and our own teacher ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Saʿdī—may Allah have mercy on them all.

A further attempt to harmonize the two ḥadiths proceeds as the commentator of Bulūgh al-Marām explains: the Prophet’s words in the first report, “Otherwise, whatever part of him has been set free is set free,” mean that the share of the emancipator is released by his act, while the partner’s share will be released through the slave’s earning (istisʿāʾ). When the slave has handed over the required amount, he becomes completely free and is then treated like a mukātab. This, al-Bukhārī affirmed categorically.

It also appears that opting for this earning arrangement is left to the slave’s own choice, for the Prophet said, “without overburdening him.” Had the law compelled the slave to toil and seek earnings until the sum was collected, the result would have been excessive hardship. Such compulsion is not required in a mukātab contract according to the majority of jurists, because the contract itself is non-obligatory; the present case is analogous.

Al-Bayhaqī favored this reconciliation, stating that no contradiction between the two ḥadiths remains whatsoever—and he is correct, except that the implication is that the partner’s share of ownership persists if the slave does not choose to undertake the earnings.