I
Cafe of a vow
of MaJba.
o f Aboo Yoofaf, it is to be obferved that the words of the hufband
admit of being conflrued into a defign of terrifying and frightening the
woman, on account of her having upbraided him with that which it is
lawful for him to do; and, under fuch a conflrudtion, the reflri£lion
to the other wives is not admiffible.— I f the hufband were to declare
that his intention refpefted only the ofher wives, he is to be
credited with G o d , but not with theXazre; becaufe he has intended
a particular thing by a general expreffion, and his words admit of being
taken in this fenfe; but it contradidts appearances; his declarations
therefore, is to be credited in a religious view, but not in point of law^
C H A P . X..
Of Vms refpefting Pilgrimage, Faßing and Prayer.
I f a man make a vow “ to perform a Majhd [pedeflrian pilgrimageT
“ to the temple o f G od,” it is incumbent upon him to perform a
pilgrimage to the Kdba on foot,— or that he make the. vifitation termed
Am rit; and i f he chufe he may ride, on his pilgrimage,, or Am rit;_.
but he mull in this cafe perform, a facrifice. This is on. a favourable
conftruftion of the law- Analogy would fuggefl that neither pilgrimage
nor Amrit are rendered incumbent upon him, be having engaged
no farther than to walk to the temple “ on fo o t," which is not
incumbent as an a& of piety, but is merely an indifferent a ft ; neither
is going on foot the original defign, that being limply the performance
o f pilgrimage or Amrit— T h e reafons for the more, favourable conftrudlion
flru&ion here are twofold:— f i r s t , Alee has declared'that, in a vow
o f this nature, either pilgrimage or Amrit are incumbent upon the
fwearer •.— s e c o n d l y , from the expreffion aforefaid either pilgrimage
©r Amrit are univerfally underflood; and hence it is the fame as if he
had faid “ I owe a vifitation to the temple on foot ;” wherefore it is
incumbent upon him to perform his pilgrimage or Amrit on foot, or
that, if he chufe to perform it on horfeback, he alfo perform a facri-
fiee
If a man make a vow, faying “ if I do not perform a pilgrimage
“ this year, fuch an one, my flave, is free,” — and after the lapfe of
that year a difpute fhould arife between the mafler and the Have,— the
flave alleging that the mafler had not performed the pilgrimage, and
the mafler alleging that he had performed it, and the flave’s witnefles
bear teflimony in this manner,— “ that the mafler had performed,
“ within that year, a facrifice at Koofa,” ' the flave (according to Heine
f a and Aboo Yoofaf) is not emancipated.— Imam Mohammed fays that
the flave is emancipated, becaufe the witneffes have teflified to the
mafler having performed facrifice at Koofa, which is a well known
a d , and which neceflarily implies that he has not performed pilgrimage,
and hence the condition of the penalty, (namely, non-performance
of pilgrimage,.) is fulfilled..
If a man make a vow that he will not fall, and he fhould afterwards
intend a fafl, and keep the fame a fhort time, and then break
his fafl within the fame day,, he is forfworn on account of the condition
of violation being fulfilled; becaufe the word Sawm [fafl] fig-
nifies abflinence from thofe things the ufe of which, breaks a fall kept-
with a pious intent, which in this cafeis evident-
* Moft of the expreffions here treated of are to be fully underffood only in the original
idiom; hence much of the reafoning upon them is loft in a tranjlation. T w o other cafes
are here omitted for the fame reafon, and alfo becaufe the rights of individuals arc no way
concerned in them..
I f
Cafe o f a vcw
of manumif-
fion fufpend-
ed upon the
non-performance
of p ilgrimage.
Cafe o f a vow
againft f* ft-
ing.