Book 60: Sacrifices (Udhiya) and Aqiqah
Title of book: Minhaj al-Talibin wa Umdat al-Muftin (منهاج الطالبين وعمدة المفتين في الفقه)
Author: Imam Nawawi
Full name: Imam Muhyiddin Abi Zakariyya Yahya ibn Sharaf al-Nawawi (أبو زكريا يحيى بن شرف بن مُرِّيِّ بن حسن بن حسين بن محمد جمعة بن حِزام الحزامي النووي الشافعي)
Born: Muharram 631 AH/ October 1233 Nawa, Ayyubid Sultanate
Died: 24 Rajab 676 AH [9]/ 21 December 1277 (age 45) Nawa, Mamluk Sultanate
Resting place: Nawa, present Syria
Translated into English by: E. C. HOWARD
Field of study: sharia, Islamic law, fiqh, Islamic jurisprudence of Shafi'i's school of thought
Type of literature dan reference: classical Arabic
Contents
- Book 60: Sacrifices (Udhiya)
- Book 61: Eatables (Al-Ath'imah)
- Book 62: Racing and Shooting Competitions (Musabaqa wa Munadala)
- Book 63: Oaths (Yamin)
- Return to: Minhaj al-Talibin of Imam Nawawi
كتاب الْأُضْحِيَّةِ
BOOK 60 .— SACRIFICES
هِيَ سُنَّةٌ لَا تَجِبُ إلَّا بِالْتِزَامٍ.
وَيُسَنُّ
لِمُرِيدِهَا أَنْ لَا يُزِيلَ شَعْرَهُ وَلَا ظُفْرَهُ فِي عَشْرِ ذِي
الْحِجَّةِ حَتَّى يُضَحِّيَ.
وَأَنْ يَذْبَحَهَا بِنَفْسِهِ،
وَإِلَّا فَلْيَشْهَدْهَا.
وَلَا تَصِحُّ إلَّا مِنْ إبِلٍ وَبَقَرٍ
وَغَنَمٍ.
وَشَرْطُ إبِلٍ أَنْ يَطْعَنَ فِي السَّنَةِ
السَّادِسَةِ، وَبَقَرٍ وَمَعْزٍ فِي الثَّالِثَةِ، وَضَأْنٍ فِي
الثَّانِيَةِ.
وَيَجُوزُ ذَكَرٌ وَأُنْثَى.
وَخَصِيٌّ.
وَالْبَعِيرُ
وَالْبَقَرَةُ عَنْ سَبْعَةٍ.
وَالشَّاةُ عَنْ وَاحِدٍ.
وَأَفْضَلُهَا
بَعِيرٌ ثُمَّ بَقَرَةٌ ثُمَّ ضَأْنٌ ثُمَّ مَعْزٌ، وَسَبْعُ شِيَاهٍ أَفْضَلُ
مِنْ بَعِيرٍ، وَشَاةٌ أَفْضَلُ مِنْ مُشَارَكَةٍ فِي بَعِيرٍ.
وَشَرْطُهَا
سَلَامَةٌ مِنْ عَيْبٍ يَنْقُصُ لَحْمًا فَلَا تُجْزِي عَجْفَاءُ، وَمَجْنُونَةٌ،
وَمَقْطُوعَةُ بَعْضِ أُذُنٍ، وَذَاتُ عَرَجٍ وَعَوَرٍ وَمَرَضٍ وَجَرَبٍ
بَيِّنٍ، وَلَا يَضُرُّ يَسِيرُهَا وَلَا فَقْدُ قَرْنٍ وَكَذَا شَقُّ أُذُنٍ
وَثَقْبُهَا فِي الْأَصَحِّ.
قُلْتُ: الصَّحِيحُ الْمَنْصُوصُ
يَضُرُّ يَسِيرُ الْجَرَبِ وَاَللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ.
وَيَدْخُلُ
وَقْتُهَا إذَا ارْتَفَعَتْ الشَّمْسُ كَرُمْحٍ يَوْمَ النَّحْرِ ثُمَّ مَضَى
قَدْرُ رَكْعَتَيْنِ وَخُطْبَتَيْنِ خَفِيفَتَيْنِ وَيَبْقَى حَتَّى تَغْرُبَ
آخِرَ التَّشْرِيقِ.
قُلْتُ: ارْتِفَاعُ الشَّمْسِ فَضِيلَةٌ،
وَالشَّرْطُ طُلُوعُهَا ثُمَّ مُضِيُّ قَدْرِ الرَّكْعَتَيْنِ وَالْخُطْبَتَيْنِ،
وَاَللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ.
وَمَنْ نَذَرَ مُعَيَّنَةً فَقَالَ لِلَّهِ
عَلَيَّ أَنْ أُضَحِّيَ بِهَذِهِ لَزِمَهُ ذَبْحُهَا فِي هَذَا الْوَقْتِ.
فَإِنْ
تَلِفَتْ قَبْلَهُ فَلَا شَيْءَ عَلَيْهِ.
وَإِنْ أَتْلَفَهَا
لَزِمَهُ أَنْ يَشْتَرِيَ بِقِيمَتِهَا مِثْلَهَا وَيَذْبَحَهَا فِيهِ.
وَإِنْ
نَذَرَ فِي ذِمَّتِهِ ثُمَّ عَيَّنَ لَزِمَهُ ذَبْحُهُ فِيهِ، فَإِنْ تَلِفَتْ
قَبْلَهُ بَقِيَ الْأَصْلُ عَلَيْهِ فِي الْأَصَحِّ.
وَيُشْتَرَطُ
النِّيَّةُ عِنْدَ الذَّبْحِ إنْ لَمْ يَسْبِقْ تَعْيِينٌ، وَكَذَا إنْ قَالَ:
جَعَلْتُهَا أُضْحِيَّةً فِي الْأَصَحِّ، وَإِنْ وَكَّلَ بِالذَّبْحِ نَوَى
عِنْدَ إعْطَاءِ الْوَكِيلِ أَوْ ذَبْحِهِ.
وَلَهُ الْأَكْلُ مِنْ
أُضْحِيَّةِ تَطَوُّعٍ، وَإِطْعَامُ الْأَغْنِيَاءِ، لَا تَمْلِيكُهُمْ،
وَيَأْكُلُ ثُلُثًا، وَفِي قَوْلٍ نِصْفًا، وَالْأَصَحُّ وُجُوبُ التَّصَدُّقِ
بِبَعْضِهَا، وَالْأَفْضَلُ بِكُلِّهَا إلَّا لُقَمًا يَتَبَرَّكُ
بِأَكْلِهَا.
وَيَتَصَدَّقُ بِجِلْدِهَا أَوْ يَنْتَفِعُ بِهِ،
وَوَلَدُ الْوَاجِبَةِ يُذْبَحُ، وَلَهُ أَكْلُ كُلِّهِ وَشُرْبُ فَاضِلِ
لَبَنِهَا.
وَلَا تَضْحِيَةَ لِرَقِيقٍ، فَإِنْ أَذِنَ سَيِّدُهُ
وَقَعَتْ لَهُ.
وَلَا يُضَحِّي مُكَاتَبٌ بِلَا إذْنٍ.
وَلَا
تَضْحِيَةَ عَنْ الْغَيْرِ بِغَيْرِ إذْنِهِ.
وَلَا عَنْ مَيِّتٍ
إنْ لَمْ يُوصِ بِهَا.
BOOK 60 .— SACRIFICES
Section
The
Sonna has introduced the custom of
sacrifices that are obligatory
only for
the person who has imposed them upon
himself as a duty. The
Sonna prescribes
moreover to him who would immolate a
victim upon the
tenth day of the
month Zul Hejja not to cut his
hair or his nails before
completing
this act of devotion, and to
discharge the duty in person, or
at
least be present. One cannot immolate
by way of sacrifice any other
animals but camels, bullocks, and
small cattle ; and the camels must have
attained their sixteenth year, the
bullocks and goats their third, and the
sheep their second. It matters
little if tho animal be male or
female or
castrated. Though a camel or a
bullock suffices for seven persons, and
one head of small cattle for
one person only, it is preferable to
immolate
a camel on one’s own account, a
bullock taking the second rank, a sheep
tho third, and a goat the last.
Seven head of small cattle are preferable
to a camel. It is commendable to
immolate a single head of small cattle
on one’s own account, rather than
to join with others in immolating a
camel. The animal sacrificed should
be exempt from defects that pre-
judice
the quantity or quality of the flesh
; one cannot take a thin
animal, or
one attacked by rabies ; or an
animal wanting an ear or an
eye ;
or a lame, sickly or manifestly mangy
beast. But there is no
objection to
immolating an animal that is but
slightly affected by ono
of these
physical defects, or one that has
lost its horns, or one that has
its ears split, torn, or pierced.
[j*As to mange, it is enough
that the animal should be affected
by it,
to however slight an extent,
to render it unsuitable for sacrifice.
This
is Shafii’s personal opinion.]
The hour of sacrifice on the
occasion of the pilgrimage, on the pre-
scribed day called yaum en nalir, is
that when the sun has reached the
height of a lance, after which one
must still pray two rakas and listen
to
two short sermons before proceeding
to the ceremony. It must be
finished
by the last of the three following
days, called ay yam at taslirik,
at
sunset. [It is merely preferable, but
not obligatory, that the sun
should
have risen to such and such a height
; for, strictly speaking, one
may proceed
to the ceremony as soon as the
sun has risen and the time
necessary
for the rakas and the sermons has
elapsed.]
The believer who has made
a vow to immolate a particular animal
by
saying, “ By God, I undertake to immolate
such-and-such an animal,”
must keep his
engagement at the hour prescribed ; but
if the animal
dies before this he
owes nothing unless he killed it
himself. In the latter
case he must
buy another animal of equal value
and sacrifice it. On
the other hand,
the believer who vows to sacrifice
an animal, and after-
wards specifies a
particular beast, must keep his engagement
at the hour
prescribed ; fbut if the
animal dies the original vow still remains
obligatory.
The act of immolation
should be accompanied by an intention ;
except in case of a particular
victim, for where one has already uttered
the words, This animal will
serve for my sacrifice.” A person who
does not perform the sacrifice
himself may express his intention either
at the moment he gives the
animal to his agent or when tho
latter
proceeds to the immolation.
The sacrificer may himself eat
tho flesh of a supererogatory victim,
or
give it to his guests, even though
the latter may be rich enough to
pay for their own meal ; in this
latter case, however, they may not be
permitted to take away any of
the flesh. For one’s private table one
may only dispose of a third, or,
according to one authority, of a half, of
the flesh. The rest, or, better
still, the whole, should be given to
the
poor ; with the exception, however,
of one or two mouthfuls which must
always be eaten as a sacrament. As
to the skin one may either give it
away or make use of it
oneself, as one chooses. In the case
of an
obligatory sacrifice a believer has
a right to eat the whole of the
victim,
as well as the young of
the animal immolated, which, though it
has a
separate existence, follows the
same rule as its mother. Milk left
in
the udder of the animal may
be drunk.
A slave may not sacrifice.
If his master authorises him to perform
such act of devotion, it is in
his master’s favour. Even a slave under-
going enfranchisement by contract may not
sacrifice without his master’s
consent.
Nor may one immolate a victim for a
third party without
his consent ; nor for
a deceased person who has not so
directed in his
will.
فصل [في العقيقة]
يُسَنُّ أَنْ يَعُقَّ عَنْ غُلَامٍ بِشَاتَيْنِ
وَجَارِيَةٍ بِشَاةٍ.
وَسِنُّهَا وَسَلَامَتُهَا، وَالْأَكْلُ
وَالتَّصَدُّقُ كَالْأُضْحِيَّةِ، وَيُسَنُّ طَبْخُهَا، وَلَا يُكْسَرُ
عَظْمٌ.
