អ៊ុមដាតុល រីអាយ៉ះ (ការពន្យល់ក្បួនច្បាប់វីកាយ៉ះ ហាណាហ្វី)

(Or this house[(1)], so he stood[(2)] in the doorway of a door, and if it had been closed, he would have been out(3).

Or he does not live in it[(1)] while he is in it, or he does not wear it while he is wearing it, or (2) he does not ride it while he is riding it, so he took the transport[(3)], took off[(4)] and got down[(5)] without staying in it): That is, if he swore that he would not live in this house while he is its resident, then he must take the transport without staying(6), even if he stayed for an hour he would break his oath[(7)], and this[(8)] With us, as for Zafar - may God be pleased with him - he perjured himself; Because there is housing, even if it is small [(9)].

We said [(1)]: Oaths are legislated for righteousness, so the time for attaining righteousness is excluded, and the same applies to the one who does not wear it while he is wearing it, and does not ride it while he is riding it. (Or he does not enter and sits in it). It is not broken, because entering is moving from the outside to the inside, so staying[(2)] is not broken, unlike [(3)] living, (4) wearing, and (5) riding, for in the case of (6) staying still, wearing, and riding, then from our saying[(7)](8): And it was said: In our custom, it is not broken... Here the ruling is not to break it.

(Unless he goes out and then enters) This is a deflated exception[(1)](2) like the adverb (3), so his saying: unless he goes out, means except going out(4), then the infinitive falls at a time, like: I came to you(5) faqouf[(6)] the star(7): i.e. the time of his faucet, so the estimation of the speech...(8) in his saying: he does not enter, so he sat; He does not break his oath at any time [(9)] except when he leaves and then enters.

(And if he does not live[(1)] in this house[(2)], he must leave[(3)] with his family[(4)] and all his belongings[(5)] until he perjures the remaining stake): This is according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -. As for Abu Yusuf [(6)] - may God be pleased with him -, it is considered to be the narration of most.

As for Muhammad - may God be pleased with him - what he does is considered as his deceit[(1)](2). They said: This is better and kinder to people(3). (Unlike [(4)] Egypt and Al-Qaryah)(5): It is [not] (6) a requirement[(7)] for the transportation of family and belongings.

[Separation of the oath regarding going out, coming, riding, etc.] (And he broke [(1)] in “He does not go out if he is carried and goes out by his command, not if he goes out without his command...(2) under compulsion[(3)] or with his consent[(4)](5), and the like(6) does not enter into sections[(7)] and ruling), so the sections: To come out by his command [(8)].

And to leave without his command, either by force or willingly. The ruling (1) is breaking the oath in the first case, and not doing so in the others (2). (And not (3) in “He only goes out to a funeral if he goes out to it[(4)], then to another matter[(5)]): for he does not break his oath; Because his departure was only for the funeral (6).

(And he swore [(1)] that he would not go to Mecca, so he went out seeking it and returned.) Because the departure [(2)] to Mecca has been fulfilled (3), (not in “He will not go to it” [(4)] until he enters it [(5)]): that is, if he swears not to come to Mecca, he will not break his oath until he enters it, (and his going is like his going out in the most correct opinion [(6)]): that is, if he swore not to go to Mecca, then the more correct view is that it is like “He does not” (1) go to Mecca, and according to some: it is like he does not come (2), and the first is more correct (3); Because God Almighty says: {Indeed, I am going to my Lord}(4), meaning I am heading to Him, but as for reaching it, it is not within his power. (And [in] (5) they will come to Mecca [and he did not come there] (6) he will not break his oath (7) except at the end of his life [(8)]); Because then it will be confirmed that it will not happen (9).

(And he swore that he would come to him tomorrow if he could, if he did not come to him [(1)] without any impediment, such as illness (2) or power, or religion [(3)] with the intention of (4) the true meaning: that is, if he said: I meant (5) true ability (6): which is the complete ability by which (7) the action must occur, for it is only a comparison of the action being believed [(8)] religion and not judgment [(9) ]; Because it is customarily applied to the soundness of causes and mechanisms, the other meaning is contrary to the apparent meaning, so a judgment is not valid. (A condition for righteousness is that he does not go out[(1)](2) except[(3)] with His permission, for every exit has permission. Because his estimation does not come out (4) except in a way that is attached to his permission, so the exception is the exit that is attached to permission (5), and everything else [(6)] remains in the beginning of the speech.

(Not in unless he gives permission): [i.e.] (1) If he says [(2)]: He does not go out unless he gives permission, permission is not required for every exit; Because except for the very end, such as: until, so if [(3)] permission is given once, the prohibition ends, and [(1)] can be intended except for the time of my permission by making the infinitive a time, then every exit must have permission. The answer [(2)]: He gave permission once, then went out, then went out again without permission. According to the first interpretation, he does not break his oath, and according to the second interpretation, he breaks his oath, so he does not break his oath due to doubt.

