Why You Should Poison Your Husband: A Note on Liability in Ḥanafī Law in the Ottoman Period

Author(s): Colin Imber

Source: Islamic Law and Society, Vol. 1, No. 2 (1994), pp. 206-216
Published by: Brill
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3399334
Accessed: 16-11-2015 09:20 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Brill is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Islamic Law and Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 142.103.160.110 on Mon, 16 Nov 2015 09:20:33 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 WHY YOU SHOULD POISON YOUR HUSBAND:
A NOTE ON LIABILITY IN HANAFI LAW IN THE
OTTOMAN PERIOD

COLINIMBER
(Manchester,
UK)

Abstract
Hanafi legal doctrinecontainsan implicit analogy (althoughnot one that the
juriststhemselvesmake)betweenorderingan agentto kill andkillingsomeoneby
poison. In the formercase, it is not the principalbut the agent who is liable,
unlessthe agentactedundercompulsion.Similarly,a poisoneris liableonlywhen
he forces the poisonoussubstancedown the victim'sthroat,not when the victim
consumesthe poisonvoluntarily.A victimwho acceptsthe poisonis like an agent
who has receivedan orderto kill and carriesout the ordervoluntarily;but if the
poisoner forces the substancedown the victim's throat,the victim is in the
positionof an agentwho kills undercompulsion,andthe poisonerbecomesliable.
This rule suggestedto Ottomanjuristsan unusualsolutionto the problemof how
to preventan ex-husbandfromfornicatingwith his divorcedwife. The ex-wife
could,withoutincurringany liability,poisonhim.

1HE FETVAS(legal opinions)of the Ottoman?eyhii'l-islamsare a

richbutlargelyneglectedsourceforthehistoryof Hanafilaw between
theearlysixteenthandearlytwentiethcenturies. Duringthisperiod,the
-
geyhii'l-islam by originthe Muftiof Istanbul'-was headof the
Ottomanlegal establishment, andthe FetvaOffice (fetvahdne)over
whichhe presidedwas thecentralOttomanlegalinstitution. Thefetvas
which it issued, each bearingthe ?eyhii'l-islam'ssignature,were
authoritativestatementsof the law, and the prestigewhich they
enjoyedinspiredcompilersto collecttheminto systematicallyedited
volumes.Manyof thesecollectionssurvive,bothin manuscript andin
printededitions. In some of the the
collections, compilershave added
proof-textsto some or all of thefetvas.
Applicationto the ?eyhi'l-islamfor a fetvawas opennot only to
membersof the Ottomangovernment,judiciaryandadministration,
butequallyto membersof thepublicseekingout-of-courtsettlements
of disputesor answersto privatequeries.As a result,duringthe first

1 For the developmentof this office, see R.C. Repp, The Miiftiof Istanbul
(Oxford:IthacaPress,1986).

? E.J. Brill, Leiden,1994 IslamicLawandSociety1,2

This content downloaded from 142.103.160.110 on Mon, 16 Nov 2015 09:20:33 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 WHYYOUSHOULDPOISONYOURHUSBAND 207

