Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (11/331)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

The difference between explicit and indirect wording in legal effect is that explicit wording does not require an intention, whereas indirect wording does require an intention. This is because indirect wording consists of any expression that may bear the intended meaning or another meaning. If that is so, it can only convey the intended meaning through intention. Thus, if a master says to his slave, “I have no authority over you; go,” it may mean: “I have no authority over you regarding this task for which I told you to go,” or it may mean: “I have no authority over you at all”—that is, “You are free.”

Second: compulsion, namely the extension of manumission. If a person manumits half of a slave, the manumission extends by force to all of him, even if he did not intend this. Thus, if someone owns a slave and says, “One tenth of you is free,” he becomes entirely free; or if he says, “Your finger is free,” the manumission extends to all of him. Manumission is not divisible. Indeed, if a man manumits his share of a jointly owned slave, it extends to his partners’ shares, even though he does not own them. Yet it extends by force, and he gives his partners the value of their respective shares. This is what has been reported in the hadith from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ (1).

This applies if he possesses the amount owed to his partners. But if he does not possess it, the scholars hold two views:

The first view is that the manumission does not extend, because if it did, that would harm the partners, since he would have deprived them of the slave. Their ownership therefore remains as it was, and the slave becomes partially free: one part of him is free, while the remainder is enslaved.

(1) Reported by al-Bukhari in The Book of Manumission, chapter: “If a slave jointly owned by two people is manumitted” (2522); and Muslim in The Book of Manumission, chapter: “One who frees his share of a slave” (1501), on the authority of Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with him and his father). Its wording is: “Whoever frees his share of a slave and possesses sufficient wealth to cover the slave’s price, the slave is appraised at a fair valuation; he gives his partners their respective shares, and the slave is fully emancipated through him. Otherwise, whatever portion has been freed is freed.”

والفرق بين الصريح والكناية من حيث الحكم، أن الصريح لا يحتاج إلى نية، والكناية تحتاج إلى نية؛ لأن الكناية كل لفظ يحتمل المعنى المراد وغيره، فإذا كان كذلك فإنه لا يكون للمعنى المراد إلا بالنية، فإذا قال السيد لعبده: لا سبيل لي عليك، اذهب، فيحتمل أن المعنى لا سبيل لي عليك في هذا المذهب الذي قلت لك فيه: اذهب، ويحتمل لا سبيل لي عليك مطلقاً، يعني فأنت حر. ثانياً: القوة وهي السراية، فإذا أعتق نصف العبد سرى العتق إلى جميعه بالقوة حتى وإن لم يرده، فلو أن إنساناً عنده عبد فقال: عشرك حر، يعتق كله، أو: إصبعك حر، يسري العتق إليه كله، فلا يتبعض العتق، بل لو أن الرجل أعتق نصيبه من عبد وله شركاء سرى إلى نصيب شركائه، مع أنه لا يملكه، لكن يسري بالقوة ويعطي شركاءه قيمة أنصبائهم، هكذا جاء الحديث عن رسول الله ﷺ (١)، هذا إذا كان عنده ثمن الشركاء، أما إذا لم يكن عنده، فهذا فيه قولان للعلماء: القول الأول: أنه لا يسري العتق؛ لأنه لو سرى لكان في ذلك ضرر على الشركاء؛ لأنه فوَّت العبد عليهم، فيبقى ملكهم على ما هو عليه، ويكون هذا العبد مبعضاً، جزء منه حر والباقي رقيق.

(١) أخرجه البخاري في العتق/ باب إذا أعتق عبداً بين اثنين (٢٥٢٢)؛ ومسلم في العتق/ باب من أعتق شركاً له في عبد (١٥٠١) عن ابن عمر ﵄. ولفظه: «من أعتق شركاً له في عبد فكان له ما يبلغ ثمن العبد قوم قيمة عدل، فأعطى شركاءه حصصهم وعتق عليه العبد، وإلا فقد عتق منه ما عتق».