Meaning of khaas and its types

أما الخاص فكل لفظ وضع لمعني معلوم على الانفراد وهو إما أن يكون خصوص الجنس أو خصوص النوع أو العين كإنسان و رجل و زيد.

As for khaas it is all utterance which is fixed for a known meaning which is singular (implies only one meaning). And it is either specific for a species, a division, or a subdivision, for example mankind, man, and Zaid.

Ruling of khaas

و حكمه أن يتناول المخصوص قطعا 

And its ruling is that it encompasses the specific indefinitely 

If you say زيد عالم then زيد is khaas and it does not require any additional information, similarly عالم is khaas and it does not require any additional information, so it can be established from the two words that Zaid is knowledgeable.

و لا يحتمل البيان لكونه بيّنا

And it does not require clarification because it is clear. 

The first subsidiarity upon the ruling of khaas

فلا يجوز إلحاق التعديل بأمر الركوع و السجود على سبيل الفرض

And it is not permissible to join the command of ruku and sujood upon the classification of fardh. 

Imam Shafi and Imam Abu Yusuf say that calmness in ruku and sujood is fardh, whereas tarafayn[1] say it is waajib. Imam Shafi and Imam Abu Yusuf bring the hadith where an Arab had shortcomings in his salah, so the Prophet ﷺ commanded him to pray again, and this occurred three times. On the other hand tarafayn say that the ayah {اركعوا واسجدوا}[2] is khaas and therefore does not require clarification.

The second subsidiarity upon the ruling of khaas

و بطل شرط الولاء و الترتيب و التسمية والنية في آية الوضوء

The condition of continuity, order, tasmiyah[3] and intention is negated in the ayah of wudu.

Imam Malik says continuity is fardh. Imam Shafi says order and intention is fardh, and the Ashab ul Zawahir say that tasmiyah is fardh. The Ahnaf say that these are not permissible as the ayah  {فاغسلوا وجوهكم}[4] is khaas thus does not require clarification.

The third subsidiarity upon the ruling of khaas

و الطهارة في آية الطواف

And (the condition of)  tahara  in the ayah of tawaf is negated. 

Imam Shafi says tahara is a condition for tawaf whereas Imam Abu Hanifa is of the opinion it is not a condition, as the ayah {وليطوفوا بالبيت العتيق}[5] is khaas and therefore does not need any clarification. Imam Shafi brings a hadith of Tirmidhi where the Prophet ﷺ said that tawaf of the house resembles salah. If tawaf is like salah then why is not taharah a condition for tawaf? The Ahnaf say the resemblance is not in general as there is no sujood or rukoo in tawaf, but the Ahnaf take the meaning of the hadith to be tawaf resembles salah in reward.

The fourth subsidiarity upon the ruling of khaas

والتأويل بالأطهار في آية التربّص.

And interpretation (of the word قروء) as طهارة is negated in the ayah of tarabbus (the waiting period after being divorced). 

Imam Abu Hanifa says the word قروء in the ayah { والمطلقات يتربصن بأنفسهن ثلاثة قروء}[6] means haydh as opposed to Imam Shafi who says it means  tahara . Imam Abu Hanifa is of the opinion it is  haydh because of the word ثلاثة which is khaas and therefore does not require clarification. So as talaq does not start except in a state of tahara according to the consensus; then if a women is divorced in tahara, then either you count this stage of tahara with iddat or you don’t count it. So as for the first where you count with iddat, which is the view of Imam Shafi, then her قروء  will be two and a bit as she will be in a state of taharah for even a little period at the beginning before she gets divorced. As for the second where you do not count the iddat stage, then her قروء will be counted as three and a bit. So for both circumstances it is not a complete three قروء , therefore as ثلاثة is khaas, its meaning will not be fulfilled. Whereas you can count three complete periods of haydh starting on completion of the taharah stage.

The preceding four examples show khaas cannot be modified with dhanni evidence. 

The first objection and its answer

و محلّلية الزوج الثاني بحديث العسيلة لا بقوله حتى تنكح زوجا غيره

And marrying a second husband is permitted (in order to make the first husband lawful) according to the hadith of عسيلة (honey) and not due to the verse of the Quran {حتى تنكح زوجا غيره}[7].

If a woman is given three talaq by her first husband and she marries another husband, then she is divorced by the second husband and she marries the first husband, the first husband can have her and he will have three talaq at his disposal, this is in agreement with both Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Shafi.  However the difference in opinion lies where the first husband has not given three talaq but less than that, the woman then marries her second husband and is divorced, now when she returns does the first husband have three talaq at his disposal or whatever is remaining from the first marriage with her? According to Imam Muhammad and Imam Shafi the husband has whatever is remaining from the first marriage, i.e. if he gave her one talaq in the first marriage then he has two talaq left, and if he gave her two talaq in the first marriage then he has one talaq left at his disposal. He says this because the word حتى is khaas and it comes for the meaning of end and termination, so he understands marriage of the second husband and not consummation to be the purpose of restricting the marriage. 

