R u le s in b e - J F a perfon will that “ the pilgrimage incumbent on him be per-
wards “ he “ formed on his behalf after his death,” in that cafe the heirs muft de-
H j g f f S pute a perfon for this purpofe from the city of the teftator, and furnilh
masc- him with fuch conveyances and equipments as are fuitable to his [the
teftator’ s] rank ; becaufe, being performed on his accoynt, it muft be
executed in the fame manner ks i f aftually performed by himfelf. But
i f the property of the teftator be inadequate to the expence of fending
a perfon from his own city, in that cafe a perfon muft be fent from
fome other nearer place, the diftatice of which from Mecca may be
proportioned to the amount of the property.
I f a perfon fet out from his own city, with an intention o f performing
the pilgrimage to Mecca, and die on the road, after having
willed that the pilgrimage be performed [by others] on his behalf, a
perfon muft be deputed for this purpofe from the city of the teftator,
according to Haneefa ; (and fuch alfo is the opinion of Ziffer.) T h e
two difciples, on the contrary, maintain that a perfon is to be fent
from the place at which the teftator had arrived in the profecution of
his intention;— and the fame difference of opinion obtains where a
perfon, having undertaken the pilgrimage on account of another,
dies in the like manner on the road. T h e reafoning of the two difciples
is, that the performance of a part of the journey, with the intention
of having profecuted the remainder, is in itfelf an aft of piety,
which is entitled to merit with G o d , and which annuls, in a proportionate
degree, the obligation of the duty. Hence the pilgrimage is
to be recommenced from the place in which he died, and which in
effeft has become (as it were) his city. It is otherwife where a perfon,
with a view of trading, fets out on a journey to Mecca, and dies
on the way, after having willed that the pilgrimage be performed on
his behalf; for in this cafe the part o f the journey already performed
not being an aft of piety, there is an evident neceflity for fending a
perfon from the city of the tejiator.— T h e reafoning of Haneefa is,
that
that the will muft be conftrued as meaning a commencement from
the city of the teftator, in order that the pilgrimage may be completely
performed in the manner in which it was originally incumbent on
the; teftator.
C H A P . IV .
Of Wills in favour of Kinfmen and other Connexions.
I f a perfon make a bequeft in favour o f “ his neighbour * , this, according
to Haneefa, is' a bequeft to the perfon whofe houfe is immediately
adjoining to that of the teftator. T h e two difciples, on the
contrary, maintain that it comprehends all the inhabitants of the vicinity,
who belong to the fame mofque, without any regard to the
immediate adjunftion of the houfes ; lince, according to the common
acceptation of the word, they all fall equally under the defcription o f
neighbours. The arguments adduced by Haneefa in fupport of his
opinion upon this point are twofold.— F i r s t , the perfon whofe houfe
adjoins to that of the teftator is m reality the neighbour.— S e c o n d l y , '
the modes and defcriptions o f neighbourhood are many ; and as it would
be imprafticable to carry the will into execution with relpeft to the
■ whole, it is therefore neceffary to reftrift it to him whofe title, from
* S p e c i fy in g th e le g a t e e b y defcription o n ly , w i th o u t m e n tio n in g his n am e ; as th u s ,
“ I bequeath one tboufand dirms to m y neighbour.”— In this and th e fu ç c e e d in g e x amples,
the e f t e â turns en tir e ly o n th e te rm s in w h ic h th e t e fta to r fign ifie s h is b e q u e ft.
the
A b e q u e f t to
M a neigh-
** hour” is in
fa v o u r o f th e
o w n e r o f th e
n e x t a d jo in i
n g h o u fe ;