وَأَنْ تُذْبَحَ يَوْمَ سَابِعِ وِلَادَتِهِ وَيُسَمَّى
فِيهِ.
وَيُحْلَقَ رَأْسُهُ بَعْدَ ذَبْحِهَا، وَيُتَصَدَّقَ
بِزِنَتِهِ ذَهَبًا أَوْ فِضَّةً.
وَيُؤَذَّنَ فِي أُذُنِهِ حِينَ
يُولَدُ، وَيُحَنَّكَ بِتَمْرٍ.
Section
The Sonna has also
introduced the practice of a sacrifice
upon the
occasion of the first
shaving of a child’s head. This sacrifice
consists
of two shahs for a boy, and
one shah for a girl ; it being of
course under-
stood that the victim is
subject to the already mentioned prescriptions
as regards age, absence of physical
defects, and also as to the permission
of eating the flesh or giving
it to other persons to eat.
The Sonna requires for this
sacrifice in particular —
. That the
victim should be cooked without breaking
the bones.
. That it should be
immolated upon the seventh day after
the birth
of the child.
. That
on the same day the child should
be given a name.
. That the
child’s head should be shaved after
the sacrifice ; and tho
weight of
the hair in gold or silver given
to the poor.
. That the first
call to prayer should be uttered
into the child’s ear
immediately after
birth.
. That its palate should
be rubbed with dates.
كتاب الْأَطْعِمَةِ
BOOK 61— EATABLES
حَيَوَانُ الْبَحْرِ السَّمَكُ مِنْهُ حَلَالٌ كَيْفَ مَاتَ، وَكَذَا غَيْرُهُ
فِي الْأَصَحِّ، وَقِيلَ لَا، وَقِيلَ إنْ أُكِلَ مِثْلُهُ فِي الْبَرِّ حَلَّ،
وَإِلَّا فَلَا: كَكَلْبٍ وَحِمَارٍ وَمَا يَعِيشُ فِي بَرٍّ وَبَحْرٍ:
كَضِفْدَعٍ وَسَرَطَانٍ وَحَيَّةٍ حَرَامٌ.
وَحَيَوَانُ الْبَرِّ
يَحِلُّ مِنْهُ الْأَنْعَامُ وَالْخَيْلُ، وَبَقَرُ وَحْشٍ وَحِمَارُهُ، وَظَبْيٌ
وَضَبُعٌ وَضَبٌّ وَأَرْنَبٌ وَثَعْلَبٌ وَيَرْبُوعٌ وَفَنَكٌ وَسَمُّورٌ،
وَيَحْرُمُ بَغْلٌ وَحِمَارٌ أَهْلِيٌّ، وَكُلُّ ذِي نَابٍ مِنْ السِّبَاعِ
وَمِخْلَبٍ مِنْ الطَّيْرِ كَأَسَدٍ وَنَمِرٍ وَذِئْبٍ وَدُبٍّ وَفِيلٍ وَقِرْدٍ
وَبَازٍ وَشَاهِينِ وَصَقْرٍ وَنَسْرٍ وَعُقَابٍ وَكَذَا ابْنُ آوَى وَهِرَّةُ
وَحْشٍ فِي الْأَصَحِّ.
وَيَحْرُمُ مَا نُدِبَ قَتْلُهُ كَحَيَّةٍ
وَعَقْرَبٍ وَغُرَابٍ أَبْقَعَ وَحِدَأَةٍ وَفَأْرَةٍ وَكُلِّ سَبُعٍ ضَارٍ،
وَكَذَا رَخَمَةٌ وَبُغَاثَةٌ، وَالْأَصَحُّ حِلُّ غُرَابِ زَرْعٍ وَتَحْرِيمُ
بَبَّغَاء وَطَاوُوسٍ، وَتَحِلُّ نَعَامَةٌ وَكَرْكِيٌّ وَبَطٌّ وَإِوَزٌّ
وَدَجَاجٌ وَحَمَامٌ وَهُوَ كُلُّ مَا عَبَّ وَهَدَرَ وَمَا عَلَى شَكْلِ
عُصْفُورٍ، وَإِنْ اخْتَلَفَ لَوْنُهُ وَنَوْعُهُ كَعَنْدَلِيبِ وَصَعْوَةٍ
وَزُرْزُورٍ، لَا خُطَّافٌ، وَنَمْلٌ وَنَحْلٌ وَذُبَابٌ وَ حَشَرَاتٌ
كَخُنْفُسَاءَ وَدُودٍ.
وَكَذَا مَا تَوَلَّدَ مِنْ مَأْكُولٍ
وَغَيْرِهِ.
وَمَا لَا نَصَّ فِيهِ إنْ اسْتَطَابَهُ أَهْلُ
يَسَارٍ، وَ طِبَاعٍ سَلِيمَةٍ مِنْ الْعَرَبِ فِي حَالِ رَفَاهِيَةٍ حَلَّ،
وَإِنْ اسْتَخْبَثُوهُ فَلَا، وَإِنْ جُهِلَ اسْمُ حَيَوَانٍ سُئِلُوا وَعُمِلَ
بِتَسْمِيَتِهِمْ، وَإِنْ لَمْ يَكُنْ لَهُ اسْمٌ عِنْدَهُمْ اُعْتُبِرَ
بِالْأَشْبَهِ.
وَإِذَا ظَهَرَ تَغَيُّرُ لَحْمِ جَلَّالَةٍ حَرُمَ
أَكْلُهُ، وَقِيلَ يُكْرَهُ.
قُلْت: الْأَصَحُّ يُكْرَهُ،
وَاَللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ، فَإِنْ عُلِفَتْ طَاهِرًا فَطَابَ حَلَّ.
وَلَوْ
تَنَجَّسَ طَاهِرٌ كَخَلٍّ وَدِبْسٍ ذَائِبٍ حَرُمَ.
وَمَا كُسِبَ
بِمُخَامَرَةِ نَجِسٍ كَحِجَامَةٍ وَكَنْسٍ مَكْرُوهٌ، وَيُسَنُّ أَنْ لَا
يَأْكُلَهُ وَيُطْعِمَهُ رَقِيقَهُ وَنَاضِحَهُ.
وَيَحِلُّ جَنِينٌ
وُجِدَ مَيِّتًا فِي بَطْنِ مُذَكَّاةٍ.
وَمَنْ خَافَ عَلَى
نَفْسِهِ مَوْتًا أَوْ مَرَضًا مَخُوفًا وَوَجَدَ مُحَرَّمًا لَزِمَهُ
أَكْلُهُ.
وَقِيلَ يَجُوزُ.
فَإِنْ تَوَقَّعَ حَلَالاً
قَرِيبًا لَمْ يَجُزْ غَيْرُ سَدِّ الرَّمَقِ، وَإِلَّا فَفِي قَوْلٍ يَشْبَعُ،
وَالْأَظْهَرُ سَدُّ الرَّمَقِ إلَّا أَنْ يَخَافَ تَلَفًا إنْ اقْتَصَرَ.
وَلَهُ
أَكْلُ آدَمِيٍّ وَقَتْلُ مُرْتَدٍّ وَحَرْبِيٍّ، لَا ذِمِّيٍّ وَمُسْتَأْمَنٍ
وَصَبِيٍّ حَرْبِيٍّ.
قُلْت: الْأَصَحُّ حِلُّ قَتْلِ الصَّبِيِّ
وَالْمَرْأَةِ الْحَرْبِيَّيْنِ لِلْأَكْلِ، وَاَللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ.
وَلَوْ
وَجَدَ طَعَامَ غَائِبٍ أَكَلَ وَغَرِمَ، أَوْ حَاضِرٍ مُضْطَرٍّ لَمْ يَلْزَمْهُ
بَذْلُهُ إنْ لَمْ يَفْضُلْ عَنْهُ.
فَإِنْ آثَرَ مُسْلِمًا جَازَ،
أَوْ غَيْرَ مُضْطَرٍّ لَزِمَهُ إطْعَامُ مُضْطَرٍّ مُسْلِمٍ أَوْ ذِمِّيٍّ،
فَإِنْ امْتَنَعَ فَلَهُ قَهْرُهُ، وَإِنْ قَتَلَهُ.
وَإِنَّمَا
يَلْزَمُهُ بِعِوَضٍ نَاجِزٍ إنْ حَضَرَ، وَإِلَّا فَبِنَسِيئَةٍ، فَلَوْ
أَطْعَمَهُ وَلَمْ يَذْكُرْ عِوَضًا فَالْأَصَحُّ لَا عِوَضَ.
وَلَوْ
وَجَدَ مُضْطَرٌّ مَيْتَةً وَطَعَامَ غَيْرِهِ، أَوْ مُحْرِمٌ مَيْتَةً وَصَيْدًا
فَالْمَذْهَبُ أَكْلُهَا.
وَالْأَصَحُّ تَحْرِيمُ قَطْعِ بَعْضِهِ
لِأَكْلِهِ.
قُلْت: الْأَصَحُّ جَوَازُهُ، وَشَرْطُهُ فَقْدُ
الْمَيْتَةِ وَنَحْوِهَا، وَأَنْ يَكُونَ الْخَوْفُ فِي قَطْعِهِ أَقَلَّ،
وَيَحْرُمُ قَطْعُهُ لِغَيْرِهِ وَمِنْ مَعْصُومٍ، وَاَللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ.
BOOK 61— EATABLES
All manner of
fish may serve as lawful nourishment,
however they have
been killed or if
they have died a natural death ; f and
it is the same with
aquatic animals
that are not fish properly so
called. Some authorities,
however, maintain
that aquatic animals not comprised under
the
denomination of fish cannot be eaten ;
others consider that this
depends upon
whether their terrestrial namesakes are
eatable or not.
Consequently neither tho
dog-fish nor the sea-hog can be
eaten any
more than a dog or a pig.
Amphibians such as frogs, crayfish, and
serpents are all forbidden food.
Amongst animals living only upon
the land, the flesh of which may
lawfully be eaten, may be mentioned
cattle belonging to the camel,
bovine,
caprine, or ovine race ; one may
also eat the flesh of the horse,
the antelope, the onager, the
gazelle, the hyaena, the African lizard,
the
hare, the fox, the jerboa, the
fennec and the sable. On the other
hand,
the law forbids eating the
mule and the domestic ass ; all quadrupeds
and birds that have means of
defence such as claws and talons,
e.g. the
lion, leopard, wolf, bear,
elephant, monkey, falcon of any kind,
vulture,
and eagle ; fas well as the
jackal and wild cat. fForbidden also
is any
animal which it is
recommended to slay, such as a serpent,
scorpion,
Egyptian crow, kite, rat, and
in general any carnivorous animal, and
even the rakhama and the baghath .
fThe harvest crow may lawfully
be
eaten ; but not the parrot, nor the
peacock. One may eat the
ostrich,
crane, duck, goose, fowl, pigeon — by
which term is legally
understood any
bird that drinks by sucking in the
water and that coos —
sparrow of any
colour and species, e.g . nightingale,
bull-finch, starling ;
but one may
not eat swallows, ants, bees, flies,
nor any kind of vermin,
such as
beetles or worms. All animals born
of an animal that can be
eaten
and of one that cannot are forbidden.
As to those animals about
which the law makes no express provision,
they can be eaten if well-to-do
and respectable Arabs eat them under
ordinary circumstances ; but one must
abstain from food that such
persons
regard with abhorrence and eat only
in time of famine. Where
there is a
doubt as to the proper name by
which an animal should be
described
these same persons should be consulted.
If even they do not
know the
proper name of it, it may be
called by the name of the animal
that is like it.
An animal
of any kind is forbidden as food
if it eats ordure, and its
skin
shows traces of this habit. According
to others, however, the use
of such
an animaTs skin is merely blameworthy,
[f This latter doctrine
seems to me
to be preferred.] The flesh of such
an animal may, however,
be eaten
when the skin has lost its repulsive
quality, through the animal
being fed
for some time on pure and wholesome
food.
