and Haneefa is the firft who makes any mention of this kind of v ow ;
for previoufly vows were defcribed as of two fpecies, one general,
(as where a man fays “ I will not do lb,” )— and the other reflriBed,
(as. where a man fays “ I will not do fo this day .*” )— but Haneefa deduced
from thefe a third., faying “ the third fort is that which is gerte-
“ ral with refpedt to the words, but reflriBed with refpeft to the
“ fenfe.”
If a man invite another to lit down and eat breakfall with him, and
the other make a vow, faying “ i f I eat breakfafl my Have is free,"
and he Ihould then proceed to his own houfe, and there eat his break-
fall, he does not incur the penalty of his vow, becaufe what he faid,
as being an anfwer, relates folely to the fpeech of the other perfon,
and is therefore conftrued as regarding that breakfall to which the
other had invited him. But if the perfon thus invited were to anfwer
“ i f I eat breakfall this day my Have is free,”— upon his breakfalling
either there or elfewhere at any time during that day the penalty is incurred,
becaufe here he has fuperadded to his reply the expreffion,
“ this day," and hence what he has laid is rendered a feparate fentence
and not a reply.
If a man fwear that he will not ride upon the beall of any other
perfon, and he Ihould afterwards ride upon a horfe, the property of
one of his flaves, who is a Mazoon, he is not forfworn, (according to
Haneefa,') whether fuch Mazoon be involved in debt or not * .— I f the
Mazoon, however, Ihould be very much involved in debt, the vower
is forfworn, although he Ihould not intend it, as the mailer, in fuch
cafe, is not held (by Haneefa) to be pofleffed o f any property in the
animal. If, on the contrary, the debts of the Mazoon be of trifling
confequence only, or if he Ihould not be in debt at all, the mailer is
not forfworn, where he does not intend it, becaufe in either cafe, he
* Becaufe all the effedts of his flave are virtually his own property, provided the Have
be not involved in debt.
C h a p . VI. V O W S .
is himfelf the virtual proprietor of the animal:— but the animal is held
to belong to the Mazoon, both in the eye of the law, and alfo by common
ufage, and hence concerning his belonging to the mailer there is
no doubt; wherefore his intention in the act is requilite. Aboo Toofaf
lays that he is not forfworn in any of thofe cafes,- unlefs he be fo intentionally,
becaufe whether the animal be the property of the mailer or
not is dubious, Mohammed, on the other hand, lays that he is forfworn,
although he be fo unintentionally, lince the animal is his pro--
perty, as the two dilciples hold that debt is in no refpect repugnant to
a Have being the property of his mailer.
1
C H A P . VI.
Of Vows with refpedt to Eating or Drinking.
I f a perlon fwear that “ he will not eat o f fuch a date-tree,” his
vow relates to the fr u it of that tree only, becaufe he has referred his
vow to a thing which is not eatable, namely, the tree ; wherefore
his vow is metaphorically taken to regard the article which
is the product of the tree, namely, the dates; and the fubjedl admits
the metaphor, as the date-tree is the caufe of that article exilling._
But it is a condition that the dates do not undergo any change by a new
operation; for i f he were to drink a Nabbeeza (or infulion) prepared
from thefe dates, or juice exprefled from them, yet he would not be
forfworn.
Vows with
refpedt to eating
dates,
«
BHÜ