fequence of labour, in the fame manner as the Am-Walid o f a Chrijiian
when (he embraces the faith.— The argument of Aboo Haneefa is that,
if the affirming partner fpeak truly, the whole fervice of the female
{lave is the right of the denying partner,— and i f he fpeak falfely, yet
the denying partner is flill entitled to the h a lf of fuch fervice, which
'is his undoubted right; whereas the affirming partner is not entitled
to either fervice or labour, as he has by his own words relinquifhed all
fuch claim, in avowing the flave to be the Am-Walid o f another per-
fbn: but he is to receive an indemnification from the denying partner
for the value of his fhare in her.— With refpect to what the two dif-
ciples have advanced, it may be replied that a declaration which goes
to conftitute a female flave Am-Walid, comprehends a declaration of
lineage or genealogy, which cannot be repelled by the mere repulfion
of the perfon concerning whom the declaration is made,— wherefore
the cafe does not admit of the affirmer being accounted the fame as if
he had actually himfelf conftituted the flave Am-Walid.
The emancipator
o f a
ihare in a
partnerfliip
Am-Walid
does not owe
any indemnification
to
his partner.
I f an Am-Walid become held in partnerfhip between two mailers,
by both laying claim to a child born of her at the fame time, and one
o f them, being rich, emancipate her, he does not owe any indemnification
for the other partner’ s fhare, according to Haneefa. T h e two
difciples fay that he mull indemnify his partner for half her value.—
The occafion o f this difference of opinion is that the property in an
Am-Walid is held, by Haneefa, not to be a proper fubjeft of valuation,
whereas the two difciples maintain that it is fo.— T h e two difciples
argue that an Am-Walid is capable of producing advantage in
various ways to the poffeflbr, by carnal connexion, by hire, or by
houfeholdfervice % and this is an argument of valuation ; and valuation
does not drop in confequence of her becoming unfaledble, any more
than in the cafe of a Moddbbir, who ftill continues a fubjeét c f valuation,
although the J'ale of fuch an one be forbidden-,— moreover, the
Am-Walid of a Chriftian, upon becoming a convert to the faith, owes
her mafter emancipatory labour, which is thé criterion of valuation in
an
an Am-Walid.——It is to be remarked that the value of an Am-Walid is
efiimated at the rate of one third of her f u ll value as aflave, (‘according
to what the learned have obferved upon this fubjeft,) becaufe, in
confequence of a female flave becoming an Am-Walid, the Angle advantage
of ufufruB only remains; but two, advantages are f orbidden
andperijh; f ir s t , fale-,— secondly, the performance of labour after
her mailer’s deceafe, cither to his heirs, or for the difeharge pf his debts:
contrary to the cafe of a Moddbbir, the value of whom is two thirds:
of his efiimated value as a flave-, becaufe one' advantage only is loll by
his becoming Moddbbir, - (namely, the power o f difpofing of him by
fa le f but two flill remain, (namely, perfonal fervice, and the performance
of labour to the mailer’s heirs after his deceafe.)— T h e argument
of Haneefa is that a thing is fuppofed to bear a value from the
circumflance of its being kept in cuflody with a view to the acquifi-
tion of wealth; but an Am->Wahd is held in cuflody, not with a view
to the acquifition o f wealth, but for the fake of her offspring, to which
the acquifition of wealth , is only a fecondary confideration; whence it
is that an Am-Walid cannot be called upon, after her owner’ s deceafe,
to perform labour either to his creditors or to his heirs:— contrary to
the cafe of a Moddbbir, who mull perform labour both to the heirs and
to the creditors of his deceafed mailer.— T h e reafon of this is that the
caufe of freedom, with refpeft to the Am-Walid, already exifls,
namely, the participation of blood eflablifhed through the means of
her offspring, (as was already demonflrated, in treating of Hoormat
Moofahirat, under the head of Marriage-f but as the effebi of this
caufe offreedom cannot immediately appear, with refpect to the diflolu-
tion o f her bondage, from the neceffity of preferving the ufe of her to
her owner, it immediately takes effeft fo far as to render her incapable
of being confidered as a fubjebl o f valuation:— with a Moddbbir, on the
contrary, the caufe of freedom is eflablifhed upon the death of his
mafter;— and hence appears an evident diflindtion between the cafe of
a Moddbbir and that of an Am-Walid.— The prohibition, with refpedl
to the transfer o f property in a Moddbbir by fale or otherwife, arifes
from