قَالَ اللهُ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ: ﴿وَالَّذِينَ يُظْهِرُونَ مِن نِّسَابِهِمْ ثُمَّ يَعُودُونَ لِمَا قَالُوا فَتَحْرِيرُ رَقَبَةٍ مِّن قَبْلِ أَن يَتَمَاسَّا ﴾ الْآيَةَ (المجادلة: ٣)
۱ قوله: فتحرير رقبة قال الإمام السرخسي في المبسوط وتجزئ الرقبة الكافرة في كفارة الظهار واليمين والإفطار عندنا، ولا يجزئ عند الشافعي الله إلا الرقبة المؤمنة؛ لقوله تعالى: ﴿وَلَا تَيَمَّمُوا الْخَبِيثَ مِنْهُ تُنفِقُونَ (البقرة: ٢٦٧)، ولا خبث أشد من الكفر، وفي حديث أبي هريرة : أن رجلا جاء إلى رسول الله ﷺ برقبة سوداء، وقال: علي عتق رقبة أفتجزئني هذه فامتحنها بالإيمان، فوجدها مؤمنة، فقال : أعتقها فإنها مؤمنة، فامتحانه إياها بالإيمان دليل على أن الواجب لا يتأدى إلا بالمؤمنة، ولأن هذا تحرير في تكفير، فلا يجزئ فيه غير المؤمنة ككفارة القتل، وهذا لأن الرقبة مطلقة هنا مقيدة بالإيمان في القتل والمطلق محمول على المقيد؛ لأن المقيد مسكوت عنه في المطلق، وقياس المسكوت عنه على المنصوص صحيح. ولأن التعليق بالشرط يقتضي نفي الحكم عند عدمه في عين ما تعلق بالشرط، وكذلك في نظائره استدلالا به والكفارات جنس واحد، فالتقييد بشرط الإيمان، في بعضها يوجب نفي الجواز عند عدم الإيمان في جميعها كالتقييد بشرط العدالة، في بعض الشهادات أوجب نفي الجواز عند عدمها في الكل، وكذلك التقييد بالتبليغ إلى الكعبة في هدي جزاء الصيد أوجب ذلك في جميع الهدايا.
وحجتنا في ذلك ظاهر الآية، فالمنصوص اسم الرقبة، وليس فيه ما ينبئ عن صفة الإيمان والكفر، فالتقييد بصفة الإيمان يكون زيادة، والزيادة على النص فسخ، فلا يثبت بخبر الواحد، ولا بالقياس، ثم قياس المنصوص على المنصوص عندنا باطل؛ لأنه اعتقاد النقص فيما تولى الله بيانه، وذلك لا يجوز، وكذلك شروط الكفارات لا يثبت بالقياس كأصلها، ولا يجوز دعوى التخصيص هنا؛ لأن التخصيص فيما له عموم والمطلق غير العام وامتناع جواز العمياء، ونظائرها ليس بطريق التخصيص، بل لكونها مستهلكة من وجه كما بينا، مع أن التخصيص فيما له لفظ، والصفة في الرقبة غير مذكورة، ولا يقال: بين صفة الكفر والإيمان تضاد، فإذا جوزنا المؤمنة انتفى جواز الكافر؛ لأن جواز المؤمنة عندنا لأنها رقبة لا بصفة الإيمان.
ألا ترى إنا نجوز الصغيرة والكبيرة، وبين الصفتين تضاد، وكذلك تجوز الذكر والأنثى، وبين الصفتين تضاد ولكن الجواز باسم الرقبة، فكان الوصف فيه غير معتبر فأما حمل المطلق على المقيد، فالعراقيون من مشايخنا يجوزون ذلك في حادثة واحدة، كما في قوله : في خمس من الإبل شاة، مع قوله في خمس من الإبل السائمة شاة، ولكن الأصح أنه لا يجوز حمل المطلق على المقيد عندنا في حادثة، ولا في حادثتين حتى جوز أبو حنيفة التيمم بجميع أجزاء الأرض؛ لقوله : جعلت لي الأرض مسجدا وظهور، أو لم يحمل هذا المطلق على المقيد ومحموله قوله : التراب طهور المسلم، وهذا لأن للمطلق حكما، وهو الإطلاق، وفي حمله على المقيد إبطال حكمه.
