Minhāj al-Ṭālibīn - An-Nawawi - (109)

Chapter: The Slave Who Has Not Been Authorized to Trade

According to the sounder opinion, any purchase he undertakes without his master’s permission is invalid. The seller may reclaim the merchandise whether it is still with the slave or has passed into the master’s possession. If the item is ruined while in the slave’s hand, liability rests on the slave personally; if it is destroyed while with the master, the seller may hold the master liable, and he may also pursue the slave once the latter is emancipated. A loan contracted by such a slave is treated like his purchase—equally invalid.

If the master does grant him permission to trade, the slave may act only within the limits of that permission; if it is confined to a single type of transaction, he may not exceed it. Even with permission, he may not marry, hire himself out, authorize his own slave to trade, give charity, transact with his master, or lose the authorization by running away; nor does the master’s mere silence count as consent. The slave’s admission of debts stemming from authorized trade, however, is accepted.

Anyone who knows a man to be a slave must not deal with him until he is certain of the master’s authorization—whether by hearing it directly from the master, by legal testimony, or by its being widely known among the people (there is another view regarding widespread notoriety). The slave’s own word is insufficient.

If an authorized slave sells goods, collects the price, the price is then lost while still in his possession, and the goods later prove to belong to someone else, the buyer may recover their equivalent from the slave and, on the stronger view, may also sue the master; another opinion bars action against the master, and a third allows it only if the slave lacks sufficient assets. The same range of views applies when the slave himself buys goods and the question arises whether the master is liable for the price.

Debts arising from trade are attached neither to the slave’s person nor to the master’s liability; they are settled solely from the capital of the business. The same ruling holds, on the stronger opinion, for anything he earns through hunting and the like.

According to the more evident view, a slave does not acquire ownership merely because his master transfers property to him.

باب العبد إن لم يؤذن له في التجارة لا يصح شراؤه بغير إذن سيده في الأصح ويسترده البائع سواء كان في يد العبد أو سيده فإن تلف في يده تعلق الضمان بذمته أو في يد السيد فللبائع تضمينه وله مطالبة العبد بعد العقد واقتراضه كشرائه وأن أذن له في التجارة تصرف بحسب الإذن فإن أذن في نوع لم يتجاوزه وليس له نكاح ولا يؤجر نفسه ولا يأذن لعبده في تجارة ولا يتصدق ولا يعامل سيده ولا ينعزل بإباقه ولا يصير مأذونا له بسكوت سيده على تصرفه ويقبل إقراره بديون المعاملة ومن عرف رق عبد لم يعامله حتى يعلم الإذن بسماع سيده أو بينة أو شيوع بين الناس وفي الشيوع وجه ولا يكفي قول العبد فإن باع مأذون له وقبض الثمن فتلف في يده فخرجت السلعة مستحقة رجع المشتري ببدلها على العبد وله مطالبة السيد أيضا وقيل: لا وقيل: إن كان في يد العبد وفاء فلا ولو اشترى سلعة ففي مطالبة السيد بثمنها هذا الخلاف ولا يتعلق دين التجارة برقبته ولا ذمة سيده بل يؤدي من مال التجارة وكذا من كسبه باصطياد ونحوه في الأصح ولا يملك العبد بتمليك سيده في الأظهر.