Whilst according to shaykhayn[8] he will have three talaq, this is not because of the ayah {حتى تنكح زوجا غيره}[9] but because they take the meaning of consummation and not marriage due to the hadith of عسيلة (honey); the wife of Rifa’ah came to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and said that Rifa’ah had divorced her three times so she married Abdul Rahman, but she complained about Abdul Rahman, so the Prophet ﷺ said “Do you want to return to Rifa’ah”, She said “Yes”, the Prophet ﷺsaid “No, until you taste his (Abdul Rahman’s) honey and he (Abdul Rahman) tastes your honey. “ i.e. consummation with the second husband is a condition before the woman returns to the first husband. The word return in the hadith indicates that she will be returning to her first state and therefore the husband will have three talaq at his disposal.

The second objection and its answer

و بطلان العصمة عن المسروق بقوله جزاء لا بقوله فاقطعوا

The preservation of the stolen object is negated with the word جزاء not with the word فاقطعوا . 

If a thief steals an object from someone and his hand is cut off, then if the stolen object is found with the thief then it should be returned to the owner according to the consensus. However if the item is destroyed then according to Imam Shafi it is necessary for it to be recompensed both when it is destroyed by itself or by the thief seeking to destroy it. Whilst according to Imam Abu Hanifa, it is not necessary for it to be recompensed when it has been destroyed by itself, but it should only be recompensed when the thief has sought to destroy it and then destroyed it. Imam Shafi’s objection is that in the ayah {والسارق والسارقة فاقطعوا أيديهما جزاء بما كسبا}[10] the word قطع is khaas and is fixed for a known meaning. The Ahnaf say that the preservation of the stolen object is negated through the words جزاء بما كسبا not with the words فاقطعوا , for verily the cutting is compensation for the stolen item, and the compensation is complete upon the cutting of the hand and there is no need to add an extra compensation to this, therefore there is no need to recompense the owner of the item.

The above two examples show objections by others who say that khaas can be modified with dhanni evidence, however the Ahnaf say that you cannot modify khaas with dhanni evidence. 

The fifth subsidiarity upon the ruling of khaas

و لذلك صحّ إيقاع الطلاق بعد الخلع

And for that it is correct to give talaq after خلع (women gives payment to the husband for divorce). 

According to us it is correct to give talaq to the wife after she gives خلع (payment for wanting of divorce), as opposed to Imam Shafi who says that خلع annuls the marriage therefore there is no need for talaq as there is no marriage after خلع. The Ahnaf say that the ف in the ayah {فان طلقها}[11] is khaas and is fixed for a specific meaning which is for commentary and explanation, and it is brought to explain the talaq after خلع is given, therefore it is correct to give talaq after خلع.

The sixth subsidiarity upon the ruling of khaas

و وجب مهر المثل بنفس العقد في المفوّضة

And it is waajib that something equivalent to mahr is given to the mufawwidah[12]

Imam Abu Hanifa is of the opinion that the mufawwidah should receive an equivalent mahr, whereas Imam Shafi opposes this as he says the nikah was not correct as there was no guardian. According to Imam Shafi the woman whose marriage is authorised by a guardian without specifying a mahr or specifying that there is no mahr, it is not wajib to give the woman mahr unless the marriage is consummated. So if one of them dies before consummation then mahr is not wajib. Whereas according to the Ahnaf it is wajib for the complete mahr to be given upon nikah taking place, regardless of whether the marriage is consummated and regardless of whether one of the two dies. This is because ب is khaas in the ayah {ان تبتغوا باموالكم}[13] and it is fixed for a known meaning which is linking and connection. And to do action upon khaas is wajib and it does not require clarification.

The seventh subsidiarity upon the ruling of khaas

و كان المهر مقدّرا شرعا غير مضاف إلي العبد

And the estimated mahr is fixed in shariah and not attributed to the slave (of Allah). 

The amount of the mahr is fixed by Allah, so it is not for the slave to give less than which has been fixed. That the amount of the mahr, according to Imam Shafi, is entrusted upon the judgement of the slave and upon his choice, so he can in essence give dust as mahr. Whereas the Ahnaf say the word فرضنا in the ayah[14] is khaas and to act upon khaas is wajib. They use the hadith where the Prophet ﷺ has informed us that there is no mahr less than ten dirhams.

عملا بقوله تعالى فإن طلقها فلا تحل له و أن تبتغوا بأموالكم  و قد علمنا ما فرضنا عليهم.

By acting upon the saying of Allah “and if you divorce her then she will not be halal for you” and “that you seek with your wealth,” and “indeed we know what we have made fardh upon them”. 

These three ayahs have been brought as evidence and explanation for the preceding three examples. The first being {فإن طلقها فلا تحل له }[15] which is brought to show that it is correct to give talaq after خلع, the second being {ان تبتغوا باموالكم}[16] which is brought to show that it is wajib to give mahr mithl to the one who married herself without specifying a mahr in the absence of a guardian, and the third being {قد علمنا ما فرضنا عليهم}[17] which is brought to show that mahr has been stipulated in shariah and therefore it is not for the slave to give less than that which has been stipulated.

The preceding three examples establish that it is wajib to act upon khaas.


[1] Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Muhammad

[2] Quran 22: 27

[3] To start with the words bismillah

[4] Quran 5:6

[5] Quran 22: 27

[6] Quran 2:228

[7] Quran 2:230

[8] Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Abu Yusuf

[9] Quran 2:230

[10] Quran 5:38

[11] Quran 2:230

[12] woman who authorised herself to get married without specifying a mahr without a guardian.

[13] Quran 4:24

[14] Quran 33:50

[15] Quran 2:230

[16] Quran 4:24

[17] Quran 33:50

Scroll to Top