(whence it is that the child of a free- woman is fr ee, and that of a bond-
woman a jla v e ;)— the child, therefore, becomes fr ee, in the. fame manner
as the mother-, but the parentage of the child is eftablifhed in the
hujband bf the Am-Walid, and not in the mother, becaufe fhe is the
partner of hef hufband’s bed folely, even though the marriage be invalid,
as an invalid marriage Hands as a valid one, with refpeft to all
its effeffs.
Cafe Of a I f a mailer contraft his female Have in marriage to another perfon,
and ihe bring Forth a child to her huiband, and the mailer afterwards
who is ma r- cjajm f^g child, yet its parentage is not eilabliihed in him, as the
child is held, in law, to be the legitimate offspring of another-, but
yet, in virtue of Fuch claim, the child becomes fr ee, and the mother-
becomes an Am-lWalidcd her mailer in conlcqucnce of his acknowledgment.
An Am -W a - W h e n the mailer of an A m - P f a l i d dies, ihe becomes emancipated
deceafeofher from his whole property, becaufe it is recorded of the prophet that he
owner, be- ordained that Am-Walids ihould be fr e e , and ihould not be fold on ac-
e i p a t e d count of the owner’s debts, nor be confidered as, in any refpect, included
in his Si/s Maul * , as the defire of men to beget children
is inilihctive, and is therefore preferred to the right of heirs, in the
lame manner as a preference is given to the payment of the debts and
funeral charges of the deceafed: contrary to the cafe of fadbeer, which
is in the nature of a bequefi, and not of an infinitive defre. It is necef-
fary to obferve, that no emancipatory labour is incumbent upon an
Am-Walid for the fatisfaftion of her deceafed owner’s creditors, becaufe
of the ordinance above recited,— and alfo, becaufe an Arn-iValid
is not eftimable property, (whence it is that if any perfon were to make
a forcible feizure of an Am-Walid, and Ihe to perifh in the ufurper s
hands, he would not be refponfible, according to Haneefa\)— the
* For an explanation of the phrafes here ufcd, fee Bequejis.
6 claims,
claims, therefore, of the owner’s creditors, do not affedt h e r contrary
to a Moddbbir, as he is held to be efimable property.
I f the Am-Walid of a Chrifiian be converted to the Mujfulman
fiiith, fhe mull perform emancipatory labour to her mailer for her
f u ll value, for Ihe Hands as a Mokatib, and conlequently does not become
free until fuch time as Ihe lhall have paid her whole value by
the performance of emancipatory labour.— Ziffer fays that Ihe becomes
free immediately, the performance o f emancipatory labour remaining as
a debt againfl her. This difference of opinion fubfifls where the matter
is called upon to embrace the faith and refutes: but i f he do not
refute, but embrace the faith, the Am-Walid continues attached to him
£S fuch, in the fame manner as before, according to all the doctors.—
T h e argument of Ziffer is that it is indilpenlably requifite to remove
degradation from the Am-Walid, as Ihe is now a Mujfulman, and it is
not lawful for her to continue any longer the Have o f an infidel, and
thereby remain in a Hate of degradation; and, as the removal of her
degradation by purchafing her of the infidel is not practicable, it follows,
of neceflity, that Ihe muft become fr e e .— The argument of our
doctors, on the other hand, is that, in placing her in the fame predicament
with a Mokdtib, attention is paid to the interefi o f both parties,
as in this cafe her degradation is done-away by her becomingyra? with
refpeCt toprivileges and acquifitions, in the fame manner as a Mokatib-,
and, by making her liberty depend upon her performance of labour, fhe in
fo doing indemnifies her mafier for her value, and under this idea it is
to be expected that fhe will labour diligently, fo as to become free; the
mafier, therefore, is in this manner allured o f a compenlation for his
property in her; whereas, if fhe were to become free upon the infiant,
(luppofing her to be poor,) it is to be expedled that fhe would be negligent
in acquiring property, or performing labour, and this would be
injurious to the mafier.
O b j e c t i o n .— The obligation o f emancipatory labour upon the
Am-Walid is not admiflible, according to the tenets of Haneefa, for
with him an Am-Walid is held not to be efiimable property.
Q, q q 2
The Am -
J V a lid o f a
Chrifiian OR
becoming a
co n v e r t, i$
f r e e , after
performing
emancipatory
labours
R e p l y .