that, in the laws concerning offences, the original principle is that
the refponfibility refts upon the offender himfelf; but that the Akilas
are to bear their part. Now a Have has no A k ila s, for (according to
Shafe'i) a man’s kindred are his Akilas; but between the flave and his
mafter no relationfhip whatever fubfifts ;—and fuch being the cafe,
the refponfibility for a» offence by mifadventure refts upon the flave’s
perfon in the manner of a debt; and he will accordingly be fold for an
offence againft the. perfon in the fame manner as for an offence committed
upon property.— Our doctors, on the other hand, argue that
the original principle, in the cafe of offences by mifadventure againft
the perfon, is that the refponfibility muft not reft entirely upon the
offender, left it fhould prove ruinous to him, (becaufe he is ins this
inftance excufable, as he did not defign to offend,) but that his Akilas
muft bear their part of i t ; and the mafter of the flave is- his A kila ; becaufe
the ground of the relation of Akila is fupport and affiance, and
a mafter ftands as the fupporter and affiant of his flave. The'refponfibility,
therefore, for an offence by mifadventure, committed by a
flave, refts upon his Akila, namely, his mafter :— but not for an offence
committed upon property, the Akilas not bearing any part of
the refponfibility for offences of that defcription.
O b j e c t i o n .— If the mafter be the Akila, it would follow that no
option fhould be allowed to him between putting away the flave and
paying the redemptionary atonement for him;—in the fame manner as
holds with refpedt to all other Akilas.
R e p l y .— An option has been ordained, in this inftance, as an alleviation
to the mafter, left the matter might prove eflentially injurious
to him. This alleviation, in fact, is requifite in both inftances; the
only difference being that, in the cafe of other Akilas, it is effected by
dividing the refponfibility among the w h o le—whereas, in the pre-
fent inftance, it is effedted by giving the mafter an option of making
over the Have, or paying the redemption ; for he is only one, and the
option is a kind of alleviation to him. T h e making over the flave is
indeed what is originally required, (according to the Rawayet Saheeh;)
but
but the mafter is thusjat liberty to redeem his flave by paying the redemptionary
atonement^whence it is that he ftands acquitted of all
claim, and that nothing whatever is required of him, in cafe of the
flave dying before he has made his option, as above ; becaufe the flave
was the fubjedt due, which here no longer remains. It is otherwife
in the cafe of an offender dying who is a freeman ; for in this inftance
the fine is ftill due from his Akilas, as the difcharge of the thing incurred
[the fine] is in no refpedt connedted with the perfon of the free.-
man, the fubjedt, in this inftance, not being fuch as to conftitute a
means of payment.
U p o n the mafter o f an offending flave making him over to the” an<i whtch-
avengers of the offence, they became proprietors of the flave.— If, on ” ” bepre-
the other hand, he prefer paying the reddmption, the fine of the of- fared by the
fence is therein included. Whether, moreover, he chufe to make md^make
over the flave, or to redeem him, the fame becomes binding upon ^thoutde-
him on the inftant:— the making over of1 the flave is fo, . ° . becaufe a i!sa 3ib’)in dinfgtlne
delay in the cafe of an article' exiftent and prefent on the fpot can upon him.
anfwer no end, delay being ordained by the l aw for the purpofe of
preparation, which is not required in the cafe of a thing already prepared
;— and the payment of the ranfbm is likewife fo, becaufe it is a
fobftitute for the flave, and is therefore fubjedt to the fame .rule with
the flave himfelf. Whether, alfo, " he chufe to make over the flave,
or to redeem him, the avengers of the offence are not at liberty to re-
fiafe either o f thcfe;— not the fir fl, becaufe it is their right ; and
therefore, upon the flave being relinquifhed to them, their power of
claim ceafes ;— nor the fecond, becaufe they are only entitled to a con-
ftderation for the offence, which being paid, the flave remains with
his mafter.
If the flave happen to die before the mafter has made his option, Ther; h f
as above, the right of the avenger of offence is annulled, as the fub- th l avenger,
jedl with which his right was connedted no longer remains. If, on the"flavedy-
D d d 3 ' t h e ing before the