وإليه أشار ابن عباس له في قوله: «أبهموا ما أبهم الله وامتناع وجوب الزكاة في غير السائمة ليس الحمل المطلق على المقيد، بل للنص الوارد بأن لا زكاة في العوامل واشتراط العدالة في الشهادات ليس الحمل المطلق على المقيد، بل للنص الوارد بالتثبت في خبر الفاسق، وكذلك وجوب التبليغ إلى الكعبة في جميع الهدايا للنص، وهو قوله تعالى: ﴿ثم محلها إلى البَيْتِ الْعَتِيقِ﴾ (الحج: ۳۳، ولو جاز ذلك إنما يجوز بعد ثبوت المساوات بين الحادثتين، ولا مساواة بين كفارة القتل وبين سائر الكفارات؛ فإن القتل من أعظم الكبائر، وفيه تفويت رقبة مؤمنة مخاطبة بالإيمان، بخلاف أسباب سائر الكفارات، ففيها من التغليظ ما ليس في غيرها، ولهذا لا يكون الإطعام بدلا عن الصيام في كفارة القتل، بخلاف كفارة الظهار واشتراط صفة التتابع عندنا في الصوم في كفارة اليمين ليس بطريق حمل المطلق على المقيد، بل بقراءة ابن مسعود عليه، وهي مشهورة، وفي لازمة عليهم فإنهم لا يشترطون صفة التتابع فيها الحمل المطلق على المقيد.
ولا معنى لقول من يقول لذلك المطلق أصلان، أحدهما مقيد بالتفرق، وهو صوم المتعة؛ لأن ذلك غير مقيد بالتفرق، ولكن لا يجوز قبل يوم النحر ؛ لأنه مضاف إلى وقت الرجوع بحرف «إذا»، وهو قوله تعالى: ﴿وَسَبْعَةٍ إِذَا رَجَعْتُمْ﴾ (البقرة: ١٩٦) فأما الحديث فقد ذكر في بعض الروايات أن الرجل قال: علي عتق رقبة مؤمنة أو عرف رسول الله ﷺ بطريق الوحي أن عليه رقبة مؤمنة، فلهذا امتحنها بالإيمان، مع أن في صحة ذلك الحديث كلاما فقد روي: أن النبي ﷺ قال: أين الله ؟ فأشارت إلى السماء، ولا تظن برسول الله الله أنه يطلب من أحد أن يثبت الله تعالى جهة ولا مكانا، ولا حجة لهم في الآية؛ لأن الكفر خبث من حيث الاعتقاد، والمصروف إلى الكفارة ليس هو الاعتقاد، إنما المصروف إلى الكفارة المالية، ومن حيث المالية هو عيب يسير على شرف الزوال، انتهى. وقال في اللمعات»: إن في اشتراط الإيمان في غير كفارة القتل كلامًا بين الأيمة، ولعل الحق كان عنده عدمه، هو مذهب الحنفية، ومع ذلك كان الأولى والأفضل ذلك، ويكفي في ذلك هذا القدر من الإيمان.
Allah, the Exalted and Majestic, said: “And those who declare their wives like their mothers’ backs and then return to what they said, [must perform] the freeing of a slave before they touch each other” [Qur’an, Surah al-Mujadilah, 58:3].
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.
وَرَوَى التَّرْمِذِيُّ عَنْ أَبِي سَلَمَةَ أَنَّ سَلْمَانَ بْنَ صَخْرٍ وَيُقَالُ لَهُ: سَلَمَةُ بْنُ صَخْرِ الْبَيَاضِيُّ جَعَلَ امْرَأَتَهُ عَلَيْهِ كَظَهْرِ أُمَّهِ حَتَّى يَمْضِيَ رَمَضَانُ، فَلَمَّا مَضَى نِصْفُ مِنْ رَمَضَانَ وَقَعَ عَلَيْهَا لَيْلًا، فَأَتَى رَسُولَ اللهِ ﷺ فَذَكَرَ ذَلِكَ لَهُ، فَقَالَ لَهُ رَسُولُ الله ﷺ: «أَعْتِقْ رَقَبَةً». الْحَدِيثَ.
ظَاهِرُ الْآيَةِ وَالْحَدِيثِ عَدْمُ اعْتِبَارِ كَوْنِ الرَّقَبَةِ مُؤْمِنَةً، وَبِهِ قَالَ عَطَاءُ وَالنَّخَعِيُّ وَزَيْدُ بْنُ عَلِيَّ، وَقَالَ الْإِمَامُ السَّرَخْسِيُّ: فَالْمَنْصُوصُ اسْمُ الرَّقَبَةِ، وَلَيْسَ فِيْهِ مَا يُنْبِئُ عَنْ صِفَةِ الْإِيْمَانِ وَالْكُفْرِ، فَالتَّقْيِيدُ بِصِفَةِ الْإِيْمَانِ يَكُوْنُ زِيَادَةً، وَالزَّيَادَةُ عَلَى النَّصَّ نَسْخُ، فَلَا يَثْبُتُ بِخَبَرِ الْوَاحِدِ وَلَا بِالْقِيَاسِ، وَأَيْضًا لِلْمُخْلَقِ حُكْمُ وَهُوَ الْإِطْلَاقُ، وَفِي حَمْلِهِ عَلَى الْمُقَيَّدِ إِبْطَالُ حُكْمِهِ، انْتَهَى فَالتَّقْيِيدُ فِي أَحَادِيثِ الْمِشْكَاةِ بِالْإِيْمَانِ إِمَّا لِمَوَادٍ مَخْصُوصَةٍ لَا يَجُوْزُ فِيهَا إِلَّا الْمُؤْمِنَةُ كَكَفَارَةِ الْقَتْلِ خَطَأً، وَإِمَّا بَيَانًا لِلْأَفْضَلِ وَالْأَكْمَلِ، وَيُؤَيِّدُهُ مَا رَوَى الْبَيْهَقِيُّ فِي السُّنَنِ الْكُبْرَى».
