The first: It is valid for him to purchase from his relatives of prohibited degree (dhawi arham) those who would become free through him, without the permission of his master. This is the opinion of al-Thawri, Ishaq, and the People of Opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y). Al-Shafi'i said: It is not valid, because it is a transaction that leads to the squandering of his wealth, as he is giving out of his wealth—which he is permitted to dispose of—in exchange for something he is not permitted to dispose of, thus resembling a gift. If his master permits him to do so, some say: It is permissible, based on a single opinion. This is the opinion of Malik, because the prohibition is for the sake of the master's right, so it becomes permissible with his permission. Others say: There are two opinions regarding it. Our argument is that he has purchased a slave for whom there is no harm to the master in his purchase, so it is valid, just like an outsider. The proof is that he takes their earnings, and if he defaults, they become slaves to his master. Furthermore, it is valid for others to purchase them for him, so it is valid for him to purchase them for himself, just like an outsider. It differs from a gift, because a gift causes the loss of wealth without compensation, and without any benefit returning to the mukatab or the master. Moreover, the cause has been fulfilled, which is the issuance of the transaction from a qualified person regarding an eligible subject, and the impediment has not been established, because there is no text for what they mentioned, nor is there any principle upon which it can be analogized.

The second section: They do not become free by the mere fact of his ownership of them; because if he were to initiate their emancipation, or emancipate someone else, the emancipation would not take effect, so it does not take effect through the purchase that was established in its place. He is not permitted to sell them, give them as gifts, or remove them from his ownership. The People of Opinion said: He may sell those other than descendants and parents, because their kinship is neither kinship of freedom nor part-relativity (ba'diyya), so they resemble outsiders. Our argument is that he is a relative of prohibited degree who would be emancipated through him if he were to be emancipated, so selling him is not permissible, like parents and descendants. Furthermore, he does not have the right to sell them if he were free, so he does not have the right to do so while a mukatab, just like his parents. Furthermore, they are treated as his own parts, so he has no right to sell them, just like his hand. When he fulfills the payment while they are in his ownership, they become free; because his ownership of them has been completed, and the attachment of his master's right over them has ceased, so they become free at that moment, and their wala' (right of patronage) belongs to him, not to his master, because they were emancipated through him after the cessation of his master's ownership over him, so they are in the same status as if he had purchased them after his own emancipation. If he defaults and is returned to slavery, they become slaves to the master; because they are part of his wealth, so they become the master's upon his default, like his outsider slaves.