nal connexion, without the intervention of any time between the em.
brace and the divorce.— Ziffer fays that the hulband ought to allow
the intervention of .a month, becaufe that term correfponds with a
- return ,of the courles, and alfo, becaufe in confequenoe .of the em-
brace defire becomesdanguid, and is not renewed until after the lapfe
o f feme time.— Our doftors argue that there can be no apprehenfion
of pregnancy with rd'pedt to the woman in queftion.; and divorce,
after the carnal embrace, in the cafe of a woman who is fubjedt to the
courfes, is not reprobated on any other account than as it induces a
polfibility of pregnancy, which renders the duration o f her Edit dubio
u s , that of -a pregnant woman being determined by her delivery,
..and, of one not. pregnant, by courfes.: and as to what Z iffer alleges,
•that “ defire becomes languid in confequence of the embrace,” it ukv
be replied, that although this be admitted, yet in the prefent inftance
.defire is greater than in common-Cafes, as the hulband can indulge his
carnal appetite with fuch a wife without any apprehenfion of her producing
children, the fupport of whom might fall upon him; the
therefore is an object of defire to him at all times equally, fo that this
flate [of a woman not being fubjedt'to the courfes] is the fame, as the
Rate of actual pregnancy; now i t is lawful to divorce a pregnant wife,
immediately after carnal connexion with her, becaufe, no doubt is induced
with refpect to the duration of her E d it, and-the .timejjOf
pregnancy is a -time of defire, as a hulband feels defire towards
a pregnant wife, either becaufe the produces a child ..to him, or he- ;
caufe the embrace with her does not occafion pregnancy.; his defjre1
therefore is not leflened towards fuch a wife by .enjoyment.
If a man be defirous o f repudiating ,his. pregnant «rife by three
divorces in the regular way, [that is, according to the Sonna,] he is
firft to pronounce a fingle fentence.of divorce upon her, and at the
expiration of one month another, and in th e fame manner a third at
the expiration of the ne^xt, feccegding,,month. This is according to
dlaneefa and AbopEoofff.—rrMiidiamned and E ffe r fay that the I*click-
5 al-Sonna,
a l- S o n n a , with refpedfc to a- pregnant woman, confills in giving her a
fingle divorce only, becaufe divorce is. in itfelf a dangerous and difap-
proved procedure; moreover, the only rule inftituted by the law in
effe&ing. a triplicate divorce 9 that the hulband firll pronounces one
divorce, and at the expiration of a month, or the palling of the next
courfes, another,, and in the fame manner a third at the expiration of
the following month, or the'palling of the next fuceeeding courfes p
now the courfes db not occur to a pregnant woman, nor does the lapfe
®f a month Hand in place of a return of her courfes, (as with a wo-
mau-whofe’ youth or age prevents, her having them,) her whole period"
®f pregnancy being as one long cfo h r \ and hence it follows that it is-;
improper to pronounce more than a fingle fentence, the rule of the
; Sonna being' reftridtive to'-me' divorce ill one Tohr.— 'To this Haneefa.
and Aboo Teofaf reply fh'aty although divorce be in itfelf a dangerous
and difapproved procedure,- yet it is admitted on the ground of ur-,,
genoy, and the lapfe of a mpnth is the proof of that urgency,-,
and is therefore to be regarded here, the fame as in the cafe of a woman
whofe youth or age prevents her having the courfes: the foundation
of this is that the period-in queftion is fuch a time as affords a
renewal o f defire to perfons in health and vigour,- and therefore the
aft of divorce being proceeded in at fuch a feafon affords proof of the-
urgency of it, with refpect to a pregnant woman, the fame as to any
other:- contrary to a woman-whofe l ’ohr is long, [that is, byconfti-
tution or accident protracted to any unufual length,] as the lapfe o f a
month is not a proof of necelfity with refpedt to fuch an one; this-
proof o f necelfity being found in her only- on the renewal' o f the
Tohr after the courfes, the recurrence of which, with regard to her,
is at all times polfibie, whereas, with regard to a pregnant woman,
it is impolfible.
I f a man repudiate his wife during her courfes, it is valid ; becaufe,
although divorce within the term of the courfes be dilapproved, yet it
is lawful neverthelels,1 as the difapproval is not on account o f any
thing
Cafe of divorce
pronounced
during
menftru-
ation.