Vol. VII, No. 6.} The Wagqf of Moveables. 343 
[W.S.] 
the continuance of thei Paake in his 
we Sale is lawful’’—this is to earl against Dea Welet 
whose wagf is not valid. ‘‘ Whilst there is no antagonistic 
influence on the ground of tradition ’’—The qiyas with regard 
to moveables is that their wagf is not valid, because their wag/ 
does not endure, whilst perpetuity is indispensable ; but the an- 
tagonistic influence of tradition has overruled giyas in certain 
es, as for instance, in the case of coer pet arms 
because of the existence of well-known traditio and in 
certain other cases the antagonistic influence of Ta! amul am 
overruled giyas, as for instance, in the case of axes, hatchets, 
shovels, cauldrons, and pots; the rest, for instance, articles like 
clothes and carpets, and those like slaves and slave-girls 
dedicated independently continue subject to the rule of qiyas, 
as there is no opposing force with respect to them on the ground 
of tradition or T'a‘amul. 
XXI. Tue ‘Inayan (Vol. V, p. 432, Hd. Cairo). 
We (the Hanafis) contend that the wagf of moveables does 
not endure, and that is obvious, and whatever does not endure 
cannot be made wagf of—perpetuity being indispensable as 
stated before. a all the moveables become like dir- 
hams and dinars. author’s statement ‘‘ unlike land ”’ is 
by way of reply to his (al Shafi? 8) eee on the analogy - ae 
The author’s statement ‘‘ whilst ther no antagonis in- 
fluence on the ground of tradition’’ is ree way of a to 
his (al Shas‘ om statement, ‘‘ therefore it resembles horses 
and arms. The reason is that like dirhams, originally, 
the wagf of horses and arms also were not valid, but that 
we have abandoned it (giyds) in consequence of an out-weigh- 
ing antagonistic influence based on tradition. Theauthor’s state- 
ment “nor on the ground of Ta‘amul” is by way of reply 
to the following argument: The ‘original principle has been 
disregarded with respect to horses and arms in consequence 
of an antagonistic influence based on tradition Wwhiok’ hon ~~ 
resent in cauldrons, shovels, etc. Therefore, let th 
dispute be decided on the analogy of these. The réasioii 1 is is that 
the articles mentioned above have been affected by an antago- 
nistic influence based on Ta‘a@mul which is not present in the 
question in dispute, ¢.g., ‘slaves and slave-girls, clothes, carpets 
e. So t these: remain subject to the rule of the 
oy 
. The author (of the Hidayah) did not mention T'a‘amul 
relying on its being a well-known act that Ta‘amul is stronger 
than Qiyas, and itis therefore permitted to disregard it (giyas) 
in consequence of T'a‘amul. 
