that the occafion for the imprecation may be removed, (that is, the
condition of imprecation, namely, the mutual charge o f falfehood,)
becaufe imprecation is not incumbent except where each charges the
plea o f the other with falfehood, after the hulband having produced
againft his wife an accufation of adultery. And the hulband having
made an imprecation, the fame is then incumbent upon the wife, it
being fo ordained in the Koran; (but imprecation commences with
the hulband, as he in this cafe appears as the plaintiff;) and if Ihe
decline making imprecation, the m a gift rate is to imprilbn her till
fuch time as Ihe either agrees to make it, or to acknowledge her
hulband’ s veracity, this being his right incumbent upon her, and
which Ihe is able to render, wherefore Ihe is to be imprifoned until
Ihe renders it.
bent'upon”" Ip a Have, or an infidel, or one who has fullered punilhment as a
jla ja or infi- flanderer, accufe his wife of whoredom, punilhment for Hander is due
upon him, becaufe here imprecation is impoffible and confequently
its original is due, and this is punilhment for Hander, that being the
original ordinance in this cafe, according to the word of G od,— “ If
“ MEN ACCUSE MARRIED WOMEN OF WHOREDOM, AND PRODUCE
“ NOT FOUR WITNESSES, SCOURGE THEM WITH EIGHTY STRIPES;’*
now imprecation is the fubflitute o f punilhment for Hander; and where
the fubflitute cannot be had the original is due.
nor, where
the wife is a
flaque, an infidel,
or a
convitted
JIanderer;
I f the accufer be a perfon competent in evidence, and his wife be
a Have, or an infidel, or a Kitabeea, or one who has.fullered punilhment
as a flanderer, or of the defeription of thofe whole accufers are
not liable to punilhment, as being an infant, or idiot, or adultrefs,
punilhment is not due, nor is imprecation incumbent upon him,
as in this inftance neither competency in evidence nor marriage
* As infidels and flaves, not being competent to give evidence, are incapable of m-
frtcaium.
(in
(in the fenfe which induces punilhment) are attached to the ac-
cufed.
O bject ion.— It would appear that in this cafe punilhment for
Hander is due upon the hulband, as imprecation is a fubflitute
for that, and where the fubflitute cannot be had, it follows that the
original is due.
R e p l y .— Punilhment is not due upon the hulband, as he is
capable of imprecation, the obftacle to which exifls in this cafe on
the part of the wife, and this circumftance precludes punilhment, in
the fame manner as where Ihe acknowledges the truth of the accufation.—
The foundation of this is a faying of the prophet, namely,
“ There are fo u r defcriptions o f women with refpedl to whom im-
“ precation is not incumbent, Jews and Chriflians married-to Mus-
“ sulMans, and fa v e s married to freemen, and fr e e women married
“ to flaves."
I f the accufer and his wife be perfons who have both already fuffered
punilhment for Hander, punilhment is due upon the former,
becaufe in this cafe a realbn is found againft imprecation on the part
o f the accufer, he being incapable of making it.
T he manner of imprecation is as follows.— T h e Kdzee firft applies
to the hulband, who is to give evidence four feveral times, by laying
“ I call G od to witnefs to the truth of my teftimony Concerning the
“ adultery with which I charge this woman;” and again, a fifth
time, “ may the curfe of G od fall upon me i f I have Ipoken falfely
<l concerning the adultery with which I charge this woman;”— after
which the Kdzee requires the woman to give evidence, four feparate
times, by faying “ I call G od to witnefs that my hulband’s words
“ are altogether falfe, refpefting the adultery with which he charges
“ me;” and again, a fifth time, “ may the wrath o f G od light upon
“ me, if my hulband is juft, in bringing a charge o f adultery againft
“ me.” — Hafan records it as an opinion of Hanefa that the hulband
Y y 2 Ihould,
nor where
both parties
are convi&ed
flanderers.
Form of im*
precation,
and the man*
ner of making
it.