Page 198 - Arabian Studies (V)

186 Arabian Studies V
were more than one house, in each of the houses. He was not, however, so
specific about their having to receive a part in the land. There is of course
no reason to expect complete uniformity in such procedures since certain
legal experts were clearly more obliging than others in issuing documenta­
tion based on the well known hiyal (ways round) in Islamic law, a vraqfbor
those who read the Qur’an (men), the sale of property without consent of
the women, etc.
These hiyal are deplored in a legal comment first noticed by E. Rossi but
not transcribed fully by him:
Su’al fi rajul la-hu awlad dhukur wa-inath fa-ba‘ thulthay mali-hi ila
awlad al-awlad wa-’l-thulth al-akhar nadhar bi-hi ‘alay-him wa-amara-
hum yunfiqu ‘alay-hi wa-fa‘al hadha hllatan ‘ala ’1-inath li’alla
yarithna fa-‘l-awlad wa-awladu-hum ma saru ya’kuluna ilia min ghillat
mali-hi. Al-jawab anna fi-’l-mahallat allati sar ahlu-hatastahill fi-ha al-
maharim wa-la tunaffadh ‘alay-him al-shar‘, yamna‘una M-nisa’ min al-
mlrath alladhl farada-hu Allah wa-awjaba-huTahunna man‘an zahiran
wa-la yahtajuna ila hadhihi ’1-shubhah al-batilah. Wa-fi min al-
mahallat allati tunaffadh ‘alay-him fi-ha ’1-ahkam aw-ba‘du-ha sar
‘awamm al-nas yaf‘aluna mithl hadhihi ’1-umur al-qablhah, kathlran
qad tahaqqaqtu dhalika, fa-’l-wajib fi-ma tahaqqaq fi‘lu-hu al-tawassul
ila ibtal ma farad Allah hasm maddati-hi wa-ibtalu-hu wa-i‘ta’ kull
dhi haqq haqqa-hu wa-’llahu subhanahu a‘lam.
(fol. 265 on margin, British Museum Arabic Ms., Supplement 431, Glaser
Collection, 217, Ibrahim b. Khalid al-‘Ulufi, al-Ajwibat al-mufidah *ala-
7-.s« 'alat al-hamidah, d. 1056/1646).
24. See Ettore Rossi, ‘II diritto consuetudinario delle tribu arabe del
Yemen’, RSO, XXIII, 1948, 11-15. The document is in the Great Mosque,
San‘a*, Collection Majami\ 57. No author and no date are given but since
reference is made in the manuscript to a judgement of al-Imam al-Mansur
bi-’llah al-Qasim b. Muhammad (1006-1029/1597-1619) the manuscript is
certainly no earlier than the seventeenth century.
25. Taghut is a notably pejorative term for tribal law amongst the
'ulamd\ See Rossi’s comments, ibid., 10.
26. For these terms see the section, K. al-Sayr in Ahmad b. Yahya al-
Murtada, Sharh al-Azhar, IV, 571-82, and al-Bahr al-zakhkhar, V, 407-23.
The classification dar al-fisq appears to have been used as a legal term for
organised political opponents of the Imam, be they adherents of opposed
Islamic sects or tribal authority, see the three shurut for qital al-bughah
(synonym of al-fussaq) in al-Bahr al-zakhkhar, V, 415-16: f
wa-li-’l-baghy shurut: al-awwal al-khuruj ‘an ta’at al-imam, fa-in
ata‘u harima quitalu-hum, ... al-thanl, al-man‘ah, aw al-fi’ah wa-illa
fa-ka-’l-muharib, ... al-thalithizharkawni-himmuhiqqln, ...
i
[traditions omitted above]. See also the justification of the Imam’s holding
tribal hostages, ibid., 417.
27. My translation of the text published in Rossi, op. cit., 13.
28. I Have been told that the ministry of Justice, San‘a’ has fixed the fee

.