អ៊ុមដាតុល រីអាយ៉ះ (ការពន្យល់ក្បួនច្បាប់វីកាយ៉ះ ហាណាហ្វី)

And when he exhales - may God be pleased with him - he does not limit (1); Because [(2)] if the slanderer is alive, then (3) he is annulled by death (4), and if the slanderer is dead, then he will be stoned by the judge’s ruling (5), so the punishment is not required [(1)]. We said [(2)]: He is a dead slanderer; Because his testimony of revocation turned into slander, so he became slanderer after death, and was no longer defamed by the judge’s ruling. To invalidate the ruling by invalidating the argument.

(And a fine [(1)] of a quarter of the blood money (2)): This is according to us, and according to Al-Shafi’i (3) - may God be pleased with him - retaliation is based on its origin [(4)] in the witnesses of retaliation, as he said in the blood money [(5)]. (And before [(6)] they had only had punishment): that is, from the four, he had punished all the witnesses with the punishment for slander, but the witness was not punished.

If the return is after the ruling, then according to Muhammad - may God be pleased with him - only the one who returns is punished[(1)], and the rest are not punished; To confirm their testimony in court. We said: (2) the judiciary is annulled. If the return was before the ruling, then upon exhalation - may God be pleased with him - the punishment for the return is only [(3)].

And nothing[(1)] is imposed on a fifth person who returns, and if the last person returns a penalty[(2)], or a fine[(3)] a quarter of his blood money[(4)](5)); The issue is whether the return is after stoning [(6)], and what is considered is the survival of those who remained, not the return of those who returned, when three-quarters of the quorum remained.

(And within the blood money is the one who kills[(1)] the one ordered to stone him): that is, he ordered the stoning and killed him in another way[(2)], (or purified[(3)] the witnesses of adultery(4) and stoned them, so they appeared to be slaves, or infidels in them): that is, in the issue of killing, purifying, and guaranteeing the zakat payers[(5)] in the words of Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -. And for them: there is no guarantee on them, but rather in the treasury. (And the treasury, if he does not pay zakat[(1)] then stone him): That is, the treasury is liable if the witnesses testify to stoning, but they do not pay zakat then he is stoned, so they appear to be slaves, or something like that. (And if (2) they testify to adultery, and they intentionally acknowledge their sight, it will be accepted[(3)]): that is, their testimony (4); Because it is permissible for them to look to bear testimony [(5)].

(And he committed adultery[(1)] denied intercourse with his bride, and she was born by him[(2)], or a man and two women testified to his chastity. He was stoned)(3): This is in our view contrary to Zafar and al-Shafi’i(4) - may God be pleased with them -, and Zafar - may God be pleased with him - made chastity a condition in the meaning of the reason(5) [(1)] so the testimony of women is not accepted in it. [And God knows best what is right] (2).

Chapter: The punishment for drinking[(3)] is the same as the punishment for defamation[(1)] eighty lashes for a free man, and half of it[(2)] for a slave for drinking[(1)] alcohol[(2)] even a drop.

Whoever takes its scent, even if it is removed [(3)]; Because he is far from the road, or drunk[(4)] of lost mind(5) with date wine[(6)], and he acknowledged it[(7)] once(1)[(2)]): that is, by drinking wine, or being drunk with wine[(3)], (or two men[(5)] witnessed[(4)] about it, and he knew that he drank it voluntarily[(6)] he would be punished while being sober[(7)].

If he confessed to it[(1)], or witnesses(2) to it after the passing of the wind, or vomiting it[(3)], or he found its smell[(4)] from him): that is, he knew that he had drunk by vomiting it, or he found the smell of alcohol from him without acknowledgment or testimony, (or he retracted[(5)] from admitting to drinking wine, or being drunk[(6)], or he admitted that he was drunk[(1)] no). Know that there is no penalty for acknowledgment after the passing of the wind, unlike Muhammad - may God be pleased with him -, for according to him the statute of limitations does not prevent acknowledgment as in all other penalty cases.

But it is not limited to them; Because the punishment for drinking is only established by the consensus of the Companions - may God be pleased with them -[(2)], and without the opinion of Ibn Masoud - may God be pleased with him - the consensus is not complete[(3)], and he said: If you find[(4)] the smell of alcohol, flog him(5). Without the smell, there is no punishment for him [(1)]. There is no consensus, and there is no evidence that the punishment is obligatory.

