'je£t, afterwards diftrufted his memory, as has been already obferved.
Mohammed, however,. in treating of Shaffa*, exprefsly infers the difference
of opinion here recited;— for, he fays, “ where a purchafer,
“ under ah invalid fale, builds upon the ground he has purchafed,
6e the neighbour has no ri^ht- of S/jfi/'a therein, according to the two
“ difciples, any more than previous to the purchafe.” Now as Ha-
' neef a, on the other hand, has maintained that in fuch cafe the neighbour
is entitled to take the place, upon paying the value, in virtuë
of his right of Shaffa, it clearly follows that in his opinion the right
of the feller is annulled ; becaufe' it is on this circumftance that he
founds his opinion of the exigence of the right of Shaffa, fince fo long
as the right of the feller remains in force, that of the neighbour canndt
take place;— whereas, according to the-two difciples, the right of
the feller is not deilroyed by the building of the purchafer, and therefore
the claim of Shaffa does not take place.
The profit . If a perfon purchafe a female /lave (for inftance) by an invalid conacquired
by . a a j ta]je pofleffion of her, and the feller take poffeflion of the
upon a de- purchafe-money, and the purchafer then difpole of her, by lale, to
purfhafed'"’ another perfon àt a profit, it is in that’ Cafe incumbent on him [the
under an in- DUrchaferl to beftow in charity the profit fo acquired -but if the firft
traft, muft be feller fhould have acquired a profit upon, or by means or, the pur-
chafe-money, he is not required to beftow fuch profit fo charity.
T h e reafon of this diftindtion is that as the female fiave Tor inftance)
is a definite article, the fécond contraft of fale relates identically to her,
and the profit acquired by the fale of her is accordingly bafe,— Dirms
and deenars, on the other hand, are not definitefa. valid contraâs ; and
as the fécond contrat is of a valid nature, it confequently does not relate
to them identically, and accordingly the profit acquired by them
is not bafe. This diftin&ion, however, obtains only where the bafe-
nefsis founded On the invalidity o i the right; for where it is’founded
* In the Mabfoot.
on
45?
C hAf. V
A L E .
C H A V . V • ~ f , ,
on the abfolute f e j e l’r°l,ert'"’ (^s whe^> VI profit_ac. l lB W BE9 *profit BPi wm H MB c 1 there is no difference whatever;— that; is,, fronp which- whichno
ufurpcd>; tnere is a jMBpjj „ „ j S J ft Ke be- right of proever
fubieft the profit is obtamed, | ■ ■ ^ W M
flowed in chatty i*; becaufe, where a
identical property of another, [fuch W W article o^' houfehold goods,')
Ae L t r l a of f i e relates I that aftual article, and the profit H i
W it is accordingly unlawful;— 'where, on the other hand, a peifon
purchafes a thing with money belonging to another, a t .aug t e
comma do not relate to — — B H W M '
were given inftead of it, the contrad nevertheless holds good,) fti ,
however, there is a femblance of the contiaft relating to that : pai>
ticular money; for if he were to give that H | money to the feller
the article purchafed in return would remain appropriated to him ,
I on the contrary, he were only top««/ to that money and then
crive other money inftead of it, the amount of the price of the article
fs virtually, 1 that money : - f o r this reafon, therefore, there is a
femblance of the c o n t ra relating to that money, and confequently
that the profit is acquired by means of the property of another perfon
Now, as the bafenefs Qecafioned by an invalidity o f right E W M m
moment than that occafioned by the abfolute non-ex fence of right it
follows that the bafenefs, occafioned by the invalidity m the right of
property occafions a femblance of bafenefs in any thing in which
the abfolute non-exfiertce of right occafions ^ « /b a fen e fs ; (and that
is'any thing of a definite nature, fuch|| a fiave girl, for inftance as
I the cafe in queftion ; ) - a n d , on the other.hand, that it occafions
an apprehenfion of a femblance of bafenefs in any thing in which the
abfolute non-exifiem of right occafions-only a femblance of bafc-
nefs;— and regard is had to a femblance o f bafenefs, but no
* F o r an explanation of the principle on which this proceeds, k e Partnerjhip, (V o l. I I .
p. 325.) where it is declared that “ profit cannot be lawfully acquired upon a proper y
N n n 2 an