It is also forbidden to
make use of provisions that have become
impure, at least where it is
impossible to purify them, or to cut
away
the contaminated portion, as in
the case of liquids, such as vinegar
or
liquefied date syrup. This principle
is carried so far that it is
considered
blamable to eat food obtained
as the wages of some impure labour
such
as applying leeches or sweeping a
house. Such eatables are given, in
conformity with the Sonna, to slaves
and beasts of burden, not to free
men. A foetus found dead in the
body of an animal killed in accordance
with the precepts of the law
may serve as lawful nourishment.
Any
one who fears that he will die
of inanition, or at least fall
dangerously ill, should mako use of
any sort of eatable, even those most
rigorously forbidden, if there is a
hope of saving his life by so doing.
According, however, to other authorities
an individual who fears death
from
inanition is never obliged to eat
forbidden food, ho is merely
permitted
to do so ; and if he has near
by him eatables that are for-
bidden,
he may in no case partake of
more forbidden food than is
absolutely
necessary to keep him alive. Where
there are no eatables not
forbidden
within reach, he can, according to
one authority, oat forbidden
food until
he is replete ; *but most jurists
insist that no more may be
taken
than is absolutely necessary to keep
one alive, unless one fears
death if
the appetite is not completely satisfied.
In case of urgency
one may even
eat a human corpse, or kill an
apostate or an infidel not
subject
to Moslem authority in order to eat
him ; but one may never
kill for
this purpose an infidel subject of a
Moslem prince, or an infidel
minor
not so subject, nor an infidel who
has obtained a safe-conduct,
[fin case of
urgency one may kill and eat even a
minor or a woman
among infidels not
subject to Moslem authority.]
A person
suffering from hunger who can only
find eatables belonging
to an absent
person, has a right to take them on
condition of restoring
their equivalent in
kind or money ; but the owner of
eatables who has
immediate want of
them himself, is not obliged to
share them with
another suffering from
hunger who asks him to do so.
Such a sacrifice
is even forbidden unless
it is a Moslem who makes the
request. But
the person who is not
in immediate want of his own
provisions should
give to another who
asks for food, saying he is
suffering from hunger,
provided that other
is either a Moslem or an infidel
subject of one of
our princes ; and
in case of a refusal the owner may
even be forced to
comply, under
menace of death. Those who use their
right to take
another’s provisions should
restore the value immediately, if they
have
money with them ; but otherwise they
should be allowed time for
payment, f A
person who gives nourishment to a really
famished per-
son, without stipulating for
any recompense, is considered to have
acted
from generosity, and can claim
nothing for it. A person suffering from
hunger who finds a corpse, and at
the same time eatables not forbidden
but belonging to another, should,
according to our school, eat the corpse,
rather then take the eatables that
do not belong to him. Our school
extends this rule even to a person
in a state of Hiram who finds upon
the
sacred territory a corpse and a piece
of game that he could kill if
hunting
were not forbidden him. fThe
law forbids a Moslem to cut off a limb
of his body and eat it. [fThis
act is lawful if one is upon
the point of
dying of inanition and
cannot find even a corpse to eat,
and has a better
chance of remaining
alive by cutting off a bodily member
than by
braving hunger. But one may
in no case cut off a limb of
one’s own
body in order to nourish
another person, nor cut off the limb
of another
person under one’s protection
in order to nourish oneself.
كتاب الْمُسَابَقَةِ وَالْمُنَاضَلَةِ
BOOK 62 .— RACING AND SHOOTING COMPETITIONS
هُمَا سُنَّةٌ وَيَحِلُّ أَخْذُ عِوَضٍ عَلَيْهِمَا.
وَتَصِحُّ
الْمُنَاضَلَةُ عَلَى سِهَامٍ، وَكَذَا مَزَارِيقَ وَرِمَاحٍ وَرَمْيٍ
بِأَحْجَارٍ وَمَنْجَنِيقٍ، وَكُلِّ نَافِعٍ فِي الْحَرْبِ عَلَى
الْمَذْهَبِ.
لَا عَلَى كُرَةِ صَوْلَجَانٍ وَبُنْدُقٍ وَسِبَاحَةٍ
وَشِطْرَنْجٍ وَخَاتَمٍ، وَوُقُوفٍ عَلَى رِجْلٍ، وَمَعْرِفَةِ مَا فِي يَدِهِ،
وَتَصِحُّ الْمُسَابَقَةُ عَلَى خَيْلٍ، وَكَذَا فِيلٌ وَبَغْلٌ وَحِمَارٌ فِي
الْأَظْهَرِ، لَا طَيْرٌ وَصِرَاعٌ فِي الْأَصَحِّ، وَالْأَظْهَرُ أَنَّ
عَقْدَهُمَا، لَازِمٌ لَا جَائِزٌ فَلَيْسَ لِأَحَدِهِمَا فَسْخُهُ، وَلَا تَرْكُ
الْعَمَلِ قَبْلَ الشُّرُوعِ وَبَعْدَهُ، وَلَا زِيَادَةٌ وَنَقْصٌ فِيهِ، وَلَا
فِي مَالٍ.
وَشَرْطُ الْمُسَابَقَةِ عِلْمُ الْمَوْقِفِ
وَالْغَايَةِ، وَتَسَاوِيهِمَا فِيهِمَا، وَتَعْيِينُ الْفَرَسَيْنِ
وَيَتَعَيَّنَانِ، وَإِمْكَانُ سَبْقِ كُلِّ وَاحِدٍ، وَالْعِلْمُ بِالْمَالِ
الْمَشْرُوطِ.
وَيَجُوزُ شَرْطُ الْمَالِ مِنْ غَيْرِهِمَا بِأَنْ
يَقُولَ الْإِمَامُ أَوْ أَحَدُ الرَّعِيَّةِ: مَنْ سَبَقَ مِنْكُمَا فَلَهُ
فِي بَيْتِ الْمَالِ أَوْ فَلَهُ عَلَيَّ كَذَا.
وَمِنْ أَحَدِهِمَا
فَيَقُولُ إنْ سَبَقَتْنِي فَلَكَ عَلَيَّ كَذَا أَوْ سَبَقْتُك فَلَا شَيْءَ
عَلَيْك فَإِنْ شَرَطَ أَنَّ مَنْ سَبَقَ مِنْهُمَا فَلَهُ عَلَى الْآخَرِ كَذَا
لَمْ يَصِحَّ إلَّا بِمُحَلِّلٍ فَرَسُهُ كُفْءٌ لِفَرَسَيْهِمَا، فَإِنْ
سَبَقَهُمَا أَخَذَ الْمَالَيْنِ، وَإِنْ سَبَقَاهُ وَجَاءَا مَعًا فَلَا شَيْءَ
لِأَحَدٍ، وَإِنْ جَاءَ مَعَ أَحَدِهِمَا فَمَالُ هَذَا لِنَفْسِهِ، وَمَالُ
الْمُتَأَخِّرِ لِلْمُحَلِّلِ وَلِلَّذِي مَعَهُ، وَقِيلَ لِلْمُحَلِّلِ فَقَطْ،
وَإِنْ جَاءَ أَحَدُهُمَا ثُمَّ الْمُحَلِّلُ ثُمَّ الْآخَرُ فَمَالُ الْآخَرِ
لِلْأَوَّلِ فِي الْأَصَحِّ.
وَإِنْ تَسَابَقَ ثَلَاثَةٌ
فَصَاعِدًا، وَشُرِطَ لِلثَّانِي مِثْلُ الْأَوَّلِ فَسَدَ، وَدُونُهُ يَجُوزُ
فِي الْأَصَحِّ.
وَسَبْقُ إبِلٍ بِكَتِفٍ، وَخَيْلٍ بِعُنُقٍ،
وَقِيلَ بِالْقَوَائِمِ فِيهِمَا.
وَيُشْتَرَطُ لِلْمُنَاضَلَةِ
بَيَانُ أَنَّ الرَّمْيَ مُبَادَرَةٌ وَهِيَ أَنْ يَبْدُرَ أَحَدُهُمَا
بِإِصَابَةِ الْعَدَدِ الْمَشْرُوطِ، أَوْ مُحَاطَّةٌ، وَهِيَ أَنْ تُقَابَلَ
إصَابَاتُهُمَا، وَيُطْرَحَ الْمُشْتَرَكُ فَمَنْ زَادَ بِعَدَدِ كَذَا
فَنَاضِلٌ، وَبَيَانُ عَدَدِ نُوَبِ الرَّمْيِ وَالْإِصَابَةِ، وَمَسَافَةِ
الرَّمْيِ، وَقَدْرِ الْغَرَضِ طُولاً وَعَرْضًا إلَّا أَنْ يَعْقِدَ بِمَوْضِعٍ
فِيهِ غَرَضٌ مَعْلُومٌ، فَيُحْمَلُ الْمُطْلَقُ عَلَيْهِ، وَلْيُبَيِّنَا صِفَةَ
الرَّمْيِ مِنْ قَرْعٍ، وَهُوَ إصَابَةُ الشَّنِّ بِلَا خَدْشٍ، أَوْ خَزْقٍ
وَهُوَ أَنْ يَثْقُبَهُ وَلَا يَثْبُتَ فِيهِ، أَوْ خَسْقٍ وَهُوَ أَنْ يَثْبُتَ
فِيهِ، أَوْ مَرْقٍ، وَهُوَ أَنْ يَنْفُذَ، فَإِنْ أَطْلَقَا اقْتَضَى الْقَرْعَ،
وَيَجُوزُ عِوَضُ الْمُنَاضَلَةِ مِنْ حَيْثُ يَجُوزُ عِوَضُ الْمُسَابَقَةِ
وَبِشَرْطِهِ، وَلَا يُشْتَرَطُ تَعْيِينُ قَوْسٍ وَسَهْم، فَإِنْ عُيِّنَ لَغَا،
وَجَازَ إبْدَالُهُ بِمِثْلِهِ، فَإِنْ شُرِطَ مَنْعُ إبْدَالِهِ فَسَدَ
الْعَقْدُ، وَالْأَظْهَرُ اشْتِرَاطُ بَيَانِ الْبَادِئِ بِالرَّمْيِ.
وَلَوْ
حَضَرَ جَمْعٌ لِلْمُنَاضَلَةِ فَانْتَصَبَ زَعِيمَانِ يَخْتَارَانِ أَصْحَابًا
جَازَ، وَلَا يَجُوزُ شَرْطُ تَعْيِينِهِمَا بِقُرْعَةٍ، فَإِنْ اخْتَارَ
غَرِيبًا ظَنَّهُ رَامِيًا فَبَانَ خِلَافُهُ بَطَلَ الْعَقْدُ فِيهِ، وَسَقَطَ
مِنْ الْحِزْبِ الْآخَرِ وَاحِدٌ، وَفِي بُطْلَانِ الْبَاقِي قَوْلَا
الصَّفْقَةِ، فَإِنْ صَحَّحْنَا فَلَهُمْ جَمِيعًا الْخِيَارُ، فَإِنْ أَجَازُوا
وَتَنَازَعُوا فِيمَنْ يَسْقُطُ بَدَلُهُ فَسَدَ الْعَقْدُ.
وَإِذَا
نَضَلَ حِزْبٌ قُسِمَ الْمَالُ بِحَسَبِ الْإِصَابَةِ، وَقِيلَ بِالسَّوِيَّةِ،
وَيُشْتَرَطُ فِي الْإِصَابَةِ الْمَشْرُوطَةِ أَنْ تَحْصُلَ بِالنَّضْلِ، فَلَوْ
تَلِفَ وَتَرٌ أَوْ قَوْسٌ أَوْ عَرَضَ شَيْءٌ انْصَدَمَ بِهِ السَّهْمُ
وَأَصَابَ بِهِ حُسِبَ لَهُ، وَإِلَّا لَمْ يُحْسَبْ عَلَيْهِ، وَلَوْ نَقَلَتْ
الرِّيحُ الْغَرَضَ فَأَصَابَ مَوْضِعَهُ حُسِبَ لَهُ وَإِلَّا فَلَا يُحْسَبُ
عَلَيْهِ.
