or o f common
drunkards;
or of falconerst
See.
or o f atrocious
criminals;
or o f immo-
deft perfons;
or o f ufurers,
or gamefters;
T he teftimony of a perfon who is continually intoxicated is inad-
miffible, becaufe of his commiffion of a prohibited adh— In the fame
manner, alfo, the teftimony of a perfon who amufes himfelf with
birds, fuch as pigeons or hawks, is inadmiffible; becaufe fuch amufe-
ment engenders forgetfulnefs; and alfo becaufe, in the practice of it,
he fees the nudities-of ftrange women, he having occafion to lit on
the top of his houfe to fly thefe.birds.—In fome copies, inftead of the
amufement of 1 ’iyoor or birds, that of T’amboor*, or mufical inftru-
ments, is written, which alludes to- public fingers; and the teftimony
of a public,finger is not admiffible, becaufe he is the occafion of aflem-
bling.a number of people, to commit a prohibited adlion y .
T he teftimony of a perfon who has committed a great crime,
fuch as induces punifhment, is not admiffible, becaufe in confequence
of fuch crime he is u n ju ft.
T he teftimony of a perfon who goes naked into the public bath
is inadmiffible, becaufe of his committing a prohibited action, in the
expofure of his nakednefs.
T he. teftim'ony of a perfon who receives ufury is inadmiffible;—
and fo, alio, of one who plays for. a ftake at' dice, or' chefs,—becaufe
gaming in that manner is ranked in the number of great crimes;—and
in the fame manner, alfo,1 the evidence of a perfon who omits his
prayers, from an attention to thefe games, is not admiffible.— It is to
be obferved, however, that fimple playing at chefs without a ftake is
* In the Arabic and Perfian, the words Teyoor and Tatnboor are written exactly fimilar;
and as they can only be diftinguilhed from each other by the proper pofition o f the
diacritical points, they are therefore very liable to be confounded by the frequent omifiion
o f thefe points.
f Namely, li/iening to mttfic.
6 not
Hot deftrudïlve of credit, fince fuch play does not induce a want of
integrity, becaufe all our Imtims are not agreed in its illegality, Mdhk
-and Shafei haying declared it to be lawful.—It is recorded in the
Mabfoot, that the evidence óf an ufurer is inadmiffible only in cafe
of his being fo in a notorious degree; becaüfé mankind often make
invalid contracts ; and thefe are, in fome .degree, ufurious.
T he evidence of a perfon guilty of bafe and low actions, fuch or of perfons
as making water or eating his victuals on the high road, is not f^oram;11"
admiffible; becaufe where a man- is not reftrained, by a fenfe of
lhame, from füch adtions as thefe, he expofes himfelf to a fufpicion
that he will not refrain from falfehood.
T he evidence of a perfon who openly inveighs againft the com- or .of fi-upanions'of
the prophet and their difciples is not admiffible, becaufe [hey'avow
of his apparent want of integrity.—It is otherwife, however,A ^ ^ J . _ where mtlieenirt sf.en“'
a perfon conceals his fentiments in regard to them, becaufe in fuch
cafe the want of integrity is not apparent.
T h e evidence of the fe£t of Hawa* (that is, fuch as are not Soonis) The evidence
is admiffible; excepting, however, the tribe of Kbetabla, whofe evi-. fe^ f
dence is inadmiffible, for reafons that will be hereafter explained.;— otherheretics,
Shafei maintains, that the evidence of no tribe whatever of the fe& of t,ul not that
Hawa is admiffible, becaufe the heterodox tenets they profefs argue 'KhttMa.
the higheft degree of depravity.—Our doctors, on the other hand,
argue that although their tenets be in reality wrong, yet their adherence
to them implies probity, fince they have been led to embrace
* Anglice , the a ir ; a dcridve appellation given by the Soonis to the Shiyas.— Haioa,
alfo, is ufed to exprefs the fenfual paflions, whence the term Ahil Hawa fignifies fenfualijlsy
or epicureans.