Where the
hufband gives
a power of
option thrice
repeated, and
the wife make
only a Jingle
reply,-yet
three divorces
take place
from it, indépendant
o f
the hufband’s
intention.
Where the
word di-vofee
G od and his prophet,” which words, the prophet confidered as a
reply, importing “ I do choofe;”— -s e c o n d l y , the word Akhtarto,
[“ I do (or wilt) choofe myfelf,” ] expreffes the prefent literally, and
the fu tu re figuratively, the fame as the word Ajhado, [/ do (or will)
teflify,] in giving evidence before a magiftrate: contrary to where a
woman anfwers Atliko Naffee, [/ do (or w ill) divorce myfelf,] for
here it is impoflible to receive her words in a prefent fenfe, as they do
not relate to a thing now exifting; whereas the expreffion Akhtario,
\_Ido (or w ill) choofe myfelf,] on the contrary, relates to a thing now
prefent, to wit, the woman chilling herfelf
I f a man fay to his wife “ choofe!— choofe!— choofe!” and fhe
reply “ I have chofen the fir jl, or “ the fecond,” or “ the thipdf
three divorces take place, according to the doctrine of Haneefa, and
the intention of the hufband is not requifite, although the word here
ufed be an implied expreffion, becaufe his repetition of the word
“ choofe!” proves his intention to be divorce, as the option given to
the woman is repeated only with that view * .— The two difciples fay
that only one divorce takes place in either cafe; but they,agree with
Haneefa, that the intention is not effential, for the reafon above af-
figned.— And, in the fame manner, if the woman were only to reply
“ I have chofen,” it is effective of three divorces. And fo alfo, if fhe
were to reply “ I have chofen a choice.”— This is- admitted by al],
the dodtors; becaufe, where fhe only fays “ I have chofen,” it is
produftive of three divorces; and, confequently, when fhe fpeaks in
a way to give this additional force, it produces the fame a fortiori.—
And if fhe were to reply “ I have divorced myfelf,” or “ I have
“ chofen myfelf with refpect to one divorce,” one divorce reverfible
.takes place.
If a man fay to his wife ie one divorce is at your option,” or
* Some grammatical reafoningj incapable of tranflation, is omitted in this part.
‘ ‘ choofe
“ choofe with refpedt to a fingle divorce,” and fhe reply “ I have
chofen myfelf,” one divorce reverfible takes place, becaufe
the man has given the woman an option fo far as one divorce, and
expreffing it in direct terms (as above.) the divorce proceeding from it
is reverfible *.
S E C T . II.
O f A m i r - b a - Y e d t , s r L i b e r t ï .
I f a man fay to his wife “ your bufinefs is in your own hands,”
intending three divorces, and the woman anfwer “ I have chofen
myfelf with one , choice,” three divorces, take place. The proof
of this is drawn from the nature o f thefe expreffion? in their original
idiom.
B u t if the woman were to reply “ I have divorced myfelf with
“ one divorce,” or “ I have chofen myfelf by one divorce,” one dir
vorce only takes place; and this divorce is irreverjible, although the
reply be delivered in exprefs and not in ambiguous terms, becaufe it
bears.relation to the words o f the hufband, which being an implication,
amount to a delegation of irreverfible divorce, and not o f reverfble.
—The reafon why an intention of three divorces is admitted in the
prefent inftance, is that the words “ your bufinefs is in your own
* Becaufe an exprefs divorce is uniformly reverfible, unlefs otherwife fpecified.
t This is a contraction of Amir-kerba-Yed-ke, literally “ your bufinefs is in your own
“ hands,” i. e. « you are at liberty to do as you pleafe.”— Th e word liberty is adopted
iingly, for the fake o f brevity.
V o l . I . K k
is mentioned
by the huf-
ba.vd, the d e votee
which
follows is re-
verftble.
In a delegation
of liberty
divorce
takes place
according to
the n umber
mentioned by
the wife, independent
of
the huiband’s
intention:
and the di- ;
vorce which
follows is ir-
reverjiblt*
“ hands”