The Book of Pawn (al-Rahn)   
             
It is imprisoning some thing for a right in a way that it is possible to get it from that thing, for instance the debt.

It gets formed by offer and acceptance and gets completed by taking the thing into posession (al-qabd) fully as being hold it, being away from any other claims and seperated from any thing else. and also it gets completed by making the thing ready to be taken into full posession. Pawning is a a process of taking the 447 / sold good into posession.

A pledgor may revoke it before the taking it into posession.When he takes into posession, then it becomes binding. The will be compensated with the amount less than its value and also lss than the debt. If it perishes and both of them are at thje same level, the pledgee takes his credit out of it. If its value is maore than that, then the difference is a trust. If the debt is more than its value, the amount equal to its value gets ineffective and the  pledgor may be asked for the remainig part of it. 

The value  of the day of receotion is is to be taken as the base. The slave dies at the risk of the patron, he has to pay for the burial expenses too. 

The pledgee has the right to ask the pledgor to pay the debt and has the right to keep it under his dominion., if the collateral is in his hand. He lao has the right of holding the collateral (pawn) back after the  contract was cancelled until he gets his credit, except in the case he acquits him. He has no rigth to facilitate the dentor to sell the collateral while it is in the hand pf pledgee.

The pledgee may not benefit from the collateral, may not lease it and also may not lend it out to any one. If he does some thging like that, he becomes the transgressor. The pawn does get void by this trangression. If he asks for the debt to be paid, thepledgee is to be instructed to present the collateral. When he brings it, the pledgor is to be istructed to pay all the debt first., then the pledgee will ordered to deliver the pawned good.

The same ruling will be applied if the pledgee asks the debt to be paid ina city other than the city where the contract was established and the collateral is not in need of being cariied 448 / and loaded. If it needs that, he may get his credit without presenting the collateral. The same way is treated if the collateral is inthe hand of just impartial person.

The pledgee is not liable to present it or its price in case he sells it with the order of the pledgor until he gets his money back. also in case if sime part of it has been paid by delivering his share, until he gets the rest.

The pledgee may keep the collateral in his own hand. or with his wife, child and servant who is in his family. If he leaves it with others or deposits it to them, he compensates all of its value. The same obligation if he tresspasses the limits, or puts ring on his little finger. But if he puts it on any other finger, then that will notbe compensated. He has to bear the expenses of the maintainance and giving it to his hand or giving  nay part to the owner, like the wage of the store it is kept and the wage of the person in charge.

But the wage of a runaway slave, the medical treatment and to give it as bloodmoney for the injury are to be divided upon the  copmansated and trusted proportion of it. The costs of the remainin part and its development are the burden of the pledgor, as the expenses of maintanaice, clothing, the wage of the shephard, the wage of foster maother who breastfeeds the child of collateral, the watering of the garden, the vaccination of the palms and pruning tham, looking after them.

Whatever one of them pays to his frined with his order, thast is a charuty made from him. But if it is done with the  order of the 449 / judge, then he may appeal to the other party. According to Abu hanifah, he does not appeal even if his friend is present there.

         Chapter on What is/not Allowed To Be Collateral

A none specified shared good cannot be given as collateral, even if it is indivisible or it is given as pawn to the partner. If it occurs, then that is void, the  view of Abu Yusuf is just opposite.

To pledge the dates on the palm without the its tree, crops in the farm witout the land and also the tree and land being engaged with the fruits and crops are valid. If he pledges for collateral the tree with its land under it or the house with the things in it, they are valid.

To put a free man,a mdabbar slav, an imm walad and a mukatab slave  as collateral are not allowed, also  the deposited stuff also cannot be  pawned, teh the money held bach by the buyer as guarantee aganst the ownership claims of the third persons of the bought good and the goods which are guranteed by another thing, like the sold material while it is in the hand of the seller, are not permitted.


No pawn is allowed by guaranteeing in person, retaliation in person and lesser than that, by the preemption, by the wage of propessional crier in funeral ceremonies or by singer also by the slave who is charged with injuryies or the debtor slave.

A muslim cannot put the  alcohol as collateral he cannot accept it as pawn neither from a muslim nor from a zimmi. If the pledgee is a zimm he does not compensate the alcohol to the muslim pledgor.Bu the muslim himself has to compensate if he takes it as collatera; from a zimmi.

But a credit may be  put as collateral, even if it is just a promise that he pawns some thing with the condition of accrediting him such amount.

Also if it perishes inthe hand of the pledgee, the pledgor has to pay what he promised if tha equals to its value or is less than 450 / that. The pawning is possible  by the price to paid in a salam transaction, exchange money and by the things sold in the salam act.

If the collateral perishes in the sitting of contract, than that relinquishes the juristically the debt. If the two parties depart from each other before the payment and perishment, the contract gets invalidated.

Pawning by the sold stuff in salam contract, is pawnin by its value, when it is annulled. Its perishment after the cancellation, is a oerishment of the principal. 

Pawning is valid if made by the things which are guaranteed by themselves, that is bt the values equvalant to them or their own values, like the usurped thing, dowry, payment for khul`, payment of  the settlement for intentionally done injuries or murder and payment for the amicable settlement against the denial,even the claimant acknowledges that there is no debt.

If the father pawns for his own debt the slave of his child, that is valid. The executioenr of a will has also the same  authority. If the slave collaoses, then he has to pay the lost part of the debt. If the father pawns it for himself or for another son who is little or for the his trading slave, who has no debt, that is valid, that is conrary to the executioner of a will.

If the  executuoner gets credits for clothing and feeding the child he is in charge  with and he pawns the property of the child for that purpose,that is effective. The child has no right of breaking the pawn in no way after it reaches to puberty, unless he pays the debt.

If he pawns some part of the money paid for the slave and then  it came out that he is free or the money of the vinegard which turned to be alcohol and the money of halah meat which is 451 / discovered that it is the meat of a dead animal,then collateral is to be compensated.

The gold, silver, all measurables and weighables are allowed to be collaterals. If it ispawned for its type, then its perishment will be its equvalant from the debt. Nothing is to be considered in terms of the quqlity of the material. According to two imams, its perishment is to be valued with its value, if its weight does not correspond to it, then that will be compensated contrary to the situation if the two are  thesame type. It will be made collateral instead of the perishing part.

Any one who buys some thing with the condition that he will give a collateral for the money or a guarantor, that is valid according to traditional practice of the muslim public. If he desists from giving it, he is not to be forced. 

The seller has the right of annulling the sale, except if he immediately pays the money and the equivalant of the collateral as new collateral.          

Any one who buys some thing and tells the seller "keep this with you until I give you the money", that is a collateral.According to Abu Yusuf, that is a deposit. If he pawns two slaves for one thousand the pawner has no right to take one of them back by paying his share, as it is the case in a sale. If he pawns oen thing to two pesons, that is valid, and the wole of it is a collateral for each one of them. Each one has the right to compensation at the rate of his credit. If each one takes his turn in keeping it, each one of them are like a just person (`adl) in regarding the right of the other partner. If the pawner pays the credit to one of them, the whole thing goes as coolateral to the other partner.

452 / If two person pawn to one individual, that is valid. Thepledgee has the right to hold it until he receives all of his right from both of them. If each one of them claims that "this man pawned  the stuff to him and he held it" and both of them proved their arguments,their evidences are void. If it occurs after the death of the pawner. both of the rguments are acceptable and it is to be decided that it was pawned as half for each one of them as collateral for his right.

       Chapter on Depositing the collateral to a Just Person

If both of them agree on leaving the collateral to a just person, that is valid and it gets accomplished by the reception of the just.No one has the prerogative of taking it from him without the consent of the other party, and the pledgee compensates it in case he gives it to one of them.

The rish of perishment is on the pledgee.

If the pawner  proxies thew just or the pledgee or any third person in selling the collateral whenb the payment becomes due, that is valid. If proxying is stipulated during the transaction, the proxy doe not get dismissed by the unilateral dismissal of one party also with the death of the pawner or the pledgee.

He has the right of selling it in case of the absence of his heirs. It gets void with the death of the pawner.

If he delegates him fo selling in general (mutlaqan) the proxy has the right of selling it in cash or in instalments. If he forbids him from selling it in credit after that, that will not be acceptable. 

