អ៊ុមដាតុល រីអាយ៉ះ (ការពន្យល់ក្បួនច្បាប់វីកាយ៉ះ ហាណាហ្វី)

We said [(3)]: They only possess; Because they seized property that was not infallible[(1)] according to their claim[(2)](3), and we do not have[(4)] the mandate of obligation, so the prohibition[(5)] with regard to this world was dropped, since (6) infallibility[(7)] was only established[(8)] as long as it was kept in our home; To be certain of being able to benefit, if the attainment is removed, the infallibility is forfeited. (Not our free[(1)], our ruler, our offices, and our slave[(2)] will remain even if they take him), but he said: even if they take him; Because the disagreement is regarding what they took, oppressed, and restricted, then in this case they do not own it according to Abu Haniqa - may God be pleased with him - contrary to them, but if they did not take it by force, they do not own it according to agreement. To them: [(3)] His infallibility was the right of the master, and it has disappeared, [it has become] (4) permissible and fell into their hands.

And to him: [(1)] the infallibility that was the right of the master, and when it ceased to exist, his infallibility appeared, which was due to humanity, so he became in the status of free people, so they do not have it. (And We shall prevail over their free land, and what is their property.

And whoever among us finds his money [(2) ]: that is, in the hands of the spoils after we defeated them, and this was not mentioned; Because it is understood from his saying: (He took it for nothing if he did not divide): that is, between the two spoils[(1)], (and for the value[(2)] if he divided, and for the price[(1)] if he bought it from them from a merchant, and if he took a bribe, his eye was gouged out: meaning, if his eye was gouged out[(2)] in the hand of the merchant, and he took a bribe, then the old owner takes from him for all the price if he wishes, and does not reduce the price at all (1) in comparison to what he took from the bribe. (If [(2)] a slave was captured and sold, then such and such, then to the first buyer he took it from the second for his price[(3)], then to his master he took it from him[(4)] for two prices[(5)](6), and before taking the first no), a slave was captured from the hand of Zaid, so Amr bought him for a hundred, then he was captured [from Amr](7), so Bakr bought him for a hundred, then Amr took him from Bakr for a hundred, then Zaid took him from Amr for two hundred; Because he rose against Amr with two hundred, and if Amr had not taken it, Zaid would not have taken it from Bakr. Because Bakra bought a captured slave from Amr, after Amr had bought him. If Zaid had taken him from Bakr, the price that Amr had given him would have been lost, so Zaid would not have taken him before taking Amr.

(If he had kept some possessions), then the infidels took them, (and a man bought them from them who took the slave for free[(8)], and others for the price). As mentioned above (1), they do not own the remaining slave. (And he emancipated[(2)] a Muslim slave[(3)] whom a trustworthy person bought[(4)] here(5) and brought him into their home): This is according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -, and according to them he is not emancipated; Because what is required [(6)] is that he be forced to sell him in our house, and he has disappeared since we have no control over them, so he remains a slave in their hands.

We said[(1)]: If the state of reparation is removed, emancipation shall be replaced[(2)] in order to free the Muslim from the hands of the infidels.

(Like a servant[(1)] of theirs who surrendered there[(2)] and We came, or appeared over them(3). [And God knows best](4)). The safe door It includes (5) a Muslim who entered their home safely, and an infidel who entered our home safely.

(Our merchant there [(1)] shall not be exposed to their blood and wealth[(2)] unless[(3)] their king takes his money, imprisons it, or changes it with his knowledge, and does not give it away[(4)])(5): That is, by way of exposure, (he takes possession of [a property](6) unlawfully, and he gives it[(7)] in charity); He only owns it because he acquired permissible money (1) [2] but it was forbidden due to treachery.

(For [(3)] a harbi condemned him): that is, he embarked on an action that made the debt owed to the merchant, (or a harbi was convicted, or one of them usurped the other, and they came here[(4)], and he did not judge[(5)] for either of them (1) anything); Because we have no jurisdiction over the insured. (The same applies if [(2)] two warriors did that and came safe.) Because we have no guardianship over them, (if they come [(3)] Muslims, it will be decided between them based on debt, not usurpation); Because the conviction occurred validly due to their consent, unlike usurpation[(4)]; Because there is no consent or infallibility.

(If a Muslim kills a trustworthy person like him(1)[(2)] then there is intentionally, or by mistake[(3)], a sacrifice[(4)] of his money(5) and it constitutes blasphemy for the mistake); Because retribution was not required at the time of killing; Because it is not possible to complete; Because it is protected (6)[(7)], so (1) blood money is obligatory[(2)]; Because there is infallibility(3)[(4)] in his wealth and not on the rational person[(5)], since the obligation[(6)] is on them due to the consideration of support and negligence in the maintenance required of them, and this has fallen due to the differences between the two worlds.