half of the sixteenthcentury,the volume of business became too great

for the eyhii'l-islam to handle on his own. The solution to this prob-
lem was to organise the Fetva Office as a departmentof government,
with a permanentstaff serving undera "superintendentof fetvas," the
fetvd emini. The organisationwas largely the work of the ?eyhii'l-
islam, Ebi'l-su'id [held office 1545-74]. It is very clear that after his
time, most Ottomanfetvas were the work less of the ?eyhii'l-islams
whose signaturesthey bear thanof the fetva emini and his staff. It was
the fetva eminis who received the questionsin the Fetva Office, recast
them into the form in which they came before the ,eyhii'l-islam, and
indicatedto him what answerswere required.2
The format of the fetvgs makes them an excellent source for the
studyof Hanafidoctrine.The fetva eminis, particularlyfrom the end of
the sixteenth century, were careful to draft the questions so as to
address a specific point of law and to omit any material that was
legally irrelevant.As a result, each fetva presentsa clear statementof
the law. Another characteristic of Ottoman fetvas is that, almost
invariably, they arose out of practical problems which had been
presentedat the Fetva Office for practical solutions. It is interesting,
therefore, to compare the rulings of the ?eyhii'l-islams on certain
problems,with the same problemsas they appearin academicworks
offiqh, whose authors at times seem to show more concern for
intellectualelegance than they do for practicality.This article,which
examines a problem in Hanafi fiqh as it appears in the works of a
small selection of "classical"jurists and in the fetvas of five geyhii'l-
islams, demonstrateshow the ?eyhii'l-islamscould sometimes mani-
pulateHanafilegal doctrineto achieveunexpectedends.
What happens if you use poison to kill somebody? HIanafilaw
gives an unexpectedanswerto the problem.
Poisoning occupies an unimportantniche in the jurists' general
discussions of compensationfor killing and injury.The generalrule in
cases of homicide is that intentionalkilling incursqisds, whereby the
the victim's next-of-kin - the wall al-dam - may claim the killer's
life, while unintentionalkilling incurs diya - the payment of fixed-
sum compensation to the wall al-dam. The only criterion for
determiningwhetherthe killing was "intentional"or "unintentional"is
the type of weapon used.3The law deems homicideto be "intentional"

2 Uriel
Heyd, "Some aspects of the Ottomanfetvd," Bulletin of the School of
Oriental and African Studies, xxxii (1969), 35-56.
3 The jurists in fact
recognise four categories of unintentional killing. These

This content downloaded from 142.103.160.110 on Mon, 16 Nov 2015 09:20:33 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
208 COLINIMBER

only if the killer used an "offensive weapon"(dla jdriha) meaning, in

effect, a weapon of war or an instrumentspecifically adaptedto kill.
All other methods of killing, including poisoning, are deemed to be
"unintentional."Poisoning, however, is exceptional. In most cases it
does not even incurthe paymentof diya.
It appearsthat this quirkin the law came about in partbecause the
jurists based their reasoning on the solution to an entirely different
problem:Who is liable when a man kills at the commandof another?
The man who gave the order or his agent? Hanafi jurists usually
considerthis problemunderthe generalheadingof compulsion(ikrCh).
Al-Marghinani[d. 1197] presentsit like this:
If a personcompelsanotherto kill someoneby threateningto kill him,it
is notwithinthe capacityof theperson[receivingthe command]to be
[thus]approached andto remainpatientuntilhe [himself]is killed.But
if [thepersonreceivingthecommand]kills [ashe was ordered],he is a
sinner(dthim),becausekillinga Muslimis one of those thingswhich
necessity does not renderpermissible(mubdh). The person who
compelledhimis liableforqisds if the killingwas intentional.He -
mayGodbe pleasedwithhim- said:Thisis accordingto Muhammad
[al-Shaybani].Zufarsaid:The one who was compelledis liable.Abu
Yusufsaid:Neitheris liableforqisds.Al-Shafi'isaid:Bothareliable.4
Here the preferredrule is that where there is compulsion, it is the
person giving the command,and not his agent,who is liable for qisdas.
Al-Marghinaniis, however,reluctantto concede this. Even thoughthe
agent acted under compulsion, he remains dthim. Furthermore,al-
Marghinianicites alternativeopinions, attributedrespectively to Zufar
and Abi Yusuf, which make either the agent or neitherof the parties
liable. The opinion attributedto al-Shffi'i is by implication not the
Hanafi view. It follows thatwhere therewas no compulsionthe agent
alone is liable, on the ground that he had the option to reject the
commandto kill. Thus the questionof who is liable depends solely on
the question of whether the command to kill constitutedcompulsion
[ikrdh].The text quoted defines compulsionas an immediatethreatto
the agent's life. The definitionalso came to includea commandfrom a
coercive authority(sultan), no doubt because a sultan has powers of
life and death.
It was, it seems, only in the second half of the seventeenthcentury
thatthe fetvas of Ottomangeyhii'l-islamsbegin to demanda very strict

categories whichfollows.
arenot,however,relevantto theargument
4 Al-Marghinani,al-Hidaya (Cairo:Matba'atMustafaal-Babi al-Halabi,
1970), vol. 9, 244.

