The forage
or pronjijions
taken muft
not be ufed
after the evacuation
o f the
enemy’ s
•-country:
and fuch o f it
as remains
muft be returned
into
the plunder
ft ores:
is that the property in queftion is of a neutral nature*, and therefore
■ liable to be appropriated by right of conqueft :— and as to what the two
difciples urge, we reply that it is not admitted that the perfon of the
proprietor is under protection “ in confequence o f hisxanverjion to the
“ fa ith ," for the molefting of him is originally unlawful, ;(as appears
by his being required to embrace the faith, lince if he were originally
•deferving of death, he would not be required fo to do,) -and is rendered
allowable only by a fupervenient circumftance, namely his wick-
ednefs, [that is, his infidelity;] but by his converfion to the faith his
wickednefs is removed-: contrary to property, as that is originally created
for the purpofe of being ufed, and is therefore a proper fubjedt of
appropriation. Moreover, the property in queftion is not in his hands
either aBually or virtually i its not being actually fo is evident; and
■ it is not virtually fo, becaufe the feizin of the ufurper does not Hand
. as the feizin of the proprietor, and hence the protection of the property
is not eftablilhed.— Thus it is demonflrated that his property is
diftindt from Yiis perfon.
Upon the Mujfulman army evacuating the enemy’s'country, it
becomes unlawful for the troops to feed their cattle with forage belonging
to the plunder ;— and, in the lame manner, it is unlawful for
them to eat of fuch victuals as make a part of the plunder;— becaule
the troops fubfifting themfelves, or feeding their cattle, out of the
plunder, is allowed only on the ground of necefjity, which is then removed
; and alfo, becaufe the right of each individual [in the plunder,]
is then confirmed, whence it is that the fhare of one who afterwards
dies is hereditable, whereas, before the evacuation of the enemy’s
country, no perfon’s lhare is hereditable.— If, alfo, after arriving in the
MuJJulman territory, there Ihould chance to remain with any of the
troops a part of the plundered food or forage, it muft be returned into
the .ftores of fpoil, provided the general diftribution of that Ihould not
* Arab. Mobah: that-is, not under any effectual protection.
yet have taken place.— Shafe'i in one place agrees with our dodtors.——
In another place he aftefts that thofeurticles are not to be returned into
the plunder ftores; upon the fame principle that a warrior,-if hey?«a7 the
property of an alien, is not required to deliver it into the plunder ftores,
becaufe this is property of a neutral nature, upon which ne has laid
his hands firft.— Our doCtors, on the other hand, allege that the appropriation
of the food or forage to the perfon in whofe hands they
remain was only from necefjity; but upon arriving in the Mujfulman
territory'-this neceffit-y is removed:; .contrary to the cafe of a warrior
Healing the property of an alien, becaufe, as he obtains an exclufive
right in that property before his arrival in the Mujfulman territory, it
follows that he has the fame exclufive right in it after^ his arrival
there.-—-If, moreover, the forage or provifion in queftion remain with
any one the general divifion-of the plunder, in ‘this cafe, prov
id ed 'the poffeflor be rich, he muft beftow it in alms ,; but if he be
poor, he may convert it to his own ufe, becaufe the food or forage
then.ftand in the fame predicament with a Lookta, or trove property,
lince the reftoration of it to the troops is become impoffible.— If, alio,
any perfon ftiould ufe the victuals or forage after arriving in the Muf-
fulman temtory, and before the plunder is diftributed, it is incumbent
upon him to pay the value thereof into the plunder ; or, where the
plunder has been diftributed, he muft, if wealthy, beftow the value
in alms; but if poor, nothing is due from him, lince the value of a
thing is a fubftitute for the thing itfelf, arid is therefore fubjedt to the
»fame rule.
or, i f ufedt
the value
muft be accounted
for.
SECTION.