And know that drunkenness[(1)] according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him - in the right of the obligation of punishment is that he does not recognize anything even the earth from the sky, and in the right of the prohibition of drinks that he is delirious(2). Then: he should rave (3) in general[(4)], and this is the opinion of most sheikhs (5). Al-Shafi’i (6) - may God be pleased with him - believes that its effect appears in his walking, movements, and limbs.

(And if he apostatizes(1)[(2)] he does not have his wedding prohibited for him): Know that the legal rulings, such as the validity of confession, divorce, and emancipation, apply to him[(3)] as a rebuke to him[(4)], but his apostasy[(5)] is not proven, because it is a real matter of belief and not of judgment. In the absence of reason, the belief of disbelief is not proven, and since his apostasy is not valid, its consequences such as annulment of marriage are not proven. (And he took off[(6)] his garment and parted his skin): as [it was](7) regarding adultery(8).

Chapter on the punishment for slander [(1)]

(Whoever slanders a married man: that is, a free man [(2)], a chaste Muslim, responsible for adultery, explicitly [(3)], or that she committed adultery in the mountain[(4)]): Its meaning: I committed adultery in the mountain, for just as it came incomplete, it also came incomplete. According to Muhammad - may God be pleased with him - there is no limit; Because the predominant [(1)] is the ascension, or common, and the doubt is beyond the border. We said [(2)]: The state of anger makes this more likely. (Or are you not your father[(3)], or are you not the son of so-and-so whose father[(4)] in anger[(5)]): That is, he said: You are not the son of Zaid, who is [the father](6) of Al-Maqduf. So his saying: his father; The wording of the author - may God be pleased with him - is not the wording of the slanderer [(7)].

And he said: In anger; It relates to the three words, “I am not your father’s” [(1)] who can be reprimanded only in anger. (Or Baya(2), the son of an adulteress[(3)] for whom[(4)] whose mother is dead, she is chaste and has a punishment [(5)] if he requests it[(6)]). What is meant is not that the request is limited to the addressee, for if her father asks for it, there is a punishment as well.

(No, I am not related [(1)] to the son of so-and-so, his grandfather (2), or (3) by lineage (4) to him (5) [(6)], or to his maternal uncle, paternal uncle, or male relative [(7) ]): that is, [(1)] his mother’s husband, so the grandfather (2) is a metaphorical father (3), so if he denies his paternity (4) he does not limit (5), and the same applies if he attributes him to him, and so does the maternal uncle, paternal uncle, and male relative. (And his saying: O son of the waters of the sky (6), and O Nabati (7)[(8)] is for an Arab): as they are not intended to deny lineage, but rather to resemble what they are described with.

(And the request to slander(1) the dead[(2)] to the father[(3)], the child, and his child[(4)], even if he is deprived), this is with us. As for (5) according to Al-Shafi’i (6) - may God be pleased with him -, the right to request is for every heir, as the punishment for slander is inherited according to him [(7)]. And with us [(8)]: No, rather it is proven for the one who is subjected to disgrace by denying lineage. And his saying: And his son includes the daughter’s son with them (9) in contrast to Muhammad [(10)] - may God be pleased with him -.

And his saying: Even if he is deprived, like a child [(1)] with the presence of a child, an infidel, and a slave, contrary to Zafar[(2)] - may God be pleased with him -, and like a murderer. (No one shall demand[(3)] his master[(4)] and his father to slander his mother(5)[(6)].

There is no inheritance, pardon (1) [(2)] or compensation for it: this is what we have [(3)]. According to Al-Shafi’i (1) - may God be pleased with him - inheritance takes place, and the like. Based on the fact that the slave’s right to it prevails [(2)]; Based on the well-known principle [(3)], which is (4): The right of the servant prevails over the right of God Almighty if they come together. For the servant’s need, and God Almighty’s need. We defeat the right of God Almighty in it. Because the right of the servant to remove shame is due to the right of God Almighty as well. Because attributing it to adultery only causes shame. Because God Almighty forbade him. (If (5) he said: O adulterer, then he replied with: No, but you are a punishment [(6)].

And if he said [(1)]: To his wedding [you adulteress](2), and she responded to him saying that she had spoken harshly or cursed; Because she slandered the husband, so he became defamed, and his slander[(3)] against her does not necessitate punishment, but rather cursing, and she does not remain worthy of cursing(4), [then[(5)] the punishment must be given precedence; [Because it is stronger] (6); Because if he submits, the cursing will be dropped; Because she is no longer eligible for it, and if the cursing is submitted, the punishment is not waived, and if it is necessary to present it, it is applied, and the cursing is waived](7).