his oath commits him to fasting, prayer, or a similar act that is binding upon him, it brings him under the rules of īlā. According to Muhammad ibn al-Mawwāz, an oath sworn by Allah brings him under the rules of īlā even if he has wealth.

No gift, charity, donation, manumission, or other act of beneficence involving his property is binding upon him, except that if he frees a slave woman who has borne him a child, her manumission is binding. This is because she resembles a wife, in whom his only entitlement is sexual enjoyment through intercourse. There are three opinions on whether her property accompanies her:

The first is that it does. This is Mālik’s view as transmitted by Ashhab.

The second is that it does not. This is Yahyā’s transmission from Ibn al-Qāsim.

The third distinguishes between her property being small or substantial in amount. I believe this is Asbagh’s view.

Al-Mughīra and Ibn Nāfiʿ said that her manumission is neither binding upon him nor valid, unlike divorce. His acknowledgment of a debt is not valid unless he makes it during illness, in which case it is payable from one third of his estate. Ibn Kināna stated this, and Asbagh approved it, provided the amount is not excessive, even if one third would cover it.

His sales, purchases, marriage contracts, and similar transactions involving consideration rather than acts of beneficence are subject to his guardian’s assessment, if he has a guardian. If the guardian considers it appropriate to approve a transaction, he approves it; if he considers it appropriate to rescind it, he rescinds it, exercising his judgment in the man’s best interests. If he has no guardian, the judge appoints someone to oversee these matters for him as a testamentary guardian would. If this is not done before he gains control of his own affairs, he may choose either to rescind or to approve those transactions. If he rescinds his sales and purchases after having dissipated the sale proceeds or consumed or destroyed what he purchased, no claim for any of this may be enforced against his property.

There is disagreement if what he purchased was a slave woman and she bore him a child. One view is that this precludes her return, and she is not returned. Another is that, as with manumission, it does not preclude her return: she is returned, and he owes nothing for the value of the child. There are also two opinions on whether his property is to be sold to repay the price if he spent it on indispensable needs which he was obliged to meet.

If what a purchaser bought from him was a slave woman who subsequently bore the purchaser a child or whom he freed, sheep that produced offspring, a plot on which he built, or something yielding income which he collected, the ruling in all these cases is the same as for someone who purchases from a person he believes to be the owner, only for the purchased property to be reclaimed from him by its rightful owner after he has made the changes just mentioned. The slave woman who was freed is returned to the man under guardianship, her manumission is annulled, and he takes