sixty poor persons, a wasq of dates, and you and your family eat the remainder.' I returned to my people and said: 'I found only restrictiveness and poor judgment with you, whereas I found abundance and good judgment with the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and he has ordered that your charity be given to me.'

Section: Every husband whose divorce is valid, his zihar is also valid. This is the mature, rational person, whether he is a Muslim or a disbeliever, free or enslaved. Abu Bakr said: 'The zihar of an intoxicated person is based on his divorce.' The Qadi said: 'Likewise, the zihar of a minor is based on his divorce.' The correct view is that the zihar of a minor is invalid because it is an oath requiring expiation, and it does not take effect from him, just like an oath by Allah the Almighty. Furthermore, the expiation was necessitated because of the abominable speech and falsehood it contains, and such is lifted from the minor because the Pen is lifted from him. It has been said: 'The zihar of a slave is not valid,' because Allah the Almighty said: {Then free a slave}, and a slave does not possess the capacity to own slaves. Our evidence is the generality of the verse, and because his divorce is valid, so his zihar is valid, like that of a free man. As for the requirement of a slave, it is only upon the one who finds one; if it remains for someone who cannot find one, such as the insolvent, his obligation is fasting. The zihar of a dhimmi (protected non-Muslim) is valid. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i. Malik and Abu Hanifah said: 'It is not valid from him because expiation is not valid for him, and it is that which lifts the prohibition, so the prohibition is not valid from him.' The proof they use that expiation is not valid for him is that it is an act of worship requiring intention, so it is not valid for him, like other acts of worship. Our argument is that whoever's divorce is valid, his zihar is valid, like the Muslim. As for what they mentioned, it is invalidated by the expiation for hunting if he kills game within the Sacred Precinct (Haram), and likewise, the hadd punishment is carried out upon him. We do not concede that expiation is not valid for him; for emancipation and feeding are valid for him, and only fasting is invalid for him. Thus, the validity of zihar is not prevented by the impossibility of some types of expiation, as is the case with a slave. Intention is only considered for designating the act for expiation, so that does not prevent it in the case of a disbeliever, just like intention in allusions of divorce. Whoever suffers from fits (al-khunaq) at times, his zihar is valid during his period of lucidity, just as his divorce is valid during it.