■i 1H!
“ me thoufand D ir ms,” is not emancipated If he ihould poll pone his
acceptance of the mailer’ s propoial until after his death, becaufe upon
that event he fails into the pofieflion of the heirs, and hence cannot
he liberated fo long as thofe refufe to emancipate him, a dead
perfon not being competent to grant manumiffion; and this is approved.
it m
[H r a
■ i til »
M
'Cafe of a pro-
pofal of freedom
for a
fpecified fer-
yice.
I f a man liberate his {lave for a fervice of four years, by layino-
“ you are free i f you perform fervice to me for the ipace of four years,”
and the Have afl'ent, he becomes free immediately upon fignifyino- the
fame; and fhould the mailer, or the (lave, at that time happen to die,
there remains due from the Have, or from his effefts, to the mailer,
or to his heirs, (as the cafe may be,) the amount of the eilimated
price or value of fuch flave, in the fame manner as i f he had been a
Ma%oon, licenced to trade, and pofleffed of property therein acquired._
This is the doftrine fif Haneefa and Aboo Yoofaf.— Imam Mohammed
fays that the value of four year« fervice only is incumbent upon the
Have; for the reafon of the flave becoming emancipated is that the
mailer has made fervice for a certain fpace o f time the return for liberty
to the flave, whofe emancipation is therefore fuipended on his confent;
and this confent is in effect g i v e n t h e flave therefore becomes liberated
on the inftant of expreffing his confent; and the four years fervice
are incumbent upon him, as fervice is capable o f being a return,
and confequently it is the fame as i f a mailer were to emancipate his
Have for a return of a thoufand Dirms, and the flave to confent, and
the mailer to die upon the inftant.— The difference of opinion between
the .two Elders and Imam Mohammed on the point, whether the full
value of the Jlave, or the value o f fou r years o f his fervice only remains
due from him, originates in the diverfity o f their opinion, in
another cafe, which is as f o l l o w s i f a mailer Should fell his Have
into the hand* of that flave*, in lieu of a female flave, and the faid
* Sie in There.is an apparent Angularity in this expreflion; jt means, however,
•nothing more than the mailer offering to emancipate his flave (that is, to fell him to bim-
fd f ) inreturn for a female flave.
female
f :
U i
female flave happen, on the inftant, to die, the mailer has a claim
upon the male flave for the value- of his perfon, according to the two
Elders-, but, according to ImamMohammed, for the value.o’f thtfetriak
fa v e only. This is a cafe well known*; and the reafon for founding
the other cafe upon it is, that, as the delivery of the female flave, in
the one inftance, is rendered impoffible by her deceafe, fo is that of
four years- fervice from the flave, in the other, by his own deceafe; and
in like manner by that of his mailer; wherefore thefe are correfpondent
cafes..;
I f a man ihould fey to another “ emancipate your female (lave for Cafe of a k-
“ one hundred Dirms, for which I (hall be refponfible, on condition TmlnctlLl
that you marry her to me,” and the perfon thus addrefied ihould f°r.a«>mpen.
comply, and the faid female flave, after liberation, refufe to be mar- a te n g t? 7
ried to this man, ihe is in this cafe free, and nothing is incumbent
upon the perfon who required her freedom as aforefaid; becaufe, i f
one man were to fay to another “ emancipate fuch an one, your
“ flave, for one thoufand Dirms, for which I will be accountable,”
and the owner o f the flave emancipate him accordingly, the Have is
emancipated on the part of the owner, but the man who thus propofed
for his freedom is not accountable for any thing; and fo likewife in the
prefent cafe: contrary to a cafe where a man fays to another “ divorce
“ your wife in return for one thoufand Dirms, for which I will be
“ anfwerable,” and the man divorces his wife accordingly; for in
that cafe the thoufand Dirms are due from that perfon ; becaufe'the
ilipulating of .a return for divorce, with a ftranger, is lawful; but to
ftipulate a return for emancipation, with a ftranger, is not lawful._The
nature o f this has already been explained in treating of Khoola, or divorce
fo r a compenfation.
* Meaning, pefhaps, a common cafe, or a cafe much adduced in cafuiflry.
V O L .1 . p p p
I f