He said: "I have no slavery over you," "I have no ownership over you," and "You are for Allah." The Qadi said: This is explicit, and Ahmad has stated this clearly. Abu al-Khattab mentioned two narrations regarding it. There is no disagreement within the Madhhab that he is emancipated by it if he intended [emancipation]. Among those who said: "He is emancipated by his saying: 'You are for Allah' if he intended it," are al-Sha'bi, al-Musayyab ibn Rafi', Hammad, and al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifah said: "He is not emancipated by it, because its requirement is 'You are a slave to Allah' or 'created for Allah alone,' and this does not necessitate emancipation." Our argument is that it allows for: "You are free for Allah," or "emancipated for Allah," or "a slave to Allah alone, not a slave to me nor to anyone other than Allah." Thus, if he intended freedom by it, it takes effect, like all other implicit expressions (kinayat). What they mentioned is not valid, because its possibility for what they mentioned does not negate its possibility for what we mentioned, as evidenced by all other implicit expressions; for they allow for emancipation and other things, and if they only allowed for emancipation, they would be explicit regarding it. Whatever allows for two matters is directed toward one of them by intention; this is the nature of implicit expressions. What he mentioned regarding the possibility indicates that this is not explicit, but rather it is an implicit expression. His saying: "I have no ownership over you" and "I have no slavery over you" is a report regarding the absence of his ownership and slavery; no Law or customary usage for this in the context of emancipation has arrived, so it is not explicit regarding it, like his saying: "You are not my slave," "You are not my property," or his saying to his wife: "You are not my wife," "You are not my spouse."

Section: If he says to his slave-woman: "You are divorced," intending emancipation by it, there are two narrations. One of them is that she is not emancipated by it. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifah, because divorce is an expression established to remove ownership of the usufruct, so it does not remove ownership of the person, just as the annulment of a lease; and because ownership of the person is not restored by revocation (raj'ah), so it is not dissolved by divorce, like other types of ownership. The second narration is that it is an implicit expression by which the slave-woman is emancipated if [he intended emancipation]. This is the opinion of Malik and al-Shafi'i, because slavery is one of two types of ownership over a human being, so it ceases...