The evidence cited by the second group is the Prophet’s statement—peace and blessings be upon him—in the ḥadīth of Ibn ʿUmar: “Whoever slaps or strikes his slave, his expiation is to set him free.” They argue, therefore, that manumission in such circumstances is not obligatory but merely recommended. By way of legal reasoning they add that the basic rule of the Sharīʿah is that a master is never compelled to free his slave except where a specific proof makes it binding. The reports of ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb, however, are disputed in authenticity and are not strong enough to carve out an exception to so fundamental a rule.

As for the question whether the purchase of a blood relative causes that relative to become free—and, if so, which relatives are included—the jurists disagreed. The majority hold that kinship does trigger emancipation, with the exception of Dāwūd and his followers, who deny that any relative is freed on that basis.

Those who affirm the rule then differed about the scope of the relatives involved after agreeing that a man’s father and his children are certainly freed. Mālik maintained that three categories are emancipated upon him:

1. Ascendants: fathers, grandfathers, grandmothers, mothers, and all of their fathers and mothers—in short, everyone from whom the man is directly descended.

2. Descendants: sons, daughters, and all their progeny, however remote, whether through male or female lines; in sum, everyone who descends from him, male or female, directly or through an intermediary.

3. Collateral descendants who share with him his nearest common ancestor—namely brothers and sisters, whether full, paternal, or maternal. Mālik restricted this column to the immediate degree and did not require the emancipation of the siblings’ children.

Al-Shāfiʿī concurred with Mālik regarding the upper and lower direct lines but differed concerning siblings, holding that their emancipation is not obligatory.

Abū Ḥanīfah, by contrast, obliges the emancipation of every unmarriageable blood relative (maḥram): the paternal uncle and aunt, maternal uncle and aunt, nieces, and all comparable kin.

The root of the disagreement between the literalists (Ahl al-Ẓāhir) and the majority is their respective understanding of a third ḥadīth: the Prophet’s words—peace and blessings be upon him—“A child cannot repay his parent in full except by finding him a slave, purchasing him, and setting him free,” recorded by Muslim, al-Tirmidhī, Abū Dāwūd, and others.

The majority infer from this that if the child does buy the parent, emancipation becomes obligatory, though the purchase itself is not required. The Ẓāhirīs, on the other hand, hold that the ḥadīth places no obligation either to purchase or to manumit, even after purchase. They argue that attributing the act of emancipation to the child merely proves the validity of his ownership; had the majority’s reading been correct, the wording would have been, “except that he buy him, whereupon freedom automatically ensues.”