Neither the pledgor nor the pledgee can sell the collateral without the consent of the other party. If the payment becomes 453 / due and the pawner is absent, then the proxy may be obligated to sell it, as the agent is to be obligated to litigation in the  absence of his delegator. The same thing if the delegation was stipulated after the collateral contract is established according to the most corrcet view.

If the just sells it, the money takes the place of thepawn, ifit perishes, that means the colateral perished.

If the just gives the money to the pledgee and then the collateral was claimed by a third person, it becomes perished, the claimant has the right to make the pawner compensate it.

Sale of the just and reception of the buyer from him are valid. Or the claimant may let the just compensate it and then thejust mat resort to let the pawner compensate it if he wants. Bith of them are valid or he let the pledgee compensate its value and that becomes his own. The reception becomes void. Then thepledgee may return to the pledgor for his credit.

If the collateral  exists, the claimant receives it, then the buyer returns to the just  for its value, then he returns to the pawner and the reception becomes valid. Or the just returns  

to the pledgee, then thepledgee to thje pledgor for his credit.

If the delegation to anagent  is not stipulated in collateral transaction, the just resorts to the pawner only. No matter whether the buyer received the money or not. 

If the pawn perishes in the hand of the pledgee, then a third person claimes the ownership, the claimant has the right of letting thepawner compansate its value and the  pledgee is considered to be paid for his credit he laso has the right of letting the pledgee compensate it. The pledge returns for its value and for the credit to the pawner.

454 /     Chapter on the Pawn and His Penal Liability

The sale of the pledgor is supended untl  the approval of the pledgee or the relinquishment of his credit. When he approves its money becomes  collateral substituting the good itself. If he does not approve but cancells it, that does not get cancelled according to the most corrcet view. If the buyer wants waits in endurance until he lifts the collateral or takes it to the judge. The manumission of the pledgor, his tadbir and his making she-slave umm walad  are effective. If he is well-to-do he will be asked for the debt, if it is due and the value of the collateral is to be taken and to be made in its place if that is postponed. If he is poor, then the beforeed person works to pay the smaller amount of its value or debt. Then he returns to his patron. Thre mudabbar and umm walad works for the whole of the debt and does not resort to his patron.

If he damages it, that will be like the emancipation while he is well-to-do.

If a third person damages it, the pledgee  has to compensate his value. And that becomes collateral substituting it. If the pledgee lends the  collateral to the pawner, that exits from his resposibility to compensate. With its return the liability will come  back. He may return whenever he wishes. If one of them lends to a third person with the permission of the other party, then that too comes out of his liability to compemsate. If it perishes in his hand, that will mean nothing. Each one of them has to right to give it back as collateral.

455 / If the pledgor dies before the returning of the collateral, then the pledgee is better in terms of deserving it than the other creditors. If the pledgee borrows it from the pledgor, or uses it with his permission, then it perishes while it is used, his responsibility of compensation expires. If it perishes before or after the usage, then that will not be valid.

To borrow some thing to give it as collateral is effective.

If he makes his pawn in general as how he wishes and where he pleases or ristricts it by a quantity or a type or pledgee or city, that that ristriction will work. If he disagree with the lender, then the lendor may let the borrower compensate it and complete the pawn between him and the pledgee or he let the pledgee compensate and the pledgee resorts for what he compensated and the credit to the borrower.

If he approves and it perishes in the hand of the pledgee, then his credit gets relinquished or it means that he received the value of the collateral, if it is less than the credit and he pursues the pawner for the remaining part and the  lendor has to pay to the borrower the equivalant of the debt or its value.  

If the slave of the borrover dies before the  forming the pawning or after relnequishing it, then he doe not compensate it, even if he benefitted from it before. If the lendor wants to release the collateral by paying the credit of the pledgee from his own wealth, he may do that and then he may appeal to the pledgor for what he had paid.

If the borrower says " it perished in my hand before the pawning or after it was released" and the lendor claims that its 456 / destruction  took place in the hand of the pledgee, then the word of the borrower is to be taken. If both of them disagree in the amount he ordered to be pawned, then the word of the lender is effective.

The pawners harm to the collateral is to be compensated by him. The inhuries made by the peldgee is too to be compensated.The credit gets decreased at the amount of his harm. And the injuries can be made by the collateral against the pledgor or the pledgee or against their properties are worthless. The two imams are of the dissident opinion in case where the pledgee is engaged.

If he pawns a slave who worths a thousand for a thousand to be paid later, then its value  droped to one hundred, then a person kills him, and gets responsible to pay one hundred, and the  payment date gets due, the pledgee receives the hundred as the  therelinquishment for his right and he  returns to the pawner for nothing. If he sells it based in the consent of the pawner with a hundred, he resorts to the pawner for the rest.

IF a slave who is worth a hundred murders him, then he pays that amount, the pawner  revokes it against the whole debt. According to Muyhammad if he wishes, he may pay to the pledgee and if he wishes he revokes it by paying the debt.

If thecollateral slave makes a crime unintentionally, the pledgee gives him away for fine and does not resort to any body. If he abstains from doing it, either the pawner pays  it or he gives it away as ransom and the credit gets relinquished.

If the pawner dies, the executioner sells the collateral and then pays the debt. If he has no exceutioenr of the will, the judge appoints an executioner for him and gives  his decree about it.

                         Chapter

457 / He pawns a juice which has a value of ten agains ten, then tha  turns to alcohol,the to vinegard with the same value, that is a collateral for ten. If asheep that values ten is pawned for ten, then is dies, the skin gets tanned, its value is one dirham only, that is a collateral for one dirham.

Any thing comes out from the pawn, like his child,milk, wool and fruit,belons to thepledgor and they too are pawned  together with the principal. If the increrase perishes, it perishes for nothing. And if it is there, but the principal  perishes, the proportion of its share from the debt is to seperated, then the debt will be divided on the value of the principal at the day of reception, and the value of increase at the day of the seperation, whatever falls to the principal from the debt, gets relinquished and whatever falls to the increase, the surplus gets released against that ratio.

The  collateral may increase and the debt mat not and the collateral does not become pawned for that, this is contrary to the view of Abu Yusuf. If he pawns aslave who worths thousand for a thousand, and he delivers instead of him another slave who has an equal value,the first one is a collateral until it gets returned to the pawner. The pledgee is a trustee in regard the second  slave until he takes place of the first one by returning the first.

If the  pledgee acquits the pledgor from the debt, or gives it to him as a gift , then the collateral perishes, it perishes with no value. If receives his credit, wholly or partly, from the pledgor or from a third person, or he buys with it somer thing or he erases his credit amicably against some thing, or he 458 / transfers it to a third person,then it gets pedrished before it is returned, it erases the debt. He returns what he has received to the one from whom it was received. The transfer of the collateral gets void. In thed same way, if they agree on inexistence of the debt, then it perishes, the perishment will occur together with the debt.

                  The Book of Penalties (al-Jinayat)        


Capital murder may be intentional. That is the killer'intention to hit with a tool which pierces the body into pieces, like arms, or sharpened tools of the stone and the wood or the pealed part of the cane or burning him up. According to two imams the instruments which kill the person in general.

Its legal consequence is sinn and retaliation in person, except in the case it is overlooked. There is no kaffarah (religious fine) in this.

It may be quasi-intentional, that is hitting him willingly with the tools other than what have been mentioned.

Its consequence is alsao sinn and fine and a agrevated blood money to be paid by al-`aqilah. But not retaliation (qawad). When it occurs to an extent less than capital murder, then that accepted as intentional.

Capital murder may be  also by mistake, that isshooting intentionally at a person,thinking it a prey, or an enimy in war, then suddenly he sees that it is an innocent man or he shoots atarget, but hits a human being.

As to what is considered as the mistaken murder,like a slemeing person turns on another person and slays him.

\the legal consequences of both of them are fine (kaffarah) and blood money to be paid bt al-`aqilah.

It may also be murder by being  cause. That is in the case he digs a well or puts a stone in in the land of a person without 459 / having his consent, and a man perils because of that.

Its consequence is the liability of aqilah for the bloodmoney, witout any atonemant fine (kaffarah).

All of these except the last deprives the inheritors from any share of inheritance.

        Chapter on What Necessitates/not the Retaliation

Retaliation  (al-qisas) is an obligation in a intetionally done capital murder of a person whose blood is protected for good.

