petty, and manumiffion is a defirufiion of that right, and each of theffe
is repugnant to the other, wherefore it is impoffible that purchafe
fhould be the occajion of manumiffion i) and it thus appearing that the
caufe of the manumiffion is relationfhip and not purchafe, the intention of.
the manumiffion is not aflociated with the caufe o f it.— T h e argument
of our doctors is that the purchafe is blended with the manumiffion, as
the prophet has laid “ no child make-s fo effectual a returnto his parent
*' as one who, finding his parent the /lave o f an o therp u r chafes, and
“ thereby emancipates him,"— which proves that the prophet confti-
tuted the purchafe itfe lf a manumiffion, as there is here no other
condition, of manumiffion. except purchafe,. according to all, the:
doctors.
The emancipation,
(by
purchafe4 o f
a female
Save, by a
perfoa to
whom fhe
ftan^a in the
relation o f an
A m -w a lid ,
d o e s not fuf-
ic e .
If-a man purchafe, as a {lave, a woman whoh'as borne him a child,
with a view to the expiation of a vow, it doés not fufficei— T h e nature
of this cafe is thus.. A man marries the female Have of another;
and fhe produces a child to him, and he fays to her “ if I -at any time
“ hereafter purchafe you, you ffiall become free, as an expiation o f
“ my. vow,” and.he afterwards purchafe her; when the Woman becomes,
forthwith releafed, beeaufe-of the occurrence of the condition
upon which her emancipationwas fufpended; but this does not fuffice
for the expiation of a vow, becaufe the {lave is a claimant of freedom
invirtue of IJleelad*, and hence her freedom is not purely in confe-
quence of the vow, and therefore does not fuffice for the expiation of
a vow.— T h is cafe is contrary to one where a man fays to a female
{lave, who has not borne a child to him, “ if I purchafe you, you
“ ffiall become free as an expiation for my vow,” and he afterwards
purchafe h e r ; for in this cafe the {lave becomes free, and her freedom
fuffices for an expiation of his vow,, becaufe the {lave is not in,this
inftance a claimant of freedom on any other ground, ffie being eman-
cijpated purely in confequence of the vow, and not ■ o f any thing elfe;
Her matter claiming the child born other as bis own* (See Claim o f Offspring.)
and
and the intention of expiation is found aflociated with the occafion of
the manumiffion:— ffie is therefore emancipated; and it fuffices for an
expiation.
I f a man fay “ if I make a concubine of a female {lave, ffie ffiall' Cafe of avow
" be free, and he ffiould afterwards make a concubine of any female a femafeflare
Have, his own property, ffie is free accordingly; becaufe the vow has “
been taken with refpeft to that {lave, ffie being the property of the ***•
vower.— T h e principle.upon which this proceeds is founded on the
grammatical conftruftion of the vower’s words in the original Arabic;
and it is accounted for thus;— the expreffion “ a female. Jlave," in the
cafe in queftion, is indefinite, and an indefinite noun is comprehended,'
in an inftance of prohibition, in the way o f general individuality * :
now here this expreffion {lands in the place o f a prohibition, with regard
to the defign, (as the defign of the vower is to prohibit himfelf
from concubinage,') and fuch being the cafe, the expreffion “ a female-
“ fla v c" applies to every Have individually.— If, however, the vower
were to purchafe a Have, and make her his concubine, ffie does not be-
come free.— This is contrary to the opinion of Zififer, for he maintains
that ffie allb becomes emancipated; becaufe, as it is not allowed to a man
to make a concubine of' any woman who is net his property, it follows
that the mention of concubinage, is equivalent to the mention of
a right o f property; being the fame asfif a man were to fay to the wife
of another “ I f I divorce you, my {lave is free,” which is equivalent
to his faying “ if lm a r r y y o u , and afterwards divorce you,”_and
fo forth;”— becaufe, as divorce cannot take place without property bv
marriage, the mention of divorce may be faid to amount to a mention
of marriage;— and fo alfo in the prelent cafe.— T h e ar<m-
ments of our doctors on this point are, that a vow o f manumiffion is.
not of any effect, excepting in a cafe o f afiual right o f propertv, cr
* Literally, « in the way o f univerfality offagularily . "— this is »technical phrafe, the
fenfe of which is belt explained by the context.