وَلَوْ شُرِطَ خَسْقٌ فَثَقَبَ وَثَبَتَ ثُمَّ سَقَطَ،
أَوْ لَقِيَ صَلَابَةً فَسَقَطَ حُسِبَ لَهُ.
BOOK 62 .— RACING AND SHOOTING COMPETITIONS
The Sonna permits challenges to
racing matches or shooting com-
petitions
even for a prize. The shooting may
lawfully be effected not
only with
arrows, but according to our school
also with javelins, lances,
stones,
balisters, or other weapon of war.
On the other hand, the law
forbids
challenges to a game of mall on
horseback, throwing the ball,
swimming,
chess, or the game of rings ; it
forbids also challenges to
certain bodily
exercises, such as standing upon one foot
; and challenges
to certain games of
chance, as, for instance, guessing the
number of the
objects held closed in
the hand. The law allows challenges
as to horse
races, *and even as
to races of elephants, mules or
donkeys ; f challenges
are forbidden only
in case of a flight of birds, or
of a fight.
Challenges to racing
matches or shooting competitions become
obligatory on both sides once they
have been accepted ; neither of the
parties can then cancel the
agreement of his own accord without the
other’s consent. A person who accepts a
challenge cannot withdraw
from it, either
before acting in prosecution of it
or after. And neither
the conditions
of the challenge, nor the prize, can
be altered in any
way after it
has been accepted.
Essential conditions
for a challenge to a racing match are —
. That both parties are
acquainted with the place of departure and
the goal of the course.
.
That each has an equal chanco with
regard to the lino travelled
and the
distance.
. That it is a matter
of certain specified horses, belonging to
certain
specified persons.
. That it
is possible for either party to
reach the goal first.
. That
both know the amount of the prize.
The prize may be offered by
one of the parties or by a third
person,
e.q. the Sovereign. In this
last case it is offered in the
following words : —
“ To whichever of
you two whose courser arrives first I
will give a
draft upon the Treasury
for so much,” or “ I will pay so
much.” A
prize offered by one of
the competitors is in these terms: “
If you win
this race I will pay
you so much,” and one may if
one likes add, “ and
if I win you
need not give me anything.” The
parties are forbidden to
offer each
other an equal prize, unless a third
competitor takes part in
the race,
without any wager, and his courser
is strong enough to rival
the
coursers of the two parties who have
challenged each other. In
this last
case, however, the law admits the
following distinctions : —
. If the
third courser, whose master has offered
no prize, reaches
the goal first,
his master takes the wagers of both
the other competitors.
. If the
coursers of the parties who gave the
challenge beat the third
courser, or
if the three arrive together at the
goal, no one pays anything.
.
If the third courser reaches the
goal at the same time as one of
the others, the master of the
latter keeps his wager and divides
that of
the one who has lost
with the master of the third courser.
. If the courser of one
of the parties who gave the
challenge wins
and the courser of
the third party comes in second,
*j*the owner of the
winning horse
takes the wager of the other
challenging party.
Where three or
more persons challenge one another, the
agreement
becomes illegal if the second
party stipulates for a prize equal to
that of
the first ; fbut if the
price stipulated by the second person
remains
lower than that which the
first reserves to himself in case of
success, t he
validity of the contract
is admitted.
In a camel race the
animal whose shoulder first reaches the
goal wins
the prize ; in a horse
race the result depends on whether
the neck reaches
the goal ; according to
some authorities victory is always decided
by
the forefeet reaching the goal.
In a shooting competition it is
necessary to stipulate in advance —
. Whether it is of the
kind called mobadara , where the prize is
gained
by whoever first hits the
mark a certain number of times ; or
of the kind
called mohatta, whore
the winner is the man who first
hits the mark a
certain number of
times in excess of his rival.
. The number of times each
person may fire, as a maximum ; and
the number of times he must
hit the mark.
. The distance,
the length and the breadth of the
target, except in
case of a habitual
known shooting range.
. What is
meant by “ hitting the target.” Thus
it may be agreed
that it is
enough to hit the target without
leaving a mark, or that the
projectile
must pierce the target without necessarily
remaining fixed
in it, or that it
must remain so fixed, or that it
must traverse it. Where
not otherwise
specified the first of these arrangements
is assumed to
have been come to.
The prize at a shooting competition
is subject to the same rules as
in the case of a racing match,
both as regards the cases in which
it
is permitted to be offered, and
as regards the conditions that must be
satisfied. But it is not necessary
to use certain particular bows and
arrows, and a clause to that effect
would even be null and void. Thus,
at any moment a bow or an
arrow may be changed for another of
the
same sort ; and any stipulation
interfering with this liberty to change
would cause the agreement to become
illegal. *It is necessary to stipu-
late
in advance which of the competitors
is to shoot first.
Where a great
number of competitors wish to take
part in the shoot-
ing match, it is
lawful for two of them to be
chosen as chiefs, and for
these in
their turn to choose the shooters
who will form their troop ; but
the
law does not permit this to be
decided by casting lots. When one of
the chiefs has placed in the
number of the shooters some one he
supposed
had come to take part in
the shooting, but who appears later
to have
been present at the contest
merely by chance, the choice is null
and void
as regards that individual,
and one of the competitors in the
rival group
must abstain from taking
part in the shooting. As to the
other in-
dividuals chosen to make up
the two groups, there is the same
divergence of opinion as upon the
subject of the combination of an
illegal with a valid contract ; but
if it is admitted that the choice
of the
others remains intact, each
competitor should be given a right of
option, as to whether ho desires
to adhere to the agreement or to
with-
draw from it. Even where all
declare that they wish to continue the
shooting, the agreement is ij) so
facto dissolved, if no agreement can be
come to as to which person
shall be eliminated for the individual
wrongly
chosen by the chief of the
opposite troop. In this sort of
shooting the
prize is shared among
the winners in proportion to the
number of times
they have each hit
the mark ; or, according to other
authorities, in
equal parts.
When
special stipulations are made as to
what is to be understood
by “
hitting the mark,” arrows that do
not hit it in the manner agreed
upon do not count ; but it is
of no consequence if the shooter when
discharging the arrow breaks the
bow-string or the bow, or if the
arrow
hits the mark only by glancing
off from some object, unexpectedly
presenting itself between the shooter
and the target. Even where the
wind
carries the target away after the
arrow has sped, it must be con-
sidered to have hit the mark, if
it touches the place where the target
was at the moment it left the
bow. Arrows that miss the mark, either
because they glance off from
something, or because the target is
carried
away by the wind, are not
counted in favour of the opponent. But
if it is agreed that an arrow
must remain fixed in the target, an
arrow
that pierces it and remains
fixed there may be counted, even though
it afterwards falls out. And it
is the same with an arrow that
does not
pierce the target, because
it hits it at some'spot of
exceptional hardness.
كتاب الَأيْمَانِ
BOOK 63 . — OATHS
لَا تَنْعَقِدُ إلَّا بِذَاتِ اللَّهِ تَعَالَى أَوْ صِفَةٍ لَهُ كَقَوْلِهِ:
وَاَللَّهِ، وَرَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ وَالْحَيِّ الَّذِي لَا يَمُوتُ، وَمَنْ
نَفْسِي بِيَدِهِ، وَكُلِّ اسْمٍ مُخْتَصٍّ بِهِ سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَى.
وَلَا
يُقْبَلُ قَوْلُهُ: لَمْ أُرِدْ بِهِ الْيَمِينَ.
وَمَا انْصَرَفَ
إلَيْهِ سُبْحَانَهُ عِنْدَ الْإِطْلَاقِ كَالرَّحِيمِ، وَالْخَالِقِ،
وَالرَّازِقِ، وَالرَّبِّ تَنْعَقِدُ بِهِ الْيَمِينُ إلَّا أَنْ يُرِيدَ
غَيْرَهُ، وَمَا اُسْتُعْمِلَ فِيهِ وَفِي غَيْرِهِ سَوَاءٌ: كَالشَّيْءِ
وَالْمَوْجُودِ وَالْعَالِمِ وَالْحَيِّ لَيْسَ بِيَمِينٍ إلَّا بِنِيَّةِ،
وَالصِّفَةُ كَوَعَظَمَةِ اللَّهِ وَعِزَّتِهِ وَكِبْرِيَائِهِ وَكَلَامِهِ
وَعِلْمِهِ وَقُدْرَتِهِ وَمَشِيئَتِهِ يَمِينٌ، إلَّا أَنْ يَنْوِيَ بِالْعِلْمِ
الْمَعْلُومَ، وَبِالْقُدْرَةِ الْمَقْدُورَ.
وَلَوْ قَالَ وَحَقِّ
اللَّهِ فَيَمِينٌ إلَّا أَنْ يُرِيدَ الْعِبَادَاتِ.
وَحُرُوفُ
الْقَسَمِ بَاءٌ وَوَاوٌ وَتَاءٌ: كَبِاللَّهِ وَوَاللَّهِ وَتَاللَّهِ،
وَتَخْتَصُّ التَّاءُ بِاَللَّهِ تَعَالَى.
وَلَوْ قَالَ أَللَّهُ
وَرَفَعَ أَوْ نَصَبَ أَوْ جَرَّ فَلَيْسَ بِيَمِينٍ إلَّا بِنِيَّةٍ.
وَلَوْ
قَالَ أَقْسَمْت أَوْ أُقْسِمُ، أَوْ حَلَفْت أَوْ أَحْلِفُ بِاَللَّهِ
لَأَفْعَلَنَّ فَيَمِينٌ إنْ نَوَاهَا أَوْ أَطْلَقَ، وَإِنْ قَالَ قَصَدْتُ
خَبَرًا مَاضِيًا أَوْ مُسْتَقْبَلاً صُدِّقَ بَاطِنًا وَكَذَا ظَاهِرًا عَلَى
الْمَذْهَبِ.
وَلَوْ قَالَ لِغَيْرِهِ أُقْسِمُ عَلَيْكَ بِاَللَّهِ
أَوْ أَسْأَلُك بِاَللَّهِ لَتَفْعَلَنَّ وَأَرَادَ يَمِينَ نَفْسِهِ فَيَمِينٌ،
وَإِلَّا فَلَا.
وَلَوْ قَالَ إنْ فَعَلْتُ كَذَا فَأَنَا
يَهُودِيٌّ أَوْ بَرِيءٌ مِنْ الْإِسْلَامِ فَلَيْسَ بِيَمِينٍ.
وَمَنْ
سَبَقَ لِسَانُهُ إلَى لَفْظِهَا بِلَا قَصْدٍ، لَمْ تَنْعَقِدْ.
وَتَصِحُّ
عَلَى مَاضٍ وَمُسْتَقْبَلٍ.
وَهِيَ مَكْرُوهَةٌ إلَّا فِي
طَاعَةٍ.
فَإِنْ حَلَفَ عَلَى تَرْكِ وَاجِبٍ أَوْ فِعْلِ حَرَامٍ
عَصَى وَلَزِمَهُ الْحِنْثُ، وَكَفَّارَةٌ أَوْ تَرْكِ مَنْدُوبٍ، أَوْ فِعْلِ
مَكْرُوهٍ سُنَّ حِنْثُهُ وَعَلَيْهِ الْكَفَّارَةُ.
أَوْ تَرْكِ
مُبَاحٍ أَوْ فِعْلِهِ فَالْأَفْضَلُ تَرْكُ الْحِنْثِ، وَقِيلَ الْحِنْثُ.
