The Book of Usurpation (Ghasb) It is elimination of a rightfull dominion on some thing by establishing an invalid dominion. To let the slave serve one's and to load the animal is a usurpation, but sitting on a rug is not. Its legal consequence is sin for one who knows and the obligation of returning the thing in a place where he has usurped,if it is still exists and compensating it if it has already perished. Things which are like each other (mithli),like measurables, weighables and countables which are almost the same,it is an obligation to the equivalent. But ifthere is no more equivalency,then its value at the day of litigation is due. According to Abu Yusuf the value at the day of the usurpation and according to Muhammad the day of going out of the qulity of being look like each other. 393 / The things which are evaluated with their values (qiyami, not being mithli) are like countables which are vary one from another. Wheat which is mixed with barley is to pay its value at the day of usurpation,as unanimously accepted. If he claims the the usurped material perished, he is to be put in detention until it is understood that if it existed he would have brought it out, then he may be convicted to pay its value. Usurpation is possible only in movables. So if he usurps a building or a land, but perishes in his hand, he has not to compensate it, Muhammad has an opposing view at this point. Whatever decreases it value with his own act, like living in it or cultivating in it, he will compensate it. He takes his capital (seeds) and gives as charuty the rest of it. According to Abu Yusuf he does not give it as charity. The same law will work if if he gets the service of a usurped slave, and his service decreases his value or he rents out a borrowed thing and that decreases its value,he has to compensate ahat he caused to decrease. Whatever is surplus from the product and payment is to be given away as charity. Abu Yusuf is of opposing opinion. If the usurper disposes on the usurped material or the trust, then he makes a profit, both of them get fixed by specifiying them,he gives away his profit as charity.Abu Yusuf has here also an opposing view. If the two are not possible to be identified, then if he points at them or pays fpr them, the ruling will be aso the same. If he points to the things other than the two and pays for them or points to the two and pays for thengs other than the two or he leaves them in general and pays for the two, the profit in those cases is lawful to him,as unanimouslt admitted. It is said this the view to be pronounced as fatwa. But the preferred view is that in no way it becomes good profit for him. 394 / If he buys a she-slave worth two thousand by payin a thousand which he usurped or borrowed from some one else and then he donates her to some one or he buys a food and eats it up, he in these case has nothing to donate as charity. Chapter If he changes what he usurped, so that his name and biggest benefits disappeared he has to compensate for that and he gets the ownership. It is not lawful for him to benefit from before the actual compensation, like a sheep he slaughtered,cooked or grilled or cut into pieces or wheat he grounded or cultivated or the flour he baked and the grapes or olive he squeezed and the cotton he veawes or thread he spins and the steel he made a sword out of it, brass he made utensils from it, an indian plaintain-tree or the brick of clay bdried up under the sun he has made a building with. If he minted coins of the gold or silver,dirhams and dinars, or plates he does not own them. The ownership goes to the owner of the gold or silver against nothing. According to two imas the usurper gets the ownership of them. And he has to pay the equvalent of it. If he slaughters the sheep, then the owner if he wishes he may give it back to usurper and makes him compensate its value or cuts the animal's uneaten part and organ; or he tears the sloth badly in way that he damaged some part of it and eliminated the possibility of benefitting of some part of it, in a alittle thing he decreased the value, but did not eliminate the avalabilty thereof, he in these cases compensates the the loss of value. Any one who builds any thing on land belongs to a third person or 395 / plants any thing he is to be enjoined to uproot it and the land back to the owner. If it will lose sone of its value by the uprooting, the owner has to compensate for te usurper the value of both of them,provided he is instructed to uproot them. Ther land will be appraised without tree or building and it will be also appraised with one of the two which has to be uprooted, he compensates the the differenec as exeeding part. If he paints the cloth in red or yellow or pasts the the grilled flour with the oil, the the owner has the choice of either to compensate the value of the cloth as being white and the grilled flour or to take them and compensate what has been added to its value with painting and puttin the oil. If he paints him in black, he makes him compensate its value as white or takes it without returning any thing.For this is a defect. According to two imams the black paint is also the same as other colors. This is a difference of time. Chapter on Losing the Usurped Thing If he loses what he has usurped and compensates its value,he gets the posession of it from the time of usurpation, so his earnings,excluding the children, are to be delivered to him. The word of usurper is to be taken in the field of value together with the oath, if the father does not bring any evidence for the increase. If the usurped stuff is there and its value is high and he compensated it based on the word od the owner or his proof or his revoking from the oath, then that is ubder the posession of the usurper anbd the owner has no choice. If he compensates based on the word of usurper, then the owner 396 / may if he wishes execute the compensation or takes it and gives back its value. If each one of the owner and usurper proves that it was perished in the hand of other party,then the evidence of the usurper has the priority. Abu Yusuf has the minority opinion. Any one who usurps a slave and sells him and compemsates him, his sale gets effective. If he manumits him and compensates him,his manumission gets ineffective. Any increase in the usurped stuff will not be compensated as long as he does not trespass the limits or he denies it after the owner asks for it. The increases are equal whether they are attached to the original as the beauty and the oil of olive or seperate like the child or the fruit. If the value of a she-slave gets decreased with giving birth in the hand of usurper, he compensates the the loss and that will be made up with the value of the child or the feotus if it suffices. If he makes an adultery with the girl-slave he robbed and returns her pregnant, then she gives birth and dies while labouring, he has to compensate her value at the day she baceme pregnant, this is just opposite of the case when the free woman is involved. According to two imams he does not compensate in a she-salave too. If he returns her back while she had a fever and she dies, he has nothing to pay. The same ruling if she makes adultery ahile she is with the usurper, then he returns her and then she is flogged and dies because of whipping. He does not compensate the benefits made of the usurped thing, wheter he lived in or left it without settlement, except in the foundation (waqf). He does not compensate the alcohol or pig of a muslim if he gamages it. But he compensates their values only, if they belonged to a zimmi. 397 / If a zimmi damages the alcohol of a zimmi, he compensates its equvalant value. He has no compansation for the destruction of a dead body, even if it belongs to a zimmi also the animal slaughtered intentionally leaving aside the name of Allah, even if it belongs to one whome it is lawful. If he robbs the alcohol of a muslim and makes it vinegard by adding something which has no value, the owner will take it against nothing. If the robber destroys it, he compensates it. He will not compensate it, if itself perishes. If he makes it vinegard with adding salt, then he gets the ownership and he has nothing to pay. According to two imams, he owner will get it if he wants it. He gives back some vinegard equal to the weight of the salt added. If the robber destroys it, he does not compensate it.The two imams are of the opposing opinion. If he makes it vinegard with adding to the alcohol some vinegard, he gets its posession and the posessor will pay nothing according to Abu Hanifah. The same position according to Muhammad if it turns to the vinegard at that moment, otherwise the vinegard will be divided between them according the proprotion of their ownership. If he robbs a skin of a dead animal and tans it with something which worts nothing, the owner receives it agains nothing. If the usurper destroys it, he compensates its value as leather.It is said that as it values bing clean skin, but not tanned. If he tanns it with some thing valuable, the the owner receives it and returns what exeeds the tanning by evaluating it as tanned and calen, but not tanned and gives back the difference between the two values. The robber has the right of keeping it in his custody until he gets wahat he deserves.If he destroys it, he does not need to 398 / compensate. According to two imams he compensates it as tanned leather., except what exeeds the tanning. If itself perishes,he does not compensate it as unanimously accepted. Any who breaks a tamborine of a muslim,his drum or flut or tromphet or pours his alcohol or some fruit juice, he compensates its value without taking into consideration its amusement. Selling these stuff are valid. The two imas say that he does not compensate it. And it is nat allowed to sell. Fatwa is on this view. Any one who usurps a mudarabara (she-sale made mudabbarah) and she dies while she is in his dominion,he has to compensate her value,if she is umm walad,no compensation;teh two imams are of the opposing opinion. If he tears up a cup made of skin to pur out the alcohol, he does not compensate it according to Abu Yusuf,but Muhammad has an opposing view in this regard. No compensation upon a person who undid the rope of a slave who belongs to another person or a tie of a camel or horse or opened the door of a stable or cage of a bird and each one of them ran away.,Muhammad is of the teh dissident view in regard to horse or camel and bird. There is also no compensation upon a person who who gos to the ruler with a complaint he suffers from any body and the compensation doe not ends except by filing the complaint or becoming mischievous and