Hadith 3377

(1) His statement: “The freeing of a slave” Imam al-Sarakhsi said in The Comprehensive: According to us [the Hanafis], freeing a non-believing slave is sufficient for the expiation of declaring one’s wife like one’s mother’s back, oaths, and breaking a fast. However, according to al-Shafi‘i, only a believing slave is valid, based on Allah’s statement: “And do not aim for the impure of it to spend” [Qur’an, Surah al-Baqarah, 2:267]. [Shafi‘is argue] there is no impurity worse than disbelief. Additionally, in the hadith of Abu Hurairah, a man came to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) with a black slave and said, “I owe the freeing of a slave; will this one suffice?” The Prophet tested her faith, found her to be a believer, and said, “Free her, for she is a believer.” His testing her faith indicates that the obligation is only fulfilled by a believing slave. Furthermore, since this is a freeing for expiation, only a believing slave is valid, as in the expiation for killing. This is because the term “slave” is unqualified here but qualified by belief in the case of killing, and the unqualified is interpreted in light of the qualified, as the qualified is implied in the unqualified. Analogizing the implied to the explicit is valid. Moreover, attaching a condition implies the negation of the ruling in its absence, and similarly in analogous cases. Since expiations are of one genus, qualifying some with the condition of belief negates the validity of others without belief, just as the condition of justice in some testimonies negates validity without it in all, or the condition of delivering the sacrificial animal to the Ka‘bah negates validity without it in all sacrificial offerings. Our [Hanafi] argument is based on the apparent meaning of the verse, where the explicit term is “slave,” with no indication of the attribute of belief or disbelief. Restricting it to the attribute of belief would be an addition, and adding to the text is abrogation, which cannot be established by a solitary report or analogy. Furthermore, analogizing the explicit to the explicit is invalid according to us, as it implies a deficiency in what Allah has clarified, which is impermissible. Similarly, the conditions of expiations are not established by analogy, just as their essence is not. Claiming specification here is invalid, as specification applies to what has generality, but the unqualified is not general. The prohibition of freeing a blind slave or similar cases is not due to specification but because they are deficient in some aspect, as we have explained. Moreover, specification applies to what has an explicit term, and the attribute of the slave is not mentioned. It cannot be said that belief and disbelief are opposites, so allowing a believing slave negates allowing a non-believing one, because we allow a believing slave due to it being a “slave,” not due to the attribute of belief. Do you not see that we allow a young or old slave, despite the opposition between these attributes, and similarly a male or female slave, despite their opposition? The validity is based on the term “slave,” so the attribute is not considered. As for carrying the unqualified to the qualified, some of our Iraqi scholars permit this in a single incident, as in the statement, “For five camels, a sheep,” alongside, “For five grazing camels, a sheep.” However, the more correct view is that carrying the unqualified to the qualified is not permissible in a single incident or multiple incidents. Thus, Abu Hanifa permitted dry ablution with all parts of the earth based on the statement, “The earth has been made for me a place of prostration and a means of purification,” without carrying this unqualified term to the qualified term in, “Dust is a means of purification for the Muslim.” This is because the unqualified term has a ruling, which is its generality, and carrying it to the qualified negates its ruling. Ibn Abbas alluded to this, saying, “Leave ambiguous what Allah has left ambiguous.” The prohibition of zakat on non-grazing animals is not due to carrying the unqualified to the qualified but due to the explicit text that there is no zakat on working animals. Similarly, the condition of justice in testimonies is not due to carrying the unqualified to the qualified but due to the text requiring verification in the report of a sinner. Likewise, the requirement of delivering sacrificial offerings to the Ka‘bah is based on the text: “Then their place of sacrifice is at the Ancient House” [Qur’an, Surah al-Hajj, 22:33]. Even if this were permissible, it would only be after establishing equivalence between the two incidents, and there is no equivalence between the expiation for killing and other expiations. Killing is among the gravest major sins, involving the loss of a believing soul addressed by faith, unlike the causes of other expiations. Thus, it has a stricter requirement not present in others. For this reason, feeding is not a substitute for fasting in the expiation for killing, unlike the expiation for declaring one’s wife like one’s mother’s back. The condition of consecutive fasting in the expiation for oaths, according to us, is not due to carrying the unqualified to the qualified but due to Ibn Mas‘ud’s well-known reading. This is a flaw in their argument, as they do not require consecutiveness in it, which would be carrying the unqualified to the qualified. There is no meaning to the claim that the unqualified has two origins, one qualified by non-consecutiveness, such as the fasting of enjoyment, because that is not qualified by non-consecutiveness. Rather, it is not permissible before the day of sacrifice, as it is tied to the time of return with the word “when,” as in Allah’s statement: “And seven when you return” [Qur’an, Surah al-Baqarah, 2:196]. As for the hadith, some narrations state that the man said, “I owe the freeing of a believing slave,” or the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) knew through revelation that he owed a believing slave, so he tested her faith. Moreover, there is discussion about the authenticity of that hadith, as it is narrated that the Prophet said, “Where is Allah?” and she pointed to the sky. One should not assume that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) would ask anyone to ascribe a direction or place to Allah, the Exalted. There is no evidence for them in the verse, as disbelief is impure in terms of belief, but what is spent for expiation is not belief; it is the financial value. In terms of financial value, it is a minor defect that is easily removable. The author of The Glimmerings said: There is discussion among the Imams about requiring belief for expiations other than killing, and the truth likely lies in not requiring it, which is the Hanafi position. Nevertheless, it is preferable and better to do so, and this level of belief is sufficient for that purpose.

(3) His statement regarding one who makes a declaration of zihar and has intercourse before expiating: He said: “One expiation,” meaning if he has intercourse before expiating, no additional expiation is required due to the intercourse. The only obligation is the initial expiation, meaning nothing else is required beyond the first expiation based on this hadith. This is the view of the four Imams. However, we also hold that he should seek forgiveness from Allah, as transmitted in al-Muwatta from the statement of Malik. Nuh Afandi quoted Allamah Qasim, who mentioned that Muhammad reported it in “al-Asl” as a raised hadith. The intended meaning of seeking forgiveness is repentance from this sin, which is the prohibition of intercourse before expiation.