This content downloaded from 142.103.160.110 on Mon, 16 Nov 2015 09:20:33 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 WHY YOU SHOULD POISON YOUR HUSBAND 209

applicationof these rules. Thefetvd eminis who draftedthe questions

for the fetvas are careful to define whether or not the order to kill
constitutedcompulsion, and it is always this element in the question
that determines the answer. A fetva of the ?eyhiil-islam Diirrizde
Mehmed 'Arif [held office 1785-86, 1792-98] illustrates this point:
(1) Question: Zeyd is a personwho is able to put his threatinto
effect.He compels'Amrwith the words,"If you do
notimmediately kill Bekrwith an offensiveweapon,
I'll kill you." Furthermore,'Amrknows that if he does
not kill Bekr, Zeyd will kill him. Acting under
compulsion,in thepresenceof Zeyd,he intentionally
killsBekrwithanoffensiveweapon.AreBekr'sheirs
ableto haveqisasinflictedonZeyd?
Answer: Yes.
Here the fetva emini has draftedthe question so that only one answer
is possible. The killer used an offensive weapon. The killing is there-
fore intentionaland so incursqisdas.The killer acted undercompulsion,
and so it is the man who compelled him who is liable. In most cases,
however, the compulsion was not absolute, and in such cases the
?eyhii'l-islams pronouncedthe agent alone to be liable. A fetva of
qatalcal 'All [heldoffice 1674-86; 1692] providesan example:
(2) Question: Zeyd is not the sort whose simple commandcon-
stitutescompulsion.He becomes angrywith 'Amr
oversomematterandordershis servant(hizmetkir),
Bekr,to killhim.Bekrstrangles'Amrwith a ropeand
kills him.When'Amr'sheirsseek diyafromBekr,is
Bekr able not to pay, simply becausehe killed at
Zeyd's command.Can he [instead]say, "Takethe
diyafromZeyd"?
Answer: No.
[Proof-text]: "Ifa minorordersan adultto kill someone,and he
kills thatpersonas he has been ordered,the minor
who gave the orderis notliable.If an adultordersan
adultto do this,the onewho killed is liable, and not
theone who gave the order- fromtheKhdniyya5 in
thechapteron liabilityfor diya."
The killer here is liable for diya ratherthan qisds because rope is not
an offensive weapon, and the law therefore deems the killing to be
unintentional.The importantquestion,however, is who is liable? The

5 This refers to the Fatw&dof Q&dikhan(d. 1196). The compilers of Ottoman

fetva collections frequentlycite it as a proof-text.

This content downloaded from 142.103.160.110 on Mon, 16 Nov 2015 09:20:33 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
210 IMBER
COLIN

