felf to a foreign power. The arguments of our doctors upon this
point are twofold:— f i r s t , what they maintain is the united opinion
of all the companions, as recorded by Zahrec\— s e c o n d l y , the rebel
in queftion has committed the deftruftion under an invalid pretext;
and an invalid pretext {lands the fame as a valid pretext, in reipeft to
the obligation of refponfibilitv, where, together with the invalid
pretext, there is alfo a power of open refiftance;— in the fame manner
as where, an alien kills a Mujfulman in a foreign country, in which
cafe the alien, if he afterwards become a Mujfulman, is not relponfible
for the murder, becaufe (at the time of the murder) he poflefled
a power of open refiftance*, and alfo a pretext.— The principle
upon which this proceeds is that in order to the law taking effeft
upon a perfon againft whom any thing lies, it is requifite that he
either acknowledge the law, or that there exift a power of enforcing
the law upon him at the time of the fa ft;— now a rebel does not acknowledge
the illegality of flaying one who is not a rebel, fince in his
belief (in conformity with his invalid pretext?) the flaying of fuch a
perfon is allowable;— neither is there a power of enforcing the law
upon a rebel, fince the Imam's authority is terminated with refpeft to
a rebel, in confequence of the rebel being poflefled of a power of open
refiftance.— The cafe is othewife previous to the eftablilhment of
the power of open refiftance, as the Imdm’s authority is then not extin-
guilhed.— It is alio otherwife where he flays without a pretext, as in
this cafe an obligation of refponfibility refts upon him according to
his own belief.— It is contrary, alfo, to criminality., as a rebel is an
offender in flaying a perfon who is not a rebel, although he be poflefled
of a power of open refiftance; for the pofleflion of this power does
not prevent a circumftance being Jinful, fince the finfulnefs of an aft
is on account of the right of the l a w , and his pofleflion of the
power of open refiftance is not eftablilhed with refpeft to the
l a w .— This point, therefore, being eftablifhed, it is to be ohferved
* T!UU is, was altogether independent of the Mujfulman government.
3 that
that the flavin«’ of a rebel by one who is not a-rebel is not an unright-
fu l aft, (the rebel being {lain by him in the right,) and therefore neither
prevents inheritance nor occafions refponfibility.— The argument
of Aboo Toofaf, (in the cafe of a rebel killing a loyalift).is that an invalid
pretext has no regard paid to it further than merely to prevent
refponfibility; refponfibility therefore is not incumbent: but yet the
flayer does not inherit, becaufe his being the heir depends upon the previous
eftablilhment of his right of inheritance;: and an invalid pretext
is of no confideration to eftablifh aright of inheritance; wherefore he.
does not inherit of the {lain. The argument of Hanecfa and Mohammed
upon the point in queftion is that the foie reafon. why one relation
inherits of another relation is becaufe relationftiip occafions
the eftablifhment of a right of inheritance;— and. relationlhip exifts,
in the cafe here fuppofed: now inheritance is rendered illegal only
by the aft of killing, which, being fupervenient, thereis. aneceffity.
to abrogate the fupervenient illegality; and an invalid pretext is fuf-
ficient for this purpofe,. in the fame manner as it fuffices-to abrogate
the obligation to. refponfibilitythe invalid pretext, therefore,,-
is regarded for the purpofe of doing away the illegality:— one
condition of it, however, is that the murderer continue fteady
in his invalid pretext, and in his belief;— for i f he were to- lay,
“ I now am fenfible that I flew him unrightfully;,. — in this cafe he
would be refponfible for the aft, as the pretext aforefaid, which had;
prevented relponfibility,, no longer exifts..
T he fale of armour or warlike ftores to rebels, or in their camp, Arms or ar-
is abominable, becaufe felling arms into the hands of. a rebel is an
afliftance to defeftion. There is, however, nothing objeftionable in bels:.
the felling of arms in a city (fuch as. Koofa,. for inftance,) either to,
an inhabitant, or to a. perfon of whom it is not known, whether he.
be a rebel, although, he {hould aftually belong to the rebels, becaufe
° . . . , " , , . . , T . but materials
the bulk of people in cities are commonly of loyal principles..— It is to make arms
to be obferved, alfo, that it is not criminal to fell to rebels anything ™^ ‘ fllld
except