Brief explanation, Khalil, author not mentioned
(شرح مختصر خليل المؤلف غير مذكور)
| Title |
Brief explanation, Khalil, author not mentioned |
| Title Original
|
شرح مختصر خليل المؤلف غير مذكور
|
| Type |
belge |
| Language |
Arabic |
| Digital |
Yes
|
| Manuscript |
Yes
|
| Pages Count |
22 |
| Library: |
King Abdul-Aziz Al Saoud Foundation for Islamic Studies and Human Sciences |
| Record ID |
affichage_numerics2548 |
| Notes |
Printed manuscript
The beginning of the manuscript: Rather, the possession is only invalidated, and the mortgagee, before it expires, has the right to return it to the possession by eliminating the mortgagor. If he delayed these three sucks after his statement and on the return, etc., his saying to him, he took it, etc. would be applied to it, so that his words would be free and he would match the transfer as in the city and elsewhere. He said it was turned off (?). I said: Attributing that to the blog.
The end of the manuscript: So the claim for its rejection is valid, unlike the opposite, and God knows best. In contrast to this statement of Asbagh, and Ibn Rushd chose it, saying: Ashhab’s statement was drowned out and Ibn Abd al-Salam affirmed it, and “Labid Amin is more correct” by Ibn Arafa. What is in Amin's hand regarding his being a witness? They found the words of Muhammad and Al-Lakhmi on the authority of Al-Qadi, and the first one is correct. Therefore, sucking is correct.
Font type: Moroccan |