master's commandis insufficient to constitutecompulsion. His agent

is a servantratherthan a slave, and is thereforelegally competent.As
a free man he had the option to disobey the command, but chose
insteadto obey it and is thereforeliable.
The same strictapplicationof Hanafirules appearsin the following
fetva of Dirrizade. The case involves no more thanthe loss of a tooth,
but the principlefor determiningwho is liable is exactly the same as in
a homicide case. What is remarkableis the tone of the question. The
fetva emtni who draftedit seems outragedat the mere suggestion that
anyone but the agent shouldpay diya:
(3) Question: Zeyd's simple commanddoes not constitutecom-
pulsion.He orders'Amrto strikeBekr.'Amrstrikes
Bekrandknocksout one of his teeth.Is Bekrableto
demandthe diya for his tooth not from 'Amr but
[insteadand]withoutreason(bi-gayr-ivech),to force
Zeydto giveit, simplybecausehe issuedtheorder?
Answer: No.
Whatis odd aboutthese and otherfetvas of the late seventeenthand
eighteenthcenturiesis thatthey abandona modificationto the Hanafi
rules which had appearedin Ottomanfetvas of the sixteenth and the
first half of the seventeenth centuries.The following fetva of Ebi'l-
su'id [held office 1545-74] providesan illustration:
(4) Question: Zeyd's goods are stolen. He delivers the suspect,
'Amr,to theexecutiveauthorities(ehl-i 'urf)and gets
themto torturehim.'Amrdiesduringthetorture.Zeyd
did notpersonallytorture'Amr,butwas nevertheless
the cause.Accordingto the sharl'a are 'Amr'sheirs
ableto takediyafromZeyd?
Answer: Theycanhavehim severelychastised(ta'zir-isedid)
and imprisonedfor a long time. They receive diya
from the personwho administeredthe torture('urf
eden).
Ebi'l-su'uidfollows the Hanafirule in makingthe agentliable for diya,
but does not exempt the man who caused the torturefrom any kind of
retribution.Instead he invokes his discretionarypowers to prescribe
correctivepunishment(ta'zfr),which seems in practiceto have meant
flogging. The fetvas of the geyhii'l-islam'Abdu'l-rahim[held office
1647-49] suggest that by the seventeenth century this had become
standardpractice:
(5) Question: Zeydand'AmrorderBekrto go andkill Be?r.Bekr
deliberatelystrikesBe?rwith an offensive weapon

This content downloaded from 142.103.160.110 on Mon, 16 Nov 2015 09:20:33 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 WHYYOUSHOULD YOURHUSBAND
POISON 211

and kills him. What should happen to Zeyd, 'Amr and

the said killer?
Answer: Qisas is inflicted on Bekr. Zeyd and 'Amr suffer a
andlongimprisonment
severechastisement
The strict Hanafi rule is thereforethat the killer himself is liable, not
the man who commandedhim to kill, except in cases in which he acted
undercompulsion,definedas an immediatethreatto his own life. Only
when there was compulsion is the man who commandedhim liable.
Some jurists, however, used their powers of discretion to make the
man who gave the commandto kill liable for corrective punishment
(ta'zir).
The Hanafi proceduresfor determiningliability in cases of killing
by poison seem to emerge from a bizarreanalogy with these rules. It
must, however, be stressedthat,althoughit is stronglyimplied in their
reasoning, the Hanafi jurists never themselves explicitly made this
analogy between poisoningand giving an orderto kill.
Since poison is not an "offensiveweapon,"the offence shouldincur
diya, but this is not the preferredopinionof al-Sarakhsi[d. 1090]:
If someonegets a manto drinkpoisonorpoursit intohis mouth,he is
notliablefor qisas,buthis 'dqila6are liable for diya. In some texts
thereis the opinionthat[if] someonegets anotherto drinkpoison or
pours it into his mouth,he becomes his destroyer(sdra mutlifan
lahu)[butnothis killer].Thisis the mostcorrect,becauseif he gave it
to himandhe drankit of his ownaccord,he is notliablefor anything:
thedrinkerhadthechoiceof whetherto drinkit ornotandso he killed
himself.Thepersonwhogave it to himdeceivedhimwhenhe did not
tellhimthattherewas poisonin it, butfor deceithe does not become
liable[tocompensate] for[theloss of] thelife.
The basis for (the rulingin) this matteris the Jewish womanwho
broughta poisonedsheep as a gift to the Apostle of God. Bishr b.
Bara'atefromit anddied.TheApostleof Goddid not makeherliable
forhis diyabecausehe hadacceptedit by choice.7
Al-Sarakhsi's view is that drinking is a voluntary act and that
drinkingpoison is thereforesuicide. The personwho administeredthe
poison is guilty of nothingbut deception and so escapes liability. Al-
Sarakhsimentions the case of pouringpoison into the victim's mouth
- in effect, exercising compulsion- but seems not to differentiateit

6 In cases of unintentional
killing,the diya is due, strictlyspeaking,fromthe
killer's 'aqila.The quotationfromal-Kasanibelow andthe fetvasof the Ottoman
?eyhi'l-islamsindicatethatjuristsdid not adhereinvariablyto this rule.
7 Al-Sarakhsi,al-Mabsut(Beirut:Daral-Ma'rifa,1986),vol. 26, 153.

