from ‘Amrah, from ‘Ā’ishah: ‘If your owners would like] me to pay them your price in a single sum and set you free, I would do so.’” This indicates that a slave under a manumission contract remains a slave until he pays the amount due under his contract. Had the contract itself made him a free man indebted like any other debtor, no scholar would have permitted his sale.

A second view is that, if he becomes unable to meet his payments, he is freed in proportion to what he has paid, may be inherited from and may inherit, and, if killed, blood money is paid in proportion to what he has paid. Concerning this, Ibn Abī Kathīr narrates a hadith from ‘Ikrimah, from Ibn ‘Abbās, that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said: “For a slave under a manumission contract, the blood money of a free person is paid in proportion to what he has paid, and the blood money of a slave in proportion to the part of him that remains enslaved.” This is the view of ‘Alī ibn Abī Tālib.

A third view is that, once he has paid half the amount due under his contract, he becomes a debtor like any other and never returns to slavery. This view is reported from ‘Umar ibn al-Khattāb, may Allah be pleased with him.

A fourth view is that, once he has paid one-third, he becomes a debtor like any other. This is reported from Ibn Mas‘ūd and Shurayh. A fifth view is that, once he has paid three-quarters, he becomes a debtor; this is reported from ‘Atā’. A sixth view is that, once a slave under a manumission contract has paid his value, he becomes a debtor. This too is reported from Ibn Mas‘ūd and Shurayh.

Section

There are two views on whether a master may compel his slave to enter into a manumission contract. It is reported from Mālik that he may impose such a contract upon him against his will. Ismā‘īl al-Qādī related this from him in his work al-Ahkām. This also follows from Mālik’s position in al-Mudawwanah: if a master may grant his slave outright manumission in return for a sum imposed upon him as a binding debt after manumission, then a manumission contract should all the more be binding upon him. This is also the apparent meaning of Ashhab’s report from Mālik, recorded among the reports he heard from him in al-‘Utbiyyah.

Ibn al-Qāsim expressed differing views on this. In the Book of Manumission Contracts in al-Mudawwanah, concerning a master who concludes a contract with his slave covering both that slave himself and another slave of the master who is absent, he states that the contract is binding upon the absent slave and that payment may be demanded of him whether he wishes it or not. In its second Book of Manumission, however, he says concerning a man who says to his slave: