Among the conditions that apply to the slave to be manumitted.
As for the conditions of feeding: the jurists disagreed about the amount that discharges the duty for each of the sixty needy persons named in the text. From Mālik there are two reports, the more famous stating that each person is given one mudd according to the measure of Hishām—that is, two mudds by the Prophet’s measure (peace and blessings be upon him). Some have said it may be less than that, while others put it at one and one-third mudds. The second report from Mālik, which is also the view of al-Shāfiʿī, is that each poor person receives a single mudd measured by the Prophet’s mudd. The rationale for the first report is the concern that one ordinarily reaches satiety (that is, both lunch and supper); the rationale for the second is its analogy with the expiation for a broken oath. This, then, is their disagreement over the conditions of validity regarding the obligatory acts in this expiation.
Their differences over when the expiation is multiplied and when a single expiation suffices include the following cases:
-
If a man pronounces one formula of ẓihār concerning more than one wife, does a single expiation suffice, or must he offer as many expiations as there are wives? Mālik says one expiation suffices. Al-Shāfiʿī and Abū Ḥanīfah require an expiation for each wife: two for two, three for three, and so on. Those who liken the matter to divorce impose an expiation for each wife, whereas those who liken it to īlāʾ impose only one; and it more closely resembles īlāʾ.
-
If he declares ẓihār from his wife in several different sittings, is a single expiation due, or as many expiations as the number of sittings? Mālik says only one expiation is due unless he declares ẓihār, then makes the expiation, then declares it again; in that case a second expiation becomes obligatory. This is also the opinion of al-Awzāʿī, Aḥmad, and Isḥāq. Abū Ḥanīfah and al-Shāfiʿī maintain that each declaration of ẓihār entails its own expiation. When it all occurs in one sitting, Mālik holds—without dissent—that a single expiation suffices. Abū Ḥanīfah, however, makes the matter depend on intention: if the man means only to reinforce his first statement, one expiation suffices; if he intends a fresh act of ẓihār, then he must pay as many expiations as the number of declarations. Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd held that the expiation is owed for every declaration of ẓihār, whether the declarations occur in one sitting or in several.
The reason for this divergence is that a single ẓihār, in reality, is one utterance directed at one wife at one time, whereas a multiple ẓihār—about which there is no dispute—is two utterances concerning two wives at two times. If he repeats the wording concerning one wife, does that repetition create multiple ẓihārs, or not? And what if the wording is single but the wives are more than one? These cases stand midway between the two extremes: whoever stresses their resemblance to the first extreme applies its ruling, and whoever stresses their resemblance to the second applies that ruling.
- If a man declares ẓihār from his wife and then touches her before making the expiation, is only one expiation required or not? The majority of the jurists of the provinces—Mālik, al-Shāfiʿī, Abū Ḥanīfah, al-Thawrī, al-Awzāʿī, Aḥmad, Isḥāq, Abū Thawr, Dāwūd, al-Ṭabarī, and Abū ʿUbayd—say that only one expiation is due. Their evidence is the ḥadīth of Salamah ibn Ṣakhr al-Bayāḍī: “He declared ẓihār from his wife during the time of the Messenger of God (peace and blessings be upon him), then had intercourse with her before expiating. He came to the Messenger of God (peace and blessings be upon him) and related the matter …”