unlefs he pay it, having a knowledge of that circumftance, as he has:
adled by direction,. and confequently cannot be held arifwerable.
They admit, indeed, that it may be objected that what the perfon.
acting under fuch direction pays is. not Zakat and confequently he
ought to be refponfible:— but to this they reply that the order which)
the perfon in queftion received was not in fadt an order to pay fo much>
Z a k a t , but rather, merely, an order to transfer fo much to t h e p o o R , ,
fince the payment of adtual Zakat is not within his province, as this,
is connedted with the intention of the principal, and no more Gan be
required of the perfon fo directed than what: is within his province and5
ability:— the perfon in queftion, therefore, ftands in the lame predicament
with one who- is diredted to perform facrifiee on- behalf of
another,- in a cafe of det ention; t hus,- if a perfon engaged in the ceremonies
of pilgrimage were to fall into the hands of an enemy, and to
diredt any other perfon to perform facrifiee at the temple on his behalf,
and the other perform, facrifiee accordingly, after- the principal;
had been releafed from the enemy, and had. completed his pilgrim
mage, yet he does not hear the lofs-j-, whether, he be aware of the detention
having ceafed, or otherwifec The argument of Haneefa, is that
the perfon in queftion has been diredted “ to pay Z akat ;.” and .as;
what he pays is not in fadt .Zakat., it is evident he ha§(adtedcontrary to.
the orders of his principal,, whofe defign, in giving fuch orders, was tor
difeharge himfelf from an. obligation incumbent upon him ;, (for.it is
evident that his foie view in. fubjedting himfelf to fuch an expence is.
to ward off the divine anger attending the.negledt.of,Zakdtf)— now,,
as (in the cafe in queftion). this defign has been fully anfwered by the.
payment of thé principal himfelf,„ it can no. longer be fo by thé pay-
* Becaufë Zakat has been already paid by. the principal, and hence what this perfon pays
is not properly Zakat, but rather gratuity or alms-gift.
f T h a t is to lay, the expence attending the facrifiee, (although it be infufficient amt-
nugatory under fuch a circumftance,) neverthelefs falls upon the d in lio r , not upon the perfon
dirUUd,
ment
ment of his fubftitute, and hence it follows that the fubftitute is dif-
charged from his commiflion, whether he be aware or not, becaufe
this is a virtual difeharge, and to that knowledge is not eflential.
With refpedt to the cafe of facrifiee under a circumftance of detention,
as adduced by the two difciples, fome in reply to it allege that the
principle there advanced is not generally admitted, as concerning that
alfo there is a difference of opinion; Others, again, maintain that'
there is an eflential difference between that cafe, and the cafe under
confideration. The reafon they give for this difference is, that facri-
fice'is not incumbent upon -the detained perfon, as he is permitted to
delay it until his detention fhall ceafe. The payment of Zakdt, on
the other hand, is incumbent, whence the defign in appointing an
agent to pay it is to difeharge an obligation ; and as this defign is not
fulfilled*, it follows that the agent has no credit for his payment,'
and that what he pays is a wafte and deftrudtion of the property of
his principal, for which he is confequently refponfible. The cafe of
facrifiee under a circumftance of detention, therefore, is not arialo-
o-ous to the cafe now under confideration, as facrifiee in fuch a circumftance
is merely lawful but not incumbent, and hence the facrifiee
performed by the delegate is not to 'be regarded as a Wafte and deftrudtion
of the property of his principal, for which realbn he is not
refponfible.
If one of two partners by reciprocity permit the other partner to
purchafe a female flave with the partnerfhip flock, and to have carnal
connexion with her, and the other aft accordingly, in this cafe the
flave appertains to the purchafer, and he is not refponfible for any
thing. This is according to Haneefa. The two difciples allege that
the other partner is entitled to take half the price of the flave; becaufe
the purchafer has paid for the flave out of the partnerfhip flock,
and confequently his' partner has a right to be repaid his Ihare in the
* A s it has been already fulfilled by the payment o f the principal himfelf \
U u %
Afemale flave,
purcHafedun-
der a,contratt
o f reciprocity,
becomes
the property
o f that partner
who, with
permiffion o f
the other, has
carnal connexion
with
her:
fame