it will not also ends by prohibtion.. Also there is no compensation upon one who says to the ruler who some times lets the debtor pay some times not, "such a person found some property" and the ruler made him pay some thing.But if his system was to make him pay for sure,then he has to compensate. Also if he does it without any right according to Muhammad to prevent. This to be based in Fatwa. If the robber feeds the owner with the usurped tyhing,then he 399 / gets acquitted if he did not inform him. The Book of Preemption (Shuf`ah) Preemption is taking forcefully the ownership of an imovable property against what he paid. The is binding after selling. It gets established by letting others witness. The property can be owned by receiving,with the court decision and with the consent. Preemption is necessry in a mixture of sold material. If there is nothing or it has already been delivered then the mixed material owner will excecise this right, like private water and way,like a river in which ships do not float and a roa which one can not enter. Then it goes to the adhacent neighbour even if his door is open to another street. Any one who has a branch of his tree on a wal or have share in a wood on it,that is allowabale. If it is in the same wal,then that partner. And has to be alloted according to the number of heads, not according to the shares. When a preemptor hears the sale, he makes other witnes in the very sitting he is enjoying that he is demanding that piece of property.This is called Muwathabah demand. The he makes some others witness innear the property,or agains the buyer or seller, if the sold material is in his hand. Then he says " such a person bought this house,I had lready demanded shuf`ah and I just now am wanting,you be witness to that. This called "taqdir and ishhad" demand. The he files his demand in the court and says 400 / "such person bought the house of so, I am preemptor of it for the reason so;you instruct him to deliver it to me". This is called litigation and appropriating demand. Preemption cannot be coid by delaying it in general according the overwhelming school of thought.Fatwa is upon this. It is said that fatwa will be on Muhammad's view which is if he delays it a month without any excuse, that is void. If he claims buying it and he demands the preemption, the judge asks the defendant. If he acknowledges the ownership of what he is using his right of preemption, or he revokes his oath on the knowledge of the ownership or the preemptor proved, then he asks the judge about buying, if he acknowledges it or revokes his oath about that he did not buy or what this preemption fits or the preemptor proves, he decides for him. Bringing the cash during the claim is not required. When the judge decides for the preemptor, the he has to present the money. The buyer may keep the custody of the house for what he has to get. His preemption does not get void by delaying the payment after it was instructed to to be paid. Preemptor may litigate against the seller if the sold material is in his hand. The judge does not listen to any evidence against the seller until the buyer is present, then he cancells the sale in his presence and decides for preemption against the seller and he makes him responsible for compensation. 401 / An agent in buying is a counter party for preemptor in the court procedures as long as it is not delivered to the delegator. A preemptor has the right of choice of seeing and defect and to revoke iteven if the buyer stipulkated that he will be acquitted from it. Chapter on the Conflict If the preemptor and the buyer conflicts on the price, then the word of the buyer is to be taken. If both of them brought the evidences, the the word of the preemptor and according Abu Yusuf the word of the buyer is to be taken. If the buyer alleges some money and the seller claims an amount less than that, the preemptor receives it against what the seller says before taking the money and against wahat the buyer says after the receiving of the money. If it is vice versa, then after the reception of money the word of buyer is to be taken and before it they both have to take oath. If any one revokes from his oath, the other party's word is to be taken as true. If both of them swear, then the saler gets cancelled and the preemptor takes the estate magainst wahat the seller says. If he deducts from the buyer some amount of money, the preemptor takes the rest. If he discounts all, then he he takes it for the total price. If he deducts half and then half,preemptor takes it for the last half. If the buyer increases the price, the preemptor does not need to pay the surplus. If the price was standar average amount (mithli), preemptor has to pay its equivalen, if it is valuable,its value is to be given. If it was postponed payment, he takes it against the immediate payment or he asks for immediate payment and receives it after 402 / the passage of the fixed period. The obligation of the buyer does not become due immediately if the preemptor takes it immediately. If the preemptor kees quite and does not demands to make the period come, then his preemption gets ineffective.Abu Yusuf has just opposing opinion. If a zimmi buys alcohol or a swine, the zimmi premptor takes thr same quantity of alcohol and same value of the pig. But a muslim premmptor takes the values in both of them. If the biuyer builds any thing or plants a plant on the land, the preempto takes the price ang their values being uprooted as is the situation in the robbery or he makes the buyer to uproot both of them. If itis ownership was claimed after the preemptor built or planted, then he returns to the buyer with the price only. If the tree dried up or the building was demolished while they were in the hand of the buyer, the preemptor takes against the whole price if he pleases. If the buyer demolishes the building, the preemptor gets the lot in the proprtion of his share, he has no right in taking the wreckage. If some one buys a land with a tree ,frutful or fruitless, then it gives fruits while it is in his dominion, the preemptor takes it with fruits in both of the case. If the buyer picks up all the fruits, preemptor does not take it and he takes whatever there other than that according to the share he got in the first case and with full price in the second. Chapter on Where Preemtion Is Mandatory and Where It Is Not and What Cancells It 403 / Preemtion is is necessary in an real estate which an ownership has been established against a payment,it has to be property, even if it is indivisible, like a mill, or turkish bathroom and the well. No preemtion can be established in goods,ships, buildings and trees which are sold seperated than the land, assaets left by the deceased as inharitance, charity, donation given with no condition, what is sold with a stipulation that the seller keeps the choice of getting it back, or sold with voidable sale as long as the right of cancellation does not end, what ever is divided between the partners, or made as the salary or payment against the khula' or manumission, amicable settlement in a intentionally murder or dowery, even some part of it countered with a property. According to two imams it becomes binding in the share of the property. There is also no preemtion in what has been amicably settled against denial or keepin silent. But there will be preemption in what is agreed upon against one of them. No preemption will be there in what preemtion took place and then he returned it based on the choice of seeng or condition or defect being based on court decision. What is returned without any court decision or cancellation of the contract has the preemption. The preemption will work in high parts of the buildin independantly, in lower parts also caused by the high parts, in what has been sold with the choice of buyer. If a house is sold at the adjacent part of the a sold estate with choice of cancellation, preemption is the right of the party who has the choice ,no matter whether he is seller or buyer, and that will be approval from the point of the buyer, the first preemptor has the right of taking it from him, but has no right of taking the second. 404 / If a house is sold adjacent to an estate whhich has been sold in a voidable sale, the preemptor the the seller himself, provided it has beeen sold before the buyer takes it in his dominion, but if it was received after a decision was made in his favour, then it does not get void. If it is sold after it was taken by the buyer, then the buyer has the right to preemption. If the seller takes back the sold material before the preemption is decided in his favour, his preemption gets void. If it is after the decision, the second stays in his posession. A muslim and a zimmi are equal in preemption. Afree and an authorized slave and mukatab slave are equal too, even if preemption is tkaing place in a sale of the patron, like the situation in otherway round. Chapter Preemption ends by delivering the whole or a part of the sold material even if it is done by the the agent and also by being reluctant after the information reachs to him theseller makes him witness the transaction also by settlement amaicably against a payment. He may refuse it. There is also no preemtion if he sells his right of preemtion against a property, or said to one who is testin or examining it "you select me against one thousand" or an impotent husband said ti his wife the same thind and she selected him,then his choice gets void and no obligation to pay any thing. The preemtion gets void also by selling out the subject of 405 / preemption before it is decided in his favour also with the death of the preemptor,not the death of byer. No preemption is possible for one who sells himself or some body sells on his behalf, or compensates the loss, challenges with the buyer in sale or rent. Preemtion is there for one who buys osome one else buyes for him. If it is said to a preemptor "it was sold by a thousand", he accepted that, then it was discovered that it was sold for less than that or for measurable or weighable or countables which have almost the values,provided it worths one thousand or more, he gets the right of preemption. If it is ubderstood that it was sold against a property which worths one thousand or against one thousand dinars, then he has no right. If it was said to him "the buyer is such person" and the preemptor accepted it,after that it was discovered that a third person was the buyer, he will have the of preemption, If it is understood that he is together with a third person, then he will have preemption right at the share of that third person. If he got news that half of it was sold,he