Hadith 3480

(1) The statement: “Slaughter a ram, for it will suffice you, etc.”: Meaning whoever vows to slaughter his son must slaughter a sheep, due to the story of Khalil (may Allah be pleased with him), and the second vow is nullified. Shafi’i said: It is as if he vowed to kill him, and it is nullified, whether it was to slaughter himself or his slave. Muhammad obligated a sheep. If it was to slaughter his father, grandfather, or mother, it is nullified by consensus, as they are not his earnings. [Stated in “Ad-Durr al-Mukhtar”] It is stated in “Radd al-Muhtar” and “Al-Ikhtiyar”: If one vows to slaughter his son or the like, he must slaughter a sheep according to Abu Hanifah and Muhammad. Similarly, vowing to slaughter himself or his slave according to Muhammad. Regarding parents, there are two narrations from Abu Hanifah, and the correct one is that it is not valid. Abu Yusuf and Zufar said: None of this is valid, as it is a sin, so it is not valid. For them, regarding the son, it is the view of a group of companions, such as Ali, Ibn Abbas, and others (may Allah be pleased with them), and it is not known by analogy, so it is by transmission. This is because obligating the slaughter of a son is an expression for obligating the slaughter of a sheep. If he vows to slaughter him in Mecca, he must slaughter the sheep in the sanctuary. Its evidence is the story of the sacrificial son, as Allah, the Exalted, obligated Khalil to slaughter his son and ordered him to slaughter a sheep, where He said: You have fulfilled the vision (As-Saffat: 105). Thus, it is so in our Shariah, either by Allah’s statement, the Exalted: Then We revealed to you, “Follow the religion of Ibrahim, inclining toward truth” (An-Nahl: 123), or because the Shariah of those before us is binding upon us until abrogation is established. It has parallels, such as obligating walking to the House of Allah being an expression for pilgrimage or minor pilgrimage, and obligating a sacrificial animal being an expression for obligating a sheep, and many similar cases. If vowing to slaughter a son is an expression for slaughtering a sheep, it is not a sin but an act of worship. Isbijabi and other scholars said: If he intends the actual slaughter and knows it is a sin, it is not valid. Its parallel is fasting for an elderly person, which is a sin as it leads to his destruction, yet vowing to fast is valid, and he must offer a redemption. This is considered an obligation for redemption, as here. For Muhammad, regarding himself and his slave, his authority over them is greater than over his son. For Abu Hanifah, the obligation of a sheep is contrary to analogy, known by inference from the story of Khalil. It was mentioned regarding the son, so it is limited to it. If he vows with the term “killing,” nothing is required by consensus, as the text uses the term “slaughter,” and “sacrifice” is similar, unlike “killing.” This is because slaughter and sacrifice are mentioned in the Quran as acts of worship and devotion, while killing is mentioned only as punishment, retribution, and prohibition. If one vows to slaughter a sheep with the term “killing,” it is not valid, so this is even more so.