c< due to you from one of us,” in which cafe the iCazee would not
decree any thing, on account of his not knowing upon whom to pafe
the decree.— If, however, in the cafe under conhderation, one of the
partners be poor, and the other rich, the Have muft perform labour for
h a lf his value to the latter, becaufe the rich partner cannot be fuppofed
to require indemnification from the ether, who is poor, and confe-
quently nothing remains for him but to require labour of the Have on
account of his {hare, which the Have muft accordingly perform the
poor partner, on the other hand, difcharges the flave from any obligation
of labour, and nothing remains for him but to require indemnification
from his rich partner, which is impoffible, on account o f the
doubt relpedhng the actual emancipator!— but if both partners be rich.,
the flave will not have to perform labour to either in any proportion
whatever,— agreeably to the opinion o f Aboo Y'oojap', as already ftated.
T h e argument of Haneefa is that one half of labour drops to a certainty,
fince it is clear that one or other of the1 two partners muft -he
the emancipator ; and with this proof of the extindtionof one h a lf of
labour, how can the Kazee decree the performance o f labour in toto f —
and the difficulty arifing from ignorance, in the prefent cafe, is obviated
by'thus determining one h a lf o f labour to be done away with
refpect to both partners, indiscriminately,— in the fame manner as
where a man emancipates one of two ftaves indifcriminately, or one of
two fpecifically, and afterwards forgets and dies, without (in the
firft inftance) difcriminating the emancipated flave,— or (in the fecond)
recolle&ing him, in either of which -cafes, the flave who -is ladtua'lly
emancipated being unknown, the half of both would be releafed, and
-each would perform labour [to their heirs] for the remaining half.
This argument of Hanefa is alfo ufed by Aboo Toofcf, where both the
•owners o f the Jlcroe are p o o r but, where both the owners are rich,
the two difciples argue that, as the emancipator of that half of the
flave liberated by the occurrence of the condition, whoever of them
it be, is rich, no labour can be required of the flave by the other
.partner, (the competency of the emancipating partner’ s circumftances
forbidding
C h a p . II, M A N U M I S S I O N , 447
forbidding labour, according to the two difciples,) and confequently,
nothing remains but to require indemnification, the right to which
drops on account of ignorance, of the proper claimant and claimee.—
The argument o f Aboo Toofaf, in a cafe where one of the two partners
is poor and the other rich, is that half the labour has dropped to
a certainty, fince fome one of the two partners is undoubtedly-flae
emancipator; and confequently the other half of labour remains between
both partners ;— and as he who is pqor.does not require labour, it follows
that the flave has to perform it to his rich mafter only, iii the
proportion of one fourth of his whole value.
I f two men make a vow, one of them faying— “ i f Zeyd enter
“ this houfe to-morrow, then fuch an one, my flave, is free,” and
the other, “ ■ if Zeyd enter not this houfe to-morrow, then fuch an
“ one, my flave, is free,” — and it happen that the flave of each lb
mentioned is diftindt, and not common property, and the morrow
Ihould pafs, and it be not known whether Zeyd had entered the houfe
or not, neither of thefe Haves can become emancipated, becaufe the.
perfon agamjl whom emancipation is to be decreed, (namely, one o f
the two owners,) and alfo the-one in whofefavour emancipation is to
be decreed, (namely, one of the two Haves,) are both unknown, and-
this being a great degree o f ignorance,, no decree from the Kazee can
poliibly pafs refpefting i t :— contrary to the cafe before recited, be-
eaufe as that fuppofes one flave held jointly between two owners, the.
objeflof the decree, (the Have,) and alfo the fu b jftt.of it, (the emancipation
of one half of the Have,) are known, and nothing, in fadt,
is unknown, excepting merely who the emancipated h a f belongs to,-—
and there, confequently,. the manumiffion of the flave-is decreed,, becaufe
the matter known exceeds- that which is unknown.
If two men make a joint purchafe of a Have who is the fan o f one
of the parties, the flave becomes emancipated with refpect to hi-s fa ther's
half, and the father does not owe any indemnification to his
8 partner
Cafe of the
fame nature
with refpeft
to two differ?
ent flaves.
A flave jointly
purchafed
by his father
and a ft ran-
ger becomes
emancipated