delivered it and then it came out that hwole of the thing was sold,he will have the right of preemption. If he sells it except one zira (measure unit) from the long side adjacent to the preemptor, he will have no preemption. If some one buys a share of it and then buys the rest, the preemption will be in the share only. If he buys for some amount of money, then he gives a colth instead, the preemptor takes it for money not for the value of cloth. It is not an abominated act to find a way (hilah) out of 406 / preemption according to Abu Yusuf. This is to be given as fatwa before it gets necessitated. According to Muhammad it is a repugnant act. Preemptor has the right of taking shares of some buyers, but not the shares the shares of some of the sellers. Aneighbour may take some of the unspecified shares sold and divided, even if it is not licated adjacent to him. An authorized slave who is indebted to a third person, has the right of preemption in what his master sold and also vice versa. It is valid that a father and the executioner of a will deliver the preemption of the minor. Muhammad opposes in what is sold with its value or less than that. His view is a report from Abu Hanifah in the amount lesser than its value,the amount in which the public cannot be cheated. The Book of Division (al-Qismah) That is collecting the shares unspeciefie and identified in a fixed place. The subject comprises taking away the share and exchanging the them. Ifraz (taking away the share) is very much overwhelmingly used in fungibles. The sharer receives his share out of it while his friend is absent. If both bought and divided, then each one of them has the right of selling his share in profit against the share in its price. Exchanging (mubadalah) is much more effectively used in materials other than fungibles. The co-sharer does not take it and does not sell it in frofit after he buying and division. The co-sharer can be forced to divide in fungibles with the 407 / demand of the partner in the areas where the the quality is the same and homogenous,not in other things. It is good if the judge appoints on the expense of the public budget a divider (qasim) who will divid without getting any money. If he does not his job, then he appoints a divider who will do it against payment the judge fixes for him. The payment will be according to the numbers of the sharers, according to two imams it will be according the volume of the shares. The payment of measuring and weighing will be according to the shares as unanimously accepted., if that is not for division. If that is for division, then there is differences of views. he divider mus be just,trustwothy and knowledgeableinthe division. The public cannot be obligated to stick to one divider and the dividers cannot be left free to cooperate with each other. It is valid if they themselves divide without any instruction of the judge. The guardian or the executioner of the will divides for the minor. If there is none of them, then the judge has to give his verdict. No estate can be divided among the heirs based on their acknowledgements until they prove the death and the number of theheirs. According to two imams, it may be divided. Things other than estates can be divided as unanimously admitted. An estate which has been bought and just the ownership mentioned in general is also under the same law. If the two prove that the estate is in their hand, then that is not going to be divided 408 / until both of them prove that it belons to them. If they prove the death,the number of the inheritants and the real estate is in their hand and they have one heir who is absent or minor, then it is to be divided and care taker is to be appointed in order to get the share of the absent or minor heir. If the eastate or some part of it is in the hand of the absentee or his deposited one or in the hand of minor, it has not to be divided. Also if one of theheirs is present or the heirs are parner in buying and one of them disappeared. If each one of the partners benefitted with his share after the division, it is to be divided with the demand of one of them. If all of them are losing then it will not be divided except with their consent. If some of them benefit and others not, it will be divided with the demand of the ones who benefitted, not with the demand of the others according to the most correct view, he goods which are same kind can be divided and the two different ypes cannot be divided some with others. No jewels,the turkis bathroom, the well, the mill, one cloth and a wallbetweentwo houses cannot be divided except with their consents. The slave also is under the same ruling. The two imams are of the opposing opinion. The houses in a city can be divided each one seperately. The two 409 / imams say if the division is for the good of some upon the others , then that is permitted. The houses in different cities are to be divided each one seperately as it is unanimously admitted. Also the same ruling for house and its lot or house and the shop. The house in the same suburb or in different suborbs are allowed to be divided some against others. The apartments which are attached to each other are like the houses. The seperate apartments are like the houses. Chapter on How to Divide The divider has to picture what he is going to divide on a paper, to divide it into equal shares, to measure it, to apprais the building, to divide each share with its way and water and names the shares as the first and third and writes the names and makes a drawing of names, the first wil be for one whose name comes first, the second for the second, and the third for the whse is drawn as third. The cash will not be included in division unless they wish it. If the canal of water or track which belongs to one,falls in the land of another person, and it was not conditioned in the division, it has to be taken away if possible,otherwose the division is to be cancelled. And two share in upper part will be divided against one share from the lower stage. According to Abu Yusuf one to one bases,according to Muhammad it will be divided by the value. The fatwa is on this point. If one of the two beneficiaries of the division acknowledges that 410 / he received or claims that some of his share is in the hand of his partner, that will not be accepted excvept with evidence and the testimony of the two dividers is acceptable in this regard.Muhammad has a dissident view. If he says "I received it", then he takes some, his co-partner will be sworn in. If he says before receiving it "he built so and so and he did not give me" and the other party denies it, both of are to be sworn in and the division is to be annulled. If he claims a cheating (ghabn), thet will not be accepted as sale,except if the division was made by the judge and the cheating was overwhelming, then that will be cancelled. If some of them is to be claimed as debts, the division is not to be cancelled .hat will return to the share of the partner with its proprotion. he same situation in a non-specified shares.Acccording to Abu Yusuf that will be abrogated. In the nonspecified shares as a whole,that will be cancelled, as unanimously accepted. If after division a deceased's debt which comprises every thing comes out, the division breaks. Also the same if it was not comrising all, except if some thing undivided left back and it suffices for relinquishing it. If the credtors acquit or the heirs themselves pay from their wealth, then that will not be broken by no means. Chapter It is permitted to make Muhaya'ah and that will be enforced in one apartment. This will occupy that,he will occupy it or this one occupies the second stage and this one ground flat. In a 411 / small house this one will occupy a month, and the other occupies it second month. He may rent it and get its income when it is his turn. As to the slaves, he serves to this one day and to that other day, in two slaves,one serves this and other serves that. Id they agree that the expenses of each slave is the obligation of the who is served,that is allowed according the understanding and practices of the muslim public.This just opposite of clothing issue. If there are two apartments,this one settlen in one and that partner uses the other apartment. But that will not be permitted in one or two carrier animals except with their consents, the imams are of the opposing opinion. It is permitted to get incomes of the one or two apartments this partner for one and that partner for the other one. But that is not wokable in a slave or carrier animal. Whatever is surplus in one's turn income of an apartment, will be shared, but not in two apartments. In getting incomes from the two slaves as one for this and the other one for that is not permitted. The two imams are of the dissident opinion. The two carrier animals too are like that. No muhaya'ah is permitted in the fruits of a tree or milk of a sheep and lambs. That is permitted in the slave and home for settlement and service. Also the same thing will work in all which have varriying benefits. Moha'ah cannot be void with the death of one of them or both of them. If one of them demands the division,that becomes void. 412 / The Book of Sharing in Farming (al-Muzara'ah) It is a contract made to cultivate the land for some of the product. That voidable (fasid).According to two imams it is permitted. This is the fatwa. al-Husairi said : "And Abu Hanifah is one who drew theis issues based on his principles because he knew that the peoople will not follow his view". It is required in this partnership the following conditions: the approprietenes of the land for the cultivation, the two parties have to be competent, fixinf the date, the provider of the seed, the type od seed, the share of the other party, the emptying the land from ant hihing else and the worker and sharing the income. It is void if the two qafizs or what comes out from a fixed point are stipulated for one of them. For example the water canals and canalets, or raising the quantity of the seed, or kharaj and the rest is to be divided, giving the straw to one and the grains to another, or the grain is shared between them, and the hay goes to one who does not own the seeds or the straw is shared between them and the grains belongs to one of them. If it is stipulated that the grain will be shared between them and the straw will be for the owner of the seed or the grass will go to one of them, that is valid and if nothing mentioned for the 413 / straw then that will be shared between them. It is said that that belongs to the owner of the seeds. The expenses for the harvesting, collecting, seperating the grains from the straws and winding them are on both of them proprotionated to their shares If it is stipulated for the worker that is void. According a report coming from Abu Yusuf, that is valid,This is the correct view and fatwa is on this. But conditioning it to the land lord is void, as it is admitted unanimously. What is to be done before the crop gets ripe, like watering and protecting, then that is for the cultivator, even if it was not stipulated like that. If the seeds and the land belong to one of them,the labour and the cow to the other party or the land is owned by one and the rest go to the other that is also valid or the labour is the duty of one and the rest the job of the other party, that is all valid. If the the land and the cow belong to one, and the seed and labour to the other, that is not effective. The same practice to be followed if the seed and the cow belong to one party and land and work for the other party or the seed for one and the rest for the other party. When the partner is valid, then the product will be according to the conditions stipulated. If no product is available, then the working party will get nothing. Any one who abstains from executing what is incumbent after the agreement he will be forced to do except the owner of the seed. If it is void, then the product is for the owner the seed and the other will get the average standard payment for his labour or land. That will never exceed what has been stipulated,Muhammad has an opinion contrary to this point. 