وَلَهُ
تَقْدِيمُ كَفَّارَةٍ بِغَيْرِ صَوْمٍ عَلَى حِنْثٍ جَائِزٍ قِيلَ:
وَحَرَامٍ.
قُلْتُ: هَذَا أَصَحُّ وَاَللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ.
وَكَفَّارَةِ
ظِهَارٍ عَلَى الْعَوْدِ.
وَقَتْلٍ عَلَى الْمَوْتِ.
وَمَنْذُورٍ
مَالِيٍّ.
BOOK 63 . — OATHS
Section
An
oath creates an obligation for the
person uttering it only when there
is invoked one of the attributes
or qualities of God, e.g . in the phrases
“ by God,” “ by the Master of
all created things,” “ by Him that lives
and never dies,” “ by Him in
whose hand is my life,” and in
general for
all expressions employed to
designate the supreme being. When one
makes use of one of these
expressions one may not add a reservation
to the effect that one did not
intend to take an oath ; but if
one makes
use of an expression
which, though it may be used to
designate God,
may also be used of a
human being, such a reservation may be
added.
Such expressions are “ the
merciful,” “ the creator,” “ the nourisher,”
“
the lord,” etc. Expressions that are
strictly applicable both to God
and
man, such as “ being,” “ he who
exists,” “ the wise,” or “ he who
is
in life,” constitute an oath only
where such is the intention of the
person using them. The use of
one of the qualities of God as a
sub-
stantive, e.g . “ by the greatness of
God,” “ by His glory,” “ by His word,”
“ by His majesty,” “ by His
knowledge,” “ by His power,” or “ by His
will,” constitute an oath if one
had not the intention of designating the
knowledge, poAver, etc., that emanate
from him upon men. Thus the
expression “ by the hakk of God ”
implies an oath Avhere the word
liakk is used in the sense of
“ justice ” ; but not where it is
used in the
sense of “ laAV,” for
then it means the religious ceremonies
of which God
may exact the
accomplishment as His right. Arabic
prefixes, denoting
an oath are bi , wa, ta
; it being understood that the prefix
ta is only
employed with the noun
Allah ; in default of these prefixes
the noun
Allah, Avithout distinction
betAveen the nominative, the accusatKe,
and the genitive, implies an oath
only Avhere such is the intention of
the person using it. The words, “ I
swear ” or “ I will swear,” “ I take
oath
” or “ I will take oath by God that
I will do such and such a thing,”
constitute an oath whether such is
the intention or whether they are
pronounced Avithout any special intention.
Only Avhen one formally
declares that
one did not intend to make an
oath, but merely to state
a present
or future fact, one has a presumption
in one’s favour that one
merely
intended to state that fact, and
nothing more, and to stato it in
explicit terms,
according to our school. Ho who says
to some one,
“ By God, I implore
you,” or “ By God, I ask you to
do such-and-such a
thing,” has taken
an oath if such was his intention ;
but it is no oath if
he says,
“ If I did that I am a Jew,” or “ I
abjure Islam,” whatever his
intention may
be. And it is the same where,
without thinking of their
meaning, one
utters words which necessarily imply an
oath. But it is
of small consequence
whether one uses the past tense or
the aorist.
It is blamable to
take an oath that has not for
its special object a
work pleasing
to God. A person commits a grave sin
who takes an
oath to neglect an
obligatory act of devotion, or to
accomplish some
forbidden act. In such
case he must perjure himself and
have recourse
to expiation. And the
Sonna prescribes expiation to any one
who swears
to abstain from some
commendable act, or to accomplish a blamable
action ; but in the case of
some indifferent act one may have
sworn to
refrain from or to
accomplish, it is always better to
keep one’s oath.
Some authorities,
however, prefer even then that a person
should perjure
himself and have recourse
to expiation, on the principle that
any oath
is blamable when its object
is not some work certainly pleasing
to God.
Where the expiation does not
consist in a fast, one may acquit oneself
of it in anticipation, before
perjuring oneself, in all cases where such
perjury is lawful ; and even, according
to some authorities, where it is
forbidden, [fl adopt the doctrine of
the latter.]
By virtue of this
principle one may acquit oneself of
an expiation
due for injurious comparison,
before resuming cohabitation ; or of
one
due for homicide before the death of
the victim ; and one may
perform the
expiation prescribed for the non-fulfilment
of a vow before
that non-fulfilment has
occurred, provided that the vow consists
merely
in a money obligation.
فصل [في صفة الكفارة]
يَتَخَيَّرُ فِي كَفَّارَةِ الْيَمِينِ
بَيْنَ عِتْقٍ كَالظِّهَارِ، وَإِطْعَامِ عَشَرَةِ مَسَاكِينَ لِكُلِّ مِسْكِينٍ
مُدُّ حَبٍّ مِنْ غَالِبِ قُوتِ بَلَدِهِ، وَكِسْوَتِهِمْ بِمَا يُسَمَّى
كِسْوَةً كَقَمِيصٍ أَوْ عِمَامَةٍ أَوْ إزَارٍ لَا خُفٍّ وَقُفَّازَيْنِ
وَمِنْطَقَةٍ، وَلَا يُشْتَرَطُ صَلَاحِيَّتُهُ لِلْمَدْفُوعِ إلَيْهِ فَيَجُوزُ
سَرَاوِيلُ صَغِيرٍ لِكَبِيرٍ لَا يَصْلُحُ لَهُ، وَقُطْنٌ، وَكَتَّانٌ وَحَرِيرٌ
لِامْرَأَةٍ، وَرَجُلٍ وَلَبِيسٍ لَمْ تَذْهَبْ قُوَّتُهُ، فَإِنْ عَجَزَ عَنْ
الثَّلَاثَةِ لَزِمَهُ صَوْمُ ثَلَاثَةِ أَيَّامٍ.
وَلَا يَجِبُ
تَتَابُعُهَا فِي الْأَظْهَرِ، وَإِنْ غَابَ مَالُهُ انْتَظَرَهُ وَلَمْ يَصُمْ،
وَلَا يُكَفِّرُ عَبْدٌ بِمَالٍ إلَّا إذَا مَلَّكَهُ سَيِّدُهُ طَعَامًا أَوْ
كِسْوَةً، وَقُلْنَا يَمْلِكُ، بَلْ يُكَفِّرُ بِصَوْمٍ وَإِنْ ضَرَّهُ وَكَانَ
حَلَفَ وَحَنِثَ بِإِذْنِ سَيِّدِهِ صَامَ بِلَا إذْنٍ، أَوْ وُجِدَا بِلَا إذْنٍ
لَمْ يَصُمْ إلَّا بِإِذْنٍ، وَإِنْ أَذِنَ فِي أَحَدِهِمَا فَالْأَصَحُّ
اعْتِبَارُ الْحَلِفِ، وَمَنْ بَعْضُهُ حُرٌّ وَلَهُ مَالٌ يُكَفِّرُ بِطَعَامٍ
أَوْ كِسْوَةٍ لَا عِتْقٍ.
Section
A person who owes
expiation for perjury may at his
choice either
enfranchise a slave, of the
same quality as one enfranchised to
expiate
an injurious comparison, or give
to each of ten indigent persons a model
of vegetables, forming the principal
nourishment of that locality, or
clothe
them by giving them, e.g. a shirt, a
turban, or a cloak, but not
boots, a
pair of gloves, or a belt. The law
does not require that the
person
receiving the clothes must be able
to wear them ; and one may
give a
short pair of trousers to a tall
individual, and garments of cotton,
linen,
or silk indifferently to a man or to
a woman, and such old clothes
as
have not quite lost their utility. A
person who cannot perform his
expiation
in one of these three ways must
fast for three days, *not
necessarily
consecutive ; but whore this incapacity of
performance is
MINHAJ
ET TALIBIN
only temporary, as
when lie lias property elsewhere, he
should wait
until the means of
performing his expiation reach him, rather
than have
recourse immediately to a fast.
It is understood that a slave cannot
impose upon himself a pecuniary expiation,
unless his master supplies
him with
the provisions and clothing necessary for
acquitting himself
of his obligation, and
unless it is admitted that he may
become owner.
In default of such
liberality on the master’s part, or
when it is not
admitted that the
slave can ever become owner, and
consequently
donator, the slave must in
all cases have recourse to a fast,
provided
that this act does not
prejudice his work or his health.
And in this case
the fast can
take place without the master’s special
authorisation only
when he has authorised
the slave to take the oath and
then avoid its
fulfilment. But where,
on the other hand, these two acts
have taken
place without previous
authorisation the master may object to a
fast
prejudicial to the slave’s work
or health, f Where the master has
authorised his slave to swear but
not to forswear, or vice versa , it
is the
authorisation or want of
authorisation that decides, according to the
principles we have mentioned, whether
he can or cannot oppose a pre-
judicial
fast. A partially enfranchised slave, who
possesses savings,
should acquit himself
of his expiation by giving food and
clothing, but
not by freeing a slave.
فَصْلٌ [في الحلف على السكنى والمساكنة وغيرهما]
حَلَفَ لَا
يَسْكُنُهَا أَوْ لَا يُقِيمُ فِيهَا فَلْيَخْرُجْ فِي الْحَالِ.
فَإِنْ
مَكَثَ بِلَا عُذْرٍ حَنِثَ، وَإِنْ بَعَثَ مَتَاعَهُ، وَإِنْ اشْتَغَلَ
بِأَسْبَابِ الْخُرُوجِ: كَجَمْعِ مَتَاعٍ وَإِخْرَاجِ أَهْلٍ وَلُبْسِ ثَوْبٍ
لَمْ يَحْنَثْ.
وَلَوْ حَلَفَ لَا يُسَاكِنُهُ فِي هَذِهِ الدَّارِ
فَخَرَجَ أَحَدُهُمَا فِي الْحَالِ لَمْ يَحْنَثْ، وَكَذَا لَوْ بُنِيَ
بَيْنَهُمَا جِدَارٌ وَلِكُلِّ جَانِبٍ مَدْخَلٌ فِي الْأَصَحِّ.
وَلَوْ
حَلَفَ لَا يَدْخُلُهَا وَهُوَ فِيهَا أَوْ لَا يَخْرُجُ وَهُوَ خَارِجٌ فَلَا
حِنْثَ بِهَذَا، أَوْ لَا يَتَزَوَّجُ أَوْ لَا يَتَطَهَّرُ أَوْ لَا يَلْبَسُ
أَوْ لَا يَرْكَبُ أَوْ لَا يَقُومُ أَوْ لَا يَقْعُدُ فَاسْتَدَامَ هَذِهِ
الْأَحْوَالَ حَنِثَ.
قُلْت: تَحْنِيثُهُ بِاسْتِدَامَةِ
التَّزَوُّجِ، وَالتَّطَهُّرِ غَلَطٌ لِذُهُولٍ، وَاسْتِدَامَةُ طِيبٍ لَيْسَتْ
تَطَيُّبًا فِي الْأَصَحِّ، وَكَذَا وَطْءٌ وَصَوْمٌ وَصَلَاةٌ وَاَللَّهُ
أَعْلَمُ.
وَمَنْ حَلَفَ لَا يَدْخُلُ دَارًا حَنِثَ بِدُخُولِ
دِهْلِيزٍ دَاخِلَ الْبَابِ، أَوْ بَيْنَ بَابَيْنِ لَا بِدُخُولِ طَاقٍ قُدَّامَ
الْبَابِ، وَلَا بِصُعُودِ سَطْحٍ غَيْرِ مُحَوَّطٍ وَكَذَا مُحَوَّطٌ فِي
الْأَصَحِّ، وَلَوْ أَدْخَلَ يَدَهُ أَوْ رَأْسَهُ أَوْ رِجْلَهُ لَمْ يَحْنَثْ
فَإِنْ وَضَعَ رِجْلَيْهِ فِيهَا مُعْتَمِدًا عَلَيْهِمَا حَنِثَ، وَلَوْ
انْهَدَمَتْ فَدَخَلَ وَقَدْ بَقِيَ أَسَاسُ الْحِيطَانِ حَنِثَ، وَإِنْ صَارَتْ
فَضَاءً أَوْ جُعِلَتْ مَسْجِدًا أَوْ حَمَّامًا أَوْ بُسْتَانًا فَلَا.
