this difference between it and the cafe in queftion, that Willa is capable
of annullment,— in other words, the right of Willa in one per-fon
is fometimes fet afide in favour of another, when any fupervenient
circumftance occurs to ftrengthen the claims of that other. Thus, i f
Zeyd fhould contrail: his female {lave in marriage with the flave of
Khdlid, and after their having iffue fhould emancipate the mother,,
tfl this cafe the right of Willa, or patronage, over the child, belongs-
to Zeyd-,. but if afterwards Khdlid fhould emancipate his Have, who
is the father of the child, then the right of Willa over the child would
be annulled in Zeyd, and would veil in Khdlid, the emancipator of
the father, fince the right derived from the emancipation of thefather
is ftronger than that derived from the emancipation of the mother:—
whereas, in the cafe exemplified by the two difciples, the eftablife-
ment of the right of Willa in the feller of the flave refts on the fuppo-
fition of the feller, after having contradicted the purchafer, again contra-
difting himfelf, and verifying the aflertion of the purchafer; and when,
in this flate of fulpendedliP/7/a, a circumftance intervenes which operates
as a ftronger caufe for the eftablifhment of the Wilia m the purchafer,
the fufpendedTFz&i in the feller becomes null.— T h e circumftance
here alluded to is the aflertion of the purchafer that he emancipated'
“ the flave;” and this operates as n ftronger caufe, fince it gives immediate
freedom to the flave in confequence of his being the property
of the purchafer, whereas the emancipation of the feller does not
give immediate freedom, as it refts upon the verification of the purchafer,
and hence becomes null on the fupervention of a ftronger
caufe; becaufe Willa- is capable of annulment; contrary to parentage,
as has been already explained.— From this dodtrine of Haneefa, that
the pofieffor's acknowledgment of the boy being the fon of his flave
cannot afterwards be fet afide by the contradiction of the perfon who
is the fubjedt of that acknowledgment,— and that, confequently, any
fubfequent claim of the pofleflor to the parentage of the child will
not be valid,— it follows that a decree may he founded upon it for
eftablifhing. the validity of a father’s felling his.fen begotten upon his
(lave;
flave; for, in order to remove any apprehenfions from the minc| o f the
purchafer of his afterwards claiming his fon, i and thereby rendering
the fide null, he may make an acknowledgment of the iflue in favour
of another, by which means he will effectually preclude the poffibility
of himfelf afterwards preferring a valid claim to. him..
If a boy be in the pofl'eflion o f two men, of whom one is a Mufful-
man and the other a Chriflian, and the Chriflian affert that “ he is his
t<~ fan f and the Muffulman that “ he is his flave,” he muft in this
cafe be decreed to be the fon o f the Chriflian, and free ; becaufe, although
the religion of IJldm have a fuperiority, yet that fuperiority is-
allowed to operate only in cafes which are balanced againft each other ;•
but there is no balance between a claim of offspring and of bondage:
the claim of the Chriflian is therefore- admitted; becaufe this is attended
with a great benefit to the boy, fince it procures him immediate
freedom, and (as may alfa be expeCted.) fu tu re fa ith , in as much as
the arguments for the unity of the Godhead are evident and plain;,
whereas, if a contrary decree be paffed, (that is, if the boy fhould be
decreed to. be the flave’ of the Muffulman, and not the fon of the-
Chriflian,') in. that cafe the true faith in the boy would be eftablifhed,
merely from dependance, whilft he muft be precluded from freedom,.
as not having the power himfelf to- acquire it.— If, however, both the:
Muffulman and the Chriflian claim the iffue, the claim of the Muffulman
muft in that cafe be preferred, on account of the fuperiority due-
to the true faiths and becaufe of the fuperior advantage that, would, re -
felt to the boy, .
If a married woman fhould claim parentage, as if fee fhould fay,
‘ ‘ this boy in my arms is my fon,” her claim is not valid unlefs the
birth be attefted by the teftimony of one woman; becaufe the-claim fo*
made relates to another, and is therefore not admitted unlefs fupported
by proof: in contradiction to the cafe of a father, as has claim of parentage
relates purely to Ifimfelf.— (It is to be obferved that the teftimony
A claim o f
parentage
made by a-
Chriflian is
preferable to
a claim o f
bondage advanced
by a
MuJJulman•
A claim o f
parentage.by
a married
woman, is
not admitted,
unlefs at leaft
one woman
teftify to the
birth;