the opinion of al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifa permitted both of them, because he disposes of affairs for himself, so he possesses that right, like the mukatab (contractual slave). Our argument is that it is a contract concerning his own person, so he does not possess the right to do so by the authorization to trade, just like selling his own person or marrying. Their statement that he disposes of affairs for himself is rejected; rather, he disposes of affairs for his master. In this, he differs from the mukatab, [for the mukatab] disposes of affairs for himself, and that is why he is permitted to sell to his master.

Section: If the master sees his slave trading and does not forbid him, he does not become authorized. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifa said: He becomes authorized, because he remained silent regarding his right, so he is considered to have waived it, like the pre-emptor (shafi') who remains silent about claiming pre-emption. Our argument is that this is a disposal that requires authorization, so silence does not stand in place of authorization, just as if the pledger sold the pledged item while the pledgee was silent, or the pledgee sold it while the pledger was silent, and like the dispositions of strangers. It differs from pre-emption, for pre-emption lapses with the passage of time once one becomes aware of it, because it is required to be exercised immediately.

Section: Authorization does not become void due to absconding (ibaq). This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifa said: It becomes void, because through absconding he removes the master's authority over him regarding trade, as evidenced by the fact that it is not permissible to sell him, gift him, or pledge him, so it resembles the case where he has sold him. Our argument is that absconding does not prevent the inception of authorization to trade, so it does not prevent its continuation, just as if a usurper seized him or he was imprisoned for a debt owed by him or by someone else. What they mentioned is not correct, for the cause of the authority remains, which is bondage, and it is permissible to sell him or hire him to someone who can obtain him, and it becomes void in the case of a usurped item.