■ but intention
is o f no effect
in the ufe o f
expreflions
which do not
bear the fenfe
o f emancipation.
A mailer declaring
his
flave to be h is
J o n amounts,
to m anum
ijjion; “.
merely a diftinction made by him (on account of fimilarity o f found)
between this term and T’illikto-.ke, (that is, I have divorced you,) for
•i(a marter were to fpeak thus to hi-s bondmaid, fhe does not in virtue
thereof become emancipated, although fuch were the intention of the
fpeaker.
If a may fay to his flave “ I have no fovereignty over you,” thereby
intending manumiflión, yet the flave is not emancipated, becaufe
the expreflion here ufed implies power to difpofe o f abfolutely, and there
are cafes in which property may remain without a right to the exer-.
tion of fuch a power, as in the inftance of a Mokâtib ; contrary to the
expreflion before alluded to, “ I have no authority over you,” fince
dereliction of authority cannot be underftood independant of relinquifh-
ment of property, as a marter ftill retains .authority over hh. Mokâtib
for the purport of exacting the fulfilment of his Kitâbat,, and accordingly
a fentence which expreffes a dereliction of authority bears the
fenfe.of an emancipation.
If a man fay of his flave this is my fon,” and perfevere in his
aflertion by afterwards avowing the truth of it, fuch flave is emancii
pated. Our author, however, obferves that this confequence follows
only where the refpeCtive ages of the marter and the flave are fuch as
admit of the former being fuppofed the father of the latter. ; Where
it is otherwife, the fubjeCt fhall be exemplified in another place.— It
is to be obferved, that if the parentage of the flave fhould not be a
matter of public notoriety, this alfo is eftabliflied in his marter, by
virtue of his declaration, becaufe a right of claim exifts in the marter
in virtue of the right of property, and the flave is in need of an
eftablilhment of parentage ;— and the parentage being eftabliflied in the
marter, the flave becomes free, becaufe the exiftence of his defcent,
as from his marter, is connected with the inftant of his conception,
* The property in whom cannot be transferred either by fait or gift.
and
ancj heqcq i,t appears that the mafter. was the owner o f his own ciH f,
which beiAg direCtly contrary to law, the freedom o f the latter be-
cotpes a. necertary.confequence.— But i f the parentage o f the flave
Iho.uld happen to be a matter of public notoriety, (that is to lay, if
his birth and deftent be already known and aftertained,) it cannot -.be
eftabliflied in his owner; but the flave is nqv.ertheleis emancipated, as
the expreflion in queftion muft be, received, i f not in its literal, yet in
hs. figurative fenfe, left the words of the fpeaker, who is fuppofed a
rational perfon, ftiould be rendered nugatory.
If a tnan fay of his Have “ this is my Mawla. the flave becomes,
liberated, although the mafter fhould have no pofitive intention
in this declaration; becaufe the term Mawla, notwithftanding that it
bears many meanings, fuch as an affijlant, a nephew, a redeemer, an
an
if
him
M
.1 w tac muruai 1 1 CipClA l relation exilting between the ,
emancipator. This word has a vaft variety of fenfe, I n i has long been the ocïffiÖniïf
much contention between the fefls of M e and Omar. It is related that when Mohammed
made hisjaft pilgrimage .to Mecca, he flopped * a place on the road called Gbadeer and
having there conftrucrtd a puipit of the pannels o f camels, and called together his CÖmpa
nwastpthe number o f 70,00b, he then took M e, by thfhand, and, mounting the pülpii
| fed , tfye ppppfc whether be was not better than them ?— and.on their anfwering in the af-
nnnatiypj he faid^ « then oyer fuch as I am .M aw l a fo alfo is A lee ; whoever is his friend
ts mine, and Whoever is his enemy is mine:” and on his defeending, the people lhouted
ispplaufe; “ W O mar (it hi added) was one f t the fir ji to 'congraiulafe A lée o n ih ii accefton
‘ f t power.” — The fhiyeg [followers of A (eij adduce (his ftory as a convincing p ro r fo f
tbejuftnefl o f^ f r ’s titiie to the fucqeffionj whiift, pn the other hand, the Soonis [followers
o f Omar] maintain that, tfie Wórd J l U meaning dh ajpftddi, threïpeèÜh implied nothing
more than that M e , after the prophet's d e c « * , flibuld a jjft ihfe Muffulmans in the maimed
7 W e whieh, indeed, without this injun.aiori, it was his duty to have
done: but the Shiyas again (jnaintain that lybateyer d.oubb'ftom the variety of.meanines
may be attached, to this word,' the-particular ’circumilan'ces o f the cafe prove' i f beyond
d quefl.oh: moreover, Mohammed, it. is allowed, 'Tnew 'of fifs deatli, t s ' thi
pilgrimage, he was then upon was undertaken on that account; to what end, therefore could
he have performed a ceremony of this kind, with fuch circumftances of formality - were it
not to declare his fuccejor? and this opinion (they allege) Is c S r e b fe to S 'K ih e circum-
ftance ofhisdeath happeningfooh after, «nd Without
V O L . I. I i i emancipator,