And because it is a punishment that cannot be divided, so its completion is necessary, like the penalty of cutting in theft. As for our evidence, it is what Ibn Shihab narrated from Ubayd Allah ibn Abd Allah, from Abu Hurayrah and Zayd ibn Khalid, and they were asked (4), they said: The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) was asked about the female slave if she commits adultery and has not been married (ihsan), he said: "If she commits adultery, flog her. Then if she commits adultery, flog her. Then if she commits adultery, flog her. Then if she commits adultery, sell her even for a rope." (5). It is agreed upon (6). Ibn Shihab said: This is a clear text regarding flogging the female slave if she has not been married, and it is an argument against Ibn Abbas and those who agree with him, and Dawud. Dawud's stipulation of one hundred lashes upon her if she is not married, and fifty if she is married, is contrary to what Allah the Almighty has legislated; for Allah has doubled the punishment of the married woman over others, so He decreed stoning for the married woman and flogging for the virgin, while Dawud has doubled the punishment of the virgin over the married woman, and following the legislation of Allah is more appropriate. As for the implication of the address (dalil al-khitab), it has been narrated from Ibn Mas'ud, may the mercy of Allah be upon him (7), that he said: "Her protection (ihsan) is her Islam and her periods" (8). Then, the implication of the address is only considered an argument if there is no other benefit for the specification by mention, other than assigning the ruling to it. Whenever there is another benefit, it is not an argument; such as if it comes in the context of what is common, or for alerting, or for a certain meaning. Allah the Almighty has said: "And your step-daughters who are in your guardianship (9)." And the prohibition was not restricted to those in their guardianship (10). He also said: "And the wives of your sons who are from your own loins (9)." He also prohibited the wives of sons through breastfeeding, and the sons of sons. He said: "There is no sin upon you if you shorten the prayer if you fear that those who disbelieve will test you (11)." And shortening was permitted without fear. As for the male slave, there is no difference between him and the female slave; thus, specifying one of them establishes its ruling for the other, just as the statement of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace): "Whoever emancipates his portion of a jointly-owned slave" (12) has its ruling established for the female slave. Furthermore, the explicitly stated ruling (mantuq) is superior to it in any case. As for Abu Thawr, he opposed (13) the text of His statement: "And when they are protected (married), if they commit a shameful act, they shall have half of what the protected women have of punishment." He acted upon it where the text did not cover it, and he broke the consensus in mandating stoning for protected women, just as Dawud broke the consensus in completing the flogging for male slaves (14) and doubling the punishment of virgins over protected women.

Section: There is no banishment for a male slave or a female slave. This is the opinion of al-Hasan, Hammad, Malik, and Ishaq. Al-Thawri and Abu Thawr said: They are banished for half a year, due to His statement: "They shall have half of what the protected women have of punishment." Ibn Umar flogged a slave girl of his and banished her to Fadak (15). Regarding al-Shafi'i, there are two opinions corresponding to these two doctrines. Those who mandated it argued with the generality of his statement, peace be upon him: "And the virgin with the virgin: one hundred lashes and banishment for a year" (16). As for our evidence, it is the hadith mentioned in our argument, and it did not mention banishment within it, and if it were obligatory, he would have mentioned it; because it is not permissible to delay clarification.