A free man will retaliated for a free man and a slave and a muslim for a zimmi. Neither of them can be retaliated for the one who has entered into the islamic state with a visa (al-musta'min). a musta'min may be retaliated for some one in his status.

The following can be matched in retaliation: man for woman, sane for the mad, one who reached to puberty for any one  else, the healty ones for sicks, the one who has all organs in complete for one who lacks his arms or legs,the ofspring for the ancestor,not other way round, in this last case the blood money is to be paid out of the killers's wealth in three years period.

The patron cannot be retaliated for his slave, may be mudabbar, mukatab and the slave of his child, a slave whose some part belongs to him. 

If he inherits a retaliation against his mother, that gets ineffective. No retaliation is due upon the partner of father, or the patron, or one who made mistake, or minor and mad. Thesde are all the people who the rataliation is not an obligation if some killed them.

If the pawned slave is murdered, retaliation is not executed until  the pledgor and the pledgee are present.

If a mukatab slave is killed before the payment, and he has heir together with his master, there will be no retaliation. If he was not sufficient to pay his debt of kitabah, his patron may 460 / retaliate. The same thing if he was enoufg for payment and did not have any inherito other than his master. Muhammad has an opposite opinion.

No retaliation can be done with any thing other than sword.

The father of a unstabled person (al-ma`tuh) may retaliate from one who cut his hand and killed his relative. He may also amicably settle the issue. But he has no right of forgiving him.

A minor is like an unstable person. Thejudhe is like the father. This is the correct view. The executioner of a will is also like the father, except he does not retaliate in the murders. 

Any one who is killed and he has many gurdian,old and young, the old one have the right of retaliation for one who  murdered him before the minors get alder, the two imams  are of the opposing opinion. If one of the old guardian disappears, he will be waited as unanimously accepted.

Any one who kills with a sharpened edge of the spade, he is to be retaliated, if he wounds him, if he does it with it back edge or handle, then no retaliation. He has to pay the bloodmoney. According to two imams, he is to be retaliated.

The differences of views in the situations when a heavy tool is used or the wictim is drowned into water or sufficated.

If he does it many times,then he is to be retaliated as unanimously accepted.

There is no retaliation in killing with the continous whipping by the whip. Any ona who was injured and could not leave the bed, until he died, he is to be retaliated.

When two units of muslim and non-muslim fight with each other a muslim kills another muslim, thinking that he is enemy, he has to pay the blood money and atinement penalty  (kaffarah), but no retaliation is necessary. Any one who dies by the acts hisown and Zaid, and a snake and a lion (all at a time), zaid will pay one third of his blood money.

461 / Any one who draws a sword to the muslims, it is an obligation to slay him. And nothing is due for the killing. There is nothing also in murdering any one who draws an arm against another person, day or night, in a city or any where else or drawsh to him a rod during night time in a city or during day time in othewr regions, and then the who the sword or arm was drawn to killed  the drawer. There is also nothing on a person who kills the theif who stels his property in the night and takes it out, if taking it back without murder was not possible.

Retaliation is to take place for a person, who kills any one who draws a rod during day time in the city or draws the sword and bits with it and does not kill and returns. If a mad person or a minor draws to a third person a sword and the third person kills him intentionally, hehas to pay the blood money out of his wealth. If he kills a camel which attacks to him, he has to compensate its value.

  Chapter on the Retaliation in the Injuries,Not Leading to Death

It is a kind of retaliation in which keeping the similarity (equvalancy) in the acts are possible. So the retaliation maybe executed by cutting the hand off the joint, even if it is bigger than the hand which wsa cut off by the culprit. The leg too is the same. The retaliation is to executed for the parts less than nose, ear and eye, if it can see no more, while it is still in its place. There will be no retaliation if the eye is rooted out, the a wet piece of cotton is to be placed on the face, and the eye to be treated by a heated mirror several times, until it loses the seight.

462 / In all head wounds and injuries, like  the one in which the the sculp is seenable, the similarity is to be observed.   

There is no retaliation in bones other than tooth, it uprooted if the victim's tooth was uprooted and it will be filed if was broken by him. There is no retaliation in the arms and legs of the man and woman, free and slave or the arms and legs of the two slaves als nothing to be executed in cutting half of the hand from the middle abd any wound penetrating deep to the inside of the  body and was cured (jaifah), not also in the tongue and oenis, except if only the head thereof has been chopped off. The arms and legs of a muslim and zimmi are equal.

The victim will be given choices between the retaliation and blood money, if the hands of the culprit were crippled or lacking some fingers or the head of one who caused injuries on head is smaller or greater in which the injury thereof does not  comprise the part in between the horns whereas it fills between the horns of the victim.

                                Chapter

Retealiation gets ended with thedeath of the killer and with the forgivness of the guardians and wit their settling it against the property, even if it is not much. It gets due immediately and by the accepance of some amicable solution or overlooking and and one whose share out of the  blood money waited three years as due

on the killer. This is the correct view. It is said that  the burden of paying that amount goes to the al-`aqilah.

If a free man and a slave kills a paeson, and the free person and the patron instruct a third person to make settlement for the 463 / blood against one thousand, then he settled it, that will be halaf and half.

A group  will be killed for ane person and an individual can be killed against a group, if their guardians are present. If one of them is present,he is to be killed and the rights of the rest expire.

Two hands cannnot be cut off for one hand, even if the two used jointly one knife and cut off a hand, the two must compensate the blod money for that. If man cuts the right hands of two persons, the  two may chop the right hand of him and the blood money will be between the two, if both of them are are present. If one of them is present and the hand was chopped, the other one has the right of the blood money. The slave may acknowledge validly a murder with intention and a retaliation will take place.

Any one shoots at a person intentionally, then it penetrates to a third person, and both of them die, aretaliation fro the first is to take place, and his aqilah will pay the blodd money for the second.

                                Chapter

Any one who cuts the hand of a person and then kills him, he will be caught agains both of the acts., if a cure seperated the two, otherwise if the two were different from the point of beig done on purpose and in mistake, the murderer will be taken responsible for both of them. He will not like that, if they make it by mistake, the blood money will suffice in this case.

If both were done on purpose, he will be taken responsible for both of them. According to two imams, he will be responsible  for murder only.

If one whips a third person hundred times and then the victim gets cured fro ninity of them and dies because of the ten left, a blood money only gets necessitated. If it wounds and the effcet thereof stays and he does not die, a decision based on the proprtional appraisal (hukumah `idl)  is to be given.

If any one whose hand was cut off on purpose forgives for cutting

464 / and dies by its effect, the cutter has to pay the blood money out of his wealth. According them that is a forgivness for the capital murder. If he forgives for cutting and for the things which arise from that or forgives for the injuries,then that is also overlooking from the capital murder as unanimously admitted.

An act of purpose is due to the whole wealth and the mistake is on a third of the wealth. Injuries on jead are like cutting. If a woman cutts hand pf a man, then he marries her on his hand, then he dies, he has to pay dowry of the standard average level(mahr al-mithl) and she has to pay blood money out of her wealth, if it was on purpose, her `aqilah has to pay if it was  by mistake.

If he marries her against the hand and against what may arise out of it, or against  the injuries (al-jinayah), then he dies, he has to pay  the average level of dowry incase of purposely done act. In case of mistake the same amount is to be lifted from the `aqilah and the rest will be just a will in favour of them. If it comes from the third, the rest will get automatically relinquished, otherwise the mount which comes out of it. According to the two imams the rule is the same in the first case.

Any whose hand was chopped and dies after  the retaliation made from the cutter, the cutter is to bew killed. Any one who has a guardian  was killed on purpose and the  gurdian cut the hnad of his killer, then he overlooks from the murder, he has to pay the blood money for the hand. Any one whose hand was chopped off and retaliated from his cutter, but his cutting  effects on his body and dies, then he has to pay a blood money, the two imams oppose to both of the opinions.

 ChapteronTheTestimoniesinCapitalMurderandIts Evaluation 

465 / Retaliation (qawad) is the right the heir from the very first stage. That does not stem from the inheritance. No heir  may be taken to court as litigant for the remasining part of it, contrary to the property.

If one of the sons produces evidences that their father was murdered om purpose, and the other son was absent, it is necessary to repeat the argument after the absentee comes back,the two imams are of the opposing opinion. But in case of mistake and debt, that will not be necessary.

If the killer proves the victim forgave him,and the onewho is present opposed him, the rtealiation gets ineffective.

