M A N U M I S S I O N . Book V.
,|
1 1 1 1
®F ,
[ § g |
#!
* i |
H i
4 53
to the latter to take indemnification of the emancipating partner, to the
amount of one third of the value of the Have as a Moddbbir, becaufe.
the emancipator has. injured his {hare at a time when it is Moddbbir •,
he is therefore to take the Modabbtr-value of one third, and not the
fu ll value, which devolved to him from the filent partner in confe-
quence of his indemnifying him.— The Willa of the flave is in this
cafe divided between the Tadbeer partner and the emancipating partner,
in the proportion of two thirds to the former, and one third to the latter,.
according to the proportions which they retain in the {lave at the
period o f his final emancipation.— What has been advanced on this oc-
cafion is according to the tenets of Haneffa: but according to the
tenets .of the two difciples, (with whom Tadbeer is held to be indi-
vifible,') the {lave becomes Moddbbir in toto to the f i r f (or ’Tadbeer)
partner, who muft indemnify the other two for their refpedtive {hares,
whether he be rich or poor, as this indemnification is a Ziman I ’mmil-
look, or recompence fo r an afftcmpfion o f property, which is not varied
by the circumftance of wealth or poverty,— as where a man makes
Am-Walid a partnerffiip {lave, in which cafe he is bound to indemnify
his partner for his fhare in her, although he be poor: contrary to a
cafe where a man emancipates his fhare in a partnerfhip {lave, as he is
here bound to indemnify his partner for his {hare, on the condition
only of his being rich, becaufe the indemnification in that cafe (according
to the tenets of the two difciples) hands as a Ziman Janayat,
or recompence fo r an offence: and the Willa of the flave refts wholly
W'ith the ’Tadbeer partner, as (arguing from the deciflon o f the two
difciples) is evident.
Cafe of a If a female flave be held in partnerfhip by two mailers, and one of
partnerihip thefe ffiould declare the faid Have to be an Am-Walid to his partner,
female flave. . r i n . _ , r
and the partner deny this, the female Have (who had uied to perform
daily fervice to each mailer alternately) remains for the future liberated
from any fervice to either mailer every fecond day, on which {he is
free to work for her own fubfillence, performing fervice to her deny-
7 ' ing
C hap. If. M A N U M I S S I O N .
ing mailer every intervening day; but fhe does not owe emancipatory
labour to the denying partner * .— This is the dodtrine of Haneefa.—
The two difciples maintain that it belongs to the denying perfon, in
this cafe, to require labour of her, if fo difpofed; and having performed
this, Hie becomes entirely fr e e ',— but nothing whatever remains
due from the Have to the partner who made the declaration as
aforefaid.— The argument of the two difciples is that, upon the denying
partner not confirming the declaration o f the affirming partner, the
affertion of the latter reverts to himfelf,— that is, it is the fame: as if
he himfelf had made his {hare in the flave Am-Walid,— in the lame
manner as where the buyer, after purehafing a flave, declares that
“ the feller had releafed fuch flave previous to the purchafe,” and the
feller denies this, in which cafe the purchafer’s declaration produces
the fame effect as if h e . had himfelf emancipated the flave. And it
being thus the fame as i f the declaring partner had himfelf conftituted
his portion in the flave Am-Walid, the right o f the other partner to
the ufe of her is annihilated, becaufe, as it would not have been lawful
for the denying partner to require any fervice from her, (fuppofing
the affirming partner to have adually made her his Am-Walid y ,) fp it
is like wife unlawful where he makes her his Am-Walid by conftrudiion:
he is, however, at liberty to require labour of her, on account of the,
value of his {hare in her, as this ftill virtually remains his property,
under a prohibition of the ufe;— flie therefore is emancipated, in con-
* That is to fay, fhe is releafedfrom all fervice to the affirming matter, but continues
attached in fervice to the denying matter, and performs fervice to him every other day, in
the fame manner as before the affirming partner’s declaration; and does not (in the manner
of a flave partially emancipated) become free by the performance of emancipatory labour,
which is-a fervice of another nature, and which the denying matter is not at liberty to require
of her, becaufe the other partner’s declaration does not amount to a partial emancipation,
but is a virtual transfer of his property in the flave to the denying partner, who is therefore
to pay him a coniideration for the fame, as appears a little farther on.
t It is a principle in the Muffiulman law, that where a female flave is held in copartner-
fbip, and proves pregnant, and one of the partners declares himfelf to be the father of the
fceius, fhe then becomes unlawful to the other partners, and an Am-Walid to the declarer,
who indemnifies them in the value of their fhares..
fequence