—so it is as though he does not truly exist in society. Once he is set free and comes to own himself and the fruits of his labor, he returns to the ranks of the living.
-
The ḥadith points out that a father does not automatically gain his freedom merely because his son has purchased him; the son must still pronounce the act of manumission, as indicated by the Prophet’s words, “and then sets him free.” This is the position held by the Ẓāhirī school.
The majority of scholars—including the four Imams—contend that the father is emancipated the very moment his son buys him. They cite in support the forthcoming narration from Samurah ibn Jundub: “Whoever acquires ownership of a close blood-relative who is permanently unmarriageable to him (maḥram) becomes free.”
-
Reconciling the present ḥadith with the one just mentioned, al-Ṭībī writes in his commentary on al-Mishkāt that the wording here presents an impossible condition for the sake of emphasis. In effect it says: a child can never truly repay his parent—unless he were to own him and then set him free—an impossibility, for complete requital itself is impossible. Accordingly, the fa (“so”) in the phrase fa-yuʿtiquhu (“and then sets him free”) denotes causation, meaning the emancipation is triggered by the act of purchase, not succession, as the Ẓāhiriyyah understood it. And Allah knows best.