This content downloaded from 142.103.160.110 on Mon, 16 Nov 2015 09:20:33 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
212 COLIN
IMBER

from the case of the victim drinkingthe poison voluntarily,perhapson

the groundsthatthe victim is always free to spit it out.
Al-Sarakhsi did, it seems, have his followers, including Ibn
Nujaym [d. 1563], a juristin early OttomanEgypt:
(6) He wasaskedabouta manwho gave somethingto another.He
drankit notknowingwhatit was anddied.Does [thepoisoner]
inheritif he was one of his heirsandis he liable for anything
becauseof this,ornot?
He replied:"Yes,he inheritsfromhim andhe is not liablefor
anything."
Among Ottomanjurists Ibn Nujaym was out on a limb. The ?eyhui'l-
islams, it appears, preferred to follow the opinion of al-Kasani
[d. 1189] who, while accepting the structureof al-Sarakhsi's argu-
ment,modifies his view of culpability:
Someonemakes anothereat poison and he dies. If [the victim]
acceptedit himself,the personwho made him eat it is not liable,
because [the victim] ate it voluntarily.However,[the poisoner]is
chastised(yu'azzaru),beatenandcorrected(yu'addabu)becausehe
committedan offence for which thereis no specifiedpunishment,
namely,deception.But if [thepoisoner]made[his victim]drinkthe
poison,thenhe is liablefordiya.8
Al-Kasani accepts that a poisoner is not liable for diya if the victim
eats or drinksthe poison with his own hand. He prescribescorrective
punishment,not for poisoning, but for deception. When the poisoner
forces his victim, then he becomes liable for diya. In effect, the victim
has taken his own life, but has done so under compulsion, and it is
therefore the person who compelled him who is liable. The analogy
seems to be with a man who kills at the commandof another.
Al-Kasani's opinion became so much the standardin Ottomanlaw
that Ibn Nujaym's Turkishtranslatoralterednot simply the format of
his fetva, but also it contents:
(7) Question: Zeyd gives 'Amr a poisoneddrink.Then, because
'Amrdoes not knowwhatit is, he drinksit withhis
ownhand.If he dies as a result,is anythingnecessary
by way of diya?
Answer: No, buta severechastisementis necessary.
In whichcase: If he is anheir,is he ableto receivehis inheritance?
Answer: Yes [emphasisadded].

8 Al-Kiasni,Bada'i'al-Sana'i'(Beirut:Dar al-Kitabal-'Arabi,1982), vol. 7,

235.

This content downloaded from 142.103.160.110 on Mon, 16 Nov 2015 09:20:33 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 WHYYOUSHOULDPOISONYOURHUSBAND 213

The translatorhas addedthe phrase"withhis own hand"to emphasise

the point thatthe victim drankvoluntarily,but more importantlyhe has
made the poisoner liable for a severe chastisement. He has, in fact,
adaptedIbn Nujaym's answerto conformto al-Kasiani'sruling.
In doing so he is following what had been the mainstreamOttoman
opinionsince at least the time of Ebi'l-su'id:
(8) Question: Zeyd'swife, Hind,co-operateswith 'Amrin getting
the said Zeyd to drinkpoison and in killing him. If
they confessvoluntarily,what shouldhappento the
aforenamed?
Answer: If theymadehimdrinkit withtheirownhands,diya is
necessary.If Zeyddrankit himself,a severechastise-
mentandimprisonment arenecessary.
This is al-Kasani'srule exactly, and one to which later ?eyhti'l-islams
seem happyto adhere.The next two fetvas are from (atalcah 'All:
(9) Question: Hindputs poison into the food which Zeyneb is going
to eat. Unawareof this, Zeyneb eats the food with her
own hand and dies as a result. What should happen to
Hind?
Answer: Severe chastisementand imprisonment.
[Proof-text]: "If someone mixes poison into another'sfood and that
person eats it and dies, there is no liability. [The
poisoner]is chastised- Ghunyaon Jindydt.9

