There is scarcely any part of Europe or Asia where the creation of
fictitious relationships is altogether unknown. In many cases the object
of the creation is simply to obtain an heir. This is the object of
adoption amongst modern Hindus, and it is this, no doubt, which has led
some persons to speak of Hindu adoption as a rudimentary will. But
adoption, as such, has never obtained a footing in Mahommedan law. The
fictitious relationships which that law recognizes are based upon a
different idea. There was in early times a widespread notion that every
man must belong to some family either as a freeman or a slave. The
family to which a slave belongs is always that of his owner, and that of
a freeman is generally indicated by his birth. But a liberated slave has
no family, at least no recognized family; and as he cannot stand alone,
it was necessary to attach him to some family. Now, just as in Roman law
the freedman became a member of his master's family under the
relationship of _patronus_ and _cliens_, so in Mahommedan law a
liberated slave becomes a member of the master's family under the
relationship called _mawalat_. The object, of course, was to make the
master's family liable for the consequences of the wrongful acts of the
freed slave. As a compensation for the liability undertaken by the
master's family, in default of residuaries of the slave's own blood (who
can only be his own direct descendants), the master's family are
entitled to succeed as what are called "residuaries for special cause."
Of course the relationship of master and slave cannot now be created,
and it is scarcely probable that any case of inheritance could arise in
which it came into question. The relationship of _mawalat_ may, under
Mahommedan law, also be created in a case where a freeman is converted
to Islam. From a Mahommedan point of view he then stands alone, and
would be required to attach himself to some Mahommedan family. The form
of the transaction exactly indicates the nature of it. The party wishing
to attach himself says to the person ready to receive him, "Thou art my
kinsman, and shalt be my successor after my death, paying for me any
fine or ransom to which I may be liable." In this case also the family
of the person who receives the convert is entitled, in default of other
residuaries, to succeed to him as "residuaries for special cause." But
this transaction can have no meaning under English law, which does not
recognize the joint responsibility of the family, and it is therefore
also obsolete. In the case of _mawalat_ the rights of the persons
concerned are not reciprocal. The person received gains no right of
inheritance in the family into which he enters, and incurs no
responsibility for their acts. An important part may still be played in
Mahommedan law by the creation of relationships by acknowledgment. Any
such relationship may be created, provided that the parentage of the
person acknowledged is unknown; a person of known parentage cannot be
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account