Some have said that one quarter of the amount due under his manumission contract should be remitted, though the proponent of this view did not consider it obligatory. Others preferred that his final instalment be remitted. Still others held that the master should give him something from his own wealth, apart from the proceeds of the manumission contract. It has also been said that this command is addressed only to the authorities, requiring them to give such slaves a share of zakat, rather than to their masters, because Allah Most High says:

“And for freeing slaves.” [al-Tawbah: 60]

It has been reported that the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said: “Whoever helps a slave under a manumission contract to secure his freedom, Allah will shade him in His shade on the Day when there is no shade but His.”

Section

A master is therefore not obliged to grant his slave a manumission contract when he requests one, for any amount, small or large, even if he knows there is good in him. Nor, if he grants him such a contract, is he obliged to remit any of its amount unless he wishes. This is the position of Mālik, all his companions, and the majority of scholars. Some scholars, namely the Zāhirīs, understood Allah’s command to grant manumission contracts as obligatory. They said that a man must grant his slave such a contract when he requests it for an amount equal to his value or more. This was also reported from Ibn ‘Abbās.

The correct position is that of Mālik, may Allah have mercy on him, and the majority of scholars, as we have explained. Al-Shāfi‘ī held that a master is not obliged to grant his slave a manumission contract when he requests one, but that, if he does, he must be compelled to remit something from the agreed amount, however little. He said: “In my view—and Allah knows best—this is like His words, Mighty and Majestic:

‘For divorced women there is a provision according to what is reasonable.’ [al-Baqarah: 241]”

For his position is that the parting provision is obligatory. He said: “If the master dies before remitting anything, his heirs must be compelled to do so. If they are minors, the judge shall remit on their behalf the smallest amount under his manumission contract that can be called ‘something.’” Thus al-Shāfi‘ī made the subsidiary ruling more binding than the principal one, and the designation “something” is not part of his manumission contract. Thus al-Shāfi‘ī made