(And in the two captives (1)[(2)] there is disbelief only in the case of a mistake): That is, nothing is required except the expiation in the mistake according to Abu Hanifa - may God be pleased with him -, and according to them: the blood money is obligatory in the case of intentionality and mistake; Because infallibility[(3)] is not invalidated by captivity, just as it is not invalidated by trust.

And for him [(1)]: If the prisoner became dependent on them by their subjugation of him, then the capture is invalidated, so the established infallibility[(2)] is lost, which is what necessitates money when exposed, so blood money is not obligatory neither in intentional nor in error, but the sinful infallibility(3) (4), which is what necessitates sin when exposed, remains, so atonement is required in the case of error.

(It is not possible [(1)] for my war[(2)] here (3) years[(4)], and it was said to him: If you stay here for a year or (5) months (6)[(7)], we will impose a tax on you, and if he returns[(8)] before that): the penalty for the condition is deleted: i.e. in it[(9)], or something like that, (otherwise he is a non-Muslim[(1)] who does not allow[(2)] to return): that is, if he does not return before the time period. Beaten, he is a dhimmi. And know that those who have no touch[(3)] with Arabic delusions[(4)] that: except; For the exception, and he did not know that it was a word: that with no, he assimilated one (5) into the other [(6)] (7).

(Like if he bought land and imposed on him [(1)] its tax[(2)]): That is, if the insured person bought land with a tax[(3)] and imposed its tax on him, he becomes a non-Muslim; Because if (4) he adheres to it, he adheres to the position[(5)] in our home, and he does not become a non-Muslim merely by purchasing[(6)]; Because he may buy for trade, (and he must pay a tribute [one year]) from the time the tax is imposed. Or [(2)] a warlike woman married a dhimmi here[(3)](4), and vice versa, no): That is, if a warlike woman married a dhimmi(5), the husband does not become a dhimmi, as he can be divorced, so he returns in contrast to the first, where she became dependent on the husband.

(If the trustworthy person returns to his home, his blood is permissible[(1)], and if he is captured[(2)], or appears against them[(3)], and is killed[(4)] then the debt [which he](6) had to an infallible person shall be forfeited[(6)): i.e. a Muslim, or a non-Muslim, (and I will repay[(7)] a deposit of his with him): that is, the reward for every deposit he has becomes with an infallible person in our home.

(And if he dies, or is killed without defeating them, then they are [(1)](2) to his heirs): any debt he had to an infallible person, or a deposit he had with him; This is because security remains in his wealth [(3)], so it will be returned to him if he is alive, and to his heirs if he dies, or is killed without victory, but if he is killed after we have appeared over them, his wealth will become spoils due to his dependency.

(Harbi[(1)] is here, and he has a wedding and children and a deposit with Masum and others[(2)], so he converted to Islam here, then he appeared over them and it was all fay’); As for the wedding and the grown-up children; Because of the lack of dependency [(3)], and as for other things; Because it is not in his hand, his conversion to Islam does not necessitate his infallibility (4).

(And if (1) he converts to Islam there, then he comes (2) and appears (3) over them, then his child is free and a Muslim[(4)], and a deposit with an infallible one for him, and someone else is fay’: so his saying: and a deposit is a novice, and with an infallible one: its description, and he has his experience, i.e. for the warlike (5) he became Muslim.

(And whoever converts to Islam and has heirs there, and a Muslim kills him, there is nothing on him except expiation for the mistake(1)): That is, he has Muslim heirs[(2)] in the land of war, so if the killing was intentional, then nothing is required[(3)], and if it was a mistake then only expiation is required, and according to al-Shafi’i(4) - may God be pleased with him - retaliation[(1)] is required for intentional killing, and blood money for error. (And the Imam [(2)] took the blood money from a Muslim who had no guardian): that is, a Muslim who was killed by mistake and had no guardian, (and a mutamin who converted to Islam here (3) from Aqilah who killed him[(4)] by mistake): that is, a warlike man came safely, and he converted to Islam and had no guardian, so he was killed by mistake, so the Imam (5) takes the blood money from Aqilah who killed him. (And he killed or took the blood money [(6)] intentionally (7) and he does not pardon him (8)): [i.e.] (9) If the killing was intentional, then the imam has a choice. He either fulfills the compensation, or takes the blood money. He does not have the authority to pardon. [And God knows best] (10).

Jobs Section [(1)]

(The land of the Arabs[(2)], and its people did not surrender to Islam, or it was conquered by force and divided between our army[(3)](4), and Basra[(5)] Ashriyya[(6)](1). And Al-Sawad(2)[(3)] and what was conquered by force and its people agreed to it[(4)] or settled with them[(5)] as a tax[(6)]).