The same ruling if a slave who belongs to two persons, gets killed and one of them is absent. IF one of the guardians of the retalaiton, testifies that his brother forgave him, the testimony gets annulled. If the killer approves them only, then the blood money will be  among them as thirds. If the two reject them, then there will be nothing. The brother will have one third of the blood money. If the brother  approves him, the killer has to pay to him one third of the blood money and then they will take from him.

If the witnesses of a murder conflict in time and place of the murder or about the instrument, or one says "he beat the victim with a rod" and the other  says "I do not know with what instrument did he kill", both of the testimonies get annulled. If both of them testify for the murder and bot they do not know the instriment, thge blood money gets bdue.

If each one of the two persons acknowledge the murder of Zaid and the guardian says "both of you killed him together", the guardian has the right of retaliation with both of them. If the two testify that Zaid killed `Amr and two others testify that Bakr 466 / killed him and the guardian claims that both of them killed Amr,both of the testimonies get annulled.

The criterium is the moment of shooting, not the time of hitting the target in case of change  may take place in the victim. If he shoots at an apostate and he accepts Islam before it reacheches to him, nothing will get necessitated as unanimously accepted. If he shoots at a slave, he is manumitted and after that it hit him, he has to pay his value as a slave. According to Muhammad he has to pay the difference between his values as being shooted and not shooted.

If a muhrim (who is in special status in Hajj) at a prey, then he came out of ihram status, then it hit him, the fine is to be paid. If a hajji in non-ihram status shoots and meantime he becomes muhrim, and it hits the target, no penalty will take place.

If he shoots at one who is convicted with thedeath by stoning (al-rajm) and then his witnesses revoke their testimonies, then it hit the target, he will not compensate. If a muslim shoots a prey, then he  is converted to be magian, after that it hit the target, that prey is lawful, in the other way it is not.

                The Book of the Blood Money
 
The blood money (al-diyah) of its heavy type is one hundred camels being one fourth of makhad (camel tahat completed one year of age), one fourth labun (a camel that completed two years of age), one fourth  hiqqa ( camel  that  completed  three  years of age) and one fourth of jaza`ah (camel that completed fourthyears of age). This amount of camels wiil be for twenty-five camels. According to Muhammad thirty hiqqah and thirthy jaza`ah and fourty thaniyyah (a she camel which is in her sixth year of age), all of them must be pregnant.

No heavy type of blood money in the things other than camels. That will work only in quasi-intentional murders.

The blood money of light type is applicable in the murders which occured by mistake and the act lower than that. That is one 467 / thousand dinar of gold and ten thousand dirham of the bank note, one hundred camels comprised from one fifth of he-makhad
 
and she-makhad, one fifth of she-labun, one fifth of hiqqa and one fifth of jaza`ah for each twenty camels. There will be no blood money for the thing other than these camels. The two imams say that there will be blood money fro these and for the cows, if the cows are two hundred, the sheep two thousand. 

From the cloth two hundred cloth, each cloth (hullah) being two pieces (thawb).

The keffareh (penalty of atonement) of quasi-intentional murder and murder by mistake is emancipation of a muslim she-slave. If he was unable to do that, then fastng to two months consecutively. No way to feed the needy people in this penalty. It is valid to manumit a child slave who is breast-fed whose one of the parents is muslim. A feotus cannot be the subject of this type of atonement.

In case a woman is involved in capaital murders and lower than that, the half of what is due for a man. A zimmi is like a muslim.

                                 Chapter

The blood money is applicable in murdering a person, in cutting off the cartilage of the nose, cutting off the tongue, if the speech or the pronunciation of the majority of the ltters is damaged.

There will be blood money too in damaging the belly part, if the ability for sex is lost also in tearing the part betwwen the sexual organ and anus, if the ability of holding the urine is lost.

The blood money is to effectively to be applied in the penis, and its tip, in the brain,in the hearing, in the seight, and in the smell, in the taste, in thebeard, if it ceases to grow, inthe 468 / hairs of head, in the two eye-brows. in the eyelashes,two eyes and two ears, and two lips, two breasts of the woman, two hands, two legs, and two eyelids.

There will be half blood money penalty in all the parts which in pair in the body and there will be one fourth in all of the organs which are quadruple.

The blood money for each finger of hand for each toes one tenth, for each joint of the pairs in the body one out of the twenty, for joints which are triple in the body  one out of sixty, in each tooth one out of twenty.

There will be blood money in any organ that loses its function, even if it is still there, like a hand which gets cripled and an eye which looses it seight.

                            Chapter

There is no blood money in any injury on the skull, excluding the al-muwdiha level  ofthe injury, if it is done knowingly. If it is done by mistake the blood money will be one out of fourty. al- Muwdihah is a head injury which shows the bone. Also hashimah which is a wound where the bone is broken,level of the injury one tenth of blood money is to be given. al-Munaqqilah, that is an injury which displaces the bone after it is broken, necessitates one tenth and half of a thenth, thew blood money in al-ammah,that an injury which reaches to the mani part of the brain , is one third also the same thing in al-ja'ifah. But if it penetrates from one side to another there will be two ja'ifahs and two thirds are to be given. 

469 /There will be a blood money by the hukumah `idl in each one of the following injuries: al-harisah, that is an injury removes the skin, al-dami`ah, that is an injury that discharges a fluid which look like the blood, al-damiyah, that is an injury which bleeds, al-badi`ah, that is an injury which pierces the skin, al-mutalahimah, that is an injury which penetrates into the flesh, and al-simhaq, that is the skin on the bone to which the wound reaches.

 According to Muhammad  there  is retaliation in all of tem, like al-mudihah. 

al-Shajjah is confined to the face and head, and al-ja'ifah to the inner part of the body (al-jawf),to sides and back part of the body. The other parts are just  wounds (jirahat). There will be a hukumah `idl in all of them, Hukamah `id is evaluating a slave without that injury and also with the injury, whatever of the loss in the value can be found, that proportion is due from its blood money. This is to be given as fatwa.

There will be half of the blood money in the fingers of a hand alone  or together with the palm, if it is to gether with the wrist half of the blood money and a hukumah of `idl. In a palm which has one finger a tenth of the blood money, if there are two fingers, one of the fifth. There is nothing in the palm.

According to two imams the one which is more from the blood money of the palm and the blood money for one or two fingers, becomes due. The one which is less is included in it.

If it has rhre fingers, then the blood money will be three times one tenth as unanimously admitted. There will be ahukamah `idl for each additional finger.

The same law is applicable to the moustache, to the beard which has very few hairs, breast of a male, penis of a male who lost his tetacles, impotent, tongue of a dumb, crippled hand, a woman who has one eye, a limb man, a black tooth.

There will be also hukumah `idl in the yee of a child, his tongue, his penis, if it was not known that ith was healthy so in a way that denotes to it functioning in seighting. moving his penis, and his speaking.

If one wounds head on anoither person, and he loses his mind or or his hairs in the head, that will be included in the blood money of al-muwdiha. If he loses his hearing, seighting or his abilty to speak, that will not be included in it. If he loses  two eyes by that, there will be no retaliation. There will be blood money (arsh) to be paid.

The blood money (arsh) for the two eyes according to two imams will be retaliation in al-muwdihah and the blood money in the two eyes.

There will be no retaliation in a finger which was cut off and the hand was crippled. According to two imams a retaliation will take place in what has been choped off. And a blood money is necassary in the other parts of it.

If its high joint is cut off and the rest becomes crippled, there will be no retaliation, but the blood money will be applied in what has been cut off and also hukumah idl for the the cripled part. There will b e retaliation, if half of the teeth were broken and the rest got blackened, but the blood money for the whole of the tooth becomes necessary.

The same thing if it becomes red, or green, or yellow. If it gets blackened wholly by a hit, whike it is still in its place, the blood money will be the responsibility of al-`aqilah and in case 471 / of intentional act, that will be paid out of his wealth.      
If a tooth has been uprooted, then another tooth grew up in its place, the blod money gets rekinquished. The two imams oppose to this idea. But in th etooth of a baby that will be relinquished as unanimously accepted. If the person gives back the uprooted tooth and fixes it in its place, then a flesh grows up around it, the blood money will not be relinquished unanimously. The same thing if he cuts the  ears and pastes it to its place and then a it got cured. Any one whos tooth was uprooted, then he retaliated from the uprooter, then it grew once more, he has to pay blood money  for the tooth which was retaliated. The ecxecutions in te retaliations  for the tooth and al-muwdihah are to be postphoned a year, the same law, if his tooth was hit, then it becomes unstable. If thejudge gives thehitter some time respite and the  victim brings him to the judge once more ahile his tooth fell out, then the two disagree on the reason why it fell the same ruling will be applicable. If it happens before thepassage of a year, the the word of the victim is to be taken. If it happens after that, the word of the hitter is to be based on.

