Abu Dawud

Benefits and Issues:
In this incident, since this woman was not the owner of the she-camel,
therefore, her vow was considered invalid (laghw).
And it is also understood from this that in a situation of necessity (idtirar), a woman may travel alone.

Hadith Commentary:
Vocabulary of the Hadith:
(1)
Wisaq:
Shackle,
bond,
tie,
that which is used to bind.
(2)
Sabiqat al-Hajj:
Those who are at the forefront during the journey of Hajj.
(3)
I'zaman li-dhalik:
The prisoner thought,
“We have a pact with the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam),”
but when their allies,
two companions from Banu Thaqif, were taken captive,
the pact was broken.
Therefore, the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) captured a man from their allies, Banu Aqil,
so that Muslim captives could be freed in exchange, and this is what happened.
And despite his claim of being a Muslim, he was returned,
because in the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah there was also a condition that
if any of our companions comes to you as a Muslim,
you must return him to us.
And he had declared his Islam at a time
when he was not free and independent,
so the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said,
“If you had declared this while being free and independent, you would have attained complete success.”
And in this incident, the she-camel named ‘Adhba’ was kept by the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) for himself,
and from this incident it is established
that it is necessary to provide food and drink to a captive.
(4)
Yurihuna an‘amahum:
Maraḥ,
the enclosure for livestock,
meaning they would make their camels sit in front of their houses at night.
(5)
Fa-infalatat:
That woman escaped from their captivity,
and according to Imam Ibn Ishaq, she was the wife of Abu Dharr (radi Allahu anhu),
whose name was Layla,
and this incident occurred in Jumada al-Akhirah, 6 AH.
In this case, the aforementioned incident is from before the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah,
and there was a separate pact with Banu Thaqif and their allies,
which Banu Thaqif broke.
Then again, they attacked Madinah,
in which they took the she-camel ‘Adhba’ and also took a woman captive.
(6)
Naqatun manuqah:
Tamed,
well-trained she-camel,
which is obedient to the rider.
(7)
Nadharu biha (s):
They became aware of its escape,
according to some, in this meaning the verbal noun of this verb is not used,
and according to others,
nadharah,
nadhrah, and nadhr are used as verbal nouns.

Benefits and Issues:
(1)
Bi’sa ma ma jazataha:
That she-camel which became the means or cause of her escape and deliverance from the enemy,
she repaid this favor and kindness by considering its sacrifice as a worthy recompense,
and became the cause of its death and destruction,
even though it was the cause of her life.
(2)
La wafa’a li-nadhrin fi ma‘siyah:
Fulfilling a vow (nadhr) to commit a sin is unanimously not permissible,
but there is a difference of opinion as to whether expiation (kaffarah) is required in this case or not.
There are three views regarding this:
(a)
According to Imam Nawawi,
if a person makes a vow to commit a sin, for example, to drink wine,
or to commit any other sin,
his vow is invalid,
and it does not take effect,
therefore, no kind of expiation is required.
This is the view of the majority of jurists,
Imam Malik,
Imam Shafi‘i, Imam Abu Hanifah, and Dawud al-Zahiri,
but according to Imam Ahmad, expiation of an oath (kaffarat yamin) is obligatory,
and another statement of Imam Ahmad is that no expiation is required.
Imam Masruq and Imam Sha‘bi also hold this view,
and the aforementioned hadith also indicates this.
(b)
Committing a sin is not permissible in any case,
but expiation of an oath is obligatory on the one who makes a vow to commit a sin,
and according to Imam Ibn Qudamah,
Ibn Mas‘ud,
Ibn ‘Abbas,
‘Imran ibn Husayn,
Jabir,
Samurah ibn Jundub (radi Allahu anhum),
Imam Abu Hanifah,
Imam Ahmad, and Imam Thawri, this is the view,
thus both opinions are transmitted from Imam Ahmad.
Al-Mughni,
vol. 9,
p. 3.
(c)
According to Imam Ibn Qudamah, the view of Imam Abu Hanifah
and his companions is that for a vow to commit a sin, the expiation of an oath is required,
and according to Allamah Sa‘idi, this is the correct view,
and the statement of Allamah Nawawi is not correct.
(Sharh Muslim,
vol. 4,
pp. 547-548)
But Allamah Taqi Usmani writes,
if the vow of sin is, in itself, a sin,
such as killing,
drinking wine,
fornication, or theft, etc., then this vow is invalid,
and does not take effect,
therefore, no kind of expiation is required,
and this is the context of this hadith.
But if the sin is for another reason,
such as intending to fast on Eid or the days of Tashriq,
then this vow is valid,
therefore, it will take effect,
and its missed fast must be made up,
or expiation must be given.
(Takmilah, vol. 2, p. 164)
And according to Allamah Taqi, if by vow is meant an oath,
then since the oath has been broken,
in every case the expiation of an oath is obligatory.
(Takmilah,
vol. 2,
p. 165)
But Allamah Sa‘idi has refuted Allamah Taqi with various evidences,
and supported Allamah Ibn Qudamah.
(3)
Wa la fima la yamlik:
From this hadith it is established that
if disbelievers loot the wealth of a Muslim,
it does not become their property,
meaning they do not become its owners,
because the disbelievers took the she-camel ‘Adhba’ of the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam),
and they had tied it in front of their houses,
and among all the enemy’s camels, it was this one that the Ansari woman escaped with,
but the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) did not acknowledge the ownership of the Ansari woman,
if the disbelievers had become the owners of the she-camel,
then the she-camel would have become the property of the Ansari woman,
therefore, the statement of the Hanafis is not correct that if disbelievers seize the wealth of a Muslim
and take it to their homeland or region,
they become its owners,
and in this incident, the she-camel had not yet reached their region,
even though the hadith contains explicit words
that they would make their camels sit in front of their houses for rest.

Explanation:
1:
This hadith proves that the exchange of prisoners of war is permissible. This is the opinion of the majority of scholars.

Takhrij:
«أخرجه الترمذي، السير، باب ما جاء في قتل الأساري والفداء، حديث:1568، ومسلم، النذر، حديث:1641.»©Explanation:
This hadith establishes that the exchange of prisoners of war is permissible.
The majority of scholars also hold this view, but according to Imam Abu Hanifah rahimahullah, exchange is not permissible.
In his opinion, a prisoner should either be killed or enslaved. However, when the Companions radi Allahu anhum captured a man from Banu Aqil, the Banu Thaqif captured two Companions radi Allahu anhuma.
Banu Thaqif were allies of Banu Aqil.
The polytheists released the noble Companions radi Allahu anhum, and the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam released that polytheist.
This is a clear proof for the majority.

Benefit:
From this, it is understood that freeing Muslims in exchange for disbeliever prisoners is permissible. Also, in this hadith, the courage of a female companion (sahabiyyah) is mentioned, showing how courageous the female companions were. A vow (nadhar) made for a sinful act or for something over which a person has no ownership should not be fulfilled.