease is required, as in the butcher’s sheep. We said: In the butcher’s sheep, only the meat is intended.

Chapter on the crime of a slave, and accordingly [(1)](2) (If a slave commits [(1)] a mistake[(2)] his master will repel him for it): that is, by the crime, (and her guardian owns it or redeems her [(3)] immediately[(4)]). This is according to us, and according to Al-Shafi’i[(1)](2) - may God be pleased with him -: the crime is against his neck, he is sold(3) in it unless the master settles the harm, and the fruit of the dispute. (4) appears in following the offender after emancipation. According to Al-Shafi’i - may God be pleased with him - the victim follows the offender if he is emancipated. (If he ransomes him and commits a crime, then it is the same as the first), for if he ransomes the first, then the first becomes as if it did not exist, then the second must be paid or ransomed[(5)]. (If he commits[(6)] two crimes, he will hand them over to their guardian, who will divide it according to the amount of their rights, or he will ransom him(7) with their shares](8).

If he gave it[(1)], or sold it, or emancipated it, or managed it, or produced it): i.e. the perpetrator slave, (and he did not know about it, he is liable for the less than its value[(2)] and of the bribes, n(3) knew about it, he fined (4) the bribes[(5)]](6)), then the master accepted (7) these actions, he had a choice between payment and redemption, and (8) since there remained no place for payment without the master’s knowledge of the crime, he did not insist. He chose for the compensation, so the value became the equivalent of a slave, and there is no point in choosing[(9)] between the less and the more, so the less is obligatory, unlike if he knew, then he would become the one choosing for the compensation. (Like if his emancipation was conditional on the killing of Zaid, or throwing him, or stabbing him, and he did so): That is, he said: If you kill Zaid, you are free, so he killed, or he said: If you shot Zaid, you are free, so he shot, or he said: If you stabbed his head, you are free, so he stabbed him, and fined the injured person; Because he becomes chosen for redemption, as he freed him based on the assessment of the presence of the crime, as if he said: If you become ill, you are divorced three times. If he falls ill, he becomes a fugitive, and when he exhales - may God be pleased with him -: he does not become chosen for redemption, as there is no crime at the time of his speech, and no knowledge of its existence [(1)].

(If a slave intentionally cuts off the hand of a free man and gives it to him, and he emancipates him, then it is valid, then the slave is reconciled with it, and if he does not free him, he must be returned to his master, and he should be killed or pardoned), then if he is emancipated, it indicates [(1) his intention to correct the reconciliation, as there is no validity for it except that (2) it is a reconciliation for a crime[(3)], and what happens from it, but if he is not emancipated, and it has been reconciled, it becomes clear that the money is not obligatory, and that what is obligatory is the reconciliation, so (4) the reconciliation was In vain (5), he is rejected, and it is said to the saints: Kill him or pardon him.

(If an authorized person commits a debt by mistake and his master frees him without knowledge of it, he will pay a fine to the master of the debt that is less than its value and his debt, and to her guardian that is less than its value and damages.) If the master frees the debtor, he is obligated to the master of the debt that is less than its value and his debt (1), and to her guardian that is less than its value and damages [2]. Because if it were not for emancipation, it would be paid to the guardian of the crime[(3)], and then sold for debt.

(If a woman with permission (1) in debt gives birth to a son who will be sold with her for her debt, and he will not be paid with her for her crime (2)), then the debt is owed by the female slave and attached to her neck[(3)] and it applies to the child, and in a crime the payment is on the guardian’s behalf and not on her behalf[(4)], but it is affected by the effect of the real act, which is the payment, and the transfer of legal matters, not the real ones[(5)].