អ៊ុមដាតុល រីអាយ៉ះ (ការពន្យល់ក្បួនច្បាប់វីកាយ៉ះ ហាណាហ្វី)

So we say [(4)](5): The denial that is surrounded by the knowledge of the witness is like proof of what is between [(6)] in the principles of jurisprudence (7) in the preponderance (1).

(And he broke an oath[(2)] by fasting for an hour with the intention[(3)](4) of not fasting, not if he added (5) days, or fasting until he completed a day[(6)])(7); If you say [(8)] Sharia fasting, it is today’s fasting, and the word, if it has a linguistic meaning, and a Sharia meaning carries the Sharia meaning[(1)]. I said [(2)]: The law has applied it to what is less than the day in the Almighty’s saying: {Then complete the fast until the night}(3), so complete fasting is the fasting of a day, so if he says: I will not fast a day, or I will not fast a full day, what is meant by complete fasting.

(And a rak'ah[(1)] in not praying, not with anything less than it, and if a prayer is joined, then it is interceded[(2)] not with less(3). And a dead child [(4)] in: If you give birth, then you are such and such.

And the emancipation of a living person [(1)] in: If she gives birth then he is free, if she gives birth dead then alive), this is according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -, but according to them he is not emancipated; Because the oath was dissolved [(2)] by the birth of the deceased. We said: It is not dissolved (3); Because his saying: If you give birth; What is meant by the living [(4)] is based on his saying: He is free; Because the dead cannot be freed [(5)].

(And in: To pay off his debt today, and he paid it off falsely[(1)], or flashy[(2)], or due(3)[(4)], or he sold it for it[(5)] for something and took it for righteousness[(6)], even if it were a copper or lead, or he gave it(1) to him not(2), it will come in various issues[(3)] from (The Book of Judiciary)(4): Indeed, falsehood is what the treasury rejects, and flashiness is what It is rejected[(5)] by merchants, and stolen goods are those that are likely to be fraudulent. Fake(6) and flashiness are those in which silver is predominantly fraudulent until it is of the same type as dirhams, but is rejected(7) for fraud. In ((Morocco)) it was said: Fake(8) is less than flashiness(9) in mediocrity. Because it is returned by the Treasury, and flashiness(10) is what merchants return(11).

(And in: He does not collect his debt, a dirham without a dirham[(1)]] He broke the oath by taking all of it separately, not some of it without the rest(2)[(3)], or all of it[(4)](5) in two weights with no interspersed except the work of the weighing(6).

Nor in: If I have only a hundred, then so (1), and he only has fifty [(2)]), this is based on the fact that the exception with us [(3)] speaks of the remainder after the double (1), and the exception to the negation is not an affirmation, so his saying: If I have only a hundred, then so and so means: I have only a hundred, so it is to negate what is above a hundred (2) [(3)], and as for proving a hundred, it is not necessary for us [(4)].

(Not in: He should not smell [(1)] basil[(2)] if he smells a rose, or jasmine); Because basil is something that has no stem, and roses and jasmine have stems, (and violets[(3)] and roses on paper)(4): that is, rose leaves without the stems of roses that have paper on them. Chapter: Swearing (5) by saying (6)

[Separating the oath in speech, buying and selling, marriage, etc.] (And he broke the oath in: [an oath] (1) not to speak to him if he spoke to him while he was asleep, on the condition that he wake up [(2)].

And in:[(1)] except with his permission[(2)]): That is, he broke the oath in: he swore(3) not to speak to him except with his permission, (if he gave permission(4) and did not know about it[(5)] then speak to him); Because permission is information, if he gives permission and does not know, then this is not permission, and according to Abu Yusuf - may God be pleased with him - he does not break his oath. Because permission is release (6)[(7)].

(And in: He should not speak to the owner of this garment[(1)] so he sold it and spoke to him. And in: He should not speak [(2)] to this young man, so speak to an old man. Because the aforementioned description is not suitable, preventing [(3)] from speaking and referring to the self.