414 / If it is void because the land and the cow belong only to one party, then the the veragege standard payment is due regarding both of them. That is valid. When the contract is void and the seed is provided by the land lord, the product all lawful to him. If it is for the labourer, then he has to give as charity what has been surplus left of the seed and the payment for the land as well. If the owner of the seed desists from doing his job, and the working party already ploughed the land, there is nothing for him from the point of legality. But his pleasure has to be sought from the point of accoutability in the herefter. Muzara'h partnership gets invalidated with the death of one party. It can be annulled with the falling into incapacity, like renting it. It will also be cancelled if a binding debt comes out which necessitates the sale of the land before the growing of the crop,not after that as long as it is not harvested. And the working party will get nothing, if he tilted the land or dig the canal. If the time is up before the crop gets ripe, then the working party has to pay an average standard payment prortionate to his share from the land until the crop gets ripe. The expenses of the cultivation will be share by them both according to the rates of their shares, Any one who spends any thing without any permision of the other parety or the instruction of the judge, then he does it as charity. The land owner has no right of taking the crop while it is fresh. If the cul;tivator party demands that, then it is to be said to the land lord :take away the crop, so it becomes for both of them, or pay him the equivalent amount to his share or you spend 415 / on the cultivation and return in the rate of his share". If the land lord dies and the crop is still row, the working party has to work until it ripes. If the working party dies and his heir says "I will care of it until it is harvested, he may do that, even the land lord declines from it. The Book of Partnership in Watering (al-Musaqat) That is delivering the plant to one who will take care of it against some of the fruit. That is exactly like al-Muzara`ah from the point the riles to be applied on it,differences of views and requirements,except the time. the period is valid,without mentioning it. The partnership will work on the first fruit which comes out from and othe fresh fruits when their seeds ripe. If he deliverst a palm or the roots of a fresh plant to take care of them, or he left it fresh without specifying it, then that gets void. Mentioning a period in which no fruits come out annulls it. If it soming out and also not coming out was possible, then that is valid. If in that type of period the fruits came out, then that is to be dealt according the condition. But if the fruit gets delayed, then that becomes void. and the worker will get the standard average salary for that. Also any partnership which was void will be treated like that. If no fruits come, nothing will be paid. The watering partnership is valid in palms, orchids, plants, vegetables and roots of eggplants. If there was already fruits on the plant and it gets increased with taking care of it, then that is valid. Otherwise that is not valid. 416 / The same thing in al-Muzara`ah if he delivers a vegetable and any thing which is not ripe yet, like watering, grafting and protecting that is the duty of worker, but the things after that, like pruning and looking after, then duty of both of them. If this was stipuleted for the working party, then that becomes void, as unanimously accepted. The partnership gets invalid with the death of one of the party. If thje fruits was raw during the death or the period has laready finished, the worker or his inheritor will take care of it, even if the giver of it or his inheritors abstain from doing that. If the worker or his inheritors want to cpllect them raw, then the other party or his heirs get the choice of either dividing it according to the codition or pay the value of the share also spend and return to compensation, like as it is the situation in al-Muzara`ah. Musaqat will not be cancelled without any excuse. And the illness of the working party if he becomes invalid of doing any work, is an excuse. Also his being thief so that the fruits branches are feared to be robbed. If he delivers an open land for a fixed period to one who will plant with a condition of making farm and the plant shared btween them, that will not be valid. The plants will be for the land owner and the one who plants will get the value of planting and labour. The Book of Slaughterings (al-Zabiha) al-Zabiha is a noun for what is slaughtered. al-zabh means cutting the jugular veins. The animal slaughtered by a muslim, a kitabi,zimmi or harbi is 417 / lawful to eat, even if the slaughterer is a woman or a child or an insane, both of them having no abity to think locigally or dumd and uncircumcised. The animal slauugheterd by an idol worshepper, magian or onewho left Islam andone who does not intentionally mentionthe name of Allah. If he leas it by mistake, then that is lawful. It is an abominable act to mention the name of any thing other than Allah together with Allah connectedly without any conjective prepossition in between also saying "in the name of Allah, O my God accept from such person". But if he says it before he lays the animal down or mentions the name of Allah or after the slaughtering, then that is not repugnant. If he uses witha cunjunctive preposition, then it becomes unlawful, like "in the name of Allah and such parson (bismi Allah wa fulanin). The same rulin effects if lays the sheep and cals the name of Allah and slaughteres an animal other than the former with that calling. If he slaughters with another knife, then it becomes lawful. If he aims at a prey and mentions the name of Allah, but it hits an animal other than the first, that is edible. If he mentions the name of Allah on an arrow and shoots an animal other than aimed one, that will not be edible. To release a dog or a falcon is like shooting. The required condition is mentioning the name of Allah only. If he says "o my Allah! forgive me (Allahumma 'ghfirli) " that is not ;lawfully edible. But sayin "praise to Allah and Allh be glorified (Alhamdu lillah wa subhana Allah)", then it is legally edible. If he sneezes and makes hamd (Alhmadu lillah) for that sake, that is not edible. The sunnah is the camel slaughtering (nahr) it at the nearest part of the neck to the front legs, cow and ship just slughtering them. Doing it otherway round is repugnant,but that is aso lawfully edible. Slaughtering (zabh) is between the throat (hlaq) and upper part of the breast (labbah),may be upper part of throat,or its lower part or the center of it. It is said that cutting a point upper than the root of the tongue (`aqadah) is noty permitted. The blood vessels which are to be cut in slaughtering throat,the 418 / pipe of food (meri') and two jugular veins. It suffices cutting three of them and any three of them. According to Muhammad to cut the majority part of each one of them. This is one of the reports from Abu hanifah. According to Abu Yusuf it is necessary to cut the throat, the gullet and one of the jugular veins. It is said that Muhammad is with him. It is permitted to salaughter with any instrument which cuuts the the veins and makes it bleeding, even if the tool is a sharp edged stone, or a cane, a tooth, or a nail ( both of them being seperated from the body of the origin ). It is nat allowed to slaughter with the tooth and nail which are attached to the body. It is an ethically recommended to sharpen the knife before layin it to the ground. Sharpening after it is not recommended. It is also not good to drag the animal by its legs to the slaughter house. It is an abominable act to push the knife in the nerve at the center of spinal cord in the throat, chop the head off and skin it before it cooles. Also cutting the neck from the upper outer part is not acceptable. But it is lawful if the animal stays alive until the nerves are cut.otherwise not. An animal for prey that became timid is to be slaughtered. It is allowed to wound animals that became wild or fell in the well if slauughtering is not pssible. The baby in the womb of the mother will not be lawful by slaughtering the maother,no matter whether it has the hair or not. The two imams said it is lawful if its creation is complete. Chapter It is prohibeted to eat any animal having hoof or claw from wild animals (sabu`) or birds, even if it is hyena, fox, domistic 418 / donkey, mules, elephant, lizard, gerboa, weasel, hornet, turtle and insects. It is repugnant eating a spotted crow, thich-feathured vulture, eagles of eating the dead body and sparrows. and also horses are repugnant to eat as it is the most correct view. According to two imams the horses are not repugnant to eat. Eating the `aq`aq (some kind of crow type bird), the crow of farm and rabbit are lawful. The animals in the sea cannot be eaten, except the fish and its different types, like eel and snake like fish. Any anumal deadly floating, or died in the water because of heat or cold can not be eaten.But here there are two clashing views. Fish and locust are lawfully