(And for breaking the oath if you go out, and if you hit [then you are divorced](1) for a woman who wants[(2)] to go out, or hit a slave, do them(3) immediately[(4)](5))(6): Any condition for breaking the oath if you go out, and if you hit, do them(1) immediately. (And if you have lunch[(2)] after it is said: Come[(3)] and have lunch with me[(4)], you will have lunch with him[(5)]): Any condition for breaking the oath in If you have lunch, you will have lunch with him(6).

(It is sufficient for the absolute person to have lunch if he includes the day): That is, it is sufficient for the perjurer to have the absolute lunch if he says: If I had lunch today, for if [(1)] was an answer, it is sufficient to say: If I had lunch, then when he added the day, he knew that it was an initial statement[(2)], so he broke the absolute statement of the person who had lunch on this day, and it is not required for the perjurer to have lunch with him.

(And the authorized rider [(1)] does not have his master’s right to swear [(2)] (3) unless he has no debt that is absorbed by him and he intends it (4): That is, if he swore not to ride Zayd’s animal[(1)], then he rode the animal of his authorized slave, and if he owed a debt that was absorbed by his neck and his earnings, he does not break it[(2)]; Because this animal does not belong to Zaid, and if he does not have a debt that is deeply in debt[(3)], then if he intends to use Zaid’s animal as his own animal[(4)] then he does not break his oath, and if he intends to use an animal that is Zaid’s property more general than that it should be his own, or that it be the animal of his authorized slave, then he will break his oath[(5)]. He said: Abu Yusuf - may God be pleased with him - perjured himself in all respects[(1)] if he intended it. Muhammad - may God be pleased with him - said: He may break his oath[(2)] even if he did not intend.

[Chapter on the oath in eating and drinking] ((1) Eating[(2)] from this palm tree[(3)] is restricted by its fruit[(4)])(5); Because the real meaning is abandoned in sense[(6)], (and this righteousness is by eating it with a bite[(7)]), this is according to Abu Hanifa(8) - may God be pleased with him - contrary to them, based[(1)] on the fact that if the word has a real meaning used[(2)], and a known metaphorical meaning[(3)], then Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - prefers the real meaning, and they prefer the metaphorical meaning, so what is meant in them is eating its inner meaning. Metaphorically, he breaks his oath by eating it, whether by biting it or otherwise, so they both act [(1)] in general metaphorical terms. (And this flour[(2)] by eating its bread(3), it would not be broken if it was used as a vowel(4) as it is: that is, it would be broken by eating what is taken from it[(5)] such as bread and the like; Because the real meaning is abandoned, the metaphorical meaning is meant.

(And eating barbecue[(1)](2) with meat [not eggplant(3) and carrots](4), and cooking[(5)] with cooked meat, and the head[(6)] with a head that is pressed into skirts and sold in Egypt(7))(8), in accordance with custom, for oaths are based on it[(9)], (and lard[(10)] with belly fat(11)). This is according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him. - And as for them, he eats back fat, (and bread[(1)] with wheat (2) bread and barley, not rice bread [in a town (3) to which he is not accustomed][(4)](5), and fruit[(6)] with apples, apricots[(7)], and watermelon[(8)], not grapes, pomegranates[(9)], dates, cucumbers, and cucumbers): This is according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -, and they have [(1)] grapes, Pomegranate, wet fruit.

(And drinking [(2)] from a stream with a bowl (3) of it, then he would not have broken his oath if he drank from it from a vessel): This is according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -, for: from; According to him, it is the beginning of the purpose, and according to them [(4)] is the end: that is, he does not drink from his water (1), (unlike the oath [(2)] from his water (3).

And the governor [(1)] is sworn in by a man; To inform him of every evildoer (2) who came to [the town] (3) of the condition of his governorship: that is, restricting the governor’s oath to a man; To inform him of every corruption that has come to the country (4) in the state of his mandate (5).

(And beating, and clothing, and speaking, and entering upon him in life[(1)], not washing[(1)]): That is, if he swore to beat Zaid, he would be restricted by the state of his life, and if he swore to wash Zaid, he would not be restricted by the state of his life. (And the relative[(2)] is less than a month): that is, the relative is restricted to what is less than a month (in order to pay off his debt to a relative, while the month is far away(3).

And whatever is dyed [(1)] with it, it is cooked (2) and likewise salt, not grilled (3): In ((Morocco)) [(4)]: Ibn Al-Anbari (5) - may God be pleased with him - said: