that I pay it to them, and that your cliental affiliation be mine, I will do so.” (1) This indicates that contractual emancipation may be for an immediately payable sum when the money comes from someone other than the slave. As for the slave himself, this is impossible, since he owns nothing.
His statement, “owed by him,” means: owed by the slave, for it cannot be against a specific asset, since he has no property. Thus, it must necessarily be a deferred debt.
The author then explained the ruling of contractual emancipation, saying:
“It is recommended when the slave is trustworthy and able to earn.” The author thereby informs us that contractual emancipation is recommended if the slave is trustworthy and able to earn a living. If he is not trustworthy—for example, if it is feared that, upon being freed, he will go to the disbelievers and join them against the Muslims, or if it is feared that, once freed, he will spread corruption in the land—then contractual emancipation is not recommended, because he is not trustworthy and because freeing him in this case leads to evil. Averting harm takes precedence over procuring benefit.
His ability to earn is also a condition. If he is incapable of earning, such as if he is chronically disabled—that is, unable to work or seek a livelihood—then contractual emancipation is not recommended. The evidence for this is Allah’s statement:
“And those of your slaves who seek a contract for emancipation, make such a contract with them if you know goodness in them.” [Quran 24:33]
The exegetes said: that is, uprightness in their religion and an ability to earn.
His statement, “It is recommended”: There is a difference of opinion on this issue. If a master knows there to be goodness in his slave and the slave asks him for a contract of emancipation, the author holds that granting him such a contract is recommended. The evidence is that Allah commanded it, saying:
“Make such a contract with them.”
The reason why this command signifies recommendation rather than obligation is that the slave is the master’s property, and a person cannot be compelled to relinquish his property unless another person’s right is attached to it.