A perfon mull
not declare
himfelf an
infidel, or revile
the prophet,
upon
compulsion,
unlefs he be
in danger of
otherwife
Jofing life or
limb?
that in the cafe in queftion the illegality no longer remains; becaufe,,
as a fituation of compulfion or indifpenfable necejity is particularly excepted
in the Koran, it follows that under the circumftances here
defcribed the argument of illegality does not exift: hence the eating
is polifivcly lawful, and not merely licenfed. It is to be remarked,
however, that in the cafe in queftion the compelled perfon is an offender
only where he knows the eating to be lawful and neverthelefs
refrains; becaufe as its legality is a matter of a.concealed nature, it
follows that he Hands excufed, from ignorance,—in the fame manner
as men are excufed for omifiious or neglects, from ignorance, in the
beginning of their converfion to the faith, or during their refidence in
a hoftile country.
I f one perfon compel another to turn infidel, or to revile the prophet,
by imprifonment or blows, ftillcompulfion [in its legal and exculpatory
tea k ] is. not eftablilhed; but if he menace him with fome-
thing which puts him in fear, and gives room to apprehend danger to
life or limb, in this cafe compulfion is eftablilhed.— T h e reafon of this
is, that as by mere blows or imprifonment compulfion is not eftablilhed
with regard to eating prohibited meats, (as was before explained,)
it follows that it Is not eftablilhed with regard to infidelity
a fortiori, fince the illegality of infidelity is much greater. When,
therefore, a perfon is put in fear for his life or limbs, fo as that compulfion
is eftablilhed,. it is lawful for him to make an exhibition of infidelity,
(that is, to repeat infidel exprelfions:)— and i f he merely
exhibit this with his lips, but keep his heart fteady in the faith, he
Is not an offender; becaufe when Amdr had fallen into the hands of
the infidels, and they had compelled him to revile the prophet, he faid
to him, “ ■ I f you fin d your heart f i l l firm in the fa ith , your uttering
“ infidel exprejfions is immaterial-,^—nay, i f they again Jhould compelyou,
“ you may again repeat fuch infidel exprejfions — and a paflage in the
K o r a n was alfo revealed to the fame effeft. Another reafon is that
by uttering infidel exprelfions fa ith is not deftroyed, fince the a<ftual
• faith
faith (by which is underftood relditude o f heart,) ftill continues unaffected,
and if he were to refufe uttering fuch infidel exprelfions he
would incur adtual deftru&ion, as the infidels would in that cafe dif-
member or .put him to death.— Yet if he perfift in refufmg unto.death,
he has a claim to merit, and is entitled to his reward; becaufe Jeeb
perfevered in refufing, and fuffered death in confequence; and the
prophet gave him the name of Seydal Shaheed [the martyr,] and declared,
in afterwards, fpeaking of him, “ he is my frien d in heaven ;”
and' alfo becaufe, in thus a&ing, his honour is effectually preferved.
A refufal, moreover, for the fake of religion, to utter any infidel
exprelfions, is an obfervance of the l aw : in oppofition to the cafe
before ftated, as there the eating o f carrion, or fo forth, is po-
fitively lawful, becaufe of the exception cited on that fubjeft.
I f one perfon compel another to deftroy the property o f a Mufiul-
man, by menacing him with fomething dangerous to life or limb, it is
lawful for the perfon fo compelled .to deftroy that property; becaufe
the property of another is made lawful to us in all cafes o f neceflity,
(fuch as in a fituation of famine lor inftance,) and in the cafe in queftion
this neceflity is eftablilhed.— The owner of the property muft in
this inftance take his compenfation from the compeller; becaufe the
compelled is merely the inftrument of the compeller in any point
where he is capable of being fo; and the deftru&ion of property is of
that nature.
I f one perfon compel another/ by menacing him with death, to
murder a third perfon, ftill it is not lawful for the perfon fo menaced
to commit the murder, but he muft rather refufe, even unto death.—
If, therefore, he notwithftanding Commit the murder, he is an offender,
fince the flaying of a Muffulman is not permitted under any
neceflity whatever.— In this cafe, however, the retaliation is upon the
compeller, if the murder be wilful.— The compiler of the Heddya re-
marks that this is according to Haneefa and Mohammed-, and that Z if-
A perfon de-
ftroying the
property o f
another upon
compulfion is
not refpon-
fible; but the
compeller is
fo.
A perfon
murdering another
upon
compulfion is
an offender;
but the compeller
is l i able
to retaliation.