وَلَوْ
حَلَفَ لَا يَدْخُلُ دَارَ زَيْدٍ حَنِثَ بِدُخُولِ مَا يَسْكُنُهَا بِمِلْكٍ،
لَا بِإِعَارَةٍ وَإِجَارَةٍ وَغَصْبٍ، إلَّا أَنْ يُرِيدَ مَسْكَنَهُ،
وَيَحْنَثُ بِمَا يَمْلِكُهُ وَلَا يَسْكُنُهُ إلَّا أَنْ يُرِيدَ
مَسْكَنَهُ.
وَلَوْ حَلَفَ لَا يَدْخُلُ دَارَ زَيْدٍ أَوْ لَا
يُكَلِّمُ عَبْدَهُ أَوْ زَوْجَتَهُ فَبَاعَهُمَا أَوْ طَلَّقَهَا فَدَخَلَ
وَكَلَّمَ لَمْ يَحْنَثْ إلَّا أَنْ يَقُولَ دَارِهِ هَذِهِ أَوْ زَوْجَتَهُ
هَذِهِ أَوْ عَبْدَهُ هَذَا فَيَحْنَثُ إلَّا أَنْ يُرِيدَ مَا دَامَ
مِلْكُهُ.
وَلَوْ حَلَفَ لَا يَدْخُلُهَا مِنْ ذَا الْبَابِ
فَنُزِعَ وَنُصِبَ فِي مَوْضِعٍ آخَرَ مِنْهَا لَمْ يَحْنَثْ بِالثَّانِي،
وَيَحْنَثُ بِالْأَوَّلِ فِي الْأَصَحِّ.
أَوْ لَا يَدْخُلُ بَيْتًا
حَنِثَ بِكُلِّ بَيْتٍ مِنْ طِينٍ أَوْ حَجَرٍ أَوْ آجُرٍّ أَوْ خَشَبٍ أَوْ
خَيْمَةٍ وَلَا يَحْنَثُ بِمَسْجِدٍ وَحَمَّامٍ وَكَنِيسَةٍ وَغَارِ جَبَلٍ.
أَوْ
لَا يَدْخُلُ عَلَى زَيْدٍ فَدَخَلَ بَيْتًا فِيهِ زَيْدٌ وَغَيْرُهُ حَنِثَ،
وَفِي قَوْلٍ إنْ نَوَى الدُّخُولَ عَلَى غَيْرِهِ دُونَهُ لَمْ يَحْنَثْ، فَلَوْ
جَهِلَ حُضُورَهُ فَخِلَافُ حِنْثِ النَّاسِي.
قُلْت: وَلَوْ
حَلَفَ لَا يُسَلِّمُ عَلَيْهِ فَسَلَّمَ عَلَى قَوْمٍ هُوَ فِيهِمْ
وَاسْتَثْنَاهُ لَمْ يَحْنَثْ، وَإِنْ أَطْلَقَ حَنِثَ فِي الْأَظْهَرِ،
وَاَللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ.
Section
An oath taken e.<y.
by a tenant “ to stop no longer,” or
“ to live no
longer” in a house
obliges him to quit it immediately,
under penalty
of becoming perjured if
ho personally remains in it without
lawful excuse.
The time required to
remove his effects or his family or
to dress himself
does not constitute a
case of perjury. An oath “ not to
remain as the
neighbour of so-and-so
in such and such a house ” is
accomplished by
the swearer or his
neighbour quitting the house immediately,
for even
by the house being divided
into two by a wall, each part with a
separate
entrance. An oath “ not to
enter a certain house,” or “ not to
leave it,”
uttered when respectively
inside or outside, implies no obligation
to
change one’s position ; for he who
remains where he is neither leaves
nor enters. Where, however, the act
from which one must abstain does
not
consist in a simple isolated fact, like
entering or leaving a house,
but in
some continuous course of action, as,
for example, when one
swears not to
marry, or wash, or dress, or ride,
or stand up, or sit down
while
being already married, etc., one becomes
perjured by the fact of
remaining
married, etc. [This rule is a mistake
as to marriage or
ablution ; fand
similarly one cannot regard as “ perfuming
oneself ”
the mere fact of not
having removed the perfumes with which
one had
previously scented oneself. The
rule is also applicable to an oath
not
to indulge in coition, not to
fast, or not to pray.]
A person
who swears not to enter such-and-such a
house becomes
perjured if he enters
the vestibule ; and it does not matter
whether
the vestibule is situated between
the door and the rooms, or between
the
front door and the back door ;
but there is no breaking of the
oath if
he enters the arcade in
front of the door, or mounts upon
the terrace
surrounded or not by a
wall. Nor is there any breaking of
the oath by
putting into the house
one’s hand, head, or foot ; but the
introduction
of both feet supporting the
body constitutes a perjury. The prohibition
to enter remains intact in the
case of a fall of the house, as
long as the
foundations of the walls
are still visible, and then applies
to the site.
It ceases only when
the land has been completely levelled,
or when the
house has become a place
open to the public, such as a mosque
or a
bath-house, or where the site
has become a garden with the outer walls
partly left standing as an inclosure.
A person who swears “ not to
enter Zaid’s house ” cannot enter a
house occupied by Zaid as owner,
but may enter one occupied by Zaid
as borrower, lodger, or usurper ;
unless one intended to refer in general
to any house inhabited by Zaid,
for in that case the prohibition applies
to any house which Zaid borrows,
rents or usurps. The phrase cited
includes also any house of which
Zaid is the owner, though not living
in it ; unless one intended to refer
specially to his habitation and not to
his ownership. In accordance with
the same principles an oath “ not
to
enter Zaid’s house ” or “ not to
speak to Zaid’s slave ” or “ wife,”
ceases to be of effect as
regards a house or slave which Zaid
has sold, or
a wife whom he has
repudiated ; but where one refers to
such-and-
such a house, or such-and-such a
wife, or such-and-such a slave
of Zaid,
one is understood to refer to that
particular building or
person. In that
case words indicating that they belong
to Zaid merely
make the definition
more exact. These last quoted expressions
would
only admit that the validity
of the oath should cease with the
actual
right of property or status
of marriage if such was manifestly
the inten-
tion of the person taking
the oath. j*An oath “ not to enter
the house
by such-and-such a door ” does
not prevent one’s entering by that door
when it has been removed to
another place. An oath “ not to enter
any room ” applies to every room,
large or small, or any shed made of
clay, stone, brick, or wood, and
even to a tent ; but not to a
mosque, a
bath-house, a church, or a
mountain cave. Similarly, an oath “ not to
go to Zaid’s ” is violated by
entering the chamber occupied by Zaid in
common with another person, at least
according to one jurist, unless the
person taking the oath intended to
visit this person and not Zaid. As
to
the consequences of a visit to a
place where the presence of Zaid was
not
known there is the same
controversy as to whether the violation
of an
oath by inadvertence constitutes
perjury. [*An oath “ not to salute
Zaid ” is violated by saluting a
group of men including Zaid, unless he
is specially excepted.]
فَصْلٌ [في الحلف على أكل وشرب مع بيان ما يتناوله]
حَلَفَ لَا يَأْكُلُ الرُّءُوسَ وَلَا نِيَّةَ لَهُ حَنِثَ بِرُءُوسٍ تُبَاعُ
وَحْدَهَا، لَا طَيْرٍ وَحُوتٍ وَصَيْدٍ إلَّا بِبَلَدٍ تُبَاعُ فِيهِ
مُفْرَدَةً، وَالْبَيْضُ يُحْمَلُ عَلَى مُزَايِلٍ بَائِضَهُ فِي الْحَيَاةِ
كَدَجَاجٍ وَنَعَامَةٍ وَحَمَامٍ لَا سَمَكٍ وَجَرَادٍ.
وَاللَّحْمُ
عَلَى نَعَمٍ وَخَيْلٍ وَوَحْشٍ وَطَيْرٍ لَا سَمَكٍ وَشَحْمِ بَطْنٍ، وَكَذَا
كَرِشٍ وَكَبِدٍ وَطِحَالٍ وَقَلْبٍ فِي الْأَصَحّ، وَالْأَصَحُّ تَنَاوُلُهُ
لَحْمَ رَأْسٍ وَلِسَانٍ وَشَحْمِ ظَهْرٍ وَجَنْبٍ، وَأَنَّ شَحْمَ الظَّهَرِ لَا
يَتَنَاوَلُهُ الشَّحْمُ، وَأَنَّ الْأَلْيَةَ وَالسَّنَامَ لَيْسَا شَحْمًا
وَلَا لَحْمًا، وَالْأَلْيَةُ لَا تَتَنَاوَلُ سَنَامًا وَلَا يَتَنَاوَلُهَا،
وَالدَّسَمُ يَتَنَاوَلُهُمَا، وَشَحْمَ ظَهْرٍ وَبَطْنٍ وَكُلَّ دُهْنٍ،
وَلَحْمُ الْبَقَرِ يَتَنَاوَلُ جَامُوسًا.
وَلَوْ قَالَ مُشِيرًا
إلَى حِنْطَةٍ لَا آكُلُ هَذِهِ حَنِثَ بِأَكْلِهَا عَلَى هَيْئَتِهَا
وَبِطَحْنِهَا وَخَبْزِهَا، وَلَوْ قَالَ لَا آكُلُ هَذِهِ الْحِنْطَةَ حَنِثَ
بِهَا مَطْبُوخَةً وَنِيئَةً وَمَقْلِيَّةً لَا بِطَحِينِهَا وَسَوِيقِهَا
وَعَجِينِهَا وَخُبْزِهَا، وَلَا يُتَنَاوَلُ رُطَبٌ تَمْرًا وَلَا بُسْرًا،
وَلَا عِنَبٌ زَبِيبًا وَكَذَا الْعَكُوسُ.
وَلَوْ قَالَ لَا آكُلُ
هَذَا الرُّطَبَ فَتَتَمَّرَ فَأَكَلَهُ، أَوْ لَا أُكَلِّمُ ذَا الصَّبِيَّ
فَكَلَّمَهُ شَيْخًا فَلَا حِنْثَ فِي الْأَصَحِّ.
وَالْخُبْزُ
يَتَنَاوَلُ كُلَّ خُبْزٍ كَحِنْطَةٍ وَشَعِيرٍ وَأَرُزٍّ وَبَاقِلَّا وَذُرَةً
وَحِمَّصٍ، فَلَوْ ثَرَدَهُ فَأَكَلَهُ حَنِثَ، وَلَوْ حَلَفَ لَا يَأْكُلُ
سَوِيقًا فَسَفَّهُ أَوْ تَنَاوَلَهُ بِأُصْبُعٍ حَنِثَ، وَإِنْ جَعَلَهُ فِي
مَاءٍ فَشَرِبَهُ فَلَا، أَوْ لَا يَشْرَبُهُ فَبِالْعَكْسِ.
أَوْ
لَا يَأْكُلُ لَبَنًا أَوْ مَائِعًا آخَرَ وَأَكَلَهُ بِخُبْزٍ حَنِثَ، أَوْ
شَرِبَهُ فَلَا، أَوْ لَا يَشْرَبُهُ فَبِالْعَكْسِ.
أَوْ لَا
يَأْكُلُ سَمْنًا فَأَكَلَهُ بِخُبْزٍ جَامِدًا أَوْ ذَائِبًا حَنِثَ، وَإِنْ
شَرِبَ ذِئْبًا فَلَا، وَإِنْ أَكَلَهُ فِي عَصِيدَةٍ حَنِثَ إنْ كَانَتْ
عَيْنُهُ ظَاهِرَةً.