(10) Question: Zeyd adds a medicine to a food because it is an

abortifacient and gives it to the pregnant Hind. Not
knowing what it is, Hind eats it with her own hand
and as a result produces a still-born foetus. What
shouldhappento Zeyd?
Answer: Chastisement.
[Proof-text]: "If someone gives another [poison] in his drink and
[that person] dies, diya is not necessary, because he
drankby choice: except that the personwho gave it to
him deceived him, [and so] nothing is incumbent
except chastisement and repentance - from the
sectionon homicidein JindyCtin the Khdniyya."
The killer is liable for diya only when he administers the poison
himself and the victim takes it under compulsion. In the fetva of

9 Presumablythe Ghunyatal-Mughniby Yfsuf b. al-Sa'id'Ali al-Sijistini(fl.

mid-thirteenth
century).

This content downloaded from 142.103.160.110 on Mon, 16 Nov 2015 09:20:33 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
214 COLIN
IMBER

Dirrizade which follows, the fetvd emini has taken care to draft the
questionso as to leave no doubtthatcompulsionwas used:
(11) Question: Zeyd forces poison down 'Amr's throatand 'Amr dies
as a result.Is Zeydliablefor diya?
Answer: Yes.
The basic rule, therefore,is that a poisoner is not liable for diya if
his victim consumes the poison voluntarilywith his own hand. The
poisoner is analogous to a man who gives an order to kill, and the
victim is analogous to his agent. The agent has the option to disobey
the command,and the poisoner'svictim has the option not to consume
the poison. The man who gives an orderto kill is liable only when he
exercises compulsion,and the poisoneris liable only when he compels
his victim to swallow the poison. Both these rules underwentthe same
modification.Some juristsprescribecorrectivepunishment(ta'zir) for
the man who gives an orderto kill, and most prescribeta'zlr for the
poisoner. Ta'zir is, however, a discretionarypunishment,and can be
dropped.
These peculiar Hanafi rules for determining liability sometimes
promptedthe ?eyhi'l-islams to offer women an unexpected piece of
advice. This first emergesin a fetva of Ebu'l-suid:
(12) Question: Zeyd says, "If I do this thing, may my wife be
divorcedthreetimes."He thendoesit. His wife knows
this,butis unableto proveit. Is Zeyd'swife a sinner
(dthim)becauseZeydis intimatewithher?
Answer: It is fornication
(zina).It is essentialthatshe does not
[submit]voluntarily[to Zeyd's embrace].She must
give whatshehas andtheremustbe a khul'divorce.If
he triesto haveintercourse[withher]andthereis no
other means of escape, it is licit accordingto the
shari'ato add poison to his food. She would not
commita sin(giinch)andthereis no diya.
The problemhere began when the husbandpronouncedan irrevocable
divorce dependent on a condition.10The moment the condition was
fulfilled, the divorce came into effect.l1The formerhusband,however,
denied that he had fulfilled the condition, and the wife's word alone

10 In Hanafilaw, the formula,"If I do X, my wife is divorced,"is a formof

oath. If a man pronouncesthese words and then does X, his wife is divorced
immediately.
11 Witnessesarenot requiredfor a validdivorce.The divorceformulaaloneis
sufficientto dissolvethe marriage.

This content downloaded from 142.103.160.110 on Mon, 16 Nov 2015 09:20:33 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 WHYYOUSHOULDPOISONYOURHUSBAND 215