If a person wounds the head of an induvidual, and then that gets cured, the hair grows up and no trace is left, then the blood money gets relinquished. According Abu Yusuf the blood money is to be paid as for the compansation of paing. That is hukumah `idl. According to Muhammad the bills of the physician is to be paid off. The same law if he wounds by a hit and no  trace is left. If the trace is left, then a hukumah `idl is necessary according to a unaninimity among ulama.

No retaliation will be executed in an injury, or cutting of the arms and legs, or muwdihah,except after it gets cured.

Any intetntionally done act, in which the retaliation is ineffective, like the murder of son by his father, then the blood 472 / money will be paid out of thewealth of the killer.

An intention made by the minor and insane person are considered as mistakes and the blood money will be paid by his `aqilah. There will be no kaffarah and deprivation from the inheritance.

an invalid and unstable mann (al-ma`tuh) is like an insane person.

                         Chapter  

Who hits belly of a woman and she throws a  still feotus, her `aqilah has to pay ghurrah,that is five hyndred dirham. If she give bith to an alive baby, then it dies is blod money gets due. If it is stil baby, and the mother dies, then a ghurrah and a blood money are due. If she dies and after that she pushes the feotus out alive, then it dies, her blod money and his blood money are due. If is dead onlt, yhen her blood money is due.

Whatever is due in the feotus, that will be inherited from him. But the hitter will nor inherit him.

In the feotus of a she-slave, one out of twney of her value if it is she, then one tenth blood money are due. According to Abu Yusuf if the vealue decreases, she compensates hr value, otherwise does not.

If she-slave was hit, then her patron emancipated her feotus, then she throws it alive, the he dies, her value,not the blood money, is due.

There will be no kaffarah in the feotus. Any whose creation was distinctive is like one who was complete in terms of creation. If seh enhails a medicament or treats her vagina with some medicine for abotion, the ghurrah is on her `aqilah, if she has done it without the permission of his father. If it was done with his consent, nothing is due.

473 /            Chapter on What Can be Done on the Ways    

Any one who  opens a rest room or canalat or a pipe or a shop in a public way, that will be good for him, if it does not harm. Each one of the public has the right to eliminate it.

In a private way that is not possible, execpt with the consent of the partners, even if it does not harm. There will be the resposibility of his `aqilah to pay the blood money of one who dies by falling in the both cases. The same thing if a person fals and dies on its wrechage, If teh one who slips falls on another person and both of them die, the compensation is the duty of one who made the way.

If the end of the pipe which in in the wal falls upon him,there will be no compemsation. If other end fals on him, he compensates like one who digs a well or puts a stone on the way, then some one dies because of that. If an animal dies because of that, its compansation will be in his wealth.

Thrownig the dust and getting the the dirth are like putting the stone. This will be  lika that, if he has not done it with  the permission of the imam. If he does any thing like that with his consent, there will be no compensation.

If one who falls into thewell dies because of hunger or the stress. then there will be no compensation upon the digger, even if it was done without consent. According Muhammad the compensation is due. Also according to Abu Yusuf in the death by the stress, not in the death with the stress. If he lays stone 474 / and a third perso rescues him, the compansation of what he has caused to perish is the responsibility of the second. 

If he opens an outlet (janah) of his house and then sells it, the compensation of what gets perishes because of that is the opener's responsibility. And also the same if heputs a wood on the road, then he sells it, thebuyer gets excepted from that and then the buyer left it, the compernsation of what gets perished is the burden of the seller. 

If he leaves on the street some burning brand and it burns some thing off, he has to compensate it. If it was burned after the wind blew it away to another place, he does not compensate, if it was was located in the place he put.

Any one ho carries some thing on the road compensates its falling down. The same thing any one who bringss in the masjid of another person a matt rug or a cndle or gravel without any permission,then that causes to some one to  perish. The two imams are of the opposing opinion in this regard. If he brings these stuff into the masjid of his locality, he does not compensate it as unaninmously admitted.

Any one sits in the masjid without any prayer,and a third person gets perished because of him, he compensates him.The two imams are of the minority view regarding the previous issue. There is no difference between his sitting there for prayer, or enjoying the respect to the masjid and  for reciting the Qur'an or he slept there while he was praying and his passing through it or his sitting for hadith, there is also no difference between the masjid of his locality and other masjids. As to the one who is doing i`tikaf in the masjid, they say, the differences of opinions are as at the above. It is said that he will not compensate it, with no differences of views. The one who sits as preyer, even if he is not eligible to do that, he will not compensate as unanimously accepted.

If theowner of a house hires the labourers to make an outlet or canopy, and some thing was damaged because of that, then the compansation is the responsibilty of the labourer, if he accepts thast their work has been finished. But if it was after that, it is his responsibility.

Any one who pors water in a public road has to compensate what has been caused to be demolished by that. The same thing if he spills it, so tha passer slips or takes his ablution and the water sorrounds the road.

475 / If he does any thing like those in a road with no outlet, and he himself is from that locality or was laid there or he laid hir properties there, in thise cases he does not compensate. The same rule if he spills some thing which is not traditionally a material causing slippery or he does like that in same part of the road and the passanger willinlgly steps om it.

Putting wood is like the spilling in comprising the roaad or not. If he spills around his shop with the permission of the owner, trhe compensation responsiity is for the one who instructs like that according what is practised traditionally among muslims (istihsan), this is like if he hires any one to build around his shop, then something gets perished after he finishes thed work, if he  instructed to build in the middle of the road, then the compensation is is the duty of the labourer.

If he sweeps the road, he does not compensate the thing any thing which perishes in the place of sweeping. But if he collects the  the sweepings on the road, he compensates the thing which gets perished with that. There is nothing to compensate in what he does in his ownership and some thing gets perished or in an enviroment in which he has the right of the disopsition , it does not belong to the public and is not also shared by the people of the same street which has no outlet.

If he hires one who digs a well in a palace not adjacent to his property, then the compensation is the duty of the hirer, if the hired person does not know that it was not his enviroment. If he knew it is his duty. If he says it adjacent to my land, but I do not have any right to dig a well over there, then the compensation is the duty of the labourer according to the analogy (qiyas) or it is the duty of the hirer according to the traditionally practices of the mslims.

Any one who builds a bridge witout any permission from the  state leader (imam), some one passed from there intentionally and perished, there will be no compensation from the builder.

                             Chapter

If a wall gets inclined to the public road and the owner is requested to wreck it down, he may be muslim or zimmi, and some were made ones witnesses for that, and he does not wreck it in a specific period in which wreckage was possible, and some one or some thing gets perished, his 'aqilah has to compensate the death and he himself has to compemsate the perished property. The same 476 / law, if any one who has the right of wrecking it down is asked to do so,like the father of a baby, or his care taker,a pawner who has the right of revoking the collateral, the trading slave and mukatab. He will not compensate if he sells it and make others witness and delivers it to the buyer, then the wall fals, also if one who does own,like the pawned person, tyhe labourer, the deposited one, is asked for that. If he builds it as inclined from the beginning, he compensates what was perished by its fall, even if it was not asked to be demolished, as it is the situation in making an outlet and things like that. 

If it inclines to a house of a person, the right of asking belongs to the owner or dweller. It may be deleyed and acquitted and it may not be postphoned if it inclines to the road, even if this peosphonment comes from the judge or any one who makes others witness.

If the wall is shared by five person and one of them made others testify, all the five will compensate what gets perished. According to two imams half of it is to be compensated.

If one of the three sharers digs a well without any consent from others in a house which belongs to them all, or builds a wall, he has to compansate two thirds of what has been perished. According to two imams half of it is to be compensated.

     Chapter the Injuries Made by The Animals and Against Animals  

He has to compensate what his  livestocks step on by its fromt legs or back basck legs or its head, what it bites, or hits with its legs or head. He does not compensate what the animal does with its hoof at the back ot with its tail, except if he stops it there intentionally. And also it is not to be compensated  what it damages with its feces and urine while the animal was moving or stopped not for that reason, so he compemsates what  has been damaged. 

If it hits with its front or back legs a gravel or a seed of fruit or stirrs up some dust or a small stone and hits an eye of any one or spoils the cloth of any one, he does not compensate. But if it was big, then he compensates. 

Any one who is leading compensates what a rider compensates. The driver too does the same thing according to the most correct view. It is has been said that he compensates what an animal damages with the hoofs of its back legs.

There will be no kaffarah for them, no deprivation neither from 477 / inheritance nor from being beneficiary of the will, this is contrary to the rider.

If the rider and leader or rider and driver are together, then the compensation is is upon them both. It is said that it will be on the rider only.

If two riders or pdestrians hit each other and die, `aqilah of of each one of them pays a blood money to the other. If they pull a rope, then it broke and the two die, if they fall ontheir backs, nothing are to be paid for them, if they fall on their faces, the blood money will be paid by `aqilah of one who falls on his back. If the other party cut the rope and they died, theblood money of both are on his `aqilah.

If he was leadin a horse and the saddle or any thing else of it tool fell on a human being, and diee, he has to compensate. The same thing for a leader of caravan where a camil steps on a man. The blood mone for the murders is to be paid by the `aqilah and the  other damages are to be paid from his wealth. If there was a driver together with the leader, then the compensation is the duty of both of them. IF the camel was tied up to the caravan without the knowledge of the leader, then a man perished, the leader's aqilah is to compensate the blood money. They all may appeal to the aqilah of the one who tied it.

Any one who releases an animal or a dog and leads it, he compensates what it hits immediately. But in thjeberds,he does not compensate, even if he drives it. The same thing a horse or camel and dog if he does not drives them or itself ran away night or day time and hit some thing or some body.

Any one who hits a horse or camel on which there is a rider, and it hit any one whith its back feet, it was scared and hit and a person died, he compensates it, not the rider if he does it while it was moving. But if he stiops it in an area  other than his property, then the compensation is upon both of them.

If the animal hits with its back hoofs the one who hits it, then nothing is to be paid. If it throws down the rider, then his 478 / compensation will be upon the hitting person. If he does it with the permission of the rider, then it is like the act od the rider. But if it steps on any one immediately after the animal was hit with the permission, then its blood money will be upon them both. And the hitter will not return for payment to the rider according to the most corrcet view as  it is the case  if he orders a child to hold an animal by leading it, then it stepps on a man and the man dies. The `aqilah of the child will not return for what they paid as the blood money to the orderer.

The same thing whewn he gives to a child an arm and the hild kills a person. Also the same rule will be  in hitting the namal whle the leader and the driver.

If any thing which is fixed on theroad hits it,then the compensation is duty of one who erected that there. There is no difference between whether the hitter is a chil or an adult. If the hitter is a slave, then the compensation is in his own value.

All problems in this chapter and in the previous chapters , if the one who perishes is a man, the blood money will be the duty of his `aqilah, if the others, the compensation will be paid from his wealth.

Any one who takes of the eye of a sheep which belongs to the butcher, he compensates what it was decreased.

There will be one fourth of its value in the eye of horse, or mule or donkey or camel of a butcher ot his cow.

          Chapter on The Crimes of a Slave and Crimes Against Him

The crimes of any slave under the ownership of others do not necessitates any thing except giving him away one only, if he is eligible for that by bewing a fully owned slave (qinn). Otherwise it will be one value only being not eligible for that.

If a slave makes a crime by midtake, his patron may if he wishes gives him away and his guardina wil get the ownership or he leaves him immediately as sacrificed (fadahu) for the blood money. If the slave dies before the patron makes his mind up for slecetion, the victims right gets vanished. If it happens after when he chooses the sacrifice, then that does not get void. If he  sacrifices him and then he makes a crime, the decison is the same. 

If he makes two crimes, he delivers him against them, then they 479 / will be divided according to the proportions of their rights or he sacrifices him against the cost of the blood momey.           

If he  sells him, or donates him or emancipates him or makes mudabbar or umm walad without knowing his crime, then he compensatyes the lesser amount of his value and the blood money. If he knew that, then he compensates the blood money, as it is the position in thecase he suspends his manumission to the murder oz Zaid or his shooting or his wounding, then Zaid does it. 

If a slave cuts off thehand of a free willingly and he was delivered to the victim and he  manutted him, then the  disease effected the whole body, the slave is amicably settled for the crime. If he does not emancipate him, he is to be returned back to his master  and either he is to be retaliated or forgiven. The same rule if the cutter is free and settles the matter amicably against a slave and gives him to the victim, then he emancipates him, after that the deseas  gets contingeous, so that  is to be settlement peacefully, if he does not emancipates the slave and the desease  effects the whole body he is to be given back and aretaliation must take place. 

If an to work authorized slave  makes acime by mistake, then he emancipates him without knowing it, he compensates it for the creditor the lesser  amount of his value or the debt. The guardian of the victim will have the lessor amount from his value or the blood money. If the she-slave who is authorized to  do business and who owns some debts, gives birth , the child too is to be sold together to pay the debt. But if the mother makes a crime, the child will not be given  for the crime with his mother.

If a man acknowledges that Zaid bfreed his slave, then the same slame killed by mistake the gurdian of the person who acknowledges, there will be nothing for that. Ifa bfreed person says "I murdered the bother of Zaid before my emancipation" and Zaid says "no, after it", the word of the emancipater is to be taken as true.

If a ptron says to a she-slave whome he manumitted "I cut off your hand before the freeing" and she says "no,after it", her word is to be effective. The same rule for what he got from her with the exeception of sexual intercourse and the income.  

According to Muhammad he does not compensate the things which are available,she will be ordered to be given back.

If a slave or a child orders to another  child to slay a man, then the child murders him, the blood money will be upon the 480 / `aqilah of the murderer and they  return to the slave after he is manumitted, not to the child who gave instruction. If the one  to whome a slave gave instruction is a person in his status, the patron delivers him to  the killer or sacrifice him if it was by mistake or the ome who is ordered is a minor and he does not return to the instructer immediately. It is necessary to return to him after he is manumitted against the lower  amount of his value and sacrifice. But if it was on purpose and the one who received order was adult, retaliation is to take place.

If a slave murders two free men and each one of them has a guardian, then one of the guardian  forgave, each one of them has to give half to the other party or he  will be secrificed against the blood money for both of them.

If one of tehm killed intentionally and theother by mistake, and guardian of inetentionally killer forgave, that will be sacrificed for teh guardina of the mistakeenly killer and also for half of it  for one ofthe guardian of on purpose killer or he  will be delivered to them,they may divide him in thirds  with no fraction left undivided ( method of `awl). According to two imams it must be divided in fourts with the  method of lityigation (munaza`ah).

If the jointly owned slave slays a relatife of the both owner patrons, then one of them forgives, the whole system gets void. The two imams say that the forgiver owner has to give half of his share to the other partner and he sacrifices him against one fourth of the the blood money. It is said that Muhammad is with Abu Hanifah.

                           Chapter

The blood money for the slave is his value. If the blood money of a free person has been valued or more, then ten dirhams are to be deducted from the free estimation. The same thing if thevalue of the she-slave is equal to or more than the value of a free woman.

In the case of usurpation the value is binding, no matter how much it may take. Whatever has been evaluated in a free is to be valued too in the the value of a slave. In the hand half its value,that may not exceed five thousand minus five. Any one who cuts willingly the hand of a slave, then frees him, after that thedesease spread, retaliation is needed, if his hewir is his patron only. Otherwise,no. According to Muhammad there is no retaliation at all. He has to pay the blood money for hand and also must pay what value he has lost until the manumission.

Any one who says to his two slaves "one of you is free", then the heads of both get injured and after that he  specifies which one is free, his blood money will be for him. If they are slain, then he will get blood money like a free man and the value of 481 / a slave, if the killer is one.

If  one man kills each one of them, then the value of two slaves. Any one who blinds two eyes of a slave, if his master wishes, he delivers him and receives his value or keeps him woth nothing to be paid to him. According to two imams he has to compensate the the loss in his value.

