M 38 A N U M I S S 1 O N. B ook V
ing the nature of emancipation; the former holding that it is capable
of divifion, and therefore that whatever part or portion of a Have may
he emancipated by his,mailer, Inch part or portion only is immediately
affefted thereby,— whereas, the two dilciples hold it to be altogether
incapable of divifion or partiality, (in which opinion Sha/ei alio
coincides,) and hence, that the application of manumiflion to any particular
part or portion of a Have Hands as an application to the whole
and conlequently that the Have becomes emancipated in toto;— for they
argue that the meaning of emancipation is the ejlablijhment o f the quality
o f freedom, and the quality of freedom is a power both real and
virtual, and this is ellablilhed by the deftruftion of its oppofite, namely,
bondage, which is a virtual inability; now this power and inability
not being capable of divilion, it follows that Ittdk or manumiflion
which is the eflablifliment of this power, is alio incapable of divifion
in the fame manner as divorce, the remijjion o f retaliation, and the ejlabljhment
o f parentage.— The argument of Haneefa is, that manumiflion
means the eflablifliment of the quality of freedom by the deftruflion
of propriety, or it means Amply the deftruftion of propriety,— becaufe
the propriety is the right of the mailer, and the bondage is a rMit of
all Muffulmans, or, in other words, a right of the l aw , fince it is the
penalty of infidelity, and the infliflion of this penalty is a right of Goir
but the mailer has no power to deftroy the right of another, (namely,
bondage,') being merely entitled to deftroy his own right, (that is, his
propriety,) whence it is ellablilhed that manumiflion is the deftruflion
of propriety ;, now, as it is proved that manumiflion is the deftruftion
of propriety, and as propriety is capable of divilion, it follows that
manumiflion is alfo capable of divilion; but it is neceflary that the
Have Ihould labour, becaufe the propriety of the mailer with refpefl to
a part of the Have is involved in the Have. It is to be obferved that a
Have upon whom labour is incumbent is held by Haneefa to Hand in
the predicament of a Mokdtib, becaufe the application of manumiflion
to any particular part or portion occafions the Have’s becoming his
own mailer in toto, (according to the arguments of the two difciples,)
6 and
C hap. II. M A N U M I S S I O N .
and the continuance of the owner’s propriety in a part (as drawn from
the arguments of Haneefa) controverting this, the matter is thus fettled,
with a regard to the realoning on both lides, by placing a Have
who is partially emancipated in the predicament of a Mokdtib, who is
his own mailer, as far as refpefts a power of aftion, or rights of
leizin, but not in reipeft to bondage; and the labour he performs for
the remainder of his freedofn is a lubftitute for ranlom; it therefore
belongs to the owner of the Have to require this labour of him, and
alfo to emancipate him, if he pleafes, fince a Mokdtib is a proper l'ub-
jecSt of emancipation, as well as an abfolute Have:— but between the
Have in queftion and a Mokdtib there exifts this difference,— that if the
Have flrould not be equal to the performance or fulfilment of his labour,
he is not therefore liable to revert to his former Hate, as an abfolute
Ilave; whereas a Mokdtib, when unable to perform the ftipula-
tion of his Kitabdt, reverts to his original Hate o f bondage, becaufe the
emancipation of a part of a Have is a politive deftruftion of propriety
in fuch part, and therefore is irreverfible,— but Kjtabdt is a contrail
capable of diflolution or annulment:— in Ihort, a Have of whom a
part or portion is emancipated becomes placed in a middle Hate,— that
is, in a ftate between that of an abfolute Jlave, and that of an abfolute
freeman, nearly analogous to the ftate of a Mokdtib, excepting only
the difference above recited, as fuch a middle ftate is here conceivable:
contrary to cales of divorce or remijjion of retaliation, which do not admit
of any medium, and of which a part, therefore, Hands as the whole._
Haneefa holds that Ifcclad, or claim of offspring, is alfo capable of divifion,
whence, if a man were to create his portion in a female copartnerlhip
Have an Arn-lValid * , provided fuch Have be a Moddbbira, (he becomes
Am-lVatid in the part or portion fo conftituted only; but i f (he be an
abfolute fa v e , Ihe in this cafe becomes wholly Am-lValid to the partner
conftituting her fuch in > part, he becoming refponlible for the other
portion of her to his partner whofe fliare in her he has by that aft de-
* By claiming or acknowledging a child born of her. See IJIedad.
ftroyed;
439
1
j j j f l 1
W
R
!, I i f f l i l l 1 1
j; I f i k l l ( iff'
1
ii 11 1 ' ? m
m
«
é :
i J . r l M i r l r j ]
1 1
1 iM Ê Ê
ij Ti ' ■ | f j ! | S ' w 1
I
l l i 1
H
m 1
1
V
1
■' :lM] S j f
i p
1
i l l 1 B p i
j g g s H f ' t
Et i 1 1 I I f
I f l 1 -5
l i l i i l i - ’l
1 if iy ip ?
f I f I l i i R t i