Its expiation is the slaughter of a ram, and he feeds it to the needy. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifah. It is also narrated from Ibn 'Abbas; because a vow to slaughter a son was established in the Law (Shari'ah) like a vow to slaughter a sheep, based on the evidence that Allah the Exalted commanded Ibrahim to slaughter his son, and it was a command to slaughter a sheep, and the law of those who came before us is a law for us as long as its abrogation has not been established. The evidence that he was commanded to slaughter a sheep is that Allah the Exalted does not command immorality or disobedience, and the slaughter of a son is among the major sins. Allah the Exalted said: {And do not kill your children out of fear of poverty}. And the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "The greatest of the major sins is to set up a partner for Allah while He created you." It was said: "Then what?" He said: "To kill your child out of fear that he will eat with you." Al-Shafi'i said: This is of no consequence, and nothing is necessitated by it; because it is a vow of disobedience that is not required to be fulfilled, nor is it permissible, and no expiation is necessitated by it; because of the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "There is no vow in disobedience, nor in what the son of Adam does not possess." And because of his saying (peace be upon him): "Whoever vows to disobey Allah, let him not disobey Him." As for us, we rely on his saying (peace be upon him): "There is no vow in disobedience, and its expiation is the expiation of an oath." And because the vow's legal status is the status of an oath, based on the evidence of his saying (peace be upon him): "A vow is an oath, and its expiation is the expiation of an oath." Thus, it is in the position of one who swears that he will slaughter his son. Their statement that the vow to slaughter a son is a metonymy (kinayah) for slaughtering a ram is not valid; because if Ibrahim had been commanded to slaughter a ram, the ram would not have been a ransom, nor would he have been fulfilling the vision before the slaughter of the ram.