edible without slaughtering. If he slaughters a sheep taht was not known wherher is it alive or not, then it moves and blod comes out from its body, then that is lawful,otherwise not. If it is known,then it is lawful in all cases. TheBook of Scarificing anAnimal (al-udhiyyah) It is necessary (wajib).According to Abu Yusuf it is sunnah. It is said that is the opinion of the two imams. That is necessry to be done by free muslim who resident,well-to-do.It is not necessary for him to do for his child. It is said that that madatory for him as well. It is said that his father or his guardian or care taker will sacrifice for him from his wealthm he feeds him for whatever is possible and 420 / exchanges the rest of the meat and other things for what will be used without getting spoiled. A sheep, a camel or one seventh of it with sharing six other people in a cow and camel. All of the sharers who want to be near to Allah have to be eligible for the udhiyyah athe share of none of them must be less than one seventh. If any one of them wants the meat agains his share or is infidel or his share is less than one seventh, the udhiyyah of none of them gets acceptable. It is allowed to have sharers less than seven,even if they are only two. The meat is to be distributed by weighing, not by lumpsome without measure, except if the legs and head or skin are mixed. If he bought a camel for the udhiyyah, then he made six more peole share with him, that is allowed according the good practice publicly admitted. But sharing before buying is batter. The first slaughtering time is after the dawn of Nahr day (first day of Eid). In a city it will not be skaughtered before the eid prayer,the last time of slaughtering is possible is just few minutes before the sunset of the third day of Eid. To become poor at the last moment will be taken into consideration from the point of eligibility and the opposite is also valid. The bith and death at the last moment are also effective. To observe theduty at the first section of the time is better. Slaughtering in the night is repugnant,if the time passes before slaughtering, then it is binding to give the animal itself alive as charity. The same thing for the one who buys a poor person for the same reason. The rich person will give its value as charity, 421 / he buys it or not. A lamb of six months, thaniyy ( five years old camel,two years calf and a sheep of one year) and more of ages in all of them. It is allowed to slaughter an animal without horn, having no testacles, crazy ones and scaby which is fat. But not the blind, one-eyed, skinny which has no bone marrow and the limb which cannot walk to slaughtering place, the one of which front or left leg is chopped off, the one wwhich lost the majority of its seighting, or ear or the tail or buttocks. In the case of half lost,two re views are mentioned. It is allowed if less than that is lost. It is said that if more than one third is lost, that is not valid. It is said that if one third is lost,then that is not valid. Its gettindefected while slaughtering is ineffective. If one the seventh sharers dies and his heirs say "you slaughter it for yourselves and also for him", that is valid. The same situation if a camel is slain for an udhiyyah, a hajj tamattu' and hajj qiran. He eats from the meat of his udhiyyah. any one who wants,rich or poor, may eat from it. It is good no to give as charity less than one third. and also it is good to leave it for a family with big number in a way that they may feel easines. And also it is good to slaughter by himself if he can do it,otherwise he delegates a third person and he attends it. It is repugnant that a kitabi slaughters it. 422 / He gives the skin as charity ot makes out of it something, like the leather bag, boot fgor subtituting the washing of foot (mast) or leather jacket or he buys with it any thing which can be benefitted, like sieve etc.,not things wqhich can be consumed, like vinegard and the like. If he changed the meat or the skin, then he has to give it away as charity. If he slaughters the sacrificial animal belongs to another person without the permission, that is allowed. If two persons made mistake and each one them slaugfhtered the sheep of the other, that is valid. No one has to compensate nothing and each one forgive the other. If they act in a mean way, then each one of them compensates the value of the meat of the other party. and each one gives his share away as charity. The slaying robbed sheep is valid,not the sheep deposited and he has to compensate it. The Book og Repugnancy (al-Karahiyyah) A repugnant act (al-makruh) is near to haram. According to Muhammad all makruhs are haram. He did not use the word haram, because there is no decisive line. Chapter on Eating Some part of eating is fard (obligatory). It is the food by which one can eliminate the death. Recommended level is a little more than the previous one, that is what a muslim can establish the prayer standing and he may easily do fasting. Mubah level that is what has been consumed amore until the stomach gets filled to strengthen the streng of the body. haram level,trhat is what has been taken more, except for the purpose of getting strength for fasting of the next day or not to 423 / make the guest feel shy for the food. It is not allowed to follow dietary way of abstaing from food in a way that he becomes unable to full fill the worship. Any one who does not consume from a dead thing while he is desperately in need or fasts and does not eat until he dies, he becomes sinnfull,this is contrary to one who declines from taking the medicament and dies. There is nothing wrong in having fruits of dofferent kinds. But not doing it is better. Tho have different foods is wasting (sirf). Also to put bread on the table of food more than it is needed is also wasting. wiping the fingers and the knife with bread and putting the salt cup on it are abominable acts. The sunnah of eating are to say basmalah at the beginning and hamd at the end,to wash the two hands before and after. The youngs beginn first, then the elderly people. Taking the milk of donkey and the urine of the camel are not lawful. And also using the golding and solver cups by the male and female are not legally acceptable. It is allowed to use wares of red shell and carnelian, or crystal, glass and lead. Chapter on the Earning The best way of earning is Jihad (fighting for the sake of Allah),then doing business, then farming, then professions. 424 / There is a level which is mandatory (fard). That is the amount of work which will suffice to him.his family and pay his debts. There is also mustahab level, that is what exeeds itso much that he may help the poor and reaches to his relatives. Mubah level, that is much more which serves to beauty. haram, that is collecting the money for boasting, arrogance, even if all of them are halal. He spends his earnings to himself and his family members,not wasting and and not acting in a very mean way. Any one who is bale to earn, that is fard for him and ifhe is unable to do that, tyhen he has to ask for supprt. If he does not do that and dies, then he is sinnerif he is unable to ask, it is fard on one who knows the situation to feed him or inform the one who will feed him. It is a repugnant act to give any thing to the ones who beg in the masjid. It is said that if he does not push the people and walks theru them and does not pass in the front of the prayers, then it is not abominable act. It is not allowed to accept the gifts of the governors and chiefs who are not doing justice, except if it is known that the bigger part of his wealth is lawful. It is not wrong act to lease a house to a Sawad (a zimmi) who will make it fire home (for worhip), or church or synagog or a drug store where alcohol is sold. According to two imams, that is makruh. But this is unannimously repugnant in a city. Also in a Siwad locality whre the majority of the people are muslims. Any one who carries alcohol for a zimmi against a wagem that is good for him. ASccording to two imams, that is abominable act. 435 / There is nothing wrong in accepting the gift given by a trader slave, to attend his invitation and to borrow his horse. It is not good to accept any cloth or money (gold and silver ) from him. The word of a single person,female,slave,sinner or infidel, is acceptable in the transactions,like if he says "I bought this meat from a muslim, a kitabi",then it is halal, or "from magian", then it is haram. Also the word of she -slave,male slave and child with regard to the gift or permission are also acceptable. It is a condition in religious issues to meet the special justice requirements which have been put,like informing that the water is filthy. So he makes tyammum, if just muslim (female,slave) informs that. He has to make a research if the informer is a sinner or his status is not known. Then he acts according his conviction. He pours out the water and makes tayammum, while he the truth of the teller is guessed. He makes ablution and tayammum both when he is supposed as liar.This the most cautious way. Chapter on the Clothing Some part of it is fard. That the level which covers the awrah and eliminates the heat and cold. It is better to have it from cotton and flax (kattan) being between highest and lowest qualities. Recommended level, that is a little more having the beauty and declaring the bounties of Allah, the most exalted. Allowed level (mubah) that is a cloth put on for beautifying 426 / one'self. And repugnant (makruh) is a cloth put on for arrogance (kibr). It is good to have white dress, not black. The red and painted with saffron are abominable. It is sunnah to leave down the end of the turban between shoulders at the back about eight ench long, it is said that to the middle of the back and it is also said that to the buttock. Whenever he wishes to to refresh the fold, he unfolds the way he folded. It is lawful for the women folk to wear the silk dresses. That is not lawfull to themale except about the four finger size, like a flag. There is nothing wrong to use it as pillow and as bed and carpet, the two imams have an opposing view. Nothing wrong if the silk thread fors the horizontal lines and the others vertical lines in veawing the cloth aln also vice versa,but this cannot be put except in the war. It is not good to wear the pure silk in war. The two imams are of the opposing opinion. The women may beatify themselves with gold and silver, not the the men, except silver ring, silver or nament as a part of the belt and sword and the a connection part of gold in the hole of the ring, also writing the on the cloth with gold or silver and fixind the teeth with silver, it is not allowed to have it in gold. The two imams have a dissident view. A stone, brass or iron cannot be used as ring. It is said that a ring made of jasper is fine. Not having the rings is better for the people other than the ruler or judge. 