and muft
compenfate
for it by a
payment o f
the value.
impofe a rule upon them.— As, therefore, wine and pork are with
them property of value, it follows that whoever deftroys thefe articles
belonging to them does, in fa£t, deftroy their property of value:
in oppofition to the cafe of carrion or blood, becaufe thefe are not con-
fidered as property according to any religion, or with any fe£t,—
Hence it appears that if a Mujfulman deftroy the wine or pork of a
Zimmee, he muft compenfate for the value of the pork,— and alfo of
the wine, notwithftanding that be of the clafs of fimilars; becaufe it
is not lawful for Mujfulmans to transfer the property of wine, as that
would be to honour and refpect it. It is otherwife where a Zimmee
fells wine to a Zimmee, or deftroys the wine of a Zimmee; for in thefe
cafes it is incumbent upon the feller to deliver' over the wine to the
purchafer, and alfo upon the deftroyer to give as a compenfation a
fimilar quantity of wine to the proprietor, fince the transfer of the
property of wine is not prohibited to Zimmees:— contrary to ufury, as
that is excepted from the contrafts of Zimmees;— or to the cafe of the
Have of a Zimmee, who having been a MuJJulman becomes an apoftate;
for if any Mujfulman kill this Have, he is not in that cafe refponfible
to the Zimmee, notwithftanding the Zimmee confider the Have as valuable
property, fince we Mujfulmans are commanded to Ihew our abhorrence
of apoftates. It is alfo otherwife with refpedl to the wilful
omiffion of the Tafmeeh, or invocation, in the flaying of an animal,
where the proprietor confiders fuch omiffion as lawful, being, for in-
ftance, of the fed! of Shafei',— in other words, if a perfon of the fe£t
o f Haneefa deftroy the flefli of an animal fo flain by a perfon of the
fe£t of Shafei, the Haneefte is not in that cafe refponfible to the Sha-
feyite, notwithftanding the latter did, according to his tenets, believe
the flain animal to have been valuable property; becaufe the authority
to convince the Shafeyite of the illegality of his pradlice is veiled
in the Haneefte, inafinuch as it is permitted to him to eftablilh the
illegality of it by reafon and argument.
i f
Ip a perlon ufurp wine belonging to a Mujfulman, and convert it
into vinegar by placing it alternately in the fun and in the ffiade,— or
the Ikin of a carrion, and tan or drefs it by the application of fome
valuable article, the proprietor of the wine is entitled to take the
vinegar, without giving any thing to the ufurper, and the proprietor
of the Ikin is entitled to take it, upon paying to the ufurper the in-
cieafe it may have received from the dreffing; for, in the former cafe,
the eonverfion of the wine into vinegar is merely a purification of it, in
the lame manner as the bleaching of unclean cloth ; and hence the
property of the vinegar continues veiled in the proprietor, fince a property
is not created in the liquor by the operation of making it into
vinegar; whereas, in the feeond cafe, a valuable article belonging to
the ufurper is united to the Ikin, in the fame manner as a dye in cloth,
and this-cafe is therefore the lame as the dyingof a garment.— Accord-
ingly, the proprietor of the wine is entitled to take the vinegar from
the ufurper without making him any compenfation; and, on the other
hand, the proprietor of the Ikin is entitled to take it from the ufurper,
upon making a compenlation to him for the increafe which it may
have received from the dreffing. The mode o f afcertaining the amount
of this increafe, is:by firft eftimating the value of the Ikin fuppofin°-it
undrefled, and then the value which it bears drefled; when the dif-'
ference muft be paid to the ufurper. In this cafe, alfo, the ufurper
is entitled to detain the article ufurped until he obtain his right, in the
lame manner as a feller is entitled to detain the goods fold as a fecu-
rity for the price.— If, in the cafes here confidered, the ufurper Ihould
deftroy the vinegar, or the drelfed Ikin, he is refponfible for the vine-
8ari but not for the Ikin, according to Haneefa. The two difeiples
maintain that he is refponfible for the Ikin alfo,— being entitled, however,
to the increafe of value, from the dreffing. T h e reafon of re-
lponfibility for the vinegar is, that as it ftill continues in the property
o f the firft proprietor, being, at the fame time, an article of value, it
follows that the ufurper is liable for the deftrudion of i t ; and as yine-
gar is of the clafs of fimilyrs* he muft compenfate for it by a fimilar
Vol. III. 4 B quantity.
A change
wrought
upon an
ufurped article
by any
««expenfive
procefs does
not alter the
property ; bu-t
i f the procefs
be expenfive,
the property
devolves to
the ufurper,
who muft
make a-com-
penfation.