وَيَدْخُلُ فِي فَاكِهَةٍ رُطَبٌ وَعِنَبٌ
وَرُمَّانٌ وَأُتْرُجٌّ وَرُطَبٌ وَيَابِسٌ.
قُلْتُ: وَلَيْمُونٌ
وَنَبْقٌ وَكَذَا بِطِّيخٌ وَلُبُّ فُسْتُقٍ وَ بُنْدُقٍ وَغَيْرُهُمَا فِي
الْأَصَحِّ، لَا قِثَّاءٌ وَخِيَارٌ وَبَاذِنْجَانٌ وَجَزَرٌ، وَلَا يَدْخُلُ فِي
الثِّمَارِ يَابِسٌ، وَاَللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ، وَلَوْ أَطْلَقَ بِطِّيخٌ وَتَمْرٌ
وَجَوْزٌ لَمْ يَدْخُلْ هِنْدِيٌّ.
وَالطَّعَامُ يَتَنَاوَلُ قُوتًا
وَفَاكِهَةً وَأُدْمًا وَحَلْوَى.
وَلَوْ قَالَ لَا آكُلُ مِنْ
هَذِهِ الْبَقَرَةِ تَنَاوَلَ لَحْمَهَا دُونَ وَلَدٍ وَلَبَنٍ، أَوْ مِنْ هَذِهِ
الشَّجَرَةِ فَثَمَرٌ دُونَ وَرَقٍ وَطَرَفِ غُصْنٍ.
Section
An oath “ not to
eat animals’ heads,” without specifying
any parti-
cular animals, implies an
obligation not to eat the head of
any animal
whose head is sold
separately. This oath does not apply
to birds, fish,
or game that are
ordinarily prepared for food without
cutting off the head,
unless local
custom has introduced the practice of
selling separately the
heads of these
animals. The word “ eggs” includes all
eggs that are
eaten without killing
the animal that lays them, such as
hen’s eggs,
ostrich eggs, and pigeon’s
eggs ; but not the eggs of fish,
that are only
eaten as roe after
the fish has been killed ; nor
locust’s eggs, that are
not eaten at
all unless in the body of the
animal that bears them. The
word “
meat ” is used of cattle, horses,
game, and birds, but not of fish,
nor of fat in the interior of
the body, fnor of the intestines,
the liver,
the spleen, nor the
heart. fThe vTord “ meat ” includes the
flesh of the
head or the tongue,
and the fat of the back and
sides. The word “ fat ”
in general
does not include the fat upon the
back nor on the thighs nor
on
the hump, parts of the animal’s body
to which the word “ meat ”
does
not apply either. The “ fat upon the
thighs ” may not be con-
founded with “
the fat upon the hump,” and where
one wishes to indicate
both one must
use the Arabic word dasam , which
signifies all the
fat parts of the
body and consequently implies not only
the fat properly
so called, but also
the fat upon the back or in
the interior of the body.
Any
expression signifying beef applies also to
buffalo meat.
When one indicates
wheat and swears “ not to eat any,”
one must
abstain from wheat in
grains, as well as from wheat in
the state of flour
or loaf ; but
when one swears, “ I will not eat of
this wheat,” and utters
the word
wheat, one need abstain from it only
when the grains have been
cooked,
mixed with fat, or fried ; not when
flour, a decoction, a paste,
or bread, has
been made of it. An oath as to
“ dates freshly gathered ”
includes
neither dry dates nor dates that are
not yet ripe, though they
may be
large enough, and vice versa . The word
“grape” does not
include raisins, and
vice versa . f And a person who swears not
to eat
“ these freshly plucked dates ”
is not obliged to abstain from them
when
they are dry. Similarly, if he
swears “ not to speak to such-and-such
a
young man,” he can speak to him
all the same when he has become an
old
one. The word “ bread ” includes as
well wheat en bread as barley
bread,
or bread made of rice, beans, millet
, chick peas, etc., and an oath
to
abstain from it applies also to
bread cut in pieces and dipped in
soup.
An oath “ not to eat of a
certain decoction ” includes an obligation not
to introduce it into the mouth
with the tongue or the fingers ; but
the
decoction may freely be drunk
when diluted with water. Where, on
the other hand, one has used
the expression “not to drink the
decoction,”
one may introduce it into
the mouth with the tongue or the
fingers, but
not dilute nor drink
it. An oath “ not to eat milk ”
or any other liquid
requires abstention
from eating bread prepared with milk,
but not from
drinking milk ; an oath
“ not to drink ” the liquid in
question requires
one to abstain from
this act but not from eating bread
prepared with
the liquid. An oath “
not to eat butter ” is violated by
eating it upon
one’s bread either in
a solid or a liquid state, but not
by drinking it in a
liquid state,
nor by eating it in the preparation
called asida , unless the
butter is
manifestly apparent. The word “fruit” ( jakiha )
includes
dates, grapes, pomegranates, and
citrons, either immediately after pluck-
ing,
or dried. [It is the same with
lemons and lotus-fruit, melons and
pistachio nuts or filberts. On the
other hand, the word “ Jakiha ” does
not include cucumbers, nor egg-plants,
nor parsnip ; while the word
“ thamar ,”
though a synonym of Jakiha, does not
include dried fruits.
A person who
speaks of melons, dates, or nuts,
and nothing more, is
not understood
to refer to those called “ Indian,”
ix. water-melons,
tamarinds, and coco-nuts.
In “ foodstuffs ” are included both the
principal nourishment and also fruit,
seasoning, and cakes. An oath
“ not
to eat of a certain cow ” only
applies to the flesh, but not to the
calf nor to the milk ; a similar
oath with regard to a “ tree ” includes
only the fruit, and not the
leaves nor the ends of the branches.
فَصْلٌ [فِي مَسَائِلَ مَنْثُورَةٍ ليقاس بها غيرها]
حَلَفَ لَا
يَأْكُلُ هَذِهِ التَّمْرَةَ فَاخْتَلَطَتْ بِتَمْرٍ فَأَكَلَهُ إلَّا تَمْرَةً
لَمْ يَحْنَثْ، أَوْ لَيَأْكُلَنَّهَا فَاخْتَلَطَتْ لَمْ يَبَرَّ إلَّا
بِالْجَمِيعِ.
أَوْ لَيَأْكُلَنَّ هَذِهِ الرُّمَّانَةَ فَإِنَّمَا
يَبَرُّ بِجَمِيعِ حَبِّهَا.
أَوْ لَا يَلْبَسُ هَذَيْنِ لَمْ
يَحْنَثْ بِأَحَدِهِمَا، فَإِنْ لَبِسَهُمَا مَعًا أَوْ مُرَتَّبًا حَنِثَ، أَوْ
لَا أَلْبَسُ هَذَا وَلَا هَذَا حَنِثَ بِأَحَدِهِمَا، أَوْ لَيَأْكُلَنَّ ذَا
الطَّعَامَ غَدًا فَمَاتَ قَبْلَهُ فَلَا شَيْءَ عَلَيْهِ، وَإِنْ مَاتَ أَوْ
تَلِفَ الطَّعَامُ فِي الْغَدِ تَمَكُّنِهِ مِنْ أَكْلِهِ حَنِثَ، وَقَبْلَهُ
قَوْلَانِ كَمُكْرَهٍ، وَإِنْ أَتْلَفَهُ بِأَكْلٍ أَوْ غَيْرِهِ قَبْلَ الْغَدِ
حَنِثَ، وَإِنْ تَلِفَ أَوْ أَتْلَفَهُ أَجْنَبِيٌّ فَكَمُكْرَهٍ.
أَوْ
لَأَقْضِيَنَّ حَقَّك عِنْدَ رَأْسِ الْهِلَالِ فَلْيَقْضِ عِنْدَ غُرُوبِ
الشَّمْسِ آخِرَ الشَّهْرِ فَإِنْ قَدِمَ أَوْ مَضَى بَعْدَ الْغُرُوبِ، قَدْرُ
إمْكَانِهِ حَنِثَ، وَإِنْ شَرَعَ فِي الْكَيْلِ حِينَئِذٍ وَلَمْ يَفْرُغْ
لِكَثْرَتِهِ إلَّا بَعْدَ مُدَّةٍ لَمْ يَحْنَثْ.
أَوْ لَا
يَتَكَلَّمُ فَسَبَّحَ أَوْ قَرَأَ قُرْآنًا فَلَا حِنْثَ.
أَوْ لَا
يُكَلِّمُهُ فَسَلَّمَ عَلَيْهِ حَنِثَ، وَإِنْ كَاتَبَهُ أَوْ رَاسَلَهُ أَوْ
أَشَارَ إلَيْهِ بِيَدٍ أَوْ غَيْرِهَا فَلَا فِي الْجَدِيدِ.
وَلَوْ
قَرَأَ آيَةً أَفْهَمَهُ بِهَا مَقْصُودَهُ وَقَصَدَ قِرَاءَةً لَمْ يَحْنَثْ،
وَإِلَّا حَنِثَ.
أَوْ لَا مَالَ لَهُ حَنِثَ بِكُلِّ نَوْعٍ،
وَإِنْ قَلَّ حَتَّى ثَوْبِ بَدَنِهِ، وَمُدَبَّرٍ وَمُعَلَّقٍ عِتْقُهُ
بِصِفَةٍ، وَمَا وَصَّى بِهِ، وَدَيْنٍ حَالٍّ، وَكَذَا مُؤَجَّلٌ فِي
الْأَصَحِّ، لَا مُكَاتَبٌ فِي الْأَصَحِّ.
أَوْ لَيَضْرِبَنَّهُ
فَالْبِرُّ بِمَا يُسَمَّى ضَرْبًا، وَلَا يُشْتَرَطُ إيلَامٌ إلَّا أَنْ يَقُولَ
ضَرْبًا شَدِيدًا، وَلَيْسَ وَضْعُ سَوْطٍ عَلَيْهِ، وَعَضٌّ، وَخَنْقٌ، وَنَتْفُ
شَعَرٍ ضَرْبًا، قِيلَ وَلَا لَطْمٌ وَوَكْزٌ، أَوْ لَيَضْرِبَنَّهُ مِائَةَ
سَوْطٍ أَوْ خَشَبَةٍ فَشَدَّ مِائَةً وَضَرَبَهُ بِهَا ضَرْبَةً أَوْ
بِعِثْكَالٍ عَلَيْهِ مِائَةُ شِمْرَاخٍ، بَرَّ إنْ عَلِمَ إصَابَةَ الْكُلِّ،
أَوْ تَرَاكَمَ بَعْضٌ عَلَى بَعْضٍ فَوَصَلَهُ أَلَمُ الْكُلِّ قُلْت: وَلَوْ
شَكَّ فِي إصَابَةِ الْجَمِيعِ بَرَّ عَلَى النَّصِّ وَاَللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ، أَوْ
لَيَضْرِبَنَّهُ مِائَةَ مَرَّةٍ لَمْ يَبِرَّ بِهَذَا.
أَوْ لَا
أُفَارِقُك حَتَّى أَسْتَوْفِيَ فَهَرَبَ وَلَمْ يُمْكِنْهُ اتِّبَاعُهُ لَمْ
يَحْنَثْ، قُلْت: الصَّحِيحُ لَا يَحْنَثُ إذَا أَمْكَنَهُ اتِّبَاعُهُ،
وَاَللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ، وَإِنْ فَارَقَهُ أَوْ وَقَفَ حَتَّى ذَهَبَ وَكَانَا
مَاشِيَيْنِ أَوْ أَبْرَأَهُ أَوْ احْتَالَ عَلَى غَرِيمٍ ثُمَّ فَارَقَهُ أَوْ
أَفْلَسَ فَفَارَقَهُ لِيُوسِرَ حَنِثَ، وَإِنْ اسْتَوْفَى وَفَارَقَهُ
فَوَجَدَهُ نَاقِصًا إنْ كَانَ مِنْ جِنْسِ حَقِّهِ، لَكِنَّهُ أَرْدَأُ لَمْ
يَحْنَثْ، وَإِلَّا حَنِثَ عَالِمٌ، وَفِي غَيْرِهِ الْقَوْلَانِ.
