the authorized person has a debt that exhausts his value and what is in his possession, and we have said that the debt attaches to his person, then he must pay the value of the slave who was emancipated to the creditors, because he is the one who caused their loss through the emancipation. If the owner forbade him from purchasing, the purchase is void, because he possesses the right through permission, which has ceased with the prohibition. If he gave general permission, Abu al-Khattab said: His purchase is valid, because whoever is permitted to be purchased by the master, it is valid for the authorized person to purchase, like a stranger. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifa if he gave him permission for trade but did not hand over any capital to him. The Qadi said: It is not valid, because it involves destruction [of wealth] for the master, as his permission extends to that in which there is a benefit, so destruction does not enter into it. It differs from the Mudaraba agent, because he guarantees the value, so the harm is removed. There are two opinions for al-Shafi'i, like the two opinions [previously mentioned]. If he purchases the wife of the owner of the capital, or the husband of the female owner of the capital, is it valid? There are two opinions on this as well, like the purchasing of someone who becomes emancipated through purchase.

Section: If the Mudarib (agent) purchases someone who would be emancipated upon him, the purchase is valid. If no profit has appeared in the capital, nothing of him is emancipated. If profit has appeared in it, there are two opinions, based on the agent: when does he own the profit? If we say: He owns it upon division, then nothing of him is emancipated, because he did not own it. If we say: He owns it upon its appearance, there are two opinions: First, he is not emancipated, which is the opinion of Abu Bakr, because his ownership was not completed over it, as the profit is a protection for the principal capital, so he is not emancipated for that reason. Second, he is emancipated to the extent of his share of the profit if he is insolvent, and the remainder is appraised against him if he is solvent, because he owned it through his action, so he is emancipated upon him, just as if he had purchased him with his own wealth. This is the opinion of the Qadi and the school of Abu Hanifa's companions, but according to them, he must work to earn his freedom for the remainder if he is insolvent. We have a narration similar to theirs. If he purchased him and no profit appeared, then it appeared after that, and the slave remains in the trade, it is as if the profit were apparent at the time of the purchase. Al-Shafi'i said: If he purchased him after the appearance of the profit, it is not valid, according to one of the two opinions, because it leads to the agent realizing his right before the owner of the capital. We argue that they are partners, so the purchase of each of them of someone who would be emancipated upon him is valid, just like two partners in a partnership of 'Inan (equal capital/limited partnership).