427 / It is permitted to eat and drink from a cup which is decoreted with silver and to sit on the rugs decoreted too with silver with the condition staying away from the part where silver is fixed. According to Abu Yusuf that too abominable. There are to coflicting views reported from Muhammad. It is not good to put on the child a cloth of gold or silver. It is not recommended to have a piece of cloth to wipe out the sweat on nasal discharges or the dry up the wter lleft after wudu, if that is for arrogance (kibr). If it is needed, then it is not bad. This is the correct way. To tie a piece of cloth on finger to remind some thing to do later is not wrong. Chapter on Looking at and so forth It is forbidden to look at the awrah part of body except in the case of necessity, like the physician or the one who makes circumcision, the one who cuts the part of girls, the midwife and the one who injects from anus some medicine. That must not trespass the necessity level. A man look at man except awrah parts of the body. Awrah is explained in the chapter on salah. A woman can look at woman and a man can look at a man, if she feels herself secured in her whims And a man can look at all parts of his wife and she-slave who is lawful to him to make sex with and at his non-marriable relatives and the she-slave of the third person, only to her face, head, chest,legs and arms. He may even touch her provided he is safe when he is looking at her or 428 / touching her. He must mot look at the belly, back and whips,even if he feels himself secured, he has not to look at any free third women, except at her face and two palms, if he is secured, Otherwise that is not permitted for the ones other than witnesses testifiying in the court and the judge while he is precessing the judgment. It is not allowed to touch the face and palms of a third woman, even if he feels himself safe, since she is so young. That is permitted if she is an old lady, so much that no sexual desire can be sensed or so old man that he is very much secured for himself and for herself. It is permitted to look at and touch with the fear of desire if he is going to buy or marry marry a she-skave. A male slave against his she-patron is like a third person. Any one whose penis is cut off and one who is gelded and castrated are at the status of the full manhood. It is not recommended for a man to kiss a third man or to embrace him when he is having no shirt but skirt. According to Abu Yusuf he it is not abominable. There is nothing wrong in shaking the hands, kissing the hands of muslim scholars and muslim just ruler. He may ejaculate his sperms out of the vagina of his she-slave without getting her consent, contrary to the case with his wife, except if she agrees upon. It is not permitted to market a she-slave in a mini skirt only, if she has already reached to the age of puberty. ChapteronWaiting SomePeriodtobe Cleansed (al-Istibra') Any one who owns a she-slave by buying or any thing else, cannot 439 / make sex or things related with her until he waits a period of one menstrual bleeding if she is one has the menstrual periods and one month in other cases. If she is not having any menstrual period not coming from the totally finished, he has to wait three months, according to Muhammad four months and ten days, in one report just half the last number. If she is pregnant, the hes has to wait until the beirth, even if she was vergin or bought from a woman patron, or property of a child or purchased froma non-marriable relative of her. The seller too is recommeneded to observe the waiting period, but it is not incumbent upon him. her menstruation in the period she was bought in does not suffice, also neither the one before taking her into dominion nor the one before the approval in a no-authorized sale suffice. Giving birth is to under the same law. A menstruation period takenig place after taking her into dominion is enough, provided she was magian and converted to Islam. Observing wating period is mandatory after posession the share of the co-partner, but not when the runaway she-slave returns back, or usurped is gieven back or the hired one comes home or the collateral is uplifted. To find away to cancel the period is not a repugnant act according to Abu Yusuf, this is contrary to the view of Muhammad. The first view is to be taken religiously if he knows that the first owner had no sexual intercourse with her and the second view is to be followed if there was a possibility of sex relation. Way out (hilah) in a case he has no free woman under his marriage contract is to marry the she-slave first and then to buy her. If he has a free wife, the way out is that the seller 430 / unites her with him before sale transaction or the buyer joins her with a third person after the buying but before the receiving her in his posession, then the husband divorces her after she is bought and taken into posession or just taken into posession solely. Any one who owns two she-slaves who cannot be marrried by the same husband at a time,he may make sex and other related acts only with one of them. If he makes sex with both of them or does any thing related to sexual ralation, then to make sex and other related acts with both of them becomes forbidden until he himself prohibits one of them to himself. Chapter on Sale It is a repugnant act to sell alone the feces of human being and it is permitted in a correct view if it is a mixture.But feces of animals can be sold. Benefitting is like selling. Any one who seights a girl-slave of any one with a third person who was selling her stating " the owner delagated me or have purchased her from him or he donated her to me or he gave her to me as charity", and this appeared to him true, it is lawful for him to purchase her from the seller and to have sex with her. It is allowed to sell the buildings in makka and it is not good to sell and lease its land. The imam oppose to this view. Their opinion is oen of the opinions of Abu Hanifah. Excercising monopoly (ihtikar) on the food of human beings and livestocks in a city where they may be harmed is a repugnant atitude. According to Abu Yusuf whatever the public gets harmed 431 / in case of monopoly, even if it is goild, silver or cloth is a repugnant behavour. Ehen the attittude of monopolizer is taken to the judge, he instructs him to sell what is extra from his own need. If he desists he himself sells for the owner. There is rule of monopolization can be applied to the revenues of his farm and also in what he brings from another city. According to Abu Yusuf this is too repugnant. The same view according to Muhammad if it is brought from another town to the city traditionally. This is a preferred view. It is allowed to sell the juice of the grape to one who makes wine. If a muslim sells alcohol and pays his debt out of it, it is repugnat to the creditor to receive it. If the debtor is a zimmi, then that is not repugnant. To restrict the prices is a repugnant act, except in cases the food gets so expensive tahat trespasses the limt. Then nothing wrong to do that after consulting the ones who are experts. It is allowed to be purchased for the baby what are necessary and also to be sold his brother, his uncle, his mother and the one who found him (if he is a foundling), provided the baby is in their guard. Only his nother may rent him. The Miscellaneous Issues It is permitted to compete with arrows, to race with the horses,donkeys, mules, camels and as pedestrians. If a prize has been put by one of the parties or by a third person for the 432 / winner, that is permitted. But if it is put by two parties at a time, then that is prohibited, except if there is a third person with horse who will legitimate it between the two;so if the third horse winns it takes from both of them,if the two winn collectively, the third will give nothing to them, but one of the two wins it takes from other part what it is supposed to take. The same ruling will work if two persons disagree ona problem and both decide to appeal to a scholar and they fix a wage for hi. Giving a wedlock party is a sunnah. Any one who is invited has to respond positively. If he does not attend hew is sinner. He does not take any thing from the away and does not give to a begger, except with permission of the owner. If the invitee knows for sure that there is a none sense type of act (lahw), then he does not attend it. If he did not know until he attended, if he is able to prevent it, he does whatever possible, otherwise if he is a leader or the none acceptable thing is onthe table of the food he does not sit, otherwise no bo big deal in sitting. Abu Hanifah said "I was iflicted with these type of positions twice and a kept quite and endured". This is to be interpreted to happen before he became leader being followed by the others. His ord "I was inflicted (ubtulitu)" denotes the to prohibition of all none sense (lahw) acts,because ifliction (ibtila') can be only by a prohibited act. The words some time are rewarded: like "tasbih (glorifying)" etc.,some times if he becomes sinner,if he does it in a sinful 433 / place he is actually involved in, if he intends for that to get lesson and to reject the sinful act, then that is fine. making "tasbih (glorifying Allah)" made by a trade man ahile he is marhetting his goods is repugnant. And also making tarji` (rasing and lowering the voice unnecessarily) in the recitation of Qur'an and to listen this type of recitation are ignored acts. It is said that nothing wrong with doing that. It is reported from the Prophet (pbuh) that he did not like raising of voice during the recitation of Qur'an, in the presence of dead body, in actual hot fight in a war and in a religious speech. What can one imagine while a a singing is going on, a singing which is offered as an state of excitement (wajd). Abu Hanifah does not like the Qur'an be recited near the grave. Muhammad saw it lawful.Ulama took the view of Muhammad. There are words in which there is neither reward nor sin, like "stand up and sit down". It is said that these are not going to be recoreded by the angels against him. There are words which sinnful, like lieying, gossiping, transfering the words from one to another and slandering. Lieying is forbidden, except in war as ta partt of war tactics, or reconcile between two parties, in pleasing the spouse and in alleviating an opressor from his opression. It is ab abominable act to resort to lie except in case of necessity. No gossiping is possible in regard an opressor. There is no sin to inform the opression. No gossiping can be done except for some thing known. So gossiing against the the people of a village is not gossiping. It is forbidden to play with backgammon, or chess and fourteen. All are none sense type of acts (lahw). 