أَوْ
لَا رَأَى مُنْكَرًا إلَّا رَفَعَهُ إلَى الْقَاضِي فَرَأَى وَتَمَكَّنَ فَلَمْ
يَرْفَعْ حَتَّى مَاتَ حَنِثَ، وَيُحْمَلُ عَلَى قَاضِي الْبَلَدِ، فَإِنْ عُزِلَ
فَالْبِرُّ بِالرَّفْعِ إلَى الثَّانِي، أَوْ إلَّا رَفَعَهُ إلَى قَاضٍ بَرَّ
بِكُلِّ قَاضٍ، أَوْ إلَى الْقَاضِي فُلَانٍ فَرَآهُ ثُمَّ عُزِلَ فَإِنْ نَوَى
مَا دَامَ قَاضِيًا حَنِثَ إنْ أَمْكَنَهُ رَفْعُهُ فَتَرَكَهُ وَإِلَّا
فَكَمُكْرَهٍ، وَإِنْ لَمْ يَنْوِ بَرَّ بِالدَّفْعِ إلَيْهِ بَعْدَ عَزْلِهِ
Section
An oath “ not to
eat such-and-such a date ” is not violated
when
that date is mixed with other
dates, and one eats all but one
date, with-
out knowing exactly whether it
is the date in question. On the
other
hand, an oath “ to eat
such-and-such a date ” can only be accomplished
by eating all the dates with
which it is mixed ; and an oath “
to eat such-
and-such a pomegranate ” by
eating all the pips. If one swears “
not
to wear these two coats ” one
becomes perjured by doing so either at
once or one after the other,
but one need have no fear in
wearing one.
To render such an act
unlawful it would be necessary to
have said
“ neither this coat nor
that coat.”
An oath “to eat
certain food to-inorrow ” has no
consequence if the
person who takes
it dies before the time comes ; but
if he dies, or if the
food is
destroyed, upon the day on which he
should have kept his oath,
it is
necessary to make the following
distinction : —
. In a case where
the person’s death or the loss of
the food takes
place at an hour
by which he could already have eaten
it, he becomes
perjured, even though
the day be not entirely passed by.
. In a case where the person’s
death or the loss of the food takes
place at an hour by which the
person in question has not been able
to
eat the food there exists the
same controversy as about a person who
becomes perjured in consequence of
some violence used towards him.
Where the person taking the
oath is himself the cause of the
loss of
the food before the time
indicated, either by eating it or in
any other
manner he has ipso facto
failed to fulfil his obligation. Here
one must
again decide in accordance
with the principles relating to violence
when
the food is lost accidentally
or by the fault of a third party
before the
expiry of the time. An
oath in the following terms : “ I will
pay you
your debt at the beginning
of next month ” obliges the debtor
to pay
at sunset on the last
day of the current month ; but the
oath is violated
by an anticipated
payment, or if the debtor allows to
pass by, after the
sunset, an
interval in which he might have
acquitted his engagement.
However, one is
not perjured if in these circumstances
one has begun
to measure out the
articles promised, even though the
quantity does not
admit of the
operation being finished in a short time.
. An oath “ not to speak ”
does not prevent one exclaiming, “ Praise
to God,” nor does it prevent a
recitation of the Koran ; but a person
who swears “ not to speak to
so-and-so,” violates his oath by merely
saluting him. Shafii, however, in
his second period, did not consider
as a violation the fact of writing
him a letter, or sending him a message,
or pointing him out with the
hand. This oath does not permit one
to
intimate to such person what one
wants by reciting a verse of the Koran,
unless this act is accomplished with
the single intention of making a
recitation.
An oath to the
effect “ that so-and-so has no property ”
means that
the individual in question
possesses nothing at all of any
value, not
even the coat he wears,
nor a slave to be enfranchised by
will, nor a
slave whose enfranchisement
depends upon a condition, nor an object
he has bequeathed to another person,
nor a debt due for to become due.
f
On the other hand, this oath is
not violated by the circumstance that
the individual in question has a
slave undergoing enfranchisement by
contract,
i.e. one who has ceased to be
marketable.
An oath to “ beat
so-and-so ” is accomplished by any act
constituting
“ a blow,” without its being
necessary that the patient should experience
any pain, unless one added the
adverb “ soundly.” The mere fact,
however,
of touching the patient’s body with a
whip cannot be considered
as a blow,
nor merely biting him, nor partly
strangling him, nor tearing
out his
hair, nor even, according to some
authorities, giving him a buffet
or
pushing him away. An oath “ to
inflict upon some one one hundred
lashes with a whip ” is fulfilled by
inflicting a single blow with one
hundred
whips or batons bound together, or
with a bough with a hundred
branches,
provided only that one is certain
that each whip and branch
has
touched, or at least that all
together, one upon another, have
contributed to the sufferer’s pain.
[In case of doubt it should be
admitted that all the whips, batons,
or branches have had their effect ;
this is Shafii’s personal opinion.]
Where, on the other hand, the oath
was to the effect that one
would go and beat the patient one
hundred
times one may not limit
oneself to a single blow in this way.
If one swears to the effect
that “ I will not leave you until
the pay-
ment of my debt,” one is
not perjured if the debtor runs away
and one
is not able to pursue
him. [ffEven if one can pursue the
debtor one
is not obliged to do
so, and one does not become perjured
by allowing
him to escape.] Eor an
oath in these terms only obliges one
not to
separate from the debtor ;
not to stop when he walks on ;
not to remit
the debt if one
is walking with him ; not to quit
him, even after trans-
ferring the debt
to a third party, or after the
debtor is declared bankrupt,
and even
though in this latter case it should
be in order to allow him to
put his affairs in order. On
the other hand, one can always leave
the
debtor after the debt has been
paid. It matters little then if one
dis-
covers afterwards that one has not
received all that one might claim,
e.g. if the debtor has given
things of inferior quality, though of the
stipulated kind. Where the creditor
accepts articles of another kind,
but
not knowingly, there is the same
controversy as to becoming perjured
by
inadvertence.
An oath to bring to
the knowledge of the judge any
blamable act to
which one may be a
witness is violated if the person
bound by it, on
seeing a bad action
committed, omits to bring a complaint
before the court,
though he is able
to do so ; and if he dies
before repairing his neglect.
By the
word “ judge ” is understood the judge
of the locality, for one
cannot
bring the matter before another court ;
but one may bring it
before the
successor of the man who was the
judge at the time, in case
of
the death or dismissal of the
latter. Where, on the other hand, one
does not say “ before the judge,”
but “ before a judge,” one may bring
the case in any court. The
expression “ before such-and-such a judge ”
admits of a distinction —
. It
may mean “ before so-and-so, as long
as he is a judge.” In
this case
one becomes perjured, if, upon ‘seeing
some blamable action,
one does not
bring it to the knowledge of the
judge indicated, though
one is able
to do so, even though the judge
may be subsequently dis-
missed. If it
is impossible to bring the matter
before the judge while
he remains in
office, one is then in the same
position as a person perjured
in
consequence of some violence.
. It
may mean the judge personally and
not officially. In this case
the
matter should be brought before him
even after his dismissal.
فَصْلٌ [في الحلف على ألا يفعل كذا]
حَلَفَ لَا يَبِيعُ أَوْ لَا
يَشْتَرِي فَعَقَدَ لِنَفْسِهِ أَوْ غَيْرِهِ حَنِثَ.
وَلَا
يَحْنَثُ بِعَقْدِ وَكِيلِهِ لَهُ، أَوْ لَا يُزَوِّجُ أَوْ لَا يُطَلِّقُ أَوْ
لَا يَعْتِقُ أَوْ لَا يَضْرِبُ فَوَكَّلَ مَنْ فَعَلَهُ لَا يَحْنَثُ إلَّا أَنْ
يُرِيدَ أَنْ لَا يَفْعَلَ هُوَ وَلَا غَيْرُهُ، أَوْ لَا يَنْكِحُ حَنِثَ
بِعَقْدِ وَكِيلِهِ لَهُ لَا بِقَبُولِهِ هُوَ لِغَيْرِهِ.
أَوْ لَا
يَبِيعُ مَالَ زَيْدٍ فَبَاعَهُ بِإِذْنِهِ حَنِثَ، وَإِلَّا فَلَا.
أَوْ
لَا يَهَبُ لَهُ فَأَوْجَبَ لَهُ فَلَمْ يَقْبَلْ لَمْ يَحْنَثْ، وَكَذَا إنْ
قَبِلَ وَلَمْ يَقْبِضْ فِي الْأَصَحِّ، وَيَحْنَثُ بِعُمْرَى وَرُقْبَى،
وَصَدَقَةٍ لَا إعَارَةٍ، وَوَصِيَّةٍ وَوَقْفٍ، أَوْ لَا يَتَصَدَّقُ لَمْ
يَحْنَثْ بِهِبَةٍ فِي الْأَصَحِّ.
أَوْ لَا يَأْكُلُ طَعَامًا
اشْتَرَاهُ زَيْدٌ لَمْ يَحْنَثْ بِمَا اشْتَرَاهُ مَعَ غَيْرِهِ، وَكَذَا لَوْ
قَالَ مِنْ طَعَامٍ اشْتَرَاهُ زَيْدٌ فِي الْأَصَحِّ، وَيَحْنَثُ بِمَا
اشْتَرَاهُ سَلَمًا، وَلَوْ اخْتَلَطَ مَا اشْتَرَاهُ بِمُشْتَرَى غَيْرِهِ لَمْ
يَحْنَثْ حَتَّى يَتَيَقَّنَ أَكْلَهُ مِنْ مَالِهِ.
أَوْ لَا
يَدْخُلُ دَارًا اشْتَرَاهَا زَيْدٌ لَمْ يَحْنَثْ بِدَارٍ أَخَذَهَا
بِشُفْعَةٍ.
Section
A person who swears
“ not to sell ” or “ not to buy ”
should abstain
from selling or buying,
whether upon his own account or for
another ;
but he may sell or buy
through an agent. Similarly an oath
not to
“ give in marriage ” or “
repudiate” or “ enfranchise ” or “ beat ” is
no obstacle to doing these things
through an agent, unless one intended
to say that one would not do
these things either personally or through
a third party. On the other hand,
an oath “ not to marry ” prevents
marriage by proxy, but does not
prevent one accepting a woman in
marriage
as agent for a third party. An oath
not to sell Zaid’s things
refers
only to a sale with Zaid’s consent.
An oath “ not to make a
donation
to Zaid ” is not violated by
offering him something he does
not
accept, for something he accepts but
does not take possession of ;
but
such an oath prevents giving him a
life interest, or a donation
revocable at
the donor’s death, or a charitable gift.
On the other hand,
one may lend
or bequeath him something, or even
immobilise property
in his favour. fA
man who swears “ not to give some
one an alms,”
is not perjured by
making him a donation properly so called.
A person
swearing “ not to eat the
provisions Zaid has just bought,” may eat
those purchased by Zaid jointly with
another person. fAnd it is the
same
if the expression is “ provisions ”
instead of “ the provisions.”
Such an
oath refers not only to a sale
properly so called but also to a
sale by advance. Where food bought
by Zaid is mixed with food
bought
by another, eating the mixture does
not involve perjury unless
one is
certain to have really taken food
bought by Zaid. And an oath
“ not
to enter the house Zaid has just
bought ” does not include a house
acquired
by Zaid in virtue of his right
of redemption.[]