A declaration
o f previous
Rijadt, made
after the expiration
of
the Edit, is to
be credited,
where both
parties agree
in it j
but not when
they difa-
gree.
carnal connexion with her by an invalid marriage, which is prohibited.
. I f , after the accomplifhment of the woman’s Edit, her hufband
were to declare that he had taken her back, before the expiration of
it, and fhe confirm this, Rijadt is eftablifhed: but i f Ihe deny the
faft, her declaration is.credited, becaufe the hufband in th k cafe pretends
to have performed an aft which is not at prefent in his p$|er
and his declaration is therefore liable to fufpicion, and is not to .he
credited unlefs that be removed by the woman’s confirmation.-— It is
to be obferved that the oath of the woman (according to Haneefa) is
notneceflary.— This is one of the fix cafes o f IfhilTdf*, which ate
difcufled at large in the Book of Marriage.
•If a man, having repudiated his wife by a reverfible divorce, afterwards
fay to her “ I take you back,” and fhe rep ly .“ my Edit is
“ paft,” the Rijadt is not valid, according to Haneefa.— The two dif-
ciples fay that it i s ; valid, becaufe it occurs within the Edit, that
being accounted to continue until the woman gives notice-of its completion;
and in this cafe the Rijadt takes place before fuch. notice;
hence alfo it is that if the hufband fay to. her.'“ I have divorced you,’’
and fhe reply “ my Edit is paffed,” Bill divorce takes place._-The
argument of Haneefa is that the R ja a t appears to occur after the completion
of the E dit, becaufe the wife is truftee with refpeft to her
declaration of her Edit being c om p le te d a n d as to the cafe of divorce
cited by the two difciples, it. is not admitted by Haneefa,: for
divorce m fuch a circumflance, according to his opinion, would not take
p la c e a dm it t in g however that it 'did take place, it may be replied that
divorce takes' place from the declaration of the hufband, after the completion
of the E d it, (by his faying “ that he had divorced her during
* Cafes treating of the necefiity of a wife’s confirming any quefiion refpeaing her
marriage by oath. r °
“ her
I “ her E d it,” ) becaufe this is a feverity* upon himfelf, and may therefore
I be allowed credit; contrary to returning to a wife, as that cannot be
I eftablifhed by a declaration made after the expiration of the Edit, fince
I fuch declaration affedla another perfon.
If the hufband of a female flave, after her Edit is paft, declare that
I lie had taken her back during her Edit, and her owner confirm his
I declaration, but fhe herfelf deny it, fhe, is to be credited, according to
I Haneefa. T h e two difciples fay that the confirmation of her owner
I is to be credited, becaufe her perfon -is his property, and hence he
■ makes a declaration in favour of the hufband, refpedting a thine which
I is his particular right ; this, therefore, is. analogous to a cafe where a
I mafter makes a declaration concerning his flave’s marriage ;— that is
I to fay, if a man affert that he had married the female flave. o f fuch an
I one after the expiration of her E d it, fhe denying and her mafter.eon-
I firming his aflertion, the declaration of the mafter is to be credited in
I preference to that of the flave ; and fo likewife in the cafe in queftion.
I —T o this our doctors reply that the efficiency of Rijadt. is founded
I upon the E dit, becaufe, i f that ftill exift, the former is °x>od and
I valid, but not otherwife ; and as the declaration of the female flave is
II to be regarded concerning her Edit, it muft in the fame manner be re-
I garded with refpeft to what is founded upon it. But if the above cafe
I be reverfed,— that is, i f the flave confirm and the owner deny the
I hufband’s affection,— the denial of the owner is to be credited, accord-
I ing.to the two difciples, (and alfo according to Haneefa, in the Ra-
■ ’wdyet-Saheehj) becaufe her Edit no longer remains, and the right to
I the Matât, or prefent +, refis with her owner; wherefore her afler-
■ fion is not to be credited to the prejudice of-her mafter’ s .right, as fhe
II is in this cafe liable to fufpicion:— contrary to the former cafe in
* Becaufe (if {he had been before under two fentences of divorce)-this is a third fen-
11 tence, which repudiates her from him by the rigorous prohibition,
t See Book II. Chap. III.
T h e declaration
o f a wife
who is a Jlo.-oe
mirft be credited
refpec-
ting the termination
o f
her Edit,
which