“You are free on condition that you pay me such-and-such an amount by such-and-such a date,” or leaves the deadline unspecified: the slave does not become free if he does not accept those terms. This contradicts his position permitting a manumission contract to be imposed upon an absent slave. Ibn Habīb also related the disagreement on this matter. And success comes through Allah.

Section

The position adopted by Ibn Bukayr and Ismā‘īl al-Qādī is that a master may compel his slave to enter into a manumission contract. Since a master may hire out his slave for a year or two and receive the wages while the slave remains enslaved, a manumission contract for a specified period, requiring an amount that he knows the slave can pay within that period through his work and earnings, is binding upon the slave. He may not refuse it, because it leads him to freedom without causing him any harm.

Those who disallow this relied on the apparent meaning of the words of Allah, Almighty and Majestic:

“His bounty. And if any of your slaves seek a manumission contract, make such a contract with them if you know there is good in them.” [al-Nūr: 33]

They argued: “This indicates that a slave should not be placed under a manumission contract unless he seeks one.” This is far-fetched. If a master is encouraged to grant his slave a manumission contract when he requests it, and is rewarded for doing so, then granting him such a contract without his requesting it brings an even greater reward and more abundant recompense. The slave may not refuse it, for the reason we have already explained.

Those who disallow this also argued that the master may be suspected of seeking to relieve himself of his obligation to maintain the slave. This is a weak argument: although he is relieved of the slave’s maintenance, he has also deprived himself of the slave’s service and earnings. For we hold that a master may compel only a slave who has the ability to fulfil such a contract and is not too weak to do so.