(And in: This is free if you sell him or buy him, if he contracts[(1)] with the option[(2)]): That is, if he says: If you sell him, he is free, then he sells him on the condition that he will be freed with the option; Because he did not leave his possession[(3)], and he met the condition, which is the sale(4), and if he said: If I buy him, he is free, then he bought him with the option of emancipating him. As for their origin: Because it entered the property of the buyer. As for the origin of Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -; Because he conditioned emancipation [(5)] on purchase, it is as if he said after the purchase there was an option, so he is free and emancipated.

(And in: If I do not sell him, then so-and-so, then free him or manage him [(1)]): That is, he said: If I do not sell him, then such-and-such: That is, his wife is divorced, so free him or manage him, his wife will be divorced; Because the condition, which is not to sell, has been fulfilled[(2)].

(And by the actions of his representative [(1)] in the marriage oath[(2)], divorce[(3)], divorce, emancipation, writing, reconciliation by intentional blood[(4)], gift[(1)], charity, loan, borrowing(2), deposit, entrustment, loan, [and borrowing](3), slaughter, beating of the slave[(4)](5), paying off the debt, taking possession of it, and building, Sewing[(6)], clothing[(7)], and carrying[(8)])(9); The agent in these contracts is a pure ambassador [(1)] so that the rights return to the one who ordered it, as if the one who ordered it did it himself.

(Not in the oath of sale[(2)], purchase, lease, rental(3), reconciliation over money[(4)], dispute, division, or child spanking[(5)]); Because the contract was issued by the agent so that the rights[(6)] return to him, and it was not issued by the principal, so he is not perjured. The difference[(1)] between hitting a slave and hitting a child is that hitting is a physical act that is not transferred from one person to another, unless the authorization is valid, and the validity of the authorization is in the funds, so it is valid in the slave but not the child.

(And [No](1) in: He does not speak[(2)] so he recited the Qur’an, or glorified God, or said Allah, or said the Greatest in prayer[(3)](4), or outside of it): This is according to us, as he is not called a speaker according to custom and law[(5)], and according to al-Shafi’i(6) - may God be pleased with him - he breaks his oath, which is the analogy[(7)]; Because it's true.

(And the day I speak to him about people of color[(1)]): He said to his wife: You are divorced on the day I speak to so-and-so, so it is based on night and day, as he mentioned in (the chapter on the timing of divorce): If the day[(2)] is combined with a non-extended verb that means the absolute time, (and the intention of the day is valid); Because it is also used in it, and according to Abu Yusuf - may God be pleased with him - he believes in religion, not judgment; Because it is contrary to what is known [(3)]. (And one night I talk to him during the night[(4)].

Otherwise, the very [(1)] is like the same [(2)], in: His word unless Zaid comes forward, or until he breaks his oath if he speaks to him [(3)] before his arrival, [not [if he speaks to him](4) after(5)](6).

And in: He does not speak to his slave(1)[(2)], or his wife, or his friend[(1)](2), or he does not enter his house if the addition[(3)] is removed, and he speaks to him(4) and he does not break his oath[(5)] regarding the slave indicating this to him or not, and in other matters if he indicates this he breaks his oath, otherwise he does not): he swore not to speak to the slave of so-and-so, or he swore not to speak to this slave of so-and-so, so his addition was removed: that is, he did not remain a slave. For him, his words are not broken. But if he does not indicate, then it is apparent, and if he indicates, then it is because the servant is not being hostile to himself because of the loss of his status, but rather because of the meaning in the genitive, so the addition is taken into account, and if it is removed, he does not break his oath. If he swore not to speak to so-and-so’s friend, or so-and-so’s friend said this, or he swore not to enter so-and-so’s house, or said: This is so-and-so’s house, then he did not keep the friendship and sold the house, then speak to him and enter the house. If there is no indication, he does not break his oath. Because the addition [(6)] is considered.

In the form of a sign, he is breaking his oath. Because these things can be abandoned for their own sake[(1)], so if the self is taken into account, then the description, which is that it is added to so-and-so in the present, is meaningless[(2)].