                              Chapter  

If a mudabbar or umm walad makes a crime, the patron compensates the lesser amount of thevalue and the blood money. If they make crime once more, then the  guardian of thesecond one shares with the guardian of the first one in his value if it was delivered to him by the decision of the judge, otherwise if he wishes he pursues the guardian of the first and if he wishes pursues the patron. According to two imams the  guardina of the first is to be pursued in all cases, even if the patron emancipates mudabbar slave, whereas he  committed many crimes, he is supposed to pay only once of his value. Ifthe mudabbar acknowkedges that the cirme was by mistake, nothing is necessary at the moment and also nothing after  his manumission.

Chapter on Usurpation of a  Slave, a Baby, and Committing Crime by That

If the patron chops the hand of the slave, then he was usurped and dies from the chopping in the hand of usurper, he compensates his value as cut off. If the  master cuts his hand while  he is in the hand of the usurper, then he dies, the usurper gets acquitted.

If an incapacitated slave usurops any one like him, then he dies in his hand, he compensates him. If a mudabbar usurps and commits a crime while he is with the usurper, then in thepresence of his master or vice versa, his master compensates his value to both of them. and returns with his share to the usurper,and he delivers him to the owner of the first one in the first problem, then he returns to with him second time to him. According Muhammad he does not deliver him and does not return second time.

He delivers him inthesecond problem and does not return second time,as unanimously accepted.

A full slave in both of the chapters is like a mudabbar, except he delivers him. In mudabbar he delivers his value.

482 / The repeated returns and delivers are  likke in mudabbar in terms of agrement and disagreement.

IF a man usurps a mudabbar twice, then he commits a crime while he is with him, in each one of them his master has to pay his value to them and the master may return to thwe usurper and he gives half of it to the guardian of the first and his master returns ti him once more as unannimously accepted. It is said that there is a disagreement in the viewof Muhammad. 

Any one who abducts a free child, then he suddenly dies in his hand or gewts fever, nothing is due by him. If thedetah occur by thunder or a snake poisoning, then his `aqilah has to pay the blood money.

If a child kills a slave who is a trust with him,his `aqilah has to compensate. If he eats food or spoils a property which is deposited to him, there will be no compemsation, Abu Yusuf disagrees to this point.

If aproperty is deposited with an incapacitated slave and he consumes it, he compensates after the manumission, not immediately. Abu Yusuf disagrees in this regard.

Accrediting and dlending is like depositing in both of the  situations.

A child (al-sabiy) means "an understanding one" (al-`aqil). In the child who is not `aqil, the property is also to be compensated according to a unanimously admitted view, as  the `aqil  compensates a property which  he destroyed without any depositio etc.

                   Chapter on Oath (al-Qasamah)

When a body is found in a district with  traces of murder like, injuries, bleedings from ear or  eye or scar of strangling or beating, and no one knows who is the killer and the guardian claims that the people of that area,wholly or partly, murdered him,and he has no evidence for that, fifty persons chosen by the  guardian are to be sworn in by Allah "we did not kill and we do not know any killer for him". Then the judge  convicts the people to pay the blood money. 

Any feotus whose organs are compleleted are like  treated like adults. ,The guardian does not let them swear, if thgere was a hint (foul) for themurder.

If thepeople are less than fifty,then the swearing is to be repeated until it gets completed. 

Any one who rescibd his oath, he is to stay in jail until he takes the oath. Any one who says from them "such perso killed him" he excludes him from swearing process. If the guardian 483 / claims the murder was by some others, their responsibility of taking oath expires. Their testimony against others cannot be accepted, the two imams oppose to this point,and also upon some of them, if he claims it, as unanimously accepted.

If the majority or half of the body exist together with the head, that is considered as the whole body.

There is no qsamah (taking oath as described  previously) on a a child, insane, on woman and slave. There is also mneither  qasamah nor blood money in a dead who  has no trace on it or bleeding of  mouth,nose, anus and penis exist or less than half of thebody is foun even if it is with the head or half of it being  in pieces in lenght.

If he is found on his camel or horse lead by a person, the blood money is due to his `aqilah. The same thing if it was driven or riden. If they collectively do, they are all responsible.

If he is found on a camel or horse between two villages, thenearest one  has to pay it. If he is found in his own house, his `aqilah has to pay,according to two imas nothing is due.

If he is found in the house of a man, he has to share qsamah process. Ang his `aqilah has to pay the blood money. 

If all `aqilah are present, they also join to the qasamah. Abu Yusuf is of the minorty opinion, otherwise the oath is to be repeated.

Qsamah is the duty of the landlords, not tenants. According to Abu Yusuf it is the duty of all.

Qsamah is on the people who is inside the line drawn after the conquest (ahl al-khittah), if any one of them is left, not on the buyers. According to Abu Yusuf it is on thebuyers too.

If none of the ahl a-lkhittah exists, then it is the task of the  the buyers.

If a house is sold and yet not received, the biyer has that responsibility. Accotding to two imams the buyers have to do that job.

In a sale with thechoice of revoking it, the one who hlds it actually has the same responsibility. According to two imams any one who gets the ownership.

`Aqila of the actual holder never pays the blood money except under the evidence that it belongs to him.

If it is found in a house jointly owned in varriying shares, then qasamah and the blood money are due per head,not per equal share.

484 / If it is found in a ship, it is theliability of the crew and passengers. If it is found in a local masjid, the  people of that locality are  liable at this point. If he is found btween the two villages, then it is the responsiblity of the nearest one. If it happened in an owned mall,then the owner is resposible. According to Abu Yusuf the ones who live there are responsible.In  the none owned markets,like the streets and roads, the state budget has to take care of it.  Alaso the state budget is responsible  if it was found in the  thecentral mosque (al-jami`) and in the prison. According to Abu Yusuf the people of the theprison are resposible for the last case.

If it is found in a deseted area   which  there is no village nearby that the voice can be heard thereof,then there will be no obligation for any body. The same  law if it is found in the middle of Euphrat. If it was held in the brink, thenearest  village is responsible for that.

If the  people fougt with each other sword to sword, then they get seperated from the dead bodies, the peole of the locality are responsible with exception  of the case where the guardian claims the resposibility for the people or for some of them specifically, then their responsiblity ends. And that willnot be atributed to the peole except by the proof.

 If he is found in a garrison which located in a no man's land, if it was in a tent, big or small, the owner is responsible, otherwise thenearest one will be responsible for that.

If they fought with the enemy, there will be no qasamah and no blood money.

If the garrison of of the mailitary  regiment i an owned land, then the soldier are like the people living over there. Qasamah is theresponsibility of the owner. That is not their responsublity. Abu Yusuf does not agree to this view.

Any one who was wounded in a tribe, then he was transfered to his home and continoued to be in bed, until he died qasamah will be upon the the tribe according to Abu hanifah. According to Abu Yusuf therre will be nothing there.

If there was a man with the wounded person, and he carries him and he dies in his home, there will be no compensation due on the man according to Abu Yusuf. cording to the analogy of Abu hanifah he  comprensates.

 If there were two men in a home and one of them found slaughtered, the other person  compensates according to Abu 485 / Yusuf, Muhammad disagree  with him in this regard.

If a murdered person is found in a village which belongs to a woman, the oath will be repeatedly taken from her and her `aqilah has to pay the fine. According Abu Yusuf her `aqilah too  has to pass the test of qasamah.

The scholars of later periods say the woman has to be included in bearing the burden  together with `aqilah in this matter.

If the dead body is found in a land of a man which is located near  a village, the being being not a member of that village, the responsiblity lies at the owner of the land.

                The  Book of THe blood money (ma`qulah)

That is blood money (al-diyah). al-`Aqilah is one who pays it. They are the members of registration (Diwan)., if the killer is from them. 

The blood money is to be taken in three years period from their alloted parts. If a third of their  assignments gets less than one third or more than that, that will be taken from it,any one who is not from them, his `aqilah is his tribe.And it will be taken from him in three years time, three dirham from each one of them, or four dirhams are to be taken, each peya one dirham or one and on ethird of a dirham, not more than taht according to the most correct  view.

It is said that each year three or four dirham.


If the tribe could not do that, the nearest tribe from the point of the blood relation is to be added to them following the list of the Asabahs. The killer will be one of them.

If they cooperate with each other in propession and take oath of helping each other, his `aqilah are those people.

The `aqilah of the emancipated person and mawla'l-muwalat is his  patron (mawla) and aqilah of his patron. Aqilah of the child of mula'anah is the aqilah of his mother.

