Vows resetting
converfe,
with a reference
to time.
S E C T I O N .
If a perfon make a vow, faying “ I will not converfe with fuch
“ ail one for a time," [Hyne,]— or “ for a /pace o f time," [Zimdn,]
by thefe modes *of exprefhng time is to be underflood fix months,; be-
caafe Hyne fometimes means a fhort fpace of time, and fometimes
forty years ; and it alfo is fometimes ufed to exprefs a few months;— and
the fpace of fix months is a medium between thefe extremes; wherefore,
by the term Hyne is here to be underflood fix months. T h e
principle upon which this proceeds is that a very fm all fpace-of time
cannot be defigned for the prevention of conversation, as prevention may
apply to a little fpace of time, in common ufage, wherefore in fuch a
cafe a vow -is unneceflary for prevention; and a very long fpace of time
is not defigned for prevention, as that ftands as a perpetuity: moreover,
i f he had omitted all mention of time, by not introducing the
word Hyne, his vow would be taken as meaning to quit converfe with
the .perfon named fo r ever; but as he mentioned time, it appears that
his defign is not perpetual; fince if it were fo, he would have omitted
the word Hyne, or have ufed the word Abid, [for ever;] , and fuch
being the cafe, it is afcertained that his intention in the word Hyne is
f ix months:— and fo alfo of the word Zimdn, as that is ufed in the fame
fenfe with Hyne.— What is here advanced proceeds'upon a fuppofition
that the vower had no particular intention: but if he fhould have intended
to exprefs any particular fpace of time, it is to be underflood
according to his intention, becaufe that is the literal meaning of the
words aforefaid *.
* Some grammatical controverfy here follows refpectiGg the word Dehr, which does
not admit of an intelligible tranflation.
I f
I f a perfon make a vow in the following terms, faying “ I will
“ not fpeak to fuch an one for days,” [Aydm,]— by the word Aydm
is to be underflood three days: but if he fhould ufe the reftridling article,
faying “ I will not converfe with fuch. an one for the days,”
[Al-Aydm,] by this is underflood ten days, according to Haneefa,:— and
a week, according, to the two difciples. I f the vower, alfo, were to
exprefs himfelf, “ I will not fpeak to fuch an one for months," [Shoo-
boor,] by this- is underflood ten months, according to Haneefa,— and a
year, according to the two difciples:— and i f he fhould vow, faying
“ I will not converfe with him for weeks," [Joomd,] or “ for years f t
[Soonatine,]— by Joomd, (according to Haneefa,) is underflood ten
weeks,— and by Soonatine ten years ; but the two difciples underftand
by either o f thefe the whole life o f the fwearer. T h e arguments here,
on both fides, are deduced from certain grammatical points in the
Arabic.
I f a man make a vow with refpedt to his Have, faying “ i f you
m ferve me for many days [Aydmoon Kafeeritoon] you fhall become
“ free,”— by many days (according to Haneefa') is underflood ten days,
becaufe ten is the greatefl number comprehended in the term Aydm,
which is the plural of Yawm.— The two difciples, on the other
hand, fay that by the words many days are to be underflood feven
days only, becaufe any thing beyond is an excefs.— Some have af-
ferted that if a man were to make this vow in the Per f t an tongue,
by many days is underflood feven, with all our doctors; becaufe in the
Perftan language there is no difference between more than ten days,
and left than ten, for men fay “ ten days or more,” without exprefling
day in the plura l*.
* This and the preceding-cafe turn upon certain points o f grammar. In the J ra lic
language are four forts of plurals, of which one is termed a plural of paucity: fome of the commentators
fuppofe ( with Haneefa) that this fpecies of plural exprefles any number up to ten,
whilft others maintain (with Mohammed) that the utmoll: number which can be exprefled
by it is feven.— In the Perfian language a noun is always exprefled in the ftngular when preceded
by a plural numeral, although itconfequently has a plural fignification.
4 C H A P .