434 / Using castrated animals and adding human hair to human hair and also saying while praying "I am asking you Allah fdor the sake of you stting place in your throne (Arsh)" are repugnant actions. Abu Yusuf is of the opposite opinion. If he says "I ask you for the privelege (haqq) of your prophets and messengers" and listening to the plays (malahi) are prohibited (haram). Putting signs to each ten verses of Qur'an and punctuation it are also are repugnant acts, except for the none-arabs. For them it is fine. There is nothing wrong in decorating the Qur'an. It is not bad if a zimmi enters Masjid al-Haram and also visiting with him. It is allowed to castrate the cattles and letting the donkeys impregnate the horses, injection for man and woman, but not with the prohibited stuff, like alcohol etc. There is nothing wrong in paying sufficient salary unconditionally to the judge from the state budget, the girls slave's and umm walad's travel without any none-marriable relative accompaniying her and also in sit in privately with her. It is said that that is free and also said that it is not. It is a bad act to put on the neck of the slave some kind of chain, not tieying him. It is also not good act to leave with the grocery some dirham making him to take out of it what he sells until it is finished. It is sunnah to cut the nails, to shave the hairs under the arms and in the private parts of thebody and the moustache. But trimming it batter. There is nothin bad in entering the turkish bath for man and woman, if they put on skirts and close the eyes. 435 / It is good to have cups to carry water into houses and manifacturing them from the clay is good. There is nothing wrong in covering the walls of the home with rugs to protect from the cold. But making it for decoration is not good. The same way to have a cover on the home. When he finishes his prayer and wishes to enjoy with a nice scene and the beautiful enviroment, nothing wrong with that. Spending just to survive and giving away the rest for what may benefit in the hereafter is of course better. The Book of Revival of No Man's Land That is a land by which traditionally no man benefits or an owned land in a mslim state of whiuch its owner was not identified,may be muslim or zimmi. According to Muhammad if it was owned in a muslim state, it will not be no man's land (mawat). It is conditioned from the by Abu Yusuf that it must be far away from the urban (`amir) section of the country so far that if some one shouts from the end of it no body will hear there. According to Muhammad the people in urban are must not benefit from it, even if it is near to it. Any one who revives it with the license from the muslim ruler (imam), even if he is zimmi, he gets the ownership. Without his permission, he does not. The two imams are of the opposing opinion. It is not permitted to revive the lands which are adjacent to the the urban are, it is to be left as grazing area for the cattles of the villagers and the piling and heaping place for their 436 / crops, also the lands where the Euphrat and the rivers like that flow and the return of the water is expected. If the return is not anticipated, then the revival is permitted. Any one who borders the land with stones for three years and does not cultivate it, then it is to be taken away from him and to be given to any one else. Any one who digs a well in a no man's land, he gets the ownership of the immediate vicinity, if it is with the permission of the imam, it is like that too even if there is no permission according to the two imams.The vicinity of a well in which hands are used to pull out the water is fourty zira` (unit of lenght) from each side. The vicinity of a well in which camels are used to pull out the water is also the same. According to two imams here sixty zira` is to be taken. The vicinity of a spring is five hundred zira` from each side. He may prevent any one else from digging a well in his vicinity, but not outside of it. If any one digs any thing there, he compensates the defect caused by that violation and the second well is to be covered with the dust. If he digs out of the vicinity, he will own the vicinity beyond the first well's one. The canals have vicinities enough for their proper functions. It is said that they have no vicinity as long as the water does not appear. According to two imams, they are like a well. If its water appears, that is like a spring as unanimously accepted. A river in the land of a third person has no vicinity, except if there is any thing in the title. According to two imams it has the borders (musannah) half of its width from each side according to Abu Yusuf, just the complete width according to Muhammad, this last view is the most appropriate one. 437 / Musannah is the wall (a barrier) between the river and earth and that does not belong to any land lord. The posessor of the river does not plant any thing on it and does not throw the dust of his property and also does mnot pass thru it. It is said that he may pass and throw his land's dust, as long as he does not trespass the limits. According to two imams the walls are the property of the owner of the river. He has the rights mentioned above. The muslim jurist Abu Ja`far said that the view of Abu Hanifah is to be taken in planting and the views of the two imams is to be followed in throwing the dust. Any one who plants a tree in a no man's land, he gets the ownership of the vicinity at the masure of fuve zira` from each side. He may prevent any one from planting any thing in that part. Chapter on Drinking It is a share of water. Shafah is the drinking of man and live stocks. The great rivers like Euphrat and Tigris are not subject of posession. Every one has the right of drinking it, getting the ablution out of it, erecting a mill, digging some canals into theor lands, if the the public does not get any harm. The rivers which are under the posession and the pools, wells and canalets each one has the right of shafah, if no destruction will take place for the great number of the cattles or drinking up all the water. No watering the land and the trees except with the consent of the 436 / owner. Each one has the right to receive from it with bucket (jirarah) for ablution, washing his cloth, watering the tree and vegetables in his house according to the most correct view. Whatever is taken from water by a cup or glass or any thing else may be omly with the consent of its owner only. The owner may sell it. If a well, or spring or a river is found in a land owned by any one, then he may prevent any one who wishes from entering in it. If he does not find any thing else, he has to give him or to facilitate to him to enter. If he does not act like that and the thirst is so high. then it may be forced with guns. But for the part which already has been taken under the dominion the fight will be without arms as the situation is in the case of food while one is hungry. Chapter The great river must be gud and developed by the state budget. If there is nothing in the budget the public has to do it. The digging of the owned rivers are due to the owners, not to the the ones who have right of drinking and using it. Any one who abstains is to be forced and the costs will be paid by him right from the beginning. When digging passes to the land of another person, then its resposiblity ends. He will not water his land until his co-sharers finish their needs. It is said that he has right to do that. According to two imams they all are responsible collectively from the beginning to the end at therate of their shares in water. Claims for water is valid without land. Any one who has a land 439 / flowing in a land that belongs to a third person and the land lord wants to prevent the flowing of it, he has no right to do that. If he does not have a river in his hand or it was not flowing, then he claims that it is his own and attempts to let it flow, that will not be listened without any evidence that it is his or he has the right of letting it flow. The point where the water meets with the great rivers or the aurface of the river, water-spout or a track in the house of a third person, all of these are at the same status with what previously mentioned. If a group disagree ona right to benefit from the water, then their rights can be divided according the proportions of their lands. The one who has a land higer than the others is to be prevented from blocking the flow of the water to the lower lands, without the consents of the owners, even if his land does not have any other source for water. No any co-sharer has the right of digging out a river, or fix a dam or a mill or water-wheel or a bridge without any consent he may get from other beneficiaries, except erecting a mill in his own land in a way that it will not harm the river nor the water. And also no one has the right of expending the outlet ofthe river, or distributing it by the days and half and half after it was divided by the fixed type of outlets (al-kawa). He does not add any more outlet, even if it does not harm any one of the rest. He does not decrease some of the outlets he has or does not let the water run into the another land he himself owns, but having no right for the water. But if the rest give their consents about that, then it is allowed. They have the right to 440 / revoke it after their consent. Their inheritants also have the same right after them. The right to water can be inherited, can be bequeathed to benefit out of it. It cannot be sold,cannot be donated,cannot be rent out and cannot be given away as charity. It may not be the subject of dowry and a peyment for amicale settlement. Any one who fills his land with water and the water gets into the land of his neighbour has nothing to compensate and also one who waters his land with the water which is the right of another person has no duty of compensating any thing. The Book of Beverages Alcohol (al-khamr) is prohibited. Khmar is made of the grape juice by boiling and letting it evaporate some time. It has to release foam. The two imams are of the opposing opinion. Tala' is also forbidden, tala' is also a grape juice,boiled and let less than two thirds evaporate. If it lost half of it, it is called "munassaf (half)", if it is boilde less than that as well, it is named as "baziq", provided it stays over