220 D I V O R C E . B ook IV,
S . E C T I O N.
O f D i v o r c e with a Reference to T i k t e ..
I f a man fay to’his w ife / “ you are divorced this day to-morrow,”
or “ you. are divorced to-morrow this , day, - in the firft inftance
divorce takes place on the inftant, and, in the fecond, on the begin-
ing of the morrow; and the fecond word is in both cafes ledundant;
becaufe, where he firft fays “ this day,” divorce takes place immediately
on the prefent day, and confequently is not procraftinated to the
morrow,:— and, on the other hand, where he firft fays to-morrow,
the divorce is procraftinated to the morrow, and does not take place
immediately on the prefènt day; -the fecond..word is therefore redundant
in both cafes- ; -
W h e r e a man fays-to his wife, “ you are divorced
the divorce takes place on the dawn of the next morning; and if he
fhould intend by the word “ to-morrow” the. end of the morrow, it
is fo admitted with G o d , but not with the becaufe this coatradidts
appearances r but ‘i f he were to fay “ you are- divorced k
“ to-morrow,” ' declaring Iris intention therein to be “ at the endd:
“ the morrow," it is admitted with the Kazee, according to Haneefa.
The two difciples fay that it is not admitted with the Kazee, although,
it be fo with G o d , becaufe the words to-morrow ‘ and in. to-morrow, im
one and the farfie thing, as the word io-morrow, is mentioned-in an
incluftve fenfe * in both cafes, whence it is that, from the. expreffion
“ in to-morrow,” divorce takes place on the firft inftant of the en-
* T h is is an A r a b i c mode o f expreffion, implying no more than that here the particle
m i s underftood.
fuing
Chap. II. D I V O R C E . 221
filing day, where the hufband has no particular intention.— T h e argument
of Haneefa on this fubjedt is that the hufband may be allowed
[ to have intended fome fuch meaning from his expreffion, becaufe the
I word in is introduced as a Z ir f, or particle of containance, which does
I not require that the whole of the container fhould be underftood from
[ it ; and the reafon why divorce takes place, in the prefent inftance,
I from the beginning of the enfuing day, where the hufband had no
I particular intention, is, that as nothing appears to the contrary,, its
I commencement is neceflarily determined to that period; and regard
I being thus had.to neceflity in the determination of it, it. follows-that
I if the fpeaker'fix it at the end of the day, this determination muft
I be regarded, a fortiori: contrary to his faying,. “ you are under di-
I “ vorce. to-morrow,” (omitting the word, i n f in. which-cafe, if he
I fhould have, intended the en d of to-morrow, his declaration to that
I effeft is not admitted with the Kazee:,. becaufe the word tomorrow,
I without in,, occafions the woman to fall under the defcription of
I being divorced-for the whole of to-morrow, which cannot be effected
I but by the divorce taking place upon her in the beginning of the day;
I and confequently the end. of the day, in this cafe,, contradicts ap-
I pearances.. -
If a man fay to his wife “ you are under divorce yefterday,” and
I it fhould fo be. that he was married as this day, divorce does not take
I place at all, becaufe he has here referred, divorce to a period in which
I he wias not competent to pronounce it, and therefore his divorce is
I nugatory,, the fame as if he were to fay, “ you are: under divorce
I “ before my exigence ” — ¥>v&, in the prefent cafe,, if he had married
her before the time of. which he. fpeaks,. divorce.takes place at the time
I of his fpeaking; becaufe, if a man fignify a divorce in the preterite
I form, it is an indication in the prefent•, and hence the divorce takes
place accordingly, this expreffion being an indication of what is now,
and not a relation, of what is pajl,. as it does not appear that he pronounced