was insufficient evidence. The ex-husbandclaims wrongly that they

are still married;the wife insists correctlythat they are not. The ques-
tion is whetherthe wife bears any guilt if she accepts the advances of
her ex-husband.The answer is clear. The couple are divorced. Inter-
course would therefore be an act of fornication (zind), and so an
offence in the eyes of God. To prevent this, Ebf'l-su'ufdoffers two
solutions.The first - which seems unnecessarilyharshon the woman
- is for the couple to conclude a khul' divorce, whereby the wife
requests her husbandto divorce her against payment. In Hanafi law,
khul' is the only form of divorce which a woman can initiate, and
Ebu'l-su'ud presumablyrequiresit here because there is insufficient
evidence to prove in the eyes of the world thatthe first divorceactually
took place. He is in effect prescribing a second divorce. The other
solution is for the woman to poison her ex-husband.She would not in
any circumstancesbe liable for diya unless she made him eat it "with
her own hands,"and since she has acted both to defend herself and to
prevent a crime against God, she is not a sinner (dthim). She is not,
therefore,liable for ta'zir.'2
Facedwith the same problem,the seyhii'l-islamHiiseyn [held office
1632-34] comes moredirectlyto the point:
(13) Question: WhileZeyd is drunkwith a forbiddensubstance,he
divorceshis wife Hindwith a tripledivorce.After
daybreakhe deniesit andhis wife Hindis unableto
proveit. Whatis the way for Hind to save herself
fromfornication?
Answer: If no othermeansof escapeis possible,it is licitto add
poisonto Zeyd'sfood.
Like Ebi'l-su'fd, Hiiseyn is concernednot with the woman's welfare,
but to prevent an offence against God. When it is merely a woman's
welfare that is at stake, Ebfi'l-su'fid at least is less specific in his
remedy:
(14) Question: Zeydhurtshis wife Hindin manyways. If the qadi
knows about it, is he able to separateHind from
Zeyd?
12 Ebi'l-su'id is perhapsbeing undulypunctiliousin prescribingthe use of
poison to kill the ex-husband.In anothercase in which a woman, in orderto
preventzind, kills her assailantwith an axe - thatis, with an offensiveweapon
- he exemptsher entirelyfromliability,declaringthatshe has performedan act
of "holy war" (ghazd). [M.E.Diizdag,SeyhiilisldmEbussud efendi fetvalart
itglinda 16.asirTurkhayatt(Istanbul:EnderunKitabevi,1972),no. 781]. Poison-
ing, however,is undoubtedly moresatisfactorythanusinga weapon.It is unobtru-
sive andexploitsa legal subtlety.

This content downloaded from 142.103.160.110 on Mon, 16 Nov 2015 09:20:33 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
216 IMBER
COLIN

Answer: He is able to preventhis hurtingher by whatever

meansareposssible.
The answer is hardly satisfactory,but since the husband's offence is
in this case against his wife and not against God, it is unlikely that
Ebi'l-su'id would recommendthatshe use poison.

SourceReferencesforFetvds Quoted
DZ DurrizadeMehmed'Arif,Netlcetii'l-fetava(Manchester:John
Rylands Library,TurkishMs no.104).
Ali qatalcall 'Ali (compiled with proof-textsby $ilih b. Ahmed
el-Kefevi), Fetava-yi 'All Efendi (Istanbul: Imperial Press,
1312/1894-95)
ES M.E.Diizdak,$eyhiilislamEbussuudEfendiFetvalarinqlinda
16 Asir TurkHayati (Istanbul:EnderunKitabevi, 1972).
'Abd 'Abdu'l-rahim,Fetdvd-yi 'Abdii'l-rahim(Istanbul:Imperial
Press, 1243/1827).
IN Ibn Nujaym (compiled with Turkishtranslationby Re'fet b.
el-Hacc IbrahimRiiOdi),Fetdvd-yi Ibn-i Niiceym (Istanbul:
Matba'a-yi$eyh Yahya, 1279/1862-63).
Hus Fetdvd-yi Kemdlpa;azdde (Manchester: John Rylands
Library,TurkishMs no.39).

(1) DZf.142v
(2) Ali vol.2 p.296
(3) DZf.143r
(4) ES no.666
(5) 'Abd vol.l, p.369
(6) INp.336
(7) IN p.336-7
(8) ES no.755
(9) Ali vol.2 p.299
(10) Ali vol.2, p.299
(11) DZf.128v
(12) ES no.780
(13) Hus f.382r
(14) ES no.144

This content downloaded from 142.103.160.110 on Mon, 16 Nov 2015 09:20:33 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions