be in the father’ s hands, and fubjet to his authority; and in the pre-
fent cafe the infant children of the perfon in queftion are not fubjet
to his authority, fince he is in the Mujfulman territory, and they in a
foreign country. In the fame manner, alfo, his property is not under
protection, in virtue of the protection of his perfon, on account of difference
of country, (for he is himfelf in the Mujfulman territory, and
his property in another country.) The whole of his wives and children,
therefore, together with his property,, are plunder.— If, however,
the alien in queftion become a Mujfulman in his own country, and then
come into the Mujfulman territory, and his wives and children continue
in the alien country, and he have alfo property there, fome de-
pofited with a Zimmee, fome with an alien, and fome with a Mujfulman,
and the Mujfulmans afterwards obtain the fuperiority in that
country,— in this cafe his infant children are accounted Mujfulmans, in
dependance of their father, becaufe here they were under his authority
at the time of his embracing the faith, as he was then in his own
country along with his children. Such of his property, alfo, as is in
depolit with a Mujfulman or a Zimmee appertains to him, as being vir-
tally in his pofl’effion, fince the feizin of his truftee amounts to the fame
as his own feizin.—Any thing beyond thefe, however, is public property:
— his wives and adult children, according to what was before Hated,
that they are aliens and adults;— and fuch of his property, alfo, as is in
depofit with an alien, becaufe that is not in a Hate of protection, fince
the feizin of an alien is no protection: contrary to the feizin of a Zimmee
or a Mujfulman, as their feizin is a protection, whence it is- that
fuch property as he may have in their hands does not become the property
of the public.
Cafe o f an
alien profes
t e flain by
a Mujfulman
in the alien
territory.
If an alien embrace the faith in his own country, and a Mujfulman
flay him, either wilfully or accidentally, and lais heirs alfo embrace
the faith there, nothing is due from the flayer, except expiation
where the a t was accidental. According to Shafei, he is liable
to the fine of blood where the a t was accidental, and to retaliation
where it was w ilful; becaufe he has fpilled the blood of one whofe
8 blood
blood was proteted, fince Ifdm is a protetion, as men by Ifidm obtain
a claim to reverence. The reafon of this is that the Ifmut Mowfma
or fin-creating protetion, (that is, the protetion in confequence of
which the flayer of the proteted is an offender,) is the original principle,
fince through that principle determent is obtained;—for w h o ever
is aware, that the murder of the proteted is a crime will refrain
from committing fuch murder; thus it is proved that the fn-creating
protetion is the original p ro te tio n ; and this protetion is eftablifhed
with re fp e t to the Mujfulman in queftion univerfally, fince no perfon
prefumes to allege that the flayer of this man is not an offender.
T h e Ifmut-makkowim, on the other hand, or prote&ion which bears a
price, (that is the protetion in confequence of which the flayer of the
proteted becomes liable to the Deyit, or fine of blood,) is not the original
principle, but is rather the perfetion of the fin-creating protetion, fince
by its means determent is more perfetly obtained, from its inducing
both fin and lofs o f property. Now fuch being the cafe, it is evident'
that the appreciable protetion is one defcription of the fin-creating
protetion, and it follows that the appreciable protetion alfo is attached
to Ifidm in the fame manner as the original or fin-creating prote
tio n is attached to it. Fine and expiation are therefore due for
killing an alien who has embraced the faith in a foreign country without
retiring into the Mujfulman territory.—Th e argument of our
do to rs is that G ob has faid in the Koran “ i f t h e s l a i n b e o f
“ A P E O T L E A T E N M I T Y W IT H YO U , A N A BE- A T R U E B E L IE V E R ,
■“ I T rs IN CU iM B EN T UPON HIS Sll A Y E R T O E M A N C I P A T E A T R U E
“ believer*.” With re fp e t to the arguments o i Shafei, we reply that
his1 affertion, that “ theJvn-creating protetion is attached to IJlamf is
not admitted; for, the Jin-creating protetion is attached, not to Ifidm,
but t ö the perfon; becaufe man is created with an intent that he fhould
* That is, to procure the emancipation of a Muffulman Jlave- and no fine ihall be paid,
'becaufe in this cafe the relations of the murderer, being infidels and aliens, have no right te
inherit after him.
V ó l . II. D d bear