1974 - Issue: He said: (And whoever denies the tadbir, no ruling shall be issued against him except by two just witnesses, or a witness and the slave's oath.)

The gist of this is that if the slave claims against his master that he performed tadbir for him, his claim is valid; because he is claiming the entitlement to emancipation. It is also possible that the claim is not valid; because when the master denies the tadbir, it is like denying a bequest, and denying a bequest is a retraction of it according to one of the two views. Thus, denying the tadbir is a retraction of it, and a retraction invalidates it, according to [one of the two narrations], so the claim is rendered invalid. The correct view is that the claim is valid; because the correct view is that retracting the tadbir does not invalidate it. Even if it did invalidate it, it is not established that the denial constitutes a retraction, and even if that were established, the denial is not the only possible answer to the claim, for it is permissible for the answer to be an acknowledgement. Once this is established, if the master acknowledges it, there is no argument. If he denies it and the slave has no evidence, then the word is with the one who denies it along with his oath; because the original status is the absence of it. If the slave has evidence, it is ruled accordingly, and two just witnesses are accepted for it without disagreement. If he has only one witness and says: "I will take an oath alongside him," or a witness and two women, there are two narrations regarding this. One of them is that no ruling is issued by it. This is the school of al-Shafi'i; because what is established by it is freedom and the completion of legal rulings, and this is not property, nor is property the objective behind it, and men can generally have knowledge of it, so it resembles marriage and divorce. The second narration is that it is established by it; because it is a statement by which his ownership of his property is terminated, so it resembles a sale. This is more sound; because evidence is sought only to establish the ruling upon the one against whom testimony is given, and it is, regarding his right, the termination of his ownership of his property, so it is established by this. If another purpose is achieved for the one in whose favor the testimony is given, that does not prevent it from being established by this evidence. Also, emancipation is something that is looked forward to and is built upon overriding effect and proliferation, so the method of establishing it should be facilitated. If the dispute is between the slave and the heirs of the master after his death, it is as if the dispute were with the master, except that the claim is valid without disagreement; because they do not possess the right of retraction.