4.6 o
The A k ila s
are not liable,
where the
fine is ihort
of a iw s n t i -
e th , *
unlefs it be
incurred in a
cafe of homicide,
when it falls
fojejy on
the offender %
L E V Y I N G Book LI.
A n y fine Ihort of the twentieth part o f the deyit, oxcomplete fine,
is not due from the Akilas; but a twentieth, or any proportion above,
that, falls, upon them;— for Ibn Abbas has recorded a laying of the
prophet, “ A k ila s are riot to pay a. fine fo r w ilfu l' murder, nor any
“ thing incurred by the offence o f a flave, or in confequence o f a compo-
“ fition , or by the acknowledgment o f the offender, or (in Ihort) any
“ thing lefs than the mul&for a c u t — and the mulft for a cut is a
twentieth of the deyit, or complete fine. Befides, the fine is im-
pofed upon the Akilas, for this reafon among others, left the payment
of it might prove ruinous to the offender himfelf; which, however,
is not to be apprehended from any thing Ihort of a twentieth o f the
whole, as that is, comparatively, but a fmall matter, and therefore
not likely to prove efl'entially injurious to him.— (The limitation,, in
this particular, to a twentieth, is upon the authority of the K or a n .)
What is here mentioned applies Iblely to the fine for offences Ihort Of
life ;—for where life is concerned, the Aitilas muft pay the fine, not-
withftanding it fall Ihort of a twentieth of the complete fine-;— as
where, for inftance, a "perfon kills a flave, whofe value is lefs than
a twentieth of the complete fine; in which cafe the murderer’s Akilas
are liable for the value, that being the fine for a flave.
I f , by any offence not affefting life, a fine be incurred fhort of a
twentieth, it is due from the property of the offender, upon a favourable
conftruction. Analogy would fuggeft that it is the fame thing,
in this particular, whether the fine be more or lefs; in other words, if
it be lefs than the twentieth, ftill it falls upon the Akilas in the feme
manner as if it were more; (and fuch is the opinion of Shafei; ) or elfe
nothing whatever falls upon them, whether it be more or lefs. The
reafon, however, for a more favourable conftruftion is, that the prophet
decreed that the fine for an embryo in the womb fhould be paid
by the Akilas ; and the fine for an embryo, is a twentieth o f the fine for
a man, (as was formerly mentioned.)—-Any thing, therefore, fhort
of
B ook LI. o f F I N E S. 461
of the muldt for a cut ftands upon the feme footing with a matter of
property, as being an equitable adjudgment, rendered obligatory by
an arbitration,— in the feme manner as a compenfetion for property is
rendered obligatory by appraifement; and accordingly, it is due from
the property of the offender.
A k il AS are not liable for any thing incurred by the offence of a Cafes in
flave, or in confequence of a compofition, or by the acknowledgment are not
of the offender; becaufe o f the tradition o f Ibn Abbas above quoted ; liaWe t0 f'ne‘
and alfo, becaufe a flave does not come within. the defeription of a
coadjutor, nor does he receive aid from any one ;— and acknowledgment
or compofition cannot be admitted in proof againft the Akilas
the acknowledger or compounder not being poffeffed of any authority
over them. Akilas, therefore,, are not liable for any thing incurred
by the acknowledger;— unlefs, however, they verify his acknowledgment
; in which cafe they are liable for the fine, as they here
admit the plea of the avengers of the offence, and fuch admiffion is
proof againft them.
If a perfon make an acknowledgment o f homicide by mifedven-
ture, and the avengers of the offence negleft applying to the Kdzee
until after two years, the Kdzee muft then award the fine to be paid
in three years from the date of his decree-; for as a delay of payment
for three years from the date of the decree is admitted in a café o f homicide
eftablifhed upon proof, it is conièquently allowed in a cafe of
acknowledgment a.fortiori.
If the murderer and the avenger of offence coincide, and aoree
that “ fuch a Kdzee, of fech a place, has decreed', upon the teftimo-
“ ny of witneffes, a fine againft the Akilas o f him [the flayer] refi-
“ ding in Koof a ,"— and the Akilas deny this, they are not liable for
any thing; becaufe each party-affirming the other’s affertion is no proof
againft them. Neither is the murderer himfelf liable for any thing;
5 , for