Salman ibn Sakhr, also known as Salamah ibn Sakhr al-Bayadi, narrated that he made his wife like his mother’s back until Ramadan passed. When half of Ramadan had gone, he had intercourse with her at night. He went to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and mentioned this to him. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said to him: “Free a slave.” The apparent meaning of the verse and the hadith indicates that it is not required for the slave to be a believer. This was the opinion of Ata, al-Nakha‘i, and Zayd ibn Ali. Imam al-Sarakhsi said: “The text mentions the term ‘slave’ without any 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, the unrestricted term has a ruling, which is its generality, and restricting it to the specific negates its ruling.”
Notes / الحواشي
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.
عَنْ عُتْبَةَ قَالَ: جَاءَتْ امْرَأَةً إِلَى رَسُولِ اللهِ ﷺ بِأَمَةٍ سَوْدَاءَ، فَقَالَتْ: يَا رَسُولَ الله، إِنَّ عَلَيَّ رَقَبَةٌ مُؤْمِنَةٌ أَفَتُجْزِئُ عَنِّي هَذِهِ؟ فَقَالَ رَسُولُ الله ﷺ: «مَنْ رَبُّكِ؟» قَالَتْ: اللهُ رَبِّي، قَالَ: «فَمَا دِينُكِ؟» قَالَتْ: الْإِسْلَامُ، قَالَ: «فَمَنْ أَنَا؟» قَالَتْ: أَنْتَ رَسُوْلُ اللهِ، قَالَ: «فَتُصَلِّيْنَ الْخَمْسَ وَتُقِرِّينَ بِمَا جِئْتُ بِهِ مِنْ عِنْدَ الله» قَالَتْ: نَعَمْ، فَضَرَبَ عَلَى ظَهْرِهَا، وَقَالَ: «أَعْتِقِيْهَا».
وَفِي رِوَايَةٍ عَنْ عُبَيْدِ اللهِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللهِ بْنِ عُتْبَةَ بْنِ مَسْعُوْدٍ أَنَّ رَجُلًا مِنَ الْأَنْصَارِ أَتَى النَّبِيَّ ﷺ بِجَارِيَةٍ لَهُ سَوْدَاءَ، فَقَالَ لِرَسُولِ اللهِ : يَا رَسُولَ الله، إِنَّ عَلَيَّ رَقَبَةٌ مُؤْمِنَةٌ، أَفَأُعْتِقُ هَذِهِ؟ فَقَالَ لَهَا رَسُولُ اللهِ ﷺ: «أَتَشْهَدِينَ أَنْ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا الله؟ قَالَتْ: نَعَمْ، قَالَ: أَتَشْهَدِينَ أَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا رَسُولُ اللهِ ؟ قَالَتْ: نَعَمْ، قَالَ: «أَتُوقِنِينَ بِالْبَعْثِ بَعْدَ الْمَوْتِ؟» قَالَتْ: نَعَمْ، فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللهِ ﷺ: «فَأَعْتِقْهَا هَذَا مُرْسَلٌ وَقَدْ مَضَى مَوْصُوْلًا بِبَعْضِ مَعْنَاهُ.
Utbah narrated: A woman came to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) with a black female slave and said: “O Messenger of Allah, I owe the freeing of a believing slave. Will this one suffice?” The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said to her: “Who is your Lord?” She said: “Allah is my Lord.” He said: “What is your religion?” She said: “Islam.” He said: “Who am I?” She said: “You are the Messenger of Allah.” He said: “Do you pray the five prayers and affirm what I have brought from Allah?” She said: “Yes.” So he patted her back and said: “Free her.” In another narration from Ubaydullah ibn Abdullah ibn Utbah ibn Mas‘ud, a man from the Ansar came to the Prophet (ﷺ) with a black female slave of his and said to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ): “O Messenger of Allah, I owe the freeing of a believing slave. Shall I free this one?” The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said to her: “Do you testify that there is no god but Allah?” She said: “Yes.” He said: “Do you testify that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah?” She said: “Yes.” He said: “Do you believe in the resurrection after death?” She said: “Yes.” The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: “Then free her.” This is a mursal hadith, and a connected version with some of its meaning has already been mentioned.