Some scholars, including the Ẓāhirīs, said that a contract of emancipation is obligatory if the slave requests it, subject to this condition: “if you know goodness in them” [Quran 24:33]. They said: This is because the basic implication of a command is obligation, and because it increases the number of free people. The Lawgiver is especially concerned with freedom, to the extent that a slave is emancipated if he is mutilated, and is emancipated through consequential emancipation.

As for the response to the claim that a person cannot be compelled to relinquish his property unless it is for the right of another person, it may be said: Rather, he may be compelled even for a right not belonging to another person. For example, in zakah, a person is required to take it from his property by the command of Allah, Mighty and Majestic. This view is very strong: namely, that the slave’s request for a contract of emancipation must be granted if he asks for it, provided that goodness is known to be in him.

His statement, “It is disliked in its absence,” means in the absence of goodness. That is, it is disliked if he is feared to cause evil and corruption, or if he has no means of earning, because if he is freed without an ability to earn, he becomes a burden upon himself and others.

His statement, “It is permissible to sell the slave under a contract of emancipation, and his purchaser takes the place of the one who contracted his emancipation,” means that if a man has entered into a contract of emancipation with his slave and wishes to sell him, is this permissible? The answer is yes, it is permissible. The evidence is the hadith of Aishah in the story of Barirah: Aishah bought her from her owners, and the Prophet approved this and affirmed her action. Indeed, he expressly permitted her, saying: “Take her, and stipulate for them the right of cliental affiliation.” (1) Thus, selling a slave under a contract of emancipation is permissible, but does the second master have the right to