the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: "Free her, for she is a believer." Reported by Muslim and al-Nasa'i. He thus attributed the permissibility of freeing her as a replacement for the slave he was required to free to the fact that she was a believer. This indicates that nothing but a believing slave suffices as a replacement for the slave required upon him. Furthermore, since this is an expiation by way of manumission, it is not permissible unless it is a believer, just like the expiation for homicide. An absolute textual command is interpreted in light of a restricted one by way of analogy (qiyas) if the underlying rationale is present in both, and its restriction is necessary; for we have reached a consensus that only a slave free from defects that cause significant harm to one's ability to work is sufficient, so restricting it by freedom from disbelief is even more appropriate.

The third issue: That nothing suffices him but a slave who is free from defects that harm one's ability to work in a clear and significant manner; because the objective is for the slave to possess the benefits of his own labor and to be enabled to act on his own behalf, and this is not achieved with defects that harm the ability to work in a clear manner. Thus, a blind person does not suffice, because he cannot work in most crafts; nor does one who is paralyzed, nor one whose hands or feet have been severed, because the hands are the tools of grasping and one cannot work without them, and the feet are the tools of walking and most work is not possible for him with their loss. Paralysis is equivalent to severance in this regard. A person who is completely insane does not suffice, because both meanings are found in him: the loss of the benefit of the species and the occurrence of harm to the ability to work. Malik, al-Shafi'i, Abu Thawr, and the People of Opinion have all held this view. It was narrated from Dawud that he permitted the manumission of any slave to whom the name "slave" applies, taking the absolute wording literally. We argue that this is a type of expiation, so it does not suffice with mere application of the name, just as with food; it would not suffice to provide worm-eaten or rotten food, even if it is still called "food." The verse is qualified by what we have mentioned.

Section: It does not suffice to free one who has a severed hand or foot, nor one whose hand or foot is paralyzed, nor one with a severed thumb or index finger, or middle finger.