The Absolute and the Restricted in the Texts of the Shari'ah

Question:
I read in the book *Usul al-Fiqh* (Principles of Jurisprudence) by Professor Abdul Wahhab Khallaf: that a person takes the absolute as absolute, and the restricted as restricted. For example, freeing a slave; it can be any slave, even if not Muslim. What is your opinion, Your Eminence?

Answer:
This is a matter of scholarly disagreement, and the position of the majority is that the absolute is restricted by the restricted. This is the rule in the Book... and the pure Sunnah; in both there are absolute texts, and in both there are restricted texts. The rule among scholars in the terminology of hadith and usul is that the relied-upon opinion is: that the absolute is restricted by the restricted. So the verse regarding freeing a slave is restricted by the verse regarding faith.
And so it is with other general texts; they are restricted by the specific ones. Rulings are not completed, and matters do not stand straight except upon this. The texts explain one another, restrict one another, and indicate one another. What is made absolute in one place may be restricted in another, and what is general in one place may be specified in another. This is the correct approach: to take the absolute as restricted, and the general as specific, as in His saying (Exalted and Majestic is He): [Al-Nisa: 11].
The texts came that the intended meaning is that the disbeliever does not inherit, the killer does not inherit, and the slave does not inherit. This is from the absolute, and the restricted, or from the general that is specified. And this is common, such as his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): It came in the other wording: So the black dog is restricted, and not the others. And so are many texts.