you are going to remove the slave from your ownership, I want him, for he is the one who borrowed from me.” But the slave’s master says: “I want to sell him and give you his price.” Thus, there is now a dispute between the master and the creditor.

The master’s statement is accepted. Yet someone may ask: Why should the master dispute this? Is it not all the same, since the slave will leave his ownership in either case?

We say: The master may consider the creditor unfit to have this slave in his possession, whether because of his bad character, because his morals are suspect, or for some other reason. This slave is dear to him, and he does not wish the creditor to own him, because the creditor treats people badly or is a lowly man. He may especially fear for the slave if, for example, the slave is young. Thus, he says: “I want to sell him and give him the price.”

If the creditor says: “I lent him ten thousand, but if you sell him, he is worth only five thousand riyals, so I will suffer a loss,” we say: You were negligent, even if you do suffer a loss. Why did you lend him an amount reaching ten thousand when you knew that he was a slave? Why did you not refrain until you had sought the master’s permission?

This choice granted to the master is a choice based on personal preference. When a person acts on behalf of someone else, however, the choice must be based on what serves that person’s welfare; whereas when he acts for himself, it is a choice based on personal preference. Yet in these two cases—selling the slave or handing him over to the creditor—we must say that the choice here must be based on welfare: the slave’s best interests are to be considered.