nor by employing
another
to do
the thing,
where the advantage
refaits
folely to
the fubjeft of
the vow.
A vow of freedom
conditioned
upon the fale
of a Have
takes place
on the inftant
of fale, and
the fale is
null.
his vow, to reftrain himfelf from the commiffion of thofe a£ts w ith
his own hands, he intended what is the literal meaning of the words'
of his vow; his declaration, therefore, is credited with G od, and with
the Kâzee allb.
If a man make a vow, faying “ I will not beat my child,” and
he fhould afterwards order another to beat the •child, and the other
fnould beat it accordingly, the vower is not forfworn ; becaufe the
advantage o f the beating, namely, infraction, refults to the child, and
hence the act of the perfon directed mull not be referred to the director.
It is otherwife where a perfon diredta another to beat his Jlavs, for
there the advantage (namely, obedience) refults to the director, in confequence
of his order, and hence the aft of the perfon diredted may be
faid to be the adt of the dire Bor * .
If a perfon make a vow, faying ** if I fell this Have he is free,”
and he afterwards fell that Have under a condition of option-j>, he [the
Have] is free, becaufe the conditions of his freedom (namely fale and!
pofftffton) being both accomplilhed, the confequence, which is emancipation,
takes placé;, and the fale is null %. Thus alfo, if a perfon,
bargaining for a Have, make a vow, faying “ if I buy this Have he
“ ffiall be free,” and he Ihould afterwards buy that flave under a condition
o f option, the flave is free ; becaufe the conditions of his freedom,
namely, purchafe and poffeffion, are both accomplilhed.— This;
according to the tenets of the two difciples, is evident, becaufe the
freedom of the flave is fufpended upon the adt of purchafe, and the
* A lo n g cafe is here omitted, as it is purely o f a grammatical nature, turning.entirely
upon the different effefls of the jfra tic particle. Lâm, according to its, different pofition in
conftruflion, and confecpiehtly does not admit of an intelligible tractation.
That is, upon a condition, if .not approved within a. trial of three days, of being returned
by the purchafer.
| Confequently the mailer has no claim for the price ftipulated in the fale.
condition
condition o f Option on behalf of thé purchafer does not with them
prevent the eftablilhment of the purchafer’s polfeffion ;— and fo alfo,
according to the tenets o f Haneefa, becaufe the freedom in the cafe in
queftion is fufpended by the fufpenfion of the vowër, and a thing
fufpended becomes the feme as a thing prompt, upon thé condition
being found ; and, as if, after purchafe, under a condition of option,
the buyer Were to emancipate his flave promptly, the Have would become
free by polfeffion being firft eftablifhed in the purchafer as an ef-
fetitial, fo alfo in the préfent cafe.
I f a man make a vow, faying “ if I do not fell this Have (or this
“ bondmaid) my wife is divorced,” and he fhould afterwards emancipate
the flave or the bondmaid, or Ihould grant to either a fadheer,
divorce takes place upon his wife, becaufe the condition, namely,
his not felling them, is fully accomplilhed, as fale cannot now poffibly
take place, lince the flave or bondmaid mentioned, in confequence of
the ad: of manumiffion or ‘Tadbeer, remain no longer fubjedts of fale.
I f a woman fay to her hulband “ you have married another woman,
in addition to me,” and the hulband, in reply, make a vow,
faying “ every wife I have is divorced,” a divorce takes placé (on the
decree o f the Kdzee) upon the wife who has alferted as above.— This
is the Zâhir-Rawâyet.— It is recorded from Aboo Toofaf that the wife
here mentioned does not become divorced; becaufe the words of the
hulband, as above recited, are- to be confidered merely as a reply to thè
woman, and mull be received as fuch: moreover, the defign of thé
hulband in fo fpeaking maybe merely ttip/eafe, and foothe his wife;
and as this would be effected by the divorce o f his other wives, the
divorce is reftridted to the other wives only.— T h e ground upon which
the Zâhir-RaWâyet proceeds is that the hulband’ s expreffion is général,
as he has introduced the word “ evéry" (which argués'generality) in addition
to the Ample reply, whence it appears that his intention is generality',,
and not' fpeciality ; and it follow s; that the fentence muft be received as
•a fpeech de mvo-, and not as a reply.— In reply to the arguments
A a a a 2 of
Divorce fufpended
upon
the net felling
of a flave
takes place
on emancipation
or Tad-
beer, ,
A Vow of general
divorce
in reply to a
wife charging
her hulband
with bigamy,
takes place
upon her in
the fame
manner as
upon the rejl•