ownership of another, so it becomes necessary that intercourse be prohibited. If he owns two at the same time, then he dies, the ruling regarding their emancipation is the same as the ruling in the case where he owns two in the preceding issue.

1966 - Issue: He said: "And if a slave says to a man: 'Purchase me from my master with this money, and then emancipate me.' If he does so, he has become free, and the purchaser must pay the seller the equivalent of what he purchased him for, and his wala' (patronage rights) belongs to the one who purchased him, unless he had said to him: 'Sell me with this money.' In that case, the purchase and the emancipation are invalid, and the master has [simply] taken his wealth."

The summary of this is that when a slave gives wealth to an outsider and says: "Purchase me from my master with this wealth, then emancipate me," and he does so, it does not escape one of two possibilities: either he purchases him with the specific currency (the ayn), or he purchases him on his own liability (dhimmah) and then pays the money. If he purchases him on his liability and then emancipates him, the purchase is valid and the emancipation is permissible, because he acquired ownership of him through purchase, so his emancipation of him takes effect, and the purchaser must pay the price for which he purchased him because the price became binding upon him by the sale. What he gave to the master was his own property, and he cannot count it as part of the price; thus, the price remains an obligation upon him that he must pay, and the emancipation was from his own wealth, and the wala' belongs to him. This is the view held by al-Shafi'i and Ibn al-Mundhir. However, if he purchases him with the specific currency, the purchase is void and the emancipation does not take effect, because he purchased something with another's specific wealth without his permission, so the purchase is not valid, and the emancipation did not occur because he emancipated someone else's slave without his permission, and the master has [unjustly] taken his wealth, for whatever is in the slave's possession is ruled to belong to his master. According to the narration which states that currency is not specified by designation in contracts, the sale and emancipation are valid, and the ruling is the same as if he had purchased him on his liability. Similar to this was said by al-Nakha'i and Ishaq, for they both said: The purchase and emancipation are permissible, and the purchaser returns the equivalent of the price without separation. Al-Hasan said: The sale and emancipation are invalid. Al-Sha'bi said: That is not permissible, and the one who did it is punished, also without separation.