As for marrying this “freedwoman” without her emancipator’s permission, there are two well-known scholarly opinions. Those who do not require the guardian’s permission—such as Abū Hanīfa and, according to one of the two reports from him, Mālik—consider this marriage valid. Those who require the guardian’s permission, such as al-Shāfiʿī and Ahmad, have two opinions on this issue, both reported from Ahmad.

The “first” is that she may not be married off without her emancipator’s permission, since the latter holds the position of an agnatic relative to her. On this view, may the emancipating woman herself contract the freedwoman’s marriage? There are two opinions, both reported from Ahmad.

The “second” is that contracting her marriage does not require her emancipator’s permission, because a woman cannot be her own marriage guardian and therefore cannot be another woman’s guardian. Moreover, since they hold that she may not herself contract a marriage, her permission is not required. On this view, the freedwoman’s marriage is contracted, with her consent, by the person entitled to contract her emancipator’s marriage—for example, the emancipator’s brother or someone similarly placed—provided that he is qualified to act as a marriage guardian. If he is not qualified and the judge contracts her marriage, it is valid; otherwise, it is not. If they are qualified according to Abū Hanīfa, the right of patronage belongs to them, while the judge contracts her marriage.

He was also asked:

A man proposed to a woman. When inquiry was made about how he supported himself, the answer given was that some of his income came from government sources. The guardian therefore refused to marry her to him. The suitor stated that the Hanafī jurists permitted receiving such funds. Has any scholar stated that receiving funds from these sources is permissible? May the guardian in question reject the suitor on this ground, despite the prospective bride’s consent?