If the father claims him after they pay the  blood money, they return to aqilah for what they have paid.

A aqilah pays what is necessary from by murder.

No injury (jinayah) which is intentionally exceuted is subhected to aqilah, nor jinayah of aslave, and what is necessary with peaceful settlement or confession, except if they approve him.

Aqilah cannot be less than one out of the twenty of a blood money. That will be on the culprit.

486 / The women and children are not included in the process of aqilah. No muslim makes ma`qulah from none believer,and vice versa. A none beliver can make ma`qulah from another  disbeliever, even if their attachmernt to the religion differ, if the  fight between them is not clearly evidencedlike jews with christinas.

If a zimmi does not have a aqilah, the blood money will be in his property for a three years period. Muslim is to be taken care of by the state budget. It is said that he is like a zimmi.

If a free person makes an injury to a slave  mistakenly, `aqilah has to pay theblood money.

                         The  Book of Will      

A will (al-wasiyyah) is appropriating something aefective after the death. It is recommended (mustahab) for the amount less than one third of the assets left, if the heirs are well-to-do peole or who do not need more than their inheritance share. Otherwise leaving it aside is a loved act.

Will is not valid for the amount exceeds a third of it. The killer of the deceased has no direct right to a will, neither his heirs except by the approval of the deceased's heirs.

It is effective in a third  for a third person  even if they do not approve it and it is also valid dfrom a muslim to a zimmi and vice versa.

That is also valid for a feotusa;one and a third person tgether with him, provided there is a period of six months at least between the making will and the birth.

Donation to a feotus id not valid. If he makes a will for ashe-slave other than a feotus, that is also valid also any exception.

A will must be accepted. The acceptance after the death of the the deceased is effective. Refuting and accepting in his life have no meaning. 

A will can be posessed except if case where the beneficiary dies after the death poof thedeceased but before the acceptance. He posesses it and that becomes the ownership of his heirs.

No making will is acceptable by a minor and a mukatab, even if he leaves enough amount of money.

Will comes after the debts. That is not valid from some one, whose debts drowns him, except if the creditors acquit him.

The  maker of a will may return from his will verbally or by action that cancells the the right od posession in of the owner in a usurpation or eliminates his ownership, like selling or 487 / donating, even if he bought it or returns from it after that or causes in the  the  amount of willed thing an increase which cannot be delivered except with it, like mixing the flour with oil, construction in a house and processing the cotton.

Scisoring the cloth and slaughtering a sheep is a revoking, but not washing the cloth, pasting the house or wrecking it down. Deniying is not returning according to Muhammad, contrary to the view of Abu Yusuf and his sentences of "I delayed the will" or"any will I bequeathed for such person is unlawful". If he says "whatever I bequeathed for such a person is for a thirs such person", that is a revoking, excluding the case if the second "such person" is not alive.

The donation of deadly ill person and his will for a woman he  tyook under his  marriage after the donation. The same thing if he acknowledges or makes a will or donation to his nonebeliever son or  his slave, if he accepts Islam or gets emancipated after that.

The donation of an invalid and a paralized, a crippled and one who is totally restricted to transact are effective in their whole wealth, if it lasts and the death is not expected from that cause, otherwise that is from a third of the wealth.

          Chapter on  Making a Will out of Third of Wealth 

IF he bequeathes for each one of the two  by a third of his wealth and the heir does not approve it, the third is to be divided between them fifty fifty. If he  makes a will for one of them a third and for the other a sixth. then that will be divided into thirds. If it for one a third, and for the  other person two thirds or half or as whhole wealth, the third is to be divided between them half and half. According to two imams in the first case that will be divided into thirds, into fifths as two fifths and three fifths in the second situation, and the thirs position that is to be divided in fourths.

The beneficiary of a will does not get any thing over one third accvording to Abu Hanifah, except in muhabah, si`ayah and the dirhams for which no rates of fractions wre mentioned.

Awill get invalidated by making the share of the son bequeathed to a third person. But if the will is made as "the equvalant to amount of the share of th eson", that is effective.

488 / If he has two sons, the one who has been appointed beneficiary a third is due. If they are three, he will get one fourth. If he bequeathes one part of his wealth, specifiying and identifiying it is the right of the inheritors. If the will is done as "a share (sahm)", the  that is "a sixth". ASccording to two imams "it is equavalant to the share of one of them", except what exceeds upon a third with no approval (ijazah). They say that "this in their custom, in our usage share (sahm) connotes a part".

If he bequaeathes one sixth of his wealth, then one third of it and the inharitants approve it, he will get a third. If it is "sith, then a sixth", he will have a sixth, no difference  whether the sitting (majlis) varries or not.

If it is made as "a third od his dirhams or his flock, or his cloth" and they are all the same type, thed two thirds vanishes, he will have the rest, if it covers that.

All measurable and  weighables are  under the same category. If it is "a third of his cloth", while they are different and two thirds pewrish, he will have one third of what is left. If one third of his slaves, that is also the same. According to ywo imams "all of what is left". It is said that the imams are in agrement with Abu Hanifah.

The  livestocks are like the slaves in terms of rules.

If he bequeaths as "a thousand" and he has goods  and credits the will relates to the goods, if one third is sufficient for that, otherwise one third of the goods is to be giveand also one third of what can be paid off from the credits until a third gets cmpleted.

If he bequeathes a third for Zaid and `Amr, one of them is dead, all for one who is alive. If he says "between Zaid and `Amr", a half of it will go the living person.

If he makes awill for one third of his wealth and he has no wealth and then acquired some, he will get one third of the wealth when  he had while he was dieing. If it with " athird of his flock", and he has no flock or he had, but perished before the occurance of death, the will gets void. If he avquires the sheep and then dies, the will is valid. If he  allots a sheep in his will to some one, and he has none, hi will have its value. That will be void if it is "a sheep out of the flock", he did not have any flock.

489 / If he bequeaths "a third of his wealth for his more than one umm walads", they are three, and for the poors amd destitutes they will get three fifths out one third and each group will get one fifth. According to Muhammad three sevenths and each group will get two sevenths.

If he makes a will  as "one third of his wealth to Zaid and poor people", he will have half and the others will receive half. According to Muhammad he will get a third and the poors will receive two thirds. If he bequeaths "one hundred for Zaid and one hundred for `Amr", the he says to Bakr "I let you share with both of them", Bakr will receive a third of the share each one gets". If it is "a hundred for Zaid and fifty for Amr",then  Bakr recveives half frm the shares of each one of them.

If he says "I have a debt for such person", and they approve him, his word gets effective until to a third. If he makes many wills after that, a third of his assets is to be kenpt for the wills and two tihrds will be left for inharitants. They are to be told "you approhim in a way you wish", they will be responsible for a third of what thay acknowledge. And the inherotors will be taken responsible for two thirds of what they acknowledge" and each of them are to be sworn in that  they knew the increase on wahet they acknowledged.

If he  bequeathes a thing for his heir and athird person, thehtird person will receive half of it, and theheir will get nothing.

If he bequeaths for each one the three a cloth, and the cloth are differentone another and a cloth vanished,no one  knew which it is, and the  heirs say  for every one "your share vanished", the will gets void. If they deliver what are left, the one who is supposed to receive the best goes two thirds of the best quality,the worst one will reveive also two thirds of the worst quality an the average one will have one third from eact two qualities.

If he bequeaths a specific apartment out of the joitly shared house, that will be divided. If the apartment falls to the share of the bequeather, that will go the beneficiary of ther will. According to Muhammad he will have half of itotherwise he will have the proportionated part out of the house. According to 490 /  Muhammad half of his share in measured proportionately.

Acknowledgement is like making a will. It is said that there is no difference of view here for Muhammad. This is a preferred  view.

If he bequeaths athousand specific goods of the property belongs to a third person, the posessor of the housand has the right of approving it after the death of the bequeather and he has also the right of preveinting from it after the approval, contrary to the heirs if they approved the amount exceeds upon the third.

If one of the sons acknowledges after the division a will made by his father for a third of thewealth, he has to give one third of his share back. 

If he  bequeaths a she-slave who gave bitrh after his death, she and the baby will go to the beneficiary of the will,if they are good as a third, otherwise he will get a third from her and then a third from the baby. According to two imams he willget from both of them equally.

                     
43