boiling point quite a while and gets thickened. al-Sakr also is forbidden,that is the juice of fresh dates ehen it is processed under the boiling conditions and gets thickness. Also the syrup made of the raisine by boiling and letting it get thickness. The requirment of releasing foam in all of them is as it is in alcohol. All are prohibited.Their prohibition is less than the alcohol. The fith of alcohol is very severe (ghalizah).The filth in other ones varries from one to another in severeness and lightness. Any one who believes in the lawfulness of alcohol,not the other ones, becomes disbeliever. Any one who enhails even one drop of alcohol is to be penalized, even if he does not get drunken. This is contrary to the other beverages mentioned above. Thesde can be legally sold. Any one who harms these has to compensate for it. The two imams oppose to this. Alcohol is not permitted to sell and not necessary to compensate as unanimously accepted. If the alcohol aln others were boiled after it get thick, then that is not lawful,even if the two 441 / thirds of it is lost, bu it is said that the enhailer does not get punishment unless he gets drunk. The juices of date and raisine are lawful, if it was boiled very little, even if it thickens as long as it does not cause to lose the control and counceousness. Thew juives of honey, fig, wheat, barley, corn, each one pure or mixed one another or boiled or not, are also good. al-Mutallath is too halal. It is the juice of grape, boiled until it lost two thirds of it,even if it gets thickness. If the drinker gets drunk, there are two different views, whether to penalize him or not. The correct view is that it is necassry to punish him. Whether the divorce made by a drunk person aho drank it, is valid or not taht follows the prohibition. All are forbidden according to Muhammad. This is to be based on in fatwas. The dissent stems from intending the piety (taqwa). As to intending the the none sense act (talahhi), then that is unanimously haram. The vinegard of alcohol is lawful, if it turns to vinegard by an additions. There is nothing wron to to keep the juices in the cups made of squash and clay, in tarred cup and barrel. It is a repugnat act to enhail the residue of an alcohol and to put it on hair as jealy while combing. The drinker will not get punishment if he does not get drunk. It is not allowed to benefit from alcohol, it cannot be used as drug on the wounds, on the discharfge parts of animals. It vcannot be given to enhail to a any one ,even if he is minor and also animals cannot be given to drink it. It is said that alcohol cannot be taken to the animals to drink it.But if the aimal is taken to the alcohol, there is nothing wron with that, as it is the situation with a dog's relation to the dead body. 442 / There is nothing wrong in throwing the residue into the vinegard, but the vinegard has to be taken to it, not vice versa. The Book of Hunting Hunting is allowed by the trained hunting animals and sharpened instruments, like arrow etc. fot purpose of eating theones which are islamically edible and fdor heir shins and hairs the ones which are not edible. But it necessary to wound it and the shooter or thrower must be muslim or kitabi and they must not intentionally neglect mentioning the name of Allah while throwing or releasing the hunting animal or tool etc. and also the prey must be wild, not domestic and the hunting animal (dog for example) must give up seraching the prey after it disappears from the seight of the hunter and also the trained one must not follow untrained hunting animal or the one who is released for this purpose must not pursue the one which is not lawful to release and the stopping he may make after it is relased must last long for the reason other than the hide of the prey. That is allowed by any kind of animal which has piercing teeth and claws and whch wounds after it is properly trained. Its reception of traning may be evaliated by the overwhelming guessing or by resorting to the experts. According to two imamsmthis is one of the views reported from Abu Hanifah, the completion of traning can be understood in piercing animals bt not eating the prey three times and in the animals with claws by responding positively to the owner when he is called back after it was relased for hunting. If a trained aflcon eats some of the prey, the rest is edible. If the dog eats, what is left cannot be eaten. If it eats or leaves the habit of coming back after it was decided that its training 443 / got completed, it becomes haram what it catches after it until it learns once more. Also what it has hunted before and is left in his dominion becomes unlawful. The two imams are of the opposing opinion. If the dog drinks its blood or bites it and gets a piece of its flesh and then it throws and pursues the prey and catches it, that is edible, even if the dog eats that piece after it catches the prey. The same ruling is applicable if the dog eats what his owner gives from the prey or it itself eats after the owner got it, this is contrary to the case if it eats that piece before theowner takes the prey. If the dog sufficates it and does not wound it, that is not edible. The same way if a dog which is not trained or magian collaborates with the trained dog or the owner of the dog neglected intentionally mentioning the name of Allah while he released the dog. If a muslim releases his dog for hunting and a magian prevents it from doing its job, that is also halal. The vice versa is haram. But if no one released it and a muslim or some one else prevented it, then the criteria is to be looked at the preventer.If he released it without mentioning the name of Allkah, then he prevents it and then he mentions thename of Allah, the criteria of releasing moment is to be taken. If the owner send his dog to a prey, but it catches another prey, that is lawful as long as it goes the ways in which it was released. The same way if he releases to different preys with one time mentioneing the name of Allah, it caught all of them, all are lawful. If he releases his hunting dog, it hides then when it gets the opportunity catches the prey, that is lawful. The same way it 444 / will be halal if the dog makes it as habit. If he sends his dog to a prey, it kills the prey and then it catches another prey, both of them are edible as is the case when he shoots to one prey, but it hits two. When he throws his arrow and mentions the name of Allah, the one which was hit is edible, if it wounds it. If he neglects mentioning the name of Allah on purpose, then that becomes haram. If the arrow hits the prey and the prey menages to run away, the hunter does not stop searching and finds it dead, that is lawful, if it does not have any wound other than what is made by the arrow. If he gives up searching, then he finds it will not become halal. The ruling in what a dog wounds is like the ruling in what the arrow wounds. If the hunter throws to a prey, it falls to to water, on the roof, on mountain, on the tree, on wall or on the baked brick, then falls from there to the ground and dies, that becomes unlawful. The same way if it falls on an erected spear, or cane standind sraight, the edge of a brick, then it gets wounded. If it falls on theground from the beginning, then it becomes halal. The same way if it falls on the rock or brick and stays there and does not get any injury. But if it falls in the water, then it becomes unlawful. If the bird was useud to water and fell in it, if its wound sinks into the water, then it becomes haram. Otherwise not. It is haram what is killed by an arrow which has no directing feather on it and hits the prey horizontally or hit by a clay roll and does not wound it. 445 / If he hits it with a stone, and wounds it, if the stone is heavy, it will not be eaten, if it is light, it will be eaten. If it does not wound, then it will not be eaten in any case. If he throws a sword or a knife, and hits it with its back part or handle, and kills, it will not be eaten. Bleeding is required in wounding. It is said that is not required. It is also said that, if it is big, that is not necessary, if it is small, that is required. If the arrow hits the nail or horn of a prey, if it bleeds, that is lawful, otherwise, not. If he throws to a prey, cuts one part of its organ, it will be eaten excluding the organ which is cut off. If it did not seperate from the main body, if there is a probability that it may get well by the time, then it is also edible,otherwise it is not. If it diveds into two or three pieces and the bigger part is at the part counters the head, all are edible. The same ruling if it cuts half or more of its head. If he gets hold the prey while it is alive stronger than a skaughtered animal may have, he has to salughter it. If he leaves it though he can do it, then that becomes unlawful. The same thing if he was not able to do it, according to the clear report if it does not have life except like the life of a slaughetred animal. This life is a life which cannot be thought that it will last if he had not reached it while it is alive. It is said that according to Abu Hanifah this is also to be slaughetered. If he slaughters it, then it becomes lawful. 446 / The same ruling if he slaughters the one which falls fron a height to the ground, or wounded by the horning of another animal or the wolf tears out its belly and it still has a slight or clear life. That is also lawful. The fatwa is in this view. According to Abu Yusuf if any animal like does not leave, that will not be lawful. According to Muhammad if it lives more than a slaugheterd animal can, then that is lawful, otherwise it is not. Any one who shoots a prey and wakens it and causes it lose control, then he throws one more time and kills it, tha is unlawful, he has to compensate its value as being wounded to the first shooter, but if he could not waken it, than it becomes lawful. and it goes to second hunter. Any one sends a dog to a prey, then it cattches and hits it to the ground, then onece more hits it to the ground and kills, that is edible. The same rule, if he sends two dogs and one of them gits it to the ground and the other kills it. If each one of the two hunters releases his own dog, one of them hits it to the ground and the second kills it. that is lawful. and the prey belongs to the first one. If the second releases his dog after the first hits it to theground, then it is unlawful He has to compnesate it, as is the situation in the case of throwung an arrow. Any one who feels some sense and hits it thinking that it is a man (thief) or sends his dog to same way, then he understands that it was a prey, tha is edible. 47