Bukhari

Hadith Commentary:
The correspondence of this hadith with the translation of the chapter is difficult.

Hafiz said: What is derived from this hadith is that when a slave-girl (bondwoman) commits fornication (zina), she should be sold, and this is general, including even the slave-girl who is *mudabbara* (one for whom freedom is promised after the owner's death).

Thus, the permissibility of selling a *mudabbara* is derived. ‘Ayni objected to this, saying that in the hadith, the permissibility of sale is conditioned upon her committing fornication repeatedly, whereas according to those people, the sale of a *mudabbara* is valid in every case, whether she commits fornication or not. Therefore, it cannot be correctly deduced from this.

I say that ‘Ayni’s objection is invalid.

This is because if a *mudabbara* slave-girl commits fornication repeatedly, then the permissibility of selling her is derived from this hadith. And those who do not consider the sale of a *mudabbara* permissible, do not accept its permissibility even in the case of fornication.

Thus, this hadith is contrary to their statement and is in agreement with those who hold the permissibility of selling a *mudabbara*.

And although the ruling of sale in this hadith is given upon the condition of repeated fornication, yet the context indicates that the sale is not restricted to this.

Because, even a slave-girl who does not commit fornication at all, or does so only once, it is also permissible to sell her.

Now, as for ‘Ayni’s statement: Is this indication by the explicit wording of the text (*‘ibarat al-nass*), or by the indication of the text (*isharat al-nass*), or by the implication of the text (*dalalat al-nass*)? In response, we say: This is *dalalat al-nass* (implication of the text), because the hadith mentions a slave-girl in general, and that includes the *mudabbara*.

(Wahidi)