woman from the People of the Book married to a Muslim. As for the report of al-Aswad from Aisha, al-Qasim ibn Muhammad and Urwa have narrated from her that the husband of Barira was a slave. They are more specific regarding her than al-Aswad, because they are her nephew and the son of her sister. Furthermore, al-Amash narrated from Ibrahim, from al-Aswad, from Aisha, that the husband of Barira was a slave, so his two reports conflict. Ibn Abbas said: The husband of Barira was a black slave of the Banu al-Mughira, called Mughith. It was recorded by al-Bukhari and others. Safiyya bint Abi Ubayd said: The husband of Barira was a black slave. Ahmad said: These, Ibn Abbas and Aisha, said regarding the husband of Barira that he is a slave. This is the narration of the scholars of Medina and their practice; and when the people of Medina report a Hadith and act upon it, it is the most correct thing. It is only held that he was a free man from al-Aswad alone; as for anyone else, it is not as such. He [Ahmad] said: The marriage contract is valid, and it is not to be annulled by something that is a matter of disagreement. There is disagreement regarding [her being married to] a free man, but there is no disagreement regarding a slave. A free man differs from a slave because the slave is deficient, and when she becomes complete [i.e., free] while under him, she is harmed by remaining with him, unlike the case of a free man.

Section: The separation by way of an option is an annulment (faskh), and the number of divorces is not diminished by it. Ahmad explicitly stated this, and I know of no disagreement regarding it. It was said to Ahmad: Why is it not considered a divorce? He said: Because divorce is what the man pronounces. Moreover, it is a separation based on the woman's choice, so it is an annulment, like an annulment for his impotence ('unnatihi) or mental deficiency ('atihi).