It was also said that it is prohibited but valid, and this is the position of the school.

And it was said that it is prohibited and invalid.

The reasoning of the school is that emancipation has particularly strong legal effect, and so it takes effect. Thus, if a man emancipates his share of a slave—for example, where a slave is jointly owned by two people and one of them emancipates his share—the entire slave is emancipated, and the emancipator is required to pay his co-owner the value of the latter’s share, due to the powerful legal effect of emancipation. Moreover, the Lawgiver strongly encourages emancipation. It is prohibited, however, because it is a disposal made without the permission of the other party, thereby negating his right; for once he emancipates the slave, the other party can no longer rescind the sale.

But the correct view is that it is prohibited and invalid; emancipation is not to be excepted. Rather, it is like any other form of disposal. It is prohibited because it constitutes an infringement upon the other party’s right. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said: “Indeed, your blood, your property, and your honour are inviolable among you” (1). This is an infringement upon property. It is invalid because the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said: “Whoever performs an act that is not in accordance with our matter, it is rejected” (2). Neither Allah nor His Messenger has commanded transgression against people; rather, the opposite is the case. Accordingly, it is invalid.

There is another line of reasoning as well: emancipation is an act of devotion by which one draws nearer to Allah. Can one draw nearer to Allah through disobeying Him? This is impossible. It is therefore contradictory and a kind of mockery of Allah’s Law.

His statement, “except for the purchaser’s emancipation”: if the seller were to emancipate the slave, then it would not—